HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 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
January 27, 2010
Thomas Schickel
Schickel Architecture
330 E. State Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of January 12, 2010
Appeal #2807 — 416 N. Tioga Street, C -SU zone
Members present: Beer, deRoos, Marshall, Milz
Dear Mr. Schickel:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal on behalf of Mia Pancaldo for an area variance
from Section 325 -8, Columns 4, 7, 12 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the relocation of
the main entrance to the property from the front to a recessed section the side of the building. An
overhang will be added along the side of the building to shelter the sidewalk to the entryway. Part of
this side of the building is located .7 feet from the property line, where a setback of 5 feet is required.
The addition of the new roof structure will result in a .7 foot setback for the entire side of the building.
In addition, there are only 3 off street parking spaces where 5 are required, the lot width at the front is
36.6 feet where 40 feet are required, and one side yard has a 7.4 foot setback where 10 feet are
required. None of these deficiencies will be affected by the construction. 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 addition of the roof overhang will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood. The
owner has done major renovations to the interior of the structure. The roof overhang will help
identify the entry to the building, which will be used for various offices. Handicap entry will be
easier due to weather protection from the overhang. The appearance of the front of the building
has been improved by the removal of a ramp that was constructed over part of the front stairs
leading to the porch and former main entrance.
3. The change to the structure is minimal, and will benefit the appellant with no anticipated negative
effect on the neighbors.
4. The parking spaces will be for the use of employees. A deeded easement exists from the property
at 418 N. Tioga Street to access this area, which has now has protective screening from
neighboring properties.
5. There were no letters or speakers in favor of or opposed to granting the appeal.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ;�
Thomas Schickel January 27, 2010
Schickel Architecture page 2
330 E. State Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of January 12, 2010
Appeal #2807 — 416 N. Tioga Street, C -SU zone
6. The City Planning Board recommended granting the appeal, but requested that any drainage issues
resulting from the new roof be addressed. The appellant indicated that roof -to- ground gutters
draining into drywells will be installed.
7. No comments were received from the County Department of Planning.
The appeal was granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Bu ding Department
Phyllis Ra ke, Building Commissioner
Xc: Mia Pancaldo
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 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, March 2, 2010, 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 # 2810
301 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD
Appeal of Micky Roof, for an area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 8, number of stories,
and Column 9, height in feet requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to
construct a five story mixed use building consisting of residential units, offices, stores, and
restaurants on the property located at 301 Taughannock Boulevard. The proposed construction of
the five story building, that is 62 feet in height, exceeds the permitted three story maximum and
the 39 foot height limitation of the zoning ordinance. The proposed construction is in the
preliminary design phase and from the limited details provided, the approximate lot coverage
will be 55% of the 90% lot coverage required by the zoning ordinance. Because the appellant is
seeking a variance prior to submission of detailed design work, environmental impact results will
be covered during the site plan review stage. The property is located in a WF -lc waterfront use
district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325 -39 requires that a variance
be granted before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued.
APPEAL # 2812 505 HECTOR STREET
Appeal of Christopher Sturgeon for area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 10, percentage of
lot coverage, Column 11, front yard dimension, Column 12 /13, side yard dimensions and 14/15
rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In 2009, the applicant purchased a two - family
home located at 505 Hector Street. The owner purchased the property with the intent to reside in
the first floor unit and rent the second floor two- bedroom apartment. In order to rent the second
floor apartment, the applicant requested a housing inspection to obtain a Certificate of
Compliance. During the inspection process, a file review was conducted and revealed that the
property was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of the day. Furthermore, construction
projects that occurred between 1940 and 1964 had caused the nonconforming condition of the
property.
The previous owners had applied for permits to add a porch in 1940, alterations and new dormers
in 1948, and a carport and room additions in 1964. These additions increased the overall
percentage of lot coverage to 38% of the 30% maximum of the zoning ordinance. The owner has
offered to remove the greenhouse (approximately 8' x 8') located on the south side of the
building to help bring the property closer to compliance. The garage roof overhang in the front
yard causes the front yard to be 20' deep. The required depth is 25'. The garage is 3.3' from the
south side yard lot line and the house on the north side is 9.2' deep. The side yards are required
to be 10' deep. The back of the house and a second story deck causes the rear yard to be only 4'
or 4% deep. Required depth of the rear yard is 25% or 50' of the lot's depth.
The property is located in an R -2a residential use district in which two family homes are
permitted. However, Section 325 -39 requires that a variance be granted before a Certificate of
Occupancy 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 and Secretary to the Board
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, April 6, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108
East Green Street, Ithaca, New York to consider the following appeals:
BZA APPEAL #2751 117 Hudson Street
Appeal of Ed Cope from Section 325- 20(c)(4)(b), use district requirements for properties
needing off -site parking. This section states that an off -site parking area must be located on a lot
or parcel located in a zoning district in which the use which requires the off street parking is also
a permitted use as a matter of right. 117 Hudson Street is currently located in an R -2a zoning
district. This zone allows one and two family dwelling units. The property at 117 Hudson Street
is a legally nonconforming multiple dwelling. In 1981, the owners of the building wanted to rent
the apartment located in the basement. Because the property had area and parking deficiencies,
it needed to get variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) before renting the
apartment. The BZA granted the variance with the stipulation that the property owner provide
two off -site parking spaces as a condition of granting the variance. For many years, the property
owner rented space for this property at neighboring properties and was compliant with the
request of the Zoning Board. However, in 2006, the zone was changed to an R -2a where
multiple dwellings are not a permitted use. This meant the applicant could not park two cars
within 500 feet of his property. As a result, the current owner went to the BZA in February 2008
and requested a variance. The BZA asked how the applicant measured the 500 feet distance
from the property at 117 Hudson Street to other areas where parking could be permitted. The
appellant was asked by the Board to look for any off -site parking that would meet the rules under
Section 325- 20(c)(4)(b) requiring off -site parking to be a maximum of 500 feet from the property
needing parking. Based on the possibility of the applicant finding parking that met the distance
requirement, the Board tabled the appeal. The applicant subsequently measured the distance to
other off -site parking areas located near his property and found none to be within 500 feet. Any
parking found was further away than 500 feet and downhill from 117 Hudson Street. From his
search, the applicant found that legal parking spaces located anywhere near 117 Hudson Street
are not conducive to tenants living at 117 Hudson Street and will not be used. Therefore, the
appellant believes the costs for the parking paid by the applicant will be wasted. As a result of
these findings, the applicant is returning to the Board asking that a variance be granted allowing
him to continue parking at 135 Hudson Street because it is closer to the property at 117 Hudson
Street than parking spaces in legal zones and will be used by the tenants living in this building.
