The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 1996-05-22 � THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING FOR WEDNESDAY , MAY 8 , 1996 HAS BEEN CANCELED . t THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON MAY 22 , 19960 Dated: n�i zs, isss ,Published: May 3, 1996 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FINALWEDNESDAY , MAY 22 , 1996 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , May 22 , 1996 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , Scott Whitham , Agent , requesting a Special Approval under Article IV , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a track and field facility at Campus Road and alumni fields , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 63- 1 -8 . 2 and 67 - 1 - 13 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . APPEAL of David Srnka , Owner/Appellant , requesting the modification of a previously granted variance ( from July 2 , 1979 ) from the requirements of Article V . Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be able to maintain a customary home occupation at 809 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 - 2- 17 , Residence District R- 30 . The home occupation , Marion Electric , proposes to add a one bedroom dwelling unit to a building not used as a primary residence . The home occupation also maintains an area exceeding the maximum allowed 200 square feet . • APPEAL of T & M Convenience of Ithaca , Inc . , Appellant , William Selden , Esq . , Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to operate a retail convenience store and self- serve gasoline station at 614 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33-3- 2 . 4 , Light Industrial Zone . Said Ordinance does not allow a retail business in a Light Industrial Zone . Since this property once had a legally non-conforming retail use more than one year ago , a variance from Article XII , Section 53 may also be sought . APPEAL of Cornell University , Owner , the Penn Traffic Company Appellant , David A . Herrick , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 37 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge the P&C Supermarket , which maintains an 18 foot rear yard building setback ( 30 foot setback required ) at the East Hill Plaza Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62 - 2 - 1 . 121 , Business C Zone . The proposed enlargement consists of a 6 , 0W + sq . ft . addition to the buildings west side and will not increase the setback deficiency . As this is a pre-existing setback deficiency , an approval under Article XII , Section 54 may also be sought . APPEAL of Jon Lucente , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VI , Section 29 , Paragraph 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a refuse and recycling area in the side yard of a multiple residence property known as Sprucewood Apartments ( formerly Winston Court Apartments ) at 611 Winston Court , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70-4-3 , Multiple Residence Zone . Said Ordinance requires a refuse area to be placed only in the rear yard . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear • all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs , as appropriate , will be provided with assistance , as necessary , upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated : May 13 , 1996 Publish : May 17 , 1996 Y • TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Dani L . Holford , being duly sworn , depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary , Tompkins County , New York ; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper , The Ithaca Journal . Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York on Wednesday , May 22 , 1996 , commencing at 7 : 00 P . M . , as per attached . Location of sign board used for posting : Bulletin board , front entrance of Town . Hall . Date of posting : May 14 , 1996 Date of publication : May 17 , 1996 Dani L . Holford , Buildin +ofthaca Department Secretary , To STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 17th day of May , 1996 . No ry Public BETTY F. POOLE • NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK # 4646 427 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA ToVdv Of ITHACA Ua=e ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS • ClerkjA° N WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1996 The following appeals were heard by the board on May 2 , 1996 : APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Scott Whitham, Agent, requesting a Special Approval under Article IV, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a track and field facility at Campus Road and alumni fields , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 63- 1 -8 . 2 and 67- 1 - 13 . 2 , Residence District R-30 . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of David Srnka , Owner/Appellant, requesting the modification of a previously granted variance (from July 2 , 1979) from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to maintain a customary home occupation at 809 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -2- 17 , Residence District R-30 . The home occupation , Marion Electric, proposes to add a one bedroom dwelling unit to a building not used as a primary residence. The home occupation also maintains an area exceeding the maximum allowed 200 square feet. GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of T & M Convenience of Ithaca , Inc. , Appellant , William Selden , Esq . , Agent requesting a • variance from the requirements of Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to operate a retail convenience store and self-serve gasoline station at 614 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2 . 4, Light Industrial Zone. Said Ordinance does not allow a retail business in a Light Industrial Zone. Since this property once had a legally non-conforming retail use more than one year ago , a variance from Article XII , Section 53 may also be sought . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of Cornell University, Owner, the Penn Traffic Company Appellant, David A. Herrick, Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 37 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge the P&C Supermarket, which maintains an 18 foot rear yard building setback (30 foot setback required) at the East Hill Plaza Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62-2- 1 . 121 , Business C Zone . The proposed enlargement consists of a 6 , 000 ± sq , ft. addition to the buildings west side and will not increase the setback deficiency . As this is a pre-existing setback deficiency, an approval under Article XII , Section 54 may also be sought. GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of Jon Lucente, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VI , Section 29, Paragraph 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a refuse and recycling area in the side yard of a multiple residence property known as Sprucewood Apartments • (formerly Winston Court Apartments) at 611 Winston Court , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70-4-3 , Multiple Residence Zone. Said Ordinance requires a refuse area to be placed only in the rear yard . GRANTED FINAL • FILE® TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA Date G 11611 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS o MAY 22, 1996 Clerk PRESENT : Chairman David Stotz, Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning , JoAnn Cornish , Planner, John Barney, Attorney for the Town . OTHERS : Attorney Bill Seldin , John Vasse, Dan Archilles, Thomas Bell , Martha Bell , Scott Whitham , David Herrick, David Norcross , Steve Lucente , Jon Lucente, David Srnka . Chairman David Stotz called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p. m . , stating that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same were in order. The first appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Scott Whitham, Agent, requesting a Special Approval under Article IV, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a track and field facility at Campus Road • and alumni fields, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 63= 1-8. 2 and 67= 1- 13. 2, Residence District R40. Scott Whitham , Agent for Cornell University of 571 Spencer Road of Ithaca said Cornell University does not have a NCAA qualified track at the university, so Cornell has been holding their events at the Ithaca High School . Mr. Whitham said most tracks that are being built these days , of that standard , has a field within the track. Mr. Whitham said the soccer fields can be constructed inside the track. Mr. Whitham said currently there are tennis courts along the lower part of where the track will be , but the tennis courts will be moved , and an existing walkway that runs east/west will also be removed to put the track in . Mr. Whitham said Cornell will be taking up field space that is not being used . Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Whitham if Cornell would be taking out the parking lot. Mr. Whitham said no. Mr. Whitham said the parking would be the same . Mr. Whitham said Cornell would be realigning an existing wall down around the track, removing some existing light poles that are there for the existing fields, and rearranging some of the existing throwing events . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Whitham if there would be landscaping down by the eight lane NCAA track. Mr. Whitham said there would be trees along there . Mr. Whitham said there are existing red oaks that we will be taking out and putting along the new aligned wall . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Whitham if the new track would be used for NCAA events . Mr. • Whitham said right. • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 MAY 229 1996 Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Whitham if there were any events there and at Schoellkopf at the same time . Mr. Whitham said probably not. Mr. Whitham said that Schoellkopf is not NCAA regulation . Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Whitham if the track around the football field was NCAA regulation . Mr. Whitham said no. Mr. Whitham said there is some space along the middle side of the track for temporary bleachers in case there are large events being held there. Chairman Stotz said that there used to be a track near there years ago. Mr. Whitham said a long time ago before he was around here , but he has seen photos. Chairman Stotz said it went east/ west . Mr. Whitham said that for soccer facilities , the proper alignment is northlsouth . Mr. Whitham said the drainage is tied into existing storm lines. Mr. Whitham said there would be no structure as part of the project. Mr. Whitham said there is a potential donor recognition area dedicated to Dean Kane who was an Olympian and an associate of Cornell . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Whitham if the circle shown is the line of the synchrotron . Mr. Whitham said correct, and would there would be no effect with the synchrotron . • Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Whitham if the track would be a rubber surface. Mr. Whitham said it would be asphaltic with a rubber polymer. Mr. Frost said he does not anticipate issuing any building permits . Mr. Frost said that there have been some discussions about that, but he does not have any particular regulations that cover a track without buildings on it. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Whitham if he had the schedule dates for the construction to begin . Mr. Whitham said tomorrow, May 23 , 1996 . Mr. Whitham said that Cornell wants to have the track opened by next spring , but to get grass on the soccer field by this fall . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Stotz asked Ms. Cornish if this board needs to do a short form for the environmental assessment, and he said he did not understand why an environmental assessment form was attached to this. Attorney Barney said this is what you would call a coordinated , with separate review. Attorney Barney said they may have site plan responsibilities as this board has • variance responsibilities. Chairman Stotz asked if this board still needs to act on the environmental aspect . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 MAY 229 1996 Ms. Cornish said that given the location of the project and the proposed use compared to the existing use, the Planning Board did not see any significant environmental impacts for this project. Ms . Cornish said as Mr. Frost stated that there were some discussions as to whether a building permit would be needed , and he has decided no building permits are needed . Ms . Cornish said it seems like a perfectly appropriate use in this location , and the staff recommends a negative determination . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Whitham if there would be any kind of x-ray demonstration from the synchrotron . Mr. Whitham said that the synchrotron was an enclosed tunnel . Mr. Scala said he knows what it is and where it is . Mr. Ellsworth said they are shielded fields with a ladder. Mr. Whitham said that there are existing fields right on top of it. , Mr. Scala asked Mr. Whitham if it has been demonstrated somewhere. Ms. Cornish said the Town Engineer Dan Walker and her have had discussions on this, and they both feel that there would be no significant impacts from that. Mr. Whitham said the people from Wilson Lab have been part of the project team , early on looking at these possibilities . Mr. Scala said they all wear badges . Mr. Frost said they are also working around the equipment . Mr. Frost said he has raised the question numerous times with building permits that he issued for Wilson Lab, and they demonstrated massive amounts of concrete and lead shielding throughout the areas. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Whitham if the throwing events include the javelin . Mr. Whitham said yes . Chairman Stotz said that is already there . Chairman Stotz asked for comments or questions on the environmental assessment. Motion By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Pete Scala : RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance for Cornell University' s request to construct a track and field facility at Campus Road and alumni fields, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 63-1 -8. 2 and 67- 1 - 13 . 2 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Scala , Ellsworth . NAYS - None . • The motion was carried unanimously . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 MAY 229 1996 MOTION By Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED, with respect to the request for special approval under Article IV, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, that this board hereby approves the request for permission to construct the track and field facility on alumni fields and Campus Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 63-1 -8 . 2 and 67- 1 A 3 . 2 with the following finding and conditions : 1 . That the proposal complies with Article XIV, Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub- paragraphs a-h . 2 . That the Planning Board conditions dated May 7 , 1996 be met prior to commencement of construction . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Scala if he would like to amend his motion with the Planning Board recommendations . Mr. Scala said that he is not sure what to say. • A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Scala , Ellsworth . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The second appeal to be heard was the following : APPEAL of T&M Convenience of Ithaca, Inc., Appellant, William Seldin, Esq., Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article Vill, Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to operate a retail convenience store and self-serve gasoline station at 614 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-34.4, Light Industrial Zone. Since this property once had a legally non-conforming retail use more than one year ago, a variance from Article Xll, Section 53 may also be sought. Attorney William Seldin, agent said he serves the interests of Tom and Martha Bell , who are the sole shareholders of T&M Convenience of Ithaca , Inc. Attorney Seldin said that some of the board may be familiar with Bell ' s Convenience Foods when it was in operation on Elmira Road . • Attorney Seldin said back in February 1974 the Bells went before the board . If they had received a variance at that time , we would not be standing here at this time . Attorney Seldin said the Bells • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 5 MAY 229 1996 received an interpretation at the February 1974 meeting, that they did not need to retain a variance , that indeed their use of that establishment and of that plot was consistent with the zoning ordinance as it then existed . Attorney Seldin said following that interpretation , the Bell ' s built a store and operated it for a good many years until January 1994, Attorney Seldin said in January 1994 they had a tenant, unfortunately, the lease was about to expire , and the Bells had the hopes of selling the property to the tenant or at least re-renting . Attorney Seldin said the Bells , in 1992 and 1993 , received a notice of appropriation by the Department of Transportation ( DOT) for the State of New York, which they intended to construct a four-lane highway. Attorney Seldin said that the DOT had filed plans and forwarded the plans to the attention of the Bells indicating that they would need a great deal of the Bell's property to accomplish this. Attorney Seldin said as these things happened , the people in Town who were interested in acquiring the store or at least trying to lease it, those people were scared off by this information. Attorney Seldin said in addition to the pamphlets he was handing out to the board ( pamphlet on file with the zoning department) , which incorporates the minutes of the Planning Board back in 1974 which granted the interpretation , followed by messages from the DOT concerning their intentions to use the property in 1993 and 1994. Attorney Seldin said he would like to add to the pamphlet a letter from Ken Gardner of Northeast Appraisal and Management, Co. , Inc. , directed to the DOT which in effect says to the DOT if they take the amount of property the DOT intends to take , will ruin this place forever as a convenience store. Attorney • Seldin said there is a detail of the actual taken that was proposed by DOT at the time and is attached to the letter also . Attorney Seldin said that he would like to have the handout and other materials provided to the board previously be made part of the permanent record for this case. Attorney Seldin said the board is fortunate to have John Vasse with us tonight of some years experience. Attorney Seldin said Mr. Vasse has been involved with the business for 45 years, and he has been involved in commercial real estate forever, and more importantly he was on the Planning Board at the time of this interpretation . Attorney Seldin said that Mr. Vasse was contacted by Tom and Martha Bell , and has intimate knowledge of difficulties associated with trying to re-rent or sell the property once word got out about the appropriation . Attorney Seldin said Mr. Vasse is also here to address one other criteria associated with the fine for a use variance , which is an amount of reasonable return that could be expected by virtual of trying to get a retail store into a Light Industrial District. Attorney Seldin said Mr. Vasse could tell the board better that it is very difficult to expect a reasonable return from this establishment because no light industrial enterprise is going to want to pick up a building of this size , this kind of layout, and configuration . Attorney Seldin said he should mention at this point, that by verdure of the State's interruption and threatened condonation , the building has been vacant in excess of a year. Attorney Seldin said the zoning ordinance says if the use has been discontinued for a year, the Bells have lost what inherit rights that might have been grandfathered in to begin with . Attorney Seldin said Mr. and Mrs . Bell have come before the board tonight seeking an • opportunity to continue in what has been in effect for the better part of twenty some odd years , and that is to re-rent the premises as a convenience store . Attorney Seldin said the Bells do have a • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 6 MAY 221 1996 perspective tenant, so it is the Bell ' s hope that they will receive the necessary permission tonight to accomplish that. Attorney Seldin said he also refers to Article 12 , Section 53 of the zoning ordinance, which is the language associated with the notion that if someone has lost or discontinued operations for a period in an excess of a year then they have lost their inherit