HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2021-04-19Pg. 1ZBA 2021-04-19 (Filed 7/20)
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Monday, April 19, 2021@ 6:00pm
Due to public health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19, the Zoning Board of Appeals, in
accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order 202.1, was held by video conferencing.
Minutes
Present: Rob Rose, Chair; Members Bill King, Chris Jung, George Vignaux, and David Squires
Alternate David Filiberto Absent: David Williams
Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for
the Town
(Audio for this meeting is corrupted. Minutes compiled by using the Zoom transcript)
0006-2021 Appeal of Jamie and Joe Slater, owners of 285 Burns Road, TP 48.-1-14.62 LDR;
seeking a variance(s) from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-60(F) Garages, for a proposed 50’
x 56” two-story, 3,661 sqft garage where a maximum of 600’ sqft is permitted.
The footprint is 2,800 square feet with storage on the second floor for 3,600 total sqft.
The Slaters explained that their property has dual zones, low density residential and
conservation, and their goal is to homestead and become as self-sufficient as possible, including
growing their own food, which requires additional space for the equipment needed for that type
of pursuit.
They chose the property due to its size, abundance of trees, and elevation which makes it almost
invisible from the public roadway giving a country feel while still being close to the city.
The property is just under 7 acres and the total lot coverage with the house and proposed garage
would be 1.6% where 10% is the maximum.
Currently they store much of their equipment, such as four-wheelers, garden tractor, wood
working tools, and their personal vehicles either outside or offsite and they would like to
consolidate all to one safe, covered, accessible location.
They stated that many homes in the area have barns or numerous barns and this size and use
would not be out of character with the neighborhood or be a detriment to the community.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m.
Lori Biechele spoke and asked where exactly the proposed structure would be, and the Board and
Mr. Moseley explained. She said she was fine with the proposal because it would not impede
her viewshed.
ZBA 2021-04-19 (Filed 7/20) Pg. 2
There was no one else wishing to speak and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the proposal and commented that this seems more of a barn than a garage
and after some discussion, the applicant requested a postponement of the request to discuss other
definitions and scope with Town staff.
Mr. Rosen moved to postpone the appeal to a later date to be determined, seconded by Mr.
Vignaux, unanimous.
0004-2021- Appeal of Ron Knewstub , owner of 180 Calkins Road, TP 33.-2-3.1 LDR; seeking
a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-59 Height Limitations, for a proposed 23’
high, 22’ x 22’, 484’ sqft accessory building where Town Code limits the height at 15’ feet.
Ron Knewstub gave an overview, saying the structure was started, with a building permit, prior
to finding out a variance would be needed and has been on hold since.
The height is from the lowest grade built into the topography which is almost 4’ feet of the
height to get to the level ground. The location is surrounded by trees and nature, and we did not
want to disturb more than we had to.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at approximately 6:42 p.m.
Mr. Guttman, attorney for Ms. Miller, and Ms. Miller addressed the Board with a number of
concerns about the project including the impact to her viewshed, the use planned or stated for it.
Comments focused on the stated use as a music studio for a grand piano and how that didn’t
make sense with the proposed designs with lots of windows and tall ceiling.
Secondly, Mr. Guttman noted that the next appeal by his client deals with whether this would be
considered an accessory structure and whether an existing building on the property would be an
accessory building. If both are deemed that, then there would be additional variances needed
because the aggregate number and size would exceed current code.
Some discussion followed and a motion by Mr. Vignaux was made to table this appeal and hear
the next appeal; seconded by Mr. Rosen, unanimous.
0005-2021 Appeal of Marla Miller, 180 Calkins Road, seeking an interpretation and
determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the Director of Code Enforcement’s
determinations that:
1. the 1,728 sqft building on the property next door is classified as a garage use, as
defined by Town of Ithaca Code 270-5; and
2. that the owner of the property is not using the structure as a home-based occupation
as defined by Chapter 270-219.2
ZBA 2021-04-19 (Filed 7/20) Pg. 3
Charles Guttman, Attorney for Ms. Miller, gave an opening statement describing the several
different issues in this request.
The two primary issues are whether the pole barn is classified as an accessory building or a
garage and the second is if Mr. Knewstub is in violation of the home occupation regulations.
Other questions are the two woodsheds and the combining of them into one structure which
makes it bigger than the total of them both separately and yet another shed in the back. All of
which comes in to play for maximum lot coverage, number of structures and square footage, plus
whether it is in the side yard legally as well as setback requirements.
Mr. Guttman said the terms “accessory building” and “garage” have been used interchangeably
over the years in documentation and yet the terms are not interchangeable.