The property at 117 Hudson Street is in an R -2a use district. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits
off - street parking for multiple dwellings to be located in any zone that does not permit multiple
dwellings as of right. However, in order to lease two parking spaces for 117 Hudson Street, the
applicant must be granted a variance from Section 325- 20(c)(4)(b) of the Zoning Ordinance.
BZA APPEAL #2814 206 Ridgedale Road
Appeal of Charlie Fay and Christine Sparfel, owners of 206 Ridgedale Road, for an area variance
from Section 325 -8, column 12, side yard district regulation of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Proposed is the construction of a 69 square foot addition to the structure in the west side yard of
the property at 206 Ridgedale Road. The addition will allow the owners to enlarge the size of
their existing living room. The west side yard is approximately 6 feet deep, where a 10 foot side
yard is required. The proposed addition will increase the existing side yard deficiency another 8
feet in length in a northerly direction. The property at 206 Ridgedale Road has other existing
deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by the proposed addition. The east side yard is 2.9 feet
from the lot line, required is a side yard that is 10 feet deep. The front yard is 19.6 feet deep;
required is a front yard that is 25 feet deep. An existing garage is shared by the neighbors to the
west of 206 Ridgedale Road and straddles the shared property line. The garage is 1.6 feet from
the rear property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the garage be a minimum of 3 feet
from the rear lot line and 6 feet from the side yard lot line. The property at 206 Ridgedale Road
is in an R -lb use district where the proposed use is permitted, however Section 325 -38 of the
Zoning Ordinance requires that a variance be granted before a building permit can 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 and Secretary to the Board
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274-6508
Robert D. Terry
312 Washington Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
Fax: 607/274 -6521
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of February 2, 2010
Appeal #2809 — 423 E. Lincoln Street, R -2b zone
Members present: Beer, deRoos, Falconer, Marshall, Milz
Dear Mr. Terry:
February 17, 2010
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8,
Columns 11 and 12 front yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed are the
extension of two existing decks and the construction of overhangs to shelter each of these decks. The
existing deck facing Lincoln Street (east side) has a setback of .5 feet and extends 4.7 feet into a City
right -of -way. The deck facing Lake Street (north side) has a.8 foot setback from the property line and
extends approximately 8 feet into a City right -of way. Previous variances were granted to extend the
length of these two decks, but since no building permit was issued, these two variances are null and the
appellant must reapply for a variance for the extension of the decks and now would like to install
overhangs to cover them. 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 expanded decks and sheltering roofs will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood.
The appearance of the building will be enhanced by the addition of the decks.
3. The deck facing Lake Street will be extended approximately 5 five on each end to run the length of
the building and a roof will be added to cover the length of the existing deck. The cement slab on
the side of the house facing Lincoln Street will be extended to run the length of the building,
approximately 26 feet. This area would be covered by a roof running the entire length of the slab.
These roofs will provide weather protection for the entrances to the apartments. The roof over the
Lincoln Street side would also function as a second means of egress for the residents of the two
upstairs apartments.
4. The encroachment on the Lincoln Street side of the property would not be changed, and that on the
Lake Street side would be increased about six inches to accommodate an existing stone wall. This
building was constructed prior to the establishment of City rights -of -way.
5. The City Department of Public Works has approved -the encroachment agreement for the new
construction.
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." � �
Robert D. Terry February 17, 2010
312 Washington Street page 2
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of February 2, 2010
Appeal #2809 — 423 E. Lincoln Street, R -2b zone
6. Since this is an historic property, The City Landmarks Preservation Commission has reviewed the
proposal, and has given its approval with final wood finishes on the deck to be determined.
7. There were no letters or speakers either in favor of or opposed to granting the appeal.
8. The City Planning Board indicated that the proposed project would add to the aesthetic appeal of
the property and noted that the project needs approval from the Board of Public Works and the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee (ILPC). Approval from these agencies have been given—
They recommend that the existing sign noting the historic use of the property remains on site. The
appellant plans to retain the historic sign.
9. This property does not fall within the GML Section 239 Tompkins County review zone.
10. The Board advised the appellant that communication will need to continue with the ILPC and
DPW for any additional encroachments needed aside from the amendment recently granted, so that
work is in conformance with both agencies' determinations.
The appeal was granted by a vote of 5 in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
Fort e Buil ing 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
March 5, 2010
Christopher Sturgeon
505 Hector Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 2, 2010
Appeal #2812 — 505 Hector Street, R -2a zone
Members present: Beer, deRoos, Marshall, Milz
Dear Mr. Sturgeon:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, Columns 10, 11
12/13 and 14/15 of the Zoning Ordinance. Building permits were issued between 1940 and 1964 for additions
and the construction of a carport, creating and adding to lot deficiencies, but these were not brought to the Board
of Zoning Appeals for review. Currently the lot coverage is 44 %, where a maximum of 35% is permitted in this
zone. The front yard setback is 20 feet, where a 25 foot setback is required. Side yard setbacks are 9.2 and 3.3
feet, where a 10 foot setback is required for both side yards. The rear yard has a setback of 4 feet, where
approximately 23 feet are required. The current owner is renovating the interior of the second floor apartment
and plans to rent this unit. In order to obtain a Certificate of Compliance, a variance must be granted to the area
deficiencies. It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact:
1. There will be no adverse effects to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. The
porch, dormers, carport and additional rooms have been a part of the house for decades.
2. The additions caused no undesirable change to the neighborhood. The carport is the main cause of the front
and one side yard deficiency.
3. The rear property line runs along a cliff, houses backing on the property are at significantly lower elevation.
4. The appellant offered to remove the greenhouse that was constructed behind the carport on the south side of
the house, but it is not visible from the street and only accounts for one percent of the lot coverage. Because
of the minimal impact, the Board did not voice urgency regarding its removal.
5. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to granting the appeal. A letter in support was received from
the neighbor's directly north of the property. Owners of the property to the south, adjacent to the carport,
indicated to the appellant that they had no objections to granting the appeal, and offered to appear at the
hearing.
6. The City Planning Board foresaw no negative impact to long term planning issues and requested that
neighborhood opinion be considered.
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.
Sincerely,
For e Bu ding Department
Phyllis Rad e, Building Commissioner
PR/lf
`An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." C�
Unofficial Results: BZA meeting of April 6, 2010
BZA APPEAL #2751 117 Hudson Street
Appeal of Ed Cope from Section 325- 20(c)(4)(b), use district requirements for properties
needing off -site parking.
Granted with the condition that the appellant provide the Building Department a copy of the
lease for 2 offsite parking spaces at 135 Hudson Street on an annual basis, 4 in favor, none
opposed.
BZA APPEAL #2814
206 Ridgedale Road
Appeal of Charlie Fay and Christine Sparfel, owners of 206 Ridgedale Road, for an area variance
from Section 325 -8, column 12, side yard district regulation of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed.
