Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2013-07-15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes July 15, 2013 7:00 P.M. Present: Kirk Sigel, Chair, Rob Rosen, John DeRosa, Christine Decker and Chris Jung Absent: Bill King and Ron Krantz Staff Present: Bruce Bates, Director Code Enforcement, Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, Lori Kofoid, Deputy Town Clerk Meeting was called to order at 7:06 pm Appeal of Rod Howe and Mark Pedersen, owners, requesting special approval from Chapter 270-69(B) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to have a second dwelling unit in a building other than the principal building and a variance request from Section 270-70 "Height Limitations" for second dwelling to exceed the 15 ft limitation, located at 126 Judd Falls Rd, Tax Parcel No. 66.-5-14, Medium Density Residential (MDR). Mark Pedersen, Owner was present to answer questions and explain any information necessary. Mr. Sigel summarized that the home historically faced Forest Home Dr. and two neighbors have an approximate placement to their property. The proposal to move the garage will make it compliant with setback, which it currently is not. Mr. Rosen enquired about neighbors support. Mr. Pedersen said there was one neighbor here to speak who was concerned about privacy and they are going to go back to the architect and see if a change can be made to accommodate that concern and another neighbor is more concerned about construction happening during reasonable hours. The garage will be for owner use only and the apartment tenant would have uncovered parking. ZBA RESOLUTION 2013-016 SEAR— 126 Judd Falls Rd TP 66.-5-14, MDR July 15, 2013 Motion made by Mr. Sigel, seconded by Mr. Rosen Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in Part I and II of the environmental assessment form submitted by staff. Ayes: Sigel, DeRosa, Rosen, Decker, Jung Absent: King and Krantz Motion passed unanimously Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing opened at 7:15pm. 1 Robert Mooney, neighbor to the south. He is concerned about privacy because his lot is very small and his only private area is his backyard and the apartment living room will be looking into his house from a distance of 30-40 feet. He is not in favor of it as designed because it would have an adverse effect on his property and resale value in the future due to a lack of privacy. Mr. Pedersen will be discussing with Mr. Mooney how they can possibly modify the design to mitigate this issue. Mr. Rosen asked about the statement in the application that this application is conforming to the Town zoning plan. Mr. Pedersen stated he was referencing the Town's Comprehensive Plan's focus of increasing density in certain areas. Mr. Rosen suggested they attach the garage to the house and increase the mass of the house which would negate the need for a variance. Mr. Bates did not believe the property was large enough and Mr. Pedersen thought it would ruin the integrity of the building. Mr. Pederson also noted there is an easement that would not allow the two buildings being attached. After some further discussion, Mr. Mooney was asked if the privacy issue was abated, would he be against the appeal and he responded that he would because he does not want buildings on either side of him. Discussion followed on possible reconfigurations of the rooms that people commonly look out windows, such as living rooms and bedrooms, but it is a fairly small space and it is hard to imagine not having a window on the side facing the neighbor, and there is the easement that cannot be built on which limits the options of the appellants. Mr. Rosen thought similar appeals have been denied in the past and Mr. Sigel responded that the rules are not as restrictive as in the past and allow for a Special Approval for this type of proposal and the most recent denial was due to the ambiguity of whether the second building would be an accessory building so we did not approve it but in this case it is clear that it will be accessory. Mr. Sigel did think that this is more or less what the Town Code is trying to encourage and this is a one-bedroom apartment and would not increase the number of people on the property significantly. The criteria for a Special Approval were discussed. (Section 270-69 criteria for the Special Approvals) The Board discussed adjourning the appeal to allow for changes to the plans to address some of the issues brought up in the public hearing. ZBA RESOLUTION 2013-017 Adjournment—126 Judd Falls Rd Area Variance TP 66.-5-14, MDR July 15, 2013 Moved by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by John DeRosa 2 That this Board adjourns the appeal of Rod Howe and Mark Pedersen until such time as the applicant submits revised plans and requests the appeal to be placed on an agenda. Ayes: Sigel, DeRosa, Rosen, Decker, Jung Absent: King and Krantz Motion passed unanimously Appeal of Tammy Snyder, owner, requesting an interpretation of Section 270-56 (F) does it mean the keeping of domestic animals in an accessory building only and if interpreted affirmatively, then a request for a variance from 270-56 (F), of the Town of Ithaca Code, to allow domestic animals to roam free range outside an accessory building, located at 662 Five Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No. 31.