HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2026-05-12ZBA 2026-05-12 (Filed 6/9) Pg. 1
MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 12, 2026
MINUTES
Present: Connor Terry Chair; Kim Ritter, Larry Sallinger, Barry Segal and Stuart Friedman
Absent: Matthew Minnig
Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Mike Smith, Deputy Director of
Planning and Guy Krogh, Attorney for the Town
Mr. Terry opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. and Mr. Moseley noted for the record that Mr.
Perehinec was the published agent for this appeal, but his firm has now been hired by the Town
of Ithaca as attorneys for the town starting soon and to avoid any appearance of or actual conflict
of interest, Mr. Cook was retained by the applicant as agent for this appeal.
ZBAU-26-1 Appeal of Ithaca Dispatch c/o Peter Kadar, 615 Five Mile Dr. TP 31.-2-30,
LDR; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code, Article VIII (Low Density Residential Zones), to
allow for uses that are not identified in said article, specifically, a woodworking/cabinet shop, a
painting/finishing booth, vehicle storage, boat storage, personal auto detailing, construction
material storage, and professional offices to be operated.
Nate Cook, Agent, gave an overview, saying the submission speaks for itself. Basically, the
request is to formalize what has been occurring on the site for the past 50 years. The driving
force behind this is the property is under contract to be sold, and the new owner wants the
assurance that what is presently being done on the site can continue.
Questions
Mr. Friedman asked Mr. Moseley if what is being requested is that the activities that are currently
happening become allowed, and if so, is this a pre-existing, non-conforming issue.
Mr. Moseley responded that there were several variances issued over the years, but the requested
uses are not pre-existing, non-conforming as they were not permitted through a variance and
after zoning occurred.
Past Variances Granted: 1) Use variance for a repair garage in the storage building with
conditions that it is for vehicles owned/operated by the business and that the building would not
be enlarged; 2) Sprinkler variances 3) Special approval for a fuel storage tank
Mr. Friedman then asked if the requested uses are current uses or hopeful uses.
Mr. Cook responded that they are current uses such as taxi cabs being stored; a woodworking
and cabinetry shop along with the painting and finishing; and several contractors use the
warehouse for storage of equipment and tools, and the taxi company has their dispatch office
there.
ZBA 2026-05-12 (Filed 6/9) Pg. 2
Mr. Kadar went through the uses and history as he understands it, previous to him there was
Ithaca Airline Limousine with about 7 large busses and 12 passenger vans and they rented part of
the building to Cornell laundry, and there was vehicle storage, regular vehicles, although he was
not sure if they were the owners’ or not; the center building was offices with every space having
a workspace. The bay attached to the building was used as a mechanics area, but the buses were
too big to fit, so in 1990 or so he built the building to accommodate those repairs.
Then I purchased it for the same use, and the woodworking shop has been there for the past 7 or
8 years.
Mr. Moseley stated that the construction material storage, the storage of vehicles, the painting,
finishing booth, and the woodworking wouldn't fall under taxi service/that type of business use
typically.
Mr. Segal asked what the noise level was like from the woodworking shop.
Mr. Kadar responded that it wasn’t problematic. The houses are across the road and they are
newer, in the last few years, and the property is industrial in nature for my space and clearly
delineated.
Mr. Sallinger said he went to the site a few times and it looked like a junkyard. There are a
couple of boats that look like they are not going in the water ever again.
Mr. Cook responded that there is a bit of delineation between what we are asking for tonight so
what you are seeing now may not be the same thing you see with the next owner. Tonight is to
request the basic uses that have been going on there for some time and formalize their right to
happen.
Mr. Segal asked what kind of traffic is generated.
Mr. Kadar responded that up until a couple of years ago we had twice the number of vehicles in
our fleet. Now, we have about 16 cabs that start early in the morning and back around 5pm with
very little in between unless there is a breakdown.
Mr. Sallinger asked if there was the owner of Amabel was approached about purchasing the
property.
Mr. Kadar responded that there was, but with he easements with NYSEG, DEC and the railroad,
there is only about ¼ of an acre of useable land, the rest is restricted by the easements and the
parking lot, and the parking lot is actually half on an easement.
Mr. Terry asked how far back we know the history of this parcel; how did a business end up in a
residential zone.
