Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1982-10-04 I! li BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK i OCTOBER 4 , 1982 {I TABLE OF CONTENTS I( ! Page I ' APPEAL NO. 10-1-82 Hancock Plaza Property 1 j 300-317 Hancock Street i iIAPPEAL NO. 10-1-82 Executive Session 5 1IAPPEAL NO. 1468 Estate of Janice B. Palmer 6 I� 969 E. State Street ' APPEAL NO. 1468 Executive Session 16 APPEAL NO. 1469 Edward Whitted 17 I 324 Center Street ! APPEAL NO. 1469 Executive Session 19 '! CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 20 I li I i I �I i� II I I I� i i I I� i ! i I� !I II� 1 7� �j BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS j COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS j CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK OCTOBER 4 , 1982 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'll now call this meeting to order. This is a I; formal public hearing of the Board of Zoning Appeals on three case that have asked for a variance from the Ordinance . First I ' ll it identify myself as the Chairman, others present: Charles Weaver, Chairman Peggy Haine �( Toni Stevenson i Donna Ward. �! Bette Bagnardi i Peter Dieterich, Acting Secre- tary and Deputy Bldg Commissioner J Barbara Ruane , Recording Secy i J� This hearing is required under the Ordinance of the City of Ithaca We are not bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct of the Irhearing but the determination shall be founded upon sufficient i legal evidence to sustain the same. We request that all parti- j !i cipants identify themselves as to name and address and confine the discussions to the pertinent facts of the case . You will also be requested to come forward and speak to the microphones so that `! your testimony can be recorded on the tape to further the comple- tion of the minutes of the meeting . The cases will be heard in I i I� numerical order as listed in the notice. After we 've heard all the cases we will thenretire to executive session and on the(!I� _ co n- clusi n o£ the executive session we will then reopen the meetingi i If and anyone who has an interest in the results of the deliberation will be able to obtain them at that time or if you do not wish to (JI wait until after the executive session, you may call the Building I! Commissioner's office during business hours tomorrow and you can get a verbal report at that time . We 'll hear the first cas please . �J ACTING SECRETARY DIETERTCH: The first appeal is appeal number j 10-1-82 : Appeal of Hancock Plaza Property for a li variance under Section 34, 3 (Definition of permitted Roof Sign) and Section 34 . 4 �j (Overhead Signs over Building) of the Sign Qrdinance, to permit the use of an existing structure, above the building roof line , asi �! a support and backdrop for a sign to iden- tify the shopping center . Under Section i - 2 - 34 .6 a shopping center sign is permitted, however the location of the proposed sign (above the roof) is not . The property, at 300-317 Hancock Street, is located in a B-2a (Business) use district and requires al variance for the listed deficiencies before a sign permit can be issued. I j MR. LEWIS : My name is Stuart Lewis , I represent Hancock Plaza. I Hancock Plaza is owned by myself and two of my friexds , Cliff i Northrup and Ed Austin, who are the owners of Norton Electric and the three of us purchased this building, which is the former i ' Great American Store that was down on the corner of Hancock and { Third Street, in November 1980 - -just almost approximately two years from this date. Our purpose in buying this property was to convert the building into what we call a small neighborhood j shopping center and we expected it would probably take us approxi-1 mately about a year in which time to lease the property and it has! !t worked out so that it has been almost a year and three-quarters i and the property now has been completed in terms of its lease tenants . As you probably know the Motor Vehicle Bureau and the Short Stop and the Door Store, McCartney 's Restaurant and the lasti I �I tenant is Bloomiex which is a glass- Bloomler Glass Works which �i will be opening up in a couple of weeks . Now that our final tenant � is in place we have a definite need to identify this property as I a plaza - Hancock Plaza and because we are in a business zone we realize that we are allowed to construct a sign or a pylon as I you might call it to identify Hancock Plaza but what we would I rather do - is we would rather take the existing structure which is the upper portion of the bui,dling and just simply letter that �) area and I 'd like to explain to you why we would like to do that . We feel , if we could say so, that we 've used an extraordinary i' amount of good taste in, changing that building over from what it I I� was . I 've brought a couple of photos along so you could see. 1� Here is just a quick shot of the original building the way it was { it was a rather bleak 1960 looking building which most of them � looked like in those - during that era and our purpose not I� having any tenants was to break. the building up and try to get a ' nice mix there that would sort of harmonize with the neighborhood ] i� 'I V � {i i� 3 - (unintelligible) all the neighbors , all the residents . Of I H course on our north is a junk yard on the left and a bowling alley , I on the right, so our neighbors to the north aren' t as pretty as our neighbors to the south and we still feel that we 've added a very nice touch to the neighborhood, if we could say so. What wel i did do was to eek some architectural advice on what to do with I