Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2010-12-20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2010 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P. M . Agenda 1 . Call to Order. 2 , Consider Appeal of Holly Creek Townhomes 3 , Consider Appeal of Ron Ronsvalle 4 . Consider Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Proposed Limited Historic Commercial Zones Local Law 5 , Consider Recommendation of 2011 Chair to the Town Board 6 . Consider 2011 Meeting Schedule 7 . Consider Recommendation of Appointment to the Codes and Ordinances ® Committee TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2010 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P . M . Appeal of Holly Creek Townhomes , LLC , Owner; Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services , Applicant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 225 , Section 225-3 " New Buildings Required to Have Sprinkler Systems" , Chapter 234 , Section 234-33 "Buffer Zone Requirement" , Chapter 270 , Section 270-5 " Definitions" , Section 270- 106A( 1 ) "Yard Regulations" , and Section 270- 1 11 (c) (d ) "Additional Special Requirements" of the Town of Ithaca Code to for the proposed Holly Creek Townhouse development located on Holly Creek Lane (off King Road West) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 37- 1 - 17 . 16 and 37- 1 - 17 . 17 , Multiple Residence Zone and Low Density Residential Zone . The proposal involves modifying the approved plan to change the design and siting of the buildings and increasing the number of units from 20 to 22 units in six buildings . The units would be sold to moderate income buyers as part of the Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Community Housing Trust program . Appeal of Heritage Park Townhouses , Inc , Owner; Paul Tavelli , Agent, requesting a determination from the Requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-5 " Family ' ( F) for the ® purposes of considering the residents of 214 King Rd E to be a functional family located at 214 King Rd E , Tax Parcel No . 44 . - 1 -4 . 41 , Medium Density Residential . If Zoning Board of Appeals determines the residents of 214 King Rd E not to be a functional family, appellant may request a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-66B ( 1 ) " Permitted Principal Uses" to allow the dwelling to be occupied by more than one family. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARb OF APPEALS SIGN - IN SHEET DATE : December 20 , 2010 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTAbbRESS / AFFILIATION FILE DATE , ZONING BOARD of APPEALS Monday, December 20 , 2010 7 : 00 p . m . Present : Kirk Sigel , Chair; Board Members : Harry Ellsworth , Ron Krantz , James Niefer, Dave Mountin , and Bill King . Staff Present : Bruce Bates , Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town ; Carrie Coates Whitmore ; Deputy Town Clerk . Others : Ron Ronsvalle , Paul Tavelli , Noah Demarest , Scott Reynolds , and Evan Monkemeyer. Call to Order Chairperson Sigel called the December 20 , 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7 : 03 p . m . Chairperson Sigel announced that there were two appeals before the Board . Appeal of Holly Creek Townhomes, LLC , Owners Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Applicant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 225, Section 225=3 " New Buildings Required to Have Sprinkler Systems" , Chapter 234, Section 234=33 " Buffer Zone Requirement" , Chapter 270, Section 270=5 " Definitions" , Section 270=106A(1 ) "Yard Regulations" , and Section 270-111 (c)(d) " Additional Special Requirements" of the Town of Ithaca Code to for the proposed Holly Creek Townhouse development located on Holly Creek Lane (off King Road West), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ' s 37=1 =17. 16 and 37=1 =17. 17, Multiple Residence Zone and Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves modifying the approved plan to change the design and siting of the buildings and increasing the number of units from 20 to 22 units in six buildings. The units would be sold to moderate income buyers as part of the Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Community Housing Trust program . Scott Reynolds and Noah Demarest appeared before the Board on behalf of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing . Mr. Demarest gave a brief summary of their appeal . He outlined the 3 variance requests : 1 ) To use the cluster subdivision setbacks as opposed to the MDR setbacks . This triggers a number of setback variances for front yard , side yard and rear yard ; 2 ) Locate waste sheds/pavilions in the front yard . Two primary reasons for this request: a) more grading would be required if they were placed in the rear yard , which may ® sacrifice some of the open , shared space , and b) the trash cans would be more conveniently located for residents to move to the street ; Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 Final 3) To be relieved of the requirement to install sprinkler systems in the waste sheds . Mr. Demarest clarified that he is also requesting the cluster subdivision requirements to apply to the play structure , too . Chairperson Sigel solicited questions from the Board . Mr. Niefer noted four trash collection areas . He asked if that was correct. Mr. Demarest confirmed that there are 4 sheds , two of which are located in the front yard ; one of the two is located in the front yard setback of the MDR zone . Mr. Niefer asked for the size of the proposed sheds . Mr. Demarest estimated the size to be 10 feet x 12 feet. Mr. Niefer asked if a refuse truck would be able to drive up to them or if there were individual cans . Mr. Demarest explained that there would be garbage cans in the shed ; residents would move the cans from the sheds to the street for pickup . Chairperson Sigel asked if the units would be owner occupied . Mr. Reynolds explained that the homes must be owner occupied and are sold as townhouses . Chairperson Sigel asked how they arrived at the number of parking spaces because the units seemed shy on parking . Mr. Demarest explained that the number of parking ® spaces is based on one space per unit plus one space for every three units . INHS has ® data of current residents that support the number of parking spaces proposed . Mr. Krantz asked if dumpsters would be more efficient than the sheds with garbage cans . He thought it would save money and be less messy. Mr. Reynolds said there was not a magic reason , but from his experience with rental properties it can be a hassle . It also makes everyone responsible for their own trash . Mr. Demarest added that they are trying to make the overall development feel more residential and less like an apartment complex. Mr. Ellsworth asked if INHS took the project over from Dave Auble . Mr. Reynolds explained that they have the option to buy the two parcels from Mr. Auble . They have not exercised the options yet because they wanted to get through the approval process first. Mr. Ellsworth wondered if he needed to recuse himself from the project because he designed the sprinkler systems in the previous project proposal . Chairperson Sigel did not think it was necessary for him to recuse himself since it was a separate project. Mr. King wondered about the close