Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-19 Approved ZBA Minutes APPROVED Town of Lan s i n g Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Monday, March 19, 2019 6:30 PM Present Absent Judy Drake Maureen Cowen Linda Hirvonen Henry (Hurf) Sheldon, Chair Peter Larson III Melanie Malone, Alternate Other Staff Present Guy Krogh, Town Attorney Lynn Day, Code Enforcement Officer Katrina Binkewicz, Town Board Liaison Tom Butler, Planning Board Alternate Public Present (17) Signed In Suzanne Hinderliter Dan Veaner Donna Scott Susan Holland Patricia VanEvery Kurt Martin Allison Trdan Cindy Howell Amanda Smith-Socaris Ron Howell Amy Christopher Randy Marcus Richard VanEvery Eric VanEvery Dan Pierce Cathy Barron Mahlon Perkins, Esq General Business Acting Chair Linda Hirvonen Opened the meeting of Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 6:30pm. Acting Chair Linda Hirvonen enacted Melanie Malone to be a voting member due to an absence. Motion to Approve the Minutes of March 4,2019 as amended Motion by: Judy Drake Seconded by: Peter Larson III (Motion seconded and carried) Motion to Open the Public Hearing for Socaris Area Variance at located at 139 Eastlake Road. Tax Parcel #42.-1-54.13 at 6:33 p.m. Motion by: Judy Drake Seconded by: Peter Larson III (Motion seconded and carried) The Official Public Notice was published on March 8, 2019 as required. 600' parcel notices were mailed on March 12, 2019. This application is for an Area Variance from Section 504, Schedule II Area, Frontage,Yard, Heights and Coverage Requirements. The required minimum side yard setback for that property is 15'. Amanda is requesting an 11' side yard setback. Amanda gave a brief description; this is not word for word. They are planning to build a house this spring at 139 Eastlake Road. The neighbors and Homeowners Association have made her change the original design of the house to comply with the neighborhood. The Page 1 of 13 APPROVED neighbor and the Homeowners Association have written letters of support for the new design with the 11' side yard setback. Summary of Board Discussion with Amanda: - The redesign with the engineer has considerably reduced the size of the porch. Motion to Close the Public Hearing for Socaris Area Variance located at 139 Eastlake Road. Tax Parcel #42.-1-54.13 at 6:37 p.m. Motion by: Judy Drake Seconded by: Melanie Malone (Motion seconded and carried) Board Reviews the Findings & Decision AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS AND DECISION TOWN OF LANSING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant: Amanda Smith-Socaris Variance No: 19-03 400 5th Street Zoning District: R1 Watkins Glen, NY 14891 Mailing Notices on: 3/12/2019 Notice to County Sent on: N/A SEQRA Hearing Held On: N/A Property Location: 139 East Lake Road Tax Parcel #: 42.-1-54.13 Requirement for which Variance is requested: Side Yard Set Back Applicable Section of Town Land Use Ordinance (the "Zoning Ordinance"): Sec. 504, Schedule II Area, Frontage, Yard, Heights and Coverage Requirements. RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS WHEREAS,Amanda Smith-Socaris has applied for an Area Variance to build a deck that is not compliant with the 15' side yard setback for (R1) Zone. Amanda is asking for an 11' setback on the south side, the need for variance arose after redesigning the house in a way that is more formable to neighbors & home owners association (eliminated 2nd story, eliminated large masonry back/side porch at ground level) thus requiring an Area Variance per Section 1002.0 of the Zoning Ordinance Permission to Alter or Enlarge; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2019 the Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA") thoroughly reviewed and analyzed: (i) the information and evidence submitted by the applicant in support of the requested area variance; (ii) all other information and materials properly before the ZBA;and (iii) the issues and impacts raised for consideration by neighbors, the public, and the ZBA; and WHEREAS, this application is classified as a Type II Action (such that no further environmental review is required) and this matter also does not require a Section 239 review; so,upon due deliberation upon the foregoing, the application, and all evidence and testimony presented to the ZBA, Page 2 of 13 APPROVED NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") hereby makes the following findings with respect to the specific criteria for area variances as set forth in Town Law § 267- b(3)(b), and other applicable provisions of law and of the Zoning Ordinance: a.Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? Yes No X b. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Yes X No But, property owner has already worked to change the design of the house to better meet the needs of the neighborhood. c. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? Yes No X If you look at the footprint of the house as a whole it is a minor area. Not substantial. d. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Yes No X e. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? Yes X No 2. DETERMINATION BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTORS (choose one): It is hereby determined by the Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA") that the following area variance is GRANTED, with any conditions hereafter stated (if any), it being further found and determined that (i) the benefit to the applicant outweighs any potential negative impacts or detriment to the neighborhood or community; and (ii) such area variance is the minimum necessary as adequate to grant relief and, at the same time, preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the safety and welfare of the community. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC VARIANCE GRANTED: To permit an Area Variance of the setback on the south side of the house to 11'. THE VOTE ON THE FOREGOING DECISION, DETERMINATIONS, AND RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LANSING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WAS AS FOLLOWS: Motion by: Judy Drake (Motion to Grant) Seconded by: Peter Larson III Page 3 of 13 APPROVED Judy Drake -Aye Peter Larson III -Aye Melanie Malone, Alternate -Aye Linda Hirvonen - Aye (Motion has been seconded and carried) Dated: March 19, 2019 Received and filed in the Lansing Town Clerk's Office Motion to Open the Public Hearing for an appeal filed by Barron at 6:45 p.m. Motion by: Peter Larson III Seconded by:Judy Drake (Motion seconded and carried) In consideration for the appeal filed by Cathy Barron seeking interpretation of Zoning Ordinance as it relates to section 503 Schedule 1 & definitions &Appeal of decision of Code Enforcement Officer. The appeal specifically seeks that the ZBA determine that this is not an allowed Use and may only be permitted if a Use Variance is first granted by the ZBA for a Bed and Breakfast and Banquet Hall/Reception Venue for 59 Emmons Road,Tax Parcel #P/O 23.-1-6.32. Attorney Mahlon Perkins speaking on behalf of Cathy Barron who is here with him. See Below March 19, 2019 REMARKS TO (1) LANSrNG ZBA REGARDrNG APPLICATION OF CATHY E. BARRON FOR AN 1NTERl'RMTATION OF THF_ LAND USE ORDINANCF_ AND/OR TO REVERSE A DECISION, INTERPRETATION OR DETERMINATION OF THE CEO Good evening. My name is Mahlon Perkins and i am appearing as the attorney for Cathy Barron in the matter before you tonight. The purpose ofCathy's application is to request an i rterpretation of the Land Use Ordinance (Ordinance) definition of"Bed and Breakfast Facility„ (B&B)and the definition of"Ban quet HaIUR.eception Venue" specifically as those terms apply to the application of Kurt Martin/Osmica(applicant)and the Application for Site Development Plan Approval at 59 Emmons Road(application). The ordinance defines the term "appeal" as,"[a] formal request to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a review of the Code Enforcement OfEcer's interpretation of any provision of the ordinance or a request for a variance."You have the statutory authority to reverse the decision, interpretation or determination of the CEO under New York Town Law sections 267-a(4) and 267-b(1), and determine that the proposed uses or the site as set forth in the application are not permitted uses. Page 4 of 13 APPROVED Oath} is an aggrieved party since she resides at 58 Emmons Road, directly across the road from the proposed protect. Some quick background. Under section 501.1 of the Ordinance, any use or activity not set forth in Schedule Y is not permitted unless the CEO has determined that the proposed use is a similar use under section 501 .2. The appli fs first application listed the proposed use of the site as "B & B and hosting events." A Red and Breakfast Facility is a permitted use in the RA district under action 503 schedule I, with site plan approval. However, there is no cawgory of hosting events as a permitted use under section 503 Schedule I. The closest use in Schedule I is "Banquet HallJRecepption Venue." There is nothing in the to n's file to indicate that the CEO made a determination or categorization that the proposed use, "hosting events" is a similar use to "Banquet Hall/Reception Venue." Nevertheless, the application was forwarded to the planning board for action as if "hosting events" was an allowed use (with site plan approval.) A public hearing was held by the planning board on January 28, 2019 at which there was much opposition to the application_ The punning board treated the applicant's proposed multiple uses of the site as uses permitted with site plan review. There Fore, it is implicit and inescapable that the town categorized the proposed use (hosting events) as a similar use to some other use that is a permitted use, i.e. "Banquet Hal[/Reception Venue." athy's application to the ZBA was fled on or about February 13; 2019. The planning board's public