MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ELLICOTT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD AT
THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 215 SOUTH WORK STREET, FALCONER, NY 14733 ON
JANUARY 29, 2007 AT 7:00 PM.
PRESENT: Chairman
Steve Hoglin, David
Remington, John Merchant, Angelo Cimo, Pat Martonis,
Attorney William Wright, Code Enforcement Officer Randy Woodbury, and
Secretary
Valerie Pierce
ABSENT: Richard
Keefer and Kathy Hedstrand
Chairman
Hoglin opened the meeting at 7:05 PM and Secretary Pierce called the roll.
Motion made by
Ang Cimo, seconded by Dave Remington to approve the minutes of the November 27,
2006 meeting.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent – 2
Steve Hoglin and Dave
Remington were congratulated on being appointed for another 5-year term on the
Zoning Board.
Attorney
Wright swore in all present that would be giving testimony at this public
hearing.
Chairman
Hoglin reopened the Public Hearing for Falconer Enterprises, LLC (Harley
Davidson of Jamestown) for sign variances at 1951 East Main St., Falconer, NY.
Randy Woodbury said he had
received a call from Brian Reid late this afternoon and he requested this
application be continued until the next meeting. He is still working with the architect on details of the sign.
Attorney Wright stated the
application was previously tabled at the request of the applicant so the Board
will leave it on the table unless the Board wanted to take any other
action. The Board agreed with leaving
it on the table.
Mr. Hoglin
reopened the Public Hearing for the Special Use Permit for SBA Properties,
Inc., 3108 Eckman Road, Jamestown, NY.
Mr.
Woodbury said he would check into the other towers in the Town. Applicants are responsible for
applying for their renewal. Chairman Hoglin asked what the expiration of the Order to Remedy would Randy said he wants them at the February meeting.
Chairman Hoglin reopened the Public Hearing for a variance for Shauna Benson, 120 Lakeside Blvd., Jamestown, NY for a construction extension of house/garage with less than the required 5-foot side yard setback.
Mr. Woodbury said Mr. Benson had been in to see him a couple days after the last meeting. Randy told him about the testimony from the neighbors and, due to the testimony and because he has alternatives he voluntarily withdrew the application.
Mr. Hoglin opened the Public
Hearing for J. B. Crosby, 2327 Camay Lane, Jamestown, NY 14701 for the renewal
of a Special Use Permit for a home occupation for a computer business.
Mr. Crosby requested a renewal of his Special Use Permit. Mr. Woodbury suggested he ask the renewal be for 5 years rather than 2 years. He provided a flyer to explain his business. He digitally archives film, slides and photos. He does some photography work. There have been no complaints from the neighbors. Mr. Crosby told the Board members he gets an occasional delivery and has an occasional customer stop in.
Pat Martonis asked about Mr. Crosby’s e-bay business because he did not mention e-bay the last time he was in. Mr. Crosby said he acts as a broker. He picks up the goods, bring them back and photograph them, post the ad on e-bay, ship the items and pay the client the proceeds. He stated he might get two or three customers a week that stop at the house and might get a UPS delivery once every three weeks. Mr. Crosby does not have a large inventory. Mr. Crosby said he going to discontinue his ad for e-bay auctions and get out of that part of the business to focus more on the film digitizing.
Mr. Crosby told the Board:
1) the only other change in the business is wedding photography. He does not have a studio at the house - all that is done on site
2) he uses an area of approximately 10’ by 12’ for the business.
3) he does not see any changes in his hours of operation because it is primarily by appointment. He lists his hours of operation as 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM in the phone book so he does not get calls at all hours. He does some Saturday appointments for the convenience of his clients
4) he is still the only employee - two years ago he stated he hoped it would be the last time he would have to apply for the Special Use Permit and he would end up in a storefront downtown but that has not happened - he does not see it happening in the near future - Attorney Wright reminded him if he gets an employee he would no longer be a home occupation - he would have to voluntarily revoke the permit and move to a storefront - if his spouse or child is an employee of the business that is acceptable under the code because the home occupation permit only applies to those people residing in the home.
Mr. Crosby still felt something longer than the two-year renewal is appropriate. He does not realistically see supporting more than himself from the business. Mr. Wright also suggested Mr. Crosby could initiate a bi-annual call to Mr. Woodbury to confirm the conditions are still the same. That was acceptable to Mr. Woodbury and Mr. Crosby.
