HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1981-04-06 {i
{i TABLE OF CONTENTS j
I
'! MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ITHACA,
INEW YORK - APRIL 6 , 1981
i
Page j
!! APPEAL N0. 3,1-81 Aeras Cyclery 2
704 West Buffalo Street
! APPEAL NO. 3-1-81 Executive Session 5
! APPEAL NO. 4-1-81 Robert W. Baker 6
i 408 North Tioga Street
IJAPPEAL NO. 4-1-81 Executive Session 8
! APPEAL NO. 4-2-81 Art & Frame House Withdrawn 9
109 East Seneca Street j
APPEAL NO. 1351 Walter & Helen Binger 9
!' 170. Pearsall Place
i;
' APPEAL NO. 1351 Executive Session 11
I!
!! APPEAL NO. 1352 Robert Shapiro 12
Ej 316 West Court Street
i
APPEAL NO. 1352 Executive Session 16
i
�IAPPEAL NO. 1354 Tom Newton 17
702 .704 North Aurora Street
i
!! APPEAL NO. 1354 Executive Session 33
l
IIAPPEAL NO. 1353 Byrne Dairy, Inc . 34
527 West Buffalo Street
IIAPPEAL NO. 1353 Executive Session 57
' APPEAL NO. 1355 Taffy E. Spaulding 58
319 Center Street
APPEAL NO. 1355 Executive Session
61
I ,
I' APPEAL NO, 1356 Hemmo & Patricia Huttunen 62
;� 302 Mitchell Street (no one showed)
; i
1IAPPEAL NO, 1357 Joel podkaminex 62
658 Spencer Road
APPEAL NO. 1357 Executive Session 64
I�
! APPEAL N0. 1358 Franz Pi,zilly 65
201-205 East Tompkins Street
I
APPEAL NO. 1358 Executive Session 76
!j CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING SECRETARY 77
II
l
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK j
APRIL 6, 1981
CHAIRMAN AMAN: I 'd like to call the April meeting of the Ithaca j
,Board of Zoning Appeals to order. The Board, as you may know,
operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the
;Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and the Ithaca Sign Ordinance. Present this
evening are five of the six members of the Board:
Peter Walsh
Morris Angell
Margaret Haine
Charles Weaver
Alfred Aman
Thomas Hoard, Building Comm.
i $ Secy to the Board
Barbara Ruane , Recording Sec
ABSENT: William Wilcox
( The sixth member of the Board probably will be here shortly. I
would like to say just a couple of words about the proceedings herei
jfor those of you who have not appeared before the Board before. We
hake our cases up in order, that is , according to the sheet that you
i
may have listing the appeals . We ask that first those who are re-
questing a variance come forward and state their case as succinctly
as possible. You may have noticed we have a very long docket tonight
and we would appreciate your being succinct . However, the burden o
proof is on you to create a record which will justify the variance
Iso you do have to be complete but we do hope that you are not neces-
sarily or unduly repetitious . We ask that you come forward, state
your case , tell us why you want a variance. There then will be, or
be questions from the Board members of you, concerning your cas .
,may
After those questions and after you state your case I will then ask
((whether there is anyone in the audience who wishes to come forward
i
and speak on your behalf. In other words , those who support your
variance. Then I will call anyone in the audience who wishes to
speak against the proposed variance . Now I do ask that everyone cone
forward and speak at this podium. Though we do not operate under
strict rules of evidence, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding and
1we base our decisions on evidence in the record. That record consl'sts,
of essentially a tape recording or a transcript - well first a tapel
I'
- 2 -
MI i
and then a transcript of what goes on in these proceedings . Your
remarks will get on the tape if they are made form this podium.
i
There is a tendency in the course of a hearing to want to stand up
Ii
lin back and simply make a point or just speak one sentence. Unfor-i
tunately there won't get on the tape - it won't be part of the
'record so we do ask that even though it may seem like a formality
i
!at times , if you have something to say you do have to speak from the
�Ipodium. When you do come forward please state your name and addres'
for the record and tell us what it is that you think we will want
11to know. Finally, I should addthat it takes four votes to prevail.
� I
f
That is , you would have to have four affirmative votes for a variance
4j- for that variance to be granted. I think that covers all the pre
I� I
i
fjliminaries so with that we are ready to begin. Mr. Commissioner, it
i�
'lyou would call the first case.
;SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal is appeal number 3-1-81 :
ji
j� Appeal of Aeros Cyclery for a variance under
Section 34 .4B (regulations for projecting
signs) of the Sign Ordinance to permit an i
existing sign to remain at 704 West Buffalo
Street (Aeros Cyclery) in an M-1 (Marine)
use district. The sign falls within the defi-
nition of a projecting sign, and as such, p,ro-
I' jects more than the maximum permitted in that
l� zone.
i
i
MR. SWAN: Okay. We at Aeros wish to continue the use of the exist,-
i
Iiing sign fixture at 704 W. Buffalo . It was and still is illegal due
�! I
11to a technicality in the Sign Ordinance which classifies it as a
building sign because it ' s within five feet of the building. The
I
�Ilocation of our building relative to the sidewalk makes a horizontal
I�
layout of the sign impossible, the front of the building is too
,;close to the sidewalk to allow us to use the sign in a horizontal
''way and be more than five feet from the building, For our busi,nesslj
11to be successful it has to be able to be found by our customers . Dµe
,I
i
to the location of our business , potential customers cnanot see us
I
when they are coming in eastboudn traffic due to the location of
lithe bridge - the bridge being raised up. Coming eastbound on West
'IBuffalo Street cannot see us until they are coming off the bridge
f!
land are directly in front of the building. Our location has not
'clearly visible frontage for westbound traffic until , once again, aye
!i
�I \
1.
f
f - 3 -
�j
((directly in front of the store. By then cars cannot turn or correct
' their mistakes because they have already passed the parking for ours
business and they must cross the bridge completely before being ablje
Hto turn around . The westbound traffic situation is aggravated by
!'the ambiguous locations of businesses amid the confusion of IGA,
IlInstant Copy Printing, Drug Store and the railroad tracks which run
,parallel to Fulton Street. To add to this confusion and danger of j
�f
�Iturning traffic for all of these businesses and can conclude that aj
�Iclearly defined location notable in advance is in the best interest
} of everybody' s customer safety. We feel that our sign is of minimal
I
lIsize and complexity. It is a simple rectangular shape and the plain
i
i
colors and its horizontal orientation near the visual field of
;passersby all combine to make it extremely effective for its compar
jative small size. The sign faces are 2 ' x 81 . The surface area of
this comes out to 32 square feet and is far less than the legal limit
1
hand size for our location of 150 square feet. If we were to changes
i
1the location and orientation of our sign it would be more likely to
it
,! require a substantial increase in the size of it to maintain its 10 vel
I !,
!' of effectiveness . We also feel that it would be somewhat a waste of
l�
,
, time and money to create a whole new sign one which would be quite
,
, likely less effective - more visually distractive in the landscape
I
land more expensive when the root of the problem is what we feel is
�I
! a technicality which is insurmountable due to proximity of the
1� building from the sidewalk and the street. The Planning Board was
jforced to take a narrow view of our situation and disregard such is-
9
, sues as hardship, financial considerations or the needs of the
`1` business to be visible, From the point of view of the Planning Board
g�
from the point of view o£ Planning, I feel that their decision was
„ P
i
Halso narrow and shortsighted. They overlooked the fact that I can :
; and must erect a legal sign which is effective in front of my store.
MBecause I too am concerned, as they are, about sign clutter and sign
1competition in the area - I wish to use the smallest , most conserve-
Itive sign which is effective. I believe that the present sign fix-1
ture is exactly that and I want to point out that - with the legal '
1 I
E� limit of our sign in terms of square footage being 150 square feet,'
j
r
it
i
f - -
i
4
if we were to have to erect a different sign, we would undoubtedly )
make one that certainly wouldn' t approach the 150 square feet but
would certainly be larger than what we currently have. Do you hav
Many questions? I have some photographs with me if you would like
that show how a sign which does not project more than the 18" froml
the building would be blocked from the east by a telephone pole wh�ch
i
is located right in front of the drug store on the other half of o4r
building, now the location of the signs of the bridge along with a
tree which is right along the inlet also block us from the west.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: I missed the numbers . How much does it project?
MR. SWAN: The current sign is 8 ' long and is erected 6" away from
the building out to about 2 ' away from the sidewalk.
+ CHAIRMAN AMAN: And how much in excess of the regulation is that?
MR. SWAN: Well , since it is within 5 ' of the building it is
limited to 18" of projection.
( CHAIRMAN AMAN: Alright .
I
MR. SWAN: So we are extending it well beyond that.
i
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Essentially, your case is that if it were not hori '
zontal or projecting that way it wouldn't be visible .?
MR. SWAN: Well if we were to create a vertical sign within 18" of
the building it would not be visible to the - it would essentially
i
be totally invisible from the east and would be of limited visibility
i
( from the west. From our point of view, if we were forced to erect '
a vertical sign we would not try to build one that would be on thei
building but we would build more than the 5 ' away from the building
to create a tall , vertical sign which would be very clearly visible)
from the roadway in either direction,
i
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any questions from the Board?
i
MR. ANGELL: How much frontage do you have there?
MR. SWAN: Our building frontage is 30 ' along Buffalo Street and
75 " along the inevitable waterway - the inlet, giving us a total
essentially legal frontage of 1051 . So with a 11-, square feet of - �
1per foot of linear frontage you come out with a maximum square
( footage on our sign of 152 square feet.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: No further questions? (none) thank you Mr. Swan. ;
i'
� I
i
5 -
Ills there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the requested.
variance? (no one) Is there anyone here who opposes the variance
i
, (no one) . Alright , hearing nothing further, we will call the next
i
case.
;j
I
i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
j COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
�! APRIL 6, 1981
�I EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 3-1-81 :
The Board considered the appeal of Aeros Cyclery for a variance
under Section 34. 4B of the Sign Ordinance to permit an existing sign
I
to remain at 704 West Buffalo Street in an M-1 (Marine) use distri9t .
IThe sign falls within the definition of a projecting sign, and as
such, projects more than the maximum permitted in that zone . The
! decision of the Board was as follows :
1IMR. WALSH: I move that the Board grant the sign variance re- !
II questing in appeal 3-1-81 .
I!
MS. HAINE: I second the motion.
VOTE: 0 Yes ; 5 No ; 1 Absent Denied
FINDINGS OF FACT:
! 1) Sign and identification can be accomplished within the Ordinance
with the signs on the facia on the building.
2) The problem of visibility to traffic approaching need not be
addressed by a sign projecting in this manner.
� 3) The problem is not unique to property in that neighborhood.
i
i
I
i
i
i
I�
i
i - 6 -
1
I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
APRIL 6 , 1981
I
( SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 4-1-81 :
Appeal of Robert W. Baker for a variance
! under Section 34 .4b of the Sign Ordinance
to permit the existing signage to remain
at 408 North Tioga Street in the C-SU
i (Courthouse Special Use) use district. Th�
{ signs fall within the definition of projec
ting signs, and project more than the maxi-
mum permitted in that zone.
(MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is
{! Robert Williamson, I represent B & B Realty, the owners of the
( property. I 'd like to ask Mr. Hoard - do you have the photographs
Ithat we gave to the Planning Board?
' SECRETARY HOARD: Yes sir, I do.
I MR. WILLIAMSON: I wonder if I could distribute those to the members
I
of the Board? It 's a request for a variance under Section 34 .4b of
the Sign Ordinance . These two small signs are on a very inconspi- j
�icuous post outside the front of the building at 408 N. Tioga Street
I
and one is for Dr. Cardoza and the other is for Dr. Lamm. They are,
very small signs - I 'd say 32" x 11" on a block post. The request !,
for the variance arises because we are more than 18" from the front
i
Ilof the building. We feel , however, that we can hopefully come under
Hthe variance granted to the J. D. Gallagher sign across the street.',
We are a smaller sign and we request that the variance be granted.
jWe've been there for over ten years - the sign has been there - the
post has been there and as I say, it' s very inconspicuous - it goes
with the decor of the building . The building has been remodelled
+ i
;Iby B $ B REalty and is in excellent condition and these two signs
i
advertise only the two doctors offices . Dr. Cardoza and Dr. Lamm. '
i
( CHAIRMAN AMAN: Your reference to the Gallagher sign as I recall ,
! that variance was granted because of the unusual shape of the build
ling. I don' t recall the exact facts now but it would have been est
sentially impossible for that sign to have complied with the law.
! Just in terms of the precedent of that case - that was a quite
{ unusual one,
MR. WALSH: Bob , is it not possible to mount those signs on the
{
it
i
7 -
Iface of the building?
IMR. WILLIAMSON: Well I assume that as with the Gallagher signs - if
I
you look at the picture I would assume Gallagher could have mounte�
This sign. All we are asking is the variance so that we - with two
i
signs 3%" x 11" - that it would be possible to maintain the signs
on the existing posts where they have been for ten years . I would
assume that - we have an indented porch - so to speak - so if you
I
put it on the indented porch, you wouldn' t see these signs at all .
MR. WALSH: I 'm trying to recall - but it seems to be in the case cf
the Gallagher sign that there was a peculiarty of the construction
of the steps that it was difficult - these signs clearly seem to bo
I
really small inconspicuous but I just wondered if it was possibl
to mount them on the basis that they are only 3i x 11 - they are
clearly within the statutory limits .
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well I would assume , as with Gallagher - that sig
could be on the face of the building too. We could be on the face
of the building but if we were we could be on the face of the buil ing
which would be - at a point - in the indented portion of this buil ing
where you wouldn' t see the sign at all . All we are saying is , we
would like to continue these two very small signs 32" x 11" on a p st
which, if you look at th-e photograph, is , I admit, not 18" from th
front of the building, but not very far from the front.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Just off hand - do you know what the number is?
MR. WILLIAMSON: The exact inches?
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes. It looks about a yard or so.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I was going to say, I don' t have the exact footage
or inches from the face. But the decor of the building, we feel, it
goes, with_ it. If you have been by the building, it' s a newly pained
dark red building with black trim and the two signs are black sign ,
as I say, 31-2" x 11" small signs and they just put the name of the
doctor - that is all .
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Okay. Any further questions?
MR. WILLIAMSON, Morrie, did I say 11" when I should have said 18"
Okay. Excuse me,
I
MR. ANGELL: Why can't they move that post back and then they are
�I
8 -
then there is no problem.
II VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE : You can' t see it that is why we put it where
it was .
iMR. WILLIAMSON: It is more visible where it currently is located
but we still feel - while being more visible it still goes with th$
decor of the building and also the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: No further questions? Thank you, Mr. Williamson.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the variance
1 (no one) Anyone here who opposes it? (no one) Hearing nothing
i
further we will take the next case.
f
! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
I
APRIL 6, 1981
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board considered the appeal for a variance under Section 34.4b '
�! of the Sign Ordinance to permit the existing signage to remain at
1 408 North Tioga Street in the C-SU (Courthouse Special Use) use
district. The sins fall within the definition of projecting signs,
and project more Ran the maximum permitted in that zone .
I' MR. WALSH: I move that the sign variance requested in appeal number
N 4-1-81 be denied. A variance is unnecessary because the
sign as presently constituted consists of two name plates
I
each of less than 144 square inches ; such signs being
�I allowed by the provisions of the City Sign Ordinance
,E
without permit,
MR. WEAVER: I second the motion.
: VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent Carried
I
l
i
i
i'
I�
i
I
i
I{
ii
I I
ii
I I
_ 9 _
'I
(� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
'I COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
(i APRIL 6, 1981
I
! SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal , Mr. Chairman, is appeal 4-2-81 :
Appeal of the Art & Fram House for an inter!_
pretation of Section 34-3A-1 (definition of
I' a sign) , or a variance from Section 34 .6A
to permit the erection of a free-stancing
}� display case in the front yard at 109 East
Seneca Street in the B-3 (business) use dis-
trict . It is unclear whether such a device!
would be classified as a sign; if it is a
sign, then the total number and area of sighs
�! for the business would exceed the number an
area permitted by the Sign Ordinance.
Is the appellant here in this case or a representative? (no one
I
,!showed) . The next case is appeal number 1351 :
Appeal of Walter and Helen Binger for an
area variance under Section 30. 25 , Column 1�3
to permit the conversion of the one family
E� house at 170 Pearsall Place to a two-family,
home. The property is located in an R-lb
use district and is deficient in required
!� minimum side yard for a two-family dwellingj.
IMR. BINGER: My name is Walter Binger. As the gentleman said, I
I�reside at 170 Pearsall Place. I hope to retire in a couple of years
and to supplement my retirement income I do plan on building a small
I,
( efficiency apartment - just a one habitat apartment . Before I starited
construction I thought I had better check with the Zoning Board and
I was advised that I was deficient as far as footage on one side of',
,my property. I was also told that I should send letters out to my
I
neighbors within 200' which I did and it consisted of about sixteen;
letters . I haven' t had any opposition from my neighbors - I conversed
�lwith them - the only correspondence I did get was from Therm Electric
�I I
and they were not opposed to my variance request. I do not plan on
!!building any outside - further dimensions to the outside of my house
I�
hand I just appeal to the Board to grant the variance. I would liked
to anyswer any questions,
i
;CHAIRMAN AMAN: So all the changes you propose are internal?
{
� MR. BI'NGER: Internal .
,CHAIRMAN AMAN: What is the numbers attached to the deficiency? I ,'
�Imissed those
IMR. BINGER: Ten feet from my house to the neighbor's property line;.
i
I
f'
I
- 10 -
,
All I have is six feet on the west side.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: So you are four feet? j
I
MR. BINGER: Four feet deficient.
' CHAIRMAN AMAN: As I understand it, a two-family dwelling is appro
!i
Ipriate for this zone?
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes the use is permitted Mr. Chairman. The problem
here is that it is a non-conforming property because of that side
iyard deficiency and the change of a non-conforming structure does
require a variance.
