Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2002-11-18 FILE DATE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 7 : 00 P.M. APPEAL of Jody and Jeffrey Boronkay, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2.01 -2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to maintain an "off premise" sign advertising a day care operation on Evergreen Lane, with said sign located at 1. 05 Duboise Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24-2- 1 .2, Residence District R-30. A variance for said sign was previously granted on June 25 , 1997 with a five-year limitation . APPROVED APPEAL of John Jackson, Appellant, Scott Hamilton, landowner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII, Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to operate a car rental business at the Judd Falls Plaza, with five vehicles on site at one time, located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 62- 1 - 1 , -2. 1 , -2 .2, and 3 . 2, Business District C . Said Ordinance does not permit the outside display of vehicles . APPROVED APPEAL of Bruno Mazza Jr. , POA, Appellant, Allan Warshawsky, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 21 and 23 to create three building lots, by subdivision, with parcel A containing an existing residence with a 1 + foot building setback (40 feet required) and a lot depth of 196 + feet (200 foot depth required), parcel B with a lot width of 98+ feet ( 150 feet required), and Parcel C with an existing residence that has a 32 + foot setback (40 feet required) , all located at 344-352 King Road West, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 35-2-6.2 and —6.4, Residence District R-30. APPROVED APPEAL of Thomas Bell, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 18 and 20 to be permitted to construct an accessory building on vacant land, not containing a primary residence at 307 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -5- 1 . 3 , Residence District R-30. The accessory building has a proposed building height of 19 + feet ( 15 foot height limitation) . APPROVED FILE 1� -OL� DATE 1 l z ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 7 : 00 P. M . PRESENT : Kirk Sigel , Chairman ; Harry Ellsworth , Vice-Chairman ; Ronald Krantz , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andrew Dixon , Board Member; Andy Frost , Director of Building/Zoning ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Anna DePue , address not given/found; Allan Warshawsky, 109 Eastern Heights Drive ; Scott Hamilton , 201 Christopher Lane ; Christopher Martin , 216 Virgil Road , Dryden ; Jeff Boronkay, 3 Evergreen Lane ; Jody Boronkay, 3 Evergreen Lane ; Oefue Steenhuis , 224 Bostwick Road ; Tammo Steenhuis , 244 Bostwick Road ; Marcia Meigs , Culver Road ; Lee Girenthal , Dey Street/ Seven Mile Drive ; Renate Schmitt , Dey Street/Seven Mile Drive ; Jim McKay , address not given/found. Chairperson Sigel called the November 18 , 2002 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7 : 06 p . m . Chairperson Sigel — Good evening and welcome to the November 18 , 2002 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals . I will take them in the following order: Jody and Jeffrey Boronkay, John Jackson , Bruno Mazza and the appeal of Thomas Bell . APPEAL : Jody and Jeffrey Boronkay, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2 . 01 =2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , to be permitted to maintain an " off premise" sign advertising a day care operation on Evergreen Lane, with said sign located at 105 Dubois Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-2-1 .2 , Residence District R-30. A variance for said sign was previously granted on June 25 , 1997 with a five-year limitation . Chairperson Sigel — If you would just take a seat and give us a brief overview of what has happened in the last five years . Jody Boronkay , 3 Evergreen Lane — Well , it has made a great impact on my business . It's a nursery school as opposed to a day care . I serve 25 families at the present time and I screen every call that I get for entrance into the nursery school and I ' m at a 99% rate in terms of how they found out about us , it 's through the sign . So it has made a tremendous difference . Chairperson Sigel — So it sounds like you have expanded since you were here five years ago . Mrs . Boronkay — No . Well , I would say that the number of families , but the number of children has to remain the same . In terms of how many days those children come , it varies . Chairperson Sigel — So you have a lot of part time children . Mrs . Boronkay — Yes . But the sign has helped to increase the full time spots . So , that' s really wonderful . We ' re actually a two- part program — morning and afternoon , both programs are full . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Mr. Niefer — And are you interested in another five year extension ? Mrs . Boronkay — I sure am . Mr. Niefer — I would like to commend you on the condition that you 've maintained the sign , it' s very neat . It' s unfortunate that some other signs in the area aren 't as nicely maintained . You set a good standard for the area . Mrs . Boronkay — Thank you very much . Mr. Ellsworth — There have never been any complaints , is that correct? Chairperson Sigel — None that I ' m aware of , but Andy would really be the one to ask . Mrs . Boronkay — I talked to Andy and he didn 't mention anything . He said he thought there was no problem . Chairperson Sigel — I would doubt that there have been any complaints . Mike , do you know if this was referred to the Planning Board ? Mr. Smith — Not this time . It was originally and when the application came in I checked with Fred Wilcox, the Chair of the Planning Board and asked if he wanted to see it again and he didn 't feel there was any need for them to see it . Chairperson Sigel — The only thing that I thought of while reading over the conditions set five years ago was did we want to add a condition stating that the property owner couldn 't add another sign on that particular lot , if we were to re-approve this . But I also believe that it is the case that they' re only limited to one anyhow. Mr. Frost — That' s correct . For a non - residential use in a residential zone , there can be just one sign . Chairperson Sigel — Okay . So it's not really necessary . Any comments , Mike , on the Environmental Assessment ? Mr. Smith — Nothing to add . Chairperson Sigel — I didn 't have any anticipated . Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 10 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 11 p . m . Chairperson Sigel — Would somebody like to make a motion on the Environmental Assessment ? ZB RESOLUTION NO , 2002=073 % ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Jeffery Boronkay, 105 DuBois Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.=2-1 . 2, Residence District R-30 . 2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18, 2002 MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Jody and Jeffrey Boronkay, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2. 01 -2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to maintain an "off premise " sign advertising a day care operation on Evergreen Lane, with said sign located at 105 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-2- 1 . 2, Residence District R-30. A variance for said sign was previously granted on June 25, 1997 with a five-year limitation, based upon the environmental assessment completed by Town planning staff dated November 6, 2002. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-074 : Jeffery Boronkay, 105 DuBois Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.=2- 1 .2 , Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Jody and Jeffrey Boronkay, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2. 01 -2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to maintain an "off premise" sign advertising a day care operation on Evergreen Lane, with said sign located at 105 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-2- 1 . 2, Residence District R-30. A variance for said sign was previously granted on June 25, 1997 with a five-year limitation. FINDINGS: a. The requirements for a sign variance have been met. CONDITIONS: Conditions same as stated in the resolution passed by the Zoning Board of Appeal on May 20, 1997 as follows: a . That the variance be limited to a period not to exceed five years from the date the variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. At the end of the five year period, the applicant may apply for an extension of the variance or remove the sign. b. That the sign be maintained in good condition at all times, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning and Building Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Ithaca . 