Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2013-11-25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes Monday November 25, 2013 Present: Kirk Sigel, Chair; Bill King and Rob Rosen Alternates: Christine Decker Absent: John DeRosa and Chris Jung Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, and Lori Kofoid, Deputy Town Clerk Appeal of Devon Buckley, owner, requesting "Special Approval" per Chapter 270-69 (C) "Keeping of Domestic Animals" of the Town of Ithaca Code, and if allowed, would need a variance for (1) keeping domestic animals on a lot less than two acres in size and (2) in a building closer than 30 feet to the lot line of an adjoining owner, located at 104 Ridgecrest Rd, Tax Parcel No. 45.-1-3, Medium Density Residential (MDR). Devon Buckley was present to answer questions and discuss the appeal. Mr. Sigel summarized saying that Ms. Buckley has a chicken coop about 10-12 feet from the neighboring property line which she is requesting be allowed to leave there and have up to 10 chickens in. Mr. Rosen asked about the complaint and how the issue came to the appeal process. Ms. Buckley responded that a neighbor complained because the chickens were roaming free and they would occasionally breach the boundaries of his property. She added that Ms. Buckley works from home so she is able to get the chickens back on their property when they wander. Mr. Sigel noted that it would be better if the coop were placed further from the property line of the neighbor that made the complaint. The lot is just over '/z an acre. Mr. King asked whether there could be another location for the chicken coop on the property and Mr. Sigel explained that the lot is just over '/2 an acre and the further you go back on the lot, the more room there is and that the coop could be placed in the meadow in the back property in the middle which would allow almost 30 feet on either side. Ms. Buckley agreed that the back yard would be a better location but stated that unfortunately, they put the coop in cement with rebar and it would be very difficult to move it now. Mr. Rosen mentioned that he knows someone in the city that has chickens under an educational use but that is not available in the town. The public hearing was opened at 7:15pm. Tracy Mitrano, 21 Chase Ln Ms. Mitrano is a neighbor and stated that she is not in favor of granting the appeal because the chickens crow from 4:30 in the morning until 7 at night non-stop and it is not appropriate for the type of neighborhood they are in which is why there are restrictions against it. She noted that although an exception 1 or variance could be made, when you look at the larger picture, the kind of environment with constant crowing is the larger picture and perhaps why the rules exist in the first place. There is a general unruliness and misalignment of the overall environment in which one lives and enjoys their home and peace and quiet. She added that if the noise was occasional it might be charming but this summer when she was outside painting her house it was incessant. This would not just be a boundary adjustment here or there or moving the coop here or there, this vote will be determining the overall consistency of a residential neighborhood environment and she asked the board to consider that seriously when they make a decision. Mr. Rosen asked Ms. Brock whether this would be setting a precedent for another residence in an MDR zone. Ms. Brock explained that each case is looked at individually and if there is a particular setup that might be unique and might mitigate the impacts in one situation and not in another the answer would be no but if you don't find anything particularly unique in this situation where you think the impacts could be somewhat mitigated then it would be difficult to justify a different outcome if a similar appeal would come before the board. An anonymous resident of Danby spoke and stated that it sounds like this has now turned into more of a noise ordinance issue instead of an issue with the chickens. He wondered if there was a way to cut down on the noise instead of focusing on the lot size because even if she had 10 acres the noise would be the same. Mr. Sigel responded that was a good point in that as long as the set back was met the chickens could be there. Ms. Mitrano spoke again saying that if an individual chooses to purchase property next to a large lot, such as a 10 acre lot, then they are probably assuming they are in a different type of zone that would allow different uses that would probably allow chickens and other animals that make noise, although she added that she is not aware of another animal that makes noise all day long. She stated that she chose to live in a neighborhood where everyone's lot is relatively small because they are beneath the level that would allow this type of thing. She was looking for a certain consistency in a neighborhood and therefore she was not assuming the risk that she would have chickens crowing and cackling all day long in her neighborhood so she did not think it was the size of the lot but rather taking the entirety of the whole neighborhood into consideration. Small lots in a residential neighborhood