Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2016-11-21TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday,November 21,2016 215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca 6:00 P.M. Appeal of Jane Hancock, Owner, Emily Doyle, Agent 1463 Mecklenburg Rd., TP 28.-1-3.9, Agricultural,where subdivision will create the need to seek a variance from Town Code Section 270-29D,"Permitted accessory buildings and uses"to be permitted to exceed the allowed number of accessory buildings where 3 are allowed and 5 are in existence and to exceed the limit in aggregate where l,500sqft is allowed and 6,648sqft is in existence. Appeal of Cindy Gordon, Owner,1114 E Shore Dr., TP 19.-2-6,Lake Front Residential, seeking a variance from Town Code Section 270-235 J "Zoning Board of Appeals"requesting an extension for existing variances that are set to expire in December of 2016 to allow for construction to begin in Spring of 2017. Appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp, Owner, 635 Elmira Rd., TP 35.-1-21,Neighborhood Commercial, seeking variances from Town Code Section 270-117,"Yard regulations"to build a building that would be 7ft +/- short of the required 50' foot front yard setback and from Section 270-116, "Height limitations,"to be allowed to exceed the height where 36'feet is allowed and they are requesting 54' feet, and from Section 270-128 "Maximum building size" to be allowed to construct a 37,000sqft building where a maximum of 7500sqft is allowed . Appeal of William Drummond,Owner,Barry Valentine,Agent,104 Pineview Ter., TP 53.-1- 15.23,Medium Density Residential seeking a determination regarding the definition of "Family" for a group of 6 students;if needed after the determination,applicant is seeking a Use variance from Chapter 270-66 A "Permitted principal uses" to be allowed to have a family plus four boarders where one boarder is allowed. Bruce W.Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273-1783 November 11,2016 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I,Paulette Terwilliger,being duly sworn,say that I am the 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: n ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE •NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS •NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL n NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER Appeal of Jane Hancock,owner,and Emily Doyle,agent, 1463 Mecklenburg Road Appeal of Cindy Gordon,owner,1114 East Shore Drive Appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp,owner,635 Elmira Road Appeal of William Drummond,owner,and Barry Valentine,agent 104 Pineview Terrace Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Town website at www.town.ithaca.nv.us TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS '• Monday,November 21,2016 21S North Tioga Street,Ithaca 6:00 P.M. Appeal of Jane Hancock,Owner,Emily Doyle,Agent 1463 Mecklenburg Rd., TP 28.-1-3.9,Agricultural Zone, where subdivision will create the need to seek a variance Section 270-29D,"Permitted accessory buildings and uses"to be permitted to exceed the at- owed number of accessory buildings where 3 are al lowed and 5 are in existence,and to exceed the square footage limit in aggregate where 1,500 square feet are allowed and 6,648 square feet are in existence. Appeal of Cindy Gordon,Owner,1114 E Shore Dr.,TP 19.- 2-6,Lakefront Residential Zone,seeking a variance from Town Code Section 270-235 J "Zoning Board of Appeals" requesting an extension for existing variances that are set to expire in December of 2016 to allow for construction to begin rn Spring of 2017. Appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp,Owner,635 Elmira Rd TP 35.-1-21,Neighborhood Commercial Zone,seeking var iances from Town Code Section 270-117,"Yard regula tions"to build a building that would be 7ft +/-short of the required 50 foot front yard setback;from Section 270-116,"Height limitations,"to be allowed to exceed the height where 36 feet is allowed and 54 feet is re quested;and from Section 270-128 "Maximum building allowed to construct a 37,000 square foot building where a maximum of 7500 square feet is al lowed .I Appeal of William Drummond,Owner,Barry Valentine Agent,104 I^neview Ter.,TP 53.-1-15.23,Medium Density Residential Zone,seeking a determination pursuant to Town Code Section 270-5 whether a group of six unrelat ed persons Is a functional equivalent of a family for the purpose of occupying a dwelling unit;if the determlna^ tion IS that the group is not a functional equivalent of a ePP''cant Is seeking a Use variance from Chapter 270-66 A "Permitted principal uses"to be allowed to have a family plus four boarders where one boarder is al lowed. Date of Posting: Date of Publication:November 11,2016 Paulette Tenwilliger Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of Bruce W.Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273-1783 11/11/2016 Pubhe ,2016. Debra DeAugistine NotaryPublic-State o1 New York NO.01DE6148035 Qualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires June 19,20 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) I, Paulette Terwilliger, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a paity to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York. That on the 11th day of November 2016, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners listed on the attached document,of the following Tax Parcel Numbers: Appeal of Jane Hancock, Owner, Emily Doyle, Agent 1463Mecklenburg Rd., TP 28.-1-3.9, Agricultural, where subdivision will create the need to seek a variance from Town Code Section 270-29D,"Permitted accessory buildings and uses"to be permitted to exceed the allowed number of accessory buildings where 3 are allowed and 5 are in existence and to exceed the limit in aggregate where l,500sqft is allowed and 6,648sqft is inexistence. Appeal of Cindy Gordon,Owner,1114 E ShoreDr., TP 19.-2-6,Lake Front Residential,seekinga variancefromTown Code Section 270-235 J "Zoning Board of Appeals" requesting an extension for existing variances that are set to expire in December of 2016 to allow for construction to begin in Spring of 2017. Appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp, Owner, 635 Elmira Rd., TP 35.-1-21, Neighborhood Commercial, seeking variances from Town Code Section 270-117,"Yard regulations" to build a building that would be 7ft +/- short of the required 50' foot front yard setback and from Section 270-116,"Height limitations," to be allowed to exceed the height where 36' feet is allowed and they are requesting 54' feet, and from Section 270-128 "Maximum building size" to be allowed to construct a 37,000sqft building where a maximum of 7500sqft isallowed . Appeal of William Drummond, Owner, Barry Valentine, Agent, 104Pineview Ter., TP 53.-1-15.23,Medium Density Residential seeking a determination regarding the definition of "Family"for a group of 6 students; if needed after the determination, applicant is seeking a Use variance from Chapter 270-66 A "Permitted principal uses" to be allowed to have a familyplus four boarderswhere one boarder is allowed. By depositing..same enclosed ina postpaid addressed wrapper,ina postofficeunderthe exclusive careand custody of the United Stafes^astOffice Department within the State of New York. Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk Town of Ithaca #tP^il^'Day of'^,2016.Sworn to before me thi tary Public Debra DeAuglstine Notary Public -State of New York NO.01DE6148035 County oMyCommissionExpiresJune19,^JdS Ut\tM\€jjd "lorr Benjamin,George Benjamin,Joan 329 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 City of Ithaca 108 E Green St Ithaca NY 14850 Drummond,W Richard Drummond,Rashmi Khanna 427 N.Cayuga St Ithaca NY 14850 Fiero,Kenneth P 110 Pineview Ten- Ithaca NY 14850 Hinkle,Peter Hinkle,Maija 117 NorthviewRd Ithaca NY 14850 Kinsella,Kevin 107 Hickory PI Ithaca NY 14850 Luckow,Melissa A 103 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 Pancharoen,Angsana 216 E State St Ithaca NY 4850 Scroggin,Rena Mulligan,Charles 104 Hickory Place Ithaca NY 14850 Smith,David B Smith,Barbara 121 NorthviewRd Ithaca NY 14850 0918/0919 ^8AVO8ABaiqiiedLU03 luuj x ujlu ggieujjoi ap auanbiig 091.8/0919JJ9AV wm aiqiiedLuoD „8/9 2 x„l azis laqBi Bergeron,Thomas C Bergeron,Brenda R 111 PineviewTen- Ithaca NY 14850 Daniel,Cletus 114 NorthviewRd Ithaca NY 14850 Ehrhardt,Steven Werbizky,Lydia 109 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 Gonzales,Christopher R Jolly,Jennifer A 119 NorthviewRd Ithaca NY 14850 lacovelli,Orlando 347 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Laurentz,Deanna 103 Hickory PI Ithaca NY 14850 Mahoney,Knstine 113.5 NorthviewRd Ithaca NY 14850 Proujansky,Philip Proujansky,Rochelle 333 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Seldin,Wm S Seldin,Amy M 120 NorthviewRd Ithaca NY 14850 Smith,Gerald L Smith,Martha 101 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 Buckhollz,Max M Bocioaga,Daniela 106 Pineview Terrace Ithaca NY 14850 Dickin,Kathenne L 108 Juniper Drive Ithaca NY 14850 Falvey,Brian F 109 Pineview Terrace Ithaca NY 14850 Heritage Park Townhouses,Inc 680 Ridge Rd Lansins NY 14882 lacoveili,Paul lacovelli,Virginia 327 Coddington Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Lieberman,Chad 112 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 Mills,Marguerite O Mills,Dale T 108 Pineview Terrace Ithaca NY 14850 Schack,Todd Lusiyik,Katalin 112 Pineview Ter Ithaca NY 14850 Sever,Joseph P 113 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 Stojanovic,Nikola Stojanovic,Jelena 101 Pineview Terr Ithaca NY 4850 labelsize 1"x2 5/8" compatiblewith Avery -5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x67 mm compatible avec Avery'-'SI 60/8160 16H Pr/s4Vi fitO Terrie,Philip G Jablonski,Jacqueline 115 NorthviewRd Ithaca NY 14850 091-8/09 L9g,Aj9AV O0AB 8|q!iBcIiuo3 uiui Z9 x UJiu gg ibuijoi bp Buanbflg 0918/09 L9®^-i8AV miM BiqqBduioo ..8/9 2 x „t azis |8qBi Twardokus,Duane D Twardokus,Cynthia T 106 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 Wei,Heng Chao 113 NorthviewRd Ithaca NY 14850 098171 ANBOcqii jQOJoqsiSBa £0n aunnq 'ijoiMSpos 098171 ANBoeqij jQaJoqsiSBa Kll V suuoqjByj 'sbuioooi^ ueqiBUOf 'qiouviiassn^ 0I9£3 VA>IIOJ-»on 603 'Id £ dio3 ujaqjnos jflPPON £/.0£l ANuojoJO papuBJisQUBA 661 piUBQ '/C9IU03 XuiUIBX 'pooSuoAia 098171 AN®3®mi pypjnn 9Z,£ pjBMOH 'JJODUS XpUIJ 'UOpjOQ Weiss,Michael L Kwintner,Michelle 110 Juniper Dr Ithaca NY 14850 098171 ANBOBqii p^jMBqsuBH 998 siq§|3H B§ni(B3 jo oSBqiA 098171 ANBOBqii OAUQojoqs 1SB3 nil 'UOXIf»J Biiuns 'qBS 098171 ANBOBqji jQSJoqsiSBa 9011 a Bpuajg 'aouua a jsqdojsijq^'aouuj 098171 AN^OBqii JQ sioqs H Ot^Ol X /^aiPMS '^^auBAiniAj 098171 ANBOBini jaojoqsjsBa 3£n uuv XSSaj 'osnoH a S3iJBq3 'asnoH 098171 ANBOcqii jQaJoqsiSBa 3901 9 XouBfsi 'qsjsQ a piABQ 'qsjao Walker,Calemeze D Walker,Glenda R 105 Hickory PI Ithaca NY 14850 098171 ANBocqii jQOJoqsiSBa 0311 uosBf 'jjopjios 098171 ANBOBqii jQOJoqsa eiu f BinBJ 'JOUUI^ a qdasof 'ossna 098171 AN^scqji JdOJoqstSBa £901 oiUBqdajs 'suomq 098171 ANBOBqjl PHJaununqdux nil S piABQ 'Xauoop^ 388171 AN^uisuBa pa agpiH 089 oui s3snoquA\ox a^^d aSBjuan 08l7££adM3B3amiBd Xbav 95iBa N 9617 3UI 'dVPJVlV label size1"x25/8"compatible with Avery®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x67 mm compatible avec Avery®5160/8160 MM Cortrighl,Hazel S 653 Eimira Rd Ithaca NY 14850 JAMNA Hospitality Inc 654 Eimira Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Mitchell Ventures LLC 122 Ithaca Beer Dr Ithaca NY 14850 Veteran Vol Firemen's Assoc 638 Eimira Rd Ithaca NY 14850 0918/09 L9g,AJ8A\/38AB aiqiiBdatoo luiu Z9 xlulu gg ielujo^8p 9«9nb!