Pat Martonis asked if Mr. Crosby were to add any services how would it change the permit. Attorney Wright said as long as it does not go out of the basic structure of what he presented it would not change. The Board has considered the protection of the neighbors, the traffic, the amount of space in his household, and how it looks from the outside. As long as anything added does not alter the amount of people, hours of operation, or anything that appear outward to the neighbors that would not be a violation. If he gets out of the computer business and starts any other business that would be different As long as it falls into the same category it is OK. Mr. Crosby stated he does foresee some web programming but that would be software related. The Board did not think that would not be out of the basic structure of this business.
Neighbors were noticed. No neighbors appeared and there was no correspondence to the Town.
Motion made by Steve Hoglin,
seconded by John Merchant to grant the renewal of the special use permit for
J.B. Crosby, 2327 Camay Lane, Jamestown, NY 14701 and make it a five year
permit with the following condition:
1) Mr.
Crosby will contact Code Enforcement Officer Randy Woodbury every two years
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Absent –2
Chairman Hoglin opened the
Public Hearing for Theresa Nelson, 2695 Palm Road, Jamestown, NY 14701 for a
Special Use Permit for a home occupation for part time insurance sales.
Ms. Nelson said she would like to sell insurance in the evenings from her home until she can get established and move downtown. Ms. Nelson works in Niagara Falls during the day and until there are enough clients to move she would like to work from her home.
Ms. Nelson told the Board:
1) she would work by appointment only and start with a few clients per day in the evenings – when it get busier and she can pay for an office downtown she would move – right now she anticipates a couple of clients a week but it would be great to have two a night – she will be open Monday through Friday and a possible Saturday the hours will be between 6:00 PM till about 9:00 PM
2) she would not have any employees
3) she has a good size driveway that is double wide for ample parking so there would be no on street parking
4) she might put up a small sign that would comply with the code
Attorney Wright explained to Ms. Nelson this permit will be for two years and she needed to request now what she is looking at for the next two years. Ms. Nelson asked if the Board could grant a six-month permit. Mr. Wright said they could. He just did not want her to lock herself into something that is not going to work and put herself in violation of the Special Use Permit. Ms. Nelson could even do the two-year permit and if things change she could voluntarily come in and report the change. Chairman Hoglin said they could also do the two-year permit and have Ms. Nelson check in with Randy every six months.
Attorney Wright reviewed Section 146-5 and Section 146-7 (1) A of the Town of Ellicott Zoning and Planning Code, which dealt with home occupations. Mr. Woodbury stated that home occupations are covered under the Uniform Building and Fire Code and they use the same definition of home occupation space (no more then 25% or 500 SF, whichever is less) as the Town does.
Neighbors were noticed. There were no neighbors present for this application and no correspondence to the Town.
Attorney Wright stated this would be exempt from SEQR.
Motion made by Pat Martonis,
seconded by John Merchant to approve the Special Use Permit for Theresa Nelson,
2695 Palm Road, Jamestown, NY for a home occupation for part-time insurance
sales with hours of operation to be Monday through Friday evenings between 6:00
PM and 9:00 PM and possible Saturday for two-years with the following
condition:
1) Ms.
Nelson will check in with Code Enforcement Office Randy Woodbury every
six-months
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes –0 Absent - 2
Chairman Hoglin opened the
Public Hearing for Calvert Baker and Joan Baker-Grener, 2053 Buffalo Street
Ext., Jamestown, NY, for a variance for a fence to be higher then six feet.
Attorney Paul Webb, representing Cal Baker, told the Board Ms. Baker-Grener is not here tonight because she lives in California. She is actually the person who the property is deeded to, but Mr. Baker has a life use of the property.
Mr. Webb explained this appearance is regarding a variance related to the height of a fence along one side of Mr. Baker’s property. He had been granted a permit to erect a fence along the one side of his property. A large portion of that fence was chain link and then deeper into his property the fence is wooden.
Mr. Baker stated the fence had been there since 1965.
