HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1982-09-13 I�
.y
'I I
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS f
I! COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I
j CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
I'
SEPTEMBER 13, 1982
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
';APPEAL NUMBER 1455 Joseph & Rita Calvo 1
I 110 Cobb Street
,iAPPEAL NUMBER 1455 Executive Session 3 i
E i
i
! APPEAL NUMBER 1456 Reconstruction Home , Inc. 4
318 South Albany Street
I.
iiAPPEAL NUMBER 1456 Executive Session 18
i
i
yIAPPEAL NUMBER 9-1-82 Lawrence E. Weaver (Glenside Monu. ) 19
I" 490 Floral Avenue
'APPEAL NUMBER 9-1-82 Executive Session 21
1' !i
ijAPPEAL NUMBER 1462 Frank C. Flannery 22
j 329 -331 N. Geneva Street i
I
APPEAL NUMBER 1462 Executive Session 23
APPEAL NUMBER 1463 Ray Bordoni 24 !
210 Bryant Avenue
iAPPEAL NUMBER 1463 Executive Session 26 j
y I
iAPPEAL NUMBER 1464 Nancy Scoones POSTPONED i
I' 109 Elston Place
I
I�PPENUMBER 1465 Don Robertson 27
AL
� 606 Cascadilla Street
}APPEAL NUMBER 1465 Executive Session 39
iAPPEAL NUMBER 1466 Donald W. Dickinson 40 I
311 Hudson Street
PPEAL NUMBER 1466 Executive Session 45
i
i
i
iAPPEAL NUMBER 1467 Bruce Bard 46
I) 831 Cliff Street
i
{APPEAL NUMBER 1467 Executive Session 49
CERTIFICATION OF OF RECORDING SECRETARY 50
I
I(
�! I
t
tl BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
! COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
t SEPTEMBER 13 , 1982
t
i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: For those of you who wish to hear well , I recom-
mend the front row. The PA system isn't functioning - I think it � s
bythe same firm that air conditioned the hall . I now call this
hearing to order, this is a formal public hearing for a number of
cases under the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ithaca. First I 'd
like to introduce the Board: Donna Ward
Bette Bagnardi
Toni Stevenson
Peggy Haine
Charles Weaver, Chairman
Thomas D. Hoard, Bldg Commissioner
F Secy to the Board
Barbara Ruane , Recording Secy j
This hearing is to comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordi -
nance of the City of Ithaca. The Board won't be bound by strict
rules of evidence in the conduct of the hearing but a determination
shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the
same. The Board requests that all participants identify themselve
as to name and address and confine the discussion to pertinent
facts of the case under consideration. Please avoid extraneous
material which would delay proceedings. The cases will be heard
in numerical order as listed in the notice of hearing and after
hearing all the cases, the Board will then retire to executive
session. Upon completion of the executive session the Board will
i
reconvene and the determinations will be available to interested
parties at that time. For those of you who do not wish to wait
until after our executive session you can either come in or call
in to the department during the business hours tomorrow and receiv
that informati,on. May I have the first case please?
SECRETARY HOARD: The first case Mr. Chai,man is appeal number 1455 .
Appeal of Joseph $ Rita Calvo for an area
variance under Section 30 . 49 and Section
30 . 25 , Columns 11 and 13 for deficiencies
in minimum front yard setback and minimum
setback for one side yard, to permit the
extension of the existing screen porch oni
the existing one-family house at 110 Cobb
Street. The property is located in an
R-lb use district , in which the existing
use is permitted? however, under Section
30 .49 the appellants must obtain an area
variance for the listed deficiencies be-
fore a building permit can be issued for
the addition. t
t
�j
Illi
2 -
j
ii
iiMR. CALVO: Am I supposed to describe what I want to do? i
II CHAIRMAN WEAVER: You need to identify yourself.
MR. CALVO: Oh, I 'm sorry. My name is Joseph Calvo , I live at
110 Cobb Street.
I
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Proceed. Tell us what is is you want.
I I A
MR. CALVO: Alright. We have an existing screen porch which is in
I� the back part of the house - it 's 7 x 14 feet , we want to enlarge
I it so that it will be 10 x 14 . When it is enlarged that is , when
one wall is pushed out three feet , we will still be more than ten
feet from the nearest neighbor. The use of the porch will be the
iI g
Ii
same as the current use , namely- as a screened in porch. We will t
i
also put in combination storm-screen windows so that we can use it
a larger part of the year. Is that sufficient?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from anyone on the Boardr
i I
j MS . BAGNARDT: Do you currently own the lot next door to your
i
house?
it
(! MR. CALVO: That incorrect.
i�
! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr.
Calvo. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this
i! application?.application? I's there anyone who washes to speak in opposition
1i to this application? We ' ll have the next case please.
�I
I
i
i
{
l
i
I! i
I
I
�1
I,
i
I'
�I
i
�j 3
i
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 13, 1982
(` EXECUTIVE SESSION
I
! APPEAL NO. 1455 :
IThe Board considered the appeal of Joseph & Rita Calvo for an area
variance to permit the extension of the existing screen porch on
Ithe existing one-family house at 110 Cobb Street. The decision of
the Board was as follows :
MS . STEVENSON: I move that the Board grant the area variance re-
quested in appeal number 1455 .
MS. HAINE: I second the motion.
FINDINGS OF PACT:
1) It will not exacerbate the existing non-conforming conditions . )
2) It would add to the use and enjoyment of the house without I
i
adversely affecting the neighborhood.
VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No Granted
I
I
r
I
I
i
i
I
i
I
I
�I l
4 -
f
i
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
�I CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
I: SEPTEMBER 13, 1982
i!
j SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1456 :
Appeal of Reconstruction Home , Inc . for an area
r; variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30 . 25 ,
Columns 8 , 9 and 10 to permit the construction of
a building which exceeds the number of stories ,
height, and lot coverage permitted, which will be
an addition to the existing building at 318 South
j; Albany Street. The property is located in an R-3a
I; use district, in which the proposed and existing
use as a nursing home is permitted; however the
appellants must obtain an area variance for the
listed deficiencies before a building permit can
be issued for the new construction.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Yes . Mr. Egner.
I
MR. EGNER: I 'm Tony Egner , I 'm an architect, I 'm representing my
I
client, the Reconstruction Home and our purpose in asking for this
hearing and the hearings with the Planning Board which led to this ,
l is to request zoning consideration which will , we think, allow us
to Proceed to a solution to the problem of building an addition to
i
;j the present construction - present building , which we think would
be an improvement over what could be built under the constraints of
the present Ordinance and without taking an awful lot of time, I
would like my colleague Tom Reiss to go through a little bit of
ii
i�
our considerations and analysis of the existing structure and its
j function leading up to the Board' s decision to build a new addi-
i
tion for nursing beds and then describe briefly what could be done
within the present ordinance and how we would suggest that consider-
ation be given for the same amount of area in a different configu-1
ration. The appeal was for a larger area because our present cal-,i
culaton shows scant amount of area over and we feel that once the,
I1design is done we can probably come within that area anyway. And
also includes the maintenance of the 1919 building, which Tom will?
i�
describe to you, which may still comedown, which. would put us wayl
under the groundcoverage. And with that, I 'll help Tom go through
�1
this - if you feel You want to ask a.ny questions anywhere along
the line, stop us , If you would like to leave your microphones
i
and your desks and come up here you could probably see this a i
i
I �
i
i
l
5 -
bit better. If not , we will describe it from there.
j
I SECRETARY HOARD: Tony, this does need to be picked up by the tapel
I� recorder.
I� MR. EGNER: Okay, how do I do that? Can I take this thing over j
1
II there? i
jSECRETARY HOARD: That doesn' t work.
I
MR. EGNER: Oh. Can I take the tape recorder over there?
I '
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well, for the purpose of this review, why can' t j
,Ithe Board take available chairs and get over on that side in front ,
j,
I! of the peg board and Barbara, you have - you need power for that
ljor is it battery operated? You need power?
IMR. REISS: What I want to do is briefly describe the site as it I
I
sexists at present and then the process we went through to arrive ai
, the conclusions we did, over a period of about a year and one-half:
k
� The existing site is bounded by Albany, Center, Fayette and Clinton}
1i Street and includes a building that was built in 1961 that was
t,
j! tacked onto a building that was built in 1919 , which was tacked
Ionto a building that was built at some unknown date in between the ;
I�
litwo plus the two-story garage and parking and service facilities .
�jWe were retained by the Reconstruction Home and encouraged to in
i
i
vest _gate how we could make this building comply to existing codes
IIand also to what the Health Department from.. the State was saying
` what the deficiencies were. So that was our first approach. What
I I
ado we have to do? Well we went through and concluded that we
i
needed to add a stair here (pointing to chart) , a stair up here
Band revamp the elevator, expand the dining, renovate the bedrooms
I
! because right now in some rooms there are two people or three
i
(people in rooms that are designed for one or two by the present
1, cQdes. We went throughthis on the first and second floor and
;, concluded that for about two and one-half million dollars we could )
i
+.bring this to code and at the same time reduce the bedload down to
II I
fifty beds.
iNR. EGNER; It presently has seventy-two.
I;MR. REISS: Well , that is not a wise investment. So the Board con-
cluded that we needed to go a step further so we did - which was to!
j
I
- 6 -
i
do a renovation plan for the whole building , taking this part that
is going to get into Administration, revamping all the rooms to met
code , adding the stairs as discussed, expanding all of this , takin
H the administration out of here, turning these into bedrooms ,
I'
i putting it up here and taking this wing , revamping that plus add-
ing a second story to that whole wing which it was designed for
! originally although there are soil problems in that area. This
( could be done for about three and one-half million dollars and end
up with seventy-seven beds . And then we went yet another step
) further than that oh, it also left an illegal corridor here - of
five feet instead of the required six. So, attacking that problem
1
MR. EGNER: That' s the second floor to the same scheme ,
MR, REISS: we concluded that we could take and widen this corri-
dor , come out this way with additional structure out to the setbac
line r this is first and second - and get up to ninety-nine beds .