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 c. The sign does not exceed six square feet in area nor does it exceed a height of six feet from grade to the uppermost point on the sign panel. d. That the sign be placed approximately 28 feet from the shoulder of Route 96 and approximately 35 feet from the shoulder of DuBois Road (approximately 17 feet diagonally back from the fire hydrant and approximately 29 feet diagonally back from the stop sign); and in any event outside the highway right-of- way of both roads. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : John Jackson , Appellant, Scott Hamilton , landowner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to operate a car rental business at the Judd Falls Plaza , with five vehicles on site at one time, located at 350 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 62-1 -1 , -2 . 1 , -2 .2 , and 3 .2 , Business District C. Said Ordinance does not permit the outside display of vehicles . Mr. Frost — Before we start , bring you attention , I ' m sure you 've noticed that this has been before the Planning Board already . You all have copies of that resolution in your packets . Mr. Dixon — And we got a lecture from Tompkins County, too . Chairperson Sigel — Hello , could you state your name and address for the record . Christopher Martin , 216 Virgil Road , Dryden — I ' m the rental manager for Portable Rental Cars . Basically , we ' re looking to take over a small office to rent cars out of that area because a large portion of my business is in the Cornell Campus area and that's where we have most of our business running out of as well as downtown Ithaca . Which is a far better location than where we are at this time . Chairperson Sigel - This is a use variance , which has very strict requirements . One of those is to show that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable economic return on their property from any permitted use . Do you have any evidence to that nature ? Mr. Martin — No I don 't . Mr. Niefer — Maybe that question should be directed to the owner of the premises or the managing agent of the premises because they are the ones that are renting out this additional space to the tenant . Maybe the owner or the owner' s agent should speak to that issue . 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Scott Hamilton — I ' m owner of the property . I ' m not renting the property out for any financial gain whatsoever, in fact , I ' m charging no rent . I ' m doing this as a courtesy to a fellow who has done a lot for us in the community. As far as I understand , the variance is for the display of the vehicles . We ' re not even asking for display vehicles . We ' re just allocating parking spaces . There' s not going to be any display vehicles here . Mr. Frost — Your point's well taken . I should just mention that in the Business Zone here , interestingly, does permit automobile sales agencies , but with only indoors display and I don 't know of too many car dealerships that have indoor displays . The fact that he is selling the service of a vehicle , we thought of this as a use variance , they just have the vehicles outside . Mr. Dixon - It's really a license to use a vehicle as opposed to . . . Mr. Hamilton — I think as an added comment , we had at one time a Ryder Truck rental franchise located in the same property, which I believe we had achieved a variance for. That I would agree with you is somewhat of an eyesore . These are not cars that have any markings , whatsoever; in fact you would not be able to know that they were parked vehicles of other than our normal customers . I , frankly , don 't think we ' re asking for anything out of the ordinary. Chairperson Sigel — Yea , Andy's right here . Under District "C" automobile sales agencies provided they display automobiles and accessories is conducted entirely within a building is a permitted use . Mr. Frost — So this is not a use variance . In a sense , it is , it' s to have what' s permitted , but to have it outside . I think your wisdom will tell you whether a used vehicle in a sense , is a problem . I just want to add that we have what is called a permissive zoning ordinance , if it doesn 't say you can do it , you can 't do it . So , on one hand , we don 't want to take a position saying they can 't do it , but I think we ' re taking a milder position by saying you can do it , but if you ' re going to have vehicles outside . . . Mr. Dixon — Well , I think that the Tompkins County Department of Planning couldn 't figure this out so they just threw the regs back at us . Mr. Frost — At that time , I think my recollection was is that the trucks , I think there were up to around seven or so , they had to be parked behind the building as it faces Pine Tree Road or at that time Judd Falls Road . I think the fact that this did get approval from the Planning Board kind of suggests the comfort level of the Town . Mr. Dixon — I think the way the Planning Board restricted it is actually more crafty. Chairperson Sigel — I agree that it's very similar to what the ordinance does allow and it seems like it' s a very reasonable request . I ' m just a little hesitant to pass something that is technically a use variance and basically ignore all of the criteria . 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Mr. Frost — I was wondering if you could look at this almost like an area . The use is permitted ; it' s just the area for where it's being provided is not . Mr. Dixon - But the truth is , I think, it' s service ; they' re not selling the vehicle . Mr. Frost — We went through this a number of years ago with someone who was providing riding lessons , actually they were boarding horses that were owned by other people . We looked at that , well the Zoning Board , as horses for hire and they had to get approval for that . What you may want to do , if you ' re uncomfortable in granting something right at the moment , if it' s all right with Scott , we could just put this on . . . Mr. Hamilton - Here ' s the maestro , hopefully he can clarify the issue . Mr. Frost — We 've been stalling while we wait for you . What we ' re on to now John is , and I hope you were at the Planning Board Meeting for this , car rental . There' s a bit of a question raised by the Zoning Board as to what kind of a variance is this , it' s a use variance . The car rental business' position is taken is while the Zoning Ordinance allows the retail sale of cars it requires that they be inside and not outside . We looked at the rental car as kind of a use variance because it' s a permitted use , but it' s not inside . So I made the suggestion that maybe we can look at an area variance , not a use variance . Mr. Barney — Car rental is permitted ? Mr. Frost — Automobile sales agencies . This was before the Planning Board . Mr. Barney — I missed a couple of the Planning Board meetings . I don 't remember this ; I don 't think I was there . Chairperson Sigel — In Business District C , with special approval an automobile agency is allowed provided that the automobiles and accessories are displayed inside a building . I guess then there are two questions . Can we treat an automobile rental agency the same as a sales agency? Mr. Barney — That's a little bit of a leap in my view. Mr. Niefer — Well , I think what they' re proposing is far better than what was there before . Mr. Krantz — Also , it's my feeling that the Judd Falls Plaza is normally not a problem with finding a parking space . It's sort of like using up five spaces that we ' re not using . Chairperson Sigel — When I was there today, it seemed not full at all . Mr. Dixon —They are already saying that there is a maximum of five cars and only one is allowed to park in the front of the building . So if we just follow the resolution of the Planning Board . . . 