i the building as we developed it and this is the point I am leading ` up to in terms of our request for the variance. The existing port tion that rises above the building -we decided to paint it and to paint it such so that actually it sort of cut right through the Ibuilding - to try to sort of give it a sort of an angular look - I 'm not an architect so I don' t know all the proper terminology but to give it sort of a nice graphic semblance as you look at jI the building - to make it more appealing and we colored it bur- gandy and we - with your permission we would use tan letters on I �! that area. The vehicle bureau, of course, used tan on their sof- (� fit with he burgandy letters so we feel that the whole semblance i going through that whole building to the visual eye would be very very attractive as: opposed to us going out on the grassy strip and I ,I putting a big large pylon up which just adds another sign in the neighborhood. What we are really doing is s'eeki.ng a variance undeir the basis of - our hardship being that we must identify this prop-I erty as a plaza and we are also requesting a variance on the basis] of what we would call just good taste level - we just hope that i You agree wi,th. us that our taste level has been good and every onel of our leases contain clauses that states that every sign that �I goes on the outer primer of the store must be first approved by the landlord which is: ourselves and we would not approve any sign - we do not approve any signs other than what you see there and I think that the signs there , from what I 've gathered in talk-, ing with people in the area - they seem to like what we have done because they all sort of hang together in a graphics sense. And r that 's basically our approach so we are really appealing to you on! I j the basis of the fact that we must identify the plaza and with an j 11 element of good taste. I i I� - 4 - CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions from the Board? i MS . HAINE: I have one question. Do you plan to light that sign? (� MR. LEWIS: No we do not . If we did construct the pylon on the I grassy edge it would be lit simply because I guess you don't make a pylon - a pylon today - you know the long tubular sign with the big large plastic upper rectangular portion to it and usually that is back lit by fluorescent tubes . We do not plan to light i this sign at all - we just plan to put the letters there - the nice clean block letters and then leave it as it is . We really are not looking frankly - to gain a tremendous sign - how do I say it - exposure . We just want to identify the place so when people advertise Hancock Plaza when they drive into it - it is shown right above the stores. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'm familiar with the pylon, you intend to letter both sides of it or just the face of it, I 'm speaking I 'm Ilooking at it from the west. MR. LEWIS : You are referring to this structure right here? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: That' s correct.. MR. LEWIS. We will letter it the same on each side. So if you ` came from the north you would notice it and if you came from the south you would notice it . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: On the north and south sides of the pylon? MR. LEWIS: Yes. Shall T pass these pictures around? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I think it might be helpful , MR. LEWIS: I thought you would like to see the before and after. .i. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other. questions? Thank you. Is there any- one else who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? We ' ll have the next case . I i I - 5 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS �I CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK j � I �j OCTOBER 4 , 1982 I I EXECUTIVE SESSION �I APPEAL NO. 10-1-82 : The Board considered the appeal of Hancock Plaza Property for a i variance to permit the use of an existing structure , above the i �i building roof line, as a support and backdrop for a sign to iden- tify the shopping center. The decision of the Board was as I �j follows : I, II MS . STEVENSON: I move that the Board grant the requested sign variance in appeal number 10-1-82 . MS. BAGNARDI : I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: i 1) The proposed sign would have very little affect on the neigh- j i borhood since the structure already exists. � 2) The sign will not be lighted which will add to its attractive-i ness as opposed to a conforming fluorescent sign. I I 3) The pylon is an integral part of the building, therefore does not provide any obstruction to view. 1 VOTE: 5 Yes; 0 NO Granted i ij !f 1 11 �E ' I 1 f � 6 - I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS j ! COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK OCTOBER 4, 1982 i �! ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is appeal number 146$ : li Appeal of The Estate of Janice B. Palmer fo I an area variance under Section 30. 49 and �I Section 30. 