are not expecting agricultural uses. She reiterated that she is sympathetic to the family and educational uses but the area of the neighborhood is not consistent with keeping chickens and not what the neighborhood thought would be allowed or they would have to deal with. There was no one else wishing to address the board at this time. Mr. Rosen asked if there was a rooster and Ms. Buckley stated that they do have one rooster and that the chickens and rooster do crow throughout the day for periods of time. She added that the rooster was hatched there and was her son's birthday 2 present as well as being a part of an educational lesson she uses for teaching nutrition. She stated that moving Sapphire would be an emotional issue for the children at the school and her own children. Mr. Sigel stated that he is finding the situation difficult because he is sympathetic to the neighbor because it is a fairly dense neighborhood and if you read the zoning and it only allows chickens on a lot of 2 acres and you look around you would assume since there are no 2 acre lots there would be no chickens. The board discussed the possibility of letting the rooster go as a condition which would be a mitigation to make it quieter but there was the concern about other properties like this in this neighborhood as well as others in the town and precedents. The ordinance is written in such a way that the authors really didn't intend for chickens to be in these neighborhoods and in fact, the only mention of varying the 2 acres in the ordinance is the assumption that it may need to be larger which gives the board an out if someone came with just 2 acres and taking into consideration the neighbors' opinions so clearly the intent is not to allow chickens. Ms. Buckley asked about the difference between dogs and chickens and Mr. Sigel responded that a domestic pet is an animal kept inside and a domestic animal is one that is kept in an accessory building such as a coop. The Board discussed how the ordinance would apply if there was no accessory building and the special approval that would allow chickens without a building would still fall back on the 2 acre minimum. Mr. Sigel went through the criteria a. through I. of the special permit which seemed to be not met in this case. The impacts on the neighborhood would not be mitigated. Mr. Rosen stated that this does seem to be the type of nuisance the authors of the law intended to protect against. Ms. Decker stated that she was concerned about the small size of the lot noting that she had lived in Danby with a ten acre lot next to her with chickens and they were in fact very noisy. Mr. Sigel stated that the more he looks at the requirements that would need to be met, the more he finds that this is not an appropriate variance to allow. Mr. Sigel closed the public hearing at 7:37pm. Mr. Sigel stated that it does not seem that the criteria can be met and the board cannot consider that the applicant already has the chickens and there is no real basis for finding an exception to all the requirements. He stated that the applicant could withdraw her appeal or the board could move forward with a motion to deny. Ms. Brock and Mr. Sigel discussed procedurally the order in which the motions should be taken resulting in the following resolutions: 3 ZBA Resolution No. 2013 — 032: Area Variance 104 Ridgecrest Rd, TP 45.-1-3 MDR November 25, 2013 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Christine Decker. Resolved that this Board denies the appeal of Devon Buckley requesting a variance to allow the keeping of domestic animals on a lot less than 2 acres in size located at 104 Ridgecrest Rd, Tax Parcel No. 45.-1-3, Medium Density Residential Zone, with the following: Findings: 1. That the benefit to the applicant will not outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare to the community, specifically, that an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties will take place by virtue of the noise produced by the chickens, which noise can be heard on a number of nearby properties given the small size of the applicant's lot, and 2. that the request is substantial being a reduction from 2 acres to approximately 2/3 of an acre and 3. that the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects by virtue of the noise produced by the chickens, and 4. that the alleged difficulty is self-created because the applicant did acquire and site the chickens on her property. 5. the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible by the applicant; the only way the applicant could keep the chickens is by granting this variance. Vote: Ayes — Sigel, Rosen, King and Decker Nays: None ZBA Resolution No. 2013 — 033: Special Approval 104 Ridgecrest Rd, TP 45.-1-3 MDR November 25, 2013 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Rob Rosen Resolved that the special approval be denied because one of the requirements of the special approval, that the lot be at least two acres in size, is not met and the request for a variance from that requirement was denied by this Board. Vote: Ayes — Sigel, Rosen, King and Decker Nays: None 4 Appeal of Yunis Properties, LLC, owner, requesting an area variance per Chapter 270-135 (E), "Density Limitations", of the Town of Ithaca Code, to place a drive- through restaurant closer than the allowed 1500 feet of the property boundary line of an existing restaurant with a drive-through facility, located at 302 Pine Tree Rd, Tax Parcel No. 62.