The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013 Board of Zoning Appeals-Decision LettersCITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 January 14, 2013 Thomas M. Schickel 330 East State Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of January 8, 2013 Appeal # 2897 150 -154 Cecil A. Malone Dear Mr. Schickel: In your appeal on behalf of the owner Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC for an area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 4, off - street parking, Column 11, front yard, and Column 14/ 15 rear yard requirements of the zoning ordinance, you propose to renovate an existing office in the warehouse building for a new automobile sales office at the property located at 150 -154 Cecil A. Malone Drive. The proposal includes expanding the existing parking area from 357200 SF to 551850 SF to accommodate the associated vehicle display parking. The proposed parking area extends over two parcels, one parcel contains two buildings, Safelite Autoglass and the Maguire storage building and the other is an adjacent parcel, tax # 78.- 2 -5.2., where a new parking area is proposed. The existing paved area at 150 -154 Cecil A. Malone Drive extends to the front property line, which is 18.51from the curb line and the proposed new display parking spaces will have a curb setback of 38.5'. The SW -2 zone district prohibits parking within the first 100' from the curb unless the property meets the setback requirements of section 325- 29.2B(2) . Section 325- 29.2B(2) requires that 35% of the lot's street frontage be occupied by buildings with a setback of 15' -34' from the curb. The closest building to the curb line is the existing Safelite building, which is setback 73'6" from curb. Therefore, you requested a variance from the requirements for off - street parking and front yard setbacks in the SW -2 zone district, where parking is not 100' from street line curb but begins 38.5' from the street line curb and because 35% of the building's frontage does not fall between 15 feet and 34 feet. The closest building to street front is 73'6" from the curb line. In addition, you requested a variance because the property has an existing rear yard deficiency, having 6'8" of the 10' minimum requirement of the zoning ordinance. This existing deficiency will not be exacerbated by the proposed project. At the Board of Zoning Appeal hearing on January 8, 2013 it was moved to grant your variance request by James Marshall with the following findings of fact: There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. .. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Thomas M. Schickel January 14, 2013 330 East State Street Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of January 8, 2013 Appeal # 2897 150 -154 Cecil A. Malone 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means. 3. The area variance is not substantial. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self- created. 6. Ithaca County Planning has determined that the project has no negative inter - community or county -wide impacts. 7. City of Ithaca Planning Department recommends granting this appeal for the following reasons; 1. The odd shape of the parcel and the locations of the existing buildings create constraints, 2. The applicant is proposing significant improvements to the site over existing conditions, including sidewalks along the entire length of the site and a large amount of landscaping. The appeal was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor none opposed. Sincerely, For the Planni g, Building and Development Department Phyllis Radke Director of oninQ CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 January 14, 2013 Mr. Jagat P. Sharma 312 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of January 8, 2013 Appeal # 2895 — 101 -107 East State Street Dear Mr. Sharma: J j t i The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for owner Jason Fane, of 101 -107 East State Street and 101 -109 South Cayuga Street also known as "Common West" from the City of Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance Section 325 -8, column 5, required number of off street loading spaces, and Section 325 -8, column 14/15, depth of rear yard. The owner of Common West wants to divide the back space of 5 existing stores that face 101- 109 South Cayuga Street to provide sufficient area for the construction of 4 new apartments. In order to change the current uses of Common West by adding new apartments on the first floor, the owner must be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance's district regulations or be granted variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. District regulations for the Commons West include that the building be in compliance with the required number of off street loading spaces and be in compliance with rear yard setback requirements. The Zoning Ordinance requires Common West to provide 4 loading spaces because of the large size of the building. Section 325 -21 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that any business or multiple dwelling having more than 25 units must have 1 loading space for buildings between 3,000 SF and 10,000 SF plus one additional loading space for each additional 15,000 Sr, up to a maximum of 4 off street loading spaces. Commons West is 59,064 SF. It was constructed between 1921 and 1940 when the Zoning Ordinance did not require any off street loading spaces. However, the 1925 Zoning Ordinance, in effect at the time the building was constructed, required a 10 foot deep rear yard setback for retail buildings. Though this setback obviously was not maintained, it is the depth currently required by the Zoning Ordinance for the Common West building. Commons West is located in the CBD -60 use district. Though this zoning district requires that the owner provide 4 loading spaces for the Commons West building, there is one loading space available that is shared by Commons West building and the Colonial building at 109 -113 East State Street, a building also owned by Mr. Fane. An open paved area which encompasses a loading area is located between the north face of City Hall at 108 East Green Street and the south face of the Colonial Building. This entire open space is approximately 2,428 SF. There is "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." .f �r� no other space near the Commons West building where additional loading spaces can be created. The CBD 60 zone also requires buildings to have a minimum rear yard of 10 feet deep. The length of the Commons West property is approximately 169 feet long. Of this 169 feet, approximately 53 feet of the Common West's rear yard is 8.33 feet deep, however about 60 feet of Common West abuts the Colonial building at 109 -113 East State Street. The remaining 56 feet of the Common West's rear yard ranges from 4 to 5 feet deep. The Commons West property is in a CBD 60 zone where the proposed 4 apartments are a permitted use. However, Section 325 -38 requires that variances for the loading spaces and rear yard setback be granted before a building permit is issued. This variance request was heard on two separated occasions, on Tuesday December 4, 2012 and on January 8, 2013. Originally at the first hearing you told the Board that the owner Jason Fane proposed to mitigate the deficiency of the Commons West Building having no loading spaces by offering to share the loading space behind the adjacent Colonial Building at 109 -113 East State Street. At this hearing the Board told you to come back with drawings showing how the loading space at the Colonial Building could be striped to show the loading space is 450 SF large and has adequate vehicular access. At the second hearing held in January 8, 2013, you told the board that easement for the Colonial Building's loading space did not permit reserving the loading space only for loading because sometimes this space is used for parking cars or for a dumpster that services Mr. Fanes building. On January 8, 2013 it was moved to deny the appeal by James Marshall on the following findings of fact: 1. There would be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties would be created by the granting of this area variance. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method. 3. The requested area variance is substantial. 4. The proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty is self- created. 6. City Planning is concerned with the conversion of ground floor space being used for residential use. The appeal was denied with a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Sincerely, For th$ Planni g, Building and Economic Development Department Phyllis Radke Director of Zo inz CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 ,BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 March 6, 2013 Brian R. Buttner, R.A. P.O. Box 306 % Main Street Freeville, NY 13068 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 5, 2013 Appeal #2899 — 527 -529 West State Street Dear Mr. Buttner: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for owner John E. Gorsky of 527 -529 West State Street for an area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 16, minimum building height of the zoning ordinance. You propose to construct a 2304 square foot addition to the rear of the building, known as Cornell Laundry, located at 527 -29 W. State Street. Recently the owner consolidated six properties to make one lot in which Cornell Laundry is part. The proposed addition will be used as an annex for packing, shipping, and soiled linen returns. This addition will be accessed by delivery vehicles via a dual driveway on W. Green Street. The laundry cleaning and processing operation will be maintained in the existing one story building that is approximately 18 feet in height. You would like to construct the new addition, as a one story building, which best suites the operational needs of the business. The average height of the proposed addition is 15'9" in height and 1 story. The ordinance requires buildings to be 25' in height and 2 stories, in the B -2d zone district. Because the owner consolidated the properties there was no need for the side yard and rear yard variances as originally advertised. The parcel is located in three zone districts, WEDZ -1a, B -2c, and B -2d in which the proposed use is permitted. However, the proposed addition is located in the B -2d zone district which requires a minimum 25 feet in height and a two story minimum. Section 325 -38 of the zoning ordinance requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued. It was moved by Moriah Tebor to grant the variance on the following finding of fact. 1. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the owner can not be achieved by any other means. 3. The request is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. S. The alleged difficulty was not self- created. 6. Members of the Planning Board strongly recommend granting this variance. The owner has made the site more aesthetically pleasing by incorporating design elements sympathetic to the nearby residential units and adding landscaping. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 Brian R. Buttner, R.A. P.O. Box 306 5 Main Street Freeville, NY 13068 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 5, 2013 Appeal #2899 — 527 -529 West State Street The variance was granted by a vote of five (5) in favor none opposed. Sincerely, -ision for of Zoning ner March 6, 2013 Page 2 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 March 6, Mr. John Petito 108 Millard Hill Road Newfield, NY 14867 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 5, 2 Appeal # 2898 — 210 Hancock Street Dear Mr. Petito: The Board of Appeals considered your appeal of 210 Hancock Street for a sign permit from Section 272 -6 B.(2) of the City's Sign Ordinance, which states that the maximum size of the wall sign on the front of the structure facing a street cannot exceed 50 SF. You are opening a new grocery store, Neighborhood Pride at 210 Hancock Street were up to a few years ago this was the location of the P &C grocery store. You have grandfather rights to use P &C's original sign band and to erect a sign on it with the same square footage as what the original P &C sign had. In 1983, the Sign Ordinance allowed signs in the commercial district to have a maximum of 250 SF. The original P &C sign was 168 SF and you have already erected a Neighborhood Pride sign that is 168 SF in size under this grandfather rights. The sign band has 62 SF on either side of the newly erected Neighborhood Pride sign in which you would like to add two more signs. While the Sign Ordinance views these two signs and the Neighborhood Pride sign as one sign because they are all one sign band, Section 272 —6( B.)2 of the Sign Ordinance limit this total signage to 50 SF. Grandfather rights allow the grocery store one sign that is 168 SF; the additional two sides would increase the amount of signage at 210 Hancock St. by 124 SF. The property at 210 Hancock St. is in the B -1 a use district, where commercial signs are allowed. However, section 272 — 18 of the Sign Ordinance requires that a sign variance be granted before more signage can be added at 210 Hancock Street. It was moved by Gabriel Holbrow to grant the variance with the following findings of facts: 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the owner can not be achieved by any other means. 3. The area variance was not substantial. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self created. 