HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Use Variance 6/16/2014
Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 33.-3-2.7
618 Elmira Road
Tax Parcels involved, with address if known: Current 618 Elmira Road 33.-3-
2.7 with subdivisions from 33.-3-2.2 and readdressing from 608 Elmira Road.
History:
2014 – Use Variance for Auto Sales – Approved
2000 – Use Variance for Retail Sales - Approved
1989 – Sprinkler Variance - Approved
4. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created by the applicants desire to replace their
sign, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community for the reasons stated above and for the reasons stated in the
SEQR form.
Vote: Ayes — Rosen, Vignaux, Jung and Decker Unanimous
A�eal of Asher Grossman, owner and Davick Huckle, agent, Paul Kriegstein, applicant,
requesting a variance from Chapter 270-144 "Permitted Principle Uses", to be permitted to
operate aa auto sales commercial business in a Light Industrial Zone, located at 618 Elmira
Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-2.7, Light Industrial Zone (Ln.
The Board discussed the appeal and Mr. Kriegstein explained that the license and associated
sales of cars would be in support of the taxi business for the most part and supplemental to the
car repa.ir business. As stated in the submission, they did not feel there would be a significant
impact and his business relies on this type of license to acquire used vebicles for taxis and to
�nollover used cabs and allow for the sale of repaired vehicles on occasion.
The Board felt that the lot has a fixed number of parlciag spaces and the addition of a used car
sales use would simply reallocate some of the spaces to that use. The sale of a few used cars
per month will not significantly increase haf�c to this site
ZBA► �tesolu�ion No 2014-017 SE4R Use Variance — Auto Sales
�_ ..
6�8 Elmira Rd.. TP 33: 3-2.7
Moved: Christine Decker Seconded: Chris Jung
Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based
on the information given in Parts 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the
Environmental Assessmeat Form.
Vote: Ayes — Rosen, Jung, Decker aad Vigaaux Unanimous
The public hearing was opened, there was no one present and the public hearing was closed.
In drafting the resolution, the Board discussed at length that only 4 vehicles would be allowed
and that the applicant stated that this is an ancillary use aad vehicles would mainly be
advertised online and the used car license used to purchase replacement taxicabs and sell the
existing ones. The primary puipose for the used car sales is not intended to be the draw to the
location, but allowing a small sign in the windsiuelds to indicate to people pulling iato the
business which cars t6at may be parked there are the ones for sale is permissible. No banners,
lazge fluorescent number signs covering the windshield etc. are to be allowed. Given that the
nature of the business will have other vehicles parked ia the lot, a small notice of which car(s}
are for sale is allowed and will be a condition of the use permit.
ZBA June 16, 2414 pg 3
ZBA► �esolution No 20�4-018 Use Variance — Auto Sales
6�8 Elmira Rd. 'x'P 33. 3-2.7
Moved: Rob Rosen Seconded: Christine Decker
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Paul Kriegstein, requesting a variance from
Chapter 270-144 "Permitted Principle Uses", to be permitted to operate an auto sales
commercial business in a Light Industrial Zone, located at 618 Elmira Rd, with the following
Findings:
1. That the applicant has demonstrated unnecessary hardship, including all of the
following; that they caanot reaiize a reasonable financial retum as substantiated by
competent financial evidence given the evidence submitted showing a loss on the
property for the last 5 years and the fact that the property has beea vacant for the last 5
years, and
2. That the hardship is unique aad does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or
neighborhood given that the parcel is small for the district and the property has had a
history of retait use, an orientation for retail use, aad is therefore unsuited to light
industrial uses as those in the district, and
3. That the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood
given that the use is sunilar in nature to a light industrial use and is not inconsistent
with other uses allowed in the Light Industrial zone, and that the sale of up to 4
vehicles at any one time is not inconsistent with the use permit previously grauted by
this Board for the car repair business, and
4. That the alleged hardship is not self-created given this properiy's Iong history of
difficulty in finding tenants and in addition, t6ose tenants that have been there in the
recent lustory also have not been allowed uses in Light Industrial zones.