6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Mr. Niefer — Well , if worse comes to worst , suppose we grant it and if someone complains later on , they' ll just lose the right to do it . Correct . Mr. Frost — If someone objected , they' d have to do that through a legal process , they couldn 't just say don 't like this and just tell them to stop . Mr. Barney — Well , they could challenge it by law and they'd have a pretty easy case . Chairperson Sigel — I mean if none of the criteria for a use variance has been met , it would be pretty easy. Our proposed new ordinance has a provision to allow the Board to determine that a use is substantially similar to an allowed use . It seems fairly reasonable . Mr. Hamilton — Can I just interject . I think the concern of the ordinance and I would support it , is that it doesn 't become a banner for cars to sit out there with all kinds of flashing lights and neon 's and signs promoting a used car lot type of situation . I think that' s probably the original intent . I go back to the fact that it talks about the vehicle display. You would not know that these were anything other than parked cars being used by our customers because there is no descriptive stuff being used . I think that's what the Planning Board was key on allocating the location of the spaces , with four of them being off the front of the building , so that would prohibit us if that was our secret intent , which it isn 't , . from doing that with only one car being parked out front. Mr. Frost — I agree with you , but at the same time , if this were , say , a new car dealer or a used car dealer and they had the cars outside with license plates they really wouldn 't look any different either. Mr. Hamilton — I understand , but I think the intent is always important . Mr. Frost — I don 't think it's a big deal , personally . Mr. Barney — These are for retail use , right? Mr. Hamilton — For retail yes . Mr. Barney — These aren 't wholesale rental or re- rental or anything like that? Chairperson Sigel — So you wouldn 't be selling your rental cars? Mr. Martin — We do sell rental cars , but we wouldn 't be selling them at that location . We have another location in Groton , as well as in Lansing and they are used car lots and when we want to get rid of a car, that's where it will be sold . Mr. Frost — I guess in the old days there were a lot of banners and flashing lights and they wanted to prohibit that . Mr. Barney — One could arguably say , when you read the Business District "B" limits , that it allows , as of right , any other retail stores accept for automobile sales agencies and then in your "C" , you ' re permitted to have , with special approval , an automobile sales agency, provided it's in a building . 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Conceivably , one could construe this as being a retail store and therefore permitted under right because it' s in a "C" that permits everything by right that a " B" zone permits . I would be prepared to try and argue that if you were challenged if that's the decision that you make . On the other hand , I think that you could easily also make the decision that this really is not permitted expressly anywhere in the ordinance and therefore it' s not allowed . As far as I can tell , those are the two choices . Mr. Dixon — They' re selling a license to use the vehicle , they' re not selling the vehicle itself. Mr. Barney — I think it's a little bit of a stretch to jump from an automobile sales agency to an automobile rental . Chairperson Sigel — Do you think that we could possible make a determination that it' s retail . . . Mr. Barney — I think you could possibly construe it as being a retail operation . You ' re looking at the other retail operations — a beauty parlor for example and a coin operated laundry, dry cleaning pickup station . These are all the service type of activities . Then it goes on to say "any other retail stores" after using those as the ones , I don 't think they intend something that will sell something , these are more service . Mr. Frost — What would be the case , and I ' m not trying to challenge you . If Hertz Rent A Car came along with 50 vehicles , that wouldn 't be too well received . Mr. Barney — In a "B" zone you can have any one of these , but the "C" is , anything in "A" or "B" is going to require special approval . If it's permitted in "B" , it's permitted in "C" . Chairperson Sigel — You ' re saying a large automobile rental agency now could . Mr. Barney — Conceivably. Chairperson Sigel — As long as they have sufficient parking outside . Mr. Barney — They' d have to meet the site plan requirements . Chairperson Sigel — Well , according to John , one option would be to make a determination that it is permitted . Mr. Barney — Andy's trying to convince me that a simple area variance would apply, but I ' m not really seeing the basis for that . Chairperson Sigel — So how would you recommend that we construct a motion even if we wanted to determine that it was permitted by right? Mr. Barney — Well , what' s being applied for here . Mr. Frost — I have no idea . 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Mr. Barney — Well , you wrote the notice . Mr. Frost — For the outdoor display . Chairperson Sigel — A variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 34 . Mr. Frost — See , I don 't know what the difference between the Ryder Truck businesses being passes through this process . Chairperson Sigel — Well , if you did that one incorrectly before , it doesn 't concern this now . I agree in setting . . . basically determining that it would be a rental . . . (comments not audible) Mr. Dixon — There are already restrictions placed on it by the Planning Board . Chairperson Sigel — The concern with a use variance could be easily found in another occurrence . I . (comments not audible) Mr. Dixon — The Planning Board wants to . . . with these conditions , but you can 't . Chairperson Sigel — If we determine that it is allowed by right , then someone else could come in and say it was allowed by right and . . . Attorney Barney — Here , also , you are not permitted to have an outside display in any commercial zone . You are basically getting a variance . You would be granting a variance from that requirement because you are putting five cars outside . The ZBA would still have a look at something if something came in the door that was larger. Also , the Planning Board would have a look at it in the site plan approval process . Mr. Frost — So I ' m not sure that he 's saying you don 't permit outdoors displays , but in this case it ' s a permitted use . Attorney Barney — No . I ' m saying it 's not a permitted use . Mr. Frost — So then they are granting a variance . Attorney Barney — That ' s correct . Didn 't I just say that? It is not a variance for the use as a car rental agency . It is a variance from the requirement that no outside displays be permitted . Chairperson Sigel — So would that be a use variance? Attorney Barney — I think that would be treated as an area variance . Mr. Dixon — Thank you , John . Chairperson Sigel — Mike , any comments on the environmental assessment? 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18, 2002 Mr. Smith — No . Chairperson Sigel — Any other questions ? At this time we will open the public hearing . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 33 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 34 p . m . Mr. Smith — If it's an area variance , the SEAR is not needed . Chairperson Sigel — Is that true? It probably doesn 't hurt to make the determination anyway . Can I have a motion on the environmental assessment? Mr. Ellsworth — I move that the board make a negative declaration of environmental significance . . . Mr. Frost — If this were an area variance , then you wouldn 't need that . Attorney Barney — Yes , we do . If it is a lot line variance than we don 't need it . Chairperson Sigel — One more time , Harry . Mr. Ellsworth — I move that the board make a negative declaration of environmental significance in the appeal of John Jackson , requesting a variance be permitted to operate a car rental business at Judd Falls Plaza , with five vehicles at any one time located at 350 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 62 . - 1 - 1 , and 2 . 1 , and 2 . 2 , and 2 . 3 , based on the current environmental assessment form data September 10 , 2002 , Chairperson Sigel — Second ? Mr. Niefer — Second . Chairperson Sigel — All in favor? Board — Aye . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-075 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : John Jackson , 350 Pine Tree Road , Tax Parcel Nos. 62 .-1 -1 , -2 . 1 , 2 .2 , and 3 .2 , Business District C . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of John Jackson, Appellant, Scott Hamilton, landowner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article Vll, Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to operate a car rental business at the Judd Falls Plaza, with five vehicles on site at one time, located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 62- 1 - 1 , -2. 