HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2023-08-21TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21, 2023
MINUTES
Present: David Squires, Chair; Members Chris Jung, Connor Terry, Kim Ritter and Matthew
Minig Absent: Mark Apker and Stuart Friedman
Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement, Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk and Susan Brock,
Attorney for the Town
Mr. Squires opened the meeting at 6:00p.m. and welcomed new member Matthew Minig.
ZBAU-23-2 Appeal. Cedar Rock Inc., owner, 602 Elmira Rd. TP 31.-3-4; Michael Lasell, Agent;
seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code 270-171.5 (Permitted uses) to be permitted to build a
self -storage facility with approximately 24,700 sq.ft. of gross floor area within the Inlet Valley
Center overlay zone (Industrial Zone underlying), where the use is not permitted.
Overview
Mr. Lasell noted that they had appeared at a prior meeting without an extensive presentation and
went on to give a presentation with illustrations depicting the placement, size and aesthetic
renderings of the project from various angles and views from the roads.
The four main points from the last appearance that we went through were
Th essential character of a neighborhood is not changing as there are industrial uses adjacent to
the property, and
The hardship is not self-created because of the change in zoning law. The property was
purchased and the process of designing a storage facility began and then we were informed of the
Inlet Valley Overlay District legislation.
The hardship is unique because the property has significant elevation changes, easement
restrictions, the shape of the lot, and DOT road cut requirements, and
Can a reasonable return be had within the Code. That was the outstanding question.
Mr. Lasell went on to say that they went through a long list of permitted uses and exceptions
contained in the Overlay District and assessed if any of those were feasible for this site. We
looked at small restaurant, hotel, daycare, animal services, fitness center, office building, bar,
retail space etc. and their rate of return and they all had a negative return due to the extensive due
to the amount of infrastructure and site improvements/modifications that would be needed due to
the small size, odd shape, and the topography and restrictions of the parcel.
Mr. Zawadzki, owner of the property, expanded on that, saying he bought the property at
$350,000 with the intention of putting a Holiday Inn Express there, but the logistics and costs
didn't work, and we bought another property down the road to put that on.
ZBA 2023-08-21 (Filed 8/31) Pg. 1
He said he took the time and effort to go through the other options and still came up with self -
storage. The costs per square foot and the type of business that would be profitable is only self -
storage. He said he ran scenario after scenario of other uses and business models and still, self -
storage was the only option.
Mr. Zawadzki said the numbers submitted and shown on the screen were based on scenarios for
a reasonable return and based on a break-even goal of 3 years. If this is not approved, there is
nothing that is feasible for that piece of property with the restrictions it has.
Mr. Minig asked the applicants to go through the hotel scenario that was submitted.
Mr. Zawadzki responded that the increase costs associated with the NYS Energy Code, the scale
of a hotel in terms of number of rooms and size needed to be profitable given that the room rates
are lower due to being further away from downtown, made a hotel here not feasible.
Public Hearing
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was
closed.
Discussion
Mr. Squires asked about the process of changing the zoning such as the Inlet Valley Overlay
District, and whether property owners are notified that property they own will be affected.
Ms. Balestra responded that the Inlet Valley Overlay District was envisioned in the 2014.
Comprehensive Plan, with the goal of beautifying the Inlet Valley corridor and a committee was
formed which involved extensive outreach, meetings with stakeholders and notices to all
property owners in this case.
Ms. Brock added that although there was a submission to the Planning Board prior to the
adoption of the legislation, it was not complete and very cursory. They do not have vested rights
because they did not have substantial funds or substantial construction begun. Any non-
conforming use, whether legislation adopted 5 months ago or 5 years ago, are determined by the
same Use Criteria at the time of application.
Mr. Squires asked if that makes all the existing properties and/or businesses legally existing non-
conforming and they would need a variance to do anything non -conforming in the future,
correct?
Mr. Moseley responded that there is nothing in the Overlay District legislation that addresses
non -conforming properties, so any increase in nonconformity would need a variance.
Ms. Brock added that anyone coming in for a use variance is appearing because they cannot meet
the zoning; whether that is zoning that is 5 years old or 5 months old; you just look at the four
ZBA 2023-08-21 (Filed 8/31) Pg. 2
criteria and make your determination.
The Tompkins County Planning Department's comments from the GML process were discussed.
Ms. Brock stated that their reference to the Comprehensive Plan's reference to "incremental
expansion of commercial zoning resulting in strip commercial development" is not applicable to
this project.
SEQR Determination
Changes were made to the final SEQR form, with the Applicant noting that an updated Project
Description had been submitted.
ZBA Resolution ZBAU-23-2
SEQR Use Variance
602 Elmira Rd. TP 31: 3-4
Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based
upon the information in Parts 1 & 2 as amended, and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the SEQR
Form.