Conditions:
1. That the cars for sale are located among the other cars in the parking areas indicated
oa the approved site plan a.nd not up by Elmira road or in the field next to the pazld.ng
area, and
2. 1'bat there will be no more than 4 vehicles for sale at any one tinae, and
3. That no outside advertising of the vehicles for sale aze displayed such as streamers, or
flags and notice of wluch vehicle is for sale is limited to one sign in each vehicle not
to exceed 187 sq inches.
Vote: Ayes — Vignaux, Rosen, Decker and Jung Unanimous
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the May meeting were reviewed and one change was made with the Towa
Clerk's approval. Motion made by Mr. Vignaux and seconded by Mr. Rosen to adopt the
minutes as amended. Unani.mous.
ZBA Juae 16, 2014 pg 4
Concurrence with leed agency designation
The Board agreed that the Planning Board should be lead ageacy in the proposed Greenways
project. If the project needs to come to the Zoning Board, this is a Type 1 and the Zoning
Boacd would be able to use the Planning Board's SEQR deterniination but ca.a still submit
commeats to the Planning Board for their consideration. Motion made by Mr. Vignaux, to
coacur with the designation of the Town Planning Board as Lead Agency for the Greenways
project, seconded by Mr. Rosen, unanimous.
Meeting was adjouined at 8:32 p.m.
Submitt y
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
ZBA Juae 16, 2014 pg S
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2000
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, November 8, 2000, in Town Hall ,
215 North Tioga Street, Aurora Street Entrance (parking lot side), Ithaca, N .Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P.M . , on
the following matters :
APPEAL of G .D . Blanpied, Appellant, Margaret C . Hobbie, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of
Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a parcel of land 13 + acres
in area, with a lot width of 31 + feet at the street line and 31 + feet at the maximum front yard setback line, located at
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 56-3 -25 (next to 1586 Slaterville Road), Residence District R- l5 .
APPEAL of David Axenfeld, Appellant, George Gesslein, Agent, requesting a variance from Article VIII , Section 41
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct a retail business at 618 Elmira Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33 -3 -2 . 7, Light Industrial District. Said District does not permit a land use of retail businesses .
A special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of said Ordinance might also be requested, since the property was
originally developed and used for retail businesses .
APPEAL of Stan and Maryann Bowman, Appellants, Susan Cosentim, Agent, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be
permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height of 20 + feet ( 15 foot height
limitation) located at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 15 . Said
Ordinance permits artists to maintain professional offices only within the buildings that they reside in and not in
accessory structures .
APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, Appellants, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under
Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the
addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18- 5 - 14 ,
Residence District R- 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines, with part of the adjacent
property being Cayuga Lake .
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
Director of Building and Zoning
273 - 1783
Dated : October 30, 2000
Published : November 3 , 2000
FILE
DATE v
RESOLUTION NO . 2004-67 - '( VARIANCE - David Axenfeld 618 Elmira Road Tax Parcel No. 33-
3-2 . 7, November 8, 2000 .
MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer
RESOLVED , that this board grant the appeal of David Axenfeld , requesting a special use from Article
XII , Section 64 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge a non -conforming
use at 618 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33 -3 -2 . 7 , Light Industrial District , based upon
the following findings :
a . The existing photography business has a retail component ,
b . The proposed use is a retail sales use ,
C . The existing business has been there since before the Zoning Ordinance was amended
precluding retail uses in Industrial zones ,
d . The proposed use is not inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood and areas , and does
not adversely impact the welfare of the community .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES : Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Sigel .
NAYS : NONE .
The motion was declared\to be carried unanimously .
Ca AAA C WhA 4 r10 . .... / L /3 _CXj
Carrie L . Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS :
TOWN OF ITHACA .
1
De6CM k4d Io� -gip-O!eFWDeputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New
York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 8t" day of November 2000 .
Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Ithaca
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
a . any building permit submitted regarding Tax Parcel No . 56-3-25, be brought before the Zoning
Board of Appeals for review and approval.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer. Sigel.
