Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1974-06-03 i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, JUNE 3, 1974 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ` At a regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, held in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca, New York, on June 3, 1974: PRESENT: PETER MARTIN, CHAIRMAN C. MURRAY VAN MARTER GREGORY KASPRZAK ELVA HOLMAN EDGAR GASTEIGM JOHN BODINE 1 MARSHALL LANE, Deputy Building Commis- sioner and Acting Secretary DARLEEN LISK, Recording Secretary Chairman Martin opens meeting, listing members of Board present. This Board is operating under the provisions of the City Charter of the City of Ithaca and of the provisions of the Zoning Ordi- nances; the Board shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct of this hearing, but the determination shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to pustain the same. The Board requests that all participants identify themselves as to name and address, and confine their discussions to the pertinent Ifacts of the case under consideration. Please avoid extraneous material which would have a delaying effect. Deputy Commissioner Lane lists what case No. 1048 is to be. APPEAL N0. 1048: The Appeal of Cornell Radio Guild, Inc. for a use variance under Sec. 30.25, Col. 2, at 227 Linden Ave. in an R-3 zone. HELEN AMDUR: My name is Helen Amdur, I am an attorney with my office in Dryden, New York. With i me tonight is Mr. Glen Schiller of Ithaca who is the General Manager of WVBR. Also Mr. Erving Winternitz of Slaterville Springs and Raymond Freeland of Homer, New York who are the owners of Dominos, the prospective tenant. We have been before the Board Of Zoning Appeals over f a period of years, first getting a variance �� i -2- for the use of the building for business t purposes as it is located in the residen- tial zone and subsequently we obtained a variance to run the Card & Game Club in the downstairs portion of the building. That club is now defunct and we have the pizza bakery as a prospective tenant subject to this Board granting a variancel. At Ahe original hearing it was decided that there could be commercial use of the building but each tenant would have to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on separate application. The I Dominos bakery is planning to use a small portion of the downstairs of the building it' s a single room now which is approximate- ly 220 in width and 38' in depth. It has a separate door leading to the outside street. This operation is primarily a pick-up and delivery service of pizzas and telephone orders and 90% of that business is delivery rather than pick-up. There are no seating facilities and there will be no food served in here or eaten on the premises. The prospective tenant has three (3) delivery cars, rather small and they do deliver from approximately 4:30 to 1:30 a.m. with a closing time of 2:00 a.m. Of course, Health Department requirements would have to be met but there will be no increase in traffic in the area, it' s not inconsistent with other development in the area. You have Egans and then another pizza store just I� i -3- up the block with on premises consumption and rooming houses. There will be no grease or smell which you might have in a restaurant, there is just a vent which will be used to move the hot air from the ovens and it is our position that there will be no use which will be obnoxious to the nei§hborhood in terms of increase �.. in traffic or smell; or congestion. There are actually very limited uses to which this building can be put and we have been I looking for a tenant for a long time and we would like to have an approval. Mr. Winternitz and Mr. Freeland are here to answer any questions with regard to the operation that the Board may have. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The trucks you plan to park in the building? 4 ANSWER: Yes. I i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: On what street will the traffic be generated? ANSWER: Well it' s a one-way street so it would ii have to come down Linden but most of our business probably will be at Cornell so it will be right back up most of the traf fic would be on the university so most of the deliveries would be on the univer- sity so it would eliminate us driving from downtown all the way up - it would eliminate that traffic between time. MR. KASPRZAK: Could you repeat the operating hours? ANSWER: We open at 4 in the afternoon and start delivering at 4:30, we stop delivering at 1:30 in the morning and we are open i until 2, that allows the drivers to get -4- back. 4-back. MR. KASPRZAK: There are three (3) vehicles you say and they are all parked inside? ANSWER: Yes. MR. KASPRZAK: How many people working on the premises? ANSWER: There will be no more than three (3) people in the store, plus the three drivers. So there is six (6) all together but that wouldn't be every day that would probably be on the week-ends. MR. GASTEIGER: Presumably this represents a growth in your business? ANSWER: Not necessarily growth, it eliminates having to drive the distance that we