ZBA 2026-05-12 (Filed 6/9) Pg. 3
Mr. Moseley responded that some type of commercial use was there pre-zoning in 1950 and
zoning was adopted in 1954, but records were very simple back then. A building permit was a
single page with very little information. Anything that is currently allowed on the site is allowed
as long as the use does not cease to exist for 12 months or more.
When the town implemented zoning, they determined it was residential and this commercial or
business use was in place and permitted as a pre-existing, non-conforming use. Over time, more
uses were added without the benefit of a variance and therefore are not under the pre-existing
umbrella.
Public Hearing
Mr. Terry opened the public hearing.
Martha Fischer, adjacent neighbor spoke, saying that they are within 500’ feet of the business
and the noise levels, from the woodworking shop she assumed, was constant last summer and
really annoying over time. She was also concerned with a repair shop not associated with the
taxis themselves because that could increase over time with noise and traffic up and down the
road.
She said that the cars, whose ever they were, went very fast up and down the road and they need
to keep it under 15 mph.
Vicky Gale, Amabel HOA Chair, asked who owns road and stated that she did not get a notice
about this. She said the issue isn’t just about traffic but ownership of the road, easements, rights
of use and so forth that are not clearly delineated.
She said there is no written agreement about road maintenance and as Mr. Kadar mentioned, the
minimum traffic they have is 16 cars coming in and out for a total of 64 trips a day at a minimum
and for the past couple of years, the HOA has paid the full cost of snow plowing and other
maintenance. She felt that the sale should not occur until there was something in writing about
the road. The HOA sent a proposal to Mr. Kadar and never got a response from him. Not only
Inlet Rd but Amabel Rd as well, which she thought they could use too as it stands.
Mr. Terry responded that ownership of the road does not come into play with the matter before
the Board, but how traffic affects the neighborhood does.
Mr. Moseley noted that the road is owned by the HOA and the business before the Board tonight
has its own driveway, which is Inlet Rd and privately owned. Amabel tied to Inlet Rd.
Ms. Gale went on to say that the Town of Ithaca adopted future land use categories and identified
areas to be developed and those to remain natural and open and grandfathering other uses on the
property will be against that.
There is also the stream setback law, which requires 100’ feet and the boats, a porta john and a
dumpster are within that setback.
ZBA 2026-05-12 (Filed 6/9) Pg. 4
Ms. Fischer came back and asked if the Town intends to let these pre-existing non-conforming
uses continue and kick it down the road.
Mr. Moseley responded that Town Code does not allow us to take away pre-existing non-
conforming uses unless that use ceases to exist for more than 12 months. That’s the law. There
are many of these types of pre-existing non-conformities throughout the Town because zoning
didn’t begin until 1954 and changes happen throughout the years. Change in ownership does not
trigger a change in the status of the non-conformity, it follows the property, not the owner. That
said, the footprint of the existing nonconformity cannot increase.
The increase in business and associated traffic was not addressed in the variance and therefore
not under our purview. That said, the repairs and similar activities must be business related or the
owner’s personal vehicle(s) as is the right of any property owner. The use variance was for
Building B.
Mr. Terry added that there are many non-conforming buildings, lots and uses in the Town
because of the Town’s Zoning and as new zoning is implemented, the existing properties become
pre-existing, nonconforming.
There were some uses that were there before zoning was implemented and then some that they
received a variance for and now they are asking for some additional uses, such as the wood and
furniture shop and professional office use.
He said it sounds like the automotive portions of the use, the repairs and the traffic, are the
sticking points for Amabel residents, but those are permitted under pre-existing and/or the
granted variance.
Mr. Terry asked if the request for personal auto detailing is separate from the allowed use and
Mr. Moseley responded that it is; only their own vehicles or the owner’s personal vehicles
detailing, which would fall under the maintenance of the fleet in his opinion.
The woodworking, cabinet shop, and the painting finishing shop, construction materials storage
and vehicle storage are under review.
Ms. Fischer responded that she is concerned about storage happening outside of their property
and she thought that should be cleaned up before any transfer in ownership happened.
Mr. Terry responded that that would be a Codes complaint, not a zoning issue.
Mr. Moseley added that the parcel boundaries are complicated because of the DEC involvement
and other easements.
Barbara Ohm, Inlet Rd., said she is the closest neighbor. The taxi drivers are mostly respectful
but lately there are a lot more trucks. She said they moved here for a healthy place with Ithaca
being under the Green New Deal, and things that are being requested will affect the air quality
and noise level and mean they would have to move.
