HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-1999 BZA Decision Letters - Not Complete f� Y
t ;rrmim 1
-1: 1711714, '
;
CITY OF ITHACA
1OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
November 9, 1995 FAX: (607)272-7348
Barbara S. Harvey
610-612 Mitchell St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of September 11, 1995
Appeal Number 2273
Dear Ms. Harvey:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for an
area variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension of
the owner's permitted 18 month leave of absence period. The
decision of the Board was as follows:
Motion was made and seconded to deny the area variance
requested by Appeal #2273 at 610-612 Mitchell Street, a duplex in
an R-lb residential use district. It is grandfathered to be
owner-occupied.
Findings of Fact:
1. The present owner is out of the country because her career
keeps her overseas.
2 . She purchased the house in 1988 with the intention that it
was to be her home, and yet she has never lived in it for any
extended periods of time, she has used Ithaca as a place she came
to when she was on leave, and it appears from testimony that she
didn't even reside in this house when she returned on leave.
3. The house has been well-maintained. Although there was a
letter indicating that there was a problem with appearance of the
property, pictures show and other testimony has indicated that
overall the property is well-maintained, that the concern of the
neighborhood is more for commitment to the neighborhood rather
than to appearance of the property itself.
4 . The hardship is self-created. The owner could have purchased
a single family home or a duplex in another area which would not
have this specific problem that is a violation in this
neighborhood.
A
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program' �o, Recycled Paper
•
Barbara S. Harvey November 9, 1995
610-612 Mitchell St.
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 2
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of September 11, 1995
Appeal Number 2273
5. The practical difficulties are that the owner's career or
job keeps her overseas.
6. The hardship is self-created. Giving her a variance would
not maintain the spirit or the character of the neighborhood. The
detriment to the neighborhood is greater than her hardship which
she actually could control and did not.
Conclusion:
1. The Board denies the variance based on these facts.
Vote: 2 yes votes, 2 no votes; Appeal denied.
Sincerely,
A
14c(kcM., . c-cl,ku\A„
Richard L. Eckstrom, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
RLE:kb
cc: Sui Ling Chaloemtiarana
NOTE 1: The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
V -1riirn
• ,f 11117 I T-T . ft;
V+0,, , "
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
February 24, 19 9 7 FAX: (607)272-7348
Barbara Harvey
610-612 Mitchell Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of September 3, 1996
Appeal Number 2311
Dear Ms . Harvey:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for a
use variance from the Zoning Ordinance to continue to use the
property at 610-612 Mitchell Street as a two-family home . The
decision of the Board was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals is lead agency
for environmental review and that the Board of Zoning Appeals
makes a negative declaration of significant environmental impact,
based on the Short Environmental Assessment Form on file in the
Building Department .
• Regarding Appeal Number 2311 by applicant Barbara Harvey for the
property located at 610-612 Mitchell Street,
Whereas the applicant has requested a use variance to continue to
use the property at 610-612 Mitchell Street as a two-family home;
and
Whereas a hearing was scheduled for the September 3 , 1996,
meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals to consider
applicant ' s request; and
Whereas the applicant has appeared and addressed the Board at
said meeting;
Now the Board hereby makes the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law concerning said application:
• 1 . The subject property is zoned R-lb.
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" J Recycled Paper
Barbara Harvey February 24, 1997
610-612 Mitchell Street
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 2
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of September 3, 1996
Appeal Number 2311
2 . This zone permits the following uses of said property:
single family residences . The requested use is not permitted in
this zone without a variance.
3 . The applicant has submitted competent evidence in the form
of an appraisal by Northeast Appraisals, and an estimate of
construction work by John Tilitz, which demonstrates that no
permissible use of said property can result in a reasonable
return to the applicant, and that such lack of a reasonable
return is substantial . Mr. Tilitz estimated that construction to
convert the duplex to a single family residence worth $150 , 000
would cost $75, 000 . Therefore its value before conversion is only
$75, 000 . As a duplex the property was appraised at $148, 000 ;
therefore the investment needed to conform to the statute would
be $75, 000, but it would only net the owner $2 , 000 . No
permissible use of this property can result in a reasonable
return to the applicant .
4 . This inability to obtain a reasonable return causes an
unnecessary hardship.
5 . This hardship relates to the property itself which is unique
in that it was constructed as a two family residence with a
mirror image floor plan, two front entrances, two front porches
separated from each other, two internal staircases, two kitchens,
•
and all the other aspects associated with a duplex building.
6 . These unique characteristics of the property do not apply to
a substantial portion of the district because the properties in
the surrounding district are generally single family homes, built
as single family homes, and occupied as single family homes .
7 . The proposed use will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood in that this building has been an owner-occupied
duplex in the past with grandfathered rights . Those rights
expired because the owner did not occupy the building for a
period in excess of 12 months . By granting this variance we will
in essence reinstate the rights which this building had in the
past, which rights are restrictive in that they require owner-
occupancy.
•
o Barbara Harvey February 24, 1997
610-612 Mitchell Street
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 3
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of September 3, 1996
Appeal Number 2311
8 . Said hardship has not been self-created in that the hardship
arises from the physical nature of the building as a duplex
building.
9 . The Board hereby determines that the minimum variance
necessary and adequate to address the unnecessary hardship proven
by the applicant while preserving and protecting the character of
the neighborhood and health, safety and welfare of the community
is as follows : A variance to permit the use of the property as
an owner-occupied two family home with the condition that this
owner-occupancy requirement become a deed restriction and that
within 30 days of the notification of this decision to the
applicant the owner must record at the Tompkins County clerk' s
office a declaration of covenants on the subject property, that
covenant being that the property can only be used as a duplex if
the owner is in occupancy of the building. Said declaration of
covenant must be cross-referenced to the original deed and proof
of such recording and cross-referencing must be submitted to the
Building Commissioner.
10 . In response to the comments of the neighbors and in an
attempt to preserve and protect the character of the
neighborhood, this deed restriction is essential to prevent
misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the allowable use of the
building in the future .
Vote : 4 yes votes; appeal granted.
Sincerely,
41/toitA- -
Richard L. Eckstrom, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
RLE:kb
NOTE 1: The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
%F=_-
Ij«-lnr .
