Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2021-08-10Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, August 10, 2021@ 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. The Zoning Board of Appeals has resumed in-person meetings. The Public Hearing meeting for the Zoning Board of Appeals will be held in-person and will also be streamed live. The public will have the option of attending the meeting in-person or by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments. Agenda  0015-2021 Appeal of Jennifer Gray, owner of 140 King Rd. E., Tax Parcel No. 43.-1-3.35  0017-2021 Appeal of Elena Cestero and Joaquin Cuevas, owners of 273 Bundy Rd., Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-6.1  Zoning Board of Appeals’ consideration if a Veterinary Office/Clinic use is considered sustainably similar to a use (or uses) identified in section 270-126A of Town Zoning, in accordance with section 270-127K of Town of Ithaca Code. This consideration is specific for Briar Patch Veterinary to extend services into to 702 Elmira Road.  Zoning Board of Appeals’ consideration of the Town of Ithaca’s Planning Board as the lead agency for the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) for Cornell University’s New Experimental Hall at Wilson Laboratory INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: If you have a computer, tablet, or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on “JOIN Meeting”, and entering 852-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the Zoom meeting at +1 (929) 436-2866. To join the meeting directly, go to https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85255871576. On the evening of, 08/10/2021, at 5 minutes before 6:00pm, join in with your computer, smartphone, or telephone. You will be placed on hold until the meeting starts. Questions about accessing the Zoom video conference should be emailed to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us or (607) 273-1783 ext.2. ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 1 Meeting of the Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, August 10, 2021 MINUTES Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Member David Squires; Alternate David Williams Absent: Chris Jung, Bill King and David Filiberto Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Becky Jordan, Deputy Town Clerk Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:03p.m. and read the public hearing notice on the two appeals. 0015-2021 Appeal of Jennifer Gray, owner, 140 King Rd. E., TP 43.-1-3.35, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-71E (2) Yard Regulations Accessory Buildings, to keep an existing accessory structure (shed) in the side yard, where none are allowed. Ms. Gray, Applicant gave a brief overview of how the Shed was on the property when she purchased the home in late 2008. A survey done October 2008, provided, shows the shed on the left side of driveway. When she applied for a roof permit for shed is when she learned the shed is not in accordance with zoning. She’s looking for a variance to keep the shed where it is and has been, she’s told by the Town, since 2002. To move the shed would require a lot of money and to get it into the backyard she would have to take down fencing. Mr. Williams asked, during the process of purchasing the house, were you told at all about the shed being put up without a permit or that it wasn’t in the right place? Ms. Gray replied, no she was not. Mr. Rosen opened the Public Hearing at 6:05 p.m. There was no one present, and Ms. Jordan confirmed for the record there were no electronic comments submitted by anyone wishing to address the Board. Discussion: Ms. Brock provided that we do not have to do an environmental review under SEQR because it has been determined that under the regulations it is Type 2. This covers placement of minor accessory structure including storage sheds. Mr. Williams commented that the shed is very much in keeping aesthetically of the house, it blends into the area. ZBA Resolution 0015-2021 Area Variance 140 King Rd E, TP 43.-1-3.35 ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 2 Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Jennifer Gray, owner, 140 King Rd E., seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-71E(2) Yard Regulations Accessory Buildings, to keep an existing accessory structure (shed) in the side yard, where they are only allowed in the backyard, with the following: Conditions: 1. The shed remains where it is and cannot be expanded. and that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: Findings: 1. The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the shed exists and was built approximately 19 years ago in the side yard, and 2. That there will not be any undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties, given that the shed has been in the side yard for the past 19 years and the shed is surrounded by mature trees on three sides and matches the residence aesthetically, and 3. That the request is substantial given that accessory structures are not allowed in the side yard, and 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental impacts as evidenced by SEQR not being required, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the shed was noncompliant when the applicant purchased the property, but it is noted that the owner had no knowledge of the violation until she applied for a building permit to repair the roof. Moved: Rob Rosen Seconded: David Squires. Votes: ayes – Rosen, Squires, and Williams Agenda Item 2 0017-2021 Appeal of Elena Cestero and Joaquin Cuevas, owner, 273 Bundy Rd., TP 27.-1-6.1, seeking a use variance for a third dwelling unit to be allowed on the property. Mr. Cuevas gave a brief overview and shared his screen to share a presentation on the property. Mr. Cuevas stated that the garage is historical built in the 1940’s or 50’s and showed slides of the Tompkins County Assessment website pages which listed the property as Multiple Res in the Property Class field with a single family home with 1 acre, and the garage as a 2-Family with the residual acreage, separately from the main house. ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 3 He showed pictures of the work already done on the unit in the garage and main house and depictions of the return-on-investment (RI) ratios with one unit to rent vs two. He stated that they are also anticipating their parents to need the unit at some point. They also asked their neighbors who were all in favor and all knew that the garage has always been a rental unit, and they are here tonight to ask for the same use as previous owners over the past 40-50 years. Board Discussion Mr. Squires asked the applicants if they have explored subdividing the property into two units, since it has two municipal addresses and that would negate the need for the variance. Mr. Cuevas responded that they had thought about that approach but hadn’t considered it due to implications from a tax perspective. It is something we will consider if it’s a better approach. Ms. Cestero added that the water system is shared, and that might cause issues. Mr. Mosely added that subdivision would cause complications as the proposed two-unit structure has an owner occupancy requirement and he would assume that the applicants would live in the main house so they wouldn’t meet that provision. Also, there are minimum lot size requirements in the Ag Zone which would not be met. Some discussion followed on provisions of the Ag Zone and Mr. Moseley stated that he would have to discuss with Planning about parent tracts and subdivision. Mr. Rosen stated that it sounds like that wouldn’t work due to the owner occupancy requirement, so this route seems to be the only option. Mr. Squires inquired about prior owner stipulation or affidavit filed with the Town Clerk. Mr. Mosely responded that it was an affidavit filed with the Town Clerk to make the sale of the property compliant. He explained that somewhere in the late 1940’s early 1950’s the assessment department first listed the carriage house or separate garage/dwelling as built and then sometime in the 1980’s there was a conversion to have the second unit added and that is when the Assessment department picked that up. The Town then received a complaint prior to this owner purchasing the house and upon investigation, found the two units in the garage. We worked with the prior owner to look for any information or evidence that the second unit was there when originally built or prior to zoning coming in, and we could not find any. To make the property compliant and sellable, the then owners needed to submit an affidavit to the Town Clerk stating it had one unit. ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 4 Ms. Brock added that the affidavit submitted by the previous owner was recorded in August 2020, three months prior to the sale of the property. The previous owner could provide no evidence, so the property was brought into compliance by affidavit. The Town has no record of the conversion. County Assessment at some point picked up on it but that could have been decades after the conversion happened. Mr. Rosen said he agrees, saying that the prior owner converted the garage back into one unit to be compliant and the current owner purchased the property as a two-unit property; the main house and one in the garage. There was no miscommunication going back before the current owner regarding this. The prior owner had long term knowledge of the property and could not prove that the garage should not be a one-unit building. Mr. Cestero stated that this seems to be a decision based on the absence of evidence that it didn’t happen prior to zoning rather than the preponderance of evidence is that is has been used as a two-unit for many years. Ms. Brock responded that the Town requires proof when property is converted and Mr. Rosen added that the prior owner had long term knowledge of the property and couldn’t prove it. Ms. Brock asked if the prior owner removed anything from the building to make it so that it was a one-unit building and Mr. Moseley responded that they removed components of the kitchen. Mr. Cestero responded that they removed the stove and Mr. Rosen responded that the kitchen is the hallmark of a rental. Ms. Brock stated that at that point any legally non-conforming status would end because it’s use and possibility of being used as a two-family building with the ability to cook being removed. Mr. Mosely stated that when he spoke with the previous owners, to their knowledge it had been there for an extended period of time but couldn’t tell when it actually occurred and couldn’t provide any evidence to show that it is was prior to when our zoning was established. They went through all the records they had on the property. The previous owners’ parents owned the property before they passed on and their children gained ownership. Mr. Williams stated it has been established they cannot grandfather it in; they are going from one unit to two, and we have to treat it as a new request. Mr. Mosely stated for the record that it is one unit to two in this building and that the overall use for this lot will be three total units. Ms. Brock stated that the Town’s multi family dwelling definition is a building or group of buildings on one lot containing three or more dwelling units and the zone does not allow multifamily dwellings. ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 5 Mr. Rosen opened public hearing at 6:36 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board and Ms. Jordan stated that she did not receive any comments or notice any raised hand on the zoom platform. Mr. Cuevas stated that during this whole process we have demonstrated our willingness to do everything in our power to be compliant with every requirement, every law. All the work and permits to do the work, had inspections done, and everything has been done by reputable local builders. Mr. Rosen asked if they applied for a building permit to convert the building in questions into a two unit building before they started the work. Mr. Cuevas replied that they applied for a building permit to complete renovations but not to convert the building because it was already converted. Mr. Rosen responded that they should have secured the building permit before starting the work, it would have probably been easier on their finances. You could have found this out before you made the investment in the property is my point. Discussion Mr. Rosen commented that he doesn’t think this rises to level of the use variance criteria that we have to consider under NYS Law. The alleged hardship is not unique; many people would probably like more rental units. The request would change the character of the neighborhood given that it is agricultural to multi family. The hardship is self-created because the owner could have easily found this information out and planned for it financially and the financial graph he is giving us shows a 7% return on investment, which seems like a reasonable return. Mr. Williams asked to see the chart again and noted that it was 7 years vs 14 years. Mr. Rosen responded that he doesn’t feel 14 years is a bad timeframe for a return either. Mr. Squires stated he is not enthusiastic about deviating from the zoning requirement to allow three units. Mr. Rosen stated that zoning is arbitrary sometimes, but it is there to help to enforce harmony and character of the neighborhood, and out of respect for others and the area, the rules are the same for everyone. Ms. Brock responded that that is why there is an avenue for a variance, but for a Use variance, you have to meet each and every of the four criteria, not a balancing decision like an area variance. The Board needs to look at the four criteria and answer those. Mr. Rosen addressed the applicants, saying, I really think your house is lovely and the work you have done is an improvement to the home and area, but the criteria all have to be answered yes. ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 6 Mr. Williams asked to go through each: 1. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return – substantial as shown by competent financial evidence. Ms. Brock explained that this typically looked at as the property as is; so here, a two family is allowed, and could you get a reasonable return as a two family. You can’t look at what is spent on upgrades or such because someone could spend a very large sum or not. Mr. Rosen said he thought this doesn’t even apply since this is a residential use, not a return-on- investment type of thing, it is an expense, not a return. Some discussion followed on whether rent would or should count for the full purchase price or partial and so forth. Ms. Brock suggested looking at every use permitted under the zoning. This property is zoned to allow two dwelling units on the property, could they get a reasonable return. Look at what they paid for the property, not what they paid for subsequent new repairs. Mr. Rosen stated it is a residential property, it’s not a return-on-investment property. There is no return on investment in buying house, it’s an expense. Ms. Brock agreed and said then is this property still capable of being used for two dwelling units? Mr. Williams stated the applicants are saying there will be a return because they will be charging rent presumably based on their projections for the two units. Mr. Rosen suggested that doesn’t include the cost of the whole property, is that the return on investment regarding the $80k spent, not the return on investment of buying the house Mr. Cuevas agreed. He thinks it would be unfair to try to get a return on investment of the full expenditure of the house because he also enjoys living in the house. He only cited the amount spent to make the two existing units livable. Ms. Brock asked if the property was marketed as three dwelling units or two? Mr. Cuevas responded that it was marketed as rental income potential. Ms. Brock asked what the listing showed for number of dwelling units? Mr. Cuevas said he didn’t remember exactly but basically it was one unit where he and his family could live and one that could be rented. ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 7 Mr. Mosely stated that it was originally was shown as three units and after receiving a complaint that’s how we learned that it had been converted based on the real estate listing. I don’t know if that was ever corrected or how it was portrayed to the applicants. Mr. Rosen commented that all we know for sure is that the previous owner certified to the County Clerk three months before the sale that it was two units. This is public record. Two-unit properties sell for like amounts and can need repairs. This property can also be sold as a two-unit property with such repairs. It is financially viable as a two-unit property. Audio issues did not capture Ms. Brocks comments. Mr. Rosen stated the hardship is not unique. The requested variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It is an agricultural neighborhood, and the Town is trying to protect agricultural character. Mr. Cuevas commented that he has spoken to majority of the people who live on the same road and they are all very aware that the property has been used as a two apartment unit. I need to say it is very hard not to notice that for almost 40 years this property operated as a two-unit rental, and it is very interesting that the moment a minority owner being myself and my wife become owners of this property the code becomes enforceable. It’s clear this house has been converted, it’s clear this happened at least 35-40 years ago, it’s clear that that was the use that was given to the property by former owners, and they enjoyed the ability to rent both units separately. It’s just candidly very frustrating to me that now that we are the owners of it all of a sudden, the code has become enforceable. Mr. Rosen replied that the same rules apply to everybody, and the rules are that there can be two dwelling units on the lot. Consideration for exceptions have to follow the use variance criteria. Mr. Williams stated that although the first two criteria discussed, in our estimation at least, are not being met, I think that the historical use of the property as a two dwelling unit even though we can’t consider it for being grandfathered does strongly indicate it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Rosen commented that he believes that granting a variance from agricultural use to multi family use would set a precedence that would alter the character of the neighborhood Mr. Williams suggested that if they were talking about expanding the footprint of the building, tearing down the building and making a new one and making that a multi dwelling house he would agree but, in this case, they are just repurposing the interior of a house that has historically been used for that purpose, so I don’t think they are changing the essential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Rosen asked Mr. Squires what he thinks about the requested variance from agricultural to multi family? Will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood, given that apparently it was three apartments there for many years? We do not know if they were vacant or not or occupied. ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 8 Mr. Cuevas responded that he has evidence that they were occupied. Mr. Squires responded that as a casual observer no, technically it wouldn’t alter the character of the neighborhood because it looks like a garage. The only indication that it’s a residential unit is the stairs going up to the second floor. It’s got two garage doors and it’s in disrepair on the exterior so anything to improve it… There are no other properties along there that you can casual observe are multifamily units. It’s mostly single-family homes. Mr. Rosen stated it is clear the owners bought a two-unit property. Ms. Brock suggested to look at the evidence which is that the prior owner filed an affidavit three months before the sale stating that the property only had two units and there would not be three units on the property. Mr. Rosen stated that the owners should have known this as it is public record and should have shown up in the abstract of title. All in agreement that three of the four criteria are not met. Mr. Cuevas offered that he could provide sufficient financial evidence. Mr. Rosen stated that wasn’t the question. The question was whether the property is economically viable as a two-family property, and they find that it is. Ms. Brock offered that of the four criteria that the applicant needs to prove, the alleged hardship has not been self-created is not met. So even if more information is provided on other criteria because the self-created hardship criteria cannot be met the variance has to be denied because failure to meet any one of the criteria requires denial under the New York Town Law. Mr. Rosen stated that the alleged hardship is self-created as the property was clearly identified as a two-unit property three months before the sale by affidavit filed by the previous owner with the County Clerk’s office. The alleged hardship is not unique. That the requested variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood zoned agricultural to multi family was not strictly determined. There was uncertainty about reasonable return. Question was not whether the amount spent on renovations could be recuperated in a certain number of years from rental income but whether the property is economically viable as a two-unit property given the purchase price and improvements made. This could not be determined without confident financial evidence. Mr. Cuevas added that prior to engaging in the work on the unit he had a conversation with a representative from the tax assessment office and asked if they had any doubts, based on the tax assessment, would be a two-unit property. The representative told him unequivocally that the garage was a two unit and that’s how it was recorded in the tax assessor’s office. Mr. Rosen stated that that doesn’t mean it was legally conforming and the tax assessors records also do not have a detailed description. ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 9 Mr. Cuevas stated that the only reason he engaged in doing the work is because the representative at the tax assessors office told him unequivocally that the garage was a two-unit property. Ms. Brock offered that it seems that you had some questions yourself whether the two units were legal and that’s why you went to the assessor’s office after the sale. Were you aware of the affidavit? Mr. William asked if the use variance is denied today do the applicants have any other further recourse? Mr. Mosely offered that if the applicants have additional information they want to provide to the Board they could technically ask for a delay and bring that information back. Mr. Cuevas stated that he does understand the Boards position in having to uphold the regulations but can’t help but notice the standards and way in which the enforcement is applied seems to me askew. He will find additional recourses because he does believe they are unfairly impacted in this deliberation. Ms. Brock followed up with, a rehearing can be held if there is a unanimous vote of all members of the Board who were present at the meeting in which they take the vote and that can be held to review any decision for determination of the Board that has not previously been heard. This does apply to use variances. ZBA Resolution 0017-2021 Use Variance 273 Bundy Rd., TP 27.-1-6.1 Resolved that this Board denies the request for a use variance for a third dwelling unit to be allowed on the property based on the criteria are not met, specifically, 1. that the alleged hardship has been self-created due to the property being clearly categorized as a two-unit property as evidenced by the affidavit signed by the previous owner and filed with the County Clerk 3 months prior to the sale of the property to the current owners, and 2. That the request is not unique, in that many people would like to have an additional rental unit if it were permitted, and 3. That, although there is a difference in opinion on the board, the majority felt it would alter the character of the neighborhood if permitted, and 4. That there is uncertainty about the reasonable return, but the majority felt it was financially viable upon the limited information presented. Moved: Rob Rosen Seconded: David Squires Vote: ayes – Williams, Rosen, Squires ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 10 Agenda Item 3 0016-2021 Consideration if a Veterinary Office/Clinic use is considered substantially similar to a use (or uses) identified in section 270-126A of Town Zoning, in accordance with section 270-127K of Town of Ithaca Code. This consideration is specific for Briar Patch Veterinary to extend services to 702 Elmira Road. Ingrid Rhinehart introduced herself as Veterinarian and Owner of Briar Patch Veterinary Hospital. She has been the owner for the past 5 years however, Briar Patch has been in business over 30 years. The business has grown and needs more space. The property next door, former site of Stellar Stereo, became available for sale at the right time. Both properties are zoned as Neighborhood/Commercial. The business predates the current zoning designation. They would like to expand current services into the commercial space next door. The property consists of two buildings. 704 Elmira is a residence, 702 is the less than 2k sq ft commercial space where Stellar Stereo was. The wish is to be able to use that space to perform already existing services located at their 706 Elmira Road location. Mr. Mosely offered that there’s a provision, 270-127K, in the zoning that allows for the Zoning Board and Planning Board to identify that the use would be substantially consistent with the permitted uses in the neighborhood commercial zone so it’s not a variance of any nature. The Board then looks at the use being proposed to see if it is substantially in conformance with the neighborhood commercial zone allowed uses. Briar Patch has been established since 1989 at that time there was no veterinary use identified in the zoning, so it appears to have been permitted under professional offices. At some point Veterinary use was allowed in specific zones such as agriculture and community commercial but not neighborhood commercial zone. Now it has to be decided if this use is consistent with what is permitted. Both the Zoning and Planning Board would have to agree in order for the applicant to move forward. Mr. Mosely referred to a zoning change on the horizon with respect to proposal to have the inlet valley zoning district established. This is still in draft form with anticipated adoption about five months out, but Veterinary clinic would be an allowed use in that zoning district. Mr. Williams commented that paragraph C lists business professional, administrative or governmental office, excluding medical or dental clinic. Does medical or dental clinic have to be humans? Mr. Mosely replied that it does not specifically state only applies to humans. Ms. Brock added that the maximum square footage of 5k space does not pertain to business or professional use. In terms of medical or dental clinics, that does not include clinics that treat only animals. Mr. Mosely pointed out that according to a GIS map the square footage of the building is about 2,112. Owner also must approach the Planning Board for Special Permit process. ZBA 2021-08-10 (Filed 10/21) Pg. 11 Mr. Rosen received agreement from Mr. Squires and Mr. Williams that Veterinary Office Clinic falls under Professional Office. ZBA Resolution 0016-2021 Determination of “Substantially