Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2001-02-26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FILEOAT MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001 7 : 00 PM APPEAL of Christine Henseler, Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted demolish an existing non -conforming garage and rebuild it with a modified footprint , at 841 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 -2-33 , Residence District R- 15 . Said non -conforming garage is located adjacent to the highway right-of-way line at the front yard and within 2 ± feet of the north side property line . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Robert Levitsky, Appellant , requesting a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article III , Section 4 (2b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to occupy a two-family home by three unrelated people in each unit , located at 174- 176 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54-5-22 , Residence District R-9 , APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Thomas Bell , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to conduct an internet- based retail martketplace , with and emphasis on auctions , at 614 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 33-3-2 . 42 , Light Industrial District . Said use is not permitted in a Light Industrial zone A special approval under Article XII , Section 54 may also be requested . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Margaret Rumsey, Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 19 , and Article XIII , Section 68 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a Bed and Breakfast operation , with up to ten guests in a single-family residence and up to four guests in a detached second dwelling unit at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 38- 1 -2 , Residence District R-30 . An approval was granted on January 189 1984 to permit up to eight guests in one residence only. APPEAL ADJOURNED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BILE a MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 7 : 00 PM ��� 7 PRESENT: Kirk Sigel , Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; David Stotz , Board Member; Ronald Krantz , Board Member; James Niefer, Board . Member; Andy Frost , Director of Building/Zoning ; John Barney , Attorney for the Town ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Janice Gorovitz, 921 Taughannock Boulevard ; Robert Levitsky , 102 Juniper Drive ; Bill Seldin , 120 Northview Road ; Grace Macmillan , Caldwell Banker and Shaw Real Estate ; Thomas Bell , 614 Elmira Road ; David Hull , Spencer NY ; Margaret Rumsey , 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road ; John Powers , 106 West Buttermilk Falls Road . Chairperson Sigel led the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p . m . , stating that all posting , publication , and notifications of the public hearings had been completed . The first appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Christine Henseler, Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted demolish an existing non -conforming garage and rebuild it with a modified footprint , at 841 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25-2-33 , Residence District R- 15 . Said non -conforming garage is located adjacent to the highway right-of-way line at the front yard and within 2 ± feet of the north side property line . Jan Gorovitz, 841 Taughannock Boulevard - I will be buying the house at 841 Taughannock Boulevard . There is a garage on the property that is falling down . The garage is unsafe . The property inspector would not go on the roof of the garage because it was too unsafe . It is an unsightly building . We plan to demolish the garage and build a new garage within the same footprint . The footprint will be modified slightly. There is a room attached to the garage . The room will be removed . The new building will be a two-car garage . Mr. Stotz - Is the :,ale of the house contingent on approval of this application by the Zoning Board of Appeals? Ms. Gorovitz - No . The garage is not a functional garage . We are hoping to make the garage functional . Mr. Stotz - What is the elevation for the garage? Ms . Gorovitz - The peak of the garage will be 11 . 6 feet . Mr. Ellsworth - Will the distance from the property line remain the same ? Ms . Gorovitz - Yes . We would like to use the same footprint as the existing garage . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - The survey shows two houses on the property . Ms . Gorovitz - There are two houses on the property . One house is a rental apartment . Chairperson Sigel - Does the property have a current variance for having two separate dwelling units? Mr. Frost - I presumed the property was legally non -conforming . The residential buildings are older buildings . Ms . Gorovitz - We will be living in the structure with the deck . The building closest to the lake might be older. The buildings were built in the late 1950's . Chairperson Sigel - Does the garage have electricity? Ms . Gorovitz - The garage currently has electricity . Mr. Stotz - Ms . Gorovitz, have you discussed the application with your neighbors? Ms . Gorovitz - We are buying it from one of our neighbors . We have not met the neighbor that we are closest to . Mr. Ellsworth - I would not expect a problem . It is an improvement over the existing structure . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 10 p . m . Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7: 11 p. m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Mr. Smith - The new garage is essentially the same footprint as the existing garage . It is an aesthetic improvement . Mr. Niefer - Are garages normally built on a concrete pad without footers? Mr. Frost - No . Normally a concrete pad has footers . Some of the older houses on the lake do not have a pad or foundation . The homes are sitting directly on the ground . Structures are built on monolific slab . It is a floating concrete slab . A silt plate is anchored on to the concrete . It is then bolted on to the structure . The slab would be deeper on the outside and would concave inward . The slab floats with the movement of the ground . My department would not issue a building permit unless we were comfortable with the construction . Resolution No. 2001 -6 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Christine Henseler, 841 Tau_ghannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel Number 25-2-33, February 26, 2001. MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by Ronald Krantz. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Christine Henseler, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to demolish an existing non- conforming garage and rebuild it with a modified footprint, at 841 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-33, Residence District R- 15, based upon the environmental assessment completed by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department dated February 14, 2001 . The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Stotz - How will the exterior of the garage be finished ? Ms. Gorovitz - The garage will be finished with Texture 111 and painted to match the house . Resolution No. 2001 -7 - Appeal of Christine Henseler, 841 Taughannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel Number 25=2-33, February 26, 2001 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by David Stotz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Christine Henseler, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to demolish an existing non-conforming garage and rebuild it with a modified footprint per the site plan submitted to the board, at 841 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-33, Residence District R- 15 based upon the following findings: a . The new garage will be located on the majority of the footprint of the present non-conforming garage; and b. The existing garage has a side yard setback of 2 feet from the north property line and abuts the highway right-of-way line along its western side and the new garage will be the same distance from these boundaries. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Robert Levitsky , Appellant , requesting a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article III , Section 4 (2b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED occupy a two-family home by three unrelated people in each unit , located at 174- 176 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54-5-22 , Residence District R-9 . Robert Levitsky, 102 Juniper Drive - I would like to change the zoning on the property I own at 174- 176 Kendall Avenue . I would like the zoning to allow me to rent to six unrelated people . I have tried to sell the house to a family for two years . I am unable to sell the house . The only people interested in purchasing the property are landlords who would like to rent the property to six unrelated persons . Kendall Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue are mainly housing Ithaca College students . I asked my immediate neighbors on Kendall Avenue if they would object to the zoning change . My neighbors indicated that it would not be a problem for them . My neighbor changed the zoning on his house in 1987 to be allowed to rent to six unrelated persons . The plot plan shows the housing in the neighborhood . It is primarily student housing . Chairperson Sigel - Is the house 168 Kendall Avenue owner occupied ? Mr. Levitsky - Yes . It is owner occupied . Mr. Frost - Mr. Levitsky, when did you move out of the house located at 174- 176 Kendall Avenue ? Mr. Levitsky - I moved out of the house in 1993 . Mr. Stotz - Mr. Levitsky , when did you purchase the house ? Mr. Levitsky - I purchased the house in 1983 . Mr. Stotz - Were you aware of the zoning requirements at that time ? Mr. Levitsky - I do not recall what the zoning was on the property . I have tried to rent the house to a family . I have tried for two and a half years . The population of Kendall Avenue has changed . ° Mr. Frost - Was the orange Zoning Board of Appeals sign posted on the property? I did not see the sign posted today when I took pictures on the site . Mr. Levitsky - I put the sign up between the two mailboxes . Mr. Frost - The zoning in 1981 was the same as it is today . The previous owner of this property made an appeal in 1981 asking for the same special permit. Attorney Barney - The previous owner submitted an appeal to allow seven unrelated persons to live in the house . The board denied the appeal in May of 1981 and gave the owner until August 15 , 1981 to bring the property in compliance with the law . The September 1981 minutes communicates that the property was in compliance with the law . Mr. Ellsworth - Mr. Levitsky , how many unrelated people have you been renting to on this property? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Levitsky - I am currently renting to six unrelated people . Mr. Ellsworth - How long have you been renting to six unrelated people? Mr. Levitsky - I have been renting to six unrelated people for a couple of years . I usually have four students living in the house . Mr. Ellsworth - We have a precedent because some houses in the area have been rezoned to allow six unrelated people . Mr. Frost - It is usually a case where a landlord is coming before the board making an appeal for special permit , which they are entitled . We typically have not had a case where someone has made an appeal that may not own the property six months from now. The board likes to see who the landlord is that is going to be maintaining the occupancy with the special permit . It might not be the case in this situation . We do not know who is going to have control over the property . Many times when there is a landlord who lives out of town it is hard to get immediate correction of .problems with the property . It is an individual case that makes the argument . The Ordinance allows someone to apply for a special permit . It is the board 's decision to grant or not to grant special approval . Mr. Stotz - Mr. Levitsky , when you purchased the property, were you aware of surrounding properties with six or more unrelated people living at the property? Mr. Levitsky - Yes . The apartment house across the street has four or six unrelated persons . My neighbor at 178 Kendall Avenue is permitted- to rent to six unrelated persons . Mr. Frost - Jim lacovelli owns the apartments located at 167 and 166 Kendall Avenue . Mr. lacovelli have come before the Town and asked to build a larger building , but consolidating three parcels together. They would technically have the right to build two single-family residences on the smaller parcels and have the same number of persons . They have consolidated the parcels and built one larger structure . The end result is the same amount of persons . Mr. Stotz - Is the house fully rented ? Mr. Levitsky - Yes . It is fully rented . Mr. Stotz - Has the house ever been rented to fewer than six unrelated persons? Mr. Levitsky - Yes . I have rented the house out for many years to three Ithaca College students . This year I rented to six Ithaca College students . All students occupy the apartment building at 164 Kendall Avenue . It is a large apartment building and has always been occupied by students . Students surround my house . Mr. Stotz - Mr. Levitsky could rent the house to four unrelated persons and be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Levitsky - I tried for two and a half years to rent the house . I would need to rent the four- unit apartment to a family . Mr. Stotz - There is nothing that requires you to rent to six students instead of the number that is allowed under the Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Levitsky - The current zoning is for one family in one apartment and two unrelated people in the two- bedroom apartment . I want to change the zoning . Mr. Stotz - What prevents you from renting to a family and two unrelated people? Mr. Levitsky - I tried to sell the house to a family. Attorney Barney - Why are you unable to rent in compliance with the ordinance? Mr. Levitsky - I have tried . Students want to live in the house . Mr. Ellsworth - Are there economics involved in needing to rent to six students instead of four students? Mr. Levitsky - It is easier to rent to four students . The house is a duplex . There are four bedrooms on one side and two bedrooms on the other side . Mr. Ellsworth - Can you make your mortgage payment with renting to four unrelated students? Mr. Levitsky - Yes . I have had the house since 1983 . There have not been any problems . I keep the house in good shape . I have never had the police called to the house . Mr. Stotz - Mr. Levitsky , does your concern center exclusively on your inability to be able to sell this property to someone ? Mr. Levitsky - Yes. 1 am unable to sell the house to a family . Families are not interested in the house . Mr. Stotz - Does your concern have anything to do with being able to sustain the property as the owner with fewer than six people ? Mr. Levitsky - I tried to rent the house to a family. At first , they liked the idea because of the four bedrooms . Families back out of renting the house when they find out the second apartment will be rented to college students . Chairperson Sigel - Is the property economically viable for you if you only rent to four students? Mr. Levitsky - It is a six bedroom house . Attorney Barney - What is your mortgage payment on the property? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Levitsky - The house is paid for. Attorney Barney - What is the real estate taxes on the property? Mr. Levitsky - The school tax is approximately $ 1 , 800 per year. The Town and County tax is approximately $ 1 , 300 per year. Attorney Barney - Do you rent by the bedroom ? Mr. Levitsky - Yes . The smaller bedrooms are rented for $225 per month and the larger bedrooms are rented for $250 per month . Attorney Barney - The taxes are approximately $250 per month . The income for six people is $ 1 , 500 per month . The property could be rented to four people and the monthly income would be approximately $ 1 , 000 per month . Mr. Levitsky - Yes . Landlords are only interested in renting to six unrelated people because it is a six- bedroom house . Attorney Barney - Sometimes what people want and what they are permitted to have differ. Are there any houses in the vicinity that are single family occupied ? Mr. Frost - There are a few houses across the street from Mr. Levitsky and a few at the end of Kendall Avenue . Mr. Niefer - The material references five bedrooms . We have been discussing six bedrooms . How many bedrooms are there in the entire unit? Mr. Levitsky - The total number of bedrooms is six . Mr. Niefer - Is the house an upper and lower level apartment? Mr. Levitsky - Yes . The larger apartment has two bedrooms upstairs and two bedrooms downstairs . The smaller apartment has two bedrooms upstairs . Attorney Barney - What is the current asking price for the house ? Mr. Levitsky - I am asking $ 107 , 900 for the house . Mr. Stotz - How long has the house been on the market? Mr. Levitsky - The house has been advertised through Caldwell Banker for a year and a half . I tried for a year before privately. The house is in excellent shape . It is completely furnished . The house has a new roof . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Stotz - I am having difficulty with the argument of financial hardship . This house is owned free and clear. The only payment is taxes and maintenance . Mr. Levitsky has indicated that the gross rental is more than sufficient to cover taxes and maintenance . I do not see how owning this building is a financial hardship . There has not been evidence as to how difficult it is to rent to the number of persons allowed under zoning . The board has only heard that it has been difficult to sell the property . Chairperson Sigel - It is easier to rent to four people . People do not usually complain about having more space when they rent property . Mr. Levitsky - The house is easy to rent . It is usually students that know each other. It would be easy to rent to six students . Chairperson Sigel - Two bedrooms in the four-bedroom unit could be unrented . This would allow you to conform to the Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Levitsky - i could rent to four students , but it would be a financial hardship . Attorney Barney - The board is having trouble gathering the information on the financial hardship . The gross income would still be $ 1 , 000 per month . Roughly $250 per month is being paid out in taxes . It is a $750 profit . Do the tenants pay their own utilities? Mr. Levitsky - The tenants pay the electric . I pay for water and sewer as well as taxes . Attorney Barney - It is still roughly a $700 per month cash flow profit . I do not see a financial hardship . Mr. Levitsky - I am unable to sell the house . The only person interested in buying the house is a landlord . The landlord is going to want the six bedrooms occupied . It is going to be difficult to sell a six- bedroom house to a landlord . I want to sell the property. Attorney Barney - Properties can be sold for the right price . I am not sure if selling the house for $ 107, 900 is the right price . I suspect that if the house were listed for $70 , 000 someone would buy the house quickly . What did you purchase the property for? Mr. Levitsky - I paid $68 , 000 for the house in 1983 . Mr. Stotz - The price is going to depend upon what the buyer is going to get in return versus what they paid for the property. Much of it is contingent on the asking price of the property. Someone could get a return on the property under the existing zoning . Mr. Levitsky - My renting prices are low. Many landlords charge $275 or $300 a month per bedroom . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7: 43 p . m . Grace Macmillan , Caldwell Banker Shaw Real Estate - I understand the concern regarding the asking price of the property . Mr. Levitsky did purchase the property in the 1983 for $68 , 000 . Most of us ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED have bought property and would not want to sell the property for what you paid for it . We did have an offer on the property that we could not accept because of the zoning . The offer was for $99 , 000 . The problem with the offer was that we would not sell the property if the zoning were not proper. There is a history of the property being rented to six unrelated persons . We called to verify the zoning . I did not understand the zoning . It is two unrelated persons . I interpreted to be a family and one other person . Mr. Frost - Two family homes are not allowed to have borders . The technicality of two unrelated persons constitutes an untraditional family . This is an upstairs and downstairs apartment . I have not been inside the house . We might find problems with the basement bedrooms . There is no guarantee that there are bedrooms in the basement may be occupied . The bedrooms might not meet code requirements . Ms . Macmillan - The board is trying to bring out the rental versus the sale price of the property. The economics are there has been four bedrooms on one side rented and two bedrooms on the other side rented . Someone buying the property would very unlikely live at the property . It is not likely a family would want to live at the property surrounded by students . The economics are that the numbers have to make sense . It appears that $700 per month should be adequate for someone to sustain a property . Landlords want to make as much as possible on a property. There are two issues . We are trying to accomplish the sale of the property. It is difficult to sell the property because of the fact that most families are not going to want to live there as an owner occupied with an auxiliary apartment . There might be a hardship to rent it to a family . I do not have the history of it , but it lends itself to the way it is rented now. Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 47 p . m . Chairperson Sigel - This is a special approval . It does not have the same requirements to show economic hardships as a use variance . Mr. Krantz - Would the special approval be granted to the owner or the property? Attorney Barney - The special approval would be granted to the property . There have been times when the board limited special approval to the owner of the property or for a period of time . Chairperson Sigel - The . appeal could be granted for five unrelated persons . Mr. Niefer - Are there six bedrooms in the house ? Mr. Levitsky - Yes . Mr. Niefer - Is there a bathroom for each unit? Mr. Levitsky - Yes . Mr. Niefer - Are the units completely separate ? Is there an ingress or egress from one apartment to the other? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Levitsky - The apartments are completely separate . There is no ingress or egress . Chairperson Sigel - The two-bedroom unit is in compliance . Two unrelated persons occupy it . It would be a variance to allow the second unit to be occupied by four unrelated persons . The board could compromise and grant an approval for three unrelated persons in the four-bedroom apartment . Mr. Ellsworth - Would it be easier to sell the property if the zoning allowed five unrelated persons to live in the house ? Ms . Macmillan - Yes . It would make my job much easier. We do not want to represent something to the perspective buyer that cannot happen . Mr. Frost - The house is not in compliance at this time . There are six unrelated persons living in the house . What is the proposal to bring the house into compliance ? Ms . Macmillan - The house is rented . Mr. Frost - When does the lease expire ? Mr. Levitsky - The lease expires at the end of June . Attorney Barney - How long is the lease? Mr. Levitsky - It is an eleven month lease . I rent from August 1St until the end of June . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Mr. Smith - The R-9 zoning is one of the denser residential districts in the Town . The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as urban residential . Mr. Stotz - Has this appeal been discussed with neighbors ? Mr. Levitsky - The neighbors I discussed the appeal with did not have any concern . Mr. Niefer - Renting the house to six unrelated persons is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood . It does not change the character of the neighborhood . Limiting the number of unrelated persons to five does diminish the value of the property for resale purposes . It is a financial loss to the individual . Mr. Frost - Is this approval contingent on the sale of the property? Ms . Macmillan - There are sophisticated buyers and non -sophisticated buyers . This was going to be the first income property for this particular person . They did not want anything to do with the property after we disclosed the zoning . The second person felt that the numbers did not work for him . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - The zoning allows for four unrelated persons on the property . The board could interpret that by allowing more unrelated persons to live on the property that it is an economic advantage . No one forced this house to become a six- bedroom house . Mr. Stotz - I am concerned because there is a set sale price for the house . The buyer is going to meet that price predicated upon the return of six unrelated persons . There has been no problem indicated in renting to fewer than six persons . The owner could rent to fewer than six persons and get a return on a property that is less expensive . The argument centers on the asking price of the house . The house is being priced so that it presents a return for six bedrooms . It could be as easily priced so that it presents a return for renting four bedrooms . It would mean taking less money for the house . The cost of this house is being based on the necessity to have six persons rent the house . It is something that the owner is in control of , not someone else . Mr. Levitsky - I am not in control of it . I have tried my best to sell the house to a family and two unrelated persons . Changing the occupancy to five unrelated persons would help me and it would be most appreciative . The zoning is impacting the sale of the property, not the price . Attorney Barney - The zoning impacts the price of the property . The property could be sold for $70 , 000 and works very well for renting to four unrelated persons . The property is being priced at a level that does not work unless it is rented to six unrelated persons . Mr. Levitsky - I bought the house for $68 , 000 . 1 cannot be expected to sell the house for $70 , 000 . Attorney Barney - Many people have bought houses for different amounts of money. Many of them had to sell their sell house for dollars far less than what they paid for them . I am not telling you what to sell the property for. The property is being priced at a price that dictates the house has to be rented to six people . I am suggesting the zoning is not the problem . It is the pricing that is the problem . Mr. Krantz - We could say that a six- bedroom mansion could be sold as a one- bedroom shack . This is a six-bedroom house . The applicant should not have to sell the house as a four-bedroom house . Attorney Barney - The six bedroom mansion could be located in a single family residential zone , it is going to be sold as being able to rent to two unrelated persons . The number of bedrooms is not the determining factor. The determining factor is what the zoning permits . Someone can build a house with six bedrooms . It does not give them the right to then want the board to grant them permission to rent the house to six unrelated persons . Mr. Frost - There might be a young couple starting a family who are looking for inexpensive housing with an income . This property would be appealing to them . Ms . Macmillan - The reality of the location of the property and the reality of the neighborhood is not going to lend itself to a young couple starting out . This is in an area where it is common to have six bedrooms . I understand the dilemma of changing the zoning so that more bedrooms can be rented . It is a powerful argument . There is also the argument that this is what the property is and why shouldn 't it produce the amount of income that is available . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Ellsworth - We are not going to settle this issue tonight . This is Ithaca , New York with two colleges . This debate could go on for a long time . We need to bring the issue to a vote . Mr. Niefer - The applicant might want to consult his CPA to fine-tune his case for economic hardship in maintaining the property and realizing a return on his investment . Attorney Barney - I do not know if economics is going to help . The number of bedrooms that he is able to rent will determine the asking price of the property . The board needs to decide if the application meets the requirements of special approval , Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , Subparagraphs a- h . Resolution No. 20014 = ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = Robert Levitsky, 174476 Kendall Avenue, Tax Parcel Number 54-5-22, February 26, 2001 . MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Robert Levitsky, requesting a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article Ill, Section 4 (2b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to occupy a two- family home by three unrelated people in each unit, located at . 174 - 176 Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-5-22, Residence District R-9, based upon the environmental assessment completed by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department dated February 14, 2001 . The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Ellsworth - The applicant has met the requirements of special approval . The premises are reasonably adapted because they presently have six unrelated persons living in them . They will fill a neighborhood need . The building and living space must meet applicable building codes . The structure is in character with the district or neighborhood . This is obvious by what has been stated about the neighborhood . I have been through the neighborhood . It is mostly college students . It is walking distance to Ithaca College . The proposed use is not detrimental to the general amenity of the neighborhood character. It will not devalue neighboring properties or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants . The neighborhood is mainly student housing . I presume that the egress and access to the property is safely designed . I have not heard anything to the contrary . Is there any evidence that the usage of water and sewer is overloading the system ? Mr. Frost - I am unable to accurately give an answer. There is adequate parking . Chairperson Sigel - The motion needs to indicate that four unrelated persons are permitted in the four-bedroom apartment and two unrelated persons are allowed in the two- bedroom apartment . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Ellsworth - I would like to give the owner a chance to sell his property. His neighbors are not before the board complaining . Resolution No. 2001 -9 = Appeal of Robert Levitsky, 174- 176 Kendall Avenue, Tax Parcel Number 54-5-22, February 26, 2001 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Robert Levitsky, requesting a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article Ill, Section 4 (2b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to occupy a two-family home by four unrelated people in the four bedroom unit and two unrelated people in the two bedroom unit, located at 174- 176 Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-5-22, Residence District R-9 based upon the following: Finding: a . The requirements of Section 77, Subdivision 7, Subparagraphs a -h of the Zoning Ordinance have been met; and Condition: a. The building be in compliance with applicable building codes. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: Stotz. The motion was declared to be carried. The third appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Thomas Bell , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to conduct an internet-based retail marketplace , with and emphasis on auctions , at 614 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33-3-2 . 42 , Light Industrial District . Said use is not permitted in a Light Industrial zone A special approval under Article XII , Section 54 may also be requested . Bill Seldin , 120 Northview Road - In 1994 we had the hopes of leasing the building to Rosco 's Woodworking . The business did not work out and the owner went bankrupt . In 1996 we appeared before the board again looking to rent the building out as a convenience store and gas station . The area is zoned for light industrial , but we made the argument that we had a hardship because light industrial does not work in this area . The realtor attested to that fact . The Zoning Board of Appeals made a finding that there was hardship and the convenience store and gas station would be appropriate . The board granted a use variance . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED There was an issue in 1996 regarding Mancinni Drive . The entranceways to the parking lot were a concern . The Department of Transportation was going to make changes to the road . The board decided that if DOT would give a letter regarding the changes they would be satisfied . The convenience and gas store was unsuccessful . We came back before the board in 1999 . At that time we made the argument that the hardship was a matter of record . We had hopes of renting the property to Dale Stevens . Mr. Stevens was going to use the building as a retail establishment for the sale of bathroom and kitchen fixtures through the use of displays in the facility . Mr. Stevens attested to the fact that there would be about fifty persons coming and going to the premises . In 1999 we noted that we were going from a more intrusive use to a less intrusive use . The board permitted us to proceed with Mr. Stevens and granted the use variance . The board noted specifically that it was approved for the retail use that Mr. Stevens had in mind . The approval was very specific . Mr. Stevens defaulted on his lease . We were compelled to come to Town Court to evict Mr. Stevens . Mr. Bell suffered a loss of income . Mr. Hall would like to establish a bid club . People like to auction items on the Internet . Mr. Hall would like to occupy the premises for that purpose . It is the retailing of merchandise through an Internet based market . attached the minutes from our previous appeals to the application . I did not want to burden the board with revisiting each issue that the board has already reviewed and approved . There is not a lot of difference between what Mr. Hall is going to do and what was approved for Mr. Stevens . The letter from Mr. Hanson at the Tompkins County Planning Department in 1999 has the exact language as the letter for this approval . A good deal of time was spent going through the propriety of the entranceways that were approved in 1996 . We were requesting that the board not disturb that decision in 1999 . It was a thoughtful process when we revisited the thinking . The minutes reflect that it is safer when traveling north to enter and exit the parking lot as opposed to Mancinni Drive . We liked what DOT had approved and complied with it . The board has determined in the two prior occasions that the ingress and egress should not be disturbed . David Hall , Spencer New York - I was selling items through e-bay on the Internet . I found the items at local estate sales and auctions . I have realized this is a viable entity . I would also like to supplement it with consignment based sales . People would hire me on a commission basis to sell items for them on the Internet . Two forces drive the move from my home into this large retail space . I need more space for warehousing . It will also provide an interface with the public . The public could bring items for sale . About two thirds of the consignment work will come through the front door. Agents meeting with representatives of an estate would do one third . Chairperson Sigel - How long have you been doing this work from your home ? Mr. Hall - I have been doing this work from my home for about two years . It is on a full time basis . Mr. Stotz - Would I be able to browse the merchandise on site and buy items on site? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Hall - No . All sales happen through the Internet . Nothing leaves the site unless it is packed and in the hands of the shipper. Mr. Seldin - I asked Mr. Hall about traffic to and from the site . Mr. Hall felt that there would be at most fifty cars coming and leaving the site in a ten -hour day . There will be about fifteen to twenty-five cars per day for consignment . Three deliveries are made each day . Mr. Hall has three staff members . The average is thirty-one trips per day. This equals three cars per hour. He could conceivably have two more cars per hour. Mr. Hall - The figure of fifty cars per day is a high estimate . This would be hitting my best projections in a fully mature market. I am hoping to make a model of Ithaca , which would be duplicable . Ithaca is a small market . Mr. Stotz - Is there sufficient storage in the building ? Mr. Hall - I do not deal with furniture . I focus on smaller items . The bulk of the business is books . Mr. Stotz - Are there a lot of people interested in used books? Mr. Hall - We ship books around the world . Mr. Ellsworth - The previous approval had conditions listed in the resolution . There are restrictions regarding the signage . Mr. Seldin - I called Mr. Frost and explained that we did not want to change the approved signage . We are not seeking any changes in the variances that have been granted for the signage . Mr. Stotz - How long has it been since the demise of the previous approval ? Mr. Frost - The space was not occupied by the previous lease . Mr. Stotz - Is the previous lease still in effect? Mr. Seldin - No . The lease was terminated when we evicted Mr. Stevens . Mr. Stevens was evicted July 26 , 2000 . It has not been one year. Mr. Stotz - What effort has been made between that time and this time to rent to a light industrial business? Mr. Frost - I have received phone calls in my office regarding the renting of the building . Mr. Seldin - The property was advertised through a realtor. This is an exact repeat of what happened before . We made the effort again to meet the light industrial requirement . It does not happen in the area . Mr. Frost - We have had several problems on Elmira Road with vacant buildings . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Ellsworth - I would like to review the requirements for use variance . The applicant is unable to obtain a reasonable economic return . There has been evidence of that in the last couple appeals made by the applicant . The hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or the neighborhood . The requested use variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood . The building has been present for a number of years . The hardship has not been self-created . Mr. Krantz - The hardship does apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood . The businesses in the area have a difficult time . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 33 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 34 p . m . Chairperson Sigel - This appeal is quite similar to the previous appeal . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Smith - Traffic and access to the site has been addressed previously . Traffic will be significantly less than the convenience store . Many of the parking spaces located on the west side of the building are not well defined . The six parking spaces located at the front of the building are well defined . The handicap parking space can be found easily . The parking spaces beyond the handicap space are not obvious . Chairperson Sigel - Is there sufficient room for parking ? Mr. Smith - Yes . Attorney Barney - Are the parking spaces marked ? Mr. Smith - The six spaces in the front of the building are marked . Resolution No. 200140 = ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = Thomas Bell, 614 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel Number 33=3-2. 42, February 26, 2001. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by David Stotz. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Thomas Bell, requesting a variance form the requirements of Article VIII, Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct an internet-based retail marketplace, with an emphasis on auctions, at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 33-3-2. 42, Light Industrial District, based upon the environmental assessment completed by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department dated February 15, 2001 . The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Stotz - Is it absolutely certain that retail sales will not take place on site? Mr. Hall - Sales will not be made on site . Sales are made through the Internet only. Mr. Seldin - The sale of services will take place on site . Chairperson Sigel - Will there be outside storage of materials? Mr. Hall - We will only need a dumpster in the rear of the building . Attorney Barney - The previous condition could be changed to allow routine solid waste disposal in one dumpster located behind the building . Chairperson Sigel - The board does not want items that are for sale stored outside . Mr. Hall - We could have more than one dumpster. One dumpster could potentially be designated for cardboard . Attorney Barney - Are the dumpsters shown on the site plan ? Mr. Hall - The dumpsters are not currently located on the site . They would be located in the rear of the building . We could be using five or six recycling bins . Attorney Barney - The resolution could specify an area of 12 feet by 12 feet that could be used for solid waste disposal in the rear of the building . Resolution No. 2001 - 11 - Appeal of Thomas Bell, 614 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel Number 33-3- 2. 42, February 26, 2001 . MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Thomas Bell, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct an internet-based retail marketplace, with an emphasis on auctions, at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2. 42, Light Industrial District. Said zone permits only on-site fabrication and assembly. The difficulty of obtaining a reasonable financial return for light industrial use, the board feels is a financial hardship based on the following findings and conditions: a . That this board has previously found that the property did not yield a reasonable financial return as limited to a light industrial use, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 18 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED b. There has been evidence that costs and prospective revenues indicate that the revenue stream is a hardship if there is not rental to some kind of enterprise and it appears that only retail enterprises are those enterprises that seem to be responding to possible ads and possible rental of it, C, That the hardship relating to this particular property is unique. It is a small building on a small parcel of land and not well fitted to use as an industrial type of activity. The requested use variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighbor as other types of industrial and commercial types of uses surround it, d. That the alleged hardship has not been self created. The building has been present for a long period of time. No current action has been taken to create the hardship that exists, e. That there be no sale of merchandise to walk-in customers on the premises, f. That there be no exterior storage of material on the premises other than routine solid waste disposal located in an area not larger than 12 x 6 feet in the rear of the building, g. That the exterior sign not be lit between 10:00 p. m. and sunrise. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Margaret Rumsey , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 and 19 , and Article XIII , Section 68 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a Bed and Breakfast operation , with up to ten guests in a single-family residence and up to four guests in a detached second dwelling unit at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 38- 1 -2 , Residence District R-30 . An approval was granted on January 18 , 1984 to permit up to eight guests in one residence only. Margaret Rumsey , 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road - I was hoping the board would come to visit the site . Ms. Rumsey explained the location of her home to the board using a site plan. My husband and I moved to our home in June of 1948 when we were married . The first thing we did when we moved in and furnished the house was make a sign that said "Tourists" . My husband was a student at Cornell and I was a medical lab technician . My husband 's parents started housekeeping in one room . My father- in - law grew up in the house . The house was part of a dairy farm run by my husband 's grandparents . They farmed all the land . This has been a Rumsey homestead . Our grandchildren are the sixth generation . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 19 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED I started the bed and breakfast in the fall of 1983 . Glendale Farms opened during this time in the Town of Ithaca . They also had a second unit for four persons that they have used for many years . I am finishing my eighteenth year in the business of bed and breakfast . I started at the same time as Rose Inn . The Rose Inn started with five rooms and is now twenty-eight rooms . There are many bed and breakfasts that have two units on their lot within our Ithaca area . I put beds in the building that was previously our office . I did not realize it was not allowed . It was pointed out to me recently that I needed a building permit to do so . The Fire Department has recently checked the second building . The house was also recently checked by the Fire Department . The Gear Fire Equipment Company did this . The bed and breakfast in Dryden recommended them highly to check over everything that I have done for fire safety. The gentleman said everything looked fine to him . - He did ask that I add two fire extinguishers . One was to be added to the livingroom where the guest fireplace is located . The second would be located in the first floor Jacuzzi suite , which has a wood burning fireplace . I am not sure what is important to the board , but I would be willing to answer any questions . The only other bed and breakfast in the Town of Ithaca is located at 1031 Hanshaw Road . They have five rooms . There is bed and breakfast through the area with five bedrooms . I do not think there is a problem in the neighborhood . I feel more compressed in by the world closing in around me . The house was built in 1815 . It had a large walk- in fireplace . The second portion of the house was finished in 1820 . The second portion of the house has a full basement . The upstairs originally had two bedrooms with two fireplaces . There is now one large bedroom that we used as our master bedroom and two small bedrooms . Mom and Dad Rumsey finished the section of the house over the original portion of the house as an efficiency apartment . They were able to live our summers with us . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 56 p . m . John Powers , 106 West Buttermilk Falls Road - I have been Mrs . Rumsey's neighbor since the early 1950s . My house is located across the highway from Mrs . Rumsey. I have lived in my house my entire life . I have known Mrs . Rumsey my entire life . As a resident and property owner in the area I can state that the bed and breakfast has added significantly to the character of the neighborhood . Mrs . Rumsey keeps the property up very well . The outside of the property is immaculate . Every year there are more flowers and the property becomes more beneficial to the appearance . I was a career fire fighter with the City of Ithaca . I have a lot of faith in the property as being a safe property from a standpoint of fire safety. Over the years Mrs . Rumsey has paid quite a bit of attention in maintaining the quality of the utilities inside the house . The access to the house is very good . The access around the house for any incidents is very good . I harp on Mrs . Rumsey for many things until she gets them done . I point out a lot of aspects to her. I have heard talk in the previous cases of there might being a hardship . Our neighborhood feels that we are under siege from the outside world . Mrs . Rumsey is an older adult . She is trying to make it on her own . She has a very expensive property . The property is very expensive to maintain . Mrs . Rumsey works hard to have a worthwhile job , life and income . It is important that the variance be ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 20 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED granted to allow her additional occupancy . The occupancy in the garage area is new construction . It could be considered cozy . I do not see any safety hazards . Mrs . Rumsey does store her lawn mower in the area during the winter when there are no residents staying in the building . She keeps the gas outside when there are residents staying in the building . Mrs . Rumsey pays particular attention to the safety of the residents . I am able to support her in any argument or questions . Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 9 : 00 p . m . Mr. Krantz - About fifteen or twenty years ago many people started a bed and breakfast . The rules and regulations started to impact the businesses . The businesses had to follow fire and safety regulations . This caused the businesses to spend a lot of money to meet the regulations and requirements . Many of the bed and breakfasts went out of business because they could not afford the expenses . Mrs . Rumsey has maintained her bed and breakfast nicely. The bed and breakfast business is starting to pass into the realm of a hotel . Many businesses have expanded . Mrs . Rumsey has expanded to renting to fourteen persons . The board respects the right of the homeowner to make a living and continue as an asset to the community. There are fire safety rules and regulations that need to be followed . The business has expanded large enough to need to follow these regulations . Mr. Powers - A couple with two children could rent the Arbor Cottage . The children would be sleeping on cots if they were to stay in a hotel . A couple could also have an infant . The infant would count as a person . Attorney Barney - How many beds are located in the Arbor Cottage? Mrs . Rumsey - There is a queen bed and two twin beds . Mr. Frost - How long has the Arbor Cottage been rented as part of the bed and breakfast? Mrs . Rumsey - I started to rent the Arbor Cottage after I retired from the real estate business . I retire in the late 1980s . Mr. Frost - My assistant recently inspected Mrs . Rumsey's house . She was told the Jacuzzi room was not a rental bedroom and it was used for Mrs . Rumsey Is private bedroom . Mrs . Rumsey - The inspector asked where my bedroom was located . Each bedroom is my bedroom . It varies as to where I sleep . Mr. Frost - My assistant was given the impression that the Jacuzzi room was not a rental room . Mrs . Rumsey was before the Town a number of years ago . We went through issues of fire safety. There was no indication at that time that the Arbor Cottage was used as part of the bed and breakfast . I questioned Mrs . Rumsey about it . Mrs . Rumsey said it was not part of the bed and breakfast . When we went through issues of occupancy and complying with the then fire codes applicable to the establishment , we were led to believe that until the building code issues were resolved , only four persons would be occupying the main building . We were led to believe that the Arbor Cottage was an office . I am confused at how the scenario seems to change . While I may not have personally a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 21 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED problem with what is being asked for, it has been hard to track facts in this case . The facts seem to change as to how this property is being used . Attorney Barney - How many bedrooms are rented out in the main house ? Mrs . Rumsey - There are four bedrooms in the main house and one bedroom for myself . My room is not always the Jacuzzi suite . Attorney Barney - Do the bedrooms contain a double bed ? Mrs . Rumsey - The master bedroom has a queen size bed and an antique sleigh bed . Parents often come with their child for the first night . The child then goes onto college . The other bedroom has a king bed with an antique daybed . Occasionally the two rooms have an extra person . The third bedroom has a twin bed . The fourth bedroom has a queen bed . Attorney Barney - What would be the maximum number of adults? Mrs . Rumsey - The maximum would be twelve persons . There are five rooms in the house . One room is for myself . It leaves four rooms for eight persons . Occasionally there would be an extra child or baby . Mr. Stotz - Do you ever rent out your bedroom to paying customers? Mrs . Rumsey - Yes . It is a survival tactic . This is mainly a six- month business . I am going to turn seventy-five in May . I do not know how much longer I can run the business . There is no other place I would rather live . I would like to continue doing the business while I can as long as I can . Mr. Stotz - I can understand the point of view . It is not an easy business . Mrs . Rumsey - The business is twenty-four hours per day seven days per week. Mr. Stotz - There is some confusion about whether or not only four rooms in the main house will be rented . Is it the case that you will never rent the room that you reside in ? Mrs . Rumsey - I do not have a problem with it. Mr. Frost - Is your bedroom referred to as the Jacuzzi suite ? Mrs . Rumsey - The Jacuzzi suite is the room that was rebuilt . Mr. Frost - Is it the room that you indicated to my assistant was your bedroom ? Mrs . Rumsey - Yes . It has been my bedroom in the winter. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 22 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost - I talked with you recently when I gave you a building permit . At that time the Jacuzzi suite was a guestroom . I am confused as to what we are using as a bedroom . The story seems to change . Mr. Powers - One view is that a room needs to be designated as a room that Mrs . Rumsey sleeps in . Another view is that different rooms are associated with different costs . The Jacuzzi suite is a higher cost room and might not be rented out . She might sleep in that room for the night . There is always an empty bedroom that will be her bedroom . I do not see where it is required that her one bedroom be her bedroom when there are five bedrooms and it depends on what is being rented . Mrs . Rumsey - They are all my bedrooms . I take care of them . I pay the taxes . I am trying to have a good home for my family and myself when they come back . I am trying to pay the taxes that the Town and school impose . I pay for the maintenance and upkeep on the property. I collect the sales tax and room taxes and turn it in every quarter. I am doing this alone with part-time help . Mr. Frost - I do not have an issue with what you are saying . Initially my inspector was told that the Jacuzzi was not used for anyone else . Mrs . Rumsey - I did not say that . Mr. Frost - It was what my inspector understood . Moments ago it was stated that the Jacuzzi suite was one of your bedrooms . When we issued the permit it was not your bedroom ; it was a guestroom . I am trying to understand what is being asked for specifically . Chairperson Sigel - Is it the case that only four of the five bedrooms are ever rented ? Do the bedrooms rented change from night to night? Mrs . Rumsey - Correct . Chairperson Sigel - Do you always use one of the five bedrooms in the main house as your bedroom for sleeping at night? Mrs . Rumsey - I shall henceforth . Mr. Powers - The incidence when it would approach fourteen occupants on the premises would be very rare . This bed and breakfast attracts young couples and people visiting their children . Mr. Frost - We went to court in the late 1980s regarding fire safety issues . The court papers noted , as were my findings , that there were sleeping accommodations in the cellar space of the main house . This violates building codes . Mr. Powers - I am very involved with Mrs . Rumsey as a life long friend . I tell her if something is dangerous . We can all agree that in the past years there have been many issues regarding this property. There was a significant change in the fire codes in the past few years . It recognized a bed and breakfast is different from a hotel . The situation has changed and has been for over one year. There are no accommodations in the basement except for storage and laundry. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 23 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost - I have been hearing and seeing information that the occupancy is completely different than what was presented during court action years ago . I feel very uncomfortable about what is going on . The information changes . There has not been an operating permit for the property since 1983 . Mr. Powers - The board can base their decision on everything that has happened in the past . Mrs . Rumsey showed me the letter from her last inspection . I told her it was a very respectful letter that was sent by the Town . I told her that the procedure would be to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr. Frost - I have not had a resolution on the fire safety issues with regard to the escape ladder. The escape ladders on site are for 750 pounds , not 1 , 000 pounds . Mr. Powers - I have discussed it with Mrs . Rumsey . Each ladder will be changed to 1 , 000 pounds . Mr. Stotz - Have you had a reasonable profit from the bed and breakfast? Mrs . Rumsey - I did not have a profit my first four years of business . The accountant showed a profit for the fourth year. Mr. Stotz - Did you receive a reasonable profit for last year? Mrs . Rumsey - I have not done the 2000 taxes . The taxes for 1998 and 1999 showed a negative cash flow . It is difficult when items accumulate for maintenance and repairs . I had to put a third roof on last year. I have six grandchildren . The three girls were the best help . I have let them know that someday one of them would take over the bed and breakfast . Mr. Stotz - The board could decide not to allow persons to rent the Arbor Cottage and four bedrooms could be rented in the main house . What would that mean financially? Mrs . Rumsey - Twenty-five percent of my intake came from the Arbor Cottage . I would not have guessed it to be that high . It should make the difference between a positive cash flow and a negative cash flow . Most bed and breakfast businesses do not make a positive cash flow . A hotel plans on at least 65% to break even . We do not even get 65% occupancy . It is primarily a six-month basis from May to October. Mr. Stotz - Do you have figures that will show that only renting out four rooms would mean a negative cash flow? Mrs . Rumsey - I could show the board the numbers if we go to the house . I do not know the exact number, but it turned out to be 25% of the growth . It is significant . Mr. Stotz - The appeal is for a use variance . The tests are more stringent . Chairperson Sigel - There are three issues . One is the increase in the occupancy of the main house . The board needs to grant the use of the separate unit as a second dwelling unit . It could also be ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 24 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED looked at as allowing it to be used as part of the bed and breakfast . Mrs . Rumsey is currently allowed to rent to eight persons in the main house . The criteria for a use variance are strict . Mrs . Rumsey - Has the board considered what an amazing resource I am for the Town of Ithaca ? Mr. Stotz - The board does not disagree with that point . Mrs . Rumsey - It is not replaceable . I do not think anyone else would work this hard . Mr. Stotz - It is a beautiful house in a beautiful location . The house is well maintained . The board is not disputing that fact . It is an asset to the community. The board has to decide whether or not the request will fit the criteria specified by law that would permit us to do so . Mrs . Rumsey - Would it be helpful if the board came to see the premises? The board is welcome to visit the house at this time . Chairperson Sigel - I did visit the site . I looked around the property . Mrs . Rumsey - What is the main issue? Attorney Barney - The Zoning Ordinance states the occupancy cannot exceed a certain number of unrelated persons . This property already exceeds the maximum of unrelated people . The board has heard this evening that the occupancy has exceeded the eight persons permitted . The Zoning Ordinance also does not permit more than one principle building on the property . The appeal is asking for a variance of a use that is contrary to our Ordinance . There are two violations and two requests for variances . The third issue is the number of persons permitted to occupy the Arbor Cottage . There are other bed and breakfast establishments in the Town of Ithaca that do not permit more than four unrelated persons . The test for a variance of this nature requires that there be a demonstration of solid economic evidence that you are unable to realize a reasonable return from the property in compliance with the Ordinance . This board does not have the authority to grant the variance without the economic evidence . The board has to be shown by a record that demonstrates there is no reasonable return to be obtained by the property from the use permitted by the Ordinance . Mrs . Rumsey - I can show the board that I had a negative cash flow in 1998 and 1999 . Attorney Barney - A negative cash flow does not necessarily mean that you cannot obtain a reasonable return on the property . A reasonable return could be a sale of the property. It is not completely cash in and cash out . Chairperson Sigel - The house is located in a residential district . The presumption is that you live at the residence . It is not necessarily to seek to derive your income from the property . Mrs . Rumsey - I would not be able to live in my home if I did not run the bed and breakfast . It is the reason why I am continuing . I cannot think of any place that I would rather live . I hope that one of my ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 25 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED grandchildren take over the business . It is too much money for one person to live in that house . I do not want to be in the real estate business again . Chairperson Sigel - I do not think the property has to provide a sufficient return for one person to live there . The property is better suited to a larger family since it is a larger house . Mr. Powers - I am one person living in a large , five- bedroom house . The house has an accessory house to the rear. I have one income . I can assure the board that it is tough going to live where I have lived my entire life . Mrs . Rumsey is a single person trying to maintain a full family house . Chairperson Sigel - I can appreciate it . The tests the board has to apply force us to look at whether the house could be sold for a reasonable return . Mrs . Rumsey - I would be forced to sell my home if I am not permitted to run a bed and breakfast . It is not very reasonable . Mr. Stotz - Mrs . Rumsey , you have the approval to run a bed and breakfast for eight persons . The board is not saying you should not have the bed and breakfast . The issue is to what degree do you have to expand your business from its current permitted level of eight persons to be able to maintain your