proximity of the refuge shed adjacent to buildings 9 , 10 , and 11 . He asked if there was a distance issue . Mr. Demarest thought that the requirement was for 10 feet between buildings and the shed was more than 10 feet away from the buildings . Chairperson Sigel asked if the other lots on the street remain unrestricted , buildable lots . Mr. Reynolds explained that INHS only has an option to buy these two lots . Mr. Auble still owns the rest of the subdivision . Page 2 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 Final Public Hearing Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 17 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board . Evan Monkemeyer appeared before the board and asked for the density per acreage figure . Mr. Reynolds responded that there are 22 units total on approximately 4 acres , equalling 5 to 6 units per acre . Mr. Monkemeyer then asked if sprinklers were being installed in the townhouses . Chairperson Sigel explained that there would be sprinklers in the townhouses , but not the storage sheds . The Board and Attorney Brock briefly discussed the cluster and MDR setback requirements . Attorney Brock confirmed that the Planning Board approved the project using the cluster subdivision setbacks . Environmental Assessment Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance based on the reason stated in Part II of the EAF prepared by Town staff. Mr. Niefer seconded . Vote—carried unanimously. ® ZB RESOLUTION 2010-036: Holly Creek Townhomes. Environmental Assessment, Holly Creek Ln. Tax Parcel No. 37= 147. 16 and 37= 1- 17. 17 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. Resolved, in regard to the appeal of Holly Creek Townhomes, this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Part 11 of the environmental assessment form prepared by Town staff. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, and Mountain. NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 18 p . m . Mr. Niefer thought it was a reasonable request; Chairperson Sigel agreed . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant of Holly Creek Townhomes to allow the construction ® 4 waste sheds without a sprinkler system , finding that the criteria for a sprinkler system had been satisfied , specifically listing how each criteria was met. Mr. Niefer seconded . Vote--carried unanimously. Page 3 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 Final ZB RESOLUTION 2010-037: Holly Creek Townhomes, Sprinkler Variance, Holly Creek Ln, Tax Parcel No. 37= 1 - 17. 16 and 37= 1 - 17. 17 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. Resolved, that this Board grants the appeal of Holly Creek Townhomes requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225, Section 225-3 "New Buildings Required to Have Sprinkler Systems " to allow the construction of four waste sheds as indicated on the plans submitted to the Board, based upon the following: Findings: 1 . That there would be a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship resulting from the enforcement of the strict letter of this Chapter, given that the sheds will not be heated it would be difficult to have a wet sprinkler system and the applicant would have to incur substantial expense to have it be functional or to use another fire suppression system that meets all of the sprinkler requirements, 2. That the omission of an approved sprinkler system from the entire waste shed will not significantly jeopardize human life given that the sheds will not have any permanent occupancy or any overnight occupancy. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, and Mountain. NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel asked if all setback deficiencies were labeled on the submission . Mr. Demarest said that they were . Chairperson Sigel noted that the Board could require the submission of a new site plan that showed the setback deficiencies of all structures . Board agreed . There was brief discussion regarding the setback dimensions . Chairperson Sigel asked about the variance under Section 270-5 Definitions . Mr. Bates explained that it is for the definition of parking and if it is considered to be in the required setback. Attorney Brock confirmed that the driveways are paved and it was questionable what area of the paved driveway was considered the parking area . Mr. Demarest explained that the parking is pushed forward in order to provide more open space in the rear yard of the project. Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Holly Creek Townhomes proposed Holly Creek Townhouse development with conditions on setbacks of structures and ® finding that all requirements of an area variance had been satisfied , specifically listing how each criterion was met. Mr. Niefer seconded . Vote—Carried Unanimously . Page 4 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20 , 2010 Final ZB RESOLUTION 2010=038: Holly Creek Townhomes, Area Variances, Holly Creek Ln. Tax Parcel No. 37. = 1 - 17. 16 and 37. = 1 - 17. 17 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. Resolved, that this Board grants the appeal of Holly Creek Townhomes requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 234, Section 234-33 "Buffer Zone Requirement'; Chapter 270, Section 270- 106A ( 1) "Yard Regulations'; and Sections 270- 111 (C) and 270- 111 (D) "Additional Special Requirements" of the Town of Ithaca Code for the proposed Holly Creek Townhouse development located on Holly Creek Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Numbers 37 - 1 - 17. 16 and 37. - 1 - 17. 17, Multiple Residence Zone and Low Density Residence Zone, based upon the following: Conditions: 1 . That the setbacks of all units on all sides be no less than 2 feet less than what is shown on the plan labeled L001 submitted to the Zoning Board, 2. That where there are structures whose setbacks are not labeled on this form, that an identical plan be submitted to the Town showing those setbacks and the requirement for those setbacks will become 2 feet less than what is shown on that plan that is submitted to the Town. Specifically, it appears that four waste sheds, the play structure, and parking areas need to be labeled with their setbacks. Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, finding that while the benefit in some cases could be achieved with somewhat less intrusion into the setbacks that the plan submitted is a reasonable plan and has balanced various desires of the Planning Board, the applicant, and the intended residents of the community. Although the waste sheds under zoning are to be located in the rear yards, in this case it makes sense to locate some of them in the front yards to get them closer to the street, to better serve all of the units along common walkways between units and the waste pickup areas at the street, and to get the waste sheds away from the common play area, 2. There will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this property is at the boundary between a residential area and a commercial area and would appear this type of higher density use is appropriate for such a zone. The sheds are being constructed of the same material as the other buildings, with landscaping to integrate them into the overall design of the community, Page 5 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 Final 3. While some of the requested setbacks are not substantial, some of them are, specifically units 19-22, and some of the parking, but nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community in relation to the setbacks. There is some modest intrusion into the Multiple Residence setback zone requirements, but all the setbacks are within the required Cluster Buffer limit, 4. There will not be adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in the environmental assessment form, 5. While finding that the alleged difficulty has been self-created by the plans created by the applicant, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, and Mountain. NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Appeal of Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc , Owners Paul Tavelli , Agent, requesting a determination from the Requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-5 " Family" ( F) for the purposes of considering the residents of 214 King Rd E to be a functional family located at 214 King Rd E, Tax Parcel No. 44.