Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2003-02-24 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, February 24, 2003 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; David Dubow, Acting Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Jan Gorovitz, 841 Taughannock Boulevard; Gary Carlson, 2 Saunders Road; Rita Carlson, 2 Saunders Road; Michael Hovanic, 1395 Danby Road; John Powers, 841 Taughannock Boulevard; Ernie Bayles, 117 Ridgeway Road, Brooktondale; John Powers, address not given/found. Chairperson Sigel called the February 24, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening and welcome to the February meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have three appeals: that of Gary and Rita Carlson; Jan Goravitz; and Nicholas Van Eck. We'll take them in that order. APPEAL of Gary and Rita Carlson, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a new single-family residence with a rear yard building setback of 10 + feet (30 foot setback required) at 2 Saunders Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44.2-2-1, Residence District R-15. Side yard setback of less than the required 15 feet may also be requested. Mr. Frost— I threw in that side yard setback just in case. We don't lose anything by advertising something that may not become necessary. I'm not sure and I don't believe we need a side yard setback, but it's in there, just in case. Chairperson Sigel —Are Mr. and Mrs. Carlson here? If you'd like, you can come and sit there and please state your name and address for the record and give us a brief overview of what you want and why. Gary Carlson, 2 Saunders Road - This is Mike Hovanic, he's my builder. Basically, I put a purchase offer in on this property not realizing that there was a water line running right through the middle of it with an easement. Ordered the home and got everything ready to go and all of a sudden discovered it. I had originally planned on putting the house in line with all the rest of them and we met with Kermit Cutter, the person we were buying the property from and he suggested that we switch the house and move it around so that it would be, as long as it stayed in line with the all rest of them so that the garage was far enough away from Saunders Road so that it would line up with the rest of the houses. Turn it so that it's just a little bit offset. Not parallel with King Road, but at a little bit of an angle because if we set it within the building frame work that's set there, if you look at the picture that's there, the view out the home from the sliding glass doors in the house, you're looking right at the garage next door. If we move it back a little bit and turn it at an angle, then the second picture, the 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 lower picture, is what we would be looking at through there. It just makes it a little bit easier to live with, especially with this being our retirement home. We really need to move back into that thirty-foot area so that we can set the home at the right angle. Chairperson Sigel — Do you feel that you need to go all the way to just a ten foot rear yard setback. Mr. Carlson — Yes, that's what we were doing, setting it up for a ten foot. The further I can get away from that other house, the better. As it stands right now, it's sitting right in my lap. Chairperson Sigel — Just looking at your lower photo, it doesn't seem to quite agree with how you have the house drawn with the ten foot setback, in regard to that garage of your neighbors'. It looks like you'd have to be standing in your garage. Mr. Carlson — Basically, I think it would move down just a little bit so that you wouldn't see the garage in the second photo. Chairperson Sigel — Does anyone have any comments or questions? What is the side yard setback requirements? Michael Hovanic— 15, ten for the garage. Chairperson Sigel —Another way to look at it is that this is a corner lot, you could argue, I suppose that you could call the front along King Road, that makes the ten feet only five feet short of a side yard setback. It looks like they have 20 feet on the side? Mr. Hovanic— There's 20 feet from the end of the garage to the property line. Mr. Niefer— Do you know what the Town of Ithaca RO right of way is to the west of your parcel? Is that a road. Mr. Carlson — It's a walking trail. Mr. Niefer— Do you know whether that's the centerline or is that the western boundary of the walking path? Mr. Carlson — The property line there — That's just the edge of our property and then you've got the waling path and then you've got the Hospicare property next door. So the walking path just goes between the two. Mr. Niefer—Any idea what the width of the walking path is? Mr. Carlson — I think it's twelve foot. Mr. Ellsworth — 20 feet. Chairperson Sigel —Well, the water easement is 20 feet. I don't see the width of the path. 2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 Mr. Carlson — The path, I think, is twelve. I've been on it and I think it's about twelve feet wide. Mr. Niefer— So, in effect really, an additional ten or twelve foot buffer to the Hospice Care property there too. So that the corner of his property doesn't really get that close to other developable property. Chairperson Sigel — True. Although it does get pretty close to the path. Mr. Niefer— Yes, but the path is just going to be path for some people to walk on. Mr. Hovanic— If I can make a comment, too. The approach further