income . The board needs to see evidence that if you continue to rent only four bedrooms in the house , it is going to force you to move out . Up until this point the bed and breakfast has been operated with revenue from eight persons . The board did find out that rooms have been rented to more than eight persons . The financial evidence has not been shown to the board . Mrs . Rumsey - Is that the only reason the board would grant the appeal ? The Rose Inn started with the same number of bedrooms as I did . Mr. Stotz - Attorney Barney has explained that this is the criterion the board has to look at as a matter of law . This is not something we are arbitrarily deciding . Mrs . Rumsey - Is not this why I am coming for a variance ? Chairperson Sigel - This is the law that governs the issuance of a variance . Mr. Powers - Would the board consider postponing the decision until Mrs . Rumsey could present further information ? Chairperson Sigel - We could adjourn the appeal until the next meeting . Mr. Ellsworth - We need to make it clear what she needs to show the board . The board needs to see clear evidence that show the house would need to be sold or you would need to move out if you were not able to obtain a variance for the additional guests . Chairperson Sigel - Is this appropriate for a residential district ? Should we expect that someone should be able to make a profit off their dwelling ? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 26 FEBRUARY 26 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney - It is an element . The board needs to look at the overall economic hardship . Mrs . Rumsey is living in a large house alone . The board could base the decision on the fact that there are insufficient funds to keep the house running in the absence of renting . The board could choose that it is not sufficient because the house is located in a residential area . A residence is not going to yield a cash flow profit . There are four tests the board has to look at . Three of them could be met without too much discussion . The main test is that in order to grant the variance , the applicant has to demonstrate to the Zoning Board of Appeals that under applicable zoning regulations the applicant cannot obtain a reasonable economic return from the property in question . It must be established by competent financial evidence . An adjournment would allow the applicant to put together a case trying to demonstrate financial strain . Mr. Powers - What does the term " reasonable " describe? Attorney Barney - It is a constitutional term . It means that the applicant is entitled to a variance if the application of a Zoning Ordinance to your property would constitute a taking under the constitution . A municipality cannot take property from people without allowing them a reasonable return for it . If you are able to receive a reasonable return from the market or another source , then you are required to comply with the Zoning Ordinance . If you are unable to get a reasonable return , then the Zoning Ordinance is too harsh and you are entitled to a variance . Chairperson Sigel - The test would be applied to the current state of the property . This property does have a variance allowing eight persons . The applicant needs to show that the current variance is insufficient . Mr. Powers - The test does not introduce the fact that we are talking about a woman who has lived at the property most of her life and raised a family there . The value or what is reasonable is based on a lot of emotional involvement with the property . Where does that test come in ? Attorney Barney - Those considerations are technically irrelevant . In actuality this board has not turned a blind eye to those considerations . The board has probably granted use variances where under the law , the courts might have tossed out a use variance . I do not want to suggest that this is a hopeless case . It is not the situation . The board does need to see evidence that there is economic and emotional hardship . Mr. Powers - Is it reasonable for the board to send her a letter citing what evidence she needs? Attorney Barney - No . It is not reasonable . It is the applicant's obligation to make the demonstration . It is not the board 's obligation to tell the applicant what the demonstration should be . We do have a problem because we have a non -complying building . This building is supposed to have an operating permit . There has not been an operating permit since 1993 . It is a safety issue . Every building that has more than four persons sleeping in it for hire is required to have an operating permit . It is a renewable permit that is obtained every three years . There is a fire safety inspection given every two years . We have now gone eight years without a permit . It does not sit well with the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 27 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MARCH 19, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Town . We have clear violations of the prior variance that was granted . Mrs . Rumsey needs to come before the board quickly with the facts that you think will make the case . The board needs a chance to look at it and make a determination . This appeal should not be adjourned for more than one month . The Town needs to take action legally if the property does not come into compliance . The next meeting is March 19tH Mr. Frost - We will need the materials for the meeting by March 9 , 2001 , Mrs . Rumsey - My accountant left Ithaca . I have a new accountant . It means I have to pull together the year 2000 taxes . Attorney Barney - The taxes do not need to be completed . The board needs to have the revenue and expenses for the bed -and breakfast . Mr. Krantz - This board is not unsympathetic to the applicant . Resolution No. 2001 - 12 - Margaret RumseV, 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road, Tax Parcel Number 38= 1 =2, February 26, 2001 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by David Stotz. RESOLVED, that this board adjourns the appeal of Margaret Rumsey, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 19, and Article Xlll, Section 68 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a Bed and Breakfast operation, with up to ten guests in a single-family residence and up to four guests in a detached second dwelling unit at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38- 1 -2, Residence District R-30, until the March 19, 2001 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9 : 37 p . m . KiSk Sigel , Chairperson r [A Carrie Whitmore , Deputy own Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001. 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, February 26, 2001 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, N.Y., COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M. , on the following matters: APPEAL of Christine Henseler, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to demolish an existing non-conforming garage and rebuild it with a modified footprint, at 841 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2- 33 , Residence District R- 15 . Said non-conforming garage is located adjacent to the highway right-of--way line at the front yard and within 2 ± feet of the north side property line. APPEAL of Robert Levitsky, Appellant, requesting a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article III, Section 4 (2b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to occupy a two-family home by three unrelated people in each unit, located at 174- 176 Kendall Avenue, Town of Tax Parcel No. 54-5-22, Residence District R-9. APPEAL of Thomas Bell, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct an internet-based retail marketplace, with an emphasis on auctions, at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2.42, Light Industrial District. Said use is not permitted in a Light Industrial zone. A special approval under Article XII, Section 54 may also be requested. APPEAL of Margaret Rumsey, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 19, and Article XIII, Section 68 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a Bed and Breakfast operation, with up to ten guests in a single-family residence and up to four guests in a detached second dwelling unit at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 384 -2, Residence District R-30. An approval was granted on January 18, 1984 to permit up to eight guests in one residence only. 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. Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : February 12 , 2001 Published : February 21 , 2001 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 215 North Tioaa Street, Ithaca, New York on Monday, February 26, 2001 , commencing at 7:00 P.M ., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of posting: February 12, 2001 Date of publication: February 21 , 2001 O ' ani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Departm nt Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 21 st day of February 10, 2001 , Caw I 1A itfi eu Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORI? Notary Public, State of New No. 01 WH6052877 COmmIsSlon EX p ecemi es County Cer ber T