HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2021-08-10Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, August 10, 2021@ 6:OOpm
215 N. Tioga St.
The Zoning Board of Appeals has resumed in -person meetings. The Public Hearing meeting for the
Zoning Board of Appeals will be held in -person and will also be streamed live. The public will have the
option of attending the meeting in -person or by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public
will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments.
Agenda
• 0015-2021 Appeal of Jennifer Gray, owner of 140 King Rd. E., Tax Parcel No. 43.-1-3.35
• 0017-2021 Appeal of Elena Cestero and Joaquin Cuevas, owners of 273 Bundy Rd., Tax
Parcel No. 27.-1-6.1
• Zoning Board of Appeals' consideration if a Veterinary Office/Clinic use is considered
sustainably similar to a use (or uses) identified in section 270-126A of Town Zoning, in
accordance with section 270-127K of Town of Ithaca Code. This consideration is specific for
Briar Patch Veterinary to extend services into to 702 Elmira Road.
• Zoning Board of Appeals' consideration of the Town of Ithaca's Planning Board as the lead
agency for the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) for Cornell University's New
Experimental Hall at Wilson Laboratory
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: If you have a computer, tablet, or
smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on "JOIN
Meeting", and entering 852-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the Zoom meeting at
+1 (929) 436-2866. To join the meeting directly, go to https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85255871576.
On the evening of, 08/10/2021, at 5 minutes before 6:OOpm, join in with your computer, smartphone, or
telephone. You will be placed on hold until the meeting starts. Questions about accessing the Zoom video
conference should be emailed to ctorres =,town.ithaca.ny.us or (607) 273-1783 ext.2.
Meeting of the Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, August 10, 2021
MINUTES
Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Member David Squires; Alternate David Williams
Absent: Chris Jung, Bill King and David Filiberto
Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Becky Jordan, Deputy Town Clerk Susan Brock, Attorney
for the Town
Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:03p.m. and read the public hearing notice on the two appeals.
0015-2021 Appeal of Jennifer Gray, owner, 140 King Rd. E., TP 43.-1-3.35, seeking relief from
Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-71E (2) Yard Regulations Accessory Buildings, to keep an
existing accessory structure (shed) in the side yard, where none are allowed.
Ms. Gray, Applicant gave a brief overview of how the Shed was on the property when she
purchased the home in late 2008. A survey done October 2008, provided, shows the shed on the
left side of driveway. When she applied for a roof permit for shed is when she learned the shed is
not in accordance with zoning. She's looking for a variance to keep the shed where it is and has
been, she's told by the Town, since 2002. To move the shed would require a lot of money and to
get it into the backyard she would have to take down fencing.
Mr. Williams asked, during the process of purchasing the house, were you told at all about the
shed being put up without a permit or that it wasn't in the right place?
Ms. Gray replied, no she was not.
Mr. Rosen opened the Public Hearing at 6:05 p.m.
There was no one present, and Ms. Jordan confirmed for the record there were no electronic
comments submitted by anyone wishing to address the Board.
Discussion:
Ms. Brock provided that we do not have to do an environmental review under SEQR because it
has been determined that under the regulations it is Type 2. This covers placement of minor
accessory structure including storage sheds.
Mr. Williams commented that the shed is very much in keeping aesthetically of the house, it
blends into the area.
ZBA Resolution 0015-2021 Area Variance
140 King Rd E, TP 43.-1-3.3 5
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 1
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Jennifer Gray, owner, 140 King Rd E., seeking
relief from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-71E(2) Yard Regulations Accessory Buildings, to
keep an existing accessory structure (shed) in the side yard, where they are only allowed in the
backyard, with the following:
Conditions:
1. The shed remains where it is and cannot be expanded.
and that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare
of the community, specifically:
Findings:
1. The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means
feasible given that the shed exists and was built approximately 19 years ago in the side
yard, and
2. That there will not be any undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment
to nearby properties, given that the shed has been in the side yard for the past 19 years
and the shed is surrounded by mature trees on three sides and matches the residence
aesthetically, and
3. That the request is substantial given that accessory structures are not allowed in the side
yard, and
4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental impacts as evidenced by
SEQR not being required, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the shed was noncompliant when the
applicant purchased the property, but it is noted that the owner had no knowledge of the
violation until she applied for a building permit to repair the roof.
Moved: Rob Rosen Seconded: David Squires.
Votes: ayes — Rosen, Squires, and Williams
Agenda Item 2 0017-2021 Appeal of Elena Cestero and Joaquin Cuevas, owner, 273
Bundy Rd., TP 27.4-6.1, seeking a use variance for a third dwelling unit to be allowed on
the property.
Mr. Cuevas gave a brief overview and shared his screen to share a presentation on the property.
Mr. Cuevas stated that the garage is historical built in the 1940's or 50's and showed slides of the
Tompkins County Assessment website pages which listed the property as Multiple Res in the
Property Class field with a single family home with 1 acre, and the garage as a 2-Family with the
residual acreage, separately from the main house.
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 2
He showed pictures of the work already done on the unit in the garage and main house and
depictions of the return -on -investment (RI) ratios with one unit to rent vs two.
He stated that they are also anticipating their parents to need the unit at some point. They also
asked their neighbors who were all in favor and all knew that the garage has always been a rental
unit, and they are here tonight to ask for the same use as previous owners over the past 40-50
years.
Board Discussion
Mr. Squires asked the applicants if they have explored subdividing the property into two units,
since it has two municipal addresses and that would negate the need for the variance.
Mr. Cuevas responded that they had thought about that approach but hadn't considered it due to
implications from a tax perspective. It is something we will consider if it's a better approach.
Ms. Cestero added that the water system is shared, and that might cause issues.
Mr. Mosely added that subdivision would cause complications as the proposed two -unit structure
has an owner occupancy requirement and he would assume that the applicants would live in the
main house so they wouldn't meet that provision. Also, there are minimum lot size requirements
in the Ag Zone which would not be met.
Some discussion followed on provisions of the Ag Zone and Mr. Moseley stated that he would
have to discuss with Planning about parent tracts and subdivision.
Mr. Rosen stated that it sounds like that wouldn't work due to the owner occupancy requirement,
so this route seems to be the only option.
Mr. Squires inquired about prior owner stipulation or affidavit filed with the Town Clerk.
Mr. Mosely responded that it was an affidavit filed with the Town Clerk to make the sale of the
property compliant. He explained that somewhere in the late 1940's early 1950's the assessment
department first listed the carriage house or separate garage/dwelling as built and then sometime
in the 1980's there was a conversion to have the second unit added and that is when the
Assessment department picked that up.
The Town then received a complaint prior to this owner purchasing the house and upon
investigation, found the two units in the garage. We worked with the prior owner to look for any
information or evidence that the second unit was there when originally built or prior to zoning
coming in, and we could not find any. To make the property compliant and sellable, the then
owners needed to submit an affidavit to the Town Clerk stating it had one unit.
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 3
Ms. Brock added that the affidavit submitted by the previous owner was recorded in August
2020, three months prior to the sale of the property. The previous owner could provide no
evidence, so the property was brought into compliance by affidavit. The Town has no record of
the conversion. County Assessment at some point picked up on it but that could have been
decades after the conversion happened.
Mr. Rosen said he agrees, saying that the prior owner converted the garage back into one unit to
be compliant and the current owner purchased the property as a two -unit property; the main
house and one in the garage. There was no miscommunication going back before the current
owner regarding this. The prior owner had long term knowledge of the property and could not
prove that the garage should not be a one -unit building.
Mr. Cestero stated that this seems to be a decision based on the absence of evidence that it didn't
happen prior to zoning rather than the preponderance of evidence is that is has been used as a
two -unit for many years.
Ms. Brock responded that the Town requires proof when property is converted and Mr. Rosen
added that the prior owner had long term knowledge of the property and couldn't prove it.
Ms. Brock asked if the prior owner removed anything from the building to make it so that it was
a one -unit building and Mr. Moseley responded that they removed components of the kitchen.
Mr. Cestero responded that they removed the stove and Mr. Rosen responded that the kitchen is
the hallmark of a rental.
Ms. Brock stated that at that point any legally non -conforming status would end because it's use
and possibility of being used as a two-family building with the ability to cook being removed.
Mr. Mosely stated that when he spoke with the previous owners, to their knowledge it had been
there for an extended period of time but couldn't tell when it actually occurred and couldn't
provide any evidence to show that it is was prior to when our zoning was established. They went
through all the records they had on the property. The previous owners' parents owned the
property before they passed on and their children gained ownership.
Mr. Williams stated it has been established they cannot grandfather it in; they are going from one
unit to two, and we have to treat it as a new request.
Mr. Mosely stated for the record that it is one unit to two in this building and that the overall use
for this lot will be three total units.
Ms. Brock stated that the Town's multi family dwelling definition is a building or group of
buildings on one lot containing three or more dwelling units and the zone does not allow
multifamily dwellings.
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 4
Mr. Rosen opened public hearing at 6:36 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board
and Ms. Jordan stated that she did not receive any comments or notice any raised hand on the
zoom platform.
Mr. Cuevas stated that during this whole process we have demonstrated our willingness to do
everything in our power to be compliant with every requirement, every law. All the work and
permits to do the work, had inspections done, and everything has been done by reputable local
builders.
Mr. Rosen asked if they applied for a building permit to convert the building in questions into a
two unit building before they started the work.
Mr. Cuevas replied that they applied for a building permit to complete renovations but not to
convert the building because it was already converted.
Mr. Rosen responded that they should have secured the building permit before starting the work,
it would have probably been easier on their finances. You could have found this out before you
made the investment in the property is my point.
Discussion
Mr. Rosen commented that he doesn't think this rises to level of the use variance criteria that we
have to consider under NYS Law. The alleged hardship is not unique; many people would
probably like more rental units. The request would change the character of the neighborhood
given that it is agricultural to multi family. The hardship is self-created because the owner could
have easily found this information out and planned for it financially and the financial graph he is
giving us shows a 7% return on investment, which seems like a reasonable return.
Mr. Williams asked to see the chart again and noted that it was 7 years vs 14 years.
Mr. Rosen responded that he doesn't feel 14 years is a bad timeframe for a return either.
Mr. Squires stated he is not enthusiastic about deviating from the zoning requirement to allow
three units.
Mr. Rosen stated that zoning is arbitrary sometimes, but it is there to help to enforce harmony
and character of the neighborhood, and out of respect for others and the area, the rules are the
same for everyone.
Ms. Brock responded that that is why there is an avenue for a variance, but for a Use variance,
you have to meet each and every of the four criteria, not a balancing decision like an area
variance. The Board needs to look at the four criteria and answer those.
Mr. Rosen addressed the applicants, saying, I really think your house is lovely and the work you
have done is an improvement to the home and area, but the criteria all have to be answered yes.
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 5
Mr. Williams asked to go through each:
The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return — substantial as shown by competent
financial evidence.
Ms. Brock explained that this typically looked at as the property as is; so here, a two family is
allowed, and could you get a reasonable return as a two family. You can't look at what is spent
on upgrades or such because someone could spend a very large sum or not.
Mr. Rosen said he thought this doesn't even apply since this is a residential use, not a return -on -
investment type of thing, it is an expense, not a return.
Some discussion followed on whether rent would or should count for the full purchase price or
partial and so forth.
Ms. Brock suggested looking at every use permitted under the zoning. This property is zoned to
allow two dwelling units on the property, could they get a reasonable return. Look at what they
paid for the property, not what they paid for subsequent new repairs.
Mr. Rosen stated it is a residential property, it's not a return -on -investment property. There is no
return on investment in buying house, it's an expense.
Ms. Brock agreed and said then is this property still capable of being used for two dwelling
units?
Mr. Williams stated the applicants are saying there will be a return because they will be charging
rent presumably based on their projections for the two units.
Mr. Rosen suggested that doesn't include the cost of the whole property, is that the return on
investment regarding the $80k spent, not the return on investment of buying the house
Mr. Cuevas agreed. He thinks it would be unfair to try to get a return on investment of the full
expenditure of the house because he also enjoys living in the house. He only cited the amount
spent to make the two existing units livable.
Ms. Brock asked if the property was marketed as three dwelling units or two?
Mr. Cuevas responded that it was marketed as rental income potential.
Ms. Brock asked what the listing showed for number of dwelling units?
Mr. Cuevas said he didn't remember exactly but basically it was one unit where he and his
family could live and one that could be rented.
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 6
Mr. Mosely stated that it was originally was shown as three units and after receiving a complaint
that's how we learned that it had been converted based on the real estate listing. I don't know if
that was ever corrected or how it was portrayed to the applicants.
Mr. Rosen commented that all we know for sure is that the previous owner certified to the
County Clerk three months before the sale that it was two units. This is public record. Two -unit
properties sell for like amounts and can need repairs. This property can also be sold as a two -unit
property with such repairs. It is financially viable as a two -unit property.
Audio issues did not capture Ms. Brocks comments.
Mr. Rosen stated the hardship is not unique. The requested variance will alter the essential
character of the neighborhood. It is an agricultural neighborhood, and the Town is trying to
protect agricultural character.
