HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1976-11-01 DECISIONS MADE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION `P 4 L S
November 1 , 1976 c,
Appeal No. 1132
Postponed. Ot-jV l
Appeal No. 1134
r
The motion was made to deny the appeal based on the following:
1 . Testimony presented by those requesting and those opposed
to the variance. indicated that there had been several
changes in the neighborhood since the original designation
and that the conditions which arguably make a residence
for this property applied to other property on the North
side of Adams Street.
2. Since to grant a variance the Board must find unique
conditions applying to the land for which the variance
is requested and not generally to land in the neighbor-
hood, the Board feels that a possible rezoning is
appropriate relief and not a variance.
Motion carried,
Appeal No. 1135
The motion was made to deny the appeal based on the following:
1 . The situatinn as dPscrihed, 'in .the'view;.of'the'-Board,
is consistent with the definition of 'home occupation'
permitted in an R-3 zone; therefore a variance is not
necessary.
2. If a variance were necessary, it would require a more
concrete showing of hardship than was made at the
hearing, as related to the requirements of the ordinance.
Motion carried.
Appeal No. 1136
The motion was made to grant the appeal for variance based on the
follwoing:
1 , That the proposed construction will , in fact, increase
the available front yard of the building by removing
steps which come very close to the sidewalk.
2. The proposed structure will not increase, but, according
to the evidence presented, decrease the problem of the
location of this building which preceding the current
zoning requirements.
MOTIONS
Page Two
Motion carried,
Appeal No. 1137
The motion was made to grant the area variance based on the following:
1 . This is appropriately considered as an area variance
under the requirements that existed in this district before
the recent amendment. A building permit was issued in
July for the convers'�on of the second floor to an apartment
a use a+ +ha+time permitted in the district. The only
problem under the then requirements of the ordinance con-
cerned the dimension of the front yard. Those dimensions
were not affected by the conversion of the second floor• to
an apartment.
2. Considering that the appellants,,-received a building permit
in good faith-,.:according to theetestimony. presented, and
that the construction already accomplished does not materially
affect the exterior dimension of the property, we find that
the requested area variance would not have serious advarsP
imnar.t nn the neighborhood.
3.' A major concern was expressed relating to the deficiency
in the front yard requirement being 25 feet. Testimony
estimated that the yard is in feet 18 feet. Further,
testimony given estimated that in the range of two buildings
out of ten in the neighborhood do meet requirements for
front yard.
4. The grant of a variance in thic race has no bearing on the
problems alluded to in the hearing under the building code.
The motion carried.
Appeal No. 1138
The motion was made to grant the area variance based on the following:
1 . -The proposed modification will in no way alter existing
side yard requirements.
2, The proposed changes would indeed beautify, the area.
The motion carried.
MOTIONS
PAge Three
Appeal No. 1139 .
The motion was made to deny the requested use variance based on
the following findings of fact;
1 , The structure has contained a series of non-conforming
uses in the space in question,
2. While there was information about the proposed use
indicating that it would be a lighter commercial
use than some otherse previously carried on in the
building, there was failure to establish that it would
be infeasible to rnnvart tha enara in nuPCtinn into
a living unit,
Motion carried,
Page Two
J
showing the property. Let me get another copy so that Mr. Van
Marter can I think you have one also, don't you?
Mr. Martin: Are you prepared to leave one of these as an exhibit?
MR. Thaler: Excuse me.
Mr. Martin: Are you preapred to leave one of these . . .
Mr, Thaler: Yes I am going to leave the big one with the Board. The area
that we are tlaking about is the area that is maked with an 'A' .
The building, or the structure, that is marked with a '1 ' is the
present bowl-a-drome. The area that is marked with '6' is the
City of Ithaca property that is presently partially used/partially
abandoned, as far as use is concerned. The street immediately
as you look at the picture, on your left is Second Street. Adams
Street runs generally East and West in front of where the letter
'A' is. The house immediately to the right, as you look at the
picture, of letter 'A' is owned by a lady by the name of Mintern
and occupied by a lady by the name of Mrs. Effie Hartman and we
have a letter from Mrs. Hartman, which I submit to the Board, in
which she indicates that she has no objection to the proposed
structure.
Mr. Martin: Let the record show that the photo will be Exhibit 1 and this
letter will be Exhibit 2.
Mr. Thaler: The trucks that are shown in back of building No. 1 belong to
the structure that is maked No. 5 and that is the premises of H.
W. Taynton. We have a ltter from them also.
Mr. Martin: Exhibit 3..
Mr, Thaler: Well , what is being proposed here, ladies and gentlemen, is that
the property which is now blank, has been blank since 1970 when the
former house, which was a dwelling on the property, uh, unfortui-
tously burned. As you can see from the aerial photograph, it has been
and is a financial hardship to the owner of the property to construct
a residential premises on the property with any hope or thought in
mind that he is going to be able to sell it and get back any money, if
he so constructed a house. So, that in order to return the property
to the tax roll , in order to properly use the property, it would be
necessary to to construct a building of a type that would bring a
financial return to the owner of the property as well as beinq returned
to the tax roll . That unfortunately. that areas was formerly zoned
as residential . As you can see, the character of the neiqhborhood has
chanqed, I would think, since the oriqinal thouqht in mind in zoninq
that residential . There are onlv--it was brouqht to my attention,
there are three--but in the picture you can only see two, I think the
third house that is on the block--third residence--that is, in the
block that is, '.the buildinq where its being intended to be built,
there is one immediately adjacent to 'A' on the right; there is a
small house to. the immediate rear of that house and the third house
Page Three
would be the house that is partially covered by trees, down toward
the P&C Food Market. Those are the only three residences that are
left on the street on the particular side which would be the North ,
side of Adams where the building is to be built. Now the Planning
Board wneto intothe plans in some depth and into the characteristics
of the building to be built and one of the things that the owner of the
property would like is the variance as far as the back lot line is
concerned or that back lot size in order to set the building back
away from the street and to be able to put some shrubbery in front of
the building. This would not obstruct any firs apparatus, because
immediately to the rear of this lot is part of an old abandoned
rail road right-of-way that ran to the City property from the LeHigh
Valley main line some distance to the West. That spur ran through
the Ithaca Junk Company property, it ran between the property of
Taynton and the property of the bowling alley, in back where it
crossed over Second Street, where the part that was abandoned, and
in back of this property to the City gate. The gate has long-since
deteriorated and rusted away and fallen down. I think that the
gatepost is still down there on the ground; however, it is no longer
in use. The city signed a letter of abandonment as far as their
interest in the right-of-way some years ago. The property owner in
this appeal hought the portion of the riaht-of-wav from Third Street
to the, I beleive it would be. the northwest corner of this
property. However, that's as far as he was able to obtain the proper-
ty. There is a small section of the right-of-way that sets right in
back of this property which has no use to any property except this
property and the City of Ithaca who owns the property just next-
North. It is, therefore, felt that for the best use of the property
this building should be set bakc, put some landscaping in front of
it- in order to dress-up the front of the building. And, also, it
was discussed with the Planning Board concerning the shielding
or planting of shrubs and bushes or trees, in front of the area that
is going to be located West of the building for the purpose of
shielding the parking area. And, for that purpose, Mr. Chairman,
I have brought with me art architect's rendering indicating what he
considers to be an appropriate size tree. You may feel that you
would like to have one that is higher or trees that are higher. The
problem here being is that you have to mix the beautification by
the use of trees with the sight visibility of vehicular traffic
coming in and out of the parking lot coming onto Adams Street. I
would like to offer this as an exhibit.
Mr. Martin: Exhibit 4.
