Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1974-07-01 I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, JULY 1, 1974 ------------------------------------------------------------------I At a regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, held in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca, New - �- York, on July 1, 1974: PRESENT: PETER MARTIN, CHAIRMAN GREGORY KASPRZAK ELVA HOLMAN EDGAR GASTEIGER JOHN BODINE EDISON XNES, Building Commissioner and Secretary DARLEEN LISK, Recording Secretary ABSENT: C. MURRAY VAN MARTER Chairman Martin opens meeting, listing members of Board present and stating that one member is absent and it takes four votes one way or the other for an appeal and anyone wishing to hold their case over to the next time in hopes of having a full Board present may do so. This Board is operating under the provisions of the City Charter of the City of Ithaca and of the provisions of the i Zoning Ordinances; 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 sustain the same. The Board requests that all participants identify themselves as to name and address, and confine their discussions to the pertinent facts of the case under consideration. Please avoid extraneous material i which would have a delaying effect. Commissioner Jones lists what case No. 1051 is to be. APPEAL NO. 1051: The Appeal of Newburgh Associates for a use and area variance under Sec. 30.25, Col. 2 & 4, at 106 E. Court St. in an R-3 zone. CHARLES CURREY: My name is Charles Currey, I am an attorney and I practice in Ithaca and I have for three or four years now. I would like to begin by saying that if you have any questions at all during the course of our presentation, I would like it to be under- stood that you aren' t here for our benefit we are here for your benefit, so interrupt us any time you like. My associates seated I -2- over there, are Douglas Ridley first, David Taube second, and Robert O' Brien, and My name is Charles Currey. Our purpose for being here this evening quite obviously is to get a variance in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ithaca as it effects property, as Mr. Jones has stated, at 106 East Court Street. We are after two types of variances, we are after a use variance, the premises ' s are now located in an R-3 area which essentially is a residential designation, we would like to get that variance, if it were granted, to give us a use which is permitted in a B-1 area, that is for professional office buildings; the second type of variance which we need to apply for to do what we would like to with the building is for an area variance, more specifically a parking variance. As I understand the Zoning Ordinance in the area for professional office buildings we are required to have one parking space for every 250 square feet of office space that we have and according to my calculations indicate that is a total of approximately twelve spaces which we would need and that' s off-street parking as I under stand it. The house in this particular circumstance takes up about 80 to 856' of the lot and there is no way to get back to what small back yard there is, so we have no off-street parking at all associated with the building directly. What we have done and what we have provided you with is a statement from two parking lot owners in the City ref Ithaca, one from Dr. Baker whose premises are within 500 feet of ours who will agree to provide us with four parking spaces; I the other letter is from Mr. Hunna Johns whose parking lot is more than 500 feet from our premises but Just barely more than VOD feet) from our premises and he has agreed to provide us with eight parkin spaces. So those are the twelve that we need and unfortunately ight of the twelve are outside the limits allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. I am going to relate to you here so that you know where I'm going Just a small outline of what we plan to present to you this evening. The first thing that' s going to happen is that I'm going i -3- to sort of outline generally the issues that I believe are presentEd so far as this zoning variance is concerned. These premises at 106 East Court Street are currently owned by the Presbyterian Church; my associates and I are the holders of a contract to purchase that property provided this variance is granted to us. Attorney Armand Adams is here on behalf of the Church and he has requested that he be able to say a few words to you as well this evening so that will be the second thing you hear. The third thing you hear will be from Mr. Taube, who is an architect, who will really get into the meat of the issue with you so far as this particular buil - ing is concerned and what we are prepared to do with it. After we get all done with that I would like to take a couple of minutes to summarize what we have presented and hit what I think are the impor- tant points. These premises are located at 106 East Court Street, that location if you happen to be unfamiliar with the numbers is between Seals Street and Cayuga Street on Court Street. That Court Street area there is the dividing line between an R-3 and a B-1 zoning district. R-3 being on the side opposite the County Jail, the B-1 district being on the Court House side and County Jail side of Court Street so the building is right in that dividing line. The building is known to some people as the former Bank of Newburgh building. Prior to this time it was located on State Street and for a time in the 1820' s served the financial needs of then early Ithaca. The building borders on the DeWitt Park Historic District which has been so designated by the city in that it' s directly s across the street from the Presbyterian Church. It' s located in a Federal Historic District and the particular building in question is in the Federal Register of Historic Landmarks. As I understand the law and the Zoning Ordinances it behooves us to show you essen- tially three things with respect to the granting of a zoning vari- ance. We have to chow that the premises, as they are located in the area that they are, present a hardbhip of some sort to the owner. 1 -4- The second thing we need to show is that this hardship that' s presented is unique to the particular piece of property involved, and that is to say it' s not a general hardship that applies to all the premises in the same general area or zoning designation. The third and last thing that it behooves us to show you is that if the zoning variance is granted, that that granting and the purpose = to which we plan to put the building will not cause a great dis- turbance in the character of the neighborhood as it presently exists. Very briefly then, the hardship that' s presented in this case to the Presbyterian Church as the owner of the property is that in my opinion and the opinion of' my associates is that the building as it stands cannot realize its full sale value to the church if its only uses are the uses which are allowed in R-3 zoning district. Mr. Taube is going to tell you from information which he has developed as to the possible or probable sale price of the structure at 106 East Court Street if it were sold as a single family resi- dence, as a duplex type duelling and finally if it were sold as an apartment complex. Those are essentially the uses. that are permit- ted in R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts. These prices you will find range somewhere between $15,000 and $20,000 as probable purchase prices for the uses of the building. I think you might be able to conclude that those prices might even be further deflated by the fact that there are no on-premises parking. This problem which presents itself to the Presbyterian Church is one which I believe is unique to that particular piece of property. The other building in the immidiate vicinity of this piece of property are generally smaller in size and generally have a rather larger lot by compari- son to house size. Allowing either one of two things, either the construction of some kind of parking facility in the rear or the i construction of garages in which to house vehicles. I think that situation with a larger lot which most of the premises in the surrounding area have makes them much more suitable as single famil i -5- residences and also as apartment residences. I think you can appreciate that it would be most difficult to rent premises to persons as apartments who own vehicles if there were no -place to put the vehicles at night except either out on the street or in some distant parking lot at some location. Another aspect of this feature is that since the house takes !up such a large percentage of the lot it makes it inappropriate for this house to be used as an apartment building due to the fact that there is very little area there in which to have people outsid of the house, that is children. The back yard is very limited in size and just wouldn' t be appropriate for very many people to be outside. Also the premises are located on a very bust street in the City of Ithaca and it' s hardly appropriate for little children to be wandering in that area. There is another unique feature of this building which isn't really technically a problem of zoning, but I think you can consider the problem, you are in effect the ultimate city planners in that you decide what zoning variances are to be granted and what aren' t, what uses are to be permitted where and what uses are not, you are inaddition, of course, the ultimate guardians of property values din the City of Ithaca and I think that' s a very impoiant point; I think that you then can consider the historical significance of this structure in relationship to the DeWitt Park Historical area which is across the street. I understand from the newspaper the other day that our architect friend, Mr. Downing, has now been given a contract for the renovation of the old CourtHouse which lies just across the street from the premises we are considering now. It' s our plan with respect to the historic uniqueness of the property to grant to the City of Ithaca a facade easement, that is a legal document to the effect that the facade of the building, the outside will remain forever as it is with renovations. But renovations which don' t effect the essential structure, character and appearanc of the outside of the building. Vie have spoken with Assistant Planner, i i I -6- John Meigs, 4ith respect to that facade easement; he is very hope- ful that the City will take it from us. I can' t think of any reason why they shouldn' t; it appears, however, at this point that �Ithe City Attorney has not become sufficiently interested in order to draft a proposal for us, in that regard I drafted a proposed facade easement which I have ready to present to the City Attorney for his approval and we are under contract now with the Presbyteria Church to press the City for that facade easement if it should happen that the property changes hands prior to the time that easement is granted. So in that way we hope to preserve the historical character and nature of the