25, Columns 6 , 7 , 11 , and 13 for deficiencies in minimum lot size , minimum lot width, minimum front yard setback, and minimum setback for one side yard, to permit I the continued use of an efficiency apartmen which was constructed without a building pe - mit at 969 E. State Street. The property i, is located in an R-1b use district, in which the use as a two-family dwelling is permit- 1 ted; however, under Section 30 .49 the appel, lant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a Certificate ofd Compliance can be issued. MS. HOLMBERG: I am Laura Holmberg and I am representing the estate of Janice Palmer. Janice Palmer died last winter and the house was almost immediately put on the market for sale . It I� didn' t sell for several months and I might say that the presence lof the efficiency apartment in the basement was one of the selling] � I points and we now have a contract for the sale contingent upon our; I securing a variance for the continued use, We don't know exactly ; when this apartment began being used as an apartment . There was building permit I don't remember now whether it was 1975 or 76 , to remodel the basement for a recreation room. At some point there was a kitchen - kitchen facilities were added to that room i and at the time Ms. Falmer dived, it had been rented as an efficier cy apartment for one person. As the application noted, the use is ! permitted in this district. It is an R-lb - we believe that the deficiencies in the area are minimal . The setback for the house �! from the street, of course , the house was constructed before the i present Zoning Ordinance and the setback requirements . On the j side yard - the east side there is no problem, there is almost I � eighteen feet as nearly as I can tell - I noticed the Building Commissioner's report said there were twenty feet between the house and the east line . The deficiency is on the west side of 1� i� the house - it ' s from five feet only - requirement is ten. This j is mitigated considerably, by the fact that on the west side there i' I �I f I r 7 is a nine foot lane which is a city owned lane giving access to !� Water Street and the plant . There is access to the property from both State Street and Water Street and it is - if there are parki g I problems in the neighborhood I don' t believe they are generated by this property. There is a garage - there is an apron there I is a very nice back yard in which there could be additional parking if that were required. As indicated the apartment is for one per-1 � I son only and I think this neighborhood is somewhat unusual . This is a part of two tax maps which- have been put together and whe- ther you can see it clearly or not - the red area is the Palmer i lot. This is the nine foot lane which really makes up for the deficiency in the frontage as far as protecting the property on the west. The next three properties west of this are all student housing. We don't know how many people are living in property immediately on the west . We do know that there are I believe there are four in the four students in the next one. And then there are students in the third one to the west. We doW t think that this will have any bad affect on the neighborhood - its been used this way - the house is very well maintained - it ' s a three I bedroom house and I might note that under the present Zoning Ordi- nance a family can live in this house and have one additional roomer. Now whether that roomer was able to cook or not wouldn't make much difference as far as the other uses of the property wer� concerned. I don't - as I indicated, I believe that the area var - ances are minimal - that the lane and the parking facilities would take care of any of the questions with respect to diversity and the apartment is definitely a one person apartment - it is a sing e room with a bath, and nothing else . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions? MS. WARD : I have a question. The garage , one car, two car? i MS . HOLMBERG: It 's a one car garage . I believe you have the surf vey on the property. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any other questions from the Board? I there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Please come forward. MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am RobertChamberlain. . . i I I' i I! i 8 If CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Before you arrived we said you would have to I I I i i' come forward and speak to the microphone so your testimony can bel I recorded. it MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Alright. Thank you. it CHAIRMAN WEAVER: It may not sell but . . . !; MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Right, I agree, okay. But I was the broker �j ji involved in the transaction that brought the contract before the ale i of the property of the estate of Janice Balmer and it was because ; i of the fact that the listing sheet indicated that there was an I apartment in this building that I was able to bring about a !! transaction. That was important to the purchaser of the property.! t The property had been on the market for five or six months and iti started out at an asking price of $79, 900 . , they lowered the pxic� i! I to $75, 000 . under another broker, not me, I was not involved in i the listing of the property at anytime . They lowered the price i again to $69, 900 . My the buyer that I represented came and !i I I; who was a naval officer - who has been assigned to Cornell Univer� it J` city for a tour of duty came to town on a two day period of timl' i v for a final interview at Cornell and during that period of time wanted to purchase a piece of property. He was interested in som� thing that had an apartment. He is a bachelor with high income I !I and he was interested in a piece of property that would allow him convenience to Cornell because he was here not only to teach i j at the ROTC unit at Cornell but to pick up an MBA at Cornell and 4� he wanted to be able to go back and forth. to work two or three I I � times a day. But he was interested also in the property since it did have , since he , as a bachelor, had an apartment associated j II with it. That