Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 Board of Zoning Appeals/Decision lettersCITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 Januar Frank Araneo 2 Strawberry Lane Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of January 2, 2007 Appeal #2712 — 508 Stewart Avenue Dear Mr. Araneo: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8 column 4, parking requirements and Section 325 -8 column 6, lot size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Because the appellant wants to alter the habitable space in the building, a variance for lot size and parking deficiencies must be granted by the Board. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The appellant wishes to change a 12 x 10 foot space, most recently used as a laundry room, into a study area associated with the first floor apartment. It appears that this space was originally designed as a parlor and the owner would like to reconvert the house to its original layout. 2. There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall well -being of the neighborhood. 3. There will be no change to the number of tenants or parking spaces required. 4. The property is grandfathered for the deficiency in lot size, setbacks and parking space deficiency. 5. The owner believes that this improvement in space will make the apartment more attractive to graduate students, who often need a place for small discussion/study groups. He would prefer not to convert the existing dining room for this purpose. 6. There were no speakers or letters in favor or opposed to the proposal. 7. The City Planning Board felt the no long term negative effect of granting the appeal. S. This property is not within an area of review by the Tompkins County Planning Department. The appeal was granted by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed, with the following condition: The Board of Zoning Appeals reiterates the decision of the Housing Board of Review of October, 2006, that the room may not be used as sleeping quarters. Sincerely, For the Building Department Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner 7 NOTE 1: The date of this letter is the date of filing for the purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30) days from the filing of this decision. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." c CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274.6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 Thomas Schickel Schickel Architecture 330 E. State St. Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of January 2, 2007 Appeal # 2715 — 217 Elmira Road Dear Mr. Schickel: January 22, 2007 The Board of Zoning Appeals heard the request by Tom Schickel of Schickel Architecture and Bob Witty of Cornell Federal Credit Union (CFCU) on behalf of William Card, owner of 217 Elmira Road. Requested is a variance from Section 272 -7A and 272 -913 of the Sign Ordinance. Proposed is a pole sign measuring 17.5 SF, with no setback from the property line. Only 4.5 SF is allowed for freestanding signs for this building, with a 10 foot setback. In addition, wall signs totaling 54.3 SF are requested, exceeding the 13.5 SF permitted for this property. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: The proposed directional signs at the entrance and exit are within requirements of the Ordinance. 2. The appellant has agreed to install a sidewalk along the property at the request of the City . Planning Board. 3. Along with the sidewalk and the extensive shoulder and right -of -way along Elmira Road, the sign will be some distance from the road, even without the ten foot property line setback. 4. The original design of the pole sign has been changed to eliminate the concrete block pedestal. This sign will be internally lit. The building signs will be part of the structure with white backlit letters on an opaque blue background. Due to the size and setback of the building, the wall signs will have very limited visibility from the street. For this reason the Board did not feel the walls signs would be overly intrusive or detrimental to the neighborhood. 6. The surrounding area will be planted with a mixture of shrubs and small trees to soften the lines of the paved area, reduce excessive light to nearby properties, but still permitting "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." to Thomas Schickel January 22, 2007 Schickel Architecture page 2 330 E. State St. Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of January 2, 2007 Appeal # 2715 — 217 Elmira Road maximum security to the bank patrons. The NY Banking Department requires three 3- head lights and one 2 -head light in this location. 7. There were no letters or speakers for or against the variance. 8. Overall the Board felt an improved site would be an enhancement to this section of the business district. 9. The City Planning Board felt that the size of the building and its orientation to the site justified the larger pole sign, but felt that the signs on the sides and rear of the building should be reduced. The appeal was granted by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed. Sincerely, For the Building epartment Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner PR:lf Cc: William Card CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274-6521 Dewi Rainey 6273 Curry Road Trumansburg, NY 14886 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of February 6, 2007 Appeal # 2714 — 435 Franklin Street Dear Ms. Rainey: February 22, 2007 The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for a variance from Section 272 -613 of the Sign Ordinance. The appellant proposes to erect a wall sign measuring approximately 166 square feet identifying the building at 435 Franklin Street as "Franklin Market ". Though the Sign Ordinance allows each tenant in a building to have two wall signs of up to 50 SF each, the Ordinance does not permit a wall sign to name the building, only the businesses housed within the building. In the B -la zone, where the building is located, total square footage of all wall signs can be no greater than 1.5 times the length of the building's street frontage. Though the tenants' wall signs meet the size limitations of the Ordinance, the total of all wall signs permitted for this structure is 242SF. With the addition of the Franklin Plaza sign, and an additional tenant sign "Red Feet Wine Market," the total signage will measure 340 SF. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The overall measurement of the Franklin Market sign is 257 SF. By using method "C" in Section 272 -3 of the Ordinance, only the area enclosed by each individual letter was calculated for an area of 166 SF. 2. Signs for the individual tenants measure 24 SF each, and the new "Red Feet Wine Market sign, to be attached to the opposite side of the building from "Papa Johns Pizza' sign will be 28 SF. 3. Since this building is on the corner, two sides of the building can be used to calculate to allowable footage. This comes to 242 SF; total signage would be 340 SF. 4. The Franklin Market sign will be downlit, with "Franklin" being neon script. The entire fagade is designed to be a cohesive design reflects the same type of structure as the Farmers' Market, which is located nearby. 5 The building is set at an angle to the main thoroughfare (Route 13) and is approximately 100 feet from traffic passing on that road. 6. The Board felt the design was a reasonable approach to enhance the identity of the building and improve recognition of the facility. More uniformity in the individual business signs would be preferable, however the cost of new signs would be a financial burden to the tenants. 7. The City Planning Board felt that the sign integrated well with the building and the amount of negative space between the letters visually reduces the size of the sign. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.,, 0 Dewi Rainey 6273 Curry Road Trumansburg, NY 14886 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of February 6, 2007 Appeal # 2714 — 435 Franklin Street 8. There were no letters or speakers for or against the variance. The appeal was granted by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed. Sincerely, k1 llA 4- For the Buildi g Department Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner PR:lf February 22, 2007 page 2 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 148505690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 Jeff Bercuvitz and Stacey Lanwick 309 N. Albany Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 8, 2007 Appeal #2723 — 309 North Albany Street Dear Mr. Bercovitz and Ms. Lanwick: May 24, 2007 The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, columns 4, 6 and 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the removal of a deteriorated addition to the rear of the house and replacing it with an enlargement to the kitchen which will extend an additional 5 feet into the rear yard. While the addition will create no additional deficiencies, a variance must be granted due to lot size and width deficiencies, and lack of on -site parking. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. There will no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. The addition has been designed to maximize fire safety between the closely - spaced structures on adjacent properties. 2. The additional structure will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood. The elimination of the poorly constructed, mismatched porch will improve the appearance of the house, and the additional kitchen space will greatly enhance the usefulness of the kitchen. The proposed work is designed to complement the style of the house. 3. The existing lot width of 33 feet does not meet the 40 foot requirement and the 2,932 square foot lot size does not meet the 5,000 square foot minimum. Front and one side yard setback are to be at leastl0 feet; the existing front yard setback is 8.5 feet and one side yard is 5.7 feet. The other side yard has a 1.7 foot setback where 5 feet are required. This property has no on -side parking, 2 spaces are required. The proposed addition will change none of these existing deficiencies. 4. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal. 5. The City Planning Board had no objections to the addition but felt neighborhood input should be addressed. 6. The County Department of Planning anticipated no negative effect of granting the appeal. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. Sincerely, For the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN /lf An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." C: CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 Robin Tropper - Herbel Community School of Music and Arts 330 E. State Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 8, 2007 Appeal # 2721 — 330 East State Street Dear Ms. Tropper - Herbel May 24, 2007 The Board of Zoning Appeals heard the request by Community School of Music and Arts for a variance from Section 272 -4A; sign projection, Section 272- 6B(2); number of signs, and Section 272 -9A; required setback, of the Sign Ordinance. The appellant proposes to attach lettering on the building on East State Street side, as well as install an awning of each of the two entrances facing the street. On the east side to the building, where the public parking lot is located, a banner sign, a wall - mounted entry sign and a wall mounted directory sign are proposed. At the rear of the building, a new sign is planned to replace the existing parking lot sign. A total of 6 signs are requested; the maximum combination of 3 signs is permitted for this location. Both the banner and the entrance sign would extend approximately 24 inches from the building; the Ordinance permits a maximum of 18 inches. The parking lot sign would be located 2.5 inches from the right of way; required is 18 inches. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The building is a multi- storey, 27,000 square foot building on a triangular lot. Traffic passes the building on three sides. 2. Currently there is one hand - painted sign on the front of the building, a badly deteriorated sign indicating the parking lot, and two directory boards at the two entrances. There are no directional signs for the handicapped entrance, which is on the west side of the building abutting the public parking lot 3. A maximum of three signs would be visible from any side of the building. 4. The size of the signs, both individually and in total, is less than the maximum allowable square footage. 5. None of the signs will be illuminated. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." co Robin Tropper - Herbel May 24, 2007 Community School of Music and Arts page 2 330 E. State Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 8, 2007 Appeal # 2721 — 330 East State Street 6. The Community School of Music and Arts is one of the recipients of a matching grant from the State, distributed by application to the Ithaca Downtown Partnership. The signage proposal has already been reviewed and approved by the Partnership, and is the only project that requires a zoning variance. 7. Members of the Board felt the canopy signs will be in good proportion to the size of the building, will fit well with similar signage in the downtown area, and will be attractive to visitors entering the downtown from the east. 8. There were no letters for or against the variance. 9. There were 2 speakers in favor of the planned signage. 10. The City Planning approved of all the signage, but felt that a different font might be used for the front wall sign and that the amount of information on the awnings could be reduced. 11. The County Planning Department saw no negative impact in granting the variance. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. Sincerely, For the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN:lf CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 May 30, 2007 Lou Terragnoli Tim Horton's Inc. 4455 Transit Road Williamswille, NY 14221 Tim Gawenus FRA Engineering 520 Summit Point Drive Henrietta, NY 14467 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of May 8, 2007 Appeal #2718 — 339 Elmira Road Dear Mr. Terragnoli and Mr. Gawenus: The Board of Zoning Appeals heard your appeal on behalf of The Salvation Army for a use variance for the property at 339 Elmira Road. Proposed is the demolition of the existing 8,800 square foot structure and the erection of a new 2,780 square foot restaurant. In order to provide parking, accommodate a drive- through window and meet the site requirement to place structures at the front of the lot, 10 of the parking spaces would need to be located in the R -2a zone. Section 325 -8, column 3 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits commercial use of residential zones. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The City Ordinance permits a 30 -foot encroachment into residential zones; the proposed encroachment here would be an additional 24 feet that is requested to allow a driveway providing access to a proposed drive through window. 2. The proposed structure and parking lot would pose no significant detriment to the health, welfare, and safety of the neighborhood. The existing structure has been used as a commercial enterprise with parking in the rear for over twenty years. The existing building and parking area are run -down and unattractive. 3. The proposed structure would be considerably smaller than the existing building. 4. This parcel is located in part of the City that was part of the Town of Ithaca when the existing structure was constructed. The parking area existed prior to the zoning change that created a residential zone across part of the property. 5. Because the residential part of the property is landlocked, access to any future residential structure would have to be from Elmira Road through the commercial property. The size of the residentially - zoned portion of the property and it's proximity to adjacent commercial structures would make residential use technically difficult and unappealing. 