There is no problem with the chain link fence, which is about 4 feet high. As you get about three hundred feet into Mr. Baker’s property the fence is wooden. The majority of the wooden fence is six-feet but one area of the fence, well into the property, becomes approximately eight feet high. That area is right near a kennel. The purpose for the fence being higher is security and privacy. It is not visible from the road and doesn’t obstruct any view in terms of the neighbors. Photos were presented to the Board members
Mr. Baker is seeking a variance for the portion of the present fence that exceeds six feet. Attorney Webb stated that Mr. Baker applied for the permit and paid the double fee because he was in violation.
Mr. Webb said the higher portion is really for privacy from neighbors. Because one of the animals is a wolf, Mr. Baker’s fence has to be eight feet all around the enclosure. He has all the Federal permits for the wolf but is required to have that eight-foot fence around the enclosure to be in compliance.
Attorney Wright asked why they were not seeking an area variance for the height of the fence all the way around the enclosure. Mr. Webb said he will have to request that eventually to be in compliance but is asking for the part that is already built and not in compliance. It is a violation of the original fence permit that was issued to Mr. Baker. Mr. Webb told the Board they will have to come back, but the issue right now is just the portion of the fence that was not in compliance with the permit.
Mr. Wright asked if the fence was the subject of an Order to Remedy right now. Mr. Woodbury said the fence is the result of an Order to Remedy plus a settlement for part of the criminal charge. The fence was built with the good side facing in and the code requires the better side of the fence face out. There was a hearing in court and Mr. Baker and his sister hired some people to make good sides on both sides of the fence. Mr. Wright stated it was a beautiful fence. They fixed the fence because it was non-compliant but again made it non-compliant because of the height.
Attorney Webb told the Board they have another appearance regarding the issue of the animals in Court Friday morning. They are dealing with those issues separately. They know the fence is non-compliant but it is deep into the property. It is not visible from the road and does not cause any obstruction to the neighbors. He did not know if the neighbors had complained specifically about the height.
Mr. Woodbury said the neighbors were invited to be at the meeting. They have complained about this and their absence is disappointing. There was also no written correspondence to the Town.
Mr. Hoglin asked Mr. Webb to define whose security this fence is for. Attorney Webb said because it is the area the animals are kept, Mr. Baker has the chain link fence until it gets back to where the animals are and then he has the wooden fence so the people don’t have to endure the smell or see the animals. The wooden fence provides more privacy for the neighbors and eliminates any potential complaints. It is a kennel facility so it’s not the most pleasant thing to look at. Mr. Baker has a dog, a miniature pony, a goat and the wolf. Mr. Baker said it is only the area around the kennel that is required to be 8’. The Federal permit requires it for containment and security. Mr. Baker was asked when they were going to get the rest in compliance for the Federal permit. Mr. Baker said they have to resolve the issue with the animals first.
Attorney Wright did not know if they could act on the variance for the fence if there are still unresolved issues. He asked if the portion that was added to the fence where it is 8’could be temporarily removed. Attorney Webb said it is more permanent than what it appears. Mr. Webb said they need to find out the answer on the animals quickly and then Mr. Baker would be right back in to seek a variance to make the whole enclosure 8’. If Mr. Baker is not able to keep the animals the fence will be a non-issue.
Mr. Woodbury had a video to show the Board. The Board did not feel it was necessary to see the video.
This property is in a residential area. Attorney Wright stated you are not allowed to have a pony in a residential zone. Mr. Woodbury said that is part of the charges Mr. Baker will appear for in court on Friday. He asked Mr. Baker how he would describe the use of the animals. Mr. Webb said Mr. Baker has a rehabilitative license and does some wild life exhibits. Mr. Baker stated this is not a business. He is allowed to have wild life. He could have deer there that other residents could not have because the State brings them to him. Mr. Baker would consider all the animals as pets and are not part of a business. The animals would be taken somewhere else for exhibit. He is not paid from people coming to see the animals. Randy asked if Mr. Baker could leave the photographs with the Board and asked for a copy of the map they showed the Board.
