Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1982-06-07 w i i j j BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY' OF 1THACA NEW YORK JUNE 7 , 1982 n {; TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ; APPEAL NO. 1442 Jason Fane 1 �{ 119-121 Dryden Road j I ( APPEAL NO. 1442 Executive Session 13 11APPEAL NO. 1437 Michael A. Skibinski 14 i� 205-207 East Yates Street { APPEAL NO. 1437 Executive Session 15 !,! APPEAL NO. 1438 Edward C. Devereux 16 f j 142 Hawthorne Place j 11APPEAL NO. 1438 Executive Session 18 ii iAPPEAL NO. 1439 David Lorenzini 19 j 303 Hillview Place IAPPEAL NO. 1439 Executive Session 20 ; APPEAL NO. 1440 Geoffrey R. Banfield 21 803-805 Cascadilla Street ; APPEAL NO. 1440 Executive Session 22 i i ' APPEAL NO. 1441 Kathleen Loehr-Balada 23 ! 303 Richard Place j ! APPEAL NO. 1441 Executive Session 24 j: APPEAL NO. 1442 Jason Pane 1 119-121 Dryden Road , APPEAL NO. 1442 Executive Sesssion 13 I i IIAPPEAL NO. 1443 Withdrawn by� appellant i {i ; APPEAL NO. 1444 Kenneth and Antoinette bangerter 25 120 Columbia Street I APPEAL NO. 1444 Executive Session 25 1 f� " APPEAL NO. 1445 To be heard in July I r i i1APPEAL NO. 1446 Vasil ,os and Ruth Zikakis 27 i I 416 Elmira Road {{ APPEAL NO. 1446 Executive Session 36 37 ; CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY { ,I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 73, 1982 r ;, CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I ' ll call this hearing to order. This is a ,, formal public hearing for a number of cases listed on the agenda. ;' First I 'd like to introduce our Board: Donna Ward Bette Bagnardi Peggy Haine Charles Weaver, Chairman William Wilcox (arrived at ; 7 : 45 P.M. ) Peter Dieterich, Acting Secy $ Dep. Bldg Comm. Barbara Ruane , Recording Secretary Absent : Toni Bush Stevenson ,; This hearing is under the rules of the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Ithaca. The Board will not be bound by strict rules ''sof evidence in the conduct of the hearing but the determination , shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the i same . We request that all participants identify themself as to ', name and address and confine their discussions to pertinent facts of the case under consideration. We will also ask anyone who ( gives testimony to come forward to this microphone so that your ;' testimony will be recorded properly. If you make comment from 1 i' ' the audience it will not be a matter of record and will just delay , the hearing. Cases will be heard in numerical order as listed and after hearing all cases the Board will retire into executive '; session. Upon conclusion of that executive session the Board will { : reconvene into public hearing and interested parties may receive ;' verbal information as to the results of any decisions. We have ;; just a quorum ordinarily there are six members of the Board ;'. and we have just a quorum that will require four positive votes 'ito sustain an action. I ' d like to call the first case please. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 7 , 1982 ie ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next case is appeal number 1442 : Appeal of Jason Fane for an area variance under Section 30. 25 , Columns 4 , 5 , 10, 12 , 13 and 14 for deficiencies in off- street parking , off- street loading , maximum lot coverage , minimum setbacks for both side yards , and minimum rear yard setback, to permit construction of a one- story retail building at 119-121 Dryden Road. The property is located in a B-2a use district , in which the existing use for retail is permitted; however, under Section 30. 25 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficien- cies before a building permit can be issued for the new construction. ; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Now, your case has just been called and read - i� ';, you would like to speak in favor of your application, you are on. '! You have to come up to the front here , this mike is on, is attached ,, to the tape recorder so we will be able to get your testimony on i tape. MR. FANE: My name is Jason Fane, I live at 133 N. Quarry Street , in the City of Ithaca. This is an application for permission to I = construct a one-story retail building in the 100 block of Dryden !i Road - that is between Eddy Street and College Avenue and it is B i! idirectly opposite the proposed Performing Arts Center which Cornell is talking about building and also the proposed parking ramp that tr the City is going to build. And the key issue as I see it here f =` is that under the present zoning what is a very important site - ;potentially one of the critical sites in Collegetown is so restric i ;, ted that the land would have to be vastly under-utilized because of the multiplicity of restrictions - there is no single restric- i I ;: tion but when you take the parking requirement which would be obviated if the City built the parking ramp and the side lots and - 2 - the rear lot and the percentage of lot coverage and there are some ; ;; other requirements which you mention - it' s only possible to build ! �I on a small percentage of the lot and my architect, Mr. Sharma, will;', Abe giving a more technical presentation of these points . And yet ' despite this current zoning situation I think there is a consensus : ;' that has been reached by the Common Council , by vote of 10 to 2 i :: and by the City Planning Department which is working to promote % development in Collegetown that the time has come for a renaissance; . in this important area right at the entrance to our great univer- ' sity, Cornell . So the thrust of this application is to make it ,possible for me to go ahead within the spirit of what I think the i City Government has decided that they want to do - what Cornell ;,wants to do - what the Council has voted 10 to 2 they would like + to see happen and to build a building which is for use which is ;; consistent with the area. It is already a commercial district, ; there is no question about use and for a project which is consis- tent with and actually is smaller than the kind of project that '!has been approved by this Board for other owners in the immediate :; area. I understand that you approved for Mr. Lambrou on the corner, !of the same block - a four-story building with no set backs of iany kind, you also approved the Turk Brothers , a one-story building; ;;again with no set backs of any kind, and I understand from Mr. Avramis that you approved a five-story building and these are all within maybe 100 or 200 feet so that it seems to me I am currentiX i.n the position where I am being discriminated against by what ;;would be called spot zoning if someone were to request this kind of differential zoning and therefore I request that you approve i this. My architect, Mr. Sharma, will make the presentation and i we will both be here to answer questions and then maybe I 'll sum up :;ia little bit. Thank you for listening. I 3 - i i '' MR. SHARMA: My name is Jagat Sharma and I live at 110 Maplewood Drive in Ithaca, New York. I have a set of drawings. I 'm the i ,` architect on the project. The project we have is a proposed build- ling at 119-121 Dryden Road. It is located right in the heart of ' Collegetown - College Avenue , Eddy Street and Dryden Road. Now I the location of this property is very important for all develop- I .!ment that has to take place in the collegetown area and we are ,. aware of all the studies that have been taking place over the last ] jeight - nine years . We are also aware that some are under way andf s, ;!some are being undertaken by the Planning Department and this is i 1 to incorporate a master plan for Collegetown development, in con- junction with what Cornell proposes to build a Performing Arts I ;Theater. Now because of the importance of the site of our proposal it is in no way negating what the master plan - or what discussion ;!that we have had with the city Planning Board. In fact we are in ktotal agreement - what they want to do and what we are proposing to do. The basic disagreement that we have so far is the timing i ! of the project and I ' ll go into detail on that. Now after I bought; ;'the property - it is located in the B- 2a zone and our building is None-story building which will be used for commercial retail sub- ,divided into five or six small stores , so as far as the land use 'is concerned we are in total compliance with the Board of Zoning. i'But we are not in compliance with the other requirements of the zoning . We are not in compliance with the parking requirements , ' the lot coverage , the front yard - the front yard is in compliance „ the side yard and the rear yard. Now before we came to the conclu- ! sion, we studied the site , we made a total investigation of the ;various requirements by the Zoning Ordinance and we come to a very estrange conclusionthat on the site that if we allow the fiveI i i 4 - I feet side yard on one side and the ten feet side yard on the other ; .; side and fifteen percent in the back, we get a building that can cover 68. 