6. Members of the Planning Board recommend granting this variance. The Appeal for 210 Hancock Street was granted with a vote of five (5) in favor none opposed. vision ,tor of Zoning `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 March 12, 2013 Mr. Thomas M. Schickel 330 East State Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 5, 2013 Appeal # 2894 — 308 Elmira Road Dear Mr. Schickel: The Board of Zoning considered your appeal for an area variance on behalf of owner Maquire Family Enterprises, LLC for two area variances from requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The owner proposes to demolish the former Greentree Nursery located at 308 Elmira Road and to construct an 8,165 SF Fiat dealership. Unfortunately, because of the lot's irregular shape and the fact that the front property line is so far from the street curb at Elmira Road, the owner needs variances from Section 325 — 8, Column 11, front yard and Section 325 — 8, column 14/15, rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In order for the new building to contain a show room, a parts department, and a service area and to accommodate two -way access lanes, display parking, green space, and a sidewalk, the applicant must construct the building at 308 Elmira Road so that the building's back wall is on the rear property line and so that the front of the building is 69 feet from the curb line. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the building be 13.35 feet from the rear property line to meet the rear yard setback requirements. Furthermore, Section 325 — 29.2 (B.)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance requires 35% of the lot's 73.71 feet of street frontage to be occupied by a building with its front having a minimum setback of 15 to 34 feet from the curb line. Therefore, the 69 foot front yard setback will be 35 feet deeper than 34 feet allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The property at 308 Elmira Road is located in the SW -2 Zoning District where the proposed use is permitted, however, Section 325 — 38 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that variances be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals before a building permit can be issued. The Planning Board suggested a bike rack next to the two parking spaces, one being a handicap space on the Southside of the property. This was worked into the project. The appeal was moved by James Marshall with the following findings of fact: 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 2. It was felt by the majority of the board that the benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some other feasible method. .. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 10 Mr. Thomas M. Schickel March 13, 2013 330 East State Street Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 5, 2013 Appeal # 2894 — 308 Elmira Road 3. The requested area was not substantial. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self created. 6. The City of Ithaca Planning Board recommends granting this variance. The appeal was granted by a vote of four (4) in favor and one (1) opposed. Sincerely, For the Buildi g Division Phyllis RadkeJ, Director of Zoning CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 March 13, 2013 Mr. Josh Lower 307 College Avenue Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board Of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 5, 2013 Appeal # 2874 — 307 College Avenue Dear Mr. Lower: % Your hearing on Case #2874, 307 College Avenue, was held before the Board of Zoning Appeals on November 6, 2012 and December 20, 2012. At the December 20, 2012 hearing, public comment was closed and Board members deliberated on the evidence presented at the two hearings and all other testimony submitted to the BZA on behalf of your appeal. The case was officially "continued at this December 20, 2012 hearing. Subsequent to the December hearing an extension of the normal 62 days for the BZA to make its decision after the public hearing is closed was requested by you and granted by the Chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals. As a result, the Board rendered its determination on denying the variance requests at the March 51 2013 BZA hearing. On behalf of the owner J & W House your appeal was for an area variance from Section 325 -8, Column 41 off - street parking, Column 5, off - street loading, Column 13, other side yard, Column 14/15, rear yard and Section 325 -20 D(4) (d)[21 allowed distance of off -site parking, requirements of the zoning ordinance. You proposed to redevelop the property located at 307 College Avenue. The newly consolidated parcel currently contains a two story commercial building known as 307 College Avenue and a residential building known as 226 Linden Avenue. You proposed to demolish the existing 2 story commercial building on College Avenue and to construct a new 6 story mixed use building. The new building is proposed to have a grocery store on the first floor. Floors 2 -6 would contain 50 apartments and would house 103 occupants. The existing multiple dwelling located at 226 Linden Avenue allows 11 occupants. It was moved by Mr. deRoos and second by Mr. Marshall to deny the Appeal # 2874 for 307 College Avenue with the following resolution: `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." .s rw: DENIAL OF VARIANCES — Resolution WHEREAS, Appeal 2874, made by Josh Lower on behalf of the owner J & W House for the property known as Tax Map Parcel 64. -10 -15 (which includes the consolidated parcel 64.- 10 -12, together herein referred to as the "Property'), has come before the Board of Zoning Appeals; and WHEREAS, the Appellant, as developer of the Property, has proposed to redevelop the Property by demolishing one of the existing structures and constructing a six -story mixed -use building (to be designated as 307 College Avenue) with approximately 5,500 s.f. of commercial space on the ground floor and 50 apartments housing 103 occupants on the five floors above the ground floor, which uses are permitted in the B -2b business district in which the proposed building is to be located; and WHEREAS, the Appellant further proposes to leave intact the existing three -story home facing Linden Avenue, known as 226 Linden Avenue, which houses 11 occupants and which use is permitted in the R -3b residential district in which it is located; and WHEREAS, in order to construct the new six -story building at 307 College Avenue, 13 of the existing 14 parking spaces currently available are proposed to be eliminated requiring the Appellant to request a variance for the required parking, while the one remaining parking space accessible from Linden Avenue is proposed to be converted to an off - street loading area of less than 38% of the required area; and WHEREAS, under the area regulations of the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone in which the Property is located, the development as proposed would require 57 off - street parking spaces, and the Appellant proposes to provide 2 off - street parking spaces on other property within 500 feet of the Property as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance thereby creating a deficiency of 55 off - street parking spaces; and WHEREAS, under the area regulations of the B -2b district, the development as proposed would require 4 off - street loading spaces, and the Appellant proposes to provide one off - street loading space of less than 38% of the required area accessible from Linden Avenue thereby creating a deficiency of more than 3 off - street loading spaces; and WHEREAS, as a result of the foregoing deficiencies, the Appellant seeks area variances for a total deficiency equal to 58 of the 61 spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance to obtain a building permit for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, in order to mitigate the deficiency of 55 off - street parking spaces the Appellant seeks a variance to provide 17 off - street parking spaces on property beyond 500 feet of the property at distances that vary from 595 feet from the property to 1,595 feet from the property; and WHEREAS, the Appellant seeks an area variance from the minimum required area for loading spaces of 450 s.f. to 170 s.f. creating a deficiency of 280 s.f. for loading spaces; and WHEREAS, the minimum rear yard in the B -2b district is 10 feet, and the proposed structure is 4.5 feet from the rear property line, and the minimum yard in the R -3b district is 5 feet, and the existing house on Linden Avenue is 2.0 feet from the side property line, from which deficiencies the Appellant also seeks area variances to allow encroachment into the rear and side yards; and WHEREAS, the Board conducted hearings on the above - referenced appeals on November 5, 2012 and said hearing was continued until a specially scheduled meeting of the Board on December 20, 2012, and heard comments both in favor and opposed to the requested variances, at both meetings; and WHEREAS, the Board concluded its public hearing at its December 20, 2012 meeting, but did not vote on the Appellant's appeal at that time; 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 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 2874 as Amended: The proposed project as set forth in the Appellant's appeal requires site plan approval from the City's Planning and Development Board, which has been designated the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed project. Among the materials provided to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the Planning and Development Board submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form for the project (Parts 1, 2 and 3). Part 2 of the Form identified three categories of impact where the impact is potentially large including impacts on traffic, impacts on noise and odors, and impacts on the character of the existing community. Part 3 of the Form investigated the specific impacts on traffic and community character to determine if any of the impacts are significant or could be mitigated. Part 3 makes no mention of impacts on noise and odors, despite Part 2 having identified this category of impact as potentially large. The Planning Board concluded in its findings of the environmental review that all of the identified potentially significant negative impacts assessed could be mitigated from an environmental standpoint. This Board finds that the mitigation measures suggested by the Planning Board and /or the Appellant have not been codified in any of the ordinances, codes, statutes or current enforcement regulations that are now extant within the City of Ithaca. Among these are enforcement mechanisms that to the knowledge of this Board have been offered only to the Appellant and to no other property owners in the City of Ithaca as follows: the verification of commercial lease clauses, verification that the landlord provides orientation materials to tenants, verification of residential lease clauses, verification of providing a quota of bus passes for residents, and Appellant proffer of furnished apartments in the subject property in exchange for providing fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Ordinance. In summary, the Planning Board found significant impact from the Appellant's requested variances from the Zoning Ordinance, yet it voted 5 -to -2 on September 25, 2012, in favor of a "negative declaration" of environmental impact based upon its willingness to create remedies for this Appellant for this project, which are not available to other property owners within the City of Ithaca under existing laws and regulations. The Planning Board's negative declaration concluded the environmental review process, although the Planning Board has not yet acted on the site plan application itself. 2 The benefit to the Appellant (by the of granting the requested variances) includes the following: a An increase in the number of rentable bedrooms and the area of rentable commercial and residential space, made possible by relief from the requirement to provide off - street parking required under the Zoning Ordinance. b A reduction in construction costs resulting from Applicant's ability to incorporate the existing house on Linden Avenue into the Project made possible despite the lack of compliance with the side and rear yard setback requirements of the existing house. 3 The detriment to the neighborhood (of granting the requested variances) includes the following: a Significant impacts on transportation i Stress on existing on- street parking; ii Increased demand on /for sidewalks, bicycle facilities, TCAT bus services, and transit stops; iii Increased traffic congestion on move -in /move -out days due to lack of four loading spaces; iv Increased traffic congestion when supplying and removing trash from the commercial and residential spaces due to the lack of four loading spaces of the prescribed size; and v Increased traffic on streets in the nearby area as residents and visitors to the site are pushed onto the nearby residential streets in search of parking. b Significant impact on the character of the existing community i The proposed project is in conflict with official adopted plans and goals as expressed in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ithaca effective as of this date; The proposed action would set an important precedent for future actions by substantially deviating from the existing law and implementing mitigations and accommodations for which there are no current regulations, codes, or statutes that are applicable to make it possible for the City of Ithaca to uniformly apply these standards to all property owners within the City seeking variances of a similar nature; ii.i Granting the Appellant's requests for the requested variances would create significantly greater density than the Code allows or envisions; ivThe traffic problems listed above would harm the character of the surrounding residential streets. The inability to locate parking spaces for the project in the nearby area will likely drive tenant parking onto residential streets in the nearby area thereby increasing traffic onto those streets. This impact is worsened by providing 17 of the parking spaces for this project more than 500 feet away from the site; and v The stress on parking, listed above, would harm the character of immediate area and surrounding neighborhoods. Lack of on -site parking will increase parking demand in adjacent areas. 