6. The proposed drive- through lane would occupy much of the commercially -zoned property behind the building. The analysis presented indicated there would be little or no rate of return without the "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." co Lou Terragnoli May 30, 2007 Tim Horton's Inc. page 2 4455 Transit Road Williamswille, NY 14221 Tim Gawenus FRA Engineering 520 Summit Point Drive Henrietta, NY 14467 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of May 8, 2007 Appeal #2718 — 339 Elmira Road inclusion of the drive - through feature. This restaurant chain typically draws some 50% of its business from drive- through customers. 7. The new structure will be sited such that all set -backs and SW -2 development specifications (sidewalks, landscape, street frontage, bicycle parking, etc.) are met. 8. The proposed parking area would include a 41 -foot buffer, with trees, shrubs and a fence would be within the buffer area. Seventeen percent of the rebuilt lot would be devoted to green space. 9. Typically most of this restaurant's business is during the daytime hours. 10. The opinion of the City Planning Board was as follows: "This appeal represents the ongoing tension concerning the boundary between commercial and residential uses in the area between Spencer Road and Elmira Road. Members of the Planning Board see validity on both sides of this issue, and understand the appellant's concerns. However, a majority of Planning Board members do not see a compelling planning argument in favor of this proposed variance and in general, have serious reservations about recommending use variances, particularly when they encroach on residential areas. However, Board members are sympathetic to the appellant's case, as the residentially zoned portion of this parcel is landlocked, accessible only from Elmira Road through the commercial zone. Additionally, some members feel that many of the commercially zoned properties along the south side of Elmira Road are not able to house the necessary parking spaces to support the commercial business. Some members felt his should be dealt with through a comprehensive rezoning process rather than the granting of individual use variances. All members of the Board agree that neighborhood input should be strongly considered when deciding this case." 11. The County Department of Planning suggested eliminating the drive - through and thus reducing the need for parking in the residential zone and a separate entrance /exit from Elmira Road. 12. There were no letters or speakers in favor or opposed to granting the appeal. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. Sincere w, Fo a Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN /lf CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 Patrick Doyle Rapp Signs 3979 NY Route 206 Greene, NY 13778 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 1, 2007 Appeal # 2720 — 338 Elmira Road Dear Mr. Doyle: May 23, 2007 The Board of Zoning Appeals heard your appeal on behalf of Monro Muffler Services for a variance from Section 272 -913 of the Sign Ordinance. The appellant proposes to erect a pole sign in place of the sign that was removed for sidewalk repair. The sign would be placed in the City -owned right of way, with no setback from the property line. Regulations in the SW -2 zone require a 10 foot setback from the property line. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. A 10 foot setback is impossible due to the location of the driveway and access to the garage bays. 2. The total square footage of the sign will be 52 square feet, less than the previous pole sign at this location. 3. The total square footage of the two existing signs and the proposed signs will be 207.25 square feet; permitted for this property is 375 square feet. 4. Monroe Muffler financed the sidewalk improvements as part of improving the commercial property. 5. The sign will be internally lit from dusk to dawn. 6. There were no letters or speakers in favor or opposed to granting the variance 7. The City Planning noted that due to the configuration of properties, rights -of -way and main roads in the SW zone, many commercial sites have had to place signage in the right -of -way. 8. The County Planning Department had no objection to granting the appeal. The appeal was granted by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed. Sincerely, For the Building Department Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner PR:lf Cc: Monro Muffler R & M Weiner "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." c CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 May 30, 2007 Jordan Fearon 422 N. Cayuga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 8, 2007 Appeal #2725 — 410 West Seneca Street Dear Mr. Fearon: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, columns 13 and 14/15, side and rear yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the use of the second story of an existing garage as a one - bedroom apartment. For a primary use building on the property at 410 West Seneca Street, a 33 foot rear yard and 5 foot side yard setback is required. The garage has a .5 foot rear yard and 1.5 foot side yard setback. In May, 1987, the similar appeal for a two - bedroom apartment ( #2761) was made and denied. In June of 2001, the BZA approved the current proposal ( #2505). Since the requested repairs and improvements were not completed prior to the expiration date of the building permit, the case must be reheard. It was moved to deny the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. While there would be no clear adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood, the proximity of a second floor residential structure directly overlooking the rear neighbor's backyard and home would interfere with the privacy of that residence. Overall, there would be no improvement to the neighborhood. 2. While the garage has been in existence for a number of decades, neglect has made this structure rundown in appearance. The appellant states that after extensive interior renovations are complete, the exterior would be painted, but little other exterior improvements would be made. The appellant claim that considerable improvements have been made to the interior of the main house, and some units are currently rented, but that the additional income from a one - bedroom unit over the garage would added needed income for property upkeep. 3. The setback deficiencies are substantial, especially for a residential unit. Granting a variance for such a large deficiency sets a bad precedent. 4. There were no speakers or letters in favor the proposal. There were 2 speakers who voiced concern over privacy for the yards backing on the garage and commented on the general neglect of the buildings and yard. One suggested he would feel more comfortable if glass block or some type of translucent (vs. transparent) windows were installed on the east and north sides. He also sent a letter with this information. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ro RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 8, 2007 May 24, 2007 Appeal #2725 — 410 West Seneca Street page 2 5. The City Planning Board felt there would be no negative effect on long term planning, but that the input of the neighborhood should be considered. 6. The County Department of Planning anticipated no long term negative effect of granting the appeal. The appeal was denied by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed, with 1 recusal. Sincerely For the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN:lf NOTE: The date of this letter is the date of filing for the purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30) days from the filing of this decision. CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 325- 40.B.(2)(g) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ithaca, that a public hearing will be held Tuesday, June 5, 2007, at 7:00 P.M. in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York to consider the following appeals: APPEAL NUMBER 2696 335 Elmira Road Continued from the August 1, 2006 meeting with additional development options. Appeal of Maryann Friend for a use variance from Section 325 -8, column 3, permitted accessory uses of the Zoning Ordinance. The property at 335 Elmira Road is located in two different zoning districts. Approximately 60% of the property is located in the SW- 2 commercial zoning district and a mixed -use building with restaurant and office tenants and as yet unassigned space has recently been constructed on that part of the site. The applicant proposes to develop the portion of the lot that extends into the adjacent residential zoning district as a 56 -space parking lot to support the new commercial building. The portion of the property that is zoned residential has no frontage and is accessible only from Elmira Road through the SW -2 zoned part of the property. A 10' wide buffer with plantings and a wooden fence is proposed to screen the parking lot from the adjacent residential properties. The appellant states that the newly constructed building was intended to have retail tenants, but that only office users have been interested in leasing space. The parking requirement for office uses is 1 space for each 250 square feet of net area versus 1 space for each 500 square feet of net area for retail uses, so more parking is required for office tenants than was originally provided. The appellant states that development of the residentially zoned portion of the property for uses in that zone is not financially feasible. The area of the property located at 335 Elmira Road proposed for parking is in an R -2a residential use zone in which the proposed accessory use is not permitted. Section 325 -38 requires that a use variance be granted before a building permit may be issued. APPEAL NUMBER 2726 408 NORTH MEADOW STREET Appeal of Ithaca Bakery for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 16, minimum height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellants are proposing to construct single -story additions at the north and south sides of the existing bakery to house walk- in coolers. The Zoning Ordinance requires new construction, including expansions of existing buildings with more than 500 square feet, to have two stories. The expansions to Ithaca Bakery will be done in two phases; the first is already permitted and underway, and consists of a 500 square foot addition to the south side of the bakery. The second, adding an additional 356 square at the south side and 150 square feet at the north side requires a variance. The property is located in a WEDZ -la commercial use district in which the proposed use is permitted, however Section 325 -38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit may be issued. APPEAL NUMBER 2717 314 UTICA STREET Appeal of Jean and Mike Davis for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 10, maximum permitted percentage of lot coverage, column 11, minimum front yard setback, column 12, minimum side yard setback and column 14/15 minimum rear yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellants propose to construct a porch at the front of their house that would wrap around the side to enclose an existing stair and landing in a mudroom. The proposed construction would extend 6 feet into the front yard leaving a front yard of 1'6 ". The ordinance requires a minimum 10' front yard setback. At the side the 6' wide porch and mudroom would leave a side yard of 3.9 feet where the ordinance requires a 10' set back. The appellants are also seeking Board approval of an existing deficiency created when previous owners constructed a roofed -over patio at the rear of the house without a building permit or zoning approval. This addition was built to within 13' of the rear lot line, thus encroaching on the required minimum 20' rear yard setback. The existing addition raised the percentage of lot coverage to 41 %, and the proposed front and side porch would increase it further to 48 %. The property is also deficient in lot size and parking, having 2988 square feet of area and no parking spaces. The ordinance requires 3000 square feet and 1 parking space. The property is located in an R -2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted, however Section 325 -38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit may be issued. ACCESSIBILITY: If you have a disability that requires special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully participate in the hearing, please contact Linda Foley at 274 -6508 by the Friday before the hearing. Phyllis Radke Building Commissioner & Zoning Officer CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 Tom Hoard HOLT Architects 217 N. Aurora St. Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 8, 2007 Appeal # 2724 — 310 Taughannock Boulevard The Board of Zoning Appeals heard the request by HOLT Architects on behalf of JOC H &F LLC and Cayuga Medical Center for a variance from Section 272 -6B of the Sign Ordinance. The appellant proposes to 5 wall signs and 3 pole signs on the property at 310 Taughannock Boulevard. The Sign Ordinance permits either two wall signs or one pole sign per business; the proposed number of signs exceeds the allowable number. Three of the wall signs measure larger than the maximum of 50 square feet, at 79, 90 and 172 square feet. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: There are four businesses currently occupying the building: Island Health Center, RASA Spa, Island Health & Fitness /Cayuga Medical Center and Cayuga Medical Center Physical Therapy and Sports Medicine. 2. Island Health Center is requesting 2 wall signs; each of the other three businesses is requesting one wall sign. 3. In addition to the wall signs, 3 freestanding signs are requested; the Ordinance does not permit a combination of wall and freestanding signs. 4. The three freestanding signs function as a building directory and directional signs. The Ordinance does not make provisions for directional signs in this zone. The Board recognizes the necessity of these directional signs to regulate parking, commercial deliveries, and to locate proper facilities within the building. The signs will also help direct the safe flow of traffic and provide clear passage for emergency vehicle access. Although three of the wall signs will be well in excess of maximum allowed size, they are proportional to the size of the building and can be read from the street. All signs will meet setback regulations. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." za Tom Hoard June 13, 2007 HOLT Architects page 2 217 N. Aurora St. Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 8, 2007 Appeal # 2724 — 310 Taughannock Boulevard 6. The City Planning Board felt that the size of the signs might be of a more unified style and of the same font. 7. There were no letters or speakers for or against the variance. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. Sincerely, .. For wilding Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN:lf cc: JOC H &F LLC Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca Physical Therapy CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 June 26, 2007 Brous Properties 293 Curtis Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of June 5, 2007 Appeal #2726 — 400 North Meadow Street Dear Brous Family: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 16, of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of two small single- storey additions to house walk -in coolers as part of the bakery operation. In the WEDZ -la zone all new construction and additions to existing structures must be 2 stories or 24 feet tall. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. The additional space for the coolers will create more interior space for food preparation and customer dining. 2. The additional structure will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood. The additions are small, at 356 and 150 square feet, and will be located at the rear of the building at the north and south sides. 3.. No parking spots will be lost as a result of the additions. 4. An existing rear yard setback deficiency will not be affected. 5. The Board notes that the intent of the 2 -story regulation is intended to increase density. These are utilitarian structures which will indirectly increase density by creating more interior space for commercial production and customers. 6. There were no speakers or letters in favor or opposed to the proposal. 