1 , -2. 2, and 3. 2, Business District C. Said Ordinance does not permit the outside display of vehicles, based upon the undated environmental assessment completed by Town planning staff. 10 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18, 2002 The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NA YS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — I will move to grant the appeal of John Jackson , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 34 of the Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to operate a car rental business at Judd Falls Plaza with five vehicles on site at one time , located 350 Pine Tree Road , Tax Parcel No . 62 . - 1 - 1 , -2 . 11 -2 . 21 -2 . 3 , Business District C . Having made the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied . Attorney Barney — No more than five vehicles at one time . Chairperson Sigel — That is right in the resolution . Attorney Barney — I think you might want to make that an explicit condition . Chairperson Sigel — And also that all the requirements from the Planning Board be met . Second ? Mr. Niefer — Second . Chairperson Sigel — All in favor? Board — Aye . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-076 John Jackson , 350 Pine Tree Road , Tax Parcel Nos 61 =1 =11 , - 2 . 1 , 2 .2 , and 3 .2 , Business District C . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded James Niefer. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of John Jackson, Appellant, Scott Hamilton, landowner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V11, Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to operate a car rental business at the Judd Falls Plaza, with five vehicles on site at one time, located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 62- 1 - 1 , -2. 1 , -2. 2, and 3. 2, Business District C. Said Ordinance does not permit the outside display of vehicles. FINDINGS: a . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18, 2002 b. The car rental business is a permitted use in Business District C. CONDITIONS: a. The variance grants the right to have outside display of up to five vehicles, subject to the location restrictions set forth in Planning Board Resolution No. 2002- 103. b. The variance is subject to all of the requirements of the Planning Board Resolution No. 2002- 103. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL of Bruno Mazza Jr. , POA, Appellant, Allan Warshawsky, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 21 and 23 to create three building lots, by subdivision, with parcel A containing an existing residence with a 1 ± foot building setback (40 feet required) and a lot depth of 196 + feet (200 foot depth required ), parcel B with a lot width of 98+ feet (150 feet required), and Parcel C with an existing residence that has a 32 + foot setback (40 feet required ) , all located at 344-352 King Road West, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 35=2-6 .2 and —6 .4, Residence District R-30. Allan Warshawsky , 109 Eastern Heights Drive — I ' m representing Mr. and Mrs . Esty , who live out of state . This property has been in their family for quite a while . It is now two tax map parcels . We've been selling it , . what they would like to do and what I think would be in the best interest of the Town is if we sold these as owner occupied properties rather than income properties , which they had been for a while since they the Estys moved to South Carolina . Unless each property is on its own tax map parcel , we are going to have a lot of trouble selling them as owner occupied properties . They would have to buy two properties . It has proven to be quite a problem . We have done what we were asked to do by the Planning Board . Some of the variances that we are asking for we have no control over. They existed previously . . . the side yard variances . Chairperson Sigel — You are proposing to add a restriction to these properties that they be owner occupied ? Mr. Warshawsky — No . We don 't want to do that at all . It will make it easier for them to sell as owner occupied . That is part of the reason that we would like the zoning change . It makes sense that each house should be on its plot. Before this , 346 in the back didn 't have any road frontage what so ever. Chairperson Sigel — I would agree that it certainly makes sense . You were presumably legally nonconforming before . Any questions? 12 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18, 2002 Mr. Krantz — Is that variance just for one-foot setback approval . . . ? Chairperson Sigel — Do you know how old the house is at 344? Mr. Warshawsky — 344 was 1949 or 1950 , 350 is the same as well , 346 is 1981 . Chairperson Sigel — Do you know if there are already any variances granted for these setbacks? Attorney Barney — How did the building at 346 come to be built with no road frontage? Mr. Frost — It was probably before we had any zoning enforcement . Attorney Barney — In 1981 ? Chairperson Sigel — 346 was built without road frontage . Mr. Warshawsky — As it exists now, isn 't 346 part of a tax parcel that has road frontage ? Attorney Barney — If it is , it is a violation of our ordinance for having two principle dwelling units . Mr. Frost — The other possibility could be that it may have replaced a building so that it was just a continuation . I don 't have a good answer for you . Attorney Barney — (Comments not audible) Mr. Frost — You were here in 1981 as well . Attorney Barney — It' s a self-created issue . Mr. Frost — We do have some property descriptions from the tax rolls here that show 1955 . There was a cottage in 1955 and a garage in 1955 . 1 show a ranch at 352 as being built in 1955 . There was a cottage built in 1955 . Basically, there was only residential zoning back then prior to 1960 . Chairperson Sigel — If there is a self-created hardship or situation . . . Mr. Krantz — Basically, there are three houses on two properties and we want to change it to three still nonconforming houses on three properties so that they can be sold . Chairperson Sigel — Right . Mr. Krantz — We are not making it any worse . Chairperson Sigel — You could take a more aggressive approach and say that the house that was built in the 1980s is nonconforming . . . (comments not audible) 13 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Mr. Niefer — Should we note that parcel A and parcel C have an excess of 30 , 000 square feet per parcel . . . ? Chairperson Sigel — They are good -sized lots . I suspect if the house wasn 't there and someone asked for a subdivision then it would probably get approved . Mr. Krantz — It does not seem to be an unreasonable request to me . Chairperson Sigel — We have no environmental assessment for this . We ' ll open the public hearing at this point . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 41 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 42 p . m . Would someone like to make a motion ? Mr. Krantz — I would move that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the appeal of Bruno Mazza , Jr. , requesting variances from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 and 23 to create three building lots by subdivision , parcel a containing one existing residence which has a one foot building setback where by forty feet is required and a lot depth of 196 feet where by 200 feet is required , parcel b has . . . whereby 40 feet is required . The three parcels are located at 344-352 King Rd W in the Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcels No . 35 . -2-6 . 2 , -6 . 4 , in residence district R-30 . It is noted that the residences are dated far back before there was a Zoning Board of Appeals and that Chairperson Sigel — I ' m not sure that' s true . Mr. Frost — I just pulled a filed of record of permits issued for that part of the road . The house in 1981 was built for a Charles Esty with an address of 344 King Rd W , parcel 35 . -2-6 . 2 . There was a permit and no records . . . it looks like a certificate of occupancy was issued in 1989 . Mr. Krantz — It was known that two of the three residences were built before the zoning regulations . Attorney Barney — That is not necessarily true either, it was 1955 . We had zoning in 1954 . Mr. Krantz — I ' ll just drop that sentence . Chairperson Sigel — Add the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied . Attorney Barney — As a condition I would think that the one foot variance that is being permitted with respect to parcel A is for the existing house and is not for any other structure . Chairperson Sigel — Good idea . Attorney Barney — I think the motion should show that it is an application by Charles and Mary Lou Esty. The variance should be granted to Charles and Mary Lou Esty rather than Mr. Mazza . Chairperson Sigel — Second ? Mr. Ellsworth — Second . 