Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Packet 2023-04-17Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Monday April 17 @ 6:00 p.m. 215 N. Tioga St. ZBAA-23-5 Appeal; Linda Ruth, owner of 1057 Taughannock Blvd.; David Lewis, Agent; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-46(C) (Yard regulations) for a proposal to convert an existing garage into a single family dwelling/house. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-46(C) requires a side yard setback of 20 feet, where the applicant is proposing to convert an existing garage into a single-family dwelling/house which would be located within the side yard setback (facing the southern property lot line). The applicant proposes to maintain the existing southern property side yard setback, measured from the southern property lot line, to the existing garage that is proposed to be converted into a single family dwelling/house of approximately 4.1 feet. The property is located in the Lakefront Residential District, Tax Parcel No. 21.-2-14 ZBAF-23-1 Appeal of 924 Danby Rd, LLC Owner of 924 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850; Greg Tumbarello, agent; is seeking a determination if a group of unrelated individuals is a family, as defined by Town of Ithaca Code section 270-5 (Definitions). The property is located in the Medium -Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 40.-3-8 ZBAU-23-1 Appeal Cedar Rock Inc., Owner of 602 Elmira Rd.; Michael Lasell, Agent; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca code 270-171.5 (Permitted uses). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-171.5 does not allow for a self -storage facility to be operated within the Inlet Valley Center overlay zone, where the applicant is proposing to construct a self -storage facility that is approximately 24,700 sq.ft. of gross floor area. The property is located in the Industrial Zone district and the Inlet Valley Center overlay zone, Tax Parcel No. 31.-3-4 MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA Zoning Board of Appeals April 17, 2023 Minutes Present: Board Members David Squires, Chair; Chris Jung, Stuart Friedman, Mark Apker Connor Terry, and Kim Ritter Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Squires opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. ZBAA-23-5 Appeal; Linda Ruth, owner, (David Lewis, Agent) 1057 Taughannock Blvd., TP 21.-2-14, Lakefront Residential zone seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-46(C) (Yard regulations) 21.-2-14 for a proposal to convert an existing garage into a single-family dwelling/house. The garage is in the side -yard setback (facing the southern property lot line) and the request is to maintain the existing footprint which would result in a setback of approximately 4. V feet when the garage is converted to a residence, where 20' feet is required. The applicant was not present, and Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. Russell Maines spoke, saying that he is an attorney retained by Ms. Barr, the neighboring property owner at 1051 Taughannock Blvd. just this morning and asked that the appeal be postponed allowing time to review the details, adding that the notice was received Saturday and was very sparse in details. (Attachment 1) David Lee spoke, saying that he is a neighbor within 500 feet and although he doesn't have an opinion on the appeal, a setback of 4' feet is pretty minimal, and he was wondering how that ever even happened as a setback is usually intended to be a buffer. If he were a neighbor, he would be concerned about such a small setback if he were an immediate neighbor. Mr. Squires closed the public hearing. Discussion Mr. Squires stated that the previous resolution and findings show the concerns of the neighbor, and the variance was granted. The footprint remains the same, with changes in the layout of the garage, but the footprint is the same as approved by this Board. He was in favor of approving the appeal under the same Findings as in 2021, unless someone would like to adjourn until the applicant was present and the neighbor's representative has requested time to look at the details of the request. Mr. Friedman asked if the neighbor notification is a legal requirement. ZBA 2023-04-17 (Filed 4/21) Pg. 1 Mr. Moseley responded that the legal notice in the local newspaper is the legal requirement, along with the orange posted sign on the property to alert neighbors. The neighbor notification is a courtesy. It was noted that the notice of public hearing and the full packet is and was available on the Town's website. Mr. Squires moved to adjourn the appeal until the next meeting, seconded by Ms. Jung, unanimous. • ZBAF-23-1 Appeal of 924 Danby Rd, LLC, Owner, (Greg Tumbarello, Agent), 924 Danby Road, MDR, TP 40.-3-8, seeking a Determination if a group of unrelated individuals is a "family," as defined by Town of Ithaca Code section 270-5 (Definitions). Mr. Squires noted that the property has been issued a Notice of Violation by the Code Enforcement Department. Mr. Tumbarello stated that that was true, but he would like to request an adjournment to the next meeting because he hadn't had time to gather supporting documentation from the tenants due to bereavement leave. Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. Mr. Kasmir spoke, saying that he and the three students in the audience live at the address and new nothing about this issue and only found out after the Notice of Violation was put on their door. He said it was his understanding that Modern Living Rentals wished to classify them as a "family" and it was his understanding that a "family" had to have two people that were related, or all expenses are shared and activities they do are done as a "family." Ms. Brock and Mr. Apker explained the definition of a "family" under the Town Code and went through the determining factors for Mr. Kasmir. There were audio issues which were being addressed, but disruptive. Board members and Ms. Brock asked clarifying questions of Mr. Kasmir. Mr. Kasmir stated that they were not a "family" because other than each paying rent, nothing on that list applies to us. We buy and prepare our own food, most of the time; we are not on each other's financial institutions and have our own banking accounts and do not share each other's expenses in any way other than rent and utilitiies. There is one car, and it is mine, and we do not share it. We are all students and will not live there indefinitely and will not live there or together next year. ZBA 2023-04-17 (Filed 4/27) Pg. 2 Mr. Tumbarello stated that the occupants had signed a group lease. There was no one else wishing to speak and the public hearing was closed. Ms. Brock questioned Mr. Tumbarello regarding the assertions and answers in the submitted application, noting that many seemed to be outright false, such as the assertion that he had spoken with the tenants. Mr. Tumbarello stated that there are two units at this property, and he was attempting to help the tenants be permitted to stay through their lease and he was unfamiliar with the Town Code, as this is the only property he manages in the Town. Ms. Brock responded that that support was done through false information, such as the answer of "yes" regarding speaking with the tenants, which has been refuted here tonight by said tenants. Mr. Tumbarello responded that he was not referring to the tenants of the lower -level apartment, but the upper -level apartment, which he had spoken to. Ms. Brock asked who his answers applied to on the application. Mr. Tumbarello stated that he was talking about 4 people living in Unit 1 who have lived there for many years but their circumstances have recently changed; and then there are 4 people living in Unit 2. Mr. Moseley explained the maximum number of people that could live in a two-family dwelling where the primary dwelling unit has a maximum of 1 family and no more than 1 boarder, and where the accessory unit can be no more than 1 family. Ms. Brock went into more detail and noted that if the people as described are all un-related, the maximum allowed would be 5 people; 3 in one unit and 2 in another. Mr. Tumbarello responded that he had been applying for the property as a whole and conceded that it is over capacity, and he did not realize the hearing would happen so quickly and has not had time to speak with the tenants from Unit 1 and he felt that they live as a family. Ms. Brock asked him if he had asked each of the criteria questions within the Code regarding this issue, to which Mr. Tumbarello only responded yes to the question regarding eating together. Mr. Apker asked whether he had seen driver's licenses and permanent addressed on the application and Mr. Tumbarello responded that that was kept at the office, and he hadn't compiled the data. Discussion followed on whether to act on the appeal or adjourn to give more time to the applicant to supply information to the Board regarding the criteria. ZBA 2023-04-17 (Filed 4/21) Pg. 3 The applicant wanted more time, but the Board felt they had received enough information from the speakers tonight and as this was a referral from the Codes Department and not from the owner or tenants, this is a Determination by the Board and not a variance where the Applicant has the opportunity to request an adjournment or withdrawal. Ms. Brock noted that any enforcement of the Code by the Code Enforcement Department is stayed until this process is completed. ZBA Resolution ZBAF-23-1 Determination of a Group as a Family 924 Danby Rd, TP 40.-3-8 Resolved that this Board makes the determination that the occupants of both Unit 1 and Unit 2 of 924 Danby Road do not meet the definition of "Family" using the criteria in Town of Ithaca Code 270-5 Definitions, specifically: That the definition of a "Family" is The group is one which in theory, size, appearance, and structure resembles a traditional family unit: a. For Unit 1, the applicant provided no information to support the resemblance of a traditional family unit, and b. For Unit 2, the occupants denied living as a traditional family unit as described, and 2. The group is one which will live and cook together as a single housekeeping unit: a. For Unit 1, the applicant stated that one of the four occupants stated that they cooked and ate together, and b. For Unit 2, the occupants stated that they rarely ate together as a group, and 3. The group is of a permanent nature and is neither merely a framework for transient nor seasonal living, (including an academic year) a. For Unit 1, no information was provided by the occupants of Unit 1 and the occupants of Unit 2 denied: i. Having lived together in the past; intending to live together in the future; no joint financial agreements, tax returns, motor vehicle registrations; no children enrolled in local schools; no employment in the area and no other factors that would reasonably be related to whether or not the group of persons is the functional equivalent of a traditional family, and ii. The Units are rented "furnished" and therefore no joint ownership of same Moved: David Apker Seconded: Stuart Friedman Vote: ayes — Apker, Friedman, Terry, Jung and Squires - Unanimous ZBA 2023-04-17 (Filed 4/27) Pg. 4 ZBAU-23-1 Appeal ol'Ce(hrr Rock Inc., Owner, 602 Elmira Rd., "I'll 31 A4, Industrial ;one and hilet Valley Center Overlay District, seeking relieffroinTown of Ithaca Coda 270-171,5 Perriuftd uses to construct a self -storage facility with approximately 24,700 sq.ft. of rosy floor area within the Inlet Valley Center Overlay one, where tire use, is not permitted. Michael L,asell, Agent gave a detailed presentation with descriptions of the design, layout, topography and parcel restrictions associated with the project. Oftiote was the layout mitigating the view, fironi the road of the additional storage buildings (Inc to the topography of the parcel and the limitations of the useable area of the parcel due to easements, topography and drainage. Ms. Brock went through the Use Variance criteria in detail, noting that New York State requires that each and every criteria be met, not a balancing test type ot'determination. The Board and applicant focused on the "financial hardship" or "reasonable retU111" and which ofthe marry use that are permitted under current zoning could be dismissed as not applicable to the parcel due to the restraints of size, topography, easements and most importantly, NYS D0'T will not issue a curb cut or second ingress/egress point. The applicant also fiocused on the firnited inipact on traffic the pro: posed use would have as there would be very few people working there and sporadic CUstonler use and almost certainly, not during the heaviest traffic times associated with other uses that are permitted bUt u0t Suitable for the location. The Board gave some itiput on the types Of dOCUnientation they would like to see under the "reasonable return" criteria. The applicant requested the appeal be adJourned to the next rno.,,eting to give them tirne to ather the requested information, the Board agreed. Motion by Mr. Squires to adJOUrn the appeal to n(:) later than the June meeting, seconded by Mr. Apker, unanimous. Sri brim + Iyau ette Rosa, Town Clerk ZBA 2023-04-17 (Filed 4/21) Pg. 5 Attachment I E joe(,,� i thaca. legal Dire& (607) 223-2879 fown offthaca Zoning Board of'Appeals 215 Norffi'fioga Street fthaIca, Ne\v York 14850 417 Nordi Cayuga Street lthacii, New York 1,4850 MAIN LINF ': (607) 200-3707 Fax. (607) 241-9942 April 17., '2023 RL Appeal 4ZBAA-23-5 Linda RU111, 1057'FaUghannock Blvd, Dear Board Menibers- 'li"" "o russ(yithaca,legal � represent Joy Barr, in her capacity as co -trustee of the Joy L, Barr Revocable 'TrLlSt, "HIC, iust owtns adjaaceanit proepaertyliat i1051 Taiughianscnoeck lBOLdevard. e vish to be hcard inBarTr oppositophed to be heard at tonight's ineeting. 'I"he niatter should be postponed. 'I he noflce of hearing was ex1reniely sparse and void of detail. Ms. Barr infornis nie, that she receivtd the notice on Saturday, April 15, 2023; and that it purportedly \vas inailed on April 12, She and p have had insufliclient finie to review the application. Secondly, Lhe requested variance is substantial. According to the n()fice, lite zoning legislation requires as setback of'20 feet, The notice apparently states that the requested setback, is 4.1 feet -- that is, roughly 201N) of then, required setback distance. '11')OUt T6rdlyhsiaij)j)hCaflt 1)Urchased ti'le I)r'Of)CITYApparently,the structurehad beell Used as a garage Since that tirne, and perhaps befiNe. he applicant aacacpa ired the property with knowledge of'O'w restriction, Fourthly, the detriryient to the neighborhood OUtvveighs the benefit lo the applica"L The setting is a pastoral lakeside area cnljoyed by fiatifflies. "I he 13oard should considff that with the change ofuse, prot'aIenis associawd wlh closc, prox4r6ty hkt.'1y NOl increase, a We thank the Board for consideration of* these matters. Resi-)ectfu � ly, ALLEN & MAINES Ru5sd E. )ite: 20B 0417 Mah'ies � 736�06 04'00' ll.y: Russell F". Maines,