}3 09 L8/09 LUjM 9|q!iBdUJ0a ,,9/g 2x4 9Z!S |0qB| Eddy Hill Inc 16 E Enfield Center Rd Ithaca NY 14850 JCL Developers of NY, LLC 2981 N Triphammer Rd Lansing NY 14882 People of NewYork State Empire State Plz,Building 1 Albany NY 12238 Gan,Susheng Chai,Ying 202 Winthrop Rd Ithaca NY 14850 McGuire,Thomas 247 Piper Rd NewfieldNY 14867 Poole-DiSalvo,Bryan T 631 Eimira Road Ithaca NY 14850 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible wlthAvery'^160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x67 mm compatible avec Avery®5160/8160 Bainbridge,Christine L Berenstain,Adam Z 1450 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Grantham,Deborah G 421 Sheffield Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Kessler,Timothy J 1439 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Sabo,Tracy M Phillips,Edith C 1454 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850 O9L8/O9L9^Aj0av d0ab BiqiiBdiuoo lulu Z9 x ujlu gg jBLUJOf ap auanbug 0918/09 t.9s^J9AV mm aiqqBdujoo „8/g 2 x „i qz\s laqBi DeWilde,Mark A DeWilde,Holly R 1465 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Hancock,Jane Drake,Robert A 1463 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Ledger,Orson PO Box 822 Ithaca NY 14851 Suwinski,Jan H Suwinski,Susan J 451 Sheffield Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Ferguson,Gary Ferguson,Lisa 1485 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Kelly,Lilian 1478 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca NY 14850 Rider,James R 518 Stewart Ave Ithaca NY 14850 label size 1"x25/8"compatible witli Avery®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x67 mm compatible avec Avery®5160/8160 ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday, November 21, 2016 Minutes Board Members present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Bill King, Christine Decker, Chris Jung, and George Vignaux Alternates Carin Rubin and William Highland Staff present: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Appeal of Jane Hancock, Owner, Emily Doyle, Agent, 1463 Mecklenburg Rd., TP 28.-1-3.9, Agricultural Zone, where subdivision will create the need to seek a variance from Town Code Section 270-29D, “Permitted accessory buildings and uses” to be permitted to exceed the allowed number of accessory buildings where 3 are allowed and 5 are in existence, and to exceed the square footage limit in aggregate where 1,500 square feet are allowed and 6,886 square feet are in existence. Mr. Bates stated for the record that he rents from through the company the applicant’s agent works for but he didn’t feel that would be cause for a conflict of interest. Ms. Brock agreed. Emily Doyle, Agent gave a quick overview of the proposal which is essential to subdivide a large farm in such a way as to leave two parcels by consolidating the parcel with all the outbuilding with the one with the residence and the remaining acreage being left with no outbuildings. The proposal leaves a parcel with more outbuildings than is allowed under zoning but they are all in existence now so there is no change in character to the neighborhood. Mr. Highland asked about the silos and Ms. Doyle responded that those are being removed. Mr. Rosen stated that he felt this was essentially a boundary line adjustment and the fact whether they are on one lot or another makes no difference in his mind. The board agreed. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:06 p.m.; there was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Minor changes were made to the submitted SEQR form. ZBA Resolution 0021 SEQR – Exceed accessory buildings 1463 Mecklenburg Rd 28.-1-3.9 Agricultural Zone November 21, 2016 Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 2 Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information given in Parts 1, 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the environmental assessment form with approved changes. Vote: Ayes – Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux Unanimous ZBA Resolution 0021 Area and Lot Coverage – Exceed accessory buildings 1463 Mecklenburg Rd 28.-1-3.9 Agricultural Zone November 21, 2016 Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Chris Jung. Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Jane Hancock, Owner, Emily Doyle, Agent, 1463 Mecklenburg Rd., TP 28.-1-3.9, Agricultural Zone, where subdivision will create the need to seek a variance from Town Code Section 270-29D, “Permitted accessory buildings and uses” to be permitted to exceed the allowed number of accessory buildings where 3 are allowed and 5 are in existence, and to exceed the square footage limit in aggregate where 1,500 square feet are allowed and 6,886 square feet are in existence with the following: Conditions 1. That the existing accessory buildings not be enlarged in any way. That there benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically that Findings 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the buildings are in existence and they do not want to tear them down, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character because the buildings are already there, and 3. That this request is substantial in that the allowed area allowed is 1,500 sqft and the existing buildings are approximately 6,886 sqft, and 4. That there will not be any physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in SEQR, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the owner wishes to subdivide a parcel for sale without outbuildings, however, this boards fells that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above. Vote: Ayes – Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux Unanimous ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 3 Appeal of Cindy Gordon, Owner, 1114 E Shore Dr., TP 19.-2-6, Lakefront Residential Zone, seeking a variance from Town Code Section 270-235 J “Zoning Board of Appeals” requesting an extension for existing variances that are set to expire in December of 2016 to allow for construction to begin in Spring of 2017. Howard Silcoff reviewed the request stating that they received variances over a year ago and haven’t started the construction and are therefore looking for an extension of those existing variances. Mr. Silcoff noted that they wanted to begin construction in the Fall of 2017, not the Spring as stated. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:17 p.m.; there was no one wishing to address the board on this appeal and the hearing was closed. The board had no issues with extending the variances. ZBA Resolution 0019-2016 Extension of existing variances 270-235 J 1114 East Shore Dr 19.-2-6 Lakefront Residential Zone November 21, 2016 Motion made by George Vignaux, seconded by Christine Decker Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Cindy Gordon, Owner, 1114 E Shore Dr., TP 19.-2- 6, Lakefront Residential Zone, seeking a variance from Town Code Section 270-235 J “Zoning Board of Appeals” requesting an extension for existing variances that are set to expire in December of 2016 to allow for construction to begin in Fall of 2017, with the following: Conditions That the three area variances granted on June 15, 2015 be extended for an additional 18 months 18 months to begin immediately upon their expiration by re-adopting the variances with the same conditions and findings as stated in them. Vote: Ayes – Jung, Decker, King, Rosen and Vignaux The order of the appeals was changed upon the Ahir applicants’ request to allow for another person to arrive. Appeal of William Drummond, Owner, Barry Valentine, Agent, 104 Pineview Ter., TP 53.-1- 15.23, Medium Density Residential Zone, seeking a determination pursuant to Town Code Section 270-5 whether a group of six unrelated persons is a functional equivalent of a family for the purpose of occupying a dwelling unit; if the determination is that the group is not a functional equivalent of a family, applicant is seeking a Use variance from Chapter 270-66 A “Permitted principal uses” to be allowed to have a family plus four boarders where one boarder is allowed. William Drummond, was present and stated that he is one of the three owners of the home and gave the background. He stated that his daughter is in her fourth of six years at Ithaca College ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 4 working on her PhD in Physical Therapy and his oldest daughter went to Cornell so they have been in this town for seven years and they all really like the area and his daughter wanted to buy a place of her own and with a little inheritance from her grandmother, she invested her life savings in buying this house; she put the down payment down and my wife and I cover the mortgage. We bought this house under the pretense that the house was big enough for her essentially family unit to live together like they had for the past few years. He said that there is a chart in the packet submitted showing how they have been living together. Mr. Drummond stated that they had no idea that this wasn’t part of the zoning and said he realizes that is no excuse, but this is the fifth house that we have purchased and we have never been in this situation and didn’t realize there were restrictions on the house. Mr. Drummond stated that two years ago, his family of six, his wife, two daughters, son and mother-in-law were living together in another city and we felt this was the same situation. The people are living together for safety and health reasons and watching out for each other, making sure everyone got home in time and it was one big family unit. Now, here we are, with this group of six people who have been living together for a while in this home. Mr. Drummond stated that the request that he has is that we look at the individual situation; my daughter is a home owner so this is an owner-occupied situation, not a rental property situation where it is there for income and just transient people through. This is an intent for my daughter to have the people that she cares about living with her, and that is the situation she is living in today. Mr. Drummond stated that his daughter is an honor student and doesn’t want to have this property be anything but community related. She does Habitat for Humanity, is involved in many things with the school and he stated that he just wants the board to understand that her character is such that she will take good care of this home and she will be a good neighbor, and as an example, she even gave Halloween treats out for Halloween. That is an example. He stated that his wife and he are also community minded, saying that his wife is a Girl Scout leader, and a business owner of a nonprofit organization to help kids get more interested in STEM and he is a boy scout leader and coach of about 20 sports teams so that is their character. He went on to say that they do want to resolve this, in the best appropriate way for everyone involved. He stated that we just happen to have six people in this home that are graduating in May so his request is that we resolve this in May and go to the appropriate level of people at that time that the zoning would recognize. He closed by saying that is where he is at and he just wanted the board to understand the background of the situation; this wasn’t a multi-year let’s cram as many people as we can in here type of situation. We just moved into the house in the Fall and just became aware of this situation. That’s where we are and he asked for the board’s help saying this is a group of people who have lived together for a long time and continue to live together under the family requirements of the document and in the packet is the description and definition of a family and within each we have commented and provided documentation about how this unit lives as a family. ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 5 Board comments Mr. Highland asked “these are just roommates, not a family?” and Mr. Drummond responded that they are a family. They have been living together for a number of years now and again, according to the family documentation submitted, they meet the requirements of a family. They rely on each other. Mr. Highland said “the family is breaking up in May, right?” and Mr. Drummond responded that the family will be just like my family just did in his home, where he had three kids going off to jobs, college and other things and this is really the same situation. In May the family will be moving on to their next phases of life, but they really are, again, operating as one family unit today. Mr. Rosen stated that rather than cross-examining Mr. Drummond, the board should discuss this amongst themselves. Mr. Vignaux said he had one question first and asked Mr. Drummond to be more specific about his statement “they have been living together a long time.” Mr. Drummond responded that in the packet there is a list of the people and the years they have lived together; so it started in 2013 for at least one of the individuals with my daughter and then 2015, 2016 and 2017 with the remaining five. Mr. King said “Just so I understand clearly, they just moved in in the Fall… and they are all leaving in May?” Mr. Drummond responded that they had been living together in another location and Mr. Rosen asked where that was; Mr. Drummond responded that they were living in an apartment on campus at Ithaca College one year, and the year before that they were living in dorms. Mr. Rosen asked if they were ever living in a single-family house before and he responded no and added that the purpose of purchasing the house was so they could do that. Mr. Rosen asked if Mr. Drummond said he owns five properties in Ithaca and Mr. Drummond responded, no, this is his fifth time purchasing houses in his life and they were not rental properties; his family is five persons and then they took his mother-in-law in so he was trying to parallel that with the current situation adding that he has lived in many homes in his lifetime with a number of people and has never faced a zoning challenge like this. Mr. Rosen responded that groups of college students invading residential neighborhoods has been a big problem in Ithaca and he was surprised Mr. Drummond wasn’t aware of it because Mr. Drummond said he is familiar with the town. Mr. Drummond responded that he understands, but he didn’t know there were border issues because one street over is chaos, which he thought was the town of Ithaca, and which is why they didn’t buy there. He said, to be clear, we are not really interested in having a rental property, we are interested in having a property…not audible…. Mr. Rosen spoke saying “you bought into a quiet, single family neighborhood.” Mr. Drummond responded that yes, we did, and his daughter very specifically wanted to live there because it is her intention to have that quiet environment. The fact that she is a homeowner and wants to live in that home….she is an honor student so she can’t have a loud environment and a lot of people making noise etc., it’s just not feasible. Mr. Rosen responded that it wouldn’t matter if she was a student or not a student, she still can’t rent out to five boarders in a single family house; the fact that she is a student doesn’t matter at all. Mr. Drummond responded that he understands that and he understands the situation but what he is saying is that she has a family unit that is living there together and that, according to the ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 6 family definition, that is….Mr. Rosen broke in saying that that is what this board has to discuss and determine whether that does fit the meaning of a family according to Code and that will be the crux of the decision. Ms. Rubin noted that the announcement listed Mr. Drummond as owner and Mr. Drummond responded that yes, his daughter put the money down for it and he and his wife pay the mortgage but his daughter is on the deed as the primary owner. Mr. Rosen asked if Mr. Drummond ever considered that he was buying a single family house for six college students and Mr. Drummond responded that he never even thought about it and that he now understands there is a difference between the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca and he didn’t know that and when they bought the house, they talked to the home owner who said they had a Certificate of Occupancy that said we are able to rent it and they talked to the realtor who said it is rentable, and our lawyer never said anything different about the property and we always said the intention and very openly said this is what we intend to do, and there was never a red flag. Mr. Rosen said that your lawyer completely missed it because the Town Code is clear you can only have one boarder and you have five boarders. Ms. Brock clarified by reading from the Code that a family is defined as “two unrelated persons, occupying a single dwelling unit, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit” so they could have two people living together that way plus one boarder, so they could have three unrelated people under that definition. So it is the addition of the other three that present the issue. Mr. Drummond responded that he understands that and Mr. Bates brought that to their attention and he was here to ask for the Board’s help to allow us to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe. Ms. Brock had a couple of questions for the applicant. Ms. Brock stated that the Code and the definition of family talks about the determination this Board can make if the group is the functional equivalent of a family and it sets out some of the criteria the Board can look at to make that determination and she did not see, in the submitted materials, answers to some of those criteria. First, it talks about whether it is just a framework for transient living and Mr. Drummond mentioned, but it was unclear to her, how many are graduating and leaving in May? Mr. Drummond responded five; his daughter is there for three more years and the people she has been living with for the past three years are now finally graduating. Mr. Vignaux asked what will happen to the house when the five graduate and leave the daughter alone. Mr. Drummond responded that that is the challenge; he would go to the ordinance and resolve it as quickly as reasonably possible. These five people who are graduating in May had nothing to do with this. It was an honest mistake; we didn’t understand or know that there was this situation and every indication we had from everyone else who was telling us, and of course they had their best interests in mind because they wanted to sell us the house, so we were suckers that we didn’t go even deeper, but the fact that we have these three individuals that an attorney, a real estate agent and a home owner…Mr. Highland broke in and asked if the attorney was present and Mr. Drummond responded that she was not due to a conflict and Mr. Rosen asked if the real estate agent was present and Mr. Drummond responded that she was not, but all he could say was this is where they were coming from; we would like to resolve it but we would like to not put the ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 7 lives of five young people… Mr. Rosen broke in and asked “What about the lives of the neighbors and the people who have lived there all their lives?” Mr. Drummond responded that that was exactly why he…. We are very responsible people and we want to make sure those neighbors are satisfied and that there are no issues to resolve. Mr. Rosen stated that there are definitely plenty of housing options available to the students for the rest of the year and it is not some kind of dire straits where there is nowhere else to live. Mr. Drummond responded that it is very disruptive for people to be moving when they are not expecting to and they are expecting to be finishing the most difficult part of, essentially their residency in college and that is really his point of view. Mr. Highland responded if they are good students they should have known that a single family dwelling presented a conceptual problem but Mr. Drummond responded that he is a very well educated person and he didn’t know it so he didn’t know how a young person would really know that that was a requirement or an issue. Mr. Bates spoke, saying that Mr. Drummond stated the students went to Ithaca College and to live off-campus students have to go through the College’s Off Campus Program which they are supposed to read through before they are allowed to move off campus. He said that he believes it says to contact the Town and make sure any plans are in accordance with the Town’s ordinances before moving. Ms. Brock had more questions, saying some things in the application were left blank. Among other things, we do not know the following information for the members of the household, adding that she thought Mr. Drummond responded with his own information, namely his driver’s license, but we need to know the information for the members of the household. The criteria is whether or not different members of the household have the same address for the purposes of voter registration, driver’s license, motor vehicle registration, summer or other residences, and filing of taxes. Mr. Drummond responded that he doesn’t believe they file taxes or have any of those official documents through this location and he didn’t know where they were registered to vote or what addresses are reflected on their driver’s license or motor vehicle registrations or whether they have summer or other residences. Mr. Drummond stated that he does not know any of that. Mr. Rosen responded saying “You say these are your family and you don’t know where they live in the summer?” and Mr. Drummond responded that he is saying they are his daughter’s family. Mr. Rosen stated that this defies belief, that you are presenting this as a family. Mr. Drummond responded that they did live in the house in the summer. Mr. Rosen responded that this is six college students renting a single family house together. Ms. Brock asked if any of the occupants had children enrolled in local schools and Mr. Drummond responded no; she asked if any are employed in the local area; Mr. Drummond responded “no, I don’t think so, again, they are college students.” Ms. Brock stated that was it for the list in the Code. ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 8 Mr. Rosen stated that we have had a couple of these in the last few years and we have looked at whether the college students resemble a traditional family and one of the things we have found in the past is that; traditional families don’t have everyone the same age and none of the people are supporting each other and in a traditional family, usually some people in the family are supporting other people, and that is not the case here; it is not permanent given that five of them are leaving in May and this really is not a traditional family at all. It is six college students that are sharing meals together and are living together until the end of the Spring semester and the idea that it is a family is ridiculous, in his opinion. Ms. Brock had another question, saying that in the material, Mr. Drummond stated that they are dependents of his daughter and she asked that he explain how the others are her dependents. Mr. Drummond said he was referring to… this family unit…. She is the homeowner, so they are dependent upon her for the home itself, but they actually depend on each other saying that you said families are usually dependent on each other and in this particular unit, people have spent years together and they know each other’s strengths and weaknesses and they help each other out during difficult times at school, they ensure that they are home on time…. Mr. Rosen said they lived in the same dorm together, some of them lived in the same dorm for one year and is that what he meant by they have lived together for years….Mr. Drummond said they lived together for a number of years saying Julie for example, had been her closest friend and family member, truly, she has been to her concerts, her sporting events… truly, this is not a traditional set of college students that go their own way and does their own thing; this is truly a group that relies