Moved: David Squires
Vote: ayes — Squires, Jung, Terry, Ritter and Minig
Determination
ZBA Resolution ZBAU-23-2
Seconded: Chris Jung
Use Variance
602 Elmira Rd. TP 31: 3-4
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Cedar Rock Inc., owner, seeking relief from Town
of Ithaca code 270-171.5 (Permitted uses) to be permitted to build a self -storage facility with
approximately 24,700 sq.ft. of gross floor area within the Inlet Valley Center overlay zone
(Industrial Zone underlying), where the use is not permitted, with the following
Conditions
That the project be built substantially as submitted, including the number of buildings and
overall square footage, except to the extent that if a deviation is necessary from the design show,
the deviation must comply with the Overlay District Design Standards and Guidelines, and with
the following
Findings
That the applicant has demonstrated an unnecessary hardship, specifically:
1. That a reasonable return (substantial as shown by competent financial evidence) has
been provided in that the uses allowed under the Inlet Valley Overlay District cannot be
realized as scenarios of the various uses permitted were shown to not provide a
ZBA 2023-08-21 (Filed 8/31) Pg. 3
reasonable return, and
2. That the alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to substantial portion or district
or neighborhood given that the property is small, has been vacant and the DOT has used
the site for fill since the 1990's; there are significant topographic grade changes; a very
large DOT right -or -way that cuts off access to portions of the site and streams; all of
which create a much smaller developable area of the parcel, access onto Elmira Rd is
limited, and
3. That the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood
given that the property backs up to existing industrial and commercial uses consisting of
metal buildings and the proposed project will improve the overall aesthetics of the area
as they must follow the Inlet Valley Overlay District design standards, and as evidenced
by the information contained and adopted in SEQR form, and
4. That the alleged hardship has not been self-created in that the owner bought the property
in 2018 when the use was permitted and subsequently was legislated as a not -permitted
use.
Moved: David Squires Seconded: Chris Jung
Vote: ayes — Squires, Jung, Terry, Ritter and Minnig
ZBAA-23-14 Appeal of Geoff Tate, owner, 1045 Taughannock Blvd. TP 21.-2-16, LFR;
Jake Roberts, Agent; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-46 E(1) (Yard
regulations) to build an accessory building approximately 3'2" feet from the front property
line where a minimum of 30' feet is required (other than a garage.)
Mr. Squires asked why the building had to be so close to the road as it seemed to him there are
other options.
Gary Bush, agent, said he was not involved in the application process, but, the location is the
only level spot that will provide safe access for delivery trucks because the driveway is so steep.
Mr. Moseley shared the site plan drawing from the packet on the screen.
Mr. Bush said the property line tapers away from the road and it does not have the standard
width for access from a State highway. The property line goes parallel to barn and the road, at
about 30' feet or so from the shoulder of the road.
Mr. Minig asked for clarification on the reference to storing an electrical service meter in the
shed and whether that was typical.
Mr. Bush responded that it is typical to want to have the meter undercover.
Ms. Brock asked for the dimensions of the shed and whether that size is needed for the electrical
ZBA 2023-08-21 (Filed 8/31) Pg. 4
equipment or for other items. She stated that there was nothing in the application about the need
to store additional items, and the Board has to grant the minimum variance necessary.
Mr. Bush responded that the shed is 8' x 12' x 13" feet and the intent is to store other items such
as bicycles and a snow blower. The snow blower would be difficult to push up the steep slope to
the flat area that needs to be cleared.
Mr. Terry asked what the contours on the maps submitted where.
Mr. Bush responded that he believed they were 1' foot.
Public Hearing
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was
closed.
Determination
Discussion followed and the consensus of the Board was that the application was not sufficient
or descriptive enough to be able to make a determination on the request.
The Board suggested the Applicant request a postponement and return with additional
information and complete information on what the purpose of the requested shed is and clearer
drawings that are legible.
Mr. Squires moved to adjourn the appeal to the next scheduled meeting, seconded by Ms. Jung,
unanimous.
Mr. Moseley addressed a comment from the County Planning Department regarding a sticker
identifying electrical equipment being in the shed. He stated that that is not required by NYS
and he believes that is not appropriate for a County Department to require something that is not
required by State Code or Town Code. If required, that would put his department in a difficult
position of trying to enforce that requirement. The Board agreed with Mr. Moseley.
ZBAA-23-15 Appeal of Caroline Levine, owner, 4 The Byway, TP 66.4-12, MDR; seeking
relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-21.9.7 E (2)(a) to be permitted to have a renter
of a short-term rental park on the street rather than the rental property where the Code
requires provision of enough driveway space on the parcel for renters' parking.
Ms. Levine gave an overview, saying that The Byway is a private road that is over 200 years old
and pre -dates Ithaca. It is unclear who owns the road and the historic use of it is what has guided
its usage and common ownership by the homeowners up to the present. There is no "owner" to
ask permission from. Each property has a variance for 2 parking spaces because there is not a
way to build a driveway on many of the lots, and so we park in front of our homes.
ZBA 2023-08-21 (Filed 8/31) Pg. 5
She said she rents her home a few times a year and takes her cars with her, and the renters would
have their cars in the same spots she would usually use and so there would be no impact on
others.
