Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Use Variance 7/17/2006 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, JULY 179 2006 7 : 00 P.M. By .direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, July 17, 2006, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga' Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P.M. on the following matters: . APPEAL of Kenneth A. and Cathy Poyer, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270w56(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to cover an existing concrete pad for use as storage of seasonal items, including lawn mower, snow blower, garbage cans, and construction materials, located at 206 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 2244 .22, Low Density Residential Zone. By covering the concrete slab, this becomes an accessory building exceeding the maximum aggregate area of 2 ,000 square feet permitted to be covered by accessory buildings on a lot three acres or larger in size . This may also require consideration of special approval for a home occupation, pursuant to Chapter 270, Section 57(C) of the Town Code, to allow the storage of construction materials for a contracting business. APPEAL of Orlando Iacovelli, Appellant, requesting use variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=77 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to occupy an existing home at 202 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54-74, and the home under construction at 110 Pennsylvania Avenue (on Lot 2 of the recently approved subdivision of the Lands of Mary and Daniel J. Raponi), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54-7-2, with a maximum of six unrelated individuals in each home, both in the High Density Residential Zone. The proposed occupancy in each home would exceed the number of families permitted to inhabit a dwelling unit in the High Density Residential Zone. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 :00 p.m., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 607-2734747 Dated: July 6, 2006 Published: July 10, 2006 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17, 2006 FINAL MINUTES Mr.. Matthews - If this is going to be part of the presentation , I will pull it over a little closer. Chairperson Sigel — I think we probably have copies of some of it. Ms . Brock — That information is also in your packets . Just so you know. Chairperson Sigel — The next appeal this evening is that of Orlando lacovelli . APPEAL of Orlando lacovelli , Appellant, requesting use variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270=77 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to occupy an existing home at 202 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-7-4, and the home under construction at 110 Pennsylvania Avenue (on Lot 2 of the recently approved subdivision of the' Lands of Mary and Daniel J . Raponi) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.. 54=7-2, with a maximum of six unrelated individuals in each home , both in the High Density Residential Zone . The proposed occupancy in each home would exceed the number of families permitted to inhabit a dwelling unit in the High Density Residential Zone. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening . Mr. Fabbroni — My name is Lawrence Fabbroni . I live at 1 Settlement Way. I am speaking on behalf of Orlando , who is right next to me here. We are applying for a use variance . Some of you who have been on the Board for a while may recognize these . They are very similar to special approvals we applied for before the last change in the zoning ordinance , so I thought it might be worth a brief history of this area that for years there were a number of use variances granted in this neighborhood . Chairperson Sigel — Special approvals . Ms . Brock — Special permits . Mr. Fabbroni — For years there were a number of use variances granted in this neighborhood from the late 70s up to about the early 1990s that consolidated lots and .offered similar increased occupancies as a result of consolidating those lots . In the early 1990s then the ordinance was changed to allow this under a special approval and a number of special approvals were allowed under that period of time . The last change in the zoning ordinance then made it back essentially to a use variance . That's what I meant by the history of how we came to where we are today. The proof obviously is a little more difficult under the use ordinances than the special approvals , but I might run down through those proofs just to stick to the issues that you have to address . The applicant cannot realize that reasonable return . We have independent estimates to build such a home . As Mr. lacovelli built in this neighborhood from McPherson Builders , which I think is in your packet for $285 , 000 , 16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17, 2006 FINAL MINUTES so we presented some scenario of principal and interest taxes , maintenance against what income could be realized with four people in each of these homes and I think it's reasonable to say that not a reasonable return can be realized under that set of circumstances . We guess that even though six would not equal the expenses , that over time the equation would change in time as principal and interest sort of switches from mostly interest to more equal distribution of the two that any appreciation that would occur over that same period of time would lead to a better return and something worth doing . The alleged hardship relating to the property question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion district or neighborhood . Ironically, when the ordinance was changed , before from the early 90s to the last change in the ordinance , anybody could come in to you and ask for a special approval . That's not too easy in this case to consolidate lots . You have to have lots to consolidate in order to make this proposal to you and so under that scenario , I would say. it's not something that everybody in the neighborhood could do and it' s fairly unique . The next proof is request of use variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . I 'd like to submit this map that shows where there is roughly 48 properties that are rentals in this neighborhood and there is roughly 23 owner occupied by families . The colored properties are the rentals and the non-colored properties are the owner occupied . In addition to that, we have circulated a petition , which reads as follows : We support the lacovellis' proposal to increase the occupancy in two homes rather than build four total homes that would actually house more than the 12 total occupants they are proposing . This would lead to a much more open space and landscaped areas around the two homes and along Pennsylvania Avenue . We as homeowners in the immediate neighborhood would much prefer this over the alternative of four homes allowed by zoning and 18 of 23 people who are owner occupied in the neighborhood signed this petition . There are 2 or 3 that are on vacation and 2 or 3 unaccounted for. So the proposal in essence is to have the one property at 202 Pennsylvania Avenue and the property that's shown on the left on the board as the only two houses that would house up the 12 unrelated people rather than have the one family home at 202 Pennsylvania and 3 two family homes house up to 14 unrelated people, which is basically what' s allowed by zoning if you follow your way through all of the options. For a two family, there would 3 two families and one 1 family under that scenario . The two families are along the 75 foot lots , the one family is on the already existing 50 foot lot. Finally, the alleged hardship has not been self-created . As I pointed out, the zoning change has made it difficult to continue the process . Mr. lacovelli bought these lots from Mrs . Raponi . There are legal 75 foot lots under the new ordinance , so they meet the requirement for two family homes . A lot of the economics of what you've seen happen in Ithaca over the last five years with housing makes it difficult to build a quality home in the way that the lacovellis and others have for the last 25 years in this neighborhood . . I will tell you just anecdotally, I was the Town Engineer from 1974 to 1986 and this area of the town was the most rundown area of the town back in the 1970s because it dates back to the late 1800s , early 1990s . We all inherited this land tract that was subdivided for a lot of the stone workers that came to build the buildings at Cornell . They were substandard 50 foot lots at the time and what's gone on since the late 70s is either demolition of some of those buildings 17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17, 2006 FINAL MINUTES through these consolidations or just new housing stock going in on consolidated lots , so rather than delay , that's our pitch , we would rather build two houses than four. We have permits in for the additional two houses at this time and much prefer to stop the construction at the house under construction . Mr. Matthews — May I ask the counselor a question . Chairperson Sigel — Sure . Mr. Matthews — Mr. Fabbroni you gave us a mini history lesson or whatever you want to call it, a history recollection . Are we bound as a Board by some prior decision as a precedent setting variance . Ms . Brock — You need to apply the Code as it exists today and you need to use the requirements that Town Law requires in terms of considering a use variance . Mr. Matthews — Okay. Thank you . Chairperson Sigel — I think it's appropriate to say that how long ago the decisions were also has an impact and for a number of years we have dealt with the special approval criteria , which were a more lenient test and these use variances , which I wasn't aware of prior to that, were quite some time ago , so conditions have changed , circumstances have changed , the Code has changed , so I personally don't consider that a strong influence. Mr. Fabbroni — I just spoke to that as the essential character of the neighborhood more than anything else . Chairperson Sigel — Right I understand and I appreciate that. I didn't realize that there was a period when use variances were granted for this type of thing . Ms . Balestra — May I make a clarification ? We also don 't know when there was a time period when the use variances were allowed . Staff researched all of the use variances and the special permits that were granted in this Pennsylvania Ave , Kendall Ave , Coddington Road area and found that we had files going back to the early 1980s where special permits were granted , not use variances for these very streets . So I just wanted to clarify that. So maybe in the 70s it was use variances , but at least in the very early 80s until 2004 , it was a special permit process and that was only allowable in the R9 High Density Zone to increase occupancy. Mr. Matthews — So that I understand my privileges more clearly. It is a new ballgame today. Ms . Balestra — That's fair to say. 18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 1.7, 2006 FINAL MINUTES Ms . Brock — Well you ' re not bound by anything that' s happened in the past in terms of how you make . your decision today. Mr. Matthews — Okay , I am clear. Chairperson Sigel — Does anyone else have any questions or comments? I have some questions that we might want to address having to do with the use variance criteria . With number 1 , the economics of it , you are required to show that you can't realize a reasonable return for all allowed uses of the property, not just that what you propose , which is I presume a 6 bedroom house , if you are planning to put 6 people , are they six bedroom houses? Mr. Fabbroni — Four bedroom houses . Chairperson Sigel — Four bedroom houses okay. I mean it doesn't meet the test to just show that building a four bedroom house and consolidating lots to do it doesn't give you a reasonable return unless you can put 6 people in there , 6 unrelated people. You have to show that building a single family house doesn't show a reasonable return and building a two family house doesn 't and building a house on each of the separate lots doesn 't. I mean that' s the requirement for that. For number two I would say that the situation does apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood . There are lots of these approvals already granted and there are presumably any home on that street that doesn 't already have approval would want to possibly have approval for six unrelated persons because they could rent to more people and make more money. Mr. Fabbroni — Not everyone has multiple lots to offer for that variance. Chairperson Sigel — But that's not a requirement of getting the use variance . Mr. Fabbroni — Right. Ms . Brock — But it's the hardship that has to be unique , not a deal that you want to propose to the Town . Chairperson Sigel — Yeah , not the proposal . Number three is altering the essential character of the neighborhood , I mean I feel that the reason the Town Board made this change was precisely because they believe there has been a change in the neighborhood because of the special approvals in the past and that they wanted to stop that and therefore continuing to. allow it would continue to make that change to the neighborhood and you could argue various aspects of number four, whether it was self-created or not. Obviously having the law change was not something you created , but building the houses as you have , is self-created . I believe both of these houses were built since 2004 . Mr. Fabbroni — One is still being built. 