7. The City Planning Board recommended approval noted that the structures will be small, not visible from the street and would be impractical to construct as 2- stories. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. Sincerly the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN/If `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." to, Jeff Klein 156 Farrell Road Ithaca, NY 14850 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 1, 2007 Appeal # 2716 — 424 West State Street The Board of Zoning Appeals heard the request by Jeff Klein/NAPA Auto Parts for a variance from Section 272 -613 and Section 272 -9A of the Sign Ordinance. The appellant proposes to replace an outdated wall sign on the front of the building, as well as a pole sign along the property line. The Ordinance permits either one pole sign or two wall signs, and pole signs must be placed 10 feet from the property line in the B -2c zone. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The business has been in the same location for 62 years. 2. The new wall sign will give the store a more modern appearance, and will be smaller than the existing sign. 3. The variance is for the sign to be placed on the existing supports at the end of a stone planter, which is adjacent to the entry to the parking area. The parking area is actually a separate parcel, which also belongs to the appellant. The placement of this sign requires a variance in that it will be located on the parcel adjacent to the business and also because there will be no setback from the front property line. 4. The Board feels that the intention of the law prohibiting business signs on properties not owned by that business is to prevent proliferation of signs along major thoroughfares and intersections. If this parcel is sold separately, the variance will be null and void. 5. While the Board felt that a monument sign would be less imposing, it recognizes that this type of sign would be more susceptible to vandalism. In addition, there are a number of pole signs in place along this particular section of West State Street, many much larger than the requested sign, poorly located, and not all in good repair. 6. Both signs will be internally illuminated in the evening and can be set on a timer to conform to local code. 7. The square footage of both signs is less than the permitted maximum for this building. 8. There were no letters or speakers for or against the variance. 9. The Planning Board felt the appeal was not well- supported and in general pole signs should not be granted by variance. 10. The County Dept. of Planning felt that freestanding signs should be discouraged where there is considerable pedestrian traffic. The appeal was granted by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed, with the condition that the parking lot sign be no taller than the top of the new wall sign on the storefront, approximately 12 feet to grade. The appellant has the discretion to erect either a pole sign or a monument sign using the existing supports on the planter. Sincerely, For the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN:lf "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Ca CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6505 Fax: 607/274 -6521 Mike and Jean Davis 314 Utica Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of June 5, 2007 Appeal #2717 — 314 Utica Street Dear Mr. and Mrs. Davis: July 9, 2007 The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, columns 4, 6, 10, 11, 12 and 14/15 of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of a wraparound porch on the front and side of the residence. There is no off street parking; column 4 of Section 325 -8 requires 1 space for a single family home in this zone. The lot size is 2,988 square feet; column 6 of Section 325 -8 requires a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet. Existing deficiencies in percentage of lot coverage and front, side and rear yard setbacks will be increased. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. 2. The additional structure will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood. The proposed work is designed to reduce the disparity of a modern brick home in a neighborhood of older homes by complementing the architecture of neighboring houses. It will allow the appellant to enclose an existing stairway and landing, create a street -side entry to the house, and effectively expand the existing 900 square foot living space. 3. The current front yard setback is currently 7.6 feet. The proposed setback will be 1.6 feet, instead of the required 10 feet, but the porch and reduced front yard size is consistent with neighboring properties. The front yard area will become a garden spot, as are many neighboring front yards. 4. The existing side yard setback deficiency is less than 1 foot; the proposed construction will create a deficiency of 6.1 feet where a 10 foot setback is required. 5. A roofed patio was built in the back yard by previous owners; this increased the percentage of lot coverage from 39 to 41 percent. The porch will increase lot coverage to 45 percent; permitted in this zone is 35 percent. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." co Mike and Jean Davis June 14, 2007 314 Utica Street page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of June 5, 2007 Appeal #2717 — 314 Utica Street 6. The rear yard setback was originally 29 feet, within the minimum required. The patio reduced the setback to 16 feet. No building permit application or zoning appeal was submitted at that time. 7. The existing parking and lot size deficiencies will not be altered. 8. There were no speakers or letters opposed to the proposal. Four letters of support were received. 9. The City Planning Board recognizes that most homes in the Fall Creek area are sited close to the street, and felt neighborhood input should be considered when making a determination on this case. 10. This property is not within an area under Tompkins County Planning Department review. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. Sincerel , For the Building Department Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner PR/If CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 July 13, 2007 Janna Edelman 112 Fayette Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of July 10, 2007 Appeal #272 4 —112 Fayette Street Dear Ms. Edelman: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 3, permitted accessory uses of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant proposes to relocate her establishment of a massage therapy practice to her newly purchased residence. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An existing upstairs bedroom will be used to conduct business. A bathroom is next to the proposed business space, and both rooms are directly accessible from stairs leading from the first floor entrance. 2. An informational sign approximately 10" x 30" will be placed at the entry; no exterior changes will be made to the residence. 3. Vehicular and foot traffic will be minimal, with no more than 3 to 4 clients per day, on average. Rarely would two client vehicles be in the parking area at the same time. The appellant estimates nearly 80 percent of the clients would arrive by foot. 4. There will no adverse affect to the health, welfare, safety or overall character of the neighborhood. 5. The addition will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood. 6. There is adequate off - street parking on the property. 7. There were no speakers or letters in favor of the proposal. 8. There were no letters in opposition to granting the appeal, however a neighbor voiced concern about additional traffic using the driveway. The driveway is shared by three residences; the appellant and the neighbor have rights -of -way to the driveway, which is part of the property between the appellant and the neighbor. The driveway makes a sharp curve in front of the neighbor's home, and she was concerned that unsuspecting clients might not drive slow enough to avoid hitting the house. The Board suggested that the appellant might be able to provide evening /overnight parking for the neighbor, since she does not have off - street parking. They also recommended that the appellant advise clients of the unusual driveway configuration, which she agreed to 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." co Janna Edelman July 13, 2007 112 Fayette Street page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of July 10, 2007 Appeal #2729 - 112 Fayette Street do, as well as work with the affected property- owners to find possible ways to mitigate the driving hazards. It was also noted that there is on- street parking. 9. The neighbor was also concerned about reducing the value of her property, but there was no evidence presented to support this. 10. The City Planning Board supports the establishment of home occupations and recommended granting the variance while taking into consideration neighborhood concerns. 11. The County Department of Planning felt there would be no negative impact from the business. This document was received after the hearing took place. The appeal was granted by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed, with the following conditions: 1. The Board will review and reconsider this special permit in one calendar year if the Building Department has received reports of problems with the use of the driveway. 2. The appellant and the current owner of 108 Fayette Street continue discussion on the after -hours use of a parking space at 112 Fayette Street. Sind ' For the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN/If CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 August 21, 2007 Steve Grahling Eve Lindys 21229 County Rd. 59 Dexter, NY 13634 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 7, 2007 Appeal #2731 — 111 Brandon Place Dear Mr. Grahling and Ms. Lindys: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 6, minimum lot size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellants are owners of the property at 217 Mitchell Street. A narrow, 585 square foot portion at the rear of the lot at 111 Brandon Place, owned by Robert Talda and Jeanne Kisacky, is effectively divided from the home and remainder of the property at 111 Brandon Place by a tall cliff. The property atop this cliff is adjacent to the home and surrounding property at 217 Mitchell Street, owned by the appellants. The owners of both properties have agreed to a lot line adjustment, but if this portion of the property deeded to 217 Mitchell Street, the remaining lot area will measure 5490 square feet, where 6000 square feet are required. The existing front yard setback, one side yard setback and off - street parking deficiencies will not be affected. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. There will no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. 2. No change will be made to the neighborhood by the land transfer. The owners of 217 Brandon Place have maintained this strip of land for a number of years. 3. The deficiency in lot size is minimal, at 8.5 percent. 4. The current owners would have to remove the 30 -40 foot tall cliff to access the rear portion of the property 5. There were no speakers or letters in favor or opposed to the proposal. 6. The City Planning Board supported approving the variance since this part of the property is unusable to the owners. 7. The County Department of Planning anticipated no long term negative impact of granting the appeal. The appeal was granted by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed. Sincere the Building Departme t Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN /lf CC: Robert Talda and Jeanne Kisacky LoPinto, Schlather, Salomon & Salk An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." eo CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 September 17, 2007 Maryann Friend 999 Triphammer Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 1, 2006, June 5, 2007 and July 10, 2007 Appeal #2696 — 335 Elmira Road Appeal by Maryann Friend and Douglas Friend for a use variance from Section 325 -8, column 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellants own a parcel of land which is in two zoning districts. Approximately 60% of the land lies in the SW -2 commercial district, and 40% is in an R -2a residential zone. A new building had been constructed in the SW -2 zone to house a restaurant and retail spaces, however the appellant has had only inquiries for office space. Office use requires 1 space per 250 square feet of net space, whereas retail use requires 1 space per 500 square feet of space. The existing parking area contains 47 spaces, of which 34 are required for the existing restaurant and office. Thirty - four spaces would be required if the currently unoccupied areas are used as office space, therefore an additional 23 spaces are needed to meet the parking requirements. The appellant proposes to develop the rear portion of the lot to incorporate 56 additional parking spaces, with a landscaped buffer zone between the parking area and the residential lots, which abut the rear of 335 Elmira Road. Findings of Fact, August, 2006: 1. Seven of 14 spaces in a shared right -of way with the Hampton Inn were to be designated for use by Odyssey Plaza (335 Elmira Road) tenants and customers. Hampton Inn is using all of these spaces, and frequently hotel customers use additional spaces at Odyssey Plaza. Employees of the existing tenant arrive prior to the hotel departures. 2. The Ordinance permits extending commercial use 30 feet into a residential zone, but this would only net twelve additional parking spaces. 3. In the year that the building has been open, only one tenant space is leased, as office space. No retail tenants have shown an interest in the property; only office -based businesses. The appellant believed that retail space would attract tenants, and that the existing parking area would be adequate. It appears that market trends have since changed with the many new retailers in this section of the City, and that now larger business firms are seeking office space in this area. 4. The hardship is unique to the property in that it straddles 2 zones, 1 commercial and 1 residential. Four similar properties in the area are grandfathered for commercial enterprise on the residential An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." is Maryann Friend September 17, 2007 999 Triphammer Road page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 1, 2006, June 5, 2007 and July 10, 2007 Appeal #2696 — 335 Elmira Road portion of the land. Furthermore, the residential zone is "landlocked" between the residential property to the rear and the commercial site in the front of the parcel. This would require a right - of -way through the commercial property to a main thoroughfare for a driveway. 5. The 2 zones were superimposed on the property after the original business was developed there years ago, indicating that the hardship was not self - created. 6. The rear portion of the property was used for storage and a staging area by the previous commercial enterprise, therefore a parking area would not represent a visual change from residential to commercial use. 7. The appellant provided estimates on the cost of constructing a 2- family residence. The cost of an entirely new structure would be substantial, and because of its location behind a commercial setting, the proximity of a major road, and the lack of its own driveway, the success in finding an interested buyer or tenants is questionable. 8. There were no speakers in favor of granting the appeal. Seven neighborhood residents spoke in opposition to the plan, voicing a number of concerns: 8.1. If the current economy is a criteria for considering hardship, then it would not be considered unique. 8.2. The proposed parking lot would abut the rear of residential properties. 8.3. A daycare facility is located at one of the nearby properties. 8.4. Light and noise would affect properties behind 335 Elmira Road, since they are at a higher elevation. Some kind of landscape screening would be beneficial. 8.5. Gravel and rocks have already been put in the area. This material appears to be leftover from construction of the commercial building. 8.6. A six -foot tall fence is already in place, but the lights are about 25 feet high, so the fence does not block much of the light. 8.7. Questions were raised regarding the runoff, citing problems with the runoftr the adjacent Hampton Inn parking lot. 7. The Common Council representatives for the district also spoke, emphasizing the needs for thoughtful zoning, with concern for the environment, and the need to address drainage and lighting concerns. Even though the City relies on both property and sales tax income, this appeal should not be granted at the expense of the residents and the neighborhood. 8. The County Planning Department had no objections to granting the appeal, but recommended that a buffer be erected between the parking area and the residential properties. Maryann Friend September 17, 2007 999 Triphammer Road page 3 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 1, 2006, June 5, 2007 and July 10, 2007 Appeal #2696 — 335 Elmira Road 9. The City Planning Board voiced concern about granting use variances, but acknowledged the difficulties in providing adequate parking along this section of Elmira Road, and the drawback of using a landlocked property for residential purposes. It recommended that consideration be given to public input. 10. Based on the many concerns from the neighbors, the Board voted 4 - 0 to table the hearing pending additional meetings with the appellant and the neighbors to work out ideas for satisfactory screening and lighting and a possible community space and to provide the Board with a plan to mitigate any excessive draining into neighboring backyards. Findings of Fact, June, 2007: 11. The Board agreed that residential use of the property would not be financially feasible. 12. The additional parking area behind the building will not change the essential character of the neighborhood, since the neighboring properties on Elmira Road contain commercial enterprise and associated parking, including in the residentially zoned parts of the properties. 13. The appellant has met with neighbors and the neighborhood association and reports no negative feedback with the new plan. 13.1. The parking lot design has been reworked and the number of proposed additional parking spaces has been reduced from 56 to 40. 13.2. The fence with be either 11 feet tall, or 8 feet tall on a 3 foot berm. 13.3. Lights will be mounted below the top of the fence. More lights may be needed as a result of the lower elevation. 13.4. Trees on the east and north side will remain part of the buffer zone. Trees on the south will probably need to be removed as part of the construction effort. 13.5. Dumpsters will be located behind the building to avoid dump trucks going into the residential part of the property. 13.6. Parking spaces will be located closer to the building that in the previous plan. 13.7. A twenty foot snow disposal area will increase the buffer zone between the parking area to the property line. 14. Two neighbors, both with properties adjoining 335 Elmira Road, again raised concerns: 14.1. Existing water runoff flows from Elmira Road into the backyard, where it is always spongy. 14.2. Removal of trees would remove any existing privacy barrier. Maryann Friend September 17, 2007 999 Triphammer Road page 4 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 1, 2006, June 5, 2007 and July 10, 2007 Appeal 42696 — 335 Elmira Road The Board again voted 4 — 0 to table the appeal for additional information on drainage and landscaping. Findings of Fact, July 2007: 15. Based on concerns raised at the June meeting, the fence will be extended to enclose more of the parking area. 16. Any mature trees that can be saved will be kept. A professionally - designed landscape plan consisting of trees, shrubs and perennials was submitted. 17. A licensed architect has developed appropriate drainage for runoff. Based on the above findings of fact, the Board moved to approve the use variance, passed by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed, reiterating the following: 1. The appellants would suffer financial hardship without a variance to create more parking. 2. The residential portion of the lot is landlocked. 3. The hardship was not self - created; the zoning was enacted years after the establishment of the lot as a commercial property. 4. Community input was solicited and attempts were made to mitigate any anticipated negative effects of the expanded parking lot. The lot size was reduced from a 56 to 40 parking spaces. 5. Mature vegetation will be left in place wherever possible. A professional landscape company was hired to design and install appropriate screening material to reduce sound and light. 6. A licensed architect was employed to resolve drainage concerns. Since-191 , Fei'the Building Dep ment Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN /lf Xc: William Shaw, attorney CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 September 27, 2007 Jennifer Brown 606 S. Albany St. Ithaca, NY 14850 �f ; J OF RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 21, 2007 Appeal #2732 — 606 South Albany Street ,o Dear Ms. Brown: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 295 -6 of the City Code, setback requirements for swimming pools. Requested is the continued use of a 15 -foot diameter above - ground swimming pool that has been in its current location for approximately 15 years. The Ordinance requires that pools are set back at least 15 feet from property lines. The appellant's pool is 15 feet from the rear property line, but since the lot is only 27 feet wide, it does not meet the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement, being 5 to 6 feet from the side lot line. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. Although the pool was erected some 15 years ago, without a permit, the appellant is now aware of the codes and seeks to mitigate any perceived negative effect on the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. 2. The pool creates no negative change on the neighborhood. In the past it has been used by neighbors as well as the homeowner's family. 3. Nearly all of the back yard is fenced or enclosed by a hedge. 4. Existing deficiencies in lot area, lot width, front and side yards setbacks of the house will not be affected. 5. There were no speakers in favor of granting the appeal. A petition supporting the variance with twenty two signatures and two letters were received. 6. No letters of opposition were received but one speaker claimed that inappropriate activities have taken place in and around the pool, and suggested that vandalism to her property had resulted from her complaints to the appellant. She also claimed that the water floods her property when it is emptied in the fall. She also indicated that the fence on her side of the pool was inadequate in screening the view from her deck and house, but did not want a taller or more extensive fence erected. Compliance with City Code will eliminate the flooding problem. 7. The City Planning Board felt there would be no permanent planning concerns as the pool is both seasonal and a temporary structure 8. The County Department of Planning anticipated no long term negative effect of granting the appeal. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 Jennifer Brown September 27, 2007 606 S. Albany St. Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 21, 2007 Appeal #2732 — 606 South Albany Street The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed, with the following conditions: 1. Subsequent replacement pools will be no larger than 15 feet in diameter. 2. The pool water is drained into a storm drain or natural waterway, per code requirements. 3. The screening between 606 and 608 South Albany Street will be augmented by tall plants, climbing vines or some material acceptable to the next door neighbor. Since y or the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN/If NOTE: The date of this letter is the date of filing for the purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30) days from the filing of this decision. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 September 27, 2007 A Michael and Katherine Allen tYV/ f_ 7 Elmcrest Circle r r Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 4, 2007 Appeal #2735 — 7 Elmcrest Circle Dear Mr. and Mrs. Allen: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 14/15 and 325 - 20.1)(2), rear yard setback requirements and front yard parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The original permit issued for the construction of the house in 1989 indicated a rear yard setback of 40 feet. A recent survey revealed the setback was actually 24.1 feet. A deck built without a permit reduced the setback to 18 feet. The owners propose to replace the deck. In addition, the appellants are requesting a variance to continue the use of the 19 -foot wide front yard parking area, which was also constructed by previous owners. Properties with less than 50 feet street frontage are permitted only a 12 foot wide front yard parking area. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. BZA Appeal # 1890 previously granted a variance for deficient lot width. 2. There will no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. Six of the 8 properties on the street have front yard parking; only 2 have driveways. The 2 adjacent properties have front yard parking. 3. Replacement of the deck will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood. The back of the lot is heavily wooded so the structure is not highly visible from neighboring properties. The new deck will be built to code and will be more structurally sound. 4. An overgrown gravel driveway originally constructed next to the house will be removed and planted. 5. The front yard width is minimal, in part due to the configuration of the street. The rear of the property is oddly shaped; the west side of the back yard is considerably deeper than the east side 6. There were no speakers or letters in favor or opposed to the proposal 7. The City Planning Board viewed the front yard parking as an extension of the total parking area, but the appellant indicates the existing driveway will be eliminated. 8. The County Department of Planning anticipated no long term negative effect of granting the appeal. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. Sincere 4, F r the Building Departme t Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN /lf "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 September 27, 2007 Tom and Caitlin Schryver 201 Fairmount Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 Fa+ >, RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 21, 2007 't' '���i > >' Appeal #2733 — 201 Fairmount Avenue Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schryver: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 14115 of the Zoning Ordinance, rear yard setback requirements. The appellants propose to construct a roof over an existing deck in order to provide a covered entry into the house and to improve drainage next to the house. The required rear yard setback for this property is 23.5 feet. An existing deficiency of 1.5 feet will be increased to 13 feet with the construction of the roof. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. There will no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. 2. The additional structure will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood. The proposed work is designed to complement the style of the house, will prevent water damage to the side of the house and will provide an improved entryway to the house. 3. The existing deficiency in the rear yard setback will be increased to 13 feet, but since this is a corner lot, the area in question would technically be a side yard with smaller setback requirements if it were not a corner lot. 4. There are no other lot deficiencies 5. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to granting the appeal. A letter of support was received from one of the neighbors. 6. The City Planning Board saw no long -range permanent planning concerns with granting the appeal, and recommended consideration of neighborhood concerns. 7. The County Department of Planning anticipated no long term negative effect of granting the appeal. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. Sincer , the Building Departmen Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN/1f An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." c CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 September 27, 2007 Mia Pancaldo 710 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of July 10 and August 21, 2007 Appeal #2727 — 510 North Tioga Street Appeal by Mia Pancaldo on behalf of owner 510 North Tioga Street, LLC, represented by Mark Mecenas, for continued use of first floor space as offices. The property is in an R2b zone in which business uses are not permitted. Previously this property was legally nonconforming for medical use, but lost rights to the nonconforming use when that use was discontinued to more than 12 months. At the hearing of April 5, 2005, the case was adjourned in order for the appellants to obtain additional information relating to the cost of remodeling the two apartments for rental units and calculations on potential rental return for the reconfigured property and to provide more information on efforts to find tenants for the medical office space. Findings of Fact, July 10, 2007: 1. The appellant proposes to create a suite of three ground floor medical offices. 2. There are currently two apartment units on the second floor. 3. A handicap ramp access will be incorporated with the rear entry. 4. The analysis presented indicated an estimate of $20K to combine the two upstairs apartments and $35K to install a kitchen and full bath into the downstairs. Current rental income for the two units is $1,350 /month. Reconstruction of the apartments would require that both units be vacant during construction. The office space was previously rented at $1,100 /month. The estimate provided indicates that there would be no positive rate of return based on several possible configurations of apartments and/or offices. The Board felt the estimate for the kitchen and bath construction might be excessive. 5. The existing hardship was not created by the appellants, but as contract vendee, the appellant needs to provide evidence that there were attempts to rent the office space over the past few years, which were unsuccessful. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." to Mia Pancaldo September 27, 2007 710 N. Tioga Street page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of July 10 and August 21, 2007 Appeal #2727 — 510 North Tioga Street 6. There were no speakers or letters in favor of the appeal. A petition was submitted against granting the appeal, and the petitioning group was represented by Fred Madden, who reiterated that this block is becoming more residential and that there are already problems with street parking by downtown employees. No additional on -site parking has been planned, and the speaker estimated an additional 10 spaces would be needed. The appellant stated that the clinicians could park at her residence, and that not all the clients would drive as the property is within easy walking distance from downtown and is on a bus line. The Board voted to adjourn the hearing in order for the appellant to provide more evidence to support the claim that there was no professional interest in the offices and/or if the offices were unavailable for some other reason. The motion to adjourn was passed by a vote of 3 -0. Findings of Fact, August 21, 2007: 8. The appellant submitted a document drawn up by her attorney, Mariette Geldenhuys, stating that subsequent to the purchase of the property in 1974 and its legal use as mixed residential/office space, a zoning change restricted the property to two -unit residential use. It suggested that the zoning change, and not the cessation of use as office space under the grandfather rights, caused the hardship, and therefore can not be considered self - imposed. It further suggested that obtaining a use variance appeal for a property with a lapsed, legally non - conforming status might be more rigorous than an appeal for a `new' use variance. 9. The spouse of the current owner, who used the office area for a dentist's practice, moved from the space 12 years ago, No information could be found as to when actual use as an office ceased. 