have to drive now, cut down on maintenance, cut down on travel, cut down on accidents cut down on problems. MR. GASTEIGER: How will you vent your ovens? ANSWER: Through duct work and exhaust fans. MR. GASTEIGER: Do you anticipate this being any kind of a problem in terms of the neighbors? ANSWER: We have other shops in residential areas and we have never had any;tproblems. Most of the air that comes out is just hot air there is hardly any smell because youaare baking, it' s not grease, it' s not various �-' f bods, it' s not all types of odors, it' s bread. MR. KASPRZAK: Since, again, your area of delivery is Cornell did you try to locate in other places than this particular one? ANSWER: We have been looking for a location for a considerable time but the basic problem with most of these stores available, when they were available in Collegetown or around Collegetown, they would have i absolutely no off-street parking. MR. KASPRZAK: How about a noise factor since you have ithree (3) trucks coming and going between I 4:30 and 1:30 in the morning? ANSWER: Well it' s a Datsun pick-up and as I say lwe have shops in residential areas alread and we have never had trouble about that, so I would say no. MRS. HOLMAN: The statement was made that 90% of the business would be delivery but no food was served or eaten on the premises, what is the remaining 10%? ANSWER: Take out, a customer may come to the store and buy a pizza to eat but they can't eat pizza there. NP?. GASTEIGER: Will the apron of this building be avail- able for this type of pick-up; from what you said, I take it your trucks are going to go inside for this type of loading? ANSWER: Well they may pull in but at that hour, four o' clock, there will be very few cars related to the station, therefore we coul use the under the building parking right directly in front or if the truck isn't being used it will be in the building so there are fixe or six spots right out in front there so there is more than ade- quate parking for customers who come. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Can you estimate on a typical evening how I� many trips out there are going to bewith I these trucks? If -6- ANSWER: I would say each truck might make 20 trip a night with a total of about 60 trips for all three trucks. MR. KASPRZAK: Question to the owner, one of the condi- tions that the Zoning Law says here to be proved is hardship, do you have any comments on that? MRS. AMDUR: Well the hardship was proved years ago u when it was proved that this building couldn' t be used for other than commercia use because there was no way to make this into any kind of a residential unit. At that time the Board stated that they wanted an approval of each tenant and I don't believe we have to prove hardship in each case. We;would just like to get some income from the building which we are now not able to get and I know it has been on the market for many months and nobody wants to rent it for an office or anything like that because there is no parking. So the building is costing us considerable money and we would like to I have some way of getting some of our investment back. MR. KASPRZAK: The deliveries of your supplies, how will �.r these be made? ANSWER: They will be made by truck. MR. KASPRZAK: Through the garage? ANSWER: They will probably park on the apron, and bring it in through the front door of our section. MP.. KASPRZAK: How frequent and how big? I i - I -7- ANSWER: It would be once a day and the largest thing that would be delivered are trays of dough that are probably 30" by 20" and there are dough patties in them and they bring them in and there would be a cooler in the store. MRS. HOLMAN: How many vehicles can that garage accom- modate and how many vehicles does WVBR operate? MR. SCHILLER: '�VBR rents a parking lot down the street and there are three (3) spaces in that and we have in the garage itself seven (7) spaces and the five (5) spaces in the front. You need one person to operate the radio station at night and there are generally two there until 11:30 or so and then one after that so when the Dominos trucks are operating, I can't really see any problems. NR. KASPRZAK: You have to guarantee at least six if the re are to be three drivers and at leastthree workers at the maximum times? ANSWER: Well for ; the record, which I assume you want this in, we can guarantee six spaces CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any further questions from the Board? None. Is there anybody else here who would like to speak on behalf of this petition? None. Is there anybody here who would like to speak in opposition to it? PAUL GILLETTE: My name is Paul Gillette and I live at i -8- 202 Linden Avenue and I believe I'm the oldest resident on Linden Avenue and it fhas always been a residential street. Then the new Linden Garage came in and that made quite a change with lots of noise and traffic and things began to deteriorate. In my block there are only five homes out of thirty residences in th block that are home ownership with the people living there and the rest are all i absentee ownersand multiple dwellings and rooming