Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1982-01-22 ,I i li i i! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS di CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK it JANUARY 22, 1982 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPEAL NO. 1-1-82 Dean Poulos 2 428 West State Street ;;APPEAL NO. 1-1- 82 Executive Session 8 I I i' I I {APPEAL NO. 1413 Ruth M. Frank 9 li 105 Vinegar Hill APPEAL NO. 1413 Executive Session 11 ;APPEAL NO. 1414 Joseph Ciaschi (Valley House) 12 ' 801 W Buffalo Street it I {APPEAL NO. 1414 Executive Session 19 I ii I I ;APPEAL NO. 1415 Flora Gross & Guy Naylor 21 �I 701 N. Aurora Street !I j APPEAL NO. 1415 Executive Session 23 I ; APPEAL NO. 1416 Don Robertson 24 ii 606 Cascadilla Street APPEAL NO. 1416 Executive Session 27 I' APPEAL NO. 1417 Mickey Goldstein 28 329 South Geneva Street APPEAL NO. 1417 Executive Session 38 i ;{ CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING SECRETARY 39 �I i it I. i' I �I it li i ii i I I.{ i i i it I' j BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS ii CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK {� JANUARY 22 , 1982 { i j� SECRETARY HOARD: I ' d like to call to order the January meeting o I i the Board of Zoning Appeals. First I 'd like to introduce - Mayor i Shaw in the back of the room first of all , if you haven' t met him. Members of the Board Charles Weaver William Wilcox j Margaret Haine Peter Walsh Elizabeth Bagnardi Donna Ward I Thomas Hoard, Building Commissioner { $ Board Secretary Barbara Ruane , Recording Secretary j, This being the first meeting of the new year, the first order of i' I� business is to elect a new chairman and I 'll entertain nomina- tions from the floor. ii i' k MR. WALSH: Mr. Secretary I would nominate Charles Weaver as I� I� Chairman of the Board.. 3� �I MR. WILCOX: I second it. I !� SECRETARY HOARD: Alright. Nomination and a second, do I hear any other nominations? Is there a motion to close the nominations ? i !j MR. WALSH: I would so move . I i' MS . HAINE: T second that . I� SECRETARY HOARD: All in favor signify b_y saying Aye. 6 Ayes . i �{ SECRETARY HOARD: Any nays? (none) Mr. Weaver. {j CHAIRMAN WEAVER: First of all , the Board has received in the i mail and I hope you have all received your copies of the procedures j� that had been adopted from the rules for the operation of the j! Board in 1981 and it is necessary for us to adopt them or any new 'i �1 rules that would be appropriate at this time before we hear the �j first case. Is there . . .. j MR. WILCOX: So move. l MR. WALSH: I would second the adoption or the readoption of the i j! rules under which the Board operated in 1981 without change, I CHAIRMAN WEAVER: And we have a second, Mr. Wilcox? Oh, you are 4 the second. Is there any discussion on that? All those in favor . I i i� - 2 - 1 6 Ayes . ! Those rules have been adopted. A copy of those will be appended t the minutes of this meeting and for anyone that is here for a hearing , they will be available to you at this meeting and to simplify the procedure I will try to outline approximately what we do. First of all , we are operating under the charter of the City of Ithaca and the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Ithaca. j The Board will not be bound by the strict rules of evidence in the I conduct of the hearing, however the determination shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same. The Board re- quests that all participants identify themselves as to name and I address and confine their discussion to pertinent facts of the case under consideration. Please avoid extraneous material which i ' would have a delaying effect. We ' ll take the cases in numerical I 11 order as published in the notice of hearing and after hearing all Icases the Board will retire to executive session and upon the com- pletion of the executive session, we will reconvene and interested parties may receive verbal information as to the results of any i I decision at that time. If you don' t wish to wait that long, that information will be available to you at the Building Commissioner' office any business day thereafter. There being any questions , about that procedure? The first case Mr. Secretary? SECRETARY HOARD: Thefirst case Mr. Chairman is appeal no. 1-1-82 : I� Appeal of Dean Poulos for sign var- iances under Section 34. 4b and 34 . 8 to permit the retention of the existing sign at 428 West State Street in a B-2 (business) use !� district. The sign projects over the sidewalk and more than eighteen i! (1811) inches from the front of the building. The sign was granted historic status under Section 34, 15A of the Sign Ordinance by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, Mr, Buyoucos are you presenting this case? MR. BUYOUCOS Mr. Chairman, this is a historic occasion. . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: First of all will you identify yourself? � MR, BUYOUCOS: Yes . James Buyoucos , Iam the attorney for Deano Poulos., I have my offices in the Savings Bank Building, Ithaca. As I was telling you, this is a historic occasion - it is the it tj k+ i 3 - ii Iifirst appeal before you and it is significant that it deals with a Isign which has been historically designated. You said I should be 11brief - I should have to say no more than that and I would expect jla unanimous acclamation a vote from the floor. The - for your ; background - if you wish to have it - a diner was erected in the (present location many, many years ago. In 1936 Mike Rich acquired , it. There was a sign which said State Diner which projected over �the sidewalk and so as long ago as 1936 it was already an intrusion ; lof that sign onto the area. In 1937 Mr. Rich put a larger sign on (sand then he put an even larger sign later on. Mr. Poulos acquired the property in 1959. In 1965 he employed Cayuga Signs to build i this sign. it was built in 1965 and has been in its present loca- ;I tion ever since, Two changes have been made. There used to be a rotating motor on the top so there was a lot of motion going on at ;(night indicating that State Diner sign moving around and around. i (And of course, the arrows used to flash with the lights in sequence . I; '!Both- of those have been stopped. So now what you have is a neon il,isign with no moveable parts and no moveable flashing arrows or anything of that sort. I don' t think there was any question that the Commission, in granting historic designation, felt that this i was: a sign that enhanced the environment down there rather than to spoiling it and we could produce any number of witnesses who could i testify to that fact . That part of State Street would look extreme- ly dismal if that sign wasn't flashing at night. And all you have ,to do is just think of the area. As a matter of fact, two years ago Mr. Poulos went abroad and the diner was dark - the sign was off and during that period of about two to three weeks , three muggings took place down there we could establish that with the Police Department If it were necessary. Actually when you stop Ito think about it next to the diner is Bishops , there is no one i ligoi.ng in and out of there at night . This building Ithink has more �Iliveliness -5 State Diner does - than any of the buildings around !I IIthere. Across the street is a theatre with its sign. At the south Iest corner and the south east corner of State Street and Corn i,I IStreet are gas stations. And then there is a parking lot also in i I I l r. - 4 - ii the area. This sign, as I have said, does give some gaiety and i sparkle and liveliness. Now the reason the sign is necessary is i because there is a diner being operated there twenty-four hours a `day. Unless that diner can operate twenty-four hours a day it will lnot be able to be an economically viable business . It is the all knight business - the late night business which enables that diner to exist and it serves a function. As anyone who is acquainted jlwith diners open all night they must be lively. The sign must i; be lively. If they are not lively they look dismal - it depresses people. People at two or three A.M. in the morning do not want I !to go to a diner which looks as if it might be the antiroom of an undertaker' s parlor. And some of them do look that way and one or I Itwo artists have portrayed some diners to look that way and have gained national reputations for doing so. So this sign is extremely important. That sign up there is a beacon telling the people that e care open and people who travel up and down route 13 they can see Ithe sign - people on State Street can see the sign - it' s a welcom- ing sign and it does provide a safety factor and in three meetings there has been no one who has opposed it. It is my opinion and I ithink. - I don't see how you could disagree that that sign does enhance the environment down there rather than to spoil it, Not ,all signs are bad. When these Sign Ordinances started to be lenacted in 196S - I know- because I was involved in drafting one for the Town of Ithaca. There was a big push to get rid of the ugly Isi,gns that would spoil the highways , primarily that' s the way I jthey started. Ultimately then they said, well let ' s clean up the junky looking signs. That is not a junky looking sign that sign has camp and it has appeal and it has liveliness. Now in terms of i � ardship I could produce a number of witnesses but