-1-2.1, Community Commercial (CC). Timothy Buhl, Project Engineer was present to answer questions and discuss the appeal. His primary job was to pull the information together for the packet given to the board for this appeal. It was clarified that the narrative has been provided and read by board members. Mr. Buhl thought the narrative was pretty complete and stated he would be happy to answer questions. Ms. Decker asked a question about previous appeals involving Dunkin' Donuts and how they have been told that the drive-throughs are not allowed. Ms. Brock explained that the other two appeals were in zones that did not allow them at all but the one today does allow them but with a certain distance of separation between them. The Burger King is allowed to be there but this applicant doesn't meet the distance from that drive-through to the property that they want to put in the Dunkin' Donuts drive- through. The proximity is what is triggering the issue. Mr. Rosen stated that he takes issue with the point that was made in the narrative that a restaurant cannot operate without a drive through when there are many successful businesses in the area that do not have drive-throughs. Mr. Buhl explained that the Dunkin Donuts chain runs 60% of its business through the drive- through especially in the early morning and he thought any number of restaurants are moving toward drive-throughs or take-out windows. The owners believe that the drive-through is needed and without it the marketability is severely limited. Mr. Rosen responded that there are 6 successful businesses within a block of the area so he does not agree with the position that it is necessary. Mr. Sigel thought it was interesting to note that until he read the narrative, he was not aware and was actually somewhat shocked to see that the 1,500 foot radius eliminates the entire zone from having an additional drive-through restaurant and from the wording of the ordinance it doesn't seem that the authors seemed to appreciate that fact. He added that Ms. Brock brought out language from the environmental impact statement that the town had to prepare as part of the zoning change in the past and he read from it: "the primary findings of the Business zone analysis are that drive-through businesses tend to be significant generators of traffic" and then it is parenthetically noted "(although the difference between fast-food restaurants with drive-through windows compared with those without drive-through windows is not significant)" and continued "and have special access and circulation concerns relating to stacking lanes and driveways on busy streets. The analysis provided the basis for additional recommended changes in the Business zones which are described below." Mr. Sigel then read from that section "in the Community 5 Commercial zone, restaurants with 10,000 square feet or less of interior space would be allowed to have a drive-through facility by special permit, as long as a new restaurant with drive-through is located at least 1,500 feet from the property boundary of an existing restaurant with a drive-through facility. Impacts of future drive-through businesses are thus limited by the special permit process and criteria, as well as where they are permitted, lane limitations, and distance separation provisions for drive-through restaurants in the Community Commercial zone." Mr. Sigel thought the impact of that is that while future drive-through businesses are thus limited, the language seems to imply that the authors do foresee future restaurants with drive- throughs being allowed but being limited; but in fact the 1,500 feet completely excludes them. The Burger King predates this zoning so it was in existence. So what was the intent of this, to limit the number of restaurants? The ordinance is precluding it unless you have a variance. Mr. Buhl pointed out that if the ordinance was meant to address traffic and congestion, the study they had done is that it has no impact on the neighborhood. Comments about the impact on the neighborhood, the community commercial zone is to help the people outside of the zone to have places to go and shop and he believes that without the drive-through it would be a hardship for a restaurant and the owners did not anticipate that and now that banks are consolidating the property is vacant and this is a viable business to put there. Mr. Rosen responded that he believes that it is a valuable piece of property and that they could build something like an apartment building or student housing that would make it financially feasible and wouldn't impact the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Sigel explained that in this situation, which is a little different than the previous case with the chickens, in that what they have to get is a special permit which is all the same criteria as a special approval with the only difference that the special permit would be considered