HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 Board of Zoning Appeals/Decision lettersCITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 6nu/a2 3416�?� Oil
Quarry Properties, LLC
1001 West Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of January 4, 2011
Appeal #2833 — 115 South Quarry Street
Dear Sir:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a area variance from Section 325 -8
Column 14/15, rear yard set back, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant proposes
to under go a lot line adjustment with an abutting property. This variance is necessary so that the
properties underlying such lot line adjustment are in conformity with the zoning ordinance as
required under section 290 -6 of the Codes of the city of Ithaca
It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact.
1. That the Board of Zoning Appeal accepts the Planning Board's findings of the final
Environmental Impact Statement for Collegetown Terrace approved at the October
26, 2010, meeting of the Planning and Development Board.
2. There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety, or overall wellbeing of
the neighborhood.
3. City of Ithaca Planning. Board members had no concerns with this appeal.
4. County Planning had no objection to granting the variance.
The appeal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Buildin Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
PR:mh
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 1a
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax:607/27416� �1L Oil
Quarry Properties, LLC
1001 West Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of January 4, 2011
Appeal 42833 — 115 South Quarry Street
Dear Sir:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a area variance from Section 325 -8
Column 14/15, rear yard set back, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant proposes
to under go a lot line adjustment with an abutting property. This variance is necessary so that the
properties underlying such lot line adjustment are in conformity with the zoning ordinance as
required under section 290 -6 of the Codes of the city of Ithaca
It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact.
1. That the Board of Zoning Appeal accepts the Planning Board's findings of the final
Environmental Impact Statement for Collegetown Terrace approved at the October
26, 2010, meeting of the Planning and Development Board.
2. There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety, or overall wellbeing of
the neighborhood.
3. City of Ithaca Planning Board members had no concerns with this appeal.
4. County Planning had no objection to granting the variance.
The appeal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
i
For the Buildin Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
PR:mh
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." C1
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
TOMPKINS COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK
In the Matter of Appeal #2834
COLLEGETOWN TERRACE, LLC,
Applicant, FINDINGS STATEMENT
AND DETERMINATION JUN 2 7 2011
I. HISTORY
A. John Novarr (hereafter "the Applicant "), acting on behalf of Collegetown
Terrace, LLC (hereafter "the Owner "), the owner of property generally
bounded by East Martin Luther King Jr. State Street, South Quarry Street
and Valentine Place and Six Mile Creek gorge,in Ithaca, New York
(hereafter "the Property "), filed an appeal from the City of Ithaca Zoning
Code Section 325 -8 columns 8 and 9 on September 24, 2010, seeking
permission to exceed the applicable height limitations for certain of the
various new construct a total of thirteen new apartment buildings on
approximately 16.4 acres, and involve the removal of twenty -nine structures
currently on the site. The subject property is currently zoned R3 and P -1.
The proposed development would result in the addition of approximately
595 net additional bedrooms on the site, for a total of 1,232.
B. Prior to the first hearing of this matter, the Building Commissioner
issued a ruling that the proposed new buildings must meet height and story
limitations specified for the R3a Zoning District, and, accordingly, that
Buildings 3.2, 5, 6, and 7 would require variances for height and number of
stories.
C. On November 2, the first public hearing was held. The applicant and his
architects for the project, ikon.5, outlined their plans for the project, which
call for a complex of three- and four -story residential buildings, with up to
two levels of parking at grade or below. The buildings will have an
aggregate footprint of 170,748 gross square feet, comprising a maximum of
667,463 gross square feet of residential space, and 250,000 gross square feet
of parking. The applicant cited several advantages of the proposed
development, notably: 1. Collegetown Terrace will be developed
independent of Cornell University and will pay taxes to support its
infrastructure; 2. Construction will require minimal changes to existing
neighborhoods; and 3. Increasing housing capacity near the center of Ithaca
will reduce pressure for suburban sprawl.
A large number of interested parties testified at the hearing, both for and
against. The speakers who lived closest to the proposed project were
predominantly .in opposition based on concerns for loss of neighborhood
character, impingement of views and increased foot and vehicular traffic.
D. Subsequent to the first hearing, on November 18, 20105 the Building
Commissioner issued another ruling that pursuant to 325- 913(1)(b) of the
Zoning Ordinance, portions of the project located in the P -1 zone must meet
the height and story limitations of the R -1 zone, namely 35 feet and 3
stories. The P -1 district includes all of Building 6, 42% of the footprint of
Building 7, and 17% of Building 1. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting
height /story variances as follows: Building 1, P -1 zone, proposed 39.8'/4,
allowed 35'/3, variance sought 4.8'/1; Building 3.2, R -3 zone, proposed
57.09'/5, allowed 40'/4, variance sought 17.09'/1; Building 5, R -3 zone,
proposed 59.03'/6, allowed 40'/4, variance sought 19.03'/2; Building 6, P -1
zone, proposed 53.6'15, allowed 35'/3, variance sought 18.6'/2; and Building
7, P -1 zone, proposed 66.23'/6, allowed 35'/3, variance sought 31.23'/3 (the
portion of Building 7 which is in the R -3 zone requires the lesser variance).
E. On December 14, 2010, the Board continued the public hearing, received
further testimony of interested parties, and closed the hearing.
F. On January 4, 2011, and on February 1, 2011 the Board of Zoning
Appeals deliberated on the matter and, at the latter meeting, agreed on the
following findings of fact.
2
II. FINDINGS STATEMENT
A. With regard to the requirements of environmental review prescribed by
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 176 of the City of
Ithaca Code, titled Environmental Quality Review, we certify, and with this
determination hereby adopt, the findings and justifications of the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board (P &DB) as approved by therm at
their October 26, 2010 meeting. A full DEIS was prepared by Trowbidge
and Wolf, LLP, and based on its review, the P &DB concluded, in its finding,
that the project "...adequately avoids or minimizes adverse environmental
impacts to the maximum extent practicable."
B. The Board carefully considered the question of potential undesirable
changes to adjacent neighborhoods and detriments to nearby properties. The
Board read many letters and heard many hours of testimony from neighbors
within 200 feet of the project during the public hearings. Strong opinions
were expressed on both sides of the question as to whether the Collegetown
Terrace Project will create an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood.
Many neighbors were concerned over the loss of views towards South Hill,
the loss of period vernacular architecture, of grasslands and tree lines or
having their views blocked by massive buildings. Others were concerned
that contrary to the developer's promise that graduate students would
occupy the new buildings, more undergraduates would stream through the
fragile owner - occupied neighborhoods between the proposed project and
Cornell University. Others were concerned that such a densely populated
rental area would exert pressure on single-family neighborhoods that border
the proposed project. Others expressed concerns about the height and story
variances in general and stated such variances would allow the developer to
increase the density on the subject property.
While the Board finds that there will be certain, highly localized, deleterious
impacts that include some impingement of views, notably impacting the
residents of existing homes on the north side of Martin Luther King /State
Street (MLK), the Board also heard testimony from others that the
neighborhood communities would benefit from the project and proposed
variances. The BZA gives significant weight to the FEIS and Findings
Statement that were accepted by the P &DB on October 26, 2010. This
Finding Statement presents a number of facts that mitigate some of the
concerns voiced or sent to the Board of Zoning Appeals for Collegetown
Terrace's variance hearings.
1) As shown in the drawings provided to the BZA for this hearing and in the
slides presented by the applicant, the unique topography of the Collegetown
Terrace site noticeably slopes downhill as it moves south of MLK. It also
slopes downhill at the western edge of the project. For the residents who live
on the north side of MLK, this means the proposed new buildings on the
south side of MILK will be constructed at a lower grade line, helping to
mitigate the apparent height of the structures.
2) Board members concur that there will be an increase in vehicular and
pedestrian traffic between the proposed project and the Cornell University
and that this traffic will pass through established owner - occupied
neighborhoods. However, facts discussed in the Findings Statement bring
the Board to conclude that these issues will be mitigated by the fact that the
developer will have a shuttle running between the project and the University
from 7:30 -11:30 AM on school days. In addition, the Developer will
improve the sidewalks in front of the proposed project and improve the
intersection at Mitchell Street to alleviate traffic congestion.
3) The developer has stated that management will be available on site 24/7
to keep noise, and other problems associated with students that can disturb
adjacent neighborhoods, under control. There also will be noise restrictions
in tenant leases.
