Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2011-05-16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday, May 16, 2011 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P. M . Appeal of Cheryl and David Gombas , owners , requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-32A(2) (3) "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install an inground pool within the required rear and side yard setback on the northwestern side of the property, located at 1452 Trumansburg Rd , Tax Parcel No . 24 . - 1 -20 , Agricultural District. Appeal of Donn Carroll , owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Sections 270-62B and 270-62C "Size and Area of Lot ' , and Section 270-60C "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient lot width at _the .street line and insufficient lot width at the required front yard setback line on two parcels , and to allow insufficient side yard setback for the parcel containing the existing home . Parcels are located at 651 Five Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No . 31 . -2-25 . 2 , Low Density Residential . Additional variances may be necessary. Appeal of Giora Fix , owner, Charles Guttman , Agent, requesting a determination from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-5 " Family" ( F) for the purposes of considering the residents of 141 Honness Ln to be a functional family, located at 141 Honness Ln , Tax Parcel No . 58 . -2-39 . 7 , Medium Density Residential . 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 : May 4, 2011 Published : May 6 , 2011 FILE DATE ZONING BOARD of APPEALS Monday, May 16 , 2011 7 : 00 p . m . Board Members Present : Kirk Sigel , Chair; Ron Krantz , Jim 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 : David and Cheryl Gombas , Donn Carroll , Harry Ellsworth , Charles Guttman , Call to Order Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p . m . Appeal of Cheryl and David Gombas , owners , requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-32A(2)(3) " Yard Regulations " of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install an in ground pool within the required rear and side yard setback on the northwestern side of the property, located at 1452 Trumansburg Rd , Tax Parcel No . 24. -1 -20 , Agricultural District. Cheryl and David Gombas appeared before the Board . Chairperson Sigel noted that the information presented to the Board was clear. It was pointed out in the letter from Mr. Bates to Mr. and Mrs . Gombas that it may be difficult for them to locate a pool in a fully legal location on the property . Chairperson Sigel stated that given the layout of the lot and the location of the house and garage , the applicant is somewhat constrained in locating a pool on the property . He asked is the applicants would like to add anything to their application . Mr. Gombas responded no . Chairperson Sigel noted that the pool will be located approximately 28 feet from the north lot line and 35 feet from the west lot line . Chairperson Sigel solicited questions from the Board . Mr. Niefer asked where the previous pool was located . Mr. Gombas explained that it was located in approximately the same location . Mr. Niefer followed up by asking if Mr. Gombas owned the property when the previous pool was filled in . Mr. Gombas responded that his father owned the property at that time . Mr. Niefer wondered if there would be a fence around the pool . Mr. Gombas said that there would be and Mr. Bates confirmed that the pool would need to meet Code requirements . Chairperson Sigel thought that the request was reasonable and did not foresee any issues . Mr. King asked about the required setbacks . Chairperson Sigel explained that the required rear setback is 50 feet and the required side yard setback is 40 feet . He noted that it is approximately a 15 foot deficiency in the rear and about 12 feet for the ® side yard . Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 07 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board . There being no one interested in speaking , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 07 p . m . Attorney Brock stated that the Board did not need to do SEQR review because the appeal is for individual setback variances , which is a Type II action . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Cheryl and David Gombas to be permitted to install an in ground pool within the rear and side yard setbacks located at 1452 Trumansburg Rd with conditions on the pool 's location and finding that all criteria of an area variance had been met , specifically listing how each criterion was satisfied . Mr. Krantz seconded ; Vote—carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -027: Area Variance, David and Chervl Gombas, 1452 Trumansburg Rd, Tax Parcel No. 24. 440 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Cheryl and David Gombas requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Sections 270-32A (2) and 270-32A (3) "Yard Regulations " of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install an inground pool in the required rear and side yard setback on the northwestern side of the property located at 1452 Trumansburg Rd, Tax Parcel No. 24. 4 -20, Agricultural District, with the following: Conditions: 1 . That the pool be built approximately in the location indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant, 2. That the pool be no closer to the western property line than 33 feet, and 3. That the pool be no closer to the northern property line than 24 feet. 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 cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the size of the property and its current layout with the house and garage, the location that they have proposed is clearly the best location for a pool and it does not meet the setback requirements, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or- to nearby properties given that there are no nearby neighbors and the one neighbor Page 2 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final that surrounds both affected sides of this property has indicated that they do not have a problem with the pool, 3. That while the requested variance within the setbacks is substantial, that nevertheless the benefit does outweigh any detriment, 4. That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental affects, 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created, that again the requested benefit 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 Donn Carroll , owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Sections 270-626 and 270-62C " Size and Area of Lot" , and Section 270-60C "Yard Regulations " of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient lot width at the street line and insufficient lot width at the required front yard setback line on two parcels , and to allow insufficient side yard setback for the parcel containing the existing home. Parcels are located at 651 Five Mile Dr , Tax Parcel No . 31 . -2-25 . 