Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2011-03-21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ® NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, MARCH 21 , 2011 215 North Tioaa Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P . M . Adjourned Appeal of Jonathan Russell-Anelli and Katherine McComas , owners/applicants , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-208 B "Dwellings on Nonconforming Lots" and Section 270-47 "Building Area" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing deck that exceeds the allowable percentage of lot coverage and to construct a wrap around deck that encroaches into the required side yard and rear yard setbacks and further increases the exceeded lot coverage , located at 1134 East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No . 19 . -2-2 , Lakefront Residential . Appeal of Jeffrey Hall , owner, requesting a modification of ZB Resolution No . 2004-041 , granted August 16, 2004 by the Zoning Board of Appeals , for relief from the conditions set forth in said resolution . The variance permitted the subdivision of a parcel into four lots with two lots having not less than 30 feet of road frontage and a 30 foot width at the required setback line located at 922-928 Coddington Rd , Tax Parcel Numbers 47. - 1 -4.2, 47. - 1 -4. 31 47. - 1 -4.4, and 47. - 1 -4. 5 , Low Density Residential . Appeal of Ithaca College , owner, Herman Sieverding , Agent, requesting modification of ZB Resolution No. 2010-021 , granted July 19, 2010 by the Zoning Board of Appeals . Said variance permitted setback reductions related to parking along the north side of the property, located at 1033 Danby Road , Tax Parcel Numbers 43 . - 1 -2 .2 and 43.- 1 -2 . 3, Medium Density Residential . Appeal of College Crossings , LLC , owner, Evan Monkemeyer, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270- 117A(2) (3) "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east side of the property located at 1061 Danby Rd , Tax Parcel No. 43. - 1 -3. 22 , Neighborhood Commercial . Appeal of Cayuga Ridge Health and Residential Community, owner, Kristin E . Gutenberger, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-66 "Permitted Principal Uses" and Section 270-68G "Permitted Accessory Buildings and Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to operate a 100- bed Nursing Home and 90-bed Assisted Living Program/Adult Home located at 1229 Trumansburg Rd , Tax Parcel No . 26. -4-46. 1 , Medium Density Residential . Said request would be extending variances granted by this Board on August 25, 2009. Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs , upon request. Requests should be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings . Bruce W . Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273- 1783 Dated : March 10, 2011 Published : March 12 , 2011 TOWN OF ITHACA . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SIGN - IN SHEET DATE : March 21 , 2011 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADORES SIA FFILIATION e,0:044 A2L2L�� lz �, p FILE DATE ZONING BOARD of APPEALS Monday, March 21 , 2011 7 : 00 p. m. Board Members Present: Kirk Sigel , Chair; Ron Krantz, James Niefer, Dave Mountin , and Bill King . Staff Present : Bruce Bates , Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town ; Carrie Coates Whitmore ; Deputy Town Clerk . Others : Kristin Gutenberger, Jonathan Russell-Anelli , Katherine McComas , Jeffrey Hall , Evan Monkemeyer, Larry Fabbroni , Rick Couture, Herman Sieverding , Charles House . Call to Order Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7: 05 p . m . Adjourned Appeal of Jonathan Russell=Anelli and Katherine McComas, owners/applicants, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-208 B " Dwellings on Nonconforming Lots" and Section 270-47 " Building Area" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing deck that exceeds the allowable percentage of lot coverage and to construct a wrap around deck that encroaches into the required side yard and rear yard setbacks and further increases the exceeded lot coverage, located at 1134 East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No. 19.=2-2, Lakefront ® Residential . Kristin Gutenberger appeared before the Board acting as agent for Mr. Russell-Anelli and Ms . McComas . She provided a revised narrative , copy of the property tax map , and a copy of the deed for the property to the Board (see meeting folder, materials dated March 21 , 2011 ) , Ms . Gutenberger understood that one of the main issues that came up at the last meeting was the determination of whether or not the land between the railroad track and the lake was part of this property. She referred the Board to the copy of the deed from Luce to the Cayuga Lake Railroad Company in July 1972 . Ms . Gutenberger summarized that this deed established that this was one property with a strip of land conveyed out to the railroad company in 1872 . The railroad company specifically gave the property owner access from the east side of the property to the west side of the property. Ms . Gutenberger then referred the Board to a copy of the deed conveying the property to Mr. Russell-Anelli and Ms . McComas . She noted that this deed includes the strip of land to the west of the railroad track . She concluded that this property has historically been one parcel bisected by the railroad track . Ms . Gutenberger went on to say that New York State only claims ownership to the low water mark of Cayuga Lake . The land in question is between the low water mark and the railroad right-of-way. The Tompkins County Assessment Department does not assess the strip of land as a separate tax parcel number. The property is also considered to be a lake front property and is zoned Lakefront Residential , not Railroad Front Residential . Ms . Gutenberger explained that her clients purchased the property in November 2010 without realizing the safety concerns associated with the property. The house is sandwiched in between a New York State highway and a railroad . The family includes two young children who would like to enjoy the outside area of the parcel . The proposed deck would provide a safe place for the children to play. Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final Ms . Gutenberger then turned her attention to the question of lot coverage . She noted that she provided the Board with a copy of the Tax Map for the area . The Tax Map shows several properties to the south that are smaller than 1134 East Shore Drive with similar sized houses . Ms . Gutenberger felt that the Board would be keeping with the neighborhood character if the requested variances were granted since the character of the neighborhood consists of small lots with larger houses . She added that there is not an identifiable detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community. Chairperson Sigel asked Ms . Gutenberger if she new why the parcels on the survey were labeled Parcel A and Parcel B . He explained that the words "to be conveyed" on the survey map give the impression that the parcels were not connected at a fairly recent time . Ms . Gutenberger responded that she has gone through the abstract of title for the parcel and in the early 1980s the Parcel B was not conveyed . The title issue was identified when Mr. Russell- Anelli and Ms . McComas purchased the property. The estate of the family that formerly owned the property was contacted and a Quit Claim Deed to the property was done . Chairperson Sigel confirmed that Jane Crawford was a previous owner of Parcel A . Ms . Gutenberger thought that it was rational to consider the parcel the rear property line of the property given that the parcel has historically been a part of the property and that it is not owned by the State . Chairperson Sigel said he assumed that Ms . Crawford was a former owner of the neighboring property because the small triangle could appear to be a small extension of the neighbor' s property. Ms . Gutenberger went on to describe the appearance of the house from the lake . She said that ® it currently looks like one massive wall from the lake. The applicant' s proposal is to create an outdoor space that would not be a solid wall . It would be one horizontal plane that would be enhanced with foundation plantings and breakup the visual massing of the house from the lake. They were hopeful that the plantings would add to the integrity and stability of the earth around that area . Ms . Gutenberger referenced the south property line and stated that the house was built in this location in 1925 . Her clients would be subject to the 10% lot coverage requirement if they were to tear the home down and build a new one . Chairperson Sigel explained that Town Code requires rear yards to be 50 feet in depth unless adjacent to the shoreline and then it cannot be less than 25 feet in depth from the ordinary high water line . He asked if Ms . Gutenberger was suggesting that the Board measure the rear yard from the ordinary high water line , which is on railroad property. Ms . Gutenberger thought that a variance for the rear yard would not be needed if that were the case . Chairperson Sigel commented that it is an unusual situation in the Town . Chairperson Sigel asked Ms . Brock for her opinion . Attorney Brock explained that the current Town Code describes a lot as any area of land bounded by property lines , which is not divided into parts by a public road or railroad . Each part of any area so divided by a road or railroad is considered an individual lot for zoning and subdivision purposes. Attorney Brock went on to explain that the property needs to be considered separate lots for zoning purposes . Mr. Bates and Attorney Brock reviewed the 1994 zoning , which was in effect when the previous owner bought the property. The 1994 Zoning Code included a generic description of a lot. She questioned which definition of a lot should be applied . Attorney Brock explained that if a particular zoning requirement has been changed , the Board would apply what was in effect when the structure was built. She thought that this situation was different. Chairperson Sigel stated that the Board is applying the current lot coverage requirements to the property. Attorney Brock explained that that was because the applicants wanted to make a change to the property. Page 2 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final ® She concluded that because the applicants want to make a change to the property, then the Board should look at the current definition of a lot . Ms . Gutenberger asked what the land to the west would be considered as . Attorney Brock and Mr. Bates explained that it would be considered a separate lot for zoning purposes . Ms . Gutenberger, Chairperson Sigel , and Attorney Brock went on to talk about the Lakefront Residential zone requirements for properties with and without lake frontage , and the different characteristics of the parcels in the zone . Mr. Mountin asked if the setback requirements would be applied different to Parcel A. Chairperson Sigel thought that Parcel A would be treated as a non- lakefront parcel because it does not have any frontage on the lake . Parcel B , which would be impossible to build on , has frontage on the lake . Mr. Bates directed the Board' s attention to the survey map provided to them in their packet, which has the 50 foot setback line marked out. Chairperson Sigel concluded that a rear yard setback variance would be required . Ms . Gutenberger pointed out that the applicants intentionally did not include a stairway as part of the proposed deck because they want their children to have a safe place to play. She went on to ask what the percentage of lot coverage is allowed since the property does not have lake frontage . Chairperson Sigel explained that 10% is allowed because the property is located in the Lakefront Residential zone . ® Chairperson Sigel turned everyone's attention to determining lot coverage calculations . He noted that Mr. Bates determined that decks should be included in the lot coverage calculation based on Section 270-223 . 