and granted by the Planning Board. So all of those criteria he read through earlier that pertained to the chickens are not dealt with by us; the impact on the community, the detriment etc. are what will be dealt with by the Planning Board. He went on to say that what the Zoning Board is looking at is simply the relaxation of the distance requirement of 1500 feet and looking at the area variance criteria as to whether we think it meets the criteria so that would be that we would need to find that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community and then specifically we consider whether the benefit can be achieved by any other means feasible; whether there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties; whether the request is substantial and whether there will be adverse physical or environmental effects and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. Mr. Rosen does believe that it is an undesirable change in neighborhood and the property could be rented to another type of restaurant or used in another way so the benefit could be achieved. Mr. Sigel asked Ms. Brock what her opinion was when considering the difference from the 1,500 foot separation requirement and the net effect of granting it would be to allow the drive-through to locate there, but a 6 restaurant with a drive-through is a use that is allowed by special permit, which we are not dealing with; we are just dealing with the distance. So in that case, when the board looks at whether there will be an undesirable change in the character, are we looking specifically at the net effect which is the addition of another drive-through or are we looking at the reduction of the distance? Ms. Brock responded that this board is looking at the impact of the reduction in the 1500 feet and having a drive-through that close and what would the impacts be in having one that close. The applicant has said it is unique because the entrance would be on a different street and there are traffic lights etc. that would mitigate the traffic so it is not like having two right next to each other. Mr. Buhl talked about the trip generation report which showed a very minimal change to the existing traffic. Mr. Sigel added that he is somewhat bothered by the combination of language used in the GEIS and the parenthetical note regarding the difference between traffic impacts of a restaurant with a drive through and without not being much different and how that comports with creating this difference of 1,500 feet which goes beyond the distance of the entire boundary. That doesn't make sense. If you look at the zone and Burger King was already there, it doesn't make sense. The ordinance at the time of Burger King didn't delineate between the two types of restaurants, with or without a drive-through, and then it did but the effect was absolute; even 500 feet eliminates them and yet they didn't come out and say none allowed. This reminded Mr. Sigel of some town's attempts to zone out adult uses with language that says it is allowed yet doing other rules that essentially ban it. Mr. Rosen thought the intent of the ordinance was to keep them at bay and Mr. Sigel said if you interpret this that way, 1,500 feet will never allow it to happen. The use is allowed with special permit if you meet the criteria and an argument could be made that the requirements for an area variance are met. Mr. Rosen did not agree. Mr. Buhl brought the board's attention to the diagram and the many factors that would mitigate any issue. They are on different streets and double ways to exit and more than 300 feet away from the other and the issue of cross congestion is much less significant than the typical sites he has put together. There are also other commercial entities there and so a residential neighborhood is not really present; there is the athletic facility, a drugstore, a senior housing, a grocery store etc. Mr. Sigel agreed saying it is a busy corner in a commercial zone with a big lot that mitigates a lot of the concerns. Ms. Brock spoke up stating that the board should not be looking at other potential uses or taking into consideration the economic hardship on the applicant but rather just looking at the area variance criteria. Mr. Buhl thought the board did take into consideration the economic hardship, and Mr. Sigel explained that is in the use variance criteria, which is much harder than the area variance criteria. Mr. Sigel asked what Mr. Bates' opinion was on the measuring of the distance between the properties and Mr. Bates stated that the line is measured 1,500 feet from the property line of the existing, in this case Burger King, and then the property line of the second proposed drive-through but there would be a question on whether it would be the other property line or the other drive-through location. Mr. Buhl noted there is also the question of whether it would or should be as a car would travel or as the crow flies which is a big difference but does address traffic and 7 stacking concerns. Mr. Sigel thought there were issues with using only property lines because one business could make it illegal for another simply by placing their building in a certain spot if they