Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1983-09-19 li 3� I� ti BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ;E COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 19 , 1983 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPEAL NO. 1516 Brian Yonkin 1 402 Hancock Street :! APPEAL NO. 1516 Action of the Board 3 3 IAPPEAL NO. 1517 Edmund D. Hare 4 ' 129 Hyers Street ;! APPEAL NO. 1517 Action of the Board 6 APPEAL NO. 1518 Michael & Nancy Pan 7 367 Elmira Road '; APPEAL NO. 1518 Action of the Board 15 ;'APPEAL NO. 1519 Harold A. Fish, Jr. (Southside Fuel) 17 ,1 815 South Aurora Street jAPPEAL NO. 1519 Action of the Board 21 j'APPEAL NO. 1520 Project Growing Hope, Inc. 22 (Community Gardens) !1APPEAL NO. 1520 Action of the Board 35 1 Motion 39 j ' CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING SECRETARY 40 4i i r 1� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK !I SEPTEMBER 19 , 1983 I+ j CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I would like to call this meeting to order, this ! is a formal meeting of the duly appointed Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in the formal hearing of the matter of several cases that i will be heard in the order listed. First I would like to intro- , IC duce the members of the Board and I suppose most of you, being (� appellants out there get a little tired of these introductions butj I ' ll make sure you know who all of us are. Ms . Bette Bagnardi Ms . Jean Cookingham Mr. Michael Tomlan Ms . Margaret Haine { Ms. Bea Brownell i±J Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Mr. Thomas D. Hoard, Building Com missioner & Secy to the Board j Ms . Barbara Ruane , Recording Secy. I it The Board operates under the provisions of the City Charter of the} i City of Ithaca and of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board will not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct! of the hearing but the determination shall be founded upon suffi- cient legal evidence to sustain the same. The procedure is for th� ii Board to first hear the appellant and those who wish to speak in support of an issue and following that to listen to those opposed. i jUpon the completion of that , the Board deliberates and after find i li ing of fact, renders its decision. The conduct of the meeting will IIbe in accordance with Rules and Regulations adopted by this Board. We will have the first case please. i I j SECRETARY HOARD: The first case- this is the agenda that was j carried over from the September 6th meeting and the first case is I appeal number 1516 . Appeal of Brian Yonkin for an area variance) (i under Section 30 . 25 , Column 12 (deficient ! setback for second front yard) to permit {� conversion of the single-family dwelling at, ! 402 Hancock Street into a two-family dwell- I �I ing . The property is located in an R-3a jj (residential) use district in which the pro posed use is permitted; however the appella4 must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiency before a building permit can be issued for the conversion. j � I i - 2 - i MR. YONKIN: My name is Brian Yonkin, I live at 402 Hancock Street I want to take the existing structure and make it into a duplex. i MS. BROWNELL : Have you started construction? i! MR. YONKIN: Just - I 've gutted it - INHS is loaning me money - for i; interest - so I have just done what you can do without a building permit - dust hutted it and scraped the outside of the house . . . L► MS. BAGNARDI : Are you going to be occupying the residence? �j ! MR. YONKIN: Yes . i jMS. BAGNARDI : And how many parking places - I know in the rear of �Ithe property there is quite a bit of area. SMR. YONKIN: You can fit four cars off the street . I 've got maps . i !! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: There is a sidewalk in that location I noticed when I looked at the property that there was a truck parked across i: the path that pedestrians would use . . . MR. YONKIN: That is because there is stuff in the driveway - you ; can' t pull up above that right now. Stuff that will be cleared away. CHAIRMAN WEAVER. I must warn you that I am a pedestrian one of ithose relics that still walks along the city streets . The require � ments for off-street parking are so that you use it rather than (' cosmetic. It makes it difficult for anyone trying to get along th� Ijstreets. Of late that truck .. you have to walk out in the street Ito get by the property. This is the same side that you have a sido lIyard deficiency on, is it not? IMR. YONKIN: Yes . ' MS. BROWNELL; Where is the addition, on this drawing - that you have of the house? MR. YONKIN: There is no addition. i IMS. BROWNELL: Are you adding to the outside of the house? IMR. YONKIN: No just restructuring the inside . l 11CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Do you want to add anything? i MR. CURTIS : I 'm Ben Curtis from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Ser i i vices and this is a project that we are funding and supporting. ! The house has been one of our key eyesores and we are glad to see E j ! somebody make an effort to rehabilitate it. I IL it I - 3 - Ig jCHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions from the Board? Do you have anything that you want to add? Is there anyone else who wishes tol I I be heard on this case? Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? i I Thank you very much. Ben, would you come back here please? It I seems to me obvious but I 'd like to have you or the appellant des- cribe that this house is so situated that there is a practical difficulty that moving the house would be the only alternative. I MR. CU RTIS : Yes , this is - the house is located with a five foot I� instead of a ten foot set back from Second Street - front yard, an ( ') there are clearly difficulties in moving the house . . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Not easy to move? MR. CURTIS: Not in that direction. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. i i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK ACTION OF THE BOARD I fThe Board considered the request of Brian Yonkin for an area I! variance to permit conversion of the single-family dwelling at 402 Hancock Street to a two-family dwelling. The decision of the i Board was as follows : I MS. HAINE: I move that the Board grant the area variance requeste� in appeal number 1516 . I � MS. BAGNARDI : I second the motion. ! FINDINGS OF FACT: i 11) Practical difficulties have been shown in changing the side 4 yard requirements . i� 2) The conversion will improve the block. II J� 3) This change is not going to change the outside of the house , I i therefore it will improve the character of the neighborhood. �j VOTE : 6 Yes ; 0 NO Granted I( I i! I� i I 4 - i I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ii li COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i !i CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK j SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 j i ;SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1517 : Appeal of Edmund D. Hare for an area vari- ance under Section 30. 25 , Columns 6, 11 , 12J ! and 14 (deficient lot size, and deficient front, side and rear yard setbacks) to per- mit an addition to the rear of the single- family house at 129 Hyers Street. The property is located in an R-2b (residential) use district where the proposed use is per- mitted; however the appellant must obtain an (( area variance for the listed deficiencies bei fore a building permit can be issued for the! 1 addition. , MR. HARE : I 'm Ed Hare, I live at 129 Hyers Street. What I pro- I � 1apose to do is add a 12 x 20 addition, family room downstairs , two ilbedrooms upstairs . ii!MS . BROWNELL : Just one big room downstairs? I! IMR. HARE: Yes . iMS. BROWNELL: 12 x 20? I i' ('CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Can you clarify that discussion that the Plannersi i 1had - whether you had a rectangular lot or an L shaped lot? (IMR. HARE: Yes , it 's an L shaped lot . We own the property - I don' know the tax number but it' s on S. Plain Street . There is a garage! ( and there is also the yard space . They ty together. i ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: About how wide is that Plain Street strip? R. HARE: I would say roughly about thirty feet wide. i NS. BAGNARDI : How long have you lived in the house Mr. Hare? �R. HARE: I 've lived there two -one-half years and my wife has been] (there thirteen. i S. BROWNELL: Tom, could you -- - this may also eliminate the rear I (yard deficiency - how does that stack up - the addition will elimin� i Bate the rear yard deficiency leaving only the front and side yard I Leficiencies? .i ECRETARY HOARD: As I understand it the rear yard then goes down o five feet in the back of the addition (un intelligible) - I�Iaybe that was figured without the L? �MR. HARE: No, they were figuring without the other lot and even �- f it were just one lot it would not be five feet - it would be �1 .1 - 5 - still at least twenty-five feet, I would say. II MS. BROWNELL : If you put this addition on you would still have 1 1 I twenty-five feet? MR. HARE: I would say so - that may be a little off but . . . j roughly. iIMS. BROWNELL: Alright. So there is no rear yard deficiency. I� I ! SECRETARY HOARD: So the fence is not the rear lot line? On this drawing, is this a fence? MR. HARE : No, that is supposed to be the back of the addition. SECRETARY HOARD: Okay. ' MR. HARE: I 'm not very good.. . . j SECRETARY HOARD: It has been awhile since I 've looked at this. ` MR. TOMLAN: The addition as you've drawn it connects with the 11garage? j I MR. HARE: Right - it will butt rightup to the side of the garage. I I' That is the only way we can do it without ripping the garage down I j - which I really don' t want to do . i MS. BROWNELL: So the only two deficiencies remain are the front j I and side yard and they were always there and they are not making Jany further deficiency MR. HARE : Right. i ; SECRETARY HOARD: (unintelligible) I i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I could see you back there when I was making j ` that rather rash statement. . . I MR. HARE : I tried to ignore it . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions from the Board? Is there lanyone else who wishes to be heard on this case? Anyone who wishe$ I I '! to speak in opposition to this case? Thank you. iIMR. HARE: Thank you. ! I I i i I !I i �i i t I i 6 ,l i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS Ij CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK � I SEPTEMBER 19 , 1983 ACTION OF THE BOARD I APPEAL NO. 1517 : I. The Board considered the request of Edmund D. Hare for an area variance toP ermit an addition to the rear of the single-family j i house at 129 Hyers Street . The decision of the Board was as i follows : MS. BROWNELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance I i requested in appeal number 1517 . I MS. HAINE: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) This change would not affect the character of the neighborhood. I 2) The lot already has two deficiencies that will not be changed by this addition. 3) Parking is not a problem since no additional people will be i i living in the house. 4) Improves the amenities of the property. VOTE : 6 Yes; 0 No Granted i i i I I f I j i I it I i f i I i � I ' I f� �I 7 1 { I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK it SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 1 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1518 : i Appeal of Michael and Nancy Pan for a use variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 2 (permitted uses) to M' permit construction of a 19-unit motel at 367 Elmira { Road, behind the existing restaurant (Pan An Restaurant) i The portion of the property on which the proposed motel would be built is located in a R-2a (residential) use I� district in which a motel is not a permitted use ; ther6- fore the appellants must obtain a use variance before a building permit can be issued for construction of th i motel . I MR. BOEHLECKE: I 'm Bob Boehlecke , architect - 203 Utica Street, { representing Mr. & Mrs . Pan. i ' MRS. PAN: I 'm Mrs . Pan of 302 Muriel Street . . . (unintelligible) j i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'm not sure we are picking you up so will you I llhold the microphone over to you and turn it on? MRS . PAN: I 'm Mrs . Pan, 302 Muriel Street. i �jCHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. j MR. BOEHLECKE: You all have the site plans? Okay, in our state- I II I ment of reason for the appeal , I think that the primary reason is is that the land that is zoned - the portion of the lot that is zoned ; i residential - the R-2a I think it would be difficult for anyone I + to find a good residential use for that . It' s well in my opinion � II it ' s not suitable for a single family house- it' s highly unlikely 1Ithat anybody would want to build anything other than that there i jeither - it ' s the access is difficult - that 's another problem I I Mand being surrounded on three sides by commercial property - it isl +� a somewhat unique situation in that there are other R-2a properties i , along that road but none that have this combination of access and if lsurrounding characteristic problems . Basically what my clients ares Iifaced with is having about two-thirds of their property zoned for al it f i 8 - use which they do not feel they can use it for that - it is there i - it is empty - they are paying taxes on it - in their opinion and mine also , it has no foreseeable use as a residential development property. The other thing, I 'm sure you have all looked at this b t the full depth business zone - all the way from Elmira Road to Spencer Road stops at their property line - they are the first property outside of the full depth business zone. And in fact whe they had first asked me to draw up some sketches for a motel , I checked the Zoning Ordinance -- it wasn't clear from the map where the line was and got an interpretation from the Planning Department - whoever wrote the Ordinance, that it was indeed 700 ' from the intersection which made it fall at this property line. The discus sion that went on at the Planning Board meeting, at which I believ they recommended this unanimously, was that they more or less seemed to agree that - well they recommended it unanimously and they seemed to agree that perhaps that line might have been drawn a little further north or . . . MS. BROWNELL: Can you elaborate a little bit on the drainage problem that might arise. , . Apparently a next door neighbor, Anderson Rental . . . ? MR. BOEHLECKE: Yes. MS . BROWNELL: Okay, there is a swamp in his back area - what is going to happen with the water that runs off from your (unintell) R BOEHLECKE: Well at resent there is no low area per se on M p � p � this property. There is to the south along the - opposite Ander- son - on the opposite side. ! MS. BROWNELL: Okay. MR. BOEHLECKE: There is a drainage ditch essentially along the '4 south side of the proper. t . Frankly, I 'm just not sure of where I li 9 ! j I that goes - it is at present probably draining the lands (unintell) ! I j that area plus water that comes off of the bank. Frankly we haven` t tlexamined - we haven't done an accurate topographic survey of the exact grades and stuff. The lot - their lot is at present dry - it has no low areas . . . i { MS. BROWNELL: It is lower than this (unintelble) . . E � IIMR. BOEHLECKE: Lower than . . . MS . BROWNELL : It goes down a little bit towards the Rental from r back of . . . I MR. BOEHLECKE: No actually I would say that the Pan Am lot is j ! higher than the Anderson lot. IMS. BROWNELL: That is what I am saying, Pan Am lot is higher. I SMR. BOEHLECKE: Higher, yes . MS. BROWNELL: So that if it - if you pave it you make - you are i going to pave it level , you aren' t going to pave it with any kind of drainage barriers built ^(unintelligible) . If we have a down- i 1pour and this is paved in the back of the motel (unintelligible)-. ! � MR. BOEHLECKE: Okay. Well it does pitch a little bit from Elmira Il Road to the back - some of it would be an extension of the existin� i� parking - some of it would probably flow out on to the Elmira j f Road (unintelligible) The remainder of it would probably go into these ditches or wherever there are storm sewers - you know, dike I say, we haven' t had a total topographic survey done . MS. BROWNELL: Isn' t this motel area quite a bit lower than the ! I � restaurant area - on the map it shows . . . j MR. BOEHLECKE: No . No . ISMS. BROWNELL : No? Alright, about the same height? ii MR. BOEHLECKE : I would say it ' s roughly equal or possibly higher. ! lI think that the motel would be possibly a touch higher than the I� I I I - 10 - 3 restaurant. There is a slight pitch to the back of all of these and then it goes up steeply to Spencer Road - there is quite a steep bank there. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I walked through that back yard - there is a (unintell) out there. It shows in the plot plan as being Anderson and he has a (unintell) cattails out on the Pan Am lot. Something is harboring them. There is another thing that I 1 i see in the transcript or the minutes of the Planning & Developmentl 1 Board - the discussion that this is and you repeated it in your testimony - that this is surrounded on three sides by commercial property? Will you enumerate those properties for me? MR. BOEHLECKE: Okay, the ones to the south which are existing B-5i zones , Ryans - when I wrote this as three sides I was , of course, , w lincluding the existing restaurant on the west and then on the nort�, the Anderson property which, yes technically that is not zoned business but the building sits back beyond the line and it is i being essentially being used that way. i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well that' s my point if it is being used for r commercial purposes and my observation that there is parking of equipment and that sort of thing, however it R-2 zone on the common line with the property you propose to build on. So there } if is you are not surrounded by commercial property. You happen it to be the barrier property between the two zones . Il If MR. BOEHLECKE: Well then perhaps it would be more accurate to says �) two sides by commercially zoned property and a third side by a I commercially used property that is not zoned commercially. Yes . i� The Anderson building does sit back somewhat further than the Pan restaurant at this point and it is already in thatzone. I don' t I Am rest p y � I ii know, Tom, maybe you can . . . (i ;I ! ii i �SECRETARY HOARD: I don' t know how or where it is . �,MR. BOEHLECKE : No , but . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We ' ll all agree it is there. &R. BOEHLECKE : Yes , it is there. ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I ' d like to comment that there is - at some point -there must have been an intention to create the separation between 1B- S and R-2a and the drainage problem seems to be common to both i lots and the argument seems to be reasonably common to both lots - Inot just Pan Am' s property but the Anderson property . . . (MR. BOEHLECKE : Could use the same arguments that we are using , yes , to some extent. I I CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Yes . Now at some point it seems to me that some- body ought to look at the total - I am speaking now of the City rather than individual property owners - take a look at that. I I found a drainage pipe - essentially at the northern edge of the Anderson property - or approximately there somewhere the big i ipipe accepted whatever cameits way and disappeared. I frankly don't know whether there is a city plan for area drainage out there or not. In the future , however, if you do pave that - what nature is now doing a reasonable job of absorbing whatever is received, it would all be ready for the neighbor one way or another, unless them lis some kind of community solution rather than individual property i fIMR. BOEHLECKE: Well the drainage area to the south - again, I don't know exactly where it goes it does look like it was a ,1planned, designed thing , which is right along the south property f line. Frankly the last time I walked around this was back in i' ;February and it was winter you say, you saw cattails that may i The - my impression at that time was that this area was essentially ii li f 1 - 12 - I higher than the Anderson and that there was (unintell . ) they may be more nearly equal than (unintell. ) . I think that , if I 'm I correct , that the drainage - proper provision for storm water drainage is an aspect that Tom Hoard' s g p office would look at at the time when an actual building permit is applied for . That is one ! condition of it. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Let' s open a dialogue on that because I don' t know - in other words is there a permit process that requires ser- vice drainage solutions in the building permit applications? ! SECRETARY HOARD: Yes . I ! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So this Board can rest assured that the building � I permit will worry about the service . . . . Are there any questions ( from the Board? SIR. BOEHLECKE: One more thing I would like to point out that what i i ,Le are asking for is strictly the use thing. The setbacks , so I�forth, are all according to the R-2 , we have not really attempted ' r ' o try to turn into a B-5 use in terms of lot coverage and side I i and which would be less restrictive than the R-2a. Strictly use �nd all other aspects of it do meet the R-2a zone. i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So as far as amenity of set back is concerned you , re meeting the R-2a requirements? I R. BOEHLECKE: Right, we are not really trying to turn it into a - 5 in that sense. HAIRMAN WEAVER: Ts there any information of a more specific nature Rbout the economic hardship of leaving the lot the way it is , III R. BOEHLECKE: I don' t have anything that I can say on that. The i i conomic aspect of paying taxes on a lot that is essentially unde- f, elopable at this point (Mr. Boehlecke talked with Mrs . Pan in a If flow voice which wasn' t picked up by the recorder at this point . ) �I I i 13 - I IjCHAIRMAN WEAVER: It is your professional opinion that this would 11be impractical to develop for the approved use? !�R. BOEHLECKE: For housing yes, I do believe that. 'CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions? IMS. HAINE: There was a house that was sort of up to the left as i you face (Unintell . ) and it seemed to be pretty close to your I lot. (Unintelligible) NIR. BOEHLECKE : We don't have a record of who might have responded. ! 1�e do have a record of who we sent the notices to . (CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I think the Anderson rear lot is between the jfirst house coming north and this and the Pan Am lot - I think ;there is a vacant lot - if you will look at this section and I be- lieve running the Anderson lot back through to Spencer Road that �Ithat is vacant and the first house is in this small lot . �, S. HAINE : So that that house would have some protection. JiCHAIRMAN WEAVER: It has the protection of the degree that Anderson h only parks equipment out there. SIR. BOEHLECKE : Actually I believe Anderson owns that first small i - lot - I 'd have to check CHAIRMAN WEAVER: It is essentially immaterial in that the lot apparently existed at the time of the Zoning Ordinance . . (unintell ' .�R. BOEHLECKE : Across Spencer Road there is also a steep hill and know there are no houses. It backs up to the railroad right-of-way iI think - you raise the economic hardship thing I obviously can' tl give dollars and cents figures on that butobviously they are paying I I (taxes on it and I think the strongest argument is that it really is f hot suitable for housing. If somebody had an idea of what kind of i 'housing might be developed there I 'm sure we would be glad to lis- ;sten to it. It doesn' t seem suitable for having any housing that I ,,can envision. i4 i - 14 - i l SECRETARY HOARD: That small parcel is owned by Myers - Anderson Rentals. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard in support of this application? Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? The dilemma is whether to accept the architect ' s judgment and possibly I our own, on the reasonable development - potential of land vs. no developmen tor to put that in the hands of the city' s experts on land use which would run it through the Planning Department and they legislature for a change in the zoning, in fact I noticed in the inutes of the Planning and Development that the staff recommended against the variance even though the Board voted for it. So we have a mixed direction from that . . . R. BOEHLECKE : I wasn't aware of that, I thought that in fact I bought that the staff had recommended for it and there was quite a lengthy discussion at the meeting. �HAIRMAN WEAVER: Come on up Bob so that Barbara won't have to . . . R. BOEHLECKE: This is something that I didn't know when I . . . HAIRMAN WEAVER: Because I brought this in at this time I will be lad to read for the record the August 30 minutes of the Planning Development Board, page 8 "VanCort agreed that rezoning was a onsideration. He said that there are no buildings across from the fof on Spencer Road but he noted that rezoning is a lengthy process . he possibility of this becoming a precedent for de factor rezoning i y variance must also be considered and he said that staff recommen- dation would be to deny the appeal in order to protect the edges of his zone." In answer to your question, the Board' s action after khat speaks for itself. R. BOEHLECKE: I wasn' t aware of that , I must have missed that. i li BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 19 , 1983 ACTION OF THE BOARD (APPEAL NO. 1518 : The Board considered the appeal of Michael and Nancy Pan for a use variance to permit construction of a 19-unit motel at 367 Elmira Road, behind the existing restaurant (Pan An Restaurant) . The portion of the property on which the proposed motel would be built is located in a R-2a (residential) use district in which a motel is) ((not a permitted use . The decision of the Board was as follows : y CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the use variance in appeal number 1518 conditioned upon 1) there will be no road access from Spencer Road and 2) the i land will not be developed more intensely than shown on the plans submitted to the Board. R. TO L N: I second the motion. M A INDINGS OF FACT: r 1 . The appellant' s architect has given his professional judgment that the property is incapable of reasonable development for the approved uses in an R-,2a zone. 2 . Granting of the variance would maintain the setbacks typical o the R-2a rather than the B-5 would possibly allow for a less II j dense development of the property than rezoning might well j I afford. 5. Use would not adversely affect the character of the neighbor- hood, J . The steep grade between this property and the roadway known as Spencer Road would provide a reasonable natural barrier between j� 16 - '1 I I Action of the Board (continued) Appeal No. 1518 : i it and the roadway and any residential property within sight I of the property. ( VOTE : 3 Yes ; 3 No Denied for lack of four affirmative] votes . I i i 1 e t I { I I I I I I I I f( ( i f � I I i, it I I I {� j - 18 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1519 : Appeal of Harold A. Fish, Jr. , d/b/a Southside Fuel Company, for a use variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 2 (permitted uses) and Section 30.47 (extension or enlargement of a non-conform- ing use) to permit the construction of an addition to the existing building at 815 South Aurora Street (Southside Fuel) in an R-3b (residential) use dis- trict in which the existing use of fuel storage and sales is not apermitted use; however, the business use was in operation on this site prior to the annexation of the area by the City and is therefore a legal non-conforming use. A non-con forming use can be enlarged only if a variance is,. obtained under Sections 30 .49 and 30 . 25 . Previous appeals (#1504 and 1513) were denied by the Board' at its July 6 , 1983 and August 1 , 1983 meetings . The appellant is returning with evidence to demont- strate that , with the new construction, the total; square footage of his buildings will be within the total square footage of the buildings that were destroyed by fire in 1980. MR. FISH: My name is Harold A. Fish, Jr . , I am the owner of South, Side Fuel Company and I have been here a couple of times . The acreage that I do have is close to 2. 75 or say 3 acres on south hill . I border the City line on two lines of my property back in 80, the year 1980 , 1 had a fire which burned my garages and I office space . And through the pictures that I have the originals and which was a coal trussle back in the turn of the century back in the 19001s , early part, and with those square footages totaled up to 3 ,100 square feet. At the time in which I had the fire - and not being over-insured I could only afford a 2 ,000 square !i foot . With a few years passing and which I can afford and I admit; I have started and I was asked by the City to stop building, I am, i adding on another 800 square feet which would be giving me 2800 square feet which is still under the 3 ,100 square feet which I had; before. As a working space it will be used for working - it is not for outside uses -- it would be to wash our equipment which we can wash in the present building that we have now but I feel that with this new addition I can conform the water and everything else f instead of ruining tools , At the time in which I received a letter from the Tompkins County Department of Weights & Measures , Lou Emmick to Southside Fuel - as you probably all know that the new f� 1 i 19 - sewage plant will be going through the old city barns which they have a 100 gallon prover - it is done by the State and by the I Tompkins County. It holds 100 gallons which we - that are in the oil business or a liquid measure - have to put in this tester and it will read within a tenth of a gallon on a hundred gallons . This is a prover. And they do have to move - they know that this building will be going sometime fairly soon, Mr. Emmick has been ;f looking for a space - he asked me , and I have a letter of which you probably do not have a copy - I did not have time to Xerox it which we do have the space up there with this building - we can have the different oil companies up there - I am not saying no it is just for Southside Fuel use only - it is for anybody to i bring their equipment up - we have the room and the space to put this 100 gallon prover in there . That is all I have. MS. BAGNARDI : Is a prover like a weighing device to . . . MR. FISH: It is a drum - don' t hold me to the dimensions - it ' s ; probably 5 ' in diameter, 4 ' high and then it will come up in the center with a neck where there is a glass with a lot of numbers that will tell you if you are over 100 gallons or below it and how many tenths of a gallon either side of a hundred gallons . ' What they do for us or - when I say "us" the oil companies , we ji; have to put in a hundred gallons of product, whether it is kero- sene, fuel oil , gasoline any of those three products or aviation fuel up at the airport. And when our meter says a hundred gallons ''. we should be equal to the prover and if we are not we have adjust ; vents in the back of the meter and then there are wieghts and .' measures by Mr. Emmick which - that we seal . So this is a small drum which holds 100 gallons . They will be moving it out of the `i old city barns because of the new sewage plant .. SMS. BAGNARDI : So it is a state requirement that all of these i! trucks that . . . MR. FISH: Yes we have to be weights and measured once a year. ;' Mr. Emmick tries to do this in the last couple of weeks in August and the first couple of weeks in September. Let's say that one of the oil companies have the meter broken - the gear r we cannot 20 I j deliver any products until we have Mr. Emmick to reprove it in this tank for weights and measures . i ! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Can you quote me the section of the Zoning Ordi- ' nance which refers to a fire damaged property as a particular i section that your appeal refers to? f� ,! SECRETARY HOARD: 30 . 51 specifies a conforming use. `! MS. BROWNELL: 30 . 51? 9SECRETARY HOARD: 30. 51 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Clearly makes a distinction between use and area.; '! SECRETARY HOARD: He says he is going to increase his use. IMS. BAGNARDI : How much truck traffic will there be up there then ! if you have this prover? `IMR. FISH: Probably six trucks - six to seven vehicles . There are ; two from Agway, two from Mr. Townsend, no I take that back - three ! , from Mr. Townsend, two from Mr. Andree and two from Southside Fuel .. `. MS. BROWNELL: How often - I mean, a day or MR. FISH: No no . This will be just in this two to three week per-; iiod the latter part of August and the first part of Septembern. And they are all our home delivery trucks . We will have - I take that � 1 ;;back one from Cayuga Oil which Tommy Craig oil company out of Owego or out of Candor , and then you would have Fowlers Fuel with one lat that point and Trip and Fellows out of Dryden as they fall under! i j Tompkins County. So there will probably be eight to nine trucks 'but not all at once because he schedules us probably the whole morn', ling for two trucks . If there are problems air eliminators and !jwhat have you. SECRETARY HOARD: But two of the eight or nine are your own trucks?':, MR. FISH: That is correct. 1CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions - any further questions 'from the Board? Thank you Is there anyone else who wishes to be ;!heard on this matter? ',IR. ROGAN; My name is Jim Rogan, my wife and I own the property :;adjacent to Southside Fuel at 113 Coddington Road and 111 Coddingtoo Road, 827 Danby Road, and 829 Danby Road and my wife and I can see ��o objections to Mr. Fish adding on to this property. Personally 21 - 'I we feel that the addition cannot be seen from the road. Another consideration I think you should take into thought is the fact that for an oil company I think that this piece of property is in pretty good repair, he takes very good care of it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. ,IMS. HAINE: Mr. Rogan do you live near this property? MR. ROGAN: I live at 335 Coddington Road, my son lives at 113 Coddington Road. ! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on ;f ( this matter? (no one) i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 19 , 1983 ACTION OF THE BOARD ii APPEAL NO. 1519 : "! The Board considered the appeal of Harold A. Fish, Jr. to permit ;; the construction of an addition to the existing building at 815 Ii South Aurora Street (.Southside Fuel Company) for garaging and wash i " ing of company vehicles. The decision of the Board was as follows ,', MS. BROWNELL : I move that the Board grant the use variance requested in appeal number 1519. !!;MS. HAINE: I second the motion. j " FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) This is a viable legal non-conforming use and the appellant is not enlarging what was burned by fire. '12) Since the addition cannot be seen from the road, it will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. 1VOTE : 5 Yes ; 1 No Granted E ii i - 22 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 SECRETARY HOARD: The last case to be heard is appeal number 1520 : , Request of Project Growing Hope, Incorporated foi an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance under Section 30. 25 , Column 2 (permitted primary uses) : to determine whether neighborhood gardens are per- mitted as a primary use in residential , industri4il and public zones. The Building Commissioner has ruled that as a primary or sole use , neighborhoo4 gardens would be permitted as of right in P-1 ani I-1 use districts, but not in residential dis- tricts , and recommended that the applicant seek an interpretation from the Board of Zoning Appeals . MS. PLOTKIN: My name is Alicia Plotkin, I 'm an attorney and my :i office is in Freeville, New York and I am representing Project ; Growing Hope. This is Christina Elmstrom who is the Director and ;! Coordinator of the Project Growing Hope - I ' ll talk to any legal questions but for practical day to day questions she is probably going to be better. I have a real short statement if that is okay; i I 've never done this before. If I do something wrong, tell me. Okay. Project Growing Hope is a non -for-profit corporation that was i funded - it was founded in Ithaca to help neighborhoods set up community gardens and it has worked on two garden sites so far successfully and proposed some other ones in the neighborhoods . We are looking for an interpretation here that a garden is a per- jj missible use in areas zoned R-1 . About three-fourths of all Amer- icans have gardens , according to a recent Gallop poll but the percentage in the city is much lower even though they are useful i for recreation and relaxation and they can help supplement food budgets in times that are economically difficult like this . Al- though the code isn' t explicit anywhere it apparently recognizes that gardens are desireable, implicitly permitting them as an accessory use as Mr. Hoard explained in the interpretation that is attached to this . His memorandum to the Director of Planning and Development that I believe you all have copies of, We feel that it is a totally compatible use but many people in the City can't because they don't have available liter space or the soil i has been too compacted to make a garden an enjoyable situation so ii fl !i 'I - 23 - !I what we would like is an interpretation to allow us to bring garden space to people who can't garden because they don' t have a space available on their own property and it would be in their own' j neighborhoods that they could walk to. Commissioner Hoard indi jcated that this is =there might be difficulty here because we are ! ii asking you to rule that a sue that may be implicitly an accessory be allowed in a more intensive way. We feel this is very distin- guishable from parking. First of all there is a number of cases i4 i! i' New York that talk about parking - public parking as a particular i i. danger and this Code also treats it in particular. So because the ; ;i i 11 Ordinance explicitly recognizes that it is a dangerous thing we 11 don' t want intensively an R-1 - we feel it is different right off. ! In addition a concentration of ten or fifteen garden plots used by' neighborhood people is no more harmful than a single large garden i' spot, unlike parking where no one person is going to have a large number of cars in their own land. Finally a parking lot is a comm; ercial venture that is run for profit - we have a not-for-profit I' venture that is run for the benefit of the neighborhood only - we are not going to increase the traffic. Also the Code implicitly recognizes also the gardens in other green space are desireable. It defines green space and apparently when that section was ii written it intended to say that that was something that it wanted but it never refers to it again outside the definition section. Many communities and counties however set aside funds just for puri- chase and maintain green spaces that are undeveloped in cities and' here the city is not going to be asked to put any money up or even! I maintain it. The gardeners would do that. We believe it wasn1t jj the intent of the drafters of the code to ban this kind of activity from the R-1 - first because they apparently knew the green space as desireable , secondly because the Code is constructed to keep out commercial or intensive residential use from R-1 . This is more like a park which is permitted - this is not an intensive residen- ' tial use or obviously a commercial use. It is also useless to have it anywhere but in a residential neighborhood - people can't get to tbei.r gardens if it isn't there quickly, easily accessible . i .s 24 - j You can' t go pick your zuchini if it is on the other side of the city, for your dinner. Even though Building Commissioner Hoard has found that it is okay for us to have this in an R-1 . . . or a P-1 , as a practical matter P-1 is not available to us - that is parkland that is given over to somebody else now and R-1 is just not an appropriate place for a garden - we are presently in a i NYSEG spot - out side of the fact that that is far away from ti ii people' s homes there is also lead because of the cars going by that we are having a hard time blocking even with a natural green i fence to try to absorb it - is dangerous for people to try to cross that - with children in tow. We feel then that the use is compatible, appropriate and desireable for an R-1 , it converts vacant lots that collect trash and refuse and sometimes undesire- able people at night. It reduces the spots for vandalism and undesireable behavior and changes it into a green and (unintell) part of the neighborhood. I feel that is a very commendable use. Those of you may remember what the First Street site by the P & C looked like before it was gardens , what it looks like now - i� a collecting trash in both cases - and what it looked like in betwee� when community gardeners were there taking care of it, there was a big different. No dangers will be present at this site because no poisons or chemicals are ever used by Project Growing Hope. There won' t be any traffic because the majority of gardeners will be walking to it as they did the First Street site . We have "j demographic data that we get for our membership to fill in as to how they get to their garden sites and 80% of them are walk-in. Most of the remainder use bicycling. This group has been working ;I at community, gardens for eight years - they have a paid staff they have gardened a lot at First Street - recaliming it and taking away dump truck loads full of broken glass and rubbish. It; was continued for seven years and it would have been continued in-' definitely except when they tried to negotiate the sale , there wasi a lot of time delay and someone else slipped in and bought it after an initial agreement was reached. The reason we would like to have a variance now rather than going for it after we started to I 25 - make initial contacts with new people, is we are afraid that 41 might happen again. Once we get interested, then other people can get interested if we have to be delayed by going on a case by case basis to get recommendations . We feel we are much more 'f likely to lose the land. We have money from HUD right now i available for long term lease or purchase of land in the low income area of the city we 'd like to be able to proceed quickly. Ob- viously you don' t grant interpretations for our convenience but j we feel this is an appropriate interpretation. We feel that it cad only benefit the city and it should be allowed, therefore , I don't know anything else to say. !IMS. BROWNELL: The City owns the land . . . ?i ,! MS. ELMSTROM: The land that we would be purchasing would be using:, HUD money - which is what we are talking about. (unintelligible) :1 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Let' s go back to the record and make sure that w ; know who is talking. i MS. ELMSTROM I am Kristina Elmstrom, Coordinator of Project Grow,' ing Hope. MS. BROWNELL : 101 N. Geneva Street is your address? i iMS. ELMSTROM; That is where the offices are. MS. BROWNELL: O.K. And who owns the land where the planting is j going to be done? , MS. ELMSTROM: Okay - these are all theoretical sites . Right now ;; the land that we are gardening on is owned by NYSEG. The land j ; that we are talking about acquiring for small neighborhood gardens - : that will be owned by the city, when and if they purchase it. BAGNARDI : So they want a blanket consent to buy property all :! around the city is that '! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: They want an interpretation which would make it , right to have a community garden in a residential area and without : , recourse to a variance or anything else. If the language of the , Ordinance is interpreted by us to so allow. iMS. BROWNELL: So we aren' t talking about any particular piece of property? '. CHAIRMAN WEAVER; No we are talking about an interpretation. 1 I j , 26 - i MS. BROWNELL: Well I am beginning to get the drift of what' s going on. (unintelligible) i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Did you have a question Mike? MR. TOMLAN: Yes , more specifically referring to the letter of Project Growing Hope to the Board of Zoning Appeals , third para- graph, I-1 zones are clearly permissible because we are engaged in agricultural activities . P-1 zones are also permissible because as Tom Hoard states, gardening is indeed a public recreation. MS. PLOTKIN: Those are both rephrases of Tom Hoard' s decision. ii MR. TOMLAN: I understand. I wanted to direct to Tom, more speci fically, in a case of DeWitt Park what if someone wanted to go j{ gardening, could they? SECRETARY HOARD: In DeWitt Park? ii it ' MR. TOMLAN: Yes . Under your interpretation it is privately ! owned. Is it not church owned? MS. COOKINGHAM: Yes , that is right. 'i SECRETARY HOARD: In any case you would still be subject to the ; permission of the property owner regardless of what the zoning is . ^' MR. TOMLAN: Well I understand, but nevertheless the case ; SECRETARY HOARD: I don' t want anyone to garden in my yard. ', MR. TOMLAN: I understand but nevertheless it is the case that one '; ; could if somebody with permission could go ahead and plow up and ;a so some gardening. I 'm just wondering about the ramifications - long term of this kind of permission given the subletys of some ; ;Mother land ownership patterns within the city. That is kind of ;! what I am asking you - you've made an interpretation, I 'm questions, ' ing whether in fact in the longer term - in the broader sense - Ithat this is consistent with everyone ' s best use, i j MS. BROWNELL Michael in the last paragraph of the March. 22 letter ' of the City of Ithaca it says "Syracuse ' s largest gardening site j ! is located within the city park. " ii ' MR. TOMLAN: That is precisely my point , a lot of people would be ;; awfully surprised if that occurred. IMS. ELMSTROM: The reason that it originally came up is ' when we intended to buy First Street which is zoned commercial (unintell) ii 27 - Ithe plan of the Planning Department was to change the zoning to park land so that the land would be preserved and we wouldn' t be , subject to that kind of sale. And so that is where the question o ! gardening in parkland comes . But when you zone a community garden '. a park, it means it can't be taken away which is something that (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN WEAVER: And yet as a householder in the older part of the city I thought I bought a residence in a residential neighborhood and to have some sort of a community activity to move in next door ' to me because the owner of that lot found that a profitable sale ! i Viand you or any other agency found that a desireable lot for your ; purposes would bring next door to me more neighbors in the summer time that I now enjoy. :IMS. PLOTKIN: If I could speak to that a moment? j CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Yes . MS. PLOTKIN: I would like to point out that those are precisely the kinds of uses that are presently permitted in R-1 . A church convent, parish house, library, public elementary or secondary school, parochial school , public park or fire station, are all permitted uses and our feeling is that you have to fit us in some- ' 'I where, you can' t ban a use unless it is contrary to public health i H safety . . . . (Unintelligible) i MS. ELMSTROM: The reason this came up is because Tom looked at the Zoning Ordinance and couldn' t figure out where to put us. I I Essentially . , . MS. PLOTKIN: And in trying to fit us in . . . i ii CHAIRMAN WEAVER: He is also generous in giving us those problems . : MS. PLOTKIN: And in trying to find out where we fit within this Code I think that the place that we have to look for what are we j most similar to and I think what we are most similar to is a public park. Which is the risk somebody in an R-1 neighborhood has now. That kind of green space has been traditionally - and I - it is my understanding, I thought also here - as a desireable space as opposed to leaving it a vacant lot which is usually the only other alternative. 28 - MS. ELMSTROM: We are not talking about going in and tearing down i buildings. . . !i MS. PLOTKIN: We don't have that kind of money. MS. ELMSTROM: We are talking about taking over vacant lots that are now eyesores and putting them into gardens . We are not talking i about going into neighborhoods where we are not wanted - we always '' !! ask the people who are next door whether they would like us next door. We take that very seriously when we are considering whether ' or not we are going to develop a community garden site . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: As an inorganic gardener I might not want you next door. MS. ELMSTROM: (unintelligible CHAIRMAN WEAVER; I am not trying to start a debate on that issue, I 'm just saying that the normal expectations of what we in residential neighborhoods could expect this is - would be unique to my experience that the ' City would at this late date establish park land in some minor rather than usual major areas that have traditionally been park land in the City. To look at mini-parks that are not uncommon in more densely populated metropolitan areas and transfer that . attitude to this relatively small community is a concept that I am meeting for the first time tonight. MS. PLOTKIN: Well I still think that a property owner would prefer ' to have gardens than vandalism and broken glass and things that vacant lots attract. This isn't a commercial proposition. I 'm making this acceptable that you are not opening the door to torren- tial garden developers it doesn' t exist. ! MS. BROWNELL : It may - ten years from now CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'm not sure that HUD is a better neighbor than the ones I have but the interpretation that you are asking for would be a free license anywhere that you might make it happen without the requirement to satisfy Planning & Development or the Board of Zoning Appeals . . . MS. PLOTKIN: Just as gardens can occur now. As long as there is a building on the property no matter how large the lot, a much larger garden . . . ,. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I see a distinction being pedestrian who walks 29 - these areas - I see quite a distinction between my private garden 3,E in a residential neighborhood in the back yard versus the commun- ity gardens - there is quite a collection of people and materials ! and lot lines , sub lines or whatever you call them - the use - I 'm', supportive of your project , I 'm trying to see what license would then leave that up to - not to you or City policy but as a right. . . MS. PLOTKIN: Of course the city owns the land - the city can pre- vent us from doing it if political pressure is brought to bear it is not going (unintelligible) MS. BROWNELL: May I ask you a question? On the property that you: now use - I notice you have various colored barrels , little shanties, a couple of thingamajigs . . . . MS. ELMSTROM: Those are (unintelligible) and water storage barrels . . . 1 MS. BROWNELL: You know, just driving by they look like little outhouses or something there. i MS. ELMSTROM: It is a tool shed for storage of tools (unintell. ) MS. BROWNELL : There is more than one - there is two or three i' small little buildings there or something. MS. ELMSTROM: There is one tool shed, one meeting place and several compost piles and the gazebo . MS. PLOTKIN: (unintelligible) people would feel it is unattractive that is personal . It is built just like a garden gazebo. MS. BROWNELL: And the barrels are therefor what? MS. PLOTKIN: Water storage which wouldn' t be necessary in neigh- borhood gardens but there is no water to that site which is one of '' ; the reasons why it is a very unsuitable site for us. It was just the only place we could go (unintel'ligible) I still maybe I 've said this and maybe it is understood but it seems to me that the uses we are looking into are the choice between a vacant lot and a garden. We can't buy land it if it going to be profitable as a beer warehouse , as has been proven and if we have to wait somebody ' else may think it worth speculating and taking that lot out and keeping it as a vacant lot. That's what happened the last time we , it 30 .- I tried to do the official route and do it appropriately and look at the land in particular. We don' t have indefinite money or indefinite time to try to go through that and have the land taken away from us by people with superior resources . SMR. TOMLAN: I would suggest that there might be an alternative an4 ( that is you restrict your request for this kind of variance to a ' more specific site. !; MS. PLOTKIN: What I am saying is once we identify the site, which is what happened last time, somebody comes in and takes it and sits on it for speculation. They think that ' s an undeveloped lot - ' that ' s an idea. That ' s exactly what happened last time because we were getting our papers together to get the variance to make sure .: we didn' t buy land we couldn't use . . . ,IMS. COOKINGHAM: But in those cases weren't you in that case you ` were thinking about a much larger piece of land than you are here? ' ;,'' MS. PLOTKIN: Well we 've done a survey of the neighborhood and the number of lots that are large enough to hold ten community garden lots and have the appropriate soil and other characterics r is not , ' very large. We can't and I assume that measn that the number of dots that are easy to construct on - that would be easy to excavate ;; and put in buildings or to hold for speculation for when the market is better, is the same number. iMS, BROWNELL: I think what she is saying is the lot you tried to iget was so big that it was . . . MS, COOKINGHAM: It was ripe for commercial development - these kinds of lots that you are talking about are probably not desireable for development because of the - of reluctance because of the neigh; borhood or one reason or another. I don' t think they are comparable . . is what I am saying. AS. ELMSTROM: The experience that we had on First Street is not :;uncommon to community garden programs all over the country. We come n, we develop a lot, improve the property value, and it gets sold !to someone else. MS. HAINE: What happens if the buyer . . . (un nte11 - ibl'e) 31 - MS. PLOTKIN: We can' t buy the land unless we have another HUD grant unless it is zoned appropriately. We cannot go in and make a purchase offer until we get the zoning changed. MS. BROWNELL: But you can ask about (unintelligible) before you buy it . MS. PLOTKIN: Which is exactly what happened last time when we lost the lot, because we had to go through these things in advance . MS. BAGNARDI : Like they did before . ! MS. BROWNELL: How long did it take you, what was the delay? d MS. PLOTKIN: Well you have to first go through the Planning Depart- . ,' ment because it is city money officially. It was four months , anyway. MS. BROWNELL: Shouldn't have been more than two months . MS. PLOTKIN: We weren' t sitting back we were pushing as hard as : ;ewe could. We didn' t - we. don' t have control over the situation. MS. HAINE: But that was in fact commercial land zoned commercial? MS. PLOTKIN: Yes. MS . HAINE: And you are talking about neighborhood which was resi- dential (unintelligible) for that property now and that is a '` little bit different. I! MS. PLOTKIN: You can buy it and put up a forty unit apartment " building. MS. HAINE: Except that (unintelligible) ` MS. PLOTKIN: Well but the commercial land nobody did anything with .! either, they just decided it was a good investment - it was a good ' .' thing to sit on and speculate . ;i MS. COOKINGHAM: I 'm not aware that HUD requires this kind of deter- amination before they make the money available - is that a city re quirement? - MS . PLOTKIN: The money is available but the city doesn' t want to '' disburse it unless we meet certain requirements because it 's ; available for the city to make. . !IMS. COOKINGHAM: I wasn' t aware of that. I used to work in that Department and I am not aware of that requirement but perhaps it quirement . its a new re 32 - MS. PLOTKIN: That ' s what we were informed - why we didn't go ahead i and make . . . (unintelligible) MS . BROWNELL: If you want to buy a residential piece of property', just say you found a piece of property and put a $500. deposit on it. Then you go and find out if you can get a variance to put a garden on it . Now what ' s the trouble with that? I mean, you don' t need $8 ,000 . to buy the lot first find out if you can get i the variance - your contract to buy the land says that if you can' t get a variance you don' t have to buy the land that' s what your proposal says . MS. PLOTKIN: Well there is two different I don' t know whether +1 you are talking about a purchase offer . . . ` MS. BROWNELL: I am talking aboutthe purchase offer, yes. MS. PLOTKIN: As I understand it we cannot make a purchase offer. �! We could buy an option. :, MS . BROWNELL: Why can' t you make a purchase offer? `'; MS. PLOTKIN: Because of the restrictions in the HUD (unintell . ) because you can' t make a purchase offer without 10% down. . . . MS. BROWNELL: You can't get enough together for a down payment jthat is refundable if you can' t get a variance? MS . PLOTKIN: In real estate you are generally required to put 10 down. ! MS. BROWNELL : No , not any more. ' MR. TOMLAN: Bette? AS. BAGNARDI : I 'm not sure I 'm not active any longer in real ti ;; estate. But I can't understand why a purchase offer couldn' t. . . ii MS. COOKINGHAM: Well I am handling one right now and it is $25 ,000; ;. sale with $100 . down payment. MS. BROWNELL: That is exactly what I am saying. ;CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Let's get back to the problem here I can' t ; agree that your bad experience with a commercially zoned property Js directly comparable to the experience that you would expect :with residential . If we , in fact, do have a large residentially zoned property that might be worth quite a bit on a speculative ;basis - I don' t know where it is this side of eastwood and west hill 33 - extremities - not very much left there. And the probability that j you could afford it for gardening purposes is also suspect . So looking at the rest of us down here if you will - the vacant lot, trash strewn if you will , that you are anticipating - it seems to me that we could review them on a de facto basis with little dif- ficulty versus granting a license by an interpretation that would ;i - I can' t forsee the possibilities it would require us to be alert ! I to all the vacant lots in town and I am certainly not. We are so ' thoroughly subdivided now that there aren' t any lots of multiple lot space generally available . Now so it seems to me that it would ` not put you at great risk in that we have handled variances in my judgment - we have definitely handled variances in which the current owner filed for the use with a prospective owner in the wings so that the property could grant the variance and the pur- chaser then buy it with the variance attached. So I don' t think jmechanically and time-wise yes there would be the exposure to the market place- I don' t presume to be a party to taking the prop- '. erty off the market for a public use unless it is a pretty clear ;; and present need in each instance by way of an interpretation. II am only speaking not for this Board - but for myself - I would be reluctant to give that license - where there is an alternative !, that it wouldn' t be particularly risky. I believe there is a pro Ilcedure that would satisfy HUD and your seller and you as a pros- 1ipective buyer. Well , are there any further questions from the Board? 1 MS. HAINE: I have a question. Have you spoken to John Novarr? ! MS. ELMSTROM: NO. �HMS. HAINE: He has a very large chunk of (_unintell.) land (unintelligible) MS . ELMSTROM: (unintelligible) ', SECRETARY HOARD. It is on east hill . ' MS. PLOTKIN: We are basically limited to the southside. . . . north ' side, and southside neighborhoods . It ' s the low income area. MS. BAGNARDI : Are there many vacant lots available in that area? '' MS. PLOTKIN: No, there is not and the problem is that when we 34 - approach people , the price suddenly goes up. They know we have this money and if we don' t spend it , we lose it, so if we get ' the variance in advance then we could get something maybe if it u wasn' t obviously the gardens that we would be buying the land - !i to go and get a variance in each case (unintelligible) it is obviously the gardens . . . . MS. BROWNELL: Wait a minute, would you explain that - you aren' t going to let them know that you are having gardens . . . what were you saying? MS. PLOTKIN: As far as the prospective owners go, it is not to our advantage to (unintel'ligible) other gardeners are the people ; who are going to purchase it because it has been in the newspapers 64 that we have money that we are about to lose if we can' t buy the land. SMS. BROWNELL: Okay, but she said that she was going to go around to all the neighbors and tellthem that they were going to have a ' garden and make sure it was okay. i ' MS . PLOTKIN: These owners don't live on the vacant lots they live in Florida, they live in New York City - one of the ones we con- tacted it has been on the market for about four years at $6, 000 . They asked us if we wanted it for $20,000 . because they knew we had this money that was going to go. . . . MS. BAGNARDI : How did you know that it was worth $6 ,000? MS. PLOTKIN: Because that is what they were asking for the last four years. And the day after we lost the First Street site there was a report in the newspaper. iMS. BAGNARDI : What area was that , south hill? ;i ' MS. PLOTKIN: It was pall Creek - northside. MS . BAGNARDI : Would it be people pressured from neighbors who ; didn't want a garden in that particular area? ,i MS. PLOTKIN: It was the absentee owner who wanted to make some ;; money, and the realtor - he was astute and alert. In fact , the (unintelligible) I don't know of any neighbors close enough � (unintelligible) to object . Thank you. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Sir, do you wish to be heard? You would like to ;! hear us resolve this case? Alright. 'i - 35 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK ; SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 ACTION OF THE BOARD ii APPEAL NO. 1520 i� CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We need to have a motion interpreting the Zoning; Ordinance on the subject of - we also need a finding to support our pretty little motion, whatever that turns out to be that will j not only give our opinion of what the Ordinance allows and doesn' t 'i allow us regards to community gardens and our finding to support that motion, that interpretation - so we really need a finding in the interpretation. In fact, you all got copies of the recent ruling of Court on the case on North Cayuga Street so you know I� that one of the reasons it was remanded was for further findings i supporting our personal observation there while here it is not !' necessarily observation but interpretation for the following j reasons . So some of our discussion would seem to support some resolution of the dilemma before the Zoning Officer , Mr. Hoard. MS. BROWNELL: Will this interpretation include what zone they ought to be in, etc. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: No . I MS . BROWNELL: What does thi,sinterpretation have to include? ; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: When we come back to the appeal which asked for an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance concerning the establish iiment of community gardens in the various zones within the City of Ithaca. So it would seem to me what the ruling of the Zoning Of- ficer that if in fact we agree that industrial in P-1 zones that; community gardens have a right to establishment there without varij- i! ance ought to be supported by this resolution if that is the pleasure of the Board and further that the R-1 , R-2 zones , in fact', �< R-3 , is questionable. MR. TOMLAN: (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Actually R-1 , R-2 and R-3. Although not written in the appeal . It would seem to me that they. . . MS. BROWNELL: P-1, and what was it? MS. BAGNARDI : R-1 . 36 - MR. TOMLAN: If I may, Tom, I would still like to ask - in my view, i the industrial I have no questions with but I still have - park I still have - I can' t see that it is a compatible use necessarily for garden when you have a park. I mean it just seems to me that park land had significant other uses , some of which are active , low-passive recreation - various kinds . !i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: But the city has over the years had park land fthat was undeveloped for recreational purposes in which either BOR' ! grants or whatever had supported the - and required the restricting jof the lands for park use and there is - southwest park now - you may not be familiar with - but it certainly doesn' t look like much', ' of a park and so the zone does not say that there is a park there :1 but it says it is reserved for that purpose . MR. TOMLAN: Okay, it is reserved for that purpose but now . . . :i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Others developing slides and swings or community; G lgardens is a matter of community development and decision by budget J makers and planners rather than a function of zoning . ;1MR. TOMLAN: Then what you are saying is the de facto has become , an accepted practice that it has not been recongized within the ; Zoning Code? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: That the city could zone and acquire property for park purposes and have any kind of park they want whether it ! be urbber tires and gravel or green (unintel'1) and softball diamonds . d MR. TOMLAN; But that ' s been common place, . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'm not saying that it 's common place, the ques tion of whether that is a reasonable interpretation of the Ordinance i is before us . ;' SECRETARY HOARD: Yes , public recreation is such a broad term that it allows soft ball fields and boat basins and all kinds of things , MR. TOMLAN; I understand that but I somehow or other feel that ' there is a territorial comparative behind gardening that there : really isn' t with perhaps passive or active, for that matter, , . . . !; SECRETARY HOARD (unintelligible) soft ball field? MR. TOMLAN; Well, alright, granting th.at 's. three or four hours 37 - maybe six or ten hours a week - it would seem to me that you be tying up land which (unintelligible) gardening for a considerable excessive period of time. MS . HAINE: Michael you make gardening sound like it is something destructive or. . . MR. TOMLAN: No I 'm not , I 'm just merely trying to . . . i MS. HAINE : (unintelligible) go into a green place and look at somebody else' s garden and I think that some of the parks that we have (unintell. ) they are totally underutilized they would be greatly improved by having something like this in them. MR. TOMLAN: That is perfectly fine, but what I 'm trying to do is ! get the long term policy statement. . . MS. BROWNELL: Do we have a right to say that residential zones i and park zones have the right to people and I don' t think we have the power to say that residential zones and parks are the right to people . I don't think we can say that. !i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well but it is our privilege or obligation to ii interpret as best we can the Ordinance. Talking about what we must and may not do , we certainly can make errors in judgement and that can be appealed, but I do think that we should try to grapple with; I this and using what wisdom we have and any common opinion that we may arrive at and way, in our judgement the Ordinance should be interpreted in the following manner as far as this issue is con- cerned. i MS. BROWNELL: Mr. VanCort' s letter says that he believes the ii industrial zone is the only one where agricultural is permitted agricultural is permitted by right. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Then we have the problem of what agriculture usually expected to be the cultivation of field crops and animals '' j for commercial purpose in other words there is a professional and profit making enterprise rather than a community area for recreation or for that matter for MS. BROWNELL: Are we supposed to say here tonight where these gardens belong - is that what we are supposed to do? If we are thunk they belong right there. Because it says there that is th6 i i 38 - only place where any kind of agriculture is permitted. MS. PLOTKIN: Mr. Weaver, may I ask a question? ' CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'm sorry. We really have closed the public , portion of this and unless . . . let me explain myself. I am not j trying to shut you off but our procedure and I 'd like to stay with ' it - if a member of the Board wishes to gain additional information i� '; from someone who has testified, they have that right because some !' time of necessity we have heard the appellant and even though it ,, may make you squirm to hear us underutilize all the information you ;, gave us , the intent here is to separate the decision making process jfrom the discussion with the appellant or proponents or opponents to a particular case. ' MS . PLOTKIN: Well I didn' t want to correct anything . Okay, I ; guess I can ask you afterwards then? i ii CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Oh sure . Is there further discussion here and do ' I hear a motion. MS. BROWNELL; I 'm really torn between this recreation and this '; agriculture . . . MS. HAINE; Gardens are so hardly agriculture a family garden plot. Ii SIMS. BROWNELL I just catch the word garden plot but then again I ;; recreation is family so that we have a little family - and family �r ;;word is recreational - garden word is agricultural so ! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I don't have any trouble with the word recreation !I , one of my favorite recreations is gardening and that includes i Ithe flowers as well as the food and to say that small plots for , fami.ly use and consumption - certainly it meets a recreational ; possibly practical needs as well it certainly meets a recreational 'desire in many, many people . !IMR. TOMLAN: Sounds like' '(uninte.11igible) ;;CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'm willing to influence you, Seems to me you '!are working terribly hand. . . 39 - CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I move that the Board support the interpretationl, i given by the Zoning Officer that Community Gar- dens are appropriate in areas zoned industrial and P-1 by definitions now contained in the Zoning Ordinance . Further that community gardens do not appear to be permitted as of right in residential (R1, j R2 , & R3) zones because the nature of group use i of lots in residential zones brings an activity iiinto neighborhood of group use mixed with private residential use that is not clearly stated in tho Zoning Ordinance. I Also we find that the submission of applications' for variance in specific lots would give the opportunity for review of the suitability of the '. use for the space and an opportunity for the neighborhood to respond as supported in the i language of the Ordinance. ; MS. BROWNELL: I second the motion. ! VOTE: 5 Yes ; 1 No I �i i ii �E 'i 'i ;i ii i i i i - 40 - I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1516, 15171 1518, 1519 and 1520 on September 19 , 1983 in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the executive session of the Board of Zoning Ap- peals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. I i I Barbara C. ane I Recording Secretary SWORN TO BEFORE ME THI'S s, 7 day of QZc 1983 !i I Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 55A 660800 j QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COUNTY / My .....', EXPIF;CS MARCH 30,19-1L' 'I I I i j ',