Mr. Hoglin asked if it was a federal requirement that is required for containment or security or safety of people. Mr. Baker stated because of the wolf the whole enclosure has to be at that height. Attorney Wright asked when Mr. Baker was planning to get the rest of the fence in compliance. Mr. Baker said as soon as he can but they have to resolve the issue of the animals first. Mr. Wright said given that he is out of compliance with the federal permit requirements for the height of the fence anyway, was it possible to remove that two feet until such time as they have gone to court and through the process. If you are told you can keep the animals you have to come in for the variance anyway for the fence all around the animals, but if your animals can’t stay you would not have any reason to come back. Mr. Woodbury does not think it is appropriate for the Board to do anything. The Board would be granting the variance in the face of the wolf’s justification that could be determined to potentially be illegal.
Mr. Woodbury said his determination, based on the argument tonight and their justification for the fence, would be to wait on the enforcement on the portion of the fence that is 8 feet. He would ask the Board to table this application.
Pat Martonis asked if Mr. Baker would need a Special Use Permit for the animals since he is in a residential zone. Attorney Wright said he would have to look into that. Mr. Baker stated it is a classification of federal law. Mr. Woodbury said Mr. Baker and Mr. Webb have been very cooperative but they might want to think of a contingency plan. Mr. Baker’s federal license is specific to his residential address on Buffalo Street Ext. The wolf is classified as dangerous wild life. The DEC and Federal licenses subrogates itself to all local requirements.
Attorney Webb told the Board they should have some resolution on Friday on what is going to happen with the animals. The fence is a little bit more permanent than it appears and they don’t think it can come down. If Mr. Baker can keep the animals he would be right back in to seek a variance to make the whole enclosure eight feet. If he can’t keep the animals, then obviously it will not be an issue.
Mr. Baker had talked about the possible eventuality of moving the animals. Randy asked if he had a contingency plan and a place for the animals to go. Mr. Baker said under the federal permit he couldn’t legally move them.
Mr. Woodbury filled the Board in on the court appearance. It was his determination that a wolf and the two farm animals are not a customary accessory use in a residential zone. The code says any thing not specifically allowed is disallowed. There are two charges. One had to do with the fence and that has in some regards been corrected. The other is the issue of the animals. Mr. Woodbury said if the argument they are using to justify the fence is because of the animals he agreed the Board could not act on anything until the court resolves the issue of the animals.
Attorney Wright’s and Mr. Woodbury’s recommendation to the Board was this be tabled pending the resolution of the issues with the animals, which are justification for the fence in the first place.
Motion made by Pat Martonis,
seconded by Ang Cimo to table the variance for Calvert Baker and Joan
Baker-Gerner at 2053 Buffalo St. Ext., Jamestown, NY due to both the
applicant’s and the Board’s request that the determination be made on the
animals.
Carried. Ayes - 5 Noes - 0 Absent
–2
Chairman Hoglin opened the
Public Hearing for Audrey J. Buck for a setback variance to use the existing
structure setbacks when converting 471 Fairmount Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY to a
Licensed Occupational Therapist Office.
Attorney Robert Van Every, representing Mrs. Buck, told the Board Mrs. Buck was looking to buy property on Fairmount Avenue in an area zoned Professional Office. The property has been on the market for 3 ½ years, which has been a hardship for the present owner. The reason is partly because of the setback requirements. The setback requirements basically make the lot itself unusable. If they were to tear down the existing house you could not rebuild a professional office that would comply with the code.
Mrs. Buck would use the property for the treating of patients for her profession of Occupational Therapist. Mr. Van Every presented a copy of Mrs. Buck’s license from the State of New York. He also had a copy of Article 156 of the Education Law, which designates Occupation Therapy is a profession within the State of New York. That would bring it within the coverage of the Town of Ellicott Zoning Code. Mr. Van Every stated it is in Section 146-18 subdivision B of the Code. He said they meet the definition of a profession and thus they are proper before the Board.
Mrs. Buck has hired Mr. Jerry Erickson, PE, as her engineer. Both Mr. Erickson and Mr. Van Every have been up to the property and determined that if you tear down the house you could not build a building, which would comply with the setback requirements of the code, on that lot. However, if you look at the neighborhood itself you will see that almost every property on that stretch of Fairmount Avenue on both sides is out of compliance with the setback requirements of the code. There are quite a few commercial or professional types of businesses that are in that neighborhood. If the Board looks at the criteria in Section 267 B of the Zoning Law of the State of New York they will find the use they propose to put this property to is not going to change the character of the neighborhood. It will remain the same before and after. They intend to leave the footprint of the property exactly the same. They would need in addition to a variance of the setback requirements, a variance to add parking spaces that would total about 400 SF in area. Right now there is room for three parking spaces in front of the existing garage. That area is already paved. They propose to pave an area for a width of 10 feet from the road to the back of the garage. That would be the only exterior change they would be making. Because they are changing the use of the property from residential to professional office they need to ask for a variance of the setback requirements for the existing building.
