HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1983-06-28 I
;
.MINUTES
Planning and Development Board
June 28 , 1983
7 : 30 P .M . - Common Council Chambers
PRESENT: Chairman P . Rogers , Vice-Chair S . Cummings , M. Sampson ,
R. Moran , B . Romanowski , B . Gerkin , R. Holdsworth
ALSO : Jon Meigs , Appellants , Appellants ' Representative ,
Press , Other interested parties .
1 . C,-a.1-1 to order : Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order
at 7 : 45 p. m.
2 . Approval of Minutes : S . Cummings corrected the May 31 , 1983
minutes as follows : I .N . H .S . has completed repairs on over
400 units , and its participants have an annual income under
6 ,000, should be inserted , and the following sentence should
be deleted :The .mini -repair program . . . . . . because it services
over 64 units presently , and its participants have an annual i
income under $5,000. Motion was made and Seconded that the
amended May minutes 'be approved .Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3 . Privilege of the Floor: Attorney William Sullivan appeared
on behalf of Mr. Curtis Pfaff regarding preliminary approval
for subdivision of the lot at 523 North Albany Street to
create one lot meeting the R-2b lot size req°uirements and
one smaller lot adjoining it. Mr . Pfaff would like to ,con-
vey the smaller parcel to Mr. Turco , who owns the adjacent
lot. Mr. Sullivan felt that this request was to appear on
this agenda, however it was not a scheduled item. Mr. Meigs
reviewed the process by -which a preliminary proposal would
be approved . Mr. Rogers noted that Mr. Sullivan ' s presentation
tonight could be considered a preliminary hearing . Holdsworth i
noted that a public hearing should be scheduled prior to
final action . Cummings asked whether the :Board is bound by
side yardrequirements . One of the parcels remaining should
be of a legal lot size , according to Ms . 'Cummings , which
would be indicative of good planning
i
Cummings MOVED to grant preliminary APPROVAL of the subdivision j
of the. lot at 523 North Aurora Street as requested by Mr.
Pfaff. Motion wa.s SECONDED by Mr. Ho.ldsworth . Motion was
amended by Mr. Romanowski to require that the smaller parcel
be consolidated into the adjacent lot . The AMEND NG `Motion
was SECONDED and PASSED UNANIMOUSLY .
4. Communications : Mr. Rogers received correspondence from
Harris Dates regarding representation on the local Private
Industry Council (P.I . C. ) . Mr. Rogers said that represents-
tion was being sought from community based and social ser-
vice organizations . Rogers also asked whether Bd . Members
were interested in serving , or had sugges'tio.ns . 4
i
MINUTES
Planning and Development Board
June 28, 1983
7 : 30 P .M. - Common Council Chambers
5 . Chairman ' s report : None
6. Committee reports : None
7 . Director ' s report : None
8. Staff reports: . None
9 . ZONING APPEALS REVIEW: Under Separate. Cover
10. Old Business : None
11 . New Business :
Freeman Subdivision : The owner of .th,i's large residential
parcel .at Needham Place and Kline Road wishes preliminary
approval of a proposal to split off a small lot in order
to build a small dwelling on the new lot.
Jon Meigs presented a request by Mr, Freeman for approval
to subdivide his land on Kline Road and Needham.-Place . The
new parcel would be approximately 13 ,000 sq . ft. On the
smaller parcel , there would be a smaller single-family
residence built , using the existing swimming pool as foun-
dation . The larger parcel would retain the existing larger
house , which has an apartment in it, and a detached garage .
The land is in an R-2a zone., where. single-family dwellings
are permitted. Rogers asked whether the information submitted
by Freeman was adequate . He also inqui'red as to whether or
not a preliminary plot plan and a description of the property
was needed . Such information , Board members felt, should
be mailed to them one week prior to the next Planning Board ,
so that members would have. enough time to consider this
issue . Cummings asked if the neighborhood ,residents ;had .been
noti fi"ed . Mr. Meigs said that in this case , 'i t oras not required .
Notice of the public hearing for final approval will be placed
in the newspaper. He noted that he h,ad_ informed Mr. ,Freeman
that considerably more detailed information could be required
before the Board could consider final approval , and that
Mr. Freeman had stated that the proposed lot lines were
established so that the house on the new parcel would have
required setbacks .
Holdsworth MOVED to grant preliminary APPRQVAL . SECON,ED by
Mr. Moran . Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ,
r - l
MINUTES
Planning and Development Board
June 28 , 198.3
Page 3.