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL 25, 19 9 9 TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
January , FAX: (607)272-7348
David Christie and Elizabeth Clapp
227 Bone Plain Rd.
Freeville, NY 13068
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of December 1, 1998
Appeal Number 2397
Dear Mr. Christie & Ms . Clapp:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for a
use variance from the Zoning Ordinance to permit the occupancy of
four unrelated individuals per unit, which is a conversion to a
multiple dwelling, at the property located at 115-117 Giles
Street . The decision of the Board was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals is lead agency
for environmental review and that the Board of Zoning Appeals
makes a negative declaration of significant environmental impact,
based on the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated October
16, 1998, and the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I dated
November 15, 1998, on file in the Building Department .
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the use
variance requested in Appeal Number 2397 for the property at 115-
117 Giles Street, with the following findings of fact :
1 . The applicants have requested a use variance to increase the
occupancy of their building. The current occupancy is limited to
three unrelated individuals in each of two apartments . The
applicants want to increase the occupancy to a maximum of four
unrelated individuals in each apartment .
2 . The subject property is zoned R-2a . The zone permits maximum
density of use of this property would be as a duplex for three
unrelateds on each side .
3 . The requested use of four unrelated in each apartment is not
a permitted use .
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" t4 Recycled Paper
David Christie and Elizabeth Clapp January 25, 1999
227 Bone Plain Rd.
Freeville, NY 13068 Page 2
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of December 1, 1998
Appeal Number 2397
4 . The applicant has submitted competent evidence in the form
of financial statements showing cash flow projections based on
rentals to three unrelateds on each side and based on rentals to
four unrelated tenants on each side .
5 . This evidence demonstrates that there is no permissible use
of the property that can result in a reasonable return to the
applicant and the lack of a reasonable return is substantial .
6 . The applicants have submitted documents at the prior hearing
that showed a large negative cash flow when renting to three
unrelated. We requested that the applicants remove the principle
payments on their first mortgage on the property from their
financial sheets .
7 . After removing the principle payment but including the
interest payment on the first mortgage and including an entire
second loan that has been used for repairs, maintenance and some
capital improvements, the applicants still show a negative cash
flow in every year from 1998 through 2007 based on rentals to
three unrelateds .
8 . Based on a rental to four unrelated and otherwise using the
same information the applicants show a positive cash flow ranging
from $2700 per year in 1998 down to $157 per year in 2007 .
9 . The inability to obtain a reasonable return causes an
unnecessary hardship.
10 . The hardship relates to the property itself which is unique
in that the property is an unusually large building for that
neighborhood. In each apartment there are four bedrooms and both
units are large units . It is a very old building, and as a result
the utility payments are also quite large .
11 . The unique characteristics of the property do not apply to a
substantial portion of the neighborhood. Although there are many
rentals in the neighborhood there are few if any duplexes that
are large as this one .
David Christie and Elizabeth Clapp January 25, 1999
227 Bone Plain Rd.
Freeville, NY 13068 Page 3
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of December 1, 1998
Appeal Number 2397
12 . The proposed use will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. The neighborhood is clearly a mixed single
family residences and rentals .
13 . The hardship has not been self-created.
14 . The Board determines that the minimum variance necessary and
adequate to address the hardship while preserving the
neighborhood would be to permit four unrelateds on each side .
15 . The applicant does not require a parking variance because
the applicant has parking that they will provide that is
currently located within 1000 feet of the subject property.
However, in order to minimize the impact of the increased density
to the neighborhood, the Board makes the following specific
requirements in the variance decision to make sure that off-
street parking spaces provided by the applicant will be used by
the tenants :
a . The applicant has agreed to provide four off-street
parking spaces located at 322 Pleasant Street which is also
owned by the applicant for the exclusive use of the tenants
at 115-117 Giles Street .
b. The leases for 115-117 Giles Street shall stipulate
that parking is permitted only in the lot at 322 Pleasant
Street unless the four spaces in that lot are already
occupied by vehicles owned and operated by tenants of 115-
177 Giles Street .
c . At such time as the owner of 115-117 Giles Street does
not also own 322 Pleasant Street and therefore cannot assign
four parking spaces from Pleasant Street to the Giles Street
house then this variance will be revoked.
d. However, the dwelling at 115-117 Giles Street will
return to its grandfathered status as a duplex with a
maximum occupancy of three unrelated individuals per
apartment without any off-street parking unless the owner of
115-117 Giles Street provides four off-street parking spaces
elsewhere within 1000 feet of the subject property.
David Christie and Elizabeth Clapp January 25, 1999
227 Bone Plain Rd.
Freeville, NY 13068 Page 4
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of December 1, 1998
Appeal Number 2397
Vote : 3 yes, 1 no; Appeal granted.
Sincerely,
44L2,
Richard L. Eckstrom, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
RLE/kb
NOTE 1 : The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
S���iry■�/At-
j��J(1
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Jul 21 19 9 9 TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
y FAX: (607)272-7348
David M. McKeon
Matzo Electric Signs, Inc.
40 Homer St.
Binghamton, NY 13903
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of April 13, 1999
Sign Appeal Number 4-1-99
Dear Mr. McKeon:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for a
variance from the Sign Ordinance to permit a 30 ' high, 50 square
foot sign located nearer than the required 10 ' setback to the
western property line . The decision of the Board was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the sign
variance requested in Sign Appeal Number 4-1-99 for the property
at 415-425 Third Street, known as Papa John' s Pizza, with the
following findings of fact :
1 . The property is located in a B-2a business use district .
2 . The appellant needs a variance for the required 10' setback.
The proposed sign would be within 6' of the setback.
3 . There seems to be sufficient evidence from reviewing the
existing maps and the comments made by Bill Gray, Superintendent
of Public Works for the City of Ithaca, and comments made by the
City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board to not permit the
sign to be erected in the proposed location.
4 . There are a number of issues regarding safety and the busy
traffic on Franklin Street . Franklin Street and its boundaries
are not well defined. The proposed sign location could present a
hazard to existing or increased traffic on Franklin Street . The
sign location could also present a problem with defining the
boundaries of Franklin Street .
5 . The Superintendent of Public Works ' letter also noted safety
issues regarding the clearance of power lines, although the
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Z4: Recycled Paper
David M. McKeon July 21, 1999
Matzo Electric Signs, Inc.