Ms. Miller spoke, saying that if this is classified as a garage, it would still have needed a
variance. A garage is used to store automobiles or similar and this is not. It doesn’t meet the
maximums for 2021. He stores skid steer and wood tools and other items connected with his
business, Knewstub Marine.
Discussion followed with Ms. Miller showing or referring to pictures she has submitted to
bolster her assertion that the building is used for commercial storage and equipment.
Mr. Moseley shared his screen showing the Tompkins County SDG flat file with shaded squares
depicting structures. Discussion followed on which structure was which and where they were on
the lot.
Ms. Miller also told of an instance of what see termed harassment by Mr. Knewstub when she
had a small gathering and he drove the skid steer to a point close to her deck and shone the bright
lights on her gathering for quite a while.
Board comments and questions
Mr. Filiberto stated that this seems like a neighbor dispute that is better dealt with in a court of
law and that this board deals with zoning, not harassment.
Ms. Miller responded that it goes to noise and disruption caused by a home occupation and the
restrictions that have been placed on him previously for doing business there.
Mr. Rosen asked counsel about the two questions he sees are under review here; whether there is
a home occupation currently and whether this is a garage.
Discussion then focused on the submitted photos, some of which were from 2009, and it was
explained that there was an inspection done in 2009 where a home occupation was determined
and a follow up inspection that determined all violations had been corrected.
ZBA 2021-04-19 (Filed 7/20) Pg. 4
Mr. Rosen asked Mr. Knewstub to address the allegations/comments presented and asked
whether he has another location for his business.
Mr. Knewstub responded that he does. He has rented storage units and a storage yard for his
business equipment and has nothing at his home anymore other than the office, which is less than
the percentage of his house required under the code. He stated that he doesn’t even have
employees anymore since the pandemic and hasn’t for over a year.
He added that the lumber she has complained about is for the current home project and some
cedar logs he has been saving for his personal hobby of woodworking to make gifts.
He has not had any business operations at the home for over 10 years. The skid steer is his and
performs jobs around the property and he also lends it out to friends who need it.
The vehicles, both cars, trucks and the conversion van are his and his family’s. She has
complained about my personal sailboat that is a project of mine. She complained about soil bags
I use for my green roof, and when Mr. Moseley called, I got my dump trailer and moved them. I
used the skid steer to move my sailboat.
Mr. Knewstub stated that she never stops filming him and his family. She is obsessed with
everything I do whether it’s work around my yard or give away a sailboat. I keep my yard clean
and my garbage covered.
He said I love my home, my street and my life, but I feel completely harassed by her.
Mr. Knewstub added that he didn’t request a classification of the building, but when Mr.
Moseley came, he saw that it was being used as a garage and called it that.
Public Hearing
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Herb Engman spoke, saying that this goes back to when he was Town Supervisor and it has
always perplexed him because it was obvious then that there was a commercial business going
on there, not a home occupation, but a commercial enterprise. He said he never understood how
Codes back then called it a home occupation.
Mr. Engman stated that the website for Knewstub Marine stated he has employees. It’s unclear
now, but the website did say that before.
Mr. Rosen asked when the last time was Mr. Engman visited the site.
Mr. Engman said it was at least 6 years ago.
Tom Canfield spoke, saying he and his sister have lived on Calkins Rd since 1970 and it has
been an obvious commercial enterprise for years and still appears to be one. In fact, there is
ZBA 2021-04-19 (Filed 7/20) Pg. 5
another one, a home construction or remodeling business that now has truck traffic and materials
and storage further down the road, so we are all concerned with that too.
He said this is a low-density residential zone and the residential is getting lost.
Caller asked how access to the music studio would happen.
Mr. Knewstub responded that there is a pasture, and his son would walk to and from. He added
that the lumber delivery Mr. Canfield spoke of was for his current project, not his business, and it
was delivered to the front yard and Mr. Moseley asked him to move it and he did.
Caller – I saw a skid steer moving material.
Mr. Knewstub responded that the skid steer is used to move building material to the site.
Caller – well it was noisy and seemed like it was coming right to my house.
Mr. Knewstub responded that it is no noisier than a car and on rare occasions, or during the
season when it is dark at 5 pm., there may be lights, but it was within the parameters of the noise
legislation as far as times of day and noise for construction activities.
Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m.
Mr. Rosen said the first is to determine whether this is a home occupation and then whether it is
a garage.
Ms. Brock asked a few questions of Mr. Knewstub.
You mentioned you don’t have any employees, and Mr. Moseley’s notes indicate that you
subcontract your work out now. Do any of those subcontractors come onsite to your Calkins
address?
Mr. Knewstub responded they come to get paid once in a while, but not often, because I see them
in the yard and one of them once had trouble with their truck and borrowed my truck.
