HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2023-10-24Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, October 24, 2023, at 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
The meeting for the Zoning Board of Appeals will be held in -person, at Town Hall, with
the option for the public to also attend by video conferencing through the Zoom App.
The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide
comments through the Zoom App. If a member of the public would like to attend the
meeting virtually, for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the livestream
video on YouTube.
Ar;FNnA
• ZBAA-23-22 Appeal of Lawrence Reiter, owner of 410 Teton Court,
Ithaca, NY, 14850; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section
270-71 E. (Yard regulations). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 E.
(4) requires that accessory buildings be not less than three feet from
any side or rear lot line, where the applicant is proposing to have an
accessory building, approximately 1.5' measured to the rear yard
property boundary line.
The current property is located in the Medium -Density Residential
Zone, Tax Parcel No. 44.-1-115.
• ZBAA-23-20 Appeal Ramjo Hospitality. Owner; Adam Fichel,
Applicant/Agent, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections
270-171.413 (Building height[max]), 270-171.51)(2) (Permitted uses),
and 270-171.6F(2)(a) (Parking and vehicle circulation). Town of
Ithaca Code section 270-171.413 requires a maximum building height,
for the IV-C Zone, to not exceed 40', where the proposed building
height is approximately 49'9". Town of Ithaca Code section 270-
171.5D.(2) requires a Hotel/motel/inn to have a total room count not
to exceed 60 for the IV-C Zone, where 67 rooms are being proposed.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-171.6F(2)(a) requires off street
parking areas of buildings fronting Elmira Road (Route 13) to be
located in the rear yard, where the proposed parking is to be located in
the front and side yards. This is a Type I Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and has been determined to not
Page 1 of 2
have a significant adverse impact on the environment and has been
determined to be negative declaration by the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board at their October 3, 2023 meeting.
The current property is located in the Neighborhood Commercial
Zone and the Inlet Valley Overlay District, Tax Parcel No. 35.-1-21.
• ZBAA-23-15 Appeal of Caroline Levine, owner of 4 The Byway,
Ithaca, NY, 14850; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code
section 270-219.7 E (2)(a) . Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.7
E(2)(a) requires a short-term rental to provide enough driveway space
for parking of a short term renter to park on the parcel where the short
term rental is located and not park on the street, where the applicant is
proposing to have the short term renter park on the private street
known as The Byway. The current property is located in the Medium
Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 66.-1-12.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY ON ZOOM: If you have a
computer, tablet, or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to
vu..i 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 Ih.tt s;//us06web,. oom,.us/'/85255871576,. If joining through the
Zoom App, you will be placed on hold until the meeting starts.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY ON YOUTUBE: If you
have a computer, tablet, or smartphone, you can access the meeting by going to The
Town's YouTube channel. To join the meeting directly, go to
hit s;//www„ outube,.com/channel)/lJC 9v cXkJ6kIlVllib`h 7NQ/Ilive
Questions about accessing the Zoom video conference should be directed to
Il.krgfc.d town,.ithacamy,.us or (607) 273-1783
Page 2 of 2
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 24, 2023
Minutes
Present: Board Members David Squires, Chair; Chris Jung, Stuart Friedman, Connor Terry,
Matthew Mining and Kim Ritter Absent: Mark Apker
Marty Moseley, Dir. of Code Enforcement; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock,
Attorney for the Town
Mr. Squires opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
1. ZBAA-23-23 Appeal of Lawrence Reiter, owner of 410 Teton Court, TP 44.-1-115, MDR
seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 E (Yard regulations) which requires a
minimum setback for accessory buildings at 3' feet from any side or rear lot line, where the
proposal is to have a rear yard setback of approximately 1.5' feet.
Overview
Mr. Reiter gave an overview, saying that they discovered the shed was not permitted and
encroached into the required setback when he applied for a building permit for a solar system.
He said the shed was there when he bought the house 8 years ago.
Mr. Reiter said the adjoining property is Cornell land and unused preserve land so the
encroachment is not affecting anyone and no one has ever complained about it.
Public Hearing
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one present and on one online wishing to
speak and the hearing was closed.
Determination
Mr. Squires stated that he looked at the property via Google Earth and you can barely see the
shed and with Cornell owning the adjacent property, he thought this was a reasonable request.
Ms. Jung asked if the shed was a prefabricated type or was it built in place and how big it was.
Mr. Reiter responded that he did not know as the shed was there when he bought the property,
and he thought it was about 10 x 12. There is no foundation, so he assumes it was prefabricated.
