HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2016-11-21 (2)TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Monday, November 21, 2016
Minutes
Board Members present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Bill King, Christine Decker, Chris Jung, and
George Vignaux Alternates Carin Rubin and William Highland
Staff present: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and
Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town
Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Appeal of Jane Hancock, Owner, Emily Doyle, Agent, 1463 Mecklenburg Rd., TP 28.-1-3.9,
Agricultural Zone, where subdivision will create the need to seek a variance from Town Code
Section 270-29D, "Permitted accessory buildings and uses" to be permitted to exceed the
allowed number of accessory buildings where 3 are allowed and 5 are in existence, and to exceed
the square footage limit in aggregate where 1,500 square feet are allowed and 6,886 square feet
are in existence.
Mr. Bates stated for the record that he rents from through the company the applicant's agent
works for but he didn't feel that would be cause for a conflict of interest. Ms. Brock agreed.
Emily Doyle, Agent gave a quick overview of the proposal which is essential to subdivide a
large farm in such a way as to leave two parcels by consolidating the parcel with all the
outbuilding with the one with the residence and the remaining acreage being left with no
outbuildings. The proposal leaves a parcel with more outbuildings than is allowed under zoning
but they are all in existence now so there is no change in character to the neighborhood.
Mr. Highland asked about the silos and Ms. Doyle responded that those are being removed.
Mr. Rosen stated that he felt this was essentially a boundary line adjustment and the fact whether
they are on one lot or another makes no difference in his mind. The board agreed.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:06 p.m.; there was no one wishing to address the board
and the hearing was closed.
Minor changes were made to the submitted SEQR form.
ZBA Resolution 0021
SEQR — Exceed accessory buildings
1463 Mecklenburg Rd
28.-1-3.9 Agricultural Zone
November 21, 2016
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 1
Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on
the information given in Parts 1, 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the environmental
assessment form with approved changes.
Vote: Ayes — Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux Unanimous
ZBA Resolution 0021
Area and Lot Coverage — Exceed accessory buildings
1463 Mecklenburg Rd
28.-1-3.9 Agricultural Zone
November 21, 2016
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Chris Jung.
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Jane Hancock, Owner, Emily Doyle, Agent, 1463
Mecklenburg Rd., TP 28.-1-3.9, Agricultural Zone, where subdivision will create the need to
seek a variance from Town Code Section 270-29D, "Permitted accessory buildings and uses" to
be permitted to exceed the allowed number of accessory buildings where 3 are allowed and 5 are
in existence, and to exceed the square footage limit in aggregate where 1,500 square feet are
allowed and 6,886 square feet are in existence with the following:
Conditions
1. That the existing accessory buildings not be enlarged in any way.
That there benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the community, specifically that
Findings
L That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means
feasible given that the buildings are in existence and they do not want to tear them down,
and
2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character because the
buildings are already there, and
3. That this request is substantial in that the allowed area allowed is 1,500 sqft and the
eXisting buildings are approximately 6,886 sqft, and
4. That there will not be any physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in
SEQR, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the owner wishes to subdivide a parcel
for sale without outbuildings, however, this boards fells that the benefit to the applicant
does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community for the
reasons stated above.
Vote: Ayes — Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux Unanimous
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 2
Appeal of Cindy Gordon, Owner, 1114 E Shore Dr., TP 19.-2-6, Lakefront Residential Zone,
seeking a variance from Town Code Section 270-235 J"Zoning Board of Appeals" requesting an
eXtension for eXisting variances that are set to eXpire in December of 2016 to allow for
construction to begin in Spring of 2017.
Howard Silcoff reviewed the request stating that they received variances over a year ago and
haven't started the construction and are therefore looking for an eXtension of those eXisting
variances. Mr. Silcoff noted that they wanted to begin construction in the Fall of 2017, not the
Spring as stated.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:17 p.m.; there was no one wishing to address the board
on this appeal and the hearing was closed.
The board had no issues with extending the variances.
ZBA Resolution 0019-2016
Extension of existing variances 270-235 J
1114 East Shore Dr 19.-2-6 Lakefront Residential Zone
November 21, 2016
Motion made by George Vignaux, seconded by Christine Decker
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Cindy Gordon, Owner, 1114 E Shore Dr., TP 19.-2-
6, Lakefront Residential Zone, seeking a variance from Town Code Section 270-235 J"Zoning
Board of Appeals" requesting an extension for existing variances that are set to expire in
December of 2016 to allow for construction to begin in Fall of 2017, with the following:
Conditions
That the three area variances granted on June 15, 2015 be extended for an additional 18
months 18 months to begin immediately upon their expiration by re-adopting the
variances with the same conditions and findings as stated in them.
Vote: Ayes — Jung, Decker, King, Rosen and Vignaux
The order of the appeals was changed upon the Ahir applicants' request to allow for another
person to arrive.
Appeal of William Drummond, Owner, Barry Valentine, Agent, 104 Pineview Ter., TP 53.-1-
15.23, Medium Density Residential Zone, seeking a determination pursuant to Town Code
Section 270-5 whether a group of six unrelated persons is a functional equivalent of a family for
the purpose of occupying a dwelling unit; if the determination is that the group is not a functional
equivalent of a family, applicant is seeking a Use variance from Chapter 270-66 A"Permitted
principal uses" to be allowed to have a family plus four boarders where one boarder is allowed.
William Drummond, was present and stated that he is one of the three owners of the home and
gave the background. He stated that his daughter is in her fourth of six years at Ithaca College
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 3
working on her PhD in Physical Therapy and his oldest daughter went to Cornell so they have
been in this town for seven years and they all really like the area and his daughter wanted to buy
a place of her own and with a little inheritance from her grandmother, she invested her life
savings in buying this house; she put the down payment down and my wife and I cover the
mortgage. We bought this house under the pretense that the house was big enough for her
essentially family unit to live together like they had for the past few years. He said that there is a
chart in the packet submitted showing how they have been living together. Mr. Drummond
stated that they had no idea that this wasn't part of the zoning and said he realizes that is no
eXcuse, but this is the fifth house that we have purchased and we have never been in this
situation and didn't realize there were restrictions on the house.
Mr. Drummond stated that two years ago, his family of six, his wife, two daughters, son and
mother-in-law were living together in another city and we felt this was the same situation. The
people are living together for safety and health reasons and watching out for each other, making
sure everyone got home in time and it was one big family unit.
Now, here we are, with this group of siX people who have been living together for a while in this
home. Mr. Drummond stated that the request that he has is that we look at the individual
situation; my daughter is a home owner so this is an owner-occupied situation, not a rental
property situation where it is there for income and just transient people through. This is an intent
for my daughter to have the people that she cares about living with her, and that is the situation
she is living in today.
Mr. Drummond stated that his daughter is an honor student and doesn't want to have this
property be anything but community related. She does Habitat for Humanity, is involved in
many things with the school and he stated that he just wants the board to understand that her
character is such that she will take good care of this home and she will be a good neighbor, and
as an example, she even gave Halloween treats out for Halloween. That is an example. He
stated that his wife and he are also community minded, saying that his wife is a Girl Scout
leader, and a business owner of a nonprofit organization to help kids get more interested in
STEM and he is a boy scout leader and coach of about 20 sports teams so that is their character.
He went on to say that they do want to resolve this, in the best appropriate way for everyone
involved. He stated that we just happen to have six people in this home that are graduating in
May so his request is that we resolve this in May and go to the appropriate level of people at that
time that the zoning would recognize.
He closed by saying that is where he is at and he just wanted the board to understand the
background of the situation; this wasn't a multi-year let's cram as many people as we can in here
type of situation. We just moved into the house in the Fall and just became aware of this
situation. That's where we are and he asked for the board's help saying this is a group of people
who have lived together for a long time and continue to live together under the family
requirements of the document and in the packet is the description and definition of a family and
within each we have commented and provided documentation about how this unit lives as a
family.
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 4
Board comments
Mr. Highland asked "these are just roommates, not a family?" and Mr. Drummond responded
that they are a family. They have been living together for a number of years now and again,
according to the family documentation submitted, they meet the requirements of a family. They
rely on each other. Mr. Highland said "the family is breaking up in May, right?" and Mr.
Drummond responded that the family will be just like my family just did in his home, where he
had three kids going off to jobs, college and other things and this is really the same situation. In
May the family will be moving on to their next phases of life, but they really are, again,
operating as one family unit today.
Mr. Rosen stated that rather than cross-examining Mr. Drummond, the board should discuss this
amongst themselves. Mr. Vignaux said he had one question first and asked Mr. Drummond to be
more specific about his statement "they have been living together a long time." Mr. Drummond
responded that in the packet there is a list of the people and the years they have lived together; so
it started in 2013 for at least one of the individuals with my daughter and then 2015, 2016 and
2017 with the remaining five.
Mr. King said "Just so I understand clearly, they just moved in in the Fall... and they are all
leaving in May?" Mr. Drummond responded that they had been living together in another
location and Mr. Rosen asked where that was; Mr. Drummond responded that they were living in
an apartment on campus at Ithaca College one year, and the year before that they were living in
dorms. Mr. Rosen asked if they were ever living in a single-family house before and he
responded no and added that the purpose of purchasing the house was so they could do that.
Mr. Rosen asked if Mr. Drummond said he owns five properties in Ithaca and Mr. Drummond
responded, no, this is his fifth time purchasing houses in his life and they were not rental
properties; his family is five persons and then they took his mother-in-law in so he was trying to
parallel that with the current situation adding that he has lived in many homes in his lifetime with
a number of people and has never faced a zoning challenge like this. Mr. Rosen responded that
groups of college students invading residential neighborhoods has been a big problem in Ithaca
and he was surprised Mr. Drummond wasn't aware of it because Mr. Drummond said he is
familiar with the town. Mr. Drummond responded that he understands, but he didn't know there
were border issues because one street over is chaos, which he thought was the town of Ithaca,
and which is why they didn't buy there. He said, to be clear, we are not really interested in
having a rental property, we are interested in having a property...not audible.... Mr. Rosen spoke
saying "you bought into a quiet, single family neighborhood."
Mr. Drummond responded that yes, we did, and his daughter very specifically wanted to live
there because it is her intention to have that quiet environment. The fact that she is a homeowner
and wants to live in that home....she is an honor student so she can't have a loud environment
and a lot of people making noise etc., it's just not feasible.
Mr. Rosen responded that it wouldn't matter if she was a student or not a student, she still can't
rent out to five boarders in a single family house; the fact that she is a student doesn't matter at
all. Mr. Drummond responded that he understands that and he understands the situation but what
he is saying is that she has a family unit that is living there together and that, according to the
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 5
family definition, that is....Mr. Rosen broke in saying that that is what this board has to discuss
and determine whether that does fit the meaning of a family according to Code and that will be
the crux of the decision.
Ms. Rubin noted that the announcement listed Mr. Drummond as owner and Mr. Drummond
responded that yes, his daughter put the money down for it and he and his wife pay the mortgage
but his daughter is on the deed as the primary owner.
Mr. Rosen asked if Mr. Drummond ever considered that he was buying a single family house for
six college students and Mr. Drummond responded that he never even thought about it and that
he now understands there is a difference between the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca and
he didn't know that and when they bought the house, they talked to the home owner who said
they had a Certificate of Occupancy that said we are able to rent it and they talked to the realtor
who said it is rentable, and our lawyer never said anything different about the property and we
always said the intention and very openly said this is what we intend to do, and there was never a
red flag. Mr. Rosen said that your lawyer completely missed it because the Town Code is clear
you can only have one boarder and you have five boarders. Ms. Brock clarified by reading from
the Code that a family is defined as "two unrelated persons, occupying a single dwelling unit,
living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit" so they could have two people living
together that way plus one boarder, so they could have three unrelated people under that
definition. So it is the addition of the other three that present the issue. Mr. Drummond
responded that he understands that and Mr. Bates brought that to their attention and he was here
to ask for the Board's help to allow us to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe.
Ms. Brock had a couple of questions for the applicant.
Ms. Brock stated that the Code and the definition of family talks about the determination this
Board can make if the group is the functional equivalent of a family and it sets out some of the
criteria the Board can look at to make that determination and she did not see, in the submitted
materials, answers to some of those criteria.
First, it talks about whether it is just a framework for transient living and Mr. Drummond
mentioned, but it was unclear to her, how many are graduating and leaving in May? Mr.
Drummond responded five; his daughter is there for three more years and the people she has
been living with for the past three years are now finally graduating. Mr. VignauX asked what
will happen to the house when the five graduate and leave the daughter alone. Mr. Drummond
responded that that is the challenge; he would go to the ordinance and resolve it as quickly as
reasonably possible. These five people who are graduating in May had nothing to do with this.
It was an honest mistake; we didn't understand or know that there was this situation and every
indication we had from everyone else who was telling us, and of course they had their best
interests in mind because they wanted to sell us the house, so we were suckers that we didn't go
even deeper, but the fact that we have these three individuals that an attorney, a real estate agent
and a home owner...Mr. Highland broke in and asked if the attorney was present and Mr.
Drummond responded that she was not due to a conflict and Mr. Rosen asked if the real estate
agent was present and Mr. Drummond responded that she was not, but all he could say was this
is where they were coming from; we would like to resolve it but we would like to not put the
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 6
lives of five young people... Mr. Rosen broke in and asked "What about the lives of the
neighbors and the people who have lived there all their lives?" Mr. Drummond responded that
that was exactly why he.... We are very responsible people and we want to make sure those
neighbors are satisfied and that there are no issues to resolve.
Mr. Rosen stated that there are definitely plenty of housing options available to the students for
the rest of the year and it is not some kind of dire straits where there is nowhere else to live. Mr.
Drummond responded that it is very disruptive for people to be moving when they are not
eXpecting to and they are expecting to be finishing the most difficult part of, essentially their
residency in college and that is really his point of view.
Mr. Highland responded if they are good students they should have known that a single family
dwelling presented a conceptual problem but Mr. Drummond responded that he is a very well
educated person and he didn't know it so he didn't know how a young person would really know
that that was a requirement or an issue.
Mr. Bates spoke, saying that Mr. Drummond stated the students went to Ithaca College and to
live off-campus students have to go through the College's Off Campus Program which they are
supposed to read through before they are allowed to move off campus. He said that he believes it
says to contact the Town and make sure any plans are in accordance with the Town's ordinances
before moving.
Ms. Brock had more questions, saying some things in the application were left blank. Among
other things, we do not know the following information for the members of the household,
adding that she thought Mr. Drummond responded with his own information, namely his driver's
license, but we need to know the information for the members of the household. The criteria is
whether or not different members of the household have the same address for the purposes of
voter registration, driver's license, motor vehicle registration, summer or other residences, and
filing of taxes. Mr. Drummond responded that he doesn't believe they file taXes or have any of
those official documents through this location and he didn't know where they were registered to
vote or what addresses are reflected on their driver's license or motor vehicle registrations or
whether they have summer or other residences. Mr. Drummond stated that he does not know any
of that. Mr. Rosen responded saying "You say these are your family and you don't know where
they live in the summer?" and Mr. Drummond responded that he is saying they are his
daughter's family.
Mr. Rosen stated that this defies belief, that you are presenting this as a family. Mr. Drummond
responded that they did live in the house in the summer. Mr. Rosen responded that this is six
college students renting a single family house together.
Ms. Brock asked if any of the occupants had children enrolled in local schools and Mr.
Drummond responded no; she asked if any are employed in the local area; Mr. Drummond
responded "no, I don't think so, again, they are college students." Ms. Brock stated that was it
for the list in the Code.
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 7
Mr. Rosen stated that we have had a couple of these in the last few years and we have looked at
whether the college students resemble a traditional family and one of the things we have found in
the past is that; traditional families don't have everyone the same age and none of the people are
supporting each other and in a traditional family, usually some people in the family are
supporting other people, and that is not the case here; it is not permanent given that five of them
are leaving in May and this really is not a traditional family at alL It is six college students that
are sharing meals together and are living together until the end of the Spring semester and the
idea that it is a family is ridiculous, in his opinion.
Ms. Brock had another question, saying that in the material, Mr. Drummond stated that they are
dependents of his daughter and she asked that he eXplain how the others are her dependents. Mr.
Drummond said he was referring to... this family unit.... She is the homeowner, so they are
dependent upon her for the home itself, but they actually depend on each other saying that you
said families are usually dependent on each other and in this particular unit, people have spent
years together and they know each other's strengths and weaknesses and they help each other out
during difficult times at school, they ensure that they are home on time.... Mr. Rosen said they
lived in the same dorm together, some of them lived in the same dorm for one year and is that
what he meant by they have lived together for years....Mr. Drummond said they lived together
for a number of years saying Julie for example, had been her closest friend and family member,
truly, she has been to her concerts, her sporting events... truly, this is not a traditional set of
college students that go their own way and does their own thing; this is truly a group that relies
on each other for health and safety.. .. Mr. Rosen broke in saying most college students don't buy
their own houses either, so they are exceptional in that, too. Mr. Drummond said that is true and
that is really why he is saying this is an exceptional case and asking for help to resolve this is a
reasonable way.
Mr. Rosen stated that he drove up to the neighborhood and it is very compact and very quiet and
he saw in the packet that there was a complaint about the cars and the traffic and he could well
imagine how out of scale this group could seem in this neighborhood. He stated that he didn't
see this as any different from somebody buying a house and opening a rooming house for five
people adding that he didn't think that the fact that they were college students is any kind of
mitigating circumstance. Somebody with the resources to buy their own house can rent all kinds
of legal housing in Ithaca and not burden the residential neighborhood. He asked if anyone else
on the Board wanted to speak before he opened the public hearing.
Mr. King stated that he was curious about the incident with the cars and asked Mr. Bates to
elaborate. Mr. Bates stated that the original complaint was the number of vehicles that were
there were parking on the road and when he investigated why, it was because they needed to shift
vehicles back and forth to accommodate schedules. That was the original reason he approached
the property which led to the occupancy issue.
Mr. Rosen asked if the lower level rooms were legal bedrooms or office rooms and Mr. Bates
responded that he could not answer other than that according to the Town's records, there are 3
bedrooms on the upper story with the lower level being a home occupation consisting of an
office and two eXam rooms. Mr. Rosen said he saw that, but don't sleeping rooms need certain
things like window sill etc. and Mr. Bates responded yes, but he doesn't have that information.
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 8
Ms. Brock broke in to say that that is not before this Board; what is before this Board is
determining whether this group of individuals make up the functional equivalent of a family, and
if not, whether they should get a Use variance. Code issues about how many bedrooms are legal
are not in this Board's purview and not relevant. It will be to Codes, if they need to go down that
road, but not to this Board.
Ms. Rubin asked if time limits could be put on a variance or would it go to the property
indefinitely and Ms. Brock responded that the Board could put time limits on a variance.
Ms. Rubin stated that while she feels sympathetic she doesn't think they meet the test. Ms.
Brock suggested that Mr. Rosen open the public hearing before members make decisions about
how they are feeling on the subject.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
Steven Erhart stated that he lives at 109 Juniper Drive which is pretty close to this property. He
said he prepared a bunch of remarks and read from those.
1. State law has the applicant prove four things before getting a use variance and he thought
the two most relevant are the character of the neighborhood and the self-imposed nature
of the hardship and he thought it was self-evident, but the character of this neighborhood
are homes that are owner occupied by single families and some rentals as allowed by
zoning and the occupancy of siX unrelated persons is distinctly different in character and
that difference is acknowledged by the zoning law which allows such occupancy in other
parts of town but not in our neighborhood. The hardship is not self-created but this
hardship is entirely self-imposed. A responsible person checks the law before they buy
their home; we did. We actually left a neighborhood in lower South Hill where parents
of students would buy a house for their student and their friends and live in it for a while,
take it out of single family ownership and sooner ar later, the neighborhood is
transformed and the character of the neighborhood changes and the quality of life is
diminished for the year-round residents. We do not want that to happen where we are.
We left the City to come here and we read the law because even though we knew we
were close to a student neighborhood and we hear some of the noise from it, we weren't
in one and the zoning actually protected us and we are relying on that. He stated that he
did not think it was legal for the Board to grant a variance, relying on state law.
2. Definition of "family"; Mr. Ehrhardt stated: whatever latitude this board has in this
regard, I would like to remind you of two things you already know. The law that was
written was the result of a lengthy planning process involving the Town's professional
planners, lay boards, elected representatives, and public participation and it shouldn't be
interpreted in a manner that undercuts critical protections to the permanent residents with
any less of a professional and broad, town-wide democratic process because ours is not
the only medium density residential neighborhood that could be affected by your
decision. The definition of "family" in that law was written with care and specific intent
because decades of experience in this community have taught us that these arrangements
of several unrelated people tend to be undertaken by people whose needs and lifestyles
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 9
clash with the needs and lifestyles of the permanent residents and thereby alter the
character of the neighborhood. He asked that the Board please don't redefine "family" to
allow in the back door what zoning doesn't allow in the front door.
Mr. Ehrhardt stated on a personal note that he is 65 years old and has lived and worked in Ithaca
since 1990 and he retired a year ago and his wife retired four months ago and we have invested
our savings in updating our kitchen, landscaping and yard; not because we eXpect an increase in
our value, but to make our retirement happier and we want to complete that and remain in the
neighborhood, so he hopes the Board does the right thing tonight.
Maggie Sever, 113 Juniper Dr stated that her property abuts this property. She said that in what
way, shape or form is this a family. It is pure and simple student housing. She stated that she
has witnessed a number of parties where they park in front of her house, they pee on her lawn
and throw their beer bottles on her property. Ms. Sever stated that they are on the deck and shout
and scream. There was no one living in that home before September and they all moved in with
the quote unquote "well bitches, we're home" so this is not a family, it is students.
Lydia Wobisky, 109 Juniper read mostly from a prepared statement: I come to add my voice to
the many voices here in asking the Board to refuse the applicant's request for a use variance and
to refuse to reinterpret the word family. Iif the Board were to grant either of the applicant's
requests they would reward a single law-breaking property owner grieved by a self-imposed
hardship and punish the nearby law abiding residents of the neighborhood by imposing a
hardship on all the rest of us and in so creating a class of aggrieved parties. This is a vulnerable
neighborhood that actually needs the Board's protection. Our quality of life is under stress from
the effect of student occupancy of nearby properties in the adjoining, high density residential
zones and we are very aware that we are on the cusp of a lot more activity, to the extent that the
nuisance is one that we accepted when we moved to Juniper Drive, but, when we moved there,
we considered the zoning law and we rely on it to protect the character of our neighborhood and
our very own block. All the board has to do to protect the character of our neighborhood is to
follow the law, with common sense and an awareness of the well-known difficulties of home
ownership in a college town, particularly in one where the vacancy rate is very low and the lure
of making money by filling a house with unrelated persons tends to have people turn traditional
residential properties into profit makers to the detriment to the character of our neighborhood.
Should this board grant the applicant's request, several of us in the neighborhood will have to
pool our resources and obtain legal counsel to defend ourselves in some other venue. We ask
that you please make that unnecessary by firmly denying the applicant's request tonight.
Brenda Rodriguez, Pineview Terr stated that she feels bad for Mr. Drummond but she is thinking
in terms of what happens after she graduates; if this is granted, what happens to the subsequent
home owner. We may not get someone who is as responsible and it sounds like there is going to
be a student culture, especially around graduation when they all want to party. She said the
Supreme Court had really already documented all of this and said that this does not define a
family. Mr. Drummond has acknowledged that to some extent and found out after he purchased
this home that he needs a variance and is trying to backtrack it by defining a family this way.
She added that she is someone who is feeling the effects of single family ownership that has been
converted to student housing because the homes behind her on Coddington Road have become
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 10
student houses and we have had a pellet gun shot into our storm door at $2,000 worth of damage
and they were intending to target the propane tank on my deck. We have had objectionable
music, the most horrible lyrics that we have to listen to when we had young people visiting us
and this is what happens when students move in.
Mary Mills, 108 Pineview Terr speaking for her mother and she read a statement from her: In
regard to the appeal of Mr. William Drummond.. ...which is a MDR, my response is:
1. No, a group of 6 unrelated persons do not constitute a functional equivalent of a family for
the purposes of occupying a dwelling unit.
2. No, a variance shouldn't be given for Chapter 270-66a... if this variance is approved, this
will lower my property value, add undue traffic and street congestion, and change the
family dynamic of the neighborhood.
Melissa Luckow 103 Juniper Dr. read a statement from a neighbor at 112 Pineview Terr:
.... We are both professors in the Park School of Communication at IC and as such, we are
aware of the need for student housing at IC but this is a self-created hardship that the college
leadership needs to address and certainly not place the burden on the residents of South Hi1L We
are also aware of the deleterious impact to the character of the neighborhood that has been zoned
as MDR when special permit variance is granted for student rentals.
We are unequivocally opposed to granting a special permit for 104 Pineview Terrace on the
grounds that it will irrevocably change the character of the neighborhood. That one special
permit variance leads to another and that over time the Juniper Pineview Terrace loop will cease
to be a one or two family dwelling neighborhood and will over time resemble the Pennsylvania
Ave and Kendall Ave student housing neighborhood. The granting of special permit variance
will set the precedent for others to follow and will lead to the creep of student housing into a
neighborhood that was not designed for that purpose.
Under the Town of Ithaca zoning laws... there may be no more than one room or lodger or other
occupant in each one family dwelling. Obviously this important restriction is set for the specific
reason to disallow the type of student housing rental properties that is sought after at 104
Pineview Terrace.
If it is argued that an unrelated group of students constitutes a family, we ask that the board
dismiss the petition on the face of it as the definition of family is an important distinction to
zoning law and the board should not allow it to be redefined in the interest of profit seeking
landlords.
If the argument is made that this house is to be considered a two family house, which would
allow for five unrelated people, we would simply remind the board that there is a moratorium on
new two family house designations and that 104 Pineview Terrace is not, nor was built to be, a
two family house. Again, this is an important distinction for zoning law and the petition for a
variance is asking the board to redefine such distinction solely in the interest of profit.
