Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1983-05-02 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 2 , 1983 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPEAL NO. 1488 Robert & Beverly Myers 2 1016 W. Seneca Street ' APPEAL NO. 1488 Executive Session 5 3 ,, APPEAL NO. 1489 Frank C. Flannery 6 527 East State Street : APPEAL NO. 1489 Executive Session 17 ,. APPEAL NO. 1490 Frederick Crass WITHDRAWN �i 113 Park Place t iAPPEAL NO. 1491 Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services 18 301-315 South Geneva Street ;; APPEAL NO. 1491 Executive Session 27 '; APPEAL NO. 4-1-83 JFJ Enterprises (Mobil Oil) 28 s 920 North Cayuga Street APPEAL NO. 4-1-83 Executive Session 37 I ; APPEAL NO. 1492 JFJ Enterprises (Mobil Oil) 38 i' 920 N. Cayuga Street i ! APPEAL NO. 1492 Executive Session 50 ,'' APPEAL NO. 1493 Nell Mondy 51 130 College Avenue s APPEAL NO. 1493 Executive Session 58 ;' APPEAL NO. 1494 Charles A. Fritschler 59 125-127 N. Quarry Street . APPEAL NO. 1494 Executive Session 68 ', CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING SECRETARY 69 s i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 2 , 1983 '; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'd like to call this hearing to order. This is , a duly appointed board of zoning appeals meeting in a formal public ; hearing in several matters as listed in the formal notification. 1I would first like to identify the members of the Board: i Bette Bagnardi Donna Ward Michael Tomlan Peggy Haine !' Bea Brownell Charles Weaver, Chairman Thomas D. Hoard, Building Comm.; & Secy to the Board Barbara Ruane , Recording Secy '' The Board operates under the provisions of the City Charter of the r` City of Ithaca and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The ; Board shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct � of this hearing but the determination shall be founded upon suffi Icient legal evidence to sustain the same. We request that all I participants come forward to this microphone and identify themselves as to name and address and confine their discussions to pertinent , facts of the case under consideration. Please avoid extraneous ,; material which would have a delaying effect. If in the middle of ; someone ' s statement - someone friendly to that view wants to ad ! lib, to do so from your position seated in front of us will be ;, totally ineffective in that the only recording device we have is ! " up front here and we will later try to transcribe that tape and I can' t do it unless you are up here and properly identified. The `; cases will be heard in the order in which they are listed on the i official notification. We' ll have the first case. In the matter i of order tonight, for your information, the first appeal listed is ! I� j - 2 - ,appeal number 4-1-83 in regard to a sign variance. There is also a s ;!zoning appeal on the same property listed on the second page of the ; ;notice and the chair will change the sequence of hearing so that .those two are heard at the time of the second listing so we won' t ;have a sign appeal at one time and then hear other cases and then 1jcome back to the same property for that so 4-1-83 will be heard ;Just ahead of appeal no. 1492 . So now the first case is appeal fio. 1488. 4SECRETARY HOARD: We also have had an appeal withdrawn. Appeal no . i 1490 , the appeal of Frederick Crass for a use variance at 113 Park Place was withdrawn by Mr. Crass ' s attorney earlier this evening. !The first case to be heard is appeal number 1488 : Appeal of Robert and Beverly Myers for an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30 . 25; Column 13 for a deficient sideyard setback to permit an addition to the existing retail stork at 1016 West Seneca Street (Ithaca Pain & Decorating) . The property is located in a b-4s !P (business) use district, in which the existin ' use as a retail store is permitted; however, under Section 30. 49 the appellants must obtain ; an area variance for the listed deficiency before a building permit can be issued for the ' addition. i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Introduce yourself and go right ahead. f NR. MYERS: I 'm Bob Myers . I live at R.D. #1 Richford and my wife *nd I are the owners of 1013 W. State Street and the adjoining ;property at 1016 W. Seneca Street. The present building, Ithaca ;paint & Decorating at 1013 W. State Street is in non-compliance i! presently because we are within a foot from the property line which :; p.djoins the flood control project or the inlet. Because of this 'non-compliance we have to apply for a variance in order to supplement i bur parking situation. We have a problem with parking in our park- Qng lot because we also unload trucks in the same parking lot . Are ; - 3 - you looking at the drawing or are you familiar with the property or, do you want to know anything else? t s CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Each of the members has this drawing in their = packet. i "MR. MYERS: Well the trucks come in beside the store and unload there and completely block the parking lot . We are proposing to i ; add to the back of the building and put in a receiving room which ";°:would be the leg that sticks out the farthest and have a separate s idriveway which would also join the house next door and be able to 1put trucks in there specifically to unload the trucks and not in- �f i � terfere with the parking lot . There also is a small or an additional ! warehouse area adjoining that which will just be for cold storage i,iot things like carpet and so on things that we don' t need to keep "warm. The structure will be within eight feet of the house for a ? ! short space and we will also provide parking for the house. The !;house - we would like to leave there - it ' s a decent structure 1although it ' s rather old, it 's worth saving and we are using it as eIa one-family dwelling and we are renting it right now, I guess !fthat basically covers it. We need the extra space for parking quito '`badly. it l dMS. WARD: You own the house? I oIMR. MYERS: Yup. My wife and I . IMS. WARD: Okay. There is a trailer, a big semi that is back here covering what looks like two parking spaces . E ! 'MR. MYERS: Yup. =NS. WARD: Is that going to remain there? 'SIR. MYERS: Nope. We can get rid of it once we have. , . 4 NS. WARD: And the parking spaces that you are saying that you have; ;,twelve or fourteen are they included where the semi is sitting? 4 MR. MYERS: Yup. MS . WARD: What is in that semi , anything? MR. MYERS: Carpet , pad . . . i MS. WARD: So you use that to store things now? ,MR. MYERS: Yes . j 'CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any other questions from the Board? ;SMR. MYERS: There was one question, the Planning Boad had. They ''looked at the number of parking spaces and noticed that it was 'deficient by one space. I forgot to count the unloading space for `;the truck which was the whole reason for having this . So the ;;spaces are in compliance. ',CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Alright. a ,'MS . WARD: One other question. Nothing will be held in that un- ;loading spot permanently will it , I mean that semi won' t be sitting! Over there - that will be just an unloading spot for just in and :!out? �s !,MR. MYERS: Oh yes . Can I show you on the diagram? j j 'MS. WARD: Right here, is where I mean, you won' t be bringing anything like that semi permanently in this area? MR. MYERS : Oh no. No the trailer is going to be sold. !,CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on ',!,this matter? Anyone opposed? W'e ' ll have the next case please. �i 1` i i - 5 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 2, 1983 { EXECUTIVE SESSION ,,APPEAL NO. 1488 : i ,':' The Board considered the appeal of Robert and Beverly Myers for '. an area variance to permit an addition to the existing retail stord at 1016 West Seneca Street (Ithaca Paint & Decorating) . The de- of the Board was as follows : MS. WARD: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1488 . MR. TOMLAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: i '11) The existing deficiency is not exacerbated by the new addition! 2) There are practical difficulties in complying with regulations ; for side yard requirements that may be overlooked without changing the character of the district due to the size of the I lot. i SVOTE: 3 yes : 2 No; 1 Absent ' The vote was 3 to 2 ; therefore the motion fails and the requested ; variance was denied. I i; i r �I �! t I ii 1 i i 3 4 i - 6 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 2 , 1983 ;''SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1489 : Appeal of Frank C. Flannery for an area variance i under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25 , Columns 6 , r 11 and 12 for deficiencies in minimum lot size , minimum front yard setback and minimum setback for one sideyard, to permit conversion of the existing doctor' s office at 527 East State Street to additional bedrooms for an existing apartment . The property is located in an R-3a (multiple dwelli ing) use district, in which the existing use as an apartment building is permitted; however, under; Section 30 . 49 the appellants must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the conversion. MR. FLANNERY: Good evening , I 'm Frank Flannery and I 'm acting on i ' behalf of myself and Mrs. Kingsley who still owns the building at 527 E. State Street and we would like to buy the building and then ; ! turn - convert the doctor' s office - combine the doctor' s office �iwith the first floor studio apartment into one apartment . All the ; i grooms would be of sufficient size to meet the housing code and j; enough light and ventilation. In the conversion we are - we will be able to supply the necessary parking spaces to meet the Housing ; . Code we feel that the office - it would be very difficult to rent l ' ! as a doctor' s office because of the limitation on size and locatio4 distance from the hospital . We contacted a local realtor and I ; obtained his opinion of this, this past week, and he was nice ( enough to write me this letter concerning that . The house , as :, noted by Mr. Hoard, is in a multiple housing area and so we should n' t have any problem there. That ' s basically all we have to do . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions from the Board? } '' MS. BAGNARDI : How many cars can be parked maybe you said that, but I didn' t hear. 7 MR. FLANNERY: We ' ll have provisions for six parking spaces when we get through. There is parking spaces for three cars now and we will add parking spaces for three more cars . i i: MS. HAINE : Where will you put them? MR. FLANNERY: In the back yard - we' ll crib out from Elston Place '; '; and provide them there - which is common on East Hill . HAINE: Is that plot (unintelligible) ? MR. FLANNERY: No, the back yard drops off anywheres from three to 1 five feet and - but we would be able to come out level with the street and - it would be a pull in and back out type of thing. ;; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions from the Board? Thank you. ;; Anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this matter? Anyone ;; who wishes to speak in opposition of this matter? `,i MS. HARTMANIS: I 'm Elly Hartmanis , I own the house just below the `', proposed Flannery residence, and I am absolutely flabbergasted to ;; hear tonight that he will be able to meet parking requirements , I ;:would like to know how, because his back yard is a gully that is anywhere from four to ten feet deep off Elston Street. I as a of `;property owner was not notified of this. I was notified of the fact that this building was being changed to this particular use `but parking was never even mentioned in the description that was ;'; sent out and I - it was my understanding that a full disclosure had !to be made of everything that affected the neighborhood. My house ' Itis the only one that is directly and very much so affected by this: '`particular request for a variance because it seems to me that when ' ''Mr. Flannery says the ground is dropping off between three and five ' £eet, it is just not so . I have been out there this afternoon and !1I have taken pictures which I will send around so people can see . j I am standing there and the level of the street is at my head I ) - 8 - ; am 512" tall and quite apart from that the lot is lowest where it is closest to my house . At that point it is about ten feet away - from the living room of my lower apartment which has a - all of i ;; the windows of which are facing this particular back yard which ;;would mean that my particular tenant would be looking out at exact-! i ly at floor level at the car that was parked ten feet away from his i ;!living room window. And I don' t think that that is particularly ;nice, nor is it in keeping with the neighborhood. We have a nice I `!little enclave there and by the way, I would like to mention this As not a city street that this street is maintained by the owners i Wand that when I purchased this property about eight years ago I .'lowered the level of the street by about a foot because there was `so much drainage from State Street down Elston Place and from the ;:other properties that have also parking on the east side of Elston,j looking north, that there was a foot of mud in the garage at the ;very bottom of Elston Street which we shoveled out and then after 'I lowered the grade and provided proper drainage we have been ;reasonably moisture free. However I do claim that the (unintell . ) !in parking which would obviously block the water flow towards my !house would impact me greatly. I 'm very willing to answer any ,;questions . I 've also made a little map showing here how the run- ;toff occurs and . . . i ;:'.CHAIRMAN WEAVER: May we keep the pictures and the map for the !lrecord? ;SIRS. HARTMANIS: Yes , please. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from the Board? Bette do you have a question's i MS. BAGNARDI : No. ';CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Is there anyone elsewho wishes to i I 9 - speak in opposition? MR. SCHULER: I 'm George Schuler, I live at 110 Ferris Place which is the next city street up from the property in question on the same side of State Street. I also have an office directly opposite + the property in question at 526 E. State Street where I practice ;'psychology. There is another psychologist and a social worker in Ithe same office. There was a physician, a psychiatrist until his ;retirement a few years ago . Since the Planning Board meeting I is '!have become aware of several things I wasn' t aware of before and ;!one is that Mr. Flannery does not own this property for which he i i ,, is requesting a variance. My understanding of the regulations that ;;permit variances is that in the event that a hardship or need is shown, the variance can be considered. Now I don't know how a ;;hardship can exist if you don't own the property here, and if Mr. ,'Flannery is claiming a hardship and he buys the property, it will be a self created hardship. iCHAIRMAN WEAVER: Mr. Schuler, I don' t think there is a use vari- f ;lance being requested . . . and a hardship claim is not required. �s `'MR. SCHULER: I see, well then - I 'm glad you said that , then, I 'm i ' sorry. Mr. Flannery has pointed out that he feels it would be E ;;difficult to rent this property as a doctor ' s office because of I e its distance from the hospital , and because single physician prac, ` tice is not the mode of operation these days , On East Hill - on E Seneca Street there is an office where a social worker and a i` psychologist practice, that' s at 608 E. Seneca, there is a physicia� ! at 428 E. Seneca, there is my office which I described, there is a f ;,veterinarian further up at 1005 E. State , a group of social workers; 'looked on East Hill on E. Seneca with plans to open an office - i ;they subsequently did on S. Geneva Street . If we go up a little I i i' I 10 - ifurther on Cornell Walk there is a physician and on Oxford Place I ;:there has been practicing a social worker. So I don' t know how I hard the people have tried to rent this office as a professional { 'practice - I spoke with a colleague this morning about whether or f ; not she would be interested in looking at the place in terms of i i !'considering it for a practice and she said she would. So I feel that the variance to convert the doctor' s office to apartments ;should not be granted. I think it will increase the density, the t .regulations were made to protect us from over-development - we live] in a residential area that borders on this property and I would notl %like to see the density increase because the property doesn' t meet !' the requirements for the amount of land required around it. This ijs '' important to us , we like to see green space preserved - we don' t ;;have much of it and that' s another reason that I oppose granting of !' this variance. I s ;; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Just a moment. Are there any questions from thel j i' Board? i .i ? MS . BAGNARDI : You mentioned a physician' s office on Cornell Walk. R He doesn' t practice from his home? M MR. SCHULER: His address listed in the phone book is 6 Cornell Wall. I FMS. BAGNARDI : I guess my question is directed to operating physi i i cian' s offices in that particular area - and in Cornell Walk it would be a residence and not an office. MR. SCHULER: Well if you look in the yellow pages , he lists his i i ;; office at 6 Cornell Walk and the one on E. Seneca, lists his office �, at 428 E. Seneca. i 1 IMS. BAGNARDI : Who is the one on E. Seneca? MR. SCHULER: That' s Kraut and on Cornell Walk, it is Hamlisch. i 1 MS . BAGNARDI : Thank you very much. c i I ,; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to i speak in opposition to this appeal? I MR. COHEN: My name is Harold Cohen, I live at 108 Ferris Place 6 '' and I ' ll be very brief. I ' ll just try to supplement a few remarks ;! by Mr. Schuler. The first item I would talk about is the proposed ' r ;; parking plan. I just have one photograph. If I understand correct- ily, Mr. Flannery had originally hoped to claim that there were fout i { spaces in a garage near the property adjacent to the property lwhich belongs to the property and the space in front of it. As I i 1understand it, Commissioner Hoard was willing to concede that there ; are three spaces there . I think from this photograph, if I may pals i ; it around, will show that really there are two spaces there because ;; there ' s - you are not going to get any more cars in that garage if '1you have two cars in front of the garage and I don't think there is ;;going to be that much parking discipline that people are going to ` politely pull out from in front of the garage and let the people lout who are in the garage . This would mean if there are only two 'i '!spaces there that indeed Mr. Flannery would require four additional ;spaces in the spot where he wants to put them, not three. The II !;second thing I would talk about, I think Mr. Schuler covered, so I vi I ?will not go into it - other than to say that at least at the pre- j vious hearing I did not see any numbers to support any type of hardl- !;ship but I gather that may not be involved here for Mr. Flannery. e Mrs . Hartmanis covered the drop off ranging from eight to ten feet Ito three feet. It looks to me with my untrained eye - an incredibl-y ' difficult project and fairly expensive and would cause possible P; damage to her property. One last point that I would make on the usle `of it as a doctor' s office, I really think there is a limited imag-j ,ination being shown here- my field is health administration and j i 12 - there are a number of new professions coming into existence beside4 ; doctors and dentists that might want to use this property. Mr. i Schuler is a psychologist, there is a psychiatric social worker th4t works with him, there are new disciplines now such as marriage ; counseling, I hope I am not being too threatening here - obesity ; therapy, all types of nutrition therapy - that could go into this ;;place. I don' t think we 've at all looked into this . I think that ',s gall I have to say, I ' ll answer any questions . :+CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions from the Board? Thank you. ` MS. COHEN: My name is Ginger Cohen, actually Helen Cohen - I live 'at 108 Ferris Place which is within the 200 ' limit which is why we ';were notified. We are the boundary property of a R-2a zone which we are trying very hard to protect through the existing zoning laws. i ','It is my understanding that the basic purpose of the zoning laws is! i ' to control density. Trying to avoid additional people and worse , i ;the additional cars which might be parked there. Ours is a quiet !,little street, most of the people are home owners , they are owner- occupied homes , there is families on the block with lots of childre# our own back yard and that of Dr. Schuler ' s family overlook this Particular place where he wants to put the cars . I would much '!rather see children shooting basketballs or just green space rather ' :than asphalt. I 'm not crazy about putting in more asphalt . I also ! Iinderstood from the records that another person in the area who had lbeen notified, Sandra Stein, had written a letter and I think that would like to have that letter and the Realtor' s letter which he presented to you, read for us if that is appropriate but I don't a !know the regulations . . . 'CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We will during the hearing . SIS. COHEN: Okay. Basically we don' t need more cars , we don' t need ! i 13 - -more people . All the cars come and park on our street because we : are the first street up - everybody sees there are no cars there i they will park theirs there - right across our driveways . = CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from the Board? Thank ydu ,' come forward. ;;MRS . SCHULER: My name is Nancy Schuler, I live at 110 Ferris Place,, I 'm also one of the two aldermen from this neighborhood. Before I i ''begin I thought of another practitioner on East Hill and she - it ' s ;;Martha Walgo who handles eating disorders and that' s on Spring ;;Street off of Buffalo, so there ' s another practitioner. Green i :,space is at a premium on East Hill - all of East Hill . We have no desire to exchange the front lawns for cars just to get the cars ;;off the street. East Hill was designed in the horse and buggy era which later became a one family house with one car. Now you have i !:that one house that had a family of four before and it could have i ;:four people in it with four cars . East Hill doesn' t need more beds; ;';which equal more cars , more noise , more garbage and more dogs . I I ';would urge you not to grant this . Thank you. 'itHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in oppo !, sition to this? Mr. Flannery you asked for some rebuttal time and we need to get all of the first round here into the record so we lhave letters to come and then if you do, I want to try to make sure] ';this hearing will get through by midnight so I ' ll expect your re- ';�marks to be very brief. ;SECRETARY HOARD: The first letter we have is from Sandra G. Stein wwho owns the property just up State Street from this one, "Dear ;;Board Members : I am not concerned about the proposed use as re- ;;quested in the variance. However, I do have serious concerns about; ', off-street parking. As I understand it, the zoning ordinance re- quires a minimum of five parking spaces for the proposed use. 14 - i :! Currently, there are two spaces available and these are undersized ; and tight. While there is more land available on the property, '' that land is not now accessible nor usable for parking . Elston ; Place, which is a private street located on my property, adjoins the east edge of the appellant ' s property. However, this drive '! is some 8 feet or so above the appellant ' s lot and is lined by a vertical concrete retaining wall . At the other side of the appel- i lant ' s lot, to the west, access can only be achieved by obtaining ,fan easement across private land. There is a structure at the rear ; ':'border, so access is not available from that direction, either. Arid 1. ;; finally, the appellant has a garage on the lot , and this also ' blocks access to the rear land. Therefore, off-street parking is ''' serious problem. While the land for parking appears to exist on ;; the maps , it is not in fact accessible, because of the topography of the site and the placement of structures . Consequently, granting this variance without requiring the actual provision of additionall, ; off-street parking will cause problems for adjacent properties and ; Rothe neighborhood. As noted above , I am not against the proposed 11 ruse, but I strongly recommend that any approval of the variance be ' + made contingent upon the construction of the required amount of iaccessible off-street parking places on the site. Sincerely, /s/ Sandra G. Stein" The other letter is from Kevin P. O'Brien, IlVice President and Licensed Real Estate Broker of Warren Real Es- ! tate. "Dear Mr. Flannery: In accordance with your request I have !: inspected the property at S27 E. State Street, Ithaca, N.X. It is ; ,my opinion that the building would have little market value as a doctor' s office. There are several factors which negate the value ' of this property. The most limiting factor is the square footage 'sof the office. All of the professional clients I asked would re- i i 15 - ';, quire substantially more than 800 square feet. The location is t ' another factor which limits the value . Lack of on-street parking i E`; and its location on the State Street hill are serious draw backs . 'i Please let me know if I may be of further assistance. Sincerely, j /s/ Kevin P. O 'Brien, Vice President $ Licensed Real Estate Broker.!" MR. FLANNERY: With regard to Mrs. Hartmanis 's remarks at the lower: ; end of the property, it comes up and it only does actually drop off ' about three feet when you come down from Elston Place. Elston Pla�e is cribbed presently with railroad ties , okay? So to continue that ,. cribbing out in the yard is not really going to change the appear- I ance of the property. The abutment - the concrete abutments , I : think, that somebody referred to is part of the garage and the back 'yard built up of Mrs . Kingsley' s house. The fact that she is con- `fcerned about looking out of the yard at cars there is cars 1parked across the street that belong to the other house within twelve 'or eighteen feet of the proposed parking that I would like to put z ':there. As far as there only being two parking spaces now as Mrs . !Cohen, or Mr. Cohen, pointed out there are two spaces in front of !;the garage and the garage , I believe, according to Mr. Hoard, countjs .as a third space but we would easily be willing to - and can s i. provide three more spaces. This cribbing that I am proposing will ,,be approximately twenty-four feet to provide three parking spaces -` I i `!twenty-four feet wide by twenty feet deep and at twenty feet deep �! the lot will have to be brought up approximately five feet at the ;,highest point so the lot does drop off considerably more than that ;;but that drop off is up near the house - it is not back in the back; ;;corner of the property where I propose to put the parking. We do ffeei that it would be hard to rent as a medical office because of '.the - as Mr. O'Brien pointed out the limited square feet and Dr. I I 16 - ;;Kingsley practiced there for many years alone and how many physi- cians , pediatricians or other type of physicians - which is - this 'is zoned for a physician or zoned as medical or dental and when I ,read that it appeared to me that it was a medical office or a dental -office and it just - when you say there are other doctors in private ;!practice alone - there are other doctors - I ' ll grant you that - but Jmost of the physicians that do practice - do practice in group jpractices . They practice either on East Hill or down in the north end - that seems to be where the dental offices are. The water !''flow - Mrs . Hartmanis mentioned that the back yard was a swamp. '.!There is a drainage problem there but that could easily be tiled :and drained off to the back corner of the property which falls off to the creek and that won' t be any problem as far as the parking ;;because that will be built up with crushed stone and the proper i '!materials to provide the parking. That basically, I guess , is all the rebuttal I have . Do you have any questions? ;CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. 'Yes . '!MR. SCHULER: I want to deal again with the medical/dental office ;!statement . The - this Board, and excuse me if I 'm redundant, you !probably know this but I think it warrants statements - this Board 'has interpreted the use of a medical/dental office to include an ;office for psychiatric social workers and I imagine that that de- 1finition can also be expanded to include psychologists or social (workers or fat counselors if need be , so rental to a physician or :!a dentist is not strictly limited, as I understand it, to such rental . e else? Next case. ':!CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Anyon i i 17 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK May 2 , 1983 EXECUTIVE SESSION 'APPEAL NO. 1489: 1MS. HAINE: I move that the Board deny the area variance re- quested in appeal number 1489. !'MR. TOMLAN: I second the motion. ,iFINDINGS OF FACT: �"l) The proposed variance would alter the character of the neigh- borhood. There were no demonstrated practical difficulties shown in pro-1 viding for a wide range of similar professional offices or activities in the area. !,VOTE: 2 Yes ; 3 No ; 1 Absent J489B : 1AS. WARD: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in appeal no. 1489B. ii ;IMS. BAGNARDI : I second the motion. ;1FINDINGS OF FACT: 'il) The deficiencies are existing deficiencies . :i2) The use will not exacerbate the side and front yard deficienciels . ;i'3) This variance is granted upon the condition that the property be put into full compliance with the off-street parking regu- lations . (VOTE: 3 Yes ; 2 No ; 1 Absent ''In that both the motion to grant and the motion to deny have each ;;failed to gain the necessary number of votes , each motion fails ; i .;therefore the request for a variance is denied. 18 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 2 , 1983 % SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1491 : Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services for a use variance under Section 30. 25, Column 2 , and an area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 4 , 11j and 12 for deficiencies in off-street parking and minimum front yard setback for two front yards to permit conversion of the existing public school at 301-315 South Geneva Street (Henry St. John Elemen- tary School) to twelve apartments , offices for non- profit community services agencies , and a community use room. The property is located in a P-1 (Public and Institutional) use district, in which the pro- posed uses for community services are permitted; however the appellants must obtain a use variance for the proposed apartments and, under Section 30. 491 must also obtain an area variance for the listed fl deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the conversion. "MR. BROUWER: My name is Steve Brouwer of Ithaca Neighborhood Hous- 'iing Services at 520 W. Green Street, Ithaca. I do have some schema;- ,'tic plans here which I put up on the bulletin board for the Rlannin 1Board. Do you think they would be helpful for this discussion? i ''CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well give me just a moment. lMR. BROUWER: I think the plan you have has a site plan on it , but ';not a building schematic . . . ;'CHAIRMAN WEAVER: What you are proposing are extentions , alterations , i .change in height , area . . . i iNR. BROUWER: No change to the buidling structure itself, simply t ;;explaining the uses in the building, if you think it would be help- i; ful. I can do that verbally if you think that ' s . . . ;CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I don' t think it ' ll help us or harm us to des- cribe it - I think it will merely take up your time and energy. !MR. BROUWER: Okay. As you may know, INHS put in a proposal to buy; 3the St. Johns School building from the Ithaca School District on i i 19 - t' I I the fifth of January. Our proposal was the only one received by i the School District. They had had twenty other people pick up the : i proposal - but no one else chose to submit one . We - our proposal ; ; for the building was to have twelve apartments located on the upper two floors of the building , twelve spacious apartments averaging :' over one thousand square feet each which we intended for small ' families and senior citizens in the smaller apartments . The - also ! on the first and second floor of the building is a gymnasium in tho middle of the building that goes two stories in height and we have ; ;;proposed to keep that as a community use space. Not trying to ;;develop it perhaps for its full economic value but to keep it as +,,something useful to the neighborhood and the community for limited ; ;,source of activities that don' t impinge too much on the tenants :living in the building. So far there is very strong interest from 1 it ;;the YMCA in doing some after school programs downtown in this gym iiand other groups have contacted us about using the gymnasium as 'Iwell . The basement of the building is not really suitable for hous- Iing. It is a finished space - it' s used as classroom space by the ;;school right now and in this space we felt that - from an economic 4i ;;point of view that the building is going to be expensive to rehab- I 1�ilitate and we would need to put that basement space to some use I ';that brought in some income because the rental at definitely the i ;;lower end of the market to community service groups , for offices , `;for other kinds of activities they might undertake was probably j lthe best use we could put it to - both T think in - because it goes, ;along with our priorities and also goes along with would be of ';some use to the neighborhood and neighbors living in the block. The kinds of people that have contacted us about that kind of space �! 1 ;;already are - day care center - library reading room - senior citi-� ,. 41:zens activity room for senior men - and limited office space. The 1 20 - 'grounds around the building are quite large - there is a park on i , the south side of the building - a playground - there is a school ,playground that is also used by the neighbors who live thereabouts .; ' We propose to keep that playground in existence so we will probably ;;remove some of the more deteriorated structures particularly bor- dering the DeJohn' s house on the south end of the property - very close to their back yard. But try to maintain some play equipment ;for the people in the building but also for the neighborhood as i ; well . The parking lot would be on the east side of the building, 9accessible from Clinton Street. We felt that all vehicle traffic ishould come from Clinton Street onto the land - not from Geneva Street which is a quiet - very nice residential street and that i (Sparking - we would try to landscape and otherwise make as nice as owe possibly can from a visual point of view. In terms of the vari ;fiances that we are asking for I might mention up front that we have ialready been through extensive meetings with the school reuse com- i imittee, we 've had a large public meeting of the St . John' s school j ;building and we 've had a very favorable response to the use of the : ' building that we 've suggested for the building. The reuse committele I 11has voted unanimously for us to go ahead. The Board of Education ' ii !;has given us preliminary okay for us to buy the property. The , in terms of the variances we need I think the side lot the front ' i> :,yard deficiencies are very minor and probably not a problem on such, `,la large property. There is a very large area of land to go with thje 1building quite appropriate for it, In terms of the use of vari- Eance for the R--3 or the apartments I think it ' s - we talked ahead olf i ; time with the planning Department and the Building Department about; their preferences and we agreed with them totally that by getting ,' a variance for the specific use of the apartments that this was inj i i 21 - a sense better than getting a total rezoning of the land - that is if we got the R-3 approved for the twelve apartments , we said speci - fically that only twelve apartments were going to be in this build-1 ing - that were large, they were for families , and that the property . should be locked into that for a long period of time, that it was ;' owned. If it were to be rezoned as an R-3 area which the rest of the 6area around the building is , except on Cayuga Street, then that would allow at some time , if anybody wished to - to divide up the ;'building into as many apartments as would fit in the building and -' ; you know if you could get forty studios in there - it might be that; " - and even because of the size of the lot it might be possible to ;;build a new building on the lot and add some more residential prop-; . erties - obviously unsuited to we felt that was unsuited to what ,h ,:was going on on Geneva Street already the nice residential area ('that it is . We are a neighborhood group first and foremost and one; .hof our big reasons for buying the building was a fear that the only' ;�jbuyer that might come forward would be a commercial buyer of the `building and develop this building as office space - the whole thing that would be cheaper than downtown and fill it up fast „ and thi� ;Haas felt bad for the immediate neighborhood and probably for down- ,town business as well . In regards to the basement use for community jservice groups that seems to be quite appropriate - it has - its ,'antecedence - its been done before with other buildings in town dike the side of Central School that now is occupied by GIAC and !SOC is done under that sort of assumption. It is quite appropriate ' for community service organizations to be able to move into a p-1 ;building and rent or occupy that building. The last thing I might Invention in regard to the area variance for parking is that I suppose I 'tae - the parking for the housing and for the 'basement would come up , I I 22 - I to forty-four spaces . The - if we were to have done something life i' put four big apartments in the gym we would have had to add only four more spaces to meet compliance with area parking requirements ' i but because we want to be able to keep the gym as something useful - to the neighborhood and whatever fees we receive for that will i really be just enough to help defray heating costs and maintenance ' I : costs on the building. I think we would hope that the Board would '; see adding the gym space as something that is a part time use - thaJt ;;something is a gesture of goodwill on the part of Neighborhood !Housing Services to serve the area and that it would look kindly on !tour request to have fifty-four total parking spaces on the land. dWe - if you consider that if the accessory use of the gym was to !be considered full regular use the full requirement of parking lion the land would be sixty-six spaces . No doubt people are worried ;,about parking everywhere in the city - we simply think in this case, I. I;that the trade- off that we - having some extra landscaping and j ;green space so that it isn' t one continuous asphalt slab that runs hall the way from Clinton Street past the whole east side of the -'building - that if we were to reduce the requirement to fifty-four I I I 'it would be quite a high amount of parking for a downtown building very few other buildings supply themselves with that kind of ij ,;parking. And that would be sufficient for the kinds of uses that i Hare there some of which are not going to take place all at the same] --time during the day. If there is afternoon or evening Y event in '-the gym that a few more cars come to, some of the other uses won' t be using their parking spaces. The r T guess that' s about it. If i dyou have any questions . . . !!MS. HAINE: I have a question. How are you going to restrict the ,,tenancy to families? i 1 I, V 23 - i MR. BROUWER: How are we going to restrict the tenancies to familigs? : Our - we have a few rental properties now - very dilapidated proper�- " ties - four and five unit properties that we have bought and are i now rented out and are back on the tax rolls - tenants for these :. properties are selected by a neighborhood tenant committee that is , .; made up of volunteer members of Neighborhood Housing, half of them !: . home owners and half of them tenants in the southside and northsidq ;; and they - we have written up criteria for people who get prefer- ence for apartments and it ' s our feeling that families face a very ; `hard time in this town getting decent priced and good quality apart- . iments and that since we are trying to serve the people who live in our area - that ' s a good criteria to go on - so that' s simply one I ;!of the criteria that we have made - that someone can be made prefer- "ence for because they are a family. It doesn' t mean that there is ! i an absolute ban on renting to a student or students but as long as ; there are neighborhood residents - families coming forward interestjed i'in the apartments , we rent to them first. . MS. HAINE: What about single people who aren' t students? z 1MR. BROUWER: Oh, that ' s not problem - that wouldn' t, I don't think' ;;keep them out of contention for a place. There is preference for :long term residents - there is also preference if you have been a :neighborhood resident of northside or southside first . But there ! is no absolute ban on it . ,'' MS . HAINE : I 'm just curious . How many properties does Neighborhooa t' ' Housing Services operate as rental? IiMR. BROUWER: We are operating six properties right now. ;MS . HAINE: And how many units in all , do you know? JIMR. BROUWER: In those there are twenty-three units . S. BROWNELL: With respect to parking , I note in your paper work i I 24 - here that if you find that you are over-loading you will use the basketball courts? MR. BROUWER: That was what the Planning Board suggested. I did not bring that up as our first choice - I would still ask you maybe: to change that - if you feel some remedy should be available later,, I would hope it could be that we could have review at some point at ,which time we have received complaints as a neighborhood organization ;wouldhave to be responsive to or the Building Department will , I 'm sure, hear those complaints and then it could be brought back here ' ;;and said - that fifty-four doesn' t seem to be enough places - let 's' +',up the number. If this Board doesn' t feel that it should go with the fifty-four, I would hope that we could do that rather than saying {the basketball court has to be parking, at this point. It would bei ;'nicer to say, can there be a redress later and we can agree that, !yes there does have to be more parking. MS. BROWNELL: What you are hoping is that the twelve spaces that dare allotted to apartments those people will probably go off to ;work and take their cars with them while the offices are open. ;;When the offices are shut, then the apartment people will come back' j!and use those spaces . 'MR. BROUWER: Well the office requirement is thirty-two and the f ,!apartments are twelve. HMS. BROWNELL: And they will be closed at night so . . . ';'MR. BROUWER: Yes , they will be closed at night. I think - it ' s not likely that really all the basement space is going to be strict ly office space. There is going to be some uses that are less ;dense than that - that don' t have an exact definition under the :;Zoning Ordinance. iMR. TOMLAN: I would like, if possible, to reserve the right to 25 - review those drawings at a later point. -CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I don't want to frustrate either of you and the .'drawings we can have right now, can' t we? ` MR. TOMLAN: Well if you would like to move along that ' s fine but !' I would just like to see them later. ;`;CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Can we have them for our executive session - the ';drawings so that if there is any question? iAR. BROUWER: Sure, as long as I get them back. :; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We ' ll sign a receipt . MR. BROUWER: Okay. !; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions? Alright thank you. Is ;' there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this proposition?i OCome forward. ' MS. SHOLEEN: My name is Dorothy Sholeen, I live at 206 N. Titus ,;which is right around the corner from the Henry St . John building ; and I am chairperson of our neighborhood committee to establish a ( reading room in one of the basement rooms and I 've been active in ; that school as my children have gone there, from the start , and we (:moved to the neighborhood because of the school and the way the neighborhood is at this time , and I would encourage the Board to `` allow the reduced parking spaces . It is not uncommon for the area ; ;' neighbors to use this playground and all of its space to meet each ; :Mother for picnics , and we send our children freely over there to play and meet other kids , etc. and it is more of a neighborhood { park for us , for the summer and after school and in the summer '; evening hours it is nice. We would like to see as much of that ! aspect remain intact as possible. And I just wanted to say for the !; neighborhood that we are very pleased that Neighborhood Housing will be rehabilitating the building because we feel they really P i 26 - have a proven interest and a sensitivity to the southside neighbor hood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this ' proposition? Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the ap- plication? Come forward please. : MR. JOHNS: My name is Ralph Johns. Actually I have no - any op- ;, position pertaining to the property exception for one thing. They : have two sheds on the property and when I was first contacted I ,, called that to their attention. It has been a gathering place for , P ' teenagers for some time . They get in there and they drink, and I lget the garbage in my yard. And if they would open that up or iguarantee that that thing would be eliminated or continue to dis-- - continue I have no opposition to the property or to the apartments ) or office. Thank you sir. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak in :, opposition to this application? Is there anyone else who wishes td Abe heard on it? We ' ll have the next case. i i I '1 9 ii I! - 27 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK i MAY 2 , 1983 EXECUTIVE SESSION ,APPEAL NO. 1491 : j ,,The Board considered the appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing i , Services to permit conversion of the existing public school at 301-1 '315 South Geneva Street to twelve apartments , offices for non-profit ,==community services agencies , and a community use room. The decisio'p ' of the Board was as follows : MR. TOMLAN: I move that the Board grant the use variance re- quested in appeal number 1491. i iMS. BAGNARDI : I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: !1) Strict application of the Ordinance would deny the building' s potential for use as it has been planned. i %2) Hardship is shown by the history of the building' s use as a school with respect to the surrounding block around the neigh- I" 4 borhood. 3) The proposed use is in keeping with the character of the area. 4) When the property was offered for sale the results of the bidding was a single bid. That $60, 000. bid is considered to be an extremely low price, indicative that it ' s potential use as within the zoning restrictions would not be economically feasible. ' I MOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Absent Use variance granted. i I I 28 - i ! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 2, 1983 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case - we are down to the combination of the two cases , I ' ll read the introductory material first. ',Appeal No. 4-1-83 : Appeal of JFJ Enterprises for a sign variance under Sections 34. 5 and 34 . 8 of the Sign Ordinance for the free-standing sign at 920 North Cayuga Street (Mobil filling station) . The property is located in an R-2b (residential) use district, and the existing sign is larger in area than permitted by the Sign Ordinance, and is located within the public right-of-way. The appellant is seeking permission j to have a sign larger than that permitted by the Sign Ordinance, and within the ten foot setback re- quirement . The existing free-standing sign has beer ordered removed by the Building Commissioner. Also appeal number 1492 : Appeal of JFJ Enterprises for a use vari—i ance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 2 to permit the addition of an auto repair business to the existing gasoline filling station business at 920 North Cayuga Street (Mobil gasoline station) . The proper-s ty is located in an R-2b use district, in which the ; proposed use is not permitted; therefore the appel- lants must obtain a use variance for the listed i deficiencies before an occupancy permit can be issued for the additional use. :; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Come forward. It seems to me that the Board will (have two clear decisions before them - to be made and that we better ,; hear the sign and be done with the sign and then all of us go on to ' the other matter. So if you will confine yourself to 4-1-83 we ' ll ; E ;; immediately follow that with the zoning problem, okay? I+MR. HINES: Yes . i' HCHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'm thinking more of the matter of record . IMR. HINES: I understand. . . i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'd like to make sure that there is not a ques- ;! tion later in the record as to what we heard about what. i '; MR. HINES: Alright. My name is Robert Hines and I represent the '' partnership known as JFJ Enterprises which partnership owns the 2dA39gA OUIIKOS 3O m0a 2A33MAH3 .IIOHUOO KOMM00 XAOY WHK AOARTI 30 YTTO L 8 Q t 4S YA14 nollanldmoo sA1 of nwob sTs ow - saso axon sdT :QAAOH YAAT3AO32 .still 1217s14sr Y7oloubo7lal ed3 bs97 It'I 4888so owl $A$ 10 eonslisv agla a Toa asalrgralaa LqL. to SssggA o% tsoggA ea.asalbTO axle ods 3o g.Al bns Z.0E enoil3e2 iebou losis2 Aguys3 Alloz OSQ is Asia gnibnsla-saT3 sdl 103 bbels*ol at XsvogoTq *dT . (aallele gallll3 fidoM) edl bas ,131ilalb sau dS-A ns at OlAd beslimmeq nadl sets ax Yogial at agla gallaixe uq soil alAIN balsoot at bag ,gonsalhx0 A312 $AS aoleatnTsq gulisee at lrtall*ggs edT .Yaw-3o-ldglT edl Xd bellIxisq Isdl nsdl Tepal Asia s aysA of -ei 13sdlse loot nel eds aldllw has taonsalb70 agi2 ,seed asd agla gnlbnssa-sail Sallaixe sdT .1asissriup .vvno1aa1mmo3 gnibliud edl Yd bevostsi belebio -lTsv esu s lot aealurrosaH LqL to IseggA :Se4l Todaun tsegga oalA edl llmrsq of S anuto0 2S.Ot nols.:)a2 Tebnu sons gallalxe edl of aaesrlaud iisgov olus as to nolsibbs dsTox OSLO is eaanr2u& nollsla snittt3 anlloasg -Togoiq-edT . (nolssse ealloaag ildoM) Seelig sguYsO edl toldw At Jolilalb eau dS-R As r..f bolsooC ai yl -Iegga aril ezoleYedl tbelllxieq son at eau beaogoiq bosalt evil 101 eoAslx$v sau s A.isldo lauM aSASI ed Asa llsrrsq -(*asquoao as sioled aelanel'lleb .oau Ufloillbbs sdl 703 bs►uaai Illw b7sog ads lsAl am of amse a 11 .bTawiol smoO :A3VA3W ZA14RIAHO issiod ew lsdl bag obam ad of - rods aioled anolai0eb rselo owl sysd of no og au 3o .IIs nadl bas axle ads dliw snob ed bins agia arts TBsd tt'ew is-14 of 3ioa7uoY eallnoo tI.iw uov 31 02 .TsjssM 7eclso eAl 4YsAo rmeldoTq galaos eAl dslw lard wollol XIelsibowal . aeY :23HIH .AM bjo3e7 10 Tallum 091 Jo a roar RallafAl WI :A3VAa1 KAMAIAHO . . .basla7obnu I :2SMIH .SIM •aeup a son at $reds lsdl slue also of eIlt b' I :AaVA3W VMRIAHO .IsAw luods blood ow 'IsAw 03 ge broae7 sd? at 151al Vol$ *til' jaeaoTq*.7 I bas asatH sxsdoA at embn YM .IdglilA :23KIH .AM edl anwo gIdaxsttl7sq doldw aselig7aing LqL as nwoal gldaisnl7aq ! 29 - the real property situated on North Cayuga Street on which is located the Mobil Gas Station which they purchased last year. The i . first matter before the Board is the application for a permit to maintain a sign on the property advertising the product to be i ':sold, the brand of the product and its price. We recognize , Mr. ;Chairman, that the existing sign is not in conformity with the re- 1 'q,uirements in the Ordinance. It overhangs the street, it' s too 4 ' large, it ' s too close to the street line and we acknowledge that . i ;;Question is what do we do about it? We note in our previous I ;matters before this Board that there are something in the neighbor-! '',hood of twenty-one gas stations in the City of Ithaca that we 've peenable to catalogue and I 'd like to submit to the Board a docu- I' g ` ment that is dated November 12th, Mr. Hoard prepared, which shows sin response to questions by me of alleged violations - and a number; of gas station and other properties with respect to signs the ;;disposition. And a number of the gas stations in the City of Ithaca. i ;'!,have received variances of one sort or another so that they could f !;continue the use of their signs and one of the points that I wish Ito make is simply that we would like to be treated the way others ;'have been treated and be permitted to maintain our sign in some ,i i Imanner - possibly not exactly the way it is , but certainly not i lsubstantially different than you have permitted others to continue. ; "I draw your attention particularly to Merle Patterson' s station at s ;;North Aurora and East Buffalo Streets in which Mr. Patterson' s i I have a photo of it -- the sign overhangs the street and lies with; - well it lies right on the street line, somewhat the same as our { ;;situation and you gave him a variance. That happens to be in a iB-2b zone - business zone . Tommy Oily which is in an R-2b zone on ;West Clinton Street has a sign I have a photo of it - which over- i i i - 30 - hangs the street and lies on the street line and he was granted or she or whoever it is , I don't know who owns Tommy Oil - was granted a variance. I have photos of other gas stations in the City which had similar situations , including one which is our . property. My client tells me that it is because of the location !. of the islands which clients and pedestrians use - or automobiles . use to get to the gas pumps - it is impractical to move the posts every far in without obstructing the flow of traffic. I think that ! its what Mr. Patterson' s argument was when he asked for a variance . 'We think the same is true here . We acknowledge that the sign shouldn' t overhang the sidewalk its been doing that since 1957 , ' I think there was a matter before the Zoning Board at that time and !', somehow or other it was permitted to continue . I gave the Board a series of descending priority solutions , one of which was to turn ,! the sign 180 degrees inward - getting it off the street but leaving i ': the post where it is . Possibly having a smaller or reduced sign ;,but leaving it where it It is not a priority or preference of :ours to move the post if we can avoid it. As a matter of fact , client said if that was necessary it might be necessary just !!not to have the sign at all because you can' t have the post inwards; ; on the property. We are required by law, the federal statute , to ;advertise the price of gasoline which is being sold. We are also re uired in order to Q gain protection under the petroleum marketing ;;act to advertise the brand which we sell . There isn't any particu Mar need to have that Mobil sign at a particular location to comply ";with the law but it must be prominately displayed and the price of iigas offered for sale to the public must be prominately displayed land we think that the post is an appropriate place to do that where , it gets the most public attention. So if this Board would permit, ' I i 31 - t I would simply submit the evidence of the variances granted other i gas station properties along with the photos for your consideration and our request. I think by giving a schematic of the plan - is i I ' my letter with the descending order of preferences in the record? i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Yes . i .; MR. HINES: Allan Treman' s letter - I don't think is particularly ;' important but dated May 7 , 1957 - the standard supporting the , street which is apparently between the sidewalk and the curb shall1 be moved inside the property line - so you can tell its been there ; i ` a long time and apparently been overhanging the street for a long pretty good time without any particular adverse affect. That, i of course, was before the Sign Ordinance. I would like to submit !1for the record a number of petitions signed by various persons who ; ;! frequent the gas station. These were maintained at the station for, ; various days during the last few months so that people who trade .iat the gas station and many of whom live near there could express j ,;their interest and all of them are responding to the statement ;.that they don't have any objection to the sign at its present loca ;tion. The last item, Mr. Chairman, is simply a statement as to (what a new sign costs . I know that didn't mean very much in the ,!Byrne case but nonetheless it might be helpful in your delibera- tions. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? SIMS. HAINE: When were these variances granted that you spoke of earlier? MR. HINES : They are on the letter, I don't have I just gave the .chairman a copy the dates are within the last year or two. ;!MS. HAINE: The variances for the other stations . . . ;;MR. HINES: .From 1980 to 1982 . I don't think there has been any- `,thing this year. They've been in the last couple of years . j i i - 32 - ' MS. HAINE : I don' t recall anything. MR. HINES : No . The dates are on the sheet. MS. BROWNELL: Are they for size as well as for . . . MR. HINES : Mostly for location. The only one I think that may bel i ; a size is Tommy Oil . In the picture - that is very close to being i ,, the proper size for a residential area. The other variances deal :`with the location - that is , the sign sitting right on the street line. And the reason for that is quite obvious - the people driv- ' ing up and down the street - you want to attract their attention toi `; the fact that you are selling gasoline . So - and Merle Patterson' s' lI think is the only one in which there is a physical encroachment :; over the sidewalk and I can see why he needs it because the tanks ?, can' t get in and out without hitting a sign. We have somewhat the ;; same situation down here. MS . BROWNELL: The sign is thirty-five square feet? !MR. HINES : Whose sign? `'MS. BROWNELL : The Mobil sign is thirty-five square feet? i. MR. HINES : Thirty-five square feet, yes . I 'm not arguing that it '. ;!doesn' t exceed - we do we are required under Federal law - being ':, elibigle for the protection under the Petroleum Marketing Act - ,we have to display the brand we sell . We also have to display the ; ;;price. ilMR. TOMLAN: When was this sign installed? :EMR. HINES : The sign that is on the property now? 'MR. TOMLAN: Yes . i.MR. HINES : It was taken down and reinstalled within the past year.' When the Mobil sold the station - when Tony Sherman went out of ;'business - T think the station was closed for a period of time , The sign was removed I think in June of 1982 - I have the letter z i 33 - here somewhere in the file, and then restored almost immediately gat my instructions . There was some debate if you recall - you ,tweren' t on the Board at the time but we were trying to get a food : market facility in that property and with strenuous neighborhood opposition it was denied and we didn't pursue it any farther. There was some question as to what we were going to use the property for ; but the sign was down for a period of time - just exactly how ! long I don' t - not very long but it was down within the last year. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other Questions from the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this applica- tion? Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? 'MR. ROSENBLUM: I think Mr. Hines has stated . . . ;'; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: You have to introduce yourself and give your i " address . MR. ROSENBLUM: My name is Joseph Rosenblum, I 'm the owner of the ',property at 912 N. Cayuga Street, adjacent to the station and I 'm ;; speaking for myself and the property owners within the two hundred ; .: foot radius of the station. The applicant has the audacity to re ,:quest a variance for a single free-standing pole sign when there ;.are over forty counts of Sign Ordinance violations against him, ,excluding those signs required by law. Under the Sign Ordinance i ;'only one sign, no larger than five square feet is allowed. The signs that were in existence on 4-26-83 were one portable sign and . a hand truck for displaying cases of soda, five wall signs , includ `ing two information signs and one required by law and nine window ';signs including one information sign, five pole signs and twenty ;,ground signs , including six required by law. The pricing signs ;;that are on this free-standing pole structure are not required by law and not all stations in the City of Ithaca have them. The only! I ;signs that are required by law are the ones that are on the pumps 34 - and no others , exhibiting clearly what the price of the gasoline is . The total sign areas are approximately one hundred fifty feet ' (square) instead of five , and all signs except those required by ! law or in compliance with the Sign Ordinance should be removed. With reference to the applicants request for the variance for the Mobil sign, it is not set back from the sidewalk but actually over ) hangs the sidewalk. This one sign alone is seven times larger tharl ;; the one sign permitted by the Sign Ordinance and the free-standing; ;,pole structure on which it is mounted is not set back ten feet from !; any street right-of-way as required. In addition the pole struc- ': ture has three additional signs about ten square feet in area ;!mounted thereon and it is recommended that the pole structure and ; .all signs mounted thereon be removed as ordered by the Building `Commissioner. The reference is the Sign Ordinance Section 34. 8-A. ;'There also exists another free-standing pole structure on the same scorner of the property with two floodlights and an additional sign s :mounted thereon which does not have the setback required by the Zoning Ordinance and I refer to Section 30. 34 .B. This structure tshould also be removed and not allowed to remain. The Zoning Ordi- i nance states that all pre-existing violations should be brought ;`into comformance. With reference to Mr. Hines remakrs - the Patter;- -son station cited is in a B-2b zone and not in an R-2b zone. Busi-s i �nesses which are non-conforming such as this station, do not belong; i`'in a residential zone and therefore do not enjoy the same rights as' those in a business zone . As stated before the advertising of the ,price on the pumps are the only signs required by the Agriculture `'and Marketing law. As Mr. Hines stated, the sign was removed in ;1981 and it was rotated and re-erected, rotated 180 degrees with i 'full knowledge of the intent of violation of the Sign Ordinance. i f' i i 35 - ' I haven' t seen the list of signatures of the people that he has acquired in the store but a week or two ago I noticed some signa- tures were there from Brooktondale and outlying areas and not from ) the immediate vicinity. I have signatures of people of the prop , erty owners and of the residents who are opposed to this . i ; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from the Board? ;MR. TOMLAN; You stated at the outset that you represented a body ' or a number of people within two hundred feet of the location. :! Could you give me some idea of how many? MR. ROSENBLUM: There are over thirty-five property owners within i ,: the two hundred foot radius of that station. iMR. TOMLAN: And how many would you say that you represent - do ;: you have signatures there . . . MR. ROSENBLUM: I don' t represent any of them. I am speaking on their behalf. I represent myself and speaking on behalf of all thd, others . I do have signatures if the Board wishes of about forty , ,: or fifty different signatures and these were obtained in 1981 when :, ; these same people attempted to expand this non-conforming use of ithe station and they were very very strongly opposed by over 9S% of the people in the area and also by the Fall Creek Civic Assn. ; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: This 181 case doesn' t have any application . . . S MR. ROSENBLUM: No. I just mention - I do have some limited signa; I ,:'. tures here of people that are in opposition to this . i 3 ,: CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions from the Board? Alright thank ,, you. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard in opposition of : this application? '; MS. KINSEL: My name is Amy Kinsel, I live at 912 N. Cayuga Street . which is next door to the gasoline station. I would like to speak ] in opposition to the sign. The gas station, as you may know is 4 f I I - 36 - i open from 6 : 00 A.M. to midnight every day - I believe it is open i from 8 : 00 A.M. to midnight on Sunday and the lights from the signs '; are disturbing to the neighborhood. The floodlights are disturbing and the light from the Mobil sign itself glares into our house . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Amy, pardon me . We are only discussing the Mobil . sign - one free-standing sign . . . MS. KINSEL : Well okay, the Mobil sign itself, I believe that the flight from the Mobil sign itself is contributing to the disturbances ;hof the neighborhood in terms of over-lighting because my bedroom is! i in the front of the house, the light that shines from the Mobil i sign shines into the windows in my house and I do not believe that ;the sign should be as large as it is in a residential neighborhood ': where there are residents who might be disturbed by the light from such a sign. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else who i wishes to be heard in opposition? Yes . ' MR. GIBBS : My name is Allen Gibbs, I own and live in the house at ; 1001 N. Cayuga Street, diagonally across from the gas station and I also object to the sign being lit as long as it is and the size ,..of it and I guess I 'm not quite sure I understand the status of sail of the other signs on the premises which are - many of which ';are advertising products that have nothing to do with the gasoline ''business . There are cigarette advertisements and candy advertise- ments and all those sorts of things all over the building so based ;on the fact that that operation does not seem to consider the fact !that it is in a residential zone , I am opposed to that sign. :CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else who ';wishes to speak in opposition? Now we will Mr. Hines if you ';will present the zoning question please . 37 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK i MAY 2 , 1983 EXECUTIVE SESSION ; APPEAL NO. 4-1-83 : '. The Board considered the appeal of JFJ Enterprises for a sign vari- ance for the free-standing sign at 920 North Cayuga Street. The property is located in an R-2b use district and the existing sign i " is larger in area than permitted by the Sign Ordinance and is ` located within the public right-of-way. The decision of the Board :. ;, was as follows : MR. TOMLAN: I move that the Board deny the sign variance re- quested in appeal number 4-1-83 . MS. WARD: I second the motion. yFINDINGS OF FACT: : 1) No hardship was demonstrated by the appellant. 2) There is ample opportunity for advertising on the property that will comply with the Ordinance. t r!' 3) Character of the residential neighborhood is suffering by vir- 1 tue of the appellant ' s enterprise. i' ;NOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Absent Variance request denied. 'i i 38 - i ' MR. HINES: I would like to say I speak for my clients - three peoy , ple , I 'm sure that I do - I don' t know for whom else I might speak ; but I do take umbrage at Mr. Rosenblum' s statement that he speaks : for so many without certainty as to who they might be . Nonetheless ., we do wish to present to this Board a picture of the business opera ation which is consistent with the law and operating in its own ; jinterest and, of course, the interest of the neighborhood and the 9 !! City. Now this next issue deals with the operation of the retail i '' service station or a service bay on the premises . Now for many l lyears and I have simply the evidence, Mr. Chairman, of the letters ; ;, from Allan Treman and others which I will leave with you - this i �Ibay, service station and gas retail facility has been operating fort I iia long time - certainly since 1957 when it was expanded and improvId li ;; and at that time it was owned physically by the Mobil Company and i ' leased in its later years to Tony Sherman, who operated it as a i ;` neighborhood facility and serviced cars in the bay. At the time , ! of course, the property was owned by Mobil and the entire facilityf ' was leased to Mr. Sherman for its operation, Mobil retaining no ' operationaly activity on the premises . What is going on right I now is the property is owned by JFJ Enterprises and they are opera-I i ting the retail gasoline sales, and leasing or farming out the I 1 :; operation of the bays to Mr. Flavin who is here in the Chambers i '; tonight for the operation of the repair shop or the service facil- 1 , ity. We do not believe that that is any change in use or enlarge- lament of the activity that Mr. Sherman carried on for a substantial ' .; number of years. Mr. Hoard has indicated that he does thing so and, :, of course, it is a question of interpretation by this Board whether t ;` or not two owners or two operators doing the same thing is an en- ' largement when one did those two activities before, We do not i i 39 - believe that that is so , we believe that we were operating legally ' , in that respect and I do not wish to confer jurisdiction on this `; Board by asking for a use variance for that when we do not believe ; .. that we are acting illegally so I suppose the appropriate conces- sion for me to make is that this Board does have jurisdiction to make an interpretation with respect to whether or not two people !; operating two activities is an enlargement when before one person ;', operated two activities and that essentially is all I have with ;; respect to that commentary. You may ask Mr. Flavin if you wish, j ;:';what he exactly does there but I don' t think that there is any ;; issue that he is operating a repair shop and service facility for F : automobiles . :, CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So your request then is a matter of interpreting ; !: current use relative to the past use of this property? a `MR. HINES: Well I 'm not sure if the Board has sufficient factual ; information, I mean, I am asserting factually that we are not using '!the property with respect to the service facility any differently 4! i i ;than Mr. Sherman did but the point is , as I understand Mr. Hoard' s; ;?objection is that since there is a different identity in operation ! I of that facility from the gas retail that it somehow or other con- stitutes an enlargement or expansion of the business and we are s i ;;saying that it doesn' t just because there are two different people .; ;;For example , if K-Mart decides to lease out its pharmaceutical fort lithe pharmacy portion of its business rather than operate it itself it doesn't mean that they are doing something different - they ,,have a different mode of controlling the activity. And in this i ;;particular case we, my client, JFJ, the owner of the property oper-i ate the retail gasoline station and farm out the service station, when Tony Sherman was there he leased the entire operation and himl `:self did both activities . We do not believe that the method by i 40 - s 'by which we operate the station is substantially different or i legally an enlargement or change of use which would require a vari-i ance. Now I suspect that, Mr. Chairman, that it is up to this ; Board to define whether or not that is an enlargement or a change in use which would require a use variance. We don't believe it is Iso I am directing my argument to that somewhat narrow issue . i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Does the record show that this is the original ; structure in the - that it was a two bay station - was, is and shall be. . . . j l ' MR. HINES : The letters before you do show that . That 's dating ,! from its repair and renovation, I think in 1957 - the letters be- ;' fore you, I think were obtained from the Building Department as �, a matter of fact. But the Mobil records - I obtained from the a; Mobil Company. s 'i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Questions from the Board? ! MS. BROWNELL: You haven't enlarged physically some of the things �s = that you do with this station, for instance, the times and the video jgames, soda pop, cigarettes , were those all there before? '1 i ' MR. HINES: We are talking about ;:the . . . > MS. BROWNELL : Hours of service . . . MR. HINES: The hours of the bay service are probably the same or i Mess than when Tony Sherman was there. Mr. Flavin when do you clo4e in the evening? ! MR. FLAVIN: I try to be out of there before 6 : 00 o ' clock. ! MS. BROWNELL: Are you closed on Sundays or open? ' MR. FLAVIN: Closed on Sundays. i " MR. HINES: There are other things I know what you are talking i i about , I 'm not hereto argue about those right now, we are talking about the interior of where the money is taken for the gas - that i 41 - e ` I am not prepared to deal with - I thought we were here on just tho E bays . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So, to further expand on this so there is a cleat understanding, your reason for requesting our interpretation is limited to the present use of the two bays by party other than the ' ,. owner. MR. HINES: Other than the owner. That ' s right. It ' s a narrow 1! Tissue but I really am trying to accommodate the complaint that was ,!made and get it resolved but at the same time I 'm afraid that if I ;:; came in and asked for a variance I would be conceding that we were: !' doing something wrong and I don' t want to - I 'm not making that ;; concession. If you rule as a matter of interpretation that we are ; E; F jby so doing, enlarging or changing the use then I ' ll have to con- ' front that another time . 11CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions from the Board? I hope that ; ti ;;the dialogue between the appellant and the Board here has clarified] !this issue in that is is a relatively narrow one. I know we have 'iin writing from some of the neighbor' s complaints or comments that Fare involved with the hours , the lights , signs and a number of other +things . It is our problem, as a Board, tonight to rule on the jIrelatively narrow issue of the use of the two bays . I hope that sthe rest of the testimony will be directed to that argument and notl lexpanded to the other matters that are not, as I understand it, ;before the Board. Is that a reasonable interpretation as far as 'the application is concerned? ;'SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. ;CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak in i support of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak ` in opposition to this application? Yes . i i �i r i 42 - I ,; MR. ROSENBLUM: I realize the subject matter of the interpretation , is the garage. The hours of operation of the garage is different from that of the station. It is alleged by Mr. Hines that all of ., his applicant' s present businesses are not a pre-existing - are a ;` pre-existing continued use of the property but I say they are not A jpre-existing continued use but a conversion to several non-conforming uses , all done without permits or granted variances . The question ' i' of interpretation is whether any of the stations present uses are ,; allowable under the existing special permit . The operation of a public garage for the repair, service , and storage of motor vehiclos ;funder Section 30. 3 .B. 39 is definitely defined in the Zoning Ordi- ' nance - it does not fall within that of a gasoline service station ;; The operation of a self-service station in a residential district is also a question for interpretation. The prior operation for i ' fifty-five years was a full-service gasoline station. The opera- i' ;! tion of a video game parlor - certainly does not fall within the ;1scope of the gasoline service station. The operation of a retail ;: commercial facility not within the limitations specified for a ; gasoline service station - for example the retail sale of food, soda sold by the unit , by the case, by vending machine, the sale of cigarettes , candy, snacks , sun glasses , stuffed animals and '' newspapers . Certainly a question as to whether that is pre-exist- i ing under the present special permit . The operation of more than ;, one business - two separate businesses by two different operators . ' iThere area host of other alleged violations of Ordinances that I believe it is not proper to raise these issues at this time. How " ever I will say that I think it ' s highly inappropriate for these f ;; people to come before you time after time after time and waste yout i f` time and the peoples time by putting in piece-meal applications for i - 43 - c . variances and permits and not addressing all of the known viola- ;; tions at one time. ' CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to i` this application? Amy, come forward. MS. KINSEL: I am very disturbed by the statement of the lawyer for, " the gas station that they are operating in the interest of the E ;; neighborhood in mind. I have written letters to them, I have ; telephoned the Petral Corp. , I have received no response from any of my complaints . I thank the Building Commissioner for kindly !a 1' responding to a letter I wrote to him and it just disturbs me very '; ,;much that they present themselves as being law-abiding and very much !' concerned with the neighborhood when they are obviously not con- ;; !lcerned with the fact that they are operating in a residential neigb- borhood with people living around them and that they are disturbing, ; those people and they just don' t care and I dispute the statement .iof Mr. Flavin that he is not there in the evenings . I have seen i' him. It disturbs me the noise from the work that he does - I :! think that from my talking to the people who have lived there ! ;; longer than I have that he is doing more extensive work than the ;!previous owner, doing body work in the two bays that he is using. `!He has his garage doors open frequently - he is working on cars i ;gout in the driveway - he is blocking the access to the pumps , he i iihas at least a dozen cars parked on the lot frequently T parked F� ;; there for long periods of time -• I note that there is a blue and ;; yellow Pinto unlicensed - no license plates on it at all , that ;, has been there fore months . He has been there in the evening work-•-i E ging on his own personal cars , I believe, I don' t know - is that ,' Triump is that yours? the spitfire the little blue car? MR. FLAVIN: It' s a Renault. i - 44 - i MS. KINSEL: I don' t know - oh, the Renault - I don't know anything I about cars , anyway, it is that car - I know you have worked on it in the evening and it has disturbed me after 10 : 00 at night be- cause it has no muffler - it must not have a muffler system - the .)whole house shakes when you rev it up. MR. FLAVIN: The car is gone. I SMS. KINSEL: Yes but my point is that that car was there - that it did disturb me - that you worked on it at night when there were Jikely to be people at home who would be disturbed by it and that ;;these people have no consideration for the people that live around them and I wish that the Board would take this into consideration. i; :Also I would merely add that this disturbance occurred in the win- 1tertime with all my windows closed, with storm windows on and I i ;'would like to add that with summer approaching, we will be outside imore our windows will be open it can only get worse and I just don' t think that this is an appropriate business to be operating !i '1with people living around it. Do you have any questions? "!CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to ;;speak in opposition to this? Yes . a ';MR. GIBBS : My name is Allen Gibbs , I live diagonally across from .,the station at 1001 N. Cayuga. I address my objections , not to thel ;person operating the garage - the auto repair facility there - but '. to the people that are leasing it - and I don' t think that they jhave provided him with adequate screening facilities, perhaps ,,adequate parking facilities , adequate disposal facilities n well I jthink there should be regulations on the hours of operation of that - I 'm further away than the previous speaker from that and ,,have not been bothered as much by that as by other automobiles that, ';come in and gas up without any mufflers . I also object to the 45 - ;;operation of a gasoline station - in its present mode - in that it :E ! is a significant expansion of the previous operation of a gasoline ':'.station insofar as they have allowed speaker systems in where they call out if the customers are to provide cash or charge and the 'customers yell back what it is that they want and once again, with 9summer coming out I very much intend to spend some time out of I,doors and I don' t intend to listen to cash or charge every ten ;minutes being yelled through the neighborhood. So that ' s an ex- itension I feel - of that part of the business - I really have no 'objection to the presence of an automobile servicing station there I think that ' s an asset to the community to have provision of i ;gasoline and auto repair there but, certainly the way the present ; owner of the station has been handling all the aspects of the ,Ibusiness , I think somehow or other the continued operations should have quite a number of conditions put on that. Thank you. ,CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Are there any questions? Mr. Haines . MR. HINES: I don' t think there is any question what the issue is , .� j Mr. Rosenblum pointed it out - it ' s simply whether or not we are operating a two-business activity simply because we have two people! .!rather than one running the whole thing. I don' t argue with the sfact that if some aspect of that exceeds the service station or thel ' gas pumping exceeds what was bing done before that that might be ';within the purview of the Board but I 'm addressing this single is- i1sue so that we know whether or not we can maintain the operation of those two bays with. Mr. Flavin or with somebody else operating ! as a tenant and I think the evidence would indicate and the law i ;[would indicate that we are so entitled to do that and that ' s really; that I am asking the Board. I know it is very difficult for !!some of the speakers to not to get off into the other area which i - 46 - is upsetting to them but nonetheless - and we haven' t been here, s . I might add Mr. Rosenblum, as often as you would like us to be { here but we' ve been here two or three times and we intend to comply i with the law when we find out what the law is . THank you. ; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Before you leave, for question clarification, if i :'; you are talking about the continuance, without expansion of a i. legal non-conforming use or a legal non-conforming, as a result o f a variance granted in 1926 and there are aspects of the operation ;; that , in the judgement of the Zoning Officer exceed the use. . . . : MR. HINES : The previous use. ii CHAIRMAN WEAVER: That is correct. That are extensions , you would ! i `! expect to be back here then for a variance or is there an anticipa- { tion that the owner might chose to conform to those orders? 'MR. HINES : Well I think the latter is probably more appropriate ,' although I can' t commit the client -- now with respect to the bay ( operation, I think it isn't my prerogative here to explain what ;' I believe the law to be but my understanding of it is that the ; operation of the bay is substantially the same as Mr. Sherman, ''although possibly with an increase in volume - an increase in volume is not a change in use. Nor have we altered the building ` nor have we done the normal things which are characterized as :;enlargements or expansions of nonconforming uses . Reasonably con 'sistent with what it was used for before that ' s what we are look ing ,for is that interpretation simply because it is a different jperson. If you find that there is some aspect and I- don't know :what evidence is before you tonight to make such a finding, but if Mr. Hoard made such a finding that some aspect of it was an en, , largement - not the fact that it was Flavin operating it or some :'body different but there was some other aspect that was an enlarge-j ment, we certainly would try to bring it within the use that was - 47 - ;: permitted because we are not allowed to enlarge or expand. What Ii : am saying is that what we are doing isn' t an enlargement or expan- i sion either as a matter of law or as a matter of fact. Now there ., is another issue that I think Ms . Brownell brought up and it has i been alluded to that is the other aspect of this operation which ! is the retail sale of gasoline is another matter. That also is a ;non-conforming use granted under an earlier variance - subsequently confirmed in I think 1957 or 1958 and that again we have to comply ; substantially with the way it was operated before, and that ' s janother matter. It ' s up to the Board, I think, or some tribunal , ,, to make some determination of what is , in fact, the previous non- �! conforming use and what we have to - what lines we have hue to . !':And I don' t want to be in here all - it isn't any fun to be in ;;here all the time - I get my head beat in when I come in here , ; generally - but I want to be here when it is necessary. As most i !` lawyers will tell you, the easiest way to get a fair resolution is to define the issue clearly and then confine your arguments to t , Fthose issues and the issue that I thought we were here tonight on his simply Mr. Flavin operation of the bas versus JpJ operation of ,the bays and I 'm not curtailing this Board' s obligation or its 1 ; prerogative to define what is enlargement or expansion that ' s in i ,,the Ordinance and it ' s up to you to define it although its been ('defined by the courts rather clearly and if Mr. Hoard thinks that R Iwe are exceeding the previous non-conforming use, we would like to � i1know in what regard. And then we would try to deal with and we 3 ,!also to go back to the first issue - we are not asking to burden R i .!the neighbors with anything peculiar in the way of a sign we' d i!like some assistance in what everybody can live with in the way of 1 ;a sign and then somehow or other deal with it in the same way that I I , f i 48 - , you have dealt with other gas stations and that ' s really all we are asking. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions from the Board? ' MS. BROWNELL : One quick question. There was something that he said that I wasn' t really quite sure of. He said that even though ; there is more business for the bays that is not something that we have to consider - is that . . . 'i MR. HINES: An increase in volume has been held by the courts not ! to be an enlargement. MS. BROWNELL : Okay. How about the cars that this volume brings where do they park behind the building - beside the building i '' or are they crowding the area - in and out . . . ? SMR. HINES: Well I 'm not your legal advisor - I have tried to I =sresearch the matter for my own clients benefit and I defer you to ;; your own legal counsel but an increase in volume is not considered i by the courst to be a change in use. I mean, I can assume there ;;, you might get ridiculous about it and that - you might cross the ;: threshold at some point but cases are quite broad - if you take a seasonal restaurant and convert it into year around - that' s been ,. held to be a change but that isn' t really volume - it ' s volume in two directions - time-wise and activity-wise and there have been iother changes . Operating a restaurant until 12 : 00 at night and i ;' then putting Go-Go dancers in there until 4 : 00 A.M. is considered to be a change of use - so those are the kind of things -- you ; almost have to go on a case by case basis but a simple increase in ` volume has been held by the courts not to be a change in the use o� character. i` CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you Mr. Rosenblum, SMR. ROSENBLUM: I contend that the issues before the Board here I 49 - i here are just the tip of the iceberg and I am requesting how we can go about getting interpretation of all of the other issues that are to be raised. This interpretation regarding the land- scaping , the parking, the expansion of parking areas without per- mits , excessive parking that is not in keeping with the Zoning Ordinance and other matters such as I have mentioned before. How do we go about getting the Board' s evaluation on this? Is it appropriate to introduce another request for an interpretation or what? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well the reason for my question to Mr. Hines who we eagerly agree to confine the discussion to the question of the use of the two bays by third parties, implies that the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance is done by the Zoning officer and the - if legal action is required by the City Prosecutor and that if there is a violation that that violation is reduced by i means and not by a decision of this Board - in that event the property owner, in order to continue = would either have to con- form to the order or would then would have to seek a variance on the issue at that time r so there is a method very clearly stated in the Ordinance but it ' s not before use tonight as far as the issues are concerned. ;E MR. ROSENBLUM: That is correct. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I ' ll j take the matter up further with Mr. Hoard. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition? i ' We' ll have the next case. i r - 50 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 2 , 1983 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1492 : The Board considered the request of JFJ Enterprises for an inter- pretation of Sections 30 . 47 and 30. 49 of the Zoning Ordinance , questioning whether leasing part of the proprty to a separate i entrepreneur for a repair garage was a change or enlargement of a non-conforming use under a variance, where the prior use had existed in support of a gasoline service station. i } The Board found that this is an extension of a non-conforming use in that by observation there is extension of parking into spaces that formerly had been green areas providing some buffer to the neighborhood and extension of hours and activity beyond i3 those normally expected in a gasoline service station. ii VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Absent s MOTION MADE BY CHAIRMAN WEAVER A i `? SECONDED BY: MR. TOMLAN i s !i 4 �i i. i Ii f 1 'I I it i 1 a i 51 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 1 COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 23, 1983 i ` SECRETARY HOARD: The next case Mr. Chairman is appeal number 1493 :; i Appeal of Nell Mondy for an area variance under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25 , Columns 4 and 11 for deficiencies in off-street parking and minimum front yard setback to permit the conver- sion of the existing single family residence at 130 College Avenue to a cooperative dwelling for six unrelated individuals . The property is lo- cated in an R-3b (multiple dwelling) use district, in which the proposed use as a cooperative is permitted; however, under Section 30. 49 the appellants must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the proposed conversion. f i MS. MONDY: It must seem strange for you to see me here tonight !:wearing a different hat. My name is Nell Mondy, I 'm the owner of ;'the property at 130 College Avenue. I bought the house on College :;Avenue in 1953 along with my mother. We had every intent of making! it !,that our home. We refinished the inside, furnished it with antiques 4 !;Fertilized the yard, had flower beds , etc. I wanted to be near my ; office at Cornell , I did not want to move. I was one of the few :;who stayed on the street and said I will not move off of College °iAvenue , this is where I want to be. But, unfortunately, other ';!people decided that this would not be. My life became utter hell ,land I was in last year and you were very kind, I was talking against { a variance for the house next door. And you did not give that varix t i ance but the house filled up with students , I had dogs all over the' j'place, I couldn' t have flowers and I couldn' t sleep at night. Mainly it was getting on my nerves to the extent that I was not abl, !to sleep at night. I would call the police, they would come, they ;would quiet down for a short time and then it would start up again. ' i i t 52 - The neighborhood is not one in which a family can live in peace, !'unfortunately. I tried it . I tried it many years . I finally 'idecided, even at this late day in my life that I couldn' t take it ' any longer so I had to go to the trouble of trying to find another ! !place in which to live. It was not my wish but I was forced into it . Now I am asking for a variance for two reasons . One is that !the house sits a little bit too close to the street. I need, I ;;believe, it ' s ten feet and the house - the front porch is seven ifeet. At the time they enlarged College Avenue they took it all '!off of one side and so the trees that were in front of the house r iiwere taken down and the street is very close. Now I 've tried to j ,;look into that. The other thing I am asking is a variance for E ,!parking. I have a garage - it 's about twenty feet long my lot is E !eighty feet, I have forty feet of blacktop in front of the garage i 'lbut it does not qualify from the standpoint that if cars park back !of each other they can' t - you are just supposed to have two, one i! ;;You probably are aware of this . But if one parks in the garage and; 'gone parks in the driveway, there is plenty of room there for three s? ,;small cars on the blacktop to park - one in back of each other and ! then the garage in addition. Two large cars and the garage for the: ;;three. If I rent the house which I am forced to do , would n if I +rent to six people , I 'm supposed to have three parking places . I i'. have three parking places but they are not legal parking places . is I have the garage and two places for two cars in this long strip of:, E :blacktop and it ' s on one side of the house and easily three cars ;,can park there. But I know the rule that the car has - you have to, ;'have it so the cars can be moved back and forth. Now I looked into `!the possibility of opening up on the other side of my house - I w !have enough room for another driveway. But there is a law - so I i i i i i 53 - can' t do that because I have a fifty foot frontage and if I open up the other side which would take down a tree, hedge and all the floJ wers that we have planted over the years - that will all have to " come down. I could put in blacktop but then that ' s making two driveways then. The other alternative - I first thought maybe , I could do something with the back - I can' t , I looked into that today - it ' s impossible. I went over and measured the place over and over again. The only thing I can do is to rip off the front (porch completely. If I do that I don' t have to ask for a variance .; 4 ''. If I have no front porch, take down the big maple tree that I 've s 'prized and protected over the years , tear up my flower bed in frontj, :' I ' ll have sixteen - seventeen feet from my house to the walk so I ;don' t need a variance there - I can put in the blacktop there can f i ljoin the blacktop with this other and I can get cars in. But look what it is going to do to College Avenue. I am one of the few peo- i ; ple I have a flower bed there with peony bushes that will soon be ;!blooming and I just hate to rip up the place but I need to rent it. 'I need very much to rent it - I don' t think I can rent it to a i ;'family - I don' t think a family could live there I tried it and I ''couldn' t take it. My health would not permit my living there , and ,J don' t even encourage a family to move in. It ' s students and if I ' would go out and ask them to quiet down they would say - I guess yob i `.know this is student territory. I got very little help I got l ,,some help from the police force but they weren't there all of the ,time. They would come. Now the parking. Yes , I lived with that ,!for years. I 'd come home - I ' d be trapped in my driveway. One dayl J spent an hour and one---half trying to get out of my driveway to get back to my work at Cornell . Finally - I used to go and call jthe Police Commissioners they, working with the Police Department { i - S4 - we got them up there and got the car towed. Now I did look into :;who are the people that were parking and part of the time it was ; the house next door which doesn't have the variance but has only a , spot for one car - that was part of it - but much of the time, these were students coming in to Cornell - now the survey that was done 'will show this that I am telling you the truth - these were students 'they came, they parked their car there, they went to classes at Cornell all day long - some times they would be there until way into ,the night- had no way of getting them moved unless the police would? ;stow it and sometimes they would leave them for weeks - there in front of my house. That is part of our problem is the people who 'Fare living off campus - driving to College Avenue and parking theirs 'cars on the street and leaving them for all these periods of time. ;`I 'm just bringing that up. But my point is, I really feel that I .have undergone quite a hardship. It has taken a lot out of me I ;,need to rent the property - I can' t live there and in order to rent; it, I need to have a variance if I am going to put students in. :;Now I will give you this idea, I 've been talking to different groups ' of students . I 've talked to one group of six and out of the six there was only one that had a car but I know this can vary from time :sto time. I talked to another group of four graduate students to seo i I haven' t rented it to anyone - I have talked to this group of Jour graduate students and out of them, they have one car. I really ';don' t see how this is going to make a great deal of difference to 4 ! College Avenue when I have my garage and room for three small cars `i.n the driveway. But I realize what the law says and I do try to 1abide by the law. That' s why I am here tonight asking for a (variance in order that I can have the parking and the other vari- ;lance if I don' t takeoff my front porch and leave it , I have to havo '= i '1a variance because I lack three feet of having enough room out to ; i 55 - :, the sidewalk. Thank you for listening, I appreciate it. j i , CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Questions from the Board? Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Anyone i who wishes to speak in opposition? j MR. GERKIN: My name is Bud Gerkin and I live at 116 Mitchell St. 'Mrs . Mondy, it appears to me, could overcome this whole situation I ;'by not going multiple . She does not need the added parking space if she rented to four people. Renting to six people or having that! ;option means that she would be adding to the parking problem on f ' College Avenue and as she has explained it has been horrible and iso, ..and I see no reason why it should be added to because of the vari- i ' ance. Thank you. ; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition? i Yes . i ;;MRS. GERKIN: My name is Kay Gerkin, T live at 116 Mitchell . 116 i; ;;Mitchell is the corner of College Avenue and we have lived there ,since 1968 . We 've watched things change - not all for the better, .;but at the same time I would like to say that there is still a I large protion of that area which is residential . Not as much up !'toward Dr. Mondy' s house but it is also surrounded by Blair, Linden( ;Brandon Place, where there are many single family homes . We all +seem to manage. Personally if we have had a problem with noise or other elements , we have just gone to the people and asked them ;'kindly to stop and we've never had any trouble . Most of the young ;;people seem to be very anxious to be a part of the neighborhood ands the only other thing that I would like to bring up is that it doesn' t seem Quite fair to me that two other homes on that street ' the owners moved away and variances were requested and Dr. Mondy ;[was one of the people who was very adament that those variances not; 56 - be requested , which they weren' t. And it doesn' t seem to me to go ahead for one and to have not done it for the other people. Thank you. i' CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Yes. I believe you are the last speaker. ,, MS . MONDY: I would just like to call your attention to my particul f filar area. I believe these neighbors and I 've appreciated them ' very much - I 've complimented on their flowers - they are some of !; the people that have done so much to try to make the place look '; so much better down there. But you living across the street from ,, an area that is zoned so you wouldn' t hear the noise that I hear. ' I am in the middle of it . The house next door to me , as I under- i ,: stand is to have - it has a driveway very similar to mine - I understand them to have eight people in the house next to you F f,. they have had seven or eight all along. Across the street they have similar driveways that go up. Apparently they applied for ,, this - something or the variance or whatever it was in 177 r at i ;that time I had no intention of leaving and saw no need for me to j,make an application for the grandfather clause . But when we first ;;bought the house we rented to several students and there was no I ;;question we passed all the inspections and everything that went on at Cornell or the City. Then as mother grew older and I got busier we didn' t rent to so many. Actually I guess I was so busy 'at Cornell I just wasn' t even aware of all the application back in 1977 where I should come in and ask for a variance of some sort back then. But apparently all of my neighbors did because if you look across the street from me there is house after house after s t i';house with seven, eight, ten people and a straight shoot driveway `similar to mine and I don't know - I don' t know how they manage f 1 57 - , all of this . All I can say is that surrounding me where I am in ;College Avenue , this is going on and has been going on - that' s why; hI 've had to leave. So I realize that the sections of College ?Avenue can differe and I realize that as you get to Mitchell Street! ,you have a different zoning and that you wouldn't hear the noise I ihear. I get it from my area of Blair Street - well , all around me ,;the noise would be so great that I couldn' t sleep. One night I was awakened at 2 : 00 o ' clock in the morning from a deep sleep. Not! ;;just one night - many nights and then the rest of the night I would; be disturbed to the point I couldn' t sleep and I can't go without My sleep. And that is why, I could not tolerate I 'm glad the ;;other people - I did try asking first of all - my first approach jwas to be to ask the students but when you have a part so that the ;;house is so completely filled with students that they are out on Ithe walk and out on the street and that happened numerous times ;;while I was there - how can you quiet them down and this happened. ,i ' The houses would be jammed with students so every room would be ;filled - they would be out on the walk. My flower beds were full of paper cups and all that went on. I would have to get up and clean my yard of trash the next day. This happened night after ;night after night. Thank you. !CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Anyone else who wishes to be heard on this issue?' `We' ll have the next case please. ss s 58 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK r i! MAY 2 , 1983 EXECUTIVE SESSION ;'APPEAL NO. 1493 : '''The Board considered the appeal of Nell Nomdy for an area variance i' to permit the conversion of the existing single family residence ji ` at 130 College Avenue to a cooperative dwelling for six unrelated ;individuals . The decision of the Board was as follows: w MS . BAGNARDI : I move that the Board grant the area variance 3 requested in appeal No. 1493 with the condition that occupancy be limited to a maximum of four (4) unrelated persons . 3 iMS. WARD: I second the motion. i VOTE: 4 Yes ; 1 No ; 1 Absent Granted w/conditioxi. ;FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The front yard is an existing condition common to the neigh- borhood and is not amenable to correction. i {2) The off-street parking in the area is a serious problem and i! limiting the occupancy to a maximum of four (4) unrelated persons would reduce the requirement of the existing legal parking so that granting the variance would not increase the off-street parking load in the neighborhood and would allow a reasonable use of the property. i I r { s f - 59 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 2 , 1983 ' SECRETARY HOARD: The last appeal is appeal number 1494 : Appeal of Charles A. Fritschler for an interpre- tation under Section 30. 47 (non-conforming uses) ; and Section 30 . 