He thought that attempting to move it could damage it.
Mr. Moseley stated that Tompkins County Assessment lists the shed at 16 x 10, which would
have required a permit at time of placement.
ZBA 2023-10-24 (Filed 12/28) Pg. 1
Ms. Jung stated that she has a similar shed, and it was placed on her property so this one could
similarly be moved to a different location. She asked about the topography of the lot and Mr.
Reiter responded that the property slopes down from his house to the area where the shed is.
Mr. Friedman stated that the Board gets many of these types of appeals where something was
placed or built illegally without a permit and the issue is not found until a future owner attempts
to improve their property. He asked how this could be corrected by the Town; possibly
inspecting properties before the sale.
Mr. Moseley and Ms. Brock explained that property sales are not reported to Codes prior to
sale(s) and there is no mechanism or authority to require inspections prior to any sale.
Discussion followed and it was noted that the adjacent Cornell property is 39 acres of preserve
land that is unlikely to be built upon.
The Board felt that although the shed could be moved, there was no impact to the neighboring
property and the current owner was not the owner responsible for placing an illegal shed and
should not be penalized for that.
This is a Type 2 action under SEQR; a minor accessory building on a one/two family residence
and therefore SEQR is not required.
ZBAA-23-23 Area Variance
41.0 Teton Ct., TP 44.-1-115
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Lawrence Reiter, 410 Teton Ct. to be permitted to
keep an existing shed in the rear yard with a setback of approximately 1.5' feet, with the
following :
Conditions:
1. That the shed remains where it is located as submitted in the application packet, and may not
be moved any closer to the rear yard property line, enlarged or made taller, and with the
following:
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of
the community, specifically:
1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, additional storage, can be achieved by
moving the accessory building to a compliant location; and
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or a detriment to
nearby properties given that the shed has existed in its current location for 8 years in the rear of
ZBA 2023-10-24 (Filed 12/28) Pg. 2
the property and adjacent to a large undeveloped parcel owned by Cornell which is a unique
natural area preserve unlikely to be built upon, and
3. That the request is substantial given that a 3' foot rear yard setback is required where an
approximately 1.5' foot setback exists, and
4. That the variance will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the
fact that SQER is not required, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created in that the shed existed prior to the current owner
purchasing the property.
Therefore, on balance, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the community under the criteria above.
Moved: David Squires Seconded: Connor Terry
Vote: ayes - Squires, Terry, Jung, Friedman and Ritter
2. ZBAA-23-20 Appeal Ramjo Hospitality, owner; Adam Fichel, Agent, TP 35.-1-2, NC and
IVOD zones, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code:
o Section 270-171.413 (Building height[max]) which sets a maximum building height for
the IV-C Zone at 40', where the proposed height is approximately 49'9".
o Section 270-171.5D.(2) (Permitted uses) which sets a maximum of 60 hotel/motel/inn
rooms in the IV-C Zone where 67 are proposed,
o Section 270-171.6F(2)(a) (Parking and vehicle circulation) which requires off street
parking areas of buildings fronting Elmira Road (Route 13) to be in the rear yard, where
the proposed parking is in the front and side yards.
o This is a Type I Action under SEQR with a negative determination made by the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board on. October 3, 2023.
Overview
Adam Fichel, Katelyn Seacrest and other members of the owner group were present.
Mr. Fichel gave an overview, stating that this project was granted variances 2016 and 2018 and
then COVID happened, and the project was stalled.
While stalled, the Town enacted the Inlet Vallery Overlay District (IVOD) zoning legislation
which requires the project to now adhere to those guidelines and requirements.
The project does comply with most of the new legislation, but variances are still needed. He
shared depictions of the current design of the hotel adding that the redesign has been discussed
and adapted after a number of meetings with both the Town Planning Staff and the Planning
ZBA 2023-10-24 (Filed 12/28) Pg. 3
Board with a design that combines materials and stone to look more like a park structure than the
standard franchise hotel design.
Ms. Seacrest added that the Planning Board was very involved in the selection of building
materials for the facade using the IVOD guidelines.
Mr. Moseley added that the guidelines are very detailed, and the applicant reworked the design
after the last Planning Board meeting to incorporate their comment and concerns.
Ms. Seacrest noted that a height variance may not be needed as the highest roof line, not
including the tower, is 40' feet and that height is needed to allow for a finished ceiling inside.
There are many guidelines to the roof lines in the IVOD and a flat roof that would meet the
height restrictions was not possible.