Ms. Brock – Do they come and get tools?
Mr. Knewstub responded said he hasn’t had employees since last March, and the website is very
old and not updated to reflect that.
Ms. Brock – Do you ever use the skid steer for the business?
Mr. Knewstub responded that once in awhile he will rent it to the business but can’t remember
the last time it was taken out.
Ms. Brock – And there are two other vehicles? Trucks?
ZBA 2021-04-19 (Filed 7/20) Pg. 6
Mr. Knewstub responded that there are two trucks, but one has been sitting there quite a while
and the other is my personal vehicle which I do use to get to work sites.
Ms. Brock – And tools?
Mr. Knewstub responded that the tools seen by Mr. Moseley are my person tools, not for the
business.
Ms. Brock – Do you do any painting or fabrication for Knewstub Marine at your Calkins
address?
Mr. Knewstub responded that he does not.
Ms. Brock – Do you cut any wood?
Mr. Knewstub – No.
Board Discussion
Mr. Rosen stated that the board decided to separate the issues and start with the home occupation
by going through the 10 criteria outlined in the Code, Chapter 270-219.2 Limitations on home
occupations.
Ms. Brock noted that the question is whether Mr. Moseley’s determination that it is not a home
occupation is what the Board also believes is the case. If the Board determines it is a home
occupation, then you would go through the criteria to determine if there is a violation and Codes
would act accordingly to enforce compliance.
Ms. Brock suggested the Board go through the packet, the inspection/determination report from
Mr. Moseley and the statements they have heard tonight and determine whether they agree with
his determination.
The Board reviewed and discussed Mr. Moseley’s report findings as well as submitted
documentation and comments to address each point. Mr. Rosen started, giving his thoughts on
each, followed by a full member discussion and consensus on each point.
A. An area of no more than 25% of the floor space of the dwelling (whether the home
occupation is conducted in the dwelling or in an accessory building) or 500 square feet
(whichever is less) shall be used for the home occupation.
Mr. Rosen - We heard that the area used is less than 25%. Mr. Guttman has argued that the
shelving should be tallied individually vs footprint. Mr. Rosen thought that should not be the
case, just the footprint should be considered.
ZBA 2021-04-19 (Filed 7/20) Pg. 7
Discussion – Mr. King felt that business activities have and are taking place. Mr. Filiberto stated
that that may have been the case, but it has been rectified years ago and this seems to be a
disgruntled neighbor dispute. He said he is inclined to take the word of our Code Official over
statements from either side. He felt the Board should depend on the experience and expertise of
our official(s).
Mr. Rosen responded that you can’t tell what happens before and after an inspection. If there is a
noise complaint, someone can turn the music down, then right back up.
Mr. Filiberto agreed that it is very difficult, but we have officials who make determinations.
Discussion followed on particular tools and the truck(s) and the Board agreed that less than 500
sqft is possibly used for tools and equipment that might be associated with the business at one
time or another.
B. No more than four persons (full- or part-time) including the household resident, shall be
involved in on-site business operations.
Mr. Rosen - We have heard that there are no employees for Knewstub Marine and Mr. Knewstub
does reside at the location as his primary residence.
Discussion – The Board all agreed that no more than four people are there. Occasional pick up
of pay checks, a truck or a potential client do not rise to four people.
C. The owner and chief operating officer of the business must be a full-time resident of the
property on which the business is conducted.
Mr. Rosen - The owner of the business does live at Calkins Rd.
Discussion – All agree.
D. No goods shall be offered for sale on the premises excepting those created, assembled, or
reconditioned completely on the property.
Mr. Rosen - We have heard that no goods are sold on site.
Discussion – All agreed no goods are sold on site.
E. There shall be no exterior display or sign ……, no exterior storage of materials,
equipment (including commercial vehicles) or other items of commerce, and no other
exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the residential character of
the lot, district or surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Rosen - We have heard a lot of testimony about piles of lumber, but that has been rebutted
by statements from the owner that the lumber was not for commercial use, but for the current
building project on site. The lumber for pilings was in 2009 and that was rectified and
ZBA 2021-04-19 (Filed 7/20) Pg. 8
reinspected by Mr. Bates. The testimony is that the business now leases space elsewhere for
materials and fabricating.
Discussion – There have been older reports of materials but none in the past 10 years, and the
one reported delivery was for a residential purpose, not a business purpose. Board agreed no
current use.
F. No offensive noise, vibration, smoke…. Shall be produced beyond the boundary……
Mr. Rosen - No reports of offensive noise or vibration or smoke or odor beyond the boundary,
other than the skid steer lights that one time.
