HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1983-06-13 7—
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COURT
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
JUNE 13, 1983
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
APPEAL NO. 6-1-83 Ma uire Ford 3
50 S. Meadow Street
Deliberations of the Board 8
Decision 10
APPEAL NO. 1495 Oron Ledger 11
20 Williams Street
Remanded back to the appellant 17
APPEAL NO. 1496 Peter Penniman 19
135 Fayette Street
De�ision 23
APPEAL NO. 1497 Mabel Stewart 24
331 Cascadilla Street
Decision 28
APPEAL NO. 1498 Ro�er Eslinger 29
22 Hawthorne Circle
Decision 34
APPEAL NO. 1499 Margaret Cecce 35
111 West Jay Street
Decision 41
APPEAL NO. 1500 Jeff Coleman (another page 1)
208 First Street
Delcision (another page 4)
APPEAL NO. 1501 Norman D. Freeman (POSTPONED BY APPELLANT)
109 Elston Place
APPEAL NO. 1502 Helen Kingsley (legal paper page 1)
527 E. State Street
Executive Session ( " " " 30)
Decision ( " " " 32)
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COURT
CITY A ITHACA NEW YORK
JUNE 13: 1983
SECRETARY HOARD: I ' d like to call to carder the June 13th meeting
of the Board of Zoning Appeals . Chairman Weaver is going to be a
little late and the rules if the Board are that in the absence of
the Chairman, the Secretary of the Board opens the meeting and
calls for nominations: from the Board members for an acting chair .
Do I hear any nominations?
MR TOMLAN! I nominate Ms , Haine .
MS , BAGNARDI : I second the nomination .
SECRETARY HOARD: All right . Any other nominations?
MS . BR,OWNELL : I move the nominations be closed .
SECRETARY HOARD: All right, Peggy you are the acting chair for
the night .
ACTING C:HAIR.MAN HAINE ' I m,►ill call the meeting to order . The
first thing to do is to idintify everybody . The members of the
Board are :
BEA BROWNELL
MIKE TOMLAN
BETTE BAGNARDI
PEGGY HAINE, ACTING CHAIRMAN
THOMAS D . HOARD, BUILDING
COMMISSIONER R SECRETARY TO THE BOARD
BARBARA RUANE , RECORDING SECRETARY
We are operating under the provisions of the City Charter of the
City of Ithaca and of the provisions of the Zoning ordinance .
The Board shall not be bou6d by strict rules of evidence in the
conduct of this hearin=g but the: determination shall be founded
L
BZA MINUTES OF 6/1,-:1/83
upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same . The Board
requests that all participants. identify themselves as to name and
address and to confine their discussions to the pertinent facts
of the ease under c:onsider-ation . Please avoid extraneous mater-
nal which would have a delaying affect . We' 11 take the cases irk
the order in which they are numt►er'ed and if anybody would like to
withdraw a case this is the time to do it . We ask. that only
those interested persons give testimony , An interested party is
the appellant or arty person or persons who represent the appel-
lant or upon whom the grrantinq of the relief sought would impose
practical difficulty or and unnecessary hardship or who would be
in any way affected because of the proximity of the property to
the premisesinvolved in the application. Since we only have
four members, if' anybody would like to wait until we have the
fifth before their ease is heard, they are welc:,_:me to postpor►e
their case to a Dater time) this everting . The reason that we al-
low that kind of pc►stponemIEnt when there is only four of us here
is that any action would t►� binding and must tie unanimous . Does
anybody have any questions'?
MR . MAGUIRE : Are you sayii-i;1 that you will have five members
later?
ACTING CHAIRMAN HAINE : 'Yee:. . Do you have a question?
VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE ! Do•,=s it still have to be unanimous when
the fifth member is here?
ACTING C:HAIRMAN HAINE ' No it doesn' t ,
(CHAIRMAN WEAVER ARRIVED AT 7 : 45 P . M , )
2
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13./83
SECRETARY HOARD: This is the C:h►airman, Charles heaver , The
first case is appeal number 6-1-83 :
Appeal of Maguire Ford for a sign variance
under Section 34 . 6, Paragraph B and Section►
34 . 5, Paragraph► B-3 of the Sign Ordinance
to "ermit the erection of a free-standing
sign which► exceeds the size and height re-
quiriments of the Ordinance at West Clinton
and South► Meadow Streets . The property is
the (site of a new automobile dealership
(Maguire Ford/Lincoln-Mercury), and is lo-
cated in a B-5 (business) use district
where the proposed use is permitted . (SO4
South Meadow Street)
MR , MAGUIRE : My original request for a variance was based on
information giver► me by Ford Motor Company as to the standardized
sign► program th►at they have . It is a nationwide identification
program that identifies all Ford a Lincoln-Mercury dealers under
common -
SECRETARY HOARD: Speaking of identification - would you identify
yourself please?
MR . MAGUIRE : Excuse me . I ' m Tim Maguire and I am the owner of
the Fort! Lir►c:oln-Mercury Dealership . As I said, Ford Motor Com-
pany set up some sign requirements and origin►ally it entailed a
one hundred and six square foot sign on a - it would have beer► a
twenty-eight point one feet . At the Planning Board meeting we
discussed it at length and I understand there have been a lot of
car dealerships trying to Tet bigger signs and different signs at
one time or another and I realise that the point of the Sign Or-
dinance and I can see the merits of it certainly . I ' m erecting a
new Ford Dealership with a (frontage on South► Meadow Street of
3
BZA JINUTES OF 6/13/e3
three hundred ninety five [foot frontage . I hope to erect one
sign - not two signs, whish I understand from the Building Com-
missioner, with a dual franchise I could do in the total frontage
that we have . To c:larify,l I would have first a Ford Division
Franchise and also a Lincojn-Mercury Franchise so that would al-
low me the two signs if requested, to identify each - if I am
correct now - so I am asking to have one sign put up that at this
point - after contacting FIrd Motor Company would he not more
than seventy-three square (foot, which falls within the Sign
square footage requirements, but would be twenty-five feet seven
inches in height - which is higher., I think:., than the twenty-two
foot requirement that theylhave. I am hoping that one can off-
set the ether, frankly . T"e sign would be a sign similar to this
one near my fingers . And what Ford is telling me - if you cut
the sign off it ' s a disprol'portionate thing and it wouldn' t look
as: good as: it would with the pole there . I certainly will do
whatever the Board, you k:nIw, comes up with one way or the other
and what we are asking is to keep the sign at seventy-three
square feet but to make thls height at twenty-five feet, seven
inches instead of the twenty-two foot , I guess that is my pre-
sentation .
MS . BAGNARD : Twenty-five feet, seven inches you say? I have
some information where it Is twenty-eight feet with requirement
by Ford?
MR, MABUIRV This would be - yes - let me clarify . There should
be another letter in there that I sent to Tom dated June 9th -
4
BZA MINUTES OF 6/10/83
Mr , Hoard?
MS , BAGNAROI : Okay.
MS . BROWNEt_t_: It says twenty-five feet
MR . MAGUIR.E: Yes - it wast a revision. I ' m sorry. And also
there is an attachment - a letter to me from Mr . Arthur Mullen,
the Market Representation manager of Ford Division in Buffalo .
And on that letter he indicates that previously the :sire was
available however as a result of a. change in such and such policy
the recommended mounting is a twenty foot pole and the overall
length of the sign is estimated to be twenty-five feet and from
what I see it would be twenty-five feet: seven inches from a new
requirement that they have. Now I realise they could probably.
sink: it in the ground further and it would eliminate the whole
thing, I think: what I am asking - aesthetically it would look
better - I ' m not trying to dessimate the street with a number of
signs - all I ' m asking is sine sign that looks good and I don' t
think it is out of the spirit of what the intent of the Sign Or-
dinance is
MS . BAGNARDI : Other than Maguire in the front of the building'
MR . MAGUIRE ! Right , Now there may be some entrance signs that
says: "eater here" and I understand they are: allowed - small ones
- if there is some c:onfusiolrr about entrances or something like
that , But that ' s - to my knowledge - all that we are going to
SECRETARY HOARV Does e:ve0one understand about what he could
have' He could have two f°ee-standing signs - one a Ford sign
and one a Lincoln-Mercury - or two signs on the building
5
EZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
MR . TOMLAN: I guess I want to ask: if you think: this is
sufficient - I mean - on the flip side of the coin i - I
suppose . .
MR , MAGUIRE : I think: so . [we have a location on the corner there
that we feel the location in itself is a sign - that ' s why we
decided on that location , I don' t - as I say - I am trying to
live within the Ordinance p resented - to the degree I can and I ' m
asking for this: variance because I certainly don' t want to have
it look like a used car loft that they throw up signs and banners
all over., I want it to be I spent an awful lot of time and
money trying to get into this corner - a few of you may remember
that - going through the Zoning Board in the past - so I don' t
want it to look not right - I guess that is what I am saying and
I think: the visibility just from the corner location will help us
and it should be adequate .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well this suggests that really we add to your
appeal to accept a height of a - heights in excess of the
Ordinance that you' d be willing to accept a limitation that this
would be the: only free-standing sign allowed on the property - is
that your proposal?
MR . MAGUIRE : It is my proiosal - I have no plans for anything
else . If I would I guess I would have to come back: to you -
after it was built or some"hing - if we ran into a situation
where we weren' t visible or there was some other extraneous facts
but my intent and I would so include that as my original proposal
was for one sign plus on the building itself .
6
BZA JINUTES OF 6/13/83
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are: there any questions from anyone on the
Board?
MS . BAGNARDY No questions .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thant:: yqu very much . Is there anyone else who
wishes to be heard in favolr of this application? Is there anyone
who wishes: to be heard in lopposition to this application? Then
we have no further comment from the public or from the applicant .
MS .. BROWNELL ! We didn' t say that out loud . What you just said,
we did not say that out loud .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: In other words on the record I hear no other
comment from the public: or from the applicant . We can now
deliberate, isn' t that nide?
I
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
BOARD DELIBERATIONS ON APPEAL NO . 6-1-83 '
MS . BAGNADI : (unintelligible)
MR . TOMLAN: Absolutely .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well there is no legal measurement or voice
level or . . .
MS . BROWNELL : Except for somebody over here
CHAIRMAN WEAVER.: But we do have to meet the requirements of the
MS . BAGNARDI : In some very restricted areas I ' m thinking of
Pittsburg. where Sign Ordipances are strictly adhered to
are you familiar with these kinds of communities?
MR . TOMLAN: Yes ,
MS . BAGNARDI : I wonder what czar franchi=ses like Ford and Byrne
Dairy and all of those doY
MR . TOMLAN: They do just what Byrne Dairy did - comply .
MS . HAIKU It seems to mel though that this - with two signs it
could look: a lot worse than with one sign.
MS . BAGNARDI : I agree .
MR . TOMLAN: That ' s right . )
MS . HAINE : It is kind of a trade-off - if there is a trade-off
like that I think: we would do best for the City by allowing this
with the restriction
MS . BROWNELL : Certainly clutter is more important than five foot
height .
MR . TOMLAN: IS IT BINDINGj . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Three feelst ,
MR . TOMLAN: Three feet and some inches .
8
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Three fIet and seven inches in a maximum of
twenty-two . Percentage is less than ten percent - my math isn' t
too good but it is twelve or thirteen percent over the
twenty-two .
MR. TOMLAN' I think: more convincing is the fact that if the
appellant agrees to limit Ag the number of signs to one - in the
face of having two in a se9se - that is something to consider .
MS , BROWNELL : Certainly he went to the trouble to find a smaller
area size of sign. He begin with one hundred square feet .
MR . TOMLAN: Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Do I hear a consensus that you approve the
over-height sign with the Irestriction that this be the only free-
standing???
9
HZA MINUTES OF 6�'1 ltt3
APPEAL NO . 6- 1-83 =04 SOUTH MEADOW STREET
The Board considered the alppeal of Maguire Ford for- a sign
variance to permit the erection of a free-standing sign► at West
Clinton and South Meadow Streets . The decision of the Hoard was
as follows :
MS . BROWNELL : I move that the Hoard grant the sign► variance
requested in appeal n►umt►erI 6- 1-83 so that a sign► may t►e erected
in excess of the maximum height with the condition that this be
the only free-standing sigh allowed on the property .
MR . TOMLAN. I second thie motion .
FINDINGS OF FACT :
1 ) There: is very minor difference in height; the proposed sign
will be 3 ' 7" over the 22 ' maximum allowed .
2) The appellant has voluntarily reduced the square footage from
106 square feet to 73 from the original appeal .
t) The limitation to one sign will cr-eate less visual clutter
than the two signs that are permitted by the Ordinance .
VOTE : 5 'YES; G NO GRANTED W/CONDITION
10
BZA MINUTES OF 0/13/83
CHAIRMAN WEAVER! May we have the next case?
SECRETARY HOARN The ne'x, case is appeal number 1495:
Appeal of Orson Ledger for a Special Permit
under Section 30 . 25, Column 2 and Section
30 . 26, end for an area variance under Section
30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25, Columns 4, 6, 7, 10,
11, 12, land 13 for deficiencies in off-street
parking, minimum lot size, minimum lot width,
minimum 'front yard setback., and minimum set-
backs for both side yards., to permit the opera-
tion of a coin-operated laundry (self-service)
open to the public in the basement of the exis-
ting cooperative dwelling at 207 WILLIAM STREET
under a Special Permit . The property is lo-
cated in an R-3a use district, in which the
proposed use is permitted under a special per-
mit from the Board of Zoning Appeals under Sec-
tion 30 . 49 . The appellant must also obtain an
area variance for the listed deficiencies be-
fore a permit can be issued for the laundry .
I
MR . LEDGER : I am Orson Ledger, I reside at 809 S . Aurora Street .
I would like to have a neighborhood facility at 207 Williams
Street . Some years agcy when I bought the building we had a base-
ment apartment with two beroomsput in without a building per-
mit . The present - the: Building Commissioner at that time told
me that we could constitute: the two - three-bedroom apartments on
the first and second flood( as one unit and allow this unit in the
basement to be used as a second unit . Before tte leases expired
so that I could change it Aver - changed Building Commissioners -
they allowed that the ceiling height was of a deficiency and it
would not be allowed so itiwas removed -we since got a permit and
put in a laundry facility which I ' ve been under orders to lock up
and use for the house only , There are eleven buildings located
on Williams Street, which fix of them are mine - there are eight
i 11
8ZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
buildings on Highland Place which is a one-way loop starting at
the top of Williams Street and ending up in the middle of the
hill and there is eight buildings there and I own one of those.
All the people that would be expected to use this building are
within a one Mock: area in the locations in the middle of
Williams Street where parking would not be a problem because
everybody would be walking and I have four letters from neighbors
in the area which I would like to read. This is from Johnson
Apartments of 138 Linn Street : Gear Orson ! I ,just wanted to let
you know that I am in favor of your laundry facility located at
207 Williams Street . It adds an extra attraction to my apart-
ment=_: at 210 Williams; Street because my tenants do not have to
carry their laundry up the hill . [local luck . Sincerely, Theron
Johnson I have another here . On behalf of the students who
live in my apartments on Williams Street, also on Highland Place.,
I wish to thank; you for the convenience of your laundromat on
Williams Street . lust to let you know it is appreciated by the
students for a nearby facility to be for their use. Sincerely,
Landlord Robert Lower . This is from Carey Apartments: lust a
note to thank: you on behalf of my tenants at 203 Williams Street
and myself for the installation of laundry facilities at 207 Wil-
liams Street . Because of the steep climb up or down to other
Collegetown laundromats, my tenants are delighted to have your
facility .just two doors away . I should add that having such fa-
cilities at close hand made renting much easier this year . Per-
spective tenants are concerned about this kind of convenience .
12
EZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
You made my job much easier . Thar►k:s , James W. Carey . Here is
one from Philip White, Jr . We have a house at 205 Williams
:street (which is right next door to mine, 107) and one at 202
Williams Street . One is next door , one is: across: the street from
your laundromat at 207 Williams Street . Several of my tenants
find it convenient to have a laundromat so close to their resi-
dence. We prefer that you not be reqs.►fired to close it as we have
told new tenants of its availability . I am sure this has been
one of the considerations in their decision to rent from us . We
feel that this is a plus to the tenants in the area and in no way
distracts from the character of the neighborhood or creates any
hardship or inconvenience to anyone . Sincerely, Philip White,
Jr . And I guess that concludes my plea for a variance .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Technical question . Does the Commissioner have
copies of these letters?
MR , LEDGER: I left a copy with the Planning Board .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Does this: number of letters represent the
majority of teh owners of property within two hundred feet of the
proposal?
MR , LEDGEK The ones: that would be using the fatality., yes . The
ones who lie on Buffalo `street behind it , it would be kind of
impractical for them to walk: around to use it . And so therefore
they didn' t send me any letters: but these four people did .
CHAIRMAN WEAKER: What I am interested in and I may he misreading
but it seems to me that what you are asking for would require a
majority of written responses . . . .
13
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
MR . LEDGER' Well for the people on the Buffalo Street side
behind it., they would have to go by two laundromats to get to
mine so it would be hand of impr-actical to use mine .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER. In meeting your obligation in notification, do
YOU know how many notices you sent out?
MR . LEDGER. No I don' t _ I would guess: 27 to 32 . 1 didn' t go
down to get the list and 1 think. they over-reached a little bit
when they pulled for- the two-hundred feet but I think: that is
some where' s in the area of what they sent out .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: How many letters did you have there that you
read to us?
MR . LEDGER.: I think; Tom is counting them now .
MR . TOMLAN: Four that he read .
SECRETARY HOARD : 27 were notified .
MR . TOMLAN' 27 were notified?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER'. My question is bases! upon Section 30 . 26C4b .
And I want to make certain that we' ve met the requirements of the
Ordinance as far as considering the establishment of a commercial
facility in this: residential district . It seemed to me that you
are not very close to that - Tom., I lean on your experience with
the Ordinance, specific: reference to 30 . 26-40 .
SECRETARY HOARD : Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVE'.- It is my interpretation that and I ' ll read from
that section: "Before hearing the apkieal_r the Board mu=_;t have
written response on the proposal from a majority of those noti-
fied by the appellant as required in procedure set forth in Sec-
14
BZA MINUTE; OF 6/13/33
tion 30 , 58 . This response as: well as that expressed at the pub-
lic hearing, should be a principal factor in the Board' s decision
to grant the special permit . " Four out of - taking your low fi-
gure of 27 - is quite a bit shy of the majority required.
MR . LEDGER: Are they supposed to be asked to send a letter in or
.lust do it on their own when they receive the letter from me
because we made no indication in our letter to them to respond to
our . . . .
CHAIRMAN HEAVER.: Well, it would seem to me that under these cir-
cumstances that if there is: a question about procedure that the
Board would be well advised to make certain that you and the pro-
cedure - or that you follow the procedure and I frankly can' t
advise you on how to get the written response. It seems to me
MR . LEDGER: These people are - they are so far away they
wouldn' t have any use for the facility anyway because they are on
another street - way off the beaten path from where they would iso
and these are the people that are in the area. . .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER! These are property owners .
MR . LEDGER; Yes, these are property owners who are in, the area
and I own seven of the buildings adjacent to it and across the
street .
MS . BROWNELL : Now many peopf le would you say are covered by
those four landlords?
MR . LEDGER.: How many people?
Mtn , BROWNELL : If one landlord wrote a letter how many users in
that particular house would come to the laundromat?
15
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
MR , LEDGER : Including mine?
MS , BROWNELL : No: *just those four - how many people are covered
by those four letter would you say? How many tenants that would
use your facility?
MR . LEDGER: I would say somewhere between forty to fifty-five .
MS . BROWNELL : Covered by those letters that would probably use
your laundromat?
MR. LEDGER: Also seven of my tenants - there are seven
buildings .
MS . BAGNARD : How many of yours?
MR . LED EV Probably sixty or sixty-five .
