Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1979-09-10 I� it I� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I� COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK it SEPTEMBER 10 , 1979 Is ? I TABLE OF CONTENTS IMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ITHACA, NEW YORK - SEPTEMBER 10 , 1979 Page APPEAL NO. 1269 William R. Freund and 1 Beatrice N. Dennis 1023-1025 N. Tioga Street APPEAL NO. 1269 Executive Session 11 APPEAL NO. 9- 2- 79 Bishops , ProMart Home Center 12 430 West State Street APPEAL NO. 9-2- 79 Executive Session 16 APPEAL NO. 9- 3- 79 D & R Liquor 17 211 Hancock Street APPEAL NO. 9- 3- 79 Executive Session 20 , APPEAL NO, 1270 Cathie Simpson & Doug Dylla 21 109 Auburn Street APPEAL NO. 1270 Executive Session 24 APPEAL NO. 1271 Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services 25 306 South Plain Street APPEAL NO. 1271 Executive Session 27 APPEAL NO. 1272 Philip M. White, Jr. 28 433-435 North Cayuga Street APPEAL NO. 1272 Executive Session 33 APPEAL NO. 1273 Tom & Pauline Jones - postponed 34 APPEAL NO. 1274 Gary J. , A. M. $ D. J. Loomis 34 312 Second Street APPEAL NO. 1274 Executive Session 50 APPEAL NO. 9-1-79 Ithaca Business Systems/Cycle Supply 51 310 Fourth Street (APPEAL NO. 9-1-79 Executive Session 53 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 54 1I � i' !f ii I �i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ;t COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 ACTING CHAIRMAN WILCOX: We will call the meeting to order, the I September 10th meeting of the Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals . PRESENT this evening : Mr. Joseph Gainey Mr. Alfred Aman Ms. Natalie DeCombray Dr . Martin Greenberg 4 Mr. Morris Angell Acting Chairman William Wilcox 1� Mr. Thomas Hoard, Bldg. Comm. &Secy to the Board Mrs . Barbara Ruane , Recording Secy. The Board operates under the provisions of the City Charter, and under the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ithaca. While the Board shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct of Ithe meeting, determinations shall be founded upon significant and I sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same. As we go into the eeting we will ask the appellants to please identify themselves ith their name and address and come forward. Please confine your iscussions to the pertinent facts of the case and avoid extraneous material which would have a delaying effect. Tonight we have five embers of the Board. As you may know, it takes four votes in favor to pass in the affirmative any request by an appellant. If here is anyone here who would like to withdraw their case for any i reason, you may do so and schedule another meeting. What the Board does is have a public meeting in the beginning where we hear testi- mony on each case, generally we hear from people that support the application and then we 'll listen to people who might be against it . Then we go into executive session and after that the meeting ecomes public again and we announce the findings of the Board. Are here any questions from the floor? May we have the first appeal? SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal is Appeal No. 9-1-79 : li Appeal of Ithaca Business Systems/Cycle Supply for a variance from Sections 34 . 5 and 34. 9 of the Sign Ordinance to permit the placement of signs at the corner of Fourth and Hancock Streets indicating businesses located at 310 Fourth Street. The property is located in an R-3b (residential ) use district, in which such I signs are not permitted. (No one appeared to present this appeal) it it j' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS �I CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK I SEPTEMBER 10 , 1979 i I� SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal 1269 : i Appeal of William R. Freund and Beatrice N. Dennis for a use variance 1 under Section 30 . 25 , Column 2 (per- mitted primary uses) to permit the use of the property at 1023-1025 North Tioga Street for professional offices and residential use. The property is located in an R- 2b (residential) use district in which professional offices are not a permitted use. WILLIAM R. FREUND: My name is Bill Freund, I live at Apartment 2C in Budd Lake, New Jersey. Gentlemen, this property has been com- mercial since the early 1800' s and the early 1970 ' s I remodelled it and complied with all the zoning regulations , etc. in the City of Ithaca. The property presently contains two apartments , one apartment downstairs where there are two young ladies living, one upstairs with an elderly couple. The office question in space - since 1974 has been various a beauty parlor for a short time , and then mainly office space. Last year - up until December of last year a doctor occupied the space as offices. Right now I have a i�tenant who wants to move who has an accounting firm. It ' s a rather I small one, he is at present in a small office space and he wants to expand. I need this variance this property is the only piece of property - an elderly lad-/, seventy years old and myself own it. It is the only one that we have that' s rental in the whole United States. We have suffered some financial loss because every time we get a plan or a possible tenant we tell them it has to be zoned, they find something else I don' t know where they find it but they go elsewhere and we really are at a point where we just cannot afford to keep it any more unless we get a tenant. This is our hardship case and it really is a serious one for us . I would ap- preciate it. I live in New Jersey now, my partner is house mother over at McGraw House and we would just like to get this place rented I so we have some income and I have a possibility that the gentleman that will move in, at a later date may purchase it from us. That ' s all I have. i! I� I - 2 - I� ACTING CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Any photographs? MR. FREUND: No, I don' t have any. i jSECRETARY HOARD:- I do have a photograph Mr. Chairman. &R. FREUND: I think we did send one in. i � MR. GAINEY: Was the variance request required when the doctor was in there? MR. FREUND: Yes . In fact we have been before the Board several ! times. Not me personally but Mrs . Dennis has been a couple times too and each time it has - they have voted favorable as using that space for office space. 1MR. GAINEY: Do you have a record for that? Because I don' t recall it. SECRETARY HOARD: Well the last case dates back to 1976 . MR. GAINEY: There was a doctor in there last year and he was in there illegally? MR. FREUND: I don't believe that , I think . . . MR. GAINEY: There wasn' t a variance requested as long as I have been here, for this house. MR. FREUND: As far as I - I mean, I understood there was because Mrs . Dennis handled that - I thought certainly she had, I just couldn' t make it up from New Jersey. SECRETARY HOARD: Well up until 77 that was R-3 which would not have required a variance for a doctor' s office. R. FREUND: That' s right . R. GAINEY: This was last year. Last year it was required, right? R. FREUND: No , the doctor was in before that. I think . . . . GAINEY: The doctor was in last year Dr. Waldowski. FREUND: Yes , he was in last year but he moved in before that. He moved in in the prior year. He was in more than a year. We talked with. Mr. Jones and at that time Mr . Jones told us that it ouldn' t be required - that a zoning application wouldn' t be re- quired because we had had an . . . R. GAINEY: He was in there more than a year? R. FREUND: I'm quite sure he was - I ' d have to look at my records ut I 'm almost positive he was. i' I� I� I 3 - '{MR. GAINEY: I don' t think he was , I think he was in with Dr. Meyer lat the Community Corners for over a year. is MR. FREUND: Oh, he may have been. ,i MR. GAINEY: What are you going to do for parking? lMR. FREUND: Parking? We have everything that we have ever had plus e have space for two cars in the driveway at the front of our , garage and there is a space on Tioga Street that they have been usi g for years , and on Lincoln. By the way, this tenant is only one lock north on Lincoln, right now. R. GAINEY: What do you do with your tenant' s cars? i R. FREUND: The two girls don' t have cars and I 'm not really sure hat the people upstairs , the Robinsons , have a car. R. GAINEY: They have a car. R. FREUND: Do they? I 'm not sure. R. GAINEY: One of your tenants has a car too . i R. FREUND: What? R. GAINEY: One of your tenants has a car too. . FREUND: I 'm not certain because I just met the two girls that oved in, tonight. R. GAINEY: Do you rent either of the garages to anybody? R. FREUDN: No. The guy next door to us handles the lawn and snow emoval in the winter time . He uses half the garage to store a boat ut not for a car. 0AIRMAN WILCOX: Any other questions? R. GAINEY: How much traffic do you expect to generate with this usiness? R. FREUND: From what I understand, Mr. Hollander, who wants to ren he place - up to now in his existing place doesn' t have that much raffic on Lincoln Street at present, I don' t think he will have uch more than he has at present. S. DE COMBRAY: Are the tenants - your present tenants aware of tha , or they have been there awhile, that the downstairs is to be used as an office? Do the tenants mind if the downstairs is used as an fice? . FREUND: No, not a bit. There is a lot of space- a lot of wall I� I, 1 i� - 4 - I 1Ibetween them - a half bath and the walls are - I think you have a drawing of the building - most of the office sticks out front by itself. Originally it was a stage coach stop, back in the early � 1800 ' s and they just added on over a period of years . The wall is on the - in the office - exterior walls are roughly anywhere from 10 inches to a foot thick. The noise is at a minimum - its a fan- tastic place for a business office because it is so quiet . DR. GREENBERG: You indicated that you are in a dilemna - you can' t ' make it residential and you . . . MR. FREUND: We were told back in I have a letter dated 1975 that they said that we would violate zoning density ordinances if we mad it an apartment and, in fact the place is not really large enough or suitable to put an apartment in. We thought about it at one tim when I was remodelling and they said not to do it because of densit and I was I thought I would like an apartment in there but I was sorely pressed - I 'm a designer and I couldn' t figure out any way to get an apartment in there that would really be a liveable place . It ' s . . . MR. GAINEY: The upstairs occupies the whole building the whole top floor that' s one apartment, right? ' R. FREUND: No . The upstairs the back part of it has one apart- ment -- the other half is part of the downstairs apartment. The downstairs apartment is two floors . Dowstairs apartment - the main apartment, as we call it , has two bedrooms and a bath upstairs . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, I 've we do have a petition signed by some eighbors , I don' t know if you are aware of it or not but I can read it for the record. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this? Would you come forward please and state your name and address? R. HOLLANDER: My name is Andrew Hollander, I 'm the perspective tenant. There seems to be several questions relating to the type Df operation that we are going to have . I am currently located two locks up the street on Lincoln Street- I have been there for almo t ive years now and I 'm not currently aware of any complaints regard 'ng my present occupancy as a professional office. It' s a question 5 - I of simply we are running out of space. We have two accountants and one bookkeeper and we are sitting on each others laps and Jbasically the location in the downtown area is favorable from the standpoint of it tends to present the business in more of a relaxed atmosphere rather than the hustle bustle of downtown. Regarding the parking and the problem with people coming in and out of the office, we see probably two or three people a day and the appointments are scheduled so as maybe we will have one or two people coming into Ithe office at any point in time. As far as I know, we have yet to have a parking problem on Lincoln Street - we are open from 9 : 00 in the morning and we are gone by 5 : 00 so that any residential parking is probably not even aware that there is a business going on. I think the area that we are looking to park on right now has had reasonable experience with. commercial traffic so to speak. Bud' s Diner has been in operation for as many years as I 've been down there so that I don' t think the neighborhood would suffer any from an extra car pulling up one block down the street where they are now pulling up one block up the street. The parking for em- ployees is basically not necessary, my house being located right up the block - any employee that had to drive - and there is only one who currently would - she could park in my driveway if need be . The other employee lives right up the street and he walks to work. So I can' t see parking as being a problem. I 'm interested in the petition for the use. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Yes we' ll read the petition. Well , this cer- tainly doesn' t come under the proper zoning, that ' s for sure the R- 2b. Let me read this : "To : Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca "We, the undersigned, being residents of Fall Creek, urge the Boar of Zoning Appeals to deny a request for a Zoning Variance to William Freund and Beatrice Dennis on the property located at 1023-1025 N. Tioga Street for legal and accounting offices . "The immediate area is already occupied by an Appliance Store , Diner, Insurance Office and Laundromat . Due to the lack of more off-street parking than the above owners have accounted for, (2 spaces) we feel the traffic problem could only become worse. Also the fact remains that we like our-"semi-residential" neighborhood and would like to keep it as such. "Thank you for considering our request to deny the variance. " I iI _ 6 - I "Signed: 11 . Pamela J. Gainey 308 E. Lincoln Street, Ithaca, NY , 2. Leotta Gengo 306 E. Lincoln Street, Ithaca, NY 13. Susie Hatt 304 E. Lincoln Street , Ithaca, NY 4. Debra Marion 305 E. Lincoln Street, Ithaca, NY 5. 011is Huddle 302 E. Lincoln Street , Ithaca, NY" They are all neighbors of each other along - I guess they would be facing you right? MR. FREUND: Are they all the same address? CHAIRMAN WILCOX: 308 , 3061% 304 , 305, 301 . MR. FREUND: Lincoln? CHAIRMAN WILCOX; Lincoln, right . MR. HOLLANDER: It ' s right adjacent to Farrells . MR. FREUND: Yes. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Oh, I see, its kiddie-korner to Farrells. MR. FREUND: Kiddie-korner to Farrells . You know, in regard to the businesses that are there presently and taking up the parking spaces , we've been there a lot longer than any business in that whole area. That house stood - as I said - it was a stagecoach stop, it was a hotel , it' s been a bar room, it' s been a grocery store, it' s been I' Ilan ice cream parlor, it ' s been just about anything and I don' t i; think that corner has ever created a problem for the City of Ithaca . jIt ' s been a spot in that neighborhood where people came and used it . I mean, there area lot of elderly people . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well , we can appreciate the history . . . I± MR. FREUND: You understand what I mean? CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Unfortunately the Zoning Ordinance is pretty clear i about such things as home industries, home businesses at least commercial . . . MR. GAINEY: I would like to speak for all of these people to a , point. They have the same existing problem - their driveways are I` blocked, their driveways are filled with cars who do not have the courtesy to find a sufficient parking space somewheres else . iThey've had the police down there numerous times to tag and tow + vehicles to keep people out of their driveways . At this time they have no space probably a third to a half of the day for any people '' that visit them can park other than in their driveway. People that iI 'i 7 - did sign the petition are all land owners in the area - the surrou - inghouses around the corner are all renters between Farrells and the fire station. The other adjoining property is the gentleman that ( they are speaking of that does their snow removal and cuts their grass and has a garage for his boat . He would not sign the petition. MR. HOLLANDER: Speaking to the apartment problem. As a occupant of Bud's Diner from 6 : 00 in the morning until 7 : 00 I am fully aware of what he is talking about. There are many instances when Bud' s driveway itself is blocked by people coming in. I don' t think that the discourtesy of the people coming to Bud' s Diner should really enter into what we are talking about here from the standpoint of (1) the property itself has off-street parking capabilities for four vehicles as well as being on the Cayuga Street side with the property itself that runs some 35 - 40 feet of building. In theory if we were marking off the street according to who owns what , that building would probably have four spaces on-street or a total of eight available spaces. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, but clearly the Ordinance is made to discourage the spread of commercialism in a neighborhood. It is quite obvious . And if it is granted to one where does it stop? MR. HOLLANDER: Well I think that if we were talking about new busi- ness coming into the area I could perhaps be a little more sympa- thetic. I happen to own property a block down the road. The business is there already - we are talking about moving one block. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well that has no affect . . . MR. HOLLANDER: You know, I don' t think it is a question of bringing in any new traffic to the area that is not already coming there . We are not bringing in tractor trailer loads . . . „ MR. GAINEY: No, but you are expanding your business . And you stated ( that you are expanding your business and there is no knowing where it is going to stop. MR. HOLLANDER: Well its a question basically of, I think I could currently expand within my residence and move my bookkeeper into m living room if I had to without violating the zoning appeal or th zoning variance. If need be, I' ll simply move downtown - I ' d rath r i - 8 - not. I 'm committed to the Fall Creek area . I think both Bill and myself have taken somewhat of a pride in the property that we own. I 've put over $10, 000 alone in my own residence - a good portion o it into the exterior. I think we've both shown concern to maintain i the property so you are not looking at a situation where its wanton neglect. It ' s a question of looking for a quiet use for th property. DR. GREENBERG: In respect to the parking problem, is Mr. Hollander ' s house within the required distance to rent out space if he has more parking space than he currently requires? ( SECRETARY HOARD: Well , his house is in a residential zone . It would not be permitted to rent parking for a commercial use in a t presidential zone. Does that answer your question? DR. GREENBERG: He has a residential occupancy - he could ask the people who reside on Tioga Street to move it - you know, there are wa..y,s to look at it in other ways , so I don't know if you answered i the question. MR. FREUND : Gentlemen, could I say one more thing? CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Sure. MR. FREUND: Ultimately it comes down to , that I just cannot afford to own that building or have that building without being able to rent ,that office space, okay? I can' t sell the building without somebody wanting to move into that office space . I can' t rent it as an apar - i ment because the Zoning Board says that it 's - that I violate the Zoning Ordinance of occupancy - I 'm stymied, I really and truly am and it ' s going to be a severefinancial problem and I think, because we have - I haven' t lived there, obviously - I may look it, since 18209 but it has been commercial for all that time we were the I£irst people on that corner . It is a desperation situation for us . ! It really is . Now it had a doctor' s office there last year. Doctor ' s certainly get more people than I think Mr. Hollander would. ( This is really I mean, for me , I am really in a critical situatio . I don' t know what to do , I mean, it ultimately would mean that Mrs . ( Dennis and I will lose the property. IMR. GAINEY: The doctor didn' t do that much business , that' s why he I ( moved. I. - 9 - MR. FREUND: Well he did a lot of business , because every time I went there , there were a lot of cars there - he and his wife parke cars - sir? I don' t know why you are against me in this particular{ situation, I don' t know who you are fighting for, maybe you are - or what the situation is but you know, every time I ever came into toiAn to check the property or anything there were cars there when he ha his office hours . He didn' t have office hours but a short time ev ry day, or maybe even - I don't know how many times a week. But when he did, he had people there - there were cars , and they were usually there for a rather extended period of time - if there were a pedia a trician, he brought/patient in why - they were on the . . . MS. DE COMBRAY: Could you convert it into a you have two apart- ments now - could you convert it into two larger apartments using the front? MR. FREUND: No , really. SECRETARY HOARD: Let me clear that up . It ' s an R- 2 zone . The property is non-conforming as it sits now. For the appellant to i add a unit, it would require a variance. Almost anything he does would require a variance because the property is non-conforming. MS. DE COMB,RAY: Would he be allowed to do that? Would that be a solution if he asked for a variance to enlarge a unit? MR. FREUND: It ' s not possible because the apartment that is adja- cent to it is already much too large. It has a living room that i 16 x 22 right now if I moved into the other place, I add 15 more ftet in length- to the living room. It' s the only possible thing that y u could do with it. The only option is to have it as a business . The best option thatl have is Andy because of the type of busines he has. I think accounting, a good share of his business I 'm sure is visiting other offices and people ' s homes and so on and so forti. What do you do? I can' t even get . . . i CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well I think we certainly appreciate your posi- tion. Unless there is something else to add, I think we've got the picture. Are there any other questions from the Board? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? i � Would you come forward please and state your name and address . I ;I - 10 - il DOUGLAS DYLLA: My name is Doug Dylla, I live at 109 Auburn Street . i It ' s a few blocks away from the appellant ' s address but I know of the situation there. I am just speaking from my own personal neig - borhood it would seem to me I would much prefer to have a quiet accounting shop in the neighborhood than say an apartment full of students owned by an absentee landlord of which we have several in our neighborhood which are not maintained very well and have at least three or four cars per unit and create much more of a parkin problem and a much. noisier atmosphere than, I would assume, a small quiet business like this would. That' s all I have to say. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Anyone else in favor? Thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in opposition to the application? Any other questions from the Board? Seeing none , we will move on to the next appeal . I i'i I i �I I I� i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1269 : � CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I move that the Board deny the use variance requested in appeal number 1269 . MR. ANGELL: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Professional offices are not a permitted use in R-2b residential district. 2) Neighbors have expressed their wish to have a denial. 3) it would change the character of a residential neighborhood. Some of the problems being: inadequate parking and increased traffic. VOTE: 5 Yes ; 1 No. Use variance denied. If - 12 - !I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 109 1979 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 9- 2- 79 : Appeal of Bishops , ProMart Center, for a vari- ance from Sections 34 .6 and 34. 8 to permit the retention of the existing signs at 430 West State Street. The property is located in a B-2a (business) use district, and the number of signs exceeds the number permitted in the district, and signs are not set back the re- quired distance from the property lines . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, is there someone here to speak on behalf of this application? (MR. PIRKO: My name is Dave Pirko, I live in Dryden. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Dave, would you come forward please? Would you like to state your name and address once more for the record? IMR. PIRKO: Dave Pirko of Dryden, New York. HAIRMAN WILCOX: And you are seeking a variation from the Sign rdinance? R. PIRKO: Oh, you want me to explain it? HAIRMAN WILCOX: Yes. R. PIRKO: Well we now, we presently - we have five signs , we tore ne of them down - we presently have four signs , two on the front of he building, two on the back of the building. One is free standing �nd one is attached to the back and we are seeking to keep all four if these signs - no two of which can be seen from any one place is ne of our main contentions . The other one is the way the buildings ave been put together there is no continuous frontage to it , on thel tate Street side - it runs straight for a ways and then it juts out loser to the sidewalk and we have another section. And then on the back side of the building our driveway is blocked by Carpet Bazaar o people coming down - if we don' t have a free standing sign back here they can' t see our driveway and then there is just one plain sign against the face of the building, identifying the building here. HAIRMAN WILCOX: Do you have any photographs? R. PIRKO: Yes , I have some. R. GAINEY: How many square feet are they over the allotted? (I - 13 - I IMR. PIRKO: We are under, with four signs . IMR. GAINEY: With four signs? � MR. PIRKO: Yes. Secretary HOARD: They will be under the allotted amount - or the permitted amount of square footage . It is just the number of signs and the set back that is the problem. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Is there anything else you want to say? Any questions from the Board? S. DE COMBRAY: You are just asking to retain your present signs , is that it? R. PIRKO: Yes. I do have one question. There is confusion on the n exactly how it is zoned. Are we allowed three or two? We have rontage on two streets . Does that give us an extra - actually we ave frontage on three streets but we don' t want a sign on Corn � 3treet . ECRETARY HOARD: You would be allowed the way it reads , you woul e allowed two signs on one street and one sign on the other . R. PIRKO: Oh, okay, so we are allowed - so we are only asking or one extra, R. GAINEY: Is there anything to deal with the two free standing signs that ' s no problem? R. PIRKO: One of the two signs have been torn down. R. GAINEY: Which one is that? R. PIRKO: The free standing sign on State Street is down. R. GAINEY: On State Street? R. PIRKO: Yes . Seneca is the only one that we want to leave up. R. GAINEY: Have any alternatives been thought of or sought other han just seeking a variance? R. PIRKO: Not really. The Picture was taken before we tore down he free standing sign on the State Street side . HAI'RMAN WILCOX: You can leave these photographs here? R. PIRKO: Sure. HAIRMAN WILCQX: Any other questions? R. GREENBERG: From what I gather, the question hinges on a free �tanding sign on Seneca Street? That ' s the big problem? I i { - 14 - MR. PIRKO : I think the biggest problem is the quantity of signs , iisn' t it? i. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes . IDR. GREENBERG: Well if that were eliminated the free-standing problem and the number of signs would be both taken care of at one time. SECRETARY HOARD: Right - that would be the quickest solution as Ifar as the Zoning goes but I don' t think that is the preferred solution. MR. PIRKO: We would like to keep that free-standing sign out back ' because when we originally opened our rear parking lot, without a free-standing sign, we had a couple of car accidents where people could not see our driveway - coming down Seneca and then slamming n the brakes and trying to turn in. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well then, as far as you are concerned the problem evolves around this large back sign and the free-standing sign in the back? R. PIRKO: Probably the biggest problem is around that free-standing zgn out back -- it is too close to the sidewalk and then beyond that , 11 could takedown any of the other signs and be within the Ordinance �the way I understand it. i R. GAINEY: - You are allowed two on State and one on Seneca? Or oes it matter which way? ECRETARY HOARD; Two on one and one on the other - it doesn' t make uch difference which way as far as the zoning . . . . i HAIRMAN WILCOX: Well if you have the free-standing sign, would yo eed the one on the back of the building? Would you need this one? R. PIRKO: Well , I think it ought to be identified from the back, es. It' s not even a lighted sign, it ' s just letters on the back. R. GAINEY: Do you accomplish anything on the front, Dave, by aving both signs similar? R. PIRKO: If we are denied we are going to take one of those down. R. GAINEY: Could you get by without the sign closest to Corn treet? That' s not over the entrance - it ' s just over an area. R. PIRKO: That' s the one we would probably take down. I! 15 �I MR. GAINEY: You could get by without that one if you had to? MR. PIRKO: It is expensive - it is like a $3,000. sign plus to take it down and then patch in the overhang to take it down - it gets pretty expensive. MR. GAINEY: The two signs in the front are illuminated? Where the one in the back is not? MR. PIRKO: Right. MR. GAINEY Is the one that is out by the road - does that have any lighting? MR. PIRKO: Yes . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Now how would you see this as a hardship situa- tion, just the expense of the sign or - it doesn' t seem that you are sacrificing too much from State Street. MR. PIRKO: It 's a hardship in the expense of taking it down and having a sign that we bought and paid for not being of any use to us but also if you are coming up State Street you can' t tell that it is Bishops , you can' t see a sign, if that sign goes , going east on State. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay. The Ordinance is clear about - okay, is there anything else that you have to say? Any other Questions from the Board? MR. ANGELL: How do you feel about retaining the sign on Seneca Street, the one setting out toward the road - moving it back within the Prescribed distance? MR. PIRKO: We'd lose a parking space by doing that. MR. GAINEY: Is it visible if you move it back? Would it be visible from Seneca Street if you moved it back into the . . . ? MR. PIRKO: You' d have to get closer to it to see it because it would still be hidden partially by Carpet Bazaar. MR. GAINEY: Row tall is that? MR. PIRKO. It ' s about 11 feet. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, are there any other questions? Thanks , Dave. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here who would like to speak in opposition to the application? Any other questions by the Board? We' ll move on to the next appeal . i - 16 - I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 10 , 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 9- 2- 79 : MR. GAINEY: I move that the Board deny the request for a variance for the number of signs in appeal no. 9- 2-79. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I second the motion. FINDING OF FACT: 1 . Hardship is not demonstrated. Appellant has enough latitude in the Ordinance for proper signage because of the property' s location between two main arteries . The variance for number of signs is , I therefore, denied. VOTE: 6 Yes , 0 No . DR. GREENBERG; I move that the Board approve the request for a variance and permit the appellant to keep the Seneca Street sign at its present location. MS. DE COMBRAY: I second the motion. FINDING OF FACT: A potential traffic hazard might result if the sign is set back and if there is a sudden stoppage by cars trying to get into their parking lot on Seneca Street. VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No. I� I - 17 - I) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I� COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal no. 9- 3-79 : Appeal of D & R Liquor for a variance from Section 34 . 5 to permit the retention of the existing sign at 211 Hancock Stree . The existing sign exceeds the size per- mitted in the R-3b (residential) use district in which the property is located MR. BUCKO: Ladies and Gentlemen, I am Benjamin Bucko of Groton - I 'm an attorney and I represent Elisa Rosica and Rose Rosica who own D & R Liquor Store . They obtained the liquor store in June and evidentally the sign that they have on the store exceeds the size of the signs allowed by the Sign Ordinance. We file this appeal and for a variance, actually, on a number of grounds , numbe one, the business has been in operation for 32 years or at least that area - that store has been in operation for 32 years . First i was a grocery store and then there was a distributing store and then since 1965 it has been a liquor store . Dominic Rosica owned it prior to his decease in June . Now, unfortunately when the Zoning Ordinance went into effect, Hancock Street evidentally be- came the dividing line. On one side of the street is the commer- cial and on the south side is the residential . My clients are in the residential section. Across the street , if I may show you pictures is the P & C Market and Bolton's Donut Shop. We have pictures of what you would see across the way - a huge parking lot and a huge P & C sign for the commercial enterprises across the street. Now the only business - the sign that we have, as you will see in the picture is flat up against the building. The building is not changed, it looks like a residential , except that facing on the front of the store. And that is inconspicuous - driving by you wouldn' t even see it. The business that is attracted by the sign is from the P & C or the people that go to P & C and look i across the way. The sign is 28 square feet, yes it is in violatio of the Sign Ordinance but if the zone had moved slightly south it would comply, in fact, it would be way under the commercial sign i - 18 - IIi, allowed of 60 feet. Now it would be - it would produce a hardish p because we do not have an illuminated sign, we don't have a pro- truding sign, this is flat against the wall . The hardship would b I that nobody will see that sign or that business , driving down Hancock Street either east or west. The only place they can see I it from is from the parking lot of the P & C. As far as the hard- ship created - which is unique to the property - on the - each sid there are a couple houses and it has been operated as a business for years - 32 years . The hardship would be that the Zoning Ordinance didn't take that into consideration when they passed the Ordinance- they didn' t take into consideration the boundary lines . As far as the variance is concerned it meets the spirit of the Ordinance because it is inconspicuous , it ' s adjacent and right on the boundary line between a residential and a commercial zone. It is not offensive, it' s the commercial venture which is that big P & C sign across the way - is more offensive than our sign and anybody driving down can see the P & C sign and Bolton' s Donuts where they can' t see ours . As far as the people in the neighborho d I have petitions or statements signed which I would like to present in evidence of everybody but I think two people in the neighborhoo which. approve the sign as is because it is inconspicuous , unobtru- sive and certainly not offensive and certainly complys with the general neighborhood. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Are there any questions from the Board? Any questions? MR. BUCKO: If we don' t have that sign, you put a five foot square foot sign up there, nobody is going to see it that' s going to be detrimental to the business -- that 's a hardship. Yes . MR. AMAN; How large is the sign that is presently in the window? MR. BUCKO: In the window? That's what - Rose? Probably about I� ten inches high it is sort of a neon sign. As you can see even from the pictures it is very inconspicuous - you can't even see it - you can't even read it from the parking lot - you have to drive right up to it to see it. I li II i li II - 19 - I MR. AMAN: Are we concerned with the large sign but not concerned f j with the . . . i� MR. BUCKO: It ' s the large one - in other words , your Sign Ordinan e says just five square feet - you can take a five square foot that' 22 x 22 and it could say D & R Liquor - -nobody would ever notice it. We don't want a neon sign out there saying D $ R Liquor, in fact, our lease prohibits it - the landlord will not have it. Oka , so the attraction is from the customers that go to P $ C looking across and see D $ R Liquor store . Otherwise , driving by on Hancock Street either west - driving west or east - you can' t see that sign. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay then to sum up your presentation, it would be a perfectly okay sign if it were in a commercial neighborhood which is across the street but since this is in a residential neighborhood and it has been there for 32 years , is that correct? MR. BUCKO : Well, that store or that building has been used as a building for business for some . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: For 32 years. MR. GAINEY: How long has it been a liquor store? MR. BUCKO: 165 . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: And it is right on the boundary line? MR. BUCKO: It is right on the boundary line. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: And you feel that it is not objectionable? MR. BUCKO; No. CHAIRMAN WILCOX; Any other questions? Any other questions by the Board? Is there anyone else here who would like to speak in favor of this application? Okay, Mr. Bucko , thank you very much. MR. BUCKO; You are welcome. i CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the application? Okay, if not we will move to the next case . I� i I' s - 20 - ,I I! �i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS !� COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 10 , 1979 �i r EXECUTIVE SESSION I I APPEAL NO. 9-3-79 MR. GAINEY: I move that the Board approve the request for a sign variance in appeal no. 9-3- 79 . MS. DE COMBRAY: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The sign does not face a residential neighborhood. i2) The building has been a commercial store for a long period of time . 3) The variance would not change the character of the neighborhood. 4) The sign is on a building that is on the 1 dividing line between commercial and residential neighborhoods but it faces the commercial section. 5) There have been no complaints from neighbors . VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Abstention Sign variance request approved. I i 1 i it i' i, i 21 - i j BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS �i CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 SECRETARY HOARD. The next appeal to be heard is appeal No. 1270 . Appeal of Cathie Simpson and Doug Dyll for an area variance under Section 30. 25 , Column 12 to permit conversion of the single family dwelling at 109 Auburn Street to a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an R- 2b (residential) use district and is deficient in one re- quired minimum side yard. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Would you please state your name and address again for the record? MR. DYLLA: I 'm Doug Dylla, 109 Auburn Street. Basically, my wife and I have just recently bought this house and it has had very little maintenance over the last 20 - 30 years . It has been a { single family - rented out for the last fifteen. We bought it an intend to renovate it and doing most of the labor ourselves but the material costs are much greater than we had anticipated. In 1 order to help cover the loan for the materials to improve the property, we need to have a rental income and consequently we only want a small one-bedroom apartment. We are not going to change the exterior dimensions of the building . We will eventually be �( � changing the actual look of it , of course, taking off the siding and restoring the clapboard on much of the restoration work that I learned, through working with Neighborhood Housing. We have adequate parking, we have a driveway that extends for 85 feet or so on one side of the house and we intend to occupy the other uni in the house . CHAI'RMAN WILCOX: You are right across from the park? MR. DYLLA; We are on the block beyond the park - we are in the 100 block beyond Yates and Tompkins . The park is between is a block away half a block away. We sent out the letters according to the laws of the variance procedure and we have received some favorable comments one favorable letter which I presented at the Planning Board meeting and in the meantime I received another letter which is- also favorable, which I would like to present to li ii - 22 - i! ; you from another neighbor. Basically that ' s all I have to say i unless you have some specific questions . 1DR. GREENBERG: And the only reason you need the variance is that 3 rl you are deficient two feet? MR. DYLLA: That ' s the specific rule that we' re . . . DR. GREENBERG: This is the only variance you are asking for? MR. DYLLA: Correct. Although I assume that the variance is pri- i marily concerned with the density of the area so this is a way of controlling the density in that neighborhood although many of the i other houses in the neighborhood are already divided into two unit dwellings. MR. GAINEY: Are they allowed two or are they seeking a variance on the second apartment? SECRETARY HOARD: They are only seeking a variance - the property is non-conforming because of the side yard deficiency so they will need an area variance. The use the proposed use is a conforming use. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: To be residential so they just have the side ,f yard requirement. MR. GAINEY: That whole neighborhood is allowed to have two apart- ments? CHAIRMAN WILCOX; I could read this ; "Doug Dylla Cathie Simpson 10.9. Auburn Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Neighbors ; "Thank you for your letter of August 16th. outlining your plans for your new house on Auburn Street. I applaud your efforts to reno- vate your home- in this day of rising costs and inflation it is quite an undertaking! "The proposed apartment sounds reasonable and the fact that you can provide off-street parking is a plus. As a fellow home owner I can appreciate the need for an extra source of income to help you maintain your property in the manner in which you would like. I personally have no objection to the Board waiving the requirement for a 5 ' minimum yard boundary in your case. "You may g resent this letter at our hearing if you so desire. I am sorry that previous commitments prohibit me fom being there in person. 1 j - 23 - 'Good luck and welcome to the neighborhood." Sincerely, �! /s/ Irene Jessen" CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Now where is that in relation to you on this drawing? MR. DYLLA: Yates Street would be a half a block away. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay she is not next door on . . . MR. DYLLA: No. The previous letter I presented to the Planning Board was the neighbor one house away. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, it is deficient in the side yard require- ment but the use is already allowed. Are there any other questions from the Board? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Okay, thank you. The next case? i i it 24 - �I i! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS II CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i' SEPTEMBER 10 , 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1270 : CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal no . 1270 . MR. AMAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) This property is located in a zone which permits use as a two-family dwelling. 2) A two foot deficiency in the side yard is a practical difficulty which makes compliance impossible. However a vari- ance of so small a deficiency observes the spirit of the Ordinance and does not j change the character of the district. VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No . I Area variance granted. �I �i I i I� I 25 - Ij it BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i i SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 i SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1271 : I I Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services , Inc. for an area variance under Section 30. 25 , Column 12 to permit con- struction of a one-family dwelling at 306 South Plain Street. The property is located in an R-2b (residential) use district, and will be deficient in one required minimum side yard if the building is constructed as proposed. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, is there someone here for the appellant? Come forward please . Please state your name and address . MR TESTA: My name is Paul Testa, I represent Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services . We are proposing to build a new house on this lot, in fact BOCES is going to build it for us . The house we are replacing is one that we bought under the Neighborhood Housing Services recycling program. The old house which was beyond Y g P g � Y repair was a three-unit house that was deficient in both side requirements and that was 33 feet wide . And also it had no off- street parking. The project we are proposing meets the side yard requirements on one side and most of the other side and it will only be a one-unit dwelling with two bedrooms , and we will provide off-street parking . MR. GAINEY: Is there an existing structure there now? MR. TESTA: No we tore it down. We tried to repair it but it was beyond repair so we demolished it . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: You state that the narrow lot makes it difficult to meet interior space requirements because of modular construction. We are replacing a three family non-conforming house with a small three bedroom, with off-street parking and which meets the spirit of the code that 's your statement. MR. TESTA: Right. The reason it is hard to meet the space re- quirements of the modular construction is that we want to do a story and one-half house that looks like the other houses on the block so that it looks like it fits in even though it is new con- struction. In a story and one-half house you have to have a ,i I - 26 - i j stairway to the second floor end in the middle of the second floor i! underneath the highest part of the gables - you need the proper pitch to the stairs - it pushes you out either one way or the I other towards the side lot. So on one side of the house we have the required ten feet, in fact we have eleven feet, and only in the back part of the house are we deficient and we have, I think, six feet instead of ten feet. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: How much off-street parking - how many spaces? MR. TESTA: One . I CHAIRMAN WILCOX: One space, okay. MR. TESTA: A normal driveway - ten feet wide and twenty feet long. CHAIRMAN WI'LCOX: Any questions from the Board? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition? If there is nothing else you have to say - are you all set? MR. TESTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, the next case. i 27 - �! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS it CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 fl EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1271 : MR. GAINEY: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1271 . MS. DE COMBRAY: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The appellant is replacing a non-conforming structure with a new structure that con- forms as to use but is only deficient in area. 2) There are practical difficulties in complying with regulations for side yard requirements that may be overlooked without changing the character of the district . 3) This is also considered a reinvestment i the neighborhood. VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No. Area variance granted. I �I 'i 28 - Ij i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 103, 1979 I� SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1272 : Appeal of Philip M. White, Jr. , for an area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 43% 63% 13, 14 and 15 to permit conversion of the residential portion of the building at 433-435 North Cayuga Street from six apartments with sixteen bedrooms to ten apartments with twelve bedrooms. The property is located in a B-2a (business) use district, and is deficient in off- street parking, minimum lot size , minimum side yard, and minimum rear yard. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: State your name and address please . MR. WHITE: I 'm Phil White , Jr. , Applegate Road, Ithaca, New York. I guess the facts in this are as follows . It is now six units - each three bedrooms and it is in fact legal for thirty people. I it isn' t legal now, it ' s way out of compliance. It can be. We have a building permit that will allow us to put it back into the six units with five people in each. We really feel that that' s knot in keeping with the neighborhood. We are proposing ten apart- ments two of those will be two-bedroom apartments , there will be six one-bedroom apartments and there will be two studio or effi- ciency - I 'm not sure how you define those - there has always bee some confusion. My studio has a bedroom and a kitchen and a livi g room that are together, okay? We will provide four parking space and the zoning in that area requires one parking space for each unit up to three bedrooms . This is on a lot that we own by the Texaco Station. My years of experience in this business lead me to believe that five people in an apartment is not really the thing to have in that neighborhood. We are looking for semi- permanent tenant - working people probably. We think they will create less noise, destruction, less commotion, less garbage and I believe , less cars . I think we will have a much more mature tenant. The majority of the buildings in that area, as I see it , are owner/occupied. I think that one or two people in an apart- ment are more that way. The financial aspect of it - I sure can' claim a hardship but if you grant it to me it 'll be more hardship I� i 29 - I it from a financial point of view. We' ll have to put in four more bathrooms and four more bedrooms and four more kitchens . The financial aspect of it is more lucrative to go with it the way that it is. But it is not a smooth runnigg operation in my opinion. I am lazy, I like it to run smooth, I don't like the midnight phone calls . It ' s a lot slower return of investment but at the end of twenty or thirty years I think it will still be standing there . Historically we've done this with some other buildings quite successfully in the city. Questions? MR. GAINEY: What' s the total occupancy that you are proposing? MR. WHITE: The total occupancy would be legally permitted for my i proposal would be twenty people maximum. I� MR. GAINEY: That' s what you are proposing that would be living there, twenty people? MR. WHITE: Yes . Pardon me? MR. GAINEY: Twenty people , right? MR. WHITE: Could be. That ' s the maximum that would be allowed. MR. GAINEY: That' s what you would like to see is twenty people? MR. WHITE: Not really the ultimate in my opinion is twelve people. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Do you have something that you would like to submit? MR. WHITE: I 've got floor plans if they are of any interest to anybody. What it currently is and what we have now. DR. GREENBERG: This building was gutted by fire? MR. WHITE: No. It is being gutted by us now. We are going to completely rehab it. And we ' ll get the outside of it next year - it ' s a real eyesore. MR. GAINEY: What you are proposing is to reduce the number of f people that could be living there? iMR. WHITE: Yes. We are reducing the number of legal occupants by one-third. MR. GAINEY: Could you propose more parking if you had to? MR. WHITE: I could if I had to but I really don' t like the addi- tional expense - the requirements - I don' t know -- New York State i I� I; I i 30 - ii it Thruway - if I could have a variance that would allow me to use I� something other than a hard surface lot that is required by neigh- i borhood parking I could furnish some more parking. MR. GAINEY: You are talking about the lot that was the old North- side Liquor? MR. WHITE: Right. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Where Mickey' s Market is . MR. GAINEY: What is the parking that is required? SECRETARY HOARD: Well for the number of units he is proposing, one for each unit. MS. DE COMBRAY: Where was the parking before? SECRETARY HOARD: There was no parking. MR. WHITE: On the street. SECRETARY HOARD: So if you consider a certain number of those as grandfathered then you are saying that he is supposed to come up with four more spaces because he had ten apartments instead of six apartments because each apartment requires a parking space . MR. GAINEY: He could get by with a minimum of four spaces if he went with the grandfather clause? SECRETARY HOARD: Well , you could look . . . MR. GAINEY: He's got six units which he doesn' t have to provide I any parking for because they are already there, right? SECRETARY HOARD: You could look at it three different ways . You could say, okay by changing it all the grandfather rights go out the window or you could say, we will consider, as far as impact on the neighborhood goes , that by going from six apartments to ten apartments he - under the chart - he could produce four more space or four spaces, or you could go a little further and say, since the number of - since the density is reduced, putting that together wi h the grandfathering - it did not require any. MR. GAINEY. Have there been any complaints? Did you receive any letters on any complaints? MR. WHITE: I received no letters. No phone calls . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: We do have a letter from the alderman: "807 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 ,j - 31 - "Board of Zoning Appeal 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 i' "Re: Philip M. White 433-435 North Cayuga Street "Gentlemen: "I have personally reviewed and inspected Mr. White' s plans for the captioned property. I am familiar with the manner in which Mr. White conducts business on his other rental properties . "In general he is a cut above the normal Ithaca Landlord. All his buildings are in conformance with our applicable codes and ordi- nances. He rents to persons who, in his opinion, will be desir- able tenants . If problems occur Mr. White takes prompt action to see the problems are solved. "Recently council has directed that exceptions be made in existing parking rules to allow desirable changes in existing structures . I believe this is the case with Mr . White and recommend that a variance be granted. "Sincerely yours , /s/ Robert L. Boothroyd "Robert L. Boothroyd Alderman, 5th Ward" CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, any other questions of Mr. White? Is ther anyone else here to speak in favor of this application? Come forward please and state your name and address . RICHARD STEER: My name is Richard Steer, 113 Farm Street - that would be thr ee doors north or three doors east of Mickey' s Market I would like to say that I am in favor with Phil ' s proposal due t the fact that it' should - I feel change the type of occupancy. We've had a lot of trouble down therein previous years with the quality of the tenants and I think by him putting in those four spots these four spots , let me put it that way north of the Texaco Station, it shows his good intentions and I think the space probably would be available if others want to park there , I 'm not sure on that point. At least by making up the difference between the six and the ten I think that we will be having less tenants in there. This should more than cover any problems that might arise. MR. GAI'NEY: Do you own the house at 113? MR. STEER: Yes. And I would also - I have a letter here from David Cornelius who owns the property at 109 Farm Street two doors up. Would you like me to read it? CHAIRMAN WILCOX, Yes , sure, you can read it. i I� 32 - I "Board of Zoning Appeals City of Ithaca - City Hall Ithaca, New York 14850 "Gentlemen: �! "As a close neighbor of the property Phil White is requesting a variance on (corner of Cayuga & Farm Streets) commonly known as Mickey' s Market , I would like to state that I am in favor of Phil increasing the number of apartments from six to ten providing that he makes four paved parking spaces available on the vacant lot where the old Northside was torn down. I am in favor of his intention to rent to working people rather than to students and I feel that there would probably be less cars with ten apartments filled with working people rather than six apartmentsfilled with students. I also think it would be quieter. "Sincerely, /s/ David H. Cornelius 11109 Farm Street Ithaca, New York 14850" CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, any other questions from the Board? Anyon else like to speak in favor? Anyone opposed who would like to speak? Any other discussion? MS. DE COMBRAY: What about how can you only rent to non--students? MR. GAINEY: Very selective. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I don't think it is a law of the Board of Zoning I Appeals . If there are no other questions we will go to the next case. - 33 - i! i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i, ` SEPTEMBER 10 , 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1272 : MS. DE COMBRAY: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1272 with the condition that the appellant provide six (6) parking spaces within 500 feet of the premises . I MR. GAINEY: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The proposal will reduce density in the area. 2) The appellant has made provision for off- street parking. 3) According to the appellant, maximum occupancy is not to exceed twenty (20) people which will help the limited parking k situation and the character of the neigh- borhood. I VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No. Area variance granted. i 1 iI - 34 - 1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal Mr. Chairman is appeal no . 1273, the appeal of Tom & Pauline Jones for a use variance was postponed the Planning Board asked that that be held over to a future meeting. They are going to try to resolve some of the problems before it comes to the Board of Zoning Appeals . TERESA MACERA: I couldn' t hear you. SECRETARY HOARD: The Planning Board recommended that it be held over until they can meet with the City Engineer and the property owner. TERESA MACERA: Is there a date set for the next meeting? SECRETARY HOARD; Well it will be the next Planning Board meeting which would be the last Tuesday in October. MR. GAINEY: September. SECRETARY HOARD; September, pardon me. It would be the last Tuesday in September . TERESA MACERA: The last Tuesday in September? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes . TERESA MACERA: ,And this will be a Planning Board meeting? SECRETARY HOARD: The Planning Board - well you better check with the Planning Board on that because they are the ones that are going to try to arrange this meeting with the property owner and the city engineer about what could be done with the property. TERESA MACERA And until then there will not be another zoning meeting? SECRETARY HOARD: Right. Okay, then the next appeal is number 1274 : Appeal of Gary J. , Angela M. , and Dale J. Loomis for an area v ariance under Section 30. 25 , Columns 11 , 12 and 15 to permit conversion of the barn at the rear of the property at 312 Second Street to a dwelling unit. The property is located in an R-3b (residnetial) use district, and is deficient in the re- quired front, side and rear yard set backs. A similar appeal was denied by the Board at its July 2 , 1979 meeting; the appellants have submitted a new appeal with new information. 