building in its present stat with, of course, renovations and improvements but maintaining an essential sameness to the outside of the structure. The lWst area that we want to touch on is the character of the neighborhood and surrounding vicinity':. In this regard we have proposed and made a use map of the area and when Mr. Taube makes his presentation he will put that up for you to see. It shorts, I think , that if these were to be offices; and incidentally I neglect ?d to mention it, but we are not planning these offices for somebody else, we are planning these offices for ourselves, there will be MY law office there, Mr. Ridleys accounting firm, and the architec-1 tural firm of O' Brien 8, Taube. Now in addition to that it' s true we will, have other offices to rent depending upon the space require.. ments of the tenant we would have any place between one and three offices to rent but we will have our offices there as well. we are not going to be absentee landlords in this situation. Also on the same street, Cayuga Street, within a couple of doors of 106 East Court Street are the law offices of Norman Freeman and Paul avelli, they are on the corner of Sears and Cayuga Streets, that is maybe just about three houses away from us. Just on the other side is the chiropractic office of Dr. Gray. Fight around the corner on Cayuga Street is the office of Dr. Salerno and Dr. Carlin cross the street is the County Jail, County offices, and whatever Ithe County plans for the renovated Court House, I think those as ►II understand it will be County offices as well when they finish. Of course, the Presbyterian Church is there also. There are other buildings, I'm not going to refer to all of them now, they are shown color coated on the map so that you will easily be able to distinguish which premises are what uses. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Currey, will one of you be telling us just a bit about the recent use history of this structure, it neither gre nor lost its parking, how has it been used compatibly with R-3 in Ithe recent past? MR. CURREYt The Presbyterian Church has owned the building since approximately 1958 and as it has been owned by the church it has been used as their parsonage. It' s been used most recently as a home for delinquent children and these are within the R-3 usage. Of course the building was initially a bank building but it wasn' t in that location so it was a commercial structure at one point. DAVID TAUBE: We feel it' s very importaft when stressing the importance of this building itself the fact that it is in an histor c district; it' s in the Federal designated district which essentially ' makes it a National landmark. It' s on the border of the DeWitt Par district. We did some research on the building, we checked with the DeWitt Historical Society that researched it in their archives and spoke to Professor Stephen Jacobs who is considered one of the top experts in Preservation Architecture on the East Coast. Just to give a quick background in case you are not familiar with it the building site was purchased from Simeon DeWitt for 10 cents back in 1820 or so and the Bank of Newburgh in Newburgh, New York iwas to open up a branch bank it was opened in 1821. The building Iif you saw the old photograph was located originally at the State Theater site and was moved in 1912 by Rev. Edward A. George who was pastor of the First Congregational Church of Ithaca and quoted i in the newspaper clipping from the Ithaca Journal 1925 "he was an ardent admirer of colonial architecture" 'which we consider to be fairly important. The building style is more accurately Federal I style and according to Professor Jacobs it is one of the finest examples of Federal style in New York state. We also found some references to the building in Architecture Journals of the Day that was printed up in Architecture Magazine in 1923 which therefore considered it to be a building of exceptional quality and there were comments made on it. Professor Jacobs really summed up the building itself by stating that it' s "definitely a rare item" , and conceiv- ably if not definitely the oldest identifiable building in Tompkins County; identifiable, of course, being the key word. I keep stressling this because it will sort of fill in later when we present some of the other points but very basically this is the way we hope to restore the building, we are doing nothing out of context essen- tially when the building was on State Street it had central stairs that came out straight from the building similar to what we have done here. The steps now have a little added dimension to it primarily because when the building was moved to its current site it was raised on the foundation high6r. than it was on State Street so we have to add steps; by adding the steps we have, of course, gotten to a height where we need a rail. This would be a wrought iron rail which again is in keeping with the character of the building. The color scheme which we have tried to show here on this print is based on a photograph which we have put in the file here which was donated to the DeWitt Historical Society in 1948 ' C but in fact apparently is an older era and at that time the colors were a light gray to the building, black shutters and white trim. Checking with Professor Jacobs, he felt would probably do the building more justice than the original scheme which was all white with black shutters. I think the point we are trying to make is the fact that because the building has such great value to Tompkins County and Central New York it suffers probably only by the fact -9- ' that the Boardman House and the Clinton House have taken quite a bit of publicity because they have been in danger. This building, in a sense probably is in danger. 6tie are trying to present the case based on the fact that here we have a very important old building in Ithaca and Ithaca probably wants to preserve that build ina and to do that a certain amount of monies does have to be put into it. Vie are planning to put in quite a bit of money into the renovation, not just the interior renovation, we plan to replace al the current windows which are the original windows with new windows of exactly the same style; this is primarily due to environmental factors, the glass is either not there or single glazed ' it' s incredible heat loss. The windows don' t operate, none of them have any weights in them andkasically they are in very poor condi- tion so we would be replacing them with duplicates maintaining the six over six panes. We would be taking down every shutter and cleaning them chemically and repairing them and placing them back. ehipping off all the old paint and repainting and, of course, re- placing the poorly constructed; not constructed but over a period of time it' s deteriorated steps that are there. The fact that a lot of money must be put into it to restore the facade is critical, I think, in our argument in that a building that is being purchased l�for the purposes of either�-rooms for rent or even possibly two families or what we figured out to be maximum maybe six apartments it very obviously would be the landlords disadvantage to put very much money into the facade. Not only is he sinking money into a portion of the building that tenants for the most part don' t always are aware of, but he is also increasing his assessment and for a landlord trying to cut a profit that' s a problem. We are not "looking for a profit as such" we started this venture by looking for spaceto rent,we needed space, we all are expanding and we soon found that either the space wasn' t available or what was available I wasn' t adequate and we were fortunate to come upon this building and we are using it primarily for our own offices and someday we l -10- ( expect to expand to fill up the entire building. To us though it is important that that facade is restored, we as professionals want to present a good image to the public and specifically, Bob and I as architects are interested in old buildings we have been involved► in old buildings and we would like to see this one restored and we ; think it' s very imporbnt to the City that it is restored. just a couple of points on listening to Mr. Curreys comments; with regard to the parking, Dr. Grays office is to the left and the church day care center to the right. The parking that we have obtained commitments from is four spaces from Dr. Bakers lot which is maybe 200' from the building and Mr. Hunna Johns lot which is about 1, 100' from our building, now the requirement is 1,000' and we are stretching it by 1001 . Public parking is 1,200' along the street which is again about 200' over the 1,000' requirement. On the other hand we don' t feel as though it4s a hardship for an individual to go those extra 2001 . v1e also don' t feel that the building itself would present any disturbance in the neighborhood, again if anything we are trying to improve that neighborhood by putting in hopefully responsible tenants and secondly by improving the facade and the image of that building as most of the other buildings in the area are. The third point I wanted to just bring out is the facade easement, the importance of this. The facade easement is not necessarily something in our benefit,it' s in the benefit of the City and it is the City if anybody that would want that facade easement. I say this from experience having been on the Landmarks Commission but we had contemplated at the time we designated DeWitt Park as a district Actually where our boundaries would be and I think it became very complicated as soon as we stepped across the street. So this building is not a City Landmarks really by nature of bureaucratic finagling but the facade easement I gives the City the same control over that facade as a landmark designation would but in fact really goes one step beyond and makes it even that much more difficult for the people to,fi who own the i i -11- ` building, to make any changes or for any future owners to make any changes. ''ie are more than delighted to go along with that and we have done so in the purchase offer with the church agreed to pursue -this, again we feel it is to our benefit. It could be a problem in resale but that' s something we would consider at a future date, but vie think that it is an important enough building to the City, that the City of course would be interested in the facade easement and w think the history of the building plays a very important role in th entire disposition of this building which right now rests with the Board of Zoning Appeals. MR. KASPRZAK: Wouldn' t it be easier for you to grant the easement to the Historic Preservation Commission rather than go through the City? NE. TAUBE: It is going through the Preservation Commission, the Commission has already actually listened to the arguments for and against it and it has been passed on to the City Attorney to write up a facade easement. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Apparently it is a legal problem with anybody other than the City holding the easement. MR.. TAUBE: Yes, the City must eventually hold the easement and the Common Council would vote upon that. There was one other thing I wanted to point out and that' s the property lines. The property is 4$!2' wide, there is a 6%' distance between the building edge and the property adjacent to it on the east, there is l%' between our building and the property on the right, now there is a total c &arance of maybe 31/2' between buildings. A small car could conceivably go back here, probably with damage to either the car or the building or both so off-street parking is out of the question on this property as such and we think that was an important factor. If you haven' t seen it, the proposal has been for Charles Currey law offices on the first floor, Douglas Ridley certified public _12_ accountant upstairs , and O' Brien and Taube architects upstairs with some areas being potential rental. fMR. KASPRZAK: What is the potential capacity in people for this (( building? k,,E. TI UBL: On a square foot basis and this is based on the Buildi Code it works out to approximately 40 people. We know how vie are expanding and I believe we have talked maybe a dozen people for our three offices and the other offices couldn' t conceivably fit in more than maybe five so I would say we are talking probably at the very top limit 20 people. MRS. HOLMAN: How do you expect to use the parking spaces that you are going to be renting? IV . TAUBB: The spaces at Dr. Bakers lot are going to be used by the four of us, the individuals in the partnership. The other eight spaces will be used by either our clients or other employees of ours whereby we are making arrangements with Mr. Johns on a monthly basis; he rents spaces on a monthly basis, so we can either rent the spaces on a monthly basis for our clients if they need them or rent them on a monthly basis for our employees as they wish. We don't see that as a problem, they have been promised to us as we need them so we are going to work it out so we have them available to us for use either by employees or clients. You see there is another issue that was brought up at the Planning Board meeting that I don' t think we even thought of but one of the member of the Planning Board did and that' s the fact that R-3 types of offices don' t have .that many clients. We don't deal in a great volume of clients and therefore there is not the traffic that another type of business might generate. The point was made on Dr. Bakers complex which is a medical office in a residential zone which does not require any zoning and yet the amount of traffic that' s generated there is probably equilavent to the parking Ii I i -13- structure at its current rate. ='e are trying to point out that we don' t have the load that other offices or maybe even a real estate broker would have. MR. KASPRZAK: What kind of street parking do you have there, I presume it' s a metered parking? NM. TAUBEI The entire area along there except in front of the jail is metered parking. From Court Street north on Cayuga it' s not metered parking I believe it' s a two hour restriction. There is a surprising turn over of spaces along there which is one of our considerations when we bought it we didn' t feel that it would be a problem. We have to look at the standpoint to that we may be trying to go for a variance but the variance isn' t going to hey us very much if we are being hurt terribly by the lack of parking and we have given this much consideration and don' t feel as though it is a problem for our type of clients. MR. GASTEIGER: I missed earlier the space between your property and the property lines on either side? MR. TAUBE: There is a little addition to the building east of us that was put on at a later date and it runs right along the propert line so there is a 6%' distance between our building edge and the l property line which is also the building edge of 104 East Court. There is a 1%' distance between the building and the property boundary to the west and about 3%' to the building. I think a very important point now is to present the costs and again these are estimated costs of various uses and Bob has those figures. .OBERT O' BRIEN: My name is Bob O' Brien and I am an architect in the partnership of O' Brien and Taube and we have done some estimates on renovation for various uses to the building in addition to our own to compare what alternatives might be under the present zoning and have used three examples of multiple dwelling, apartments, dupl I g, dividing the building into two single family units and single family -14- use. Ve have tried to compare these on a basis of what an expecte monthly return could be on the property in each given use against what the renovation cost would be to bring it up to that use and I then what purchase price could be offered to the church for the building for that use. It should be noted that the building is in extremely poor shape right now it' s really fallen to disrepair and any way it may be used will take a considerable amount of money. 7e base these figures on what vie consider sort of current market rates for downtown property given the fact that the building has no parking, has no yard or outdoor recreation area and is on a main thoroughfare. The first use that one might consider would be single family and we estimated $400 per month a single family if they were so inclined might be able to put into it or someone rent- ing as a single family might be able to put into it. Deducting from that the costs for taxes, utilities and maintenance and insur- ance one could put in approximately $250 a month to aftertise a mortgage which at a ratio of $10 per thousand that' s $25,000 that one could pay, could finance on the building. Out of that $25,000 we had a $10,000 renovation figure which would allow a $15,000 purchase price. Similarly with a duplex that would be two units at $300 a month which allowed a mortgage rate of $350 a month for the buildin which transfers to $35,000 for a financeable amount for which we figured $18,000 renovation, now in this case we are renovating to have two units so we have twice therumber of plumbing kitchen, toilets, which are the biggestr:investment in housing and that allowed $17,000 purchase price for the church. The last residential consideration was for apartments and we were able to carve the building up into two studior.apartments, three one bedroom apartments and one two bedroom apartment. Now the nature of the building is such that to comply with the Building Code for an apartment structure there would have to be another staff added so that there were two means of es_ress from the second floor, the code for apartments is more stringent than it is for commercial I -15- because the twentyfour hour occupancy the fact that people are sleeping in there and don't have much time to get out and that increased the renovation costs for apartments was $38,500. The monthly income was $820 which allowed a mortgage of $550 or $55,000. Now a $55,000 total minus $38,500 for renovations which would allow $16,500 purchase price. Now as our proposal stands with the church we are planning to put $60,000 into the building of which $28,500 is renovation and $31,500 is purchase price. I think that a final thing on financing is that these figures are, we began with top dollar what was the most one could get out of the building for residential Or6odtty and in fact that' s exteemely optimistic, I doubt that if someone bought the building for residential property that they would put that Imuch money into it nor would they have any incentive whatsoever to restore the building in any way. I ARMAND ADAMS: My haze is Armand Adams and I am the attorney for the First Presbyterian Church who are the contract sellers in this particular property, I also have been interested in the field of restoration of historic buildings and of the preservation of local ,history in the county and incidentally am president of the DeWitt Historical Society and I have been very closely associated with Mr. I�Taube in the last few months or year in view of the fact that he is responsible for the very fine ,fob that' s been done withethe Clinton House and I look with particular interest on his activities in this deal because I know that what they have to do is going to be in the best keeping with the eity of Ithaca. I think I want to elaborate a little bit more on the history of this particular building becaus it has always been not a single purpose but it' s a limited use building right from the start. When it was built over next to the Ithaca Journal building it was a bank, for a few years we don' t know to much of the history after 1928 because the Bank of Newburgh did not last for more than about ten years and it was rented for various things and it was then in a commercial zoneand was rented i I -16- for commercial purposes. But in 1828 the property that we are talking about now on Court Street was sold by Simeon DeWitt also Ito Charles Humphrey. Humphrey happened to be the president of the Bank of Newburgh and there was no connection at the time that this was what was going to happen but he did own that particular area and the lot on which it now sands and it was owned continually by either the Humphrey family or the Hulsey family up until 1912. No this is important because both the Humphreys and the Hulseys have been very active people in all of the history of Ithaca. The building was moved from its State Street location over to this site in 1912 and in 1912 and since that time it has always had a very limited use because it served from 1912 to 1920 as the manse for the pastor for the Congregational Church, in 1920 the Baptist Church owned the p operty and they held it from 1920 to 1957 and it was the manse f r the Baptist Church, from 1957 until today it has been owned by the Presbyterian Church and has been used not only as a manse but also as offices for the church offices, as a nursery, and vario s annexed purposes of the church itself. So it has always had a 1 mited use. It has never been used as a residence so far as I know at any period of its hisbry except as it was an incidental residence to a minister occupying the place who needed something more than a house just for his family because he had to entertain people from the church and that' s the reason, it is a large house. It' s to large a house for a single family to use particularly now days when the children cannot OXay in the street, there is no back yard for them to play. As was indicated by Mr. O'Brien in his presentation of the costs it is gust not feasible to sell this house for any residential use whether it is single family, duplex or apartments and it is a distitt hardship to the church to have to do so or if it did have to do so and it is unique to that particular area due to the fact that it is to large a building for to small a lot to be used for any kind of residential use that is permitted under the R-3 zone. The church paid in 1967 $23,000 for this and immediately put in $6,000 within six months I -17- so they had $29,OOC in this