HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1986-04-29 '
� ^ '
�
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MINUTES - April 29, 1986
PRESENT: Chair S. Blumenthal , S. Jackson, M. Sampson, M.
Albanese, R. Moran, S. Cummings, T. Cookingham. Also, Director
Van Cort, Deputy Director Mazzarella.
1. Call to Order - 7:40 p. m.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Novarr/Mackesey Lease, Cherry Street
Industrial Park
S. Cummings moved, seconded by M. Albanese, to open the public
hearing. No one was present to address the issue either pro or
con. Motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing.
Dir. Van Cort recommended approval of the lease; topic has been
discussed at the March P&D Board meeting ; lease is the same as
other negotiated for Cherry Street Industrial Park.
MOTION: S. Cummings moved, seconded by T. Cookingham, to
recommend approvalof the Novarr/Mackesey lease. VOTE: 5-0.
Passed.
3. ZONING APPEALS: See Minutes attached.
4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 370 Elmira Rd. Mr. Zikakis is
purchasing 6. 9 acres of land from Mr. Marion on the Elmira Road.
Mr. Van Cort reported that he and Jon Meigs met with Mr. Zikakis
to discuss aspects of the subdivision. Mr. Zikakis is seeking to
subdivide the additional parcel ; he wishes to dispose of an
irregularly shaped portion; it will be purchased by Talk of the
Town; the restaurant will use this land for parking. Dirk
Galbraith, Esq. appeared for Mr. Zikakis. He presented plans and
explained that the subdivision would add to the existing parcel
and allow Mr. Zikakis to build an automotive dealership on the
new parcel created. Plans have been reviewed by the Planning '
Department. Mr. Van Cort explained that the City will require a
50 foot right of way which would be deeded to the City for a
future road to be constructed there as a secondary access route. �
The deeded right of way would be given to the City without cost.
Environmental approval is required for this industrial
subdivision. Director Van Cort suggested that the Board ask
Council to be appointed Lead Agency for this subdivision request ;
thereafter the Planning Department could begin work on the
environmental review process.
MOTION: S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved
conditional approval of the preliminary plat conditioned upon
Council' s approval of Lead Agency designation. VOTE: 7-0.
Carried unanimously.
MOTION: T. Cookingham, seconded by M. Albanese, moved that
the Board recommend that Council designate this Board Lead Agency
for environmental review of this proposed subdivision, as
specified in the following resolution for Council action:
`
P&D Minutes
4/29/86
Page 2
WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Board of Planning
and Development by William and Roth Zikakis for approval of a
proposed subdivision on Commercial Avenue, and
WHEREAS, such subdivision is a Type I action under City
environmental regulations, requiring initiation of environmental
review procedures, and
WHEREAS, the City' s Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
provides that while Common Council shall have overall authority
for administration of the regulations, it may designate a
particular City agency to act as Lead Agency where the matter
under consideration would normally be under that agency' s
Jurisdiction,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and
Development be designated Lead Agency in the matter of the
proposed Zikakis subdivision on Commercial Avenue, Assessment
Parcel 126-1-2.
VOTE: 7-0. Carried.
5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION: 309 Eddy St. Mr. C. Anagnost
appeared to explain his request for subdivision. He is
attempting to adjust lot lines for zoning purposes; development
is not contemplated at this time. He presented a map of the area
showing four contiguous parcels under his ownership, including a
land-locked parcel of 27 feet x 165 feet which is unusable by
itself. The requested subdivision would enlarge Parcel 1 to
provide seven on-site parking spaces. Changes to Parcel 1 and 2
would bring these lots into closer conformity with present zoning
requirements. A right of way would remain allowing access to a
back parking lot. Mr. Van Cort said that this was a minor
adjustment of property lines and this action did not require'
extensive environmental review. However, Mr. Jackson asked
whether the subdivision might not enable additional development
on the property, to the extent that it did become a Type I
action; and if so, whether the environmental review process
should not begin now.
MOTION: T. Cookingham, seconded by R. Moran, moved
conditional approval be granted conditioned upon Counsel' s review
of the appropriate environmental (review) document, to be
prepared ; and the question of whether this (subdivision) has
implications for a change in density. VOTE: 7-0. Carried.