houses. We want to k6ep it a residential area and I am very much afraid opening it up to a store like this will Just be the opening for more to get in. We were pleased to see the laundry who took over from the garage go out they made lots of noise and confusion, their delivery trucks were going all the while. We welcome the WVBR coming in because they have upgraded the property and there is no noise of confusion. But I am afraid that a store there will generate more traffic and they is already a considerable amount there on Linden Avenue. I live on the corner of Linden and Bool and trucks will be going down there at night and at all hours. There is no parking hardly available on Linden Avenue. It would be very difficult for anyone else to park there and come in and buy anything. I was glad to read in the paper the other night that the Planning Board for t E -9- whom I have great respect recommend that the BZA do not allow the variance. The property owners, the six or seven I mentioned there, and I might say I'm ! speaking not only for myself but for ( Harold Otter, Theodore Oliver, Carl Houser, all of whom are property owners and they coald not come tonight, and I'm speaking for them as well as for myself. I donot think it is in the best interest of the community that this variance be allowed. MOSS SEVEDLER: I am Moss Sevedler and I own the property at 308 Bryant Avenue. Linden is a qui6t street and many of the streets in the area, they are not like College Avenue and Eddy Street and a few of those. One of the main things I am afraid of is that opening a place like this might turn it into a street like Eddy Street. I like Dominos pizza and perhaps it doesn't use a lot of grease but I have picked up pizza at their place on Taughannock Blvd. and you can smell a pizza smell and although it may be pleasant, I think living next to it everyday would be something else again. I also think that if this place opens up what will be next. LEO GUENTERT: My name is Leo Guentert and I live at 231 Highgate Road and we have two proper- ties on Bryant Avenue just above the building in question. I feel that the properties would deteriorate with more i _10- traffic and noise and it would be more difficult to rent the property. SYLVIA GUENTERT: I am Sylvia Guentert and I live at 231 Highgate Road and I own the property at 304 Bryant Avenue and it' s a property that we moved away from and we moved away from it because of the noise of the Linden Garage. The exhaust in the garage was so bad that we had to bring the people from the city to see what we were getting. kle have had tenants move into the house at 304 Bryant Avenue since we lived there and they have noticed the exhaust from the Linden Avenue when the Linden Garage was in there and I am afraid that we will have the same trouble with any kind of baking. I realize that baking a pizza doesn' t include the dough end of it but there is an odor from every- thing that is put on the top of it and I would hate to have to go through that same ordeal of trying to rent property and have your people stay in that home at 304 Bryant Avenue if we had recurrence of another odor coming from there. Anoth r thing is that hill right beside of the garage and on that hill it is sort of slippery in the winter time and when they rented it for the laundry it was scooting up and down trying to make that hill to get up at the top„to store their trucks. ' You would be wakened up many tim_qp, during the night. i! (( -11- PAUL STEIGER: I am Paul Steiger and I live at 935 East State Street and we own the property adjacent to this at 221-223 Linden Avenue The property line between the WVBR property and our property is 3" from the edge of their building at one end and 6" from the edge of their building at the other end. It is exactly 9' from their building to my building. A little over two years ago I stood here and supported WVBR comin in to the location feeling that the property should be put to a legitimate use, and feeling that that was a legiti- mate use. They subsequently installed an electrical conduit that protrude* BY2" ; keep in mind that the property line is about 3" so the conduit is protruding onto our property approximately 9" . Now that may seem small but in a 9' driveway believe me it isn't and if you investigate it you will see that essentially, for all practical purposes, it blocks me from eve putting a large truck, such as a concrete mixer, up into our parking area up in this area. They installed a ventilating fan within reach of children without a guard on it and it was operated that way for approximately two months after which I wrote Edison Jones and told him that if that continued I was going to build a wall in front of it and they put a guard over it. The ventilating fan is 9' from our house, we have a bedroom window right i _12- there, it' s 10 from the bedroom window ii and operates, when the place of business here was opened, it operated intermittentLy late days and evenings and late into the night. In addition to that they were required to put in an exit door and apparently they were required to put in an exit door that exited onto our