Similar” Use Veterinary Clinic/Office Use 702 Elmira Road Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-6.22 1. This action is consideration of whether a Veterinary Office/Clinic use is considered “substantially similar” to a use (or uses) identified in Section 270-126 (A) of Town Zoning, in accordance with Section 270-127 (K) of Town of Ithaca Code. This consideration is specific for the Briar Patch Veterinary Hospital to extend services at 702 Elmira Road (Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-6.22). WM B & Patricia Kerry, Owner; Dr. Ingrid Rhinehart, Applicant; and 2. The Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed a narrative provided by the applicant, along with an aerial location map, a staff-prepared memo, and an excerpt from Town Code Section 270- 126 (A) that lists the permitted uses in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone; Resolved that the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby finds that the proposed veterinary clinic/office use is substantially similar to a business, professional, or administrative office (Section 270-126 (C)), which is listed as a use permitted as of right in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposed veterinary clinic/office will not have greater adverse effects upon traffic, noise, air quality, parking, or any other attribute reasonably relevant than the uses permitted as of right. The proposed clinic/office will not involve any construction of new structures, the site layout is appropriate for the use and has sufficient parking, and the clinic expects to draw from existing traffic and residents already in the area. Motion: Rob Rosen Seconded: David Williams Votes – Ayes Williams, Squires, Rosen Agenda Item 4 Lead Agency Determination - consideration of designating the Town of Ithaca’s Planning Board as the lead agency for the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) for Cornell University’s New Experimental Hall at Wilson Laboratory Ms. Brock recused herself from this discussion and action, citing that her spouse is involved in the project. Kim Michaels, Applicant Representative was present and explained that tonight’s action by the Board is administrative in nature to agree that the Planning Board to be designated Lead Agency for this project. She added that the project will be before this board for variances after the site plan review process through the Planning Board is completed and if approved . You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us All comments become part of the official record. Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, August 10, 2021, at 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. ****Revised Copy**** The previously sent neighbor notification contained the incorrect Meeting ID. The correct Meeting ID, which has been provided and updated below, should be 852-5587-1576. The Public Hearing for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held in-person and will also be streamed live. The public will have the option of attending the meeting in-person or by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments. INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: If you have a computer, tablet or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on “Join a Meeting”, and entering 852-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866). 0015-2021 Appeal of Jennifer Gray, owner of 140 King Road East, Tax Parcel No. 43.-1-3.35, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-71 (E.) (2) (Yard regulations [Accessory buildings]), for a proposal to keep an existing accessory structure on a parcel within the side yard of the property. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 (E.) (2) specifies that an accessory building may not occupy any open space other than a rear yard, where the current accessory building is located in the side yard of the property. The current property is located in the Medium Density Residential District. Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us All comments become part of the official record. Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, August 10, 2021, at 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. ****Revised Copy**** The previously sent neighbor notification contained the incorrect Meeting ID. The correct Meeting ID, which has been provided and updated below, should be 852-5587-1576. The Public Hearing for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held in-person and will also be streamed live. The public will have the option of attending the meeting in-person or by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments. INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: If you have a computer, tablet or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on “Join a Meeting”, and entering 852-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866). 0017-2021 Appeal of Elena Cestero and Joaquin Cuevas , owners of 273 Bundy Road, Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-6.1, is seeking relief from Article VI of the Town of Ithaca Code (Agricultural Zones) to allow for a third dwelling unit to be allowed on the property. Article VI of the Town of Ithaca Code does not allow for Multiple-Family Dwelling use within the Agricultural Zone, where the applicant is seeking to have a third dwelling unit added to the property and this use would be considered a for Multiple-Family Dwelling use. The current property is located in the Agricultural District Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement