Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1979-01-08 i I TABLE OF CONTENTS I MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ITHACA, NEW YORK - JANUARY 8, 1979 Page APPEAL NO. 1223 Mark Waldo Haag 2 1 Willets Place APPEAL NO. 1223 Executive Session 8 {I i �I APPEAL NO. 1242 Carol U. & Daniel G. Sisler 9 423 East Lincoln Street j APPEAL NO. 1242 Executive Session 23 i i� I APPEAL NO. 1243 Ithaca Rentals & Renovations 24 (Mack 'Travis , President) 222-224-226 Eddy Street APPEAL NO. 1243 Executive Session 39 APPEAL NO. 1244 Carrolls ' Sales 4 Service , Inc. 40 316 Dey Street APPEAL NO. 1244 Executive Session 43 APPEAL NO. 1245 David & Seymour Turk 44 �! 323-329 College Avenue APPEAL NO. 1245 Executive Session 64 APPEAL NO. 1246 Jason Fane 65 125-127 N. Quarry Street APPEAL NO. 1246 Executive Session 66 APPEAL NO. 1247 George S. Chacona 67 321-3212 Hillview Place APPEAL NO. 1247 Executive Session 89 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 90 f I i I 11 i kljt E Is BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 8 , 1979 I SEC'Y HOARD: We have a quorum so I ' ll call to order the January 18 , 1979 meeting of the Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals . ji PRESENT: Peter Martin jj Gregory Kasprzak Dr . Martin Greenberg Joseph Gainey !i Morris Angell Thomas Hoard, Bldg. Comm. & Sec 'y to C i the Board Barbara Ruane , Recording Secy I ABSENT: William Wilcox `fThis being the first meeting of the new year, the first order of + business will be for the Board to elect its new chairman. Do I i 'hear any nominations from the Board? ? MR. GAINEY: I nominate Peter Martin. I !!MR. ANGELL: I second it. f 3SECY HOARD: There is a nomination and second for Peter Martin, do ii 'III hear any other nominations? Alright I guess we can have a hand �3 vote. All those in favor raise your right hand (four hands raised) . ,Opposed? (o) . 1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I will undertake, for you and the public repre- i j1sented by those of you out here tonight, to do my best to undertake r ; the duties of this office which, as I will remind myself and you, fare principally to see to it that I help the Board in facilitating EIthe hearings getting before the Board the material it needs to make +1fair decisions without unduly prolonging our evenings , for us and for you. The other principal obligation is to see to it that what Ithe Board does - it' s proceedings and it ' s decisions - are under- 11 ,Istandable, to those of you who present material to us and have to ! live with our decisions . The Board' s proceedings - let me describe , briefly for those of you who have not presented material to the ! Board before and also for the new Board member who joins us this c, evening - the Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca �i ;Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca City Charter and a variety of other codes fa nd ordinances that give the Board some discretionary authority. 4 !Our hearings are not bound by strict rules of evidence but our de- i L - 2 - 1 I� cisions must be based upon the material that has been presented to ius and that material is presented by witnesses - people seeking ; relief from the Board, others who have views on the facts that per- 11tain to that relief. We ask that all who present material to the H 1Board, come to the front of the room so that we can hear them and ii ;iso we can be sure that their remarks go on to the tape that provides '!the transcript for the hearing, identify themself by name and ad- ;'dress and then limit their remarks to the issues that are in front hof the Board. We take up the cases in the order that they have been Ilfiled as appeals with the Board. We first ask the appellant , the I person seeking relief to present the case and respond to any ques- i jitions members of the Board may have about it ; we then invite any ;;others present who favor the appeal to speak. Following that we �i ' invite any present who have views in opposition to present that . j e proceed through all the cases that are on the Board' s docket for `Ithe evening and then go into executive session to deliberate on l�what we 've heard. After we have reached our conclusions and the jfindin s of fact on which the rest we then reconvene in public 11findings Y � li 'Session and announce those results . I think, as a formality - we ; Ought, this first meeting of 1979 , to do one further thing. The 1�oardl t ever since 1961 , has operated under a set of rules and regu- �ations that it annually readopts . I move that the Board readopt for 1979 the same rules and regulations under which it acted last ear and the years before. I �R. GREENBERG: I second it. ii J�HAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there any discussion? All those in favor say +�ye. (five ayes) . Any opposed, nay? (0 nays) . OTE: Aye 5, Nay 0. Unanimously the Board has decided to proceed 1�n 1979 under the rules and regulations under which it operated in ' 978 . Mr. Secretary what is our first case tonight? EC 'Y HOARD: The first case Mr. Chairman is Appeal 1223 : f Appeal of Mark Waldo Haag for an area vari- ance of Section 30 . 25, Columns 6 , 7 , 10 , 14 and 15 (minimum lot size, width at j street line, depth of side yard and rear yard) to permit continued use and occupant of the apartment house at 1 Willets Place as a three-family dwelling. The property, ' ii i� 3 �i ij j located in an R-3a use district, had been changed in use without establishing right as a pre-existing use before the district was rezoned, but the change was to a Lowe density. The property is non-conforming, in that the lot is not on a public right- of-way, and the property is deficient in i required depth for one side yard and the rear yard. This appeal was held over at the request of the Planning and Developme t ;i Board at its August 29 , 1978 meeting and j the questions involving parking between adjacent property owners were resolved through the Planning Board and now this i j coming before this Board for the other de ficiencies . .I iiSEC'Y HOARD: Mr. Haag is here. Please come up to the podium. MR. HAAG: My name is Mark Haag and I live on Ridgecrest Road. I dhave owned the property at Willets Place since 1969 , I guess . When i' � I bought the building the use - it ' s a three-story building, it had lalways been inspected and treated, not as a multiple residence . It j !was owner occupied when I bought it, my family and I lived there i ; for several years. There has been and still is an apartment on the I I l'third floor. The question that comes up at the moment is that ! there had been a kitchen, bathroom, separate entrance , etc. to the ;Iseocnd floor which, several years ago , I did some updating of the I likitchen and the bathroom and closed off the stairway that connected i lithe first and second floor. It has been a family, plus roomers . 'iThe use that the building now has is as two, two-bedroom apartments 'hand a one-bedroom apartment. As Mr. Hoard said, the way it is used! !snow reduces , to a degree, the maximum density permissible. In jother words , if the first and second floor were reopened again there jwould be more people in the building. When this appeal came up in I� j1August, Willets Place is a private street and we had a long standing �1but informal, arrangement for the parking between John Marcham, one Iof the adjacent owners, Ithaca College, and myself and that, in the 1 l 4meantime, has been formalized. There is an agreement with diagrams , spaces have been assigned to the property itself and that ' s been +'s idone to everyone ' s satisfaction at this: point. It' s a house that ;was built in the early 1900 ' s on a very tiny lot and, as is the case i(in so many other situations, there is no way to increase the amount ,!!of lot area that you have. The building is unchanged on the outsid 4 - lias far as I can determine since the 19501s . (; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You are not talking about a use variance, this is an ii :: area variance? ;SMR. HAAG : I guess it ' s an area variance. IGCHAIRMAN MARTIN: I mean, the use is permissible in an R-3 zone, 11 jithe problem comes from the insufficient - the insufficiency of { the yard in relation to . . . ,MR. HAAG: Yes sir. i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Three units . Okay, are there questions from V. ! members of the Board? With this now formalized parking arrangement, do you meet the Ordinance ' s requirements for parking? 'SMR. HAAG: Yes . There are two spaces in the garage and there are 1two spaces immediately in front of the building which have been ,I �iassigned, and I have a diagram which Mr. Wiggins ' office prepared - ; iI can show it to you or I guess , if need be, leave it with you. D you want to look at that? Let me explain very quickly. This is Buffalo Street here (pointing) . The property that we are talking 1about is here (pointing) , that is the garage that belongs to Ithac (;College, that belongs to me (pointing) (discussion took place which wasn' t picked up by the recorder) . 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay, we are getting into stuff now that should be bion the record. The diagram which all the members of the Board have shad a look at shows three spaces on Willets Place that now, by ( virtue of formal agreement will be designated for this property. I I Ithat right? 11MR. HAAG: Two of the spaces on Willets Place are! designated to that 1 �,property. The other one is designated to the other piece of proper- 4ty. I own two adjacent buildings . . . '',CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, so that two spaces on Willets Place sho ii7 ,Ion that diagram, plus the two in the garage meet the requirements 11of the Ordinance for the subject property - the property we are (;talking about? IMR. HAAG : Yes . I believe that there are three spaces total re- jquired and not four according to the Ordinance. ((CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. So the only problem in terms of the are 5 - j i �i requirements of the Ordinance are the size of the lot - concern th !! size of the lot - the width at street line, the side yard, etc. IMR. HAAG: Right. The problem is that there really is no street Hline, because that is a private street. That 's one of the problems . IlThe other one is that when it was built they just didn' t leave a o, (back yard. I mean, it ' s just that simple . li ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And the change in use which you are asking the (area variance for, in effect reduces the permissible occupancy? , MR. HAAG : Yes it does . ' CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Because it - legal occupancy for that property, Es things stand without the variance, has it used for family plus mv others . . . i �MR. HAAG: Family plus others plus the one bedroom apartment that h s always been there. 4CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Plus the one bedroom apartment. Alright. R. KASPRZAK: May I ask a question? There is no subdivision in- olved in this because you own the two properties and you indicated 11the boundary line? HAAG: They are in separate deeds . There is no sub-division, i� !+there is no change in property lines or anything else. li J�R. KASPRZAK: That ' s what I wanted to hear -� the separate deed part. !!Okay, now you have tenants in there now, because you don ' t live there anymore, right? R. HAAG: That is correct. R. KASPRZAK: Is it families or is it individuals? SIR. HAAG: It' s couples . There are two girls that live on the econd floor and there is a couple that lives on the first floor an here is a couple that lives on the top floor. I! HAIRMAN MARTIN: So a total of. six? �iR. HAAG : A total of six people, that is correct. R. GREENBERG: The renovations that made it into the type of build i Ing that you have now, were done by you? I �IR. HAAG : They were done by me and . . . TR. GREENBERG: Without a permit? ` IR. HAAG : I - without a permit and through ignorance , I guess. �i i! Ij I iI it - 6 - '! There was , as I said, when I purchased the building there was a Jkitchen and a bathroom and a whole set up on the first floor , ther its an outside stairway with a door into the second floor which is i Iseparate outside entrance which I did not add - that was there. ,! The only thing that I have done is to put some plywood and sheet i; ;; rock in the main stairwell that connected the first and second i Ifloor which then, by the Codes, makes it into two separate units ;!i whereas it had been considered as one before that. i �MR. GAINEY: How do you get to the third floor? IMR. HAAG : From that same outside entrance, outside stairway - up i lithe side of the building, there are two doors there, one goes to i ;!the second floor, one goes to the third floor. ;!CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any more questions? Anything you want to add Mr. i Haag? i ! MR. HAAG: The only thing that I want to add would be that if you !;are kind enough to grant this appeal I 'm then going to be involved ' in a good deal of additional work which Mr. Hoard' s office has out- I�lined for fire safety requirements and that is why this change was lever made in the past, is that you need then automatic fire detec- �i ;!tion system, you need fire separations where they were not required in the two-family house, they are required in a three-family house . i� ( But it is a very nice set up for me as a landlord. They are nice 4partments , easy to rent, etc. and I would like very much to keep I�' t as the three-apartments that it is , and has been for the last I! ive or six years at this point. R. KASPRZAK: Now that you have added something , I 've got a ques- ion. Those changes that you are forced to make if we grant the J�ppeal . . . IR. HAAG : Yes sir. �R. KASPRZAK: Are these going to be changes in reference to safety ! i i �r a change of the building itself? MR. HAAG: They are all safety things . There is separation of okay i 'm not an expert but roughly as a two-family house it didn ' t requiT e i monitored fire detection system . . . IR. KASPRZAK: I 'm not worried about the changes themselves , I was imply trying to make a distinction whether it is a building change ;j �i 7 - il iior there is simply safety requirements? li ! MR. HAAG: They are safety requirements if its a three-family house. li �MR. KASPRZAK: That is all the answer I need. That ' s building code !; that ' s his problem (pointing to Mr. Hoard) . it 'MR. HAAG : Yes sir. ;I !; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you. Is there anyone else with testimony 11to present on this appeal? First, anyone who would like to speak i1n ! favor of the requested area variance? Anyone who would like to ! speak in opposition to it? Seeing none , we will move on to the I ,,next case. I� I I i li ii I� it I i �i .i i) i�i I j i f` i i r !i i! i �i I ,I i! - 8 - i i, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK j1 COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS f JANUARY 8 , 1979 i ij EXECUTIVE SESSION �f `APPEAL NO. 1223 MR. GAINEY: I move that the Board grant the area i variance in appeal number 1223 . MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. IFINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . Mr. Haag has conformed to the Building Commissioner' s requirements . i 2 . They have arranged for adequate off- street parking with all of the neighbors concerned. 3. The lot requirements are impossible to comply with since the building was placed well before current zoning standards were I ii enforced. 4. The change reduces the occupancy of the 1 14 building. �JVOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent . Area variance granted. i �s I� !i I 1 it i �1 li it I {I �I 9 j - - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS s! COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I - CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK !! i JANUARY 8 , 1979 ;ISEC'Y HOARD announced the next appeal to be heard : H APPEAL NO. 1242 Appeal of Carol U. and Daniel G. Sisler for a use variance under Section 30. 25 , Column 2 to permit construction of a four unit apartment building at 423 East Lin- coln Street, on the same lot with an exist ing four-unit apartment. The property is !i located in an R-2b (residential) use dis- trict in which multiple dwellings are not a i permitted use. This appeal was held over f at the request of the Planning and Develo - j ment Board. i I1MS. SISLER: My name is Carol Sisler , I reside at 209 Valley Road with my husband Dan and we do own the property at 423 E. Lincoln ! Street which we have owned since 1975 . My husband and I renovated , the property there which was the old Eliza Cornell Pottery. It was j; built in 1840 and operated as a pottery until 1890 , owned 10 years 1by the Cornell family and then sold to other potters so that you I are inheriting a historic property, much as Mr. Haag' s property. iIn 1890 the only building that was there on the site was changed i to four living units and moldered along into the 20th century in vary ming states of repair until it was condemned in 1975 and my husband �4and I bought it at that time in order to preserve the site. I 'm the ! executive director of Historic Ithaca, I was in charge of the reno a- I j� tion of the Clinton House and I acted as my own contractor when we ! did the building on E. Lincoln. At that time it was in an R-3 zon ! and the zoning then changed to the R-2b zone in 1977 , j�CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That renovation itself required a variance, as I ! i recall. . . ! ! ! MS. SISLER: That ' s right. It was the right-of-way. . . i 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But it was only an area variance that had to do ! with the stairs and the entrance on the ; I jMS. SISLER: That ' s right, Peter, yes that 's true, Okay, so that' s ' been operating now very successfully for the last two years as a four i two-bedroom unit apartment. The property is 198 feet deep by 56 ! , feet wide if you will look at your first page, the map you will see j ; that you know in depth it is almost the same depth as the block j ! of Lincoln Street to Queen Street. In other words , it 's a city i! ij - 10 - '' block long, 198 feet deep and 56 feet wide and its surrounded, as I was trying to point out to the Planning Board, the open areas th t ;; are around it which is the Fall Creek park, the Ithaca Gun Company eland across the street is still undeveloped, behind the lot, south , jof the lot is land owned by the City of Ithaca which is also unde- i !,E veloped and wooded and then there is Fall Creek School with the ; playground. And there are three houses across the property on Lin i Street and across the street, of course, is the Fall Creek House , etc. So if you will turn to the next page, I just want to have yo� look at the photographs because I think you should have a feel for !, exactly what we are talking about. The first picture shows the jexisting pottery building as it looks today. As I say it is stained Ithe dark brown with the barn red trim and we envision doing the second building, for which we are asking the variance, in the same �i :, color scheme as a two-story building and it will very much approach) ;i Tithe same design as the existing building except for fire purposes and ,heating purposes we would like to make it a smooth stucco covered '!block so that the insulation will be a little bit better than in a j1clapboard house. The second picture shows the view of the propert filooking down Lake Street just after you pass the Ithaca Gun Compan ' r' jllooking down Lake Street . The dark brown building is the building i ijand the porch for which you - the variance was sought a couple of i� i; ;;years ago , across the street is the Fall Creek House and then east 11of that, I guess , is the Fall Creek park and beyond is the creek. The third picture on the lower left shows the view of the lot from : 11the stairway - I don' t know if you know there is a stairway that runs I Ion the city line from Linn Street up to Lake Street which the Fall , ;Creek residents use as they move between - up th-e hill . What I : wanted to point out to you is there is 148 feet from that stairway to the existingbuilding and we intend i g i to build the building �n the i ; rear of that property right at the site that you are looking at . Iit i� `I would be 40 feet that way. And then the fourth picture shows what !is i +imy vegetable garden - in the snow - but again it shows - that 's the :view looking from, Lincoln Street back toward th-e building area and , ,where the garden will be is the parking - will be the parking for I i - 11 - i ;! the property. Now I have four spaces there already. We ' ll rear- ! grange the parking and there will be enough space - room for eight ;! spaces very easily and then if you want to flip the page again Ithere is just a couple more views . One is - the one on the left , the fifth one is a view from Lake Street, showing, what you can 'i , hardly tell - you can' t photograph pottery remains but the dump '! site for the pottery is in this area that you are looking at in the jjforeground from Lake Street. Now the pottery building and the II !' pottery remains have been designated to the National Register of ; Historic Places . But the new construction, you see then the lot !! slopes downhill and the new construction will be in the rear as I ` said, it won' t affect that site at all . The last picture shows the I : view from Linn Street and I just want to say that the property is a ' bout 10 feet above Linn Street where that picture shows and that t e 11construction would be at the crest of that hill so would be above i the properties on Linn Street and shouldn' t impact them. Okay, the i llnext page shows the map, a layout of how we plan to develop the pr p- !Ierty. I think I 've explained to you, of course, in the front is te !! existing building, there are two fire hydrants in front of it , onel ii �jon either side of the street as well as one down on Queen Street. , This was a question which some of the members of the Planning Boar asked. Then there will be the parking area and above that, of 1�course, is the mound where all the potsherds are at the present time . I!That will be undisturbed. There will be eight parking places and I�then the building will be built in the rear of the property as shown. 