The State had an objection to this, namely a lot of four bedroom )
and three bedroom arrangements . This was running in the neighbor-
hood of four million dollars. At this point - this plan was ap-
proachable however when we got in the phasing of this - what we ha�e
to do to actually do all of th.i's construction around the fact - is
because seventy-two people in here that are not twenty years and
not able to deal with the fact that every, ten days they are going to
be moved to a different building or a different room and also in
every move you make on a patient of this type of facility, State
approval is required, The phasing got to the point where it was
( detrimental to everybody, so the Board of the Reconstruction Home
I
said, what is our next move OOur next move was to build an attach d
building and we move over here to zoning diagram 1 Taking the
property and cutting off the Reconstruction Home at present, demol-I
fishing this structure -and this structure and actually making new
(unintelligible) in the Reconstruction Home selling this off to
I
( whomever would be interested in purchasing it .. We did a zoning
study and discovered we could get about 8600 square feet of ground
coverage plus our required parking and pick up about 6900 square
feet which meant that we had basically very little left over of
r
it I
{I
- 7 -
lI
( what is now presently green area. We did a plan for that - in fact
Ijwe did a couple plans - which concluded we could do a building by j
I
' the code or the Zoning Ordinance that could take up that and still
leave, back behind the setback lines (unintelligible) and get the
'' parking. Then of course the Reconstruction Home would face what a e
11we going to do with the present facility? So we decided, or the
' Board decided, our next approach is to attach a building to the
11building, reusing as much of the existing building as they could
11for administration and non-patient oriented functions such as not
I� staying in the rooms , i.e . recreation, physical therapy, this type
jjof thing . This is another zoning diagram to show us what we could
'
build under the present zoning constraints - which would be a
' ground coverage of approximately this - right out to the ends of t e
I
( front on all areas .
i MR. EGNER: Removing this and this,
jMR. REISS: Right R demolishing these two buildings to get down
t
close to our ground coverage requirements ,
; CHAI'RMAN WEAVER: Question, what is that ground coverage - new
,I construction?
I
j
lIMR. REISS: The new construction would be 10 ,395 - T arrived at -
r
; just by that diagram - we are allowed 10 , 788 - assuming the demo- I
1 I
lition of these two buildings. This would be four stories high. I
(' Immediately upon looking at that zoning diagram, we didn' t go with !
�I
! that configuration simple because it wasn't conducive to being too ,
j; nice right along the street. So our first 'attempt at a plan we
l� pulled ourselves back as far as we could and going with a four-
1 story configuration arrived that we can do an "L" shaped building
I
' as such and meet all the zoning requirements and pretty much solve ;
Ball of our problems and reuse some of the existing building. Thi
i1would be forty nursing beds per floor we are shooting for one
l! hundred twenty, beds, total . The State is due to ruleon that sometime
�Iwithin the next couple of months,
I
Ii t
�IMR. EGNER; Let me interrupt here a little bit . We also have a
I1constraint on this by the State n that they, elect - on the one
i
! hundred twenty units - if they elect that financial basis for
I
' the Reconstruction Home - they may elect to have the Reconstruction
j
i
i
8 -
Home go with less . The financial analysis have said that one-
hundred twenty is appropriate. We have been through the local
board here in the Syracuse Regional Board and they have all ap-
proved on the numbers of people . The next move goes to the State
and discuss the financial aspect of one-hundred twenty units so
,! that ' s what we are still facing outside of this . So we aren' t
j ready - this being enough building designs because we don' t really
have all our constraints by the Health people office. The other
thing that they may vary the nursing station capacity to be
either thirty or forty or somewhere between this . The ideal
that the nursing staff feels would be to have thirty bed nursing
units - that would - if we were then approved for one-hundred
i
twenty units - that would mean we would have four with one-hun-
dred twenty - would be three floors of thirty units and that' s
one of the things that we will get into more .. So - we have looked
at it now as dividing up the nursing units in all these sketches
that Tom has been telling you about - in the either thirty unit
pairs or forty unit nursing units okay? And that makes a dif-
ference in our floor numbers and how we can provide the nursing
stations with the forty beds or the thirty beds and then our total
accumulation of beds won 't be determined until we hear from the
State of New York. Which means we have to go up and discuss it with
them.
PSR. RETSS: Back to our . . .
, ASR. EGNER: This was a forty bed - that brought that up.
I
ASR. REISS: Right. The other problem with- the forty bed approach
was the staff at the Reconstruction Home felt that one nursing
station per forty beds was not going to provide the care that
they felt was adequate for patients ' well being. The other thing
we didn' t like about this plan was the fact that this corner was
totally closed off and made a firm (unintelligible) L, so our nex
attempt at this was to take this administration that had been here
and throw it back into here and open this corner up to solve two
problems - number 1 , the building became a little more transparent
as you walked down the street at eye level and driving level and
i
I
fl ,
Ii 9
�i secondly that it would provide a place for the patients to be out-!
i
side when it was raining or slightly inclement - there would be a !
hard area that wheel chairs would be able to traverse and -
(unintelligible) inside. Now we get to . . .
i'
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Question about that . You could kind of think j
i
about the residential aspect of Albany and Fayette it seems to
i me that in this scheme you made that more attractive to drive by
i on the highly traveled street but then some mischief to anyone
that is trying to live on Fayette Street . . .
i
MR. REISS: We are not done yet.
i
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Good.
MR. REISS: Okay? The sequence is not finished yet. So in pur-
suing this we got into it a little bait more and came up with a
ground floor plan that would reflect that transition, This groun
floor plan assumes -, sti,11 at the garage which is about two stori4s
and then comes down.. this building there is one and one-half stor-
I
I i.es, and comes down - to this building that has the exit from our
i
neighborhood meeting i think that happened - would become either
i
j torn down or turned over to another agency that was health re
i;
t'
lated that would interact with the Reconstruction Home as an on
EI going concern .
I
it MR.. EGNER: There is no real need for the Reconstruction Home to ,
keep this. It happens to be probably the most substantial buildirkg
i even though it is one of the in-between constructed buildings ,
i
ii
It is solid reinforced concrete - the fact that we couldn' t turn
the corridor - that we couldn' t increase the size of the corridor'
I �
I
�I unless we off-set the corridor which is the scheme Tom showed you#
i
made me feel that it is a shame to really rip a, building down liko
that when I hear about the Battered Women programs not having al
i
place to go, when I hear about the Emergency Center that the j
Salvation Army wasn't able to build not having a place to go,
I
and when I hear about - that they need the same kind of twenty-
I four hour surveillance that the Reconstruction Home people alread�l .
I
have to give , then there is a neat demarcation line at this point !
f' that could provide the privacy but at the same time could
P p y provide
I �
i
i
- 10 -
the twenty-four hour nursing care that most of these people re-
quire and they would be on-site. Also they would deal with the sane
i
i agency that we would be dealing with. So this is not a hard and I
!i fast thing - and I guess I 'm the one that is talking the loudest f
�I about it - I don't think that the Reconstruction Home really has
� I
I' any intention of becoming a landlord if they don't have to be.
Vi
i
�j The effort here let me just jump to this - as Tom has described,i
w is to try and maintain - as you know the end of the building is
Ii there - to try and maintain as much of the open space that is
already there and maintain it by not building the walls out to
the property line in either case in either scheme I think this
shows you potential ground coverage of the scheme that you are
I
going to go on with. j
MR, REISS: Yes , and really what there showsis the potential - an�
Ij we always say potential because these are still diagramatic approa�
!) ches to a problem. In other words I have here kitchen and service
I
what that means is I have X square footage that T know that I
�! can fit a kitchen and the related services into and that ' s all that
means . But this ground floor plan would serve what we are going
Ij to see next is variation 1, variation 2 and variation 3 - ground
jl coverage would be basically the same on all three of them. I thinC
that variation was between 34 , 5% and 38 . 2% - or 35 .4% and 38 . 2
is
we are allowed thirty-five so you can see that ground coverage j
If for each approach is. basically similar. The difference we are
1
going to see in what is the mass above the ground coverage . This
is variation 1 which would be two floors- of nursing of sixty beds
�Iper floor and two nursing stations. This would be a three-story
i
! mass the dark part would be the three--story mass. This would bei
i; �
j a forty bed per floor, four-story building and the high area - the
V I
lI dark area, again, would be the mass of the four stories . The next
approach. which we got into a little more i,n depth because we felt
it made some sense, was a five-story building, approximately fiftyi
i
to fifty-two feet high depending upon how we worked with the site
I
and this would be the tourer portion of that - this in all cases
i', would be about the same these masses. This pulled it the fur-
il
therest back from the street , presented the thinest profile to
I� �
li
i
I Fayette and Albany Streets and for the purposes of the Zoning
i
Board we threw together some very quick - this is maybe what it
might look like - at five stories . This building is drawn at fif
ty-five feet tall . Then we did some comparative studies of what
this really meant from each street. Variation 1 is again the
three-story, two is the four, three is the five. This is the vied
i
from the east which would be from Albany Street. This is the
existing Reconstruction Home - this would be the three-story massi
from Albany. This would be the four-story mass which space stage
I I
the same and with the five-story mass would be a thinner profile
i
pulled back further from Clinton. From the west which would be
I
looking from Fayette - this would be variation 1 , this would be
within ten feet -- this would be right up to the setback line as
I required. This is also totally okay under the zoning . Variation
2 which is also totally okay under the zoning as present - presents
this . Variation 3 presents this one ten feet higher than that.