Board members discussed . past actions by .th 's Board for approval ,
such as with the Byrne dai_ry., and the A,M,/P X mini -mart , on
the corner of State an'd Meadow. The Planning. Board had received
promises that there would not be any beer signs , or a large
number of signs . Mr. Rogers sa d that he may .follow-up on this
matter himself, because the A .M./P.M . mint -mart was displaying
more that the stipulated signs .
12 . Miscellaneous : None .
13. Adjournment: Motion was.. made and Seconded to adjourn the
meeting at 10: 30 P .M . Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
,Planning and Development Board
ZONING APPEALS
June 28, 1983 -
APPEAL 1503 : Appeal of Evaporated Metal Films Corporation for
Area Variances for deficient front and rear yards , and for
extension of a non-conforming use and non-conforming building
to permit an addition to the existing building at 701 _S2 encer
Road(Evaporated Metal Films) to house new equipment to replace
equipment damaged by fire The property is in a B-5 commercial
district, where the existing light industrial use is under a
use variance granted . in 1962. Under 8ection 30.49 the appel-
lant must obtain the listed variances before a building permit
can be issued for the addition to the non-conforming building
and use.
PLANNING ISSUES : , Land Use is not permitted in zone, but of
long standing as legal nonconforming use.
Extension will house equipment replacing
machine damaged in fire; will thus maintain
industry 's viabiltiy , and could provide
opportunity for increased production capacity.
Visual quality ; Aeglible change; not visible
from street .
Neighborhood effects; none
Environmental ; none
APPELLANT 00 Mr. Michael Shay, General Manager, stated that on
February 15th, a fire destroyed equipment at Evaporated Metal Filers. The
replacewnt equipment requires more floor space, for wbioh Evaporated.
Metal Filers would like to construct a "doggy-house" on the back.of the
building.
PUBLIC COMMR?r: No one appeared.
BOARD Mr. Rogers asked about the dimensions of the addition;
Mr. Shay informed him that it would be 12 ft. x 18 ft. Board agreed
that this appeal should be granted.
-STAFF CST: Extension will not exacerbate existing building non-
conformities (yard setbacks), but will make expanded production (use)
possible.
STAFF RECOMMMA-
TIM: Approval; will enhance the economic viability of local
industry.
MOTION: By Mr. Sampson to recc nnend APPROVAL; Seconded by Mr.
Gerkin; CARRIED UNANIMJUSLY, 7-0.
ZONING'APPEALS,_June 28, 1983
APPEAL 1504 : Appeai of A. Fish for a Use Variance to permit
construction of an addition to the existing building at 815 S ,
Aurora St , (Southside Fuel Company) for garaging and was ing of
company vehicles. The property is in an R- 3b (residential)
district in which the existing use of fuel storage and sales is
not permitted; however the business was on this site prior to
annexation of the area by the City and is therefore a legal
non-conforming use. A Variance is required under Section 30.49
before the non-conforming use carp be enlarged.
PLANNING ISSUES: Land Use; not permitted in zone, but legally
nonconforming and of long standing
hconomic; will reduce costs of equipment
mA-intenance and reduce damage from vandalism
Neighborhood effects; none anticipated from t4is
addition, though there has been controvery over
the tall antenna used by the firm,
Visual quality; minimal change: property
appearance by storing equipment inside,
ADPL-LXAM` 0 M=._.[�t: Mr. Harold Fish, Jr. , owner, told the Board that he
wished to construct a, 23 x 35 ft, .addition for the- washJng and ghraging
company of caany vehicles o According to Mr. Fish, there would be nes addit.-tonal
traf=fic, and he has parking facilities. in the back of thebuiiding and
along the side of the building. The extra space would be noinl,y for the
storage of his own equipment and tools.
BOARD COMM=: Us. Cunmings risked whether the building would be an
additional stnacttcres or whether it was the un--roofed cinder block struc-
ture already on the site. Ms. CLrfffL ng,- noted that the ,structure had.
already been built, but needs a roof. Mr. Fish stated that last faU F
vandals damaged one of the gas -pumps and tried to stealthe traller. He
%fishes to house the'trai,ler in-the nem addition, Ms. tl.mmings asked about
.new fill which she had observed on the site, Mr. Fish xepli.ed. that it
was the remains of Aurora Street work done last year whi.c 2 the City had
dumped there.
P'[1BLIC OOMMM: Mrs James Ragan, 89 Maplewood Road, owner of adjoining
property at 113 Cuddington Road, stated that he has no objection to the
variance. He feels that Mr. Fish's operation is one of the finest and
neatest fuel, dealerships he has seen.