bearing was continued to February 2 5, at which time the applicant announced that a revised application was (or was to be) filed. The revised application iisced the proposed uses as a B & B for the main farmhouse and the bam to be used as a banquet halUreception venue, seemingly bringing the application within the use a]lowed by special permit In the RA district. The planning board continued the pubhe hearing on March 11. Page 5 of 13 APPROVED So that's the background. You might ask whether the revised appiication now before the planning hoard makes the present application before you moot. We believe that there are still issues regarding the ordinance definitions which you should pass on. First you are asked to interpret the definition ofBcd and Sreak&st. The definition of Bed and Breakfast.is"Owner occupied residence resulting from the conversion of a one fmr ly dweliing,used for providing overnight accommodations and a morning meal to not more than ten(10)transient lodgers,and containing at least three but not more than five bedrooms for such lodgers." We do not believe that the proposed use of the fan-nhouse qualifies as a B&B since it wi11 not be owner occupied.'Mere is only one single family residence on the site and it is not now, and apparently will not be, owner occupied. We say this because the narrative accompanying the revised application contains an apparent misleading statement. The applicant states that,"[wle currently occupy this house, (tire main farmhouse) and plan to be on site when we have guests staying in a B&B capacity." Ask yourselves, ifyou were already occupying the house,would not need to plan to be on sites Obviously the intent is to create as many bedrooms as are permitted and this is accomplished by using all the bedrooms in the house for guests,thus bring the proposed use out of the requirement that the dwelling be owner occupied. Don't be fooled by the definitions and differences between awning and occupying. We ask that you interpret the ordinance consistently with its definition of Bed and Breakfast,and determine that use of the farmhouse as a Bed and Breakfast,must be truly owner occupied as their residence, econdIy, the ordinance definition of Banquet HailfReception Venue is"[a] building or space to host small gatherings, special events, weddings, parties, retirement ceremonies, etc_" The applicant proposes to host up to 280 persons per event, including at two tent sites on the site. This is not a small gathering or a small wedding. A small wedding is I ikeiy 50 guests or less. See the print offs from wedding planner websites filed with the clerk yesterday. See also: https'l Rrw .marthaste artweddinL,s.corn/ 4931 Slauest-count-small-rnediurn-bid weddin. https:llwww.bridal iiide.cornlhlogs/real-brides-speak-outlweciding- uest- list-si ehtt s:11`unebu weddin,Fs.comfwecfdin -blo choosing-wedding.-sizel Page 6 of 13 APPROVED See also the letters from event hosts handed up with my remarks. It is instructive to note that Lake Watch Inn is in a commercial district, and not a R4 district. Although the definition includes the term "small" only preceding the gore] "gatherings", we believe the intent of the ordinance is to include the words"special events,weddings, parties , retirement ceremonies,etc." within the general sense of "small gatherings". We feel that the term "small"is descriptive of all the events in the definition. If this were not so, a small gathering might be limited to 50 (as the submittals demonstrate) while a wedding might have an un united number of guests. We are talking about proposed uses in the RA district, for which the urdinaucc provides,aniong other things that, "[tjhe intent of the RA District is to designate areas, where fanning and farm-related businesses are predominate and desired land use activities. Some nonagricultural development, largely low density housing, has occurred,is anticipated in the future,and is appropriate. Measures to preserve the viability of farming activities are appropriate."Clearly a use,as proposed, which includes atuacting large numbers of people to the site, is more appropriately Iocated in a commercial district. e request that the ZB A determine that the applicant's proposed uses, as set forth in the application,and as described in the narrative, and apparently) ratified by the C E0, is inconsistent with the allowed use of the site (as a "Banquet Hal Meception Venue"),and that such use as proposed may only be permitted if use variance is first granted. Attorney Marcus: speaking on behalf of Kurt Martin property owner at 59 Emmons Road: I think the matter can be far simplified as compared to how it has been presented. I appreciate Mahlon s chronology, which we certainly don t disagree with and having read the definitions,we certainly agree and save you time reading those definitions. The Towns Zoning Law expressly permits bed &breakfast use and the banquet hall/reception venue in the (RA) District. There is no