1 of the Town Code . Mr. Mountin asked why the decks would be included in the lot coverage calculation since they were not covered . Mr. Bates read Section 270-223. 1 to the Board . Chairperson Sigel did not think that everything over 3 feet should be included in lot coverage just because everything under 3 feet is not. He felt that setbacks were different than lot coverage because there was no reason for a setback to refer to the definition of a building area. It is only in the definition of a building area that the exemption exists . Chairperson Sigel stated that the only way to arrive at an exemption was through the definition of building area and then he did not think it was clear. He thought it was possible that at some point an uncovered porch could be a roof for something below. Chairperson Sigel gave the example of calling a grassy area below a porch a terrace. Mr. Mountin asked for the definition of a roof. Chairperson Sigel responded that a roof is not defined . The Board went on to discuss whether or not decks and porches should be counted towards lot coverage when the area below them could clearly be used as a patio, terrace , etc. Mr. King asked if the area under the proposed deck would be unusable . Mr. Mountin said that a deck without a roof on it is a deck. Chairperson Sigel gave the scenario of putting in a patio and installing a roof over it, but calling the roof a deck. Mr. Mountin responded that it was different to him if the roof was sealed with railings . Board continued to discuss the scenario. Mr. Mountin reiterated that he did not think of this deck as a roof only because it had 8 feet of space underneath it where the applicants could potentially do something with it . He thought of it as a deck with a small overhang from the house . Page 3 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final ® Chairperson Sigel thought that this discussion could have significant impacts for other cases. He was leaning towards an interpretation of if something looks like a certain thing , or acts like a certain thing , then it is treated the same regardless of what it is called . Ms . Gutenberger clarified that the applicants would not be using the area underneath the deck for anything but "foundation plantings . Mr. Krantz agreed with Mr. Mountin . He did not consider the deck as part of the square footage unless there were specific , unquestionable rules that say it should be. Chairperson Sigel thought that the Board could decide that this particular application did not meet the requirements that it be treated as square footage of the house without making an additional statement about what might or might not be counted in the future towards square footage . Board members agreed . Attorney Brock asked if it made a difference if there was a deck over another deck. Mr. Bates did not think it would be counted as lot coverage because of the definition . Mr. Niefer commented that a deck is a deck and a roof is a roof . Mr. Bates reminded the Board that it included decks in the calculation of lot coverage when it granted variances for 901 Taughannock Boulevard . The Board and Mr. Bates briefly discussed the 901 Taughannock Boulevard appeal . Attorney Brock brought up whether or not the decks were water tight. Mr. Bates explained that it wasn't until the last time that property came before the Board that the decks were proposed to be water tight. Ms . Gutenberger offered a condition of approval that the applicants never construct a roof over ® the decks and that the deck floor remains a traditional floor with spacing between the boards . Chairperson Sigel commented that just because the Board treated something one way in the past doesn't mean that they needed to treat it the same way in the future. He encouraged the Town Board to clarify the issue . Mr. Mountin asked if the deck at 901 Taughannock Boulevard was impervious . Mr. Bates said that it was . Mr. Mountin felt that the decks at 901 Taughannock Boulevard were more like a roof than a deck. Chairperson Sigel reminded that Board that the 901 Taughannock Boulevard decks were not always impervious , even though the Board included them in the square footage calculations . Mr. Mountin thought that it may have been included because the decks were presented to the Board as part of the square footage calculations in the first place . The Board continued to discuss whether or not all decks on the property would be counted towards lot coverage. It was the Board ' s consensus that decks do not count in lot coverage , even if it is a deck above a deck. Chairperson Sigel floated the idea of eliminating the south portion of the deck to the Board . Ms . Gutenberger explained that the property line to the south opens up as it runs towards the lake . She felt that the deck would also improve the aesthetics of the south side of the house. Chairperson Sigel thought that eliminating that portion of the deck would still give the applicant a substantial portion of the deck space being requested . He felt that it was a portion of exterior living space that was fairly close to the neighbor. The Board did not agree with Chairperson Sigel's proposal and decided not to eliminate the south portion of the deck. Page 4 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final ® SEQR Attorney Brock informed the Board that the request is exempt from SEQR because it is a Type II action . Public Hearing Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7: 50 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board . Charles House appeared before the Board and spoke in support of the project as long as it did not impede his view of the lake . Mr. House went on to ask questions about the proposed deck . Mr. Bates provided him with a copy of the plans to review. The Board and Mr. House discussed the design of the proposal . Mr. House reiterated that he supported the project as long as his view was not impacted . Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7: 55 p . m . Mr. King asked how the existing deck was supported . Mr. Russell-Anelli stated that the deck was supported by pilings camouflaged by a mesh screen . Mr. King then asked about the support for the proposed deck. Mr. Russell-Anelli explained that it would be the same structure , but screened with foundation plantings . Mr. Bates questioned the deck support structure because the plans submitted with the building permit application indicated that it would be anchored to the buildings with brackets . Mr. Russell-Anelli confirmed that is what they proposed for the first building permit. Mr. King commented that the area of the deck could be closed in . Mr. Russell-Anelli assured the Board that the area would not closed in . Chairperson Sigel thought that the deck would be supported on the house . He felt that there was a lesser aesthetic impact with an angled brace rather than having support columns . He thought it would definitely impact the appearance of the deck. Mr. Mountin asked if the change was due to economic reasons . Mr. Russell-Anelli said that it was and explained that the engineer informed them that the cost would be high to tie the deck to the house . The engineer was concerned with the weight of the deck on the brackets . Mr. Russell-Anelli was not sure that they would be able to afford the design using the brackets . Chairperson Sigel asked if the change in deck constructed changed the Board's opinion . Mr. Mountin said that it affected his opinion . He asked how the posts would be constructed and what the spacing would be . Mr. Russell -Anelli was not sure and Mr. Bates added that the Code Enforcement Office has not received plans reflecting that it will be constructed with posts instead of brackets . Mr. Mountin stated that the Board could grant a variance , but that the deck would still need to meet the building code . Chairperson Sigel asked if the Board was comfortable with the change to post construction . Mr. Krantz commented that the Board is getting pushed more and more . He said that they don 't have any idea how many or how thick the posts would be . Chairperson Sigel sympathized with Mr. Krantz's view. He went on to say that the neighbor concerned with the view does not know if there will be a post on the corner. Mr. Mountin wondered if 4x4 posts would be sufficient. Mr. Bates said that 4x4s would not be sufficient to span the distance of the proposed deck. Chairperson Sigel said that he would like to see detailed plans of the deck before he votes on the requested variance . He would be willing to take a vote on the appeal if other members of the Board were comfortable . Page 5 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final Ms . Gutenberger asked if there was a way to condition approval on the deck meeting minimum code requirements . Chairperson Sigel responded that the Board did not even know what that would be , but presumed that the construction would be the minimum code requirements . He did not think that