4) The applicant presented BZA members were with statistics from the
County's Department of Assessment to rebut the opinion of some that
student housing decreases the value of surrounding property. The
Assessment Office's statistics showed that properties in and around the
project area are among the properties with the highest increases in value
since 1997.
5) The proposed new construction will significantly add to the quality of the
neighborhood's and city's housing, especially in terms of life safety aspects.
4
6) These new buildings will provide a concentration of new rental housing
that will help stem the conversion pressures that threaten to turn existing
single - family homes into student rentals.
7) The District Regulation Chart for the City's Zoning Ordinance
demonstrates that the number of units allowed for multiple dwellings is
based on the size of the lot in square footage. Because this property owner is
consolidating a number of lots and has considerable land at his disposal,
there are a number of ways in which more residents and more buildings
could have been added on this site. The developer's architects have
estimated that the site could, by right, accommodate as many as 2,400 new
residents, if built to capacity, or roughly twice the project's proposed
population. Under this scenario a large portion of the property would have to
be used for surface parking. The proposed project provides a number of
environmental, aesthetic, and visual benefits that flow from the use of
topography to accommodate structured parking.
8) The P &DB Findings Statement states under the heading "Growth and
Community" [t]hat the redesigned project as described in the Findings
Statement and FEIS will minimize adverse impacts to the character of the
community to the maximum extent practicable, and under "Summary of
Impacts," it states that the Lead Agency has determined that the project site
is an appropriate location for increasing density within the City of Ithaca.
9) The Board finds that from a purely aesthetic standpoint the developer's
architects have shown unusual sensitivity in creating a contextual and
sophisticated design solution that is responsive to the site's natural and built
environments, as well as to neighborhood concerns.
C. In snaking this determination the Board has taken into consideration the
net benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the
net detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. It finds
that the benefits and the adverse impacts accrue differently to different
members of our community. Those who live closest to the project are likely
to feel the adverse impacts of increased noise, traffic and altered views more
acutely. Those who reside in the broader community of Ithaca will likely see
the benefits of an increased tax base; a greater supply of rental housing; the
s
benefits of a vibrant residential community located close to the amenities of
downtown; increased reliance on mass transit; reduction in conversion
pressures threatening existing single - family neighborhoods, especially near
Cornell; and the advantages of in -fill development in an area which has the
requisite infrastructure to support such a large project.
In making this determination, the Board is guided by several pertinent
conclusions from the P &DB Findings Statement, including:
• That there will be approximately 746 parking spaces on the proposed
project site. All proposed new parking will be located underneath the
proposed buildings, resulting in no new surface parking.
• That the increase in residential density is in an appropriate area
already mostly developed that will reduce suburban sprawl.
• The Collegetown Terrace project increases the amount and quality of
housing stock in Ithaca, especially in terms of life safety systems.
• The Collegetown Terrace project improves public safety by
improving fire safety and emergency vehicle access and circulation.
• The Collegtown Terrace project promotes the use of public
transportation.
• The Collegtown Terrace project will improve pedestrian walkways.
• The Collegtown Terrace project will reduce impermeable surfaces.
• The Collegtown Terrace project will improve stormwater
management.
Based on the reasons and findings above, the Board finds that while there
are localized adverse impacts, these are more than offset by the more widely
spread and lasting beneficial impacts upon the neighborhood and
community, and thus that the balance of net benefit versus any net detriment
lies clearly in favor of the applicant. Anticipated undesirable changes in the
character of the neighborhood will be outweighed by desirable changes.
D. The Board finds that the requested area variance is not substantial
relative to the scale of the Project. Except for the requested height and story
variances which involve five buildings, all of the project's thirteen buildings
are fully zoning compliant. The Board also finds that the negative visual
M
impact of the proposed building heights is not as great as the raw numbers
would suggest. The site slopes steeply mostly from north to south. Most
public views of the development will be from the uphill, northerly side,
facing the shorter facades, thereby mitigating perceptions of height. The
taller facades are largely downhill and hidden from public view from
MLK/State Street corridor.
The Board emphasizes that it is due to the special characteristics of this
unique site - notably its size and sloping topography - that the size of the
proposed buildings can be successfully accommodated. Such conditions are
extremely unlikely, if not impossible, to obtain in any other part of the City.
E. The benefits that the applicant is seeking cannot be achieved by some
other feasible method. The applicant had to prove in the FEIS through a
number of alternative development scenarios that project goals cannot be
achieved without the variances asked for in this appeal. It is the
understanding of the Board that the applicant can develop the project as of
right without any variance. But, to do so would inevitably involve the use of
a number of acres for surface parking instead of parking under the buildings
on the first one or two floors as proposed.
F. The Board believes that the difficulty was self - created in so far as the
developer had a number of ways in which to develop approximately 16 acres
that is zoned for multiple housing. However, this particular
choice is really between providing parking under the buildings or
developing parking lots on the exterior. The developer is not required to
spend the significant amounts of money inherent in constructing indoor
parking spaces. He could have decided to use the presumably cheaper model
of providing surface parking to meet requirements, with all the
environmental drawbacks associated with impenneable parking areas.
Regardless, the fact that the hardship can be considered self - imposed does
not preclude the Board from granting the requested variances.
G. The Board makes this determination with the expectation that the
developer will continue the many months of collaboration he has undertaken
with the Ithaca P &DB in finding design solutions that are responsive to
neighborhood concerns, especially with regard to the massing of Building 3
and the smaller buildings fronting on MLK/State St, and items B2 & B3 and
Findings C, and the items certified under Findings
H. The applicant has stated that no building mechanicals or utilities will be
situated on rooftops such that the requested height variances would be
exceeded. The Board makes this determination conditional upon the
fulfillment of that commitment.
I. Pursuant to GML Sections 2391, in and n, the Tompkins County Planning
Board has found no inter - municipal impacts associated with the Project.
J. The Board notes the helpful review and comments from the Ithaca P &DP,
whose recommendation to the Board, dated December 6, 2010 concludes:
"In summary, although the Board did not reach an overall consensus, five of
the seven members present at the October 26 Planning Board meeting agreed
that, for reasons special to this site and this project, the BZA should grant
this appeal, while two members gave reason for their opposition. At the
November 23 Planning Board meeting, of the four members present, two
recommended that the appeal be granted and two recommended that it be
denied."
K. The board snakes this determination conditional on the final overall
design of the project being closely representative of the designs submitted to
the board. The height and story variances shall not be utilized to enable
construction of any buildings other then the five (5) listed above under
History D as requiring height & story variances.
III. DECISION:
For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, it is
the finding of the BZA that this appeal should be, and hereby is, granted.
Dated: Febr , 20 Ithaca Z ning Board of Appeals
B-
Steven . eer, C rperson
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
1
Maria Avramis cv,
400 College Avenue C���,`�'
Ithaca, New York 14850 ,
Appeal #2844 (137 -139 Hudson Street)
Dear Ms. Avramis:
By submission dated January 27, 2011, made by your attorneys, Harris Beach, PLLC,
Russell E. Maines, Esq., of counsel, you challenged a determination made by the
Building Commissioner, regarding your property at 137 -139 Hudson Street (Appeal
#2844).
The determination was that, because the property is a legally non - conforming use, any
expansion of that use, including the addition of new, on -site parking spaces, requires a
use variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. You contend that parking is not the type
of use subject to limitation in Section 325- 32(C)(1), and that the number of spaces
permitted as of right at this property is controlled solely by Section 325- 20(E)(5).
In the alternative, you requested "an area variance allowing for the expansion of the
number of [parking] spaces to 10" (all to be located in the rear yard). Subsequently (and
in recognition of the Building Commissioner's determination and pending your appeal
thereof), you decided to request a use variance, instead.
The Board of Zoning Appeals heard your appeal on June 2, 2011. Prior to that meeting,
the Board received a substantial amount of written material related to this matter, both
from your attorney and from the Building Commissioner. The positions of both parties
were also set forth in presentations to the Board on June 2"d, by their respective attorneys.
The Board's discussion, and reference to the materials available to it and to the Building
Commissioner, is more fully covered by the transcript of the June 2nd meeting, which
transcript was arranged for by your attorney and which was also made available to the
City.
The Board decided to make a decision first on the request to overturn the Building
Commissioner's determination, then to consider the request for "alternative" relief —
namely, a use variance — at a subsequent meeting.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
0
The Board's unanimous decision (4 -0, with Commissioner James Marshall absent) on
June 2, 2011, regarding the challenge of the Building Commissioner's determination, was
as follows.