40 Homer St .
Binghamton, NY 13903 Page 2
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of April 13, 1999
Sign Appeal Number 4-1-99
appellant noted that any final sign location must be coordinated
with New York State Electric and Gas Corporation.
6 . There does not seem to be a compelling reason to grant the
variance. There are on file with the City Building Department
alternative locations for the signs that would not require a
variance. The alternate locations seem to provide the required
advertising needed by any business in Franklin Plaza . The
appellant does not show any alternative locations except for the
one that the variance is being asked for.
7 . The size of the proposed sign is within the Papa John ' s 50
square foot sign allowance. Although there is a legitimate need
to have proper signage there does not appear to be a compelling
reason brought forward why the sign would need to be placed in
the one particular spot . Its proximity to the Franklin Street
corridor and the existing parking in the Franklin Street Plaza
parking lot is a problem for the location of the sign in the
proposed area.
8 . There was a counter sign proposal brought forward regarding
the height of the sign. That counter proposal was brought forward
in response to comments by the Planning & Development Board and
they have also been considered. But the Board is addressing the
location of the sign and not particularly the height of the sign.
Vote : 5 yes votes; Appeal denied.
Sincerely,
R&\CQI2k LEk&-
Richard L. Eckstrom, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
RLE/kb
NOTE 1 : The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
- nb!'
4.)��Fl
f-T re171
f
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 21 19 9 9 TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
y FAX: (607)272-7348
Kenneth Young
228 Columbia St .
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of April 13, 1999
Appeal Number 2415
Dear Mr. Young:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for an
area variance from the Zoning Ordinance to permit the renovation
and conversion of the existing garage on the property located at
404 South Aurora Street to a single dwelling unit . The decision
of the Board was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the area
variance requested in Appeal Number 2415 for the property at 404
South Aurora Street, with the following findings of fact :
1 . The property is located in an R-2a use district .
2 . Kenneth Young, the contract vendee of the property, proposes
to renovate the main structure as well as the garage structure .
3 . As a result of renovating the garage structure the applicant
has several lot area and side and rear yard deficiencies to
address .
4 . The applicant wants to use the structures as rentals for
periods of no less than 30 days at a time to individuals visiting
the area for short periods of time . He will outfit the house,
which would be a 2 bedroom house, as well as the structure to be
renovated, a garage which would be a one bedroom unit, somewhat
like you would a Bed & Breakfast, with linens provided rather
than an unfurnished rental .
5 . The parking required would be two off-street spaces and the
appellant proposes that he would have three legal off-street
spaces .
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" toed Recycled Paper
C-
Kenneth Young July 21, 1999
228 Columbia St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 2
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of April 13, 1999
Appeal Number 2415
6. The required lot area for one unit is 5000 square feet; the
proposal is technically two primary uses, therefore 10, 000 square
feet, two lots are required.
7 . As a practical matter we can all see that the house is a
larger structure than the garage, the garage is going to be a
much smaller unit, it is realistic to think that 10, 000 square
feet, although it is the technical requirement, as a practical
matter it is not necessary when you consider the physical and
environmental conditions and the surrounding neighborhood.
8 . The side yard of the garage structure is only inches whereas
the district regulation for the use is ten feet . The rear yard
for the garage to be renovated as a one-bedroom unit is required
to be 25% depth and in fact it is nearly 0% . So there is both a
side yard and rear yard deficiency.
9 . However, the practical benefit for the appellant to build
where the garage is located, is that he is able to use the
exterior walls, the foundation, and the structure as a start
rather than building an entirely new structure . There is no
feasible method for him to achieve that benefit without using the
garage where it is currently located.
10 . The requested area variance for the side yard and rear yard
are not minimal, they are substantial, but the benefit to the
applicant outweighs the fact that the requested area variance is
substantial .
11 . There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood. This is a low impact use .
12 . One family and two families are both permitted uses in the
area . In fact, many of the houses on this street have become
rental units to large numbers of unrelated individuals . This
proposed use is very much in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
13 . The alleged difficulty has not been self-created. The garage
was built as a garage and is a legal grandfathered location.
Kenneth Young July 21, 1999
228 Columbia St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 3
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of April 13, 1999
Appeal Number 2415
Vote : 5 yes votes; Appeal granted.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Eckstrom, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
RLE/kb
NOTE 1 : The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
NOTE 2 : A building permit must be obtained within two years from
the date of the granting of this variance, and the work shall be
substantially completed prior to the expiration of the building
permit as provided by Section 325-40 .C. (7) , or this variance
shall become void.
,7141-71, ;
Ra_
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
FAX: (607)272-7348
July 21, 1999
David Hall
107 Dryden Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of May 11, 1999
Appeal Number 2419
Dear Mr. Hall :
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for an
area variance from the Zoning Ordinance to permit the expansion
of the bookstore/coffee house also known as The Oak at the
property located at 107 Dryden Road. The decision of the Board
was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals is lead agency
for environmental review and that the Board of Zoning Appeals
makes a negative declaration of significant environmental impact,
based on the Short Environmental Assessment Form on file in the
Building Department dated April 6, 1999 .
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the
variance requested in Appeal Number 2419 for the property at 107
Dryden Road, with the following findings of fact :
1 . The property is located in a B-2b business use district .
2 . The request is for a variance to address a parking
deficiency in this proposed development .
3 . Currently the site has a parking variance from a 20 parking
spaces requirement .
4 . The new development which will be an open air deck structure
for use by the business would add an additional 30 parking spaces
requirement . This is a significant increase in deficiency and a
substantial one .
5 . The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant if the
variance is granted far outweighs any detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the neighborhood.
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" to, Recycled Paper
David Hall July 21, 1999
107 Dryden Road
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 2
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of May 11, 1999
Appeal Number 2419
6 . The owner has a clause in the lease that they will be
mindful of the noise from their structure and intend to enforce
that diligently.
7 . The Board finds that there will be no undesirable change
produced in the character of the neighborhood, which is business
services largely patronized by pedestrian traffic. This
establishment fits into that pedestrian oriented category quite
well .