Mr. Bates would be comfortable with enforcing a subjective aesthetic condition . Mr. Bates said that he would need to see the proposed design because the Code does not support the use of a column that high without it being engineered . Chairperson Sigel added that if cross-bracing is needed then it adds to the aesthetic impacts of the deck. He then reiterated that he would want to see a plan before voting . Mr. Mountin agreed . Mr. Russell-Anelli stated that he and his wife are running into a wall themselves because they would really like to move into the house. He understood that they could move into the house without the deck. They were advised to ask for the 8 feet, but in reality they just want 6 feet. He went on to say that the original design was for brackets , but then the engineer looked at it and advised that it would be easier and safer to put in the posts . Ms . Gutenberger asked Mr. Russell-Anelli if the bracket design would be sufficient for a 6 foot wide deck. He said that the brackets would need to be substantial and that the architect, engineer, and builder all felt that post construction was the better route. Mr. Russell-Anelli went on to say that if the deck was 6 foot wide , then the posts would only need to go out 4 feet. The hedge is currently 3 feet out so the posts would essentially be in the same location as the existing hedge. Mr. Bates stated that he would like to see plans for the deck. He thought that the joists would have to be at least a 2x12 in order to cantilever out that distance. Mr. Bates reiterated that they ® needed to see plans for how the deck would be built. Mr. Russell-Anelli argued that the plans were part of building permit process. Mr. Bates responded that the submitted plans are for the bracket design . The Board has not seen a design for post construction . Chairperson Sigel added that it doesn 't appear to be a straight-forward design and the Board cannot anticipate what the deck would look like . Ms . Gutenberger understood and said that the applicants have decided to build a 6 foot deck with brackets ; they will figure out how to make that happen . Chairperson Sigel confirmed that the applicants were proposing to reduce the size of the deck from 8 feet to 6 feet. Mr. Russell-Anelli added that the north side of deck was proposed to have column support in the original plans. He explained that the deck below cannot be used with the brackets . Chairperson Sigel asked the Board if they supported Mr. Russell-Anelli's proposal . Mr. Bates suggested that the Board review the plans submitted as part of the building permit application . Attorney Brock then suggested that the Board could make its determination regarding lot coverage while the plans were pulled . The Board and staff discussed language for the resolution . Lot coverage—Chairperson Sigel moved to make a determination that the existing deck .and proposed deck do not count towards building lot coverage because the decks themselves have no roofs and are not impervious as a roof would be , and because the area under decks are not enclosed . Mr. Krantz seconded . Vote—CU ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -014: Determination, Jonathan Russell=Anelli and Katherine McComas, 1034 East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No. 19. =2=2 Page 6 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Ron Krantz. Resolved, that this Board makes the determination in the appeal of Jonathan Russell- Anelli and Katherine McComas that the existing deck and proposed deck do not count towards building lot coverage for the following reasons: 1 . The decks themselves have no roofs, 2. The decks are not impervious as a roof would be, and 3. The area under the decks is not enclosed. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Bates if he had had an opportunity to review the building permit plans for the file . Mr. Bates said that he did and he did not find anything different than what is shown in the plans provided to the Board . Chairperson Sigel then moved to grant the appeal of Jonathan Russell-Anelli and Katherine ® McComas to be permitted to maintain an existing deck and to construct a wrap around deck that encroaches into required side and rear yard setback located at 1034 East Shore Drive finding that all requirements of an area variance had been satisfied , specifically listing how each criterion was met and with conditions on deck construction . Seconded by Mr. Niefer. Vote—CU ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =015. Area Variance, Jonathan Russell-Anelli and Katherine McComas, 1034 East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No. 19. =2=2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Jim Niefer. Resolved, that this Board grants the appeal of Jonathan Russell-Anelli and Katherine McComas requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-46 "Yard Regulations " to be permitted to maintain an existing deck and to construct a wrap- around deck that encroaches into the required side yard and rear yard setbacks located at 1134 East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No. 19. -2-2, Lakefront Residential zone, with the following: Conditions: 1 . That the proposed deck along the south and west sides of the house not project more than 6 feet from the house, ® 2. That the proposed deck along the west side of the house be constructed as shown on the plans submitted to the Building Department showing bracket construction, allowing for modifications to the brackets as needed, Page 7 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final 3. That the deck on the north and south sides of the house may be constructed using post design that meets building code, 4. That the decks be constructed substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant except as modified by the conditions of this variance, 5. That the portion of the deck on the north side extend no further out from the house than 8 feet, and 6. That the existing deck on the north side of the house will not be enlarged beyond its current footprint. Findings: That this Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the applicant's desire to have the deck space at the main living level, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that other properties in the area have similarly small lots or even smaller lots with similarly deficient setbacks, 3. That while the requested variance is substantial, nevertheless the benefit to ® the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects, and 5. While the alleged difficult is self-created, nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Appeal of Jeffrey Hall , owner, requesting a modification of ZB Resolution No. 2004=041 , granted August 16, 2004 by the Zoning Board of Appeals, for relief from the conditions set forth in said resolution . The variance permitted the subdivision of a parcel into four lots with two lots having not less than 30 feet of road frontage and a 30 foot width at the required setback line located at 922=928 Coddington Rd ; Tax Parcel Numbers 47.-11 -4.2, 47.-14 .3, 47.-1 -4.4, and 47.-1 -4.5, Low Density Residential . Jeff Hall appeared before the board and gave a summary of his request. He requested modification of the required length of the driveway into the subdivision and the required driveway surface . He purchased the subdivision without realizing that the driveway needed to be paved . Mr. Hall went on to describe the construction of the driveway. It was discovered during the construction of the driveway that if its distance was shortened by 40 feet it would save 3 of the most mature trees on the lot. Page 8 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final Mr. Bates explained that the previous approval described the width and depth of the driveway. Applicant has shortened driveway by more than 10% and Mr . Bates did not feel that he could approve the modification as an insubstantial change . Mr. Hall stated that he had no desire to have driveway deeded to Town as town road . The three property owners currently have shared driveway agreements for the use of the driveway. Chairperson Sigel asked Attorney Brock if it would be appropriate to move to modify the 2004 variance . Attorney Brock thought that it would be , but that the resolution should state how the area variance criteria are satisfied . SEAR Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance for reasons in Part II of the EAF prepared by Town Staff. Seconded by Mr. Krantz. Vote—CU ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -016: Environmental Assessment, Jeffrey Hall, 922-928 Coddin_ iton Rd, Tax Parcel Nos. 47. - 1 -4.2, 47. 44. 3, 47. 44. 4, 47. 44. 5 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Ron Krantz. Resolved, that in regards to the appeal of Jeffrey Hall, this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for reasons in Part 11 of the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town Staff. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8:46 p . m , and invited the public to address the Board . There being no one , he closed the public hearing at 8 :46 p . m . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant modification of ZB 2004-041 to change the condition regarding construction of the driveway so that the driveway may be constructed as shown on plans submitted to board with the findings that all the criteria of an area variance had been satisfied , specifically listing how each criterion was met and with conditions on driveway construction . Seconded by Mr. Niefer. Vote—CU . ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -017. Modification of Variance, Jeffrey Hall, 922-928 Coddin_gton Rd, Tax Parcel Nos. 47. 44.2, 47. - 14. 3, 47. - 14. 4. 47. - 1 -4. 5 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Jim Niefer. Resolved, that this Board grants the appeal of Jeffrey Hall requesting a modification of Zoning Board Resolution 2004-041 granted August 16, 2004 by the Zoning Board of Page 9 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final Appeals to change the condition regarding construction of the driveway so that the driveway may be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this Board for this appeal for the properties located at 922-928 Coddington Rd, Tax Parcel Nos. 47 - 14. 2, 47 - 14, 31 47 - 14. 4, and 47. 4 -4. 