rights . Attorney Seldin said the section goes on to state that not withstanding that language, a non-conforming use that ceases to operate because of a temporary government restriction , may resume within a period of one year from the time that such restrictions are removed . Attorney Seldin said those restrictions were effectively removed by the DOT in December 1995 , and as things turned out, the DOT did not need that property from the Bells , but the damage was done and the predicament was created . Attorney Seldin said he is suggesting two things , first being that the Bells will meet the criteria associated with practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship . Attorney Seldin said with that, he and the Bells could demonstrate that tonight with Mr. Vasse' s testimony, that the Bells could not obtain a reasonable return from this establishment that was built in reliance upon the initial interpretation of this board some twenty odd years ago . Attorney Seldin said secondly, that the predicament is unique, it is not every owner that finds him/herself in the posture that the Bells now occupy. Attorney Seldin said this would not alter the central character of the neighborhood . Attorney • Seldin said Mr. Bell took the trouble to take the tax map and show on the tax map the businesses that are adjacent to the convenience store, which consist of: Stellar Stereo retail , Salino Electric, International Machinist Lodge , Economy Inn Motel , Gray Haven Motel , Like you Furniture , Wonderland Lodge, Nasco Flooring Outlet, Leisure World , Cortright Electric, and the convenience store . Attorney Seldin said there are other retail establishments in the neighborhood , and it is suggested that the proposed variance would not alter the area in anyway it should perform , especially when the board considers this store was there to begin with for a period of twenty years or better. Attorney Seldin said that the last criteria the Bells need to meet and establish , is that this hardship was not self created . Attorney Seldin said that even if this board finds that an interpretation is not appropriate within the meaning and intent of Section 53 , he suggests that the history of this property speaks to the fact that the Bells did not create this predicament, but that they were thrust into it. Attorney Seldin said he would like to have Mr. Bell come forward and speak. Tom Bell of 5401 Curry Road , Trumansburg , NY, said that he was leasing to Ken Mead , Superior Disposal , who had a tenant in there , but he was in the position where he was interested in buying it. Mr. Bell said he consummated a deal on the price and the time with Mr. Mead , but when the DEC came in and started this project everyone got cold feet in the sense of thinking that they would not be able to carry on business with all the road construction going on and the blockage of the entrance. Mr. Bell said the tenant got cold feet and backed out of the deal , and in January 1994 , he moved out. Mr. Bell said that left him with an empty convenience food store. • Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Bell if there was any manufacturing storage in there from the building to the west. Mr. Bell said no, and he did not have a tenant in the building at all for that period of TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7 MAY 22, 1996 time. Mr. Bell said that Roscoe Woodworking which was located directly behind him in a warehouse , thought he could use some temporary office space on a month-to-month basis because he did not need any traffic coming or going it would be strictly for his employees . Mr. Bell said for a period of four to five months , Roscoe Woodworking was using the building for temporary office use only until the road construction was finished . Mr. Bell said he hired a couple retailers , Mr. Vasse was one and Audrey Edelman being the other to really try desperately or find a tenant for him , because basically it was an income loss of about $24,000 a year which is pretty detramental effect on his family in sense that there he does not have that income . Attorney Seldin asked Mr. Bell if he could briefly address whether or not the Realtors had any success with renting or selling this property. Mr. Bell said Mr. Vasse could probably explain that better than he could, but Mr. Bell knows that they both took several individuals out to see the property. Mr. Bell said that they liked the property well , but again , everyone is afraid of the impact the road construction would have on any type of business they put in there . Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Bell ifthe road construction was done because they are working on the intersection now. Mr. Bell said the road is done in front of the store , as far as the entrance goes it is finished . Mr. Bell said the State has reseeded the grass and everything is complete . 0 Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Bell if the State has withdrawn their original intent to take some of that property. Mr. Bell said that was correct. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Bell if the perspective buyers know that the property is intact now, and that the property is not going to be threatened by any expansion of the road . Mr. Bell said yes . He said that the State is physically done in front of the establishment, they reseeded the grass , and they completed their work, so everyone could see the design that exists . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Bell when did the State let him know that they did not need that additional property . Attorney Seldin responded , December 1994 , Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Bell if he has had the establishment on the market since December 1994 , Mr. Bell responded , yes . Mr. Bell said that he just took the Realtor signs down this early spring and he put up a lease sign of his own which attracted his new potential tenant. Mr. Bell said now, physically everyone could see the road for what it is . Attorney Seldin said he would like to suggest, like Mr . Ellsworth said that not everyone got the message, and it was not until the State started seeding and advanced the project beyond the store that it becomes real to the public at large that this is not going to become a threatened location . Attorney Seldin said it is very hard to undo what has been done some time ago . Mr. Ellsworth said the project had dragged over parts of the past winter. Mr. Ellsworth said he was wondering because the State is working on the intersection with the new traffic light that was is not too far from the establishment. ito rney Seldin said that is correct. • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 6 MAY 229 1996 Chairman Stotz said that the new traffic is going to be expanded on the other side with two additional lanes which would come together before they get to the store. Mr. Bell said that is correct . Mr. Bell said the light is a blessing in a sense for everyone. Mr. Ellsworth said the new traffic pattern would help break the traffic for everyone that is coming from Newfield . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Bell , that at this point, he would like to reopen this establishment as a convenience store when it operated under the name of Bell ' s Convenient Food Store . Mr. Bell said that is correct. Mr. Bell said the store would be the same layout with no changes to the building , except that the interior would have a little different design . Mr. Bell said the exterior would be the same as it is now, same pumps. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Bell if he would be selling gas . Mr. Bell replied yes , and that he would not be changing things structurally at all . John Vasse of 618 Elm Street said he had been involved with this property from way back, and he said he was the broker involved when this property was the Weaver Chicken Farm . Mr. Vasse said this property is a parcel from the 175 acres surrounding. Mr. Vasse said that he sold this parcel to Mr. Mancini about 25 to 30 years ago, and at that time Mr. Vasse said he was on the Planning Board for the Town of Ithaca , for 16 years . Mr. Vasse said when he was on the Planning Board that they decided that the highest and best use of that property out in the valley would be • Light Industrial . Mr. Vasse said however, since commercial was less restrictive when people like Mr. Bell came along and wanted to develop a frontage, and the retail being less restrictive than Light Industrial the Planning Board thought that was the way to go . Mr. Vasse said he was song that the documentation was not followed through necessary that Mr. Bell has got himself in this situation . Mr. Vasse said his personal opinion is that this property can not be used for industrial use and bring in a favorable return . Mr. Vasse said people in the industrial area would probably pay $4. 00 or $ 5 . 00 a square foot for space, for retailing they would pay $ 12 . 00 to $ 15 . 00 a square foot for space which Mr. Bell is going to have to have in order to make this a feasible arrangement as a rental project. Mr. Vasse said he opinion is that the highest and best use of the property is to retain its flavor as a convenience store or grocery store . Mr. Vasse said he thinks there is a functional need for it out there. Mr. Vasse said with all the trailer parks the Town has out there, if these people want to make a quick stop instead of going to the bigger supermarkets, they could stop real quick and go. Mr. Vasse said he thinks this would be beneficial to the neighborhood to reopen this store. Mr. Vasse said that he lives on Elm Street Extension where often times , he goes out Elmira Road and comes back in on Route 13 rather than hitting the octopus , and he would stop at Bell ' s Convenient Store for milk or bread rather than having to run into one of the bigger supermarkets . Mr. Vasse said having Mr. Bell retain the store as a quick stop grocery convenient store would be the highest and best use for the neighborhood . Attorney Seldin asked Mr. Vasse if he had attempted to sell the property while the State had • the restriction. Mr. Vasse said yes , and when Mr. Bell contacted him and tried to work on selling it along with a couple other brokers, it was pretty tough because everyone knew the construction was TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 MAY 229 1996 coming and the road construction would make it hard for people to come and go. Mr. Vasse said consequently the interested parties backed off. Chairman Stotz said that when the State was going to take the property, Mr. Bell 's plan at that point was to sell what remained. Mr. Vasse said sell or lease what remained , there were no takers , and Mr. Bell lost quite a lot of money in this period of time . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Vasse if the State had taken the property, Mr. Bell would have lost that money also . Mr. Vasse said that was correct. Attorney Seldin said if the State took the land , they would have paid Mr. Bell some type of compensation . Chairman Stotz said the State would have paid for the portion they took, and then Mr. Bell would have a continuing problem trying to sell the establishment. Mr. Vasse said it probably would have had a negative impact on the resale . Attorney Seldin said he gave a letter to the board earlier from Ken Gardner, and Mr. Gardner was there to tell the State of New York if they took so much of this property, they would be defeating this property entirely as a meaningful or saleable item , and therefore they would need to compensate Mr. and Mrs. Bell to the full and reasonable value of the entire parcel . Attorney Seldin said that he and Mr. Gardner took the position , directly so at the time, that the State could not take • the parking lot away from this convenience store and expect it to have some kind of vidual use in the future. Attorney Seldin said that is what the State tried to do, and the amount of the taking would not , even if this board would have been happy, the Planning Board would not permit it . Attorney Seldin said there was no way that Mr. and Mrs . Bell could have any reasonable access to the store with what was left. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Bell if there have been any changes to the building since it was in operation before . Mr. Bell said there have been none. Mr. Scala asked Mr. Bell what about the sign that was an issue before. Attorney Seldin asked Mr. Scala what sign he was referring to . Attorney Barney said that there was a letter from the DOT directing the removal of a sign . Attorney Seldin said it was an advertising sign , and they have to go in and do their own thing , and it was not consistent with the sign, so the DOT wanted it removed . Attorney Seldin said Mr. Bell does not need to move the sign at this time because they are done with their road work. Attorney Seldin said that the right-of--way never happened because what they wanted was the right-of-way for the construction through two phases . Attorney Barney asked Attorney Seldin is that letter related to where the State was planning to put the right-of-way. Attorney Seldin said that was correct. s • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 MAY 22, 1996 Chairman Stotz said he would like to point out that there is a letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning that does raise some issues . Chairman Stotz said the access point from the entrance of the property, that there were some issues of the sight line on one side of the property from one direction . Ms . Cornish said a portion of the entrance cuts across Mancini Drive , which is a private road . Ms . Cornish said the curb cut is actually on the corner of the property , so there is ingress or regress, whichever is going to happen , does not happen at a right angle , which would be the normal design . Ms . Cornish said it cuts into the property at the corner, so that is one issue because when someone goes in and out of the parking lot they would be crossing Mancini Drive . Ms. Cornish said crossing Mancini Drive could be dangerous if they are not watching for traffic on Mancini Drive, even though the road is private and there is not a lot of traffic. Ms . Cornish said the southernly ingress or regress for the sight distance , there is a crown in the road and the traffic goes very fast , which the speed limit is 55 MPH , Mr. Ellsworth said the traffic light should help . Ms . Cornish said that would be correct, the traffic light will help , but it is still a concern . Chairman Stotz asked if that would be an issue of the sight line to the north looking towards the light . Ms . Cornish said that is correct. Mr. Bell said the visibility is much more enhanced now because the road level has come down a foot in elevation from what it used to be when he was there in operation . Mr. Bell said that people • could see much better now than before . Ms . Cornish said it still took her about fifteen minutes to make a left hand turn out that property. Mr. Bell said that it could be time consuming at rush hour, it has always been that way. Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Bell if there is a wide shoulder there. Mr. Bell said it is very wide. Mr. Ellsworth said that is what they usually do with the new road , so that is a good start. Ms . Cornish said the light should be what helps the most because it will help break that traffic up . Chairman Stotz asked if the sight line is a critical issue . Ms . Cornish said there are several sight issues that need to be addressed that is not part of this particular variance. Ms . Cornish said the Bells were in front of the Planning Board in December 1994 , with a site plan when it was being used as administrative offices . Ms . Cornish said that the site plan addressed some issues that the Planning Board was concerned with at that time , but that was never completed . Ms . Cornish said it was approved by the Planning Board , but the improvements were never completed by the Bells . Ms. Cornish said the ingress and regress was one issue that was addressed by the Planning Board at that time, but since there have been improvements to the road , she believes that the Planning Board will not be asking for anymore southerly regress because the curb cuts have already been done with the new improvements with the road . Ms. Cornish said there are still several site plan issues that may help mitigate the dangerous left hand turn , the light is one of them , but short of redesigning the road , it is an issue that is just going to have to be dealt with . Ms. Cornish said if this issue goes in front of the Planning Board , they could look at this more . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 11 MAY 22, 1996 Mr. Ellsworth asked if this was the same issue with the adjoining properties, like the carpet place and a few others along there. Ms. Cornish said except that the carpet place has a better sight distance. Mr. Ellsworth asked if they have a drop off like this property. Ms . Cornish said it is to the south where the crown end because the Bell' s curb cut is much closer to that . Attorney Seldin asked Ms. Cornish if there was any history of any accidents in that area . Ms . Cornish said she would have to look into that. Mr. Ellsworth said down the road in front of Turbacks . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Bell if the intent is to have the gas pumps . Mr. Bell said that was part of the establishment and will be mandated again . Attorney Seldin said that the Bells would need to meet any requirements and standards . Ms . Cornish said the Department of Environmental Conservation have their own standards for that. Attorney Seldin said that they are trying to put the cart before the horse because we are going in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals , and they have been in front of the Planning Board , but he thinks this is the appropriate route to take . Attorney Seldin said if the Bells get the variance and whatever the Planning Board wants to insist on , they would have to improvise without question . Attorney Seldin said there are Health Department concerns when dealing with the sale of foods . Attorney Seldin said there are a lot of concerns that need to be worked out. • Mr. Frost said that with the change of occupancies , they will more than likely need a building permit, and he would not be able to issue a building permit in this zone without first getting approval from the Planning Board . Attorney Seldin said that is correct. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Stotz said C1 of the environmental assessment form does indicate that the issues of air quality, surface ground work quality, quantity noise levels , existing traffic patterns, solid waste reduction disposal , potential for erosion drainage of flooding , along with signage , lighting , circulation , landscaping are site plan issues that need to be addressed when a site plan has been submitted. Ms. Cornish said the granting of a variance in the use of this area does not propose any significant environmental impacts provided that the Planning Board has an opportunity to review a site plan for this convenience store to address some of the concerns. Chairman Stotz asked if that would automatically be part the building permit. Attorney Barney said it would not hurt to have it as a condition . Chairman Stotz asked for comments or questions on the environmental assessment. M TI N • By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Pete Scala : • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 12 MAY 22, 1996 RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the appeal to operate a retail convenience store and a self-serve gasoline station at 614 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33-3-2 . 4, based on the review by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Scala , Ellsworth . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Scala asked if the business was essentially going to be reopened to operate in the same manner as it was before . Mr. Bell said that was correct. M U N By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Pete Scala : • RESOLVED that this boardrant a variance from the requirements of Article VIII 9 q , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for operating a retail convenience store and a self-serve gas station at 614 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33-3-2. 4, based that the owner has presented evidence of hardship caused by some State situations , and that this use is in conformance with the surrounding properties, with the following conditions: 1 . That the site plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Board prior to the issuance of any public entity opening the doors . 