particular _ property had an apartment that had been I rented as I understood it at least , for four or five years I II prior to this time, so it was sold to him on the basis that it f had an apartment in the property. Needless to say he is somewhat I disturbed in the event that it were not to be a legitimate - a i legal apartment. I don't know what his concerns would be at that ! ji point if it were not to be a legal apartment, Certainly the !I property when it was sold -- purchased price of $661,800., would I li 9 - ! j ij �i not - I would think it would not be worth that much to a buyer - I have not discussed that with him because I think that 's - we have to wait for the results of this particular hearing to discus any further financial discussions - as to negotiations as to the value of the property to the buyer . He bought it on that basis and the property value had been decreasing during that six month period of time when he finally got a contract at $66 ,800 . I i would say that it certainly is a hardship to the seller whom I j i actually represent by the licensing law of New York State . I would think that the seller has got a problem in the event that that apartment, which has been used as an apartment , is not ji allowed and I would think that the value of the property would be ! " decreased in some significant measure. I 'm not sure how much that �i would be. Under the Zoning laws as I understand them, should thi$, variance not be granted, he still has the right to rent out rooms i in that particular house to two other unrelated persons r as I understand . it - three unrelated persons can live in the building under the current zoning laws . Is that not correct? I ii ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Yes, MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Tha,t' i,s correct. So from a practical point of view should he use that property without the variance being 1 i� granted, he can still be authorized to have three unrelated per sons in the property, creating two other persons in the property besides h%mself. And therefore , from the practical point ,of view,! � t T would think the parking problems and other problems that might II be associated with the granting of the variance would be relatively the same. I can't see that there would be that much. difference . i I can only speak to the fact that the property came on the market j . �j at a, certain price - it has been reduced damatically down to the " I i point where we finally, had a sale at $66, 800 , and should the vagi_ " g, property would be de- it ance not be ranted then the value of the i creased in some significant amount - that amount yet to be deter- mined - whether or not the buyer even wants to pursue it at this point . Should it not be sold i would assume that the estate is going to want to rent the property and I am not sure what would i I i 10 follow after that I would assume that it would be better off to I have a solid owner - financially responsible owner - an officer i the regular navy would - I am sure , because of his position - be required to maintain a property in good shape within the community . Other than that I have nothing else to - no other comments to make . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions from the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this applica- tion? Please come forward . MS. LAUBE: My name is Vivian Laube and I own the property at 108 ` Water Street since 1954 . It is bordered on the State Street side I by the property in question - 969 - 971 and 973 E. State Street, by Water Street on the east side - 100 feet by the filtration plan driveway on the south and my deed says that I share the common lana with the houses 967 and 969 -- once again the property in question. I think the little efficiency was used for only the last couple of years. Janice herself, if any of you were on the Board five or six years ago - was one of the proponents - one of the staunchest battlers for the preservation of the East State Street neighborhood there into an R-1 designation and when she did rent , which was by necessity to maintain herself, she was careful to rent to one single, quiet individual and she tried to restrict parking to the one car garage and the apron which also accommodates one car. It would be fine if its owner - lived in by an owner but if this is j changed to a two-family desi,gnat on we fear that that means that the upper floors might be converted in the future to apartments housing not only three unrelated people but maybe six and maybe l isix cars . We 've seen what happened across the lane at 967 . There is an absentee owner and that nice back yard has been turned into a parking lot. There are three and four cars there at all times . It houses students. The house at 965 also is supposed to be a one family house and that also has a bunch of cars and a bunch_ of �I students , Sometimes in bad weather - when the hills are bad _ all I these people are inclined to park on an open street which most of the time is Water Street or Treva Avenue and if you have driven along i - �I ;; East State Street you've also seen the cars parked over the curbs % onto the sidewalks . It' s our concern that this erosion of college- "! town area not be spread any further and certainly you must be con- i ' cerned as well - otherwise you wouldn' t be authorizing a study of ljcollegetown and the project to revitalize it . And the parking � I Hquestion is quite relative to this issue because if as I said to lithe other Board last week although. everyone has a right to park I ; elsewhere, with private