=1 -4.41 , Medium Density Residential . If Zoning Board of Appeals determines the residents of 214 King Rd E not to be a functional family, appellant may request a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-66B(1 ) " Permitted Principal Uses" to allow the dwelling to be occupied by more than one family. Paul Tavelli and Ron Ronsvalle appeared before the Board . Mr. Tavelli reviewed with the Board the minutes of the December 15 , 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting . The Board discussed at that time the size and footprint of the house . Mr. Tavelli went on to describe why he was before the Board . He said that he was present for this issued because "for whatever reason , Mr. Bates filed a criminal charge against Mr . Ronsvalle for having too many people in this unit. " Mr. Tavelli went on to say that the criminal charge is still pending and he represented Mr. Ronsvalle in criminal court. He explained that the criminal statute says that if an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals is made , and then the criminal action is stayed pending the determination of the Zoning Board . Mr. Tavelli provided copies of the lease for 214 King Rd East to the Board and noted ® that there is language in the lease similar to the language in Town Code . (See Attachment # 1 ) The Town' s statue gives criteria for the Board to use in making the determination of a family. Mr. Tavelli said that the individuals do not meet every criteria Page 6 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20 , 2010 Final laid out in the Code . Currently there are 4 individuals living in one unit and 3 individuals living in the other unit . He stated that the bedrooms were large in both units and did not feel that the amount of habitable space was an issue . Each person has his/her own bedroom ; 1 unit has 3 bathrooms and the other unit as 4 bathrooms . Each unit has a kitchen and living room . The main unit is approximately 3600 square feet and the 2nd unit is approximately 2000 square feet . The discussion at the December 15 , 2003 meeting consisted of how large the main unit and accessory unit could be . The main unit also has a two-car garage . Mr. Tavelli went on to say that Mr. Ronsvalle has done everything he could to comply with the statute . A questionnaire was sent to the tenants of both units ( included with Attachment # 1 ) , which discusses how the individuals meet the definition of a family. Mr. Tavelli said that there have never been problems with the property and that it has a Certificate of Occupancy. He felt that the property was immaculately kept and that there haven 't been problems with the neighbors . They have had discussions with Mr. Monkemeyer, a fellow landlord in the area , and he felt that the tenants met the definition of a family as well . Mr. Tavelli reminded the Board that the statute charges the Zoning Board with making the determination of whether or not the tenants at 214 King Rd East constitute a family. He made the case that the lease and the tenants that live there say that it is a family . Mr. Tavelli stated that he was not pleased when Mr. Ronsvalle was dragged into criminal court for having the students living at the property. He thought that the inception was that a mother of one of the students living there called Mr. Bates and asked if the property met with the Town ' s statute . The property has been rented for the last 6 years ; sometimes to what is called a functional family and sometimes to a regular family. One year a unit was rented to parents and their 4 children and the other unit to 3 individuals . Mr. Tavelli went on to say that a unit could be rented to a mother, father and 9 children without any problem , but because there are 3 unrelated persons in one unit and 4 unrelated persons in another unit Mr. Ronsvalle has run afoul of the Building Commissioner for the Town of Ithaca . Mr. Tavelli concluded his presentation by stating that he was submitting that the residents of both units constitute a functional family . He then asked if the Board had any questions . Mr. Niefer asked if all the tenants signed the questionnaire provided to the Board . Mr. Tavelli answered that it was the tenants' idea . He drafted the questions and the tenants answered and signed the questionnaire . Mr. Niefer asked if the questions were posed before the criminal action was filed . Mr. Tavelli responded that the tenants signed the lease with the language in there , but the submissions were signed after Mr. Ronsvalle was criminally charged . Mr. Mountin asked if the Board was provided with the current lease . Mr. Tavelli said yes , Mr. Ronsvalle uses the lease for the King Road property. He took the names off, but they have all signed the lease . The lease is much longer, but the section with the appropriate language was provided to the Board . Mr. Mountin confirmed that there are Page 7 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 Final a total of 7 tenants on the property. Mr. Tavelli clarified that there is a lease for Unit A and a lease for Unit B . Mr. Ronsvalle stated that he is a certified green builder and the property is new construction . He builds energy star homes and hasn 't had any problems with the neighbors . The tenants are students at Ithaca College and their parents like the idea that he can provide their children with these units . The units are less expensive than if the students lived on campus . Mr. Tavelli added that Mr. Ronsvalle has been criminally charged regarding the occupancy of another property . Mr. Mountin asked , "What does the Code say?" Mr. Bates asked if Mr. Mountin was looking for the definition of family or what is allowed . Mr. Krantz said that they would like the definition of a family. Chairperson Sigel stated that under the definition of family, there can be 2 unrelated persons occupying a single dwelling unit living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit. He explained that two students would be allowed per unit, assuming that they are living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit. He suspected that that was not vigorously enforced if it is only two people ; he suspected that the Code Office gave them the benefit of the doubt as to whether the individuals book