-1-9, Low Density Residential (LDR). Mr. Bates reported to the board that the appellant did not post the notice of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting regarding her appeal on her property as required by our Code. He went on to say that there is a provision for a waiver of the requirement and Mr. Sigel noted that State law simply requires the publication of the notice. Mr. Bates encouraged the board to waive the requirement of the posting of the sign given that notification by mail is sent to neighbors of the property by his office and the neighbors who initiated the complaints about the property are aware of the appeal being heard tonight. Motion was made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Christine Decker, finding that under Section 270- 237 F, as far as this board can tell, all parties the Board would reasonably anticipate being aware of this matter would be aware of this matter and we therefore waive the requirement of posting of the sign given that neighbors within 500 feet were notified by postal service of the notice of public hearing to their residences. Passed unanimously. Ms. Tammy Snyder was present to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Sigel noted that the first question before the Board is an interpretation of Permitted Accessory Buildings and Uses: Section F: "The keeping of domestic animals in accessory buildings, provided that no such building shall be nearer than 30ft to any lot line or any adjoining owner and further provided that there be no raising of fur-bearing animals or kennels for more than 3 dogs after 6 months old." Town Code Definition of"domestic animal": "Domesticated horses, ponies, donkeys, sheep, cattle, lamas, goats, pigs, duck and geese, chickens, swans, turkeys rabbits, cats dogs or other domesticated animals found to be of a similar nature by the Zoning Board of Appeals, kept and maintained for personal use rather than for commercial uses and not generally available for sale." 3 Mr. Sigel thought it was clear that the animals in question are domestic animals according to our Code so the question is whether the language in the Code reads that they are to be kept at all times in an accessory building; they are never allowed to leave the building. The question about household pets was brought up, and that definition is under household pets. Mr. Sigel noted that no one would reasonably be expected to keep a horse, llama, donkey, etc. in an accessory building all the time. Ms. Jung was confused because she agreed with that and wondered why the Code read that way and Mr. Sigel thought the past Board could not have meant it to be that restrictive. Mr. Bates explained that the limitation is whether it is for personal use or agricultural use, it is a judgment call for the code enforcement office. If you have 50 chickens you have to prove those are for personal use. That is the difference between domestic animals and farm animals. Mr. Rosen thought it was pretty clear when you think of different numbers or different types of animals and what the common sense use is; if you have 6 horses and are boarding 2, that's a business. Ms. Snyder explained that she has two dogs in her home that contracted Lyme disease with one dying from complications of the disease which is very rare for dogs. Mr. Sigel stated that, not to minimize the applicant's issue with her dogs, but the issue at hand is not the tick control for the dogs but whether it is illegal to keep the fowl free roaming. It is a permitted use to have the fowl in this zone, it is the phrase of keeping domestic animals in a building that is in question. The animals do use the accessory building and live in there some of the time as is evidenced by the neighbors complaint not including night time noise problems. Mr. Sigel and Mr. Rosen both stated that they drove by the residence to see if there was a noise issue and there wasn't at that particular time; both added that that does not mean they are not noisy at some point. The code doesn't give any indication of how long animals need to be kept in an accessory building. Is it considered to be "kept in" the accessory building if they spend the night in it. The Code allows the hens and the question is to what degree do you require them to be in the building. Using a horse as an example; do you only allow the horse out of the accessory building certain hours of the day and under supervision? Do you only allow chickens out under supervision? There is no indication within the Code. Mr. Sigel stated that his inclination was that it is very difficult to make a decision on what would be too much. It is normal practice to allow domestic animals to come and go in and out of an accessory building at will. Mr. DeRosa stated that he can understand the concern of the neighbors, but at the same time he reads this section as pertaining to the use of accessory buildings not language that is designed to address the particular animals. He thought this language was made to address what you can do with an accessory building not what you can do with fowl. If there is something that would prohibit keeping these animals, he didn't read this section as pertaining to that. Mr. Sigel agreed. Mr. Bates stated that he has cited people in the past by interpreting this to mean to maintain animals in accessory buildings and it hasn't come to the Zoning Board because they have complied but the applicant is challenging the interpretation by the Code Department. 