property is not adequate - they also have ja responsibility to others and Water Street and Treva Avenue - we (;can' t have a decent snow plowing job and often the movement of the !!city vehicles is restricted to the water plant - to and from the 1water plant . And so often, unfortunately, our transient population; jand absentee owners don 't share our concerns whether it be con- i, sciously or unconsciously and I think that the protection of our property values - those of us who keep trying to improve our (II properties should really be considered in this matter, ,I � IICHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions from the Board? IMS. BAGNARDI : Question. Do you use that who uses the right-qf- ! I way? IMS . LAUBE: Our deeds I looked up titles in the deeds and it says that my property shares - has the common right-o£-way. I know that that Janice ' s said the name and I am sure that they want j �ithat 967 would say like- wise. ,MS. BAGNARDI: I 'm sorry I was not more specific. Do you use j !that right-of-way to get into a garage area or something? i SIMS. LAUBE: I don ' t, I have a little garage in the back and I can I jjuse it but I have attached garage but I could use it . I M$ , BAGNARDI : So your access to your garage is from State Street? IIMS. LAUBE: From Water Street. No , in bad weather, occasionally I ill do use it to get a run up to State Street if I can' t get through ,lWater Street, The only way you can get through on Water Street I +many times is by backing up into the filtration plant driveway 11get a running start and hope you make it up to the top of the hill , ;IMS . BAGNARDI : So you say that Janice used this apartment when i1she was in ill health? � i II !i - 12 - {( f I;IMS. LAUBE: Yes , when she was ill and when real estate was not in y ; very good shape , she really needed that and she was very careful '! to - of everybody else' s feelings . ii 11MS. BAGNARDI : So with the type of tenant she had there it was no i 1 ; I1problem? (IMS . LAUBE: There was no problem with that but we don' t know who i I ! lelse might - we 've seen it happen to the adjacent properties . I SMS. BAGNARDI : I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in ! opposition? Please come forward. I j i�MRS. PETERSON: I 'm Sigrid Peterson, I live at 211 Water Street an I , I just wanted to say that I agree wholeheartedly with. what Vivian i! ! jjust said because we have problems getting up the hill . We are I� living on the bottom of the hill and we are going to come out twice i ! a day - coming back twice a day and it is very difficult , especial; I illy in the winter. When one car is parked and one has to stop j {I � '! already when the other one comes from below and so when there are I i �Itwo cars parked it doesn' t work and I want to also - it is our 'I (!neighborhood - it is a one -family neighborhood, I think we should �j ( keep it and when it is already, stepped over twice I don't think we ought to do the same thing. There is one more question. I am �1wonderi,ng how big a lot has to be in order to have a two-party !house? j i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well the actual situation as to this house as it 1Rexists without the apartment would not be in compliance because ii lit was built prior to the Ordinance and at the time that the w (!Ordinance was adopted the requirements were set back both from the ( front and the sides had not been accomplished in the original con Istruction so this house, as it sets , was non-conforming the date i ( the Ordinance was passed but because it was existing it was allowed I' Ito continue of course. The question - an open lot and what would I be required - is the reason we are here tonight - is that a variane would have to be granted an area variance would have to be granted li,' for the extension of the existing use and so that ',s the problem j i {!before the Board. It would require a larger lot in new constructidn. ,i 11 - 13 - I MRS . PETERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in ( opposition? Yes . I MS . SMITHSON: My name is Susan Smithson and I live at 971 East State Street in the property adjacent to the Palmer house . I have 't been to too many hearings like this and I guess as someone living ( next door to the property one of my main questions is why - on what basis are we asking that a variance be allowed? For example , is i ,because there has been problems selling the house? To me that seemed immaterial when considering whether it would be proper to grant a variance. We know houses have had difficulties selling - (one across the street right now, with the slow market , has had trouble selling and I don' t think we want to be granting various variances on that basis . I also - my feeling was also - who is the owner at the moment would not be a consideration. We know that people come and go and move and so it seemed to me more a question of whether or not the house and the lot are adequate for a two-family dwelling . Would we think a variance is in order because the code is (too strict? It would seem to me that when the code was drawn up there were probably pretty good reasons for why they felt 7500 square feet for the lot were necessary and this lot - as I am ( understanding from the deed is 5500 square feet. Should a grant - variance be granted because this would help attract future buyers? I think. this is part of the fear of people living nearby. I think it would attract future buyers - people who wanted to invest in a rental property. It would make a good investment as a two-family dwelling . You could probably rent to quite a few different