5, Low Density Residential zon, with the following: Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, which is that of preserving more mature trees on the property, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the road and subdivision has existed for a number of years without any apparent impact to neighboring properties, 3. That the request is not substantial, 4. That there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects and in fact will result in the preservation of several trees, and 5. That even though the alleged difficulty is self-created, nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Condition: 1 . That the driveway be constructed substantially as indicated on the plans submitted to the Board for this meeting. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS: None. ' Motion was carried unanimously. Appeal of Ithaca College, owner, Herman Sieverding, Agent, requesting modification of ZB Resolution No. 2010-021 , granted July 19, 2010 by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Said variance permitted setback reductions related to parking along the north side of the property, located at 1033 Danby Road , Tax Parcel Numbers 43 .=1 =2.2 and 43.-1 -2.3 „ Medium Density Residential . Herman Sieverding and Rick Couture appeared before the Board and referred them to modified site plan submitted as part of their packet . Mr. Sieverding explained that the College reduced the size of the proposed project from a 280- bed addition to a 136-bed addition . The buildings that required a setback variance are no longer part of the plan . The parking on the north side of the parking still exists and they still need an area variance for that. Mr. Sieverding noted that there is a specific reference in the July 199 2010 variance to the site plan and the site plan has changed ; therefore , a modified variance is needed . Page 10 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final Chairperson Sigel confirmed that the modification relates to parking . SEAR Attorney Brock explained that the Planning Board was lead agency because it was a Type I action and it requires a coordinated review. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 57 p . m , and invited the public to address the Board . There being no one wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing at 8 : 57 p . m . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant appeal of IC requesting modification of ZB Resolution No. 2010-021 retaining the same conditions and findings as original variance granted in 2010 , but altering condition to refer to plans submitted for the March 21 , 2011 meeting . Seconded by Mr. Mountin , Vote—CU ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -018: Modification of Variance, Ithaca Collecle, 1033 Danby Rd. Tax Parcel Nos. 43. = 1 -2.2 and 43. = 1 -2.3 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Dave Mountin. Resolved, that this Board grants the appeal of Ithaca College requesting modification of Zoning Board Resolution No. 2010-021 granted July 19, 2010 by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Said variance permitted setback reductions related to parking along the north side of the property, located at 1033 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 43. m 1 -2. 2 and 43. -. 1 -2. 3, Medium Density Residential zone, based upon the following: Condition: That the parking spaces be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this Board for this application. Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That while the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve may be possible through other means what the applicant has proposed is reasonable and in keeping with their overall plan for the property, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the property that this parking area is encroaching on is also owned by the applicant, 3. That in this case the request is not substantial given that the property that this is encroaching on is also owned by the applicant, Page 11 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in the Long Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Appeal of College Crossings, LLC, owner, Evan Monkemeyer, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=117A(2)(3) "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east side of the property located at 1061 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 43.=1 -3.22, Neighborhood Commercial . Evan Monkemeyer and Larry Fabbroni appeared before the Board . Chairperson Sigel gave an overview of the appeal stating the Mr. Monkemeyer recently received subdivision approval and now the property line of the parcel follows the Neighborhood Commercial boundary line . He said that what was once a buffer issue is now a setback issue as well . Mr. Fabbroni agreed with Chairperson Sigel' s summary . He stated that the setback boundary on the north side is approximately 23. 3 feet. Mr. Fabbroni went on to explain that in order to finance the project, the bank wanted a specific piece of property dedicated to the project. The most logical separation line was the zoning boundary line . Chairperson Sigel recapped that the Board previously granted reduced buffers . He did not think that there was anything of substance . Mr. Bates noted that the applicant provided the Board with an updated survey that shows; the setback measurements. Attorney Brock noted that the previous variance would not be applicable in terms of conditions and findings . SEAR Attorney Brock noted a change to Part I of the EAF. Question 12 was amended to include the language , "and Planning Board Subdivision Approval . " Attorney Brock then made noted a change to Part II of the EAF. Question C2 was amended to read , "None Anticipated . Proposed subdivision and setback encroachments do not appear to have any effects . . ." Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance, based on the information submitted in the Part I and for reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment form prepared by Town staff. Seconded by Mr. Niefer. Vote—CU Page: 12 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -019: Environmental Assessment, College Crossinc s, LLC, 1061 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel Nos. 43. 4422 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Jim Niefer. Resolved, that in the appeal of College Crossings, LLC, this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information submitted in the Part I and for reasons stated in Part 11 of the Environmental Assessment form prepared by Town staff. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 9: 09 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board . There being no one , he closed the public hearing at 9: 09 p . m . ® Chairperson Sigel moved to grant appeal of College Crossings requesting a variance from the requirements of 270- 117A(2) (3) to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east of the property located at 1061 Danby Rd with a condition on the distance of the setbacks and finding that all requirements of an area variance had been satisfied , specifically listing how each criterion was met. Seconded by Mr. Niefer, Vote—CU . ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -020: Area Variance, College Crossings, LLC, 1061 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel Nos. 43. 4422 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Jim Niefer. Resolved, that this Board grants the appeal of College Crossings, LLC, owner, Evan Monkemeyer, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 117A (2)(3) "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east of the property located at 1061 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 43. 4 -3. 22, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, based upon the following: Condition: That the north and east side setbacks be no less than 1 foot less than what is indicated on the plan submitted by the applicant to this Board on March 21 , 2011 , Findings: Page 13 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit cannot be achieved by the applicant by any other means feasible given the applicant's desire to have a central single building for the commercial use surrounded by the parking and driveway navigation around the perimeter of the site, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the property to the north is also neighborhood commercial zone and the property to the east, while low density residential zone, is also owned by the applicant and therefore will only be impacting the applicant's own property, 3. That while the requested setback variances are substantial, nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects for the reasons stated in the Part 11 Environmental Assessment Form, 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created given the applicant's recent subdivision of this lot, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Appeal of Cayuga Ridge Health and Residential Community, owner, Kristin E. Gutenberger, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-66 " Permitted Principal Uses" and Section 270-68G " Permitted Accessory Buildings and Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to operate a 100-bed Nursing Home and 90=bed Assisted Living Program/Adult Home located at 1229 Trumansburg Rd, Tax Parcel No. 26.-4-46. 