property in 1957. We have had Larry Caldwell, Esther Martin and various other realtors review this property with the Ihought of selling the property for any type of use that we could set for it and we have never had an offer althoug it' s been on the market for two or three years, actively for six or seven months. The most they said would we consider a sale in the neighborhood of $2 ,OOC providing we can get the proper purchaser to put in the necessary money to convert this to a usable building which would be eit er a duplex or an apartment house. Now it was indicated that if Jt was to be an apartment house even though you would get more monEy out of it you have got to put in a new stairway, you have got to ha% e the expensive kitchens and baths as indicated by Mr. O' Brien and even if it were a duplex you would still have the expensive kite en and baths to go in. As a commercial building ( permitted in the business zone for business use that is not particu- larly true and we were not able to get a $25,000 sale for this thing. Now the church has been interested in the facade, I would point out the use of this facade easement is not hew; under ]aws applicable in New Orleans because this has been the more famous one and in Schenectady the so called stockade law that is now a New York state law, those areas have been preserved for facade purposes and you can do within reason what is necessary inside as long as you keep the outside looking as is and I think that you is can see that thiSAA beautiful restoration; it doesn't change much except for the entrance here from the building itself. The hardship is unique to the church in view of the fact that it has no other use in this limited use or whatever you call it, it can't be used as a main single family residence anymore if you did you would be lucky to get even the $15,000 that Mr. O'Brien mentioned for the sale of the house becase it had to be so much put into it and nobody that I know of has the type of a family small enough to use that house and yet entertain in some of the big rooms and still pay some $400 a month which they would have to do to realize even the $15,000 purchase price. i The church has been interested in this facade easement and have incorporated it as a part of the contract for sale because this is one of the things we wanted to do when the property was purchased in 1957 I was interested at the time and represented the church at the time and we bought it particularly because of the historic value of this building, one of the very earliest if not the earlie t buildings of its kind in the city and it should be maintained as part of the DeWitt Park Area. The importance is that if it is maintained for the type of use that' s contemplated here for the architects, the siiqle law firm and the accountant it is going to be a use that is n t going to tear down the inside or the outside of the building it' s not going to have the heavy use that the building has had ii the last two or three years. When the church gave up the use of the building some three years ago as the active manse it did so and then rented it to the group as a refuge and a half-way house and the mortality has been quite devastating in the building itself as evidenced, Ithink some of the neighbors would bear us out on that, it hasn' t been at all conducive to the good of the neighborhood. Now why did we abandon it as a manse, why isn' t that continued to be the best use, well basically the whole philosophy of need for residences of pastors, assistant pastors and ministers of churches has changed over the last ten years; there was a time when a church in order to employ or engage a minister would have to furnish a place for him to live and it had to be big enou h so he could entertain groups of children and the congregation and things of this sort. That has changed com- pletely there was a feeling that it should be close to the church so we 'owned three manses across the street from the church itself so the three minis ers would have a place. That is changed, now the ministers and ;heir families want to separate their family life from their church life and be not as far away from the church as possible but at least some distance from it so that this is necessary and they want and have a right to the smaller place as a home and the chu ch quarters for entertainment and otherwise. i -19- Further than that they all don't like to have someone pick out their house in advance, they like to have something to do about it when they come here so they would much rather have an allowance to apply on rent or purchase of a house and this is not true just with our church but every church that I know of in the City of Ithaca in the last ten years has been proceeding on this line, getting rid of the manses that they have and offering stipends to the minister in lieu of it. So the former best use of this manse is no longer in existence and because it is so designed it is not feasible for the use of any other residential type for that reason we really look with favor on this sale not because it gives the church the most money although this is a factor that we don't lose because we would lose if we were to sell it for any of these other purposes consider- ably but that is going to preserve this building which is a part of Ithacas heritage and it could not be preserved if we were to have an apartment house, no matter what we couldn't get I don' t think anyone who would agree to develop this as an apartment house or anything other for reddential use who would maintain some of the small windows and lack of view they would have out and a small lot as an apartment in the middle of town so I support the position taken by the contract purchasers that this would be a definite hardship to the church if they could not make this particular sale if the variance were not given. The matter of parking I leave to them but so far as the hardship is concerned this is the only i real, reasonable use the church could make of this property. Thanks you. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Did I hear you right that the property has been on the market for two or three years and actively for six or seven months? MR. ADAMS: Yes actively for six or seven months and we have had no offers at all. MR. GASTEIGER: Does bnyone know if the back extension was added 1 1 _20_ after it was moved? MR. TAUBE: I would have to say it was added after it was moved, i was definitely ancaddition and it was more than likely added after it was moved. MR. CURREY: I told you at the beginning I was going to summarize but Mr. Adams has done an e*cellent job and I'm not going to bore you any further with any more repetition of the details, we will certainly stand on Mr. Adams statement. I Just wanted to make one final point and that was this, you people have now seen these pictures the one called exhibit C is a picture of the property as it was located on State Street and this is at some point I take it some fairly considerable length of time after it was abandoned as ( a bank and as can be seen from those the property at that point is to say the least in something of a state of disrepair. After that time the great minister that Mr. Adams told you about moved the premises to Court Street and when he was occupying them they looked more like exhibit D and you have seen these pictures and it really makes a very beautiful structure. f I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What relevance if any do the historic importance of this building and the facade easement have to the issues before the Board? MR. CURREY: I think in a strict technical interpretation there ma in be no relevance but I think you people have a bigger JobWXthe City of Ithaca than a strict technical interpretation of the laws, I think you have a duty to preserve property values in the area, I think you have a duty to preserve these historical areas that are present in the city and I don't think by any means that that' s the only fact that you should consider; the fact that this is a very old house and it' s now in a state of disrepair and we plan to repair it. I think the most important arguments we have made are those with respect to the purchase price, the value of the house to the church. I think your question is well taken and in a strict -21- technical sense I don't believe its historical value, its historical significance bears upon your decision making in a strict legal sense but I would hope that you people would go beyond a strict legal interpretation and look at what you can do for the City of Ithaca by granting this zoning variance. MRS. HOLMAN: What kind of sign would you be using? MR. CURREY: You may not be able to see it from there but there is a sign located on two posts in the front of the building near ' the sidewalk. The sign won't be located on the front at all and 1you can see the relevant size of the sign to the various structures � on the building there. MR. GASTEIGER: Did I understand correctly that under a facade easement there is no requirement for maintenance? MR. CURREY: That' s correct. There are facade easements in New York state, Mr. Adams referred to those in New Orleans and Schenec- tady, I am not familiar with those, I am familiar with facade easements in the City of Rochester and what they provide for generally is that the character of the nature of the front of the building remain unchanged, I think it may be legally impossible to bind someone to keep premises up, I don't think you can make people put money into real property in order to keep them up. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this appeal? MRS. WILLIAM GRAY: My name is Mrs. Gray and I live at 102 East Court Street and I have talked with my neighbors who are property owners and they are vey much for this that the building could be made into offices. As a group home it was terrible, they not only ruined their building but these children ruined part of our siding, they broke the walks but this is beside the point I think � it would do the community a lot of good. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else to be heard on this case either for or against and if not we will go on to the next case. I EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, ,JULY 1� 1974 APPEAL NO. 1051: MR. MARTIN: I move that the requested use variance be granted subject to the condition that there be a binding restriction in the form of a facade easement satisfactory to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission in force on the property. MR. KASPRZAK: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The evidence presented indicated that the building was designed initially for a commercial use and that its I use in the most recent past was primarily of a special nature related to its ownership by a church. In its current form - Large in relation to the lot size, lacking off-street parking on the property, substantially run down - it would appear from the testimony presented that it could not bring a reasonable return as a resi- dential property. This is especially true, it would seem, if the property is restricted so as to prevent alterations in its historic facade; 2) In terms of condition, attractiveness, for residential use including yard space And parking; the Opoblems of this building are not shared generally by those in the neighborhood; 3) The proposed use, with the facade easement and the type of professional clientele which will frequent the building are not likely to have adverse impact on the neighborhood or be inconsistant with the spir t of the Zoning Ordinance. OTE: YES - 4 ABSTENTION - 1 NO - 0 MR. MARTIN: I move that the area variance be granted. KASPRZAK: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The applicants have commitments to the requested off-street parking including some that does not come within the 1,000 foot requirement of the Zoning Ordinance but is only modestly outside that limit; 2) Given the limited traffic likely to be generated by the proposed use and the availability of i both the committed private parking and public parking within I� l reasonable walking distance of the building, the deviation from the strict requirements of the Zoning Ordinance does not seem likely to have adverse consequences on the neighborhood. r VOTE: YES - 4 ABSTENTION - 1 NO - 0 i -22- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, JULY 1, 1974 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Jones lists what case No. 1052 is to be. APPEAL NO. 1052: The Appeal of Knights of Columbus for a area variance under Sec. 30.25, Col. 11, at 302 West Green Street in an B-2 zone. VICTOR CAPALONGO: My name is Vic Capalongo I am here on behalf of the Knights of Columbus and as you all know we got a brand new building down there, I think it' s about six or seven years old and � we got one eye sore down there and that' s our garbage shack down there. It' s been backed in by trucks, smashed, doors don't close and what we want to do is put one up out of masonry and all they are doing is taking away one parking spot, the end one and build a garbage and a storage room out of masonry with a steel door. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Then the odly problem is set back from the boundary, the Ordinance would say five feet and you will be two plus a fraction? MR. CAPALONGO: That' s right. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Given the location of the main structure on the lot and the size of the lot there is no other way you could do it and have a structure for your garbage cans? I MR. CAPALONGO: Well there are lots of ways of doing it but we wanted one up there that' s going to be permanent and so we open up at 4:00 in the afternoon and the parking lot is empty and kids ` play in there and they bang things up, the tin one we got now is all banged into and the kids throw bottles against it and all we ( want to do is put one solid masonry one up which would be painted the same color as the building and it will be a wood roof and that' about all we are going to do with it. i . GASTEIGER: What side of the building will it be on as you stand on Green Street and face the front of the building? i -23- MR. CAPALONGO: As you fact the building it would be on the left. MR. KASPRZAK: How tall is that structure? NSR. CAPALONGO: It will be 11 courses high. It will be eight feet. MRS. HOLMAN: This will be attached to the structure? MR. CAPALONGO: That' s correct. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone to speak on this case either for yor against it? Ij= there are none we will now go into executive session. i f I. EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHCA, JULY 1, 1974 APPEAL NO. 1052: iMR. MARTIN: I move that the variance be granted. MR. BODINE: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) There is a hardship in that it would require that they move the existing door to comply with the regulations an there is no detrimental effect on the neighbors property due to the smaller set-back. VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 0 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. 1051, and 10521. on July 1, 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. DARLEEN P. LISK SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Sworn to be fore me this --1 --day of Rt7W G GREY "* 906, ►Yak i W; I MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Zoning Appeals PROM: Planning Board SUBJ: BZA Appeal 1056--Request for a Variance by Douglas Ridley, Charles Currey, Robert O'Brien and Daviel Taube at 106 E. Court Street in R-3 District. DATE: June 28, 197+ Planning Director Van Cort explained that this concerned the old Newburgh Bank building on Court Street, copposite DeWitt Park. Messrs. Ridley, Currey, O'Brien and Taube have requested a use variance to permit the establishment of professional offices in a building in an R-3 zone, and also a variance on parking regulations. Mr. Van Cort explained that they had no on-street parking, but had commitments for off-street parking. At this point, Mr. Stein introduced Mr. Da1d Taube and the lawyer representing his case. The lawyer then presented the board members with drawings of the building in question and went on to describe the matter further. He explained the function of the two drawings: one showed the building as it will. appear once completed and showed s use snap of the area; the other described the lay-out of the inside offices. He emphasized the fact that there were no plans whatsoever for industrial use of the building, that it was to be strictly for t?he use of professional offices. He then mentioned that this building was a landm&rh building within the federal historic area. At this time, Mr. Tanbe took over. He read several excerpts of articles referring to the historic aspects of the building in question and emphasizing its importance as a historic building. He further -ffered a brief statement made by Mr. Jacobs, referring to the untque qualities of the building as a historic structure. Be further went on to give a few details on the 2 background of the building, explaining some of its uses in the past, leading up to its present use. He presented the members of the board with two pictures - one showing the building as it once stood, in a state of deteriorar- tion after hawing been vacated by the bank, and a more recent photograph showing it almost as it stands today. He then added that they have spoken with members of the Landmarks Commission, who are in agreement with the changes which they propose to make. He added that these changes would be very minor ones which would not in any way deter the building's appearance nor would the use of the building interfere with its historic significance of the surrounding area. Mr. Moran NDVED, and Mrs. Henson seconded, that "due to the building's historic significance and excellent design, and due to the fact its proposed use will further .tpe efforts toward historic preservation in Ithaca, the Planning Board recommend that the variance be granted." The motion CARRIED unanimously. i' CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPEAL APPEAL N° 1051 Date . . ,June 17,. 1974 , , , , , , , , , , TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Ithaca, New York: Douglas Ridley, Robert O'Brien (We)Charles Currey, David Taube , , , . , of 403 Seneca Building , (Name of Appellant) (Street and Number) Ithaca New York hereby appeal to (Municipality) (State) the Zoning Board of Appeals "from the decision of the Building Commissioner on application for building permit No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19. . . . , whereby the Building Commissioner did ( ) Grant (X) Deny I TO DA&I.As. JUALP-Y., .90bgr . O'3riec�,, r,-hatLea .Currey., -David .1aube (Name of Applicant for Permit) i OF . 40,3, Seneca Buis,U119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regi .xorx . . . . (Street and Number) (Municipality) (State) r First Presb terian Church of Ithaca OWNER OF PROPERTY .Y. . . . . . ( ) A Permit for Use ( ) A Permit for Occupancy (X) A Building Permit t 106 East Court Street Ithaca R-3 District 1. Location of Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . (Street and Number) (use District on Zoning :4:ap) 2. Provision(s) of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed (Indicate the article, section, subsection f and paragraph of the,Zoning Ordinance being appealed, by number. Do not quota the � Ordinance.). §§ 5- 30. 22, 30, 24, 30. 25, 30. 37 1 3. Type of Appeal. Appeal is made herewith for: E ( ) An interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A special permit under the Zoning Ordinance I (x) A variance to the Zoning Orclinance rA�, ( ) Air ent-ion to the-Zoning Ordintnm f j i f f i f 4 1 i I i i i 4. Previous Appeal. A previous appeal ( ) has (X ) has not been made with respect to this decision of the Building Commissioner or with respect to this property. Such appeal(s) was (were) in the form of ( ) a request for an exception ( ) a requested interpretation ( ) a request for a special permit ( ) a request for a variance and was (were) made in Appeal No. . . . . . . . . ., dated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19. . . . Appeal No. . . . . . . . . .. dated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19. . . . AppealNo. . . . . . . . . ., dated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19. . . . Appeal No. . . . . . . . . .. dated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19. . . . 5. Reason for Appeal. (Complete relevant blank. Use extra sheet if necessary.) I I I A. Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is requested because: i I 'i B. A special permit under the Zoning Ordinance is requested pursuant to Article. . . ., Section . . . . ., Subsection . . . . .. Para graph . . . . .. of the Zoning- Ordinance because: IIII C. A variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for these reasons: I i (1) Strict Application of the Ordinance would produce undue hardship because: I See attached pages I (2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because: See appached pages (3) The variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance and would not change the character .of the district because: The opposite side of the street is zoned B-1 for business or professional office and many of the properties in the immediate vicinity are used for professional office. For more specific :MY-XX xscx information on uses of property in the neighborhood, reference is made to the land use map filed with this appeal. 1 I • II r (1) There are practical difficulties and special conditions which make the regula- tion impossible to comply with because: f (2) The difficulties and conditions are unique and are shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because: (3) The exception would observe the spirit of the ordinance and would not change the character of the district because: " ! i I . !!✓. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Signature STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) ss.. &worn to this ttV . da of �. . . . . . . . . . ., 1974 �..