Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes t7i'�IT1yr `+ CITY OF ITHACA a 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 BUILDING DIVISION C� Telephone: 607.274.6508 Fax: 607.274.6521 3 4° January 13, 2014 114 Highland Place, LLC Attn.: Ms: Pamela Johnston 202 Williams Street Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of January 7, 2014 Appeal 4 2926— 114 Highland Place Dear Mr.Nix: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance for 114 Highland Place from Section 325-8 column 6, lot area and 14/15 rear yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.In addition,you are requesting that a condition placed on a previous variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals in 1985 be removed. On May 6, 1985, a previous owner of 114 Highland Place was granted area variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)for a side yard deficiency and a street width deficiency in order to build a one- story basement addition to the building at 114 Highland Place. The BZA granted the variance with the condition that a third bedroom in the existing basement apartment could no longer be used. It is assumed that the Board made this decision because the third bedroom was not compliant with the City's Housing Code at that time. The new owner, 114 Highland Place,LLC has made this third bedroom in the basement apartment compliant with the City's Housing Code. Currently,the basement apartment has two legal bedrooms large enough for three persons. However,the applicant is requesting that this third bedroom be allowed to be used for sleeping purposes again so that each tenant can have their own bedroom instead of one of the two legal bedrooms being shared by two persons. hn addition to this request,the applicant is seeking relief from two area deficiencies. A new site survey shows additional deficiencies that were not considered in the 1985 BZA decision. The property is deficient in lot size. The lot is 6,970 SF;the required lot size is 7,750 SF. The property is also has a deficient rear yard. The rear yard is 12% of the lot depth or 11 feet; required is a rear yard that is 20%of the lot depth but not less than 20 feet. The property at 114 Highland Place is in an R-3a use district where the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38,requires that variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. The applicant noted that no additional work is necessary to make the third bedroom code compliant. Most of the work was completed when the 1985 addition was constructed.A window well was opened up and stairs were built in order to meet current code for egress.The deficient sized window was replaced and now also meets current code requirements. The size of the third bedroom was enlarged sometime after the third bedroom deficiencies were cited.It now measures 9' 8' x 13' originally the room was noted to be 9'-8"x 8'-6" i 114 Highland Place,LLC January 8, 2014 Attn.: Ms: Pamela Johnston Page 2 202 Williams Street Ithaca,NY 14850 A Public Hearing was held and there were no persons in favor of the project or opposed to the project.No written comments were submitted to the record. A motion was made by Jan deRoos to grant the appeal for 114 Highland Place from Section 325- 8 column 6, lot area and 14/15 rear yard,requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the applicant, 114 Highland Place, LLC, is requesting that a condition placed on a previous variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals in 1985 restricting the use of the third bedroom be removed and the room be allowed as a bedroom. 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties as the occupancy remains the same. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some other method. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. The proposed variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The Ithaca Planning Board supports granting the variance request. 6. This is a type two action requiring no environmental review. 7. This alleged difficulty was not self-created. The Appeal for 114 Highland Place was granted with a vote of three(3)in favor and none opposed. deRoos—yes Holbrow—yes Beers-yes Sincerely, Phyllis Radke Director of Zo ng Administration W'y .� CITY OF ITHACA 8 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 tr. BUILDING DIVISION diQ A . Telephone: 607.274.6508 Fax: 607.274.6521 � 0 February 6, 2014 Ms. Barbara Dunn 1800 Goodwin Road Lyndenville, NY 14098 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of February 4, 2014 Appeal #2927— 119 Stewart Avenue Present: Board Members Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radice, Director of Zoning Administration Dear Ms. Nunn: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325-8 Column 4, 6110711, and 12,parking, lot area, percentage of lot coverage, front yard and other front yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This is an existing 5 unit apartment building. A couple of months ago, the applicant was concerned about the legal occupancy limits of the building. In order to answer these questions, City Staff needed to review the property file to determine how the occupancy limit changed. During the file review,the results of a BZA hearing for 119 Stewart Avenue; a hearing that was held in 1955 was discovered. Case # 496 was a petition of Valdemar Virtanin,the owner at the time of 119 Stewart Avenue. Virtanen was seeking to convert the 3 family house at 119 Stewart Avenue to a 4-family house. It was noted that the property was deficient in lot size. By 1959, it appears the property was sold to a business named State and Aurora, Inc. The file indicates that 119 Stewart Avenue was still three units in 1959. However,by 1963, it appears that the business State and Aurora converted the building to 5 dwelling units without a variance being granted first by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The first Certificate of Compliance was issued for the property in 1977 for 5 dwelling units to State and Aurora, then known as RHP Properties. RHP Properties received additional Certificates of Compliance in 1983, 1990, and 1995 for 5 dwelling units at 119 Stewart Avenue. In 1998, 2002, and 2004, Peter Newell, the new owner was issued a Certificate of Compliance for 5 dwelling units at 119 Stewart Avenue. Around 2004, 119 Stewart Avenue was sold to Barbara Dunn the current owner. She received Certificates of Compliance for 5 dwelling units at 119 Stewart Avenue in 2008, 2012 and 2013. In all, 10 Certificate of Compliance have been issued over a period of 37 years verifying the building was legal for 5 apartments. During this time, mortgages were written and taxes were paid based on 5 dwelling units being legal at 119 Stewart Avenue. Based on the number of years that the property at 119 Stewart Avenue has been operating as 5 dwelling units, and the enormous financial hardship the owner will suffer if the Board reduces Ms. Barbara Dunn February 6, 2014 1800 Goodwin Road Page 2 Lyndenville,NY 14098 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of February 4, 2014 Appeal #2927— 119 Stewart Avenue the number of apartments at 119 Stewart Avenue, the applicant is requesting the Board grant a variance for the 2 additional apartments for a total of 5 units at 119 Stewart Avenue. In order for the Board to grant this request, it must also grant area variance for the following deficiencies at 119 Stewart Avenue. 1. Section 325-8, Column 4, Parking. The property at 119 Stewart Avenue has 2 parking spaces; required are 5 spaces. 2. Section 325-8, Column 6, Lot Area. The property has a lot that is 4,578 SF; required is a 8,500 SF lot. 3. Section 325-8, Column 10, Lot Coverage. The property has a 40% lot coverage; allowed is a maximum lot coverage of 35%. 4. Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard. The front yard has a set back of 4.5 feet; required is a setback of 10 feet. 5. Section 325-8, Column 12, Other Front Yard. The second front yard has a setback of.8 feet ; required is 10 feet. The property at 119 Stewart Avenue is in a R-3a use district where the current use is permitted, however, Section 325-39 requires area variances be granted before a Certificate of Occupancy for conformance with the Zoning Ordinance can be issued. John Mercovich spoke briefly as authorized agent for the owner Barbara Dunn, stating that the building has been used as a five unit since 1955. He has a buyer for the property, inspection has been done and 60-day certificate has been issued to the owner. Ms. Dunn would like the property to stay as a 5-unit and a commitment letter from the bank has been received. Property can have a maximum of 11 occupancy. Ms. Radke stated that the only thing they ask for here is to be granted approval for the two additional apartments that where added despite the fact that they were denied a variance in 1955 for the addition of one apartment. Anything that relates to housing and housing occupancy needs to be addressed to the Housing Board. Ms. Radke wanted to clarify that the owner Mr. Virtanin,who owned the property years ago, applied for a variance for one apartment and was denied. Years later when property was sold it was discovered that two additional apartments had been built, one on the second floor and one on the third floor without a variance. No one knew that these had been added. Review of the file recently discovered that the variance was denied and there should not have been two additional apartments. Over the years people have purchased the property for what it cost for a five unit, and paid the taxes for a five unit. The Building Department has issued Certificate's of Compliance to the property based on it being a five unit for the last 50 years. Ms. Radke;stated that it is the job of the Board of Zoning Appeals to clean up this matter. Public Hearing was held with no members of the public in favor or opposed to the variance. Moriah Tebor stated that she feels it would be grossly unfair to deny this grant because the property has been considered a five unit for over 50 years. It was moved to grant the variance for 119 Stewart Avenue by Moriah and second by Gabriel Holbrow with the following findings of factA Ms. Barbara Dunn February 6, 2014 1800 Goodwin Road Page 3 Lyndenville, NY 14098 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of February 4, 2014 Appeal #2927— 119 Stewart Avenue 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. 2. Benefit sought by applicant can not be achieved by any other method. 3. This area variance is substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect on the neighborhood as the property has been a five unit for many years. S. The alleged difficulty was not self created. 6. The Tompkins County Department of Planning has determined that this variance has not negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts. 7. City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has no objection to granting this appeal. 8. After environmental review it was decided that this is a Type 2 action and the Board of Zoning Appeals has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. Mr. Beer—yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Tebor - yes Sincerely, For the uilding Sion Phyllis Radke, Director of Z ing Administration ,�-�•°-FI CITY OF ITHACA rf 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 m BUILDING DEPARTMENT ?� Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 �"rr March 21, 2014 d MAR 2 T 2014 r Ms. Susan Mehr 313 Auburn Street Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 4, 2014 AMENDED Appeal #2931 —313 Auburn Street Present: Board Members Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, director of Zoning Administration Dear Ms. Mehr: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variances from Section 325-8 Column 4, required parking, Column 11, front yard and Column 12, side yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to subdivide the property at 313 Auburn Street in order to construct a single family dwelling unit on the new lot addressed 317 Auburn Street. However, the house at 313 Auburn Street is situated so that the lot cannot be split equally in two halves. Therefore, the proposed shared lot line between the two properties will cause deficiencies for both properties. The required side yard for 313 Auburn Street is 10 feet and the proposed side yard will be 5 feet, which is a deficiency of 5 feet. The property at 313 Auburn Street also has an existing front yard deficiency and is deficient in the required parking spaces. The depth of the front yard is 5 feet; required is 10 feet. The property has no parking provided, 2 spaces are required. The property at 313 Auburn Street is located in an R2b Zone. General City Law, Article 3, Section 33, specifies that BZA must grant variances for the front yard and the side yard deficiencies at 313 Auburn Street before the Planning Board begins the Subdivision process. Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor and no persons opposed. It was moved by Mr. Holbrow with a second by Ms. Tebor to grant the appeal with the following findings of fact: 1. The City of Ithaca Planning Board supports the granting of this appeal stating that the single family home maintains the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. This is a type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Act and does not have a significant impact on the environment. 3. There will be no undesirable change in the character of nearby properties in the neighborhood. 4. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved any other way because of the existing building on the site. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �«� i Ms. Susan Mehr March 21, 2014 313 Auburn Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 4, 2014 AMENDED Appeal 4 2931 —313 Auburn Street 5. The variances requested are not sustainable within the context of the in entire neighborhood. 6. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Tompkins County Planning Department has determined that the appeal has no negative inter-community or county-wide impacts. The appeal for 313 Auburn Street was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Mr. Holbrow- yes Sincerely, .WL Phylli Radke Director of ning Administration CITY OF ITHACA mfr v~'= � 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 Mpg 99 J- ...,,.,,.�,� BUILDING DEPARTMENT q�..... March 21,2014 A Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521 Ms. Susan Mehr J�` 313 Auburn Street MAR 2 7 2014 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 4, 2014 AMENDED Appeal 4 2932—317 Auburn Street Present: Board Members Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, director of Zoning Administration Dear Ms. Mehr: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325-8 Column 4, required parking, Column 7, lot width, Column 11, front yard, and Column 12 side yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to subdivide the property at 313 Auburn Street in order to construct a single family dwelling unit on the new lot addressed 317 Auburn Street. However, the house at 313 Auburn Street is situated so that the lot cannot be split equally in two halves. Therefore, you propose that the new lot, addressed 317 Auburn Street, have a street width of 30'-7". The Zoning Ordinance requires a street width of 35 feet. The street width at 313 Auburn Street will be 39'-10". The proposed shared lot line between the two properties will cause deficiencies for both properties. The required side yard is 10 feet for both properties. At 313 Auburn Street, the side yard will be 5 feet, which is a deficiency of 5 feet. At 317 Auburn Street,the side yard will be 5 feet, a side yard deficiency of 5 feet. The property at 313 Auburn Street also has an existing front yard deficiency. The depth of the front yard is 5 feet; required is 10 feet. You propose to site the new house at 317 Auburn Street so that it also has a front yard setback of 5 feet. You believe that a 5-foot front yard setback is more characteristic of the neighborhood than a 10-foot setback. The sub-divided parcel at 317 Auburn Street has no parking proposed, 1 space is required. The property at 317 Auburn Street is in an R2b Zone. General City Law, Article 3, Section 33, specifies that BZA must grant variances for the street width, front yard, and the side yard deficiencies at 317 Auburn Street before the Planning Board begins the Subdivision process. A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor and no person opposed. It was moved by Mr. Holbrow to grant the appeal with a second by Ms. Tebor for 317 Auburn Street from Section 325-8 column 4, Column 7, Columnl2 and deny Column 11, front yard, with the following findings of fact: 1. City of Ithaca Planning Board recommends the approval of this appeal stating that the single family home maintains the essential character of the neighborhood. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Cry Ms. Susan Mehr March 21, 2014 313 Auburn Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 4, 2014 AMENDED Appeal # 2932—317 Auburn Street 2. This is a type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Act and does not have a significant impact on the environment. 3. There will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. 4. The benefit to the applicant can not be achieved in any other way for the side set back, lot width and required parking given the existing configuration of the lot and existing building. However, the benefit of building a new single family dwelling could be achieved while still maintaining the ten foot front yard setback, this would be inconsistent with the remainder of buildings on the street which are closer than ten feet to the property line, however, the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved while still maintaining the front yard setback required by the zoning ordinance. 5. The variances requested are not substantial in the context of the neighborhood where other buildings are without off-street parking. 6. The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 7. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the applicant could choose not to sub- divide the property however,that is not determined with an area variance and in balance we find that the benefit to the applicant weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and wealth fare of the neighborhood is greater. 8. Tompkins County Planning Department has determined that it has no negative inter- community or county-wide impacts. The appeal for 317 Auburn Street was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Sincerely, Phyllis Rd Director of Zo ng Administration °� �9 CITY OF ITHACA i 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 Ogg @ i o °•� CO•,,�•.• •••,.