8 . The benefit of this development cannot be solved by any
other feasible means aside from not doing it . An enclosed
structure would not be economically feasible and secondly there
is just no available parking to purchase or to mitigate this
deficiency.
9 . The Board does not feel that the proposed variance will have
an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions .
10 . The Board understands that the Planning Board has visited
this issue and made comments to us on April 27, 1999, regarding
this case and they recommend approval of this appeal finding no
parking issue with a business of this type.
Vote : 5 yes votes; Appeal granted.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Eckstrom, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
RLE/kb
NOTE 1 : The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
NOTE 2 : A building permit must be obtained within two years from
the date of the granting of this variance, and the work shall be
substantially completed prior to the expiration of the building
permit as provided by Section 325-40 .C . (7) , or this variance
shall become void.
•
I [r -.1_,r i;
fTTT TTP
!Poo_
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 21, 1999 TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
FAX: (607)272-7348
Harold A. Fish
248 Valley Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 3, 1999
Appeal Number 2421
Dear Mr. Fish:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for a
use variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of
a legal non-conforming motor vehicle repair facility to a
printing shop. The decision of the Board was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals is lead agency
for environmental review and that the Board of Zoning Appeals
makes a negative declaration of significant environmental impact,
based on the Short Environmental Assessment Form on file in the
Building Department dated May 17, 1999, that every question asked
on the form would be answered no, that question 12 from that form
is used as one of the standards in determining what businesses
would be permitted in the property in order to ensure that there
would be no future environmental impact if the business changed.
The business currently using the property is the Ithaca College
print shop .
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the use
variance requested in Appeal Number 2421 for the property at 815
South Aurora Street, with the following findings of fact :
1 . The property is zoned R-3b.
2 . The applicant has owned the property since sometime prior to
1980 .
3 . The applicant owned a heating oil and propane business that
was located on the property before it was part of the City of
Ithaca and when this property became part of the City of Ithaca
I'
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" .� Recycled Paper
Harold A. Fish July 21, 1999
248 Valley Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 2
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 3, 1999
Appeal Number 2421
this commercial use was grandfathered and was a grandfathered
pre-existing permissible use under the Zoning Code.
4 . The building on the property burned down at some point and
was rebuilt in 1980 .
5 . The building was built with concrete block, it has four
overhead garage doors, the entire building has only three
windows, it has 12' ceilings .
6 . The applicant seeks permission to use the property as a
print shop.
7 . It is currently being rented to Ithaca College for its print
shop. There are no objectionable odors or noises emitted from the
shop.
8 . The applicant has submitted competent evidence in the form
of financial analysis by Sprague & Janowsky, Accountants, relying
on cost of construction from Egner & Associates Architects which
had been submitted at a previous hearing Appeal Number 2076 on
November 4, 1991 .
9 . That financial evidence demonstrates that no reasonable
return can be gained from this property for any residential use .
10 . It also demonstrates the lack of reasonable return is
substantial . The property can only be used in a residential
manner if it was either demolished and rebuilt in its entirety or
completely renovated at a very significant cost . The property was
clearly built as a commercial property and could not be easily
converted to a residential property.
11 . The inability to obtain a reasonable return causes an
unnecessary hardship because the property cannot be used if the
City would only permit it to be used for residential use .
12 . The hardship relates to the property itself which is unique
in that it is built of concrete block, has overhead garage doors,
has very few windows, it is clearly commercial property. These
characteristics do not apply to a substantial portion of this
district or the neighborhood.
•
Harold A. Fish July 21, 1999
248 Valley Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 3
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 3, 1999
Appeal Number 2421
13 . There are properties around this property that have been
developed as multiple dwelling units, apartments that are rental
apartments in the neighborhood.
14 . The proposed use will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood.
15 . The building is built on a hill and the residential
apartments are above it and it cannot entirely be seen even from
the surrounding apartments .
16 . In addition, adjacent to the building is a
telecommunications tower that makes the use of this property as
residential use unlikely because it is unlikely that people would
want to live so close to the tower.
17 . The hardship has not been self-created. There was a
grandfathered use and that grandfathered use was the appellant ' s
business, and in 1991 the appellant was granted a variance to use
the property as the auto repair shop based on the financial
evidence from Sprague & Janowsky and from Egner & Associates .
18 . When the commercial building was originally constructed and
when it was rebuilt the use was permissible as a grandfathered
use . It was rebuilt on the same footprint .
19 . The hardship has therefore not been self-created. The
appellant had no way of knowing when the commercial use first
began that ultimately the property would be included in the City
and rezoned residential .
20 . The Board determines that the minimum variance necessary and
adequate to address the hardship and still preserve and protect
the character of the neighborhood, health, safety and welfare of
the community would be a variance to permit the use of the
property as printing, heating, welding, air conditioning,
plumbing, printing or similar shop which does not cause
objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical
disturbance as a result of the project ' s operation.
Harold A. Fish July 21, 1999
248 Valley Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 4
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 3, 1999
Appeal Number 2421
Vote : 5 yes votes; Appeal granted.
Sincerely,
Rd/Ica LLA4A,E
Richard L. Eckstrom, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
RLE/kb
NOTE 1 : The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
17114�t 1111
Wi t
, coq_ - •
CITY OF ITHACA
1 OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 21, 1999 TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
FAX: (607)272-7348
Richard L. Eckstrom
Building Commissioner
City of Ithaca
108 E . Green St .
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Appeal Number 2425
Dear Mr. Eckstrom:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for an
area variance from the Zoning Ordinance to approve the past
conversion of the property at 324-326 North Geneva Street to a
multiple dwelling. The decision of the Board was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the area
variance requested in Appeal Number 2425 for the property at 324-
326 North Geneva Street, with the following findings of fact :
1 . The property is located in an R-3a zone.
2 . The property at some point prior to 1988 was a two family
dwelling with a medical office .
3 . The medical office left the property at some point prior to
1988 .
4 . At that time R-3 zoning permitted medical offices as of
right but no other type of professional office . Now the R-3
zoning does not permit any type of professional office use .
5 . The property owner tried to market the property as a medical
office and was unsuccessful .
6. The property owner sought a use variance to rent the space
to a non-medical office tenant . The Board denied that request .
