Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1977-03-07 I, i i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA JI CENTRAL FIRE STATION, ITHACA, NEW YORK MARCH 7 , 1977 ,i ; I t� o ji ! A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, �i '1was not held due to the absence of any Appeals to be heard. How- . ;fever the Board met to consider Appeal 1141 which decision was held !, ti � over from the February 7 , 1977 meeting until tonight. li Those present for this Executive Session: Peter Martin, Chairman ji C. Murray Van Marter j Gregory Kasprzak Martin Greenberg Edgar Gasteiger s Judith Maxwell Thomas Hoard, Building Commissioner and Secretary j Barbara Ruane, Recording Secretary j w f if i! f 1f �i I i t. I �3 ij 1 i i f it II j it i 1 f. i i li { j I RIi 1 ,I i I 'i i i i4 3 II j i it k 1 I I I' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA MARCH 7 , 1977 I I 's EXECUTIVE SESSION 11APPEAL 1141 i. ' MR. MARTIN: I move that the requested use variance in Case 1141 be denied for the reasons laid down !4 in the written statement of reasons that we have already looked at and marked up. The written statement of reasons follows : �i On June 1 1961 Dr. and Mrs . Baker received a ii !i variance to build an "office and apartment" at 412-414 N. Tioga Street. At that time a var- iance was required since medical facilities 1 j' were not permitted uses in residential districts . I A As we have interpreted that variance, by i j� formal action taken at our February meeting and ! �s ? earlier in August 1976, it granted permission I for a medical office and an apartment. Both j �I are permitted uses in an R-3 zone under the cure rent ordinance. We have specifically concluded ! that that variance did not authorize office uses 9 other than medical in the Bakers ' building, and ' in particular not on the second floor. In other I words , we have concluded that the variance simply i; permits what could now be accomplished without a variance in an R-3 district. j I The issues presented by this appeal on re- I hearing are whether sufficiently persuasive newj evidence has been presented to lead the Board to� a different conclusion that it reached at its �I �I August 2nd meeting on the conditions which our 4� I� iI I I - 2 - ii ordinance (Sec. 30. 58) tells us we must find present before granting a use variance that wou d li allow the Bakers to convert the second floor of their property at 412-414 N. Tioga St. from use permitted under the 1961 variance and the prese t ordinance to uses permitted only in a B-1 dis- trict (specifically business or professional it offices) . Those necessary conditions for a usel variance are: �1 a) That there are special circumstances or uniq e }I i` conditions, fully described in the findings of the Board, applying to such land or buildings a d i` not applying generally to land or buildings in i; p the neighborhood, which would prevent said land or buildings from yielding a reasonable return if used for any permitted purpose. i I b) That for reasons fully set forth in the find �Eings of the Board, the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or building. l c) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. I, 'i We fund, on the basis of our original hearing, supplemented by the extensive rehearing in February, and our own personal inspection of th property on March 4 (conducted at the invitation ii of the appellant and in the presence of his at �! torney, Mr. Schechter) that those essential con-' I I , '; ditions are not met in this case. R` it j I ii I j - 3 - Because the presentation has been so exten- sive in this case our findings are also somewhat 'j more detailed than usual. To begin, it is not the Board' s role to �5 !� decide on whether professional offices should generally be permitted in R-3 zones or whether if this particular block of Tioga Street should be �! oke at the rezoned B-1. Most of those who s !; P hearing seemed to understand that our decision on a variance must be based on "special circum- stances or unique conditions" of the property i e` question and should not reflect broader judgments 1 iiabout the soundness or unsoundness of particula i' zoning categories or districts. , Looking then just at the property in ques- tion, we find ourselves unable to conclude on I� the basis of the record of the two hearings and our own inspection that use of the second floor "for uses permitted" in an R-3 zone is prevented by unique conditions, especially when we remind ourselves that under New York decisions problems; 1 , that are of the property owner 's own making should not be considered. In reaching this conclusion we have felt some difficulty at getting at the relevant factsl. Between the testimony of the two hearings and what we saw during our on-site inspection, there are numerous inconsistencies . I One use permitted in an R-3 zone is resi- dence. We understand from testimony at the i hearing that the second floor or at least a I l I� portion of it was originally equipped for occu- pancy by Dr. Baker' s mother and that for some time she occasionally or frequently used it as it i� i. I� I� i� - 4 - l � her home. But plans submitted and testimony ofj i Dr. Baker and two real estate reports offered at the hearing cast some doubt on whether it is i' still physically suited to residential occupanc . H Troubled by how space that once met the resi- dential needs of the owner's mother might have 1� I become unsuitable for occupancy, the Board I inspected the site. It discovered among other H things that the area shown on the second floor �i portion of the plans submitted in the February i hearingas a "lounge" is for all purposes a g P P kitchen, that the bathroom includes a bathtub i not revealed in the plan, that a second entrance to the second floor (which does not appear on t e undated second floor plan) has been covered ove i with sheet rock to make a closet. (The 1969 � i blueprint for the first floor does, it now ap- pears, show the stairway which leads to that second entrance) . The floor appears to be separately heated. Finally, it also appeared i to us that the lighting and other electrical fixtures which give a commercial air to portion j of the upstairs exist side by side with earlier ] ' i fixtures quite suitable for a residence. It was said by Dr. Baker at the August hearing that no efforts had been made to rent the apartment. R Therefore, we have trouble relying on testimony of efforts to rent in 1975 at this most recent hearing as establishing the unsuitability of the property for this use. To summarize, it appears to us that the second floor might still 1 reasonably be used as a residence, and that to I' the extent that there are difficulties with such I use we cannot find that they are not of the i� I� f ii - 5 - i appellants own making. f But residential use is not the only one permitted in an R-3 zone and we would have to I find that the others as well are impossible or difficult because of special circumstances in �i this case before a variance would be warranted. 