Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2007-05-21 TOWN of ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 21, 2007 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairperson Kirk Sigel; Board Members Harry Ellsworth, Ron Krantz, Jim Niefer, Alternate Board Member David Mountin Staff: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Engineering; Chris Balestra, Planner; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Excused: Board Member Dick Matthews and Alternate Board Member Eric Levine Others: Luciano Lama, 2343 North Triphammer Road, Ithaca Larry Caskey, 131 Lexington Drive, Ithaca Jon & Kim Barrett, 8667 Van Doren Beach Road, Interlaken, NY Lisa R. Smith, 120 King Road East, Ithaca Michael Yehl, 103 West Seneca Street, Ithaca Sara Johnson Kristin Carlson Ernie Bayles Chairperson Sigel opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Good Evening. Welcome to the May meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have three appeals, that of Jon and Kim Barrett, the appeal of Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School and the appeal of Larry Caskey. We will be taking them in that order. The first appeal is as follows: APPEAL of Jon & Kim Barrett, Appellants, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-73 (B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain two connected residences on separate parcels with resultant insufficient widths at the street and at the required setback. The residences are located at 133 and 135 Westview Lane, current Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2-39.48, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said residences received subdivision approval by the Planning Board on March 6, 2007. The lots do not meet the minimum 60-foot lot width at the street and the 100-foot lot width at the 50-foot setback required for parcels in the Medium Density Residential Zone. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Please come to the microphone and please begin with your name and address. Jon Barrett ZBA 05-21-07 Pg.2 Jon Barrett, 8667 Van Doren Beach Road, Interlaken, 14847. Michael Yehl And I am Michael Yehl. I'm Mr. Barrett's attorney. Office is located at 103 West Seneca Street in Ithaca. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. This appeal is pretty much identical to several others that we have had in this neighborhood in the last few months. Is there anything you wanted to add beyond what you submitted? Mr. Yehl — No. Nothing really. I think the appeal...we've presented the information on it. We are more concerned about answering any questions or concerns the Zoning Board has on this. We know you have dealt with a few of these already. Chairperson Sigel — It looks like you received unanimous approval at the Planning Board. Any questions? Any members? Mr. Krantz— Nope. Chairperson Sigel — I don't have any questions. We'll open the public hearing (7:07 p.m.) any one wishes to speak regarding this appeal? Okay, if not, we'll close the public hearing. Chris, anything you want to add? Ms. Balestra — Nothing. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms. Balestra —And there is no SEAR review for this. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms. Balestra — Kirk, I neglected to add in the memo the actual proposed widths at the street line and at the 50 foot setback. I don't know if you calculated them, but I can tell you what they are now. Chairperson Sigel — Please. Ms. Balestra — Okay. For lot A... Chairperson Sigel — Is that 133 or 135? Ms. Balestra —Ah, that's 133, if you look at your survey map it will be clear. The width at the street is 38.5 feet where 60 feet is required and for lot B its 20 feet. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. ZBA 05-21-07 Pg.3 Ms. Balestra —And for lot A, the width at the 50 foot setback is 55 feet approximately and for lot B is it 40 feet. And these are plus or minus. They're plus or minus a foot, so... Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. Okay, in regard to this appeal, I will move what is essentially Zoning Board Resolution Number 2007-001 with all references to applicant address and tax parcel changed to this applicant, addresses and tax parcel. With the identical findings and with the following modified conditions: that the...for 133 Westview Lane the width at the street be no less than 37 feet and the width at the required setback be no less than 53 feet and that for 135 Westview Lane that the width at the street be no less than 19 feet and at the required setback no less than 38 feet. And at condition 3 from said motion remain intact, which is that no change is made to the footprint of the building, or allowed that would further increase the nonconformity with the setback requirements. Second? Mr. Krantz— Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. Mr. Barrett and Mr. Yehl — Thank you. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-019 Area Variances Jon and Kim Barrett 133 and 135 Westview Lane Tax Parcel No. 58.-2-39.48 May 21, 2007 MOVED by Chairperson Sigel, SECONDED by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Jon and Kim Barrett, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-73(B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain two connected residences on separate tax parcels with resultant insufficient widths at the road and insufficient widths at the required setback. The residences are located at 133 and 135 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58.