7 . The applicant then, at the Board' s suggestion, obtained new
information concerning the financial hardship involved in not
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" to/ Recycled Paper
Richard L. Eckstrom July 21, 1999
Building Commissioner
City of Ithaca
108 E . Green St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 2
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Appeal Number 2425
permitting the use as another office and the applicant filed the
second application for a use variance. The application was
withdrawn before a hearing on the matter.
8 . The Building Department file for the property indicates that
the Commissioner verbally authorized the conversion of the office
to an apartment . A building permit was issued to convert the
office space to an apartment in 1988 . After the conversion, a
Certificate of Occupancy was issued and three subsequent
Certificates of Compliance were issued. Since that time the
property has been used as a three dwelling unit multiple dwelling
approved for 10 unrelated persons .
9 . The Commissioner seeks an area variance from the lot area
requirement for a three unit dwelling and the Commissioner seeks
the variance because in the past the department has approved the
building permit, the conversion, has issued Certificates of
Compliance and the property owner has relied on the issuance of
the permit and the certificates by investing significant amounts
of money into the conversion of the apartment .
10 . The lot size required for the conversion would have been
7000 square feet . The lot size is only 4785 square feet .
11 . The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted
outweighs any possible detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood.
12 . The property has been operating as a multiple residence for
three dwellings for more than 10 years .
13 . The Commissioner stated in his written materials that the
building department contains no complaints from tenants or
surrounding neighbors about use or maintenance of the building.
14 . Code compliance has been outstanding in the three
inspections subsequent to the conversion.
15 . One neighbor who owns property adjacent to this property did
speak at the hearing and complained about garbage and recycling
receptacles left outside inappropriately and in general was
Richard L . Eckstrom July 21, 1999
Building Commissioner
City of Ithaca
108 E . Green St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 3
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Appeal Number 2425
concerned about the appearance that perhaps more than 10
unrelated individuals lived in the property. There are five or
six outside doors to the property and it appears as though there
may be more apartments than three, but the Commissioner reviewed
the floor plan that the inspector found when she last inspected
the property within the last 12 months and confirmed that there
are only three dwelling units, only 10 unrelated individuals are
permitted and that the property was in compliance with that rule .
16 . The multiple dwelling use is permitted. The only issue here
is the lot size and the commissioner provided us with a map
showing that the neighborhood has many buildings in particular
this block on North Geneva Street, North Geneva Street has many
buildings with more than one unit, several buildings that permit
10 unrelated individuals, one that permits 12 unrelated
individuals and the lots generally in the neighborhood are small .
17 . This is an old house built before the zoning code took
effect .
18 . Although the commissioner may not be estopped from enforcing
the zoning regulations we are persuaded also by the fact that the
commissioner unequivocally approved the building and the owner
relied on the approval and invested substantial sums to convert
the building.
19 . The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by
any other feasible method.
20 . Converting back to a medical office would again require
substantial sums of money and would also be problematic in that
it was impossible to market the property as a medical office 10
years ago, it would not be any easier now.
21 . The requested area variance is not minimal, but considering
the fact that many of the lots in the neighborhood are small this
is a fairly typical size lot .
22 . The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or
impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
Richard L. Eckstrom July 21, 1999
Building Commissioner
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 4
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Appeal Number 2425
neighborhood, and the difficulty was not self-created by the
property owner.
23 . The benefit to the property owner outweighs any detriment to
the neighborhood and the application should be granted.
Vote: 5 yes votes; Appeal granted.
Sincerely,
Mgaà. L ELk
Richard L. Eckstrom, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
RLE/kb
cc: Kinga Gergeley
NOTE: The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
�o4ITfoi‘�,,
FTTTi
ate,,
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 21, 1999 TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
FAX: (607)272-7348
Robert P. Andree
Andree Petroleum
684 Third St .
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Appeal Number 2426
Dear Mr. Andree :
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for an
area variance from the Zoning Ordinance to construct a gasoline
sales/convenience store at the property located at 610 North
Meadow Street . The decision of the Board was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the area
variance requested in Appeal Number 2426 for the property at 610
North Meadow Street, with the following findings of fact :
1 . The property is located in an I-1 industrial use district .
2 . The applicant proposes to build a convenience store and gas
station on the lot at the intersection of Route 13 South at
Cascadilla Street which is on the west side of Route 13 South
across from Purity Ice Cream.
3 . The applicant requests an area variance from the setback
requirement which would require all buildings and improvements to
be set back from the front property line and not to encroach over
the setback line more than 2 ' .
4 . The setback line would be defined by a line that is 20' from
the front lot line .
5 . The applicant ' s proposal would include a convenience store .
6 . The building with the convenience store would not encroach
over the setback line by more than 2' . However the canopy over
the gas pump islands would go past the front setback line by
approximately 8 ' .
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Recycled Paper
Andree Petroleum July 21, 1999
684 Third St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 2
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Appeal Number 2426
7 . The benefit to the applicant to do this would be to permit
the applicant to more easily have trucks deliver gasoline to the
underground storage tanks, enable those trucks to deliver the
gasoline even when there are customers either parked at the
convenience store or stopping at the gas islands to pump gas, and
would give those delivery trucks the most space possible to enter
the premises, deliver the gas, turn around, and exit the
premises . It would also give trucks coming to empty the dumpster
the widest space possible to do that .
8 . There would be no undesirable change produced in the
character of the neighborhood by this proposal .
9 . The benefit sought by the applicant might be achieved by
some other method but because of the odd shape of the lot this
method appears to be the simplest .
10 . The requested area variance is quite minimal, first because
it is not a solid building that goes over the setback line but
rather just a canopy over the gas pump island, and second because
even with this variance the canopy would be no closer than
approximately 45 ' from the nearest traffic line on the public
highway.
11 . Therefore it would still permit ample space, light and air
in the front of the property between the property and the traffic
on the highway.
12 . The proposed variance therefore would have no adverse effect
on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
13 . While the alleged difficulty is not really self-created,
part of the difficulty is that the lot is so oddly shaped and so
small because of the substantial lands that the New York State
Department of Transportation took in creating the public highway.
Therefore the application for the area variance should be granted
as requested.
Andree Petroleum July 21, 1999
684 Third St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 3
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Appeal Number 2426
Vote : 5 yes votes; Appeal granted.