Mr. Thaler: The building would be built for the purpose of housina Norton
Electric. Norton Elect is at the present time is--has a building
that they are renting down at the end of West State Street, .lust
east of the Octopus, near the bridge, on the South side. Norton
Electric owns three vehicles: one being a pick-up service truck;
one being a stake body delivery truck, and one being known as a
cherry picker or a vehicle that has an arm that raises up for
hgih places. It is a contracting business; it is not a business
that is open for retail sales. They are not soliciting retail
sales, ;but a rew customers do visit their premises to pay bills
Page Four
and to discuss the work that is being done by the firm. We have
asked Mr, Norton to give us a thumb-nail sketch of what his
operation entails. Besides the owner, he indicates that there
are two persons in his business who work full-time on the
premises: a bookkeeper/receptionist/telephone operator and a
stockman/truck drive comgination. He says there are four to six
electricians who work out of the shop on a daily basis. Most
have their own trucks. He indicates that the largest concentration
of people--that is, employees--occurs between 7:25 and 8:15 in the
morning when the electricians and stockman and the owner meet to
go over the day's activities. He says that during the day there
might be one or two delivery trucks that bring in supplies. He
said that the stockman may make from zero to three trips around
the town to deliver or to pick up things and he says that one or
two of the electricians may return to additional materials or
instrcutions. Now, he indicates that occasionally his firm as a
large job which requires hiring extra mechanics. These people,
however, are not classed as workinq out of the shop. They qo
directly to the contract site where Mr. Norton has the contract
and, therefore, would not be running in and out of what this
building is intended to do. There is no manufacturing or fabri-
cation of nay kind to be performed in this building. No repairs of
any kind and the operation of the business produces no pollution
of any kind other than a normal household would because I think
he probably will have a stove on the premises for coffee for his
employees. He indicates that the work-week is from 7:45 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. , five days a week, and the shope, or this building,
would not be open during the peak activities of its nearest neigh-
bors, including the bowling alleay and foodstore which is located
across the street at the Victory. How, we have asked for the
variance based on the hardship, based on the fact that the use of
this property as it would be contemplated would not be a detriment
to the neighborhood and that the character of this area and dis-
district has so changed, as you...can see from the area photograph,
that placing a building of the type that is shown on Exhibit 4
upon the premises would be an addition, a good addition, to the
property adjacent to it and across from it, beacuse instead of
having a vacant lot through which you can see the back of the
City storage area, where they used to store trucks, pipes, sewate
supplies for the sewer department and things of that sort, there
would be a well-done, well-landscaped building. You will notice
that essentially the property--if you said that it could not be
used for this--it can 't feasibly, I don't believe, be used to build
a single family dwelling upon it and have it be an economic return
to the owner of the property. It's unfortunate that teh fire
occurred in 1970. It was an older house that was there before.
It had been built before the adjacent food store and the bowling
alley had been built. The junk yard that is located just down the
street, Ithaca Junk Company, has been there for some time. The Tayn-
ton's truck warehouse has been there for some time as well as the
uh--there was the furniture warehouse at one time down there that
burned down also some years ago. So, I don't think that when we come
to the fact that we dont' have or, let's put it`in the affirmative--
I think that the appellant here has met the criteria that has been
Page Five
set up by law for the qrantinq of a variance. One is that there
are various practical difficulties and special conditions which
make it impossible to comply with the zoning ordinance and return
this property to its proper'. place on the zone,-eruh, on the tax
roll . There are difficulties and conditions which are unique to
that side of Adams Street. Now, by that side I 'm talking to the
North side, because they--all of the properties on the North side
of Adams Street back up to the City uh, staging area, or dumping
Urcl , or whatever you want to call it, and the City uses that
like an industrial site and its in or next to a residential R-1
zone which shows that it makes it difficult at best, or if you can
say that it is difficult at best, to put a residence on the
property--a brand new house and hope to have an economic return.
The other criteria is that if you grant the exception, will it
change the spirit or the nature of the neighborhood? It is the
position of ,the appellant that it would not; that it would enhance
the character of` the neighborhood. By looking at the aerial
photograph, you can see that across the street, running between
Second Street and Third Street, is a block of residences. But,
all of the other blocks around that surrounding, around that one
block, all of the area has changed in its character. You ha,,-
the Victory market, you have the gas station, you have a junk yard,
you have Taynton 's, you have a bowling alley, you've got a parking
lot. Yah got the City and its staging area or whatever you want
to call it. You have the P&C market and you have the empty lot
where the laundromat used to be. So that the character of the
neighborhood, certainly on the northside of Adams is not going to
be changed by your granting of the variance in this case. And,
we ask you specifically if you have any questions, we have the
two owners here; we have the contractor who is going to be putting
uD the building and we'd be glad to answer anv cuestions that
you may have. Yes? Sir?
Mr. Kasprzak: Have you considered rezoning the block--a petition for
rezoning rather than by requesting a variance?
Mr. Thaler: We have--the problem that we have, however, is a question of
timing. As you all know, in this community, as a matter of fact, we
may be too late now. But, in order to put up this building, in order
to get it started, it has to be started almost like yesterday in
order to build it. Mr. Norton apparently must move from where he is.
We can meet his time schedule if we are granted a variance. In order
to go for a total rezoning it would take longer than we would have
time to permit us to get in the ground and get our building finished
in order to meet his demand. This is something that the Planning
Board recognized--that maybe that whole area on that side of the
street should be rezoned.
Mr. Martin: You spoke of the problem being unique to that side of the street;
but, it is not especially unique to that property on that side of the
street.
Mr. Thaler: That's correct, well . . .
Page Six
Mr. Martin; Which is argument for a general rezoning rather than a .
Mr. Thaler: I agree withyou, Mr. Chairman. The problem as far as the unique-
ness on this particularly property is the same as the property if you
hop over the resident which is right next door. The owner of that
blank, land in there has the same problem that the appellant here has.
Mr. Martin: Your request is not only for a use variance but also for an
area variance. I 'm less clear on the details of that .
Mr. Thaler: I am only . , .
Mr. Martin: It's only with respect to the rear yard requirement.
Mr. Thaler: That's all . Just the rear yard requirement is the only exception
that we want. We feel .
Mr. Martin: Could you give us some figures on that?
Mr. Thaler: Yes, yes, I can.. It is my understanding that the ordinance
requires in the rear at that spot 20--twenty-five feet,
Mr. Martin: Twenty-five,
Mr, Thaler: And, instead of that, what we would like to do is--we would like
to put that back as far as we can and I think that the Planning
Board and the, owner have stipulated 8 feet. Am I right Dick?
Mr, McPherson: Right.
Mr. Thaler: Right. We would like to go back 8 feet, thereby allowing us
room in front for some green; some green grass, trees, shrubs and
whatnot.
Mr. Martin: You've gone with care over the use variance and tried to relate
them to the property. Could you do the same with the area variance?
Why would that be justified?
Mr. Thaler; As far as we feel--as far as the setback is concerned, if you
will look at the adjoining building, which is No. 1 , or the building
next door which is shown as No.')1!. If you will look at the house
that will be next door to this building we feel that it is justified
in setting this building back further from the street than the house
is set back in that if the house wants a view, we do not want to be
in a position of obstructing it. The second thing is that we have
had the question raised by Mr. Giordano,who is also here tonight,
at the Planning Board, about the people across the street. We feel
that in setting this building back further we can get more of a--
again, going into landscaping and shielding, we can get a better
feeling as far as lawn or lawn and bushes in front of this building
if there is the ability to set it back further on the lot. We
cannot in order to get the required--apparenetly--maneuverability
in the parking lot, we cannot turn the building on the property in
Page Seven
in a different way in order to get the setback from the street
and still have the square footage in the building. So, this is
why we are asking that we be granted the right to go back
further. Again, we are not destroying the intent of the ordinance
by having this lot line because we are not blocking any fire lanes;
we are not obstructing anybody's right who owns the property next
door because that'sthe City and as you can see, that's No. 6, and
what is there right now is an overgrown hedge row of weeds and.
apparently, is not used at all by the City. I can also indicate
to you that immediately to the West of where the parking lot is
going to be was the old Second Street right-of-way which the City
abandoned and which the property owner picked up in order to put
the addition which houses the air-condition and heating apparatus
for the bowling alley. This right-of-way--Second Street right-of-
way, if you. go straiaht throuah to the North, covers Dart of the
of the property and is just adjacent to where we want to put the
building if we move it back.
Mrs Martin: Further questions from members of the Board?
Dr. Greenberg: How far would the front--would the building have as a front
yard?
Mr. Thaler: Ten feet.
Dr, Greenberg: Ten feet?
Mr. Thaler: Yes, sir.
Dr. Greenberq: That's the minimum required?
Mr. Thaler: Yes, sir.
Dr. Greeberq: Ten feet. So, in a sense, .you are not puttinq it back
further than required.
Mr. Thaler: What we are qoinq is, we are--instead of turninq the building,--
instead of turning the building and putting it at a different angle,
we are keeping it in order to fulfill Mr. Norton's square foot
requirements. We are in essence leaving it as it is, having the
ten-foot setback from the back, in order words having the front
yard. But, we have to go back to 8 feet within the--on the lot
line and we don't have the twenty-five feet. We can put the
building in a different way by squashing it lengthwise, which makes
it wider, i.n.essence. We don't feel that that's siqhtiv. We could
comDly but' it is more expensive do to that and it also would be a
curtailment upon the maneuverability within the parking lot for Mr.
Norton's suppliers and for his trucks.
Mr. Martin: What are the total dimensions of the lot. Maybe there are
in here with teh application; but, I missed them.