thought of it in advance. Discussion turned to traffic concerns. Mr. Sigel felt the applicant meets the criteria even though the request is substantial and because it is separated by a traffic light and in a different plaza than the existing one with separate traffic lines. Mr. Buhl also noted that the traffic study shows that the trips to the DD would be traffic that is already there, they are going to work or whatnot, not a destination trip like specifically going to a bank. During peak hours traffic would be similar since traffic to both banks and DD peak in the morning hours. Mr. Rosen again disagreed that the traffic would not be much more than that from the bank drive-through. Ms. Decker was also concerned about peak hours in the morning at the same time that the school buses were going to Belle Sherman Elementary School which could cause traffic congestion. In response to a comment about the Dunkin Donuts on Meadow Street, Mr. Sigel stated that the distance from the street to this proposal and the drive-through stacking for this proposal are both greater than what is found at the Meadow Street location. He went back to the town's own language saying the difference in traffic between with or with/out drive through is not large. Mr. King clarified that the Planning Board would be looking at the traffic stacking and similar issues when they look at the special permit. This variance is needed to allow them to go before the Planning Board for the special permit. [Quality of recording becomes very poor here.] Mr. Buhl did not know what the hours of operation would be although typical is 6am opening with varied closing times. Public hearing opened at 8:40pm and closed without anyone wishing to comment. SEQR environmental assessment form was reviewed. Change to: Part 1, item 2 to add Planning Board, special Permit and delete the word "Variance" Page 2, Item 14 — check Urban Page 4, Part 3, strike last sentence of first paragraph: "However, because these two restaurants are on different streets and.... 900 feet apart" and substitute "However, because the properties are in completely distinct shopping areas with their own separate parking areas, access driveways are separated by a light, and each property has access from two separate roads, concerns about traffic conflicts are mitigated." Add the word "of" after the words "This type" in the last sentence of Part 3. 8 ZBA Resolution No. 2013 — 034: SEAR Yunis Properties — for Dunkin Donuts 302 Pine Tree Rd, TP 62.-1-2.1 November 25, 2013 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Bill King RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the Parts 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in the Part 3 of the environmental assessment form. Vote: Ayes — Sigel, Decker and King Nays - Rosen Motion passed 3 to 1 ZBA Resolution No. 2013 — 035: Area Variance Yunis Properties — for Dunkin Donuts 302 Pine Tree Rd, TP 62.-1-2.1 November 25, 2013 Motion by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Christine Decker Resolve that this Board grant the appeal of Yunis properties requesting an area variance Chapter 270-135 (E), "Density Limitations", of the Town of Ithaca Code, to place a drive-through restaurant closer than the allowed 1500 feet of the property line of an existing restaurant with a drive-through facility, located at 302 Pine Tree Rd With the following conditions: 1. The distance be no less than as it exists now for the current building, and that no part of the building be extended or enlarged to be closer than the building is now, and with the following: Findings 1. The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community in that the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve which is that of converting the use of the building from a bank with three drive-throughs to a restaurant with one drive-through cannot be achieved by any other means feasible besides the granting of a variance, and 2. An undesirable change to neighborhood properties will not take place for the reasons stated in the SEQR form and given that a restaurant with drive- through is an allowed use with Special Permit in this zone, and additionally, that the location of this proposed restaurant with drive-through is close to the main intersection that occurs within this neighborhood Community Commercial zone, and 9 3. That the request is substantial being a reduction from 1500 feet to less than 300 feet, and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in the SEQR form, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the applicant's building has existed since before these restrictions on restaurants and drive-through facilities were enacted. Vote: Ayes — Decker and Sigel Nays — Rosen and King Motion resulted in a tied vote 2 to 2 Ms. Brock stated she will look further into the effect of the tie vote, but her reading of Town Law § 267-a is that there is no decision, because motions to grant or deny a variance require a majority vote of all members of the ZBA. The default denial provision states if a majority vote is not achieved within 62 days after the close of the public hearing, the appeal is denied. The law also says the ZBA may amend the