Sincerely,
gc L .
Richard L. Eckstrom, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
RLE/kb
NOTE 1 : The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
NOTE 2 : A building permit must be obtained within two years from
the date of the granting of this variance, and the work shall be
substantially completed prior to the expiration of the building
permit as provided by Section 325-40 .C. (7) , or this variance
shall become void.
•
•
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Jul 21 19 9 9 TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
y FAX: (607)272-7348
Robert P. Andree
Andree Petroleum
684 Third St .
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Sign Appeal Number 6-1-99
Dear Mr. Andree :
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for a
variance from the Sign Ordinance for signage at a proposed
gasoline sales/convenience store at 610 North Meadow Street . The
decision of the Board was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant with
modifications the sign variance requested in Appeal Number 6-1-99
for the property at 610 North Meadow Street, with the following
findings of fact :
1 . The property is located in an I-1 industrial use district .
2 . The proposed use would be a primary gas station, petroleum
station, with a possible secondary use of a co-brand convenience
store .
3 . At issue is a variance from Section 272-6.A. (1) (a) of the
Sign Ordinance . The applicant proposes a new gasoline
sales/service convenience store with five significant signs : one
pole sign, two pump island canopy signs, and two building signs .
In addition, each dispensing pump bears a 1 . 8 square foot sign
for a total of four additional small signs .
4 . The Sign Ordinance allows for two signs .
5 . The total area of the proposed signage is 138 . 2 square feet
as amended from the initial application by the appellant . The
ordinance will allow for 250 square feet of signage . The total
signage according to the square footage of the building is 240
square feet .
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" to, Recycled Paper
Robert P. Andree July 21, 1999
Andree Petroleum
684 Third St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 2
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Sign Appeal Number 6-1-99
6 . The appellant proposes total signage of 138 square feet . At
issue is the number of signs .
7 . The Board will approve one pole sign with total square
footage of 65 square feet with one condition, that the co-brand
or secondary purpose of this sign for a convenience store, which
is entitled to a separate pole sign, their sign must be co-
located on the existing 65 square foot sign.
8 . The pole sign can consist of no greater square footage than
65 square feet total .
9 . This variance will also allow one pump island canopy sign at
a total area of 17 square feet to be located in the facade that
the applicant deems appropriate, and two building signs at 16
square feet each.
10 . The applicant has agreed to limit the size of the pump
station signs to the total size that is negligible under the Sign
Ordinance or remove the signs .
11 . The Board finds under general criteria for considering an
appeal that the effect of the proposed sign on general purposes
will, a) increase communications within the community, create a
more attractive economic and business climate, b) the site is
unique in that it is oddly shaped on North Meadow Street
particularly to the south and requires considerable visibility
while southbound.
12 . The Board finds that the minimum variance for one pole sign
at an increased square footage, a canopy sign and the additional
building signs adequately help to promote communications, and
improve the economic and business climate at this site .
13 . The total number of signs have been limited from the initial
proposal in order to preserve the scenic and natural beauty of
designated areas . The number of signs are closer to adhering to
the standard.
14 . The size of the sign was an issue that was raised.
Robert P. Andree July 21, 1999
Andree Petroleum
684 Third St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 3
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Sign Appeal Number 6-1-99
15 . The appellant has indicated that according to their own
research that visibility of the canopy signs and the pole sign is
adequate at the size proposed for total square footage and
therefore the Board finds that it is the smallest signage that
will suit their purpose and also legitimate their commercial
interests for advertising and name brand recognition.
Therefore the appeal should be granted as amended and
conditioned.
Vote : 5 yes votes; Appeal granted with modifications .
Sincerely,
RcLc L . Ei144:64/..■
Richard L. Eckstrom, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
RLE/kb
NOTE 1 : The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
NOTE 2 : A sign permit must be obtained. Enclosed is an
application form.
Itk
117151711 ;
•
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 23, 19 9 9 TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
FAX: (607)272-7348
John Novarr
1001 W. Seneca St .
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Appeal Number 2423
Dear Mr. Novarr:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for a
special permit as required by the Zoning Ordinance to allow the
expansion of the existing restaurant in the Quarry Arms
residential facility located at 115 South Quarry Street . The
decision of the Board was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant with
conditions and a one year renewal requirement the variance
requested in Appeal Number 2423 for the property at 115 South
Quarry Street, with the following findings of fact :
1 . The property is located in a P-1 zone
2 . A special permit is required by Section 325-9 .C. (1) (e) of
Zoning Ordinance .
3 . The applicant has proposed an expansion of the existing
restaurant at the property known as the Quarry Arms building, a
residential facility, to provide a food service for the
surrounding neighborhood.
4 . The existing food service facility currently serves the
tenants of this property as a permitted accessory use .
5 . The applicant has applied for a special permit specifically
to allow for a neighborhood service commercial facility as
defined in the Zoning Ordinance .
6 . The Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the proposed use of
the property as a neighborhood service commercial facility to
allow for persons other than tenants of that residence during
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" tar Recycled Paper
•
John Novarr July 23, 1999
1001 W. Seneca St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 2
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Appeal Number 2423
specific hours which are 5 : 30-8 : 30 P.M. six days per week, Monday
through Saturday should be allowed. The intended use is to have
persons wishing to dine at the facility make reservations or be
seated during those hours of operation. These specific hours are
for those persons who are not residents of this property.
7 . The primary concern of the Board in approving this special
permit is public opinion. We received public opinion from six
persons, the majority of which were in support of the application
with certain conditions .
8 . The Board approves this special permit for a period of one
year, to be reviewed during the June meeting of the BZA in the
year 2000 .
9 . The restaurant which would attract residents from 5 : 30-8 : 30
p.m. may not, as a condition of this special permit, have
signage, public advertising, or lights which illuminate beyond
the property line . In addition, "happy hours" of any kind which
would attract residents purely for alcoholic beverage drink
specials are specifically prohibited. Noise must be minimized and
we require that no noise emanating from this restaurant during
these hours come across the gorge or to nearby neighbors .