14 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Chairperson Sigel — All in favor? Board — Aye . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-077 : Charles and Mary Lou Estey, 344-352 King Road West, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 35 . -2-6. 2 and —6 .4, Residence District R-30 . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Charles and Mary Lou Estey, Appellants, Allan Warshawsky, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 21 and 23 to create three building lots, by subdivision, with parcel A containing an existing residence with a 1 foot building setback (40 feet required) and a lot depth of 172 feet (200 foot depth required), parcel B with a lot width of 98 feet ( 150 feet required), and Parcel C with an existing residence that has a 32 foot setback (40 feet required), all located at 344-352 King Road West, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 35-2-6.2 and —6. 4, Residence District R-30. FINDINGS: a . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: a . The 1 foot building setback may only be applied to the existing house on Parcel A . The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL of Thomas Bell , Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 18 and 20 to be permitted to construct an accessory building on vacant land , not containing a primary residence at 307 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -5- 1 . 3, Residence District R-30 . The accessory building has a proposed building height of 19 + feet (15 foot height limitation). Thomas Bell , 5401 Currey Rd Trumansburg — We have recently moved into a rental home in Cayuga Heights until our home is completed on the site on Bostwick Hill Road . 15 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Mr. Frost — Mr. Bell has commenced construction of a garage , which he says he needs for storage to put personal items until he gets his house complete . Our Zoning Ordinance would allow the garage , but only as an accessory to a principle use . In this case in a residential zone the principle use is the house , but there is no house there yet . The height for the garage is standard issue of being able to get certain vehicles in the garage . Mr. Bell — I have to have nine-foot overhead doors to store my boat and tractor and items . They won 't clear a standard seven -foot garage door. We also want a loft area for extra storage . Mr. Frost — Unlike a previous request that was denied by this board , there is a plan to build a house . It may be putting the cart before the horse in this case by putting up the garage before he gets the house up . Mr. Bell — Basically , we are moving out of a 4 , 600 square foot house into a 2 , 200 square foot rental . We have lots of items that we physically have no place to put . It is a sense of a necessity to have our utility building , a barn or whatever term for storage purposes . I physically want to design it so that I can utilize it for my boat and my tractor and store Christmas items and things like that in the loft area . The new house is only 2 , 400 square feet . Mr. Frost — How many years did you live in the Trumansburg home? Mr. Bell — Twenty-seven . Mr. Frost — So that is twenty-seven years of material stuff . Mr. Bell — I have an elderly mother- in - law that lives with me . She has some fairly nice things that in a sense won 't fit in our new home . I would like dry , good storage for those items also . Chairperson Sigel — Andy , I have a question . When you get a building permit to build a house and a detached garage , what are the requirements on how you make progress on that ? Mr. Frost — You would have two permits . You would have a permit for the house , the principle use . Then you would have a permit for the accessory building . In this case , I don 't have plans yet for the house . His dilemma is having a place to store things until he gets his house done . Chairperson Sigel — So you are not prepared yet to apply for a permit to build the house ? Mr. Bell — As soon as my contractor finishes his evaluation of cost factors , we do have plans and he has them . We should want to break ground around mid- December. All of that would be coming forth . We have to be out of the rental unit by the end of July and that' s the timeframe on building the house . Mr. Frost — There is no guarantee . He could come in three months from now and say his finances fell through I can 't build a house and I have a garage here . We do have this notice , which he signed , which I assume has some legal clout that says he 's got to take down the building or come back to this board . 16 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Chairperson Sigel — If at this time he had gotten a permit to build the house , then starting on the garage first would okay? Mr. Frost — I would grant it and the permit for the garage . You still in some ways have the same . . . (comments not audible) . . . but I haven 't violated anything at that point . Mr. Dixon — How big is the lot? Mr. Bell — Three and a half acres . Attorney Barney — What's on the lot now? Just vacant? Mr. Bell — It is just foundation poured for the accessory building . Attorney Barney — What about the rest of the field ? Is it hayed ? Mr. Bell — It is mowed . Attorney Barney — Is it mowed as grass? Mr. Bell — As grass . Attorney Barney — You are going to put a tractor . . . Mr. Niefer — Where are you putting the house on this parcel with regard to where the storage building is being built now? Mr. Bell — It would be fairly close to the storage building . Mr. Niefer — Would it be to the east? Mr. Bell — At the end , the uphill side of the lot . It would be about 100 feet away from the Seven Mile Drive side . Mr. Niefer — The storage building would be behind the house ? Mr. Bell — Behind the house . It is near the hedgerow area . Attorney Barney — You say you are going to put a tractor in there . Mr. Bell — Boat , tractor and I have a lot of lawn maintenance equipment and we need dry storage for items that won 't fit in our house . Attorney Barney — What kind of a tractor? A garden tractor? Mr. Bell — A big John Deere diesel farm tractor style . 17 I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18, 2002 Attorney Barney — Farm tractor, you say? Mr. Bell — The tires on it are that high . I would assume that would be the terminology . Mr. Niefer — Is the side yard setback sufficient at the present time for this storage building to the west property line ? Mr. Frost — He needs like five feet . Attorney Barney — Is this big enough that you could have livestock of some sort on it? Mr. Bell — No . You couldn 't have livestock in it . It' s not designed for it . They would be slipping and sliding on the poured floor. It has polyethylene on it and things like that . Mr. Frost — We do under the ordinance , I think and this may be a stretch and I ' m not trying to justify his request , we do allow buildings or trailers for up to 18 months while the house is being constructed . Attorney Barney — As of right, somebody in an R-30 is permitted to have a garden , nursery or farm with a usual farm building . Chairperson Sigel — Would that be without a principle unit? Attorney Barney — Yes . Chairperson Sigel — Any other questions? Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 07 p . m . Marcia Meigs , Culver Road — I live on Culver Road , which veers off from Bostwick , but our land goes down to Bostwick and is directly across from this gentleman 's land . Please forgive me if I repeat something or didn 't catch something . I ' m extremely deaf . It' s hard for me . I can 't understand him from the back. I have a few comments and I ' ll be very brief. Aside from the problem with height of the building , I wonder if using a building like this and not residing there yourself doesn 't turn that building into somewhat of a business . There is no way to know whether business equipment was being stored there as well as his own personal things . Mr. Bell — I sign an affidavit stating if I didn 't live there , the building would be torn down . Ms . Meigs — Okay and you said that you do plan to build there? Mr. Bell — Yeah . I have no choice , I ' m living in a rental . Ms . Meigs — How long a time period would that be? Mr. Bell — The house starts in December. 