(5/14/2010) Sarah Myers - Unofficial results of the May 12 BZA meeting Page 1
From: Linda Foley
To: ATTORNEY; Building Department; BZA; CLERK, City; Cornish, JoAnn;
Co...
Date: 5/14/2010 12:34 PM
Subject: Unofficial results of the May 12 BZA meeting
As follows:
Unofficial Results: BZA meeting of May 12, 2010
APPEAL # 2816 111 CASCADILLA AVENUE
Appeal of Jim Mazza and Nancy Osborn, for area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 11, front yard, Column 13, side yard,
and Column 14/15 rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed.
APPEAL # 2817
1101 EAST STATE STREET
Appeal of Michael and Elizabeth Stewart for a use variance from Section 325 -32 C(1), extension or enlargement of a
nonconforming use of the Zoning Ordinance.
Tabled for financial documentation, by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed.
APPEAL # 2818 513 SOUTH AURORA STREET
Appeal of Jesse Hill, for area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 6, lot area, Column 11, front yard dimension, and
Column 13, side yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Granted by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed.
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 Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 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 # 2816
111 CASCADILLA AVENUE
Appeal of Jim Mazza and Nancy Osborn, for area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 11, front
yard, Column 13, side yard, and Column 14/15 rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to construct a two story addition in the rear yard and reconstruct the front
porch of the dwelling located at 111 Cascadilla Avenue. The proposal is to remove the existing
two story rear porch, storage area, and stair and construct a new 135 S.F. addition that will
include a kitchen with an attached deck on the first floor, and an enlarged open porch on the
second floor. The existing rear porch extends 2.6' into the side yard and the removal of this
portion will decrease the nonconforming side yard from 1.4' to 4' of the required 5' side yard
setback requirement of the zoning ordinance. The rear yard, without the existing addition,
measures 16 feet and the new addition that is 8.5'in depth will leave 7.5' of the required 20' rear
yard setback of the zoning ordinance. In addition, the 51 square foot deck will extend 8.5' in an
easterly direction, along the rear of the dwelling, and be 9.5' from the rear yard lot line which
will not exacerbate the proposed rear yard deficiency. The front porch will be rebuilt within the
existing footprint and a new set of stairs will be constructed to enhance to the front fagade.
111 Cascadilla Avene has an existing front yard deficiency that that is 5' of the required 10' and
will not be exacerbated by the proposed addition. The property is located in an R -2b residential
use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325 -38 requires a variance
be granted before a building permit may be issued.
APPEAL # 2817 1101 EAST STATE STREET
Appeal of Michael and Elizabeth Stewart for a use variance from Section 325 -32 C(1), extension
or enlargement of a nonconforming use of the Zoning Ordinance. The property located at 1101
East State Street is a legal non - conforming two family dwelling that consists of a dwelling unit
on the first floor and a second dwelling unit on the second floor. The applicant would like to
reconfigure the two units. Instead of two units sharing the upstairs portion of the house, the
applicant would like to move the second unit into the basement. This would result in a better
arrangement for the applicants' family that would reside in the main portion of the building.
The overall occupancy of the units would be unchanged by the enlargement. The current
configuration is limited to 2 persons in apartment #1 and 3 persons in apartment #2.
The proposed apartment occupying the first and second floor would be limited to 3 unrelated
individuals and the basement apartment would be limited to 2 unrelated occupants.
Since the property is in an R -lb zone district, the duplex is currently a non - conforming use. This
non - conforming use cannot be expanded into the basement without a use variance. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance to maintain the existing status as a two family dwelling.
The property located at 1101 East State Street has existing deficiencies in lot area, lot width,
front yard and both side yards. The proposed alteration is limited to the interior and these
existing deficiencies will not be exacerbated by the proposed use. The property is located in an
R -lb residential use district in which the proposed use is not permitted. However, Section 325 -39
requires that a variance be granted before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued.
APPEAL # 2818 513 SOUTH AURORA STREET
Appeal of Jesse Hill, for area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 6, lot area, Column 11, front
yard dimension, and Column 13, side yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property
located at 513 S. Aurora Street is an existing two family dwelling consisting of a two bedroom
apartment located on the first floor and a two bedroom apartment on the second floor. The
applicant proposes to reduce an existing 248 square foot kitchen to 134 SF and create an 87 SF
bedroom, increasing the total number of bedrooms to three, in the first floor apartment. The two
apartments, including the additional first floor bedroom, will require two parking spaces of the
three existing spaces located on the property.
The property located at 513 South Aurora Street is deficient in lot area, having 4994 SF of the
required 5000 SF of the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the front yard is 11.5 feet of the required
25 feet and the side yard is 2 feet of the required 10 feet of the zoning ordinance. These existing
area deficiencies will not be exacerbated by the proposed alteration.
The property is located in an R -2a residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 325 -38 requires a 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 and Secretary to the Board
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Pax: 607/274 -6521
July I, 2010
.Jesse Hill
390 Mineah Rd.
Freeville, NY 13068
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 13, 2010
Appeal #2818 — 513 South Aurora Street, R -2a zone
Members present: Beer, deRoos, Marshall, Milz
Dear Mr. Hill:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 6, lot
area, Column 11, front yard setback, Column 13, side yard setback and Column 14/15 rear yard setback
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the division of the 248 SF kitchen /dining room to add a
87SF third bedroom in the first floor apartment at 513 S. Aurora Street. Existing deficiencies are; the lot size is
4994 SF where 5000 SF are required; the front yard setback is 11.5 feet where 25 feet area required; and on side
yard has a 2 foot setback where 10 feet are required. None of these deficiencies will be exacerbated by the
interior work on the building. 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.
2. The relief sought is minimal. The property is currently legal for 6 tenants. The proposed remodel will allow
each tenant to have a separate bedroom.
1 There will be no negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. The property has been recently
purchased and is undergoing a number of cosmetic and energy efficiency upgrades.
4. Two parking spots are required for the property; there are three on site.
5. There were no letters or speakers either in favor of or opposed to granting the variance.
6. The City Planning Board did not anticipate any city wide planning issues.
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
Sincerely,
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.
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
June 30, 2010
Nick Stavropoulos
318 Taylor Place
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings of June 1, 2010
Appeal #2819 — 613 Hudson Street, R -lb Zone
Board members present: Beer, deRoos, Marshall, Milz
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for a variance from Section 325- 32C(1) of
the Ordinance that prohibits the extension or enlargement of buildings that are a nonconforming
use. Proposed is the division of the bedroom in unit #1 into two equal sized bedrooms. The
appellant has been unable to rent out this unit to more than one person, even though is large
enough for three people. The owner claims that he has been able to find only seven tenants for
the building, when the maximum allowed occupancy is 10, because residents do not wish to
share a bedroom. Other than one bedroom in the second floor apartment, all the bedrooms in the
building are single person bedrooms. If the variance is granted, the appellant has offered to limit
the total number of tenants in the building to nine.
