HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1977-02-07 TABLE OF CONTENTS
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS,
ITHACA, NEW YORK - FEBRUARY 7 , 1977
PAGE
Appeal No. 1141 R. W. Baker & N. P. Baker 2 - 37
412-414 N. Tioga Street
Appeal No. 1141 Executive Session 38
Appeal No. 1145 and 1149 - Albanese Plumbing 39 - 50
102 Adams Street
Appeal No. 1145 and 1149 - Executive Session 51 - S2
Appeal No. 1150 Ithaca Gymnastics Center S3 - S6
1
119 Third Street
Appeal No. 1150 Executive Session 57
:M
'i
Appeal No. 1147 Gulf Oil Company 58 - 63
302 W. Seneca Street
s
Appeal No. 1147 Executive Session 64
i+
Appeal No. 1148 Southshore Automatics 65 - 72
213 First Street
Appeal No. 1148 Executive Session 73
i
Certification of Recording Secretary 74
j4
if
t'
I!
i
i�
i
E BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA
CITY COURT, ITHACA, NEW YORK
FEBRUARY 7 , 1977
�i
Iregular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca,
i
ejwas held in City Court Chambers, Ithaca, New York on February 7,
.977.
PRESENT: Peter Martin, Chairman
ii C. Murray 'Van Marter E
{ Gregory Kasprzak
I Martin Greenberg
i Edgar Gasteiger
i,
Judith Maxwell
Thomas Hoard, Building Commissioner and
Secretary
Barbara Ruane, Recording Secretary
hairman Martin opened the meeting listing memebers of the Board
{Present . The Zoning Board operates under the provisions of the
�thaca City Charter and the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Our procedure )
�s a fairly simple and straight forward one . We take the cases in
i
1�ublic session in order. On occasion when they are out of numerica]
", ff
''rder we may bring together two cases involving the same individual.
?�Ve ask that all who participate in the hearings identify themself
,y name and address (do we have any single place where it would mako
i
*$ense for people testifying to come? Sit at the end of the table,
i
peaking to the members of the Board but speaking loud enough so
i�
hat the others present also could hear. ) Identify yourself by
Game and address , limit your remarks to the issues that are before
3
E
he Board. After hearing those who are speaking in favor of the
requested action first, both the appellant and any others who want
io speak in favor of a requested action, then we hear any present
ho want to speak in opposition. We move through the cases and then'
i�
o in to Executive Session to deliberate and we reconvene in public
session to announce the results. We have a full docket this evening
�nd we do have two or three cases which are back for a second time
�f
oto the Board. In such a case where the matter has received a full
E
} earing already - there is no need to go over the ground covered
�n the earlier hearing. So what we would be interested in,
;i
$n such cases, is new material. A change in plans ,
i
s
ii
- 2 -
� i
I i
►additional evidence, matters that particularly concern the Board, j
i
!lMr. Secretary, what is our first case? i
Secretary Hoard announced the first case to be heard, i
i9
IIAPPEAL NO. 1141 : Appeal of Robert W. Baker and Natalie P. Baker
for an interpretation or use variance under
Section 30. 25, Col. 2, to use the second floor
r' of the building at 412-414 North Tioga Street
for a professional office for a lawyer, engineerl,
'! architect, accountant, real estate broker, or
insurance salesman.
?ROBERT WI'LLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is f
�j
{►Robert Williamson, I am with Mazza, Williamson and Clune and we were
llhere before as those of you who were present at that time, recall.
{
!;The thrust of our presentation at that time, for those of you who
'►,were not here, and for those of you who were here was, that we felt
1that under a variance granted June 1, 1961 that we had the authority
!without further hearings and request for a use variance to use the
,;building for the purposes which the chairman has just enumerated -
i
iexcuse me, the Building Commissioner. We have this evening new
;'evidence and to present that this evening is Mr. Richard Schechter
?;an attorney from Syracuse .who is co-counsel with me and I will let
!him proceed with the evidence which we have tonight which is entirely
sinew - for the consideration of this Board,
;RICHARD SCHECHTER: Good evening, I would like to make a few brief,
sopening comments . I would say, since I wasn't here the first time,
1d
lithere may be a few things that I will hit which will be repetitive
;land I apologize to the Board if that does occur. I will try to
'!keep my remarks, however, and the witnesses comments, to new evi- !
Idence and to new issues. This is a two-fold application: in the
jfirst instance we are asking for an interpretation of the zoning
it
;ordinance or to be exact, an interpretation of the 1961 variance to
1
�j
; the effect that it would allow the uses that we contemplate here ana
i
4in the event that that interpretation is not acceptable to the Board,
;,the Board does not view the 1961 variance in that light, then we ask
for an additional use variance this evening. That use variance is
;,Iprincipally the same as the one previously applied for for which
we are here at a rehearing this evening, except that the application
i
has been amended to include all the uses that were just enumerated.'
Speaking to the interpretation first, this is a situation where a
i
i
3
r
.a
!variance was requested with the understanding by the applicant that;
I!Ihe would be able to use this entire building for the purpose of
f
�Iprofessional offices and he built the building, as the evidence willl
!3
;later show, with that understanding in mind, The building is
i
;!entirely office in nature. There is no portion of the building
'iwhich really even remotely resembles an apartment. However, at the!
;!time that the application was made, it was Dr. Baker' s intention to
i
Aemporarily, for a period of some years , allow his mother to reside!
!in the upper office portion of the premises. For that reason he
Idid, perhaps inadvertently, add to the variance request , mention ofd
14.an apartment use. l' think it is important for the Board to note
lIthat it was not necessary at that time or ever to include that
dapartment in the variance application. The entire thing was per-
;!haps inadvertent on all sides, since an apartment use was a totally
!!allowed use in the district then, as now, there really was no need
i! I
to have it in the application it was superfluous . I think it was'
; put in there primarily because they thought that if they built a
'Itotally office building that they had to ask to have an apartment
!!use in it, otherwise it would just be an - once they got the vari-
:lance they would only be allowed to have offices in it. I think
!Dr. Baker always intended, as the evidence will show, to utilize
',!that portion of the premise at some later date for this purpose ands
i
'*hen this proceeding started, what actually happened was Dr. Baker, '
;
;,totally ignorant of the fact that he might somehow be in violation !
of the zoning ordinance, rented that premise for an office use and
i
;'then sometime later, after a complaint - the Building Department
%rought action and he had to cease using it and bring this applica—
tion. So we are going to bring evidence relating to that interpre- !
_
;Ration and I think that it is important to note that the previously ;
I
jisubmitted certificate of compliance, lists the building as being a
(commercial building and it doesntt say anything about apartments
i
ii
jthat was previously, Bob, in the record that a building permit . . .
141s that . . .
! i
;
I
- 4 -
�q I
IOBERT WILLIAMSON: Well , there was a building permit in 169 where
they had the addition to the building which listed it as a profes-
sional building. There was also, as I say, initially in 1961 it
as the doctor's understanding that the variance granted, as Mr.
Schechter has pointed out , allowed the use of the entire buiding
for professional purposes and that was the thrust of our initial
i6
1Iargument. Tonight we are here with additional evidence which we wi 1
I
(proceed to give dealing with the economic considerations .
(RICHARD SCHECHTER: The second, and very important group of issues j
that we are going to bring evidence upon is the use variance issues1lt
I
Land we will bring evidence to show that there is a definite hardship
I�
;situation here a standard hardship typical in a zoning situation,
{Ian unnecessary hardship that there is a significant economic injury
'i
Ilto the applicant if the variance is not granted. In addition we
R
ljwill show that the uses that we are applying for will not be detri-
1
(►mental , will not be of large magnitude and will not create, if the
,jvariance is granted there will be no detriment whatsoever to the
lihealth, safety or welfare of the community. I think it is also
Ivery important to note, at this point , in discussing unnecessary
c
hardship and the significant economic injury that there has been a
long line of recent cases in New York State discussing that unneces
sary hardship rule and modifying it to some extent. The Court of
lAppeals ruled 1968 in Fulling v Palumbo that, in an instance where
{the applicant shows a significant economic injury then the variance
�Ishould be granted unless the municipality has some strong evidence
Ito indicate that, if the variance is granted that there would be a
detrimental effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the com-
munity. In other words , if there will not be a detrimental affect
(upon the health, safety and welfare of the community then the
!
(variance should be granted if the applicant can prove a significant
1
economic injury. At this point I would like to call Dr. Baker.
! i
!ROBERT WILLI'AMSON: Mr. Chairman, should we have the microphone in
j — I
the middle of this table? Do you think it is picking it up okay?
{I 1
�! I
'i
!
I
i
5 -
PETER MARTIN: Well , we will consult the expert , is it picking it
up? f
(ROBERT WILLIAMSON: I didn't know Tom, whether it wouldn't be bette
Ito have one in the middle of the table or not.
jTHOMAS HOARD: It probably will work better.
! RICHARD SCHECHTER: Doctor, would you state your full name for the
i.
record?
IjDR. BAKER: Robert Baker.
( RICHARD SCHECHTER: And your residence address?
IDR. BAKER: 615 Cayuga Heights Road..
RICHARD SCHECHTER: And the address of the property in question thi
i
( evening?
i
IDR. BAKER: 412-414 N. Tioga Street. i
( a
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Can you tell us when that building was con- !
Fs
structed doctor?
JDR. BAKER: The property was acquired in the 60 ' s and the building
I
11constructed in '61 .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Can you tell me your intention in building that
I I
building at the time?
4 �
JIaDR. BAKER: Yes, my intention was to build and locate my offices
3
j�as a professional office building.
11RICHARD SCHECHTER: Now you have just heard me discussing to some
hextent and Bob Williamson discussing your intentions at the time,
1
j�would you say that our comments accurately reflected, in other word
i
'!did you intend the entire building to be used for office purposes?
�DR. BAKER: Yes , it was built as a professional office building.
(RICHARD SCHECHTER: Was it your understanding at the time that you
I
applied for the variance in 1961 that that variance for professiona
:I
Iloffices would cover the entire building?
,DR. BAKER: Yes it was.
i
RICHARD SCHECHTER: And dial you build the building in that way, in
E
;!other words, is there a portion of that building which is essen-
ftially apartment or is it entirely an office building?
�R- BAKER; It was built at the time as a professional office
I�
j
G'
I
;i
i
6 -
�I
;wilding with the footings and everything placed for additions as al,
� i
10rofessional office building as built at that time.
J�RICHARD SCHECHTER: Now I understand that for some period of time t at
1, our mother resided upstairs. It was also my understanding that I
she was significantly active in your office practice in the lower
i
ortion of the building, j
j
11DR. BAKER: That' s true, yes she was .
j RICHARD SCHECHTER: And there came a time when your mother moved
I
out.
IDR. BAKER: Yes , she used a portion of the building and she was a
part of the practice it was never used for a rental property, ,
1s
;never construed as that. She was a economic consideration on my
ii
;part for her helping in the various aspects that she did throughout ,
11thetime that she was there in the building. i
f
(PETER MARTIN: Excuse me Doctor, could you describe the portion of
I. i
,!the building that your mother occupied, facilities it had . . .
'!RICHARD SCHECHTER: Excuse me , we were going to get to that. I
+have some diagrams and what not, so , . , T can sort this material
i
'out and we can actually skip right to that. This is a blue print
lof the entire building all three floors and I would like to
Ij E
pubmit it as an exhibit -- you might want to mark it perhaps .
;PETER MARTIN: You can mark it Exhibit "A".
+RICHARD SCHECHTER: Okay. If you want to i have a number of
'them. Perhaps it will help to keep it clear. Doctor could you
;!very briefly describe these and then we will submit them so that
1�everyone can see them.
!IDR. BAKER: Well, you are now open to a drawing of the first floor I
I
! level of my office of our office complex where we house - at the
11present time, five doctors in the practice. It ' s now . . . . this is
( the original building plus the addition that was made in 1969 or
11whenever it was , with our waiting/reception area, private offices,
f
i
large expanse of treatment area, the whole professional complex as
I �
!;it is with a single bar and joist construction, poured concrete
1
11floors, same for both floors . Perhaps back here we can see the
(lower level which at one time housed Atlantic Dental Company, among
�� f
i
_ 7 _
"other things - part of it did. Now it expanded at the time of our
;1
addition to again house X-ray facilities with leaded walls , office
:facilities for our staff, business office facilities , a staffing
�1room for our staff conferences that we hold and the area under
jquestion showing the reception room in the front area, private
offices along here, toilet facilities on this floor, as on both
other floors , a lounge area here again and the individual offices
rhich have been used as Atlantic Dental Company and other things
throughout the time that we have been there. Again showing where ,
we have . . . .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Doctor, excuse me just a second if I may inter-
I
I�frupt. I have one of the next witnesses , this is a document but it
I
,1
i1just happens that it has all of this in it so if I pass these out
11now then everybody can - the blueprint is in the back . . .
DOCTOR BAKER: Well , that ' s basically, I guess , what I had to say.
I
�IRICHARD SCHECHTER: It ' s one of the fold-outs in the rear there.
i
`1I think it' s very important to note that, except for some very
!E
;minor changes , the property has been in this state ever since it
jwas built.
s
41DR. BAKER: I think most of you are looking at this first page
which is the reception area, private offices through, again, as it
�1has been since . . . . ,
PETER MARTIN: Again, not wanting to anticipate, but having the
i
concern, my original question evidenced, at the time this building
was first built, when your mother was an occupant, the portion of int
( where was it and what facilities did that have?
1DR. BAKER: Right here, the second floor - she used part of it, !
E
(when she used it. She was not there all of the time.
PETER MARTIN: Can I know which part of it she used and how it was
outfitted?
i
1DR. BAKER: Well , I guess you would say the interior portion, the
11front portion was used . . .
PETER MARTIN: Was there a kitchen there?
i!
IJDR, BAKER: Yes , there was kitchen facilities, yes.
f�
ji
i=
I
CI
?� f
i
- 8 -
I
PETER MARTIN: And a bathroom?
i
DR. BAKER: Umm. .umm. fIf
PETER MARTIN: And a bedroom? I
�DR. BAKER: Uh huh. And there is a kitchen on the first floor
also, for our staff.
i
I
PETER MARTIN: And what portion of it was put to other use during
the period that she was occupying it?
'IDR. BAKER: Well , all of it was put to other use during the period
,while she was there sometimes sometimes she wasn' t. Business
1conference - it was used for Atlantic Dental Company used portions
iof it, we used portions of it - the practice.
�TETER MARTIN: Letts just say the first year, after it was built.
s
Can you give me a picture of how much she was there. . . .
10
1DR. BAKER: Since 1960. Not much the first year I wouldn' t say.
4[
111She was basically with me the first year.
'PETER MARTIN: And then she moved in. . .
J!
1DR. BAKER: And between there and Florida - she used it when she
was here and then some
#PETER MARTIN: Okay then, when she was here and using it, I assume
ishe occupied all of it?
e?
1DR. BAKER: No, part of it - little parts of it - part of it . i
;(RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think that the portion that s outlined on
[ I
(this one in red is the only portion that can at all be used for that
it
I
�Ipurpose. i
(PETER MARTIN: Has there been any interior alteration of that por-
ftion since the period when she occupied it regularly?
HDR. BAKER; The internal alteration was done, I would say, at the {
iitime of the last building permit that we did anything. f
31 g P i
iiPETER MARTIN: 169. I
i
1DR. BAKER: Yes , we did nothing - nothing basically has been
Ichanged in this plan basically since that time, I would say.
PETER MARTIN: So that area outlined in red on the on that plan
i
its the portion that, when she was occupying it, you might say was
t[
lithe area she occupied. I
'i ,
kI
i�
�I
.i
;1
9 -
e� j
i
�1DR. BAKER: Yes, I would say that' s about right.
i
��PETER MARTIN: And which portion of that would have been her bed-
�' s
11 room? '
11DR. BAKER: I think down here this right end the further end.
11RICHARD SCHECHTER: I have some Mr. Chairman, I have some photos
i
;which I would like to we are going to discuss them in more detail!
1�
Illater, but perhaps I can pass them around now. They very aptly
i� �
; indicate . . .
{PETER MARTIN: I hardly want to lengthen things so perhaps I will ,
liperhaps at this point , shut up and let you proceed with the pre-
Isentation you have.
!,RICHARD SCHECHTER: Okay, I think I would make the comment it is
jfobviously not our position that itis impossible for somebody to
j: live up there, but rather it our position that it ' s impossible
to rent this space for an apartment use for residential use.
;PETER MARTIN: Alright, but you are also arguing that what was
iintended in 161 and what the Board granted variance for, was a full;
;office rather than office plus an apartment. Now you will recall
;;that the legal notices giving notice of that hearing in 161 re-
,4
1:ferred to it as an office and an apartment and indeed the applica-
ltion for a variance did so that much of what r
� you are now intro- i
educing goes to the question what was granted in 161 and what was I
!}not. That ' s why I am focusing on the original intent and the
I
,!original use of the upstairs .
LIRICHARD SCHECHTER: No, I understand that . Well , I think perhaps
!
Ilwe' ll leave those for a few minutes and just go on to just a few
questions here. Could you tell us briefly doctor, why the upstairs
;;portion of this building would not be suitable for medical uses
Ior a use as part of your practice?
i3
;IDR. BAKER: Yes, it is very difficult to have medical patients , and!
i
1we do a lot of trauma, to have patients come to the second floor of
it
4he building without elevator service. That ' s the reason that it
;isn' t good. It' s the reason that second floor, downtown locations
E
;today and I can show you all type of statistics are just not I
!I �
i
.i
'f !
i
�I
10 -
P
!
useable. It's hard to get someone with a broken leg and a broken I
Ijaw up to a second floor to do emergency treatment .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: And of course there are all sorts of elderly
i
#people that . . .
1�DR. BAKER: Itis true.
! RICHARD SCHECHTER: Now, can you tell us , in your own mind, why
i
the upstairs is not suitable for an apartment use?
d
d
i
it Y
BAKER:: es, was never intended., I don't know how to say I
i� y
it - it was used as my convenience, I felt, to let someone utilize
while I was there for I had a commercial build. . . a professional
tt,building and we used it for anapartment while we were there and !
I`
we'd readily planned and it was designed as a . . . it ' s not de i
!signed as an apartment.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I understand that you listed the property with
i
� a broker - a number of brokers, in an attempt to rent it for resi-
�t
dential purposes, is that true? Was there any success at all - was
d
anyone interested at all? P
! DR. BAKER: Nothing.
; RICHARD SCHECHTER: How long a period of time was it listed with
i
I;brokers?
F ,
1DR. BAKER: A period of months.
j�RICHARD SCHECHTER: A number of months and do you remember which e
!a i
brokers . . .
11DR. BAKER: Yes , Gallagher, Burns , Hewitt, Patterson,
;PETER MARTIN: When was this doctor?
,1DR. BAKER: Let' s see about July, August, September - through there,
of 1975.
i
11RICHARD SCHECHTER: So that, with all of those brokers and over a !
E;
;period of a number of months you were totally unsuccessful in getting
lanyone to rent the premises as an apartment use, is that correct?
DR. BAKER: Correct.
PETER MARTIN: Did you list it with Cornell or other major employer?
! DR, BAKER: I 'm sure they listed itwitheveryone, yes . It was
,totally listed.
!j !
�� i
i I
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Okay, now, at this time I would briefly like to�
i
{
submit this additional couple of documents which we can exhibit -
� B and C - perhaps. The doctor can briefly explain them. This is i
jfa parking layout as it presently exists .
PETER MARTIN: Alright, let 's call that"B".
iRICHARD SCHECHTER: I think it is self evident. We don' t need to
i
waste time with it. There are fifty-eight parking spaces . Now,
Rthis exhibit "C" is a rearrangement of the parking spaces which we
are willing to do if the Board, for instance, wished it. We have 1
no desire to do it. The only reason we show it is that it does
I
( show seventy-eight spaces to indicate that we have ample parking
;for any possible contingency. Doctor can you very briefly describer
i
ithe character of your block?
IDR. BAKER: Yes, on the corner we have a Synagogue, we have rental
i
property next door to that . The following property is my property-
is
ro ertY-
is the building we've all been through this is the two dental I
i
+I offices , two real estate offices and the Board of . . .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Perhaps we could use this (Exhibit D) - why
don' t you point these out as you go along.
I
jDR. BAKER: Start here . . . Temple Beth El , this is a property that
i�
ibis a rental property, this is the property next door to my property
which - it is my property which we rehabilitated and were -
PETER MARTIN: We saw slides on that last time . . .
�iDR. BAKER: Yes , - that we have a - two dental offices there, a
i
real estate office on the first floor, a real estate office on the
Isecond floor and a real estate office across the hall Ithaca
i
; Board of Realtors. That is part of the property we are discussing.i
11It ' s part of the total property. Next door is the property we are
discussing. This is a frame building, this is a professional build!-
. I'
jjing. Next door is a single home that I have an option on and here
ff �
is another home that T have . . a rental property that I have.
At ' s a . . . �
1RICHARD SCHECHTER: Would you say doctor that the predominant
�i
; character of the uses on your block are professional offices at
11this time?
- 12 -
1�DR. BAKER: I would certainly say so. Across the block - across th6
I�street is two dental offices and a real estate office upstairs.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think that the . . . we can call this Exhibit
"D" if you will. The redded in are non-residential uses and the
�iwhite ones are residential uses. These are rental residential
'properties . . . i
PETER MARTIN: Letts see You've mentioned several properties that
you own contiguous to or at least on this same block. Now, do you
!town some also on the block to the rear?
i,
iDR. BAKER: Yes, I do.
{
PETER MARTIN: Alright, so you own a fair percentage of that entire
a i
!block. I
I
HDR. BAKER: Yes, that's correct.
!!RICHARD SCHECHTER: As a matter of fact, the other exhibit here
�= I
indicates all the uses . . . we are going to get to this in a minute!,
'!but it indicates all the uses and also indicates which properties !
i
IlDr. Baker owns in the neighborhood so, I don' t think we will need
that for a minute. I just want to introduce these three pictures
at the moment and then we will get to some more. Doctor can you tell
Jus what these pictures are? Are they all three pictures of the up-1
!!stairs portion the portion that we are talking about today?
E �
AR. BAKER: Yes.
11I, ,
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think you can see from the construction and
111the details - and these are all exactly as they were right from
1,1161 from the windows and the whole way the place is put together
jthat it was never designed as an apartment use. I think it is very!
s
,important to note right at this juncture that the uses that we are
{requesting for this building are uses which are allowed in this s
H
!?district as home occupation uses and therefore the legislative body
; has already said that under certain circumstances , in other words
as a home occupation, that these uses fit into the character of the'
3,community so that what we propose, although it is not a home use,
j�they are uses which are very close to the character of the commun-
11ity, not likely to create a difficulty to the neighborhood. Thank if
'Iyou.
l �
I �
i
I
- 13 -
IDR. BAKER: Right now, I ' d like to call Robert Colbert. Bob Colbert
is a Real Estate Broker and developer and I call him this evening
has an expert witness. Could you give the Board your - a brief
list of your credentials? By the way, this black folder document,
summarizes the evidence that Bob Colbert is going to give this
evening and his credentials are to be found in here. Let' s call
ijthis Exhibit "E" if you could.
IIROBERT COLBERT: Do you want my credentials, or? (INSERT 13a here)
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I asked Mr. Colbert to investigate this property
iland prepare this report that he will give you this evening for a
lnumber of purposes. The first one was to nail down this economic
�Ihardship to show in dollar and cents terms exactly what will be I
(lost if a variance is not granted. Secondly, I asked him to inves-
tigate the viability of that use as an apartment altogether because
Ithere are three possibilities here . The first possibility is that i
1Ithe variance will be granted and then Dr. Baker will be able to I
fi
utilize the entire building for professional offices . The second
IPossibility is that the variance would not be granted, in which
�I I
case either he might possibly be able to rent it as an apartment
9and derive some income from it or it would remain vacant and he
Iwould derive no income from it. So I asked Mr. Colbertto comment
n that situation and, in addition, to briefly describe from a
real estate broker and appraiser' s viewpoint the character of the
�eighborhood.
So if you could. . . . (Insert 13b, 13c, & 13d here)
(Please see Exhibit E, attached, which is incorporated as part of
i
hese minutes for the credentials and appraisals of Robert Colbert.
0
ICHARD SCHECHTER: Bob, excuse me just a second, I think you will
find on pages 4, 5 and 6 the means by which Mr. Colbert derived
Ihose figures (stated on page 2 "Potential Economic Loss Summary) . i
Ift probably won' t be necessary for him to describe that in detail
nless you have any questions. He' ll just state the figures that
e arrived at.
R. COLBERT : If you want to look at page 4 I ' ll just roughly recap.;
Je have the income with offices upstairs and down. The office
I
13a -
i
! RICHARD SCHECHTER: Yes, why don' t you just state them briefly.
( ROBERT COLBERT: I have been a resident of the City of Ithaca sinc
1939. I 'm a graduate of Cornell University, class of 1948 . I 've
jbeen a Real Estate Broker in Ithaca, N.Y. for twenty-eight years .
I
e
I have been a member and past state director of the N.Y. S. Board o
I{ Realtors . Developer - Builder and Manager of real estate. I 've
!
1Ibuild shopping centers , office buildings , bank office buildings, 1
medical centers , apartment houses , hotels and motels, free standin
s
commercials and individual homes . I 've been a faculty member of
!, the advance mortgage school for senior mortgage officers of the
!INational Association of Mutual Savings Banks. I 'm a past members
i
1of the Committee on Mortgage Investments with the National Associa-
1tion of Mutual Savings Banks from 1970 to 1974 . I was a member of
�i
Ithe Committee on Mortgages and Real Estate for the Savings Bank I
lAssociation of New York from 1970 to 1974 . I 've lectured at Cornell
!i
Ion Real Estate Development and Banking in the Colleges of Architec-
91
IIture and College of Business Administration and in the College of
ii Hotel Administration. I am packaging large mortgage loans for
1jgroups of banks throughout the state; Savings and Loan Associations
1
kommercial Banks , Insurance Companies and Industrial Development
i
I;
JAuthorities. I do work-outs and receiverships for banks and
liinsurance companies . I 'm a past senior vice president and chief
mortgage officer of the Citizens Savings Bank from 1969 to 1975. I
�Iwas the Urban Renewal Developer for the First National Bank & Trust!
Co. office building and the New York Telephone Company and Metro-
politan Life Insurance Company Office Building. They were complete
I
in 1975 and 1976. My City activities : past commissioner of the
`Board of Public Works , past member city charter revision committee,
past city transit coordinator, past member Mayor' s Citizens Advisor
committee, past chairman city industrial development committee, and
i
past member city traffic commission. I 've been an appraiser for
�tbanks, insurance companies, attorneys , municipalities, major corpor-
Iations and individuals. I
,I
{' E
�I
i!
r i
I
- 13b -
i
ROBERT COLBERT: I 'd like to refer you to page 1 , "Summary of the
' Economic Approach to Value Tioga Building" and I 'm going to go
j through this pretty much paragraph by paragraph so that we don't
imiss anything.