10. A new parking plan was provided in which existing space behind the building would be expanded and marked for 4 additional spaces, which is required for the square footage of office space. The handicapped space would be code compliant, and in addition to the 2 current and 4 proposed new spaces. 11. No structural changes would be made to the fagade of the building, and only a discreet nameplate would be added at the entrance. 12. With 3 offices and 2 apartments there would be considerable activity in and out of the building, although the appellant states that the amount of traffic for psychological practice is less than that of a medical practice, by virtue of appointment length and the desire for client privacy. The Board agreed with that claim, but felt that three offices with practitioners, Mia Pancaldo September 27, 2007 710 N. Tioga Street page 3 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of July 10 and August 21, 2007 Appeal 42727 — 510 North Tioga Street clients and residential tenants would be noticeable. It questioned the likelihood of high profile clients arriving by public transportation. 13. The financial evidence presented does not appear complete and is not entirely compelling. Future income for use as rental units was not thoroughly covered. 14. No information was presented to support past attempts to find tenants for the office space. 15. No additional speakers or letters were presented in favor or opposed to granting the variance. 16. The City Planning Board recommended against granting the variance, finding it preferable to use the property for residential purposes, citing increased density and traffic as a mixed -use property. 17. The County Department of Planning saw no negative effect of granting the variance. The appeal was denied by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. D Since ZZ4 N)4z�� For the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN/If Xc: Mark Mecenas, 510 N. Tioga Street, LLC NOTE: The date of this letter is the date of filing for the purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30) days from the filing of this decision. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 September 28, 2007 Justine Limber - Sapanski 212 Elm Street fir;.. /� V Groton, NY 13073 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 11, 2007 Appeal #2739 — 1005 North Cayuga Street Appeal by Justine Limber - Sapanski on behalf of owner Ann Limber for a variance from Section 325 -8, column 2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Previously this property was legally nonconforming for small business use, but lost rights to the nonconforming use when that use was discontinued to more than 12 months. The property is in an R2b zone in which a use variance is required for the continued commercial use of the property. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The benefit to the appellant would pose no significant detriment to the health, welfare, and safety of the neighborhood. The potential tenant plans to set up a florist shop which would receive approximately 3 deliveries a week and the product is almost exclusively pre- ordered and delivered to the clients. 2. Continued use of this space as a business would create no negative effect to the neighborhood. The building has been used as a commercial space since it was built. 3. Following the past tenant's vacating of the building, the space was not rented out due to the owner's medical problems and the necessity of making repairs to the space. The Board recognized that the lack of use was not intentionally created by the owner. 3. The 960 SF building was not constructed as residential space. A previous contractor's estimate for conversion into a single, two- bedroom unit was $129,000 and for restoration of the existing structure was $75,000. The property owner felt this was an excessive amount of money. Subsequent basic repairs and upgrades to the facility have been done by family members. 4. To be used as an owner - occupied business (associated with the adjoining home at 1007 North Cayuga Street) a variance would still be required as the building exceeds the maximum 500 SF /25% of the area of the residence permitted for a home business. 5. If the building were converted to a residential structure, an area variance would be necessary for existing deficiencies in lot area, width and setbacks. 6. There is adequate parking for the prospective tenant and part-time employee. Smaller delivery vehicles can readily park and unload in the driveway. Large delivery trucks have available parking on the street. 7. Deliveries are generally made between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m., with occasional deliveries as early as 6 a.m. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." c Justine Limber- Sapanski September 28, 2007 212 Elm Street page 2 Groton, NY 13073 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 11, 2007 Appeal #2739 —1005 North Cayuga Street 8. The business owner, Sarah Culotta lives in the neighborhood, which is in part why this location is desired. She expressed the commitment to working with the neighbors to resolve any problems which may arise. 9. There were no speakers or letters in favor of granting the appeal. 10. Two neighbors voiced concerns over granting the appeal. One neighbor felt early morning deliveries might be very noisy. Ms. Culotta indicated that engines are not left running during deliveries, and most incoming and outgoing deliveries are made with minivans or small trucks. These would have a much smaller impact than the garbage trucks that were used for comparison. 11. The City Planning and Development Board felt the business would have no benefit to local residents. Ms. Culotta has stated that she would welcome orders from neighboring households. 12. The County Planning Department had no objections to granting the appeal, citing no anticipated long -term detriments. The appeal was granted by a vote of 5 in favor, none opposed, with the following conditions: 1. Commercial use is limited to contract floral assembly and delivery. 2. Incoming deliveries are limited to no more than 4 deliveries per week, and must be made between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. 3. Vehicles used for outgoing deliveries are limited to passenger or light commercial. 4. Hours of operation must be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Sincere For the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board PR/lf Xc: Sarah Culotta NOTE: The date of this letter is the date of filing for the purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30) days from the filing of this decision. Elizabeth King 212 Utica Street Ithaca, NY 14850 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 September 28, 2007 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 4, 2007 Appeal #2737 — 828 Hector Street Dear Ms. King: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, side yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A carport with an overhead, second -floor deck was added to the residence in 1986. A survey taken in 1993 indicated the 10 foot setback requirement for this side yard had been met, but a survey taken earlier this year showed a setback of only 8.5 feet at the rear corner of the structure. The appellant is requesting a variance to continue the use of the carport and deck. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. A previous variance was granted for a small deficiency in the rear yard setback and a 2% excess of lot coverage. 2. There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. The deck creates no undesirable change to the neighborhood. The structure has been in place for over 20 years. 3. The side of the lot is screened by mature evergreens. 4. The property line angles inward from the front line, narrowing the setback from the front to the rear of the residence. 5. There were no speakers or letters in favor or opposed to the proposal 6. The County Department of Planning anticipated no long term negative effect of granting the appeal. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. Since 7 ly j tflo ) I For the Building Departm nt Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN /lf "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." co CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 October 10, 2007 George Hascup 316 -318 S. Geneva Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 7, 2007 Appeal 42730 — 316 -318 South Geneva Street Dear Mr. Hascup: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 6, minimum lot size requirements and columns 14/15, rear yard setback regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the conversion of a three -car garage into a two story single - family dwelling. The addition of a second residential structure on this lot would create both a lot area deficiency and a rear yard setback deficiency. It was moved to deny the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. There would be no adverse effect to the health, welfare or safety of the neighborhood, however neighbors voiced concerns about changes to the privacy of the backyards 2. While the proposed structure is an attractive design, overall the Board felt a residential structure would not enhance the character of the neighborhood. 3. This building would sit only 25 inches from the rear property line. 4. Where none existed previously, two deficiencies would be created. The lot required lot size would be increased from 5000 SF to 10,000 SF. This property contains 7322 SF. The rear yard setback would be decreased from 36 feet to just over 2 feet; 20 feet is required. 5. The carriage house would largely be a new structure, as the current garage is deteriorated. The new structure would be sited close to the footprint of the garage. 6. The Board felt that an addition to the existing house might be a preferable method of achieving the appellant's desire to create a handicap - accessible living space for future use. This could be done without the need for an area variance. 7. There were no speakers or letters in favor of granting the proposal. 8. A letter signed by six property owners was submitted. Two of the signers spoke in addition to a third neighbor, raising several objections: 8.1. There would be no fire department access to the rear of the structure 8.2. The structure reduces distance between other residences, increasing potential fire risk 8.3. Seven other garages have been converted to living quarters, a trend that the neighbors do not want to continue. 8.4. The owner, by virtue of his profession, should have been aware of property regulations when he purchased the lot. 8.5. While the appellant plans to use the structure for his own benefit, the variance is attached to the property in perpetuity. 9. The appellants countered by stating that other converted garages in the neighborhood were successfully occupied, and that they had no plan to subdivide the existing house to create additional living units. 10. The Board felt that preservation of backyards as open spaces is a significant objective. An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ca George Hascup October 10, 2007 316 -318 S. Geneva Street page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 7, 2007 Appeal #2730 — 316 -318 South Geneva Street 11. The City Planning Board felt that many issues were not addressed, such as parking availability. They were also concerned with potential negative impact on surrounding homes and yards. 12. The County Department of Planning anticipated no long term negative impact. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant, and no vote was taken. Sincer y For the Building Depa ent Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN /lf CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 October 5, 2007 Metta Winter 704 N. Cayuga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of October 2, 2007 Appeal #2743 — 704 North Cayuga Street Dear Ms. Winter: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 10, maximum percentage of lot coverage regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of a 15 x 16 foot deck at the rear of the house. The addition of the deck will increase the existing lot coverage from 38.2 to 42.7 percent. The maximum lot coverage in this R -2b zone is 35 percent. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. There will no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. 2. Enlargement of the existing 5 x 8 deck will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood. There is considerable screening around the back yard, so the structure is not highly visible from neighboring properties. 3. The new deck will be built to code and will be more accessible for the handicapped resident of the property. An awning may be added at a later date. The existing front porch is shared by tenants, lacks privacy and faces a busy street. 4. Existing front and side yards setback deficiencies will not be affected. 5. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal. 6. Five letters of support were received from neighboring property owners. 7. The City Planning Board supported granting the variance, suggesting that neighborhood input should be considered. 8. The County Department of Planning submitted no comments on the appeal. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. Sincer y For the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissiondr and Secretary to the Board TN /lf NOTE: A building permit must be obtained within two years from the date of the granting of this variance, and the work shall be substantially completed prior to the expiration of the building permit, as provided by Section 325- 40.C(7) of the City Ordinance, or this variance shall become void. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 . rY � CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 Kirby Allen 467 Route 96 Owego, NY 13027 October 18, 2007 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 7 and September 11, 2007 Appeal #2728 — 135 Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway Appeal of Kirby Allen, owner of the Subway located inside the WalMart Store at 135 Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway for a variance from Section 272 -7B of the Sign Ordinance, number and area of signs. As the Subway store has no exterior building frontage, a variance is required to erect a 26.5 SF wall sign on the exterior of the WalMart building, and affix a 9.6 SF sign on the plaza sign on Elmira Road. At the August 7, 2007 meeting, it was moved to table the appeal based on the following findings of fact: 1. The Subway shop has been in this location for 3 years, with no store identification for the general public. 2. Apparently the initial agreement with WalMart was to include space for Subway signage. 3. There were no speakers or letters in favor or opposed to granting the appeal. 4. The City Planning Board felt that the in the absence of regulatory code for businesses without exterior frontage, the appeal should be granted. 5. The County Planning Dept. felt it had not received enough information regarding the proposed placement of the signs, nor had it received information about the total amount of signage assigned to the WalMart store. The department noted that the current Ordinance does not address signage for a business within another business. 6. The Board members adjourned the hearing with a request for authorization from WalMart for Subway to request signage on the building and information from Benderson Development regarding placing signage on the pole sign at the plaza entrance. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 Kirby Allen October 18, 2007 467 Route 96 page 2 Owego, NY 13027 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 7 and September 11, 2007 Appeal # 2728 — 135 Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway At the meeting of September 11, 2007, the additional findings were: 7. Written authorization was received from the Wa1Mart Corporation. 8. Property owner, Benderson Development, declined permission for Subway to add signage to the pole sign. 9. Subsequently, the total area of the requested signs is reduced from 36.1 SF to 26.5 SF. 10. The exterior sign will assist shoppers in locating the restaurant. 