NA YS: NONE.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
The second appeal to be heard was as follows :
APPEAL of David Axenfeld , Appellant , George Gesslein , Agent , requesting a variance from Article
VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to conduct a retail business
at 618 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel no . 33 -3 -2 . 7 , Light Industrial District . Said District
does not permit a land use of retail businesses . A special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of
said Ordinance might also be requested , since the property was originally developed and used for
retail businesses .
George Gesslein , 118 Sharpsteen Road , Locke NY , stated the building t 618 Elmira Road was
built by Mr . Axenfeld many years ago for retail use . Mr. Axenfeld has had many tenants over the past
10 years . There has been a period of more than 12 months where the building was vacant . The
most recent tenants have been retail . The proposed tenant will be at this location for about 10 years .
They want to make sure the variances are in place . The new tenant is a mattress and bedding store .
Mr. Axenfeld is requesting a variance to use the facility for retail . The building was originally designed
as retail . He has brought light industrial businesses to the site . The floor is not thick enough and the
power is not there to support a light industrial business .
Mr . Frost stated in 1974 the Zoning Board of Appeals made an interpretation that the Zoning
Ordinance would allow business uses in light industrial zones . When Mr . Axenfeld built the building
he came before the board . He was given a sprinkler variance and was allowed to create a retail
business . In the 1990s the Town modified the Zoning Ordinance to say that retail uses were not
permitted in light industrial zones . It was determined that a period of 12 months had elapsed . The
Zoning Ordinance does make reference to the fact if a non -conforming use ceases to operate for a
period of 12 months ; and then they lose their non -conforming rights .
Mr. Krantz asked if the board had approved a convenience store for the area .
Mr. Frost responded yes . It was about a year ago . The business is now closed .
Mr. Krantz stated the board has set precedence in the area .
Chairperson Stotz stated it was a retail establishment , but not the same intensity .
Attorney Barney asked if the building was fully vacant .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Frost stated the photography business has always been located in the building .
Mr . Gesslein stated he considers it retail because he has people in and out taking pictures .
Mr. Niefer asked if the sprinkler system in the building is still active .
Mr. Gesslein stated the system is still active and covers the entire building .
Mr. Frost stated the building was brought up to code through a recent fire safety inspection .
Mr. Niefer stated it is a reasonable use . It is better to have the building rented than vacant .
Mr. Ellsworth asked if the photo lab has been in the building the entire time . Is it considered
occupied ?
Attorney Barney stated there are 2 ways to approach this . One is if it is a use variance . The
criteria for a use variance are stiff . It also could be an expansion of a non -conforming use . The
board could decide the photography business was a non -conforming use . The board would then be
adding another retail establishment to an existing retail establishment . It would be enlarging a non -
conforming use .
There has been more than 12 months since the furniture business occupied the building .
Mr . Gesslein stated the furniture business stopped paying rent in January and moved out
shortly thereafter. The lease is still valid , but they are unable to collect rent .
Mr . Frost stated the 12 month period occurred in 1994 .
Chairperson Stotz asked what would differentiate between determining that it meets an area
variance as opposed to special approval .
Attorney Barney stated for special approval it would need to be determined that there was no
reasonable return to get from the building with any use allowed within the ordinance .
Chairperson Stotz asked if this would require both .
Attorney Barney stated the board needs to make the determination . If the photography
business is treated as a retail use then the length of time the building was vacated does not apply . If
the board decides it is not retail , then the board needs to look at the furniture business . He does not
know if the Zoning Ordinance was amended before 1994 .
Mr. Frost stated under business zones , a photographer would fall under a Business C zone . It
has a list of retail businesses . If it is a Business C zone , then any business in Business A or
Business B zones .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Attorney Barney stated the Business C zone allows a lot of uses , which are not necessarily
true retail sale uses .
Mr. Sigel asked if the photography business was treated as a retail business , would it be an
expansion .
Attorney Barney responded yes . It is in the same building .