Attorney Van Every told the Board, going through the criteria in Section 267 B, they need to consider:
1) whether or not there is going to be an undesirable change in the neighborhood – they do not
think so – there are businesses all up and down that section of Fairmount Ave – it will be
less of a change in terms of the neighborhood than a new building would be - the existing
building will be dressed up some - Mr. Buck is a carpenter and will be fixing up the
property– it will be an improvement to the neighborhood – the setback toward Hanford will
be treated as a side property and thus a 25 foot setback would be required - there is also a
requirement in the code that parking lines need be 30 ‘ from a front property line - 25 feet
from the side - they would need a variance for that because right now the paved part goes
right down to the street – and they are requesting additional parking that would run from the
street to the back of the property, which will be 10 feet wide - they will be far enough from
the back property line because they own an additional lot behind – Mrs. Buck will be seeing
patients about every half hour at most – she will have one employee -
2) they do not think any alternatives are reasonably available for this property – you could not meet the setback requirements if this house was taken down – the property has been on the market for 3 ½ years and has not sold – there was one offer contingent on approval from the ZBA Board and that was not granted
3) they are asking for the minimum variance – everything is in place and they can’t do much
beyond what they have – the additional parking should not make more than a minimal
difference to the situation
Mr. Van Every reminded the Board that because the zoning came into the existing neighborhood other properties are also out of compliance – because of the new setback requirements properties along Fairmount Ave are in violation - what the applicant is doing will not have any deleterious effect on the neighborhood - they are not changing the physical conditions in the neighborhood - they are adding 400 SF of paving – environmentally they are doing nothing, they are not introducing anything into the air or the water – there will not be a lot more traffic with two patients per hour.
Attorney Wright said that there are four issues they are requesting variances for:
1) a variance from the setback requirement from Fairmount Ave – so they will not have to be back 50 feet from Fairmount Ave. – they are as far back as the structure sets –
2) they are asking for variances from the 25 foot setback requirements on both side lines -
3) they will need a variance for the buffer requirement - they have the additional lot in
the back that will stay green
Handicapped accessibility is available – one of the parking spaces will be handicapped - they want the office entrance to go into the garage that is being remodeled – Mrs. Buck will use the whole downstairs for patients - she will not be living in the house - there will be a small office upstairs
Rick Keefer entered that meeting at 8:30 PM.
Discussion followed on the set back in the back of the property, the Town of Ellicott code requires a 20 foot buffer with greenery - They will be stopping the construction at 30 feet. Ang Cimo said there was an issue with a pole or a guy wire the last time this project came in. Mr. Erickson stated there is a guy wire that would have to be removed. Mr. Van Every said they are asking for a fourth variance, which would be for the buffer requirement. Mr. Erickson asked if the 30-foot buffer between zones could be on the extra lot so Mrs. Buck does not have to put 20 feet of buffer on her property line. Mr. Wright said technically No because the code says that is required has to be done on the similar zoned property. Mr. Wright said if this property would be unused for commercial purposes what would be the problem to put a 20-foot buffer. Mr. Erickson suggested a fence but Mrs. Buck does not want a fence. Mr. Van Every asked that the Board vary the buffer requirement to allow them to put the buffer back on the extra lot. Attorney Wright said that would be a use variance issue because they would be using a residential property in order to meet the requirement under a professional office zone. Mr. Van Every did not think that would be a use of the property for professional purposes. Attorney Wright said that it is because anything that is required under the code becomes a use of the property for professional purposes.