2 , Low Density Residential . Additional variances may be necessary. Donn Carroll appeared before the Board . Chairperson Sigel reminded Board that property was before the ZBA for approval of the cell tower. The Planning Board granted special permit for cell tower and recently granted preliminary and final subdivision approval for this proposal . Chairperson Sigel noted that he did not see the dimensions marked on the survey map provided in the Board packet . He went on to review the large scale map in the Zoning Board file to determine the dimensions . Mr. Krantz commented that the lots were rather large . Chairperson Sigel agreed and stated that lot 1 is slightly larger than the minimum size required and lot 2 is substantially larger than the minimum . Attorney Brock stated that the issues before the Board are width at street line , width at required front yard setback , and side yard setback . Chairperson Sigel asked if it was assumed that lot 2 would not be used for anything besides the telecommunications facility . Mr. Carroll responded that there was not space for anything else on the lot . Chairperson Sigel thought that a house could fit on the ® parcel in front of the tower . Mr . Carroll added that the house would be located in a flood Page 3 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final plane should one be built in that location . Mr. Bates noted that a house can be built within a flood plane , but certain requirements would need to be met . Chairperson Sigel asked if a house would have to be outside of the fall zone of the tower. Attorney Brock responded yes and went on to say that the survey shows a setback easement . She wondered if that was the same as the fall zone . Attorney Brock questioned if the property received a variance for the size of the fall zone . Chairperson Sigel and Mr. Bates recalled that the Zoning Board granted a variance to reduce the size of the required fall zone . Attorney Brock noted that the subdivision does not affect whose property the fall zone is on . Chairperson Sigel stated that the request seems reasonable given the circumstances . Mr. Krantz commented that the area is zoned low density residential , but it also has a railroad , cemetery , fill site , etc . Chairperson Sigel responded that zones are a broad brush . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 22 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board . There being no one , he closed the public hearing at 7 : 22 p . m . Attorney Brock stated that there is no SEAR review because the request is for lot line variances , which is a Type II action . 0 Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Donn Carroll to allow insufficient lot width at the street line , insufficient lot width at the front yard setback line , and insufficient side yard setback with conditions on lot width and side yard setback distances , and finding that all criteria of the area variance had been satisfied , specifically listing how each criterion was met . Mr. Niefer seconded ; vote—carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -028: Area Variances, Donn Carroll, 651 Five Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No. 31 . -2-25.2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Donn Carroll requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Sections 270-62B, 270-62C, 270-60C of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient lot width at the street line, insufficient lot width at the required front yard setback line on two parcels, and to allow insufficient side yard setback for the parcel containing the existing home located at 651 Five Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No. 31 . -2-25. 2, Low Density Residential, based upon the following: Page 4 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final Conditions: 1 . That the north side yard setback of lot 1 be no less than 7 feet, 2. That the width of lot 1 at the street line be no less than 65 feet, 3. That the width of lot 1 at the required setback line be no less than 90 feet, 4. That the width of lot 2 at the street line be no less than 54 feet, and 5. That the width of lot 2 as the required setback be no less than 54 feet. 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 does not appear to be achievable by any other means feasible given the limited width at the street line and the desire to subdivide the portion of the lot that contains the telecommunications tower from the portion that contains the house, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the structures on what will become two lots exist already, 3. That while the request is substantial, the setbacks being substantially less than what is required, that given the size of the lots and the distances to nearest neighbors that there will not be a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects since it does not involve any new construction, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created by the applicant's placing of a telecommunications facility at the rear of the lot and subsequent desire to subdivide the lots, 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. Page 5 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final Appeal of Giora Fix , owner, Charles Guttman , Agent, requesting a determination from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270=5 " Family" ( F) for the purposes of considering the residents of 141 Honness Ln to be a functional family, located at 141 Honness Ln , Tax Parcel No . 58 . -2-39 . 7, Medium Density Residential . Charles Guttman and Carmella Calabrese appeared before the Board . Mr. Guttman noted that all residents of 141 Honness Lane were present and available for any questions . Ms . Calabrese spoke to the Board on behalf of the residents . She stated that the 6 individuals living at the house are PhD students in the same program at Cornell University . The group participates in many activities together and that they are a family because they share household expenses , cooking and cleaning activities . Mr. Guttman turned the Board ' s attention to the affidavit in their packets , which outlines the facts . He said that the group appears and resembles a traditional family unit . The 6 individuals have common interests . They live and cook together as a single household unit . They buy food together; they cook food together; buy cleaning materials and clean the house together. The individuals do everything in the same way everyone in a family of a household does . Mr. Guttman noted that one of the key issues of the Town ' s ordinance is to distinguish a permanent household versus a changing , seasonal household . He said that a seasonal household is in the ordinance is for the academic year or less . Four of the individuals lived together as a unit last year, the 6 are living together this year, and the same 6 people intend to live together for the next 3 years . It will be a total of 5 years that 4 individuals live together, and 4 years that all 6 individuals will live together. He thought that was quite different from an academic year. He did not think the individuals had a standing expectation of what would happen after the next 3 years . Mr. Guttman felt that another important factor was that the 6 individuals live in the Town of Ithaca all 12 months of the year; it is not a situation where the individuals move back to another residence during the summer months . The individuals celebrate Christmas , Thanksgiving , birthday , etc together. They live together the entire year just as a family does . Mr. Guttman went on to say that 3 of the individuals consider Honness Lane to be their permanent address through government filings such as voter registration and tax filing . He has asked the other three about it and the response was that they have not gotten around to doing it since it wasn 't significantly important to them . The furniture and appliances of the house are supplied by the landlord , Mr. Fix . The individuals do not have children , but are all employed by Cornell University . Mr. Guttman reiterated his point that the individuals meet the criteria in the Code for a family because they are employed in the area , live in the area year round , and plan to Page 6 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final live together for the next 3 years . He felt that the individuals met each factor in the 40 Code other than not having children . Mr. Niefer asked how many mailboxes were on the property . Ms . Calabrese responded that there is one mailbox on the property . Mr. Guttman explained that it is a single - family house and that has not changed . Mr. Krantz commented that there must have been challenges in the court system regarding what constitutes a