'INow as shown, that means all that the building requirements, all of i ' the set backs, 10 feet on either side there is an open question of whether you want to consider what is the back yard or not. I a jhoping that you will consider where the parking lot and that sort of I ! thing is , you know, serves as a back yard for both properties be- l�cause of the length of the site. And as I said, the building will ! lmatch. the existing site pretty well . Now there is 11 ,150 feet of ! square footage on that total property and with the two buildings i jonly 250 of the lot will be covered, In the R-2b zone you can cove' r jas much as 350 . T think that ' s a kind of an important consideratio li i I I� - 12 1' just because I wanted to show to you that the property can absorb - I you know, the two properties , the two buildings , without swallowing llupi�oall the open land. Okay, if you would like to flip to the next page - when I brought this matter before the Planning Board, Mr. w! Bordoni was probably the most vocal person who was opposed to the development because he maintained that it was an R-2b zone and that there should be no variance granted from that use. I , of course, 1 ii made the point that there was plenty of land there and there should I� be no impact and none of the neighbors , as far as I know, has come !I to complain about the development. So that I made the point about i� the percent lot coverage. I alio wanted to make a point about the j3 taxes that have been generated just from the development of the j existing building. When we acquired the property the assessed �I valuation was $7 ,183 . and the taxes were $287 . 00 . The property it now valued at $48 ,300 and some dollars and the taxes are $1 ,338 . We envision that the new building will cost in the area of about 'i It $70 , 000. As I said, we would like to have it in four, two-bedroo ,I f units and the rational for that I ' ll explain in just a minute . I 've also written down here my reasons you know - considering this i s` back yard variance which I hope that you will sort of see really doesn' t apply because of the size of the total lot . Now the Planning Board made the point that I could build a two-family structure on it and meet the R-2b zone and I feel that that place I me in a position of economic hardship for the following reasons : !� The planning - a two-family house would force me - okay I can build the same size house - the house is to be 40 x 36 . I can build th same size house but I can only split it in two vertically so you j� have two halves . That would then - I had envisioned that in a four - 'I in a four-unit, I would charge $250 . 00 rent plus utilities for each i unit and I would require by lease that only two people occupy eac i' of the apartment units that ' s the arrangement in the existing structure. Therefore, that would mean that I would have to charge - that would be $1 ,000. a month rental from a four, two-bedroom f I! unit. Under the two-unit system I would have to charge $500 . 00 il a month rent for each side and I feel that that is an exhorbitant �i it - 13 - i rent for the Fall Creek area. It would preclude any kind of fami y i� ii operation because that ' s too much rent for a family to pay - $500 . �i a month plus utilities . So that . . . MR. GAINEY: Are you losing money at present - the way you have it it set up now? MS. SISLER: Am I losing money? i MR. GAINEY: Yes . j f MS. SISLER: No. i MR. GAINEY: Then how can you come in here and ask for a hardship . MS. SISLER: Well I think the matter of economic hardship is base i jI on the dollar return on the existing building, isn' t that true? MR. GAINEY: Your existing building, you just told me you aren ' t j; losing money on it. Ii MS. SISLER: No, I mean on the proposed building, excuse me. f� !I MR. GAINEY: There should be no hardship. I MS. SISLER: On the proposed building. MR. GAINEY: On the proposed building . . . ? ') MS. SISLER: Isn' t the developer allowed to earn a fair return on 1' his investment? MR. GAINEY: Well you bought the property, you fixed the existing (i jl building up and you are making money on it. Okay? You were give i i' a variance there. Okay? MS. SISLER: I was not given a variance . MR. GAINEY: You were given a variance. i i MS. SISLER: No, I wasn' t. 0 I( MR. GAINEY: You just stated to us you were given a variance. MS. SISTER: No. Peter Martin knows that the Board of Zoning Ap- peals ruled that they were not involved in variances where city right r! Ii of-ways were concerned. i �i MR. GAINEY: On the porch? i. MS. SISLER: On the porch. You can look in the records - that ' s ii what it was . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The variance was requested, the Board ended up I� determining that a variance was not necessary it would have bee ;f an area variance in that case, in any event. it l - 14 - i MR. GAINEY: Let' s go back to my original question, then, how ca j you - if you say you are not losing money on the original structure i� !� that you purchased - how can you come in --here and declare a hard- ship for the property? MS. SISLER: Well because this existing building is a totally new 'I ball game. I have to go to the bank and get a mortgage. ii MR. GAINEY: It ' s not within the zoning. MS. SISLER: - Well that ' s what I 'm asking for a variance to do it. . 1 !� MR. GAINEY: Would you build this up by your house - would you put If i� this four-unit up in your area? �I !i MS. SISLER: On Valley Road where I live? i MR. GAINEY: Yes . i i iiMS. SISLER: Well , certainly I would if it was allowed, but it ' s i not allowed. f li MR. GAINEY: Well it ' s not allowed down there either, so why go �I into another area and try to force it in, where it ' s not allowed i it your area? MS. SISLER: Well I think it ' s a difficult situation. When I bought j` the property in 1975 and it was an R,3 zone at that time and then it Ill the City decides to turn it into an R-2b zone - I think that forces - right there an economic hardship because then it has limited . . I' j; ISR. GAINEY: But you just told me you are not you are not having a hardship - you just told me you are making money. yMS. SISLER: Well , may I make a further explanation. I don't know if the other members of the Board agree with you - I 'm happy to have I, someone tell me what constitutes an economic hardship , because thi I; I iiis the way I view it. It ' s a matter of how much money I can get from the property. I am facing, at $70 , 000 . a year, I am facing $7, 000. at the minimum in interest charges at 10% . And I am facin i�� - so I am looking at $12 , 000. a year income from that property whi�h f� I i leaves a $5 ,000. variance which is not very much money made from ilt ii but, now - I don' t know if this is the way you look at it, but I a I� trying to tell you how I interpret an economic hardship. It 's the !i amount of money that I can earn from the property to build a decent I property - one that is an addition to the neighborhood, i i� t� i 3 l I. - 15 - 'i i, it MR. GAINEY : But that ' s why the laws were changed, because they i wanted to limit the number of large family units . MS. SISLER: Alright, this is what I am trying to show to you. I j could build two - $500 . 00 a month apartments or housing units in f! ,R there. Alright , a family cannot live - cannot pay $500 . 00 a month a family, you know, Fall Creek is not exactly a high rent area. !! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Why do we need to assume that the two-unit build- ing uil -ing would be as large and as expensive and therefore sliced two ways ii rather than four ways , would require double the rent? Couldn' t you 'i build a two-unit building there that would be in smaller scale and. . . MS . SISLER: Not - I don' t think there is any reason to do that, i I think if you can build on a site, that you have -,you should buil it the largest type of building that you can . . . !� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Except that the Zoning Ordinance dictates a two- 'i unit use. I, MS. SISLER: Well you see, that' s what I am saying, Peter, I can build a building . . . i j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You can imagine all sorts of things there which j� the Ordinance doesn' t permit - and cost amount - and find that the I �j Ordinance creates economic difficulties for you. it MS. SISLER: Alright , a family, a two-family apartment or housing !I i unit is considered a living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom I and three bedrooms , right? I think that is generally accepted as ii a unit . So what I am saying to you is that $500. 00 a month, a jfamily can' t occupy it, you are then forced to put in three unre- lated individuals which is what the R-2b zoning says you can do. Except that a lot of people play the game a little further and they '! put more people in - in a housing unit under those circumstances . II I think most people - if they look into it, will find that that ' s I the case. From my own standpoint, I don' t want to operate that I ! i0 way. I do not want to be forced into, if I can avoid it, forced �i into having to rent to a number of unrelated individuals . In a i two-person apartment which I have now, each person signs on the I� lease and I have some leverage there, only occupy a quarter of the I i jj building. Alright, when you are sent into a situation where you've .f I I l - 16 - �o i got half the building , each half occupied by three or more unrela- ted individuals , it ' s well known in this town that young people like undergraduates , scotch out of their leases and they are gone i and the landlord can' t find them. And I don 't feel that - I think j '! the point I wanted to make out to you but it didn' t work with the '( Planning Board - but I want to show you that this structure is no I threat to the R-2b zone, it is on the very outside edge of the zon I across the street from it is the Fall Creek House, which is a non- conforming use and you could put it in as a neighborhood facility i and there are no adjoining properties - it ' s surrounded by three streets and city public land. i MR. GAINEY: Three houses across the street. MS. SISLER: That' s exactly right, but it isn' t as though I was ji building in someone ' s back yard, which I am not . The property is 'I totally isolated. So I 've written down - I hope in your delibera- tions - I have written down what I view are the reasons that I 'm pleading economic hardship in the development of that property and I don' t want to take up all of your time but I think that - I thin 1 I it does make sense. Furthermore, Thys VanCort at one point, said j that perhaps that the back end of that lot could be sold off. Wel i I think you can see that the back lot can 't be sold off because th re is no access to it unless you worked out some arrangement using the driveway but that would never work out because there are alway I1 quarrels about right-of-ways to property. There is also that ten ;I j foot bank to contend with. from Linn Street, so therefore thep rope ty i� i{ is a legal size building lot within the City of Ithaca but it canno�t �Ia 11 be sold off separately because there is no access to it . Now I , would like to - am asking your permission, you know, to allow me t .i ` develop that back part of the lot so that it is an asset to the City and it 's an asset to the neighborhood. i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay, can I review very swiftly the basic ingre- ldients of the hardship point. Now you bought the property and you ,i renovated it in 175 when the Ordinance designated that area for I R-3 . That renovation turned out to be economically fruitful so th4t the property was a reasonable venture for you, as you had bought i I ti - 17 - 1 i and renovated it. The zoning changed. The zoning changed in an j area in which there was very little undeveloped land but which a major threat is conversion. With one of the few undeveloped pieces around you propose to do something which now the Ordinance forbids it and that ' s to put up a more than a two-unit structure. And the hardship you point to is the problems of building a large two-unit building there , a new one, investing in it and the difficulty of getting out your investment in rental . But the property without it that investment is alright - produces reasonable return - consistent i with the zoning, right? i; MS. SISLER: Yes , I suppose so , I really haven' t figured out the percentages or something like that on it . i MR. GAINEY: Well , it ' s not consistent with the zoning because it j was a - for years it was a two-family dwelling and it' s now a four- I! ou -ii family dwelling. i MS. SISLER: Well this is a matter of debate. I don' t know how far - I� you want to go back . . . MR. GAINEY: I know it was . MS. SISLER: Well look, I owned it and I renovated it and I went 1` I through every inch of the building and the contractor who worked 'I on it is here too and he can say that the plumbing was there for j four places . I� i MR. GAINEY: I 'm just telling you what it was for the past twenty years - it was a two-family dwelling. !� MS. SISLER: Okay. +) '! I SECY HOARD: Let me clear up something, if I may. Even to put a it P two-family dwelling there you would need to either sub-divide or ifget a variance because the property is already non-conforming, So you can' t even build a two-family under the present zoning. ! MS. SISLER: Well I think there is somewhere in the record there k � is a ruling from Marty Shapiro ' s office about that sub-division and (, he ruled that you would not have to sub-divide. You are not talking j I about that entirely? SECY HOARD: No. That ' s not what I 'm saying. Right now the property 'I i; is non-conforming with four units and the zone allows only two. o i' 1 jl 18 - i i Right now it' s legal non-conforming. You have four units on the it �i property and to add even one more unit you would need to either sub-divide. . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Creating a separate lot which . . . It SECY HOARD: Creating a separate lot or get a variance for an addi- tional unit in excess of what is there now. MS. SISLER: Well that ' s - but you see, how can you do that Tom? ;i Y You can say it ' s a non-conforming use now but that ' s changing the ii rules in the middle of the ballgame isn' t it? ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But that' s precisely what non-conforming uses j� are. They allow you to continue with something that - on a blank i� slate - would not be allowed. And you've got that blank slate in �j your back yard and you want to put there what ' s not allowed. You i are allowed to keep your four units that you renovated in 175 - , that' s permitted because the rules were changed after you made that investment. MS. SISLER: Well I think that - I don' t know, but the way I 've worked it out is , under four units , which is a - a person could pay j $250 . 00 a month - each person is paying $125 . 00. If I am forced t develop it into two units at the same rental of $125. 00 I 'm then i i, j� achieving $375 . 00 per half which gives me an income of $9 ,000 . a .j !� year which does not hardly even allow me to meet the interest pay- ments on the property and I think you are talking about - I mean, the stresses you are talking about are _ to me - infinitesimal - you are talking about six people or eight people, I 'm allowed six, 11 right Tom? An individual and two unrelated individuals . i SECY HOARD: Three unrelated per unit. MS. SISLER: In an R-2b zone. And I 'm asking to be allowed to have j� eight and that ' s it. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright are there other questions from members of th.e Board? Ir j DR. GREENBERG: I have a recollection that Lincoln Street was con- i sidexed a fairly busy street when we were discussing some other i variance - not related to your property Ms . Sisler and I just I wondered whether the traffic situation there is something we ought f 9 - 19 - �j i, to take into consideration even though you have off-street parking . MR. GAINEY: The traffic has been alleviated by the bankruptcy right i' i ii now. DR. GREENBERG: Thank you. MR. GAINEY: It 's busy at 8: 00 o' clock in the morning with the ii r school , and again when the school lets out and then when the Gun .j j Company was coming and going. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there other questions? Do you have anything further? MS. SISLER: No , I have nothing more. 1 I i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, is there anyone else here this evening i) who would like to testify on this case in favor of the requested '.i variance? Please come forward. MR. LAZARUS: My name is Rick Lazarus , I 'm working with Ms . Sisler f� on this project. I 'd like to make a brief statement. Mrs . Sisler i ri has shown that her property is unique in the city and that it is o its own block, surrounded on three sides by city streets , on a fourth ii j side by a city pedestrian way and park land. Zoning-wise Mrs . ii !l Sisler ' s property is bounded on one side by I-1 zoning , on one side J by P-1 zoning and on two sides by R-2b zoning. Before she can I erect any building on the site Mrs . Sisler needs a variance on the r back yard requirement. And if she is to put a four-unit building Mshe also needs a variance on the use regulations . The City Plan- ning Board in their meeting in December recommended that a variance be issued to permit Mrs . Sisler to construct a two-family dwelling I on the site described. In addition, one member of the Planning Board recommended that Mrs. Sisler be permitted to construct a four II unit dwelling as she requested. With all due respect to the ` I I Planning Board I would like to point out some advantages to allot- ing Mrs . Sisler to construct the four-unit dwelling instead of a 'i two-unit dwelling, assuming that this Zoning Board will approve IMthe required variances . One - according to the District Regulations chart and the Municipal Code, paragraph 27 . 8 "A two-unit dwelling j may house two families plus not mroe than four unrelated individuals . j F; That is , one family plus two non-related individuals per unit. " l - 20 - , A family is not necessarily an individual but it can be a couple , it can be a couple with two children, it can be a couple with thr e children. And I think that goes a little bit beyond what Mrs . Sisler was saying before that a two-unit building would - could i house the maximum of six people. I believe it could house eight 'i people - it could house ten people ; two unrelated individuals plus the family. Such a building would require no less than eight bed- j� rooms , and no less than four off-street parking spaces . A four ji unit dwelling which Mrs . Sisler proposes , is designed to have two , bedrooms per unit , each of which is smaller than 120 square feet !� and thus , according to the Municipal Code, paragraph 27 . 9 , the maxi- ', I mum occupancy of the building Mrs . Sisler proposes would be less ij Ithan eight persons . In other words only one person would be allowed !! per room - two persons per unit - one person per bedroom because o r the size of the bedroom. The parking requirement would be four off- street f -street parking spaces , the same as would be required for the same size two-unit apartment building. In summary, the Planning Board i has voted to recommend to this Board that variances be issued to it Mrs . Sisler to build a two-unit dwelling. We are asking that this Board go along with the recommendation of the Planning Board but i I addition to allow the construction of a four family dwelling becaue i4 j9 the four unit dwelling proposed would be no more - would require n Ij jj more parking than a two unit dwelling, it would house no more than I a two unit structure would be allowed to house and would be no (j larger in size than a two unit dwelling could be built according t the district regulations, zoning regulations. i fj CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Lazarus you describe the Planning Board ' s j action quite differently from their own minutes. I wonder if you I could reconcile for us . The minutes embodying the recommendation I � �! of the Planning Board which we have received, the only information i! � iof their action, says that there was some discussion - a move to I recommend denial, seconded, motion carried. ;! MR. LAZARUS: Yes. Mr. VanCort said that they would go along with - iI � this was before the motion was made, Mr. VanCort said that he saw j jno reason that Mrs. Sisler shouldn' t be allowed to build a two-unif I' I i �r - 21 - i i l building . The motion was that the Planning Board - to - whether I; or not she could put in a four-unit building. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright , they in effect took no action on the i two-unit proposal? MR. LAZARUS: No sir, they didn' t . The only action- they took no official action - the discussion was , though, at the time , that a i two-unit structure would be allowed if Mrs . Sisler had asked for permission to build a two-unit structure. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. 1� MR. LAZARUS: What I 'm saying is that . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The formal action that they took was to recommend i� denial and that was apparently unanimous decision. it !� MR. LAZARUS : Right. ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, thank you. Do you have a question Joe? MR. GAINEY: What did you say your capacity is in this project? ii MR. LAZARUS : I 'm working with Mrs . Sisler - I 'm her contractor. i� I MR. ANGELL: What you said, as I took it , that if the four unit is it denied, that you would press for a two-unit. Is that the point? f And put any wheres from six to ten people in each unit. Is that I right? I� I MR. LAZARUS : Well sir, it ' s not my capacity to make that decision. I� What I 'm suggesting is that if this Zoning Board allowed, and the Planning Board also allowed, Mrs . Sisler to put a two-unit structure i on the property that she could put in a two-unit structure - each Ir unit could have as many as four bedrooms per unit - in other words the total number of bedrooms for the four unit dwelling could be t e same as . . . I I, MR. ANGELL: I understand that. Could we have Mrs . Sisler answer j that? � I li MR. LAZARUS: Yes sir. Sure, why not? �j MRS. SISLER: I didn' t hear the question. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The question is whether if the four units are i; i! denied, whether you've got a firm plan to go ahead with two of thei . 'I ' MRS. SISLER: No. ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Did I understand your question? +I I' i+ ij 22 - i,i ; i w MR. ANGELL : Well that ' s what he is inferring - that as I took it, pthat if it was denied she would go ahead and apply for a two-unit structure and put from six to ten people in each unit. `i ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: I understood it as more sort of a mental base line for - that they were asking us to compare what they were proposing I� �i i, to what they might legally be permitted to do. ;i 11 MR. ANGELL: What they might do? MR. LAZARUS; Yes sir that is correct. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Lazarus . +I MR. LAZARUS: Thank you very much. 1, I, CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak i ii i1 i favor of this requested use and area variance? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to it? We ' ll move on then to the next case. Excuse me, Joe. i ` MR. GAINEY: Was there a letter sent out to all the surrounding i neighbors? ii MRS. SISLER: Yes . It was sent in November. i j MR. GAINEY: And there was no reply back from any of the neighbors? MRS. SISLER: None. �f CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The next case? i i j ;I i Ir i 'i I� I i i� I� i i' ,I ii i „ I� , li i3 I� I� li f I - 23 - ! 3.� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK j{ COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 8 , 1979 "f EXECUTIVE SESSION it APPEAL NO. 1242 : !! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: 1 move that the use variance and area i variances in case 1242 be denied. MR. GAINEY: I second the motion. II II FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There was no showing that the land and the w existing four-unit apartment building on i. it do not yield a reasonable return. Hard- I! ship must be established for a use variance . i i 2 . As one of few developable properties in the neighborhood, putting a multiple dwelling on this property in view of the recent change of the district to R-2 , seems a par- ; j ticularly flagrant disregard of the reason ! for that change. i (� 3 . It is possible that a building with fewer f units might be built with reasonable retur . VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent. i! Use and area variances denied. ! i� i A !I ii 1 i I i I i• I i I! of I I i! i - 24 - 1 ! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 8 , 1979 II 'i SECY HOARD: The next case Mr. Chairman is i Appeal No. 1243 : Appeal of Ithaca Rentals and Renovations for a variance or modification of the terms of an area variance granted on September 11 , i! 1978 to give retroactive approval to a chang j in the roof design of the building at 222- 224-226 Eddy Street , in an R-3b (residential use district . The earlier decision of the j Board was based in part on testimony that j the buildings exterior design would be pre- served; the buyer of the property has found it economically infeasible to restore the j roof structure to the original design, and i� has substituted a different design. I� SECY HOARD: Mr. Kerrigan. i MR. KERRIGAN: I 'm James Kerrigan, I represent Ithaca Rentals and Renovations, Inc. Mr. Travis , the president of the Corporation which owns the property is also here and with the permission of the Chairman, if I may, I 'd like to show photographs dealing on the i application for circulation among the Board. They are merely i poloroids to highlight the only issue that I believe is here having to do with the elevation of the roof line of the property. i ! I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Can they be left to become part of the record? MR. KERRIGAN: Yes . Please. I� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. Joe could you mark them with the case number before sending them around? MR. KERRIGAN: As the Board may recall or as the members may recall , r the minutes would reflect a year ago the property at 222-224-226 Eddy Street - at the top of Buffalo Street - burned and was substai- 11 i tially destroyed by fire. The former owner of the property, in I i11 conjunction with and in agreement to sell the property to my clien �) came in before this Board and applied for a variance . Prior to th 1l time of the fire, as I understand it, the use of the building in- volved or permitted twenty-eight (28) people to reside in the �j premises . The new plans, and perhaps I should point out that the I Ordinance as I 'm sure you are aware, permits the reconstruction in, i �! whole or in part, of a building which is damaged by fire and which i was a non-conforming use. It was a non-conforming use prior to th! I !I i ! s ;f - 25 - !k �i fire, I believe largely in regard to parking . The application fo ii a variance was apparently needed, as I understand it, even though ii the total number of people in the premises was being reduced because I the layout, the density, the size of the bedrooms , was being changed jAt any rate, in September . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The number of units was increasing. MR. KERRIGAN: The number of units was increasing, the total number !� of people who could live in the premises was decreasing. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right. MARK TRAVIS : The total number of units was decreasing from seven to five. SECY HOARD: The number of bedrooms was increased. l MR. TRAVIS: Yes. The number of bedrooms was increased but the i` density, was legally . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. i II MR, KERRIGAN: This Board in its decision - on its motion - if I I may quote from it , "The motion is made that the area variance re- quested be granted on condition that the plans submitted to the i Building Commissioner before a building permit is issued, confirm i the testimony at this hearing which was that the bedrooms in the reconstructed building would be of sufficient size to permit occu- pancy by no more than twenty-one (21) persons . " That has been don . i And also the Building Commissioner required as I - there is no j doubt about the right to do this , I think it is under the Building i jlCode exterior elevations to be submitted. Prior to the fire there ; were seven (7) gables on the property. I believe five of those ,Igables were substantially or completely destroyed by the fire to blithe property. In the original roof elevation which is all that we i� ,faredealing with here tonight, llthe plan submitted and approved by lithe Building Commissioner called for a mansard roof but with the ! retention of four gables, if I 'm not mistaken. That was, by the iltime the roof elevation and sketches were submitted, I believe, we 11were into November. Trusses arrived, the roof had to be substan- 11tially rebuilt, the - when the trusses were originally put in plac i Ithe plan was to restore the four gables that had been submitted to ii I� i 26 - Mr. Hoard at that time , two of which were already in place and two 1of which were going to be added. Although the original plans - that ;had then an elevations that had been submitted, looked as though it i were to be viable. The appearance of the building was - turning to jIthe photographs - or refreshing your recollection of the photograph ':called that the peak of the gable would be 3? to 4 feet above the ii ;;roof line - the top roof line of the building. The floor of the building that we are talking about is non - is space that cannot - is nonhabitable space . It was not originally planned and it is not i! now planned and it is not approved as living space. So the gables 'were non-functional . INR. KASPRZAK: Is it capable of being used in the future in terms of if tithe building code? i j�MR. KERRIGAN: Under the Zoning Ordinance, clearly not. Under the I ,Building Code as constructed, I don't believe so - there are no I ,windows up there. 11MR. TRAVIS: There is only a foot and one-half between the ceiling ! of the second floor and where the gables start. It would be pretty i! cramped. There is no space in there for living. The trusses are 'i '124 inch centers and they go the length of the building and they si tI t � 'Ion a plate about a foot and one-half off the beams . :;, CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Travis to get any of your testimony of that isort, you are going to have to manage to come up here and get your-f ; self on the tape. Can you do that for us? I� MR. KERRIGAN: If you want, what Mr. Travis had indicated is that jthe trusses holding up the roof run throughout and through the llength of the buildi-ng and is not livable space. C' lIMR. KASPRZAK: What he is saying is that within the mansard roof there is no livable space now or in the future? I 1MR. KERRIGAN: That is correct. Without coming back to some Boardl ,land if somebody wanted to put up another floor at some point , fine Abut not by our doing it and not without your approval . It cannot ii Ibe done. And physically in terms of construction it can' t be done The - in November when the trusses were put up with two of the ;1 jigables put up there, a determination was made by the owner that th� I� i w i 3� it i! - 27 - '!non-functional gables were not at all attractive , they protruded i� ;quite a bit above the height of the new roof line , it was lower !Ithan the original roof line, the original roof was in part mansard ;hand in part peaked. The cost of a complete renovation of the part ii 1101 the roof - just to the roof line, I 'm not talking about interior ;,work, would have been on the order of $38 ,000 . The roof that has i� °,,been put on the property, with or without these gables that we are ''talking about was in the order of $11 ,000 . which has been done. Th ra 11is no significant difference in cost between the plans as originally (submitted to the Building Commissioner and as the roof now sits . lWith the people installing the truss on the premises , the owner told { lithe contractor to complete - to take down the two remaining gables nand complete the roof as it has now been completed. The Building IFCommissioner' s office was notified within two days , if I 'm not mis- It 1taken, of the original determination. . . . '�CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If I can just - hold for a minute _ not a signifi i� ant cost differential - it was primarily an aesthetic judgment - i he gables looked funny sticking up above the roof line? ;I R. KERRIGAN: Yes . Exactly. There is a significant cost differen �� ial now if this Board suggests that we go back to the gables . . . PAIRMAN MARTIN: At the point of decision. I �R. KERRIGAN: At the point of decision, not a significant cost i� differential , some but not at all significant. When the Building i. ��ommissioner was advised of this , I am informed, that he felt and 11 ;made a determination that since the plans had been changed, that itl required an application for a new variance. I 'm not sure, quite i{ ;rankly, if we are here tonight either asking this Board for a new variance, asking this Board for an interpretation either of the Ordinance or its old variance to the effect that these gables which 1�re not required are in the alternative asking this Board for a de- j5ision that a variance is not required for the roof as it exists an i as been reconstructed at the present time. As I indicated at the Iutset , there was the right to rebuild it, there was a density chane l (fin terms of the property that was being used, As I read the Zoning Ordinance I am not, and perhaps I am asking for advice, aware of an it i i I� l 28 - 1provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that even require the submissio ;i .! of exterior plans under this ordinance. I don 't think there is an ,, doubt that the plans as submitted and the roof as built comply with 'i ;; the building code and the housing code throughout. So what we are ; asking you for is a determination as to whether your September 12t decision required the roof to be built in exactly the configuration i. that it had been prior to the February fire or if it required that 11the roof be rebuilt exactly in the configuration, which was diffe- 11rent than the original roof, as approved by the Building Commissioner 11sometime in November or if, in fact, the Zoning Ordinance is con- iy 1;cerned with use and occupancy, none of which has changed - no pro- 1posal for a change in the use and occupancy. I think my position for my interpretation is that the owner of the property is entitled 'ito build and use the property with or without gables . I think the flinterpretation of the question that was raised by the Building Com-I ;missioner related to the fact that in the September application as dwell as in the testimony presented to the Board by the then owner o ;(the property, there were statements made, both in the application and j;in the testimony, that the roof was going to be reconstructed in isubstantially, perhaps identically as it was prior to the time of tie iI, Ilfire. As I read your decision, I 'm not sure that I feel that that I 11roof line was incorporated in your decision, I''m not sure if . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It ' s not the Board' s practice to incorporate and ! condition everything that it hears from the appellant by way of j� etail about what ' s proposed. Any significant difference between ;ghat actually goes forward and the details of the proposal on which 1 i� ariances are sought strike me as getting beyond the scope of the ii jvariance itself and therefore at least raising the question of I� nterpretation, VR. KERRIGAN: Well that' s part of the reason that we are here. I f,I, 'think part of the, perhaps the response to that, if I may, is that it i� think I would agree with that position if it involved a change in he plans that in any respect changed the occupancy or changed the uilding _ the reconstruction vis-a-vis some aspect of the Zoning ' rdinance. In other words , if we are adding a bedroom because of a I� i - 29 - A ' change in plans - we go taking one away perhaps even, changing a i ' size, some aspect of the change affecting the set back for example , for we want to put a stairway there - or change the set back, I would jagree 100% that we would have to be back here, but I am hopeful that ii ; the distinction between the three is somewhat academic for all we ;tare asking to do is to reconstruct the building without non-functional gables rather than with non-functional gables . MR. KASPRZAK: I think it should be before us , even though the change (occurred after we made the decision and how we decide I suppose will j�have to be decided in a secret session. 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there questions? ;SMR. GAINEY: I'm a little curious . There was an agreement made tha {fit would be restored to its original way that it was before the 14 ,(fire, okay? 4 1MR. KERRIGAN: I didn' t represent the former owner and I am not, I !guess if there was such an agreement, I don't know of it. NR. GAINEY: Now my question is , it was not restored because it i ��didn' t look right or it cost too much? !�R. KERRIGAN: Relatively little difference in cost between the roo ;which you see in the photographs and the roof with the gables above i ! i '!the roof line. I � jHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Now the roof we see in the photographs was ! ' ot the original roof either. 4R. KERRIGAN: That is correct. i i j jCHAIRMAN MARTIN: The original roof was not mansard was it? G. 114R. KERRIGAN: Portions of the original roof were mansard. Portion ` Df it were gabled. �i I ECY HOARD: I have a photograph from the Jounral here that . . . I �R. ANGELL: Well my question is , would the variance have been gran ed lad not the agreement been made to restore the roof to the original . I�R. KERRIGAN: I can' t tell you that Mr. Angell, in part other than o suggest as I have to Mr. Martin that the change does not seem to � e required or not required by any code. The change that has been ade is not a violation of any code, as I see it. I PR. GREENBERG: It seems to me that I understood you differently. ii �I i! ii - 30 - 'i !; For one thing, a drawing was submitted to the Building Commissione ; which was not identical to the original roof and he approved that? !SMR. KERRIGAN: Yes . I' !IDR. GREENBERG: So we can forget about the original roof matter, I fibelieve. IMR. KERRIGAN: I hope so. DR. GREENBERG : Okay. I think it ' s true. But then you went uni- laterally and you did something else. Now when you said that two !days after the decision you informed the Building Commissioner - no ,the decision - the irrevocable decision, in other words the roof was IIalready built by the time of . . . !MR. KERRIGAN: The decision was largely irrevocable because of two r ;three factors at that - when the Building Commissioner was informed. I` Ine were in November, behind schedule, snow was coming, in fact it i ))snowed two or three days and there were substantial pressure to get ilthe roof enclosed . . . :IDR. GREENBERG: Do you see the problem that you're presenting to us ! then? After you made a kind of agreement with the Building Commiss on- �Ier you then, because of necessity, although roofs have been covered i lover with material - plastic material - you just did it without giv ng- !� I (getting his approval, he may have approved it but now you made it - � !iwe have to do something retrospective. i; ��R. KERRIGAN: I understand your concern except that I am not familiar i, and I have reviewed the minutes in the earlier application. I 'm no familiar with an agreement - but made by the previous owner . We ha e - he present owner, Corporation, has never been before this Board. Vre E re obviously bound by the Board' s decision on an earlier one. IR. GREENBERG: We have allowed the details of our decision - we ha e )lowed them to be fulfilled in competent hands, namely, Mr. Hoard' ands . i R. KERRIGAN: That is correct. ' TR. with Mr. Hoard GREENBERG: But apparently whatever was agreed Then wasn' t carried out by you or your client. R. KERRIGAN: plans were submitted to Mr. Hoard which were approved) y him, that i,s correct. Whether or not that 's an agreement that can' t be changed. !i 1 1 - 31 i; IDR. GREENBERG: That is correct. Now we have a question - I think `; that you are asking us - you are asking us to go back to the original ; agreement that was made with the prior owner and I am not so sure tha I this is the question at all - about the story of the sixgables . We Hweren' t - you would not be here if you had restored it according to IMr. Hoard' s agreement with you or apparently had you taken it upon jyourself to say to him just prior to the final building - final ;construction - to say, what is your aesthetic opinion in this matter? ii 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I would rephrase the question. I would say the t tithing is here only if what we 've got is a zoning question. The !Zoning Ordinance doesn' t say a thing about the gables . The gables ;J li'lare a zoning question only if the variance that we granted had as I ! an implicit limit of it that those gables were to go up in their j Il arlier form. i PR. GREENBERG : Or as our . . . �L;HAIRMAN MARTIN: There had been representations made on behalf of H� he request for the variance that much of the logic of the request I' as that they were going to restore the building to its prior form. R. GREENBERG : And Mr. Hoard had our implicit okay to take it upon timself to modify that if he saw . . . (i�HAIRMAN MARTIN: Or to interpret it. 1DR. GREENBERG: To interpret it, yes . !CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right. f; R. KERRTGAN: I guess in part my response Iunderstand the concern i hat you are expressing which I think on a more fundamental basis is ii ust somebody coming in here, asking for a Variance and going out and i going whatever they want. That ' s really what I think we are talking e, bout. I can understand that concern in a great many respects and I on ' t feel that that is what has happened here. I feel that with he decision of the Board that everything that has been set forth in i hat decision has been complied with. If I may ask, without appearing o be somewhat impertinent, if an appellant were to come in and test ' - 1 , y that among his plans for reconstruction of a building or that he fere going to paint it green and he in turn painted it white and there }Is no reference as to the color in your decision, even though that �I , Ei - �f i - 32 - ,jtestimony is made, is that appellant bound by his testimony that h ;! was going to paint it a certain color or not when there has been n iIincorporation of that in your decision, I guess is part of my ques- tion. i ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well , if it were bright orange in a residential �Ineighborhood, I might say . . . 'iiMR. KERRIGAN: I think we would all like to be able to say what Mr. E !Martin is saying about the bright orange in a residential neighbor- � hood. I 'm not sure that this is what this Ordin ance says - what- 11ever all of us may agree on bright orange or some other color that ;does not fit in. .:CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well if it ' s a close question and the question is ; the impact of this use in a residential anything that - a range o :factors are frequently mentioned by the appellant as showing the ;;sensibleness of the requested variance and not all of those details A ',.!of the proposal are then formally attached as conditions to the `variance granted but they are part of the request, the application t; lthat' s approved. So that I would not agree with you that something A hat the Board had not specifically earmarked which. was changed - !jwas something that was not an implicit limit of the variance. ;OMR. KERRIGAN: I guess maybe then the comment . . . (CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So the real question for me here is whether this ;relates closely to the matters of concern to the Board when it was I ; jgranting that variance or whether it is really extraneous detail. I�R. KERRIGAN: Okay. 'iIHAIRMAN MARTIN: That' s how I would formulate the issue of interpr - ftation. '1I !�R. KERRIGAN: I would agree with that in part . I think my only con- r-ern is the prospect of being treated before this Board as someone jVho has come in and ignored your earlier decision and I don' t feel ;;that that is the case. I can see your concern in terms of taking u �ack to where we were on September llth and with the five to nothin jyariance have been granted without gables or with gables is a half 1�tep in the direction that I want to go . I am concerned in terms o � feeling on the part of the Board that we have ignored your decis n $ecause I don' t think that ' s what we 've done . ii I� �s - 33 - 111CHAIRMAN MARTIN: This is quite different - I ' ll rephrase what you' ve l 'Isaid - this is quite different from the case in which you were coming ' back and asking us to change the explicit condition retrospectively. 1MR. KERRIGAN: I agree. And the only other - I guess the last comm nt 11 ;lin terms of the difference between the original photograph as shown 'in the Jounral that I saw Mr. Hoard circulated, was that the differ- fence in cost between that and either of these roofs was substantial . jIt was $38 , 000. to reconstruct the roof as it originally stood prio I I 'Jto the fire. It was $11 , 000 or $12 ,000 . after . Yes . lMR. ANGELL: May I ask you - you must have received bids on the cos ;hof this roof? MR. KERRIGAN: I believe that is correct. MR. ANGELL: You did receive bids? Then you knew prior to starting ;,to install the roof what the cost was? iIMR. KERRIGAN: That is correct. MR. ANGELL: And at that time you never went back to this Board or 11Mr. Hoard and said, well we have received these bids , the cost of ;!restoring it to the original condition is prohibitive? 