Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2016-02-22TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www. tow n. it h a ca. ny. us BcS^ CODE ENFORCEMENT - BRUCE W. BATES, DIRECTOR Phone (607) 273-1783 n Fax (607) 273-1704 codes@town. Ithaca. nv. us AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) I, Lori Kofoid, being duly sworn, depose and says, that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York. That on the I2th day of February 2016, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners listed on the attached document, of the following Tax Parcel Numbers: Mecklenburg Rd., Tax Parcel 27.-1-15.2, Area Variance 985 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel 42,-1-19, Determination & Use Variance 224 Forest Home Dr, Tax Parcel 66.-3-17, Area Variance By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York. -tori Kafoid, Deputy frdwn C|erk Town eft" Ithaca v y Sworn to^fare me this 12'^' Day of February 2016. Notary Public ^ NO01TE6156809 Rancich Family Lmt Partnership 310 N Aurora St Ithaca, NY 14850 Mecklenburg Rd TP 27.-1-15.2 John Littleflcld 1362 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Brent & Diana Katzmann 1335 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Miriam Palmer 237 Watertree Dr E Syracuse, NY 13057 Emily & Daryl Bern 1364 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Robin Botie 1341 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Franziska Bedzyk 1343 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Jan &. Susan Suwinski 451 Sheffield Rd Ithaca. NY 14850 Peter & Melissa Alario 1371 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 PeterTrowbridge & Nina Bassuk 1345 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Virginia McAuley 1367 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ecovillage At Ithaca Inc 100 Rachel Carson Way Ithaca, NY 14850 Debra Stauber 1365 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 YMCA of Ithaca and Tompkins County 50 Graham Road West Ithaca, NY 14850 985 Daiiby Rd TP 42.-1-19 Deborah Sue Martin 983 Danby Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca College 953 Danby Rd PRW322 Ithaca, NY 14850 Savino & Patricia Ferrara Robert Ferrara & Diane Hemly 979 Danby Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Althea and John Kelly 379 Hargrave St Inglewood, CA 90302 Gina Parker 989 Danby Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Charles O'Connor PC Box 6707 Ithaca, NY 14851 Ayman Abbad PC Box 836 Goshen,NY 10924 Longview Tompkins County IDA I Bella Vista Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca College 953 Danby Rd, PRW 322 Ithaca, NY 14850 224 Forest Home Dr TP 66.-3-17 Dan & Haya Novak I IS Halcyon Hill Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Forest Home Church & Parsonage 224 Forest Home Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 George & Helen Bayer 216 Forest Home Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Robert W Langhans Rev Trust 111 Halcyon Hill Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Charles & Harriet Brittain 214 Forest Home Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Sturt Manning 103 Crest Ln Ithaca, NY 14850 Andrew and Lane Galloway 104 Halcyon Hill Rd Ithaca, NY 148502714 Beth Kelly 105 Halcyon Hill Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Jenny Mann and Guy Ortolano 101 Halcyon Hill Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Mary Howard 220 Forest Home Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 William & Aloma McElwee 114 Kay St Ithaca, NY 14850 Frank Naples 110 Warren Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Randolph and Joann Little 111 Berkeley Cir Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Pierre and Linda Wellner 235 Forest Home Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 David Kuckuk 229 Forest Home Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Barbara Ellen Chambers 237 Forest Home Dr Ithaca. NY 14850 Tom & Kyllikki Inman 110 Halcyon Hill Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Michael and Suzanne Shipe Ahn 4848 7th St Carpinteria, CA 93013 Cornell University PO Box DH Ithaca. NY 14853 Brent & Susan Stephans 145 Forest Home Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Clinton Sidle 1736 Ellis Hollow Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Cornell University PO Box DH Ithaca, NY 14853 Michael Kandrach 217 Forest Home Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 The Marsha Lommel Rev Trust 7436 Karl Drive Lincoln, NE 68516 Linda Copman Rev Trust 210 Forest Home Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Poul & Montana Petersen 208 Forest Home Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Herbert Engman 120 Warren Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 m University John Footeand Kristen Rupert.iaLo Mv y^ialin and Emergency Services 228 Forest Home DrIthaca, NY 14850 395 pjne Tree Rd, Suite 210 Ithaca NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Lori Kofoid, being duly sworn, say that I am the Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompklns 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 OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Ithaca Journal Legal Section Friday February 2016 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting; Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tloga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Date of Posting: February 12, 2016 Date of Publication: February 16, 2016 Lorl Kofo Deputy Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) S)&/em to and subscribed before me this day of ,2016. Notdry PAULETTE TERWILtlGER Notary Pubik:, State of New York No. 01TE6156809Qualified In Tompkins County ^ Commission Expires December 4,20 TOVW OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday February 22, 2016 215 North Tioga StreeL Ithaca 6:00 P.M. Appeal ol Rancich Femiiy Limited Partnership, owner. Crown Casde & Venaon Wireless, applicants: and Jeffrey W. De^s. Barciay Dam on. Agent, requesting var iance from the requirements of 270-31A "Heif^tt Limita tions' to mstall a ICS' */- mo- n^jole cell tower when oriy a 36' tower is atowed. located on the north side of Mecklenburg Rd across from 1335 Mecklenburg Rd. Town of Ithaca. Tax Parcel No. 27.