6. WEST HILL - Tax Map Parcel 54-1-9: Director Van Cort
explained that a question has arisen regarding a County-owned
right of way which bisects a portion of Parcel 54-1-9. The Codes
and `Administration Committee discussed whether the City should
approach the County to obtain the r. o. w. in question. Mr. Van
Cort stated that this was not a formal subdivision request at
this time. However, a potential buyer is seeking the parcel to
construct one single-family dwelling and in so doing he will need
to apply for subdivision. The Committee felt that since part of
the City' s goals included development of single-family homes
within the City, they questioned whether it would be wise to
allow /__�none dwelling on a 3* acre site in the midst of an area
that could be developed further. The Committee suggested that
the City approach the County for the purpose of exploring control
` .
P&D Minutes
4/29/86
Page 3
of the r. o. w. and by do doing reserve its right to construct a
roadway through the large parcel or secure access to it.
MOTION: T. Cookingham, seconded by S. Jackson, moved that
the Planning and Development Board recommend to Council that they
approach the County to obtain control of the right of way as
discussed. VOTE: 6-0. Carried.
7. SPENCER ROAD:
Mediation - A report was given by Judy Saul of the Resolution
Dispute Center regarding the negotiation sessions held by the
developers of the proposed Treetops subdivision and
representatives of the neighborhood. Three sessions have been
held; meetings have been productive - each side talking directly
to the other; several proposals have been presented ; a great deal
of information has been exchanged. Talks will continue after
tonight' s meeting if warranted.
Mr. Van Cort stated that Conditional Approval of the
subdivision is requested at tonight ' s meeting. A postponement of
conditional approval had been agreed to by the Board and
developer last month. In the interim, Director Van Cort had
asked the Fire Chief, the City Engineer, and the Building
' Commissioner for their comments and recommendations after review
' of Mr. Weisburd' s plans. The developer will submit further
information in reply to the questions posed by the above-
mentioned principals.
A draft resolution granting conditional approval to the
subdivision was reviewed and after discussion was revised by the
Board. Resolutions regarding drainage and traffic were also
discussed.
Members of the neighborhood and the developers, Mr. and Mrs.
Weisburd, were present and addressed the Board. Nellie Francis,
a Spencer Rd. resident, said that entrance to the development off
Stone Quarry Rd. was being explored ; residents were very
interested in this suggestion. Dan Tillemans stated that the
density issue was paramount ; he wished to have negotiation
sessions continued. He believes that twelve dwelling units are
excessive and he wished to discourage the Board from giving
conditional approval -at this time.
Claudia Weisburdstated that she wished to continue with
productive mediation talks. Mr. Weisburd, commenting on the
question of density, stated that the Treetops development is 40%
less dense than the Ordinance allows. He also claimed that it is
whimsical to limit density if it is allowed in the Ordinance.
' Mrs. Weisburd asked that the number of units be incorporated into
the SEQR review; she objected to it being left completely open-
ended. If the SEQR criteria is met regarding the proposed number
of units, then the Board should not request a smaller number of
units for the development.
Discussion continued regarding density as it pertains to the
Master Plan and its relationship to SEQR review.
N. Francis mentioned the loading/parking lane; she claimed
that the picture of the original site layout is changing. In
this change, items may be overlooked which are important to the
neighborhood.
P&D Minutes
4/29/86
Page 4
Raymond Francis stated that affordable housing has been
promised. Can Mr. Weisburd ensure that affordable units will be
` available? S. Cummings stated that in the environmental review
dealing with the character of the neighborhood affordable housing
was noted as a concern.