family . He asked Attorney Brock if there is any guidance she can provide the Board . Attorney Brock responded that the criteria in the Town ' s law follow what the courts have allowed boards to look at in making its determination . She said that the Board needs to apply the criteria outlined in the Town ' s law ; she affirmed that the Town 's law complies with court decisions . Attorney Brock went on to explain that the Board needs to determine how the criteria apply to the situation before them . Chairperson Sigel added that the criteria in the Town ' s law are consistent with court rulings—meaning that presumably the Town ' s law would not be found invalid by a court . That , however, does not make it easier for the Board to apply the criteria . Attorney Brock stated that the materials submitted by the applicant tried to address the criteria in the law . Chairperson Sigel read the criteria set forth in the law . Mr. Mountin asked about the length of the lease . Mr. Guttman explained that the lease is a 12 month lease . Mr. Mountin went on to ask what happens if an individual breaks the lease and if someone new could take that person ' s place as a renter. Mr. Guttman replied that the individual would be breaking a contract should s/he decide to leave the house and that a new individual cannot move in without the landlord 's consent . Attorney Brock followed up by asking if all tenants have signed the same lease or if there are individual leases . Mr. Guttman responded that there is one lease that all 6 tenants have signed . Chairperson Sigel confirmed that all individuals are jointly responsible for the rent ; if one person does not pay , then the other 5 have to cover his/her share . Mr. Bates asked who shares a bedroom . He noted that there are 6 individuals renting the house , but only 5 bedrooms according to the tax records . Ms . Calabrese explained that the dining room has been converted to a bedroom . Mr. Bates went on to ask if the room met building code requirements to be a bedroom . Does it meet egress requirements? Does it have proper outlets for a bedroom ? Mr. Guttman replied that he has been told that the room does meet all the requirements to be a bedroom ; it has the proper number of electrical outlets and egress windows . Mr. Bates reiterated that the tax records show the property as having 5 bedrooms . Page 7 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final Attorney Brock recalled that Mr. Guttman had stated that 3 of the residents have government records that show that this is his/her permanent address and that includes voter and vehicle registration records . She went on to say that according to the affidavit submitted to the Boards shows that only one individual is registered to vote and has a vehicle registered in New York State . She asked if something has changed . Mr. Guttman responded that one individual 's immigration records show this address as his permanent address and one other individual has changed his records since the time of the affidavit to show Honness Lane as his permanent address . Attorney Brock noted that Mr. Guttman indicated that all residents pay New York State taxes . She asked what address was listed on each individual ' s income tax returns . Mr. Guttman explained that the individuals who have their governmental records showing this as the permanent address list Honness Lane as the address on the income tax returns . The one - individual that recently changed his records has not filed an income tax return since the change was made . Chairperson Sigel stated that someone who files their taxes as a Pennsylvania resident might pay the same taxes as a resident of New York State would pay , but technically are not filing as a resident ; it would be filed as a non - resident . Mr. Niefer asked if the household expenses are paid out of a pooled fund . Mr. Guttman responded by using the purchasing of cleaning supplies as an example . He said that an individual buys cleaning supplies when s/he sees that it is needed ; the individuals do not keep track of who buys cleaning supplies when . The members of the household assume that it will balance out in the future . He argued that this is what happens in most households amongst family members . Mr. Krantz noted that he had a problem with the word "traditional " . He noted that there are a lots of things that constitute a family and that he would agree are a family , but the Board is suppose to determine that the structure resembles a traditional family. Certainly , the group before the Board did not resemble a traditional family . Mr. Guttman argued that the courts have said that the individuals living together have to act as a functional family . He noted that the "traditional" family has changed over the years and he does not know what a traditional family means anymore . Mr. Guttman went on to say that the courts have determined that if a group cooks together, lives together, is of a permanent , share the expenses , and the individuals act as a family . He thought that if the Board looked at what a family does , it is not a matter of necessarily generational structures and traditions . The traditional family has changed over the years . He went on to say that in this situation , there is a group of people acting as and doing important family things like celebrating Christmas together. He noted that if -the basic family was out of town , then the individuals would be going out of town to celebrate Christmas . Mr. Guttman stated that probably one of the major things a family gets together to do is celebrate Christmas dinner. The 6 individuals choose to celebrate Christmas dinner, Thanksgiving dinner, birthdays , Easter Sundays—they celebrate these together. He felt that doing such was as traditional as you can get . Page 8 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final Mr. Niefer asked if there was an association agreement among the 6 individuals as to how they are to conduct , behave and contribute to the overall cost of the family . He was looking for any formal structure other than the lease . Mr. Guttman replied that the individuals are contractually responsible for each of them to pay 1 /6 of the rent . He went on to explain that there is a verbal contract that has occurred over a period of time that covers how they handle food , cleaning supplies , utilities and such . Nothing is in writing and he submitted that a traditional family does not have anything in writing . Mr. Niefer argued that this is not a so-called traditional family. It is a new-generation family and as such he was asking if there is a written general understanding as to how these things that are being discussed are to be handled . He thought it would formalize the group with a formal contract . Ms . Calabrese stated that she collects everyone ' s rent each month and pays the landlord . Another individual is responsible for paying the cable bill and he lets everyone know each month what is due for the cable bill . Mr. Guttman argued that if there was a formal agreement where each individual pays 1 /6 of the utilities that it is less of a family . It is all done by a handshake and trust , which is how families function . He gave the example of having adult children living with him and discussing how they contribute to the household ; he said that it has never been in writing and that it is always verbally agreed upon . Mr. Bates recalled Ms . Calabrese stating that she collects everyone ' s check and then pays the landlord . He asked if each individual check was made payable to the landlord . Ms . Calabrese responded yes . Mr. Bates confirmed that the rent is paid individually to the landlord and the rent is not paid through one check . Mr. Mountin asked if Ms . Calabrese was the manager of the household . Ms . Calabrese indicated that there was not a manager of the household and that all individuals act as co -managers of the household . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 52 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board . Harry Ellsworth , Honness Lane resident , appeared before the Board and spoke to the number of properties owned by the Fix' s on Honness Lane . He noted that one of the parcels he owns was subdivided a few years ago and it is now a vacant buildable lot . Mr. Ellsworth stated that Honness Lane is starting to look like an apartment complex parking lot . He submitted pictures of 141 Honness Lane and another property on Honness Lane to show the intense use of driveways . It was also noted that cars park on the shoulder, even during the winter months . Mr. Ellsworth was concerned that other properties would be coming before the Board for the same determination should this group of residents be determined a family . He stated that it was nice that the individuals celebrated Christmas together, but that it was one Christmas and there was no guarantee that would happen in the future . Page 9 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final Mr. Ellsworth went through the criteria in the Code and noted that a similar appeal was brought before the Board a few months ago and it was denied . His stated that a lot of the reasoning was the same . He did not see that this group of individuals met the real definition of the Town Code and encouraged the Board to deny the request . Mr. Ellsworth stated that if this appeal is granted the Board should be prepared for a lot of requests . Mr. Mountin asked Mr. Ellsworth if he has had any problems with noise or traffic . Mr. Ellsworth stated that he showed the Board the traffic problems in the pictures he gave the Board . Mr. Mountin argued that he was shown a bunch of parking lots . He asked if there were problems with cars going up and down the road . Mr. Ellsworth responded that there are cars parked along the street . He reported that there was not a noise problem and that the properties are well - kept . There do not seem to be any big parties , but parking is a problem . Mr. Ellsworth thought that the Code was put together to prevent an expansion of Collegetown and he felt that that was going on here . Attorney Brock suggested that the public hearing remain open . She explained that the Board should conduct a SEQR review for the request because it is more than an interpretation . The Board is making a determination pursuant to criteria in the Code . She provided the Board with a Part II environmental assessment form . Mr. Bates pointed out that the property is located in a Medium Density Residential Zone . Attorney Brock brought the Board ' s attention to the Part I Environmental Assessment Form in the packet . She noted that question 6 does not give a figure for the amount of land affected . Mr. Bates researched the size of the property and the Board amended question 6 to include the language , "< 1 acre" . The Board reviewed the Part II form provided to them by Attorney Brock . There being no questions , Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Attorney Brock . Mr. Mountin seconded ; vote—cu . ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -029: Environmental Assessment, Giora Fix, 141 Honness Ln, Tax Parcel No. 58. -2-39. 7 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Dave Mountin . RESOLVED, in the appeal of Mr. Fix at 141 Honness Lane, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Part 11 Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Susan Brock. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Page '10 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel asked if any members of the public wished to address the Board . There being no one , he closed the public hearing at 8 : 08 p . m . Mr. Mountin noted that Mr. Ellsworth referred to the appeal of Ron Ronsvalle for one of his properties on King Road . He asked if there were individual leases signed in that case or if one lease was signed . Mr. Bates did not recall whether or not it was an individual lease or a group lease ; the Board was only provided with a sample lease for that appeal . Chairperson Sigel noted that that was a different situation . The individuals were undergraduates ; there was no representation that they would be together after the current year's lease . It was stated plainly that some of the members were not staying with the group . Mr. Niefer added that those individuals were not employed locally either, as this group is employed . Chairperson Sigel agreed and stated that those individuals were full time students . He believed , to be fair, that being a PhD student is equivalent to having any other type of professional job in the area . Chairperson Sigel looked at it as being equivalent to a group of people being otherwise employed in the area , not necessarily as PhD students . For him , the question comes down to whether such a similar group , under similar circumstances , was a family . He did not personally get hung up on the fact that the word "student" is in their occupation ; he thought it was distinguished from being and undergraduate , for instance , as far as the transientness of the situation . Chairperson Sigel stated that he has not fully decided yet whether if it was a group of similar people that were not a group of students that had similar types of jobs in the area how he would feel . He tried to remove that aspect because he thought that it was equivalent . Ms . Whitmore brought up the minutes from that meeting on the computer for Chairperson Sigel to review . He did not see anything offhand that indicated whether or not the individuals in the King Road appeal signed one lease or individual leases . Chairperson Sigel asked if there were comments from any other Board members . Mr. Niefer commented that there is a lot of room for interpretation with regard to the criteria set forth in the Code . He understood from the language of the Code that not all factors listed needed to be satisfied in order for the Board to determine a group to be a family unit . Chairperson Sigel agreed . He stated that the Board has to find that criteria 1 , 21 and 3 are met . Then in determining criterion 3 , the Code provides a list of items for the Board to consider. Mr. Niefer asked for the definition of a traditional family . Chairperson Sigel responded that it is not defined by the Code and that the definition of a traditional family may have changed over the years . Page 11 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final Mr. Niefer asked if the courts have or have not made a determination with regard to a traditional family . Mr. Guttman referred to the Oyster Bay case and explained that in that case the Board ruled that the students living together were not a family . The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and set forth standards for towns in New York to use in making that determination . Chairperson Sigel adjourned to a brief recess at 8 : 16 p . m , to allow time for Attorney Brock to research the Oyster Bay case . The Board returned to regular session at 8 : 26 p . m . Attorney Brock reported that she found that case and it was McMinn v . Oyster Bay and it was decided by the State ' s highest court , the Court of Appeals in 1985 . She said that the case did not say that the group of people living in the house was a family , but rather the case said that the Town of Oyster Bay' s Code definition for family was drafted too narrowly and unconstitutional . They said that it did not meet the goals of the Town . The Town wanted to preserve single -family character of the neighborhood , prevent undue congestion and traffic . The courts said the definition was too narrow and if the Town is trying to prevent congestion and traffic , it would not be achieved by the definition in the Code . She did not think that there was a determination