HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 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
ithacajournal
Public Notice
Originally published at ithacajournal.com on 04/12/2023
Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Monday April 17 []a
6:00 p.m. 215 N. Tioga 5t. 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 current 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 ❑anby 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 current 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 current property is located in the
Industrial Zone district and the Inlet Valley Center overlay zone, Tax Parcel No. 31.-3-4
The meeting will be held in -person with the option for the public to also attend by video
conferencing through the Zoom App. The meeting can be accessed, and you can
provide comments during the public hearing by going to www.zoom.us - Join Meeting -
Meeting I❑ 852-5587-1576. You can also call into the Zoom meeting by telephone at +1
(929 436 2866) to listen to the meeting and provide comments during the public
hearing. You can also provide comments via email before and during the meeting to
Town Clerk Paulette Rosa at townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us. For more information on
how to access the meeting and project application/meeting materials, or how to submit
a comment before or during the meeting, please visit the Town of Ithaca's website and
click on Meeting Agendas. If there are any questions pertaining to this public hearing,
contact Marty Moseley at mmoseley@town.ithaca.ny.us or 607-273-1783. Marty
Moseley Director of Code Enforcement 4/12/2023
ZBA 2023-04-17 (Filed 4/21) Pg. 1
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
4.1’ 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.
MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
Zoning Board of Appeals
April 17, 2023
Minutes
ZBA 2023-04-17 (Filed 4/27) Pg. 2
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 4/21) Pg. 3
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 4/27) Pg. 4
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
1. 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