HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2014-12-15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Monday December 15, 2014
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Rob Rosen, Bill King, Christine Decker,
Chris Jung and John DeRosa Alternate George Vignaux
Staff. Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and
Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town
Adiourned Appeal of Kenneth and Diane Schmidt., owners, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270-70 "Height Limitations" and 270-71 F "Garages" of the Town of
Ithaca Code, in order to construct a 25' tall detached garage that exceeds 600 sq. ft., located at
1205 Trumansburg Rd, Tax Parcel No. 26.4-37, Medium Density Residential (MDR).
Larry Fabbroni, was present to answer questions from the board as the applicant's
representative because they are out of town.
Mr. Fabbroni reviewed the heights of the proposed garage and handed out a new diagram with
heights, a google map aerial picture and the tax map of the area to the board. He stated that
the tax map shows that this is about the most mixed neighborhood that you can find in the
Town; there are apartment complexes, churches, nursing homes, doctors' offices and medical
offices so when you look at the impact to the character of the neighborhood, there really isn't
one. He noted that there is a tree buffer between the neighbor and the Schmidt's who would
be the one most impacted by the garage. He thought the confusion was that Mr. Schmidt was
over zealous with the heights in the submission because he used the van for the scale and the
actual heights are; the garage itself is 26' deep by 28' high and the ridge with a raised truss
would be what is shown in the diagram submitted. He added that he is trying not to put an
unwieldy addition onto the house which would be allowed and instead to maximize the space
and build a separate garage. Mr. Fabbroni stated that they were trying to get some storage
space because the house is very small.
Mr. Vignaux asked if there was a basement garage around back and Mr. Fabbroni responded
that he did not think so.
Mr. Rosen stated that he shared Mr. Fabbroni's view that there is a lot of mixed-use there and
this house seems to have been taken over by a major state highway in that it was probably
built in the 30's and he didn't have any concerns with the scale of this building with all the
other big buildings in the area.
Mr. King's concern was that the height of the garage is so much larger than the allowed
height and he wondered why they didn't design it lower with the same amount of storage
provided. Mr. Fabbroni responded that the height allows more storage above instead of a
crawl space with less accessibility.
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg I
Mr. Vignaux was concerned that the height leaves the possibility for uses other than storage in
the future and Mr. Fabbroni responded that there is nothing in the plans for anything other
than storage and anything in the future would have to come to this board for approval; they
have several cars and need storage space. They winter elsewhere and need storage space. He
added that in a neighborhood he could understand the concerns, but in this one, there is no
real neighborhood given the mixed uses which allows this board to make the exception and
grant the variance.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak to this
appeal and the hearing was closed.
SEQR is not required.
Mr. Bates noted that when the Town modified this section of the Code, they made stipulations
in the code to make sure apartments can't be made in garages. There can be no apartments in
the garage because of the height requirements. Mr. Rosen added that there is no plumbing
going in and Mr. Fabbroni stated that the applicants would be happy to have that stipulated in
any approval; that there would be no apartment or secondary dwelling unit in the garage.
Discussion followed with members Ms. Decker, Mr. King and Mr. DeRosa not in favor due to
the size and substantial difference in the allowed height and the requested height and Mr.
Rosen was in favor and stressed to the rest of the board that the neighborhood is almost not
residential in nature and he was in favor of allowing this because there will be no detriment to
the neighborhood.
The board members discussed the possibility of granting a partial variance with less of a
height allowance. The area of the structure did not concern the members as much as the
height.
Mr. King asked if the board was allowed to grant less of a height variance than was requested
and Ms. Brock responded that they should not be involved in the designing of a building. Mr.
Bates responded that there are two variances being requested; area and height and the board
decided to break the requests into separate votes.
Mr. Rosen moved to grant the request for the area variance based on the fact that the benefit
to the applicant will outweigh any undesirable change to the neighborhood with the findings:
ZBA Resolution No. 2014-024 Area Variance
Kenneth and Diane Schmidt, 1205 Trumansburt!Rd
Tax Parcel No. 26.4-37, Medium Density Residential (MDR)
December 15, 2014
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Bill King
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 2
Motion made to grant the appeal of Kenneth and Diane Schmidt requesting a variance from
Chapter 270-71 F "Garages" of the Town of Ithaca Code, to construct a garage that exceeds
600 sqft with the following
Conditions:
That the building not exceed 728 sqft in total and that the building footprint be substantially
as shown in the plans submitted to this board
And with the following
Findings
That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare to
the community because there are a lot of other large buildings in the area and immediate
proximity and that the highway dominates the landscape and the building won't be that
noticeable, and although the benefit could be achieved by other means such as less items to
store or using off-site storage, however, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment,
and
That the request is substantial in that it is a 25% increase in area
That it won't have any adverse environmental effects as indicated by SEQR not being
required, and
That although the alleged difficulty is self-created, the variance allows the applicant to have
more use of his house which is in a difficult lot for residential use and will improve his
utilization of the house.
Vote: Ayes—Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and DeRosa
ZBA Resolution No. 2014-025 Area Variance- Height
Kenneth and Diane Schmidt, 1205 Trumansburg Rd
Tax Parcel No. 26.4-37, Medium Density Residential (MDR)
December 15, 2014
Motion made by Bill King, seconded by John DeRosa
Motion made to deny the appeal of Kenneth and Diane Schmidt requesting a variance from
Chapter 270-70 "Height Limitations" of the Town of Ithaca Code, to construct a garage that
exceeds the allowed height based upon the excessive height requested which is considerably
more than what is allowed with the following
Findings
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 3
The board finds that the detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community
outweighs the benefit to that applicant
The benefit to the applicant can be achieved by other means that are feasible to the applicant
because they can build the garage with a lower height and still achieve the desired storage
space both for cars and other items, and
There is an undesirable change in the neighborhood because the roof requested is so much
higher than what is allowed and would block the view of the lake from one side, and
That the request is substantial given that the request is for 26 ft height where only 15 ft height
is allowed, and
That there are no adverse environmental effects, and
That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that they can accomplish the protection of motor
vehicles and additional storage with less height to the building.
Vote: Ayes—DeRosa, King, Decker and Jung Nays—Rosen
Appeal of ICS Development Partners, Inc, owner and Om Gupta, President, requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-158 "Permitted principle uses" and 270-159
"Prohibited uses"to be able to add retail sales to acceptable uses and also to request an
extension of the granted July 15, 2013 variance, located at 930 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 40.-
3-9.2, Industrial Zone.
Mary Russell,Attorney and Om Gupta, Owner
Ms. Russell summarized the request, stating that the property has been granted a Use variance
because the current zoning only allows office or industrial uses and the applicant had been
trying to rent the building for over 4 years with no success. The drive through lane was
granted for a banking use only and the applicant could still not rent the building and is
requesting that retail uses be added to the current Use variance which is about to expire.
Mr. Rosen stated that he is sure the applicant wouldn't purposely leave the building vacant for
so long and the variance should be extended and changed to allow for retail or restaurant uses
along with the drive through for either. Mr. Rosen asked if Mr. Gupta thought there would
be enough parking if there is a restaurant and/or retail store and Ms. Russell responded that it
would be one or the other and it would have to meet the parking requirements in the Code.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. with no one wishing to address the board on
this appeal and the hearing was closed.
ZBA Resolution No. 2014-026 SEAR Determination
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 4
ICS Development Partners, Inc.
930 Danbv Rd, TP 40.-3-90.2,Industrial Zone
December 15. 2014
Motion made by Mr. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Jung
Motion made that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance
based on Parts 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the SEQR form prepared by
staff.
Vote: Ayes—Rosen, King, DeRosa, Jung and Decker
Mr. Rosen stated that the retail use is not significantly different from the restaurant use that
was approved by this board over a year ago and that Rte 96B is a non-residential street in that
area extension of the variance and change to it, and the owner cannot realize a good return
and hasn't been able to rent the building in over 4 years as indicated by his financial
disclosures and the hardship is unique as there are only two properties in this zone;
Chainworks which is currently being changed by a PDZ and this one and all the findings from
the earlier variance still apply.
The board agreed.
ZBA Resolution No. 2014-027 Use Variance
ICS Development Partners, Inc.
930 Danbv Rd, TP 40.-3-90.2, Industrial Zone
December 15. 2014
Motion made by Mr. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Jung
Move to grant the appeal of ICS Development Partners, Inc, owner and Om Gupta, President,
requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-158 "Permitted principle uses"
and 270-159 "Prohibited uses"to be able to add retail sales to acceptable uses and also to the
extension of the granted July 15, 2013 variance, with the following
Findings
1. That the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship, such demonstration including
all of the following: That the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return without the
requested variance as shown by competent financial evidence. The applicant has shown
that for the past four years the applicant has attempted to rent the property for an allowed
use of either office space or industrial use, restaurant use or bank and ATM drive through
and has not been able to lease the property to the few that have expressed initial interest,
and
2. That the alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the
district or neighborhood. As the applicant has pointed out, there are only two owners of
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 5
industrially zoned property in the Town, one of which is quite large, over 90 acres and is
currently going through a planned development zone process to allow Chainworks mixed
use development and this property, which is less than 1 acre, giving the applicant little
flexibility in meeting the needs of an industrial user, and
3. That the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood
given that this is along a busy state route and there are other commercial enterprises
nearby including other restaurants, and
4. That the alleged hardship has not been self-created as the owner has owned this property
for many years and that the nature of the area has changed over the years and has
diminished the need for industrial uses and office space of this size and that that situation
is not self-created.
Vote: Ayes—Rosen, DeRosa, Decker, Jung and King
Appeal of Linda Copman, owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter
270-219.1 B(5) "Solar collectors and installations" and 270-71 A "Yard regulations" of the
Town of Ithaca Code, to be allowed to have ground mounted solar collectors installed on the
front yard with inadequate depth of yard, located at 210 Forest Home Dr, Tax Parcel No. 66.-
2-13, Medium Density Residential (MDR).
For the record, Ms. Brock stated that she has signed up for the Solar Tompkins Program and will
be having panels installed and Mr. Rosen and Mr. King stated that they work for a solar
installation company, although it is not this particular one. All three felt their ability to be
impartial would not be impacted. The Board agreed.
Linda Copman, owner, Mellissa Kemp, Solar Tompkins and Dean Rithouse, installation
company were present to answer questions
Ms. Kemp stated that Solar Tompkins has been looking to double the amount of solar
installations in the county and she was here to support her appeal and they feel there won't be an
adverse impact to the neighborhood. She added that there is a hedge that will protect any view
of the system and there is too much shade in the back and side yards. She also mentioned the
Town's goal to reduce carbon emissions by 2030.
The microphone system when in and out for the rest of the evening.
Ms. Copman stated that she is from Hawaii and has lived on solar for years and wants to again
now that she lives here and she hopes she can influence others to do the same.
Discussion by the board focused on the hedge and whether that would stay and they thought they
would condition the variance on that but they were supportive of the installation and understood
that the sunlight is limited elsewhere in the yard. They also questioned the energy credits that
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 6
can be purchased and Ms. Kemp explained that very little of that is used to decrease emissions
and most go to 3rd party costs.
Mr. Bates asked for clarification on the status of the house as a B&B or a single family house
and Ms. Copman responded that it was a single family house.
Ms. Decker asked for pictures of the actual installation and the representative submitted two to
the board.
Mr. Bates asked if the array could be placed elsewhere on the lot and the representative
responded that it could, but it would not produce the same amount of electricity due to the
amount of shade which is not wholly from trees on that property and not therefore able to be
rectified by the applicant.
Mr. Rosen noted that other applicants have been denied front yard arrays but the hedge is the
distinguishing factor and the number or neighbors who have written that they do not object in
any way.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Bruce Brittain, Forest Home Association Historian; Brian Eden—Energy Action Advisory
Committee; representative of Renovus, a solar company; Lee Geinenthal, resident; Linda Mazza,
Groton Solar Board, and Mark Witmer as well as 5 written comments all were in favor of the
variance and urged more sustainable energy uses by all.
Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Ms. Brock stated that this is Type 2 and no
SEQR is needed.
Mr. Bates noted that there are two variances, one for setback and one for placement in the front
yard. He did not know what the distance would be and asked the applicant for that detail. The
minimum is 25 feet from the right-of-way line. The applicant thought it was placed 15 —20 feet
back so a variance would be needed.
The board felt that this was unique given the existence of the hedgerow shielding the visual
effects.
ZBA Resolution No. 2014-028 Area Variance
Linda Copman, 210 Forest Home Dr,
Tax Parcel No. 66.-2-13, Medium Density Residential (MDR)
December 15, 2014
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by John DeRosa
Motion made to grant the appeal of Linda Copman, owner, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270-219.1 B(5) "Solar collectors and installations" and 270-71 A
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 7
"Yard regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be allowed to have ground mounted solar
collectors installed on the front yard with inadequate depth of yard, with the following
Conditions
1. That the installation be done substantially as indicated on the pictures that were
submitted to the board and located as depicted on the submitted plans, and
2. That the evergreen hedgerow be maintained and replaced if necessary as shown in the
pictures submitted with the application while the array is in existence.
And with the following
Findings
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the community, specifically,
1. That the benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved through any other means feasible
given that the option of purchasing renewable power from someone else is not cost
effective and that the other areas on the yard are shaded in a way that is beyond the
owner's control to remove enough to make a difference, and
2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood or nearby properties
given that we have had substantial support both in letters and in person from immediately
adjacent property owners, other members of the neighborhood, and other members of the
larger community that have been unanimously in support of the variance and the panels
will not be visible from the road or by the neighbors because of the hedge and
3. The request is not substantial in that the footprint is small so although the numerical
variance is substantial, the physical footprint is not, and
4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects given that SEQR is
not required and will actually have positive environmental effects by reducing carbon
emissions, and
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the owner wants to create a certain amount of
solar electricity to power her house but the shade in the back and side yards is not self-
created and 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, DeRosa, King, Decker and Jung
Unanimous
Mr. Rosen called a 10 minute recess prior to the start of the next appeal.
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 8
Appeal of Giora and Limor Fix, owners, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter
270-5(F) "Family" to have more than 2 unrelated persons residing in a single family residence,
located at 11 Alex Way, Tax Parcel No. 60.-1-25.21, Medium Density Residential (MDR).
Charles Guttman, Attorney for the applicant, Giora Fix and all four residents were present to
answer questions from the Board.
Mr. Rosen stated that the board has the application stating that the 5 people who live in the
house meet the definition of a family but the determination was not applied for at the time of
the signing of the lease but rather it had to come to the attention of the Code enforcement
division. He asked why that was the case.
Mr. Guttman responded that there isn't really an answer to that. The residents were not aware
that this was an issue, in terms of the landlord, he talked to Mr. Fix about this and there are a
variety of factors and this is a request for a determination, not a variance. Mr. Fix acquired
this property about a year ago for$450K and he submitted photos of the house and he has put
$20K in furniture into the property. When he went to rent it in the spring, he was looking for
a particular group of people to rent it to. He did not want to rent it to 5 undergraduate
students who would not be here all year and have beer parties and lower the value of the
property; he was looking for a particular group of people who met, and I am not sure he used
the word in his own mind, but met the definition of a family in that they were going to be
long-term tenants who were going to respect the property and keep up the value of the
property. He got many applications for the property who, in his mind, were not suitable for
this property and they wouldn't be suitable as a functioning family. He found these
individuals and he submits that they do meet the requirements of the town's definition of a
functional family. He went on to say that there are a variety of different factors the code says
the board is to consider, and he agreed that it would have been much better if last summer,
before they moved in, they had come before this board and asked for this determination. That
didn't happen and he didn't have any explanation or excuses for why that didn't happen.
Mr. Guttman again stated that they submit that the renters do meet the definition saying that
subdivision d of the code in the definition of"family" says that 3 or more unrelated people
shall be considered family upon determination of this board if they meet the appropriate
criteria. One of the criteria is any of the factor that the board reasonably determines is
appropriate to consider but there are specific factors which the Town Board has set forth. He
stated that they have submitted an affidavit from the tenants and all are present. He also
submitted a copy of the lease and additional information from the tenants including a joint
bank account for expenses such as food,utilities, household items and things like that. He
stated that he has given Mr. Bates information on tax returns, motor vehicle registration etc.
and all that information is consistent....
Mr. DeRosa jumped in asking Mr. Guttman if it was his position that if another group had
presented themselves to Mr. Fix before this particular group, similar dispositions;
professional, well-mannered, quiet,but clearly not a family... they didn't eat together... in
other words, they didn't satisfy all the criteria that you are pointing to... is it your position
that he wouldn't have rented to that group? Mr. Guttman responded that he didn't know if he
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 9
would have but if he had rented to them, Mr. Bates would have said you are not allowed to
and that they would have to move out. Mr. DeRosa asked at what point would he have said
that? after they had moved in.... and Mr. Guttman said it would have been a violation of the
zoning ordinance if they were not a family. He went on to say, could he have violated the
zoning ordinance? Of course he could have, but would it have been proper? The answer is no.
If he had found 5 people who had never talked to each other and rented it to them he would be
taking that in violation of the zoning code. There is no question about that. The question
before the board is whether or not they are a family and the affidavit which they have
submitted states that they consider themselves to act like siblings. That by itself is not
sufficient, you have to look beyond that. In theory size, appearance and structure resembles a
traditional family unit.... Mr. DeRosa asked if he felt that it was Mr. Fix's obligation, if he is
going to now rely upon, for lack of a better term, the defense that this is a family; wasn't it his
obligation to request this determination before he signed this lease? Mr. Guttman responded
that he agreed and that yes, it was and Mr. DeRosa responded that he thought he had just
asked that question and Mr. Guttman had responded that it was not. Mr. Guttman responded
that he had not, but he had said that Mr. Fix had received numerous applications and rejected
them until this one. Mr. DeRosa responded that he understood that, but if the same group
presented themselves and had actually been a family, would he have rented to them? Mr.
Guttman responded that it was over a period of several days that he talked to them to find out
more about them and that Mr. Fix had told him that one of the things that impressed him was
how they related to each other, for example, he was speaking to the men and the house has 3
smaller bedrooms and one larger bedroom and he asked who would be getting the bigger
bedroom and they all said that the woman would of course. So he spent some time talking to
them and was impressed with the way they interacted. Mr. Guttman did not think that Mr. Fix
specifically asked them if they consider themselves a family but he did ask them if it was their
intention to live together, eat together, etc. etc. and one of the things that Mr. Guttman thought
was important because it ties into the Code is that he asked them what their intention was in
terms of longevity because they told him that their intention was to be there for the next 5
years.
Mr. DeRosa responded that asking about longevity makes sense for any landlord being what
any landlord wants but in the course of that conversation any of them had said actually, we
never eat together, it seems that your position is that on that basis, Mr. Fix would not have
rented to them and he found that curious.
Mr. Guttman responded that it may have just been fortunate. He said that one of the factors is
whether they eat together, one of the factors is the intention of longevity and he had looked
into that and the comradery and closeness he had looked into.... He didn't ask them whether
they intend to have Sunday meals together and the fact that it turned out to be that way is a
benefit because it makes it a much more defensible position and if he hadn't, he would be
here in an indefensible position. Mr. Guttman went on to say that the longevity is crucial
because what he was told is that the tenants intention is to live together this year and they are
in a 5 or 6 year program and their intention is to be together for that 5 or 6 year period and to
stay in this particular house and he asked Mr. Fix if he had signed a 5 or 6 year lease and he
said no and we discussed this and the reason is that he wanted to sign a 1 year lease to make
sure that they work together and this works. Similarly for the students, if they started and it
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 10
wasn't going to work out, then they wouldn't be bound by a 6 year lease. He has been told
now that both the tenants and the landlord think this is working the way it should be working
as a single family home and they are both prepared to establish a 5 year lease. He stated that
he thought that was one of the important issues in terms of whether or not they are a
functional family. The additional things; they eat together, one of the key things in the Code
and he thought the Code was written very clearly, if you read between the lines, if you have a
bunch of under graduate students who are here for the school year and then they leave, the
intention is not that they are not going to be considered a family. These tenants are very
different from that. They are all engineering PHD students and they are here 12 months a
year and not only are they students, they are employed full time by Cornell. They take some
classes and the first year is class intensive with the remaining years being research intensive,
but even the first year, half of their time is working for the university and being paid by the
university doing research in engineering fields. They are employed people and none of them
have children, so the factor about whether they have children attending the school district
becomes non-applicable but there is a big difference he thought between tenants and students
who leave and are just students and five people living together all of whom are employed and
all of whom intend to live together for 5 or 6 years together in the same household.
Mr. Rosen stated that he is talking about something that isn't in the code, it says nothing
about intention to live together but about whether they have been living together. Mr.
Guttman responded that subdivision G covers that in saying any other factor reasonably
related to whether or not the group of individuals is the functional equivalent of a traditional
family and if you have a husband and wife and they get married, the day after they get
married, they haven't lived together, but all of a sudden they are a family, and more important
about whether they are a functional family is not what has happened in the past but what their
intention is for the future. Mr. Guttman compared it to definition of residence saying that
residence is not where you have lived in the past but where you intend to live in the future.
He submitted that family is not whether you were living together yesterday, but what the
intention is for the future and he thought that was covered as a reasonably related factor.
Mr. Rosen responded that he doesn't see that at all saying that any group of students can say
that they intend to live together for 5 years under that definition. Mr. DeRosa added that to
him, Mr. Guttman seems to view 5 graduate students living together in the Town of Ithaca as
far more unusual than he does. He went on to say that with all due respect, and he read all the
paperwork submitted, eating together and spending holidays together is not nearly as unusual
as he is trying to make it sound to be and further, he wondered where that would leave this
Board if after this evening landlords in Ithaca were to consider groups of 5 graduate students
to be family units with all the benefits pertaining there to. Mr. Rosen added the comment,
why just graduate students because under-graduate students also work on campus and Mr.
DeRosa added what about 5 residents of Tompkins County that are not students but work in
the town and all things being equal, would that be a family?
Mr. Guttman responded that it becomes a case-by-case definition and the reason the Town put
this section is was not because the Town just said, oh, this is a nice thing to write. All the
municipalities in Tompkins County wrote similar definitions at the same time and they wrote
the same definitions made by the City attorney at the time because of a case that came out of
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 11
Long Island which said constitutionally, a municipality must allow for the definition of a
functional family. It's not a matter of discretion within the Town, the court of appeals said
that constitutionally you cannot discriminate against students if they are a functional family.
He went on to say that policy wise, you and I may agree or disagree whether that would be a
good thing if 12 different landlords came down and said I have this plan but it really isn't
relevant. What is relevant is that for constitutional reasons, the Town Board adopted this
definition and if someone fits within this definition then what you and I might like to have as
the policy,unfortunately, when it's a constitutional issue, there are limits on what the Town
Board can do as policy maker.
Mr. Rosen responded that the only thing that resembles a traditional family is their intention
to live together in the future and 5 people of the same age do not resemble a traditional
family; they don't support each other...how does that resemble a traditional family? Mr.
Guttman responded that if you had 5 siblings living together, how would that be different
from this? In the situation that they have one bank account...if you look at the different
sections in the code, in the past, voter registration....prior to this year they were living in
different states so drivers license and voter's registration are things in the past that are not
relevant...summer residence is a different situation... Mr. Rosen broke in and said that the
section says whether or not the group has been living together as a unit for an extended period
of time whether in their current dwelling or other dwelling units and they haven't, they just
got together to rent this house. Mr. Guttman responded, yes, that fact he agreed with but
stated that related to that, if you had 5 seniors who were going to live together this year and
then go other places versus 5 engineering students who all were in a 5 or 6 year program and
intend to live together for the future, that he thought is the distinguishing factor. Mr. DeRosa
responded that that could change at any time...they could have a fight tomorrow but siblings,
whether they fight or not, are always siblings. The nature of these students relationship is
built upon the fact that they are currently living together. Mr. Guttman responded saying let's
say the Board agrees with me and says this is a functional family and tomorrow, 2 of them
move out and 2 others move in; we are right back in front of you because these 5 people are a
functional family and if one moves out and new people move in, that determination is no
longer valid. Then we would be back in front of you trying to prove, with great difficulty
then that all of a sudden this has changed.
Mr. DeRosa responded by saying doesn't that get to the strength of the foundation; can you
really call a relationship a family if tomorrow 2 decide to move out and now the family no
longer exists? The relationship is quite flimsy in that sense. He went on to say that Mr.
Guttman raised the question with siblings and the difference is if I have 4 brothers or sisters
and I move to Australia tomorrow, we are still siblings and you just indicated, and I agree
with you, that if 2 of them transfer universities next week, this family that you are describing
is gone. Mr. Guttman responded"you are correct" and their ability to have 5 people in this
residence is gone; it is only because right now this exists.... Mr. Guttman stated that he had 3
daughters and they would never live together but in this instance these 5 resemble 5 siblings
living together if you look at the specific things. No, they haven't in the past but we are only
asking that they be treated as a functional family for right now and for these 5 specific people.
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 12
Mr. Rosen asked what kind of family lasts for 5 years and then breaks up? That's not a
traditional family and Mr. Guttman responded that he does a fair amount of matrimonial work
and ..... (laughter) Mr. DeRosa said he would argue that it isn't even 5 years, it could be 2
days from now and Mr. Guttman said then they would have to move out. Mr. DeRosa
responded that on the one hand he is arguing that this is very similar to a group of 5 siblings
but yet he is conceding that it is a relationship that could evaporate tomorrow. Mr. Guttman
responded that he agreed and it could evaporate tomorrow and their ability to live there is
only while they are a functional family. He went on to say that one of the original cases that
came up on this issue was a theater group that came to the City of Ithaca and they said we are
a functional family. That was one of the cases right after the municipalities changed the codes
and they were clearly living together and it was clearly decided that some could leave and
some could go but they were a family because they were all doing the same thing together and
they were functioning as a family and that is what the court of appeals said. They weren't
students, the court of appeals said you can't discriminate against students in that manner and
you have to look at whether they are functioning as a family unit.
Mr. Rosen responded that we can look at this list of criteria and go through each one of them.
Ms. Brock stated that the Board should go through the list of criteria and that is what they
should base their determination on. This is what the Town Board has determined is the list
that needs to be applied.
Mr. Guttman started the list and D says "notwithstanding subsection C, a group of more than
two shall be a family based on your determination" and then it says the factors of subdivision
F.
Mr. Guttman
(1) The group is one which in theory, size, appearance and structure resembles a traditional
family unit.
Mr. Guttman said that there is a lot of subjective determination and Mr. Rosen stated that
there is no way that 5 people all of the same age resembles a traditional family.
(2)the group is one which will live and cook together as a single housekeeping unit.
Mr. Guttman stated that that is exactly what they are doing. They not only live and cook
together, when they are not at work or study, what they have said by sworn statements is that
they actually socialize, hike, do things together beyond living and cooking together.
(3)the group is of a permanent nature.
Mr. Guttman stated that he submits the "permanent nature" looks more to the future than to
the past and Mr. Rosen asked how that looks to the future more than the past and Mr.
Guttman responded that you are looking for something permanent and that is in the future.
The definition of permanency is not how long ago but how long expected. Mr. Rosen
disagreed saying that that would exclude any bearing on whether they have lived together in
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 13
the past and Mr. Guttman said it does have some bearing but the term permanence is to the
future. Mr. DeRosa responded, let's assume that, but where are you getting the permanence
from where any one of them could unilaterally end the relationship tomorrow so how do you
call this a group which is permanent in nature? Mr. Guttman responded it could be 5 minutes
from now, but as they have stated in sworn statements, that is their intention and they have
also committed to a 5-year program at Cornell... Mr. DeRosa broke in saying that he is not
questioning that or saying that they are being dishonest, but he would not label their
relationship, as fine as it seems to be, a relationship of a permanent nature because there is
nothing binding them to each other other than their current wish to live together.
Mr. Guttman responded that if you look at the rest of the phrase in(3), it says "permanent"
and then contrasts it with"neither a framework for transient or seasonal, including seasonal as
academic year" and Mr. DeRosa responded that there is an "and"there so it has to be both.
Mr. Rosen stated that students are transient in nature, they are here for 4 years and they are
gone. Mr. Guttman responded that it says transient or seasonal and that transient means that
you are not here for 12 months. Mr. Rosen responded that it says transient or seasonal and
including seasonal and Mr. Guttman responded that if you are planning on being here for 5
years for all 12 months then you are not seasonal or transient. Mr. DeRosa stated that he
submits that you don't even get to that point until you get past"permanent nature"because
there is an "and" connecting those so you must be permanent in nature before you move on to
the rest.
Mr. Guttman asked Mr. DeRosa if he considers a husband and wife to be of a permanent
nature and he responded that he would consider it much more permanent than 5 students
living together. Mr. Guttman responded that they could decide in 5 minutes to get divorced
and Mr. DeRosa responded that yes they could but they wouldn't be divorced in 5 minutes
where one of these residents could pack a bag and leave and they would have no legal or other
obligation to come back. They may have to pay rent, but they are under no obligation, legal
or otherwise, to stay together. Mr. Guttman responded that they have a binding contract and
Mr. DeRosa said with him(landlord) not with each other...That is an agreement that pertains
to the dwelling not their relationship or living together. Mr. Guttman responded that marriage
is a contractual relationship and they(students) are contractually related to each other for a
period of time. Mr. DeRosa asked how that is any different from 5 undergraduates living
together? Mr. Guttman responded that you have to look at each of these factors as they begin
to relate and if people have said to each other that they intend to do this for 5 years for 12
months of a year, that is a form of permanency.
Mr. Rosen stated that he doesn't agree and they would have signed a 5-year lease for one
thing and there is no evidence that they wanted to sign a 5-year lease and the next item down;
they all have different addresses, they are all from different places and they have never lived
together before. This is just 5 students who got together to rent a house.
Mr. Guttman responded that if you look at the factors under subdivision 3, (a)the expense for
preparing of food, rent or ownership costs, ....preparation, storage and consumption of food is
shared...Mr. Rosen said fine, they do that, but none of the other 5 under(b) are true.
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 14
Mr. Guttman responded that that is true but they intend to be in the future and(c)whether or
not furniture and appliances are owned in common... the answer is yes, which is different
than most situations.—Mr. Rosen stated that he had already said that the furniture was bought
by Mr. Fix.... Mr. Guttman said that is true but other items have been purchased by them and
not just because they were coming here,but that is the way they set it up.
Mr. Guttman turned to (e)whether or not householders are employed in the local area saying
that with most students you are not going to find people that are employed full time, these
tenants are employed full time by Cornell. Mr. Rosen responded that it doesn't say fulltime it
just says employed and it is a really low bar; most college students are employed. Mr.
Guttman agreed that it is a low bar but in this case they are employed full time which means
they more than meet that standard and full time employment is more significant....
Mr. Rosen broke in saying ok, they meet that standard but they don't meet a bunch of
others... Whether the group has been living together as a unit for an extended time—no; Any
other factor reasonably related to whether or not the group of persons is the functional
equivalent of a traditional family—none of them are supporting each other, none of them are
related by blood or marriage.... Mr. Guttman responded that if they were related by blood or
marriage this issue wouldn't be here, the question is whether they are functioning... Mr.
Rosen responded that there are families such as partners living together with children that are
not related by blood that are living together...that's a big demographic,but he didn't see any
other factor that relates to whether this group is the functional equivalent to a traditional
family. They are not supporting each other, they are not related, they are not of different
ages... this is just 5 students living together and renting a house.
Mr. King spoke and asked if the board could hear why the five students decided to become a
family? Mr. Guttman responded that 3 of them were engineering students together at the
University of Pennsylvania and they became involved in this program here and they decided
at that time to move together and live together and in their word, live like a family. They
came up here in early spring 2014 and as part of the initiation program at Cornell,they met
the 2 students who were not coming from the Uof Penn. It was not like love at first sight and
oh we're going to do this, but I was told that happened in March and over a 2 month period
with a lot of communication amongst each other, they said we really fit together and we are
going to be here for 5 or 6 years and lets do this, let's commit to each other that we are going
to do this, let's commit that we are going to live together for 5 or 6 years, we're going to have
a joint bank account, we are going to eat together... we are going to do more than just live in
our own bedrooms and go independently to class; we are going to function as a family. He
went on to say that they may not have used that word,but they said they are going to live
together and function together as a unit.
Mr. Rosen responded that they did not say any of that until they were served by the zoning
officer and Mr. Guttman responded that he does not agree with that and there are a lot of
families, the demographic of two partners with kids that are not married, if they were living in
the town they would not be coming to you asking for a determination, they would just be
living their life and if Bruce had stumbled upon them they would have to have come here. He
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 15
said he knows a lot of people like that but they haven't come before this board and Mr. Rosen
responded that they are functioning traditional families and people know they are compliant
with the functional equivalent of a family. Mr. Guttman responded that that isn't true because
the code states that they are only a functional equivalent after this board's determination.
Most people who are acting as a functional family are not going to say, oh, I need to go to the
Zoning Board and have that determination made, most would say we are acting in this way
and that's a good thing so let's continue to act this way and because they are also students as
well as being fulltime employees, he submits that that puts them in a different class....Mr.
Guttman said to Mr. Rosen's comment that if they had different ages and they were partners
with children... that's different than being students and that is what the court of appeals has
said you are not supposed to do. the court of appeals said that is not what you are allowed to
do, you are not allowed to discriminate against students if they really are a functional family.
Mr. Rosen responded that we are not discriminating against students, they are just 5 people
who happen to be living together; if they were not students, they wouldn't be any different.
Mr. DeRosa stated that he would express it this way; suppose I built a house right next to
them and I run an ad in the Journal and here come 5 PhD students that don't know each other
and they seem fine to me...I let them move in. So your group is in one house and my group is
in the other house and I am standing in the street and they look identical to me in the terms of
the level of occupancy, in terms of the nature of the tenant, and your argument seems to be
that some how his group of 5 are much more intimately connected with each other to the point
that one is a family. Where does that come from? He said that he is still not hearing that.
How is your group of 5, who until this point has not lived together, how is your group of 5 so
much more intimately involved than my group of 5?
Mr. Guttman responded that you have to look at how they interact. If your group of 5 don't
eat together, they don't shop together... me looking from next door wouldn't know if they eat
together, wouldn't know if they shop together, wouldn't know if they had a joint bank
account... from the outside appearance they would be indistinguishable. Mr. Rosen broke in
and said that there are concrete things here like if they have lived together before, what they
have on their official id... if this is so important, why didn't they bother to go down and get
new driver's licenses? It takes an hour....
Mr. Guttman responded that he could ask them but he thought that what he would hear is that
as a new PhD student is that working and being a new student we are so busy and we didn't
consider that significant enough....
Mr. Rosen responded that for the record, it doesn't matter to him that they are students, if
there were 5 nonstudents here, his opinion would be the same. He went on to say that Mr.
Guttman seems to think we are singling out students but he wanted to state for the record that
if they were not students, he would have the same opinion.
Mr. Bates spoke to clarify one thing, saying that under 270-231, he has the authority to make
the determination of if they are a family or not. This applicant or any applicant has the right
to dispute his determination and come to this board for this board to make a determination.
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 16
He made the determination that this group did not meet the definition of family and served
Mr. Fix with the violation and he chose to appeal.
One of the tenants spoke up and said that he as a NY resident was able to change his address
on his license easily, he just went online, but for the others it is much more difficult and they
will have to go to the DMV and we really don't have that much time; we are in classes or
meeting with advisors or in the lab and this semester is our worst semester but we all intend to
do that. He added that next semester will be easier and they all intended to change their
addresses etc. Mr. Rosen responded that it isn't really that they didn't take the effort to
change them but in section b and looking at whether or not family members have the same
address on different forms of identification is indicative of the fact that you live together and
you all have different addresses on everything and there is no evidence that you have lived
together in the past.
Mr. Guttman responded that that is not being refuted, in the past they did not live together and
that is one of the criteria but there are other criteria. One of the other things is that this is
clearly a single-family house. This is not the traditional thing where a landlord goes out and
finds 5 people to rent a house to. This is a$450K house... Mr. Rosen didn't think the price is
relevant but Mr. Guttman said that it is in that it isn't like a separate rental spaces and the
quality of the house does lend itself to that because it effects what a landlord is going to do
and how they resemble... if you have a bunch of people and the rooms are not connected and
there's a bunch of different kitchens and very little common space... that is different than a
home which has bedrooms and is focused around the common space. Mr. Rosen responded
that it is a single-family house, there is no question about that, it is similar to other single-
family houses and it is designed to be lived in by a family, not 5 unrelated college students.
Mr. Guttman responded that the neighborhood is a mixed neighborhood and there are a lot of
townhouses...
Mr. DeRosa stated that it is perfectly obvious to him why he would want to rent to a group of
young people like this, he is not questioning that and he imagined that he would have been
delighted if 5 tenured faculty members had presented themselves and asked to rent the house
but he wouldn't consider them to be a family either. Mr. Guttman responded that it depends
on the individual faculty; if 5 different faculty came up and said they are all independent and
are not going to be a family... but if they say they are 5 faculty members living cooperatively
and we intend to live cooperatively for the long term, that's a functional family and it depends
on their intention. If they had been a coop for 10 years... now it becomes a question of how
long the co-op have to be and he thought that these people are living cooperatively rather than
as individual students. Mr. Rosen responded that there are houses that are legal for 7
unrelated or 20 unrelated people... cooperative houses typically have zoning approval for
whatever number of unrelated people live there so that is not the same thing at all.
Mr. Guttman responded that if you have a group of 5 people like the 5 tenured as Mr. DeRosa
suggested... and Mr. DeRosa jumped in and said no, he was using that analogy as 5 faculty
members that basically came together under the same set of circumstances; no history of ever
living together etc.. it would be a very smart move for a landlord to rent to that group
assuming he was legally allowed to but he would not submit that that was a family either for
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 17
the same reasons. He went on to say that he mentions that because as his colleague
mentioned earlier, this is not about it being students in his opinion. Mr. Guttman asked Mr.
DeRosa what his opinion be if there were 5 faculty members who said their intention was to
live cooperatively for the indefinite future? Mr. DeRosa responded that it is almost a
meaningless statement because he could say, well, it's the holiday season, and how many
people say on New Year's Day they are going to go to the gym and never do... the statement
of intention is of very little weight if that is all you have. If you have 20 years of living
together prior to that or you all have the same address or something like that, but here we
basically have, and I am not suggesting I doubt them, but I am suggesting that it is a
relationship that can be changed unilaterally by any one of them at any time.
Mr. Guttman responded that if any functional family, which the Town has said is allowed to
live together as a single-family, isn't it true that in any of those situations, any one of them
can move out? Mr. DeRosa responded that that is past the time that the town has determined
that they are a family. Mr. Guttman responded that if a group came in and met every criteria
100% one of them could move out the next day too. The fact that they can move out the next
day doesn't go to the definition of functional family. Mr. DeRosa disagreed, saying that Mr.
Guttman was describing a situation where they were deemed to be a functional family and
then something changed and he was talking about a lack of evidence that the functioning
family exists in the first place so in his view, they are talking about two different things. He
went on to say that functioning families do dissolve,that happens every day but this group of
5 people in front of us this evening, he is not seeing that a functioning family ever came into
existence as opposed to a situation where you had a functioning family and something
changed.
Mr. Brock asked about the bank account and the statement that was submitted has one name
on it? Mr. Tyler Moeller's name is on it? Mr. Guttman responded that it is listed as his but
all their names are on it and Mr. Moeller replied that it is only in his name on the banks'
advice but it is used as a joint account. Ms. Brock asked what the account was used for and
he responded it is used for rent,utilities, supplies, all joint purposes. Ms. Brock asked if they
have other accounts and he responded that they all have their own personal bank accounts
which are used for individual purposes such as books, individual living. Ms. Brock asked
each tenant to answer that question and each said they use their own accounts for personal
uses such as dining out, buying lunch when working, text books, etc. and for deposit of
payroll checks. Ms. Brock asked them all if they are comingling their income and Mr. Seth (I
believe) responded that they do by pooling their money together into the joint account for
house expenses. Ms. Brock asked if they do joint purchases for anything other than
household expenses and they responded that their policy is that if they do something together
they take it out of the joint account. Ms. Brock asked about auto purchases and they have
their own autos.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m.
Ms. Howe read a prepared statement representing 90 households which is copied here:
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 18
I am Georgia Howe,president of the Eastwood Commons Resident's Association. The Board of
Directors has authorized me to speak on behalf of all of our residents.
We object to the granting of the request by Mr. Fix that the current five students living in his
property at 11 Alex Way should be considered a functional family unit. He asserts that the
granting of this status makes no difference to our adjacent neighborhood or to the area of his
home which is designated medium density single family homes in the current zoning,the three
lot subdivision of this property granted in 2005 and the master plan that the town has recently
enacted.
Eastwood Commons includes rental properties as well as owner occupied residences. None of
our rentals, some of which are occupied by students, exceed the two unrelated persons limit. We
think our neighbors should comply with the same zoning definitions.
In the Ithaca area, more than two unrelated persons means students. Some can be very good
neighbors. Others, as young people who don't think about their neighbors, can be noisy and poor
housekeepers with garbage and trash. In a house this size with a large deck and space for parking
of many cars, excessive parties can be a big temptation.
The city of Ithaca residential areas of South Hill and of Bryant Park have had their composition
as family neighborhoods compromised by the influx of student rental housing. The same case
can be made for Honness Lane in the town of Ithaca. Landlords can earn more renting per
bedroom to students, thus pricing these residences over the means of most renting families.
We ask the zoning board to hold these residents to the standards in Zoning Code definitions for
Families, subsection F.
We assert:
I. This group of five young adults does not resemble a traditional family unit.
2. They have submitted an affidavit saying they meet the criteria of a single family unit like
cooking and sharing chores. What evidence do we have that is true at this time or will be
in the future?
3. These students do not meet the test for permanent residence by their own affidavit in
regards to the same address for voter registration, driver's licenses, car registrations,
summer residence or filing of taxes with the same address. They say they will be making
changes but what documentation do you have that this will occur?
The vast majority of owners at Eastwood Commons have lived, worked and paid taxes in
Tompkins County for most of our lives. We sold our single family residences to join a
community of others who wish to remain in Ithaca, and have the same passion for the Ithaca
community and what it has to offer. We appreciate the importance of students and the institutions
they attend. In the end, this is not about students but about landlords who acquire housing that
was built for family units, and convert it to something for which it was never intended.
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 19
We believe that Mr. Fix and his attorney, Charles Guttman, assumed that because they once
negotiated a family status for students at 141 Honness Lane that they automatically should
receive that designation again. Now is the opportunity to correct a past mistake.
We urge you to uphold the definitions in the zoning law and reject this request.
Chris Stratakos, neighbor on the corner. I have lived there since 1978 and we have family
homes that were zoned, we have one-family homes with the apartment capabilities for
students and that seems to have worked for many years. I don't see where allowing the
zone... I thought it was a variance to tell you the truth, but if it's a definitional change, I don't
see any need for a definitional change. I think it would be a situation where the detriment to
the surrounding community would be greater than the benefit to the applicant and I assume
the applicant knew when the house was purchased that it was a single-family home and that
there were zoning regulations so I think it would have been incumbent upon him to let the
people who were renting from him know what the regulations were before they signed the
lease so I really think that we would be harmed by this more than he would be helped. Thank
you.
Neighbor—I too would urge you to stick to the criteria for what is a truly functional family
and examine this situation carefully. One of the things that their attorney said was that they
respect the property and perhaps it's not their fault,but the lawn on that property went
unmowed most of the summer and when it was finally mowed it was like cutting the hay.
There is a swale to protect the water runoff and it has never been trimmed or anything, it's
like a line of weeds that detract from the property as well as our property as you come into
Eastwood Commons. I do not see this as a good situation and hope that you can hold to the
criteria that are there.
Mr. Rosen asked if there was anyone else that wished to speak; there was no one else wishing
to speak and he closed the public hearing at 9:57 p.m.
Mr. Rosen recapped stating that the Board needs to determine, not the impact on the
neighborhood, but to determine in a very narrow sense whether this group of 5 people who are
represented by the owner of the property seeking a determination, whether they meet the
criteria as a family for the purposes of the zoning code. Mr. Rosen asked if the Board needed
to do SEQR and Ms. Brock responded that they should,before making the determination.
The SEQR form as submitted was reviewed. A few minor changes were made, two boxes at
the end needed to be checked; increase in drainage—no and hazards to human health—no.
ZBA Resolution No. 2014- 029 SEOR Determination
Giora and Limor Fix, 11 Alex Way, TP 60.-1-25.21, MDR
December 15, 2014
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Chris Jung
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 20
Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on
the information in Parts 1 and 2 and the reasons stated in Part 3 of the State Environmental
Quality Review Form.
Vote: Ayes—Rosen, DeRosa, King, Jung and Decker
Mr. Rosen turned to the determination and noted that this is not following the blue cards and
detriment to the health, safety and welfare etc. that is usual but is a determination of whether this
group meets the definition of a family for 5 people living together.
Mr. Rosen stated that it is his feeling that this group does not meet the definition of a family for
many reasons. They may have some things like a joint bank account but they have many
significant features that do not match the definition of a family and he asked the other board
members if there was agreement and the board indicated by nodding that there was.
ZBA Resolution No. 2014-030 Determination of Functional Family
Giora and Limor Fix, 11 Alex Way, TP 60.-1-25.21, MDR
December 15, 2014
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Christine Decker
Resolved that this Board makes the determination that the group is not the functional equivalent
of a family for the following reasons:
Findings
1. The group is one in 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 even though they are
all in their 20's or 30's.
2. We have an affidavit that the group cooks together and there is only one kitchen in the
house.
3. We find that the group is not of a permanent nature because household expenses are
shared but no others are and the lease is for one year. They do not comingle their
income in a common account. They are together as long as they are amenable to it
and as long as they are living in Ithaca,but there is no commitment and as they get
their PhDs they have not stated their intent to stay together longer than that. None of
the group has any of the same addresses on voter or drivers licenses and they have
never lived together previously, including the three who went to school in
Pennsylvania together.
4. The house is rented as furnished and major appliances are provided by the landlord.
5. Local children registered in school in not relevant as they have no children.
6. They are employed in the local area but their employment is connected to their status as
graduate students which will have a finite term.
7. The group has never lived together as a unit for any period of time except for the 4.5
months they have been living illegally in the current house when the landlord was fully
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 21
aware of the zoning regulations because he has been to this Board before in a similar
case.
8. The board finds no other factor reasonably related to whether or not the group of
persons is a functional equivalent of a traditional family except for their affidavit that
states they celebrate special occasions but this Board does not find that persuasive
because many groups of friends and tenants that live in houses do that together; the
things that they do are not something that families do more than something that friends
or tenants do.
Vote: Ayes—Rosen, Decker, DeRosa, Jung, and King Unanimous
Mr. Rosen moved to accept the minutes of the November meeting as submitted, seconded by
Mr. DeRosa. Unanimous.
The Board discussed the chair position and George Vignaux nominated Rob Rosen to
continue as Chair and this be conveyed to the Town Board for appointment at the annual
meeting. Seconded by Chris Jung. Unanimous with Mr. Rosen abstaining.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
Submitted by
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
ZBA 12/15/2014 pg 22
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Lori Kofoid, being duly sworn, say that I am the Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of
the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official
newspaper, Ithaca Journal:
O ADVERTISEMENT
O NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Zoning Board of Appeals
To���ITi ,'�Il� fikCf
December 15, 2014 Legal Noticed
�upceow- ( �
ktEAk�1�4 ii pa
21ah�ortfat'�s'tX�'�l'( ,irr
tlfa`r�' � tte
xa
eC
tt ;
2atx4 'Iieg4Mt;,,414(t�
and "tadra� t=C
GheTrwyaa of"It(ad� odeuUt�'
order to eonrknist tai tall C
:deteoliO d gooMe.jf 6It-ex- P
Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: aeeds:006skar*,leeoleda+f
s IX)5-7f'�rieaE�rur.j; h7d, T6x L
Town Clerks Office Parcel,Na 26.4,7,�pd;6j,,x
f3 ntlty'F(esiulistls�4Mr�t47.
215 North Tioga Street Apapeefy/of 1Caaa
oatep Ire pwjjnt,And:om t
Ithaca, NY 14850 a�tnrear � � tln
mangy Cla�2tet`2�1�i�tf
"E Bran�g6d fsa 1e oses�t
Date of Posting: December 3, 2014 a <, r �-
j%r r
uses"fg 4ada(1u f J d4a
o Ina Ea'h x1t1c��79a�?le� +�3T1
Date of Publication: December 5, 2014
P.
"lndreo,No,'p
."�;'^� pQ��a2 InrYGsknal�'ciTrCg
AW raP lunch conan,,
rsryrroktlnl} vad,0Kae
f�zrr �kru er,�ulrxtnM�jds of--,
ChaE�t7C 2A1,Bt5} t
LOCI KOf Id tar blaetzrs a 1'46016,
Deputy Town Clerk
k600 and 27041'A Y4al
h �a Gcatle�bx�aNl�y'�d�k�;`
�e�hlcu''grdnnd rrsnyr� >d�d�
de tl 0�
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA) 1',i� tr'%' d�,°
lan �nt tla�re,,�trs ����
Stern to and subscrt ed before me this day of toww dnr lat ,
NOT,dk1�,7,
Nto Public
Debra DeALlgistine
Notary Public-State of tiew York
No.01DE6148035
oualified in Tompkins county r
My Commission Expires June 19,20
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
I,Lori Kofoid,being duly sworn,deposes and says,that deponent is not a party to the actions,is over 21 years of age with a professional
address of 215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca,New York.
That on the 5th day of December,2014,deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the following Tax Parcel Numbers:
930 Danby Rd.,Tax Parcel 40.-3-9.2,Use Variance and Variance Extension
924 Danby Rd Ithaca,LLC Emerson Power Transmission Ithaca College
PO Box 6706 7120 New Buffmgton Rd Gerald Hector,Vice President
Ithaca,NY 148501 Florence,KY 41042 325 PRW Center
Ithaca,NY 14850
Ithaca Estates Properties Jane C.Grantor-Trust Sanford Reuning &Franklin Butler
123 King Rd E PO Box 460 929 Danby Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14851 Ithaca,NY 14850
Linda Luciano,Property Manager Peter&Patricia Stage John Dix Wayman
South Hill Business Campus,LLC 923 Danby Rd 917 Danby Rd
X950 Danby Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
thaca,NY 14850
ICS Development Partners Sunom,Inc
930 Danby Rd 930 Danby Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
210 Forest Home Dr,Tax Parcel 66.-2-13,Area Variance
William&Caroline Arms Georgette Atsedes George&Helen Bayer
166 Duke of Gloucester St 104 Crest Ln 216 Forest Home Dr
Annapolis,MD 21401 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Michael Bend&Valerie Hans Carol Bender Robin&Michael Blakely-Armitage
127 Warren Rd 108 Richmond Hill Ct 206 Forest Home Dr
Ithaca,NY 14850 Williamsburg,VA 23185 Ithaca,NY 14850
Charles Brittain Cornell University Donald Edwards
214 Forest Home Dr PO Box DH 10 Bush Ln
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14853 Ithaca,NY 14850
Herbert Engman Magnus Fiskesjo&Zhen Zhang John Foote&Kristen Rupert
120 Warren Rd 140 Forest Home Dr 228 Forest Home Dr
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Forest Home Church&Parsonage Claudia Fuchs Andrew&Lane Gallaway
X.24 Forest Home Dr 137 Judd Falls Rd 104 Halcyon Hill Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Kei&Keiko Hayashi Laurel Hodgden&Kyllikki Inman Mary Howard
108 Crest Ln 112 Halcyon Hill Rd 220 Forest Home Dr
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 12/15/14
Tom Inman&Kylhkki Inman Michael Kandrach Beth Kelly
110 Halcyon Hill Rd 217 Forest Home Dr 105 Halcyon Hill Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
David&Sheila Danko Kuckuk Linda Copman Rev Trust Randolph&Joann Little
229 Forest Home Dr 210 Forest Home Dr 111 Berkeley Cir
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Basking Ridge,NJ 07920
Jenny Mann&Guy Ortolano Stuart Manning William&Aloma McElwee
101 Halcyon Hill Rd 103 Crest Ln 114 Kay St
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Kris&Stella Merschrod Robert&Elizabeth Mueller Frank Naples
123 Warren Rd 20 The Byway 110 Warren Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Poul&Montana Petersen Trevor John Pinch Robert Langhans Rev Trust
208 Forest Home Dr 112 Crest Ln 111 Halcyon Hill Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Clinton Sidle Susan&Brent Stephan The Marsha Lommel Rev Trust
1736 Ellis Hollow Rd 145 Forest Home Dr 7436 Karl Drive
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Lincoln,NE 68516
11 Alex Way,Tax Parcel 60.4-25.21,Occupancy
Victoria Anagnost Barbara Anderson Daphne Atkinson
100 W Upland Rd 306 Hunt Hill Rd 6129 Leesburg Pike No 1210
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Falls Church,VA 22041
Edward Baptist Ellen Batterton Ethel Beck
105 Honness Ln 101 Terraceview Dr 532 Savage Farm Dr
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Mary Alex Bligh Christian-Missionary Alliance David Church
PO Box 704 1422 Slaterville Rd 62 West Lake Rd
Ithaca,NY 14851 Ithaca,NY 14850 Dryden,NY 13053
George&Diane Conneman Norman&Olivia Culver Waltravt&Herbert Deinert
250 Strawberry Hill Cir Unit 2 231 Strawberry Hill Cir No 4 130 Honness Ln
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Eastwood Common Res Association Richard&Connie Evan Lillian Fan
PO Box 392 1045 Perry City Rd 201 Wildflower Dr No 4
Ithaca,NY 14851 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Giora&Limor Fix Giora&Limor Fix Roger Freeman
PO Box 243 2 Willow Point Rd 241 Strawberry Hill Cir No 4
Ithaca,NY 148501 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
2
Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 12/15/14
David&Teresa Galloway Carl Ginet&Sally McConnell-Ginet Angela Gonzales&Timothy Evans
114 Honness Ln 250 Strawberry Hill Cir 210 Wildflower Dr No 4
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Robert&Lois Gosse Martin Gutmann&Djahan Salehabadi Grace Hammond
241 Strawberry Hill Cir No 3 101 Strawberry Hill Cir No 1 231 Wildflower Dr No 2
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Sue Hemsath Nancy Hewett Claude Hewitt&Georgia Howe
111 Strawberry Hill Cir No 4 230 Strawberry Hill Cir No 2 241 Strawberry Hill Cir No 2
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Home 4 U Trust Carol Hunt KFS Property 2,LLC
PO Box 243 521 Strawberry Hill Cir No 3 521 Strawberry Hill Cir No 4
Ithaca,NY 14851 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Barbara Kretzmann Norma Lee Nancy Lee Leeming
117 Brandon PI 201 Wildflower Dr No 3 221 Strawberry Hill Cir No 2
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Georgian Leonard Deborah Levin Ulle Lohmus
21 Strawberry Hill Cir No 4 211 Strawberry Hill Cir No 3 230 Strawberry Hill Cir No 4
haca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Eleanor&Montgomery May Jean Mazza MD Union Properties NC
1360 Slaterville Rd 220 Wildflower Dr No 3 8 Isla Bahia Terr
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ft.Lauderdale,FL 33316
Vladimir Micic&Holly Case Paul&Carol Murray Carl Norton&Heidi DeCoo
118 Honness Ln 101 Strawberry Hill Cir No 3 35-20 77'St
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Jackson Heights,NY 11372
Olga Robinson Trust Thomas Paolangeli Sunil Parekh
211 Wildflower Dr No 3 121 Harwick Rd 231 Wildflower Dr No 1
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Richard Patterson Helen Prokop John Puglia
3381 Slaterville Rd 6839 Jayhawk Cir 8 Glenford Ln
Brooktondale,NY 14817 Baldwinsville,NY 13027 E Northport,NY 11731
Assaf&Shulamit Razin Muhammad&Khurshid Razzaq Thomas Reimers
231 Wildflower Dr No 3 PO Box 299 210 Wildflower Dr No 3
Ithaca,NY 14850 Hebron,CT 06248 Ithaca,NY 14850
Arthur&Ellen Rosten John&Doreen Rudan George&Nancy Schuler
240 Stawberry Hill Cir No 3 100 Wildflower Dr 221 Strawberry Hill Rd No 3
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Joseph Schwartz Lynette Scofield Elizabeth Shedd
z20 Wildflower Dr No 4 303 N Aurora St 201 Wildflower Dr No 2
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14$56 Ithaca,NY 14850
3
"PON,
Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 12/15/14
Kyle Shen Xiling Shen&Chao Koi E Ann Shumate
101 Strawberry Hill Cir No 2 711 The Parkway 231 Strawberry Hill Cir No 3
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Cynthia Smithbower Spriggs Family Trust Helen Steh
200 Wildflower Dr No 3 1456 Murfield Rd 521 Strawberry Hill Cir No 2
Ithaca,NY 14850 Riverside,CA 92506 Ithaca,NY 14850
Peter&Christine Stratakos Sunnyhill Homeowners,Eastwood Henry&Lynn Veenstra
124 Honness Ln PO Box 392 521 Strawberry Hill Cir No 2
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 148501 Ithaca,NY 14850
Catherine Wiggins Daniel&Lynne Wilks Ingrid&Mark Zabel
I I I Strawberry Hill Cir No 3 1410 Slaterville Rd 121 Honness Ln
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Miron&Mary Ellen Zuckerman
227 Pelham Rd
Rochester,NY 14610
By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper,in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office
Department within the State of New York.
Lori Kofoi*d,Deputy Town Cler
Town of Ithaca
Sworn to before me this 5th Day of December 2014.
Nokry-Public
Debra DeALigistine
Notary Public-State of New York
No.01 DE6148035
Qualified in Tompkins County
My Commission Expires June 19,2
4