CHAIRMAN WEAVEV Without trying to estimate possible potential
number of residents in the area., it would seem to me that notifi-
cation is a requirement in notifying owners and that the majority
referred to in the Code is: the majority of those notified rather
than those affected. From a procedural standpoint it would - I
hope it would seem fair to you that we allow you to come back
with this appeal perfected and in the technical sense without
arguing the merits of it at this, meeting and that would then -
I ' m not certain that readvertising - I ' m not sure about that -
you' ll have to check tomorrow on the -whether - exactly what form
renotification to the adjacent property owners should be but
otherwise I can allow it to go on to Board consideration and you
can already hear me saying through technical reasons I will vote
to deny on the: basis_: of the imperfect application rather than or,
the basis of the merits of the argument , So., now I ' m begging the
16
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
Board' s pleasure on this -but it appears to me that the applicant
without going into the merits: of this argument has not met the
notification procedures necessary for us to hear the appeal . Is
that agreeable to the Board?
MS . BROWNELL : I agree .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER. Do I hear a motion?
MR . TOMLAN: So move .
MS . BROWNELL : I second .
MR . LEDGER; So we would have to bring it back: to the: next
meeting - do we have time to get the paper work: out before the
next meeting Tom?
SECRETARY HOARD: You will not need to renotify because this is
being carried over in a public: hearing . But you will need to get
the response from the ;:owners . . . you' ve heard from Lower, White,
Johnsen and Carey I don' t even see Carey on your list .
MR . LEDGER: It may have been under the other owner because he
.just bought the building recently , It is
SECRETARY HOARD: Who is the previous owner?
MR . LEDGER: No,, I don' t , It is 203 Williams Street - it was an
Oriental fellow but I can' t pronounce his name - Wong I believe -
there: was a couple of Orientals who bought the place and turned
it over relatively recent .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: All those in favor? 4 AYES
I don' t think: we need a ballot vote on that .
MR . LEDGER: So you want a re:notific:ation of the: people for the
next meeting? Is that correct?
17
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13183
SECRETARY HOARD, You dor►° t reed to notify them.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Just perfect your application by going after
those other per-sorts notified until you have a majority of those:
notified responding in writing for- the information of this Board,
yes .
MR. LEDGER: For' the .July ►.&th meeting`'
CHAIRMAN WEAVER`.: Yes . There would be no reason for meeting any
time frame other than having it done in time for the meeting .
MR. LEDGER . That is July 6th I believe?
SECRETARY HOARD : Right .
MR . LEDGER: All right . Thank you .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: If we czar► hear the next case please .
18
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
SECRETARY HOARD : The nest appeal is appeal number 1496 ;
Appeal of' Peter- Penniman for- an area vari-
ance under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25.,
Columns 7, 11 and 12 for deficiencies in
minimum lot width, minimum front yard set-
back for one sideyard to permit the conver-
sion of the existing single family house at
135 FAYETTE STREET to a two-family dwelling .
The property is located in art R-2b use dis-
trict in which the proposed use is permit-
ted, however, under Section 30 . 43 the appel-
lant must obtain art area variance for the
listed deficiencies before a building permit
can be issued for the conversion .
MR . PENNIMAN' Sorry I don' t have my copy of the application but
I don' t have: a lot to say . I am Peter Penniman, soon to be liv-
ing at 135 Fayette Street . I guess I ' ll .just repeat what I said
in the letter- which I sent out to twenty-eight neighbors , I am
riot proposing to enlarge the house in any way or- to add a new
entrance . The only change to the exter-ior that 1 plan is to re-
move: the existing grey asphalt siding., restore the original wood
siding . There ar-e two parking spaces at the rear, of the house
one in the garage and one directly in front of the garage . In my
opinion this proposal does not violate the spirit of the Zoning
Or-dinancze . This neighbc:rhood is zoned R-2b which allows two fam-
ily houses . My wife and I plan to live in one half of the house .
That is about all i have to say .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : Any questions from the Board?
MS . HAINE : I have one question. Are there really two parking
spaces back there'' It seemed awfully - like an awfully narrow
drive but I really didn' t have a chancre to get back, behind there .
MR. PENNIMAN, It ' s a shared driveway - it curves off to the side
19
6ZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
and one of the parking spaces is in the garage and there is room
for any sized vehicle in front of the garage as far as 1 cart
tell .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So that shared driveway - you cart park: in front
of the: garage and not be violating your neighbors right to
access?
MR . PENNIMAN: Right , They separate well before the garage .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any other, questions?
MR . TCIMLAN: The maximum number- of occupants then would be what?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER.: Limited by the definition of a family in each
part of the duplex and the housing limits: on occ:upanc:y of
(unintelligible) space .
MR , PENNIMAN: The house now has four bedrooms and after
converting it. it will have three: bedrooms so it may legally be
possible to have more people living there but I think chances
are there will be less .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So the duplex. will have a one-bedroom and one
two-bedroom apartment?
MR . PENNIMAN: Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER.: The present house is four-bedroom"
MR . PENNIMAN: Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions?
Mfg . BROWNELL , There is no question that both cars - then - you
are sure that both cars c:ar► park . I noticed that one is right in
the driveway - parked in the driveway .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER, Well., thank: you. Is there anyone else who
20
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
wishes to be heard in favor of this application? Is there anyone
who wishes_: to speak: in opposition to this application'? I hear no
further, testimony on this case .
21
BZA MINUTES OF 6113183
DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - AP'P'EAL NO . 1496 - 135 FAYETTE STREET
MR . TOMLAN: What is: the nature of the neighborhood by virtue of
any sort of appeals or variance to grant in the past the history
of the neighborhood?
SECRETARY HOARD: The neighborhood is one that has: been zoned
differently in the past and there is some multiple dwellings on
the block, There is a tendency in the area for conversions to
two-family of single family houses - some of the houses: ar-e quite
large and are being sub-divided. I don' t know what else to tell
you .
MS . HAINE : This is in the N. H . S . area"
SECRETARY HOARD: It is: in the NHS area .
MS . HAINE : A two-family dwelling is allowed?
SECRETARY HOARD : Yes it is .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: One or two-family and there are three
non-conforming side yard - both side yards and the: front yard
setbacks so in order to make this buildign conform as a single
family dwelling it would have to be nar-rower - set back. further
from the street - both or all three possibilities impractical and
the proposal would riot increase any of these three deficiencies .
22
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
AP'P'EAL NO. 1496 - 135 FAYETTE STREET
The Board considered the appeal of Mr . Peter Penniman for an area
variance to permit the conversion of the existing single family
house at 115 Fayette Street to a two-family dwelling . The
decision of the Board was as follows :
MS . BROWNELL : I move that the Board grant the area
variance requested in Appeal No . 149E
with the stipulation that there be two
off-street parking spaces provided.
MS . BAGNARDI : I second the motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT :
1 ) There will be no significant change in the basic: visual
structure .
2) This change will not have a detrimental effect on the
neighborhood .
3) There is sufficient parking available .
41 The use is allowed in the R-2b use district .
51 Practical difficulty has been =shown in bringing the existing
non-conforming front and nide yard setback: into compliance
with the Code .
VOTE : 4 YES; 1 NO GRANTEDIWITH STIPULATION
23
EZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1497 :
Appeal of Mabel Stewart for an area variance
under Section 30 , 49 and Section 30 . 25, Col-
umns 4 and 12 for deficiencies in off-street
parking and minimum setback: for one sideyard
to permit the conversion of the existing
single family house at 331 C:ASC.ADILLA STREET
to a two-family dwelling . The property is
located in an R-3b use district, in which
the proposed use is permitted., however., un-
der 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. , CURTIS ! My name is Den Curtis, I ' m from Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing Servic:es, 520 Ww Green Street . We propose to assist Mrs .
Stewart in converting an existing bedroom and den into a more
private unit by the addition of bathroom and kitchen fatalities
and a private entrance. We wouldn' t be changing the outside ap-
pearance of the building beyond the addition of Velox skylights
to bring the area into compliance with code requirements for
light and ventilation . Beyond that most of the work: we would be
doing would be - would involve improving the building in terms of
building codes - rewiring and doing some structural work: . The
occupancy of the building would essentially remain unchanged - in
fact the person who now occupies the bedroom would be occupying
this unit . If there is only one parking place - this has been
adequate today as Mrs . Stewart does not drive . Her daughter, who
occupies the bedroom does drive and does park: the car in the par-
king space .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions:,
MS . BAGNARDI : Where would the entrance to the second unit be'?
24
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
MR , C:UR.TIS : It would be: inside the building .
MS . BAGNARDI : The front porch?
MR . CURTIS ! No, actually you would come in the front entrance of
the building - through the front porch in through the front door
- we just essentially guilt a little vestibule inside so there
would actually be no change to the outside appearance of the
building . It is: kind of hard to see in here but you come through
this front door., walk: through the porch to another door . You
still would do that . You would go through that front door and
then to the side we would ,just put a small wall in to allow some-
body to Into the - what is currently the main: house or to go
through an: existing door opening - in which we put a deadbolt
solid door on - into the upstairs .
MS . BROWNELL : Have you tried to find extra parking for this
extra apartment?
MR, C.URTIS : What we have considered - I ' m not sure if - I did a
little map - what we' ve considered is this existing parking - her
common driveway is turning into this: area and putting railroad
ties around here to provide another parking space .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Where is the proposed second parking space?
MR . C:URTIS ! Where it says possible parking, here - this area
behind the house - it is currently a garden here which we' d
rather not affect anymore than necessary - there is.,
unfortunately a bush right here which we will try to save - a
flowering bush. What we are thinking of is taking this area here
and blocking it off with railroad ties and putting in some gravel
25
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/£ 3
down►, to provide the second parking place .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well, do I read this: as an application► to
conform to the parking requirements?
MR . C:URTIS : Yes., this is: a recommendation of the first zoning
meeting that we attended and it seemed like a reasonable request .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Are there any other questions from the Board?
MS . BAGNAF.DI : How large is: that studio going to be, just one
bedroom? It seems very small .
MR . C:URTIS : It is., it is very small .
MS . BAGNARD1 : Will you be raising the roof at all?
MR . CURTIS: No, it would be unfeasible to raise the roof . What
we will be doing is adding skylights here and here because
currently there is only this one window here and these two small
windows back here . This is: currently a bedroom, where this wall
goes across: - this is: a little den type of area - kind of an►
unused area . We would simply be adding kitchen facilities here
and a 'bathroom facility there . (unintelligible) to kind of open
the place up because the door would be downstairs .
MS . BAGNARDI : And how did you say this: was being used currently
-just as a one-family?
MR . CURTIS : Currently there is a bedroom here and then, this area
over here is kind of just a sitting room type of thine - really
unused space .
MRS . BROWNELL ! What is the square footage of this do you know?
MR . CURTIS : I haven' t got a scale with me but it seems to me
that - I think: this may be seven►teen► feet across and a little
26
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
over twenty feet long .
MRS . BROWNELL: Six hundred square feet'?
MR. CURTI`S: Yes - very small - just a little studio unit for one
person.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER! Any other questions? Thank: you Mr . Curtis . Is
there: anyone else who wishes to be heard in support of this
application? ( no one) Is there anyone who wishes to speak: in
opposition to this application? (no one) I hear no one further
who wishes to speak: on this matter .
27
BZA MINUTES OF 6I13/83
ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO . 1497 331 CASC:ADILLA STREET
MS , HAINE : I move that the Board grant the area variance
requested in appeal number 1497 .
MS , BROWNELL : I second the motion .
FINDINGS OF FACT :
1 I Pr-actical difficulties were shown in meeting the side yard
deficiency .
2) This.: is a permitted use. in the R-3b use district .
3:1 The change will riot effect the character- of the neighborhood .
4) The size of the building will not be increased.
VOTE : E_ YES; 0 NO GRANTED
28
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1498 :
Appeal of Roger Eslinger for an area vari-
ance under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25,
Columns 4,, 11, 12 for deficiencies in off-
street parking and minimum front yard set-
back and minimum setback for one sideyard to
permit enlargement of the existing one-
family house at 22 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE to in-
crease interior living space . The property
is located in an R-1b use district, in which
the existing use is permitted; however,
under Section 30 . 49 the appellant must ob-
tain an area variance for the listed defi-
ciencies before a building permit can be
issued for the additions .
MR . ESLINGER: I ' m Roger Eslinger., 22 Hawthorne Circle, I don' t
know what to add to what he had to say, other than what we pro-
pose to do is increase the sire of our living room and what turns
out to be another roam facing the street which would allow us to
have a sewing room/office type of combination - not office, but I
mean a place for me to do work: - home at night and Sue would do
work; connected with the nursery school - that type of thing . The
living roam would be enlarged toward our neighbors on the south
and when we went west, our living room would be enlarged toward
the street . Regarding the off the street parking concern, I have
my curbside lawyer with me back here, but I ' ll spare herr having
to speak: right now - four or five years ago the neighbors in that
circle signed a petition and brought it to the Department of Pub-
lic: Works - they wanted to enforce the odd-even which none of us
have off" the street parking and we were granted at that time that
we could all park: right in front of our place - in front of our
houses . And we were just talking before, we don' t remember who
29
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
the person was that we presented the petition to .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER, You are in good company . I can remember the
petition but I don' t remember either .
MR . ESLINGER: Very good .
MS . BROWNELL : So you do have a problem with off-street par-king
or you don ' t?
MR ESLINGER: Well on the application for a building permit -
that was cited as being a concern . I was .just trying to speak: to
that point, which you mentioned .
MS . BAGNARDI : goes anyone have - none of those properties have
driveways?
MR . ESLINGER: Right . Arid we petitioned the Department of Public
Works and they said that was okay .
MS . BAGNARDI : Where do you all park?
MR . ESLINGER: Just right in front of our houses . It is, just
people who own their own homes there, who are involved.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER. Is the only increased space will be increased
living room?
MR . ESLINGER: Yes and another room which faces the street .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: The cane that you spoke about eventually will be
the office/sewing room?
MR _ ESLINGER: Yes, right, these two sides coming toward the
street .
MS . HAINE : So you are planning to change the outside dimensions
of the house?
MR . ESLINGER : Yes .
30
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
MS . BROWNELL : But you are ,just going to square it off so to
speak, is that right?
MR. ESLINGER'.: Yes, ri�3h# . It is going to go four feet to the
south toward Mrs . Maybee' s lot line and it come toward the street
as indicated .
MS . BAGNARDI : How much toward the street - what is that width of
the addition?
MR. ESLINGER: Okay, that is about fine and one-half feet and
that will leave us twenty-eight, six and twenty-eight feet - well
almost twenty-nine feet to the curb .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: As far as meeting the parking requirements, you
are not increasing the potential occupancy?
MR. ESLINGER: No . It will stay the same. Single family
residence .
MS . BROWNELL : What are. all of these signatures .
MR. ESLINGER: An amender{ drawing - I went to the neighbors in
our Circle and got them to sign to approve it .
MS . BROWNELL : I was wondering about that . Okay . They all
approve it then., is what you are saying'71
MR . ESLINGER : Right .
MS . BAGNARDI : Haw many people live there on Hawthorne Circle?
MR . ESLINGER: How many houses on Hawthorne Circle?
MRS . ESLINGER: Six in the Circle plus the duplex so there are
seven dwellings .
MS . BROWNELL : You have seven signatures .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER'.' If they haven' t got a driveway., they wouldn' t
31
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
be in the circle .
MR . TOMLAN: Leo you have any idea what the new exterior you
propose will look like?
MR . ESLINGER'.: It is going to be a vinyl siding - at least that
is what we talked to someone about . . .
MR. TOMLAN: And the (unintelligible) window and door frames are
going to be about the same?
MR. ESLINGER: The front door will stay right where it is and the
windows will just come out . . .
MS . BAGNARDI : Ceiling is the same?
MR . ESLINGER: Yes, right . Same window there and the same window
here . We are putting in a new window on the south side - an
Anderson window .
MS . BROWNELL ! Your original proposal was two feet and three feet
and now it is five and one-half feet?
MR . ESLINGER : Yes .
MS . HAINE : (unintelligible)
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: The one question that I have is, whether the
front yard deficiency will be increased'?
SECRETARY HOARD : No it will not in that the doorway is the key
CHAIRMAN WEAVER. All right . One side yard is a one foot
deficiency ienc:y and the front yard continues to be about eight feet .
And the off-street parking deficiency is one and will be one if
this is approved. Are there any other questions? Thank you . Is
there anyone else who wishes to speak: in support of this
application? (no one) Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition
32
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/£ 3
to this application ? I hear no further comment from the public;
so it is up to us .
33
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO. 1498 22 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE
The Board considered the appeal of Roger F , E=_.1 inger for an area
variance to permit enlar=gement of the existing one-family house
at 12 Hawthorne Circle to increase interior living space . The
decision of the Board was as follows :
Mtn . HAINE . I move that the Board grant the area
variance requested in appeal number 1498 .
MS . BROWNELL ! I second the motion .
FINDINGS OF FACT :
1 _l The proposed changes would not particularly impact the
neighborhood and there would be no increase in density .
2) Practical difficulty has been shown in meeting the front
and side yard deficiencies to meet Code requirements .
3) The dwelling is now deficient by one parking space. With
the: proposed addition the off-street parking deficiency will
not be changed .
VOTE : 5 'yes; 0 no GRANTED
34
8ZA MINUTES 4F 6/13,183
SECRETARY HOARD, The next appeal is appeal number. 1499 :
Appeal of Margaret Cecce for an area variance
under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25., Columns 4
and 12 for deficiencies in off-street parking and
minimum front yard setback: to permit the con-
struction of a eight foot x ten foot porch at the
second floor level of the existing two-family
house at 111 WEST JAY STREET . The property is
located in an R-2b use district., in which the
existing use is permitted; however ., under Section
30 . 49 the appellants must obtain an area variance
for the listed deficiencies before a building
permit can be issued for the new construction .
MS . C'.EC.C:E : I 'm Margaret Cec:ce., 111 W. Jay Street and one change
is that instead of eight by ten it is six by ten foot . I think -
okay, so rather than being eight by ten it is only six by ten so
it is only . . . .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So it comes out from the side of the house six
feet rather than eight?
MS . C:ECC.E : Rather, than eight, right - and still the same length .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So it is six by ten?
MS . CECCE : Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Does the rest of the Board see that on their . . .
MS . C:ECC:E : The deficiencies are ones that already exist - the
front - the side that I want to add the porch is riot a front yard
side. I won' t be changing any of the - there is a deficiency of
one parking space - there is deficiency in the area and there is
- it would be impossible. to change. the area deficiencies and
there would not be any change in the use of the str-uC.ture . It is
a two-family home and what the enlargement - the landing - it has
a four toy four foot landing which makes it extremely difficult to
35
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/63
get furniture,, etc . in and out of the apartment and it also is
quite small for - you know - if you are carrying packages or
anything so it would be more: convenient to have a slightly larger
area at the entrance of the apartment .
MS . BROWNELL : You already have a four by what?
MS . CECCE : It is a four by four foot square landing .
MS . BROWNELL : So you are just changing it to a six by ten?
MS . CECCE : Sir, by ten .
MS , HAINE : This would be: an external porch and not a closed in
porch?
MS . CECCE : Right, it will be an external porch, deck: type porch .
MS . BAGNARDI : Any roof covering overhead?
MS . CECCE : Yes I was planning can a roof .
MS . BROWNELL : The roof would come down from ;.your house over it
or how? Extend the roof line?
MS . CECCE : It would probably be similar to what it - it has a
small roof - it is a small pitch., roll roofing covered roof . I
don' t know how you . . .
MS , BAGNARDI : So that would extend???
MS . CECCE : That would be the same width as the porch so the roof
would be the same size as the porch .
MS . BAGNARDI : How wide?
MS . CECCE : It is now four feet wide and I would be making it sir
feet wide .
MS . BAGNARDI : You are talking about extending this porch roof -
this roof right here?
I
36
BZA MINUTES OF 6113/€33
MS, CECCE : Not that - the: part that is flat, this is over the
stairs, so it would be starting from back: here and it would go
out two feet more .
MR . TOMLAN' The staircase covering itself would remain the same?
MS - CECCE : The stairs and stairc:overing would remain the same,
yes .
MS . BROWNELL : Second floor?
MS . CECCE : Yes .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER.: All right, are there any other questions from
the Board?
MS . BROWNELL : Your neighbor_: have agreed to the sig by ten?
MS . CECCE : Yes .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank: you very much. Is there anyone else who
wishes to speak: in support of this application? No one) Is
there anyone who wishes_: to speak: in opposition to this
application? (no one)
SECRETARY HOARD: We do have two letters Mr . Chairman .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : All right .
SECRETARY HOARDi These are dated - one is May 23rd and one is
May 14th. The first is from Rita Comfort of 108 West lay `_street
and Curt Foerster of 111 West lay Street "Gentlemen., We do not
approve of a deck: built on 111 West lay Street - owner Mrs , Cici
(sic) , It is too close to the next house - as you know there has
been one load fire there . 'Yours truly, /s/ Rita Comfort and Curt
Foerster . " And the: other one is from Howard Lelik: and William
Lelik . "We as neighbors of 111 lay Street commend Margaret A.
37
BZR MINUTES OF 6/13/83
Ceec:e ori all her apartment renovations, but we don' t want a B x:
10 deck: next to our home. The main reason for this is the condi-
tion of our father . His condition is very poor - total disabil-
ity . His bedroom window is night in line with said appeal to
within four- feet . I don' t feel that this is in the best interest
of our- fattier- . If in any other way we could help M. C`.eccce, we
would consider it . Thank: you . /s/ Howard Lelik. and William J .
Lelik"
MS . CECC:E : That is why i changed it to six feet which should
give (unintelligible)
MS . BROWNELL ' Did they agree that six by
MSS CECC:E : They seemed to agree to it . One of the problems is I
cannot get - if the r of r iger-ator breaks down I cannot get it out
of there. When I brought a refrigerator into the apartment it
was so extremely difficult to get it in that the men had to climb
off of the back: of the porch to try and manuever it . To get a
refrigerator- in or out with the existing porch landing is almost
impossible . Six foot gives another - good six foot or better to
the window of the house - of the house next door .
MS . BROWNELL : You state here that the neighbors will not object
to a six. by ten and yet that is the direct neighbor next door . .
MS . CEC:CE : They were objecting to an eight by ten - when they
first wrote that letter they thought it was coming too close to
their house. When I talked to Mr-s . Lelik, downstair-s, I showed
tier where six foot would be only two more feet and she seemed to
be agreeable . I have not talked to her son Howard, so I am riot
38
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
sure,
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Let ' s have a clarification of the side yard
deficiency , This house: is a corner house and it has two front
yards and one front yard is deficient . . .
MS . CECCE : Which is the Auburn Street front yard .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: And the side yard on which you are building,
you would meet the minimum fire foot side yard requirement?
MS . CECCE : Right .
C:HAIRM.AN WEAVER: With the proposed deck?
MS . CECCE : It may not . It is six foot, nine to the stairs so it
probably would be two and one-half feet because the stairs- are a
little narrow - so it would be probably four feet so I would not
need the side yard requirement for the deck .
C`.HAIRMAN WEAVER: So let ' s do it again, The porch that is there
is four feet?
MS . CECCE : The upper one is four feet square. The stairs are
three and one-half feet wide so where it is measured six foot,
nine , is to the stairs so it would be two and one-half feet
further out which would cut it down to four feet, three,, to the
lot line_ So then it would be in violation on that side yard
too .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So you are between four and five feet - you are
less than five feet, but approximately four?
MS . CECCE : Yes .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any further questions from the Board?
MR . TOMLAN: Was the refrigerator the impetus?
39
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13./83
MS . C'EC'C'E : That and my tenant would like to have a place to put
a grill and a chair . She would like more - an outside space to
sit and the other thing is getting refrigerator, bedding,, etc . so
it is quite inconvenient being that small at the top of the
stairs .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank: you again. Now if you would like to come
up here we would be glad to listed to you. Come up and tell us
who you are and have a chair .
MS . WINTER: My name is Meta minter and I am the tenant involved
' in this . I hadn' t thought about this in quite this: way before
but I have two young children and it is difficult even with a
four year old and a seven year old and a grocery bag to manipu-
late up a fairly high staircase and so on the one hand I had ori-
ginally thought of having someplace where I could have a little
bit of room to sit outside but also just the logistics of manipu-
lating things in and out of there are difficult when it is that
high and it is that small .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank: you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak
in support of this application? Anyone who wishes to speak in
opposition to this application? Hearing no further testimony . . .
40
6ZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO , 1499 111 W. JAY ST .
The Board consider-ed the request of Margaret C:ecce for an area
var-iance to permit the construction of an 6 ' x 10' porch at the
second floor level of the existing two-family house at 111 West
Jay Street . The decision of the Board was as follows :
CHAIRMAN WEAVER; I move that the Board grant the area
variance requested in appeal no . 1499.
MS . EtROWNELL I second the motion .
FINDINGS OF FACT ;
11 There ar-e pr-actical difficulties in br-inging this
non-conforming structure: into compliance with the Code in
that it is too close to the street right-of-way all along one
side and it is impractical to move it .
2) The amenities of the structure would be. further- improved by
the proposed deck .
3) There is not a substantial invasion of the required side yard
on the side where the deck is proposed to be cconstructed .
VOTE : 3 YES; 2 NO DENIED FOR LACE; OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES
41
EFTA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1500 '
Appeal of Jeff Coleman for an area variance
under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25, Col-
umns 11 and 12 for deficiencies_: in minimum
front yard setback and minimum setback for
one sideyard to permit the conversion of the
existing single-family dwelling at 200 FIRST
STREET to a two-family dwelling . The proper-
ty is located in an R-3b use district, in
which the proposed use is permitted: however,
under Section 30 . 49 the appellants must ob-
tain an area variance for the listed defi-
ciencies before a building permit can be is-
sued for the conversion .
MR . COLEMAN: My name is teff Coleman, I ' m from 136 The Commons,
Ithaca, New York: and I am proposing to convert an existing single
family home into a two-family home. The property has been unoc-
cupied for eight years and I am working with Neighborhood Housing
Service: which is financing 552,, 000 . 00 worth of purchase and reno-
vation money to complete the project . They have already provided
full designs for it . The house sits on a large lot, it is fifty
by one hundred and five, it has two or three parking spaces at
this point so parking would not be a problem and the. •.snits will
be a one-bedroom unit and a two-bedroom unit which will not be
increasing the number of occupants: that could otherwise be in the
house. There is - well , basically what it is lacking is three
feet on one side yard and four feet in the front yard and being
that it is on a large lot, it seems fairly minor . I know it did
receive a great recommendation from the Planning Board in terms
of plans for that neighborhood . I think: that is: enough for now .
MS . HAINE ; Are you plannin=g to live in that house's
MR . COLEMAN' Yes .
1
. . ...................
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
MS . BROWNELL . I ' m just Curious., why do You SUPPOSe this house
has been empty for eight years?
MR , COLEMAN , Well, the woman who lived there moved into a
nursing home and they didn' t want to sell the property so they
just kept it vacant . It was deteriorated to begin with .
MR . TOMLAN-. So the reason you are not staying with the single
family residence (unintelligible) is because you are moving in
and essentially the other is a rental unit, I assume .
MR . COLEMAN: Right . I will be renting to members of my family,
my brother and his family . But I don' t know how long that will
be .
MR .e-
MR . TOMLAN' You don' t know how long it will be until they rent
it?
MR . COLEMAN' No , how long they will stay there . At least a year
or so.. that is how it will start out .
MS . BROWNELL , Tom., how many parking spaces must this unit have !
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : It has all that are required,
MS . BROWNELL : Two or three .
MR . COLEMAN , It needs only one I believe ,
MS , BROWNELL : It needs only one for a two- family h0USe?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : No, one for each .
MS . BROWNELL ' One for, each, which Would be two ,
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : Two Would be required for a duplex, . One for
each dwelling ,
MR , COLEMAN : Okay ,
CHAIRMAN WEAVER-. But you have two parking spaces anyw,
ly'!
12 U
C
c)�J�MAN WEAVER'
But you have two Par'king Spaces anyway?
2
r
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/33
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
APPEAL NO . 1500 203 FIRST STREET
The Board considered the appeal of Jeff Coleman for an area
variance ender Section 30 , 49 and Section 30 . 25, Columns; 11 and 12
for deficiencies in minimum front Yard setback: and minimum
setback: for one side;rard to permit the conversion of the existing
single-family dwelling at 203 First Street . The decision of the:
Board was as follows :
MS , BAGNA:RDI : I move that the Board grant the area
variance requested in appeal number 1500 .
MR , TOMLAN, I second the motion .
FINDINGS OF FACT :
1 :) Practical difficulties have been shown in bringing the
existing non-conforming front yard and one side yard to
meet Code requirements .
2:) It will improve the character of the neighborhood .
3) The property will conform to parking requirements with
this conversion ..
4:) This: does: not change: the basic exterior of the structure -
there will be no visible change .
5:) Two-family dwellings are permitted in the R-3b use district
where this property is located .
VOTE; 5 YES; G NO GRANTED
4
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO . 1499 111 W, JAY ST .
The Board considered the request of Margaret C.ec:cee for an area
variance to permit the construction of an 6 ' x 10' porch at the
second floor level of the existing two-family house at 111 West
Jay Street , The decision of the Board was as fellows :
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area
variance requested in appeal no . 1499,
MS . BROWNELL ' I second the motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT :
11 There are practical difficulties in bringing this
non-conforming structure into compliance with the Lode in
that it is too close to the street right-of-way all along one
side and it is impractical to move it .
) The amenities of the structure would be further improved by
the proposed deck .
3) There is not a substantial invasion of the required side yard
on the side where the deck is proposed to be constructed .
VOTE : 3 YES; 2 NO DENIED FOR LACI; OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES
41
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/33
MR . COLEMAN! Yes . More than two actually .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: An;, further questions"•, Thank: you . Is there
anyone else who wi=shes to be heard in support of this
application's is there anyone who wisher to speak: in opposition
to this application=s I hear no further testimony .
3
8ZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
SECRETARY HOARD' The: next appeal is appeal number 1499 :
Appeal of Margaret Cecce for art area variance
under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25,, Columns 4
and 12 for deficiencies,- in off-street Marking and
minimum front yard setback: to permit the con-
struction of a eight foot x ten foot porch at the
second floor level of the existing two-family
house at 111 WEST JAY STREET . The property is
located in an R-2b use district., in which the
existing use is permitted; however, under Section
30 . 49 the appellants must obtain an area variance
for the listed deficiencies before a building
permit can be issued for the new construction .
MS . CECCE : I ' m Margaret Cecce., 111 W. Jay Street and one change
is that instead of eight by ten it is six. by ten foot . I think -
okay, so rather than being eight by ten it is only six by ten so
it is only . . . .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER' SO it comes: cut from the side of the house six
feet rather than eight?
MS . CECCE : Rather, than eight, right - and still the same length .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So it is six by ten?
MS . CECCE : Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Does the rest of the Board see that on their . . .
MS . CECCE : The deficiencies are ones that already exist - the
front - the side that I want to add the porch is not a front yard
side:. I won' t be changing any of the - there is a deficiency of
one parking space - there is deficiency in the area and there is
- it would be impossible to change the area deficiencies and
there would not be any change in the use of the structure . It is
a two-family home and what the enlargement - the landing - it has
a four by four- foot landing which makes it extremely difficult to
35
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
get furniture, etc . in and out of the apartment and it also is
quite small for - you know - if you are carrying packages or-
anything so it would be more convenient to have a slightly larger
area at the: entrance of the apartment .
MS . BF'OWNELL : You already have a four by what?
MS , CECCE : It is a four by four foot square landing .
MS . BROWNELL : So you are just changing it to a six by ten?
MS . CECCE : Six by ten .
MS , HAINE : This would be an external porch and not a closed in
porch?
MS . CECCE : Right., it will be an external porch, deck: type porch .
MS . BAGNARDI : Any roof covering overhead?
MS . CECCE : Yes: I was planning on a roof ,
MS . BROWNELL : The roof would come down from your house over it
or how? Extend the roof line?
MS , CECCE : It would probably be similar to what it - it has a
small roof - it is a small pitch., roll roofing covered roof . I
don' t know how you . . .
MS , BAGNARDI : So that would extend???
MS , CECCE : That would be the same width as the: porch so the roof
would be the same size as the porch .
MS . BAGNARDI : How wide?
MS . CECCE : It is now four feet wide and I would be making it six
feet wide ,
MS , BAGNARDI : You are talking about extending this porch roof -
this roof right here?
36
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/63
MS , CECCE : Not that - the: part that is flat., this is over the
stairs, so it would be starting from back: here and it would go
out two feet more ,
MR. TOMLAN: The staircase covering itself would remain the same?
MS _ CECCE : The stairs and staircovering would remain the same,
yes .
MS . BROWNELL : Second floor?
MS . CECCE : Yes .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: All right, are there any other questions from
the Board?
MS . BROWNELL : Your neighbors: have agreed to the six by ten?
MS . CECCE : Yes .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you very much , Is there anyone else who
wishes to speak: in support of this application? (no one) Is
there anyone who wishes_: to speak: in opposition to this
application? ( no one)
SECRETARY HOARD: We do have two letters Mr . Chairman .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : All right .
SECRETARY HOARD; These are dated - one is: May 23rd and one is
May 14th. The first is from Rita Comfort of 106 West Jay Street
and Curt Foerster of 111 West Jay Street "Gentlemen, We do not
approve of a deck built on 111 West Jay Street owner Mrs , Cici
(sic), It is too close to the next house - as you know there has
been one load fire there . Yours truly, /s/ Rita Comfort and Curt
Foerster . " And the other one is from Howard Lelik and William
Lelik: . "We as neighbors of 111 Jay Street commend Margaret A.
37
BZR MINUTES OF 6/13/83
Cecce on all her apartment renovations, but we don' t want a 8 x
10 deck: next to our home, The: main reason for this: is the condi-
tion of our father . His condition is very poor - total disabil-
ity . His: bedroom window is right in line with said appeal to
within four feet . I don' t feel that this is in the best interest
of our father . If in any other way we could help M, Cecce, we
would consider it , Thank: you . /s/ Howard Lelik and William J .
Lelik"
MS . CECC:E ! That is why I changed it to six feet which should
give (unintelligible)
MS , BROWNELL : Did they agree that six by . . . .
MS, CECC:E ! They seemed to agree to it . One of the problems is I
cannot get - if the refrigerator breaks down I cannot get it out
of there. When I brought a refrigerator into the apartment it
was so extremely difficult to get it in that the men had to climb
off of the back: of the porch to try and manuever it . To get a
refrigerator in or out with the existing porch landing is almost
impossible. Six foot gives another - good six foot or better to
the window of the house - of the house next door .
MS , BROWNELL : You state here that the neighbors will not object
to a six by ten and yet that is the direct neighbor nest do>or . . .
MS , CEC.C.E ; They were objecting to an eight by ten - when they
first wrote that letter they thought it was coming too close to
their house , When I talker! to Mrs . Lelik:, downstairs, I showed
her where six foot would be only two more feet and she seemed to
be agreeable , I have not talked to her son Howard, so I am not
38
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
sure,
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Let ' s have a clarification of the side yard
deficiency . This house is a corner house and it has two front
yards and one front yard is deficient . . .
MS . CECCE : Which is the Auburn Street front yard .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: And the side yard on which you are building,
you would meet the minimum five foot side yard requirement?
MS . CECCE : Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: With the proposed deck?
MS . CECCE : It may not . It is six foot, nine to the stairs so it
probably would be two and one-half feet because the stairs are a
little narrow - so it would be probably four feet so I would not
need the side yard requirement for the deck .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So let ' s do it again. The porch that is there:
is four feet?
MS . CECCE : The upper one is four feet square . The stairs are
three and one-half feet wide so where it is measured six foot,
rine, is to the stairs so it would be two and one-half feet
further out which would cut it down to four feet, three., to the
lot line_ So then it would be in violation on that side yard
too .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So you are between four and five feet - you are
less than five feet, but approximately four?
MS . CECCE : Yes .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any further questions from the Board?
MR. TOMLAN: Was the refrigerator the impetus?
39
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
MS . CEC:C:E . That and my tenant would like to have a place to lout
a grill and a chair . She would like more - an outside space to
sit and the other thing is getting refrigerator ., bedding, etc . so
it is quite inconvenient being that small at the top of the
stairs .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank: YOU again. Now if you would like to came
Lip here we would be glad to listed to you, tome up and tell us
who you are and have a chair .
MS . WINTER: My name is Meta Winter and I am the tenant involved
in this . I hadn' t thought about this in quite this way before
but I have two young children and it is difficult even with a
four year old and a seven year old and a gr-ocer-y bag to manipu-
late up a fairly high staircase and so on the one hand I had ori-
ginally thought of having someplace where I could have a little
tit of room to sit outside but also just the logistics of manipu-
lating things in and out of" there are difficult when it is that
high and it is that small .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank: you. Is there anyone who wishes_: to speak
in support of this application: Anyone who wishes to speak: in
opposition to this applications' Hearing no further testimony . . .
40
82A. MINUTES OF fi/13/83
SECRETARY HOARD! The neat appeal is: appeal number 1500 '
Appeal of Jeff Coleman for an area variance
under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25 , Col-
umns 11 and 12 for deficiencies in minimum
front yard setback: and minimum setback: for
one sideyard to permit the conversion of the
existing single-family dwelling at 208 FIRST
STREET to a two-family dwelling . The proper-
ty is located in an R-3b use district, in
which the proposed use is permitted: however,
under Section 30 . 49 the appellants must ob-
tain an area variance for the listed defi-
ciencies before a building permit can be is-
sued for the conver=sion .
MR COLEMAN' My name is Jeff Coleman, I ' m from 136 The Commons,
Ithaca, New fork: and I am proposing to convert an existing single
family home into a two-family home, The property has been unoc-
cupied for eight years and I am working with Neighborhood Housing
Service: which is financing 552, 000 . 00 worth of purchase and reno-
vation money to complete the project . They have already provided
full designs for it , The house sits on a large lot, it is fifty
by one hundred and five, it has two or three parking spaces at
this point so parking would not be a problem and the units will
be a one-bedroom unit and a two-bedroom unit which will not be
increasing the number of occupants that could otherwise be in the
house . There is - well , basically what it is lacking is three
feet on one side yard and four feet in the front yard and being
that it is on a large lot, it seems fairly minor . I know it did
receive a great recommendation from the Planning Board in terms
of plans for that neighborhood . I think: that is enough for now .
MS . HAINE : Are you planning to live in that house?
MR . COLEMAN' Yes .
1
i
BZA MINUTES OF 6/18/83
MS , BROWNELL : I ' m just curious, why do you suppose this house
has beer► empty for eight years?
MR . COLEMAN: Well., the woman who lived there moved into a
nursing home and they didn' t want to sell the property so they
just kept it vacant . It was deteriorated to begin with .
MR. , TOMLAN: `,o the: reason you are not staying with the single
family residence ( unintelligible) is because you are moving in
and essentially the other is; a rental unit, I assume,
MR . COLEMAN: Right . I will be renting to members of my family,
my brother and his family . But I don' t know how long that will
be .
MR . TOMLAN: You don' t know how long it will be until they rent
it?
MR. . COLEMAN: No, how long they will stay there . At least a year
or so, that is how it will start out .
MS . BROWNELL ! Tom, how many parking spaces must this unit have?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : It has all that are required ,
MS . BROWNELL : Two or three .
MR. . COLEMAN! It needs only one I believe .
MS . BROWNELL : It needs only one for a two-family house?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : No , one for each .
MS . BROWNELL : One for each,, which would be two .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : Two would be required for a duplex , One for
each dwelling .
MR . COLEMAN : Okay .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: But you have two parking spaces anyway?
2
i
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
I.
CITY COURT
CITY OF ITHACA
JUNE 13 , 1983
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal , appeal number 1501 , appeal of
Norman D. Freeman, 109 Elston Place has been postponed as of this
afternoon at the request of the appellant. So the next case is
appeal number 1502 : Appeal of Helen Kingsley for an area vari-
ance under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25 ,
Columns 6 , 11, and 12 for deficiencies in
minimum lot size, minimum front yard setback !
and minimum setback for one sideyard to per-
mit the 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 use district
in which the existing use as an apartment
building is permitted; however , under Section
30. 49 the appellant must obtain an area vari
ance for the listed deficiencies before a
building permit can be issued for the conver-
sion. An appeal (#1489) for this property was
denied by the Board at its May 1983 meeting; ;
however the owner is filing a new appeal
based on new information,
MR. GALBRAITH: My name is Dirk Galbraith, I 'm an attorney, I have
,;professional offices at 308 N. Tioga Street and I am here on behalf;
:;of Mrs . Kingsley this evening. Mrs. Kingsley is the lady who is
seated at my left. Also with us this evening are Mrs . Kingsley' s
;;personal attorney, Mr. Neil Stamp and Mr. Frank Flannery who has
;contracted to purchase this property from Mrs. Kingsley. At your
i
,last meeting Mr. Flannery made a variance application on Mrs .
!''Kingsley' s behalf. I 've read the minutes of the hearing and I
;;think that there were a number of things which were either inade-
quately explained or not explained at all to this Board about the
nature of the practical difficulties concerning this property and
,;also the viability of its use or continued use as a doctor' s
',office and also in connection with the sentiment of the neighbors
jof Mrs . Kingsley. I 'd like to make a few brief remarks about the
I
Appeal No. 1502 page 2
application and then I ' d like to direct a couple of questions to
Mrs . Kingsley which I think would bring out some of the facts
, concerning the practical difficulties that concern her continued
ownership and use of this property.
:, CHAIRMAN WEAVER: May I interrupt you. . .
MR. GALBRAITH: Yes sir.
', CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Would you talk to the point of new information?
! I realize that tonight you may be prepared to do a more thorough
; job than was done some time ago but I 'm interested in information
;; that is available now that wasn' t available then. I 'm particularly
,, interested in that point.
MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, fine, sir . One of the points which was made ;
': at the last meeting was the continued suitability of this property ;
as a doctor ' s or dentist' s office. First thing I would like to
point out to the Board is that the phrase doctor or dentist has
been fairly strictly construed by this Board in the past and in
!'; order for a practitioner to maintain an office in the premises at
''; 527 E. State Street, he or she would have to fit the literal defini`
i
tion of a doctor - medical doctor or a dentist. Now I ' d refer your'
;: attention to a previous appeal which you considered in January 1982
.'. on the appeal of Mickey Goldstein and others for use of the proper
ty at 329 S. Geneva Street. Ms . Goldstein, I believe , was a psy-
` chiatric social worker and that application was ultimately granted.;
; However the Board had to consider on more or less a case by case
;; basis and the Board decided in that case a psychiatric social
worker fit most of the criteria of a medical doctor. I would sub-
mit that if someone in the category of a social worker, a psycholo-!
; gist or even a chiropractor were to apply for permission to occupy ;
!', this office, they would have to come before this Board and they
would probably be faced with the same group of objectants that we
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 3
have been faced with - it would be making the same complaint which
, is about parking. I think as a matter of common sense, even if one.;
:physician or one dentist were to occupy this office, you would have;
,
, that dentist , a nurse generally, and a receptionist . That is three ;
'people. That is three people who are going to drive a car to this
,;office every day - we are going to have to park those cars some
'place and unless you are positing a practitioner who has no client
whatsoever to come to his office during the day, I can' t conceive
ithat the proposed use here, which would be the use of this space as
;;four additional bedrooms in an existing apartment, could in any way ;
,increase the traffic burden on this property or in this neighborhoo4.
',kr. Flannery, when he spoke at the last meeting, went to great length
'about the plans to develop the parking on the property. Off street ,
,parking is not even an issue to be varianced here and we would cer
`tainly consent to the granting of a variance here, conditional upon;
:providing off-street parking. That 's one area in which I believe
; there is new information. Along with that, we have submitted to the
hoard and I hope you have seen copies prior to the meeting tonight ,
Jetters from four physicians from the Ithaca area who have - either ;
were familiar with this property when Dr. Kingsley practiced there
'oar have viewed it during the past month. They are unanimous that
no physician in 1983 would rent this space for an office . Likewise ,
i
we have a letter from one dentist who says that a minimum of one
Thousand square feet is required in todays practice to house one
:dentist and his practice. Frankly the parking in this area as it
;presently stands is such that I think any one attempting to open a
':practice there would have to expand the parking just to accommodatej,
'his own staff let alone the patients . And for those reasons , I
lbelieve that this - the evidence we are submitting with this appli-
:i i
:Cation can demonstrate that this property is completely unusable
I
i
',,APPEAL NO. 1502 page 4
i
as either a doctor' s office or a dentist ' s office today. I think
,the second point - strictly speaking about new information that I
would like to bring up is the sentiment of the neighborhood. I
think this Board has to be sensitive to what the neighbors think of!
..any zoning application of any kind. One of the standards , as I
understand it, that you are required to judge these applications by
i
is the impact on the neighborhood. I think sometimes when this Board
;lis faced with a vocal minority of adjoining neighbors - adjoining
;,,property owners , you sometimes get the impression that the things
I
that are said before this Board reflect the entire sentiment of
I;the neighborhood. We have solicited the opinion of the property
:,owners in the area surrounding 527 East State Street and we have '
I
I
` submitted a petition containing seventeen names incidentally it
;:appears to be seventeen separate households - all of whom are
:willing to state in this petition that they have no objection to
lithe variance which is sought here. Additionally we have submitted
;letters to the Board from three other property owners , either sup-
;;porting the variance application or stating that they had no ob-
J ection. Further, Professor Stuart Stein who wrote to the Board
rbefore the last meeting, spoke with me on the telephone yesterday,
nand he reiterated what he said in his last letter which was his
;only and he is the person who is next door the only concern
''he had was that adequate parking be provided - that he has abso-
I
lutely no objection to the proposed use for four additional bed-
;; rooms in an existing apartment. I know there is going to be
;; spokesmen - spokespeople on behalf of the opposition tonight
,. when you hear those people, I would ask the Board to consider than
i
;, there are at least twenty other people in this neighborhood who
,;: have either no objection to the proposed variance or who would sup
,; port it . Now with that I would just like to ask Mrs . Kingsley a
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 5
few questions to bring out the practical hardship which she is
;experiencing which, again, were not brought before the Board at the ;
last meeting. Before the meeting you saw Mr. Flannery, now he is
i
;very knowledgeable about the property because he would like to buy
it however Mrs . Kingsley is the one who owns it at the present time ;
4nd unless a variance can be obtained, her chances of selling the
�roperty. are severely jeopardized. Mrs . Kingsley, your husband was ;
,i
'a physician was he not?
i
;SIRS. KINGSLEY: Yes , a pediatrician.
MR. GALBRAITH: How long did he conduct his practice at the office
int 527 E. State?
ii
SIRS. KINGSLEY: Since March of 147 thirty-five years .
+1R. GALBRAITH: When did your husband pass away?
URS. KINGSLEY: February of 182 .
MR. GALBRAITH: Okay and has the office been vacant since then?
;SIRS. KINGSLEY: Yes it has .
�IR. _GALB_RAITH: Now _there are other apartments in the building?
MRS. KINGSLEY: There are three other apartments which are
mccupied, right. And my sister lived in one of them.
i
iMR. GALBRAITH: At the present time , Mrs . Kingsley, who manages the
lii
'building?
s
IRS. KINGSLEY: I do.
MR. GALBRAITH: Okay. Do you have any help with that?
4
SIRS . KINGSLEY: I have a cleaning woman only. I do all the rentals
!end the - I work with her because we have one short term apartment
,�rhere everything is provided and do all the cleaning and well , what ;
!Over there is to manage - income tax work, collecting rents and
tepairing - if I can' t do it myself, hiring that done.
SIR. GALBRAITH: Mrs . Kingsley, in the past year or so, have you
i1�xperienced some health difficulties which have made it difficult
to continue to do that? i
APPEAL N0. 1502 page 6
i
MRS. KINGSLEY: Well I have pretty severe arthritis in the hips
and legs and it is difficult now to get up to the second floor i
apartments without a crutch but it is making it so that - because
of my age and that - it is difficult to keep up with the physical
I
work.
.' MR. GALBRAITH: And would you like to sell this building?
° MRS. KINGSLEY: Very much so .
f
MR. GALBRAITH: Mrs . Kingsley, after your husband passed away, did ;
i
:, you make any effort to find another doctor who would like to come
in and rent the office and use it as a medical office?
I! MRS. KINGSLEY: I did it only informally as you might, I am sure,
'` realize - I was pretty devastated - my husbands death it was not ;
expected - it happened so soon and I decided - as many widows are
i
;; advised don' t do anything for a year - until you see what devel
;topes whether you need to keep the building whether you should
sell it - whether I may need to occupy one of the apartments , if Ii
couldn' t keep my own home - and there was plenty of work to do - I
!' had hundreds of active patients to write to contact see - all
i' the appointments to cancel , all the charts to disseminate and it
'; just seemed as though I shouldn' t make any effort to try to rent
" it. Except I did inquire of Adelaide Rice and Dr. Ensworth� Dr.
I Hirshfeld, several of the doctors , Dr. Sprinkle -- to see if they
is
' knew of any solo practitioner coming to town - they all advised me '
ithat no one everyone wanted to go into group practice now - not
:. only that but no one would rent a space that small . My husband had.
;' only one employee, that was I and anybody else usually any other '
; doctor would need at least two employees sometimes three, as Dr. j
r
Ensworth says - most solo doctors have three employees now.
(,!MR. GALBRAITH: Mrs . Kingsley, have you entered into a purchase and
i
i
r
:: APPEAL N0. 1502 page 7
sale contract with Mr. Flannery which is conditional upon a vari-
ance being obtained?
. MRS. KINGSLEY: Yes I have , I have a firm contract contingent upon :.
that. And one reason I didn' t do anything for a year is I was
advised by real estate friends that I should not give a lease if Ii
? were going to sell the building and everyone who wanted it would
,, want at least a three year lease. So that is another reason I
;; didn' t. I also knew of this buyer - I knew that he was interested ',
in the building and was just waiting until I was ready to sell -
;; emotionally. It took me about a year to get to that point. And
so I knew that whatever he would want to do with it would be dif-
ferent from what I would have - and the three apartments rented
r
:` were barely carrying the building so that I could exist and get
; along for a year as long as I didn't have any major repairs .
MR. GALBRAITH: That is really all the new material that I have and
'! I don' t want to burden the Board by repeating things that have
;: already been said before. I have Mr . Flannery here this evening
if the Board has any question about the physical possibility of
;, providing parking on the site, although it is not a subject for tho
!; variance Mr. Flannery would be glad to explain that to you - if
`' that is something that you feel you have already heard enough about'
I won' t call him up here .
! MRS. KINGSLEY: May I just make one more statement and that is that
. if I cannot sell it, I 'm probably not going to be able to afford E
'Ito make many major repairs and do things that should be done to thl
., building - that is why I was so delighted to find Mr, Flannery
( wanted it because he is known as a good landlord and he fixes up
! buildings . Also I need the income to live on, I guess that is
H about it ,
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Questions from the Board?
i APPEAL N0. 1502 page 8
MS. HAINE : I have a couple of questions . Does Mr. Stein live j
next door to that building?
MR. GALBRAITH: No, evidentally not. He owns the property next
door.
G
;' MS. HAINE: Has the possibility of getting somebody like Mrs .
;; Goldstein, a psychologist without a nurse and without a reception
.list, to rent that space? Has any consideration been given to that
; MR. GALBRAITH: Well one of the problems that we have there is
;! that any tenant like that - Mrs . Goldstein is a good example - she ;
sis a person who is not a "doctor" -- we would be back in front of
., the Board asking for permission to lease to her and I would bet you
; dollars to donuts we would have the same group of objectants sitting
out there who would be making the same statements about increased
;;parking and traffic problems for this property.
SMS. HAINE : I think there were some objections to Mrs . Goldstein
;;getting her space too but she managed to get it.
`:MR. GALBRAITH: Yes , well I think too that any kind of a practi-
, tioner in whatever professional field = unless you have just one
;person in the entire office complex, which is a little bit unreal
jistic because it is about six hundred square feet of floor area cut;
�up into a number of small rooms - I think what you are talking
';about is possibly like in Mrs . Goldstein' s case, you'd want a group;
,of people looking at this - maybe three or four practitioners but
;Jany professional office kind of use , it is difficult to imagine one;
; where you would have less than three people coming there on a daily;
;;basis plus the clients ,
i
s,MR. TQMLAN: I 'm interested in the names - z guess I 'm somewhat
; interested because one of the things you mentioned was that Mr,
:;Stein had written a letter the last time that was actually as I
S
I
" APPEAL NO. 1502 page 9
i
remember Mrs . Stein who wrote the letter. But more specifically
of the seventeen names and the seventeen households , how many of
those people are property owners vs renters?
MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, Mr. Gersh is a property owner, he is a land I
lord, he is not living in that area; Mrs . Paige is an owner , she
lives at 103 Sage Place, I don' t know whether she is an owner-
occupant or a landlord; Mr. Gilbert he is at 521 E. State - he
is an owner . . .
MR. TOMLAN: He lives in that house?
MR. GALBRAITH: I don' t know. Do you know if Mr. Gilbert lives . . . !,
s MRS. KINGSLEY: Is he the one in Norwich? I think that one is up j
for sale.
MR. TOMLAN: It is up for sale.
MRS. KINGSLEY: I think. . .
MR. GALBRAITH: I 'm sorry apparently that was Mrs . Gilbertwho
signed below him so that is actually two people from one household,
Those are owners . I 've gotten letters from Mr . & Mrs . Terry. Now
`. since they operate as West Shore Apartments I presume that they
are non-resident owners . I have one here I think from Mr. Peri.ala
., right - he is a non-resident owner. This is an area in which
there are, I think, relatively few resident owners and I think you ,
i
;; are going to find that even most of the objectants here are non
resident owners .
MS. BROWNELL: Are you changing the outside structure of the house?,
i MR. GALBRAITH: Not at all .
MS. BROWNELL : Well I have something here and if I 'm not mistaken, ;
does that say proposed porch? What does that say?
IiMR. GALBRAITH: I think it says enclosed porch.
i
MS. BROWNELL : Oh, okay. Is that front and back? There is one in
iii
j
I
i
f
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 10
i
the front and one in the back both?
MRS. KINGSLEY : Thereis an open porch in the front . Two enclosed
porches in the back.
, MS. BROWNELL: There are two porches in the back? `
;; MRS . KINGSLEY: Yes , two porches on the first floor and then a
;; screened one on the second. I don' t know if it is a matter of
i
i interest but m tenants have not been students for man ears
� Y Y Y
; except law students . Mostly employed at the law school or post
= law students - teaching assistants .
., MS. BROWNELL: How many parking spaces are you considering putting ';
i
in?
MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, I believe that Mr. Flannery spoke about this `,
the last time. He says we have provisions for six spaces - there
. are parking spaces for three cars presently and what he plans to dol
or would do would be to construct an area capable of parking three;
;'more. I can show you in a photograph the area in which it will be
done.
;!CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Just a moment. Maybe I can help the Board on
,!this. You are not asking for a variance_ you propose to meet the
,;parking requirements , is that not correct?
iMR. GALBRAITH: Absolutely.
:i
= MS. BROWNELL: Okay.
i
;;CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So we don' t have a question of a variance for a
I I
s
;parking deficiency for (unintelligible) . The deficiencies are the
.:existing front and side yard. This is just an area variance - use
;
! is a permitted use in the neighborhood. Doctors , apartments , the
;;Code doesn' t express a preference. Are there any further questionsl,
! of these two persons?
MR. GALBRAITH: Alright, thank you very much.
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 11
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in sup- ,
port of this application? Anyone who wishes to speak in oppositio*
to this application? Come ahead.
DR. SCHULER: I 'm George Schuler, I live at 110 Ferris Place , I
own the house I live in, I don' t represent anybody but myself. I
;
agree with Mr. Galbraith' s new information that a doctor or a
dentist is probably not likely to rent that facility for the rea-
son he presents - he knows more about that than I do . I 'm also
aware that Mrs . Goldstein and others received a variance to oper-
ate their office as psychiatric social workers . As far as I can
tell they don' t hire nurses or receptionists . I am a psychologist ;
- I operate an office at 526 E. State Street I don' t have a nurso,
I don' t have a receptionist. When Dr. Kingsley operated his offic� ,
the neighbors had no complaints about a burden of parking because
of his patients or his nurse or his receptionist or other people
he might have employed. Mr. Galbraith referred to some petitions
and some letters . I was not advised or informed that any of the
!i
is owners occupied the property that was in the vicinity of 527 East
State Street - some of the petition signers we're told are tran-
sient renters . I also spoke with Professor Stuart Stein - not as
s
recently as Mr. Galbraith did - he expressed his discomfort with
the conversion to bedrooms. I haven' t heard anything about at-
tempts to rent the office to other than physicians or dentists .
I think Mr. Galbraith presumes a great deal when he says if she
was to rent to somebody other than a physician or dentist he would'i
s get the same group of objectors . I sympathize with Mrs . Kingsley' $
;! problem. In a written statement I think that was submitted to this
Board, I 'm not sure, I have a typewritten statement , appeal number
i
1502 it says that if the appeal isn' t granted the sale price of I
i
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 12
{
the property will be reduced by $5 , 000. I heard tonight that if
the variance is not granted she will not be able to sell it . I
: don' t know what the truth is . I am hopeful that if she were not
Fable to sell it that the property could be kept up. I 'm worried
about that because I understand that Cornell has added something j
'; like 800 beds for students and that there is a lot of pressure on j
;, landlords in our area to fill those beds . The thing that worries
r
' me is if their income is reduced that their expenditure to keep
;! the places up might also be reduced thereby leading to deteriora-
;; tion. The issue at question is not Mrs . Kingsley' s situation, and '
I 'm not intending to make light of that but whether or not the
i
;: variance is consistent with the spirit of the Ordinance . The Or-
i
! dinance as far as I understand it, is there to protect the little
green space we have left on East Hill . It is there to keep people ,'
from living too close one to another. The minimum requirements for
'; side and front yards are not there. Therefore I urge you to reject
r
; the permission to build these bedrooms . With reference to the
� E
'! issue of parking, we are faced with a dilemma. I recognize that M� .
s
` Flannery is willing to undertake to solve that parking problem if
the variance is granted, but the dilemma is this : the parking is
.; less than adequate and the Ordinances are archaic -an ordinance
�� that would increase the required number of parking spaces on East
; Hill - that would reduce pressure on the street - but it would also
t
reduce the amount of grass that is available to look at . Another
'. thing that I 'm worried about is the addition of traffic in the
i
i
'. area. We have one appeal here, appeal 1502 . Last month we spoke
:: with you about this , tonight we were prepared to speak about two
' appeals , one of which was withdrawn. The individual effect of
either of these appeals probably would have an impression on us but,
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 13
E
the combined effect if both appeals are granted would have a signi
ficant impact and for that reason I 'm worried that acceptance of
this and acceptance of that on a subsequent occasion is really
going to have a negative affect on our quality of life. The conver-
Sion would literally permit up to five more people to live in that
house. Mr. Flannery has committed himself to three - I don' t
know what would happen if it was extended. I would urge you to
reject the variance on the basis that it' s not consistent with
the spirit of the Ordinance - that it would have an impact on us
as resident-owners and I am uncomfortable saying this because I
i' have seen the Kingsleys for years , work there, I hope that she cani
get out of the house out of the building, the investment that
she ' s entitled to . Thank you,
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: There might be a question. Is there a question
from the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak?. Come forward.
MS. HARTMANIS: I am Elly Hartmanis. I own the house just below
the Kingsleys at 108 Elston Place. I am an owner, but I do not
live there. I have a certain sympathy for Mr. Flannery because he
is a landlord just like me, however, I do want to bring before the;
Board certain facts which have not been brought out tonight as yet'
And that is that parking, although we have talked about it is
more of an issue in this little cul-de-sac green cul-de-sac
it ' s sloped toward the gorge, than maybe imagined by those sitting,
around this table. The property behind the Kingsleys has - al-
though I hear it said three parking spaces presently - actually
only two because between the house and the garage two cars can be
parked, if the garage is not occupied. If the garage is occupied,
which would allow two more spaces , the other two spaces cannot be
i
APPEAL N0. 1502 page 14 f
t
occupied. It is a very similar situation that I face a little be-`,
low the street. You parkeither outside of the garage or inside
of the garage but you cannot park both outside and inside . Okay.
Even if he has three spaces we need four more but right behind the
garage that lot drops ten feet into a gully which is a draining
pool for the neighborhood and in the springtime it is a minor
swamp. Therefore the parking cannot be adjacent to the property
where parking is normally located in a private resident. The pro-
posed parking is now pushed towards my house to the extent of ten
`s
feet of the living room of one of my apartments and that means
that when the living room window level is at this height the park-
ing would be at this height - practically within view of the win-
dow - totally within view of the window and at the same height so
that my tenants looking out their window would be looking at these
four cars parked here with their exhaust fumes and their noise - l
their headlights as they come into this parking lot - looking right
into the window of these tenants of mine . My tenants have lived I!
's
in this particular house variably from three to four years - they
are long term tenants - they like to live where they live - that ils
i
probably why they lived that long without interruption - they likei
the quietness of the neighborhood. All of this would be severely :
disrupted if indeed a variance were granted. I had passed around
i'
last month when I was here , pictures that I had taken of the i
1 property and tried to show that although there are only two houses
on this particular short street, the two houses this being the
Kingsley house - everybody depends for parking on our street which
I
is an anomaly. Normally people are able to park on their own
'i
street but here basically everybody has to park on the street
W
hich is basically the street which belongs to people who are liv-
ing in this enclave here. Now there seems to be a lot of land bu
r
APPEAL N0. 1502 page 15
all of this is sharply dropping off into the city owned creek and `.
there is just no parking available below this point or, as I said
even at this point. I was more eloquent last time when I was
before the Board but it is difficult to come back every month and
next month I 'm going to be before this Board again because there
is a variance for the house directly across from us , withdrawn
tonight by Mr. Freeman. If variances for both houses were granted
we would have eighteen legally parked cars within this very re-
stricted neighborhood. Six for the Kingleys house, six for the
Stein house, three for mine , three for Freeman. However, if this
house gets converted to a two family residence which will be be-
fore the Board next month, as a seven bedroom house - it is very
unlikely that only three people will have cars in that neighbor-
hood - so there will be more cars actually than eighteen, but
eighteen would basically be the legal maximum limit. It is basic-!
ally converting this green pocket into a massive parking area. I
have personally nothing against the conversion of this office into!
an apartment if it weren' t for the parking. The parking problem
i
has not been resolved and the minute the Board grants the vari-
ance , parking can be established within not even ten feet of my
s
house but possibly even five feet of my house . I have no legal
power to keep the parking away from my windows I have apparently
r!
no power to protect my investment , my concern for my tenant' s
welfare - yet the appeal says that under number D, dimunition in
sale price of property with the existing office use is an issue
and I think the issue that we are talking about here is really an
issue of the quality of life, I would like to preserve the qual-
ity of life for this neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions? Thank you. Mrs . Cohen.
is
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 16
MRS. COHEN: My name is Helen Cohen legally, but I use the name
Ginger Cohen. I live at 108 Ferris Place which is within the 2001!
limit of the property in the appeal . I live there with my husband
and our three young children. Obviously any changes in the neigh-j
borhood will affect our family and our way of life and the value
of our own property. This appeal gives several reasons for the
variance , of practical difficulties . I sympathize with Mrs.
Kingsley' s advanced age and physical disability and whatever, but ;
why didn' t she list the property with a - on a multiple listing
with a realtor? She is relying on one possible buyer I think
that the whole problem could have been solved if she had tried a
realtor. She also said that she has been unable to rent the of-
fice space based on an informal survey of some of her friends in
i
the medical field. Again, if you want to rent space you don' t do
an informal survey - you advertise it . There was no mention made
of where this was advertised and how long, so I think the problem
is self-created. I do not see the unreasonable traffic burden
created by other potential professional office uses and I think
lawyer Galbraith would lose his bet on his dollar to donuts deal
about Mrs . Goldstein. I also would like to know what facts he is
using to base this dimunition and sales price of property state-
ment on. As for his petition signatures and the letters from the
other people, those were not people who live in the area. Of
those resident owners who live within the 200 ' boundary of that
property, 100% all two of us are here and are opposed. You know
that East Hill already has problems . We have too many people , too
much traffic, too little parking, too much litter, too much noise
and too little greenery. If the purpose of zoning is to promote
1'11the most desireable use of land" and to "enhance the value and R
i";
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 17
appearance of land" surely you must reject an appeal which calls
for making a parking space of existing greenery and adding people ,'
cars , litter and noise to an already overcrowded area. I think
there is little point in creating regulations if variances are
easily obtained. Remember that this appeal that he has requested ;
asks you to overlook not only the deficient side and front yard
space but also a deficiency in the total lot size . The lot is tod
small for this . I really urge you to reject this appeal .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions? Any one else in opposition to
this appeal?
MR. OAKLEY: My name is John Oakley and I am a tenant at 108
Elston Place. I am currently the longest term resident on Elston
i!
Place at four years . I have lived there longer now than two
property owners have owned their property, unless I am mistaken.
The only - I wrote a letter to the Board, with my wife , Margaret
Hammond, and a resident of the apartment upstairs also wrote letters
to the Board, neither of which were at the request of our landlord,,
oi or in any way in consultation with our landlord. So the comment
that I want to make - I lived there when Dr. Kingsley was practic-
ing. We had no particular problem with traffic, with parking,
with the use of the road which we shovel ourselves in the winter.
And we do have problems with. Mr. Stein' s house which is occupied
you know, has somewhere between six and seven cars most of the
time and uses the road heavily and doesn' t ever shovel the snow.
So in terms of our feelings about medical practices vs tenants ,
we are more in favor of medical practices . And we would not raise]
the same objections by any means . That' s all I have to say,
i' that ' s all I have to add.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from the Board? Thank
i
" APPEAL NO. 1502 page 18
you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to
i
this application? Yes .
MR. GALBRAITH: Would it be possible for me to briefly respond to
a few of the comments which have been made?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Yes . I would grant the privilege to anyone who ;
has spoken on this matter, to briefly comment.. You' ll be the
first .
DR. SCHULER: Perhaps you could read the letters and the petition :
with the signatures or make copies available for us to look at, in
the interest of saving time?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'm very much in favor of Xerox - if given the
;f option - do you - would it help you to have those letters read now?
DR. SCHULER: Well - or if I could look at them and give them back
to you, it would help. . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Why don' t I just read them?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We' ll read them.
DR. SCHULER: I 'm more interested in the petition actually, with
the seventeen signatures .
SECRETARY HOARD: Well , why don' t I just start from the top here.
The first one is from John Perialas , 519 E. State Street. "Atten-
tion Board of Zoning Appeals, Ithaca, New York 14850 . We as they
owners of the house at 519-522 E. State Street have no objection
i
!- to granting of the variance for Mrs . Kingsley for the house at
527 E. State Street. Sincerely, /s/ John Perialas (LB) , 519 E,
State Street, PO Box 241 , Ithaca, NY 14851 273-393111 The next one,
is from Elizabeth & Carl Carpenter, "Board of Zoning Appeals, 108
East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 , Dear Sirs ; As neigh-
boring property owners at 601 East State Street, Ithaca, New York,
we are NOT opposed to the variance request of Mrs . Helen B. Kings-j
ley. Sincerely, Carl T. Carpenter - Elizabeth E. Carptenter , 241
I
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 19
Elm Street, Ithaca, New York 14850" . This one is from Susan J.
Thompson and J. Tadlock Cowan: "Zoning Board, Ithaca City Hall ,
Ithaca, NY 14850 Members of the Zoning Board: We are writing in
regard to separate requests for area variances by Helen Kingsley
and Norman Freeman, Zoning Appeals 1502 and 1501 repsectively.
+' In deliberations before the Planning and Development Board on May
31st, these requests were denied unanimously by the Board on the
i' recommendation of the staff. As tenants of 108 Elston Place
property directly affected by these decisions - we commend the
enlightened and progressive stance taken by the staff and members
of the Board in denying these variances . From our examinations of!
jthe minutes of the May 31st meeting, we believe the Board and
staff correctly identified the major planning issues , carefully
and judiciously examined the appellants ' applications , and acted
wisely and appropriately. Recognizing that the Zoning Board does
act independently of the Planning and Development Board, we wish s
to restate the basis of our opposition to the variance requests .
'i First, the potential addition of nine new tenants using Elston
ii Place which the variances would allow would significantly alter
the quality of our lives and the composition of the Elston/Ferris
neighborhood and open the way to further diminishing the current
variety of residence types on East Hill . Second, the problems
caused by an increase in tenant traffic, especially problems asso- !
i
ciated with clearing the private way in the winter , the accompany
i
ing noise and trash, and the pressures for additional parking spac�s
on areas that currently provide environmental ammenities to the
entire neighborhood, would result in further fraction among land,
owners , among tenants , and between landlords and tenants. In con- ,
f 1
clusion, we urge the Zoning Board to independently affirm the den- f
r
ial of the variances by the Planning and Development Board. Our
i
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 20
proximity to both 109 Elston Place and 527 East State Street , the
general quality and variety of the Elston/Ferris neighborhood, the
pronounced opposition to the variances , and the analytical sound-
ness of the Planning and Development Board' s assessment, require
the careful consideration of the Zoning Board of the respective
#i
appeals . Thank you very much. Sincerely, /s/ Susan J. Thompson
and J. Tadlock Cowan" This is a petition: "We, the undersigned,
�E
have no objection to the granting of the variance sought by Mrs .
Helen Kingsley for the conversion of a portion of her premises
at 527 East State Street from a medical office to four additional
bedrooms in an existing apartment on the premises . Joseph P.
Tenill , 522 E. State St . , #4 ; Bev Buckley, 522 E. State St . , #5 ;
I$
Douglas Volpicelli, 523 E. State #3 ; Laura Volpicelli, 523 E. Stade
#3; Mr. $ Mrs . Calvin C. Inman, 601 E. State St. ; Liane E. Hether
ington, 112 Ferris Place; Dexin Wu, 112 Ferris Place ; Peng Hans-
. i
hery, 114 Ferris P1 ; Mary Louise Harris , 608 E. State; Jodi C.
Blake , 108 Stewart; Rachel Ogorzolek, 108 Stewart ; G . J. Andersen,!
523 E. State ; Annette S. Page , 103 Sage Pl , owner ; D.B. Gersh, 404;
N. Cayuga St. , Ithaca, owner; Richard W. Gilbert, 521 E. State
E'
(Ithaca, owner) ; Jo Gilbert, 521 E. State (owner) and D. Genonese
527 E. State. This is a letter from Robert W. Flannery: "Board of
Zoning Appeals , City. of Ithaca, 108 E. Green St. , Ithaca, New York`
14850 , Re : Property at 527 East State Street, Ithaca, N.X. I am
the owner of 518 E . State Street, part of the neighborhood in quest
tion. I would urge Mrs . Kingsley to continue to seek full develop
ment and maximum use of her property to realize the full financial
potential both she and her late husband deserve . Based on my
participation in the neighborhood and my having been a resident
i
of Ithaca for more than 40 years , I would rely on Mrs . Kingsley' s
i
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 21
good judgement to convey the property to someone that would con-
tinue to be an asset to the neighborhood. Sincerely Yours , Robert
W. Flannery, 1371 Taughannock Blvd, Ithaca, New York 14850. " This
one is from Richard A. Gardner, D. D. S. "Mrs. Helen Kingsley, 108
Devon Road, Ithaca, New York 14850. Dear Mrs . Kingsley, I have
i;
inspected the property at 527 E. State St. , in order to determine
if it would be suitable for use as a dental office. It is glar-
ingly apparent that the listed 600 sq. feet of floor space will beil
insufficient for the needs of a modern dental office. A minimum
acceptable square footage would have to approach the 1 ,000sq. foot,';
mark before it could be reasonably considered. Also , what were
i
the exam rooms are far to small to handle the dental equipment ands
allow for four handed sit down dentistry. The plumbing, electrical
and lack of a compressed air supply source or system also detract
from the acceptability of this structure for a dental office . To
overcome these latter deficiencies would require a great deal of
time and expense, neither of which I feel would be justified as
one would still end up with a office which is grossly inadequate
size wise. In addition, a normal patient flow of 18 to 25 people
per day would require at least double the parking spaces currently;
available. Respectfully, /s/ R. A. Gardner, D.D.S," This one is
from Neil Taylor, M.D. "Mr. Frank Flannery, Mack' s Pharmacy,
Ithaca Shopping Plaza, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850, Dear Mr. Flannery, I
i?
enjoyed meeting with you the other day and looking over your build
ing. So far as I am concerned, I have to say that theparking
situation, the heavy traffic, and the lay-out make it an unrealis- '
tic location for a doctor in primary practice. This would apply
especially for someone like myself with many older patients , as in,
the case with so many doctors nowadays . Sincerely yours , /s/
Neil Taylor, M.D. " This is from Herbert K. Ensworth, M.D. "Mr .
APPEAL N0. 1502 Page 22
Charles Weaver, Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca„
Dear Mr. Weaver: I am pleased to write a note in behalf of Mrs .
Helen Kingsley with regard to the sale of her property at 527 East,
State Street. As you may know, this building contains the office ;
which Dr. Kingsley used for many years for the solo practice of
pediatrics . There has been a great change in the way medicine ,
including pediatrics , is practiced nowadays . Very few, if any,
doctors are interested in going into solo practice of any branch
i
of medicine. They much prefer partnership or group practice.
This would make impossible the use of a small office of about 600
square feet. Even if a potential solo practitioner could be
S, k
i' found, it is highly likely that he or she would want a larger space
i' today. The development of new and more extensive equipment , the
need for larger laboratory, business office and waiting room
space, plus the increased use of para-medical personnel , all re-
j quire a larger area than would be available at the State Street
s 's
site. In addition, the lack of sufficient off-street parking, alog
with the late afternoon parking ban on both sides of East State
Street, would make it difficult, if not impossible, to use further;
as a doctor' s office. For all these reasons it is my opinion that
continued use of 527 East State Street as an office for the prac-
tice
i
tice of any branch of medicine is not realistic and that other uses
will have to be found. Very truly yours , /s/ Herbert KT Ensworth,
M.D. " This one is from Dr. Reuben I . Weiner, M.D. "Mr. Charles
Weaver, Chairman and other members of Ithaca Board of Zoning Ap-
1
.. peals , City Hall , Ithaca, New York. Dear Mr. Weaver $ other mem-
hers of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals ; In regards to a medical
; office at 527 E. State Street, it is my professional opinion that
it is extremely unlikely for most active physicians now-a-days to
j
r
3
i
i
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 23
F
be able to function adequately with only six hundred total square
feet of office space or only two parking spots for their patients
Sincerely, /s/ Reuben I . Weiner, M.D. " This is from C. L. Sprinkle
M. D. "Board of Zoning Appeals, 120 E. Clinton Street, Ithaca, Ne
York, 14850 , Gentlemen: I am writing on behalf of Mrs . Helen Kingo-
ley regarding her property at 527 E. State Street, Ithaca, New York
which is presently for sale , I am familiar .with the above stated :
property, and in my opinion, it would not be suitable for a physi-j
cian' s office in that modern medicine has changed in the degree
s
of medical equipment and office space being required and the prop
erty stated above which is only 600 sq. .feet would not meet the j
i
needs of today' s demand. Sincerely, /s/ C. L. Sprinkle, M,D. "
This is from Robert $ Linda Terry, "Mr. Dirk Galbraith, 308 N.
Tioga Street , Ithaca, New York 14850, Mr. Galbraith: Re : 527
i
E. State Street Property, Owner Helen Kingsley. We would not
have any objection to the requested change assuming adequate on
premises parking is provided to accommodate probably increased
number of vehicles . Very truly yours , /s/ Robert & Linda Terry," j
We heard from Mr. Oakley, do you want this letter read?
MR. OAKLEY: No, it is not necessary.
i
MS. COHEN: Could those of us who haven' t heard it, hear it?
i
SECRETARY HOARD: Okay. This is from John Oakley and Margaret f
Hammond, 108 Elston Place, "In regard to Kingsley property locate.
at SW corner of State St. and Elston Pl . Planning and Development '
': Board, City of Ithaca. To the Board, It has recently come to our
i
attention that Mrs . Kingsley is requesting a permit to transform
I
,: her backyard into a parking lot. While we have no legal claim on
her property, we would like to say that such a transformation will ;
. substantially diminish the quality of our life. Mrs . Kingsley' s
i
APPEAL N0. 1502 page 24
yard constitutes our only view and for almost four years now it
has been a pleasant one . There are several handsome trees includy
ing a large black walnut. Birds also find the area attractive and
this spring we have seen pileated woodpecker, indigo bunting ,
i
tufted titmouse, numerous house finches , goldfinches, and weaver
i
finches ; the parking lot next door is home chiefly to pigeons . Itl
is , in short , a very pleasant yard and an asset to our neighborhood.
We do not know on what grounds Mrs . Kingsley will base her appeal '
to turn her garden into a parking lot, but we have heard that she '
i
will plead hardship and that the lot is run down, but if the lattgr
is true, and it is true that the lawn is rarely mowed, and that
we occasionally have to take trash from the yard, is not the neg-
lect the fault of Mrs . Kingsley and does her hardship not i
i
from her own neglect of her property which has made it unattrac-
tive to all but the most slovenly of landlords? It is difficult i
i
to believe that anywehre but college town a landlord would suggest;
I
that neglect of property is a ground for the city to grant a right
to potentially more damaging use. Would the zoning board grant ag
resident of Belle Sherman the right to pack their house with ten- �
!s
jants and turn their lawn into a parking lot, if they did not mow ',
their lawn regularly? Mrs . Kingsley' s hardships are largely self_+
inflicted and may, in part, result from a somewhat imaginative
idea of the real worth of the property, but the hardships we would;
suffer are quite real . The parking lot on our northwest corner isl
dusty and often noisy. In the winter we are serenaded by the
sound of spinning tires and roaring engines , and in the summer by :
occasional disputes over parking rights . In short, the garden is
cool , clean and quiet while a parking lot would be hot , dusty ands
noisy. In addition, access to the proposed parking must be eithet
i'
1
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 25
through the lot to the west or by Elston Pl . The neighboring lot !
is ill-kept, and uncleared in the winter and we understand that it
has been proposed that the yard be filled in order to make it ac-
cessible to Elston P1 . The yard is now five to eight feet from i
our windows and two to seven feet below them; any landfill would
bring the level of the parking lot to that of our living room
window at a distance of five feet. You might also be interested
to know that Elston Pl . is a private road and the joint--re-sponsi ".'-
bility of the four property owners whose tenants use it . In prac-1
tice joint responsibility has meant neglect. When we moved in, we
were told that the property owners would have the street plowed after
major snowfalls , and we are pleased to say that there has evident
ally not been a major snowfall in the last four years . We shovel
snow after every storm as do our neighbors upstairs and one of Mrs;.