together. Chairperson Sigel went on to read the section of the Code that addresses the definition of family, the procedure for requesting a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals , and the criteria in which the Board must use in making its determination of whether a group of individuals constitute a family. See Section 270-5 , Family, of the Town of Ithaca Code . Mr. Ellsworth cautioned the Board in making its decision . He said if the Board makes the determination that this group of individuals constitutes a family then they' ll be opening up Pandora' s Box in the whole Town . He noted that there are several similar situations on his street where there are multiple unrelated students living in a house . He said often times students sublet to other students unbeknownst to the landlord . Mr. Tavelli stated that their lease addresses subletting and it states no subletting . The leases run for 1 full year, not just the academic year. They've tried to address that in the lease , which has been in effect for 4 or 5 years in order to avoid problems . Mr. Ronsvalle explained that several of his tenants are Ithaca College music teachers ; they' re employed and professionals . Attorney Brock asked , "Where is that stated in the questionnaire answers? Which unit? What number? What address?" Mr. Ronsvalle responded that it was the second unit for which Mr. Bates has cited him for. Attorney Brock asked if that was before the Board that evening and Mr. Ronsvalle responded no . Attorney Brock stated that they needed to talk about the people before the Board that evening because that was what they were trying to figure out . Page 8 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 (� Final Chairperson Sigel did not think the intent of the definition was to allow groups of students or even groups of professionals who are not related to simply share a unit as roommates , even if they cook together. He did not think the other criteria are met. Chairperson Sigel said that the applicant is asking for the right to rent the units to any group of 4 unrelated students or professionals who simply state when they sign their lease that they plan to cook together and share expenses . He reiterated that he did not think the intent of Town Code was to allow that, whether or not Board members agree with it. Chairperson Sigel recalled one case in the last 12 years where the Board found that a group of individuals living together did constitute a family. The group of unrelated people jointly purchased the house and obviously made a substantial showing , a commitment to wanting to live together and wanting to act as a family. Chairperson Sigel did not think the Board could discriminate specifically against students . Attorney Brock added that the Code can set forth criteria for determining what is a family and the Courts allow criteria that show that the family is of a permanent nature and not the framework for transient or seasonal living . Chairperson Sigel gave the example of a group of local professionals living together and not meeting the criteria unless they meet all or most of the other criteria . Attorney Brock thought that the Board needed to look at each application and find out the specific facts in order to determine whether a group meets criteria regardless of whether it is students or professionals . Mr. Niefer asked how the current situation interfaces with the Appellant Division decision of Norsey vs --- , an article of which was included in the Board packet from American Planning Association Planning and Environment Law (See attachment # 29 get copy from Bruce for folder) . Attorney Brock reviewed the article and asked if Mr. Tavelli had any other submissions other than the application itself . Mr. Tavelli responded that he submitted the application form and the other documents given to the Board that evening . He said that they could submit further documentation or sworn statements from the tenants if the Board would like . He went on to say that the tenants are willing to do whatever is necessary and that they do not want to be thrown out in the snow . Mr. Bates stated that there is no documentation other than the questionnaire submitted to the Board . He does not have a notarized statement from the tenants . He asked if the tenants' vehicles are registered to the address or if their legal mailing address is this address . He has not seen any evidence and did not think that evidence had been submitted to the Board . Mr. Niefer asked what precipitated the action and serving the notice commencing criminal action . Mr. Bates explained that the Codes Department received a complaint in regards to a student living in the basement of the house . In investigating the complaint, Mr. Bates discovered that there was an occupancy issue with the property . He issued an Order to Remedy to Mr. Ronsvalle on September 10 , 2010 before the Appearance Page 9 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 Final Ticket was issued . The Order to Remedy was ignored ; the date for the Order to Remedy came and went. At that point , an appearance ticket was issued . Mr. Bates did not receive evidence to the contrary presented to the Codes Department. Mr. Niefer asked if it was the 5th or 4th student living in one of the units . Mr. Bates responded that Town Code only allows 2 unrelated people per unit. Mr. Niefer asked if the complaint was in the 4 bedroom unit or the 2 bedroom unit. Mr. Bates thought it was the 2 bedroom unit. Mr. Niefer asked if there were 3 people living in the 2 bedroom unit. Mr. Bates responded correct. Attorney Brock corrected that it was a 3 bedroom unit . Mr. Bates questioned how there could be 3 bedrooms in the second unit based upon the drawings that were submitted to the Town when the house was built; it shows 2 bedrooms in the second unit and 4 bedrooms in the main unit. Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Ronsvalle if there are 4 bedrooms in the large unit. Mr. Ronsvalle responded that that was correct. Mr. Ellsworth thought that the Board needed to read very carefully Section 270-5 , Family, F. It gives the framework for determining a functional family. He read the ® criteria to the Board . Attorney Brock noted that the lease discusses subleasing . She asked if the students could sublease . Mr. Ronsvalle responded that he does not have any subtenants what- so-ever. Attorney Brock asked if the lease prohibits subleasing . Mr. Ronsvalle was not sure about the exact language of the subleasing clause . Attorney Brock stated that she was not talking about that clause and asked if the lease prohibited subleasing . Mr. Tavelli believed that it did . Attorney Brock noted that the lease did not prohibit it from what she could see of the lease given to the Board and that the lease did reference subtenants . Mr. Ronsvalle stated that he has never had an opportunity to sublease ; the lease runs from August 1 st through July 31 st. He said that some of the tenants have renewed their lease . Mr. Ellsworth stated that students sublet the units for the summer before they leave in May . Chairperson Sigel stated that if a group came before the Board , showed concrete evidence that they have been together and functioned as a unit, and that they plan to continue to function as a unit, then that specific group might be