ZBA 2026-05-12 (Filed 6/9) Pg. 5
She also noted that they are very concerned about the environment and the inlet is a beautiful
place but when she looks down to it, she has to look over cars, one is up on blocks right now
with no wheels, and boats and trash and she is concerned for the environment. She thought
variances should be very specific so the next owner doesn’t come in and push the limits because
it is vague.
Elaine Tietjen, 115 Inlet Rd spoke, saying that she did not agree the current traffic is reasonable;
there is a lot of truck traffic and they speed and kick up dust. She said that she submitted a
written comment, but there are claims that she sees in the application that are just not true.
There are claims that the requested uses are low impact and compatible with the surrounding
corridor and essential to the sale. The uses are not low impact in terms of dust, noise, traffic,
aesthetics, litter etc. The neighborhood is residential, not commercial as is stated by the
applicant. All of Floral Ave is residential and they were hoping when they moved here that it was
a quiet residential area.
The next claim is that the sale is dependent on this, but one of the current users is the buyer and
so the concern is that more and more uses will increase these impacts. Will there be construction
vehicles? Semis? We just don’t know and we are nervous about that.
Mr. Terry closed the public hearing, and asked the applicant to return to the table.
SEQR Determination
Mr. Terry thought it would help the Board to go through some questions and answers prior to
SEQR and he asked the Applicant to address some of the concerns that were just expressed.
Mr. Cook said that although he is sensitive to their concerns, the basic consideration is which of
the existing non-conforming uses can be validated through a use variance. The ownership of the
road is irrelevant because it has always been the access to a business here. For over 75 years,
nothing has changed. Large trucks and buses have been using the road for years, predating Mr.
Kadar’s ownership.
These people bought their homes next to an existing non-conforming, light-industrial use and it
doesn’t seem right that they can they turn around and say we don’t like that use. It would be like
building near an airport and then complaining about the noise of the jets.
He said he was happy to take questions, but the uses and associated traffic and noise were there
well before this development happened.
Mr. Terry stated that we are not talking tonight about rescinding this property's ability to operate
the business because we can't. That is not what we are hearing tonight. The application is to look
at expanding the uses of the property for business uses that are currently being done but were not
approved by a use variance in the past.
ZBA 2026-05-12 (Filed 6/9) Pg. 6
If the new owner wanted to continue operating their taxi business with the automotive repairs of
their taxi business and dispatch, they are fully within their rights to do that. That business use can
be sold to a company, and individual, private or public, who can continue that permitted use.
Tonight we are purely looking at adding more business uses allowed on the property.
Mr. Krogh explained further, saying that:
As a Zoning Board, you must follow the established criteria for granting such a use variance.
Usually, the criteria is a balancing test which is more subjective, but the use variance’s criteria is
much more restrictive and all four of the criteria must be met; there is no balancing. If the
request does not meet even one of the criteria, it cannot be granted.
There are seven additional uses being requested and each of those uses could have a different
answer when the criteria are applied.
Criteria 1 is if the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return as substantially shown by
competent financial evidence.
The application submission talks about financial hardships that could be incurred by not having
these additional uses, but, in the past Counsel has explained that the criteria means that you have
to show a reasonable return cannot be made for every permitted use under our Code and the
competent financial evidence should be appraisals, statements of profits and losses over a period
of years and tied to the property, not an individual use. For example, opening a restaurant in the
wrong location is not a factor, the property itself could have many other uses. You may not get
the return you think you would get in a perfect world or the highest return, but you may get a
reasonable return.
In addition, the Board can only grant the number of uses to reach that level of a reasonable return
to alleviate the hardship.
The uses permitted here would include residential development, high-density residential
development and a whole list of allowed business uses, then another list of business uses
permitted by a special permit. If we get past that, then we would move on to the next criteria.
The applicant has submitted some arguments that may be rational, may be logical, you may agree
or disagree with them, but we don’t have actual financial evidence for them.
That is for you to decide. If you decide you have enough competent financial evidence, and
decide it proves the hardship, then you move on to the next criteria.
Mr. Terry said that in the past, the use variances have shown financial evidence for businesses on
a property that is zoned for business or industrial purposes which are allowed but this property is
zoned residential and that are not many business uses permitted, by design, so the uses allowed
would be things like renting single-, two- or multi-family homes, with maybe an auxiliary unit.