Mr. Sigel stated it could be argued that this does not need any approval because at least part
of the building has been continually used as retail .
Attorney Barney stated that once it has been reduced ; the amount of businesses couldn 't be
expanded if they have lost a non -conforming use .
Mr. Sigel stated if he were the applicant he would argue that the entire building received the
non -conforming retail use . A portion of the building has been retail the entire time . Therefore , the
approval was not lost . The board could make a ruling that the entire building has the non -conforming
use .
Mr. Ellsworth stated the board would be setting a precedent .
Attorney Barney stated the light industrial zone is anything but retail sales .
Chairperson Stotz asked what attempts were made to secure an industrial tenant .
Mr. Gesslein stated he spoke with a number of industrial tenants ; including Kolar. Kolar has a
building behind the convenience store . There was some interest , but there would have been a
tremendous expense involved in converting the building to light industrial use . There were serious
issues of floor loading . There were some other small businesses that inquired about the space , but
were not interested . Many businesses were not interested because of the steep driveway .
Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 09 p . m . ; and asked if any members of the
public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public
hearing at 8 : 10 p . m .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT :
Mr. Smith stated the building has been used as a furniture business . It has parking .
Mr . Frost asked if there are plans to improve the parking .
Mr. Gesslein stated there is no plan to expand the parking . They do not plan to pave the
parking . They are going to remove a number of small non - bearing interior partitions . Someone had
sectioned off a few small offices . They are going to place a fire door in the existing firewail . They are
going to clean up the landscaping .
ZONING BOARD DE APPEALS PAGc 8 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Stotz stated if they are going to carry mattresses and beds .
Mr. Gesslein responded yes . It will be mattresses and bed frames .
Chairperson Stotz asked if there are other stores that are comprable in size .
Mr. Gesslein responded all their stares are about the same size .
Chairperson Stotz asked what is the traffic flow through the store .
Mr. Gesslein stated it is minimal . Furniture stores do not have a lot of traffic . Most items are
delivered .
Chairperson Stotz stated the access to the site is through the driveway . Are the site lines for
the driveway adequate ?
Mr. Smith responded yes .
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-66 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - David Axenfeld, 618 Elmira
Road, Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2. 7, November 8, 2000.
MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz.
RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the
matter of David Axenfeld, requesting a variance from Article V111; Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct a retail business at 618 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 3-3-2. 7, Light Industrial District, based upon the following:
a . The materials presented to the board., and
b. The findings of the Town of Ithaca Planning Department.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Stotz. Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer. Sigel.
NA YS: NONE.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Mr. Krantz stated the business would be a showroom . It really is not a retail business .
Chairperson Stotz stated this would be better than having a vacant building . The issue before
the board is how to treat the appeal .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Sigel stated it needs to be done in a way that sets the least precedence for other situations
where the board might want to decide otherwise . If the board gives an approval for expansion of non -
conforming use then it does not set much of a precedent for future applications of expansion .
Mr. Ellsworth stated there are a lot of empty buildings in the area . This building is setting
among buildings with the same kind of use and situation .
Mr . Gesslein stated there are a number of retail businesses on Elmira Road that are no longer
there . He does not have industrial tenants . They prefer to go to location like Cherry Street or the
Cornell Research Park . This location has nothing to draw industrial customers .
Mr . Krantz stated it is a depressed area . It might be improperly zoned and might be the reason
for the depression . It is not made for industrial use .
Chairperson Stotz stated he would like to make the interpretation that the photography
business is a legitimate retail business in the industrial zone .
Mr . Sigel stated he does not have a problem with that interpretation . The question is whether
to take it further and say that because a portion was retail , they can retract the retail use at will . It is a
broader decision to say that it never lost its status .
Chairperson Stotz stated if part of the building was used for a retail establishment , then it goes
by the building ; therefore , it continues to maintain its continuity . What would the ramifications be if
the board made that kind of interpretation ? What could happen elsewhere ?