on each other for health and safety…. Mr. Rosen broke in saying most college students don’t buy their own houses either, so they are exceptional in that, too. Mr. Drummond said that is true and that is really why he is saying this is an exceptional case and asking for help to resolve this is a reasonable way. Mr. Rosen stated that he drove up to the neighborhood and it is very compact and very quiet and he saw in the packet that there was a complaint about the cars and the traffic and he could well imagine how out of scale this group could seem in this neighborhood. He stated that he didn’t see this as any different from somebody buying a house and opening a rooming house for five people adding that he didn’t think that the fact that they were college students is any kind of mitigating circumstance. Somebody with the resources to buy their own house can rent all kinds of legal housing in Ithaca and not burden the residential neighborhood. He asked if anyone else on the Board wanted to speak before he opened the public hearing. Mr. King stated that he was curious about the incident with the cars and asked Mr. Bates to elaborate. Mr. Bates stated that the original complaint was the number of vehicles that were there were parking on the road and when he investigated why, it was because they needed to shift vehicles back and forth to accommodate schedules. That was the original reason he approached the property which led to the occupancy issue. Mr. Rosen asked if the lower level rooms were legal bedrooms or office rooms and Mr. Bates responded that he could not answer other than that according to the Town’s records, there are 3 bedrooms on the upper story with the lower level being a home occupation consisting of an office and two exam rooms. Mr. Rosen said he saw that, but don’t sleeping rooms need certain things like window sill etc. and Mr. Bates responded yes, but he doesn’t have that information. ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 9 Ms. Brock broke in to say that that is not before this Board; what is before this Board is determining whether this group of individuals make up the functional equivalent of a family, and if not, whether they should get a Use variance. Code issues about how many bedrooms are legal are not in this Board’s purview and not relevant. It will be to Codes, if they need to go down that road, but not to this Board. Ms. Rubin asked if time limits could be put on a variance or would it go to the property indefinitely and Ms. Brock responded that the Board could put time limits on a variance. Ms. Rubin stated that while she feels sympathetic she doesn’t think they meet the test. Ms. Brock suggested that Mr. Rosen open the public hearing before members make decisions about how they are feeling on the subject. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. Steven Erhart stated that he lives at 109 Juniper Drive which is pretty close to this property. He said he prepared a bunch of remarks and read from those. 1. State law has the applicant prove four things before getting a use variance and he thought the two most relevant are the character of the neighborhood and the self-imposed nature of the hardship and he thought it was self-evident, but the character of this neighborhood are homes that are owner occupied by single families and some rentals as allowed by zoning and the occupancy of six unrelated persons is distinctly different in character and that difference is acknowledged by the zoning law which allows such occupancy in other parts of town but not in our neighborhood. The hardship is not self-created but this hardship is entirely self-imposed. A responsible person checks the law before they buy their home; we did. We actually left a neighborhood in lower South Hill where parents of students would buy a house for their student and their friends and live in it for a while, take it out of single family ownership and sooner or later, the neighborhood is transformed and the character of the neighborhood changes and the quality of life is diminished for the year-round residents. We do not want that to happen where we are. We left the City to come here and we read the law because even though we knew we were close to a student neighborhood and we hear some of the noise from it, we weren’t in one and the zoning actually protected us and we are relying on that. He stated that he did not think it was legal for the Board to grant a variance, relying on state law. 2. Definition of “family”; Mr. Ehrhardt stated: whatever latitude this board has in this regard, I would like to remind you of two things you already know. The law that was written was the result of a lengthy planning process involving the Town’s professional planners, lay boards, elected representatives, and public participation and it shouldn’t be interpreted in a manner that undercuts critical protections to the permanent residents with any less of a professional and broad, town-wide democratic process because ours is not the only medium density residential neighborhood that could be affected by your decision. The definition of “family” in that law was written with care and specific intent because decades of experience in this community have taught us that these arrangements of several unrelated people tend to be undertaken by people whose needs and lifestyles ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 10 clash with the needs and lifestyles of the permanent residents and thereby alter the character of the neighborhood. He asked that the Board please don’t redefine “family” to allow in the back door what zoning doesn’t allow in the front door. Mr. Ehrhardt stated on a personal note that he is 65 years old and has lived and worked in Ithaca since 1990 and he retired a year ago and his wife retired four months ago and we have invested our savings in updating our kitchen, landscaping and yard; not because we expect an increase in our value, but to make our retirement happier and we want to complete that and remain in the neighborhood, so he hopes the Board does the right thing tonight. Maggie Sever, 113 Juniper Dr stated that her property abuts this property. She said that in what way, shape or form is this a family. It is pure and simple student housing. She stated that she has witnessed a number of parties where they park in front of her house, they pee on her lawn and throw their beer bottles on her property. Ms. Sever stated that they are on the deck and shout and scream. There was no one living in that home before September and they all moved in with the quote unquote “well bitches, we’re home” so this is not a family, it is students. Lydia Wobisky, 109 Juniper read mostly from a prepared statement: I come to add my voice to the many voices here in asking the Board to refuse the applicant’s request for a use variance and to refuse to reinterpret the word family. Iif the Board were to grant either of the applicant’s requests they would reward a single law-breaking property owner grieved by a self-imposed hardship and punish the nearby law abiding residents of the neighborhood by imposing a hardship on all the rest of us and in so creating a class of aggrieved parties. This is a vulnerable neighborhood that actually needs the Board’s protection. Our quality of life is under stress from the effect of student occupancy of nearby properties in the adjoining, high density residential zones and we are very aware that we are on the cusp of a lot more activity, to the extent that the nuisance is one that we accepted when we moved to Juniper Drive, but, when we moved there, we considered the zoning law and we rely on it to protect the character of our neighborhood and our very own block. All the board has to do to protect the character of our neighborhood is to follow the law, with common sense and an awareness of the well-known difficulties of home ownership in a college town, particularly in one where the vacancy rate is very low and the lure of making money by filling a house with unrelated persons tends to have people turn traditional residential properties into profit makers to the detriment to the character of our neighborhood. Should this board grant the applicant’s request, several of us in the neighborhood will have to pool our resources and obtain legal counsel to defend ourselves in some other venue. We ask that you please make that unnecessary by firmly denying the applicant’s request tonight. Brenda Rodriguez, Pineview Terr stated that she feels bad for Mr. Drummond but she is thinking in terms of what happens after she graduates; if this is granted, what happens to the subsequent home owner. We may not get someone who is as responsible and it sounds like there is going to be a student culture, especially around graduation when they all want to party. She said the Supreme Court had really already documented all of this and said that this does not define a family. Mr. Drummond has acknowledged that to some extent and found out after he purchased this home that he needs a variance and is trying to backtrack it by defining a family this way. She added that she is someone who is feeling the effects of single family ownership that has been converted to student housing because the homes behind her on Coddington Road have become ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 11 student houses and we have had a pellet gun shot into our storm door at $2,000 worth of damage and they were intending to target the propane tank on my deck. We have had objectionable music, the most horrible lyrics that we have to listen to when we had young people visiting us and this is what happens when students move in. Mary Mills, 108 Pineview Terr speaking for her mother and she read a statement from her: In regard to the appeal of Mr. William Drummond…..which is a MDR, my response is: 1. No, a group of 6 unrelated persons do not constitute a functional equivalent of a family for the purposes of occupying a dwelling unit. 2. No, a variance shouldn’t be given for Chapter 270-66a… if this variance is approved, this will lower my property value, add undue traffic and street congestion, and change the family dynamic of the neighborhood. Melissa Luckow 103 Juniper Dr. read a statement from a neighbor at 112 Pineview Terr: …. We are both professors in the Park School of Communication at IC and as such, we are aware of the need for student housing at IC but this is a self-created hardship that the college leadership needs to address and certainly not place the burden on the residents of South Hill. We are also aware of the deleterious impact to the character of the neighborhood that has been zoned as MDR when special permit variance is granted for student rentals. We are unequivocally opposed to granting a special permit for 104 Pineview Terrace on the grounds that it will irrevocably change the character of the neighborhood. That one special permit variance leads to another and that over time the Juniper Pineview Terrace loop will cease to be a one or two family dwelling neighborhood and will over time resemble the Pennsylvania Ave and Kendall Ave student housing neighborhood. The granting of special permit variance will set the precedent for others to follow and will lead to the creep of student housing into a neighborhood that was not designed for that purpose. Under the Town of Ithaca zoning laws… there may be no more than one room or lodger or other occupant in each one family dwelling. Obviously this important restriction is set for the specific reason to disallow the type of student housing rental properties that is sought after at 104 Pineview Terrace. If it is argued that an unrelated group of students constitutes a family, we ask that the board dismiss the petition on the face of it as the definition of family is an important distinction to zoning law and the board should not allow it to be redefined in the interest of profit seeking landlords. If the argument is made that this house is to be considered a two family house, which would allow for five unrelated people, we would simply remind the board that there is a moratorium on new two family house designations and that 104 Pineview Terrace is not, nor was built to be, a two family house. Again, this is an important distinction for zoning law and the petition for a variance is asking the board to redefine such distinction solely in the interest of profit. ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 12 Ms. Luckow stated that the writer goes on to talk about how it doesn’t fit the area and not even the current B&B variance fits the neighborhood. Then continues with: The fact that once a variance is granted it goes with the property and later sales seems that this one special permit will change the character of this family neighborhood once and for all. This variance will constitute a unique use in this neighborhood which has resisted student rentals up to and including this present moment. We urge strongly that the board reject granting of the special permit variance and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning restrictions, preserve the special single family nature of this medium density residential neighborhood. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Ms. Luckow then stated from her own viewpoint, although he didn’t know whether the students had this address for licenses and registrations, we know that the license plates are from all over, such as from Massachusetts and not New York State. So it is highly unlikely they meet that criteria and if you think about it, when I go through and look through our neighborhood, every single house is owner occupied. There is not a rental in there as far as I know, so the houses are not rentals but owner occupied homes and this would be very unusual. Finally, I would like to say that why is the person who is actually living in the house not here making their case before the board about why they should be considered a family? If in fact this is the owner then why isn’t the owner here? I would guess that they are on Thanksgiving break. Thank you. Brian Randazzo Pineview Terr who stated that he was speaking for Peg Mills at 108 and the bottom line is that she is very ill and she and her husband bought the house over 30 years ago. Although Mr. Drummond sounds like a very nice man, the mistake has been made, an error has been made and although I can’t say who made the error, what I do know is it was not my mother who made the error. It sounds like it might be with the lawyer or the real estate agent and it’s not fair to make the people who live around this residence suffer for the mistake that wasn’t theirs. Please don’t allow this to happen. Joe Sever 113 Juniper Dr. stated that Mr. Drummond’s characterization of the occupants as a family flies in the face of the fact that Barry Valentine is listed as an agent and is affiliated with Certified Properties and that this property is listed as a rental on Certified Properties’ website. Thank you. Rena Scroggin 104 Hickory Pl stated that she agrees with her neighbors and she would like the board to not pass this variance. She added that she is a recent homeowner there and it was all that they had to get this first home so they feel protective, not just in the value of their home, but their day-to-day living. She said she knows her neighbors are patient with her when she has dinner parties or people on her deck, so this is not to speak of some kind of egregious conduct of Mr. Drummond’s daughter because personally she has not noticed anything terrible, but she is concerned more about the lifetime of the variance and it going to the next owner. It seems like it could go to another owner rather soon. ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 13 Kate Dicken 108 Juniper Dr. stated that she has lived there for the past 20 years and she hopes the board will not approve this. She added that her property more or less backs onto Pennsylvania Ave so they get a lot of exposure to what student housing is like; there is a lot of noise and there is a beautiful nature trail right there which is affected by beer cans and stuff associated with student housing. She said her daughter is a student and she loves her, but it is a change in the neighborhood and it is not a family. Duane Twardokus 106 Juniper Dr. stated that he felt his neighbors have covered all the legal and ordinance based things and he agrees with them and just as they did, he bought his house just like they did, anticipating that the rules would protect us. We had lived in Ithaca and we knew the challenges of student housing etc. etc. and we thought for sure that by having ourselves looked at the situation as to where our house was placed, that the rules as they are would protect us, so we ask you to keep those rules in place. He added that he has experienced some of the ills that have been shared with the board this evening; the noise, even in the daytime, when you want to enjoy your house and you hear noise from two or three different directions, so we endure that already and we don’t need it also coming from right in the neighborhood. It may not be the current occupants that do it, it may be the future ones, and we would like to make sure that we preserve the character of the neighborhood as it is and make sure it is a place for folks like ourselves, single family residences where we can enjoy the houses that we purchased and pay taxes on etc. Mr. Twardokus then added that they cannot always rely on law enforcement to help us when we know the ordinance is in our favor. Most of the time they do a good job, but we have had a situation when my spouse while standing in our house has had a deputy tell her that we should be more understanding and accommodating in this community here because these students have been pushed off their own campus, they can’t party on their own campus like they used to. They need somewhere to go to party and hang out and have a good time and frankly you guys are being a little too demanding that they provide you with what want. That was kind of bizarre to hear from the actual law enforcement officer who you are calling to say we have the code and they are breaking the law and his own son has called and said I am reading it right here on line and they are louder than allowed and being told, sorry, I can’t do anything about it right now. Mr. Twardokus stated that he understands they are busy and different things are lower in priority and they do a good job at the end of the school year and having a presence and we appreciate that, but it is the in-between times, when they do have other things to do and are pressed to take care of other issues that have a higher priority for them. That’s why we need you to make it clear that the rules as they were are meant to protect the integrity and character of the neighborhood as it is and a change like this puts us at risk of bringing that kind of disturbance within the neighborhood itself and that would be intolerable for us. Mr. Twardokus then stated that he himself has bought a number of houses having to move around for professional reasons and every single time, I have always made sure I have looked at the rules as they were in respect to the house itself. If he has bought five houses, I would think that he would be well versed in the need to look into conditions set on a house and to say he didn’t know… seems more like a “let’s do it now and ask for forgiveness later” kind of game. He said he has seen it played too many times and it is not fair. ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 14 Mr. Twardokus went on to say that if this is a true family; my family lives in my house, my neighbors’ families live in their houses – where is the family here to protect their interests? I don’t see them. The family members themselves are not here to say we are a family and you need to keep us together, we need you to keep this house for us because it is so important to us. Instead, I see someone with a potential business interest here to protect their business interest with an emotional plea and he thought that was an unfair and unsavory way of playing the game. If the daughter feels this is so important, why isn’t she here? If her family members who are looking out for each other think this is so important, why aren’t they here? He said that really bothers me because I know if it were my family, we would all be here. Maxwell Holtz stated he lived seventeen feet from the corner of the house and I knew the previous owner and know that maybe there was not full disclosure on her behalf, she wasn’t selling through a real estate agent. He said his main point is we are all concerned about this neighborhood becoming student housing. He said he lived on Kendall and that is a nightmare and Pennsylvania is a nightmare. Mr. Holtz stated that the current occupants are respectful and quiet in his experience and the yard is kept in very good shape and he met the owner’s daughter and thought she was very nice. But, what he would like to know is if there are addendums to a variance. Board members said they did not understand the question and after some back and forth, they restated the question as whether there were ways to limit the variance to apply to just long enough to allow these occupants to finish out the school year. Mr. Holtz stated that he felt bad for the current occupants because this affects them, not just the owner. The occupants were renting in good faith essentially. Mr. Bates responded that the board can put conditions on any variance but he would argue against a variance because the applicant was notified in September that he was in violation, so they have had the use of that residence for all this time and they are still in violation. Mr. Rosen added that they are playing a waiting game; they were notified in September and they are cashing in on this house. Ms. Brock responded to both saying that they have a right to come to this board and have the board make the determination as to whether it is the functional equivalent of a family and that process takes time. She was not aware that they caused any delay in that process. Mr. Bates added that from the time they submit an application for a variance, that stays the violation until this process is done. Mr. Holtz then stated that he is 100% in agreement with his neighbors but he also wanted to be a reasonable person and a quick turnover might be a negative impact on our neighborhood as well, which people may not have thought about as well. A prior speaker spoke again and asked if a temporary use variance has to satisfy fewer conditions than a regular use variance and Mr. Rosen and Ms. Brock responded that they are the same. The board would still have to find that each of those criteria are met. Another prior speaker spoke again and commented that a temporary condition is a slippery slope, because you can have a group of people every X number or years or months and then another applicant wanting the same thing or this applicant wanting to extend the time frame. ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 15 Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Rosen started the conversation by saying that this board has had two of these cases in the last two years, of groups of people, landlords renting to groups of people and claiming that they are families and he looked at the minutes from those to review and we have been down this road a number of times and it is a big problem in Ithaca. He polled the board, asking if anyone felt this was a family. Mr. Vignaux said not when they all went home for Thanksgiving. Ms. Brock responded that they are not here but the board doesn’t know why and there is no information on the record for the board to draw any conclusion, but he could ask the applicant. Mr. Rosen stated that he brought the previous minutes to use as a template so the board is consistent and asked Ms. Brock if that was ok. Ms. Brock responded that it was, but each determination is very fact specific and the board needs to tailor what is said to this particular situation, although it may be that some of the same rationales happen to apply. Mr. Rosen stated that he finds it to be a very illogical argument where we are fighting against a strawman that’s not true and we are trying to make arguments against it. SEQR review – changes were made to the form to detail the size of the lot, the permitted use under zoning question should be blank with the statement that the answer depends upon the ZBA’s determination of whether or not they are the functional equivalent of a family. ZBA Resolution 0020-2016 SEQR Determination/Use Variance 104 Pineview Terr TP 53.