made in that case whether the groups of individuals involved was or was not a family . The courts said that the Oyster Bay needed to apply the criteria applied in the other 2 cases before the court . She was certain that the Town ' s Code was written to comply with the State law cases . Attorney Brock explained that the Board needed to look at what is in the Code and apply that to the facts before them and make a decision . She thought that Mr. Niefer had asked a question about whether the courts had made a determination with regard to a traditional family and she did not have any additional information on that for him . Attorney Brock then proceeded to go through the criteria listed in the Code . Mr. Bates stated that Town Code permits two persons plus one other person in a single family residence . Chairperson Sigel clarified that there could be two unrelated persons merely cooking together, they would be considered a family and would be allowed one additional boarder. Attorney Brock added if it was allowed by zoning because boarders are not permitted in some zones . Mr. King asked if there would be a limit on the number of residents allowed in the house for a traditional family . Mr. Bates explained that there would be a limit with regard to the number of bedrooms and the size of the bedrooms . New York State Building Code dictates the square footage per person for bedrooms . Attorney Brock clarified that regardless of the Board 's determination , the house has to meet Building Code requirements for the number of people living there . Mr. Mountin asked if there were undergraduate students living in the other houses on Honness Lane owned by Mr. Fix . Mr. Guttman believed Mr. Fix mainly rents to +� graduate students , but is renting to a few undergraduates . Mr. Fix prefers to rent to Page 12 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16 , 2011 Final graduate students because they are more mature and they are less likely to have parties . He added that Mr. Fix has a strong incentive to keep the properties well - maintained . Mr. Guttman was not aware of any other situation where there was the same continuity as the situation before the Board . Mr. Mountin stated that he was having a hard time not seeing the group as a family unit . He thought that the group had presented to the Board a number of reasons that he sees that falls in line with the family definition . He is most impressed with the fact that the individuals share a lease and have a verbal agreement to share expenses . Mr. Mountin went on to say that the values of the group presented speak to a family unit . The individuals share values , expenses , holidays , longevity of leases (5 yrs) . He did not feel that the Board was setting a precedent because the individuals are not undergraduates . They are adults working towards a PhD and have responsibility and maturity behind them . The individuals are working as a family unit with responsibility to each other, the community , to each other, and especially the neighborhood . Mr. Krantz stated that he sort of agreed with a lot of what Mr. Mountin said , but he felt that this could open a Pandora ' s Box . It could then be said that the next group that comes before the Board is not a family because they are undergraduates instead of PhD candidates . Would the Board then say that they are not a family because they go on spring break or visit their parents at Christmas time ? Would the Board then say that they are not a family because they work at separate or different employers ? Mr. Mountin argued that these individuals have a job and a shared lease . It would be different to him if it was a bunch of undergraduates with individual leases and they were there 9 months for a 9 month lease or a 12 month lease . He felt that it is different from the current situation . Mr. Krantz commented that very few landlords give a 9 month lease regardless of how long the individual actually lives there . Mr. Mountin stated that this group has told the Board that they plan to live at this address year round . Mr. Krantz asked that if everything else was the same , but the students worked for different employers , would the Board determine the group not to be a family . Or if they were all not at the address at Christmas time , would it be determined that it is not a family? Mr. Bates explained that it has been his experience while working for the Town that most landlords that rent to students , whether undergraduate or graduate , require the individuals to sign a lease months to a year in advance to insure their place . He stated that Ms . Calabrese said that each individual writes a check to the landlord ; rent is not paid with one check . He presumed that they each get a receipt for it . Mr. Bates commented that it indicates to him that each individual is paying his/her own way for this house . Page 13 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16 , 2011 Final Mr. Mountin responded that he also heard Ms . Calabrese state that if one person does not pay that the other individuals make up the difference . Chairperson Sigel added that each individual pays his/her fair share regardless of who the check is written out to . Mr. Bates stated that the landlords are going to figure out a way around the Board ' s ruling regardless of what it is—they will figure out a way to make it work . Mr. Mountin stated that the Board was making its determination that evening based upon what was being presented to them . It could be completely different in two months . Mr. Bates agreed , but felt that the decision of the Board would be used in the next argument . Mr. Mountin commented that he was surprised that more attorneys and people do not use the Board ' s previous variances to make their cases . Mr. Guttman stated that the Town ' s ordinance was probably passed immediately following the Oyster Bay ruling and the ordinance has been on the books for at 26 years . He said that there has not been a stream of people coming before the Board asking to be considered as a functional family . Mr. Guttman thought that it was unique to find a group of students that had lived together for two years and planned to live together for another 3 years . He added that it would be very rare that there would be another group to come before the Board with these specific facts . Mr. Guttman went on to argue that one of the factors in the Ordinance to be considered is the sharing in the payment of rent . He did not think that it mattered if the rent was written from one account or from individual accounts . Mr. Guttman stated that it was the Board ' s obligation to make a determination on the specific facts before them that evening . Chairperson Sigel agreed with Mr. Guttman . He was convinced that this group was functioning as a family . He thought that they meet the criteria . Chairperson Sigel commented that this is an area of Town Code that has and will continue to present the Board with difficulty . He did not think that there was an easy way around it . The Board is required to deal with each case as an individual case and vote on how each case does or does not meet the criteria . Chairperson Sigel stated that he would respect someone ' s view that is different from his because it is a tough decision , but for him , he felt that they had met the burden of the criteria . Mr. Niefer stated that based upon the information provided and given the Zoning Law , it would appear for practical purposes that this group has met the requirements . He said that he would probably have a lot of misgivings applying it perhaps to his neighborhood . He wondered how he would feel if it was his neighborhood . Mr. Niefer thought it was a matter of which way things might ultimately be decided . Mr. King stated that he agreed with other Board members , but thought that the Code needed further development in that area . Page 14 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16 , 2011 Final Chairperson Sigel stated that the problem in this case may partially be that it is difficult to spell out exactly who you want ; you cannot know ahead of time who qualifies and who does not . Mr. King commented that if the concern is traffic , then the Code may be able to limit the number of occupants in a house . Chairperson Sigel thought that that would be difficult to do because if a certain number of people are allowed by Building Code and they are all related by blood , then the Board cannot dictate the number of people in the household with cars . He said that there could be traditional families that are more impactful on a community than this particular group of people . Chairperson Sigel solicited comments and questions . Attorney Brock offered to read the Board language from another case if they thought it would be helpful . She stated that Oyster Bay case cited indicia of a City of White Plains case . The White Plains case involved a group home , which consisted of an adult couple , their 2 children and 10 foster children . The adults were paid a salary to care for the children and all the household expenses were paid by an organization that was publically funded . The question was if that group was a functional equivalent of a family . In that case , New York 's highest court said yes . She went on to read language from the case that referenced the group acting as a household unit . Attorney Brock stated that the Court is really looking for the development of permanency and development of community ties versus transiency . Chairperson Sigel thought that the Board should be clear that the Board is finding , or potentially finding , is that this particular group of people would be determined to be a family and that replacement of people within this group would require a new appearance before the Zoning Board . As one might imagine , this might possibly be viewed negatively by this Board for the continued status of being a family . Mr. Ellsworth came back before the Board and stated that if he were on the Board he would require the residents to sign an agreement regarding what happens if one member ceases to live at the house . He went on to say that he viewed the Code , as written , as a way to stop a second Collegetown . Chairperson Sigel did not think that type of a condition would be necessary because if any individual were to leave , the group would not be able to replace that person without coming back before the Board . He explained that what the Board would determine is that this particular set of 6 people is functioning as a family . So , if one were to leave another person could not live there without Board approval . Chairperson Sigel did riot think it was fair to say that if one person left that the remaining 5 ceased to be a family . Mr. Ellsworth suggested that that be stated in the resolution . Chairperson Sigel explained that this determination that this group is a family is a very different determination than a determination that a particular house can have occupancy of 6 unrelated people . The Board has increased the occupancy of particular houses in the Town through variances ; that is not what the Board would be doing . Page 15 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16 , 2011 Final Mr. Ellsworth also suggested that there be a condition stating that the house must comply with the Building Code . Chairperson Sigel felt that that went without saying . Attorney Brock explained that the Zoning Board did not have the power to vary the State Building Code ; nothing this Board does effects the applicability of the State Building Code . Mr. Bates asked if the Board could make Mr. Ellsworth ' s suggestion a condition . Attorney Brock said that they could , but that the house would have to meet the Building Code anyway . Chairperson Sigel stated that finding that this group is a family means that they can live together as a family in any house in the Town of Ithaca . He did not think it made sense to tie the determination to the code situation of a particular house . Mr. Bates requested that the Board enter closed session to seek advice of counsel . Chairperson Sigel moved and Mr. Niefer seconded that the Board enter closed session to seek advice of counsel . Vote—carried unanimously . The Board entered closed session at 8 : 58 p . m . Chairperson Sigel moved and Mr. Krantz seconded that the Board resume open session . Vote—carried unanimously . The Board resumed Open Session at 9 : 02 p . m . Chairperson Sigel stated that the Board discussed the potential imposition of a condition that any single -family residence that this group chooses to occupy in the Town is subject to an inspection by the Code Enforcement Officer to determine if it is Code compliant for that number of people . There was concern expressed because there was the indication that the group was potentially using a room as a bedroom in violation . As a matter of a safety concern , that condition was suggested and agreed upon by all members . Chairperson Sigel did not think the applicant would object since he would assume that Mr. Fix would not want to have a house out of Building Code . Attorney Brock added that given recent events , safety is a concern . Chairperson Sigel solicited comments and questions . There being none , he moved to make the determination that the group of individuals living at 141 Honness Lane are! considered a functional equivalent of a family finding that the group satisfied the criteria of the Code and specifically outlining how the group met the criteria , and with the conditions that the approval only applies to individuals listed on the affidavit submitted to the Board and that any dwelling unit this group resides in is subject to an inspection by the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Niefer seconded . Vote—carried . ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -030: Determination, Giora Fix, 141 Honness Ln, Tax Parcel No. 58. -2-39. 7 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by James Niefer. Page 16 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16 , 2011 Final RESOLVED, that in regard to the appeal of Giora Fix, this Board makes the determination under the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-5, Family, subparagraph f, that the particular six people living at 141 Honness Lane, Tax Parcel No. 58. -2-39. 7, that came before this Board on May 16, 2011 , and are named individually in the affidavits submitted by the applicant are considered the functional equivalent of a family for the purposes of the Town of Ithaca . Specifically, that they meet the requirements of the definition of a family, subsection f: 1 . That they are a group that in theory, size, appearance and structure resembles a traditional family unit, 2. That it is a group that lives and cooks together as a single housekeeping unit, 3. That the group is of a permanent nature and is neither merely a framework for transient or seasonal living, or merely an association or relationship that is transient or seasonal in nature, Specifically, this Board finds that. 1 . Four members of the group have been living together for nearly two years and all six members have been living together for nearly one year and have further indicated their intention to live together for an additional three years, 2. That this group resides in Ithaca year round, 3. That the group in their affidavit presented and indicated that they share such activities as food purchasing and preparation, expenses for utilities and household supplies, they spend holidays together, they live and cook together as a single housekeeping unit, 4. That they are all jointly responsible for the lease on the house, 5. That all of them are employed by a local employer, namely Cornell University, 6. They all pay New York State Taxes, and 7. Some, but not all of them, are registered to vote in the Town of Ithaca . Conditions: 1 . This finding would apply to any subset of the group, but not to any group containing members not listed in this affidavit, 2. That any single-family home or any dwelling unit in a two-family home that they occupy in the Town of Ithaca would be subject to an inspection by the Town of Page 17 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2011 Final Ithaca Code Enforcement Officer to verify that the home is code compliant for the number of occupants. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Krantz. Motion was carried. Attorney Brock suggested that the group be sensitive to neighbors with regard to the number of cars in the driveway and along the road . She knew that it was not a requirement of the Board . Other Business None . With no other business , Chairperson Sigel adjourned the May 16 , 2011 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at 9 : 12 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chair erson Carrie Cod Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk Page 18 of 18 FILE DAT = �- ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -027 Area Variance David and Cheryl Gombas 1452 Trumansburg Rd Tax Parcel No. 24.-1 -20 May 16, 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Cheryl and David Gombas requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Sections 270-32A(2 ) and 270-32A(3) "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install an inground pool in the required rear and side yard setback on the northwestern side of the property located at 1452 Trumansburg Rd , Tax Parcel No . 24. - 1 -20 , Agricultural District, with the following : Conditions : 1 . That the pool be built approximately in the location indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant, ® 2 . That the pool be no closer to the western property line than 33 feet, and 3 . That the pool be no closer to the northern property line than 24 feet. 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 cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the size of the property and its current layout with the house and garage , the location that they have proposed is clearly the best location for a pool and it does not meet the setback requirements , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that there are no nearby neighbors and the one neighbor that surrounds both affected sides of this property has indicated that they do riot have a problem with the pool , 3 . That while the requested variance within the setbacks is substantial , that nevertheless the benefit does outweigh any detriment, 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental affects , ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -027 Page 2 of 2 ® 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created , that again the requested benefit 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 16th day of May, 2011 . Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca ! 1_ DATE ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -028 Area Variances Donn Carroll 651 Five Mile Dr Tax Parcel No. 31 .-2-25 .2 May 16, 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Donn Carroll requesting variances from�the requirements of Chapter 270 , Sections 270-6213 , 270-62C , 270-60C of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient lot width at the street line , insufficient lot width at the required front yard setback line on two parcels , and to allow insufficient side yard setback for the parcel containing the existing home located at 651 Five Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No . 31 . -2 -25 . 2 , Low Density Residential , based upon the following : Conditions: 1 . That the north side yard setback of lot 1 be no less than 7 feet, 2 . That the width of lot 1 at the street line be no less than 65 feet, ® 3 . That the width of lot 1 at the required setback line be no less than 90 feet, 4 . That the width of lot 2 at the street line be no less than 54 feet, and 5 . That the width of lot 2 as the required setback be no less than 54 feet. 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 does not appear to be achievable by any other means feasible given the limited width at the street line and the desire to subdivide the portion of the lot that contains the telecommunications tower from the portion that contains the house , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the structures on what will become two lots exist already, 3 . That while the request is substantial , the setbacks being substantially less than what is required , that given the size of the lots and the distances to nearest ® neighbors that there will not be a detriment to the health , safety , and welfare of the community , ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -028 Page 2 of 2 ® 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects since it does not involve any new construction , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created by the applicant' s placing of a telecommunications facility at the rear of the lot and subsequent desire to subdivide the lots , 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. 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 16th day of May , 2011 , va AL Deputy Town-C erk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -030 14/4 --- Determination Giora Fix 141 Honness Ln Tax Parcel No. 58 .=2-39.7 May 16, 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that in regard to the appeal of Giora Fix , this Board makes the determination under the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-5 , Family, subparagraph f , that the particular six people living at 141 Honness Lane , Tax Parcel No . 58 . -2-39 . 7 , that came before this Board on May 16 , 2011 , and are named individually in the affidavits submitted by the applicant are considered the functional equivalent of a family for the purposes of the Town of Ithaca . Specifically , that they meet the requirements of the definition of a family, subsection f : 1 . That they are a group that in theory, size , appearance and structure resembles a traditional family unit, ® 2 . That it is a group that lives and cooks together as a single housekeeping unit, 3 . That the group is of a permanent nature and is neither merely a framework for transient or seasonal living , or merely an association or relationship that is transient or seasonal in nature , Specifically, this Board finds that: 1 . Four members of the group have been living together for nearly two years and all six members have been living together for nearly one year and have further indicated their intention to live together for an additional three years , 2 . That this group resides in Ithaca year round , 3 . That the group in their affidavit presented and indicated that they share such activities as food purchasing and preparation , expenses for utilities and household supplies , they spend holidays together, they live and cook together as a single housekeeping unit , 4 . That they are all jointly responsible for the lease on the house , 5 . That all of them are employed by a local employer, namely Cornell University , ® 6 . They all pay New York State Taxes , and 7 . Some , but not all of them , are registered to vote in the Town of Ithaca . Conditions : 1 . This finding would apply to any subset of the group , but not to any group containing members not listed in this affidavit, 2 . That any single-family home or any dwelling unit in a two-family home that they occupy in the Town of Ithaca would be subject to an inspection by the Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Officer to verify that the home is code compliant for the number of occupants . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Niefer, Mountin and King NAYS : None . ABSTAIN : Krantz . Motion was carried . 