- 1-15.2. Agricultural Zone CAG). Appeal of Chailes O'Con nor. Jr. owner. Sayles and Evans Attorneys at Law. agent, requesting a delerrN- natlon per Chapter 270. Sec tion 270-S 'family' (D) of the Code of the Town of Ithaca as to whether the seven un related residents of 985 D%iby Rd are the funciiwd equivalent of a family, and if determined not to be the functional equivalent of a family, they request an area or use variance from Section 270-77(AX2) 'Permitted prirv ciple uses' of the Code of the Town of Ithaca (which lim its occupancy in a one-femily dwelling to no more than one family plus no more than one boarder, roomer, lodger, of other occupant), to allow theseven unrelated occupenl| (ss opposed to only three ui4 related occupants) to contk^ ue residing together througl) July 2016 8t 965 Danby Rd, Tax Pared No. 42.-1-19. Higl) Density Residentid CHDR). ' Appeal of Forest Home Church & Parsonage, ownerj and Mark Sawyer. Appkcantj requesting a vanance fronj Section 270-205 'Noncon- formfng stnjctures" and 270- 71(B) "Ysrd regulations' of the Code of the Town of Itha ca. to afiow a 8'4' x 10'3'ad dition in the rear yard setback area, and to add to a legdiy existir^ notvcsnfoimirvg structure, located at 224 For est Home Dr.. Tax Parcel No. 66--3-17. Medium Density Residenlid (MDR). Bruce W. Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273-1763 (Osted; ^xuary 12.2015 PubU^ed: Februsiy 16.2016 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday February 22,2016 6:00 P.M. Minutes Board Members Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Bill King, Christine Decker, and Chris Jung; Alternates George Vignaux and Caren Rubin (alternating voting on appeals during vacancy of one member) Staff Present: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Appeal of Rancich Family Limited Partnership, owner. Crown Castle & Verizon Wireless, applicants; and Jeffrey W. Davis, Barclay Damon, Agent, requesting variance from the requirements of 270-31A "Height Limitations" to install a 105' +/- monopole cell tower when only a 36' tower is allowed, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Rd across from 1335 Mecklenburg Rd, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-15.2, Agricultural Zone (AG). Mr. Davis reviewed the pictures of the balloon fly which showed that the balloon was not visible from almost every stated site. Mr. Rosen noted that the public hearing remained open from last month and asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the board on this appeal. There was no one, and the hearing was closed. Board discussion Mr. Rosen referred to the minutes of the last meeting and he thought there was a sense that this is a necessary infrastructure to provide service to the public and it was far from the road with a tree line that the board would condition remaining to help mitigate any detriment to the view. Based on that recollection, he thought the board felt the positives outweighed the negatives. Ms. Brock discussed the additional photos submitted tonight and the applicant noted that those were for the single spot requested by the town that was not submitted last time along with a few others to show different angles and views that were not specifically requested by the Town. Ms. Brock thought the additional photos addressed the concerns voiced by the public at the last meeting and Ms. Balestra detailed how the cone of view in the submitted photos show the viewshed will not be affected. She stated that there will be times on Mecklenburg Road that you will be able to see it but it is 1,300 feet into the property and one would have to be specifically looking for the pole to notice it. Ms. Balestra, who is the Planner who has brought this application through the Planning Board and Zoning Board processes, did not think the SEQR needed to be changed ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 1 ZBA Resolution 0065-2015 SEQR Height Variance for Verizon Mono Pole 1335 Mecklenburg Rd TP 27.-1-15.2 February 22,2016 Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information provided in Parts 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the Environmental Assessment form. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Christine Decker Vote: Ayes - Rubin, Rosen, King, Decker, and Jung ZBA Resolution 0065-2015 Height Variance Verizon Mono Pole 1335 Mecklenburg Rd TP 27.-1-15.2 February 22,2016 Resolved, that this board grants the appeal of Rancich Family Limited Partnership as listed in the notice of appeal with the following: Condition 1. That the tree line on the east side of the property and the trees in the northeast comer of the property be preserved. The trees form a tree line and the woods form a backdrop and the effect of both of those things are to provide a very tall background for the tower being they are almost as tall as the tower and they will mitigate any impact. The existing tree line on the east border of the property extending about halfway toward Mecklenburg Road from the tower be preserved as a tree line and the existing patch of woods on the northeast comer of the property, that is shown on the photo map also be preserved to keep a backdrop or visual screen and providing substantially the same screening that is present today, for the tower. No clear cutting can happen but cutting for safety reasons is permissible. 