The Board confirmed that the property at 137 -139 Hudson Street is legally non-
conforming, and has been since it was rezoned to R2 in the 1970s.
The Board confirmed that a parking area in the rear yard was recently constructed,
without the required building permit from the City Building Department, and without the
required site plan review.
The Board concurred with the Building Commissioner's interpretation that the
appropriate section of the Zoning Ordinance to apply to this situation is Section 325 -
32.C, which regulates the "extension or enlargement of non - conforming uses or
structures," and which states that a non - conforming use may not be extended or enlarged
"to other land" except by means of a variance. The Board referenced the Building
Commissioner's letter to the Board, dated April 27, 2011, in which she explained her
interpretation in far more detail.
The Board concurred with the Building Commissioner's contention that the variance
required for the extension of a non - conforming use is a use variance, which position
relies on the well- respected treatise on "New York Zoning Law and Practice," Fourth
Edition, by Patricia Salkin, in which the criteria for such a variance are listed, which
criteria perfectly match the statutory criteria for a use variance.
In summary, the Board confirmed the Building Commissioner's determination that the
creation of additional parking spaces at 137 -139 Hudson Street (beyond the 4 spaces
permitted in the front yard, as of the time the property's "grandfathered" rights were
established) is an extension or enlargement of a non - conforming use, and thus requires a
use variance.
As noted above, a decision by the Board on the remainder of your appeal — namely, your
request for a use variance for 10 parking spaces in the rear yard of the property — is still
pending.
Sincerely yours,
1
Phyllis Ra
Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Cc: Steven V. Beer, Chair, Board of Zoning Appeals
Russell E. Maines, Esq.
Daniel L. Hoffinan, Esq., City Attorney
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
February 15, 2011
Buttermilk Falls, LLC
217 Commercial Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting February 2, 2011
Appeal #2840 — 407 Elmira Road
Dear Sir:
The Board of Zoning Appeals heard your appeal for a variance from Section 325 -8, Column
11, front yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in a SW-
2 use district. The front portion of the parcel has an existing right -of -way that is located within
the required front yard setback area for the SW -2 zone district. This right -of -way prevents the
applicant from meeting the front yard setback requirements of 15 ft. to 34 ft from the curb line
of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, the applicant proposes to position the face of the building
at 88.4 ft. from the front curb line.
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. There were no speakers opposed to the variance and one in favor of the variance.
3. The City Planning Board feels the variance is warranted given the location of the
existing access road and support the granting of this appeal.
4. Tompkins County Planning Department reviewed the proposal 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,
Gino Leon di
Housing and Land Use Supervisor
GL:mh
cc: Robert Bender
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: 607/274 -6521
February 15, 2011
Buttermilk Falls, LLC
217 Commercial Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting February 2, 2011
Appeal #2840 — 407 Elmira Road
Dear Sir:
The Board of Zoning Appeals heard your appeal for a variance from Section 325 -8, Column
11, front yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in a SW-
2 use district. The front portion of the parcel has an existing right -of -way that is located within
the required front yard setback area for the SW -2 zone district. This right -of -way prevents the
applicant from meeting the front yard setback requirements of 15 ft. to 34 ft from the curb line
of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, the applicant proposes to position the face of the building
at 88.4 ft. from the front curb line.
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 no speakers opposed to the variance and one in favor of the variance.
3. The City Planning Board feels the variance is warranted given the location of the
existing access road and support the granting of this appeal.
4. Tompkins County Planning Department reviewed the proposal 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.
Since4Leon-dii
Gino
Housing and Land Use Supervisor
GL:mh
cc: Robert Bender
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." C1
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274-6521
Board of Zonina Appeals — Appeal 2843 (140 Seneca Way)
GRANT OF VARIANCES — Resolution as approved (3 -0) on May 23, 2011
WHEREAS, Appeal 2843, made by Fall Creek Development of Ithaca, LLC, on behalf of the
owner of the property known as Tax Map Parcel No. 69 -2 -20 (hereinafter "the Property "),
namely, Challenge Industries, has come before the Board of Zoning Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the appellant, as prospective purchaser and developer of the Property, has proposed
to redevelop the Property by demolishing the existing structure and constructing a mixed -use
building (to be designated as 140 Seneca Way) with commercial space on the ground floor, 38
apartments on the floors above, and parking in the basement and in the yards), a use permitted in
the B -4 business district in which the Property is located; and
WHEREAS, under the area regulations of the B -4 district, the development as proposed would
have a deficiency of 22 off - street parking spaces and 3 off - street loading spaces (i.e., 25 of 75
required), for which deficiencies appellant seeks area variances; and
WHEREAS, as the maximum height allowed in the B -4 district is 4 stories and 40 feet, and the
proposed structure (at its tallest point) is 5 stories and 57.5 feet in height, the appellant also seeks
an area variance to allow the additional story and the additional 17.5 feet in height; and
WHEREAS, the Board conducted a hearing on the above - referenced appeals on March 1, 2011,
which hearing was continued until the next meeting of the Board, on April 5th, and heard
comments both in favor and opposed to the requested variances, at both meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Board completed the hearing at its April 5th meeting, but did not make a
decision on the appeals at that time; and
WHEREAS, at the appellant's request, the Board scheduled a special meeting for April 19, 2011,
in order to facilitate the appellant's timetable, but, late in the day on April 18th, the appellant
contacted the Mayor to ask that the meeting be rescheduled, expressing concern that not all BZA
members might be present on April 19th; and
WHEREAS, as a result, the special Board meeting scheduled for April 19th was cancelled; the
appellant subsequently asked the Board to take up the matter as soon as possible, indicating that
the project would otherwise be in jeopardy; the Board agreed to add the matter to the agenda of
its next scheduled meeting, on May 3, 2011; and
WHEREAS, no further public comments were entertained at that meeting; the Board discussed
the appeals, but did not decide upon them, choosing instead to schedule another special meeting
for May 23, 2011, for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, in deciding upon these appeals, the Board has weighed the claimed benefit to the
appellant (of granting the appeal) against the claimed detriment to the health, safety and welfare
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." COV
of the neighborhood or community (by such grant), taking into account the applicable criteria for
consideration of area variances, as set forth in State law and in Section 325- 40.C.4 of the City's
Zoning Ordinance; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Board of Zoning Appeals hereby makes the following findings, regarding
Appeal 2843:
The proposed project also requires site plan approval, from the City's Planning and
Development Board. That Board was the lead agency for the environmental review of
the proposed project. A Full Environmental Assessment Form (as revised through March
29, 2011) was completed for the project (Parts 1, 2 and 3). Part 2 identified 7 potential
large impacts (including impacts on historic resources, scenic views, existing
vegetation/landscaping and on traffic, and as to the setting of "an important precedent for
future actions." Part 3 analyzes the identified, potentially large impacts, and concludes
that most or all would be mitigated by features of or modifications to the project design
(such as the reduction of the north end of the building — closest to the Seneca Street
neighbors - to 4 stories), such that none of the identified impacts is considered significant.
On March 29, 2011, the Planning Board voted (5 -2) in favor of a "negative declaration,"
thus concluding the environmental review. (The Board has not yet acted on the site plan
application itself.)
2. The claimed benefit to the appellant (of granting the requested variances) includes the
following:
a. A measure of relief from certain difficulties posed by the site in its current
condition and status (to the owner /seller, and /or to a purchaser /developer),
including:
i. onerous "carrying costs" for the unoccupied property, which has been
vacated by the owner (a not - for - profit agency), reported to be in the
amount of $3,000 per month, and the owner's difficulty in finding a buyer,
ii. the practical difficulty of providing the required number of on -site parking
spaces (for new development),
iii. the unavailability of on- street parking in the immediate vicinity of the
project, and
iv. the poor condition of the former Challenge Industry building, likely
necessitating its demolition and disposal and new construction, which
would cause high start -up costs and require a greater revenue stream.
The claimed detriment to the neighborhood (of granting the variances) includes the
following:
a. Added height will interfere with views from, privacy of, and amount of sunlight
available to neighboring houses and yards (on East Seneca and East State /MLK
Street).
b. The style and scale of the proposed development is out of character with the
historic nature and density of the abutting residential neighborhood; it creates an
"awkward boundary" between the commercial area and the neighboring historic
district.
c. Traffic patterns are already problematic at this location; a larger development,
without adequate parking, will only exacerbate this, and could push traffic on to
other streets (such as Schuyler Place and Seneca Street). Concern was expressed
about the impact on safety, as a result of heavier traffic on residential streets,
backing out on to Seneca Way from parking areas, and reduced visibility for
westbound traffic on Seneca Way.
d. Lack of adequate on -site parking will increase parking demand in adjacent areas.