Mr. Squires asked if there was room for two cars in front of her neighbor's house, because he
didn't think it looked as if there was, and then he asked about the area that looks like a parking
area and why that couldn't be used.
Ms. Levine said she thought that her neighbor's house had a variance for one car and the other
lot used to be owned by Cornell for an office and the Botanical Gardens which has since been
sold and the new owner has prohibited parking there now. There is now no parking for visitors
to the road.
Public Hearing
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was
closed.
Determination
Ms. Brock asked Ms. Levine if the NYS variance actually says that you can park two cars in
front of her house, or just that a 12' foot wide access must be maintained?
Ms. Levine responded that the number of feet is not in the State variance.
Ms. Brock asked where it says anything about two cars being permitted in front of her house?
Ms. Levine responded that the NYS variance process was very complicated and the number of
feet needed is not in the variance, but we have a variance for two cars that are not SUV's or
trucks.
Ms. Brock responded that there is nothing about a variance for two cars in the application
material or the State Variance. There were several individuals that applied for the State Variance
which included maintaining a minimum width of 12' feet and there was a parking plan that was
encouraged for all the individuals seeking the State Variance to communicate about and the
Town did facilitate a meeting regarding that. The parking plan was not technically contingent on
the State Variance being granted and it did not talk about parking places in front of homes. The
parking plan was not incorporated into the State Variance, nor was it binding on the individuals
seeking it.
The minimum width the State requires is 20' feet and the variance granted was for a minimum of
12' feet to be maintained, regardless of how many vehicles are parked along The Byway.
Ms. Brock then turned to the ownership of the road question, saying that Ms. Levine has testified
that The Byway is owned in common, but the survey of the property does not include The
Byway and stops at the road line, and includes meets and bounds, and states that all right title
ZBA 2023-08-21 (Filed 8/31) Pg. 6
and interest in The Byway, including a right-of-way on it and the rights subject to the rights of
others on The Byway to use it...." and so it doesn't tell us whether it was an easement ROW or
whether they owned it to convey or who owns it or how many people own it.
Ms. Levine responded that it is her understanding that that ownership of The Byway is not
established legally and so it is a private road that with historic use rights by the residences on it
for the past 200 years. She said her attorney has told her it is more like a shared driveway and so
it is an unsettled legal question.
Ms. Brock said the question for this Board is whether a variance can be granted on property
where the owner is not known. This Board cannot grant you a variance to park on your
neighbor's yard, and in essence, that is what is here; we don't know who owns the road and
therefore cannot grant a variance tied to that property.
Ms. Levine responded that the homes on. The Byway have operated for years using the area in
front of each house as belonging to that house and make maintenance decisions as a group.
Discussion followed on the requirements of the Short -Term Rental legislation pertaining to
providing parking spaces and whether a variance from that would address the issue. The legal ad
for the variance did not state that and the issue remains, that whether the parking on the road is
for renters or anything else still remains.
Mr. Squires moved to adjourn the appeal until the meeting in October to provide time for further
research on the ownership issue, seconded by Ms. Jung; unanimous.
ZBAA-23-1.6 Appeal of Allen Homan, owner, 809 Five Mile Dr. TP 31.-2-17, LDR; seeking
relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 C. (Yard regulations) to be permitted to
construct an addition (deck) that would be approximately 20.5' feet from the side yard
property line where a minimum of 40' feet is required.
Mr. Homan gave a brief overview of the request, saying that an area variance was granted on this
property without a deck being included, and the proposed deck would decrease the encroachment
on the side yard setback that exists.
The Board consensus was this was a minimal variance and would have no detrimental effects
and would not be out of character in the area.
SEQR - Type 2 — not required for a single/two-family residential structure.
Determination
ZBAA-23-1.6 Area Variance
809 Five Mile Dr. TP 31.-2-17, LDR
Resolved that this Board grant the appeal of Allen Homan, owner, 809 Five Mile Dr., TP 31.-2-
ZBA 2023-08-21 (Filed 8/31) Pg. 7
1, That the addition be constructed substantially as shown in the application, and
2. That the side yard setback be no less than 20' feet, and with the following
That the variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community,
specifically
I . The benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the applicant
wishes to access the second story deck by the existing French doors, and
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to
nearby properties as the deck faces the wooded area and is screened by existing
landscaping which limits the view by neighbors, and the deck is 15'x 15' and a minor
addition, and
3. That the request is substantial in that 20' feet is granted where 40' feet is required, and
4. That there will not be any adverse environmental effects as evidence by no SEQR being
required, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to have a deck
which will encroach on the required setback, but nevertheless, any detriment to the
community is mitigated for the reasons stated above.
Moved: David Squires Seconded: Chris Jung
Vote: ayes Squires, Jung, Terry, Ritter and Minnig
I Kljk"�A I ]&,a I lei I LSW 04,%,110 if I I M I I
,U' ItAtIrawan. 11 1 HUME MrANTJOU !RK410 its] I INIft-M K='A'
Paulette Rosa
A-
Tow-C Cle .
ZBA 2023-08-21 (Filed 813 1) Pg. 8