It was moved to deny the variance based on the following findings of fact:
1. The benefit to the appellant would be have a negative effect on the neighborhood. Based on
neighborhood testimony, there are already problems with noisy late night parties, trash, parking
and minor vandalism. The appellant claims he has cleaned up after the tenants and done the
sidewalk shoveling himself.
2. The financial data indicates that last year was the first year that the owner was unable to find
enough tenants to realize a profit. The financial calculations for future years show an increase in
maintenance related expenses, but do not include rental increases. The Board felt that the
income calculations, which did not predict future loss until 2013, did not convincingly indicate
that the owner was unable to realize a profit and suggest that the financial hardship may be in
part self-imposed. .
3. This property has been a nonconforming multiple dwelling in a more restrictive neighborhood
since before it was purchased by the applicant. The zoning restrictions have not changed during
the present ownership of the property
4. There were no letters of speakers in favor of granting the appeal. Three neighbors testified in
opposition of granting the variance, one of who also submitted a letter. An additional letter was
received in opposition to granting the request.
"r \n F,qual opportunity Employer Nvith a commitment to workforce diversification." �w
5. The City Planning Board noted that the intent of the earlier rezoning of this area into R -1
(single family) was to work towardd returning this neighborhood into a single family zone.
6. The County Planning Dept. saw no long term adverse effects of granting the appeal.
The appeal was denied by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
For Tthle'
Ciildi 7g Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
' sA-1
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 1, 2010, 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 #2819 613 Hudson Street
Appeal of Nick and Anastasia Stavropoulos for a variance from Section 325- 32C(1) that
prohibits the extension or enlargement of buildings that are a nonconforming use unless granted
a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The building at 613 Hudson Street is a legal nonconforming multiple dwelling in an R -lb zoning
district, having 3 apartments allowing 3 persons in apartment #1, 4 persons in apartment #2, and
3 persons in apartment #3, for a total of 10 persons that may reside in the building. Last year, the
owner could only rent the apartments out to 7 persons and claims that he lost money largely
because he could only rent apartment #1 to 1 person, even though this one bedroom apartment is
legal for up to 3 people. The owner also claims that he is willing to rent the building to a total of
9 people if the Board of Zoning Appeals allows him to convert the one bedroom apartment to a
two bedroom apartment. He would do this by simply dividing the one bedroom into two equal
halves. Section 325- 32C(1) prohibits any owner of a nonconforming use from extending or
enlarging the building. By the definition under Zoning Ordinance Section 325 -3, dividing one
bedroom into two bedrooms is an `extension'. Because nonconforming uses are no longer
permitted in this zoning district, the owner must obtain a use variance from the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
APPEAL #2820 110 South Albany Street
Appeal of Ian Shapiro for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 12, side yard
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of a 9'10" x 23' shed roof
on the south side of the building located at 110 South Albany Street. The shed roof is being
erected to create a cover for the walkway and stair that is located toward the back and on the
south side of the building. The shed roof will also support photovoltaic panels that will provide
an alternative source of energy for the building. The construction of the shed roof will reduce a
1.7 foot south side yard to zero feet. The north side yard is 9.5 feet deep. The property at 110
South Albany Street is located in a B -2c use district where the requirements for side yards at that
one yard be at least ten feet. Since neither side yard meets the 10 foot side yard requirement,
section 325 -38 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that an area variance must be obtained from the
Board of Zoning Appeals before a building permit can 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 and Secretary to the Board
(6/2/2010) Sarah Myers - Unofficial results of June 1 BZA meeting Page 1
From: Linda Foley
To: ATTORNEY; Building Department; BZA; CLERK, City; Cornish, JoAnn;
Co...
Date: 6/1/2010 9:02 PM
Subject: Unofficial results of June 1 BZA meeting
Unofficial Results: BZA meeting of June 1, 2010
APPEAL #2819
613 Hudson Street
Appeal of Nick and Anastasia Stavropoulos for a variance from Section 325- 32C(1) that prohibits the extension or
enlargement of buildings that are a nonconforming use. Requested is the division of one existing bedroom into 2 equal
sized smaller bedrooms, so that they could be rented as single bedrooms. The appellant claims that he is unable to rent
out rooms to more than one tenant since the current trend is to have single bedrooms, and that this building was under -
rented this year.
Denied by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed.
APPEAL #2820
110 South Albany Street
Appeal of Ian Shapiro for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 12, side yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Proposed is the construction of a 9'10" x 23' shed roof on the south side of the building located at 110 South Albany Street.
The shed roof is being erected to create a cover for the walkway and stair that is located toward the back and on the south
side of the building. The shed roof will also support photovoltaic panels that will provide an alternative source of energy for
the building. The construction of the shed roof will reduce a 1.7 foot south side yard to zero feet.
Granted by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed.
Unofficial Results, Board of Zoning Appeals, Tuesday, July 6, 2010
APPEAL #2815 372 ELMIRA ROAD
Sign variances for a pole sign at 372 Elmira Road. Granted with no conditions.
APPEAL #2822 313 SOUTH PLAIN STREET
Home occupation special permit. Granted with no conditions.
APPEAL #2823 222 LINN STREET
Area variances for percentage of lot coverage, front and rear yard setbacks. Tabled for design
modification and additional information.
APPEAL # 2824 308 -20 NORTH MEADOW STREET
Area variances for building height and rear yard setback. Granted with no conditions.
APPEAL #2825 748 South Meadow Street
Sign variance for numbers and square footage of signs. Granted with no conditions.
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 meeting will
be held Monday, July 19, 2010, 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 #2813 414 -416 East Seneca Street
Appeal of Joseph Steuer of a determination by the City of Ithaca Building Commissioner, Phyllis
Radke, to deny the issuance of building permits allowing construction of a parking area for either
two or three cars at 414 -416 E. Seneca Street. The applicant, Joseph Steuer (acting for the owner,
417 Seneca Street, LLC), submitted building permit application #25805 to construct a three -
vehicle gravel parking lot in the rear yard of 414 -416 E. Seneca Street on September 23, 2008.
Before the Commissioner's determination was made on that application, Mr. Steuer revised his
request and submitted another building permit application, #26422, on July 24, 2008, this time
for a two - vehicle parking area at the same location. In both building permit applications, the
applicant's sole, proposed access to the parking area was via a driveway using a 165- foot -long
claimed easement from East Buffalo Street, which driveway would traverse the side and rear
yards of 409 E. Buffalo Street, and then the rear yard of 410 E. Seneca Street, before entering the
rear yard of 414 -416 E. Seneca Street.
The Building Commissioner denied both of Mr. Steuer's applications for a building permit, by
determination dated October 27, 2009. The denial was based on three grounds: 1) that Mr. Steuer
had not proven in a clear and convincing manner the current existence of a right -of -way from a
public street to the proposed parking area (which existence is disputed by several neighboring
property owners); 2) that the proposed parking area was subject to the City of Ithaca's site plan
review process, before any building permit could be issued (per Sections 325 -20 and 276 -1 of the
Ithaca City Code), which review the applicant declined to undergo; and 3) that Mr. Steuer failed
to submit two dimensioned plans, as required by Section 325 -20 (c) (1)(A) of the Code.
The applicant previously challenged the Building Commissioner's determination in an Article 78
proceeding brought in New York State Supreme Court. On January 29, 2010, presiding Judge
M. John Sherman dismissed that challenge, ruling that pursuant to Section 325 -37(B) of the City
Code, the applicant was required to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals (which has the
authority to reverse, affirm or modify any determination of the Building Commissioner) before
commencing a court action. The Court also ruled that if the Article 78 proceeding were re-
commenced, following a decision by the Board, the owners of the adjoining properties that
would be directly affected by the claimed easement must be joined as parties.
Following the Court's decision, the applicant, Joseph Steuer, through his attorney, filed this
appeal, asking the Board to overrule the Building Commissioner's determination of October 27,
2009, and to issue a building permit for the parking area as proposed for 414 -416 E. Seneca
Street.
At its meeting in April, 2010, the Board decided to limit its review to the information and
materials that were available to the Building Commissioner as of the time of her determination
on October 27, 2009, and to whether her determination was correct in light of what was
available. Therefore, the only new public comment that will be considered by the Board on this
matter is that which pertains to such information and materials, and /or the correctness of that
determination; the Board will not consider new information or materials from any source.
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 and Secretary to the Board
James Mazza
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
Nancy Osborn
111 Cascadilla Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 13, 2010
Appeal #2816 — 111 Cascadilla Avenue, R -2b Zone
Members present: Beer, deRoos, Marshall, Milz
Dear Mr. Mazza and Ms. Osborn:
July 6, 2010
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 11, front
yard setback, Column 13, side yard setback and Column 14/15 rear yard setback requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The original proposal submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals requested a 135 SF two story
addition in place of a rear porch /storage area and associated stairway. The appellants have modified the plan to
build only a single floor, with an open deck on the second level. During this construction the existing main
entry porch and stairs, located on the east side of the house, will be repaired, but will not change the existing
footprint. The existing 5 foot front yard setback deficiency will not be affected. The west side yard deficiency
will be reduced. Currently the setback is 1.4 feet where 5 feet are required; the new setback will be 4 feet. The
rear yard setback will be reduced from 10 to 7.5 feet, where a setback of 20 feet is required. 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.
2. The relief sought is minimal. The addition will enlarge the existing kitchen and create a mudroom.
3. There will be no negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. The main entry will be upgraded, the
addition will be more complementary to the home's design than the existing porch and stairway. Other
cosmetic improvements will be made to the house and the exterior will landscaped with gardens, fencing
and curbs.
4. There were no letters or speakers either in favor of or opposed to granting the variance.
5. The City Planning Board recommended approval of the variance citing thoughtful use of the space,
improved appearance of the residence and reduction of the side yard setback deficiency..
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.
Sincerely,
-"-- . i ,
For the Buildi Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
PR/lf
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 1.4850 -5690
BUILDIN6 DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Pax: 607/274 -6521
July 6, 2010
Charles Fay
Christine Sparfel
206 Ridgedale Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 6, 2010
Appeal 42814 — 206 Ridgedale Road, R - la Zone
Members present: Beer, deRoos, Marshall, Milz
Dear Mr. Fay and Ms. Sparfel:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 12, side
yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of a 69 SF addition to the west side of
the house as an enlargement of the existing living room. The addition will fill an `L' in the rear of the house.
The current side yard setback is 6.9 feet, where a 10 foot setback is required, and will be continued another 8
feet along the west side of the house where the addition is planned. Existing deficiencies in front and other side
yard setbacks will not be affected. The side yard setback deficiency created by the shared garage that straddles
the east side of the property will also not be exacerbated. 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 relief sought is minimal.
3. The existing living room is an awkward shape; bumping out the wall to increase the current size and layout
by 69 SF will improve the usefulness of the room. The style of the addition will complement the existing
design of the house.
4. There were no letters or speakers either in favor of or opposed to granting the variance.
5. The City Planning Board saw no city -wide plarming issues and recommended that neighborhood concerns
be taking 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 4 in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Buildil g Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
PR/If
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." s�',�
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
August 30, 2010
Ms. Marian Clarkberg
150 Giles Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 3, 2010
Appeal # 2827 — 150 Giles Street
Dear Ms. Clarkberg:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a area variance from Section
325 -8, column 11, front yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property is located in an R -2a residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325 -38 requires a variance be granted before a building
permit may be issued.
The Board discussed the fact that the pie shaped lot at 150 Giles is the reason the lot has a
deficient front yard. Furthermore, the size of the porch is necessary to accommodate a
bench seat.
It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact:
1. The design of the porch is in keeping with the neighborhood. The architectural
drawing presents the least impact on the yard.
2. There will be no adverse effect to health, welfare, safety, or wellbeing on the
neighborhood.
3. Plan is comparable with other homes and architecture in the area and will add
value to home.
4. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal.
5. Based on these findings there is clear benefit to the owner.
The variance was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Building Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
PR:mh
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
August 30, 2010
Mr. Seth Cohen`
315 Elmira Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 3, 2010
Appeal #2826 - 4315 Elmira Road
Dear Mr. Cohen:
The Board of Zoning appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8
column, I1 front yard setback requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Though the car dealership is a permitted use in the SW -2 zone Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance,
Sections 325 -38 and 325 -39 state that the applicant must be issued a variance fonthis deficiency
before a building permit or a certificate of occupancy can be issued.
During deliberations the Board discussed that the old buildings at 315 Elmira Road will have a
new addition that will change this existing front yard setbacks to 67.9 The zoning requirements
for the zone require the set back to be between 15' and 34'. The applicant has been working with
the Planning Board and the architectural fence that will be 4' in height was approved. The
combination of this buildings width and the architectural fence lessens the deficiencies and the
Board feels the project meets the spirit of the design guidelines for the zone.
It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact
1. Balance of benefit in favor of the appellant.
2. There will be no adverse effect to health, welfare, safety, or wellbeing of the
neighbor.
3. It is an economically viable project.
4. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal.
5. The City Planning Board felt the design was appropriate for the area and
would utilize the space in a positive manner.