Mr. Sigel stated there could be a situation in a light industrial district that for whatever reason
the community and board was more inclined to revert back to light industrial and it had been used for
retail . They would be able to resume any retail .
Attorney Barney stated the introductory section of non -conforming uses talks about any lawful
use of land or a building or a part thereof . There might be a situation where there are 3 or 4 non -
conforming businesses in one building in a residential area . Would the board want to grant them
permission to occupy the businesses again because one business was in the building ?
Mr . Frost stated the philosophy of non -conforming uses is to do away with it .
Attorney Barney stated from a legal standpoint he would be more comfortable with the more
narrow precedent . If the board is inclined to accommodate this business and do it by non -conforming
use , the precedent is narrower . The board would be accepting the fact that the photography business
is a retail business .
Mr . Niefer stated he is in favor of expanding the non -conforming use . The photography
business has been in the building as a retail establishment .
Mr . Ellsworth stated it fits in with the character of the neighborhood . Neighboring buildings
have been through the same cycle .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO 2000-67 . VARIANCE - David Axenfeld. 618 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No. 33-
3-2. 7. November 8, 2000.
MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth; seconded by James Niefer
RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of David Axenfeld. requesting a special use from Article
XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge a non -conforming
use at 618 Elmira Road. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33-3-2. 7, Light Industrial District, based upon
the following findings :
a . The existing photography business has a retail component,
b . The proposed use is a retail sales use;
C. The existing business has been there since before the Zoning Ordinance was amended
precluding retail uses in Industrial zones.
d. The proposed use is not inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood and areas, and does
not adversely impact the welfare of the community.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES: Stotz; Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel.
NA YS: NONE.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
The third appeal to be heard was as follows :
APPEAL of Stan and Maryann Bowman , Appellants , Susan Cosentini , Agent , requesting a variance
from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building
height of 20 ± feet ( 15 foot height limitation ) located at 203 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 57 - 1 - 1 , Residence District R - 15 . Said Ordinance permits artists to maintain professional
offices only within the buildings that they reside in and not in accessory structures .
Susan Cosentini , 527 North Aurora Street , stated the board was given all the documents . The
structures are non -conforming by 1 foot . The proposed structure will join the 2 buildings . Mr .
Bowman has retired . He no longer has space at Cornell . Mr . and Mrs . Bowman would like to have
their studios together . The addition is to allow that . It will also allow more space . The addition will be
non -conforming by one foot .
Mr . Frost stated Mr. and Mrs . Bowman bought the property in the 1980s . They used to have
their studios by the Chamber of Commerce . At some point they obtained a building permit to modify
the accessory structures to create the current studios . At that time the board took the position that
this was a home occupation and they were utilizing area less than 200 square feet . When Ms .
Tompkins County
NOV 1 3 2000
DEPARTMENT'�, °+ F PLANNING
• * TOWN OF ITHACA
12h' East Court�st`y t BUILDING /ZONING
Ithaca;�N w' Y r1 /14850
James W. Hanson, Jr. Telephone (607) 274-5560
Commissioner of Planning Fax (607) 274-5578
November 7, 2000
Mr. Andy Frost, Building/Zoning Officer
Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
216 Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Review pursuant to § 239 —1 and —m of the New York State General Municipal Law
Action : Use variance for continued retail use in Light Industrial District, Axenfeld, 618 Elmira
Road, Tax ID #33 -3 -2 . 7
Dear Mr. Frost :
This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the
Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to § 239 - 1 and —m of the New York State General
Municipal Law.
The proposal , as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or
State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning
Department, and you are free to act without prejudice .
The Department has the following general comment unrelated to our review under §239 —1 , & -m :
• For safety reasons, the driveway of the proposed facility should be at road grade, at Elmira Road, for
a distance of approximately twenty feet to enhance the field of vision to the east.
Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record.
' ncerely,
s .. Hanson , Jr.
ommissioner of Planning
to Recvcled paper
FILE D-t tflel
DATE
RESOLUTION NO . 2000-66 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS ENT - David Axenfeld 618 Elmira
Road , Tax. Parcel No . 33-3-2 .7 November 8 2000 .
MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth ; seconded by Ronald Krantz .
RESOLVED , that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the
matter of David Axenfeld , requesting a variance from Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to conduct a retail business at 618 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 3-3-2 . 7 , Light Industrial District , based upon the following :
a , The materials presented to the board , and
b , The findings of the Town of Ithaca Planning Department .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES : Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Sigel .
NAYS : NONE ,
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously .
_
� jjW..
Carrie L . Whitmore ; Deputy Town Clerk
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS :
TOWN OF ITHACA :
I ; rDf OrU k�e k._ y=ou /Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New
York , do hereby certify that the atta hed resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 8th day of November 2000 .
Tc - -y'n61e , rvLjeputy Town Clerk
Town of Ithaca
PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary)
A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law?
YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF.
B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6
YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any.
C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following :
( Answers may be handwritten, if legible)
C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production
and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly :
See Attached.
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or
neighborhood character? Explain briefly :
See Attached.
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or
threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly :
See Attached.
C4. The Town 's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources? Explain briefly :
See Attached.
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly:
See Attached.
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05 ? Explain briefly :
See Attached.
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly :
See Attached.
D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
YES NO X If yes, explain briefly :
E. Comments of staff CB., other attached. (Check as applicable.)
PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca)
Instructions: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial , large, important, or otherwise significant.
Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i .e . urban or rural ) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d)
irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope, and (f) magnitude . If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material . Ensure that
the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address.
Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then
proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration .
X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that
the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as
necessary the reasons supporting this determination .
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Name of Lead Agency Preparer' s Signature(If different from Responsible Officer)
Davi&D. Stotz Chairman
Name & t title of R onsible ffi n Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer
DATE : 1 4? l �'} �
Signature of Res onsible Of er i Lead Agency
� -FFT Town Assigned Project ID Number
Town of; Ithaca Environmental Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, NY ONLY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A pplicant or Project Sponsor)
1 . Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name :
�PDr P ✓� ( /-cos S Bid �, , �� PJ t1 S G' /u� vesS,
3. Precise location (street address, roads Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map) :
cp
Tax Parcel Number: 2 . 7
4. Is proposed action : NEW? EXPANSION ? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION ? k
S. Describe project briefly : ( Include project purpose, present land use, current and future
construction plans, and other relevant items) :
/ LL01
Coot U i e v" T > c/ . ( cc- G C w P �� GL
(Attach separate sheet( s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project. )
6 . Amount of land affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) Z- Acres (6-10 yrs) Z--Acres (> 10 yrs) Z Acres
7, How Is land zoned presently?
8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ?
YES NO JK If no, describe conflict briefly :
9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new :
Public Road? YES NO K Public Water? YES NO Public Sewer? YES NO
10. What Is the present land use In the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial
Industrial Agriculture Park/ Forest/Open Space Other
Please Describe :
11 . Does proposed action Involve a permit, approval , or funding, now or ultimately from any other
governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES NO
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding :
12 Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES NO
If yes , list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether It will require modification.
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Appllcant/Sponsor Nam ( Print or Type) : t�po7^j P V ft( G :�. , ��sr�,� /�E•
Signature : / C I
Date :
Rev. 8/92
i
TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $80000
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : .Ib 116
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273 4783 CASH
APPEAL CHECK -
to the
Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer ZONING :
and the
Zoning Board of Appeals For Office Use Only
of the
Town of Ithaca, New York
Having been denied permission to : C �� ✓J°P� o �� ��. ��- �d
/ —
at �% �' !�% , ,�-� �c�( , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 3 — 3 — Z , as shown on the
accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit
would be in violation of-
Article(s) , Section(s) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED
respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the Appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Zoning
Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows :
(Additional) sheets may be attached as necessary.)