49 (repair , changes in use , exten-'i sion or enlargement of non-conforming uses or structures) . The appellant is filing this ap- peal as a result of a decision of the Building Commissioner concerning property at 125-127 North Quarry Street, and is asking the Board to decide on questions involving the intent of the listed provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. , MS. MILLER: My name is Connie Miller, attorney for Charles Frit- ': schler, the appellant . This is an appeal from the interpretation of the 1977 zoning law - an interpretation which has been made by the i ,: Building Commissioner, Thomas Hoard, regarding the property owned by Mr. Fritschler at 125-127 N. Quarry Street. Mr. Hoard' s inter pretation I believe is statedin his letter which was written to i; ;; this Board dated March 4 , 1983 and was submitted in opposition to e Mr. Fritschler' s recent application for a variance. Mr. Hoard ;: states in that letter that when Mr. Fane , who was Fritschler ' s ;, predecessor in title and, according to Mr. Hoard when he - when Mr.! ' Fane made unauthorized changes he then started changing a "legal ;, non-conforming building" and he therefore wiped out the "legal ;, part of that designation through his legal (.sic) acts" and accord- ing to Mr. Hoard that meant that all grandfather rights were lost. I° j Now I would point out that this interpretation means , of course , !, that if Mr. Fritschler is unable to provide parking for this buildIJ . ing for the entire building, according to the present 1977 zoning law, and according to Mr. Hoard, he has lost all grandfather rights; :; as to off-street parking - he conceivably cannot occupy this build-il ing at all . I submit that this interpretation by Mr. Hoard is i - 60 - 'unreasonable - I believe it to be unconstitutional as it would de- prive Mr. Fritschler, the property owner, of virtually all use of ;`his property and most importantly, of concern to this Board, I be- `lieve it is unsupported by the Zoning Ordinance. Now I have read this Zoning Ordinance very carefully from cover to cover and I do ;root find anywhere in there any kind of a provision that a property '!owner can lose his entire grandfather rights by the fact that he , s>. ;;allegedly, has made illegal changes within the building. Now at this point, and there is no dispute about this , at this point the ,building is in compliance with the zoning law and the housing law in ; every respect except as to the respect to off-street parking. In Mr. Hoard' s letter of March 4th, he gives somewhat of his version ' of the history of this building. The appellant disputes some of ;:this history but primarily the appellant urges this Board to keep j in mind that the building at this time is in full compliance with E ;'the Zoning laws except for the question of parking which remains 1' unresolved. Now I also point out to you that in this letter of 'March 4th Mr. Hoard states that at one time in 1969 where there wast i la question about a third floor apartment in this building being `;changed to an apartment. That change was made with a building per unit - the building permit was given with the understanding that Mr. Fane - in fact with the agreement that Mr. Fane would dedicate five !parking spaces from the property next door for the use of that apartment. Now at this point those five parking spaces are not i available but I would point out that in 1969 that was all that was ,,required of Mr. Fane - five parking spaces , not nine which is now ;being required of Mr. Fritschler. Since that time, according to iMr. Hoard - there was a rear porch area in this building that was i .allegedly illegally enclosed. That porch area is not now occupied that building again is in compliance with the zoning laws . I also 61 - ;submit that no structural changes were made to this building by the; .,enclosing of that porch nor was the building extended or enlarged i to other structures or lands . Nor was the building structure itself enlarged as is defined in your zoning law, Section 30 . 49-C, :!having to do with loss of a non-conforming use. So what this case boils down to is this , I believe, that because of the alleged un- lawful enclosure of the porch in 1978 , it is now Mr. Hoard' s posi- ' tion that Mr. Fane and now his successor Mr. Fritschler, have lost all their non-conforming rights to this building and must provide ;parking for the entire building - not just for the additional fifth! :;floor apartment which was all that was required in 169 but for the ','entire building. Now - there again - what the Zoning Ordinance "does say, and I urge you to read it carefully in Section 30 . 49 is ithat a non-conforming use may not be extended or enlarged to other ;;structures or to other land. This non-conforming use has not been ;,extended to other structures or to other land, nor is that alleged. ; ' Also , nor may a non-conforming structure, which this is , be ex- 'tended or enlarged. That means physically extended beyond the !bounds of the existing building. That has not been done here either. A structure is defined in Section 30. 3-84 as an assembly sof materials forming a construction framed of component structural k f ;parts whatever that means , that' s not defined, for occupancy or !fuse, including buildings . That' s what this is . It is obvious that; li ' this building has never been extended or enlarged in its structure , nor has it been extended to other structures or lands . The non- conforming structure still exists in its pre-zoning ordinance s ,;dimensions and Hoard' s interpretation is incorrect and I am asking !'this Board to overturn it. Furthermore , Mr. Hoard does not even iallege that this property has been extended or that there has been i 62 - an extension of the area of this building. Now the Zoning Ordi- 'nance, Section 30. 25, it says in parentheses , Column 4 and 30 . 37-A-! 4 , does refer specifically to off-street parking requirements and .states that off-street parking shall be provided for each building hereafter erected or altered or as is stated in 30. 37-A-4 and 30. 251 ;refers to 30. 37-A-4 , which is partially altered. I do not believe "!that these sections were intended to be interpreted nor have they .'been interpreted in other cases to require that all the requirements of off-street parking be met if any alterations are made whatsoever! s to a non-conforming structure. At best these sections might be ;interpreted to require parking for the additional fifth apartment An 125-127 Quarry Street since the enactment of the 1977 zoning ;law. Mr. Fritschler would agree to provide parking for that one ' apartment - he has already been before this Board and asked for a ;variance to provide six parking spaces as opposed to nine. Mr. ;;Hoard is requiring nine - his application for a variance was denied!. i ;;Now I believe it is questionable under the zoning law whether �iparking is even required for the fifth apartment since these sec- '! tions which I have just quoted refer to alterations in the building ;and alterations is defined in Section 30. 35 of the Zoning law as !"a change or rearrangement in the structural parts or an enlargement of the building. " Again, there has been no enlargement of the '!building. The term "structural parts" is not defined in the zoning; ' law and that' s a deficiency of your law which cannot be held against ; the landowner - it has to be strictly construed against the city. ;That is not defined and interpreting the zoning law strictly againsjt Y' 1 the City I submit that there has been no change or rearrangement ofj I :structural parts nor has there been any alleged. Structural parts I submit , means more than just moving around of non-supporting wall f i - 63 - or installation of bathrooms and kitchen fixtures , etc. and I have �a couple of cases here which I will submit to you for your discus- ision in executive session which I think support that point of view. ; 'bne of them is Court of Appeals case, one of them is a lower Court ,case affirmed by the Appellate Division. Now, a clue to the mean- �ng of structural parts is given in Section 30. 3-84 , and I submit ;'that in that Section it is implied that structural parts means ;something more than, for instance , creating walls or divisions or Putting in bathroom fixtures , or whatever, in an existing structure; ;fin that Section 30 . 3-84 - states in defining a structure it says ?;that it shall mean an assembly of materials forming a construction ?tEramed of component structural parts . I would suggest that compo- 'vent structural parts means something substantial and no such al- ;aerations have been up in this building. Now again, referring to rection 30. 37 , it requires off-street parking for each user build-- ing which is partially altered and I further submit that if this ;building has been altered at all , which I deny that it has been a. ;finder your definition of alteration, but even assuming that it has 'leen altered within that definition, that alteration has only been Partial in any event and by� the terms of your own Zoning Ordinance iOarking - off-street parking should only be required for that par- rtial alteration. Now the best that can be said for these Sections � s that they are ambiguous and incomplete and must therefore be 's ;construed in favor of the land owner and not the City and not Mr. Jioard. Mr. Hoard cannot _rewrite this law to suit his own desires ,which is what he is attempting to do in this case and has been i i ;doing all along. Now I am also going to submit for your considera ?tion the Court of Appeals case of Matter of Off Shore Restaurant MCorp. v. Linden which I believe is similar in its facts to the f i 64 - ;present case. In this particular case what happened - this was a I ';matter of this was a case involving a restaurant. This restau- rant had no off-street parking and was not required to by reason of the fact that it was - it had been built and was in existence ;prior to the enactment of the zoning law. There came a time when the owner wished to expand from a delicatessen type restaurant to ! a sit-down restaurant with a bar. In doing so he was going to :'change the interior of the building and since he wasn' t going to make any structural alterations , but he was going to lower the :;ceiling, install a bar, change some seating around, change some of ,,the kitchen facilities , etc. he had filed for a building permit, 'he was turned down. He took this case by an Article 78 proceeding , . which is what I intend to do in Fritschler's case if you turn down ;this appeal this evening. He applied to the courts , the lower !court reversed the decision of the Zoning Board and required them j i' to provide a building permit to the owner of the restaurant. That , was appealed, it was affirmed on appeal . In the Court of Appeals , '!which of course is the highest court in this state, the court held ' R '' - they reversed the decision and they held that although parking f ;;was not required for the restaurant as it existed before the pro- ;; posed changes were to be made , the owner would have to provide ; parking for the additional seating which he proposed to put in the ; restaurant and that was all the parking that he had to require acid '' I submit this case as controlling - it is similar in its facts to ,, what we have here and if Mr. Fritschler is going to be required toE ; provide parking at all , it should be no more than the parking that ! would be required for five apartments . This building has had four . apartments in it since at least 1947 . Now just to sum up, I do not believe the interpretation given by Mr. Hoard to the Zoning Ordi , nance as applied in this case is reasonable nor do I believe that - 65 - , it is constitutional , particularly in the sense that what he is - ;the position that he has taken is that this building cannot conform, , with the - it has no grandfather rights whatsoever. If Mr. '',Fritschler is unable to provide parking for the entire apartment , which he is unable to do , then he must vacate the building. That ' s; tunreasonable and that' s unconstitutional and I think even the ;;Zoning Board must realize that. Furthermore I find nowhere in the f ',;Zoning law this idea that grandfather rights can be lost by alleged';- !;ly illegal changes - that is not - simply not in your Zoning Ordi- 'nance. Perhaps it ought to be but it isn' t in there. If it isn' t in there you can' t apply it in this case. So I just ask you to ;:reconsider the interpretation that has been made by Mr. Hoard and ;to overrule that decision and if you are going to require parking ; off street parking for this building, would you do it in accordance; ;!with your own zoning law and in accordance with these cases which L �am going to provide to you and if you require parking for that one " j�apartment only and I would remind this Board that Mr. Fritschler !,came in here last time asking for a zoning variance, offering to IFprovde six parking spaces where nine were required and I think than , is enough. I just have one word to say because I see a number of ;;people out in the audience I presume they are here to speak in ;';opposition against this since I don' t know of any of them that are '�Iere to speak in favor of it, and I would just say that I 'm here is E ''for an interpretation this evening, this is not an application for a variance that was done last time and I would strenuously object; ,to anyone speaking here this evening on the issue of parking gener-' ,ally, whether it ' s advisable in this area, whether it 's a problem :all of those kinds of questions which are not legal questions and ,+are not addressed to the issues which I brought before the Board 66 - , this evening. We have not brought any witnesses to speak in favor of this proposal as the variance application that was done last �i ;;time , so I am just asking the Board to limit any comments that are made to the legal questions involved. Thank you. t CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there questions from the Board? One question!, EIin your extensive reading of the Ordinance, as I heard you, you say! ,:that there was no extension. or alteration of the building as you ';interpret the Ordinance the conversion of what had been an open !,porch to living space (changed the tape here so part of t !!Chairman Weaver' s question was not picked up) IMS. MILLER: First of all I don' t believe that added to the dimen- sions of the building . ';!CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So that the increased area for the original use, ,i ;you say is no change? (MS. MILLER: I would say it ' s not an alteration either, according ;oto the definitions in the Zoning Ordinance, which I have to admit Aare not - they are ambiguous - they are not real good definitions , Lout according to this Zoning Ordinance, alteration means changes in' a structural part and I don't think a change or rearrangement in 'the structural parts of the building - and I don' t think that en- closing an existing porch is a change or rearrangement of a struc- tural part. My interpretation of a structural part would mean Something structural that is done to the building - putting up par ?titions which can be moved down or installing plumbing or things Jike that is not a change in the structural part. But you don't .define structural part, it is not in here - there is no definition of structural part. And given the fact that there is no definition ; i of it, I don' t think you can make one up. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any other questions from the Board? ! s - 67 - I ! ;'Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of Jithis application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposi- ;;tion to this application? There being no other - no additional j ;cases to be heard tonight , the procedure of the Board at this time i is to go into Executive Session. We consider all the cases before `us and upon completion of that executive session we will reconvene ! ' into open session an those who wish to wait , may - outside of this : ;;room. If you do not wish to wait until the end of our deliberation i �, ou can call the Building Department during office hours tomorrow ,'and get a verbal res onse before the written response is prepared. ;;Are there any questions? Member Bea Brownell left the meeting at 10 : 00 P.M. prior to the i ! executive Session. :i i ii i i t i i i i s I I i sl i i i I 68 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 2 , 1983 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1494: ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: move that this interpretation request be referred to the City Attorney for a question of aw. NS. HAINE: second the motion. ;NOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 N 1 Absent . 's +I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals , C mmon Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1488 , 1489, 1491 , 4-1-83 , 1492 , 1493 and 1494 n May 2 , 1983 at City Hall , City of Ithaca ,,!New York; and that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a I , true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, !son the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. i i ` Barbara C. Ruane I Recording Secretary i i i� j o :!'Sworn to before me this /G day of 1983 i Notary Public JEAN J. HAN INSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STAT Of NEW YORK No. 55-166 800 QUALIFIED IN TCMI INS COUNTY�c� i A1Y CC..'.;.":i�S!Cil EXPIRES 3ARCH 30,19--a i i S i