The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-BZA-1979-10-01 f BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK I� OCTOBER 1 , 1979 TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ITHACA, NEW YORK - OCTOBER 1, 1979 Page APPEAL NO. 10-1- 79 James R. Rider 1 518 Stewart Avenue APPEAL NO. 10-1- 79 Executive Session 6 APPEAL NO. 10- 2-79 Holleys 7 119 E. State Street APPEAL NO. 10- 2- 79 Executive Session 9 APPEAL NO. 10- 3-79 Ithaca Business Systems/Cycle Supply i 310 Fourth Street WITHDRAWN APPEAL NO. 1273 Tom & Pauline Jones 159-165 Crescent Place POSTPONED APPEAL NO. 1275 Melvin &- Linda Robinson 10 719 W. Court Street APPEAL NO. 1275 Executive Session 12 APPEAL NO. 1276 E. Kenneth James 13 142 Pearsall Place APPEAL NO. 1276 Executive Session 22 APPEAL NO. 1277 Broome Developmental Services 23 618-620 N. Aurora Street APPEAL NO. 1277 Executive Session 27 APPEAL N0, 1278 Ridley Printing 28 317 Taughannock Blvd. APPEAL NO. 1278 Executive Session 30 APPEAL NO. 1279 Thomas L. & Judith Jackson 31 109-111 Utica Street APPEAL NO. 1279 Executive Session 33 APPEAL NO. 1280 Eugene W. Lewis 34 208 S. Geneva Street APPEAL NO. 1280 Executive Session 38 ii IIBOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 it `{ October 1 , 1979 r ; APPEAL NO. 1281 Robert & Mary Lou Holdsworth 39 6 Cornell Walk APPEAL NO. 1281 Executive Session 41 I APPEAL NO. 1282 Rita M. Bangs 42 209 West Green Street APPEAL NO. 1282 Executive Session 43 I IIAPPEAL NO. 1283 Tioga $ Buffalo Building Corp. 44 202 E. Buffalo Street APPEAL NO. 1283 Executive Session s0 iAPPEAL NO. 1284 Richard J. Genest 51 308 Stewart Avenue iAPPEAL NO. 1284 Executive Session 56 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 57 I I I `f I i ,i it I I� I. I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK li OCTOBER 1 , 1979 IICHAIRMAN WILCOX: Present at tonight ' s meeting are four Board Members : Professor Alfred Aman Ms . Natalie DeCombray Mr. Morris Angell Mr . William Wilcox Mr. Thomas Hoard, Secy to the Board and Building Commissioner Mrs . Barbara Ruane , Recording Secretary Absent: Dr. Martin Greenberg Mr . Joseph. Gainey, he Board operates under the provisions of the City Charter and th Zoning Ordinances of the City of Ithaca. Although we don' t stick o real strict rules of evidence and legal ease, we try to find nough supporting evidence so that we can sustain our decision. I ould also like to say that we have a big agenda tonight and I ope the people will keep their presentations brief because we have bout fifteen cases, I believe. Let me also say that the Board onsists of six members ; there are only four members here tonight. t will require all four votes in favor for an applicant to receive favorable ruling so if there is anyone that would like to with raw under those circumstances you may do so. The Board will hold public meeting first, will ask applicants to come up, please give heir name and address, anyone else who is going to speak on the ase, please give your name and address when you come forward to he microphone . The way we run it is that we will have people come p who would like to speak in favor of the application, and when that is finished we will have people that would like to speak in pposition to the application. In all cases please give your name nd address . We do have a tape recorder up here which is required nd we do have to hear you, so you do have to come to the podium. he first appeal Mr. Secretary? ECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal , Mr. Chairman, is appeal number 0-1 -79: Appeal of James R. Rider for sign variance under Sections 34. 4B, 34. 5 , 34 . 6 and 34. 9 of the Sign Ordinance to permit the retention of he existing sign at 518 Stewart Avenue. This �I property is located in an R-3a (residential) ! use district, in which such signs are not per- mitted. I� i i f -2- CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, is there someone here to speak in favor of this application? Would you come forward please? JAMES RIDER: My name is James Rider and my wife and I own the Hill- side Tourist Inn at 518 Stewart Avenue. Either my wife or my daughter are there at all times. In 1960 we bought the Hillside. There were about two dozen or more Tourist Homes - now we are the last of the mom and pop tourist homes . There is one - another one down - Elmshade, downtown and the city fathers wonder why all the business is moving out of town to Lansing or wherever. When some- body from out of town wants to come to stay overnight they just cal their local Howard Johnsons or something like that but we are - we have nothing but our sign. My main sign is the lighted one - I don' t care too much about the other ones . We could take out our little sign and put up a litt le postage stamp would really hurt u because that is all we've got is our sign to help us stay in busi- ness . Howard Johnson - wouldn' t make much difference because they would just get somebody from out of town - and they've got their name and they go from town to town, more or less . We are not like a drug store we are local in town, we have to have a sign that the local drug store and grocery store people know that they are there but we have people come from out of town. Our business comes from out of town. I mean, I 'm not knocking big chains or motels or any- thing but - the mom and pop thing - we are the last one - more or less the last one left and when you stay at a Howard Johnson or . something like that - and I 'm not knocking them - but the big money goes back to the - Chicago or wherever - they don' t even buy thing here - they ship everything in. Everything is right here for us . So I don' t care too much about the big sign on the wall the little one is my bread and butter thing - to keep things going - the lighted one . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Because the two signs together is quite a lot of square footage. MR. RIDER: Yes, I realize that . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: But that one is the most important one, okay? i1 l - 3- 'i iMR. RIDER: And I 'm really not asking you to give anything, I 'm Ijust asking you to let me keep something that I 've got. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, is there any question from the Board? Is lthere anything else that you would like to say? MR. RIDER: No. Well this sign has been here since - it' s been a tourist home since 1946 the lighted sign has been there since 1947. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Oh it has , okay. I didn' t realize that. Is ther anybody who wants to see a picture? I think - weren' t there also some letters? 1MR. RIDER: Yes, there were quite a few of them there. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: We won' t read them all but there is - okay, they all are in support of the sign. I don' t have any further questions anybody else? Okay, thank you. R. RIDER: Thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support? R. JAMES R. ORCUTT: I'm Dr, Names R. Orcutt - I formerly resided t 518 Stewart Avenue, from 1946 to 1960 . I find the necessity of aving a zoning variance in order to maintain the sign at the illside Inn very disturbing, especially for a business that has een in operation for 33 years. I strongly feel the removal of the xisting Hillside Inn sign will violate the intended purpose of the ty Code. First, preservation of the neighborhood. What is neigh orhood? To the immediate west is the' City Cemetery to the east , cross the street are Cornell fraternities and parking lots . North Df the Hillside Inn are student rooming houses , Cornell West campus ormitories and fraternities . To the south are more student roomin ouses , apartment houses, a bridge over Cascadilla Creek, more stu- ent rooming houses , the Chapter House which is a bar, a laundro- � at and an underground press . Furthermore, Beta Chi Fraternity, located at 519 Stewart Avenue has a sign measuring 50 x 38 inches 'n front.. On the building is a very large sign depicting the insig is r crest of the frat house. Also there is a large flag that projects rom the building proudly displaying the ax. At 526 Stewart Avenue I i -4- ithe Algonquin Lodge, from the Algonquin Lodge hangs a sign measur- ing 32 x 22 inches. Diagonally across the street , corner of Edge- r !; moore Lane and Stewart Avenue , stands the sign of the Chi Phi, �i measuring 46 x 54 inches . But what is truly - what truly stands I out in the neighborhood? Is it the Hillside Inn sign with its 42 54 inch measurements? No. It' s the 40 inch grass across the ( street on the land once occupied by Delta Tau Delta and Chi Phi ' fraternities , now turned into vacated unkempt land and parking lots . I II urge you to take a look and determine for yourselves - what i' truly is the eyesore in this college community? Secondly, to create a more attractive economic business climate - over 650 of the tourist ( business is generated by its signs. This is a transient community - , most people who are here today will not be in the area three to four i years from now. Thus there is a constant need to generate new i business and clientele. Simply put, remove the public display sig of any hotel, motel or tourist home and it will cease to operate for to be seen is to be known. Not to be known is to die . It is indeed somewhat ironic that one in a free society has to pay $10 . 0 in order to spend two long nights at City Planning & Development and Board of Zoning Appeals meetings while members of these respec- tive boards decide your business destiny. Especially after spending � $15, 000 . pendi g $15, 000 . recently in order to bring the building into compliance with the City safety and fire codes. Of course , this is only after Mr. Rider, the owner of the Hillside Inn, had contacted all of his neighbors within 200 feet of his property. Incidentally it is not worthy that not one person has appeared at these meetings stating any displeasure with the Hillside signs . Point of fact : four neighbors have written letters stating that they feed that the signs should stay. Surely the removal of th-e Hillside signs will result in the collapse` of Ithaca's last ma and pa organizations - one of , Ithaca' s last ma and pa organizations but it will enhance the mult ' - ( national corporate giants such as Howard Johnsons, Holiday Inn, ( Sheraton Inn, Cornell University, none of which are in the City of Ithaca. Ladies and gentlemen, literally, the future of Jim and ( Lois Rider' s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are upon you jtonight. Please, I urge you to ponder your decision carefully, Thank you. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would ' like to speak in favor of this application? Is there an I p pP one here Y who would like to speak in opposition to the application? Any jother questions from the Board? If not we will move to the next case. SECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Chairman, I 'd like to state for the record that the four letters in support - one was from Mr. Jason Fane who owns property at 528 Stewart Avenue , Mrs . Eloise T. Hadlock, 512 Stewart Avenue , Leo Babcock, 516 Stewart Avenue and George D. Patte , Iand he is the owner-resident of 508 Stewart Avenue. Those were all in favor. I CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, thank you. I� I I �I I i �I I I� i i l -6- I� i iBOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK l l OCTOBER 1 , 1979 f� EXECUTIVE SESSION , APPEAL NO. 10-1- 79 : i CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I move that the Board grant the variance requested in appeal 10-1-79 for the illuminated post sign only. ALFRED AMAN: I second the motion. ( FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The sign is thirty (30) years old. 2) The Board emphasizes that it is one of two Tourist Homes left within the city limits and therefore is already a non- comforming use . 3) Hardship has been demonstrated by the appellant because of the tourist home nature of the business as opposed to i motels chains or apartment houses . VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent. Sign variance granted for the illumin- ated post sign only. l l r i�l I' l I i' i3 - 7- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK OCTOBER 19 1979 it 'M SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 10- 2-79 : �I Appeal of Holley' s for a sign variance under Section 34. 6 of the Sign Ordinance to permit the retention of the existing sign at 119 E. State Street . The prop erty is located in a B-3 (business) use district . The sign has been approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission as a historic sign. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, is there somebody here for this application? Please come forward? STUART LEWIS: My name is Stuart Lewis , address is 120 E. State Street and I am representing Ruth Lewis , my wife, who is the co- owner of this property and retail store, and myself. I know you ( have a heavy agenda so I ' ll make my remarks quite brief. Basically Ithe Holley' s store, as you know, has been established in Ithaca fo + quite some time. It was, more or less, considered a - one of the main pillars in the downtown community in terms of design - the manner in which the architect designed it in the era of 1930 - 194( . jlAnd when Ruth and I obtained this property in 1978 it was her idea ( and determination to try to restore Holley' s, not only fashion and retail-wise to what it once was , but to also , as far as the physic 1 presence of the building and the interior of the store. So basically what we diad do was to do nothing in terms of structural change but i rather just cosmetically change the interior with the use of paint and wallpapers and other materials . Here is a photo of the original Holley' s store front as it was when it first opened in 1940 and, today if you walkover, you will find that we have restored it back to this exact same situation, using the plants up above and the same motif down below. As a matter of fact even the window displays - we are using the same affect as was used then because we sort of feel tha it was - the windows were designed in what we call a stark arrange - ment as opposed to taking a window display and filling them up wit more merchandise which we do in the other stores that we are in- volved in. And the inside of the store - the foyer is also being i I f �i -8- I� ikept - this is just a photo of the interior of the foyer. The �Ioriginal bulkhead and window display which also were pretty much !!' kept as they were before. Also there are some other shots of the inside of the store and stairway and other things like that. Personally, I am quite involved with the downtown as most of you who do know me, know. Involved in the Mall Steering Committee and also as active in the formation of the CDAT committee - Common Design and Advisory Team for the restoration of the existing build- ings in the downtown and was quite active in - basically in formu- lating this new sign ordinance for the downtown area back some few years ago when Mike Robinson was - spear heading - also chairman of this committee. That' s about all the remarks I have - if there are any questions I would be very glad to entertain them. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Are there any other questions from the Board? (.SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE) : What are you asking for? MR. LEWIS: Well , what I am asking for is this is a . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Sir, if you would like to speak on the issue , you' ll have to come forward, give your name and address. Would you wait just a moment though? Is there anything else that you would like to add? MR. LEWIS: No , can I answer the question, Mr. Wilcox? CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Yes. MR. LEWIS: Very simply, this is just a formality that - I went before the Landmarks Preservation Commission two weeks ago and the approved the use of the sign. This particular sign - because of its size is not in compliance with the new sign ordinance - it' s designated as a historic sign because of the era in which it was produced and the type of material that was used and thus the Land- marks Preservation Committee approved the sign but , in order to formalize it, I or my wife had to come before this Board to sanc- tion its approval formally - that is why I am here tonight. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Yes the Board, the sign has been okay by the ' Historic Preservation people, Any other questions? Okay. Than you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of thi application? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition i to the application? If there are no other questions , we' ll go on. i 'i -9- 1 !k BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS j. CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i OCTOBER 1 , 1979 I� EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 10-2-79 : CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I move that the Board grant the sign I variance requested in appeal no. 10-2-79 . MS. DE COMBRAY: I second the motion. FINDING OF FACT: 1) Holley' s sign qualifies as a historic sign according to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and is only deficient in meeting the area criteria of the Code. VOTE : 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent . fSign variance request granted. i I I' i f i _10- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK OCTOBER 1 , 1979 n SECRETARY HOARD: The next case Mr . Chairman, is appeal number 10- 3- 79 , the appeal of Ithaca Business/Cycle Supply was withdrawn i by the applicalt . He found a solution that complys with the Sign �I Ordinance. Also appeal number 1273 - appeal of Tom & Pauline Jone for a use variance for the parking area on 159-165 Crescent Place has been held over at the request of the Planning Board and that , would not appear before this Board until the November Meeting. Th next case is appeal number 1275 : Appeal of Melvin and Linda Robinson for an area variance under Chapter 35 (swimming pool regulations) , Section 35 .4 (required side yard) to permit installation of an in-ground swimming pool at 719 W. Court Street. The prop- erty is located in an I-1 (Industrial) use district and the pool would not have the side yards required for swim- ming pools . CHAIRMAN N WILCOX: Is there someone here representing this case? Come forward please? MR. ROBINSON: My name is Melvin Robinson and I am the owner of the property at 719 W. Court Street. My father owned that property an we 've had that property in our possession now about thirty-five years so we are long residents of the neighborhood. I have a deep lot but it is not quite wide enough for a pool . One thing I would like to do , I would really like to express to this committee that my family and I and the neighbors are well safety conscious and we are here to assure you that all safety rules and fencing, the code , etc. and whatever else we can do will be abided by. Just to help you a little bit, I have a - just short and simple some statemen s from my two next door neighbors and a small picture of the land, It is kind of dark but you can see how far it goes back. There is on I' small tree - that will be removed that will be removed a little back furtherin the and y a little ways for us. , CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Can you leave these with us? MR. ROBINSON: Yes. i I -11- CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Would you like me to read these now? Alright. 1 "To Board of Zoning Appeals : �i "We have no objections to Melvin and Linda Robinson installing an in-ground swimming pool in their back yard next to our property. " Signed /Mr. & Mrs . Ceasar Cappucci 721 W. Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850" "Board of Zoning Appeals: I i "I have no objection to Melvin and Linda Robinson installing an Ilin-ground swimming pool in their back yard next to my property. Signed /Leland Knuppenburg Owner of 717 W. Court Street Ithaca, New York" Are there any other questions by the Board? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (none) Is there anyone in opposition? (none) If not, we' ll go on to the E �Inext case. i i i! i -12- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i! OCTOBER 1 , 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION , APPEAL NO. 1275 : Mr. Aman: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal no . 1275. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The proposed swimming pool meets all requirements except side yard require- ments . i 2) There has been no objection from I� neighbors. 3) The set back requirements would preclude building the pool at all, thus practical difficulties are established. VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent. Area variance granted. i i I I i i i i i i' 13 - �I I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS yi CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK I j' OCTOBER 1, 1979 i� , SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1276 : Appeal of E. Kenneth James for an area i variance under Section 30. 25, Column 6 I to permit use of the property located at 142 Pearsall Place as a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an R-lb (residential) use district and is deficient in required lot size for j two-family dwelling. I CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, is there someone here representing this case? I ELIZABETH YANOFF My name is Elizabeth Yanoff and my address is the DeWitt Building, Ithaca and I represent Mr. James , tonight. I 1974 , Mr. & Mrs. James purchased this two-family house at 142 Pear- sall Place. At that time the Zoning Ordinance required 6 ,000 square i feet for a two-family house . This plot is 6, 600 square feet and t e i IJameses used that house from the time they bought it in July of 1974 and still continue to use it as a two-family house . From 174 to 178 their two children lived downstairs and they rented the up- stairs part of the house to another set of people. I have tonight leases, actually, from 74, 75 , and 76 indicating that they did, in fact , use this as a two family house In 1977 when the Zoning Ordi- �nance changed the required 7 , 500 square feet for a two-family house, the Jameses should have filed with the Building Commissioner a claim had they known that the actual property use on record at the Building I Commissioner' s office did not indicate that this was a two-family house. Well , the Jameses were 'unaware of the change in the zoning flaw and were also unaware of the fact that the records on file in the Building Commissioner' s office did not indicate, in fact , that it was being used as a two-family house, as it was . So that was ,I not done. The same section of the Zoning Ordinance , 30 . 47 indicates that any property owner who fails to file a claim within the ninety I days filing period after the zoning changed, may also file with the Board of Zoning Appeals following the provisions of 30 . 58 of the ;Article. So we are here tonight - it is not clear to me from the �I �I i II - 14 - i Zoning Ordinance whether one is simply here to file with the Board ,iof Zoning Appeals the proper information which, had the Jameses I ( known the Building Commissioner didn' t have, they would have filed within ninety days of the change in the law. Or whether we are i actually here asking for a variance as the application seems to state. Because our position would be that , if in fact, it was a two-family house before the 1977 change in the area requirements , it would be a depravation of property to deny the Jameses the right now to continue to use it as a two-family house. I have those leases if you would like to see them. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Yes , we will take a look at thein. IMS . YANOFF: They didn' t have a written lease with their children but that indicates that those are for the upstairs apartment in the house. ( CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, do you want to summarize once more what you are trying to establish with these? MS. YANOFF What I am trying to establish is that the Jameses have used this house at 142 Pearsall Place as a two-family dwelling since 1974 . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well , okay, are you aware of some opposition, namely letters and petitions? MS. YANOFF: I'm aware of a lot of opposition, yes. But I do want to state that it is our position that if it has been used prior to the change as a two-family house that it would be depravation to the Jameses to deny them the right to continue to use it after the change in the law. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Are there any questions by the Board? MS. DE COMBRAY: I have one question. I didn't get a chance to go I up and see the house. I was wondering about the parking space . I there any way that you could enlarge the parking space to accommodate two cars- MS. YANOFF : There is room on the lot I assume it would be r I don' t know what the expense would be - there would be some expense because you would have to build up the terrain, it' s you would have to make it flat where it is- now a slight slope from the stree . i I! 15 - �i MS. DE COMBRAY: Is that one of the complaints - off-street parkin ? MS. YANOFF: Apparently yes , it is . i, CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Yes , it is an area variance - side yard. 'IMS. YANOFF: I think that enlarging that parking space may involve fItaking a tree down, too, if my memory is correct. In addition to Ithoses leases I would like to offer for the Board' s review a tax i assessor ' s field review dated June of 1977 , indicating that they i; have it on their records and had it on their records just prior to j that as a two-family dwelling. As I indicated, the Jameses had no !! written lease with their son and daughter who were downstairs so ( those leases refer to the upstairs apartment but since I representEd Tim James , their son, at the time, I know he lived there and I hav i letters from Mrs. James to that effect. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, there are only family members there now? MS. YANOFF: No , now it is rented to two individuals are renting the downstairs and two other individuals are renting the upstairs . Their son and daughter don' t live there anymore. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Are there any other questions from the Board? SECRETARY HOARD: There is one thing - I notice on the plot plan t at you submitted that the side yards for the property are 14 ' 7" and I11217" . In 1974 - the Zoning Ordinance in 1974 - the requirement f r a two-family dwelling was 15 ' each side yard so it would not confo m to the 174 Ordinance for a two-family dwelling. MS. YANgFF: Those are my measurements rather than a surveyors . They may be as much as two feet off. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, any questions by the Board? Well , before I read these, is there anyone else who would like to speak in favo of this application? In favor? Would you come forward please? HAROLD EMERY: My name is Harold Emery, 134 Pearsall Place. The ! recent distances between the house and the property line as far as being for a two-family house, I don' t think are germaine simply ! because the Jameses bought the house as a one-family house and tha ` is what it was and I think therefore there is no problem and that is in favor of the motion because tonight I think you are trying to try and make it a two-family house while the previous speaker was i 16 - trying to say it was a two-family house from the beginning. It �I �Iwas not and, therefore, I think the property lines were proper for J is one-family house in the beginning. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Alright, is there anyone else in favor? You can stay up here if you want to speak in opposition. Anybody in opposi- tion now? Save you some mileage. MR. EMERY: I 'm still Harold Emery of 134 Pearsall Place. I think j' there are two points to be made. One is that since essentially the house was one--family house when purchased and as such, I was ac- quainted with the previous owner, and indeed there were two people hiving in that house that were non-,related but they made very great care in maintaining that they had a common kitchen and they ate their meals together even though upstairs and downstairs lived relatively separately they did indeed share meals and as such. they kept in keeping with the one-family house designation and they happened to be friends so that was perfectly alright. The other point I wish to make is that you may have rented to two particular people in the upstairs and the downstairs but to the best of my knowledge there are now six people resident in that house and I think all six have automobiles. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Yes , come forward please. MR. HOLMAN: My name is James Holman and I live across the street at 141 Pearsall Place. I have a petition which essentially reads that the house should not be changed to a two-family dwelling and for the following reasons: that the lot size isn' t large enough, the house lacks sufficient parking, conversion to a two-family unit would certainly heave detrimental uses as far as the other one-family dwellings are concerned and such a conversion to a two-family dwell- ing is not _ or does not carry out the spirit of the Zoning Ordi- mance and in one brief evening I managed to get the thirty-four people to sign. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, now we have a copy of that. Is there any- thing else you would like to state at this time? MR. HOLMAN: Yes , there are a couple of other points which I would f i� I I 17 - I I dike to make. One is when the house was initially purchased by the , James I question whether it was used at that time as a two-family dwelling. The boys and the girls the boys lived upstairs , I be- Ilieve, and the girls lived downstairs . So the way in which the zoning read then, I believe, that made it a one-family dwelling since the upstairs and downstairs was related. As far as the Jame not being informed that the Zoning Ordinance was about to be passed , that the Zoning Ordinance would have impact on theirro erty, I P P can assure the attorney that they were personally informed by thei alderman a number of times . We have had many discussions with the �IJames , some just this summer when it was just rented to a single i family. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Would you mind naming the alderman for the record? MR. HOLMAN: Yes , Elva Holman. i I CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Thank you. MR. HOLMAN; And Tim, who seemed to be the renting agent at that time , assured us that the property was in the process of being soldl and even pointed out a gentleman who was going to be the agent for the sale. And so this whole business of reorganizing the property into a two-family dwelling was much a surprise to us as we had sort of went along with the - or we had been informed about the property all along. To turn it into a two -family dwelling now is a larger (problem one of parking. Parking - if you tried to put another parking space on the lot right now, I think you would probably hav el to come back for another variance. You'd be using up a rather large ; portion of the front yard because the hillside there drops off i `1rather sharply _: something around Ithink the fill must be 4 to 6 � feetnow for the single parking place that is there . The number o people in the property right now was mentioned at two up and two I down. If that is true then, unfortunately for the neighborhood, they are driving six cars . I guess that is all I have to say. Th ely have certainly had a great impact on th.e neighborhood in terms of I Parking they have blocked the drive so people couldn' t get to work Nn the morning, during the snow. It has essentially been a rather (, trying experience for the entire neighborhood. Thank you. i, it I 18 - �I I E CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, before you leave any questions from the Board.? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Come forward please? MR. DANIEL: I 'm Cletus Daniel here speaking on behalf of my wife, Helen and myself. We live at 129 Pearsall Place. I ' ll be very I brief. I ' d like to address this question on a somewhat different plane than Jim Holman addressed it. There seems to be a question here confronting the Zoning Board is a simple one but a fundamen- tal one, so far as the well-being and viability of our neighborhood is concerned. I hope you understand that the term "two---family house" given current occupancy of the house is a euphemism - we are talking about student housing. We believe that our neighborhood cannot re- main viable if this appeal is granted and this becomes permanent student housing. We think there are enough neighborhoods in decline � in Ithaca already without adding our neighborhood to the list of deteriorating neighborhoods and we are adamently and unequivocally opposed to the granting of this appeal . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Any questions from the Board? Thank you. Is there lanyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Is there any (other discussion? Well, there are several . . . ,i l'MRS. HOLMAN: Elva Holman, 141 Pearsall Place and I am the alderman for the second ward in which this house is located. I also happen to live directly across the street as I think previous evidence has shown. Prior to th-e amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of approxi- mately two-one/half years ago, now I believe, I did, as my husband previously indicated, inform the James through Tim, who was at the time I believe, their agent , that the zoning amendments were going to affect that piece of property for which_ an application as a two-family dwelling had never been made . He told meat that time that it would be no problem because they were going to sell the property and we would not have to think about it any more either as la neighborhood or as a representative of the second ward. Going o ! that assumption and believing that he understood that if he wished I to continue the non--conforming use that he would have to make appli- cation. The conversations were Inot continued at that point because i f - 19 - i� i; I believe that he had been informed I still believe that. I would make three points - you must find that there is hardship involved and I would point out that other one-family houses in that neighborhood have sold readily and at fair market value. There i are two pieces of property that have changed hands within the i last year, as one-family dwellings. Secondly, you must be able to demonstrate or the appellant must be able to demonstrate that this property is unique - this property is no different from any other property in that neighborhood It is a one-family dwelling on the same size lot as other properties in the neighborhood which , again I repeat, have sold, and thirdly, the appellant must prove that a variance is in keeping with the spirit of the Zoning Ordi- nance. The area i,s zoned R-1. It is intended by law to be a one- family neighborhood. One family neighborhoods have their place in this city we have agreed as a community that they do. I would urge you to consider those three conditions which you must, by law, do and think about what the neighbors have said. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Thank you, Anyone else like to speak on this case? Well , since it is somewhat controversial I think we should read some of these letters into the record. We 've had a petition submitted that was signed by some thirty-four people, I believe. There is also a letter: "We are writing this letter for the pur- pose of registering our complete and unequiv�ocable opposition to the granting of a variance which would permit E. Kenneth and Lila James to maintain the property they own at 142 Pearsall Place as a j two-family dwelling, The granting of such a variance would only serve to exacerbate parking, traffic and other problems on Pearsall Place as well as to threaten the well-being and viability of our neighborhood as a place devoted to single-family dwellings. We hope and trust that when you weigh- the narrow private advantage which the petitioner might gain from such a variance against the positive harm it would visit upon the entire neighborhood, you will act to deny the James petition. Sincerely, Cletus Daniel and Helen Daniel , 129 Pearsall Place,' Another letter: "Weare writing j� in response to a letter we received from Attorney Elizabeth Bixler 'I I � 20 i j Yanof, authorized agent for Mr. & Mrs . Names, owners of 142 i Pearsall Place, in regards to their request for a variance of their property from a single family to a two family dwelling. "Due to a prior commitment we will be unable to attend the zonin I' jappeals meeting on October lst. "Our home, 138 Pearsall Place , is adjacent to 142 on the west . We purchased in this neighborhood because of the single family ° structure of the neighborhood. We most strenously object to the granting of any variance that would change this structure . We i believe granting of this variance would open up the neighborhood I to a street filled with multi-dwellings. i "Another objection is the street parking. Pearsall Place is a I narrow dead-end street and parking is at a premium. During the i winter and the snow is piled on the ground there is less space. I� 142 has one off-street parking space . During the last few years there have been four to six students Living at 142 Pearsall Place with four to six autos to be parked on the street. This has been a very difficult situation to live with, "We request this variance be denied. Sincerely, Is/ Orville & Aurora Curtis Orville & Aurora Curtis 138 Pearsall Place Ithaca, New York 14850" CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Is there any other discussion now that I have read those? Would anybod)r like to speak? Yes. i SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE: (.unintelligible) 1 CHAIRMAN WILCOX Can you do that up . . . , ? No , but if you want a I figure given for the record, you have to get on the tape recorder. If you would like to come up and say that there is so many people - we would be glad to do it r we would be glad to have it in the record come up. Just give your name and address , just state th t there are X number of people here that are in opposition or in favor and we would be glad to put that in the record. MRS. RALPH BONNETT: I am Mrs . Ralph Bonnett, Doris Bonnett, my li husband Ralph is back there. We are opposed to this variance i i ° i -21- i I! also. I don' t want to read it because it is just repetition of j what has already been said. ii CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Did you sign the petition as well? MRS . BONNETT: Yes . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay. If there are people here in opposition that signed the petition, I don' t think it is necessary for you t come forward unless you have some new evidence - some new facts . Ms. Yanoff would you like any reply or any . . . ? MS. YANOFF: All I would like to say is that I 'd like to try to take out of the discussion whether or not the house was used befo e the Jameses bought it as a two-family dwelling because I think that may just serve to confuse the issue and so we go on the - we would submit that the James used it - at least we are positive the Jameses I) used it from July 74 , when they purchased it, from that time for- ward as a two-family dwelling. 0 CHAIRMAN WI'LCOX: Okay. I MS. DE COMBRAY: I have a question. When was the upstairs kitchen put in? MS . YANOFF: When the Jameses bought it in 1974 there was a kitch n upstairs and what was called the kitchenette downstairs and they have not changed either of those. i MS. DE COMBRAY: And the bathrooms as well? MS. YANOFF: The bathrooms were both there when they bought it, yes . CHAIRMAN WILCOX; Thank you. Okay, if there is no other discus- sion on this case we will move to the next case. I� I 1 I -22- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK �I j OCTOBER 1 , 1979 I j! EXECUTIVE SESSION ` APPEAL NO. 1276 : MS. DE COMBRAY: I move that the Board deny the area I variance requested in appeal 1276. MR. AMAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Appellant' s contention that the property qualified as a two -family dwelling doe not stand up as the law would have bee interpreted. i 2) The Board feels that the character of �i the neighborhood would be adversely affected by increased density as there is a severe off-street parking problem an other problems associated with a dead end street. 3) There was also entered into the record I considerable testimony by neighbors against granting the variance because of the problems that have resulted fro the property� s use. VOTE: 4 Yes O No ; 2 Absent. Area variance denied.. �Ii i I I I� fl it - 23- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS II COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK I� OCTOBER 1 , 1979 i SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal 1277 : Appeal of Broome Developmental Services for an area variance under Section 30. 26-B to permit a group care home at 618-620 N. Aurora Street. The property is located in an R-2b (residential) use district and is deficient in both side yard requirements . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Is there someone here for this case? Come forward �lplease? MR. O'NEIL: My name is Larry O 'Neil , 502 Utica Street. I represent jBroome Developmental Services. Broome Developmental Services re- quest is to initiate and operate a community residence for ten (mentally retarded individuals at 618-620 N. Aurora Street. We have had a study done by the architectural firm of O'Brien $ Taube and the house is essentially in compliance and can easily accommodate ten residents with. the exception of the side yard variance. The jimportance of the side yard variance to Broome Developmental Services lis that our in order to meet the need for community housing for developmentally disabled individuals , both individuals who live in the community and are in need, for one reason or another, of alter- native communi.tyh.ousing or for persons who are coming back from i institutional settings into the community, it is important that we establish increasing numbers of community residences and from a £easiUility standpoint, it' s best - studies have shown that it is best to operate these residences in the neighborhood of eight to twelve i:ndivi,duals , Our plan is to operate it for ten individuals i abut to maintain an ongoing census of approximately eight individual with the other two beds being used primarily for a community based respite care and let me define what I mean by that because it is important to us and that is, in addition to the ongoing housing for I �Ithe individuals for whom the home is primarily intended, Respite 11 11care is short term emergency care provided to individuals in the jcommunty during periods of - I said emergency and I` don't mean that I li i! i - 24- I li planned or emergency care provided to individuals for short period i of time, usually anywhere from a week - well anywhere from a day t �i Ia month - and without the ability to have the two additional beds , it would be impossible for us to offer the respite care service as � a part of the community residence . So essentially we are trying t I stay in compliance with the Ordinance and the spirit of the Ordi- nance by maintaining a residence primarily with an ongoing census of ten individuals. But we would like to have the flexibility to provide this planned respite care which is an important service to ! families with disabled adults , in the community. T think the other - I well T will answer questions I guess. CHAIRMAN WI'LCOX: Well now do you mean eight adults -- eight clients there and also the two staff and yourself? That would be ten, ! eleven actually? MR. O'NEIL: At any time - first of all there would be no resident ( staff. The staff that will work there the ten individuals that are assigned to the residence will all be shift staff - they will do their shift and go home. We would have provisions to house them under an emergency condition - snow conditions or something like �Ithat but there is no plan for anyone other than the ten residents ito live on the property. But in fact, yes there could be any given time twelve individuals - thirteen individuals. . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: But you say that you can't function with less than ten, it won' t be feasible or you are going to try to function with less than ten? MR. O'NETL We would have to function with less than ten if the variance were not granted, however, our plan is to maintain - to ! operate it for ten individuals but to try to maintain an ongoing census of approximately e.igfit individuals with the other two beds being available primarily, for respite care . There would be situa- tions - probably would be situations where we would increase to the ninth- or the tenth. resident for a period of time but our plan would be to essentially operate for most periods of time with eight resi- dents with the other two beds for respite care. R. ANGELL : Is the Broome Developmental Service is� that a state if I - 25- service. . . ? MR. O'NEIL : Yes. ii MR. ANGELL: Or is that a private service? MR. O'NEIL: No. We are part of the New York State office of menta retardation and developmental disabilities which is Broome Develop- mental Services - covers a six county region with Binghamton as its f jhub . We operate a full time office here in Ithaca with a staff of lten individuals or nine individuals right now. We are located up (at Terrace Hill so we are available in addition to the staff of the residence. A resident manager plus eight therapy aides plus a cler' - cal person to provide ongoing support to the house. We have a nurse , social workers and myself, as the Director of the Office , an others to provide full time support to the home so there is local support for this operation within Ithaca. It is not as though jlsupervision or anything like that would come out of Binghamton. It I would all. . . . SMR. ANGELL: Well the name of it kind of threw me. iMR. O'NEIL : We changed I don't know if you have a copy of our I letter - to avoid confusion at onetime, we changed our local name to Developmental Disability Services which doesn' t imply anything other than what we do . But for legal purposes I have to - the applicant is Broome Developmental Services. �R. ANGELL: It is a state agency? R. O'NEIL: Yes state �CHAI'RMAN WILCOX: Okay. Do you operate any unusual transportation equipment or buses or . . . ? R. O'NEIL ; We will have a vehicle stationed at the residence for the use of the residents but . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: There is plenty of parking there? I ra . O'NEIL: Yes there is ample parking for anything that we would ve. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I guess it ' s just an area variance. Any other uestions from the Board? S. DE COMBRAY: Yes, I'm confused over the respite care . If you have - these two people will be coming from when you said the I �I -26- , community, you mean in our community or . . . . ? i MR. O'NEIL: Yes . Respite care is a service that has evolved over the years as a means of supporting families who care for disabled ` adults - children too but in our case we would only house adults . People are - we are encouraging families who wish to care for a disabled adult , to keep the person at home if they so desire and - one of the things that respite care enables a family to do - is avoid the syndrome of isolation that so often occurs when you have a disabled person at home - you feel trapped - you can' t go any place and we have a number of programs -- homemaker services which go into the home and then the respite care service, which is available if the - let' s say the family wanted to take a vacation for two weeks and for some reason and for some reason the disabled adult could not go along, we would care for the individual during that period of time , ( maintain them in the programs like Challenge , Meadow House, etc . that they would go to but give the family a chance to maintain as normal an existence as possible. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Is there any other discussion? � We' ll go to the next case please. i !I I� -27- I i I! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK OCTOBER 1, 1979 I� i EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1277: MS. DE COMBRAY: I move that the Board grant the variance requested in appeal number 1277. I � MR. AMAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Use as a residential care facility has already been established with approxi- mately fourteen people residing there previously. it 2) Parking is adequate for the use intended. 3) This would not affect the character of the neighborhood. 4) Eight residents are proposed with a maximum of ten.. The additional people being respite. VOTE: 4 Yes; 0 No ; 2 Absent Area variance granted. I i i I �I i Ii ii I f i I! I I� II if{ II -28- III! 1� !� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS j� CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK OCTOBER 1 , 1979 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case, Mr. Chairman, is appeal no. 1278 : {I j Appeal of Ridley Printing for an area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 12 to permit construction of an additi n to the present structure at 317 Taugha - nock Blvd. The property is located in an M-1 (Marine) use district, and an existing structure is within the re- quired side yard. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Is there someone here to represent this appeal? Please come forward. MR. ZAVASKI : My name is George Zavaski and I am a partner in Ridley Printing with Leo Maliski and we have been in business approximately twenty-seven years and when we moved down there on Taughannock Blvd . about nine or ten years ago it was strictly commercial - there was no such thing as a Marine zone in the City of Ithaca and at that time, like I say, there was no Marine zone in that area - any com- mercial establishment could build and do whatever they wished in the area. The present structure that has on the side line , has been there for fifty years or more and the proposed addition that we have in mind is away from the side line from the existing five foot, sup- posedly - zoning and that' s just about it. I'll keep it brief and that is about all I have to say. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Maybe the marine designation - they are trying to tell you printers are all wet, huh? Any questions by the Board? Okay, thank you, MR. ZAVASKI : Thank. you. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Anyone else who would like to speak in favor? MR. SLATTERY: My name is Don Slattery, I am the First Ward City Alderman and I guess I 've known Leo and George for at least twenty five or thirty years. I would like to indicate to the Board one fact that, I guess , hasn't leen brought out, that they do own the house right adjacent to the addition that they are planning - or ithat they, have built already, I guess, They plan on using that addition for storage, not the operation of machinery. I think it i { an appropriate addition to their business and I think they should it I j - 29 - I, be commended for expansion. I think it should be an inducement fo ; other businesses to locate there . I think it is something that we I jshould encourage happening in the First Ward and I wholeheartedly I it support it. �I ICHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, thank you. I 'd like to go on record, since �� we have only a quorum of four and I must vote and I 'm in the print �Iing business - I must say that I don't consider us competitors . I somebody would like to state to the contrary, they may do so, but I don' t see any connection at all.. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the application? (none) Anyone in oppo- sition? (none) If there is no other discussion, we' ll go to the next case. I I �I i f i iI I�i I f f i I i! ,I 30 - I' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS �I COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i OCTOBER 1 , 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1278 : CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal 1278. MS. DE COMBRAY: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The addition would not increase the non-conformity because it is on the I side away from the yard which is deficient. 2) There was a statement in support by th Alderman for that Ward and no statemen s in opposition. 3) There would be a hardship if this area variance were not granted. VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent. Area variance granted I 31 - i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK I� OCTOBER 1 , 1979 I SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is number 1279 : I Appeal of Thomas L. & Judith Jackson for an area variance under Section 30. 5 , Columns 4, 10, 11 and 12 to permit conversion of the property from a single family dwelling at 109-111 Utica Street to a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an R- 2b use district and is deficient in required parking spaces , exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage and is deficient in required front and side yards . WILCOX: Okay, is there somebody . . . ? Before you speak, , CHAIRMAN some of you may have come late - let me just remind you that we do lend the public session when all cases are heard and we go into executive session, then the meeting becomes public again, so that you can find out the results after the meeting. It generally take a while though, I must say that , especially with this agenda but any of you who hadn' t heard that, I wanted to repeat it. Okay. MRS. JACKSON: I'm Judith Jackson, 415 Elm Street, I 'm here repre- senting my husband and myself. We ownthe property at 109-111 Utica Street. We purchased it several years ago as a duplex, and at the request of Ithaca Group Home for Teenagers we joined the two sides to make it possible for them to use it as a Group Home for teen- agers . There was a series of circumstances and they no longer nee the house and they are not there any more and we would like to now convert it back into a duplex, but , as it was built a number of years before the zoning regulations went into affect , there is no room on the property at all for any kind of parking and we are ask ng for a variance regarding the parking. We feel that, as a two-fami y house, which is what it used to be, and which we hope it will be i the future, it wouldn' t make problems for the neighborhood in terms of parking any more or less than there were in the past. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well , I guess - do you have any letters there? SECRETARY HOARD: No. The only response I had, the next door neighbor called - at 107 Utica Street and she was concerned - I guess there has been i g a problem with people parking in their drivew y I 32 - that are either tenants or friends or something of the people that live in your building . I' �IMRS . JACKSON: I wasn' t aware of that. SECRETARY HOARD: Well, she asked about it and I said that I would mention it to you. That was a problem that they had been having but otherwise they had no objections to the conversion. i CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, any questions? Anybody want to see a I iphotograph? MS. DE COMBRAY: Who is living in it now? Just one family? MRS. JACKSON: A man, woman and two children, yes . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? JIs there anyone here to speak in opposition? If there is no other idiscussion we will go to the next appeal. i .i i i i I 1 I I I ii it 33 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK OCTOBER 1 , 1979 if EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1279 : ,IMS. DE COMBRAY: I move that the Board grant the area i variance requested in appeal 1279. MR. AMAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The building is legally non-conforming as it was originally built as a double house. 2) The property was being used as a group home until that use was interrupted by a fire which severely damaged the build- ing; reconversion is now proposed to the original, less intense use ; thus the character of the neighborhood would not be adversely affected by the proposal . IVOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent. jf Area variance granted. - 34 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK OCTOBER 1 , 1979 , SECRETARY HOARD: Appeal Number 1280 : Appeal of Eugene W. Lewis for an area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 6, 7 , 10 , 11, 13 and 14 to permit con- version of the two-family dwelling at 208 S. Geneva Street to a three-family dwelling. The property is located in an R-3a (.residential) use district and is deficient in total lot size , width at street line, front, side and rear yards . An exterior stairway would be added as part of the project. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, is there someone here for this case? Would you come forward please? MR. LEWIS: My name is Philip Lewis , I am here representing my father who is also present and who resides at this property at , 208 S. Geneva Street. We have presented to the Building Commissioner a rather lengthy and detailed discussion of our proposal and there- fore our need for a request for a variance. I think it is fair for me to report to the Board of Zoning Appeals that nearly all of the discussion that took. place at the meeting of the Planning Board centered not on the particularities of the specific variances con- i cerning side yard, front yard and the like, but simply the question of congestion in th-e South Geneva Street neighborhood. I think that our plans demonstrate quite adequately that the house itself, which is an enormous structure containing more than 2 ,100 square feet of usable floor space is more than adequate for the exceedingly limited purposes that we, in fact, have in mind with. the apartment conver- sion that has been proposed. The reason for that is the apartment units we wish to add would, in effect , limit the potential occupan y of the house quite dramatically. What we would like to be able to. do is preserve this house as a family residence and the main resi- dential unit on the first floor of the house and also have twognall apartments that could really be rented reasonably only to single individuals or to couples , in the upstairs . Now the reason for wanting to preserve this type of family residence used for this i i - 35 - 1 ( house has a great deal to do with the aesthetic Qualities of the house - it' s Quite an extraordinary structure which has been rathe ` well maintained over the years and renovation in the house was begun i by the previous owners , Kevin and Elaine Harrington before we pur- chased the house last year. We have already spent something on the order of $12 ,000. in further repairs and renovations , concentrating that on basic repairs and on getting the downstairs part of the house , which my family now occupies - my family being essentially my father by himself at the moment - into the most immaculate con- dition that we can establish there the reason for that is that the woodworking, stained glassed windows and other appointments in the Ilinterior of this house- some of which, as a matter of fact, are visible from the outside - are really quite extraordinary as aesthe- tic objects and deserve special attention from the standpoint of preservation and conservation. i would be afraid that if the house were converted, as many houses on South Geneva have been, to absen- tee landlord status with the rental of two units , one downstairs hand one upstairs on a wide open basis , that the purpose of maintain- ing this extraordinary structure in its present form might be ad- vertently or inadvertently contravened. It is easy enough to see 1 that with absolutely minimal work that could readily be done on the C! house as it now stands both the downstairs and upstairs first floor and second floor units could be converted for occupancy by a significant number of students in each of the two units and that is I the sort of use of the house that our plan is designed to prevent on an essentially definitive basis and, at the same time, we think our plans entail implicit guarantees of the continued use of the � home as a family residence by the principal owners . The only other remarks that I would make have to do with the general grounds - we have noted in our proposal that lot size is a kind of insurmountable problem in this particular area of downtown Ithaca. We 've also IInoted that the lot in question, notwithstanding the clear violation lof the total lot size that is required for this use in an R-3a zone, I is exceptional in this neighborhood, It is, 'exceedingly nicely ap- pointed the outside areas are very nicely maintained - they do 1� - - 36 i! Ihave space for off-street parking for both of the proposed apart- ment units in addition to the garage that my father has for his use. And we believe that it is easy enough to demonstrate that we would I not be creating any sort of traffic congestion, given the situation that already exists in the present neighborhood. I think that is ( already more than an ample statement even though my detailed pre- sentation is much, much longer, but I would be happy to try to answer questions . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Any questions from the Board? Exterior stairway are there any plans for that? MR. LEWIS: Well, the plans are strictly hypothetical . What we hav done is locate the exterior stairway in the rear of the building. It' s on the side of the lot that is 'immediately adjacent to the I property owned by Bangs Funeral Home and Ambulance Service and the Bangs are here and if they are concerned about that stairway con- struction, I would certainly be in a position to comment on it. It is on the side of the house which, I suppose, one would have to lsay in all frankness has little, if any, redeeming aesthetic quali- ties. Now, this is the rear of the house, it is not visible either rom the front or the side and its the side of the house that is adjacent to the parking lot of Bangs Funeral Home so we don' t be- lieve that the construction of that stairway, which is a manifest requirement of the Building Code would be detrimental to the aesthetic ualities of the property and we would be willing to spend much more Ito preserve those qualities if it was a choice between building a ess expensive or a more expensive stairway, we would do whatever equired. HAIRMAN WILCOX: Well, apparently there is some pre-existing non- onformities - I mean, could we be enlightened on that? Apparently he Planning staff . . , . ECRETA.RY HOARD; The existing problems, Mr. Chairman, the for he three units proposed, the zoning requires a lot size of 7, 000 quare feet or more - the property has 3,200 square feet. The it s deficient in width at street lineby . 6 of a foot - it exceeds th of coverage permitted. It has 52% lot coverage by buildings - the I► 37 - �I ( maximum permitted in that zone is 35% . The front yard - the zoning ( requires 10 foot set back - the building is just about on the side- walk - it looks about two feet. Now one side yard is nil but should ' be five feet and the rear yard should be 200 of the depth of the lot and it is 15%. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well , there is a statement here about potential �inegative impact on the neighborhood but nobody has really clarified that. Are there any letters or anything? SECRETARY HOARD: No, there were no letters to the Building Depart- ment. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well , that' s not very specific so . . . I don' t know what negative impact means nobody has defined what they mean by negative impact. Does the Board have Iany other questions? Anything else you would like to say? MR. LEWIS : Only that I have tried to comment in detail in the state- ment that we submitted to the Building Commissioner on many of the ( specific violations. I think that the merits or defects of our re- quest for a variance really rests on the general principal that would require the 7, 50.0. square footage of lot space. I think that we ` provide adquate satisfaction on the other particular points . I have spent some time referring to the vast amount of space that is taken �up by open, exterior porch, which is included in the calculation of the building area and that sort of thing. The negative impact on th.e neighborhood as far as I 'm concerned simply would not exist because I don't think we would be increasing the number of resident on the contrary - I'm quite sure that we would be keeping it stable and preventing it from rising as it otherwise might and it is clearly demonstrated in the proposal that we would not contribute to a parking problem, and, in fact , there is not a nevem parking problem there now. For one thing, we are so close to the downtown Ithaca parking facilities - we are less than a block from the main facility ,Irigh.t across the street from this building. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Any other questions? Thank you.. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (_none) Is there anyone Who would like to speak in opposition? Cnone) Is there any other discussion? We ' ll go to the next case. ii �i 38 - i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ii COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK l OCTOBER 1, 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1280 : CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal 1280. MR. AMAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Although the non-conformities are significant, the intended use is withi i thep ermitted uses for the zone. I I 2) The size and design of the house can accommodate three families. 3) It should not adversely affect the neighborhood. 4) The area requirements could not be met i without undue hardship. VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent . Area variance granted. I I i i - 39 - j BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK OCTOBER 15, 1979 I� jISECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal no . 1281: I I Appeal of Robert & Mary Lou Holdsworth for a variance from Chapter 35 (Swimmi g Pool regulations) , Section 35 . 4 , numbe 3 to permit installation of an in-grou d swimming pool at 6 Cornell Walk. The property is located in an R-la (.reside t- �' ial) use district and, due to topograp ic, restrictions elsewhere on the property the owner is requesting a variance to locate the pool within the minimum sep - ration requirement. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Is there someone here representing this case? MR. FERNANDEZ : My name is David Fernandez and I am representing the Holdsworths. Basically the only deviation from the Building 1 j Code is that in order to feasibly build a pool without having it b i �jvery e-xpensive - it needs to be closer than the fifteen feet to the building wall. We are planning to put it in about eight feet from , the basement wall and we have a letter there, I believe in the file , from Mr. Flumerfelt of T. G. Millers , which states that he feels in his professional opinion that at eight feet it wouldn't be a danger to the structure or to the adjoining properties . I might add that Mr. Holdsworth is a disabled veteran and that swimming is the only active recreation in which he can easily participate. He is par- tially unable to be here tonight because Common Council Chambers are not accessible to the handicapped. That' s the end of my statement. I'd answer any questions - it may be hard for you to picture the lot. Do you have the plot plan? ! CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well let me read this into the record. "City of Ithaca Building Department City Hall 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 �Attn: Mr. Thomas Hoard, Building Commissioner Gentlemen: "Our office was retained by, Cayuga Landscape Co. to investigate and loffer an opinion in regard to structural safety, aspects in locating a swimming pool at the Robert Ifoldsworth. residence, 6 Cornell Walk, at a distance of approximately 8 feet rather than 15 feet from the house basement walls as required by the City of Ithaca Swimming Poo JOrdinance. i.i - 40 - !I ii "The pool proposed to be built is an in-ground, vinyl liner type , I rectangular, 14' x 28 ' pool with essentially vertical perimeter walls about 42 inches high constructed of fiberglass panels with "A" type lateral bracing to be installed at 4 to 6 foot intervals along all walls . These panels will rest on and be anchored to undisturbed ground. From the bottom of the wall panels, the pool bottom, which will be formed of lightweight concrete, will slope downward at varying angles so that the pool depth at the longitu- Idinal centerline varies from about 32 feet to 8 feet depth. I"From our investigation of the above, we are of the opinion that, if the pool is situated such that its side or end walls are con- , structed no closer than 8 feet from the house basement walls , that the pool should not adversely affect the structural integrity of Ithe basement walls. "Very truly yours, T. G. Miller, P .C. /s/ Robert R. Flumerfelt by Robert R. Flumerfelt" CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Any questions by the Board? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this- application? (none) Anyone to speak in opposition? (none) We will go to the next case please. f 'I i i I i I) ii i i I i j i. I! - 41 - ii BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK I i; OCTOBER 1 , 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1281 : MS. DE COMBRAY: I move that the area variance requested[ in area variance number 1281 be granted . MR. AMAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) As the swimming pool would be used for I therapy, hardship is demonstrated if t e pool were denied on area problems. i 2) Engineering reports show that the I planned pool design is adequate within 8 ' (eight feet) of the residence . 3) Due to topographical restrictions another location isP recluded. VOTE : 4 Yes ; 0 No; 2 Absent. Area variance granted. I' I 1 I i I ,i i I is I I 42 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS IICITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK OCTOBER 1, 1979 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal no. 1282 : Appeal of Rita M. Bangs for a use and area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Col- umn 2 and Columns 13 and 14 to permit construction of an addition to the existing emergency vehicle garage at the property located at 209 West Green Street. This addition would be on the back of the existing garage and would extend into the existing parking lot. The property is located in an R-3a (residential) use district , and is deficient in one required minimum side yard. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Is there someone here for this application? MR. BANGS: I 'm Tim Bangs from 205 W. Green Street representing my mother, Rita Bangs , owner of the property in question. What we propose to do is build an addition on the already existing garage. The addition would be a 14 x 40 x 12 foot structure containing 560 square feet, taking up that amount of square feet in the existing parking lot which is 5, 700 square feet. The business has been at this location for the past 30 years and all of our phone, radio equipment is in this location and would cause a great expense if we had to move this to another location. The addition would go on the back of our existing garage, as I already said, and would ex- tend into our already black-topped parking lot. That' s basically it. Any questions? CHAIRMAN WILCOX; Any questions by the Board? Okay, thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (_none) Anybody in opposition? (none) If not, we will go to the next case. f - 43 - I I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK j f OCTOBER 1 , 1979. EXECUTIVE SESSION ;APPEAL NO. 1282 : SMS. DE COMBRAY: I move that the Board grant the variances requested in appeal number 1282. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The addition would not have an unfavorable impact on the neighborhood. 2) The appellant requires additional garaging for emergency vehicles and cannot satisfy that requirement without undue hardship if area variances were not granted. 3) The property is presently non-conforming as to use and area. VOTE: 4 Yes; 0 No; 2 Absent. Area and use variances granted. I j - 44 - I i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK I OCTOBER 1 , 1979 i ' SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1283: Appeal of Tioga & Buffalo Building Corp . for an area variance under Section 30 . 25, Columns 11 , 13, 14 and 15 to permit the construction of a new office building at 202 E. Buffal Street. This property is located in a B-lb (business) use district and is deficient in the required yard dimensi ns . MR. KERRTGAN: Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Board, I 'm James Kerrigan an attorney in town and also an officer of the Tioga and Buffalo Building Corp. , the owner of the former YMCA site. The application that we are making this evening is only in two areas for a variance based on economic hardship and the unique condition as they exist on the site. Although the application itself speaks of, I believe , three columns , the only application being made is for a variance insofar as the front yard set back requirements are concerned, which is a minor one , and the rear yard set back in ord r to permit us to use the existing foundation at the former YMCA building. There is a model of th-e building which we have and whic is available for questioning and which is in front of you. The Ilbasic presentation in terms of the economic hardship arises largel 1 ` out of design consideration and cost considerations and Mr. David Taube, the architects of the firm of O'Brien $ Taube will be dis- cussing that. And I would also like to point out before asking Mr. Taube to point out the difficulties that we have run into leading for this application for a variance- that the application that we have made has received unanimous approval of the City Plan- ning Board and that agency in turn considered the favorable recom- mendation of the City Planning staff. In terms of the front and side yard, by the way, the only additional comment I have to make at this point is that the front yard is by the entrance on Buffalo Street. David? SMR. TAUBE: David Taube, O'Brien & Taube architects. As was men- tioned, the reason for application is both the north and south i r I! ,I - 45 - i j property line boundaries which represented on Buffalo Street , front and between or at the alley between the Weatherby building I� and the YMCA site. The diagram here will help show you where our I! Iproblem began. The large outline in yellow was the existing I foundation of the "Y" building. Additional portion of the founda- tion did come all the way over to Acrographic' s building but was underground - it was below a service alley that existed at that time. The dark line in blue is the property line and the line in red shows the set back requirements as called for by the Ordinance. I might also point out that the set back requirement on the north side is a combination of the building ordinance and the New York State Construction Code.. The Ordinance I believe , stipulates maxi- mum - alright, correct me on this - it would work out to a 6. 6 foot set back. The New York State Building Code however, dictates a 10 foot set back when adjacent to a building of lower construc- tion classification. The YMCA foundation, on the north side is located two inches from the property line - at this point (point in it steps back 516" so it becomes 518" from the property line at that point (pointing) . In the front the building is 3 feet - the old foundation line is 3 feet from the property line. It steps back 818" to become 11 ' 8" from the property- line. So the portion in question in the front is this small area here which is two feet in front of the property line the requirement being five feet on the Buffalo Street side. And on this side it is approximately 9110" going actually by the New York. State Construction Code over to this point prior to the Zoning Ordinance. The hardship pre- sented here is one based on a very unique situation. The existing "Y" foundation, basement , is composed of a swimming pool , bowling alley, locker rooms and weight rooms . And they are at different levels going from, I believe, approximately four feet to eight feet. The cost of removing the existing foundation walls and the existing rubble , including removal of the concrete slab and an additional approximately eight feet of fill , was without a doubt , exhorbitant. Part of the problem is test borings were formed on the site after Kerrigan and his group purchased it and it was i it j - 46 - i determined that, although there was a slab there on footings , test ( borings showed that the firm soil for the size footings required for a building of this sort on an individual basis would be approxi- mately sixteen feet below grade. That is to say we would actually have to go down another eight feet beyond the existing footings . What was developed with our structural consultants , Ray DiPasauale & Associates, was to design a reinforced structural concrete slab that would span the basement area. Essentially what would be done - this is the existing grade (pointing) rubble is filling the entire site up to grade and then there are foundation walls and footings. What is contemplated is that only approximately two and one-half to three feet of rubble would be removed and about two and one-half feet of foundation wall . An essentially soupy concrete mix would be poured into the rubble area after compacting it as much as possi - ble. The soupy concrete mix essentially there to fill the voids and to create a base on which they can begin construction. That no being strong enough even with the soupy mix, approximately a four inch. concrete working slab would then be poured over the rubble whi h would be used as the base or the working slab to begin putting in the construction forms . On top of that then would be built a two and one-half foot thick reinforced post tension concrete slab. Now it wouldn' t be two and one-half feet thick over the entire site - there would be wooden forms built to create voids where the stress is or did not dictate full thickness . Essentially the full thick - ness would occur under columns and at a shape running along the stress lines of th.e beams running both directions of the building. The reinforced slab then essentially is transferring all the loads onto the perimeter foundation wall.. Since the perimeter foundation all was designed to carry a masonry building with two foot thick masonry walls same height as this structure the existing foundations ill be able to carry the load, whereas the rubble and existing base- ment cannot and whereas the cost of removing all that to go to standard construction would, not only cost approximately s0 to 60 thousand dollars greater than this reinforced concrete method but there is very good Question that the work could even be done at all I I 47 - and that might be pointed out on the model. As you can see we are �iten feet from Acrographics and approximately ten feet from Weatherly". I� building. Weatherby's building , the old Reinhardt Antiques , I be- Ilieve is well over one hundred years old. To excavate sixteen fee on the "Y" site to get down to the undisturbed soil that would be I needed for standard construction, the contractor would have to excavate essentially from the property line down. However, State labor laws require a certain pitch of the land for excavation to prevent cave-ins . Since we are already at the property line , the pitch down sixteen feet means we would have to go out approximatel sixteen feet to get the forty-five degree lie of the land which would affectively reduce the building area to half that size if no less . On the other hand the only other solution then to avoid thi slope problem would be to go to shoring, actually drill - driving piles around the perimeter of this site to create an area whereby they can go in safely and install the footings. Again the cost of this is phenominally prohibitive. So the design was developed essentially to accommodate the difficulty of the site and to reduc the tremendous cost of going to a conventional footing system. In so doing, however, we have to use the existing foundation which is �ithere, thereby our variance problem. Any questions? MR. ANGELL: What is the distance on the north side that is toward the Weatherby building? You say the State requires how much? MR. TAUBE: Ten feet, I believe, from the property line. SMR. ANGELL: And you are going to have how much? MR. TAUBE: Two inches at this point (pointing to plans) and five feet six inches to five feet eight inches at this point (pointing Okay, you have brought up a good point. Part of that requirement ' alright, actually that requirement is a fixe Hazard between build- ings. MR. ANGELL: Okay, what I am going to say is , if the variance was ; granted by this Board, what would the State come in and say? MR. TAUBE: No, this problem has been worked out with the Building Commissioner. In the event you are closer than the ten foot dis tance , we 'have provided a fire protective system on the windows i i i - 48 - facing that side in accordance with the Building Construction Code Il Manual . jMR. ANGELL: Yes , that' s fine but will that satisfy the State? I 'm not . . . MR. TAUBE: I believe that is represented by the Building Commis- sioner. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes . MS . DE COMBRAY: Do you mean two feet - you just said two inches? MR. TAUBE: Two inches , I'm sorry. This point is two inches and then it sets back an additional five feet six inches . iMS. DE COMBRAY: But the distance to the building - only two inches ? i IMR. TAUBE: Oh, to the adjacent building? I 'm sorry, its . . . MS. DE COMBRAY: To the property line? MR. TAUBE: To the property line it 's I believe fourteen feet then from the property line or the building to the adjacent building. MR. ANGELL : But we are okay with the state? MR. TAUBE: Yes. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes . MR. ANGELL: Okay. MR. TAUBE: I might also add if I can goon for a second, that the building that is proposed here is essentially the same volume and height of the old YMCA. The height of the gravel stop of this structure is fifty-six feet. The Building Ordinance allows sixty feet. The old YMCA building was fifty-two feet to the equivalent point but then an additional ten foot pitched roof on top of that, so it ' s effective height was sixty-two feet. Since we are follow- ing the same foundation walls the only difference then from the actual masson of the building is th-e few feet that have been fille in in the corner here (.pointing) which however is� above th.e pedes- trian zone by over twenty feet. In accordance with discussions �Ithat we have had with. various city officials we have set the building back well it was automatically set back in the south side. Thes columns have come out of the foundation walls - they have come out of the foundation wall plain and were able to do that because the existing foundation wall and concrete slab condition is one that occurs and creates the problem within that foundation wall . ii - 49 - I i Towards this side we only have to go down approximately four feet ;because that soil has never been disturbed, and is not creating a I� problem with the existing foundation. So this was the old founda- tion wall here (pointing) we have maintained the building line at that point which is the same set back that the "Y" had. We have !I actually set back the building on the west side four feet greater I ; than the old "Y" set back, the net result being that from curb to building on the first floor is approximately twenty-six foot dis- tance which is almost twice, if not greater than twice the normal sidewalk width in this area which we feel has accommodated the re- , quest of the city and also meets our desires for having a open are i 11that will accept the pedestrian flow and give good visibility to I� the vehicular traffic. i CHAIRMAN WILCOX: That' s a nice design. Okay, any other questions? Mr. Kerrigan, anything else? I, MR. KERRIGAN: I don' t think. I have anything to add. I noticed you i ( looking at the waivers. Is there any question about the waivers I that are there? 