STAFF REQS
'T'IC N: Approval,
FLUIM BOARD
ODMMM: Ms. Ckumeings was concerned that the Planning Bow
had to hear requests for variances after the fact, which places the
Board in anawkward decision--making situation. Mis is independent of
hove the Planning Board may feel about this particular project, Is. Cmn-
ings added. bis. Cmudngs wanted to Imow haw and why this happens, and
she wished to hear from the Building Dept regarding �kby this haWens; is
it because there are not enough inspectors? In response to Msa CumninEp,
- I
B Q -
ZONING APPUIB, Juno 28J 1983. 3.
question regarding fill, Mr, Fish told the Board that he. plans to leave
the fill fran Aurora St. on top of the land for a year, and after that
time, he would put topsoil on the area and maintain it as lawno Mr. Gerkin
asked Mr., Fish if he was .aware that a building pewit is needed More
begfnni_ng construction of this addition; W. pissk� arnamrnred that he wo-s
aware Yr. Rrjgers said it was unsfortu ate that tkie project ,vas staK-t.ed.
before a, building permit had been issued.,
WrION. By Sawn to r mwre d APP' AI,; s,EP zond by W.
Romanowski; carried, 4 in favor, l., ogled (Gmvdngs).
APPEAL 1505: Appeal. of W.J.Gerber for Area: Va riax-ices for def i-
ciena ies in off-street parking and m.inim.um iot sizee to permit -
con.version of the beauty shop in the apartment house at 147 S.
Aurora -St F to an eigth apartment F The property i.s in a, T-71-a-
(business)
-71a(business) district in .which the proposed use is permitted.
PLANNING ISSUES : Land Use permitted and, appropriate
Economic; no significant effect
Housing; wou,l,d a.dd one dwelling; snit, but
intensify lem nd for amenity which property
cannont supply
Traffic/circulation; though parking,; spaces
required will be reduced, actual demand may
increase, dose to type of need; deficiency
would be 7,
Neighborhood effeots; no significant effect.
Visual quality; removal of business signage
will improve appearance; no other change.
APPELLANT
COQ, Ms. Rosemarie Arrm-oso, 371 Hector Street, appeared on
behalf of the appellant. Mr: Gerber wi-c hes to convey-L, the, beauty shOp irltO
an apartment, which it was originally, before he purciased the property-
He has had a difficult time finding beauty shop operators and keeping them,
perhaps due'to the number of beauty shops in Ithaca: Mr. Gearbef does not
feel there would be any problem with parking, as them was none with: the
beauty shop.
PUBLIC
OCUMU: No one appeared..
ZONING APPEALS, Tune 28, 1983 4.
BOAFD
oammm: Mr. Rogers asked about the size of the apartments that
would be in the building. Ms. Anareso stated that she was not certain of
'the exabt plans, but that the area was large enough for 3 bedroam. Mr.
Gerber-had submitted, plan drawings to the Building Dept, ; however, these
drawings had not been transmitted with the appeal. Wings ngs said that
without adequate drawings, the Planning Bowcouldnot act ori this variance.
Mr. B owski asked whether or not there was a 1 gr.andfather clave° for
the apartment, referring to a recent appea), where it had beea ac6ini_
stratively determined that the much earlier existence of a, use without
on-site parking qualified a similar use without need for going to the
BZAe
Ms. Cummings noted that it would make sense to have the drawings and
Mr. Ptomwowski felt that we should pass this appeal to BZA ?cased on the
possible,grandfother clause,
:dJTI®N: By Ms. Cummings to rind. �.AL ' e ndii�d by
Mr. -Sampson.. Motion carried, 3-2 (Romnowski, Moran-) -I(Rogars).
STAFF COMM=: Mr. Meigs asked if there were any plans for off-
street parking for tenants. Ms. Amaroso said that this was possible;
however, the present tenants do not own vehicles Mr. Meigs stated
that intensity of use of property*, and lack of parking on site and in
area., appear to nxtke addition of a dwelling unit undesirable in, thiz
case. He pointed, out that beauty shop cvs:to€ perS : orail_ci matte� use of neF-x-
by public parking, which -is not available to residential users, ia satiz—
a'faction of zoning requirements. Property also lacks area .to provide open
space amity for residents.
APPEAL 1506: Appeal of G.Lee Multari for Area VaAances* for
deficiencies in off-street parking, lot size, and setbacks for
front yard and one sideyard, to permit conversion of the garage
at 300 Cascadilla St . to an art studio workshop for tenants.
The property is in an R-3b (residential) district where an
accessory non-commercial art studio is permitted; however, the
conversion would eliminate one of the two required parking
spaces, so variances for the parking and the other listed
deficiencies are required before A building permit can be issued.:' .,
PLANNING ISSUES: Land Use; permitted and compatibt®
Traffic Circulation; would remove one of
two required parking spaces .