10 . Zoning Ordinance Section 325-9 .C. (3) , the standards
applicable to all uses requiring special permits, reads that "no
special permit shall be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals
unless the proposed use or activity meets the following
requirements : the location and size of the use, the size of the
site in relation to it and the location of the site with respect
to the existing or future streets giving access to it shall be
such that it will be in harmony with the existing or intended
character of the neighborhood and will not discourage the
appropriate development of adjacent land and buildings or impair
the enjoyment or value thereof. " The BZA finds that for a period
of one year this standard can be maintained with the appropriate
conditions stated earlier . Section (b) the same holds,
"Operations of this facility in connection with any special use
shall not be more objectionable to nearby property by reason of
noise, fumes, increased vehicular traffic, or parking demand,
vibration or flashing lights than would be the operations of any
use permitted without a special permit . "
John Novarr July 23, 1999
1001 W. Seneca St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 3
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 10, 1999
Appeal Number 2423
11 . Upon inspection of the facility and the evidence provided by
the appellant, the intent of this facility during the hours is as
a restaurant and not as a bar, with the intention that alcoholic
beverages will be served to a table and to patrons of that table
intending to both eat and consume alcoholic beverages . We require
that no loud music be performed on the exterior of the building
so as to limit the amount of noise across the creek.
Therefore the special permit should be granted.
Vote : 4 yes votes; Appeal granted with conditions .
Sincerely,
Ltv €L.
Richard L. Eckstrom, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
RLE/kb
NOTE 1 : The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
7
RATE__
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS December 2, 1999 TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
FAX: (607)272-7348
Christopher Anagnost
Christopher George Real Estate
304 College Ave.
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of October 5, 1999
Appeal Number 2439
Dear Mr. Anagnost :
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for an area
variance from the Zoning Ordinance to divide the building located at
528 West Green Street into two areas, the front portion for a bridal
service business, and the rear portion as a buildings maintenance area
for the owner' s apartment business. The decision of the Board was as
follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the area
variance requested in Appeal Number 2439 for the property at 528 West
Green Street, with the following findings of fact :
1 . The property is located in an B-2d/B-2c business use district.
2 . The motion is to approve two variances . One is a deviation from
the required minimum width at the street line of 40' . The property has
a deficiency of 7' ; it has 33' of frontage at street line.
3 . The second deficiency is a 4' side yard deficiency, a total
deficiency of 80%. The district regulation for the existing property
is 5' . The existing setback on the second side yard is just 1' .
4 . The balance of the benefit to the applicant if the variance is
granted far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare
of the neighborhood or community.
5 . This is a pre-existing use, it has been in existence since the
construction of the building.
6 . Prior oversight by this Board failed to approve or allow for the
variance of the minimum width at the street line.
7 . There has been no evidence presented to us that this has caused a
detriment in the neighborhood.
• •
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" t Recycled Paper
Christopher Anagnost December 3, 1999
Christopher George Real Estate
304 College Ave.
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 2
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of October 5, 1999
Appeal Number 2439
8 . The approval of this variance will allow for the continued use of
this property in its zone . Specifically, the property will continue as
a commercial establishment from prior use as a service facility now to
a retail establishment .
9. The Board finds no undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood.
10 . The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any
other feasible method except by moving the building which is not
practicable.
11 . The requested area variance, specifically the minimum width at
street line, is minimal, or less than 20% deficient .
12 . We find no adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
13 . We do find one substantial positive change in the character of
the neighborhood in that the existing vacant structure will become
occupied with two legal businesses and the property will come into
conformance with existing building code.
Vote: 4 yes votes; Appeal granted.
Sinc
I
Phyllis Radke, Acting Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
PR/kb
NOTE 1: The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of limitations
on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30) days from the
filing of this decision.
NOTE 2 : A building permit must be obtained within two years from the
date of the granting of this variance, and the work shall be
substantially completed prior to the expiration of the building permit
as provided by Section 325-40 .C. (7) , or this variance shall become
void.
SOT i
7TT 477
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
December 3 , 1999 FAX: (607)272-7348
Samuel McClafferty, President
Palisade Corporation
31 Decker Road
Newfield, NY 14867
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of October 5, 1999
Appeal Number 2438
Dear Mr. McClafferty:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for an
area variance from the Zoning Ordinance to convert the property
located at 618 West State Street from retail/commercial use of
office use . The decision of the Board was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the area
variance requested in Appeal Number 2438 for the property at 618
West State Street, with the following findings of fact and
condition:
1 . The property is located in an B-4 business use district .
2 . The requested variance from four area deficiencies .
3 . There are two area deficiencies that are pre-existing and
cannot be corrected without the removal of the existing building
from the property. One is the lot coverage deficiency. The
maximum lot coverage allowed is 50%, the existing lot coverage is
51 . 6% . There is also a deficiency in second side yard set-back.
The second side yard requirement is 5' , and the existing is 1 . 1" .
4 . The lot coverage deficiency is insignificant . It is a pre-
existing deficiency. It has no undesirable effect on the
neighborhood. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be
achieved by any feasible method other than pursuing an area
variance .
5 . The side yard deficiency, although it is not diminimous, is
not very great and it too has no detrimental effect on the
neighborhood. No neighbors have opposed that deficiency, or have
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" t4 Recycled Paper
Samuel McClafferty, President December 3 , 1999
Palisade Corporation
31 Decker Road
Newfield, NY 14867 Page 2
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of October 5, 1999
Appeal Number 2438
indicated that there would be any adverse health, safety,
welfare, or physical impact on the neighborhood.
6 . Therefore the benefit to the applicant is much greater than
any affect on the neighborhood and those two deficiencies should
be granted as requested.
7 . The off-street loading deficiency is a deficiency of one
spot . One off-street loading spot is required. It was required
for the prior uses . There is no off-street loading spot available
on the property. There never has been.
8 . There were prior commercial uses of the property and,
whether by grandfathering or by variance, no loading space was
made available and there was no negative impact on the
neighborhood. There was no testimony that there would be any
negative impact on the neighborhood because of the loading
deficiency. That variance as requested should also be granted.
9 . The applicant proposes to use the property to develop office
space for its company which is a software development company.
10 . The parking requirement for the proposed use is 22 spaces
based simply on the amount of square footage in the building.
11 . The applicant in its variance request proposed having three
spaces available and requested a variance from the requirement of
22 spaces .