37% . Now that doesn't comply with the lot coverage. So iwe said, okay, lot coverage of 50% , we go to 50% - then we get a building that is much smaller. But, doing that , then we do not '. comply - we have no way to provide the required parking spaces at one car space per 500 square feet of the building. Now to comply -' i that part of the requirement - we get a building that is 42 . 82% . Now in the final picture - to comply with everything that the Zon- i sing Ordinance requires we get a building which is 42 . 82% which is less than the 50% minimum for the particular site. Now we have ! 'two reasons for it not going along with 42 . 82% building. First i , is economic. To buy a site in today' s interest rates and just to ,,build 43% , just to round it off, building is not an incentive to , ''build in today' s market. The owner is paying a mortgage at high ';interest rate and development of taxes and everything else, so that E ', is one of the reasons that we think that the present Zoning Ordi ;finance is kind of obsolete if you want to see some kind of develop- i ment in the Collegetown area. Second is , and I think we have a i ktotal agreement with the city planning Board, that if we build only! 43% building, we can - there is - not denying of the fact - that we don' t even have to come here , we can go ahead and build a build-! ;Jing of 43% but that is not our intention. We want to comply, at ;least work in the same direction that the Planning Board is working} ,,!and that is to not put a small building in a big parking lot. We { !`want to see something on Dryden Road that will reinforce the street;, we want to see something that will create some kind of a continuity i 'of pedestrian traffic between College Avenue and Eddy Street and !we had discussions with the Planning Board and they are in agreement f S and precisely for the very reason. They are ready to study the 41 `; Zoning Ordinance and make a recommendation that this will be ! changed because another small building is not what is needed in the' Collegetown area. So in our proposal we are proposing a building (which will cover 93% . We are leaving six feet rear yard in the a ' back - that will be , if the building gets divided into several small 1retail stores , it will be the second means of egress and the owner owns the property on the right side or the left side of the prop erty facing it . Then you can connect this rear yard through the ;,present side yard of the next property which is under the same ownership and provide the required means of egress to the street in .case of emergency. We are not providing any parking , any side yard] ;,and we are covering more of the lot. Now let' s take one by one . ;`parking - the kind of traffic that this building is going to gen- erate is merely the existing pedestrian traffic.. It is not going 11.to generate - it is very small building on a very small lot - it pis only five or six stores . Basically the people who will be using! ;'the stores will live in the area, they are not going to be any new cars coming in and creating a traffic problem, We all know, ;'depending upon various experiences and over twelve years - I have never had the problem in Collegetown to park but some people have, 'but even if there is a problem, this site is not going to solve 'parking problems of the Collegetown area. So what we are saying i,s , the type of building that we are putting up is not going to 'increase the deficiencies , if there is any, in terms of parking. `Jt is going to show— the studies done by the American City Corp. , "the studies done earlier and several other - that there is a need for more commercial retail space in the Collegetown area - it is agoing to fulfill that demand n it is: going to provide the much f' ! f: f I _ 6 _ 1 ;• needed retail spaces and with 93% coverage , it will also be attrac tive and give incentive to the owner to go ahead with the project. Now as far as the lot coverage and the side yard requirements are ,': concerned, we already dealt with it in the sense that we could meet; ' with them but the building would be only 43% and moreover it is ourl `'feeling that in a commercial zone, what does a side yard do - a five foot side yard or a ten foot side yard? They become like dark'; alleys - people get - they give rise to crime or don' t give rise !to , but they become one of the spaces where crimes can be committed;. ,,'We have incidentally, only 5/18/82 when a man got beaten and robbed; din a State Street alley and we don' t want to create more of that ;;kind of thing in the Collegetown area. We are not building a struc'- ;ture that will in any case be a hazardous condition for its tenants! we are proposing a building which will be modest and handsome - , it will create a kind of pedestrian feeling in the retail spaces i�and the kind mostly that we want to see, We are not building ;;just a box - a one-story box which will be just block and a couple ; of doors - we are very sensitive to the location of the site and we are going to work a long time and pay attention to the details and :architectural design of it and even the meeting that we had with ;;the planning Departm ent, they were quite happy with the efforts ;,that we had made . Now what options do we have? And T have said !it many times that we have no disagreement with the city Manning ;Department but there is one , which is the timing. Now we cannot do r ;;one thing - we can go ahead and build 43% building which will , l !Think in some way negate and undermine the efforts of the city P1anf- 6ning Board because once the building is there , you dontt demolish ; and get something else. The 'second choice is that we build a smal� ;ler building on a modular basis that six months later we can add toy ii - 7 - it. Now if it is a matter of six or eight months , and we don' t have a time table from them. Now at the end of their report , they come up with the same conclusion that we need a bigger building ' than we already have that proposal and we are losing a building i '; season. But we could build a smaller building on the modular basis; ,'but it is not an economically sensible way to do it . You build a `:building and in six months you tear it down, walls , floors , ceil- ings , lighting , mechanical , everything and then I say (unintell) , ;;now we got the zoning, we can do it . So that doesn' t make any `' sense. The fourth option is to apply for the area variance and ''hopefully get it and build a bigger building that everybody wants Ito see . Of course, in a Planners like these days I mean in the ' construction business any project will create jobs locally and E ;, this project is ready to go and it takes several different things for a project to happen. You can have a master plan and you can illhave a study done by the Planning Board or any consultant and he ';can come up with a report saying that we need a seven or eight ;: story high building but what will the building contain? Where will lithe property onwer where will the money come from? Now what can ; ; the Collegetown substantiate right now? Retail or housing? Retail; !! as we all know, only works on the down floor only works on one ' level - we are not in a big city where you can have a big or anotheir !Rothsch_ilds , or even higher. Now the other thing that would come f { up after the master plan report is done , is several levels of ' housing. Now the present zoning doesn' t allow that. We' ll have td, ;' change that anyway and secondly if you are a builder and you have ' a property and with all the construction that is going on in the ; apartments around the area the Cascadilla Hall , the Sheldon ; Court, and the sixty more units and there are a couple more projects C f� I - 8 - !! underway for one hundred twenty or thirty — even if the report say ; r you want to build housing, any property owner will wait and see :;whether the market gets saturated once again. And so in the end .' you may end up by building the same building that proposes that we . have today. And the - if the market allows for future development ; ;; and larger buildings , there are other sites that the owner owns ' ,. and there are other owners in the area, so it is not the end - it is a very small site , important location, yes - and we want to see i � a building there. It has been a parking lot for twelve years and 1; :: that is long enough. So to conclude what we are saying is we have ! ii ,, a proposal here - a building ready to go , the land has been clearly, ;' bought, the money is available and if we get the variance approved ,,, today we can start construction in two months . As far as the other, ;point that the Planning Board brings up - the open design studies t : and like to see a higher building. Now I have training in open design from^(unintell) university and in a rolling hill , you ;! like to have a smaller building at the bottom the hill - and Dryden; '! Road as we all know it, goes down toward Eddy Street so no matter what you do you are going to have a lower building at 119-121 Col- lege Avenue - or Dryden Road, so I think by this proposal we are '; fulfilling all the '(unintell) objectives of the Planning Board may ; shave - a few months from now but the time is today to build it. Thank you. , CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Stay with us just a minute, please. Are there any !;questions from members of the Board? 'MS . HAINE : I have a question. The Planning Board had raised some ,problem about deliveries and also garbage disposal and I am con- ! cerned about those things too. !MR. SHARMA: Yes . That is a very good question. Now the loading 9 - and unloading naturally one of the requirements of the Zoning Ordi-, `! nance and we have not asked for a variance because we do intend to ! I provide it and it has to be provided even if you are not here for the area variance. It is the function of a building design - it is not part of our application - when we go into building design and we feel that part of the tenants will require it , we definitely twill provide it . The five foot side yard is not going to provide ` loading requirements - unloading or ten foot side yard for that ` matter. So we are aware of that fact and it is not a part of this ; application, we didn' t ask for a 'variance on that particular point 'i i because we do intend to provide if (unintell) the stay of the builc - ing design - detail design. i s' MS . HAINE : You do plan to provide loading. . . i MR. SHARMA: If the type of tenants that we are going to seek in that building require that because under the Board of Zoning if yob :; have less than 10, 000 square feet of retail you don' t need one . " So if we get a bigger tenant that will take most of the building wq :, will eventually have to design the building in a particular manner I '' that will take care of loading and unloading . '' MS. HAINE : And how many square feet do you have now, planned, for ! retail? i SMR. SHARMA: 7 ,814 square feet . ;SMS . HAINE: And what about trash, garbage? MR. SHARMA: That will be, again, a function of th-e building design, ' we will provide a spot where the garbage will be picked up, The Gpresent practice by the owner is that he doesn' t allow his tenants ; to pile up garbage every day, They will have to have a spot ;; within their area and then bring it out on the day of the collectign. MS. HAINE : I have just one other question, How far from the build i ing line - is it 123? Dryden Road - the other building? 10 - i ' MR. SHARMA: From the building - it is about ten feet if I read thq plans correctly. My information is based on the drawing I got ;: from the Planning Board. ;: CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Do you suggest that possibly the building that will eventually be built will not be as large as you are proposing in ; your application, is that correct? + MR. SHARMA: In terms of loading and unloading requirements? Or in ;! terms of anything? ;! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: In terms of anything . I 'm looking at 93% of lot !; coverage and if your tenants don' t meet a certain pattern, the i building might be smaller? MR. SHARMA: It could be , yes . But that will have to be you know when we start renting it out and using it out - and find out from `the extra requirements . And if there is a problem in providing an !. ;'; easy exit for the tenants or loading and unloading we will make an ..!adjustment. ICHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well , I think it would be fair to say that as I 'understand the role of this Board we don' t have much flexibility on ::modifying an application and we ' ll take you at your word that you 11sare asking for what is in the application. MR. SHARMA: That 's right. ;;CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Which is worse case, best case , regardless. Now ithe other thing - the comment about the suggestions and the acti- vities of the Planning and Development Board, we are not innovative;, { , we are reactive in that we are tied to the requirements of the Ordi- inance and what the law ordinarily allows for variances from that 'Ordinance. We don 't create ordinance so the legislative action i that may be indicated by both your statements here and by the recomj- ''mendations of the Planning Board or their plans of what is going to i i ' happen in the community is a function that is not held by this Board but rather by the Common Council , upon recommendation of the ; Planners , so for you to understand that we hear your application ' for a variance as stated. IMR. SHARMA: Yes , we are before this Board because our proposal t - does not comply to certain requirements and we are saying that by i Edoing so we are not creating a building that would create any , hazardous conditions for the tenants which also meets with the over- ll i i� '! all objectives of the Planning Board - that is what we are saying. ; :! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Do you or the owner have any solid information lto indicate the practicality of something from the legally allowed ! size building to the one you are asking for in terms of income I lversus the cost of owning and developing the lot? T know that thisi ! is not a use variance but is there a hardship and do you have any i ? substantial information that would help guide the Board in making ' that judgement? `'MR. FANE (from the audience) : Hardship - it would be a hardship ion the community, because if you put up a small building, you have less property tax, less employment - less sales tax, You'd have these ' alleys between buildings which are crime sites for various unsavory! activities - popular places for muggings , railings , drug dealings - i ; this kind of activity, and what off-setting benefits do you have? , That T think is the prime hardship that is to be considered. 1CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Jason, if you'd like to have this on record come ; i '' on up and join us , >MR. FANE: If a smaller building is to be built the prime hardship is that for the community, It means less sales tax, less property ; tax, less employment , it means the creation of alleys which are iprime sites for Tapings , muggings , drug dealings , other unsavory �s P - 12 - ':,, activities and against this you have absolutely no off-setting �ibenefits . Now we did not do any kind of economic calculation on ;, the thousands of conceivable possible alternate designs . The pro- posed list to do this design and we have a fairly unique combina i tion of circumstances that this job is ready to go. There are very .; few sites that I am aware of in Collegetown where the land is : cleared, where there are no financial obstacles , where you have an � . owner who is ready to do something, where there appears to be a ,: market which would make the job feasible , where I have indications Jthat a bank would finance it - I think it' s an opportunity not to i ;- be wasted and there are any number of reasons why, with the passaget jfof time , the opportunity could disappear and they could again for =janother twelve years , or perhaps longer, continue to be a vacant i !! lot there . No government can make anybody build on a site , all th�y !ican do is propose obstacles and I think, the question to be consid- € ,' ered here is that what you want to do? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from members of the Board E ! of either of these men, the owner or the architect? Thank you, :' Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this applica- i ; tion? Is there anyone who washes to speak in opposition to this ;! application? Well have the next case. v i i i i i - 13 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 7 , 1982 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1442 : `' The Board considered the appeal of Jason Fane for an area variance ! to permit construction of a one- story retail building at 119-121 I i " Dryden Road. The decision of the Board was as follows : MS. HAINE : I move that the Board deny the area variance requestd in appeal number 1442. ' MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. � r ',VOTE : 4 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent ; 1 Abstention DENIED s : FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Adequate parking has not been provided. 112) Failure to provide off-street loading will further congest they 100 block of Dryden Road. As indicated, the project is only I i approved for 500 of lot coverage. The appellant is asking for !a y 93% of lot coverage which is a gross violati9n of the percen., tage of lot coverage requirement of the Code. i i i is , i ti i , i i I i - 14 - ±� I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS iI COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK � I JUNE 71% 1982 I I ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The first case is appeal number 1437 : i I' I i Appeal of Michael A. Skibinski for an area I; variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30 . 25 , Columns 4 , 10 , 11 , and 12 for deficiencies in off-street parking, maximum lot coverage , mini- mum front yard setback, and minimum side yard setback, to permit the addition of a second floor bedroom for the owner' s unit of the exist- 1 j ing two-family dwelling at 205-207 East Yates j i Street. The property is located in an R-2b use district, in which the use as a two-family dwelling is permitted; however, under Section i• 30. 49 the appellant must obtain an area variance ; (i for the listed deficiencies before a building ! permit can be issued for the addition.i i IMR. SKIBINSKI : My name is Mike Skibinski. What do you want me to Ii �ICHAIRMAN WEAVER: Anything that you would like to say in support ofl 'I !your appeal, Michael . SMR. SKIBINSKI : Well , I just need the room for my house for my �6mily. �HAIRMAN WEAVER; By the sketch that' s attached to your appeal , this is a strictly an addition to the second floor that doesn' t !go beyond the present confines of the original structure? I I R. SKIBINSKI ; Right. It is just for my own personal use not I !i ,for the apartment side of the house, CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Are there any questions from members of the Board?! S. BAGNARDI; How long have you lived there - at 205-207 East ates Street? R. SKTBINSKI; I 've laved there for twelve years . I 've owned lihe house for ten. OS . BAGNARDI : You currently live on the entire second floor or i is the house . . . i �R. SKIBINSKI : No , it ' s a, duplex. � I OS. HAINE: Is there a porch there now? I � I R. SKIBINSKI : Where? on the front? � I S. HAINE: Where you are planning to put the bedroom? � I R. SKI'BINSKI; No that the new bedroom is going to be just on he second floor. You see the back of the house is dust a single I i i it ti �I i! �j floor. i !MS. HAINE : And it ' s not within the . . . !'MR. SKIBINSKI : Right - just the two floors . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions? Alright, thank you. Is (there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this appeal? Is ''there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this appeal? �Iwe' ll hear the next case please. V� 1 IV V Ii BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i' COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS j CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK j JUNE 7 , 1982 I i' EXECUTIVE SESSION I6PPEAL NO. 1437 : , The Board considered the appeal of Michael A. Skibinski for an area; G �Yariance to permit the addition of a second floor bedroom for the E downer' s unit of the existing two-family dwelling at 205-207 East iYates Street. The decision of the Board was as follows : IMS. WARD: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in appeal number 1437. ! SIS. BAGNARDI : I second the motion. VOTE : 4 Yes , 0 No ; 2 Absent Granted. h NDINGS OF FACT: I' The property is owner-occupied. i 12) The addition does not appreciably change the building. ! i � ) The addition does not increase any of the lot deficiencies . I I' i i I ,! I it 1�I iI I I I' 16 - i �I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ;I COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK I JUNE 7 , 1982 i ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next case is appeal number 1438 : 1 Appeal of Edward C. Devereux for an area variance under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30. 25, Columns 11 and 12 for deficiencies in minimum front yard set back for two front yards , to permit the addition of a carport in the front yard of the existing one- family dwelling at 142 Hawthorne Place. The property] is located in an R-lb use district , in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Sections 30. 49 and 30. 25 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a build- ing permit can be issued for the carport. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: - Please come forward. R. DEVEREUX: Do the members present all have a copy of - oh yes , i I see that you do, of the proposed sketch and the lot plan, and I Iso on. I believe that it speaks for itself plus the statement. 'i If there are any questions that anyone has I would be pleased to jury to deal with them. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We now have a five member board, Mr. William i (Wilcox. I� rR. DEVEREUX: This is the only feasible place on our property on (which it would be possible to achieve an off-street parking and carport and this plan may square would have to come much closer to the property line than the existing zoning regulations permit. �jBut I believe i.t could be done attractively without any either G + traffic hazard to pedestrians or moving traffic and without much II aesthetic affront . The area is very well shielded by existing �Itrees and shrubs and we would plan to landscape it. I (`CHAIRMAN WEAVER; I take it this is the present parking space that Irou are . , . R. DEVEREUX, There is nothing at all , , . i �1CHAIRMAN WEAVER; There is no parking? 'LL IR, DEVEREUX; Nobody in that whole end of either Hawthorne or (Crescent has- any off-street parking, We wobble back and forth, odd! ]and even, winter and summer, you explain to me why, but we do . So the snow plow can get by in the middle of June , I think, (CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So you propose to create one off-street parking. . I�R. DEVEREUX: Precisely that ' s what we would like very much to do. Ij I - 17 iIt would actually get one car off the street - it' s rather crowded. (,The only departure from the existing drawing that you have - some critics have said that the elevan foot proposed width may be a bit I `too narrow, we might want to go for thirteen - I want to consult my architect - simply so the car doors could swing - it would look j (essentially as you see it there . My architect would be Kumi Korf -! 1I don' t know who my contractor would be. i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions from any member of the Board? I Thank you Mr. Devereux. MR. DEVEREUX: Do you act on this now? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We don' t act on any one of these until after e have heard all of the cases and at that time we will go into iexecutive session on the conclusion of the decisions on all cases . I e will then reconvene, I i MR. DEVEREUX: So do you want us to stay on or . . . s CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'd recommend against it unless you are interested. I R. DEVEREUX: Okay. Thank you. Well I am interested obviously. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well for any of you and Michael , your case - you can call in tomorrow morning into the Commissioner' s office and get the results - otherwise there will be a time in which we will ask everyone to leave the room for our executive session and that may gni on for any an undetermined length of time so your cause won' t II be improved at all by your continued presence. R. DEVEREUX: Well thank you all very much. SECRETARY WEAVER; is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this appeal? Is there anyone who wishes to speak. in opposition to this appeal? We' ll have the next case. i f I i i I i i II 1 M - 18 - il, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS Ii CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK II ,JUNE 7 1982 � j I I EXECUTIVE SESSION I PPEAL NO. 1438 : he Board considered the appeal of Edward C. Devereux for an area ariance to permit the addition of a carport in the front yard of I he existing one-family dwelling at 142 Hawthorne Place. The de- vision of the Board was as follows : 4S. WARD: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in appeal number 1438 . I+ � R. WILCOX: I second the motion. t OTE : S Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent Granted I (FINDINGS OF FACT; I ) This property is owner-occupied. Addition of a carport does not adversely affect the neighbor �j hood. It does create an off-street parking space in a neighborhood Il that needs it very much. (i I i. 'i Ij i. I I r li j I it ,i !i I � l I� ii I, i 19 - I I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS j I� COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS j CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK j JUNE 7 , 1982 1� ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is appeal number 14391: !I Appeal of David Lorenzini for an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25 , columns 6 , 7 , 10, 12 and 13 for deficiencies in minimum lot size , I minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage, and minimum 'i setbacks for both sideyards , to permit the addition of a garage to the existing house at 303 Hillview I Place. The property is now a non-conforming three unit apartment house ; the appellant proposes to con- vert it to a two unit house. The property is lo- cated in an R-lb use district in which the proposed use as a two-family dwelling is permitted however, !� under Section 30 .49 the a ellant must obtain an I area variance for the listed deficiencies before a if building permit can be issued for the garage addition'. 1 IMR. LORENZINI : My name is Dave Lorenzini , I live at 303 Hillview `Place. I 'm looking for an area variance for a garage addition i onto the side of my home. The existing lot coverage , side yard 'isetback was 8 ' which never did comply with the 10' required for �I I {'the R-lb zone. I have a three-family home which does not comply I with an R=lb - nothing complies with R-lb - so I have to have an i ilarea variance . The garage is going around an existing porch and I I �jextends five feet beyond the existing porch. The porch is dilapi- f �Idated and in rough shape and I am actually in violation of the law i I started the garage addition and I shored up the porch without �Igetting a building permit and started the garage. +ICHAIRMAN WEAVER: Before you improved this porch, was there an Doff-street parking location on your property? 'I IMR. LORENZINI ; There was off-street parking but there was hardly l f Ilenough for the three families so I really needed a garage to help i I lalleviate the parking situation - because there was always a con- stant conflict with Morse Chain people parking in front of my home and with the tenants so this garage is really needed for that. ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: As we see the sketch, the crushed stone area is ! I I � 11your. off-street parking currently? �MR. LORENZINI: Right. j CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from members of the Board? MS. BAGNARDI : When did you begin construction of the garage? I 20 - MR. LORENZINI : Late last fall . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: No questions? Thank you, David. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? i iWe' ll hear the next case. i ii I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 7 , 1982 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1439 : The Board considered the request for an area variance to permit the addition of a garage to the existing house at 303 Hillview Place. The property is presently a non-conforming three unit apartment house but the appellant proposes to convert it to a two unit house . The decision of the Board was as follows : I { �S . BAGNARDI : I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in appeal number 1439. S. WARD: I second the motion. OTE: 5 Yes.; 0 No; l Absent Granted INDINGS OF FACT: 1) The appellantis providing parking in a congested residential area. In consideration of the unusual topography of the side yard, it does not negatively affect the neighbor on that side , or i the neighborhood. i I I iI I c' i! 21 - ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is appeal number 144011: 11 Appeal of Geoffrey R. Banfield for an area variance 4; under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25 , Columns 11 and! ii 14 and for deficiencies in minimum front yard setback I' and minimum rear yard setback to permit the construc- tion of a 2 ,000 square foot addition to the existing j fi light industrial building at 803-805 Cascadilla j Street. The property is located in an I-1 use dis- trict, in which the use for light industry is per- mitted; however, under Section 30 . 49 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficien-j cies before a building permit can be issued for the addition. 11 MR. BANFIELD: I 'm Geoffrey Banfield and I don 't have much to say about it. I think it might be noted that we were one of the - we were probably the third business to move down at Cascadilla - at the end of Cascadilla before it was a jungle. We've done a great deal to improve it along with Old Port Harbor and a number of j it other buildings that are down there now. We intend to maintain 11 the character of the property as well as landscape it and what not!. �I It 's a - there is two things against the property number one i I� the existing building, when we purchased the property, was built I three foot from the line . This would probably have been built I 60 - 70 years ago - a long time ago , There isn't anything we can do about that . Now we intend to extend the building to the street line and we are supposed to be twenty feet back and we are going I 1 to be sixteen feet back, We could move the building a different I direction but then we wouldn' t have the parking that we would like so we are seeking this difference there. I think the other I I thing is that we originally, purchased the street and deeded it to }}� the city. If we hadn' t done that we wouldn' t be too short and this I� is really the case . Any questions? (I l CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Just as a matter of cla,ri.ficati,on, your set back from Cascadilla Street is the only newly created . , . MR, BANPIELD; That is correct. f ' i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Area variance 11' MS. HAINE: May I ask a question? What are you producing in this building? MR. BANPIELD: An orthodontic laboratory, i MS. BAGNARDI: Behind the old building, there is an old tractor i trailer, does that belong to you? �� i - 22 - MR. BANFIELD: That belongs to me , yes. � MS. BAGNARDI : Will that remain - I know it has nothing to do with ) the new building construction obviously, but will that remain on the property? MR. BANFIELD: Yes it will. I think until just recently within th past, I would say nine months , that was all wooded and there is a i fellow that has rented that Quonset but there that came through with a bulldozer and took everything down so we are exposed at tha� end. But I do plan this summer that the building be repainted and there will be something done to that. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions from the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this application? P PP Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? We' ll go on to the next case, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 7 , 1982 i EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL N0. 1440 : The Board considered the request for an area variance to permit th construction of a 2 ,000 square foot addition to the existing light l I industrial building at 803-805 Cascadilla Street. The decision of the Board was as follows : MR. WILCOX: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1440. i MS. HAINE : I second the motion. VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Absent Granted. FINDINGS OF PACT: 1) Deficiencies are not that critical . 2) This addition will not change the character of the neighborhoo which is Industrial , 3) Alternatives would result in practical difficulties by losing ` Parking spaces. i i j - 23 i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 7 , 1982 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is appeal number 14411 �j Appeal of Kathleen Loehr-Balada for an area variance ! ' under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25 , Column 6 , forl deficient minimum lot size , to permit the addition o� agarage at 303 Richard Place. The property is lo- cated in an R-la use district, in which the existing ! i. use as two-family dwelling is permitted; however, i; under Section 30. 