6. The County Planning Commissioner had no long terns issues.
The variance was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely
. 1
For the Building Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
PR:mh
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." W
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING - DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607 /274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
NOTICE OF RESULTS
APPEAL # 2813
414 -416 East Seneca Street
Hearing July 19, 2010
Appeal of 417 Seneca Street LLC and Joseph Steuer from a determination of the Building
Commissioner made on October 27, 2009, in which she denied the appellant's application
for a building permit(s) to construct a parking area for two (2) or three (3) cars in the rear
yard of 414 -416 East Seneca Street.
Motion was made to table the decision to September 7, 2010.
Vote:
Beer: yes
Marshall: yes
deRoos: yes
Milz: yes
Motion Carried
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
0:
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF APPEALS
TOMPKINS COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK
In the Matter of an Appeal by
JOSEPH STEUER,
Applicant, FINDINGS STATEMENT
on behalf of AND DETERMINATION
417 SENECA STREET, LLC, Appeal # 2813
Owner of property located at 414 -416 East Seneca
Street,
from a determination of the Building Commissioner
of the City of Ithaca dated October 27, 2009.
I. HISTORY
A. Joseph Steuer (hereafter "the Applicant "), acting on behalf of 417 Seneca Street, LLC
(hereafter "the Owner "), the owner of property located at 414 -416 East Seneca Street, Ithaca,
New York (hereafter "the Property "), filed building permit application #25805 on September
23, 2008, seeking approval for the construction of a three- vehicle parking lot in the rear yard
of the Property.
B. The Applicant filed an amended building permit application ( #26422) on July 24, 2009 for a
two - vehicle parking lot on the Property.
C. The Applicant stated in both applications that access to the parking lot would be across an
approximately 165- foot -long driveway from East Buffalo Street. This driveway traverses the
side and rear yards of 409 East Buffalo Street and the rear yard of 410 East Seneca Street.
D. The Applicant alleged that the Owner had a right -of -way across the driveway.
E. The Building Commissioner denied both applications in a determination dated October 27,
2009 (hereafter "the Determination ") on the following grounds, set forth more fully in the
Determination:
The Applicant had not proven in a clear and convincing manner that the Owner had
a current right -of -way from a public street to the proposed parking area;
2. The proposed parking area was subject to the City of Ithaca's site plan review process
before any building permit could be issued (pursuant to § §325 -20 and 276 -3 of the
Ithaca City Code) and the Applicant did not undergo this review; and
3. The Applicant failed to submit two - dimensioned plans as required by § 325- 20(C)(1)(a)
of the Ithaca City Code (hereafter "the Code ").
- Page I -
F. The Applicant filed an Article 78 proceeding in Tompkins County Supreme Court contesting
the Building Commissioner's determination. The Supreme Court, by M. John Sherman,
Acting Supreme Court Justice, dismissed the Applicant's petition pursuant to §325 -27(B) of
the Code, which requires an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals (hereafter "BZA ") prior
to application to the Court. The Court further ruled that if another Article 78 proceeding were
commenced following a decision by the BZA, the Applicant must j oin the owners of adjoining
properties that would be directly affected by the alleged right -of -way as parties to the
proceeding.
G. The Applicant filed the instant appeal for the BZA's consideration, requesting that the
Building Commissioner's determination be overruled.
H. This matter came before the BZA at its April 2010 meeting and was originally scheduled to
be heard on May 4, 2010. The Applicant's attorney asked the City Attorney to recuse himself
from representing the BZA in this matter because he had represented the Building
Commissioner in the proceeding before the Supreme Court. This resulted in an adjournment
to give the City the opportunity to find special, independent counsel to advise the BZA on the
appeal. The matter was heard on July 19, 2010, when the Applicant appeared with Dirk A.
Galbraith, Esq. as counsel; Mariette Geldenhuys, Esq. appeared as special counsel to the BZA;
and the City Attorney, Daniel Hoffman, appeared on behalf of the Building Commissioner. At
this meeting, the BZA gave counsel for the Applicant and the Building Commissioner each
an opportunity to present the facts and law in support of their respective clients' positions and
then asked counsel questions for further clarification.
I. The Applicant consented to further adjournment of the matter to give the BZA sufficient time
to review the record and reach a determination. The matter was next scheduled for the
September 7, 2010 BZA meeting. Due to time constraints at this meeting, the matter was
postponed to the October 5, 2010 BZA meeting, when the Board discussed the appeal and
reached a tentative determination. The matter was further adjourned to October 20, 2010 to
reach and announce a final determination.
A Legal Notice of each meeting was duly filed, published and posted in accord with the law.
K. The Building Department of the City of Ithaca notified nearby property owners as required by
the Code.
L. The following documentation was submitted on and entered into the record:
The Record submitted to the Supreme Court in the above - referenced Article 78
proceeding (Index No. 2009 - 1253);
2. The comments of the Planning and Development Board dated June 24, 2010.
II. FINDINGS STATEMENT
A. The BZA finds that this matter has regularly and properly come on to be heard in accordance
with all applicable legal requirements.
-Page 2 -
B. This matter is an appeal from a determination of the Building Commissioner. For this reason,
the BZA limited its review to the information and materials that were available to the Building
Commissioner as of the time of her determination on October 27, 2009 and to the question of
whether her determination was correct in light of the information available to her. The BZA
announced this procedure for its review at its April 2010 meeting. The Applicant and property
owners entitled to notice of the proceeding were notified of this procedure.
C. First basis: The Applicant had not proven in a clear and convincing manner that the Owner had
a current right -of -way from a public street to the proposed parking area.
1. The Applicant contends that the easement physically exists on the ground, that the
property owner has used it since it purchased the property and that the Building
Commissioner does not have the authority to question the property owner's title to the
easement.
2. §325 -20 of the Code governs off - street parking. §325- 20C(2)(e) provides as follows:
"Access requirements. All parking spaces shall have access to the street by way of a
driveway."
3. The Applicant's application stated that access to the proposed parking lot would be
across a driveway on property owned by others and that the Owner had a right -of -way.
The Building Commissioner gathered and thoroughly reviewed historical information
from the chains of title for the Property and neighboring properties affected by the right
of way to determine whether the Applicant met the Code requirement of access to a
public street.
4. When reviewing a building permit application, it is within the purview of the Building
Commissioner's duties to determine whether all requirements of the Code have been
met, including access to a public street.
5. The Building Commissioner concluded that the real estate records did not show clear
and convincing proof that the right of way claimed by the Applicant is valid.
6. The Building Commissioner conducted detailed and exhaustive research on the
question of the Owner's alleged right to use the driveway. The BZA thoroughly
reviewed the Building Commissioner's research, reasoning and the real estate
documents that formed part of the Record in the Supreme Court proceeding. The BZA
further amplified its understanding of the research and issues involved by asking
questions of the Applicant's counsel, the Building Commissioner's counsel and the
BZA's special counsel at the meeting held on October 5, 2010. This gave the BZA the
opportunity to investigate and test the validity of the information relied upon by the
Building Commissioner.
7. The BZA recognizes that it is not the role of the Building Commissioner or the BZA
to determine the competing legal claims of the Owner, Applicant and adjoining
property owners about the validity of the right -of -way across the driveway, and
whether it had been abandoned. However, the BZA determines that it is within the
-Page 3 -
Building Commissioner's authority and purview to determine whether a clear right to
access exists, or whether there is sufficient doubt and legal uncertainty about access
to find that the Code requirement for access to a public street has not been met. It is
incumbent upon the Building Commissioner to refrain from approving a parking lot
where access across the property of other property owners is contested or questionable.
The Property was owned by Robert Hines (a local real estate attorney) and his wife
Patricia Hines in 1985. The deed to them quitclaimed the right -of -way and did not
warrant title.
9. In 1985, the Building Department had to determine the allowable occupancy. The
occupancy had to be reduced at that time due to the lack of off - street parking. The
Building Commissioner's assumption that, if the right of way were legally in effect at
that time, the owners would have used it to provide parking in the rear yard, and
therefore increase the legal occupancy of, and income from, the Property, is
reasonable.
10. The next conveyance of the Property in 1985 (from Hines to Dalia and Moshe Pelli)
makes no mention whatsoever of the right -of -way. The right -of -way reappears 20
years later in the deed to the Owner.
11. This sequence of events raises serious questions about whether the right -of -way had
been abandoned.
12. Conflicting attorneys' opinions about the validity of the right -of -way were submitted
to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), with Applicant's attorney
concluding that the right of way is valid and an attorney for the owner of one of the
subject tenements concluding that it had been abandoned.
13. At the very least, as concluded by the Building Commissioner, the information
available to her was contradictory and inconclusive as to whether the alleged right -of-
way currently exists.
14. In these circumstances, the only proper decision for the Building Commissioner was
to find that this Code requirement had not been met and that a building permit should
not be issued.
D. Second basis: The proposed parking area was subject to the City of Ithaca's site plan review
process before any building permit could be issued and the Applicant did not under
review.
§276 -3 of the Code governs the applicability of requirements for site plan review
(hereafter "SPR "). SPR is required for all development within the thresholds
described in §276 -3(2), unless excluded by §276 -3C.
- Page 4 -
2. §276 -3(2) provides that the SPR regulations apply to the following:
a. New construction and reconstruction of residential development, other than
single -lot development of a single - family detached or semidetached dwelling
or a two - family dwelling; and
b. New construction and reconstruction of nonresidential development.
3. The proposed parking lot clearly falls within the applicability threshold and is not
excluded from SPR by §276 -3C, which exempts the following from review:
a. Existing uses and developments which in their present configuration and use
are legally authorized as of the date the SPR requirements were enacted; or
b. Single -lot development of a single - family detached or semidetached dwelling
. or a two - family dwelling.
4. The Applicant maintains that Code §325- 20C(1)c provides for SPR for "the creation
or expansion of certain larger off - street parking areas" and that the proposed small,
two -space parking lot is therefore exempt from SPR. However, this section does not
define "larger" parking areas and the proposed parking lot does not fall within any of
the exemptions from SPR set forth above.
5. §325- 20(E)(5) of the Code refers to "compliance methods ", including a landscape
compliance plan, which is submitted to the ILPC if review by that Commission is
required. However, this section explicitly applies to plans for parking areas with the
capacity for three or more cars. The Applicant amended his permit application to seek
a permit for a parking lot with two cars, so this section is inapplicable. Furthermore,
the Code does not state that these compliance methods render the site plan review
requirements inapplicable.
6. The Building Commissioner correctly determined that site plan review of the proposed
parking area is required and that a building permit could not be issued without such
review.
E. Third basis: The Applicant failed to submit two-dimensioned-plans
§325- 20(C)(1)(a) of the Code lists the documentation the applicant must submit when
applying for a building permit for a parking lot. The requirements include two -
dimensioned plans, one showing existing conditions and one showing the proposed
conditions. The plans must include the following details: the location of the green
areas, parking areas, maneuvering areas and driveways, any required screening,
direction of ground slope, drainage provisions and a calculation in square feet of the
area of paving and the area of the yard in which paving already exists or is proposed
to be constructed.
-Page 5 -
2. The map the Applicant submitted with his building permit application does not contain
the required information. The Applicant's counsel admitted this during the July 19,
2010 meeting of the BZA. The map also shows a fence that is neither existing nor
proposed.
The Building Commissioner's determination that the plan submitted does not comply
with the provisions of the Code should be upheld.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, it is the opinion of the BZA that
this appeal must be, and hereby is, unanimously denied and the determination of the Building Commissioner
is unanimously upheld and affirmed.
Dated: October 20, 2010 City of Ithaca Zo ' g Board of Appeals
Steven V. Beer, Chairperson
- Page 6 -
r'.
CITY Or ITHACA
1.08 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
'Telephone: 607/2740508 ax: 6070740521
September S, ZO 10
Nlr.josl1 W. Lowel,
floral Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 7, 2010 Appeal 42829
Dear Mr, Lower:
Ise Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance front sectloll
3>5 -S, Colur un 4, off street parking, Cohutul 5, OR street log -tiling and Cohirrin 14/15)
rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Most board itietnbers were in strong agl,eenlent with the goals of this project but are
hesitant to approve it until the 2009 Collegetown Urban I laic & Concepiltitl Dcs1"5 I
GuideUnes are announced in the next Pew months. j� key component to this protect Is
Me payment ui lieu of providing parking that will include a rate schedule and
Monitoring of such payments.
It was Inoved to table the appeal until the next Board of Zoning Appeal meetiltg.
The variance was tabled by a vote of 5 in favor, node opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Building Depart gent
Phyths Radlce, Building Cortillussioner
'An Equal opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Z�
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMEN'r
Telephone: 607 /274 -6508 Sl'WQ 9 -A165'
Thomas M. Schickel
Schickel Architecture
330 East State Street
Ithaca, NY t4850
Re: Board of Zoning Appeal meeting of September 7, 2010 Appeal 42831
Dear Mr. Schickel:
The Board of Zoning Appeal considered your appeal for an area variance from Section
325 -20 B, (2) as well as area variance from 325 -8 column 7, street frontage, and from
325 -8 column 11, front yard setbacks, both requirements under the District Regulations
Chart for the SW-2 Zone.
1. There will be no adverse effects to health, welfare, safety, or wellbeing of the
neighborhood.
2. The variance will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood.
3. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal.