failed motion and vote on it without being subject to the rehearing process, which requires a unanimous vote by the ZBA to rehear an appeal. Ms. Brock will look further into whether it can be voted on again and the appropriate procedure. Appeal of Asher Grossman, owner, and David Huckle, agent, requesting a use variance per Chapter 270-144 "Permitted Principle Uses", to operate a commercial business auto repair and taxi service, in a Light Industrial Zone, located at 618 Elmira Rd., Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-2.7, Light Industrial Zone (LI). David Huckle, agent Pyramid Brokerage representing the owners for the appeal. Mr. Huckle explained that the building has been vacant for five years and although he has shown it to many people the zone doesn't fit the use or the use doesn't fit the building. Mr. Sigel reminded the board that the site plan with drawings etc. will go before the Planning Board next week including parking, landscaping etc. The Zoning Board is just dealing with the use of the building. The Cross Fit business is an allowed use in the light industrial zone so it does not need a variance. (the Nov. 20th letter was added to the packet and given to board members). Public hearing opened at 9:34pm. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. 10 Part 3 of the SEQR environmental assessment form was revised by adding the following language to the end of the Part 3 language: "for the reasons stated in the Part II Impact Assessment." ZBA Resolution No. 2013 — 036: SEAR 618 Elmira Rd, TP 33.-3-2.7 November 25, 2013 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Rob Rosen RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance on the appeal of Asher Grossman, Owner, requesting a use variance per Chapter 270-144 "Permitted Principle Uses", to operate a commercial business auto repair and taxi service, based on the information in Parts 1 and 2 and the attachment to Part 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the environmental assessment form. Vote: Ayes — Sigel, Decker, Rosen and King ZBA Resolution No. 2013 — 037: Use Variance 618 Elmira Rd, TP 31-3-2.7 November 25, 2013 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Bill King Resolved that this board grant the appeal of Asher Grossman, owner, and David Huckle, agent, requesting a use variance per Chapter 270-144 "Permitted Principle Uses", to operate a commercial business auto repair and taxi service, located at 618 Elmira Rd., Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-2.7, Light Industrial Zone (LI) with the following: Findings: That the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship including all of the following: 1. That they cannot realize a reasonable return as substantiated by competent financial evidence, given the evidence submitted showing a loss on the property for at least the last 5 years plus the fact that the property has been vacant for the last 5 years, and 2. That the alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood given the fact that the property is fairly small for the district that it is in and the property has had a past history of retail use and an orientation to retail use and therefore is less suited for typical light-industrial uses than other properties in this district, and 11 3. That the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood given that the proposed use is similar in nature to a light industrial use and that the proposed use is not inconsistent with allowed uses in the light industrial zone, and 4. That the alleged hardship has not been self-created given this property's long history of difficulty in finding tenants. In addition those tenants that have occupied the building in the recent past have not been allowed uses in the light industrial zone and have failed. Vote: Ayes — Sigel, King, Rosen and Decker Adjourned 9:50pm Prepared by: Paulette, Terwilliger, Town Clerk Approved by Kirk Sigel, Chair Approved by Zoning Board of Appeals December 16, 2013 1, <=5\Lt hereby certify that the foregoinT:a true&exact copy of a resolution adopted by the t1a 0146(p 131,aA4-6, v-C- ke-PeAXS' of the Town of Ithaca,Tompkins County, New York,on the �.�(, day of 20 t 7-7- -P Date �Utywn Olerk L) 12 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: ,'� -IADVERTISEMENT ` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Btvee W Gates k� oP Codes ➢ � rant �r1 T( k F F 6010,,r ' f�/ N41� ft1783 ndaet 2.1/5/13 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: A4",0 A Ay')rr ; Town Clerks Office , « � x a Street ' ° ' "avaf� `' 215 North Tia g Ithaca, 4 NY 14850 0e/' the"1`aauwA�'c^� NU�acn� a'AdR., rand#,,'p Ie n iH werslii: a 1z1t a vsAsaAty TeX G11)��%� Date of Posting: November 13f 2013 lose e1k to twAac�r 4iaA�: 410"k ' "�jp Aa be0dk "/A qer, 1.tran�4'Chet ttz'sYae�`,Vlrvr off Date of Publication: November 15 2013 ext e'd 12 red Taax h3roell W.45,.1-3, " Md C7 c i t antdeu� tsaaq4raJnt� Lori KofoitiA jag rar7 area �r#anu"peal A �tatec,2��2 Deputy Town Clerk i 7 a ,f�/CAkewrae Code, " to �, n1"a3 Vit'jikAraert�h'res, f�u�Y�1A1�Sli3taer-tPran"lite ab. 10MO 1544 � f ll* STATE OF NEW YORK) IANaede COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: dd Z-O rad s air TOWN OF ITHACA) 'doff ger e f 1 ,�heftrly Qamnfw �....