Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1982-11-01 ji !G (I I I j`' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK i� NOVEMBER 1 , 1982 �( TABLE OF CONTENTS Page IE APPEAL NO. 1464 Nancy Scoones POSTPONED j I 109 Elston Place j II APPEAL NO. 1470 Ivar and Janet Jonson 1 � I ,( 329-331 W. Seneca Street i �j APPEAL NO. 1470 Executive Session 5 I � I APPEAL N0, 1471 Estate of Janice B. Palmer 6 (� 969 E. State Street I APPEAL NO. 1471 Executive Session 18 'I CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING SECRETARY 19 I �I I it { ( ii i ( ( I I I I i �! f i I 1 l �! I i �I I J , C� I d I! (i i iI i (' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 1 , 1982 it � �i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I will call this hearing to order. This is the ' { duly appointed Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in a formal public j I hearing in the matter of two applications for variances . First I will introduce the members of the Board: Bette Bagnardi i! Donna Ward Toni Stevenson Peggy Haine �I Michael Tomlan !I Charles Weaver Thomas Hoard, Building Commissioner & Secretary to the Board Barbara Ruane, Recording Secretary j The Board operates under the provisions of the Charter of the City i Il of Ithaca and of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance . The ,I i (' Board will not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct) �iof the hearing but the determination shall be founded upon legal �jevidence to sustain the same. We request that all participants i { identify themselves as to name and address . In order to do that I successfully you will be asked to come forward and speak into the i ! microphone up here so that it will be recorded on our tape recor, der. Tonight the first matter for all of those of you interested in these cases n one case has been withdrawn from consideration j and that is appeal number 1464 , appeal of Nancy Scoones for a use �jvariance so anyone that is here, interested only in that particulat I � , case, i.t will not be heard tonight.. The other two cases will be ) heard in the order in which they appear in the official notices an upon completion of the hearing the Board will go into executive session at which time decisions will be made . After completion of� the executive session we will reconvene in public meeting and you 1 ! will be able to learn the results of our deliberations . If you dol Inot wish to wait for that n the end of that meeting, you can call j I the Building Department during office hours tomorrow and get a ' verbal notice of the results. We ' ll hear the first case. SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal on the agenda now is appeal i number 1470: Appeal of Tear & Janet Jonson for an area variance i i I I i I! I 2 - 1 i under Section 30 .49 and Section 30 . 25 ,1 Columns 4 , 10, 12 and 14 for deficien-i cies in off-street parking, minimum lot size , minimum lot coverage , mini- mum front yard setback, minimum setback for one side yard and minimum rear yard setback to permit the conversion of th existing two-family dwelling at 329- 331 W. Seneca Street to a multiple (fobs family) dwelling. The property is located in an B-2a (business) use dis- 1 trict, in which the proposed use as a !I multiple dwelling is permitted; however 1 under Section 30 . 49 the appellants mus obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the increase in numb�r of dwelling units . A previous appeal Il was heard by the BZA on May 4 , 1982 , to permit the conversion of this proper- ty from a two-family dwelling to a multiple (six-family) dwelling. This appeal was denied. IMS . JONSON: Hi . I 'm Janet Jonson and I live at 934 East Shore I Drive. I 'm here to ask for my building for four units instead of (t l two and the reason is - I 've asked the bank or First Federal for a Moan and they didn' t think I had enough rented - rent to cover thel ` amount of money that I needed to make these improvements . The �lbuilding is old - we 've had this property now for ten years - � i nit' s also adjoined to some other units in the same area there . Ind l the past ten years we 've renovated and made the building up to cod ! but we can' t seem to do this now because - well we just can' t get ; the money unless we can prove that we can increase our rents . The; �Ibuilding is over 4 ,000 square feet and most of the houses that we lbuild today are less than 1 , 500 so there is sufficient room in thi� flbuilding to add the two apartments . There is really nothing I can; i I Ido about the building being so large - it was that way when we bought it and the only way that we could do is reduce the size i and that would take away from the beauty of the building. I drew 1 up some plans. ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Do I understand that you have some tentative ap- I I ,� proval for financing based upon four apartment development? (l i SMS. JONSON: We 've talked with the bank and they said that with i I1the amount of income that we have coming from the building right linow we wouldn' t be able to take care of the mortgage the second mortgage -- that we would need to take out to improve this building ! ,I for the electrical work and . l 3 - i( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: My question is a little different than that. Do !they agree that four apartments would support the investment? MS . JONSON: Yes they do. IMS. BAGNARDI : The drawings indicate the house is at present - (three bedrooms on the second floor? MS. JONSON: Yes . MS . BAGNARDI: And one on the first floor? MS. JONSON: No there is no bedroom on the first floor - well these plans here . . . MS. BAGNARDI : That' s how the building currently is? MS. JONSON: That 's right. MS. BAGNARDI : So there is one bedroom on the first floor , is that right? MS. JONSON: No there is just a double living room and a kitchen. I had maybe it was misunderstood on there but there isn't a bedroom now on the first floor, and if it was marked - well . . . . S. BAGNARDI: So there is one bedroom on the first floor and three) on the second, right? i S . JONSON: it used to be a double living room. When you have students sometimes when they walk through it looks like it ' s a I bedroom when it really wasn't a bedroom. S. STEVENSON: How do you plan to break it up? I S. JONSON: First it ' s a duplex so I 'll have an apartment down- stairs and one upstairs.. S. STEVENSON: Using the third floor? S. JONSON: If it ' s feasible . S. STEVENSON: How many bedrooms in each unit? AS. JONSON: Two . There will just be one additional bedroom from hat it is right now, S. WARD: Have you anticipated using the third floor? S. JONSON: Well for looks, it would be nice. We do a lot of work with. cathedral ceilings so if it 's possible, yes. S. STEVENSON: Do you have any estimates on what it would cost to onvert it? S. JONSON: My husband is a builder and he thought maybe 45 - 50 housand. it I 4 - I! i MS. STEVENSON: And how much do you expect to rent the two bedroom +'units for? I MS. JONSON: I hope to - I said maybe between 375 and 400 . j IMS. STEVENSON: Per unit? II I DIMS. JONSON: Yes . j MS. STEVENSON: Including utilities? ,{ MS. JONSON: Yes . i I!MS. WARD: And the bank will give you $50,000 , as long as you I change this? I IMS. JONSON: Well they haven't said yes but if we can get the figur1ps together. I guess we have to take everything to them. I mean, we 41haven' t gone that far yet. I 'm sure they would. We 've never I� ( had any problem getting a home improvement loan before, I I MS. STEVENSON: fis there presently a mortgage on the premises? MS. JQNSQN: Yes there is . i ;CHAI'RMAN WEAVER: Are there any other questions from the Board? I �IThank you very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard I iin favor of this application? Is there anyone in opposition to I this application? We ' ll have the next case , I i { j II I I I l ' I i I� I i I i ;I f� I I � i t I - 5 - I1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS f COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS li CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK Ii ! NOVEMBER 1 , 1982 EXECUTIVE SESSION !APPEAL NO. 1470 : I The Board considered the appeal of Ivar and Janet Jonson for an , area variance to permit the conversion of the existing two-family I dwelling at 329-331 W. Seneca Street to a multiple (four family) i dwelling. A previous appeal was heard by the BZA on May 4 , 1982 , i I Ito permit the conversion of this property from a two-family dwell- j S�ing to a multiple (six-family) dwelling. This appeal was denied. j I 1The decision of the Board was as follows: S. STEVENSON: I move that the area variance requested in i appeal number 1470 be granted. S . BAGNARDI : I second the motion, FIINDINGS OF FACT: f,l) The land use is permitted. �i 12) The reduction of the number of units compared to the previous i' appeal reduces the objections to the density increase . 13) It would increase the value of the property without significant+ ! 1y changing the visual aspects of the neighborhood. VOTE: 1 Yes ; 5 No Denied. I, i, I� i I� I ! j � I ' I I� i ! I 1 I 6 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 1 , 1982 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal , Mr. Chairman, is appeal number 1471: Appeal of the Estate of Janice B . Palmer for a area variance under Section 30. 49 and 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 the continued use of an efficiency apartment which was constructed without a building permit at 969 E. State St . The property is located in an R-lb use district , in which the use as a two-family dwelling is permitted; however, under Section 30. 49 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a Certificate of Compliance can be issued. A previous appeal was heard by the Board on October 4 , 1982 to permit the use of the efficiency apartment; this appeal was denied. The appellant is returning with new information in this new appeal . R. GALBRAITH: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dirk Galbraith, I 'm an attorney - I have professional offices at 308 N. Tioga Street, in Ithaca, and I am here this evening on behal f the appellant who is my law partner, Mrs . Holmberg, the adminis- trator of the Estate of Janice Palmer which is the owner of this property and with me this evening is Mrs . Alice Rupert , who was Mrs Palmer' s mother and she is the person primarily interested in this state. Now this appeal has been before this Board on one previous ) occasion and I am going to try to keep this brief tonight so that I don' t go over a lot of information that has been covered before . I � elieve the primary area in which we would like to present some ne� information is the well the situation with this property in respect to the situations with a number of other properties which his Board has considered within the past year. Since the time of i he last hearing we took the occasion to inspect the records of the ity Board of Zoning Appeals and while I recognize that there is no uch thing as binding precedent on this Board, in other words you s the Board would be perfectly free, I suppose , to decide one case ne way and to decide a substantial identical case in another way. hope that the Board would review the facts of this case and con- ider it in light of the fact thatapparently within the past year i I - 7 - i I ji �you have granted variances in the cases of fifteen applications ! i which have sought extension of either the building or living area i;n ! cases where area variances similar to or less than those found in 11the present case, have existed. Whereas in only four cases have yo!u ilturned down these applications. Now while I was before the Planning I , lBoard on this case last week, several of the objectants pointed out that indeed some of these fifteen cases that the variances have; I ' ;been granted in, are not identical to this case. I would agree ; with that . I think there are several - particularly the Murra I ; application - which are substantially identical and in which vari i fiances were granted. Some of the other applications deal with ex- i ;tensions such as garages, decks, extensions of second floor living ; !I areas and I would suggest to the Board - these are cases in which ! , the variance sought is even more substantial then the present case] because the present variance relates to internal work which was f!done on the premises at 969 E. State Street - to which there is �Iabsolutely no visibility from the outside and to suggest - but for lithe fact that the situation with this appartment came to light after 11Mrs . Palmer ' s death, really no one would have known about this had iwe not approached the Board. Now at the Planning Board - I know j' a couple of the objectants spoke up - I think it was Mrs . Laube who; i. isaid that the neighbors _, during Mrs. Palmer' s life time had known i that she had financial hardships when the real estate market, she was a realtor, fell on hard times and they realized that she had put this apartment in the basement of the building and I have a ,feeling that Mrs. Palmer was probably fairly well liked in the !neighborhood. I also have the suspicion that had she been here ask!- Hing for this variance, instead of my law partner or myself, that a ;good bit of the objection that we 've heard would probably not have �Fbeen voiced. However Mrs. Palmer passed away, leaving an estate 1I�which I think that her neighbors who are here with us this evening know was beset by a great number of debts and we've been trying to sell this property my law partner as the administrator of her gestate , has principally, and unless we are able to sell the ,property - it is going to cause, I think, a financial hardship for j ,i '! f 8 - I i ( her mother . Now the standard by which this Board judges a request jifor an area variance is that of practical difficulty and I have al- ',ways understood practical difficulty to be a somewhat lesser species of economic hardship. Well in this case we 've got some real econo- `Imic hardship. This property was originally put on the market at I about $79, 000 . It sat there I believe - I have a transcript of !i Mr . Chamberlain' s testimony from the last meeting - eventually it jl 'got down to a point - where a buyer came along at $66 ,800. but the requirement of the contract was that the seller obtain a Certificate lof Compliance from the City Building Inspector' s office showing 'that the apartment could be used. Neither the realtor nor anybody I� (else on the scene realized at that time that this was a non-conformal ling apartment which had been built in fact without any kind of a ermit and the purchase contract was signed. The perspective pur haser is in fact occupying the building at the moment and unless i variance is granted in this case, what is going to happen i.s that ; Ie is going to be able to enforce that contract and demand and ob- j i '�tain an abatement of the purchase price because the apartment can't , I The used. I believe on the basis of what Mr. Chamberlain had to say ( � he last time - that ' s going to depress the purchase price of this property even more and so the direct affect of - ladies and gentle- 1 en of the denial of the variance in this case is going to be to i Take money out of this lady' s pocket. Now the precise type of vari+ nce that is sought here is, as T said, one which is not going to 11 ffect the exterior of the property and one that is not going to reatly, enlarge the occupancy of the property either. This is an j L .-lb zone as the property Presently stands it could be used for single family residence and as T read the Zoning Ordinance this eans a single family plus one unrelated person could occupy that roperty. If the owner were to move in with his family he could ave an unrelated person occupy that basement apartment and it ' s n effi.ci,ency a very small apartment and he would be in complianc4 th the Ordinance. However if the same owner wishes to rent the i ipstai.rs to three unrelated people and that would be the maximum i I hat he could rent it to without another variance which we are not sking - then the use of the basement apartment for a fourth person it I - 9 - iwould at that point be illegal . So what we are really talking I about in this property is the difference between either three or fo r E people or in the case of an owner-occupancy an unlimited number of people upstairs and one person downstairs . The downstairs apartment is two hundred twenty-two square feet it cannot legally be used for anything but one person occupancy and as a practical matter, yo� couldn' t get two people in there with a shoe horn. The areas in which the variance is required are side and front yard setbacks which are common to every property in this neighborhood and perhaps the most significant deficiency is lot size where the property is about two thousand square feet short . Now I think there is no real - and this came out in the testimony before the Planning Board - there is no sound logical way to relate the shortage of lot size to anything to do with the occupancy in this property since it has adequate off-street parking now and I think as the sketch map which is - especially the survey map, which is attached to the applicatiorl shows the parking could be easily enlarged to accommodate even more cars however, that 's not planned. In conclusion I would sug gest that the variance sought for this property is minimal , the impact on the neighborhood is minimal, and a denial of the vari- ance would operate the cause of real economic hardship. Thank yo�i. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from the Board? ` MS. HAINE: What is the difference in the selling price if there weren' t an apartment? MR. GALBRAITH: Mr. Chamberlain addressed that. Unfortunately he couldn' t behere again this evening, The purchase price as presentl stands to the gentleman who is occupying the property his name escapes meat the moment is $66 , 800 . The estate is committed to ( sell the property to him. If the apartment use cannot be legally 1 obtained, he is entitled to demand a reduction in the purchase pric and in fact enforce that in Court if the estate were unwilling to , go along with it . Exactly what that would be is hard to say. I don' t know - perhaps something as this is just my own opinion - I 'm not really qualified to give an opinion such as this - probably something in the neighborhood of six or seven thousand dollars . I i - 10 - AS. BAGNARDI : Did Mr. Chamberlain list the property? MR. GALBRAITH: I don' t think he initially listed it . I think it jwas listed with - he said another realtor and then he . . . - he lo- 11cated the prospective buyer who is apparently in Cornell 's Naval i ROTC program. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in support of this application? i lIs there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this applica- tion? Please come forward. One at a time please. R. SMITHSON: My name is prank Smithson, I live at 971 E. State Street which is next door to the property in question, up the hill I leaded out of town. I had come prepared to ask the Board a couple I pf questions because we are, of course , not as familiar with this I�Sort of proceeding as you are nor as familiar with this sort of i roceeding as Mr. Galbraith is. One T think has been answered. hat was to be how does it happen that we are here again since the i �oard considered this appeal once before . I gather that the answer i s that if there is new information to be offered, the appellant i I Oets another shot. If that 's true I would like to suggest that you ( �avenit really heard any new information in the sense of informatioli C hat wasn' t available to Mr. Galbraith or Ms. Holmberg the first time (.round in front of this Board There has been no suggestion that ; he variances that he has mentioned were granted after the first feasing nor any suggestion that with the exercise of elementary ligence he couldn't have told the Board about those variances thel I �irst time around. Furthermore Mr. Galbraith and his appearance i i before the body that he spoke to last week suggested that the vari nces he mentioned were in fact very closely related to the one he Ts asking for here . Someone in the audience pointed out that that I wasn't the case and I think would be glad to point that out to you .gain. Now Mr. Galbraith, as it is any lawyers right to do, has Shifted his ground and suggested that the very difference in the i ibrariances is even more compelling than the similarity which he i tirged last week. I would urge this Board to look carefully at the I iariances he mentioned and to consider first whether they are new I it i ilinformation at all that would require us to be here and second, !whether there is anything in those variances that renders this one ; `;more appropriate . Thank you. �S ;CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Before we hear from anyone else, I think it would be appropriate that you understand that there are two questions be-i Ifore the Board on a rehearing or a subsequent hearing on a particu-1 i , lar property and the first question, of course , is whether new I information that would support a new hearing has been presented. ` That will be the first problem before the Board and the second, if!, I i e agree that new information supporting the need for a rehearing j has been presented, then to reconsider the case . Two steps . Next . 1 IS. SMITHSON: My name is Susan Smithson, I also live at 971 E. I1p p State Street. I'd like to respond in articular to statements mad � 1!inthe appeal . My neighbors and I recognize that all or most of th� �I ouses in our area were built prior to the zoning regujlation and j ay therefore be deficient. However we question the accuracy and he relevance of many of the statements made in the appeal . In parr i rah one it is noted that the findings indicate an acceptance - thi p o £ g a p q i findings from the last hearing . An acceptance of the practical dif' i ! iculties in meeting the deficiencies in the area. Of course we ccept the practical difficulties . None of us is so unreasonable a o suggest that the house be moved. In the same paragraph it is i Mated that the variance woujld not increase these minimal deficien Les - which deficiency is minimal? The lot area is 2 , 000 square I eet short - this is a deficiency of 26 . 6% of the minimum require- ent. This seems significant to us rather than minimal . The lot in question also lacks the required sixty foot frontage . The appeal !dds that most of the houses in the area surrounding this property o not have sixty foot frontage. That may be true and to our know- edge they are not requesting a two-family designation. Furthermore 1 he applicant wants us to consider an eight or nine foot, depends on I ho is measuring, city lane as part of the usable frontage . Are i �treets bordering the sides of properties generally conskidered part I i 0If the usable frontabe? If not then it does not seem to make sense I jo include the lane - if the lane is included is it also part of the if of I� I 1 - 12 - frontage of 967? It would not seem that it could be claimed twice. Thus the frontage deficit is ten feet out of sixty - is i that minimal? The front yard is not setback twenty-five feet - that may be minimal . Fourth and last at least one side yard is not ten feet wide. And again we are asked to consider the lan . While occupancy by four unrelated people for example , would not ! change any of these dimensions , obviously the increase in density !� would stress the property' s accommodations. The seventh para- graph notes that perhaps the most similar case to this appeal is appeal number 1420 of John Murra at 515 Dryden Road. After examin- ing this appeal we were struck most by the dissimilarities . The Murra property is short on the number of feet that it is set back from the street and that is similar. Otherwise , whereas the Palmer property lacks two thousand square feet, the Murra property lacked four hundred fifty square feet . Furthermore the Murra property has one side yard which meets the ten foot minimum plus another side yard which has twenty-two point five feet. The Murra property has a garage and in addition a very long driveway that can accommodate at least three cars . The owner made a point at h' s f x I hearing that he himself did not have a car. The only neighbor who responded to object to the variance was one living directly behindl and he was concerned that the back yard would be black topped and was reassured that the owner was a gardner. The fourth paragraph concludes with a reminder that the house was constructed before the present zoning regulations the Palmer house that is. That is certainly fact and we are not asking that it be modified. We only ask that it be recognized that it was also constructed for one family. While we've attempted to research the building code and still have some questions - one point seems clear. There is no question to the fact that the deficiencies exist. The house and , lot are designed to accommodate one family and we feel strongly that it is in the best interest of the neighborhood that it con- tinue to do so. We do not feel that it would serve the interests of anyone living in the neighborhood to turn this property into an investment property. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard? i �i I 13 - i i ijMS. LAUBE: My name is Vivian Laube , I live at 108 Water Street . �IMyproperty borders 969 - 971 and 973 E. State - fronts on Water ( Street - the filtration plant shares this common lane with 967 and , 11969 . Referring to the appellant ' s paragraph concerning the selling , of the property - the county assessor' s office indicated most re- j I cent assessment of this property as $48 ,000 . The house was sold Ito Janice in 1968 with contents for $221500 . The realtor, Mr. Chamberlain, told the Board last time that this house was put on i ; the market unsuccessfully at $79 , 000 . It seems to us that nearly , i $80 ,000 . is an awful lot of money to expect for a residence in our ! i modest neighborhood. And as Sue said, we recognize that this house was constructed before zoning however these houses in the neigh- i lborhood were built for single families in the days of one or no i i i cars at all . Your predecessor set up the regulations to protect us from additional lowering of standards . We all have substantial I a (!investments in money, in effort, in neighborhood pride and permanen;- j;cy - so unless the basic rules have changed it would seem that the , Board should not be expected to grant variances to all comers or Ito protect the existing neighborhood and enforce the zoning and legal regulations in effect. Thank you, i CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this ! matter? Yes . IIMR. RAMAGE: T am Andrew Ramage and I live across the street at I 964 E. State Street, a little down from directly opposite and I 'd (like to address two questions. First of all I think this is really! lin catagorizat .on a significant change and furthermore we are not I i lltalking as in some of these others that have been mentioned in j affecting the exterior I think we agree about that - we think the i question of the change of the g possible change in occupancy style I is rather more important for us as a neighborhood and i have parti- i ocular observation of this living across the street from two houses I Ihick are strictly defined single family houses but in practice fl +appear to be several family houses several people living there �nd one worries about this happening further. In fact the house I I irectly next door which borders the lane has in its back yard thr li I' I I' 14 - I; !; cars constantly and there is no attention paid to the property in I! ; terms of upkeep or anything like that which has to do with the ldquestion of absentee landlords which is germaine to this issue , I 1' think, because if this variance is granted the possibility of ;i i absenteeism and the extra person becomes very important . And it 1lis for that reason this sort of extra slight neglect doesn't have i I ii� to be all that much - many landlords obviously want to be careful l I �ibut some of them are not so careful and I think - for my purpose - � Iithat'- s the important thing and why I came tonight to try to see 4hatthis variance was not allowed. Thank you. I y'CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Yes. !jMS. CULLINGS: My name is Jane Cullings, I live at 973 E . State 'i Street which is two doors east of the 969 property which is under 'question. I would like to follow up and add my own comments on the �lquestions which Mr. Smithson raised about the questions in evidence being raised as being appropriate for this Board to hear this case I !!again. In the appeal which we, as neighbors, received at the time { the appellant requested the second hearing, there was a portion of 1 the narrative whch. said we were appending a listing of appeals r llwhich had been heard by this Board during the year 1982 , some of �1which had been granted, some of which had been denied, but were all 1 Iconsidered area variance. with similar area deficiencies , With the, ( (very generous help of the Building Department staff I spent a couple 1,of my lunch hours looking over the folders{: related to the variance;: i �jthat were listed and discovered some things which were disconcerti,n (land at the same time somewhat amusing to me, I ' ll have to admit. of the fifteen appeals which- this Board had granted which the appel - dant was saying were similar to the questions being raised, two �1 !elated to commercial properties, one was the a request to con 1 `i Itinue the use of a jacuzzi in a commercial property. at 408 W. State I�treet. Six were for the construction of garages, carports and I extending a screen porch to single family dwellings two had to I �o with conversion of space in existing approved apartment units " hile five dealt with an addition of or enlargement to living space I or either single family or owner-occupied two family homes . More i ! 1' { I f 15 - I interestingly to us were that the four variances which were denied three were denied on the basis of eitherdeficiency in lot size , density that might cause the neighborhood or parking deficiencies . One additional one was denied for these reasons plus hardship could not be proved in terms of converting the property from what it was to what was being requested. So I wanted to add this to ou neighborhood concerns about the conversion of this property. I Thank you. I also wanted to give the Board three letters from additional neighbors who were not able to be here but wanted to have their views heard. Thank you. ` CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. I MR. SMITHSON: I know that Mrs. Cullings promised that she would be the last . . . i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Will you identify yourself please? I� MR. SMITHSON: My name is Frank Smithson T spoke to you before an I won' t belabor these points. I am concerned however that you may think that we are a group of neighbors merely trying to protect our own investments , or opposing people not just like us moving into the neighborhood or something like that . That is not our concern. One of the reasons we feel most strongly about this issue is that obody was fiercer than Janice in protecting the neighborhood as it� Iwas and in opposing variances, opposing zoning changes , appearing I in this very room a large number of times to try to keep the neigh- ! orhood the way it was . Now she had financial hardships that re- quired her to do something that I know she would not have done therw :se . And the hardship that her estate will suffer is not that kind of hardship. Certainly none of us would want to make six ! x seven thousand dollars less money to inherit six or seven thou and dollars less money but it 's not the same thing as taking six I x seven thousand dollars out of somebody' s pocket. If you grant his variance, Ms . Rupert and the other heirs will make additional oney but you will be perhaps irreparably changing the character of ! hi.s. neighborhood. Neighborhoods very rarely go from multiple occu ancy or more than one family occupancy back to single family occu- ancy and neighborhoods in the vicinity of collegetown certainly h on' t do that so I would ask you please to consider very carefully 'i 16 - �i jbefore you took such a step. Thank you. it I !! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We have time for rebuttals tonight. Not every ! day, but this one . I think if we will all have patience, that i ' includes the Board. I' MR. GALBRAITH: To identify myself again, I am Dirk Galbraith speaj- `IIing once more . Mr. Smithson when he is not here in the evening, I) � Ilhe is an assistant district attorney and I very often try criminal ) defense cases . Usually Mr. Smithson gets to sum up last to the I jury - tonight if I could get a little rebuttal here - I just wantod i to point out one thing that as far as this estate is concerned ani �ias my partner, Mrs . Holmberg, who is out of town this evening and 11that is why you happen to have me here instead of her - as far as I can determine, this is not a money making proposition for any of i I ithe people involved in the estate and I think that the folks who i !I i Bare here this evening who are familiar with Mrs . Palmer' s financial circumstances during her lifetime know that she was burdened with ` {,debts, in fact, she had judgements taken against her. It is our I i I primary aim to pay these debts off. If we can't get this property ! iIsold we are not going to be able to it folks , Thank you. ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Anyone else who wishes to be heard? fMS. VAN ORDER: My name is Mary VanOrder and I live at 1005 East State. T don' t have much to add except that I agree with my neigh- i j;bors. I live up the street you know R East State Street has becom I1kind of a slum place . It' s moving up all the time, nearer to our 1Ihome. Thank you. �ICHAIRMAN WEAVER: Anyone else who wishes to be heard? There are sdme letters and they will be read into the record now. ISECRETARy HOARD: The first letter is from Beatrice MacLeod. "To j The Board of Zoning Appeals : As a resident of the 900 block of � East State Street, I wish to register my feeling that no variances should be granted which would allow this area to deteriorate from j �i . I hits one-family home pattern. The appeal wh%ch you are now con [ sidering, i,f made , would not benefit any local citizen, and would j I ,encourage the degeneration which has happened to other blocks ! further down East State Street. I urge you to deny the variance . I Sincerely, Is/ Beatrice MacLeod. " (i I fl I - 17 This one is from Janice B. Conrad, 1006 E . State Street: "Dear Mr.1 lWeaver, This evening you will be hearing an appeal for a zoning �i I 'variance on the former Janice Palmer residence at 969 E . State. I i `cannot attend the hearing; therefore, I ask that you take this !letter into account when making your decision. I reside at 1006 E .( R State, one block up from the home at issue. We have eighteen resi-i idences in our block. Three of these residences are now being renteld I las apartments ; at least one additional has a rental unit within an 'owner-occupied residenc. e Clearly, the majority of the homes in i Ithis block were purchased as , and are now being occupied as , single i family dwellings. The present zoning , as I understand it , preserves the residential nature of this neighborhood, while allowing owners jito augment their income through the rental of a room. I see no i �freason why any variance should be allowed for the former Janice I �IPalmer home . The room can still be rented as long as the main i1 lresidence is owner-occupied. 2) A variance would allow the home to! I 'be rented in the absence of a landlord. 3) There is no determinable 1hardship which. can be claimed by the present owner in not allowing f `;this variance. I request that you deny this variance . Sincerely, ii i,/s/ Janice B . Conrad, 100.6 E. State Street" and this one is from (Charles & Sigrid Peterson at 211 Water Street . "To Whom It May Concern: As residents of the neighborhood immediately adjacent to 'I� 'Ithe area under consideration at this hearing, we wish to express oux a opposition in the strongest terms to the granting of any variance I lin this instance and, more generally, to the apparent willingness ijof local authorities to cooperate in the destruction of residential I� �jneighborhoods in favor of investments in income-producing property.` (,Whatever became of the old - - America, I though idea of neigh 1 borhoods inhabited by permanent residents who assume responsibility! `;for their homes and the quality of the neighborhood? Is this town jbei.ng run by and for the ordinary taxpayer or by and for landlords? I!,The parking problems resulting from an approval in this case will bye `i I !severe since the new residents will have to park on Water Street , i `�a heavily frequented street whose steep incline already poses a j )potential hazard. Moreover, once the status of this property is I I! I P t - 18 - changed it will simply become the kind of house bought and sold by ! i landlords and inhabited by an uncontrolled number of transient students . Sincerely yours , /s/ Charles A. Peterson and Sigrid Peterson, 211 Water Street" i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We 've heard two cases, that' s our complete list for tonight. The Board will now go into executive session so if you will all excuse us . BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 131 1982 EXECUTIVE SESSION i i APPEAL NO. 1471 : MS. HAINE: I move that the Board not reconsider this appeal on the basis that the testimony heard did not contain any new evidence to support the rehearing request . MS. WARD: I second the motion. VOTE : 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Abstention i i !I I I l i I jl I' 19 i I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the Board ' j! of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1470 and 1471 on November 1 , 1982 in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, I; I New York; that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a j true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the executive session of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, ! j New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of I� my ability. j it f L.. Barbara C . Ruane Recording Secretary .i E j! SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS ry day of , 1982 i I I� Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC; STATE OF NEW YORK N o. 5 5-1650800 QUALIFIED IN TOrAr'KINS COUNT My ;IC! EXPIRES MARCH 30,194-9' i li! ' II l I I IfI) 11 ! Ii I JI' I !j jj i!