question that that is the case. These uses are permitted as a matter of right. It is the case that Site Plan approval is necessary and not unusual. The Zoning Board's decision tonight is really on a single question and that is whether or not the Towns CEO correctly decided that these uses would be categorized as permitted uses as they are in the Towns Zoning Law. Or you could decide that the CEO was wrong and that these uses are not permitted. I'd like to refer to one of the tendencies that is generally regarded as a guide to zoning boards. That is the New York State Division of Local Government Services Page 7 of 13 APPROVED for the Zoning Board of Appeals. You have the Authority to substitute your discretion for the decision that the Zoning Officer has made. If you do that, you will be deciding that Bed & Breakfast is not a permitted use in the (RA) District and that the Banquet Hall/Reception Venue is not a permitted use in the (RA) District. That runs directly contrary to your Towns Statute. The Town Planner's memo is worth taking a look at. The summary is that the Town Board had approved the inclusion of Bed &Breakfast & Banquet Hall/Reception Venue and permitted them within the (RA) District according to the charts and definitions that are attached. These proposed land uses with appropriate Site Plan approval by the Planning Board have been determined to be permitted uses. It is not the Zoning Board's choice or authority to change the Zoning Law. With regard to the issue thereof whether an event is small, medium or large and how that language regarding the Banquet Hall should be interpreted, I would disagree with what has been presented. I think that it reads very clearly that what your Zoning Law permits is small gathering,weddings, retirement parties, etc. The way that that is written that word "small" modifies gatherings. It does not modify all of the other particular uses that are identified in that list. I am sure the town is not going to rely on internet advice columns that people may use to determine whether an activity small, medium or large. As the Code Officer and the Town Planner noted, there is nothing in the Zoning Law that determines how many people can occupy a building in the Town that is determined by NYS Building Code. The Occupancy for this project has not been determined yet. That will be determine according to the NYS Building Code set forth based on all the criteria that have to go into that determination. It isn t up to the Town's Planning Board to determine that or for ZBA to determine that. The Zoning Board's decision is quite limited in this case. It is not a common situation for the Zoning Board to be in, to have to interpret the decision of a code officer. When you do, it really boils down to either agreeing with the CEO decision or disagreeing with his decision. In this case based on the text of your Zoning Law I do not see any rational path to disagreeing with his decision. The fact is that you cannot prevent a property owner from using their property as the Zoning Law allows. The Town of Lansing Zoning Law happens to allow Bed &Breakfast and Banquet Hall/Reception Venue. With regard to the issue that was thrown out as to occupancy of the house. They are going to be occupying the house anytime that it is used as a Bed &Breakfast. The definition of Bed & Breakfast reads owner-occupied residence (In this case residence is a noun so owner occupied is modifying the reference to the house) resulting from a conversion of a one-family dwelling, used for providing overnight accommodations and a morning meal to not more than (ten) transient lodgers, and containing at least three but not more than five bedrooms for such lodgers. That is exactly what is being proposed. Along the way through the Planning Board process, components of the original proposal that exceeded that limitation were eliminated. So, all that is being proposed is for the house is will it be occupied by its owners while it is being used as a bed &breakfast. It will be used according to the Town of Lansing Zoning Laws. The Barn will be used according to the Town of Lansing Zoning Law. Your decision boils down to: did the CEO correctly categorize these two uses as permitted uses or not? If the board has any questions, I am happy to answer them if needed. Attorney Mahlon Perkins: responded with our request is relatively narrow. We have asked you to interpret whether the uses as purposed in the application and the 'owner occupied' only when you are using it as a B&B. I do not think that is the intent of the ordinance. It is an Page 8 of 13 APPROVED 'owner occupied' residence or it is not. Not an'owner occupied' only when it is convenient because we have guests. That would not be the intent of the ordinance. With respect to the Banquet Hall/Reception Venue, of course it is an allowed use. We are arguing that the use as proposed is not consistent with what is in the Ordinance. It far exceeds what is