able to convince the Board that they meet the criteria . He just did not think that the Town ordinance was intending for a place that has one group one year and another group the next year to routinely permit the groups to be considered families without a substantial showing that ® a specific group is functioning as a family . Otherwise , as the applicant has shown , the landlord could put language in the lease and have everyone sign off that they are going to cook together. Page 10 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20 , 2010 Final Attorney Brock asked Mr. Ronsvalle if he knew if the tenants live at the property all 12 months of the year. Mr. Ronsvalle responded that he expects that they will ; he hopes that they will . He knew that some of the tenants work in Ithaca during the summer months . Attorney Brock asked , " In these two units that we are talking about specifically?" Mr. Ronsvalle responded , " I can 't say specifically. " Attorney Brock stated , "So you don 't know. " Mr. Ronsvalle responded , "No . " Attorney Brock asked Mr. Ronsvalle if he knew what address the tenants use for voter registration . Mr. Ronsvalle responded , "No . " Attorney Brock asked Mr. Ronsvalle if he know what address the tenants use for driver' s licenses . Mr. Ronsvalle did not have that information . Attorney Brock then asked if he knew what address the tenants use for vehicle registration . Mr. Ronsvalle responded that he did not have the information with him . Attorney Brock asked Mr. Ronsvalle if he know what address the tenants use for filing taxes . Mr. Ronsvalle responded that he did not have the information with him . Attorney Brock asked if any of the tenants have children . Mr. Ronsvalle said he did not know. Mr. Tavelli added that there are not children living at the property , but they did not know if the tenants had children living somewhere . Attorney Brock asked Mr. Ronsvalle if any of the tenants are employed in the area . The survey for the tenants in unit A said they were not employed in the area . She asked if the tenants of unit B were . Mr. Tavelli thought that the survey for unit B indicated that the tenants were employed in the area . Attorney Brock read the survey response for unit B and it indicated that the tenants are employed in the area . She asked how many people in that unit were employed . Mr. Tavelli could not say for sure . Attorney Brock asked Mr. Ronsvalle if he knew where the tenants were employed . Mr. Ronsvalle responded no . Mr. Krantz stated that the group is expectantly a transient group . It obviously is not a family and it was obvious to him that the group is in violation of the ordinance . The Board ' s job is to enforce the ordinance . He was not particularly thrilled about it, but that is clearly the issue . Chairperson Sigel shared Mr. Krantz's sentiment. He noted that the unit was well-suited for the use and there have been not complaints , and he did not welcome the prospect of forcing these people out, but this is a matter that the Town Board has refined over the last 10 years . Itis an issue that had more relaxed criteria in the past and the Town Board specifically changed to criteria so that the Zoning Board did not have the power to grant greater occupancy through special approval . ® Mr. Ellsworth stated that the previous Code Enforcement Officer would give notice to the landlord that the tenants had to be out by the end of the semester so that students weren't losing their homes in the middle of the semester. Mr. Bates stated that he knew Page 11 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 Final that that had been done in the past, but it had been done recently as well . He said that he had the same issue with another property and the owner agreed to remedy the situation by a specific date . That date has come and the situation has been remedied . He reassured the Board that the Codes Department works with property owners to remedy situations , but in this situation there was no response from the property owner. Mr. Ronsvalle was given the Order to Remedy that gave so many days to resolve the issue . Mr. Bates advised the Board that there are more cases with the same situation coming up . He said that whatever is ruled tonight , the Board needs to be able to back up because there are going to be more appeals . Mr. Ellsworth felt that there were similar situations throughout the Town where there was close proximity or easily accessible transportation to either Cornell or Ithaca College . He thought the law was written very specifically to prevent a collegetown situation . Chairperson Sigel stated that none of the criteria are disqualifying if one is not met. The list gives an indication as to whether or not a group is acting as a traditional family. He thought, unfortunately , that the Board was put in a situation such as this one where there has not been any particular showing that this particular group of people is different from any random group of students that want to rent a place together. The only option may be to go to the Town Board to present their arguments to have the law changed . : Chairperson Sigel stated that the Board should first make the determination as requested and then move on to the variance . Mr. Tavelli said that he did not think that Mr. Ronsvalle had the right to ask for a variance . He did not ask for a variance on the application . Mr. Bates explained that he included the variance in the public hearing notice so that it could be discussed . In the past, the Board has granted a variance until the end of the semester. Attorney Brock stated that if the applicant is not asking for that relief then the Board should not discuss it. Chairperson Sigel understood that it would be a use variance request. Mr. Tavelli clarified for the record that the request is for the group of individuals living in each unit be determined a functional family unit as set forth in the statute because it meets many of the criteria specified in the Town ' s law . He does not know where the individuals vote ; they always took that as an invasion of their privacy . The lease is for one full year and not the academic year. The tenants pay the utilities in common and own the appliances in common . Those were the criteria that they deemed important to include in the lease . Chairperson Sigel stated he would never say that this is a requirement, but the one time the Board did find that a group of individuals acted as a traditional family, those individuals came to the Board and presented their case . They presented their argument before the Board . Mr. Tavelli responded that some of the students wanted to come Page 12 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 Final before the Board , but they weren 't able to given the time of year. He suggested that the matter be adjourned to give the students the opportunity to come before the Board and give the required information . Mr. Tavelli thought that the group of students wanted to return to live at the house next year. Attorney Brock asked if all the students were undergraduates . Mr. Ronsvalle responded that one group consists of 4 seniors ( unit A) and the other consists of 3 juniors ( unit B) . Attorney Brock asked if the group of seniors is requesting to stay another year. Mr. Ronsvalle responded no , the property is rented to a different group next year. Attorney Brock asked if the group in the 3 bedroom unit is asking to stay. Mr. Ronsvalle said no . Attorney Brock wondered if Mr. Ronsvalle knew where the group of juniors would be living next year and Mr. Ronsvalle did not . Chairperson Sigel felt that the individuals living together would want to be the ones to request being determined as a family and come before the Board to make their case . Mr. Mountin thought it would be wasting the Board ' s time to have this group of 7 people appear before the Board to make their case . Chairperson Sigel suggested that the Board make a determination at this meeting and then the individuals could request that the appeal be reopened . Attorney Brock explained that the Board would need a unanimous vote by the Board to reopen the appeal . Mr. Mountin wanted to make a decision based upon the information in front of the Board . Chairperson Sigel agreed . Attorney Brock asked Mr. Bates if the applicant had any opportunity to submit supporting documentation with the application . Mr. Bates replied yes ; he sent a letter to the applicant requesting more information . Attorney Brock asked if Mr. Bates received a response to his letter requesting more information . Mr. Bates responded that he did not. Public Hearing Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 34 p . m . Mr. Monkemeyer spoke to the Board about the current hard economic times and how it leads to the need for people to consider living together. With no one else interested in speaking , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 35 p . m . Attorney Brock asked if the units were furnished and Mr. Ronsvalle responded no . She then asked if the appliances were provided . Mr. Ronsvalle stated that the appliances were provided . Chairperson Sigel moved to deny the request that the occupants at 214 king Rd E be considered a family under Chapter 270-5 , Family , subsection F , finding that no evidence was presented to the Board that the group living in either unit at this location met the Page 13 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 Final definition of a family or fulfilled the criteria listed in the Town Code to make such a determination . Mr. Krantz seconded . Vote—Carried . ZB RESOLUTION 2010-039: Heritage Park Townhouses. Determination of Family, 214 King Rd E. Tax Parcel No. 44. 4 4. 41 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz. Resolved, that in regard to the appeal of Heritage Park Townhouses, that this Board denies the request that the occupants at 214 King Rd E, Tax Parcel No. 44. - 1 -4. 41 , be considered a family under Chapter 270, Section 270-5, Family, Subsection F with the following: Findings: 1 . This Board finds that no evidence was presented that the group living in either unit at this location is in theory, size, appearance or structure resembling a traditional family unit, 2. There was no evidence given that either group was of a permanent nature, but rather by the applicant's own admission, both groups appear to be leaving these units at the end of their lease, 3. No evidence was presented as to where any of the residents are registered to vote, what address is used for purposes of driver's license or vehicle registration, where they live in the summer, or what address they use for filing of taxes, 4. No evidence was given that any children, if present, are enrolled in local schools, 5. Regarding unit 214B King Rd E, no evidence has been given that the group has been living together as a unit for an extended period of time and in fact the survey response those residents gave is, no, they have not been living together as a unit for I n extended period of time. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Mountain, King, Krantz, NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Niefer. Motion was carried. Agenda Item—Recommendation to TB re proposed Limited Historic Commercial Zones Local Law Page 14 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 Final The Board discussed the proposed local law and decided not to make an official recommendation . Agenda Item—Consider Recommendation of 2011 Chair to the Town Board ZB Resolution No. 2010-040: Recommendation for ZBA Chair Motion made by Ron Krantz, seconded by Jim Niefer Resolved that this Board recommends to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that Kirk Sigel be re-appointed as the Chair of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2011 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Mountain, and King. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Sigel. Motion was carried unanimously. Resolution of Appreciation—Harry Ellsworth Mr. Krantz made a motion thanking Harry for time on Board and service . Chairperson Sigel read the resolution of appreciation from the Town Board . Board unanimously seconded . Agenda Item—Consider 2011 Meeting Schedule ZB RESOLUTION N0. 2010-041 : Town of Ithaca Zonin_-a Board of Appeals, Meetinq Schedule for 2011 MOTION by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dave Mountain. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca adopts the following schedule of meetings for the Year 2011 . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals will meet at 7:00 p. m. on the third Monday of the month in the Town Board Room in Town of Ithaca Town Hall, unless otherwise noted. January 24, 2011 (Third Monday is Martin Luther King Day) February 28, 2011 (Third Monday is President's Day) March 21 , 2011 April 18, 2011 Page 15 of 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2010 Final May 16, 2011 June 20, 2011 July 18, 2011 August 15, 2011 September 19, 2011 October 24, 2011 (Third Monday is Town Board meeting) November 21 , 2011 December 19, 2011 A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountain, and King. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Ellsworth. Motion was carried unanimously. Agenda Item—Consider Recommendation of Appointment to the Codes and Ordinances Committee Chairperson Sigel explained that he was resigning from the Codes and Ordinances Committee . It has been past practice to have a member of the Zoning Board sit on this Committee . He asked that board members think about whether or not they would be interested in serving on the committee , and if so , contact Carrie in the Codes Department. Other Business None . Adjournment Chairperson Sigel adjourned the December 20 , 2010 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 9 : 10 p . m . L„ Kirk Sigel , Chairp rson Page 16 of 16 F ! L DATEAmhk I3 d ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2010=036 Holly Creek Townhomes Environmental Assessment Holly Creek Ln Tax Parcel No. 37= 1 =17 . 16 and 37=1 =17 . 17 December 20 , 2010 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by James Niefer. Resolved , in regard to the appeal of Holly Creek Townhomes , this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Part II of the environmental assessment form prepared by Town staff . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, and Mountain . NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 20th day of December, 2010 . 1 1 ' Deputy Town'Glerk Town of Ithaca I1. r- /, P i DATE � ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2010=037 Holly Creek Townhomes Sprinkler Variance Holly Creek Ln Tax Parcel No. 37-1 -17 . 16 and 37=1 =17. 17 December 20, 2010 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by James Niefer. Resolved , that this Board grants the appeal of Holly Creek Townhomes requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225 , Section 225 -3 " New Buildings Required to Have Sprinkler Systems" to allow the construction of four waste sheds as indicated on the plans submitted to the Board , based upon the following : Findings : 1 . That there would be a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship resulting from the enforcement of the strict letter of this Chapter, given that the sheds will not be heated it would be difficult to have a wet sprinkler system and the applicant would have to incur substantial expense to have it be functional or to use another fire suppression system that meets all of the sprinkler requirements , 2 . That the omission of an approved sprinkler system from the entire waste shed will not significantly jeopardize human life given that the sheds will not have any permanent occupancy or any overnight occupancy . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, and Mountain . NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 201h day of December, 2010 . ;] -' A7dU1 1 Deputy Tow Clerk 0 Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2010=038 Holly Creek Townhomes Area Variances Holly Creek Ln Tax Parcel No. 37 .-1 -17. 16 and 37.-1 -17 . 17 December 20, 2010 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by James Niefer. Resolved , that this Board grants the appeal of Holly Creek Townhomes requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 234 , Section 234-33 "Buffer Zone Requirement" , Chapter 270 , Section 270- 106A( 1 ) "Yard Regulations" , and Sections 270- 111 (C) and 270- 111 ( D ) "Additional Special Requirements" of the Town of Ithaca Code for the proposed Holly Creek Townhouse development located on Holly Creek Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Numbers 37 . - 1 - 17 . 16 and 37 . - 1 - 17 . 17 , Multiple Residence Zone and Low Density Residence Zone , based upon the following : Conditions: 1 . That the setbacks of all units on all sides be no less than 2 feet less than what is shown on the plan labeled L001 submitted to the Zoning Board , ® 2 . That where there are structures whose setbacks are not labeled on this form , that an identical plan be submitted to the Town showing those setbacks and the requirement for those setbacks will become 2 feet less than what is shown on that plan that is submitted to the Town . Specifically, it appears that four waste sheds , the play structure , and parking areas need to be labeled with their setbacks . Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety , and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, finding that while the benefit in some cases could be achieved with somewhat less intrusion into the setbacks that the plan submitted is a reasonable plan and has balanced various desires of the Planning Board , the applicant, and the intended residents of the community. Although the waste sheds under zoning are to be located in the rear yards , in this case it makes sense to locate some of them in the front yards to get them closer to the street, to better serve all of the units along common walkways between units and the waste pickup areas at the street, and to get the waste sheds away from the common play area , 2 . There will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby ® properties given that this property is at the boundary between a residential area and a commercial area and would appear this type of higher density use is appropriate for such a zone . The sheds are being constructed of the same material as the other ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-038 PAGE 2 buildings , with landscaping to integrate them into the overall design of the community , 3 . While some of the requested setbacks are not substantial , some of them are , specifically units 19-22 , and some of the parking , but nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community in relation to the setbacks . There is some modest intrusion into the Multiple Residence setback zone requirements , but all the setbacks are within the required Cluster Buffer limit, 4 . There will not be adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in the environmental assessment form , 5 . While finding that the alleged difficulty has been self-created by the plans created by the applicant, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, and Mountain . NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 20th day of December, 2010 . Deputy Town Clerkc Town of Ithaca FILE DATE �) ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2010=039 Heritage Park Townhouses Determination of Family 214 King RdE Tax Parcel No. 44.=1 -4.41 December 20, 2010 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz . Resolved , that in regard to the appeal of Heritage Park Townhouses, that this Board denies the request that the occupants at 214 King Rd E , Tax Parcel No . 44 . - 1 -4 . 41 , be considered a family under Chapter 270 , Section 270-5 , Family , Subsection F with the following : Findings : 1 . This Board finds that no evidence was presented that the group living in either unit at this location is in theory , size , appearance or structure resembling a traditional family unit , 2 . There was no evidence given that either group was of a permanent nature , but rather by the applicant's own admission , both groups appear to be leaving these Sim units at the end of their lease , 3 . No evidence was presented as to where any of the residents are registered to vote , what address is used for purposes of driver' s license or vehicle registration , where they live in the summer, or what address they use for filing of taxes , 4 . No evidence was given that any children , if present, are enrolled in local schools , 5 . Regarding unit 2148 King Rd E , no evidence has been given that the group has been living together as a unit for an extended period of time and in fact the survey response those residents gave is , no , they have not been living together as a unit for an extended period of time . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-039 PAGE 2 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Mountain , King , Krantz . NAYS : None , ABSTAIN : Niefer. Motion was carried . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 20th day of December, 2010 . Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca ► I r_ DATC ' ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA Resolution No. 2010=040 Recommendation for ZBA Chair December 20, 2010 Motion made by Ron Krantz , seconded by Jim Niefer Resolved that this Board recommends to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that Kirk Sigel be re-appointed as the Chair of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2011 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Mountain , and King . NAYS : None . ABSTAIN : Sigel . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 20th day of December, 2010 . d � Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca 0 FILA PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ZB RESOLUTION NO, 2010=041 DATE Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule for 2011 December 20, 2010 MOTION by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Dave Mountain . BE IT RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca adopts the following schedule of meetings for the Year 2011 , The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals will meet at 7: 00 p . m . on the third Monday of the month in the Town Board Room in Town of Ithaca Town Hall , unless otherwise noted . January 24, 2011 (Third Monday is Martin Luther King Day) February 28 , 2011 (Third Monday is President's Day) March 21 , 2011 April 18 , 2011 May 16 , 2011 June 20, 2011 July 18 , 2011 August 15 , 2011 September 19, 2011 October 24, 2011 (Third Monday is Town Board meeting) November 21 , 2011 December 19, 2011 A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Niefer, Mountain , and King . NAYS : None . ABSTAIN : Ellsworth . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 20th day of December, 2010 , 2,16644 Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , being duly sworn , say that I a 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: ADVERTISEMENT : PUBLIC HEARING TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday , December 20 , 2010 7 : 00 P . M . Date of Publication : Friday , December 10 , 2010 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Hall Lobby Public Notices Board 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : Wednesday , December 8 , 2010 Carrie Coatesd-hilnore y Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 10th day of December, 2010 Nota blic l Debra DeAugistind Rotary Public - State of New York No. 01 DE6148035 Qualified in Tompkins County � , - - - - my commission Expires June 18, 20 ithacajournal.com Friday, December 10, 2010 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2010 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7:00 P.M. 5 - 'Family"(F) for the pur- I Appeal of Holly Creek poses of considering thei Townhomes, LLC, Owner; I residents of 214 King Rd E,, to be a functional family lo- Ithaca Neighborhood Hous- cated at 214 King Rd E, ; ing Services, Applicant, re- PTax Parcel No. 44.- 1 -4.41 , 1 questing variances from the � Medium Density- Residen- I requirements of Chapter I tial. If Zoning Board of Ap-I 225. Section 225-3 "New ! i peals determines the resw Buildings Required to Have dents of 214 King Rd E 'not' Sprinkler Systems', Chap- to be a functional family„ ter , 234, Section 234-33 .I appellant may request a• 'Buffer Zone Requirement', variance from the require-I Chapter 270, Section 270- ments of Chapter 270,! 5 'Definitions'. Section I Section 270-666(1 ) 'Pert 270-106A(1 ) 'Yard Regula- ! mitted Principal Uses' to al-' tions', and, Section 270- ' ; low the dwelling- to be oc-` i111 (c)(d) "Additional Spe , cupied by more than one pial Requirements' of the 4 family. Town of Ithaca Code to for 12/10/2010 I he proposed Holly Creek ! Townhouse development ', located on Holy Creek Lane (off King Road West), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37- 1 - 17. 16 and 37- 1 ;17. 17, Multiple Residencel Zone and Low -Density Residential Zone. The pro- ' poral involves modifying the - , approved plan to change the design' and 1 siting of the buildings and increasing _ the numberof I from 20 to 22 units in six buildings. The units i would be sold to moderate income buyers as part of ,the Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Com- munity Housing Trust pro- gram. Appeal of Hemage Park Townhouses, Inc, Owner, Paul Tavelli, Agent, re- !I questing a determination from the Requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 1 Any wol'i i0 r�mfa - 3jlr?+ 1? ygaet+3� Yt: wc�;? �:niilc;rnoi nl '1ro1r� I +P} - _____ , 3f srlrt a�)igx;l nrr2�inlrrtnk*) VAI AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) I, Carrie Coates Whitmore, 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 10``' day of December, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the following Tax Parcel Numbers : 101/109 and 121/131 Holly Creek Ln David Auble Mary Lou Carlucci Travis & Kathy Cleveland 111 King Rd W 123 King Rd W 721 Hudson St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Stephen & Patricia Fain Garuda Hotels, Inc Donald & Debra Gregg 133 King Rd W 2303 N Triphammer Rd 1128 Danby Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 GSLB Properties, LLC Clara Leonardo Joseph & Marlea Leonardo 1 French Ave 1134 Danby Rd 112 Alison Dr uburn, NY 13021 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 James Madden Manley ' s Mighty-Mart, LLC Evan Monkemeyer 131 King Rd W 1249 Front St 123 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Binghamton, NY 13905 Ithaca, NY 14850 Jill Moreland Jacqueline Nelson Martin Nichols 114 King Rd W 106 King Rd W 106 Holly Creek Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Beth Harris NYS Office of State Comptroller Samuel & Ruth Peter 1122 Danby Rd l 10 State St 1083 Danby Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Albany, NY 12236 Ithaca, NY 14850 David Richards Maria Salino Peter Torchia 1058 Danby Rd 484 Troy Rd 110 King Rd W Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Alan & Joan Wurzel Ryan & Nicki Zawel Joanne Zipper 1119 Danby Rd 1115 Danby Rd 1874 Salt Myrtle Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Orange Park, FL 32003 414 King Rd E Robert Berkley Edward & Carlyn Buckler John & Joan Conners 227 King Rd E 233 Troy Rd 171 Whitetail Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Eugene & Cinthia Corbett Lynn Cordary Deer Run Homeowners Assoc . Inc . 221 King Rd E 213 King Rd E 119 W Green St, 2 n Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14851 Chad & Karen Dumont Peter & Kathleen Farley Jeffery David Hartung 168 Whitetail Dr 210 King Rd E 204 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 bane Henderson Neal & Patricia Howard Larry Iacovelli Ta6 Whitetail Dr 309 King Rd E 1 Whitetail Dr aca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Mark & Peggy Jasiniski Jane Kaplan Russell & Mary Martin 216 King Rd E 170 Whitetail Dr 174 Whitetail Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Wdavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 12/20/2010 Brian Miller Frances & Scott Miller Deborah Montgomery 212 Troy Rd 172 Whitetail Dr 202 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Nathaniel Nerode Ronald & Jamie Pletter Rodrigo Rodriguez 174 Troy Rd 169 Whitetail Dr 215 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Sand Cherry Properties Sonja Seamon Ernestine Snead PO Box 425 212 King Rd E 173 Whitetail Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Brian & Shelia Stein Town of Ithaca Dana Williams 2 Whitetail Dr 215 N Tioga St 218 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Florence Wrisley Thomas Yengo 202 Troy Rd 172 Troy Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 4y depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the nited States Post Office Department within the State of New York. Carrie Coates Whitore, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca / 34A Sworn to before me this ,le day of December 2010 . Notary Public CONN ► E F. CLARK Notary Public . State of New York No . 01 CL60528 i 8 Qualified in Tomokins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 IC► 2