18 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Ms . Meigs — Okay . So , very suddenly it is clarified . The height of the building , you are asking to make it higher. Mr. Bell — Yes . The normal use is fifteen feet high . I ' m asking for . . . Ms . Meigs — I feel the site is very bad for that . If you know that area , you know it is directly across from a beautiful historic property. It' s just sitting right there . I think you should take a look at where the building is going up . Finally, I hope that you will consider our concerns in this matter. The neighborhood , I believe , is completely residential except for a public building like a church , the County Highway Department and so forth . The rest is all residential , except for agricultural fields . I would like to see that quality kept there . In the case of the County Highway Department , the rights of the residents were not well represented . That was crammed down our throats and it was a rather illegal situation . Thank you for listening . Mr. Frost — There is always a question about municipalities being able to enforce zoning regulations when it comes to the County Building . Attorney Barney — I should add , ma' am , that we fought very hard with the County on that Bostwick Highway Facility and lost in lower court and then just recently lost in the Appellate court seeking to stop them from building it . Oefue Steenhuis , 224 Bostwick Road — I was here . I was one of the ones that was here a few months ago and the neighbor down the road on the east side came to this board to ask to put up a barn like building , nineteen feet . He was sent home to come back with another plan that would include a house . When I met Mr. Bell first , Mr. Bell told me that he was first going to put up . . . now this goes back a few years when he first purchased this lot . He told me he was going to put in a garage and above there an income apartment . He also just told all of you that his proposed house was going to be 100 feet off Seven Mile Drive , but that' s not possible . He has staked out his house before and it was about 60 feet off our property. Our property is between his property and Seven Mile Drive . The folks over here are also having property between Mr. Bell 's property and Seven Mile Drive . It was inaccurate what he was telling you . We are concerned about the height of the building , the building going up without a permit . Mr. Frost — He does have a permit . Ms . Steenhuis — Okay. We hope . . . ( not audible) Mr. Bell — Just to answer your question . The stakes were a temporary thing just to see physically what our setting would because Lee and his wife were building a house down below us and physically . . . Ms . Steenhuis — Are building a house . Mr. Frost — You should be addressing the chair. 19 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Mr. Bell — Lee and his wife were building a house that was going to be below ours . Physically, the setting of our house , which has a lot of glass to look out through the valley , we didn 't want to try to look right into his roofline . So we jockeying different areas for the placement of our house . Obviously , we will have plenty of room as far as front yard , side yard and back yard variances . Attorney Barney — When you say Lee , who is Lee and what is down hill of you ? What direction ? Mr. Frost — It would be on the east side of Seven Mile Drive . Attorney Barney — I ' m still not sure I understand . Who is it that is building ? Mr. Bell Showed the location of the proposed house and the house referred to, to Attorney Barney. Mr. Frost — You haven 't constructed anything yet? Lee Girenthal , Dey Street/ Seven Mile Drive — No . I need a permit . I ' m not the type to take a risk . . . (not audible) Jim McKay, address not given/found —(Comments not audible) Mr. Frost — We had discussions of different scenarios . Mr. Bell has come in very clearly with the intention of building a house , but he needs a place to put stuff. If he built the house , no matter how large , if it meets the building setbacks and the height of the building , he can build a house without coming to this board . Then he can build an accessory building as he is proposing to do it if it was fifteen foot high . He is now asking for a height variance for three feet . Mr. McKay — (Comments not audible) Anna DePue , address not given/found — How tall is your house going to be ? Mr. Bell — Basically , its like on the design on some of the lake watch houses , with the different angled roofs . Mr. Frost — No one part of the house can be greater than 36 feet in height . Mr. Bell — It is a one-story house . It has cathedral ceilings . Ms . DePue — (Comments not audible) Mr. Frost — There is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that would prohibit him from having a large tractor. Mr. Bell — It has a roll bar on the tractor for in case I tip it over. Chairperson Sigel — Does anyone else wish to speak? 20 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Mr. Girenthal — I own the property right below Tom . My house will be in the shadow. I guess the thing I need clarification on and my concern is setting a precedent in an area like this . My other concern has to do with . . . somebody takes a risk at putting a foundation . We have more than a foundation . We have walls and frames . The way that they are framed , you are not going to change the roof pitch at this point unless you rip the whole darn thing down . My question is in terms of process and procedure and following guidelines and regulations . Along the way we end up with a series of different scenarios , which then has me questioning hearing about the possibility of an apartment and then possibly storing building materials . Now we are hearing of storing a boat and tractor. When a variety of us are hearing a variety of different things it doesn 't lead one to trust . When you see a process that is set out that all of us are supposed to follow in terms of filing for a building permit . What I am looking for is a guarantee that procedure will be followed . Mr. Bell — There seems to be a scenario floating around about an apartment . The utility building has nothing to do with the apartment . Our house , which has plans , which will be submitted to the Zoning Board , we want an apartment in the lower level of the house . Physically so that when we are not there we have somebody around our property. It has nothing to do with the utility building . I don 't know where this came about . I might have mentioned it to one of the neighbors way back it would be nice if I could have an apartment and a garage up overhead . Mr. Frost — You couldn 't do it . Mr. Bell — I know. It was just something that I had said . Again , I feel very hurt that the neighborhood is sort of down on me already and I ' m trying to put up a beautiful home that and I ' m not going to throw figures at you , but a very expensive home . I want to have a very nice looking outbuilding that is why I chose the saltbox design . I ' m quite shocked that before coming to me physically , that is the way that I communicate and voice their feelings that they somehow now come and do it . I could have prevented a lot of this bad feeling and not trust as Lee said . I am always around . I have a phone . am more than happy to answer any questions . I am more than happy to show them my house plans and see what an elaborate , nice house it is . It should be in a very beautiful setting with a view that we want to take advantage of. This is our last hurrah at our age so we want to do it right . I don 't want to be back with repercussions and problems with neighbors or anything else . We just want to live happily , have a beautiful looking place and go on with our lives . Basically , that is where I ' m at . Attorney Barney — While we just have a moment , the issue of the apartment . This structure that you are putting now , is it going to have water in it? Mr. Bell — No . Attorney Barney — It will have electricity, I assume . Mr. Bell — Yes . Attorney Barney — Without water, there will be no toilet facilities? Mr. Bell — No . 