Project does not provide for snow storage for parking, which will result
(seasonally) in an even greater parking deficiency.
e. Possible diminishment in property values of neighboring residential properties,
and reversal of the recent trend (especially on lower East Seneca Street) toward
owner- and family- occupancy and investment in the restoration and improvement
of historically- designated homes.
4. The appellant and supporters of the project made various claims of benefits it would
provide to the City and to the downtown commercial area, including:
a. Adding to the tax rolls a property that has been tax exempt and has been difficult
to sell.
b. Attracting new housing and activity to the downtown business district.
c. Providing needed Class A office space to the downtown.
d. Providing a mix of allowable uses most compatible with neighboring R -2 district
(single and two - family residential), compared to other uses that could be
developed in a B -4 district.
e. Possible enhancement of property values in the vicinity.
f. Generation of jobs.
5. The Planning Board did not make a recommendation as to the requested variances,
instead listing certain "positive attributes" and "concerns" about the project, as follows:
(1) All Board members agreed that, from a planning perspective, the project has the
following positive attributes:
• More downtown housing and retail space in a mixed -use building with access to
other retail and entertainment.
• An improved urban environment through the design that sites the building at the
street edge, thereby engaging the building with the street, and activation of the
street level through location of a fitness area at the front of the building.
• A safer and more pedestrian- friendly environment through replacement of the
existing continuous curb cut along the property with a minimal number of well -
defined curb cuts and a continuous sidewalk with curb lawn.
• Productive, tax - paying use of a currently vacant downtown site.
• Location on a site that is walkable, bikeable and convenient to public transit,
thereby promoting viable alternatives to car ownership and use.
(2) All but one Board member expressed concern about the number of recent
zoning variance requests, and the extent of the variations recently requested
from existing zoning. These members believe that many of the issues
concerning such large appeals are better addressed through the comprehensive
planning process (scheduled to commence this year) and associated
appropriate rezoning.
(3) Some Board members expressed the following concerns about the project:
• That the project as designed is not proportionate to its site.
• That there is a risk of loss of livability in the East Seneca Street neighborhood,
which has the right to expect protection under existing zoning.
• That possible parking spillover from the proposed project might add to pre-
existing parking pressures on East Seneca Street residents, and that the project
might add to traffic volume or alter existing traffic patterns on Seneca Way
and its vicinity.
6. In late 2010, in response to (then- unidentified) developers' interest in and concerns about the
Challenge Industry property, the City's Planning Department provided a proposal to the Planning
and Economic Development Committee of Common Council, for the rezoning of the site in
question to CBD -60, a designation in place since 2002 on the south side of E. State /MLK Street
in that vicinity, which would allow for a maximum height of 6 stories and 60 feet. After
discussion (and the expression of concern and opposition from residential neighbors), the
Committee decided not to support such a zoning change, and it was not pursued further.
7. At this Board's meeting on May 3, 2011, in response to Board discussion, the appellant
indicated that a decision to grant one of the requested variances, separately from and without
granting the other(s), or with conditions that did not allow the full, requested height, would be of
no help, and that the appellant therefore requested a straight "up or down" decision on the
variances, as a package.
8. As for the specific, statutory factors to be considered with regard to an area variance, as set
forth in State law and in the City's Zoning Ordinance, the Board makes the following
determinations:
a. Granting the requested variances will allow for some, possible, undesirable
change in the character of the adjacent residential, historically- designated
neighborhood, and a detriment to a small number of nearby properties, due to the
scale of the project and its resulting visual impact and interference with views,
privacy and direct sunlight, as well as increased traffic and parking pressure.
Granting the variances will allow for a desirable change in the adjacent
commercial district, by encouraging replacement of a vacant, deteriorated
building and attracting more residents, activity and commercial uses to the
vicinity, and, presumably, providing more business for downtown merchants.
b. Whether the benefit sought by the appellant could be achieved by some method
feasible for it to pursue, other than the requested area variances, was not
established.
c. The requested variances (taken as a package) are substantial, in the context of the
setting of the Property, and judging from the importance attached to them by the
appellant and both the supporters and opponents of the project.
d. The proposed variances will have some limited, adverse effect on physical
conditions in the adjacent residential neighborhood. The effect on the adjacent
commercial district is likely to be mostly positive. (See 8.a, above, as to both of
these.)
e. The alleged developmental difficulties posed by the site must be seen as self -
created, at least with regard to the prospective purchaser /developer, who, as such,
is well aware of the zoning and other conditions associated with the site, and is
free to choose not to purchase the property. While the owner of the property may
not be able to command the sale price it seeks, given the constraints on the site
and the condition of its building, this could presumably be addressed by
adjustment of that price, a reality faced by other, similarly- situated sellers. As
noted by State and City law, this factor is relevant but not dispositive.
9. In Section 325- 40.C(4)(c), the Zoning Ordinance sets forth five additional factors the Board
may take into consideration, when deciding upon a requested area variance. However, "if the
applicant wishes the Board to consider any of these additional factors, the burden of proof is on
the applicant to clearly identify the factor and to submit sufficient evidence to establish that this
factor applies." In this case, while the appellant did not clearly or explicitly request
consideration of any of these additional factors, the emphasis (by appellant and the project's
supporters) on claimed benefits to the downtown commercial district could be construed as an
appeal to consider factor [2] : "whether a substantial positive change will be produced in the
character of the neighborhood" — where "neighborhood" in this case is defined to include the
commercial district.
10. In considering all of the above information, and in particular the statutory criteria to be
applied, it is clear that the potential impact of the granting of the requested variances would be
markedly different for the commercial district in which this property is at the far easterly edge,
than for the residential, historically- designated district immediately adjacent to it (on two sides).
In conducting its obligatory balancing of all factors, the Board finds that the benefits claimed by
the appellant (as well as other supporters of the project, and the majority of the Planning and
Development Board) are substantial and far - reaching, and they outweigh any potential detriment
to the adjacent residential neighborhood. As noted in the environmental review, any direct
adverse impacts are likely to be limited to a small number of adjacent properties, and, in any
case, will not be significant, due to mitigating measures incorporated into the project design, as
well as the topography of the area, which reduces the apparent height (as viewed from the north)
of structures on the Property. While the Common Council did not choose to change the zoning
of this site last year, it remains the responsibility of this Board to consider any individual
requests for variances, where strict application of zoning rules would impose an unreasonable
burden on a property owner, and where the relaxation of such rules (through the granting of
variances) would not cause a substantial detriment to nearby properties; and be it further
RESOLVED, that, for the reasons set forth above, the set of variances requested in Appeal No.
284' ) are hereby granted, with the following conditions:
(1) The height variance shall be applicable only as needed for construction of the
building as currently proposed, i.e., with a maximum of 4 stories (and no more than 47 feet) for
the northerly portion.
(2) The intent of the changes in design and layout as described in Part 3 of the FEAF (re:
location of the planned fitness center, or any comparable use, away from the upper stories where
it would overlook neighboring residential properties; and confinement of any outdoor /rooftop
terrace to the southwest corner of the building, furthest from neighboring residential properties)
shall not be violated, by any future development of the Property.
(3) Prior to the issuance of any building permit for this project, the applicant shall place,
or cause to be placed, upon the Property, a permanent deed restriction so that no building within
70 feet of the northerly property line (except for the footprint of the currently proposed building)
can exceed 40 feet in height as defined by the City of Ithaca zoning ordinance in effect on March
29, 2011; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Board hereby determines that the variances granted herein constitute the
minimum necessary to accomplish the applicant's purposes, while at the same time preserving
and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Phyllis Radice,
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
June 22, 2011
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
February 18, 2011
Ms. Katherine Croom;
313 South Plain Street v
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of July 6, 2010
Appeal #2822 — 313 South Plain Street
Dear Ms. Croom:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a home occupation special permit
requirements of Section 325 -9C (i) of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to use one
existing room located on the first floor and convert it to a massage therapy treatment room. The
business would operate weeknights and weekends for a total of about ten (10) hours per week.
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 change will not alter the appearance of the neighborhood.
3. Hours of operation will be limited to evenings and weekends with only one client at a
time.
4. Parking will be off street.
5. City Planning Board approved the proposal.
The appeal was granted by a vote of three (3) in favor none opposed.
Sincerely,
R7
For the Building De artment
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
PR:mh
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Z��
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
February 22, 2011
McDonald Corporation
403 West Board Street
Horseheads, NY 14845
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of July 6, 2010
Appeal #2815 - 372 Elmira Road
Dear Sir:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a sign variance from Section 272 -7 A,
size of a freestanding sign, and Section 272 -9 B, distance setback requirements for a pole sign
from public right of way.
The original sign was destroyed in a windstorm in the Fall of 2009 and the new proposed sign
will be structurally safer.
The distance to the face of the McDonald's building and the edge of the sidewalk closet to the
building is 10'8". The center of the pole sign is 4'10" from the face of the building. The
proposed McDonald's sign is ten feet wide east to west. The sign will be 2" so that it does not
overhang the solarium. However, it will project within 8 inches of the edge of the sidewalk.
Section 272 -9 B states that freestanding signs shall be no closer than 10 feet from the public
right -of -way and that no portion of the sign shall project within 5 feet of the public right of way.
The applicant has genuine difficulties of meeting the requirements of the Sign Ordinance that
was enacted in 2003. The current site layout of the property presents no alternatives for the
location of the sign.
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 will be no change in the appearance of the neighborhood; the new sign will be as
close to a replica of the old sign as possible.
3. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal.
4. The City of Ithaca Planning Board approved the variance.
The appeal was granted by a vote of three (3) in favor none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Bul ding Depar vent
Phyllis Radke, Buildin Commissioner
cc: Russell Miller, Attorney's at Law, agent
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." C0
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
March 2, 2011
Mr. Donald Ruff
Ms. Barbara Brazill
220 Esty Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 1, 2011
Appeal #2841 — 220 Esty Street
Dear Mr. Ruff & Ms. Brazill:
The Board of Zoning appeals considered your appeal for the renewal of a special permit for a
Bed and Breakfast home as required by Section 325 -9C (4)(g)(3), renewal requirements for
special permits for Bed and Breakfast homes. The property at 220 Esty Street was granted a
special permit to operate a Bed and Breakfast home on November 1, 2005. The ordinance
requires that a special permit for a Bed and Breakfast home located in an R -2 Zone shall expire
after a period of five years.
It was moved to grant the special permit on the following findings of fact:
1. There will be no adverse affect to the health, welfare, safety, or overall wellbeing of
the neighborhood.
2. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the renewal of the special permit.
3. City of Ithaca Planning Department approved the special permit.
The special permit was granted by a vote of four (5) in favor none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Building Depa tment
Phyllis Radke, Buildi g Department
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." %r!
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
March 2, 2011
Mr. Donald Ruff
Ms. Barbara Brazill
220 Esty Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 1, 2011
Appeal 42841 — 220 Esty Street
Dear Mr. Ruff & Ms. Brazill:
The Board of Zoning appeals considered your appeal for the renewal of a special permit for a
Bed and Breakfast home as required by Section 325 -9C (4)(g)(3), renewal requirements for
special permits for Bed and Breakfast homes. The property at 220 Esty Street was granted a
special permit to operate a Bed and Breakfast home on November 1, 2005. The ordinance
requires that a special permit for a Bed and Breakfast home located in an R -2 Zone shall expire
after a period of five years.
It was moved to grant the special permit on the following findings of fact:
1. There will be no adverse affect to the health, welfare, safety, or overall wellbeing of
the neighborhood.
2. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the renewal of the special permit.
3. City of Ithaca Planning Department approved the special permit.
The special permit was granted by a vote of four (5) in favor none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Building Depa tment
Phyllis Radke, Buildi g Department
"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: 607/274 -6521
March 4, 2011
Ms. Susan Cosentini
527 North Aurora Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 1, 2011
Appeal #2837 — 527 North Aurora Street
Dear Ms. Cosentini:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a special commercial facility, special
permit requirements of Section 325 -9C (1)(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. The property located
at 527 North Aurora Street consists of two dwelling units and an office space. In 1994, the
applicant received a variance to use an existing vacant mercantile space for a professional
office. In 2005, the owner downsized the business and her partner then used the space as a
hair salon. This use may have been a legal home occupation, but due to a recent separation,
the possibility of a home occupation no longer applies. The property is located in an R -2b
residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted by special permit. However,
Section 325 -38 and 325 -29 requires a variance be granted before a Building Permit and a
Certificate of occupancy may be issued.
The special permit was granted with conditions:
1. There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety, or overall wellbeing of
the neighborhood.
2. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the project.
3. The City of Ithaca Planning Department supported the project.
4. Tompkins County Planning Department saw no negative impacts on the special
permit.
The appeal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor one (1) opposed, with the conditions that:
1. A parking sign be erected to direct customer to the leased parking area.
2. The special permit will run with the two -year lease that the owner has with
neighbor for four parking spaces.
3. That the Consentim Construction Sign be removed.
Sincerely,
For the Building D artment
Phyllis Radke
Building Commissioner
PR:mh
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." IL101
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
April 11, 2011
New Roots Charter School
116 North Cayuga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Of April 5, 2011
Appeal #2842 116 -120 North Cayuga Street
Dear Sarah Rubenstein Giles:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 272 -3;
definition of a banner as a temporary sign, Section 272 -4A (1); projecting signs, Section 272-
613 (2); number of signs in a commercial zone, and Section 272 -8C, time period for temporary
signs. Proposed is to install two banner signs on the building located at 116 North Cayuga
Street. The historic building known as the Clinton House is located on a corner lot which faces
both North Cayuga Street and West Seneca Street.
One of the proposed banner signs will be on the front portion of the building facing North
Cayuga Street and the other will be located on the West Seneca Street side of 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. It serves a general purpose and is in line with the City ordinance.
3. It fits well with the neighborhood character.
4. The City of Ithaca Planning Board supports the request but asked that the
bottom edge of the Seneca Street banner be aligned with the bottom edge of the
Cayuga Street banner and that if they become faded, torn, or damaged they be
replaced immediately.
5. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal
6. Tompkins County Department of Planning reviewed the proposal and
determined that it has no negative impacts.
7. They received approval From the State of New York Department of
Transportation, for the banner that encroaches on Seneca Street which is a street
maintained by the State as opposed to the city.
The appeal was granted by a vote of three (3) in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
For t ull AS p artment
Phyllis Radice Building Commissioner
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 101
CITY OF Tt dACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
April 11, 2011
New Roots Charter School
116 North Cayuga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Of April 5, 2011
Appeal #2842 116 -120 North Cayuga Street
Dear Sarah Rubenstein Giles:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 272 -3;
definition of a banner as a temporary sign, Section 272 -4A (1); projecting signs, Section 272 -
6B (2); number of signs in a commercial zone, and Section 272 -8C, time period for temporary
signs. Proposed is to install two banner signs on the building located at 116 North Cayuga
Street. The historic building known as the Clinton House is located on a corner lot which faces
both North Cayuga Street and West Seneca Street.
One of the proposed banner signs will be on the front portion of the building facing North
Cayuga Street and the other will be located on the West Seneca Street side of 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. It serves a general purpose and is in line with the City ordinance.
3. It fits well with the neighborhood character.
4. The City of Ithaca Planning Board supports the request but asked that the
bottom edge of the Seneca Street banner be aligned with the bottom edge of the
Cayuga Street banner and that if they become faded, torn, or damaged they be
replaced immediately.
S. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal
6. Tompkins County Department of Planning reviewed the proposal and
determined that it has no negative impacts.
7. They received approval From the State of New York Department of
Transportation, for the banner that encroaches on Seneca Street which is a street
maintained by the State as opposed to the city.
The appeal was granted by a vote of three (3) in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
For tui1 n e artment
g p
Phyllis Radice Building Commissioner
"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 5, 2011
Mr. Robert S. Miller Revocable Trust
3 82 Savage Farm Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 3, 2011
Appeal #2846 320 Elmira Road
Dear Mr. Miller:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a sign variance from Section 272 -7A,
signs permitted in the SW -2 zone. Proposed is a free standing pole sign and two building signs
on the property. The property currently contains an existing "Hyundai" free standing pole sign
and the addition of the "Subaru" pole sign will exceed the requirements of Section 272 -7A of the
Sign Ordinance, which limits the property to one free standing poll sign. The proposed poll sign
meets the size requirements of the sign ordinance measuring 60 S.F in area, 12 L.F. in width, and
22 L.F. in height of the maximum 75 S.F in area, 12 L.F. in width, and 22 L.F. in height required
by the ordnance. The two new building signs, the new poll sign, and the existing building and
poll signs will not exceed the requirements of 250 S.F of total signage allowed by the sign
ordinance.