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 16th day of May , 2011 . 4 dq 711 'U Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DAT _ ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =029 Environmental Assessment Giora Fix 141 Honness Ln Tax Parcel No. 58 .=2-39 .7 May 169 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Dave Mountin . RESOLVED , in the appeal of Mr. Fix at 141 Honness Lane , that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Susan Brock. 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 16th day of May, 2011 . t' IvO Deputy Town_ Jerk 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 , May 16 , 2011 7 : 00 P . M . Date of Publication : Friday, May 6 , 2011 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Hall Lobby Public Notices Board ® 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : Wednesday, May 4 , 2011 h 40 10k Gerrie Coates'Whitrnore Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of May, 2011 (C�w Nota ublic C) Debra DeAugistine Notary Public - State of New York No, 01DE6148035 Qualified in Tompkins County MY Commission Expires June i9, 20 • I Frid.ay,- May, 6, 2011 The Ithaca Journal TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday,'May 16, 2011 j 215 North Tioga' Street, I Ithaca 7:00 P.M. . , Appeal of Cheryl and David I Gombas, owners, request- j inga variance From the re- i quirements of Chapter 270, 1 Section 270-32A(2)(3) i"Yard Regulations' of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install an i Inground pool within the re- i squired rear and side yard j setback on the northwest- i ,em side of the property, to- cqted at 1452 Trumansburgrg ; lRd, Tax Parcel No. 24.- 1 - t 20, Agricultural District. Appeal of Donn Carroll, (owner, requesting varian- ; ices from the requirements 'of Chapter 270, Sections 270-62B and 270-62C j ;"Size and Area of Lot', and Section 270-60C 'Yard ;Regulations" of the Town of 'Ithaca Code to allow insuffi- ;cient lot width at the street line and insufficient lot 'width at the required front 'yard setback tine on two 1parcels, and to allow insuffi. 'tient side yard setback for I the parcel containing the ' existing home. Parcels are j located at 651 Five Mile 1 Dr, Tax Parcel No. 31 ..2. 1 ,25.2, Low Density Residen- tial. . Additional variances I may be necessary. Appeal of Giora Fix, owner, i phades Guttman. Agent, t requesting a determination from the requirements of 'Chapter 270. Section� 270- 5 'Family" (F) For the pur- poses of considering the esidents of 141 Honness ILn to be a functional family, i 'located at X141 Honness Ln. .Tax Parcel No. '58.-2-39.7, 'Medium Density Residen- tial. Assistance will be provided for individuals with special ! ,needs, upon request. Re- Iquests should be made not j IIless than 48 hours. prior to the public hearings. ©*oO:V iOU A 10 G+9d_ Ij 1Bruce W. Bates rr Director of Code hEnforcement - '607-273- 1783 ` triuril < ,,Nfl1 'tOT e7i 17Gliil3uO (Dated: Mayo, 2011 0BUL; weir;r U MIZZiMM5i6i2011 SAFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) 1, 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 6`h day of May 2011 , deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the following Tax Parcel Numbers : ***1452 Trumansburg Rd Mark & Rhonda Bickford Rev Trust Bethany Schroeder and Jon Bosak Deborah Campbell 1466 Trumansburg Rd 1448 Trumansburg Rd 1445 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Catherine Dembek Austin Duvernoy Joan and Zoltan Gombas 1444 Trumansburg Rd 1440 Trumansburg Rd 1452 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert Alexander Jackman Thomas Joseph Anthony Lucatelli 1016 N Cayuga St PO Box 3873 1456 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14852 Ithaca, NY 14850 10eborah Noonan Tompkins Trust Company Keith Van Der Hye 453 Trumansburg Rd The Commons 5506 Grove Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Trumansburg, NY 14886 Robert and Paula Wedemeyer 5C2 Candlewycke Park Ithaca, NY 14850 *** 651 Five Mile Dr Donn Carroll Catholic Cemetery Association City of Ithaca 651 Five Mile Dr 113 N Geneva St 108 E Green St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Laurene Gilbert Ithaca City School District William & Theo Jenks 24 Gilbert Rd 400 Lake St 655 Five Mile Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Melanie Claire Mallison Pennsylvania Lines, LLC People of State of New :fork 658 Five Mile Dr 110 Franklin Rd SE Finger Lakes Park Ithaca, NY 14850 Roanoke, VA 24042-0028 Trumansburg, NY 14886 Edward & Brigid Shipman Alice Snyder Town of Ithaca 681 Five Mile Dr 662 Five Mile Dr 215 N Tioga St aca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Stacy Wright 6045 Stillwell Rd Trumansburg, NY 14886 ***141 Honness Ln Rajindra & Sarla Aneja Maria Avramis Linda Bennett 322 Sunnyview Ln 400 College Ave, Suite 100 305 Sunnyview Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Scott & Arete Brim Bill & Mary Brodie Maria Chacona 146 Honness Ln 120 Terraceview Dr 321 Sunnyview Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Femosthenis & Angela Chronis David Church Cornell University 18 Terraceview Dr 138 Honness Ln, #6 PO Box DH thaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14853 Aichael Cuddy Herbert & Waltravt Deinert Vijaypaul & Varaprabhu Dhas l 16 Terraceview Dr 130 Honness Ln 315 Sunnyview Ln Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Boaffi, Appeals Meeting 04/25/2011 aca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Harry & Mary Ellsworth Giora & Limor Fix Kathryn Gleason 152 Honness Ln PO Box 243 206 Pine Tree Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14851 Ithaca, NY 14850 Mary Ellen Gleason Mark Andrew & Elizabeth Hall Homes 4 You Trust 209 Westview Ln 123 King Rd E F-7 PO Box 243 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14851 Michael Hughes Freedom King & Fidela Sindihubura Paul & Mary Jones 210 Westview Ln 110 Terraceview Dr 150 Honness Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert Klee Constantine & Maria Lambrou George & Evelyn Lambrou 204 Westview Ln 156 Honness Ln 154 Honness Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Helen Larin Kyusoon Lee & Hyesook Oh Lavern Light 317 Sunnyview Ln 307 Sunnyview Ln 205 Westview Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert & Janet London Michael Marks David Melski 10979 Northshore Square 310 Sunnyview Ln 122 Terraceview Dr ` Cupertino, CA 95014 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Karel Mertens Andrew Molnar & Marie Skweir Jonathan Monroe 300 Sunnyview Ln 309 Sunnyview Ln 114 Terraceview Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 James Murphy & Deidre Kostick Matoula Nickles & Anna Stavropoulos John & Doris Perialas 326 Sunnyview Ln 118 Brandeis Rd PO Box 241 Ithaca, NY 14850 Newton, MA 02459 Ithaca, NY 14851 Brian & Holly Reardon Susan Rosenthal Joseph Shedd & Susan Dixon 102 Terraceview Dr 301 Sunnyview Ln 112 Terraceview Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Melanie Stein & Detlef Smilgies Steven & Miriam Thompson Trinity Lutheran Church 306 Sunnyview Ln 313 Sunnyview Ln 149 Honness Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Curtis & Amanda Ufford John & Ida Wolff Frank & Lorrie Young 147 Honness Ln 145 Honness Ln 318 Sunnyview Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Douglas & Lorraine Burke-Zollo 4 River Ten rrytown, NY 10591 Carrie Coates*f4nore, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca Sworn to before me this 6`h day of May 2011 . or N tary Public ® Debra DeAugistine Notary Public - State of New York No. 01DE6148035 Ouaiified in Tompkins County MY Commission Expires June 19, 20 2 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SIGN - IN SHEET DATE : May 16 , 2011 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTA0ORES SIA FFILIATION QVI v I/V w `SLY Y!