49 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiency before a building ; jj permit can be issued for the garage. i �!MS. LOEHR-BALADA: I 'm Kathy Loehr-Balada, 303 Richard Place and as f ' Mr. Dieterich just mentioned, we do need to get a variance for they area plans for our lot. As the design that you have in front of you , shows , we would like a variance to build a garage on our property Mand when we went to get the building permit we realized that the previous owners who had gone for a building permit for the apart- ment that now exists in our house it ' s a very small one bedroom j i ;apartment, weregranted the permit and there is a deficiency in the area. It should be 15 ,000 square feet for a two-family residence I in that area and there is less than that on the property and so we j are trying to make things legal at this point, I guess I want to I ;+stress, as the diagram shows, when the garage is built it will ful-1 �jfill all city requirements - the set back, the side lot , etc. and �jwill not change at all the atmosphere of the neighborhood. It is a I lresidential neighborhood - most of the houses now do have their owns +attached garages or semi.-attached. Ours will be attached by one +small bridge to our kitchen door. i ICHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions from the Board? i 'IMS. WARD: I noticed there was a for sale sign on the house , . , is I I ,that? IMS. LOEHR-BALADA: Right. No, we - my husband was looking at a houLe i over on Snyder Hill which he had fallen in love with - it was full of woods. He comes from Italy and wanted to get back to that kind 6f I `{nature . But the way mortgages are these days , the cost would have I! been such that it is much better to make improvements on our own Thome and kind of incorporate his ideas there. We have taken this route now. The for sale sign I think should be down now - I hope I I 24 - !� I Ii iit is not still up. We are moving back in this week. ; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions? Thank you. Is there any I I � done who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Is there !i'! anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Is there janyone who wishes to speak in opposition? May we have the next li case please? ! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS j COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS j CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK I JUNE 7 , 1982 �I I EXECUTIVE SESSION !I I APPEAL NO. 1441 : �IThe Board considered the appeal of Kathleen Loehr-Balada for an I ! area variance to permit the addition of a garage at 303 Richard �) 1 ; Place. The decision of the Board was as follows : ' MS . HAI'NE: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in appeal number 1441 . ' MS. BAGNARDI : I second the motion. VOTE: 5 Yes; 0 No ; 1 Absent Granted i i FI'NDINCS OF FACT: ill) The proposed structure would not adversely affect the neigh- i boyhood. � 2) This addition will improve the property. i I I � I i I I .i I I { - 25 - i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 7 , 1982 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next case is appeal number 1444 : Appeal of Kenneth and Antoinette Bangerter for an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25 , Columns 11 and 12 for deficiencies in minimum front yard setback, and minimum side yard setback, to permit the addition of a deck to the existing two- { family house at 120 Columbia Street. The property is located in an R-2a use district, in which the existing use is permitted; however, under Section 30. 49 the appellant must obtain an area variance { for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the construction. iI iMR. BANGERTER: - I 'm Ken Bangerter, I own the property at 120 Columbia Street . The - specifically we want to add a sun deck to the back of the house and in the changing of the zone in 1977 �II lit changed the side yard requirements from five feet to ten and j the house is non-conforming as a result. It covers , I think, about thirteen or fourteen percent of the property and the deck �bwe want to add adds another two percent or so but it is still j less than one-half of the allowed coverage. That steps off of I1what we use as a sewing xoom right now but that is purely for (lour own use. j iCHAIRMAN WEAVER; Questions from members of the Board? Thank you. I { Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? We 'll have Ithe next case. I EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1444 : iThe Board considered the appeal of Kenneth & Antoinette Bangerter { i { for an area variance to permit the addition of a deck to the exist ing two-family house at 120 Columbia Street. The decision of the Board was as follows : MR. WILCOX: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in appeal number 1444. I MS. HAINE : I second the motion. I VOTE : 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent Granted. j FINDINGS OF FACT: I i 26 i. I The deck will improve the property. 2) Will not adversely affect the neighborhood. !j I - 27 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I( COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 7 , 1982 . I i ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is appeal number 144611 r Appeal of Vasilios and Ruth Zikakis for a use i variance under Section 30. 25 , Column 2 , to permit the construction of mini-storage buildings for public rental at 416 Elmira Road. The property is located in a B-5 use district, in which the proposed use is not permitted; therefore the I appellant must obtain a use variance before a j building permit can be issued for the proposed buildings. i IIMR. GALBRAITH: My name is Dirk Galbraith, I 'm an attorney, I have i professional offices at 308 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York and � I 'm here on behalf of the appellant. The property in Question is ' known as 416 Elmira Road, it consists of a vacant lot approximate- i ily . 32 acres in size - it is bounded on the south by the former i bed of the Delaware and Lackawanna railroad, the Ashland Oil Com- j � pany premises are to the rear and to the north is a large tract of !vacant land. The property is shown in a series of photographs that ( ' I 'd like to pass around to members of the Board. And the buildings i� lthat are shown in those photographs are those that are presently joccupied by Ashland Oil . This property is presently zoned B-5 f and the appellants wish to construct a mina,-storage facility on it . ;Mr. Zikakis is here this evening and I 'm going to let him explain i Ito you exactly what a mini,-storage facility is . The unique hard lship that this property suffers is that there is no public water I service to the property or any place near it, As I go over the 'list of permitted uses in a B-5 zone, which is actually anything in, ,a B-1 thru B-5 zone inclusive, I find really nothing in there that j could be carried on without public water service , The project itsellf consists _ or would consist of two storage buildings which would be' i located on the premises as they appear in these site plans . I 've Igot scaled down copies - you may already have copies of this, I don' t know and also attached are interior design plans and an elevation 'showing what the buildings would look like from the exterior. I I i believe that they are designed in an aesthetically pleasing fashion and the plans also provide for landscaping to the front. There are( !i �) j 2s - 11substantially similar storage facilities located at Anderson Ren- tal and U-Haul-It, somewhat down Elmira Road from these premises and also in, I understand, is a B-5 zone. In many ways this type cf use is more like a B-5 use than an I-1 use since although its nom- inally a warehouse type facility, which brings it within the ambit , of an I-1 use, it is not industrial in nature . It emits no offen- sive odors , it makes no loud noises , there is no volume of heavy truck traffic which would be coming to and from this site . What would be found here would be storage cubicles which members of the community could store varying quantities of personal property in for various lengths of time. The use , I would suggest is one that is not only compatible with the