'MR. KERRIGAN: That is correct but the difference between the plan I ; approved by Mr. Hoard with about three gables and the plan as ori- jginally put up is negligible. That ' s not why we are here. We coul +have, without a significant cost difference, built a roof in accor- ddance with plans approved by Mr. Hoard. The reason that it went '!ahead was that they were in November, there were cranes there , , 11trusses were going up and an aesthetic determination was made. MR. ANGELL: But you arbitrarily took it upon yourself to change i the plan without consulting him. MR. KERRIGAN: The change - the exterior plans as submitted to Mr. =i 1GHoard, which exterior plans are not required by this Ordinance, yes 1Ithat is correct . !MR. GAINEY: But they may be, the way it states . You are taking fo(r � I Eigranted that it was not included. II 11MR. KERRIGAN: I guess I am asking if - whether or not the - if , there is something in the Ordinance that requires the submission o +exterior plans in the Zoning Ordinance, I 've overlooked it. I 1� 1 ; f� !j 34 - CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You are asking us to confirm your view that those gables were not part of the variance that we granted? MR. KERRIGAN: Yes. Or to give us a new variance saying that gables aren' t granted or to interpret the Ordinance in the fashion that I �i would, saying that the aesthetic concern of the building with or without the gables is not something that the Council has given to this Board under the Zoning Ordinance. j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Are there further questions from members of the Board? ;I MR. KERRIGAN: I was concerned that I cut Mr . Angell off before he ' was finished. If I did, I 'm sorry. Did you have another question` sir? MR. ANGELL: No. I i j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Do you have further material Mr. Kerrigan? MR. KERRIGAN : No sir. Anything further Mr. Travis? MR. TRAVIS: I would just like to say a few words . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay, could you come up then and formally get i! your name and identity into the record? 11MR. TRAVIS: I 'm Mack Travis, president of Ithaca Rentals and Reno i vations at 111 S. Cayuga Street. As Tom sure will verify, I worke �i very closely with the Building Department all through the construe ( tion of this building. I started trying to buy it last June , in i jiorder to get in to the July meeting so we could start construction 11 in August because I knew we would run into a weather problem. We weren' t able to complete all the details until the middle of Septem- ber. We finally got the variance for decreasing or changing the �juse from seven units to five units and closed on the second of Oct I I ber. It was pretty late to start construction on the building that h.ad no roof on it and I was - I had a - I let out bids on the con- i i jltract - got back $38 , 700 , $36, 500 . to reconstruct the roof. I did �jat that point talk. with Tom about it and that it was - that was 7010 of my budget for the whole building which has since almost doubled In any case, I did talk with one of the contractors who gave me tho original bid for $36, 500 and I said: There is no way I can afford 'Ithat and could we git it down 12 to 15 , and we whittled away and w4 l ii fl P{ - 35 - ii i, finally came up with this design and in the meantime I was allowe ;s to go ahead without a building permit on the demolition which too i; five weeks taking out all the burned debris and I got plans ap- proved by the Building Department as far as the layout of the i building and then got plans approved by Tom for the roof with the elevations . All I can say is we got the trusses up there, they f looked like the very devil with the peaks on ther - four feet or 'i i so above the thing. I was pressed as could be with weather - it oul 'i haveadded probably a week to ten days closing in - what to me !� looked ridiculous and I went ahead and told the men to topple theff and then I figured I better call Mr. Hoard because there was a po-1 ,1 tential problem. I 'm not speaking to whether or not the Zoning Ordinance relates to the gables or not , what I 'm telling you is I� 'i as the contractor - as the general contractor on the project - I i felt like I was fighting weather , the bank was pressuring me aw- fully hard and they felt that if I didn' t get the place enclosed it was - as they put it , bull dozer bait - and so I told them to !� go ahead and that ' s the way we did it and it' s a very functional I roof - we were going to that and that' s what we 've got. It ' s at- tractive, I think, and as I say, my original intentions were to restore it because I liked that building the way it was but when 11 j� I got the price tag there was just no way I could do it. That 's all I 've got to say. ji CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions? Thank you Mr. Travis . Ids i there anyone else who would like to be heard on this appeal in favor of the requested variance? f MR. DI PASQUALE: My name is Ray DiPasquale. I 'm not here to speak - I 'm here to say something in favor of the appellant. I 've worked ii somewhat closely with Mack on this renovation project and I was there when the roof trusses had been installed and the peaks of th 1� existing structure were sticking about three or four feet above i the existing trusses and I recommended to him that it would have been an abortion to try to blend those into the existing roof and lthat my recommendation would be to take them down and to continue on with a mansard roof. From a practical point of view, it w041d. ii 36 - i I li have been very difficult to build that into the original mansard I 1 trusses and so I , as I say, I wanted to just mention that because �! I was there when we looked at it. . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any questions? i i DR. GREENBERG : Again the same question arises . A drawing was sub- mitted of the elevation or whatnot, to the Building Commissioner and he approved it. Now are you castigating remarks or ideas to i) his aesthetic sense because when it was up it looked like an abor- tion but when he saw it - or was the entire structure somehow modi fied and the gables looked bad with an already modified component to it? Do I make myself clear? MR. DI PASQUALE: I wasn' t involved in the original design of the project so I can' t really say what was presented at the hearing ori ii what the facts were at that time. I got involved with the project) w after the . . . i DR. GREENBERG : I am not referring to the hearing here - I am re- ferring to the drawing that was submitted to the Building Commis- s sinner and you said that - and you seemed to imply when that drawing was effectuated - in actual concrete form, it looked hideous , and that couldn' t be determined by the drawing? MR. DI PASQUALE : Well I don' t know. I didn' t - I wasn' t involved g with the drawing of the original part, 1 didn' t see the drawing. ii All I know was what I saw and the site in the process . . . e DR. GREENBERG: You realize that you are giving this testimony . . . � MR. DI PASQUALE : That' s alright. I gave testimony because I have ) !I been involved with the structural part of this particular project I� and that was my main interest and I just wanted to speak in his i; behalf to say that at the time that Z saw this , and if you had see �I �Eit you would have probably have made the same decision. I think it ' s unusual that a Zoning Organization give architectural recom- mendations unless there is what we call an Architectural Review Board in the city, which we don' t have, I don't believe . So I kini i ;I of ii MR. KASPRZAK: By implication we have that right, when the Zoning ;! Board says to rebuild as previously then we must know how it was it ii - 37 - 11 previously. Therefore it gives us a certain amount of aesthetic li judgment that we have to apply in cases like this . a MR. DI PASQUALE : Okay, that makes sense. The other thing is that I when you say build as it was originally, if you had maybe seen the original structure it would have been very difficult to build tha way because it would have cost a heck of a lot more money because ii i� at the time that that building was built I think there were two 0 if E three houses put together so it was kind of an abortive type of rof i IE structure to begin with. So you don' t build it exactly the way i was . From thatoint of view, I think the approach, structural) P � pP � Y and practically was to come over the whole three units with one „j roof system. Thank you. 'f CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who would like to testify o i this case in favor of the requested variance? Anyone who would lie I! to speak in opposition? Tom, do you have anything that you would ); like to add? �I it SECY HOARD: Maybe I ought to say something in defense of my aesthetic judgment - whatever it This is this drawing that i# was submitted obviously didn' t show much but all I had to go on was i� a photograph of the building after it was burned, which wasn' t I� much to go on either. My understanding was, in trying to restore 'I the looks of the building - this does look a little bit like a western facade for a movie front but, from the looks of the photo- graph it looked like there was a bit of a facade affect, too . That may be because part of the roof was burned away but I could under-! �! stand that Mr. Travis was in a difficult position to try to rebuild what was formerly a very complex roof design and so that it appeared that by carrying the lines of the gables up into the roof, it would i. at least preserve some of that appearance. It isn' t obvious from the drawings submitted that the points of the roof would be - did you say four feet above the roof? It doesn' t look like that here but I can understand what can happen when You get it up. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You can confirm that you were notified of the !!� change shortly after it occurred? 1 SECY HOARD: Yes . I I i� - 38 - jl CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But it was after it occurred? i SECY HOARD: It was after it was up . I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I think that completes the testimony on this i. ii case. Do you have anything further to add? ii SECY HOARD: No. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The next case? i ;i ii �I l$i$ I1 !i I I I 1� i( I �I I{ 'f f , i 'i li f� I� sl i f i� is f� it I l l I! l i� l y i. •i I I i 'j i �I 1 �j i; li I - 39 - !+ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS it COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i i' JANUARY 8, 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION ii APPEAL NO. 1243 fChairman Martin: I move that the Board interpret the var- iance granted on September 11 , 1978 on i �i appeal no. 1225 as permitting the mansard i roof without gables . Anytime that vari- ances are granted on the basis of firm representations about the nature of the building or proposed restoration, and changes later occur, the matter should it I i be brought to the attention of the Building Commissioner before, rather than after, the changes . i Mr. Kasprzak: I second the motion. Vote : 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent. l Ij I it I j' i ,I I 'I i I i; it i� �i li I i i i i li !j j 40 - 'I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK JANUARY 8 , 1979 .i i! I SECY HOARD announced the next appeal to be heard. I APPEAL NO. 1244 : Appeal of Carrolls ' Sales and Service , Inc . , for a use variance under Section 30 . 25 , j� Column 2 , to permit storage of tires in a garage at 316 Dey Street. The property is I; located in an R-2b (residential) use dis- trict in which commercial storage is not permitted use. �i MR. CARROLL : My name is Jim Carroll , I live on Kay Street and I ' j� the attorney for Carroll ' s Sales & Service. We have no new evidence i; �! to present this evening. I 'd like to just very briefly refer to the evidence that we presented in our application for a use variance ii and an unopposed testimony before the Planning Board back in Deceml- i ber. We are dealing here with a plot of land on Dey Street which !� contains only one structure, a three car garage building. In addi- tion to that there is a driveway giving access to Dey Street and there is a garden there. My family' s business began renting this i• structure sometime back in the 1950 's for long-erm storage. For r the storage of things that we used very infrequently. In either i j 1975 or 1976 we purchased this property from the estate of the ii former owner, Francis Cramer, to continue this use. We are simply I! asking the Board this evening , for permission to continue a very 1 iiminimal use that has been of over twenty years standing. MR. GAINEY: What is stored in this garage other than tires? 'i MR. CARROLL: Tires and perhaps a few wheels. It is mainly for th I i type of thing such as storing winter tires during the off season, when there is very little call for them. f CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How frequently is it visited by vehicles of the it ! business or people? How frequently do you come and take things ou it or put things in to the garage? I l MR. CARROLL: Less than once a week. We do have a warehouse at ou 11 i main location on Elmira Road. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And when you take things out or put things in wh t i kind of a truck comes calling? i I i� i 41 - ,I I 'i MR. CARROLL: There is a small company truck. Sometimes indivi- duals in the business use their passenger cars or pick up trucks . {I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: There are no signs or other clear exterior mark i I� ings showing this use? j� MR. CARROLL : There are none, no. !I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The Planning Board, as I am sure you know, reco - i i mended that the variance be granted subject to some understanding i+ or conditions : no expansion, no exterior display of signs , no I I change in use and that the property be cleaned up and maintained. Do any of those conditions give you pause or would you be quite happy with them? MR. CARROLL: None at all . We are in full agreement with that . i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. j' MR. ANGELL: How does the Fire Department view storage of tires 'i j and the like in a structure such as that? I MR. CARROLL: We have not had any problems with the Fire Department i ii that I am aware of. In fact in the whole twenty some years - the !� first complaint that I was ever aware of was mentioned in the I Building Commissioner' s letter to us in December of last year. �I MR. ANGELL: Is the Fire Department aware that tires are stored there? MR. CARROLL: I don' t know for sure. MR. ANGELL: Well then you have no reason to know what their opini n on this would be? i� i MR. CARROLL: Well there have been no complaints that I am aware o�. MR. ANGELL: But they don' t know about it? MR. CARROLL: I don' t know if they do or not. itSECY HOARD: Maybe I can answer that question. I talked to Fire Chief Weaver last week about it and he has stated that tires in i� storage like that is at least a moderate hazard to high hazard. MR. GAINEY: How is the security in this building? The reason I I' ask is that we've had an awful lot of fixes and stuff in that area I down there - garages of that nature - where they've been set . I } I,, f I� MR. CARROLL: We have tightened it up in approximately the last o year. We have closed off two of the three doors , they are barred shut from the inside so that even with a key you can only enter I !I 42 - i' through one door. We have also blocked off - I believe there were 'I ii two windows that used to face the rear - they have been blocked off and the floor has been improved. It ' s solid concrete floor now. I� IIIA MR. GATNEY: It ' s a wood structure, right? MR. CARROLL: Wooden, yes . I 11 CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there further questions from Board members? i) MR. KASPRZAK: Not from me thank you. MR. GAINEY: The only thing that I bring up - it doesn' t have much to do with what we are talking about - but I 've received a couple i of complaints that again, on the outside appearance of the property, which has little to do with what we are talking about but I thought !� I would bring them up at this time. The lack of the sidewalks being maintained and in the summer the appearance of the yard surrounds g i� this garage. I MR. CARROLL: That is easily correctable . We had not received the i complaints prior to last month.. !i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And I took it in your agreement to my recital o I 2 the Planning Board conditions, one of which is maintenance and exterior care, that you are agreeable to make those changes? MR. CARROLL: Yes . i, CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anything you want to add? it MR. CARROLL: No, there is not. j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. Is there anyone else who would like t �i testify on this case? Yes . {� MR. WILLIAMS: I 'm Newton Williams , owner of the property occupied J by Cayuga Electric and we border on this property and - so I 'm !� fairly familiar with it. I fail to see how it could be used for iruch I jlof anything else, the building or probably the property itself. I n the twelve years plus that we 've been where we are I 've seen one I if vehicle in that driveway loading or unloading or what have you an �j T would like to recommend that the variance be granted. �i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Williams? I j' Thank you Mr, Williams . We' ll move on then to 1245. II I I� I� i) ij �I II I !i i' i i - 43 - i ! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS E COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK JANUARY 8 , 1979 �I I EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1244 j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the use variance requested in Case No. 1244 be granted on the following I conditions : I (1) There be no expansion of the building ; (2) There be no exterior display or sign; (3) There be no change in use ; (4) That the property be cleaned up and I� }j adequately maintained; and !� (_5) There not be frequent deliveries to and from the building . i MR. GAINEY: I second the motion. �i FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 . The use of the garage is unobtrusive. li Testimony was that deliveries occurred onl iI II infrequently and that there are no exterio II signs of the use. i 2 . The garage is the only structure on the property. 3 . The use has been there for a substantial period of time without evident adverse i neighborhood impact. VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent. �E Use variance granted. ! 'i i I� i. i I f i it ii i I �1 it 44 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i! CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK ii JANUARY 8 , 1979 i± 11SECY HOARD announced the next appeal to be heard. j1APPEAL NO. 1245 : Appeal of David and Seymour Turk for a area variance under Section 30 . 25 , F� Columns 4, 10, 12 and 14 to permit construction of a new two-story build- ing with three retail stores and six apartments at 323-329 College Avenue, in a B-2 (business) use district. The j proposed structure will exceed the j� maximum lot coverage permitted, the i property will have no rear or side ii yards , and no off-street parking is :s provided. ' MR. DI PASQUALE: My name is Ray DiPasquale and I am here to speak i Ion behalf of the Turk Brothers . They are proposing to build a two- :; ;;story building on the corner of College Avenue and Dryden Road. I ii ;shave some extra copies of drawings - a preliminary drawing - if jyou would like to have it. Does anybody need them? You don' t? IMy clients have an option on the purchase of this property and as !shown on the drawings , we propose to build a two-level structure, it i;masonry construction and on the ground floor will be three stores for rental units for commercial use - mercantile use. On the second !I ,!floor, six apartment units . Because of the particular configuratio of the lot it is very difficult to meet the area requirements and 0 (certainly if we were to meet the parking requirements there wouldn' t be much space left to build the building . The cost of the property !I ;lis extremely expensive and, as such, it becomes a necessity to maxi- mize the use of this property to make it an economically viable 'project.. So it' s because of those reasons that we are here today t i ,appeal the area requirements . Specifically, in the rear there is {right now on the site, an existing garage - or used to be a gas i' ;!station that has been abandoned for about a year now. The .b.lock is. ii jscertainly an eye-sore in Collegetown and something needs to be done ;about it. I think that the proposal that we have right here in ; front of us is a way to rejuvenate new construction in the College itown area and it would certainly eliminate the blight that is therei !' in that corner right now. The existing garage structure or the ;i it iI �i !! I - 45 - 1 fimain building of the gas station abuts the rear lot if you want to !i call it that, if the rear lot is the one behind College Avenue . ( There is a very pronounced change of grade there so that the build ii i� (ling itself acts as a part retaining wall . So if we didn' t build o 4 that particular lot line we would have to build a separate retaini g ' wall in order to be able to accomplish a rear yard and, in my own ;. judgment, this is a very expensive operation and - when we have a 1building that could be put on that property line to allow it to iiserve as a retaining structure. We will provide about a seven foo '! strip on one side of the property - the south side of the property - Jwhich provides egress from the second story and also from the firs i 'flevel store. There are two ways in and out of all the - both the ti ; apartments and the ground floor structures . Now the problem of !; parking, of course , is one that has been tossed around by a lot of !; people and certainly Collegetown has got its problems with parking. E jWe visualize Collegetown, and I 'm sure you know, as a - basically �i pedestrian type of community in which the people that shop there Land use it are generally on foot because they are generally studen S . i i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And so the Ordinance might well require no off- 111street parking inCollegetown if that judgment of yours were shared ) i` 1 b the City Council . But it does not read that way. i jJMR. DI PASQUALE ; Sure. Well , right . There is city parking within i 11500 feet of the property and there, of course, is parking around the entire Collegetown area on the streets . My own view is that ICollegetown is going to have to wrestle with this problem sooner o dater and - to solve the parking problem - in order to let projects such as this - feasible . I 'm not here to talk about that particular Tissue except that if it becomes an issue, liCHAIRMAN MARTIN: I have a question. I don' t want to interrupt th i� 4presentation. i i MR. DI PASQUALE: That ' s all right, go ahead. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Why isn' t it possible to have some reasonable i adaptive use of the building that is already there? I mean there i i ; have been gas stations - former gas stations - around the community, lithat have been put to attractive commercial use, leaving some off- � ii e i E 46 - ii ii ;! street parking and not building up to lot line more than the build- ings already do? I think of the Pizza operation on State Street, the Circus near the Octopus , no doubt there are others that haven' i occurred to me right off. IMR. DI PASQUALE: I think the big problem with that is the fact i; 1� that my clients , of course, if they buy the land, because they have !'Ian option on it right now, it would become almost a sole use type "of operation if they occupay it or if they rented it out it would �be a limited area that they could rent out - probably about 2 ,000 jisquare feet . If you look at the cost of the property and the rental i you could get on 2 , 000 square feet in that particular spot you ii ;couldn' t possibly attract any tenant to come in there and make that f i� ;project a feasible one in terms of the amount of money that you ; have to pay for the property. I! °!CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Of course the cost of the property may well be y ;'affected by whether a zoning variance is obtainable or not for a particular . . i ;SMR. DI PASQUALE: Well that ' s true, Yes, but . . . (CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So, I mean, the high cost in part is premised on tthe assumption of a favorable disposition on the variance? i MR. DI PASQUALE: That' s true - to a certain extent, right . ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So it becomes sort of self-fulfilling. JMR. DI PASQUALE: Okay, then if the owner then wants to hold off �Ifor a particular cost on that property, and it just becomes a dere- �1lict because nobody can afford to buy it , then what have you accom- i� IIplished? ((CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I 'm taking you back to my original question which iP is why is that not an attractive place for some adaptive use of the existing - is there anything wrong with the existing structure? �IMR. DI PASQUALE: There' s nothing wrong with the existing structure {in fact we looked at that possibility. First of all , the existing P iistructure is not large enough unless you use it for another gas i� pstation. I don 't feel that that particular site is really deservin i 11of another gas station. That ' s my own view. ;;CHAIRMAN MARTIN: True , not large enough for what? Certainly not a 1 I �I i f i! 47 - ii things that might be done with it? , �JMR. DI PASQUALE: No. You could put anything on it . You could put Ila drive-in pizza place, you could put in a gas station, you could vi certainly find other uses for that particular property but my i client is not interested in making other uses for that piece of ; property. If they are going to buy this property, then its got to be ;; something that will allow them to put a structure on there that will �i ;, provide some return for that investment which is extremely high for 1� that particular location. That is probably one of the most expen- i� ; sive locations in the Collegetown area. Furthermore, we feel that 1Ithe kind of building that we are proposing here is one that is very 11much in keeping with the character of the Collegetown area. Whereas , the buildings do occupy about 1000 of the property and they are ca- i 11tering to the needs of a walk-in type of population - the students , `land so that the parking, although it is a problem, most of the people dthat go and use Collegetown, don' t have a car, so . . . I� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Can you tell us what will be in the downstairs? 4 MR. DI PASQUALE: Right now there is - we don' t have specific tenants jifor the downstairs area, if you want to call it that. We visualize, first of all, stores that cater to the students , such as clothing ;; stores , a fast food operation would very much be in order for that i` ,`particular location because it seems that no matter how many fast r !, food type operations you have you never seem to have enough in a ( Collegetown area. So that would be, certainly, one possibility. i! IMR. GAINEY: Have they proposed or though of a small building allo - ;ling some off-street parking? JMR. DI PASQUALE: We looked at the possibility of putting probably it (Your cars on there but you take a look at that site which is 60 x VO and you don' t have very much room. But the time you put in a i 11130 foot strip for parking there is not very much left and my reac . I ltion is that for the sake of conforming to th.e requirement of off- 1 i street parking and you, essentially, butcher up that property., 1 111don' t think it' s worth it, that 's my own personal opinion. II, MR. KASPRZAK: The biggest renter in the downstairs area is Turk. I lBorthers, surely they know what they are going to use that space i ii jl I� I E{ - 48 - i t1for if they are buying the property. Could you tell us what that i muse is or will be if they rent that space to themselves? i� MR. DI PASQUALE: That ' s a possibility - if they rent it to them- 1selves and they have tenis rackets and sporting goods , shoes , that ' kind of thing. 11DR. GREENBERG : Assuming the lot coverage has to be as you say, it i� would seem to me you are increasing the density of people as well Eby having the apartments above the stores and it would seem to me - `my objection would not be about lot coverage which would be objec- Itionable enough really, but assuming that I could see my way through �Ito allow that but I don' t see the apartments above in that particu- I, Ilar area because I think you are getting into an area where you al- i ready have density of people. i MR. DI PASQUALE: Well but certainly the people that rent the apart- i lments are not going to be the people that have cars because there i i no place to put them, you see, so that ' s all the more reason to have ; apartments that are over there . . . 'DR. GREENBERG: I 'm talking about people , I 'm not talking about . . f1MR. GAINEY: Can you guarantee that? SMR. DI PASQUALE I can' t guarantee that, no , ! MR. GAINEY: Then how can you make the statement? IMR. DI PASQUALE: I can' t, except as a general observation. i IMR• GAINEY: Thank you. I I MR. ANGELL: Have they considered office space up there? MR. DI PASQUALE: That ' s a possibility.. ,DR. GREENBERG; If you just have one level there I. SMR. DI PASQUALE: But if you have office space it seems to me you �1haven' t really addressed it - you haven't answered the question of ! density, you have now high. density during the day because you have ;people that work in the office space which. then have to have a plat i�to park. It .would seem to me that the probability of density wouldi i lbe less with student rooms then it would be with office space. t OR. GREENBERG: Well I am referring to nothing up above, just a mer{- �t cantile shop j1MR. DI PASQUALE: Well , you know you build a one-story building and it I( �f it ij - 49 - I lfyou have to get a heck of a lot of money to for the rent - to mak ;that an economically feasible thing and I feel that when you have a thigh priced piece of property you don' t build one story buildings - 1 !!that' s ludicrous . When you have high property you build it up to I maximize the use of that land - I mean - that ' s just economic sense. ' MR. ANGELL: Alright, one other thing, Ray. The seven foot strip. 1! 11,This is part of the parcel or does the parcel include the liquor I Hstore? MR. DI PASQUALE: The parcel does not include the liquor store , i� correct? ! MR. TURK: It does not include the liquor store. !!MR. DI PASQUALE: No, the liquor store is not included. The liquor store is just there , I only located it on the drawings for reference . ! MR. KASPRZAK: Is that seven feet part of your property or is part 'lof the liquor store? IMR. DI PASQUALE: That seven feet is part of their property, correct? I' MR. TURK: No, it will be 50 - 50 . i '!MR. DT PASQUALE: Okay, 50 - 50 , so it ' s a . . . 1MR. ANGELL: So you don't own the entire seven feet? MR. TURK: No. �MR. HOARD: Is this one parcel now? i :iMR. TURK: Yes. ! MR. HOARD: So you will have to go through sub-division. '! i�MR. TURK: It will be at the time of closing. It will be kept open - 1that seven foot strip that ' s the agreement . MR. KASPRZAK: Right now if I hear you correctly, the liquor store Land your intended property is one parcel , is that right? ! MR. TURK: Right. Right now it is , as of now.. jIMR. KASPRZAK: Okay sir, if you obtain the approval and if you ii �Iseparate the parcels you will have to go through another process ofl ! sub-division. j i'MR. TURK: No, it is practically agreed already, right now. IMR. KASPRZAK: It has nothing to do with- whether you are agreed or ! Ljjnot . . . ''CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It has to be approved by the Planning . . . MR. KASPRZAK: It is a legal process which you have to go through. 4� 50 - 1; IIMR. TURK: We haven' t come to it then. { '1MR. KASPRZAK: It has nothing to do with agreement between the liquor store owner and yourselves . �w I MR. TURK: Right. i� MR. KASPRZAK: It is a legal requirement that you go through a sub- i division process. MR. ANGELL: In other words this is one property and he is purchas- ing the liquor store . . . s. SMR. TURK: One owner - one property as of now. IMR. ANGELL: As of now. Well what I was getting at, is why couldn't I ! that building be moved over to the liquor store and I think it could be as long as you owned the whole property. MR. DI PASQUALE: We thought of that actually but in an effort to ,Iltry to - first of all you would have to have some way to get people (lout of the second floor and also you haveto have some way to get the ;people out of the first floor. It has two means of exit out of that ground floor so the - leaving that seven foot aisle to me is - makes �Igood sense really. You are right, it would be nice to just cover ;1 lithe whole thing, right? SMR. ANGELL: No, no, no indeed. What I am saying is you set it bac�C I ! the seven feet from Dryden Road. j �MR. DI PASQUALE: Oh, I see. IMR. ANGELL: Or five feet from Dryden Road and maybe two feet back on College Avenue . IMR. DI PASQUALE : Okay - there is one - okay, I see what you are saying so that you can' t have a set back on one of those corners , 1 ,correct? SMR. ANGELL: Right . IIMR. DI PASQUALE: Okay, now that does make some sense except for th A (I£act that there i,s about a 31-2 to 4 foot grade differential from IDr en and that yd property, In oth-er words, to get access in to the building would be rather difficult to do , i MR. ANGELL: I don' t follow you. i IMR. DI PASQUALE.: Well, let ' s see , Okay, I 'm thinking of something) jelse, you don't have a dip in there, the land would have to be fill d I' - 51 - E j; in that area so you would come off level with Dryden. You see ;; Dryden has quite a slope in there about 3, to 4 foot slope from i Ethat end of the building which is the sixty foot end down to the jcorner is about a 31-, foot drop and so we would have to fill in tha 1area and then - that ' s possible, that ' s possible, sure. I MR. GAINEY: My question, does the building have to be this large !Ito be economically feasible? Can it be smaller on a two-store I structure and still be economically feasible , where you could pro- 1 ;!vide some off-street parking? i IMR. DT PASQUALE: Well the problem with the off-street parking - how I� many, you know, just look at that site and look at the configuration tlof it and see where you would - you know, I 'm asking for your sug- , gestions - where would you put the cars , I mean, how many cars I you put ut on there? � ii 11MR. GAINEY: I 'd knock off this one rental section on the far right 'hand side. You are saying you have access to seven foot and you jjare adding another sixteen foot, that ' s a twenty-three foot right- ;i of-way. I I' , MR.. DI PASQUALE: Okay, now how many cars do you think you could i ,park in there? I �1MR. GAINEY: Probably five . €MR. DI PASQUALE: You can' t do it. IIMR. GAINEY: Do you know that for a fact? IIMR. DI PASQUALE: Just visualize, how much of the space does a car ,! take? How much length does it take? And then - you have to paral- i= ' lel park each car. If you put it in there, then you have to back !fit all the way out - you have to have at least twenty feet for the ! I! ! length of the car if you parallel park - and at least twelve fee i. for the aisle . e 'j MR. GAINEY: But if you put it on the other end you got a drive-in. . . DI PASQUALE: And I 'd be sticking a part of the - I 'd be cross- ing pedestrian traffic which would be murder. ; MR. GAINEY: Well you are going to cross pedestrian traffic . . I I !MR. DI PASQUALE: You see if I move this all the way to here and i ; chop this off I'd be taking the prime corner and putting it for !i ;I - 52 - } sparking. I can see what you are trying to do but I just don' t thin , I I a, , on that small a site. . . MR. TURK: It' s not feasible because we figured it out. ! MR. DI PASQUALE: You can ' t do it. I 1MR. GAINEY: Pardon? MR. TURK: It ' s not feasible unless you use the whole lot. 'IMR. GAINEY: What ' s not feasible , the building? MR. TURK: We have the figures . . . so far as building it. SMR. DI PASQUALE: It' s very tough you know. If that site were a I little bit bigger then I 'm saying that yes you could provide some ii jparking on that site, but that is a very small piece of property. ;fMR. ANGELL: You don' t figure there is any way to utilize that ;;seven feet and move that back? i,iMR. DI PASQUALE: I don' t know if there is a side exit from the liquor store or not. He ' s going to have to have another way out of !there. I think he has two ways out. Does he have a side door on s that side? I can' t remember. I don' t know just how he gets out - I I out of the back. ,CHAIRMAN MARTIN. Are there further questions? Do you have anythin !!further? iMR. DI PASQUALE : No. I think I have pretty well covered it I mean, II think that the case is fairly simple in terms of what we are try- ling to do . You know, I 'm looking for strong objections for it, if i jthere are any. ! MR. ANGELL: Would you eliminate the apartments and put in offices?f , MR. TURK.: No, why would I want to put in offices? There is more o l� la crying need for apartments up there - good apartments within walk ling distance to the University where people won't own a car. That is the idea. Offices definitely need cars. People come to work an ithey are going to come in a car. Plus whatever clients will come I !they are going to come in a car. :,4R. DI PASQUALE: I don' t know what the general availability of office space is in the Collegetown area, I know- Sheldon Court has ;;always got space available. But, of course, that' s kind of a dump !;anyway so that I 1i 1 - 53 - 1MR. TURK: Right , I couldn' t afford to build for what they charge . jMR. DI PASQUALE : No, what I am saying maybe it ' s empty because 11people just don't like it because from the desirability standpoint - ;ewe are trying to put some new construction and new vitality into �Ithe Collegetown area and this is a way to do it in a very prime spot ' and I think that no matter what case comes before this Board for i, !;this type of situation you are going to be running into exactly this }same kind of variances . - Parking, parking, parking, parking - ! unless you build a parking garage down there you aren't going to 'settle the problem. 1 1MR. GAINEY: We are trying to work with you but it seems that you ,land your clients have come in here with a closed mind. ' .!MR. DI PASQUALE: No , I don' t think so. iMR. GAINEY: Well, you just told us that there is no way that its ;'feasible. We are looking for alternatives. i IMR. DI PASQUALE : I'm looking for alternatives too. ;SMR. TURK: We are looking for it also . . . you can show us . . . how i� ;1 ,lit will be feasible? 's ''MR. GAINEY: I shouldn! t have to show you, I asked you if there is i I Han alternative? !MR. KASPRZAK: I£ you did, what were those possibilities, could you i ,,just quickly go through them? MR. DI PASQUALE: The only other possibility that I explored was a ' parallel parking on the right side there, that we were talking about , , and I just felt that the area and the return on the investment of the money - for the building that is left was just no --- economics . 11R. KASPRZAK I meant with reference to uses. t �R. DI PASQUALE: To uses? No, the only uses at least the basic i jlprogram was apartments on the second floor and shops on the first i (floor - that was the basic program. i. MR. KASPRZAK: So you didn' t explore the possibility of offices or. E . �R. DI PASQUALE: No, we didn' t explore the possibility of offices I but I have for another client I might say - on a similar piece of j :property - I have done that and that the conclusion is that there i ,1 Iasn' t a real need for office space and secondly the problem of s E i I - 54 - s parking generated by office space is a hell of a lot more critical Athan it is for apartments and thirdly because , I don't know, I ii jhaven' t done a market study but I 'm sure that walking distance apa�t- Iments in the Collegetown area have got to be something that is always in demand. it s CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any further questions? 1MR. ANGELL: Would you consider one store instead of the three? ;EMR. TURK: What would you pay rent on one store? ;i MR. ANGELL : I 'm not asking . . . 'MR. TURK: It don' t work out, we 've tried we've figured it - we ' e `! jockeyed it around - the minimum amount of stores that we can get to carry that would be three. We 'd need the three stores we 'd ','need the six apartments , that ' s with us going in there - we know , �Ithat we can afford - we've been on the Avenue for twenty-five years ' up there . We know what we can carry and we need three stores - minimum amount of three. It MR. ANGELL: Well I can see where you can put in plenty of parking i� !there with one store and a store . . . Ik i1MR. DI PASQUALE: you mean park it on the right hand side , Morrie? +jMR. ANGELL: Parking on the right hand side and on the rear. ii ! MR. DI PASQUALE: Well you can' t do it on the rear. I� iMR. ANGELL: Certainly you can. MR. DI PASQUALE : you' d have a skinny building, you'd have a thirty 'Ifoot wide building on the front. ,,MR. ANGELL: No you wouldn' t you 'd build out your top floor over I lithe parking area. ;jMR. DI PASQUALE: One of the other things that we talked about - we Ai cked around was the fact that we could put the whole building up ,,on stilts and use the whole ground floor for parking. But that is i essentially what you are saying, MR. ANGELL: No , no, no, no. No , I 'm saying that you have a store fi larger than the existing that is alloted here to the Turk Brothers,! I I land still can have parking all around the outside perimeter on the "jtwo sides - the right side and the back side. 1MR. KASPRZAK: How many people would you house in the apartments ; Ii r. i i ,s - 55 - I4 1 jI didn' t count the bedrooms but that doesn't always mean anything I! ; anyway. iMR. DI PASQUALE: There is four - two bedrooms and two - one bed- ;+ ;( room. 11MR. KASPRZAK: So how many people you going to . . . ? I� MR. DI PASQUALE: Ten bedrooms. will ,SMR. KASPRZAK: Ten bedrooms , so is it safe to assume that you/have ten people . . . ? i 11MR. DI PASQUALE: Probably, that ' s a pretty safe assumption, right . i; JIMR. KASPRZAK: What would you say if we said less people then tha Tion the second floor? ;!MR. DI PASQUALE: What would be the I mean - just to reduce the I ;;density you mean? 11MR. KASPRZAK: I am hypothetically asking, to see your reaction ii ';basically. 11MR. DI PASQUALE : Well that means, you know, it ' s less rent and that ±means that the income is less and the economics become more margin- il fable. ! MR. KASPRZAK: Maybe less people who pay more , that 's what I 'm ;talking about. !MR. DI PASQUALE : It' s possible. 1; SMR. KASPRZAK: You might obtain the same rent in terms of dollar ss jlvalue but you may have less people to deal with, although it could !!be questionable. � !;CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Am I right that the economics which lead you to i. `1say that there has got to be three stores , got to be six apartments - Ii ;;those economics are predicated on the high price tag of the land? I 'IMR. TURK: Right , plus the building. i1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, plus the building but . . . !!MR. TURK: No matter what you are going to build - no matter how yo I !'jockey it today - with building costs - you've got to come in with ;something more to cover your expenses - just to cover it, you aren't jImaking any money on it , right now. f! t ;!CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. I guess what I 'm asking for is how much of the constraint under economic constraint that you are talking i !! ii !i It - 56 - j ;; about comes from the high dollar land and how much comes from the , cost of construction? You know, suppose the land were cheaper - � would you still need the three stories and the six apartments? ! 11MR. DI PASQUALE : Oh, I think that . . . 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Probably not. !MR. DI PASQUALE: Probably not. I think you are right. The econo ics ':' definitely is geared to that land - that is a major factor when the I ¢ land is - you know - roughly one-third the cost of the construction ; now how can you justify that kind of a situation in an area where ; the cost of land should be more like 10%? You know, that ' s pretty thigh priced stuff. 11MR. ANGELL : In other words if the cost of that land were halved, i, " you could go along with one building, one store on the ground floor? MR. DI PASQUALE : It ' s possible . It' s possible - I mean that has t i f! be studied but it ' s possible. If the land was more reasonable then ;they could go in and build their own store, they could remodel . In 1fffact , one of the original ideas was to remodel the gas station that Ps there. Now, so we didn' t have to do that, see. !!CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes , back to my first question. 41MR. DI PASQUALE: That' s right that would say, let ' s look at it, ,F ;lin fact when they came to me originally, let ' s look at this basic !gas station - can we save it? You see , and then we got into - well s i1we would have to add to it - you don't just build with it. That f! 11would have allowed parking right in front.. But you know, if you'd ! ;'think about this - the parking . . . ! 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The land is really only that valuable if this :i jlBoard grants a variance. i` ! MR. DIPASQUALE : That ' s true. s CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright? The Board says : no, variances of this i dimension are not appropriate for that lots then the land isn' t wor.�h i! ;has much as . . . sI'MR. DI PASQUALE: All you have to do now is convince the owner of !Ithat. I! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So I mean it' s kind of a self propelling thing. MR. DI PASQUALE : Something else too, I think ;i i iI( ly - 57 - i MR. KASPRZAK: The land is currently not as valuable as we are try- ! !ling to make it by granting the variance? ;I ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How valuable the land is depends on the extent t ,I which we will say yes to this kind of high density construction. MR. KASPRZAK: That 's what I am asking and I 'm asking for an answer - really - if you can. MR. GAINEY: It ' s got to have something to do with it - its sat there d for a year. MR. KASPRZAK: That ' s the condition we are faced in decision making , ii you know. Of course , everybody is going to hesitate - why should ,II contribute to your pocket, okay? I IIMR. TURK: Why not , you're not . We ' ll be contributing to your f 11pocket I ;SMR. KASPRZAK: No you won' t, no you won' t, but that ' s not the point . MR. TURK: To the City with higher taxes which increase the value f, of the land. I 'm talking about value of the land - the reason the 1! value of the land has gone up is increased cost. 'l CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It has just been pointed out to me that you have (� not, either of you, identified yourselves . MR. DI PASQUALE: I 'm sorry. It ' s just they are excited - they f, fare the Turk Brothers . : �IMR. TURK: My name is Seymour Turk. What we ' re looking for is a jllittle help like you give down town Build us a ramp and we ' ll go 11 ahead. Do something . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I 'm sorry but this Board is not in the business of building ramps or dealing with the parking issues generally 1 there. MR. TURK: We are looking for some help which will help the city. j' There is a crying need for good, clean apartments up on the Avenue - right within walking distance. Stores you do need up there - at- 1 tract more businesses . You have a bombed out shelter right next 1:1i to my store right now. It ' s sitting there now for close to a year . 'i You are driving business off the Avenue . Would you rather go out " of town and build up businesses or have it on the Avenue, or have i' ! it in the City of Ithaca? We are looking for some type of help . i l �I - 58 - ;i ; That ' s what the land is going to go for regardless of what you vot !ior whatever happens . That' s what the land will go for. I don 't I I ;Iknow how else you can carry it. MR. DAVID TURK: It can' t go for a gas station - that ' s why they i' Iclosed it. i IMR. SEYMOUR TURK: It ' s not big enough for a gas station. Not in '� these days. II CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But it is big enough for some things which could ;Igo in there if the price tag were not so high and the price tag is i� 'Iso high in part because it is hoped that something more intensive Ican be done there. ,IMR. SEYMOUR TURK: Right. ,IMR. DAVID TURK: Right. ;IMR. SEYMOUR TURK: We' d like togive the Avenue something that it I �ilneeds . ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there further questions? Is there anything i that should be added? ,I, MR. DI PASQUALE: No, I just wanted to comment about the parking `lagain. If parking is put on that property - visualize it if you i Iiwill - if the parking were put in front of the building whether or i!not that would be a very desirable situation, it would be a very i1 { ludicrous situation, in fact you would have cars very close to the i main show room of the window and it would be, you know, pretty bad. illf you put them in back, I mean, that idea of having a combination building on stilts in the back and the front part right close to lithe - you know that is something that could be studied but it 's. 11possible - but you'd have to back all the way out to get out. I i (mean, it would be kind of a I''MR. ANGELL: No you don' t - you could go in a circle, 'SMR. DI PASQUALE: Go all the way out? f� ; MR. KASPRZAK: But Morrie , you 've got the problem of parking six ! cars . MR. DI PASQUALE; You know, you take a station wagon and try to marl I,neuver it in a 20 foot space - it ' s pretty tough: . Okay. I ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like I I i i 59 - i pIto be heard on this appeal? Anyone who would like to speak in ,:favor of the requested variance? f� ! MRS. SISLER: I 'm Carol Sisler and I live on Valley Road and we hav :;dealt with the Turk Brothers for sixteen years , as long as we 've iflived in Ithaca and I value their judgment very much as to how they i 44 dread the rentals they can get up on College Avenue - you know - jiwhat' s needed on Collegetown = I know they have a very good relatio - !!ship with the students who are at Cornell because I 've been in their j '!store many, many times and listened to them talk to them so that - i :,land I heartily agree with them in their request to ask for a little Ibit of help to develop that corner, I would oppose parking on that .;site because that Dryden - College Avenue corner is the most awful ;:corner in all of the city, especially in the winter because there i i ' parking allowed on both sides of the street and you get cars coming ;;and going and you really can ' t make that turn. Now I drive that ;road almost every day when I come home from work and I know what Jit ' s like so therefore I think that you must give them a little eas ion that parking and trust their judgment to level with the students J :land say they just - you know try to rent to people without cars . ;:Whose to know whether they do it or not . The next thing, of course, i is that I 've been to this Board, I know the problem syou all have w th doff-street parking, with proposals . As a taxpayer , I absolutely am I� to ilopposed/the denial of construction of new property in the city of I� ! Ithaca because of these off-street requirements which you are re- quired to enforce but I think that if a group of us got together an `:said to Common Council we have got to re-work these, or you've got j Ilto build a parking garage in Collegetown, something ' s got to be don 1but I 've seen that corner vacant and I 've seen the store next to ; i� : Turk Brothers a disgrace and they've come in here with a proposal land that' s been denied because of the off -street parking so I think, that we are all citizens working for the betterment of this city an iE,I really feel that somehow recommendations have got to be made from ' 11all of us so that the off-street parking thing is worked out one way i' il, or the other. I really urge you to bend a little and support the i ifTurk Brother' s proposal . i! i 60 - i CHAIRMAN MARTIN : Question? 11MR. ANGELL: Question. If the building is built as proposed what happens if that street, in the near future , has to be widened? y( That sidewalk is pretty close right now. I' i, MRS. SISLER: It ' s not only their property - it ' s all the other 1properties are built right up to the sidewalk. ': MR. ANGELL: I understand this , but supposing that happens? I 'm 'i Masking, one thing, why they can ' t utilize that seven foot strip an ,I set that building back a little? MRS. SISLER: I wouldn' t want to see parking in front of the build !sing. The right-of-way, the parking variance is 180 square foot pe ,, car - the requirement is . . . ,1MR. ANGELL: Regardless of what it is . . . ,jMR. GAINEY: We are trying to keep it back off of the corner if we ;! can - keep the corner clear, okay, like the bank did. The bank se it (ftheirs back, okay? So that you have, as Morrie says, you have, if fyou want to have a turning lane , you can do it. We are just looking ;, for alternatives , we are not saying - I realize, you know, expense 'tare expenses. It' s our job to look for alternatives if they don' t ;, conform and that ' s what we are looking for. i1MRS. SISLER: If they want to turn the corner they can do it. �IMR. DI PASQUALE : If its the purpose of easing up the sidewalk sit - ation I think it is certainly possible to set the building back tw i ;! feet from both sides . ,! MR. ANGELL: Or to utilize that seven feet you can go further , . . Can you look into the feasibility of using that seven foot strip? MR. DI PASQUALE : That really p p J depends `u on what the adjacent owner i i) wants to do , see. We would be sitting right next to his property. They are talking about splitting that seven foot - three and one- half feet for each side - the most we could take would be three an I� ` one-half feet - you see, we could move it three and one-half feet i that certainly is possible. Put the set back on Dryden Road, is i that what you mean? i iI � IMR. ANGELL: On both sides. ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there any further questions for Ms . Sisler? i, E I! � I! 61 ,IThank you. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard on this i} ( case in favor of the requested variance? iP HMR. CLEMENTE: My name is Ed Clemente, I have been pretty closely ; affiliated with the Collegetown area for most of the past twenty I ;,years . I 'd like to make some general comments to the validity of I� !, the proposal at hand. First my feeling is very strong that what I f ijDave and Seymour Turk have proposed here is very much within the ! ; character and the needs of this immediate area, specifically a small '} shop atmosphere of - with substantial variety - readily available ;Ito the predominately pedestrian market in this neighborhood and :) secondly, a clean, modern, conforming residential units which are ;the two basic components of their proposal . I think it ' s a somewhat ;standardized, almost natural configuration for the inner-collegetown ,,neighborhood. I appeared before this Board within the past year for Hanother variance and again this parking situation was one of the I, key relevancies at that time. I would make two comments to that I� jiregard - first of all , the longer I have been there the longer - the I ,!more I have become convinced that development in the inner- college-:!town area by which I mean the Eddy Street , Dryden Road, College .Avenue neighborhood is , and will continue to be, perpetually hung ion the dilemma of parking. There is. - and I have spent a lot of ! time both individually and with my employer and with various com- munity organizations considering the alternatives to parking in :' this neighborhood and I have become strongly convinced that there is lino viable way for the private land owner to economically conform tol 11 'Ithe parking requirements as stipulated by the City. There is no ilay that this - that the requirements can be met by the private land {;owner. Over the past fifteen years or so there have been a number ) {of, so far, abortive attempts by various agencies from the City up i1to UDC to provide some manner of mitigation of the parking problems ihere. They have, as we are all aware, they have been abortive so ') far. This problem when it is solved will be solved in some manner Ethrough. some governmental agency other than the requirement for lanjd i (owners to provide the parking and one of the corollaries to that is' !' clearly that since this area is currently zoned B-2 and is almost i 'i ;I I i! i1 62 - 100% comprised of non-conforming properties currently, every time ijproperty owner desires to provide any upgrading, redevelopment or ( renovation of their property, they are compelled to cross this al- !I lmost insuperable hurdle. I 've been aware of a number of very {rational projects , projects at least in my mind, were very rational , ; which were ultimately scuttled because of the parking situation and I� iisecondly, I would reiterate some of the testimony which was present ,-d ! to this Board at the time I was before the Board for a variance wit in i' ( the past year in regards to the parking, first of all there is City !parking in the immediate neighborhood, there is long-term parking available from Cornell , also within the immediate neighborhood, thi d, ; there was testimony at that time by a private landowner who held i1 parking spaces available to the public at a very low rate , in fact `it was cited that it was available as low as $3 . 00 a month for parking Iagain within the immediate neighborhood, within approximately 50 yards ;of this location and his testimony at that time was that there were �n fact, no takers , no residents , no commercial people were interested 1� n making long term parking commitments for as low as $3. 00 a month 1�ow, of course, you go up there and there is a lot of cars around but 4pparently the people immediately associated with the neighborhood j�ave come up with some manner of means to accommodate their require {tents for parking . it was also - testimony was also presented at I 11�hat time that in the case of the my employer, who is also a land �ord in this neighborhood, that we had the exact number was eithe j 6 or 28 student tenants within our premises and we took a head by i ead poll and at that time of 26 or 28 students - precisely two were Maintaining automobiles at all - any place in Tompkins County. Our osition at that time was that a person who elects to reside in this Immediate neighborhood does not do so well - the way we put it at hat time was that they elect to reside here because - by doing so i alleviates them from the necessity of maintaining a car . It' s an �s' ption which- is almost a non-option to them. If they are going to #elide on College Avenue then they are there because - for the reasot !! That they wish to reside in an area where it is not necessary for I f , ,i jhem to maintain their own independent transportation. So I would i i! 63 - ii suggest that as far as the residential aspect goes that the parking ,is a very questionable relevance or a necessity - second, I 'm not i{sure exactly what the configuration or specific numbers would be bu Ijone of the points that has not been brought up before is that if, Illin fact, this project is undertaken, and I have not even seen the drawings , but just the way I envision it, it seems to me clear that rne of the benefits you will be providing is , for one thing, elimin i,ating most of the 60 and 70 feet of street frontage which is I currently in a gas station driveway, thereby enabling the area to I iincrease the on-street parking by probably 5, 6 or 7 spaces. This ! would presumably go somewhat toward accommodating the parking requi e- ments for the commercial applications . `CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else jwho would like to be heard on this case in favor of the requested ! !variance? Or in opposition to it? We will move on then to our next incase. ii !I l �I f I�I I� i` iI�I 1 {i !1 !I �1 I �I �I iI1 � (I ! I i� I I i i Ij e - 64 - ij 'I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 8 , 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION ! ii APPEAL NO. 1245 : i' CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that we deny the area variances I+ requested in 1245. The requests encom- pass very substantial deviations from I' the zoning requirements . Those devia- tions may make sense for this and other I properties in the inner part of College town but this Board is not the proper ii ii vehicle for redoing the Zoning Ordinanc there. In this and other recent cases i! it has been argued that the yard require- ments equir -ments and the off-street parking require- ments equir -ments are inappropriate for that part o j' Collegetown. The arguments have con- i siderable force and they should be di- {I rected to Common Council rather than th-is Board. Proposals reflecting substantially i± less deviation from the requirements of I� the Ordinance for this property would b e +i jf grounds for a reconsideration by the ! I Board of this action. f! R. GAINEY: I second the motion. !VOTE : 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent. I Area variance denied. i! i� i I u l ii 65 - ij BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i! COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i! s JANUARY 83. 1979 jSECY HOARD announced the next appeal to be heard: !(APPEAL NO. 1246 : Appeal of Jason Fane for an area vari- ance under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 4 an 6 to permit continued use and occupancy !I of the apartment building at 125-127 N. Quarry Street. At least one apartment M and four bedrooms have been added to the ji non-conforming property without required building permits and zoning variances , i and a promise of five dedicated parkin i! spaces on nearby property was never ful- filled, leaving the property with none ii of the required off-street parking spaces . The property is located in an R-3a (residential) use district. A previous appeal was denied by the Board on Sep- tember 11 , 1978 . it iSECY HOARD: I don 't see Mr. Fane here so . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is Mr. Fane here? Mr. Fane is not here . We will �4 (move on to the next case. i. i II I 1 I} i1 i! i i. i .1 I i i I - 66 - z BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK s JANUARY 8 , 1979 EI I EXECUTIVE SESSION i� i APPEAL NO. 1246 : 11 ,CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the request for reconsider - 'I tion in 1246 be denied. ;iIMR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. � ;i 11FINDING OF FACT: The appellant failed for the second time i i; to appear at a scheduled hearing of the i� Board. This , plus the testimony in the record indicates an apparent lack of good s i faith. The Board sees no reason to hold back on Code Enforcement efforts any l ji further because of this failure by the appellant to avail himself of the Board' s procedure. This Board urges that en- i forcement efforts proceed. It is our unpleasant duty to say "no" to people i who seek our approval in advance. When the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are flagrantly and willfully disregarded, fairness requires firm and prompt en- forcement. ;VOTE: S Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent. jl Request for reconsideration denied. 4 I Ip !I I i ii i� 'I I i! i� i I� G i II - 67 - i; I rf BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS j CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK iH JANUARY 8 , 1979 i I SECY HOARD announced the next appeal to be heard. E (APPEAL NO. 1247 : Appeal of George S . Chacona for a Special Permit under Section 30 . 25 , Column 3 and Section 30 . 3 , paragraph 4 to permit a wholesale sheet music and music book business to operate as a home occupation at 321-321i Hillview j Place. The property is located in an j R-2a (residential) use district, in I which home occupations are a permitted 1. accessory use only under a special per it from the Board of Zoning Appeals . The Board of Zoning Appeals must determine 1 that the proposed use meets the defini- tion of a home occupation, and whether it meets the standards for a special 'j permit under Section 30 . 26 (standards for special conditions and special permits) . I;,MR. SCHLATHER: I am Raymond Schlather and I represent George Chac na Viand VIP Music, Inc. The issue in this case is not - obviously we ; are not seeking a variance, we are seeking a special permit to con- i' , tinue a home occupation on the premises at which. Mr. Chacona, his ii ;wife and child live at 321 Hillview Place . I have here photographs , 11there were color photographs which were sent along with the original iappeal - I don' t know where they are. i +IMR. HOARD: They are right here. !'MR. SCHLATHER: Alright. I 'd like to circulate them to give you a �I ! idea of the neighborhood. These are some black and white photos . IIf I may, the threshold issue here, basically, is a legal issue an �Ithat is whether or not what we have here is defined as a home occu-1 i� Paton, The this objection was raised by the staff members of ,Ithe Planning & Development Board and it was discussed without really li , any, I 'd say, legal interpretation, so I would like to address that i� ! issue itself first, because if this Board determines that what we have here is not a home occupation then the other issues really arel + not material. The Zoning Ordinance defines a home occupation unde ,:!Section 30 . 3, sub-division 48 as follows : " 'Home Occupation' shall ;;mean a subordinate use of a non-.residential nature which is conducted ?i i I i i� ri 68 - (I i " within a dwelling unit , or building accessory thereto , by an occu- ij Ipant of the dwelling unit , which is clearly incidental and accesso y jjor secondary to the use of the property for residential purposes , i ,! and which meets the following additional conditions : a. The occu 11pation or activity shall be carried on wholly within the principal j; building or within a building or other structure accessory thereto. i See definition of 'Accessory building ' , paragraph 1 of this Section) . ,I 1b. Not more than two (.2) persons outside the resident household s al: be employed in the occupation. c. There shall be no exterior dis 1lplay or sign except as permitted under Chapter 34 of this Municipal it ' Code, no exterior storage of materials and no other exterior indi i '; cation of the home occupation or variantion from the residential character of the lot or of the surrounding neighborhood. d. No offensive odor, noise, vibration, smoke dust, heat or glare shall !! be produced. e. The home occupation shall not generate traffic i many greater volume than would normally be expected in a residential 11neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the occupation i ishall be met off the street and in accordance with the regulations of Section 30 . 37 of this Chapter. " Then as an addendum the code I jllists what it considers - well it states : "In particular, a home occupation includes , but is not limited to the following: art II studio, dressmaking, teaching (with musical instruction limited to { ' a single pupil at a time) , and the professional office of a lawye , liengineer, architect, real estate broker or insurance agent within 'Idwelling occupied by the same . " It is our contention that we have e� satisfied this requirement in that the business of which we are ! talking about is a wholesale sheet music and music book distributor- ship. istributo - ship. T think it can compare quite favorably with say an Amway dis-- ' tributorship or an Avon Products distributorship in that what we jhave here is as follows : we have an operation which involves no i� retail sales , no retail deliveries, no customers calling at the Thom: . V'e have an operation which involves the delivery of certain I� lgoods and materials , in this case sheet music and books , to the 'home by United Parcel Service Vans on an average of two or three ( times a week. At the time we presented this appeal to the Plan nin t !I - 69 - 4j Development Board there was mention that there were tractor ltrailers coming to the residence. At the time we filed the appeal ii ' I personally was not aware of that but I have subsequently been iE !i ; advised that over the last year on nine separate occasions tractor trailers have been used to deliver materials to the home . That is Hone factor - that is one point that we are willing to concede and arrangements can be made to eliminate tractor trailer traffic from the neighborhood so that they can go pick up their goods using ! their own delivery vans at a downtown or more commercial area. Th fllbusiness itself involves , basically, orders being telephoned in by f .' businesses , music stores , retail stores throughout the upstate New , York area. They are taken down by one of the partners, who is ,; George Chacona who is here this evening or Robert Makitten who is I' also here this evening or there is a third employee now who is ;; working there from time to time . The orders are taken down, they if are processed, they are filled - the van is loaded in the early ,; morning hours of any given day and I have outlined on the applica- tion or on the appeal , a rough idea of what a day is like. Day one, they load the van up early in the morning, it leaves the area ; for day one and day two and it returns in the evening of either i! ; day two or day three. In other words , it ' s on the road - it ' s not I even in the neighborhood. The van that you see in the photographs Ei ii is not even in the neighborhood for the better part of any given i! week. It makes its deliveries and then it returns hom in the even i ing and it loads up the next day and is off again. In the interim { about every week or two, or I think it ' s every two weeks , there is a smaller van that the business owns that goes down into New York 1 City to make purchases which are then delivered through UPS - some 'E j of them are brought back in the van itself. There have been several - there is a bit of opposition to this , I ' ll be quite candid and it ' s all sitting back there r and you will hear from r jj them. From what I can gleam from the opposition we are talking !1 a) is it a home occupation; b) if it is a home occupation is it substantially changing the character is it altering the characte of the neighborhood? Now in that connection the Zoning Ordinance i i I 70 - i .1 under Section 30 . 26 speaks to special standards which are appli- cable to all uses which require a special permit and they speak i ,i terms of meeting the following requirements : the loca - that no special permit shall be recommended by the Planning & Development !i Board or granted by the Board of Appeals unless the proposed y activity or use meets the following requirements : a) the location !E and size of the use, the size of the site in relation to it and the location of the site with respect to the existing or future streets jj giving access to it shall be such that it will be in harmony with j� the existing or intended character of the neighborhood and will not 9 discourage the appropriate development of adjacent land and build- ings or impairment of the enjoyment or value thereof; b) operation ;I ji in connection with any special use should not be more objectionabl I! to nearby property by reason of noise, fumes, increased vehicular �I traffic or parking demand, vibration or flashing lights , then woul j be the operation of any use permitted without special permit. Now I in this case, the threshold issue, as I said, is whether or not this i'• his a home occupation. The case law in New 'York is sparse on this lilpo? int, at least the reported case law is sparse. It generally� I I relies - as I could determine - it relies primarily on what the local code says . In other words, many codes set forth what we hav Inhere in 30.. 3, subdivision 48 - they set forth certain requirements ) i I; so if we go through the requirements itself, requirement "a" of -I i ;Isubdvson 48 - the occupation shall be carried on wholly within the principal building or within a building or other structure I accessory thereto. We have here an occupation which. is being car- ried on in the garage - that is defined as an accessory building, I �i lithe other definitions of Section 30 . 30. 2) Not more than two per i sons outside the resident household shall be employed in the occur �paton. Again, here we have one employee plus Mr. Makitten who , , at this point by the way, is living at 321-3212 Hillview place, so I! Tactually - and then we have, of course, Mr. Chacona who also lives ! Hat 321-321? Hillview place. In this connection I should also men- ; 11!tion that 321-3212 Hillview Place is a two-family home but which isl icurrently being occupied by one family, the Ch-acona family with ii i I - 71 - i I' M-r. Makitten also there as an unrelated guest, I guess . There i is a home - the third point c) there shall be no exterior display Y fi or sign except as permitted under chapter 34 of this code . Well !I there is absolutely no sign in connection with this business . 'i I There shall be no exterior storage of materials - there is no exterior storage of materials in this business . There is no othe exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the jresidential character of the lot or of the surrounding neighbor- hood. �i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Can I ask about the vans? Where are they when ' it II they are there? j� MR. SLATHER: They are parked in the driveway. , CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is that not an exterior indication? ii i� MR. SCHLATHER: Well , I was getting to that point - that' s the ne t point: no other exterior indication. They are vans - I guess the question that - they are an indication of vehicles but then the question is , let' s assume they had their business down at the end i of Court Street or some other place, they could still have the vans and drive them home and drive them back and forth as long as ther i is adequate parking. There are no - I don' t know, are there sign on the vans? There are no signs on the vans which indicate that it is VIP Music Inc. No other exterior indication of a home occu pation or variation from the residential character of the lot or of the surrounding neighborhood. Now, gentlemen, one of the ob- viously - this is the catch-all phrase, is there another exteriorl I� or variation from the residential character of the lot or of the i! I� �9 surrounding neighborhood. Well , again, that brings us back to th II initial question. Do we have here a home occupation or not? The ii home - just as some other background information, the area that w i' are talking about is - has individual home owners in this area, i ' also has a multiple dwelling apartment unit across the way which I l runs a good half of a city block, which is complete with its off- street parking. To the rear is Morse Chain with. a large building !I which is evident in some of these photographs - to the east are some two-family homes as well as single-family homes . We have here i �i i! - 72 - ii ii Is 'i a letter from the immediate neighbor to the east in which - she it could not be here this evening so she wrote and gave the letter t ii Mr. Chacona - which he will read to the Board - in which she en- ii !; dorses this occupation. To the west is where the neighbors are i! i!, upset. Alright? To the immediate west is property owned by Orson ii i Ledger. He, I don' t believe is represented here tonight and there has been no opposition brought out by himself. You can see his i' !� place in some of these photographs . In fact, up until very recently { it was unoccupied. Further to the west there is property owned by i the Vareks , they are here this evening represented by Counsel and ii then further to the west and even outside the 200 foot limit down } on Turner Place, there is property, and I don' t know if the indi- vidual - the people are here this evening but they were at the Planning & Development Board and they did express opposition. i' j There was some charge made that we were not fairly representing I' i' the character of the neighborhood because they referred to the Columbia Street Annex whish, I don' t know how many feet away it is ii i; but it certainly isn' t anywhere near the 200 feet. Obviously thes j °i photographs - we didn't go through th-e entire South Hill to take i� 1photographs . But again to be candid with everyone, that charge was raised and I present it here so that there can be no statement that ii i� we are trying to cover up anything. What I am suggesting is that the neighborhood is filled with certain preexisting and alternate ely non-conforming uses . I would also note that at 41S Hillview Place ;his a home occupation which is in th-e nature of a business - Arrow ;! Exterminating and they have - I understand they have two vans ,I themselves so what we are recommending here is, I believe, something lyes, it involves paper products, it is not a professional office, Pt is not a dentist office, it does not generate the traffic that flany one of these other home occupations would generate, or at least 'la successful lawyer would generate more traffic than this . A suc- 1 cessful engineer, architect and certainly a real estate broker would l 'igenerate more traffic than we are talking about here and certainly an insurance "agent would generate more traffic than we are talking ,( about here. I would note that , in my analysis of the case law, f 144 1 - /3 - i t in any event, this art studio and dressmaking seem to be one of the old throw backs which has been encapsulized in some of these old home occupation definitions going back into the 1916 's - 1920 ' down in the New York City area. That' s just off the cuff. Teaching with musical instruction limited to a single pupil at a time - again, something in that connection could probably produce more i noise - it certainly could produce more traffic if a person taught 11 a student - eight students a day - coming in, dropping off their kids , coming back - that ' s more traffic than we are talking about I here. It seems to me, and if I may be so bold as to submit it, the is opposition that we have run into is - of course, they are here and they can characterize it - but it seems to be a fear of what this operation could become as opposed to what it is today. I would 'j note that it is a fledgling business , it is something that . . . l I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well you have also indicated you had not been aware of tractor trailers . Now tractor trailers coming in, which you have indicated - arrangements could be made so that it will no t j happen in the future - but that ' s past - that ' s what neighbors are conscious of going on and that ' s exterior indication for sure . MR. SCHLATHER: Alright but I must - the history of this particula petition or appeal - there was a building inspection -apparently a� i` routine building inspection of the premises , in which this particu- lar activity was discovered - whatever, it was called to the atten- tion of Mr. Chacona and then, after a period of time he came to me and we filed this petition. Yes , the tractor trailers I can see I� j where that is definitely an exterior indication. I concede that. I 'm also saying that that can be taken care of - that can be alle-I viated without economic duress to Chacona and I think to the satis- faction of the neighbors . ;j MR. ANGELL: How long has this business been in existence? MR. SCHLATHER: The business - it started out in October of 1976 -� !i l is that correct? if MR. CHACQNA: Yes . i !� 's MR. SCHLATHER: October of ' 76 and it started from scratch - there' h was nothing there at the very beginning. I think Mr. Chacona and I !i /4 - U j VIP Music is aware that at some point they are going to have to ii move . I think they appreciate that. But I don' t think that at this point it is not economically feasible for them to move. They ii have, and I have here Mr. Zifchock - they have inquired into stor-I f 1 age space and were advised at a cost of $2 . 5U to $5. U0 a foot - a c square foot. That would - they cannot make that the business would not be able to survive. jMR. GAINEY: How much space are you using right now? j� MR. CHACONA: We are using the garage and my basement. 'i MR. GAINEY: How much space is that? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Chacona? MR. SCHLATHER: I 'm sorry - this is George Chacona. MR. CHACONA: 500 square feet. MR. ANGELL: Why wasn' t a special permit applied for at the time i' of conception of the business? MR. SCHLATHER: That is something that . . . it MR. CHACONA: I wasn' t aware of the fact - you see, I moved back from New York two years ago and just decided to do it and we went I' 1 ;i down to the city - Tompkins County Court, and filed an application i for a business and they said that ' s all we had to do at that point', and I wasn' t aware of that. i DR. GREENBERG: Is there something in the Code that you read men- tioning that the home occupation can be incorporated either in one �? to f building or the other but, it seemed/leave the impression that I! being placed in both as not proper? MR. SCHLATHER: Okay. You may be referring to 48 , subdivision "a" i; which reads : The occupation or activity shall be carried on wholly i within the principal building or within a building or other struc- ture accessory thereto . DR. GREENBERG: Not and - it says or. MR. SCHLATHER: Well T think that is - there is room for judicial interpretation there because they could mean it should be carrie� on wholly within the principal building or within the building or other structure accessory thereto . ; DR. GREENBERG: It would seem to me that the "or" was very clearly i' stated there. i I fi 9 - 75 - 1� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Chacona we are not getting any of that on i{ the tape. Why don' t you come up here? !i MR. SCHLATHER: George, why don' t you come up here? �I r MR. GAINEY: I asked the question, has his business been growing? ii ,1 MR. CHACONA: Well , everybody hopes their business to grow but I ours right now is at the point where with all the stops that we j have to make weekly, we can' t add anymore retail stores . We are I at the point of saturation unless we were to add another truck and I so on and we are not financially able to do this at this time. Ij MR. GAINEY: You employ three people now? IR MR. CHACONA: Yes - well myself, my partner and one employee. MR. GAINEY: What is this house that I see behind your truck here? MR. SCHLATHER: Let me explain that. There is - this is part of li this problem or scenario, if you will . There is a house which is I known as 319 Hillview Place which is owned by a woman by the name I of Mary Snowden. It is pictured in the photographs immediately behind 321 - 3212 Hillview Place. As the appeal application notes - ij has everyone seen the appeal application? it CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes, we all have a copy of the appeal application. jl MR. SCHLATHER: Alright. As the application notes, and there are maps in the application which I think, if you would refer to - i. I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Now we don't all have a copy of those maps. j 1,. ' MR. SCHLATHER: Alright so let me just circulate some - this appli 1' 'kation which has maps in the back. It shows this house - one cor- ner of this house is - I believe it is 17 feet from one corner of , this garage.. Now because of this the VIP Music has made an offer to purchase the property behind it to be used as a residence for Mr. Makitten. He does not, as I said, he does not have a residence i Hat this time . He lives with the Chaconas. The house is to be pur chased as a residence. Actually if any one of the neighbors is to , Ilhave any, I think, su bstantial complaints that would obviouslybe Ila house that would have, probably, the greatest complaint. I 'm no jsaying that others don' t have complaints, but that would have the { greatest complaint or room for the greatest complaint. That housei - �i there has been a purchase offer made - the purchase offer has been IG I j - 76 - it accepted, there has been financing commitment obtained and there i has been a movement towards closing on that house. The house rig It i II now is not in very good shape, in fact, I think it looks rather : dumpy and obviously that ' s a part of this process here this even- ing. ven-ing. MR. GAINEY: Let me ask the next question. With the purchase of ii H this house, do you plan to move the business into this house? i MR. CHACONA: No. j MR. GAINEY: There is no plan whatsoever? i MR. CHACONA: - No plans whatsoever. j MR. GAINEY: I`t ' s going to be used just as a residence? MR. SCHLATHER: I think that you must look upon this house as a purchase - well , quite frankly, as an attempt to neutralize what is obviously the strongest source of opposition to this special If permit because . . MR. ANGELL: But you said there was no objection from this . MR. SCHLATHER: Well there is no objection now because we have a icontract. IMR. CHACONA: It ' s vacant also, she ' s . . . MR. SCHLATHER: It ' s vacant - she ' s down in North. Carolina or j someplace - where is she? MR. CHACONA: Georgia. MR. SCHLATHER: Georgia, excuse me. SW s in Georgia, but what I am saying is , of any home in the area, obviously they would have ii I the strongest stake in not seeing any type of change in the char- , ii acter of the neighborhood. MR. ANGELL: In other words, you said you weren' t in financial i) position to purchase another truck but you're certainly in a posi- tion to purchase a home with the business, right? MR. CHACONA: Yes. MR. ANGELL: In other words you're expecting this business to grow? MR. CHACONA: Well we hope it will grow. I� l MR. ANGELL: Obviously you're purchasing another house from the business. I I i - 77 - I ' 1 MR. SCHLATHER: Well I think the house is being purchased as an opportunity - the purchase price on the house is $6 ,900. Is that it i 6, 900? MR. CHACONA: Yes and it is adjoining my property right now. It li will just make my property more valuable - that house could not be i' used as a warehouse, I don' t think it could constructually hold li any music books . I don' t know if you know the weight of paper but paper is very, very heavy. I don' t think you could put anything i on that floor. E j MR. SCHLATHER: Speaking of paper there is one other point. I (` understand that the Eire Chief has , since the Planning $ Develop- ment Board, has gone through this or at least has gone up there !� and has written a very brief letter, the contents of which I am no I j1 totally sure of, other than the fact that he has stated that there I IIis a fire hazard - paper does , of some degree, now Mr. Ward can comment on that, but again it ' s another piece of information I have , whether it' s a greater fire hazard than tires in a garage, I don' t jknow. Whether it' s a greater fire hazard than any one of us who Ijcollect newspapers adinfinitum until we take them down to the �i I! Kiwanis paper drive, I don' t know but that is something that shoul i Abe considered. 11DR. GREENBERG : To ursue one other question in regard to the spaces e 1 p 'lthat are occupied, could you give us an estimate on what total space 1; is occupied as compared to what the total space of the premises are? IMR. SCHLATHER: Do you know the square footage of the house? N MR. CHACONA: I don' t know the square footage of the house but thel i� only space that is occupied is the garage and part of my basement !i and the rest of the house is for living purposes.JI ! DR. GREENBERG: Well, it ' s a feature that we do consider - percen- tages because it should be incidental as the code states . 11MR. SCHLATHER: Qkay, I can provide the information. I think the I,Iphotograph_s will at least give you an exterior view of the size of { ,, the house. It ' s not a small house that we are talking about, it ' s Ila pretty large home. It ' s a two-story structure, The garage is !I a two-car garage. I _ Y _ i ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN : That' s totally devoted to storage, is it? ' MR. CHACONA: Yes , but we have a small office . . . ,f : MR. SCHLATHER: Yes , there is a small office in the garage itself ! which I think it is pictured in one of the photographs . It has a ' desk and telephone. There are pictures of the storage. Sorry, Professor Martin didn't see the pictures . f iE I `IDR. GREENBERG: Are there pictures of the basement area too? 1MR. CHACONA: No there isn' t. IIMR. SCHLATHER: At this point I don' t believe there is anything else that I want to add other than I again reiterate the - I know i� ; the staff objection, the Planning 4 Development Board staff objec- E { tion to this particular application which primarily - they didn' t I� gY occu et beyond the threshold issue - is it or is it not a home a- „ P ; tion and it seems to me that this type of an enterprise - well , it n .! seems to me that the listings here in 30 . 3 indicate a bias towards - 11a bias without rational basis a bias toward certain - what they {i �1would consider home occupations without a rational basis in terms �! of impact on neighborhood. That ' Y s what we are really concerned ab ut i{ P g j impact on neighborhood. We talk in terms of traffic that seems to be i} a primary concern - traffic, both people and cars and everyone of jthose occupations , other than perhaps an art studio and dressmaking , i levery other one entails far greater traffic, volume, congestion, ;,people, vehicles , than what we are concerned herewith.. I, jDR. GREENBERG: I think. there is another concern that I might exprss H that, in effect, if the residence or residential area is used as al i ± business which should be in an office building downtown someplace , in 1other words , a residence shouldn' t be primarily that of a business ,- ,, regardless usiness ,,, regardless of how much impact on a neighborhood or traffic it gene - dates . Do you follow that? i , MR. SCHLATHER: Right, in other words there is some sort of an I� I� ephemeral or almost an aesthetic duality that you . . . ? I DR. GREENBERG: No, no , no. it IMR. SCHLATHER: Okay. j !