Kingsley' s tenants and we keep the road pretty clear, but our job
is made difficult by some residents who drive without shovelling
i
and pack the snow into ice. The residents of the house next to Mrd .
Kingsley' s keep between five and seven cars and do not seem to havo
grasped the idea of a snow shovel . Once the snow melts the dete-
riorated condition of the road itself can be seen and we doubt that
it can sustain much heavier use than it already suffers , Finally
we anticipate that Mrs . Kingsley will plead that she is a property?
owner and a taxpayer while we are transient renters . Who pays
taxes on Elston Pl . if not renters , or do landlords not consider
' taxes when they compute rent. The only residents of Elston P1 .
i
are renters and renters will reside here for a long time to come.
'i We live on Elston Pl . , vote at Elston P1 , and think that these
changes will make Elston Pl . a much less attractive place to live . !
i
Sincerely, /s/ John Oakley and Margaret Hammond. " !
i
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 26
i
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Pardon the use of the word, but have we exhausted
i
all of the correspondence? 1
i
SECRETARY HOARD: Exhausted me.
s
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Mr. Galbraith.
MR. GALBRAITH: Thank you. I heard the remarks of the objectants
and to some extent I anticipated a little bit of what was said. In
the first place, I have stood in the back yard of Mrs . Kingsley' s '
property and I have looked and I have tried to see Dr. Schuler' s
house and I can' t see Dr. Schuler' s house from the back yard of
Mrs . Kingsley' s property and I suspect he can' t see the back yard ;
of her property from where he lives and despite what was said
is
about the green area, I strongly doubt that anything that happens )
i
in the back yard of this property is going to affect Dr. Schuler ',
one iota. Secondly there was one of the people on the petition
that was signed who lived on Sage Place whose name appears as an
owner, who is a resident-owner so apparently we have two resident
owners against and one resident owner voting in favor. I listened ,
e 1
to the remarks and the debate continues to be one about parking
despite what Chairman Weaver said earlier in the meeting. I wouldi
suggest that really parking is not the issue here. If any kind of
i
a medical practitioner or otherwise could be found to occupy this
space, I think it is only a matter of common sense that they wouldi
insist on parking and whoever owns the building would have the
right to install parking, Now subject to reasonable requirements
of the Building Commissioner and it is not 'a matter that would eve .
require a variance. What Mr. Flannery proposes to do would not
come within ten feet of Mrs . Hartmanis ' s property. I have a photo!
graph that depicts the existing garage. Mrs . Hartmanis 's pro ert
p y
is the property which is painted red to the left and the parking
i
i
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 27
area would be installed next to the existing garage. I 'd say a
conservative estimate would be that there would be at least thirty
feet in between the parking area and her resident if you are inter`;-
ested to see it in that photo - or her apartment building. The
concerned remarks of her tenant , Mr. Oakley, in that letter - I
think it ' s fine if he wants the quality of traffic control and snow
removal on Elston Place improved, gee, let' s get somebody in the
building who has time and energy to manage it efficiently and let ',
i
Mrs . Kingsley sell the building and get out of it. The real problem
is this - to address something that was said by a couple of the
objectants - the only firm offer that she has to buy this propertyl
in writing is from Mr. Flannery that offer is contingent upona
a obtaining a variance. Nobody is going to want to buy a building
where you literally have a hole in the building that is office
space. And it is going to stay a hole because 1) you are never
going to find a tenant who fits the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance who can occupy it without first having to come here and
get a variance and risk having the variance denied. Secondly if
the variance is denied here - it can't be converted into the only
logical use for it which is several bedrooms in the existing apart;-
i
ment in the building. I don' t doubt that the objectants would
like to see the situation remain exactly as it is. The space
i
remains entirely vacant therefore nobody comes in - nobody parks .
However I don' t think that is quite fair to Mrs . Kingsley and
despite what the objectants have said about the quality of life ,
I would ask the Board to consider the quality of Mrs . Kingsley!s
life .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Mrs . Hartmanis .
MRS. HARTMANIS : I think the issue boils down, at this point , to
j
i
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 28
one where one owner seems to claim the right to sell at the highest
I
possible price. I don' t think this is a right that is given anybody
by birth and I do feel that somehow the conversion would affect me
as negatively as it would affect positively the sale of this prop
erty. The other new thing that has just come to light in Mr .
Galbraith' s last remarks is the fact that apparently the parking
is now being moved to be adjacent to the present garage. This was'
certainly not the case when Mr. Flannery came before the Board lasf
i
month. He then stated before the Board that the parking would be
i
xi where the drop is lowest , namely three feet were mentioned. Now
Mr. Galbraith says the parking will be adjacent and this is where
the gully drops ten feet.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Mr. Schuler.
DR. SCHULER: The issue is not parking. The issue is not Mrs .
Kingsley' s plight. I see the issue as whether or not the variance'
is consistent with the spirit of the Ordinance. I 'm sorry to have
i
!` to reiterate that to consume more of your time. The Ordinance was ;
i
i
put there to control density and to conserve green space. Density;
s
does not only mean parking it means noise, possibility of litter,
i
many other things . I haven' t stood in Mrs . Kingsley' s back yard
and looked toward my house, I have no reason to do that, I 'm glad
to learn that T can hang my wash out and not worry about her ten-
ants seeing it. But the way it affects me is this _ each variance ;
I
t that is granted chips away a little bit at my neighborhood and at
i
;' my quality of life. I value what we have, I don't want to see it
changed - I see the Ordinance as being important to support and I
urge you to deny the variance.
1'
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Just a moment. I 've heard you reiterate now that
the quality of life is to be protected by this Ordinance , do you
i
APPEAL N0. 1502 page 29
distinguish between the residential use of the building and the
use as a professional office, as one being preferred to the other?!:
DR. SCHULER: I would prefer to see the building not add residents
to it . If its continued use as a professional office, it does not
put residents in there at night, it does not put people in - our
street is often referred to as a storage street - that ' s the park-'
ing issue - people leave their cars there. As a professional of-
fice, if cars are used, they ordinarily arenot left overnight. It!
does not put radios in the buildings , it does not produce as much,
debris - that' s the issue about quality of life that I think is
important .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well I am speaking of the Ordinance , not of pre-
ferences. The Ordinance seems not to make a distinction between I
residential uses - we don' t have a professional office district asj
being a preferred district in any zone. They seem to be co-part-
ners in the right to use of land and I was interested in your
reiteration that we , by some means , continue the residential use
Ef
are threatening the rest of the residents . . .
DR. SCHULER: Yes , okay. Well . . . . by increasing the number of
residents I see it as a threat - not by continuing present use bud
by changing the use and by granting a variance to change the use
I think - each variance that is granted chips a little bit away.
It makes it easier for subsequent variances . That' s the point .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Yes , Mrs , Cohen,
MRS . COHEN: I 'd like to speak about a couple of technicalities .
The copy of the appeal which I got had no number on it, had an
i
incorrect address to go to - I did go to the incorrect address
first as Mrs . Kingley' s lawyer can attest to because I saw him
f
o
there . Of the signatures on the petition those signatures - I d
i
APPEAL NO. 1502 page 30
i
not know all the people who signed that - I do know the ones at j
i
112-114 Ferris Place. They are Orientals , their English is so
i
limited that I doubt seriously they understood what they were
signing. I also think the letter from Mr. Robert Flannery should
be disregarded, chances are that man has a vested interest in thio
and I really believe the property could be sold as is , with
apartments and an office and I would be happy to recommend a good
realtor to Mrs . Kingsley.
i
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard?
I hear no further testimony. Now we need a motion and we will
vote.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JUNE 13, 1983
EXECUTIVE SESSION
MR. TOMLAN: Question
i
MS. BROWNELL: I have a question. Was it proven that it was
actually on the market for a length of time? To me n was it
i
proven to anyone else?
MS. BAGNARDI : No , not at all.
i
MR. TOMLAN: No .
i
MS. BROWNELL: I seem to remember something about February and thon
it was brought here in May? Yes , she said she waited a year?
i
MS . BAGNARDI : He had apparently expressed i,nterestin
pp Y p purchasing
it.
MS. BROWNELL: Right.
MS. BAGNARDI : So when she got things in order.
MR. TOMLAN: Yes - but the bigger question is are there any new
is there any additional information?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well the distinction here and I tried to addres'
APPEAL NO. 1502 EXECUTIVE SESSION CONTINUED page 31
this question initially to Counsel for Mrs . Kingsley on whether irk
fact there is new information - not just new information but new i
information that was not reasonably available on the first instande .
The other complicating factor is we have the same property but we 'i
have a different appellant - technically I don' t wish to rule on
whether this is or is not a new case but the Board certainly can
take - if we don' t take refuge in the technical question of
whether we need to hear this case , it has benefitted from addi-
tional information from many quarters . Speaking of the ability td
sell or not - the value and that sort of thing ordinarily is used :
in a proof of hardship. I 'd like to point out that a proof of
hardship is not required this is an area variance and practical ;
difficulties are the normal requirement of proof although it cer-
tainly is useful to recognize that this either facilitates or does
not improve the chances to sell it at a reasonable price. The
property stands with a vacant space in it - the vacant space for
i community good judgement would seem ought to be useful and used thjat
any owner ought to have a right to use it whether the owner should
be restricted to use it in its historical use because of the tech-'4
nicality of the Ordinance where both uses - both the current or pajst
use and the proposed use are both allowed in the district does not;
impress me as one being preferred to the other. If you believe
the testimony of several professionals that it would not be prac-
tical for the historical use that would encourage a use that is
i
currently available and legal which would be residential use . I 'm
sure that we are faced somewhat I 've heard this before where ob
jectors don' t want the property to be brought into compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance in meeting the off-street parking - I just
say that that is a matter for the legislature to recognize that
{
n
i
APPEAL NO. 1502 EXECUTIVE SESSION CONTINUED page 32
the Ordinance requires off—street parking and when they do, that
uses up somebody' s bird sanctuary, green space, quality of life j
or any other definition or any other phrase you would like to use '
but it is encouraged by the Ordinance not discouraged and in fact ;
without the variance the owner has the right to create parking in
that existing yard by merely meeting the requirements of the Zoll- i
i
i
ing and the Building Codes . I 'm ready to hear a motion.
f:
MR. TOMLAN: I move that appeal number 1502 be denied.
1
MS. BAGNARDI : I second the motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
i
1. The facts heard in this appeal have not substantially changed
from the same appeal presented last month.
2. The requirement that an area variance must demonstrate prac-
tical difficulties and special conditions to make compliance
with regulations possible has not been met.
3. The Board feels that the character of the neighborhood would
i
be adversely effected by the increased density.
4 . Testimony from the neighbors indicated that they felt that the.
conversion would be harmful to the neighborhood.
Vote: 4 Yes ; 1 No Variance request denied.
i
i
€i
i
i
i.. I
i
I
I
i
t
I , BA BARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning
Appea s, City of Ithaca New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 6-1-83,
1495, 1496, 1497, 1498, 1499, 1500, 1501 and 1502 on June 13, 1983 in the
City �ourt Room, City of Ithaca, 120 East Clinton Street, Ithaca, New York,
and tat I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the
transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the action taken of the Board
of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole
there�f to the best of my ability.
1
Barbara C. Ruane
Recording Secretar
Sworn to before me this
day of -, 1984
"Notary Public
SEAN J. HANKINSON
NOTARY PUB!'.:, :TATE OF NEW YORK
VC. S71-111--10800QUALIFIED IN TCMPKINS COUNTY05
E,PIRES MARCH 30,19--t.
BBA MINUTES OF 6/ 13/83 PAGE ' 1
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COURT
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
JUNE 13 , 1983
SECRETAR i� HOARD : I ' d like to call to order the June 13th meeting
of the Board of Zoning Appeals . Chairman Weaver is going to be a
little lite and the: rules of the Board are that in the absence of
the Chairman, the Secretary of the Board opens the meeting and
calls fort nominations from the Board members for an acting chair .
I
Do I heat any nominations?
MR TOML .N . I nominate Ms . Haine .
MS . BAGN RDI : I second the nomination .
SECRETAR HOARD : All right . Any other nominations?
MS . BRVELL : I move the nominations be closed .
SECRETAR HOARD : All right , Peggy you are the acting chair for
the nigh
ACTING: C: AIRMAN HAIL` V I will call the meeting to order , The
fir=st th�ng to do is to identify everybody . The members of the
Board ars
BEA BROWNELL
MIKE TOMLAN
BETTE BAGNARDI
PEGGY HAINE, ACTING; CHAIRMAN
THOMAS D . HOARD, BUILDING
COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO THE BOARD
BARBARA RUANE,, RECORDING: SECRETARY
We are 4erating under the previsions of the City Charter of the
City of t'hac:a and of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance .
The Boar .@ shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the
conduct 'af this hearing but the determination shall be founded
1
BZA MINUTES 4F 6/13/83 PAGE : 2
upon su 'ficient legal evidence to sustain the same . The Board
request : that all participants identify themselves as to name and
addresslIand to confine their discussions to the pertinent facts
of the j$;ase under consideration. Please avoid extraneous mater-
ial whish would have a delaying affect . We' ll take the cases in
the ord .r in which they are numbered and if anybody would like to
withdra a case this is the time to do it . We ask: that only
those irterested persons give testimony . An interested party is
the app llant or any person or persons who represent the appel-
lant or upon whom the granting of the relief sought would impose
practicalI difficulty or an unnecessary hardship or who would be
in any + ay affected because of the proximity of the property to
the pre, ises involved in the application . Since we only have
four me 'bers , if anybody would like to wait until we have the
fifth b _fore their case is heard, they are welcome to postpone
their cIse to a later time this evening . The reason that we al-
low that kind of postponement when there is only four of us here
is that any action would be binding and must be unanimous . Does
anybody have any questions?
MF'. . MAGUl RE : Are .you saying that you will have five members
later?
ACTING; CAIRMAN HAINE : Yes . Do you have a question''
VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE ! Does it still have to be unanimous when
the fi4 member is here?
ACTING CiAIPMAN HAINE : No it doesn' t ,
101AIRMAN WEAVER ARRIVED AT 7: 45 P . M,)
2
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 3
SECRETA,Y HOARD : This is, the Chairman, Charles Weaver . The
first cps:e is appeal number 6- 1-83 :
Appeal of Maguire Ford for a sign variance
under Section 34 . 6, Paragraph B and Section
34 . 5, Paragraph B-3 of the Sign Ordinance
to permit the erection of a free-standing
sign which exceeds the size and height re-
quirements of the Ordinance at West Clinton
and South Meadow Streets- . The property is
the site of a new automobile dealership
(Maguire Ford/Lincoln-Mercury), and is lo-
cated in a 8-5 (business) use district
where the proposed use is: permitted . (504
South Meadow Street)
MR . MAGUIRV My original request for a variance was based on
information given me by Fond Motor Company as to the: standardized
sign program that they have . It is a nationwide identification
programjthat identifies all Ford & Lincoln-Mercury dealers under
common -j
SECRETARY HOARD: Speaking of identification - would you identify
yourself please?
MR, M.AGPIF'E7 Excuse me . I ' m Tim Maguire and I am the owner of
the Fore! Lincoln-Mercury Dealership , As I said, Ford Motor Com-
pany set up some sign requirements and originally it entailed a
one hundred and six: square foot sign on a - it would have been a
twenty-eight point one feet . At the Planning Board meeting we
discussed it at length and I understand there have been a lot of
czar dealerships trying to get bigger signs and different signs at
one time or another and i realize that the point of the Sign Or-
dinance nd I can see the merits of it certainly . I 'm erecting a
new Ford,Jealership with a frontage on South Meadow Street of
3
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 WAGE : 4
three: hi ndred ninety five foot fror+tage . I hope to erect one
sign - riot two signs, which I understand from the Building C:om-
missicn4r , with a dual franchise I could do in the total frontage
that we have: . To clarify, I would have first a Ford Division
Franc:hi$e and also. a Lincoln-Mercury Franchise so that would al-
low me. the two: signs if' requested, to identify each - if I am
correct now - so I arcs asking to have one sign put up that at this
paint - jafter contacting Ford Motor Company would be not more
than seventy-three square foot. which falls within the Sign
square footage requirements but would tie twenty-five feet seven
inches in height - which is higher , I think:, than the twenty-two
foot requirement that they have . I am hoping that one can off-
set the other , frankly . The sign would tie a sign similar to this
one. near) my f'irsgers . And what Ford is telling me - if you cut
the sign off' it ' s a disproportionate thing arid it wouldn' t lock;
as good as it would with the pole there . I certainly will do
whate:verl the Board., ;.,,ou know, comes up with one way or the other
and what we are asking is to keep the sign at seventy-three
Square fleet but to make the height ;,t twenty-five feet . seven
inches instead of the twenty-two= foot . I guess that is my pre-
sentati6n .
Mr . BAGN,ARDI : Twenty-five feet., seven inches you say's' I have
some information where it is twenty-eight feet with requirement
by Ford?j
MR . MAGUIRE ' This would be - yes - let me clarify . There should
be another letter, in there that I sent to Tom dated .June 9th -
4
GZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 5
Mr Hc-a r d?
MS , BAGNARDI : Okay .
MS . BROWNELL : It says twenty-five feet . . . .
MR , MAGUIRE, Yes - it was a revision . I ' 111 sorry , And also
there is an attachment - a letter to me from Mr . Arthur Mullen;
the Market Representation marsager of Ford Division in Buffalo ,
And nn that letter he indicates that previously the size was
available however as a result cJ a ohan,. c}e le in suoh a1-441 su -- - policy
the stiounting is a twenty foot pole and the overall
length of the sign is e-stimated to be twenty-f ive feet and from
what I see it would be twenty-five feet, seven inches. from a new
requirement that they have . Now I realize they could probably
sio- k it in the ground further and it would eliminate the whole
t h i rig , I thirst, what I am asking - aesthetically it would look
better I ' m not trying to dessimate the street with a number of
signs. all I ' m asking is cne sign that looks good and I don' t
think it is out of the spirit of what the intent of the Sign Or-
dinance is.
MS . BAGNARDI '. Other than Maguire in the front of the building?
MR . MAG1.11IRE ., Right , Now there may tie some entrance signs that
says, "enter here" and I understand they are allowed - small ones
- if there is some confusion about entrances or something like
that ,. But that ' s - to my knowledge - all that we are going to
SECRETARY HOARD-. Does everyone understand about what he could
have? He could have two free-standinc
.4 signs - one a Ford sign
and one a Lincoln-Mercury - or two signs on the building
5
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/8:1 PAGE : 6
MR . TOMLAN I guess I want to ask: if you think: this is
sufficient - I mean - on the flip side of the coin is - I
suppose . .
MR . MAGUIRV I think; so . We have a location on the corner there
that we feel the location in itself is a sign - that ' s why we
decided on that location . I don' t - as I say - I am trying to
live within the Ordinance presented - to the degree I can and I ' m
asking for this variance because I certainly don' t want to have
it lock: like a used star lot that they throw up signs and banners
all over, I want it to be - I spent an awful lot of time and
money trying to get into this corner - a few of you may remember
that - going through the Zoning Board in the past - so I don' t
want it to look: not right - I guess that is what I am saying and
I think: the visibility ,just from the corner location will help us
and it should be adequate .
CHAIRMAN WEAVEK Well this suggests that really we acid to your
, appeal to accept a height of a - heights in excess of the
Ordinance that you' d be willing to accept a limitation that this
would be the only free-standing sign; allowed on the property - is
that your proposal?
MR . MAC=UIBE : It is: my proposal - I have no plans for anything
else . If I would I guess I would have to come back: to you -
after it was built or something - if we ran into a situation
where we weren' t visible: or there was some other extraneous; facts
but my intent and I would so include that as my original proposal
was for one sign, plus on the building itself .
6
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 7
CHAIRMAN WEAVER' Are there any questions from anyone on the
Board?
MS . BAGNARDI ; No questions .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you very much . Is there anyone else who
wishes to be heard in favor of this application ! Is there anyone
who wishes to be heard in opposition to this application►? Thea
we have no further comment from the public or from the applicant .
MS . BROWNELL , We didn' t say that out loud . What you just said,
we. did riot say that out loud .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Ira other, words on the record I hear no other
comment from the public or from the applicant . We cart now
deliberate, isn ' t that nice?
7
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 'AGE : 8
BOARD DELIBERATIONS ON APPEAL NO .
MS . BAGNADI : ( unintelligible)
MR , TOMLAN: Absolutely ,
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well there is no legal measurement or voice
level or . . .
MS . BROWNELL : Except for somebody over here
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: But we do have to meet the requirements of the
MS . BAGNARDI : In some very restricted areas I ' m think: of
Pittsburg, where Sign Ordinances: are strictly adhered to . ,
are you familiar with these kinds of communities?
MR . TOMLAN: Yes .
MS . BAGNARDI ; I wonder *hat czar franchises like Ford and Byrne
Dairy and all of those do?
MR . TOMLAN: They do just what Byrne Dairy did - comply .
MS . HAINE : It seems to me though that this - with two signs it
could look: a lot worse than with one sign .
MS . BAGNARDI : I agree .
MR . TOMLAN: That ' s right .
MS . HAINE : It is: kind of a trade-off - if there is a trade-off
like that I think: we would do best for the City by allowing this
with the restriction . . .
MS . BROWNELL : Certainly clatter is more important than five foot
height .
MR . TOMLAN' IS IT BINDING . . .
SECRETARY HOARD : Three feet .
MR . TOMLAN. Three feet and some inches_: .
8
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : g
CHAIRMAN WEAVER' Three feet and sever, inches in a maximum of
twenty-two, Percentage is less than ten percent my math isn' t
too good but it is twelve: or thirteen percent over the
twenty-two .
MR . TOMLAN: I think more convincing is the fact that if the
appellant agrees to limiting the number of signs to one - in the
facie of having two in a sense - that is something to consider .
MS , BROWNELL ! Certainly he went to the trouble to find a smaller
area sire of sign. He began with one hundred square: feet .
MR . TOMLAN: Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Do I hear a consensus that you approve the
over-height sign with the: restriction that this be the only free-
standing???
9
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 10
APPEAL NO . 6- 1-83 504 SOUTH MEADOW STREET
The Board considered the appeal of Maguire Ford for a sign
variance to permit the erection of a free-standing sign at West
Clinton and South Meadow .`-_streets . The decision of the Board was
as follows :
MS , BROWNELL : I move that the Board grant the sign variance
requested in appeal number 6-1-83 so that a sign may be erected
in excess of the maximum height with the condition that this be
the only free-standing sign allowed on the property ,
MR . TOMLAN: I second the motion .
FINDINGS OF FACT :
19 There is very miner different in height the proposed sign
will be 3'7" over the 22 ' maximum allowed.
2) The appellant has voluntarily reduced the square footage from
106 square feet to 73 from the original appeal ,
3 t The limitation to one sign will create less visual clutter
than the: two signs that are permitted by the Ordinance .
VOTE : 5 YES: 0 NO GRANTED W/CONDITION
10
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 11
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: May we have the next case?
SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1495:
Appeal of Orson Ledger for a Special Permit
under Section 30 . 25 , Column 2 and Section
30 . 26, and for an area variance under Section
30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25, Columns 4, 6, 7. 10,
11, 12, and 13 for deficiencies in off-street
parking , minimum lot size., minimum lot width,
minimum front yard setback:, and minimum set-
backs for both side yards, to permit the opera-
tion of a coin-operated laundry (self-service)
open to the public in the basement of the exis-
ting cooperative dwelling at 207 WILLIAM STREET
under a Special Permit . The property is lo-
cated in an R-3a use district , in which the
proposed use is permitted under a special per-
mit from the Board of Zoning Appeals under Sec-
tion 30 . 49 . The appellant must also obtain art
area variance for the listed deficiencies be-
fore a permit can be issued for the laundry .
MR . LEDGER: I am Orson Ledger, I reside at 809 S . Aurora Street .
I would like to have a neighborhood facility at 207 Williams
Street . Some years ago when I bought the building we had a base-
ment apartment with two bedrooms put in without a building per-
mit . The present - the Building Commissioner at that time told
me that we could constitute the two - three-bedroom apartments on
the first and second floor as one unit and allow this unit in the
basement to be used as a second unit . Before the leases expired
so that I could change it over - changed Building Commissioners -
they allowed that the ceiling height was of a deficiency and it
would not be allowed so it was removed -we since got a permit and
put in a laundry facility which I ' ve been under orders to lock: up
and use: for the house only . There are eleven buildings located
on Williams Street, which six of them are mine - there are eight
11
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 12
buildings on Highland Place which is a one-way looks starting at
the top of Williams Strut and ending up in the middle of the
hill and there is eight buildings there and I own one of those .
All the people that would be expected to use this building are
within a one block: area in the locations in the middle of
Williams Street where parking would not be a problem because
everybody would be walking and I have four letters from neighbors
in the area which I would like to read. This is from Johnson
Apartments of 138 Linn `:street : Dear Orson! I ,just wanted to let
you know that I am in favor of your laundry facility located at
207 Williams {street . It adds an extra attraction to my apart-
ments at 210 Williams Street because my tenants do not have to
carry their laundry up the hill . Good luck . Sincerely, Theron
Johnson . I have another here . On behalf of the students who
live in my apartments on Williams Street., also on Highland Place,
I wish to thank: you for the convenience of your laundromat on
Williams .'_street , lust to let you know it is appreciated by the
students for a nearby facility to be for their use . Sincerely,
Landlord Robert Lower . This is from Carey Apartments : .lust a
note to thank: you on behalf of my tenants at 203 Williams Street
and myself for the installation of laundry facilities at 207 Wil-
liams Street . Because of the steep climb up or down, to other
Collegetown laundromats, my tenants are delighted to have your
facility ,just two doors away . I should add that having such fa-
cilities at close hand made renting much easier this year . Per-
spective tenants are concerned about this kind of convenience .
12
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 13
You made my job much easier . Thanks , James W. Carey . Here is
one from Philip White, Jr . We have a house at 105 Williams
Street (which is right next door to mine, 207) and one at 102
Williams Street . One is next door, one is across the street from
your laundromat at 207 Williams Street . Several of my tenants
find it convenient to have a laundromat so close to their resi-
dence . We prefer that you not be required to close it as we have
told new tenants of its availability . I am sure this has been
one of the considerations in their decision to rent from us , We
feel that this is a plus to the tenants in the area and in no way
distracts from the character of the neighborhood or creates any
hardship or inconvenience to anyone . Sincerely, Philip White,
Jr . And I guess that concludes my plea for a variance .
C`.HAIRMA.N WEAKER' Technical question . Does the Commissioner have
copies of these letters?
}
MR',. LEDGER ! I left a copy with the Planning Board ,
CHAIRMAN WEAKER' Does this number of letters represent the
majority of teh owners of property within two hundred feet of the
proposal?
MR . LEDGER! The one_; that would be using the facility, yes . The
ones who lie on buffalo Street behind it., it would be kind of
impractical for them to walk around to use it . And so therefore
they didn' t send me any 'letters but these four people did .
CHAIRMAN WEAKER: What I am interested in and I may be misreading
but it seems to me that what you are asking for would require a
majority of written responses . . . .
13
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 14
MR . LEDGER, Well for the people on the buffalo Street side
behind it, they would have: to go by two laundromats to yet to
mine so it would be kind of' impractical to use mine .
CHAIRMAN LEAVER : Irk meeting your obligation in notification, do
you know how many notices you sent out"'
MR . LEDGER: No I don' t . I would guess 27 to 32 . I didn' t go
down to get the list and I think: they over-reached a little bit
when they pulled for the two-hundred feet but I think: that is
some where' s in the area of what they sent out .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: How mart' letters did you have there that you
read to us?
MR . LEDGER: I think. Tom is counting them now .
MR . TOMLAN: Four that he read .
SECRETARY HOARD. 27 were notified .
MR . TOMLAN: 27 were notified?
CHAIRMAN BEAVER: My question is based upon Section 30 . 26C.4b .
And I want to make certain that we' ve. met the. requirements of the
Ordinance as far as considering the establishment of a commercial
facility in this residential district . It seemed to me that you
are not very close to tht - Tom, I lean on your experience with
the Ordinance, specific refer-ence to 30 . 26-4B . j
SECRETARY HOARD : Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER' It is my interpretation that and I ' ll read from
' that sectiorc "Before hearing the appeal, the Board must have
written response on the. proposal from a majority of those noti-
fied by the appellant as required in procedure set forth in Sec-
14
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 WAGE : 15
tion 30 . 58 . This response as well as that expressed at the pub-
lic hearing, should be a principal factor in the Beard' s decision
to grant the special permit . " Four out of - taking your low fi-
gure of 27 - is quite a bit shy of the majority required.
MR . LEDGER: Are they supposed to be asked to send a letter in or
,lust do it on their own when they receive the letter from me
because we made no indication in our letter to them to respond to
our , _
CHAIRMAN WEARIER : Well, it would seem to me that under these cir-
cumstances that if there is a question about procedure that the
Board would be well advised to make certain that you and the pro-
cedure - or that you follow the procedure and I frankly can' t
advise you on how to ,het the written response . It seems to me
MR. LEDGER: These people are - they are so far away they
wouldn' t have any use for the facility anyway because they are on
another street - way off the beaten path from where they would go
and these are the people that are in the area . . .
CHAIRMAN WEAVEV These are property owners .
MR. LEDGER : Yes, these are property owners who are in the area
and I own seven of the buildings adjacent to it and across the
street .
MS , BROWNELL ' How many peopfle would you say are covered by
those four landlords?
MR . LEDGER: How many people?
MS . BROWNELL : If one landlord wrote a letter how many users in
that particular house would come to the laundromat?
15
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 16
MR , LEDGER : Including mine?
MS . BROWNELL : No, just those. four - how manyf people are covered
by thease four letter would you say ? How many tenants that would
use your facility?
MR . LEDGER: I wcauld say somewhere between forty to fifty-five.
MS . BROWNELL ' Covered by those letters that would probably use
your laundromat?
MR . LEDGER: Also seven of my tenants - there are seven
buildings .
MS , BAGNARDI : How many of yours?
MR . LEDGER: Probably sixty or, sixty-five .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Without trying to estimate possible potential
number of residents in the area., it would seem to me that notifi-
cation is a requirement in notifying owners and that the majority
referred to in the Code is the majority of those notified rather-
than those affected . From a proc:edur�al standpoint it wcauld - I
hope it would seem fair to you that we allow you to come back:
with this appeal perfected and irk the technical sense. without
arguing the merits of it at this meeting and that would then -
I ' m not certain that r-e:advertising - I ' m not sure about that -
you' ll have to check tomorrow can the -whether - exactly what form
rencatification to the adjacent property owners should be but
other-wise I cart allow it to go can to Board consideration and you
cart already hear me saying through technical reasons I will vote
to deny on the basis of the imperfect application rather than on
the basis of the merits of the argument . fro., now I ' m begging the
16
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 17
Boar-d' s pleasure On this -but it appears to me that the applicant
without going into the merits of this argument has riot met the
notification procedures necessary for us to hear the appeal . Is
that agreeable to the Board?
MS . BROWNELL : I agree .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER, Do I hear a motion?
MR . TOMLAN: So move .
MS . BROWNELL : I second .
MR . LEDGER , So we. would have. to bring it back: to the next
meeting - do we have time. to get the paper work: out before the
next meeting Tom?
SECRETARY HOARD: You will not need to renotify because this is
being carried over in a public: hearing . But you will need to get
the response from the owners you' ve heard from Lower , White,
Johnson and Carey I don' t even see Carey on your list .
MR . LEDGER. : It may have been under the other owner- because he
just bought the building recently . It is
SECRETARY HOARD: Who is the previous owner?
MR , LEDGER: No, I don' t . It is 203 Williams Street - it was an
Oriental fellow but I can' t pronounce his name - Wong I believe -
there was a couple of Orientals who bought the place and turned
it over relatively recent .
iC:HAIR.MAN WEAVER.: All those in favor? 5 AYES
I don' t think: we need a ballot vote on that .
MR . LEDGER: So you want a renotific:ation of the people for the
next meeting? Is that correct?
17
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 18
SECRETARY HOARD: You don' t need to notify them,
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Just perfect your application by going after
those other persons notified until you have a major-ity of those
notified responding in writing for the information of this Board,
yes .
MR . LEDGER: For the July 6th meeting?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Yes , There would be no reason for meeting any
time frame other than► having it done in time for the meeting ,
MR . LEDGER: That is July 6th I believe?
SECRETARY HOARD : Right .
MR . LEDGER,: All right . Thank you .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: If we can hear the neat case please .
a
18
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 19
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1496 ,
Appeal of Peter Penniman for an area vari-
ance under Section 30 . 49 and Section 301 . 25.,
Columns 7, 11 and 12 for deficiencies in
minimum lot width, minimum front yard set-
back for one sideyard to permit the conver-
sion of the existing single family house at
135 FAYETTE STREET to a two-family dwelling .
The property is located in an R-2b use dis-
trict in which the proposed use is permit-
ted; however, under Section 38 . 4r-4 the appel-
lant must obtain an area variance for the
listed deficiencies before. a building permit
can be issued for the conversion_
MR _ PENNIMAN' Sorry I don' t have my copy of the application but
I don' t have a lot to say. I am Peter Penniman, soon to be liv-
ing at 135 Fayette Street . I guess I ' ll ,just repeat what I said
in the letter which I sent out to twenty-eight neighbors . I am
not proposing to enlarge the house in any way or to add a new
entrance . The only change to the exterior that I plan is to re-
move the existing grey asphalt siding, restore the original wood
siding . There are two parking spaces at the rear- of the house
one in the garage and one dir-ectly in front of the garage. In my
opinion this proposal does not violate: the spirit of the Toning
Ordinance . This neighborhood is zoned R-2b which allows two fam-
ily houses , My wife and I plan to live in one half of the house .
That is about all I have to say .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions: from the Board?
MS . HAINE . I have one question. Are there really two parking
spaces back there? It seemed awfully - like art awfully narrow
drive but I really didn' t have a chance to get back: behind there .
MR . PENNIMAN: It ' s: a shared driveway - it curves off to the side
19
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 20
and one of the parking spaces is in the garage and there is room
for any sized •vehicle in front of the garage as far as I can
tell .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So that shared driveway - you can park: in front
of the garage and not be violating Your, neighbors right to
access?
MR . PENNIMAN' Right . They separate well before the garage .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any other questions?
MR. TCIMLAN: The maximum number of occupants then would be what''
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Limited by the definition of a family in each
part of the duplex and the housing limits on occupancy of
(unintelligible) space .
MR. PENNIMAN' The house: now has: four bedrooms arid after
converting it., it will have three bedrooms so it may legally be
possible to have. more peopfle living there but I think: chances
are there will be less .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So the duplex will have a one-bedroom and one
two-bedroom apartment?
MR . PENNIMAN: Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER. The present house is four-bedroom?
MR . PENNIMAN: Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : Any other questions?
MS . BROWNELL : There is no question that both cars - then - you
are sure that both cars cart park: . I noticed that one is right in
the driveway - parked in the driveway .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well, thank: you . Is there anyone else who
20
BZA MINUTES OF 6/131$3 PAGV 21
wishes to be heard in favor of this application Is there anyone
who wishes to speak in opposition to this application' I hear no
further testimony on this case .
21
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 22
DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO . 1496 - 135 FAYETTE STREET
MR . TOMLAN: What is the nature of the neighborhood by virtue of
any sort of appeals or variance to grant in the past the history
of the neighborhood?
SECRETARY HOARD: The neighborhood is one that has been coned
differently in the past and there is some multiple dwellings on
the block , There is a tendency in the area for conversions to
two-family of single family houses - some of the houses: are quite
large and are being sub-divided . I don' t know what else to tell
you .
MS . HAINE : This is in the N . H . S . area? 1
SECRETARY HOARD: It is in the NHS area.
MS . HAINE : A two-family dwelling is allowed?
SECRETARY HOARD : Yes it is .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: One or two-family and there are three
non-conforming side yard - both side yards and the front yard
setbacks so in order to make this buildign conform as a single
family dwelling it would have to be narrower - set back: further
from the street - both or all three possibilities impractical and
the proposal would not increase any of these three deficiencies .
22
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 23
APPEAL NO— 1496 - 135 FAYETTE STREET
The Board considered the appeal of Mr . Peter Penniman for an area
variance to permit the conversion of the existing single family
house at 135 Fayette Street to a two-family dwelling . The
decision of the Board was as follows :
MS . BROWNELL : I move that the Board grant the area
variance requested in Appeal No. 1496
with the stipulation that there be two
off-street parking spaces provided.
MS . BAGNARDI : I second the motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT :
1 ) There will be no significant change in the basic: visual
structure .
21 This change will not have a detrimental effect on the
neighborhood .
3) There is sufficient parking available .
4) The use is allowed in the R-2b use district .
5) Practical difficulty has been shown in bringing the existing
non-conforming front and side yard setback: into compliance
with the Code .
VOTE : 4 YES : 1 NO GRANTED/WITH STIPULATION
23
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE . 24
SECRETARY HOARD . The next appeal is appeal number 1497 :
Appeal of Mabel Stewart for an area variance
under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25., Col-
umns 4 and 12 for deficiencies in off-street
parking and minimum setback: for one sideyar-d
to permit the conversion of the existing
single family house at 331 G'ASC:AGILLA STREET
to a two-family dwelling . The property is
located in an R-3b use district , in which
the proposed use is permitted., however ., un-
der 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 . CURTIS ' My name is: Sten Curtis, I ' m from Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing Services, 520 W. Green Street . We propose to assist Mrs .
Stewart in converting an existing bedroom and den into a more
private unit by the addition of bathroom and kitchen facilities
and a private entrance . We wouldn' t be changing the outside ap-
pear,ance of the building beyond the addition of Velox skylights
to bring: the area into compliance with code requirements for-
light .and ventilation. Beyond that most of the work: we would be
doing would be - would involve improving the building in terms of
building codes - rewiring and doing some: structural work: . The
occupancy of the. building would essentially remain unchanged - in
fact the persor► who now occupies the bedroom would be occupying
this unit . If there is only one parking place - this has been
adequate today as Mrs . Stewart does not drive . Her daughter-, who
occupies the bedroom does: drive and does park the car- in the par-
king space .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : Are there any questions?
MS . BAGNARUI ! Where would the entrance to the second unit be?
24
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 25
MR, C'URTIS7 It would be inside the building .
MS , BAGNARUI . The front porch?
MR. C:URTIS : No, actually you would come in the front entrance of
the building - through the front porch in through the front door
- we just essentially built a little vestibule inside so there
would actually be no change to the outside appearance of the
building . It is kind of hard to see in here but you come through
this front door., walk: through the porch to another door . You
still would do that . You would go through that front door and
then to the side we would just put a small wall in to allow some-
body to to into the - what is currently the main house or to go
through an existing door opening - in which we put a deadbolt
solid door on - into the upstairs .
MS. BROWNELL : Have you tried to find extra parking for this
extra apartment?
MR . CURTIS : What we have considered - I ' m not sure if - I did a
little map - what we' ve considered is this existing parking - her
common driveway is turning into this area and putting railroad
ties around here to provide another parking space .
CHAIRMAN WEARER: Where is the proposed second parking space?
MR . C.URTIV Where it says possible parking, here - this area
behind the house - it is currently a garden here which we' d
rather not affect anymore than necessary - there is,
unfortunately a bush right here which we will try to save - a
flowering bush, What we are thinking of is taking this area here
and blocking it off with railroad ties and putting in some gravel
25
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 26
down., to provide the second parking place .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well . do I read this as an application to
conform to the parking requirements?
MR . CURTIS : Yes, this is a recommendation of the first zoning
meeting that we attended and it seemed like a reasonable request .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any other questions from the Beard?
MS . BAGNARDI : How large is that studio going to be, ,lust one
bedroom? It seems very small .
MR . CURTIS : It is, it is very small .
MS . BAGNARDI : Will you be raising the roof at all?
MR . CURTIS : No., it would be unfeasible to raise the roof . What
we will be doing is adding skylights here and here because
currently there is only this one window here and these two small
windows back: here. This: is currently a bedroom, where this wall
goes across - this is a little den type of area - kind of an
unused area . We would simply be adding kitchen facilities here '
and a bathroom facility there . (unintelligible) to kind of open
the place up because the doer would be downstairs .
MS . BAGNARDI : And how did you say this was being used currently
-just as a ane-family?
MR . CURTIS : Currently there: is a bedroom here and then this area
over here is kind of just a sitting room type of thing - really
unused space .
' MRS . BROWNELL : What is the square footage of this do you know?
MR. CURTIS : I haven' t got a scale with me but it seems to me
that - I think: this may be seventeen feet across and a little
26
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13183 PAGE : 27
over, twenty feet long .
MRS : BROWNELL Six hundred square feet?
MR . CURTIS: "fes - very small - just a little studio unit for one
person .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Arty other, questions? Thank. you Mr . Cur-tis . Is
there anyone else -who wishes to be heard in support of this
application? ( no one) Is there anyone who wishes to speak in
opposition to this application? ( no one) I hear no one fur-ther-
who wishes to speak: on this matter.
27
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE , 28
ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO. 1497 331 C;ASC:ADILLA STREET
MS , HAINE . I move that the Board grant the area variance
requested in appeal number 1497 .
MS BROWNELL : I second the motion .
FINDINGS OF FACT :
1 :1 Prac:tic:al diffic:ultieS were shown in meeting the side yard
deficiency .
2.1 This: is a permitted use in the R-3b use district .
3) The change will not effect the character of the neighborhood .
4) The size of the building will not be increased.
VOTE : 8 YES; 0 NO GRANTED
28
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 29
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1498 :
Appeal of Roger Eslinger for an area vari-
ance under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25,
Columns 4, 11, 12 for deficiencies in off-
street parking and minimum front yard set-
back and minimum setback: for one sideyard to
permit enlargement of the existing one-
family house at 22 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE to in-
crease interior living space. The property
is located in an R-1b use district, in which
the existing use is permitted; however,
under Section 30 . 49 the appellant must ob-
tain an area variance for the listed defi-
ciencies before a building permit can be
issued for the additions .
MR. ESLINGER: I ' m Roger Eslinger, 22 Hawthorne Circle . I don' t
kno* what to add to what he had to say, other than what we pro-
pose to do is increase the size of our living roam and what turns
out to be another room facing the street which would allow us to
have a sewing room/office type of combination - not office, but I
mean a place for me to do work: - home at night and Sue would do
work: connected with the nursery school - that type of thing . The
living room would be enlarged toward our neighbors on the south
and when we went west, our living room would be enlarged toward
the street . Regarding the off the street parking concern, I have
my curbside lawyer with me back: here, but I ' ll spare her having
to speak: right now - four or five years ago the neighbors in that
circle signed a petition and brought it to the Department of Pub-
lic; Works - they wanted to enforce the odd-even which none of us
have off the street parking and we were granted at that time that
we could all park; right in front of our place - in front of our
houses . And we were .just talking before., we don' t remember who
the person was that we presented the petition to .
CHAIRMAN WEAKER' You are ingood company . I can remember the
petition but I don' t remember- either .
MR . ESLINGER: Very good .
MS . BROWNELL ! So you do have a problem with off-street parking
or you don ' t?
MR . ESLINGER: Well on the application for a building permit -
that was cited as being a concern . I was just trying to speak: to
that point., which you mentioned .
MS . BAGNARDI : Does anyone have - none of those properties have
driveways?
MR. ESLINGER: Right . And we petitioned the Department of Public
Works and they said that was okay .
MS . BAGNARDI : Where do you all park?
MR . ESLINGER: lust right in front of our houses . It is just
people who own their own homes there, who are involved.
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is the only increased space will be increased
living room?
MR . E.'-_SLINGER.: Yes and another room which faces the street .
29
I
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 30
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: The one that you spoke about eventually will be
the office/sewing room?
MR . ESLINGER: Yes,, right, these two sides coming toward the
street .
MS . HAINE : So you are planning to change the outside dimensions
of the house?
MR . ESLINGER : Yes .
MS , BROWNELL ' But you are just going to square it off so to
speak., is that right? ,
MR. ESLINGER: Yes., right . It is going to go four feet to the
south toward Mrs . Maybee' __: lot line and it come toward the street
as indicated .
MS . BAGNARGI : How much toward the street - what is that width of
the addition?
MR. ESLINGER.: Okay, that is, about five and one-half feet and
that will leave us twenty-eight, six and twenty-eight feet - well
almost twenty-nine feet to the curb .
C:HAIR.MAN WEAVER: As far as meeting the parking requirements., you ►
are not increasing the peter►tial occupancy?
MR , ESLINGER: No . It will stay the same . Single family
residence .
MS . BROWNELL ' What are all of these signatures .
MR . ESLINGER : An amended drawing - I went to the neighbors in
our Circle and got them to sign to approve it .
MS . BROWNELL : I was wondering about that . Okay . They all
approve it they►, is: what you are saying?
MR . ESLINGER: Right .
MS . BAGNARDI : How many people live there on Hawthorne Circle?
MR . ESLINGER: How many houses on Hawthorne Circle?
MRS , ESLINGER: Six in the Circle plus the duplex so there are
seven dwellings .
MS . BROWNELL ! You have seven signatures .
CHAIRMAN WEAVE.'.: If they haven' t got a driveway., they wouldn' t
be in the circle .
MR . TOMLAN: Do you have any idea what the new exterior you
propose will look like?
MR . ESLINGER: It is going to be a vinyl siding - at least that
is what we talked to someone about . . .
MR . TOMLAN: And the ( unintelligible) window and door frames are
going to be about the same?
MR . ESLINGER : The front door will stay right where it is and the
windows will just come out . . .
MS . BAGNARDI : Ceiling is the same? ,
MR. ESLINGER: Yes, right . Same window there and the same window
here. We are putting in a new window on the south side - an
Anderson window .
MS . BROWNELL : Your origin►al proposal was two feet and three feet
and now it is five and one-half feet?
MR . ESLINGER : Yes .
MS . HAINE : (unintelligible)
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: The one question that I have is whether the
front yard deficiency will be increased?
30
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 31
SECRETARY HOARD: No it will not in that the doorway is the key
CHAIRMAN WEAVER; All right . One side yard is a one foot
def ic:ienc:y and the front yard continues to be about eight feet .
Arid the off-street parking deficiency is one and will be one if
this is approved . Are there any other questions? Thank: you. Is
there anyone else who wishes to speak: in support of this
application'' [no onel Anyone who wishes to speak: in opposition
to this application'? I hear no further comment from the public
so it is up to us .
31
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 32
ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO . 1498 22 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE
_The Board considered the appeal of Roger F . Eslinger for art area
variance to permit enlargement of the existing one-family house
at 22 Hawthorne Circle to increase interior living space . The
decision of the Board was as follows :
MS . HAINE : I move that the Board grant the area
variance requested in appeal number 1498.
MS . BROWNELL : I =second the motion .
FINDINGS OF FACT :
1 ) The proposed changes would not particularly impact the
neighborhood and there: would be. no increase in density .
2) Pr-actical difficulty has been shown in meeting the front
and side yard deficiencies to meet Code requirements .
tit) The dwelling is now deficient by one parking space. With
the proposed addition the off-street parking deficiency will
not be changed .
VOTE : 5 yes; O no GRANTED
32
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 33
SECRETARY HOARD'. The next appeal is appeal number, 1499 :
Appeal of Margaret Cecce for an area var ianc:e
under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25, Columns 4
and 12 for deficiencies in off-street parking and
minimum front yard setback: to permit the con-
struction of a eight foot x ten foot porch at the
second floor level of the existing two-family
house at 111 WEST JAY STREET . The property is
located in an R-2b use district., in which the
existing use is permitted, however,, under Section
30 . 49 the appellants must obtain an area variance
for the listed deficiencies before a building
permit can be issued for the new construction.
MS . CECCE : I ' m Margaret Cecce., 111 W. Jay Street and one change
is that instead of eight by ten it is six by tern foot . I think: -
okay, so rather than being eight by ter► it is only six by ten so
it is only . . . .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER, So it comes out from the side of the house six
feet rather than eight?
MS . CECCE : Rather than, eight., right - and still the same length .
CHAIRMAN WEAKER: So it is six by ten?
MS . CECCE : Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAKER: Does the rest of the Board see that on their . . .
MS . CECCE : The deficiencies are ones: that already exist - the
front - the side that I want to add the porch is not a front yard
side . I won' t be changing any of the - there is a deficiency of
one parking space - there is deficiency in the area and there is
- it would be impossible to change the area deficiencies and
there would not be any change in the use of the structure . It is
a two-family home and what the enlargement - the landing - it has
a four by four foot landing which makes it extremely difficult to
get furniture, etc . in and out of the apartment and it also is
33
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 34
quite small for - you know - if you are carrying packages or
anything so it would be: more convenient to have a slightly larger
area at the entrance of the apartment .
MS . BROWNELL : You already have a four by what?
MS , CECC & It is a four by four foot square landing .
MS , BROWNELL : So you are just changing it to a six by ten?
MS . CECCE : Six by ten .
MS , HAINE ! This would be an external porch and not a closed in
porch?
MS , CECCE: Right, it will be an external porch, deck: type porch .
MS . BAGNARDI : Any roof covering overhead?
MS . CECCE : Yes I was planning on a roof .
MS . BROWNELL : The roof would come down from your house over it
or how? Extend the roof line?
MS , CECCE : It would probably be similar to what it - it has a
small roof - it is a small pitch, roll roofing covered roof . I
don' t know how you . . .
MS . BAGNARDI : So that would extend`'??
MS , CECCE : That would be the same width as the: porch so the roof
would be the same site as the porch .
MS . BAGNARDI : How wide?
MS CECCE : It is now feat►r feet wide and I would be making it six
feet wide .
MS . BAGNARDI : You are talking about extending this porch roof -
this roof right here?
MS , CECCE : Not that - the part that is flat., this is over the
34
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13!$3 PAGE : 35
stairs, so it would be starting from back: here and it would go
out two feet more .
MR . TOMLAN' The staircase covering itself would remain the same?
MS . CECCE : The stairs and staircovering would remain the same,
yes .
MS . BROWNELL : Second floor?
MS . CECCE : Yes .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: All right., are there any other questions from
the Board?
MS . BROWNELL : Your neighbors; have agreed to the six by ten?
MS . CECCE : Yes .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank: you very much. Is there anyone else who
wishes to speak: in support of this application? ( no one) Is
there anyone who wishes to speak: in opposition to this
application? (no one)
SECRETARY HOARD: We do have two letters Mr . Chairman .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER : All right .
SECRETARY HOARD: These are dated - one is May 23rd and one is
May 14th, The first is; from Rita Comfort of 108 West lay Street
and Curt Foer-ster of 111 West Jay Street "Gentlemen, We do not
approve: of a deck: built on 111 West Jay Street - owner Mrs . Cici
(sic), It is too close to the next house - as you know there has
been one bad fire there . Yours truly, r's/ Rita Comfort and Curt
Foers:ter , " And the other one is from Howard Lelik: and William
Lelik . "We as neighbors: of 111 .,lay Street commend Margaret A.
C.eece on all her apartment renovations, but we don' t want a 8 r
35
BZA MINUTES OF 6113183 PAGE : 36
10 deck next to our home . The: main► reason► for this is the condi-
tion of our father . His condition► is very poor - total disabil-
ity . His bedroom window is right in lir►e with said appeal to
within four feet . I don' t feel that this is in the best interest
of our father . If in any other way we could help M. Cecce, we
would consider it . Thank: you, /s/ Howard Lelik: and William 1 ,
Lelik"
MS , CECCE : That is why I char►ged it to six feet which should
give (unintelligible)
MS . BROWNELL : [lid they agree that six by . . . .
MS . CECCE : They seemed to agree to it . One of the problems is I
cannot get - if the refrigerator breaks down► I cannot get it out
of there . When► I brought a refrigerator into the apartment it
was so extremely difficult to get it in► that the men had to climb
off of the back: of the porch to try and manuever it . To get a
refrigerator in or out with the: existing porch landing is almost
impossible. Six foot gives another - good six foot or better to
the window of the house - of the house next door .
MS . BROWNELL : You state here that the neighbors will not object
to a six by ten and yet that is the: direct neighbor next door . . .
MS . CECCE : They were objecting to an eight by ten - when they
first wrote that letter they thought it was comic►g too close to
their house. When► I talked to Mrs . Lelik, downstairs, I showed
her where six foot would be only two more feet and she seemed to
be agreeable. I have not talked to her son Howard, so I am not
sure .
36
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 37
CHAIRMAN WEAVER.: Let ' s have a clarification of the side yard
deficiency . This house: is a corner- house and it has two front
yards and one front yard is deficient . . .
MS . CECCE : Which is the Auburn Street front yard .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: And the side yard on which you ar-e building,
You would meet the minimum five foot side yard requirement?
MS . CECCE : Right .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: With the pr-oposed deck.?
MS . CECCE : It may root . It is six foot, nine to the stairs so it
probably would be two and one:-half feet because the stairs ar-e. a
little narrow - so it would be probably four feet So would not
need the side yard requirement for the deck. .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER , So let ' s do it again . The porch that is there
is four feet?
MS . CECCE : The upper one is four feet square . The stairs are
three and one-half feet wide so where it is measured six foot,
nine,, is to the stairs so it would be two and one-half feet
further out which would cut it down to four feet, three, to the
loot line . So then it would be. in violation on that side yard
too .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER.: So you are between four, and five feet - you are
less than five feet, but approximately four !
MS . CECCE : Yes .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there. arty further questions from the Board?
MR. TOMLAN: Was the refrigerator the impetus?
MS . CECCE : That and my tenant would like to have a place to put
37
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 38
a grill and a chair . She would like more - an outside space to
sit and the other thing is getting refrigerator,, bedding, etc . so
it is quite inconvenient tieing that small at the top of the
stairs .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank: you again. Now if you would like to come
up here we would be glad to listed to you , Come up and tell us
who you are and have a chair .
MS . WINTER: My name is Meta minter- and I am the tenant involved
in this , I hadn' t thought about this in quite this way before
but I have two young children and it is difficult even with a
four year old and a seven year old and a grocery tag to manipu-
late up a fairly high staircase and so on the one hand I had ori-
ginally thought of having someplace where I could have a little
tit of room to sit outside but also just the logistics of manipu-
lating things in and out of there are difficult when it is that
high and it is that small .
CHAIRMAN WEAVER! Thank: you . Is there anyone who wishes to speak
in support of this application? Anyone who wishes: to speak in
opposition to this application? Hearing no further testimony . . .
38
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83 PAGE : 39
ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO , 1499 111 W, JAY ST ,
The Board considered the: request of Margaret Cec:c:e for an area
variance to permit the construction of an 6 ' x 10' porch at the
second floor level of the existing two-family house at 111 West
Jay Street , The decision of the Board was as follows :
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area
variance requested in appeal no . 1499 .
MS . BROWNELL : I second the motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT :
1 ) There: are practical difficulties in bringing this
non-conforming structure into compliance with the Code in
that it is too close to the street right-of-way all along one
side and it is impractical to move it .
2) The amenities of the structure would be further improved by
the proposed deck . ,
31 There is not a substantial invasion of the required side yard
on the: side where the deck: is proposed to be constructed.
VOTE : 3 YES; 2 NO DENIED FOR LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES
39
N
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
SECRETARY HOARD! The next appeal is appeal number 1500 :
Appeal of Jeff Coleman for an area variance
under Section 30 . 49 and Section 30 . 25, Col-
umns 11 and 12 for deficiencies in minimum
front yard setback and minimum =setback: for
one sideyard to permit the conversion of the
existing single-family dwelling at 208 FIRST
STREET to a two-family dwelling . The proper-
ty is located in an R-3b use district , irk
which the proposed use is permitted; however,
under Section 30 . 49 the appellants must ob-
tain an area variance for the listed defi-
ciencies before a building permit can be is-
sued for the conversion .
MR . COLEMAN: My name is teff Coleman, I ' m from 136 The Commons,
Ithaca, New York. and I am proposing to convert an existing single
family home into a two-family home . The property has been unoc-
cupied for eight years and I am working with Neighborhood Housing
Service which is financing $52, 000 . 00 worth of purchase and reno-
vation money to complete the project . They have already provided
full designs for it . The house sits on a large lot, it is fifty
by one hundred and five, it has two or three parking spaces at
this point so parking would not be a problem and the units will
be a one-bedroom unit and a two-bedroom unit which will not be
increasing the number of occupants that could otherwise be in the
house . There is - well, basically what it is lacking is three
feet on one side: yard and four feet in the front yard and being
that it is on a large lot, it seems fairly minor . I know it did
receive a great recommendation from the Planning Etc:arc# in terms
of plans for that neighborhood. I think that is enough for now .
MS . HAINE : Are you planning to live in that house?
MR . COLEMAN: Yes .
1
6ZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
MS . 6ROWNELL ; I ' m .just curious, why do you suppose this house
has; been empty for eight years?
MR COLEMAN: Well, the woman who lived there moved into a
nursing home and they didn' t want to sell the property so they
,just kept it vacant . It was deteriorated to begin with .
MR. TOMLAN: So the reason you are not staying with the single
family residence (unintelligible) is because you are moving in
and essentially the other is a rental unit., i assume.
MR . COLEMAN! flight . I will be renting to members of my family,
my brother and his family , But I don' t know how long that will
be .
MR . TOMLAN: You don' t know how long it will be until they rent
it?
MR . COLEMAN! No, how long they will stay there . At least a year
or so, that is how it will start out .
MS . BROWNELL ! Tom., how many parking spaces must this unit have?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: It has all that are required .
MS . BROWNELL : Two or three ,
MR . COLEMAN! It needs only one I believe.
MS . BROWNELL ! It needs only one for a two-family house?
CHAIRMAN WEAVER: No, one for each .
MS . BROWNELL ! One for each, which would be two .
CHAIRMAN! WEAVER! Two would be required for a duplex . One for
each dwelling .
MR , COLEMAN; Okay ,
CHAIRMAN WEAVER.: But you have two parking spaces anyway?
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/83
MR - COLEMAN: Yep: . More than two actually .
CHAIRMAN WEAVEW Any further questions? Thank you . Is there
anyone else who wishes to be heard in support of this
application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition
to this application? I hear no further testimony .
3
BZA MINUTES OF 6/13/63
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
APPEAL NO . 1500 206 FIRST STREET
The Board considered the appeal of Jeff Coleman for an area
variance under Section 30 - 49 and Section 10 . 25, Columns; 11 and 12
for deficiencies in minimum front yard setback: and minimum
setback for one sideyard to permit the conversion of the: existing
sir►gle:-family dwelling at 206 First Street . The decision of the
Board was as follows :
MS . BAGNARDI : I move that the Board grant the area
variance requested in appeal number 1500 .
MR . TOMLAW I second the motion .
FINDINGS OF FACT :
1 ) Practical difficulties have beer► showy► in bringing the
existing non-conforming front yard and one nide yard to
meet Code requirements .
2) It will improve the character of the neighborhood.
3) The property will conform to parking requirements with
this conversion .
4) This doers not change the basic: exterior of the structure -
there will be no visible change .
=o-) Two-family dwellings are permitted in the R-3b use district
where this property is located .
VOTE ; 5 YES; 0 NO GRANTED
4