}... ... . Notary Public MARILYN E. CURREY Notary Public, State of New York No. 55-4504520 Qualified in Tompkins County Term Expires March 30, 19/1--- I • I 41 I I I I, I I I t I I z { jPermitted uses T� f Z j HCn IH !H I Permitted accessory w uses 1 (Sign regulations �1 ! I u, IOff street parking requirements IOff street loading ; Q ! !Total area in ? ! j sq. r . ' 11idth in ft. at N ! rN 0O i street line u 1 ! �o No. stories ►� Height in feet LO i C> �* - -- — ----- --- i!.:aximum' o —Ioot which may be covered fk ; N Req. Min. i One side at ! w least N 4 ►-. Both at least { U of depth o -- H N �., pax. eq. o� I i F } C (1) Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship because: The hardship which exists with respect to the premises at 106 East Court Street is that the church cannot realize the highest sale price for the structure in its current location and condition. The house is cur- j rently designed as a very large single family residence that has out-dated interior fixtures and design. It would take a substantial amount of money to modernize the structure to make a suitable single family residence. The structure now has 14 rooms and would be best suited, as a signle family residence, for a large family. However, the house is situated very close to one of Ithaca's busiest streets and has only a minimal real yard. As a result it would not be desirable for a family with many children. I r As an apartment building, the structure would not return its full value to the church either. The renovation for apartment use would need to be more extensive than for single family use. There would need to be multiple kitchen and bath facilities installed. The problem of small yard and busy street would still exist for families with small children i and, if rental were limited to adults, there would be a substantial problem with overnight parking. i For all of these reasons the church would suffer the hardship of not realizing the highest sale price for the property due to the unique combination of size, condition and location of the structure. i C (2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because: The other structures in the immediate vicinity of this property do not present the unique problem that this structure does. Many of the other large buildings are already being used for offices. Examples of this are the law offices of Norman Freeman and the law offices of Paul Tavelli, the offices of Dr. William Gray, the office of Drs. Salerno and Carlin, the real estate offices of Mrs. Kavanaugh. There are also, of course, the i county offices of the sheriff's department, jail and County Court House I! directly across the street. f The other buildings in the area are smaller and more suitable to being used as a residence and there are also parking facilities on the grounds of many of the other structures which enable owners to use the premises for permitted purposes at a reasonable rate of return. j CHARLES T. CURREY ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 403 SENECA BUILDING 121 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK 14830 i i i i - 2 I i Another unique feature in this structure is that it is one of the few remaining examples of Federal Style of architecture in downtown Ithaca. The Landmarks Preservation Committee at a meeting stated that it was of significant historical-value and should be preserved. We believe that pre- servation of the structure is more likely if it is owned by our group and used as office space than if it is owned and used as a residence or apartment house. The architectural firm of O'Brien and Taube has much experience in the area of restorative work. They were among the consulting architects on the Clinton House restoration. They have restored churches and they are currently being consulted with respect to the restoration of downtown Corning, New York. i d p�p i' a' :HARLES T. CURREY ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 403 SENECA BUILDING . 21 EAST SENECA STREET 'HACA. NEW YORK 14850 1 i } I Zoning Variance Requested by Appeal No. 1051 Douglas Ridley David Taube Robert O'Brien Charles Currey Index of Exhibits Exhibit "A" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Affidavit of Mailing of Notice Exhibit "B" . . . . . . * Historical Sketch of Bank of Newburg Building Exhibit "C" o * o . . . . . o . . Pre - 1910 Picture of Bank of Newbur 19 Building Exhibit I'D" . . o . . o o . o . . . . o . . . . 1940's Picture of Bank of Newburg Building Exhibit "E" o o . . . . o 4 o . . . . . . o . . Letters of Parking Committments Exhibit "Flt o . . . . . . . . Letter from Landmarks Preservation Committee Index of Architectural Drawings Exterior Rendering and Land Use Map Proposed Interior Floor Plans CHARLES T. CURREY ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 403 SENEGA BUILDING 121 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 I STATE OF NEW YORK . ss. COUNTY OF TOMPKINS . Bruce D. Wilson, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. That he is a resident of Tompkins County, over 21 years of age and not a party to this application. 2. That on the 12th day of June, 1974, he mailed copies of the annexed notice in securely closed post paid wrappers at the General Post Office at Ithaca, New York to the property owners of the City of Ithaca listed below at the addressed listed: i Fay E. Allen 410 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Robert W. and Natalie P. Baker (a) 107 Sears Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and (b) c/o B&B Realty 615 Cayuga Heights Road Ithaca, New York 14850 John K. Blackman Est. (a) 406 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and (b) c/o Ruth B. Rogers 406 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Evelyn R. Blair 413 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 i Charles V. and Helen C. Brown 415 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Richard and Vivan Culligan 109 Sears Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Constance P. and F. E. Fadalti (a) 118 Sears Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and (b) R. D. #3 Trumansburg, New York 14886 First Baptist Soc. of Ithaca DeWitt Park Ithaca, New York 14850 CHARLES T. CURREY ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 403 SENECA BUILDING - 121 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14830 - 2 - First Presbyterian Church (a) 114 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and (b) North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Norman D. Freeman (a) 106 Sears Street Ithaca, New York 14850, (b) P. O. Box 702 Ithaca, New York 14850, (c) 124 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and (d) 215 Fall View Terrace Ithaca, New York 14850 Frank G. and Rose Gaultiere (a) 110 Sears Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and (b) 111 Second Street I Ithaca, New York 14 850 I William E. and Rita A. Gray 102 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 i Frank J. and Pauline R. Kavanaugh 408 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 j Karen J. and Johnson C. Sa Keland (a) 407 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and (b) 4815 Light House Drive Racine, Wisconsin 53402 Apolonia Kelemen 409 North Cayuga Street j Ithaca, New York 14850 ! i William Lower (a) 411 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and (b) 433 Floral Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 Mabel E. Patterson 112 Sears Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Evan and Gianovla P. Poulos 108 Sears Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Marjorie R. Ross 402 North Cayuga Street CHARLES T. CURREY Ithaca, New York 14850 ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 403 SENECA BUILDING 121 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 3 Edna K. and Joseph E. Sady 412 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Richard D. Salerno (a) 404-4 1/2 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and (b) Dr. Richard Salerno 404 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Stanley C. and Adeline Shaw 108 West Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Gunther and Vera Thaer (a) 118 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and (b) Garden Rt. 2 Trumansburg, New York 14886 Tompkins County (a) 115 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850, (b) 312-322 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (c) 310-14 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and (d) c/o Robert Williamson County Attorney Tompkins County Court House Ithaca, New York 14850 William L. and Estella Tracey 114 Sears Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Bruce D. Wilson Sworn to before me this 13th day of June, 1974. Notary Public ALICS A. CARR NbauT Public,State of New Ywk No. 555624825 Qualified in Tompkins County Term Zx&es hUr&3%19 7(, CHARLES T. CURREY ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 403 SENEGA BUILDING 181 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK 148501 NOTICE OF HEARING A public hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Ithaca, New York will be held on July 1, 1974 at 7:30 p. m. in the Common Counsel Chambers on the Third Floor of the City Hall located at 108 East Green Street in the City of Ithaca, New York to consider the following application: Applicants: Douglas Ridley residing at 111 Northway Road, Ithaca, New York David Taube residing at 2 Uptown Village, Ithaca, New York Robert O'Brien residing at 1347 Ellis Hollow Road, Ithaca, New York Charles Currey residing at 3 Winthrop Place, Ithaca, New York Relief sought: The above applicants are requesting a variance in the zoning ordinance of the City of Ithaca with respect to Sections 30. 22, 30. 24, 30. 25 and 30. 37. More specifically, the applications are requesting a variance so that a building located at 106 East Court Street, Ithaca, New York may be used as a professional office building. The above named applicants are an accountant, architects and a lawyer. The above applicants are also requesting a variance for � parking purposes since there will be no on premises off-street parking. The legal owner of the premises is the Presbyterian Church of Ithaca, New York. i Do R idl David Taube 1 ' obe t O'Brien CHARLES T. CURREY ATTORNEY AND Charles Currey COUNSELOR AT LAW 408 SENECA BUILDING 121 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPEAL E APPEAL 1051 Date . , June 17r 1974 , , , , . , , , , , TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Ithaca, New York: Douglas Ridley, Robert O'Brien % (We)Charles Currey, David Taube , , , , , of 403,Seneca,Building, , , , , , , , , , , , , , (Name of Appellant) (Street and Number) Ithaca New York hereby appeal to (Municipality) (State) the Zoning Board of Appeals from the decision of the Building Commissioner on application for building permit No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19. . . . .. whereby the Building Commissioner did ( ) Grant (X) Deny TO ?P. I.As. AidleX> , Qbgrt O'Arieq,, .Q11Ar. Qa .Qux>;ey.