�DR. GREENBERG: The zoning laws be obeyed the business should be in a business area unless it ' s very incidental to a residential area. i i �i ii i - 79 - , iIt' s a simple thing. It ' s as simple as that, I mean just because !i !business might even be that of making - of saying you have a com- '`puter and some kind of telegraphy situation where you have one opera- tor but the whole total ediface is devoted to the business . It ii '! should be in the business section - the codes require it to be that Tway and the understanding of the zoning laws require it. i !!MR. SCHLATHER: Here we do have three generations of people living in this house, okay, so I think it still is incidental and, in fact , , Mrs . Chacona lived at this home , I believe . . . she still does . I ,SMR. CHACONA: I grew up there . i; MR. SCHLATHER: He grew up in this home so it ' s something that is 1primarily - and it still is primarily a residence. His children are (growing up there today. Yes, it ' s - I can appreciate - to a certain ;extent - I 'm just wondering about how equally applied some of these i ;laws are - in terms of - in other words it seems to me that they ii ��probably could have put in there storage of music - sheet music - �f just as easily as they could have put in office of a lawyer, engineer lIor architect. !IDR. GREENBERG: Oh, I agree with you. ii �IMR. SCHLATHER: Could I read the - do you have the letter here? Here is - well we will submit this to the Board, it ' s signed by Jacqueline IiR. Heavner and she lives at 323 Hillview Place . i' "To Whom It May Concern: fj"I live at 323 Hillview P1 . and am the mother of two young children. 1I feel that having a business at 321 Hillview Place will not decrease jproperty values . Nor will the business trucks or cars pose any safety ,hazards as there is ample parking space owned by the owner. "Sincerely Jacqueline R. Heavner" IMR. SCHLATHER: She is the neighbor immediately to the east - we su - emit it for what it ' s worth. I also, of course, reiterate her appli ,cation incorporated in this testimony here by reference. 'I jCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any further questions? Now is there anyone else who would like to be heard in favor of the requested (special permit for a home occupation? Is there anyone who would dike to speak in opposition? j !IMR. WARD: My name is John Ward, I 'm an attorney and I represent - 80 i , Mr. & Mrs . Varek who are property owners and residents on Hillview i Place. MR. GAINEY: What is the address? !! MR. WARD: What is their address? HMR. GAINEY: Yes . i' 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And how close are they to the property in Ilquestion? SMR. WARD: 311 Hillview Place. They are two doors down next to the aILedger property. They are within the 200 foot radius of the prope-rty. ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. '$MR. WARD: Basically what this boils down to this is a warehouse yin a residential area. It is used for warehousing purposes , the ,;; storage of sheet music and other materials . Those materials are de- .; livered - .; livered to the residence, to the business in trucks and they are iiremoved in trucks. There is tractor trailer traffic and I 'd like tjyou to visualize Hillview Place if you can, it 's one of the steepest ; streets in the City of Ithaca. It is also a very narrow street. 6 It ' s a very residential area and when you couple a residential jstreet, narrow, steep with the snow that we have on the ground tod , jI think you can find that truck traffic in this, area is very hazar - ,ious . !I , CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We've been asked by the appellant to forget about ;i ;; the tractor trailers because arrangements can be made so that they jno longer will visit the property and I presume the Board might make !; that indeed a condition for a special permit. Does that remove the 11concern? I `;'MR. WARD: No, I would submit if they can make that kind of a con- 1 � f cession they could move the business to a more appropriate location i for warehousing where all of the truck traffic with the exception ',hof a van or delivery vehicle which was pointed out might be driven Thome at night to park in a driveway overnight , to be removed in th.e !'morning when the owner or driver went to work. That would just be ,,one leaving and one arriving at the residence rather than delivery if ;vehicles from UPS and quite possibly other delivery services .. This ,,has been described as a fledgling business. To me that ' s a young, i - 81 - , growing business , and apparently it has grown from one individual Tito the point now where there are three working the business . One of the comments that was made had to do with an increased fire hazard I I ,. and I have a letter from Fire Chief Charles Weaver which basically i! ! says that they have inspected the old two-car garage at 321-3212 11 1 1, Hillview Place and found that, in fact, it is used for storage. H ! does comment that the storage is on shelves and is in good order. � It says that this is a commercial use of the building , increases 1 ! the fire hazard by introducing a concentration of combustible i Ilmaterial and attracting more traffic to the space. I ' ll submit that ;j Ifor Board review. The one thing that wasn't mentioned in this (;residential area is that there is a proposed park to be built with Ein the 200 foot radius that is prescribed to give notice in order !Ito come before the Planning Board or the Board of Zoning Appeals . f ;That hasn' t been brought out and I think it ' s very difficult for an - I ; one to imagine commercial truck traffic being conducive to a neigh- it 'borhood where a park is proposed park for the use of children. !t 1One comment that was made was that it is too expensive to move the !'business to another location. I believe the price quoted was some- ,; f 1}where in the vicinity of $2 . 50 to $5 . 00 a square foot for warehousi g [space. I investigated that and I can report to the Board that ther lis at least 38, 000 square feet of warehousing space available in th ;(City of Ithaca for between $1 . 85 and $2 . 00 a square foot , so I feel i, ;,that if Mr. Chacona and his partner were to research the matter I think they can find adequate space at a very reasonable rate within i{ lthe city - within a business district - conducive to warehousing. I�Mr. Schlather has raised a question about being a home occupation. R find it very difficult to call this a secondary use of a residence . IlThis is not a example that he used of a dressmaking concern where all Undividual might use a sewing room and carry a talent that one has o I�th.e point of selling something that they make to someone else. Thi ! is not the case. The materials are brought in, they are stored and; t: l ':then they are shipped out. I don' t see how this would compare to { ;Avon, or Amway, or some other product distributorship. Those are basically delivered directly from a supplier in an appropriate com- i - 82 - ;I ilmercial location to the ultimate user. They don't do a lot of !tstorage - at least not in great quantities in the residences . ; Traffic is the big problem to be considered. This is a narrow '' street - it ' s so narrow that there is no parking on one side of Ij '! the street. On at least one occasion that I am aware of, a resi- 1� dence had the street blocked while this tractor trailer was either illoading or unloading materials for this business . This is a steep ! street - it ' s not conducive to truck traffic. Tractor trailer or i, large van, which I believe is pictured in some of the photographs that 1have at have been presented this evening. It is also pointed out -although , I am sure this group is aware of it that this was turned down by the Planning Board - unanimously turned down by the Planning Board !!after much of the same information was presented. 'Phis business 11has been here for over two years, it 's a growing business - as I '' believe Mr. Schlather has indicated, it is time that this business moved to an appropriate location and therefore, on behalf of my ;clients , I would request that their request be turned down. 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there questions? I would like some help with ;!the argument made that this - we were taken with some degree of !i ! detail through the Ordinance ' s definition of home occupation by the appellant. The argument was made that what was being described as i, , quite consistent, particularly if you stripped out the tractor i� ! trailers with the Ordinance 's definition and could be compared ! favorably with some of the things that were specifically mentioned i has home occupation that a successful lawyer, real estate broker , i + (might well generate a lot more traffic to the neighborhood than 11what was going on here. Now it is not altogether clear to me how i! 11you line up in response to that argument. 'You call this a warehouse abut that doesn' t make it not a home occupation. MR. WARD: Okay. One example was a realtor. Most realtors take 11clients and drive them to perspective locations that they wish to 11purch.ase, having bought more than one property in this community i 1 by contacts with a realtor for example, have been to meet them some 1place and be taken around the community to the varying properties ,;that they wish to show me ratherthan having a large or my going to ;i ii i! I; - 83 - ;! their office on numerous occasions . Most of the business was outside of their office. As an attorney, yes I do realize or grant ;;that some practices generate could generate a great deal of traf- ific. I don' t think that there are many who generate a lot of people i!Icoming to and from the office besides which they are coming in a !,residential vehicle - type of vehicle. They are coming in automobi es jjby and large - not in van type trucks . We are not talking about a Eifour-wheel van we are talking about a step van type of vehicle which i� !I believe has dual rear wheels . This is a much larger carrying 11capacity vehicle plus tractor trailer - whether it comes once or whether it comes a dozen times I don' t think that matters . To en- 111courage that kind of traffic in a residential area is inappropriate. ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So principally the traffic generation that makes s !;this not a permissible home occupation. . . 1MR.- -WARD:---And that' s--what-_I. =..'_as .1.=.specified;=this is probably one i of the most important considerations . Not only the amount of traffic but . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Character of the vehicles . R. WARD: Character of the vehicles , the character of the street ' also. It wouldn' t be as critical if this was a flat street. If ffffi lit was a wider street , had parking on both sides , if there wasn' t {�a proposed park to be built within 200 feet of the area - all of ! ; this must be taken into consideration. ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you. R. ANGELL: It seems to me that home occupation - when you take i 1Ithings that are listed here under occupation — that you wouldn't i '!expect to grow to any extent other than possibly the one exception �ould be a lawyer or real estate broker. They may grow but I thin �Ithat as they grow they grow to another location. A larger location i than in their home. I think that what we've got here. . . HAIRMAN MARTIN: There are all kinds of other limits on the scope lof the thing too, having to do with the number of employees , it mus i ! be clearly accessory or secondary to the principal purpose - there i p..re whole number of reenforcing criteria which hold this down to ';;small scope. The appellant argues that this falls under them. i i� 84 - i 'IMR. WARD: A growing law office, real estate office, when it goes beyond three is then no longer home use. As the appellant has ';, argued they are going to own two pieces of property. Does that i ; mean that they can have half the business at one location, half at ii ii danother and a total of six employees , and still qualify? ;; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well they are not asking for that at the moment , jI understand. iMR. WARD: But that argument has been brought out that much of their ii consideration in coming before here predicates on the purchase of Ii Ithis adjoining property. The property in question that is here no iE root owned by the appellant, it is owned by his mother. ii HCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Which I don' t see as it bears on j !SMR. WARD: I'm not sure that it ' s relevant in the sense of whether ' he can make an application but he is now buying an adjoining piece �of property for his - I don' t know in whose name - whether it is a (corporate name, or his partner ' s name, the partnership name. Con- 1ceivably they can have two locations R separate ownerships therefore i iyou can have half the business in one location - half in the other . i ' It' s a possibility - I 'm just tossing that out as one other future ;possibility. And he indicated this is a growing business . i �i ;CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. They areasking for aspecial permit. Th 1permit that the Board would grant would be for a home occupation with !certain erameters and anything that went beyond that would require p y g y ijanother special permit and that now I take it is clear that you nee to have a special permit for a home occupation so there won't be th�t 1confusion in the future. 1 11MR. WARD: I assume they understand that at this point. ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. Any further questions from Mr. Ward? 1' , Thank you Mr. Ward. ; MR. WARD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who would like to testify on i this casein opposition to the requested special permit for a home , i ,!occupation? Please. 11MRS. VAREK: I 'm Mrs. Varek and I 'm the client of Mr. Ward. �i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right. ! '! - - 85 ! ' MRS. VAREK: We have lived in this neighborhood for some twenty some ;; years and we have tried to keep our property in fair or good condi io 'Mand my husband is an invalid - he is partially paralized so he can do very little to improve the property. Everything that has to be ;; done we have to either hire somebody or I do it with my children. �! We have taken a great interest in this neighborhood and there is la lot to be said about it , especially by people who would like to ' I have a business there. I mean they are - if you see the way the ' place looks , I think it should be some indication by the photograp S . The main reason I am - my major objection is the traffic, yes , but i , also if a business like this establishes itself in this neighborhood ''what will it do to the property value of our homes? And this is a jfvery great concern because my husband will not be able to earn any :';more money. It is easier for young person to go out and establish ; himself some place else and I wish him good luck with it - it ' s no to be jealous or nasty or whatever you want to call it , I 'm just ( protecting our property. '! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, as I understand you, the traffic is a problem but it ' s not just the traffic, so even if it were clear , that the tractor trailers were not going to come in the future . . . I� :IMRS. VAREK: Who is going to guarantee me this business is going t jibe just in his house or in his garage? You see, I have spoken to i +Mr. Chacona and when he came up with the idea he never spoke to 1I ! us before, just now when this sort of thing came up -, and he said �� to me that he was going to buy the house from Mrs. Snowden, par- tially it was going to be used for apartment and partially for ;; storage. So this is why I am concerned, it ' s not going to be just 'Iin this one place and we live in a residential area - I would like i` : it to stay like this . Tim sorry I 'm upset but . . . it is a nice 1neighborhood and I hope you know. ' CHAIRMAN MARTIN; Are there questions from members of the Board? 1 i ;!Thank you very much Mrs . Varek.. ;'MRS. VAREK: Thank you. ' !; CHAIRMAN MARTIN; Is there anyone else who would like to speak in jjopposition to the requested special permit? i! ii I - 86 - 'I j MR. ZIFCHOCK: May I speak in favor of it? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. I would first invite Mr. Chacona to �I make any response , if there is some, would you come forward? MR. CHACONA: I am sorry that I couldn' t hear all of Mrs . Varek' s i; '{ testimony, but I 'd like to state that I did say to her , I believe y that we had planned to use the house originally - adjacent to her' - for er -for some storage - 319 - but since all of this has come to light i it is not necessary because we can continue to use our basement. Ij What I was thinking was to take things out of the basement and put 1 them in the other house but if the situation warrants that we don't have to - we' ll leave them in the basement . There is no problem I� with that as it is right now. l CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay, but you did make that statement? i MR. CHACONA: Yes , I did. i !j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Now, someone who hasn' t spoken who wants to speak. You are the partner? MR. ZIFCHOCK: No. My name is Jim Zifchock and I just would like i to speak briefly on my involvement in this . Mr. Chacona came to i me sometime in the last summer to look- for space to establish his business or relocate or whatever. So I exposed him to several pieces of property because he has paper products , and so on, you f '! I just can' t put it anywhere it has to be dry space. A great deal �# of the space that we looked at ranged from $2 , 50 a square foot to �i $5. 00 a foot. I would also like to add that. . . ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We 've heard much lower figures on the price of available storage space, MR. ZIFCHOCK: That' s true- that' s absolutely true , I 've seen it down to $ . 25 a square foot but conditions aren't desirable for what he needed it for. I 'm associated with Forest City Realty and I 'd like to add that we have a very busy office and there is a lotl of traffic in and out of our office. Thank you, Are there any r j questions? MR. ANGELL: How many- square feet were you looking fox? i i MR. ZIFCHOCK: Well we were looking for somewhere around 1, 500 to ,j 2, 000 square feet at the time and a great deal of the space that �f 87 we found was larger than what he needed and some of it was too i small. MR. GAINEY: He stated right now that you are only using about 1500 square feet? MR. CHACONA: Well that ' s just a guesstimate , I really don' t know that much about square feet. I. ++ 'i MR. SCHLATHER: Using the double garage and half of the houses it basement . . . I� MR. KASPRZAK: Half of the garage is at least 400 and if you use half of the basement you have another 300 . . . I �{ MR. SCHLATHER: Well it ' s the wall in the basement - it ' s not the + interior space - it ' s against the wall in half the basement, I 've ij seen it myself. I i' iI MR. ANGELL: My question is why were you looking for 2 , 000 square feet? I' '! MR. ZIFCHOCK: 1, 500 to 2 ,000 . MR. ANGELL : Why do you need that much space? MR. ZIFCHOCK: Well it was his concern and that is what we were i shopping for. i; MR. CHACONA: I must add that there was a third partner involved i' 'j at the time when we were planning on many expansions . He had higher goals and aspirations than we've been able to meet. That 1 partner is now gone. He was the driving force behind the large expansion. MR. ANGELL: Well , when did you stop looking for space? MR. ZIFCHOCK: We really haven' t. We've been exploring right { along. I� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions? Anything you want to ad ii li Mr. Zifchock? !l MR. ZIFCHOCK: No . H CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who hasn't testified on th s case who would like to? MRS. HOLMAN; Elva Holman, 141 Pearsal Place, alderman for the i j second ward and I would simply like to make the comment to the i + Board of Zoning Appeals that the second ward seems to be the great i! - 88 - i ii testing ground for the definition of home occupation. This is a neighborhood which definitely finds itself under seize as you mig t expect with Morse Chain as one of its immediate neighbors - the , kind of impact the employees of that plant have upon that neigh- j� borhood, particularly as regards traffic and I would ask you, eve i! though the technicalities of the lot preclude it , to consider the impact of any additional traffic at all other than that of a resi- dential use on that particular neighborhood and I think under the i definitions of the home occupation you can include the considera- tion of traffic and I would remind you of the other factors that are present in that neighborhood, particularly Morse Chain which jI ii is a major employer and impacts very seriously upon that neigh- i� I borhood. �i CHAI'RMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in i this case? I believe that 's our last case, This concludes this i public portion of the Board ' s hearing this evening. The Board will go into executive session and then reconvene in public session I to announce the results for any of you who want to stay around for I that. At this point we must excuse you. If i l i I ii I I. �I .I i' i I f! i i i i - 89 - i. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK JANUARY 8 , 1979 i' EXECUTIVE SESSION ! j APPEAL NO. 1247 : i! MR. GAINEY: I move that appeal No . 1247 for a special home occupation permit be �I denied. I DR. GREENBERG : I second the motion. �i FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . There is evidence that the business is i growing. i4 Z . There is definitely a traffic situation i that warrants no increases in the area. j 3. According to a letter from the Fire i` Chief, submitted at the hearing, the �j commercial use of this building in- I I creases the fire hazard. 4. Objections were received from the i` neighborhood. I, E ii VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent I� If j! Special home occupation permit denied. tls E l �i I II II i it I 11 .i ! I? I I 90 - i I , Barbara Ruane, Do Certify that I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1223 , 1242 , 1243, 1244 , 1245 , 1246 and 1247 on January 8 , 1979 at City Hall , City of Ithaca, New York; that I have it transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the trans- cript of the minutes of the meeting and the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, on the above date , and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara C. Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this ��cvr day of y _, 1979. f W CALLISTA F. PAOLANGELI -� Notary Public, State of New York: No. 4664561 Qualified in Tompkins Count Notary Public Term Expires March 34. 1990 I I !I i i I i I