4 The Appellant and supporters of the project made various arguments before the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding the potential benefits that Appellant's project would provide to the City and to the Collegetown Business District commercial area, including: a Adding greater value to a property now on the tax rolls b Enhancing the value of an underutilized property that has been difficult to rent; c Attracting new housing and activity to the Collegetown Business District; d Providing a needed grocery store in Collegetown; e Providing public amenities in the form of a TCAT Bus Shelter and a mid -block pedestrian passage from College Avenue to Linden Avenue; and f Retaining the existing house on Linden Avenue to preserve the neighborhood architectural character. 5 The Planning Board made a recommendation to grant all of the requested variances, despite the explicit recognition that "the request from the Appellant to be relieved of the 57 parking space requirements may seem to be unusual in its scope." 6 Due to the substantial nature, wide scope, and broad impact of the issues in this appeal, these issues are better addressed through the comprehensive planning process and associated appropriate rezoning, rather than through project- specific review or project - specific mitigation measures. 7 The Board does not find as persuasive the parking study commissioned by the Appellant and conducted by Upstate Research Group and upon which the Planning Board relied in concluding that any increase in parking demand in the project area could be successfully mitigated so as not to have a significant impact on traffic or community character. In part, the study estimated that 11% to 16% of future tenants of the proposed project would be likely to own or keep cars in the neighborhood. The Board notes that even by the standards of the study itself, a project of this size would create additional demand for 19 parking spaces, compared to the two parking spaces that the Appellant proposes to provide within 500 feet of the project. 8 The mitigations proposed by the Planning Board in its environmental review do not successfully mitigate the identified impacts so as to make them insignificant. In particular, the proposed measures to mitigate traffic congestion caused by commercial loading and tenant loading rely on procedures unique to the applicant that would be impractical or impossible to enforce. Furthermore, the measures to reduce the number of tenants that own and keep cars in the neighborhood, in addition to relying on enforcement procedures unique to the Appellant, would be insufficient to prevent an increase in parking demand and traffic in the surrounding neighborhood even if properly enforced. 9 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 exacerbate and contribute to undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood by exacerbating the existing parking situation in Collegetown; by putting pressure on the existing on- street parking and establishing the need for loading spaces that will not be provided and by putting pressure on the available supply of off - street parking as a direct result of the lack of parking on the project site. The undesirable nature of this change is demonstrated by that fact that the proposed project is in clear conflict with official adopted plans and goals as expressed in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ithaca effective as of this date. b Appellant failed to establish that the benefit that it seeks could not be achieved by another method feasible for it to pursue, other than the requested area variances. For example, Appellant has the option to construct sub -grade parking and failed to present evidence that such construction would not be feasible either practically or economically. The Board also believes that some off - street parking could be made available if the existing house on Linden Avenue were replaced as part of the redevelopment. c The requested variances taken as a package are very substantial with respect to the subject Property. While the Zoning Ordinance requires 61 total spaces for parking and loading either on site or within 500 feet, the Appellant proposes to provide only 2.38 of those required spaces, (two parking spaces and one loading space having only 38% of the required area), representing a reduction of greater than 96 %. While the Appellant also proposes to provide 17 off - street parking spaces at a distance exceeding 500 feet, but less than 1600 feet, this still results in a net reduction in excess of two - thirds of those required by the Zoning Ordinance. These requested variances, taken together with the requested side and rear year variances, permit a density and intensity of use on the property that is substantially more than envisioned by the Zoning Ordinance. d The proposed variances will have some limited, adverse effect on physical conditions in the adjacent residential neighborhood, specifically traffic, as detailed in paragraph 3 above. e The alleged developmental difficulties posed by the site must be seen as self - created. The current Appellant and purchaser /developer was well aware of the zoning and other conditions associated with the site at the time of its purchase less than 6 years ago and throughout the development process. As noted by State and City law, this factor is relevant but not dispositive. 10 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 Appellant wishes the Board to consider any of these additional factors, the burden of proof is on the Appellant to clearly identify the factor and to submit sufficient evidence to establish that this factor applies." In this case, the Appellant explicitly requested consideration of 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 through the provision of a locally owned and operated grocery store to be provided as the anchor tenant of the ground floor commercial space. a That 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 Collegetown merchants. b That the effect on the adjacent commercial district is likely to be mostly positive. 11 In conducting its obligatory balancing of all factors, the Board finds that while there may be benefits to the community resulting from the project, as claimed by the Appellant as well as supporters of the project and the majority of the Planning and Development Board, the potential benefits to the community and the Appellant are outweighed by the potential detriment to the neighborhood and community; and be it further RESOLVED, that, for the reasons set forth above, the set of variances requested in Appeal No. 2874 is hereby denied. The Appeal for 307 College Avenue was denied with a vote of five (5) in favor none opposed. Sincerely, For the Buildinivision Phyllis Radke, qrector of Zoning Administration CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 April 3, 2013 Andrew Willford & Vasantha Narayanan 1204 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 2, 2013 Appeal # 2901 — 1204 North Cayuga Street Dear Owners: Ted city cierk's Officis APR -P2013 The Board of appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 --8, Column 10, percentage of lot coverage, Column 11, front yard, Column 12, side yard, and Column 14/15, rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to construct an addition in the rear yard of the property located at 1204 North Cayuga Street. The foot print of the addition will extend into the area where an existing garage is currently located. The garage will be demolished and the new addition will be constructed for the purpose of a therapy room for their disabled daughter. The attached new addition will increase the lot coverage from 42.4% to 48.9 %. The ordinance requires a maximum of 35% lot coverage. In order to allow enough floor area for the proposed use, you would like to position the addition 3' from the side lot line. The ordinance requires a minimum of 10' for the side yard. The rear yard dimension will also be diminished to 6% or 4'8" of the required 25% or 50' of the zoning ordinance. The property has an existing front yard deficiency that will not be exacerbated by the proposed project. Your 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. There were no parties in favor of the project and no parties opposed. It was moved by Mr. deRoos and second by Mr. Holbrow to grant the variance with the following finds of fact: 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. Z. The benefit sought by the owners can not be achieved by any other method. 3. The requested area variance is not substantial. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 Andrew Willford & Vasantha Narayanan April 3, 2013 1204 North Cayuga Street Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 2, 2013 Appeal # 2901 — 1204 North Cayuga Street 4. The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self created. 6. City of Ithaca Planning Board agrees that the applicant's intent is reasonable. The appeal for 1204 North Cayuga Street was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor none opposed. Sincerely, For the Buildin ivision Phyllis Radke, Zoning Director CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 148 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 April 3, 2013 Carl Feuer & Carol Cedarholm 310 First Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 2, 2013 Appeal # 2905 — 310 First Street Dear Owners: P The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 11, the front yard setback requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. you have owned the property at 310 First Street for over 30 years and wish to redesign the existing front portion of the house converting it from a duplex to a single family home. The redesign of the house includes a new wraparound porch in the front yard and at the Southside of the house. The new porch will replace an existing porch in the front- yard that extends approximately 5 feet into the required 10 foot setback. On the Southside of your house this approximately 5 foot wide porch will also extend approximately 5 feet into a 10 foot required front yard setback. This will extend the existing 5 foot deficiency in the front yard by approximately 25 SF. The portion of the front porch that will extend into the front yard is approximately 17 feet x 5 feet or 85 Square Feet. The property at 310 First Street is in a R2b use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325 -38 requires that an area variance be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals before a use variance can be granted. It was moved to grant the variance by Mr. Holbrow and second by Mr. deRoos with the following findings of facts: 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought can not be achieved by any other means. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self - created. 