-2-39.48, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said residences received subdivision approval by the Planning Board on March 6, 2007. The lots violate the required minimum 60-foot width at the road and the minimum 100-foot lot width at the 50-foot setback. Findings The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied, specifically that: ZBA 05-21-07 Pg.4 1. The benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, that is the ability to sell each dwelling unit separately, cannot be achieved by any other means, and 2. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood as most other buildings of this type in the neighborhood already have this right, and 3. The request is not substantial, and 4. There will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. The alleged difficulty was not self-created by the applicant. Conditions 1. That for 133 Westview Lane the width at the street be no less than 37 feet and the width at the required setback be no less than 53 feet, and 2. That for 135 Westview Lane that the width at the street be no less than 19 feet and at the required setback no less than 38 feet, and 3. No changes made to the footprint of the building that would further increase the nonconformity with the setback requirements. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal is as follows: APPEAL of Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School, Owner/Appellant, Ernie Bayles, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225 of the Town Code, to be permitted to construct an addition to the Montessori Middle School building, located at 122 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1-3.6, Medium Density Residential Zone, without the full installation of a Town required sprinkler system. The appellant proposes to sprinkler the occupied spaces of the building and omit sprinklers from the attic areas. The New York State Building Code would not otherwise require such an installation in the attic. Ernie Bayles Hi. I am Ernie Bayles. Lisa Smith Lisa Smith, Business Administrator, Montessori School. ZBA 05-21-07 Pg.5 Chairperson Sigel —And, would...anything you would like to add? Mr. Bayles — I don't have anything to add. I am certainly willing to entertain questions. Chairperson Sigel — So... Mr. Bayles — I'll explain the situation because it does get a little complex. Basically, because this is an educational occupancy, it does require that there be sprinklers in any level that is not at the exit grade, so to speak. So the lower level, which is partially underground and has short steps coming up out of it, would need to be sprinklered by New York State Code. In the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance because of the size of the additions that are being proposed being over 50% of the replacement value of the building, we would be required by the Zoning Ordinance to install sprinkler system according to NFPA. We are asking for some relief in that portion of the sprinkler system would need to be a dry sprinkler system, the portion that goes into the attic. In wood frame construction with insulation above the ceiling plane and the nature of the vaulted ceilings in the existing construction make this all rather expensive and difficult. So we are asking for some relief because of the economic hardship. Chairperson Sigel — So the New York State Building Code requires a sprinkler in the basement because its not...(interrupted) Mr. Bayles — Because it's an educational occupancy where the exit is not at the basement level. There are two exits from that level, but both of them involve going up one full flight of stairs and the other one a shorter flight of stairs. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Will that need to be sprinklered if it wasn't occupied? Mr. Bayles — Uh, no, if it was not occupied. I don't believe so, but I would have to look at that in more detail. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Niefer— The present structure as it exists before the addition, its sprinklered on the main level and the basement at the present time? Mr. Bayles — No. There are no sprinkler systems at all at the present time. Mr. Niefer— None at all? Mr. Bayles — No. Basically the building was remodeled under the old building code, which apparently didn't require sprinklers and because there were no additions done at the time it didn't trigger the Town requirement for sprinklers either. ZBA 05-21-07 Pg.6 Mr. Niefer— So the renovated building will be entirely sprinkled on the first floor and entirely sprinklered in the basement...(interrupted)... Mr. Bayles —We are trying to really... Mr. Niefer - ...and you are proposing, I believe from what I read that the attic would have a smoke and fire detection system in it to a panel somewhere, simply located. Mr. Bayles — Right. Yeah, there is already an existing alarm system that is wired in with an enunciator to call the fire department in the event the alarm goes off. Mr. Krantz— In your opinion is it more likely that a fire, if it were to start, would start in the attic instead of the basement? Mr. Bayles — No. My opinion would be that the attic...I mean that a fire would be most likely to start in an area where there are people. Kitchens being a particularly susceptible place. But, no, the attic is pretty much in-accessible and would...it will not be used for storage. There is no duct work. There are no mechanicals up there. Mr. Ellsworth — Electrical? Mr. Bayles — There is electrical, but it's not a place to store anything. Ms. Brock— No people. Mr. Bayles —And no people, of course. So I think that the fire hazard in the attic is fairly low and the issues of life safety, property protection that sprinkler systems afford, I think, are less useful at that level. The biggest bang for the buck is putting the sprinklers in the lowest level, which is the most hazardous, just because of ease of access to get out. The next