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 11
Ms. Luckow stated that the writer goes on to talk about how it doesn't fit the area and not even
the current B&B variance fits the neighborhood. Then continues with:
The fact that once a variance is granted it goes with the property and later sales seems that this
one special permit will change the character of this family neighborhood once and for all. This
variance will constitute a unique use in this neighborhood which has resisted student rentals up
to and including this present moment. We urge strongly that the board reject granting of the
special permit variance and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning restrictions,
preserve the special single family nature of this medium density residential neighborhood.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Ms. Luckow then stated from her own viewpoint, although he didn't know whether the students
had this address for licenses and registrations, we know that the license plates are from all over,
such as from Massachusetts and not New York State. So it is highly unlikely they meet that
criteria and if you think about it, when I go through and look through our neighborhood, every
single house is owner occupied. There is not a rental in there as far as I know, so the houses are
not rentals but owner occupied homes and this would be very unusual. Finally, I would like to
say that why is the person who is actually living in the house not here making their case before
the board about why they should be considered a family? If in fact this is the owner then why
isn't the owner here? I would guess that they are on Thanksgiving break. Thank you.
Brian Randazzo Pineview Terr who stated that he was speaking for Peg Mills at 108 and the
bottom line is that she is very ill and she and her husband bought the house over 30 years ago.
Although Mr. Drummond sounds like a very nice man, the mistake has been made, an error has
been made and although I can't say who made the error, what I do know is it was not my mother
who made the error. It sounds like it might be with the lawyer or the real estate agent and it's not
fair to make the people who live around this residence suffer for the mistake that wasn't theirs.
Please don't allow this to happen.
Joe Sever 113 Juniper Dr. stated that Mr. Drummond's characterization of the occupants as a
family flies in the face of the fact that Barry Valentine is listed as an agent and is affiliated with
Certified Properties and that this property is listed as a rental on Certified Properties' website.
Thank you.
Rena Scroggin 104 Hickory Pl stated that she agrees with her neighbors and she would like the
board to not pass this variance. She added that she is a recent homeowner there and it was all
that they had to get this first home so they feel protective, not just in the value of their home, but
their day-to-day living. She said she knows her neighbors are patient with her when she has
dinner parties or people on her deck, so this is not to speak of some kind of egregious conduct of
Mr. Drummond's daughter because personally she has not noticed anything terrible, but she is
concerned more about the lifetime of the variance and it going to the neXt owner. It seems like it
could go to another owner rather soon.
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 12
Kate Dicken 108 Juniper Dr. stated that she has lived there for the past 20 years and she hopes
the board will not approve this. She added that her property more or less backs onto
Pennsylvania Ave so they get a lot of eXposure to what student housing is like; there is a lot of
noise and there is a beautiful nature trail right there which is affected by beer cans and stuff
associated with student housing. She said her daughter is a student and she loves her, but it is a
change in the neighborhood and it is not a family.
Duane Twardokus 106 Juniper Dr. stated that he felt his neighbors have covered all the legal
and ordinance based things and he agrees with them and just as they did, he bought his house just
like they did, anticipating that the rules would protect us. We had lived in Ithaca and we knew
the challenges of student housing etc. etc. and we thought for sure that by having ourselves
looked at the situation as to where our house was placed, that the rules as they are would protect
us, so we ask you to keep those rules in place. He added that he has experienced some of the ills
that have been shared with the board this evening; the noise, even in the daytime, when you want
to enjoy your house and you hear noise from two or three different directions, so we endure that
already and we don't need it also coming from right in the neighborhood. It may not be the
current occupants that do it, it may be the future ones, and we would like to make sure that we
preserve the character of the neighborhood as it is and make sure it is a place for folks like
ourselves, single family residences where we can enjoy the houses that we purchased and pay
taxes on etc.
Mr. Twardokus then added that they cannot always rely on law enforcement to help us when we
know the ordinance is in our favor. Most of the time they do a good job, but we have had a
situation when my spouse while standing in our house has had a deputy tell her that we should be
more understanding and accommodating in this community here because these students have
been pushed off their own campus, they can't party on their own campus like they used to. They
need somewhere to go to party and hang out and have a good time and frankly you guys are
being a little too demanding that they provide you with what want. That was kind of bizarre to
hear from the actual law enforcement officer who you are calling to say we have the code and
they are breaking the law and his own son has called and said I am reading it right here on line
and they are louder than allowed and being told, sorry, I can't do anything about it right now.
Mr. Twardokus stated that he understands they are busy and different things are lower in priority
and they do a good job at the end of the school year and having a presence and we appreciate
that, but it is the in-between times, when they do have other things to do and are pressed to take
care of other issues that have a higher priority for them. That's why we need you to make it clear
that the rules as they were are meant to protect the integrity and character of the neighborhood as
it is and a change like this puts us at risk of bringing that kind of disturbance within the
neighborhood itself and that would be intolerable for us.
Mr. Twardokus then stated that he himself has bought a number of houses having to move
around for professional reasons and every single time, I have always made sure I have looked at
the rules as they were in respect to the house itsel£ If he has bought five houses, I would think
that he would be well versed in the need to look into conditions set on a house and to say he
didn't know... seems more like a"let's do it now and ask for forgiveness later" kind of game.
He said he has seen it played too many times and it is not fair.
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 13
Mr. Twardokus went on to say that if this is a true family; my family lives in my house, my
neighbors' families live in their houses — where is the family here to protect their interests? I
don't see them. The family members themselves are not here to say we are a family and you
need to keep us together, we need you to keep this house for us because it is so important to us.
Instead, I see someone with a potential business interest here to protect their business interest
with an emotional plea and he thought that was an unfair and unsavory way of playing the game.
If the daughter feels this is so important, why isn't she here? If her family members who are
looking out for each other think this is so important, why aren't they here? He said that really
bothers me because I know if it were my family, we would all be here.
Maxwell Holtz stated he lived seventeen feet from the corner of the house and I knew the
previous owner and know that maybe there was not full disclosure on her behalf, she wasn't
selling through a real estate agent. He said his main point is we are all concerned about this
neighborhood becoming student housing. He said he lived on Kendall and that is a nightmare
and Pennsylvania is a nightmare.
Mr. Holtz stated that the current occupants are respectful and quiet in his experience and the yard
is kept in very good shape and he met the owner's daughter and thought she was very nice. But,
what he would like to know is if there are addendums to a variance. Board members said they
did not understand the question and after some back and forth, they restated the question as
whether there were ways to limit the variance to apply to just long enough to allow these
occupants to finish out the school year.
Mr. Holtz stated that he felt bad for the current occupants because this affects them, not just the
owner. The occupants were renting in good faith essentially. Mr. Bates responded that the board
can put conditions on any variance but he would argue against a variance because the applicant
was notified in September that he was in violation, so they have had the use of that residence for
all this time and they are still in violation. Mr. Rosen added that they are playing a waiting
game; they were notified in September and they are cashing in on this house. Ms. Brock
responded to both saying that they have a right to come to this board and have the board make
the determination as to whether it is the functional equivalent of a family and that process takes
time. She was not aware that they caused any delay in that process. Mr. Bates added that from
the time they submit an application for a variance, that stays the violation until this process is
done.
Mr. Holtz then stated that he is 100% in agreement with his neighbors but he also wanted to be a
reasonable person and a quick turnover might be a negative impact on our neighborhood as well,
which people may not have thought about as well.
A prior speaker spoke again and asked if a temporary use variance has to satisfy fewer conditions
than a regular use variance and Mr. Rosen and Ms. Brock responded that they are the same. The
board would still have to find that each of those criteria are met.
Another prior speaker spoke again and commented that a temporary condition is a slippery slope,
because you can have a group of people every X number or years or months and then another
applicant wanting the same thing or this applicant wanting to extend the time frame.
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 14
Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. and brought the matter back to the Board for
discussion.
Mr. Rosen started the conversation by saying that this board has had two of these cases in the last
two years, of groups of people, landlards renting to groups of people and claiming that they are
families and he looked at the minutes from those to review and we have been down this road a
number of times and it is a big problem in Ithaca. He polled the board, asking if anyone felt this
was a family.
Mr. Vignaux said not when they all went home for Thanksgiving. Ms. Brock responded that
they are not here but the board doesn't know why and there is no information on the record for
the board to draw any conclusion, but he could ask the applicant.
Mr. Rosen stated that he brought the previous minutes to use as a template so the board is
consistent and asked Ms. Brock if that was ok. Ms. Brock responded that it was, but each
determination is very fact specific and the board needs to tailor what is said to this particular
situation, although it may be that some of the same rationales happen to apply.
Mr. Rosen stated that he finds it to be a very illogical argument where we are fighting against a
strawman that's not true and we are trying to make arguments against it.
SEQR review — changes were made to the form to detail the size of the lot, the permitted use
under zoning question should be blank with the statement that the answer depends upon the
ZBA's determination of whether or not they are the functional equivalent of a family.
ZBA Resolution 0020-2016 SEQR
Determination/Use Variance
104 Pineview Terr
TP 53.-1-15.23 MDR
November 21, 2016
Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on
the information given in Parts 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the environmental
assessment form with the approved changes.
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux
Vote: Ayes — Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux
The board turned to the determination.