property. v ! We were concerned about the liability and we investigated and we found out that it would substantially increase our risk of liability and insurance costs; we attempted I to negotiate with them for picking up this cost which they would not negotiate to do. The door continued to be there, I they installed the conduit, the door and the ventilating fan from our property and their property without permission, the door continued to be there operable with an exit sign until I rendered it inoper- able for our own protection by inserting a steel post into concrete. After that I became concerned that there was a lit exit sign in here saying that they could go out a door that they could not get out and I wrote Edison Jones indicating that this was an unsafe situation, they turned off the light on the exit sign, how they happened to be able to operate without the exit door, I don't know but they are. My point regarding this is not that I suppor ed it so I' ll accept the responsibility. I supported WVBR coming in, I don't condemn i -13- the Board at all for doing it because I was part of it but one mistake is enough. I only outline this because I think it should be outlined what kind of a land- lord we are dealing with next to us in that building. I have a letter from my attorney that says, this I received this week, "they claim that the lower floor u is mostly below ground level and doesn' t j lend itself to addquate doors and windows necessary for residential use; that the building has always been nonconforming commercial though in R-3 residential zone that no sales will be conducted on the premises." I believe that this is in conflict with what was said here tonight. "There will be only loading of delivery trucks for home delivery; that the opera- tion will not alter the appearance; the traffic pattern or noise level of the neighborhood will not be increased." Wel if you think that the traffic pattern or the noise level will not be increased, go up and listen to this ventilating fan, this outfit has moved out and it' s not operating now, but we have had trouble renting this apartment because of this 16" ventilating fan operating, they can't possibly install ventilating fans to vent this operation without the noise level being increased. Parking for employees, or parking for the trucks I take it will be right here in front i i i -14- and there are open windows through this area and at 2:30 in the morning or 2:00 our tenants are going to hear trucks parking in that garage; I don't think that this is necessary, I don't think it should be allowed. Where are the people going to park that pick-up, you say that M6 of the business will be pick-up what assurance do we have that 50% of the business won't be pick-up three years from now. People don' t drive to pick-up pizza, we must be different, we drive to pick up our pizza. The truck have to go down Linden Avenue every time by our property so it has to alter the traffic pattern and I guess it depends on how they construe altering the traffic pattern. If they are going to College- town or if they are going on up onto the Campus with pizza they have to go down Bool Street which is an extremely congest ?d street. We rent to tenants, we rent to graduate student couples and they rent from us because they know that at 11:00 things will get quiet and that they can study. For the last 2Y22 years the people u in the apartment I described earlier and the one above it and the one below it, it s a three-story building, have not been able to have quiet after 11:00; we ask them to be quiet, but we don't provide them with a quiet environment. I simply plead that you won' t allow this to happen, the -15- odor I didn't hit but the odor has got to be a menace from a pizza place in that neighborhood. MRS. AMDUR: I don' t know who gave Mr. Adams, if he is still Mr. Steigers' lawyer, the informati n that there would be no sales on the premises because we did not discuss it, that is obviously not correct, we have said that there will be some sales. With respect to the kind of neighbor that the station has been I would like to take exception to most of the things that Mr. Steiger said. I was involved in corre+ spondence with his attorney, first of all I don't believe the boundary lines are where he says because we have another map to the contrary which is filed in the County Clerks' office. The spike, accord- ing to measurements that I made with the previous station manager I believe is on our property and that particular door was only to be used as an emergency exit in case of a fire or other disaster, it was not a general exit. We engaged in a lot of correspondence back and forth, consulted our own agent and our own agent advised us that we had adequate coverage. I believe at one point Mr. Steiger indicated that if anybody fled from the building through that exit during a fire or other disaster he would be charged with trespassing and I think that' s the point at which I gave up. I think i -16- the station has been a good neighbor to I , all of its nei0hbors and I think other I� people here have indicated that they have Ii kept up the