Visual quality ; minimal changer
ZONING APPEALS, June 28k 1933 5.
ApPE : Mr. Lee Multari, the appellant, discussed his plans
to convert the attached garage to an artist's studio for use by the first
floor -tenants. Although a parking space would be eliminated, Mfr. T+ taxi.
did not feel that he would be changing the existing situation. He doens
not feel that the area in question is suitable for more than a .single caac,
which is the present situation. (He only allows ore off-street parking-
spa for his tenants' use, although there are t apa-rtt nts in tree house
He felt- that substitute parking could be made arra-j abe if needed, cit�g
an eTgity lot with unused ga-rage ac � the- stmt h
BCAM OASMro Board Viers agreed that the deficiency in the newer
of parking spaces was a problem and would be the-reason for possible
denial. Ms. Cummings explained to Mr.htiltari that the Pjanaing.Boaxd had
to consider the aspects of neighborhood impact, parking and aesthetics, Fut
that the Board of Zoning Appealq would consider hay-ctshi_ps
STAB' COMI e The-elimination of_parWimg spaP� for acnes a y use s s
acne-s - ---
undesirable; and it is likely to result in an increased nee for on-street
parking. Recamiendation. UENICALe
M9TT(�T: By Mr. Sampson to recommnd APPROVAL, en condition
that required parking be provided if needed. Seconded by Mr. J bran;
Carried UnanimroVsly, 6-0.
APPEAL 1507; Appeal of A,A,Muka. and 3, Auka fox. --e,% va'�.Xianaes
to permit conversion of the existing single farAiiy home at
329 Center St. to a .two-mfamity home. The property is in an
17t2b(reiisidential) district, in which the proposed use is per-
mitted,
PLANNING _ISSUES: Land Use; permitted and compatible
Economics would increase return from property.
Housing, would .add one unit
Traffic circulation(required parking exists)
Visual quality; minimal change.
APPEUM C MMM: Mr Steve MA:a, one of the appellants, discussed
plans to convert the two-story house at 329 Center Street fran a single-
family dwelling to a two-family dwelling. The addition of an outdoor-
stairway to the second floor at the back of the house would be the only
exterior change, according to Mr. Muka. He does not believe that this
would change the character *of the neighborhood because there are a number
of two-family houses on the street currently. Mr. mika aL,30 noted that
adequate parking spaces exist,
PUBLIC : No one appeared.
,
i
ZOMNG APPEARS, June 28, 1983 6. -
BOARD
CIOriSH : Aso Cwmings asked Mr. Muka if he was living at the
property, to which he replied that he was not; it would be a rental, prop- .
erty. She then expressed her concern about the possible effects of a
rental property gn surrounding one-family houses in the area. She pointed
out that if the appeal were granted, it w ld allow 3 unrelated individuals
to rent apartments, and it coed be possible that they all had cars, if
the apartment was limited to a family, the em.-ber of camas o6�ined may not
reap-that ntnI)er.. Ys. Cumming asked to whom he planned to rent, Mr e Muka
said he plans to rent the apartment unfurnished, does not playa to rent. to
the oallege market, and is looking for long-tem tenants. He alp said
that the bedroom were very small so that 2 people could not occupy their.
Ms. CLumi.ngs asked if he would object to li dting the nuTher of people in
the house to sic; Mr. Muka said he would not object; however, if he planned
to rent to a family, this would restrict him. Mr. Samspon said that if a
family rented the apartment, such a restriction could not be plate upon
-them. Mr. -Keigs cited the zoning ordinance thatsaid that minor depadent
children in the care of a parent or relative could not be included i.n'deter- --
mining the number of unrelated occupants in a, dwelling unit
S'I'AM REOaVMMA-
( TICK:' Approval Mr. Meigs indicated there were only miner
l
deficiencies.
MOTION: By Mr. Moran to re-comnend APPROVAL; Seconded by Mr
Gerki n-, Carried 41 (0-amings).
*APPEAD 1°5'08 : Request of Environmental Strategies of 309 The
alrkwU, Cayuga Heights, for an interpretation of. Secio 3n�25,
Column 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to determine whether a service
laboratory and office would be a permitted use in the B-2a and
B-2b (business) use districts of the City.
PLANNING ISSUES : Land Use; might be generally similar to such
permitted uses as dry cleaning.
Economic; not different from other uses.
Traffic/circulation; similar to other businesses.
