Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF CORTLAND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 22, 2024 MEETING MINUTES MAYOR RECORD OF DECISIONS SCOTT STEVE __________________ RECORD NO. 2024. 04.22 - 01 ADDRESS: 239 Main St. APPLICATION: Area Variance APPLICANT: Eric Hall ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION: Approved as submitted. BRETT BARNES, CHAIR KYLE DAVIS RECORD NO. 2024. 04.22 - 02 ADDRESS: 87 Main St. THOMAS LARSON RAY PARKER APPLICATION: Area Variance APPLICANT: Evan Souzas THEODORE PHILLIPS DECISION: Approved as submitted. __________________ RECORD NO. 2024. 04.22 - 03 ADDRESS: 3 Joseph St. CITY CLERK ANDY JEWETT APPLICATION: Area Variance APPLICANT: Doreen Atkins 607-758-8331 DECISION: Approved with the condition that a curb cut being made to meet the cityclerk@cortland.org width of the expansion. __________________ RECORD NO. 2024. 04.22 - 04 ADDRESS: 13 Court St. ZONING & CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER APPLICATION: Area Variance APPLICANT: Grace Episcopal Church CAPTAIN ROY EVERETT DECISION: Approved with the condition that bollards are put up for vehicle 607-753-1741 impact protection and conform to screening requirements pursuant reverett@cortland.org to Section 300-105 of the Administrative Code. __________________ RECORD NO. 2024. 04.22 - 05 ADDRESS: 83-85 Groton Ave. CORPORATION COUNSEL A.J. MELDRIM APPLICATION: Area Variance APPLICANT: Emmanuel Pothos DECISION: Approved as submitted. RECORD NO. 2024. 04.22 - 06 ADDRESS: 95 Homer Ave. APPLICATION: Area Variance APPLICANT: Ithacor DECISION: Approved for the following: § 300-150 Area Variances § 300-125 Extend Non-Conforming Use to add a second egress § 300-23 Table 300-14(A),(B),(C) (D) § 300-24 Table 300-15 (A) § 300-132 Actions Requiring Site Plan OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK • CITY OF CORTLAND • CITY HALL • 25 COURT ST • CORTLAND NY 13045  RECORD NO. 2024. 04.22 - 07 ADDRESS: 30 Tompkins St. APPLICATION: Area Variance APPLICANT: Paradigm Properties DECISION: Approved to allow a maximum of 11 parking spaces, side yard setback for the existing detached garage, and lack of vegetative strips on both sides. RECORD NO. 2024. 04.22 - 08 ADDRESS: 34 Wheeler Ave. APPLICATION: Area Variance APPLICANT: William Peck DECISION: Approved for rear and side yard setbacks for the purpose of a new shed, and area variance for non-conforming lot size and minimum front yard setback. RECORD NO. 2024. 04.22 - 09 ADDRESS: 160 Madison St. APPLICATION: Area Variance APPLICANT: Casey Simek DECISION: Approved with the condition that OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK • CITY OF CORTLAND • CITY HALL • 25 COURT ST • CORTLAND NY 13045  CITY OF CORTLAND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 22, 2024 MEETING MINUTES CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Cortland Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) was called to order at 5:33 p.m. in City Hall, 25 Court St. Cortland NY. The following ZBA members were recorded present: Brett Barnes Kyle Davis Thomas Larson Ray Parker Teddy Phillips VARIANCE APPLICATIONS Record of Decision 2024.04.22 - 01 Area Variance Application | 239 Main St. A public hearing on the area variance was opened at 5:34 p.m. The applicant/owner, Eric Hall was present. Mr. Hall seeks an area variance for minimum front yard requirements on a corner lot to enable an expansion of the garage for personal vehicle storage. The expanded garage size would be 14’ x 30’. There being no one other than the applicant wishing to be heard on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 5:42 p.m. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered and discussed the following use variance factors pursuant to City Code, Article XV Section 300-151. The following factors were discussed and answered. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? Answer: No 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Answer: No 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? Answer: No 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Answer: No 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance? Answer: Yes Decision: A motion was adopted to approve the area variance as submitted. Motioned by: Board Member Larson Seconded by: Board Member Barnes Approved: Ayes – 5 [Barnes, Davis, Larson, Parker, Phillips] Nays – 0 Decision: A motion was adopted to approve a flood plain permit. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes | April 22, 2024 Page 1 of 5  Motioned by: Board Member Barnes Seconded by: Board Member Larson Approved: Ayes – 5 [Barnes, Davis, Larson, Parker, Phillips] Nays – 0 Record of Decision 2024.04.22 - 02 Area Variance Application | 87 Main St. A public hearing on the area variance was opened at 5:46 p.m. The applicant/owner, Evan Souzas was not present. Mr. Souzas seeks an area variance for building height requirements. The owner intends to change use of the building which does not meet minimum building height requirements due to upper floors being lost to fire many years ago. The proposed change in use shall be subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission. There being no one wishing to be heard on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 5:49 p.m. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered and discussed the following use variance factors pursuant to City Code, Article XV Section 300-151. The following factors were discussed and answered. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? Answer: No 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Answer: No 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? Answer: No 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Answer: No 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance? Answer: Yes Decision: A motion was adopted to approve the area variance as submitted. Motioned by: Board Member Barnes Seconded by: Board Member Davis Approved: Ayes – 5 [Barnes, Davis, Larson, Parker, Phillips] Nays – 0 Record of Decision 2024.04.22 - 03 Area Variance Application | 3 Joseph St. A public hearing on the area variance was opened at 5:53 p.m. The applicant/owner, Doreen Atkins was present. Ms. Atkins seeks an area variance for lot size and front yard parking requirements. There being no one other than the applicant wishing to be heard on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 5:56 p.m. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered and discussed the following use variance factors pursuant to City Code, Article XV Section 300-151. The following factors were discussed and answered. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? Answer: No Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes | April 22, 2024 Page 2 of 5  2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Answer: No 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? Answer: No 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Answer: No 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance? Answer: Yes Decision: A motion was adopted to approve with the condition of a curb cut to meet the width of the expansion. Motioned by: Board Member Parker Seconded by: Board Member Larson Approved: Ayes – 5 [Barnes, Davis, Larson, Parker, Phillips] Nays – 0 Record of Decision 2024.04.22 - 04 Area Variance Application | 13 Court St. A public hearing on the area variance was opened at 6:00 p.m. The applicant, Grace Episcopal Church, seeks an area variance for maximum square feet and front yard requirements. A representative of the church was not present. There being no one wishing to be heard on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 6:07 p.m. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered and discussed the following use variance factors pursuant to City Code, Article XV Section 300-151. The following factors were discussed and answered. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? Answer: No 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Answer: No 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? Answer: No 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Answer: No 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance? Answer: No Decision: A motion was adopted to approve with the condition that bollards be put up for vehicle impact protection and conformity to screening requirements pursuant to Administrative Code § 300-105. Motioned by: Board Member Parker Seconded by: Board Member Davis Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes | April 22, 2024 Page 3 of 5  Approved: Ayes – 5 [Barnes, Davis, Larson, Parker, Phillips] Nays – 0 Record of Decision 2024.04.22 - 05 Area Variance Application | 83-85 Groton Ave. A public hearing on the area variance was opened at 6:10 p.m. Fran Casullo, a representative of the applicant, was present. The applicant/owner, Emmanuel Pothos, seeks an area variance for building height and buffer requirements. Mr. Pothos submitted all site plan, permit and variance applications as identified by the zoning officer at the time. The need for an area variance was not identified at that time. There being no one wishing to be heard on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 6:18 p.m. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered and discussed the following use variance factors pursuant to City Code, Article XV Section 300-151. The following factors were discussed and answered. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? Answer: No 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Answer: No 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? Answer: Yes 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Answer: No 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance? Answer: Yes Decision: A motion was adopted to approve the area variance as submitted. Motioned by: Board Member Barnes Seconded by: Board Member Phillips Approved: Ayes – 5 [Barnes, Davis, Larson, Parker, Phillips] Nays – 0 Record of Decision 2024.04.22 - 06 Bulk Area Variance Application | 95 Homer Ave A public hearing on the area variance was opened at 6:23 p.m. The applicant, Ithacor, was not represented at the meeting. Ithacor seeks a bulk area variance to expand on existing non-conformities. The applicant wishes to add a new egress door, landing, and stairway to the second floor dwelling unit. Building is a two (2) unit residential structure located in an R-1 district. The addition would extend non-conforming use per §300-125. The action also requires site plan and floodplain development applications. There being no one wishing to be heard on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 6:28 p.m. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered and discussed the following use variance factors pursuant to City Code, Article XV Section 300-151. The following factors were discussed and answered. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? Answer: No Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes | April 22, 2024 Page 4 of 5  2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Answer: No 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? Answer: No 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Answer: No 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance? Answer: Yes Decision: A motion was adopted to approve area variances for the following: • Section 300-150 Area Variances • Section 300-125 Extension Non-Conforming Use for addition of second egress. • Section 300-23 Table 300-14(A),(B),(C) (D) • Section 300-24 Table 300-15 (A) • Section 300-132 Actions Requiring Site Plan Motioned by: Board Member Barnes Seconded by: Board Member Larson Approved: Ayes – 5 [Barnes, Davis, Larson, Parker, Phillips] Nays – 0 Record of Decision 2024.04.22 - 07 Area Variance Application | 30 Tompkins St. A public hearing on the area variance was opened at 6:36 p.m. A representative of the applicant, Paradigm Properties, was not present. Paradigm Properties seeks an area variance for maximum parking and side yard setback requirements. There being no one wishing to be heard on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 6:50 p.m. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered and discussed the following use variance factors pursuant to City Code, Article XV Section 300-151. The following factors were discussed and answered. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? Answer: No 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Answer: No 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? Answer: Yes 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Answer: No 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance? Answer: Yes Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes | April 22, 2024 Page 5 of 5 Decision: A motion was adopted to approve area variances to allow a maximum of 11 parking spaces, side yard setback for the existing detached garage, and lack of vegetative strips on both sides. Motioned by: Board Member Barnes Seconded by: Board Member Parker Approved: Ayes – 5 [Barnes, Davis, Larson, Parker, Phillips] Nays – 0 Record of Decision 2024.04.22 - 08 Bulk Area Variance Application | 34 Wheeler Ave. A public hearing on the area variance was opened at 7:04 p.m. The applicant was not present. The applicant/owner, William Peck, seeks a bulk area variance. There being no one wishing to be heard on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:06 p.m. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered and discussed the following use variance factors pursuant to City Code, Article XV Section 300-151. The following factors were discussed and answered. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? Answer: No 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Answer: No 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? Answer: No 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Answer: No 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance? Answer: No Decision: A motion was adopted to approve area variances for rear and side yard setbacks for the purpose of a new shed, and area variance for non-conforming lot size and minimum front yard setback. Motioned by: Board Member Larson Seconded by: Board Member Parker Approved: Ayes – 5 [Barnes, Davis, Larson, Parker, Phillips] Nays – 0 Record of Decision 2024.04.22 - 09 Bulk Area Variance Application | 160 Madison St. A public hearing on the area variance was opened at 7:10 p.m. The applicant, Casey Simek, was not present. The applicant seeks a bulk area variance. There being no one wishing to be heard on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:13 p.m. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered and discussed the following use variance factors pursuant to City Code, Article XV Section 300-151. The following factors were discussed and answered. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes | April 22, 2024 Page 6 of 5  Answer: No 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Answer: No 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? Answer: No 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Answer: No 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance? Answer: Yes Decision: A motion was adopted to approve the area variance as submitted. Motioned by: Board Member Parker Seconded by: Board Member Barnes Approved: Ayes – 5 [Barnes, Davis, Larson, Parker, Phillips] Nays – 0 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A motion was made and approved to accept the minutes of the March 25, 2024 ZBA meeting. Motioned by: Board Member Parker Seconded by: Board Member Larson Approved: Ayes – 3 [Larson, Parker, Phillips] [Abstain: Barnes, Davis] Nays – 0 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. on motion of Mr. Larson. I, ANDREW T. JEWETT, CITY CLERK FOR THE CITY OF CORTLAND, NEW YORK, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD OF THE MOTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS OF A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE CITY OF CORTLAND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON APRIL 22, 2024. _____________________________ ANDREW T. JEWETT, CITY CLERK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes | April 22, 2024 Page 7 of 5