Discussion – The Board discussed the skid steer lights and truck and tool noise that has been
reported by the neighbor. The skid steer was delivering material to the new build and tools are
used by people for other than commercial uses. Some members stated that they have circular
saws they use, and although annoying at times maybe, it is a personal use.
There was a reported siting of the skid steer being loaded and unloaded onto a flat bed. Mr.
Knewstub has responded that that was him loaning it to a friend and it being returned. The
Board asked Ms. Miller about the number of instances of this type of loading and she stated that
it was a regular occurrence 10 years ago, and most recently once in December of 2020.
The Board felt this was a reasonable activity, since this was an occurrence, not a frequent
occurrence, similar to residents who have off-road hobbies and such.
G. The business shall not generate traffic in any greater volume than would normally be
expected in a residential neighborhood,…
Mr. Rosen - homes have multiple visitors at one time or another. There have been reports of
increased traffic, possibly workers, getting materials or trucks, but what is reasonable? A stream
of people at 8am is not usual in a residential area, but occasional visits are normal. We have had
not had reports of material deliveries or clients or workers coming. There was a complaint about
too many cars being parked in the driveway.
Discussion – Board agreed that incidental visits are not increased traffic and a residence can have
gatherings that require multiple cars being parked occasionally. They did not feel there was
evidence of increased traffic or parking attributable to a business.
H. The business or use shall not be detrimental to the residential character of the lot….
Mr. Rosen - The report from years past by Mr. Bates indicates even when the occupation was
there, there was no change to the residential character. We have seen many situations with barns
and shops and trucks and trailers in the yard. At what point does it cross the line? On my site
visit, there are a lot of big barns and garages and similar in that area.
ZBA 2021-04-19 (Filed 7/20) Pg. 9
Discussion – Mr. Rosen thought that some outbuildings in low density residential are more
industrial looking and metal to store four wheelers and tractors, so they are different than what
you might see in higher density zones. Mr. Squires thought there was no detriment to the
character and the property fits in with the rest of the neighborhood, adding that many of the
properties seem to have multiple outbuildings and large outbuildings in that area.
I. The lot on which the business is operated shall be large enough to allow such business to
be conducted with minimal impact on the neighbors.
Mr. Rosen - The property is almost 12 acres, but due to the layout of the residence and accessory
structures, the neighbor can see a lot of the active area.
Discussion – Mr. Vignaux noted that many of the houses are clustered nearer to the road, which
is usual. Ms. Jung thought it unfortunate that the houses were placed on the adjoining lots where
they are, but there is also a stream hindering siting. Mr. King noted the second half of the
question is whether it impacts the neighbor, and Ms. Brock asked what activities do impact the
neighbor? Mr. Rosen stated that pick-up trucks coming and going is normal for LDR. The
Board agreed there is no impact and the lot is large.
J. All business activities that are conducted within the bounds of the lot on which the
business is located must be conducted wholly within the dwelling or accessory building.
Mr. Rosen - We have reports of skid steer being loaded onto flat beds. That is certainly outside a
building and has been discussed already. Board agrees there are no business activities currently
and past activities have been rectified.
ZBA 0005- 2021a Determination – Code Officer – Home Occupation
Resolved, that this Board finds that Ronald Knewstub’s home occupation complies with the
Town Code of the Town of Ithaca for the reasons stated in the discussion of each criteria listed in
Town Code Section 270-219.2, on April 19, 2021 and detailed in the minutes of the meeting.
Moved: Rob Rosen Seconded: George Vignaux
Vote: ayes – Rosen, Vignaux, King, Jung and Squires
ZBA 0005-2021b Determination
Mr. Rosen turned to the next determination is whether the Board agrees with the Director of
Code Enforcement’s determination that the structure, referred to as the “pole barn” in some
instances, is a garage.
Mr. Rosen and Ms. Brock discussed the request, noting that there were other requests made by
Ms. Miller that are now moot, because they were dependent on the outcome of Determination A,
which this Board just determined was a correct determination by the Code Official that no
violations are occurring and the home occupation is in compliance with Town Code.
ZBA 2021-04-19 (Filed 7/20) Pg. 10
The remaining question is the reference to the structure as a “garage.”
Mr. Moseley noted that the Certificate of Occupancy for the structure in 2007 identified it as an
accessory structure with the specific use identified as a garage.
The Board looked at and discussed the pictures from Mr. Moseley’s inspection report and the
size and depth of the structure.
Mr. Guttman spoke, saying that the definition of a “garage” is that it is used primarily to store
automobiles or similar vehicles and this not the primary use of this structure. He stated that the
trucks have been used for the business and the woodworking equipment and storage of
commercial vehicles is the primary use of this structure.
