Loading...
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.