Utilities/services; likely to have some imPli�
cations for sewage treatment ,dependent oh.
composition and volume of wastes
Neighborhood effects; likely to be similar to
other permitted uses
Visual quality; same as above
. �` Environmental ; chemicals and wastes are poten-
t ial ly dangerous , and
gently
need to be str'in-
gently controlled.
Other; fire: may be similar to some other per
witted uses :sampl.es are burned in special
furnaces for analysis.
ZONING APPVJ_9, June 281983 � 7.
APPELLAUr fir: No one appeared on behalf of this; appeal. Board
members asked why the Board should-hear it, since requests for interpre-
tation have usually been passed to BZA without Planning action. hr. Meigs
said that this was a request for interpretation from the BZA, as to whether
this type of use would be permitted in a Bat zone` it is a. broar�er question.
of land use, generally. If the BZA were to detennine that this use was
permitted in a B-2 zone,. it would be penrd.tted as of ri,gtit any%iiere.in
B-2 and lower zones. Mr. Meigs felt that it might be appropriate to con-.
sider the type of activity and the type of use as ajTpraprL�te in ether
zone, such as 1-1,, where they might be more carTatible than. in R-2, maich
in many cases contain residential, uses At this tiHra, Mr. fr ig : could riot
make a recocewnd-ation concerning the appropriate 7k3ne for this type of
activity. He then summrized appellant's statement of the type of activi-
ties that would be conducted by them. Mr. Meigs felt that further study
of this matter is necessary: he stressed that if this interpretation were
granted, such chemical and analytical laboratories, which may use danger-
ous chemicals, would be permissible in many areas throughout the City
because the B-2 and lover zones encom y)assed a, large ):.x)r ort of the City.
BOARD OaMMW: her. Sampson suggested that the City Attorney x-ale on
this case, feeling it was a legal, matter. He felt that also, if the City
Attorney ruled that this was a permissible use, then the Planning Board
( might consider a rewording of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Meigs toI.d the
Planning Board that the Building Dept.- had determined that this is not a
use specifically permitted in B-2 (or any other zone); therefore, the
reason for the appeal.,
STAFF nErMIaA
TION., Ib defer action until appear i s x thea
YURTIER BOARD
Ms- Currndnas. asked that a. Srenort come back to this
Board after a review by the authoritative agencies. Mr. Gerkima said that
the Water and Sewer Department might have input on this decision, because
of the waste products. The Conservation Advisory Council was also con-
sidered an appropriate body to review this appeal, according to Board
members. Mr. Meigs informed the Board that he had initiated this action
with the City Engineer's Office and the County Health Dept. .
MCd�iG�T: By Ms. Cummings. to DEFER ACTION until Legal interpre-
tation was made by the City Attorney, and a review was made by the approp-
riate concerned expert agencies dealing with health and envirowmntal
matters. It was further MOVED that a report should be made to the Plann-
ing Board from these sources, and the BV. should defer action as provided
in the ordinance. The motion was Seconded by Mr. Moran and Carrie
Unanimously, 6-0.
MNING APPEALS, June 28,, 1983 8.
APPEAL i509 Appeal of A. Cerrache for Area Variances for defi-
ciencies In one sideyard and rear yard setback, and for exten-
sion or enlargement of non-conforming building., to permit
construction of additions to the front and rear of the existing
non-conforming building at 522 W.State Ste (Anthony Cerrache
Enterprises) . The property is in a D-2b (lousiness) in which the,
existing use is permitted.
PLANNING ISSUES: Land Use; permitted. and appropriate
Economic; would, increase property value
probabaly result .in added business- €end.. addi
tional..sales and tax income.
Traffic/circulation; currently the parking
area ;shown, approximately 40 spaces;, serves
as the only available off-street parking for
Ceracche offices ' 2orba's Restaurant and the
adjacent USES office bldg. Total requirement for
-- — these uses--±. 59 spaces. Proposed additions-
would- eliminate
dditionswould eliminate 5 and require 5; total def i --
ciency would be be c,27 .
Neighborhood effects; no significant effects,
Visual_quality; front addition would screen
— parking from street; rear addition not promij t
Other;subdivisiono rear addition extends oveL
existing property lire; appellant intends to
consolidate the two properties, teeb.nically
resolving this condition,
APPELLANT OOMEMT: Attorney Dirk Q lbraith and Arell Lect Anton !gnGy
appeared on behalf of this appeal.by Anthony Ceracche. Appellant is
requesting permi;ssiod for the construction of -two additions to an existing
building at 522 W. State St. . Mr. Galbraith referred to the ply by Mr
Egner, submitted with the variance'request,. depicting the two proposed
additions. The present use of the building is a_hotel reservation seri° w,
and most of the business is done by telephone, with virtually no walk-ins.