•;� BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521 2 S4 5 6 l 8 March 7,2014 Ms. Sybil Conrad 201 Grandview Avenue ¢ C:M N Ithaca,NY 14850 `* a RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 4, 2014 0V Appeal#2929—201 Grandview Avenue ��Ze Present: Board Members Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, director of Zoning Administration Dear Ms. Conrad: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variances form 325-8 Column 6, lot area, Columnl 1, front yard, and Column 14/15 rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You recently decided to construct a new garage with a dwelling unit on the second floor as an additional method for generating income to pay bills.Plans were drawn by an architect and the building permit was issued. Unfortunately,the inspector reviewing the construction plans and carrying out the required building inspections made mistakes in his plan review. Because the garage and apartment are in a separate building from the single family home on the lot of 201 Grandview Avenue,the garage and apartment are considered.a second primary use on the lot. Zoning Ordinance Section 325-8 B (1) states that the lot area requirements for residential uses apply to only one primary use. An additional primary use doubles the requirement listed. The lot at 201 Grandview Avenue requires 5,000 SF for each single family or two family unit on the lot. Two individual single family buildings on the lot require twice the square footage or 10,000 SF. The lot size at 201 Grandview is 9,976 SF and deficient by 24 feet from meeting the lot size for two-single family uses. During the plan review of the permit,the inspector also missed checking the depth of the rear yard. The requirement for the rear yard at 201 Grandview Avenue is a minimum of 20 feet. As shown in the building plans, for the garage and dwelling unit and as constructed,the rear yard is now only 17.5 feet; a deficiency of 2.5 feet. Finally there is an existing front yard deficiency on the property at 201 Grandview Avenue. The Zoning Ordinance requires a front yard setback of 25 feet. The front yard has a setback of 21'-9" and is deficient by 3'-3". The property at located at 201 Grandview Avenue is in an R2a zoning district where the single family home and the garage/apartment are permitted. However, Section 325-39 requires that a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued for the garage and dwelling unit until a variance is granted by the BZA. Owner, Sybil Conrad received all the property approvals for her project, but due to inspector errors project could not receive a Certificate of Completion. A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor and one person opposed to the project. He is the owner of 107 Grandview Avenue. He asked the board to deny the project because he feels that the project has altered the character of the block and impacted the quality of life of his own property. He believes it's not the fault of the owner or the Building Department but the fault of the contractor and project manager. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �� Ms. Sybil Metz Conrad March 7, 2014 201 Grandview Avenue Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 4, 2014 Appeal 4 2929—201 Grandview Avenue A motion was made by Gabriel Holbrow in favor of this variance from Section325-8 Column 6, lot area, Column 11 front yard, and Column 14/15 rear yard requirements. The motion included the following findings of fact: 1. City of Ithaca Planning Board supports the granting of this project. 2. This is a type two action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act and does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law. 3. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. 4. The benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by any other means because of the existing building on the sight. 5. The variances requested are not substantial within the context of the entire neighborhood. 6. The variance will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. 7. The alleged difficulty was self created but in the balance this board finds that the benefit to the applicant well out weights any minor detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood that could potentially arise from the appeal. The appeal for 201 Grandview Avenue was granted with a vote of three(3) in favor none opposed. Steven Beer—yes Moriah Tebor—yes Gabriel Holbrow Sincerely, I yl is Radke rector of Zo ping Administration City of Ithac f. r,. icy CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 5 .°Ron no �� 9j P • .••'� BUILDING DEPARTMENT O,P`•............ �• Y'' �RATEO Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 CAEC�5 N March 7, 2014 Ms. Susan Mehr �! 313 Auburn Street Ithaca,NY 14850 68 l g g V RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 4, 2014 Appeal 9 2931 —313 Auburn Street Present: Board Members Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, director of Zoning Administration Dear Ms. Mehr: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variances from Section 325-8 Column 4, required parking, Column 11, front yard and Column 12, side yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to subdivide the property at 313 Auburn Street in order to construct a single family dwelling unit on the new lot addressed 317 Auburn Street. However, the house at 313 Auburn Street is situated so that the lot cannot be split equally in two halves. Therefore, the proposed shared lot line between the two properties will cause deficiencies for both properties. The required side yard for 313 Auburn Street is 10 feet and the proposed side yard will be 3 feet, which is a deficiency of 7 feet. The property at 313 Auburn Street also has an existing front yard deficiency and is deficient in the required parking spaces. The depth of the front yard is 5 feet; required is 10 feet. The property has no parking provided, 2 spaces are required. The property at 313 Auburn Street is located in an R2b Zone. General City Law, Article 3, Section 33, specifies that BZA must grant variances for the front yard and the side yard deficiencies at 313 Auburn Street before the Planning Board begins the Subdivision process. Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor and no persons opposed. It was moved by Mr. Holbrow with a second by Ms. Tebor to grant the appeal with the following findings of fact: 1. The City of Ithaca Planning Board supports the granting of this appeal stating that the single family home maintains the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. This is a type 2 action under City Enviromnental Quality Review Act and does not have a significant impact on the environment. 3. There will be no undesirable change in the character of nearby properties in the neighborhood. 4. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved any other way because of the existing building on the site. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �«� Ms. Susan Mehr March 7, 2014 313 Auburn Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Bard of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 4, 2014 Appeal#2931 —313 Auburn Street 5. The variances requested are not sustainable within the context of the in entire neighborhood. 6. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or enviromnental conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Tompkins County Planning Department has determined that the appeal has no negative inter-community or county-wide impacts. The appeal for 313 Auburn Street was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Mr. Holbrow- yes Sincerely, Phyllis Rad e Director of Zoning Administration .f• ��. CITY OF ITHACA V~arc 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-� ® i ago .....w,s` BUILDING DEPARTMENT `i i V; +� q� p March 7 2014 (IV/ C w RATE Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 Ms. Susan Mehr 313 Auburn Street ;��� Ithaca, NY 14850 ` a Meeting of h 4 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals M g Marc , 2014 Appeal # 2932— 317 Auburn Street Present: Board Members Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, director of Zoning Administration Dear Ms. Mehr: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325-8 Column 4, required parking, Column 7, lot width, Column 11, front yard, and Column 12 side yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to subdivide the property at 313 Auburn Street in order to construct a single family dwelling unit on the new lot addressed 317 Auburn Street. However, the house at 313 Auburn Street is situated so that the lot cannot be split equally in two halves. Therefore, you propose that the new lot, addressed 317 Auburn Street, have a street width of 30'-7. The Zoning Ordinance requires a street width of 35 feet. The street width at 313 Auburn Street will be 39'40". The proposed shared lot line between the two properties will cause deficiencies for both properties. The required side yard is 10 feet for both properties. At 313 Auburn Street, the side yard will be 3 feet, which is a deficiency of 7 feet. At 317 Auburn Street, the side yard will be 7 feet, a side yard deficiency of 3 feet. The property at 313 Auburn Street also has an existing front yard deficiency. The depth of the front yard is 5 feet; required is 10 feet. You propose to site the new house at 317 Auburn Street so that it also has a front yard setback of 5 feet. You believe that a 5-foot front yard setback is more characteristic of the neighborhood than a 10-foot setback. The sub-divided parcel at 317 Auburn Street has no parking proposed, 1 space is required. The property at 317 Auburn Street is in an R2b Zone. General City Law, Article 3, Section 33, specifies that BZA must grant variances for the street width, front yard, and the side yard deficiencies at 317 Auburn Street before the Planning Board begins the Subdivision process. A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor and no person opposed. It was moved by Mr. Holbrow to grant the appeal with a second by Ms. Tebor for 317 Auburn Street from Section 325-8 column 4, Column 7, Column 11 and Column12 with the following findings of fact: 1. City of Ithaca Planning Board recommends the approval of this appeal stating that the single family home maintains the essential character of the neighborhood. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �� Ms. Susan Mehr March 7, 2014 313 Auburn Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Bard of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 4, 2014 Appeal#2932—317 Auburn Street 2. This is a type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Act and does not have a significant impact on the environment. 3. There will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. 4. The benefit to the applicant can not be achieved in any other way for the side set back, lot width and required parking given the existing configuration of the lot and existing building. However, the benefit of building a new single family dwelling could be achieved while still maintaining the ten foot front yard setback, this would be inconsistent with the remainder of buildings on the street which are closer than ten feet to the property line, however, the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved while still maintaining the front yard setback required by the zoning ordinance. 5. The variances requested are not substantial in the context of the neighborhood where other buildings are without off-street parking. 6. The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environnental conditions in the neighborhood. 7. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the applicant could choose not to sub- divide the property however, that is not determined with an area variance and in balance we find that the benefit to the applicant weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and wealth fare of the neighborhood is greater. S. Tompkins County Planning Department has determined that it has no negative inter- community or county-wide impacts. The appeal for 317 Auburn Street was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Sincerely, Phyllis Radke Director of Zo ng Administration I CITY OF ITHACA r •�S: ® `:rt 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 _4 ,5 6 M9 01P CO�.•w .•`� BUILDING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/ 4- s O 'tcQ Apr1f�2, (�14 Mr. Jalil & Ariane Buechel a` f`? '0 10') Franklin Street Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1, 2014 681 9 5 �` Appeal # 2937—4 Hudson Place Present: Board Members, Steven Beer, Moriah Tebor, Gabriel Holbrow, Marshall McCormick, Teresa Deschanes, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Buechel: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a use variance from Column 2, permitted primary uses, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. After looking for a home in Fall Creek for three years in order to be near their grandchildren, Jalil and Ariana Buechal purchased 4 Hudson Place in 2008. The following year, the house next door to their grandchildren in Fall Creek was listed for sale and the Buechels purchased this house. The Buechel's then began renting the house at 4 Hudson Place. Since 4 Hudson Place is in an R2a zone, the Buechel's are restricted to renting this house to three unrelated persons or to a family or functional family. The Buechel's have been renting to three students, but have been losing money every year even though they are receiving $625/month from each tenant for the 3 bedroom furnished house which includes utilities. To date they have already lost $18,512. They also tried to sell the house in 2012, but received no purchase offers. The property is in an R2a zone where the maximum number of unrelated persons in a single family home is restricted to three persons. The Buechel's are seeking approval to rent 4 Hudson Place to four unrelated persons. However, renting a house to four unrelated individuals is only a use permitted in zones allowing multiple dwellings. The use of a single family home for four unrelated persons is not a permitted use in the R2a zone and the Buechal's would have to be granted a use variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals in order for an additional occupant to legally reside at 4 Hudson Place. Applicant discussed the need to add another bedroom to make the property more financially feasible. They make more money renting to students then a family of five. Property is only 400 yards from Ithaca College. A Public Hearing was held with no interested parties in attendance. One person was opposed to the variance and spoke of increasing the occupancy and that would set a precedent in the neighborhood and be an undesirable change and detriment. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 01 Mr. Jalil &Ariane Buechel April 2, 2014 10') Franklin Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1, 2014 Appeal # 2937—4 Hudson Place Discussion followed the Public Hearing on granting a use variance. Applicant needs to prove that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. Many board members didn't feel that the applicant did this and that the problem was self-created. Also, many felt that the alleged hardship was not unique. One board member disagreed with the person that opposed the variance saying that he feels it is better for the City to have students closer to Ithaca College given the lack of commuting infrastructure going up the hill to IC, no sidewalks on 96B and a less then frequent running bus. The appropriate environmental review for the variance request has been conducted including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Parts I, II, and the proposed action is an "Unlisted Action"under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals, acting as Lead Agency for environmental review, has reviewed the SEAF, dated March 31, 2014, and supplemental information, and has determined that granting a use variance to be allowed to rent to four unrelated people in an R2a Zoning District where the maximum persons allowed in a single family home is restricted to three persons, could have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, multi-family dwellings are not allowed in some zones in the City of Ithaca as a protection measure for single and two family homes that make up a neighborhood. Granting a use variance to allow more people than is permitted by zoning could lead to requests of a similar nature by other property owners, and if granted, could have a negative impact by changing the character from a neighborhood of families to a neighborhood of student rentals that is more appropriate in zones that allow multi-family dwellings. The Board of Zoning Appeals, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own, the finding and conclusions more fully set forth in the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and because #14 on the SEAF, "Will the project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent populations of more than 5 percent over a one-year period OR have a negative impact on the character of the community or neighborhood?" was answered YES, members of the BZA cannot make a positive determination until a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I has been prepared by the applicant, and a Part 2 and 3 (if needed) can be assessed by the BZA. A vote was taken by board members on whether the Enviromnental Impact would be negative. Board members voted as follows: Mr. Jalil & Ariane Buechel April 3, 2014 103 Franklin Street Page 3 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1, 2014 Appeal 9 2937 —4 Hudson Place Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Mr. Holbrow—no Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick - yes A motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to deny the variance and second by Ms. Tebor with the following findings of fact: - 1. The applicant failed to prove that they could not realize a reasonable return. Financial evidence was incomplete and not compelling. 2. The alleged hardship was not unique. 3. The requested variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. The alleged hardship was self-created. 5. The city of Ithaca Planning Board could not recommend approval of this variance, in part because the application contains conflicting financial information. The variance for 4 Hudson Street for a use variance was denied by a vote of five (5) in favor none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, For the Buildin Division Phyllis Radk Director of Zoning Administration ......... CITY OF ITHACA v'°®® •'.t 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 c0•.••.•.. • ,.