level would be the main level where at, in addition to the existing doors, there are windows you can get out of, but the attic is kind of the least important in terms of fire safety for the occupants. Mr. Ellsworth —What is combustible in the attic? Just the trusses? Mr. Bayles — The trusses. Mr. Ellsworth —What is under the roofing? Mr. Bayles — Plywood. You know, it is typical residential construction. Mr. Niefer— Certainly a dry pipe system in the attic does present maintenance problems. With some experience I do know that it is a problem and could be a significant maintenance item and as pointed out in the material, why, it is also a significant cost to put in a dry system in the attic so, certainly with a sprinkler on the main floor, sprinklers on the basement floor and that protection in the attic, certainly I ZBA 05-21-07 Pg.7 think it seems as though the area has been well covered for the protection of students and teachers and people occupying the buildings as far as I am concerned. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. I agree. Mr. Mountin — I concur with that, too. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Any comments, Chris? Ms. Balestra — Environmentally? Chairperson Sigel — Or anything. Ms. Balestra — No. There is one thing I need to say about the environmental assessment form, part 1. Staff copied the wrong copy. We needed to make a few changes to the original to include the sprinkler variance proposal. So we passed those out tonight and that's just part 1. It's not even the part 11 evaluation. Otherwise, we have no comments. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. We will open the public hearing regarding this appeal (7:17 p.m.), if anyone wishes to speak. If not, we will close the public hearing. Mr. Mountin — I just have one question. Ernie, does it affect the insurance? Ms. Smith — Our insurance is happy that we are sprinklering the building. I mean the roof isn't the issue. Mr. Bayles — Did you find out whether you get a discount or... Ms. Smith —Working on it. Chairperson Sigel — So just these two conditions? Any further questions? Okay. I will first move to find a negative or make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School for the reasons stated in the Part 11 environmental assessment form prepared by Town staff. Second? Mr. Ellsworth — I'll second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. ZBA 05-21-07 Pg.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-020 Environmental Assessment Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School 122 East King Road Tax Parcel No. 43-1-3.6 May 21, 2007 MOVED by Chairperson Sigel, SECONDED by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of the Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School for the reasons stated in the Part 11 environmental assessment form prepared by Town staff. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Okay and I will move to grant the appeal of the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225 of the Town Code to be permitted to construct an addition to the Montessori middle school building located at 122 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 43.-1-3.6, Medium Density Residential zone without the full installation of a Town required sprinkler system with the following findings: that the application of the strict letter of this chapter would create a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship for the applicant as evidenced by the applicant's submission of evidence that the initial cost of sprinklering the attic would be at least $17,000 and would also create ongoing maintenance costs for the applicant and 2, the omission of an approved sprinkler system from the attic will not significantly jeopardize human life given that the attic will have fire and smoke detection and the main level and basement level of the building will have a full sprinkler system. And with the following conditions:... Did you want to add anything to the findings? Ms. Brock— No. Chairperson Sigel —With the following conditions: that there be no storage in the attic and the attic not be used for any heating, ventilation or air conditioning equipment or other mechanical purposes except for bathroom fans and that the attic have smoke and fire detectors installed and that they be wired into the existing supervised alarm system. Anything else? Ms. Brock— No. ZBA 05-21-07 Pg.9 Chairperson Sigel — Second on the motion? Mr. Mountin — Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. You're all set. Ms. Smith — Thank you. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-021 Sprinkler Variance Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School 122 East King Road Tax Parcel No. 43.-1-3.6 May 21, 2007 MOVED by Chairperson Sigel, SECONDED by Dave Mountin. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225 of the Town Code to be permitted to construct an addition to the Montessori middle school building located at 122 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 43.-1-3.6, Medium Density Residential zone without the full installation of a Town required sprinkler system With the following findings- 1. indings:1. That the application of the strict letter of this chapter would create a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship for the applicant as evidenced by the applicant's submission of evidence that the initial cost of sprinklering the attic would be at least $17,000 and would also create ongoing maintenance costs for the applicant, and 2. The omission of an approved sprinkler system from the attic will not significantly jeopardize human life given that the attic will have fire and smoke detection and the main level and basement level of the building will have a full sprinkler system. ZBA 05-21-07 Pg. 10 With the following conditions- 1. onditions:1. That there be no storage in the attic and the attic not be used for any heating, ventilation or air conditioning equipment or other mechanical purposes except for bathroom fans, and 2. That the attic have smoke and fire detectors installed and that they be wired into the existing supervised alarm system. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The third appeal is as follows: APPEAL of Larry Caskey, Owner/Appellant, Diane M. Lama, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(C) and 270-73(D) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a residence with insufficient lot depth and side yard setback. The lot was created in 1976 as part of the Williamsburg Park Subdivision. The home has been in existence since 1986 and is located at 131 Lexington Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-31, Medium Density Residential Zone. The lot depth is slightly less than the 150-foot minimum required lot depth and an existing in- ground pool encroaches into the 15-foot side yard setback required for parcels in the Medium Density Residential Zone. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Luciano O'Lama I am Luciano O'Lama from the Lama Law Firm, representing Mr. Caskey. My address is 2343 North Triphammer Road, Ithaca, New York, 14850 Larry Caskey Larry Caskey, 131 Lexington Drive, Ithaca, NY. Mr. O'Lama —And we have nothing further to add to the paperwork previously filed. Ms. Balestra — I have something that I need to note. There is a typo in my memo. In the second paragraph, the last sentence, "the Town of Ithaca building permit issued a building permit for the pool in 1999 without requiring the applicant to obtain a variance." Its not 1991. It was 1999 that the building permit was issued. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. ZBA 05-21-07 Pg. 11 Ms. Balestra — Clarification. Chairperson Sigel —And it's not simply a pool, right? It's enclosed in a structure. Mr. O'Lama — Its enclosed. Yes. Chairperson Sigel — I assume that is considered part of the house. I mean it's attached to the house, right? Mr. O'Lama — Yes. Ms. Balestra — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — The pool, actually, is probably conforming as long as it's got a few feet from the wall to the pool. Ms. Balestra — The pool itself, you mean? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. Ms. Balestra — I guess so. Chairperson Sigel — The actual hole in the ground. Ms. Balestra — [laughing] I guess so. Chairperson Sigel — It's the wall that's the problem, right? [Ms. Brock whispering.] Ms. Balestra — I know. It's an excellent observation. Mr. Krantz—And its 19 years that it's been in violation already. Ms. Balestra — Yeah. Chairperson Sigel —Well, the, yeah, the lot depth has been there. Any questions for the applicant? I don't have any questions of substance, but I do have...let me see if I can find it now. In the letter you submitted that was apparently written by Diane Lama... Mr. O'Lama —Well, that is actually my wife. So if there is a typo in there, it's my fault. Chairperson Sigel — I just find it curious that you seem to be questioning in the letter the existence of any nonconformity. You say the conditions in question total less than 5 feet of noncompliance, if any. Then you say that the Town issued a CO for the addition that allegedly violates the side yard setback. Yet you submitted a site plan or an ZBA 05-21-07 Pg. 12 engineer's drawing of the property showing that it is deficient. So I was surprised that you were trying to claim that it is an alleged violation. Mr. O'Lama — Let me put it in some context. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to make any admissions that I couldn't back out of in an application to get something that we need before a closing is scheduled. So as the lawyer is accustomed to do, especially in a criminal case, we use those words as a safeguard when we write about something. Chairperson Sigel — It just seem inappropriate when by your own documentation it was the case that they were facts. Mr. O'Lama — Well, to respond to that I would just say that the documentation was provided by other professionals that we relied upon to submit the records in question and we didn't want our client to adopt those records in any way by submitting this application and so that leaves that window open. That is really the best answer I have for you at this point. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I would think that you would want to attest the validity of documents that you submit, though. Mr. O'Lama — Sure. Especially if it means getting the variance. Chairperson Sigel —As I said, they were not questions of substance. Mr. O'Lama — Sure. Chairperson Sigel — I don't have any problem with the variance. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Mountin — Nope. Chairperson Sigel — We'll open the public hearing if anyone wishes to speak. Last chance. Okay. We'll close the public hearing. Okay. We have no environmental assessment for this. So I will move to grant the appeal of Larry Caskey, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71c and 270- 73d of the Town of Ithaca code to be permitted to maintain a residence with insufficient lot depth and side yard setback at tax parcel number 72.