people . Living right next door, I foresee that the parking would be a prob- lem. It has not been a problem in the past, but it hasn't been a two-family dwelling, In order for two cars to park there you need to shift cars , one would be in the garage and one would be in the apron and you can't move one without juggling the other and I think the most logical place then to park would be on Water Street . I have trouble getting out of my driveway when many people park on Water Street in the wintertime - simply because if they are too near II I�i l - 14 - i 1the driveway you are forced to back out to one side or the other hand you slide into the gutter. The parking is a problem, also my ' ( neighbor, Jane Cullings , who can 't be here, and I , and others are ;( concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood. It has been a I I 11family neighborhood and I think if a two-family dwelling were to be� ( permitted that it should be one that can follow the code - that ( does have ample space - that does have a large enough lot - that I� I 1Idoes have adequate parking so that it doesn't change the character ; I i,! of the neighborhood. One other question I guess - would we think ; variance is in order because some other houses nearby don' t seem I to be following the code? And I 'd hate to have us take that view- ' point - that if there are enough infractions you say, oh well the I .i neighborhood has already sort of started to change - what is one III j� more? Thank you. ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Come forward. �IMR. RAMAGE: My name is Andrew Ramage and I live at 964 E. State iStreet which is across the road not the one that is for sale I 've lived there for ten years . And I 'd like to reiterate without ( going through most of the points that have already been made but I should like to make sort of stronger caste a little more clearly what seems to me a general consideration for many of the practical I ones which is the on-going effect of the grant - of the variance sand the fact that two families seems to be a designation without I � limit - th-ere seems to be a de factor two family living unit in I the sense that there was this quasi-legal or illegal apartment in the basement. Really the question has not been any particular j person who lived there and it might not be any particular person 1I who lived there again but it, I think, at least for me and my ` family is the possibility, that it could change and I am especial! 1 ly, disturbed to hear that the zoning law has been interpreted as having three unrelated people in one - say in the: upstairs even 1 I though there would be yet another in the downstairs , I thought it I jlwas one family and another unrelated person so that three unrelated � people would not be appropriate, ACTING SECRETARY" DIETERICH: We talked about a single family - in i i i R i ! a single family unit, if the dwelling unit is owner-occupied, an i !' individual or family plus not more than two unrelated occupants - 1�! it is speaking of the single family unit . MR. RAMAGE: Oh I see . Well then that makes it worse. But then so I ! that really the question is the opportunity of a subsequent owner Iidoesn't seem to be the intention of the current or the contingent 11owner as I gather, to change this around quite a bit so that you L � lthen have two halves, each of which could have these multiple dwellers so this is the real question - I think is - what might I I! 1happen - what setting of precedent will do. And as to the other f �Ithings - the question of the student housing to the west it has ifbeen mentioned already if so , and we aren' t in a very good posit jtion to check it although- we 've tried to look into it -- that is ! improper and we 'd like to do away with it . And going on with this i - it isn' t the here and now but the possibilities - not just the I 1parking, but the noise , I don' t think noise R other than cars try ling to park , has been implied, but certainly there has been a i �igreat increase, especially in the summer, in the noise level and 4 A his is another potential thing but not the actual thing . And I I !think that we have to guard against the potential because as I jsay, I have the feeling this variance r if it were granted - would I Ibe without limit. We are not in a position to say they could only do this and so we should, 1 think, not allow it for fear that the i lr ,sk is too great, j i 1CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposi- 11ition? We ' ll have the next case. i i I� � I - 16 - I I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK OCTOBER 4 , 1982 i EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1468 : The Board considered the appeal of the Estate of Janice B. Palmer ,for an area variance to permit the continued use of an efficiency apartment which was constructed without a building permit at 969 East State Street. The decision of the Board was as follows : r I j (CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variances requested in appeal number 1468 . MS . WARD: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Practical difficulties have been shown with conforming to Code . i The building exists in a non-conforming sense as far as area is concerned, and the property could not comply to the lot size, side yard or setback required since it is bordered by other properties . 