�`� BUILDING DIVISION 3 `i �RAT�o Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 April 7, 2014 Ms. Susan Mehr N m 313 Auburn Street Ithaca,NY 14850 o a z RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 4, 2014 A E Z Appeal#2932—317 Auburn Street Present: Board Members Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, director of Zoning Administration Dear Ms. Mehr: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325-8 Column 4, required parking, Column 7, lot width, Column 11, front yard, and Column 12 side yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to subdivide the property at 313 Auburn Street in order to construct a single family dwelling unit on the new lot addressed 317 Auburn Street. However, the house at 313 Auburn Street is situated so that the lot cannot be split equally in two halves. Therefore, you propose that the new lot, addressed 317 Auburn Street, have a street width of 28=7" The Zoning Ordinance requires a street width of 35 feet. The street width at 313 Auburn Street will be 41-10 '/z". The proposed shared lot line between the two properties will cause deficiencies for both properties. The required side yard is 10 feet for both properties. At 313 Auburn Street, the side yard will be 5 feet, which is a deficiency of 5 feet. At 317 Auburn Street, the side yard will be 5 feet, a side yard deficiency of 5 feet. The property at 313 Auburn Street also has an existing front yard deficiency. The depth of the front yard is 5 feet; required is 10 feet. You propose to site the new house at 317 Auburn Street so that it also has a front yard setback of 5 feet. You believe that a 5-foot front yard setback is more characteristic of the neighborhood than a 10-foot setback. The sub-divided parcel at 317 Auburn Street has no parking proposed, 1 space is required. The property at 317 Auburn Street is in an R2b Zone. General City Law, Article 3, Section 33, specifies that BZA must grant variances for the street width, front yard, and the side yard deficiencies at 317 Auburn Street before the Planning Board begins the Subdivision process. A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor and no person opposed. It was moved by Mr. Holbrow to grant the appeal with a second by Ms. Tebor for 317 Auburn Street from Section 325-8 column 4, Column 7, Column12 and deny Column 11, front yard, with the following findings of fact: 1. City of Ithaca Planning Board recommends the approval of this appeal stating that the single family home maintains the essential character of the neighborhood. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��«� Ms. Susan Mehr April 7, 2014 313 Auburn Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 4, 2014 AMENDED Appeal # 2932—317 Auburn Street 2. This is a type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Act and does not have a significant impact on the environment. 3. There will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. 4. The benefit to the applicant can not be achieved in any other way for the side set back, lot width and required parking given the existing configuration of the lot and existing building. However, the benefit of building a new single family dwelling could be achieved while still maintaining the ten foot front yard setback, this would be inconsistent with the remainder of buildings on the street which are closer than ten feet to the property line, however, the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved while still maintaining the front yard setback required by the zoning ordinance. 5. The variances requested are not substantial in the context of the neighborhood where other buildings are without off-street parking. 6. The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 7. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the applicant could choose not to sub- divide the property however, that is not determined with an area variance and in balance we find that the benefit to the applicant weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and wealth fare of the neighborhood is greater. 8. Tompkins County Planning Department has determined that it has no negative inter- community or county-wide impacts. The appeal for 317 Auburn Street was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Sincerely, Phyllis Radl Director of Zoning Administration CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 g@ fi _•o i C�.• .'� BUILDING DEPARTMENT ppgpTEO Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 April 2, 2014 Ms. Laura B. Taylor a C� '— ] C 202 Second Street c14 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1, 2014 og 9 S £Z� Appeal # 2936 —202 Second Street. Present: Board Members, Steven Beer, Moriah Tebor, Gabriel Holbrow, Marshall McCormick, Teresa Deschanes, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Ms Taylor: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for area variances from Sections 325-8 Column 6, 10, 11, 12, and 14/15, lot area, percentage of lot coverage, front yard, other front yard, and rear yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is seeking to build a porch and an addition, for a total of 276 SF, to the north side of her single-family home located at 202 Second Street. The property at 202 Second Street has several existing deficiencies. These are deficient lot size, excessive lot coverage, two deficient front yards, and a deficient rear yard. The proposed porch and addition will have a deficient front yard and will increase the already excessive lot coverage. The property at 202 Second Street has an existing lot area deficiency. Required is a lot that is 3,000 SF. The existing lot is 2,897 SF, 103 feet less than the minimum lot size required for a single family home in the R2b zoning district. Moreover, the existing buildings at 202 Second Street have a lot coverage of 41%where 35% is the maximum lot coverage allowed in the R2b use district. The proposed porch and addition will increase this deficiency by 6% creating a lot deficiency of 47%. The property at 202 Second Street is a corner lot and has two front yards. One faces Monroe Street and the other faces Second Street. These front yards are required to be 10 foot deep. The front yard facing Monroe Street is 1.6 feet away from the front yard lot line. This is an existing deficiency of 8.4 feet. On Second Street, the existing front porch is .9 feet from the front lot line. This is an existing deficiency of 9.1 feet. The new porch and addition will also face Second Street. The porch will be setback 7 feet from the front yard lot line, a deficiency of 3 feet. The existing single family home also has a deficient rear yard. Required is a 20-foot rear yard setback. The existing rear setback is 17.5 feet and is 2.5 feet shy of meeting the minimum 20- `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �h! Ms. Laura B. Taylor April 2, 2014 202 Second Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1, 2014 Appeal # 2936—202 Second Street. foot rear yard requirement. Finally,the garage on the lot does not meet the setback requirements for framed accessory buildings under Section 325-25 of the Zoning Ordinance. Accessory woodframe structures are required to have a three-foot rear yard and three-foot side yard. As built, the garage is approximately one foot from the rear yard and two feet from the side yard; these are deficiencies of two feet and one foot respectively. The property at 202 Second Street is in an R2b zone where the proposed use is permitted. However, Zoning Ordinance Section 325-38 requires that area variances be granted by the BZA for the deficiencies before a building permit can be issued. A Public Hearing was held with no people in attendance in favor or opposed although, two people wrote in favor of the project. Mr. McCormick feels that the deficiencies are not significant. Ms. Tebor stated that there will be no environmental harm and the plans will fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (11) and (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. A motion was made by Ms. Tebor and second by Mr. Holbrow to grant the variances with the following findings of fact: 1. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved in any other way. 3. The area variance is not substantial. 4. The proposed variance will not have a 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 recommends approving this appeal as the proposed changes will improve the property and make it look more contextual. Ms. Laura B. Taylor April 2, 2014 202 Second Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1, 2014 Appeal # 2936—202 Second Street. The appeal for 202 Second Street for an area variance from Sections 325-8 Col-unn 6, 10, 11, 12, and 14/15, lot area, percentage of lot coverage, front yard, other front yard, and rear yard respectively was granted with a vote of five (5) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer - yes Ms. Tebor—yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, Ythe' uildi ig 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 { j t April 3, 2014 ^' Mr. David Beer 211 Hudson Street Ithaca,NY 14850 �Z,6� ` 99 Q RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1,2014 Appeal 4 2938— 143 Maple Avenue Present: Board Members, Steven Beer, Moriah Tebor, Gabriel Holbrow, Marshall McCormick, Teresa Deschanes, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Mr. Beer: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Coal Stove Ventures,LLC, owners of 143 Maple Avenue for variances from the Sign Ordinance from Section 272-613 (1), size of sign and 272-9A, minimum setbacks for signs from public highways and public right-of-ways and the requirement that a sign cannot be located in the required side yard setback. Coal Yard Venture has erected two'signs at 143 Maple Avenue. One sign is for Coal Yard Caf6,the other is for Coal Yard Apartments, also located at 143 Maple Avenue. The sign for the Cafe is 7.25 SF in size and the apartment sign is 4.375 SF. The property at 143 Maple Avenue has 44 feet of street frontage. The sign for the Cafe is 2 feet from the front yard property line,which is where the Maple Avenue's right-of- way ends. Section 272-9A states that such signs shall be located 10 feet from any public highway or street right-of-way. The sign for the Coal Yard Apartments is one foot from the side yard property line and the Recreation Trail. It is also located 9.3 feet South of Maple Avenue. Section 272-9A requires that this sign be set back 10 feet from public highways or street right-of-ways. Therefore,this sign violates the provision, being less than 10 feet from the Maple Avenue street right-of-way and being only one foot from the Recreation Trail, a public highway. Also, Section 272-9A states that the required side yards cannot be diminished by a sign being located in the required side yard. The required side yard setback is 10 feet, which is measured from the side yard lot line to the nearest building. The sign is one foot from the east side yard lot line, which cause a side yard deficiency of 9 feet. The property 143 Maple Avenue is in an R3b use district where the proposed signs are permitted. However, Sign Ordinance Section 272-18 states that the`Board of Zoning Appeals may grant variances for Sign Ordinance deficiencies guided by the general"purpose" of the Sign Ordinance Chapter as well as: 1. Size of Sign; 2. Number of letters; 3. Other signs; 4. The Character of the neighborhood and; 5. Public interest "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ZF� Mr. David Beer April 3, 2014 211 Hudson Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1,2014 Appeal#2938— 143 Maple Avenue Board of Zoning Appeals Chair Steven Beer has recused himself form this appeal because he is a part owner of the property. Moriah Tebor will chair this appeal and alternate Susan Cummings will sit on Board. Signs were already temporally place on property prior to appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. McCormick stated that signs didn't appear to block sight and cars can mutually see each other.Also, if it is determined, further set back variances, including for site triangle are necessary,the board hereby incorporates that. The sign has two(2)right of ways.A Public Right-of-Way and the Recreational Trail Right-of-Way. There is more than 50' street frontage and does not need a variance for size of sign. (272 213(1). A Public Hearing was held with no interested parties in favor and none opposed.It was discussed during the Public Hear by a Board member that other signs in the neighborhood have similar setbacks and that these should be made to go along with them. A motion by Mr. Holbrow and second by Mr. McCormick to grant the appeal for two signs at 143 Maple Avenue with the following findings of fact: 1. City of Ithaca Planning Board recommended approval of the cafe' sign only. 2. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (18)and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law,Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action,the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. 3.The size of the signs seem minimal to the purpose of advertising for the Cafe' and Apartments. 4. The requested signs are not substantial. 5. The signs will not have an adverse impact on the environment. 6. The alleged difficulty was not self-created. The appeal for Coal Stove Ventures,LLC, owner of 143 Maple Avenue was granted with a vote of 5 in favor and none opposed. Ms. Tebor—yes Mr.Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCornmick—yes Ms. Cummings—yes Sincerel For the uilding partment Phyllis Radke Director of Zonin Administration t.....I_��9 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 991 nil nnp ° m 89y �p•.,••• .�;� BUILDING DIVISION 1b rll gp0ltjj?ED Telephone: 607/274-6508 FaxA6Q17��, Y Ms. Cheryl Thompson P.O. Box 59 Trumansburg, NY 14886 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1, 2014 � t; L gC:�� Appeal# 2935—409 Campbell Avenue Present: Board Members, Steven Beer, Moriah Tebor, Gabriel Holbrow, Marshall McCormick, Teresa Deschanes, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Ms. Thompson: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for Raymon Craib and Cynthia Brock the owners of 409 Campbell Avenue, for an area variance from Section 325-8 Column 11, front yard setback requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The property owners of 409 Campbell Avenue discovered some time ago that their garage foundation is in serious disrepair and negatively impacting the house and garage structure. The only way to repair the attached garage is to demolish the garage, build a new foundation and then rebuild the garage. Since the garage is attached to the main building it is imperative that the garage be located in the same location when it is rebuilt. However, the southwest corner of the garage is 18.9 feet from the front yard property line. This is 6.1 feet short of the 25 foot required front yard setback. In addition to rebuilding the garage the applicant proposes adding more living space to the back yard portion of the garage and the northeast corner of the house. These additions will not impact the rear and side yard setback requirements or any other required district regulation. The property at 409 Campbell Avenue is in an R-Ia Zoning District where the proposed use is permitted, however Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted for the deficient front yard before a building permit can be issued. A Public Hearing was held with no interested parties in favor and no interested parties opposed. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (11) and (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. �`An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 04 Ms. Cheryl Thompson April 7, 2014 P.O. Box 59 Page 2 Trumansburg,NY 14886 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1,2014 Appeal#2935—409 Campbell Avenue A motion was made by Ms. Tebor to grant the variance with a second by Ms. Deschanes for the area variance from Section 325-8 Column 11, front yard setback requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. City of Ithaca Planning Board recommends approving this appeal. 2. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 3. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other means. 4. The area variance is not substantial. 5. The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The appeal for 409 Campbell Avenue was granted with a vote of five (5) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, For the Buildin D ivision Phyllis Radke Director of ning Administration •••�9 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 eb l�•.. .`�� BUILDING DIVISION Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 April 4, 2014 Ms. Cheryl Thompson D P.O. Box 59 � Tr unansburg,NY 14886 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1,2014 Appeal 9 2939—409 Campbell Avenue Present: Board Members, Steven Beer, Moriah Tebor, Gabriel Holbrow, Marshall McCormick, Teresa Deschanes, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Ms. Thompson: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for Raymond Craib and Cynthia Brock owners of 409 Campbell Avenue for a Temporary Special Permit for an accessory apartment, as required by the Zoning Ordinance tinder Section 325-10 Accessory apartments. The property at 409 Campbell Avenue is a legally non-conforming use. It is a two family residence in an R-la zone. This zone limits residential uses to single family homes. It also allows accessory apartments by a special temporary permit granted by the BZA. The owners want to repair the foundation of the garage and increase the garage and house footprint. As a non- conforming use, the owner's would have to be granted a use variance to enlarge the garage and living space. To avoid the more stringent requirements of a use variance and the possibility of being denied by the Board, the applicant proposes changing the existing apartment to a legal accessory apartment which is a permitted use in the R-1 a use district. This would then allow the applicant to appeal to the Board for an area variance for the front yard deficiency caused when the garage is rebuilt in its current location. According to the applicant, the current apartment meets the specifications required for an Accessory Apartment. The owners of an Accessory Apartment must have owned the house for 5 years before they can apply for an Accessory Apartment permit. The property was purchased in 2001. The size of the apartment must be less than 33% of the main living area. The applicant states that the proposed Accessory Apartment occupies only 24% of the main living area. The apartment can be used by not more than 2 persons. The apartment is used by one—an in-law. If the street fagade is changed, the fagade must retain the appearance of a single family home. The applicant has stated that the appearance of the street fagade, which will be slightly altered when the garage is demolished and rebuilt, will still appear to be a single family home. Off-street parking is required for the Accessory Apartment and the main living unit. The house and apartment require two parking spaces. There are 4 spaces on site. n 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 4:«1 Ms. Cheryl Thompson April 4, 2014 P.O. Box 59 Page 2 Trumansburg,NY 14886 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1, 2014 Appeal#2939—409 Campbell Avenue The property at 409 Campbell Avenue is in an R-1 a zone where Accessory Apartment is a permitted use. The variance for an accessory apartment must be granted in order for the owners to be able to repair and enlarge their property. The BZA must use the standards of 325-9D in considering the decision to grant or deny this special permit request. Owner Cynthia Brock was asked by Mr. Beer about what else she has to say about the appeal and special permit. She stated that she lives in a cul-de-sac and all the homes were built in the seventies, not only in her neighborhood, but in the larger neighborhood all have an Accessory Apartment and they are usually occupied by a family member. The accessory dwelling is consistent with the neighborhood and that if they were to sell the house the deed restrictions would only allow an Accessory Apartment if the dwelling was owner occupied. Public Hearing was held with one person present as an interested party. She felt that the appeal for an accessory apartment was a tremendous use of the Accessory Apartment Ordinance and felt the owner is adopting deep restrictions and a move towards strengthen owner occupancy in our City. There were no interested parties opposed to the variance. Mr. Holbrow stated it is almost that the Zoning Code was written for this Special Permit, fits it to a T. The proposed request for a use variance to be allowed to rent to four unrelated people in an Rla Zoning District where the maximum persons allowed in a single family home is restricted to three persons, is an "Unlisted Action", pursuant to the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously to declare this a negative action. A motion by Mr. Holbrow to grant the Temporary Special Permit and second by Ms. Tebor with the following findings of fact: 1. Property is to remain occupied by the owners. 