2 . That the variance for the proposal as it is submitted , which includes no expansion , no alterations to the exterior of the building , and that the site exterior remains the same unless approved by the Planning Board . Mr. Frost said say for instance that there was some modifications that the Planning Board desired or the Bells decided to modify the site plan, that could occur if the Planning Board approved the site plan. Attorney Barney said his understanding with the application here is to do nothing on the exterior of the building, and that is what this board is basing this decision on . Mr. Ellsworth said the building on site. Attorney Barney said if that is the basis on what the board is considering a variance, then the condition should be expressly stated that if there is a need to change it, it would • give this board another opportunity to look at it. Mr. Ellsworth said he agrees with the amendment. • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 13 MAY 22, 1996 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Scala , Ellsworth . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. The third appeal to be heard was the following : APPEAL of Cornell University, Owner, the Penn Traffic Company Appellant, David A. Herrick, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article Vll, Section 37 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge the P& C Supermarket, which maintains an 18 foot rear yard building setback (30 foot setback required) at the East Hill Plaza Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 . 121, Business C Zone. The proposed enlargement consists of a 6,000 ± sq. ft. addition to the buildings west side and will not increase the setback deficiency. As this is a pre-existing setback deficiency, an approval • under Article X11, Section 54 may also be sought. David Herrick with T. G . Millers, said he would like to ask the board to consider accepting the appeal for the existing condition , plus approximately two-thirds of the north wall of P&C' s new expansion which will require a variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback. Mr. Herrick said that back on May 7 , 19961 P&C retained a conditional preliminary site plan approval from the Planning Board , Mr. Herrick said that one of the conditions was to come in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals to appeal the existing setback conditions. Mr. Herrick said he feels that the proposal to the Town is a practical extension of the rear building line which is in an angle as shown on the site plan for several reasons. Mr. Herrick said one reason is to maintain the access to the rear of the store, which is done by the angle design . Mr. Herrick said that the existing sanitary sewer is enveloped to the building . Mr. Herrick said the interior floor layout, hopefully the board would be able to witness for themselves in the future, would be disrupted by creating a straight wall in the back if P&C had to conform with the 30 foot setback. Mr. Herrick said he thinks the length of the existing building that had been less than 30 feet would probably be 25 feet, but what P&C is proposing tonight is an additional 60 to 65 feet. Mr. Herrick said he would like to introduce David Norcross who is the Vice President of Real Estate with Penn Traffic Company. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Herrick if he knew what was to the north of P&C . Mr. Herrick said Coyote Locol is just to the north and a parking lot with their facility. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Herrick if he knew what was across the street. Mr. Herrick said that would be Ide' s Bowling Alley and Courtside Fitness Center. • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 14 MAY 229 1996 Chairman Stotz asked if the exit drive from the plaza would impact the sight line some what to the north where cars are exiting . Mr. Herrick said he does not believe so . Mr. Herrick said it will be some what reduced from what it is now, but there are other amenities on the site right now, such as trees and bushes that are out along the sidewalks , to some extent limit that sight distance . Mr. Herrick said that it would be true to say that it would be potentially reduced , however, there is still adequate stacking room from the face of the new building to the edge of Judd Falls Road , Mr. Herrick said that they never envisioned that to become a problem for exiting traffic. Chairman Stotz said there would still be forty feet, and where the traffic comes out now could already see oncoming traffic from back by the existing building face , and now they would have to proceed up within forty feet of the road . Mr. Ellsworth said there is a traffic light on the corner of the road that would break the traffic up that way in that lane . Mr. Herrick said that they do not feel and they have not felt throughout the development of the site plan , that it would be a negative impact in anyway to the users or to the safety of the people on Judd Falls Road . Ms . Cornish said she could concur with that, and she stated she went up to the East Hill P&C and spent several hours observing traffic patterns, and she said that this new addition will not have an impact on the sight distance. Ms . Cornish said that it is not easy to make that turn , but this addition will not further impact it . is Attorney Barney asked if P&C anticipates a higher volume of business . Mr. Norcross said what P&C anticipates and what they have seen at other expansions in size and nature , is that they do not significantly increase the number of customers or the number of trips per customer. Mr. Norcross said what they have seen is that by offering more services within the store , they would increase the sale per customer, so what they really are doing is taking the existing customers who are generating more business from the same customer basis that they currently have. Mr. Norcross said there would not be any significance of any additional customers or customer trips to the store in the result of the addition of the size . Mr. Norcross said he wanted to point out to the board , that when Chairman Stotz was reading the appeal notice, there was a typographical error of 6 , 000 +/- square feet which the correct footage of the expansion is 8 , 971 square feet. Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Norcross what the new expansion would be used for. Mr. Norcross said the new addition would be the expansion of the perishable departments such as produce, deli , and bakery areas . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Norcross what does P&C stand for. Mr. Norcross said that many years ago it stood for Producers and Consumers that was cooperative , but that has not been the case for some period of time now. Mr. Frost asked Mr. Norcross if years ago that P&C used to be where the Courtside Fitness Center is . Mr. Norcross said that was correct. Mr. Norcross said he would like to. point out to the board in the findings that are necessary for an area variance, that P&C pointed out that the surrounding uses are commercial in nature , and therefore, this would not produce any • undesirable changes in the character of the neighborhood . Mr. Norcross said the benefit P&C is seeking here with the 18 foot setback, is the continuation of the same 18 foot setback that already • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 15 MAY 22, 1996 exists and has already been granted . Mr. Norcross said P&C is not expanding or coming any closer to the property line than they already are . Mr. Norcross said that for P&C to try and increase the setback would have such a drastic effect on the interior floor that it would render the size of the addition so small that it would not be economically realistic to pursue it. Mr. Norcross said he does not feel that the requested variance is going to have an adverse physical impact on the neighborhood , and the Planning Board has already passed on SEQR that there would be no environmental impacts as a result of this expansion . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Norcross if the real benefit was for more interior space . Mr. Norcross said that was correct. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Herrick if by removing the existing walls, P&C would essentially be opening the building . Mr. Scala said there would be no other restrictions such as same height, the same expansion as adding the 9 , 000 square feet of floor space , with no other significant changes in the building . Mr. Herrick said there would not be any other changes . • Chairman Stotz said the adopted resolution from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does P 9 indicate that the Planning Board is the lead agency and has already made a negative determination of environmental significance on April 2 , 1996. Attorney Barney said that it was a lot line variance , and therefore , it is not needed for a SEAR. Mr. Scala asked Mr. Herrick if there were any additional requirements for other safety exits. Mr. Herrick said that they had submitted the site plan to the Fire Department for their review and specifically asked about the emergency access along the west wall . Mr. Herrick said that originally P&C had proposed to maintain pavement there for emergency access , but the Fire Department felt that was unnecessary, that there are no access doors provided on this expansion , and the Fire Department did not have any concerns about that access . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Norcross if P&C owns the building it is maintaining . Mr. Norcross said P&C is leasing the building from Cornell University. MOTION By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Pete Scala : RESOLVED, that this board hereby grant a variance from the requirements of Article • VIII , Section 37 of Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for an enlargement of approximately 9 , 000 square feet to the existing P&C Supermarket at the East Hill • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 MAY 22, 1996 Plaza Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62-2- 1 . 121 , with the following findings: 1 . There is already an existing deficiency in the setback along the north . 2 . That the area surrounding this building is basically commercial in nature , founded on the north by a restaurant type facility, on the west across the road by essentially another shopping plaza and bowling alley , and to the east the remainder of the shopping center that this building is in . 3 . That there is no significant deficit in change in the character of the neighborhood by the reason of this extension . 