21 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18, 2002 Mr. Frost — Somewhere along the lines with the audience , you are forgetting that we have zoning enforcement . I would like to think that in some ways I have a reputation that I am not lenient with people . Therefore if he had anything in this proposed building as a garage , if there was any thought that I had that he was intended to violate . . . When you voice concern about trust that is what I ' m here for . . . to make sure regulations are followed . That is assurance that I can give you . Male Voice - . . . clearly it is more than a foundation . It was a structure . Mr. Frost — He has a permit . He has a permit to do this . Male Voice - . . . Unique Natural Area . . . we would like to keep it . (Comments not audible) I know a lot of buildings where you can store stuff . Why should there be a building built that is much more extensive than anything else for a storage . . . ( not audible) Mr. Bell — I guess what I would say is why would somebody want to take away my freedom of having a place where I can store my own boat , my own tractor, my own other personal belongings . All I am asking for is a nice looking saltbox design area to store my things in . I absolutely . . . Mr. Frost — Tom , why don 't we let the chair to take over. Male Voice — (Comments not audible) Chairperson Sigel — Would anyone else like to speak? Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8:23 p. m. Does the board have any questions at this time ? Mr. Niefer — Just clarify in my understanding , Andy, a permit has been issued ? Mr. Frost — For the garage , yes . Mr. Niefer — There are contingencies in it with regards . . . Mr. Frost — We have an affidavit essentially where he is stating he understands he is taking a risk. Mr. Niefer — If the house is not built , then the garage has to be taken down ? Mr. Frost — Yes . Mr. Niefer — It was a condition of the permit , correct? Mr. Frost — I don 't have the permit in front of me , pretty much , yes . That is the understanding . Attorney Barney — I might add this is not the first time or the only time we 've done this . On occasion , late in the building year we do this when this board is backed up with cases and is not likely to get at it for a month or two . It looks like something that is likely this board is not going to have a major 22 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 problem . A conditional permit is granted with the understanding that a risk is being taken if this board chooses to decide otherwise or to decide negatively. At that point the building has to stop and come down or be altered . Mr. Frost — Please don 't confuse the particulars on the case that was before Mr. Bell . This is a different case with a different scenario . Mr. Bell is not asking to just put the storage building up absent a house . When we have a Board of Appeals we have people that come to us that have true needs . Here we have gentleman who has lived in a house for nearly 30 years and is building a new house and needs to put his stuff in a building , which is otherwise permitted by the ordinance ahead of time from building his house . This does not seem to me , and forgive me for being so bold , it is not unreasonable . Mr. Niefer — As far as the heights of the buildings in this area , they can be as high as 35 feet in an R- 30 zone . Attorney Barney — Correct . A farm building does not have height limitations at all . He could have a silo here at 80 feet high . Mr. Frost — He cannot get a building permit for the house unless he meets the height requirement and the setback requirement . Our review of the parcel of land revealed that he would be in compliance . Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Bell , you had indicated that you are planning to build the house downhill from the garage . Mr. Bell — Yes . Very close to the barn , but a little bit downhill . Chairperson Sigel — And that would be to the east? Mr. Bell — Down just a few feet . It is about from where the barn is to the property line , 200 feet . I think . Chairperson Sigel — To the east property line or to the road ? Mr. Bell — To my property line . It goes across Seven Mile Drive . Chairperson Sigel — What is the setback requirement? Mr. Frost — Thirty feet . Attorney Barney — The height limitation is 38 feet . Mr. Krantz — Just from the public's point of view. We 've got two issues . One that the house must be built in a reasonable length of time or else his garage or utility building gets torn down . That is established . Second , this garage or utility building cannot be in any ways used as an apartment . It doesn 't have water. 23 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 Chairperson Sigel — It is not legal . Mr. Frost — He could electricity , he could have water and a bathroom . He cannot have a kitchen because then you have established the definition of the building . Attorney Barney — How far is it from the west side ? Mr. Bell — Sixty feet . Attorney Barney — In answer to Ron 's point , I would be concerned about it never being converted to a house if he never built the house , there is nothing preventing him from converting this to be a residence , which he is permitted to have in this zone as long as meets the side yard requirements . He could convert it to a house if there were never any other structure on the lot . Mr. Bell — My plans are not to do any of that. Chairperson Sigel — I would like to throw out some suggestions to the board . One thing we can certainly do is condition an approval on . . . that we approve the plans for the house , both the siting and the plans for the house , even if the house otherwise would have no need for variances if the board was concerned about the position of the house in relation to the garage . As a condition of an approval , we could also set that . I don 't know . . . the Planning Board wouldn 't see this. Mr. Frost — They definitely would not see this . I think that John Barney has voiced over the years that once you grant an approval , you can give any kind of condition you want . . . Attorney Barney — As long as it is reasonably related . Mr. Frost — (comments not audible) Female Voice — ( not audible) Chairperson Sigel — We could also set a time requirement when his house has to be started and completed . Another option is that a bond be posted for demolition of the garage if Mr. Bell does not perform what he promises . Those are all options available to us if we want to approve the variance with various conditions . Mr. Dixon — I like two out of three . Chairperson Sigel — Reviewing the house plans ? Mr. Dixon — I don 't see a need for that . Chairperson Sigel — What concerns me , though , I ' m not saying Mr. Bell would do this . . . I ' m sure he wouldn 't want to do this . He could in theory place the house such that the garage is not in a particularly good spot . I ' m not concerned about the design of the house , but the placement of the house so that it creates a reasonable ensemble on the lot . If we asked to approve a house and a 24 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 garage that was too high , we would have plans for everything to see where everything was going and then say okay you can have the height variance assuming you build everything as indicated on the plans you submitted . Attorney Barney — I think there is still the question of is there a place on the lot that you could conceive of that you would reject the house once this garage was constructed ? If the answer to that is yes , then it is a reasonable condition . If the answer is no , then it is a frivolous condition . Keeping in mind if it were done the other way , you would have no review of it at all except for the three-foot height issue . Chairperson Sigel — True . The answer is I 'm not sure . Mr. Frost — The accessory buildings have to be in the rear yard . Chairperson Sigel — Obviously , we don 't need to impose that condition . Mr. Krantz — There are a lot of rules and regulations that Mr. Bell will have to go by in order not to appear before this board anyway. If he satisfies those , I don 't see why we should impose any additional ones . Mr. Frost — I think one reasonable thing to consider is what happens if he can 't build a house right away? Mr. Dixon — Do you want a date? Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Bell indicated that he was hoping to start next month . We can say start in four months and must complete in twelve months . Mr. Frost — Say if something happens regarding building materials or some other kind of delay that is beyond his control , if you are going to set a time limit , that he should be able to come back and say he can 't find wood anywhere . He would not be prevented from coming back . . . Chairperson Sigel — No . What about the requirement of a bond being posted ? Attorney Barney — Bonds are an expense . . . maybe an agreement satisfactory to me that ensures he would remove the building and authorizes the Town if he fails to do it within a state period of time that the Town demolish the building . Chairperson Sigel — That seems reasonable to me . Mr. Niefer — I was just wondering start within four months and have complete in twelve months after starting . . . some timeframe . . . Mr. Krantz — He plans on starting in December and finishing by July. Mr. Niefer — Is that doable ? 