-1-31, medium density residential zone with the findings that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied, specifically that the benefit that the applicant seeks, which is to be able to legally maintain and sell his home cannot feasibly be achieved by any other means, that there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood given that the property has been in existence in its present form for approximately 8 years, that the requested variance is not substantial, there will be no physical or environmental affects, and that while the alleged difficulty was self-created, never-the-less that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. And with the following ZBA 05-21-07 Pg. 13 conditions: that the rear yard setback be no less than 148 feet and that the side yard setback...it looks like it should be a little bit less than or a little bit more than 11 feet. Ms. Balestra — It's the 11 and a quarter feet. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. That the side yard setback be no less than 11 feet and with the subsequent condition that no further building encroach within that side yard setback other than what already exists. Susan? Ms. Brock — Kirk, I believe you said that the rear yard setback should be no less than 148 feet and it's not a setback, it's the rear yard depth. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. Correct that to rear yard depth. Okay. Second? Mr. Mountin — Me. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. Mr. O'Lama — Thank you very much for your time. Chairperson Sigel — You're all set. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-022 Area Variance Larry Caskey 131 Lexington Drive Tax Parcel No. 72.-1-31 May 21, 2007 MOVED by Chairperson Sigel, SECONDED by Dave Mountin. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Larry Caskey, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71 c and 270-73d of the Town of Ithaca code to be permitted to maintain a residence with insufficient lot depth and side yard setback at tax parcel number 72.-1-31, medium density residential zone With the findings that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied- 1. atisfied:1. Specifically that the benefit that the applicant seeks, which is to be able to legally maintain and sell his home cannot feasibly be achieved by any other means, ZBA 05-21-07 Pg. 14 2. That there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood given that the property has been in existence in its present form for approximately 8 years, 3. That the requested variance is not substantial, there will be no physical or environmental affects, and 4. That while the alleged difficulty was self-created, nevertheless, that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. With the following conditions- 1. onditions:1. That the rear yard depth be no less than 148 feet and that the side yard setback be no less than 11 feet, and 2. With the subsequent condition that no further building encroach within that side yard setback other than what already exists. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Ms. Brock—We're not done. Mr. Niefer—We're getting compensated almost as much as attorneys now. Mr. Mountin — Is this for us? This isn't for us is it? Ms. Balestra — This is for you. Mr. Mountin — Is this training? Are we doing training? [Several talking at once.] Ms. Brock— The Town Board has requested a recommendation from the Zoning Board as to the change. So what you are doing tonight is considering a recommendation on the proposed changes for yard definitions. Mr. Mountin — Oh, okay. Chairperson Sigel — So the way that the code was written, well, currently, I guess as our lovely hostess has pointed out. There is some ambiguity. As you can see, there are portions of the yard that are considered both sides and front, rear and side there. And ZBA 05-21-07 Pg. 15 the proposal is to just make it so that when you say "front" it just means what you would think of as front, which is...so more specifically if you say something is allowed in the side yard, it won't be permitted in front of the front facade of the house. Mr. Mountin — Is the front considered the front that faces the street, or where the front door of the house is? Ms. Balestra — It's the side facing the street. Mr. Mountin — Even though it may not be the front door? Ms. Brock— You know, the building department has a whole series of hierarchies they go through to determine what is considered the front yard and they do look at sometimes...it depends where the driveway is, what the street address is and they have several other things so I can't answer more specifically than that. Ms. Balestra — In most cases it is where the street...[interrupted] [Several talking at once.] Mr. Ellsworth — Its up on the lake. Ms. Brock— Rear yards are on the lake in lake front residential zone. Chairperson Sigel — It can only be ambiguous if the house is on a corner, I think. If you are not on a corner, then, by definition the front yard is between the street and the house. Mr. Mountin — I was just wondering with the reference to the front door if the front door... Chairperson Sigel — No. I mean you can't turn your house and then make the front the side yard. Ms. Brock— Right and the answer I was giving actually was on a corner lot because I just saw some emails about that with the Duffy subdivision. Do you remember that? Anyway, right now the code definition for rear yard is the yard between the rear lot line and the rear line of the principle building extended to the sidelines of the lot. And front yard is something sort of similar and then we get to the definition for side yard, which is the yard between the principle building and the side lot line and extending through from the front yard to the rear yard. And it that extending through from the front yard to the rear yard that gives us the current ambiguity so that you could actually read it as (drawing on board) obviously this, but then it says extending through from the front yard to the rear yard. Does it mean all of this (referring to her drawing)? And that is why...