> .Q4Nid .Taube . (Name of Applicant for Permit) i i OF . 403, Aenec.& B4il,dir19 . . . . . . . . . IthacA . . . . . . . . . . . Rei .Xorx . . . . j (Street and Number) (Municipality) (State) I OWNER OF PROPERTY First.Presbyterian,Church.of Ithaca , , , , ( ) A Permit for Use ( ) A Permit for Occupancy (X) A Building Permit 1. Location of Property . 106 East Court Street, ,IthacaR-3 District, , , , , (Street and Number) (Use District on Zoning Map) i 2. Provision(s) of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed (Indicate the article, section, subsection and paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance being appealed, by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.). §§ 30. 22, 30.24, 30. 25, 30. 37 Co `F 3. Type of Appeal. Appeal is made herewith for: ( ) An interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A special permit under the Zoning Ordinance (x) A variance to the Zoning Ordinance zt S e fl Y eQ ( ) A-ff-exeept-1011 to tile zemi.]E.— 4. Previous Appeal. A previous appeal ( ) has (x ) has not been made with respect to this decision of the Building Commissioner or with respect to this property. Such appeal(s) was (were) in the form of ( ) a request for an exception ( ) a requested• interpretation ( ) a request for a special permit j ( ) a request for a variance and was (were) made in Appeal No. . . . . . . . . ., dated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19. . . . Appeal No. . . . . . . . . .. dated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19. . . . Appeal No. . . . . . . . . ., dated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19. . . . Appeal No. . . . . . . . ., dated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19. . . . 5. Reason for Appeal. (Complete relevant blank. Use extra sheet if necessary.) i A. Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is requested because: B. A special permit under the Zoning Ordinance is requested pursuant to Article. . . ., Section . . . . ., Subsection . . . . ., Paragraph . . . . ., of the Zoning Ordinance because: C. A variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for these reasons: 1) Strict Application of the Ordinance would p ( p produce undue hardship because: i See attached pages (2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because: See appached pages (3) The variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance and would not change the character of the district because: The opposite side of the street is zoned B-1 for business or professional office and many of the properties in the immediate vicinity are used for professional office. For more specific information on uses of property in the neighborhood, reference is made to the land use map filed with this appeal. i it f i (1) There are practical difficulties and special conditions which make the regula- tion impossible to comply with because: i i (2) The difficulties and conditions are unique and are shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because: i (3) The exception would observe the spirit of the ordinance and would not change the character of the district because: Y` Signature STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) ss.: Simr to this IQ.7W . da of .�tk tit . . . . . . . . ., �$7 Notary Public MARILYN E. CURREY Notary Public, State of New York No. 55-4504520 Qualified in Tompkins County Term Expires March 30, 19/4� i Permitted uses 1. Z I H c QJ 'Permitted accessory �-' uses Sign regulations (Off street parking f ( requirements rn 'off street loading {Total area^in sq. ft. Cdidth in ft. at �• street line u � �o No. storiesw zr x a.a' o Height in feet + + • P�.aximum a o- --Iot + + ( which may be covered { I i 1 N Req. Min. o Q side at wlone least N a. IBoth at least � of depth l o H ------- to . • . - • ,� pax. seq. ON i i I I C (1) Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship j because: i The hardship which exists with respect to the premises at 106 East Court Street is that the church cannot realize the highest sale price for the structure in its current location and condition. The house is cur- rently designed as a very large single family residence that has out-dated interior fixtures and design. It would take a substantial amount of money to modernize the structure to make a suitable single family residence. The structure now has 14 rooms and would be best suited, as a signle family residence, for a large family. However, the house is situated very close to one of Ithaca's busiest streets and has only a minimal real yard. As a result it would not be desirable for a family with many children. As an apartment building, the structure would not return its i full value to the church either. The renovation for apartment use would need to be more extensive than for single family use. There would need to be multiple kitchen and bath facilities installed. The problem of small yard and busy street would still exist for families with small children and, if rental were limited to adults, there would be a substantial problem with overnight parking. For all of these reasons the church would suffer the hardship of not realizing the highest sale price for the property due to the unique combination of size, condition and location of the structure. C (2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because: I The other structures in the immediate vicinity of this property f do not present the unique problem that this structure does. Many of the other large buildings are already being used for offices. Examples of this are the law offices of Norman Freeman and the law offices of Paul Tavelli, the offices of Dr. William Gray, the office of Drs. Salerno and Carlin, the real estate offices of Mrs. Kavanaugh. There are also, of course, the county offices of the sheriff's department, jail and County Court House directly across the street. I The other buildings in the area are smaller and more suitable to being used as a residence and there are also parking facilities on the grounds of many of the other structures which enable owners to use the premises for permitted purposes at a reasonable rate of return. CHARLES T. CURREY ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 403 SENECA BUILDING 121 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 - 2 Another unique feature in this structure is that it is one of the ! few remaining examples of Federal Style of architecture in downtown Ithaca. The Landmarks Preservation Committee at a meeting stated that it was of significant historical value and should be preserved. We believe that pre- servation of the structure is more likely if it is owned by our group and used as office space than if it is owned and used as a residence or apartmen house. The architectural firm of O'Brien and Taube has much experience in the area of restorative work. They were among the consulting architects on the Clinton House restoration. They have restored churches and they are currently being consulted with respect to the restoration of downtown Corning, New York. i i CHARLES T. CURREY ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 403 SENECA BUILDING 121 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 O'Brien and Taube Architects The Savings Bank Building Ithaca,New York 14850 607 277 3077 Robert John C Brien R.A. David H.Taube R.A. BANK OF NEWBURG The building, located at 106 East Court Street, is considered to be one of the oldest identified buildings in the City of Ithaca. It was con- structed in 1821 as a Branch of the Bank of Newburg (New York), being authorized by act of the State Legislature on 18 April 1815, "as an office of discount and deposit in the Village of Ithaca"1. The original site of the building was on Owego (now State) Street just west of Cayuga Street. The lot was reportedly purchased from Simeon DeWitt for 10 cents, and the building constructed by Luther Gere, "a carpenter and builder by trade, and one of the most prominent men in early Ithaca"2, also serving as the Bank's president. Coincidentally, the Bank's attorney, Captain Charles Humphrey, sent to Ithaca to establish the local branch, built his own home, "of the stately pillared variety"3, on what is now the corner of Cayuga and Court Streets, and adjacent to the current location of the original Bank of Newburg structure. The Bank had been rescued following a long period of neglect, and moved to the Court Street location in 1912 by Rev. Edward A. George, pastor of the First Congregational Church of Ithaca "who was an ardent ad- mirer of colonial architecture"4. Stephen W. Jacobs, Professor of Architectural History, Cornell University, describes the building as one of the best examples of the Federal style, in vogue during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The five bay pilastered facade was rather monumental for its period and was carefully proportioned in its classical (vaguely Palladian) treatment. In Professor Jacobs' words, "the building is definitely a rare item". EXHIBIT "B" - 2 - Footnotes 1 Landmarks of Tompkins County, N.Y. Edited by John H. Selkrey Syracuse, New York 1894 2 "Two Historic Homesteads on Court Street" Ithaca Journal News 17 October 1925 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. All of the above material was researched and supplied by the DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County. ^'°) SPL ASS i P A T T E R S O N REAL ESTATE m ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 • P. O. BOX ftR687 • PHONE 273-5656 June 14, 1974 City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals Ithaca, New York 14850 Gentlemen: This is to advise that I am the agent for B & B Realty, the owner of a parking lot located at 115 Sears Street, Ithaca, New York. There are four (4) parking spaces which are available for use by the offices which may be located at 106 East Court Street, Ithaca, New York. These spaces are not designated as substituted parking in compliance with the parking regulations of any other building. They will be available on a continuing basis. Sincerely James E. Gardner, Jr. t Property Manager JEG:ml EXHIBIT "E" Hunna Johns 110 West Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals Ithaca, New York 14850 Gentlemen: This is to advise that I am the owner of a parking lot loca d at 110 West Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York. There are 1.2 parking spaces which are available for use by the offices which g may be located at 106 East Court Street, Ithaca, New York. These spaces are not designated as substituted parking in compliance with the parking regulations of any other building. They will be avail- able on a continuing basis. ur very t uly, nna Johns f July 2, 1974 Mr. Charles T. Currey, Attorney 403 Seneca Building 121 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting held July 1, 1974 Case #10!51 Dear Sirs The decision of the Board is as follows: Mr. Martin: I move that the requested use variance be granted subject to the condition that there be a binding restriction in the form of a facade easement satisfa ►ry