'Q, ;
Z vh,¢ — /�a w B r. ev- i � "w !�- I f� v <J/� Td✓ !�' Pi�o��/ c�� o�
" Gt. j 6 P �v l� s P�� _ TD%' � Pi ( oi �/ C( y ✓` •�, s��t t� rG� �
� }
ex,
By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter
my property to inspect in connection with my application.
Signature of Owner/Appellant: Date:
Signature of Appellant/Agent: G Date: l a — 1/4 --d G
�rrrs l��n /c' qcl rs leeL-le.
Print Name Here: 1-Pv ;� E J
Home Telephone Number: Work Telephone Number: e0 7 - S 3 3 - 7Z3 7
NOTE : If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the
variance will expire.
Gesslein Real E
Commercial Real Estate and Business Brokerage
George J . Gesslein, Licensed Real Estate Broker
October 16, 2000
Mr. Andrew Frost
Director of Building and Zoning
Town of Ithaca
215 N. Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re : 618 Elmira Road
Dear Andy :
Enclosed is the application for variance to permit continued use of 618 Elmira Road for retail
purposes . We have a potential tenant for the remaining 3 , 750 square feet on the northern end of
the building. In my previous letter I outlined the more or less continued use for retail since the
building was built .
The potential tenant is Resnick Mattress, a regional mattress and bedding merchant that has stores
from the lower Hudson Valley to the Northern border of New York, with some stores in Vermont
and Massachussetts. They are now expanding westward and opening a number of stores in the
Southern Tier. You might want to check their web site at http : //www. resnicksmattress . com/ .
This building was originally built as a retail facility and is difficult and expensive to convert to
light industrial use . Additionally, the location is not easy to use for any heavy tractor trailers or
similar large commercial vehicles that supply the typical light industrial facility. There is no
loading dock and, in my experience, most industrial users want a loading dock.
At this time, both the owner and a representative from the potential tenant, Resnick Mattress, are
planning to attend the hearing on November 8 , 2000 .
Sincerely,
e e J. Gesslein
roker
cc : David Axenfeld
Lama Financial Plaza • 501 S . Meadow St. • Ithaca, NY 14850 • Internet : www. gesslein . com
Office : 607-273 -4814 • Home: 607- 533 -7237 • Cellular: 607-280- 1540 • Fax : 607-272 - 1061
PART II — Environmental Assessment:
David Axenfeld — Resnick Mattress
618 Elmira Road
Retail Business Use
Zoning Board of Appeals
A . Action is Unlisted .
B . Action will not receive coordinated review.
C . Could action result in any adverse effects on, to or arising from the following :
Cl . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels,
existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?
The proposal is to permit Resnick Mattress, a regional mattress and bedding merchant, to
conduct a retail business at 618 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33 -3 -2 . 7 .
This parcel is zoned as Light Industrial, which does not permit a land use of retail
business . The property was originally developed and has been used for retail businesses .
Resnick Mattress will be going into an existing building and the previous occupant of this
space was 3D Furniture, a furniture and mattress store . No changes or expansions to the
building are planned.
The site appears to have adequate parking for Cascadilla Photography and Resnick
Mattress . The parking area and drive is crushed stone and has no formal parking except
for approximately five spaces directly in front of the building . It appears that there are
approximately 20 parking spaces available and has been adequate space for the previous
uses .
C2 . Aesthetic, agriculture, archeological , historic, or other natural or cultural
resources, or community or neighborhood character?
None Anticipated . No archeological, historic, or other cultural resources are known to
exist on the site, or are expected to otherwise be affected by the proposed action . Given
that the retail business will be going into an existing building and the previous occupant
of the space sold furniture and mattresses, no significant adverse impacts to aesthetic
resources or to community or neighborhood character are anticipated .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
threatened or endangered species ?
None Anticipated. The site is currently developed with a building, parking, a driveway
and lawn and landscaping between the building and the road . Resnick Mattress is going
into an existing building, and is not planning any expansion. Due to the nature of the
proposed action, no significant adverse impacts to vegetation or fauna, wildlife species,
significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species is anticipated .
C4 . The Town ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use
or intensity of land or other natural resources ?