building, they have done an enormous amount of improvements to the building which for many, many years was a laundry and for many, many years be- fore that was a garage and I'm sure that anything that we have now has got to be an improvement over what had been there before. I really don' t think that any of this that' s happened with respect to the boundary line dispute or the fire door dispute is within the province or jurisdiction of this particular Board. As far as the vent goes, we are talking I about venting on the other side of the building, the vent that he is talking about I am sure would not take care of going through the garage and one room and then to the other side of the build- ing. It would have to be venting in accordance with whatever the Health Department requirements are. MR. KASPRZAK: If you are going to have it venting on the other side, how close is the adjacent property? MRS. AMDUR: It' s very far back, there is no building immediately adjacent to this. MRS. HOLMAN: How close is the building to the property line on this side? MRS. AMDUR: We are practically right on the line ther and on the other side it is a matter of inches. I? -17- MR. GASTEIGER: Is it the intent to put a window or anything in the bakery area? ANSWER: We are not going to change it structural) at all. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any further questions? None. Ile will now move on to the next case. EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, NNE 3 1974 _J APPEAL NO. 1048: MR. KASPRZAK: I move that the variance be denied. MR. MARTIN: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The proposed use is substantially different from that for which the original variance to WVBR was granted that it must be considered on its own; 2) Evidence presented by both the ap- plicant and adjacent owners indicates that the proposed use would generate substantial traffic at a late hour having a likely adverse effect on a residential neighborhood. VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0 I -18- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, JUNE 3, 1974 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deputy Commissioner Lane lists what case No. 1049 is to be. APPEAL NO. 1049: The Appeal of Winthrop and Andrea Wetherbee for an area and use variance under Sec. 30.25, Col. 2-12 at 402 Chestnut Street in an R-1 zone. DAVID GERSH: My name is David Gersh, I am an attorney in the office of WiggLns, Tsapis, Holmber 8 Gersh and I'm here this evening with my clients, Winthrop and Andrea Wetherbee, in connection with an appeal for use and area variances. This matter was heard previously last month and the Board found that Mr. Wetherbee, who was not represent d by counsel at that time, had asked only for an area variance and it was the belie of the Attorney for the City, Mr. Shapiro that perhaps a use variance also should have been requested since our request is to put a dwelling unit in a detached structure. The Zoning Ordinance is sig- nificantly ambiguous so that Mr. Shapiro was of the opinion that it appeared at least that perhaps a use variance should also be aequested. So our appeal tonight is for a use variance to permit an apart- ment to be put in the upper story of a two-story garage where a dwelling unit had been previously and also an area variance because the structure which predates the Zoning Ordinance by many years, is within a few feet to close of the lot line and because the total area of the lot is defficient by some few thousand feet. _19- MR. GERSH: Mr. Wetherbee would you state for the I Board your occupation and where you reside? MR. WETHERBEE: I am an Associate Professor in the English Department at Cornell and my wife and I live at 402 Chestnut Street. MR. GERSH: How long have you been at that address? j MR. WETHERBEE: Since June, 1968. MR. GERSH: Is it your intention to remain at that address in the future? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes it is. MR. GERSH: So this appeal is not related to a desire to sell the property? MR. WETHERBEE: No. MR. GERSH: What are the improvements that you intend to make? MR. WETHERBEE: The improvements would be to take the lame unfinished apparently one-family living quarters in the second story of the garage and make it into a studio apartment. We have had an architect look at it, and we have talked to the Building Commissioner about the specifications of the building itself and this can satisfy all the other requirements except the one we are asking for tonight. MR. GERSH: When did you purchase the property? MR. WETHERBEE: In 1968. MR. GERSH: Over the years, have you improved the property? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes we have, we have redone most of the floors and walls and ceilings in the house. We are in the process of having the foundations of the garage itself + I -20- fixed because they are going to cave in and this needed doing regardless of what we can do with the restof the building. MR. GERSH: Would you describe generally the improve- ments on the property in terms of the house and the garage? MR. WETHERBEE: It' s a frame house, four bedrooms upstairs, living, dining rooms, and kitchen down- stairs, and a bath and a half bath and as I say we have redone the floors and so forth. The garage is a frame structure also with concrete foundations. It appears that it was once the living quarters of the servants of the house; there is the remains of ventilation for a stove and other things which indicate that there were living quarters in there at one time. And what we want to do is to make this into a studio apartment. MR. GERSH: Isn' t it a fact that the County Assessor on his records of this property indicates in his inspection the phrase "living quarters upstairs unfinished"? MR. WETHERBEE: That' s correct. MR. GERSH: Your desire is to return this section to living quarters? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes. MR. GERSH: Right now it' s not used for anything? MR. WETHERBEE: No. MR. GERSH: With respect to the financial burden that this garage is producing, what are your annual taxes? MR. WETHERBEE: The total taxes on this property are about ` $750 to $800. i -21- MR. GERSH: I show you Exhibit #1 marked for identi- fication and aEk you is that your school tax bill? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes. MR. GERSH: Does that document show the division between land and improvements which make assessed up the total p(p(# value of your property MR. WETHERBEE: Yes, it does. a.i MR. GERSH: What does the bill indicate as the total? MR. WETHERBEE: The total figure is $12,550. MR. GERSH: Of that amount, how much is designated for other than land? MR. WETHERBEE: $12,310. MR, GERSH: So we have $12,310 out of $12,550 indicat i ing the improvements on the property. No of that $12,310 what part of that, in you best judgment, can be properly allocated to the garage? MR. WETHERBEE: I would say 25 to 30;'6. MR. GERSH: On what do you base that? MR. WETHERBEE: I base it on a recollection of the State Board of Equalization and things of that sort which I received at one time And in those statements the garage was assessed at about that rate. MR. GERSH: Compared to a standard size garage how much additional taxes each year do you have to pay because of the unusual size of this two-story garage? MR. WETHERBEE: I suppose it must make a difference of 15,6. W. GERSH: So we are talking about at least $120 a year additional because of the size of the garage. The garage is shown in a -22- photograph on the poster which we placed there in the hope it makes things a little bit clearer. I think you can see readily that that was originally a carriage house with the upper story used for servants quarters and it now becomes a very cum- bersome two-story garage with much more space than is needed but still has to be maintained. In addition to the tax burdem that there is, I trust there is also an insurance burden because of the size of that garage. Your insurance bill a year is what? MR, WETHERBEE: About $100. MR. GERSH: Would you again say that 20 or 30% of that goes for the garage? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes. MR. GERSH: In terms of maintenance, is it safe to say that the extra size of that requires additional paint, additional shingles, and so forth? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes. MR. GERSH: In addition, you indicated previously that there is a need for some major I structural work. Was this structural i work caused from the extraordinary size of this building? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes, it' s not just a garage withthe upper , story, we have poured concrete foundation and it' s the extra weight of these two stories that has brought about the re- quired work, those foundations just could not hold the building. MR. GERSH: I show you Exhibit #2 and ask you what is I -23- that? I MR. WETHERBEE: This is the contractors estimate of i redoing the walls of the garage and I i believe the figures and everything else there is correct. i MR. GERSH: What is the figure that you received from Taughannock Construction, Inc. to shore up the garage and replace some footings and so forth? W. WETHERBEE: $2,162.74. MR. GERSH: That is a bill which you are going to � have to incurr because of this two-story garage; and that is a bill which is some- what of a hardship on an Associate Professors salary? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes. MR. GERSH: Directing your attention to the exact work that you propose to do, you indicate` that you intend to put a studio apart- ment upstairs, of approximate what size? MR. WETHERBEE: I suppose about 20' by 201 . I MR. GERSH: Where would access to that apartment be? MR. WETHERBEE: Through our driveway. MR. GERSH: With respect to parking, would parking be entirely off-street? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes it would. MR. GERSH: Is it correct that the only changes that you intend are interior changes? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes. MR. GERSH: The diagram also there illustrates the relative sizes of the property, first you see a diagram showing the lot size and you' ll see it' s an unusually large lot for west hill and you can see in relation -24- to the surrounding lots; also you will see a diagram that Mr. Wetherbee drew showing the approximate dimensions of the driveway, the area for turn around, the location of the buildings and their dis- tance from the lot lines. In terms of the work, would the work be performed by licensed electricians and plumbers? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes. MR. GERSH: Have you worked closely with City Officia s in planning this project? MR. WETHERBEE: Well as I said, I checked it out with Mr. Jones and I talked it over quite intently with Mr. Dingman, simply because he is my next door neighbor. MR. GERSH: This is our second presentation to the Board and did you comply with the require ments of the Ordinance and send out notic s? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes. MR. GERSH: So that you sent two sets of notices to the neighbors within 200' of your property. Okay so these people have gotten actually a double notice: and have you heard any adverse comment what- ever to your appeal? MR. WETHERBEE: No. MR. GM SH: Let me show you Ekhibit #3 and ask you to describe to the Board what that is? MR. WETHERBEE: This is a letter which Mr. Dingman wrote to me prior to the April hearing of the Board in which he spells out five condi- tions on which he would have no objection to our making the conversion and it' s accompanied by a letter which I wrote i i -25- I back to him agreeing to comply with all of these conditions. MR. GERSH: In addition to Mr. Dingmans' approval have you received a petition favoring the project? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes we had all the neighbors who were affected by this and whom we went to see sign a petition. I sent that to Mr. Jones. MR. GERSH: Is it part of the record? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It is downstairs in the prior file and is a part of the last case. MR. GERSH: We ask the Boards' indulgence and accept our word for it, that we have 42petition signed by neighbors approving the project we have letters from Mr. Dingman here and we have a letter from Bob Miller who is the neighbor on the other side of the property also approving. In short there are no neighbors directly or indirectly connected to this property who have voiced any objection whatever, the only sentiment that' s been expressed is one of approval and support. Now in addition to what your neighbors have to say, did the City Planning Director personally u view the property? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes he did. At that time he said it seemed very acceptable. MR. GERSH: So the Planning Director has said that it' s satisfactory and I think for the record that the Board is aware that the Planning Board has twice recommended approval of this appeal. Now with respect i -26- to uniqueness, fir. Wetherbee, over the years have you looked throughout the city to try to find a similar garage or carria e house? MR. WETHERBEE: Yes I certainly have been lately, it seem to be between a garage and a barn I haven' t quite figured it one way or the other, it' s certainly not an ordinary garage but I haven' t seen one that' s even similar to it. MR. GERSH: If I may Just summarize, I suggest that we have here a case which meets the standards for use and area variances in terms of a unique situation. A situation which is no fault of the applicant, creating a hardship financially in terms of a tax burden, insurance burden and maintenance burden and I would underline the last of those three in as much as he is faced with a twenty-one-hundred-dollar bill to shore up these foundations because he has this huge monstrosity building on his lot. We have a situation where the property is not usable for any other use, it' s lying there vacant. He plans to do the work in a quality fashion, hardly amateurish doing it right with professional people, architect, plumber, electrician. He has received help from Mr. Dingman and Mr. Jones throughout. None of the neigh- bors have voiced any objection, in fact the neighbors have voiced approval. As you well know in matters of this kind, neighbors are very sensitive to any -27- increased densityin the neighborhood and i here we have no objection whatever. In fact the Planning Director says it looks fine to him, the Planning Board twice says it looks fine; in substance we have no objection whatever to the proposal. It is unique and we respectfully ask�Ahe,, Boards consideration of this appeal and thank you for your patience. MR. GASTLIGER: Mr. Gersh I wonder as a lawyer if you could comment on the Planning Boards' recommendation can I read this to you: "that the Planning Board recommend approval of the variance, that such recommendation is not to be construed as setting a precedent for allowing secondary units in accessory structures in R-1 zones." This was a major concern of this Board the las time we met, can you comment on this? MR. GERSH: My interpretation of that language is that the Planning Board doesn't want the granting of a variance in this case to be construe as opening the door to people building a garage in their back yard and coming be- fore the Board and asking to put an apatt ment upstairs using this case as a prece- dent. I think the Planning Board correct-Y acknowledges that this is a very unique case, we have here a structure built in 1914 which was there when we purchased the property and it is not to be construe that any person within an R-1 district can simply put a living unit in their garage based on the Wetherbee precedent. ,f _28_ MR. GASTEIGER: I am wondering in your practice in law how many times you have used such cases as precedent, could you comment on this? MR. GERSH: Yes, I would respectfully suggest that if the Board sees fit to grant our appeal that in its decision it make clear that it does so based on the uniqueness and the unique circumstances in this case and when any lawyer in the future seeks precedent for his case he looks to see in what way that the facts are the same and in what way the facts are dissimilar and if the Board clearly states the unique circumstances hhre I think that any lawyer in the future would see that this is not a case on which he could rely unless his facts were exactly the same or so close to it as not to create any real differences. if MR. GASTEIGER: With respect to the taxes Aindeed $100 per year in taxes is going in payment for tha� structure he has a right to appeal this doesn' t he? MR. GERSH: In other words it isn't equitable for the assessors office to consider this a potential living space, which it does, and for this man not to be permitted to use it as such. MR. BODINE: Mr. Wetherbee, are there any utilities in the building now? MR. WETHERBEE: No, it' s wired for electricity and at one time or another it had ventilation for a stove. MR. BODINE: Have you gotten any estimates on the cost of putting an apartment in? -29- MR. WETHERBEE: Yes we have, the very rough figure that we have is $5,000. MR. GASTEIGER: Mr. Gersh, Mr. Wetherbee cettainly knew that that space was there when he bought the property, I mean is there something unique that' s happened since he bought the property? MR. GERSH:+ The property has deteriorated through no fault of his own, through the weight of this structure and through water run-►off and drainage problems to such an extent that he now has to put some twenty-one- hundred-dollars into that place, he is paying additional insurance, additional taxes and so forth without getting any return. It is a much larger structure than what he needs and it represents a substantial financial hardship. Let me say that the deviation from the require- ments of the Ordinance are very slight; in other words, the two deviations which we are asking the Board to allow are the side yard set-back which is 10' in an R-1 and we have 5-point something and the lot size is required to be 15,000 and we have almost 14,000 so the deviation is not v that great. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any other questions from the Board? None. MR. GERSH: I would ask if I may ,just for a matter of record that the petition, the letter from Bob Miller and the certificate of mailing also be made part of the record. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That concludes the hearing for this evening and we will now go into executive session. i EXECUTIVE SESSIONt BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA9 JUNE 3 1974 APPEAL NO. 1049: MR. MARTIN: I move that the requested use and area variances be granted. MR. BODINE: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Upon the evidence presented it appear that the two-story structure is much larger than is required for use as a garage and which includes space which was previously used for residential purposes and this additional size of the structure imposes necessary burdens of maintenance on the owner considerably in excess of those of a mere garage; 2) The location of the structure and its design and the apparent adequacy of the off-street parking and the evidence of support from adjacent owners all indicate that the proposed use would not adversly effect the neighborhood; 3) The main house and the structure in question were both erected prior to zoning and compliance with the area i requirements of the Zoning Ordinance cannot be achieved reasonably and the deficiency is slight; 4) The proposed use variance only permit what would otherwise be permitted as a smaller rental unit in the main house to be located in a detached structure, in all other respects R-1 use limits must be complied with. VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0 l � i I I C E R T I F I C A T I O N I DARLEEN F. LISK, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals No. 1048, and 1049 on June 3, 1974 at City Hall, City of Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed the same and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the executive session of the Board of Zoning Appeals, city of Ithaca, on-the above date, and the whole thereof, to the best of my ability. xat)L9_�' ar een F. Eisk Senior Stenographer Sworn to before me this D day of 1.9� MAFY E. BENSON Pio. 55 5270900 Notary Public,Stag of New York Qualified is Tompkins County Mq Commission bVins AArd 30.1! L I I I