� A0,e0" of/Whet" r6as- Sworn to and subscribed before me day of s,rp, eexwerel' d HA, t�eA,a rra,oq'6Ae ,.. 1 u r u��ydd5e per 6'6010-r 2013. 2ro2�r�^r+�„tratted PyI��F toe 11e x olu! l,e, m� eanrrnc'rc;re} M,u$W�8 aAAb /` .. jai del die rS3 3 2 r 5Y1tkrt Notary Public Debra DeAugistine Notary Public-Mate of New Mork No.01 DE6148035 Qualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires Juno 19,26 L- 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 13th day of November 2013, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the following Tax Parcel Numbers: 104 Ridgecrest Rd, Tax Parcel 45.-1-3, Special Approval David Bacorn Jay Bramhandkar Elliot Broadus 108 Ridgecrest Rd 2303 N Triphammer Rd 13 Chase Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Devon Buckley David & Illa Burbank James Ciaschi III 104 Ridgecrest Rd 161 Whitetail Dr 7 Chase Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Pablo &Angela Cohen William & Regina Courtney Peter & Rose Anne Damian 133 King Rd East 19 Saunders Rd 2 LaGrand Ct ' haca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Jeffrey& Desiree Dobbin Michael Dorf & Sherry Colb Arhlene Flowers & Steven 15 Chase Ln 189 King Rd East Lovass-Nagy Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 23 Chase Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Franziska Racker Centers Philip Gardner Stephen Garvey& Carolyn Lee 3226 Wilkins Rd 112 Ridgecrest Rd 21 Chase Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Johann Gebauer Jeff Goodmark &Jennifer Citron Kevin Haverlock 117 Ridgecrest Rd 113 Ridgecrest Rd 195 King Rd East Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Chad Horihan Harry Kaiser Marion Kossack 21 Saunders Rd 17 Chase Ln 208 Nelson Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Eric & Loreal Maguire Michael & Debra McCall Tracy Mitrano 19 Chase Ln 11 Chase Ln 20 Chase Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Deborah Montgomery Marjorie Parker Robert & Lisa Patz and Andrew Cove 106 Ridgecrest Rd 3 LaG rand Ct 02 King Rd East Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 11/25/13 Sheila &John Peterson Linda & Stephen Pope Mary & David Price 34 Crosstie Court 14 Chase Ln 209 King Rd East Palm Coast, FL 32137 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ronald & Barbara Provus Anna Marie Regula Andrew &Jennifer Rizos 3 Chase Ln 5 Chase Ln 110 Ridgecrest Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Rory Rothman James & Lorie Scarpulla Linda & Richard Schurman And Penelope Chick 185 King Rd East 24 Saunders Rd 24 Chase Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 James & Karen Sciarabba John & Brynne Sigg Bhupinder Singh 119 E State St 22 Chase Ln and Rajinderk Kaur Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 23 Saunders Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Paul & Mary Stanion Arthur& Jacoby Stern Julie Swain 109 Ridgecrest Rd 9 Chase Ln 115 Ridgecrest Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Patricia & David Swartout John & Simona Tadros Brisa Teutli 107 Ridgecrest Rd 1 LaGrand Ct and lago Gocheleishvili Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 15 Saunders Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Jaclene &John Weston William &Julie Whitten 25 Chase Ln 191 King Rd East Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 302 Pine Tree Rd, Tax Parcel No. 62.1-2.1, Area Variance 1093 Group LLC Cornell University Cornell University 295 Main St PO Box DH 6060 Court St Rd Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY 14853 Syracuse, NY 13206 East Lawn Cemetery Assoc Holstein Friesian Assoc NYS Electric & Gas Corp 934 Mitchell St 957 Mitchell St 70 Farm View Dr Freeport Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 New Gloucester, ME 04260 TCW Associates Yunis Properties 63 W Groton Rd 214 Church St Groton, NY 13073 Elmira, Ny 14901 2 "'Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 11/25/13 618 Elmira Rd, Tax parcel No. 33.-3-2.7, Use Variance Allen Becker Burkhart Services Inc Karen Dieter 88 Hillview Rd 6917 Vista Parkway N 631 Elmira Rd Spencer, NY 14883 West Palm Beach, FL 33411 Ithaca, NY 14850 Elmira Rd, LLC Ferrara Realty, Inc Susheng Gan PO Box 6437 408 S. Albany St 202 Winthrop Dr Ithaca, NY 14851 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Grigorov Family LLC lacovelli Bros Constr Co Ithaca Realty LLC 629 Coddington Rd 610 Elmira Rd 1150 East 28'" St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Brooklyn, NY 11210 JCL Developers of NY LLC Mitchell Ventures LLC People of NY State 2981 N Triphammer Rd 122 Ithaca Beer Dr Empire State Plaza Bldg Lansing, NY 14882 Ithaca, NY 14850 Albany, NY 12238 Robert Swansbrough Leo Teeter Yunis Realty Inc 15 Piper Rd 214 Wood St 214 E Church St ,o*Newfield, Ny 14867 Ithaca, NY 14850 Elmira, NY 14901 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 Kofoid, Deputy To Jerk Town of Ithaca Sworn to before me this 13th day of November 2013. Not ry A I-- Public Debra DeAuqfstlne N6,tary Public-State of Blew York No.01 DE61480" Qualified in Tompkins County My cou"Inission Expires June 19,26 3