Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2003-03-17 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, March 17, 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; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Lawrence Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road; Ken Poyer, 206 DuBois Road Chairperson Sigel called the March 17, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Welcome to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Tonight we have two appeals. That of Ken Poyer and that of Orlando lacovelli. Appeal: Ken Poyer, Appellant, seeking a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a second residential building at 206 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22-1-1.22, Residence District R-30. Said Ordinance allows only one residential building on a single parcel. The Appellant's intent is to convert the existing residential building into a non-residential accessory structure upon completion of the construction for the second building. Chairperson Sigel — If you could just state your name and address for the record and give us an overview of your project. Ken Poyer, 206 DuBois Road — I'd like to build a house. I presently live in right now, what I call a "garage house". I am going to move out of that, into my house when I get it done. Mr. Frost — I did an inspection today and Mr. Poyer's intent is, even with the heating system — he's going to pull that out of the garage eventually when he gets the main portion of the primary house built, he will be unconverting the structure he is living in now to a garage with garage doors. Under the Zoning Ordinance, he could put a mobile home on the parcel for up to 18 months while the house is being constructed on the parcel. In this case, we have a guy who built a structure to be used as a garage and he is temporarily living in the garage until he gets the house built. Chairperson Sigel — I wonder if it's the case, Andy, has he really violated the law? Mr. Frost— Not at this point, but once we give him a building permit to build a second residential building. I couldn't do that if there's already a house on the parcel out there. Chairperson Sigel — I wonder if maybe somehow, before you give him the Certificate of Occupancy, say- well, I guess you couldn't really issue a permit because it doesn't make sense. Mr. Frost— I couldn't because he'd already be inhabiting the residence on the property. 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — You could wonder though, is it really a residential building before it has a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Frost— It's got a place to sleep, to cook, to go to the bathroom. It fosters all the provisions by definition of what a dwelling unit is. Chairperson Sigel — But does the new one become the residential building until it's actually - Mr. Frost—If I have plans that show a kitchen and bathroom. I understand your point. As much as I'd like to avoid this, I guess I couldn't see any way to avoid this. If he gave me a plan that had the structure as a second residential unit, he couldn't get the permit. I was actually going to throw in, I think it's somewhere in Section 57, it does make reference to the mobile home, but it's not a mobile home so I didn't really see how that came into play. I'll read that to the Board, if you'd like. Actually, it's section 59 and the title is "Trailers", it's probably politically incorrect these days. What it says is "One mobile home may be placed on a vacant lot in a residential or agricultural district for use as temporary housing during the construction of a permanent dwelling on said lot for a period not to exceed 18 months." Chairperson Sigel — Now, would this be a use variance? Mr. Frost—I suppose. I don't know, our attorney should be here shortly. It's clearly not an area variance and it's not a special approval. But, I wonder if there's some way— should the Board consider to grant the approval, one argument that could be made a specification is that he could put a mobile home on the, in this case, he doesn't have a mobile home and the structure that he's living in will be converted back to a garage. Chairperson Sigel — Could you make the garage mobile? Strap some wheels to it? Personally, I don't have any problem with the request and I suspect other Board members don't either. The only problem is that if it is a use variance, that's a rather strict test to meet. Mr. Frost—Well, one of the things, that he has no home to live in. The home he had has been sold. Chairperson Sigel — That doesn't really help with a use variance. It's self-created. Mr. Niefer— It's my understanding, of course, that kitchen will be removed at an appropriate time. Will the bathroom be remaining and so on? Mr. Poyer— The bathroom will stay. Mr. Niefer— The bathroom will stay. Mr. Poyer— Just the toilet and the sink. Mr. Niefer— No shower? 2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 Mr. Poyer— No. Mr. Frost— Even the floor, they have a concrete floor in this garage with throw rugs down. It 's obvious to me and I've been around enough years that this structure is for temporary habitation and will be a garage. Mr. Poyer— Yes, it's temporary. Mr. Frost— One of the things that we could do, because I suspect that John Barney will be along and since we're really having difficulty figuring out how to grant this, is maybe to adjourn this until John Barney shows up, in the meantime to hear the next case. Chairperson Sigel — Yes, that might make sense. Mr. Krantz—What do the need to get a use variance? Chairperson Sigel —A use variance, the applicant would have to show that they cannot obtain a reasonable economic return from the property in question, the hardship is unique, it does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood, the alleged hardship has not be self-created.lf any one of those fail, then we, by law, are not permitted to give the variance. Mr. Krantz— Just a thought, but this is over a six acre parcel. Couldn't that simply be subdivided? Chairperson Sigel — That's a good idea, but that would be additional trouble and expense for the applicant. Mr. Frost— The things that we're discussing, John, is the first appeal, Ken Poyer here. Kirk has raised the question of, if this is a use variance, how does the Board justify allowing them to get a permit to build a second residential building. Basically, Ken, here, he's got a garage on a parcel of land. He has kitchen and bathroom in this garage and he wants to get a building permit to build his real house. At this time, he lives in the garage until the house is complete, then he takes out the kitchen and, in fact a lot of the mechanicals that are in the garage will go into the new structure and then the garage will become a garage. My problem is that I could give him a permit for building the garage residence, but I couldn't see how I could issue a second permit for a second residence without still the need for a variance. I have brought up that Section 59 of the ordinance does allow a mobile home to be placed on a parcel for 18 months, but this is not a mobile home. So Kirk was trying to figure out how we could justify granting some type of a use variance. We all like your tie, by the way. Mr. Barney— Top of the morning to you. Kirk, in his usual perceptive way, is right on. It's a problem. How long do you expect to live in this garage. Mr. Poyer— Probably until September, October. I'll have my house done by then. 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 Mr. Frost - Clearly it's a garage. It's got a concrete floor in there and I'm confident that he intends to have it as a garage. But, the only thing that I'm thinking of is some how putting in some sort of an abeyance on a second house, but then how do I get him a permit? Mr. Barney— You know when you're a kid and you wanted candy and your mother said no you can't have the candy and you tried to figure out some other way to get it. This is one of those situations if the Board chose, it could grant a time limited variance for an overlap. Could you do it based on the criteria and the law? Probably not, quite frankly. Is anybody going to object and run around and come after you? Probably not. Chairperson Sigel — It is definitely a use variance, isn't it? Mr. Barney— Yes, it is. Chairperson Sigel —Any comments? Mr. Krantz— This seems so utterly reasonable. Mr. Barney— Particularly in light of the language, it does allow a mobile home during a period of construction. The concept is essentially the same thing. Chairperson Sigel — It would be a stretch to make a finding where we could incorporate this. Mr. Niefer— Couldn't we say that this is in lieu of a mobile home. He's got to disconnect certain things or disable them. Mr. Barney—Well, I would think that you would want those kinds of conditions there for when he turns it back into a garage. Mr. Sigel — I don't really see any easy way to say it's equivalent to a mobile home. Mr. Barney— Leaving aside the legalities of it, my preference would be for you to consider a very specific time frame for this variance. I assume you're going to live there to save money? Mr. Poyer— Yes. Mr. Barney— It would be a hardship to spend money, going out and renting another place while you're building this? Mr. Poyer— Oh yeah. Mr. Barney— The best thing to do would be to put some sort of time limit in place, expressly relating to this situation including the hardship of going out and renting another facility. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:19 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — If anyone would like to speak. Mr. Fabbroni appears silent in the matter, so let's close the Public Hearing. Mike any comments on the Environmental Assessment. Mr. Smith — Nothing to add, no. Chairperson Sigel — How long do you think, you said September maybe? Mr. Poyer— Why don't you give me until Thanksgiving. Chairperson Sigel —We could probably give you until the end of the year. Mr. Frost— Ken is a contractor and a house builder. Chairperson Sigel — I don't think the end of the year is really a problem. If there are no further comments, would someone like to make a motion on the Environmental Assessment? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-015: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Ken Pover, 206 DuBois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22.-1-1.22, Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Ken Poyer, seeking a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a second residential building at 206 DuBois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22.4-1.22, Residence District R-30. Said Ordinance allows only one residential building on a single parcel. The Appellant's intent is to convert the existing residential building into a non-residential accessory structure upon completion of the construction for the second building. This motion is based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff, dated March 3, 2003. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Niefer— Just one quick question. I assume you're going to have two garages then. A garage that's attached to the house and this garage that's the temporary structure. Will the detached garage be something that will be used for warehousing the building materials. Mr. Poyer—Well, I'll have some materials there, but basically, it's a garage. I have my tools. Chairperson Sigel — You're not planning any outside storage of building materials? 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 Mr. Poyer— At this time, no. Chairperson Sigel —What does the ordinance say? What's the threshold for storing building materials. Mr. Frost— It's related to home occupation, but that will change with the new ordinance. Chairperson Sigel — How much land do you have here Ken? It's a fairly large lot? Mr. Poyer— It's a little over six acres. Mr. Frost— This is the equivalent of several R-30 building lots. Mr. Barney— Is that a two-car garage that you are putting on the house? Mr. Poyer— Pardon? Mr. Barney— Is that a two-car a garage? Mr. Poyer— It can be used as a two car garage. It's basically a one-car garage. Mr. Barney— The door looks like it's double. Mr. Poyer— Yes, but it's probably going to be a 12 foot one. She doesn't get in the garage very well, so I wanted to get a big door for her. I'm just kidding. Mr. Barney— You, know this is recorded. Chairperson Sigel — If there are no further questions or comments, I'll move to grant the appeal of Ken Poyer. Mr. Frost— Maybe you should include something to the effect that this is unique to the applicant, as he is a home builder by profession and therefore his situation is contusive of— I don't know, maybe you can finish the wording on that. But, it is unique that he is a home-builder, himself, by trade and he is building his own home. Chairperson Sigel — Do you think that helps? I don't know that I'd want to set the precedent that— Mr. Barney— You have to be a home- builder, to get a use variance. Chairperson Sigel — This motion also has the following conditions, that the new home must be constructed and the existing garage must be converted into a garage by the end of this calendar year, December 31, 2003. Specifically, you were going to remove the kitchen? Mr. Poyer— The kitchen and petitions. It's one big room when you get done. 6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — Removing any kitchen facilities so that it is no longer considered a dwelling unit. Mr. Barney— What about the bathroom facilities? Mr. Frost— He wanted to leave them. There's no shower. Mr. Poyer— No. But it's nice to have a bathroom in the garage. Mr. Frost—As for the shower, I think that John's concern is that at some point, say someone buys your property and puts an apartment in there. The thought is that if you have no shower, the toilet and sink is useless without a shower— to most people. Mr. Barney— You'd limit it to a half bath basically. A toilet and a sink? Mr. Poyer— Yes. Mr. Barney— What about heating? Mr. Poyer— I talked to Andy a little bit. I'm probably going to have some kind of temporary heat in there, on a small scale. The heating system that's in there now will be used in the house. So maybe like a wood stove or something like that. Mr. Barney—We're being asked to grant something here that is out of the ordinary and I think I sense that the Board is willing to consider it, but then I think that the quid pro quo is to make sure that it is very, very difficult to convert the garage back into a living accommodation. Chairperson Sigel — Is there some kind of central heat in there now. Mr. Poyer— Oh yeah. Mr. Frost— But that's all going to be moved into the house. Mr. Poyer— The whole thing is designed so that everything that's in that garage now will be out in the house. Chairperson Sigel — So we can specify no permanent heating system. Mr. Barney— That the existing heating system be removed and installed in the house, which is what you are going to do anyhow, right? Mr. Poyer— Right. Mr. Frost— You could always come back, if for some reason you need to. 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — Okay and we'll add the condition that the current heating system be removed and all these requirements must be met before- Mr. Frost— You may just want to specify the current hot water heating system. Mr. Barney— Is it hot water in this building? Mr. Poyer— Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Is there anything else? Mr. Barney— I'm scratching my head, but I can think of anything. Chairperson Sigel —We did financial hardship. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-016: Ken Pover, 206 DuBois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22.-1-1.22, Residence District R-30 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Ken Poyer, Appellant, seeking a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a second residential building at 206 DuBois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22.4- 1.22, Residence District R-30. Said Ordinance allows only one residential building on a single parcel. The Appellant's intent is to convert the existing residential building into a non-residential accessory structure upon completion of the construction for the second building. FINDINGS: a. Applicant would experience some financial hardship if this variance were not granted in that he would need to find and pay for off site housing while he was building his new house. b. This situation is very similar to a use that is allowed, under Section 59, where you are permitted to have a mobile home while building a house for up to 18 months. c. The lot is particularly large for this district, with a little over six acres. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. The new home must be constructed and the existing garage must be converted into a garage by December 31, 2003. b. Any kitchen facilities be removed from the garage by December 31, 2003. 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 C. The current hot water heating system in the garage must be removed by December 31, 2003. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. You're set. APPEAL : Orlando lacovelli, Appellant, Lawrence Fabbroni, Agent, requesting a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article III, Section 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for occupancy up to six unrelated persons at two properties located at 380 and 383 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 54-7-33 and 54-5-30.2, Residence District R-9. Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road — I'm representing Orlando lacovelli. You may remember when we were in here in December, we got approval for a similar request on the parcels that are shown with the triangles on the map I just handed out. The request was to double up two lots with the house that already is within the lots where you see the squares and the lots where you see the honeycomb. The homes exist and the intention to double up the lots and increase the occupancy in the existing house and never to build a dwelling on the existing lots. So, in other words, to consolidate those lots that you see here. Two lots that are 50 by 120, so 6,000 square feet each. The other two lots, the ones with the squares in them. The one lot's in excess of 13,000 and the adjacent lot in excess of 7,500 square feet. So that combined lot is over 21,000 square feet when combined. Basically, the criteria to be met for the special approval is similar for both requests, that we are improving the neighborhood by consolidating parcels and limiting overall density of buildings in the neighborhood. The existing premises would not change really at all. Increased density would involve doubling up in bedrooms, rather than any substantial change to the existing building. They would be one families with one kitchen. The proposed change in use is wholly within the existing building. It's pretty much been supported by the neighborhood in terms of verbal. The most affected owner is the owner to the east, the Martins, and there's sort of been a verbal understanding between the Iacovelli's and the Martin's that they don't want to encroach on the Martin's property any further and so, the request made in December and the one tonight is basically will keep the land closest to the Martin's from ever being developed either with buildings or paved areas or other improvements. The access to these premises is the same 16 foot driveway that is maintained by Iacovelli's under an agreement that was first signed, that the Town Attorney and the Town Highway Superintendent approved with the first buildings that went in here. The traffic generated would be roughly 12 trips a day added by the four dwellings that we'd get roughly 84 trips a day, which is well within the carrying capacity of Pennsylvania Avenue, which is like 5,000, it's a dead end. It's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of carrying capacity. The parking that would be added to accommodate the extra people would be adjacent to the existing spaces and those little hash marks you see sort of depicts where the parking would be added. If you will, the 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 driveway and sort of the access ways in the parking area is like a double loaded parking area there, so it facilitates snow removal to the end of that driveway. The natural drainage ways will not be changed at all from what they currently are and the culver that is under the driveway was worked through with the Town Highway Superintendent when it was first put in, so that wouldn't change at all. As of today, it's working pretty well with the runoff. That's the short story of what we'd like to accomplish. Chairperson Sigel —What's the layout of these two houses? How many bedrooms and baths? Mr. Fabbroni — There's three bedrooms in each and then there is sort of a recreation room. So the recreation room would become a bedroom, but the finished space would not be changed appreciably. Chairperson Sigel — So, are both the houses the same layout? Mr. Fabbroni — Pretty much identical. Chairperson Sigel — The recreation room, is that in addition to some kind of common living room? Mr. Fabbroni — Yes. That's in addition to the bedrooms. Chairperson Sigel —And a living room. Mr. Fabbroni — There's a living room, there's a kitchen and there's three bedroom and there's, generally speaking a recreation room. Mr. Frost— You might want to add that recreation rooms are typically not inhabitable spaces, so if you proceed to grant this, you could make some kind of specifications that the room meets all the code requirements. Chairperson Sigel — Is the rec. room in the basement? Mr. Fabbroni — It is, but I think it will meet all the criteria so that stipulation is fine. There's no unfinished space that is going to be finished. At least to my understanding, there is not going to be a physical change, but if there needed to be, it would only be for like the ingress and egress. Mr. Frost—The term recreation space, for the record, sounds like they are keeping a recreation space and that could be illegal for a bedroom. That may not be a problem, but it's something to look at. Mr. Fabbroni — That's all I'm saying to the Board. Chairperson Sigel — Does anyone have any questions or concerns? Mr. Neifer— Just a point of information, a question. It's hard to tell what the windows are on the lower level. The lower level is used for the bedrooms. What's the provision for escaping from bedrooms? 10 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 Mr. Frost - You needed a window that opened to a four square foot area, now, under new code, you have enough glass area to provide light to a certain percentage of the room. Mr. Niefer— So, am I to assume that the usage of this basement for bedrooms meets the code. Mr. Frost— I don't know. That's why I caution the Board that, should they agree to allow the fourth bedroom, that the space occupied as a bedroom meet code requirements for a bedroom. Without seeing it, I really can't say anything. Mr. Fabbroni —As far as I know, it meets, at least, the eight percent rule. The biggest thing I can just hear here, that might cause a change out of a window to have more open area. Mr. Frost- So many of Orlando's houses have that door at the basement level as well. Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. Mr. Frost—Are either or both of these walk out basements? Probably the down hill one. Mr. Fabbroni — I think both of them are, but, for sure, the one with the squares is a walk out in the back. Chairperson Sigel — I don't think that we necessarily need to be too concerned about exactly where they put the people as long as we have a provision that all applicable codes be met. We don't have the ability to override that anyhow. As long as you're comfortable with the overall raising of the limit. These are both three people? Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. Mr. Barney— What's the road construction along the front of these? What's it constructed of? Mr. Fabbroni —Well, it's roughly 18 inches, a foot of crushed gravel and then six inches of crushed stone on top of it. It's pretty serviceable, with the crushed stone on top it's pretty solid. Mr. Barney— Is there any thought of paving it? Mr. Fabbroni — There's some thought. I think he's very close to that point from talking to him. Mr. Barney—What's going through my mind is that what you're asking for here is, I don't think it's a matter of right that he could get the occupancy on the other lot because it's not on the road and he's got to basically justify some departure and in that situation, we've got a basically unpaved road that is now bearing traffic for two structures and we're now talking about doubling the traffic. Mr. Fabbroni — I don't think if that was a stipulation, it would be something that he wasn't intending to do. Not that that matters to you, but, I think that he is at that point. Mr. Frost— Does he plow this road himself? 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 Mr. Fabbroni — No, he has someone who does all his properties. Mr. Frost— How is the integrity of that gravel surface? Mr. Fabbroni —Well, he keeps after it is the best way of answering that question. It's held up pretty well, but he's made the comment to me that he needs to be right in there this time of the year making repairs that are necessary. Mr. Barney— If this Board were to impose a condition that there be a road surface, not necessarily the width, but the road's surface be brought up to, effectively, the Town Highway specs . Mr. Fabbroni - You could say paved condition, you know the Town Highway spec now is four inches of asphalt and that's a little bit of an overkill for the driveway. Mr. Barney— But a lot of people drive on that. Mr. Fabbroni — But there's not moving loads and things. If you wanted to say a minimum of 2 '/2 inches, I think it would be more appropriate for even this kind of road and the traffic it's going to see. Mr. Ellsworth —Are you going to be able to get a fire truck through there? Mr. Barney— I guess the reason to use Town Highway specs would be that it's easily determined. If we say paved, I don't want to have this Board or me sit there and try to write a spec. I know it. We're not talking about much road here. We're talking about 300 feet maybe, total. Mr. Fabbroni —About that, yes. Mr. Frost—Are these approvals that the Board grants limited to Orlando, or can he sell to somebody that is less responsible than Orlando. Mr. Barney— It goes with the land. Mr. Frost— They didn't always do that in years past. Often we gave special permits specifically in the name of the applicant. Mr. Ellsworth — Is this the Mr. Iacovelli that's the mason? Mr. Frost— No, this is one of the two that are brothers. The two brothers are partners in all these properties. Larry is the mason contractor, Jim is the building contractor. The two brothers, I guess by now, are builders, landlords, whatever. Mr. Ellsworth — I was just wondering if he had easy access to the type of materials he'd need. Mr. Fabbroni — Yeah. They all work together. Larry has done all of the foundations recently, but I know the paving contractor is somebody different than any of them, that they've been talking to. I'm 12 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 just saying to you and I'm not sort of trying to debate you at all, it's just that that highway spec is meant so that you don't have to come back. It's pretty onerous if you compare it across even the other municipalities as far as the thickness of the pavement. Mr. Frost— He needs to have more sub-material on there, doesn't he? Mr. Fabbroni —He's got enough sub-material. Mr. Barney - I know they paved our road and it's breaking up this year. Mr. Ellsworth — There are a lot of roads that didn't do too well. Mr. Krantz— Even though it's not within the jurisdiction of this committee to discuss assessments and taxes, we are given that information on the property description reports. I always wonder when I see two properties that are assessed at $100,000 each, why virtually no taxes are paid. The County tax from last year was $144 on each and there was no school tax. Maybe I'm just trying to find out for my own personal view. Mr. Barney— Probably because it was newly constructed. Would that be the case? Mr. Krantz— These are not new properties. Mr. Fabbroni — The taxable date, though, is as of a specific date, so if it didn't— Mr. Barney— It's March 1St of each year, so it this was under construction on March 1St of last year. Mr. Fabbroni — The property with the honeycomb was not completed until the summer some time. Mr. Barney— Now, the school year tax, I don't understand either because even if it was just land, there should have been a minimum taxable amount. Mr. Frost—What he's referring to Larry is Dani kicks out the County Assessor's property profile when she puts the packets together for mail out and it lists the assessed value and so forth. Mr. Fabbroni -The building in the honeycomb wasn't started until May and it was completed in August, so that's why it didn't show up on the 2002. Mr. Frost—Anytime there is a building permit issued, every month the County Assessment gets copy of her permanent records and Russ Klinger comes and gets those records and we use those. It can take up to two years before it actually hits the rolls. Mr. Ellsworth — Is the roadway material substance? Mr. Barney— That's up to you, I don't make the rules here, you folks do. 13 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — It seems like, particularly in light of the fact that they were considering doing it anyhow, that's a reasonable stipulation. As far as what the actual thickness is, we'd have to debate that. What's the Town standard? About four inches? Mr. Fabbroni — It's got to be four or five by now. It's gotten pretty thick. Mr. Barney— I, quite frankly, don't know what the actually measurements are. Mr. Fabbroni — Do you know Mike? Mr. Smith — I don't. Chairperson Sigel — How about something that is a fraction of what the Town specs are? Mr. Fabbroni — I'm going to suggest you'd be very happy for the purpose we're getting at if you had 2 '/2 inches there. Mr. Barney—Well, why don't we specify either the Town specs or such lesser level as the Town Highway Superintended may approve. I really don't have the expertise to diagram. Mr. Ellsworth —Well, this is the guy with the expertise. Mr. Barney— Larry certainly may have the qualifications. And it may very well be that 2 '/2 inches is more that enough, I just don't know. Mr. Ellsworth — The two of them are working together on a lot of stuff these days. Mr. Fabbroni — That's fair. He's your expert. If you just make it clear to him that he has some discretion in the matter. Mr. Barney—We're not asking this to be a Town road. We just want his expertise to make sure that it's done at a level so that it doesn't turn into a series of potholes. Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7:51 p.m. Chairperson Sigel —Are there any further questions or comments, concerns? No further problems with the size of the housing for six people? Would someone like to make a motion? Mike, are there any comments on the Environmental Assessment? Mr. Smith — The only thing that I noticed was the parking in front of the two places had about, maybe four or five spaces, not six. Chairperson Sigel — You were intending to have six spots? 14 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. We can make that a condition. Chairperson Sigel —Would someone like to make a motion on the Environmental Assessment? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-017 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Orlando lacovelli, 380 and 383 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel's Nos. 54.-7-33 and 54.-5-30.2, Residence District R-9. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in appeal of Orlando lacovelli, requesting a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article 111, Section 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for occupancy up to six unrelated persons at two properties located at 380 and 383 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 54.- 7-33 and 54.-5-30.2, Residence District R-9. This motion is based upon the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town staff dated March 6, 2003. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-018: Orlando lacovelli, 380 and 383 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 54.-7-33 and 54.-5-30.2, Residence District R-9 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Orlando lacovlli, Appellant, requesting a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article 111, Section 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for occupancy of up to six unrelated persons at two properties located at 380 and 383 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 54.-7-33 and 54.-5-30.2, Residence District R-9. FINDINGS: a. Each property will have a second building lot combined with it. b. The Requirements for a special approval, under Article 14, Section 77, Subparagraph 7 (a- h) have been satisfied. 15 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17, 2003 CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. Before the occupancy can be increased, the lots, as indicated in the applicant's packet, must be consolidated. b. The entire current shared driveway, labeled on the applicant's survey as "Pennsylvania Avenue that is not a dedicated town highway,"be paved to a sixteen foot width and, in all other respects, meet the Town Highway specifications or such lesser specifications as the Town Highway Superintendent may approve as being adequate for the anticipated traffic of this road. C. Six parking spaces be provided at each house. d. There be no conversion of any additional space as a bedroom without a building permit being obtained and the assurance that all code requirements are met. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel- Does anyone have any other official business which they have to discuss? Chairperson Sigel closed the March 17, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at 7:59 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson Lori Waring, Deputy Town Clerk 16