ZBA Resolution 0020-2016 Determination
104 Pineview Terr
TP 53.-1-15.23 MDR
November 21, 2016
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 15
Appeal of William Drummond, Owner, Barry Valentine, Agent, 104 Pineview Ter., TP 53.-1-
15.23, Medium Density Residential Zone, seeking a determination pursuant to Town Code
Section 270-5 whether a group of siX unrelated persons is a functional equivalent of a family for
the purpose of occupying a dwelling unit.
Resolved that this Board makes the determination that the group is not the functional
equivalent of a family based on the Town of Ithaca Code criteria with the following
Findings:
1. The group is one which in theory, size, appearance and structure does not resemble a
traditional family unit. All the members of the group are the same age; none of them
support each other; and none of them have lived together in the past, except in a college
dorm, or college apartment, even though they are all at least 20 years old. While the
applicant states that they depend on each other for non-financial support, many groups of
friends and tenants living in houses together do that, and
2. The applicant states that they eat meals together, but many roommates do that, and
3. That the group is not of a permanent nature because rent is shared, but no information has
been provided to the board that they share other household eXpenses, and because five of
them are leaving in May and the others have only been together a year or two, and
4. No information has been provided to the board showing that all of the occupants, or any
of the occupants, use the Pineview Terrace address on voter registrations, driver's
licenses, motor vehicle registrations or filing of income taxes, and we have heard from
the neighbors that many of the cars are registered in different states, and
5. The house is rented furnished and major appliances are provided by the landlord, and
6. There are no children, so whether children attend local schools is not applicable, and
7. The board has not been presented with any information about employment, and
8. The group has not lived together in a single family house before, except for the few
months they have been living illegally in the current house, and
9. The board finds no other factor reasonably related to whether or not the group of persons
is the functional equivalent of a traditional family.
Based on the information above, this board denies the request for the determination that this is
the functional equivalent of a family.
Moved by George Vignaux, seconded by Chris Jung
Vote: Ayes - Rosen, Decker, King, Jung and Vignaux Unanimous
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 16
ZBA Resolution 0018-2016 Use Variance
104 Pineview Terr
TP 53.-1-15.23 MDR
November 21, 2016
Appeal of William Drummond, Owner, Barry Valentine, Agent, 104 Pineview Ter., TP 53.-1-
15.23, Medium Density Residential Zone, requesting a use variance from Chapter 270-66 A
"Permitted principal uses" to be allowed to have a family plus four boarders where one boarder
is allowed if the determination is that the group is not a functional equivalent of a family
Resolved that this board denies the appeal for a use variance with the following
Findings
1. That the alleged hardship is self-created in that the student and her family bought the
house instead of renting an appropriate house for 6 people, and the property owner is
presumed to know the applicable zoning laws and the fact that a particular property
owner does not in fact know the laws when they buy the property is not relevant, and
2. That the character of the neighborhood will be altered by transforming it from a
residential family neighborhood to a transient student neighborhood and by greatly
increasing the number of people and cars on the lot. The board heard from more than one
neighbor about noise and public urination, and
3. The alleged hardship is not unique to this house because anyone could rent to six people
and make their house a rooming house for six people and make this argument if they
wanted; every house in the neighborhood has the same restrictions and there is no
physical characteristic of this house that would prevent it from being used by a single
family with a boarder, and
4. The board has seen no evidence of financial hardship other than that the college student
bought the house with an inheritance from her grandmother and information about rents
and taxes paid. The board does not have credible evidence presented about financial
hardship on whether it couldn't be rented to a single family or sold for a profit.
For the reasons stated above, this board denies the appeal for a Use variance.
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux
Vote: Ayes — Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux
Appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp, Owner, 635 Elmira Rd., TP 35.-1-21, Neighborhood Commercial
Zone, seeking variances from Town Code Section 270-117, "Yard regulations" to build a
building that would be 7ft +/- short of the required 50 foot front yard setback; from Section 270-
116, "Height limitations," to be allowed to exceed the height where 36 feet is allowed and 54
feet is requested; and from Section 270-128 "Maximum building size" to be allowed to
construct a 37,000 square foot building where a maximum of 7500 square feet is allowed .
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 17
Adam Fishel, Engineer and Joe Turnowchyk , Architect were present to answer questions from
the board.
Mr. Rosen noted that there was a memo from the Planning Department and from the
Conservation Board on the desks.
Mr. Fishel stated that this project has been in the works for several months and through the
Planning Board process they have made changes to be respectful of what the Town wants with
what is in the Comprehensive Plan and making the farade more acceptable and in keeping with
the area while still keeping it financially feasible. The applicants stated that throughout the
process with the Planning Board, they always knew and indicated that they would be seeking a
number of variances for height, setback and size to keep this project feasible and the
Comprehensive Plan calls for motel/hotels in the area and does not specify size. They have
added architectural details to break up the front and landscaping and they hope the Zoning Board
agrees that this at least compliments the surrounding area and better style than the typical
franchise hotel. He added that through that process, the only public comment was from the
Volunteer Fire Department Hall regarding traffic which is bad in the area. There were no
comments regarding the building size, appearance or scale of the building.
Mr. Rosen thought the Planning Board did a great job and he thought it was a great looking
building adding that it is a very busy state highway and this is not going to overshadow the
highway. He agreed with the Planning Board in saying that it is ok.
Ms. Brock reminded that Board that the Planning Board does not look at the need for variances,
they are not allowed to, so they did not look at them specifically. They looked at the size and
height and setback through SEQR and site plan but they didn't look at the specifics of what the
code allows and what the difference or approximate variance that would be needed. The Board
should not think that the Planning Board was saying these variances should be accepted because
they did not, and could not look at those specifics. They cannot consider it either way.
Mr. Rosen responded that that may be true, but they looked at this project a number of times and
requested a number of changes and would have looked at the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Brock
responded they would have looked at that through SEQR and Ms. Balestra did submit a memo
regarding the study the Town is doing to study this area and figure out this corridor.
Mr. Rosen said it is better than what is there and many of the existing uses now; this is a nice
looking building.
Mr. Highland asked about the memo from the Town Conservation Board and asked what their
role was and whether they were involved in the Planning Board proceedings.
Ms. Brock explained that they are appointed by the Town and they look at different things that
are going on in the Town and sometimes provide opinions on developments. They do not have a
formal role at the Planning Board or this Board and she did not recall seeing anything from the
Planning Board files so this is probably the first time they have commented on the project. Mr.
Highland commented that they seem a little late with coming out with comments then. Mr. Bates
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 18
said sometimes the Conservation Board waits until the end of the Planning Board process to
comment on the final design. Mr. Rosen asked if they were advisory only or like the Planning
and Zoning Boards and Ms. Brock responded that they are advisory only.
Mr. Rosen said he wasn't sure the parking lot was any bigger than the parking area there but Mr.
King pointed out the existing parking area is gravel so semi-impervious. Discussion followed on
the stormwater management proposed and the applicants explained it will be underground and
bio-retention areas. Mr. Rosen thought the modernization of the stormwater management will
probably be better than what is there even though it will have more impervious surface.
Mr. King stated that the backside of this building runs along a steep grade and wetland and there
will certainly be drainage into that wetland. Mr. Rosen agreed, saying it does now too. More
discussion followed looking at the drawings.
Ms. Jung thought this was a significantly bigger building than was anticipated. Mr. Rosen
thought the bigger building will buffer the wetland behind it by being a huge wall to protect it.
Mr. King said he is mostly concerned with the square footage because it is four times larger than
permitted and the Comprehensive Plan does talk about what they want to see in this Gateway
Area and in the zoning itself they don't seem to have this size of a building in mind. They talk
throughout the Plan about walkability and energy efficiency and this building does not address
those issues. They say no one is going to walk here. Mr. King said it has two State Parks near it
and a hiking trail behind it, yet they say it is not walkable. He felt that the scale of the building is
not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He would consider a variance on the area but four
times larger seems too much and they haven't presented anything here that would compensate
for that. He added that he googled Sleep Inn and although they have done stuff with texture and
color, it looks like any other Sleep In on the outskirts of a metropolitan area and he did not think
that was what the Comp Plan was looking for on this two-lane road which is our unique entrance
to the Town.
The applicant stated that in the Planning staff inemo, they clearly state that in their opinion, it
does reflect the vision for this area. Mr. King disagreed with the opinion.
The applicant spoke, saying that when they went through the design iterations, they designed
amenities for the entire Gateway Entrance with a bank, and Amish market, lighting, signs, and a
minimarket with a building actually taller than this one and that was presented as a street view
for the Planning Board presentation to show how this would look at street view and traveling 45
mph. This plan has berms and this is not like any other Sleep Inn and may very well not get
approved by Sleep Inn. The idea was to put any sign on this building and it wouldn't matter. In
the beginning the building was taller. If hospitality business is wanted in this district, there are
certain economics that have to be there for success. All commercial ventures need certain things
and certain thresholds to be feasible. You can't see the property lines when you go down the
street so the percentage of coverage is not evident to the public driving or walking by as it is on
the sketch. That is important to remember. It fits with the other buildings the town wants and he
took the time to do a whole retrospect of the corridor after meeting with the Director of Planning
and this is where we ended up. Mr. King said he appreciates all the work but the board was not
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 19
presented with any financial information and so he can only respond to the variance and the fact
that it is four times bigger than the maximum is too much.