None Anticipated . The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan designates the site as
"Commercial / General Business," and it is zoned Light Industrial . While the Light
Industrial District does not permit a retail business, this building and site has been used
for various retail uses since it was built .
C5 . Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by
the proposed action?
None Anticipated .
C6 . Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05 ?
None Anticipated .
C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of
energy)?
None Anticipated .
D . Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?
Non controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated.
PART III. — Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance
Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of
it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is
recommended for the action as proposed .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : Michael Smith, Environmental Planner
Review Date : November 1 , 2000
Gesslein Zeal Estate
Commercial Real Estate and Business Brokerage
George J . Gesslein, Licensed Real Estate Broker
October 3 , 2000
Mr. Andrew Frost
Director of Building and Zoning
Town of Ithaca
215 N. Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re : 618 Elmira Road
Dear Andy :
The following is an update from David Axenfeld that includes the NYSDOT, Economy Paving,
occupancy for Rte 13 reconstruction:
® Canon Pools, the original retail tenant for which the building was designed.
Cascadilla Photography, 1989 to present, (they apparently do some minimal retail at that
location) .
e Ithaca Auto Paint, - 1990 to 1993 .
® NYSDOT, Economy Paving - 6/95 to 5/97
G Reflex Sportsware, - 6/97 to 6/98 .
® 3D Furniture, 5/99 to 1 /00, (They are still technically the tenant because their lease hasn' t
been cancelled, however, they stopped paying rent 9 months ago . )
We would be happy to discuss this issue at the Nov 8a' meeting of the Zoning Board . Some
additional issues that make light industrial use less probable are the lack of sufficient electrical
power and a four inch floor that limits the ability for heavy floor loading, (large fork lifts, etc . ) .
These issues came up when we discussed use of the property by Kolar Machines .
Id
Sincerel
0
rge J. Gesslein
Broker
cc : David Axenfeld
Lama Financial Plaza • 501 S . Meadow St. • Ithaca, NY 14850 • Internet : www. gesslein . com
Office : 607-273 -4814 • Home : 607-533 -7237 • Cellular: 607-280- 1540 • Fax : 607-272 - 1061
49'11
30'4
fj-- 5 T2 ------ 75 �
a
Proposed Resnick's Mattress o
N Receiving and Storage N
N N
New Fire Door
FUr�
Remove existing partitions
0
m
Proposed Resnick's Mattress a
Retail Sales Area
CO
m
0
N
CO
O
Cascadilla Photography
N
2711 k 13'1 8111
� 49'11 I
LIVING AREA
4987 sq ft
Property Description
Commercial
Status: Active
SWIS: 503089 Tax Map #: 33.-3-2.7
ELMIRA RD
Zoning Code: Site: 1
Neighborhood: 30092 Building # 1
School District : Ithaca 449 Distribution Facili 1A
Deed Book : 645 Page : 642
Owner:
AXENFELD,DAVID
DAVID AXENFELD
7945 HALITE COURSE
FAYETTVILLE NY 13066
7/31/2000 File Photo
Improvements:
Site No Improvements
Overall EFF Year Built : 1990
Overall Condition : NORMAL
Overall Grade : AVERAGE
Structure
Air Conditioning Percent : 0%
Sprinkler Percent : 0%
Alarm Percent : 0%
Number of Elevators : 0
Last Sale:
Basement Type : No sale
Year Built: 1990
Condition : GOOD
Area Land:
Land Type:PRIME SITE
Gross Floor Area: 5,000 SgFt Acreage:2.02
Number of Stories : 1 Total Acreage:2.02
Utilities
Sewer Type: COMM/PUBLIC
Water Supply: COMM/PUBLIC
Utilities: GAS / ELECTRIC Assessment:
Land : 65,500
Commercial Uses Total : 205,000
Number: 1 Taxes:
Used-As: DISTRIB.WAREHOUSE Taxes may not reflect exemptions or change
Total Rentable Area: 5000 SgFt
_ASW
If
AL-
a s
d -