11. The setback from the main thoroughfare and the size of the Wa1Mart store mitigate the extra signage. 12. The store is within an extensive commercial district; the sign will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The appeal was granted by a vote of 5 in favor, none opposed, with the Board noting that there are no regulations setting guidelines for this type of sign. Since y —V,4 For the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN:lf Xc: Wa1Mart Corporation Robert Ross TC3 Foundation 170 North St. Dryden, NY 13053 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 11, 2007 Appeal # 2738 — 118 North Tioga Street Dear Mr. Ross: October 23, 2007 The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal on behalf of the TC3 Foundation for a variance from Section 272 -613, number of signs permitted by the Sign Ordinance. Proposed is the replacement of one "M & T" sign with a "TC3 / Tioga Place" sign. A variance was previously granted under BZA Appeal 2697, which granted placement of 2 building signs in addition to the 2 permitted by the Ordinance. A new appeal is necessary for the proposed fifth building sign. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An additional sign is needed to properly identify the east fagade entrance for those looking for the proper entrance to the building. 2. The replacement sign will be the same size as the existing sign. 3. The M & T bank has other identifying signs, and does not object to the loss of the sign that is subject in this appeal. The M & T sign over the bank entrance is within the alcove and not obtrusive. 4. Other businesses located in the building have directional information on the lobby signboard. 5. The design of the sign is identical with the existing signs. 6. The total area of all TC3 /Tiogal Place signage is 142.5 SF, about half of the 279 SF that would be permitted for this building. 7. There were no letters or speakers for or against the variance. 8. The City Planning and Development Board felt the request for an additional sign was reasonable. 9. The County Planning Department saw no long term negative effect of granting the appeal. The appeal was granted by a vote of 5 in favor, none opposed. Sincerer e Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN:lf "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 October 23, 2007 Erik Frank 445 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 11, 2007 Appeal #2740 — 445 North Tioga Street Dear Mr. Frank: ,i r 1�� The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 4, required parking, column 6, minimum lot area and column 10, maximum percentage of lot coverage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of a 64SF storage shed at the rear of the property. Deficient lot size and parking would not be affected, but the percentage of lot coverage would be increased from 44 to 46 %. Maximum coverage permitted in this R -2b district is 35 %. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. There will no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. 2. While the shed will be visible from Farm Street, it is not a large structure. The appellant is currently storing bicycles, garden tools and the lawnmower in the basement. Moving these larger items up and down the narrow stairway is difficult and cumbersome. 3. The shed will be placed the required 3 feet from the property line. 4. There were no speakers or letters in favor or opposed to the proposal 5. The City Planning Board saw no long range planning issues and recommended that neighborhood input be taken into consideration. 6. The County Department of Planning anticipated no long term negative effect of granting the appeal. The appeal was granted by a vote of 5 in favor, none opposed. Sincerer For e Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN/1f "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." to r -- CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 October 23, 200' Mary Schubert 111 Orchard Place Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 4, 2007 Appeal #2736 — 115 Orchard Place Dear Ms. Schubert: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for review of the determination by Deputy Commissioner Nix regarding findings pertinent to construction of a fence around a portion of the property located at 115 Orchard Place. The appellant claims that the proposed fence would interfere with the light, air circulation and view from the side of her house at 111 Orchard Place, which adjoins the lot at 115 Orchard Place, as outlined in section 325 -17(D) of the City Ordinance. The following findings of fact were presented: 1. The appellant claims that the proposed fence would be solid construction rising 7 to 8 feet high along the shared property line. Property owners Graham Kerslick and Jennifer Wilkins of 115 Orchard Place state that the planned fence is 6 to 6.5 feet high with 1 to 1.5 foot lattice at the top. Since property line slopes down to the Schubert residence, the appearance of the fence might be higher. 2. The purpose of the fence is to prohibit deer from entering the backyard gardens. 3. The appellant indicates that the construction of the fence 3.5 feet from the residence would interfere with the ability to paint the house and complete any needed repairs to the roof or soffit area. Mr. Kerslick indicated that permission has been given to use his property during the course of repairs in the past, and will be given in the future. Actual placement of the fence is estimated to be 4 feet, and consideration was given to access for utility work. 4. Much of the view that would be obscured by the fence would that of the neighbors' back yard and residence. 5. There were no letters received in opposition to the original fence proposal. 6. One letter was received and the sender spoke as well, voicing the opinion that the proposed interpretation was accurate, adding that in this neighborhood many houses are close together, but are three stories tall, thus somewhat mitigating reduced views at lower levels. He further explained that past issues have been resolved, sometimes with the assistance of the neighborhood association. He felt that the owners of 115 Orchard Place had done much to improve the property and maintain good neighborhood relations. 7. The City Planning Board saw no issues with the fence plan and suggested dialog and compromise between the two parties. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." to Mary Schubert October 23, 2007 111 Orchard Place page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 4, 2007 Appeal #2736 — 115 Orchard Place 8. The County Department of Planning anticipated no long term negative effect of granting the appeal. 9. After further discussion, the owners of 115 Orchard Place agreed that a 4 -foot solid and 2 -foot lattice top would be effective along this side of the property, to which the appellant agreed, and subsequently withdrew the appeal. No vote was taken as a result of the withdrawal, with the expectation that the design concerns had been addressed and resolved. Sincerely, wd For t e Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN/If Xc: Graham Kerslick and Jennifer Wilkins Phillip Thomson 733 Hector Street Ithaca, NY 14850 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274.6508 Fax: 607/274.6521 November 1, 2007 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of October 3, 2006 and October 2, 2007 Appeal #2700 — 733 Hector Street Dear Mr. Thomson: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -20D, front yard parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant has redirected an existing driveway at a ninety degree angle from the curb cut across the front yard. The resulting driveway occupies 45% of the front yard. The Ordinance for this R -la zone limits front yard parking to 25% of the front yard, and requires any front yard parking within 15 feet of the front property line to be no more than 10% of perpendicular to the street. An existing 3 -foot front yard deficiency will not be altered. At the October, 2006 meeting, the following findings of fact were noted: 1. There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. 2. The change will not alter the appearance of the neighborhood. The property slopes down from the roadway and the driveway is partially obscured by the guardrail lining this section of roadway. 3. The main intent of the newly located driveway is the eliminate runoff from Hector Street into the appellant's garage and basement. 4. Due to the configuration of the street, there is no other place for a curb cut along the front property line. 5. The driveway is extended across the front yard and widened at the west side of the house to accommodate a turnaround area. This prevents having to back into the congested thoroughfare. 6. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal; one letter of support was received. 7. The City Planning Board recommended exploration of alternate driveway locations prior to approval of the variance. 8. The County Department of Planning noted that a buffer of 100 feet is the standard recommended distance from a waterway. It recommended that the driveway terminate as close to the house as possible. Also noted was the regulation that if the Board approved the variance, it must be by supermajority vote (4 of the 5 members must vote to grant the variance). Based on the County Department of Planning's findings, the appeal was tabled for additional information, by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. The appellant was advised to consider the possibility of relocating the driveway to the east side of the property or explore construction of retaining walls and other possible methods to mitigate potential runoff into Linderman Creek. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of October 3, 2006 and October 2, 2007 page 2 Appeal #2700 — 733 Hector Street At the October, 2007 the case was reviewed, noting the previous findings of fact and: 9. Members of the County Planning Department staff visited the site and reiterated the recommendation that the driveway be terminated as close to the house as possible. It also clarified the statement regarding the 100 foot "setback" from a water source to indicate that this distance may be modified, and in this case the driveway is preexisting. It also noted that Cayuga Inlet is already considered a threatened body of water. 10. The City Department of Planning and Development also made a site visit and noted that the gravel driveway aids water absorption. Lawn and natural vegetation between the driveway and creek also act to filter water. Noted is the narrowness of side yard next to the house and the inherent difficulty of constructing a driveway in that space. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed, with the condition that the appellant add a berm along the turnaround end of the parking area to reduce drainage toward Linderman Creek or install a professionally designed drainage system for the parking area.. Since J&W For the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN /lf NOTE: A building permit must be obtained within two years from the date of the granting of this variance, and the work shall be substantially completed prior to the expiration of the building permit, as provided by Section 325- 40.C(7) of the City Ordinance, or this variance shall become void CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 November 1, 2007 r Dammi Herath Women's Opportunity Center IT 315 N. Tioga Street N Ithaca, NY 14850 Y,:a �/�/ RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of October 2, 2007 Appeal 42741 — 110 West Court Street The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal on behalf of the Women's Opportunity Center to obtain area and use variances for the property located at 110 West Court Street. Area deficiencies in percentage of lot coverage, front and both side yard setbacks were granted in appeal #2542 in June of 2002. Off - street parking and lot area deficiencies were also granted a variance in appeal #2542. The original use variance was granted for the use of this property for offices and transient housing; that variance is now void, since no building permit application was submitted within the two year period following the July, 2002 formal notification of approval of the variance. The current appeal is for use as a retail training facility and all items contained in the original variance must be reviewed and re- approved by the Board. It was moved to grant the variances based on the following findings of fact: 1. There will no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. No structural changes will be made to the premises. The increased area deficiencies are due to the change in status from residential to office /commercial use. 2. No undesirable change will be made to the neighborhood. A number of professional offices are located nearby in residentially designed buildings, and several other non - profit community service organizations operate in the vicinity. 3. The property was donated to the appellant for the purpose of providing employment education and training to women and men in order to strengthen their employment potential. Funding for the Center comes from government grants and private donations. The Center does not have the flexibility of renting or purchasing property for its use. This creates an unusual hardship for the appellants in that the property at 110 W. Court Street is zone R -3a, which does not include office or educational use. 4. The Center plans to use the second floor for office space for its employees; space on the ground floor will be used for sales of donated clothing. The intent of this enterprise is to provide supervised on-the-job experience for a small group of trainees. The goal is not to make money at An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 Dammi Herath November 1, 2007 Women's Opportunity Center page 2 315 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of October 2, 2007 Appeal #2741 — 110 West Court Street this facility; if a profit is realized it will be used as a stipend for the trainees. Customers survey responses will be used for trainee evaluation. 5. The parking should not be an issue as the employees will walk from the parking lot at the Center's main location around the corner. Trainees generally do not have automobiles. The appellant noted that there are usually on- street parking spaces available on the block. 6. There were 2 speakers and a petition with 13 signatures in favor of granting the appeal. One letter was received from the adjoining property, 114 W. Court Street, requesting that the Center notify customers that their driveway was not part of the Center's property. 7. The City Planning and Development Board prefers to have the property used for residences, but noted that the requested use should not create parking issues. It recommended that the variance be specifically granted for the proposed training use and not blanket office or commercial purposes. 8. The County Planning Department had no objections to granting the appeal. The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed, with the condition that current and future activities are limited to retail or service sector employment training provided by a non - profit organization. The appellant agrees to monitor parking so that the driveway next door is not compromised. Sin ce y r the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TR/lf Enclosure NOTE: A building permit must be obtained within two years from the date of the granting of this variance, and the work shall be substantially completed prior to the expiration of the building permit, as provided by Section 325- 40.C(7) of the City Ordinance, or this variance shall become void. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 January 3, 2008 Jordan Fearon 422 N. Cayuga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of December 17, 2007 Appeal #2747 — 410 West Seneca Street Dear Mr. Fearon: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, columns 13 and 14/15, side and rear yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the use of the second story of an existing garage as a studio apartment. The garage has a .5 foot rear yard and 1.5 foot side yard setback. A 33 -foot rear yard and 5 -foot side yard setback is required for primary use buildings. In June of 2001, the BZA granted a variance for these deficiencies in appeal #2505, but since the requested work was not completed prior to the expiration date of the building permit, the variance was nullified. The case was reheard in appeal #2725 in May, 2007, at which time the variance was denied. The Board questioned the appellant as to whether this variance request was different from appeal #2725 that was denied earlier this year. Existing windows on the north and east sides will be replaced with glass brick, which will preserve the privacy of the neighbors in their yards and also the tenant(s) in the proposed apartment 2. The garage has been in its current location for many years. Presently it is unsightly and unusable as a living space. The current plan includes exterior work to improve its overall appearance and to paint to match the main house. 3. The apartment design has been refined and clarified. The interior will essentially be open space. 4. The exterior of the primary residence has been repaired and painted. 5. The parking area will be cleared of overgrowth, redesigned and will be clearly delineated. It will be within allowable percentage of parking lot area. The garage will not be used for parking. 6. The lot will be cleaned up and landscaped. A fence along the north and east sides of the property will be extended and improved. This will provide extra privacy to the tenants of this lot and residents of all the nearby properties. 8. Due to structural concerns, the existing flat roof will not be altered. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Jordan Fearon January 3, 2008 422 N. Cayuga Street page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of December 17, 2007 Appeal #2747 — 410 West Seneca Street 9. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to granting the appeal. Two letters were received from neighbors, one in opposition and one in favor as long as efforts are made to protect privacy. 10. The City Planning and Development Board felt that neighborhood concerns should be addressed, but voiced support for additional housing units, especially since this is an existing and currently vacant unit. 11. The County Department of Planning anticipated no long term negative effect of granting the appeal. A motion was made and seconded to grant the appeal. The variance was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed. Sincerely, RtAU� ", - For the Building Department Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner PR:lf NOTE: A building permit must be obtained within two years from the date of the granting of this variance, and the work shall be substantially completed prior to the expiration of the building permit, as provided by Section 325- 40.C(7) of the City Ordinance, or this variance shall become void. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 John Krisanda Tim Hortons USA 3313 Tuccamore Circle Baldwinsville, NY 13027 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of December 11, 2007 Appeal # 2745 — 3397 Elmira Road Dear Mr. Krisanda: December 24, 2007 The Board of Zoning Appeals heard the request by Tim Hortons USA for a variance from Section 272 -6A (4) and Section 272 -7 of the Sign Ordinance, The appellant proposes to install one pole sign, two wall signs and three additional freestanding and two directional signs on the property at 339 Elmira Road. The Ordinance permits one freestanding sign with a total area of 23.5 square feet for this building; total square footage of the four proposed freestanding signs is 99.4 square feet. The largest of the freestanding signs, the pole sign bearing the name of the business, is proposed to have no setback from the property line, whereas 10 feet is required. Proposed wall signs will measure 77.5 square feet where a maximum of 70.5 square feet is permitted for this building. Directional signs are permitted to only indicate `In' or `Out' (Enter /Exit) and a business logo; requested are signs reading `Tim Hortons /Enter' and `Thank You/`Do Not Enter'. Additionally, these directional signs are to be placed in the City right -of- way whereas an 18" setback is required. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: The pole sign was designed with a zero setback location due to the fact that structures are required to be near the roadway in the SW zones and to allow a 15 -20 foot strip of green space at the rear property line. Additional setback would result in the removal of one parking spot. Twenty -four parking spaces are provided for a 41 -seat restaurant. The average vehicular traffic at Tim Hortons locations is 1,000 cars a day. Speedy drive - through service is a major source of business, and in order to meet corporate guidelines on customer turnaround time and to keep traffic moving through the ordering process, it is important to provide customers with an opportunity to view menu choices prior to ordering food. The 14.2 SF menu preview board serves this purpose, followed by a 28.9 SF menu board at the order window. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." John Krisanda Tim Hortons USA 3313 Tuccamore Circle Baldwinsville, NY 13027 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of December 11, 2007 Appeal # 2745 — 3397 Elmira Road December 24, 2007 page 2 3. Both the Zoning Board and the Planning and Development Board felt that the wall signs could be reduced by 7 SF and thereby adhere to the allowable 70 SF; the appellant agreed to this change. 4. Both Boards also thought the 51.7 SF proposed pole sign could be reduced in size. A reduction from 10 feet in width to 8 feet in width with a corresponding reduction from 5.2 to approximately 4.2 feet in height was acceptable to the appellant. 5. The appellant has agreed to remove "Tim Horton" from the directional signs. With the store name appearing on two wall on one pole sign, the Board felt the business was adequately announced and having plain directional signs not only removed one variance appeal but would reduce confusion entering from a congested section of roadway. 6. A `No Left Turn' directional sign placed in the right -of -way was added at the request of the Planning and Development Board. 7. Since the two menu board signs and an internal directional sign will not be visible from the street, the Board felt there would be minimal visual clutter from the additional signage. 8. The County Planning Department anticipated no long -term negative impact from granting the variance. 9. There were no letters or speakers for or against the variance. The appeal was granted by a vote of four in favor, none opposed, with the condition that the reductions noted in items 3, 4 and 5 are met. Sincerely, For the ilding Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN:lf CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 December 26, 2007 J. Walter Booth 620 William Street Elmira, NY 14801 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of December 11, 2007 Appeal #2746 — 508 -520 North Meadow Street Dear Mr. Booth: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 16, of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of a 5,992 SF, single -story addition to the existing plumbing and electrical supply store. In the WEDZ -la zone all new construction and additions to existing structures must be two stories or 24 feet tall. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. One side of the proposed addition faces Esty Street; this area is currently used to store tanks and rebar. 2. The proposed structure will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood. The addition will be designed to complement the existing structure and will be more attractive than the existing storage area. Most of the surrounding buildings are single story. 3. Part of the existing structure is single story; a two story addition would be visually discordant and would be costly, since the existing one -story structure was not designed to comply with snow shadow load that would be created if a two story addition were built.. 4. No parking spots will be lost as a result of the additions. 5. There are no existing area deficiencies on the property. 6. There were no speakers or letters in favor or opposed to the proposal. 7. The City Planning and Development Board recommended approval as it is an addition to an existing building and will be a continuous building along the block, but also noted that it would like to have a full site plan review 8. The County Planning Department foresees no negative long -term impact of this project. The appeal was granted by a vote of four in favor, none opposed. Since,�l� or the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner TN /lf NOTE: A building permit must be obtained within two years from the date of the granting of this variance, and the work shall be substantially completed prior to the expiration of the building permit, as provided by Section 325- 40.C(7) of the City Ordinance, or this variance shall become void. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 George Offenburg New York State Gas 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 & Electric Corp. December 28, 2007 Y /I C(ECj�,SC�� RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street Dear Mr. Offenburg: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of New York State Electric and Gas Corporation for a Special Permit as required by Section 325 -8, column 2, permitted primary uses of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant has consolidated the properties from 602 to 616 Hancock Street, 207 Fifth Street and 310 Fourth Street into a single parcel, now known as 610 Hancock Street. Proposed is the conversion of the existing warehouse, retail and office buildings for use by the Ithaca City School District (ICSD) as a centralized maintenance facility. The existing single- family house and accessory garage at 612 Hancock Street have been relocated. The facility is proposed to comprise a series of shops and offices including a computer hub room and storage areas. A fenced -in yard will be used for temporary material storage and parking. With the relocation of the existing house and garage at 612 Hancock Street the percentage of lot coverage is reduced from 38.9% to 37.90. The ordinance permits 35% lot coverage. Existing front yard and rear yard setback deficiencies would not be affected. The property is located in an R -2b residential use district in which the proposed use of the property for school related buildings is permitted by Special Permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Sections 325 -38 and 325 -39 require that a Special Permit must be granted before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ro George Offenburg December 28, 2007 New York State Gas & Electric Corp. page 2 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street In order to be granted a Special Permit for school use, the following four criteria found in section 325- 9(C)(4)(d)must be satisfied: [1] If the proposed use is the expansion of an educational use, then the applicant must show a need to expand into the residential area rather than into a less - restrictive area. No Special Permit shall be granted by the Board of Appeals unless the applicant can demonstrate that there is no reasonable alternative to location or expansion on the site proposed. [2] The location and size of the use, the size of the site in relation to it, the operations in connection with the use and the parking and traffic related to the operations shall not be such as to create a significant hazard to the safety or general welfare of the surrounding area. [3] The proposed use or operation shall not produce or present substantial danger of excessive noise, noxious odors, noxious or harmful discharge, fire or explosion, radiation, chemical or toxic release or other conditions injurious to the health or general welfare of occupants of nearby properties. [4] The size and use of the facility or the concentration with similar facilities in the neighborhood shall not be so substantially out of proportion to the character of the neighborhood as to jeopardize the continued use of the neighborhood for residential purposes. [Note: hearings were held on 4 nights. Findings were presented at each meeting. No vote to grant the Special Permit was taken until the December meeting.] st 14, 2007, Findings of Fact: 1. These properties, now collectively called 610 Hancock Street, were purchased by NYSEG to provide the ICSD a suitable site to relocate facilities currently housed in George Offenburg December 28, 2007 New York State Gas & Electric Corp. page 3 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street the Markles Flats tract. ISCD must vacate Markles Flats so that NYSEG can accomplish DEC - mandated remediation efforts. 2. Since most of the buildings at Markles Flats will be demolished, the school facilities will have to be moved off the property; a permanent location is highly desirable. 3. NYSEG will fund the costs of renovating the existing building at 610 Hancock Street and the property will then be deeded to the school district. 4. No changes will be made to the footprint of the existing buildings. 5. Few changes will be made to the exterior of the buildings; none on the north and west sides; on the south side the storefront section will be refaced and translucent windows will be installed. On the east side one of the large doors will be blocked off. All existing windows will be replaced with energy efficient windows. The exterior siding will be repaired and repainted. 6. The interior of the building will be reconfigured into paint, carpentry, and welding shops, approximately S offices for the maintenance supervisor and several staff personnel, district records, supplies, the district computer hub, and a staging area for distribution of food and supplies to the district's schools. A conference room for about 30 persons will be created for semi - monthly meetings. Altogether it is estimated that 10 -12 employees will occupy the building. 7. The property has had a variety of commercial uses over the past 50 years. 8. A canopy originally designed to extend over a truck parking area has been withdrawn from the appeal to reduce the George Offenburg December 28, 2007 New York State Gas & Electric Corp. page 4 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street amount of lot coverage in excess of the permitted 35 percent. Under present plans, lot coverage would be reduced from 39 to 37 percent. 9. One large maple tree will be removed from the Fifth Street side of the property in order to install a sidewalk, as requested by the City Planning and Development Board. In response to concerns voiced at the public hearing, the appellant clarified that: 10. Twenty -three parking spaces will be provided. Of these, 8 or 9 will be parking spaces for District delivery vehicles and snow removal equipment. The appellant noted that in its current location, employees must use on- street parking. 