Mr. Rosen compared this to Ithaca Beer and thought this is just a big building like Ithaca Beer
but Mr. King disagreed. The applicant went through again the improvements to a simply
standard project with the landscaping, bio retention, and fencing which were all done, at a bigger
cost to the project, to make this fit the overall character of a gateway entrance.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m.
Mr. Ahir is the owner of the hotel corporation saying that his father started the business many
years ago with the Wonderland Motel which is now the Rodeway Inn and over the years, a lot of
customers have gone to the City because people do not feel safe at smaller motels with exterior
corridors. They have people that come for the State Parks but cancel and go to the City because
they do not feel safe. We are locally owned, not a big corporation and that is why we are doing
this project and renovating the Rodeway Inn. He added that the Economy Inn next door is
basically DSS occupancy and not a competitor and they have eXterior corridors but DSS
approved them for occupancy so they have that. The Grayhaven is across the street but not open
year-round. We are the only ones in the corridor open year round and we are close to the parks
and Watkins Glen and we could be fuller if people felt safe. He stated that under current zoning,
and maxing to the lOK square feet with special approval from the Planning Board, you get 11
rooms at most, technically, probably 8 rooms, and no franchise would approve that; it is not
economically feasible.
Mr. Jawarsky, Eastern Hospitality, VP stated that they build about 15 hotels a year and he
complimented the architect on the design of this hotel saying it is a substantial improvement to
the standard Sleep Inn and he thought it blends in with the community with the use of the stone
and wood. He then talked about the square footage needed for a hotel saying that he also
finances hotels; if the town wants hospitality in this area, this is the minimum for a franchise to
approve and banks will not finance little boutique motels and hotels. He asked that the board
think about that and to also consider that the benefit of a franchise hotel is they have specific
quality control and inspections and they keep owners to those standards.
Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. and brought the matter back to the Board.
Ms. Brock noted for the record that this is a coordinated review under Type land the Planning
Board was the designated agency to do the coordinated review so SEQR is done for the project
including the Zoning Board of Appeals. The packet has the form and there are a number of
pages detailing why they made a Negative Determination.
The Board reviewed the Planning Board's comments on SEQR.
Mr. Rosen noted that they looked at consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and community
character as well as the size of the building and the town code for SEQR so they did look at the
size of the building. Ms. Brock stated that they did as it pertains to the whole site plan review
but not the individual variances needed.
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 20
Mr. Rosen read bits from the SEQR from pages 8 and 9 where the Planning staff and Planning
Board considered the size and the variances by reference.
Ms. Rubin stated that she thought it was thoughtfully done and although it is eXceptionally larger
than allowed, it meets the balancing test and the benefit outweighs any detriment.
Mr. Vignaux stated that it is a big improvement to what is there and would be beneficial to the
town.
Ms. Decker stated that she though it was well designed and she liked that the gateway area to the
town will be developed and she did not think it was detriment to any rural feel. She also thought
they were mitigating any stormwater issues and was a very thoughtful design.
Ms. Jung stated that she has the same concerns as Mr. King about the size and although she
appreciates they made steps, she still has concerns and this is substantial in multiple ways.
Mr. King read a portion of the memo from the Conservation Board which quoted the
Comprehensive Plan —"the scale of architecture and landscaping of future development will
need to be carefully designed and articulated. This area should retain a semi-rural character with
deep setbacks from arterial streets, wide spacing between uses, landscaped front yards and
vehicle parking sited on the side or rear of the structures." He thought they made very good
points about what the Comprehensive Plan is looking for in this area.
In drafting the resolution, discussion regarding the accumulated trash was discussed and the
applicant stated the franchise would require that be taken care of and they would want it taken
care of; Ms. Brock added that our Property Maintenance law would also address that. This
satisfied the Board.
ZBA Resolution 0015-2016
Area Variance-Square Footage
635 Elmira Rd
November 21, 2016
Resolved that this board grants the appeal appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp, Owner, 635 Elmira Rd.,
TP 35.-1-21, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, seeking variances from Town Code "Maximum
building size" to be allowed to construct a 37,000 square foot building where a maximum of
7500 square feet is allowed with the following:
Conditions
1. That the project be built substantially as shown on the drawing submitted to this board,
And with the following
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 21
Findings, that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community, specifically that
1. The benefit that applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met by any other means feasible
given that there is a minimum economic size for any hotel and we have had competent
evidence from a hotel builder that this is the minimum size needed to be feasible. Many
hotels in the City are significantly bigger and to stay under the square footage allowed, the
hotel could only have 11 — 12 rooms which would be very difficult to get financing for, and
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby
properties for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the environmental impact form, and
3. The request is substantial given that it is a 400% increase, but there will not be any
adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in SEQR, and
4. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to build a hotel, the
benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
community for the reasons stated above.
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Christine Decker
Vote: Ayes — Decker, Rosen and Vignaux Opposed: King and Jung
Motion passed 3 to 2.
ZBA Resolution 0014-2016
Area Variance - Height
635 Elmira Rd
November 21, 2016
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp, Owner, 635 Elmira Rd., TP 35.-
1-21, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, seeking variances from Town Code Section 270-116,
"Height limitations," to be allowed to exceed the height where 36 feet is allowed and 54 feet is
requested with the following:
Conditions
L That the building be constructed as submitted to this Board
and with the following
Findings
The Board stated that the reasons provided by the applicant as stated in the Area Variance
Criteria Form were applicable and they agreed with them and asked that they be inserted in the
resolution.
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 22
1. There will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties, because the resulting size of the building will not result in
any adverse or excessive impacts to available view-shed areas or scenic vistas, and
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given
that having a 3-story building that is within the 36 ft maximum allowable building height
would require parapet walls with a flat roof. Such a configuration would be in conflict
with the Town's development criteria outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and
3. The request is substantial, the proposed building height is approximately 1.5 times the
maXimum allowable height but as notes above, the impacts to the viewing area looking
east should not be considered excessive, and
4. There will not be any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions that to
satisfy the maximum height requirement, the building would need to become shorter and
wider to maintain the number of rooms. Such a configuration would result in more
disturbance to existing vegetative slopes and buffers, and
5. The difficulty is self-created, however this should not preclude the approval of this
variance.
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux
Vote: Ayes – Vignaux, Rosen, Decker Nays—Jung and King
Motion passed 3 to 2.
ZBA Resolution 0014-2016
Area Variance – Setback
635 Elmira Rd
November 21, 2016
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp, Owner, 635 Elmira Rd., TP 35.-
1-21, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, seeking variances from Town Code Section 270-117,
"Yard regulations" to build a building that would be 7ft +/- short of the required 50 foot front
yard setback with the following:
Conditions
1. That the building be built substantially as submitted to this Board tonight
and with the following
Findings
The Board stated that the reasons provided by the applicant were applicable and they agreed with
them and asked that they be inserted in the resolution.
1. The granting of the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the
neighborhood character nor will it be a detriment to the nearby properties. There are
existing properties along the Elmira Rd corridor which are comparably zoned and have
buildings which are located within the required 50' foot setback, and
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 23
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a feasible alternative; The
following options were evaluated in an effort to avoid the need for such an area variance:
eliminating the porte cochere, modifying the size and location of the porte cochere and
moving the entire building further from Elmira Road.
The porte cochere is an integral component of the hotel use and operation and cannot be
eliminated. Further, its size and location relative to the main hotel building cannot be
modified to the point of eliminating the need for the requested area variance. Therefore
the elimination or madification of the porte cochere as a means to avoid the requested
variance was not considered a reasonable alternative.
Moving the entire building further from Elmira Road in order to achieve the required
setback was also evaluated. The current proposed building location relative to the
existing steep, vegetated slope along the reaz side of the property, minimizes impacts to
this existing slope and associated vegetation. Pushing the building closer to the slope
will require additional disturbances/clearing of the existing slope and/or steeper tie-in
grades both of which increase potential for there to be erosion and sediment transport
down the slope. Such a condition may adversely impact the existing wetlands located at
the toe of the embankment slope, and
3. The requested area variance is not substantial. The provided setback is approximately
85% of the required distance and is therefore not considered a substantial deviation, and
4. Adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood would
not be anticipated if the variance is approved. As stated above, the proposed location of
the building minimizes impacts to the existing steep and vegetated slope, and
5. The difficulty is self-created; however, this should not preclude the approval of the
requested variances. The proposed hotel use is appropriate for the subject site given the
Town's current zoning and comprehensive plan. The porte cochere is an integral
component of the hotel use and given the site limitations (rear steep sloge), the requested
variance is unavoidable.
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux
Vote: Ayes — Vignaux, Rosen, Decker, Jung and King
Motion passed unanimous.
Ms. Brock noted that the County had no negative comments on the project.
Meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second at 8:45 p.m.
Submitte y
aulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk
ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 24
Siiv�t Errvrr•u'r�ttc��ttu1' AssessntE�ttt Fvrnt
Part 1 - Prnjeet Informat�nn
�nstructions fcrr Ccfmpleti�
Yxrt t- Prujcct Infurrnation. T�c applicant or projcct spoasor is responsible for the completioo of Ps�rt 1, ResPonses
becnmc part ctl ih� appl i�atinsi f��r appro� ai or f�inc�in�, ar� subjzr[ to p�sblic re� i���, aizd xna�• he subject to hnth�r verification.
C'om�l�t� N�rt 1 hs4cd an insormatio�i curr�i}t3ti available If a��dirioEial research or i��vzsti�ation �+oul� he needed ta tiill}�
r�spnnd �u an} ittrn, plc:�sc 3n_���r as ifiorough[� �s possi��z based �iy ct�rrz�t[ infa��iation.
Cnm}�I�E� all i��m5 in Y3rt I.�'uu may also pra��ide �ui}� sdditiunal infoi�mation whid� yo�, belie��e u'ill he needed hy or usrtul
��� thc l�acl ���.ncy; attac3l aciditinna] ���es as necz;�a�y tn su��slenient an}� item
Part I- Yro,}cct and Sponsar Infarr�3atinn
U:411iam Orummor�d - PraG:erty Ownt3r
�dlti� Of r'�C[10l7 OC �1'O��Ct; �� �
Use Variance
F�roaect �ocation (descrilie, and attach a It�cauan rnapl
10A Pfneview Terrace
f3rief Description af� Prc��wyccE Action�
,ise VananCe to allow for 6 peogfe (famiiy membefs} to res,�e m tT�e hause.
h�arne ot�;1J�plic�s�t ur Sp�3�sor:
+l�1Vllsam 6runimor.�
Addr�Ss:
39 Cfownsnew Cour
Ciry�P4:
$parta
'] cicphc�il�: g�;�-�25-2856
L`���Z��� r,�.r�mmor.cnjLgma�l.corn
Statc: � 7..ip Cad�:
�tJ I U781i
E. Dc�cs t�� pCiipoSz� 1Ct�on onl` irlv011'� t�le le�,isla�i�e adaption c�f�a plan, lacal lau, c�rdinanc�.
adn�inismaticr rule, or rz�i�l�eticin"
If Yes, attach a narrati��e descriptian uf �tie intenr nt th� proposed action anc! �h� �aiF iroiul�znta] re5nur�cs tkiat
r�ya�� be afEertcd in [he ttu�nicipality arid proezzd ic� F'�r� ?. lf �i��, cntitirtue tn yu�stiutt �.
?. I�oes thc }�ropc�sed rtction requirc a Ferta�it, aP�ruval or fi�nd��i� Eiom �n� �thzr Qo��ernmental .�ecuc�'�
If �'es, lisE aLency(ti) n1n�e �nd ��rrnit or a�prutial:�� o,r�
'�' �...`?.� �S�c, C'�,:,Y� ��.� �+e�.�,�•`�{
� � ___
?.a. Tntal a�r�a�e ��t�ihe :;il� c7f ihe pro�n,cd :�ziion��
b. Tntal a�r���z tu �ie �h; sicalls' di:[tirhed"
i c. fca�ai acreagz (�roj�rt Sitz a�ld an} contiguuus prc��crti�51 o�vned
��r cun�rolfed �i} the ap�li4<int or �roj�cE spons��r�
� y�� � r � :,���
� lcrzs
o acres
Chzci: al I land aiszs that cx�rur ��i, adininink and c�ear th� prupu5zd actian
� i:rhan ❑Rural (non-a�a'[ct��tsirc) ❑ Indi��triul ❑Comit�ercisl mResidential (SuL+tu'ba�z)
❑Fan+t ❑:1�.*riculture ❑r�q�sasie ❑C7d�er (r�c�if� 1: _ _
[�'f'arkland�
Page 1 c�f 3
i�i) I �'�:5
��
l' E ti
�
5 I� th� prc�puticd action,
a. :'1 pemtiited usc un:icr th� ic�nin� r��ulati.��!5" �� C�/�
�.�� `b�.�•e.c�-,����-.►�, c�k �b���w�•� � -�
h. C�nnsiht�nt H ith thc a:luPtcd cc�mprencnsiti � Plan',
vc�: I � Fs`�t��a
b. l� Eh� pru�otied aetion consiste�it ���it�i the preduminant character of tEie exis[in� rtiiit ur natur�l
lanciti�a�x'�
7. Is �l�e sit� of tlle proposeci aetioc� locatzd ui, o� does it adjoui. a st�t� li�t�d Critical Fii��irotunental ar�a'
lf 1(cs. idcnlit,�- _-- — ---
8. a. W'ill the proposed actinn reculr in a s��istantial increase in tr�ttic al��ve �re�nt Izvels`'
b Are publir tra�tsportatioii sen•ice(s) availablz at or tiear [he site of the proposed actioE�'?
e. Are an}• pedzstriaiti acco�t�riyodatiat�s or b�c}�c]$ ro��tes a4•ail�hle an or near site af�the pro�s.�se� action?
�. nOZ3 t�le �I'����OsPt� �iCtic�n me�t nr e�cced t�c stat� ener�!} Ca(it rCyuiCCrn�nl�''
If�the proposed actiam �ti ill cxtc�d reyuircn��nt�. ditiL'i'lbl' tjc:�{�,fl Et;aiilf�5 Aill� iZC�1310�0�'lZ�:
30. 14'il� thr nrnFx,ticd acti�n conruct to an �xistin� pu�+lic�pri4ate «�aier;uppl�'"
lf No, deseribe nteti�pd for prnti idin� p��tahle �� atcr: ____
1 l. V4'ill tlie pruposed nctipn conne�t tn e�i5ting Ka,tcN �et�r ulililies°
If ;�o, de:crih� meth�,d f�,r pru� i�l±n� wa5ls;��ateC trzaUnetli:
1'. a. {�eacs th� Sitc cc��itaiii a srn3ct��re that is listec! on eiihcr th� 5[�tc` or I�atioit�l RegEster o# Fiist��rir
Nlar�s?
h. I. �h� prup�sed aciiosi locatzd in an arch�nio�ic:�l �cnsilive arza?
13. a L?c.��� arry portion ot the �itr crf �h� �rupus�d actioti. or ia�lds adjninin� th� prupused ac�io�i, cc��7tai��
+ti�cl;�i�ds nr otl7er �+atc.rfn�diiti r�gulatzd b� a fzderal, state nr Icyr�tl d�r.nc��''
b. Would thz prupased actipn �h��tiiLakly alter, or eEicroach intc.�. any exiytin�. �setlzu�c! ar tir•aterbnd�"
if Y'es, identily the �etlat�ii or uaterbady and cu�nt uf aitzrations in squarc I'ct[ or geres:
T�_is.na alterali�� {� ��o b�Eld�r�a __
0'�
- - ; --
vo � ���s
� ' �
V()Tt ��F.S
� �
ti0 �'�5
_ ❑ ✓�
� :V[l ti'FS
- ❑ ❑✓
_._. VO � YES
; ✓❑ ■
❑
� �
I�f) Y F.ti
❑ �
I�
1-4 Idensity !h� typiea! habit�t npes chat oc�ur on. or are likely tn hc liaund oft �he pr��ect site. Che�k all iha[ a�.�pl�:
❑ 51wre�ine ❑ F�tar�sl ❑ ;'�ewiCuiLuraVgra�slu�ds ❑ l.arly mid-5ucczs.:io�tal
❑ 14'cllanc� ❑ Urhan m �uburh�n
i�. L?oes the site c�f the proposeii actiim ��untai�i any species c�f animal. or associated hahitaEy. lis[ed ��f) {� �.
hti the State or Fedc,�rxl �uti ercunent as t�,rca�cn��[ ur endanFered° ��
i 6. Is ihc prc?jecf site lucalcd t�i the l 00 � ear Iluu�! p[ait�?
17. VJill fhc pr�p052d actiun Crc;31z StOC�ll «at�:r cii�char�z. either tTnrr. �uint cFr i�on-pr�int .c�ur��,"
]t ti'es,
a. Vti'ill storiu �+�ater di�charges flow to adJa�en� prupzcCies`' [� �<> ❑YL5
h. `h�ill stonn N�atcr di�eharg�� be c�irect�d to established cunv���ri.e s}'stems l'runu['t vz� ston� drain�j'?
II`Y��.briefl�descrihc: m�v ❑}�E5
No chanoe to bi�ildirl�] �ar rxaoert;r
f'a�e 2 uf 3
V[) � l ES
ti(� 1'ES
� ❑
1 S. Docs thc proposcd actiun includc construction or other sctivities that r�uh in thc impoundment of NO YES
water or other liquid.i (e.g. rcicntiun pnnd, wastc lagoon, dam)?