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18, 2002 Mr. Bell — It maybe a month more depending on how quick the weather lets us get going with it . I ' m living in a rental house and I have to evacuate that by the first of August . So hopefully , it will be complete at that time . Attorney Barney — I understood it to be started in four months and finished in twelve months from tonight . Mr. Niefer — It would be twelve months from the start . Attorney Barney — No . Twelve months from tonight . That is what I understood . It is your call . Twelve months from start would give him sixteen months . Mr. Frost — You might want to have it commence at the beginning of the year and finished by the end of August . Attorney Barney — I would give it twelve months . Mr. Frost — Then there's the agreement that John approves . Chairperson Sigel — Mike , any comments on the environmental assessment? Mr. Smith — Nothing significant identified . Chairperson Sigel — Any other questions or comments? Mr. Krantz — We should also state that failing to meet these requirements he should be required to remove the garage within 60 days . Mr. Frost — John has proposed a formal agreement . Attorney Barney — Sixty days is fine with me . Chairperson Sigel — Would someone like to make a motion on the environmental assessment? Mr. Ellsworth — I move that the board make a negative declaration of environmental significance in the appeal of Tom Bell , requesting to be permitted to construct . . . (not audible) , residence district R-30 , based upon the review by Town staff dated November 6 , 2002 , Chairperson Sigel — Second ? Mr. Dixon — Second . Chairperson Sigel — All in favor? Board — Aye . 26 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002=078m ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Thomas Bell , 307 Bostwick Road , Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 31 .-5-1 .3 , Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Thomas Bell, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 18 and 20 to be permitted to construct an accessory building on vacant land, not containing a primary residence at 307 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -5- 1 . 3, Residence District R-30. The accessory building has a proposed building height of 19 _+ feet ( 15 foot height limitation), based upon the environmental assessment completed by Town planning staff dated November 6, 2002. 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 would move to grant the appeal of Thomas Bell , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 , to be permitted to construct an accessory building on vacant land not containing a primary residence on Bostwick Road , Tax Parcel No . 31 . -5- 1 . 3 , Residence District R-30 subject to the following conditions : the accessory building have a height not to exceed 19 . 5 feet , the primary residence be built on this lot be started no later than 120 days from today, the primary residence be completed no later than one year from today , and that the applicant , Mr. Bell , sign an agreement with the Town that is approved by the Town Attorney agreeing that he will remove the garage within 60 days in the event those requirements are not satisfied with the finding that the requirements of an area variance have been satisfied . Attorney Barney — The terms of the agreement include authorizing Town staff to come on the property to demolish the building if he fails to do so , authorization that he will then pay the cost of the Town doing so , and upon failure to pay that the costs can be levied on the property as additional taxes. Chairperson Sigel — Second ? Mr. Dixon — Second . Chairperson Sigel — All is favor? Board — Aye . Chairperson Sigel — Okay . Thank you . 27 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-078 : Thomas Bell , 307 Bostwick Road , Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcel No.31 .-5-1 . 3 , Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Thomas Bell, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 18 and 20 to be permitted to construct an accessory building on vacant land, not containing a primary residence at 307 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -5- 1 . 3, Residence District R-30. The accessory building has a proposed building height of 19 + feet ( 15 foot height limitation). FINDINGS: a . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: a . The accessory building cannot exceed 19. 5 feet in height. b. The primary residence that is to be built be started no later than 120 days from November 18, 2002. C, The primary residence be completed no later than one year from November 18, 2002. d. The Applicant, Mr. Bell, sign an agreement with the Town of Ithaca, that is approved by the Town Attorney, agreeing, but not limited to the following: 1 . That he will remove the garage within 60 days in the event that Conditions b. or c. are not satisfied. 2. Town of Ithaca be authorized to enter onto the property to demolish the building if the Applicant fails to do so. 28 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 18 , 2002 3. The Applicant will pay the cost to the Town for demolishing the building and, upon failure to pay this, the cost will be levied onto the property as additional taxes. 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 adjourned the meeting at 8 : 45 p . m . Kirk Sigel Zoning Board of Appeals Chair Lori Waring Deputy Town Clerk 29 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Monday, November 18 2002, commencing at 7 :00 P. M ., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of posting: November 7, 2002 Date of publication: November 11 , 2002 Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Depa ent Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 12th day of November 2002. s Notary Public CARRIE WHITMIOHL Notary Public , State of New York No, 01 W H6052877 Tioga County �4;v Commission Expires De cemfJer 26,__ ,,� TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 7 : 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, November 18, 2002, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M. , on the following matters: APPEAL of Jody and Jeffrey Boronkay, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2.01 -2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to maintain an "off premise" sign advertising a day care operation on Evergreen Lane, with said sign located at 105 Duboise Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-2- 1 .2, Residence District R-30. A variance for said sign was previously granted on June 25, 1997 with a five-year limitation. APPEAL of John Jackson, Appellant, Scott Hamilton, landowner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII, Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to operate a car rental business at the Judd Falls Plaza, with five vehicles on site at one time, located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6244 , -2. 19 -2.2, and 3 .2, Business District C. Said Ordinance does not permit the outside display of vehicles. APPEAL of Bruno Mazza Jr:, POA, Appellant_Allan Warshawsky, Agent.requesting variances_from.the . requzrementsofArticle V, ;Sechons :2l .and 23 -to . create three buildingaots -by -subdivision :with-parcel°_A containing an existing residence with a 1 ± foot building setback (40 feet required) and a lot depth of 196 ± feet (200 foot depth required), parcel B with a lot width of 98+ feet ( 150 feet required), and Parcel C with an existing residence that has a 32 ± foot setback (40 feet required), all located at 344-352 King Road West, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 35-2-6.2 and —6.4, Residence District R-30. APPEAL of Thomas Bell, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 18 and 20 to be permitted to construct an accessory building on vacant land, not containing a primary residence at 307 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -54 .3 , Residence District R-30. The accessory building has a proposed building height of 19 ± feet ( 15 foot height limitation). Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 :00 p.m., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : November 7, 2002 Published : November 11 , 2002