Our next comparison was from Clinton looking towards the present
I
A Reconstruction Home which shows the variation 1 , your two "L"s
I
i coming out within ten feet of the street „ two has one coming outl
l within n T should say property line not street ten feet of the
property line and variation 3 this is approximately fifty feet
back from the property line so we concluded that it makes sense td
come here and talk about all of this stuff because we felt the I
building that was ten feet higher and presented the lesser impact
upon each street made a lot more sense than a four story building ;
i
or a three story, buil.ding that, from eye level , would present a
I
much greater impact upon the neighborhood, That ' s basically our {
reasoning.
i
MS. HATNE: Withthe five story building you have four stories of
i I
beds? I
I
MR. EGNER; Yes - that gives you the thirty that gives you a -
four floors of thirty bed nursing units , And so each the first
floor would be the dining and social the lounge and then half of
i
it would be wide open,
MS. HATNE: (unintelligible)
I
I
j I
ii
12 -
i' I
MR. EGNER: The old building would be used for therapy, recreation,
administration and social services and this kind of stuff. So we
will be redoing all the bed spaces there into therapy spaces and t e
,' old be
room into therapy space. So we wouldn 't be building
11any therapy space. Basically the added wing would be for the 120
i
!: bed units and then it breaks down into what is the best arrangement
for the bed units if you have thirty nursing beds per nursing unit '
�i
1iforty you see the four--story building, if you had three floors
0
jof forty - that would work okay? but we are up against one con-
�istraint - a plus of the State not particularly caring for the
( forty and we don't have an answer to that - and the nursing staff
not caring for the forty and that the thirty looks to be efficient )
i
land thus for the nursing staff, the State may not let them go
down to thirty so we may be into thirty-five even, which would make
'', our picture, again, different and then we would be back with the
I'
four floor scheme so that there is nothing this is not an archi-
i i
i; tectural presentation - this is basically a zoning analysis com-
I
) pared to the analysis of what the functional need of my, client is .
i
We don' t - we only drew the architecture because the little book
said we had to and what we really would like what we really were
i;
,� looking for is not a final approval of this thing we are looking
I
' for consideration before we spend $100 ,000 of our client 's money
�Ithat someone will hear us and think that perhaps we can do some
; thing better by nonliving exactly to the constraints of the Ordi
r;
�! nance. That ' s what we are really here for to present and get
i
this kind of , because next spring .f we get approval sometime thio
� fall from, the State to go to one hundred ten or one hundred twenty ;
I;
;; units , in typical fashion, my client will be like all the others
i
; and want it by next spring, okay? So we are trying to get some of
the roadblocks at least cleared for us along the wavy at this point;
'' And that - if you have any questions? Yes.
; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: It seems to me that the purposes of this Board
�i
ji in trying to make rulings based upon the Ordinance that even if we !
accept yours ' and possibly the planners ' view- of that the maximum
I
i.
- 13 - I
deviation from the height regulation is the best for the "neighbor)
, hood" I wonder what the mechanism will be in our making determinations
I'
with the next case - the next case can be on a much smaller scale
Wand we are rather limited in our design judgment capability. It I
! seems to be putting the burden of that kind of judgment on the
i'' Board rather than a burden of interpreting the Ordinance and I just'
J' wonder if there is a defect in the Ordinance in that it doesn' t
!' address itself to what the true visual impact is , in height .
' MR. EONER: I 've been saying for at least ten or fifteen years j
j;
that there are holes in the Ordinance - this is one of them I
�; think. I think that there are other mechanisms that can be des-
1
1icribed in an Ordinance. I talked about some of them with your
,! Planners and with the building inspector. One of them is that
{! !
' take this case for instance, we aren' t trying to build any more
,., square footage than the Ordinance would allow us and I think that
iJ f you have a zone that you would like to develope within certain
density and I think you look at the density and instead of limiting;
i'
i,i
height and volume , you perhaps say you have a variation in height
kand volume and you then create a wordage which will give you things'
I!
�! like floor area and coverage, which is similar to your ground
I
icoverage but it says if it makes more sense for this guy to build
a six--story building rather than a three-story building and he
11!doesn' t build any more land but he saves his land and frankly in
any ,city, the more land you can save, the more variety you are
!going to have along the ground and to build to property lines on
�a
, all the properties in every city, I think would be deadly. And
1,I!New York discovered this before I left town and was giving develop-!
j',ers bonuses for leaving open area around their buildings was
i'giving them extra building height and even extra area in their I
!'buildings for leaving ground area open, Now that ' s an extreme be-
I
!cause they don't have any ground area in the middle of Manhattan.
'',But I think that is really what we are trying to interpret here ,
I! ' s to try, and et something which will allow art of what the
,,�._ Y� g g P �
I'
: present site allows which is a very park--like atmosphere - will
i
,allow people to walk around - will allow people to see through at
{!
I�
i
1
14 -
i
;
1
! the level that they walk and that they drive and then present the
I
`imost limited facade, let ' s say, to the actual street side and even
! this kind of thing here which is a one-story cut back thing for
± the dining room which would present the least constant view for
I
! anyone walking along the street because it would change (unintll) .
I
! That' s a design thing but I think the Ordinance really is a little
bit lacking in saying look everybody you can build to ten feet of '
thero ert line, you can do this , you can do that because we kno�
P p Y
Ijwe can do that right here and we could - and at that have felt
AIright on this by building to the property lines with the "L"
shape unit and that they permit the parking requirements also.
That, I think, would have been a real blow to the neighborhood and
iI think the Board felt that way also and also it would have cost -
I think probably it is going to cost about the same to renovate
this part but this will then be maintained as a one-story build '
it
ing this will be maintained as a two, and if this stays , in es-
sence , two and one-half stories because the ground slopes away at
;
that point. The ground also slopes away in this area back to that
1point . So I can understand your dilemma as a Board and as its
! chairman and I think this kind of reflects my dilemma in how to
Iget this thing to be publicly discussed all summer which I 've been )
( going through, okay? Because there didn't seem to be any mechanism
Ito hear something and still to come in with a set of drawings and
! were either refused a permit and then gone- go through the vari-
I
lance procedure and T think that is another thing that is lacking
jin the Ordinance that there is no way, that someone can come up
' say , for a reasonable amount of investment, present a scheme and
( see whether it is going to get consideration after it has spent
;
$100, 000 or so so l see a lot of holes in the Ordinance - that
is another one.
( CHAIRMAN WEAVER; if you will bear with me one more question. If
! seems to me that if we can focus on the third proposition. As I
understand, you favor that and wish to have that approval if that
�Iwexe possible? Is that correct?
i
� MR. EGNER: Right .
I�
�1
1
I�
it - -
�� I
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: This Board, with as many "ifs" in your presenta- I
! tion as there are - could at best make a conditional approval .
!
+ I 'm trying to think of the practical difficulties that you are
I
' trying to describe in complying with the Ordinance. They need to
jibe demonstrated in order to give you an area variance.
MR. EGNER: Can I strike further on my intent there? If you look
! at the application, we purposely crossed out that we are seeking
to get a variance at this time. We are really looking for an
; intent that we will live within that kind of intent and then come )
�{ I
back and present the entire proposal . That 's , I guess, what we are!
ireally looking for because there is no way that you could - I
�j
jsympathize with what you are asking .
( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well there is another thing that I 'd like to says
I� - I 'm quite sure of is that this Board cannot commit a Board next
ii
( spring - which may be composed of six new individuals to anything.
I
jAlright - thanks , Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of
' this proposition? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposi-
'it on to this application? Please come forward.
�iMS . BAKER: I 'm Beverly Baker and I live at 320 S. Geneva Street.
i' When T first heard of the proposal for a five-story building on j
South Albany Street, T was horrified. But I must admit that now
I
�! i know the process by which the Reconstruction Home went through
!
to reach their five-story proposal , I understand their decision
! and reasoning and in many, ways endorse it but the concern still
i
, does remain of a five-story building in an area which is , in j
! essence , a two-story family residential area, The Reconstruction
( Home i.s officly in an Rr3 zone but it does border on an R--2
I� zone and the City has spent a considerably amount of time and
lieffort in encouraging the southside to convert back to single
�Ifamilly at most two-family, homes . The Home has also been a part
I !
of our south-side community, for a long time, we are very proud of
�iit , don't want it to leave, want to encourage it to stay, but
i
1, i.t 's fit because the current buildings are very compatible with
I� !
I� the neighborhood and we are all rather proud too, that that small
1park there is kind of neat to have too. I think it is going to
I
ii
16
i!
!! take us awhile to get used to any kind of a new building regardless
Hof size. You too may be convinced that the five-story proposal isf
i - will have the least amount of impact but if the variance were tol
� be granted, can we have any kind of assurance that we would not, at
i
a future date, in other words if the proposal that you have seen11 — i
the size and the placement - would be what we really do get - that !
i�
i( we would not, at a future time have a five-story building encom-
, passing 350 of the lot that they are entitled to? I think that isj
i,
iia concern of the neighborhood the volume of the building on that ,
i
'! lot. Also perhaps an assurance of future use of that big structur�
and we can't forget frankly the long range problem of traffic and
!
i
! parking if indeed the abandoned buildings were indeed rented out
1! to other services . I think that is a concern as well.. So I know
e! i
Jt is a very hard decision to make and to be honest with you, I aml
las ambivalent as you are at this point . But , really the future ofil
i
, the southside is in your hands . Thank you,
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in
! opposition to this?
.i
!MS . HOLMAN: Elva Holman, 141 Pearsall place, alderman second war
i
jCity of Ithaca. There is no place in your call for persons to
speak, Chairman Weaver, for those who fall somewhere in between
I
! for and against.
! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We ' ll try to identify you later.
I ,
I�MS. HOLMAN: Would you take that under advisement? And that ' s -
!
I find myself in much the same position the previous speaker is in.