MOTION: S. Jackson, seconded by M. Albanese, moved the
following resolution:
WHEREAS, application has been made for Conditional Approval of a
proposed subdivision of property at 527 Spencer Road, and
WHEREAS, environmental review of the subdivision is currently in
progress, and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision and development fall generally
within established guidelines for permissible use of the site,
and
WHEREAS, all interested parties are participating in a process of
project review and evaluation in an effort to resolve questions
and concerns, in order to determine the best and most acceptable
use of the site, and
WHEREAS, City regulations, in setting forth standards and
guidelines for review and approval of such projects, prescribe
certain time frames for decision-making in order to assume .
applicants of timely processing of projects, and
WHEREAS, applicant has agreed to extension of the time frame for
Conditional Approval to April 29, 1986, and
WHEREAS, Conditional Approval of a proposed subdivision connotes
approval of a general subdivision concept, but does not
constitute approval of a specific plat,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and
Development of the City of Ithaca grants Conditional Approval of
the proposed subdivision of property at 527 Spencer Rd. , known as
"Treetops", as submitted February 25, 1986, the conditions of
this approval being:
( 1 ) Completion of all environmental review of the proposal
before presenting it for Final Approval, including review of all
issues raised by the Fire Chief, Building Commissioner, and Board
of Planning and Development ;
(2) Design of the driveway in accordance with standards and
requirements provided by the City Engineer and the Fire Chief for,
satisfactory Fire Department and emergency service apparatus
access; `
(3) Legal provisions satisfactory to assure this Board that the
entire property, following development, will be maintained to
high standards of appearance and that vehicular access will be
maintained to all units under all weather conditions; and
(4) The Board of Planning and Development again endorses the
process of negotiations and agrees to give serious consideration
in its consideration of Final Approval to agreements reached by
the neighborhood and the developer; and
'
(5) The Planning and Development Board reserves the right to
approve a smaller number of units based on the overall carrying
capacity of the site based not only on drainage and access but on
the general impact of the development on the site and its
surroundings.
P&D Minutes
` 4/29/86
-, Page 5
'
'
VOTE: 7-0. Carried.
A resolution regarding traffic was moved by S. Jackson and
seconded by T. Cookingham as follows:
WHEREAS, the residents of Spencer Road have appeared before the
Planning and Development Board to express their concern about
traffic on Spencer Road, and
WHEREAS, the speed and volume of the traffic on Spencer Road is
excessive for a local street, and
WHEREAS, this traffic constitutes an acute and ongoing hazard to
the safety of the residents of that area, particularly young
children, and
WHEREAS, much of the traffic on Spencer Road is commuter traffic
using this local street as a bypass to Elmira Road, and
WHEREAS, Elmira Road has ample excess capacity to handle all
through traffic on Spencer Road,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development
Board requests that the Board of Public Works investigate the
best means of removing through traffic from Spencer Road.
VOTE: 7-0. Carried.
A resolution regarding drainage was presented ; moved by T.
Cookingham and seconded by R. Moran:
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board is in the process of
reviewing a subdivision proposal on Spencer Road, and
WHEREAS, the residents of the Area have brought to the attention
of the Board certain drainage problems which pose a threat to
' their properties,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development
Board does hereby request the assistance of the City Engineer in
analyzing the drainage in the Spencer Road/Elmira Road area, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the studies be conducted in a timely
manner for inclusion of recommended improvements in the City' s
Capital Budget for 1987.
VOTE: 7-0. Carried.
Discussion continued regarding proposals to limit speed and
traffic in the Spencer Road/Elmira Road area. The Board of
Public Works is reviewing options and will make recommendations.
The question of installing speed bumps was raised and briefly
discussed. Lowering the speed limit was also mentioned.
Recommendations on these matters were deferred pending further
input from the neighborhood.
7. SPENCER ROAD ZONING STUDY: The Planning and Development
Committee requested the Planning Dept. to conduct a study of the
Spencer Road neighborhood in response to a petition to rezone a
portion of this area from R-2a to R-1a. The four-part study
` reviewed the residential structures as they presently exist and
the occupants; analyzed the attitudes of the residents about a
. '
P&D Minutes
4/29/86
Page 6
variety of issues; reviewed indicators of neighborhood change and
evaluated the impact of the proposed rezoning. Supplementary
information for the study was also gathered from Building
Department records, tax assessment records and census data. The
study area is larger than the area proposed for rezoning by the
Spencer Road residents.