Mr. Cuevas commented that he has spoken to majority of the people who live on the same road
and they are all very aware that the property has been used as a two apartment unit. I need to say
it is very hard not to notice that for almost 40 years this property operated as a two -unit rental,
and it is very interesting that the moment a minority owner being myself and my wife become
owners of this property the code becomes enforceable. It's clear this house has been converted,
it's clear this happened at least 35-40 years ago, it's clear that that was the use that was given to
the property by former owners, and they enjoyed the ability to rent both units separately. It's just
candidly very frustrating to me that now that we are the owners of it all of a sudden, the code has
become enforceable.
Mr. Rosen replied that the same rules apply to everybody, and the rules are that there can be two
dwelling units on the lot. Consideration for exceptions have to follow the use variance criteria.
Mr. Williams stated that although the first two criteria discussed, in our estimation at least, are
not being met, I think that the historical use of the property as a two dwelling unit even though
we can't consider it for being grandfathered does strongly indicate it would not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Rosen commented that he believes that granting a variance from agricultural use to multi
family use would set a precedence that would alter the character of the neighborhood
Mr. Williams suggested that if they were talking about expanding the footprint of the building,
tearing down the building and making a new one and making that a multi dwelling house he
would agree but, in this case, they are just repurposing the interior of a house that has historically
been used for that purpose, so I don't think they are changing the essential character of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Rosen asked Mr. Squires what he thinks about the requested variance from agricultural to
multi family? Will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood, given that apparently it
was three apartments there for many years? We do not know if they were vacant or not or
occupied.
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 7
Mr. Cuevas responded that he has evidence that they were occupied.
Mr. Squires responded that as a casual observer no, technically it wouldn't alter the character of
the neighborhood because it looks like a garage. The only indication that it's a residential unit is
the stairs going up to the second floor. It's got two garage doors and it's in disrepair on the
exterior so anything to improve it... There are no other properties along there that you can casual
observe are multifamily units. It's mostly single-family homes.
Mr. Rosen stated it is clear the owners bought a two -unit property.
Ms. Brock suggested to look at the evidence which is that the prior owner filed an affidavit three
months before the sale stating that the property only had two units and there would not be three
units on the property.
Mr. Rosen stated that the owners should have known this as it is public record and should have
shown up in the abstract of title. All in agreement that three of the four criteria are not met.
Mr. Cuevas offered that he could provide sufficient financial evidence.
Mr. Rosen stated that wasn't the question. The question was whether the property is
economically viable as a two-family property, and they find that it is.
Ms. Brock offered that of the four criteria that the applicant needs to prove, the alleged hardship
has not been self-created is not met. So even if more information is provided on other criteria
because the self-created hardship criteria cannot be met the variance has to be denied because
failure to meet any one of the criteria requires denial under the New York Town Law.
Mr. Rosen stated that the alleged hardship is self-created as the property was clearly identified as
a two -unit property three months before the sale by affidavit filed by the previous owner with the
County Clerk's office. The alleged hardship is not unique. That the requested variance would
alter the essential character of the neighborhood zoned agricultural to multi family was not
strictly determined. There was uncertainty about reasonable return. Question was not whether the
amount spent on renovations could be recuperated in a certain number of years from rental
income but whether the property is economically viable as a two -unit property given the
purchase price and improvements made. This could not be determined without confident
financial evidence.
Mr. Cuevas added that prior to engaging in the work on the unit he had a conversation with a
representative from the tax assessment office and asked if they had any doubts, based on the tax
assessment, would be a two -unit property. The representative told him unequivocally that the
garage was a two unit and that's how it was recorded in the tax assessor's office.
Mr. Rosen stated that that doesn't mean it was legally conforming and the tax assessors records
also do not have a detailed description.
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 8
Mr. Cuevas stated that the only reason he engaged in doing the work is because the
representative at the tax assessors office told him unequivocally that the garage was a two -unit
property.
Ms. Brock offered that it seems that you had some questions yourself whether the two units were
legal and that's why you went to the assessor's office after the sale. Were you aware of the
affidavit?
Mr. William asked if the use variance is denied today do the applicants have any other further
recourse?
Mr. Mosely offered that if the applicants have additional information they want to provide to the
Board they could technically ask for a delay and bring that information back.
Mr. Cuevas stated that he does understand the Boards position in having to uphold the
regulations but can't help but notice the standards and way in which the enforcement is applied
seems to me askew. He will find additional recourses because he does believe they are unfairly
impacted in this deliberation.
Ms. Brock followed up with, a rehearing can be held if there is a unanimous vote of all members
of the Board who were present at the meeting in which they take the vote and that can be held to
review any decision for determination of the Board that has not previously been heard. This does
apply to use variances.
ZBA Resolution 0017-2021 Use Variance
273 Bundy Rd., TP 27.4-6.1
Resolved that this Board denies the request for a use variance for a third dwelling unit to be
allowed on the property based on the criteria are not met, specifically,
1. that the alleged hardship has been self-created due to the property being clearly
categorized as a two -unit property as evidenced by the affidavit signed by the previous
owner and filed with the County Clerk 3 months prior to the sale of the property to the
current owners, and
2. That the request is not unique, in that many people would like to have an additional rental
unit if it were permitted, and
3. That, although there is a difference in opinion on the board, the majority felt it would
alter the character of the neighborhood if permitted, and
4. That there is uncertainty about the reasonable return, but the majority felt it was
financially viable upon the limited information presented.
Moved: Rob Rosen Seconded: David Squires
Vote: ayes — Williams, Rosen, Squires
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 9
Agenda Item 3 0016-2021 Consideration if a Veterinary Office/Clinic use is
considered substantially similar to a use (or uses) identified in section 270-126A of Town
Zoning, in accordance with section 270-127K of Town of Ithaca Code. This consideration is
specific for Briar Patch Veterinary to extend services to 702 Elmira Road.
Ingrid Rhinehart introduced herself as Veterinarian and Owner of Briar Patch Veterinary
Hospital. She has been the owner for the past 5 years however, Briar Patch has been in business
over 30 years. The business has grown and needs more space. The property next door, former
site of Stellar Stereo, became available for sale at the right time. Both properties are zoned as
Neighborhood/Commercial. The business predates the current zoning designation. They would
like to expand current services into the commercial space next door. The property consists of two
buildings. 704 Elmira is a residence, 702 is the less than 2k sq ft commercial space where Stellar
Stereo was. The wish is to be able to use that space to perform already existing services located
at their 706 Elmira Road location.
Mr. Mosely offered that there's a provision, 270-127K, in the zoning that allows for the Zoning
Board and Planning Board to identify that the use would be substantially consistent with the
permitted uses in the neighborhood commercial zone so it's not a variance of any nature. The
Board then looks at the use being proposed to see if it is substantially in conformance with the
neighborhood commercial zone allowed uses. Briar Patch has been established since 1989 at that
time there was no veterinary use identified in the zoning, so it appears to have been permitted
under professional offices. At some point Veterinary use was allowed in specific zones such as
agriculture and community commercial but not neighborhood commercial zone. Now it has to be
decided if this use is consistent with what is permitted. Both the Zoning and Planning Board
would have to agree in order for the applicant to move forward.
Mr. Mosely referred to a zoning change on the horizon with respect to proposal to have the inlet
valley zoning district established. This is still in draft form with anticipated adoption about five
months out, but Veterinary clinic would be an allowed use in that zoning district.
Mr. Williams commented that paragraph C lists business professional, administrative or
governmental office, excluding medical or dental clinic. Does medical or dental clinic have to be
humans?
Mr. Mosely replied that it does not specifically state only applies to humans.
Ms. Brock added that the maximum square footage of 5k space does not pertain to business or
professional use. In terms of medical or dental clinics, that does not include clinics that treat only
animals.
Mr. Mosely pointed out that according to a GIS map the square footage of the building is about
2,112. Owner also must approach the Planning Board for Special Permit process.
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 10
Mr. Rosen received agreement from Mr. Squires and Mr. Williams that Veterinary Office Clinic
falls under Professional Office.
ZBA Resolution 0016-2021 Determination of "Substantially Similar" Use
Veterinary Clinic/Office Use
702 Elmira Road
Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-6.22
This action is consideration of whether a Veterinary Office/Clinic use is considered
"substantially similar" to a use (or uses) identified in Section 270-126 (A) of Town Zoning,
in accordance with Section 270-127 (K) of Town of Ithaca Code. This consideration is
specific for the Briar Patch Veterinary Hospital to extend services at 702 Elmira Road (Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-6.22). WM B & Patricia Kerry, Owner; Dr. Ingrid Rhinehart,
Applicant; and
2. The Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed a narrative provided by the applicant, along with
an aerial location map, a staff -prepared memo, and an excerpt from Town Code Section 270-
126 (A) that lists the permitted uses in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone;
Resolved that the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby finds that the proposed veterinary
clinic/office use is substantially similar to a business, professional, or administrative office
(Section 270-126 (C)), which is listed as a use permitted as of right in the Neighborhood
Commercial Zone. The proposed veterinary clinic/office will not have greater adverse effects
upon traffic, noise, air quality, parking, or any other attribute reasonably relevant than the uses
permitted as of right. The proposed clinic/office will not involve any construction of new
structures, the site layout is appropriate for the use and has sufficient parking, and the clinic
expects to draw from existing traffic and residents already in the area.