Mr. Egner explained that in 1979 afire on'the premises destroyed the
front part of the building. ' The reconstruction had.less floor area than-
the previous building: The proposed con$truction would restore the. office
area to its original, :size, f®r the existirig. staff. She proposed addition
to the rear would provide more storage.area. Mr. Galbraith indi-sated
that -the area in the rear is actually located on property owned*by others,
which Mr. Ceracche is in-the process of purchasing, and will, be closing
on within the next week or two. Mr. -Galbraith also conuented that the
rear a4dition would make the building more aesthetically pleasing. Mr.
Galbraith said.'that Mr. Ceracche proposed to insert a restriction in the
deed to the Seneca St. property, -which he is purchasing, prohibiting a.ny `
construction within 20 feet of the existing near line and also proposes
i. to change. the rear line of the property to meet the rear line of the
shed (building) indicated in the proposed construction, eliminating,any
rear yard problems.
BOARD 001MENTe Mr. Ronwowski asked whether 1W. Ceracche planned
to subdivide the Seneca St. property after it had been purchased; Mr.
Galbraith indicated that -this was Mr. CerAccheIs plan. Mr. Sampson did
bac not
1
ZONING APPEALS, June 28, 1983 9e
been approved yet. Mr. Galbraith, presented a permission slip from the
Bellisarios, owners of the Seneca St. property, to make this appea),
so far as it affects their property.
STAFF DISC'US.SION: Mr. Meigs stated that according to his calcula-
tion, the additions would create a parking deficiency of approxi .tely
27 off-street spaces for this property, and that the current deficiency
is about 18 spaces. He noted, that the parking area, is currently provid-
ing parking for Mr. Oeracche"s business, Zor-ba's Restaurant (as rewired
by a recent -variance for additions to that building), and the adjacent
15GS offices, on property also owned by Mr. Ceracche, Mr. Meigs
explained that options for Board action include 1) the approval of
the front addition, and not the rear addition, based. on the lam of an
existing sub-division; 2) the approval of both additions contingent
on approval of a subdivision, which would delay construction; 3) or to
accept in good faith the appellants' assurances as to the intent of the
project and the proposed subdivision, He Emphasized that Mr. Galbraith,
if he is acting for Mr. C'eracche, .should_ insure that the proposed sub-
division be processed through this Beard in aecordanae with the Subdivi-
sion Regulations. He stated his'.understanding that the is.vae of building
over property lines could be technically resolved by consolidating the
properties by combining the deeds.; thus the reams addjtion could be built
while the subdivision is in process.
F'URUM BOARD
OOMMM: Discussion of the parking deficiency ensued. Mr
Gerkin and Mr. Ramanowski both indicated that they did not feel the parking
situation posed pny problems. Mr. Rarancrarski , k�ovr ver, indicated th t
the lack of a subdivision for the reax propefty dict: present a. problem, W,
Rogers felt that the subdivision was a separate issue,
STAFF
RE00MMMATION- Denial because of the siubstantia.l deficiency in
parking which it would exacerbate.'
MOTION: By Ms. Cb mings to recannend APPROVAL contingent
upon securing a subdivision in order to permit legal construction of. the
rear addition, and with the strong rec.ormDendation that the.residential
use and structure on the Seneca: St. parcel be allowed to remain; motion
Seconded by Mr. Romanowski and CARRIM Uhankwusly. The effect of the
recannendation would be to peiniit the front addition in conjunction with
processing the proposed subdivision,
ZMN0 APPEA ., June 28, 1983 10.-
APPEAL 1510:
0..APPE'AL '1510: Appeal of American Communtiy Cablevision for a'
Special Permit under Secion 30. 26 for a satellite television
antenna on the roof of the existing building at 519 W.State St .
(American Community Cablevision) . The property is
(business) district` where the existing use is permitted; however,_
a special permits must be obtained before the antenna can .bee. put,
in place.
PLANNING ISSUES: . Economic; will enhance business by increasing
TV cable program offered,
"Visual quality; would probabaly be highly
visible from nearby residences, and could be
regarded as unsightly; smaller disk, located
--more toward -State St. , would die- less obstrusi,ve, -
Env-ironmental; none anticipated,
No one appeared on behalf of this appeal,
BOARD
00M o Mr.. Rogers and other Board members examined and discussed the
drawings submitted by American. Cbrmunity Cablevision.
STAFF
CG INT: Mr, hLei.gt said that he had eonsul_tod the '1` V. Cable Oriji—n.ssiOn
for any input .into this appeal., and to whether -their review was needed. Mr.