Mr. Mazzarella highlighted the pertinent facts from each of
the four sections of the report. As a result of the analysis,
certain questions and issues were raised relating to the proposed
zoning change: (1 ) Is the proposed change contrary to the
existing land use pattern? A change to R-1a would lower the
permitted development density and further restrict permitted land
uses. In the area to be rezoned, 82% of the residential
properties would become non-conforming for one or more reasons.
78% of residential properties are all ready non-conforming and
would be even more so in the R-1a district. (2) What is the ,
potential for change based on present zoning regulations? The
proposed Treetops development is the only large undeveloped site
in the neighborhood. The potential is very limited to create new
lots for 1 and 2-family homes. In most cases, these could only be
granted through the obtaining of a variance. (3) Is the
existing zoning a mistake? According to the City' s 1972
comprehensive plan this area was intended to be developed as a
medium density area. Present density is well below the four-to-
six dwelling units per acre that was indicated. (Note: It was
determined after the meeting that medium density as defined by
the 1972 plan is not 4-6 units per acre, but rather 5-11 units
per acre. ) This is not likely to change; property values have
not deteriorated; the neighborhood has been up-graded by the
actions of its residents - all under existing zoning.
The study concludes that the proposed zoning change to R-1a
is not warranted. Rezoning of the Spencer Road neighborhood to R-
1a would impose a more restrictive zoning regime and would
inhibit the objective of good quality, affordable housing. `
Mr. Weisburd commended Mr. Mazzarella for an excellent report
(as did other speakers in the audience) prepared in a timely
manner. He asked if the 2. 2 density figure also included
commercial property. Mr. Mazzarella eAplained his method for
determining the development density which did not include
commercial property.
S. Cummings questioned the suggestion that there are possible
zoning solutions to existing problems such as traffic, parking
and the impact of commercial establishments. Mr. Mazzarella
stated, ,for example, that certain types of commercial
establishments are now allowed in the R-2a district. Therefore,
a possible change in what is allowed in the R-2a district might
be to eliminate all commercial ventures for Spencer Road.
/
P&D Minutes
4/29/86
Page 7
�
S. Jackson commented that the neighborhood appears to be
doing well and is continuing to improve. In contemplating a
zoning change to R-1a he felt the percentage of non-conformance
was important. He believes that there is a serious problem with
the zoning classification which the area has at present.
Dan Tillemans asked how amendments to the zoning ordinance
could be effected ; how the process works; who makes the
decisions; etc. Mr. Van Cort explained that Common Council may
from time to time amend the ordinance upon recommendation of the
Planning and Development Board or at its own initiative. Mr.
Mazzarella stated that problems existing in the neighborhood
could be presented to the Board who in turn would refer them to
Common Council.
Raymond Francis stated that he felt non-conformities were
minimal and that density was far more important. Development
could increase rapidly .and he wanted to know how the neighborhood
could be protected.
M. Lyons addressed the question of affordable housing and
stressed the need for flexibility in types of homes both for home-
owners and renters.
MOTION: M. Albanese, seconded by T. Cookingham, moved to
accept the report and the recommendation that no change in the
zoning of Spencer Road be effected at this time.
S. Jackson amended the motion to request that the Planning
and Development staff look into zoning alternatives as part of
the neighborhoods and housing study.
VOTE: 7-0. Passed.
S. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION: 740 CascadilIa Street. Mr. Van
Cort reported that Mr. Giordano has agreed to a one month
postponement of his request for preliminary subdivision pending
the recommendations of NYSDOT concerning this site.
9. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Mr. Mazzarella reported that
the Technical Advisory Committee for the strategic plan held
their initial meeting on April 24, 1986. It was a productive
session with an enthusiastic group; meeting will be held every
two weeks.
10. FARMERS MARKET: S. Jackson reported that the Farmers' Market
General meeting was held April 17; approximately 60 members were
present. At the meeting they discussed a permanent site for the
Market. The membership directed the Board to continue scrutiny
of the Northside site and to work with the City toward this end.
The Farmers' Market Board will hold funds in abeyance until
needed by the City for site study and/or development.