intended by the drafters of the Ordinance, because they wouldn t have had small gatherings. We feel that small gatherings of 50 or less people is not consistent with a wedding of 350 people. We feel that small ought to be 50 and a small wedding ought to be 50, and a small retirement party ought to be 50 people. Lansing has plenty of commercial zones for the big ones. Lansing has Lake Watch Inn that can hold over 600 people. That's were these bigger events need to go, not in an RA Zone. Michael Long, the Towri s Planning Consultant: representing the Town and Lynn Day, the Code Enforcement Officer are also present. Mike notes that in his memo he has tried to identify the process. How it went to in terms of the preliminary information that went to the Planning Board. There was a sketch plan review to try to gather information on the Site Plan and to make it better. I have put together information that was submitted to the board as Exhibit B. As you can see, I have tried to reiterate what is said in the current zoning ordinance under bed &breakfast. The owner has stated several times that they plan to reside in the residence at the time it is occupied with guests. The B&B will be limited to 3 bedrooms for rent. The owner changed the other buildings that could be available to be occupied and will now use the space as storage. It is a process, and as the Planning Board goes through the process, they will identify issues that need to be changed to help make it a better Site Plan. In my memo, I noted three other Event Centers. One is the John Joseph Inn on Auburn Road able to occupy 250 guests. You have the Dutch Harvest Farm which was approved earlier this month might be able to occupy up to 299 guests. Lake Watch Inn, which can occupy up to 630 guests, which is in the Village of Lansing's Residential and Craft Zone. John Joseph and Dutch Harvest are in the Town of Lansing's Rural Agricultural Zone, which is the only Zone in the Town that allows Banquet Hall/Reception Venues. If the Zoning Board of Appeals decided that Banquet Hall/Reception Venues are not permitted in the RA then it would not be permitted in the Town at all. At least that would be my interpretation. The Planning Board is currently reviewing the Land Use Ordinance based on the Comprehensive Plan. They are working on the language for the Definitions. Proposing changes for the allowable uses in the different zones. This is an appropriate time to talk about the definitions and how they apply. At least my perspective is, if the ZBA says that it is not permitted in the RA than it is not permitted at all in the Town. In the Definitions, there are special conditions included. In my memo, it has the zoning requirements that the Zoning Officer is required to adhere to when the building is ready to be occupied. The occupancy of buildings is not determined until there is a final plan of what the building layout is. After the area is determined for bathrooms, kitchen (if there is one), tables &chairs, the remaining area would be used to calculate the maximum guests allowed for occupancy. The CEO in accordance with the Building Code calculates the occupancy, not the Planning Board. As a planner with 40 years of experience, this project is fairly simple and listed in the LUO as a permitted use by right with a Site Plan Approval. I know the neighbors are not happy about the project, which is evident by their interest in this particular project. We have an owner who has in good faith purchased a building. Their intent is to restore a historic barn and use it for today's purpose Page 9 of 13 APPROVED and that to me is a great idea. I am a Historic Preservationist. This is what the Planning Board was thinking back when they created the LUO. How do you take an old barn and give it a productive life,because if you don't have an active farm to go with the barn,what do you do to preserve it? This particular barn is one of the oldest barns in the Town of Lansing if not in the entire county. It is really something I want to see happen positively. It is a great project and it is something the Town has tried to encourage. It has been referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as types of interactive businesses to bring people to the community. Acting Chair Linda Hirvonen opens the floor to the Public. Attorney Mahlon Perkins wants to point out that much of what the Planner gave you is his opinion. I think we need to limit it to what the applicant has put down on the revised application and the narrow request my client has for your interpretation on the two items. A concerned neighbor asks the Board to really consider this appeal in the spirit and the intent of the document when the LUO was written. Small gathering was put in the LUO for a reason. Please consider that. This project has too many inconsistencies. The numbers don't add up. Neighbor is frustrated that there is a bias, especially with the planner towards this project and feels that