2. That the tower be built as substantially shown in the submission materials with the lighting rod as discussed at the Planning Board. With the following Findings 1. The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically, that the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, which is good cell phone signal coverage provided by a tower of this height, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, and ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 2 2. There will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the surrounding trees are very tall, the tower is very far from the road and houses, and that some trees are almost as tall as the tower. 3. That the request is substantial given that the maximum permitted height is 36 feet and the tower is 105 feet, and 4. The tower will not have adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in the SEQR form, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant seeks to lease the land for a cell phone tower, but the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux Vote: Ayes - Rosen, King, Decker, Vignaux and Carin Abstention - Jung Appeal of Charles O'Connor, Jr, owner, Sayles and Evans Attorneys at Law, agent, requesting a determination per Chapter 270, Section 270-5 "Family" (D) of the Code of the Town of Ithaca as to whether the seven unrelated residents of 985 Danby Rd are the functional equivalent of a family, and if determined not to be the functional equivalent of a family, they request an area or use variance from Section 270-77(A)(2) "Permitted principle uses" of the Code of the Town of Ithaca (which limits occupancy in a one-family dwelling to no more than one family plus no more than one boarder, roomer, lodger, or other occupant), to allow the seven unrelated occupants (as opposed to only three unrelated occupants) to continue residing together through July 2016 at 985 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 42.-1-19, High Density Residential (HDR). Megan Collins, Attorney on behalf of Mr. O'Connor read a prepared statement: Mr. O'Connor, as noted in the application materials, owns a .78 acre parcel located at 985 Danby Route, also known as State Route 96B within the high density residential zone. That property is improved with a 2,800 square foot single family residence with an attached 2-car garage. The front is on Danby Rd and is adjoined at the south and east by Ithaca College property as well as a private residence to the north. The property is well maintained and buffered by trees along its borders. Mr. O'Connor appeals to your board for a determination that the seven individuals that reside at the property and are all full-time graduate students at Ithaca College, are the functional equivalent of a family pursuant to section 270-5 of the Town Code and specifically subsections D and F thereto. Mr. O'Connor did originally apply in the alternative for an area variance to allow those individuals to reside together until July of this year in the event that your board were to find that they didn't meet the functional equivalent of a family. Recently, the Town Attorney determined that the variance would be a Use Variance, not an Area Variance and Mr. O'Connor has decided not to pursue a Use Variance, so we are ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 3 primarily here seeking your board's determination that these seven individuals do meet, amount the functional equivalent of a family. Pursuant to 270-77 A2, a single family residence in the high density residential districts may be occupied by one family, plus one boarder, roomer or lodger. In terms, "family" is defined by section 275 to mean, in pertinent parts, two unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit. That means that without any findings by the board, that three unrelated individuals could reside in a single family home within the high density residential district, assuming other code compliance. As your board is surely aware, there is no corresponding limitations on the number of individuals that may reside together as a single housekeeping unit who are related by blood, adoption or marriage. Pursuant to subsection d of 270-F, under the definition of Family, a group of unrelated persons numbering more than two shall be considered a family based upon a determination by your board. Again, that they are a functional equivalent in accordance with subsection F. In turn, subsection F requires a finding by your board of three things; First that the group is one which in theory, size, appearance and structure, resembles a traditional family unit; Second, that the group is one that will live and cook together as a single housekeeping unit and; Third, that the group is of a permanent nature and is not merely a framework for transient or seasonal living. And with respect to that third criterion, a number of factors are then set forth that your board of course can consider. So as discussed in detail in our application letter we do respectfully request that these seven individuals residing at the property satisfy these three criteria. The seven individuals, as I noted, are full time graduate students at Ithaca College and they have lived together for coming up on two years at the property and prior to that lived together on campus at Ithaca College. They intended to continue residing together at the property until at least July of 2017. Those plans recently changed when Mr. O'Connor voided their lease in light of the instant proceedings. While the Code does not define what constitutes a traditional family, the seven individuals function as many families do, notably, they signed a single, full-term lease agreement for the property and are jointly responsible for the rent thereunder. They share a bank account for household expenses. They share utility expenses pursuant to a single account with each utility provider. They shop and pay for groceries and other items together. They cook together, sharing dinner an average of 3-4 times a week and breakfast on the weekends. They share a washer and dryer and are collectively responsible for household chores and notably, they celebrate holidays together, close friends and recreate and travel together, car pool together and have selected and purchased household furnishings together. Additionally, five out of the seven are employed on a part time basis. Based on that information, we do submit that they are indeed the functional equivalent of a family. ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 4 Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to address the board on the topic and the hearing was closed. Board discussion Mr. Rosen stated that he was surprised to get this request that seven college students be considered a family. He was struck by the extreme weakness of this case on almost every aspect. They have only been living together since they have illegally occupied this house; that is the entire basis for their family cohabitation, not counting that they lived in a dorm together in college. He did not see any kind of similarity to a traditional family at all, in size, appearance or structure. They are all the same age, none of them support each other. It doesn't in any way resemble a traditional family unit but to him, it resembles seven college students living together in a single-family house that was bought by an experienced real estate investor and also, it turns out, was illegally renovated from a 3 bedroom house to a 7 bedroom house and rented to a group of 7 college students. He did not see any way that this was a traditional family. Mr. Vignaux stated that based on past precedent by this board, there is a similarity to other cases that have been approved and Mr. Rosen responded, no, there is a similarity to a recent case that was not approved and a similarity to a case before that that was approved and there were cases before that that were not approved. There was a case that was not approved and then a case that was approved where the people were actually related to each other; sons and husbands and wives and children and they were related to each other. Ms. Brock stated that she didn't know if the board wanted to characterize all those cases as similar or not because each one needs to be looked at with the specific facts of who are the individuals, or what their relationship to each other and then you look at the Town Code factors and you apply the facts that relate to this particular application that apply to those factors. She said she thought the one Mr, Vignaux was thinking about that was approved, it was actually quite different from the one that just recently was not approved in terms of where people were registered to vote, where their cars were licensed, what address showed on their registrations, where they filed their income taxes, what address showed on the income taxes, and more. There was a whole slew of things that the board looked at and the last two were quite different from each other, and she stated that the board really needs to look at the specifics of this application. She added that if the board needs more information, they can ask the applicant for that, about the specifics of the people who are living there now and then apply the factors in the Code to this particular one. Ms. Brock stated that she thought for the one that was approved in 2011, the board found that the finding was so specific to that group of people, that if one person moved out and somebody else wanted to move in in their place, they would have to come back for another interpretation as to whether that constituted a family or not; it was that specific. Mr. Rosen responded that the board did not have any specifics on these seven college students. We don't have voter registrations, tax returns or even addresses from driver's ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 5 licenses. We know that they were living together in a college dorm before they started living illegally in this house. Mr. Vignaux added that they weren't living exclusively with each other in the dorm, there were other people there and Mr. Rosen agreed saying he can't see how anybody can consider college students living together in a dorm is a functional equivalent of a family. This whole situation arose in response to wanting to occupy a single family house by seven people, seven college students. Ms. Rubin stated that she agreed and doesn't think the activities listed are not activities that seven housemates might share anyway. Mr. King responded that it seems to be a weaker case than the one we just had (he was referring to a case in 2014) which was much stronger. Ms. Collins responded that they did submit the minutes from a prior case in 2011 from Honness Lane in which the group were also graduate students and they also resided together only in the subject premises for the same amount of time that the individuals here have resided together. Some, but not all of those individuals, changed their legal residences and the board discussed that in detail in the minutes. They focused more on the fact that they did sign a single lease, shared expenses, participated in cooking and eating together, celebrated holidays and for all intents and purposes acted as a family would, so I would submit that that is very similar to the facts of this case. Ms. Brock asked a follow up question, saying that in the case in 2011, they had actually lived together somewhere else, and their intent was to live together for a total of five years. Ms. Collins agreed but said they had only lived together for a year and a half at those particular premises. Ms. Brock asked Ms. Collins if she knew what address these seven individuals in the instant case use on their income tax returns and Ms. Collins stated that she knew