If Yes, explain purpose and si�x: __ ❑�
19. I Ias the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property b�.•en thc location af an active or closed NO YES
solid waste management facility?
If Yes, describe: _, _ � ❑
�0. Has the si[c of thc praposcd action or an adjoining property t�en the subjcc;t of rcmcJialion (on�ainb or NO YES
r completed) for hazardous waste'?
If Yes, describe: --- - — --- a ❑
I AFFIRM THAT TNE INFORMAT[OIY PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO TEIE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE
Applic�snUsperosur namc: �Ilam mrnond pat�: 10/18l16
Si�mature: � �----- -_ - _-
PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3
EAF Mapper Summary Report
:i?-I I'�il 1?-', ;,rl� _. _�.i
� . i�:er u� .
i
— — — `� � �
�� � � 5�3-"1 �I 5 22 I
5' -i-�15.�13 I53.-�I-15.2�2
i
I — --
53.=1=t5.21
It�aca
�3.-i =€ "�.Z.?
' � --- --
' -t-'15,i3 �
� -1'�
- . ------ ' .� ' -l-�`'���`-Esri. �CRE. C�Lc�me. USG�,
IrtLrmsF, I�:C�E�.'EF:T P. Fii-Car.. Esri
_ „e�ar, i:lETl. EsriCi-ira ;Hc^g k:�rg:, Eari
'-l-f5,1� li 53-'E-15.15 II', Kcraa Esri,Thsil_�^dj.1�,laFmylrc�a. F:G�v,
1 L[=•.c�t.�.tt.�gF �.rtri�:..[r3, ErC th� CE�
- �-� =,._
. . - ` - , . i � - '� ]. 5 & `: _ r r.";. ^i :� .
Part 1 I Question 7[Critical Environmental
Area]
Part 1 1 Question 12a [iVational Register of
Historic Placesj
Part 1 1 Queskion 12b [Archeological Sites]
Part 1 1 Question 13a [Wetlands or Qther
R�gulatec€ Waterbodies)
Part 1 1 Question 15 [Threatened or
Endangered Animalj
Part "� 1 Questipn 'E� [100 Year Flood Plainj
Part � 1 Question 20 [Remediation Site]
No
[�G
Friday, October 21, 2016 1:44 PM
Di5C13iRtAi': Tne EAF Mapper is a screaning tool intended to ass�sf
project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental
assessment form (EAFy Nol all questions asked fn [he EAF are
answered hy the EAF Mapper AddVlfanal information on any EAF
quastion can be o�tained by consukling the EAF Workbooks Allhough
the EAF Mapper provides the most up-lo-date digital data available ta
❑EC. you may also need to contact lacal ar other data sources fn order
to obta�n data noi ¢rovider! by the Mapper Oigitai data is not a
substitute For agency determinations,
• Ottav:a 61�nl,ea[
r
7orc+�ta
h�in �� ,_ r., - . I"r
. i fkll�ar�
C1eErau 1 _Boct�n
' c�tvd.y+:� ,�,,,:E:l�r:r�
� i
Pitt�ar�
Cdurrd�u:
r=1-' [1 J 9
w:. Yot.k..
Sti�:[�: �r�.Htr,E,
GeLcR�rrl.ci6�a5 . I ni�r rna�.
I^��RE�.1E�,T F, �vRCsn, E=ri
Yti�J'S�F�=ri,r�':ETI. E:ric�E�� �,�r�n.9
�10
Yes - Digital mapping information on locaf and federal wetlands and
waterbodfes is known to be incompleke. Refer to EA� Workbook.
Yes
Digital mapping data are not a�ailable or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
No
Short Environmental Assessment �orm - EAF Mapper Summary R�port �
m
Slrori Environmenta! Assessment Form
Part 2 - Impact Assessment
Agency Use Only [If applicableJ
Project: 104 PineviewTerrace
Date: 1012112016
Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency.
Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by
the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questians the reviewer should be guided by
the concept "Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?"
No, or Moderate
small to large
impact impact
may may
occur occur
l. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning � �
regulations?
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? � �
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? � �
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the a �
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)?
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or � a
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway?
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate � �
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
7. Will the proposed action impact existing: � �
a. public / private water supplies?
b. public / private wastewater treatment utilities? ❑✓ ❑
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, a ❑
architectural or aesthetic resources?
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, � ❑
waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)?
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage a �
problems?
1 l. Will the proposed action cTeate a hazard to environmental resources or human health? � �
PRINT FORM Page 1 of 2
agcn�� L'se C)nlF' [Il applitable�
E3ro;���: 104 Pineview Terrace
°a�`: 1012112Q � 6
Sltort Ettvironrrienta! Assesstrzerzt Fort3r
P[il'f ,3 D�tB1'iT1I1IQt10fI Of Sigttificatice
Fiir e� er� qisestiun in Part _" that �tia; aiiti���rtd "moi�zrat� tu I�jr�,� im�a�:t ma} occin�". c,s- it tllere i� a nteci tu ����lain ��11� a
ptirticular eltniciu ��I tiir propos�d actiun ma� i�r ��ill siot re5ult i:i �� sit�nihcant a�l�ersc cnrironn�cn�al intpac�. rl�asc
�omplete Pa�-t �. 1'art � should_ in suftiri�nt detai�, identiti tii� impact. ii�cluditi�= �sn� measict•�s or �lesi�,n el�nt�nt� ti�at
ha� � been ii�cluci��i h� tl�e project spunti«r t�} a�oid or r�ducc iii�Eiacu. Pa�� � should altio ��plain hoti� the lead a��znc�
determined ti�at d7� im�act i��a} or «ill n��t he si�rnificant. F.a�h ���t�ntial impact shi�isid hr assessed con,id�rin�, its settin�.
prubabilin nfoccurrin��. duration. irre��r�ihilit�, tizo�ra�lti� s�n�� and n3a�Tniu��e. :�Isu considertl�c p��t�itti�t� #i�r �hort-
term. I��n_�-teri�i ancl cumulati�t impa�t;.
Part �' c��� thsti I�c�rn� a�l:� if tlicr� ur� an� imP�i�t� th��t �t ��ulc9 crc�stc �i tii`,nifi�ant en� ir��nmr�ttal
it�lp�i�t. �\ll h��tc; are cllc�kt�i n« c�r tinlal] im��a�t, nc� iit�part a���ficti tc� ��}u5t of the c�u�5tic�i��,
�1o���c:�cE�, ��uctiti�?n, #?. ;, 5 an�l 7 ��uulci ha��c �nial] in3p�icts l��c.•uu�c thc inr��ea�e i« tl�� nu��lher
c�l c�rcuE�anty �+c�ulcl incrcas� cacf� 1����1 �i u,c I���r th�tt y�ietitic�n. Tl�i, i� haud on thc int���rn��ttic�n
��ro� i�[�cl in ��trt I�t«d �he t�ur��t�ti�c tc> e�ir�� c�ue;tie�n in tl�e Shurt E:n� ir��nmc nt��l �>>tic,snicnt
�c�rr�� i SE��� 1 �1�'c7rl:hook.
Theeel�e�rr, t��i� 13ciar�l t�incl; ti��il ull����it��� -1 nlc�r� uc��E��ant.� tn ti sir��,lc f��ir2�i1}' hoin� lias ilti c�r
litcl� tii`=nii�irant cil�irc��lni�nt�il im��a�t. �
�
❑
f�h4�l, Ihi, h,,� il����u ha�< <l<t�;rinin��l. ha;��i un thc inl��rm itit,n an�i ��na��,�, a��r�� <jn�l an� �upp�,rti��u cl�,cinn�ntatiun. .
th�it tfie pru�w��c� a�ti��i� ma} r�,ult in c,t�� nr mor� pot�i�tiall� lar��� or si�nili�,�nt a�l�crsc: impaciti ,3n�1 an �
�n�irnnmcntal im�n�t statemeizt i; r���uir��.
C'ii�tl; t�ii; hu� if'�oti ha�� �i�t�rmin�tl. �as��1 un th� i�iti,s-ni�ti�,ii csiid anal��i; ah�a��. ancl aii� supportsii_� �iu�umcn[ati�>>i. ,
that th� �rupus��1 a�ti��n ui�l nc}E rtsult in an} si�iitic�3n[ ad�er�e en� ironm�ntal ii�i�a�ts. '
Town Of I#haca Zoning Board ��� �'�
\am� �7f l.ca�i :��,a7c� )at�
Rob Rosen
� Print or T��e : ne c�I�Rcspunsihl� C)I�ticrr in l.ead :\�,�n�ti
� . � �Z._ .
Si��na�l�r� o K�,�unsible ()I'ti��r iii I.cad :O��en��
�� _ .
Chairperson
l iiE� i�f R�ti�r��n;ihle Ofticer
� �
5i �i��ture ol Pr�par�r;it'dit�tcr�F�t frnnz Re.�on,ihl� 011icer) i
----------- --- — - - --.�
PRINT FORM P�3��e ? c>t�2