11. The appellant claims that noise from the proposed activities will not exceed and may even be less than that of previous activities at this site. 12. There were two speakers in opposition to granting the Special Permit, citing concerns that the impact the proposed activities may have and that the parking to be provided may be not be adequate. The Board moved unanimously to adjourn the appeal citing the need for more information on how this appeal meets the Special Permit criteria, specifically requesting that the appellant meet with area residents and that more information be provided on the activities proposed to take place at the maintenance facility. There was also concern that the proposed use of this property is in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan. September 4, 2007, Findings of Fact: 13. In response to the question "Why was this site chosen ?" NYSEG representatives and a representative of the ICSD related the recent history of the Markles Flats site, where George Offenburg December 28, 2007 New York State Gas & Electric Corp. page 5 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street the school district currently carries on its support activities. The DEC has mandated a cleanup of hazardous material on this site. Most of the buildings will be demolished and the grounds will be cleaned. A. City and school district officials indicate that they prefer not to reuse the Markles Flats site, in part because reuse would entail two moves. NYSEG owns the Markles Flats site and is taking responsibility for finding a suitable location for the school district maintenance facility. B. The criteria outlined by the new location be north o travel time to the majority property be approximately 2 building. . The size of the with a 17,000 SF building. the school district are that E Court Street to minimize of the schools and that the acres and have an 18,000 SF subject property is 1.5 acres C. Several other existing commercial sites were considered desirable, but these were either withdrawn from the market or had existing purchase offers. D. Most of the City schools are in residential districts and do not have adequate space for an additional facility; those with adequate land are planning expansion of the educational building(s). E. The majority of the student population is in the vicinity of the high school, making the proposed Hancock Street site a logical location. F. The characteristics of the existing buildings would require minimal changes to accommodate the proposed school maintenance activities, thus keeping taxpayer costs low. 14. When asked how the undesirable physical aspects of a maintenance facility could be diminished, a number of improvements were outlined: George Offenburg New York State Gas 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 & Electric Corp. December 28, 2007 page 6 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street A. A sidewalk will be constructed on the north side of the property and grass and trees will be planted. B. The east side will be planted as lawn. C. The main entrance, on the south side, will have planters, trees and a plaza entry. D. The concrete block building facades will be repaired and repainted. The west side of the building will receive new windows. E. The smaller building will be altered with the addition of more doors, repainting, and the driveway will be repaved. F. The drainage for the entire property will be upgraded and the non - building areas will be fenced. G. The interior upgrades and landscaping will provide acoustic barriers for the activities taking place on -site. H. An alarm system will be installed in the buildings and a security gate will prevent entry during off hours. 15. The facility will host a number of activities: A. Bulk food storage and distribution: Delivers will be received weekly; distributions to the schools will be made at most once per day. B. Woodworking and machine shops. C. At most, 20 maintenance workers will pick up assignments and equipment needed for the days' work each day. At the end of the day the equipment will be returned. 21. There will be 18 parking spaces on site; 10 on the north side, 6 on the south side, and 2 visitor spaces on the George Offenburg December 28, 2007 New York State Gas & Electric Corp. page 7 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street south side. Five full -time employees will work in the building. Five spaces were eliminated from the original plan at the request of the Planning and Development Board. 21. The Board voiced concerns with the use of residential property for school activities, citing concerns with: A. Loss of residential and taxable property. B. Need for affordable housing. C. Whether the proposed use would be an improvement over the existing facilities. D. Whether there would be increased traffic. E. Fit with the Comprehensive Plan for the City. The Board voted unanimously to table the appeal pending receipt of more information on the history of the property search, input from the community, and especially, an accounting from the City on the factors that lead to the selection of this site over other potential sites. The Board does not have clear information on what City departments were involved, and especially what personnel made recommendations. October 2, 2007, Findinqs of Fact: 17. Representatives of NYSEG submitted a list of commercial properties that were provided by Lama Real Estate for review by the school district. 18. Finding none of the other sites suitable, the property on Hancock Street was selected in 2006, following several years of searching. 19. The Assistant Superintendent of Public Services for the School District, Paul Mintz, added that the parcel across from the school bus garage on Bostwick Road in the Town of George Offenburg December 28, 2007 New York State Gas & Electric Corp. page 8 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street Ithaca was under consideration, but it is no longer available. He reiterated that this has been a long -term effort to find suitable property. 20. When asked if there were any plans to return the property currently housing the maintenance facility to residential use after the contaminants are removed, Mr. Mintz indicated that the School District's intention was to increase sports and playing field area for the BJM elementary school. The school -age population is increasing and the district is anticipating the need for future expansion of facilities. 21. The house formerly located at 612 Hancock Street has been donated to INNS, and it will be moved to a lot about one block away at NYSEG's expense. 22. The height of the proposed fence surrounding the property has been changed from 12 feet to 8 feet. 23. The Board asked if the City had submitted any statement regarding whether or not this proposed facility was considered acceptable within the long range comprehensive development plan for this section of the City. No documents were submitted and no speakers were present to discuss this topic. 24. The NYSEG representatives said they would be willing to meet with Common Council members, the School Board, the Northside Neighborhood Association and any other group wishing to have more information on the proposed maintenance facility. The Board again voted to table the appeal until additional City and neighborhood meetings could be held and more information could be gathered regarding the City's approval of 610 Hancock Street as an acceptable site for the ICSD maintenance facility. December 11, 2007, Findings of Fact: George Offenburg December 28, 2007 New York State Gas & Electric Corp. page 9 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street 25. The chain -link fence originally planned to be erected eight feet from the sidewalk on Hancock Street will now be placed 10 feet from the sidewalk and it will be made of solid wood or concrete block. This will completely block the view of the maintenance facility and will be of less industrial appearing material. An arborvitae hedge will be planted between the fence and sidewalk. 26. A community meeting was held on December 4, 2007 at which members of the community, City Council, Ithaca Housing Authority, the Board of Zoning Appeals and adjacent neighbors were present. It was determined that: A. There were no objections to the building plans. B. A park /playground area, which was suggested for part of the property, was deemed unfeasible, as it would encourage pedestrian traffic across a busy street. 27. Sites previously rejected by the School District as being unsuitable - generally too far from the high volume areas of the district - were reconsidered for the purpose of relocating to a non - residential zone. None of the sites were considered appropriate, nor were there any newly available properties. Properties smaller than the original two -acre requirement were taken into consideration. 28. One of the main concerns is the security of the storage areas; bark and wood chips tend to be viewed as available to the public and the playground mulch is expensive and is ordered in bulk to somewhat reduce the expense. This would be the only storage area for the district. 29. When asked if other existing school properties had been evaluated for the potential to store portions of the bulk material, the reply was that they had not George Offenburg New York State Gas & Electric Corp. 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street December 28, 2007 page 10 of August 21, September 4, 30. A broad range of building.sizes at potential sites was considered in the search for a suitable site for the maintenance facility. Maintenance shops and supervisory offices are the only intended use of buildings. 31. The New York State Department of Transportation has indicated that establishing ICSD access from Hancock Street to Route 13 is not feasible. In the unlikely event that a connection could be made, the result.would probably be additional traffic for the neighborhood. 32. The school district reiterated its preference and policy of having heavy vehicles move forward onto public thoroughfares rather than backing up. Most district plow vehicles are actually pick -up trucks equipped with snowplows. Audible backup signals on these vehicles do not carry a great distance and would not create noise pollution. In the current location of the ICSD Maintenance Facility, there are two schools, a public swimming pool, basketball courts and a playing field; thus, school employees are accustomed to traveling through highly populated areas. 33. No final response had been received from the City on installation of specially marked pedestrian walkways. 34. Several person spoke in favor granting the appeal. A. Matthys Van Cort, Director of the City Planning Department, noted that there has been a long -term effort to move the ICSD maintenance facility from its current location. Truck traffic would be significantly reduced in a densely populated residential area, which is a main goal of the City. The proposed location would provide a good buffer between Route 13, the commercial uses to the west, and the neighborhoods. The site at Hancock Street is not desirable for residential use since it is so close to a major highway and existing commercial sites. George Offenburg December 28, 2007 New York State Gas & Electric Corp. page 11 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street B. Three neighborhood residents noted that currently the property was an eyesore and residents of the neighborhood have had to put up with taxis and delivery trucks. Currently, there are no traffic controls. If the school district were to maintain the property, it would be a long- term tenant and it has agreed to site improvement and traffic control efforts. Private businesses or landlords might not be as responsive to community concerns. 35. Councilperson J.R. Claiborne raised concerns about granting the Special Permit, indicating that residents had little or no control about the future use of the property. It seems like lack of support for this proposal puts them in a situation of having to accept whatever might come along in the future. This is not a central location for the maintenance facility, if one looks at its placement on the map of the school district. The City needs to maintain its commitment to appropriate land management. 36. One resident echoed the sentiment that other future commercial tenants of the property might have little concern about the residential neighbors' wellbeing. She also voiced concerns that the existing adjacent commercial facilities are undesirable from a residential point of view and the subject property with its variance for commercial use is detrimental to the existing residential part of the lot. 37. The NYSEG representative affirmed that if the appeal is denied, the company will have no further use of the property and it probably will be sold. 38. Regardless of where the maintenance facility is located in the future, NYSEG intends to maintain contact with residential neighbors at Markles Flats and any other affected location. George Offenburg December 28, 2007 New York State Gas & Electric Corp. page 12 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street 39. NYSEG representatives reiterated that the DEC has mandated that the Markles Flats area must be cleaned up. It is possible that the School Board will be given a 30 -day notice to abandon the site and that NYSEG is fined for failure to act on the mandate. The State has made it a priority that contaminated sites in residential areas must be remediated on an expedited schedule. 40. The Deputy Building Commissioner reminded the Board and audience that any existing variances would remain with the property regardless of ownership, but any future occupant would be limited by any conditions of the variance. 41. Loss of taxable property was cited by some Board members and interested parties as a negative outcome of granting a Special Permit. The Board reviewed the findings as they apply to the four criteria for the granting of Special Permits for school - related buildings, and determined that: 1. Truck traffic would usually occur from approximately 6 -6:30 a.m., mostly on days when snow removal equipment is required at the schools. Only a half -dozen or so staff would occupy the building full time, with another half - dozen maintenance and delivery staff making one or two daily trips to and from the facility. The number of staff using the facility was not of major concern. 2. No students would use the premises and no living accommodations are planned. 3. Documentation was submitted outlining other sites that were reviewed. Many of these were a considerable distance from downtown. Two members of the Board questioned the criteria put forth by the school district regarding proximity to the high school and middle school as being too restrictive and rigid to allow fair evaluation of alternate sites. George Offenburg December 28, 2007 New York State Gas & Electric Corp. page 13 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street 4. No hazardous materials or chemicals will be stored or used at the maintenance center. There will be no nighttime operations. 5. Opinions were mixed on the location of the proposed facility. Although located in a residential zone, portions of the property has been used for commercial purposes for fifty years as several of the now - combined parcels previously received variances to operate as commercial businesses. It was felt that it is possible that the proposed use as a school district -owned facility is preferable to allowable commercial uses on the appropriate sections of the parcel. It was noted that a number of residential buildings could be built on the property as of right, although the proximity to Route 13 and surrounding commercial property diminish its appeal as home sites. The property had been available for sale for several years before NYSEG purchased it, suggesting that residential use had not been considered seriously by private developers. Conversely, existing high density housing across the street could be adversely affected by the appearance of the maintenance facility. Plans for fencing, live screening, improved lawn areas, improvements to the physical structures and installation of sidewalks have been submitted as methods reduce the visual impact of the buildings and improve neighborhood viability. 6. With ample parking proposed on -site, parking issues are not anticipated, but truck traffic and a lack of direct access to Route 13 were cited as negative aspects of a facility at this location. Specially marked crosswalks and possible traffic lights have and will continue to be pursued as safety improvements. A motion was made to grant the requested Special Permit. Two members voted in favor of granting the Special Permit; two members voted against granting the Special Permit. The motion George Offenburg New York State Gas 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 & Electric Corp. December 28, 2007 page 14 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of August 21, September 4, October 2, and December 11, 2007 Appeal #2734 - 610 Hancock Street failed for lack of a majority of the 5- member Board voting in favor of granting the Special Permit. Since ly, V A �l 4 For the Building Department Thomas Nix, Deputy Building Commissioner and Secretary to the Board TN /lf Xc: Egner Architectural Associates City of Ithaca School Board NOTE: The date of this letter is the date of filing for the purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30) days from the filing of this decision.