none of the neighbors are being considered. I think that that should be considered. How do they get this number of cars when the occupancy is greater? Another concerned neighbor who's property is on the back side of the project. Concerned with the site plan that shows a picture of a parking lot that is big enough for 200 cars or if we said a 100 cars that is a lot of cars and a lot of people going up and down the road. I dori t understand how that fits into the small venue. Another concerned neighbor feels there are a few issues. The B&B and agrees with Mr. Mahlon. The separate issue is what is being defined as small. The property is less than 20 acres and they proposed to have 280 guests. Another concerned neighbor with a house that overlooks the project. The rules are owner occupy if it is a Bed & Breakfast. It doesn't say owner occupy on weekends or summertime. It is all the time. These people have yet to live in the house. I look out my window there is nobody living there. On occasion, they stay overnight. They leave a car there but they don't stay there. What I am saying is, there is no trust. Is there a way to stop the owner of the project from having a concert with 1,000 people? Are they allowed to park on the yard if they have more cars than the parking lot can hold? I don't need hundreds of cars in my backyard. Can they be stopped from doing more than what is currently proposed? A Town Board Member and was involved in a lot of the discussions leading up to what is known as the current LUO and I have some experience in some of the discussions of'owner occupied' businesses in residential zones. I am confused about the stating of residents just for activities. What is the definition of residence, is it primary residence or two months a year or 12 months a year. Just wondering about clarity. Mike Long, Town Planner clarified that the gravel parking lot proposed is for 72 cars. Page 10 of 13 APPROVED Randy Marcus commented on a speaker mentioning that the project appeared to have inconsistencies. Randy mentioned that the project has evolved from the time the proposed application was submitted and may continue to evolve until the site plan is approved. This is a normal process when going through Site Plan. There is no new construction going on they are conversions that are in accordance with the law. They would like to use their property for the purposes they are allowed to by the Zoning Law just like other property owners. Kurt Martin said that because his wife, Allison, teaches in the city it makes sense that they live there during the school year because she can walk to school in the winter weather. Kurt added that they plan to be in the Emmons Road home more than only the times when the Bed & Breakfast visitors are there, and they hope to spend even more time there as time goes on. At present the house in under renovation and without insulation, it is too cold to live there. The Zoning Code does not require it to be one's primary or principal residence. It just says "owner occupied". There are a number of lake homes in the area and things like that that are owner occupied. They use them for vacations,weekends, summers and they are still owner occupied homes. Given how closely people are following everything my wife and I say, it's made us hesitant to commit to being there for X number of hours per week by such and such a date, because we cant promise that. We are trying to emphasize our intent to comply fully with the law as it is written. Motion to Close the Public hearing for the Barron Appeal at 7:30 p.m. Motion by: Judy Drake Seconded by: Melanie Malone (Motioned seconded and carried) Summary of Deliberations: - Reviewed the definition of Banquet Hall/Reception Venue. Defined as "A building or space to host small gatherings, special events, weddings, parties, retirement ceremonies, etc." It is agreed by three members and interpreted that'small gatherings' are part of a list of things that are allowed uses, in addition to the other types of events that the law does not define the size of. If the comas were arranged differently or the grammar arranged differently it could be interpreted another way. You could insert the word or in front and it would read, "A building or space to host small gatherings, or special events, or weddings, or parties, or retirement ceremonies, etc." - Reviewed the definition of Bed and Breakfast. Specifically'Owner Occupied' intentions. From Guy Krogh, Town Attorney, You can have as many residences as you wish but you can only have one domicile. Your domicile is your permanent home. There are many owner-occupied structures, especially throughout the Finger Lakes, that are not necessarily domiciles,but they are still owner-occupied. Therefore,when you look at a zoning interpretation you are going to have to look and see whether or not these terms are defined. If they are not then you apply their plain language meaning under the basic rule that if it is