11. PROPOSED REZONING - 5 Mile Drive: Mr. Cookingham reported
that the Town is proposing to rezone industrial districts to
residential in the 5 Mile Drive area. This would be more
. ^
P&D Minutes
4/29/86
Page 8
'
compatible with existing City zoning and probable land use. The
Town is circulating a preliminary draft EIS along with a Notice
of Intent to designate the Town Board as Lead Agency, The Codes
and Administration Committee reviewed the Town proposal and they
recommend approval with one relatively small exception noted in
the Committee' s report. They further recommend that the Mayor
respond affirmatively to the Town in this matter.
MOTIONn R. Moran moved, seconded by S. Jackson, to approve
the Committee' s recommendation. Vote: 7-0. Passed.
12. APPROVAL OF MINUTES; The March 1986 Minutes were moved and
seconded for approval. Vote: 7-0. Passed.
13. LEAD AGENCY RESOLUTION: A resolution was presented by which
Common Council would designate the Planning and Development Board
as Lead Agency for all future subdivision requests if they
involved environmental review. The resolution read as follows:
WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development of the City of
Ithaca is charged with the responsibility of reviewing and
approving all subdivision of land within the City, and
WHEREAS, discretionary actions of this nature are also subject to
environmental review under the City' s Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, recent experience has shown that the time scales for the
various stages of review under these ordinances conflict and do
not promote an orderly and efficient process of project
evaluation and decision making, causing delay and imposing
additional burdens on all parties involved, and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the Board of Planning and
Development act as Lead Agency for environmental review of
subdivisions in the City, and
WHEREAS, the statutory requirement for designation of Lead Agency
other than Common Council unnecessarily delays and complicates
the processing of subdivision applications,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Common Council hereby
designates the Board of Planning and Development as Lead Agency
for environmental review of all applications for subdivision of
property in the City of Ithaca.
S. Jackson objected to the resolution hastily presented which
did not allow for study and discussion by the Board.
MOTION: S. Blumenthal, seconded by S. Cummings, moved to
approve the above resolution. Vote: 5-2 (R. Moran, S.
Jackson) . Carried.
14. Adjournment - 11 :50 p. m.
/mc
'
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
April 29, 1986
The Codes and Administration Committee met on April 23, 1986 and
reviewed this month's zoning appeals cases. They determined that
Appeal 1696 ( 140 College Av. ) presented complex issues and should be '
discussed at tonight' s meeting. (See memorandum of T. Cookingham to
P&D Board dated 4/24/86. ) The remaining appeals did not involve
questions of city-wide general planning significance and would not
be discussed by the Board. However, upon the request of a resident
of Fall Creek, Mr. Andy Hollander, appeal 1694 ( 1011 N. Aurora St. )
was added to tonight' s agenda for discussion and comment.
APPEAL 1696: Appeal of N. Falconer, 140 College Ave.
Mr. Cookingham pointed out that the property at 140 College
Ave. is in the area covered by the moratorium. The owner wishes to
convert the single-family house to a bed and breakfast inn or some
other use permitted in R-3 but not presently allowed in this
location. The Committee addressed only the request for a bed and
breakfast facility. It was mentioned that the appellant provided
insufficient information to support her request : documentation of
alleged prior use and occupancy; accurate plans and proposed layout ;
site plan showing parking areas and spaces, driveways, structures,
landscaping, etc. Susan Cummings stated that due to insufficient
data she recommends a 30-day delay of the request in which time the
appellant could submit documentation.
James Kerrigan, Esq. appeared for the appellant. Also present
were J. Sharma, Architect and Ms. Falconer, owner of the property.
Mr. Kerrigan referred to a sketch which showed there were eight
single-family homes ^in the area; all others are multiple dwellings.
He said that eight parking spaces are proposed. The previous owner,
rented to as many as nine individuals for many years. M. Falconer
purchased the property one month prior to the moratorium ruling.
Attorney Kerrigan contends that as a planning issue the proposed
restoration of this historic dwelling and proposed use would be a
highly desired use for this property. He also stated that vehicular
traffic would not increase because people using the bed and
breakfast facility would be walking to the University campus for
studies or business purposes. Four or five people are currently
occupying the premises.