4. The City Planning Board has worked with the appellant during the site plan
review process for this project and recommends approval of the appeal.
5. No decision was made by the County Planning Department with respect to the
project.
The variance was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
R7�.►�
For the Building Dep tment
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." T-11s
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEFAR'rMEN'r
JUN zs20l1
Telephone: 607 /274 -6508 Fa : 6pp7/27yy-(�
ScReIlllJer c, _610
Mr. Zackary Boggs & Ms. Isabel Fernandez
1 13 Flyers Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 7, 2010 Appeal #2830
Dear Mr. Boggs & Ms. Fernandez:
The Board of Zoning Appeal considered your appeal for an area variance from Section
325 -8, Column 4, 10, 11, 12, 14/15, parking, lot area, front yard, side yard, and rear yard.
Discussion of the lack of parking was an issue with the board. Removing the garage and
replacing it with a new single family home would mean the property would only have
one parking space which would be a garage within the home. The board would grant the
variance with the condition that room be made for an additional parking space. Therefore
it will be up to the applicant to meet the parking requirements for the space if the garage
is demolished and a new single family home is erected on the lot.
Several neighbors spoke against the project. These concerns were parking and that the
new building would block sunlight to their homes. Another was a letter from Ron Schmit
mentioned the deficient lot size and parking. The Planning Board was in favor. Although,
it opined that the new single family home was not in character with the neighborhood.
Despite the stated objections the board members felt that the contemporary design was
commendable.
It was moved to grant the variance with conditions based on the following findings of
fact:
1. Despite the number of deficiencies the granting of the variance would be of
substantial benefit to the applicant.
2. There will be no adverse effects to health, welfare, safety, or wellbeing of the
neighborhood.
3. Planning Board was in favor in general, but felt the design of the new
structure was not in character with the neighborhood.
4. The new building would provide energy efficient elements and is a 21st
century version of the 1930 building on Hyers Street.
5. Two neighbors spoke against the project and a third interested party wrote a
letter to the board voicing his opposition to the project.
6. There was conflicting information regarding the applicant's ability to provide
two (2) parking spaces if the garage is demolished and the new single family
home is constructed. The board decided not to grant the variance request for
parking but instead to make it the applicant's responsibility of finding another
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ;:1
Mr. Zackary Boggs & Ms. Isabel Fernandez September 8, 2010
1 13 Hyers Street page 2
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September- 7, 2010 Appeal 92830
compliant parking space on the site for the project. The first space will be in a
interior garage of the new single family home.
The variance was granted with conditions by a vote of four (4) in favor, none
opposed.
Sincerely;
For the Building De rtment
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 ax: 607/27#- 61b110
Oovembber i,
Mr. David Beer
211 Hudson Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting of November 2, 2010
Appeal #2836 143 Maple Avenue
Dear Mr. Beer:
The Board of Zoning Appeals heard your appeal for a Special Permit from Section 325 -
9C, neighborhood commercial facility requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In 2007, a
special permit was granted to operate a coffee /bake shop at 143 Maple Avenue. The
variance conditions limited the business operations and no cooking or baking was
permitted on -site. The owners of the business would like to provide a range and hood in
the coffee shop so that the next operation can avoid the expense of bringing all pre-
packaged food in. The other conditions of the Special Permit issued #2699 issued on
August 1, 2006, will remain the same.
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.
2. There were three (3) persons in favor of the appeal and no persons opposed.
3. The City of Ithaca Planning Board supports this appeal and feels that the
facility is good for the neighborhood as well as the project.
4. Tompkins County Department of Planning has reviewed the proposal,
submitted, and has determined that it has no negative intercommunity. Or
countywide impacts.
The appeal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
i4k
For the Buil ing Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 11
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 fax: 6Q7/27�,&5210
ovembber 20 11
Mr. Ed Cope
300 Fire tower Road
Berkshire, NY 13736'
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of November 2, 2010
Appeal #2835 201 South Aurora Street
Dear Mr. Cope:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a area variance from Section
325 -8, Column 11, front yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance at it's regular
monthly meeting.
It was moved to grant the variance on the following findings of fact:
1. There will be no adverse effect to health, welfare, safety, or wellbeing of the
neighborhood.
2. The porch structure will create no undesirable change to the neighborhood.
The design of the porch will complement existing homes in the area.
3. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal.
4. Tompkins County reviewed the project and determined that it had no negative
inter- community or countywide impacts.
5. The City Planning Board declined to comment.
The variance was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Build g Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
`An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
December 23, 2010
Mr. Ed Cope
300 Fire Tower Road
Berkshire, NY 13736
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of December 14, 2010
Appeal #2832 201 South Aurora Street
Dear Mr. Cope:
The Board of Zoning Appeal considered your appeal for an area variance for relief from
conditions imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals under Appeal #1336 in January of
1981 when the BZA, at that time, granted variance requests for increased occupancy and
area deficiencies at 201 South Aurora Street. The request was that the landlord be able to
lease 201 South Aurora Street as a car free household and not have to find parking off
street for three (3) tenants. The applicant also requested allowance to only have
Certificate of Compliance inspections every 3 years as opposed to yearly inspections.
The Board determined that inspections for a Certificate of Compliance must occur every
three (3) years. In lieu of parking, the applicant will lease to a car free household and
hold tenants responsible for not bringing their cars to the premises and parking off street.
Tenants will be provided bus passes and if they have a car they intended to bring with
them while renting at 201 South Aurora Street, they must keep this car in a parking
garage as out lined in this lease conditions. The lease conditions reviewed by the BZA
must be kept part of a tenant's leasees agreement for 201 South Aurora Street as long as
the dwelling is rented to 5 unrelated persons and no parking is provided on site. In
addition, it will be the responsibility of the property owner to provide the Building
Department a lease agreement signed by the leases attesting that they will abide by the
conditions in the lease supporting a car free household by September 1St each year. The
failure of the property owner to abide by the conditions of assuring that tenants of 201
South Aurora Street do not park on the street in the City and all other conditions set forth
by the Board at its December 14, 2010 hearing in approving this variance request will
result in this variance being rescinded.
It was moved to grant the variance with conditions:
1. Cars owned by tenant must be registered with Landlord.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0
Mr. Ed Cope December 23, 2010
300 Fire Tower Road Page 2
Berkshire, NY 13736
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of December 14, 2010
Appeal #2832 201 South Aurora Street
2. Landlord will provide the tenants with a TCAT bus pass, with no charge to the
tenant.
3. Landlord monitors the tenant's vehicle use and parking.
4. The other conditions requested under Appeal #1336 remains in effect
(including that only two (2) rooms downstairs and two (2) rooms upstairs are
used as bedrooms.
The variance was granted with conditions with a vote of four (4) in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Building Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
cc: Jesse Hill, agent