1 , Medium Density Residential . Said request would be extending variances granted by this Board on August 25, 2009. Kristin Gutenberger appeared before the Board to request an extension of the 2009 variance granted to Cayuga Ridge Health and Residential Community. She explained that the applicant has not received the necessary funding from the State to move forward with the project. She added that there have not been any changes to the proposal since the original submission to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairperson Sigel noted that the Board's 2009 review of the appeal was very thorough . Nis . Gutenberger stated that the applicant has purchased the building and paid all outstanding taxes on the property. Attorney Brock said that the Board could re-approve the 2009 resolution , but would need to modify some of the findings and conditions . Attorney Brock then noted that the approval for the project expired on February 25 , 2011 . Mr. Bates questioned whether approval expired 18 months from the date of the meeting or the date Page '14 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final that the resolutions are filed . Ms . Gutenberger explained that she researched the issue and found that as long as the applicant has filed for an extension prior to the expiration that it holds the expiration . Attorney Brock noted that there is a section in Town Law called Stay Upon Appeal . The provision has been interpreted to apply to expirations . Ms . Gutenberger was not sure of the exact provision it was based on , but it was the affect. She offered to provide the case law to Attorney Brock, Chairperson Sigel asked if there was a basis for an appeal while the appeal was still valid . Attorney Brock responded that the request it to extend the appeal . Chairperson Sigel asked if the impending expiration of a variance could be appealed . He did not think that that made sense . Ms . Gutenberger knew that she had to file for an extension before the expiration of the variance . Chairperson Sigel argued that normally something is appealed that is current; the applicant appeals the fact that they cannot do what they want to do right now. He noted that the Board cannot grant a variance for time . Attorney Brock agreed that the Board would need to grant a new variance for the application . SEAR Attorney Brock suggested changes to Part I of the Short Environmental Assessment Form . Question 7 was changed to read , "Medium Density Residential , Legal Non-Conforming permitted use , and variances as a nursing home . . . " Question 8 was modified to read , 'Will be seeking variances for assisted living and adult daycare facilities and skilled nursing facilities ." Part II of the EAF was modified by deleting the heading at the top of the page that read , " 1061 Danby Rd , College Crossings' . Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significant based on the information in Part I and for reasons state in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by town staff. Seconded by Mr. Krantz, Vote—CU . ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -021 : Environmental Assessment. Cayuga Ridge Health and Residential Community, 1229 Trumansbura Rd. Tax Parcel Nos. 26. 446. 1 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Ron Krantz. Resolved, that in the appeal of Cayuga Ridge Health and Residential Community, this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information submitted in the Part l and for reasons stated in Part 11 of the Environmental Assessment form prepared by Town staff. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Page 15 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 9:26 pm and invited the public to address the Board . There being no one present, he closed the public hearing at 9: 26 pm . Chairperson Sigel moved to readopt ZB Resolution No. 2009-038 text as modified . Seconded by Mr. Krantz. Vote—CU ZBA RESOLUTION 2011 =022: Use and Area Variances, Cayucga Ridge Health and Residential Community, 1229= 1231 Trumansburg Rd. Tax Parcel No. 26. 446. 1 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Cayuga Ridge Health and Residential Community, requesting Use and Area Variances from Chapter 270, Section 270-66 "Permitted Uses" to operate a 100-bed Nursing Home and 90-bed Assisted Living Program/Adult Home and from Section 270-68G 'Adult Daycare more than 4 Persons" located at 1229- 1231 Trumansburg Rd, Tax Parcel No 26. -4-46. 1 , Medium Density Residential (MDR) with the following: CONDITION: That the facility be built as indicated on the plans submitted as they may be modified to ® meet Final Site Plan approval from the Planning Board and as necessary to meet State Building Code. FINDINGS: In regard to the area variance for the Adult Day Care, that this Board makes the findings listed on page 4 in the applicant's Narrative, numbers 1 -5 (Inserted here) With respect to the specific requirements for an Area Variance, balancing the benefit of an increase in the Adult Day-Care from 4 to 25 slots against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood: ( 1) The proposed increase in the number of Adult Day-Care slots will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties as the facility is currently in existence and no significant change of the exterior of the facility will be necessary for the Area Variance requested. In fact, the facility will be closed without the granting of the variance, leaving an enormous vacant and deteriorating building which will undoubtedly require a variance of some sort in order to make it useful and/or productive. The impact of closing the facility would certainly have at least a temporary undesirable impact on the neighborhood, creating an unsafe environment while also inviting criminal mischief. (2) The benefit sought by Cayuga Ridge cannot be achieved by other feasible means as the State has ordered the closure of the existing facility and determined that Tompkins County is in need of a 25 slot Adult Day-Care. Page 16 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final r (3) The requested Area Variance is not substantial as the facility has ample space for a 25 slot Adult Day-Care and there will be no significant impact on the exterior of the building. Again, under DOH guidelines, an Adult Day-Care is considered to be one component of a Nursing Home which is already an approved use of the property. (4) The proposed Area Variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The exterior of the building will remain essentially the same. In fact, the neighborhood will be enhanced by the granting of the Variance due to the aesthetic renovations and landscaping maintenance that will result as a consequence. The exterior will be maintained at a level exceeding years past, dramatically improving the physical environment. DOH requires the facility to provide transportation for Adult Day- Care clients. One bus will transport clients to the facility and return them to their homes each day, so it is anticipated that the actual traffic to and from the facility for twenty-five clients would not exceed the traffic generated for four clients. There will be one vehicle entering the property in the morning and one 'vehicle leaving the property each day regardless of the number of clients in the vehicle. (5) The alleged hardship is not self-created as the DOH has ordered the closure of the current Nursing Home facility and stated that Tompkins County is in need of this type of service. Specifically, Tompkins County is in need of a facility large enough to accommodate 25 Adult Day-Care clients and this building has more than sufficient space to satisfy the demand. With regard to the Use Variance for the 100-Bed Nursing Home, that this Board makes the Findings indicated in the applicant's Narrative on page 6 numbers 1 -4 (Inserted here) and that the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: Use Variance Modification/granting of a new Use Variance for a 100 bed Nursing Home: A Use Variance may be granted if the applicant can demonstrate an unnecessary hardship. Specifically, Cayuga Ridge can demonstrate: ( 1) That as a 260 bed Nursing Home, it cannot realize a reasonable return based on the attached financial data and the fact that the facility was in arrears of property taxes in excess of one million dollars, that the facility has had such financial difficulties over the past decade, that the property was in bankruptcy, and that even as a 160 bed Nursing Home, it was operating at a loss of over $ 150, 000 a year and continues to operate at a loss. (2) The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to the neighborhood as a whole considering that this is the only Nursing Home in the immediate vicinity and the surrounding properties contain mostly single"family homes. Page 17 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final (3) The requested variance, if granted, plus other proposed uses, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in that the building is already built and approved for a more intensive use than requested herein in terms of traffic and amount of Nursing Home beds. Applicant anticipates making minor aesthetic exterior renovations and landscaping maintenance that will actually improve the overall appearance of the building and the property, thereby enhancing the essential character of the neighborhood. (4) The alleged hardship is not self created as evidenced by the DOH's demand for closure of the current 260 bed facility and their recommendation that Tompkins County is in need of a 100 bed Nursing Home to accommodate the current residents. In regard to the Use Variance for the 90-bed Assisted Living Program, this Board makes the findings in the applicant's Narrative on pages 7 & 8 numbers 14 (Inserted here) with the modifications made by the Board tonight, which is to include the phrase "plus other proposed uses" in section 3 of the use variances and that the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: As stated above, a Use Variance may be granted if the applicant can demonstrate an unnecessary hardship. Specifically, Cayuga Ridge can demonstrate that: ( 1) As a 260 bed Nursing Home, the property could not realize a reasonable return. Based on the size and configuration of the building, the only viable use of the space other than in some form of senior health or housing facility would be commercial offices. The cost of conversion to commercial office space would likely equal or exceed $20 million dollars after inclusion of parking construction, a cost that would not be supported economically in the local rental market for that type of office space. (2) The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to the neighborhood as a whole considering that this is the only building of its size and use in the vicinity. Further, the DOH has ordered the facility closed, a situation unique to the property. (3) The requested variance, if granted, plus other proposed uses, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in that the building is already built and approved for a more intensive use than requested herein. Cayuga Ridge is seeking a use that is less intensive than its current use in terms of traffic and amount of staff. The number of employees needed for an ALP/Adult Home is significantly less than that required for a Nursing Home since the residents are more independent and require less supervision. Additionally, Cayuga Ridge is anticipating minor aesthetic exterior renovations and landscaping maintenance to improve the overall appearance of the building, thereby enhancing the essential character of the neighborhood. Without the requested Variance, the building will Page 18 of 19 Zoning Board Minutes March 21 , 2011 Final most likely remain vacant and continue to deteriorate, leaving an eyesore in the local community. (4) The alleged hardship is not self-created as evidenced by the DOH's direction of closure of the current 260 bed facility and their recommendation that Tompkins County is in need of an ALP/Adult Home to accommodate the current residents, in addition to other elderly residents of Tompkins County. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS: None Motion was carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS The Board discussed the upcoming April 18th meeting . It was discovered that there would not be a quorum for the 18'h and the Board decided to reschedule the meeting for April 25 , 2011 , ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -023: Reschedule April 2011 Meeting MOTION made by Ron Krantz, Seconded by Jim Niefer. Resolved, that the April 2011 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals be moved from April 1 to April 25h. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT With no further business , Chairperson Sigel adjourned the March 21 , 2011 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 9: 38 p . m . uss ���41 Kirk Sigel , Chairman I /4 Carrie Coat eSV. t ore , Deputy Town Clerk Page 19 of 19 FILE � l ' DATE ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =014 Determination Jonathan Russell-Anelli and Katherine McComas 1034 East Shore Dr Tax Parcel No. 19 .=2=2 March 21 , 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Ron Krantz . Resolved , that this Board makes the determination in the appeal of Jonathan Russell - Anelli and Katherine McComas that the existing deck and proposed deck do not count towards building lot coverage for the following reasons : 1 . The decks themselves have no roofs , 2 . The decks are not impervious as a roof would be , and 3 . The area under the decks is not enclosed . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21St day of March , 2011 . la4l 1"fallyk uItIZU0 Deputy TownCtlerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -015 Area Variance Jonathan Russell-Anelli and Katherine McComas 1034 East Shore Dr Tax Parcel No. 19.=2=2 March 21 , 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Jim Niefer. Resolved , that this Board grants the appeal of Jonathan RusselkAnelli and Katherine McComas requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-46 "Yard Regulations" to be permitted to maintain an existing deck and to construct a wrap= around deck that encroaches into the required side yard and rear yard setbacks located at 1134 East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No . 19 . =2-2 , Lakefront Residential zone , with the following : Conditions : 1 . That the proposed deck along the south and west sides of the house not project more than 6 feet from the house , 2 . That the proposed deck along the west side of the house be constructed as shown on the plans submitted to the Building Department showing bracket 40 construction , allowing for modifications to the brackets as needed , 3 . That the deck on the north and south sides of the house may be constructed using post design that meets building code , 4 . That the decks be constructed substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant except as modified by the conditions of this variance , 5 . That the portion of the deck on the north side extend no further out from the house than 8 feet, and 6 . That the existing deck on the north side of the house will not be enlarged beyond its current footprint. Findings : That this Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the applicant' s desire to have the deck space at the main living level , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that other properties in the area have similarly small lots or even smaller lots with similarly deficient setbacks , ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -015 Page 2 of 2 ® 3 . That while the requested variance is substantial , nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects , and 5 . While the alleged difficult is self-created , nevertheless the benefit to the, applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the :zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21st day of March , ® 2011 . L Ila lI y zi' �;Vq Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE - S .� ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =016 Environmental Assessment Jeffrey Hall 922=928 Coddington Rd Tax Parcel Nos. 47 .=1 -4. 2 , 47.-1 -4.3 , 47.-1 -4.4 , 47 .-1 -4.5 March 21 , 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Ron Krantz . Resolved , that in regards to the appeal of Jeffrey Hall , this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for reasons in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Town Staff . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21St day of March , 2011 . h Deputy Town-C-lerk Town of Ithaca FILE � D nT ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -017 Modification of Variance Jeffrey Hall 922=928 Coddington Rd Tax Parcel Nos. 47 .14. 2 , 47.-1 -4.3 , 47 .- 14.4,, 47.-1 -4.5 March 21 , 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Jim Niefer. Resolved , that this Board grants the appeal of Jeffrey Hall requesting a modification of Zoning Board Resolution 2004-041 granted August 16 , 2004 by the Zoning Board of Appeals to change the condition regarding construction of the driveway so that the driveway may be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this Board for this appeal for the properties located at 922-928 Coddington Rd , Tax Parcel Nos . 47 . - 1 -4 . 2 , 47 . - 14 . 39 47 . - 1 -4 . 4 , and 47 . - 1 -4 . 5 , Low Density Residential zon , with the following : Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve , which is that of preserving more mature trees on the property, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the road and subdivision has existed for a number of years without any apparent impact to neighboring properties , 3 . That the request is not substantial , 4 . That there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects and in fact will result in the preservation of several trees , and 5 . That even though the alleged difficulty is self-created , nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community. Condition . 1 . That the driveway be constructed substantially as indicated on the plans submitted to the Board for this meeting . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -017 Page 2 of 2 Aft A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21St day oil March , 2011 , Deputy Town-Clerklerk Town of Ithaca FILE &] _ DENTE s--- ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =018 Modification of Variance Ithaca College 1033 Danby Rd Tax Parcel Nos. 43 .-1 -2 . 2 and 43.-1 -2.3 March 21 , 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Dave Mountin . Resolved , that this Board grants the appeal of Ithaca College requesting modification of Zoning Board Resolution No . 2010-021 granted July 19 , 2010 by the Zoning Board of Appeals . Said variance permitted setback reductions related to parking along the north side of the property, located at 1033 Danby Rd , Tax Parcel No . 43 . - 1 -2 . 2 and 43 . - 1 -2 . 3 , Medium Density Residential zone , based upon the following : Condition : That the parking spaces be constructed as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this Board for this application . Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , specifically: 1 . That while the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve may be possible through other means what the applicant has proposed is reasonable and in keeping with their overall plan for the property, 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the property that this parking area is encroaching on is also owned by the applicant, 3 . That in this case the request is not substantial given that the property that this is encroaching on is also owned by the applicant, 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in the Long Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created , nevertheless , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -018 Page 2 of 2 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21St day of March , 2011 . Deputy Town- --Clerk Town of Ithaca Cj ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =019 Environmental Assessment College Crossings, LLC 1061 Danby Rd Tax Parcel Nos. 43.=1 -3. 22 March 21 , 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Jim Niefer. Resolved , that in the appeal of College Crossings , LLC , this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information submitted in the Part I and for reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment form prepared by Town staff . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21St day of March , 2011 , Deputy 1 own,Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -020 Area Variance College Crossings, LLC 1061 Danby Rd Tax Parcel Nos. 43 .-1 -3. 22 March 21 , 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Jim Niefer. Resolved , that this Board grants the appeal of College Crossings , LLC , owner, Evan Monkemeyer, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270- 117A(2) (3) "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east of the property located at 1061 Danby Rd , Tax Parcel No . 43 . - 1 -3 . 22 , Neighborhood Commercial Zone , based upon the following : Condition : That the north and east side setbacks be no less than 1 foot less than what is indicated on the plan submitted by the applicant to this Board on March 21 , 2011 , Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety , and welfare of the community, specifically : 1 . That the benefit cannot be achieved by the applicant by any other means feasible given the applicant's desire to have a central single building for the commercial use surrounded by the parking and driveway navigation around the perimeter of the site , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the property to the north is also neighborhood commercial zone and the property to the east, while low density residential zone , is also owned by the applicant and therefore will only be impacting the applicant's own property , 3 . That while the requested setback variances are substantial , nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community , 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form , 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created given the applicant's recent subdivision of this lot, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety , and welfare of the communit)r. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -020 Page 2 of 2 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21St day of March , 2011 , DepuTty Town-Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATEAe �'�1S ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =021 Environmental Assessment Cayuga Ridge Health and Residential Community 1229 Trumansburg Rd Tax Parcel Nos. 26.=4-46. 1 March 21 , 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Ron Krantz. Resolved , that in the appeal of Cayuga Ridge Health and Residential Community, this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information submitted in the Part I and for reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment form prepared by Town staff. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21St day of March , 2011 . _ Deputy Town-Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE40. 1 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION 2011 -022 Use and Area Variances Cayuga Ridge Health and Residential Community 1229=1231 Trumansburg Rd Tax Parcel No. 26.=4-46 . 1 March 21 , 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Cayuga Ridge Health and Residential Community, requesting Use and Area Variances from Chapter 270 , Section 270-66 " Permitted Uses" to operate a 100-bed Nursing Home and 90-bed Assisted Living Program/Adult Home and from Section 270-68G "Adult Daycare more than 4 Persons" located at 1229- 1231 Trumansburg Rd , Tax Parcel No 26 . -4-46 . 1 , Medium Density Residential ( MDR) with the following : CONDITION : That the facility be built as indicated on the plans submitted as they may be modified to meet Final Site Plan approval from the Planning Board and as necessary to meet State Building Code , FINDINGS : In regard to the area variance for the Adult Day Care , that this Board makes the findings listed on page 4 in the applicant's Narrative , numbers 1 -5 ( Inserted here) With respect to the specific requirements for an Area Variance , balancing the benefit of an increase in the Adult Day-Care from 4 to 25 slots against the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the neighborhood : ( 1 ) The proposed increase in the number of Adult Day-Care slots will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties as the facility is currently in existence and no significant change of the exterior of the facility will be necessary for the Area Variance requested . In fact, the facility will be closed without the granting of the variance , leaving an enormous vacant and deteriorating building which will undoubtedly require a variance of some sort in order to make it useful and/or productive . The impact of closing the facility would certainly have at least a temporary undesirable impact on the neighborhood , creating an unsafe environment while also inviting criminal mischief. (2) The benefit sought by Cayuga Ridge cannot be achieved by other feasible means as the State has ordered the closure of the existing facility and determined that Tompkins County is in need of a 25 slot Adult Day-Care . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -022 Page 2 of 4 (3) The requested Area Variance is not substantial as the facility has ample space for a 25 slot Adult Day-Care and there will be no significant impact on the exterior of the building . Again , under DOH guidelines , an Adult Day- Care is considered to be one component of a Nursing Home which is already an approved use of the property. (4) The proposed Area Variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The exterior of the building will remain essentially the same . In fact, the neighborhood will be enhanced by the granting of the Variance due to the aesthetic renovations and landscaping maintenance that will result as a consequence . The exterior will be maintained at a level exceeding years past, dramatically improving the physical environment. DOH requires the facility to provide transportation for Adult Day= Care clients . One bus will transport clients to the facility and return them to their homes each day, so it is anticipated that the actual traffic to and from the facility for twenty-five clients would not exceed the traffic generated for four clients . There will be one vehicle entering the property in the morning and one vehicle leaving the property each day regardless of the number of clients in the vehicle . (5 ) The alleged hardship is not self-created as the DOH has ordered the closure of the current Nursing Home facility and stated that Tompkins County is in need of this type of service . Specifically, Tompkins County is in need of a facility large enough to accommodate 25 Adult Day-Care clients and this building has more than sufficient space to satisfy the demand . With regard to the Use Variance for the 100- Bed Nursing Home , that this Board makes the Findings indicated in the applicant' s Narrative on page 6 numbers 1 -4 ( Inserted here) and that the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship for the following reasons : Use Variance Modification/granting of a new Use Variance for a 100 bed Nursing Home : A Use Variance may be granted if the applicant can demonstrate an unnecessary hardship . Specifically , Cayuga Ridge can demonstrate : ( 1 ) That as a 260 bed Nursing Home , it cannot realize a reasonable return based on the attached financial data and the fact that the facility was in arrears of property taxes in excess of one million dollars , that the facility has had such financial difficulties over the past decade , that the property was in bankruptcy, and that even as a 160 bed Nursing Home , it was operating at a loss of over $ 150 , 000 a year and continues to operate at a loss . (2) The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to the neighborhood as a whole considering that this is the only Nursing Home in the immediate vicinity and the surrounding properties contain mostly single-family homes . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -022 Page 3 of 4 3 The requested variance , if ranted , plus other proposed uses , will not alter the ( ) q g P P P essential character of the neighborhood in that the building is already built and approved for a more intensive use than requested herein in terms of traffic and amount of Nursing Home beds . Applicant anticipates making minor aesthetic exterior renovations and landscaping maintenance that will actually improve the overall appearance of the building and the property , thereby enhancing the essential character of the neighborhood . (4) The alleged hardship is not self-created as evidenced by the DOH 's demand for closure of the current 260 bed facility and their recommendation that Tompkins County is in need of a 100 bed Nursing Home to accommodate the current residents . In regard to the Use Variance for the 90-bed Assisted Living Program , this Board makes the findings in the applicant' s Narrative on pages 7 & 8 numbers 1 -4 ( Inserted here) with the modifications made by the Board tonight , which is to include the phrase "plus other proposed uses" in section 3 of the use variances and that the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship for the following reasons : As stated above , a Use Variance may be granted if the applicant can demonstrate an unnecessary hardship . Specifically, Cayuga Ridge can demonstrate that: ( 1 ) As a 260 bed Nursing Home , the property could not realize a reasonable return . Based on the size and configuration of the building , the only viable use of the space other than in some form of senior health or housing facility would be commercial offices . The cost of conversion to commercial office space would likely equal or exceed $20 million dollars after inclusion of parking construction , a cost that would not be supported economically in the local rental market -for that type of office space . (2 ) The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to the neighborhood as a whole considering that this is the only building of its size and use in the vicinity. Further, the DOH has ordered the facility closed , a situation unique to the property. (3) The requested variance , if granted , plus other proposed uses, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in that the building is already built and approved for a more intensive use than requested herein . Cayuga Ridge is seeking a use that is less intensive than its current use in terms of traffic and amount of staff. The number of employees needed for an ALP/Adult Home is significantly less than that required for a Nursing Home since the residents are more independent and require less supervision . Additionally, Cayuga Ridge is anticipating minor aesthetic exterior renovations and landscaping maintenance to ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -022 Page 4 of 4 improve the overall appearance of the building , thereby enhancing the essential character of the neighborhood . Without the requested Variance , the building will most likely remain vacant and continue to deteriorate , leaving an eyesore in the local community . (4) The alleged hardship is not self-created as evidenced by the DOH ' s direction of closure of the current 260 bed facility and their recommendation that Tompkins County is in need of an ALP/Adult Home to accommodate the current residents , in addition to other elderly residents of Tompkins County . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS : None Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21St day of March , 2011 . Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =023 Reschedule April 2011 Meeting March 21 , 2011 MOTION made by Ron Krantz , Seconded by Jim Niefer. Resolved , that the April 2011 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals be moved from April 18"'to April 25tH A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21St day of March , 2011 , Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , being duly sworn , say that I a 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: ADVERTISEMENT: PUBLIC HEARING TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday, March 21 , 2011 7 : 00 P . M . Date of Publication : Saturday, March 12 , 2011 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Hall Lobby Public Notices Board 215 North Tioga Street ® Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : Thursday , March 10 , 2011 Carrie Coates-Whitmore Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of March , 2011 07Cc-�� = Nota-ryTPUbIIC�rI�saaidx3 uo , 0z 1 /� Unoo as �n0S u! po !1!!