Page Eight
Mr. Thaler: 87.5 feet E-West and 90. feet North to South, The building would
occupy 29.,2 per cent of the lot-. Square feet in the lot is 7,875,
square feet in the buildinq is 200 and, I 'm sorry, 2304. The proposed
buildinq would be 72 by 32. And, it proposed that the buildinq
would be planAd 6 feet from the East lot line, again complying with
the side lot requirements.
Mr. Gasteiger: I'd like to be sure I understand. You are not really re-
questing any set back,
Mr. Thaler: No! no!
Mr. Gasteiger: . . . an infringement on the back yard.
Mr. Thaler: On the back yard--no, no, I mispoke when I said setback. What
are we trying to do is keep the building ack where it would be
with its ten feet. The other buildings are closer than that, as
shown in that picture,
Mr. Martin: . . . would you comment further on the parking lot". How many cars
will it accommodate?
Mr. Thaler: Andy?
Mr. McPherson: Dick, I don 't think we have even gone into the development
of that, I think that this point . . .
Mr. Thaler: Well , I can show you from the--from the plan, the way the buil-
ding is laid out what you have in the way of area for parking. Mr.
Norton has indicated to the owners that there is really not that
much need for parking since he only has three vehicles,
Mr. Gasteiger: Can you comment on fire access or other access to the back
of the building? You own that right-of-way
Mr. Thaler: Only up to the north--up to the northwest corner (laugh) . There
is a corporation down in Pennsylvania that own a strip of land in back
immediately adjacent to the rest of this lot or to the north of it.
As far as accessibility, as it stands right now, theree is accessi-
bility to the rear of the building thorugh the Ithaca--City of
Ithaca lot and also throuqh the parkinq lot of the buildinq, the
parkinq lot that's proposed.
Dr. Greenberq: I 'm a little mystified at the hollow dimensions of the buildinq
By that I mean, why can't the buildinq be 40 feet and that mush
shorter?-
Mr, Thaler: Andy, 'can you give us some idea what the, what the relative
differences in costs are'?
Mr. Martin; Perhaps you might come forward.
Page Nine
Mr. Thaler; This is Mr. McPherson of McPherson Builders.
Mr. McPherson: The building could be of different dimensions.. But, as we
widen up the building we get to a wider or longer truss and as the
length. of the truss goes up, the cost of the truss goes up a little
bit. We are talking in terms of very small dollars, I think. And
if--and if it became absolutely necessary, the buildina could be, as
Mr. Thaler mentioned, squashed from front to back and widened out a
little. It is my understanding that this particular dimension or
dimensioning meets with Mr. Norton's requirements the best.
Mr. Martin: Further questions? So, the case of the area variance is that it
would be more economic to put the building in a configuration that
would encroach on the back yard.
Mr. Thaler: That's correct.
Mrs Martin; It wmild hi- feasible to put the building, at higher cost, into
the lot as it exists. It is not a pecularly shaped lot.
Mr, Thaler: No it is not..
Mr. Martin: It also has--it has in this lot, because of its location, the
ability to be placed closer to the rear of the lot line without
having the hazard of the impossibility of fire access and thinqs of
that sort to the rear of the buildinq.
Dr. Greenberq: Where would the deliveries be made? To the rear?
Mr. Thaler: To the side.
Dr. Greenberq: By the parkinq lot.
Mr, Thaler: Yes, sir, that's correct.
Mr. Martin: Any further questions?
Dr. Greenberg: I would like to ask a question of appearance to the neighbors--
an appearanc-+n be somewhat mullifeid by shrubbery. What buildina ma-
terial is proposed on the exterior?
Mr. Thaler: I 'd like to ha--ask Mr. McPherson to asnwer that. I am no quite
sure. The architect's rendering details it to some extent.
Mr. McPherson: Yes, the rendering does show, I think. Materials that are pro-
posed would ha ainh-inch rnnrrata hlnrk fnr tha axtarinr of tha
building up to a ten foot height. This would be the eave line and
then the gable ends which would be the remainder of the building that
you would see would be a textured plywood. The whole building would
then be painted.
Mr. Martin: Further questions?
Page Ten
Mr. Van Marter: Are you familiar with the former application for the same
address, same property?
Mr. Thaler: No, I 'm not,
Mr. Van Marter: I guess my question relates to what is adjacent to the
West and that existing building does not conform to the proposed
front yard for this building? Is that correct?
Mr. Thaler: Murray, I don't, .uh, I don't follow your question?
Mr. Van Marter: You are going to have a ten-foot front yard?
Mr. Thaler: Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Marter: Do you have a property line ten feet in front of it?
Mr. Thaler: Yes, sir..
Mr. Van Marter: Set back from the street.
Mr. Thaler: Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Marter: So the existing building to the west does not conform with
either one of these lines.
Mr. Thaler: That's correct.
Mr. Van Marter: O.K.
Mr. Martin: Do you have anyone else that you wish to put on?
Mr. Thaler; Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martin: All right, is there any one else here this evening who would
like to speak in favor of the requested variances in this case--use
variance and area variance? Is, there anyone who would like to be
heard in opposition?
Mr. Giordano: My name is Vincent Giordano. T 'm a nrnnerty holder in this
area. I am not here comnlainina or talkinn for mvslef= "m here
talking for my 78 year old father who I think if--if the building
department had him up here tonight would have--would realize that
they are getting a stiff argument in this case. I asked him to
stay home and I would take his place. I am also representing my
brother who wac hares tha nthor ninh�-,at tho Planninn Rnard- Arthur
Ainrdann, who hese nwnpd tha house at 421 Second Street which is
just exactly in front of this for the past twenty years, He has
a daughter three years old and a granndaughter 1-1/2 years old
who plays out in the side yard of this house. He has submitted
a letter to the BZA Board plus an authorization for me to
speak for him tonight. He is saying "I have lived in this house
page E1 ext-n
for 20 years, I used to have beautiful flowers, fruit trees, garden,
in my back yard until the Victory market was built and they raised
the drain with gravel above the existing road and until the bowling
alley was built was had drainage in our yard," Both of these
buildings, by the way, front on Third Street. The bowling alley and
.the American store have their back; plain cinderblock walls facing
this residential area of Second Street. Thev are the onlv two
buildinqs that are within the 200 feet we are speakinq of. Thev are
not offended that much by the back of the building as they are by
the front traffic area of the building on .Th.ird Street and the traffic
area on Third Street for the bowling alley. The junk and the
Taynton Express and the gas station your speaking of is over 200
feet away. They're down on Third Street. They are not in this
area, but we 're talking about on the corner of Second and Adams.
The attornev's did a very qood Job, but, thev do not bother these
people back here. The Citv boards are around the corner on First
Street behind those three houses and they don't bother these
people. The little bit of residential character thay have for this
area, they would like to save and if not, then, as Mr. Kasprzak says,
they'd sooner see the whole area be zoned commercial and give them
a chance to sell their property, also, and they'll move out and buy
a house elsewheres. They cannot live with commercial buildings on
Adams Street. I have a letter from Mrs. Tillie Marola and Sol Marolo,
417 Secont Street, which is: the second house on the street. This
is`the area that was evaded. When we"talk about the residential
character of the neighborhood it goes down Second Street to Adams
Stret to Hancock. And, there is quite a few houses there and those
people have got those houses fixed up pretty hicely, It says: "Sirs:
we do not want another business building on this street. There are
already enough and the neighborhood looks like a dump, always glass
and garbage strewn all over and the taxes are hgih and here we are
not--we cannot sell our homes on the account of so many businesses.
Tillie Marolo and Sol Marolo, 417 Second Street." I 'll submit all
these for Exhibits 2,3, and 4.
Mr. Martin: 5, 6 and 7.
Mr. Giordano: The letter goes on quite strong if the board would like to
read it afterwards: but. I don't want to take too much of your time
T"ey may--The problem is that there ' is absolutely no hardship in this
case. If there is, I would like Mr. Shulman or the attorney to get up
and tell me so. This house burned down. In the City of Ithaca, when
a house burns down, you can 't build on less than a 75 foot lot. It is
an 87 by 90 lot. You could---just about put a house back on it. They
bought it for the purpsoe of extending their parking lot for the
bowling alley because they have no place in the 5 o'clock and the
7 and 8 o'clock bowling when the bowling starts for the cars to park.
Mr. Shulman had trouble with the brother Babe getting the parking--
expanded to; when he did get it, he expanded that way so he didn't
need to extend that way for a parking lot at that time. Now, business
has grown such that he does need the 80 x 90 lot for an expansion of
his parking lot behind his bowling alley which infringes orl all of
the lot lines in the area. That lot would make a two-lane parking lot
Page Twelve
and the people don't mind the over flow parking in that lot instead
of infront of their homes on Second Street and on Adams Street. There
is no hardship in this case whatsoever. That lot can be used for
parking and overflow of the bowling alley. Norton Electric is not in
any hardship 'cause he has been presented with four or five different
proposals and he has purchase offers on his desk where he could move
his contracting business to, There is areas available to him--and
I don 't own 'em--on Taughannock Boulevard offered to him, the back of
Joe Watt's Distributing Company offered it to him; Porter Sheet Metal--
they had 3,000 feet that was shown to him and offered to him. So,
there is plenty of an area for an electrical contracting business. So,
I am saying that there is no harship in this case, Those people have
a little something left, if they live for twenty years and they would
like to keep the front of their house in that area residential . That's
all I have to say.
Dr. Greenberg: I have a question, Mr. Giordano.
Mr. Martin: As you know the term 'hardship' is a term of special meaning, when
we are coming to a variance. It doesn 't talk about the personal
situation of the individual but really about the land. The case was
made by the appellant here that the land could not feasibly be held
for residential use. You wouldn't economically put a single family
home on it. I gather one of the letters that you are giving us says
much the same thing .
Mr. Giordano: That's right.
Mr. Martin: . that people don't want to buy homes down in there. So, uh
Mr. Giordano: Well , that. . .
Mr. Martin: . . . So, it seems to me in a sens that supports the appellants '
case . . .
Mr. Giordano: They are not saying that they don't wany to buy homes down in
there. They are saying that their homes would be worthless with all
them businesses in the area there. In otherwords, zone the whole area
'commercial ' and let them all have an equal chance; but they can't sell
a residential home in a commercial area and get anything for their
home. So, zone the area 'commercial ' and let them take their chances.
I mean its--it's ture--I 'm sure its--The character of the neighborhood
has gone that wav on the other two streets forward--but to back on
Adams Street and that part of Second Stret, or First.
Mr. Martin: Furher questions?
Mr. Van Marter: Are you familiar with a former appeal for this piece of
property?
Mr. Giordano: Yes, I am, sir.
Mr. Van Marter ' Could you just briefly describe it?
J
Page Thirteen
Mr. Giordano: Well , that's not part of this case.
Mr. Van Marter: All right, all right. It's not part of the application
either and it's supposed to be.
Mr, Giordano; I also might add that I am sure that the plans for that have
not cone to the State yet and they talk about speedy time--that they
have to build it by the contracting firm must be submitted to the
State of New York for approval by a licensed architect. By the time
that plan gets to the State and gets back here it is going to be a
little late for this building season anyway.
Mr. Martin: Is there anyone else here who would like to speak in opposition
to the requested variance? (no response) Is there anything you
wish. to say?
Mr. Thaler: May I just add a couple things in answer to a couple questions
Mr. Giordano made (very difficult to hear inasmuch as he did not
even approach microphone) . First of all , when we went before the
Planning Board, the question of rezoning the area did not include-
the idea was not to rezone where the houses are located; it was to
rezone the area North or on the North side of Adams Street where
this property is located, The South side of Adams Street are where
the houses are. It's in the block, as you can see from the aerial
map, and that's why we had the aerial map done, was to show the
destruction of the residential area on the North side of Adams Street
which has made the hardship. Hardship not of the creation of the
applicant. And, Mr, Giordano makes the point well that we bought the
property or the applicant bought the property to increase his parking
area. Well , that wasn't true either. When the property was pur-
chased, on that property was a house occupied by a Mrs. Trainer, she
had a life-use of that house. My client had nothing to do with, and
I am sure that Mrs. Trainer didn't have anyting to do with, the
burning down of that house. It is true that the orooerty has been
used by the patrons of both the arocery store and bowlina allev as
a place for off-the-street overflow tvoe oarkina and Mr. Giordano's
point that it should be kept that way is not an economic use of this
property, although Mr. Norton's time of business ends at 4:30 and
there is no reason why that parking area cannot be used again in the
evening hours which is the hours of the bowling alley. We are not
increasing the traffic hazards or antying along Adams Street by
having this building or the use that is contemplated, And, Mr. Van
Marter, I don't know when this former application for a variance was
made that you have referred to twice now. I certainly have not tried
to mislead this Board by not referring to it. I, uh . . .
Mr. Van Marter: I 'm just referring to the application--
Mr. Thaler: Well--that was to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Van Marter. Uh, I
completed that form for my client. I did not know of any further, er uh
former appeal . I know that as far as that building is concerned there
hasn't been any,, or for this use there hasn 't been any. But as far as
any former one I have not been advised of that.
Page Fourteen
Mr. Martin: I believe then that that concludes our. hearing in this case,
What is our next case, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Hoard. The next case is Appel No. 1135, the appeal of Mary Lou Rumsey
for a use variance under Section 30.25 Column 2 to use the premises
at 409 Hancock Street for a dog grooming business in an R-3 use
district.
Ms. Mary Lou Rumsey: Well , the reason I 'm here is just so I can get the
permit to do the dog grooming, seeing as I went to school--
Mr. Martin: Could you get that [the microphone] going if you can? Or,
speak up louder because I think. the people in the back might . . .
just speak into it closer, then.
Ms. Rumsey: I said the reason I 'm here is so I could get the permit to do
dog grooming in my home because I spoke to someone here before I
went to school and was told that as long as I lived in the premises
that it was legal as long as I didn't move, That's why I 'm here.
And as far as any of the neighbors, I sent the letters out and the
neighbors seem to be willing to go along with it, because it is a
small business. That's about it, That's all I can tell you (laugh) ,
Mr. Martin: Can you describe briefly the scale of the dog grooming businss
that you want to carry on .
Ms. Rumsey: Well, yeah . . .
Mr. Martin: . . . how much traffic . . .
Ms. Rumsey: It's a , . .
Mr. Martin: . . . you contemplate . . .
Ms. Rumsey: Two or three dogs a day, possibly; no more. And, they will be
kept in cages, so that they will not be outside,
Mr. Kasprzak: What portion of your house do you plan to -dedicate to ?
Ms. Rumsey: One room,
Mr. Kasperzak: One room.
Ms. Rumsey: One room. It consists of a sink and cages.
Mr. Martin:. Now, could you explain, uh, the contrary advice which you say
you received; that is, you inquired somewhere here in City Hall about
whether or not you could carry on your business before you went to
school , you say.
Ms. Rumsey: Right, I wanted to make sure I could do it before I spent all
the money on school. Right? And someone said as long as we lived in
rage Fifteen
the house that I could do it as a home occupation, , (unintelligible
utterances by board members) . There is no zoning laws against it.
But, I came down for the permit and there was., uh., nothi.ng men-
tioned about dog grooming on the appeal .
Mr. Martin: O.K. (pause) Are there questions from members of the board?
Mr. Greenberg: You say one room would be reserved for it. One room out of
how many; or, what percentage of the square footage of the down-
stairs area would you say would be required.
Ms. Rumsey: One room out of (pause) five.
Mr. Greenberg: One out of five.
Ms. Rumsey: Downstairs.
Mr. Gastiger: Do you have any parking for the incoming "traffic",
Ms. Rumsey: Other than the driveway, there is parking right in front of
our house,
Mr. Kasprzak:,Pan you give us an idea of how long ,
Ms. Rumsey: On, the people
Mr. Kaspezak: . . , the client
Ms. Rumsey: . . . don't stay, the people don't stay. They drop the dog
off; they leave and then they come back to pick up the dog when
it's ready.
Mr. Kasperzkc: On the same day?
Ms. Rumsey: No dogs ever stay the night.
Mr. Greenberg: Oh, no dogs will be spending the night so you won't have
the yelping and barking of lonesome . .
Ms. Rumsey: No.
Mr. Greenberg: of lonesome dogs.
Ms. Rumsey: Other than my own, no. (laugh)
Mr. Kasprzak; Do dogs accept this treatment without . . Do you find the
animals objecting by makingloud noises while you're doing .
Ms. Rumsey: No.
Mr. Kasprzak: You don't put them to sleep or give them injections,
Ms, Rumsey: No.
Page Sixteen
Mr. Kasprzak: At any ,
Mr. Greenberg: I .thi.nk the planning board considers this a veterinarian
business or tantamount to veterinary medicine. Do you feel that it
is anything approaching the veterinary field except that you are
working on animals.
Ms. Rumsey: No. 'Cause all 's it is really is bathing the dog and clippin'
'em; that's it.
Mr. Martin: How long do you keep a dog for this? I mean, is it--is the
dog in and out in a day or do you keep . . .
Ms. Rumsey: Yeah.
Mr. Martin: Yeah . .
Ms. Rumsey: Yeah.. Within a couple of hours it can be done,
Mr. Martin: At any time how many dogs are you likely to have around--two?
Ms. Rumsey: Two to three, Three at the most,
Mr. Kasprzak: You are working alone, by the way?
Ms. Rumsey: Yeah.
Mr. Kasprzak: You don't propose to have someone else help you with it?
Ms. Rumsey: No, no.
Mr. Martin: How much added paraphernalia is required? I mean, that you
wouldn't find in a normal home?
Ms. Rumsey: Well , I have a dryer ,
Mr. Martin: Yeah . .
Ms. Rumsey: . . . a blow dryer and cages.
Mr. Martin: A blow dryer and cages. And, you will have one room of the
house that will be devoted really .
Ms. Rumsey: Just to that
Mr. Martin: . . really to this . .
Ms. Rumsey: . . just to this, yeah.
Mr. Martin: Further questions? I guess I don't hear any. Thank you very
much, Is there anyone else here this evening who wants. to be
heard on this case? First, anyone else who would like. to be heard
in favor of the requested variance, Yes. .
PUse Seventeen
Orson Ledger: Good evening! My name is Orson Ledgerand I reside at 608 South
Albany Street in the City. I have a home which I rent out in this
area. I do not know the Rumsey's, but I am a little bit upset,-when
I got a letter from themstating that they had to come for a variance
when in my interpretation of this. thing is that i.t is a home occupa-
tion and all you have to do is put out a shingle and start doing
business. I have the thing here--"municipal code particular home
occupations include but are not limited to the following; art
studio, dress making, teaching musical instruments single pupils
and time, a lawyer's office, an angineer and architect, a real
estate and insurance sales men, etc." And it says that "it is not
limited to" these. But, I .would think that any body having a home
occupation would not have to go through this rig-marole to try to
do this in their home. But, I think it is kind of an out-rage
that these people even have to come up here for this thing. I have
known some other home occupations who had to do the same thing and
one was asked to cease business. . . which I think is wrong. I
don't think that the City should have to make these poeple do this
because it is what a home occupation is for. As long as they do not
employ more than twoopeople.
Mr. Martin: You are speaking in favor of the requested
Mr. Ledger: I am not speaking in . . .
Mr. Martin: '. . . variance, or in other words, you would argue that thi,s
-
was a permissible home occupation that didn't require a variance.
Mr. Ledger: I think that this. should be granted without even having to go
through, uh--granted without an ordinance or anything. They should
be able to do it without having to come for a variance. If it is a
home occupation; the city allows a home occupation,
Mr, Martin: It does. But, it also defines and that definition has in the
past given us trouble.
Mr. Ledger: . but it says that it is not limited to the following.
Mr. Martin: Right. But, it also has some various additional criteria which
are quite general .
Mr. Ledger: Well , these are kinds of examples of what they could be. But,
it's not limited to the following . . .
Mr. Martin: Right--we've had trouble with other examples not on the. list We`ve
never, in past decisions, said a home occupation has to be found on
that list.
Mr. Ledger: All right. Then, I think that this a home occupation not employing
more than two people . . .
Mr. Martin: I think it would be quite possible that in this case, we
would determine that it was a home occupation based on what we heard
and we would not require a variance.
Page Eighteen
Mr. Ledger; But they shouldn't have to be here in the first place, is my
argument.
Mr. Martin: Thank you. Are there any questions? (No response) . Thank you,
Anyone else who would like to be heard this evening in favor of the
requested variance? (No response) Anyone who would like to be heard
in opposition? (No response) Then, that closes our hearing in this
case. Our next one?
Mr. Hoard: The next case is Appeal 1136 the appeal of Richard J. Lajza
for area variance under Section 30.25 Collumn 11 to add a V x 7'
enclosed porch to the entrance of the existing house at 321 Hook
Place in .an R--1 use district,
Richard John Lajza: My name is Richard John Lajza. I own the property and
also live in the house. I don't know, if you have all seen the
forms which I 've given in with the application. Basically, what I
want to do is to construct an enclosed entrance room on top of
the present stone landing in front of my house and change the
facing of the front door from a northward facing to a westward
facing; this will protect my front entrance from a direct north
weathering in winter. I will also remove the present stairway
which has eight steps and they have an approach to the front door
now from the north; it would be reduced to five steps and be
approaching this new door from the west. So these will be pro-
tected from direct north weathers; it will also limit the number
of stairs which will be a safety factor. By removing the stairs
and putting them in this new, position, it will also open up my
front yard. Right now, the stairway runs right from my house
right to the sidewalk. I will have approximately a ten foot front
yard now in front of the present structure and the sidewalk.
Basically, that's it. Any questions?
Mr. Martin; How much of an encroachment into the required yardage are
we talking about?
Mr. Lajza: Well , right now with the present landing that's that, I 'm
going into the front yard, I believe it is over 11 feet, or
close to it. But, this will remove that down to 6 feet, .
Mr. Martin: Are there questions from the members of the board?
Mr. Kasprzak; How old is the house?
Mr. Lajza: Originally built in 1854; it's been added on in the , 130's by
Donald Sharpstein . . .
Mr. Kasprzak; That's all right. That's all I wanted to know (laugh) .
Mr. Lajza: All right.
Mr. Martin: Any further questions?
Page Nineteen
Dr. Greenberg: I would mention one thing and that is that I have to commend him
on his sketch and the fact that he made it so clear as to precisely
what he is doing and this helps the board, I believe, a great deal .
Mr. Gasteiger: I second that,
Mr. Martin: Very thorough application, , ,
Mr. Lajza: Thank you very much,
Mr. Martin: . . . which explains our few questions. Is there anyone else
here tonight who would like to be heard on this appeal? First,
anyone else who would like to be heard in favor (no response)?
Anyone who would like to be heard in opposition (no response)?
Then, that closes. our hearing in this case..
Mr. Hoard: The next appeal is 1137, that of Ruperto D, and Ruchira C. Men-
diones for a retroactive area variance under Section 30.25 Columns
2 and 11 to convert a single family dwelling to a two-family
dwelling at 1013 East State Street, in a district: which was
rezoned R-1 from R-2 on September 4, 1976,
Ruperto D. Mendiones: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Mendiones: , . and members of the zoning board. We came over here to
appeal to you for the problem of our appeal . We--I might mention
briefly that in the questions of the Board of Zoning appeals we have
completed everything and also we have sent all the letters to our
neighbors which is about 200 feet from the lines of our property.
The property in question now i.s at 1013 East State Street, The
a--through our contractor, Mr. Lane, he got the permit from his
office--from the office of the building commissioner
Mr. Martin: When was that--that the building permit that you got was issued
under contract
Mr. Mendiones: The building permit was granted on the 22nd of July,
Mr. Martin: 1976?
Mr. Mendiones 1976, uh, yes, 1976,
Mr. Martin: Now, was it clear at the time that building permit was requested
that what you contemplated was conversion to a duplex; I mean, it
was clear what you had in mind and were seeking a permit for?
Mr. Mendiones: Well , my wife will continue from this point,
Ms. Ruchira C. Mendiones: Yes, on July 22, we through our building contractor,
applied for permit, building permit, to convert the existing structure
into a two-family house and we were granted a permit by Mr. Jones, the
uh, then the former building commissioner. So the work proceeded until
Page Twenty
the construction was completed., We were dumbstruck when we were told
at that time, which was early in September, that the structure
doesn't conform with the zoning ordinance and uh_, so present
building commissioner advised us to apply for variance.
Mr. Martin: All right. Can you outline for us the extent towhich. the
variance is necessary? In other words, in what respects,, as you now
understand it, doeswhat was done fail to apply first to the old
requirements under which the building permit was issued and the
new requirements.
Mrs. Mendiones: I have to admit that I am still very ignorant about the
requirements. The only thing I think I learned about this is
that we have to have 60 foot frontage and 25 feet from the street,
something like that. The existing structure didn't conform to that
and we didn't°know it. And now that the structure Is completed and
we have put a lot of money in it and so we suffer hardship,
Mr. Martin: All right. The building as it is now has been converted into
a what--an apartment on the second floor and an apartment on the
first floor?
Mrs. Mendiones: Yes.
Mr. Martin: It would be rather difficult to put that back into a single
family home again,
Mrs. Mendiones: Yes.
Mr. Martin: Are there questions from members of the board?
Dr. Greenberg: It seems to me that there are two problems here.; one,
the permit to use and then the building code violation, These are
two separate things involved.
Mrs. Mendiones: Yes.
Dr. Greenberg: And I don't know if we can settle the building code violation
here.
Mr. Martin: Clearly, we cannot. All we can do would be to grant the vari-
ance from the zoning ordinance and then you would have to go ahead
to the state.
Mrs. Mendiones. Yes, we would have to .
Mr. Mendiones: Mr. Chairman, what we are appealing now is the fact--uh, 30
is a--I think 30 and uh and col 31 on the, uh-,I think . . ,
Mr. Martin: Under the zoning ordinance,
Mr. Mendiones: Yes, yes. That's right.
Page Twenty-one
Mr. Martin; Are there further questions?
Dr. Greenberg; Well , we, yeah, we more (unintelligible) are we just--are we
trying to get them to pass the variance under the new code or in
other words retroactively, Or, .would they--whether the permit is
illegal or not, shouldn't have been granted because of the
previous code.
Mr. Martin; It should not have been granted because of the previous code.
If it had been properly--If it had been properly granted under the
previous code, they wouldn't need a variance even though the code
had been changed; they got their permit under the old code and
the building went on and now they . . .
Dr. Greenberg: We're--we're--our concern in a sense
Mr. Martin: Is the old code . . .
Dr. Greenberg: . . . is the old code and the fact that it is now an R-1
area has nothing to . . .
Mr. Martin: Well , it--it complicates the picture, but if--uh, to get back
to your original point--if the building permit had been properly
issued under the old code and construction went on then, uh--
then they wouldn't be here for their variance,
Mr. Gasteiger; . Peter, I uh don't have a feeling for the magnitude of the
error and what it does to the neighborhood.
Dr. Greenberg: Is this clear to everyone?
Mr. Martin: The question is how much of a discrepancy is there? Now,
perhaps the building commissioner could at this point speak to
the point because he isihe one who caught the error.
Mr. Hoard: It is a problem in that this area was subject to rezoning would
show that the neighbors were protesting this and other buildings
that were being changed from single family to multiple use and that
this was just one of those that they were enacting against when
they came to City Council and asked for a rezoning of that area.
Mr. Martin: The question is how much.--how much of a discrepancy is there
between this property and the requirements of the ordinance as it
existed prior to the ,
Mr. Hoard: Oh, I 'm sorry. It's a front yard set-back problem, It required
a 25 foot front set-back andI think that--I 'm not exactly sure how
much less than that . . .
Mr. Martin: The mock-up shows 18 , .
Page Twenty-two
Mr. Kasprzak; Was this the only discrepancy of the ordinance under the
Ms. Maxwell ; But the bottom of the house was already Cfade out)
Mr. Martin: Right, this doesn't move the house. It didn't change. ,
Mr. Gasteiger: Then:, really the protests of the neighbors really isn't
relevant to the error. The error was made.
Mr. Hoard: No, I .
Mr. Martin; No let's not speak for the neighbors, because the neighbors
may wish to speak for th.emselves, . Question? Yes?
Mr. Van Marter: The lot size for a two family house is met. Is : that
correct?
Mr. Hoard: Yeah. The yard is large enough.
Mr. Van Marter: The rear yard, the side yard? Both?
Mr. Hoard: Yeah, the lot is . . . large enough; front yard and width is
the problem.
Mr. Van Marter: Any discrepancy other than front yard and width at
street line; we're talking about two items.
Mr, Hoard: No other zoning discrepancy under . . .
Mr. Van Marter: . . . with right, right . . . .
Mr. Hoard: . R-2 except those two . . .
Mr. Van Marter: Right, O.K. How about parking?
Mr. Hoard: It could meet parking , f
Mr. Van Marter: Sir?
Mr. Hoard: . . . yeah, one car behind the other; it could meet parking.
Mr. Van Marter: Sir?
Mr. Hoard: One car behind the other, it could meet parking, or . .
Mr. Van Marter: That doesn't count. It's got a deficiency of one. Would
you dare give us in general the location of those properties
four houses each way in relation to their front yard set back or
by comparison?
Page Twenty-three
Mr. Hoard; . You mean whether this house is closer , ?
Mr. Van Marter; Is there another four houses each way that meets the 25 foot
set b.ack.?
Mrs. Mendi,ones. I think many houses in that area are built about the same line,
Mr. Van Marter: This is on the south side of the street,
Mr. Hoard: Yes, south side.
Mrs, Mendiones: Yes, south side,
Mr. Van Marter: I have to believe it. That's why I'm asking.
Mrs. Mendiones: I see.
Mr. Van Marter: No outside dimension of the house is altered? (No response)
The percentage of the lot was not increased?
Mr. Hoard: It was altered slightly by the addition of an exterior
stairway.
Mr. Martin: Other . .
Mr. Van Marter: It still did not interfere with the yard we're talking about.
Mrs. Mendiones: " Yes, 1
Mr. Martin: It did or 'did not?
Mr. Van Marter: It did not interfere with the side yard?
Mr. Hoard: No.
Mr. Martin: Are there further questions for the appellant or for the building
commissioner about the discrepancy? Are we ready to hear others on
the matter? Do you have further things you would like to tell us?
Mendiones: No.
Mr. Martin: Is there any one else here this evening who would like to be
heard in this case? First, others who would like to be heard in
support of the requested variance? (no response) Is there any one
who would like to be heard in opposition?
.Ms, Nancy Merod: My name is Nancy Merod and I live at 1007 East State Street,
I have a petition that our neighbors within two hundred feet worked
up. And I would like to read it:
Weare neighbors within 200 feet of 1013 East State Street, We
feel that because the house of that location sits on a small
lot with 50 feet frontage because it lacks adequate parking and
because the current zoning of R-1 prohibits Mr, Mendiones'
plans, that the variance should not be .granted his property. We
realize that Mr. Mendiones was granted a building permit to
Page Twenty-four,
remodel his house. He was in good faith i,n getting that permit.
But, since we were not notified then of his plans wer were not
able to voice our opinions as neighbors. Our primary purpose
is to preserve the integrity of our neighborhood beseiged as it
is by the trucks on State Street. We want it to remain peacefully
residential not become a clutter of two-family rentals with
absentee apartment oriented owners and transient neighbors,
We understand and sympathize Mr. Mendiones' plight; but, after
real thought and discussion, we have to uphold what we find to
be best for our neighborhood."
I uh--I have a copy of the residents within two hundred feet of
the property line. Everyone in total agreed that they did not want
the grant--the permit granted. As far as the property being set back--
This particular house is a little closer to the street than the other
houses along the street and we meet our requirements of 25 feet; some
further. So, this one is a little bit closer than the houses four
on either side, I believe. Also the parking is just minute; just two
cars in tandom style and if you have two residents living there or
more people as R-2 would define it, there's no parking. It's
really very inadequate. So, I submit this for your records, Thank
you.
Mr. Martin: Much of what you said relates to the fact that it has become a
duplex and of course it--and of course the building permit was issued
at a time when the two-family unit was permitted in that area. Could
you focus on the area discrepancies and their impact? Do you have
any question about the picture that the Board has gotten which was
that there had been no changes in the exterior dimension of this
caused by the conversion of the second story to an apartment, The
front yard is no smaller
Ms. Merod: No.
Mr. Martin: . . . because of this.
Ms. Merod: No. No. No, it wasn't. Now we could have helped previously. I
guess had we been notified you know, by letter at the time of the first
permit. But we were not--as member--as neighbors within 200feetof
the lot line, So, at the time before . .
Mr. Martin: Well , the owners would have proceeded differently had they under-
stood that this was required, too, I mean, uh� ,
Ms. Merod: I'm sorry, I don't understand that.
Mr. Martin; I'm saying that apparently the owners were not aware.that this
required . . ,
Ms. Merod: Oh, . I see ,
Page Twenty-five
Mr. Martin; Things would have been a lot nicer had this all been understood
back in July. ,
Ms. Merod; Right.
Mr. Martin: . . . and apparently it was not,
Mr. Kasprzak: You mentioned in your petition that absentee land lord is a
problem. Are the Mendiones living somewhere else? Rather than in
the house that they are remodeling?
Ms. Merod: Yes.
Mr. Kasprzak: They are living somewhere else?
Ms. Merod: Yes.
Mr. Kasprzak: Thank you.
Mr. Van Marter: With that response do you expect the zoning ordinance ,to
protect the neighborhood by being only owner-occupied?
Ms. Merod: No. No, I don't think, I. Well ,--I'm sorry, I misunderstood..
Go ahead.
Mr. Van Marter: Would you expect protection under the zoning ordinance
that the ownership of the property imply that it be owner--occupied?
Ms. Merod: I don't know if that would fall under the zoning board's juris-
diction.
Mr. Van Marter: Might you expect it to fall under the zoning ordinance?
Ms, Merod: Uh., Yes, I think I would; but . .
Mr. Van Marter: Thank you. Could you suggest out of ten houses in either
direction in this location that there might be one that met the front
yard requirement for R-1 zoning--25 feet from property line,
Ms. Merod: Yes sir, there is one.
Mr. Van Marter: One out of ten, Thank you.
Mr. Martin: Are there others here?
Ms, Kathryn Bankowsky: My name is Kathryn Bankowsky and I live at 108 Trava
Avenue which is one street South of East State Street, Um, I don't
mean to sound like an ogre and I 'm not trying to put the pressure
on city bodies, like the planning body, the planning board and
the board of zoning appeals, However, I do th.ink that there is also
Page Twenty-six
the righ_t. of neighbors who already have bought homes within that--
they.consi,der to be a one-family type neighborhood and who wish to
retain that spirit, that nature of the neighborhood then through
perhaps some fault either within a city board or city official
there has come to be a misinterpretation which then in turn affects
a whole neighborhood. Just where exactly does that put us who live
within the neighborhood. I mean, are our rights not to be also--
well--protected, as the appellent is asking for protection of hi.s
rights? I mean where do you draw, you know, just where--just--
just how do you make a decision in these kinds of cases?
Mr. Martin: With. great difficulty. (.all laugh).
Ms. Bankowsky: Um--Um--
Mr. Martin: Can you help us make that decision? That is, can you ,
Mrs. Bankowsky: May I go on and say Excuse me, I 'm sorry, but may I go
on and say that the house which was purchased and apparently was
purchased with th-e idea of converting it into a two family home
is the smallest home within the neighborhood. The most inappro-
priate house to convert into a two-family home. And I would like
to ask the question, I guess, of the building commissioner: is
there not some sort of requirement of space within a house that one
must adhere to when.you are going to convert into a two-family
home.
Mr. Hoard: Yes, there is.
Ms. Bankowsky: And may I know what it is (laugh)?
Mr. Martin: Well , that right now is not the--the house was to be, according
to the building permit, was to be converted so that it would meet
those space requirements. It has floor area--it meets floor area
requirements--
Ms. Bankowsky: It--isn't it also height?
Mr. Martin: Well , that--it is my understanding that it was to be uh changed.
Ms. Bankowsky: But , . .
Mr. Martin: And, that was the Mendiones understanding--that the contractor
was going to modify the house so that there would be---it would be--
so it would meet the height requirements on the second floor as
well .
Ms. Bankowsky: But, did he actually. Because, to the best of my knowledge
the only remodelin,g that was done was to, I think, to add dormer
windows. And, that did not change the space as far as height is
concerned on the second floor, It is the--the house--that is, the
style of the house is what was always commonly called "an income
bungalow" which meant that all of your living spade was on the
first floor and an attic' was above. And the attic was normally
a very low ceiling. Now, to the best of my knowledge, as I say,
Page Twenty-seven
the only remodeling that was done was,-that has been done in this
case is to add dormer windows, Does that satisfy the zoning or
the' b_uilding requirements?
Mr. Hoard; No, not as it is now.
Ms. Bankowsky: So, that is in violation?
Mr. Hoard: It is in violation of the building inspection code, yes, But,
that is not part of this board's problem to solve, That should be
the next step, if this board grants the variance. But, they some-
how would have to correct that problem.
Ms. Bankowsky: So, then there does exist a problem which I don't--I didn't
get, the impression that the board was aware of this,
Mr. Martin: We are aware of it, but it lies outside our jurisdiction. We
are concerned solely with the zoning ordinance, We are the Board
of Zoning Appeals.
Ms. Bankowsky: Yes, well--I understand all that but I think ,
Mr. Martin: And an . . .
Ms. Bankowsky: . , . It is becoming to be very cloudy as to just how .
Mr. Martin: Well , let's make it clearer. Suppose we should grant the
variance in th.is case. That would not say that the second floor
apartment could be occupied. Because that still would not clear
the problem with the building codes that are being—and that pro-
blem would then confront the Mendiones, Something that we could
not help them deal with- .
Ms. Bankowsky: All right, all right then
Mr. Martin: . . . but wish to.
Ms, Bankowsky: All right then, that satisfies my question about that. I
really, really just wanted to speak in defense of not only our
neighborhood, but neighborhoods . throughout the City of Ithaca
where houses are being turned into multiple house uses and where
the land lord in many, many cases does not live there and conse-
quently you get a deterioration of the house, of the property
that the house sits on and it just sort of creates a blight through-
out the general neighborhood. And, this is happening time and time
and time and time. And if you walk down East State Street, or if
you walk down College Avenue, you can see many, many examples of
just this. And, there are many of us who have lived in Ithaca
over the years and who have really come to love the place. And we--
and it is really, really depressing and dismaying to see the de-
terlorati.on which is taking place in a rather, rather rapid rate,
Page Twenty-eight
I would say within the last six years, since group housing has become
such_ a popular thing withi.n .the town and we are not opposed to groups,
but we are really opposed to ownership of houses where maintenance
Is not considered part of the responsibility of ownersh. p, . Thank
you.
Mr. Martin: Thank you,
Mr. Mendiones: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. When we got this property in
July of this year that district was R-1 , until it was R-.2 on Septem-
ber 3rd, I think, or 4th. As for the putting of the second floor
apartment, if we were informed before September 4th when the new
zoning was enforced, we would have stopped everything, For the
information of the members of the zoning board, that house was put
on fire and there was a sign on one of the steps of the stairs,
It says "we will get you.":, It is not our fault that we went through
with the construction and with all the expenses. If we were informed
before that we .would be very happy to have that house as a single
family--so . . .
Mrs. Mendiones: May I add one thing? We didn't know at the time that it would
be like this. If we had known that it would be against the wish of the
residents in that area we wouldn't have done that. So, we are very
sorry that we proceeded with. that project before we knew the wish of
our neighbors there, And, as for your complaint about the size of
the apartment there, we would be very happy to show the house. It
would be our pleasure to show the house to anybody who cares to go
and look at it. The speaker complained a while ago that it's too
small for two families. So, we would like to extend the invitation
if you think your-if any body would like to see it,
Mr. Martin: Are there further questions? (no response) Thank you.
Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard in this case? Hearing
none that concludes our heari.ng on it and what is the next case?
Mr. Van Marter: May I ask a question?
Mr. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Van Marter: On the face of the application, it is not indicated whether
or not it is use variance, And, from what I've heard, I have an
opinion, Can we complete this? Page one of the application.
Mr. Martin; What's your recommendation? I don't have my paper right here
Mr. Van Marter: The variance is not indicated there. Are they talking
abgat a use or area variance,
Mr. Martin: Well , of course, the use isinconsistent with current zoning; but,
at the time that the permit was issued it was consistent, It has
.been advertised in terms that refer to both, retroactive area vari-
ance to convert a single family into a two-family dwelling, In my
own view, and I 'm stating my own viewy it is appropriate to deal
Page Twenty-nine
with it as a request for an area variance under the terms of the
old ordinance. Can we move on to the next case?
Mr. Van Marter: If that's the hold, would it be well for the record to do
that while we are in public session.
Mr. Martin: Well , it certainly would have to be reflected in the record
when we submit the results in public session. I don't know as we
need do it now.
Mr. Hoard: The next is Appeal 1138, the appeal of Evans Products Co. ,
Grossman's Division, for area variance under Section 30.25, Col .
13, to enlarge an existing building at 505 Third Street in and I-1
use district.
Mr. Halverson: Good evening. My name is Richard Halverson, construction
supervisor for the Grossman's Division of Evans Products Co. As
you know, we presently operate a building materials and home
improvement center at 505 Third Street, also abutting Route 13.
We have,over the years, increased the sales volume at this particu-
lar retail outlet to a point where the facility as it exists is not
capable of serving the market in this city adequately, we feel .
We would like to spend a large sum of money to renovate, upgrade the
existing building, the parking area and facilities on the property
in general . To do so, we feel that it is necessary for us to en-
large and alter the existing steel building which is on the site
now to accommodate a wider variety of merchandise to better service
the needs of the customers. We would also propose to demolish the
existing wood-frame structure which now sits on the front of the
property as you face it from Third Street. This wood-frame structure,
as any of you who have been to this particular store will realize, is
very old. It is what I would consider to be a fire hazard. We've
had,:some structural problems with the building. We've done shoring
in the building. At present it is used as back-up storage facility
for lumber and bulk material . We would do away with this structure
--entirely convert that space to increased parking facilities for
customer use. If I can at this point show you a plan--a site plan--
of what we propose to do there, I think it will indicate (jumble
as speaker moves away from microphone in order to distribute copies .
of plans) . The existing building being shown--the existing retail
building--being shown in this area now has a canopy which is 20 feet
wide, it has a roof and walls on e4ther end and it is open. What we
propose to do is to construct a wall on the face of this building and
remove what is now exterior walls and make this an interior portion
of the sales area of the building. Construct a new canopy identical
to the one we have standing there now. We would still be on this
side within--on the proper side and rear yard requirements. The
Page Thirty
existing structure, which I mentioned, that would be demolished,
is on the front of the property, up here--a wood-frame on the
rear half and its a two-story stucco and wood strcture. Pre-
sently, we have a tenant in the front portion which will be
vacating very shortly. As I said, this area will now become
parking to increase the parking area by some 30 odd cars. The
area occupied by that will be paved. We will repave the exis-
ting parking lot that is there now. - We will pave an area now
that is gravelled and an area to the side of the building and
to the rear of the building will be paved. We propose to re-
build the entrance to the store which is now under this canopy,
but will be the front of the building. We propose to build an
aluminum and glass storefront. The reason that we are applying
for an area variance is that the existing steel structure is
now one foot from the side property line. The code requires
that there be at least 6 feet in the side yard, Now, we have
along this side property line a Lehigh Valley Railroad spur
line which services our building, That spur line along with the
main track takes up greater than 100 feet, more than 100 feet,
from our building, Beyond that is the access to the City Sewage
Treatment Plant which is out to the north corner of our property,
This, I think you will agree, is not only to beautify the area
but will also clean up this eyesore. It will eliminate a fire
hazzard. We will decrease the total square footage of buildings
on the property, because we want to make the existing structure
more useful and we will. be creating a better traffic pattern.
This kind of a narrow corridor that cars have to pull in here
and trucks have to pull in here and it is very congested during
various periods when trucks are in here and we have a lot
of customer traffic. So, we will be widening this area out here
and increasing visibility at this intersection, although it is
not a very heavily travelled intersection. Third Street, as you
are probably aware, does not go but one lot past us. It ends
out here by the City Sewage Treatment Plant. All of the materials--
we only occupy this rear section of the building. As I said,
there is a tenant which occupies this part. He will be vacating.
This material now will be rearranged and restocked to occupy this
canopy which we will now be able to use more efficiently than we
do the present one because now we are using this as an entrance
so that you cannot stock materials in on top of it now. And, we
will be rearranging the interior of the building, We are going
to be demolishing some Jnterior partition work so that we can
get a better stocking of materials within the existing building
as such.
Mr. Martin: The dimension which is causing the problem is not being
changed at all?
Mr. Halverson: No, the existing dimension that's in violation--that
causes nonconformity will not be increased. We will still be—
we will not be greating any more nonconformity situations. '
Page Thirty-one
Mr. Martin: Are there further questions? (no response) Thank you. Is there
anyone else, here this evening who would like to be heard in this
case.
Mr. Vincent Giordano: My name is Vincent Giordano. I introduced myself before.
I didn't come up here for this case, but as with the planning board, I
would like to speak in favor of the Evans Company for two reasons.
One reason is, I don't know if you people are very familiar with their
operation here in the last ten years--fifteen years; but, inside the
state fence that would exist on Route 13, they have the neatest buil-
ding materials yard that you will see anywhere in the State of New
York. All their lumber is piled very neatly; all of their roofing
shingles--there is never a paper in the yard. I have never seen a
well-kept place as they keep its And, I think that they should be
highly commended.
Mr. Kasprzak: They have . . .
Mr. Giordano: They also--I am familiar with this plan; I have seen it. They
are also improving appearances of the building by taking that old
shed down. And, I think that they should be granted the variance
because I think they are making a big improvement to that area,
building and property.
Mr. Martin: Is there anyone else who would like to be heard in this case?
Hearing none, that will conclude the hearing in Case 1138. Next
case?
Mr. Hoard: Appeal 1139--appeal of Beatrice Dennis for use variance under
Section 30.25, Col . 2, to use the premises at 1023-25 North Tioga
Street for a home decorating and upholstery business in an R-3 use
district.
Ms. Beatrice Dennis: I have been here before. My name is Beatrice Dennis.
Now the building that is in question has always been a commercial
building. I mean, this space has always been commercial and we
had a variance granted to put an office there and the office
dissolved. Now, we are asking for a variance to put this business.
There have been several businesses in that building. In fact, it
was originally built as a hotel and then later it was converted
into a grocery store. The business that is going in there now
will be the operator and probably no more htan two employees. She
will be doing interior decorating, counseling and reupholstering,
making of drapes, and so forth. I expect the front part of the
building will be used for display and the back room probably for
machinery. This is, sewing machines and the other work that she
has to do. As far as anything that would be detrimental to the
neighborhood, I can't see where it would.
Page Thirty-two
Mr. Martin: You have been here before. We have heard about this case before.
Perhaps we ought to get it all in the record tonight, This is, as
you point out, a structure in which there has been non-residential
uses for some time.
Ms. Dennis: That's right.
Mr. Martin: But, as a nonconforming use every time there is a change, you
have to come back for. a variance. One of the things that we would
have to find to grant a variance that the space as currently arranged
can't really be used for a residence, Can you give us detail on that
point? What--how would you answer the argument that ought--at 'this
point given the return of greater numbers of residents--people living
in the area revert to an apartment down below?
Ms. Dennis: By putting an apartment in there? We already have two apart-
ments in the building. The space is not condusive to apartment--
there 's only three rooms there. Of course, the front room is a large
room. But, to convert that into an apartment would be quite expen-
sive and at this point impossible because I believe the Zoning
Board turndown even before we requested it, an apartment being in
there.
Mr. Martin: . There are three rooms; the front room being quite large,
Ms. Dennis: The middle room is small : 7 x 12. It is 45 x 15 overall .
Mr. Martin: Can you describe to us the kind of traffic that this tenant
hopes for? How many people will be coming up and going away in a
day are there likely to be? How are they like to distribute them-
selves through a day.
Ms. Dennis : Could you tell us? (Asked of tenant) I am not sure how many
customers you have during the day,
Mr, Martin: Do you have your tenant here? Perhaps she would come and answer
some questions.
Ms. Miles: My name is Terry Miles. We have been operating the business on a
much larger basis than we intend to in this area--in this building.
There should not be more than one person there at a time. It is
mostly by appointment.
Mr. Martin: Any feel as to how many people in the course of a day would
come and go?
Ms. Miles: Three or four, hopefully,
Mr, Martin: Are ,there any questions from the members of the Board?
Page Thirty-three
Mr. Greenberg: I 'll ask a question that we've asked before. Will you have
stock around? Will you have a selection of goods and materials to
sell or to show to your customers?
Ms. Miles: Um, most of the selling will be from samples. Not large--
Mr. Greenberg: Not from a large stock?
Ms. Miles: Yes.
Mr. Kasprzak: How many machines will you have in the back?
Ms. Miles: One. One .sewing machine. It's a commercial sewing machine.
Mr. Kasprzak: Only one?
Ms. Miles: There are small machines, like small saws and that type of
thing,
Mr. Kasprzak: I know someone who is doing the same sort of things that
you are suggesting and she has more than one machine,
Ms. Miles: I have more too. But, we are cutting down our business. This
is what we propose to do, mostly my husband and myself. In the
past we've had 8 employees, It gets to be too much to handle,
Mr. Martin: Further questions? Parking will have to be in the street?
Is that right?
Ms. Miles: That's right.
Mr. Gasteiger: No off-street parking? ,
Mr. Martin: I guess there are no further questions. Is there anyone
else who wishes to be heard on this? First, anyone who wishes to
be heard in favor of the requested variance? (no response) .
Anyone who wishes to be heard in opposition? (no response) . That
than concludes our public hearing in these cases. The .Board will
go into Executive Session to consider them. For those of you who
want to stay around for the results we will reconvene in public
session to announce that.
I
HELP LIMITED
Buffalo Street
Ithaca NY 14850
TIME SHEET
Tom Hoard, Commissioner
City of Ithaca
30 hours time spent preparing minutes of November Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting. _
Aneta S.-./Glover/
Approved by•
Dated: 3/7/77
cc: T. Hoard
A. Glover
Help Limited
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DECISIONS MADE IN EXCUTIVE SESSION 1
APPEAL NO. 1135 14
APPEAL NO. 1136 18
APPEAL NO. 1137 19
APPEAL NO. 1138 29
APPEAL NO. 1139 31
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that the attached manuscript is a
true copy of the original typed version of the
Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
conducted November 1 , 1976.
Aneta S. Glover
Dated: J
December 7, 1976
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The attached manuscript represents 110 hours of secretarial time
due to technical problems with the taperecordings (cassettes) ; most
speakers' voices were garbled and extraneous noise pervaded the
voices.
However, since the job normally requires 30 hours of time, I am
submitting a time sheet for Help Limited for a representative
30 hours.
Thank you for this experience in wor 'ng with a local ggverning
body,
Aneta S. GievW
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that the attached manuscript is a
true copy of the original typed version of the
Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
conducted November 1 , 1976.
Aneta S. Gloygi
Dated: � ���