2) Authorizing this use Would not increase the deficiencies which are minimal . I3) Authorizing this use would, potentially, allow one additional person to occupy the lot which seems not to be burdensome to i the lot or the community. IVOTE: 2 Yes ; 2 No ; 1 Abstention Denied (for lack of four affirmative votes) I i i f i I I A I is BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ii COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK �( I OCTOBER 4 , 1982 r, ( ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is appeal number 1469 Appeal of Edward Whitted for an area variance i under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25 , Columns ) f) 4 , 7 , and 12 for deficiencies in off-street fparking, minimum lot width, and minimum setbac for one sideyard to permit the addition of an approximate 8 ' x 24 ' addition to the rear of tie existing first floor dwelling units at 324 { Center Street . The property is located in an j R-2b (Residential) use district, in which the existing use as a two-family dwelling is per- ; mitted; however under Section 30 . 49 the appel- ', lant must obtain an area variance for the listOd deficiencies before a building permit can be j issued for the addition. II MR. WHITTED: My name is Edward Whitted and I live at 324 Center I' Street and I would like to have a variance for this addition - a I little addition in the rear of the house . This is to be used mostly for a laundry room and an extra room at the rear of the hou4e . I MS. STEVENSON: After you construct this addition how many feet I I ,idoes it leave to your rear line? , MR. WHITTED: Pardon? l i IMS. STEVENSON: If you construct this addition which is 8 to 10 I feet wide, how many feet are left in your back yard - to the rear? 'i I �' MR. WHITTED: The lot is 175 ' and the house is probably forty - i after the addition would be one hundred twenty-five feet left . jIt' s long but not wide . I'm only adding eight foot to the house itself - the original house , MS. STEVENSON: And where does this rear drive come from? {' MR. WHITTED: I't comes from - coming in the Co-op Shopping Plaza. i MS . STEVENSON: Oh., okay, jMR. WHITTED: Off of Clinton wtreet, i !!MS . BAGNARDT: You rent the upstairs to tenants? IMR. WHITTED: Yes I do. I � ' MS. BAGNARDT : Two adults is that correct? ,i SMR. WHITTED: Two adults , yes . 9 i IMS . STEVENSON: How many parking spaces do you have back there? ! MR. WHITTED: I feel there is quite a bit of room probably two j i f' ii i l - 18 - li �Ior three parking places . The front doesn 't have much room for a j1driveway. I have no driveway in the front of the house. I feel i l � that I need room in the rear and I can come in the rear and park. I feel that there is room back i MS. STEVENSON: And the addition wouldn' t change the parking area. , i 1MR. WHITTED: No , it wouldn't . There is probably one hundred I �Itwenty-five feet left there to park and there is still room for a garden and lawn. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any other questions? Thank you. Is I there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this application's ! Anyone who wishes to speak. in opposition to this application? IMDid you wish to be heard? j Ii VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: - I don' t think I could make anything any ; clearer. But if I did speak it would be in favor of it. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. We have some letters about this whic I i I1will now be read by the Secretary. 'JACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH.: Mr. Mortimer E. Darling made a note i general comment he is against it basically saying "No Way" �' no further comment. The comment was "No Way" and signed. And a !1Mr . Clayton Vickers "I agree to the building at 324 Center ( Street - O.K." That ' s the comment from Mr. Vickers r so he is in favor . i � CHATRMAN WEAVER; If there be no other applications before the Board, the Board will now ad)ourn to Executive Session which means , � I I will ask the rest of you to please leave us for awhile. If you I i �j wsh_ to wait, we' ll reconvene after the decisions have been made �I and if you do not wish to wait, You can call the Building Commis- sioner tomorrow. it CI I f I i Ij I I� i Ii I� 19 - � I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS f� CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK OCTOBER 4 , 1982 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1469: The Board considered the appeal of Edward Whitted for an area variance to permit the addition of an approximate 8 ' x 24 ' addi- tion to the rear of the existing first floor dwelling unit at 324 Center Street. The decision of the Board was as follows : �MS. HAINE: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1469 . � �MS . WARD: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) There are practical difficulties involved, since the area deficiencies cannot be corrected. 2) The rear yard addition will not create any significant change I in the character of the neighborhood. 13) The existing deficiencies will not be increased by this con- struction. VOTE: 5 Yes; 0 No Granted. i I E 1 i I; I _ 20 _ I i ! ,I I, BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning I Appeals , City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 10-1-82 , 1468 and 1469 on October 4 , 1982 in the Common Council Chambers , City of Ithaca, 108 E . Green Street, Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true (copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the execu- tive session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. i Barbara C. Ruan Recording Secr ary (SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 7 day of1982 J4, --. �-� Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 55-1650800 QUALMED !N TOf,:PKINS COUNTY53 h1Y r'..._,...PJ`7 EP{RES i.ANCH 30,19,._,,, 1