they had not changed their official voter registration or other legal residence forms to the 985 Danby Road, but again, that falls within one of the factors that the board "may" consider but doesn't have to in order to reach that third criterion. Ms. Brock responded that in terms of voter registration, income tax returns, auto registrations; none of that reflect the address of where they are living here and Ms. Collins responded not that they are aware of. Ms. Collins said that it is a 12-month lease, they have been there for two years and they intended to continue to reside there. Mr. King asked what the status of the lease was and Ms. Collins responded that it is set to expire in July, and pending what happens here. They wanted to continue to reside at the property, but in light of the Order to Remedy, Mr. O'Connor, in a good faith effort, to try and remedy the situation, voided the renewal. Ms. Brock asked if the one bank account that they had referenced to pay the rent and asked if they had other bank accounts as well and Ms. Collins responded they do and Ms. Brock asked what else they fund out of their separate bank accounts; everything besides the costs related to ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 6 living at this place? Ms. Collins responded yes, eveiything else. Ms. Brock said "then they are not supporting each other in any other way besides sharing the rent and things like that?" and Ms. Collins responded they share groceries, rent, things like that, and other amenities. Ms. Brock asked if they all live in the house all twelve months of the year? Ms. Collins - yes Ms. Brock asked if any of them leave at any time during the twelve months and Mr. O'Connor stated they do not. Ms. Brock asked if they spend every holiday at this house or do they go home to their other families, or birth families? Mr. O'Connor responded that he knows they spend some holidays at the house in question and Ms. Brock asked if they are all together when they are away from the house or are they in different locations and Mr. O'Connor responded (inaudible). Mr. Bates noted that the landlord was notified of this illegality back in September so to say they have been living there for that period of time is... Mr. Rosen interjected that the landlord obviously knew that this was illegal. He is an experienced landlord and it is a single-family house with the three unrelated limit and he obviously knew. Ms. Collins responded that it is only illegal if this board makes the determination that they are not living there as a functional equivalent of a family. Mr. Rosen responded that he obviously knew almost a year ago that they had to come to the board to make this detennination. He waited until he got caught, and then came here. Mr. Rosen asked Mr. Bates how he came to be aware of the code violation, and Mr. Bates said that he became aware of it because the neighbors complained. Mr. O'Connor responded, saying he purchased the home in March of 2013 and from March to July he rented the home to 3 people individually. That following year, he did lease it to six people, from 2014 -2015. He stated that he wasn't a seasoned investor when he purchased this home and actually lived in Connecticut until January of last year. This was the second investment property that he purchased in the Town and City of Ithaca. He has invested quite a bit since then in more property, but to say he was a seasoned investor and landlord at that time is not accurate. Not knowing the law is no excuse for why he is here today, however, he stated that his realtor told him that he would not have a problem renting the house provided he had a certain clause in his lease and he offered to read the clause. Mr. Rosen asked who the realtor was and Mr. O'Connor stated that he purchased the house through Tam Lam from Warren Real Estate. Mr. Rosen asked what clause she told him to put in the lease and Mr. O'Connor responded that he was told it was common that landlords were putting in a clause and when he purchased the house and had four people living there, he did decide to rent to a group of six and the reason he decided to do that was because he put a mortgage in place with a very reputable loan officer he had spoken to about this and he told me that provided I have this provision in my lease, that says: "Functioning equivalent to a family. Tenants live together as a functioning equivalent to a family. Tenants agrees to share the entire dwelling of the unit together as a single housekeeping unit and tenants that they are not to share separate rooms or boarders. The Tenant agrees to share expenses for food, rent, and other ownership costs, utilities and rent. The bedrooms are large and spacious but only one tenant or subtenant shall be allowed to occupy any one bedroom. The Tenants submit that they are a permanent and stable unit and will ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 7 use the address of 985 Danby Rd for mail and use of other incidental legal residencies. The Tenants agree to common ownership of furniture and appliances among the members of the household and it is their intent not to determine, but intend to reside at the Town of Ithaca for at least one year during that period," Mr. O'Connor stated that this was given to him by other landlords and he didn't make this up. Mr. Rosen responded that Warren Real Estate mis-advised you and he was surprised by that because they should know the code of the town of Ithaca and he was surprised that Mr. O'Connor thought that he could add four bedrooms to a house without a building permit. He noted that the there is an article in the Ithaca Times which states that Mr. O'Connor is developing 10 townhouses in Vama so he knows what he is doing, so to add four bedrooms to a house without getting a building permit seems unexplainable. Mr. O'Connor responded that he added