11SECRETARY HOARD : No. I IMR. KERRIGAN: Fine, thank you. i CHAIRMAN WI'LCOX: Okay, is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? fis there anyone who would like i to speak. in opposition? If there areno other questions we' ll go t i the next case. (I 1 i i i i' I it - so - li BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I! CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK OCTOBER 1, 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION I !APPEAL NO . 1283: {IMS . DE COMBRAY: I move that the Board grant the area I variance requested in appeal 1283. I) ,MR. AMAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The building design provides for ample public circulation along the front of the building. 2) No on-site parking is required. 3) Due to the unusual configuration of the i lot and the need for retention of I existing foundations , an area variance , I if denied, would produce a significant hardship, ( VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No; 2 Abent. Area variance granted. !I I � I I I f i I 51 - j� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS �! COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK ! OCTOBER 1 , 1979 !SECRETARY HOARD: The final case is appeal 1284 : i Appeal of Richard J. Genest for an area variance under Section 30. 25 , Column 4 to permit the conversion of the premise located at 308 Stewart Avenue from the Glad Day Press into a Bakery-Cafe. The property is located in a B- 2 (business) use district and is deficient in off- street parking requirements . RICHARD GENEST: I 'm Richard Genest and I gave you an appeal, I don' t know if you had a chance to read it but what we' d like to do �lmy partner and I rented a space at 308 Stewart Avenue on a three I(year lease and we ' d like to have a little bakery-cafe espresso bar Ifor the neighborhood. I guess there was a notorious appeal here a i ! few years ago on the same block, in terms of a bar or restaurant. 1We are not going to be either of those . You wouldn't have any i ;!alcohol , we wouldn' t be serving any meat, we would not have a three meal menu or no table service, no waiter service. We' d like to sel +pies and cakes , croissants, espresso, coffee and tea. And primaril 1for the neighborhood - a walk-in business . We will also sell - we 1�will also be baking things for a carry-on a carry-out basis , too. I� INow, in terms of parking, unfortunately there is no off-street i parking available on our lot and the Code states that for a retail I !fspace we would need two spaces and for an auditorium/theatre, bar i for restaurant or similar we would need one parking space per five ! seats . We' d like to have around twenty seats in our establishment but we don' t have any parking spaces to go along with that but the main argument is that we really don' t feel that we would be making ( that much of a strain on the neighborhood because most of our 1business would be walk-in. It is kind of in the middle of college !!town and there is a large number of people within easy walking dis- � tance to that location. I guess last week - I think that type of I business would strengthen the neighborhood as opposed to something Il else that could go in there like pinball parlor or a sub shop or a liquor store and there is some businesses that might actually i 1` 52 , generate more of a traffic flow than we would such as a real pro- i1duction bakery, maybe like Clever Hans which does create traffic i Dover in its neighborhood. So unless you have any questions , or do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Let' s see, you have a year to year agreement with Cornell , is that the . . . ? MR. GENEST: On the phone they talked about a year - Mr. Yarnell talked about a one year agreement. We do have a commitment from them to rent to us for parking. The only parking available in the ( neighborhood is the Cornell lot on the corner of Williams and Stewart and Cornell is favorable to renting us spaces . MR. AMAN: How many spaces? MR. GENEST: Well , as many as we need really - as many as will be Irequired. I 'm planning now on renting four spaces from them which i would be in line with twenty seats - one space for every five seats . But they were willing to rent to as many as twelve spaces - I don' know- if we could afford twelve spaces but . , . on a chocolate chip cookie profit but we could see what we could do . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: That' s a little risky - only a one year guarantee. SMR. GENEST: Well, something has to go in there I mean, unless the building is going to be vacant because the present business - jthe printing business is going to be moving in November . And I even for a retail business there would be two off-street parking spaces required and there is no other place in the neighborhood to get off-street parking except in the Cornell lot so no matter who goes in there they will have the same problem. SECRETARYHOARD: Do you have any idea how many people —employees the Press has? ( MR. GENEST: I think maybe two or three. MR. COSTANZA; There are three people in the press. MR. GENEST: I did notify all the neighbors within 200 feet and . . SECRETARY HOARD; No response. CHAIRMAN WTLCOX There has peen no lett ers or anything. MR. GENEST: The Planning Board recommended that a variance be give as well as Jon Meigs , City Planner. I think that one of the main considerations is the tastefulness of any possible business that i i)I I 53 - i( ' goes in there and whether it is going to sort of uplift the neigh- 'iborhood or not and I feel that in our business it would. 1CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Well if you get successful you might have all i kinds of people stopping by, by car load - by automobile. It ' s con- ceivable. The problem with the other appellant before was the the neighbors didn' t think that they would even park in the Cornell to even if it was made available - there was Quite a lot of oppositi n in the neighborhood to that one. We have received none for yours so apparently it is somewhat different but it has been a problem that - I think there is a bar on the corner and people would park i in resident' s driveways and there are potential problems there . MR. COSTANZA: My name is Peter Costanza and I am Mr. Genest' s i ' attorney. I might only add that we had extensive discussions between Mr. Genest and myself and the present tenants in that space - also tried to get some input from the Building Department with respect specifically to the problem that the former applicant had had for � a bar across the street. I understood that to be an application f r a rather large place with fifty or sixty seats and that would have A been a place where alcoholic beverages would have been sold. My f understanding also was that at the time that that application was f made, many of the people who live on Osmun Place were opposed to it. There is a rather well-known raucus bar up the street already and I can understand the people in that area being opposed to some- thing else of the same nature going in on this same block. This i Ian entirely different character of business we are talking about , very Quiet place - we are talking about a place where people can come in and converse with each other a little and sit around and read a magazine and have some coffee and have a pastry. Well it ' s an I ientirely different character of establishment from the formerly ( proposed establishment and I venture that - I can venture to suggest i that with a firm policy on the part of Mr. Genest , which I am sure he is willing to establish - that the people who are going to park there should park in the lot - in the spaces that will be provided - I that we can avoid any kind of off-street parking problem in that area such as the kind that might have been presented by a clientel - 54 - .i of a bar. I think that the people who will be coming here are goi g �I 'Ito be more inclined to be respectful of the neighborhood then perhaps 1bar patrons would be and I think that it can be established that a 'i firm policy on the part of the owners of this proposed establishme t can guarantee that we can have a reasonable situation. There is nothing that Mr. Genest can do about Cornell ' s unwillingness to commit spaces for more than a year at a time. We do have an informal indication from Cornell that they are not planning to build anything in that space or do anything in the near to intermediate future which will impair their ability to rent those spaces . Mr . ilGenest' s lease will be running for about another three years and I don' t think that Cornell is planning to do anything to prohibit their renewing those spaces during that period of time. We've really scoured the possibilities for parking and have done the best 1that we can. Cornell seems to be amenable but, as Cornell often is , we could only do it on their terms and I think that as long as the requisite number of spaces are in fact, provided, I would certainl hope that the Board could go ahead and approve this request for a variance. CHAIRMAN WILCOX; You expect how many employees? Could you come back to the microphone? � MR. GENEST: I think four or five. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: And how many seats - you want to be able to serve how many people? MR. GENEST: Well , seats for twenty. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Twenty. MR. AMAN: Four or five 'employees? Not at any onetime? MR. GENEST: No , not at any one time . Probably two or three at the ost - three at the most. We would the two or three employees would be behind the counter. One would be serving drinks and one _ould be, perhaps , preparing food like baking or dishing things . . . . CHAIRMAN WILCOX: And what- approximately what hours do you think ou will operate? R. GENEST: We probably will go from early in the morning until late at night. We would -maybe 7 : 00 in the morning for people who .i i! - S5 - i ti fare going to class early and for the late night dessert crowd - to . . . i ( CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Do you think you would be open all night? i' ( MR. GENEST: Thinking about it - I don' t know. CHAIRMAN WILCOX: Okay, anybody else? Thank you. Anyone else lik � to speak in favor of this application? (none) Is there anyone wh would like to speak in opposition? (none) If there is no more business that concludes the public hearing. The Board will go into an executive session and discuss all the cases . We will reconvene in a public session when we are finished so that if anybody wants to wait, we will be public again. Thank you very much for coming. i i i i i i, i i i �I i i' i - 56 - !� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS ii CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i �i OCTOBER 12 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1284 : MS. DE COMBRAY: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1284 with the condition that a minimum for four (4) parking spaces , as required for the proposed seating, be provided. MR. AMAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The character of the business will be that of a bakery/coffee shop with seating for twenty (_20) people. 2) It is felt that the size and character of this business is appropriate to and will not adversely affect the neighborhood. VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent . Area variance granted. i If it ii - 57 - il ii ii :i I I ii BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board I �! of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals ` numbered 10-1-79 , 10-2- 79 , 1275, 1276 , 1277 , 1278 , 1279 , 1280 , I 1281, 1282 , 1283, and 1284 on October 1 , 1979 at City Hall , City of Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed same , and the fore- 'l i� going 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. i Barbara C. Ruan i Recording Secretary I i I i Sworn to before me this day of �c + � , 1979 Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON 'TARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YO,. No. 55.1660300 QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COU !^.Y COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 30, gI I I� II I I