NO. Sharma addressed the Board and displayed plans of the
proposed renovation. The first floor would contain a living room,
dining room and kitchen with four bedrooms on each of the second and
third floors. The interior stairway would be enclosed to comply
with regulations and a complete sprinkler system would be
installed. Baths would be added for each bedroom; size of the
bedrooms would vary.
Board discussion centered on the purpose of the moratorium
which was to keep density in check. Mr. Cookingham stated that this
use appears to him to be an increase in density. Season Cummings
stated that based on information available now, actual prior use may
well have been more dense than that legally ascribed to it. She is
supportive of of a bed and breakfast if it is a visual enhancement to
` the neighborhood and if it would not actually increase density
beyond that which has existed, then the spirit of the moratorium
would be observed.
Mr. Jackson spoke of the need for enforcement of density
regulations and recommends denial because he believes it would be an
increase in the legal density. Mr. Kerrigan added that when the
moratorium was enacted, this property was designated as a multiple
residence.
Staff Recommendation: Because the proposed use would slightly
reduce available year-round housing and increase pressure on
remaining stock, and because the area is currently under study for
possible zoning change, it is recommended that the appeal be denied
without prejudice. Director Van Cort stated that after seeing the
site plan and hearing the presentation he believed it was a proper
~ use for the building. He pointed out however that this represents a
significant change in use and one which might not be contemplated in
the re-writing of the zoning ordinance. With some reluctance, then,
he does not recommend approval.
Motion: S. Jackson, seconded by T. Cookingham, moved to
recommend denial without prejudice based on the moratorium.
Discussion: S. Cummings stated she would vote against the
motion because she believes the bed and breakfast is an appropriate
use and an exception to the moratorium is warranted in this case.
Mr. Albanese commented that he would also vote against the motion
because he was not convinced that this use would increase density.
Mr. Cookingham stated that the moratorium should be upheld and
exceptions not allowed. Mr. Sampson said he would abstain due to
lack of information, i . e. , size of bedrooms and proposed occupancy
and layout of parking areas.
Vote: 3-ayes, 3-nays (Cummings, Moran, Albanese) , l-abstention
(Sampson) . Motion defeated.
Motion: Ms. Cummings moved to recommend approval of the appeal
to the BZA as a bed and breakfast facility (as apposed to a rooming
house) in order to limit density.
Vote: 4-ayes, 3-nays (Jackson, Cookingham, Blumenthal) .
Motion carried.
APPEAL 1694: Appeal of B. Everts, 1011 N. Aurora St. Appellant
wishes to purchase home and convert it to two units. It is
presently a single-family house. Yard and coverage deficiencies are
due to a large house on a small lot.
Paul N. Tavelli, Esq. appeared for the appellant. He stated
that Ms. Everts wishes to buy the property and renovate it into a
duplex. It had been a duplex in the 1930s and 1940s and then had
been changed to a single-family dwelling in the 1950s. There are
three bedrooms downstairs and four bedrooms on the upper level plus
remnants of a kitchen. It is now owned by an absentee landlord ; Ms.
Everts resides nearby at 305 E. Fall St. Mr. Tavelli stated that
duplexes are allowed in this area.
Mr. Andy Hollander, who resides next door to the subject
property, appeared in opposition to the request. He showed slides
of the neighborhood and of the premises which depicted existing
conditions. He is objecting to the proposed use of the property and
. .
the resulting resulting increase in density. He chronicled deterioration of
the premises over the past several years as the property at 1011 N.
Aurora changed ownership. He stated he believes that the Planning
Board should be concerned with how the city is impacted visually and
how neighborhoods are used. M. Hollander showed several slides of
the neighborhood and focused on another property on East Fall Street `
owned by Ms. Everts for the past several years. He also presented
slides of Ms. Everts residence at 305 E. Falls St. He contended
that the appellant is not diligent in maintenance of the properties
she already owns and so he is objecting to her purchase of an
additional property in this area. He believes the appellant does
not have the financial resources or the inclination to maintain the
property adequately.
Atty. Tavelli offered rebuttal : he pointed out that duplexes
area allowed in this area and it is a legitimate use. The proposed
used would decrease density and traffic over what the property is
used for now.