'i .i We are aware of our own knowledge of medical facilities above the ground floor in the Ithaca ! area. We note, as the appellant does, that homl occupations are permitted in R-3 zones and I ii s nothing the record visible to us upon inspectio j suggests that that might not be a reasonable us of this property. Finally, we note, again of our own knowledge of the community, that resi- dential uses on the second floor can reasonably �i iicoexist with a medical facility below. I� Some comment on the financial data fur- j! f nished by the appellant is called for. It show Ino more or less than the assumptions on which i� ii i rests . It shows quite clearly that office ren- tals for the second floor of the building in jquestion would make it a more valuable building ! ` to an owner. Such rentals may indeed be possible jE if a medical use might be brought in above. But II 4 j' it the only reasonable use of the second floor is as a residence then such evidence says no more than might be said of many other properties Is on that block or others nearby not covered by variances . Zoning restrictions very often affect property values ; that is their nature. If that affect justifies a variance whenever it 'I '? can be shown with expert testimony, zoning be- i; comes quite meaningless . 4 'I H I f it I I� i I I — .� 6 Most of our attention has been on the firs J; i; two conditions for a use variance specified by our ordinance. But to grant a variance we I I w j must find, in addition to those two (not insteaf { of them) that the granting of the variance will j� be in harmony with the purposes of the ordinance ij i� and not detrimental to the neighborhood. This j question is quite difficult to address when the �i H variance is not being sought for a particular tenant or enterprise, but instead the Board is being asked to rezone the second floor of the building B- 1. All we can say is that some of II the uses proposed may have an adverse impact on sl €! the neighborhood in the form of additional trafl I fic. We find simply on this issue that the j i testimony presented does not satisfy us that al possible uses on the appellant' s list are free I! �{ from detrimental effect on the neighborhood. I The City Council ' s resolution accepting the I Re-Zoning Study dated February 25, 1976 , specifi - cally enjoins the Board to help maintain the i physical and residential nature of this area. I� MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. I' VOTE: YES 6 NO - 0 MR. MARTIN: The request is denied. E II I I� 9 II I! S i. �j I' �I 7 - I , Barbara Ruane, Do Certify That I took the minutes of the Board f Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca in the Executive Session of Appeal No. 1141 , on March 7 , 1977 at the Central Fire Station, City of Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, n the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. -7 f Barbara Ruane Recording Secretary worn to before me this Ului day of 1977. otary Ablic MARY E. BENSON No. 55 5270900 Notary Publ.c, Stare of New York Qualified in Tompkins County My Commissiort[upires March 30.f9 7j�- I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA CENTRAL FIRE STATION, ITHACA, NEW YORK MARCH 7 , 1977 A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, was not held due to the absence of any Appeals to be heard. How- ever the Board met to consider Appeal 1141 which decision was held over from the February 7 , 1977 meeting until tonight. Those present for this Executive Session: 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 . a BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA MARCH 7 , 1977 r EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL 1141 MR. MARTIN: I move that the requested use variance in Case 1141 be denied for the reasons laid down in the written statement of reasons that we have already looked at and marked up. Y The written statement of reasons follows : On June 13, 1961 Dr. and Mrs . Baker received a variance to build an "office and apartment" at 412-414 N. Tioga Street. At that time a var- iance was required since medical facilities were not permitted uses in residential districts . As we have interpreted that variance, by formal action taken at our February meeting and earlier in August 1976, it granted permission for a medical office and an apartment. Both are permitted uses in an R-3 zone under the cur rent ordinance. We have specifically concluded that that variance did not authorize office use other than medical in the Bakers' building, and in particular not on the second floor. In othe words , we have concluded that the variance simply permits what could now be accomplished without a variance in an R-3 district. The issues presented by this appeal on re- hearing are whether sufficiently persuasive new evidence has been presented to lead the Board t a different_ conclusion that it reached at its �' August 2nd meeting on the conditions which our 2 - ordinance (Sec. 30. 58) tells us we must find present before granting a use variance that would allow the Bakers to convert the second floor of their property at 412-414 N. Tioga St. from use permitted under the 1961 variance and the prese t ordinance to uses permitted only in a B-1 dis- trict (specifically business or professional offices) . Those necessary conditions for a use variance are: a) That there are special circumstances or uniq e conditions;- fully-described -in-the-findings= of the Board, applying to such land or buildings aid not applying generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood, which would prevent said land or buildings from yielding a reasonable return if used for any permitted purpose. b) That for reasons fully set forth in the find- ings of the Board, the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or building, c) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. We find, on the basis of our original hearing, supplemented by the extensive rehearing in February, and our own personal inspection of the property on March 4 (conducted at the invitation of the appellant and in the presence of his at- torney, Mr. Schechter) that those essential con- ditions are not met in this case. ti 3 - i Because the presentation has been so exten- sive in this case our findings are also somewhat more detailed than usual. To begin, it is not the Board' s role to decide on whether professional offices should generally be permitted in R-3 zones or whether this particular block of Tioga Street should be rezoned B-1. Most of those who spoke at the hearing seemed to understand that our decision on a variance must be based on "special circum- stances or unique conditions" of -the property i question and should not reflect broader judgments about the soundness or unsoundness of particular zoning categories or districts. Looking then just at the property in ques- tion, we find ourselves unable to conclude on the basis of the record of the two hearings and our own inspection that use of the second floor "for uses permitted" in an R-3 zone is prevented by unique conditions, especially when we remind ourselves that under New York decisions problems that are of the property owner's own making should not be considered. In reaching this conclusion we have felt some difficulty at getting at the relevant facts. Between the testimony of the two hearings and what we saw during our on-site inspection, there are numerous inconsistencies . One use permitted in an R-3 zone is resi- dence. We understand from testimony at the hearing that the second floor or at least a portion of it was originally equipped for occu- pancy by Dr. Baker' s mother and that for some time she occasionally or frequently used it as 4 her home. But plans submitted and testimony of Dr. Baker and two real estate reports offered at the hearing cast some doubt on whether ,it is f still physically suited to residential occupanc Troubled by how space that once met the resi- dential needs of the owner's mother might have become unsuitable for occupancy, the Board inspected the site. It discovered among other things that the area shown on the second floor portion of the plans submitted in the February hearing as a "lounge" is for all purposes a kitchen, that the bathroom includes a bathtub not revealed in the plan, that a second entrance to the second floor (which does not appear on the undated second floor plan) has been covered over with sheet rock to make a closet. (The 1969 blueprint for the first floor does, it now ap- pears, show the stairway which leads to that second entrance) . The floor appears to be separately heated. Finally, it also appeared to us that the lighting and other electrical fixtures which give a commercial air to portion! of the upstairs exist side by side with earlier fixtures quite suitable for a residence. It was said by Dr. Baker at the August hearing thj no efforts had been made to rent the apartment. Therefore, we have trouble relying on testimony of efforts to rent in 1975 at this most recent hearing as establishing the unsuitability of the property for this use. To summarize, it appears to us that the second floor might still reasonably be used as a residence, and that to thevextent that there are difficulties with such use we cannot find that they are not of the appellants own making. But residential use is not the only one permitted in an R-3 zone and we would have to find that the others as well are impossible or difficult because of special circumstances in this case before a variance would be warranted. We are aware of our own knowledge of medical facilities above the ground floor in the Ithaca area. We note, as the appellant does, that hom occupations are permitted in R-3 zones and nothing the_record _visible to-us-upon-inspection - suggests o_us_upon__inspectio -suggests that that might not be a reasonable us of this property. Finally, we note, again of our own knowledge of the community, that resi- dential uses on the second floor can reasonably coexist with a medical facility below. Some comment on the financial data fur- nished by the appellant is called for. It show no more or less than the assumptions on which i rests . It shows quite clearly that office ren- tals for the second floor of the building in question would make it a more valuable building to an owner. Such rentals may indeed be possible if a medical use might be brought in above. But it the only reasonable use of the second floor is as a residence then such evidence says no more than might be said of many other properties on that block or others nearby not covered by variances . Zoning restrictions very often affect property values ; that is their nature. If that affect justifies a variance whenever it can be shown with expert testimony, zoning be- comes quite meaningless . 10 6 - Most of our attention has been on the firs two conditions for a use variance specified by our ordinance. But to grant a variance we must find, in addition to those two (not instea of them) that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the purposes of the ordinance and not detrimental to the neighborhood. This question is quite difficult to address when the variance is not being sought for a particular tenant or enterprise, but instead the Board is being asked to rezone the second floor- of the building B-1. All we can say is that some of the uses proposed may have an adverse impact on the neighborhood in the form of additional traf- fic. We find simply on this issue that the testimony presented does not satisfy us that al possible uses on the appellant 's list are free from detrimental effect on the neighborhood. The City Council ' s resolution accepting the Re-Zoning Study dated February 25, 1976, specifi - cally enjoins the Board to help maintain the physical and residential nature of this area. MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0 MR. MARTIN: The request is denied.