MR. ANGELL: Plenty of parking?
MR. BINGER: On the east side I have a driveway, yes - that can bel
i
utilized for parking.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions from the Board? (none) Thank
you Mr Binger, very much. Is there anyone here who wishes to spear
for the variance? (no one) . Is there anyone here who wishes to
speak in opposition to the variance? (no one) We ' ll call the next
case.
i
I
i
i
i
I
i
I
i
i
I
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
!i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
APRIL 6, 1981
EXECUTIVE SESSION
�jAPPEAL NO. 1351 :
The Board considered the appeal for an area variance under Section �
1130. 25, Column 13 to permit the conversion of the one family house
at 170 Pearsall Place to a two-family home. The property is located
lin an R-lb use district and is deficient in required minimum side
I
yard for a two-family dwelling. The decision of the Board was as
! follows :
i
�MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested
in appeal number 1351 .
�ICHAIRMAN AMAN: I second the motion.
(VOTE : 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent Granted.
i
;FINDINGS OF PACT:
�1) All proposed changes are internal .
� 2) Present existing deficiency of four feet C41 ) will not be
I
exacerbated,
i
13) Use is permitted in the present zoning.
14) Sufficient parking is available.
Iit
I5) No neighborhood resistance expressed.
�16) Will not change the character of the neighborhood.
I
`i
I
li
I '
!i
,I
is
RI
I, I
f
�I
i
II
I
�I
II I
i
I I
it
I
(I - 12 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
j I
APRIL 6 , 1981
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal , Mr. Chairman, is appeal 1352 :
Ij
Appeal of Robert Shapiro for a use variance
i' under Section 30. 25 , Column 2 and an area',
j' variance under Section 30. 25 , Columns 11 and
j12 to permit use of a portion of the property
ii at 316 West Court Street (Markles Flats) for
a food processing and wholesale business . '
The property is located in a P-1 (public ase)
use district in which a commercial enter
prise is not a permitted use , and the
property is deficient in two front yard set
(j backs .
�IMR. SHAPIRO: My name is Robert Shapiro , 169 Slaterville Road. I
idon' t
really have much of a prepared presentation. I think what I
;dam proposing to do doesn' t have too much of an impact on that neigh-
borhood at all and the variances isn' t needed because that building
is a school district building and is zoned only for educational purl
poses. T don' t know how much detail to go into about the operation -
I
II think it might be easier just to see if there are any questions . (
f� I assume that the members of the Board got the same information that
I.
the Planning Board got - my application?
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes . You might summarize - that would be helpful.',
�IMR. SHAPIRO: Okay. We 'd like to produce and wholesale a food pro-'i
;
duct called tofu which some people know about and some people don' t.
; It ' s made from soybeans . It' s sort of an oriental health food item
,depending on how you want to look at it. We going to keep this!,
�i
a small operation, there is actually just two of us and we hope to
,make a - we just want to make this stuff and wholesale it in the
I(iIthaca area mostly. I don't know what else to add to that.
jCHAIRMAN AMAN: What is the property that you plan to use for this?
I
T 'm not clear on that.
HMR. SHAPIRO: It' s the first floor of the Markles Plats building.
I
';CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes , and could you describe that? What is that?
� MR. SHAPIRO: That building?
( CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes.
jMR. SHAPIRO: Oh, that' s a building on the corner of Court and Plain.
f
!I guess it used to be - I don't know if it was a high school or an
- 13 -
elementary school It is part of - that whole block is school district
I
property - it is now - well - it has been used for a number of thinigs
- the first floor is completely vacant . And I think it used to be
Mass Productions and upstairs there are a couple of small things like
an artist studio and I think OAR has an office there and there is a
wood carver but the first floor is vacant - it is sort of attached )
Ito some other school district property. And we are looking to rent!
part of the first floor - about 1 , 200 square feet or so, which is
the largest room there - it is sort of the bulk of the area on the
first floor.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Shapiro, I 'm totally unfamiliar with the process of
manufacturing tofu. Would you enlighten me on that?
MR. SHAPIRO: It' s pretty simple, as I said, what goes into it is
soybeans and water. Basically the soy beans are ground up and you
i
Iget set of a slurry - it' s mixed with some water - that' s cooked.
II
It' s then pressed - sort of like a cider press - that kind of a
process - what you are doing is - you are extracting the soy milk
from the insoluable parts of the soy beans - the wholes and whatever
else - so you run it through your press or your extractor or what-
ever it is - you get soy milk - soy milk is then coagulated and curld.s
form - very similar to cottage cheese - to the dairy process of making
cottage cheese. Curds and whey result after you throw the coagulant
i
iin 'and those curds are pressed into blocks - that ' s what is bought
in the store. j
MR. WALSH: What sort of volume are you talking about in terms of j
consumption of soy bean and the volume of liquid that you would
i
process in, say a week?
MR. SHAPIRO: We are looking at probably about initially - probably';
about 200 pounds of beans per week. That ' s initially and let ' s see;
that makes about 600 pounds of tofu. Each one of those pounds
I
generally takes a little over a, gallon of water total to process it!.
1 i
� - to soak the beans , to cook them in �- clean up everything. So that
sort of what we are shooting at right now, Does that answer that?
MR. WALSH : Is this product bottled then or
MR. SHAPIRO: No, these cakes are - well - we 'll produce them in
I �
i
j
14
i
Jlarge cakes - they are then cut up and most of what we are doing
lwe are going to sell in bulk so it will go into those white plastic!
i,
five gallon pails and those are delivered to stores and restaurantsi
land things like that. Some of our sales will be packaged individ-
ually like to super markets - they sell it in a little tub about this
( size (show of circle with hands) - the cake is put in the tub , filled
with water and then sealed with plastic,
MR. WALSH: In what sort of volume would you be importing the raw
�imaterials?
i
IMR. WALSH: Yes .
i
'MR. SHAPIRO: Probably - this is sort of a guesstimate at this point ,
i
�lprobably somewhere between a half a ton and a ton of soy beans in
1100 pound bags, We are just separate part of the area of that rood
and store it there,
( MR. WALSH: Is the room in which you intend to store this material 'i;
one that would be sealed off in any way?
MR. SHAPIRO Sealed off from what - the rest of the room?
MR, WALSH: Well , to be more specific , what I am concerned about is
i
the possibility of encouraging rhodents in the area and I just won-4
i
jdered if the presence of a substantial quantity of raw materials might
The an inducement for our four legged friends .
IMR. SHAPIRO,. Yes , somebody did write me a letter about that - we
i
,,' have to keep the - the building has to be tight for starters -
,' we 've met with the Ag & Markets there and he looked over the build
Iiand he didn't give us anything official because it wasn�t an
( official inspection but he said it looked good to him. We have to !
shave the building tight for our own sake we can't have animals
getting in, It looks like a sound building to me - that's one of �he
jreasons T'm interested in i,t. In answer, specifically, to your
question, what the inspector said we had to do was erect some sort
�I
of partition between the actual cooking area, and basically anythiig
i I
else specifically, the storage would be in - so we are going to do
that, put up this small partition wall , But -- all I am saying -
for the rest of our operations also, we have to have it - we cantt
have animals of any sort in there , so we will have to do something
I
I about that.
I� I
- 15 -
il i
MR. ANGELL: How about the whey as it were, is that merely flushed ;
I
down the sewer as the process?
I
' MR. SHAPIRO: It can be saved and it has a lot of use - I am not
(I
sure if there is a market around here for using the whey. It is
; not going to go down the storm sewer - I mean, it is going to go down
i
the sanitary sewer so it' s not being slushed right into the lake o�
anything . But unless we find that there are people interested in
I
whey, we are just going to dispose of it . It' s a fairly small
Iamount - the size of shop we are talking about. In the huge factoVie:
I
s its a serious thing - they have special treatment areas for it but
HI think they are dealing with millions of gallons of whey and we a4e
d
Pnot anywhere near that.
EMR. WEAVER: I assume you are dealing with the school board with al
lease for one term?
I
! MR. SHAPIRO: Yes . I put in an application for a lease and they
offered, I guess , what they call short one year for a longer five
or more . I applied initially for a year with several renewal one- 1
year options .
I
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions? Thank you very much.
I
IMR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
i
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone here who wishes to speak for the variance?
! (no one) Is there anyone here who opposes it? (.no one) Okay,
Ii
shearing nothing further we will move on to the next case.
ISECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Chairman, we did have a letter that was sent !
I I
to the Department of Planning and Development from Robert Pezdek
from 114 Esty Street who wanted to go on record that he has no ob- '.
Ejections- to the operation of such a business at this address .
I
I
I
E
E, I
,I
I
E
i
I�
i
16 -
I i
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
i
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
1 APRIL 6 , 1981
EXECUTIVE SESSION
IIThe Board considered the appeal number 1352 , of Robert Shapiro for !
i
i
' a use variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 2 and an area variance j
under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 11 and 12 to permit use of a portion
i
hof the property at 316 West Court Street for a food processing and
I'
i
j wholesale business . The property is located in a P-1 use district ',
i
Ilin which a commercial enterprise is dot a permitted use, and the
I
; property is deficient in two front yard set backs . The decision o
the board was as follows :
i
MR. WALSH: I move that the applicant be granted a special permil�
for the manufacture of tofu in appeal number 1352 .
�ICHAIRMAN AMAN: I second the motion.
VOTE : 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent Granted. j
;, FINDINGS OF FACT:
1) The evidence showed that there would be no substantial additional
traffic generated in the neighborhood,
I
2) There is no communication that the process would be dangerous
or generate noise, fumes or other irritants to the neighborhood.;
I13) That the use is consistent with previous uses of that property. !
I,,
! 4) It would be in harmony withthe existing character of the neigh-;
borhood and what can be anticipated of its future.
15) No showing that this use would impair the enjoyment or value of
i
i
adjoining properties ,
j
l
ii
I�
i!
II
- 17 -
,j
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
jAPRIL 1-4, 1981 j
IISECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1354 :
i
Appeal of Tom Newton for a use variance under
Section 30. 25 , Column 2 and an area varianc�
II� under Section 30. 25 , Columns 6 , 10, 11 and ] 3
I' and an interpretation of Section 30 . 3B, Par -
graph 66 (definition of "Non-conforming usel) ,
to permit the continued use of the property
at 702-704 North Aurora Street as a multip14
dwelling. The appellant is seeking relief froi
the Building Commissioner 's determination
that the non-conforming use of the property
as a multiple dwelling was not legally estal _
lished prior to the May 25, 1977 rezoning of
the neighborhood to an R-2b (residential - 1
one or two family dwelling use district) an
thus the use as a multiple dwelling must be
discontinued.
MR. SELDIN: Thank you Tom. My name is Bill Seldin, I represent j
the interestsof Tom Newton. Very interesting scenario of events
j that have happened from 1976 forward to this date that I think bes
can be explained by Tom Newton, himself, and after Tom gives you
his first hand accounting of what has taken place since the time
i
f� he purchased the property at 702 North Aurora I would like a brief
opportunity to mention how we feel the history of events have met
the three criteria imposed by the Ordinance for a variance. Tom?
MR. NEWTON: My name is Tom Newton. In 1975 I bought 702 N. Auror
Street to be used as my home and my office for my newspaper. I
hired licensed city contractors to come in and do the renovations
in the summer of 1975 and the renovations consisted of putting in
an income apartment on the third floor and redoing a porch on the
second floor. The porch was to be used as the dark room for my
newspaper. All the work was done in the summer of 1975 and inspec-
ted in the summer of 1975 - no work of any kind has been done since
that time except regular maintenance. I had a serious leg injury l
that required me to take in a partner and my partner did not want 1
the offices in my home and so we went to a lawyer - my lawyer is
asking me to indicate that this was not the lawyer that I went to
at that time. I went to a lawyer and the lawyer told me that it as
okay - he looked at the lease for where ' we were going to be movi g
on the Commons and he told me that it would be okay to make the
1
18 -
Ijmove - that I was in an R-3 zone and that it was suitable for a
,Imultiple dwelling of three units and that I could put in another
11apartment and we would need a variance but it would not be a major
i
11thing because all we were lacking was 100 feet . So based on this
advice I repainted the dark room white, bought a stove and rented
lithe apartment . Unfortunately we never had the opportunity to go
'' for a variance at that time - I wish we had, but my next door neigh-
1 bor came up to me about that time and said to me that she was moving
I
iland did I want to buy her house and she told me not only was she
�smoving but she would rent the house from me until she moved and she
l
; would sublet the house for me after she moved so it was an offer I
Ij
!, couldn't refuse and I called my lawyer and he suggested that we
ii
( take the house because this way I would have the extra 100 feet
11definitely and so I followed that - we bought the house that house
was not then, nor is it now anything that would be considered an
' income property. It was strictly a house that could maintain itself,
i
Iipay expenses and maybe a few hundred dollars more, but most impor
tantly it gave me the extra 100 feet of land that I was short, in
i
order to have a legal three unit apartment on my home property 7Q2 .
So we bought the property and I went to the Building Commissioner
to let them know that I bought - was buying the property, I can't
' remember whether I went before or after and - I went after and '
�i
; I explained that I bought the property and that I now asked if I had
the sufficient lot coverage and I hope this is part of your record -
if it isn' t, it is very, very important - is the notes of that meed
`ling, which thankfully are written down here by Mr. Hoard and - I ' ll
; point it out to you so you can find it,
i'
l; SECRETARY HOARD: It is part of your appeal and the entire file -
Hwhich you are very familiar with - would be part of the record . . . i
IMR. NEWTON: Okay - basically - I went to Mr. Hoard, I was told
originally that the only thing that I was lacking was , I believe the
figure was 100 feet of lot size - that figure may be wrong but that
ijis what I believe - so when I went in to Mr. Hoard, we went over the
I'
Icthing - we drew out the diagrams showing the two properties - its
an adjoining property and this is in 1976 - one full year at least '
i
,,! before the zoning law changed and it says here - two lots combined , -
� I
19 - !
minimum required for five units - could have lots deeded as one.
; This is from the meeting between Mr. Hoard and myself. I left Mr.
Hoard' s office, went directly to my lawyer ' s office and told him
!�!, what Mr. Hoard had said and his famous last words were "Tom, don' t!
1worry about it, I ' ll take care of it - you now own both propertiesi -
it ' s as simple as taking change from one pocket and putting it int
i
the other. " And that, in brief is the problem. I just want to
stress that all the changes were done prior to the 1977 zoning law'
I
h MR. SELDIN: Okay, now Tom what are you claiming as hardship in
I
�! this case?
! MR. NEWTON: Well, basically, I would be losing approximately
1! 7 ,000 a year - which is approximately 250 of m income . Plus the
I�
Y Pp Y Y
; fact that I bought the property next door and in a long drawn out
I
divorce settlement, rebought the property - you see I bought this
ii
;! property three times to get an extra 100 feet of lot so that three!
!! units could be legal. My wife and I lived on the first floor with!,
a dog and two cats, rented out the second floor and the third floor.
IIMR. SELDIN: Let me clarify some things so that there is no question
i
j as to what our position is. First of all do we have the xerox cope
Hof the deeds as part of the record Tom? j
ii
; SECRETARY HOARD: Yes we do.
i
MR. SELDIN: Okay. And do we have the xerox copies of the lease
; agreements to establish how the property in question was utilized 11
I
`1 prior to 77?
SECRETARY HOARD: What exhibit is that?
� MR. SELDIN: It would have been attached to the letter that I sent!!
jlto Marty. If you saw that. If not, I'd like to offer as part of
jthe record, lease agreements to establish that the property was
' utilized in a manner that Tom described.
jCHAIRMAN AMAN: Was it deeded as one unit at some point? Was that
i!
j done?
rMR. SELDIN: I'm not sure what you mean when you say deeded as one,
unit.
' CHAI'RMAN AMAN: There were two units - two parcels .
i
MR. SELDIN: Prior to 77 actually in 1976 Tom had title to both
t
i
V I
20 -
i
702-704 and 708 , the adjacent property, so that he had sufficient
area if he met all the other criteria. That' s why I think its im-I
i
portant for me to crystalize what our position is because we are j
i claiming that we want - or requesting interpretation that we have
a non-conforming use here - valid non-conforming use and we are
11also asking for a variance. Reduced to its basic terms essentially
! what happened, from what Tom has told me and what he has just told
you, is this. He bought this piece of property in 1975 at 702-7041
North Aurora Street. He wanted to utilize it as a multiple resi-
dency and he found out - I think it was from Mr. Stickler - was it�
i
MR. NEWTON: Yes .
MR. SELDIN: During the course of one of your whatever in them
- that he didn't have the sufficient area and after that fact occu -
i
red, he had an opportunity to buy the place next door which was not
particularly renumerative but in his mind, he though he would have ,
i
enough square footage - enough area to use the property as a multiple
i
residence. I think then he went to see Mr. Hoard to explain where
he was at and the notes of Mr. Hoard' s meeting indicate that what
was left to be done - and the only thing that was left to be done
at that point - was to - I think - partition the property so that
we would have a deeding of property from 708 - the adjacent proper�y
i
to 702- 704 so that he would have sufficient area to support the
I '
multiple residency. At that point in time he went to see his other
attorney to say, hey - simple question - just having survey performed
- deeding out the appropriate number - or square footage of proper y
so that I can utilize this as a multiple residency, Apparently that
was never accomplished - the Code was changed in 77 and now Tom finds
1himself in the predicament that he is in. The things that I want
� to clarify are, number 1 , we are well aware that we are not sayi g
I
1here that Tom Hoard said it was okay and we did it . That' s not what
liI
� we are saying at all, And I don't think technically - although I
don' t want to concede this point R I don't think technically we ca�
say that we have a valid non-conforming use, What we can say is tis ,
that we have three criteria - in order to obtain a variance. One
1 I
lis hardship and I think we are talking about income property
i
I
r
- 21 -
I
I almost self evident. When you lose a unit it ' s going to devalue the
property and you are going to have a loss of income . The uniqueness
I I think is met by the history of events that Tom has just describe.