within that building envelope to the front yard, which would be Saunders Road, he will be kind of off the plane of all the other homes on the property that are down through there, so it sticks closer to Saunders Road. Mr. Krantz— Is this going to be a two-story house? Mr. Carlson — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — I would maybe suggest to the Board that if we do approve it, we maybe limit it to no less than ten feet and leave it up to the applicant to make sure that they don't go any more than ten feet. Maybe also consider some screening, vegetative screening, along the path and the house. Mr. Ellsworth — Have you started digging already? Mr. Carlson — No, we're waiting for you. Tomorrow morning. Chairperson Sigel — If we felt maybe the house may be too close to the path, we could require a couple of trees or something along that edge of the house to make it a little more separated from the path. It is within our power to require that. Mike any comments on the Environmental Assessment? Mr. Smith — There isn't one just for the setback. Chairperson Sigel — I have one in my packet. Mr. Smith — Only part one. Mr. Frost—We automatically attach them to the applications so that we don't overlook anything. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — So we don't have to do a SEAR motion. No Environmental Assessment, would someone like to make a motion. 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-011 : Gary and Rita Carlson, 2 Saunders Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Map No. 44.2-2-1, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Gary and Rita Carlson, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a new single-family residence with a rear yard building setback of not less than 10 feet at 2 Saunders Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44.2-2-1, Residence District R-15. FINDINGS: a. All the requirements for an area variance have been met. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. None 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: Jan Gorovitz, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a non- conforming building/lot, with the addition of a new second floor space at 841 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-33, Residence District R-15. Said parcel contains two residential buildings, whereas only one is allowed and a garage located along the highway line, without the required building setback. Chairperson Sigel — Hello. Please have a seat. State your name and address and a brief overview of what you're doing. Jan Gorovitz, 841 Taughannock Boulevard — This is John Powers, he's my contractor. I bought the house about a year and a half ago and two bedrooms and one bath. One room is currently a study. I'm asking for the addition because we are soon to have an addition to our family, I'm pregnant and going to have a baby in July, there's no attic, no basement, no storage, no room and we need to add another room onto the construction. I've talked to both neighbors on both sides and they're very supportive of the addition. One neighbor, which came over and offered many suggestions that make it a little bit more expensive. Chairperson Sigel — Is it more ascetically pleasing for them. 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 Ms. Gorovitz — No. I think they have all the faith in our decision making. I was before the Board once before. I tore down the existing garage and put up a new one. I think they're very pleased with the work. Certainly, the work we intend to do is to enhance the property. Chairperson Sigel — Does anyone have any questions? So the footprint of the house will remain the same? Ms. Gorovitz — Yes. And actually, I don't know if you can tell from the pictures, but there is already an existing entranceway on the top. We plan to just expand that entranceway and put another room and another bath. So there is already an existing structure up there. Chairperson Sigel — So then the existing entranceway will be what is marked "hallway" on the drawing. Mr. Ellsworth — No Iakeview problems with the neighbors? Ms. Gorovitz — No, it's total un-obstruction and the study that you had come out shows that you won't see it from the road as well, it's just that far down. It also won't cover the full length of the house. Do you have this picture as well? Chairperson Sigel-Are all the setbacks okay? Mike, any comments? Mr. Smith — No, not really. This one's a little bit different than some of the ones on the lake. It's a smaller addition and it does have the screening of the second house in front of it where the addition is going. There is also a lot of mature vegetation, which screens it from the sides and a couple in the front. Mr. Frost— Is the house closer to the lake rented? Ms. Gorovitz — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — I'm assuming that you're not planning or needing to take out any substantial trees to do this. Ms. Gorovitz — No none. No vegetation will be touched at all. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. Chairperson Sigel —Would someone like to make a motion on the Environmental Assessment? 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-012 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Jan Gorovitz, 841 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25.