Motion: Rob Rosen Seconded: David Williams
Votes — Ayes Williams, Squires, Rosen
Agenda Item 4 Lead Agency Determination - consideration of designating the Town of
Ithaca's Planning Board as the lead agency for the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
for Cornell University's New Experimental Hall at Wilson Laboratory
Ms. Brock recused herself from this discussion and action, citing that her spouse is involved in
the project.
Kim Michaels, Applicant Representative was present and explained that tonight's action by the
Board is administrative in nature to agree that the Planning Board to be designated Lead Agency
for this project. She added that the project will be before this board for variances after the site
plan review process through the Planning Board is completed and if approved.
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 11
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by David Williams, that this Board agrees with the
designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency for this project; Unanimous.
Motion to adjourn by Rob Rosen, seconded by David Williams.
Submitted by
Becky VJorDeputy Town Clerk
ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 12
You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a
variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing
via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us
All comments become part of the official record.
Town of Ithaca
Notice of Public Hearing
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, August 10, 2021, at 6:OOpm
215 N. Tioga St.
****Revised Copy****
The previously sent neighbor notification contained the incorrect Meeting ID. The correct
Meeting ID, which has been provided and updated below, should be 852-5587-1576.
The Public Hearing for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held in -person and will also
be streamed live. The public will have the option of attending the meeting in -person or by video
conferencing through the Zoom App. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the
meeting live and provide comments.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: If you have a computer,
tablet or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking
on "Join a Meeting", and entering 852-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to
the Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866).
0015-2021 Appeal of Jennifer Gray, owner of 140 King Road East, Tax Parcel No. 43.-1-3.35,
is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-71 (E.) (2) (Yard regulations [Accessory
buildings]), for a proposal to keep an existing accessory structure on a parcel within the side yard
of the property.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 (E.) (2) specifies that an accessory building may not occupy
any open space other than a rear yard, where the current accessory building is located in the side
yard of the property.
The current property is located in the Medium Density Residential District.
Marty Moseley
Director of Code Enforcement
You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a
variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing
via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us
All comments become part of the official record.
Town of Ithaca
Notice of Public Hearing
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, August 10, 2021, at 6:OOpm
215 N. Tioga St.
* * * *Revised Copy* * * *
The previously sent neighbor notification contained the incorrect Meeting ID. The correct
Meeting ID, which has been provided and updated below, should be 852-5587-1576.
The Public Hearing for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held in -person and will also
be streamed live. The public will have the option of attending the meeting in -person or by video
conferencing through the Zoom App. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the
meeting live and provide comments.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: If you have a computer,
tablet or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking
on "Join a Meeting", and entering 852-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to
the Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866).
0017-2021 Appeal of Elena Cestero and Joaquin Cuevas, owners of 273 Bundy Road, Tax
Parcel No. 27.-1-6.1, is seeking relief from Article VI of the Town of Ithaca Code (Agricultural
Zones) to allow for a third dwelling unit to be allowed on the property.
Article VI of the Town of Ithaca Code does not allow for Multiple -Family Dwelling use within
the Agricultural Zone, where the applicant is seeking to have a third dwelling unit added to the
property and this use would be considered a for Multiple -Family Dwelling use.
The current property is located in the Agricultural District
Marty Moseley
Director of Code Enforcement
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
www Ao w n. i th a ca . ny. u s
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING & PUBLICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
❑, ❑
-3
I, Christopher Torres, being duly sworn, depose and state, 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 27"' day of July & 4th day of August 2021, deponent served the within Notice upon
the property owners within 500 ft. of the property identified -below, for an appeal for a property located
at:
140 King Rd. E.
273 Bundy Rd
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, and
that the attached notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town CIerk of the Town of
Ithaca on July 27, 2021 and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca
Journal on August 2, 2021.
Christopher Torres, Administrative Assistant
Sworn to before me on 52021.
Notary Public BECKY L. JORDAN
NOTARY PUBLIC -STATE OF NEW YORK
NO, 01 JO618G381
Qualified In Tompkins County
MY Commission Expires April 28, 20�%