6. The City of Ithaca Planning Board strongly recommends approval of this appeal. They feel the proposed changes improve the aesthetics of the house and benefit the neighborhood. The appeal was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Sincerely, For the Buildi Division Phyllis Radke, oning Director `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." co: CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -569 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 �9 April 9, 2013 Clay & Jennifer Birkett 108 Homestead Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 2, 2013 Appeal #2902 — 108 Homestead Road Dear Mr. & Mrs. Birkett: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal by Brian Buttner, your agent and architect, for a temporary accessory apartment permit allowing the construction and occupancy of a second dwelling unit at 108 Homestead Avenue in accordance with accessory apartment regulations under Section 325 -10 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. You reside in a single family home located at 108 Homestead Avenue and the new accessory apartment will be approximately 427 SF. The Accessory Apartment Ordinance states that the second dwelling unit cannot be more than 1/3 the size of the habitable space in the main unit. As designed, the accessory apartment will be approximately 18.5% as large as the habitable space in the main unit as the total habitable space in the existing building is 2,301 SF. This second apartment will be located above the garage on the second floor of the house in the north east corner of the building. A new stair enclosure will begin on the upper story's side yard deck. Inside the enclosure, a new flight of stairs will bring a tenant up to a shared enclosed landing where a person can either access the apartment or enter into the primary living quarters. The new apartment has been designed as a one person studio apartment because under Ithaca's Housing Standard the bedroom area is only large enough for one person. The property at 108 Homestead Avenue is in an R I a zoning district where the proposed use is a permitted accessory use, however, Section 325 -10 states that the Board of Zoning Appeals must grant a temporary accessory apartment permit before the dwelling unit can be constructed and occupied. The intent of an accessory apartment is to provide homeowners with a means of obtaining rental income allowing them to stay in homes and neighborhoods they might otherwise be forced to leave. At the hearing it came to light that you have not lived at 108 Homestead Road for a period of more than five years. Part 325- IOD(1) (b) states that at least one owner occupant must own and occupy the property as a single family dwelling for a period of five years. This is one of three owner occupancy requirements necessary to operate an accessory apartment under the Accessory Apartment ordinance. Board members questioned you both if you intended to rent to low or moderate income renters. You responded that you intended to rent to grad students. Board members also asked if having an Accessory Apartment was financially necessary. Board members heard Mrs. Birkett response that she could not stay home with her young family as `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." co Clay _& Jennifer Birkett April 9, 2013 108 Homestead Road Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 2, 2013 Appeal #2902 — 108 Homestead Road she intended if they did not receive income from the proposed accessory apartment. Board members also heard testimony from a former Alderperson, Susan Cummings, she stated the propose of requiring a five year occupancy requirement was to help assure that homes in the single family zone would not become rental housing for students. A motion was made by Mr. deRoos and second by Mr. Holbrow to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The owners occupy the main unit. 2. The accessory apartment will be occupied by an individual. 3. The accessory apartment is located in a one - family property in which residential use is permitted. 4. The accessory apartment does not exceed the 33 1/3 % of the total habitable floor area of the building in which it is located. 5. The Accessory Apartment Permit will be renewed in three (3) years. 6. The City of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed and approved the permit. The Accessory Apartment Permit was granted by a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Sincerely, For the BuildindDepartment Phyllis Radke oning Director Clay .& Jennifer Birkett April 9, 2013 108 Homestead Road Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 2, 2013 Appeal #2902 — 108 Homestead Road she intended if they did not receive income from the proposed accessory apartment. Board members also heard testimony from a former Alderperson, Susan Cummings, she stated the propose of requiring a five year occupancy requirement was to help assure that homes in the single family zone would not become rental housing for students. A motion was made by Mr. deRoos and second by Mr. Holbrow to grant the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The owners occupy the main unit. 2. The accessory apartment will be occupied by an individual. 3. The accessory apartment is located in a one - family property in which residential use is permitted. 4. The accessory apartment does not exceed the 33 1/3 % of the total habitable floor area of the building in which it is located. 5. The Accessory Apartment Permit will be renewed in three (3) years. 6. The City of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed and approved the permit. The Accessory Apartment Permit was granted by a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Sincerely, For the BuildindDepartment Phyllis Radke oning Director CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 May 8, 2013 Ms. Susan McCormick. 3 Kimberly Drive d�y Dryden, NY 13053 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 7, 2013 Appeal # 2906 — 450 North Aurora Street Present: Steven Beer, Jan deRoos, & Gabriel Holbrow Dear Ms. McCormick: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your Appeal for a use variance from Section 325 -8 Column 2, permitted use requirements of the City of Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance. You recently purchased the property at 450 North Aurora Street for your business called "Investment Wealth Management" when the office space where you currently operate your business was sold. You were shown the property at 450 North Aurora Street by your real estate agents that assured you the property would make an excellent place for your business. The property at 450 North Aurora Street has a recently vacated dental office on the first floor and a dwelling unit on the second floor and is in the R2b residential use district. With the belief that your realtors knew how the nonconforming use could be used, you agreed to purchase the property. However, not until you applied for a building permit did you understand that you would need a use variance in order to establish a business office in what is a non - conforming medical office. Between 1964 and 1977, the property at 450 North Aurora Street was located in an R3 zone where medical offices were permitted. About forty years ago, the former owner of 450 North Aurora Street set up a dental business on the first floor of this building that was in operation until the beginning of this year. The only way this nonconforming use can legally continue is if another doctor or dentist uses the first floor of 450 North Aurora Street as a medical office and the second floor as a dwelling unit. However, you must be granted a use variance if you wish to use the office for a business office. You contend that you did not create your hardship and that it is economically infeasible to convert the first floor back into a medical office or the first floor into a dwelling unit. The property at 450 North Aurora Street is in an R2b use district where a business office use is not permitted. Furthermore, Zoning Ordinance Section 325 -38 and 39 requires that the Board of Zoning Appeals grants a use variance before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued to you. It was moved by Jan deRoos to grant the appeal with a condition, with the following findings of fact: 1. There would be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other means. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." % .y Ms. Susan McCormick May 9, 2013 3 Kimberly Drive Page 2 Dryden, NY 13053 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 7, 2013 Appeal # 2906 — 450 North Aurora Street 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. S. The alleged difficulty was not self - created. 6. The City of Ithaca Planning Board cannot identify any long -term planning issues with this appeal and does not object to its approval. Board of Zoning Appeals granted the Appeal for 450 North Aurora Street on the condition that the first floor be used only as a service business for financial advisory business office. The second floor will remain residential. The Appeal for 450 North Aurora Street was second by Gabriel Holbrow and granted by a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Sincerely, For the BuildJg Division Phyllis Radke Zoning Director CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 May 8, 2013 Ms. Anna K. Sears 3021 Elmwood Avenue Rochester, NY 14618 Present: Steven Beers, Jan deRoos, & Gabriel Holbrow Absent: Moriah Tebor RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 7, 2013 Appeal #2903 — 309 East Court Street Dear Ms. Sears: /4 The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your Appeal for the property at 309 East Court Street. The Appeal was heard in April but tabled so that board members could consult the City Attorney. You requested an Area Variances from Section 325 -8, column 7, lot width, 325 -8, lot coverage, 325 -8, column 11, front yard setback and 325 -8, Columnl 3, other side yard setback, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You proposed to re- subdivide two adjacent properties at 309 East Court Street and 313 East Court Street so that approximately 1776 square feet of 313 East Court Street's, rear yard can be given to 309 East Court Street. The reason why you want a portion of the rear yard at 313 East Court Street to be given to 309 East Court Street is so that you can preserve the Victorian garden in the backyard of these two properties. Before you became the owner of two properties your mother, Joan Sears, a landscape architect owned both properties. Joan Sears developed the Victorian garden. You, now the owner, must sell both properties because you live in Rochester. However, you intend to re- subdivide the two properties through the subdivision process so your mother's garden can be saved. The property as subdivided would increase its size by approximately 1776 square feet. Therefore, it will increase the current lot deficiency from 6,065 to approximately 7,840 square feet. Required is 7000 square feet. It will no longer be deficient in percentage of lot coverage. Currently the percentage of lot coverage is 41.6 %, proposed is 32.6 %. It is deficient in lot width. Required is 50 feet, lot width is 48.96 feet. It is deficient in front yard setback. Required is 10 feet. The front yard setback is 5 feet. It will be deficient in the other side yard setback. Required is 5 feet. The existing deficiency is 2 feet. 313 East Court Street is in an R3 a use district. Section 290 — 17 requires that subdivision be compliant with the District Regulation Chart. The applicant cannot re subdivide 313 East Court Street and 309 East Court Street without the BZA granting area variances for the deficiencies listed above. Board Member Gabriel Holbrow read the notice from City Attorney Krin Flaherty on the request to find a condition that would work for you. Under the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 325 section 3, Green Area means, "that portion of any lot treated in such a manner as to provide light, air and landscape open space for the recreational and visual enjoyment of the occupants `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." is Ms. Anna K. Sears May 8, 2013 3021 Elmwood Avenue Page 2 Rochester, NY 14618 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 7, 2013 Appeal #20 o_5 - 309 East Court Street of any dwelling built on said lot. Green area may include lawns, trees, shrubbery, garden areas, footpaths, play areas, fountains, pools, watercourses and wooded areas but shall not include required parking spaces and services area or vehicular surfaces other than access drives which are not used for vehicular parking." A motion was made by Gabriel Holbrow to grant the appeal with a condition and the following findings of fact: 1. There would be no undesirable change produced in the charter of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other means. 3. The requested variance is not 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. 6. The City of Ithaca Planning Board strongly recommends approval of this appeal. In granting this variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals imposes this reasonable condition to minimize any adverse impact on the neighborhood or community. If the garden falls into significant disrepair, disuse, or is abandoned for a period of 12 months or more, this variance may be revoked. If such variance is revoked and the property owner wishes to maintain the subdivision, the owner must seek an area variance based on the present condition of the property. The Appeal was granted with the condition and a vote of three (3) in favor none opposed with the condition that the rear yard be used as a, "Green Area," as noted above. Sincerely, For the Building Division Phyllis Radke Zoning Director CITY OF IT1 ACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 May 8, 2013 Ms. Anna K. Sears 3021 Elmwood Avenue Rochester, NY 14618 Present: Steven Beers, Jan deRoos, & Gabriel Holbrow Absent: Moriah Tebor RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 7, 2013 Appeal # 2904 — 313 East Court Street Dear Ms. Sears: z. t The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal of owner Anna Sears The Appeal was heard in April but tabled so that Board Members could consult the City Attorney. The property at 313 East Court Street requests a Area Variances from Section 325 -8, column 6 lot size, 325 -8, column 7, lot width, 325 -87 column 10, percentage of lot coverage, 325 -8, column 11, front yard setback and 325 -8, Column 13, other side yard setback, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to re- subdivide two adjacent properties at 309 East Court Street and 313 East Court Street so that approximately 1690 square feet of 313 East Court Street's, rear yard can be given to 309 East Court Street. The reason why you want a portion of the rear yard at 313 East Court Street to be given to 309 East Court Street is so that you can preserve the Victorian garden in the backyard of these two properties. Before you became the owner of two properties your mother, Joan Sears, a landscape architect, owned both properties. She developed the Victorian garden. You, now the owner, must sell both properties because you live in Rochester. However, you intend to re- subdivide the two properties through the subdivision process so your mother's garden can be saved. Before re- subdividing the property at 313 East Court Street the property would not be deficient in the percentage of lot coverage. The proposed deficiencies would be lot area. The property as subdivided would decrease its size by approximately 1690 square feet. Therefore, it will increase the current lot deficiency from 5987 square feet to approximately 4225 square feet. Required is 7000 square feet. It will be deficient in lot width. Required is 50 feet. The lot width is 45.3 feet. It will be deficient in percentage of lot coverage. Currently percentage of lot coverage is 26% proposed is 36.6 %. It is deficient in front yard setback. Required is 10 feet. The front yard setback is 8 feet. It will be deficient in the other side yard setback. Required is 5 feet. The existing deficiency is .5 feet. 313 East Court Street is in an R3 a use district. Section 290 -17 requires that subdivision be compliant with the District Regulation Chart. The applicant cannot re- subdivide 313 East Court Street and 309 East Court Street without the BZA granting area variances for the deficiencies listed above. °An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." .f r:10 Ms. Anna K. Sears May 8, 2013 3021 Elmwood Avenue Page 2 Rochester, NY 14618 RE: Board of Zoning appeals Meeting of May 7, 2013 Appeal # 2904 — 313 East Court Street A motion was made by Gabriel Holbrow to grant the appeal with following findings of fact: 1. There would be no undesirable change produced in the charter of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other means. 3. The requested variance is not 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. 6. The City of Ithaca Planning Board strongly recommends approval of this appeal. The Appeal for 313 East Court Street was granted by a vote of three (3) in favor none opposed. Sincerely, For the Building Division Phyllis Radke Zoning Director CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone:. 607 /274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 June 17, 2013 INHS 115 West Clinton Str,�et Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting of June 4, 2013 Appeal # 2900 — 115 West Clinton Street Dear Mr. Mazzerella: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a use variance from Section 325 -8 Column 2, permitted primary uses, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is a 427 square -foot addition to Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service's existing office building at 115 West Clinton Street. The addition will be on the west side of the building at 115 West Clinton Street and will be two stories in height, totaling 852 square feet. The addition will allow for four additional office spaces plus additional space for an existing office on the second floor. In 1994, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) moved a house located at 301 South Geneva Street to the parcel of land 80. -11 -1, which is in a P -1 use district. The house was to become INHS's new office building designated as 115 West Clinton Street. Because the office building was located in a P -1 use district, and an office use is not a permitted use in the P -1 zoning district, INHS needed the Board.of Zoning Appeals to grant a use variance before INNS could start occupying the moved building. A use variance was granted to INNS on December 5, 1994. Because INHS wants to enlarge the building and such enlargement was not part of the Board's original consideration when INNS was granted a use variance in 1994, means another use variance must be granted for the expansion to be permitted. Therefore, the applicant needs a variance from Section 325 -8, Column 2, permitted primary uses, since the expansion of an office use is not permitted in the P -1 Zoning District. Section ')25-' )8 and 39 requires that a use variance be granted to the applicant before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. The Board heard the appeal on May 7, 20 t 3 and had a Public Hearing in which many neighbors spoke in favor of the project. There was also a signed letter of people opposed to the project. After much discussion the Board tabled the appeal for t 15 West Clinton Street for INNS to address the lack of financial information. The Zoning Board of Appeals wanted INHS to return and provide financial information showing that they cannot realize a reasonable rate of return and to prove hardship if they were not granted the appeal. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 4 12,. INHS June 17, 2013 115 West Clinton Street Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting of June 4, 2013 Appeal # 2900 — 115 West Clinton Street Paul Mazzerella of INHS returned to the June 4, 2013, BZA hearing with all the additional information that the Board requested. At the June 4th, 2013 hearing it was moved by Gabriel Holbrow to grant the appeal with the following findings of fact: 1. There will .not be any undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by other means that are feasible and realize a reasonable rate of return. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self created. INHS has taken many steps to use the property in a responsible way that is compatible with the uses in the neighborhood. 6. The project has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee. 7. The project has no significant impact on the enviromnent and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. 8. The City Planning Board approved the project because it is a modest addition with exterior renovations that improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood. 9. Tompkins County Department of Planning reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter - community or county -wide impacts. The appeal was granted by a vote of three (3) in favor none opposed. Sincerely, For the Building ivision Phyllis Radke irector of Zoning Administration CITE' OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 June 17, 2013 INNS Attn.: Scott Reynolds 115 West Clinton Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of June 4, 2013 Appeal # 2909 — 314 South Plain Street Dear Mr. Reynolds: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8 column 6, deficient lot area and 325 -8, column 11, deficient front yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. INHS proposes to construct a new three- bedroom single family home with off- street parking at 314 South Plain Street. In order to construct this building, INHS combined two vacant parcels of land to form one lot. The total square footage of the combined lot is 2,691 SF. The lot is in an R2b use district where the lot size for a one family dwelling is required to be 3000 SF. The lot is also only 69 lineal feet deep. In order to meet the rear yard depth requirement and construct a front porch that is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood, INHS proposes a front yard that will only be 5 feet deep. The R2b zone requires that the front yard be 10 feet deep. The property at 314 South Plain Street is in an R2b use district where the proposed single family home use is allowed, however the Zoning Ordinance, Section 325 -38 and 39 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. It was moved to grant the variance with a motion by Ms. Tebor with the following findings of fact: r 1. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties; in fact INHS is planning on building the single family home to look like other homes in the area. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by other means. 3. The area variance is not 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. 6. City of Planning Board members identified no negative long -term planning issues with this appeal and recommends its approval. 7. Tompkins County Department of Planning reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter - community or county -wide impacts. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 41W INHS Attn.: Scott Reynolds 115 West Clinton Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of June 4, 2013 Appeal # 2909- 314 South Plain Street The appeal was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Sincerely, For the Buildi Division Phyllis Radice, Director of Zoning Administration June 17, 2013 Page 2 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 June 17, 2013 Valentine Vision Associates, LLC 1001 West Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of June 4, 2013 Appeal #2911 — 901 East State Street Dear Valentine Vision Associates: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a variance to subdivide two parcels of land in order to meet end -loan financing conditions for the buildings scheduled for completion in July. You propose to subdivide the existing 11.171 -acre property into two parcels: Lot 3A, measuring 0.2636 acres, with approximately 635 feet of frontage on East State Street and 213 feet on Valentine Place and containing 901 East State Street and Buildings 3, which is under construction, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 which are all completed and occupied of the previously approved Collegetown Terrace Apartments project; and Lot 313, measuring 8.535 acres, with 50 feet of frontage on Valentine Place and to contain proposed Buildings 5, 6, and 7 of the previously approved Collegetown Terrace Apartments project. The proposed Lot 3A is in the R -3a Zoning District and the proposed Lot 3B is in the R -3a and the P -1 Zoning Districts. Three zoning deficiencies are caused by the owner's requested subdivision that divides Lot 3A from Lot 3B. Lot 3A is deficient in lot area. Proposed is 114,824 SF, of lot area, required is 117,000 S.F. This lot is also deficient in lot coverage. Proposed is 37.73 %, allowed is 35 %. The rear yard of lot 3A will also be deficient having 16% or 33.7' of the 25% or 50' required by the Zoning Ordinance. The uses as proposed are permitted in these zones. However, Section 325 -39 requires that variances be granted before Certificate of Occupancies can be issued. The City of Ithaca Planning Board at their May 28, 2013 meeting adopted a CEQR resolution as follows;... "that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act." It was moved to grant the appeal by Gabriel Holbrow with the following findings of fact, 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other means. 3. The requested variance is no substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self created. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." I Valentine Vision Associates, LLC June 177 2013 1001 West Seneca Street Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of June 4, 2013 Appeal #2911 — 901 East State Street 6. City of Ithaca Planning Board recommends approval. The proposed subdivision is for financial reasons only and has no impact on the approved plan. 7. Tompkins County Planning has reviewed the proposal, as submitted and has determined that it has no negative inter - community, or county -wide impacts. The appeal was granted by a vote of three (3) in favor none opposed. Sincerely, For the BuildinA Division Phyllis Radke, 4rector of Zoning Administration P^ CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 July 5, 2013 Mr. Christopher Glaubitz 113 West Lincoln Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning appeals Meeting of July 2, 2013 Appeal #2915 — 113 West Lincoln Street Dear Mr. Glaubitz: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variances from Section 325- 8, column 101 12, 13, and 14/15, lot coverage, other front yard, side yard, and rear yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is a two- story addition, 781 SF in size, to a single family home located at 113 West Lincoln Street. The addition will enlarge the living space on the first floor, expand the kitchen, increase the size of an upstairs bedroom, and provide a one- car garage. This property is located at the corner of West Lincoln and Auburn Street and has two front yards. The front yard on Auburn Street currently does not meet Section 325 -8, column 10 front yard setback requirements of 10 feet. The existing house is set back 5' -6" from the front yard property line on Auburn Street. The addition will be set back approximately 7' -10" from the front yard property line at the point of attachment to the existing building. The addition will continue the front yard deficiency for approximately an additional 26'7" in a southerly direction. The existing side yard is also deficient. Section 325 -8 Column, 13 of the Zoning ordinance requires a 5 -foot side- yard setback. The existing house is only 3' -6" from the side- yard property line. The addition will be set back the required 5 -feet from the side�yard lot line. Zoning Ordinance Section 325 -8, column 14/15 requires a rear yard of at least 20 feet. While the existing rear yard is compliant, the proposed addition will be setback from the rear - yard property line Y -4 "and will be deficient. Finally, Zoning Ordinance Section 325 -8, Column 10, lot coverage allows lot coverage up to 35 %. The addition will increase lot coverage from 29.4% to 51.8 %. The property 113 West Lincoln Street is in an R2b use district where the proposed addition is permitted. However, Section 325 -39 requires that zoning variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. A Public Hearing was held with no one in favor or against the appeal. A motion was made by Gabriel Holbrow to grant the variance with the following findings of fact: `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." .f IL- Mr. Christopher Glaubitz July 5, 2013 113 West Lincoln Street Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning appeals Meeting of July 2, 2013 Appeal #2915 — 113 West Lincoln Street 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. Other properties have similar yards. The proposal provides more space to benefit the family. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other means but this is the best way. 3. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 4. The alleged difficulty is self created but in the balance the board finds that this variance is acceptable. 5. The benefit sought by applicant is substantial particularly the lot area, but is outweighed by other factors. The benefit out weighs the determent. 6. The City of Ithaca Planning Board supports granting the variance request. The appeal for 113 West Lincoln Street was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and one (1) opposed. Mr. Holbrow, Mr. deRoos, Ms. Tebor — Yes Mr. Beer — No Sincerely, For the Buildi Division Phyllis Radke, Pirector of Zoning Administration CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New-York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 July 8, 2013 Mr. Michael Fraker 513 Dryden Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of July 2, 2013 Appeal # 2914 — 511 -513 Dryden Road Dear Mr. Fraker: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variances from Section 325- 8, Column 6, lot area and 325 -8, Column 7, lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property at 511 -513 Dryden Road through the City's subdivision process. The intent of subdividing the parcels is so that a new house can be built on the new lot. The applicant proposes to build a single family home that will be compliant with respect to zoning setbacks, parking and lot coverage. However, the existing lot is too small to be divided into two conforming lots. The new lot will be deficient in lot area and lot width. Section 325 -8 Column 6 of the Zoning ordinance requires a lot area of 6,000 SF; proposed is a lot of 5,270 SF. Section 325 -8 Column 7 requires a lot width of 50 feet; proposed is a lot width of 41.9 feet. The property 511 -513 Dryden Road is located in an R -Ib zoning district where the proposed use is permitted. However, City Codes, Section 290 -2 requires that an area variance be granted prior to the subdivision process be undertaken by the Planning and Development Board. A Public Hearing was held in which one person spoke in favor of the appeal but hoped that the owners of the two dwellings would be owner occupied. Three people spoke opposed to the appeal with concerns that there would be a change in the neighborhood, more students, more noise, and that property values would go down. They also had concerns that the new single family home would not have quality architecture, and would not be owner occupied, and would also require the removal of mature trees. The Board deliberated and decided that they would rather wait until Common Council voted on the Comprehensive Plan then grant the variance. A motion by Jan deRoos was made to deny the variance with the following findings of fact: 1. There would be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by other means. 3. The requested area variance is substantial. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 12' 4. The proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Two mature trees will be cut. The subdivision will cause a reduction in green space. 5. The alleged difficulty was self created. The benefit desired can be achieved by waiting for the Collegetown Plan. 6. The Ithaca City Planning Board did approve the variance. The Board feels at this time that the applicant should wait until Common Council adopts the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. The appeal was denied Three (3) in favor and one (1) opposed. Beer, deRoos, Tebor — yes Holbrow — no Sincerely, For the Buildi g Division Phyllis Radke,, Director of Zoning Administration CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 August 6, 2013 Mr. Michael W. Kozanitis 44 South Lewis Street Auburn, NY 13021 RE: Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting of August 6, 2013 Appeal #2916 — 709 North Tioga Street Present: Steven Beer,,jan deRoos, Moriah Tebor, Gabriel Holbrow, & Phyllis Radke, Secretary to the Board Dear Mr. Kozanitis: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a use variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 325 -32 C., "extension or enlargement of nonconforming uses or structures ". Section 325 -32 C states that a non - conforming use cannot be extended or enlarged without a use variance. You propose to purchase a 3 -unit multiple dwelling at 709 North Tioga Street and live in one of the units as an owner /occupant. The building was originally constructed around the turn of the century as a single family home. It has been a nonconforming use since at least 1977 when the Building Department began inspecting rental dwellings for compliance with Ithaca's Housing ordinance. The building has three one bedroom apartments for occupancy of six unrelated persons. You propose to reconfigure the first floor front apartment to make additional room for the owner occupied rear apartment. You propose to remove the existing kitchen and living room, change the existing bedroom into an entry -level living room, and build a second story for two bedrooms. This proposal including a new 8' x 16' entry deck to accommodate the rear entry and will increase the total square footage by 128 SP. In your letter to the Board, you show that it would be financially infeasible to use the building as either a single family home or two dwelling unit. You also show that the proposed alterations are necessary in order to continue operating the building as a three unit multiple dwelling. You state that you will limit the occupancy of the renovated apartment to two persons. You also propose to limit the occupancy of the other two apartments to one person. This will lower the building's current occupancy from six persons to four persons. The property at 709 North Tioga Street is located in an R2b use district in which the proposed use is not permitted. However, Section 325 -38 requires that a use variance be granted before a building permit is issued. A Public Hearing was held with no one in favor or opposed to the appeal. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��,� Mr. Michael W. Kozanitis August 7, 2013 44 South Lewis Street Page 2 Auburn, NY 13021 RE: Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting of August 6, 2013 Appeal #2916 — 709 North Tioga Street Board members discussed the condition of the house. Director of Zoning Administration visited the property and determined that the house needed an upgrade. The applicant is willing to bring the property up to compliance if given the variance. Property is located in the Fall Creek area where owner occupancy is desirable. A motion was made by Moriah Tebor with a second by Jan deRoos to grant the variance with the following findings of fact: The applicant has a purchase agreement to buy the property. A use variance is necessary because he wants to renovate the property. Under the use variance criteria he must prove that the current zoning regulations have caused unnecessary hardship. He has submitted a spreadsheet showing increase and loss for renting the building. In wanting to do owner occupancy he wants to purchase the property for his use. 1. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return as shown on his submitted spreadsheet. 2. The alleged hardship is unique to the applicant's property. 3. The requested use variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 4. The alleged hardship was not self- created. 5. City of Ithaca Planning Board feels that the proposed modifications improve the property and recommend granting the appeal. The appeal for 709 North Tioga Street was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and one (1) opposed with the following conditions. 1. That the property be owner occupied. 2. Total number of residence be limited to four (4) persons. 3. That the building be brought up to code. Beer— yes deRoos — yes Tebor — yes Holbrow — no Sincerely, For the Building De artment Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT / Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 d' F August 8, 2013 (eC!<'s Office Mr. Scott Whitham P.O. Box 7053 Ithaca, NY 14851 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of August 6, 2013 Appeal #2917 123 -127, 133,135, 137 -139 East State Street Present: Steven Beer, Jan deRoos, Moriah Tebor, Gabriel Holbrow, & Phyllis Radke, Secretary to the Board Dear Mr. Whitham: The Board of Zoning Appeal considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 14/15 rear yard depth requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to develop a 140 -foot tall, 11- story, mixed use building of approximately 132,000 GSF known as "Harold's Square ". The building is designed to have commercial business on the ground floor, three stories of upper -story office space, 6 stories devoted to residential use, and an 11th story penthouse. The residential portion of the building is in a tower configuration that will be set back 62' 8" from the building's four -story faQade facing the Commons. This tower will be located in the CBD -140 zone and reach a height of 140 feet. The four -story portion will be located in the CBD -60 zone and have a height of 57' 10 ". The building will have two main entrances, one on the Commons and the other facing the Green Street Alley between the Commons and the Green Street garage. The size of the project necessitates using 100% of the lot for the building. District regulations require the project to have a 10 -foot rear yard setback. You propose to have no rear yard for this project. The proposed building will include an access bridge connection to the Green Street garage, a canopy roof covering the rear exit, and exit doors that swing pass the rear property line and encroach on City property. You are currently in contact with the City to develop an agreement for these encroachments. Harold Square will be located in a CBD -140 /CBD -60 use district where the uses of the proposed building are permitted. However, Section 325 -38 and 325 -39 requires an area variance be granted before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. A Public Hearing was held with one person in favor of the appeal and none opposed. Discussion followed concerning the trash and recycling area that is now used by the City and the retail stores in the area. Applicant stated that they are working with the City to resolve this problem. It was moved by Jan deRoos to grant the appeal, with a second by Gabriel Holbrow with the following findings of fact: `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." n Mr. Scott Whitham August 8, 2013 P.O. Box 7053 Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14851 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of August 6, 2013 Appeal #2917 123 -127, 133,135, 137 -139 East State Street 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the business district. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other means. 3. The requested area variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the area. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self- created. 6. City of Ithaca Planning Board supports granting the variance for this appeal. 7. Tompldns County Department of Planning has determined that it has no negative inter - community or county -wide impacts. The variance was granted with a vote of four (4) in favor and none opposed. Sincerely, WBulil ision P hyllis Radlk Director of Zoning Administration CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 e., 00 BUILDING DEPARTMENT AV " od G� Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 August 8, 2013 Mr. Frederic Bouche' 212 University Avenue Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 6, 2013 Appeal #2913 — 815 Taber Street Present: Steven Beer, Jan deRoos, Moriah Tebor, Gabriel Holbrow, & Phyllis Radke, Secretary to the Board Dear Mr. Bouche': The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variances from Section 325 -8 columns, 10, 12, 13 and 14/15, lot coverage, side yard, other side yard, and rear yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to construct a 1,000SF green house behind the Port of New York winery located at 815 Taber Street. Ports of New York has received variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals on two other occasions in which existing deficiencies of Section 325 -8, column 6, lot area, column 7, lot width, column 12 side yard, and column 13, other side yard were granted. The proposed green house will increase the existing side yard deficiencies and create two new deficiencies relating to lot coverage and rear yard setback. Zoning Ordinance Section 325 -8, column 10, lot coverage allows a maximum of 50% lot coverage. Currently, the building has lot coverage of 29.8 %. The proposed green house will increase lot coverage to 52 %. Section 325 -8, Column 14/15, rear yard setback requires that the building be set back 20 feet from the rear lot line. With the green house addition, the rear yard setback will be reduced to 3 feet. The current side yard deficiency in the east yard (side yard) is 9' -2" and in the west yard (other side yard); the deficiency is 3' -2 ". The Zoning Ordinance, Section 325 -8 column 12 and 13, side yard and other side yard respectively, require'the side yards be 12 feet on one side and 6 feet on the other side to be in compliance. The proposed green house will increase the 9' -2' side yard deficiency to 6' -8." The other side yard will have the 3' -2" side yard deficiency extended another 50 feet, the length of the green house. The property at 815 Taber Street is in an I -1 use district where the proposed green house is a permitted use. However, Section 325 -39 requires that variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 Mr. Frederic Bouche' August 8, 2013 212 University Avenue Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 6, 2013 Appeal #2913 — Taber Street A Public Hearing was held with no one in attendance in favor or opposed to the appeal. The owner, Fredric Bouche' included in his application four e -mails of people in his neighborhood that were for the appeal and spoke of other e -mails he had received from neighbors in favor of the project. He explained how he will grow grapes in this greenhouse, if it is granted, and will be the first winery in the United States to grow grapes hydroponically. It was moved by Moriah Tebor and second by Gabriel Holbrow to grant the appeal as long as the Environmental Review shows no impact, with the following findings of fact: 1. The variance request will not produce an undesirable affect for the neighborhood, neighbors spoke favorably of the project. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other means. 3. The substantialness does not go beyond the threshold of being a substantial request. 4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. It is a self created opportunity to grow grapes. 6. The City of Ithaca Planning Board feels this variance is an appropriated use of the site and recommends granting this appeal. The appeal for 815 Taber Street was granted with a vote of four (4) in favor and none opposed. Sincerely, For the BuLding di 'lion Phyllis Radke Director of ZoninJ dmini CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 August 8, 2013 Ms. Pamela Johnston 9 Maplewood Point Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 6, 2013 Appeal #2912 — 205 Williams Street Present: Steven Beer, Jan deRoos, Moriah Tebor, Gabriel Holbrow, & Phyllis Radke, Secretary to the Board Dear Ms. Johnston: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 4, column 6, column 7, column 10, column 11, column 12, column 13, parking, lot area, lot width, percentage of lot coverage, front yard, side yard and other side yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to remove a dilapidated existing addition that was added to the first floor of the building at 205 Williams Street. This addition is located at the rear of the building and is supported on posts instead of conventional basement walls. The proposed addition will have an enclosed basement. The new addition will extend no further into the rear yard than the existing foundation but the addition will increase the footprint of the existing addition by 60.5 SF. This will increase the current lot area by 2.7% to 43.1 %. The property at 205 Williams Street is located in an R3a zone. In this zone, the allowable percentage of lot coverage under Section 325 -8, column 6, is 35 %. The property at 205 Williams Street also has existing side yard deficiencies. Section 325 -8, column 12 requires a side yard setback of 10 feet and 325 -8, column 13 requires that the other side yard have a setback of 5 feet. The existing side yards are 3.6 feet and 3.5 feet respectively. The new addition only affects the western side yard that is 3.6 feet deep. The addition will extend this side yard deficiency approximately 9.68ft. further into the rear yard. The front yard also has an existing deficiency that will not be increased by the proposed addition. Section 325- 8, Column 11 requires that the front yard be 10 feet; the front yard is 1.5 feet deep. The property at 205 Williams Street is also deficient in lot area and lot width. Section 325 -8, column 6 requires a lot area of 7,000SF; the lot size is 3000 SF. Section 325 -8, column 7 requires a lot width of 50 feet; the lot width is 40 feet. Finally, the proposed addition is deficient in parking. The proposal under Section 325 -8, column 4 requires 5 parking spaces. There are nc parking spaces on site but the property has grandfather rights for 4 spaces. «e„ F,, 1 nnnnrhinity F.molover with a commitment to workforce diversification." CP Ms. Pamela Johnston August 8, 2013 9 Maplewood Point Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 6, 2013 Appeal #2912 — 205 Williams Street The new addition will allow you to change the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in the two units without increasing the occupancy in the building, which is limited to 10 persons. The basement will go from a two bedroom unit to a three bedroom unit. The first and second floor unit will go from eight bedrooms to seven bedrooms. Among other things, the expansion of the basement apartment will provide more natural light and ventilation in the bedrooms and code compliant emergency escape windows. You altered the building in 2008 under a building permit to change the number of units at 205 Williams Street from three units to two units. This proposal would have only needed to go to the BZA if the property was deficient in parking or lot area. Unfortunately, the Code Inspector signed the building permit without realizing that by increasing the bedrooms in one of the units, the number of required parking spaces changed from 4 spaces to 6 spaces. In addition, the Code Inspector did not realize that the property is deficient in lot area. Therefore, the alterations made in 2008 to 205 Williams Street requires variances from the BZA because parking became deficient by changing the number of dwelling units and the property is deficient in lot area. You request that the BZA grant variances for the increase in parking spaces and for the lot area deficiency if the BZA denies the variance request for the proposed new addition. If the BZA denies both variance requests, you will have to return the building to its pre -2008 apartment configuration. The property at 205 Williams Street is in an R3a use district where the proposed use is permitted. Section 325 -38 requires that variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. A Public Hearing was held with no one specking in favor or against the appeal. Discussion followed about parking spaces and the owner stated that she has thirteen (13) spaces at 614 East Buffalo Street that can be rented to her tenants at the Williams Street property but generally they do not have cars. It was moved by Jan deRoos to grant the variance with a second by M or. Mr deRoos stated the variance request is actually for an increase in the defici "' increase in lot coverage. The variance memorializes parking from 2008. M ,, , 0 provide ' following findings of fact: 'f I . There will be no undesirable change in the charac r of the neighborhood etrimen to nearby properties. Mr. deRoos stated there is n Otriment to other pro ies with this project. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be ac hie `*y any other s. Mr. deRoos stated it cannot be achieved in any other way.• Ms. Pamela Johnston August 8, 2013 9 Maplewood Point Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 6, 2013 Appeal #2912 — 205 Williams Street 3. The requested area variance is not substantial. Mr. deRoos stated that the amount of the request is insignificant. 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. 6. City of Ithaca Planning Board did an environmental review and provided a negative declaration of environmental significance and recommends granting this appeal. The appeal for 205 Williams Street was granted with a vote of four (4) in favor and none opposed. Sincerely, For the Bu�lc fng Division Phyllis Rad e, Director of Zoning Administration CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/274 -6521 September 4, 2013 Ms. Susan Perri 429 Bostwick Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 3, 2013 Appeal 9 2918 — 131 Cleveland Avenue Dear Ms. Perri: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal, for owner Jacquelyn Felder, owner of the lot at 131 Cleveland Avenue, for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 7, lot width, requirements of the zoning ordinance. You propose to buy the lot at 131 Cleveland Avenue and build a new house. The lot is 33 feet wide and has a depth of 121.67 feet. The required lot width in the R2b zone, where the lot is located, is 35 feet. In order to build on this lot and have the required side yards of 5 feet and 10 feet, you have picked a house designed to have a width of 17 feet and a depth of 58 feet. With a front yard setback of 10 feet and a house that is 58 feet long, the depth of the rear yard is 53.67 feet. This exceeds the required depth of 25% or 50 feet for the rear yard. The lot's area, at 131 Cleveland Avenue, is 4,007.52SF and the proposed lot coverage is around 25% assuming the house has a square footage of 986 SF. The required lot area is 3,000 SF and the required percentage of lot coverage is 35% in the R2b use district. You propose to build a two -story house; a three -story building is allowed in this zone. The property is in an R2b zone where the use as a single family is permitted. However, Section 325 -38 and Section 325 -39 require that a variance must be granted before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Ms. Perri answered questions from board members regarding the design of the house in which she wishes to build. Design was picked to fit the lot. Public Hearing was held in which there were no people in favor or opposed to the project. After a short deliberation where all board members spoke in favor of the project a motion was made by Jan deRoos with the following findings of fact: 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other means. The requested area variance is not substantial. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." is Cry Ms. Susan Perri September 4, 2013 429 Bostwick Road Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 3, 2013 Appeal # 2918 — 131 Cleveland Avenue 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. 6. City of Ithaca Planning Department completed the environmental review and has determined that the proposed action will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. 7. City of Ithaca Planning Board supports granting the variance request. Board members like the quality of the design and support infill housing in city neighborhoods. The Appeal for 131 Cleveland Avenue was granted with a vote of four (4) in favor none opposed. Sincerely, t For the Buildi g Division Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration November 14, 2013 Benderson Development Company, LLC 570 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of November 5, 2013 Appeal #292' ) — 742 -744 South Meadow Street Present: Board Members Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Jan deRoos, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration Dear Benderson Development: The Board of Zoning considered your appeal on behave of owners Buffalo - Greenbriar Associates, LLC, for area variance from 325 -8, Column 7, lot width, and 325 -8 column 11, front yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to erect a 1,125 SF vestibule at the front face of an existing building that will be known as Hobby Lobby. You also purpose to erect a 14,744 SF building that will be attached to the south end of Hobby Lobby. Both the vestibule on the east face of Hobby Lobby and the addition to the south cause the properties to be deficient in lot width and front yard setback. The requirements for street width and front yard setback, in the SW-2 zoning district where 742 and 744 South Meadow Street are located, requires that a minimum of 35% of the lot's street frontage must be occupied by a building that is a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 34 feet from the street curb. However, the face of the vestibule at Hobby Lobby is approximately 475 feet from the street curb at Meadow Street. The south -end addition will be approximately 400 feet from the same street curb. The actual street frontage for both these buildings is comprised of two access roads that are 29 feet and 65 feet wide for a total street width of 94 feet. No portion of either building will be in setback between 15 to 34 feet from street curb. The buildings at 742 and 744 South Meadow are in a SW -2 zoning district where the buildings' use as retail stores is permitted. However, Section 325 -39 requires that variances be granted before a Certificate of Occupancy for either store is granted. Discuss followed and a Public Hearing was held. There were no persons' in favor of the project and no persons opposed. Benderson Development Company, LLC November 14, 2013 570 Delaware Avenue Page 2 Buffalo, NY 14202 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of November 5, 2013 Appeal #2923 — 742 -744 South Meadow Street A motion by Board member Gabriel Holbrow to grant the appeal with the following findings of fact: 1. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created by the granting of the variance. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some other method. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self - created. 6. City of Ithaca Planning Board recognizes that the setback requirements for the zone predate the existing development and recommend approval of this appeal. The appeal for 742 -744 South Meadow Street was granted with a vote of four (4) in favor and none opposed. Sincerely, Phyllis Radke Director of Zo na Administration s CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 -5690 BUILDING DIVISION Telephone: 607.274.6508 Fax: 607.274.6521 November 18, 2013 Emerson Power Transmission Corporation 8000 West Florissant Avenue St. Louis, MO 63136 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 5, 2013 Appeal #2924 &2925 — 620 -640 North Aurora Street lO�a (104D Y'J Present: Board Members Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Jan deRoos, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration Dear Emerson Power Transmission: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the Appeal of Russell Maines of Harris Beach PLLC for Emerson Power Transmission Corporation for an area variance from Section 325 -8, column 13, other side yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to subdivide 620 -640 South Aurora Street into two separate parcels. The subdivision will necessitate an area variance for both parcels known as the "OU -1 "and "OU -2 ". The OU -1 parcel consists of .9077 acres and the OU -2 parcel will consist of 95.0292 acres. The OU -1 parcel is in two zoning districts: the I -1 industrial district and R3b residential district. The portion of the OU -2 that is located in the City of Ithaca is predominately in the I -1 industrial use district but it is also in the R3b and R1 residential use districts. The portions of these parcels outside of the I -1 district are not relevant to the variance sought by you. Following subdivision, Emerson intends to retain ownership and control of parcel OU -1 and to convey OU -2 to a third party. The division between the OU -1 and OU -2 parcels creates a zero side yard setback between the proposed subdivision lot line, and Building 18 and two storage tanks. Building 18 is on parcel OU -2 and wholly in the I -1 industrial use district. The two tanks are on the OU -1 parcel in the I -1 industrial use district. Although labeled on the subdivision plats as "underground" tanks, you attests in its application to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) that these two tanks are partly above ground and fenced. Therefore, both parcels need an area variance for side yard deficiencies because there is a zero side yard setback from the proposed property line, and Building 18 and the two tanks. The I -1 industrial use regulations apply to the portions of both parcels in question. Side yards in the I -1 zone must be at least 12 feet for one side and 6 feet for the other side. You argue that they are entitled to a variance for 12 feet rather than 6 feet with regard to Emerson Power Transmission Corporation November 18, 2013 8000 West Florissant Avenue Page 2 St. Louis, MO 63136 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 5, 2013 Appeal #2924 &2925 — 620 -640 North Aurora Street the proposed lot line, due to the presence of a retaining wall. However, retaining walls are not considered structures for the purposes of side yards. It is possible for both parcels to have a 12 -foot side yard setback for their side yards that are opposite the zero setback side yards between the tanks and building 18. Zoning Ordinance Section 325 -40 C(4)(d) states in part that the BZA shall "... grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community." A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor and none opposed. The Board discussed the portion of the land that includes the former Lehigh Valley Railroad Right of Way, which is an important future trail corridor. A motion was made to grant both subdivisions by Board member Gabriel Holbrow with the following findings of fact: 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some other feasible method. 3. The subdivision is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. This alleged difficulty was not self created. 6. City of Ithaca Planning Board recommended granting the appeal. 7. Tompkins County Department of Planning recommended modifications to the proposed subdivision that includes the Lehigh Valley Railroad Right of Way. They suggested that if the City approves this area variance they would recommend that they require the appellant establish a restricted, safe access such as a raised walkway through the proposed parcel. 8. City of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead Agency for this project subject to subdivision and will undertake determining environmental significance and any appropriate action. The appeal for 620 -640 North Aurora Street was granted by a supermaj ority with a second by Jan deRoos and a vote of four (4) in favor and none opposed. Sincerely, Phyllis,Radke Director of Zo ing Administration cc: Russell M ine, authorized agent CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 -5690 BUILDING DIVISION Telephone: 607.274.6508 Fax: 607.274.6521 November 18, 2013 Ms. Linda Schutt P.O. Box 257 Trumansburg, NY 14886 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of November 5, 2013 Appeal 92922 — 136 Hudson Street Present: Board Members Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Jan deRoos, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration Dear Ms. Schutt: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from 325 -8, column 4, 6, 10, 11, and 12, off - street parking, lot area, percentage of lot coverage, front yard, and other front yard, requirements of the zoning ordinance. The property at 136 Hudson Street is a duplex on the corner of Hudson and Prospect Street with occupants on each floor level. The upstairs tenants have used a window to crawl out onto the second story porch that faces Prospect Street. To ensure their safety, the applicant wants to change the window to a door and build a set of stairs off the second floor porch. The existing porch is setback 1.1 feet from the front yard property line on Prospect Street. This causes a front yard deficiency of 23.9 feet because the front yard setbacks for this property are 25 feet for each front yard. The stairs will begin 1.6 feet from the front yard property line on Prospect Street and will be 3.5 feet wide. They will extend 15 feet west of the porch and into the required 25- foot front yard. While the stair will be setback .5 feet further than the porch from the front yard property line on Prospect Street, the extension of the stairs into the front yard exacerbates this front yard deficiency. The property also has several other existing deficiencies. The Hudson Street front yard is deficient. Parking, lot- size, and percentage of lot coverage are also deficient. In the Hudson Street front yard, the house actually projects 3.5 feet over the front yard property line. The required front yard setback is 25 feet. The property at 134 -136 Hudson Street has one parking space; required are two spaces. The lot size is 4,800.2 SF; required is 5,000 SF. The lot coverage is 36 %; allowed is 30 %. The property at 134 -136 Hudson Street is in an R2a use district where the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325 -38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued. Ms. Linda Schutt November 18, 2013 P.O. Box 257 Page 2 Trumansburg, NY 14886 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of November 5, 2013 Appeal #2922 — 136 Hudson Street The applicant spoke on the need for another way to get to the second floor deck. Tenants are using a window to crawl through to get to deck now. A permit has been applied for to make window into a door, but applicant would like to add outside stairs to the dwelling unit so visitors don't have to enter the apartment to get to the deck. Public Hearing was held and there were no persons in favor of the project or opposed to the project and no written comments. Discussion with Board members followed with some members feeling that there was no need for outside stairs. Ms. Tebor made a motion to deny the variance request. She stated the applicant did not establish her case. The motion to deny was made with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed variance would create an undesirable change in the neighborhood and could lead to more noise. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by replacing the second floor window with a door. 3. The benefit sought is not substantial being that there is already a deficiency. 4. The stairs would cause an adverse impact on the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty is self created. 6. City of Ithaca Planning Board feels that the option showing the stairs descending to the right shows greater design compatibility. 7. This is a type two action and the Board of Zoning Appeals has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. It was moved to deny the variance for 134 -136 Hudson Street with a vote of four (4) in favor and one (1) opposed. Mr. Holbrow — no Mr. Beer — yes Mr. deRoos — yes Ms. Tebor — yes Sincerely, i Phylli Radke Director of Zoning Administration CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 -5690 BUILDING DIVISION Telephone: 607.274.6508 Fax: 607.274.6521 November 18, 2013 Mr. Jason Henderson 100 West Buffalo Street 4F Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of November 5, 2013 Appeal 92921 — 204 North Cayuga Street Present: Board Members Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Jan deRoos, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration Dear Mr. Henderson: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from 325 -8 Columns 4, 5, 6, and 12, off - street parking, off - street loading, lot area, and side yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to convert the former 3 -story office building located at 204 North Cayuga Street into offices on the first and second floor and two dwelling units on the third floor. In order to convert the building to a new use on the third floor, the applicant must be granted variances from four existing deficiencies. The building is deficient in parking. When the building was used entirely as office space, it required 22 spaces. The new proposal, with two apartments on the third floor, requires 20 parking spaces. There are 4 parking spaces at 204 North Cayuga Street. The property needed one loading space as an office building. It will need one loading space for the proposed use. There are no off - street loading spaces on site. The lot at 204 North Cayuga Street is 6,534 SF. The current proposal for two dwelling units on the third floor and office spaces on the first and second floor requires that the lot be 7,000 SF. The property also has two deficient side yards. However, the other side yard was previously granted an area variance from the BZA so that a roof could be constructed over the deck in the rear yard and south side yard. The remaining side yard on the north side is 3.7 feet from the lot line; required is a 10- foot side yard setback. The property at 204 North Cayuga Street is in a B -la use district where the mixed use of office space and two dwelling units are permitted uses. However, Section 325 -38 requires that variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. Applicant Jason Henderson, spoke on behalf of the owners Travis Hyde Properties. A grant was received from the Main Street Grant Program for some of the cost for the third floor apartments. Mr. Jason Henderson November 18, 2013 100 West Buffalo Street 4F Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of November 5, 2013 Appeal #2921 — 204 North Cayuga Street A Public Hearing was held with one interested party speaking for the project and one letter sent in and read in support. There were no parties opposed to the project. Discussion concerning the parking and the CBD zone across the street, the Board feels that the variance is very reasonable. 204 North Cayuga Street has only four parking spaces behind the building, accessed via St. John's Episcopal Church's parking lot. There is also an easement agreement to use the church's driveway. Street parking is available and there is parking available in nearby city parking garages. A motion was made by Jan deRoos in favor of this variance from Section 325 -8, column 4, 5, 6 and 12 parking, loading lot area and other side yard. Mr. deRoos summarized that the area variance will allow the applicant to convert the third floor from office space to two apartments. The lot needs 7,000 square feet, the deficiency is approximately 500 square feet. One side yard is 3.7' required is 10' in the B -la zone. The motion included the following findings of fact: 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The project meets market needs. 2. Benefit sought by applicant can not be achieved by any other means. 3. The requested variance is not 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. 6. Members of the City Planning Board support the variance because parking is available in nearby parking lots. The Board heard testimony from one interested party in favor of the variance. A letter was also sent to the Board from Jason Fane who also supported the variance. The motion was seconded by Ms. Tebor. The appeal for 402 North Cayuga Street was granted with a vote of four (4) in favor none opposed. Sincerely, For the uildin Department Phyllis Radke, irector of Zoning Administration PR/mh cc: 204 North Cayuga St., LLC, owner