It was moved to grant the variance 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 new signs will not exceed the requirements of 250S.F. of total signage allowed
by the sign ordinance.
3. The City of Ithaca Planning Department approved the variance as long as maximum
allowable height is 22 feet.
4. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal.
The appeal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor one (1) opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Buildin Department
Phyllis Radke, uilding Commissioner
cc: Thomas Schickel
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a comn'iitment 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
May 5, 2011
Mr. Robert S. Miller Revocable Trust
382 Savage Farm Drive;; ? `'
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 3, 2011
Appeal #2846 320 Elmira Road
Dear Mr. Miller:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a sign variance from Section 272 -7A,
signs permitted in the SW -2 zone. Proposed is a free standing pole sign and two building signs
on the property. The property currently contains an existing "Hyundai" free standing pole sign
and the addition of the "Subaru" pole sign will exceed the requirements of Section 272 -7A of the
Sign Ordinance, which limits the property to one free standing poll sign. The proposed poll sign
meets the size requirements of the sign ordinance measuring 60 S.F in area, 12 L.F. in width, and
22 L.F. in height of the maximum 75 S.F in area, 12 L.F. in width, and 22 L.F. in height required
by the ordnance. The two new building signs, the new poll sign, and the existing building and
poll signs will not exceed the requirements of 250 S.F of total signage allowed by the sign
ordinance.
It was moved to grant the variance 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 new signs will not exceed the requirements of 250S.F. of total signage allowed
by the sign ordinance.
3. The City of Ithaca Planning Department approved the variance as long as maximum
allowable height is 22 feet.
4. There were no speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal.
The appeal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor one (1) opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Buildin Department
Phyllis Radke, uilding Commissioner
cc: Thomas Schickel
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a comnl itment to workforce diversification." 41.6
CITY OF ITHA.CA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
June 13, 2011
Ms. Julia Rose
115 West Yates Street a
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of June 2, 2011
Appeal #2851 — 115 West Yates Street
Dear Ms. Rose:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a area variance from Section 325 -8,
Column 4, off street parking, Column 6, lot area, Column 7, width at street and Column 12,
side yard requirements of the zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to construct an 80 S.F addition on the rear of dwelling located at 115
W. Yates Street. The proposed sunroom addition will be positioned next to the existing porch
located in the rear yard. The new addition will be 3'6" from the property line which is an inset
of approximately 6" from the west wall of the existing building that has an existing deficiency
of 3' of the 5' required by the zoning ordinance. The property has existing deficiencies in off -
street parking, lot area, and lot width that 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.
It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact:
1. 1. There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety, or overall wellbeing
of the neighborhood.
Z. There were no letters or speakers in favor or opposed to granting the variance.
3. The City of Ithaca Planning Board sees no long -term planning issues with this plan
and support its approval.
The appeal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor none opposed.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Radlce
For the Building D partment
Phyllis Radice, Building Commissioner
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a comrK fitment to workforce diversification." .a
tc9 CITY ITHACA New York A850-5690
OF
r� �;••�� 108 East Green Street Ithaca,
inn P �° `m BUILDING DEPARTMENT
......... 0,� Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274-6521
ORAt�
June 131 2011
Elizabeth Cobb
136 Crescent Place
Ithaca, NY 2011
RE: Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting on June 2,
Appeal #2850 — 136 Crescent Place
Dear Ms. Cobb: Se
The Board of Zoning Appeal con
sidered your appeal for an area variance f 111front yard
5 ,
minimum lot size, Column 10, in lot f the Z ,
Column 6, um lot I Z/ 13, side yard requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
dimension,-and C perform interior
dwelling located at 136 Crescent place. ZSh°/o of
nt Proposes to add two small additions, dwnstalll a new deck, an p have g
The applicant room at
alterations to the kitchen and living TO osed
ordinance. One of the p p
dditions and rear deck will exceed of thelOO allowable lot coverage y the front yard.
proposed a ulremen
in roof that will be located in `,`,ill reduce
the maximum 250 lot vestibule with an overhang $
additions is an entry, setback of the zoning ordinance. The
front and setback is 18' and the new
front entry and roof overhang enclosure,
for
The existing fio y required 25
the front yard setback to 10.5' of the side and dimension of
located on the south side of the dwelling n he existing contain a y air dimension
n 0
proposed addition ordinance.
that has
accessing the basement. The stair addition Wilt requirement of the zoning or
in a deficiency of .5' of the 10' side y north side of the building that
has
9.5 resulting arallel the exiting ordinance. Theproperty
The applicant would- the rear and
,.requirement uired 6000 S.F that will not be
e and of S.1' of the 10' side y uirement of the zoning
a side y having 5880 S.F of the req
an existing lot area proposed project.
exacerbated by use is
es that a variance be granted before a building
rt is located in an R -Ib residential use district in which the proposed
The property
permitted. However, Section 325 -38 requires
permit maybe issued.
to rant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 11 wellbeing of
it was moved S or overall
There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety, the variance.
1' opposed to granting
the neighborhood. ranting of this appeal
orted the g
2. There were C letters o of Ithaca Planning Board o S pp front of the house.
3. Members of City
with the exception of the trellis and vestibule in ed
e a eal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor none oppos
.
Th pp
Sincerely,
Phyll R d
De Department
For the Build ldin Commissioner
Phyllis Radice, B g ortunity Employer with a c0mr6itment to workforce diversification."
An Equal Opp '
co
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
June 13, 2011
Elizabeth Cobb
136 Crescent Place'''
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting on June 2, 2011
Appeal #2850 — 136 Crescent Place
Dear Ms. Cobb:
The Board of Zoning Appeal considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8,
Column 6, minimum lot size, Column 10, maximum lot coverage, Column 11 front yard
dimension,.and Column 12/13, side yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to add two small additions, install a new deck, and perform interior
alterations to the kitchen and living room at the dwelling located at 136 Crescent Place. The
proposed additions and rear deck will exceed the allowable lot coverage by 3 %, having 28% of
the maximum 25% lot coverage requirement of the zoning ordinance. One of the proposed
additions is an entry vestibule with an overhanging roof that will be located in the front yard.
The existing front yard setback is 18' and the new front entry and roof overhang will reduce
the front yard setback to 10.5' of the required 25' setback of the zoning ordinance. The
proposed addition located on the south side of the dwelling will contain a stair enclosure for
accessing the basement. The stair addition will maintain the existing side yard dimension of
9.5' resulting in a deficiency of .5' of the 10' side yard requirement of the zoning ordinance.
The applicant would- like the rear deck to parallel the exiting north side of the building that has
a side yard of 8.1' of the 10' side yard requirement of the zoning ordinance. The property has
an existing lot area deficiency having 5880 SY of the required 6000 SY that will not be
exacerbated by the proposed project.
The property is located in an R -Ib residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325 -38 requires that a variance be granted before a building
permit may be issued.
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 no letters or speakers in favor or opposed to granting the variance.
3. Members of City of Ithaca Planning Board supported the granting of this appeal
with the exception of the trellis and vestibule in front of the house.
The appeal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor none opposed.
Sincerely,
Phyll R d
For the Build Department
Phyllis Radke, B 'Iding 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
June 13, 2011
Ms. Julia Rose
115 West Yates Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of June 2, 2011
Appeal #2851 - 115 West Yates Street
Dear Ms. Rose:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a area variance from Section 325 -8,
Column 4, off street parking, Column 6, lot area, Column 7, width at street and Column 12,
side yard requirements of the zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to construct an 80 SY addition on the rear of dwelling located at 115
W. Yates Street. The proposed sunroom addition will be positioned next to the existing porch
located in the rear yard. The new addition will be 3'6" from the property line which is an inset
of approximately 6" from the west wall of the existing building that has an existing deficiency
of 3' of the 5' required by the zoning ordinance. The property has existing deficiencies in off -
street parking, lot area, and lot width that 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.
It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact:
1. 1. There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety, or overall wellbeing
of the neighborhood.
2. There were no letters or speakers in favor or opposed to granting the variance.
3. The City of Ithaca Planning Board sees no long -term planning issues with this plan
and support its approval.