-2-33, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Jan Gorovitz, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a non-conforming building/lot, with the addition of a new second floor space at 841 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-33, Residence District R-15. Said parcel contains two residential buildings, whereas only one is allowed and a garage located along the highway line, without the required building setback. This motion is based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated 2/14/03. 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. 2003-013 : Jan Gorovitz, 841 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25.-2-33, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Jan Gorovitz, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a non-conforming building/lot, with the addition of a new second floor space at 841 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25.-2-33, Residence District R-15. Said parcel contains two residential buildings, whereas only one is allowed and a garage located along the highway line, without the required building setback. FINDINGS: a. The requirements for a special approval have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. The addition be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon 6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : Nicholas Van Eck, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct additional living space on an existing residence, with said addition being located 10 + feet from the east side lot property line (15 foot setback required) at 205 Roat Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-5-2, Residence District R-15. Chairperson Sigel — Now we have lots of time to find lots of fault with our third appeal of the evening. Please give us your name and address and what you're doing. Nicholas Van Eck, 205 Roat Street - This is my architect Ernie Bayles. My wife, my two sons and I currently live in a two bedroom house on a very large lot. It's a great place for kids to grow up. The kids are getting bigger now and I'm sure they're going to want their own bedrooms and it's kind of a small house. We'd like to add a garage space, redo the kitchen, a new family room and above have two bedrooms and a bath. The property line is 10.8 feet from the edge of the existing carport, which will be torn down. The flat roof section, I believe you have a picture of will be torn down and then the new addition put on to make it look like it was always a part of the house. Chairperson Sigel — It looks like it will be a much nicer house when you are done, not that it's not nice now. Mr. Ellsworth —Very nice. Chairperson Sigel — It looks like we have a couple of letters from your neighbors. One of these is the neighbor on that side of the house? Mr. Van Eck- Unfortunately not. The letters are from the other two abutters. We gave all the neighbors a package similar to what you have, explaining exactly what we're going to do. Two of the three abutters gave us letters. Yesterday, Reed Dewey, the owner of the house that we share that property line with came over to my house and said that he has no problem with what we are planning to do, he just wanted to make sure that we weren't planning on removing the very large oak trees that line that property line and are on our property. I told him that we are only going to trim two branches and leave the rest. They're very very large oak trees. Mr. Frost— Mr. Dewey is the last name. Mr. Van Eck— Yes. Mr. Frost— He called me this afternoon and said the same thing. Chairperson Sigel — Does anyone have any questions? 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 Mr. Frost— So, if you want the records to show that I received a telephone call at Town Hall from Mr. Dewey, the neighboring property owner in support of the appeal with the condition that the trees not be cut down. Chairperson Sigel —Again, we have no Environmental Assessment on this application. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:27 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:28 p.m. Chairperson Sigel —Would someone like to make a motion? Mr. Ellsworth —We're moving right along here, we'll be done in 45 minutes. Chairperson Sigel — No, we have more to discuss after this. Mr. Ellsworth — Ten feet is going to do it? Mr. Van Eck - Yes. It will probably be eleven, but that's what—the new concept drawing is about to eleven feet. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-014 : Nicholas Van Eck, 205 Roat Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71.-5-2, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Nicholas Van Eck, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct additional living space on an existing residence, with said addition being located not less than 10 feet from the east side property line at 205 Roat Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-5-2, Residence District R-15. FINDINGS: a. The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. The addition be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. b. The trees along the east property line not be removed. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Other Business: Peter Newell Mr. Frost— Most of you, I hope, remember Peter Newell on 891 Taughannock Boulevard. He was the gentleman who, the first time around, was denied. He had three buildings on a parcel of land. I don't know what all you want me to pass around, but he has three buildings on his land and the desire was to modify one building along the lake. Actually, he had four buildings. The appeal got denied and he came back with some modified plans. His modified plans were approved. To cut to the quick here, he had a property on the lake, a small house on the lake that, he had indicated that he was going to add to the volume of the building. He applied for a demolition permit and we went out to look at the building and saw at least 75% of the building demolished. His response to me was that he was doing exactly what this Board approved. I don't know how well you remember things. Forgive me for not having a lot of copies to hand out. What I was attempting to do with Mr. Newell was have him come back for an interpretation and have this formally advertised that the interpretation and/or the modification was previously granted special approval. His timing, he got the papers to us last week and I didn't have time to advertise. I'm going to pass a picture around here, which is a picture of the building on the lake. One thing we discovered and actually we discovered this on Thursday, is on his Environmental Assessment Form, he had indicated that on the house on the lake, he states that the description of the project he is going to make minor alterations to the lower building, put up stairs. Basically, what he has done is demolish most of the building down to the foundation. I probably should have had copies available to distribute to the Board and I apologize. Mr. Ellsworth — Is this demolishing that he has done illegal? Does he need this Board's approval? Mr. Frost—Well, my interpretation of what I the Board approved was that he was just that he was basically going to be taking the top off of that building and replacing the top. Mr. Dubow— What are his intentions with the area, re-build something there? Mr. Frost— Yes, re-build something on the same footprint. Our interpretation was that the Board only gave permission to basically cut the top of the building. Ron, you have the EAF in front of you. When I read that, it seemed to me to be clear that there were only going to be minor alterations to the building. I think what really probably happened was that, as he tried to take off the top, he just kept going down and down, not liking what he saw and then came to the bottom. There's not even the remnants of a foundation there. Interestingly, he said to me that if he had to come back to the Board, he'd probably come back with a different plan. I still don't think he's decided what he wants to do. Chairperson Sigel — The Board has a few options. We could make a finding that was he's done is within what you've already granted him, in which case, he'd be all set. We could decide that what he's done is not included in what was approved and then we'd have to make a determination on either 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 approving or not approving what he has done and I'm not sure what the consequences of that would be. It seems like he would end up with no building if we did not approve. Mr. Dubow— He could come back. It's obvious that he has to build something now that he has demolished that section. So, you could argue that he needs special approval. Mr. Ellsworth — I'm a little confused. Do you need special approval to demolish? Mr. Frost—As that EAF reads, the way I understood his intent and what I thought was coming to the Board with, was that he was going to cut the top of the building, raise the roof and putting a deck on. The word demolition did not show up anywhere. Mr. Ellsworth — I don't think he needs approval to demolish it. He needs our approval to build back. Mr. Dubow— Let me ask it a different way. If he never had come in for anything, he simply demolished that portion of the house, would he have violated anything more than not having gotten the demolition permit. Mr. Frost— Theoretically, you need a special approval to do that. It's non-conforming. So you make any change to a non-conforming property, as with where the intent is something non-conforming. This was a parcel that, I believe, started out with four dwelling units, he was going to divide a couple. It's non-conforming, if you make any change, even if you take it down and re-build it, it's still non- conforming. Mr. Dubow—What's the non-conformance on that lot? Mr. Frost— Multiple dwellings. Mr. Ellsworth — The simplest thing to do is to make it very clear that before he does any construction, we want to see him back here. Mr. Dubow— He would have to come in for a building permit for any new construction right? Mr. Frost— Not necessarily, if he just took the top of a building off. Mr. Dubow— No, no now what he's done here when he wants to rebuild? You could deny it. Mr. Frost- He contends that what he had shown this Board is what he has done. I don't see any evidence in these papers that I have to indicate that he's done what he said, that anything would be demolished. That EAF, like I said, he had printed on that "minor alterations". Unless you think that demolition is a minor alteration, I don't know. Chairperson Sigel — I guess what he might argue is that the net affect of what he has done after he demolishes it and rebuilds it to be like it was before except a little bit bigger. He might argue that the net affect is a minor alteration. 