The economic value was analyzed by capitalizing the stream of
lincome resulting from the three possible uses of the office build-
ing. The first use is the Total Building Used for Offices. This
jwould be using the second floor for professional offices of a
lawyer, engineer, architect, accountant, real estate broker, insur-i
i
� ance broker. These uses would be compatible to the uses adjacent
i
hand throughout that neighborhood and they would create less traffi
! than a medical office because of their very nature many of these
if
! businesses go to their customers rather than their customers going
! to them. The second floor of the Tioga Building is not suitable i
!, for medical offices as many patients are unable to walk up stairs . II
HI think we all realize that. Therefore, the Mary Tilley Realty,
I; Inc. lease was used for the second floor income at $8 , 000 per year.l
;There was a lease of this space for that amount. This is the iden-
�Itical use and occupancy of the building directly across the street
1 (415 N. Tioga Street ; the first floor Dr. Baldini, Dr. Cappucci and;
I I
�IDr. Fey; the second floor J. D. Gallagher Real Estate and I have a j
photograph of that you've probably seen it but I 'm going to pass
i
it around there are two and there they are. The second floor of
I
Ithe Tioga Building was never rented as an apartment . I think you I
i
'!have heard Dr. Baker' s comments in this regard. I 've been at meet-I
ings in this area many times with the Friend of Ithaca College and 1
H
pjother professional groups and I do know that it always was used in
i
conjunction with business . The second floor was designed clear
span to accommodate compatible professional office use. Semi-
ljtransient, roll-over, apartment tenancy was known to be unfeasible
functionally and economically.
! Use 2 : The Building Used for Offices and Second Floor Apartment
Ij
!Only 70% of the second floor is usable for apartment space. If you
twill check the floor plan you will notice how it is marked off. �I
l
'
j - 13c -
I
! It' s roughly 1, 200 vs . 1, 750 as I recall in square feet. The
! structural features of the building are commercial and not resi-
dential (see interior photos of the second floor interior, the j
! exterior photos of the building and the photo of the adjacent en-
iltrances to the first and second floor) . If you have seen some of I
n ;
JIthese interior photos before, I think I saw them going around, I j
j;want to mention in particular the adjacent entrances to the two
i
!office spaces which are not compatible in any way and you can see
the entrances were never designed or meant for residential use and !
i,
!! to combine these uses would be objectionable to one or the other
!
Huses. I 'm going to also give you pictures of the exterior of the !
1building because it is important that you carefully look at them
I
!land note that the building was designed from the very beginning as l
i
i1a professional office building on both floors. The structural
0
111features of the building again are commercial and not residential.
I
ljhe windows are all commercial type sash. The ceiling fixtures arel,
all located for commercial office use. The entrance and interior
3; !
t�
!doors are commercial. There is no second means of access or egress(
from the area usable as an apartment. This is dangerous and would
! entail considerable expense to correct and if it were corrected it
1would be damaging to the exterior appearance of the office structure.
1And it would be damaging to the aesthetics of the entire neighbor-
! hood. There are no laundry facilities. There is no lawn or recre-
national space. The entire lot is paved for office building parkingj.
IlThere is no provision for garbage and refuse disposal except through
the front door. The entire building and lot are non-residential in'
jjcharacter. The large majority of adjacent commercial uses com-
i
'pletely eliminates any resemblance of a residential neighborhood.
j(See tax map and photos) . And I think you have all looked at the
iitax map - and there is a copy in the back of each of these books
k
(Exhibit E) and I can pass out some of the photographs of the other ¢
structures in the 400 block. I would like to mention that the cost ]
I i
1pf construction of the commercial office building structure is pro- '
i
1hibitive economically for residential use. (For example, one could'
1,
ii
i�
II
i 13d -
I -
ynot afford to build a two-bedroom apartment at $40 per square foot„
1
'�or 1, 200 square feet of living area, for $48, 000. The cost of an
,!average private three-bedroom home is $37, 000) . This economic
i
!unfeasibility is magnified when 540 square feet would be left un-
usable, thereby increasing the apartment cost to $69,600. if you I
Fuse this $40. figure. Now, the $40. figure I think T can very
l�easily back up with the recent office construction which we have
!done for the Telephone Company, for the First National Bank, remode -
il
ing of the Citizens Savings Bank, alone, remodelling costs $50. a
square foot. At any rate, in this market an average apartment will
run around $12 ,000. Recent sales will reflect that. You know, an
�Iapartment complex with all the amenities : swimming pools , laundry
11facilities, what have you. Now the third approach; Building Uses I
I�With a Vacant Second Floor. The use of the second floor of the
'�
JlTioga Building for transient, roll-over residential tenancy would
!devalue the present use as professional offices . A non-owner i
f�
11ccupant of the professional offices would not pay first class office
11rental for a mixed tenancy building. Residential users would not
t� l
bay rental equal to that of a first class apartment, Residential
}tenancy over the professional offices would create undesirable con- 1
14itions for both the offices and the apartment. The small income
1�vailable from the apartment rental would not justify the detri-
mental effects on the professional offices . Now below that you will!
see a summary of the cost of the economic loss summary really based !
upon the capitalization of the stream of income approach to value. I
1
Use for offices only a value of 151 and some odd dollars. 2 ,
f�
�ffices and one apartment value of 100. 3. offices and vacant
econd floor value of 78, 000. e
i
i�
it
I i
I,i
�I
it
i�
�s
14 -
irentals are those reflected by the present medical office use and
the past real estate office use. They are comparable the first
(floor rentals are $5 . 33 a foot. The second floor is $4 . 60 a foot.
The expenses are taken from four years of historical data and as j
close as we can come. The only thing we know is that they are
i
99
going up and when they go up the value goes down unless you kick
, the rent up. The capitalization rate was based on a 9-1/2 - 20
Eyear mortgage and the return on equity was based on 10% , based on
;'the band of investment theory that obviously the equity should
11return more than the first mortgage because it ' s a second position.
IE
iE
4If it ' s a foreclosure the equity position is wiped out. I won' t
go into the cap rate computation, I think that you are all rather
(jfamiliar with it. I used a cap rate of 11. Whether you use 11 or
I �
10 doesn' t substantially change the figures . (insert 14a here)
,IPETER MARTIN: Again, I ask a question at this point. Are you say-
Hing anything more than that commercial use generates a higher
gf
slrental? The difference in value is a capitalization of the addi
�Ili
' tional rent , right?
(RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think it also reflects the possible resale
�Ivalue of the property. 11
I
PETER MARTIN: Well, but your figures are capitalization of income,
,right?
'ROBERT COLBERT: That ' s the only way to arrive at an economic valuej.
PETER MARTIN: To give reasons between 56, 000 a year and 50 , 000 a
E
year, roughly.
ROBERT COLBERT: Yes , a physical value is meaningless. You can P
s.
Puild a million dollar monument and its . . . worth anything . . .
,!PETER MARTIN: But you can take any property on that block, current
I
ply devoted to residents , if one were to shift it to a commercial
use, an office use, then its value would go up. If you could get
i
; lawyers or real estate agents paying rentals , as distinguished . . .
ROBERT COLBERT: But this is an office building and this . . .
PETER MARTIN: Just focusing on the question of value. The value
i
goes up as one can get commercial rentals rather than residential
rentals .
�I
Ij s
- 14a - I
r
+ ROBERT COLBERT: I would like to make note on page 2 , paragraph 4 I
i
! of the New York State Construction Building Code. Business Use
ljLegal - Residential Use Illegal. For Business Use, of a second
;; floor space less than 2, 500 sq. ft. one exit is allowed, and tha
i
11is all that is available. And Section A 206 1B - Residential -
lSecondary Exits Required for all habitable space except kitchen and
lbathroom: in addition to the primary exit from a recreation room
lor inhabited space (except kitchen or bathroom) there shall be
(provided in each such space at least one opening for emergency use.!
Opening for emergency use shall include doors or openable parts of !
;windows located so as to provide unobstructed egress . Such open-
il
1ngs shall not impede egress in an emergency and shall have a mini-
11mum area of 4 sq. ft. with a minimum dimension of 18" - that' s the
limportant part, there is no window in thatsecond floor that has a
i114" opening. The law requires 18. The minimum is 14 . They are
�
!!jalousie type windows , some are 6 and some are - the maximum is 14
'Hand even at 14 they are not a full 14 because of the angle. So it
ljis a very dangerous situation. I 'm not going to go through all of
i`
: the rest except for the conclusions. The second floor of the buildl-
f
ling may be legally used for business use without any physical alter-
s
` ations . And B: The portion of the second floor of the Tioga Build-
ing useable as a two bedroom apartment, which is only 1 , 200 sq. ft.j
at the very most, may not legally be used as an apartment without I
I�
extensive and costly construction changes . These changes would
I
( deface the exterior of the building.
( RICHARD SCHECHTER: Go over this again - just this summary.
1
ROBERT COLBERT: The summary on page 2 the total building used folr
loffices - the appraised value from an economic stream of income
Ii
1point of view would be $151,426. If it were used as offices and on -
ltwo bedroom apartment, at a $200. rent plus utilities for that two
'bedroom apartment - the value would be $100, 517. And for offices
and a vacant second floor it would be $78 , 699. , so that you can see
that with the apartment that there is a loss of $50, 909. and with a
acant second floor there is a loss of $729000.
I
�I
ij
j
I
it
If
15
i
' ROBERT COLBERT: Right, and no one would ever build an office
j�
,6`building at a cost of 40 some dollars a square foot and try to make
!
,,apartments out of it, because they couldn't do it economically. I
r
' There is a section that I have included here (Exhibit E) "The
!!Summary of Classification of Codes used by the Tompkins County
11Jii
Assessment Dept. " and I have a breakdown but it shows (see
jjpage 7 of Exhibit E) . (insert page 15a here)
i
! RICHARD SCHECHTER: That "s reflected on this first diagram the
fuse of all the properties on the block. There' s no sense of us
!!going through each and every one, I think you can see that the pre-
11dominant use of that block, at the moment, is for professional
s
;!office use.
i
, 1
jlROBERT COLBERT: The tax base in that block reflects the predomin-
dance of commercial use in that block. It is not residential in
jcharacter. Not only the tax base but the exterior of the buildings,
si
Land the use of the buildings. I think that . . . unless you have
i
(some other questions for me I . . .
1�RICHARD SCHECHTER: No , I think that. . .
!ROBERT COLBERT: I might leave with you pictures of the property in!
,the 300 block which continue the office use from 300 to 400. I
i
!,RICHARD SCHECHTER: What we attempted to do here was outline this
i'
!report so as to not take a tremendous amount of time. If you have
j�any questions whatsoever about the report, Mr. Colbert would certai -
illy be glad to answer any of the questions.
!PETER MARTIN: Does this complete the presentation?
'� ICHARD SCHECHTER: No, no it doesn' t.
;!PETER MARTIN: Do members of the Board - will Dr. Baker be back or }
;!should we direct questions to him at this point and Mr. Colbert at
!!this point? I mean - I 'm eager to expedite things and so I want to !
?o it orderly.
I
�� ICHARD SCHECHTER: I thought it might - you can ask questions to j
j�ach one separately or afterwards , whichever. . .
�+ f
+PETER MARTIN: Alright, why don't you complete your presentation anc�
e ' ll ask back anyone that we have questions about.
'V
ii
- 15a -
ii
i
ijROBERT COLBERT: . . . in the 400 block, North Tioga Street, from
jCourt Street to Cascadilla Street there are five properties coded
'! commercial one property coded community service (Temple Beth-E1) ,
; three properties coded two family residential and two properties
I! i
.; coded single family residential.
i
i
,o
f;
d '
ii
I'
it
I
�i
I
l
i
f
i!
jE
!+ i
,9 s
I
E
Ele I
i
I�
Ii
ii
i'
it
i
t
li
i
i
i
is
i
i
l
I,
f'
I
16 -
11RICHARD SCHECHTER: Okay. Now, I requested the identical sort of
! information from Jonathan Crossley who is an M.A. I . Real Estate
�lAppraiser and he resides in Binghamton. Now he was not able to be
j1here this evening. He did submit this written report which I will
( I
;pass around and then comment from and we' ll submit that as Exhibit
i
"F" which is incorporated as part of these minutes as an attachment
IlYou will find a Qualifications page from Mr. Crossley on the very I
lilast page of this report and his Real Estate Appraisers certifica-
i
11tion on the next to the last page. I won' t read from them, there i�
'j
lino sense to it. This (report) is dated Dec. 30, 1976 . (Mr.
{3
Schechte—r- proceeded to read a letter from Mr. Crossley and con-
,
Itinued to read page 1 of the report which listed a Description of
!Neighborhood, etc. see Exhibit F. ) (insert 16a here) I
I
jTETER MARTIN: Not wanting to cut you short , but we know that
11we 've been over the properties now - what new would you like . . .
'1 i
11RICHARD SCHECHTER: Well, I think the only reason that I 'm reiter-
I
mating that, is that I think it is very important to realize that yoo
!have a situation where the block is largely professional office in
!,character with a few . . .
i
;!PETER MARTIN: We 've had plenty of testimony about that at the prio
w,
11hearing and then again this evening.
11RICHARD SCHECHTER: Okay. Well , I think that at the last hearing
li
!there was some comment in the record in the decision of the Board
11regarding the fact that the applicant hadn' t proved that his pro_
,posed use would have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. I think]
!!that ' s very important and that ' s the only reason I 'm emphasizing
li I
;this - that these uses are already there - a number of them; that
,E
!(the building is already there, the parking facilities are already
I E
;there , and that the proposed uses are going to have a very minimal
11impact on the already established community character. j
IGREGORY KASPRZAK: Excuse me, I 'm getting confused. Was the buildi�g
ipriginally built under the use variance or was it built under the
0
S' 1
1� egular zoning requirements?
i
,PETER MARTIN: It was built under a use variance.
i
I
I E
�E
iE
Po
!i
16a -
`E
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Dear Dr. Baker: Pursuant to your request, I
l�have inspected the Tioga Building property, the neighborhood uses j
1
and rentals and other pertinent data for preparing an appraisal
I I
jbased upon alternative uses for the property.
1The following summarizes any conclusions of value which are found I
in the attached report: Usage of Property entire building rente
ffor offices - market value: $158,400. Offices with apartment on
I �
�i
11second floor - $102 , 900. Offices with second floor vacant: 84,000.1
l'IThe loss of market value for renting the second floor as an apart- '
ilment amounts to $55, 500 or a loss of $5 ,600 per year. I think it isl
( important to note, and I will later show that these figures and Mr.I
j, Colbert ' s figures are very very close to each other. It is that
1 $55, 500 represents almost a third of the entire resale value of the
11property. Since apartment tenants might disturb the amenities of
;' the property, which are particularly important in a children's
! orthodontic center, and you desire to leave the second floor vacant!,
lithe additional loss of market value would be an additional $18 , 900
llor a further loss of $2 ,400 per year, Going on to page 1 - The
i
1purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the correct fair market l
!! value of the fee simple ownership of the property based upon the
( rental of the second story as an apartment and as a rental for com-i
j
Imercial use. Fair market value is defined as the most probable
I
jiselling price. The property is located on the westerly side of
! North Tioga Street between Court Street and Cascadilla Avenue in
I+
! the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y. It is designated on the !
(; City of Ithaca Tax Map as #10-49-2-6 etc. . . . Description of Neigh
borhood: The 400 block north of Court Street has the following
iI
Fuses : East Side : Hewitt Realty and Apartments , Student rental,
Il Residence, Two Insurance Agencies $ Apts, Doctors on first floor,
j!! Real Est. Agcy. above. On the west side : Temple Beth-E1, two aparti-
1
�lments
I
I I �
EV
1
Ji l
Ij
I�
f
I
17 -
i
RICHARD SCHECHTER: It was built under a use variance. j
i
PETER MARTIN: Under the zoning in 161 it required a use variance.
EGREGORY KASPRZAK: Thank
you, that 's all I wanted to know.
IRICHARD SCHECHTER: Now there is a description of the property on
(page 2 and 3 which I won' t read from. You can read it as you will .
�It just basically describes what Dr. Baker has already told you.
I will briefly describe the end of it however, which describes the
i
second floor. (Mr. Schechter proceeded to read from Exhibit F whic�
lis attached to these minutes. ) (insert 17a here)
I
,,RICHARD SCHECHTER: At this time, what I would like to do is submit]
41a brief summary (Exhibit "G") . This table (Exhibit "G") summarizes
f�the data already available to you in the Colbert and Crossley -
I11excuse me just a second „ I think weave - oh, here it is , I 'm sorry
I
?if you could just pass those back we had a typo error in this first
i
:lone and we corrected it and then I passed out the wrong one. I
j
�Japologize. There it is. This is "G". Alright. As I was saying
I "
�lthis is just a summary of comparative analysis of the figures de-
f
hived by Mr. Colbert and the figures derived by Mr. Crossley and
!you can see that they are a little different. However, they are ve y
lose to each other and they do show that if the variance is not
ranted and we are therefore unable to utilize that second floor
t all , which is what we submit that the property is unuseable as a4
partment, we would therefore not be able to use it at all . The 'I
oss in value as estimated by Mr. Colbert would be 72 , 700 and by
1�r. Crossley 74, 400. The average loss $73, 500 which as you can see
1�tls almost half the estimated value of the entire property, and I
H
11
11 that that certainly represents a decided hardship to the owned
i
that he cannot use that second floor for any purpose and will lose
all of that value to his building or income over the years , however
i'
eou want to look at it. Certainly represents a very significant
conomic injury. Now if I could just for a minute - Bob Colbert
l�
ould you come back up here just for a second one point that I
anted to get to that we perhaps missed - the uses that we are con- I
emplating are lawyer, engineer, architect, accountant , real estate ±
�I I
li
I
I
I
i
i
ii
ii
i+
- 17a -
jRICHARD SCHECHTER: The second floor has a carpeted 142' x 212'
II
reception office, an 11 ' x 102' lounge with hall , a hall leading
! to six 72' x 72' offices, a furnace room, a hall leading to an 112'
s'
x 14' conference room, a ceramic tiled 3/4 bath (shower instead o
tub) , a 12 ' x 16 ' office with a closet. The windows are rollout
11jalousie metal.. The lighting is fluorescent. The building is I
!! well suited for a dental office with rental commercial space on
lithe second floor. The arrangement of the second floor is well
; suited for a real estate or insurance office. It is in good condi-
11tion. And Assessment, Zoning. The assessment is as follows :
'ILand: $5, 600 Total : $91 ,000. , etc. 1 don' t think I will read
IP
,! from that. Minimum use to derive a reasonable return. The only
j
,fuse whereby the owner can recover his investment in the property
on a resale is to have the entire building used for professional
1� office use . The building is designed for professional office use
!i
; with the parking lot covering the ground which is not under the
'! building. The 1st and 2nd floor entrances are adjoining. The
i.
1second floor having commercial types of fluorescent lighting and i
the jalousie windows. The six little cubicles are not large enoug
1- to be bedrooms. They have floor to ceiling 61' opening jalousie
i1windows on full wall width making the size unsuitable for residen-
, �
1
, tial occupancy. Furthermore, a quiet, clean tenancy of the second ;
i
i1floor is necessary to insure the decorum and tranquility of an
€!
j� orthodontal surgeon' s building with many exciteable children about.
i
Valuation of the Property: The property is professional office
in character and would be purchased by someone interested in maxi- '
jImizing his net return on the property. Since there have been no
' sales of similar modern doctors ' offices in the area, the market
i
11data approach is not used. The capitalization of income approach
is the proper approach for evaluating investment property. And i
jfthen he describes the method by which he gets his figures. I wont
'Swaste the Board' s time going over those. 1
it
I
!i
i
i
i.i
i
- 18 4
11broker or insurance salesman - I think, now you are a real estate i
broker and that would probably - the impact on the building in the
neighborhood of areal estate office would probably be at least as
jmuch, if not more than a lawyer, engineer, architect. Can you tel
i
Ime what you estimate if this property was used as a real estate 3
i
ilbroker' s office, and the intensity of activity that it would creat?
I Can you give us some comments on that?
ROBERT COLBERT: As a broker' s office, I think that they primarily
lserve as a headquarters for the broker and his salesmen but there
! isn' t a great deal of customer traffic. It' s pretty common to pic
#, up the newspaper and call the broker and the broker picks the clie t
3)
1i
up and shows the property and if they reach a decision to make an
officer, then they generally go to their attorney' s office and have an
,! offer drafted. But the customer traffic is not really generated
Mand the business isn't done, except in the field.
f
I! i'
!1RICHARD SCHECHTER: What would you guess on the number of cars per i
jIday? I know that you can't - it can' t be down to the last one, but
j#what would you guess utilizing that space in your knowledge as a j
�ireal estate broker, if, for instance, you were using it as your own(
1
!brokerage office, would you say that there would be five clients j
IIa day coming in or ten or fifteen or . . .
ROBERT COLBERT: I think it depends upon the nature of the business
but on an average I would say that probably ten would be a lot.
ICMost of the clients would be met at their homes or at their hotels
II i
for wherever and taken on a tour of the city.. They wouldn't come �I
there. My office is in the telephone building and I occupy 750 '
!land I have five people so that gives you some idea.
I
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Thank you. Dr. Baker, just one quick question
f
for you. During the period of time that Mary Tilley was upstairs ,
and, of course, you were on the premises every day, could you esti-
mate forme the number of vehicle traffic - the number of cars per
day that were going in and out of your parking lot?
,DR. BAKER: If ten it would have been a lot. If ten cars were
;� S
there. She had two people there basically most of the time. I
jJ
I�
I
19 -
fi�
ii
.RICHARD SCHECHTER: Thank you doctor. I think I would just at this;
i
!!point, having submitted all of this, as I said, we tried to be brie
Ibut there is some material in here that is in the written record
;that we submitted that we didn' t vocalize this evening, so perhaps
it
Ebefore you make your decision you might want to read through the
rest of that. Basically, I think our point is number one; that
when we first brought this application we thought it was entirely
jfor an office building and we built the building with that idea in
fl
11mind. Now perhaps somebody made the mistake perhaps the applicatio
rE
lain 1961 wasn't put in or maybe the Board of Zoning Appeals mis-
!�understood our intentions , or whatever, but the fact remains from
11the equities of the situation that it is impossible to use that
!second floor for anything but an office purpose. I think that the
Board is certainly welcome to visit the property and take a look fo
;!themselves if they want to. It would - the fire code , the building
'!code, the aesthetics of the property itself and its impact on the
11dental offices downstairs all militate against it being rented as
;Jan apartment. Consequently, if the variance is not granted or if
the Board does not interpret the previous variance to allow us to I�
muse the upstairs for office purposes, the applicant Dr. Baker, will
i
,incur a tremendous economic loss , almost half the value of his prop,_
� i
ierty will be lost to him because he or anybody that he might sell
0
it to in the future will not be able to use it for anything and the
}Ifigures from the two real estate appraisers indicate in dollar and F
jcents terms, that loss some 75 ,000 approximately, dollars for a
ibuilding that is worth a little more than $150, 000 at maximum uti-
lization. On the other side as we have discussed and indicated in
i
! the exhibits , the block itself is predominantly professional office
at this time, with a few residences left which are rental in char-
;
lacter. The building has a large orthodontic clinic and then this i
' upstairs is much smaller use which could be one attorney' s office
I
e
jor one real estate broker' s office or something like that, the im-
pact of such a small use on the neighborhood is totally negligible
When the parking is already there and the character of the communit
9f
Ps already set. I think it is very important to realize that we Illi
i'
�I
� 3
4i
it
- 20
Dare not talking about converting a residence building, one of
iithese nice old houses into a office building. What we are talking
!
,,about is using office space for office purposes . And I don' t think
;s
;that, if anything, it won' t have any impact on the community. We' ll
i;
iThe glad, any of us , to answer any questions that the Board might
!!
have.
PETER MARTIN: The first question I have and I think it goes to Dr.
Baker but I 'm not sure. We are told what intentions were in building
1that building, Now all we have as a Board is the record of that
P61 hearing . Now I have in the file of that hearing an application,
1�
�an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals signed by Dr. Baker and his
1Iwife, which says that what they want to do is erect an office and
an apartment, and it makes reference to this proposed building as
Tithe home for your mother. The notice which was published in the
11paper for that public hearing speaks of the proposed building as
;pan office and an apartment so do the letters that went out to all
of the people who were neighbors. And the Board granted the re-
quested use variance for an office and an apartment. Now, I find
lit a little difficult to square with all of that the statements
; about what the original intentions were.
!I
i�RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think if I might answer that - I think that
the problem arose - the intention at the time as I understand it,
�jwas to build the entire building for office purposes and yet, tem-
iporarily for some years , use a portion of it for a residence for
�ir
� Dr. Baker' s mother. But I think it was for that reason that they
s
lincluded the apartment in the variance application. As I previously
!mentioned, since apartments were an allowed use in the district,
; there was no reason to put that in there. Now it very well might
i
' be that somebody just - you know there was some inadvertent eitheir
� Dr. Baker shouldn' t have added the apartment to the application or ithe
IBoard should have told him to cross it out when they saw it because
iyou obviously can't get a variance for an allowed use.
I'
i�PETER MARTIN: Well it also gave some sense of limited scope to the
Iirequested office use. There was also some evidence that the proposied
f
i
i
I! - 21 -
!!home for your mother was a source of hardship. That that was in-
volved in the claim of hardship for the use variance, It ' s a
i
111ittle bit hard to fit together what did happen in 161 other than
1we have the pieces of paper signed by various individuals .
�4
IIEDGAR GASTEIGER: It didn't allow the neighbors to see it in its
E
�itrue light . either as I understand it. The neighbors didn' t have
an opportunity to know . . .
i
,PETER MARTIN: Further questions for Dr, Baker or others?
10R. BAKER: My intent was that I built an office building. I never';
'4ented an apartment , I never built a rental apartment obviously.
IIt looks pretty obvious , I mean I 'm . . a rental apartment . . .
Hthat ' s not a rental apartment . I never used it . . .
'';DR. GREENBERG: I have a question. At that particular time, if he
!!had an office below an apartment which was occupied by his mother,
jjdid he need a use variance at all :
4';ROBERT WILLIAMSON: Yes, he needed a use variance for a medical j
3
,,facility, yes .
�
,,,PR. GREENBERG : Even though it was a medical facility. . . is per-
Oitted in a R-3 zone?
!ROBERT WILLIAMSON: Yes . Today it is permitted but in those days
it was not permitted.
i
(PETER MARTIN: Murray you had a question?
'MURRAY VAN MARTER: I think it related to Bob Colbert ' s report here;
;Maybe Dr. Baker can answer it. In regard to the number of square
a{feet, doctor, in the . . .
`OR. BAKER: I think you' ll have to defer to him. He ' s the guy that ,
!measured it out here and he 's more familiar with it than I am.
ikICHARD SCHECHTER: Bob, we have a question for you.
NURRAY VAN MARTER: The total number of square feet used for the
!medical facility in what range perhaps?
'*OBERT COLBERT: I think its about 4, 500 feet for the two floors .
's 's
J�URRAY VAN MARTER: So that ' s 9, 000. Is there a relationship to s
1� his for income in relation to the 1 , 200 square foot apartment or
i
'the 1 , 700 square foot office space?
!
ii
- 22 -
�I
IROBERT COLBERT: There ' s both.
IMURRAY VAN MARTER: I've got an income here of the two bedroom
�sapartment in the range of $2 , 400.
r I
IIROBERT COLBERT: $200. a month. I
11MURRAY VAN MARTER: Right. On the basis of the 9,000 square feet d
I
�lthe 48 , 000 gross for the office space square in your mind - reason
-
i
Mable?
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Half of it is in the basement - the lower porti�n
itis not really . . .
i
i�
I1MURRAY VAN MARTER: Would enjoy a different rate than the main floo'
I�He can answer it . j
it
;RICHARD SCHECHTER: I'm sorry.
'ROBERT COLBERT: The medical facilities, the rent is 5. 33 a square
i�
i
jjfoot . If the second floor were 1 , 700 feet of office space it would
l=be 4 . 60 asquare foot. I
Vk ,
1MURRAY VAN MARTER: T got that. Then overall we have in the range
'hof 9, 000 square feet with a value of per gross income in the range
11of 48 , 000 per year and I 've got in the range of 1 , 200 for the livin
�i
;unit of $2, 400.
'' I
'!ROBERT COLBERT: That' s right. And the comparables - I think you
;certainly are familiar - you have apartments in downtown Ithaca and
;you know what your rentals are I think that you will find that a
�i
I1comparable rent and not only in downtown Ithaca but in facilities t
3i
gthat have all the amenities that normal apartment houses do have.
i
!MURRAY VAN MARTER: Everything in relation to your report was as �
tl
Ifound when you went in the building. Is that right?
!hOBERT COLBERT: That ' s right.
I
IMURRAY VAN MARTER: You perceive any alterations that had been I
lundertaken?
I
ij
;ROBERT COLBERT: I frankly had never been in the rear portion of
the facility. I've been at meetings in the large. . . .
i�
� IURRAY VAN MARTER: You mentioned that it was a clear span designed
!II �
!second floor.
OBERT COLBERT: Yes .
i
i
I
I�
i
I
i
fl - 23 - I
{
i URRAY VAN MARTER: And that ' s done for a peculiar reason? I
ROBERT COLBERT: Yes, I think if you will look at the pictures, if
11you look at the plans that were submitted to the Building Commis-
i
isioner at that time, I don' t know whether it was you Murray, or whob
c I
;but I 'm sure they knew it wasn' t an apartment. i
f!MURRAY VAN MARTER: That' s ahead of my time, thanks, Bob. Thank
r1you.
PETER MARTIN: Further questions from members of the Board? i
EDGAR GASTEIGER: How do you heat this property?
i
I
1DR. BAKER: There is several heating units that we have had in the
property. It ' s some gas - I guess is the major . . .
(EDGAR GASTEIGER: That ' s not what I meant. There ' s a furnace room
lin the apartment. Does that heat the second floor completely?
iDR. BAKER: Yes . I
i
EDGAR GASTEIGER: And the fireplace, it seems to me that this was . . F
i I,
11DR. BAKER: Well, a fireplace, let me explain. You know one of tho e
1gas you know one of the things you lay on a wall , metal things?
! That ' s what it is - it ' s a metal decorative type thing, yes . Not
iB I
!!a built from the ground floor up fireplace - no I don' t have any-
I'
,1thing like that. j
i
r!PDGAR GASTEIGER: These are 1969 drawings, I believe. How about I
,
this?
i DR. BAKER: No, no they are not . -they are all - they are contem- i
t
�orary drawings and here . . . in this - yes , they're I guess . . .
JOREGORY KASPRZAK: They are 1969 drawings . i
ii
iPR. BAKER: I guess , okay . . .
i
91DGAR GASTEIGER: But I 'm wondering about the top drawing. Was it 'I
i4one in 1969? {
I� I
PR. BAKER: I can' t tell you exactly when it was done .
i�DGAR GASTEIGER: I was just trying to get a feel for the question
, I
$f the apartment. Now you said that your mother was active in the
usiness in some way?
I I
R. BAKER: That' s right, yes .
II
I
ii
i
Ij
!� I
- 24 -
�i i
IIEDGAR GASTEIGER: Can you expand on that a little bit in the sense
';of her kind of duties and her business relation?
i� j
JDR. BAKER: Right, she . . . in our . . . we have sort of a large faci-
� lity. We have a lunch room in the basement , I hope I 'm within the
ilizoning
things there, but we do and she used to make the lunches.
E !
j! She also took care of the building , watched it for us , She did a
large part of addressing and sending out of notices from the
E,
11building. She did all of our referral letters ; letters we sent to
t
lipatients, this sort of thing, so it made it real convenient for her;
i
''to help me with this .
1JE1)GAR GASTEIGER: Was she then working in the business on a salary I
i
abasis , basically or. . .
j I
11DR. BAKER: I , very frankly I received some . . . I let her stay therle
ii
�s
(because she did help me some. Yes she did was under salary at . . .
i
"!for . . . in the practice.
i11EDGAR GASTEIGER: Then there probably was a business expense in
(terms of this apartment?
i
11DR. BAKER: Business expense . . .
i
i
l,EDGAR GASTEIGER: I was just wondering if it was on record somewhere
�
3!
i!what rental was allowed as a business expense for this apartment?
i;
PR. BAKER: I never rented the apartment. I never rented the I
w
IEapartment per se. No, there was never a rental for the apartment. j
j
',!No.
i
;EDGAR GASTEIGER: When was it that it was vacated then? How long?
�j
JDR. BAKER: You mean, totally vacated? 1975. It was vacated befor
11that. She spent a great deal of time in Florida so it wasn' t totally
ioccupied all the time. And it was used . . .
PETER MARTIN: But there was a period when she was here cooking !
i°
!lunches and doing a variety of things in the business so she would
;!have had to have been here fairly regularly . . .
�t a
11DR. BAKER: Yes, she was here some of the time that' s absolutely
Hright. Now when she wasn' t, we had other people that helped us . i
dYes.
jt
SE i
i'
!i
i
1
II
- 25
iEDGAR GASTEIGER: I find . . . I found a conflict in this sense. One,
,place I hear the advantage of having residence above professional I
'offices and I was curious in your case, your business there is
11orthodonture. Can one get orthodonture treatment any place else in
;!Tompkins County?
l
�DR. BAKER: Yes, sure you can. There are other offices, certainly. ;
I
f�EDGAR GASTEIGER: The reason I asked that is because I really can' t
II i
; conceive the argument that residents upstairs would distract from
lithe business downstairs. I was trying to explore that a little bit'
i
l'DR. BAKER: Yes, I can, I can but I didn' t build the building to
r
have an outside group of people or students or whatever I 'd have toj
11do to get economic . . . it detracts from the practice from people I
1coming
in from my professional building. Before I was here I was 5
Alin the Seneca Building which was an office building. It was taken
lover by the Tompkins County Trust Company and there were two things[
IThey wanted us to move, because they wanted to use the property, so
1�we had to and our patients complained terribly because of no parkin.
I hat was our reasons for our moving.
11EDGAR GASTEIGER: Then one of the technical things . I 'm just sur- i
I
i�
;,prised to see these exactly alike . . , Was there an agreed on basis
IIfor . . .
�I
IRICHARD SCHECHTER: Well no but they used the same figures because E
li
1they are derived from the same rental figures . That 's why they comO
!bout approximately the same.. You see, actually they don't . . . well
Ithese are the figures that we gave them. These are the income
!figures and you see the evaluations are different. Their approach
II
#o value is different but the . . .
i
I
�DGAR GASTEIGER: Okay, I 'm with you. Thanks.
ETER MARTIN: Can I ask where the income figures for the part
Ilresently occupied by your practice come? I mean who pays rent to
!whom? There is , again unanimity on this $56, 000 figure which is
3
;remised on the same rental figure for the first and basement. . .
I �
MR. BAKER: The Professional Corp. pays rental to the real estate
I �
I
II
�I i!
I Iilfl - 26
iPETER MARTIN: Both are yours?
IIDR. BAKER: No, no. I am an employee of a Professional Corporation
,
They are not both mine. I am an employee of a partnership, you wan
ilto call it. Professional Corporations are now legal in the State o
I
!lNew York . . I 'm sure . . . I 'm a member of I'm a one member of a
Ifive man . .
PETER MARTIN: How litany doctors?
DR. BAKER: Five doctors .
PETER MARTIN: So that Professional Corporation pays rent . . .
JDR. BAKER: Yes , to the Realty. .
;I
PETER MARTIN: Pays rent to another entity in which you are in
i
evolved?
+DR. BAKER: Yes, that 's true. They have a separate lease. I 'm a
rI
1ione-man of a five-man Professional Corporation who owns the buildin .
E�
PETER MARTIN: Paying rent now to yourself and your wife who are th
partnership entity on this building. So that is the rent which is`i
!reflected in these evaluations . !
DR. BAKER: We are paying very average rent for a professional offi�e
i
itoday.
IIEDGAR GASTEIGER: One thing that kind of bother me was the emphasis!
on the whole block or the whole street being business . If this
argument is to be accepted and if Dr. Baker owns so much of this
property and has options on it, wouldn' t a better approach be to
call for rezoning it and give everyone sort of an equal chance in-
stead of to progressively allow the area to change?
; DR. BAKER: I don' t want anything thin else but this . That ' s all I
I,
have in mind, I 'm not rezoning anything, I 'm just asking you for a
zoning . . . I 'm not trying to rezone anything.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think also is - it ' s one of those circumstanc S .
Pr. Baker thought that he was allowed to use his property for this
,
purpose and he was using it for that purpose and somebody came aloni
land cited him for violation of the zoning ordinance so that in orde
I
Ito protect himself he really had no choice but to - if he wanted tol
continue to use the property for that purpose he had to come to thi
I�
i{
27 -
;Board and ask for relief. Now, because of this whole situation he
J!effectively lost a tenant and he is losing every month a great deal!
Iof rent. I think it would be a whole different thing to ask for the
:whole block to be rezoned. There are all sorts of additional issuep
Hinvolved. This is a situation where you have one little second
i!
�I!floor that the impact of granting a variance for this one little
`spot would be vastly different than the impact of rezoning the
11entire neighborhood or at least it might be because certainly this
o
lis a very small situation rather than a very big one. Rezoning the!
11whole neighborhood might be years in duration.
I�PETER MARTIN: Are there further questions from members of the
li
j�Board? I hear none.
I
d! RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think there may be some other people in the
i'
!1audience that might want to come . . .
! k
IiPETER MARTIN: I will call others in the audience.
;RICHARD SCHECHTER: Thank you.
i
;IPETER MARTIN: Alright, are there others here this evening who would
!
;like to speak in favor of the requested use variance and interpre-
!
jtation of the 1961 variance, who have additional information on
;either the original intent or on the issues of hardship and impact
Ion the neighborhood that we've heard testimony on? Yes .
11DR. RALPH BALDINI : I 'm Dr. Baldini, I live across the street. . j
;PETER MARTIN: Dr. Baldini could you come forward so that we can gest
!`you on the record.
IP {
! DR. BALDINI : I don' t live across the street, I apologize, I have
imy office there. I would like to speak to the point about the ad- r
lvisability of having a residential unit above a professional officle
i
;!whether it be an orthodontist or a dentist or a physician or chiro-!
!1practor or whatever - a lawyer, I 've been in that situation in thej
F
Hbuilding that I am in and the odor of frying onions , for example,
;is not conducive to good patient relationships . I know that this
!f i
!has been glanced over just a little bit but there are other noises ,;
#offensive, noxious fumes, if you like, I mean , they are delicious ,
"you know you salivate like mad when you smell onions frying and it 'L
�I
it
28 -
9
l�about lunch time but I would like to agree with the statement that
;,the impact of giving this little variance to this little apartment
�i
11would not change the scope of the neighborhood. We have been there
longer than Dr. Baker has , also due to a variance, and we welcomed
Pi
11him when he came into our neighborhood. I think the gentleman be-
6
Ihind over here - mentioned that none of the neighbors would have
icomplained back in 161 if that request for the apartment had been
is
�left off and it was a total commercial building. We have enjoyed
ija very fine relationship, both personally and professionally with
1JDr. Baker and his group. I think I can speak for all the residen-
I1,tial people as well as the professional people in the neighborhood
!I
11that we would like to see the building changed over to a profes-
'i
i4
11sional building and, as I said, speaking from my own personal
ijexperience having been in an office where we did have tenants who
1did use it for a residential - it is a little bit objectionable ,
i�
11both by the patients and the professional people.
i
1GREGORY KASPRZAK: Dr. Baldini , I have a question for you. You sat
, on the Board of Zoning Appeals so you are probably quite familiar
1with what we have to face when you leave for tonight. I would like
lto ask you a question, where and when does one stop granting non-
jconforming uses and granting variances with reference to residentia
ses , etc. ,
1
!DR. BALDINI : Mr. Kasprzak I 'm glad you asked that question becausei
f� hen I was on the Board of Zoning Appeals we were always told or wei
ere told that good city planning used natural barriers . And if yo
'look in the record some place I appeared before the Common Council , ]
�lso the group that was rezoning the city and I asked for the block
i
� s this gentleman asked, why don' t we ask for the rezoning of that
lock? This was , I think, before Dr. Baker came into the area, be- 1
ause I could see that there was going to be a need for professional
�ffices in that area. The 300 block is practically all professional
' ow,
3 -
f�
I
i
,
s
II
I!
- 29 - f
GREGORY KASPRZAK: You haven' t answered my question. I asked you
jwhere do we stop? It isn't whether or not where the boundary shoul
i�
jibe.
!� I
11DR. BALDINI : I think you should stop at the creek. I
I�
GREGORY KASPRZAK: But what Imean is , philosophically speaking
where should we stop?
IDR. BALDINI: At the creek.
GREGORY KASPRZAK: Okay,
PETER MARTIN: Thank you Dr. Baldini. Are there any others here
this evening who would like to beheard in favor of the requested
; variance? I
I
i
LE ROY MANNING : My name is LeRoy Manning, I reside at 428 N. Tioga
Street. I 've lived there for 38 years , I see Dr. Baker come into
I
i
�parking,
that neighborhood, build a beautiful building, he has off-street he owns property on Sears Street that he made a great
��improvement to, as Dr. Baldini says : Stop at the creek - thav it.
a
IIYou lived in the neighborhood, right next to my mother a few years ,
P!
I�didn' t you?
' GREGORY KASPRZAK: Yes , I did. I 'm familiar with the neighborhood, !
I
jjif that is what you are asking.
SMR. MANNING: Alright , you are familiar with the neighborhood and
i
you know the people, and if the people were able to get here tonigh
j
`but the majority of those people are between 75 and 95 and I talked
�1with a lot of them in the last week. They didn't have any objec I
;I
Itions . As Dr. Baldini says : Stop at the creek. There ' s the
I
boundary - there ' s the Fall Creek boundary, right there and if you
11have lived here long enough, you know what the tradition of Fall
lCreek is . Cascadilla Creek - but I mean - Fall Creek is the neigh-
borhood and us kids used to call that the boundary and anybody come
lover from the north side, up on the hill or anything, they had to
put up with us, didn't they? That ' s it , Stop at the creek.
(PETER MARTIN: Thank you, Are there any others who would like to
�be heard in .favor of the requested variance?
I
ROGER SOVOCOOL: My name is Roger Sovocool , I'm an attorney and I
i
pwn property, as you know, also in the vicinity of Dr. Baker's
I!
I
ft
f!
I 30
i3
Property. I 've appeared previously before the Board on a request
ii
, for a zoning variance and since my hearing and prior thereto in my
;I
!involvement with the property I have tried to speak with numerous
ii
;members and residents of the neighborhood because I believe this
+is a very serious problem, and I believe that the Board, as I view
i
,!Jt, and the Board of Zoning Appeals in an attempt to humanize the i
;;written word of the zoning law of this community. In an attempt to
;;apply the zoning law to the community we have a question from one
!Iof your members : Where do you stop? Well I think that what you
i
'`have to look at is just what I have stated the humanizing of the
?:zoning ordinance and I . . , it is very difficult for me, as I was
�I
1-listening to the presentation, I 've seen the property and I 've
+=studied it, to believe that this . . . the necessity of bringing be-
fore the Board detailed figures , detailed data, appraisals I
'would think that anyone that lives in that neighborhood and knows
I •
;!his property could readily see that this is an office building and
11to change it from an office building into a residential building
I
IS , in my mind a torturing of the law and a torturing of the fact
'to try- to convert this into a residential neighborhood. I do not
;see where the . children are going to play, I don't. see where young
i
,.people would even want to live in this building, I believe that any;
;;use of the property with numerous kitchens , bathrooms , multiple
residence would not make it as favorable a building even for the
Hpeople in the area. I just believe that it would be a torturing
;;and a hardship, not only on Dr. Baker, but a . hardship even on the
;!people to try to change this over into a residential building. Now;
;!we've attempted, in the same block on the other side to change our
`Ebuilding into a residential building. We are having all sorts of
";difficulties from the standpoint of rents , from the standpoint of {
;,converting these buildings into multi-residence use. Therefore I
. find it very difficult to try to change the passage of time and
,i
';convert this area back into a residential area and I dont believe I
;;that ' s the purpose of the Board of Zoning Appeals is to try to take;
;I
jthis area and turn back time and change it back strictly into a
s.
!I t
- 31 -
( residential area, I don' t think that ' s the purpose of the Board,
jPETER MARTEN: But , of course , it ' s not the purpose of the Board t .
rezone that block, so that you are pointing to some features of thi
building that distinguish it from other properties up and down the
ijstreet .
ROGER SO'V'OCOOL : Yes , but also _ I thought one of the points might
I i
jhave been impact on the neighborhood. There seems to be quite a I
�1concern about what impact it would have and I don't believe -
(there ' s a number of other people here in the room some have spoke:
;!about the impact. I don' t believe there will be any impact at
Hall from the use of this for business purposes , in fact, I believe
' just the opposite. I believe sincerely that there would be a
j�greater impact adversely on the neighborhood to try to chan.g this i
joVer into multi-residence use. I think there would be much more
i'
;danger of interference with other people , with the interference wit
Il'the other offices and I believe it is a very positive step in order
� f
lto change this into a business .use, and as I have gone up and down I
'lthe block and questioned various people not only Dr. Bakers -
E;
;;concerning Dr. Baker' s application but others , I have not found any'
'person in that block that-would oppose this, nor any person in the
jjblock to the south of it nor any person in the block to the north
Ia �
of it, that would oppose this for use as a business office.
11PETER MARTIN: Any questions? Thank you. Are there any others who;
4
i1wish to speak in favor?
it
f�DR. GEORGE MCCAULEY: I 'm Dr. George McCauley. I feel in a way tha
fI should apologize to the Board because I think I started this whop
;!mess back in 1946. I bought the property at 418 N. Tioga Street
l
,land until that time everything was residential in that area of the
i;
� I
astreet. I started with the first office back in those days and, I 1
'lsay I should apologize - maybe I started a trend that has gotten usj
I;
Onto this situation. I would also like to reiterate that I used
,1that 418 N, Tioga Street as my. residence and my office and I can 1
I
lattest that the two do not work together at all , The smoke from
i
lithe people smoking in my waiting room filtered up to the second =
sl
i� i
it }
f
- 32 -
I�
floor where my mother-in-law resided at that time. It was very of-i
fensive tQ her and we had to take other steps and move her into
I
another building. The noise of children in the waiting room f
�bothered my family and the noise of cooking in our kitchen I think
11bothered the patients, on the office side of the house. The two I
1just do not go together. As a practicing physician in this com-
1munity for thirty years I would like to reiterate that I am sure I
IlDr. Baker could not rent that space on the second floor of his
i
Hprofessional building to any physician, Any single physician or
1group of physicians do not want any space where the only access to
F'
;;that space is by stairs . It just doesn' t work in this day and age.
11I also would like to say that in 1960 Dr, Baker did approach me and
Aold me that he had plans to raze the two buildings where his pro
ifessional office now stands and he told me then that his intent
1EIwas to build a professional building at that time , I had no objec- j
I
I!tion then and I have never changed my mind about that. I , at the C
present time, own the building at 416 N, Tioga the residence next
is
Iidoor to it. I was quite surprised when I saw that his mother moved
f4 '
11in to the second floor but I didn't think anything about it . But Il
kertainly can see that the building, I think, was designed and
wilt with the idea of being a professional building and it cer-
jtainly hasn' t detracted from the neighborhood and in 1960 he did
�pproach me and he told me the whole plans his plans and every-
1
,,thing else. So I certainly see that there is no objection to it f
�I f
1�eing turned over. I don't see how that building can remain half
1 partment building and half professional building. Thank you. j
f9
j,PETER MARTIN: Alright are there any additional people here this
i
ipvening who would like to be heard in favor of the requested
9
;!variance? . . . Are there any who would like to be heard in opposi- j
,tion? I have a letter from Mr. Marvin Carlson he is here in
!person, and rather than . . .
SIR, CARLSON: I only want to make a couple of points that were not
,I f
linade in the letter
I
�R
l
?i
.4
.E
l
- 33 -
PETER MARTIN: Alright do members of the Board have a copy of the
i.
'Metter?
li 1
i
1BOARD MEMBERS: Yes ,
ROBERT WILLIAMSON: May we have a copy, Mr. Chairman?
'PETER MARTIN: Do you have a spare copy Mr. Carlson?
11ROBERT WILLIAMSON: We could borrow somebody' s.
I
I''PETER MARTIN: So that the appellant knows the letter, why don't
; you read it into the record for us , otherwise I would be obliged
i
to do the same and I would rather have it in your own intonation.
I
11MR. CARLSON: I live at 407 N, Aurora Street.
11�PETER MARTIN: Alright, this is Mr. Carlson, 407 N, Aurora Street.
'NR. CARLSON: I live one block from the house. Since the Board has
; the letter I won't repeat any of that . I would like indeed, I waf'
'
1not planning to speak tonight. I did think that I would like to
livery briefly respond to a couple of related issues that have been
!;brought up. First of all , just to let you know that there are
I
l�people who live on this side of the creek who would like to keep
( this side of the creek residential - to say that there are counter
;;forces in the neighborhood, perhaps more strongly on my street -
Aurora Street, then on Tioga Street but that is in the area that we
Shave been talking about , the area on this side of the creek. The i
jtrend goes both ways and evidence goes both ways and I think its
11important to make that statement . I live in a house which used to
be a doctor ' s office. It 's not a doctor ' s office now, its a resi-
1dence - it ' s possible to go the other way too. Another house on
Aurora Street, right by the creek has just been changed to a family
I
;dwelling, which was not a family dwelling before. And there are a
'umber of young families that are moving into our area. So I
'si k
i�imply wanted to state that there were people in the area who were
ii
l.nterested in it as a residential area. The only other thing I
i;
jivanted to say that is not in my letter is that it does seem to me
9
,that clearly a very convincing case has been made about the buildin
j nd the equipping of this space and particularly, I 'm impressed -
i
41though I haven't seen them - just hearing about them by Mr.
i
fl
'i
�I
i
- 34 -
�lColbert' s figures , I don' t know how this problem is to be solved I
I
(lin the long run but I would like to urge the BZA or, if not them,
+some other group, if nothing can be done in this particular circum
I`
jstance to see what machinery might be evolved to prevent a circum-
+d
stance where someone quite cynically could exploit this. I 'm not !
II I
,,Occusing Dr. Baker of cynically exploiting the situation, but it
H i
!seems to me there is that using the line of argument Mr. Colbert
'has very well developed, there is nothing to prevent somebody from
�i
utting up an illegal building and then arguing this cose us $40.
�a square foot, it doesn't apply to code, therefore, we can't use it
11in a conforming way. It seems there ' s a potential erosion of the
�jcode which is very serious here, and I don' t know how one gets at
that but if, however this case is decided, if it opens up a consi- I
deration of how such matters are to be dealt with, I would think
11that would be important.
�IPETER MARTIN: Given the amount of time this case has taken up I
'hesitate to myself read this full letter. All members of the Board
,jhave a copy of the letter do you have a copy now? The letter
!is as follows :
' To : Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals
'From: Marvin A. Carlson, 407 N. Aurora Street
{RE : Request for Use Variance by Dr. Baker to allow commercial
use of part of 412-414 North Tioga Street in an R-3 zone.
jDate : January 30 , 1977 1
lE
HAs a resident of the neighborhood near Dr, Baker ' s facil-
�t I
Ijity, I urge the Board to deny this request for a variance. The
11Planning and Development Board in hearing the case seemed to feel
'!that the request should be granted on the grounds that the damage
1Ihas already been done - the building is commercial in appearance I
and making it legally commercial would have no further adverse ef-
11fect . I strongly disagree, on several counts . First, the illegal
ruse of this space for commercial purposes in the past has already
`Thad a clearly adverse effect on neighborhood traffic patterns . J.
I
IM. Patterson of 112 Sears Street testified to your Board on August
1,2 that the traffic from Dr. Baker's complex has made conditions on
11that narrow street far worse. Clearly the illegal real estate
�i
i
35 -
�§ f
',!office located there contributed to this . When the apartment was
!;used as an apartment, only Dr. Bakens mother lived there, with, I {
:`assume, one car. When Mary Tilly's real estate offices were
;!illegally operating in the complex four places in the parking lot
;were set aside for her use, immediately adjacent to Sears Street.
'JThe increase in usage and traffic was obvious. j
ii
i' Second, as living units disappear from a neighborhood,
Iwhether they are in buildings which have a "commercial" appearance
j�
for not, the area becomes more deserted in the evenings, and as any
,,city dweller knows , less safe. Indeed many doctors prefer to
`maintain apartments above their offices for security purposes. w
!;This is only one of several reasons why the conversion of residen-
?!tial to commercial space in any block increases the pressure on
';the remaining units in the block for similar conversion. The pro- 4
!;cess feeds on itself, as we have seen when Dr. Baker, who is
"
Eclearly the agent most responsible for the erosion of much of the
ei
;residential character of this block, cites that erosion now to
;;justify further commercial development.
In each of his appeals Dr. Baker had laid much stress on
;his contributions to the neighborhood, especially on his rehabili- i
i
Ration of 408 N. Tioga, with numerous slides of marginal relevance
to support his argument. These "contributions" have taken a heavy
,!toll, however. Five buildings, three on Tioga and two on Sears,
i
;Ihave been lost to residential use, four of them torn down. The
Ei
±center of the block has been converted to a parking lot - un- j
;i
;screened, unsightly, and generating traffic, especially on Sears
{
;;Street, where it cannot be handled. The quality of the neighbor- "
ihood has seriously declined, in residential terms, and as it has E
?declined, Dr. Baker has gradually bought up most of the other j
!properties within his block and, except for the showcase at 408 ,
s allowing them to decline, thus speeding up the process of
a
►residential decay, wittingly or unwittingly. I submit pictures of 11
i
several of his properties as evidence. This is the dark side behin4
i�lhe surface "restoration" of 408 , It is of course somewhat beside
i
i
36 -
i
he point at issue, but since Dr. Baker continues to lay such stress
Ion 408 1 think it worth. noting the other side of that picture.
The repair or disrepair of Dr. Baker°s various other
; roperties is , I realize, not the issue, despite the slide shows
and photographs, and the BZA is concerned primarily with the legal
'question of variance appeal. Here I can speak only as a layman,
but it seems to me that the language of the original variance was
�iquite clear--a permit "to erect office and apartment, " on the
11grounds "that the present buildings are not adequate nor suited to
I1house our offices, nor a home for Dr. Baker 's mother, who is going
I
Ito live in the proposed building. " (permit 546) It is true that
if
tithe term "commercial building" appears on the subsequent applicatio
I�for a building permit, but no variance was ever granted for that usp,
,i _
'land in fact the building was not designed or�'ycommercially. " The
hit was designed as an apartment--with kitchen, bathroom,
"fireplace, etc. , and was used that way until the recent departure
, of Dr. Baker' s mother. The building indeed has a "commercial"
liappearance- unfortunately for the neighborhood--but inside it was
Ildesigned for conforming use--that is , for medical offices and a
residence. Dr. Baker can therefore hardly argue that he thought he
was building a "commercial" structure . Nor is there any evidence
that continued use of the building in a conforming manner would be
�i"unreasonable" or would prevent the building from "yielding a rea-
�Isonable return. " Dr. Baker experienced no hardship during the year
Ii
'!his mother was using the apartment as an apartment. There is no
,Treason to think that continued use would create a hardship for him I
!I
Inow. I urge only that he continue to utilize the building in a
if I
Illegal manner and in the manner for which he in fact designed it. ?
,I ,
it The loss of a single dwelling unit may perhaps seem a
11small matter to the BZA, but I urge them to consider this case with
. particular care, Of course, allowing any residential unit to con- i
i
vert to commercial space helps to erode the residential zones and
i
remove potential tenants from the downtown area consider how much T
better it is for the city to have Mary Tilly in her present loca
tion than in a residential zone--but this particular case adds T
i j
37 - !
i
ljother dimensions to that general problem. As you well know, the
area around Dr. EakW s facility is under great pressure for com
lmercial use, and every neer variance increases the pressure for
IE
!others. We residents of the area are struggling as best we can to
`preserve an attractive residential area near the Commons , and recent
tI
!rulings by the BZA, the support of the Fall Creek residents , and i
jIthe recent moratorium have all been most encouraging . Still,
l�those of us in the blocks nearest the business zone feel balanced o
Ri
Ha knife-edge. The 400 block on North Tioga already has a substan
1tial percentage of non-resident use, and very little more could
easily tip the balance entirely, thereby greatly increasing the
!Ecommercial pressure on us all . Please help us to preserve our
E,
dneighborhood.
/s/ Marvin Carlson
I
I
!!RICHARD SCHECHTER: I've read it. It "s fine. i
PETER MARTIN: You have no answers or additional information you
;wish to introduce in relation it it? Alright, are there any others
lihere this evening who would like to be heard on this case in oppo-
1sition to the requested variance? Then we will move on to our next
i
?I i
'Icase. Thank you very much.
�1
!
ffI
i? !
�I
ii
i 1
I� 1
4
1! !
f� I
!
I�
E
i
6
r 38
i
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ITHACA �
FEBRUARY 7, 1977
ii
I
EXECUTIVE SESSION j
(i
APPEAL NO, 1141 (A) i
I` R. MARTIN: I move that the requested interpretation
of the 1961 variance Y
requested b the I
q
;
I;
appellant be denied. The appeal form,
fj the notice to the neighbors and the legal !
I '
notice inserted in advance of the 1961
4a
hearing all spoke of the proposed buildin
`i
as an office for Dr. Baker and as an
apartment, The variance granted in 1961
'f was for the use requested and not for
i
1sadditional uses .
i R. KASPRZAK: I Second the motion.
TOTE: YES - 6 NO 0
!APPEi V
AL N0. 1141 (B)
!MR. MARTIN: I move that the Board hold over the
question of the granted use variance
ii
'i until the next meeting for the following ;
i
reasons : M
1 . The Board was presented with a great
mass of testimony and some elaborate
ii
written reports as part of the hearing
E
j this evening.
} 2 , Digesting all of this material and
�I
j bringing it to bear on the issues raised
j� by a use variance requires more time than
we have available this evening.
VISS MAXWELL: I second the motion, I
i, ►
DOTE: YES 4 NO 2
I
1
I
`I
E;
!i �
i - 39 -
i
t�
THOMAS HOARD: With the Board's permission we will hear Appeal 11451
I
!land Appeal 1149 together. They are the appeals of Albanese Plumb-
ding and Heating for a use variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 2 ,
Ito use the premises at 102 Adams Street, in an R-3 use district, as
11follows : 1 , 600 square feet for a retail bakery; and 1 , 000 square 1
;,feet for storage of equipment for the Finger Lakes Amusement Corp.
�IPETER MARTIN: Alright, we combined the two cases ; 1145 is a case
'1
which the Board held over for additional information from its prior
meeting. 1149 concerns the same building and asks for a use var-
il i
iliance for storage there . I
€' I
1ANTHONY ALBANESE : Mr. Chairman, I 'm Anthony Albanese, I reside at
X1111 Salem Drive. I want to apologize for not being here at the
I�
11ast hearing. I was sick and the weather was a little bit inclemen
for me. I 'm here to request the variance for the old Ithaca Calen-
jdar Clock Building in regards to two rentals : one is for the Clever)
i
11Hans Bakery and the other is for Finger Lakes Amusement Company.
The gentlemen who want to rent for the Clever Hans Baker - I think
Ijthey will come up and elaborate on that and as far as the Finger
jlLakes Amusement Company - it ' s , I believe, a couple of studnets who
11have storage down there and they are trying to . . . or they have
lIsome appliances around the campus evidentally, and they are storing
;I
their stuff there - right now, at the Auburn Street side which can
i
1be moved at any time and I - this young man is a senior at Cornell
H
Viand I think he is just starting this Company, or trying to get it
i�started and is hoping to push it off on someone else a little bit
1later but it ' s just a short term lease agreement just for this
i�semester and I thought that our original variance allowed storage
Wand I regret to say that I did misinterpret that part of it. How-
1,ever,
if it is not granted, it won' t hurt me too much as it is only
short term thing anyway, but if they do materialize I 'd like to l
1�
llrequest it. He may sell his business and maybe some other student
�wl1 carry on from there.
1
'l
I
id
- 40 - I
E
1'
11PETER MARTIN: One of the reasons the Board held over the case from
(the early meeting was the desire to inquire about the nature about
`what all was going on in the building, The Board has granted a
i
''series of variances for woodworking shop, as I recall , and a range
i
`of other things in the building and we are curious as to what is
�Istill going on there - of those that we granted variances for and
4at range of proposed uses, in addition to those that are before
the Board this evening, you have in mind.
j(IIANTHONY ALBANESE: Right now there are two rentals . One is the
,
;Finger Lakes Friends of the Library Book Club and the Finger Lakes
kAmusement Center. All the rest is vacant. I have a floor plan
hich will signify what is empty and what is occupied. I have - I
#� I
ight hold it up this way so you can see it. It is pretty well all
jfvacant. This is where my company - Albanese Plumbing is occupied -
�office and shop. This is vacant. This is the proposed bakery.
lFhis is vacant vacant - vacant and vacant. This is where the
IE
1storage for the Finger Lakes Amusement Center Company. So this is
1� roposed bakery here - the proposed bakery; this is the Amusement
iii
�II
, This is all first floor by the way this is the Amusement Company,
l�first floor. Second floor - second floor is vacant and the book
i lub has from this point here all the way around to this point.
his is the third floor and this is what is proposed for storage l
!but we don' t have anything up there. l
i
DGAR GASTEIGER: Did the wood shop come in? i
I
NTHONY ALBANESE: They didn't even get started. This is where thel
bakery is going. This has been my luck with this. We had others
lin there but - construction business has been down. Unfortunately
J 1
vhy we have only the two rentals there now. This here is just a
floor plan and Mr. Egner is drawing up a future plan that we are
rying to lay out on the second floor for proposed offices or utility
�ffices but I ' ll wait until he gets this around and see what the
i
inances are what we can do with that. I won' t want to bring that
G
p, elaborate on that at all , right now.
I
R. GREENBERG: Do you have a site plan with parking spaces , . . ?
u
s!
w
i�
I,
ie
it f
- 41 -
fi
] ANTHONY ALBANESE: Yes, This is Adams Street here - this is the
,:front of the building. This is Dey Street this is Rt. 13 over
'here. Now this is just the way it is right now but Mr. Egner think
. we can get a lot more parking area, We've got close to thirty here
,now and we are only using three ourselves and they want to use fourf
Eland the book club uses one once in a while and that' s the extent
:hof it right now. So we have more than ample parking, These are
garages here and there is a tree here that has an electric guide
I
" line on it, which I would like to remove and there is another tree
;here, or stump, and we have a couple of trailers which we usually
ii
11keep out on construction jobs but there hasn� t been many construc-
;(tion jobs lately so I want to get them out of there just as quickly]
,las possible, and we have more than ample parking here for what we
oneed because there is only two in the building, There is going to
The three of us in the building,
1PETER MARTIN: I might focus our discussion - run over the history
dof the bariances on this building as we have it in the files here.
I(
ilThe use variance and Appeal 1076 was a use variance for the sale
k
nand storage of books covering the Friends of the Library, sale of
iantiques some proposed tenant that you had and professional and
ibusiness offices . That variance was granted subject to the follow-!
f
;ling conditions which are also a matter of concern to the Board
i
which was another reason why this case was held over. The owner will
i
icomplete within two years the removal of the existing laundry power
11plant smoke stack and clean up visible portions of the property. j
I
12) The owner will provide the amount of off-street parking required
lIfor tenant uses and 3) the requirements of a sign ordinance for an
�i!R- 3 district will be complied with. I go over that for the members]
� I
Hof the Board to remind them of the grounds on which this case was !
"held over. So off-street parking was a condition on the original
Fuse variance and that/ s why the Board is asking you, I guess , about
Hoff-street parking,
'i ANTHONY ALBANESE: Well, we 've had - one of the reasons , determining
!;reasons, why I bought the building originally was the accessibilityf
parking,the�
;land 1 p g, and the original plan for that building was thirty
!i
- 42 -
'' I
EI
three off-street parking and they were never laid out properly be- 1
(cause there were chuck holes and we were filling them in and as it
f
'Istands right now, we' ll be utilizing just this side on the Auburn
ilStreet side of the building to be designated for the bakery and
,!these people have one and we have three so there won' t bemore than
Ilseven or eight parking lots used.
I
f�MR. GASTEIGER: Could you comment on the improvement of the build-
'ling?
(ANTHONY ALBANESE: Yes . Unfortunately the summer of 175 I was
dhospitalized and I was laid up for four months , Last year, as
; some of us know, we were held up by some street closings and I won' t
,Igo into that but that' s been taken care of, but we 've been getting
I
jfinancing and we have other sources that we are planning on to I
E�continue with this building. We haven' t stopped entirely. We do j
I
have - the chimney has been removed. Repairs on the roof have been
about 90% complete. Pointing up, we 've got about half of that donei
IiThere was more there after we got some of the materials out of
,,there we realized there was more damage than we thought due to the
;eaves being decayed. Replacing the windows - this is my third time!
it
ilaround. I replaced 250 windows and I replaced about fifty more and
,Iso we have just given up on the windows. Now we are going to - for
11the time being - we are going to wait for the good weather then we
i� I
dare going to put some half inch mesh to cover the windows first. I
,(I r
Maybe we can stop that, but they seem to think that' s a back stop
I�down there for some reason why I just - we catch the kids now and
1Ithen - reprimand them but another one always takes their place. B4
,E
j e' re rectifying that. The sprinkler system is a big problem -
hit ' s going to be an expensive one. We have been working on the
idea of taking some of the broken frozen pipes out and clearing som
lIof the debris away from it so it is all out in the open. We do hav
�i
(some new stuff for it, and we are really waiting on financing to
eplenish that, and rentals more rentals . Repairing of floors
,� e have about 75% to probably 800 of that complete. Some of the
Ifloors had decayed so bad that we had to take them up, fill them ini
r
I�
,f
s
�� — —
F 43
ti
and then put concrete over thea. This was the first floor. Second
11floor, with a roof that leaked and the floors were warped, we have I
probably 750 of that complete, where we cut the floor out and re-
!placed that. Utilities we took out all the electrical and installeld
a complete new electrical system. We have eight new lines in there
from the pole we have eight meter openings , which are new. And
they are spread out through the building, I believe there are six
Mines completed to different areas where we hope to rent one of j
i( I
M11these days. Last the fencing - we put a fence around the no
! I 'm ahead of myself, Repairing the driveway we have filled in
the holes and we are waiting for financing little by little we
,will blacktop it and just as soon as we can get some rentals and
I
�iget some extra cash and last was the fencing on the outside for
i
istorage and we did that. We fenced it and now its a nice hiding {
1place for lovers lane. I may have to get a variance to take it
i
I�back out. I guess that' s the extent of it.
i
IMR. MARTIN: Alright, are there questions from the members of the
lBoard about the new variance the Finger Lakes Amusement Corp.
�IZvakery
-rianceor about compliance with the conditions? Clever Hans
tenants are here and so we can ask them an further
your Y
i'
questions we have about their proposed use.
I
MR. GASTEIGER: You indicated that it is very unlikely the Finger 1
(Lakes Amusement - you didn' t say it was unlikely but it' s not very
i
clear where that would go - I mean you aren' t going to have trucks i
s
driving up there every day . . .
J'MR. ALBANESE: No.
I
lMR. GASTEIGER: It' s just pure storage, not repair?
I i
}�MR. ALBANESE: Right. They may - this I - they haven' t been down
II f
�jthere one day since they've been there and that ' s since last fall.
They may come down in the evening and deliver stuff or take stuff
away - or on a weekend. They've never -- in fact they don' t have
,!any heat in there or anything _ all they have is the electric
turned on and they have a lot of used tables, chairs and restaurant . .
MR. MARTIN: They rent 1, 000 square feet? 0
11
!?
i
ly
44
4
! MR. ALBANESE: Approximately 1, 000.
r
1MR. MARTIN: And there' s negligible traffic in and out? }
1MR. ALBANESE: No problem. In fact I have never seen more than one,
Hcar.
11MR. MARTIN: Further questions about that tenant? Are there furthe
Hquestions of Mr. Albanese about compliance with the conditions?
f
11MR. KASPRZAK: You didn't mention whether you took the laundry
1equipment out or not?
I
!i a
;HMR. ALBANESE: Yes I did.
!i
!!MR. KASPRZAK: You did - okay.
i.
11MR. ALBANESE: There is probably well I 'd say 98% of it is out.!
! There' s a spot way up on the third floor and some piece of big
dequipment -- I don't know what it is, on the second floor but its
ii
about 90% out - 98%.
.I !
! i
!
, MR. MARTIN: Further questions?
11MR. ALBANESE : And this was due I 'm sorry. This was due to the
jjelevator main laid up for awhile. We got that repaired - it ' s a
'! freight elevator and it' s operable so
11MR. GASTEIGER: I was going to say you must have some feel now for
lthe building and the neighborhood the bakery is a little bit
, divergent from the kind of things that have been proposed. Do youl
�jhave any comment on that in terms of potential difficulty? j
MR. ALBANESE: Yes - as far as I don' t live there in the area an4
'i
;II work there during the day - I maintain my plumbing shop there and
!f
'II 've had several people like five or six people call me and ask 4e
i
11what it was going to be . I told them it would be a baker shop
which would have one oven and it would conform to all codes and i
;; health standards — that we could possibly put in there and it
!? wouldn' t be any different than having a as far as I was concerned
li E
'iit wouldn' t be any different than having a boiler or furnace in j
jlyour house, I mean - it isn' t going to be that big and they all
li
seemed to favor it. I say they all - the four or five people -
i C
'Ithe neighbors that I talked with. John Smith called me and asked
�! s
!
i'
i! I
- 45 -
�� i
me about it - I said I think it' s a pretty good idea - what do you I
,1
1think about it? Sounds good he said - the people are interested
lain having something something that they want there evidentally - 1
lino one that I 've talked with talked against it.
H
�MR. GASTEIGER: Are there sidewalks up to the place where the
bakery will be?
IMR. ALBANESE: Right up the front - all the way.
e
IMR. GASTEIGER: So there will be no problems there but there had j
�lbeen conversation about tables, with umbrellas or awnings or some,
ithing - both inside and outside I was wondering how you would
lIview that?
11MR. ALBANESE: Well , as far as I'm concerned it isn' t going to
�I I
(bother me and I don' t think it would bother the people. There is
�iabout 8 to 10 ' of lawn between the sidewalk and the building.
s'
MR. GASTEIGER: You wouldn't be providing janitorial service would
iyou - picking up paper outside and things like that? j
iMR. ALBANESE: No way. No they have disposal areas down there where
ii
iithey can get rid of their excess and the trash is picked up every
IlWednesday morning and we have - they have contacted the Fire Depart;-
�i
ment, the Health Department and about everybody concerned - and
how I felt about it and looking at it from this plan here - This
I
being Adams Street here the sidewalk being right here in front
of it this (bakery) is located right in the middle and there ' s a
11door right here in the front. This plan here was just drawn up jus1t
to show designated areas . We've got Mr. Egner drawing up some com-1
pleted ones . After we get something in there we ' ll know what we
1
are going to do.
MR. MARTIN: Further questions? Thank you Mr. Albanese. i
�MR. ALBANESE: Oh, another thing I might add - the Landmarks Com-
imission - It won' t interfere with the outer structure of the build-
ling which we are working on right now. So this won' t have any
interference on that either. I
I�� MR. GASTEIGER: There will be no external change then?
1
!1
i
I�
i
46 -
�i
11MR. ALBANESE : No. They are using the window opening and any
;access Thank you sir. j
!!MR. MARTIN: Alright can we have one or both of Clever Hans? We
Twill call this Exhibit 1.
'•I
IMICHAEL PARKHURST: My name is Michael Parkhurst. I 'm from Brook-
Itondale, New York. To elaborate somewhat on one thing that was
{
,i, discussed here just a minute ago concerning awnings, umbrellas, out
side service that kind of an idea it' s not our intention im-
,E
1lmediately to getinvolved in that, That' s something that is a pos
,I
sibility in the future but of course we would come to you for a
;separate variance for that if we decided to go in that direction
Iso it ' s really not . . .
i,
! MR. MARTIN: So that's not a part of what you are requesting a var-
iance for tonight?
I
! MR. PARKHURST: Right, This is strictly for a retail bakery.
SMR. MARTIN: A retail bakery with its activities confined on the
11inside of the building.
1MR. PARKHURST: True.
M. GASTEIGER: And that was clear in the letter that was sent out
i
Ito neighbors?
IMR. PARKHURST: Yes it was . To elaborate somewhat on the parking
�Isince that' s a major concern of the Board, we estimated that at our
11busiest
times - this would be Thursday and Friday afternoons betwee
`13 : 00 and 6 : 00 P.M. , we expect to have probably eight cars eight
i
customer spaces to be utilized. We expect eight customers to be
IItaken care of in about a fifteen minute period - this would be
turning over thirty-two cars in an hour that would be absolute
I1tops as far as we can see. So we would like to have two spaces
jidesignated as customer parking for Clever Hans Bakery and also we
will have two employees who will have to park at the shop. John
i
j1won' t be parking there, my partner, won' t be parking because he
illives right down the street and I can park my car at his house so
,Ithat would liberate another space. So the eight for customers and
i
I�
ii
3i
�N
47 -
�� I
jtwo for the employees would require ten parking spaces for the
!! i
jbakery. We've gone beyond this to look at the needs of other (!
� i
11tenants, or possible tenants, For Albanese Plumbing & Heating ;
i! I
he requires three parking spaces for cars and he also has three
'trucks and we thought we would accommodate or he could accommodate
Itwo customer spaces , making a total of eight required for Albanese
Plumbing. Finger Lakes Amusement would need one spot if they were
i
, to park there and Friends of the Library Book Sale people would re-
�Iquire a spot. A person comes by sporatically to bring books up to
'Jthe second floor. And then, of course, when they have their sale
1about twenty cars an hour arrive and park, for about a two week
;period. This would be a total - oh, again, proposed studio space
lthis is not a fact yet, this is something that we understand Mr.
IjAlbanese is thinking about but it ' s not a fact but if he did have
i1five studios on that second floor then each one of those would
ii
;, require a space so we come up with a total of twenty-five parking
14
i
; spaces required for the use of this building in this manner. If
i
i.you look at the drawing in front of you you' ll see there are twent -
�1
lone spaces that are allotted. Each of these spaces is no smaller
it
Ithan 8-1/2 x 18 ' and there is also, if you look at the drawing,
iia six car garage and a section of the building if you see an F and 1
11a G - those are designating doorways that area of the building !
! is where Mr. Albanese is now storing some of his trucks so the
4
iiactual number of parking spaces available is twenty-nine and the
!!maximum use that we can see is twenty-five. That gives us four I
deft over, so we think there is adequate parking availability.
HWe've also done some figuring on what the problems , if any, for !
E
deliveries for our bakery. We anticipate one truck arriving every
!Wednesday around 11 : 00 a.m. This would be for flour, sugar - those!
'kinds of supplies and another delivery on Thursday around 2 : 00.
I
� If you look at the drawing there is a doorway designated A this
is on Dey Street - on the Dey Street side of the building. That �
�k
would be the door through which those deliveries were made. And
I
then twice a month we expect deliveries to be made at our main
s Y
- 48 -
(entrance which is doorway C, if you look at your drawing, which
YI o
i' is on the it 's the main entrance to our retail area. This would
be for paper products and we hope to sell a very exclusive line of
�lcandies, chocolates that kind of thing, so that would be done
i
(through the front door,
JMR. KASPRZAK: Question Michael. Those deliveries on Dey Street -
lwhat will be the duration of the time that the trucks will be
!- r
€there? 10 minutes half an hour.
it �
(;MR. PARKHURST: About twenty minutes. 1
'{> i
,JMR. KASPRZAK: And you say you have designated eight parking spaced
i1for the customer parking type of thing?
11MR. PARKHURST: Yes .
!iMR. KASPRZAK: Where do you hope those cars will be coming from? _
1
"Where is your business coming from, mainly, do you anticipate? Is
flit the neighborhood business you are after or are you going to be
11hoping for Ithaca College business, let ' s say.
&R.
PARKHURST: Well, the neighborhood business could actually walk'
;fright to it .
si
HMR. KASPRZAK: That' s what I'm driving at actually. Do you actuall
,need that many parking spaces for the transitional parking? Eight
�r !
(parking spaces is a lot of turnover you see, and I 'm wondering if
E s
( you are that good, maybe I should go in partnership with you.
1IMR. PARKHURST: Well, like I said this is a maximum figure. We
jreally can' t imagine it being much greater than that and we thought!
11we would be very liberal with this figure.
s
{j !
1iMR. KASPRZAK: Because you know, if you have eight turnover spacep
'land how long do you expect the customer to stay there in your place,
; ten minutes?
'!MR. PARKHURST: Yes .
ii
i
MR. KASPRZAK: So that is six per hour so you have forty-eight cars
lcoming and going and I 'm wondering whether you will . You are beingE
i
lhopeful I think, but. . .
i'
!W, MARTIN: Well - or rather he is demonstrating more than amply
s' f
`that there is parking at the most generous . . .
i
j
II !
l
i�
ii49- - I
IMR. KASPRZAK: I would accept four let ' s say, if he came with it
but he comes with eight so . , . .
, MR. GASTEIGER: May I shift this a bit and ask about how you intenlIa,
i
I
j,to advertise? Do you know what the sign limitations are of the
11building? and this will meet your need adequately? I
I
I; MR. PARKHURST: Yes .
IJONATHON BERNSTEIN: I am Jon Bernstein, 216 Dey Street, a partner
Ilhere . We want to comply with the previous design of the building I
i
land the ordinance to the best of our ability and we will temporar-
� i1y, at least , use a conforming sign, and we will come before the
jBoard, if it' s necessary in the future to obtain a variance for a
f
fnon-conforming sign but we understood that that would not be possi-j
,l
111ble at this meeting and we didn't want to confuse the issue by
�Idoing that. But you raise a valid point that we may have to have a
somewhat larger sign and we will, if necessary bring that up in thej
'Ifuture. We want to follow the letter of the law so that we don' t
f1
E�lose any further time. As you know it has been an expensive month
l` I
sfor us .
i
jIMR. GASTEIGER: I just guess that it would be hard for you to get
; that variance if this is a Landmark - if this building is what . . .
:1MR. KASPRZAK: It isn' t a designated Landmark Building yet, until
I �
Hhe starts working on it. l
I,MR. GASTEIGER: Yes, but they are working on it you might have
I! that restraint as a permanent restraint. I
IMR. BERNSTEIN: Well, we ' ll collaborate with all the people in thei
ii city to insure that the appearance of the building is improved and
4
not brought down. Just wanted to add that there is a harship for
11the bakery to locate elsewhere. We have searched long and hard - E
ilmore than two or three months for other sites - downtown and else-
'I
1where. None offered both easy access to the bakery by vehicle and
Halso a neighborhood to sustain the bakery. For instance, one
I"Commons location that we looked at would have cost us $700. a months.
(This location costs us $200. We 're beginning at this business and
;;the difference of $6, 200. - that' s 18 , 600 danish. That' s a lot of
I
{� i
i t
iS
50 -
�� I
ydanish. So that' s a consideration. In addition, our banker has
virtually rejected a number of higher cost commercial locations
4 ecause these other sites would require a much larger staff and a
s e
greater variety of products than we can now manage.
6y
,SMR. MARTIN: Are there any changes in the dimensions of what you
S
i
!;propose this month farom last month.
�JMR. BERNSTEIN: Yes, we propose 400 additional square feet on the
q'
I; third floor for storage and that' s why we have gone from 1 , 200 to
x; 1,600 square feet. The bakery on the first floor remains the same .
i
'= size .
' MR. MARTIN: If we were defacing one of these exhibits with a pen
' to sort of sketch in __ where which portion of it is your business!. . .
IMR. PARKHURST: Would you like me to deface this one for you? ThisE
i
°' is the area we are talking about- the shaded area. I
MR. KASPRZAK: The one facing Adams Street, in the center of the
I
Hbuilding.
,; MR. MARTIN: Alright. Are there any further questions , in the mat-1
E1 q
ters that were inadequately covered in our prior hearing on this
3
;; case, the Board wants information on this evening.
i•
! MR. BERNSTEIN: We ask for a moment of deliberation on this . . .
MR. MARTIN: I hear no further questions . Are there any others
;' here this evening who wish to be heard on either case 1145 or easel
'' 1149? Hearing none we will move on to the next case.
3q
3
t
t
t
R
3i
j:
i
i;
3
i a
€1
f
i
sl #
Fr.
fs
q* q
I;
!3
9f
d
i
{ gg
{E I
Sf q
i?
F �
Yi
1�
?i
tl '
51 -
I� I
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
�i CITY OF ITHACA
FEBRUARY 7 , 1977
j EXECUTIVE SESSION '
II i
I I
4JAPPEALS1145 and 1149
!11MR. MARTIN: I stove that the requested variances in '
E
cases 1145 and 1149 be granted.
s
FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. In our original action in April 1975
li on Appeal 1076 we found that a use var-
iance was justified for this building
to and granted a variance for certain specil-
Ii
fied uses . Our only question in this
case is whether the proposed uses in
Appeals 1145 and 1149 are compatible
}� i
l with the neighborhood.
2. That prior action also laid down
certain conditions to be complied with
I '
in two years . While the two year perio
is not quite up, the Board did review
j
I.
in the hearing tonight, the degree of
i; compliance with those conditions . E
!i
{ 3. The testimony presented at the heart
I
I
II ing indicated that the storage equipmen
i
i' by the Finger Lakes Amusement Corp. j
;I
+' generated minimal traffic to the building
!i I
and required very little parking.
4
j; 4. The testimony about the proposed
ig
bakery indicated, while it would generate
retail traffic to the building there f
ii
appeared to be adequate off-street park-'
ing for both this proposed use and other)
E uses presently in the building.
M
I
i
I
ii
�i
I�
I I
- 52 -
E
i
` APPEALS 1145 and 1149 (continued)
I
S. Deliveries to the proposed bakery i
I{ �
�i were indicated to be few and there was
( i
`I no evidence that residents of the neigh—i
borhood found the use incompatible.
SMS. MAXWELL: i second the motion. !I
VOTE : YES 6 NO - 0
f
�i
0
i I
� l
is
i'
I
t
j3 s
i`
c'
i
li
�i
'i
I' I
13
IE
ii
i�
1! �
,i
i
;! I
r '
ii
�i
i�
i�
I
,
�1
ii
I
i
.i
i
- 53 -
I
';Secretary Hoard announced case number 1150, the Appeal of the
; Ithaca Gymnastics Center.
i
!!APPEAL NUMBER 1150 : Appeal of the Ithaca Gymnastic Center for an
area variance under Section 30. 25, Columns 14j
and 15 for a 60 ' x 110 ' addition to the gym-
nastics center at 119 Third Street in an R-3
use district. The Board granted a use var-
iance at the January 10, 1977 meeting and
denied the area variance for a 70 ' x 110 ' j
addition which was proposed at that time.
d!MR. MARTIN: Having ranted a use variance at our prior meeting the
'i
;!Board, in a sense, endorsed in principal some expansion of this j
;'non-conforming use but found the proposed area variance too large
'lin the length of the area requirements of the zone. . You are here
1with a new and smaller addition.
]ROBERT MARTIN: Right. What we have done we figured out last
time that with 55% . . . .
; PETER MARTIN: Excuse me. . . we have short circuited your identifica
E;tion of yourself, etc.
;!ROBERT MARTIN: I 'm Bob Martin, director of the Center and I live ait
r
!; 180 Kendall Avenue and what we have done after the last meeting
' f
!where we considered it 550 of occupancy of building to land, we've
i
!'cut 10' off of the south side of the building the full length of it
i
;!possibly 1, 100 square feet, It comes out - including the garage thpt
'1
�1we forgot the last time. Okay, we 've cut off 10 ' the full length 1
i
'!of the building on the south side which cuts it down to 39. 6% of !
i
,;the land occupied by building. We include the garage, also, in the!
1
Aback. We didn' t take that into consideration last time. So we are!
;!asking for 4. 6% over the code. The back part of the building -
what I mean by the back is opposite Third Street - we would like to!
;!build 7 ' from the fence rather than 12, to stay away from the stree'''t
;i
Aside. Now after careful consideration for safety and everything,
�! 1
!sof what we want to do not hitting girders and walls and everything,
! i
;;we've come down to this would be probably the smallest we can possi�
1bly get as near as 35 as possible to do what we want in safety,]
i
;]with the plan on the inside of the building, Also, at the last
`;meeting, it wasn' t part of the variance or anything, was the I
i
- 54 -
Ilbeautification of the building and I brought the contractor here
Viso that he can maybe explain a little bit more because what I told
Hhim to do was to make the building - the front part towards the
�I
!street that is seen tudor chalet and this is what he has done
I
land he says that it is like a stucco with the boards actually on it.
IWe are planting two trees in the front of the building also. On
ilthe south side length of the building that you see at the bottom -
i
,'the complete length of the building what you see there is not
z1actually what is going to be happening there because I just got the
lf
iestimate from the landscaper and what will go completely along the
i
Ilside I ' ll explain this is the bottom of the building - lengthwise: -
southside. Okay? We are going to put ten upright pyramid ever-
11greens and then they've got a lot of names for them here - 24 low
I1evergreens ; 13 vine honeysuckles that are going to be planted
!around - right along the south the entire fence here - that
j,would go up on the fence and beautify the area where the parking
is, to sort of block that area from cars - looking at cars all the i
I�time the way it is now. So it boils down to making the building as
Ismall as we possibly thought we could to get as near as the 35 and
;oto beautify the area as much as possible on the sides that are
jexposed. Now as far as seven feet on the fence - Mr. Hall , last
!week - would like it away from the street as much as possible, so
Hwe figured seven feet back - it doesn� t really make any difference
but we wanted to go along with him. That ' s about it . i
I
�IPETER MARTIN: So - there are two things you are asking. One, you
klare asking for a variance from 35 to 39 point something, of the
�! f
flminimum lot coverage . . .
a ;
ROBERTTMARTIN: Right. .
; PETER MARTIN: And secondly you are asking for a variance from the
i°
!back yard of the property - 12% .
I!ROBERT MARTIN: Right.
FETER MARTIN: And this particular addition does not contain all of
ithe things that the one you were proposing last month does but it
achieves the things - some of the things that you want and you I
can' t go any smaller and really justify . . .
ii
s.
i
- 55 -
(ROBERT MARTIN: Are there questions?
JMR. GASTEIGER: Does this mean the tin construction is abandoned?
( Completely, or?
j
PETER MARTIN: Yes . Well, no, not entirely one side.
�MR. GASTEIGER: It ' s just a facade then?
,ROBERT MARTIN: Well, its the side facing Third Street and then
1,1
Ithere is a little that would be todor chalet.
�JMR. KASPRZAK: Is it going to reflect . . . at least I see you are
trying to reflect the existing facade of the building?
11MR. CERESARO: Yes, it will. I'm Vic Ceresaro with A. J. Ceresaro,r
i� r
�JEndicott, New York. It 's a monsanto effect Monsanto puts this
product out. What it really is is very heavy plywood with a stuccol
effect against it that is guaranteed for twenty-five years not to
I
( crack or discolor or anything else. It is an excellent product.
It' s being used now on banks and such. This will be put up in �tt
I 1
jfront instead of steel and against that we will put wood strips
j
;' stained the same way the Ithaca Gymnastic Center is right now to
i
�Iblend in with the coloring and styling of the building to give it
i'
English tudor effect - it will go across the front of the building,f
11
along the side where it meets up to the existing building, The
Bother side of the building will be a very light tan and it will bel
i
1a solid light tan with a dark brown roof which will match the
I
', existing roof now. The downspouts will be dark brown too so it
will match as close as possible to the existing building. fI
' MR. GASTEIGER: Are you going to have kids up on your roof? IiI
�1PETER MARTIN: Members of the Board have questions?
11MR. KASPRZAK: There' s only one question here is that 7- 1/2 ' to
�I
;(, the rear is there any difficulty with the fire people? Access f
l
11possibility?.
i�
j1ROBERT MARTIN: No, Tom Hoard looked at it and there doesn' t seem I{
i I
to be any . . .
'MR. CERESARO: I believe that you can get to behind this property �)
�1from adjoining properties ,
I
i
I
i
i
s
i'
i�
56 -
i
!!MR. KASPRZAK: We cannot allow that. That ' s somebody else ' s prop- '
lerty. I know in an emergency you donut look at it that way but I 'm!
I
jafraid the other guy can come and say - well you can get from this
(property to mine and build right next door to you.
'IMR. GASTEIGER: Assume that you have obtained practical parking
?;space here. There is no solution, really, to the drop off and pick!
I: I
up. T mean thats . . . .
�;ROBERT MARTIN: They have to do that right in front of the building;.
MR. GASTEIGER: No clever ideas caste up since last month.
k
'IROBERT MARTIN: No. i
(MR. CERESARO: I believe the parking does meet all regulations in-
volved. There are possibilities of elimianting the trees on the
` south side of the building here and putting more parking places
;!which I would not suggest - the idea of the trees is a very good
!! idea. It should be left in.
I1MR. GASTEIGER: I realize that its late - when I looked at this it
;just seemed to me that you might solve this problem by moving this
k
11building five feet away. You have to cover a whole you have to
0
:cover a 73' wall with more sheeting and such like that and it is
lquite a bit more expensive and I don't think it would really serve
Es
;'the purpose of showing the building away from the existing building;.
llYou would only be able to see it from a very small angle.
3
=PETER MARTIN: Further questions? Anyone else here this evening
ll
= who would like to be heard on this request of the Ithaca Gymnastics'
I�Center for an area variance? Hearing none, we will end the hearingl
! on that case and move on to the next. I
l
�i
k?
It I
I
1,
,l I
ik
i!
k� I
1.
ij
li I
�I i1
�� II
�! I
ii
j I
� s
- 57
!� I
'! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS !�
k CITY OF ITHACA !
FEBRUARY 7, 1977
1
i
r5
1 EXECUTI'V'E SESSION f
y
(APPEAL NUMBER 1150
�I
IMR. MARTIN: x move that the requested area variance in �
!o
Case 1150 be granted.
IiFINDING OF FACT: 1. By its grant of the use variance at last
:i
i
month' s meeting the Board, in principal, ap-
proved expansion of this non-conforming use
I! but found the addition proposed last month
Ejtoo large in terms of the lot coverage re-
quirements of the ordinance.
2 . The addition presented to the Board at
this hearing comes much closer to being with-1
Ein the 350 lot coverage maximum of the
i'
ordinance.
j
3. The remaining discrepancy is slight.
jI The evidence presented indicated even with
�i
the addition, required off-street parking
rwould be available.
I
jMR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion.
E
i
's VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0
�i
t �
1 �
I)
i
i'
Ij
r i
I
f.
3�
li
- 58
I
ISecretary Hoard announced the next case to be heard.
�IAPPEAL NUMBER 1147 : Appeal of John T. Pine, representing Gulf
�� Oil Company for a special permit under Sec-
tion 30 . 25, Column 2 and Section 30 . 49C to
modernize and convert the service station
at 302 W. Seneca Street and Albany Street to
?� a self-service station. The present service
j station is an existing non-conforming use in
an R-3 use district.
i OHN T. PINE: Mr. Chairman, Board Members, my name is John T. Pine
Construction and Maintenance Engineer for the Gulf Oil Corp. for the
i
State of New York and 'Vermont. We are proposing to take our exist-
;;
ling three-bay station and remove one -third portion of it, and in-
stall a canopy over two new islands, taking the first bay and turn-
ling that into a new sales room. Unfortunately I only have one
Iprint with me that shows you a plot plan of what we propose - this
,lbeing the two new islands out front and the new sales room which (
i
would have windows on both sides so the attendant - incidentally
I
( this would be a complete self-service - so the attendant has a
jclear vision of any one of the fifteen hoses that would be avail-
able to the public. In doing so with this canopy - we would instal
is mansard roof it' s a steel roof, baked enamel on it, that would
'extend on both sides of the canopy on the front all the way across
; the front side of the modernized building. Also we would install
isix new planters in the curved areas around both street sides of
the property and across the front of the modernized building. We
##(would also remove the old type florescent lighting that is there
sky and
Know but seems to radiate into the the new
,i Y put high intensit
Idischarge lighting that you probably know as mercury vapor lighting;
i
,Ibut in this case there is a new type lighting called metal high E
C
light that is more efficient but it gives the same amount of light
ithout radiating into the neighboring property. We would also
; install the latest self service equipment, computers, etc. inside
i
Ithe station which gives the attendant the capability of controlling
i
�Ieach hose individually or all hoses at one time in case there was
(`a.n emergency such as a spill, in case one customer would be light i
ling a cigarette at the same time he is putting gas into his car the
1,
i'
k
- 59 -
i
[ attendant has the ability to shut that product off without inter-
rupting anyone else. We reel that there is a great need at this
i'
Vocation to clean it up - it right now is an eye sore. We are the
iffirst to admit it and we are very interested in making it blend in
i
' to the rest of the city and some of the up-grading that has been
Agoing on down there, One other thing we would remove the old Gulf
llidentification that sits on the corner now and put up a new type
(sign that is 6' in diameter and just below it we would put up a
i f
114 x 5 square foot sign that would have the price on it. Now we
r I
11have done this a number of times throughout New York and found that'
I
1,we were able to let the customer Know what product is there or what
,jtwe have to offer as far as Gulf 0X1 is concerned and also tells '
jthem what the price of the gasoline is . There is no hesitation on
!� 1
jthe customer' s part when he is driving down the highway. He can
,1
i�very easily see just ghat the price is - there is no confusion - I
ie have found that if we have sidewalk signs or any other type signj
I I
(lit does create a confusion - the customer doesn' t know whether to
11
Nome in or not - therefore possibly causing an accident,
�� ETER MARTIN: Can I halt you for a moment? fi 'm a little bit j
1 I ,
puzzled about precisely what is at issue before the Board tonight.
I
is a non-conforming use in a R-3 use district, and it occurs to
I
e that if it is being extended or enlarged, or expanded, then you
iwould be here for that. If there are any area problems
nside yard, front yard, lot coverage, etc. , you might be here for
I
hat but T don't see any reference that would suggest that in the 1
notice or in the application. You have been talking about signs buL,
here is nothing in the application or the notice that talks about
variance from the sign ordinance, so I gather that ' s not before
I; !
s tonight.
R. PINE: As a matter of fact, we, of course, checked with your
ii It I
oning people about this sign and they advise me that the new zoning
egulations on signs would be that the sign must be 10 ' back from 0
tiach property or each property line. Knowing that this is going to I
� i
#e a fact later, I am not sure when, we also incorporated that too. !
0
it
l
i;
i1 I
!1
If i
li I
60 -
i
x ' 79 the gentleman says . Because, of course, we wouldn' t want to
; j
! start tearing up black top or whatever . . .
!MR. MARTIN What is it that you want to do that you have applied
!; for andgiven adequate notice of, that requires our permission?
MR. PINE: Well, T was under the impression that being that it is
ti
linon-conforming use now that in order to modernize it we would have
to get your approval first.
11MR. MARTIN: Alright and are you expanding it or just modernizing
i
it?
IMR. PINE : Just modernizing it, The fact is that the actual build-'
ling size will be one-third smaller.
I�
HMR. GASTEIGER: These are pumps here?
it
i1MR. PINE : Yes. This is an island. There is a dual door and a
�i
61single five hoses on there, two doors and two singles here and two
s;
I1singles in this side. All told there is fifteen individual hoses.
,IDR. GREENBERG: How many are there now?
i4
ii
1MR. PINE : Fifteen individual hoses .
9
�'DR. GREENBERG: How many are there now, present?
IMR. PINE : Eight.
is
{i t
!!DR. GREENBERG: So that is a little bit of an expansion as far as . .
MR. PINE: Yes, as a matter of fact it is an increase . . .
MR. VAN MARTER: Number of employees under present operation is
!what please?
IMR. PINE: Two
IMR. VAN MARTER: And under the proposed is what?
IMR. PINE: Let me back up for a second. You mean the number of em-
,
10loyees . . .
IMR. VAN MARTER: The way the station has been operating in the past
i R. PINE: At one time there is one employee. With the new set
j p there will still be one employee on at one time. Now, of course
III they run in shifts . There could be three a day - one on each shift
11IR. KASPRZAK: Are you going to be open 24 hours?
I'
kR. PINE: No sir. The hours should not change. They should be th
�ame as they are now which is approximately 7 : 00 in the morning to
i
I�
ii
ij
- 61 -
ilto 11 : 00 in the evening.
�DR. GREENBERG : fis there a truck or car rental agency associated
wtih the facility now?
i,1MR. PINE : No sir, no.
11MR. GASTEIGER: This is the entrance here, here and here?
IMR. PINE : Yes.
11MR. GASTEIGER: This island looks like its in the way of traffic. 1
I�MR, PINE : We have found - my sales people tell me that our main 4
(
11business is generated off of Seneca Street which, of course, as ('('
;!you know is one-way. But that is our main traffic flow. There ares
csome customers that come this way which is why this is the island
E
it
Ethat ' s there now and we left it there for that convenience. Believe
ilme if this turns out to be a r something bad and it deters traffic
IJI 'm sure that we would ask to remove it,
,1MR. MARTIN: The operator of the station, previous , did a fair
11amount of service. The operation you propose will not do anything
I� 1
mother than pump gas?
1MR. PINE: For the last eight months to a year its been a mini-
]serve which had no service as far as iubri. . . .
'iIMR. MARTIN: Alright , but the operator prior to that , Eddie Joseph, ]
!; I
'Iwho moved over on State Street did substantial service.
it
11MR. PINE: Yes he did and he still does .
= MR. MARTIN: And still does from that location but we are talking
i+
i�about this property. This property used to have some service on th�
ii. . . and now it' s just pumping gas , and it will just pump gas under
i
1the proposed modernization.
i
11MR. PINE: And if I may, the bay doors will be blocked up and board!
land batten material will be put over the front so there will be no
entrance of vehicles inside the building.
i
IMR. KASPRZAK: Do you need any new curb cuts or anything like that? !
HHave you checked that with the engineers?
I
MR. PINE : No, they will all stay the Same. We are only going to f
rlemphasize them with the planners, We have found that a gas station
I
�i
{ f
- 62 -
i I
i�
;!just is no good anymore you need a service station where it has
Jmore appeal to the female driver and we have found that we have to 1
r
11dress them up and make them look presentable and this is one of the
"things we would like to do here,
JMR. GASTEIGER: I don't see reserooms for the female driver,
pIMR. PINE : There is none for the male driver either.
i
HMR. GASTEIGER: No restrooms.
I;
'MR. PINE: No sir, only for the employees,
r'
i;MR. MARTIN: So let' s summarize what kinds of changes are going on.
IJn terms of the size of the facility, it ' s getting smaller but the �
ilnumber of pumps is going up?
i'
11MR. PINE: Yes sir.
MR, MARTIN: And perhaps the volume of business?
.MR. PINE : We hope so.
i
! MR. KASPRZAK: I'm sure Ed Joseph doesn't.
i
I
IMR. MARTIN: Some additional traffic. Your gas station will no i
Monger furnish service but will just pump gas and the facility is
i
(;going to be modernized so that, assuming your standards of aesthetic-S,
z,
11it will be prettier than it was before, and the sign issue is not
.'before us . Any questions?
i
MR. KASPRZAK: You say the sign issue is not before us?
�!�MR. MARTIN: I don' t understand there to be any variance from the
:'sign ordinance for which there has been an application and proper
',notice filed. Am I right or am I wrong? i
MR. GASTEIGER: Well there is a fuss about signs at the Planning
�4
ilDevelopment Board and it seems to me that . . .
,MR. MARTIN: I know and I 'm looking at the formal notice of this
';which refers only to the zoning ordinance. I 'm looking at the
.;application which refers to Section 30 . 25, Col . 2 and 30. 29C of thel
' zoning ordinance. So whatever needs to be in their minds to do about
lithe sign they may have even talked about it at the Planning Boardj,
i
` isn' t part of the application, Am I missing something?
1MR. PINE: The sign - isn't that part of the total project or would{
li {
! I need a special permit . . .
ii
i
i( J
i
i!
i
i
i
- 63 -
I
p I
11MR. MARTIN: There is a separate sign ordinance and you would need
:11if you contemplate anything not permitted by the sign ordinance youl
i+would need a variance from that,
I
HMR. PINE : Could I ask how many square feet you are allowed with a �
I
!sign in this location?
'!MR. KASPRZAK: Tom, can you reach quickly into your wisdoms?
MR. PINE: T looked through the book and couldn' t find it.
11MR. KASPRZAK: That does�ntt matter It ' s an R- 3, right?
='::MR. MARTIN: In any event, that will have to be worked out at some
1
, later occasion if our sign ordinance gives you trouble with what
you contemplate that's a matter that we can't iron out this evening.
i
1MR. PINE : Pine. I
1MR. MARTIN: So, does the Board have any questions about the pro-
3
1` posed use variance represented by an expansion of a non-conforming .
fuse. It's not an expansion physically but it ' s an expansion in -
`jarguably in the intensity of the use, which would be why he is her .
jIf we don' t hear any further questions. . . Thank you, Mr. Pine. Ise
I
; there anyone else here this evening who would like to be heard on
i this case? Case 1147. 1 have a letter that I will put in the
11record a short one from V, Stewart Underwood 312 Cayuga u a Hei hts
g
I! �
,l Road, dated January 10 .
Dear Mr. Pine :
i 'I am in receipt of your letter of January 7th advising me of the I
i
a
Y proposed modernizing service station at 302 W. Seneca St . As owne4
! of the property across the street from you, (namely 305- 307-311 an
313 W. Seneca Street) I wish to advise you that I am in favor of
your proposed modernization and am so advising the Board of Zonings
'� I
,f
Appeals by a copy of this letter. " Anything further on case 11471
ii If not we will move on to 1148 .
i<
I'
I+ i
F i
I
Ff1
S'
f
i�
I! I
li I
r, �
E
64
BOARD QE ZONING APPEALS
(I CITY OF ITHACA
FEBRUARY 7 , 1977
ii
E EC'tJTrVE SESSI'QN
;;APPEAL 1147
i
;EMR, MARTIN: I move that the requested use variance in
s Appeal 1147 permitting extension or expansion
i
of non-"conforming use be granted. {
it
111FINDING OF FACT: 1. The proposed change to the service statio#
may increase the traffic generated by it but 1
it will not change the nature of the use and
will , in fact, reduce the amount of building, ;
according to testimony presented. ,
66
ii
1! 2 . There is no evidence that the structure
i
in question could be used reasonably for a
i! use permitted in the R-3 zone.
i
jMR. GASTEIGER: I second the motion. i
is
HVOTE : Yes - 5 NO 1
ki
MR. MARTIN: The requested area variance is granted.
i�
H
a ;
1R ;
E j
I�
is
i!
II !
i I
i
�S
I'
l
� f
II
�F
r
f�
w! i}
i
i
i)
�� i
�i
65 -
,4Secretary Hoard announced the last case before the Board.
11APPEAL 11.48 Appeal of South Shore Automatics for a use
variance under Section 30, 25 , Column 2 to use]
a former grocery store at 213 First Street for
an office, storage and service facilities for
i; a vending machine company. The property is
!` located in an R-3 use area,
sj
;!ALEX TOPLEY: My name is Alex Topley, 129 Linn Street, representingi
1Ithe owners, Lesley Reid Jones of the property on 213 First Street,
IlSince putting the application in we've had some further evidence of�
!ihardship on the Jones's part. He is . . .
111LEWIS K. THALER: I'll speak for the Jones . My name is Lewis K.
!!Thaler and I 'm a member of the firm of Thaler and Thaler, 309 N.
ii I
� Tioga Street , Ithaca, New York. We have represented the Joneses �
1for several years . They live at 1557 Slaterville Road - outside
Fithe city here, their address is Ithaca. I 've been personally ac-
liquainted with this property for over fifty years . I knew Mr. Jones '
ildad who ran the grocery store for a great many years and from that
area he also sold wood which was used in fireplaces and stored it
i
�iat that location and now I will turn it over to Mr. Topley who is
i
with Vasse Real Estate as he stated, he represents them as the
;sellers from the real estate standpoint, and we from the legal
standpoint. As he started to say and I stopped him, because it is
# a rather- touchy problem Reid is very ill - that ' s why he ' s not
here - Reid Jones and his wife is not too much better, but as fart
i
las Reid is concerned it is a touch and go proposition - that' s why
1he ' s not here.
j�MR. TOPLEY: I never realized when I put the application in that
this was the case of a physical or health problem. It has quite a
1Ibearing on it - the hardship being that they just have no income
ii
] now. We listed it probably for sale around the $40, 000 mark about !
]eighteen months ago and have since reduced ti just about one-third
11to sell to Southshore Automatics to give the Jones ' s some money.
jThey are hard pressed, now to meet their bills - the financial obli- 1
Igations of the property. It is beginning to show disrepair, the f
]paint is peeling off the trim - they are just unable to keep it up
]
ij
i
i
66 -
Ij �
I{Ephysically for health reasons and financially. We had two or three
!e
bother prospects for the building. Costs for renovation for other
; use - apartment use -. is out of this world. It' s just an old
E 1
;building it 's been a grocery store for forty -•fifty years now. +�
i
I have a 1937 directory which lists it then. It 's the only known
�iresidential property in the area at this time. It has a limited
E �
functional use as grocery store. The ma and pa operations now are
l�
IEslowly going out of business to the super markets . As far as
ic i
lSouthshore Automatics are concerned, I don' t foresee any adverse
11affect on the area there r in fact it would be an improvement.
.j
Where would be no large trucks delivering groceries. Mr. Sage has
?two pick-up trucks small trucks. Itis a limited operation, they
would start in the morning - go out and do their work - report back
in in the evening and that would be their day's work. There would j
E
,be no constant use there.
f
LEWIS THALER: There's off-street parking, j
MR. TOPLEY: There is off-street parking to the southside of the
building which would accommodate all of his vehicles . I have a
i
i1couple of photos one from the north and one from southside. Ther
Mould be no excessive noise and it would be a very low level use.
R. MARTIN: Could you describe the tenant ' s business just a bit
ore fully? Do they have . . .
R. TOPLEY: Southshore Automatics is vending machines, cigarettes , ]
i
he new electronic ping pong games , pin ball machines, bowling ma-
1
hines , none of which would be used on the premises - they'd be
rought back in for repair and taken back out again.
1
MR. MARTIN: Would they maintain an office in the premises? �
f E
R. TOPLEY: I believe, as far as I know they would have an office I
� I
n there just for their minor bookkeeping, yes.
I R. MARTIN: Store some machines?
i
�4R. TOPLEY, They need the storage space.
R. THALER; There will be a much greater the use of it will be �
much less than it has been as a retail store for over fifty years.
R. MARTIN: We have, as you probably know, a recommendation from
i
i
i
I
- 67 -
i
�Ithe Planning Board that we deny the variance and I 'd like your re-
;(action to their rationale, Their rationale is that, I understand,
;lthat mere storage has nothing positive for the neighborhood and
i
lthat a variety of commercial uses might - like a bakery have
? some positive features. You don't use a bakery, for example
Mr. Topley: The bakery people already looked.
MR. MARTIN: No, but I'm interested in your reaction to it does `cc
i
,lit not enhance the neighbQrhoQd?
(MR. THALER: Well , I think it would be a better neighbor than -
,i i
ilit's true the grocery store was of some service to the people there,
abut as it was pointed out - it always was a small , neighborhood
3
jgrocery and the competition now from the super markets that ' s
1!gone out and Reid had a difficulty even before he became very ill
and, as I say, I represented his father and then represented him
!� i
11for many years after I got in the law practice. I knew his dad
Hquite well and, as I said, I did business with him. I lived not E
!far from here at one time and it would seem to me that under the
ljcircumstances it would be less objectionable from the neighbor' s
i
jstandpoint than the way the grocery store was going, because of
lReid' s health. He couldn' t tend to it as he had in the past we j
Jihad a little difficulty which is confidential and I can't reveal
J
i
Eland it seems to me that if anything should spoil this prospective
sale, instead of improving it - it ' s going to be much worse, as
lMr . Topley indicated. These folks cannot afford to maintain it
land it would be a sad situation if they had to lose it because they
couldn' t pay the taxes . It is that bad. It is a real hardship if
a,
lithey cannot complete this sale. f
11MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Questions? j
I
"MR. VAN MARTER: What exists in the building now on the first floor
;j
IlMr. Topley: On the first floor there was some grocery equipment - I
i
how much is left, I don' t know..
I.
�MR. VAN MARTER: .rust space - it was the store space. . . l
SIR, TQPLEY': Therels no permanent fixtures,
R. VAN MARTER: No cooler-?
l� �
f
68 -
�I
i�R. TOPLEY: The coolers were all portable and as far as I know
;they are mostly being removed now. He has had to sell them off in
,;the past . . .
VAN MARTER: To the rear is storage space?
I�R. TOPLEY: To the rear is a new addition 20 x 30 it ' s a !
ilcender block, single story, with a garage door, j
NR. VAN MARTER: But that was for storage space?
R. TOPLEY: For storage, yes.
I�
!MR. VAN MARTER: How about the second floor?
IMR. TOPLEY: The second floor is a seven room apartment.
Ij
!SIR. VAN MARTER: One unit seven rooms.
E!
R. TOPLEY: Seven rooms, yes.
J�R. VAN MARTER: Front and rear entrance or just one?
iMR. TOPLEY: It has a front entrance and a rear porch. I don' t re_ 1
imember if there is a door onto the rear roof or not. I think it isl
11just a porch.
IMR. GASTEIGER: One or two apartments upstairs?
I'
I,1MR. TOPLEY: ,rust one - one, seven room.
1MR. GASTEIGER: That doesn't carry this building .
'1MR. TOPLEY: No sir. I am having difficulty in renting it because
II can' t give anybody a lease on the apartment due to an oncoming
sale. How do you rent for thirty days? You might be in for thirty
days and got to move out if I sell it.
�MR, GASTEIGER: The apartment is empty now?
� MR. TOPLEY: Yes ., 1
i�MR. KASPRZAK: Is the prospective buyer interested in renting it
I
as an apartment upstairs?
MR. TOPLEY: I believe so, yes . He basically is more interested ini
;the room for storage, his office facilities would take up most of
the front of the store would get somebody in there and the rear
E
1Ipart .would be storage, where the garage is.
11MR.. GASTEIGER: Will he change the front of the building for his
Ilbusiness?
i
�MR. TOPLEY: I foresee the only change will be the sign coming down!.
� I
ii
- 69 -
ii
a.
IjIt has a ,Tones Grocery Store which comes out from the building. I
:i
�i
believe he would change that and put probably right on the door
;i
icor on the windows there would be his name ,
,.
!:MR. THALER: The sign has been there a long time.
1MR, MARTIN: Are there anymore questions from the Board?
IR. VAN MARTER: This has been listed for a year and one-half?
I R. TOPLEY: Approximately a year and one-half. And before that,
i
� I believe Mr, ,Tones was trying to sell as a going concern.
R, THALER: Yes, he told me some time ago he did try to sell it
;las a grocery store .
i�MR. MARTIN: Any further questions?
I(
11DR. GREENBERG: How many employees would the Southshore Automatic. .
if
SMR. TOPLEY; The owner and two workmen - three mechanics ,
ii
1,IM
GASTEIGER: Plus a secretary?
s
;,
!IMR. TOPLEY: No secretary - he ' s the secretary.
i
IDR. GREENBERG : The claim was mentioned specifically truck
Itraffic would be generated. You say that truck . . .
,DICK SAGE: No trucks would be there,
IiiDR. GREENBERG: No trucks would be there?
I
14DICK SAGE : The trucks will be on the road.
;3
R. TOPLEY: He has two pick-up trucks for service.
' R. GREENBERG : How many times will they be picking up and leaving?
What would you think that traffic . . .
t
�bICK SAGE : They leave in the morning and they come back at 4 : 00
ii
lin the afternoon.
fIDR. GREENBERG: That would be it - two trucks?
I
�� ICK SAGE: Three trucks . One guy comes in at 2 : 00 P.M. - two guysi
i
,come in . . .
l
PETER MARTIN: If we are going to rely on this testimony we need to
ave you come forward. Please identify yourself for the record.
ICK SAGE : I'm Dick Sa e, There are two men who are supposed pposed to �
ome to work at 9 : 00 A,M. They overlap one another. At 2 : 00 P.M.
another man comes in and works until 10 ;00 E.M. on calls . There
re no men in the shop except me or one man and Itm there to answers
I
I
i
i
(i #
- 70 - !
i I
li #
11the telephone and to do my business and the other man is there to
H
!!fix the machines but nobody is there. The store is vacant.
i
`IMR.
;rKASPRZAK: Are those trucks parked overnight on your property? !
: On that property, I should say.
i
;MR, SAGE: My men have their rules to take their trucks home with I
Ithem, I give that thing, T have one spare truck I will keep in'
i
111the garage, There will be no trucks there.
i
�MR. GASTEIGER: How about the man who is on duty until 10 : 00 P.M.
Is he in and out with the truck?
11MR. SAGE : Not in and out with the truck. He is on the telephone. f
11When he gets a call he is gone.
!MR. GASTEIGER: But he leaves in a truck.
�!MR. SAGE: He leaves in a truck.
11MR. GASTEIGER: Good mufflers.
11MR. TOPLEY: A lot better than some of the cars .
11MR. SAGE: Watch my bills . Ask Pritchard.
IDR. GREENBERGER: Why do you want to locate in a congested facility
hike this when you could locate almost anyplace . . 1
= 1
!MR. SAGE : I got burned out three years ago. I need more room. I
1have eleven foot bowling machines I got to put out on location. l
yI need room to lay them down. They are at the bus terminal now.
!
�We used to have lockers . I cannot get my equipment ready to move
� e
flout I don't have enough room down there.
jMR. GASTEIGER: You are not going to test bowling machines there?
with pins flying. . .
�i
11MR. SAGE : No. . . ;
t
11MR. GASTEIGER: Is there noise associated with the work?
1
11MR. SAGE : There is no noise associated with it. They are not that.
I
kind of machines .
R. TOPLEY: Electronic - electric.
!MR. KASPRZAK: Did you try to locate in any other part of the city l
i
l�because it seems that it doesn' t matter actually where you are
I
Illocated,
I
R. SAGE : Well, I 'll tell you one thing, you workout of a truck
i0
�I
!I
I
i
I
71 -
land a car for two months in a row and try calling telephone booths
and find a place in town, I was out at the Empire Building Supplies
,when they _, five kids burned the place down. I lost $90, 000. down
I,
; there, I 've been trying to relocate since , I finally thought I 'd
I
,'found a place that was big enough for me,
MR. TOELEY: There are other locations which would need work
extensive work,
, MR, SAGE: I am not going to change anything around, I just want
I
i
room to move.
MR. THALER: I don't care about hime , I care about my clients . . .
They are in bad trouble ,
IMR. SAGE: We' ll take care of one, we' ll take care of two.
1MR. GASTEIGER: Do you anticipate taking the glass out of the front
Ii
of the building converting it so it looks like a residence?
, MR. SAGE : No, I figure maybep ainting the glass black and putting
bars behind it for security problems. I figure on one room being
!ia vending room and blacking that off.
lIMR. GASTEIGER: This isn' t going to meet the objections of the
�ineighborhood when they want to see it as residential?
MR. THALER: We haven't had any objections from any of the neigh
hors.
lMR. SAGE : We might have one, behind us.
' 1
MR. TOPLEY: The several;)neighbors that I have spoken to , I don't
know their names but there was no adverse affect from them nothing
that would in fact everybody has thought so highly of Reid Jones
that
MR. THALER: He was good to them, and so was his father before hi .
MR. SAGE : I 'm good to people if they are good to me. !
MR. MARTIN: Are there further questions? Thank you. Is there
anyone else here this evening who would like to be heard in this f
` case first, anyone who would like to be heard in favor of the I
I'
requested variance?
jBILL BOWER: Yes, my name is Bill Bower, I live at 108 Madison St.
I�
!
I
�i
t�
I
72 - I
iI
!I have talked with several neighbors around there and they are glad
1�that something is going to move in where the store was .
R. SAGE : Thank you, I thought you were against me.
IMR. MARTIN: Is there anyone else who would like to be heard on
'{this case?
SAM CAREY: My name is Sam Carey and I live at 220 Lake Avenue. I
have for seventeen years, T have no objections.
MR. MARTIN: I think that accounts for everyone in the room but I
will ask, is there anyone else who would like to be heard on this
case? Seeing none, I will declare this portion of the public hear-
ing at an end. We will go into executive session and reconvene
+ when that is over.
I
f
E�
f
I
i
I
I
I�
II
€° I
- 73 -
ii
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I
j CITY OF ITHACA
I.i FEBRUARY 7, 1977
EXECUTIyE SESSION
,fAPPEAL 1148
1
� MR. GASTEIGER: I move that the use variance be granted.
1
FINDING OF FACT: 1. The property has been on the market for
I �
i eighteen months according to testimony pre-
sented, without a buyer who would continue
the present non-conforming use or convert it
back to a residence.
I
2 , The proposed use will not, according to
testimony presented, generate significant j
traffic or have other significant adverse I
I!
! impact on the neighborhood,
S. MAXWELL: I second the motion. f
I
VOTE : YES 5 NO -
�j l
Ili
I I
I. E
I�
! I
i
i
!
I!
I
4
i
r j
I!
i;
!i f
�9
I!
i
ii
74 -
i
( I , Barbara Ruane, Do Certify That I took the minutes of the Board
i;
111of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals Number
€1141, 1145, 1147 , 1148 , 1149 and 1150, on February 7 , 1977 at the
i;
'Icity Court, City of Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed
�Esame, 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
i
== thereof to the best of any ability.
!i
Alt/li
Barbara Ruane
Recording Secretary
i
I
jj
ill
i
;I
!
I �
Sworn to before me this I
4
day I
of � '_�- � 1977 .
67
INotary &blic
f
MARY b IENSON No 55.5270900 i
(OMY►abbe,9*4 of New Ywk i
� ,k �M%V 7
14 !
i
i�
I I
j
I
;i
it
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA
CITY COURT, ITHACA, NEW YORK
FEBRUARY 7 , 1977
regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca,
as held in City Court Chambers , Ithaca, New York on February 7 ,
1977.
PRESENT: Peter Martin, Chairman
C. Murray Van Marter
Gregory Kasprzak
Martin Greenberg
Edgar Gasteiger
Judith Maxwell
Thomas Hoard, Building Commissioner and
Secretary
Barbara Ruane, Recording Secretary
hairman Martin opened the meeting listing memebers of the Board
resent. The Zoning Board operates under the provisions of the
Ithaca City Charter and the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Our procedure
Ls a fairly simple and straight forward one . We take the cases in
ublic session in order. On occasion when they are out of numerical
order we may bring together two cases involving the same individual.
e ask that all who participate in the hearings identify themself
y name and address (do we have any single place where it would mak
ense for people testifying to come? Sit at the end of the table,
peaking to the members of the Board but speaking loud enough so
hat the others present also could hear. ) identify yourself by
ame and address , limit your remarks to the issues that are before
he Board. After hearing those who are speaking in favor of the
equested action first, both the appellant and any others who want
1.o speak in favor of a requested action, then we hear any present
ho want to speak in opposition. We move through the cases and then
o in to Executive Session to deliberate and we reconvene in public
ession to announce the results . We have a full docket this evening
nd we do have two or three cases which are back for a second time
o the Board. In such a case where the matter has received a full
Baring already - there is no need to go over the ground covered
n the earlier hearing. So what we would be interested in,
n such cases, is new material. A change in plans,
2 -
additional evidence , matters that particularly concern the Board.
Mr. Secretary, what is our first case?
Secretary Hoard announced the first case to be heard.
APPEAL NO. 1141 : Appeal of Robert W. Baker and Natalie P. Baker
for an interpretation or use variance under,
Section 30. 25, Col . 2 , to use the second floor
of the building at 412-414 North Tioga Street
for a professional office for a lawyer, engineer,
architect, accountant, real estate broker, or
insurance salesman.
ROBERT WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is
Robert Williamson, I am with Mazza, Williamson and Clune and we were
here before as those of you who were present at that time, recall .
The thrust of our presentation at that time, for those of you who
were not here, and for those of you who were here was, that we felt
that under a variance granted June 1 , 1961 that we had the authority
without further hearings and request for a use variance to use the
building for the purposes which the chairman has just enumerated -
excuse me, the Building Commissioner. We have this evening new
evidence and to present that this evening is Mr. Richard Schechter_
an attorney from Syracuse who is co-counsel with me and I will let
him proceed with the evidence which we have tonight which is entirely
new - for the consideration of this Board,
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Good evening. I would like to make a few brie
opening comments . I would say, since I wasn' t here the first time,
there may be a few things that I will hit which will be repetitive
and I apologize to the Board if that does occur. I will try to
keep my remarks, however, and the witnesses comments, to new evi-
dence and to new issues . This is a two-fold application: in the
first instance we are asking for an interpretation of the zoning
ordinance or to be exact, an interpretation of the 1961 variance to
the effect that it would allow the uses that we contemplate here and
in the event that that interpretation is not acceptable to the Board,
the Board does not view the 1961 variance in that light , then we as
for an additional use variance this evening. That use variance is
principally the same as the one previously applied for, for which
we are here at a rehearing this evening, except that the application
has been amended to include all the uses that were just enumerated.
Speaking to the interpretation first , this is a situation where a
- 3 -
variance was requested with the understanding by the applicant that
he would be able to use this entire building for the purpose of
professional offices and he built the building, as the evidence will
later show, with that understanding in mind, The building is
entirely office in nature. There is no portion of the building
which really even remotely resembles an apartment.. However, at the
time that the application was made, it was Dr. Baker' s intention to
temporarily, for a period of some years , allow his mother to reside
in the upper office portion of the premises. For that reason, he
did, perhaps inadvertently, add to the variance request , mention of
an apartment use. I' think it is important for the Board to note
that it was not necessary at that time or ever to include that
apartment in the variance application, The entire thing was per-
haps inadvertent on all sides , since an apartment use was a totally
allowed use in the district then, as now, there really was no need
to have it in the application - it was superfluous . I think it was
put in there primarily because they thought that if they built a
totally office building that they had to ask to have an apartment
use in it, otherwise it would just be an - once they got the vari-
ance they would only be allowed to have offices in it . I think
Dr. Baker always intended, as the evidence will show, to utilize
that portion of the premise at some later date for this purpose and
when this proceeding started, what actually happened was Dr. Baker,
totally ignorant of the fact that he might somehow be in violation
of the zoning ordinance , rented that premise for an office use and
then sometime later, after a complaint - the Building Department
brought action and he had to cease using it and bring this applica-
tion. So we are going to bring evidence relating to that interpre-
tation and I think that it is important to note that the previously
submitted certificate of compliance , lists the building as being a
ommercial building and it doesn' t say anything about apartments -
hat was previously, Bob, in the record that a building permit . . .
is that . . .
4 -
OBERT WILLIAMSON: Well , there was a building permit in 169 where
they had the addition to the building which listed it as a profes-
ional building. There was also, as I say, initially in 1961 it
as the doctor' s understanding that the variance granted, as Mr.
Schechter has pointed out , allowed the use of the entire buiding
for professional purposes and that was the thrust of our initial
argument. Tonight we are here with additional evidence which we wi 1
proceed to give dealing with the economic considerations.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: The second, and very important group of issues
that we are going to bring evidence upon is the use variance issues
and we will bring evidence to show that there is a definite hardship
situation here a standard hardship typical in a zoning situation,
an unnecessary hardship that there is a significant economic injury
to the applicant if the variance is not granted. In addition we
will show that the uses that we are applying for will not be detri-
mental , will not be of large magnitude and will not create, if the
variance is granted there will be no detriment whatsoever to the
health, safety or welfare of the community. I think it is also
very important to note, at this point, in discussing unnecessary
hardship and the significant economic injury that there has been a
long line of recent cases in New York State discussing that unneces -
sary hardship rule and modifying it to some extent. The Court of
Appeals ruled 1968 in Fulling v Palumbo that , in an instance where
the applicant shows a significant economic injury then the variance
should be granted unless the municipality has some strong evidence
to indicate that, if the variance is granted that there would be a
detrimental effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the com-
munity. In other words , if there will not be a detrimental affect
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community then the
ariance should be granted if the applicant can prove a significant
economic injury. At this point I would like to call Dr. Baker.
ROBERT WILLIAMSON: Mr, Chairman, should we have the microphone in
,, _ the middle of this table? Do you think it is picking it up okay?
S -
PETER MARTIN: Well , we will consult the expert , is it picking it
up?
ROBERT WILLIAMSON: I didn' t know To,.,, whether it wouldn't be bette
to have one in the middle of the table or not.
THOMAS HOARD: It probably will work better.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Doctor, would you state your full name for the
record?
DR. BAKER: Robert Bakpr.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: And your residence address?
DR. BAKER: 615 Cayuga Heights Road.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: And the address of the property in question thi
evening?
DR. BAKER: 412-414 N, Tioga Street.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Can you tell us when that building was con-
structed doctor?
DR. BAKER: The property was acquired in the 60 ' s and the building
constructed in 161.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Can you tell me your intention in building that
building at the time?
DR. BAKER: Yes, my intention was to build and locate my offices
as a professional office building.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Now you have just heard me discussing to some
extent and Bob Williamson discussing your intentions at the time,
would you say that our comments accurately reflected, in other word
did you intend the entire building to be used for office purposes?
DR. BAKER: Yes , it was built as a professional office building.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Was it your understanding at the time that you
applied for the variance in 1961 that that variance for professiona
offices would cover the entire building?
R. BAKER: Yes it was,
ICHARD SCHECHTER: And did you build the building in that way, in
other words, is there a portion of that building which is essen-
tially apartment or is it entirely an office building?
. a
R. BAKER: It was built at the time as a professional office
6 -
uilding with the footings and everything placed for additions as a
rofessional office building as built at that time.
ICHARD SCHECHTER: Now I understand that for some period of time t1lat
our mother resided upstairs . It was also my understanding that
he was significantly active in your office practice in the lower
portion of the building.
R. BAKER: That' s true, yes she was .
ICHARD SCHECHTER: And there came a time when your mother moved
out.
R. BAKER: Yes, she used a portion of the building and she was a
art of the practice - it was never used for a rental property,
ever construed as that. She was a economic consideration on my
art for her helping in the various aspects that she did throughout
the time that she was there in the building.
PETER MARTIN: Excuse me Doctor, could you describe the portion of
the building that your mother occupied, facilities it had . . .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Excuse me, we were going to get to that. I
have some diagrams and what not, so I can sort this material
out and we can actually skip right to that. This is a blue print
of the entire building - all three floors and I would like to
submit it as an exhibit - you might want to mark it perhaps .
PETER MARTIN: You can mark it Exhibit "A".
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Okay. If you want to i have a number of
them. Perhaps it will help to keep it clear. Doctor could you
very briefly describe these and then we will submit them so that
everyone can see them.
DR. BAKER: Well, you are now open to a drawing of the first floor
level of my office - of our office complex where we house - at the
present time, five doctors in the practice. It ' s now . . . . this is
the original building plus the addition that was made in 1969 or
whenever it was , with our waiting/reception area, private offices ,
large expanse of treatment area, the whole professional complex as
it is with a single bar and joist construction, poured concrete
floors, same for both floors . Perhaps back here we can see the
lower level which at one time housed Atlantic Dental Company, among
7 -
other things - part of it did. Now it expanded at the time of our
addition to again house X-ray facilities with leaded walls , office
facilities for our staff, business office facilities, a staffing
room for our staff conferences that we hold and the area under
question showing the reception room in the front area, private
offices along here, toilet facilities on this floor, as on both
other floors , a lounge area here again and the individual offices
which have been used as Atlantic Dental Company and other things
throughout the time that we have been there. Again showing where
we have . . . .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Doctor, excuse me just a second if I may inter-
rupt. I have one of the next witnesses , this -is a document but it
just happens that it has all of this in it so if I pass these out
now then everybody can - the blueprint is in the back . . .
DOCTOR BAKER: Well , that ' s basically, I guess , what I had to say.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: It ' s one of the fold-outs in the rear there.
I think it ' s very important to note that, except for some very
minor changes , the property has been in this state ever since it
was built.
DR. BAKER: I think most of you are looking at this first page
which is the reception area, private offices through, again, as it
has been since . . . .
PETER MARTIN: Again, not wanting to anticipate, but having the
concern, my original question evidenced, at the time this building
was first built, when your mother was an occupant, the portion of i
where was it and what facilities did that have?
DR. BAKER: Right here, the second floor - she used part of it,
when she used it. She was not there all of the time .
PETER MARTIN: Can I know which part of it she used and how it was
outfitted?
DR. BAKER: Well , I guess you would say the interior portion, the
front portion was used . . .
PETER MARTIN: Was there a kitchen there?
DR. BAKER: Yes , there was kitchen facilities, yes.
8 _
PETER MARTIN: And a bathroom?
R. BAKER: Umm. .umm.
PETER MARTIN: And a bedroom?
DR. BAKER: Uh huh. And there is a kitchen on the first floor
also, for our staff.
PETER MARTIN: And what portion of it was put to other use during
the period that she was occupying it?
DR. BAKER: Well , all of it was put to other use during the period
while she was there sometimes - sometimes she wasn' t. Business
conference - it was used for Atlantic Dental Company used portions
of it, we used portions of it - the practice.
PETER MARTIN: Letts just say the first year, after it was built.
Can you give me a picture of how much she was there. . . .
DR. BAKER: Since 1960. Not much the first year I wouldn' t say.
She was basically with me the first year.
PETER MARTIN: And then she moved in. . .
DR. BAKER: And between there and Florida - she used it when she
was here and then some . . .
PETER MARTIN: Okay then, when she was here and using it, I assume
she occupied all of it?
DR. BAKER: No, part of it - little parts of it - part of it .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think that the portion that ' s outlined on
this one in red is the only portion that can at all be used for that
purpose.
PETER MARTIN: Has there been any interior alteration of that por-
tion since the period when she occupied it regularly?
DR. BAKER: The internal alteration was done, I would say, at the
time of the last building permit that we did anything.
PETER MARTIN: 169.
DR. BAKER: Yes, we did nothing - nothing basically has been
changed in this plan - basically since that time, I would say.
PETER MARTIN: So that area outlined in red on the - on that plan
is the portion that, when she was occupying,it, you might say was
the area she occupied.
9 -
DR. BAKER: Yes, I would say that ' s about right.
PETER MARTIN: And which portion of that would have been her bed-
room?
DR. BAKER: I think down here - this right end - the further end.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I have some - Mr. Chairman, I have some photos
which I would like to we are going to discuss them in more detail
later, but perhaps I can pass them around now. They very aptly
indicate . . .
PETER MARTIN: I hardly want to lengthen things so perhaps I will,
perhaps at this point, shut up and let you proceed with the pre-
sentation you have.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Okay, I think I would make the comment - it is
obviously not our position that it ' s impossible for somebody to
live up there, but rather it is our position that it ' s impossible
to rent this space for an apartment use for residential use.
PETER MARTIN: Alright, but you are also arguing that what was
intended in 161 and what the Board granted variance for, was a full
office rather than office plus an apartment. Now you will recall
that the legal notices giving notice of that hearing in 161 re-
ferred to it as an office and an apartment and indeed the applica-
tion for a variance did, so that much of what you are nod' intro-
ducing goes to the question what was granted in 161 and what was
not. That ' s why I am focusing on the original intent and the
original use of the upstairs .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: No, I understand that. Well , I think perhaps
we' ll leave those for a few minutes and just go on to just a few
questions here. Could you tell us briefly doctor, why the upstairs
portion of this building would not be suitable for medical uses
or a use as part of your practice?
DR. BAKER: Yes, it is very difficult to have medical patients , and
we do a lot of trauma, to have patients come to the second floor of
the building without elevator service. That ' s the reason that it
isn't good. It' s the reason that second floor, downtown locations
today and I can show you all type of statistics are just not
10 -
useable. It' s hard to get someone with a broken leg and a broken
jaw up to a second floor to do emergency treatment .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: And of course there are all sorts of elderly
people that . . .
DR. BAKER: Itts true,
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Now, can you tell us , in your own mind, why
the upstairs is not suitable for an apartment use?
DR. BAKER: Yes, it was never intended, I don't know how to say
it - it was used as my convenience, I felt, to let someone utilize
while I was there for I had a commercial build. . .a professional
building and we used it for an apartment while we were there and
we' d readily planned and it was designed as a . . . it 's not de-
signed as an apartment.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I understand that you listed the property with
a broker - a number of brokers , in an attempt to rent it for resi-
dential purposes, is that true? Was there any success at all - was
anyone interested at all?
DR. BAKER: Nothing.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: How long a period of time was it listed with
brokers?
DR. BAKER: A period of months.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: A number of months and do you remember which
brokers . . .
DR. BAKER: Yes , Gallagher, Burns , Hewitt, Patterson,
PETER MARTIN: When was this doctor?
DR. BAKER: Let' s see about July, August, September - through there
of 1975.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: So that, with all of those brokers and over a
period of a number of months you were totally unsuccessful in getti g
anyone to rent the premises as an apartment use, is that correct?
DR. BAKER: •Correct.
PETER MARTIN: Did you list it with Cornell or other major employers?
DR. BAKER: I 'm sure they listed it with everyone, yes . It was
totally listed.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Okay, now, at this time I would briefly like to
submit this additional couple of documents which we can exhibit -
B and C - perhaps . The doctor can briefly explain them. This is
a parking layout as it presently exists .
PETER MARTIN: Alright, let ' s call that "B".
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think it is self evident. ' We don' t need to
waste time with it. There are fifty-eight parking spaces. Now,
this exhibit "C" is a rearrangement of the parking spaces which we
are willing to do if the Board; for instance, wished it. We have
no desire to do it. The only reason we show it is that it does
show seventy-eight spaces to indicate that we have ample parking
for any possible contingency. Doctor can you very briefly describe
the character of your block?
DR. BAKER: Yes , on the corner we have a Synagogue, we have rental
property next door to that . The following property is my property-
is the building we've all been through this - is the two dental
offices , two real estate offices and the Board of . . .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Perhaps we could use this (Exhibit D) why
don' t you point these out as you go along.
DR. BAKER: Start here . . . Temple Beth E1, this is a property that
is a rental property, this is the property next door to my property
which - it is my property which we rehabilitated and were -
PETER MARTIN: We saw slides on that last time . . .
DR. BAKER: Yes , - that we have a - two dental offices there, a
real estate office on the first floor, a real estate office on the
second floor and a real estate office across the hall - Ithaca
Board of Realtors. That is part of the property we are discussing.
It' s part of the total property. Next door is the property we are
discussing. This is a frame building, this is a professional build-
ing. Next door is a single home that I have an option on and here
is another home that I have a rental property that I have.
It ' s a . . .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Would you say doctor that the predominant
character of the uses on your block are professional offices at
this time?
- 12 -
DR. BAKER: I would certainly say so. Across the block - across th
street is two dental offices and a real estate office upstairs .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think that the . . . we can call this Exhibit
"D" if you will. The redded in are non-residential uses and the
white ones are residential uses . These are rental residential
properties . . .
PETER MARTIN: Lets see, you've mentioned several properties that
you own contiguous to or at least on this same block. Now, do you
own some also on the block to the rear?
DR. BAKER: Yes, I do,
PETER MARTIN: Alright, so you own a fair percentage of that entire
block.
DR. BAKER: Yes , that' s correct.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: As a matter of fact, the other exhibit here
indicates all the uses we are going to get to this in a minute,
but it indicates all the uses and also indicates which properties
Dr. Baker owns in the neighborhood so, I don' t think we will need
that for a minute. I just- want to introduce these three pictures
at the moment and then we will get to some more. Doctor can you tell
us what these pictures are? Are they all three pictures of the up-
stairs portion n the portion that we are talking about today?
DR. BAKER: Yes.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think you can see from the construction and
the details - and these are all exactly as they were right from
161 from the windows and the whole way the place is put together
that it was never designed as an apartment use. I think it very
important to note right at this juncture that the uses that we are
requesting for this building are uses which are allowed in this
district as home occupation uses and therefore the legislative body
has already said that under certain circumstances, in other words
as a home occupation, that these uses fit into the character of the
community so that what we propose, although it is not a home use,
they are uses which are very close to the character of the commun-
ity, not likely to create a difficulty to the neighborhood. Thank
you.
• - 13 -
R. BAKER: Right now, I ' d like to call Robert Colbert. Bob Colber
is a Real Estate Broker and developer and I call him this evening
as an expert witness. Could you give the Board your - a brief
list of your credentials? By the way, this black folder document,
summarizes the evidence that Bob Colbert is going to give this
evening and his credentials are to be found in here. Let' s call
this Exhibit "E" if you could.
ROBERT COLBERT: Do you want my credentials, or? (INSERT 13a here)
ICHARD SCHECHTER: I asked Mr. Colbert to investigate this propert
and prepare this report that he will give you this evening for a
umber of purposes. The first one was to nail down this economic
hardship to show in dollar and cents terms exactly what will be
lost if a variance is not granted. Secondly, I asked him to inves-
tigate the viability of that use as an apartment altogether because
there are three possibilities here. The first possibility is that
the variance will be granted and then Dr. Baker will be able to
utilize the entire building for professional offices . The second
ossibility is that the variance would not be granted, in which
ase either he might possibly be able to rent it as an apartment
and derive some income from it or it would remain vacant and he
would derive no income from it. So I asked Mr. Colbertto comment
n that situation and, in addition, to briefly describe from a
real estate broker and appraiser' s viewpoint the character of the
neighborhood. So if you could.. . . (Insert 13b, 13c, $ 13d here)
(Please see Exhibit E. attached, which is incorporated as part of
hese minutes for the credentials and appraisals of Robert Colbert.
ICHARD SCHECHTER: Bob, excuse me just a second, I think you will
ind on pages 4 , 5 and 6 the means by which Mr. Colbert derived
hose figures (stated on page 2 "Potential Economic Loss Summary) .
It probably won' t be necessary for him to describe that in detail
nless you have any questions. He ' ll just state the figures that
e arrived at.
R. COLBERT: If you want to look at page 4 I ' ll just roughly recap.
e have the income with offices upstairs and down. The office
13a -
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Yes, why don' t you just state them briefly.
ROBERT COLBERT: I have been a resident of the City of Ithaca since
1939. I 'm a graduate of Cornell University, class of 1948 . I 've
been a Real Estate Broker in Ithaca, N.Y. for twenty-eight years .
I have been a member and past state director of the N.Y. S. Board o
Realtors . Developer - Builder and Manager of real estate. I 've
build shopping centers , office buildings , bank office buildings ,
medical centers , apartment houses , hotels and motels , free standing
commercials and individual homes . I 've been a faculty member of
the advance mortgage school for senior mortgage officers of the
National Association of Mutual Savings Banks. I 'm a past members
of the Committee on Mortgage Investments with the National Associa-
tion of Mutual Savings Banks from 1970 to 1974 . I was a member of
the Committee on Mortgages and Real Estate for the Savings Bank
Association of New York from 1970 to 1974 . I 've lectured at Cornell
on Real Estate Development and Banking in the Colleges of Architec-
ture and College of Business Administration and in the College of
Hotel Administration. I am packaging large mortgage loans for
groups of banks throughout the state ; Savings and Loan Associations
Commercial Banks , Insurance Companies and Industrial Development
Authorities. I do work-outs and receiverships for banks and
insurance companies . I 'm a past senior vice president and chief
mortgage officer of the Citizens Savings Bank from 1969 to 1975. I
was the Urban Renewal Developer for the First National Bank & Trust
Co. office building and the New York Telephone Company and Metro-
politan Life Insurance Company Office Building. They were complete
in 1975 and 1976. My City activities : past commissioner of the
Board of Public Works, past member city charter revision committee,
past city transit coordinator, past member Mayor' s Citizens Advisor
committee, past chairman city industrial development committee, and
past member city traffic commission. I 've been an appraiser for
banks , insurance companies, attorneys, municipalities , major corpor-
ations and individuals.
• - 13b -
ROBERT COLBERT: I 'd like to refer you to page 1 , "Summary of the
Economic Approach to Value Tioga Building" and I 'm going to go
through this pretty much paragraph by paragraph so that we don' t
miss anything.
The economic value was analyzed by capitalizing the stream of
income resulting from the three possible uses of the office build-
ing. The first use is the Total Building Used for Offices . This
would be using the second floor for professional offices of a
lawyer, engineer, architect, accountant, real estate broker, insur-
ance broker. These uses would be compatible to the uses adjacent
and throughout that neighborhood and they would create less traffic
than a medical office because of their very nature many of these
businesses go to their customers rather than their customers going
to them. The second floor of the Tioga Building is not suitable
for medical offices as many patients are unable to walk up stairs .
I think we all realize that. Therefore, the Mary Tilley Realty,
Inc. lease was used for the second floor income at $8 ,000 per year.
There was a lease of this space for that amount. This is the iden-
tical use and occupancy of the building directly across the street
(415 N. Tioga Street; the first floor Dr. Baldini, Dr. Cappucci an
Dr. Fey; the second floor J. D. Gallagher Real Estate and I have a
photograph of that you've probably seen it but I 'm going to pass
it around there are two and there they are. The second floor of
the Tioga Building was never rented as an apartment. I think you
have heard Dr. Baker' s comments in this regard. I 've been at meet-
ings in this area many times with the Friend of Ithaca College and
other professional groups and I do know that it always was used in
conjunction with business. The second floor was designed clear
span to accommodate compatible professional office use. Semi-
transient, roll-over, apartment tenancy was known to be unfeasible
functionally and economically.
Use 2 : The Building Used for Offices and Second Floor Apartment
Only 70% of the second floor is usable for apartment space. If you
ill check the floor plan you will notice how it is marked off.
I
13c -
It ' s roughly 1, 200 vs. 1, 750 as I recall in square feet. The
structural features of the building are commercial and not resi-
dential (see interior photos of the second floor interior, the
exterior photos of the building and the photo of the adjacent en-
trances to the first and second floor) . If you have seen some of
these. interior photos before, I think I saw them going around, I
want to mention in particular the adjacent entrances to the two
office spaces which are not compatible in any way and you can see
the entrances were never designed or meant for residential use and
to combine these uses would be objectionable to one or the other
uses. I 'm going to also give you pictures of the exterior of the
building because it is important that you carefully look at them
and note that the building was designed from the very beginning as
a professional office building on both floors. The structural
features of the building again are commercial and not residential.
The windows are all commercial type sash. The ceiling fixtures are
all located for commercial office use . The entrance and interior
doors are commercial. There is no second means of access or egress
from the area usable as an apartment. This is dangerous and would
entail considerable expense to correct and if it were corrected it
would be damaging to the exterior appearance of the office structur .
And it would be damaging to the aesthetics of the entire neighbor-
hood. There are no laundry facilities. There is no lawn or recre-
ational space. The entire lot is paved for office building parking
There is no provision for garbage and refuse disposal except throug
the front door. The entire building and lot are non-residential in
character. The large majority of adjacent commercial uses com-
pletely eliminates any resemblance of a residential neighborhood.
(See tax map and photos) . And I think you have all looked at the
tax map - and there is a copy in the back of each of these books
(Exhibit E) and I can pass out some of the photographs of the other
structures in the 400 block. I would like to mention that the cost
f construction of the commercial office building strflcture is pro-
hibitive economically for residential use . (For example, one could
13d -
not afford to build a two-bedroom apartment at $40 per square foot,
or 1, 200 square feet of living area, for $48 , 000. The cost of an
average private three-bedroom home is $37, 000) . This economic
unfeasibility is magnified when 540 square feet would be left un-
usable, thereby increasing the apartment cost to $69,600 . if you
use this $40. figure. Now, the $40. figure I think I can very
easily back up with the recent office construction which we have
done for the Telephone Company, for the First National Bank, remodel-
ing of the Citizens Savings Bank, alone, remodelling costs $50. a
square foot. At any rate, in this market an average apartment will
run around $12 , 000. Recent sales will reflect that. You know, an
apartment complex with all the amenities: swimming pools , laundry
facilities, what have you. Now the third approach; Building Uses
With a Vacant Second Floor, The use of the second floor of the
Tioga Building for transient, roll-over residential tenancy would
devalue the present use as professional offices . A non-owner
occupant of the professional offices would not pay first class office
ental for a mixed tenancy building. Residential users would not
ay rental equal to that of a first class apartment. Residential
tenancy over the professional offices would create undesirable con-
ations for both the offices and the apartment, The small income
vailable from the apartment rental would not justify the detri-
ental effects on the professional offices . Now below that you will
see a summary of the cost of the economic loss summary really based
pon the capitalization of the stream of income approach to value.
. Use for offices only a value of 151 and some odd dollars , 2 ,
ffices and one apartment value of 100. 3. offices and vacant
econd floor - value of 78, 000.
14 -
rentals are those reflected by the present medical office use and
the past real estate office use. They are comparable - the first
floor rentals are $5. 33 a foot. The second floor is $4 . 60 a foot.
The expenses are taken from four years of historical data and as
close -as- we can come, The only thing we know is that they are
going up and when they go up the value goes down unless you kick
the rent up. The capitalization rate was based on a 9-1/2 - 20
year mortgage and the return on equity was based on 10% , based on
the band of investment theory that obviously the equity should
return more than the first mortgage because it' s a second position.
If it ' s a foreclosure the equity position is wiped out. I won't
go into the cap rate computation, I think that you are all rather
familiar with it. I used a cap rate of 11. Whether you use 11 or
10 doesn' t substantially change the figures . (insert 14a here)
PETER MARTIN: Again, I ask a question at this point. Are you say-
ing anything more than that commercial use generates a higher
rental? The difference in value is a capitalization of the addi-
tional rent, right?
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think it also reflects the possible resale
value of the property.
PETER MARTIN: Well, but your figures are capitalization of income,
right?
ROBERT COLBERT: That ' s the only way to arrive at an economic value.
PETER MARTIN: To give reasons between 56, 000 a year and 50, 000 a
year, roughly.
ROBERT COLBERT: Yes, a physical value is meaningless . You can
build a million dollar monument and its . . . worth anything . . .
PETER MARTIN: But you can take any property on that block, current-
ly devoted to residents , if one were to shift it to a commercial
use, an office use, then its value would go up. If you could get
lawyers or real estate agents paying rentals , as distinguished . . .
ROBERT COLBERT: But this is an office building and this . . .
PETER MARTIN: Just focusing og the question of value. The value
goes up as one can get commercial rentals rather than residential
rentals.
- 14a -
ROBERT COLBERT: I would like to make note on page 2 , paragraph 4
of the New York State Construction Building Code. Business Use
Legal - Residential Use Illegal . For Business Use, of a second
floor space less than 2, 500 sq. ft. - one exit is allowed, and that
is all that is available. And Section A 206 1B - Residential -
Secondary Exits Required for all habitable space except kitchen an
bathroom: in addition to the primary exit from a recreation room
or inhabited space (except kitchen or bathroom) there shall be
provided in each such space at least one opening for emergency use.
Opening for emergency use shall include doors or openable parts of
windows located so as to provide unobstructed egress . Such open-
ings shall not impede egress in an emergency and shall have a mini-
mum area of 4 sq. ft. with a minimum dimension of 18" - that' s the
important part, there is no window in thatsecond floor that has a
14" opening. The law requires 18. The minimum is 14 . They are
jalousie type windows , some are 6 and some are - the maximum is 14
and even at 14 they are not a full 14 because of the angle. So it
is a very dangerous situation. I 'm not going to go through all of
the rest except for the conclusions. The second floor of the build-
ing may be legally used for business use without any physical alter-
ations. And B: The portion of the second floor of the Tioga Build-
ing useable as a two bedroom apartment, which is only 1 , 200 sq. ft.
at the very most, may not legally be used as an apartment without
extensive and costly construction changes . These changes would
deface the exterior of the building.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Go over this again - just this summary.
ROBERT COLBERT : The summary on page 2 - the total building used for
offices - the appraised value from an economic stream of income
point of view would be $151, 426. If it were used as offices and on -
two bedroom apartment, at a $200. rent plus utilities for that two
bedroom apartment - the value would be $100, 517. And for offices
and a vacant second floor it would be $78 , 699. , so that you can see
that with the apartment that there is a loss of $50, 909. and with a
vacant second floor there is a loss of $72 , 000.
15 -
ROBERT COLBERT: Right, and no one would ever build an office
building at a cost of 40 some dollars a square foot and try to make
apartments out of it, because they couldn't do it economically.
There is a section that T have included here (Exhibit E) "The
Summary of Classification of Codes used by the Tompkins County
Assessment Dept. " and I have a breakdown but it shows . . . (see
page 7 of Exhibit E) , (insert page 15a here)
RICHARD SCHECHTER: That' s reflected on this first diagram - the
use of all the properties on the block. There' s no sense of us
going through each and every one, I think you can see that the pre-
dominant use of that block, at the moment, is for professional
office use.
ROBERT COLBERT: The tax base in that block reflects the predomin-
ance of commercial use in that block. It is not residential in
character. Not only the tax base but the exterior of the buildings
and the use of the buildings , I think that . . . unless you have
some other questions for me I . . .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: No, I think that. . .
ROBERT COLBERT: I might leave with you pictures of the property in
the 300 block which continue the office use from 300 to 400.
ICHARD SCHECHTER: What we attempted to do here was outline this
report so as to not take a tremendous amount of time. If you have
any questions whatsoever about the report, Mr. Colbert would certai -
y be glad to answer any of the questions.
PETER MARTIN: Does this complete the presentation?
ICHARD SCHECHTER: No, no it doesn' t.
PETER MARTIN: Do members of the Board - will Dr. Baker be back or
should we direct questions to him at this point and Mr. Colbert at
his point? I mean - I 'm eager to expedite things and so I want to
Jo it orderly.
ICHARD SCHECHTER: I thought it might - you can ask questions to
ach one separately or afterwards, whichever. . .
PETER MARTIN: Alright, why don't you complete your presentation an
we' ll ask back anyone that we have questions about.
1Sa -
ROBERT COLBERT: . . . in the 400 block, North Tioga Street, from
Court Street to Cascadilla Street there are five properties coded
commercial, one property coded community service (Temple Beth7E1) ,
three properties coded two family residential and two properties
coded single family residential.
i
- 16 -
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Okay. Now, I requested the identical sort of
information from Jonathan Crossley who is an M.A. I . Real Estate
Appraiser and he resides in Binghamton. Now he was not able to be
here this evening. He did submit this written report which I will
pass around and then comment from and we ' ll submit that as Exhibit
"F" which is incorporated as part of these minutes as an attachment
You will find a Qualifications page from Mr. Crossley on the very
last page of this report and his Real Estate Appraisers certifica-
tion on the next to the last page. I won' t read from them, there i
no sense to it. This (report) is dated Dec. 30, 1976 . (Mr.
Schechterr proceeded to read a letter from Mr. Crossley and con-
tinued to read page 1 of the report which listed a Description of
Neighborhood, etc. - see Exhibit F. ) (insert 16a here)
PETER MARTIN: Not wanting to cut you short , but we know that -
we 've been over the properties now what new would you like . . .
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Well, I think the only reason that I 'm reiter-
ating that, is that I think it is very important to realize that yo
have a situation where the block is largely professional office in
character with a few . . .
PETER MARTIN: We 've had plenty of testimony about that at the prior
hearing and then again this evening.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Okay. Well , I think that at the last hearing
there was some comment in the record in the decision of the Board
regarding the fact that the applicant hadn' t proved that his pro-
posed use would have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. I think
that ' s very important and that ' s the only reason I 'm emphasizing
this - that these uses are already there - a number of them; that
he building is already there, the parking facilities are already
here, and that the proposed uses are going to have a very minimal
impact on the already established community character.
GREGORY KASPRZAK: Excuse me, I 'm getting confused, Was the buildi g
originally built under the use variance or was it built under the
egular zoning requirements?
PETER MARTIN; It was built under a use variance.
f
16a -
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Dear Dr. Baker: Pursuant to your request, I
have inspected the Tioga Building property, the neighborhood uses
and rentals and other pertinent data for preparing an appraisal
based upon alternative uses for the property.
The following summarizes my conclusions of value which are found
in the attached report : Usage of Property entire building rented
for offices - market value: $158,400. Offices with apartment on
second floor - $102, 900. Offices with second floor vacant: 84, 000.
The loss of market value for renting the second floor as an apart-
ment amounts to $55, 500 or a loss of $51,600 per year. I think it i
important to note, and I will later show that these figures and Mr.
Colbert 's figures are very very close to each other. It is that
$55, 500 represents almost a third of the entire resale value of the
property. Since apartment tenants might disturb the amenities of
the property, which are particularly important in a children' s
orthodontic center, and you desire to leave the second floor vacant ,
the additional loss of market value would be an additional $18 , 900
or a further loss of $23,400 per year. Going on to page 1 - The
purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the correct fair market
value of the fee simple ownership of the property based upon the
rental of the second story as an apartment and as a rental for com-
mercial use. Fair market value is defined as the most probable
selling price. The property is located on the westerly side of
North Tioga Street between Court Street and Cascadilla Avenue in
the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y. It is designated on the
City of Ithaca Tax Map as #10-49-2-6 etc. . . . Description of Neigh-
borhood: The 400 block north of Court Street has the following
uses : East Side : Hewitt Realty and Apartments, Student rental,
Residence, Two Insurance Agencies & Apts, Doctors on first floor,
Real Est. Agcy. above. On the west side: Temple Beth-E1 , two apart-
ments
a
17 -
RICHARD SCHECHTER: It was built under a use variance.
PETER MARTIN: Under the zoning in 161 it required a use variance.
GREGORY KASPRZAK: Thank you, that' s all I wanted to know.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Now there is a description of the property on
page 2 and 3 which I wont read from. You can read it as you will.
It just basically describes what Dr. Baker has already told you.
I will briefly describe the end of it however, which describes the
second floor. (Mr. Schechter proceeded to read from Exhibit F whic
is attached to these minutes. ) (insert 17a here)
RICHARD SCHECHTER: At this time, what I would like to do is submit
a brief summary (Exhibit "G") . This table (Exhibit "G") summarizes
the data already available to you in the Colbert and Crossley -
excuse me just a second w I think we 've - oh, here it is , I 'm sorry
if you could just pass those back we had a typo error in this first
one and we corrected it and then I passed out the wrong one. I
apologize. There it is. This is "G". Alright. As I was saying
this is just a summary of comparative analysis of the figures de-
rived by Mr. Colbert and the figures derived by Mr. Crossley and
you can see that they are a little different. However, they are ve y
lose to each other and they do show that if the variance is not
ranted and we are therefore unable to utilize that second floor
t all , which is what we submit that the property is unuseable as a
partment, we would therefore not be able to use it at all . The
loss in value as estimated by Mr. Colbert would be 72 , 700 and by
r. Crossley 74, 400. The average loss $73,500 which as you can see
it ' s almost half the estimated value of the entire property, and I
think that that certainly represents a decided hardship to the owne
that he cannot use that second floor for any purpose and will lose
11 of that value to his building or income over the years , however
ou want to look at it. Certainly represents a very significant
conomic injury. Now if I could just for a minute - Bob Colbert
ould you come back up here just for a second - one point that I
anted to get to that we perhaps missed - the uses that we are con-
emplating are lawyer, engineer, architect, accountant, real estate
- 17a -
RICHARD SCHECHTER: The second floor has a carpeted 142' x 212'
reception office, an 11 ' x 102' lounge with hall , a hall leading
to six 72'Ix 72' offices, a furnace room, a hall leading to an 112'
x 14' conference room, a ceramic tiled 3/4 bath (shower instead o
tub) , a 12 ' x 16 ' office with a closet. The windows are rollout
jalousie metal.. The lighting is fluorescent. The building is
well suited for a dental office with rental commercial space on
the second floor. The arrangement of the second floor is well
suited for a real estate or insurance office. It is in good condi-
tion. And Assessment, Zoning. The assessment is as follows :
Land: $5,600 Total : $91 , 000. , etc, i doW t think I will read
from that. Minimum use to derive a reasonable return. The only
use whereby the owner can recover his investment in the property
on a resale is to have the entire building used for professional
office use . The building is designed for professional office use
with the parking lot covering the ground which is not under the
building. The lst and 2nd floor entrances are adjoining. The
second floor having commercial types of fluorescent lighting and
the jalousie windows. The six little cubicles are not large enoug
to be bedrooms. They have floor to ceiling 6" opening jalousie
windows on full wall width making the size unsuitable for residen-
tial occupancy. Furthermore, a quiet, clean tenancy of the second
floor is necessary to insure the decorum and tranquility of an
orthodontal surgeon' s building with many exciteable children about.
Valuation of the Property: The property is professional office
in character and would be purchased by someone interested in maxi-
mizing his net return on the property. Since there have been no
sales of similar modern doctors ' offices in the area, the market
data approach is not used. The capitalization of income approach
is the proper approach for evaluating investment property. And
then he describes the method by which he gets his figures. I wont
waste the Board' s time going over those.
18 -
broker or insurance salesman - I think, now you are a real estate
broker and that would probably - the impact on the building in the
neighborhood of a real estate office would probably be at least as
much, if not more than a lawyer, engineer, architect. Can you tel
me what you estimate if this property was used as a real estate
broker' s office, and the intensity of activity that it would creatE ?
Can you give us some comments on that?
ROBERT COLBERT: As a broker' s office, I think that they primarily
serve as a headquarters for the broker and his salesmen but there
isn' t a great deal of customer traffic, It' s pretty common to pic
up the newspaper and call the broker and the broker picks the clielat
up and shows the property and if they reach a decision to make an
officer, then they generally go to their attorney' s office and have an
offer drafted. But the customer traffic is not really generated
and the business isn't done, except in the field,
RICHARD SCHECHTER: What would you guess on the number of cars per
day? I know that you can't it can' t be down to the last one, but
what would you guess - utilizing that space in your knowledge as a
real estate broker, if, for instance, you were using it as your own
brokerage office, would you say that there would be five clients
a day coming in or ten or fifteen or . . .
ROBERT COLBERT: I think it depends upon the nature of the business
but on an average I would say that probably ten would be a lot.
Most of the clients would be met at their homes or at their hotels
or wherever and taken on a tour of the city. They wouldn' t come
there. My office is in the telephone building and I occupy 750 '
and I have five people so that gives you some idea.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Thank you. Dr. Baker, just one quick question
for you. During the period of time that Mary Tilley was upstairs ,
and, of course, you were on the premises every day, could you esti-
mate forme the number of vehicle traffic the number of cars per
day that were going in and out of your parking lot?
DR. BAKER: If ten it would have been a lot. If ten cars were
there. She had two people there basically most of the time.
- 19 -
RICHARD SCHECHTER; Thank you doctor. I think I would just at this
point, having submitted all of this, as I said, we tried to be brie
but there is some material in here that is in the written record
that we submitted that we didn' t vocalize this evening, so perhaps
before you make your decision you might want to read through the
rest of that. Basically, I think our point is number one ; that
when we first brought this application we thought it was entirely
for an office building and we built the building with that idea in
mind. Now perhaps somebody made the mistake perhaps the application
in 1961 wasn' t put in or maybe the Board of Zoning Appeals mis-
understood our intentions, or whatever, but the fact remains from
the equities of the situation that it is impossible to use that
second floor for anything but an office purpose. I think that the
Board is certainly welcome to visit the property and take a look for
themselves if they want to. It would the fire code , the building
code, the aesthetics of the property itself and its impact on the
dental offices downstairs all militate against it being rented as
an apartment. Consequently, if the variance is not granted or if
the Board does not interpret the previous variance to allow us to
use the upstairs for office purposes, the applicant Dr. Baker, will
incur a tremendous economic loss , almost half the value of his prop-
erty will be lost to him because he or anybody that he might sell
it to in the future will not be able to use it for anything and the
figures from the two real estate appraisers indicate in dollar and
cents terms, that loss - some 75 ,000 approximately, dollars for a
building that is worth a little more than $150, 000 at maximum uti-
lization. On the other side as we have discussed and indicated in
the exhibits, the block itself is predominantly professional office
at this time, with a few residences left which are rental in char-
acter. The building has a large orthodontic clinic and then this
upstairs is much smaller use. which could be one attorney' s office
or one real estate broker' s office or something like that, the im-
pact of such a small use on the neighborhood is totally negligible
when the parking is already there and the character of the communit
is already set . I think it is very important to realize that we
- 20 -
are not talking about converting a residence building, one of
these nice old houses into a office building. What we are talking
about is using office space for office purposes . And I don't think
f
that, if anything, it won't have any impact on the community. We' ll
be glad, any of us , to answer any questions that the Board might
have.
PETER MARTIN: The first question I have -and I think it goes to Dr.
Baker but I'm not sure, We are told what intentions were in buildi g
that building, Now all we have as a Board is the record of that
161 hearing. Now I have in the file of that hearing an application,
an appeal to the Board -of Zoning Appeals signed by Dr. Baker and his
wife, which says that what they want to do is erect an office and
an apartment, and it makes reference to this proposed building as
the home for your mother. The notice which was published in the
paper for that public hearing speaks of the proposed building as
an office and an apartment so do the letters that went out to all
of the people who were neighbors. And the Board granted the re-
quested use variance for an office and an apartment. Now, I find
it a little difficult to square with all of that the statements
about what the original intentions were.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think if I might answer that - I think that
the problem arose - the intention at the time as I understand it,
was to build the entire building for office purposes and yet, tem-
porarily for some years , use a portion of it for a residence for
Dr. Baker' s mother. But I think it was for that reason that they
included the apartment in the variance application. As I previously
mentioned, since apartments were an allowed use in the district ,
there was no reason to put that in there. Now it very well might
be that somebody just - you know there was some inadvertent - either
Dr. Baker shouldn' t have added the apartment to the application or the
Board should have told him to cross it out when they saw it because
you obviously can' t get a variance for an allowed use.
PETER MARTIN: Well it also gave some sense of limited scope to the
requested office use. There was also some evidence that the proposed
- 21 -
home for your mother was a source of hardship. That that was in-
volved in the claim of hardship for the use variance. It ' s a
little bit hard to fit together what did happen in 161 other than
we have the pieces of paper signed by various individuals .
EDGAR GASTEIGER: It didn' t allow the neighbors to see it in its
true light, either as I understand it. The neighbors didn' t have
an opportunity to know . . .
PETER MARTIN: Further questions for Dr. Baker or others?
DR. BAKER: My intent was that I built an office building. I never
rented an apartment, I never built a rental apartment obviously.
It looks pretty obvious , I mean I 'm . . a rental apartment . . .
that' s not a rental apartment. I never used it . . .
DR. GREENBERG: I have a question. At that particular time, if he
had an office below an apartment which was occupied by his mother,
did he need a use variance at all :
ROBERT WILLIAMSON: Yes, he needed a use variance for a medical
facility, yes .
R. GREENBERG: Even though it was a medical facility. . . is per-
mitted in a R-3 zone?
ROBERT WILLIAMSON: Yes . Today it is permitted but in those days
it was not permitted.
PETER MARTIN: Murray you had a question?
URRAY VAN MARTER: I think it related to Bob Colbert ' s report here
aybe Dr. Baker can answer it. In regard to the number of square
eet, doctor, in the . . .
R. BAKER: I think you' ll have to defer to him. He ' s the guy that
measured it out here and he 's more familiar with it than I am.
ICHARD SCHECHTER: Bob,- we have a question for you.
11URRAY VAN MARTER: The total number of square feet used for the
medical facility in what range perhaps?
ROBERT COLBERT: I think its about 41, 500 feet for the two floors .
RRAY VAN MARTER: So that ' s 93, 000. Is there a relationship to
his for income in relation to the 1 , 200 square foot apartment or
he 1 , 700 square foot office space?
22 -
ROBERT COLBERT: There' s both.
MURRAY VAN MARTER: I 've got an income here of the two bedroom
apartment in the range of $2 , 400.
ROBERT COLBERT: $200. a month.
MURRAY VAN MARTER: Right. On the basis of the 9,000 square feet -
the 48, 000 gross for the office space square in your mind - reason-
able?
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Half of it is in the basement - the lower porti n
is not really . . .
MURRAY VAN MARTER: Would enjoy a different rate than the main floor.
He can answer it.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I'm sorry.
ROBERT COLBERT: The medical facilities, the rent is 5. 33 a square
foot. If the second floor were 1 , 700 feet of office space it would
be 4 . 60 a square foot.
MURRAY VAN MARTER: I got that. Then overall we have in the range
of 9, 000 square feet with a value of per gross income in the range
of 483, 000 per year and I 've got in the range of 1 , 200 for the livin
unit of $2, 400.
ROBERT COLBERT: That' s right. And the comparables - I think you
certainly are familiar - you have apartments in downtown Ithaca and
you know what your rentals are - I think that you will find that a
comparable rent and not only in downtown Ithaca but in facilities
that have all the amenities that normal apartment houses do have.
MURRAY VAN MARTER: Everything in relation to your report was as
found when you went in the building, Is that right?
ROBERT COLBERT: That ' s right.
RRAY VAN MARTER: You perceive any alterations that had been
undertaken?
ROBERT COLBERT: I frankly had never been in the rear portion of
he facility. I've been at meetings in the large . . . .
RRAY VAN MARTER: You mentioned that it was a clear span designed
second floor.
OBERT COLBERT: Yes .
i
23 -
MURRAY VAN MARTER: And that ' s done for a peculiar reason?
ROBERT COLBERT: Yes , I think if you will look at the pictures, if
you look at the plans that were submitted to the Building Commis-
sioner at that time , I don' t know whether it was you Murray, or who
but I 'm sure they knew it wasn' t an apartment.
MURRAY VAN MARTER: That ' s ahead of my time, thanks , Bob . Thank
you.
PETER MARTIN: Further questions from members of the Board?
EDGAR GASTEIGER: How do you heat this property?
DR. BAKER: There is several heating units that we have had in the
property. It' s some gas I guess is the major . . .
EDGAR GASTEIGER: That ' s not what I meant. There ' s a furnace room
in the apartment. Does that heat the second floor completely?
DR. BAKER: Yes .
EDGAR GASTEIGER: And the fireplace, it seems to me that this was . .
R. BAKER: Well, a fireplace, let me explain. You know one of thole
as - you know one of the things you lay on a wall , metal things?
That ' s what it is - it ' s a metal decorative type thing, yes . Not
built from the ground floor up fireplace - no I don't have any-
thing like that.
EDGAR GASTEIGER: These are 1969 drawings , I believe. How about
his?
R. BAKER: No, no they are not they are all they are contem-
porary drawings and here . . . in this - yes, they're I guess . . .
REGORY KASPRZAK: They are 1969 drawings .
R. BAKER: I guess , okay . . .
DGAR GASTEIGER: But I 'm wondering about the top drawing. Was it
one in 1969?
R. BAKER: I can' t tell you exactly when it was done.
DGAR GASTEIGER: I was just trying to get a feel for the question
f the apartment. Now you said that your mother was active in the
usiness in some way?
R. BAKER: That' s right, yes . a
24 -
EDGAR GASTEIGER: Can you expand on that a little bit in the sense
of her kind of duties and her business relation?
DR. BAKER: Right, she . . . in our . . . we have sort of a large faci-
lity. We have a lunch room in the basement'. I hope I 'm within the
zoning things there, but we do and she used to make the lunches.
She also took care of the building, watched it for us , She did a
large part of addressing and sending out of notices from the
building. She did all of our referral letters ; letters we sent to
patients, this sort of thing, so it made it real convenient for he
to help me with this .
EDGAR GASTEIGER: Was she then working in the business on a salary
basis, basically or. . .
DR. BAKER: I , very frankly I received some . . . I let her stay there
because she did help me some. Yes she did . . . was under salary at . . .
for . . . in the practice.
EDGAR GASTEIGER: Then there probably was a business expense in
terms of this apartment?
DR. BAKER: Business expense . . .
EDGAR GASTEIGER: T was just wondering if it was on record somewher
what rental was allowed as a business expense for this apartment?
DR. BAKER: I never rented the apartment . I never rented the
apartment per se. No, there was never a rental for the apartment.
No.
EDGAR GASTEIGER: When was it that it was vacated then? How long?
DR. BAKER: You mean, totally vacated? 1975. It was vacated befor
that. She spent a great deal of time in Florida so it wasn' t totally
occupied all the time. And it was used . . .
PETER MARTIN: But there was a period when she was here cooking
lunches and doing a variety of things in the business so she would
have had to have been here fairly regularly . . .
DR. BAKER: Yes, she was here some of the time that ' s absolutely
right, Now when she wasn ' t, we had other people that helped us .
Yes.
- 25 -
EDGAR GASTEIGER: I find . . . I found a conflict in this sense . One
place I hear the advantage of having residence above professional
offices and I was curious in your case, your business there is
orthodonture. Can one get orthodonture treatment any place else in
Tompkins County?
DR. BAKER: Yes , sure you can. There are other offices, certainly.
EDGAR GASTEIGER: The reason I asked that is because I really can' t
conceive the argument that residents upstairs would distract from
the business downstairs . I was trying to explore that a little bit
DR. BAKER: Yes, I can, I can but I didn' t build the building to
have an outside group of people or students or whatever I 'd have to
do to get economic . . . it detracts from the practice from people
coming in from my professional building. Before I was here I was
in the Seneca Building which was an office building. It was taken
over by the Tompkins County Trust Company and there were two things
They wanted us to move, because they wanted to use the property, so
e had to and our patients complained terribly because of no parkin .
That was our reasons for our moving.
EDGAR GASTEIGER: Then one of the technical things . I 'm just sur-
prised to see these exactly alike . . . Was there an agreed on basis
for . . .
ICHARD SCHECHTER: Well no but they used the same figures because
they are derived from the same rental figures . That ' s why they come
out approximately the same. You see, actually they don't . . . well
hese are the figures that we gave them. These are the income
figures and you see the evaluations are different . Their approach
o value is different but the . . .
EDGAR GASTEIGER: Okay, I 'm with you. Thanks.
PETER MARTIN: Can I ask where the income figures for the part
presently occupied by your practice come? I mean who pays rent to
whom? There is, again unanimity on this $56, 000 figure which is
remised on the same rental figure for the first and basement . . .
R. BAKER: , The Professional Corp. pays rental to the real estate
Firm.
i
26 -
PETER MARTIN: Both are yours?
R. BAKER: No, no. I am an employee of a Professional Corporation
hey are not both mine, I am an employee of a partnership , you wan
to call it. Professional Corporations are now legal in the State o
New York . . I 'm sure . . . I 'm a member of - I 'm a one member of a
five man . .
PETER MARTIN: How many doctors?
DR. BAKER: Five doctors.
PETER MARTIN: So that Professional Corporation pays rent . . .
DR. BAKER: Yes, to the Realty. .
PETER MARTIN: Pays rent to another entity in which you are in-
volved?
DR. BAKER: Yes , that 's true. They have a separate lease. I 'm a
one-man of a five-man Professional Corporation who owns the building.
PETER MARTIN: Paying rent now to yourself and your wife who are th
partnership entity on this building. So that is the rent which is
reflected in these evaluations .
DR. BAKER: We are paying very average rent for a professional offi e
today.
EDGAR GASTEIGER: One thing that kind of bother me was the emphasis
on the whole block or the whole street being business . If this
argument is to be accepted and if Dr. Baker owns so much of this
property and has options on it, wouldn' t a better approach be to
call for rezoning it and give everyone sort of an equal chance in-
stead of to progressively allow the area to change?
DR. BAKER: I don't want anything else, but this . That ' s all I
have in mind, I 'm not rezoning anything, I 'm just asking you for a
zoning . . . I 'm not trying to rezone anything.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I think also is - it ' s one of those circumstanc s .
Dr. Baker thought that he was allowed to use his property for this
purpose and he was using it for that purpose and somebody came along
and cited him for violation of the zoning ordinance so that in order
to protect himself he really had no choice but to - ,,if he wanted to
continue to use the property for that purpose he had to come to thi
- 27 -
Board and ask for relief. Now, because of this whole situation he
effectively lost a tenant and he is losing every month a great deal
of rent. I think it would be a whole different thing to ask for the
whole block to be rezoned. There are all sorts of additional issue
involved. This is a situation where you have one little second
floor that the impact of granting a variance for this one little
spot would be vastly different than the impact of rezoning the
entire neighborhood or at least it might be because certainly this
is a very small situation rather than a very big one. Rezoning the
whole neighborhood might be years in duration.
PETER MARTIN: Are there further questions from members of the
Board? I hear none.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: i think there may be some other people in the
audience that might want to come . . .
PETER MARTIN: I will call others in the audience.
RICHARD SCHECHTER: Thank you.
PETER MARTIN: Alright, are there others here this evening who woul
like to speak in favor of the requested use variance and interpre-
tation of the 1961 variance, who have additional information on
either the original intent or on the issues of hardship and impact
on the neighborhood that we've heard testimony on? Yes .
DR. RALPH BALDINI : I 'm Dr. Baldini, I live across the street. .
PETER MARTIN: Dr. Baldini could you come forward so that we can get
you on the record.
DR. BALDINI : I don' t live across the street, I apologize. I have
my office there. I would like to speak to the point about the ad-
visability of having a residential unit above a professional office
whether it - be an orthodontist or a dentist or a physician or chiro-
practor or whatever - a lawyer, I 've been in that situation in the
building that I am in and the odor of frying onions , for example,
is not conducive to good patient relationships . I know that this
has been glanced over just a little bit but there are other noises ,
. offensive, noxious fumes, if you like, I mean , they are delicious ,
you know you salivate like mad when you smell onions frying and it '
28 -
about lunch time but I would like to agree with the statement that
the impact of giving this little variance to this little apartment
would not change the scope of the neighborhood. We have been there
longer than Dr. Baker has , also due to a variance,- and we welcomed
him when he came into our neighborhood. I think the gentleman be-
hind over here - mentioned that none of the neighbors would have
complained back in 161 if that request for the apartment had been
left off and it was a total commercial building. We have enjoyed
a very fine relationship, both personally and professionally with
Dr. Baker and his group. I think I can speak for all the residen-
tial people as well as the professional people in the neighborhood
that we would like to see the building changed over to a profes-
sional building and, as I said, speaking from my own personal
experience having been in an office where we did have tenants who
did use it for a residential - it is a little bit objectionable,
both by the patients and the professional people.
GREGORY KASPRZAK: Dr. Baldini, I have a question for you. You sat
on the Board of Zoning Appeals so you are probably quite familiar
with what we have to face when you leave for tonight. I would like
to ask you a question, where and when does one stop granting non-
conforming uses and granting variances with reference to residentia
ses , etc.
R. BALDINI : Mr. Kasprzak I 'm glad you asked that question because
hen I was on the Board of Zoning Appeals we were always told or we
were told that good city planning used natural barriers . And if you
look in the record some place I appeared before the Common Council ,
also the group that was rezoning the city and I asked for the block
s this gentleman asked, why don' t we ask for the rezoning of that
lock? This was, I think, before Dr. Baker came into the area, be-
ause I could see that there was going to be a need for professiona
ffices in that area. The 300 block is practically all professional
ow.
- 29 -
GREGORY KASPRZAK: You haven' t answered my question. I asked you
where do we stop? It isn' t whether or not where the boundary shoul '
be.
DR. BALDINI: I think you should stop at the creek.
GREGORY KASPRZAK: But what I mean is , philosophically speaking
where should we stop?
DR. BALDINI: At the creek.
GREGORY KASPRZAK: Okay.
PETER MARTIN: Thank you Dr. Baldini, Are there any others here
this evening who would like to beheard in favor of the requested
variance?
LE ROY MANNING : My name is LeRoy Manning, I reside at 428 N. Tioga
Street. - I 've lived there for 38 years , I see Dr, Baker come into
that neighborhood, build a beautiful building, he has off-street
parking, he -owns property on Sears Street that he made a great
improvement to, as Dr. Baldini says : Stop at the creek - that it.
You lived in the neighborhood, right next to my mother a few years ,
didn' t you?
GREGORY KASPRZAK: Yes , I did. I 'm familiar with the neighborhood,
if that is what you are asking.
R. MANNING: Alright, you are familiar with the neighborhood and
you know the people, and if the people were able to get here tonigh
but the majority of those people are between 75 and 95 and I talked
with a -lot of them in the last week. They didn't have any objec-
tions . As Dr. Baldini says : Stop at the creek. There ' s the
boundary - there ' s the Fall Creek boundary, right there and if you
have lived here long enough, you know what the tradition of Fall
Creek is. Cascadilla Creek - but I mean - Fall Creek is the neigh-
borhood and us kids used to call that the boundary and anybody come
over from the north side, up on the hill or anything, they had to
Put up with us, didn' t they? That ' s it . Stop at the creek.
PETER. MARTIN: Thank you, Are there any others who would like to
e heard in favor of the requested variance?
ROGER SOVOCOOL: My name is Roger Sovocool , I'm an attorney and I
wn property, as you know, also in the vicinity of Dr. Baker ' s
30 -
property. I 've appeared previously before the Board on a request
for a zoning variance and since my hearing and prior thereto in my
involvement with the property I' have tried to speak with numerous
members and residents of the neighborhood because I believe this
is a very serious problem and I believe that the Board, as I view
it, and the Board of Zoning Appeals in an attempt to humanize the
written word of the zoning law of this community. In an attempt to
apply the zoning law to the community we have a question from one
of your members : Where do you stop? Well I think that what you
have to look at is just what I have stated - the humanizing of the
zoning ordinance and I . . . it is very difficult for me, as I was
listening to the presentation, I 've seen the property and I 've
studied it, to believe that this . . . the necessity of bringing be-
fore the Board detailed figures , detailed data, appraisals . . . I
would think that anyone that lives in that neighborhood and knows
his property could readily see that this is an office building and
to change it from an office building into a residential building
is , in my mind a torturing of the law and a torturing of the fact
to try- to convert this into a residential neighborhood. I do not
see where the - children are going to play, I don't. see where young
people would even want to live in this building, I believe that any
use of the property with numerous kitchens, bathrooms , multiple
residence would not make it as favorable a building even for the
people in the area. I just believe that it would be a torturing
and a hardship, not only on Dr. Baker, but a_.hardship even on the
people to try to change this over into a residential building. Now
we 've attempted, in the same block on the other side to change our
building into a residential building. We are having all sorts of
difficulties from the standpoint of rents , from the standpoint of
converting these buildings into multi-residence use. Therefore I
find it very difficult to try to change the passage of time and
convert this area back into a residential area and I don't believe
that ' s the, purpose of the Board of Zoning Appeals is to try to take
this area and turn back time and change it back strictly into a
31 -
residential area. I don' t think that ' s the purpose of the Board,
PETER :MARTIN: But , of course , it ' s not the purpose of the Board t
rezone that block, so that you are pointing to some features of thi
r
building that distinguish it from other properties up and down the
street.
ROGER SOVOCOOL: Yes , but also - I thought one of the points might
have been impact on the neighborhood. There seems to be quite a
concern about what impact it would have and I don't believe -
there ' s a number of other people here in the room some have spoke
about the impact. I don' t believe there will be any impact at
all from the use of this for business purposes , in fact, I believe
just the opposite. I believe sincerely that there would be a
greater impact adversely on the neighborhood to try to change this
over into multi-residence use. I think there would be much more
danger of interference with other people , with the interference wit
the other offices and I believe it is a very positive step in order
to change this into a business .use, and as I have gone up and down
the block and questioned various people - not only Dr. Bakers -
concerning Dr. Baker' s application but others , I have not found any
person in that block that-would oppose this, nor any person in the
block to the south of it nor any person in the block to the north
of it, that would oppose this for use as a business office.
PETER MARTIN: Any questions? Thank you. Are there any others who
wish to speak in favor?
DR. GEORGE MCCAULEY: I 'm Dr. George McCauley. I feel in a way tha
I should apologize to the Board because I think I started this whol
mess back in 1946. I bought the property at 418 N. Tioga Street
and until that time everything was residential in that area of the
street. I started with the first office back in those days and, I
say I should apologize - maybe I started a trend that has gotten us
into this situation. I would also like to reiterate that I used
that 418 N, Tioga Street as my residence and my office and I can
attest that the two do not work together at all , The smoke from
the people smoking in my waiting room filtered up to the second
32 -
floor where my mother-in-law resided at that time. It was very of-
fensive to her and we had to take other steps and move her into
another building. The noise of children in the waiting room
J
bothered my- family and the noise of cooking in our kitchen I think
bothered the patients, on the office side of the house. The two
just do not go together. As a practicing physician in this com-
munity for thirty years I would like to reiterate that I am sure
Dr. Baker could not rent that space on the second floor of his
professional building to any physician. Any single physician or
group of physicians do not want any space where the only access to
that space is by stairs . It just doesW t work in this day and age.
I also would like to say that in 1960 Dr. Baker did approach me and
told me that he had plans to raze the two buildings where his pro-
fessional office now stands and he told me then that his intent
as to build a professional building at that time, I had no objec-
tion then and I have never changed my mind about that. I , at the
resent time, own the building at 416 N. Tioga the residence next
door to it. I was quite surprised when I saw that his mother moved
in to the second floor but I didn' t think anything about it . But I
certainly can see that the building, I think, was designed and
built with the idea of being a professional building and it cer-
tainly hasn' t detracted from the neighborhood and in 1960 he did
approach me and he told me the whole plans - his plans and every-
thing else. So I certainly see that there is no objection to it
being turned over. I don' t see how that building can remain half
apartment building and half professional building. Thank you.
kTER MARTIN: Alright are there any additional people here this
evening who would like to be heard in favor of the requested
variance? . . . Are there any who would like to be heard in opposi-
tion? I have a letter from Mr. Marvin Carlson - he is here in
person, and rather than . . .
R. CARLSON: I only want to make a couple of points that were not
ade in the letter , .
__ J
- 33 -
PETER MARTIN: Alright - do members of the Board have a copy of the
letter?
BOARD MEMBERS: Yes .
a
ROBERT WILLIAMSON: May we have a copy, Mr. Chairman?
PETER MARTIN: Do you have a spare copy Mr. Carlson?
ROBERT WILLIAMSON: We could borrow somebody' s .
PETER MARTIN: So that the appellant knows the letter, why don' t
you read it into the record for us, otherwise I would be obliged
to do the same and I would rather have it in your own intonation.
R. CARLSON: I live at 407 N. Aurora Street.
PETER MARTIN: Alright, this is Mr. Carlson, 407 N. Aurora Street,
R. CARLSON: I live one block from the house. Since the Board has
the letter I won' t repeat any of that, I would like -- indeed, I wa
not planning to speak tonight. I did think that I would like to
very briefly respond to a couple of related issues that have been
rought up. First of all , just to let you know that there are
people who live on this side of- the creek who would like to keep
this side of the creek residential to say that there are counter-
forces in the neighborhood, perhaps more strongly on my street -
urora Street, then on Tioga Street but that is in the area that we
have been talking about , the area on this side of the creek. The
trend goes both ways and evidence goes both ways and I think its
important to make that statement . I live in a house which used to
e a doctor ' s office. It ' s not a doctor ' s office now, its a resi-
dence - it 's possible to go the other way too. Another house on
urora Street, right by the creek has just been changed to a family
welling, which was not a family dwelling before. And there are a
umber of young families that are moving into our area. So I
imply wanted to state that there were people in the area who were
nterested in it as a residential area. The only other thing I
anted to say that is not in my letter is that it does seem to me
that clearly a very convincing case has been made about the buildin
nd the equipping of this space and particularly, I 'm impressed -
lthough I haven't seen them just hearing about them by Mr.
34 -
olbert' s figures , I don' t know how this problem is to be solved
in the long run but I would like to urge the BZA or, if not them,
ome other group, if nothing can be done in this particular circum-
stance to see what machinery might be evolved to prevent a circum-
tance where someone quite cynically could exploit this. I 'm not
accusing Dr. Baker of cynically exploiting the situation, but it
eems to me there is - that using the line of argument Mr. Colbert
as very well developed, there is nothing to prevent somebody from
utting up an illegal building and then arguing this cose us $40.
a square foot, it doesn' t apply to code, therefore, we can' t use it
in a conforming way. It seems there 's a potential erosion of the
code which is very serious here, and I don' t know how one gets at
that but if, however this case is decided, if it opens up a consi-
deration of how such matters are to be dealt with, I would think
that would be important.
PETER MARTIN: Given the amount of time this case has taken up I
hesitate to myself read this full letter. All members of the Board
have a copy of the letter - do you have a copy now? The letter
is as follows :
To : Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Marvin A. Carlson, 407 N. Aurora Street
RE: Request for Use Variance by Dr. Baker to allow commercial
use of part of 412-414 North Tioga Street in an R-3 zone.
Date : January 30 , 1977
As a resident of the neighborhood near Dr. Baker ' s facil-
ity, I urge the Board to deny this request for a variance. The
Planning and Development Board in hearing the case seemed to feel
that the request should be granted on the grounds that the damage
has already been done -- the building is commercial in appearance
and making it legally commercial would have no further adverse ef-
fect. I strongly disagree, on several counts . First, the illegal
use of this space for commercial purposes in the past has already
had a clearly adverse effect on neighborhood traffic patterns . J.
M. Patterson of 112 Sears Street testified to your Board on August
2 that the traffic from Dr. Baker' s complex has made conditions on
that narrow street far worse. Clearly the illegal real estate
- 35 -
office located there contributed to this. When the apartment was
used as an apartment, only Dr. Baker' s mother lived there, with, I
assume, one car. When Mary Ti,lly's real estate offices were
illegally operating in the complex four places in the parking lot
were set aside for her use, immediately adjacent to Sears Street.
The increase in usage and traffic was obvious.
- Second, as living units disappear from a neighborhood,
whether they are in buildings which have a "commercial" appearance
or not, the area becomes more deserted in the evenings, and as any
city dweller knows, less safe. Indeed many doctors prefer to
maintain apartments above their offices for security purposes.
This is only one of several reasons why the conversion of residen-
tial to commercial space in any block increases the pressure on
the remaining units in the block for similar conversion. The pro-
cess feeds on itself, as we have seen when Dr. Baker, who is
clearly the agent most responsible for the erosion of much of the
residential character of this block, cites that erosion now to
justify further commercial development.
In each of his appeals Dr. Baker had laid much stress on
his contributions to the neighborhood, especially on his rehabili-
tation of 408 N. Tioga, with numerous slides of marginal relevance
to support his argument. These "contributions" have taken a heavy
toll, however. Five buildings, three on Tioga and two on Sears , '
have been lost to residential use, four of them torn down. The
center of the block has been converted to a parking lot -- un-
screened, unsightly, and generating traffic, especially on Sears
Street., where it cannot be handled. The quality of the neighbor-
hood has seriously declined, in residential terms, and as it has
declined, Dr. Baker has gradually bought up most of the other
Properties within his block and, except for the showcase at 4083,
. s allowing them to decline, thus speeding up the process of
residential decay, wittingly or unwittingly, I submit pictures of
everal uof his properties as evidence. This is the dark side behind
he surface "restoration" of 408 . It is of course somewhat beside
- 36 -
he point at issue, but since Dr. Baker continues to lay such stres
n 408 I' think it worth noting the other side of that picture.
The repair or disrepair of Dr. Bakers various other,
properties is , I realize, not the issue, despite the slide shows
and photographs, and the BZA is concerned primarily with the legal
question of variance appeal. Here I can speak only as a layman,
but it seems to me that the language of the original variance was
quite clear--a permit "to erect office and apartment," on the
grounds "that the present buildings are not adequate nor suited to
ouse our offices, nor a home for Dr. Bakerts mother, who is going
to live in the proposed building. " (permit 546) It is true that
the term "commercial building" appears on the subsequent application
for a building permit , but no variance was ever granted for that us ,-,
and in fact the building was not designed or/'commercially. " The
"apartment" was designed as an apartment--with kitchen, bathroom,
fireplace, etc. , and was used that way until the recent departure
of Dr. Baker' s mother. The building indeed has a "commercial"
appearance--unfortunately for the neighborhood--but inside it was
designed for conforming use--that is , for medical offices and a
residence. Dr. Baker can therefore hardly argue that he thought he
was building a "commercial" structure . Nor is there any evidence
that continued use of the building in a conforming manner would be
"unreasonable" or would prevent the building from "yielding a rea-
sonable return. " Dr. Baker experienced no hardship during the year
his mother was using the apartment as an apartment. There is no
reason to think that continued use would create a hardship for him
now. I urge only that he continue to utilize the building in a
legal manner and in the manner for which he in fact designed it.
The loss of a single dwelling unit may perhaps seem a
small matter to the BZA, but I urge them to consider this case with
particular care, Of course, allowing any residential unit to con-
vert to commercial space helps to erode the residential zones and
remove potential tenants from the downtown area-consider how much
better it is for the city to have Mary Tilly in her present loca-
tion than in a residential zone- -but this particular case adds
37 -
other dimensions to that general problem. As you well know, the
area around Dr. Baker ' s facility is under great pressure for com-
mercial use, and every new, Variance increases the pressure for
others. We residents of the area are struggling as best we can to
preserve an attractive residential area near the Commons , and recent
rulings by the BZA, the support of the Fall Creek residents , and
the recent moratorium have all been most encouraging. Still,
those of us in the blocks nearest the business zone feel balanced o
a knife-edge. The 400 block on North Tioga already has a substan-
tial percentage of non-resident use, and very little more could
easily tip the balance entirely, thereby greatly increasing the
commercial pressure on us all , Please help us to preserve our
neighborhood.
/s/ Marvin Carlson
RICHARD SCHECHTER: I 've read it. It 's fine.
PETER MARTIN: You have no answers or additional information you
wish to introduce in relation it it? Alright, are there any others
here this evening who would like to be heard on this case in oppo-
sition to the requested variance? Then we will move on to our next
case. Thank you very much.
38 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ITHACA
FEBRUARY 7 , 1977
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO 1141 (A)
R. MARTIN: I move that the requested interpretation
of the 1961 variance requested by the
appellant be denied. The appeal form,
the notice to the neighbors and the legal
notice inserted in advance of the 1961
hearing all spoke of the proposed buildin
as an office for Dr. Baker and as an
apartment , The variance granted in 1961
was for the use requested and not for
additional uses .
R. KASPRZAK: I Second the motion.
OTE: YES - 6 NO - 0
APPEAL NO. 1141 (B)
R. MARTIN: I move that the Board hold over the
question of the granted use variance
until the next meeting for the following
reasons :
1. The Board was presented with a great
mass of testimony and some elaborate
written reports as part of the hearing
this evening.
2 , Digesting all of this material and
bringing it to bear on the issues raised
by a use variance requires more time than
we have available this evening.
ISS MAXWELL: I second the motion.
OTE: YES - 4 NO - 2