The appeal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor none opposed.
Sincerely, J
mss' �-
Phyllis Radice
For the Building D partment
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a comit4itment to workforce diversification." :�t
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
July 6, 2011
Cornell University
Thomas Paul LiVigne, Director of Real Estate
15 Thornwood Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting of July 5, 2011
Appeal #2857 — 692 Third Street
Dear Sir:
Board of Zoning Appeals considered the Appeal of HOLT Architects, P.C., as agent for Ithaca
College, on behalf of the owner Cornell University for an area variance from Section 325 -8,
Column 13, side yard dimension, and Column 16, minimum height in feet requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing boathouse located at 692
Third Street Extension and construct a new 8,000 square foot Rowing Center Boathouse on the
parcel. The parcel is a long and narrow piece of land, bordered on the west by New York State
Canal Corporation land and the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks on the east side of the parcel.
The parcel has additional constraints in width that affect the placement of the building; on the
east side, a fifteen foot easement for the Fingerlakes Trail and a driveway that is required to be
20 feet in width in order to meet the minimum requirements for off - street parking and for Fire
Department access. The west side of the lot has an existing utility pole and an irregular lot line
that further reduces the buildable width of the lot by approximately 25 feet. As a result, the
applicant would. like to place the new building at the west lot line, having a side yard of 0' of the
5' required by the zoning ordinance.
Another constraint is high voltage power lines that run across the site that limited the height of
the new building. The High Voltage Proximity Act requires safe clearances for roof workers,
roof equipment, and construction equipment that are in close proximity to high voltage power
lines. The new building will have an overall height of 26'6' making the average height of the
roof, as defined by the zoning ordinance, 19' of the 25' required by the zoning ordinance.
The property is located in an M -1 marine use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 325 -38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit may be
issued.
It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact:
1. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.
2. No other means can be sought by the applicant other than an area variance.
3. Requested area variance is substantial
4. No adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a comrx itment to workforce diversification." �«�
Cornell University
Thomas Paul LiVigne, Director of Real Estate
15 Thornwood Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting of July 5, 2011
Appeal #2857 — 692 Third Street
5. City of Ithaca Planning Board strongly supported the granting of this appeal.
The appeal was granted by a vote of five 9 ) in favor none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Build g Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Pax: 607/274 -6521
.lLily 6, 2010
Ian Shapiro
4088 Garrett Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of June 1, 2010
Appeal #2820 — 110 South Albany Street, B -2c zone
Members present: Beer, deRoos, Marshall
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 12, side
yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of a 9'10" x 23' shed roof on
the south side of the building at 110 South Albany Street. The roof will cover part of the walkway and the stairs
from the parking area. The overhang will provide protection for employees' bicycles, and primarily purpose is
to support photovoltaic panels. The existing 1.7 foot side yard setback at the south side of the building will be
reduced to zero. The other side yard has a 9.5 foot setback. In the 13-2c district one side yard may be zero feet
and one side yard must have a 10 foot setback. 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 roof will provide weather protection and support for additional
photovoltaic panels.
3. There will be no negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. The surrounding properties are
commercial and the roof is mostly visible from the bar and grill on the opposite..side of the parking lot.
4. There were no, letters or speakers either in favor of or opposed to granting the variance. .
5. The CityPlanning.Board did not anticipate any city wide,planning issues; The Board requested that the
existing iron fence remain and that improvements to the landscaping be made.
6. The County Department of Planning anticipated no long term negative effect of granting the appeal.
The appeal was granted by a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Buildin epartment
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
PRJlf
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 Equai3Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification" T •
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
July 6, 2011
Ms. Pamela A. Johnston
9 Maplewood Point -
Ithaca, NY 14850 ~'
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of July 5, 2011
Appeal #2852 —125 Highland Place
Dear Ms. Johnston:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8.
Column 4, off - street parking, Column 6, minimum lot area, Column 10, percentage of lot
coverage, Column 11, front yard dimension, Column 14/15, rear yard dimension, and 325 -
32C (3), extension and enlargement requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
proposes to convert six rooms to rent to an apartment in a nonconforming structure located at
125 Highland Place. The property is a four story multiple dwelling containing a total of three
apartments, one each located in the basement, first floor, and third floor plus six rooms to rent
located on the second floor. The conversion of the second floor to an apartment will increase
the number of apartments from three to four, thereby extending the use of this nonconforming
structure. The second floor has all the elements of an apartment and the conversion of the
rooms to rent to an apartment requires no construction. However, Section 325 -32C (3),
prohibits the extension or enlargement of a non- conforming structure except by means of a
variance.
The property has existing deficiencies in lot area, percentage of lot coverage, front yard, and
rear yard that will not be exacerbated by the proposed conversion.
It was moved to grant the variance on the following findings of fact:
1. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or no
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.
2. No adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood.
3. The. City of Ithaca Planning Board support the approval of this appeal, provided
occupancy continues to be limited to 17 unrelated persons.
4. No speakers in favor or opposed to the proposal.
The appeal was granted by a vote of five (5) in favor none opposed.
Sincerely,
lt d Forthe ing epartment
Phyllis ce,
bull ing 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
August 12, 2011
Mr. Lawrence P. Fabbroni
1 Settlement Way
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of August 10, 2011
Appeal #2854 — 359 Elmira Road
Dear Mr. Fabbroni,
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a use variance from Section 325 -8,
Column 2, permitted uses, Column 3, permitted accessory uses, Column 8, number of stories,
and Column 9, building height in feet of the zoning ordinance, the proposal to construct a 106 -
room hotel at 359 Elmira Road. The consolidation of the parcels is required to provide enough
lot area to meet the requirements of the SW -2 zoning district for the building and associated
parking for the project. The project requires consolidation of five parcels to meet the requirement
of the SW -2 zone and to provide sufficient lot area for the building and associated parking
spaces. The consolidation of parcels will result in a through street lot extending from Elmira
Road to Spencer Road. The building will extend past the 30 foot zoning transition line for the
SW -2 zone, 44'3" into the R -2a zoning district. This portion of the hotel will not meet the R -2a
zoning regulations for primary use, number of stories and building height in feet. The Board also
considered allowing 125 parking spaces on the parcel although the project only needs 110
parking spaces. Furthermore, the board considered that the R -2a residential zoning district does
not allow parking for commercial uses, and that Section 325 -38 of the Zoning Ordinance
requires that a use and area variance be granted prior to a building permit being granted for this
project.
After deliberating on the variance needed for this project, it was moved to grant the variance
based on the following findings of fact:
It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact:
1. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
2. The hardship was not self - created.
3. City Planning determined that there will be no significant impact on the environment.
4. The Tompkins County Department of Planning has determined that it has no negative
inter - community or countywide impacts.
5. That the applicant demonstrated that the applicable zoning regulations and the
restrictions caused unnecessary hardships because the east side of Elmira Road is
insufficient in depth to support commercial construction and to meet the set back
requirement of the SW -2 zone.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a comttiitment to workforce diversification." 01
Mr. Lawrence P. Fabbroni August 11, 2011
1 Settlement Way Page 2
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of August 10, 2011.
Appeal #2854 — Elmira Road
6. The applicant evidenced financial hardship in his appeal that proved he could not
realize a reasonable financial return for his investment in the lots in the R -2a district
for each and every use permitted in this district where part of the hotel
The appeal was granted by a vote of five (5) in favor, none opposed, with the condition that the
path leading to Spencer Road never be used for motor vehicles.
Sincerely,
For the Building Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
CITE' OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
August 23, 2011
Mr. Daniel Hirtler, RA
327 South Geneva Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on August 10, 2011
Appeal #2859 — 403 Elmwood Avenue
Dear Mr. Hirtler:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a use variance from Section 325 -8,
Column 2, permitted primary uses of the zoning ordinances. The applicant's proposal to convert
the single - family dwelling located at 403 Elmwood Avenue into a cooperative household with a
building capacity of seven unrelated individuals. The proposal contended that the building, in the
current configuration as a single family home containing three unrelated individuals, was not
realizing a reasonable return. In February of 2011, the Building Department received a complaint
stating that the building at 403 Elmwood Avenue was over occupied. After conducting an
interview with one of the tenants, it was discovered that eight unrelated individuals were
occupying the building. On February 11, 2011, the Building Department issued an order letter
requiring that the occupancy be reduced to three unrelated individuals as required by the zoning
ordinance. In addition, the owner was informed of the options that were "allowed in the use
district by the zoning ordinance. The owner had opted to apply for a use variance due to the
construction cost for converting the existing single family dwelling into a two family, which is
permitted in the R -2 use district.
It was moved to deny the variance on the following findings of fact:
1. Applicant has not demonstrated that the following requirements for a use variance
have been met.
2. In their demonstration concerning the cost associated with the conversion of the
property into a duplex the applicant did not submit competent financial evidence
which demonstrates that no permissible use of said property can result in a reasonable
return to the applicant and such a lack of reasonable return is substantial. In that they
demonstrate the cost associated with the conversion of the property into a duplex, the
property does in fact realize a positive cash flow after the third year.
3. There is no competent financial evidence provided to us that a reasonable rate of
return cannot be realized when the property is used as a single - family dwelling.
4. We find that the proposed use will alter the essential character of the neighborhood, it
will elevate the occupancy levels deemed unfit by Common Council when they
enacted the current zoning ordinance.
5. We find that said hardship has been self - created in that Mrs. Beach has owned the
property since 1989 and it is recorded in the Building Department files on this
property. Mrs. Beach has known about the legal occupancy levels and the legal means
of increasing the occupancy through the legal conversion of a duplex.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a comrriitment'to workforce diversification." cry
Mr. Daniel Hirtler, RA August 24, 2011
327 South Geneva Street Page 2
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on August 10, 2011
Appeal 42859 — 403 Elmwood Avenue
6. The Planning Board of the City of Ithaca recommends the denial of this appeal. The
board members feel that the best approach dealing with the applicants issues is for
Common Council to approve the proposed Collegetown area form district.
7. Tompkins County Planning Department reviewed the proposal and has determined
that it has no negative inter - community or countywide impacts.
The appeal was denied by a vote of five (5) in favor none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Building Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
cc: Cheryl Beach, owner
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
September 23, 2011
Widewaters Route 13 II Company LLC
5786 Widewaters Parkway
Dewitt, NY 13214
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 6, 2011
Appeal #2860 — 410 Elmira Road
Dear Sir:
The Board of Zoning Appeal considered you appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -29.2
(B) (3), building setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.. The property located at 410
Elmira Road is located in ail SW -3 zone district that requires a building or buildings be
positioned with a maximum setback of 34 feet from the curb and a minimum setback of 15 feet
and the building must occupy 35% of the lot's street frontage. The lot width at the street is
292.28 feet and 35% of the frontage or 102.3 feet is required to comply with the zoning
ordinance. The existing building width is 102.5 feet but only 69 feet of the building is within the
15' -34' setback from the curb causing a deficiency of 33.3 feet of building occupying the lot's
street frontage. The zoning ordinance allows a third of the required 35% building frontage to be
occupied by an integrated architectural wall. The applicant is seeking relief from this
requirement due to the typography and site constraints of the existing structure. The existing
floor elevation of the building is 4 -5 feet lower than the curb height and installing an
architectural wall 3 -4 feet in height would not visually meet the intent of the Planning Boards
guidelines for the southwest district.
It was moved to grant the variance as submitted based on the following findings pf fact:
1. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or any
detriment to near by properties created by granting this variance.
2. There is no other feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than this area
variance.
3. The requested area variance is substantial
4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood.
5. The alleged difficulty was not self - created.
The appeal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor one (1) abstained.
Sincerely,
For the ling epartment
Phyllis Radke
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 140
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Pax: 607/274 -6521
October 5, 2011
Tompkins County Action
701 Spencer Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of July 6, 2010
Appeal #2824 — 308 -320 North Meadow Street
Dear Sir:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8,
Column 92 building height in feet and Column 14/15, rear yard requirements of the zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing Magnolia House and construct a
new three story building on the parcel. The new building will be renamed the Magnolia House
and will serve as a recovery home for homeless women. The parcel located at 308 -320 North
Meadow Street is 4 9. 5 feet in depth and the new building will be positioned 10' from the rear
lot line. The current zoning ordinance foe a WEDZ - 1 a zone permits a 10' rear yard for
buildings except for multiple dwellings, where a 20' rear yard is required. The new 14 unit
building is designed to have the first story be 11' in height and the remaining two stories to be
10' in height. The intent is to match the second floor of the adjacent Charter House building
for a future accessible link between the two buildings if needed. The Zoning Ordinance
requires the first story of a new building to be a minimum of 12' in height and 12' for each
additional story.
It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact:
1. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the.granting of the area variance.
2. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood.
3. There will be no adverse effect to the health, welfare, safety or overall wellbeing of
the neighborhood.
4. City of Ithaca Planning board recommends approval of both the floor height and the
rear yard setback variance. Members feel that a floor requirement of 12 feet is
inappropriate and inefficient for a residential use. In this case a lowered floor
height also allows the proposed building to tie into the existing Chartwell House.
Members also find no impact with the rear yard variance as the adjacent property is
used as a parking lot, and as the proposed project includes a enclosed garden
separating this lot from the proposed building.
The appeal was granted by a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed.
Sincerely,
For the Buildin Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
`An Equal Opportunity Employer with a cotru fitment to workforce diversification." ��
CITY OF IT]HACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
October 5, 2011
Ms. Susan Shrog
222 Linn Street
Ithaca, NY 14850,
RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of July 6, 2010
Appeal #2823 — 222 Linn Street
Dear Ms. Shrog:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a area variance from Section 325 -8,
column 10, percentage of lot coverage of the zoning ordinance.
The appeal was withdrawn by you for modification.
Sincerely,
For the Buil ing Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a cotnr fitment to workforce diversification." �«!
CITY OF ITHA.CA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607 /274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521
October 5, 201.1
Ms. Kathleen M. Connelly
327 Cliffside Drive
Auburn, NY 13021
RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of October 4, 2011
Appeal #2862 -- 222 Linn Street
Dear Ms. Connelly:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a area variance from Section 325 -8,
Column 10, percentage of lot coverage of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to
remove multiple additions on the southwest corner of the building and construct a new two
story addition oil the property located at 222 Linn Street. The applicant would like to construct
the addition within the squared -off area of the existing additions' footprint and utilize the
additional space. The footprint of the new addition will be approximately 15 square feet larger
than the existing structures and. will increase the existing deficiency from 41.6% to 42.1 % of
the 35% maximum lot coverage required by the ordinance. The property is located on a. corner
lot and has existing deficiencies in both front yards that will not be exacerbated by the
proposed addition.
It was moved to grant the variance on. the following findings of fact:
1. There will be no effect to the health, welfare, safety, or overall wellbeing of the
neighborhood.
2. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties.
3. There was one speaker in favor of the project and were none opposed.
4. The Planning Board did not identify any long -term planning issues with this appeal.
They do, however, feel that the design of the addition, featuring large, mostly blank,
walls and irregular window placement needs further development to be compatible
with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
The appeal was granted by a vote of five (5) in favor, none opposed.
PR /mh
cc: Susan Shrong
nissioner
'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 5, 2011
Ms. Randi Beckman
106 Worth Street OCT 2 C 2
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting of October 4, 2011
Appeal 92861 1.06 Worth Street
Dear Ms. Beckman:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a special permit for a accessory
apartment as required by Section 325 -8, Column 3, permitted use requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. In May of 2000, the applicant received a BZA variance to remove an existing garage
and construct an addition to the single- family home located at 106 Worth Street. The addition
was originally constructed to provide more room to accommodate additional family members.
The applicant now proposes to use the addition as an accessory apartment and provide long -term
rentals to visiting scholars, college parents, or visiting neighborhood family members. The
existing addition meets the square footage requirements, for an accessory apartment as required
by Section 325-101)(4), having 30% of the maximum 33 1/3% of the total habitable floor area of
the building. The property has existing deficiencies in percentage of lot coverage by building,
front yard dimension, and side yard dimension that will not be exacerbated by the proposed use.
It was moved to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact:
1. There will be no adverse affect to the health, welfare, safety, or overall wellbeing of
the neighborhood.
2. There will be no change in the appearance of the neighborhood.
3. There were seven (7) letters in support and were none opposed.
4. The City of Ithaca Planning Board did not identify any long -term planning issues
with this appeal, the board recommends approval.
5. The Building Department will inspect the property every three (3) years and if in
compliance will renew the special permit.
The appeal was granted by a vote of Five (5) in favor, none opposed.
Sincerely,
V
For the Buildin Department
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a comixiitment to workforce diversification."
c