S. Jackson stated there were no long range city-wide planning
issues involved. S. Cummings mentioned recent variance requests in
this neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation is "no recommendation; BZA may act at its
discretion".
Motion: S. Jackson moved, seconded by M. Sampson, to pass this
appeal on the the Board of Zoning Appeals without recommendation.
Discussion followed regarding the effectiveness of the building
code pertaining to the maintenance of properties; appearance and
aesthetics; health and safety; and neighborhood stability.
Vote: 5-ayes, 2-nays (S. Blumenthal, S. Cummings) . Carried.
Motion: As a result of the previous discussion, Mr. Jackson
moved, seconded by Mr. Cookingham, to request Neighborhoods, Housing
and Facilities Committee of the Board to research the issue of
property maintenance, aesthetic considerations, interpretation of
present codes (and/or new language needed in the regulations) in
order to more effectively address such problems as presented in
Appeal 1694.
Vote: 5-ayes, 2-nays (S. Blumenthal, S. Cummings) .
A w
�p�1TI�q
®®All Agenda Item: 6.C. (1)
�RA760�
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607
H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Planning and Development
From: T. Cookingham, Chair, Codes and Administration Committee
Sub: Zoning Appeals for April 1986
Date: April 24, 1986
The Committee met April 23 to review appeals on the BZA agenda
for its May meeting, and reports as follows:
Appeals 5-1-86; 1691 through 1695; and 1697 do not involve
questions of city-wide general planning significance, and thus will not
be discussed by this Board, The Committee does wish to point out that
Appeal 1693 involves a property covered by the current zoning moratorium;
however, since it does not appear to involve an issue that would lead to
increased occupancy, no issue of significance is involved in planning
terms.
Appeal 1696 does seem to bear enough_ significance to warrant
discussion, both because of the general nature and complexity of the
appeal , and because it may involve some increase in the density of occupancy
or intensity of use of a property in the area covered by the current zoning
moratorium, The committee feels that it would be inappropriate to attempt
to deal with. the full range of alternatives presented by appellant, since
to do so would probably take away from time needed to handle other important
agenda items. However, because the appeal is felt to be of some general
si_gni:ficance, it was decided that it would be reasonable and fair to consider
appellant's preferred use of the premises, as a bed and breakfast inn, pro-
vided that the Ci'ty.Attorney felt that such a limited scope of review is
permissible, Jon Meigs subsequently conferred with the Attorney, whose
opinion is that this is permissible, in the light of the Board's limited
advisory role,
The committee's discussion resulted in identification of several
questions whose answers may have bearing on the Board's action regarding the
bed and breakfast use.
These are:
(1) What evidence can be presented by appellant to document
and support the alleged prior use and occupancy of the premises, as stated
in the appeal? Something more firm than 'belief` is needed to determine
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
-2-
whether the proposed use will be more dense or intense than previously.
(2) What is the existing and proposed layout of the building?
Accurate plans are important to give an indication of the present and in-
tended intensity of use.
(3) How and where would the necessary off-street parking be
provided? Appellant's description is unclear, but it seems to imply that
some space would be in the front yard. A site plan accurately drawn is
needed for this purpose: it should show all features of the site develop-
ment proposed, including structures, parking areas and spaces, driveway
access, parking area screening, landscaping, and any significant topo-
graphical features. The committee noted that at least nine spaces, not
eight, would be necessary if the number of guest bedrooms is to be eight,
as stated in the legal notice: at least one would be necessary for the
innkeeper.
Jon Meigs will inform appellant that the appeal will be discussed,
as specified, at the meeting; and will request appellant to supply infor-
mation to answer the above questions .
In the absence of this information, and the Attorney's ruling,
the committee made no recommendation to the Board. However, possible
courses of Board action, depending on appellant's response, were defined:
(1) The Board, if presented with sufficient information on
which to make a determination, will make a report of its findings , comments
and/or recommendations to the BZA.
(2) In the event insufficient information is made available,
the Board may ;request deferral of the appeal for one month and request
further information from appellant; or, depending on appellant's response,
may pass the appeal immediately to BZA, with any comment or recommendation
appropriate.
TC/mc
Attachments: Legal Notice
Appeal 1696