Meigs said that the Cormussion was aware of the appeal and have no problems
,from their point of view. Ian the discussion it was indicated that a. disk as
larg as 7 meters, nay not be needed. Seven miters is the largest disk and
will provide the clearest reception of the relay signals f a the s%tel-1,ite
But-there are smaller disks, which in the opinion of the OamissionIs
Chairman, would provide fine receptions
FURTHER
BOARD omom Mr. Ra=owski asked who issues special perTrdts, Mr. Meigs
replied that special permits were approved by the BZA. Mr. Sampson also
asked why the disk would have to be placed on the top of the building. W.
Meigs and other Board members indicated that it is cheaper, if it is on the
top of the building; other reception sites were very far frau town.
STAFF
REOCWP4 TIC]N: Mr. Meigs indicated that this special permit request-lacked
a plot plan, as required for special permit requests, to be reviewed by the
BZA. Also there is no indication of responses fran individuals who have
( been notified of the appeal. Staff recanmends deferral until further reccm--
mendation is-received. Motion was made by Mr. Ramazrowksi for DEFERRAL# and to.
take no action because of insufficient infoznution; Seconded, by IC, SamDPS-otx.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMCMLY,
f
i
f
ZONING APPEALS, June 28, 1988
APPEAL 1511 : Appeal of J.Novarr for Use and Area Variances for
deficiencies in lot width, front yard setback, and minimum
setback for one sideyard, to permit renovation of the existing
house at 505 East Seneca* St. to increase the occupany from five
to eight unrelated ndzvi uals. The broperty is in an R-2a
district, in which the proposed and existing use is not permitted;
therefore appellant mast obtain use and area variances before
a building permit can be issued for the renovation,.
PLANNING ISSUES: Land Use; permitted and compatible
Economic; would increase property value and
put it hack on tax roI.l. °
Housing; would provide increased. housing.
Trafficicirculation; required parking exists on
Y site.
Neighborhood effects ; none anticipated.
.
Visual quality; would upgrade but not a;.i_ter
exterior.
Other;Landmarks :would rehabilitate a historic
property in city 's E.Hill Historic District.
APPLUEANr
OWME T.1`: Appellant, John Novarr explained his Plans to pix0base thje* huare
at 505 E. Seneca Street from Cornell University. The house .is in.much.need
of repair, and in order to make the project financially-feasible, with
reasonable rental rates, it would be necessary to rent .to S persons rather
than 5; this isthe reason he is reque zting a Use Variance. He stated
that the house is . 'grandfathered' -for five occupants, thougb. only one person
may presently live there. It is also possible that the area in, wbidh: the
house. is located will be designated a National Historic District. (It is
currently a. City Historic District). Mr. Nova�r would like to have: the
building restoresd properly for that reason also, since he would thus be
eligible for tax credits. He then read two letters from neighbors in the
area; Mrs. Howard Liddle, 116 Schuyler Place, and Mr. John Vogle, of
East Seneca Street, indicating their approval.
PUBLIC
OaME T..: Mr. Marian Mack, 507 E. Seneca Street, spoke on the appeal.
He did agree with Mr. Novarr that the house is in need of maintenance. He
did not know what effect increasing the number of occupants would have,
such as increasing the noise level through more radios being owned and
played, or more dogs on the premises, etc, However, he noted that he and
his sister were very concerned about this issue,
ZONIM APPFALS Jure: 28,_ 1983 12. r
BOARD
OWENre Ms. Cm.mings expressed concern about the platy, concepts,and
ideas about selecting people for the building who would provide a cohesive,
regonsible group. Mr. Novarr said that he is presently renting to a large
number of.people, in properties he owns in the city, and that his tenants
basically understand that he is a strict and selective landlord, and that
he also does not allow-pets inhis buildings. He therefore has little
problem with tenants. Mr. Gerkin asked Mr. Novarr how long he planned
to own the building. :Mr. Novarr replied that the question was hard to
answer, but his inclination would be to keep the property for several years,
especially if the property was in goad. condition. Ms. 0mraings aked Mr.
Novarr if he had considered converting the property into a 2-family Muse,
which would have the potential of resale to an owner-occupant. Mr, Novarr
would not need, to request a Use Variance in this case,Ms. C=Angs said.
Mr. Novarr replied that. this could not be dome without destroying tae
fine interior, due to its original layout for one family. Mr.Novarr was
then asked by Mr. Sampson how grass-cutting and snow shoveling would be
handled, Mr. Novarr indicated that he has hired someone to cut the grass,
and that the tenants usually handle the shoveling of the snow.