4 A discussion ensued regarding whether the expectation is that all the domestic animals listed are expected to be kept in an accessory building 24 hours a day 365 days a year, is this reasonable or appropriate. It was noted that our Code is permissive in nature and if the words "in accessory building" were not there, the interpretation would be they are definitely allowed. The question is whether inside or inside/outside. Mr. Sigel's concern is that it does not make sense that a domestic animal must be kept inside 24/7. That essentially makes having them prohibited. Mr. Bates noted that when it is agricultural use, there are conditions such as size of lot that control whether you have the animal or not. The board discussed the inconsistency in the code regarding the various zoning districts and what is allowed and not allowed. It seems to be inconsistent that in a Medium Density Residential area a Special approval and variance would need to be acquired in order to keep the animals. Again using the horses, Mr. DeRosa asked if there was anything in the Code other than this one sentence, that would prohibit someone in this zone to keep horses. Mr. Sigel said there was not, although this sentence would imply the horse would need to be inside at all times which is not realistic. The lot size requirements in the other zones are defined and helpful and would have been helpful in this zone. Right now it is allowed by right. Mr. Sigel opened the Public hearing at 8:16 pm. Laurene Gilbert, 656 Five Mile Dr. which is two properties from Ms. Snyder's property. Ms. Gilbert clarified that she had no complaint about the hens and there has been no problem for years and the neighbors thought they were cool. When the roosters showed up, that was mildly annoying but not bad. But the guinea fowl put us over the top. That is what did it. She played an audio of what the birds sound like. Ms. Gilbert provided a 1 minute recording of guinea hens and read from a letter which indicated timeframes for the sounds. She also addressed the deer tick problem noting that it is not unique to her yard and the applicant's solution of the guinea hens has created a problem and changed the neighborhood character and the applicant's statement that this is a noisy neighborhood is not true as well as her statement that most people work during the day and are not around to be bothered. The board discussed whether guinea hens fit the description of domestic animals since they are not specifically listed and Mr. Bates noted that there is a "similar to" statement in the definition. Discussion followed. The Board could not get away from the fact that the allowed use by common sense implies they do not have to stay inside 24/7 and seems directed at the accessory building itself. Bridgett Shipman, lives across the street two houses down on the other side. She pointed out that there are two roosters and other chickens down the road and this ruling would impact them. On the other side of the cemetery is a donkey and horses that don't live inside which have been there for a very long time and would be impacted by the decision made here. She also pointed out that there is the school district bus garage that creates a lot of noise, more so 5 than the hens and the trucks from the public works department going throughout the day does not make for a quiet neighborhood. Ms. Gilbert rebutted that when the house was purchased, the above noises were a part of the neighborhood and known to them. The guinea hens were not. The Town noise ordinance was discussed and that is not an avenue to regulate noise from animals other than dogs and in the instance of dogs, it refers you to a different section. The noise ordinance that deals with human noise and dog noise is under the NYS law. Ms. Brock noted there is a generic statement about causing noise, but not specifically directed to animals. Chris Jung expressed that she knew both Ms. Gilbert and Ms. Snyder from work and from a volunteer organization. Ms. Brock stated that she does not think this intermittent contact rises to the level requiring recusal. Ms. Jung felt it does not present a conflict of interest because she does not have current contact with either of them and felt she could be impartial. Mr. Sigel moved that this board make the interpretation of Section 270-56F that when it states "the keeping of domestic animals in accessory buildings" that that means the animals are allowed to exist outside of the building(s) for some portion of the day. In this case the fact that the chickens and guinea fowl sleep within the building at night meets the language and intent of the code. Discussion followed about if the Board could put conditions on the interpretation or parameters for use of the building by the animals. Mr. Rosen stated that this section could simply be read as language that is explaining a way in which you can use an accessory building on your property; so if you have an accessory building, and you would like to keep chickens in it, you can do that, subject to the rest of the language but he did not read this to say: If you want chickens, you need to go build an accessory building because that is required. You can argue that that is not what this says; the first clause "the keeping of domestic animals in accessory buildings"just as a permitted use. Mr. Sigel argued if that were not allowed, then there is nothing that says you can have domestic animals; if there is