three bedrooms. Mr. Rosen asked if he didn't need building permits in Connecticut, and Mr. O'Connor responded that wasn't the case, and stated that he was out of town and took his contractor's advice here and it was not good advice. Ms. Collins added that those building permit applications have been filed and although it is not the order it should have happened it, those have been filed. Ms. Decker asked if when he renovated the house, he was expecting to renovate it to rent to a family of seven or eight or was he expecting to rent it to students and Mr. O'Connor responded either or. Mr. Rosen stated that he is not convinced that these seven people are a family. The fact that they don't have the same addresses on their driver's licenses and that they go home to their other families on the holidays sometimes just convinces me more and more that they are not a functional equivalent of a family. Ms. Jung stated that the board doesn't have enough information as far as addresses and such to make a determination of a family. Ms. Decker added we don't have any proof or anything that says or describes them as a family. Mr. Rosen stated that it sounded like nobody was convinced that they are a family and moved to SEQR. Ms. Brock noted that this is not only an interpretation but this is a determination that the board makes under the Code which is different than interpreting because this is actually a determination with criteria the Code sets out. It is an action that needs SEQR. Ms. Brock noted Mr. Bates change on Part 1, number 2 indicating that a building permit would be needed because he would not have been legally allowed that many people without adding the bedrooms which he didn't have a building permit for. Ms. Brock agreed the change was appropriate. Ms. Brock had a change on page 2, number 5; is it a permitted use. She explained that this question is difficult because it is permitted if the ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 8 board were to make the determination that it is an equivalent family but it isn't if you don't. Ms. Brock suggested deleting the "yes" answers and stating that "Answer depends on ZBA's determination on whether or not this is a functional equivalent to a family." Board agreed. Ms. Brock asked the applicant if they were withdrawing the request for a variance. Ms. Collins responded that they did not want to seek a Use Variance and because you indicating that you would be advising the board that this shouldn't be an Area Variance, we are withdrawing that request. Ms. Brock explained to the board that she had talked to Ms. Collins last week about this appeal because they had requested an Area Variance and she had done some research and the cases that are similar to this required a Use Variance. They are seeking to put in more individuals than the town's definition of family allows. If the board were to find that there is no functional equivalent to a family and they were to seek a variance, it would be a Use Variance because they are trying to change the definition in the code; what they are really seeking is 3 families living in one house - 2 unrelated, plus 2 unrelated, plus 2 unrelated with one border and that is a Use Variance. Ms. Brock stated that the record should reflect that they have formally withdrawn their request for a variance. Ms. Brock turned back to the SEQR and left 5b as yes. Mr. Bates noted that he changed number 6 to "no" because of the term "large significant number of people" in the SEQR handbook. Ms. Collins stated that the "built landscape" refers to the building and this action was not increasing the size of the building and therefore it is no. She felt this question referred to external character. Mr. Bates read from the SEQR handbook under background for this question: "Will the proposed activity introduce a different level or kind of activity in the area that is different than what currently exists?" He thought this would increase the activity of what is there but Ms. Brock thought it would be the same answer as number 5 if the board thought that it is but added that some families have seven people living in a single family house and she thought both yes and no should be crossed out with the same answer given as number 5 because by answering yes or no you are presupposing the answer of the determination. Mr. Rosen stated that there is a lot of agreement in the town that seven college students living in a house is not the same as seven people in a single family home. It is a big issue in this town, and the town, in general, feels that it is a difference in character and that is why the Code is written. Ms. Brock responded that is correct and that is why the answer depends on the determination. Mr. Bates turned to Part 3 responding to numbers 2,3,5, and 7 in part 2 stating that there would be small impacts but Mr. Rosen stated that a family of 7 would not have 7 cars so there is a traffic impact. Ms. Collins responded that there are 5 cars there now. Mr. Rosen responded that it is generally accepted that seven college students have a larger ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 9 impact than a traditional family of seven, in terms of traffic and trash but Ms. Brock responded that the board has to look at this group, who are graduate students from the information in the record. Mr. Rosen was concemed that saying no impact was not accurate and Ms. Brock responded that it is saying there is some, but small and if the board decided it was significant, the applicant would have to do an Impact Statement so the key here is the threshold for "significant." Mr. Rosen responded that he would take her advice, but didn't understand how doubling an occupancy would have no impact and Ms. Brock asked but does that become a significant impact. She felt the discussion was appropriate and Mr. Bates added that the board is not saying no to those impacts, just that it is smaller and not to the level of significant. ZBA Resolution No. 0068-2015 SEQR Determination of a Functional Family Equivalent 985 Danby Road TP42.