Mr. Vignaux stated that he has an extra long truck and an audi, they are both vehicles and a truck
is transportation and can go in a garage, or not.
Discussion followed on whether the amount of space taken up in a “garage” by a vehicle is less
than 50% of it, does that make it not a garage? Mr. Rosen stated that under that criteria, a lot of
garages in town would not be garages.
Mr. Moseley noted that the Code in 2007 when this was permitted, defined a garage as “a
covered building that is primarily for the storage of automobiles and similar motor vehicles.”
Mr. King stated that he is thinking it is not a garage.
Mr. Vignaux stated that he has been know to take his truck out of his garage and put his 15’ foot
motorized fishing boat in there for a while. He asked if that made it a boat park? Putting a boat in
a garage does not make it become a storage building, it is still a garage.
Mr. Rosen and Mr. Filiberto agreed with Mr. Vignaux.
Ms. Jung said she agrees with Mr. King; this is a huge building with a little part of it being used
for storing cars.
More discussion followed with Mr. Squires and Mr. Rosen then saying it is more like a storage
building.
Motion made by Mr. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Vignaux to enter closed session to seek the advice
of counsel. Unanimous.
Motion to re-enter open session, made by Mr. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Vignaux, unanimous.
Ms. Brock stated for the record that there was no discussion regarding substantive issues in the
closed session. She stated that she had questions about the timing of the request.
ZBA 2021-04-19 (Filed 7/20) Pg. 12
You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a
variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing
via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us
All comments become part of the official record.
Town of Ithaca
Notice of Public Hearing
Zoning Board of Appeals
Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19, the Zoning Board of
Appeals will not be meeting in-person. In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order
202.1, this meeting will be held by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public
will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING: If you have a computer, tablet
or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on
“Join a Meeting”, and entering 944-393-1973 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the
Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866).
0006-2021 Appeal of Jamie and Joe Slater, owners of 285 Burns Road, Tax Parcel No. 48.-1-
14.62, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-60(F) (Garages) for a proposal to
construct a 50’x56’ two-story (3,661 square foot) garage.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60(F) limits a garage to a maximum size of 600 square feet in
size, where the current proposal is requesting to allow for a two-story garage totaling,
approximately, 3,661 square feet to be constructed.
The current project is proposed to be located in the Low-Density Residential Zone area of the
property.
Marty Moseley
Director of Code Enforcement
You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a
variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing
via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us
All comments become part of the official record.
Town of Ithaca
Notice of Public Hearing
Zoning Board of Appeals
Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19, the Zoning Board of
Appeals will not be meeting in-person. In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order
202.1, this meeting will be held by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public
will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING: If you have a computer, tablet
or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on
“Join a Meeting”, and entering 944-393-1973 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the
Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866).
0004-2021 Appeal of Ron Knewstub, owner of 180 Calkins Road, Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-3.1, is
seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-59 (Height limitations) for a proposal to
construct a 22’ x22’ (484 square foot) accessory building that is proposed to be approximately 23
feet in height.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-59 limits the height of a building to not exceed 15 feet in
height, where the current proposal is requesting to allow for the proposed accessory building to
have a total height of 23 feet measured from the lowest exterior grade to the highest point of
building.
The current property is located in the Low-Density Residential Zone.
Marty Moseley
Director of Code Enforcement
You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a
variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing
via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us
All comments become part of the official record.
Town of Ithaca
Notice of Public Hearing
Zoning Board of Appeals
Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19, the Zoning Board of
Appeals will not be meeting in-person. In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order
202.1, this meeting will be held by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public
will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING: If you have a computer, tablet
or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on
“Join a Meeting”, and entering 944-393-1973 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the
Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866).
0005‐2021 Appeal of Marla Miller, is seeking a determination regarding activities and a building located
at 180 Calkins Road, Tax Parcel No. 33.‐2‐3.1. The applicant is seeking an interpretation and
determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the Director of Code Enforcement’s
determination that a 1,728 square foot building on the property is classified as a garage use, as defined
by section 270‐5 of Town of Ithaca Code, and is seeking an interpretation and decision by the Zoning
Board of Appeals regarding the Director of Code Enforcement’s determination that that the owner of
the property is using the structure as part of a home occupation associated with his business known as
Knewstub Marine Inc. in compliance with section 270‐219.2 of Town of Ithaca Code. Applicant is seeking
a determination from the Zoning Board of Appeals that the building is not a garage and is also being
used as a home occupation as defined in Town Code.
The current property is located in a Low‐Density Residential Zone.
Marty Moseley
Director of Code Enforcement