�rs� .05Zt)93� ���Ian at�� oN, )jjpj, Ma,1 10 a1121S A3-1�3;1 HV8093 Saturday,-March 12, 2011 [ The Ithaca-Journal Legals ,050 Ie gals , � . TOWN OF ITHACA questing variances from the I ZONING BOARD OF requirements of Chapter I APPEALS 270• Section 270. 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC 117A(2)(3) 'Yard Regula- HEARINGS tions' of the Town of Ithaca ' MONDAY, Code to allow insufficient MARCH 21 , 2011 side yard and rear yard set- ; 215 North .Tioga backs on the north and Street, Ithaca east side.of the property lo- 7:00 P.M cated at 1061 Danby Rd, Adjourned Appeal of Tax Parcel No. 43.- 1 -3.22, Jonathan Russell-Anelli and Neighborhood Commercial. KatherineMcComas, A p p e a I of Cayuga Ridge owners/applicants, re- Health and Residential questing variances from the Community, owner, Kristin requirements of Chapter E. Gutenberger, Agent, re- " 270, Section 270-208 B questing variances from the 'Dwellings on Nonconform- requirements of Chapter . ing Lots' and Section 270- 270, Section 270-66 'Per- ,47 "Building Area of -the mitted Principal. Uses' and (Town of Ithaca Code to be Section 270-68G 'Permit- I permitted to maintain . an ted Accessory Buildings `existing' deck that exceeds and Uses' of the Town of j ?the allowable percentage of Ithaca Code to be permit. I lot coverage and to con. ted to operate a 100-bed �struct a wrap around deck Nursing Home and 90-bed that encroaches into the re- Assisted Living Program/ I quired side yard and rear Adult Home located at f yard setbacks and further 1229 Trumansburg Rd, Tax increases the exceeded lot Parcel , No. 26.-446. 1 , Me- 1. coverage, located at 1134 dium Density Residential. East Shore Dr, Tax parcel Said request would be ex. No. 19.-2-2. Lakefront Res. tending variances granted I idential. by this Board on August A p p e a I of Jeffrey. Hall, 25, 2009. 1 m • owner, requesting a odifi- Assistance will be provided cation of ZB Resolution for individuals with special ' No. 2004-041 , granted Au- needs, upon request. - Re- gust 16, 2004 by the Zon- quests should be made not Ing Board ' of Appeals, for less than 48 hours prior to I relief from the conditions the public hearings. set forth in said resolution. Bruce W. Bates (The variance permitted the Director of Code Enforce. isubdivision of a parcel into ment four lots with two lots hav- 607-273- 1783 " ing not less than 30 feet of Dated: March 10, .2011 (road frontage and a 30 foot ,Ppblished: March 12, 2011 'width at the required set- I back line located at 922- 928 Coddington Rd, Tax Parcel Numbers 47.. 1 -4.2, '47.- 1 -4.3, 47.. 1 -4.4, and ` X47.-1 -4.5, Low Density ) (Residential. ' i AppeaI of Ithaca College, owner. Herman Sieverdirig, Agent, requesling. modifica- " tion of ZB Resolution No. 2010.021 , -granted July 19, 2010 by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Said variance permitted setback reduc- I tions related t0 (Barking 1 along the north side of the , property. located at 1033 Danby Road, Tax Parcel Numbers 43.- 1 -2.2 and 41- 1 . 1 -2.3: Medium Density . Residential. j AppeaIofCollege Cross. . ings, LLC, owner, Evan , Monkemeyer, Agent, re- OP i. ° qps O 1 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL &E OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) I, Carrie Coates Whitmore, 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 IIth day of March 2011 , deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the following Tax Parcel Numbers : *** 1134 East Shore Dr, Area Variance Marie Taylor Lian Shao Han Don Cho 1120 East Shore Dr Binhong Chen Alice Cho Ithaca, NY 14850 1111 East Shore Dr 310 Winthrop Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Risa Lieberwitz James Gardner Joseph Russo & Paula Winner 1137 East Shore Dr 407 W Seneca St 1113 East Shore Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Marilyn & James Hider Jason Sokoloff Pennsylvania Lines, LLC 5310 Sw 2"d Ave 1126 East Shore Dr 110 Franklin Rd SE Cape Coral, FL 33914-7114 Ithaca, NY 14850 Roanoke, VA 24042-00:28 Orles House Jonathan Russell-Anelli & Katherine McComas 1132 East Shore Dr 814 N Cayuga St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 *** 922-928 Coddington Rd Merry Bauer Thomas and Constance Bruce Coddington Rd Comm Cntr 921 Coddington Rd 915 Coddington Rd 920 Coddington Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Noel and Janet Desch William Desch Thomas Farrell 132 Updike Rd PO Box 5033 1024 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850 Hanover, NH 03755 Ithaca, NY 14850 Jeffrey and Tracy Hall Lawrence and Rene Black-Hellwitz Orlando and Ralph Iacovelli 922 Coddington Rd 904 Coddington Rd 347 Coddington Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert and Elayne Nicholas Marilyn Rivchin Mary Russell 107 Updike Rd 950 Coddington 955 Coddington Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Gregory Shaw and Susannah Fine M Gale Livingston Smith Anthony Villareale 102 Updike Rd 930 Coddington Rd 29 Shinnecock Rd 0ca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Hampton Bays, NY 11946 Richard and Ruth Walker 929 Coddington Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 *** College Circle Apartments Expansion, Area Variance Ayman Abbad Peter Alario Leonisa Ardizzone 8 Walraven Dr, Apt A 1028 Danby Rd 7A 407 W Seneca fit Goshen, NY 10924-2169 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Rodney Beers & Joseph Lee Matthew Bryant & Kirsten Elzer Lawrence & Martin Bowman 3B Vista Ln 1C Vista Ln 1477 Peruville Rd 0ca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Freeville, NY 13068 Nicholas Clary & Holland Jancaitis Gary Cleveland Travis & Kathy Cleveland 3D Vista Ln PMB522 721 Hudson St Ithaca, NY 14850 PO Box 2428 Ithaca, NY 14850 Pensacola, FL 32513 Mark & Jill Cordano Nathan Dennis Jason Dorvee i 1 Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 03/21/2011 1B Vista Ln 1019 Danby Rd 1032 Danby Rd It ca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert Farley Stephen and Danalisa Gotz Joan Heffernan 1845 Richmond Ave 15234 Coral Isle Ct 3A Vista Ln Bethlehem, PA 18018 Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Ithaca, NY 14851) Jennifer Hudler Ithaca College Ithacare Center Service Co 1022 Danby Rd 7D 200 Job Hall 1 Bella Vista Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 953 Danby Rd Ithaca, NY 14851) Ithaca, NY 14850 J. Michael , Nancy & Althea Kelly William & Anna Larsen Pauline & Bruce Layton 379 Hargrave St 1005 Danby Rd 1029 Danby Rd Inglewood, CA 90302 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Edward Mazza James McCollum & Laura Thomas Evan Monkemeyer 307 N Tioga St 1046 Danby Rd 123 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Jack Nelson Margaret Arnold Gina Parker 319 Van Kirk Rd 1013 Danby Rd PO Box 4524 Newfield, NY 14867-8901 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14852-4524 David Richards Robert, Mary & Abigail Roemer Donald Schettini Danby Rd 1D Vista Ln 115 West 73`d St, Apt 2d la, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 New York, NY 10023 Vince Nicotra, R.A. David Herrick, PE Richard Couture QPK Design TG Miller, PC Assoc . Vice President PO Box 29 203 N Aurora St Ithaca College Syracuse, NY 13201 -0029 Ithaca, NY 14850 201 Facilities Building Ithaca, NY 14850-7092 Herman Sieverding, Vice President Integrated Acquisition & Development PO Box 4860 15 Thornwood Dr Ithaca, NY 14852-4860 ***College Crossings, 1061 Danby Rd David Auble Leslie and Karen Black Samuel and Joanne Bonanni 111 King Rd W 107 Kings Way 134 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert L Chamberlain, Jr Gary Cleveland Travis and Kathy Cleveland 70 Gunderman Rd PMB 522, PO Box 2428 721 Hudson St Ithaca, NY 14850 Pensacola, FL 32513 Ithaca, NY 14850 Pablo and Angela Cohen Jacob Crawford Jason Dorvee Atmg Rd E 111 Kings Way 1032 Danby Rd , NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Elizabeth Clune Montessori Sch Robert L Farley Mark and Wendy Fonder 120 King Rd E 1845 Richmond Ave 126 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Bethlehem, PA 18018 Ithaca, NY 14850 Garunda Hotels Inc Ira Goldstein & Tessa Flores Sherri Gross 2302 N Triphammer Rd 154 Compton Rd 113 Kings Way Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Pauline and Bruce Layton Manley' s Mighty Mart LLC J and Thomas McCollum 1029 Danby Rd 1249 Front St 1046 Danby Rd I*a, NY 14850 Binghamton, NY 13905 Ithaca, NY 14850 Jill Moreland Jack Nelson Jacqueline Nelson 114 King Rd W 412 Hector St, Apt 10 106 King Rd W Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Larry Nivison Samuel and Ruth Peter David Richards 2 1 Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 03/21 /2011 136 King Rd E 1083 Danby Rd 1058 Danby Rd It ca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Mama Salino Eric Schneider Rene and Melissa Sylvester 484 Troy Rd 124 King Rd E 138 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Tompkins County IDA Peter Torchia Donna Updike PO Box 4860 110 King Rd W 130 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 ***Cayuga Ridge, 1249 Trumansburg Rd Kyle Austin & Courtney Forsman Phillip and Mary Bontzolakes Cornell University 1220 Trumansburg Rd 1235 Trumansburg Rd PO Box DH Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14853 Denmark Development, Inc Melvin and Aileen Ellis William Gilligan 407 Wyckoff Ave 118 Bundy Rd 1224 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Gy Corporation Robin Hamlisch Holochuck Homes, LLC 205 Elmira Rd 1230 Trumansburg Rd 7 Brightside Ave Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 East Northport, NY 11731 P Kominos Janet Kotmel Lloyd Ellis Revocable Trust Clinton St 1232 Trumansburg Rd 116 Bundy Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 LNH Operating Company, LLC William and Patricia Lower Brian and Christine McNeal 120 Walton St, Suite 500 433 Floral Ave 1215 Trumansburg Rd Syracuse, NY 13202 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Nancy Peckenpaugh Mary Prosperi Peter and Donna Rodgers 1216 Trumansburg Rd 1223 Trumansburg Rd 230 Cliff Park Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Seventh Day Adventists William VanDyke and Mariellen Brown Peter and Sally Vanidistine 1219 Trumansburg Rd 25- 19 30`s Dr, Apt 21 1226 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Astoria, NY 11102 Ithaca, NY 14850 Carrie Coates W itmore, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca Sworn to before me this 11 `s day of March 2011 . Nqwry Public ' bEBCRAN :KELLEY Notary Public, State of New York No , of KEGo25()bi I (qualified -in Schuylery 17 ,ountnl _— Commission Expires May 3