I'! T want to thank the Reconstruction Home for the presentation it
,Idid make to the neighborhood - to make them aware of the process
11th.at had been used to arrive at this particular plan. However the
s;
11concern still remains about the impact of five stories in a resi-
i' I
denti.al neighborhood. Mr. Egner, in his presentation, talked
!about New York City, which encourages height in order to provide
(Isetbacks however, T don' t think there are any two story residences
! in downtown Manhattan r if there are Tony, I 'd like to see them. So
fI think there is a difference in trading height for setback in
i
this particular instance. The neighborhood does enjoy the green
i I
1
17 -
1
, space - however, that height is going to be , I 'm afraid, somewhat
overwhelming for that particular neighborhood. I would also ask
1you to consider the precedent that five stories in an R-3 zone will
set. If the approval is granted and a final variance then - when
you see the final design - is given I hope that it will be condi- `
I
tioned to allow that building to be used only for a nursing home
use because the site simply will not support residential use .
There is no parking available for anything other than that kind of
care . And finally, in talking with the neighborhood I heard a
concern that I might not have thought about other than in the most
elementary of terms and that is , there are several very impressive
trees on that site and in talking with the neighborhood I learned
that one of them is: among the oldest and largest of the copper
beeches in New York State . Now where I go with that - for protec-
tion, I don't know. I expect it 's not here but I do present it to
you. If there is some way for the BZA to work with the Reconstruc-
I
Ition Home and the architect in preserving at least that one tree,
Ithe neighborhood would be eternally grateful .
MR. REISS: That copper beech would not be even close to being cut .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is these anyone else who wishes to speak on this
jimatter?
SECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Chairman I did have a call on this one from
I �
Mr . Evans of 107 Center Street and he was concerned about the exis-I
ting sidewalk on the Center Street side of the Reconstruction
Home. Apparently that sidewalk is right up next to the curb and the
city will not plow the snow on both sides because the snow would
land on this side walk so that he gets all the snow on his side
I
and he wanted to bring that to the Board's attention.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: There being nothing further to be heard on this ,
we will have the next case. j
i
I
1!
1 �I 18 p
i
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
iSEPTEMBER 13 , 1982
EXECUTIVE SESSION
' APPEAL NO. 1456 :
IThe Board considered the appeal of the Reconstruction Home, Inc.
I!
for an area variance to permit the construction of a building which,
�lexceeds the number of stories , height, and lot coverage permitted j
! and which will be an addition to the existing building at 318 South;
!!
Albany Street. The decision of the Board was as follows :
iMS . STEVENSON: Resolution of the Board is that we endorse the
proposition that the building exceed the height
limitation of the Zoning Ordinance in order to
provide additional setback and increased open
space on the site . We support the concept of
exceeding the height limitation with the under- I
f' I
standing that this will provide more open space .
�MS. WARD: I second the motion. i
NOTE, 5 Yes ; 0 No
I
(NOTE: This isnot a variance; a variance based on the final concept
I !
'will be required before a building permit can be issued.
i
I�
�I
I �
j
�f
i
I
I
I
I
j I
j
�I
!I
�I
it
I�
- 19
(' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS j
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
j
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
I
li SEPTEMBER 13 , 1982
I�
SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 9-1-82 :
I, Appeal of Lawrence E. Weaver BDA Glenside Monu-
ment Company for a variance under Section 34 . 5 ,
Paragraph Bl (requirements for commercial signs
j� in residential use districts) , and Section 34 . 8 I
II Paragraph A (requirements for sign setbacks in
residential use districts) of the Sign Ordinance;
to permit the erection of a thirty-two square
foot commercial sign within ten feet of the j
public right-of-way at 490 Floral Avenue (Glen-
side Monument Company) . The proposed sign is
�j larged than the five square foot maximum per-
mitted for a commercial sign in the R-3a (resi-
t dential) use district in which the property is
located, and would be too close to the public
right-of-way.
SMR. WEAVER: I am Lawrence Weaver, I own Glenside Monument Company,
I reside at 490 Floral Avenue , The Company is right next door.
; Basically, in essence what I want to do is put up a new sign so I
Input in a request for a zoning variance and the present sign I have
�!is 4 x 8 feet in dimension. I requested a 4 x 6 and it was kind
�,of promptly passed on to me that it was being recommended as no to i
the Zoning Board so what I have taken the liberty of doing is draw-1j
Ming up a couple different signs - one 3 x 6 ' and one 3 x 51 , along]
i
with the same scale that I drew- these others on - if you would like
i
�to see them, I' ll pass them along and as far as distance from the
I
street is, it' s ten foot from the edge of the macadam to the base
,of the sign that is presently there this pictures shows it. And i
thatts it, I just request another sign.
i I
CHAIRMAN WEAVER; A matter of clarification - your application is
(for a 4 x 6 sign, is that correct?
I
fMR. WEAVER: Yes- sir. I 'm willing to shrink. it, move it, anything,l
I; I
(just you see what the zone requires is a five square foot sign
land I 'm right at the city limits and what with. the speed sign for
Iithe 55 mile an hour zone for the State is actually inside the city
by about fifty to sixty yards so people are accelerating pretty goo
'
going by- the house and so T think a little bit larger sign is kind
11 of appropriate just so you can see before they go blistering out of
(
ftown there, or coming in at a pretty good clip and there is a lot of
i
�I I
20 -
1� trees and shrubs and bushes all the way around the place and five
�i
jsquare feet is pretty small to see so a little bit larger I think
ff�
would be appropriate, but that is up to you.
0
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there a question from anyone on the Board?
MS. BAGNARDI : Are you going to take the sign off the roof?
MR. WEAVER: yes ma'am.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions?
MS . WARD: What is the matter with the current sign?
MR. WEAVER: Okay, it's not within code by any stretch of the imag-
ination at this point .
MS. WARD: Did I read there was something on it that has changed?
SMR. WE ER: Plus it says , I believe it says authorized dealer of
Rock of Ages Monuments - I 'm no longer affiliated with them so to
speak, I 'm an independent and I 'm getting a little bit of static
from them - it has to come down. Otherwise I would just as soon
keep that sign myself but I have to take it down. And rather than
to just put up another sign where nobody would have noticed it
anyways , I figured I better be true and blue and appeal for it .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: A matter of clarification. You have been ordered
to remove the present sign? I's that correct?,
IR. WEAVER: Not ordered, requested, at this point.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Alright, thank you, Is there anyone who wishes
to speak in favor of this application? Anyone who wishes to speak
in opposition to this application?
R. WEAVER: I' ll leave these papers with you, okay?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you they will become a part of the record
Next case please .
i
i
I
- 21 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER� 13 , 1982 i 1
j;
I,
EXECUTIVE SESSION
i;
{'APPEAL NO. 9-1-82 :
I
, The Board considered the appeal of Lawrence E. Weaver DBA Glenside
�Aonument Company for a varianct to permit the erection of a thirty-
two foot commercial sign within ten feet of the public right-of-way!
Ii
kat 490 Floral Avenue (Glenside Monument Company) . The decision of
I1
'the Board was as follows :
i
(IMS. STEVENSON: I move that the Board grant a sign not larger than
ten feet square on the present location contingent
+i upon the removal of the roof sign.
fl
,MS. WARD: I second the motion. j
I
;FINDING OF FACT:
I
il) The Board finds that the location near the edge of the city
would require a sign greater in size than allowed by the Ordi-
i
nance because of high speed of traffic.
(NOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No Carried
!i
l
1'
I�
i'
! i
f'
i
I� I
Ii
I I,
,I
I�
1I
it
i
22 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 f
(', SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1462 :
Appeal of Frank C. Flannery for an area variance
under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 4 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 ,
13 and 14 for deficiencies in off-street parking,
i' minimum lot size, lot coverage exceeding the
maximum permitted and deficiencies in minimum
setbacks for two front yards , one side yard and
rear yard, to permit the continued use of the
existing two-story residential building at 329
1' 331 North Geneva Street as a multiple dwelling. !
The property is located in an R-3a use district ,!
in which the existing use as a multiple dwelling
is permitted; however , since "grandfather rights,"
as a pre-existing non-conforming multiple dwell;
ing had not been established at the time of thel
zoning change, the appellant must obtain an areal
variance for the listed deficiencies before a
Certificate of Compliance can be issued for the
property.
I! MR. FLANNER'Y: Basically we haven' t changed the building at all .
jCHAIRMAN WEAVER: Identify yourself.
11MR. FLANNERY: I 'm Frank Flannery and I own the property at 329-3311
! N. Geneva Street. It ' s a two-family house - it has been for many, )
, many years . It has been used as two five-bedroom apartments for
; many years - as we dug leases out and have shown that . We bought j
I
flit from our - my parents a few years ago and when we brought it in- o
; compliance this year we discovered that it hadn' t been grandfatheroid
i
' wh.en the zoning law was changed in 1977 and we are here to appeal
under the grandfather - the use of the building to continue to use !
i
; it as we have been and as it has been for many years,
I
' CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is thereauestion from the Board? On the matter
i
�' of establishing the grandfather right , back at the time of the Or-
dinance was brought to bear, Tom was that an action by the owner j
1 that was required or was that a matter of trying to establish what !
; the condition of use were at that time? i
k SECRETARY HOARD: At the time that the 1977 Zoning Ordinance took
I
!' affect it had a cause that gave property owners ninety days in
which to file a claim with my department showing what the past us
!' had been. If the I could review those claims, as Building Com
Imissioner, and at my sole discretion determine whether the claim w
I`
i I
I i
i'
r
i
- 23 - !
�i alid. But after that period of time then if it hadn' t been pre-
i
sented to me within that period of time then it was up to the Board
i
.of Zoning Appeals to make the determination after that .
'CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any further Questions from the Board?
!Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in support of this j
i
'application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition?
!We ' ll hear the next case please .
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 13 , 1982
EXECUTIVE SESSION
!APPEAL NO. 1462 :
'The Board considered the appeal of Frank C . Flannery for an area
�i
variance to permit the continued use of the existing two-story i
residential building at 329-331 North Geneva Street as a multiple
i
!dwelling. The decision of the Board was as follows :
IMS. WARD: I move that the Board grant the area variance requeste
!in appeal number 1462 .
r
MS. STEVENSON: I second the motion.
(FINDINGS OF FACT:
!1) This is an existing, permitted use .
� 2) Based upon evidence presented by the appellant, we find that
i
Ithis has been a continuous use prior to the creation of the 177
Prdinance and therefore the area, deficiencies are grandfathered. j
'VOTE: 5 Ye,s; 0 No Granted
! I
i
i
I
i
i
I
i
!
I
I
I
!
i
f I
II
i - 24 -
� I
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 13 , 1982
SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1463 :
Appeal of Ray Bordoni for an area variance under j
Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25 , Columns 10 , 11 , 12 , j
13, and 14 for deficiencies in maximum permitted lot
coverage , minimum front yard setback for two front
yards , minimum setback for one side yard, and minimum
rear yard setback to permit the construction of an
open deck at the rear and side of the existing one-
family dwelling at 210 Bryant Avenue. The property
�' is located in an R-1b use district, in which the exist
I ing use as a one-family dwelling is permitted; however;,
under Section 30. 49 the appellant must obtain an area
variance for the listed deficiencies before a building!
permit can be issued for the proposed deck.
R. KERRIGAN: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt for a moment - make a
bequest? I 'm Jim Kerrigan, I represent Nancy Scoones in another
matter. There are a number of neighbors waiting , I have just be-
Jjcome aware of the fact that you don't have a full Board. I think
6n appellant is entitled to ask for an adjournment and if that is
I
11the case , I guess I am asking to interrupt now because if it is
I'
!granted, then the neighbors who are here waiting won't be as i
1,concerned as, they might be.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: You are asking to have your case delayed at this
jmoment7
MR. KERRIGAN: until there is a full Board. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
;CHAIRMAN WEAVER: See you later .
!SECRETARY HOARD: Is that both cases?
j1MR. KERRIGAN: No - that is dust the Scoones, application. I have
i�
'another one - I am representing another client but that way the j
ineighbors won't have to wait for another hour.
III i
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: See you later two ways - I' ll see you later to�
i
night and see you on the Scoones case at another meeting.
SMR. KERRIGAN: Right . Thank you. �
+!CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Pardon me , Ray.
�,MR. BORDONI : No problem at all . My name i.s Ray Bordoni and I am
I
requesti.ng permission to build a deck on the rear of my home . Pre-
� sently it has no back porch. It would not change the use of the j
,'back. yard namely because of the way the land slopes away from the
I
I
I
!I - 25 -
�i i
P
,` front of the house to the back, we don 't use the back yard for the
�Ireason that we want to build the deck. It would also provide a
'; very good measure of safety in the event of an emergency such as a !
!+ fire. The one other way of leaving the home towards the rear of
the building . This is a corner property - I did submit , at an
Ilearlier
date , four or five pages of diagrams or schematics showing
i
, how it would look from the rear and both. sides of the house . I
i
I� also tried to show that it - because it is a corner property it is
!pretty much hidden by the way the design of it is arranged. I
might mention too, that any use that we have of the back yard at
this time because I don't believe in fences - it is very hard to
hold on to hanging plants and lawn chairs . It is a corner lot -
Pthe neighborhood children tend to walk through there at night . I
I
have sent out all the required letters and partial schematics to
i
fall the neighbors within 200 ' of my property, I have received many)
favorable comments from my neighbors . I have received two letters
Ito date at this time in favor of it . I have not heard or received
!any unfavorable comments. The final word on it is that it is a
$home that has been long in need of repair - I think I 've done a
! great deal to it - T plan on doing much more to it and you just j
,!have to believe that I wouldn't do anything to my home to make it
i
,jlook bad or make my neighborhood look bad. Anything I do to it is
i
Iidesigned to improve it both. for myself and my neighbors . Question
i
comes up, why do T want to do something like this , Int is very sim- i
Jple - it is comfort and I think that' s the bottom line, It is just;
!something that I want to do - it is not something that is absolutely
�i
necessary that must be done but to make the home more functional to
ji se it would be the final step. I havelcopies of the plans , if you;
11don' t have them, if any of you forgot to bring those with you. I j
I
ill answer any questions that you may have regarding this project . ,
11CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions from the Board?
S . BAGNARDI: Where will the acces I'm familiar with. the house -
i
-ow will you - where will access from the house be, from the kitchexi
I� i
! oor?
j R. BORDONI: Right now there is a side patio and it will be right
i�ff from there. The stairway that you see looking at the house
I; �
i�
I
r - 26 -
I
I
from the rear will not be used any more . That will be covered over
and removed.
MS. BAGNARDI : And the deck is going out ten feet to the rear?
MR. BORDONI : Yes .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions? Thank you.
MR. BORDONI : Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there someone who wishes to speak in favor of
this application? Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this
application? Any letters?
SECRETARY HOARD: No letters .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We ' ll have the next case..
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 13 , 1982
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 1463 :
The Board considered the appeal of Ray Bordoni for an area variance
to permit the construction of an open deck at the rear and side of
lthe existing one-family dwelling at 210 Bryant Avenue. The deci-
sion of the Board was as follows:
MS. STEVENSON: I move that the Board grant the requested area vari-
ance in appeal number 1463 ,
MS. HAINE: I second the motion.
I
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1) Would improve the amenity of the house ,
I
2) This would have very little affect on the neighborhood.
3) Land use is permitted
VOTE: 5 Yes; 0 No Granted
I
j!
i
;i
- 27 -
I
f`
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
I
SEPTEMBER 13, 1982
SECRETARY HOARD: The next scheduled case is appeal number 1464
which has been postponed by the request of the appellant. Then
the next case is number 1465 :
Appeal of Don Robertson for a use variance unde�
Section 30 . 25 , Columns 2 and 3 to permit the
continued use of the first floor of the existin
single family residence at 606 Cascadilla Stree
for a contractor ' s shop and storage . The prope -
ty is located in an R-3b use district , in whichl
the existing use as a contractor ' s shop and
storage is not permitted. This use was previously
approved as a home occupation; howev er the oper-
ator of the business no longer lives on the pre.,-
mises , and a use variance is required to permit ]
the non-conforming use to continue . Variances
for the existing area deficiencies were granted
on January 8 , 1981 . A previous appeal for the
use variance was denied on January 18 , 1982 . j
;; MR. KERRIGAN: Mr. Chairman, ladies of the Board, I am Jim Kerriga4
I represent Don and Pat Robinson. I told them about fifteen minut s
i
Y, ago that the Scoones case would probably take some time if the
Planning Board were any indication and I think they went out for al
walk around the Commons and they will be back. Perhaps I can answor
;. most of your questions . I 'd like to take a moment to show you and
irI
perhaps pass among the members of the Board, photographs - half a
; dozen photographs of the present property. The property is on Cas4
cadilla Street . The last application as I understand it, in Januaty
k'! Don came by and said it ' s my property, I should have a variance
:: and I think I am asking your indulgence in letting me , on behalf o
'' Don, suggest the economic hardship that requires and dictates a
i
0
;: variance, I 'm suggesting to you, when it - as opposed to what Don
4
indicated back in January of 1982 . The neighborhood , as I under
i
stand it, strongly supports the application, you may get some sens4
I
i
i
i �7 p
G8 -
i
to that when you see all the photographs - it is a building sadly
in need of repair . The plans that were done have been done in
coordination with the Ithaca Neighborhood Housing authority. The
property at the present time has an apartment upstairs underneath
the roof which you have - the holes of which you have seen in at
least one of the photographs there - there is serious structural
'! work that has to be done. The apartment poses some problems in
terms of its use and the condition at the present time which Don
' wishes to substantially improve. The background and history of
3
the property is that Don purchased the property about eight years
v
ago for $8 , 500 . when it was abandoned or close to abandoned. He
, went in - he, at the time , was the owner of the adjoining parcel
i! where he lived. The shop which he was running at the time he made
; 1
these renovations and purchased the next door falling down propert*
,, was therefore a valid home occupation and he gent in to the properi
ty, gutted a major portion on the inside of it, put in whole new 1.
floors, as I understand it , although I didn' t see it -- you couldn' t
r
!' walk on the floors - you took two steps in the door and you were irk
i'! the basement without the benefit of stairs. He put in new floor4 ,
; put an apartment in upstairs , I 'm not sure h-ow serious the renova-
j' tion was eight years ago when the apartment upstairs was installeda
; Since that time and for the last eight years he has run his contraq-
" tor' s shop out of the first floor of the property, Don is a his
;, principle business is as a self-employed with a rare employee - he
ii
;; works with sub-contractors fairly frequently r he occasionally will
have another employee - working remodeling homes: in the community
needs a city location where he has worked for a great many years,
What he uses the shop for and this is indicated by one of the lett
rs
of the neighbors is to store equipment -• there area series of
e
29 -
table saws and belt sanders , as well there which on relatively rare
occasions he uses to do cabinet work for home remodeling that he i
doing somewhere else but almost all the actual work in his premises
is done at his client ' s home . He is at the shop in the morning to '
; pick up his tools, he stores some lumber inside there, he is back
at his shop at 4 : 30 in the afternoon, returns tools and equipment,
he runs - and on occasion will build some cabinet work in the shop ;
itself. The shop is not visible because the windows are covered
up . The neighbors have indicated that for all intensive purposes
are not aware that there is a shop there - there is no outside
! storage on the premises. The building materials - or trucks - he
takes his truck home. I think it was three or four years ago that ;
`! he moved from the next door property to his present home at which
i
ii time it ceased being a valid home occupation. That thought hadn't ;
crossed his mind until about a year ago , he came in and applied foa
an application to substantially renovate the building . What he
i
wishes to do is take the roof of the property off, pick it up some+
j
,; what - not significantly - refurbish completely the upstairs apart]
i ment, continue and completely side I believe in clapboard - but
it may be in an artificial material - in accordance with the plan
;; developed by the Ithaca Neighborhood Housing group to completely
reside the building. He is asking your permission in the form of
requesting a variance to continue to be able to use the shop in th!
4same fashion that he has, before for himself -, some occasional workl -
ii
E! not as a serious shop the reason that he is asking for it relate;
: to the cost of any other solution. His alternative seems to be - �f
!' he were not to use it, to abandon the building again as was close
;oto being done- or was done prior to the time that he purchased it !
He invested, in addition to the $8 , 500, purchase price eight years ;
I
30 -
;! ago, some ten to thirteen thousand dollars - I think , principally,
in putting a floor into the property. The rent that he collects
I
at the present time for that apartment including utilities is
$100 . a month. He does it principally so that there is somebody
living at the site and would be aware of somebody down stairs in
i
: the morning or at odd hours or is in the shop when one shouldn't
be. The - at current interest rates and the costs of construction
' he has calculated that he can afford to do most of the work - and
.' he is talking about spending some $20 , 000 . - he had a loan approve.
;tat one point when this whole application started almost a year ago :
to completely redo the outside of the building . It would appear !
as though it were a residence -- there are no big swinging doors or
ianything of that nature so that he would be able to continue to
", operate a shop for another - up to ten years . He is willing and hos ,
on this application, made a commitment to the Board that he would
ji
idiscontinue the use of the building and probably his business no i
i
;; more than ten years from now. At the time and in ten years from now,
i
" he would move out and convert the downstairs shop into an apartm altl.
!! He has indicated to me that he cannot afford to do both in terms
;! Of buying two kitchens and redoing and relaying out both an upstaiVs
, apartment - the structural work. and the roof, and the outside as well
" as the downstairs . Well , the other factor which is not truly econ-±
h9-
omic hardship attributable to the property the other factors are ;
i
ti that he hasn't been able to find another site in the city to operate
his business . He was told that to put together comparable space and
i
;. buy a piece of land and build a building would cost $100,000 . i
`: That ' s not economic hardship attributable to the property build-
ing a new building is not an inexpensive process . I don''t know the
,, extent to which he has looked for other rental properties . There is
is fair amount of space . The neighbors are unanimously I believe , inn
!i !
;I
31 -
support of it and have expressed some concern that he has not bee#
i
able to rehabilitate two-thirds of the building which he hopes to
do now and one-third upon the completion when he is able to and
after he has amortized some of the costs that he is about to incur ,
if this Board will let him.
MS . STEVENSON: The second floor apartment still will be one bedroom?
MR. KERRIGAN: The plans were filed at the last one - it may be twb .
i
;; There is plenty of off-street parking, as I recall the site and it '
; would comply with that .
3
`' MS. HAINE : Is there a shed behind the house?
MR. KERRIGAN: yes there is .
' MS . HAINE: And what is that being used for?
,SMR. KERRIGAN: I would not be surprised if there were storage in
;! that. I 'm not sure, I have never been in it . I 've used he has
Flet me use the shop itself on a couple of occasions . It is either '
vacant - it is conceivable that there are building materials stored
i
'land secured there. They are not visible from the outside.
, MS . BAGNARDI': Mr. Robertson has been out of that building for a
; year and one-half you say, or he has moved his business?
MR. KERRTGAN: No, his business has been there for about eight years .
'', He used to live next door which made it a home occupation. Itis -
m guessing it has been a couple of years since he moved from next
;' door . He made the investment and it was; then a legal use .
' MS. BAGNARDI : I have to agree with you the property is in very back
condition and it looks like it 's been in very bad condition for mudh
;' more than that year and a half period even when he had it to operate
hits business . . . next door .
f' MR. KERRI;GAN: Tt was that ' s true . And that 's part of what he 1s
trying to solve now.
, MS . BAGNARDI : He did nothing over all that eight year period - or
i
- 32 -
; he did before , you say?
'! MR. KERRIGAN: He spent ten to thirteen thousand dollars in renova
tions in the property between the time - in the first three or foul
,, years after he purchased the property.
MS. BAGNARDI : But very little on the exterior.
MR. KERRIGAN: That is correct. To do the exterior he has to pick !
` up the roof and redo the upstairs apartment which is what he is i
; trying to do .
;' MS. BAGNARDI : At one time there was a backhoe parked on that
;,; property - the side lot of the property. Do you know where he
i
I currently parks his trucks now?
+ MR. KERRIGAN: At his home and - I don' t know if it is in the city or
' the town of Ithaca - it is up on the top of West Hill Coy Glen Road.
: I 've never seen a backhoe up there - I 'm not sure that he doesn't
7:; own one . I can assure this Board that he is not asking for parking,
or outside storage - I have no objection to any limitation that
;( nothing be stored outside - that construction vehicles not be
„ stored outside. He drives a big stake truck and he parks that in
jthere, of course , on occasion but he takes it home with him. There
i�
swill be no backhoes parked there.
'`SMS. STEVENSON: Any more specific breakdown on the $20 , 000 besides f
ii
!?, raising the roof Cunintelligible)
'MR. KERRIGAN: The $20, 000 figure for the renovations that he is
; talking about now is complete siding - I believe windows throughout;,
up and down, so that they would match, although the first floor
-windows would be covered in much the same fashion from the inside
that they are now. I believe it includes insulation I am guessing
s
; that it includes carpet throughout upstairs and a new kitchen
:;upstairs .
- 33 -
i
MS. STEVENSON: There isn' t anything specific other than . . . ?
MR. KERRIGAN: If I hadn't sent them away for a half an hour,
thinking that Scoones were going to take awhile - I could answer
and perhaps I could interrupt after one of the next ones and answej
that specific question as to a breakdown as to how it would be
!, spent .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: In the written material on the application there ;
seems to be an implied promise that in five to ten years that this
i
would be converted to a conforming use?
I
'; MR. KERRIGAN: Ten years, absolute - that ' s he is asking it
1 conceivably could be less - he does not anticipate continuing in
the business for longer than ten years . I 'm not in a position to
`' be able to promise it would be five - I think at the Planning Board
; meeting there was a suggestion that it be phased out at some point '
he is willing to make that commitment. He is not in a position
1! to be able to make that commitment to convert it to a two-family
E; home in less than ten years .
i'
;' CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Doesn' t that cripple his argument about his abil
'' it to use this for a conformn use?
y g
' MR. KERRIGAN: On the contrary. I would submit that what he is
= saying is he is talking about spending 20 ,000 right now for one
, small apartment . Apartments - and from an economic point of view
; are selling somewhere - depending on the property and the quality
of the property and the location, something between fifteen and
thirty thousand a unit . Random number from me, without substantia�
; tion. He cannot afford to spend, and doesn't have, the thirty odd ;
thousand dollars it would take to do all the renovations at the
present time. The practical difficulties and the economic hardshipjs.
r
are that the alternative is to abandon the investment that he has
) in the property now. �
i
i
- 34 -
i
SECRETARY HOARD: Jim, when you spoke of the renovations , were you;
speaking of the drawings that were submitted earlier with the per-t
mit application? I ' ll circulate these .
MR. KERRIGAN: Yes - thank you.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Between the two of you, is there some way to
separate the deferred maintenance from the creation of a liveable
apartment here?
MR. KERRIGAN: From what Iunderstand now - the liveable apartment
upstairs requires a higher roof and a higher roof level for one . '
The I think the two photographs of the roof indicate that in
order to do that apartment an entire new roof has to be built . Thi
deferred maintenance on the outside the exterior, again, is shown
to some degree - it may have been deferred maintenance at some pont
but I think that may at some point - but that may have been twenty
or thirty years ago , The outside is asphalt shingles that are
1 falling apart and I think it either all has to be done which is
what we are suggesting as part of the economic hardship, or not
at all .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any further Questions from the Board?
MS. HAINE: I have a Question. When you say that this building wotiild
E
be abandoned, do you mean that nobody would buy it?
ij
MR. KERRIGAN: I don't know. Certainly the next door neighbor would
; buy it for demolition purposes . At what price and the cost of demur
lition, I don't know. I have been in it and from visual examinati6n
of the roof and the outside, certainly a family is not going to put-
chase it without having to spend 20., 250 30, 35 , 40 thousand dollars
or more that ' s a vast range, I know, in terms of expenditures fob
0
' renovations for family use ,
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further Questions? Thank you. j
I
35 -
i
` MR. KERRIGAN: Thank you.
`CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of
I
this application? Counsel?
r
MR. KERRIGAN: Yes , Mr. Chairman.
'CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I think it would be appropriate if your client
jdoes arrive a little later that after we 've heard any other cases
`:that there be an opportunity for them to make any statement that
they would like to make and the Board to ask them any pertinent
i
questions .
f
,"MR. KERRIGAN: Thank you.
f
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anybody who wishes to speak in favor of
;; this appeal? Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition?
' SECRETARY HOARD: We did have a letter from neighbors in support .
f
"Gentlemen: I live across the street from Don Robertson's property
at 606 Cascadilla Street. I have received another letter indicating
; that Don is trying to secure a building permit and a variance for
the property at 606 . If my memory serves me correctly this makes
+,: the third time - and I hope the last, Don has been a neighbor of
ours since 1973 . We have never had a complaint about his shop bus
iness - he is generally there for 15-30 minutes in the morning and '
jagain at 4 : 30 for the same length of time . If time is spent there „
ewe have never had a complaint on noise or congested traffic . In
; fact, the only way we know he is there is if we see his truck. They
;, house desperately needs remodeling, and Don is more than willing to
;;, put the money into it instead of letting it deteriorate as the City
,: seems to be willing to let happen, Don i's asking for a variance for
his shop and I and the following strongly urge that it be granted. '
,, Sincerely, /s/ James Hallam, 605 Cascadilla Street. Also signed bye;
,: Marion C. Hallam, Guilio Ciaschi , John & Teresa Sinozko , Louise B .
i
36 -
Cornish, Sara Komaromi , Walter Komaromi and Douglas E . Varnum"
i
;' The following testimony took place following the next two appeals : 1
" CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Mr. Robertson - this is appeal number 1465 . I 'ml
not sure there are any questions but I wanted to make sure that boih
! Mr. Robertson and the Board have an opportunity for an exchange ,
if that seems appropriate .
11MR. KERRIGAN: I might be able to answer a couple from talking with
j Don. The backhoe was parked there. Last fall Don had a building
permit to do this work in question - I think it was determined that.
,, it was issued mistakenly or something happened that it was given
;; back and since other work was done when he started to do this work ;
i
j it was the only time the backhoe has been there . How is the
i
' $20, 000 spent? I think was one of the questions . New windows up and
:; down all the way around. The existing roof comes completely off.
A't is replaced by a new roof, rafters and I guess they are called,
;land I think a little bit higher is shown in the plans there - th4n
E
? the existing roof. Upstairs there is carpet throughout there isa
,! new kitchen put in - start to finish is where it would go . I asked
i;
.' him about why, he couldn't do it all at the same time in response to
;; perhaps a question of the chairman n he has indicated to me that a .
; bank on that property - has indicated that they would be willing to
I
Blend him an additional $12 000 - he ' s of $8 000 that he can put
� g � P i
J into the property at the present time . He tells me that he believ s
i
'' that it would take an additional $10 , 000 to do the entire building,
!! including the downstairs apartment and he doesn' t have and I
think would have difficulty Justifying a total expense that then would
! be in the area of $50 , 000 at the present time, for a two-family
,. home in that area, even if he had it .
MS . STEVENSON: Didn't you say $20 , 000 and an additional ten to
r
complete the . . .
i
j
- 37 -
9
.: MR. KERRIGAN: He is talking about spending $20,000 . New siding
all the way around and what is that new siding made out of?
.' MR. ROBERTSON: Vinyl .
i
MR. KERRIGAN: New vinyl siding all the way around - new windows -
new doors?
i
; MR. ROBERTSON: Yes .
'' MR. KERRIGAN: New doors . To finish - to do the entire project ,
!; including a - removing a shop, putting a new apartment in downstairls
i; is $10 ,000 in addition to the $20 ,000 that he has and wants to spend.
'' He doesn ' t have and doesn' t believe he can get the additional $10 , 0100
i�
j; to do it . That would put his total cost in the building at that
!' $30 ,000 plus the $20 ,000 that he has already in it in acquisition
i
; from previous renovations.
{' MS. WARD: Have you tried to get the additional ten?
j, �
!SMR. ROBERTSON: Yes. They offered to give us $12 ,000 - they had
;! somebody come down and look at the property - that' s what they
!' offered to loan us .
MS. WARD: Did you ask for more?
!
! MR. ROBERTSON: Yes .
'SMS. WARD: What is it assessed for?
MR. ROBERTSON: I don't know. Do you know what it is assessed for?',
;;1MR. KERRIGAN: I don' t have the assessment figure. If we could have
;; keys to this building we could find out .
MS . STEVENSON: Do you own the property free and clear now?
MR. ROBERTSON: Yes we do,
?lMS. WARD: Have you tried at all to sell the property or is that
not your intention?
;MR. ROBERTSON: No , we haven' t tried and I didn 't intend to. One o£
the other things that is going to be done and (unintelligible)
li
38 -
f
.. renovation of these stairs that are in the front are going to be
moved to the back. They won't be there any more - which will make
i
a considerable difference in the appearance of that place .
i
.' MS. WARD: But the downstairs will still have windows that are
boarded over?
MR. ROBERTSON: No , we are going to change all the windows . They
bare all going to be new windows .
MS . WARD: And then you will be able to see in?
i
i' MR. ROBERTSON: Right.
" CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions? Thank you, Now, for those '
i
of you who are still with us and, including the press , the Board
will now go into executive session which means that we are going to
,; get a little rest break and then we ' ll ask you all to leave the
! room so that we can continue our deliberations,
E
s
f
i
i
i
i
1'
i
39 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 13 , 1982
EXECUTIVE SESSION
;APPEAL NO. 1465 :
I, The Board considered the appeal of Don Robertson for a use variancd
to permit the continued use of the first floor of the existing
�J� single family residence at 606 Cascadilla Street for a contractor' s
:, shop and storage. The decision of the Board was as follows :
�!`, MS . BAGNARDI : I move that the Board deny the use variance re-
i! quested in appeal number 1465 .
MS. WARD: I second the motion.
k' FINDINGS OF FACT:
'' 1) Hardship was not demonstrated by the appellant.
i 2) Continued use of the property for a commercial operation in a
i'
i
residential zone would be detrimental to the character of the
j neighborhood.
VOTE : 5 Yes ; 0 No Denied
i
i
i
i
ii
i,
i
;I
1y
ii
i
3'
i
I
I
i
i
i
40 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 13, 1982
s
' SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1466 :
I
Appeal of Donald W. Dickinson for a use
variance under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 2 and 3
(permitted primary and secondary uses) , and fob
an area variance under Section 30 . 49 and Sec-
tion 30. 25, Column 11 for deficient front yard ;
setback to permit the use of the existing barnlat
311 Hudson Street for storage of furnishings ,
furniture, appliances , etc. associated with a
business , and storage of motor vehicles . The i
property is located in an R-2a use district, inl.
which the proposed use is not permitted; there-i
fore the appellant must obtain a use variance
for the proposed use, and, under Section 30 .49 :
must also obtain an area variance for the listed
deficiency before an occupancy permit can be is;suec
j' for the proposed use .
i
MR. DICKINSON: My name is Don Dickinson, I appreciate getting out
'.. of that hot chair. I own a four-apartment house at 311 Hudson Streiet .
I also have a 30 x 60 nice, beautiful red barn behind it which is
!'my immediate problem. I 've been trying for the last year and one-
!half - two years to sell the property, The four apartments will
;carry themselves as far as rental bills but the investment of the
'!barn without a use is prohibiting me from being able to complete a
f
i;isale. I have a prospective buyer and he sits back there - Phil
;',White , Jr. who would like to have the use of the barn to store his
!maintenance supplies , paint , furniture, possibly the rental of cars .
The fellow is in the apartment business he has probably 100 units !
;and he changes furniture about once a year - so probably the month!
of August there would be a fair amount of activity in the driveway
a
jin this property, in order for him to accomplish this , The rest of
i
ahe time it would proabably be perhaps a small pick up truck haulin
}these supplies from one apartment to another or storing them. And
It
;frith this need or use of the barn, I can 't think of anything that
w
41 -
i
would have less impact on the neighborhood - nothing would change
i
i
on the exterior - it probably would be neater than the junk I have ;
in there now. I have written to all twenty-eight neighbors within
i
the two hundred foot limit -- I had one telephone call for a little !
I> explanation I did receive no other comments - in fact the one call ]
- I really don' t know his feelings because he didn' t express him-
self. That is what it amounts to .
� MS . WARD : How long have you been trying to sell the house?
1MR. DICKERSON: Oh, maybe a couple of years . I 've had two or
three different buyers - perspective buyers , including my accountant
i
;, who quickly put the numbers together - he said it wouldn't fly be- i
! cause the I put a lot of money in this barn - the value of the
barn is thirty-five to forty-five thousand dollars and with an
': empty barn the four apartment units do not carry the property.
,: Now I suppose somebody will come along with a lot of money and buy ;
i
,',, it. They will look at the barn like I did when. I lived there - itis
a difficult thing to do. I don't think they are goring to find any ;
body who wants to just look at it.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER.: Would you repeat the amount of your investment in
; the barn?
'i MR. DICKINSON: I figure I; have between 35, 000 r 40,OOG dollar
value in the barn.
MS . BAGNARDi : Don and when you have a property for sale , does
!; the house always include the barn?
MR. DICKINSON: Always. The house is four apartments and the barn
is part of the property there is no way you can divide it ,
MS. BAGNARDI : How many cars can you park on the side between the ;
house and the barn?
;SMR. DICKINSON: Oh
you could put six or seven - it ' s ample parkin
t
i
I
42 -
, space for the tenants . You could probably - if you put them in
' line - go around the back of the barn and put another dozen in.
IBut they would have trouble getting in and out . . . you could use a
- you actually use the barn on the second floor - you can drive
around the back at ground level and put another eight or ten cars
in the overhead door that is on the first floor. Now he may or mayt
not want to rent part of it but in order to look at it from a
'' business investment point of view he would like to have that oppori
lturnity - neighborhood parking .
a?IMS. WARD: You say the barn is valued at 35 ,000 to 40, 000 or you
i
,, have put into it?
` MR. DICKINSON: No , the barn with improvements is valuded at 35
i;
to 40 .
MS. WARD: What have you put into it?
MR. DICKINSON: Oh, I probably put 15 into it , in the last 10 - 12
., years . Rewired it, plumbed it, painted it, roofed it , redid the
,, one end wall that was crumbling down - I had it relaid, Oh, L 've
i
been in there about twelve years that 's pretty much what I 've
done to it. It ' s all been completely painted inside too .
' MS, WARD: What did you use it for?
MR. DICKINSON: Oh I used to lave in it on occasion,
MS. WARD: In the barn?
; MR. DICKINSON: Well Istayed in it, I lived in the house but many
i
; times I lived in the barn. I like old barns . I redid one room
;'; completely even put fixtures in it - you will notice some fancy
light fixtures that I don' t think you would put in a barn but I
;; haven' t lived in it in about six years but I stayed in it for
+ awhile . A night like tonight I would rather sleep in the barn
; than the apartment because it is cooler, In other words you put
i
- 43 -
funny money sometimes in things that you think you are going to
stay in. And when you get ready to sell them you wonder why you
put so much in there .
it CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any further questions? Without des-
cribing the value of the residence on this property, do I under-
stand that this property won 't sell and that it 's the value of
the house plus the $40, 000 barn that won 't sell?
MR. DICKINSON: When you put the barn with it if you could sell
the four apartment house separately from the barn you can't strike
it off the property - it has to go with it - it is set way back
from the street but it is part of the property.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank. you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak
i'
in support of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to
speak in opposition to this application?
s
MR. WALSH: For the record, my name is Peter J, Walsh and I live
at 329 Pleasant Street which fronts on Hudson Street immediately
is across from the poperty for which the variance is requested.
First of all I 'd just like to say that Mr. Dickinson' s property
there - the apartment house is well kept and orderly = it has been `:
;land we would hope it remains that way, Second I think, as the
j
; Board already is quite aware, the standard for a use variance is
pretty demanding . It must be shown that there is no economic re
' turn to be made on that property but for something that is not per4
m.itted and I think Mr .. Dickinson 's own words were that the apart,
,' ments would pretty well carry themselves (unintelligible) , Third
I would suggest that if th_e variance as requested is granted it would
,. be not limited to use for storage for the benefit of the apartment !
`. house on which it sits but for the benefit of a variety of proper_ ;
Mies which the perspective owner already has or may acquire in the !
j
- 44 -
future and consequently cannot effectively be limited in such a
' way as to minimize the traffic in and out despite the hopes or
expectations of the perspective buyer . Indeed I think the proba-
ability is altogether too high that if the premises are permitted a
to be used in that way there will be a reasonably steady processiori
f,
of vehicles in and out for unloading and loading items and for
jistoring vehicles there. Consequently I and my wife , who reside
;; across the street , would oppose the granting of a variance as re-
'; quested and I am authorized to say that neighbors immediately adja»
; cent to the property, Cory and Ginny Millican at 209 Hudson Street ,
who are out of the country, concur with my views .
ii
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to
ii
; speak in opposition?
;SMS. HOLMAN: Elva Holman, 141 Pearsall Place , Alderman, second war4,
;i
E,
,, City of Ithaca. If this variance is granted I .would ask that you
; put in the stipulation on it that stipulation to be very clear
there is to be no outside or visible evidence of the use of that :
i
I
building.
` CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in
s
;: opposition?
SECRETARY HOARD: I have no mail on this appeal ,
;' CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We ' ll have the next case please .
� I
i
r
i
I
I
i
i
i
1
- 45 -
I'
i
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 13 , 1982
EXECUTIVE SESSION
�IAPPEAL NO. 1466:
1� F
; The Board considered the appeal of Donald W. Dickinson for a use
,, variance and an area variance to permit the use of the existing
:'. barn at 311 Hudson Street for storage of furnishings , furniture,
I
i
;; appliances , etc. associated with a business, and storage of motor
;; vehicles . The decision of the Board was as follows :
,' MS . BAGNARDI': I move that the Board deny the use and area vari-
ances requested in appeal number 1466.
i
SIMS. STEVENSON: I second the motion.
;; FINDINGS OF FACT:
l31) No evidence of hardship was presented by the appellant . i
2) Increased traffic would adversely affect the neighborhood.
l3) Use is not permitted in the R- 2a district.
= VOTE: 5 Yes; 0 No Denied
i
i
i
i
i
iS
i
E
- 46 -
I �
�! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK I
jl SEPTEMBER 13 , 1982
SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1467 .
Appeal of Bruce Bard for a use variance under
Section 30 . 253, Column 1 (permitted uses) and
an area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column
11 for deficient front yard setback, to permit
the use of the existing vacant storage/commer- i
cial buildings at 831 Cliff Street for a con-
tractor's office and warehouse. The property
is located in an R-3a use district, in which I
the proposed use as a contractor 's office and
warehouse is not permitted; therefore the appel�-
lant must obtain a use variance for the pro-
posed use , and an area variance for the defi-
cient front yard setback before an occupancy
(' permit can be issued for the proposed use .
ii MR. BARD: I 'm Bruce Bard. Until recently I located at 420 Old
ITaughannock Blvd. As most of you know, a suspicious fire destroyed{
I
,�
the whole area down there and burned a number of us out and I 've
�lbeen looking for a place to move to since then . It is difficult to
! find something to suit my needs and I finally found something which]
turned out to be the old Budget Market place at least I think some
�of you are familiar when it was in operation as a retail business
and it 's a lot bigger than it looks . Anyway the property has been )
vacant for about seven years - the owner - it 's an estate - they
(have tried to sell it and tried to rent it with no luck for seven
years and I was the only good prospect that they have had in a long;
time, They were overjoyed when I showed up and the building is al
'icommercial building - it always has been - in a residential zone .
i'
;Now the nearest building to it is a doctor 's office which has con-
I!
(siderably more traffic than the use I ' ll put to it . The building
'':isn't very convertible into habitable space , I measured some of
the ceilings they are low as 6 ' 81 . The owner has put a consider'-
able amount of money into it to renovate . The back. foundation wall's
were crumbling and settling down the hill and the roof had gone to
(pieces and they have restored the foundations and put on new roofs
,ion the whole place which returns it now to useable commercial possi-
!i
�bi.lity. So - I looked the neighborhood over, I contacted all the
(people that T was supposed to contact these is actually nobody
close by within site of the place . Across the street is a steep
47 -
(bank covered with wilderness and the twelve acres to the east and
north are owned by the same people . It is very steep - you can't
stand up on it hardly - definitely in the wintertime ; you slide
dwon the bank in the summertime. It isn' t useable for anything
I
other than what it is - it isn' t practical to move the building or
really do much else with it. So I think that the owner definitely `
is in hardship on it. I certainly am in hardship trying to find a
place to go to with as little means as I have to start my business
over again. So I would like to ask this Board for a variance so
that I can get out of the place where I am now. I was supposed to
be out by the 31st of August and they very kindly let me stay until
tonight to see how you vote and so I think that pretty well covers
i
it unless you have some questions.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER. Your proposed use for the building - can you des-
cribe that?
MR. BARD: I do remodeling and maintenance work and the my normal
schedule every day is to be in my office from 9 . 00 to 9 : 30 in the
morning to receive any calls from anybody that wants to call me.
Then I pack. up my tools and go out and go out and usually work on
somebody else 's property and then when the work is done I return,
put my truck in the building and take my car and go home unless I
_ant to do a little book work - which I may stay there until a litt e
later and do my book work - but that is my normal useage I want
to store my vehicles and equipment and some materials in the build-
.ng . There is around 6 ,000 square feet of commercial storage space'
there . There is no reason with that amount of space to store stuff
outside - so that is what T am looking for - I don 't want to have tl
keep the stuff outside.
CHATRMAN WEAVER: But you operate a shop there?
R. BARD: And I do a little cabinet work or something once in a
bile . But most of the time there is nobody there -- I don't have a�
secretary - I do my own book work and I do have some tools that I
could use on the property and occasionally do.
S . STEVENSON: How many vehicles?
R. BARD: Three
I
i;
- 48 -
i
' MS. STEVENSON: Three - trucks?
i;
I'
PMR. BARD: T zks . Yes - pick up trucks . They are not big.
I
INS. STEVENSON: How many other employees , (unintelligible) or
li
carpenters or . . .
I� I
�IMR. BARD: I 've got about - well right now, four guys that work
with me and they have their own trucks and they go to the jobs and
`If
,!work.
IMS. STEVENSON: They would come to the site in the morning? j
IiMR. BARD: They would come in the morning at 9: 00 o 'clock. Well ,
knot always , many times they will go directly to the job, but if
Ithey want to see me they will come at nine . And I think 9: 00 is a
I
pretty good time for a neighborhood because it ' s not waking people
I
ilup 7 : 00 or 6 : 00 or anything. And nobody is crazy enough to work
'after 5 : 00 except me .
I
(CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions? Thank you. Anyone else who.
+,wishes to speak in favor of this application? Anyone who wishes toj
I
speak in opposition to this application?
i�
i
i
j
it
I
�j III
! I
IiI
I
I
I I,
I
I
t
I
c
II
�I
(
I
I
i
�I
i
I
i
�f �
I I
49 -
II
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I
I CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK j
SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 I
I
I' EXECUTIVE SESSION
JAPPEAL NO. 1467 :
I
lThe Board considered the appeal of Bruce Bard for a use variance
I
,i
land an area variance to permit the use of the existing vacant
storage/commercial buildings at 831 Cliff Street for a contractor's(
I
! office and warehouse. The decision of the Board was as follows :
!IMS . WARD: I move that the Board approve the use and area vari-
ances requested in appeal number 1467 , with the condi-
! tion that the property be used for storage and office
(� space only.
, MS. BAGNARDI : I second the motion.
}FINDINGS OF FACT:
i
� 1) The Board was convinced from information submitted and from
i
I
the Building Department records that the conversion of the
property to residential use is not economically feasible and
I
practical .
II2) The use will not disturb the neighborhood,
I�
1'3) The property has been vacant for a long period of time .
i
OTE: 4 Yes; 1 No Granted. ;
I�
f
j
I
�( I
I
i
i
I'
i
I i
� I
i
- so -
i
I �
I . BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the Board
lof Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of
I
Appeals numbered 1455 , 1456 , 9-1-82 , 1462 , 1463 , 1465 , 1466 , 1467
on September 13 , 1982 in the Common Council Chambers, City of
Ithaca, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, New York; that I have trans-
cribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of
the minutes of the meeting and the executive session of the Board
i
of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, New York on the above date , and
the whole thereof to the best of my ability,
Barbara C, Ruane
Recording Secretary
SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS
f,
day of 1982
Notary Public
JEAN J. HANKINSQN
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK
No. 55-1660800
QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COUNTY,
.4"MAISSICN EXPIRES MARCH 30,19-2--
I
i
I