19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17 , 2006 FINAL MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — So the one that' s not finished was started since 2004 . When was the other one completed? Ms . Balestra — The other one received a CO in August of 2004 according to our building permit files and it actually was for a six-bedroom home according to our building permit in a single family home . Actually, I need to clarify something that on my cover memo erroneously wrote . They are not two single family homes , number 202 is a single family home , number 110 is a two family home . Chairperson Sigel - So 110 is a two family home with how many bedrooms each . Mr. Fabbroni — Say that again . Chairperson Sigel — The 110 Pennsylvania Avenue , that's a two family home? Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. Chairperson Sigel — And what' s the make-up of the two units? How many bedrooms each? Mr. Fabbroni — 3 and 21 Chairperson Sigel — 3 and 2 , okay. And I assume that they meet the 50% rule or the second unit is totally in the basement? Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. Chairperson Sigel — Well , I mean , 202 1 guess , unfortunately you should have come here back when it was built. Back when there was still the transition clause of the old ordinance , when you could have been treated under the special approval criteria . I think too much time has passed . . . . . Ms . Brock — It has . Chairperson Sigel — . . . . .for us to even consider. There is no criteria under which we could even decide to treat you under that. I have trouble with at least three of the criteria and as you are aware , you have to meet all four. It's not sort of a balancing like an area variance ; you have to strictly meet all four. Mr. lacovelli — Well , if I can 't meet them that's fine . I sit in a unique situation because I am trying to do what I feel is best for the neighborhood and for the immediate neighborhood . I have spoken to almost every family. Every family that you see on that list, some members of that family have supported because it's less density, less space , for me personally, it really doesn 't make any difference if I qualify or not. If I don 't qualify, that's fine . 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 171 2006 FINAL MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. lacovelli — As long as you ' re happy . Either way. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, I am glad to hear that. Mr. lacovelli — Like I said , I spoke to every family that I could speak to that either lives on Pennsylvania Avenue or Kendall Avenue and you can the list has been signed . There is only about five families that I wasn 't able to get to and I spoke to the brother of one of the women and she' s on vacation . He was kind of supportive , but I don't have his signature because he couldn 't sign , but if I don 't meet the criteria , that' s fine . Chairperson Sigel — And I don't want to speak for the other board members , but for me personally , with a use variance there is not a lot of subjectivity involved . As you are aware , with the special approval , it's basically balancing the benefit to you versus the detriment to the neighborhood and then your proposals in the past where you were consolidating lots and giving up homes and those things had clear benefits to the neighborhood . Mr. lacovelli — Well , I thought I was doing that and also met the financial obligation , if I am not, that' s fine . Chairperson Sigel — Anyone else on the Board wish to make any comments or ask any questions? Mr. Mountin — I am wondering why you are applying for the variance after the houses are built? Mr. lacovelli — Well , because I have two more to build that I ' ll start building in the fall . Mr. Mountin — And I am wondering on 110 , you applied for a two family permit on that. What determines the two family , is it. . . . . Mr. lacovelli — You have to have a 75 foot lot basically. Mr. Mountin — I mean separate gas , separate electric? Mr. lacovelli — No . Mr. Mountin — Okay, so there' s two electric meters on the house , but one gas meter, so two families will share one gas meter? So there are two electric meters , so they' re splitting the electric but sharing the gas? Mr. lacovelli — That's correct. 21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17, 2006 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Fabbroni — There's two entrances and they are separated by certain fire code requirements , that's kind of what makes it a two family more than how you split the utilities up . Ms . Brock — And there are two kitchens , one for each unit? Mr. Fabbroni — That' s correct. Ms . Brock — You need separate cooking facilities for each unit. Mr. Fabbroni — The future is to meter all the utilities together and include it in rents . I don't think that has any effect as to whether it's a two family. It's really just a provision of sleeping , living , bathroom and kitchen facilities for each unit. Chairperson Sigel — Well , my concern is that they look like more than five bedrooms to me , five or six bedrooms each of them . I drove up to them and the guy was painting and he was almost finished and I was talking to him and . . . . . . again , it' s a single family and a single family you always made bedrooms as you want . . . . Mr. lacovelli — No it' s not single family and it wasn't built as a single family and my application says a duplex. Chairperson Sigel — 202? Mr. lacovelli — 202 is a single family . Ms . Brock — No 1100 Chairperson Sigel — Yeah , how many bedrooms in that one? Mr. lacovelli — Well that's irrespective . Chairperson Sigel — I mean you can put as many bedrooms as you want in the house and if you have what qualifies as a family that includes more than two people , I mean you can have a family of ten live there related or that otherwise meet the definition and then you would obviously need a lot of bedrooms and you know if they' re not able to put more than a reduced number in there , then there may be rooms not used as bedrooms . Mr. lacovelli — I 've got three storage rooms in that house . Mr. Matthews — Uh , Kirk, I 've read the information that the applicant has submitted supporting the use variance and I am a fairly competent reader, I think, but I can't quite grab a sympathetic hand for some reason . He's a builder and a builder is trying to get a use variance and I can appreciate that; but I can 't quite move off the 22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17, 2006 FINAL MINUTES center line that I am sitting on , but I do see and I so sense a crowd to my right who wants to speak. Chairperson Sigel — I am sure , I do believe there are some people who want to speak. Mr. Matthews — I believe at this point that the Board should hear what the rest of neighborhood has to say if I may suggest that. Chairperson Sigel — Anyone else want to . . . . . _Mr. _Fabbroni - Mr. lacovelli would like to withdraw the application . Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms . Brock — So , we' ll just have the record formally reflect the fact that the applicants withdraw the application . (someone asks if they can speak) Chairperson Sigel — Sure , please come up to the microphone . Well , we will open the public hearing . Ms . Brock — Well , there wouldn 't really be a public meeting because there is no application pending , but if you wish to hear from members of the public through privilege of the floor, you can do that . . . Ms . Balestra — I think you should do that. Ms . Brock — So , that would be fine , we just won 't call it a public hearing per se . Patty Porter — I am Patty Porter and I live at 104 Juniper Drive , which sounds like it might be far away from Pennsylvania and Kendall , but it' s not. I hear all of the noise that comes from all of the student properties down there . I received a letter from Cathy Valentino as many of us did , and it says a family is defined as an individual 2 or more persons occupying a dwelling unit related by blood , marriage or legal adoption , living and cooking .together in a single housekeeping unit or two unrelated persons occupying a single dwelling unit living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit by Section 270-5 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca . That Section further outlines the process required for a Zoning Board of Appeals determination as to whether more than two unrelated people can be considered a family for the purposes of the Code . Please note that a group of more than two unrelated people would not be considered a family if they are living together for a period of an academic year or less . So my question to the Board is and this related to all of Mr. lacovelli's . houses , there are more than two unrelated people , he has up to six unrelated people . We reported him and some were removed from 3158 23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17, 2006 FINAL MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Well a number of his properties have received special approval under the previous ordinance for an increased number of unrelated individuals to live there . Ms . Porter — Okay. Chairperson Sigel — Under the previous ordinance before 2004 , that was an easier test to meet than the current use variance test and he received a number of approvals and that basically exempts him from that portion of the law for that unit. Ms . Porter — Okay , but 110 Pennsylvania Avenue . . . . . Chairperson Sigel — Right that is . . . . . . . . Ms . Porter — That and the other number 2 something . . . Chairperson Sigel — and the 202 . . . . Ms . Porter — the 202 . . . . Chairperson Sigel — They have to comply with the current ordinance . Ms . Balestra — As will , if he builds two additional homes on those other lots , those will also need to comply, unless he comes back here again . Ms . Porter — So two , that's the part he doesn't get? Ms . Balestra — Well , it depends on what he is building . If he is building a one-family dwelling under the Code , that could be occupied by a one family, plus no more than one boarder, roomer, lodger or other occupant. Ms . Balestra — So that would be a total of three people . Ms . Brock — Right, so if you have the two unrelated people living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, that would be your family , plus one other occupant, that would be three . So for the single family house , that would be what would apply. For the two-family dwellings , he needs to have one family in each dwelling unit, so each unit could have the two unrelated people living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, so you could have two unrelated people. in one unit and two unrelated people in the other unit for a total of four when you look at the entire building . Chairperson Sigel — But you don't get the boarder. 24 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17 , 2006 FINAL MINUTES Ms . Brock — No you don 't get the boarder with the two family, it' s just one family in one unit and one family in the other unit. So he could have up to four in a two family unit and up to three unrelated in the single family unit. This is assuming that these people can 't come in and say we' re the. functional equivalent of a family and go through that whole exercise . Ms . Porter — Okay, the other point I want to make is that to control the student parties and . they happen all year long , it's not just at the end of the school , any occasion causes a party, sometimes 2 , 000 students are there on those blocks . Peter Meskill at the end of the year had four sheriffs deputies there , Friday and Saturday night for three weekends . in a row to control it. It costs us as taxpayers $3 , 200 each weekend " . $ 3 , 200 to control these two streets. Mr. Matthews — Kirk, if I may comment. I have much respect for the members of the community that are sitting here , but I wonder if we as a Board aren 't exposing ourselves to some future trouble by permitting this meeting to go on with what appears to be merely an either an educational session or a complaint that could affect future applicants . Chairperson Sigel — I don 't think there is any problem . Mr. Matthews — There's no problem . Mr. Krantz — Well , I for one feel Mr. lacovelli has withdrawn . These good people have come and something to say and I think they certainly should be allowed to say it, but I don 't think we as a Board have to answer, make comments on everything . I think let' s listen to them because they deserve a forum . Ms . Brock — And any future applications that come before you , you would need to consider those on their own merits based on the information that you receive for those applications , so whatever record is established in the future , for future applications , that's what you ' ll look at. So , they may need to come back and repeat what they are saying tonight if they want to get their comments into the record for the future applications so that it can be considered . Mr. Matthews — They can do that? Ms . Brock — Oh certainly they can come for any public hearing and say whatever they want at any time . Mr. Matthews — I ' ll be so educated . Thank you . Ms . Balestra — Or even the public is welcome to make comments , e-mail , phone calls , anytime to me , myself, to other staff members , Cathy Valentino . . . . 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17, 2006 FINAL MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Yeah , any letters or a-mails you send to the Town get distributed to all Board members . Go ahead , begin with your name and address . Ms . Sumner — My name is Rosedie Sumner. I live at 319 Coddington Road , right next to 315 . This actually just sparked a question for me . Are the special appeals and things that Orlando has been granted in the past indefinite? Chairperson Sigel — Yes . Ms . Sumner — And even though he violates zoning use on his other properties and has been caught in violation , that does not do anything to nullify the special appeals he has been able to gain on other properties? Chairperson Sigel — No . Ms . Sumner — So , he can just continue to pack kids into the, other houses and . . . . . . 1 mean I can tell you the house he built at 315 , he built it completely in 2004 , 1 believe , last year when we had a group meeting , he told us there were five kids living there . The tenants came over to our house that is next door to apologize for having a party, which we watched 72 kids leave these buildings he is building with one means of egress , they are packing 72 kids in there , they are urinating on our lawns , they are doing all sorts of things , but the tenants came over and told me that there were six of them on the lease and I just casually said , well how many, I said , well what are you doubling up in bedrooms? And they said "oh no he built a house for us with 6 bedrooms . " When I spoke to the Town , it was legal for three people in the Town , I believe I spoke to Steve Williams , and he said when Orlando built that I met with him and told him he could have three . people . So then he is going in and packing people in there and it just seems ridiculous to me that he can continue to break the zoning laws and continue to do this and it doesn't affect all of these special things he has gotten before and he just packs kids in there and doesn't care . Chairperson Sigel — Well , unfortunately, there is no mechanism to rescind an approval that has been given in the past and it really comes down to an enforcement issue . Ms . Sumner — How would we find out what the zoning occupancy limits are for each of his properties? Chairperson Sigel — Well , you could ask the Town if any. approvals , special approvals or variances have been granted to increase the occupancy over what would normally be permitted and if there is nothing that's been granted in the past, then it would be what we had talked about, which is three people in a single family home and two people in each half of a two family home. Ms . Sumner — So it's public knowledge then if we talk to the Town , they can let us know which ones are allowed to have . . . . . 26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17, 2006 FINAL MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Right , they can look in the file and if you ask them a specific address , they could tell you if that one . is allowed occupancy above what would otherwise be allowed and then you would know. Ms . Sumner — Thank you . Chairperson Sigel — Sure . . Anyone else? Mr. Earhart — Hi my name is Steve Earhart. I am new to the Town of Ithaca . I lived in the City for many years and served on the Planning Board there and I just wanted to clarify . I have a question point of clarification about special approvals versus zoning variances . My understanding was that a variance went to the property in perpetuity but a special approval went to the property owner and upon the sale of the property, it was not transferable . Is that right or wrong ? Chairperson Sigel — I don't believe that's the case . I mean . . Mr. Earhart — Cuz it is in the City and it' s given to the person not to the property. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, but in the Town , as far as I know, all approvals of any kind come with the properties . Mr. Earhart — What's the difference . Chairperson Sigel - The difference is the criteria . Mr. Earhart — Okay , just the ease in obtaining them . Chairperson Sigel — Right, special approval is fairly similar to an area variance in that it's a balance between the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community and then a use variance is a much harder test to meet. Mr. Earhart — I don't want to take a great deal of your time because I think what I wanted to say about this issue is more for the Planning Board or the Town Board . There's this tension between the student ghetto in a nearby family neighborhood is very difficult and my interest is in property maintenance laws and getting all of those cars off of the front lawns and put them at a curb and having a decent looking street, but that' s not for this . . . . . : Chairperson Sigel — We sympathize with all of- your frustrations , but unfortunately this board has a fairly narrow role in that when someone is told they can 't do something , they can come here and ask for permission to do it and we apply certain criteria and we could grant or not. 27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD IOJLY PP 006 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Earhart — And what happens , if we don 't all turn out what happens , I mean does it . . . . . it always kind of galled me that . . . " it seems to me that we should be able to stay ich home , have dinner with our families and rest that value of our law homes and hthe we purchased our properties in planning the future quality of our children ' s lives , that that law should apply and why do we have to turn out to prevent one property owner from undermining our futures . It seems to me that . . . . and I don't know what the atmosphere is in the Town , but in the City, it was . . . .we always had to remind each other wait, people haven't turned out, but it still matters to them and we have to be careful and I hope that you all have that attitude and I appreciate it if you do . Thank you . Chairperson Sigel — We do and under the new use variance criteria , it is difficult to get this kind of an approval now. Ms . Earhart — Well I think it should be because . . . . . Chairperson Sigel — Yeah if that' s what the Town Board decided . . . . . Mr. Earhart — You know it' s easy for conditions to ratchet down with ne variance that one property at a time and very difficult to improve neighborhood happens , so good night. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you . Ms . Tagliavento — Hi my name is Michelle Tagliavento and I live at 725 Hudson Street, which is just inside the City , right next to the house he built now. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms . Tagliavento — He has been telling me right along if you don't sign this paper then I am going to build two more houses . This is how knocking on my door't like weekend , phoning . . . , okay, I consider that harassment and athreat a and I don a I the that. As far as the neighborhood going down the dump , it' s students and there' s a few of us who have been there for years . That house is my family home . . . . l ' m 46 and the students are taking over. I have to worry about my daughter outside playing . She goes out to get the mail one morning or the newspaper. Someone had had a bowel movement on my sidewalk and left their cel phone . We don't need anymore students up there and that's what exactly is going in this house . . . students . And this gentleman is exactly right . . . .there is more in there than you think . What he gets approved for, more goes in and it really needs to be checked out, cause the other house that was built, when was it 2004 he said , there were more than three students in there . . . absolutely , and I speak on behalf of M Alice Jacobi and all our other) know neighbors Dina etting Collins , George . . . enough students . And y ou can't keep them from students to come in , but this is not families , it's students . We have to chase people off our yard . They' re stealing our mailboxes , they' re doing all kinds of stuff to our property and we 28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 171 2006 FINAL MINUTES have had all of Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenue filled right up with students . Someone needing an ambulance , there was no way that ambulance was going to get down there . . . .that stuff has got to stop and there really shouldn't be no more students up there . I just wanted to say that . , . thank you . Chairperson Sigel — Thank you very much . Anyone else wish to speak? Ms . Vance — My name is Holly Vance and I live at 115 Pennsylvania Avenue, where I raised my two daughters over the last 15 years since purchasing the home around 1990 and everything that I have hard tonight from my fellow neighbors , I reiterate and say I can substantiate that to my knowledge is true . Orlando told me or Mr. lacovelli told me that he had six bedrooms in the same home that he just sat here and told the Board that he had four. Which one is the truth? Why would he want ' to say two different things to different people? I also was pursued by him as the last speaker was in terms of attending the meeting and speaking in his favor. I believe when he saw me outside tonight, he thought that I was coming here to speak in his favor — he was wrong . What I did was write something , which I would like to be able to read . It's not real long . Chairperson Sigel — Go ahead . Ms . Vance — Our main concern is density. We want the least final density. Already the students influence the street with noise , vandalism , speeding cars , public intoxication and have driven away all but a few individual family dwellings . One house after another, people vacate and they come to us as neighbors and say we can't take it anymore . My own daughter was the victim of a hit and run accident. Our yard was set on fire when I had a yard sale there . I have had a dozen bicycles stolen and totally replaced my mailbox probably eight times at no small expense . The police are here every weekend , every weekend , not just three or four weekends . Two months ago , I lived across from a woods at the entrance to . the trail system on South Hill . The woods are gone and Mr. lacovelli wants to put 24 students where they stood , virtually all 24 directly across from my house on a very small parcel . There will be no yard space as it is all needed for parking . The students zip back and forth the 1 /8 mile to the college all day long and to add even ten cars would have an impact much less 20 or 24 . The reason I signed the list Mr, lacovelli has compiled for allowing six students in each of the two existing houses is in the interest of the least ultimate density, not because it's okay to vary from the zoning , which I believe should remain . single family. Thank you . Chairperson Sigel — Thank you . Anyone else wish to speak? Okay. Thank you very much for coming out. Male voice ? — I have a general question about the square footage of the proposed building that he (inaudible) . . . . . . 29 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17, 2006 FINAL MINUTES Ms . Balestra - Virtually every home is the same size . He has a similar style for everything . The materials he submitted said 2 ,400 square feet. Male voice ? — 2 ,400. square feet. That didn't include the (inaudible) . . . . . Ms . Balestra — He doesn't use Mc Pherson Builders to build anything , he builds it all by himself so I don't know where (inaudible) "* . . . . Chairperson Sigel — I think that's just the construction cost. Thank you everyone for coming . Anything else on the record ? Mr. Matthews — I would apologize to Ms . Poole there for even suggesting we shouldn 't listen . Perhaps that Ithaca College ought to come here . That's really what should take place. Ms . Balestra — You know I was that Ithaca College would be here to represent themselves . Mr. Matthews - They are hiding . Mr. Earhart — I have a question , I mean being new but, I know the guy's got more people living in there in those houses and how does that get enforced? I mean know this , but what do I do , a phone call , how do I . . . . . . . Ms . Balestra — You call the Town of Ithaca Building Department and you lodge a complaint. They go and investigate , if they find more people than are supposed to be there , they will send a letter of violation , a notice of violation to the landlord . Ms . Brock — And this has already happened for one of his properties. I think the one where he has three storage rooms right now. He moved three people out because he had a single family house with six unrelated people in it: And he moved three people out this spring . So , I think the Town has only received complaints about one or two of his properties being over occupancy , you know having more families in it than they should . These people need to continue to call , is what needs to happen . Mr. Krantz — I think when the Town case in my area , which is East Hill , when the owner is in a foreign country, the owner has contracts with the right number of students , the students turn around and sublet to other students , so that they are not paying $600 , $7009 $800 per month , they are paying $400 per month , which is very reasonable . The owner doesn't even know what's going on . In the past, when the Town gave them an edict, you know get it down to the right number of people , they gave them to the end of that semester to do it. But what happens is the next school year, a new crop comes in and they turn around and sublet and I know this because I walk that area a lot. Unless somebody in the Town complains and they investigate , which usually the neighbors don't complain , unless they start having all this noise 30 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 171 2006 FINAL MINUTES and these parties and all these things . There is always vehicles in there from five different states . Mr. Matthews — Does this mean that you ' re involved ? Ms . Brock — Wait did you approve minutes? Ms . Hunter — Carrie asked that you initial those . Mr. Krantz — We all find good things I guess in different ways and to me Mr. lacovelli's withdrawing as early as he did and leaving was a class act. Ms . Balestra — I thought it was that he didn 't want to hear what anyone had to say. Mr. Krantz — That's the way you guys look at it, but he saw the lay of the land and he was outta here and I tip my hat for that. Ms . Balestra — Actually Ron , he knew ahead of time what was to be expected and he knew that he was possibly not going to get the use variance and he had prepared all along ' . , he received final subdivision approval for those three lots that you see . His plan was to put three houses on it if he did not get the use variance . Mr. Krantz — Well , once he saw the second board member was not in line with passing this , that when he withdrew. Ms . Balestra — Right, he decided to leave . Male voice ? — Regarding reasonable return , don 't they have to tell us what they are invested into (inaudible) . . . . how can we determine whether it's reasonable return ? Chairperson Sigel — They would need to provide more evidence than . . . . . Ms . Balestra — Right, he has to look the initial investment, the present value , expenses , asking price to be offered for sale , all of that . . . . and then he has to do that . . . he has to show he can 't make a reasonable return on any (inaudible) , it's not just the one that he is proposing and he has admitted it. I put it in the EAF , because he has blatantly admitted . He is allowed to build for students as long as he doesn't exceed ( inaudible . . . . . everyone talking at one) . Right, he didn 't give us that information . I think that is what Kirk was driving at when he said he didn 't think that prong of the test had been met. (everyone talking at once) . . . inaudible . . . . . Ms . Balestra — So we are adjourned . Chairperson Sigel — We are adjourned . All in favor of adjourning . 31 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17 , 2006 FINAL MINUTES Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting. Kirk Sigel , Chairp rson I arrie Whitmor , De uty Town Clerk 32 We support the lacovelli's proposal to increase the occupancy in two homes rather than build four total homes that would actually house more than the twelve total occupants they are proposing . This would lead to much more open space and landscaped areas around the two homes and along Pennsylvania Avenue. We as homeowners in the immediate neighborhood would much prefer this over the alternative of four homes allowed by zoning . Name Address Ao)/ 6wt o i � 2 e2 �1 /1 sY/ VQA % l 15 Pevw I V(A Na Avg 12-9 boe,�J7 or j4 11V L 01 it", We support the lacovelli's proposal to increase the occupancy in two homes rather than build four total homes that would actually house more than the twelve total occupants they are proposing. This would lead to much more open space and landscaped areas around the two homes and along Pennsylvania Avenue. We as homeowners in the immediate neighborhood would much prefer this over the alternative of four homes allowed by zoning. Name Address Page 1 of 3 Dan ! Holford From : Plporter4 @aol . com Sent: Tuesday, July 11 , 2006 1 :40 PM To: Dani Holford Subject: Letter to ZBA Hi Dani , This is the letter from The Neighbors of Ithaca College to the ZBA and a list of problems caused by students renting in the area. Please put them in the board's packet. To : 2006 Zoning Board of Appeals From : The Neighbors of Ithaca College Date : July 11 , 2006 The Neighbors of Ithaca College emphatically say NO to Orlando Iacovelli ' s recent request for increased occupancy in the homes at 110 and 202 Pennsylvania Avenue . This is already a problem area with a high density of young students renting houses. Increased density in any of these rental properties would only exasperate the following issues : 1 . reckless driving, speeding 2 . loud parties that draw hundreds of students from the City of Ithaca and campus 3. destruction of property as students come and go from the parties 4. parking problems 5 . blocked roads that keep the sheriff s department, fire department, and ambulances from getting to the houses at the end of the street in case of an emergency . Even though deputies respond to calls after 11 PM, often it is past 2 AM when they are able to reach the end of Pennsylvania Ave due to the large number of infractions they encounter on the way . 6 . high cost to tax payers. Sheriff Meskill ' s ballpark figure for the stepped up coverage in this neighborhood during the last weeks of class at Ithaca College was $3000/week (cars, gas, and time and a half staff salary expenses) . The Neighbors of Ithaca College is a civic group of sixty families dedicated to insuring a safe, tranquil atmosphere in the area adjacent to Ithaca College in the Town of Ithaca. Due to the recent actions of 7/11 /2006 Page 2 of 3 this group the Town of Ithaca has established the South Hill Citizens Committee and taken swift action to write a new Noise Ordinance to combat some of the problems caused by students living in our neighborhood. Many of us had already planned vacations or trips for July 17 . Receiving notice of the appeal from Mr. Iacovelli only a week before the meeting did not allow for us to change our plans. Although we cannot physically be at the meeting we strongly reject Mr. lacovelli ' s proposal. PROBLEMS CAUSED BY STUDENTS April 24 , 2006 . Taking over the roads when walking in groups at night • entering and sleeping in the wrong house • large/loud parties which disturb neighbors drunkenness . distributing and serving alcohol to minors . vandalism (damaged mailboxes, lawn ornaments, fences) . destruction of security lights, car windows . littering . tire tracks in lawns • urinating on lawns and private property (night and day) • trespassing on private property, all hours of the day and night • excessive noise caused by amplified music • shouting obscenities • broken glass from alcohol bottles 7/ 11 /2006 Page 3 of 3 • garbage littering the rental properties and the town residents • injuries from drunkenness • speeding and aggressive driving • fights, sometimes sounding like domestic. violence • killing pets while driving drunk Thank you, Patty Porter 272-2268 7/ 11 /2006 OF I T� TOWN OF ITHACA 18 21 �•�, � � �4� 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water&Sewer) 273- 1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To : Zoning Board Members From : Christine Balestra, Planner Date : July 10, 2006 RE : 110 and 202 Pennsylvania Avenue —Use Variances for occupancy increase Enclosed please find materials related to the request by Orlando Iacovelli, appellant, for use variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-77 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to occupy an existing home at 202 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54-7-4, and the home under construction at 110 Pennsylvania Avenue (on Lot 2 of the recently approved subdivision of the Lands of Mary and Daniel J. Raponi), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54-7-2, with a maximum of six unrelated individuals in each home, both in the High Density Residential Zone . The proposed occupancy in each home would exceed the number of families permitted to inhabit a dwelling unit in the High Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes use variance requests to the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the occupancy of six unrelated individuals in each of two single-family homes on Pennsylvania Avenue . The current Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Ithaca allows up to three unrelated individuals in a single-family home in the High Density Residential zone, and up to four unrelated individuals in a two-family home. Please refer to the enclosed email from Jonathan Kanter to Larry Fabbroni, dated 3/28/06, for further explanation. Prior to the April 2004 revision, the Zoning Ordinance permitted occupancy increases by special permit in the R-9 zone (now High Density Residential zone), granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This was only applicable in the R-9 district. The ZBA granted 25 special permits for the Pennsylvania Ave, Kendall Ave, and Coddington Road areas between 1985 and 2005 with the findings that the resultant density was lower than what could be (as in the current application). However, many of these special permits resulted in student-style housing and conversions of single-family homes to student rental units. This was, inadvertently, a contradiction of the intent of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, a main housing goal of which was to promote the development of a variety of housing styles and "neighborhoods that are quiet" by "establishing zoning standards, e.g. occupancy standards and usage limits, to minimize the negative effects of dwelling units occupied by students." This applied, in particular, to the areas near Ithaca College and Cornell University, where the likelihood of student-occupied housing units would be largest and would have the greatest effect on surrounding neighborhoods . The Codes and Ordinances Committee and the Town Board recognized this inconsistency and noticed that the character of the south hill neighborhood was changing due to the increase in housing occupancies by unrelated persons . The Town Board revised the Zoning Ordinance to reflect a more appropriate . housing policy to achieve the goal of the Comprehensive Plan (noted above) . The special permit section regarding increase in occupancy was eliminated, thus now requiring appellants to seek a use variance for housing occupancy increases if the number of families occupying the dwelling unit exceeds that permitted in the Zoning Code. Please refer to the criteria for a use variance (on the blue cards at your seat) to assist you in your deliberations on this proposal . Please also see the enclosed Part II environmental assessment attachment that describes the requested variances and other impacts of the proposal Feel free to contact me at 273 - 1747 or email me at cbalestrana,town . ithaca.ny.us with any questions regarding this project. Att. TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N. Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 BUILDING AND ZONING 273-1783 HIGHWAY (Roads, Packs &. Trails, Water & Sewer) 273-1656 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Application for Appearance in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals Fee $ 100 For Office Use Only For office use only CHECK ALL THAT APPLY Property is located within or adjacent to Date Received (o O Area Variance County Ag District Use Variance UNA Cash r Check Not Sign Variance CEA Zoning District Sprinkler Variance Forest Home Historical District Special Approval Requesting an appearance to be allowed to 0 C 0P,X e © C' W IT# AV I N017 OF 6 UW� XelxU a( at 1/0 0 go Z fi NA16ykV ly/9 #/, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nd. a`7 as shown iIp C on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, under Article(s) ,(7Q Section(s) -226.a of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form. , A description of the practical difficulties and Imnessary hardship and/or the Special Approval authorization request is as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary .) By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application. zi:Signature of Owner/Appellant: ( / 1 Date : Signature of Appellant/Agent Date : Print Name Here ORkdN460 aA CQ K`.k, /% Home Telephone Number Work Telephone Number `I OJo J NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will expia. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised. Revised 11 / 14/05 June 5, 2006 Mr. Jonathan Kanter, A/CP Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Variances Tax Parcels 54-7-2, 54-74 Dear Mr. Kanter, Enclosed please find my request to have a use variance that would allow occupancy of the existing home at 202 Pennsylvania Avenue and the home under construction on Lot 2 of the 4-Lot Subdivision Pennsylvania Ave. each by a maximum of six unrelated persons with an off street parking area. This would forfeit the right to build a home on lots 1 & 3 of the 4-Lot subdivision Pennsylvania Ave. The request is simply to have up to 12 individuals in a total of two dwellings with less land coverage and density rather than build a total of four homes where the total number of individuals could be 15 . I believe this would be more in keeping with trend of forfeiting small lots for more relaxed occupancy that has upgraded the housing stock in the neighborhood over the past twenty years. Sincerely, Orlando Iacovelli 347 Coddington Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 272-5647 Information Supporting Use Variance 1 . The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return . Enclosed please find an estimate to build the 2400 square foot home that I have used as a model for the past eight years for $ 285 , 000 . The return on this property by two families or four un related individuals is not sufficient . EXPENSES Debt retirement $ 2493 . 92 principal and interest per month $ 350 . 00 taxes per month $ 125 . 00 maintenance per month $ 2968 . 92 expenses per month INCOME $ 1640 $ 410X4 = $ 1640 per month rent If income could be increase to $ 410x6 = $ 2460 in time with the split of interest and . principal and appreciation the investment would make sense . 2 . The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood . This problem is related to the economics of consolidating lots and thereby reducing density of homes and accompanying support features like total parking spaces , lawns , and walkways . While this was possible under the prior Zoning Ordinance it is not an opportunity that individual properties normally have or could propose . 3 . The requested use variance , if granted , will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . The neighborhood has been improved in housing quality over a twenty year period by similar consolidation of old land tract R - 9 lots and accompanying variances to allow higher home occupancies for a net reduction of lots , homes , and occupants . About 85 % of the neighborhood is rental housing so the character of the neighborhood is very similar to the proposed use . The properties facing the two building proposed would enjoy more green space in the immediate vicinity by virtue of the consolidation of three lots into one and elimination of two homes that could be built in the future . 4 . The alleged hardship has not been self — created . The hardship is the result of two prime factors beyond the control of the applicant . The Zoning Ordinance change in December 2003 changed the conditions under which lots could be consolidated and occupancy of the remaining buildings increased but not to a point that would exceed the occupancy resulting if individual homes on smaller lots were constructed . This made impossible the continuance of a very constructive upgrading of housing stock for twenty years in the Pennsylvania / Kendall neighborhood . This zoning change had a direct negative impact on the economics of forgoing construction on preexisting 50 foot lots or newer 75 foot lots in favor of less building and land coverage with more occupancy of fewer dwellings . The global impacts of building material costs of 9 / 11 / 2001 and the national housing boom have combined to raise the cost of new construction way beyond any cost of living index in the past five years in Ithaca . The economics of building an owner occupied home on the remaining small lots in this lower value neighborhood would only lead to modular construction of poorer material quality . The buildings my brothers and I have stick built in the neighborhood we grew up in are of the highest quality construction and we have removed many substandard homes of the early 1900s in the process. We have greatly improved the housing stock in the neighborhood whether these home continue as rental or transition to owner occupied dwellings in the coming generations . C) '�64 C Orlando lacovelli 347 Coddington Road Ithaca , New York 14850 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be comp feted by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Applicant/Sponsor 2. Project Name opmlv& Y4 V 4F 3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map:) Tax Parcel Number: — Ao 4. Is proposed action: NEW?'�L EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): 0140 � CII /4/,J/ V/ 40 Attach separate sheets if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected: Initial) 0-5 rs &C Acres 6-10 yrps >10 rs) ) Acres 7. How is /Q/✓ nU /V 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes NO' ?L' If no, describe conflict briefly: 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road? YES NO x Public Water? YES NO Public Sewer? YES NO 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential_ Commercial Industrial : Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other. Please Describe: 11. Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local?) YES NO. � If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): Signature and Date: Revised 11 /14/05 PART II — Environmental Assessment: Orlando Iacovelli 110/202 Pennsylvania Avenue Use Variances Zoning Board of Appeals A. Action is Unlisted. B . Action will not receive coordinated review. C . Could action result in any adverse effects on to or arising from the following: Cl . Existing_ air quality, surface or groundwater qualfty or quantity, noise levels existing traffic patterns solid waste production or disposal potential for erosion drainage or flooding problems? No significant adverse effects are anticipated relating to air quality, surface or groundwater water quality or quantity, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, or potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems as a result of the proposed action. The proposal includes a use variance request to the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the occupancy of six unrelated individuals in each of two single-family homes on Pennsylvania Avenue (one home currently under construction) . The current Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Ithaca allows up to three unrelated individuals in a single-family home in the High Density Residential zone, and up to four unrelated individuals in a two-family home, if those individuals meet the definition of "family," per zoning. The appellant is seeking a use variance to increase the use of the two homes, as the occupancy of six unrelated individuals per home exceeds the number of "families" permitted to inhabit a dwelling unit. Both properties are located on the same street in a dense residential area near the City of Ithaca border. The existing home at .202 Pennsylvania Avenue is surrounded by owner-occupied and rental homes on the northeast and southeast sides and across Pennsylvania Avenue . The South Hill Recreation way is located behind the home . The parcel at 110 Pennsylvania Ave is one of three parcels created from a recent subdivision approval received from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. The appellant is constructing a single-family home on the parcel . There are a mix of rental and owner-occupied single- family homes surrounding this parcel and the South Hill Recreation way located behind this property as well. The proposed parking areas appear to be adequate for the allowed and proposed increased occupancy for both homes. There has been a growing concern regarding noise from student parties on Pennsylvania Avenue and the effects of noise on the adjacent and surrounding neighborhood. Ithaca College is located less than a third of a mile up the hill from the properties in question. Pennsylvania Avenue, Kendall Avenue, and Coddington Road (along with other nearby streets located in the City of Ithaca) are documented areas where many Ithaca College students rent, congregate and party late at night and on the weekends. The City and Town of Ithaca recently approved more stringent noise ordinances to mitigate the effects of party noise on adjacent homeowners. It is a concern that increasing occupancies in dwelling units may result in concentrating more student rentals in this already dense area, which might exacerbate existing noise issues. Enforcement by the relevant policing authorities is another major concern in these areas. C2 Aesthetic agriculture archeological historic or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? No agricultural, aesthetic, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources are known to exist on the site or are expected to be otherwise affected by the proposed action. However, the neighborhood and community character of this area has changed considerably in the past 20 years, from predominantly single-family or owner-occupied two-family homes and some rentals . to . approximately 85% rental units . Over half of all the Zoning Board actions on Pennsylvania Avenue in the last 20 years involved granting special permits to increase the occupancy of housing units with increased numbers of unrelated persons. The result has been a change in neighborhood character from an owner-occupied residential neighborhood to a student-oriented rental neighborhood, It appears that this current proposal is similar to previous proposals for occupancy increases that have resulted in the general current character of the neighborhood. C3 Vegetation or fauna fish shellfish or wildlife species significant habitats or threatened or endangered species? None Anticipated. No significant vegetation or wildlife habitats are known to exist on the site or will otherwise be affected. The proposed home sites are currently developed (or under construction) and are surrounded by other residences in a dense residential area. C4 The Town' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of land or other natural resources?' The 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan designates this area as "Urban Residential" and it is zoned High Density Residential . The existing home at 202 Pennsylvania Avenue meets all minimum . setback and size requirements. The home and parking area under construction at 110 Pennsylvania Avenue is technically located on two lots of a three-lot subdivision approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in February, 2006 . The appellant is proposing one home and parking area on two lots, rather than a home for each of the three lots. As noted in CI , the current Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Ithaca allows up to three unrelated individuals in a single-family home in the High Density Residential zone, and up to four unrelated individuals in a two-family home, if those individuals meet the definition of "family," per zoning. A "family" is defined as either an individual or two or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, related or unrelated but living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit. The definition outlines other criteria for establishing whether individuals constitute a family. The appellant is seeking use variances to increase the use of the two homes, as the occupancy of six unrelated individuals per home exceeds the number of "families" permitted to inhabit a dwelling unit (maximum allowable is three unrelated individuals per home fora total of six persons in the two homes; proposed is six per home for a total of twelve persons in the two homes) . The Zoning Ordinance used to allow occupancy increases in the former R 79 District (now the High Density Residential zone) by special permit, granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This appears to have been contradictory to the goals and objectives of the Town Comprehensive Plan, which included promoting the development of a variety of housing styles and "neighborhoods that are quiet" by "establishing zoning standards, e.g. occupancy standards and usage limits, to minimize the negative effects of dwelling units occupied by students." The special permit allowance was eliminated in the Zoning Ordinance revisions of 2004, due to the above inconsistency and concern over the change in the character of the south. hill neighborhood in this area from owner-occupied residential units to a student-oriented rental units with increased occupancies . Appellants are now required to seek a use variance to increase occupancy if the number of families occupying the dwelling unit exceeds that permitted in the Zoning Code, which contains a more stringent set of criteria to meet than the special permit requirements. The currently proposed occupancy increase may continue to change the use of the area, and will increase the intensity of the use per dwelling unit. As noted earlier, it is a concern that increasing occupancies may result in concentrating more student rentals in this already dense area, which might exacerbate existing noise and other issues . CS Growth subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? The cumulative impacts associated with granting approvals for increased housing occupancies over the last several years have changed the character of this area. Each variance approval granted may encourage more proposals for occupancy increases, thus promoting more changes to the character of this area. C6 Long_term short term cumulative or other effects not identified in Cl -05 ? The appellant has stated that he intends to utilize the homes at 110 and 202 Pennsylvania Avenue for student rentals regardless of whether a use variance is granted for increased occupancy. This indicates that the student population on Pennsylvania Avenue may grow regardless of any ZBA action for the current proposal . The Town Board, in its' efforts to continue to promote the health, safety, and general welfare for all the residents on South Hill, may wish to explore other means of noise/property damage enforcement for the area, such as allocating more . funds towards additional police patrol by the County Sheriff' s Department or working with Ithaca College to increase the existing campus security functions . to include patrolling the Pennsylvania/Kendall Avenue area and other known "party" streets near Ithaca College (as Cornell University does in the residential areas adjacent to College town). C7 Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None Anticipated, D. Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? There is existing controversy related to the impacts of noise from student parties on the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The City and Town of Ithaca recently approved more stringent noise ordinances to mitigate the effects of party noise on adjacent south hill homeowners. PART III. — Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and the information above, staff recommends a negative determination of environmental significance for the , action as proposed. However, the Zoning Board of Appeals should recognize the cumulative impacts on the character of the neighborhood that granting such variance requests could have. Lead Agency: Town 'of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: Town of Ithaca Planning Department Staff Review Date : July 10, 2006 CW (7rVWXt7' 3 � a ' r QoNc z MCC) > .-I -< W -0 d � D -Tfrdo-4 d0M > ;Z O p � j -< � ~ rTj > N N r � D 3 r . 2yrq = < �pZ � + > -0 "�1 -Z rq rrl 90 C3 0 ►. LlN < C WnC aZ � mtd O rn r -n0 zr � ��iA W ` > `1 rr; rq �, � x � w = � 0 0 zzrriw ° ° rTl 0 b--, � � ry 0 r Z ,N -i -I r� s ur a w t0 D ID CD m _ lO w IU (YS N D �i w o°cn < o.� �1 LZN� 100 23' 22 977,,7 c� N g ga2V07, 10.62 cS' M9 v CATl N s9 z tv 33.0 0, n C) m �0 \ v Dcl wo bD . r- ru Z 6 � S 500 50 ' • - z —� J N 7 W 40 ' "' w z � 7 %D w v ED cc? w � w 1> CO cn --i o �? ao .� � © � z w ` ro � w H I � N --� N J w D ° 40 ' QD w I— o cn (� v ° Ln w ° IV z bI V W m ru o � S 50 ° 50 '42 "' W 120, 00 ' � z z UP (mil ]> TO Ln cnW H V ° r� z zz -u � m r- < D Z , —� Z 3 D C Z D r t— D ' r ' -< :>—f R) � � Ccb):> ! Z O2 " H � C to > � M —1 ('1 O � -Gy fn � � �1ra -mC � �1jU m � 70 Or � � D3 M m OM N S ZD m C3 " D CD7 x W -< p -o r,3> y n rri Z 0 y D N .-, ►�ry � C WnC1 DZ Z Z M :K Z D .4 m *1 b�dND i0 � O m � _ y C r C M C3 r� 0 © 0 ? mow ro � Z tJ Z -� � f� � A LA o p w D � � VlO 46 a %D off .a w F - N qi \ " lry N w < < 112 za W o © m LA y r v © r N 2g go2g�p7'E110,62` �� +iv CATt 9 i �, APPttdX �' e 33.0 n m r- z z r- 40 ' w z o ONO w o w w 1> oD ° 0o 4116 oo a z M D -I N . w D _ bo LA < m � z C ® ® ® m S 50 ° 50 ' 42 ' W 120, 00 ' �c = z d N ALA w V \ _ H 1 C) ® w 0 0b� T m Z Z Z IA r � ` � D Please note : Parking for 202 Pennsylvania Ave . will be 3 spaces that exist in front of 202 Pennsylvania Ave . and the remainder in the parking lot adjacent to 110 Pennsylvania Ave . Sincere , Orlando Iacovelli McPherson Builders , Inc . 710 Willow Avenue, Ithaca, New York 14850-3215 Ph : (607) 273-2373 • Fax: (607) 273-4908 E-mail: McPBldl907 @aol .com May 30, 2006 To : Orlando lacovelli Re : Quote for New Residence on Pennsylvania Ave, Ithaca NY PROPOSAL we propose the following price to provide all necessary Equipment, Labor, and Materials to construct the 2400 sft house as per drawings titled "House Plans 315 Coddington" by Lawrence P Fabbroni dated February 2, 2005 . With the following clarifications : 1 ) Tubs to be Aquaglass 8966 one piece fiberglass 2) Boiler to be HB Smith 100,000 BTU in , power vented 3 ) Kitchen cupboard allowance of $3 ,000 .00 for material has been included 4) Carpet to be "Hiden Secret" 49 oz P E T polyester cut pile 5 ) Vinyl to be " Forever" .25 mil no wax sheet vinyl Price = $285,600.00 Our quotes include all applicable sales taxes, full insurance coverage including workers compensation, and complete cleanup of debris resulting from the work we performed unless noted otherwise in this proposal . Thank you for the opportunity to quote on this project. Please call if you have any questions . Yo trul Michael Voorheis Building with Quality & Pride Since 1907 l 1 , That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative EEnvironmental at ion of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Short Assessment Form, Parts I and 11, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None, The Motion was declared to be carved unanimously. �IJBEIC�HEARIN0 w' Consideration of reI mina�QandTQ alFSubdiVisior� approvaty for the r s ` `= ` ateyd on �PennsyaAvenue northwest of 116t?ennsyt�an�a dot subdrvis � on loc 4 �1 r �„ 9 1� a e identiat Zone j[ .,��M.d+ .�F `T '�k .� ..wt,"�",ds " =-" .`rf - *' :r�i'# s's''&, 5, avenue Tow,n �of Ithaca axri arcel-t No. r547=2 Hi h Densi . R The proposal involves subdividing the existing +l- 29 , 585 square foot parcel into 3 new building lots with an additional +/- 977 square foot lot to be attached o an adjacent parcel (725 Hudson St.) located in the City of Ithaca . Mary p Owner/Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — Question with regard to the subdivision as proposed ? There are none , You may take a seat. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7 : 10 p . m . and invites members of the public to address the board . Patty Porter, 104 Juniper Drive I am Patty Porter and I live at 104 Juniper Drive , which is south of this property. My main concern is noise coming from Pennsylvania are owner occupied .There l h are ear abl of e properties on Pennsylvania and only 7 of t hem Ithaca College parties . Saturday night, as cold as it was , I was awakened at 1 : 31 a . m . by huge sounds coming from their parties . And well you call the police , sometimes they tell you how many people are at the parties and tn Road down to the end , estimate on end how long it will take for them to go from Codding on Pennsylvania Avenue where there are 4 new properties , 4 properties very close together all rented to students . It is very annoying , even in the cold winter with the me , the issue is windows closed you can hear these pan( f r the and if teyhare called that they only have 3 police that are o call for these parties and they find an infraction and they can arrest someone , two policemen have to take that person to jail leaving only one policeman left who can 't do anything until there is backup in return . So sometimes there parties go on until 4 in the morning and they are shouting obscenities , They are building bon fires . They have loud music. There are women screaassum They are at they will not be owned occupied you allow this subdivision , and I ' m g Y t H 1` properties , then you will have even more dense parrying going on right there at the beginning , which mean the police never get to the end . It is an issue and I don 't think we need to allow any more of these subdivisions . I think we need to do something to give the police backup . I have written to President Williams at Ithaca College . I 've written recently to the Town Supervisor and something needs to be done. Thank you . Board Member Hoffmann — Can 1 ask you , what kind of response have you gotten from Ithaca College representatives about this? Ms . Porter - 1 just wrote the letter this week . Thank you . Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you . Anybody else? For the record , these are my former neighbors . Rob Levitsky, 102 Juniper Drive My name is Rob Levitsky. I also live south of 116 Pennsylvania Avenue . Pennsylvania Avenue is dominated by kids . Each year the noise and music and the drunkenness of Ithaca College students are getting worse . When confronted , they are rude and arrogant. I live on the corner of Coddington and . Juniper Drive . In spring and in September, I have to close my windows . I am sick of it. This is not acceptable. I have been a resident, taxpayer and voter of the Town for 30 years . I do not want more student housing . When does it end ? Where are the people who live on Pennsylvania Avenue? How come they' re .not here? They are the working poor. The non-voter. The forgotten . They are renters themselves . Have you seen the housing on Pennsylvania Avenue? Have you seen the condition of the houses that they live in ? Where does the rights of the developers proceed the rights of the residents? When does it end ? I implore each of you to know and understand our concerns and not grant this approval . . Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you , sir. Board Member Conneman — May I ask a question ? Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Would you take a question ? Board Member Conneman — Have you written or contacted Ithaca_ College? Mr. Levitsky — No , but I have had a meeting with Patty Porter and other neighbors . Board Member Conneman — Okay. I assume that Ms . Porter' s letter reflects your views? Mr. Levitsky — Yes . Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you , Rob . . Anyone else? Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7 : 18 p . m . Board Member Thayer — Unfortunately we can't police it. Chairperson Wilcox - John , do you want to say anything in terms of the powers of this board? Attorney Barney — Well , you are looking at a subdivision and it looks to me like it was a 4-lot subdivision before . This is a piece of property , actually, that is an old , old subdivision that goes back to I think around the turn of the century with 50 foot. What is being asked now is to convert 4 50-foot lots into 3 75-foot lots roughly . So that you are actually reducing the density in that sense . I realize that it is not much of a help to you folks who have to live there and whatever may be built there , but in terms of this board ' s activities , they are basically bound by the subdivision requirements and if somebody comes in with a subdivision that meets the requirements they don 't have a lot of discretion to say no , you can 't do that. Particularly where here , it is actually , technically it reduces the density a little bit, it is even more difficult to say no . I think the issues that you raise are quite properly _ addressed to the Town Board because they are the ones who hire the people to do the enforcement and I know that there has been some discussion from time to time about some assistance to the Sheriffs office and others in trying to do some enforcement of noise and other kinds of activities . So I think you are right to direct a letter to Cathy Valentino and Peggy Williams because they are really the ones that have a voice . Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you , John . Board Member Hoffmann — I am assuming that the problem is not that there are more people living , students or other people , living in each unit than is allowed legally . The problem is that students from elsewhere come to have parties there . Is that right? Ms . Porter — Yes . They fill the streets . It becomes a safety issue . On a Thursday, Friday , Saturday night when the weather is good and the students start moving off campus , you can't drive on Coddington Road . When you have a whole block party, if something were to happen and we needed emergency vehicles at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue , you would be really hard pressed to get through . I think it is a safety issue as much as a noise issue . Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you , Patty. Having lived on Juniper from 1984-2002 , noise is an issue . It comes across open fields . The two people from Juniper Drive live on the north side , if you will of Juniper, which is south of the development and it just comes across . The issue of Coddington Road is related . Students don 't have an easy way to walk downtown . They come down that back entrance off Coddington of IC to Coddington Road . The shoulders are extremely narrow, almost non-existent and frankly at 1 - 1 : 30 in the morning when they are intoxicated and its warm , they are walking up the middle of the road . Some of you may remember that we had a person killed by a cyclist in the evening ; potentially the narrow shoulders may have contributed to that. It' s an on-going problem and it continues to be . Unfortunately, we are put in a j position , as John said , where we are not the Town Board . We are not the elected officials . We have certain powers and duties and responsibilities and we have a proposed subdivision in front of us that meets the zoning ordinance . Board Member Thayer — Do we know if these are going to be single-family developments on these 3 lots? [laughter] Mr . Kanter — That is also a zoning issue . Board Member Thayer — I understand that. I just wondered . Chairperson. Wilcox — Zoning allows . . . doesn 't require owner occupancy. Board Member Conneman — Is there some way this discussion will get to the Town Board ? Will John or . Jonathan take it to them? It seems to me there is an issue here . Chairperson Wilcox — Do we want to in some way bring it to their attention ? Board Member Conneman — We can send them the minutes , of course , but I mean there may be a better way to do that. Mr. Kanter — I did get a copy of Ms . Porter' s letter that was sent to Cathy Valentino so that has already gone to Cathy , although Cathy has not seen the letter yet. Board Member Hoffmann — This is not the first time that we have heard of these problems . I guess they are just continuing . Maybe it wouldn 't hurt for . us to pass on a recommendation to the Town Board that they look into this and see what could be done to help the permanent residents there . Mr: Walker — I know that the Town Board is aware of this . They are going to be more aware of it. Whenever Cathy gets that kind of correspondence it always goes to the Town Board for their information and next week there is another meeting of the Ithaca- City Town Committee with Ithaca College that is looking at different issues in the area and this is one of the hot topics for that committee . I have now been , as supervising the code enforcement division ; I will be attending those meetings . But Pat Leary is one of the Town Board members next week so we will be bringing this up as an issue at that meeting . Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion about the subdivision? You ' re all set in terms of language that may be required in order to guarantee access to the water main that they have to provide? Mr. Walker — We already have a valid . easement across that property and that will go with the new parcel also . Chairperson Wilcox — I think it has to go with lot 3 and that little sliver, that little triangle piece . Mr. Walker — Possibly. Attorney Barney — As a practical matter, has that been recorded ? Mr. Walker — That has been recorded , yes . Attorney Barney — Any conveyance it' s going to be subject to its terms whether it's all in one piece or partly on one and partly on the other. Chairperson Wilcox — Joe , come up for a second . Have you seen the resolution as drafted ? Mr. Allen — Yes , I have . Chairperson Wilcox — And you saw the bit about the . . . because we . can't require consolidation of the small triangular lot in the Town with the lot in the City, the condition that the appropriate deed restriction will be . . . but those two lots will be linked through the deed . There's no issue with that? Mr. Allen — I ' m not opposed to the concept, but to be honest with you I have been pondering somewhat on how to do it. If for example , we cut this table in have and I own both pieces and I got this piece from parry a and this piece from party b , and then I conveyed it to you . by describing it as one piece , its now adjoined and the tax parcel number can be consolidated and cannot be split without your permission: But parcel b I own that I am transferring a to Tagliovento , I don 't own . I ' m not sure how I am going to be able to merge the two . Chairperson . Wilcox — The point is , they can't legally be consolidated into a single lot because you have the City line running there . That is the problem . Mr. Allen — Well , they can be. a single lot, but . . . Attorney Barney — Two different jurisdictions . What I think we are looking for here is a deed agreement either by deed or declaration or something in that nature that says that this property, this sliver , will not be sold independently of the Tagliovento property. Mr. Allen — That is kind of what I had in mind , just put a clause in there subject to the restriction that and whether or not restrictions . . . Attorney Barney — The property , otherwise, the subdivision cannot be approved because that is a substandard lot by a considerable amount. f y Mr. Allen — It is going to be deeded to her with that restriction , but it is never going to be able to be reconveyed out separately anyway. Chairperson Wilcox — We can 't even approve an illegal lot . Attorney Barney — That' s right. I guess the question that I have is , are we hearing there is some resistance? Mr. Allen - Oh , absolutely not. I was just trying to think of a way to do it. Attorney Barney - I assume that this is going to Mr. or Mrs . Tagliovento or both . Mr. Allen — Yes . The agreement is already arranged . Attorney Barney — We are going to need an agreement by them that they sign onto either in the form of the deed that goes to them or some other form that says basically they agree that this is the way it is going to be . Absent that, I think that you probably are not going to see this subdivision map signed . Mr. Allen — No , definitely . The deed definitely would have a restriction that it could not be transferred separately of the parcel being conveyed . Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Thank you . Board Member Howe moves the motion and Board Member Mitrano seconds the motion . Board votes on motion . PB RESOLUTION NOz 2006-023 • Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Raponi 4 Lot Subdivision, Pennsylvania Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 547=2 MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1 . This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed 44ot subdivision located on Pennsylvania Avenue northwest of 116 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54- 74, High Density. Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the existing +A 29, 585 square foot parcel into 3 new building lots with an additional +/- 977 square foot lot to be attached to . an adjacent parcel (725 Hudson St.) located in the City of Ithaca . Mary Raponi, Owner/Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in uncoordinated environmental review with respect to subdivision approval, has, on February 21 , 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on February 212 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a plat entitled "Subdivision Plat — 4-Lot Subdivision Pennsylvania Av. " dated 0142-20062 prepared by . Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P. E. , L . S. , and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 20 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4-lot subdivision as shown on the plat entitled "Subdivision Plat — 4-Lot Subdivision Pennsylvania Av. " dated 0142- 2006, prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P. E. , L. S. , and other application material, subject to the following conditions: a, prior to signing of the subdivision plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, submission of a deed restriction or amended deed, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, attaching by deed the +/- 977. 7 square foot parcel in the Town of Ithaca to City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 113-54 (owner by Tagliavento), and requiring that any future conveyance of the +/- 977. 7 square foot parcel located in the Town of Ithaca would occur only in conjunction with the City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 113-54 (Tagliavento) property, and submission of a final signed copy of said deed restriction to the Town Planning Department prior to issuance of any building permits for any of the lots in this subdivision, and b, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, submission of draft deed language with references that lot 3 and the +/- 977. 7 square foot lot are subject to the Town of Ithaca water main easement shown on the subdivision plat, and submission of a copy of the filed deed prior to issuance of any building permits for any of the lots in this subdivision, and C, submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark-lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally, NAYS: None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Board Member Hoffmann — Its unfortunate , but .I was just thinking since it is right adjacent to the Recreation Way and if problems spill over there when there are parties , maybe the Town would have some possibility of stepping in and doing something . Board Member Mitrano — Its sounds to me like the measures that the first speaker is taking are potentially the most effective . Page 1 of 2 Jonathan Kanter From : . Jonathan . Kanter Sent: Tuesday , March 28, 2006 10: 58 AM To: 'Fabbroni @aol.com' Cc: 'brock @clarityconnect. com'; Dan Walker; Kristie Rice; 'kmsigel @ksx.com'; Chris Balestra Subject: RE: Proposed House on Pennsylvania Avenue Larry: This is a follow-up to our earlier communications. Here are clarifications regarding the two items you mentioned below: (1 ) After further discussion with Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, our preliminary determination is that a proposal to build a house to be occupied by six unrelated individuals on Pennsylvania Avenue (High Density Residential Zone - HDR) would be a "use" variance, not an area variance , because the occupancy would exceed the number of families permitted to inhabit a dwelling unit. The "use" element pertains to the relationship between the individuals, not necessarily the number or density of individuals. If you go back to the Zoning Code definition , a "family" is (a) an individual , or (b) two or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, related by blood , marriage , or legal adoption , living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, or (c) two unrelated persons, occupying a single dwelling unit, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit. If the individuals do not fit into "b" above (which unrelated individuals would not) , the largest number of individuals that could qualify as a family would be two, and they would have to demonstrate that they are living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit. So, even if each individual could demonstrate that they are living and cooking together with another individual as a single housekeeping unit, this would result in at least three families under the above definitions. Looking at it another way, the HDR Zone allows a one-family dwelling to be occupied by no more than ( 1 ) one family, or (2) one family plus no more than one boarder, roomer, lodger,, or other occupant. If the first two individuals can demonstrate that they are living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, then those two plus one additional occupant, would be permitted to occupy the dwelling unit pursuant to the HDR requirements. Any individual beyond those three would each be considered a "family" under the definition referenced above in "a" , thus resulting in as many as four families occupying the dwelling . Notwithstanding the above, the definition of "family" does include a provision in which a group of unrelated individuals numbering more than two may be considered a family upon a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) that the group is the functional equivalent of a family . Sub-sections D , E, and F of the definition of family include the process and criteria for such a determination to be made. Please note that such a determination would have to include a finding by the ZBA, among others, that the group is of a permanent nature and is neither merely a framework for transient or seasonal (including as "seasonal" a period of an academic year or less) living , nor merely an association or relationship which is transient or seasonal in nature (F. 3). (2) Clarification regarding occupancy of a two-family dwelling in HDR Zone: Your observations below are basically correct, except that for each two unrelated individuals occupying each of the dwelling units to be considered as a family under the Zoning definition , each would have to demonstrate that they are living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit. To verify that any two occupants meet this definition , documentation would need to be submitted to the Town demonstrating , among other things, that they are sharing expenses such as food , rent, utility bills and other household expenses , and a statement that they cook together. If the Town were to determine based upon such documentation that the two occupants in each dwelling unit meet this definition of family , then the maximum of four unrelated individuals which you mention below would be permitted to occupy a two family house (two in each unit). If either set of indivuals cannot demonstrate that they are living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, then the definition. of family in "a" above (i.e. , "an individual") would be applied to that dwelling unit. Thus, the total number of occupants permitted in a two-family dwelling in the HDR Zone could be between two and four, depending on the relationship of the individuals as outlined above. Page 2 of 2 I hope that this clarifies these issues. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, 'NY 14850 (607) 273-1747 FAX: (607) 273-1704 email: jkanter @town . ithaca. ny. us -----Original Message----- From: Fabbroni @aol .com [mailto: Fabbroni @aoi .com] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 1 : 58 PM To: Jonathan Kanter Subject: Re : Proposed House on Pennsylvania Avenue John , Thank you for your prompt and thorough reply on my inquiry . One point of clarification is that in addition to combining lots 2 and 3 to achieve an occupancy of six for the proposed home. Lot 1 would be forever empty as part of a request to occupy an existing home with six unrelated persons at 202 Pennsylvania Avenue,just east of the Bush parcel . Your reply touches on a number of changes made to the Zoning Ordinance now in effect that are problematic to the process of modernization that has been ongoing for 30 years in the Pennsylvania- Kendall Avenue neighborhood generally but not exclusively by many members of the lacovelli families who grew up in that area and continue to live in and amongst their investment properties. I will discuss your reply with those whom I represent and they can determine a course of action to discuss with the Town that would address the perceived or real problems directly and hopefully allow their neighborhood modemization to resume . In the interim and for the specific proposal at hand I would like some further clarification as follows: 1 . The determiantion of area variance versus use variance should be addressed now before we prepare the variance application as each requires a distinctly different approach to the appeal. 2 . 1 am confused by your reply as it pertains to the legal occupancy of a two family dwelling as follows: Section 270-77 B permits a two family dwelling with "( 1 ) Each dwelling unit occupied by no more than one family." Section 270-5 defines. a Two-Family Dwelling ='A detached building containing two dwelling units." Section 270-5 also defines a family or "C) Two unrelated persons, occupying a single dwelling unit, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit." A reasonable interpretation of these in combination would permit two unrelated persons in each of two dwelling units in a two family home for a total of four. I am not understanding how you arrive at two total unrelated persons for the entire two family home from what I see. The test for more than two as it relates to seasonal students should have no bearing on the basic two allowed . As I state above I will consult with Mr. lacovelli on the balance of your comprehensive reply and inform you as to how he would like to proceed. Your points of clarification to my followup questions will be necessary as a framework to our submission . Thank you , Larry Fabbroni Wit off T�ompkins, KCounty JUN 19 2006 I` T n N T T ZAN�DEPAiRTMEEN OF PNNING TOWN, OF 121 Ea�st, Co.urrt Street SUiLuiiyG/ZONIi�G 1 Edward C. Marx, AICP Ithaca,aN`e, York 48510 Commissioner of Planning � Telephone (607) 274-5560 and Public Works - Fax (607) 274-5578 June 16, 2006 Mr. Jonathan Kanter, AICP, Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re : Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Use Variance, 110 and 202 Pennsylvania Avenue, Tax Parcel No. ' s 54.-7-2 and 54.-74 Dear Mr. Kanter: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter- community, or county-wide impacts . The Department offers the following comments regarding the proposed project, which are not formal recommendations under General Municipal Law §239 -1 and —m: • The applicant has not provided sufficient justification to warrant the granting of a use variance. • Single family homes would fit better with the character of the existing neighborhood and contribute more to meeting the housing needs of Tompkins County. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C . Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Public Works 110/202 Pennsylvania Avenue ZBA Use Variances July 17,2006 t home under construction at 110 Pennsylvania Ave. ;K home at 202 Pennsylvania Ave. r _ P' #202 #l l n Pennsylvania Ave looking northwest(towards beginning of Pennsylvania Ave) A A J iJ j A _> U p • W .a A A • J U A r,J A rD W A U A A Ji A 0 J A U A -J • LUG W ) C A J A A --1 W F+ N a, p U --1 05 AU A A � A U A A J A � r� W P 0 A A N Ch Ch p U A W A A 1 � lr U !J J U JI A U) h OD U U U ra A A jy (r Ca � J W rh U A A U p ?i A W S A r� • i • • • •