to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission in force on the property. Mr. Kasprzak I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The evidence presented indicated that the building was designed initially for a commercial use and that its use in the most recent past was primarily of a special nature related to its ownership by a church. In its current form - Large in relation to the lot size, lacking off-street parking on the property, substantially run down - it would appear from the testimony presented that ecould not bring a reasonable return as a resi- dential property. This is especially true, it would seem, if the proerty is restricted so as to prevent alterations in its historic facade; 2� In terms of condition, attractiveness, for residential use including yard space i and parking; the problems of this building are not shared generally by those in the neighborhood; 3) The proposed use, with the facade easement and the type of professional clientele which will frequent the building are not likely to have adverse impact on the neighborhood or be inconsistant with the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. VOTE: YES - 4 ABSTENTION - 1 NO - 0 �f i July 2, 1974 Imo. Charles T. Currey, Attorney PAGE 2 Mr. Martin: I move that the area variance be granted. Mr. K.asprzak: I second that. FINDING OF FACT: 1) The applicants have commitments to the requested off- street parking including some that does not corse within the 1,000 foot require- ment of the Zoning Ordinance but is only modestly outside that limit; 2) Given the limited traffic likely to be generated by the proposed use and the availability of both the commfted private parking and public parking within reasonable walking distance of the building, the deviation from the strict requirements of the Zoning Ordinance does not seem likely to have adverse consequences on the neighborhood. VOTE: YES - 4 ABSTENTION - 1 NO - 0 Your application has been granted; a building permit is required. Very truly yours, Edison Jones Building Commissioner Zoning Officer EJ/dl I i i i I i I O'Brien and Taube Architects The Savings Bank Building Ithaca,New York 14850 607 277 3077 Robert John O'Brien R.A. David H.Taube R.A. BANK OF NEWBURG The building, located at 106 East Court Street, is considered to be one of the oldest identified buildings in the City of Ithaca. It was con- structed in 1821 as a Branch of the Bank of Newburg (New York), being authorized by act of the State Legislature on 18 April 1815, "as an office of discount and deposit in the Village of Ithaca"1. The original site of the building was on Owego (now State) Street just west of Cayuga Street. The lot was reportedly purchased from Simeon DeWitt for 10 cents, and the building constructed by Luther Gere, "a carpenter and builder by trade, and one of the most prominent men in early Ithaca"2, also serving as the Bank's president. Coincidentally, the Bank's attorney, Captain Charles Humphrey, sent to Ithaca to establish the local branch, built his own home, "of the stately pillared variety"3, on what is now the corner of Cayuga and Court Streets, and adjacent to the current location of the original Bank of Newburg structure. The Bank had been rescued following a long period of neglect, and moved to the Court Street location in 1912 by Rev. Edward A. George, pastor of the First Congregational Church of Ithaca "who was an ardent ad- mirer of colonial architecture"4. Stephen W. Jacobs, Professor of Architectural History, Cornell University, describes the building as one of the best examples of the Federal style, in vogue during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The five bay pilastered facade was rather monumental for its period and was carefully proportioned in its classical (vaguely Palladian) treatment. In Professor Jacobs' words, "the building is definitely a rare item". EXHIBIT "B" i - 2 - Footnotes 1 Landmarks of Tompkins County, N.Y. Edited by John H. Selkrey Syracuse, New York 1894 2 "Two Historic Homesteads on Court Street" Ithaca Journal News 17 October 1925 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. All of the above material was researched and supplied by the DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County. i Dowd of basing Appeals 60 But so"" etrrsot ithaoa, now York 14$00 Dow I6r. libatrtia: At its aootisg Jvao 10th, this 000 aissiaa boe#ta a pre6=94tios esnoernlna paperty at IM D. 0OWt ft., far oboh it'a and arsieod as a os1 ibr ♦arian� vm be as" at the mall aeoti" of the Yww,rd of Swift 1nals. the 0motsoios vlebes #o infa m Vw =A of eerkala teets sad oonditiass om- Oftulg the properw• vbl*b aoy to be Lpm to the fsaea's doliboera#ioas 6 The buildlag, !bo fWar w Mak of *In mrsb, to oonaWs red by vow to be me of Mimes'a eget attraftitto lan4aa aft. '1'andb mat itself an Oftelallyr dsalga tad 1ssrlsaryt, it fore sa importsat pert et the ftfttt Puft aiatorie Dieta det, awba rod as the da►tissal legLstaar of H1ateria phone 4atobor 96. Iff 1. We Ceara is swelderl" than psssibili#,q of addfag it to the ftft t Paft sistos}io *"%K t ftelautod a the "V July 00. =, v+hiah lwau m the lrosbp#sariaa Churab, prasoat owner of the par^opartyr, same abort Street. Sw alweb *w offored Vw lisaftwhe ftomisalm a faeada t as 146 E. Cavort, #bieh v ild j096oet A' ftondo apaL"t altamtios. "NO Uafte tlss Gma teoiea, at its am"Ift Mrii "th, "set" the offer mbjoot to the ap L of the Attoaeas y for the City, vbo la"eat" that the ossasoat mat bo me" to the a ty; nos>rltboloss, it ie liyurly Uw offw vM bo rophresed and asoaptod br the oity is Vo sear !blare. Sw ftwol"Ima vadoretands 'tbat the e*Am b is iaelv&ft a faoado atsaaant sea""" to its dood to 106 D. Cewrt ew that pro**" a" fattvro pw ah"m a "U bo roquirod to aafntafa its biatorio f"m ana "pearas". Messrs. 2sube and ftrM ( ing loubvgrgb Aasea►siates, tbo yarospootiTs pneobarorn, bofroro the �eaie sols ad their intent to admuia the bail 'a as they rooeedso itsat#raotivasoss and Tatar to the oa.rasilry, ana aro a4nUatbotie vftb tbo Objeeti"o or the aity's Laadsaarbs 4r"aaaarso and #bo fsam" oasaaest. !'tea the stau fte eat of land sift pnsorra#ioa, the proposed we vadd mot bo ab3oatioa"U. sboulo the building is of a typo easmmay assesaialtod vi#b roalft"ial aa, a" hers met artTtohW a v" am& pmrporo, it has from tiao •o EXHIBIT "F" Ane Us IOT1 W. Mir iwtta A�as g. UM Via! IU MStWT MM ONOWSM WO. 00 ONWIMSM 8aa aat tfit tk ac'+ormes to of Wo tm provaraA 1q' ASOMAst" with %As WORAW4 an the *UWt W* vUsh the tWOWW """" stv"t d be out of Aww"Sw with t" vaius"f i* mlowdiws emt tip splAt am amt: or lamhook Ires"siiee is Ift"a. WO that this 3am mum VAU be or asoutm" to trims lord is its doessi tt 3a two sas+o. ywr trlay f y �J Qi stwW311i page" " oondsolm lbb e�t �"• E7MIr3at�r 14a�'!'q 1 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMUSSION Jane 19. 197'4 Mr. Peter Martin, Chairman Board of Zoning Appeals 608 Bast Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 ' Dear Mr. Martin: At its meeting June 10th, this Commission heard a presentation concerning pooperty at 106 E. Court St., for which it's understood an appeal for variant* will be made at the July meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Commission wishes to inform the BZA of certain facts and conditions con- cerning the property, which W be helpful to the Board's deliberations. The building, the former Bank of Newburgh, is considered by many to be one of Ithaca's most attractive landmarks. Though not itself an officially designated landmark, it forms an important part of the DeWitt Park Historic District, entered on the National Register of Historic Places October 26, 1971. This Commission is considering the possibility of adding it to the DeWitt Park Historic District designated by the city July 29, 1971, which Includes the Presbyterian Church, present owner of the property, across Court Street. The church has offered the Landmarks Commission a facade easement on 106 E. Court, which would protect the facade against alteration. The Landmarks Commission, at its meeting April 25th, accepted the offer subject to the approval of the Attorney for the City, who indicates that the easement rust be made to the city; nonetheless, it is likely the offer will be rephrased and accepted by the city in the near future. The Commission understands that the church is including a facade easement condition in its deed to 106 B. Court so that present and future purchasers will be required to maintain its historic form and appearance. Messrs. Taube and Currey (representing Newburgh Associates, the prospective purchasers, before the Commission) stated their intent to maintain the building's exterior, as they recognise its attractiveness and value to the comssunity, and are sysipathetic with the objectives of the city's Landmarks Ordinance and the facade easement. i From the standpoint of landmarks preservation, the proposed use would not be objectionable. Though the building is of a type commonly associated with residential use, and has most recently served such purpose, it bas from time to EXHIBIT "F" z dune 18, 197► Mr. Peter Martin Page 2. II time throughout its history seen aoesiercial use. The Commission does not feel, therefore, that low intensity commercial use of the type proposed by Newburgh Associates, with this aafetgwLrd on the structure which the facade f easement gives, could be out of character with the building, its surroundings, on t►he spirit and intent of landmark preservation in Ithaca. We hope that this information will be of assistance to the Board in its deaision in this case. Yery truly YOUrs, I onathan C. HOUR 8crotary, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission JCMshh sa I Mr. Charles COTW i I i i i 'V i a AS ATTERSON Z k' ^+ JST 4fi SFRYICY REAL ESTATE - 'EST ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 • P. O. BOX:UR687 ' PHONE 273-5656 June 14, 1974 City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals Ithaca, New York 14850 'Gentlemen: This is to advise that I am the agent for B & B Realty, the owner of a parking lot located at 115 Sears Street, Ithaca, New York. There are four (4) parking spaces which are available for use by the offices which may be located at 106 East Court Street, Ithaca, New York. These spaces are j not designated as substituted parking in compliance with I the parking regulations of any other building. They will be available on a continuing basis. Sincerely, C fII'Z I James E. Gardner, Jr. Property Manager JEG:ml I i EXHIBIT "E" y f_. Hunna Johns 110 West Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals Ithaca, New York 14850 Gentlemen: This is to advise that I am the owner of a parking lot locat d at 110 West Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York. There are parking spaces which are available for use by the offices which g may be located at 106 East Court Street, Ithaca, New York. These spaces are not designated as substituted parking in compliance with j the parking regulations of any other building. They will be avail- able on a continuing basis. i Wtuly, i