10 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 Mr. Frost— Other than the pictures which I got last week, we never saw the building being taken down until after. If he builds it back on the exact same foot print, is there really a big issue, I'm not sure that there is. The question is, is that what you approved. Mr. Dubow— Do you have the resolution, the approved resolution? Mr. Frost— Yes. Chairperson Sigel — You could also argue that the intent of the Board was not to let him build a new building that is going to be around a long time. This is an older crowded lot. Letting someone modify an old building a little bit is different from letting someone build a new building that we're going to be stuck with for 50 or 70 years. Not that you can't just keep fixing and maintaining something forever. Mr. Dixon —We could always fine him 50 bucks and make him pick up the garbage. Mr. Ellsworth —At the moment, he's enhanced the property. There's fewer building on it. Mr. Frost— It's just that when I read the minutes and demolition was part of the plan, then the word demolition should have shown up. Chairperson Sigel — I agree. If he wanted to re-build the house, he should have made it clear. So, I think he does need to come back in and ask for special approval to do whatever it is that he's currently planning to do. Mr. Frost—What I would like to do is write it up just as I would have for tonight as an interpretation and/or special approval of modification of a previously granted special approval. I'll be able to give it to you in the mail out and anything else that's pertinent to this. Mr. Dixon — Can you schedule it next month? Mr. Frost— That was my intention. My intent was to do it tonight because I knew we had a short meeting, but he didn't respond to my most recent request. He has built a pretty intense rail system to get debris and building supplies from up above. Chairperson Sigel — Has he worked on his tunnel yet? Mr. Frost— No, not yet, not that I know of. The only thing that he has done is just demolished up the lower building. But again, you'll have information to read prior to the next meeting. Mr. Ellsworth — If he's going to change things further, he better bring all that in here. Mr. Frost— That could be April because he keeps on telling me, or he's said more than once that if he has to come back, he's going to come back with a different plan anyhow. So, I don' t think he knows what he wants to do for sure. I think you've got to be careful, in that when you approve something that he's got a good sense of what you're approving. 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 Mr. Ellsworth — He's got written things from all of his neighbors saying that they approve of what he is doing. Mr. Dubow— You haven't received any complaints from any of the neighbors? Mr. Frost— No. We just went out to do an inspection of the building before we issued a demolition permit and we found that the building was pretty much gone. Chairperson Sigel — You might want to suggest to him that he also, if he plans to bring plans in that are different from what the building was originally, he might also want to bring in plans that would reconstruct the building as it was. Mr. Frost— The only thing we have to go on is a picture. Mr. Krantz— In all fairness, the building was kind of a shack to start with. It's hard to partially demolish a shack. When he got started, I could see why he kept going. Chairperson Sigel — I agree, but- Mr. Frost— But was that what you were approving in the first place? Mr. Krantz— The big thing is that this Board should know what he's doing to be able to approve it. Mr. Frost— He brought me all kinds of pictures and I would have invited him tonight, but without having it on a formal agenda tonight, it would probably be an argument, unless he heard what he wanted. Unless you said to him what he wanted to hear. So I said give me some papers and we'll come back. Mr. Ellsworth — The other thing, I guess is that we don't want to see ten different alternatives. We want to see what he's going to do and he sticks with it. Mr. Frost t- It's got to be up to him. I'll reject it if he doesn't give me proper papers. Mr. Dixon — He's his own worst client. Mr. Frost—Again, one other thing, if I may just show you on this. Where he said depth and volume only, there is nothing said about demolition. Chairperson Sigel —Was this in our original packet? Mr. Frost— Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, well, I think we've probably covered this enough, at least on the record for this evening. Did you have anything else? Mr. Frost— No, I'm just going to write it up as an interpretation and/or variance, give him the option. 12 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 24, 2003 Mr. Niefer— I imagine if he's going to come in with a proposal that the proposal is going to show the original footprint. That's going to be an addition. Mr. Frost— I'm not even sure that he had a foundation on that. Mr. Niefer— In my way of thinking, I want to know what the original footprint of the original building was. Mr. Dubow— Is that the structure that we're talking about? Mr. Frost— That's what he is tentatively proposing, yes. Mr. Dubow — Is this what he handed in originally with his application? Mr. Frost - I would say yes. Mr. Dubow— It implies that he was going to change it because that certainly doesn't look like what is there now. Mr. Frost— Yes, but if he raises the roof, you can see the roof there. Mr. Dubow— Okay, I see. Mr. Frost—All he's doing is raising the roof. Chairperson Sigel closed the February 24, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at 7:50 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chair Lori Waring, Deputy Town Clerk 13