STAFF
DISCUSSION: Approval_ of this variance would increase housing, return, the
property to the tax rolls, and preserve an historic resource. Mr� Meigs
also indicated that the property has adequate parking. -
C
STAFF RECOMMENDA-
TION- Approval contingent on the review and approval of exterior
work by the Landmarks Preservation Omnission.
QT_q by Mr. REcn a ki. for API-'x�VAL of variance, contingent on the
sale of the land, to Mr. John Novarr, met the reviaw and approval of
exterior work by the Landmarks Pres. OomUssion. Motion Seconded. by Mr.
Moran. and CARRIED UMANIMOUSLY.
i
Zoning Appeals June 28 , 1983
Appeal 1501 : Appeal of N.D,Freeman for. Area Variances for
deficiencies in front and rear yard setbacks to per-
mit conversion of the existing single--family home at
109 El'stoh`-Pl , to a two--fatgily dwelling. The prop-
erty is in an R--2a district , in which the proposed
use is permitted ,
Appeal 1503 : Appeal of Evaporated Metal Films Corporation for Area
Variances for defici_ent,'front and rear yards , and
for extension of a non--conforming ;use and non-conform-
ing building,,,,to permit, an addition to the existing
building at' ` `l Spenc'e-r`Rc4d (Evaporated Metal Films )
to house new' equipment"to replace equippent damaged
by fire . The property is in a B-5 commercial district ,
where the existing light industrial use is under a use
variance granted in 1962 . Under Section 30 .49 the
appellant must obtain the listed variances before a
building permit can be issued for the addition to the
non-conforming building and use .
Appeal 1504 : Appeal of A. Fish for a Use Variance to permit construc-
tion of an addititon to the existing building at 815
- S. Aurora-St, ( Southside Fuel Company) for garaging
and washing of company vehicles . The property is in
an R-3b (residential) distirct in which the existing
use of fuel storage and sales in not permitted; however
the business was on this site prior to annexation of
the area by the City and is therefore a legal non-
conforming` use . A variance is required under Section
30 .49 before the non--conforming use can be enlarged .
Appeal 1505 : Appeal of W.J.Gerber for Area Variances for deficien-
cies in off--street parking and minimum lot size, to
permit congersion of the beauty shop in the apartment
house at-142 _S.. 'Aurbr'a�-St . to an eighth apartment . The
property is in -a B.-la (business) district in which the
proposed use is permitted.
Appeal 1506 : Appeal of G.Lee Multari for Area Variances for defi
ciencies in off-street parking „lot size , and setbacks
for front yard and one sideyard., to permit conversion
of the garage at 309 Cascadilla St . to an art studio
workshop for the tenants , The property is in an R---3b
(residential) distirct where an accessory non-commercial
art studio is permitted; however , the conversion would
eliminate one of the two required parking spaces , so
variances for the parking and the other listed deficien-
cies are required before a building permit can be issued.
Zoning Appeals June 28, 1983 page 2
Appeal 1507 : Appeal of A. A, Muka and S. Muka for- Area Variances
to permit convQrsio��of the existing single family
home at--329' Cebte��t , to a two--family home The
property-Ts in an b (residential) district , in
which the proposed use is permitted.
Appeal 1508 : Request of Environmental Strategies of--909 The Parkway ,
Cayuga Heights , for an -interpretaltion .,6T Section 30, 5 ,
Column 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to determine whether
a service laboratory and office would be a permitted
use in the BR2a and B�•2b (business) use districts of the
City.
Appeal 1509 : Appeal of A, Ceracche for Area Variances for deficien-
cies in one sideyard and rear yard setback, and for
extension or enlargement of non-conforming building,
to permit construction of additions to the front . and
rgar of the, existing non conforming building at`522
1--W. Sthte -St . ( Anthony Ceracche Enterprises) . The
property s in a B,2b (business) district in which
the existing use is permitted.
Appeal 1510; Appeal of American Community Cablevision for a Special
Permit under Section 30 ,26 for a satellite television
antenna on the roof of the existing building at-519
W. State t . (American Community Cablevision) . Tie
property is' in a BR2a (business) district , where the
existing use is permitted; however, a special permit
must be obtained before the antenna can be: put in place .
Appeal 1511 : Appeal of J, Novarr for Use and Area Variances for
deficiencies in lot width front yard setback, and
minimum setback for one stdeyard, ,ito permit renovation
of the existing house at V05�'sa's`t��5eha � t:y ao. increase
the occupancy from five to eig t unre ated individuals .
The property is in an R--2a distrdct , in- which 'the pro-
posed and existing use is not permitted; therefore
appellant-'must obtain use and area variances before a
building permit can be issued for the renovation,