-1-15.23 MDR November 21, 2016 Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information given in Parts 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the environmental assessment form with the approved changes. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux Vote: Ayes – Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux The board turned to the determination. ZBA Resolution 0020-2016 Determination 104 Pineview Terr TP 53.-1-15.23 MDR November 21, 2016 ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 16 Appeal of William Drummond, Owner, Barry Valentine, Agent, 104 Pineview Ter., TP 53.-1- 15.23, Medium Density Residential Zone, seeking a determination pursuant to Town Code Section 270-5 whether a group of six unrelated persons is a functional equivalent of a family for the purpose of occupying a dwelling unit. Resolved that this Board makes the determination that the group is not the functional equivalent of a family based on the Town of Ithaca Code criteria with the following Findings: 1. The group is one which in theory, size, appearance and structure does not resemble a traditional family unit. All the members of the group are the same age; none of them support each other; and none of them have lived together in the past, except in a college dorm, or college apartment, even though they are all at least 20 years old. While the applicant states that they depend on each other for non-financial support, many groups of friends and tenants living in houses together do that, and 2. The applicant states that they eat meals together, but many roommates do that, and 3. That the group is not of a permanent nature because rent is shared, but no information has been provided to the board that they share other household expenses, and because five of them are leaving in May and the others have only been together a year or two, and 4. No information has been provided to the board showing that all of the occupants, or any of the occupants, use the Pineview Terrace address on voter registrations, driver's licenses, motor vehicle registrations or filing of income taxes, and we have heard from the neighbors that many of the cars are registered in different states, and 5. The house is rented furnished and major appliances are provided by the landlord, and 6. There are no children, so whether children attend local schools is not applicable, and 7. The board has not been presented with any information about employment, and 8. The group has not lived together in a single family house before, except for the few months they have been living illegally in the current house, and 9. The board finds no other factor reasonably related to whether or not the group of persons is the functional equivalent of a traditional family. Based on the information above, this board denies the request for the determination that this is the functional equivalent of a family. Moved by George Vignaux, seconded by Chris Jung Vote: Ayes - Rosen, Decker, King, Jung and Vignaux Unanimous ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 17 ZBA Resolution 0018-2016 Use Variance 104 Pineview Terr TP 53.-1-15.23 MDR November 21, 2016 Appeal of William Drummond, Owner, Barry Valentine, Agent, 104 Pineview Ter., TP 53.-1- 15.23, Medium Density Residential Zone, requesting a use variance from Chapter 270-66 A “Permitted principal uses” to be allowed to have a family plus four boarders where one boarder is allowed if the determination is that the group is not a functional equivalent of a family Resolved that this board denies the appeal for a use variance with the following Findings 1. That the alleged hardship is self-created in that the student and her family bought the house instead of renting an appropriate house for 6 people, and the property owner is presumed to know the applicable zoning laws and the fact that a particular propert y owner does not in fact know the laws when they buy the property is not relevant, and 2. That the character of the neighborhood will be altered by transforming it from a residential family neighborhood to a transient student neighborhood and by greatly increasing the number of people and cars on the lot. The board heard from more than one neighbor about noise and public urination, and 3. The alleged hardship is not unique to this house because anyone could rent to six people and make their house a rooming house for six people and make this argument if they wanted; every house in the neighborhood has the same restrictions and there is no physical characteristic of this house that would prevent it from being used by a single family with a boarder, and 4. The board has seen no evidence of financial hardship other than that the college student bought the house with an inheritance from her grandmother and information about rents and taxes paid. The board does not have credible evidence presented about financial hardship on whether it couldn’t be rented to a single family or sold for a profit. For the reasons stated above, this board denies the appeal for a Use variance. Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux Vote: Ayes – Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux Appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp, Owner, 635 Elmira Rd., TP 35.-1-21, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, seeking variances from Town Code Section 270-117, “Yard regulations” to build a building that would be 7ft +/- short of the required 50 foot front yard setback; from Section 270- 116, “Height limitations,” to be allowed to exceed the height where 36 feet is allowed and 54 feet is requested; and from Section 270-128 “Maximum building size” to be allowed to construct a 37,000 square foot building where a maximum of 7500 square feet is allowed . ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 18 Adam Fishel, Engineer and Joe Turnowchyk , Architect were present to answer questions from the board. Mr. Rosen noted that there was a memo from the Planning Department and from the Conservation Board on the desks. Mr. Fishel stated that this project has been in the works for several months and through the Planning Board process they have made changes to be respectful of what the Town wants with what is in the Comprehensive Plan and making the façade more acceptable and in keeping with the area while still keeping it financially feasible. The applicants stated that throughout the process with the Planning Board, they always knew and indicated that they would be seeking a number of variances for height, setback and size to keep this project feasible and the Comprehensive Plan calls for motel/hotels in the area and does not specify size. They have added architectural details to break up the front and landscaping and they hope the Zoning Board agrees that this at least compliments the surrounding area and better style than the typical franchise hotel. He added that through that process, the only public comment was from the Volunteer Fire Department Hall regarding traffic which is bad in the area. There were no comments regarding the building size, appearance or scale of the building. Mr. Rosen thought the Planning Board did a great job and he thought it was a great looking building adding that it is a very busy state highway and this is not going to overshadow the highway. He agreed with the Planning Board in saying that it is ok. Ms. Brock reminded that Board that the Planning Board does not look at the need for variances, they are not allowed to, so they did not look at them specifically. They looked at the size and height and setback through SEQR and site plan but they didn’t look at the specifics of what the code allows and what the difference or approximate variance that would be needed. The Board should not think that the Planning Board was saying these variances should be accepted because they did not, and could not look at those specifics. They cannot consider it either way. Mr. Rosen responded that that may be true, but they looked at this project a number of times and requested a number of changes and would have looked at the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Brock responded they would have looked at that through SEQR and Ms. Balestra did submit a memo regarding the study the Town is doing to study this area and figure out this corridor. Mr. Rosen said it is better than what is there and many of the existing uses now; this is a nice looking building. Mr. Highland asked about the memo from the Town Conservation Board and asked what their role was and whether they were involved in the Planning Board proceedings. Ms. Brock explained that they are appointed by the Town and they look at different things that are going on in the Town and sometimes provide opinions on developments. They do not have a formal role at the Planning Board or this Board and she did not recall seeing anything from the Planning Board files so this is probably the first time they have commented on the project. Mr. Highland commented that they seem a little late with coming out with comments then. Mr. Bates ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 19 said sometimes the Conservation Board waits until the end of the Planning Board process to comment on the final design. Mr. Rosen asked if they were advisory only or like the Planning and Zoning Boards and Ms. Brock responded that they are advisory only. Mr. Rosen said he wasn’t sure the parking lot was any bigger than the parking area there but Mr. King pointed out the existing parking area is gravel so semi-impervious. Discussion followed on the stormwater management proposed and the applicants explained it will be underground and bio-retention areas. Mr. Rosen thought the modernization of the stormwater management will probably be better than what is there even though it will have more impervious surface. Mr. King stated that the backside of this building runs along a steep grade and wetland and there will certainly be drainage into that wetland. Mr. Rosen agreed, saying it does now too. More discussion followed looking at the drawings. Ms. Jung thought this was a significantly bigger building than was anticipated. Mr. Rosen thought the bigger building will buffer the wetland behind it by being a huge wall to protect it. Mr. King said he is mostly concerned with the square footage because it is four times larger than permitted and the Comprehensive Plan does talk about what they want to see in this Gateway Area and in the zoning itself they don’t seem to have this size of a building in mind. They talk throughout the Plan about walkability and energy efficiency and this building does not address those issues. They say no one is going to walk here. Mr. King said it has two State Parks near it and a hiking trail behind it, yet they say it is not walkable. He felt that the scale of the building is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He would consider a variance on the area but four times larger seems too much and they haven’t presented anything here that would compensate for that. He added that he googled Sleep Inn and although they have done stuff with texture and color, it looks like any other Sleep In on the outskirts of a metropolitan area and he did not think that was what the Comp Plan was looking