�I
ii and I think this has to be and I imagine that it is important to
I this Board for this reason - we know that the zoning laws were re-1
�i vised in 77 for a reason. We would like to suggest to the Board
;11 is that if this Board grants a variance in this particular case,
i
there wouldn' t be a precedent established. This is not an excep-
iltion, per se. Because I think Tom followed the spirit of the Ordir-
11 nance which is a third criteria - to the letter. As best he knew
how at the time. We don' t have a case here where somebody is coming
in after the fact and saying - hey, in 1978 this is what I did and''
i
I� gee I am going to suffer a terrible hardship if you take it away
from me. This is somebody who came in before the Code changed -
� took the initiative - went to see Tom, went to see his attorney -
�jin order to do the things that had to be done to comply with the
i
'I spirit of the Ordinance, And now he finds himself in a proverbial!
"catch 22" situation where the city is demanding that he comply
�1with certain regulations that would attach if it were multiple
residency but they are also saying, don' t do it unless you get a
variance.. One thing I want to make absolutely clear is that Tom
I
! Hoard and his department have given us every assistance. In my
judgement they have been exceptionally sensitive to the predicament
that Tom is in and even in some respects , supportive although we
! respect the fact that they have a job to do. The last thought that
I want to leave you with is, I think you have this letter from
! Pamela Andregg? In the file? Have you all seen that? Just take
Ime two seconds to read it and then I won' t take up any more of your
time. To the Board: 'I believe it will be in the interests of the!
( neighborhood for you to grant Tom Newton' s variance, Tom spent
much time and energy on that piece of property while we were still ;
�Ineighbors and I have no reason to believe that he would retire front
�Idoing so in the future. Tom also rented to people with discretion
i
' When we ran the halfway house two doors down, th.e people in his
house were kindly of mind, manner and general behavior, In addi,
( tion, or perhaps most important, to ask him to restrict his property,
22 -
(I
muse after previously granting him permission for three apartments
lis retrogressive and abusive. I appreciate this opportunity to matte
! my views known and hope that Ithaca will continue to support land-
II
! lords like Tom Newton. Tom cares about his rental property and the
people who live in them., Okay, as far as I can tell from speaking ,
jwith Tom, and some other people, this was an unsolicited remark and
.r
1! the reason why I point it out to you now, even though it is in the ',
! record - is this , that if we are concerned about establishing pre
1cedents - and not coming in conflict with the very reason for why
the code was changed in 77 from a multiple residency to an R-2b -
i
(ewe have to look at how the general public might view this kind of
situation. Here is somebody from down the street at one time who
is looking at this and says well , you know - technically - we -
attorneys - whoever may see that it ' s not in its strictest sense -
a valid, non-conforming use but the scenario of events . . .
,{ CHAIRMAN AMAN: I understand the scenario of events but technically
1you have to meet the use variance standard and if you could take - if
I
, you say anything further on this case , I wish you would address that
I�
point because that is the one that I am troubled with.
IMR. SELDIN: Now, you are saying that . . .
I� CHAIRMAN AMAN: Can that property be used in a way which conforms to
�I
11 the zoning of the area which produces a fair return?
i�
I MR. SELDI'N: Okay, Tom you might be able to assist us with this ,
!i okay? Because I understand why you want that amplified. Question'
is, can't we use it in a way that would conform with., for example, !
i
it a two unit? Is that what you are saying?
Ij
! CHAIRMAN AMAN: Right. I know there is going to be less money in-'
volved, I know that. But I 'm just pointing out the standard for a
�i use variance is a tough one,
f MR. NEWTON: To answer you - your first question. If you remove that
I I
unit you remove over 300 of the value of that property. Number 1 . '.
Number 2 , the situation is that all of this was done all the work,
II all the buying of the property was done while it was legal to hajve
�j three units in that area and the only thing that was not carried out
I
is the actual redeeding saying Tom Newton owns 70.2 - Tom Newton
!
1! - 23 -
i{
owns 708 . Tom Newton owns both 702 and 708 - take 100 feet from j
i
0708 - stick it over in 702 - doesn' t change the apartment size,
I
doesn't change anything - it just changes the lot size. Although
! bought it strictly for that reason, anybody who looks at that
�1property couldn' t imagine any other reason for my buying it .
(I
��IMR. SELDIN: At this point in time I think I want to focus in on
I
your question a little bit better, i
CHAIRMAN AMAN: No , I understand. That answer goes to the non-
conforming use part of your case.
i
MR. SELDIN: But at this point in time it would be virtually impost
sible to change the place back for a lot of reasons .
MR. NEWTON: It' s the middle floor. You would have to remove the
i
! middle floor. The first floor is conforming and the third floor i�
conforming and how do you get from the first to the third floor if '
! you remove that
!
MR. SELDIN: It would entail a design change which would make it
virtually impossible at this point . Now we can't - we don't have
i
architects with us and we canFt establish anything better except t�
say that at this point in time it would be a virtual impossibility;
! for Tom to revert back. i
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Do you have any indication of how much. money was
invested when you did the renovations?
MR. SELDIN: Tom, approximately how much money did you - have you
spent over the years?
I� MR.. NEWTON: I think in 1975 and this is off the top of my head -
would guess approximately - I had Bear Electric as the licensed
!
electrician and Albanese Plumber and a slue of other people - I i
would guess in excess of $12 ,000 and I do not know that for a fact
I 'm not prepared to swear to that but I know that it was all the
money that I had then and I 'm still paying it off.
MR. WEAVER: For simplicity, could you tell me what this structure
was when Tom bought it? I
MR. SELDIN: You mean, what it was zoned for or how it was utilized?
MR. WEAVER: I 'm not interested in the zoning, I 'm just interested in
�i what the structure was when he bought it.
MR. NEWTON: I 'm not a 100 percent familiar , but according to . . . i
i
' 24
i
'SMR. WEAVER: Was it a three story building?
i
,MR. NEWTON: Yes. Three story building with attic .
i
EMR. WEAVER: And the third story was an attic?
�'MR. NEWTON: It was the former home of - this is a large corner
i
jproperty . . .
SMR. SELDIN: He just wants to know how it was utilized.
i
M. WEAVER: It was a two story with attic?
IMR. NEWTON: Three story with attic.
MR. WEAVER: And had it been occupied by a family?
MR. NEWTON: According to the lady who lived down the street there ,
I
nand the easiest thing would be to read her I don' t know, I wasn' t
jthere before I was there.
i
MR. WEAVER: Well , alright - did it have one bathroom?
MR.. NEWTON: No, it had one, two two and a half bathrooms.
I '
IMR. WEAVER: Did it have one kitchen?
MR. NEWTON: It had one and a half kitchens .
MR. WEAVER: And the third floor was occupied or suitable for
occupancy?
liMR. NEWTON: It was totally roughed in,
MR. WEAVER: So two floors were ready for occupancy?
I
MR. NEWTON: Yes .
SMR. WEAVER: So it had a bath on the first and a bath. on the second
I
land a kitchen on the - each- floor?
i
IMR. NEWTON: No, it had a bath on the first, on the second and a half
lbath on the third,
SMR, WEAVER,? Third?
(MR. NEWTON: Third. Everything was there except the actual fixtures ,
Isr.
MR. WEAVER: But you said it was just roughed in.
i
MR. NEWTON: That 's what I 'm everything was when Albanese Plumbing
came all they did was to put the actual fixtures - whoever was there
�� - if it was Judge Adams, or whoever - had actually roughed it in.
�IMR. SELDIN: What we are talking about is - the plumbing was in
1placeand roughed in but it was not set up on the third floor,
,i right?
j, MR. NEWTON: Correct. That' s what the building permit was about.
I�
25 -
I
IMR. WEAVER: Was there one stairway to the third floor?
�IMR.i
NEWTON: Yes .
I
MR. WEAVER: Thank you very much,
�� MR. SELDIN: Tom?
SECRETARY HOARD: I'm disturbed by a little bit of this because
I I
it doesn' t seem to conform to what is here in the record. In 19741
Ian inspection was made by the Building Department it was shown al
I
'Ia one-family dwelling. In 1975 _ July of 1975 a building permit
i;
I� was issued to Mr. Newton completing second living unit - third floor
i
second means to be provided. But then something you said about
i
i
I; the cost - what it cost you to convert it and how difficult it would
l�
Ibe to restore it to three - I mean to two units . This is a letter
to Mr. Naegely, who is an inspector in my office, from Mr. Newton r
it' s hand written, After Mr. Naegely had sent an inspection letter
which included this statement -"inspection revealed the presence of
three apartments in an R-2b zone instead of the two previously
there , The last inspection of the house was as a single family
unit and then a permit was issued to use the third floor for anothor
apartment if the second means of egress was provided. Now, with nO
lother permit and after meeting with Mr . Thomas Hoard and Mr. Ediso#i
Jones on August 12, 1976 , at which time it was stated that another'(
II unit could not be made until more land was deeded to the 702 lot
'MR. SELDIN: What is that letter . , , what is the date on that?
SECRETARY HOARD: This is 10/24/79 ,
MR. SELDIN: Okay.
SECRETARY HOARD: Okay. This is in direct violation with the zoni�g
Iordinance of the City of Ithaca. In 1977 a variance was required
for this unit, Mr. Newton replied on well I don't see a date on!
i
i
his letter but it was received by my department on December 7 , 1970
(Pearl Harbor day) .
I
MMR. SELDIN: Thank you Tom,
I
(I SECRETARY -;)ARD: And in response to that as your records correctly
i indicate, 'T spoke to Mr . Hoard and Mr. Jones in August 1976 and wad
�I told an extra unit could be added if I deeded additional land to
1 702 North Aurora.,, Since I have just purchased the adjacent property
i
I'
ii
- 26 -
�f
it created the third unit . I did not seek a building permit be-
(icause no construction took place in the conversion. I simply boug�t
i� a stove and refrigerator . The sink had already been there as part
iof the photography darkroom. Unfortunately my former lawyer never
bothered to deed the additional land, stating that it was merely
a technicality and therefore no rush." That doesn't fit in with what
i
you said about the difficulty of converting it back to two units. j
MR. NEWTON: May I explain that?
IMR. SELDIN: Yes , that is what he is asking for.
I
MR. NEWTON: This is 100% correct. To turn the second floor from
my home and offices into an apartment , all we did was to paint than
darkroom white and to buy a stove. No other work was done - that
is absolutely correct, The answer to the question of how much it
cost me was initially and all that in 75 and all that work was done
I
at the same time the third unit and the porch was done at the same
time by Bear Electric and Albanese Plumbing - was all done in 75 a
the same time,
SECRETARY HOARD: This, permit was to for a second living unit -
i
not a third living unilt .
MR. NEWTON: It wasn't intended at that time to be a third living
unit it was intended at that time to be my home and offices for
i
the Good Times Gazette which is why the back porch was turned into !
i
a dark room and was wired by Bear Electric and Albanese Plumbing
to put in the sink - to put in the electrical outlets and Mr. - I !
believe it ' s Mr. Stickler and I stood right on that floor - righ
in that room, because he had me put up the second means of egress
I
and told me I had to have a certain type of fire wall to separate
that and was standingright there on that porch as we were talking ,
$ p
We had to because it was the only place you could see the fire wall
which I had to put in,
SECRETARY HOARD: So you are saying in 70 - what was happening in
75 with this permit?
MR. NEWTON: In 1975 all the work was done by, the people I just
;
mentioned - with the exception and inspected with the one ex-
ception of the stove and painting it white and that is the figure
I was talking about - over 10 or 12 - or whatever - thousand dolla s .
I' I3
- 27 -
11
The actual renovation cost me less than - well I think that figure!
may have been what I thoughtbefore I got the bills . I think I app� ie
; for the building permit before the work was done and I had some
i'
i laborers in there on an hourly . . .
i MR. WALSH: This one hundred feet you are speaking of, is this a
I hundred square feet you are talking of?
1 MR. SELDIN: Tom, again I think that this is something that was
i1pretty much in agreement at the time - that he lacked the square
footage and when he left your office he was simply to , what - haves'
� a survey and deed out the property so that he would be in compliance
with the area requirement . I think that much we can agree on . . .
I
SECRETARY HOARD: It was a minimum lot size requirement in the zoning
! MR. WALSH: One hundred square feet?
j; SECRETARY HOARD: Yes .
' MR. SELDIN: Well , let ' s see if we take that . . . I 'm just going
fffrom your notes now, Tom. We had 3, 250 plus 6, 000 for a total of
, ,, 250 which, according to your notes would have been - you know -
i
; with the two lots combined - a minimum required for five units - s�. . .
MR. WALSH: So if the property had been deeded over to meet the
( minimum lot size you would have had a set back and side yard require-
. i
; ment to overcome that , at that point , is that right?
iMR. SELDIN: We weren' t under that impression at all,
iMR. NEWTON: According
SECRETARY HOARD: The requirements now are under the current zonin;
which are much stiffer as far as set backs and . . .
MR. WALSH: Let me just ask - if the property had been deeded at
f
that time , the one hundred square feet at issue - would the two
jproperties taken together,have net the zoning requirement of that
time?
! -MR. SELDIN: Tom?
1 SECRETARY HOARD; I think so , yes , There would have been - what
f
would happen would be that the two side yards or the side yard in
i
question on this particular piece of property would have been the
I! side yard adjacent to the one - of the other piece of property then
combined with it so that deficiency was disappeared.
i
RA I
j ^ 28 -
Ii
�i
11MR. WALSH: I don't know real estate very well , do we have a doctrine
i
I
jjof merger of properties?
�IMR. SELDIN: A doctrine of merger of properties . Well that was the
I
position I took with Marty Shapiro when we met to discuss this . M
!� �I
ii position was that Tom, by virtue of - you know - both deeds and he '
' owns from point A to point B no matter how you looked at it. The
I
1; reason I think - and correct me if I 'm wrong - Mr. Hoard - the
i
j! reason why there was mention of a survey and deeding out was with
i
respect to sub-division at the time.
11SECRETARY HOARD: I don' t believe sub-division came into it .
� MR. SELDIN: What was in play then?
I
;; SECRETARY HOARD: Just the requirement that all these measurements )
�jwould have to apply to a lot and not two lots together.
f MR. SELDIN: Well - it was and is our position that Tom had title iso
II
property at 702 and 708 . He owned - you know - just lake if you hAd
i
a deed, you have parcel A and parcel B, you transfer - he' s got
you know - fee simple absolute in that property from - you know -
i
` 702 through 708 so we took the position that he owned a requisite
amount of area and I guess Marty, quite frankly, looked at it dif- j
I
ferently. He felt that , you know, that the property would have to
The surveyed and deeded out , I couldn't understand the reasoning in
i! I
,Ithat because if, you own title to property, you own title to properly.
II If you, for example, own lot A and then you acquire lot B, what dol
11you own? You own lot A and B, It ' s not like you own lot A - 150
I
; feet up the road and then you start to own another piece of proper�y
you own that amount of road property.
11MR. ANGELL: What happens if you sell one of those lots?
EMR. SELDIN: He could well that ' s a good point because if after
lhe acquired 708 , the adjacent property, he could have by one deed
CI
{ deeded out 702-704 plus let ' s say the other 100 feet without . . .
IMR. ANGELL: But he didn't.
MR. SELDIN: No, but he could.
�I
Ii SECRETARY HOARD: Well I think part of the question dealt with thei
I I
ownership of the other property ^ that was a dual ownership, in
�! other words . . .
�; i
- 28 -
I
i
11MR. WALSH: I don't know real estate very well, do we have a doctrine
iof merger of properties?
IjMR. SELDIN: A doctrine of merger of properties . Well that was th�
f
position I took with Marty Shapiro when we met to discuss this . My,
position was that Tom, by virtue of - you know - both deeds and he
i
owns from point A to point B no matter how you looked at it. The
i
reason I think - and correct me if I 'm wrong - Mr. Hoard - the
jireason why there was mention of a survey and deeding out was with
respect to sub-division at the time. I
i
SECRETARY HOARD: I don't believe sub-division came into it .
! MR. SELDIN: What was in play then?
I
! SECRETARY HOARD: Just the requirement that all these measurements
i
�jwould have to apply to a lot and not two lots together.
I
I1MR. SELDIN: Well - it was and is our position that Tom had title iso
1iproperty at 702 and 708 . He owned - you know - just like if you h�d
i
a deed, you have parcel A and parcel B, you transfer - he ' s got
lyou know - fee simple absolute in that property from - you know
702 through 708 so we took the position that he owned a requisite
( amount of area and I guess Marty, quite frankly, looked at it dif- ,
ferently. He felt that, you know, that the property would have to
i
'' be surveyed and deeded out . I couldn't understand the reasoning in
that because if you own title to property, you own title to property.
II£ you, for example, own lot A and then you acquire lot B, what dog
I
you own? You own lot A and B, It ' s not like you own lot A - 150 I
I
jfeet up the road and then you start to own another piece of proper�y
!I - you own that amount of road property.
MR. ANGELL: What happens if you sell one of those lots?
iMR. SELDIN: He could well that' s a good point because if after
� I
I' he acquired 708 , the adjacent property, he could have by one deed i
l deeded out 702-704 plus let' s say the other 100 feet without
I
�1 MR. ANGELL: But he didn't .
MR. SELDIN: No, but he could.
II SECRETARY HOARD: Well I think part of the question dealt with the
ii ownership of the other property - that was a dual ownership, in
i
�� other words . . .
- 29 -
IMR. SELDIN: You mean 702?
, SECRETARY HOARD: Yes .
I
i� MR. SELDIN: You mean, he and his wife owning? j
( SECRETARY HOARD: The one that would have been - one was owned by
(' Tom Newton alone and the other one was a joint ownership.
i
MR. SELDIN: Well it was owned by Tom and his wife - his tenants bit
the entirety. Which means that each person owns the entire piece ¢f
property. When husband and wife take title to a piece of propertyll -
I
they don't own it one-half in one name and one-half in the other.
I
They each hold title to the entire property. So Tom, legally
speaking, I think, owned 702-704 and 708 as of 1976, July. But yob
fare right, sir, he didn't deed out , if he had - had a survey and p�e-
� pared another deed - if his attorney had done that at the time, yo
1
know, chances are we wouldn't be here now. What we do take issue
i
with is whether or not that was really necessary under the circum- �
stances because he did have title to the entire amount of property
in question.
MR. WEAVER Do the leases indicate clearly what the condition of
the building was and how it was occupied at the time the Zoning Or
dinance change became effective? Or are we still talking about
maybe it was two and maybe it was three, at that moment?
i
MR. SELDIN: What sir, what we have and I. know it speaks for it- j
self, but we have leases for the years August 1975 to August 1976 4nd
we've got August 1976 to August 1977 and we have leases for apart- 1
ments 2 and 3, Tom, occupying the other one. And as Tom just told
you, he occupied one unit for those years and he had leases estab-
lishing that there were tenants in the other two units as well and
the answer to the other part of your question, beyond that they do It
say anything about you know ^ like , this is a multiple residence
Ior whatever. They just show that people signed to occupy the othei
two units .
MR. WALSH: Those leases are part of the record, Bill?
MR. SELDIN: Yes sir.,
iMR. WALSH; Thank you,
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions? (none) Thank you very muc ,
i
- 30
1IMR. SELDIN: Thank you sir.
{1
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf )
11of the variance request? (no one) Is there anyone here who wishel
�1
l to speak in opposition to the variance request?
I
!! VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE : I have a couple of questions .
,I
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Well if you will come forward.
'
I i
! MR. SLADE: My name is Richard Slade and I live at 713 N. Aurora
Street. The only questions I have are, is 708 N. Aurora still for
( sale? Perhaps Mr. Newton could . . .
CHAIRMAN AMAN: The question is , is 708 N. Aurora Street still for !
t
! sale?
IMR. NEWTON: No .
(! CHAIRMAN AMAN: Mr. Newton - the record will show that Mr. Newton I
answers no.
I
MR. SLADE: In this letter that I got from Mr. Seldin it says : he !
4 purchased 708 as a. non-renumerative premises and I take it that
i
means as not making any money or something like that.
I
{i MR. SELDIN: He didn't purchase it with the idea in mind that he
i
would make a lot of money from it,
( MR. SLADE: But he is . , .
I
I MR. SELDIN: He purchased it to break even he pays the mortgage
Ii
and all the utilities and e erything else and the expenses - but
fine - in other words it will carry itself. He didn' t envision and as
Ii
' he has just told you, he hasntt made a substantial profit on that
{ piece of property but by having enough income to pay the mortgage
,land expenses associated with. 708 , he was able to justify buying itl
so that held have enough area to support 702-70.4 as a multiple res ' -
II
1 dence.
i
SMR. SLADE : Ilm not sure what time frame this area problem came into
, effect , can you tell me that?
i
MR, SELDIN: Yes sir. At the time Tom purchased 702-704 in July o�
I I '
{ 1975 the district was zoned for multiple residency. Okay? In July
{ of 76 when he purchased the property next door - 708 - it was still
! zoned for multiple residency and then in 1977 the code was changed {
i'
; from a R-3 multiple residency district- to an R-2b - limiting it to
�I
{itwo units instead of three.
! I
31 -
1
MR. SLADE: He is not going to sell 708?
MR. SELDIN: You mean ever? For as long as he lives?
I
,SMR. SLADE: Well if he does , what size is that lot going to be?
I
MR. SELDIN: Well for the record we'd be happy to stipulate any
; condition that this Board would impose that would, for example, hate
f
the effect of requiring Tom to deed out 702-704 with enough area
I1to justify it as a multiple residence . In other words that extra
I
,ifootage that we were talking about that we say we required way back
I when - which no longer is good now, we will want to stipulate to
, as far as that' s concerned.
I CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposi-l'
I I
Ition to the variance? Hearing nothing further we will take the next
lI case.
it
�iSECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Chairman, we do have some other letters on
i
lthis case. One from Millicent Lounsbery,102 Oakwood Lane, Ithaca, !,
i
New York, she owns property at 704 N. Aurora Street. She says , "I
!! have no objection to the use of this neighboring property as a thr6e
171or even four unit apartment house , providing the character of the
I'
neighborhood is not affected adversely. Previous owners have rent�d
Ito individuals who were untidy, disorderly and at times rowdy. My
first floor tenant who at that time was an elderly lady complained]
frequently of noisy parties and expressed fear. The summer of
j 1974 she moved in September. I would hope that the present owner
iI
; would screen his tenants and join in our attempts to keep a nice
I� neighborhood just that. " Then thereisa letter from Francis N.
I
Hargrave of 306 E. Yates Street. "I , Francis Hargrave, purchased
jl the property at 306 E. Yates Street in November 1945 and I have
I,
; lived there continuously with my family since that time . My prope�-
1, ty is adjacent to and contiguous with the property at 702-704 North
I
Aurora Street. From 1945 until 1975 our neighborhood was quiet and
.I �
peaceful . Our neighbors at 702 N. Aurora were Arthur and Minnie
I Adams until 1972 and Ronald Boys and family from 1972 until 1975.
i
The character of the neighborhood took a drastic change in 1975
when multiple occupancy at 702 N. Aurora occurred. The 300 block
it
Iof East Yates Street became filled each night with parked cars ,
it I
32 -
'i
I�
! entrance to my driveway was frequently blocked by parked cars. I
j
attached many notices to such cars asking drivers to please be morT
�iconsiderate and in certain instances called people from next door
j to move cars from my driveway entrance. Most disturbing and annoy-
il
ling was the noise from cars that parked at all hours of the night
i
within a few feet of our house - slammed doors and communicating
lin loud and boisterous tones . The garages at 702 and 704 N. Aurora
i
Street standing only inches from the eastern lot line of my properly
;fare in very poor repair and have been badly in need of paint for
jmany years . Windows in the garage at 704 have been broken out for '
II several years . Such neglect of routine maintenance detracts from the
I
! neighborhood values and is another indication in change in the char-
acter of the neighborhood. Resident property owners seem to take
I�
' better care of routine maintenance than non-resident owners . During
i
the past few months that the noise and parking problems have di-
� i
iminished and I presume that older people occupy 702 North Aurora
{ Street has also diminished. We respectfully request and urge the
I�
Il Boards to continue the R-2b zoning to prevent further deterioration
of this neighborhood. Respectfully yours, Francis N. Hargrave."
{
I
�I
i�
'I I
� I
f
it
If I
I
�I
I
I
1�
�I
1
I li
I,.
II
e - 33 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
j APRIL 6, 1981
EXECUTIVE SESSION
' I
j I
APPEAL NO. 1354 :
The Board considered the appeal for a use variance under Section
i
30 . 25 , Column 2 and an area variance under Section 30 . 25, Columns
65% 10 , 11 and 13 and an interpretation of Section 30. 3B, Paragraph
66, to permit the continued use of the property at 702-704 North
Aurora Street as a multiple dwelling.
MR. WALSH: I move that the Board deny the variance request d
in appeal number 1354 ,
CHAIRMAN AMAN: I second the motion
VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Abstention; 1 Absent Denied,
FINDINGS OF PACT:
1) There was no -showing whatsoever by the applicant that there wa
a hardship pertaining to the property qualifying for a use
variance.
2) That the evidence before the Board demonstrated that there was
no merger by deed or otherwise of the properties at 702-704
and 706-708 N. Aurora Street which might have permitted multip e
residence use under the prior Ordinance.
3) There was no evidence that 702 .704 N. Aurora Street had been
legally occupied as three (.3) separate dwelling units , Rather ,
the evidence that there is not a second staircase also indicates
that there could not have been three (3) dwelling units legally
in the building under the present or preceeding Multiple Resi-
dence Law,
I
1
i+
34 -
1
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
j' COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
i� CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
APRIL 6 , 1981
i !
I; SECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Hines , have you reconsidered?
� MR. HINES: It isn' t my own personal wishes , but I am afraid we are
going to lose some of the residents who are waiting patiently. Its
up to the Board.
! CHAIRMAN AMAN: We have no problem vyith that . So we' ll call appeal
i
i
! number 1353.
!
IISECRETARY HOARD: Alright . Appeal number 1353 : !
i
Appeal of Byrne Dairy, Inc. for a use vari -
ance under Section 30 . 25, Column 2 to permit
use of the property at 527 West Buffalo St.
for a dairy and convenience food store in !
conjunction with three other properties
fl located at 211 , 213 and 217 North Meadow
�I Street. The property at 527 West Buffalo !
Street is located in an R-2b (residential),
use district in which a store is not a pe -
mitted use. !
l� MR. HINES: My name is Bob Hines , I represent Byrne Dairies. I ap7
pear before this Board on their behalf, not with the same presentation
that we presented the Planning Board where we were concerned with the
!! planning functions but rather to address ourselves to the issues b0for
(, this Board. However, I would like to draw your attention to some !
!! things that I thought the Planning Board might have addressed itself
i
to and didn' t because in addition to asking for a use variance,
they are also asking it from the Board' s discretion of use variance
they feel is not appropriate for whatever reason, that we be given !
+� a special permit for the reasons that I think will be clearly spelled
f
( out . But after the report in the Ithaca Journal , Wednesday, Marchl,
I I
125th after our Planning Board meeting, this Board may not have got '
the right impression about what went on. It said that a first line
i
commercial and residential interests locked in battle Tuesday over !
plans for a new dairy store at a key intersection in Ithaca' s west !
' end. I didn't realize we were locked in battle with anybody at that
meeting, We had one resident who challenged the propriety, non-
e
1 resident, I' should say, an absentee owner who challenged the prop, '
!
!'( riety of the dairy store and that was all , Aside from Sue Cummin .
lI '
i
35
I
And I think it gave a wrong impression because what we try to do ii
show that the proposed use of this property by Bryne Dairy would b
beneficial to the City of Ithaca and in particular this neighborhood
and will give the planning function, which I said, was overlooked,
hand this Board a unique opportunity to lock in an attractive use i
this area along Meadow Street which is presently zoned commercial .
I
I am pointing now to three lots facing Meadow Street which we have
tarranged to purchase. Lot 124 and 23 and wish to purchase lot 2
immediate, behind it for the construction of a dairy convenience ood
� Y Y
store and the architect will show more particularly what those pla s
look like. The three lots on Meadow Street are presently zoned co -
mercial so there is no problem with that. It ' s lot 2 to which we
are directing our attention. Now when I first was presented the
facts in this matter, it seemed to me that quite clearly that the
impact of having a commercial zone on such a narrow strip along Mea -
dow
e -
dow Street impacted very heavily on any of the so-called residential
zones immediately adjacent to it. And by reason of the zoning - bey
i
Treason of rezoning that line so close to a residential area impacted
hand made a hardship for these residencial properties . And that wall
one of the bases for the application - that particular hardship. The
reason that we require that lot , two, to form the block in which the
' construction will take place, you will see from the architect' s dia-
grams,
i -grams, it is necessary in order to build an adequate store, and have
I
,parking, an ingress and egress from vehicular traffic off Meadow
I
Street , you require more space than the 66 feet which is presently
provided in thatparticular commercial zone , Now, I talked to Jon
Meigs - we had a split in the support from the Planning staff, As ,I
i
understand it, Jon Meigs supported the proposition and apparently
Thys VanCort didn't, The Planning Board' s recommendation was very
sympathetic - three members were very sympathetic to the store but
were concerned about the fact that we were going to have to remove ,
what used to be John Solomon' s barber shop, And, as I understand
Ethel Nichols' motion, and I 'm not sure I do understand it correct, ,
she said well it is fine to have the store there backed right up into
1,thatlot as long as you leave the house on the - on Buffalo Street -�
and that might be interesting but it doesn't really preserve a
I
I �
�I 36 -
�I
11residence - it isn' t very practical but it does illustrate that they
11thought that the use we are going to make of this property would bel
il� beneficial to the neighborhood. Because, essentially, as Mr. Brynd
i
!,will point out, this is a neighborhood facility servicing the resi-i
! dents to the immediate east. Now when - I also talked with Jon Meigs
about the zoning law - the zoning lines because as you know from
previous experience, the only map - the only official zoning map is
Ithe one that is attached to the Ordinance and the line of the com-
mercial zone dividing B-2 and R-2 is a line of property lines and it
l� juts out like this and back down and then across the street and down
i
to Ed Clynes ' s property over on Seneca Street. It juts out here
i
(_pointing to map) to accommodate these three particular lots which
i
are differently shaped. One of which, lot 23, is presently for
I �
sale - Village Real Estate has its listing and has had according to
i
,l Dick Shulman, who can' t be here tonight because of the death of a
11friend. Dick said that property has been for sale for six months -'
I�
I
he can' t sell it residentially because it isn' t attractive to sella
residence on Meadow Street and he can't sell it commercially for which
t'
11its zoned because it isn' t big enough. And what 's going to happen !
�Ivery likely, is these three lots will deteriorate to the point where
�Isomeone will find their economic value as residences is so low that
! they will sell them for commercial purposes but in any event I point
i
lout because if you drew a line with that distance back, we are cer-
Mainly - lots 2 and 3 practically are within a commercial zone and
�Il the only purpose for these joggings were to accommodate property
I
! limes which Jon said he did I won't say arbitrarily but it doesn't
f! necessarily make for the best planning use, Mr. Paolangeli owns
i
I, these lots up at the next block and he has the garage there that
j� Lower rents and he has his dry cleaning establishment there and
then this strip of land here all R has a residence up in front and
he uses it for parking and for ingress and egress to the dry cleans
I! ing establishment and then of course Campagnolal Pizzeria is here!
I
Joe' s REstaurant is here, and the Esso Gas Station here - we have
,
commercial uses , of course, all up and down Meadow Street, This
particular block of Meadow Street between Seneca and Buffalo, ac-
II cording to the Department of Transportation is the busiest block
r
II I
j
- 37 -
IItraffic-wise, in the County of Tompkins . The argument that Thys
; raised that we would enhance the traffic in the area seemed to me
! little ludicrous because it would be quite a compliment for any
; additional activity to increase traffic beyond what is now the
'; busiest area but we feel that the - and I think that Mr. Bryne will
i
i
point out - we try to attract a good deal of pedestrian traffic from
iI
the immediate east . We had one resident who did appear last time,
i
Mr. Porterfield, and I assume he is here tonight - he is going to !
I
�� speak. Mr. Porterfield owns lot 21 which is across the street from -
almost across the street from the commercial area and he himself
appears to be - according to the Meig' s map -- in a commercial zone'
! himself and he complained that he didn' t want some commercial activity
'I across the street. He is bounded by - in the rear by commercial - '
fi
�! the Water Department Pumping Facility is there and I believe he him-
; self is a commercial use. The impracticability of providing an ad6-
!! quate store or commercial facility in that lot will be shown by th6
! architect. But the use to be made of this lot to be acquired is
primatily to locate towards the rear of that lot away from the street
I
Kline th-e back of the building so that the parking can be effective !
i
in the front and the front part facing Buffalo Street will be prac
1I
1tically open space with green trees and some form of fencing to
accommodate the neighbors . And I think that a permit based on the ',
�! logic of having an adequate size lot is entirely appropriate and I
do suggest that the narrowness of the commercial area impacts heav ly
on lot 2 and makes it really, impractical ractical for them to use their
property in any other manner. And what I think the Planning Board!
missed and what I 'd like to stress and then I ' ll turn the meeting
over to the other people who want to talk, is it was a wonderful
If opportunity for the Planning Board to use their function as a Plana
il ning Board in a planning function to say, look, now we can lock inl
an attractive use right there - a store , an attractive store to sel -
it
vice the neighborhood, We won't have another gas station or a pizza
parlor or an adult book store or something else that we can' t regu'-
late or control , we are going to have an attractive neighborhood use
and take that opportunity, as a planning function to grab it. You!
I �
I
r �
!I
i
38 -
! never have that opportunity in zoning - you are practically identit
I i
fying the kind of use that is going to go in there and its going to
be there for a long time. But somehow or other it sailed over their
heads and we appreciate a point of view, but T sometimes wonder wh -
they the planning function is well served by the reports that you et.
IBut in any event what I 'm suggesting to you is that it does serve
( legitimate planning function - it has a good use, it is attractive -
there is a hardship to lot 2 , but if your deliberations reveal than
the hardship isn't the overwhelming factor in your minds , it certa�nly
I
seems appropriate that a permit be extended so that we could use h if
of this lot for the - well we are going to use the whole lot - but ;
half the lot for the building - we are leaving a distance along th�
i
rear to accommodate a parking area for the neighbor. We have an
i
easement that we have to accommodate along the east line of lot 2 .
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Can permits be issued to extend one use into another
area which is zoned for a different use?
MR. HINES: Permits are specifically provided to provide for a use
not otherwise accommodated by the Zoning Ordinance. In this partifi
cular case we have three lots which are provided for commercial use
and we are asking for the use of lot 2 for that commercial use. Now
I think consistent with the kind of reasoning that would lend you o
accept this permit or use variance on a hardship basis - if we had
I
sometime prior to 1977 bought these three lots and bought lot no.
i
the Haig lot - which- is the old Solomon barber shop , we would
have permission (unintelligible) you can extend the more red
strictive use into the less restrictive use so in a sense what I aria
saying to you is the way Jon drew the line and the Council adopted )
remember they were rezoning the whole city and I appreciate the dii-
i
ficulty in trying to think of every detail and that is why this i
Board exists - it ' s because you can't think of every detail when you
draft the Ordinance , to have zoning jag - to have a line that is
I
( zig-zagging in and out down the block doesn' t make a lot of sense .
I mean, the rationale behind it escapes me and had they just con-
tinued along the same property lines and gone right down - which
would have been just as easy, we wouldn't even be here but because !
i�
�( -
- 39
;j
; Jon went in and out along these property lines in what I think is
;' semi-arbitrary way, we are now here before the Board. What I am
1
' saying, is if the line had gone down straight we would be in a comb
i
�, plete business zone - if it had gone down even as it is and we had ;
l' bought these four lots before the zoning law, we would be able to
I(
ego in there because of the extension which is permitted. What I ark
; saying to you is , if this area of Meadow Street - forget what we aie
going to do right now - it continues to deteriorate as it is deteri
i
liorating because no one wants to invest a lot of money in residential
; property there - you can't control what that use is going to be - it
; could be any number of commercial uses and if they have to restrict
themselves to 66 feet it will be a very dense, highly impacted used
ibecause no one is going to pay money and not use that property as
I�
intensely as possible . The traffic congestion will be aggravated �nd
I
j� you don' t know what kind of use you are going to get - you don't know
what kind of store - you can't pick and choose what commercial acti.-
M
Ivities are going to go in there . What I am saying to you is that You
1� can and I think this is - where I said - this is where the Planning
Board missed the boat - you can by extending the use that we are
dealing with here - really effectively give a zone an attractive ,
�I
commercial use which is consistent with the neighborhood in which }t
is located. Now what you've got to do in your thinking - and, of
I� course you' ll have to get some advice from Mr. Hoard in your delib-
ii
iterations - but what I am saying to you - the hardship is created
n and there are cases on the subject - when a zone line is drawn be- I%
i�
i
tween zones , sometimes the drawing of that line creates a hardship'
on the adjacent property, It isn't always true and it isn't auto-
! matically true but I think in this particular case because of the
narrowness , it does create a hardship for this property and I think
it ' s going to create - it obviously is going to create a situation
I that Mr, paolangeli found attractive to buy the house and use that!!
for commercial purposes - almost the identical depth over here in
j the next block,
�! CHAIRMAN AMAN; Well you are not suggesting that little clump of land
i`
j' cannot be used in an economic way?
li j
- 40 -
'I I
!MR. HINES: Yes I am. These three lots?
HAIRMAN AMAN: No.
�R. HINES: Which one , lot 2? It 's being used by an absentee owner
glow to rent to people - I assume that has some - I don' t know what j
he purchase price and what his rate of return is - he got a divorce
4nd split the property up and he went off to Poughkeepsie . He ' s j
(' I
(made an arrangement to sell it - I don' t know what his plans are for
II
� t. Mr. Solomon, who lived in the house sold it to Mr. Haig and hi4
I
� ife. They used it for a home occupation - he was a barber and ran
I
barber shop there as long as I can remember. I think - what I
i
ointed out to the Planning Board and its perfectly obvious to any- j
ody who has lived here for a reasonable span of time - was when Me -
IOw Street became an arterial route, that rezoned everything. I me4n
�- you can draw lines any place you want on this paper - that rezone
the area.
Ii
�HAIRMAN AMAN: We are bound by the lines that are drawn.
R. HINES : I understand that - what I am trying to point out to yo*
I� s the rationale for making a decision which would permit that par- i
iicular lot 2 , Michael Haig' s lot, to be in conjunction with these
J
(three lots for commercial purpose - not any commercial purpose but
I
Ilspecific neighborhood use because the zoning law specifically
I
uthorizes you - if you feel it is a neighborhood utility - a neighi-
orhood function that you can grant a special permit, Now what we
�re saying is that it is a neighborhood function and really - very
I I
;little of the neighborhood is encroached on - in order to service
the neighborhood with that particular function, Even aside from
that the Haigs property does have a tremendous impact from the j
traffic - from the commercial area right adjacent to it which r if
Ilit isn' t produced a hardship in the past years when John Solomon -
I think he sold in 74 - it has produced a situation now which will
robably provoke problems all along here. We 've watched residents
I
] after residents probably to the dismay of Sue Cummings - but neve�-
I
Itheless they have been abandoned because of the fact that no one wafts
Ito live next to such a densely, heavily trafficed area. And those
(properties - I suggest in the next fewyearsyou will see deterioral' e
I �
I I i
i!
- 41 -
i
and then there will be some commercial use. What I think is app.- ,
priate to this Board right now is to look at the use that is offerId
to try to decide on the basis of the evidence you are going to heat
that it is a really attractive appropriate commercial use consis-
tent with its neighbor and should be accepted. I do believe , and
i
I think you will find, that these lots can't be effectively commer-,
cially used. There is a hardship there. That isn't the entire ar�u-
ment. The hardship here is if this man put this property on the
residential market he would have a very very difficult time sellin�
it. Mr. Shulman says he can' t sell this one . It' s - despite what !,
IMr. Porterfieldsays - I don't know - and as I said he is in a com-
mercial section himself - he doesn' t even live there. We want to
i
see this neighborhood improved because we want a service area to
this neighborhood. If you destroy the neighborhood no one is going
to shop at the store. I think Mr, Byrne will explain the attracti e-
' ness of it. I did want to get into that planning a little bit be
i
cause I think the Journal ' s article was a little misleading. I 'd
like to have the architect talk a little bit he' s got some stuff!
CHAIRMAN AMAN: We do have a lot of cases and if he can just . . ,
MR. HINES : I know . . �
CHAIRMAN AMAN: appreciate it ,
i
MR. ROUNDS: My name is Carl Rounds and I represent Byrne. Dairy.
If I may, I would like to pass out these letters to the Board.
MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, am I to presume that what was in front o�
I
I the Planning Board has been submitted to you or should I give you
these photograph_s� I have a, set of photographs .
CHAIRMAN AMAN; You might as well in the event that we don't have
them;, We have two sets all together.
MR. HINES: Two 'sets is better than none,
i
MR, ROUNDS: I have some graphics which I would like to present toy
the Board, It does restate our case but I think maybe a little
clearer so you do understand the position we are in, This map, I
i
believe, is the same as that one which is color coded. The yellow ;
is the - presently the B-2 zone on the east side of North Meadow i
land the blue area is that which we are asking to be changed from ar
R-2 to a B-2 use .
f
- 42 -
i
H CHAIRMAN AMAN: I should say, from my own point of view, I can under-
stand the attractiveness of the plan and all ,but our function is to
Ideal with use variances or area variances and once you are asking
I�
„ us to treat a residential portion of a residential zone other than !
r
�Iresidential, that creates a specific legal problem that concerns u$1 .
IMR. HINES : That ' s one prong of our argument - that applies that a ,
`' special permit doesn' t require that the criteria for a special
�fpermit are consistency with the neighborhood in which it is located
! and whether it serves the neighborhood function. And that is a
I
! separate argument which doesn't require a showing of any hardship.
IICHAIRMAN AMAN: Okay. Assuming that is correct, and I take it
Ithat ' s what this evidence is going towards is that this conforms
+
i
1with the nature of the neighborhood?
! MR. HINES: The rest of the evidence will be - will deal primarily ,
, with that.
MR. ROUNDS: I 'm only addressing the zoning ordinance. This , again,
I
j (.pointing to the chart) is the area we are talking about. At a
( larger scale the four properties in question - these are the three )
!ifronting Meadow and this property here is the one on West Buffalo. '
,i
! The yellow designates existing buildings on the property, the blue '
, the proposed retail area store . So this is what would be removed
i
! physically from the corner the blue is what we propose to be re- ',
i
placed. Also we have provided in the proposal , at the corner
development of the corner the required off-street parking of ten
I
spaces , completely away from the sidewalk area, A landscape buffer
ozone between the residential and the commercial zone , an off-street
! loading area - all of these are zoning requirements which we main—
tain, to meet we require some additional front - or depth of
property, But it does require the removal of the residence at 527 '
,IW', Buffalo. Now the depth is 66 feet currently and we are talking ',,
�jabout an additional thirty-three feet. We felt that this additional
i
i! depth- will help us to establish- the zoning setback requirements
II I
! that the city, has . Provide for safer egress R on and off - the siie
i
from Meadow and Buffalo Streets, It will eliminate off-street park-
ling from having to back across sidewalk or interfere with pedestrian
I� I
I
ii
i
- 43 -
11traffic. And we feel that it will eliminate the deterioration of i
11existing housing along a heavily commercial zone. Now there has boen
I
4some input, I feel , from our planning meeting that the impact of tlis
1facility is going to be detrimental to the neighborhood. I think
I�
; that sound neighborhoods and good neighbors are important if not
1' vital to Byrne Dairy. That is their business and Mr. Byrne would
like to address the Board and give you a little background as to the
i1
! operation of the Diary and the importance of their neighborhood re +
1' lationship.
MR. BYRNE: I ' ll be as brief as possible . My name is Vincent Byrnq ,
� I 'm President of Byrne Dairy. Our business started in 1933 with one
horse and $27 . 00 . At one time we secured only retail business - we
lwent to the houses . Over a period of time the business has change.
- a lot of the businesses went to the chains and so forth, but we
i
�1have gone into a home retail business of dairy stores. We operate ;
lover twenty-five dairy stores in central New York and what we do i�
e
service people in neighborhoods . It' s convenient - over 500 of our
sales are milk and/or ice cream and bread - we do carry a full
i
grocery line , like one potato chip - or one mustard or one kitchup ,
for one kleenex or whatever it may be. Our marketing area is we
,I
j' attract most people within a half mile of our location. The type of
i
�Icustomer that we have is a mature person we don't have anybody
! hanging around - we feed nobody - there is no food prepared on the
i
' premises - it 's all pre-packaged and people take it home . As far
as our delivery goes , we make one delivery per day by our vehicle r
we don' t come on Wednesdays or Sundays - we do have some direct de-
t
�I liveries like Fritos Potato Chips or Pepsi Cola and like that, Our
store hours are from 8 ; 00 in the morning until 11 : 00 at night , we ,
don't operate any facilities past 11 . 00 at night. The average cus+-
I
�( tomer is with us for about four minutes because they are really
coming in to buy items they have already preselected. I ' d like to
show you about seven slides our of our operation so that you will
I�
have a feel for what actually would be on the lot there, Have we
got somebody who knows where to turn the lights off? Okay, that
I is a picture of our horse and buggy, As I said, we started off with
ii one of them and, of course , we had quite a few and now that type of
�I
44
I
business is all gone. May we have the next slide now? This is th '
itype of store that we want - we really wait on the people , we carr
I I
iover thirty-five different kind of milks - we feature milk in glas�
bottles and when the woman comes in or the customer - whoever it may
IIS
be - we - you know exchange their bottles , we carry heavy cream, )
butter milk and orange juice, etc. Now we also make and carry a
I( full line of our own ice cream - we have a regular line which we
i) call Mighty Fine and we have a higher priced all natural line whic
I
is a very popular item. Now we also carry eggs , we carry butter
that we make ourselves , we carry hard cheese, of course you know,
yogurts are very flavorable today, we carry a full line of pre-
i
selected, pre-packaged dairy items . As T told you, we do go into
l� neighborhoods - this home here happened to be the home of the Mayo
of Baldwinsville and next to him there was a home that was deterio-
rating - we went out there and made a presentation like we are doing
i
here tonight - he was very concerned about what was going to be ne t
door to him - he visited our stores on Memorial weekend and Labor
i
Day weekend to see - he thought he would come around when the superI
visors weren't there and what kind of an operation we ran and we
{
built next to him, subsequently. This is a picture looking down t e
street of our store and that is his home and that is a hedgerow th t
� we put some cedar bushes next to him. We've been next to him for
i
,over eight years - he still lives there - he's an excellent neighbolr
and 1 hope he would consider us to be the same This is a hedge that
i
�has grown up further, looking - again, you can just see the corner -
� is his house and how we have screened the property from him. This ,
i
� is a store on Geddes Street in Syracuse it ' s something like Meadojw
iStreet R it 's an older neighborhood where people live - we have a
store right there we are the only store on that side of the bloc
and there Is probably seven or eight hundred houses around us there .
This is a store up on the north side of Syracuse called Grant Blvd,
The woman in the house there has been a neighbor of ours for over i
twenty years. Going down that street, we are the only commercial
establishment and that is one of our better stores , This is again
a store of ours - Oswego. Looking up the street - we are in a
ii
I
45 -
11neighborhood - it ' s a collegetown like Ithaca, New York. We have a!
1lot of - Mr. Hines had mentioned that the one reason that we wanted
�I I
to be on the east of 13 is because we have a lot of people who still
1make it a chore for their children to carry their milk and we felt
ii
that a lot of people wouldn' t let their children cross Meadow Street
� - that ' s one of the reasons we want to be on the east side of it.
i'
That' s the bottles that we have in a little carrier - most of our
customers use that kind of facility. This is an area in North Syra-
i
cuse or Liverpool called Bayberry. We were out there behind us
'there they built over 5 ,000 houses. We service that area and that
' happens to be very much of a growth area even after we were there.
i
„This is a house in Central Square - there was a house on this site,
j
�lwe went before the people there and they got permission and tore the
�1house down - it ' s on a corner �- somewhat similar to the corner we
,are talking about here - you can see the traffic coming and going
I
�1we think that we know how to build a store - we know how to handle
4,!traffic and get along with people in the community. Actually, on
li j
�Ith.e store in Central Square - when we got the permission to tear the
t
shouse down - that was at that time a grade school - it has since been
i
'converted to district office, but to show you that we were allowed
to tear a house down in a little village, next to a school I think
�iis important -- you know to consider us a neighborhood function.
+ These are the houses directly across the street from that store and,
!the white house , a doctor happens to live there This is the t
� pp Ype
11of store that we run - we keep them very clean, we are always sweeph
ing the yards or cleaning the windows and we think. we do an excellent
job. This is the most recent store we built . This was a lot in
I
'Elmira - it was a closed gas station - it had been closed more than
i
1Ia year - that lot had reverted to residential and we had to go beforre
.I I
Tithe Board of Appeals and ask them to change that lot back to commer!-
Icial so we tore that gas station down last September and we built
'the store which you will see right here - this is a store that we
` put on there the neighbor next door is a retired mail man we ha
�Ive
{excellent relations with him - we put in the cedar hedge there to
Gjscreen it and they are very happy and we are very happy with our
i)
- 46 - {
Iistore. This is looking across the street where the light is , look-i
ing up the street - we are the only establishment commercially on
j
f; that side and there is houses for ten blocks going up the street io
; Elmira. That ' s the - you know - type of operation that we run - w
i
1think that we run a good clean operation - we think that we belong ;
I
11in the neighborhood community and if you have any questions I am
! sure that Mr. Rounds and myself would be more than pleased to answeIr
! them. We certainly appreciate your time. Thank you very much. i
` CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you sir.
SMR. WALSH: Bob , are these drawings for the record?
j
SMR. HINES: Yes . There is also a map that Tom Miller drew in which
case we are prepared - so you know they are accurate and to scale .
i
� I don' t know whether Tom's map is in evidence but I think I attacheod
i I
it to the application.
(IMR. WALSH: As part of your application, will you stipulate that t e
I
! proposed buffer zone or screen between the back of the parking lotj
and the adjacent residential property will consist of a coniferous
i
hedge of some nature?
IMR. HINES: We discussed that before and I think that Mrs . Sitch
i
is here and I think she , in addition, wanted a fence of some sort.
Whatever the neighbors want.
i( I
�iCHAIRMAN AMAN: I 'm a little worried that some of this isn' t going '
fl
jIto get on the record especially the
2MR. HINES : I 'm sorry. Well Mr. Byrne . . .
IMR. BYRNE: To answer your question, we consider ourselves to be
excellent neighbors - I didn't want to take a lot of time but that
' piece of property I showed you there, in Elmira, that woman wanted !
those spaced so she could have tomato plants there. Now, the Mayo
Ewanted his closer together and I ' ll be perfectly honest with you
�4that his were short but whatever Mrs . Sitch wants to put there, ink
� cluding the cedar hedge and a wooden fence - we would be more than
I
glad to do whatever you people would stipulate and we would want i
�r
I4her to give us a release that she is satisfied that what we would
!; put there is a proper screen. Does that answer your question?
I
R. WALSH: It certainly does .
( CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions from the Board? Is there
I
I�
47 -
i
anyone here to speak on behalf of the requested variance? Yes sir
� MR. NICHOLAS: My name is Robert Nicholas, I own the property at
�f607 W. Buffalo Street and I also represent my parents who live at
1i 217 N. Meadow Street - the property right here on the corner (point _
I
to the map) . We are in full agreement with Byrne Dairy that theirs
store would be an absolute and very nice and convenient to our nei4h-
borhood. The properties directly on Meadow Street have deteriorated
so far, so fast in the time that the highway has been there that the
cost of keeping the houses up is immense . My parent ' s house is an 1,
example - it' s 105 years old and I 've looked through it - it needs
i
new wiring , new insulation, it needs new major beams under the floors
and it needs a various amount of work on the inside and just the
i
work alone - without the labor - you know the materials would cost ;
over $8 ,000 . 00 and my parents cannot afford that so they have de-
cided to sell the property to Byrne Dairy. But in essense they ca4no'
i
afford the property - they cannot afford to maintain it they cant
i
I� afford to pay the high utility bills in the winter time and every
year we have to do something on the outside that has been directly
caused by route 13 . In addition to that , I think the Board has
i
i
really overlooked a few other things here. The additional amount
I
of income produced by Byrne Dairy would be over 300% than they ares
i
getting right now from the four properties . Also there is consider-
ation that Ithaca will receive a percentage of the sales tax gener
ated by Byrne Dairy also , which would inevitably end up in the
i
school system which is under-financed at the present time. It has
been mentioned by an article on 325 that the addition of Byrne Daily
would increase the traffic problem already facing the west end in
Ithaca. All I can say to that is that traffic problem right now j
is very immense and I don't think the Byrne Dairy by itself would
increase that traffic problem at all and I think that just one
train going through the west end at 4 : 30 in the afternoon can
create more traffic problem than Byrne Dairy would create for a wh le
year. In conclusion I would like to say that Byrne Dairy would be
an added convenience to our location - it would be wiping out some
+ really atrocious looking houses and also you would be picking up al
I I
48
J
!! place - a store that you would like to have in the neighborhood
11instead of a bar or another restaurant or a carry-out - you know -
''' they stay open until 2 or 3 o 'clock in the morning - some of the
7
H restaurants do - some of the local carry-outs and I 'd hate to
f
' have that across the street from my house - a bar or restaurant -
I i
+ Byrne Dairy I 'd like to have across the street from my house.
Thank you.
I CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to speak on
! behalf of the variance? Anyone here wishing to speak in opposition?
f
MRS. RETKQWSKI : My name is Alice Retkowski , I live at 526 W. Buffallo
i Street across from Solomons . Now, one thing that I wanted to clarify
if the fact that in this letter from - he said that there are no
i
M� other food stores in the area - there are four places in the area
fI
!la block and a half to two blocks - the IGA is one block away, Pete 'Is
�! is a block and a half away - Jakes is a block and a half away -
lithen we have an ice cream store - Purity Ice Cream Store which sells
gall kinds of dairy products, two and one half blocks away and park-
Hing on the street now is bad and a lot of people won't go in a
parking area - as well as they won't go in a parking ramp or a gar4ge.
�I I
IWe never can park in front of our house from about 4 ; 00 o ' clock on
Ilin the afternoon because people go to Joe 's Restaurant and, although
lthey have a large parking area, a lot of people will not park in it ,
, they would rather park on Buffalo Street and walk down. And I knovf
! that a lot of people will not park in the Byrne Dairy lot. And thq
'; traffic from 3 : 30 on is terrible . It is bad in the morning from
� li
labout 7 : 30 to about 9 : 00 - people come in from Trumansburg and the ;
outlying districts going to work at Cornell , Ithaca College and so
on and they use Buffalo Street and it is very bad. And we do have ]
; children in the area they are four or five - seven pre-school
children in the block - the 500 block of West Buffalo Street - they
i
Iride their tricycles up and down the street - they play, and so ons
fland so forth. In fact, I've had three dogs killed on Buffalo Streit
I
( from the traffic . And I have three grandchildren that come down
I►
�Iquite often and I don' t want them to get hurt crossing the street
for anything else with the traffic. I 'm sure that this will depre- !
11ciate the value of my property and my house was built in 1880 and
i
I - 49 -
1
i
I 've lived there from the day I was born - and I still sleep in the
!! same room that I was born in and we've spent a lot of money on that,
! house and I don't want it jeopardized by places across the street
I
j: that are going to harm it in any way with traffic and fatalities
i
Land so on. We 've had enough of accidents on the corner there now
! Buffalo and Meadow - and I 'm sure there will be more and I hope there
i won't be, so I 'm against it.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposi�
I
tion?
MR. PORTERFIELD: My name is James Porterfield and I own the
f,
property at 528 W. Buffalo Street which is directly across the
!, street from 527 , which is in the proposal to be demolished. I
( would like to oppose this , not from the standpoint of whether or
not Byrne Dairy is needed in the area because my purpose of being
!I
i here tonight is to argue against changing a zoning - residential to
commercial which is going to greatly affect not only my property
ii but the entire neighborhood. I honestly resent the proposal that
I� has been made in which we are talking about the deteriorating
i
IMeadow Street and we are now including Buffalo Street West Buffalo ,
;i primarily directly involved and we are going to make it commercial ;
!i which is going to bring that into another deteriorating neighborhood.
!� I bought the property six years ago. When I bought it it was - my�
i!
I� wife and I constantly refer to it as our slum property. I went into
!i
' the building, I 've spent an awful lot of money bringing it up to
code. It was not up to code, I 've done all the things the city
!! had requested - I have talked with the city about new things that
it
had to be done and I do not wish to see my investment in a basical�y
I; I
- what I consider a fine residential neighborhood. I drove down
West Buffalo tonight before I came to this meeting just to see what
! the aura of the neighborhood was like in the evening. It 's a very;
quiet, very attractive neighborhood, people who have lived there
11 for years and I resent any commercial property coming into that
block immediately into West Buffalo block because I think it is going
{ to basically make that into a commercial area. I'm sure that you
�Iare also aware -that we , Mr. Hines referred to the property at 527
! basically as the barbershop. It is a very fine building which is 'i
i �
I
�4
so -
I
'I believe presently occupied by three apartments - maybe two , I I
think three. I 'm not positive . It' s a fine building and we have al
housing shortage in Ithaca, and I cannot see demolishing a fine
'�my
building which is good rental property for a commercial aspect. So
main opposition is to the zoning change of the residential
property to make it commercial . I think it is going to deteriorate
the neighborhood where people have spent money making it an attrac-j
� ti.ve neighborhood. With regard to Byrne Dairy, I would like to
(quote a tenant of mine who came two days ago to pay his rent - and
I asked him if he and his wife had considered the possibility of
whether or not they would like to renew their lease and he said to
= me: "it depends whether or not I 'm going to have to live across the
street from a commercial property, and I 'm not interested in my twol
children having to face living across the street from a commercial
piece of property. " So maybe I 'm being very selfish - I do agree
with Alice in the fact we have the Co-op which is four blocks away,)
we have Pete ' s , IGA and Purity Ice Cream. With regard to Mr. Hines '
statement with the "lockin" at Common Council , it was my understand-
� ing that their recommendation was to go back basically to the drawing
board because they did not oppose commercial - a new commercial ver _
ture into Ithaca, neither do i . But when I drive around Ithaca, I
1 I
see any number oflots that are very dismal . Across from Purity Ic
Cream there is a lot that has been sitting for years with nothing
on it. Now we can drive in that neighborhood and find plenty of
, lots to build rather than deteriorating a neighborhood or tearing
down present property which is very valuable .
l� MR. ANGELL: Mr. Porterfield, are you saying that you wouldn't obj ct
lif they built the dairy on the front three lots and not the one on
I Buffalo Street? i
MR. PORTERPIELD: Yes , I should have prefaced this by - as I did
with the Common Council, by saying I am very concerned with what i
going to happen to Meadow Street. I think it is a deteriorating
street and I would like to see anything that can be done to improv
not only the appearance of Meadow Street but whatever it can provi e
for us in taxes, additional taxes, but I 'm more opposed to taking
a neighborhood which is primarily residential and changing. Only
I, i
i,
yi
i
i
Hone house has to be changed and the entire block is going to go
ii
Neither commercial eventually or deteriorate with the commercialism.1
;JAS far as Meadow Street, personally this is - I don't think - this ,
His my - I 'm not here tonight opposing Meadow Street , I am opposing ';
i
! demolishing 527 W. Buffalo and also changing it from a residential
I�
�Izoning to a commercial zoning because I personally think it' s going
I
, to affect my property which I own, as well as the other properties )
i
in the area.
�I
IMR. ANGELL: And you own the property on the corner of Meadow?
MR. PORTERFIELD: No, I own - my property is directly across the 1
! street which Mr. Hines referred to here (pointing to map) . The
I!City of Ithaca owns the pumping station which is on the corner.
I!there is a red brick building which is a pumping station. There is
Ila lot in back - this is my property here . . .
1
,MR. HINES : No, that isn't your property Mr, Porterfield. Your
I
Ilproperty is in the commercial zone .
` MR. PORTERFIELD: Pardon?
!i
11MR. HINES: Look at it more carefully. Your property is in the
II I
!)commercial zone, right next to the pumping station. Excuse me for
interrupting.
MR. PORTERFIELD: Whose property is commercial?
i
lMR. HINES: Look at the map.
! MR. PORTERFIELD: My property'` is commercially zoned?
,VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Not on Buffalo Street .
i
iMR. HINES: Well , that is up to the Board to review.
i
IMR. PORTERFIELD: Well , it ' s been changed and I have not been
(;notified about it. I did not buy the property with the understanding
Il�that it was commercially zoned I have a certificate from the cityR
It is rated M-R2 , If it has been changed I have not been notified
i
by the city.
R. ANGELL: Can you clarify that Tom?
i
SECRETARY HOARD: What is the address of the property?
R. PORTERFIELD: 527 W. Buffalo Street,
' MR. WEAVER: 528 .
i
;SIR. PORTERFIELD: 528 , I 'm sorry.
I i
I
it
�I !
f
�i
- 52 -
ii
i
jCHAIRMAN AMAN: While we are waiting, is there anyone else who wishes
Ilto speak in opposition? I really asked before for those who wante
f,
'! to speak for it , so what I will do is finish the opposition and th n
come back to you, sir.
ff
MRS. ROMANOWSKI : I really don't speak for or against. I just wand
to make a few statements . I live on 610 W. Buffalo Street. I livoI
next door to Joe ' s Restaurant and it ' s commercial . My block has been
! commercial but I don't think you find deteriorating houses because
�; of this commercialism. Joe ' s Restaurant is right next to me, my
!! son lives next door, then the auto parts, then Ames Welding, then
ilwe go down to the end of the block and we find a bicycle shop thereeI
i I
I, But in —since 1920 my father bought the home - it has been a com- I
1, mercial deal . Since my husband and I bought the home that I live
I
in now and have lived in for about forty years - Joe ' s Retaurant
j has been there. At one time there was a home there but it was tak n
down and used as a parking lot . However I am not speaking the
� against the Byrne Dairy, I 'm going to speak here and talk a little
Ibit about traffic and school children that I am very concerned abot.
Route 13 is hazardous for pedestrian mostly, Also for homes and I
i
; also for businesses. Their windows get broken from stones, their
�' windows are splashed with salt , dirt, then we get the dust . Now j
�II'm going to speak from the way I have felt all these years and
I1know it because I still live there. However, Joe's have trucks , I
{i
Il they have cars , they have customers , they do not deteriorate my
property. I am very friendly - very nice with all the people at
Ii Joe' s. Also, the people at the Auto parks, Mr, Ames, none of us -
i
11, don' t believe - on our block, have deteriorated homes , We have !
i
traffic now that is very, very bad, big trucks jar our homes . We
are hoping that they don't be Cunintelli.giMe') , But I am speak
ling now mostly our environment has changed. We have, as Mrs. Ret- 1
ilkowski said, there are little children in our neighborhood. We
; need a stop and go for these little kids going to school and we dol
; not have that. That is number one - if we are going to have more
11commercial buildings, we have to protect our children too. That ' sl
I� I
Hgot to be considered of the Zoning Board and whatever or whoever
�! does these things . My concern is that. Also , they are going to
I1
-
�I 53 l
have glass containers - that ' s another consideration we have to givje.
jA little kid is going to go to the store and she is going to try to
I
cross route 13 and some car is going to come around that corner and;
that little girl is taking home some milk - that 's going to be a liltt]
bit bad. Children love to go to the store for their mothers . That ' s
a concern of mine. Now I 'm not saying this that I am against Byrne
Diary I think that they are a very nice concern - I think they will
put up a very nice neighborhood store, I do agree with Mr. Nicholas -
those homes along there are deteriorated but it is not their fault.
It ' s the traffic, the vibrations , the mud, the salt and they are
most of them elderly people , they are not on fixed incomes and they
cannot keep them up. I am also on fixed income - I do my best to
keep it up and as I say I have no problems with Joe ' s Restaurant
I
never have had and I don' t because I have a nice big roll of lilac
trees I have a beautiful rose garden in my yard - customers enjoy
it . I don' t have problems . So I just want to point out - I am notl
against it - I will say pro and con and I hope that this will help
I
you some way.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you very much. Excuse me, ma'am can we have
,your name for the record? I 'm sorry we didn' t get that.
MRS. ROMANOWSKI : My name is Helen Romanowski and I live at 610 West
Buffalo Street - next to Joe ' s Restaurant. j
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes , sir ,
MR. BOMGRASS: My name is Richard Bomgrass , I live in Lansing, I
have no association with the neighborhood that you have been talking
about. I 'm an outsider with information, T have first hand of
experience - five years worth of living next to a commercial and
retail dairy store operation, Before moving to Lansing in 1970 I
lived at 55 Saline Street in Baldwinsville , right next to Barnes
Dairy which is not connected with Byrne ' s, I don't think, During
that five years living next door to this retail commercial dairy
loperation, my yard and the immediate neighborhood was constantly
littered with trash, partially eaten ice cream cones, plastic spoonis ,
1plastic containers, the house keeping at this retail dairy store was
not very good, I 'm not saying this is going to happen in Ithaca
ii
54 -
'I
'; with Byrne, I am merely saying it did happen in Baldwinsville at
ii
, Barnes Dairy. That trash blew all over the neighborhood and it was;
i
! a daily thing. You could rake your lawn - clean out your hedge two
;dor three times a week and the other four or five days a week it wouGld
be there. This attracted dogs - they would eat partially consumed '
; cones and ice cream and other mess that was dropped. It attracted
.i i
;! rats. I have personally killed rats in my driveway. The neighborYood
it
did not improve as a result of this store because the store created,
traffic congestion. It was on a busy highway - route 370 between
H
; Baldwinsville and Liverpool. Rush hour traffic was more so congested
flbecause of people stopping in and going to work and coming home.
ilThere was lots of little kids in the neighborhood and this lady
mentioned broken glass and there was . It attracted crowds of peoplje
Ion weekends who would not only drop their mess and their litter
1from things they purchased in the store but they would throw other ;
;, garbage out of their car windows - that would go all over the neigh-
borhood. So for what it' s worth - this all happened. That ' s all
i!
JI 've got.
' CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak ;
in opposition? (no one) Alright, having heard from those opposed ',
(!we willgo back and pick up the gentleman that I missed earlier.
IMR. NICHOLAS: My name is Abe Nicholas , I bought the house at the
, corner of Buffalo and Meadow right after the war, right after I can�e
from the service. That nice oak tree in front , the lawn in front -i
route 13 came through. Can' t sleep, the trucks, the motorcycles
�fsh:ake the house up , paper the wall - crack. People next door tried]
i
(Ito buy the - to sell their house - they can' t sell it - three of
them. Signs up there they can't sell . Tax Gas & Electric
1 $257. 00 , we can't afford to live there no more , Now we've got a I
i
; chance to sell and we can' t,
+ CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone else speaking for or against? Mr . Hines do ;
�jyou want to . . .
I
iMR. HINES : I just want to recapitulate a little I think the
i
architect circulated a letter attached to which was a diagram - I
think everybody has it. Just to clarify the situation - we tried
I' I
II 55 �
is
!i, to go much faster than we did in the Planning Board - maybe we
missed some points. This building fronts - as the drawing shows - 1
on Meadow Street. The entrance is there on Meadow Street . It sets
I
!; back from Buffalo Street by almost the same depth as the house that
�jpresently exists there. In other words the house will be replaced !
I
by green area, to comment on that. The diagram that the architect
showed, shows the physical location and looking across from where
�iMr. Porterfield' s tenants reside, what they see is on the bottom.
Now where Mrs. Sitch lives there will be green planted in there , what-
IIver
ver this Board thinks is appropriate, and she has already expressed
Ther attitude . I 'd like to say also that we think that this is a
unique opportunity to have a decent, feasible , commercial activity ;
( down there and clear up some of the Meadow Street situation. We
! also , Mr. Byrne and his employees , and Nick Marsella who has lived,
down there for years , is an employee of Byrne Dairy, went through I
=f
11the neighborhood - canvassed everybody that we had to send a notice
'Ito and there are a lot of them. We got them out before the price
11P g
1! of the stamps changed from 15 to 18 cents . We sent out all those
! notices - we didn't have any objections from the canvassing of the ;
I
people. Is that right Mr. Byrne? No one objected? We tried to
accommodate the neighborhood and I think we are really doing some-
thing which is beneficial and may worry them a little and perhaps
with certain constraints , those worries could be alleviated. I
I i
lthink Mr. Porterfield' s objections are sincere but I think misplaced
I �
I think what Mr. Byrne sells is not the kind of things which
,land
{ litters . He doesn't sell ice cream cones or things that people
Mare going toEat on the way and throw. And by the way, the store
fall I could think of - Itm sorry but I forgot your name, but I know)
i
Leo Guentert 's place doesntt sell the kind of product that Byrne j
Dairy is going to. Leo is a wonderful guys and he isn't objecting,
f
1pete Zaharis is quite aways away across route 13 and that is a
Ihazardous street to cross and I agree with Mrs. Romanowski ., that
{is one reason why the east side is an attractive area, The IGS#
I� is across the street - or the Super Duper or whatever they call it„'
".Take' s is a fine neighborhood store he is located - I think it is
I I I
I 56
I
more than a block and a half - it is over on Court Street - but
wherever it is we think we are going to service a neighborhood of
( residents and service them where they don't have a hazard walking
(jaround and we share these concerns and we think. we are addressing
I I
them and I hope - if the Board has any questions they want to ask
that maybe the architect or Mr. Byrne . I do have a question though
do you think you need four votes when there is a quorum of five i
present?
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes,
MR. HINES : I 've been waiting patiently for Mr. Wilcox to show up,
CHAIRMAN AMAN: I stopped waiting over an hour ago . Hearing
nothing further we will move on to the next case,
SECRETARY HOARD: We do have a letter on this, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WALSH: I just want to know if we have had a written response
from a majority of th,e people notified under the 'Cunintelligible)
SECRETARY HOARD: We 've had one written response to my knowledge .
And that was from Edmund Clynes , Executor of the Estate, "Zoning
Board of Appeals , City of Ithaca - In the matter of the Applica-
tion of Byrne Dairy Inc. for a variance at 527 W, Buffalo Street,
Edmund Clynes, executor of the Estate of Anna B, Clines and Mary
i
C. Clines and owner of the properties at 522 , 526, 528 and 530 West',
I
( Seneca Street , Ithaca, objects to this application for a variance,
This blocki;s a residential zone and no facts are recited to grant
la 'variance. See my case North- Titus Tax payers Association vs the I
Zoning Board of Appeals 127 N,Y, Supp(-2nd) 502 , 205 Misc. 518 ., Alsb
I�cited with approval by Judge Meyer now of the New York Court of
Appeals in Colony Park- vs Malone 205 N.Y. Supp (2) 166 and also
Gerli;ne vs Town of Clay 167 N,J, Supp (2) 366 written byy a Judge whp
was later on the fourth Department , See also Vergo vs Zoning Boardl'i
I
215 N.Y. Supp 601 and cases cited in foregoing opinions, This applii-
cation is totally without merit, Signed: April 2nd, 19-81 , /s/
Edmund Clynes , Executor, " j
i
1
i
i
(' I
57 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
j{ CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
APRIL 6 , 1981
'i EXECUTIVE SESSION
j APPEAL NO. 1353:
i
The Board considered the appeal of Byrne Dairy, Inc , for a use
i
variance under Section 30. 25 , Column 2 to permit use of the property
lat 527 West Buffalo Street for a dairy and convenience food store
in conjunction with three other properties located at 211 , 213 and
!I
11217 North Meadow Street. The property at 527 West Buffalo Street is
located in an R-,2b use district in which, a store is not a permitted]
'luse. The decision of the Board was as follows:
i
IMR. WALSH: I move that the Board adjourn this matter for consider_
ation at the next succeeding executive session upon a
�I showing of a written response from the majority of
II l
j those persons required to be notified of the appeal
pursuant to the Ordinance, We would construe the
requirement of Section 30 , 26-C-4b to require some
i
,I
memorandum by the person required to be notified indi�-
cating that the person has received the notice, in
II fact , and any other response he or she cares to make , ll
I
If the Post Office returns something as undeliverable;
at the address, it would be considered a response .
i
MR. WEAVER: I second the motion.
VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 ,Absent Motion carried.
f
II
I '
II
i
!I I
I
SII
I!
- 58 -
i i
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ii CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
i
APRIL 6 1981
' SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1355 :
Appeal of Taffy E. Spaulding for an inter
it pretation of Section 30. 3--B, paragraph 8
and a use variance under Section 30. 25,
Column 2 or a special permit under Section
30. 26 to permit the operation of a food I
catering service at 319 Center Street in al'n
R-2b use district . If the Board finds that
a catering service fits under the definition
of a home occupation, the appellant will ask
for a special permit; if the Board finds
that a catering service does not meet the
4I reauirments for a home occupation, the ap
I� pellant will ask for a use variance.
;IMS . SPAULDING: My name is Taffy Spaulding and I live at 319 Center
�IStreet. Does anybody have any questions?
, CHAIRMAN AMAN: I think it would be helpful if you summarized briefly
( what your proposal is ,
�MS. SPAULDING: Well I was told that I had to get 200 feet around j
i
j'and I sent twenty-four letters out around 200 feet. And I got one j
' call from a woman, she didn' t t state her name but she wanted to know!
more and I thought maybe she would show up at one of the hearings
here but she didn' t, I don't think, And there was one letter of
; recommendation from a Mrs . Reed that lives right across the street
from me and there was a man that called me that lives right behind
'i
me, I believe he has a plumbing business behind me, And he said
�Isomething about he might send a letter of recommendation to you
o, ;
Ithe Zoning Board, I don't know if you received it or not, He
wasn' t sure whether it would do any good or not to be for my favor.!
III haven' t had any complaints . I have people downstairs below us.
;When I read them - they are not against it, I may be in and out of
the house two or three times a week - twice that day that I go out
ilbecause I have to take the food to the house for the party and come)
i
II(back and I am going to have a driver and I am going to have a refri�
ferator for my food that I prepare and I talked to the Health Departl -
Iment and they said as long as I keep it on a small scale, thirty at
lithe most - and prepare hot foods either ahead and freeze it and tra# s-
,port it frozen and rewarm it at a person_-s home or fix it fresh on
I
I
- 59 -
11 I
Il the site of the party, then I wouldn't need any special permit or
j! license or anything through them. They said I just had to go
k' through the Planning and Zoning Boards .
( CHAIRMAN AMAN: How many employees in effect do you anticipate?
How many people do you . . .
MS. SPAULDING: Probably just two. A driver and an assistant.
When I have, you know, the thirty maximum that I can serve, I 'd j
need an assistant to help in preparing cutting up relishes and
making hors d' oeuvres and salads and that.
MR. WALSH: Mrs . Spaulding , do you intend to have any signs on the
I
house at all?
MS. SPAULDING: Oh, no. All my business will be word of mouth and )
I
maybe as my business picks up by word of mouth I ' ll be getting
business cards and just maybe making posters and putting them like
i
�Iat the Co-op Shopping Center or any other store that will allow it
and have a little pocket for my calling cards so that - you know - I
then later on as business picks up and I get more and actually
able then I' ll advertise in the Journal and maybe find out how to j
I
put a small advertisement in the telephone book..
MR. WALSH: Does the use you are proposing require any changes to
the exterior of the building?
I
MRS. SPAULDING: NO ,
MR. WALSH: The addition of any special equipment for the kitchen,
fans , an extra range or anything like that?
MRS. SPAULDING: No . I can use the same to make sure that there)
i
wouldn' t be problems I freshly painted my kitchen and I really
scrubbed it up so it 's like new - it' s spick and span so that if j
anybody wanted to even just an individual that wanted my services
i
as catering, wanted to inspect my kitchen to see where their food
would be coming from, for theirparty -- they are welcome to do that .
I
I have it all cleaned up and painted.
i MR. WALSH: Do you intend to continue to live in the house?
MRS. SPAULDING: Yes . I 'm here also representing my landlady,
She gave me notorized permission to use her apartment that I am
I
renting. i
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions from the Board? Thank you I
I '
i
- 60 -
I
( Mrs . Spaulding. Anyone here wishing to speak for the variance
, request? Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition?
Okay, we' ll call the next case .
(! SECRETARY HOARD: We did get some responses by mail . One was a
I�
phone call , Bernice Jones of 323 Center Street called. She wanted '
I�
jto know if any of this food would be cooked in the back yard? I
( think it has been answered - there will be no cooking in the back
�lyard. If she is , she is against it, if she is not, then she does
not have any objections . Anita Reed of 320 Center Street called and
i
said she is in favor of the appeal if there is no disruption in the,
neighborhood. We had a response by mail from Mortimer E. Darling
i
and Mary H. Darling, I 'm not sure what their address is but they
t
isaid: "We the undersigned do not give our consent to the above. "
i
I
i
1i
I
I�
w�
'I
i�
I
I ,
it
,i
i!
fi
ii
i
I
�E
li
1
i
ii
i
i'
- 61 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
I�
i APRIL 6 , 1981
i'
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 1355 :
The Board considered the appeal of Taffy E. Spaulding for an inter-
pretation of Section 30.3-B, paragraph 8 , and a use variance under
1 j
(Section 30. 25 , Column 2 or a special permit under Section 30. 26 to
,permit the operation of a food catering service at 319 Center Street
in an R-2b use district. If the Board finds that a catering service
IIfits under the definition of a home occupation, the appellant will
;ask for a special permit ; if the Board finds that a catering service
j I
',does not meet the requirements for a home occupation, the appellants,
twill ask for a use variance , The decision of the Board was as
!follows :
CHAIRMAN AMAN: I move that the Board grant a special permit allowing
I
a home occupation consisting of the preparation of ;
i
food for a catering service,
MR. ANGELL : I second the motion.
VOTE : 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Absent Granted.
11TINDINGS OF FACT:
ii
�11) The request fits squarely within the Ordinance.
112) It will not adversely affect the neighborhood,
�13) The occupation shall be carried on wholly within the principal
l
building.
14) Not more than two persons will be employed in the occupation,
� j
outside the resident household.
i
115) There will be no exterior display or sign.
16) The proposed home occupation will not generate excess traffic
i or the need for additional parking,
li
'f
l
v
I
Ii
�I
� I
II�
i
I
i
I!
I�
- 62 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
ii APRIL 6, 1981
j
;; SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1356 :
Appeal of Hemmo and Patricia Huttunen for !
!M a use variance under Section 30. 25 , Column
2 and/or relief from the provisions of
Section 30 . 50 to permit the reconversion of
their home at 302 Mitchell Street from a
two--family dwelling to a three-family dwell-
ing. The house was converted from a four ,'
unit multiple dwelling to a two-family
when the appellants bought it, and has. begn
used as such ever since. The property is
located in an R-2b use district , in which )
a multiple dwelling is not a permitted us4.
Is there anyone here to present this case? (no one) Alright. The
f! next appeal then is appeal number 1357 :
I
Appeal of Joel Podkaminer for an area vari-
ance under Section30 . 25 , Column 13 and Sec-
tion 30.49 to permit conversion and expan
sion of the one-family dwelling at 658 Spen-
cer Road to a two-family dwelling . The
i property is non-conforming in that one side
yard does not meet the minimum set back re-
quirements for the B-5 use district in which
the property is located.
�jCHAIRMAN AMAN: Please state your name and address .
' MR. PODKAMINER: I 'm Joel Podkaminer, Box 225, Trumansburg, New
York..
'i
' CHAIRMAN AMAN: Would you mind summarizing your request?
�iMR. PODKAMINER: I 've given you some drawings of what I propose toi
jdo which is totally rebuild the garage. All new materials, outside
!
sheathing and change the garage and back single bedroom area into
li
1� a two-bedroom dwelling, living room, dining room and kitchen. As
Exit stands right now it was a single room which they rented out, j
IIThe house hats been completely burned, I want to rebuild it - as I
said with all new materials, electric, plumbing - the one property'
line that is a problem is about 4 3�, 4 feet from the house and
i
it's a solid row of spruce trees , 351 tall bordering on Zikakis ' s
property. The artist rendition drawings are all drawings of the
house as it stands right now, I guess that summarizes it .
li MR. WALSH: Mr. Podkaminer, when you speak of completely rebuilding
I
the house, ghat is there now exactly?
j MR. PODKAMINER: What is burned out , essentially, is the kitchen
j j
If
I�
- 63 -
area the roof above it and that is why I want to redesign the roof
i�
!! because it really has to be torn out anyway. I want to reinsulate
! that roof. As far as the wall structures go, I 've gone through itj
I �
1pretty closely tearing a little bit out as I go and really the
sheathing is the only thing that suffered damage as far as the
Istructural walls . All the sheathing would be torn out - any struc
tural material necessary but the main problem is that the roof above
the kitchen needs to be rebuilt , in my estimation and so I am doing
ipso , I 'd like to change the structure so that I could legally put a
I
lbedroom or two if reasonably feasible, in the second floor,
IMR. WALSH: You are not speaking about tearing down the entire struc-
ture. . . ?
MR. PODKAMINER: No sir. Essentially I want to keep the structure '
f.
and do as little to the structure as necessary,
( CHAIRMAN AMAN: So , when all is said and done you'll still be non- i
i
�1conforming to the same extent that it is not conforming right now?
i
! MR, PODKAMINER: Yes , I don' t think it is going to change the - I
( don' t understand the rules but I don't think it ' s, going to change it 's
status at all. What is your question on it - I don't understand.
I
CHAIRMAN AMAN; Well , what about you - are you going to keep the same
( foundation, I take it?
JMR. PODKAMINER: Right, we are not changing the foundation - not
i
1building onto the existing structure, ,Just above it, New windows
i
I
all the way around.
I
IICHAIRMAN AMAN; My question was - you are deficient in minimum set '
lback requirements and I take it that you are not going to push it
Aback even farther, you are going, essentially . , . ?
IMR, PODKA,MINER: Same foundation we will be using the same founda,
(Rion. It is my understanding that according to the zoning rules
that in order to add on to this structure with a wooden frame I have
i
to be more than five feet away from the other property line ,
jCHAIRMAN ADMAN: Thank you sir, Anyone here wishing to speak for thje
variance request? (no one) Is there anyone here who opposes it?
(.no one) Alright , hearing nothing further we'11 take the next case%.
I
li
I
I'
'i
ii �
64
I l
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
�I COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
I
APRIL 6, 1981
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
II APPEAL NO. 1357 :
The Board considered the appeal of Joel Podkaminer for an area vari-
ance under Section 30. 25 , Column 13 and Section 30 . 49 to permit
conversion and expansion of the one-family dwelling at 658 Spencer
Road to a two-family dwelling. The property is non-conforming in
that one side yard does not meet the minimum set back requirements
for the B-5 use district in which the property is located. The
,
decision of the Board was as follows :
CHAIRMAN AMAN: I move that the Board grant the area variance
requested in appeal number 1357 .
I
MR. WALSH: I second the motion.
VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent, Granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1) The proposal is to rebuild the existing structure using the
same foundation.
2) As proposed to th-e Board, this structure will not increase the
area deficiencies that existed with the previous structure,
3) Given that the same foundation will be used, practical difficul-
ties have been demonstrated,
I4) The side yard deficiency is minimal.
I
i
I
i
l
li
i
65 -
i
w ,
i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
! CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
�I
APRIL 6, 1981
I
i
1, SECRETARY HOARD: The next and final case is appeal number 1358,
the appeal of Franz Pizilly: Appeal of Franz Pizilly for an area;
1! variance under Section 30. 25, Columns 10 , '
ii 11, 12 and 14 and Section 30. 49 to permit
�i the addition of a second story containing ;
two apartments to a non-conforming building
housing a commercial use , at 201-205 East ;
±'I Tompkins Street . The property is located ',
! in an R-2b (residential) use district and ',
is non-conforming in that the maximum per'
ffi mitted lot coverage by buildings is exceeded
I, and the property is deficient in minimum
II required set backs for front, side (one) 4nd
rear yards .
�IMR. PIZILLY: My name is Franz Pizilly, I own B.T. Glass Company.
i
T wish to have my architect talk to you people in terms of the nonI
I
1+ conformance.
�ICHAIRMAN AMAN: Alright, fine .
I
I' MR. PIZILLY: His name is Ken Vineberg.
! MR. VINEBERG: My name is Ken Vineberg, and my office is at 141 Thi
Commons. I want to hand out - since the last meeting we have done ',
;
is floor plan of the proposed addition and if I can, can I pass that
Ii
i around to the Board members?
` CHAIRMAN AMAN: Sure.
!� MR. VINEBERG; And does the Board have the rendering of the front of
jthe building? That wasn' t available when I made the appeal. These
fare the floor plans for the second floor - a drawing of what the
I1proposed building will look like with the second floor and there is
also in there a drawing of the way the building looks now. Also j
,1wetve got three letters that came in to Mr. Pizilly that are addressed
Zito the Board. Shall I give those to the chairman?
CHAIR: Yes, thank you,
i
iJMR. VINEBERG: Basically, I would like to call your attention to
1, the appeal that you have that we filed at the beginning of this ,
11
( Franz and I worked on this appeal together and we tried to be very ';
�Ispecific in stating our case in terms of the zoning law here in Ithaca
.i
i!
Ii
- 66
!The best I could do is to read through this or, if you are familiar
I I '
;with it , I ' ll just summarize it . I think I ' ll read through it . The
{
(purpose of this appeal - the existing building on this site is a non-
conforming building and therefore an area variance must be granted,
before any construction is undertaken. Proposed new construction 2
I
Two two-bedroom apartments to be built on the roof of an existing ohne
story building thereby creating a second story. The existing buil '-
ing has a flat roof that covers 3,000 square feet . The new second
story would be set back from the existing roof edge in several places
land cover only 2 ,000 square feet. The remaining 1 ,000 square feet ;
would be developed as terraces that are intended (through the use of
decking, awnings, potted plants, etc . ) to become yards for the apa t-
ments . One of the apartments would be owner occupied. 3) the exist-
ing building - the existing building houses B.T. Glass - the property
and B.T. Glass are both owned and operated by Mr. Pizilly. This
!location was granted by a variance obtained on August 2 , 1971 - I
made a reference here - I want to read that reference - it ' s the New
York Zoning Law and Practice, Second edition by Robert L. Anderson
and the essence of what I am referring to here is Section 18 . 02 .
i
"The granting of a variance does not diminish the landowner's right
to commence or continue uses of land which are authorized by the
ordinance. " and finally the grounds for our variance. The proposed
new apartments fall under the category of two- family dwellings and
are a permitted use in this district. The zoning ordinance requires
six off-street parking spaces for the glass shop (.one space for every
500 square feet of shop) , and two parking spaces for the apartments!.
That' s a total of eight required spaces . There are eleven parking
spaces on the site (all of them are in the parking area to the east
of the building) , The proposed second story must be supported by
the outside walls of the existing first story, There would be sub-
s
stantial practical difficulties if any other structural system were
attempted. And though this means that the second story would also
violate area requirements, it should be recognized that almost all of
!the buildings in this neighborhood are two story buildings, and many
lof them are lacking these same area requirements . It would be re ' -
� P J
Idicial not to allow the development of the second floor on this site ,
i
67 -
�� i
I
when such development is the norm in this neighborhood. Granting
11variance in this case would not only observe the spirit of the ord� -
j nance and maintain the character of the District, it would actually
4 i
enhance the neighborhood. B.T. Glass is a commercial building, bu
j Mr. Pizilly has done his best to help it blend into the area by re
Ii moving old windows, painting the exterior, and creating a corner
I! yard with a full grown tree that was shipped to the site to replace
i
! existing paving. By building a place for h.11*elf to live on the
I
second floor Mr . Pizilly will be able to continue the process of
i
making my building blend with the neighborhood. I want to make
i
reference again to the zoning law "while some control of alteration.
, seems desirable , that end will be better achieved by permitting
�lalterations which promise to render the nonconforming use more com1
� patible with neighboring property. The user should not have to prove
!! unique hardship ; he should be required to show that his proposed
i�
jlalterations will reduce the deleterious effect of his nonconforming
it 1
use . " I am trying to make the point that by adding this residenti4i
, addition we are improving the nature of the commercial building that
is there and I make that point by saying that we will be turning this
building back towards the purpose of housing for which this neigh-
borhood is intended. I will be adding terraces, plants , awnings ,
and trellices that will substantially soften the look of the building.
I
I will be restoring, at least on the roof, some of the yard space j
I� that this site has always lacked. I will eliminate some of the
I
detrimental effects created by a business in a residential neighbo -
hood. This property will no longer be deserted after business houx
!land that will help make this area a safer place to walk and a less ;
I
likely place for childrne to get into mischief. And significantly
I I
no matter who owns this building in the future, it will always be
a residence and not just a business . Now the main issue here, I 'm
(! sure you all know is in applying for an area variance to merely 1
show practical difficulties and the zoning code does
P g give a list of
�Iquestions to look at to see if practical difficulties do exist and '
cif an area variance should be granted. I have a copy of this New
I! York State Department of State Zoning Administration Handbook and
l�
i
;( 68
i
they spell out the gorunds for granting an area variance. It says)
I i
i' that the things to look at are how substantial the variance is in
IE
relation to the requirement. Well , the variance I claim is a mino
one in that we are not in fact, encroaching on any yard. The yards
are already substandard because of the existing building .
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Could I ask you to perhaps go back to just before
i
I
II you get to number four in your presentation? If you could fill
j that in. It lacks a ten foot front yard. Can you tell me by how
much?
j MR. VINEBERG: Yes, there is a site plan - a plot plan in the appeal
i' there and the - maybe we should turn to that . I think - attached
to the appeal but before the written part -
I
`l CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes , I see, okay.
i
,1MR. VINEBERG: Okay? You can see that that existing building has
1! absolutely no front yard. The yard is the Tompkins Street side
lbecause the address is Tompkins Street.
i
! CHAIRMAN AMAN: Okay. Let ' s see, what about the side yard?
i
MR. VINEBERG: It has no side yard on Utica Street but it does hav�
ion the east side of the building.
! CHAIRMAN AMAN: Okay.
!! MR. VINEBERG: And the rear yard should be 250 of the site but in
I!
! fact it has only 312" according to the plot plan. So, again, the
ii
( issues in the area variance, how substantial the variance is in
; relation to the requirement , I claim that it is not a substantial
�Ivaiance that we are not encroaching on any more of the site whatso-
ever. The second floor is not illegal in this area we are well
funder the height limitations. The second consideration is the eff�ct ,
Eif the variance is allowed, of the increase population density thus
i!
jiproduced on available governmental facilities , Well obviously twos
! more apartments are no problem in the residential neighborhood. The
I
, third question is whether a substantial change will be produced in
the character of the neighborhood or if substantial detriment to ad-
I
joining property is created. There will be a slight change and it
H� will be to the benefit of the neighborhood - it will be adding resi
� I
l,l dences and will be improving the character of the building in terms
l� I
!
jl I
i
69
I j
of making it look more residential . In terms to detriment to ad-
joining properties , I talked to the Bordoni 's who are the only
i
neighbor that is right up against our property line - that would l�e
i II
affected by the fact that this building is very close and the addi!-
i
tion would be very close also . They said that they felt that their
only concern was that we have no windows that face directly onto
their building and in my design I intend to have no windows facing
the neighboring property. They said that they felt there would b
no problem. Number four in these considerations is whether the d" f-
1 i
�I ficulty can be obviated by some method feasible for the applicant ,
to pursue other than a variance. Well I think it is obvious that
there is no way to add two apartments to this site unless we buil
' them on the roof of the existing building. And as I said the tw
i� apartments are a legal use. And five, whether in view of the manner
in which the difficulty arose and consideration of all the above i
factors , the interest of justice will be served by allowing the
ivariance. Well it seems to me that basically we are just asking
to develop the second floor in a legal manner and we are here before t
the Board because of the nature of the existing building, not parti-
cularly
ar i-cularly because of the nature of the addition we are proposing.
think the only other thing I 'd like to add is that the letters we
have in support are because Mr. Pizilly has made some major improve-
ments on the building as it stands . Mr. Hoard, do you happen to
have those pictures of the old garage?
i
SECRETARY HOARD: I think so .
MR. VINEBERG: If I can I ' d like to hand around these pictures -
they will show the building as it was before Mr. Pizilly bought i
and this slide will show the building as it looks today. That ' s
f
unless there are any questions - that ' s all I have to say, j
j MR. WALSH: Mr. Vineberg: is the parking for this to be on the to
which is designated as 37 x 88 feet fronting on E. Tompkins Street ?
MR. VINEBERG: Yes , that is correct.
MR. WALSH: Is that part of the same - is that all one piece of
property held by deed?
MR. VINEBERG: Yes, by deed it is one piece of property.
Ij
70
I
,I
MR, WALSH_; Okay,
i MR. VINEBERG; With the address 201-205,
i MR. WALSH: Okay. One more question. Is there an existing curb Out
I� on E. Tompkins Street permitting access to the back yard there? j
MR. VINEBERG: Yes that area has the curb cut and is completely
j paved and is a parking lot .
MR. WEAVER: Question about present usage and proposed usage .
(unintelligible)present usage that the customers of the commercial
establishment regularly park astride the sidewalk. barring access
to the front door which is the retail entrance to the establishmejIt.
Do you propose to continue that or to do anything in your design
I
that might alter that hazard?
I
MR. VINEBERG: We have two possibilities there. Those curb cuts-
I, '
were there because of the nature of the building before it became ;
f
j a glass shop. It was originally a Chevrolet Dealership, It was the
first Chevrolet Dealership, apparently, in Ithaca. And at that dime
�i they had garage doors across the front and there was a curb cut
i
put in by the city. If, in the future, the city ever re-does thej
icurbs , we assume that there would be no curb cut there anymore.
There is no need for one in the future, As far as what we can do ''
at the moment , it would be more for Mr, Pizilly to say. I think ii
if he - it would certainly - at the moment he has portable concrete
retainers preventing people from parking up on the property itself,
i
I think it would be quite conceivable to buy more of those retainers
and line the sidewalk to prevent cars from straddling the sidewai�,
I; i
It certainly has no advantage to the commercial facility to have �_- ;
i
those cars there .
i
i MR. PIZILLY: 7 'd like to add to that. I would really like to change
Ij I
(i that facility right there - but I can't really because the City took
them out at one time - the curbs - and they are a problem for us
I
because - if I hadn't put those curbs in that I have - they wouldi
!� drive right into my building - the people . They have no idea abo4t
parking. We are trying to make a change but we don't know how.
ii
MR. VINEBERG: Alright, so , I guess the
MR. PIZILLY: But I 'm willing to go along with what we have to do
ii i
I' -
! 71
ii
'I h
or what you want to do.
i I
I MR. WEAVER: I 'm not going to design this . . .
MR. PIZILLY: Yes , I know. I 'm just saying, it' s bad. But if I
!i hadn' t put those curbs up they would drive right into my building.';
MR. VINEBERG: Well I think we can add additional curbs there.
Any other questions?
�I
! CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone here who wishes to
I
speak on behalf of the variance? Is there anyone here who wishes '
to speak in opposition? Yes sir.
I
i MR. RHODES: My name is Dan Rhodes , I 'm chairman of the Fall Creek
j�
Civic Association, I live at 201 W. Lincoln Street. I 've been
asked to speak here tonight on behalf of residents of the area I
�i think Mr. Hoard has a petition which they have - which was presented
to him - which they have signed opposing this variance. Basically
Ii
the reasons for it ,there are three basic reasons first of all , an
inadequate space. Most of that area, in fact, just about all the
11 area around the building is asphalt. There is no yard except for ,,
+I I think on the Yates Street side, if I 'm right , between the curb and
�j the sidewalk. Parking. Now they have indicated that there is a
�j number of parking spots on the premises . That is fine during the
�j day, I mean, during the night but what about during the day when
+� they are actually conducting the business on the first floor? That
j means that those people that are parking in that lot are going to '
have to move onto th-e street during the day to allow for business '
customers to come into for the business purposes . We are already
( congested down in that area with parking, in fact, that is one of
(' the biggest problems that we have and we don't need to add to it. j
And thirdly, there is one more thing, in a way, this is a precedent
setting decision that you will have to make because here we have On
;i instance where business wants to convert partially into a living
!j quarters . Now the question that I have to ask myself - that if it
is approved, what' s to prevent in th-e future for instance, say a slum
iI
!4 landlord from buying this small business and using this same method
to expand it to make it inot an apartment house out of a business ;
G� by adding it onto the business? It' s kind of a neat way of getting
�I;
, around the zoning code, if it is approved and that' s another reasgn
i
- 72 -
i
that we are opposing it. I want to thank you for listening to me and
II think Mr. Hoard will present the petitions that were given to him
tonight and tell exactly why the people are sending it and so forth.
I Thank you.
' CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you, sir. Anyone else wishing to speak in
opposition? We have one more person.
MR. ROGERS: Good evening. My name is Peter Rogers , I 'm a resident;,
i
of the Fall Creek Area, I live at 806 N. Tioga Street. I just want!
to further state what Dan Rhodes said, with a couple of other points .
I believe that in the Fall Creek neighborhood that is zoned R-2b,
is that correct? And I think that considers or approves a residence
into two rental units - the maximum. I see this as one commercial !
unit and two residential . I don't know if you view it that way, bait
I would consider it three units which would be in violation of they
present zoning regulations . Also the fact that you are aware of and
mention that the lot from the Tompkins Street side is 40 ' in depth.,
Ask yourselves , that if there was no building there at all , if you ;
i
would consider allowing someone to construct a new building on a lct
of a 40 ' depth? The th ,d item is and I don' t want to play on this
too much. Mr. Pizilly has been a good tenant - he has done an excel-
lent job for as much as a business can complement a neighborhood,
it has done that but there is certainly nothing complementary about,
a business or a parking lot in a residential neighborhood. If you ,
would like to see an example of that you can go down to the north
i
end of North Tioga Street where we have a P & C Market and we had
a gas station and now they are gone and I sympathize with the people
in the neighborhood. I am sure it has decreased the value of theit
houses if they ever wanted to resell . I don' t believe this is going
to happen because of the nature of the business - I hope that the
i
business will be there for a long period of time but it is an exam-1
pie of what does happen with, a business , with, a parking lot - what:,
could happen. I see no need - and I see no hardship whatsoever fo�
the addition of the two rental units . And that is all I have to soy,
I won' t take any more of your time. . Thank you very much for listeo-
ing.
'i
73 -
I
tICHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to speak in
opposition to the variance? Did you want to say something in con
1clusion?
,
'; SECRETARY HOARD: I will read some of these into the record. This
j' is from Laura B. Wilkinson - she wrote two letters, one to the Plan-
ning Board and one to the BZA. They say basically the same thing : '
"Dear Sirs , In regards to Franz Pizilly's appeal for the right to
construct two apartments on the roof of the B.T. Glass Co. at 201-
205 E. Tompkins Street. I , as a property owner - both at 208 E.
Tompkins Street and 802 N. Tioga Street , wish to state at this time ,
that I think that anyone (Franz Pizilly) who has done so much to
improve the neighborhood, should be allowed to build the apartments!
the has requested. /s/ Laura B. Wilkinson, 802 N. Tioga St. , Ithaca,
ANY." This one is from Petrus VandeVelde "Gentlemen, In regarding to
i
the building of a second story on the Bon Ton Glass Company on East
i
! Tompkins Street, I would say it would be an improvement and asset to
Ijthe neighborhood. The Bon Ton is a very clean place, you never seed
any junk around. Truly yours, s/s Petrus van de Velde, 715 N. Tioga
Street , Ithaca, NY 1485011, There is a petition here that was circa-
hated by or presented by Mr. Rogers . "We the undersigned residents
of the Fall Creek area are strongly opposed to Franz Pizilly' s pro-?
1posal for construction of two 2-bedroom apartments on the roof of the
BT Glass Shop at 201 E, Tompkins Street for the following reasons : '
il. There is already an existing variance to allow the commercial re-
, tail operation which adds significantly to the traffic in the area.
'i
12 . The occupancy of the apartments would increase the traffic andil
density in the neighborhood. 3. The building is only 40 ' in depth
from Tompkins Street which does not allow for the required setback ,
for this type of construction, 4. There is no yard space only a
commercial parking lot , 5 , The addition plus existing constitutes
� 3 units which is prohibited under present R-2b zoning, 6 , No hard-
ship has been claimed by Mr. Pizilly," There are thirty (30) sign..-
i
tures primarily in the 800 and 900 blocks, and 600 blocks of North
f Tioga Street, what happened to the 700 block? Some on E. Marshall
i
! N. Cayuga, 400 and 300 block of Utica Street. This one is Elinor I
1W, Fenner and Pete Fenner. "I can' t see where there would be any
i 74
t
I
ilinconvenience in the neighborhood to have apartm ts, Mr. Pizilly
,! sure has cleaned the property up and looks very nice. Also there
it I
� is much improvement from having the garage there. Also his busine4s
i
lis not at all noise . " /s/ Pet Fenner and Elinor W. Fenner. This
done is from Howard and Bettina Jennings . "Re : Appeal No. 1358 .
Please be advised we are opposed to the building of a second story ;
containing two apartments at 201. 205 E. Tompkins Street. It is bad
i
enough to have the BT Glass Co, there without adding to it. /s/
Howard and Bettina Jennings". This one is from Ward A. Merrell , 718
i
N. Tioga Street, "I have reviewed the appeal you have made to the
f
City of Ithaca to build two 2-bedroom apartments on the roof of the
existing B.T. Glass building. I am in favor of this plan. As a j
neighbor you have always been most cooperative with us. You main-
tain a most desirable property. We are happy to have you next to �s.
The proposed plan seems most desirable. It should enhance the entijre
neighborhood. You have my permission to use this letter in your
meeting with the City' s Board of Planning and Development or in any
other way that it may benefit your efforts. Sincerely yours , /s/
i
Ward A. Merrell , 718 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 . "
MR. VINEBERG: We sent out the required letters to the people within
200 feet - there were forty-five letters that we sent out and at t e
Design and Review Board meeting - until that time, there had only
been two people in opposition. Mr. Rogers who spoke tonight and who
circulated the petition and one other letter that you heard in opposi
tion. I', frankly, didn't expect any other opposition - I feel that
perhaps Mr. Rogers has focused on issues that are not really in danger
here and there is arousing neighbors without the neighbors having
opportunity to hear our appeal or to be presented with what we are
going to do. These are people who weren1t at these meetings . I aml
questioning the validity of a petition that is circulated in this
manner and I am questioning the timing of this response. I'd like
to add at this point R we had support at the Design and Review Boar
from Mr. VanCort and Mr. 'Meigs Mr. Meigs gave me permission to
type up a transcript of his statement during the Design and Review
, Board meeting and what he said - I 'm just going to read part of it
I
f I
�( 75
because it is a little bit long. He has made the point that "what !
! is being proposed here is a permitted use" and there is no question
sof hardship being involved because the use we are proposing is a
i,
permitted one. "A property like this building is not going to re- j
i
�jvert to a permitted use until the building finally totally deteri
i! orates. " This is a substantial building and it would probably be
hong time until that happens. The proposal for adding permitted
uses to this building seems to me to be imminently reasonable -
il
this strikes me as a singular opportunity for the neighborhood. "
I
That was Mr. Meigs' comments and I would like to add that to our
i
I
i appeal.
i
I� CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you.
( MR. VINEBERG: I think that ' s it .
I
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you. Well , hearing nothing further, I don' t ;
want to get involved in a gave and take, if you have something new ;,
! to add . . .
! MR. ROGERS: That' s the only point I wanted to make. I do not wan .
I
to get involved in a debate or a rebuttal but I am extremely sorry
i
that he said what he said. The petition is a credible one. j
I
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Well it ' s admitted into evidence and we will record
it the weight that we think is appropriate. Hearing nothing furth r
that concludes this case..
i
I
�I
I;
i
I
I
,I
it
i
fj
j - 76 -
j BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
APRIL 6 , 1981
EXECUTIVE SESSION
1-
tIAPPEAL NO. 1358
! The Board considered the appeal for an area variance under Sectionj
130. 25 , Columns 10, 11 , 12 and 14 and Section 30. 49, to permit the
addition of a second story containing two apartments to a non-con-
forming building housing a commercial use at 201-205 East Tompkins '
Street. The decision of the Board was as follows :
1
' MR. WALSH: I move that the Board grant the area variance re
;I
ii quested in appeal number 1358 .
! CHAIRMAN AMAN: I second the motion.
i
NOTE : 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Absent Granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
X11) The use sought is permitted in the zone .
2) The deficiencies , while not minimal , are incurable given the
nature of the building.
X13) Parking is not an issue.
i4) The additional traffic generated, if any, would not constitutei
a substantial burden on the neighborhood.
i
� I
f
i
9
Ij
i
�f
r�
i
i�
ti !
i I
I
i' 77 -
i
I�
ISI, BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board
;
� of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of
I:lAppeals numbered 3-1-81 , 4-1-81 , 4-2-81 , 1351 , 1352 , 1354 , 1353 ,
11355, 1356, 1357 and 1358 on April 6 , 1981 at City Hall , City of
; Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed same , and the foregoing
I
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, on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of i
my ability.
f
Barbara C. Ruane
i
iI
fi Recording Secretar
I� I
ii
f
Sworn to before me this
I
day of 1981
Notary public
JEAN J. HAtWNI SON
NOTARY PUB;:C, STATE OF NEW YORK
No. ;,5.16-•0300
! QUALIFi D IN TOMPf( VS COUNTY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRE`: `..;.'Cry 30,19�
itI,
I I
II
i
i
,I
t j
i
1�
ii
i'