-1-19 February 22,2016 Moved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information provided in Parts 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the Environmental Assessment form. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Caren Rubin. Vote: Ayes - Rubin, Rosen, King, Decker, and Jung ZBA Resolution No. 0068-2015 Determination Determination of a Functional Family Equivalent 985 Danby Road TP42.-1-19 February 22,2016 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 in 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; none of them have lived together in the past, except in a college dorm, even though they are all at least 20 years old, and 2. The attorney for the applicant states in a letter within the application that the group lives and cooks together as a single housekeeping unit, but many roommates do that, but they do live and cook together sometimes, and 3. That the group is not of a permanent nature because household expenses are shared but no others are and the lease is for one year. They do not comingle their income account and they are together as long as they are amenable to it and we have not been presented with any ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 10 information showing that the students intend to live together after they receive their graduate degrees, and 4. To the best of the board's knowledge, none of the group have the Danby Road address on voter registrations, driver's license, motor vehicle registrations or filing of income taxes and they have never lived together previously except in the same college dorm, and 5. The house is rented as furnished and major appliances are provided by the landlord 6. There are no children, so whether children attend local schools is not applicable, and 7. They are employed in the local area but the board has not been presented with information that they have significant employment outside of their graduate student employment, and 8. The group has not lived together in a single family houseexcept for the 18 months they have been living illegally in the current house, and the landlord should have been aware of the regulations because he was advised by his presumably local attorney and real estate agent, and 9. The board finds that no other factor reasonably related to whether or not the group of persons is a functional equivalent of a traditional family except for the letter that states they celebrate pumpkin carving and Christmas decorating together, and this board does not find that persuasive because the landlord has stated that he believes some of them go away for some holidays to be with their real families. The board finds that many groups of fiiends and tenants that live in houses together celebrate some holidays together and the things that they do are not something that families do more than something that fnends or tenants do. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Vote: Ayes - Rosen, Decker, King Jung and Vignaux Unanimous Appeal of Forest Home Church & Parsonage, owner, and Mark Sawyer, Applicant, requesting a variance from Section 270-205 "Nonconforming structures" and 270-71(B) "Yard regulations" of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to allow a 8'4" x 10'3" addition in the rear yard setback area, and to add to a legally existing non-conforming structure, located at 224 Forest Home Dr., Tax Parcel No. 66.-3-17, Medium Density Residential (MDR). Mark Sawyer was present to answer questions from the board and gave m overview of the project stating that this restroom is needed to accommodate those parishioners who need assistance given that the only restroom right now is in the basement accessed by a stair chair and it is not very usable or convenient. The request is to put in an ADA compliant restroom attached to the shed addition, not the historic portion of the building. Audio unexpectedly quit. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and two residents spoke in strong favor of the variance. Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. In drafting the resolution, the board decided to use the applicant's findings with a few minor changes. ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 11 ZBA Resolution 0001-2016 SEQR Area Variance — Forest Home Chapel Bathroom 224 Forest Home Dr TP 66.-3-17 February 22,2016 Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information provided in Parts 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the Environmental Assessment form. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Christine Decker Note: Ayes - Rosen, Decker, Jung, King and Vignaux ZBA Resolution 0001-2016 Area Variance Forest Home Chapel Restroom Addition 224 Forest Home Dr. TP 66.-3-17 February 22,2016 Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Forest Home Church & Parsonage, owner, and Mark Sawyer, Applicant, requesting a variance from Section 270-205 "Nonconforming structures" and 270-71(B) "Yard regulations" of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to allow a 8'4" X 10 3 addition in the rear yard setback area, and to add to a legally existing non-conforming structure with the following Conditions 1. That the exterior of the addition match the existing historical chapel, and 2. That the setback be no less than 17 feet 6 inches or the existing setback, whichever is less, and 3. That the addition be built substantially as shown on the application materials. And with the following Findings 1. That there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties because The Forest Home Chapel (Chapel or FHC) is currently located as far to the rear property line as possible without encroaching into the hillside. The addition proposed (90 sqft) is the minimal addition to the building necessary to provide an ADA-compliant restroom for the Chapel. The addition encroaches no further into the rear setback than the existing structure. Due to the slope of the hillside (or localized topography), the land located immediately behind the Chapel cannot reasonably be developed. This results in distances and open spaces between structures on the adjoining ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 12 properties actually being significantly larger than they might otherwise be required to conform to under the Code. The developed properties along, and Halcyon Hill Road to the rear of the Chapel have rear setbacks of over 60 feet due to topography. Therefore, the overall appearance of development is consistent with the distribution of the desired open space between buildings within the neighborhood. While FHC is not suggesting that it should receive the advantage of another property's topographic limitations, topography does minimize the impacts of the proposal on the overall character of the neighborhood since general open space distribution remains consistent with Code. 2. That the benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means feasible; The Chapel has looked at interior alterations in order to accommodate £in accessible restroom but due to the need for existing facilities to meet the Chapel's mission and continue to provide the range of services it provides today, it has been determined that the same space lost to an ADA restroom would need to be recovered in a new addition. The first floor includes only a small office and conference room and the sanctuary. Providing the ADA accommodation in the basement would require an elevator and conversion of the downstairs restroom to an ADA-compliant restroom. Therefore, the addition of an elevator would result in the loss of more existing space in total, more disruption to the Chapel architecture, and ultimately a larger addition than is proposed. 3. That the request is substantial but the addition is the minimum area necessary to accommodate an ADA-Compliant restroom and internal tum-around areas at approximately 90 sqfl. While the encroachment is significant (12ft) at 40% of the rear setback area it is not substantial in that it is the same as the setback of the existing Chapel and, as discussed in Criteria A, due to topography the resulting open space between structures is not diminished below the distribution that would otherwise be achieved under the Code. 4. That there will not be any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; The minimal nature of the addition and the fact that it is located against a hillside where development cannot occur and does not encroach into the hillside limit impacts to the physical and environmental conditions to the maximum extent practicable. The construction does not impact any sensitive habitat or drainages; Not being able to add an ADA-compliant restroom to meet State and Federal standards and the needs of the Chapel's members and visitors, and community members places the Chapel's long-term health at risk. The loss of the Chapel from the Forest Home Community as a community center as a result of not being able to fully-accommodate those with mobility limitations would have a much more detrimental impact on the conditions of the neighborhood than the small addition proposed. This addition is critical to removing barriers to use of this important community center and ensure the fiscal health of the Chapel. 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that there is no way the Chapel would have planned for ADA access even 50 years ago. It wasn't part of the world's thinking. The Chapel tumed ICQ years old in 2015.We have used this opportunity to renew our commitment to being in this community another 100 years by investing our physical ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 13 infrastructure. The Chapel predates the zoning. Further, the Chapel existed prior to the requirement to provide an ADA restroom. While the Chapel has tried to make reasonable acconunodation inside with a chair lift and a few restroom enhancements, they are totally inadequate to serve the needs of those with mobility limitations. Having to ride a chair down the stairs in order to visit the restroom while having someone carry your wheel chair or other mobility device down the stairs for you, seems a totally inadequate response to our friends and neighbors. The Chapel is determined at this critical juncture to meet the needs of everyone who desires to worship at PRC or utilize our facility for meetings in the community by removing barriers. This particular physical barrier was created far before anyone thought of such accommodations as important This is a very unique circumstance for a defining community building in Forest Home and does not diminish the zoning standard in any way. The convergence of zoning. State and Federal law, and our realization of how much better we need to do in removing barriers have created this difficulty. So many historic buildings and facilities have been abandoned due to the complexities of making accommodation. FHC can achieve this through a small addition that has minimal impact on the character of the community or environment. Failure to remedy this barrier would result in serious difficulties in helping to ensure the Chapel's continued service to its members and the community. Moved by Rod Rosen, seconded by Christine Decker Vote: Ayes - Rosen, Decker, Jung, King and Rubin. Unanimous Other business Mr. Rosen moved the approval of the January minutes, seconded by Mr. Vignaux. Unanimous Mr. Bates reviewed the agenda for March. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Submitted^y Paulette Terwilliger Town Clerk ZBA 2-22-2016 pg. 14