12 . At the hearing the applicant also submitted drawings of
proposed development which includes a drawing of a property
behind it which it proposes to develop as parking. That lot is at
611 West Seneca Street .
13 . The applicant has made a purchase offer on the lot which was
accepted. The contract is contingent upon a number of things
including site plan approval to develop the parking as requested.
14 . The applicant ' s proposal for parking at 611 West Seneca
Street would envision another 17 spaces on that lot . That would
Samuel McClafferty, President December 3 , 1999
Palisade Corporation
31 Decker Road
Newfield, NY 14867 Page 3
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of October 5, 1999
Appeal Number 2438
permit the applicant to have a total of 20 spaces within 750 ' of
the lot in question.
15 . If the applicant actually provides a total of 17 spaces
within 750 ' of the subject property, then the benefit to the
applicant would outweigh any possible detriment to the health,
safety, and welfare of the neighborhood.
16 . The applicant needs the variance in order to develop the
property for its proposed use .
17 . The variance if a total of 17 spaces are developed is a
small variance .
18 . The proposed variance may have some adverse effect on the
physical environment of the area due to some increased parking
pressure, but that detriment would be outweighed by the benefit
to the applicant .
19 . This property currently only has five off-street parking
spaces . Almost any commercial development of this property would
require more parking spaces than that .
20 . In the past the property has always requested and obtained
variances because no commercial development was possible without
a parking variance .
21 . The 750 ' should be measured in accordance with the zoning
code requirements on measuring parking spaces from subject
properties for commercial uses .
Condition:
1 . We did not ask extensive questions of the applicant
concerning what parking would be available and the effect on the
neighborhood of the lack of parking if they weren' t able to
provide at least 17 spaces within 750' of their property.
Therefore if they are unable to fulfill this requirement they do
have the opportunity to return to the Board and request a greater
variance than the variance granted tonight which is a variance
from the requirement of 22 spaces to permit them to operate their
Samuel McClafferty, President December 3 , 1999
Palisade Corporation
31 Decker Road
Newfield, NY 14867 Page 4
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of October 5, 1999
Appeal Number 2438
business on this property with 17 spaces provided within 750' of
the property.
Vote : 3 yes votes, 1 no vote; Appeal granted.
Sincer
Phyllis Radke, Acting Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
PR/kb
NOTE 1 : The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.
NOTE 2 : A building permit must be obtained within two years from
the date of the granting of this variance, and the work shall be
substantially completed prior to the expiration of the building
permit as provided by Section 325-40 .C. (7) , or this variance
shall become void.
of«:In .�?►'�y
Frrli 7711
CITY OF ITHACA
1OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14880
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
December 3 , 1999 FAX: (607)272-7348
George Ferrari
Catholic Charities of the Southern Tier
121 E. Buffalo St .
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE : Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of November 1, 1999
Appeal Number 2441
Dear Mr. Ferrari :
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for use
and area variances from the Zoning Ordinance to convert the
existing convent at 320-324 West Buffalo Street to an office
building, and to convert the property at 326 West Buffalo Street
to 12 off-street parking spaces in conjunction with the proposed
office use at 320-324 West Buffalo Street . The decision of the
Board was as follows :
Resolved, that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the use and
area variances requested in Appeal Number 2441 for the properties
at 320-324 and 326 West Buffalo Street, with the following
findings of fact :
1 . The applicant has requested a use variance to use the
property at 320-324 West Buffalo Street as office space for the
organization Catholic Charities, and has also requested an area
variance for parking at 326 West Buffalo Street .
2 . The property is zoned R-2b. This zone permits residential
uses, church and school uses, and neighborhood commercial
facilities . This zone does not permit office use .
3 . Catholic Charities would have its offices in the subject
property which had been a convent for the sisters at the
Immaculate Conception Church.
4 . Any use variance for office use would not only benefit
Catholic Charities but would run with the property and permit
other office uses in the property.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" t41+ Recycled Paper
of
George Ferrari December 3 , 1999
Catholic Charities of the Southern Tier •
121 E. Buffalo St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 2
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of November 1, 1999
Appeal Number 2441
5 . Office use is not permitted in this zone without a variance.
6 . The applicant submitted evidence that the use of the
property as a single family or duplex residence cannot result in
a reasonable return because the property was built particularly
for the use as a convent and would take an enormous investment to
turn it into a residence .
7 . The property is unique in that it was built as a convent
with 14 very small bedrooms on the second floor, and a chapel,
common meeting spaces, and an institutional kitchen on the first
floor.
8 . We did not receive detailed evidence about the financial
return on the property other than to learn that it would be
expensive to reconstruct the property as a single family or
duplex residence.
9 . However, we were persuaded that the proposed use would alter
the essential character of the neighborhood and therefore the
variance must be denied.
10 . The proposed use, which is use as office use, would result
in increased density of traffic, and increased density of parking
on a block of Buffalo Street which is used very heavily now both
by cars, pedestrians, and in particular by children pedestrians .
11 . On that block is Beverly J. Martin Elementary School which
currently has an enrollment of 185 students . On that same city
block is the Immaculate Conception School which has an enrollment.
of 140 students . The same city block has the Greater Ithaca
Activities Center on it, and the Alex Haley public swimming pool
is nearby resulting in a very large number of children who are
pedestrians .
12 . Many parents of children at the Beverly J. Martin Elementary
School, neighbors of the property, and the co-chair of the
Washington Park Neighborhood Association all spoke in opposition
to the use variance because of the concern that other office uses
other than Catholic Charities would ultimately be permitted and
because of the increased traffic associated with the project .
Tracy Farrell, Alderperson for the 2nd ward, also spoke against
r George Ferrari December 3 , 1999
" Catholic Charities of the Southern Tier
121 E. Buffalo St .
Ithaca, NY 14850 Page 3
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of November 1, 1999
Appeal Number 2441
the project for the same reasons, as did JoAnn Cornish who spoke
for the City Planning & Development Board.
Therefore the Board denies the variances .
Vote : 5 yes votes; Appeal denied.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Radke, Acting Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
PR/kb
NOTE 1 : The date of this letter is the date of filing for the
purposes of appeal of this decision. There is a statute of
limitations on the filing of an Article 78 appeal of thirty (30)
days from the filing of this decision.