Discussion followed. Mr. Erickson said there is approximately 30 feet from the division lines of the zone up to where they will have the parking. Mr. Wright reviewed the code that states the buffer shall be 20 ‘ deep from any residential zone and shall consist of trees, shrubs or hedges or any combination thereof. The Board can fix what that buffer is – it can be a 20’ green space with four pine trees staggered every how many feet. As long as Mrs. Buck intends to put on record that she will not alienate that property and she will continue to use it, the Board can determine the buffer. The issue is that this Board has always taken the position that every thing that is needed to satisfy requirements under the code has to be on the commercial property. Mrs. Buck agreed to put trees in the 50’ by 20’ area and stagger them 12 feet and put flowers or greenery between them.
Mrs. Buck said her hours of operation would be Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. She will have no Saturday or Sunday hours. She will have approximately 8 patients but could have up to 16 a day. She will have two employees – an office person and an OT assistant.
Pat Martonis asked why this is going to the Planning Board. Attorney Wright stated that any change of use triggers site plan review.
Attorney Wright said the Board is looking at multiple area variances – a front line setback variance under Section 146-20 B (requires that a building be set back at least 50 feet from the front property line). This building is 13 feet from the property line for a variance of 37 feet. Sideline setbacks variance on both sides of the property under the same section of code 146-20 B (building lines requirement is 20 feet – the west side is down to 10 ½ feet and on the east side they are down to 8’ 2”)- the parking lot requirement is that the parking lot lines must be set back 30 feet from the front property line and the 25 feet from the side property and rear property lines. It meets the rear setback but on the west side it goes down to 0 feet (because it is contiguous to the road right-of-way) and on the east side it goes down to approximately 10 feet.
Mr. Wright said area variances are reviewed under Section 267 B of the Town Law, which is the balancing test taking into account the benefit to the applicant if the variances are granted as opposed to detriment of the community in general. He said that Mr. Van Every has gone through them in his presentation. The Board decided they did not have to review them again.
Attorney Wright stated that individual lot line setback variances are exempt from SEQR as type II actions under 617.5 sub-section 12 granting of individual setbacks and lot line variances. He will hold the short form EAF provided by the applicant in the file for the Planning Board because it is not exempt from SEQR review under Planning. Attorney Van Every said he would do another EAF for the Planning Board to reflect the changes to the buffers.
The neighbors had been noticed. There were no neighbors present and the Town received no correspondence on this application.
Attorney Wright asked Mrs. Buck if she was sure that the parking was adequate because for commercial purposes you are not allowed to utilize the road rights-of-way for parking. Mrs. Buck stated she understood that.
John Merchant asked if there would be any problems with snow removal. Mr. Erickson said there is plenty of space for the snow.
There will not be any outdoor storage or dumpsters. Mrs. Buck will have some space in the garage for storage.
Mr. Woodbury reminded the applicant to obtain a building permit for the inside conversions. Mr. Wright asked Randy if in a two-story building you were able to use the second story floor space under the Uniform Fire and Building Code as an office area. Randy said if the area is less than 3000 SF it is exempt from accessibility of clients. He did feel that there should be conditions on the approval such as not alienating the lot and that there will be no rental of the second floor.
Mr. Erickson stated that to buffer the 20’ by 50’ space they would add six evergreen trees set so they would be on 10-foot centers and stay five feet from the sides and staggered. They will plant trees that would be 6 feet tall at the time of planting. Attorney Wright stated the planting part of the code has minimum tree size requirements.
Motion by Dave Remington to
approve the variance for Audrey Buck for a variance to use the existing
structure setbacks when converting to a Licensed Occupational Therapist Office
at 471 Fairmount Ave., W.E., Jamestown, NY with the conditions as stated in the
minutes.
Attorney Wright, Attorney
Van Every and Board members asked that the following conditions be added to the
motion:
1) that
Mrs. Buck not alienate the rear 50’ by 100’ lot in the residential zone
2) the buffer will be comprised of 6 trees set at 10 foot centers, 5 feet from each side, they will be staggered and will be evergreens 6 feet tall when planted
3) approval includes the 10’ by 40’ additional parking area
4) there will be no sub-letting of either the lot or building
Mr. Remington consented to
his resolution being modified as stated. John Merchant seconded the motion.
Carried. Ayes – 5 Noes – 0 Abstain – 1(Keefer)
Absent - 1
Motion made by Dave
Remington, seconded by Pat Martonis to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM.
Carried. Ayes - 6 Noes – 0 Absent –1
_______________________
Valerie Pierce, Secretary