in the interest f brevity I decided not to do that tonight unless it was necessary I� and I beseech you - I hope it will not be necessary - I don' t see i why it should but let me just tell you very briefly - that sign can �ot - according to the person who built that sign for us, let me 11 �� ell you this , he said there is never going to be another sign like hat in Ithaca so in a sense that sign is a parthenon of all signs I !i ii 5 - ii I ,and there isn' t going to be another parthenon built and there isn' t ;;going to be another sign like that built. Can that sign be moved for changed? Now you are tampering with something that another body �in this city has said don' t tamper with it , we like it just the way lit is and we have given this historic designation. If that sign I , jihad to be taken down and a new sign erected it would cost, I would say - two years ago I think I was given a figure of $5 , 500. plus another $1 , 000, for wiring and some other things . I think the sign itoday would cost close to 8 or 9 thousand and that is too much to ,Ispend on a sign down there, If the sign could be changed they would have changed it themselves but the location cannot be changed to ring it - you cannot have you can' t have a sign down there that doesn' t project over the walk. It isn't hurting anybody - it isn' t Creating any garishness - there isn't anyone who is hurt in that area as a matter of fact there is safety provided. Now I am ii ready to answer any questions that any member of the Board has . Mr . Chairman, as I say, I do hope that the variance will be granted but if there is any question about it, I reserve the right to appear before the Board again with witnesses and documentary facts nd testimony. So I would like to know if there are any questions . i6AIRMAN WEAVER: Mr. Walsh, do you have a question? R. WALSH: A couple I guess. Mr. Buyoucos , is it not possible to lace the sign in such a way to conform with the Ordinance? SIR. BUYOUCOS: No , We can bring the person who built it to tell ou why, R. WALSH: Can you summarize that? �R. BUYOUCQS Well the reason would be that it would be too close �to the building and you can't have that sign so it won't project �R, Over the sidewalk, WALSH: Even if it was mounted in some respect over the . . . R. BUYQUCQS: Building? No, that is the one thing the builder of he sign said you just can' t do it there it is not going to - it just won' t work. R. WALSH; Putting aside all the questions of liveliness and camp G nd hardship, one of the things that concerns me with this is the i II i i; ii - 6 - 1 ii Sign Ordinance - to qualify as a historic sign says : prior to 1950 11 � - now I think that it is reasonable that it falls within the his- I� toric characteristic outlined for a historic sign even as a i lreproduction of an old sign or an attempt to reproduce one, but I �1how do I get around the 1950 limit? MR. BUYOUCOS: About the same way that the Supreme Court gets ! around the law and enables the law to adjust to current conditions land imperatives without having to go through the terrible process i jof having legislation with all kind of interest and pressure group f concerned. ,i MR. WALSH: Even the Supreme Court doesn' t only leap right over a (' statute - at least not without some assistance. 11MR. BUYQUCOS Do you want to debate that sometime in public? Any , ! time , anyplace. No you see the point is that this is a case I think Ilwhere the chairman of that commission quite rightly said, and in �Icidently, this was approved immediately after I presented the case I ' to the Planning Board they approved it immediately they didn' t llwa ,t for any discussion on it. They said we think it is alright aid II the Planning Board, which is concerned with matters of this sort, approved it immediately. No, the trouble is that this is the sort Iof thing where you have to make your exceptions on a case to case basis, You start making out the law and keeping i.t rigid and you lare in trouble . No one is being hurt we can demonstrate the l� fact that if it couldn't be put on the roof, I' don' t think I have i ``ithat statement from the man who built it -- from Cayuga Signs iM lout if you would permit me just a minute . . R SMR. WALSH: I` see his statement that they don' t build them like jlthat anymore - I'' ll take that for granted. IMR. RUYOUCOS: He says amongst other things he says the sign is I too large to be mounted on any part of the diner roof - it just , can' t be done.. It would project above the top of the roof line and that in itself would create a violation of the zoning law. I , ! have discussed this with. him and he said T frankly don't see where anybody is hurt by that sign where it is right now,, and he would l l ii argue quite strenuously, against having it extend to be built in th i !i i 7 - i ,i ,, way you suggested Mr. Walsh. �I CHAIRMAN WEAVER: For clarification on that Mr. Buyoucos , it would i I ( seem to me that your appeal is based upon its designation as a f historic sign and not necessarily upon its desirability pro or I! jcon, in the neighborhood, The judgement of the Planners on that '! issue if they prevail with this Board, would indicate that the ,I sign i.s therefore eligible from the usual measurements on approval icor disapproval of the sign. Is that accurate? MR. BUYOUCOS: No. I don't think so. They designated it as a sign which should be preserved. Now, I come in here and I say it I ,does not meet the requirements of the Zoning law but I tell you I� it can't meet it and it will cause a hardship, If that ' s the I icas.e if the case must fall on that if you feel that you need more than just your judgement and common sense , you don't have to have all the facts from me on this, then I would like to reserve time to bring other people in to discuss it . But , as I told you, that sign would cost at least $7, 000 . if not more , to reproduce. I� I tell you as a matter of record that the man who built it said, ! Icannot have that sign any closer to the building , can' t put it 11on the roof. Number 39 if 'we don' t h_avea sign which does have jsome attraction, it affects our all night business . Number 4, one li of the elements which is always considered by a Board in granting (variance, as I understand it , is the affect on the neighborhood. The affect on the neighborhood here is positive , it is not negative . lAs a matter of fact, this building is kept up, if you will go down Land look at it in its appearance and with a sign, it is kept up above the other buildings that are there and it does, as I say, i 1provide light, it doesn' t hurt anybody, no one has complained and they have known about these proceedings they have had notices abut not one has shown up. It seems to me that under those ci.rcum- !'stances the very, people who might be affected have indicated that they are not bothered by it at all . So far as I know, unless Mr. I �IHoard tells me differently, I've had no objection and no one has i �jappeared at any hearing and T don't think that this i.s something that this Board can overlook`. i i i j - 8 - i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any other questions? (none) Thank I you. l; MR. BUYOUCOS: Thank you. I� CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in ; favor of this application? (no one) Is there anyone here that ' wishes to speak against this petition? (no one) There being none ( we' ll go on to the next case. i ii I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK ! JANUARY 22 , 1982 EXECUTIVE SESSION Il APPEAL NO. 1-1-82 : The Board considered the appeal of Dean Poulos for a sign variance ; under Section 34 . 4b and 34, 8 to permit the retention of the exist ling sign at 428 West State Street in a B--2 (business) use district The decision of the Board was as follows : j' MR. WILCOX: I move that the Board grant the sign variance it requested in appeal number 1-1-82 , 1MS. HAINE: I second the motion. VOTE: 5 Yes; 1 No. Granted �IFINDINGS OF FACT: ill) The sign meets all the criteria of being a historic sign i except the age provision, El 2) The sign does not have an unfavorable impact on the neigh- borhood. eighborhood. 3) A financial hardship would be suffered by the owner if he had to remove or substantially modify the sign., i i li �I i I I {i n 9 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS s COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JANUARY 229 1982 ( SECRETARY HOARD: The next case Mr. Chairman is appeal number 1413 li Ij Appeal of Ruth M. Frank for an area variance under Section 30. 25 Columils 'j 7 , 111. 