(not audible)...and the Town is now in the process of reviewing some changes to the Zoning Ordinance that actually restrict what we put in front yards. They did this with ZBA 05-21-07 Pg. 16 the solar panel ordinance most recently where they said they could be located in the side yard or the rear yards only. They have an amateur radio facility change to the Zoning Ordinance that is working its way through the process and again that will not allow facilities in the front yards and we are looking at wind power, residential wind power facilities as well. Again, it would not be allowed in the front yard. It would only be allowed in the side or rear yards. So this definition is becoming more and more important now and that is why they are looking to clarify what are side yards, front yards, and rear yards. The other problem with the current definitions is that, um, it really works well if you have a house that is a box shape, but many houses are not box shapes any more. They can have additions or other elements that maybe stick out in front or in back or u-shaped or whatever. So what the proposed definitions do is try to deal with that as well. If you actually look at your agenda and flip it over you have the proposed definition on the back of your agenda. Not the hearing notice, but the actual agenda. So, for example, the formal definition of the front yard talks about the building...the definition proposed for the front yard be the yard between the street right- of-way line and the front facade of the principle building extended from each rear most exterior corner of the front facade to the adjacent side lot line. So if you have this type of fixture (referring to drawing), you go to the rear most exterior corner draw a line to the side lot line and that is what it would be. It is not the same depth, um, the front yard depth is different on each side of the house, because of its shape... [Several talking]. Ms. Brock— So it is a very simple way...Kirk I know has looked at this and worked on this quite a bit, too. Kristie Rice, the Senior Code Enforcement Officer, also worked with us to try to come up with definitions that will be simple, but easily understand...(not audible)...any other questions. Does everyone have the definitions? Mr. Niefer—Are they proposing to change the 15 foot side yard figure at all? Ms. Brock— No. They are not looking at any of the figures. They are just looking at how to define what is the side yard, rear yard, front yard. They are not looking currently at any of the setback requirements. Mr. Ellsworth — Has this been a problem with many of the cases that have been in front of us? Ms. Brock— I don't know if its been in front of you, but when we did the solar panels to the Zoning Ordinance, that is when we realized, oh, we said these can't be in the front yard, but...they could be in the side yard. Actually what it said was that they could be in both in the side and rear yards only. Chairperson Sigel — Basically the motivation was so that we could have a law and say something was allowed in the side yard or the rear yard and not have it end up in the front yard as it could have before. ZBA 05-21-07 Pg. 17 Ms. Brock—And its just that now we're really having a number of things coming very quickly for the Town Board in terms of regulation that do limit placement and say they can't be in the front yard and so we just want to make it very clear. So if something like this does end up in front of you with the argument...(not audible)...so anyway that's what is motivating this change in the definitions. The Town Board just asked for a recommendation as to these definitions because you do often get appeals involving these different yards and so they thought it would be important for you to look at this and think about this issue. If you have any suggested changes or if you think this looks fine I think the Town Board would be very interested in hearing about it. Mr. Ellsworth —Are they going to show an example or put it all in words? Chairperson Sigel — I don't think they plan to...we don't have any a plan to put any kind of an illustration in there, right? Just the text? Ms. Brock— No. Just this text. We weren't going to be put it in the Code, but we might have some explanatory materials that can be handed out. Ms. Balestra — I think so. Ms. Brock— Yeah. I don't think it was going to end up in the Code itself, but I think... Ms. Balestra — There was some discussion about adding diagrams similar to the proposed ones at top in some materials that we would hand out to applicants, have for the boards or for staff. Mr. Ellsworth —As far as you know, this is not going to create a bunch of cases for us. Ms. Brock—We hope not. Chairperson Sigel — I don't think so. Mr. Ellsworth — I don't recall any. Chairperson Sigel — I don't think we've had things ever hinge on what was considered a side or front or rear yard. It's really just to try to better clarify the code. Anyone have any problem or any... Mr. Ellsworth — Nope. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I'll move that this board recommend the changes as outlined on the back of our agenda. Second? Mr. Ellsworth — Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? ZBA 05-21-07 Pg. 18 Board —Aye. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-023 Recommendation to the Town Board Definitions of Front, Rear and Side Yards May 21, 2007 MOVED by Chairperson Sigel, SECONDED by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board recommend the changes as outlined on the back of our agenda. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel adjourns the meeting at 7:42 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairman