Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2003-04-21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Kirk Sigel, Chairperson; Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; Andrew Dixon, Board Member; Andrew Frost, Director of Building & Zoning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:07 p.m.); Michael Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED: James Niefer, Board Member. OTHERS: Patricia (& Bill) Alessi, 202 Buttermilk Lane; Joy Naifeh, 521 E. State St #3; Ariane Kissam, 811 E. State St. #10; Carol Chaplin, 84 East Lake Rd; Ekta Naik, 320 Thurston Ave; Bill Goodhew, 674 Coddington Rd; John Lewkowicz, 702 Coddington Rd; Pete Capalongo, 357 King Rd. E. Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Welcome to the April meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. This evening we have four appeals. The first is of John Lewkowicz, second of Patricia Alessi, the third of Southwoods Association and the fourth is that of William Goodhew. We will take them in that order. The first appeal is as follows: APPEAL of John Lewkowicz, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to demolish a 17' x 20' garage and rebuild it to a dimension of 24' x 36' on a non-conforming building lot located at 702 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-7.1, Residence District R-30. Said building lot is non-conforming in that it lacks a 150-foot width at the maximum front yard setback. Chairperson Sigel — Please state your name and address for the record and give us a brief overview of what you would like to do. John Lewkowicz, 702 Coddington Road — I would like to replace an existing garage that is 20 feet by 17 feet that is falling down with a larger garage. It is basically a 24 foot by 36 foot. They are approximately in the same location. Chairperson Sigel — It is pretty straightforward. Mr. Frost — I have a picture going around, John. The top left hand corner has a picture with a pad that shows the location of the garage. Mr. Lewkowicz — As part of the appeal packet, there are also pictures that I supplied that showed the garage in its intact state. We tried a number of things with this. The APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 whole thing comes down to the non-conforming lot. I understand the house is closer to Coddington Road than it should be. The lot is really two lots because of the hills and banks that are there. There is the upper lot where the house has traditionally been. This house is over 200 years old. It is about 212 years old right now. At one time, Coddington Road used to go farther to the east. When they put in the new culvert across the stream down below, they straightened Coddington Road out and brought it closer to the house. The front door of the house was right on Coddington Road and then there was a gradual bank down to Coddington Road, which was about 40 feet further to the east. Then they realigned Coddington Road when they put the culvert in. They put the culvert in place so that they could cross the stream. That is when it got within 12 feet of the house. The house actually sits up on the bank at that point. It is 12 or 15 feet higher than Coddington Road. Mr. Frost — When I first looked at this, I wasn't entirely convinced that we needed to come to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Ordinance actually permits if someone has a building lot that doesn't meet the size of the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, you are still allowed to build a single family residence on the parcel. Any buildings that you build have to conform with the setbacks. The garage that is in question here is going to meet all the required setbacks, while the house is too close to the side of the road facing Coddington Road. The action that Mr. Lewkowicz is asking for is really the garage and not the house. When you read the Zoning Ordinance, it talks about the lot size and I guess we ultimately concluded that the size in this case where the requirement maybe 30,000 square foot, it is not the same as dimensions. The real non- conformity is that you would need 150 foot at the King Road side of the parcel when he has less than 137 feet along the road. The lot is not the width as required, but the garage itself as well as the placement meets all the setback requirements. It's really not a big issue. Mr. Lewkowicz — I was going to mention on the original application, I actually incorrectly put 12 feet down for building height. It is essentially 24 foot wide with a 6/12 pitch. It is 8 feet plus the 6 feet. So it would be 14 feet. It is well under the 15 feet. Chairperson Sigel —Any questions? Mr. Ellsworth — No. Mr. Krantz— No. It seems pretty reasonable. Chairperson Sigel — Mike, any comments? Mr. Smith — Nothing to add. Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. 2 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-019: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, John Lewkowicz, 702 Coddin_gton Road, Tax Parcel No. 46.4-7.1, Residence District R- 30, April 21, 2003. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of John Lewkowicz, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to demolish a 17'x 20'garage and rebuild it to a dimension of 24'x 36' on a non-conforming building lot located at 702 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-7.1, Residence District R-30, based upon the environmental assessment form completed by Town Staff dated April 9, 2003. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Dixon. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-020: John Lewkowicz, 702 Coddin_gton Road, Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-7.1, Residence District R-30, April 21, 2003. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of John Lewkowicz, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to demolish a 17' x 20' garage and rebuild it to a dimension of 24' x 36' on a non-conforming building lot located at 702 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-7.1, Residence District R-30, based upon the following- FINDING- a. ollowing:FINDING:a. The requirements for a special approval have been satisfied. CONDITION: a. The garage is to be built where indicated on the applicant's submitted plans. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Dixon. NAYS: None. 3 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal is as follows: APPEAL of Patricia Alessi, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to create a building lot by subdivision with 60 ± feet of road frontage and 60 ± feet at the maximum front yard setback (100 feet and 150 feet required respectively) at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-3.2, Residence District R-30. Said parcel has its road frontage on Schickel Road. Chairperson Sigel — Please give us your name and address for the record, with a brief overview. Patty Alessi, 202 Buttermilk Lane — I presently own 34.7 acres and 600 feet of it borders 96B. Schickel Road only goes up about 500 feet. I want to divide it into parcels A and B. The problem with the back parcel is that there is only 60 feet of frontage entering the back parcel. I wanted a variance for it. I did receive subdivision approval at the Planning Board meeting. I am asking for variance for approval because I don't have enough road frontage. Chairperson Sigel — You mentioned in your packet the possibility of subdividing parcel B in the future. Ms. Alessi — I was trying to figure out a way for having all that acreage and the very, very most I would ever expect to do with that is possibly have three different lots. Right now I am only asking for the one. Thinking ahead about the possibility of making three 20-foot wide driveways. I've had a little different ways of drawing it in to try to figure it out. The parcel that I would have would be the largest. If you look at the end of the road and you went off to the left, there is about 2.5 acres there. That could be one lot. If you are driving down Schickel Road and you get to that pin there and make a left, then there is about 2.5 acres there. That might be one lot. The middle lot would go out to be most of which would be my lot. Then the 20 foot on the far right would go out to the right a little bit and make that a couple acre lot as well. Possibly at the very most I thought we could have three 20-foot driveways. I would probably have to put in a turn around or a cul-de-sac type. I just wanted to figure out what I could do without building a road because of the expense. Chairperson Sigel — I would assume that the Planning Board would see a further subdivision, I think they would be more inclined to just have the one shared driveway and some kind of an easement if they were going to approval any further subdivision. Attorney Barney — I think the Planning Board took it as these two lots. I don't know that they were making a commitment as to how it would be handled in the future. Chairperson Sigel — No. 4 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 Attorney Barney— Not that they could anyway. Ms. Alessi — I have no plans for that at the moment. I know if I were to do something like that I would have to then go through this process. I was just thinking that would be the most I would ever try to do. I don't see that I could do anything more with it anyway. Chairperson Sigel — Parcel A is going to be subdivided further? Is that the intent? Ms. Alessi — I did have deed restrictions on that. If I were to sell this front, I would make the deed restrictions where they would be at least one acre lots. Whoever would buy the front would have...I would build in the back and then put the front up for sale. I think that would be easier to sell than the back. Attorney Barney — Was there some reason why it was subdivided in such a way that all the frontage had to go to Parcel A on Danby Road? Ms. Alessi — I spoke with Lee Dresser. We looked at it and tried to figure how the simplest, cleanest way and that is what we came up with and that is how we surveyed it. Attorney Barney — We have a policy in the Town of Ithaca against cul-de-sacs more than 1200 feet in length. Schickel Road is a cul-de-sac to begin with. If we were just to extend Schickel Road, you are going to run a foul on that 1200 feet. I was just kind of curious why you didn't reserve out another 60 foot strip on the other side of Parcel A, which would give you the ability to make it a loop so you didn't have to deal with the cul- de-sac limitation. Ms. Alessi — So extend the road and make the road wider are you saying? Attorney Barney — No. I'm saying that right now, your road is set up in a way that is a cul-de-sac, which is really Schickel Road and then extending from Schickel Road on up. Once you hit 1200 feet, you are basically end of road and couldn't go any further. If you include what you have on Schickel Road already, which is 600 feet roughly, you are up in this vicinity here and you are running a foul on the limitation. Why wouldn't it be appropriate to put a reserve out for the benefit of this parcel back here, a strip down here. Then you don't have a cul-de-sac because you have a loop. Ms. Alessi — I don't know. This is what we came up with. Bill ?, 202 Buttermilk Lane — The initial thought was not to do any kind of building back there other than our own. Ms. Alessi — That is really all we are asking for...the one house back there. Chairperson Sigel — If that is the intention, then that seems fine. If you wanted more flexibility though in the future, then you might want to do what John suggested. 5 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 Attorney Barney— Instead of a flag lot, you have a two-legged lot. Ms. Alessi — I just sort of thought it should be 100 and open up to 150. 1 was thinking it was going to eat up that front lot. Attorney Barney — You are just foreclosing or making it more difficult to justify any kind of further development here. If you don't plan on doing it, then it's not a problem. But if you did, having a secondary means of getting in and out would be advisable. Ms. Alessi — All right. I think that is a good suggestion to have another way into that property. Chairperson Sigel — Do you want to pursue that or do you want to go ahead with the approval for this? Ms. Alessi — Not right now. I think I want to just go with this. Then if I want that afterwards, I'll come back. I want to just finish this. Chairperson Sigel —Any comments or questions? Mr. Krantz — It's simple. We are just subdividing 34.7 acres into two. There is always possible scenarios. They are not really our concern at this point or are not decided. Attorney Barney — I agree. The only thing is by subdividing this way, if this front parcel A gets sold off, you are now eliminating an easy way to provide secondary road into parcel B. Chairperson Sigel — You might want to think about a little more before you were to sell parcel A. We do not have an environmental assessment for this. We have a Planning Board Resolution for this. Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Chairperson Sigel —Any further comments or questions? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-021: Patricia Alessi, Schickel Road, Tax Parcel No. 36.-2-3.2, Residence District R-30, April 21, 2003. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Patricia Alessi, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to create a building lot by subdivision with 60 feet of road frontage and 60 feet at the maximum front yard setback (100 feet and 150 feet required respectively) at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-3.2, Residence District R-30. 6 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 FINDING: a. The requirements of an area variance have been satisfied. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Dixon. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The third appeals is as follows: APPEAL of Southwoods Association, Carol Chaplin, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 3.02-1(d) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place a 24 square foot sign (6 foot maximum allowed) identifying a neighborhood subdivision on King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.43, Residence District R-30. Chairperson Sigel — Please state your name and address for the record. Carol Chaplin, 84 East Lake Road — I did bring revised sign details. Chairperson Sigel — I believe you received some feedback from the Planning Board and have decided to propose a 12 square foot sign. Ms. Chaplin — Yes. Chairperson Sigel —And that was approved by the Planning Board? Ms. Chaplin — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — It seems pretty straightforward. There are, as Mike points out in the packet, I thought he did a good job of snapping pictures of other similar signs in the neighborhood. We have a nice chart and their sizes. Any questions? Mr. Dixon — How is the sign to be mounted? Ms. Chaplin — On two wood posts with a little cap on top, a decorative cap, not to exceed five feet. Chairperson Sigel — Mike, any comments on the environmental assessment? Mr. Smith — Nothing to add. No. 7 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Pete Capalongo, 357 King Road E. — I don't know if this is the appropriate time to bring up some questions about the subdivision. I know it has already been approved. Chairperson Sigel —Well, we are dealing here just with the sign approval. Mr. Capalongo — So it's just the sign? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, as far as I understand the subdivision is already approved. We are just dealing with the sign approval. Mr. Capalongo —Where would you go for specific questions? Mr. Smith — If it is specifically about the drainage, Dan Walker, the Town Engineer would be able to help you on that. Some of the other general questions, I could help you with. Mr. Capalongo —After the meeting? Mr. Smith — Yes. Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Chairperson Sigel —Any further questions? Mr. Dixon — Is the sign two-sided? Ms. Chaplin — One sided. Chairperson Sigel — Is it going to be placed parallel to the road? Ms. Chaplin — We are thinking at a slight angle rather than parallel so that it could be seen from either direction. Chairperson Sigel — But more so from one? Ms. Chaplin — It would be on the southeast corner, but it would be not perpendicular, slightly angled towards the east. Attorney Barney — I think it is shown on the copy of the subdivision map. It gives you an idea of the angle. Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions or comments? 8 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-022: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, Southwoods Association, Kim Road East, Tax Parcel No. 46.4-15.43, Residence District R-30, April 21, 2003. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Southwoods Association, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 3.02-1(d) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place a 12 square foot sign (6 foot maximum allowed) identifying a neighborhood subdivision on King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.43, Residence District R-30, based upon the environmental assessment form completed by Town Staff dated April 7, 2003. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Dixon. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-023: Southwoods Association, Kin_g Road East, Tax Parcel No. 46.4-15.43, Residence District R-30, April 21, 2003. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Southwoods Association, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 3.02-1(d) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place a sign no greater than 12 square feet (6 foot maximum allowed) identifying a neighborhood subdivision on King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-15.43, Residence District R-30, based upon the following-- FINDING- a. ollowing:FINDING:a. The requirements of an area variance have been satisfied. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Dixon. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal is as follows- 9 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 APPEAL of William Goodhew, Appellant requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Section 18, 21, and 23 to permit the creation of 3 building lots by subdivision resulting in one parcel without a primary residence, as required and containing accessory structures only. Said parcel will contain a barn with a 15-foot side yard setback (40 foot setback required). A second parcel will have a garage located 12 ± feet from the front yard and side yard (30 foot and 15 foot setbacks required respectively) and a carport with an 8 ± foot side yard setback (15 feet required) and a third parcel with a side yard setback from a house with 17 ± feet (40 feet required). Said subdivision is to take place at 668 and 674 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 49-1-16 and 49-1-17.2, Residence District R-30. Chairperson Sigel — Please state your name and address for the record. Bill Goodhew, 674 Coddington Road — It is my intention to subdivide my 12 acres into three parcels. We have preexisting structures on the 12 acres. In reference to Parcel A, which conjuncts with my neighbor, Mr. Preheim. In doing a survey, we found that if we actually held the pins that should be in reference from the abstract, the line would go about 8 inches through is house. I have altered that and attempted to give him some leeway on the side lot without fully restricting anything in the way of my having inhabition for setback restrictions and widths on that parcel. We are allowing him that 17 feet, plus or minus there. He is trading us some parcelage off the back edge of his lot, which previously was a rectangle in its description. Now it will have a diagonal line across the back edge of that parcel. Parcel B currently has an occupancy with the existing house, existing garage and carport. That parcel will be approximately 2 acres. The garage, I don't know exactly when that was built. It is most certainly close to the street. It was built probably in the 1950's in that length of time. To the south side of that garage, there is a current driveway. It is actually on the north side of the garage as well. We have kind of a loop that goes around that. The bi-section of that driveway defines the new lot line. It misses the garage and the carport. It also misses the barn on parcel A, which has been preexisting probably since the early part of the 20th century. In reference to Parcel C, it is my intention at this time to build a house for myself, hopefully within the next year. To locate that house fairly close proximity to the barn. My idea at this time, I have not consulted with an architect, would be to create a portico that would adjunct between the house and the barn so that I would have something to be able to drive cars under to park and have snow and rain free access to the house. Chairperson Sigel — John, I assume the parcel C variance would require a use variance to permit the barn to remain as an accessory building. Obviously, all the other requested variances are all area variances. They don't have as stringent a test as a use variance. Are you saying you are planning to build a house there in approximately a year? 10 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 Mr. Goodhew — My hope is to actually begin this next fall. I'm subdividing the property as a result of a divorce. My wife will be keeping the house. I want to build on this substantial parcel. I will be putting Parcel C up for sale. Attorney Barney— So, you are going to build on Parcel A? Mr. Goodhew — I'm sorry. I'm going to build on Parcel C. I'm putting Parcel A up for sale. Attorney Barney — Is the building on Parcel C conditional on realizing some funds out of Parcel A? Mr. Goodhew — It's a good question and I don't have a confirmed answer for you with that. I have access to some fundings, but because of the complexity of my divorce right now and the tax filing for opposition, I don't have a clear answer for you at this stage. Attorney Barney — Without getting too much into it, where are you in terms of the divorce? Mr. Goodhew —We are just about to sign a separation agreement. Chairperson Sigel — One option would be to wait on the subdivision. Subdivide C from B. Mr. Frost — Is the concern that the use variance would resort to having a barn without a principle building? Chairperson Sigel — Yes. Personally, I wouldn't want to grant that variance except for as a time limited variance. Mr. Frost— You couldn't make it into a residence. Mr. Goodhew — I wouldn't want to make it into a residence. It will remain as a storage structure. Mr. Frost — I think what the board's concern perhaps a little bit is that there is no guarantee that the house gets built. Then they have a parcel of land with a barn as the principle building and not the house. Mr. Ellsworth —We've had some other cases like this that we denied. Chairperson Sigel — The Zoning Ordinance does not permit...(not audible). Mr. Frost — If you had to demolish the barn, is that something that would be fallible for you if you had to? Say if you couldn't build a house and you to create basically a vacant lot? 11 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 Mr. Goodhew — Well, I suppose I could go in that direction. I never considered that. I'm pushing forward to obtaining the financing to do the house. Mr. Frost — What I'm looking at is the board is hedging on giving you a variance and if the situation was such that you did not build the house and you just took the barn down, then there wouldn't be the concern that you had no building on the parcel. Mr. Ellsworth — He would probably use the barn as staging for the materials. Mr. Goodhew — Well, yes. There are materials actually in there at this point. Personal property as well as...I'm a contractor and I have some of my business property in there as well. Mr. Frost — The board did grant recently an accessory structure on a parcel that gave a time limit for building the house, which he has gotten a permit and they are under construction. One consideration given the circumstance here on personal issue, is to give him some time limit to get his house under construction. Chairperson Sigel — One option, as Andy said, we could possibly grant you a time limited variance that would allow the barn to remain as the only structure on the property for a certain amount of time. If within that time you build a house, then the barn becomes legal because it is an accessory use to a principle dwelling. If you haven't built a house in that amount of time, then you would have to tear down the barn. Another option, and this may not realistically be an option for you given your divorce, if you didn't subdivide off C from B right now, then the barn remains perfectly legal because it is part of a lot with a house on it. Mr. Goodhew — (comments not audible) Mr. Frost— I don't think that works real well in this case. Mr. Dixon — What would be a realistic date for you to anticipate the completion of construction? Chairperson Sigel —Would it have to be completed? Mr. Frost — Well, what we did at Bostwick Road is we gave them a time frame to get a building permit obtained, which he did a couple of weeks ago. Attorney Barney — We also gave him a time limit to complete it. Is this property just residential property? You're not farming it or anything like that? Mr. Goodhew — I'm registered as a tree farm, but that is not farming in a more traditional sense. 12 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 Attorney Barney—What parcel are the trees located on? Mr. Goodhew — They are primarily located on Parcel C. Attorney Barney— If it is a farm, it is a permitted use automatically. The barn is... Mr. Goodhew — I'm registered as a tree farmer. Attorney Barney — Section 4 of Section 18 Subdivision, permits a garden, nursery or farm as a principle use. Mr. Dixon — Does he have to get a variance to build a house on that? Attorney Barney — No. You can have a house on a farm. By doing that, you convert the barn to the principle building. Mr. Dixon — I'm glad this wasn't the test case thrown at me when I volunteered to be on the board. I much prefer the Burger King issue. Chairperson Sigel — The farm is a permitted use. I'm happy to do it that way. It is much nicer, if you think that is appropriate, John. In what way is this a tree farm? Are you harvesting trees on an annual basis? Mr. Goodhew — I started nursering some trees in an attempt to reestablish some chestnut trees out there. The deer have decimated that three years running. I do have quite a stand of hardwood mix. There is a good amount of cherry involved with that, which is not really at the harvestable stage. Although in conjunction of my building a house, there will be some of those trees that will harvested and I will realize lumber out of that to detail trim for my house. Mr. Frost—Who do you register with? Mr. Goodhew — It is the American Tree Farmer's Association. I have been registered since 1997. I've had a forester come out and do an assessment. I've had the DEC come out and do assessment values on it. There is a registered plan with DEC on the whole project. The scope of it is to realize harvestable numbers for all the stuff. It is still my intent to harvest that for use myself and to sell. Chairperson Sigel —And at least part of that is located on Parcel C? Mr. Goodhew — The predominant amount is on Parcel C. Chairperson Sigel — It could be subject to the condition that he provide the Town with some evidence and some copies of the documents that he has spoken about. That should be satisfactory. 13 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 Attorney Barney— By doing that, when you build, if and when you build on lot C, are you going to build in front of or behind the barn. Mr. Goodhew — My original intention was to build in front of, but I have considerations for both my neighbors as well. There is probably a better view for me to build just to the rear and offset to the south side of the barn. It overlooks a knoll and a creek that is established there. It gives more privacy for my neighbor in the way of their view. Attorney Barney — The problem with that is that it then converts your barn into an accessory building, which now becomes the front yard, which is not permitted unless you get a variance. You would need to come back to this board and apply for a variance to allow for an accessory structure. I don't know what the financial arrangements are, would be to do the subdivision slightly different and put the barn on the side that goes with Parcel B. Mr. Goodhew — It has restrictions for what the Town establishes as setbacks and how the property divides up. We considered that and it really didn't look to be a useful way to do it. I would like to retain the barn. That was my principle idea with that as well. It does serve a purpose for me. Mr. Frost— You can always come back to the board. Chairperson Sigel — Did everyone follow that? The interpretation is that since it is a tree farm that the barn is permitted as a principle use. Mike, any comments? Mr. Smith — Nothing really. I guess the SEAR is mainly addressing Parcel C. The remainder of the variances are all area variances. Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Female Voice — For your house, you could put the front door so that is appears to be the front. Mr. Frost— It doesn't work that way. Attorney Barney — It is defined with reference to the road. Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — John, can we do a single motion to cover the whole subdivision? Attorney Barney — I think so. 14 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — It seems like one of these variances doesn't go to Mr. Goodhew, it goes to the neighbor. Attorney Barney — It is presented to you as one proposal. I think you can handle it all in one motion. You could do multiple motions. Mr. Frost— The change does improve a non-conforming situation. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-024: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, William Goodhew, 668 and 674 Coddin_gton Road, Tax Parcel No's. 49.4-16 & 49.4-17.2, Residence District R-30, April 21, 2003. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of William Goodhew, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Section 18, 21, and 23 to permit the creation of 3 building lots by subdivision at 668 and 674 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 49-1- 16 and 49-1-17.2, Residence District R-30, based upon the environmental assessment completed by Town Staff dated April 8, 2003. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Dixon. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-025: William Goodhew, 668 and 674 Coddin_gton Road, Tax Parcel No's. 49.4-16 & 49.4-17.2, Residence District R-30, April 21, 2003. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of William Goodhew, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 18, 21, and 23 to permit the creation of 3 building lots by subdivision. One parcel, Parcel C, contains a barn and a shed used in connection with the tree farming operation on the property. Parcel C contains a barn with a setback of not less than 14 feet from the side yard lot line where a 40 foot setback is required. A second parcel, Parcel B, has a garage located not less than 11 feet from the front yard and side yard lot lines where 30 foot and 15 foot setbacks are required, respectively, and a carport with a setback of not less than 7 feet from the side yard lot line where 15 feet is required. A third parcel, Parcel A, does not require any variances. The Preheim Parcel, adjacent to Parcel A, is granted a variance allowing a 16 foot side yard setback where 40 feet is required. Said subdivision is to take place at 668 and 674 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 49-1-16 and 49-1-17.2, Residence District R-30, based upon the following: 15 APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 FINDING: a. The requirements of an area variance have been satisfied in all cases. CONDITIONS- a. ONDITIONS:a. Submission of documents with evidence of a tree farm operation on Parcel C, 674 Coddington Road for the past 5 years, and b. Consolidation of the three small pieces between the Goodhew and Preheim properties with the appropriate Tax Parcel within six months of this approval, and submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for said consolidations, and C. Parcel C be encumbered with an easement for the benefit of Parcel 8 to permit access to the south facing side of the carport for vehicle access. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Dixon. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Frost — I just wanted to say to the students in the back that your question about the front door moving is a good question. With a lot of regulations in government, there is always going to be a section in the law that has definitions. That is always a good thing to read. In response to your question then, there is a definition in the Zoning Ordinance about what a front yard is. That will put in perspective the question you asked. It was a good question. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the April 21, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carrie Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk Kirk Sigel, Chairperson 16