ZBA 2026-05-12 (Filed 6/9) Pg. 7
Mr. Krogh responded that there are other uses such as (and he read from the Town Code 270-54)
nurseries, farms, parks, playgrounds, daycare, family daycare homes, group daycare homes,
miniature golf, nursing/convalescent homes, bed & breakfasts, etc. etc.
Mr. Terry said a lot more than he expected, and in the past, applicants has come in with a
financial breakdown of every one of the listed uses and potential uses and although he
understood that is very time consuming, that is what is needed for the Board to consider the
criteria.
Mr. Cook responded that Mr. Kadar would be happy to do that, but he has tried to sell the
property for many years and everybody that has looked at it has had the same question, which is
what exists as non-conforming uses, and they can’t figure out what they could do with it.
So, what we are asking for is to legitimize the uses that are currently happening. The taxi
business will probably continue, although that has changed substantially over the years as
alternatives come into play so we don’t know if it will stay in existence for sure, so prospective
buyers don’t know either.
Mr. Cook said if we went through the list you just gave, and knocked down the buildings, there is
an extremely small footprint of useable land given the DEC and other easements. The survey
speaks for itself on that point.
He said if there is a reasonable use on that list the Board would like them to discuss, they would
be happy to do that, but Mr. Kadar has tried to sell the property for years and tried everything
imaginable, that also speaks for itself.
Mr. Krogh stated that there is some case law that says documented proof of attempted sales and
there being no market can be some evidence of financial hardship. The question that you don't
have before you is what was marketed to whom, right? You don't know those details.
Going back to the earlier comment, it is not your job as a Zoning Board to advise applicants how
to make proof. It's up to the applicants to bring forth their proof on the application they want.
As to the comment about wanting additional businesses, if there's no room to add additional
businesses, why do you have a list of five or six? Something is not lining up.
What I am hearing is that the Board thinks you may need to come back with some of those
dollars and cents proofs. But if you are trying to just get as many allowed uses as you think will
make the property marketable or to keep as many of uses already approved and/or not approved
as will meet the needs of some prospective buyer, these easement restrictions were there when
the land was purchased, and the mortgage was taken knowing those restrictions.
And that is just one of the criteria; we haven’t even started on the other three, and they are all
very high standards and a difficult burden to prove, intentionally so.
For instance, if I decided on a restaurant parcel to open fast food and I chose the wrong
ZBA 2026-05-12 (Filed 6/9) Pg. 8
franchise and I was going out of business, that wouldn't mean I get to put in a liquor store. So,
the short answer is that business hardships occur. That's the natural ebb and flow of business. But
we're not talking about the individual using the land, we are talking about the actual use of the
land itself, and under the Town’s Zoning, there are a number of uses that are allowed and you
need to demonstrate those would not work.
Discussion continued along these same lines, with Mr. Cook focusing on the existing uses and
getting them legitimized and Counsel and the Board reiterating that those fall under the strict
criteria of a use variance and they didn’t have the information to support a decision, complicated
by the various uses that began without the correct approvals at the time of the beginning of the
use and the Town Code at the time.
The Board was clear that the uses that the applicant wants to legitimize need to be clarified
greatly in where exactly the use would occur because there are multiple buildings on the property
and the proof of financial hardship as described.
The Board felt it was not their duty to spell out what uses they may or may not view more
favorably, but that the applicant should present their request and the case for it.
The applicant and his agent requested a few minutes to discuss options.
When they returned, they requested an adjournment to gather more information.
Motion made by Mr. Terry, seconded by Mr. Friedman to adjourn the appeal until no later than
the August 25, 2026 meeting which requires submission of the additional materials no later than
July 24, 2026; unanimous.
The Board asked that Mr. Krogh return as Counsel if the applicant did in fact come back for the
appeal and Mr. Krogh agreed.
Other Business
Mr. Marty announced that PMV Legal was selected as the new Attorneys for the Town and that
Nathan VanWhy would be the primary contact who also attended these meetings.
He explained again that some of the material submitted in this last application has Mr. VanWhy’s
name on it, but once they were selected by the Town, Mr. VanWhy withdrew and Mr. Cook took
over as his counsel/agent.
The meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second; unanimous.
Submitted by
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk