Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1976-05-03 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK MAY 3, 1976 A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, was held in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca, New York, on May 3, 1976. PRESENT: Peter Martin, Chairman C . Murray Van Marter Gregory Kasprzak Reba Wood Martin Greenberg Edgar Gasteiger Edison Jones, Dep. Bldg. Comm. and Secretary Olga Potorti, Recording Secretary Chairman Martin opened the meeting listing members of the Board present. The Board operates under the provisions of the City Charter of the City of Ithaca, and under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinances. The Board shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct of the hearing, but the determination shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same . The Board requested that all participants identify them- selves as to name and address and confine their discussions to the pertinent facts of the case under consideration. Edison Jones announced the first case to be heard. APPEAL NO. 1113: Appeal of Robert W. Andree for Area Variance under Section 30.25, Column 11, at the foot of Third Street, in an I-1 district. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Would you state your name and address and outline in brief the ground on which the variance is being requested, and then no doubt there will be questions from members of the Board. ROBERT ANDREE: My name is Robert Andree and my business is located at the foot of Third Street near the Cornell Boat House. We're asking for a variance to put up a storage shed which we hope will -2- cut down on the vandalism which we've experienced down there. It's a dead end street and certainly no lights, no sidewalks and nobody around. We own two acres of land down there and we've been trying for several years since we've owned it to improve the site. There had been just weeds, stubble, trees, poplar, sumac, and we've cleared all that out, so all we want to do is put up the shed that will be about 25 by 32 feet. We've been before the Board of Planning and have the approval there. Are there any questions? M. MARTIN: The problem here is that your proposed shed cuts into the setback that the Zoning Ordinance requires. And so the question that is of interest to us is why the shed couldn't be put somewhere else. Why the setback requirement couldn't be complied with and you get your shed someplace else. MR. ANDREE: While we purchased two acres, it's a very peculiar and unproductive shape. It's sort of like a pencil in most instances. If you took and gave it a front yard and back yard, the first acre from the railroad back you wouldn't be able to put anything on it. In other words, it's just---I don't know if you have seen this or if I should pass it around. This is two acres. If you can visualize that land and then all this is just so narrow it doesn't get anywhere until it gets up to about here. We are hopefully going to try to develop back here, which is back of us towards the Cornell Boat House. Int. MARTIN: I think we have that in pieces. MR. ANDREE: We're trying to preserve as much land as we can to make use of what we thought was a handsome price to pay when we wanted a 100 by 200 feet and had to buy two acres in order to get anything. So we hope to have someone develop in back of us. We've had several people interested. If we were to relocate or put this shed anywhere else, it would put it outside of our fenced-in area and it would be -3- sort of detached from our business you might say, which I don't think would accomplish what we're trying to do, which is to simply keep the attractive nuisances to a minimum. In other words, youngsters going by can't resist throwing stones at a sign which cost $500 or pumps that cost $400. We just have to putthem somewhere. There will be no windows or anything in this shed. If they don't see it, we think they will leave it alone. Mg. MARTIN: How much setback will actually be left if you put this structure up. Is it three feet some inches? MR. ANDREE: The building would be three feet back from my property line or fence line, which is perhaps ten feet back from the edge of the road. There is a small section that we mow between the road and the fence. If we had ten feet out in front, it would serve no purpose to us nor to anyone else except to grow more poison ivy and sumac, or keep us busy cutting it down, one or the other. It's not hindering anybody's view; there's nobody down there. There's no residences. There are really no other businesses. There's the Cornell Boat House a good way away from us, and the Ithaca College Boat House still further away, so we don't see that. We've cleared it with the Electric Company. We don't know why there would be any particular objection since we've built up to the fence line in most instances. The tanks are up to the fence line, the barrels are up to it. It doesn't seem to cause any problems. REBA WOOD: The fence line is your property line? ]MR. ANDREE: Yes. Mt. GASTEIGER: Is there any reason why this structure could not be placed in the area right along the railroad tracks? On the map that seems to be about the same size. I'm not sure about the entrance to it. -4- HR. ANDREE: You are talking about the the little rectangular section behind the office and warehouse. Mt. GASTEIGER: Yes. Mt. ANDREE: The distance between that and the next building, which is like a three-bay only open garage type of building. You can just barely get a man through there. You could never get a pupp through there. We've never had one in back. You could never move an air compressor back in there. We do store some signs which we can move in that way and some lights. We're faced down there, if we store a pump there, to take plywood and wire plywood on both sides of it. It would be just kind of torn apart. They would just remove motors and everything from it. HR. GASTEIGER: That space is what, two feet, three feet? MR. ANDREE: Hardly three feet. It's between two buildings. You can see the Oorners of each building. Mt. MARTIN: Are there further questions from members of the Board? Mt. KASPRZAK: What would prevent you turning the building on its long side against the existing building, rather than putting it edge to edge? Mt. ANDREE: The only thing is you would have something sticking out in back into an area in which we've taken a lot of time to clear. They are going to do some more bulldozing and stump removal, and as again I say, hopefully to develop it not for ourselves, but for something else and get on the tax roll. Mt. KASPRZAK: I'm not looking toward the back - I'm talking about the front. MR. ANDREE: There are barrels stored there. It's a concrete ramp with pipes imbedded in it upon which barrels are stored, of oil. HR. KASPRZAK: How are you going to have access to this building that you are proposing? -5- MR. 5-MR. ANDREE: The access would be from the existing building, ten feet over toward the road. We have no other doorway to it. We don't want any other doorway to it. There would be just one sliding door in and out of that proposed building. REBA WOOD: If there is no one around that property, who do you suggest is responsible for the theft? MR. ANDREE: Well, in the fall we were broken into a record of four times, one each month. September, October, November, I think it was. They've stolen all kinds of things and also damaged all kinds of things. Who is responsible? They have caught some of the people. Some of them were minors and some of them were of age to be taken to court. MR. GASTEIGER: The Planning Board discussed a ten foot setback, and I'm ,just wondering what that would do to you. Would you not construct it if you were required to have a ten foot setback? ISL. ANDREE.: We would have just so little left, I don't know if it would be feasible to try to erect a building that small. It just wouldn't be enough. You're talking about something that would be about 25 by 22 feet. HR. GASTEIGER: Could you tell us what the building is that is along the railroad track now. Is that a garage? HR. ANDREE: The building is a warehouse. The little corner inside there is the office. Int. GASTEIGER: Is it not possible to build in the corner I asked earlier and give access by way of the warehouse and actually attach the building? Attach the new building to the warehouse. Iii. ANDREE: We thought about it, but because of the type of equipment that we have, we prefer not to have it in the building for the most part. Some of these pumps are over 400 pounds. - air compressors and similar items. The only way you can get into the warehouse is from a dock. You have to have a power tailgate or six men to lift -6- something to move it. Then you have to move it through a whole storage area of case oil and packages to the portion you were just speaking of where you cut a hole and add on to the building. We thought of that, but we much prefer to have it on ground level because that's where you can really handle these things. Mt. KASPRZAK: How difficult would it be to put it on the far side of the existing building along the railroad tracks instead of the corner on the opposite side? It would give you the same privileges as it does on the street side. MR. ANDREE: You mean you go around the back entrance then? Mt. KASPRZAK: No, just put it on this side of the building, on this side of the warehouse rather than in the corner here. Put it on this side of the warehouse. You have about the same width and can simply extend the warehouse building. M. ANDREE: If you are talking about somewhere out in our yard, that's where the trucks are moving in and out of the existing garage. There's three tank trucks down there. Sometimes there's transports and other dreys that come in and there has to be some area to turn around. We do have some customers that do come down in there. There has to be some area where we can move things around without running into each other. Mt. KASPRZAK: You aren't going to tell me that that area is going • to destroy the circulation. I can't believe that. Mt. ANDREE: Maybe we're not talking about the same place. MR. KASPRZAK: In this corner here. Mt. ANDREE: This area here is where the tractor trailers have to back up to. This is where we take off the case goods. 120 pounds of grease, 5 gallon cans of oil, and a tractor trailer that's 26 to 30 feet long can just barely jackknife around in there now to back up to the loading platform. So there isn't much way we can do that. The rest of the area is needed by tractor trailers that come -7- in transporting heating or gasoline to us, and they take up a good share of the yard as they come in and crank around to the pump house. It isn't shown on the map. It's in the other corner there. Also not shown is the fact that there are six storage tanks in the yard. Each of which is 15,000 gallon capacity. They do take up spaces. Mt. MARTIN: Are there any further questions from members of the Board? MR. GREENBERG: Are the pumps now present in the yard? Are they conspiciously present right now? Mt. ANDREE: Yes, we actually took six pumps and dismanteled what we could salvage and just threw the rest away. After a couple of summers of just having them stoned, the doors ripped off and the motors removed. We had another large skid tank with a motor on it, something like a lawnmower motor and that was removed. And it was gone a week or two before we knew it. There's no way you can keep them out. Anybody knows who has a yard. Mt. MARTIN: Any further questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard in behalf of this requested area variance? Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to be heard in opposition? REBA WOOD: You say there is no way to keep them out. How about a higher fence? You have a fence now that's about six or seven feet high. Mt. ANDREE: I would say the fence is about eight feet, topped with two strands of barbed wire. They have come and cut the fence open. They've come and cut the barbed wire. They've put ladders up over it. There isn't much way you can keep youngsters out if they want to get in. Mt. MARTIN: Thank you. If there are no further questions, that concludes the hearing on this case. -a- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA MAY 3, 1976 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1113: Mit. GASTEIGER: I move that the request for variance be denied. Mit. RASPRZAR: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The encroachment of the proposed structure into the required setback would have a serious impact on the area and would thus be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. 2) The appellant does have space available for additional building and so -the requirements of the ordinance would not appear to impose practical difficulty. VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0 Application denied. -9- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK MAY 6, 1976 Secretary Jones announced the next case to be heard. APPEAL NO. 1114: Appeal of Lawrence G. Thayer of 417-419 West Seneca Street for area variance under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 6, 11, 13, 15 of zoning regulations in an R-3 use district. LAWRENCE G. THAYER: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bagnardi has posted a proposed sketch of what I would like to do between two existing buildings on my property on West Seneca Street. I'll get over to the drawings. Maybe you can see it a little easier. This is my existing sales room and used appliance display. This is my leased property to the Carpet Bazaar, and this is my service area. It's a two-story area. What I would like to do is just join my service area with my used appliance showroom in the back side, and filling in the back of this lot so I would have continual undercover access to my storage and my shop, as well as let customers walk through to my shop. Now they have to go outdoors and we have to direct them through a door aver here to get into my shop. This will give me extra storage back here, and obviously fill in the area for storage that I badly need. I've got used appliances sitting out here waiting to go into the shop to get repaired, and I have no undercover storage for them at all. The problem is, as I understand it, that we are not to build to this back lot line. This building, of course, and this one, and this one, which are mine, are on the back lot line and this is all backed by Bishops, who are tight to this lot line. So, if I have to hold off this wall 18 feet and just put a throughway here, it would create a void of 18 feet and this area would be absolutely really useless to anybody. So, what I would like to do is get the variance so I can build to the lot line as I have in the past, and of course, Bishop has done in the past on the other side of the wall. -10- MR. MARTIN: Am I right that the only problem is the back lot line? MR. THAYER: That is correct. We have parking out in front. All free parking in here . ML. MARTIN: Any questions? ML. KASPRZAK: There is no right of way that might be hidden somewhere in there? MR. THAYER: Not to my knowledge. No sir. RE BA WOOD: How wide is the building connecting you propose to build? Mt. THAYER: I'll let Mr. Bagnardi answer that. I'm not too familiar with dimensions here. Mt. BAGNARDI: This way it's 23 feet from the back line. Mt. MARTIN: And how much going sideways? r Mt. BAGNARDI: In this direction? About 35 feet. HR. MARTIN: Further questions? MR. KASPRZAK: Your entire access is from Seneca Street? Mt. THAYER: Yes sir. MR. MARTIN: And bishop on the other side makes no use of that gap for access to their building? MR. THAYER: No, this is a solid back wall. There is no access there. MR. VAN MARTER: That whole parcel as it stands is one parcel? Mt. THAYER: This is 417-419 West Seneca. It's actually two lots. Is that the question? Mt. MARTIN: Further questions? Mt. VAN HARTER: Is there a possibility that that could be divided and sold? Mt. THAYER: Never thought of it to be very truthful. Possibility, yes. I'm not sure where the exact center of the lot is. It's in this building or not. At the present time I don't know. I paid no attention to that when this was added at that time. I had no plans of ever doing that. Any further questions? Int. MARTIN: Guess not. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this -11- evening who would like to speak in favor of the requested area variance? Is there anyone here this evening who would like to speak in opposition. If not, then that concludes our hearing of Appeal 1114. -12- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA MAY 3, 1976 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1114: Mt. MARTIN: I move that the requested area variance be granted. Mit. KASPRZAK: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) In view of the lack of setback from the back line of the two present buildings on the property, and the abutting property to the rear, to observe the setback on the proposed addition would serve no useful purpose and indeed, create a condition that would have some serious disadvantages. VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0 Application granted. -13- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK MAY 69 1976 Secretary Jones announced the next case to be heard. APPEAL N0. 1115: Appeal of H. Hunt Bradley and Lars R. Kallstrom, Sr. at 326 East Falls Street for area variance under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 6, 11, 13, 15 of zoning regulations in an R-3 use district. H. HUNT BRADLEY: Good evening. My name is Hunt Bradley, Jr. , and this is my partner Lars R. Kallstrom, and we are here for the intention of converting our ice cream shop on the first floor, which encompasses the first floor, into an apartment. We want to get rid of the ice cream shop and convert the first floor of the building into an apartment. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And the problem of doing that under the Zoning Ordinance is not the use, because it's zoned R-3, but what? What is the reason for granting the area variance? Mot. BRADLEY: Basically, the fact is that the lot size is a little bit too small. The building has been there for approximately 100 years or so. The setback requirements aren't completely fulfilled. They are a little bit under what they should be. Apparently, there used to be a driveway there before we bought the building, but when they widened Lake Street, there no longer is a driveway there, so, consequently, tyre's really only one parking space in front of the building. I think the building may be too close to the sidewalk. Does that about cover it? SECRETARY JONES: Yes, they have it all on the work sheet on the back of the application. MR MARTIN: Is the lot large enough for three units? MR. BRADLEY: No. Mt. MARTIN: What's the deficiency? Mt. JONES: It should have, as I figure it 2500feet instead of 25 20. -14- MR. BRADLEY: I would like to mention that prior to the ice cream shop there was a ski shop, the Fall View Ski Shop, and prior to that, back in, I would say 1968, 160 through 168, three apartments did exist in the building; but then there was a zoning variance that took place and it went to the Ski Sh®p. MR. MARTIN: At the time of the conversion to a business use there were three apartments? Mr. Bradley: Right. MR. MARTIN: Are there questions from members of the Board? MR. GASTEIGER: Could you say something about parking as an ice cream shop versus an apartment. How many people are you expecting to have in the a par tmen is? MR. BRADLEY: Well, being the owners of the ice cream shop, parking did pose a little problem when we were open for business. At the moment, we have two apartments. One of them is on the second and one on the third floor. Three bedrooms on the second floor and there are three people living there now. They have one car, and on the third floor there is one fellow living there and he has one car. They usually park on the street, although I talked to the school previously, the Board of Education, this past week. Apparently, they are allowed to park in that lot over night. You can park there until 8 o'clock in the morning, it's either 7 o'clock • or 8 o'clock in the morning when, needless to say, the school needs the lot for its own use. There's parking along Falls Street, odd and even parking. There's parking along Lake Street. HR. GASTEIGER: You didn't say how many bedroom apartments you were planning. Mt. BRADLEY: It will be two bedroom apartment on the first floor. It's about the way, roughly, the building is set up. Mt. MARTIN: How feasible would it be to link the downstairs with the second floor apartment and make it into a larger single unit? -15- MR. BRADLEY: Well, in our opinion I don't think it would be too feasible,to be honest. There's a wall going up there. A wall, wiring, heat, this and that, and it's going up to the second floor, then the two existing apartments now have their own separate entrances. Mi. MARTIN: There is no access between the first and second floor? Mt. BRADLEY: No, there is not. Mt. KASPRZAK: What bothers me is the fact that it's on the corner. It's a very frequented area by a lot of people, and there's no parking, and yet you are going to increase the parking requirements. MR. BRADLEY: Well, very honestly, we may have had more, although our business was basically with the high school kids. MR. KASPRZAK: Watch what you said. I was sitting on the Board when you were arguing for it, and I remember certain things. I'm giving you fair warning. MR. BRADLEY: I think there might have been more people that drove into the shop than there would be with tenants living there. Out of four people now there would be two cars and maybe with a two- bedroom on the first floor, I would say perhaps, there is a possibility of maybe one or two more cars. It works out to a four car total. I know we just rented the third floor for the fall to a girl who doesn't have a car, and it was important to her that she was located right across from the city bus service. Mt. VAN MARTER: Give me a notion on how many people capacity for seating in the ice cream shop. MR. BRADLEY: Well, over 50. I think we actually had a few more in there sometimes. MR. VAN MARTER: If we call it 50 you had a requirement for 10 parking spaces. MR. BRADLEY: It was either 10 or 12 - one of the two - and we provided for that. MR. VAN MARTER: Shall we settle for 10? You had a requirement for one for the third floor, one living unit on the second floor makes two, plus an attic is a total of 12 . If we convert, you've got a requirement for one each level per living unit, is three, which is a reduction in the deficiency within the range of 75%. Is that fair arithmetic? MR. BRADLEY: Sounds fair to me, yes. HR. VAN MARTER: Deficiency was 1007. before. It's still 1007.. Still, requirements were 12 before, but now it becomes three. MR. MARTIN: Are there further questions from members of the Board? Int. GASTEIGER: You don't own the heavy equipment that's parked next door? HR. BRADLEY: No six, I don't. I might add one other thing that seems to be apropos. I don't know what the situation is going to be down at the P & C, but some people have told me that it's possible to park there also. I know it is off-street parking. The fellow that owns the gas station or leases the gas station down there, parks some of his cars overnight. I talked to him. He said he didn't think it would be any problem to park a car or two down there. Most of the people who live on Falls Street that aren't tenants per se, they have driveways and they park in the driveways. The people basically who park on Falls Street are the tenants of people who own a couple of the residences down here. HR. KASPRZAK: Did you make an effort to find parking spaces for the resident's needs? Int. BRADIEY: Well, we checked with the fellow across the street which would seem to be ideal, the fellow who owns the Fall Creek House, and apparently he is having some problems with the parking over there himself. Apparently, the lot I'm referring to right on the corner, if I just looked at it as just a lot or something like that, although people do park in there since we have been in business and owned the building, people do park in there all -17- the time whether it's people coming to the ice cream business or visiting a neighbor or going fishing over at the falls. MR. MARTIN: If I remember correctly at the time you were seeking the variance for the ice cream shop, you had an arrangement with the owner of the Fall Creek House to use that lot. MR. BRADIEY: Right. Since then, the ownership has changed hands, and the fellow at the Fall Creek House, I'm sure he wouldn't mind, but he didn't want to put anything into writing that we were to park up there. He feels his parking lot as a paid parking lot is a little too big for his needs at the moment, and I'm sure if someone was to park in there, _I don't think anything would be said. MR. MARTIN: Further questions? Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to be heard in favor of the requested variance? Is there anyone here who wishes to be heard in opposition? REBA WOOD: Dave Banfield lives on Falls Street quite near there . I wonder if he has comments about this. MR. MARTIN: All right. There may be people here who don't have a position one way or another, for or against, but who have comments that are relevant to the matter. I'll sandwich them in the middle if they like. MRS. AVERY: My name is Mrs. Avery and I live on Mecklenberg Road, but we own property on Falls Street, and my sister lives there, and she has had a lot of problems with parking. Maybe Mr. Brown could explain the problem that they're having down there, and I think you can too. Int. JONES: It's not apropos to this case. MRS. AVERY: Oh. Well then, what would you do with the situation of the parking? MR. JONES: It's up to the Board to make a decision on that, not me. MR. MARTIN: It has been argued on behalf of this requested area variance that the parking problems caused by this property is -18- actually going to diminsh from an ice cream shop to a downstairs apartment. MRS. AVERY: Yes, but they had high school kids that patronized them. Do they drive that many cars? M. MARTIN: We would like to know whether, in fact as it has been argued, this is going to reduce the parking problem, or whether it's going to make it worse. MRS . AVERY: I think it's great that he has an idea to put an apartment house there, but I think you should analyze the problems first instead of afterwards when you have more problems, and I think everybody knows that there's a very serious parking problem down there now. MR. MARTIN: So, in your view, this makes the parking worse down there. MRS. AVERY: Well, I would think so. I think they have a big problem now without adding to it. MR. MARTIN: Would you come forward and identify yourself? MRS. KUCZEK: I live at 322 East Falls Street. My name is jo Kuczek. When the students are there, we have a very hard time finding a place to park. I think that Mr. Hunt or Mr. Bradley, if they own the property across the street, it would solve the problem, but not promising from one guy to the other that we can use the • parking lot because its not so. It doesn't work that way. If he can provide sifficient parking for his tenants, I think it will be okay, but it's going to be impossible. How many do you have upstairs? MR. BRADLEY: I have four tenants altogether. MR. KUCZEK: All right. This year you might have one on the third floor, two on the second, or whatever, but you never know how many cars are going to be there, and you might solve the problem for a few months and then somebody is going to move out and somebody else is going to move in with three cars. It's impossible. Try coming -19- around that corner at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. MR. MARTIN: We have a structure at least as it is described, which does not itself have off-street parking available on this property, and it was some years ago that it had three apartments as it was pointed out, and the downstairs was converted to a commercial use, and now they want to convert it back. Will that make the parking problem worse or better? MRS. MXZEK: I still think the parking problem will be worse because with a business they're coming and going. At nighttime when the students are there, you cannot find a place to park anywhere, and we have opposite parking, and half the time I can't find a place to park. I've gotten a ticket four times already this year because I wasn't able to move my car over to the other side. • MR. GASTEIGER: May I ask did you live there when there were these apartment? MRS. KUCZEK: No, I didn't. I've been there five years, and I know what I've gone through in the past five years as far as parking is concerned. MR. GASTEIGER: Since you've lived there, there's been the Ski Shop, and then the ice cream parlor. MRS. KMCZEK: No, just the ice cream shop and the apartments upstairs. • I have no where to park if someone parks in front of my house. Only through the good graces of Mr. Miller because he owns his property, ocasionally I can use his driveway when he doesn't have other equip- ment in it. Otherwise, when there is anyone parked there, I have no where to park. I'm not. the only one that has that problem. There are other neighbors that have that problem. But I live two doors away from the Ski Shop. MR. MARTIN: Further questions? MR. VAN MARTER: May I ask if yours is a one-family residence? MRS. K[TCZEK: Yes. 40- MR. VAN MARTER: How much off-street parking do you provide? Int. MARTIN: Do you have off-street parking on your lot? MRS. KUCZEK: Yes, I go from one side to the other. MR. MARTIN: Can fou park your car on your lot? MRS. KUCZEK: No, I have no lot. MR. MARTIN: So you are like this property. Neither of them have off-street parking. MRS. KUCZEK: Right. We have no off-street parking. MR. MARTIN: Further questions? MRS. AVERY: May I ask a question? I'm not too familiar with that house on the corner, the ice cream shop. Does that have a driveway? MR. BRADLEY: No, it doesn't. It did before they widened Lake Street. MRS. KUCZEK: Isn't that a common driveway between yours and Mr. Brown's? MR. BRADLEY: Well, the way it boks on the map, we own one-third of it, he owns two-thirds. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I'm Cecil Miller and I live at 318 East Falls Street, and what we're speaking of is the upper end of East Falls Street up where it meets Lake Street. The house at 318, I have a double lot, 318 and 320, so I'm pretty well set as far as parking is concerned, but 322, 3249 326 don't have any driveway that they can pull off the street. Now this street, Falls Street, is used extensively by the Sheriff and by the Fire Department going up Route 13 and up on the hill on down on East Shore Drive, and we have alternate parking down there. During the day you can't park on the south side of Falls Street, but alternate parking during the night. But I understand that these apartments presently are rented to students, and when this happens, you may have a couple of students now you may have more. They may have a car. Next station, you may have three students and one car, or all three of them with cars. We don't want that, and I am absolutely -21- opposed to any variance in the zoning ordinance that will permit any more apartments down there unless off-street parking can be provided. That's all I have to say on that. MR. MARTIN: Are there questions for Mr. Miller? MR. VAN MARTER: Yes. The required parking deficiency for 318, 324, and 325 have existed for how long? MR. MILIER: 322 and 324 and 326 as far as I know have never had any driveway that they could pull in off the road. MR. VAN MARTER: This is from your knowledge since before 1930? MR. MILLER: Right. REBA WOOD: Was the problem worse when it was an apartment? MR. MILLER: Well, to be honest with you, the traffic was a lot different when it was an apartment too. You have to take that into consideration. A few years ago you could park on the left side of the street and not get caught, but you can't do that any more. There is a lot of difference in traffic. And ever since they built Route 13, there's a terrific amount of traffic comes up that way, and there's three or four school kids instead of parking where they should, park up on the north side of Falls Street during school days, and school hours, and that's the problem down there . REBA WOOD: It's your view that the parking problem would be worse if this is an apartment than if it--I mean, I patronize that ice cream parlor, and we always took our car. MR. MILIER: Well, I tell you. I don't know, but I base whether it would be worse or not on the fact of how many occupants there's going to be in these apartments, and whether they have cars or not. We have no control over the cars after that, and students gang together pretty well, I tell you that. REBA WOOD: But Mr. Bradley and Mr. Kallstrom obviously had to park their cars when they came to operate the ice cream shop. -22- MR. MILLER: Well, they parked out in the street I presume. I • don't know. The business that they were doing there was mostly done with school kids and not by people who park a car there and stop and go buy a sandwich or an ice cream cone. These kids were in there to play around a little bit and hang around a little bit and eat some ice cream and go on back to school. HR. GREENBERG: Mention was made of the traffic problem on this street, and of course that is a traffic problem that is caused by the fact that it's very convenient to move on that street without stop signs or stop light, rather than take the street just north of it. I know I do that myself coming from the high school tennis courts as you can move on to the Falls Street conveniently and get down on Tioga, make one stop light without traffic. I don't know if this is a problem of parking so much as that of traffic flow. MR. MILLER: I don't see any good reason. I don't want to hurt these boys, but I don't see any good reason to hurt ourselves over a period of years. I was instrumental to help those boys get that Ski Shop down there and I've kicked myself ever since. Because every winter you couldn't even park a car in front of your house. You could hardly get into your driveway. That's all I have to say on the subject. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who hasn't been heard and who would like to be heard on this requested variance? MR. BANFIELD: My name is Dave Banfield and I live at 312 East Falls Street, and I'm not opposed and I'm not in favor. I just what to give everybody the facts as I've got neighbors who are unhappy and neighbors who are happy, so I'm just trying to be the mediator and the peace keeper. First of all, do you have a blackboard available so I can outline. Here's the existing property with a driveway, another house here, a driveway, another house here, a driveway, these are not houses, they are lots, a driveway here, etc. -23- For those of you who don't know, this is the Bradley-Kallstrom, Brown's, Jo's, Miller's, Kamputch, and my own, this is a vacant lot, this is Reese's, this is Louise Brown, this is Spencer. Okay, the corner of the lot will be the Miller's corner, the northwest corner. There is a fire hydrant. By law you are not supposed to park within 15 feet of a fire hydrant, so that eliminates parking from here to the corner, which leaves say one car there. This driveway, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Kallstrom and Mr. Brown share, At the present time, Mr. Brown has a vehicle parked in the driveway and it would be unusable as a driveway for off-street parking. Mr. Brown has a car and also a motorcycle. Jo lives here, there is a driveway between her house and Mr. Brown's house. There has been a neighborhood dispute. There's been a fence erected down the right of way of the driveway so neither of these properties have access to that driveway. Jo has one car. Mr. Miller whom I's sure some of you are well aware of, has a well-drilling service. He has been there long before zoning was effective. Mr. Miller owns a car, and he also parks two trucks in his driveway at night. They are off the street at approximatley 4:30, 5 o'clock, and they are back out of his driveway between 8 and 9 o'clock. I'm sorry, one truck, so we have for Mr. Miller, two vehicles which are parked off the street. Mr. Pampuch's house is a three-family dwelling; in the attic apartment he rents to a couple. I won't go into whether they are married or not, but they own two cars. On the second floor he rents to three students, and they own three ears. Mr. Pampuch has one car, and he has a two-car garage which eliminates one of these cars, and they are parked in this drtreway here, and I have two cars, one of which I park in my driveway and one of which I have in a garage behind my house. On the :south side of the street there is a vacant lot. Approximately three to four months ago there was a sign here that said no parking from here to corner. We don't know how the sign -24- got moved down here. There is now no parking from here to the corner. Mr . Reese also has a three-family dwelling which he rents two floors to students. They have approximately three cars for themselves, and his own car which is parked in the garage here. Mrs. Brown has a two-family duplex. She has a garage in which she parks her car, and she has a tenant. That's a driveway in which she parks here. Spencer here, one family-dwelling with a garage in the rear. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven - they are all owner-occupied one-family dwellings. one, two are duplex, owner- occupied multiple residences. You can see we have five, ten, fifteen, seventeen,nineteen parking spaces there. There are nineteen cars that have access to it, not counting the increases that could possibly arise out here. If the occupancy as it stands now is one bedroom, we will assume that they are going to rent for purposes, to a married couple. They have one car. The second floor is three bedrooms. Assume that they will rent to three individual people. The probability that all three of them have cars is nil, so we'll just take two-thirds, so that's three more cars to that. If he rents the third or first floor which is two bedrooms, giving the benefit of the doubt, that's four cars added to the nineteen. That's 23 cars in this neighborhood here. If you used all those areas, or if none of these houses had off-street parking, you could fit 13 cars on the street assuming that a car is 19 feet long. I just want to bring that information up on those who have not seen this area. That's what exists. The question was raised where did Hunt and Lars park their cars when they came to work. For clarity, their cars were parked on the southwest side of Lake Street. Lars didn't have a car, so one car. The thought that I am concerned with is that I've lived there for 12 years. I've lived there when the residence was there, I've lived there when the Ski Shop was there, I lived there and I opposed and had one variance turned -25- down for an occupancy after the Ski Shop, but before the ice cream shop, and I was not opposed to the ice cream shop for those of you who remember. The point that Mr. Miller brought up about the Ski Shop being there, it was unreal. We had cars way below my house, which incidentally, is outside the 200 feet that the owners ordinarily mail the letters to, but we're affected very definitely by the parking, and I would also like to point out that on this side of the street there is, of course, alternate street parking. There is also signs prohibi tfn&--; parking there between 8 o'clock in the morning and 4 o'clock in the afternoon on school days. Now, most of the members of the Board and including myself, we went to college, and you are aware that students are not too keen in getting early morning classes, which would indicate to me that they would not be up early in the morning to move their cars out of the high school parking lot, or if they did, it would be an inconvenience for them to get up at 7 :30 every morning to move their car then go back to bed. Sure they can do it, and sure they can say they are going to do it, but let's be practical about the whole matter. Whether they do it or not remains to be seen. Again, I just want to point out this fact. I have some rather strong thoughts on the use of the lot across the street, and I thougYt that hopefully, the owner of the Fall Creek House would give Mr. Bradley and Mr. Kallstrom permission to use the lot across the street for parking for his tenants in the residency he intends to establish, and in view that he hasn't got it, I'm a little bit unprepared, but I would like to read a statement from myself. I would like to have it on the record. Int. MARTIN: Can I halt you before you get across the street into that vacant lot. While we're still on that and talking about the parking problem. That corner property cannot be brought into compliance with the zoning ordinance until the structure is knocked -26- down. Everytime there is some change in the use of that building it's going to have to come here to this Board. Its happened numerous times from the Ski Shop and every time thereafter. Since compliance with the Zoning Ordinance at this point is impossible, the question is whether it is getting better or getting worse if the change is made. Is it your impression that from the Ski Shop to the ice cream parlor to the apartment is a trend toward reducing the problem, or will this be a reversion to a worse situation if you move the ice cream shop to a downstairs apartment, because nothing that happens is going to bring that building into compliance., Int. BANFIELD: The question was if the residence was established, it that the lesser of two evils? MR. MARTIN: Right. MR. BANFIELD: In my opinion, no. I live down here. I was not affected by the parking of the ice cream shop, so I can't speak to that matter. As far as parking for a residence is concerned, I've outlined what it could create, and only for information purposes, and in terms of my protecting the neighborhood where my wife incidentaly, has lived all of her young 34 years, and my children are growing up there. I would much prefer to see a residence than commercial. I think we made a serious mistake when we allowed the Ski Shop in there. The next thing that wanted to get in there was a printing press. We got that turned down; the ice cream shop, as I am the father of three children, since I knew the owners and could speak to the owners, quite confidently and ask them, if we were getting trash in the yard, getting parking problems. They assured me time and again that they'd take care of it, and they have. There never has been any garbage problem, paper problem or anything like that, so I'm in accord with their wanting to change to a residence. I think that if we do see a parking problem, I think we can speak to them and they'll do the best they can to get it changed or corrected. -27- So, I think yes. I would rather have it residential than leave it commercial, but I want you to be aware that if we have to come back here in the future, of the problems that exist with parking • there. MR. GASTEIGER: Is it correct to say that making a residence there would reduce the problem during the daytime and make it worse at night? Int. BANFIELD: Yes, because everyone, students and people that live in these other two existing houses will be coming home at 5 o'clock and have to find adequate parking. MR. GASTEIGER: How late was the ice cream shop open? MR. BRADLEY: Till six during the winter and 8, 9, 10 o'clock • during the summer. Sometimes a little later after football games when we were pretty busy. MR. MARTIN: Are there further questions from members of the Board? MRL KASPRZAK: I would like to make a statement that bothered me. Everybody is assuming that a street is a parking ground for everybody. It isn't. The street is meant to move vehicles, not to park vehicles. So we have to make an assumption if you want to do it that way that there is no parkingspace available for anybody off the street. We have to start with that premise. MR. BANFIELD: I concur with that. I would also like to note that it was mentioned that the Board of Education's high schoollot, I think every once in a while the Board of Education gets on a crackdown, now, if you are aware that if you go around the corner there is a Board of Education parking lot here, and there is apart- ments here, now all of the apartment houses didn't provide enough parking. So these people parked on this side of the shoulder of the road. As long as no one complains, we don't have any problems because they park with their wheels on the pavement. In addition, they park in these lots here. Every once:,_in a while someone gets -28- upset about it and these cars are gone through and they are ticketed. So, these people move. Okay, the only place they can go is right back on Falls Street. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. If the Board of Education wants those people out of there, and they're students, they are not going to get up at 8 o'clock and move their cars to comply with the law. And they do park on the pavement. I know you people go by there all the time. You've got to see what is going on. MR. VAN MARTER: Let's assume you got a zoning ordinance that requires one parking space per living unit. Your count instead of 23 becomes in the range of 18 or 19. If you are going to live by that, would it change your thinking for the deficiency? MR. BANFIELD: Yes. If you change that to one parking space per living unit would I find it acceptable? MR. VAN MARTER: Yes. Mt. BANFIELD: Yes, I would. Mt. VAN MARTER: Okay. That's precisely what we have, up to and including three bedroom apartments. I haven't seen described tonight any three bedroom apartment or living units, so it would occur to me that every un i t; we talked about. MR. BANFIELD: There's one already there Murray. MR. VAN MARTER: There is a living unit, and zoning requires one parking space off-street per. MR. BANFIELD: Right. There is no off-street parking. There is a three-bedroom unit existing as it stands right now. Mt. VAN MARTER: I didn't understand that. MR. BANFIELD: There are four bedrooms in there now, and they want to add two more. There will be five bedrooms in the building, three apartments. MR. VAN MARTER: I'm counting living units. There is no living unit that contains four. Then three bedrooms. -29- MR. JONES: That is correct. MR. VAN MARTER: All right. That's the end. My count remains the same. The deficiencies that you described there changes by in the range of four cars or three cars. Would you agree that it's fair to treat everybody depending on whose there first? Mt. BANFIELD: It's the law of the land. Mt. VAN MARTER: Okay. So you are attributing the deficiency to the last man who makes a request. MR. BANFIELD: All I did by the illustration was to try to outline the existing parking problem that exists. M. VAN MARTER: Let me tell you what we're going on record on. First, we recognize the traffic condition. Number 2, it's an existing city street with a deficient width, the right of way is a certain number of feet, the pavement is a certain number of feet, East Falls Street is deficient in pavement driving parking width, or driving width curb to curb as opposed to other streets that would be designed today, or others that exist today. You have to recognize the problem. You recorded it. Other people have mentioned it. It will be in the record I promise you. REBA WOOD: Didn't you say that you are in favor of changing from a commercial back to a residential use? • M. BANFIELD. Yes, with the little "ample parking" which you can't do. Okay. Can I read my statement, and I think that will clear the whole thing up. Mt. MARTIN: Let me ask does your statement relate to this case? MR. BANFIELD: Indirectly. Mt. MARTIN: Our hearings are limited to matters that are relative to requested variances. Mt. BANFIELD: It's relevant. We would like to make this statement relevant to the requested zoning changes. "Though we are in agreement that we would like the building at 326 East Falls Street -30- converted to a residential dwelling, we are aware of the parking problems that this would constitute. We are also aware of the vacant lot immediately across the street, and that it has been used for parking purposes. We would like to go on record as opposing any parking in that lot that does not constitute residential parking in conjunction with the applied for variance." In other wards, what we would like to see is, we would like to see the owners acquire permission to park in that lot for the explicit use of parking vehicles for their tenants so that they could get the vehicles off-street and eliminate the congestion. MRS. KUCZEK: How can they park there if they don't own that property? MR. BANFIELD: They can lease it from the owner. MRS. MJCZEK: Things change. You know that. HR. BANFIELD: They can't change the variance. MR. MARTIN: In any event, they haven't come in with that permission so that, I take it, if that's really critical, then the position you are asking tle Board to take is to deny the variance until they came in with that kind of permission. MR. BANFIELD: The first statement I made was that I'm a neighbor. I've lived there since I've been married. My wife has lived there all her life, and we all agree that there's a parking problem, but we all have to live together too, and it has gotten out of hand down there, and we don't like that feeling. We want to live in harmony, so we would like to see the thing turned back to residential, because we want to keep our residential neighborhood, and by the same token, we would like to see the parking improved in the off-street parking. We think the condition for us allowing approval by the neighbors possibly is if they would pursue the fact of getting an off-street parking by a lot that is available -31- and has been used as such in the past. MFL. MARTIN: Are there questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who hasn't spoken on this case who wishes to? MR. MILLER: Just one little thing. I'd like to have this variance, if you are going to allow it, I'd like to have this variance in such a way that off-street parking must be provided, in order to make this variance work and be successful. In other words, I'd like to be sure we are going to get off-street parking for those three apartments, or any apartments. I don't care where they get them as long as they are in front of the house and not right down Falls Street. MRS. KXZEK: Especially in the summertime with tourists around who want to see the waterfall. MR. MARTIN: I think we have heard from anyone who wants to be heard on this case. That concludes the hearing on case 1115. -32- BOARD 32-BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA MAY 3, 1976 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1115: MR. GASTEIGER: I move that the area variance be granted. MR. VAN MARTER: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The proposed conversion of the first floor back to a residency would end the non-conforming use on the subject property. The testimony at the hearing indicated that the building originally had three apartment units prior to the introduction to a commercial use on the first floor. 2) While the testimony at the hearing indicated quite clearly that there is a parking problem, the proposed conversion would actually reduce the deficiency of the property in terms of off-street parking required by the zoning ordinance, since the Ice Cream Shoppe under the terms of the ordinance required more off-street parking than a living unit. 3) The Board considered a number of possible conditions which might have been imposed concerning off-street parking and concluded that none which it could formulate could be reasonably imposed. VOTE : YES - 5 NO - 1 Application granted. -33- C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, OLGA POTORTI, DO CERTIFY That I took the minutes of the • Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals Nos. 1113, 1114, and 1115 on May 3, 1976, at City Hall, City of Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Olga otorti Sworn to before me this �S day of MA , 1976, Nar blic JOSFPH A. RUNDLE Notary Public, State of New York No. 55-4507134 Qualified in March 530,019 Term Expe