for on this two-lane road which is our unique entrance to the Town. The applicant stated that in the Planning staff memo, they clearly state that in their opinion, it does reflect the vision for this area. Mr. King disagreed with the opinion. The applicant spoke, saying that when they went through the design iterations, they designed amenities for the entire Gateway Entrance with a bank, and Amish market, lighting, signs, and a minimarket with a building actually taller than this one and that was presented as a street view for the Planning Board presentation to show how this would look at street view and traveling 45 mph. This plan has berms and this is not like any other Sleep Inn and may very well not get approved by Sleep Inn. The idea was to put any sign on this building and it wouldn’t matter. In the beginning the building was taller. If hospitality business is wanted in this district, there are certain economics that have to be there for success. All commercial ventures need certain things and certain thresholds to be feasible. You can’t see the property lines when you go down the street so the percentage of coverage is not evident to the public driving or walking by as it is on the sketch. That is important to remember. It fits with the other buildings the town wants and he took the time to do a whole retrospect of the corridor after meeting with the Director of Planning and this is where we ended up. Mr. King said he appreciates all the work but the board was not ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 20 presented with any financial information and so he can only respond to the variance and the fact that it is four times bigger than the maximum is too much. Mr. Rosen compared this to Ithaca Beer and thought this is just a big building like Ithaca Beer but Mr. King disagreed. The applicant went through again the improvements to a simply standard project with the landscaping, bio retention, and fencing which were all done, at a bigger cost to the project, to make this fit the overall character of a gateway entrance. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Ahir is the owner of the hotel corporation saying that his father started the business many years ago with the Wonderland Motel which is now the Rodeway Inn and over the years, a lot of customers have gone to the City because people do not feel safe at smaller motels with exterior corridors. They have people that come for the State Parks but cancel and go to the City because they do not feel safe. We are locally owned, not a big corporation and that is why we are doing this project and renovating the Rodeway Inn. He added that the Economy Inn next door is basically DSS occupancy and not a competitor and they have exterior corridors but DSS approved them for occupancy so they have that. The Grayhaven is across the street but not open year-round. We are the only ones in the corridor open year round and we are close to the parks and Watkins Glen and we could be fuller if people felt safe. He stated that under current zoning, and maxing to the 10K square feet with special approval from the Planning Board, you get 11 rooms at most, technically, probably 8 rooms, and no franchise would approve that; it is not economically feasible. Mr. Jawarsky, Eastern Hospitality, VP stated that they build about 15 hotels a year and he complimented the architect on the design of this hotel saying it is a substantial improvement to the standard Sleep Inn and he thought it blends in with the community with the use of the stone and wood. He then talked about the square footage needed for a hotel saying that he also finances hotels; if the town wants hospitality in this area, this is the minimum for a franchise to approve and banks will not finance little boutique motels and hotels. He asked that the board think about that and to also consider that the benefit of a franchise hotel is they have specific quality control and inspections and they keep owners to those standards. Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. and brought the matter back to the Board. Ms. Brock noted for the record that this is a coordinated review under Type 1and the Planning Board was the designated agency to do the coordinated review so SEQR is done for the project including the Zoning Board of Appeals. The packet has the form and there are a number of pages detailing why they made a Negative Determination. The Board reviewed the Planning Board’s comments on SEQR. Mr. Rosen noted that they looked at consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and community character as well as the size of the building and the town code for SEQR so they did look at the size of the building. Ms. Brock stated that they did as it pertains to the whole site plan review but not the individual variances needed. ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 21 Mr. Rosen read bits from the SEQR from pages 8 and 9 where the Planning staff and Planning Board considered the size and the variances by reference. Ms. Rubin stated that she thought it was thoughtfully done and although it is exceptionally larger than allowed, it meets the balancing test and the benefit outweighs any detriment. Mr. Vignaux stated that it is a big improvement to what is there and would be beneficial to the town. Ms. Decker stated that she though it was well designed and she liked that the gateway area to the town will be developed and she did not think it was detriment to any rural feel. She also thought they were mitigating any stormwater issues and was a very thoughtful design. Ms. Jung stated that she has the same concerns as Mr. King about the size and although she appreciates they made steps, she still has concerns and this is substantial in multiple ways. Mr. King read a portion of the memo from the Conservation Board which quoted the Comprehensive Plan – “the scale of architecture and landscaping of future development will need to be carefully designed and articulated. This area should retain a semi-rural character with deep setbacks from arterial streets, wide spacing between uses, landscaped front yards and vehicle parking sited on the side or rear of the structures.” He thought they made very good points about what the Comprehensive Plan is looking for in this area. In drafting the resolution, discussion regarding the accumulated trash was discussed and the applicant stated the franchise would require that be taken care of and they would want it taken care of; Ms. Brock added that our Property Maintenance law would also address that. This satisfied the Board. ZBA Resolution 0015-2016 Area Variance-Square Footage 635 Elmira Rd November 21, 2016 Resolved that this board grants the appeal appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp, Owner, 635 Elmira Rd., TP 35.-1-21, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, seeking variances from Town Code “Maximum building size” to be allowed to construct a 37,000 square foot building where a maximum of 7500 square feet is allowed with the following: Conditions 1. That the project be built substantially as shown on the drawing submitted to this board, And with the following ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 22 Findings, that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically that 1. The benefit that applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met by any other means feasible given that there is a minimum economic size for any hotel and we have had competent evidence from a hotel builder that this is the minimum size needed to be feasible. Many hotels in the City are significantly bigger and to stay under the square footage allowed, the hotel could only have 11 – 12 rooms which would be very difficult to get financing for, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the environmental impact form, and 3. The request is substantial given that it is a 400% increase, but there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in SEQR, and 4. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to build a hotel, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Christine Decker Vote: Ayes – Decker, Rosen and Vignaux Opposed: King and Jung Motion passed 3 to 2. ZBA Resolution 0014-2016 Area Variance - Height 635 Elmira Rd November 21, 2016 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp, Owner, 635 Elmira Rd., TP 35.- 1-21, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, seeking variances from Town Code Section 270-116, “Height limitations,” to be allowed to exceed the height where 36 feet is allowed and 54 feet is requested with the following: Conditions 1. That the building be constructed as submitted to this Board and with the following Findings The Board stated that the reasons provided by the applicant as stated in the Area Variance Criteria Form were applicable and they agreed with them and asked that they be inserted in the resolution. ZBA 11-21-2016 pg. 23 1. There will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, because the resulting size of the building will not result in any adverse or excessive impacts to available view-shed areas or scenic vistas, and 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that having a 3-story building that is within the 36 ft maximum allowable building height would require parapet walls with a flat roof. Such a configuration would be in conflict with the Town’s development criteria outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and 3. The request is substantial, the proposed building height is approximately 1.5 times the maximum allowable height but as notes above, the impacts to the viewing area looking east should not be considered excessive, and 4. There will not be any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions that to satisfy the maximum height requirement, the building would need to become shorter and wider to maintain the number of rooms. Such a configuration would result in more disturbance to existing vegetative slopes and buffers, and 5. The difficulty is self-created, however this should not preclude the approval of this variance. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux Vote: Ayes – Vignaux, Rosen, Decker Nays—Jung and King Motion passed 3 to 2. ZBA Resolution 0014-2016 Area Variance – Setback 635 Elmira Rd November 21, 2016 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Ahir Hotels Corp, Owner, 635 Elmira Rd., TP 35.- 1-21, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, seeking variances from Town Code Section 270-117, “Yard regulations” to build a building that would be 7ft +/- short of the required 50 foot front yard setback with the following: Conditions 1. That the building be built substantially as submitted to this Board tonight and with the following Findings The Board stated that the reasons provided by the applicant were applicable and they agreed with them and asked that they be inserted in the resolution. 