35 - ii CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, is there someone here representing the appellant? Would you come forward please? State your name and i address. MR. LOOMIS : My name is Gary Loomis , I live at 3100 N. Triphammer Road. My wife and myself and my brother own the property at 312 Second Street. I ' d like to read some material from a prepared text that I did read at the Planning and Development meeting last week. The approval we are seeking is for a single dwelling at f312 Second Street in the barn located at the rear of the property. The reason for the variance is the barn does not meet requirements of area variance under section 30. 25 , columns 11 , 12 and 14 , which requires minimum front yard, side yard and rear yard. This is the second time here to appeal the variance , at the first appeal appearance, the variance was denied because of the followin , as recorded July 2 , 1979 : 1) to grant the variance in this case would cause an adverse effect on the neighborhood; 2) the neighbor - hood is already congested; 3) the building in question is very close to the property, line on both sides in the rear and 4) the granting of this variance will not increase , according to the appellants, the present number of occupants but it might, at any time in the future., bring about an increase in the number of occupants - these things I ' ll elaborate on a little bit later . Several things have changed since July 2 , 1979 because pictorial evidence was- presented by opponents of the appeal to the Board of Appeals it appeared I am sure to have too many vehicles parked in the rear of 312 Second Street, we have removed all automobiles not licensed in New York State . The remaining automobiles are license and owned by only those people residing on 312 Second Street . Thai leaves four automobiles owned by the owners at 312 Second Street, i I, making available unrestricted off-street parking for three to four more automobiles That leaves accessibility of the automobiles by leither the right hand or left hand side of the driveway. The property at 312 Second Street is located in a R- 3b district, which interpreted means under city of Ithaca zoning laws able to have three dwellings located on the property. The addition of the bar I !i - 36 - i into a dwelling would increase the total bedroom count from 4 to li f S . AFter checking with city hall it was found that with the total ii available space in the main dwelling units at 312 Second Street , �I we could legally under Ithaca' s laws rent up to nine people based on a total of 563 square feet. We had agreed at the Planning and Development meeting of June 26 , 1979 to limit the number of resi- dents to a total of six and to have one of the owners living on the property. Since May of 1973 we have had 5 to 6 individual people II renting from us from time to time. Some opponents to our appeal number 1264 at the June 26 Planning and Development meeting also had voiced their opinions at the same time on appeal number 1262 giving reasons that it too would cause over crowding and increase traffic. Appeal number 1264 and number 1262 both are in a R-3b district and both were defined as deficient in yard space . It is somewhat disturbing to me to find at the zoning board meeting of July 2 , 1979 that the board members were confident enough to uphol appeal number 1262 yet deny appeal number 1264 , both of which were defined as deficient in yard space and both equal under laws set forth by the zoning boards. I might note that the appeal number 1262 had a marginal parking facility yet the property at 312 Secon Street has more than ample off-street parking but appeal number 1262 at 19.7 First Street was passed unanimously at the time. The decision by the board of appeals on July 2 , 1979 appears at this time to be both discriminatory and inconsistant with the events of the night of July 2 , 1979. Because we feel that developing the barn into a single family dwelling would pose no character change and would help to increase the property income which would in turn help to make additional improvements , also increasing the tax base we would appreciate that the board of zoning appeals reconsider the appeal . All considerations and help from neighborhood home improvement agencies would be more than welcome. It should be not d that at the county building assessment department, that according to a 1973 property- value report, that the property at 312 Se-cond Street was as quoted "Compared to the neighborhood houses ; superio " The traffic rating on Second Street is to be considered "Light . " I i) �j 37 - i Since 1973 we have owned 312 Second Street and have made numerous Ii (i repairs and expenditures, to what we considered a house in need of repairs . It is noted in tax assessment records that 312 Second i jj Street is one of the highest taxed properties in the area. We I� �I have been consistent with maintenance over the years repairing such items as new sidewalk and driveway entrance, the placement of three truckloads of crushed stone for the dirt and mud driveway, the addition of new electrical and breaker service to the house and new electrical service to the barn. Also the removal of several large I� dead trees from in back of the barn at time of purchase. At this 1 time I would like to make a notation that the decisions at the Board at the last meeting - of the four decisions that were stated - true that the building in question is very close to the property line on both sides in the rear. As far as the neighbor- hood is already congested that according to the county building assessment department the traffic rating on Second Street is to b considered light and to grant the variance in this case would cau e an adverse effect on the neighborhood and I 've yet to find out what an adverse effect means . At this time I would like to simpl state that we've a - I think at the last Board of Appeals - I thi k some of the people on the Board might have been under some miscon- ception exactly what we were doing and I 'm ;n.ot sure - we are trying to make this thing as clean and neat as possible. Obviously the reason is to try to clean up the property, The barn is basically just a vacant barn and has absolutely not much use other than it is going to sit there and go to waste if something is not done to it It would help to move my brother _ my brother is going to be movi g out to the barn and that will help to provide a tenant for upstai s and we can increase some of the income of the property and put some money back into the property and kind of clean the place up a little bit more than it is . MR. GAINEY; How many people are you proposing to live in the barn? MR. LOOMIS: Six. That would be my brother and his wife and then there would be one - possibly two people upstairs . Right now, one person is what we have and we do have two people renting down ii 38 I I stairs right now, so - at the very moment it would be five - I would say six would be maximum. { MR. GAINEY: I mean just in the barn itself. MR. LOOMIS: Two. MR. GAINEY: Two people? MR. LOOMIS: Yes , that is all it is designed for it is only a single bedroom. MR. GAINEY: And then the other would be . . . MR. LOOMIS: We aren' t changing anything in the house. The only thing that we would be doing in the house is the paint job and that ' s it - you know - because it needs a paint job . We were ! hoping we could get it done this year but because of this - there was no way we could get it done this year - it won' t be until next year. MR. GAINEY You have two apartments in the house? MR. LOOMIS: Yes . It has always been two apartments . There has been six people living in that house since 1973. Because my self, my wife and my child live downstairs and my brother and his wife and he has always had a tenant - a student - either a student or somebody that might have been working at National Cash Register which is where he works . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: My recollection - somebody spoke in opposition to that, it was a woman I believe. MR. LOOMIS: Yes'. Yes there was . And she had - I might add - her husband is here tonight - that's Al, if Al would like to speak I . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX; Alright, is there someone else who would like to come up and speak in favor of this , please come forward. MR. WILKINSON: My name is Allen Wilkinson, I 'm husband of the lady who was here and opposed it at the last meeting. My question is , what is n how many units are allowed under R-3b zoning? SECRETARY HOARD Under R-3 - the R-3 zoning allows multiple dwellings . So there can be any number of dwellings depending upon the property size and the parking available. MR. WILKINSON: Okay, so the limit is- only in terms of space. i' i I 39 - 1 SECRETARY HOARD: Right. I' CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Yes sir, would you like to give your name and address? E EASY GILSANDER: I live at 315 Second street, Ithaca. I 'm just here to speak on behalf of Mr. Loomis and the brothers. I live i right across the street and I haven' t seen any reason at all that this shouldn' t be , you know, because they've improved the property, you know, and I don' t see anything that they, you know, that would cause it not to go through, you know. As far as my concern, you know, because they really have improved the property I� since they have been there . . . I was there when they moved there - I 1 I you know, across the street. MR. GAINEY: You don't see any problem? MR. GILSANDER: I don' t see any problem with it at all sir . I practically own two houses there, I own 315 and 309 . So . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: You say you are across the street or next door? jMR. GILSANDER: Across the street. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: If my recollection is correct there is a narrow ( driveway? I MR. GILSANDER: At my place? CHAIRMAN WILCOX: No . MR. GILSANDER: Mr. Loomis ' ? CHAIRMAN WILCOX Yes . MR, GILSANDER: Oh, they have a full driveway - they put stone in there but it is nice. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Let' s see are they wide enough? MR. GILSANDER: Well its - it hasn't been widened but it is a big driveway in the beginning. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay. Any questions? MR. GAINEY: How big is the barn? MR. LOOMI'S: About 20 x 32 , I think, something like that. MR. GAINEY: What 's the house? MR. LOOMIS; Excuse me? MR. GAINEY: What' s the size of the house roughly? MR. LOOMIS: Oh, boy. MR. GAINEY: Just a rough idea. ,j - 40 - I ii MR. LOOMIS: The size of the house is roughly I would say about - il Dale? Excuse me, do you know approximately? It must be about 22 r II foot wide by 40 - 45 feet long. It ' s the largest house on Second i Street. It 's the longest house on Second Street, that I know, because I could see by the map when I reviewed it. SECRETARY HOARD: The house is 990 square feet and the barn is 675 square feet, if that helps . DR. GREENBERG: I would like to point out to you that if my memory is correct the comparison you made between the First Street vari- ance and the variance that you requested was such that the First IStreet house was going to be divided into two apartments reducing the density and in your case you were going to - in any case - increase density. MR. LOOMIS: No he was adding an apartment upstairs . DR. GREENBERG: Alright but not enlarging the living premises - actually reducing the bedrooms. MR. LOOMIS: Yes, but the problem was that he lacked deficiencies in yard space . And then there was a problem with parking that you were concerned with. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Would you like to step up to the podium please? Thank you very much DR. GREENBERG: The question there really is we didn' t say anything about the parking problem, we did say something about increasing the density of residences in the area but I think you misinterpreted; one, where you made the comparison which wasn't exactly our action which wasn' t related to yours in any case . . . MR. LOOMIS: I didn' t - I felt it was somewhat . . . DR. GREENBERG: There was no inconsistency in the Board' s action, that is all I 'm pointing out. MR. LOOMIS : I see. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well is there some significantly new information i that anybody sees? MR. LOOMIS: In terms of? i CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well, any other plans for the property? Is it still about the same plan as before? �I I i! I - 41 - MR. LOOMIS: Close to it, yes . We are interested in cleaning the „ property up and taking care of the situation down there that' s going to continue to go as it . r MR. GAINEY: There wasn' t any objections filed or anything? You haven' t received any letters or anything? , SECRETARY HOARD: No. MS. DE COMBRAY: I just want to ask about the parking . MR. LOOMIS: Sure. MS. DE COMBRAY: You have four automobiles between the . . . MR. LOOMIS: The owners of the property, excluding myself, have four automobiles, correct. MS. DE COMBRAY: And then there is going to be room for three or more to park? MR. LOOMIS: There is room for four easily. MS. DE COMBRAY: So there is quite a bit of space around. MR. LOOMIS: Oh, yes, there is no - there has never been any need for any on-street parking for our for 312 Second Street ever . And we've had up to nine autos you can park nine automobiles - nine to ten automobiles without preventing anyone from getting in or out. In an emergency all cars could drive out without any re- striction because the driveway easily clears two automobiles . i It' s a very large driveway - it always has been. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Are there any other questions from the Board? Is there anything else you wish to say? MR. LOOMIS: Not at this time, I don 't think, CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Please come forward. DALE LOOMIS: My name is Dale Loomis and I reside at 312 Second Street and I would be the prospective lime-in land owner at that residence. Cassie and myself plan to live in the back because we assume or we feel that this is a time for a change in our life - we ' d like to upgrade our lifestyle a bit and build an apartment which is quite nice in the rear of the building. Also keeping in �I mind the energy cost of the future, we 've insulated it quite well . �i Something else that we've been concerned with is getting proper I i! ii !I I 42 'i i` tenants for the apartment. If we were unable to live or continue living at 312 Second Street, and had no place to expand to then i we would have to move out - we would be absentee landlords . This is something that I do not want to have to hassle with. Absentee landlords it seems run into more of a problem with tenants that they can't really monitor well . I ' d like to be able to rent to those tenants that I am Quite sure about. I ' d like to have as little happen to our house as possible. As a result we have two of our tenants here today. One of them is our prospective tenant, the other one, the girl Vicki, is a present tenant living down- stairs . I guess that is pretty much all I have to say. I have one more comment to make. When we did buy the property initially we looked into the zoning laws and we found out that it was an R- 3b district . We looked at the garage which, at that time was considered in our mind to be a liability and the house which was an asset - something we could live in to save some money and be able to do some work on the barn later when we had money and the time to be able to take care of it. When we started making this appeal we then found out that even though the barn had stood for at least 70 years - since before zoning came about in Ithaca that it was in variance so what we are trying to do now is make up for that variance in space by making the exterior of the building look as original as possible. We wouldn' t be increasing the traffic in that area in as much as we have had that many drivers in the past in the area and we would try to make the area look as ,normal as it has looked. The garage sets behind the house and is not di- rectly visible unless you actually look for it as you are driving by and that comment also goes the same for the cars that are parked at the rear of the house . It is a relatively hidden drive way and I guess that' s it , sir. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, would you like to just summarize once more what your new information is to make this different from the first appeal? MR. DALE LOOMIS: The new information is we did not realize that hardship would be or could be a legal method of asking for a ii i 43 - variance. This is our prime reason. I intend to stay in the area if allowed to stay down there. And I guess part of the reason we are reinstating this is because we really weren' t sure what the i Planning Board or what the Zoning Board wanted. And as I stated before, our whole desire is to try to do what we can do to satisfy the laws and also satisfy our desire to live in Ithaca - also increasing the tax base. We heard the news recently that there was a fervent wish by someone in the city government to be able to increase the amount of income in city revenues - increasing tax bases in neighborhoods where variances are slight and don' t cause a great burden on the neighborhood, I imagine would be one way to do that . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Any other questions from the Board? MR. ANGELL: Does the area between the house and the barn - is that all gravel or stone or what? MR. LOOMIS: It is primarily gravel . MR. ANGELL: No green area whatsoever on the lot? MR. LOOMIS: Yes - that is not what you asked sir. The area in front of the house is green and has been. Those small land strips that are between the sidewalk and the street area. There is an anchor fence running the length of the house between Al's property and our property and that land area has a strip of green grass growing on it. When we first moved into the home it was pretty pot-hole ridden, it was pretty old land. The house , in the past, had been used as a livery stable and the coal in the area had been kind of shoved into the ground and it was virtually untillable for almost any reason. We brought in crushed stone just to keep the settling, the dirt and the garbage - to get it settled down. We had to do that - it was either two or three separate years because the gravel itself slowly pounded in. So we didn' t increase any parking space for our own specific intention i because we really haven' t changed any of the layout of the land so to speak. We have simply added gravel there because the ground �i was - if you wear shoes with cleets in them and walk upstairs into your house once that is all it takes to say no more dirt, we are i I� - 44 - 1 I i going to have gravel and that is what that was put in for. I� CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Any other questions? Is there anybody else in favor? Is there anyone who would like to speak who is opposed to the application? i MR. WILKINSON: I would like to speak but you will have to classif where my position is from your own prospective . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Please state your name and address again. MR. WILKINSON: Allen Wilkinson, 310 Second Street - it' s the property just south of 312. My wife was here for the July meeting iand spoke she had some pictures and stuff, I assume they are probably part of the record. Its - perhaps the fundamental con- cern is - well I guess one of the key things I have to keep in I mind is that it' s R-3b so it's basically a multiple family piece of property to begin with. And from an individual home owner, single family type dwelling perspective , that ' s a negative. Now we would prefer to have single families throughout the neighborhoo �I at least in close proximity to ourselves . But that 's not the case so we have to live with what is . What the improvements that Dale and Gary can do and will do in the future, I guess I can't picture them to know for sure whether they are going to be positive or negative. I CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well areyou right next door? MR. WILKINSON: Yes , right next to it . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: South, north? MR. WILKINSON: South. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: South. MR. WILKINSON: It' s the property that bounds on the southside. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Do you have small children? MR, WILKINSON: Yes , we have two small children. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Are there many small children in the neighborhood? MR. WILKINSON; Yes, quite a few, across the street there is . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX; I think that was the concern of your wife, if IITI not mistaken. MR. WILKINSON: Yes , I think from our perspective, like I was sayi g. I CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I think we pictured a lot of cars in this drive- lway going l way and now they maintain that essential) it is g to be a sin le II - 45 - �I dwelling unit in the barn and with the house, they do conform to use, it is a matter of area . . . I just wanted to refresh my own i memory so I ' ll be sure of it. I MR. WILKINSON: I guess their life style is that they tend to have a fair number of vehicles anyway - most people have one , maybe Itwo - but I guess you were saying that there are four there now - 1 as yours? Four vehicles as yours? MR. LOOMIS: Yes and one of them is an MGM. (unintelligible) The comment I wanted to add was very short and curt. The anchor fencing that I spoke of as separating the driveway from the land is the anchor fencing that either Al or we own by deed - I have no idea whose it is , it doesn' t really matter but that fencing I effectively seals off Al ' s yard so that there is no danger of any I� II impatronage from our property onto his . It ' s a very sharply I delineated line and it is a regular commercial anchor fence so the yard that Al has is enclosed except on the south side , right? On our side it has been enclosed but on the other side I think it is more open. MR. WILKINSON: Yes it' s open because it ' s just grass - the whole I! back yard is grass. MR. GAINEY: Let' s get back to basics . What seems to be your objection? Do you have any objections to this other than the I increased density? MR. WILKINSON: As I say, you'd have to define where my position is . MR. GAINEY: Well , you are the one that ' s here do you runt to are you against or for? Now let' s get it clear. MR. WI;LKINSON: I would have to say on the negative side because I 'm worried about the future and what is the property - does it �I make the property more conducive to families or less conducive to families? The property is already less conducive to families - you know the question is whether the future changes will make it II more or less and I'm . . . jI CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well , okay, but we are really not concerned with �I use so much. Whether you arehappy with an abandoned barn or i i� - 46 - lk Ii whether you are happy with a barn that is fixed up with apartment 1 in it, is not . . . �j MR. WILKINSON: Okay. The only thing the zoning provision allows us due to the geographic - or the space restrictions is that i !� that' s a way for us to indirectly impose some restraints and the question is whether I - we want to impose those restraints . I guess I tend to be on the negative side purely because I think it can, in the long run, impose restraints on the number of people and the style of living there . The feelings that I have - that Dale and Gary are really trying to develop or make the property more economic for themselves - I think there is a very dominate economic motivation more than a beautification, improvement moti- vation. That ' s my opinion, but that ' s not you know where that falls the truth is somewhere ' s . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well we appreciate your position. DR. GREENBERG: Could I say something? The Board took its positio on the question of the density of the population, not cars but 1 population in the area. I think the question that we have to ask this person do you think the area is congested with people? MR. WILKINSON; In terms of the number of people? Yes . DR. GREENBERG: That was our decision and I think that that is what you are asking. You really think that the number of people there, the number . . . MR. WILKINSON: The present number of people you know, I am talking about the neighborhood in general . DR. GREENBERG: Yes, I'm talking about the neighborhood your neighborhood right - in that area. That' s the big . . . MR. WILKINSON: Yes , in terms of people, the area presently is congested. DR. GREENBERG: ,And therefore putting another residence which can i house up to five people? No CHAIRMAN WILCOX: No , it is a single . , . it 's a one unit . . . How many people can occupy, that? SECRETARY HQARD: It ' s hard to tell without knowing how they are I going to develop i t. We don't know how many. . . J1 I ii 47 - I !! MR. WILKINSON: He talked about it being a one bedroom. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: A one bedroom? That ' s right . MR. LOOMIS: (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Anything you are going to put in the record you will have to come forward. MR. GAINEY: I 've got a question come on back up. Do you have a proposed layout of what you plan to do with the barn? MR. DALE LOOMIS : The barn itself is extremely self restrictive i its own internal design. It only has the room basically for three separate areas - separated by a central stairway as you walk up the stairs . Down the stairs is kind of a hobby shop, a work shop, a place to work in the winter time . The upstairs and loft area would be the living area. There is no conceivable designed way that I think we could ever make it into a two bedroom apartment as our design pretty much dictates , the open loft will have just enough room to house, comfortably, two people and a closet . The downstairs consists of a kitchen, bath at one end where all the plumbing will be located at the north end of the building one-third of the room will be a general workshop and entrance area of the stairs . With regard to the additional number of people living there; two would be about the absolute maximum that the building itself would alio . It just would be too uncomfortable . With regard to my comment from the back which was not on the record, any change that would have to be made in the apartment to allow three people to live I there, would enforce a new appeal to the Planning Board and further consideration by the Zoning Board so as a result you would be able to effectively restrict the number of people living in this garage. May I also stress that past history has had the sam number of people living in that residence since before Al ' s time . It ' s unfortunate that we haven' t made any major external improve- ments in the home since he has lived in the area which has been 21-g years . Most of the changes that we 've made occurred in my brother ' s downstairs apartment the kitchen was completely I remodeled and updated, the living room was changed somewhat to reflect a newer design and more conventional today design of the I� 1( �j 48 building. The upstairs is yet to be done - part of it is com- I! pleted, part of it is not - that is expected to continue with tenants living there. One of the tenants himself wants to do it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Is there anything else you wish to say? Any other Questions by the Board? Is there anyone else here who would like to speak in opposition? VICKI ZETLER: May I speak in favor? CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Sure. Anyone who would like to speak in favor come up. Would you state your name and address? VICKI ZETLER: I 'm Vicki Zetler, I live in the downstairs - 312 Second Street and I just want to say that the - what they are going i to do by moving back into the barn would only be a positive move , I think. The money the things that they have done to our apart- ment -, we've only been there a couple of months so far - have been plumbing, the kitchen is brand new - I mean, anything that we need at all . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Do you have cars - do you have automobiles? MS. ZETLER: We have three cars, there' s two of us and there have been - I ' ve seen up to ten cars in the lot and I have been able to get my car out and either of the other two cars out. We are moving one of the cars off the lot as of this fall . It ' s going to be housed in a garage and we never have any problem. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: There is how many people in the house presently? MS. ZETLER: In our apartment? CHAIRMAN WILCOX: In the house , do you know? MS . ZETLER: The whole . . . ? CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Yes. MS. ZETLER: In the two apartments? There is four of us . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: - There are four people? MS. ZETLER: I live with another woman, and we don' t plan on having anyone else in the apartment. We have two bedrooms. MS. DE COMBRAY: How come there are so many cars? MS. ZETLER: How come there are so many cars? I own a car and my roommate owns two cars she has a classic MG - that type of thing. i i - 49 - I 1 I if i� I don' t know why they have so many cars - that 's their business . ii j CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay. Any other questions? We have spaces for i �I eight and apparently sometimes there are ten. Okay. �I MS . ZETLER: Not ten living there but there have been ten and I could get my car in and out. MR. GARY LOOMIS: I might add . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: You've got to come forward, sorry. Okay, thank you very much. This will be some new information, now? MR. GARY LOOMIS: This is new information. MR. GAINEY: Cut is short, alright? MR. GARY LOOMIS: When I moved from 312 Second Street to 3100 Triphammer Road, I took my five automobiles with me . Thank you. SECRETARY HOARD: All at once? MR. GARY LOOMIS : All at once. Okay? CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I 'm not sure I got the point , I mean, you have l five automobiles? MR. GARY LOOMIS : No , I own five automobiles. I own classics . Okay? My brother collects classic automobiles, I colr-e,ct classic i automobiles, alright? We have one that my wife drives on a regu- lar basis , I have a cadillac that I drive on a regular basis , I own a 1961 Lincoln Continental , four-door convertible and a 1965 Corvette and I just sold my 1956 Chevrolet four-door. CHAIRMAN WI'LCOX: But you don' t run a repair service there behind the barn? MR. GARY LOOMIS : No I don' t. I 'm just handy that ' s all . Thank. you. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Alright. Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or opposition? Any other questions from the Board? Is that the last case Mr. Secretary? i I i� 1� I - so - �j BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS j CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 10 , 1979 �! EXECUTIVE SESSION I� s APPEAL NO. 1274 : i CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I move that the area variance in appeal number 1274 be granted. MS . DE COMBRAY: I second the motion. FINDING OF FACT: The intended use of the property falls I� within the R-3b use, and although the physical area of the property in question is still a problem because of potential congestion, the owners have agreed to limit the occupancy to mitigate this problem with. the following conditions : 1) That the barn will be a one-bedroom apartme t maximum. 2) That the total number of residents be re- stricted to six (6) for the entire property as per the appellant's own statement of June 26 , 1979 at the Ithaca Planning Board hearing. 3) That one of the owners be included in the restricted number of residents residing at this property. VOTE: S Yes ; 1 No. Area variance granted. I i f f i i i (' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS �F COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS !i CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i� SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 i SECRETARY HOARD: We have appeal number 9-1-79 : Appeal of Ithaca Business Systems/Cycl Supply for a variance from Sections 34 . 5 and 34. 9 of the Sign Ordinance to permit the placement of signs at the corner o Fourthand Hancock Streets indicating businesses located at 310 Fourth Street . i The propertyis located in an R-3b (residential) use district, in which such signs are not permitted. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Please state your name and address . MR. JAYNE: My name is Dick Jayne, I own Ithaca Business Systems and Cycle Supply. MR. GAINEY: What are you proposing, a new sign or to keep it in existence? MR. JAYNE: Well, both signs actually exist except one is on the Ithaca Housing Authority property and the other is on Giordano'% property, the larger of the two. This one (pointing to picture) is on the Ithaca Housing Authority which definitely has to come down because that comes under the classification of a billboard, which at that time I didn' t know. And this is what I propose to put up but at the meeting last week they said, well , you know, we 'd probably go along with signs providing this one conforms to the five square feet like this one here does (pointing) which is okay. This is what I was asking for but mainly what I am asking for is to have a sign there on the corner so that people can find me . That one piece of Fourth Street is a dead end plus the fact that it is not even a thru street across Hancock. It' s cut off by the Housing Authority there. It 's very difficult to find. There is no stop sign there, there is a stop sign at Third Street but there is no stop sign at Fourth Street. Up until two months ago there was not even a street sign identifying the street and it is very difficult for customers to find this . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay. MR. GAINEY; Did you receive any objections from anyone .when you proposed this ? i' I i - 52 - 1 '! MR. JAYNE: Well only on the size of the other one but . �i MR. GAINEY: It will be a double face sign? So you can see it i! from both ways? MR. JAYNE : Yes . Those are just plywood the way they are built now so it could be the same on both sides. DR. GREENBERG: Why did you select the location that was so concealed from all traffic? MR. JAYNE : It' s the only thing I could find at the time. The rent was cheap, we are a new business . It ' s really been a good location as far as the amount of room we have and what we are I j paying for rent and it is just that it - the business has grown considerably in the last couple of years and its time for a move j) we are going to be moving eventually as soon as we find something new but in the meantime I 've got to have a sign. People just cannot find their way around in that part of town. It ' s very difficult. MR. GAINEY: No questions. CHAIRMAN KLCOX: Any other questions? If not, then thank you very much.. Anyone else like to speak in favor of this applica- tion? (none) Anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (none) iThat is the end of the cases then. The Board will go into execu- tive session. At the end of our deliberations it will be a public i meeting again for anyone that would like to wait until we are finished. We thank you very much for coming and we are going into executive session. I i I i l I! I' f I - 53 - if !f t BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS ( CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK I 1 SEPTEMBER 10 , 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 9-1-79 MR. GAINEY: I move that the Board deny the sign variance requested in appeal number 9-1-79 . DR. GREENBERG: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) This sign is in an R-3b residential use district in which such signs are not permitted. i 2) Undue hardship is not demonstrated to the extent that the Zoning Ordinance should be over-turned in this case . VOTE : 4 Yes ; 2 No . Sign variance request denied. - 54 - 1 I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals it i! numbered 9- 1-79 , 9- 2- 79 , 9-3-79 , 1269 , 1270 , 1271 , 1272 , 1273 and 1274 on September 10 , 1979 at City Hall , City of Ithaca, New York that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals City of Ithaca and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara C. Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this 1, day of 0 og j� , 1979 �. � etay Public _ TOSEPFI A. RUNDLE Notary Public, State of New York No. 55-4507134 Qualified in Tompkins CountK Term Expires March 30, 19ZJ !I I