12 and 13 to permit the con- struction of a carport at 105 Vineg r j; Hill Road. The property is located in an R-2a (residential) use district and is deficient in minimum lot wid h and front and side yard set backs. ` I's there anyone here to present this case? 1MRS. FRANK: I 'm Ruth Frank. This is Mr. Hubbell , the builder. MR. HUBBLE: I am Charles Hubbell and I represent Hubbell Construe ; tion Company. Mrs . Frank would like to have a carport built at i 11105 Vinegar Hill Road where she lives and this carport is 16 ' wide 1120 ' deep and overall height to the peak of the roof would be 10' . i This carport would be constructed out of treated lumber, 6 x 6 it 1poles set in the ground and conventional roof over the top - sides land ends would be open. That 's basically it. CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Is there any reason this could not be I notice ! lthat it invades the front yard set back requirement , is there any Treason it cannot be built where it would not do that? MR. HUBBLE: Not really. The property lines - there is one place for it and this is the reason for this variance meeting, I believe to get the approval, to put it the only place it can be put on the I110t.. CHAIRMAN WEAVER; I notice that do you have the lot measurements !I . Eby any chance , Tome ' SECRETARY HOARD; Yes. IICHAIRMAN WEAVER; Well, what I want to makecertain i.s that this difficulty is going to be available to the Board and clearly an �linability for the lot to accommodate that size building at another 11location. ECRETARY' HOARD; That is correct. I have a plot plan here by a i,censed surveyor showing the outline of the existing building as lit relates to the property line ! ,I i i' Ij 10 - I CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We will pass it around. I think it would be lappropriate that it go around to the Board right now while you are still here - to make sure that we have all the information that 1we can get on the material . MR. WALSH: Mr. Hubble, Mrs . Frank has one or two cars now? �JMR. HUBBLE: One. MR. WALSH: One. This is built to accommodate two cars? MR. HUBBLE : Not really. One car, IMR. WALSH: 16 x 20? ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions? Thank you Mr. Hubble. Do you wish to speak to the Board? I (MRS. FRANK: Yes , I would be very happy to. ! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Please come forward. Introduce yourself. i MRS . FRANK: I 'm Ruth Frank, 105 Vinegar Hill - it ' s not Vinegar lHill Road , it is Vinegar Hill , I would be very happy to have the i carport _ I am alone - my car stands outside it was vandalized ` Ithree days before Christmas the taillights were smashed out I i Siam waiting to get new ones and the doors freeze up it is right I! lout in the open and I really need it, , CHAIRMAN WEAVER: In relation to the proposed location of the carp rt 1 - where do you park that car now? MRS. FRANK: I park it right where the carport will be built only Tit' s in the open out near the street, (( CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Any, questions? MR, WALSH: Mrs. Frank, this is, for your personal use and it is �i Hnot part of an expansion in the living capacity of the house , is i that correct? I MRS. FRANK: I think it will be built as close to the house as I possible - I don' t know if - will it be attached to the house Mr. Hubble? I 'j MR. HUBBLE: No it will not, I ! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions? (none) Thank you, iMRS. FRANK: You are welcome . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for the petition? (no one) Is there anyone who wishes to speak against lithe petition? (no one) i I is ' SECRETARY HOARD: I do have three letters , Mr. Chairman, from I! jineighbors - all of which are in support of her request. They will I Hbe part of the record. li 11CHAIRMAN WEAVER: T again say, is there anyone that wishes to spea l 11against the petition? There being none, we will hear the next case . li BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF hTHACA NEW YORK i JANUARY 22, 1982 j� EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1413 : The Board considered the appeal of Ruth M. Frank for an area vari- ance to permit the construction of a carport at 105 Vinegar Hill , Road. The decision of the Board was as follows: !,MR. WALSH: I move that the Board grant the area variance !i requested in appeal number 1413. I I J!MS. HAINE: I second the motion. I; VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No Granted I. '!FINDINGS OF FACT: i! 141) The proposed open carport could not effectively be placed i elsewhere on the premises. 12) That it would not significantly affect the character of the neighborhood. 3) Practical difficulties have been shown and as a result the variance should be granted for the 16 x 20 unenclosed carport .i proposed by the petitioner.. li I I) i i� IIE II �i I I 12 i• ij BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS j COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK i' j JANUARY 22, 1982 jiSECRETARY HOARD The next case is appeal number 1414 : Appeal of Joseph Ciaschi for an area variance under Section 30. 25 , Columns 4 , 6, 10 and 14 f to permit the conversion of the upper two floors j) of the building at 801 West Buffalo Street (Val- ley House Restaurant) to ten apartments . The +! upper floors are currently unused, but contained �. hotel rooms when the building was used as the !� LeH gh Valley Hotel . The property is located in a B-4 (business) use district where the use is permitted; however the property is deficient in lot area and rear yard depth, the maximum j' permitted lot coverage is exceeded, and the pro- posed additional use may be deficient in re- quired off-street parking. A previous appeal (#1402) for this property was denied by the li Board at its November 2 , 1981 meeting; the i' appellant is returning with a new proposal j for off-street parking . I�MR. LEATHERS: My name is Bob Leathers and I am an architect repre- senting Joe Ciaschi , The I 'm going to limit my remarks to the parking issue in this case, because I believe that really is the !question. If there are am other questions after that relative to any other issues I would be more than happy to answer those. The jexisting conditions down there do present , frankly, somewhat of a (dilemma. There is a lot of space but it is very poorly used frank- ly. Now when I say a lot of space, I 'm speaking of a lot of open !Space for parking and in fact is used for parking now. This upper Ilan that you see right here is a planned view of that area. Down .ere on the bottom side is Taughannock Blvd. , along the left side dere is Buffalo Street. This area - this very free form sort of ectangle is the Station Restaurant . Immediately over on the other ide here is the piece of property that we are hoping to renovate n the second and third floor for apartments and that is the Valley ! ouse Restaurant on the first level . Now, this area right now has � ot of things happening that is all I can say. One of those things is that there is a diagonal piece of land that comes through here like , his and that is twenty feet wide , extends 237 ' from the property t ine back to the north side and within that twenty foot width it is �$ity property. Now- just north of that is also city property, back in i �i - 13 - Ijthis area here (pointing to chart) . Immediately west of that is i 11pieces of property - actually you might say part of the Station al (Ithough it is immediately adjacent to the Station, which Mr. Ciasch i 1, owns. And then down here to the east is another piece of property 11which_ Mr. Ciaschi is part owner of. Now, right now what is happen ging is that this area within here this very strange shape and ,, trapezoidal shape here is used for parking and is paved. If, in 11fact, you measure this by the legal definitions of a parking space , 180 square feet per car and with the necessary distribution space circulation space and all, you in fact can get in sixty five li , cars , into this area. If, in fact, you cheat a little bit - in other words if you try and put in as many cars as you maximum as you really can and still be able to get them out , you can get �! ' seventy eight cars in there. Now that includes some areas back along here parallel parking, etc. What we are proposing is to , increase the amount of parking in this area. We are adding ten apartments let' s just say we have 78 spaces here now, We are l Ilproposing to increase the parking in this area which, by the way, has been sufficient. Now it is hard to measure it is hard to - ! if on the extreme day. when Cornell is having graduation and every- thing is full, the Station is, full , the Valley House is full and ; everybody is going into Pete ' s at that one point of the whole �1year you might in fact be a strain in the overall capacity of that ( lot. But, as most people know _ as I know, going down frequently i a to Pete ' s or to the restaurants,' that, in fact, you can find park- ;I ing spaces there . So we aren' t talking about changing what 's l there - what we are talking about doing is increasing what is already available. We are talking about increasing it to , in round figures a hundred cars. We are talking about at least adding twenty spaces ten of those spaces we would be adding would be designated and reserved for the apartments . We also, by the i ; way, would be designating and reserving a handicap space there too. f� That means we would have a net increase for the other businesses of ten beyond what is there already, Now to do this we need a lot of cooperation from the city, and we are working closely right no 14 - I I ( with the Planning Department because what is going to be necessary Ibis an interim agreement of some kind whereby we can in fact use i' jthis right of way which, by the way, I might mention is already ;; being used - because the fact is - there is a ten foot space in i' the middle here that is grass, yes - but five feet on either side of that is already being used for parking. It is a very, very i ' inefficient shape. Now there is a lot of problems - I shouldn't say problems , but let ' s say, constraints on that land, The amount l I) the money that it was purchased by, etc. was done through a �jfederal grant which was a recreational use I won't go into all l ili �lof those details, okay? But what we have done is designed a park- ,ling lot in this area right down here which_, in fact, accommodates lone hundred cars . Now this: accommodates one hundred cars providing i for twenty feet long spaces, nine feet wide and circulation space its twenty feet wide between - those very ample spaces. You may hale I �jhad a previous schemetic drawing which you have seen which. in lfact wasn't as generous as this. That has been updated and we hav 1i developed that in further detail as you can see in this plan. Now 11beyond putting one hundred spaces in there what we are doing is I� providing for spaces in here these islands, you might say, so '!that in fact we can landscape this area too we don't want just la sea of asphalt this is a historic building, we want to keep it i as such and keep it so that it is very attractive . In fact , we have shown in the front of this., right here eighteen spaces . We are hoping to be able to get the one hundred spaces even without doing that - just be putting ten along here, increasing the area (back into here so that in fact we still can provide for the one hundred spaces. But, even if we can't increase back to here - it can' t go further back in there because we certainly don't want to I Ingo into the Farmers Market area which we aren't, here, by the way. I� �We aren't going into it at all , We can do it by providing these !spaces here and providing the eighteen spaces in the front. So what I fou see here is a parking area that has parking on both sides , (entering off Buffalo Street - a second one entering off Buffalo I' treet with a little sublot on this side. There will be landscaping I i �I - I ii I ;;with trees on this end and an island here of trees and one on 'I !! this end here. And we can fit this in and still have these island Mand still have the one hundred spaces . The area, by the way, we i (were thinking of designating for apartments is this area right I ! here. We picked this rather than the corner frankly, because the (businesses - Pete' s store over here - really does benefit from !, having immediate cars right adjacent to it. Park - run in - go jout. I do it all the time and I would hate to miss these places ! here. This area is close to well within what the code or what zoning asks for and in fact it is about one hundred fifty feet ! across to the apartments - the entrance to the apartments, While iat the same time it doesn' t take the very valuable space that is (,needed for Pete ' s or is needed right here immediately adjacent to !' the entrance to the Station. I might mention too also this does i iisupply the Valley House Restaurant. That is it. Any questions? MR, WALSH: Bob, over how long a period I assume this entails sone isort o e sort of trade between the city and some other body­ for the use o the city' s right-of-way? ,SMR, LEATHERS: Yes . I don't know if itis a trade , lease, purchas �Jor what it is. That ' s what is being worked out right now. Is iMR, WALSH: Regardless of the form that takes, what time period i ii Ido you have in mind for the arrangement between the owners of the �ladjacent properties and the city, with respect to that particular right-of-way? ; MR. LEATHERS: I don' t - the adjacent properties . Now how do you I, limean the owners of the adjacent properties? I i MR. WALSH: Ciaschi. IMR. LEATHERS: Oh. Hopefully if in fact this is acceptable - 1this proposal to the BZA - this agreement would come about as !! soon as possible . We have - we asked that very question to the ;Planning Department and they can' t, frankly, give us an answer. They say it could be lengthy. Now what that means it could be i (; several weeks, it might even be a few months . MR. WALSH: I 'm sorry - I wasn't very clear T don't mean how lon �1will it take to get that agreement which I can understand might !,very well take a while - but for how long a period would such an ,I j 16 - �I !i agreement run? In other words , if we . . . it i �! MR. LEATHERS: The intention would certainly be - I would hope , indefinitely. Like what would be ideal would actually be the purchase of this property by Mr. Ciaschi and then it would be in This ownership and that and I say ideal - there is a lot of other !! agreements that could be ideal - a one hundred year lease sort ji of arrangement that would be renewable something of that sort. I I 1We aren't talking about a short term, we are talking about a long term agreement. Hopefully while this is being worked out , if it .! appears that it can be worked out some interim sort of arrange I Iment can be made because we do recognize that we want to provide ! enough parking space. Such as , I might mention, the use of this �iarea back here not altering this area in here at all which would i jibe desireable eventually but leaving that as is and just repaving I! {i or additional paving in this area so this could be used so we coul i �1provide for those additional spaces right now while it was being �! worked out. �I 1MR. WALSH Merely for the record, is it your opinion, as an archi ! o tect, that the other deficiencies from the Zoning Ordinance, pre- I Isented by this building and its proposed uses in terms of area i coverage, and side yards and the like , are not remedial without substantially modifying the building? Ji�IMR. LEATHERS: The other areas that it does not, I feel are not ';icriti.cal and I feel the building can be used for the intended 1purpose without in any way jeopardizing the area or jeopardizing i� the use around there. I donFt think there would be any problem, ! The only question at all is and this is something we are working with Mr. Hoard on, is the question of Code .. not a question of zoning and that is something that we are going to be working very closely and hope to have some answers on very soon. !'MR. WALSH: Okay, CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Will you show ane the northern line of ownership by Mr. Ciaschi as part owner or total owner? ;MR. LEATHERS; Right there, Tt ' s this line you see right here Band then this one right down here. What we are proposing is an Ir it ii I li jl 17 I i , additional eighty feet to the north which would be this area ! right in here which we would be developing as parking as well as , i obviously, realignment and the complete repaving landscaping of I I; '' this area. (, CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I noticed in the Planning Board' s discussion of I this item that there was some criticism of the space per parking i; ! unit. Has that been corrected? MR. LEATHERS: That has been corrected. That is why I am pointing lout that in fact there is nine feet wide stalls , twenty feet long with twenty feet distribution spaces between so that in fact the Ij Icirculation - so that you have sixty feet which does meet standard Band as we develop the details of this we certainly would stay with this . It was felt if it was any more we could increase it beyond that although that is a standard so we thought that would I, be sufficient. I CHAIRMAN WEAVER: In present useage north of that proposed use, is ( that now a public way? II MR. LEATHERS: It is now owned by the city with a leased agreement with. the Farmers Market that it is a public parking area I guess you really should say private use by the Farmers Market and that is the dirt parking lot that happens over here. It is just opposi e Pete' s and is used by the Farmers Market. By the way, I might jlmention that there is the entrance - the curb cut that goes into (lits hard to define exactly where that is it' s like one continuou IIcurb cut for about sixty, feet long there- but there is an area ;jth.at has been used as the entrance to the Farmers Market, which is i lin fact, twenty feet beyond the furthest line n the curb that it Ilwe are talking about developing here so we are well south of this Ij jiso we aren' t interferring with. the Farmers Market purposely care- s Hful not to do that . ; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions from the Board? Thank you. I! i MR. LEATHERS: I will leave these drawings for your deliberation ( later and if I can' t get them, if I can get them from you tomorrow ITom? I SECRETARY HOARD: We' ll need copies or something for the record. ii H 18 - �IMR. LEATHERS: Right, I will give them to you. i �ICHAIRMAN WEAVERS: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the petition? (no one) Is there anyone who wishes to sp ak against the petition? (no one) There being none we will hear the next case. I i i I I i �I I� II ii i i 1' I, ij j! - 19 - ij i �! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ij COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS jl CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK it JANUARY 22 , 1982 I EXECUTIVE SESSION i j!APPEAL NO. 1414 : I The Board considered your request for an area variance to permit ithe conversion of the upper two floors of the building at 801 West Ij lBuffalo Street (Valley House Restaurant) to ten apartments . A previous appeal (#1402) for this use was denied by the Board at it November 2 , 1981 meeting, therefore the present appeal was con- sidered in two parts, first the vote was taken whether or not to reconsider the appeal, as follows; 1414-A: MR. WALSH: I move that the Board reconsider the prior result based on showing of new evidence, specifically a proposal for parking attempting to meet the Boardts concerns regarding street parking as expressed by the i I Board at the previous hearing on this matter. IMS. HAI'NE; I second the notion. 1414-A VOTE: 6 Yes; 0 No.. Board voted to reconsider (1414-B: MR. WALSH: T move that the area variance be granted conditioned upon 1) The developers presenting satisfactory evi- dence, by lease or deed, of off-street spaces to accommodate 100 cars, of which 10 spaces must be ex- pressly dedicated to the exclusive use of residents of the proposed apartments , and 2) The period of said availability of parking for this purpose to be not less than eighteen (18) years, from date, I MS. HAINE: I second the motion. VOTE: 6 Yes; 0 No Granted w/conditions FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) With respect to the area, deficiencies apart from off-•street i parking the structure in its present place presents practical ii difficulties which cannot be effectively, overcome. i iff �f j - 20 - i '! APPEAL NO. 1414 (continued) I 1,12) The combined off-street parking requirements for the Station !,I Restaurant, the Valley House Restaurant and Pete ' s Grocery total 105 spaces . 13) The off-street parking available to the Station, the Valley i House and to Pete ' s now, making use of city owned land, total between 65 and 78 spaces, depending on how calculated. A) The Ordinance would require the addition of ten spaces for the i use of residents of the proposed apartments . 5) The developers propose to provide for the use of the Station, I j the Valley House, Pete 's and the apartments, a total of 100 �i spaces , of which 10 would be expressly dedicated to the use of f apartment residents, ; 6) The present demands for off-street parking in that area are no substantially met by the available off--street parking. i7) The proposal advanced to the Board, dedicating ten spaces to the exclusive use of apartment residents would result in a net gain in off-street parking of twelve spaces among the four use I I mentioned. i I i i i Ij i I ii I! I! i! 21 - I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I� CITY' OF ITHACA NEW YORK JANUARY 22, 1982 f SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1415 : i' Appeal of Flora Gross and Guy Naylor for an area variance under Section 30. 25 , Columns 4 , 12 , 13 , and 14 , and Section 30 . 49 to permit construction of an addition to the side of the two-family house at 701 North Aurora Street. The property, which is located in an R-2b (residential) use district, is deficient in required off-street Ii parking, and minimum side and rear yard setbacks CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Please come forward. SIMS . GROSS: We are applying for the variance because . . , I� �ICHAIRMAN WEAVER: Introduce yourself. �iMS. GROSS: Okay, I 'm Flora Gross , I and my husband are the owners I lof the property at 701 N. Aurora Street and we are applying for �l the variance in order to build a bathroom. Our present bathroom lis located about 40 feet from the bedroom which is a little incon- venient and there is no place within the house itself -- it's a , the original house was built in 1840 with a victorian addition and I , then an early 20th century addition so it was - sort of grew like I topsy without - I think before the days of bathrooms , I'm beginnin to think, So we would like to add the bathroom which would be ex i ternal on the north it would be on the north. side of the propert I, line. We have received we were most concerned about our neighbors on the north side , who are the Lounsburys - it is not an owner- i �loccupied property but we received a letter from the owners that Ithey had no objection to this , which we were particularly concerned I liabout . We are very concerned with the nature of the neighborhood. We bought the house in Fall Creek, since we really like the neigh- borhood. We are also very concerned with the historic nature of the house and we applied, and received, a loan from Historic Ithac I Ito do some work on the house . So what we plan to do is not add - , make an addition per se. Well it will be an addition but we are ' planning to keep the facade the same - in other words keep the win Idow that is now facing the west - move it forward because it ' s a 19th centure window with original glass and we want to keep it i lthat way and cloak the ouside, the addition, with the same siding I i I - 22 - i! jthat is presently on the house. So it will , hopefully, look as no li Ilan addition, but a lot more beneficial to us and I guess , accord- , i1 fling to our neighbors who we would most closely affect, it wouldn't ,i !' interfere with their comings and goings and their property. '; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Do you have that letter from the Lousburys with I; ,i I i you? IMS. GROSS: Yes I do, actually. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: May we have it for the record? 1` MS. GROSS: Yes , certainly. I 'm sorry - you received a copy . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Oh, Mr. Hoard has one. Are there any questions from the Board? HMS. BAGNARDI: How long have you owned the house? MS. GROSS: We have owned the house in April it will be two yearE . I ;And we also plan on staying remaining owner-occupiers , as well - I; ';which is , I think., important. I !,CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyon 1�who wishes to speak against the petition? (no one) There being �!no further speakers, the next case, i! j I ! i I: �I I it I jl I I I ;i i' i i) i! 23 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK j JANUARY 22, 1982 ii j! EXECUTIVE SESSION jIAPPEAL NO. 1415 : I Ii The Board considered the appeal of Flora Gross and Guy Naylor for I an area variance to permit construction of an addition to the side of the two-family house at 701 North Aurora Street . The decision Iof the Board was as follows : M.S. HAINE: I move that the Board grant the area variance re ii I� quested in appeal number 1415. IMS. BAGNARDI: I second the motion.. li 11VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No Granted , FINDINGS OF FACT; i1) The proposed addition would have no significant impact on the j neighborhood. { 2) The proposed addition would have no significant impact on the property itself. I{ i f i M� i I� i! �i I `i i+ i M I it j - 24 - j ii BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS u COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS ii CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK is JANUARY 22 , 1982 li SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1416 : Appeal of Don Robertson for a use variance j under Section 30 . 25 , Column 2 (permitted I� uses) to permit the use of the first floor of the single family house at 606 Casca- dilla Street for a shop and storage facili y for a contractors business. The shop had I been operated as a home occupation since �I 1975 ; however the owner of the property and the business now resides elsewhere and the use no longer can be considered a home occupation. The property is located in an R-3b (.residential) use district in which a contractor' s shop is not a permitted use. I� SMR. ROBERTSON: I am Don Robertson, we live at 279 Coy Glen Road and we are the owners of the property on Cascadilla Street. We pare operating a shop facility down there at this time , We've got i Isome letters from the neighbors do you have copies of those Tom. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes I have them. i IMR. ROBERTSON: The people volunteered to write a letter saying I that they didn' t object to the fact that we are using this as a 'shop down there. We don't plan to make any changes other than to I lupdate the building and remodel it which it needs badly, the ex- lterior. We also are going to add on to the second floor apartment. I I CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I'd like to have clarification on that last re- mark, Do you need a variance for the addition onto the apartment? ;SMR. ROBERTSON: No we have that . ; SECRETARY HOARD: That was the previous appeal request. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So, although you intend to change that, it 's within the permitted use? SMR, ROBERTSON: That is: correct. At the last meeting that we were ! in for approval , one of the people there seemed to be concerned I . ',about us selling this thing as a business or as another business nand moving out, we don't intend to do that at a11 , under any cir- j;cumstances and when we get done with that property we are going to turn i,t back to a two-family, residential , which it was originally. lilt is, not something that we are going to try and turn into another !business or anything of that sort.. I' li i+ 25 - I� I' MR. WALSH: Mr. Robertson, what kind of shop is this? iMR. ROBERTSON: Carpentry shop. iMR. WALSH: And how many persons are employed there now? ;iMR. ROBERTSON: One. ;iMR. WALSH: You. Well that' s simple enough. ' MR. ROBERTSON: Yes and we I ' d say that our time during the cour e of the year - we might spend 200 of the time there. It is not I ;; something that I come in to every day and work in there. I do j contracting and when we have something to build cabinets or that ;! sort of thing, I do it there and take it out and install it. It ' liis not an 8 to 5 , 5 day a week operation at all . ;! MR. WALSH., The particular facility that you are using for a shop i �lis a basically a garage or something like that on the premises? i I 'm not �IMR. ROBERTSON: No, it's the house it's the first floor of that ( building, Tt has an apartment up over it . �MR. WALSH: I see. So it was a two-family house but you are using Pt now for a carpentry shop? I MR. ROBERTSON: That is correct. MS. HAI'NE: How long a period of time do you envision this trans- formation to residential use? MR. ROBERTSON: That I don't know, really, I don' t mean to be , 4 evasive but I don' t know as long as we are in business . jMS. HATNE: In other words, you are not aiming to push it back to , , presidential? MR. ROBERTSON: When I'm done with it that ' s exactly what we are going to do. T don't intend to sell the property, I"m just going , to turn it back into a two-family residence, fMR. WALSH: Are the facilities on the ground floor such that it ; could still be used as a residence in its present condition? SMR. ROBERTSON: No . Well , you could make it into a but right now it couldn't be, no. It ' s one huge room, no walls. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions from the Board? IMS. BAGNARDI What about the number of trucks you might have down ` there? T noticed a piece of heavy equipment parked in there.. I� j j i� I; 26 IMR. ROBERTSON: There is a back hoe down there. We replaced the foundation that was in bad need of repair down there . The reason i Hit is still there is because they are going to dig all that dirt !lout of there and haul it away. tMS. BAGNARDI: So operating as a carpentry shop you wouldn' t have ,� a lot of trucks around there? I' MR. ROBERTSON: I have the one truck that I drive and that' s it. , I don' t intend to have anymore. I 'm sorry you saw that down there We intended to get it out of the way. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: For further clarification, this back hoe is a Ilrental or . . . I� SMR. ROBERTSON; No , it belongs to Ithaca Backhoe. I hired them to I, !jmake the foundation change. � CHAIRMAN WEAVER In your use of this property now as a shop, is i lit necessary at times to have some sort of drive up to the buildin i to move material in and out? is there some sort of dock or . . . ? MR. ROBERTSON There is a driveway that runs along side the house land there is a door there that we have put in to get in and out of ( there with materials. I' ' CHAIRMAN WEAVER: That' s on the side of the property? MR. ROBERTSON: That is correct , CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Any further questions from the Board? (none) Thank you. I MR. ROBERTSON; Thank you. CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Is.- there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of I th.e petition? (no one) Is there anyone that wishes to speak. ;( against the petition? (no one) We'll hear the next case. ii SECRETARY HOARD: ,rust for the record, Mr. Chairman, there are fou letters from neighbors here supporting the proposal . ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Thank you. They will be attached to the appli,. (' cation. I � SECRETARY HOARD* They, will be part of the record. ! CHAIRMAN WEAVER; We ' 11 hear the next case. II !I t{ i 27 - ! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ! COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK ii JANUARY 22, 1982 EXECUTIVE SESSION ;!APPEAL NO. 1417 : ',The Board considered the appeal of Don Robertson for a use variant ,i Ito permit the use of the first floor of the single family house at 1606 Cascadilla Street for a shop and storage facility for a con- (;tractors business. The shop had been operated as a home occupato since 1975 ; however the owner of the property and the business now 1I 1resides, elsewhere and the use no longer can be considered a home 'occupation. The decision of the Board was as follows; !MR. WALSH: I move that the requested use variance be denied i; based upon failure to show economic hardship qualify 1! ing for a use variance. SMS. HAINE: I second the motion. ;VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No Denied ��FINDINGS OF FACT: X11) There was no evidence presented which would substantiate the itclaim of economic hardship in this case. `12) The evidence presented to the Board by the appellant indicated I that he intends, at a future time, to return the first story I' �) of the premis-es to residential use, which is permitted in that zone. �( I I� I I� I I I I� 28 - i' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I' CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK ; II JANUARY 22, 1982 I SECRETARY HOARD: The final case is appeal number 1417 : �I Appeal of Mickey Goldstein for an inter- pretation of the permitted use of a medical li office under Section 30. 25, Column 2 , or, in the alternative, a use variance under Section 30.. 25, Column 2 , to permit the use I' of the property at 329 South Geneva Street 1 for offices for therapists (psychiatric ii social workers) . The appellant is request �! ing that the Board interpret the proposed activity to be considered permissible as being similar to the permitted uses of medical and dental offices , and consistent j with the permitted uses of nursing homes i' or day-care centers, The property is located in an R-3a (residential) use dis- trict , which permits medical offices ; how ever the Zoning Ordinance does not define. "medical offices" nor does it list offices for therapists as a permitted use. �MS. HOLMBERG: I'm Laura Holmberg, I am an attorney and I have my I loffice at 308 N. Tioga Street in Ithaca. I am here representing Mickey Goldstein who is one of the purchasers or hopes to be one I Iof the purchasers of the property and she has been authorized by ithe owners of the property to bring this proceeding, We have asked i or this interpretation as the first step and the first consider- tion because we feel , as W�ve tried to show in the little memo andum which we sent around and which I. hope the two members have �received, that the present use of this property for a chiropractor' I ff ,ce which we understand has now gone on for some ten years , is !not incons. ,stent with, the proposed use by therapists and that a i ��hiropractor is , in fact, no more a member of the medical profes, ion than a therapist would be and we th .nk. tha,t this is could justifiably find that the use proposed i.s essentially th.e same and ould not pose any— make any difference to the neighborhood. Under the cases which we cited to you, the courts have held that inter- �retation must be strictly construed in favor of property owners hose rights to use the property are restricted bye a zoning ordi, Iance. ,And on the other hand that your definitions as far as estr ,ctive uses are concerned, should be broadly interpreted. And t is on that point that we wish to point out that that medical an i I i' i 29 - j4ental could be expanded to include the mental health services 1which are provided by therapists . I just might point out that I i jmade a very informal survey of R--3a districts . I find that there I!are at least five attorneys offices in R-3a districts - that there 11 mare psychologists who are also not MDs - there is at least one other ,;chiropractor and there is a doctor who has a family practice but he can rent space to therapists and to a business and these are fall within R-3a zoning ordinance. I hope that that memorandum at I �Ileast spells out the - our basis for asking for interpretation that i �iwould in effect, remove the obligation on our part to secure a ;variance for use. If you don' t find that, then, of course, we are asking for a variance on use Partly we will argue that as indi- cated before, that the use which is being proposed is not different !ifrom the use on which this property has been operating for at leas ; ten years. We didn' t know that when we went before the Planning Board and that was brought up by one of the neighbors, that , in fact, a chiropractor had been there for some ten years. The present lchiropractor has been there for just one year -- he came in as a ,i 'tenant, I believe, after the Lee' s purchased the property, From a �feconomc standpoint the property has been used as a professional office building it can't y\i.eld a reasonable return if it were (i only used as a residence. There would be costs involved in - once ; again, converting it to a residence. There i.s , for instance , only is half bath downstairs and there is no direct bath access between ii(!the downstairs and the upstairs. it hasn' t been a residence for ,,several years - as I understand it . It will not alter the essen �itial character of the neighborhood and it 's a varied use neighbor- 'hood1 . We found that there are, for instance, student houses there �1w ,th eight to ten students living in houses - there are , T believe (probably not more than one or possibly two houses in the blocks ,I immediately adjoining which don't have auxiliary apartments. . You l (jhave a school down the street, You have the .American Red Cross +land this is not a use which will change the character in any way. jWe have a letter here which I can pass copies to you and for those liof you who don' t know the area, we have some pictures of the house i i! �I. 30 !{ a sketch of the lot - it' s not - it' s made by me, not by a sur- Olveyor. There is adequate parking according to my calculations and cif the Board found that the black top and the four garages were no sufficient, that there is additional space in the back yard - we wouldn' t want to use the back yard for additional parking, but it jiis there if that were necessary. As I started to say, we have a ,' letter here from the real estate brokerage firm which was handling li ! the sale and - setting forth the opinion from Century 21 the letter is from Ed Dellert - explaining that they have had the hous (ion the market for six months - that there has been no interest �i ! shown in it by other professionals and the present buyers and that E it would be an economic hardship to try to convert this to resi- dential property and if it were done in addition to the capital i� outlay, it would probably not bring in the kind of income to make lit economically feasible , He didn't anticipate that there would I be any other professional interest in this property. We also have i (after - the Planning Board, of course, did not consider the ques tion of interpretation nor did the Planning Board consider economic. i hardship. There were neighbors: who appeared before the Planning i Board opposing it and we then diad some of the - a couple of the women did go around we have here three letters: which I can also give you copies of. T apologize one of the copies is not very 1 clear but I can give those to you also, to look at , indicating that they have no objections to the proposed use, And at least five other people contacted, indicated that if they had understood I !about th-e use and what some of the other uses that are permissible � in the neighborhood were, that they would not have signed the peti tion. There Mrs. Goldstein is here, Mrs. Savashnsky and Mrs . IB.rous are here. They, or I, will be happy to answer any questions I� �Ithat you might have. I I iCHAI:RMAN WEAVER: In discussing the comparability of social workers to medical professionals, i.s there any staff other than the two oci,al workers necessary to the operation? S. HOLMBERG; There would be no auxiliary staff no receptionist, �o bookkeeper, no of course, no nurses. No, there would be no it ii i i 31 - ' other - only the therapists. i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: And the frequency of clients per day? i. I,IMS. HOLMBERG: I think - my understanding is , and they can answer �j ( better than I - the scheduling is usually about one an hour. Now ' there are three consultation rooms here so that the most there '' could be three an hour if all three rooms were being used, I Jassume. That would not be a normal situation but that would be a I 1possibility. �I IICHAIRMAN WEAVER: Also , would this be a replacement for the �Ichiropractor or in addition to? ;SMS . HOLMBERG: We hope it is a replacement. No, the chiropractor i has left, I mean that was the reason the property went on the imarket. iIMR, WALSH; Is it intended that the persons who would use this i lspace would continue to practice with one client at a time basic- ally, or, would they or might they practice in a group setting? MS. HOLMBERG: You mean the therapists as a group? i MR. WALSH: Yes. IMS. HOLMBERG: No, they work individually. MR. WALSH: As I understand it the premises has a four bay, ,garage at the back.? MS , HOLMBERG: Yes plus, a parking area, i MR, WALSH; By black top and then the driveway? How many vehicles could be put on that property- including the MS . HOLMBERG; Well , if the weather had cooperated a little better T had hoped to have those pictures they are not terribly clear on that but it looked very easy to us that you could put five or six cars back. there if you had to , T mean, strictly if they were �ismaller vehicles . According to the square footage, at least as T jcomputed it, there is ample space. �I IMR. WALSH; And the Ordinance now requires six for this proposed i! use? IMS. HOLMBERG- Yes T think - Mr. Hoard? I think the figure was i six or seven last time, SECRETARY HOARD: Six spaces. I ii - 32 - MS. HOLMBERG: But we have four in the garages . , CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any further questions? Thank you. Is i� there anyone that wishes to speak in favor of the petition? (no �t one) Is there anyone who wishes to - - oh, pardon me. 'i MS. BROUS: I 'm Anne Brous and I am one of the petitioners . And �i ' I just wanted to say a couple of words about the kinds of conversa- tions we have had with people in the neighborhood. We did not j' realize that there would be opposition when we originally requeste j� to purchase this house. Because , as far as we could tell we were Inot making any changes in the neighborhood that were not already �, existing, so that the questions that came up after our purchase ! offer was accepted came as a surprise . So that we felt that it wa necessary for us to attempt to understand better what that opposi- jItion is or was and a number of us went to some of the neighbors an itried to see if we could understand better what some of their con , cerns were. And one of the discoveries that we made was that people ! appeared to feel that - not all people , for sure, but some of the i I, people r even some who had signed the petition appeared to feel that they had not thought out all of the issues well enough to be i fable to have made a decision that could stand firm once they had signed - or at the time that they had signed the petition. Every- Bone that we spoke to actually was: unclear as to what the other use of the property could be and many of the people that we spoke to were more concerned about the uses they found it could be used for funder the present zoning allowances than what we were actually I I i� jasking for. Additionally the parking consideration was something that was alleviated by at least the people that T spoke to and a Inumber of the people that some of the other members spoke to be- i I1cause people realized that we were not going to be running groups constantly and that the one to one kind of practice that we are ; involved in, generally, is something that would actually produce !less traffic rather than more traffic than what is actually there it Inow. And, lastly, most of the people that we spoke to agreed abut again were concerned about getting involved in a public con- troversy about it, that in fact, the present use was something ii - 33 - i i! ;which would not really differ from what we were asking for and that ; they were supportive on the verbal level . Some of them actually ,j were willing to give us written letters in confirmation of that an lother people were concerned about -- again the controversial aspect of it - neighbor' s feelings, etc. so that I think one of the thing li that we walked away with is an understanding of the concerns of the jneighborhood and are supportive actually of the people who are i ;diving there . I think more than was true before, they also under- :!stand what our concerns are , that in fact we are not trying to do !something to a neighborhood that actually changes it but merely attempting to continue a use that has been quite acceptable to the I� Viand to the people in the surrounding area, in the past . Are there ,any other questions? SIMS . BAGNARDI: Will one of you be living in the apartment upstairs . I MS. BROUS: No, we are going to rent that out . It' s presently rented ,lito a family and we see no particular reason to discontinue that i' arrangement. Also one of the concerns that people had, had to do 1with. absentee landlord types of things. Since we are going to be Fusing the property ourselves, that really isn' t going to be the Ilcase, even though. we are not going to be actually living on the i1premises . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to !!speak in favor of the pet%tion? (no one) Is there anyone who ii iiwishes to speak against the petition? Come forward. I MR. HERSHENSON: Good evening. My name is Michael Hershenson, I f live at 334 S. Geneva Street, across the street from the house at X229 S. Geneva Street. I would like to stress that the reason that I am here is that I am interested in preserving the residential !: qualities of our neighborhood that ' s the primary reason for having signed the petition, for having, in fact, organized the signing of the petition which you have before you. I should like Ij to address some - two issues of fact, one is there are six houses i directly across the street from the house in question which are single family, owner-occupied houses, with no secondary rental apartments or other kinds of rental uses. That' s the Paolangeli ' s , I I i I' ii - 34 - 1 ;; the Bullocks , the Frosts , the Hershensons , the Quasys and the IMcEwens - so, okay, that is one thing. I should like to point out ii j also that part of our argument lies in the fact that this house is Ila problem. It is a problem because two years ago the Board of i ; Zoning Appeals denied to Mr. Ruzicka the right to have a small ;f dbusiness there. He wanted to simply have an office in which he ;; would calculate his he would just have a billing office and bu '' he would park his trucks in the parking lot there so it has always ii (� this house represents a problem. I have an argument which is e- conomic also. The counselor for the petitioners has mentioned the 11argument of economic hardship and I must say. I am responding on , the spur of the moment to the argument of economic hardship, It lis economic pressure which is going to change our neighborhood. I lis not the fact that n well , it is basic economic pressure . This property, sold, two years ago, for $64 , 000. My house which I pur ( chased five years ago for $29, 000, was assessed last year by in- `` dependent realtors at more or less $60., 000 to $62 ,000 last summer, saying that I could sell my house for $62 , 000. last sum mer. Now that ' s about the same price that two years ago, this par ticular house sold for. The present owners are trying to sell this house for a sum which i.s considerably more than the $64 ,000. they ; purchased it at a year and one-half ago. The reason they contend llthat they the reason for this higher price - based on Ithaca Rea �iEstate prices, is that it has a commercial use = there is a com merci;al office there - there is a chiropractor who generates a lot i' ! of money in rent and therefore the house is more valuable. Well , when I go to sell my house why don' t I sell it for $80,000. I 118S - 9.0 thousand dollars -, tell somebody to put up a little wall right here, there always used to be a wall there -. you go upstairs to your apartment and convert the downstairs into offices one I j� more residence lost ,n a low, moderate income area of Ithaca to i �iicommerci.al uses an area right along side the downtown which. is i Ithreatened, constantly threatened, by this kind of commercial exploitation. Our argument has.- nothing - practi,cally I would ilsay the arguments that we are presenting to the Board of Zoning Appeals - has nothing to do with the petitioners or the uses that ii !i - 35 - I ; lithey want to use right now but what we object to is the fact that I11this is our last opportunity to portect our - the residential qual �lity of our neighborhood insofar as this particular property is con i cerned. We are concerned that Henry St. John isgoing to be rented by the School Board in short order. What ' s going to happen then? ,:Are they going to come before you and say look, we have the American ; Red Cross across the street, we have psychiatric social workers down the street, we have all of these uses which are not consistent with the residential neighborhood let 's make Henry St . John into I some kind of office space. So, my concerns are not with these in- i 1dividuals, my concerns are with the residential quality of our i 11neighborhood with the economic impact the fact the people can Abe pressured to sell their homes which are single family homes for commercial uses, based on this precedent. I would like to say, I finally also that my experience as a Historic Preservation Planner shows us that houses are plastic these houses are made of wood - ( even the ones made of brick. are plastic, but the ones made of l `wood are plastic so therefore the addition of a bathtub or a bathroom you've seen already three or four requests this evening for bath- rooms in a house built in 1840 which seem to bea plastic use so I. therefore one can readjust these houses to residential uses . I i Iishould also like to come back to the argument of medical use , the first argument presented tonight. It seems to me that if medical `uses are allowed in our neighborhood, maybe these people ought to have their office there. But it seems to me also that medical uses in residential neighborhoods is an anachronism. The original zoning , ordinance, it would seem tome, were based upon the fact that ,doctors used to live in the neighborhoods they, served and so did (dentists, and that doctors no longer live in the neighborhoods the serve Doctors Speno and Perry, who were our neighborhood pedia �tric ,ans, living against us - to our back, we shared a .fence with them, they have moved to Buttermilk Palls, and we still go to them. And Dr. Weiner, by the: way, the chiropractor i,s moving in their. Ibui,lding and so but it is not really doctors no longer serve the eighborhoods they work in, they serve the whole community. So i E 36 - iitherefore it is an anachronism because it used to be that doctors '; lived where they practiced and worked and they no longer do that. I I And it seems to me that insofar as the psychiatric social workers l are concerned, they too are not going to be living in the neigh- 11 11borhood, nor is the community that they are going to be serving - I i' ' the community which immediately surrounds them - so therefore this II property should not be used for this kind of a use. So I think that is the extent of my arguments and I thank you for I listening to them. Do you have any questions? ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. IMR. HERSHENSON: Thank you. ii CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone who wishes to speak against the petition? Come forward., MS. SWITT; My name is Louisa Swift, I live at 333 S. Geneva Stree , the house directly next door to the house in question, I don' t have very much. to add to what Michael has said. I would like to , say, however, that the neighborhood is filled with children, Tam very, worried that this use of the building will create more traffi. , G ( particularly if people plan to park in the driveway area childre play in that driveway area all the time. In fact , nothing separates my yard from that driveway, I't used to be that the two 1ih.ouses, shared a driveway, The owners became angry with one anothe and therefore two driveways were created in fact, when they were created the previous owner took_ a little bit of my land - I wasnFt around at the time but -, we have alwars shared those: driveways as ,'playing spaces - many, children p1ar there �- I would hate to see 1 . ,cars driving in and out because it would really pose a danger to Ithose children, I would also have a heart attack- if the yard were paved over with black. top, It i,s a beautiful yard - i:t is a neigh- borhood yard it is a residential yard, The neighborhood doesn' t ;need anymore black topping. I would also like to say that I know at least two of the letters that you have received are from people who don't live that close to the house. Michael lives across the (street, T live right next door`, Other people who have signed the Ijpetition live much closer to the house than at least one of the I - 37 - 1 (women who lives around the corner, and another of the women who Jives right on the corner. They will not feel the impact of this use , in the way that we will. Any questions? ;!,CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak i against the petition? There being none . . . (SECRETARY HOARD: I just want to add that we have the petition her ii !for all the members to read that was referred to by the last three 1people. That was the last case. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Now the procedure for those of you who are peti- tioners we will now go into executive session. My experience is ((that the Board is not particularly speedy in its deliberations . I recommend that you contact the office tomorrow for results , but if {I !you wish to wait you are welcome. We will be in executive session {Iso you can' t stay in the room . i I� i I� ii ,f t I� it I' it I i I� I I i i I1 , �f i i - 38 - i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS li CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JANUARY 22 , 1982 EXECUTIVE SESSION ( APPEAL NO. 1417 : 4The Board considered the appeal of Mickey Goldstein for an inter- i Ij pretation of the permitted use of a medical office or, in the alte - H 11native, a use variance to permit the use of the property at 329 �I South Geneva Street for offices for therapists (psychiatric social workers) . The appellant requested that the Board interpret the pr - I1posed activity to be considered permissible as being similar to the i permitted uses of medical and dental offices , and consistent with ithe permitted uses of nursing homes or day-care centers, The Idecision of the Board was as follows: I CHAIRMAN WEAVER: The Board interprets the proposed social- j� psychiatric office use to be within the ambit I of the medical/dental use permitted by the Ordinance in this zone for the following jreasons ; ll) We see little distinction between the services rendered by the �I appellants and authorized medical offices, � 2) The nature of their counseling and the frequency of client i visits appear to be less than normally recognized for medical 1 offices , I3) Therefore there would be relatively low impact on the neighbor i I hood, certainly satisfactory compared to the prior use by the chiropractor who had been therefor a number of years. ' 4) The proposed use would have substantially less impact on the neighborhood than several allowed uses for the property, ; 1i MR, WI:LCOX: I second the motion, ` VOTE: 5 Yes; 0 No; 1 Abstention Granted i' �I ii I! r ji i - 39 - I! i I I , BARBARA RUANE , DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1-1-82 , 1413, 1414 , 1415 , 1416 and 1417 on l� January 22 , 1982 at City Hall, City of Ithaca, New York; that I 11 have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the I� transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the executive session i of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, on the above date , Iand the whole thereof to the best of my ability, �I I ii �i I o l Barbara C. Ruane Recording Secretary I� I i Sworn to before tie this day, of 1982 I j 'Notary Pu -tic F!O7AR" i , f F ':'EW YORK i! i II II I! �I i