1. The granting of the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character nor will it be a detriment to the nearby properties. There are existing properties along the Elmira Rd corridor which are comparably zoned and have buildings which are located within the required 50’ foot setback, and 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a feasible alternative;The following options were evaluated in an effort to avoid the need for such an area variance: eliminating the porte cochere,modifying the size and location of the porte cochere and moving the entire building further from Elmira Road. The porte cochere is an integral component of the hotel use and operation and cannot be eliminated.Further, its size and location relative to the main hotel building cannot be modified to the point of eliminating the need for the requested area variance.Therefore the elimination or modification of the porte cochere as a means to avoid the requested variance was not considered a reasonable alternative. Moving the entire building further from Elmira Road in order to achieve the required setback was also evaluated.The current proposed building location relative to the existing steep, vegetated slope along the rear side of the property,minimizes impacts to this existing slope and associated vegetation.Pushing the building closer to the slope will require additional disturbances/clearing of the existing slope and/or steeper tie-in grades both of which increase potential for there to be erosion and sediment transport down the slope. Such a condition may adversely impact the existing wetlands located at the toe of the embzinkment slope, and 3. The requested area variance is not substantial. The provided setback is approximately 85%of the required distance and is therefore not considered a substantial deviation,and 4.Adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood would not be anticipated if the variance is approved. As stated above, the proposed location of the building minimizes impacts to the existing steep and vegetated slope, and 5. The difficulty is self-created; however, this should not preclude the approval of the requested variances. The proposed hotel use is appropriate for the subject site given the Town's current zoning and comprehensive plan. The porte cochere is an integral component of the hotel use and given the site limitations (rear steep slope), the requested variance is unavoidable. Moved by Rob Rosen,seconded by George Vignaux Vote:Ayes -Vignaux,Rosen,Decker,Jung and King Motion passed unanimous. Ms. Brock noted that the County had no negative comments on the project. Meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second at 8:45 p.m. Submitted^y^ "aulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk ZBA 11-21-2016 pg.24 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 -Project Information Instructions for Completing Fiiii 1 -Project Information.The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or fiinding.are subject to public rev iew,and may be subject to fiinher verification. Complete Part 1 ba.scd on information currently available.If additional research or investigation would be needed to lully respond to any item,please answer as tliorougjily as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1.You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or u.seftil to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 •Project and Sponsor Information WilHam Drummond -Property Owner Name of Action or Project: Use Variance Project Location(describe, andattach a locationmap): 104 Pineview Terrace Brief Description of Proposed Action: Use Variance to allow for 6 people (family members)to reside in the house. Name of Applicantor Sponsor: William Drummond Address: 39 Crownview Court Telephone:973-725-2866 E-Mail;rdrummctfidnj@gmail.com City'PO: Sparta Stale: NJ Zip CYxie: 07871 i,Docs Ihc proposed action only involve the legislative adoption ofa plan,local law,ordinance. administrative rule, or regulation? If Yes.attach a narrative description of llie intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Pan 2.If no.continue to question 2. NO 0 NO YES • YES2.Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from an>other governmental .\gency? If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or 0^0 3.a.Total acreage ofthe site ofthe propo.scd action? b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? c.Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properiies)owned or controlled by the jqjplicantor project sponsor? '0 acres 0 acres 4. Checkall land usesthat occuron,adjoining and nearthe proposed action. •Urban •Rural (non-agriculturc)•Industrial •Commercial 0Residential (suburban) •Forest •Agriculture nAquatic •Other (specify):— Qf'ark.land^^^ Page1of3 5. Is the proposed action,. a. A permitted useunderthezoning regulations?Ov^ b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan?^V 6. Is the proposed action consistent with tlie predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin,a slate listed Critical Enviromnemal Area? If Yes, idcnlifv: 8. a. Willthe proposed actionresult in a substantial increase intraffic above present levels? b.Are public transportation servicefs)available at or near the site of the proposed action? c, Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site ofthe proposal action? 9. Does tlie proposedactionmeet or exceed the slate encrgj code requirements? Ifthe proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and teclmologies: 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? If No, describe method for providing potable water; 11.Will the proposed actionconnectto existing wa.stewaier utilities? If No.describe method for providing wasicwater treatment:_ 12. a. Docs the sitecontain a structure that is listed on either the Staleor NationalRegister of Historic Places? b.Is the proposed action located inan archeofogicai sensitive area? 13.a.Docs any portion ofthe site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain wetlandsor other watcrbodiesregulated by a federal,state or local agency? b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? If Yes.identify the wetland orwaterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: There is no, NO • NO 0 NO 0 0 JZI NO • NO • NO • NO 0 NO • 0 14 Identify the typical habitat tvpes that occur on.or are likely to be found on the project site.Check all that apply: •Shoreline •Forest •AgriculiuraPgrasslands O Early mid-successional •Wetland •Urban Suburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed by the Stale or Federal government as threatened or endangered? 16.Is the project site located inthe 100 year flood plain? 17.Will the proposed action create storm water di.schaige,either from point or non-point sources? m .I—1a.Will stomi water di.scharges flow to adjacent properties?NO ||YES b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systein.s (runolTand storm drains)? IfYes.briefly describe:1Z|N0 QyeS Page 2 of 3 NO a: NO / NO 0 VES 0 YES • YES • • Oj YES 0 YES 0 YES 0 VES VES 0 • VES YES • 18.Docs ihc proposed action include construction orother activities that result in the impoundment of water or other liquids (e.g.retention pond, waste lagoon,dam)? IfYes,explainpurposeandsize: 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property*been the locationof an active or closed solid waste management facility? If Yes, describe: 20. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining propertybeen the subject of remediation (ongoing or completed) for hazardous waste? If Yes.describe: NO 0 NO 0 NO 0 YES • YES n YES • I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name:t^mmond Signature: PRINT FORM Date:10/18/16 Page 3 of 3 EAF Mapper Summary Report Friday,October 21,2016 1:44 PM 53.-1-15.11 1 53.-1-15.12 •••53.-1-22.1 Disclaimer:The EAF Mapper is a screening toolintended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies In preparing an environmental assessment form (EAF) Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC. you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations. Juoiper 0' 53.-1-15.22 \53.-1-15.19 53.-1-15.202 Ithaca 53.-1-15.23 53.-1-15.13 55.-1-1 52.-1-8 Ottawa Montreal r'«.-c Toronto _/ Pllll.-ior iT^. / I* >betreit Mbany 53.-1-15.14 53.-1-16.1 53.-1-15.15 gj HERE,DeLcfme, Interrr^p.if^CREMENT P,NRCan'.Esri Japan,METI,Esri China I Hong Ktong),Esri Kcrsa.Esri I'fhaifend),Mapmylr.pia,NGCC, "OpensVeeiMsp centributCTS.anC the GiS Ctavdtnd r. f"•1 I • Pitt^urgh Cdurrftiuf r> loimaf _flo«ton vProvidence 'Scuc«,.-^,.m,E. DeLdttrfedilSGS,lnl«map, INCREMENT R NRCan,Esri E^nChina .'Hcng Part 1 /Question 7 [Critical Environfnental Area] Part 1 /Question 12a [National Register of Historic Places] Part 1 /Question 12b [Archeological Sites] Part 1 /Question 13a [Wetlands or Other Regulated Waterbodies] Part 1 /Question 15 [Threatened or Endangered Animal] Part 1 /Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain] Part 11 Question 20 [Remediation Site] No No No Yes -Digital mapping informationon local and federal wetlands and waterbodies is known to be incomplete.Refer to EAF Workbook. Yes Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. No Short Environmentai Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report Agency Use Only |lf applicable) Project:|104 Pineview Terrace Date: Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 -Impact Assessment 10/21/2016 Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency. Answerall of the followingquestions in Part 2 using the informationcontained in Part 1and other materials submitted by theprojectsponsoror otherwiseavailableto the reviewer. When answeringthe questionsthe reviewershouldbeguidedby theconcept"Have my responsesbeenreasonableconsideringthe scale and contextofthe proposedaction?" No,or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur 1.Will the proposedactioncreate a material conflict with an adopted land use planor zoning regulations?0 • 2. Will the proposedaction result in a change in the use or intensityof use of land?0 • 3. Will the proposedactionimpairthe characteror qualityof the existingcommunity?0 • 4. Willthe proposedactionhavean impacton the environmental characteristicsthat causedthe establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)?0 • 5. Willthe proposedactionresultin an adversechangein theexistinglevel of trafficor affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? 0 • 6. Willthe proposedactioncausean increaseinthe use of energyand it failsto incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 0 • 7. Will the proposed action impact existing: a. public / privatewater supplies? b. public / privatewastewater treatment utilities? 0 • 0 • 8. Willthe proposed actionimpairthecharacterorqualityof important historic,archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources?0 • 9. Willthe proposedaction resultin anadversechangeto naturalresources(e.g.,wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)? 0 • 10.Willthe proposedaction resultin an increasein the potentialforerosion, floodingor drainage problems?0 • 11.Will the proposedaction cTeate a hazardto environmental resourcesor human health?0 • PRINT FORM Page 1 of2 Agency Use Only (If applicable] Project:104 Pineview Terrsce Date:10/21/2016 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 Determination ofSignificance For ever>question in Part 2that was answered ••moderate to large impact ma\occur",or if there is a need to explain whya particular element ofthe proposed action may or will not result in a significant ad\erse en\ironmental impact,please complete Part 3. Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the leadagency determined that the impact may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring,duration,irreversibility.geographic scope and magnitude..Also consider the potential for short- term.long-term and cumulative impacts. Pan 2 ol"this form asksif thereare any Impacts that would createa significant environmental impact.All boxes are checked no or small impact,no impact applies to most of the questions. However,questions #2. 3, 5 and 7 would have small impacts because the increa.se in the number of occupants would increa.se each level of use for that question. This is based on the information provided in part 1and the narrative to each question in the Short En\ironmental Assessment Form (SEAF)Workbook. Therefore,this Board finds that allowing 4 more occupants toa single family home hasnoor little significant environmental impact. • • Check this box ifyou have determined, based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. Check this box ifyou have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Town Of Ithaca Zoning Board Nameofl.ead Agency Rob Rosen 11^ ate Chairperson Printor Tvpe Xapie of Responsible OlTicer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signatfire or Responsible Officer in Lead .Agency laiure of PreoaiSignatureofPreparer (if different from Responsible Officer) PRINT FORM Paiie 2 of 2