area, but one which is being carried on by other businesses a relatively short distance therefrom. Mr. Zikakis has spoken to the adjoining property owners and all of them are in favor of the concept of the project and I don' t believe anybody is here this evening to speak one way or another as far as they are concerned. When this matter was before the planning Board, as you may know, the Planning Board recommended against the project and they did it for, what I feel was a somewhat unusual reason. The Planning Board did not have any problem with the aesthetics of the design or the use itself, but the believe the appellants were under the remises ) y �p g p As I 've always understood the province of zoning, it was to ensure that uses in a particular area were compatible and were not offen- sive to the adjoining land owners and in this case the appellants have a project which they believe will produce a reasonable return on a site which is really, otherwise unuseable as it is presently zoned and I suggest that those factors being what they are, the i intensity of the use or the lack thereof, shouldn't be held against the appellant . Mr. Zikaki.s is here with me this evening and I would like to have him speak to you and tell you exactly what the concept of this project is and then perhaps we can both answer auesti.ons . MR, ZIKAKIS; Well the mini warehouse concept is new in maybe in the 'last five years that it has really sprung up - it sort of I l - 29 - I� � I� started in the southwest and west and then it spread its way this jway. In major cities you will see them near cloverleafs , you will ! , see them any place where there is large apartment dwellings or at �i ; those type of facilities - they are the best customers for this ,! type of use . In some of the research that I have done , I have ! noticed that some of the laws are being changed to include mini- I i lwarehouses or mini-storage rooms in particular type of zoning be- '' cause it really - although it has the word warehouse in it , and Iit has been tied together with a warehouse, it isn' t like what i you would imagine a warehouse would be. It doesn' t have any truck I i1traffic, it doesn' t have tractor trailers in there and it doesn' t 11have the type of industrial use that this - in fact when I had the idea of putting a warehouse there, the storage rooms there , I had II Mr. Bagnardi, the architect, draw it up and I wanted it to be j !, aesthetically pleasing and color coordinated so that it would fit i linto the landscape well and shrub it up because the properties that are most affected are mine across the street. We have 1 ,200 feet I jof frontage on the Elmira Road directly across- the street from it and if you will recall what was there before, in fact I wish I had taken a picture there was a very ugly trailer and very clunky i Bused cars on there and it was a sort of a side line for the pre- I � �Ivious owner and he really didn't have much interest in it. The 'I reason for my buying ing it as a matter of fact was that - the , prime li ! xeason was so that I could avoid that happening again and that parti lof the area could be cleaned up and aesthetically more pleasing and! �,to protect our investments on the other side of the street. It ' s jla low traffic type of business, it doesn't someone will come in j ,hand put their wares into storage for three months , six months , a �I lirear, whatever they are going to do and then they really don't come 11 back until it is time to come back and pick up the merchandise. Wei ! I I {Ifeel we can operate it from our dealership across the street and bei i +operated from that part because it is so low key . We don' t - it won' t be giving us a traffic hardship in any way. We mentioned, !there is no grater on the land - I 've talked with the City before we ! !came up even with that project we thought it would be nice to have i I� I 30 - I lwater. We really don't need it and by research I found that many lof the places don' t have water but if there was a terrible expense ! for the city to bring the water in and they would not consider �lbringing the water in. IMR. WILCOX: Are they going to be heated.? SMR. ZIKAKIS: No. There will be no heat in them. There is no heat or air conditioning or anything it is just cold storage. I i I IMR. WILCOX: You mean people can store cars there if they wanted i I to? .IIMR. ZIKAKIS : They would have to be small cars . The largest ; cubicle would be 10 x 20 - it is sort of unusual to have somebody put a car in. There will only be eight or nine of the - those are i what we call larger units - the ten by twenties . I 1MR. WILCOX: Is that in the flood plain? !SMR. ZIKAKIS : Pardon me? IMR. WILCOX: Is that in the flood plain or is that part of the - � behind the dike n doesn' t it get wet back there? MR. ZIKAKIS: No , I've been assured that it doesn' t. I 've talked ! with the neighbors Ashland and also Mr. Haflek, the neighbor next ] door and they've assured me that they've never had any water prob- ' ilem there at all. f IMS. WARD: What about entry in and out? Tsn't that going to be I1hard to be seen doesn' t it just kind of nestle in against where 11t becomes the bridge? i IMR. ZIKAKIS: That ' s right, The abutments are still there and j that - if we had a high use that would be a problem but with a low ] I (fuse, I consider it a benefit that this type of project is going in ]because I don' t see the state removing the abutments , the way the ; state . . . SMS. WARD: Where will the driveway be? MR. ZIKAKIS: There is a driveway that the city put in when they realigned the Elmira Road they put a driveway right in the middle] of the property. The present frontage is 100 coming in but it goes) I Ipie shaped: Once it goes back to the back is 180 feet so there is ! length at the back. There is two buildings. One will be put in I I I 31 - back and - the longer one in back and then the second one in front with driveways in between so they can drive to the cubicles . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: This driveway that you describe , is it the one that is traditionally used by Ashland? MR. ZIKAKIS: No. It has it' s own driveway. The city, when they realigned the Elmira Road a few years ago , put driveways into all the Elmira Road properties . i ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So that is south of the Ashland driveway? t MR. ZIKAKIS: That' s right. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: You say that the city won' t bring water is theie sewer anywhere nearby? IMR. ZIKAKIS : Yes there is a sewer line right in front and to the side but there is not - the water stops at the bowling alley and like a 20 ,000 . expense for the city to bring water over and, it ' s they assured me that they couldn't justify bringing the water over i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Do you know whether You could legally have a well there? i MR. ZIKAKIS: There is - the neighbor has a well but there isn' t many busineases that you could operate with a well , Also, the ` ( neighbor - he is quite an enterprising young man - he is quite an enterprising man and he has in addition to working his full time job , he farms 65 acres behind his house , if you could believe it ( or not R but there is 65 acres there and he has punched a well or there was a well in the backand he waters his crops when it gets dry with that well so if you had a well , I: would assume that you would sort of be working off the same water table and you could find yourself in - if he has a dry period with his crops that fyou could find youself with. very low useage or no water. I IMS. WARD: The City said they would not bring water for this pro- f ect? MR. ZIKAKIS: No, for any project. I had it was an open request - i I came here and talked with someone and they just said they couldn'it i justify n they couldn' t imagine us putting anything in there that I i would justify spending that type of money to bring in water. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Counselor, is you say that this property is j j� �I I 32 - ijunique in that water isn' t available - are there any other owners I in the neighborhood who have the same problem? �! MR. GALBRAITH: Well the property closest to the south is owned byl R, the Finger Lakes Park Commission and, of course, they aren' t into any kind of development . The property directly across the street I, ! is Mr. Zikakis ' s own property and that is served by the water line that runs down Spencer Road, as I understand. Then the nearest j property which has been developed is the property that was a j bowling alley and now its Steller Stereo. j IMR. ZIKAKIS: The vacant lot has no water my vacant lot - there , is an acre connected to the dealership where the miniature golf course was years ago - that has no water either. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well I 'm trying to direct you toward whether thin i I lin fact is a unique situation or whether there is other property by Mother owners that suffer the same restrictions. j 1IMR, GALBRAITH: Well I think at least in terms of the vacant lot tq ` the north is unique because if that property .. the size that it is ,1 jwere ever developed it would be economically feasible to bring water , the short distance one would have to bring it from the area of what f `was the bowling alley to the property, However, Mr. Zikakis ' s ':property is quite small and it is even further removed from the source of water and it is just not economically viable to try to I bring water that distance to a property that is approximately a third of an acre in size. I'd like to add one other thing that I ` thought of that Iforgot to mention. The planning Board in review ,- fi ling this, had the impression that the project would not add anything I' Ito the economy of the community, However since then I have re- � (' searched the question and the rentals of these cubicles is a taxable item under the tax laws of the State of New York, Mr, Zikakis esti`- ;. fIma=tes that at full occupancy the monthly revenues would be 2 ,500. `land these would be subject to sales tax as I read the law. ( i ,! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Questions from the Board? it 1IMS, HAINE: Do you have any plans for landscaping? I !MR. GALBRAITH Yes I think some of the landscaping is depicted on ,Ith.e plot plan itself and we had volunteered at the time we were I ii 33 - ! i before the Planning Board to work with the Planning Board concern- m ing any landscape design that they might suggest. I would certain it � ly make that a condition of the variance if you chose to grant it. j i MR. ZIKAKIS: If you will notice on our Chevrolet property and our ' it I is import property, you will see a lot of landscaping - not only what '' lithe city put in but what we put in ourselves from mature trees and 11even to the interest to the dealership that really can' t be seen from the road, there is two beautiful trees. But we have been ' pretty particular about the aesthetics of the dealership. We think the eye appeal is awfully important especially in Ithaca, I New York. j CHAIRMAN WEAVER: You being a long term tenant out there, is that I , curb cut by the state indicate that a prior approval to entry, i exit that was a i k MR. ZIKAKIS: Oh yes, it ' s a definite curb cut. It is just the ! same size cut as I have coming into the whole Chevrolet dealer ii ship. i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I was hoping to answer the possible question Iiabout whether this is a good place for cars to exit and enter ] route 13 traffic. MR. GALBRAITH: perhaps I could ask a question that might clear i something up on that . Bill, what do you estimate the daily traffi volume to th.e facility would be when it was at full occupancy? i I MR. ZIKAKI'S; Once we are full, we don't anticipate - really I think 14f you'd have a car a dayAn there you'd be surprised - you know - I i, '] once you are filled up. Unless the turnover rate is more than I I Ithink but I think if someone is going to haul possessions there, ithey are just not going to leave them for a week. Your smallest ] rental would be a month I would imagine . So you really shouldn't ! have any, traffic, MR. GALBRAITH: Where would the office facility for the building II. Abe located? i MR. ZIKAKIS; Well we plan to operate offices from the buildings II from the Import store - from our Import store which is across the I street a little bit down the street. We also want to put an office] l � 1 - 34 - i I in the building just for so that we would have just an office space there on the premises itself. i MS. WARD: The road is two lane where the driveway is? MR. ZIKAKIS : It comes to two lane, yes . IMS. WARD: At that point it is a two lane road? I pMR. ZIKAKIS: Right. But no matter what we put in there, even if it was a conforming use by the way the law is written now, it stil would be a traffic problem except if you had more traffic . MS. WARD: all the way down to where it opens into four lanes? MR. ZIKAKIS: I 'm sorry? MS. WARD: Your property is not on any of the area where it is fou lane? MR. ZIKAKIS: Oh yes, my property - most of the 1, 200 feet that we have is on - it narrowed there intentionally because of the viaduct and then when they removed the viaduct they still left the abut- ments . I 've heard that future plans have been that maybe someday they were going to widen that at the time but of course when they built the Elmira Road, the viaduct was a working viaduct - trains , would go on it . Now you know, it has been removed and it ' s all been abandoned. But they still left the abutments . We are hoping that someday they will come with a big ball and chain and knock i those down, and open up the whole Elmira Road. MR. GALBRAITH: If I could add something this kind of points out one of the inconguities of the planning Board' s recommendation be- cause they recommended a higher intensity use for this particular spot which I think would generate precisely the traffic problem that you foresee and I think the use that is suggested here would be a much lower intensity use than most of the permitted uses in a B-5 zone. (CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions from the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Yes sir, MR, BANGERTER; Ken Bangerter again. T sat in last - when the Planning Board recommended or suggested that this was under-utili- zation. If in fact each one of the cubicles was rented as a mini- I j 35 I ;! store I think it would fall within the confines of the zoning I ; wouldn' t it? With much more traffic - that by simply making it "i ; storage that it cuts the traffic down is certainly a benefit. We �jcertainly can't stop under-utilization on the basis of its being a I warehouse instead of maybe a hi-rise or maybe a shopping center. ' The next thing to do there would be to say that he would be not 1� permitted to have a vacant lot because that would be most certainly funder-utilized. �ICHAIRMAN WEAVER: I agree with you Mr. Bangerter, that it is under-11 i !! utilized now. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to be H I heard in respect to this variance? There being no more cases to ,lbe heard we will now go into executive session. Any of you who wa t to learn the results of our meeting can call the office tomorrow Dior you can wait outside until after our executive session has been ' f I �! completed, I Ef I I i I� j� � I i i li I � I I I it ! I i i I I� I' i' I - 36 - il I �i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 7 , 1982 EXECUTIVE SESSION ii APFEAL N0. 1446 : lThe Board considered the appeal of Vasilios and Ruth Zikakis for a � fuse variance to permit the construction of mini-storage buildings Ifor public rental at 416 Elmira Road. The decision of the Board f i was as follows: (i MS. HAINE : T move that the Board grant the use variance re- quested in appeal number 1446 . i ' MR. WILCOX: I second the motion. ;VOTE : 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Absent Granted IFINDINOS OF FACT: I , 1) The appellant has demonstrated hardship in that there is no i municipal water on the land and it would be very difficult fort development without water. I` 2) That the lack of municipal water supply is unique to this property and does not allow development of the lot for the approved uses in the B-5 zone . i i3) The proposal appears to be an economical use for property in a� officially designated floor plain. I ii I I i i i H i j' I i ii I� I I i 37 - I i 91 , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the Board { of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of ' Appeals numbered 1437 , 1438 , 1439, 1440 , 1441 , 1442 , 1444 and 1446 on June 7 , 1982 at Common Council Chambers , City Hall , Ithaca New York; that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the executive session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability { Barbara C. Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this r day of ,- �-�� , 1982 J,—.o`.ASL.— i i Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 57-1660800 i QUALIFIED IN TOP.PKINS COUNTY, 3 MY COt;i':;IS;ION EVIRES MARCH 30,19— { 1