Mr. Moseley responded that the tower does not meet the criteria to be exempted from the IVOD
regulations.
Ms. Brock cited the section of the IVOD regarding calculation of height: does not include
chimneys, cupolas, parapet or equipment, screening structures or other similar features that
project above the roof line...
Mr. Moseley stated that he would not consider the tower to be under those exemptions and the
applicant should continue with the advertised requested variance for the height of the tower.
Mr. Fichel turned to the net variance requested, number of rooms. He stated that the previously
approved number of rooms was 70 and the revised request is for 67 after running the numbers to
make the project financially viable and that exceeds the maximum number of 60 allowed.
Mr. Squires said he wanted to discuss that a bit more, saying that the application materials refer
to the Comfort Inn & Suites on Danby Rd which has a larger square footage but less rooms and
there is not a lot of information in the application to support the economics of needing the
additional rooms.
Mr. Pakir, member of the owners' group stated that the Comfort Inn & Suites is not comparable
as they are 2-stories and a larger footprint, and this project meets the lot coverage requirements
and the research supports the need for 67 rooms to be viable.
Mr. Fichel turned to the area variance needed for parking areas to be in the front and side. The
Planning Board did discuss the possibility of moving the building closer to the road to permit
parking in the rear but that would put the hotel almost on the existing ROW to the street and
Elmira Road is incredibly busy and noisy and permitting the parking in the front greatly reduces
the noise impacts to the occupants who, quite frankly, are at the hotel mainly to sleep.
The topography of the lot also does not make sense to have the parking in the rear of the lot
where the slope is significant and closer to the wetlands in the back and detracts from the view of
the natural area in the back of the property.
ZBA 2023-10-24 (Filed 12/28) Pg. 4
Ms. Brock asked the applicant to show the parking areas on the screen; she stated that the
variance would just be needed for the parking spots in the front as side yard parking is permitted.
Public Hearing
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
Claire Forest spoke, saying that she is the owner of a family farm that borders this property and
she fervently objects to this project. She said she spoke to the Buttermilk Falls Parks people who
said that her farm and the adjacent Colbert's farm are considered iconic farmland that contribute
to a major scenic view of the Town.
She said that a picture of that scenic view is used on the Town's website to depict the beautiful
nature and farmland in the Town. The Town has to decide whether it is going to support farming
as it states or permit this project that will destroy farming.
Ms. Forest stated that noise travels up the Buttermilk gorge and the sounds she hears now are
natural sounds, I hear natural sounds, those of coyotes an wildlife and this project will destroy
that. You will hear doors slamming, and people coming and going 24/7 and that will destroy
farming in Ithaca. She said she and her sons are out there picking red raspberries and you need
quiet to do that, natural sounds, not commercial hotel noise.
I implore you to reject the whole thing, not only these variances but the whole project. If the
Town truly supports and cherishes farming, but allows slamming doors all hours of the day, I'll
have to stop farming. You can't have it both ways.
There was no one else present or online wishing to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Discussion
The project's architect spoke to the comment about noise. He said noise has to do with uses of
buildings and associated traffic and people patterns. Restaurants are constant, especially during
certain rush hours like mealtimes; factories have people coming and leaving at once; this is not
one of those uses or buildings, there is more noise from the road traffic than noise that would
come from this hotel.
This parcel is not useable farmland and given the size and topography it is not useable for many
purposes. As the Town continues to allow economic growth in the Inlet Valley Area there is no
way that projects can meet every requirement that is in the IVOD. This is not the worst use of
this parcel and we have worked very hard to meet the majority of the requirements in the IVOD.
Mr. Squires stated that his main concern is the deviation from the number of rooms permitted.
Mr. Friedman said that he is concerned that the project was approved previously and the impact
that the IVOD legislation has had on this previously approved project. He added that although
ZBA 2023-10-24 (Filed 12/28) Pg. 5
he is not challenging the assertion that 60 rooms would not be financially viable, that assertion
alone is not enough to support the request and more documentation is needed.
Mr. Fichel responded that the initial variances needed pre-Covid were for height an square
footage.
Mr. Pakir spoke again, saying that construction costs and the cost of financing have increased,
dramatically since the original approved plan. Financing is the largest determination in
determining the financial feasibility of the project and the number of rooms needed to generate
that income. In 2018 the project was estimated at $6M and the current estimate with the
increases in construction and financing costs is $9.6M and we would prefer more than 67 rooms
to provide a buffer in income availability, but we have requested 67.
Mr. Squires asked if the variance on the number of rooms is dependent on lot coverage or just
number of rooms.
Mr. Moseley responded that it was the number of rooms only and they meet the lot coverage
requirements. The base zoning is Neighborhood Commercial with no limit on the number of
rooms.
Discussion followed regarding financial information to support the number of rooms requested
and comparisons to the Comfort Inn & Suites, with the applicant asking at what number was the
Board comfortable.
Ms. Brock noted that a variance must be granted at the minimum amount necessary and the
applicants needed to support the request of 67 rooms being the minimum number necessary to
make the project feasible.
Mr. Friedman stated that the reality of it is that zoning regulations make some things
uneconomical and although that may not be the explicit aim, it is one of the effects of the
legislation where certain uses that are allowed are simply not financially feasible under the
requirements of the legislation.
Board members thought that more information on the financial feasibility was needed and
because the project application materials are based on the 67 rooms being requested, it would not
make sense to consider the other variances until that is settled.
The view from the surrounding parks and trails were discussed, noting that the Planning Board
talked about a trail running behind the property. It was noted that the Town, in cooperation with.
the Finger Lakes Land Trust and NYS Parks, is working towards extending the Black Diamond
Trail using property that runs behind the project. The Board asked for additional information
from the applicant regarding impacts to views from the proposed trail.
Mr. Squires moved to adjourn the appeal to the November or December meeting of the Zoning
Board, seconded by Mr. Terry, unanimous.
ZBA 2023-10-24 (Filed 12/28) Pg. 6
3. ZBAA-23-15 Appeal of Caroline Levine, owner, 4 The Byway, TP 66.-1-12, MDR, seeking
relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.7 E (2)(a) which requires short-term rental
properties to provide parking on the parcel where the short-term rental is located and not park on
the street, where the applicant is proposing to have parking on the private street known as The
Byway.
Overview
Ms. Levine was presented.
Mr. Squires stated that he did not see the Zoning Board Appearance sign posted at the property
when he went by.
Ms. Levine stated that she did not receive any notification that another sign was needed. She
said she thought one was not required due to the appeal being adjourned.
Discussion followed with counsel and staff noting that the Town has experienced some email
issues due to new security measures and that the lack of posting of the sign is not a fatal flaw,
with Mr. Moseley adding that mailings were sent to the adjoining neighbors again.
Mr. Squires moved to waive the posting of the notification sign due to the reasons stated by staff
and counsel, seconded by Mr. Terry, unanimous.
Ms. Levine reviewed the request and the lengthy history of The Byway and Ms. Brock reviewed
the deed histories and "old" versus "current" terminology used in deeds.
Ms. Brock stated that the older terms in deeds showing to the center of The Byway were replaced
with showing ownership to the edge of the road but also stating "together with all rights, title and
interest in The Byway" which means whatever her seller had she also gets and that goes for
previous owners as well. That is the saving piece because that was in all the deeds going back in
determining ownership. The conclusion is that that catch all covers that she does own to the
center of the road or has the rights to it.
Public Hearing
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was
closed.
Determination
ZBAA-23-15 Area Variance
4 The Byway, TP 66.4-1.2, MDR
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Caroline Levine, owner, 4 The Byway, TP 66.-1-
12, requesting a variance to be permitted to allow short-term rental guests to park on a private
ZBA 2023-10-24 (Filed 12/28) Pg. 7
street, narnely The Byway, rather than providing parking on the parcel which provides the short-
term rental, with the following
D1r1'. 1ff"1 LMEW "11 -
J=
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of
the community, specifically
1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means
feasible given that the lot does not have sufficient space for a driveway to satisfy the
requirements of the Town of Ithaca Code; and
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby
properties given that the neighborhood currently uses the right-of-way for parking in front of
their homes; and
3. That the request is substantial given that the code requires 2 driveway spaces and this horn*
does not have a driveway and cannot comply, • the roadway will be used; and
4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the fact
that SQER is not required; and
I 1111PUTITM91 via ifew I HT4,213 PAR is to, gar-11-3 is griij R VAL-0 term 1 &.11 -sq., soy v
Moved: David Squires Seconded: Connor Terry
Review of next meeting's agenda.
Meeting adjourned upon motion by Mr. Squires, seconded by Mr. Terry, unanimous.
Submitted by
Paulette a. Town Clerk
M
ZBA 2023-10-24 (Filed 12/28) Pg, 8