ambiguous, the landowner wins. It is agreed by the board that the Owners have to be present during the operations of the Bed & Breakfast or change the to a different use that would be less restrictive and would not require them to be present when the renters are on site. Page 11 of 13 APPROVED If a large concert were planned, the owner would have to apply for a Mass Gathering Permit. The permit would be per event only. FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF LANSING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF LANSING ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Matter of the Application of Cathy Barron,for an Appeal and Review of the Town of Lansing Zoning Ordinance as it relates to Section 503 Schedule 1 &Definitions & Decision of Code Enforcement Officer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINDINGS OF FACT: On February 13, 2019, Cathy Barron, filed an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals for the review of the Town of Lansing Zoning Ordinance as it relates to Section 503 Schedule 1 & Definitions & Decision of Code Enforcement Officer. A copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. 1. Due notice was given of a public hearing to be held by the Board on March 19, 2019. A copy of the notice was published in The Ithaca Journal,the official newspaper of the Town, on Friday, March 8, 2019, and posted on the Town of Lansing website, and supplemental access to information and the record on appeal was made available at least one week prior to the March 19, 2019 appeal date. 2. Written notice was given to property owners within 600 feet of the subject property, as measured based upon maps and information supplied by the Tompkins County Assessment Office. 3. An appeal hearing and a public hearing were held by this Board on March 19, 2019 at 6:30 pm. Appellants appeared and spoke on behalf of the application for appeal and presented evidences and arguments and witnesses who elaborated on the contents of the petition and the issues presented in the underlying zoning determination and this appeal. Numerous residents of the Town of Lansing also spoke thereupon and a record of all such proceedings was duly kept and recorded. 4. Respondent is the Lansing Planning Consultant, Michael Long who described his zoning interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance, submittal from Code Officer included in writing in Exhibit B with and attached hereto and made a part hereof. 5. Respondent is Kurt Martin the Property owner of 59 Emmons Road who described his process with Michael Long and the Planning Board, included in writing in Exhibit C with and attached hereto and made a part hereof. 6. The property is located within the Rural Agriculture District (RA) as defined by the Towns Land Use Ordinance. Page 12 of 13 APPROVED 7. The land use under review is an allowed use in such district, and the proposed use of the land is for a Bed and Breakfast and Banquet Hall/Reception Venue. 8. Section 503. Schedule 1, C. Business Uses #32 of the Towns Land Use Ordinance governs what may be required, and the Planning Consultant's interpretation as to how Sec. 503 was applied to this particular use and project plans is the subject of this appeal. 9. Additional facts relevant to the determination as found by the ZBA at the hearing and public hearing include the following: Definition of Bed &Breakfast as it pertains to this property seems to be consistent with what is found in the Zoning Ordinance. In regard to the definition of Banquet Hall/Reception Venue,the adjective 'small' does not pertain to all items listed on that definition. The Zoning Board of Appeals feels they have addressed what the applicant has requested. CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS: 1. The proposed Appeal is seeking interpretation of Zoning Ordinance as it relates to section 503 Schedule 1 & definitions & Appeal of decision of Code Enforcement Officer from the ZBA,The exact nature of the appeal and the requested relief sought is more specifically set forth in the appeal, and the ZBA will proceed to consider and adopt, at this time, one of the next following provisions, namely, to grant, deny, or further deliberate upon this appeal. 2. The ZBA DENIES the appeal and determines that the underlying interpretation and application of the Land Use Ordinance was correct. In this respect, the following additional findings are made: No additional findings, as number 9 covers it. Motion by: Judy Drake (Motion to Deny) Seconded by: Peter Larson III Judy Drake -Aye Peter Larson III -Aye Melanie Malone, Alternate -Nay Linda Hirvonen-Aye (Motion has been seconded and carried by a majority vote) Dated: March 19, 2019 Received and filed in the Lansing Town Clerk's Office Motion to Close the meeting and Adjourn Meeting at 8:22 p.m. Motion by: Judy Drake Seconded by: Peter Larson III (Motion seconded and carried) Minutes taken and executed by Sue Munson Page 13 of 13