2. The property will not have a significant impact on traffic. 3. The use of the property will not change; this will bring it more in compliance with the code. 4. It will not have any effect on property values, municipal services, the character of this neighborhood or the general plan of the development of the community. 5. Special Permit is in keeping with surrounding neighborhood. 6. No adverse effect or detriment to neighborhood. 7. City of Ithaca Planning Board recommends approving this appeal. Ms. Cheryl Thompson April 4, 2014 P.O. Box 59 Page 3 Trumansburg,NY 14886 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 1, 2014 Appeal#2939—409 Campbell Avenue It was moved that the Temporary Special Permit be granted with a vote of five (5) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, For tl Buildin Division Phyllis Radke Director of oning Administration cc: Cynthia Brock �..°•F �9 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-56 'rat �m +1 ° ® ,f. C.. BUILDING DIVISION �RATF Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax•607/ 74- O` June�l1, (�I14 to v Ms. Chrys Gardener Cornell Coop. Extension X 615 Willow AvenueG Ithaca,NY 14850 Board Members present: Teresa Deeshane, Steven Beer, Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radice Director of Zoning Administration. Absent: Moriah Tebor RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of June 3, 2014 Appeal#2945 —311 Floral Avenue Dear Ms. Gardener: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for Cornell Cooperative Extension on behalf of the owner, for a Community Garden Special Permit as required by Section 325-9C (1)(L)of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to install a community garden at the property located at 311 Floral Avenue. The property is owned by the City of Ithaca and is located between the flood control channel and Floral Avenue. The gardens will be in close proximity to neighbor residents and three apartment complexes. The proposal includes installing 25 plots measuring approximately 15' x 12', a perimeter fence, and a flower bed for pollination and beatifying the project area. There is a 50' X 75' parking area on the property for ease of access. The property is located in a P-1 public use district in which the proposed accessory use is permitted. However, Section 325-9C (1)(L)requires that community or neighborhood gardens be permitted only by special permit granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Cornell Cooperative Extension will assume all cost for the community gardens, but the City of Ithaca will remain the owner of the property. City Director of Planning&Development will do a yearly inspection for compliance.If complaints and violations are received notice will be give to the contact person requiring that the violations be corrected, if not corrected the Special Permit may be revoked by the Director of Planning&Development. •Public Hearing was held with no interested parties in favor or against. • motion was made by Board Member Mr. Holbrow to grant the Special Permit for a Community Garden with a second by Mr. Marshall with the following findings of fact: 1. The City of Ithaca Planning Board strongly recommends this appeal be granted. 2. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (11)and(12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action,the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 12' ' Ms. Chrys Gardener June 11, 2014 Cornell Coop. Extension Page 2 615 Willow Avenue Ithaca,NY 14850 3. There will be no adverse effect or detriment to nearby properties. The location is in harmony with the area and intended character of the neighborhood in particular the proximity to the Cedar Creek and Tower View properties. 4. The size is an appropriate fit staying in harmony with the existing neighborhood. It is appropriately sized to the site and has access to nearby streets. 5. It will not discourage the appropriate land use of adjacent buildings. It might even encourage because of the community amenity. 6. The project will not create any noise, fumes, increase any vehicle traffic or traffic demands. 7. The Special Permit remains in effect as long as all of the conditions contain within the code are adhered to. This Special Permit is granted indefinitely no matter who owns the property or who manages the gardens. The appeal for 311 Floral Avenue for a Special Permit for a Community Garden was granted with a vote of four (4) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Mr. Holbrow- yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, Phyllis adke Director of Zon ng Administration �,� :•°•• I CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 CO•' � BUILDING DIVISION Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521 0 June 9, 2014 V Mr. Christopher Anagnost `I ;` 418 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 ` 7 Board Members present: Teresa Deeshane, Steven Beer, Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration. Absent: Moriah Tebor RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of June 3, 2014 Appeal #2944—228 West Spencer Street Dear Mr. Anagnost: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal on behalf of Theron L. Johnson Trust for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 6, lot area, Column 10,percentage of coverage, Column 11, front yard, Column 12/1'), side yards, Column 14/15 rear yard and 325-20D(5)(a) parking space size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The owners propose to construct a single family dwelling on the vacant lot located at 228 W. Spencer Street. The lot has been vacant since 1976, when the previous owner Fernando Macera, was ordered to demolish the unsafe structure located on the lot. The current owner has attempted to sell the lot, but there has been no interest for the irregular non-conforming lot by any of the adjoining property owners. Therefore, you would like to develop the property by constructing a three level dwelling on the non-conforming parcel. The property is deficient in lot area having 1596 S.F. of the 3000 S.F. required by the ordinance. To optimize the deficient lot and provide adequate square footage for the dwelling unit, you propose to construct the dwelling with a 600 S.F. footprint. Even with this small footprint, the lot coverage will result in a 2.5% deficiency of the 35%required by the ordinance. The building will be placed 2.5' from the front property line, which creates a deficiency of 7.5' of the 10' front yard requirement. The side yards will also be affected, having a deficiency of 2' on one side yard and 1' on the other side yard of the 10' and 5' side yard requirements of zoning ordinance. The structure will be positioned 8' from the rear lot line, creating a deficiency of 12' of the 20' minimum rear yard requirement. In order to provide the required parking, you propose to allow adequate room for a compact car in the garage. The ordinance requires parking spaces to be a minimum of 8' in width and 18' in length; the proposed is 10'2"X 16', a deficiency of 2' in length, of the requirement. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �� Mr. Christopher Anagnost June 9, 2014 418 North Tioga Street Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 The appellant was questioned by Mr. Beer as to the amount of deficiencies that the property has. Appellant said that back in the 1920's the city allowed such properties with deficiencies and at one time the home had three apartments. The house burnt down and the owner didn't rebuild and the allowed time by the city passed. He then sold this property to Mr. Johnson along with three other properties. The proposed house to be built is not any larger than what was seen on the 1956's Sand Born Map. The foundation of the new building does not exceed the foundation of the old building according to the survey. The lot was offered to the neighbors by the current owner with no response and Mr. Anagnost also sent a letter to the neighbors for the purpose of them possible buying the lot, with no response. The property is being taxed with nothing on it. A Public Hearing was held with one person in favor of the variance and one opposed. The owner of 423 South Geneva Street spoke opposed to the variance saying that the new dwelling will look right into the neighbor's kitchen window. In the rebuttal Mr. Anagnost had nothing further to say. A motion was made to grant the variance by Mr. McCormick and second by Teresa Deschanes with the following findings of fact: 1. City Planning Board members recognize the unusual shape of the parcel and feel that the appellant has done a good job of designing the building. Planning Board members recommend this appeal be granted. 2. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (11) and (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. 3. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. 4. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other method feasible. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self-created. 6. The requested area variance is not substantial. 7. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Mr. McCormick would like to stipulate that The variance be conditioned so that the building to be constructed be limited in size to a footprint of 600 square feet with each floor limited in area to the size shown on the drawings submitted by the applicant. Furthermore, no deficiencies granted under this appeal can be exceeded as a result of the altering of the design of the building submitted with this application. Mr. Christopher Anagnost June 9, 2014 418 North Tioga Street Page 3 Ithaca, NY 14850 Mr. Beer asked to amend the motion that any property constructed on the lot does not exceed the plans in the variance application worksheet of 1478 square feet. The motion was amended and second by Gabriel Holbrow with a vote of four (4) in favor none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Mr. Holbrow made a motion to amend the original motion that read, "there will be no undesirable change or detriment to nearby properties created by the granting of this variance", to read, "there will be determent to abutting properties but that detriment in consideration of all the factors weighed against the benefit to the applicant still allows the variance to be granted". The amendment to amend the original motion was second by Mr. McCormick and all were in favor. Mr. Beer—yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, Phyllis Radk Director of Zoning Administration �.°•• �9 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 Cp'•• BUILDING DIVISION r? CRATE Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 A4 t c r•;, Cy rO June 9, 2014 ` Mr. Nathaniel Greenspun 429 Bostwick Road � Ithaca,NY 14850 ' F Board Members present: Teresa Deeshane, Steven Beer,Marshall McCormiek,..a:ne,Ptiyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration. Absent: Moriah Tebor RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of June 3, 2014 Appeal#2943—246 Floral Avenue Dear Mr. Greenspun: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal on behalf of the owner Liu Chunhua for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, off-street parking, Column 11, front yard requirement of the zoning ordinance. You propose to construct an addition to the dwelling located at 246 Floral Avenue. The 150 S.F. single story addition will be located on the southwest corner of the existing dwelling and be used as a bedroom. The dwelling currently has three bedrooms and adding an additional bedroom requires a total of two parking spaces. The building is situated on a steep embankment above the road elevation malting it difficult to provide any parking on the property. The property has zero spaces provided, of the two spaces required by the ordinance. The property has an existing front yard deficiency that will not be exacerbated by the proposed project. The property is located in an R-2c residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued. Discussion with appellant and Mr. Beer regarding the steep incline on Floral Avenue. There is a City parking lot to accommodate property owners in that area. Existing front yard already has deficiencies. A question was asked of the applicant as to how frill the City lots are, Mr. Greenspun, answered, "not full at all". Property is owner occupied. Public Hearing was held with no interested parties in favor or opposed. A motion was made by Mr. McCormick to allow the appeal to be granted with the following findings of fact: 1. City Planning Board members recommend this appeal be granted. 2. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (11)and(12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law,Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��� Mr. Nathaniel Greenspun June 4, 2014 429 Bostwick Road Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 3. The Board has found that there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. 4. The benefit can not be sought in any other way by the applicant, given the steep incline of the property and the difficulties with such a location. 5. The variance is relatively not substantial, 150 square feet adds one additional bedroom. 6. The variance has very little adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood given it is not producing a significant increase in the overall lot coverage of the building. 7. The alleged difficult is not self created it seems as though the lot and the original structure was built in such a way that it would be very difficult and wildly expensive to have to add the parking needed for this structure. The motion by Mr. McCormick was second by Mr. Holbrow and approved by a vote of four(4) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Gabriel Holbrow—yes Teresa Deschanes—yes Marshall McCormick—yes Sincerely, Phyllis Radke Director of Z ing Administration ,��..°•Fc9 CITY OF ITHACA V °®OOM =�e 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-56 W r �'p••.,, .��� BUILDING DIVISION ; 'OP�RpTEO Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521 '` Julie 4, 2014 € . ���E. ��,V 00 Mr. John Mawdsley ° 470 Beam Hill Road 2� Freeville,NY 13068 ��� ,`= ✓°lei Board Members present: Teresa Deschane, Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration. Absent: Moriah Tebor Re: Board of Zoning Meeting of June 3, 2014 Appeal #2942 208 Esty Street Dear Mr. Mawdsley: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, front yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to construct an addition to the ground floor of the property located at 208 Esty Street. The 270 S.F. addition will be located on the east side of the dwelling and you propose to extend the existing front porch, an additional 10 feet, which will provide a walls out feature to the new addition. The proposed 10' porch extension will be constructed in line with the existing front porch, which is located 5'- 6" from the front property line. As a result, the front yard will be deficient 4'- 6" of the required 10' front yard dimension of the zoning ordinance. The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a building permit may be issued. A Public Hearing was held with no interested parties for the variance or against. Board member Mr. McCormick mentioned that the property is already deficient so the variance doesn't change anything. Ms. Deschanes felt that it was the right kind of variance and Mr. Holbrow said that extending the porch will match the existing porch. A motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to grant the appeal with the following findings of fact: 1. The City Planning Board felt that the addition is contextual with the house and the neighbor and recommends this appeal be granted. 2. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (11) and (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action,the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. is An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 1.4, Mr. John Mawdsley June 4, 2014 470 Beam Hill Road Page 2 Freeville, NY 13068 3. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or determent to nearby properties. 4. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other method feasible. 5. The requested variance is not substantial. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. The difficulty is self-created to the extent that the appellant would like to have a porch of this kind because it is very much in keeping with the neighborhood. In weighing the benefit to the applicant against the potential detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community, the Board finds that granting the variance is reasonable and acceptable so, therefore, Mr. Holbrow moved that the variance be granted. The Appeal for 208 Esty Street for an area variance was granted with a vote of four (4) in favor none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, Phyllis Radke Director f oning Administration off.»T.H9 2 ,^� taA ,��.�• •••�9 CITY OF ITHACA � �1 .��, i 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690^qs Egg Min BUILDING DIVISION Telephone: 607/274-6508 Pa6u02J4-f8JI4 y C11 f4 Ms. Andrea Volklnar =� 418 West Court Street ,. Ithaca,NY 14850 Board Members present: Teresa Deschane, Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Moriah Tebor, Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration. Re: Board of Zoning Meeting of July 1, 2014 Appeal 42947 418 West Court Street Dear Ms. Volckmar: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variances from Section 325-8 column 4, 7, 12 and 13, off-street parking, width at street, side yard, and other side yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to remove and replace an existing 13 foot x 5.75 foot deck in poor condition, located in the rear yard of 418 West Court Street, with a new 18 foot x 16.5 foot deck. The proposed new deck will not create any zoning deficiencies. However, the property has no parking and has existing yard deficiencies. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-32C. (2) requires nonconforming structures with no parking to obtain variances for the zoning deficiencies before any addition to the property is approved for construction. The property at 418 West Court Street has no parking spaces; one parking space is required. The street width of the property is 33.3 feet, required is a street width of 35 feet. Finally, the house has existing side yard deficiencies. One yard is 3 feet deep; required is a side yard of 10 feet. The other existing side yard is 2 feet deep; required is a side yard of 5 feet. The property is located in a R2b zoning district where the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that variances are granted before a building permit can be issued. The owner Andrea Volckmar added that there will be a railing all the way around the new deck. She also had two letters from neighbors approving the project. A Public Hearing was held with no persons present in favor or opposed. Mr. Beer entered two letters as exhibits to the file in support of the project, one from the owner of 410 West Court Street and one from 211 Esty Street. Ms. Tebor feels the appeal is straight forward and made a motion to grant the variance with a second by Mr. Holbrow with the following findings of fact: `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��� Ms. Andrea Volkinar July 2, 2014 418 West Court Street Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties, it will improve the property. 2. The benefit sought by Ms. Volckmar can not be achieved in any other way. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self created. 6. City of Ithaca Planning Board supported granting the variance because all the deficiencies are preexisting. The appeal for 418 West Court Street was granted from Section 325-8, columns 4,7,12 and 13 with five (5) in favor none opposed, Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor- yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, Phylli Radke Director of Zo ing Administration �.°•• I' �9 CITY OF ITHACA V=°®®® .4 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 •• .'� BUILDING DMSION o A �Ap•.........• r �RAT�O Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521 '� V'\W6 c .+ u, �{ftc C r•I C-S EC°�L 5 July 14, 2014 �� C��� Mr.Norbert Nolte C4 958 Comfort Roadi Spencer-, NY 14883 '� tl 44 0`6 Board Members present: Teresa Deschane, Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Moriah Tebor, Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration. Re: Board of Zoning Meeting of July 1, 2014 Appeal#2948 441 North Aurora Street Dear Mr. Nolte: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for Meryl and Bailey Phipps owners of 441 North Aurora Street, for an area variance from Section 325-8 Column 4, 11, 12, and 13, off-street parking, front yard, side yard, and other side yard respectively,requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to remove approximately 98 SF from the front porch at 441 North Aurora Street, a 4- bedroom single family home. This will allow an 11-foot wide x 19'-7" deep parking area at the southwest corner of the property. According to Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-20 D. (5) (a),the minimum dimensions of a parking space is 8 feet x 18 feet. Currently the four bedroom home has no parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires two spaces for dwellings with 4 to 5 bedrooms. The property also has existing front and side yard deficiencies. The front yard is setback .5 feet from the front yard property line; required is a 10-foot front yard. The side yard is 2 feet deep and the other side yard is .65 feet; required are side yards of 10 feet and 5 feet. The property at 411 North Aurora Street is located in the R2b zoning district where accessory parking is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that zoning variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. It was brought to the Board's attention that the porch is somewhat already removed. Ms. Tebor found this very troubling, that work was done prior to the variance being issued. A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor or opposed. Discussion followed with Mr. Holbrow saying lie would like to grant the variance but doesn't like any part of it. Mr. McCormick feels that it is a difficult appeal because the area in question has many issues with parking and having a parking place would alleviate one car from parking on the street. Ms. Tebor feels that he needs to go back to the Building Division pay the fine and have new plans drawn up because the one's submitted are not right. Mr. Beer feels the Board has three choices, 1.Is to defer action, 2, Vote to approve and 3, Vote to deny. A motion was made to grant the variance by Mr. Holbrow. The existing deficiencies for parking front, side, and other side yard. Variances are necessary before doing any alterations. A building permit can not be granted without the variances being granted. Appellant removed the porch before being issued a 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to-workforce diversification." .r Mr. Norbert Nolte July 14, 2014 958 Comfort Road Page 2 Spencer,NY 14883 permit. Alterations required removal of existing porch to create a parking area,removal of city tree and reconstruction of a portion of porch for access to side door. Therefore, a motion was made to grant thevariance with the following findings of fact: 1. The Planning Board does not support removing a porch to add front yard parking. The porch contributes largely to the attractiveness of the house and contextuality in the neighborhood. 2. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood or to nearby properties. 3. The benefit sought by the applicant in any other manner-reducing the parking deficiency outweighs adverse impact. 4. The variance is not substantial. 5. The Board is split on whether this variance will have an adverse effect on the physical conditions of the neighborhood. Parking space vs. loss of porch. 6. This is a type two action so no further environmental review is necessary. Mr. Holbrow—yes Mr. Beer—abstain Ms. Tebor—abstain Ms. Deschanes—no Mr. McCormick—yes There seemed to be a difference of opinion due to there not being a majority for granting the variance so another vote was taken. Yes vote would mean the variance would be denied and a no vote would mean the variance would be granted. Mr. Holbrow—yes Mr. Beer—abstain Ms. Tebor—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—no The variance for 441 North Aurora Street was denied by a vote of 3 in favor of denying and one vote to approve and'one abstained Sincerely, Phyllis Radk Directo oning Administration CITY OF ITHACA �f 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5 00 11 Y2 o � .......... BUILDING DIVISION � A� 4q 4 ♦ tr Filed � Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 City('ic, s Office August 26, 2014 cli 2 8 Vii+1 w Carey Building Associates, LLC 323 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Special Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 19, 2014 Appeal #2955 — 314-320 East State Street Present: Steven Beer, Moriah Tebor, Teresa Deschanes, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Absent: Marshall McCormick. Dear Carey Building Associates: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal, for Frost Travis, owner of the Carey Building at 314-320 East State Street, for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 9, height in feet, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to build a five- story addition above the existing two- story building at 314-320 East State Street. The addition will include; office use on third floor and apartments located on floors 4 through 7. The proposed seven- story building will have a building height of 77'-10", which is the measurement from average grade to the seventh story roof level. The Zoning Ordinance excludes the mechanical penthouse on top of the seventh floor from the building height calculation. The building footprint for 314-320 East State Street is in the CBD-60 zone, where building height is limited to 60 feet. The property at 314-20 East State Street is in both the CBD-60 and the CBD-100 zones, but the existing building footprint is in the more restrictive zone. The proposed mixed use addition for the property located at 314-320 E. State Street, is permitted in both zones; however, Section 325-38 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a zoning variance must be granted before a building permit can be issued. At the August 19, 2014 Special Meeting: Frost Travis and John Snyder presented new letters of support to Board members, which included letters from Historic Ithaca, CSMA, Cornell, Downtown Ithaca Alliance, and Warren Real Estate. CSMA a neighbor immediately to the east, supports the project because it will bring more activity on the 300 block of East State Street, and the positive economic impact to central Ithaca. Cornell is happy to see this project come to life because they occupy the third floor of the building with the incubator,which fits with the overall plan. The hope is that the incubator will be an economic generator in the form of new companies and new jobs downtown. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �«� Carey Building Associates, LLC August 26, 2014 323 North Tioga Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 The Downtown Ithaca Alliance supports the project because the design and scale are compatible with the neighborhood. They feel it will be a nice transition from the old City to the new. Warren Real Estate feels the project is innovative and unprecedented in Ithaca. The partnership with Cornell, Ithaca College and Tompkins Community College could be a start up for high quality jobs. Historic Ithaca supports the project because the architect designed the addition to be compatible with the existing building constructed around 1927. There was one letter in opposition to the project from Julie Schroeder, owner of Homespun a business in the Carey Building. Her concerns were in regard to the proposed green roof, and that the additional stories will make the building be structurally overbuilt. She also attended the first meeting on August 5th and voiced her opposition that the additional stories will create a canyon effect. Board members discussed the appeal at length including the issue that: The front entrance is in back and the front of the building is set back so that it is in line with other buildings on that block. The whole structure won't be over 70 feet in height. Only the back portion rises to 77' — 10 ". The variance was moved by Moriah Tebor to grant the appeal with the following findings of fact. 1. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method but not feasible for applicant. 3. Only the portion of the building that rises to 77'-10" causes the variance to be substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or enviromnental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty was self-created, but the additional height allows the cost of construction to be achievable. 6. The City of Ithaca supports granting the variance because the proposed height variance is more appropriated here than it might be in other locations along this CBD- 60 corridor. This is because it borders the CBD-100 zone and the CBD-120 zone is across the street. 7. Tompkins County Department of Planning has determined that it has no negative inter-community or county-wide impacts. Carey Building.Associates, LLC August 26, 2014 323 North Tioga Street Page 3 Ithaca,NY 14850 8. The City Planning Board was lead agency for the environmental review. A frill Envirommental Review was conducted. With mitigations listed in the LEAF Part 3 and incorporations of features intended to integrate existing building and addition, the Planning Board determined the project will result in no significant impact on the environmental and a negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8, Environmental Conservation law. The variance for 314-320 East State Street was granted for an area variance from Section 325-8, column 9 with a vote of three (3) in favor none opposed. Steven Beer—yes Moriah Tebor—yes Teresa Deschanes—yes Sincerely, Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 c0•'••.•, �,f'�� BUILDING DIVISION �Pp�AAYEa Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521 August 13, 2014 Mr. Charles Izzo 1108 North Cayuga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Board Members present: Moriah Teboe, Gabriel Holbrow,Teresa Deeshane, Steven Beer,Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration. RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of August 5, 2014 Appeal#2953 — 1108 North Cayuga Street Dear Mr. Izzo: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325-8 Columns, 7, 10, 11, 12, and I'), lot width, percentage of lot coverage, front yard ,side yard, and other side yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to construct a 27' x 22' family room addition and enclosed entryway in the rear yard of 1108 North Cayuga Street. To make sufficient room for this addition, you will remove an existing one story addition and deck from the rear yard. The new addition will increase the property's current deficient side yards. On the south side of 1108 North Cayuga Street, the existing house has a side yard setback of 8.2 feet; the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10-foot side yard setback. The "L "shaped addition will positioned at the 8.2 foot setback and extend an additional 16 feet along the side yard. On the north side of 1108 North Cayuga Street, the existing building's other side yard is approximately 2 feet deep. The Zoning Ordinance requires this other side yard to have a 5- foot setback. On this side, you propose to have the addition setback 3.5 feet for the length of the addition, which, on the north side is approximately 26 feet. The current lot coverage for the building at 1108 north Cayuga street is 31%. The maximum allowed lot coverage is 35%. The proposed addition will increase the lot coverage to 38%. The property has two existing area deficiencies that will not be increased by this proposal. The existing street frontage is 32.88 feet; the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum street frontage of 35 feet. The front yard is only 3.5' deep; required is a front yard setback of 10 feet. The property at 1108 North Cayuga Street is in an R2b use district where the proposed addition is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. This is a Type 2 action under City Envirommental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a "An Equal opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." %411 Mr. Charles Izzo August 13, 2014 1108 North Cayuga Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor and none opposed. In the discussion with the owners it came up that they would like to change the appeal and add an additional two (2) feet to the north side of the project. A motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to grant the appeal as it was written with the following findings of fact: 1. The City of Ithaca Planning Board approved this appeal. 2. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. 3. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some other method. 4. The requested variance is not substantial. 5. There will be no adverse effect on the physical. 6. The appeal might be self-created but it doesn't preclude the granting of the area variance. The motion was second by Mr. Marshall and approved as written with all in favor. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor- yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Mr. Holbrow made a motion to consider adding the additional two (2) feet to the side yard of the appeal. This motion was second by Mr. Marshall. This motion was withdrawn. A motion by Mr. Holbrow was made to correct an omission from the original appeal to add the additional two (2) fee. A second was made by Ms. Tebor. Mr. Izzo was asked by Board members why he would want the Board to revise the appeal, he answered, "we feel the design is deficient and will leave us with insufficient space". A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor or opposed. Ms. Tebor made a motion to the Board to take 62 days in order for Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration to speak to the City Attorney, Ari Lavine, and re-advertise the variance. The motion was second by Ms. Deschanes with all in favor. Mr. Charles Izzo August 13, 2014 1108 North Cayuga Street Page 3 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ms. Radke, Director of Zoning Administration, suggested the applicant re-advertise and provide notice to the neighbors about the revised variance request and impact on district regulations so that the amendment can be voted on first at the September hearing. Board members and applicant where in favor of the applicant simply re-advertising, instead of waiting for the Attorney's opinion. The appeal was granted with all in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor- yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, Phyliss Re Director of Zon' g Administration ............ �9 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 I ED CITY CLERKS C FFICE BUILDING DIVISION AUG I Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 August 13, 2014 Mr. Norbert Nolte 958 Comfort Road Spencer, NY 14883 Board Members present: Moriah Tebor, Gabriel Holbrow,Teresa Deeshane, Steven Beer,Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration. RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of August 5, 2014 Appeal 92954—441 North Aurora Street Dear Mr. Nolte: The Zoning Board of Appeals considered you appeal for Meryl and Bailey Phipps owners of 441 North Aurora Street, for area variance from Section 325-8 Column 4, 11, 12, and 13, off-street parking, front yard, side yard, and other side yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to remove approximately 98 SF from the front porch at 441 North Aurora Street, a 4-bedroom single family home. This will allow an 11- foot wide x 19'-7" deep parking area at the southwest corner of the property. According to Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-20 D. (5) (a), the minimum dimensions of a parking space is 8 feet x 18 feet. Currently the four bedroom home has no parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires two spaces for dwellings with 4 to 5 bedrooms. The property also has existing front and side yard deficiencies. The front yard is setback .5 feet from the front yard property line; required is a 10- foot front yard. The side yard is 2 feet deep and the other side yard is .65 feet; required are side yards of 10 feet and 5 feet. The property at 411 North Aurora Street is located in the R2b zoning district where accessory parking is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that zoning variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from enviromnental review under Envirommental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. Board Members present: Moriah Tebor, Gabriel Holbrow,Teresa Deeshane, Steven Beer,Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration. Mr. Nolte has modified the appeal for 441 North Aurora Street from last month's appeal. He will replace the stone work around the foundation, and would like to take the porch back to what it was. Mr. McCormick is in favor of the off street parking area in front of the house. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �� Mr. Norbert Nolte August 13, 2014 958 Comfort Road Page 2 Spencer,NY 14883 Mr. Nolte has modified the appeal for 441 North Aurora Street from last month's appeal. He will replace the stone work around the foundation, and would like to take the porch back to what it was. Public hearing was held with no persons in favor and none opposed. There were two letters from neighbors in support of the project. The owners spoke on how it would be a huge burden for them to enlarge the front porch right now, but would be a possibility in the future. A motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to grant the variance with the following findings of fact: 1. The Planning Board supports the granting of this appeal with the following conditions. a. Enlarge the covered porch to replace the removed portion. b. Construct a grassed center strip for the driveway. c. Replace street tree under guidance of City Forester. 2. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties. 3. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other feasible method. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or enviromllental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty was self-created but does not preclude the granting of the area variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals does not adopt the Planning Boards conditions. Mr. McCormick second the motion with the following conditions. 1. Place a concrete apron around the driveway with a grass center strip. The appeal for 441 North Aurora Street was granted with five (5) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor- yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, r Phyll Radke Director of Zon' g Administration •.�9 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 OPP cC' .••• ;`� BUILDING DIVISION �t r Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 August 12, 2014 Sciencenter Attn: Mr. Charlie Trautmann 601 First Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Board Members present: Moriah Teboe, Gabriel Holbrow,Teresa Deeshane, Steven Beer,Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration. RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of August 5, 2014 Appeal 92952—601 First Street Dear Mr. Trautmann The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a sign permit from the regulations of the City's Sign Ordinance Section 272-6B(2), which allows only one free standing sign per business; and Section 272-9 A, which states in part that signs must be set back 10- feet from the public right-of-way. You propose to erect a new monument sign, a type of freestanding sign. This will be the second freestanding sign on the premise. The other freestanding sign is located along Route 13. The proposed sign structure for this monument sign will be constructed of Lenrock stones laid to a height of three-feet and it will be approximately 20.5 feet long. The name the "Sciencenter" will be added to the face of the stone in 12"tall acrylic letters. On top of the capstones, there will be five sets of aluminum posts that will hold five -3 ft. wide x 3 feet tall, acrylic signboards used for information purposes. Only the signboard with the Sciencenter logo is calculated as part of the total sign area. The total area of the signage mounted on the monument structure will be 21 SF. You propose to locate the sign in the public right-of way at the corner of First and Franklin. Section 272-9 A. requires signs to be set back 10- feet from a public right-of-way. To locate the sign in this area, the applicant also needs an easement form the Board of Public Works. There are also two existing building signs at the 601 First Street location. One building sign is over the main doors of the building. The other is a roof sign at the corner of First and Franklin Street. You propose to remove the roof sign because of visibility issues and believes that the 1' x 12' ground level sign located at the corner of Franklin and First Street will.be better suited to help visitors find the museum. The Sciencenter is located at 601 First Street in a P-1 zoning district. Sign Ordinance, Section 272-18 requires that variances be granted for the proposed signs before a sign permit can be issued. n `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." c UOIWJjSTUTuzpV�?uT oZ Jo TOIoaTTQ Z)}PL, Tppxud `XIamouls SOX—NoluTTojow '.TN sax—sauLgosaQ •sN sari—moTglOH 'rye soX -TogaZ •sN SOX—Taag ..IN •pasoddo ouou Poe Tone ui s gtuotu pTwg Iln ulTm soualosoa usaTal Xg puooas 73 1411M panoTddL, sLm TajuoouaToS aT41 IL,uOis IuuoilTpp-e u-c Toj poddu oql •pootlTogtl2Tau atlj UT SuoTTTpuoo IL'JuauTUOTTnua To ILIoTSXtld all uo loop) asTanp72 ou ag IITm aTatlZ S potl�aLu Tatpo atuos Xg panaTtloB ag jou two juLoTldd-c atll Xg ItISnos jUxTog atlZ •p •�3uTplTng auj of XjjjjgTSTn Tajjag sT Mqj os UTI3Iu72Td PUB JsTT3 JO Tauzoo atlj ILI UfIS 0qj anutl of isonjuT oTlgnd atlJ to ST 1I '£ •pootlTogtl�Tau atlj jo Tajounilo otp uT poonpoTd a&Uulo olguTTsopun ou ag IITm aTatlZ 'Z ILaddu sTgl slToddns pT-eog�3uTuueId uouglI jo XITD all -1 :1ouj jo s2uTpuTd OuTmolloj atlj tpim oomeTTren OTs agj juaif o4 moTgIOH •TW Xg opau sum uoTlotu V •SU23Ts atll of pasoddo To Tone UT QUO ou LJJTM ppaTl sL'm fuTTL'aII oTlgnd Ianal punoB ILI JsTTd PUB UTl�;[UUJJ JO TauTOO atlj ju auo puL, £I alno2l uo u'TS luatunuotu auo ag IITm aTatl I, •paouldaT ag l,uom puv uo ind sum jooT mau L,uatlm panouzaT uaag p-etl u1Ts JOOT agJ TutlJ pauoTjuatu Z)q `TajuaouaToS agT jo T ooS tuTZ TojoaUC[ XjndaQ tITIm uoTssnosip potIS •JSBM JO TtI�;TT XJID aTIJ UT aoLupTS agj could of pounbaT ST S�,laoA� oTlgnd jo p uog all uzoij juatuasva XIID L, jull popuTUTaT sum JULOTlddu aT1J •aaUBUIPJp maTnaZl Xilluno pejuaurU0JTAu2j s,XITD agl Taptnl soijjjjgTsuodsaT Taupnj ou sul VZU atll `uoTjoe Z adxl L, sTtll 2UlTlelaap uI •g aloTjJV `m-C7 uoTTLInTasuOD ILITuauTUOTTnug Topun maTnaT ILIIuauTUOnnua tuoTj papnlooTd osTmJZ)glO sT PUB JuatuuoTTnua all uo jo-edun jubnglaTs B anLtl jou coop `dons su `puL, (Z 1) S-9L I `IJL'd maTna-d Xilluno jLTUQt TUOTTnuE[XJTD Tapun uoTjoL, Z odxl-p sT sTtIZ mtl AN toulli 103T1S JSTT,I log Z a2L'd uwtiTinaTZ oiliulD •Tye :ujjV t,10Z `ZI Isn&nV Taluaoumos CITY OF ITHACA v=° M '�t 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 °on@ OPP C.. .. r�� BUILDING DIVISION RATEO Telephone: 607/274-6508 F 7 _. � 415/tz�41 6,X14 Ramsgard Architectural 61 East Genesee Street Skaneateles, NY 13152 Board Members present: Moriah Teboe, Gabriel Holbrow,Teresa Deeshane, Steven Beer,Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration. RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of August 5, 2014 Appeal#2950— 102 East Clinton Street Dear Mr. KOZLIb: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for three sign variances for the two proposed wall signs. The first wall sign needs a variance from the City's Sign Ordinance, Section 272-6B (2), which states in part that wall signs in commercial districts shall not exceed 50 S.F. and Section 272-4A(1) which states wall signs and the supporting structure camzot project more than 18" from the attaclunent point of the wall. The second wall sign requires a variance from Section 272-4 A (1) which states wall signs and supporting structure cannot project more than 18" from the attachment point of the wall. TC3 is in the process of constructing a new culinary institute and restaurant, called Coltivare, which will be located on the main floor of 102 East Clinton. You are requesting to install a sign for the new restaurant that is larger than the maximum 50 S.F. allotted for each wall sign permitted in a commercial district. 102 East Clinton Street is located in the CBD -100 and CBD- 120 zoning district. The massive building at this location also contains 7- stories of public parking. The culinary institute and restaurant will have 135'-8" of building frontage on South Cayuga Street and 122'-8" of building frontage on East Clinton Street. While the Sign Ordinance allows commercial signs to be 1.5 times the length of the building's frontage, it also restricts each wall sign to a maximum of 50 SF. For the sake of visibility and for the sign to be more proportionate with the size of the building, you are seeking a variance for a sign that will be 146.4 SF in size. This sign also projects a total of 24"from the point of attachment. This is 6" more than allowed by Section 272-4A(1). You would also like to erect another type of wall sign known as a projecting sign, which will be 26.90 SF in size. Section 272-4 A (1) allows signs to project a maximum of 18". The second proposed wall sign and its supporting structure will project approximately 6'-10 %" from the building wall. An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." iy Ramsgard Architectural August 11, 2014 61 East Genesee Street Page 2 Skaneateles,NY 13152 Representatives from Ramsgard and a representative from TO spoke in regards to the variance. They showed a 3-D model of the building with the signs. Board members questioned the size and height and were told because the building is so large the size of the signs is needed and that the sign needs to be above the tree line. A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor or opposed. A letter from JoAnn Cornish, Director of P1amling, Building and Economic Development was read in favor of the sign variance. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from enviromnental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action,the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. Ms. Tebor agreed with Ms. Cornish that the variance is substantial but stated that good signage is essential. The Board felt that there was enough information to move the variance. Motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to grant the variance with the following findings of fact: 1. City of Ithaca Planning Board approves of the variance. 2. No detriment or undesirable change to nearby property will be caused by granting the sign variance. 3. The scale of the sign is justified. 4. It is believed that the sign will promote a more attractive economic and business climate. 5. It will improve communications within the community. The motion to grant the sign variances was second by Ms. Tebor with all in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor- yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes jadlor of Zoni g Administration -� •.�y CITY OF ITHACA G ��® 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 ��Ep o�Flc Jul C+.,,• ,f,� BUILDING DIVISION 'Ppp"RATED Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 August 12, 2014 Ms. Amber Gilewski 121 Cascadilla Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Board Members present: Moriah Teboe, Gabriel Holbrow,Teresa Deeshane, Steven Beer, Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of August 5, 2014 Appeal 92951 — 121 Cascadilla Street Dear Ms. Gilewski: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for a Special Permit to conduct a Bed and Breakfast under the Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-9 C (4) (g). You are also seeking variances from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 325-8, Columns 4, 6, 10, 11.12, and 14/15, lot area,percentage of lot coverage, front yard, side yard, and rear yard respectively. As the owner you propose to convert your single family home located at 121 Cascadilla Street into a Bed and Breakfast home. Currently the building at 121 Cascadilla Street is a 4-bedroom house where the bedrooms are located on the second floor. You will occupy two of the bedrooms; one which will be used as an office and the other for a sleeping room. The other two bedrooms will be used for guest rooms. Each bedroom is allowed two persons, so the maximum occupancy in the building will be limited to six persons. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-20D (3) (b) requires one parking space for each bed and breakfast room. Section 325-8, Column 4, requires two spaces for the other two bedrooms existing in the house. The property at 121 Cascadilla has only two off-street parking spaces. The applicants are requesting a variance for the additional required parking space. The property at 121 Cascadilla Street is located in an R-2b zone where Bed and Breakfast homes are permitted. However, Section 325-39 requires that a special permit be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Board members listened to you explain how you watched the parking in front of your home and documented the parking issue. Most of the time you explained that there were two to three spaces vacant in front. A Public hearing was held with no one in favor or opposed to the variances. Mr. Marshall read letters from three neighbors that were all in favor of the B & B. is 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �«� Ms. Amber Gilewski August 12, 2014 121 Cascadilla Street Ithaca,NY 14850 This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article S. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. A motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to grant the Special Permit and a variance for parking with the following findings of fact: 1. There will be no negative impact on municipal services. 2. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 3. The variance is self created, but is reasonable in the context of the Special Permit. 4. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It is understood that there is additional parking in the driveway and parking on the street. 5. City Planning Board supports the concept of the Bed & Breakfast. The motion was second for a Special Permit for a Bed and Breakfast and the variance for parking by Ms. Tebor with all in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor- yes Mr. Holbrow—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sin Tike PhyDirn' g Administration .............. 9 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 C�••.,,••• •;q� BUILDING DIVISION ,3 G� 5 6 j Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 a Files Cg%ce j k i September 3, 2014 GitY C,er a 2Q1Q ro C,%Mr. Grahm Kerslick&Ms. Jennifer Wilkins � 115 Orchard Place y� Ithaca,NY 14850 �8 � 95y � Re: Board of Zoning Meeting of September 2,2014 Appeal#2956— 115 Orchard Place Present: Steven Beer, Teresa Deschanes, Marshall McCormick, Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Mr. Kerslick&Ms. Jennifer Wilkins: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance, as owners of 115 Orchard Place from Section 325-8, Column 11, front yard setback, a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to add a new entry porch and open trellis to your single-family home at 115 Orchard Place. The property is located on the corner of Blair and Orchard Street; per City Zoning regulations,this property has two front yards. Both front yards have a setback requirement of 25 feet. The proposed addition will be located in the front yard facing Blair Street, where the house at 115 Orchard Place is setback four feet from the front yard property line. The proposal is to add the new entry porch flush to this side of the house extending the existing deficient front yard an additional seven feet to the south. This will allow approximately 127 SF of the porch trellis structure to be located in the required front yard setback. The front yard setback facing Orchard Street is also deficient. This front yard setback is 3 feet, but this deficiency will not be exacerbated by the proposed project. 115-Orchard Place is located in the R-lb use district where the proposed addition is a permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that area variances be granted for the deficiencies prior to a building permit being issued. You stated that the property at 115 Orchard Place is in a Historic District and that you have been approved by Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee. Ms. Deschanes asked if there was some other way in which to do your project and you stated that because of the steep grade the only way to do the project is as it was submitted. The design of the trellis structure is also in keeping with the rest of the house design and similar to front entryway. •Public Hearing was held with no interested parties in favor or opposed. •motion by Ms. Deschanes to grant the appeal for an area variance from Section 325-8, column 11, front yard setback, was made with the following findings of fact: "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Mr. Grahm Kerslick&Ms. Jennifer Wilkins September 3, 2014 115 Orchard Place Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 Re: Board of Zoning Meeting of September 2,2014 Appeal#2956— 115 Orchard Place This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (11)and (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review tinder Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. h1 declaring this a Type 2 action,the BZA has no further responsibilities Lender the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. A motion was made by Ms. Deschanes to grant the appeal for Section 325-8 Column 11, front yard setback with the following findings of fact: • There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood. The ILPC and Planning Board think that the design is appropriate. No one spoke against the proposal. • ILPC and City Planning Boards support project. • This appeal is not substantial because both sides of the property are already deficient. The proposal will reflect symmetry. • There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. • The alleged difficulty was not self-created. The applicant t cannot do without the setback variance because of steep slopes. The variance for 115 Orchard Place was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor none opposed. Steven Beer—yes Teresa Deschanes—yes Marshall McCormick—yes Sincerely, Phylli Radke Director of Zon' g Administration °�i��9 CITY OF ITHACA V~'° ® :t 108 Bast Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 .............,.`� BUILDING DIVISION 4 56 7 8 gpORA7�0 Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 September 4, 2014 F e s ,ce >N G��CK Q VVA Phase III, LLC 1001 West Seneca Street CA Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 2, 2014 8 [ 9 5 V Appeal # 2960 — 120 Valentine Place Present: Steven Beer, Teresa Deschanes. Marshall McCormick Dear Valentine Vision Associates: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered you appeal for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 7, width at street requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing parcel of land and create two separate lots. The purpose of this subdivision is to secure long-term financing for two completed buildings and secure financing for the construction of a new building located at 120 Valentine Place. The parcel indicated as 3B will be subdivided into lots 3B and 3C. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel that contains the recently completed buildings 5 and 6,known as 112 and 113 Valentine Place and locate building 7, which is 120 Valentine Place on the newly formed 3C lot. The proposed 3C lot has no street width on a public way. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum width of 50' at the street line. In order to mitigate the deficiency in width at street,the applicant is providing a 20' wide roadway along the northern property line of lot 3C which will extend 92' to the access point of the public way on Valentine Place. This roadway will provide direct access to the building located at 120 Valentine Place. The property is located in an R3a/P-1 zoning district where the proposed use is permitted. However, General City Law, Article 33.3 states that lots eligible for subdivision must be in compliance with City zoning regulations before subdivision can be approved. Compliance will be achieved if the Board grants the applicant's variance request. Tom Nix, and Randy Marcus, representing Valentine Visions Associates, explained that the request is similar to past appeals that the Board has granted. There was a discussion about financing and that it does not result in any change, the same buildings will be built, same configuration, same location, same parking, same green spaces will be developed, salve roads,pathways, same driveways will be installed, the only reason for the appeal is the lack of street width on a public way. There is nothing that has been changed from the original variances that were previously granted by the Board of Zoning. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 40% VVA Phase I1I, LLC September 4, 2014 1001 West Seneca Street Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 2, 2014 Appeal # 2960 — 120 Valentine Place There was further discussion regarding the variance for the street width, required is 50 feet; proposed is an easement approximately 20 wide to the public road. The proposed easement street is not a public street; the streets around the project are mostly fire lanes and meet the fire lane requirements. The deficiency for the proposed easement is that it does not have direct access to a public street. This 20' wide easement is approximately 92' feet long before reaching the public street. The issue is that people have access to the building. This is the only practical way to proceed with the construction. The construction lenders want a mortgage on the lot that is being built; separate from the lots that have already been built on. Phillip Projanski,joined the discussion is co- managing member of Valentine Visions along with John Novarr. One point he made is that these separate entities are all separate LLC's. This is really a traditional way to do financing. The job was too challenging to do the construction in two phases because of site conditions and why they have had to phase construction. The hardship was not self-created; the topography was created a long time ago. A Public Hearing was held with no person in favor and none opposed. It was moved by Mr. McCormick to grant the appeal for 120 Valentine Place for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 7, street requirements with the following findings of fact: • City Planning Board supports the appeal. • The variance that the applicant is seeking is that of street width on a proposed sub- division in which 50' is required and of which zero is being provided. To mitigate that deficiency of 100%the applicant is providing at 20' roadway along the northern line of what will be Lot C, which will place access to the lot at 92' from the public way on Valentine Place. • Given the site plan that was approved a long time ago there is no material change in the project plan nor further detriment or undesirable change that will be made to the neighborhood. • Deficiencies will not exacerbate any environmental issues. This is a Type II Environmental assessment and to which the City sees no environment concerns. • As testified to be Valentine Associates, there is no other way in which to seek this variance. • The variance is not substantial in as much as it does not create any physical change in the neighborhood and is very much in line with the other buildings in the area. VVA Phase III, LLC September 4, 2014 1001 West Seneca Street Page 3 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of September 2, 2014 Appeal #2960— 120 Valentine Place • The alleged difficulty is not self-created as the lots on which they are building are very hard to construct on and they have run into many difficulties constructing the buildings. The appeal was second by Ms. Deschanes with a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, Phyllis Radke Director oiling Administration CITY OF ITHACA G En ® 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 Z� .� �'•.,, �� BUILDING DIVISION O,pp•.......•• e-,73 ° �RATtiO Telephone: 607/274-6508 Pax: 607/274-6521 `�N October 8, 2014 Mr. Samuel R. Epps `( r city C d(.-7ce 27 Middaugh Road Brooktondale,NY 14817 4 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of October 7, 2014 . ', Appeal 42965 - 115 South Quarry Street ' Present: Steven Beer, Teresa Deschanes, Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Mr. Epps: You appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the owner of Valentine Venture LLC, for a Special Permit for a Neighborhood Commercial Facility at 115 South Quarry Street as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-9 C.L(e). You requested a Special Permit for a new restaurant at 115 South Quarry Street called "Gola Osteria", in the Quarry Arms Apartment building. The Italian Restaurant will also have a local beer and wine menu and serve a limited selection of liquor. The Quarry Arms, a former hospital and adult care facility, has a large existing kitchen and dining facility. The dining room serves 72 persons and has 22 seats in the bar area. In addition, there are 30 seats on an outdoor deck used for dining during the summer season. The kitchen and dining room were once an accessory use to the Hospital and an Adult Care Facility before the building was converted to apartments. You are allowed to serve food to the residents of the Quarry Arms Apartment, as of right, but you would like to expand the use to students in other nearby housing, to visiting parents, and to local residents. Two other restaurants have operated in this facility successfully under a Special Permit with the privilege of serving surrounding community residents as well as the residents of Quarry Arms. You propose to operate the restaurant Tuesday thru Saturday for dinner. On Sundays,the restaurant will be open 10:00 am to 2:00 for brunch and 4:00 to 9:00 pm for dinner. The property 115 South Quarry Street is located in the R-3a use district where the proposed restaurant is permitted by Special Permit as a Neighborhood Commercial Facility. You as the restaurant owner, John Novarr,property owner, and Randy Marcus, attorney were present to answer questions from board members. You spoke of recent restaurants that had used the building in the past but left for various reasons. One of their Special Permits had conditions, but the conditions were later removed by the BZA at the request of the restaurateur who proved the restaurant had a positive impact in the neighborhood. Mr. Novarr said he feels that many of the customers will be residents of the Collegetown Terrace Apartments, and hopes that the C2.1 "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �2.1 Mr. Samuel R. Epps October 9, 2014 27 Middaugh Road Page 2 Brooktondale,NY 14817 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of October 7, 2014 Appeal #2965 — 115 South Quarry Street restaurant will attract residents of the nearby neighborhood. He stated he doesn't feel that parking will be an issue because there is an abundance of parking in the area of Quarry Arms Apartments. A Public Hearing was held with no interested parties for the variance or against. Board Member Ms. Deschanes doesn't have any problems with the appeal and feels it fits in with the Board of Zoning guidelines. Mr. Marshall doesn't have a problem with the appeal and feels that if they so choose to advertize that they should be allowed to under applicable laws. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (11) and (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. A motion was made by Mr. McCormick to grant the variance for a Special Permit for a Neighborhood Commercial Facility with the following findings of fact: 1. The conditions are consistent with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. There will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community. 3. The location of the site with respect to existing or future streets giving access to it shall be in such that they will be in harmony with existing character of the neighborhood. 4. The operation of this facility shall not be objectionable to nearby neighbors by reason of noise, fumes, vehicle traffic,parking demand. 5. Ithaca City Planning has recommended granting this appeal. The appellant seeks to reestablish a restaurant use that previously worked well in this location. The appeal for a Special Permit for 115 South Quarry Street was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Deschanes—Yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincer , Phyl is Radk Direc or oning Administration CITY OF ITHACA 6:: 'a 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 .o�pp lnn t 2 3 BUILDING DIVISION q............. �RA7EA Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521 *' October 8, 2014 N O�'C> `yid O 'Ce 0 Mr. Aaron Munzer �4 545 Third Street Ithaca,NY 14850 ` RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of October 7, 2014 Appeal 42961 — 545 Third Street Present: Steven Beer, Teresa Deschanes, Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Mr. Munzer: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for the Farmers Market located at 545 Third Street, a property owned by the City of Ithaca, for a sign variance from Section 272-6B(2), number and size of allowed signs in the WF-1 Zoning District, requirements of the Sign Ordinance. You are seeking three sign variances for the signage located at 545 Third Street, the Farmers Market. Sign Ordinance, Section 272-6B(2) only allows one freestanding sign. In lieu of the freestanding sign, a business can have two wall signs. No sign can be larger than 50SF in size. The Farmers Market has a 24 SF freestanding sign at the entrance to the Farmer's Market's parking area off of Third Street. In addition to this sign, two wall signs are located on the pavilions gabled entranceways, each near an end of the main pavilion. The first wall sign is 125 SF. The second wall sign is 72 SF. Though larger than allowed, you believe the signs are appropriately sized for the size and height of the Market's pavilion. The Farmer's Market at 545 Third Street is located in a WF-1 zone where signs are permitted. However, the Sign Ordinance, Section 272-18 requires that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the variance request before a sign permit can be issued. Aaron Menzer, Steve Katel and Cody Craiger from the Farmer's Market spoke regarding the sign. They feel that the Market is invisible and the signs are greatly needed so that people can find them. Asked about the size of the sign and they stated that the building is on 3 acres, 22,000 square feet and 600 feet long, so that the size is appropriate. A Public hearing was held with no persons in favor of the signs and with no one opposed. All Board Members seem to be in favor of the signs and feel that they are appropriate for the market. An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." .41$ Mr. Aaron Munzer October 8, 2014 545 Third Street Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of October 7, 2014 Appeal #2961 — 545 Third Street A motion was made by Ms. Deschanes to approve the variance with the following findings of fact: 1. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (18) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. 2. City Planning Board recommends granting the appeal 3. The size of sign on building can be considered too large but the board feels that they are in scale with the building given that the building is 600 feet long and also that they are an iconic part of the character of the Farmers Market. 4. In the context of existing signs in the neighborhood the board took in to consideration that this is a commercial district and Farmers Market signs are a worthy addition to the neighborhood. 5. It is not detrimental to the surrounding properties. 6. These signs do not interfere with the open spaces, views or vistas in the area. The variance for 545 Third Street, Farmers Market, Section 272-613 was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick- yes Sincerely Phyllis Rad e Direct r o Zoning Administration City of aca Building division ,� ..°•F I CITY OF ITHACA 108 Fast Green Street Ithaca New York 14850-5690 C+pq�' � BUILDING DIVISION 8 Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 t=iled City Cie;ic's office October 8, 2014 t A Mr. Lawrence Fabbroni r" 1 Settlement Way c�. Ithaca, NY 14850 � tiFZ RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of October 7, 2014 Appeal #2933 — 128 West Falls Street Present: Steven Beer, Teresa Deschanes, Marshall McCormick, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Mr. Fabbroni: The Board of zoning Appeals considered you appeal for area variances from Section 325-8 columns 4, 11, and 14/15,parking, front yard and rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You want to subdivide the parcel at 128 West Falls Street and create new parcels on either side of 128 West Falls designated as Lot#1 and Lot 0. Originally, you came to the Board seeking one variance for a front yard deficiency at 128 West Falls (known as Lot#2 for subdivision purposes). However, because of neighborhood opposition to the project, you requested a postponement at the original hearing. After working with the neighbors and trying to find a more suitable arrangement for the proposed buildings on the two additional lots that will be created after subdivision, you now are seeking additional variances for 128 West Falls Street for the project. The original variance request for the single - family home at 128 West Falls Street(Lot#2) was for the deficient front yard. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 10 -foot front yard setback. Lot#2 has a setback of 5'-2" from the front yard property line, a deficiency of 4 feet - 10 inches. Now you are also seeking a variance for the location of the required parking as well. Due to the challenges of maintaining green space, you propose placing this property's required parking on Lot 0, which is directly adjacent to Lot#2. Though the proposal meets the required number of off-street parking spaces, Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-20 D(4) requires off street parking to occur on the same lot as the building requiring the off-street parking for properties in the R-2b zoning district where 128 West Falls Street is located. In order to maintain pedestrian oriented frontage, the driveway access for all three lots is on the west end of Lot 0. In order to have sufficient space for parking, you propose to locate building "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �� Mr. Lawrence Fabbroni October 8, 2014 1 Settlement Way Page 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of October 7, 2014 Appeal #2933 — 128 West Falls Street 42, a two family unit, on Lot#3 only five- feet from the front yard property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires front yards to have a 10- foot setback. Lot#I also needs a variance for the rear yard deficiency of three feet. Required is a rear yard of25',proposed is rear yard of 22'. 128 West Falls is located in the R-2b use district where the uses on the proposed subdivided lots are permitted. However, General Municipal Law Section 33, requires parcels to meet City Zoning regulations for subdivision to occur. Mr. Fabbroni explained the reasons for the postponed appeal. Neighbors had concerns and one neighbor was appointed as the contact person. Meetings were set up to better understand the issues that they had. They worked through all the concerns, those by the neighbors, the City Planning Board and those of the owner. In the end the neighbors signed a letter of support, which was submitted to the zoning Board as "Exhibit A." There are four variances being requested: 1. The existing building sits closer than current zoning allows so a variance is being sought for front yard setback. 2. Building#2 is being proposed to have a 5' front yard rather than the required 10'. 3. Building#3 will be located with a 22' rear yard rather than the 25 feet required. 4. Lot#2 will have parking on Lot#3. The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and 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 A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor and none against. A motion to grant the variance was made by Mr. McCormick with the following findings of fact: 1. The Planning Board strongly recommends granting this appeal. The applicant worked effectively with the neighbors to develop a plan that they could support. 2. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties be created as the applicant has sought to minimize these detriments through community meetings. Mr. Lawrence Fabbroni October 8, 2014 1 Settlement Way Page 3 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of October 7, 2014 Appeal #2933 — 128 West Falls Street 3. The benefit could be sought by the applicant in some other way and it has been determined in previous BZA meetings those benefits sought by the applicant would increase detriments to nearby properties and the neighborhood at large. 4. The four variances that are being sought are not substantial considering that front yards throughout the neighborhood are already approximate to the five feet that is being granted. The three foot deficiency on Building#1 does not seem to be substantial and the parking space variance for existing 128 West Falls Street will be made up with appropriate easements for future sales on other lots. 5. There are no adverse impacts on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. The alleged difficulty is not self created in as much as one of the deficiencies is already existing, the back yard setback is to make the buildings fit better with neighboring properties, parking is being made up on other lots, and the five feet set back in the front yard, while self-created fits better in the neighborhood. The motion was made and second by Ms. Deschanes to grant the variances for 128 West Falls Street. With a vote of three (3) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, Phyllis Radk D' ector o oning Administration City aca Building Division ......... �9 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 o�m BUILDING DIVISION Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 r November 4, 2014 Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Attn: Scott Reynolds ', 115 West Clinton Avenue Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 4, 2014 Appeal #2958 —203 Third Street Present: Steven Beer, Teresa Deschanes, Marshall McCormick, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Mr. Reynolds: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the. appeal for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing for Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency owners of 203 Third Street, for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 6, minimum lot size in square feet, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. You propose to construct a new single-family home on a vacant lot located at 203 Third Street. The property will be compliant with all district regulations except lot size. The Parcel's lot size is 2,813 SF, a 187 SF less the minimum required lot size of 3,000 SF. 203 Third Street is located in an R2b use district, where the proposed single family home is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit can be issued. Mr. Nels Bohn representing the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency spoke and presented some background information on the property. Common Council voted to purchase the property through tax foreclosure in May of 2012 and to be transferred to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency for the specific purpose of getting bids for the purchase and development of this piece of property for a sale of a taxable housing project. IURA received two proposals after advertizing it publicly. Common Council voted by a vote of 9-1 to accept the proposal from INHS for the purchase of the property on September 4, 2013. IURA still owns the property and are waiting for the variance to transfer it over to INHS. A Public Hearing was held with no one in favor or opposed to the project. Mr. McCormick made a motion to grant the appeal INHS for an area variance for lot size Section 325-8 column 6. With the following findings of fact: 1. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (11) and (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �'�� Ithaca Neighborhood Housing November 5, 2014 Attn: Scott Reynolds Page 2 115 West Clinton Avenue Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 4, 2014 Appeal #2958—203 Third Street otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. 2. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The house that INHS proposes to build will fit in with the character of the neighborhood. 3. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved in any other way. 4. It is not substantial, the variance request is only 3% of the entire lot size. 5. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The house is scaled to fit with others in the neighborhood. 6. The alleged difficulty was not self created as the lot has been this way for 40 to 60 years. 7. The Planning Board is in favor of this variance. Ms. Tebor second the motion and the variance for 203 Third Street was granted with a vote of three (3) in favor and one abstain. Ms. Deschane choose to recluse herself because she sits on the IURA Board. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Ms. Deschanes—abstain. Sincerel , 4 Phyllis Radk Firector of Zoning Administration CITY OF ITHACA f 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 BUILDING DIVISION pORpT�O Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax:607/274-6521 November 4 2014 L 1 ' Mr Noah Demarest 611{1�_� A 123 South Cayuga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 4, 2014 Appeal #2959 — 714 North Aurora Street Present: Steven Beer, Teresa Deschanes, Marshall McCormick, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Mr. Demarest: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for an area variances from Section 325-8, columnl 1, 12, and 13, front yard, side yard, and other side yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed is the construction of a handicapped ramp in the south side yard of 714 North Aurora Street. The ramp and a portion of its landing will encroach 3'-10" into the required 10-foot side yard setback, decreasing the side yard to 6'-2 for approximately 34 feet. The property also has two other area deficiencies, but these will not be exacerbated by the addition of the ramp and landing. The existing front yard has a setback of 9'-8", a 4" deficiency from the required 10- foot front yard setback. The existing setback of the other side yard is 2'-6", which is half of the required 5 -foot setback. The property at 714 North Aurora Street is located in an R2b use district where the proposed ramp and landing are permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a building�permit can be issued. Mr. Demarest with Streamline Architecture spoke on behave of the owners Judith and William Thomas. Foot print of building is not being changed due to the new ramp. Because the front yard setback is very close to the street they looked into placing the ramp in the back yard. Due to extensive vegetation in the backyard that was ruled out, so they decided on the side yard which directly leads towards the driveway. They have a temporary ramp in the front yard now. Public Hearing was held with no one in favor or opposed to the variance. Members of the Board had no questions for the applicant. Ms Tebor stated that it benefits the community to accommodate parents that wish to have their children cared for at home. `:An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��� Mr. Noah Demarest November 5, 2014 123 South Cayuga Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 4, 2014 Appeal#2959— 714 North Aurora Street A motion was made by Ms. Deschanes to approve the variance for 714 North Aurora Street for an area variance from Section 325-8, column 11, 12, and 13, front yard, side yard and other side yard with the following findings of fact: 1. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (11) and (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action,the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. 2. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 3. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved in any other way, the applicant designed the ramp so that it would be fitting with the neighborhood. 4. The variance is not substantial because it goes into the side yard which is a walkway, it's not very tall it looks more like a porch and extends the building. 5. It doesn't have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. In one since you could say that the alleged difficulty was self created, but in another since it's not because they have a physical need to have this ramp. As mentioned by Board members it is a benefit to the community to have parents accommodate their children and care for them at home. 7. City Planning Board recommended granting this appeal. The variance was granted with a second by Ms. Tebor for an area variance from Section 325-8, column 11, 12, and 13, front yard, side yard, and other side yard with a vote of four (4) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, l adke Phyllis of Z ing Administration �o IC9 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 Pon UP BUILDING DIVISION ? �RATEO Telephone: 607/274-6503 Fax:607/274-6521 November 5, 4 \2� �\ce Mr. Charles Izzo 1108 North Cayuga Street c - Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 4, 2014 Appeal#—2964 1108 North Cayuga Street Present: Steven Beer, Teresa Deschanes, Marshall McCormick, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Mr. Izzo: The Zoning Board of Appeals considered your appeal for an area variance from Section 325-8 Columns, 10, and 13, percentage of lot coverage, and other side yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In August of 2014, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted several area variances for property located atl 108 North Cayuga Street. At that hearing, the applicant Charlie Izzo,proposed constructing a new"L" shaped addition of approximately 500 SF after removing an existing one story addition and deck from the rear yard. In order to be granted a building permit to construct the addition, the applicant needed two variances because of existing deficiencies on the property. The existing street width and front yard do not meet the District Regulation requirements for the R-2b zone where 1108 North Cayuga Street is located. Furthermore, the applicant's addition will increase the existing deficiencies for both the side yard and the other side yard, and will cause the requirements for maximum percentage of lot coverage to be exceeded by 3 percent. The BZA granted the applicants' request for these variances at its August hearing in 2014. However, the applicant must return to the BZA because he found an error in the design for the addition. The proposed entry way is too small to be useful. To correct the problem, the applicant proposes to increase the size of the addition by 21 SF, adding one- foot to the width and to the length of the "L" shaped addition's rear extension. As a result, the applicant is requesting that the BZA modify two of the variances that were granted at the August 2014 hearing. District Regulations for the R-2b zone require the "other side yard"to be a minimum of 5- feet deep. At its August 2014 hearing, the BZA granted the applicant a variance allowing the "other side yard"to be 3.5 feet for the length of the proposed addition, which is a length of about 26 feet. The applicant requests extending this deficient"other side yard"one foot further west so that a larger entry way can be constructed. By increasing the size of the addition by 21 SF, the applicant also increases the amount of lot coverage at 1108 North Cayuga Street. The maximum percentage of lot coverage in an R2b zoning district is 35%. The Board granted a variance allowing the percentage of lot coverage to be 37.7% at its August hearing. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �«� Mr. Charles Izzo November 5, 2014 1108 North Cayuga Street Page 2 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 4, 2014 Appeal#—2964 1108 North Cayuga Street The applicant now seeks a variance to increase his maximum percentage of lot coverage to 38.3%. The property at 1108 North Cayuga Street is in an R2b use district where the proposed addition is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. Mr. Izzo and Ms. Sanfilippo owners were present to answer questions from the Board. They were asked why they needed to add additional feet on to the appeal. The Board had granted their appeal back in September. Ms. Sanfilippo answered that the initial plans had not left enough space. Mr. McCormick stated that the new appeal is an increase of.6% addition to maximum lot coverage, and also increases the side yard by a foot. A Public Hearing was held and there were no interested parties and no parties opposed. Ms. Tebor made a motion to grant the appeal for 1108 North Cayuga Street from Section 325-8 Columns, 10, and 13,percentage of lot coverage, and other side yard, 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 and that is supported by the fact that there are no neighbors within 200 feet present to support the project and none opposed. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some other way. 3. The variance is not substantial given the fact that it is only a slight increase over the original appeal granted in September. 4. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5 (11) and (12) and, as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. 6. The alleged difficulty is self created in a since that they had a design in their last appeal and now wish to add to it. It does not offset the other four conditions the Board has found are in keeping with the granting of this variance. 7. City of Ithaca Planning Board supports this appeal. Mr. Charles Izzo November 5, 2014 1108 North Cayuga Street Page 3 Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 4, 2014 Appeal#—2964 1108 North Cayuga Street Amended by Mr. McCormick to included second variance for extending the side yard set back by 1 foot. Motion was made by Ms. Tebor and second by Mr. McCormick. The appeal for 1108 North Cayuga Street was granted with a second by Mr. McCormick with a vote of four(4) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Ms. Deschanes - yes Mr. McCormick—yes Sincerely, Phyll Radke Director of Z ing Administration rC•, '� 1 ° "'�•�� CITY OF ITHACA C%•° ..t 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 Ong PO Si BUILDING DIVISION Telephone: 607/274-6508 Pax:607/274-6521 November Hotel Ithaca, LLC 6710A Rockledge Drive - � Bethesda, MD 20817 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 4, 2014 Appeal#—2966 120 South Aurora Street Present: Steven Beer, Teresa Deschanes, Marshall McCormick, Moriah Tebor, and Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. Dear Matthew Jalazo: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your appeal for owners of 120 South Aurora Street from Section 272-613 (2), of the Sign Ordinance which allows only two walls signs per business on a building in the commercial zoning district and limits each sign to a maximum of 50 SF apiece. Hotel Ithaca proposes to construct a new multi-story Marriott Hotel at 120 South Aurora Street at the east end of the Commons and to install six wall signs on the Hotel. In the commercial zone, where 120 South Aurora Street is located, Sign Ordinance 272-613 (2) states that a business can have only one pole sign or two wall signs. The proposed signs for the Hotel will include two Marriott signs, a combined Marriott and address sign, one sign for the Marriott's restaurant, and two informational type signs on the Hotel's west side. Furthermore, Sign Ordinance, Section 272-613. (2) states that each sign cannot be larger than 50 SF. The applicant is proposing to erect three wall signs that are larger than 50 SF apiece. The proposed "Marriott"wall sign, on the exterior of the 10"'floor facing Aurora Street, will be approximately 206.8 SF. On the same face of the building, on the exterior of the lobby level, another Marriott sign will be combined with the building's street address. This sign will be approximately 60.8 SF. The third oversized Marriott sign is proposed to be located close to the penthouse level and will face Green Street. This sign will be approximately 108.8 SF. Hotel Ithaca believes because of the building's massing and location, the signs will be appropriate in size and number and all six signs have been approved in concept by the Planning Board pending the applicant receiving sign variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The proposed Marriott Hotel at 120 South Aurora Street is in the CBD-140 zone where signs are a permitted use. However, Section 272-18 requires that the applicant receive variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the non-compliant number and size of signs before a sign permit can be issued. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �� Hotel Ithaca, LLC November 6, 2014 6710A Rockledge Drive Page 2 Bethesda, MD 20817 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 4, 2014 Appeal #—2966 120 South Aurora Street Board members had many questions for Mr. Jalazo who was representing Urgo Hotels. When asked to tell the Board why there is a need for six signs and why so large you said because of the location of the site the size of the building and requirements of the brand you are working with. Two of the signs are for directional purposes to take people to the Green Street Garage and then into the Marriot. The over four are directional, two on top of the building so people coming in from out of town can locate the building and are also required by the brand. The other two signs are pedestrian signs so people can find the building. Due to the location on the Commons it leads people to the hotel. As far as the size goes the one on the ground level that is 60 square feet, which is slightly larger, is so that the name and address can fit. The two larger signs, due to the size of the property, are on the tenth floor and are set back four feet. Size is a program requirement so people can see it from a distance. Mr. Jalazo was asked what the size was on the directional signs for the Green Street Garage. They are 2 feet by 2 feet 6 inches. There will be a restaurant at the location and one of the signs will be for that restaurant. Placing the address on the sign is mainly for deliveries so vendors know where to stop and unload supplies. In discussions with the Fire Marshall it was made clear that the address should be on the building. Signs will be back lit, which is part of the branding that is required by the Marriot. There was discussion of large signs on top of the building that appear to be like a billboards. Mr. Jalazo stated that these signs are to help people coming down Rt. 96 and Rt. 79 find the hotel. Discussion followed with Board member Marshall McCormick believing that the signs on top of the Marriot will not be seen coming down from Ithaca College. A Public Hearing was held with no one in favor of the project and no one opposed. The Board members discussed the two larger signs and all seemed to agree that they are too large, and they were not convinced that there servicing the purpose helping anyone identify the building but seem to be more of an opportunity to advertize. There were also concerns about light pollution. Mr. McCormick made a motion to grant the appeal for 120 South Aurora Street from Section 272-613 (2), for Ordinance which allows only two walls signs per business on a building in the commercial zoning district and limits each sign to a maximum of 50 SF apiece. He would also like to reference Design#12-185R8 in that document the Board wishes to approve variances in size for the signs in reference guide B, D, E, F. Hotel Ithaca, LLC November 7, 2014 6710A Rockledge Drive Page 3 Bethesda,MD 20817 RE: Board of Zoning Meeting of November 4, 2014 Appeal#—2966 120 South Aurora Street 1. Size of signs were considered and the distance from which they need to be seen. There are similar signs in the neighborhood so there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood. 2. The character of the neighbor will not be affected by these four proposed signs. 3. They believe that these four signs are in the public's best interest to allow guests as well as local residents to find the hotel and they do not impede the open spaces, views or vista of the community. 4. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other way for the four signs. 5. The four signs are not substantial. 6. There will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood in fact the signs will help direct people to the hotel. 7. The other two signs referenced in the design#12-1852-R8 design A & C the Board would encourage the applicant to provide additional documentation as to the reason for needing these signs of such size and facing such directions, or to provide the Board with other ideas. 8. The Planning Board supports granting this appeal. The motion was second by Ms. Tebor and the appeal for 120 South Aurora was granted with a vote of four(4) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer—yes Ms. Tebor—yes Ms. Deschanes—yes Mr. McCormick—yes I ncere i hyll Ra e of-rec Zoning Administration