no accessory building, then there is nothing that says you can have domestic animals. The only way you get them is to have the accessory building. Mr. Rosen said that went back to his original question. Is the lack of language allowing one to have animals or can you only have animals because of this. Mr. Sigel responded you could only have domestic animals because of this because if it doesn't appear as a permitted use, you can't do it. Mr. Rosen said he still thinks that you can't require someone to keep a domestic animal inside all the time. ZBA RESOLUTION 2013-018 Interpretation of Section 270-56 (F) Keeping of Domestic Animals July 15, 2013 Moved by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Christine Jung 6 That this Board makes the interpretation of Section 270-56 F, that when it states "the keeping of domestic animals in accessory buildings" that that means animals are allowed to exist outside of the building or buildings for some portion of the day and that in this case, the fact that the chickens and guinea fowl sleep in the building at night meets the language and intent of the Code. Ayes: Sigel, DeRosa, Rosen, Decker, Jung Absent: King and Krantz ZBA RESOLUTION 2013-019 Referral to Town Board for Review Interpretation of Section 270-56 (F) Keeping of Domestic Animals July 15, 2013 Moved by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by John DeRosa Resolved that this Board refers the materials and minutes of this meeting to the Town Board for review to see if they feel there needs to be a change either to the Zoning or Noise Ordinance regarding the keeping of domestic animals in residential zones. Ayes: Sigel, DeRosa, Rosen, Decker, Jung Absent: King and Krantz Continuation of the adjourned appeal with plan revisions, of ICS Development Partners Inc, owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-158 "Permitted Principle Use" to be permitted to convert a current office building into a mixed office, restaurant and a bank ATM drive-through, and a variance from 270-164 "Yard regulations" to increase the non- conformity of the front yard, located at 930 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 40.-3-9.2, Industrial Zone. Mary Russell, Attorney for Mr. Gumpta, spoke for the project and owner. Ms. Russell gave a history of the project to this point. In response to concerns raised regarding the initial concept they are presenting a new concept plan. Ms. Russell then focused on the Board's request for more information on the uniqueness of the property. (Attachment 1). Scott Withiam presented the new proposal which eliminated the restaurant drive thru which seemed to be the most unwanted piece of the proposal. By removing the drive-thru we have also decreased the amount of pavement and increased the vegetation and buffer area between this project and the residential area. Mr. Withiam used the map to point out how the layout of the area informs the character of the area which makes this site unique from the other building uses in the neighborhood. The board discussed the new plan and Mr. Sigel listed criteria for a Use Variance which must all be met. Mr. Sigel noted that the County GML recommends not approving the appeal because it is not a permitted use and therefore should not be allowed which means a supermajority is 7 needed by this Board. Mr. Rosen stated that this plan has addressed his concerns with the elimination of the drive-thru restaurant and he is sympathetic to the hardship of finding an industrial use for this property. Ms. Russell noted that they had also requested retail as an option which was allowed in the previous Use Variances granted over the years and because that was not listed on the advertisement of the appeal, her client would have to come back for a modification of the use variance if granted. The Board discussed this and felt that retail use would actually have less of an impact than a restaurant and a modification can be requested when a tenant is found. The SEQR form was discussed and references to the drive-thru were deleted and the word "cafeteria" was changed to "restaurant" and the amount of acreage affected was adjusted to .8 acres throughout the timespans listed. Other approvals will be needed by the Planning Board and those changes were made. ZBA Resolution No. 2013-020, SEQR Determination for Use Variance ICS Development Partners Inc 930 Danby Rd, TP#40.-3-9.2 July 15, 2013 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by John DeRosa RESOLVED, that in regard to the appeal of ICS Development Partners Inc, owner, requesting a variance on the property located at 930 Danby Rd, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in Part I of the environmental assessment form, and for the reasons stated in Part II of the environmental assessment form, both as modified by this board tonight. Ayes: Sigel, DeRosa, Rosen, Decker, Jung Absent: King and Krantz Motion passed unanimously The public hearing was opened at 9:22 p.m. and closed without comment. ZBA Resolution No. 2013-021, Use Variances ICS Development Partners Inc 930 Danby Rd, TP#40.-3-9.2 July 15, 2013 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Rob Rosen RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of ICS Development Partners Inc, Owner, requesting variances from Chapter 271-158, Permitted Principle Use to be permitted to convert a current office building to a mixed office/restaurant/and bank ATM drive-thru located at 930 Danby Rd, TP 40.-3-9.2, Industrial Zone 8 With the following Conditions 1. That the restaurant location is completely within the existing building except for the possibility of outdoor seating and that the ATM drive-thru location be substantially similar to the proposed location on the plans submitted by the applicant to this Board. With the following Findings 1. That the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship, such demonstration including all of the following: That the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return without the requested variance as shown by competent financial evidence. The applicant has shown that for the past two years the applicant has attempted to rent the property for an allowed use of either office space or industrial use and has not received any interest from any potential clients. 2. That the alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. As the applicant has pointed out, there are only two owners of industrially zoned property in the Town, one of which is quite large, over 90 acres and this property, which is less than 1 acre, giving the applicant little flexibility in meeting the needs of an industrial user. 3. That the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood given that this is along a busy state route and there are other commercial enterprises nearby including other restaurants. 4. That the alleged hardship has not been self created as the owner has owned this property for many years and that the nature of the area has changed over the years and has diminished the need for industrial uses and office space of this size and that that situation is not self-created. Ayes: Sigel, DeRosa, Rosen, Decker, Jung Absent: King and Krantz Motion passed unanimously ZBA Resolution 2013- 022, Area Variance ICS Development Partners Inc 930 Danby Rd,Tax Parcel No. July 15, 2013 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Chris Jung RESOLVED, to grant the appeal of ICS for a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-164, Yard Regulations, to increase the nonconformity of the front yard located at 930 Danby Rd,TP 40.-3-9.2, Industrial Zone 9 With the following Conditions: 1. That the encroachments in the required front yard be substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this Board tonight and with the requirement that the canopy be no more than 15 ft above grade. Findings 1. That the benefit to that applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically, that the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve which is that of constructing a covered ATM drive-thru lane cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the entire building is located within the required front yard setback and the applicant wishes to have the canopy attached to the current building. 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character and nearby properties given that this is a busy state route with a number of other commercial uses in the area 3. That the request is not substantial given the existence already of the main structure within the required front yard setback 4. That the request will have no adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in the Environmental Assessment Form 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that it is the applicant's desire to add this feature to the property, but that nevertheless, the benefit outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Ayes: Sigel, DeRosa, Rosen, Decker, Jung Absent: King and Krantz Motion passed unanimously Other business: Ms. Brock explained that next month a renewal for an existing mining permit out on Mecklenburg Rd will be coming before the Planning and Zoning Boards for an extension and Type I SEAR action for a coordinated review is needed and the proposal is for the ZBA to be the lead agency. ZBA Resolution 2013—023 Lead Agency Intent Rancich Gravel Excavation TP 27.4-14.2 Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) Moved by Kirk Sigel, seconded by John DeRosa 10 Whereas, 1. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is considering Special Approval and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed continued use of the existing gravel mine located on the north site of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79),Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27.4-14.2, Agricultural Zone. The project involves a request to continue the mining operation on a portion of the property for an additional 10 years. The project was previously approved in 2002, 2005, and 2008 with the 2008 approval expiring on August 31, 2013. No changes to the existing operation are proposed. John Rancich, Owner/Applicant, and 2. The proposed actions, including Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan and Special Permit approval by the Planning Board are Type I actions pursuant to Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, thereby requiring the submission of a Full Environmental Assessment Form and coordinated review, and 3. A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 and additional application materials have been submitted by the applicant for the above-described action, Now therefore be it resolved, That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals herby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed development, which will require Special Approval, Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, along with other actions that may be taken by involved agencies in conjunction with the proposal described above, and Be it further resolved, That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Building Department within thirty days from the date of notification of the involved agencies. Ayes: Sigel, DeRosa, Rosen, Decker, Jung Absent: King and Krantz Motion passed unanimously Mr. Bates noted that the Planning Board will be doing a presentation on the changes to the SEAR process and he asked if the Board would like to have the same presentation or members could attend the Planning Board meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. Approved by Kirk Sigel, Chair 11 ATTACHMENT#1 MEMORANDUM TO: The Members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Mary Russell, Attorney for ICS Development Partners, Inc. (ICS) and Mr. Om Gupta DATE: June 24. 2013 RE: Further Information regarding South Hill Complex Background At this Board's April meeting, our requests for variances were adjourned and we were requested to return with further information regarding uniqueness and neighborhood character. This memo will address unique circumstances and Scott Whitham's presentation will address neighborhood character. The South Hill Complex property has been through two previous site plan approvals in 1992 and 1995 that allowed restaurants,bars and retail space up to 25,000 sq. ft. with a total amount of buildable floor space of 37,000 sq. ft. This use variance application is a request to convert a very small area consisting of one floor of the existing building or 2,500 sq. ft, into restaurant or retail space. Unique Circumstances A demonstration of a unique circumstance is one of the statutory requirements for a use variance and requires a showing that the alleged hardship "does not apply to a substantial portion of the district" Town Law Section 267-b (2)(b). The hardship is unique because the lot size is very small, 0.78 acres and nonconforming. The lot size current minimum is 2 acres. It is a pre-existing legal lot with a legal structure that was made nonconforming due to changes in the zoning law to lot and yard dimensions. The nonconformity of the lot and current building do not provide the flexibility to expand or change it to attract industrial or other types of uses allowed in the Industrial Zone. This circumstance does not apply to a substantial portion of the district. There are currently only two owners in the Town's Industrial Zone, the owners of the very large, approximately 92 acre Emerson property and ICS Development Partners, Inc. The owners of the Emerson property do not have same limitations on their property's potential for accommodating industrial uses or for change and future growth that are causing hardship for ICS. Hardship To repeat information that was in the original variance application: the applicant has had no offers to rent the space in the two years the property has been on the market; the vacant space in the building has caused the applicant significant,unnecessary hardship, and; the difficulty in renting the space is exacerbated by business competition from South Hill Business Park, the large, flexible office complex immediately next door that has received property tax abatement. Please note that the submission of the applications for the requested variances is not intended to adversely affect,prejudice or negate any approvals, permits, authorizations and/or other rights that the applicant believes it may have as previously granted by the Town and/or any other involved agencies, and the applicant/appellant reserves all of its rights related thereto. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SIGN-IN SHEET DATE: July 15, 2013 (PL EA SE PRINT TO ENSURE A CCURA CY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTAI)C)PESS/AFFILIATION 930 10-kU f U AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) I, Lori Kofoid, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca,New York. That on the 3`d day of July 2013, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the following Tax Parcel Numbers: 126 Judd Falls Rd,Area Variance and Special Approval 12 The Byway Living Trust Carol Bender Judith Bemstock&David Gross 427 N. Cayuga St 8011 Split Oak Dr 122 Judd Falls Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Bethesda,MD 20817 Ithaca,NY 14850 Arthur&Donna Bloom John &Cynthia Bowman John&Atricia Clark 118 Judd Falls Rd 117 Judd Falls Rd 101 Forest Home Dr Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 John&Valeria Coggin Cornell University Marian Cutting 1113 Glenwood Heights Rd PO Box DH 10 The Byway haca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14853 Ithaca,NY 14850 Donald Edwards Julia Finkelstein & Magnus Fiskesjo&Zhen Zhang 10 Bush Ln Saurabh Mehta 140 Forest Home Dr Ithaca,NY 14850 105 McIntyre PI Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Claudia Fuchs James Haldeman Ming He&Yu Fu 137 Judd Falls Rd 6 The Byway 116 McIntyre PI Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ronald Hoy&Margaret Nelson Judith Kellock Michael Kotlikoff&Carolyn McDaniel 124'/2 Judd Falls Rd 110 Judd Falls Rd 11 The Byway Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Jonathan Latham&Allison Wilson Aaron&Lindsay Lavine Stephen Lee 128 Judd Falls Rd 107 Forest Home Dr 116 Judd Falls Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Mary Booth Johnson Family Trust Ann McAdams Jonathan Miller&Rebecca Nelson 111 Tudor Rd 2 The Byway 4 The Byway Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Robert Mooney Robert&Elizabeth Mueller Mark Pedersen &Rod Howe X24 Judd Falls Rd 20 The Byway 126 Judd Falls Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 7/15/13 Elizabeth Sanders &Richard Bensel Roger&Helen Spanswick Brent&Susan Stephans 16 The Byway 111 Judd Falls Rd 145 Forest Home Dr Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Wayne Stokes Dalya Tamir&Ian Shapiro Daniel Thompson &Brett Gold 4 Lakeview Dr 4088 Garrett Rd 46052 nd Rd N Lansing,NY 14882 Ithaca,NY 14850 Arlington, VA 22203 Klaas VanWijki& Richard&Lars Washburn Giulia VanWijk-Friso 112 Judd Falls Rd 108 McIntyre PI Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 662 Five Mile Dr,Use Variance Micheryl Blake Donn Carroll Catholic Cemetery Association 720 Five Mile Dr 651 Five Mile Dr 113 N. Geneva St Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Denmark Development Inc Laurene Gilbert Ithaca City School District 407 Wyckoff Ave 656 Five Mile Dr 400 Lake St Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Melanie Claire Mallison Edward and Brigid Shipman Tammy Snyder 658 Five Mile Dr 681 Five Mile Dr 662 Five Mile Dr Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Jeffrey and Diane Sweet Stacy Wright 691 Five Mile Dr 6045 Stillwell Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 930 Danby Rd,Area and Use Variances Emerson Power Transmission ICS Development Partners Ithaca College 7120 New Buffington Rd 930 Danby Rd 953 Danby Rd PRW 322 Florence, KY,41042 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca Estates Properties Jane Ames Grantor Trust Maria&John Poulos 123 King Rd East PO Box 460 924 Danby Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Sanford Reuning South Hill Business Campus Peter&Patricia Stage Franklin Butler 950 Danby Rd 923 Danby Rd 929 Danby Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 2 /affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 7/15/13 Sunom,Inc John Dix Wayman 930 Danby Rd 917 Danby Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York. Lori Kofo d,Deputy Towj Cl rk Town of Ithaca C?M-1 Sworn to before me thiday of July 2013. r- otary Public Debra DeAugistine Notary Public•State of New York No.01DE6148035 Qualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires June 19,20 3 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Lori Kofoid, being duly sworn, say that I am the Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: O ADVERTISEMENT O NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ''1 �l��t!% i7���;i rr J/rrr�i ��l�rl� f rr rJ r rr %�J rl�y� r rr Fr fii r r 3 "Momm,WINMt urn created h 1 certain ment Partners Inc, owner, i Ki Dsu lara0611 r ablishing a requesting a variancefrons i iT, plan for coo ominium y ' the requirements of Chap"i ership oft land and uld-,ter 270-158 Permitted 11),Ings uprising the principle nae"to he perast-,I Seenn';Park C dornini-"ted to convert a current of-i. q um (h rekiafter ,alled!the Nce building-into a mixed of=r "Unit', record.d onthe free,restaurant and a hank, It 2511 day of O tober,Mine-ATM drive-through, and as" n to 1 Hundre and Seve ity variance from 270164" Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: NI a in th office a,the"Yard regulations' to in- Clerk of he Cou y of crease the non-conformity Town Clerks Office Tompkins State f New of the front yard,located at York 215 North Tioga Street k in bar 573 f Deeds 930 Danby Fid Tax Parcel at Pa , 1989, and floor No. 40.-3-9.2, 'Industrial Ithaca NY 14850 inane riled artc t pane. , thore Itlr Cwt ch De�eel ara- - tion us,file pursuant to,Bruce,W,Bates Article 9:8 of the Heal Diri,atorof Code ement Date of Posting: July 3, 2013 of Property w of the Mate 607-2 3.178 of New o%,a;lso cmc-607-273.1783 times kn tGoudo- minium. ct of tf,Stgl of Dated:July 2,2013 Date of Publication: July 5, 2013 New ork, lauded byln!tbed Jn5t °' TOWN OF ITHACA` " ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS i NOTICE OF PUBLIC` r" HEARINGS t, Monday July 15,2013, 215 North Twoga a" on ofoid Street,Ithaca t Deputy Town Clerk 7:00PJvt k Appeal of,Rod Howe and F Mark Pedersen, owngrls;'i requesting ispecial approval f from Chapter 270.69(6)of-( STATE OF NEW YORK) a,e ave a of Ithaca elfin, to have a snaalyd rJweUrrg,i COUNTY OFTOMPKINS) SS: theprt in abuilbui°nganda • ilia principal building and a d TOWN OF ITHACA) van 270 mount frail,ser;.i bean 270.7 "Height Llrriita-'4 tions',for second dwelling, to exceed the 15 It rits. P tion, located at 126 Judd Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of Falls Rd, Tax Parcel No. rr�� 66,-5.14, Medium Density- . ResidentialWDR), 2013. Appeal of Tommy Snyder, I owner,requesting an inter l pretation of Section 270=56' (F)does it mean the keep-; j ing of domestic anlrnals In, yan accessory building,only f Notarand eted vary nae from 270-56,F), y Public tel thena1requestRfora (, of the; Town of Ithaca' Code, to allow domestic' animals to roam free'rafigo outside an accessory buildr Debre DeAugistine ing, located at 662 Five' Notary Public-state of New York Mile or, Tax Parcel No,, No.01lJE6148035 31.-1-9,Low Density Reel oualified in Tompkins County dachas(I-DR). My Commission Expires June 19,2 Continuation, of thg' jiaufna�,�Ppoftly�lthplarant� soca, ro-I ,0�veCap.' %F