4 . The benefit to the applicant of the increased interior space outweighs any detriment to the surrounding neighborhood as the result of this expansion . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Scala , Ellsworth . • NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was the following : APPEAL of Jon Lucente, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VI, Section 29, Paragraph 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a refuse and recycling area in the side yard of a multiple residence property known as Sprucewood Apartments (formally Winston Court Apartments) at 611 Winston Court, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70-4-3, Multiple Residence Zone. Said Ordinance requires a refuse area to be placed only in the rear yard. Jon Lucente of Lucente Homes said he wanted to give a brief overview first. Mr. Lucente said the current recycling system that exists now is the standard binds that are put out on the curbside . Mr. Lucente said the tenants have been running into several problems with interference with the Postal Service because they put them in front of the mailboxes. Mr. Lucente said when there is a wind storm the recyclables are spread throughout the neighborhood . Mr. Lucente said that his proposal is to build a recycling center that has walls to shelter the recycling systems and the dumpsters as well . Mr. Lucente said that he determined that probably the best site is on the • northern end of 611 Winston Court. Mr. Lucente said the barrier he has there, that the law says they must be located in the back yards , but due to the unusual layout of the Sprucewood Apartments, • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 17 MAY 22, 1996 there really is not a back yard that is not someone else' s front yard or has road accessibility. Mr. Lucente said the benefit of the proposed site is it does not remove any current parking , it is out of the way and on the edge, and it has minimal visual impact on the rest of the neighborhood . Mr. Lucente said he had spoken to Mr. Frost, and he felt that was also the best location for the site . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Lucente if the recycling system is going to have a fence around it . Mr. Lucente said that is correct. Mr. Lucente said he had submitted plans to the building department showing the layout design of the center. Mr. Lucente said the center will have two dumpsters on both ends of the building, and by having the dumpster enclosed , the recycling center would improve the visualization of the area . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Lucente if the garbage trucks would back up and pick up the dumpsters . Mr. Lucente said that was correct, just as they do now. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Lucente that according to the site plan that was submitted , what are the little boxes with the numbers on them going to be . Mr. Lucente said those would be the different bind areas for the recyclables. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Lucente if the recycling was tied in with the dumpsters. Mr. Lucente said no . Mr. Lucente said there will be a gateway in the middle • to walk in for the recycle area. Mr. Lucente said the dumpsters will be gained by access of the truck on the outside of the building . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Lucente if the dumpsters are used by the residents of the complex. Mr. Lucente said that was correct. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Lucente how the recycling center will be accessed by the residents of the complex. Mr. Lucente said at the end of the building through the swinging gates . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Lucente if the swinging gates would be locked at any time . Mr. Lucente said no . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Lucente if he mapped this proposed recycling center building on the site area to make sure that there is adequate room to build . Mr. Lucente said yes , that he measured it out with a tape measure. Mr. Lucente said he wants to put the recycling center in the area where the current dumpsters are presently located . Mr. Frost said he took some pictures while he was out viewing the site , and he said it seemed like a tight area. Mr. Lucente said it is pretty much tightly scaled out, and he said he tried to do it within a foot or two . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Lucente if the recycling truck would pull up and take everything out of the building . Mr. Lucente said yes , as opposed to going to every single apartment and building to pick up everyone's individual binds, and there are 18 of them . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Lucente what he would be asking people to do now, rather than to put it right outside their building , is to go some distance. Mr. Lucente said that was correct, which they have to do any way to get to the • dumpster. Mr. Lucente said that it would be an advantage to centralize it. TOWN OF ITHACA . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 18 MAY 227 1996 Mr. Scala asked Mr. Lucente if there are 12 separate binds or containers for every apartment. Mr . Lucente said that there are 108 units and that was the county's recommendation for different materials . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Lucente if the binds would be for 12 different materials essentially. Mr. Lucente said there are three different types of binds for each material . Mr. Frost said probably for paper, plastic, and glass . Mr. Lucente said that was correct, and the frequency of the recyclable pick up would be adjusted according to the need . Mr. Frost said this definitely seems like a positive thing . Mr. Frost said Mr. Lucente would not be here tonight is he had not have that location problem with the rear yard . Chairman Stotz said that is sounds like Mr. Lucente is trying to improve it rather than to have stuff spread out all over the place. Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Lucente what the outer skin of the building was going to be , fence or what. Mr. Lucente said it is going to be cedar panel . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Lucente what the height of the fence was going to be. Mr. Lucente said approximately six feet. Mr. Frost said he wrestled with this one as well as to whether or not this board would be issuing any building permits, and he said he did not plan on it. Mr. Frost asked Mr. Lucente if there was going to be any new electric service or lights for the proposed building . Mr. Lucente said no . Mr. Frost said �t the current time he would not be issuing any permits . Chairman Stolz asked Mr. Lucente if he anticipate , if any, if he was going to concentrate all the recyclables in one place, that if there would be any problems with verbum . Mr. Lucente said with this system by building a wall around it would reduce the vermits and keep the dogs from getting in because there will be a fence, and if anything , he is hoping this would reduce the problem if any exist. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Lucente if he contracts with someone that comes and picks up the garbage and recyclables weekly. Mr. Lucente said someone comes twice a week right now, and when the center is up and going he will be adjusting the need accordingly for additional pick ups . Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing . MOTION By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Pete Scala : RESOLVED, that this board hereby grants the appeal of Jon Lucente requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VI , Section 29 , Paragraph 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a refuse and recycling area on the • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 19 MAY 22, 1996 the north side yard of the apartments at Sprucewood Apartments at 611 Winston Court , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70-4-3 . This would grant them to build this recycling center for the details presented in this board' s packet. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Scala , Ellsworth . NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The last appeal to be heard was the following : APPEAL of David Srnka, Owner/Appellant, requesting the modification of a previously granted variance (July 2, 1979) from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to maintain a customary home occupation at 809 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 314-17, Residence District R-30. The home occupation, Marion • Electric, so proposes to add a one bedroom dwelling unit to a building not used as a primary residence. The home occupation also maintains an area exceeding the maximum allowed 200 square feet. David Smka said since there is the large building there and he did get the variance to run his shop out of the building (Mr. Marion had the variance, and Mr. Srnka had to reapply when he bought the business from him) , and now that Marion Electric has down scaled the business, it is actually just him and his son now. Mr. Srnka said that he and his son are not in the building that much . Mr. Srnka said the proposed apartment would not be for rental because it is not a rental property. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Srnka who would be renting the apartment. Mr. Srnka said that would be for his use. Mr. Srnka said that there really would not be any construction to be done because everything is existing now. Mr. Srnka said the bathroom is there , and there would be an updated kitchen area because now there is only a kitchenette. Mr. Srnka said there would be a bedroom in a room that already is there . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Srnka if that would be his residence . Chairman Stotz said if he understands correctly , the house Mr. Srnka has in Newfield he is selling , and the Five Mile Drive location would be a part-of-the-year residence for him . Mr. Srnka said that was correct, but that he would not be selling the house in Newfield for another two years or so . Mr. Srnka said he has a house on Seneca Lake which would be his primary house , but that the reason it is not now is • because of the capital gains and the other is it is quite along drive in the winter time when it is dark while coming and going both times. Mr. Srnka said that during the week, many times , he and his • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 20 MAY 229 1996 wife would be staying at the Five Mile Drive property. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Srnka if when he and his wife are not occupying this property, would someone else be in it. Mr. Srnka said no , he and his wife would be staying there during the week in the winter time. Mr. Srnka said in the summer time, he and his wife would be traveling back and forth between the Geneva area . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Srnka when he and his wife are living in the lake house , there will be no one occupying these premises. Mr. Srnka said that was correct. Mr. Scala asked Mr. Srnka what is his Post Office address for a voting citizen . Mr. Srnka said at this point it is the Newfield address. Mr. Scala asked Mr. Srnka if the address would remain Newfield . Mr. Srnka said that it would be the Newfield address for at least two more years . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Srnka if this would be the apartment he would have in town . Mr. Srnka said that was right, and that Five Mile Drive would be his voting address in the future. Mr. Scala said some time in the future he would be changing his address, but for the next two years or so it would still be Newfield . Mr. Srnka said that was correct. Mr. Srnka said that his visions on that building itself, that it is quite a nice old barn structure , and that he always wanted to finish it over when he ceased the • business and then make it into a residence at that time. Mr. Frost asked Mr. Srnka if he anticipates coming before the board five or ten years from now, and saying that he would like to rent this building , and Mr. Frost further asked Mr. Srnka if he realized that if this board grants this approval , that he could not rent the apartment. Mr. Frost also asked Mr. Srnka if he had any thoughts to renting the apartment five to ten years from now. Mr. Srnka asked Mr. Frost if he meant for the business . Mr. Frost said renting the business or the apartment . Mr. Frost said if Mr. Srnka's son runs the business and he rents the apartment to someone. Mr. Srnka said he does not anticipate that. Mr. Srnka said if at that time if his son takes over the business, then he would have to apply for a variance just as Mr. Srnka did to maintain the business there since the variance was given to him . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Srnka if there would be any plans to rent the apartment down the road . Mr. Srnka said to rent the apartment out, he does not see his son doing that at this time. Mr. Srnka said it is not a large apartment, that it is almost an efficiency, but it will have a bedroom . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Srnka if he hears him correctly, that Mr. Srnka does not anticipate for the next five to ten years , that there would not be any consideration of renting the apartment. Mr. Frost said that he thinks that would be a problem because with it being a residential zone a home occupation requires a person to live and work on the property. Mr. Frost said Mr. Srnka now has the variance to maintain the shop there without a residence . Mr. Frost said that at some point with the residence, Mr. Srnka might want to rent the apartment, and that would be in violation of the • ordinance because it is a home occupation residence unless this board changes the ordinance that requires a person to live where they operate the business . Mr. Srnka said but the shop would no • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 21 MAY 22, 1996 longer cease there at the time he wants to occupy the apartment. Mr. Frost said that he does not see any problems with this now. Mr. Frost said he is just suggesting that Mr. Srnka should be aware that the possibility of rental would be in violation . Mr. Srnka said the only thing he sees in rental , that when he did the renovations of the rest of the building for his own homestead, then there would be a good chance he would ask to rent that apartment. Mr. Frost asked Mr. Srnka if he could have a two family home there. Mr. Srnka said that is true. Attorney Barney said if Mr. Srnka gave up the business. Mr. Srnka said yes . Mr. Srnka said the business is really just marginal now, that it is just the two of us with an office in there , and that he does not maintain much supplies and the inventory he tries to keep down . Mr. Srnka said he and his son are in and out of there during the day, and that his wife would answer the phone about 20 hours a week. Mr. Scala asked Mr. Srnka if the building is a business with a residence . Attorney Barney said it is a business in a residential zone by verdure of a variance being granted to allow it to be a business . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Srnka if it was a business or a residence . Mr. Srnka said not right now, that is what he is asking for. • Mr. Scala asked why it is not a residence, that it has all the components . Attorney Barney said at the moment the use of the property is not as a residence, that Mr. Srnka is using it as a business. Mr. Frost said the history of the property has just been consistent of business occupancy , and that Mr. Srnka may have some entities there which the business might not have . Mr. Srnka said the only change from what it is now is that he would be sleeping there and there would be a bedroom . Mr. Ellsworth said for certain times of the year. Mr. Srnka said that was correct, and that there would be some days in the summer time he and his wife would not be traveling because of their golf schedules . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Srnka if there are any other businesses in that vicinity. Mr. Srnka said no, besides the bus garage and the highway department up there . Mr. Srnka said there is an apartment complex that is owned by Connie Cook at the end of the road that has been there a long time. Mr. Srnka said that he thinks Connie Cook's complex is probably grandfathered in . Mr. Srnka said that there are apartment houses to the south of the establishment. Mr. Frost said that they are all two-family homes there. Mr. Srnka asked Mr. Frost if they were rental units . Mr. Frost said that they may be rental units, but that they are two-family homes, so per say it is not a multiple residence on Fiddlers Lane. Mr. Srnka said that in this area, he thought that in order to rent part of a building , that he would have to live in the other part. Mr. Srnka said he did not know he could have two units . Mr. Frost said no, not in the Town of Ithaca . Mr. Srnka asked Mr. Frost if down the road if he could finish the other part of the building , could he make it into a two-family residence, and legally rent . both of them . Mr. Frost said with a building permit, that is correct. • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 22 MAY 22, 1996 Mr. Frost said that it is the aspect of having the business in a residential zone . Attorney Barney said that could be met with if this board chooses to grant a variance by conditioning the variance that as long as the business is operated out of this property, that the living in it could only be occupied by the owner of the business . Attorney Barney said that if Mr. Srnka decides to abandon the business, then at that point he could probably turn it into a two-family unit. Mr. Srnka said then it would conform into all the regulations that apply, or that if he chose to move his business office elsewhere , then it would conform . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Srnka if the business was owned by him and his son . Mr. Srnka said no , that the business is owned by him only. Mr. Srnka said the building is owned by his son , but not the business . Mr. Frost said that there used to be a Mr. Marion who went before this board in the 1960' s , and that then Mr. Srnka bought it from Mr. Marion . Mr. Srnka said that in 1967 or so , that Mr. Marion had the building renovated to a warehouse and office area . Chairman Stotz asked if there were any other businesses around there where this issue might come up again for someone else. Attorney Barney said that in a way it is moving back towards what the area is originally zoned for. Mr. Srnka said that the building' s setback is quite remote from the road , and that one of his problems is that it is too remote from the road and that he has had a • number of break ins there . Chairman Stotz said that in Mr. Srnka's plan , it seems like this is not going to be an addition , that he would just be doing something inside the existing building . Mr. Srnka said that he would not be doing anything inside the existing building really, that it has all been there . Mr. Frost said Mr. Srnka will be needing a building permit because this board will be changing the occupancy to add the residence , and for that he would need a building permit and the certificate of occupancy. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Srnka if he would be altering the outside of the building in any way. Mr. Srnka said no . Mr. Srnka said that he would only be lifting a hammer for the kitchen area. Mr. Frost asked Mr. Srnka if he would be putting new windows in . Mr. Srnka said , no , that the windows were replaced over the years . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Srnka if the exterior would stay more less barn like . Mr. Srnka said yes, and that he would anticipate putting vinyl siding on it at some time to upgrade it . Mr. Srnka said that he would like to upgrade the exterior whether he gets a variance or not. Mr. Srnka said that it would always have the barn effect, and that is the way he would like to keep it. Mr. Scala said that he presumes the way Mr. Srnka is describing the sequence here, and that this could as well end up with another bedroom in it at some point when he is ready. Mr. Srnka said • yes, that if he ceased doing the business there, then it would probably have a two or three bedroom unit on the upstairs which is 26 feet by 65 feet, which is an unused area now. Mr. Scala asked if the TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 23 MAY 22, 1996 variance would allow the existence of one bedroom in the apartment . Mr. Srnka said that was correct. Mr. Scala asked if the apartment bedroom would be used by him , his wife , and his son . Mr. Srnka said that was correct. Mr. Scala asked if anything beyond that would require a variance. Mr. Ellsworth said that was correct. Mr. Frost said that as long as the business is there. Mr. Scala asked if the business was not there. Mr. Frost said then it would not be an issue for the two-family zoning . Mr. Srnka said that he anticipates the business not being there in ten years from now. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Srnka if he would rather live on Five Mile Drive instead of the lake . Mr. Srnka said that he prefers the lake area better, but that he has three properties and it is not feasible to own the Newfield house . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Stotz said that the environmental assessment does make mention under Paragraph C2, that the character of the barn is in keeping with the immediate surroundings , and that Mr. Srnka said he intends to keep it looking like a barn . Mr. Srnka said that was correct, and that would not • be altered at all on the exterior. Ms . Cornish said that whenever there is a business in a residential zone, that some of the things to consider would be the traffic patterns and parking , and certainly there was very little traffic there. Ms . Cornish said that Mr. Srnka was correct by saying that the establishment was remote, because she said she had a hard time finding the property. Ms . Cornish said that once on the lot itself, that it is very screened from the road with a large berm in front. Mr. Srnka said that is a given gas line that goes up over the hill , so that can not be removed . Ms. Cornish said that it is screened , and that it is a lovely lot. Mr. Smka said that when Mr. Marion had it and when he first took over the property, that there was a lot of activity in there because at that time there were 12 or 15 guys working out of there. Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Srnka if the traffic had cut down . Mr. Srnka said yes , that it is just him and his son now that go in and out once in awhile . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Smka if the business was still called Marion Electric, Mr. Srnka said yes . MOTION By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Pete Scala : RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance of the property on 809 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 31 - 2- 17 for a residence owner-occupied dwelling unit with the existing business on the property. • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 24 MAY 22, 1996 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Scala , Ellsworth . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Stotz asked if this was a new variance or a modification . Attorney Barney said that it was a modification. Chairman Stotz asked if the conditions from the original variance of November 1967 still stood . Attorney Barney said that unless this board changes them tonight. MOTION By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Pete Scala : RESOLVED, that this board grants a modification of the variance previously granted on July 2 , 1979 which at that time authorized an electrical contracting business to be • conducted in what would otherwise be a residential zone , on the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the owner to maintain a home/apartment which has an existing business at 809 Five Mile Drive Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -2- 17 in the appeal regarding David Srnka , with the following condition : 1 . That the modification of the variance would be permitting a single dwelling unit in the building pending the business provided the condition upon the fact that the dwelling unit be occupied by the owner of the business , as long as the business is being conducted on those premises . Mr. Frost asked if the board would like to modify the motion further by clarifying that the property is not his primary residence nor is the apartment a primary use of the property. Mr. Frost said that the ordinance would require the primary use to be residential , and that the business is a customary home occupation . Attorney Barney asked why would the ordinance require that. Mr. Frost said that the principal permitted use in the zone is a single-family residence. Mr. Frost said under the current set of definitions, that it is defined that primary as principal use . Attorney Barney said that if the variance was originally given in 1967 , that the variance was to operate an electrical business, so that is what Mr. Smka could do on the property right now. Attorney Barney asked if the variance was changed • in 1979 . Mr. Srnka said no . Attorney Barney said that this board is just modifying the original variance further to say the addition to the business , that Mr. Srnka may have a residence on the • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 25 MAY 22, 1996 property. Mr. Ellsworth added to make it owner occupied . Attorney Barney said that this board would be making a condition that it would be owner occupied and that the owner be the same owner of the business . Attorney Barney said that when the time comes in the future where the business is no longer operated there , that then the property becomes a conforming property . Mr. Frost said that he was perhaps more critical at the principal permitted use as a single- family residence, and that he thinks that was not clearly stated in the original variance . Attorney Barney said that it was not a residence use at that time . Mr. Frost said that the principal permitted use in a residential zone is a single-family residence . Attorney Barney said that a variance was granted to allow them to do a business. Mr. Frost said that he did not disagree with that, but that he was just suggesting that was not clearly enunciated , and that he thought the board would want to do that now. Mr. Frost said that he does not feel strongly about it. Chairman Stotz said that the original variance was granted for a warehouse basis . Mr. Frost said that he does not think it is significant . Attorney Barney said that the variance was granted for the warehouse on Burtt Place. Mr. Srnka said that was correct, but that for the 911 emergency they just took away the Burtt Place and made the address 809 Five Mile Drive. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Srnka if the office has always been in the same location . Mr. Srnka said that was right. • A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Scala , Ellsworth . NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Attorney Barney said that in the variance to Mr. Marion in 1967 , that it appears the fourth condition is that the variance is granted for warehouse use only. Attorney Barney said that this was not a condition that was followed through . Mr. Frost said that it seems like it was modified with the 1979 variance. Chairman Stotz said that it was the continuance of the variance. Chairman Stotz said that the variance says the lot of the sale of the land itself contains the office and the warehouse. Chairman Stotz said that Mr. Srnka may continue the existing use of the warehouse and the offices as an electrical business . Attorney Barney said in 1979 , that it was operated by Marion Electrical , but what concerns him is the 1967 condition , number 4, and that he was wondering if he could modify the consent of Mr. Ellsworth' s motion by drafting in that Number 4 of the 1967 variance be amended to reflect a warehouse not an electrical business related office . Chairman Stotz asked Attorney Barney if he could go back and amend something . Attorney • Barney said yes, that this board would be modifying the motion to be permitted . Chairman Stotz • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 26 MAY 22, 1996 asked if this was to bring everything into conformance in what is actually going on there. Attorney Barney said yes . Mr. Frost said that this was presented by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1979 . Attorney Barney said that the board at that time understood that. Mr. Frost said that reading the first paragraph , that he thinks that might be an error because Mr. Marion on the first paragraph of the public hearing in 1967 , which Mr. Marion stated " It is necessary that his employees go to Cayuga Electric to get many of their supplies because of the small size of the present warehouse . It is also inconvenient and a hardship for Mr. Marion to have his office at one location and his warehouse at another. " Chairman Stotz said that it might have been applied that the warehouse space only included an office of discussion . Attorney Barney said that the board could have initially said that the office could not be there , just the warehouse . Attorney Barney said that what concerns him , is that now the Town has a warehouse with an office and business being operated out of there , and that was contemplated in 1979. Mr. Frost said that assuming Mr. Smka had the office there and then wanted to add the warehouse, and that the Zoning Board of Appeals said that it was ok, but that he could only put a warehouse there. Mr. Frost said that he did not know what Mr. Marion was proposing at that time , but that the office is there already. Attorney Barney asked if he thought he needed to move the office there . Mr. Frost said no , that he had an office in one location and the • warehouse in another. Mr. Ellsworth asked if there was a Marion Electric shop on Route 13. Mr. Frost said that is Cortright on Route 13 , Attorney Barney said Mr. Marion said at the present time he had a small warehouse on Five Mile Drive and the office was on Old Spencer Road , Mr. Frost asked why would Mr. Marion say it was inconvenient to have his warehouse on Five Mile Drive. Attorney Barney said that because he had the office on Old Spencer Road , and that the location of his warehouse was in another place. Mr. Frost asked why he would want to continue that. Attorney Barney said that he does not want to do that, that he wanted to put them together. Attorney Barney said that is apparently what he did , but that it may have been contrary to what the board specifically imposed , and that is why he thinks it would be wise to modify condition number 4. Condition number from 1967 to read , "The variance is granted for warehouse and office space only. A vote on the amendment resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Scala , Ellsworth . NAYS - None. The amendment was carried unanimously. • • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 27 MAY 229 1996 Chairman Stotz adjourned the meeting at 8: 50 p . m . Deborah A. Kelley Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder - avid Stotz, heir an DRAFTED - 6/5/96 • •