Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1974-09-09 i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA* CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 9, 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 September 9, 1974: PRESENT: PETER MARTIN, CHAIRMAN GREGORY KASPRZAK C. MURRAY VAN MARTER ELVA HOLMAN EDGAR GASTEIGER JOHN BODINE EDISON JONES, Building Commissioner and Secretary DARLEEN LISK, Recording Secretary Chairman Martin opens meeting, listing members of Board present. The Board is operating under the provisions of the Charter of the City of Ithaca and the new Zoning Ordinance. Our hearings are not bound by strict rules of evidence but we ask that all those who speak or present evidence limit their remarks to the issues before the Board. Would all those speaking please identify themselves by name and address and would all those speaking please come forwar to the microphone up here to make their remarks. Before proceeding with our first hearing tonight I have a note from one member of the Board, Mrs. Holman, which says that because of her interest in this case she wishes to be excused from participation and deliberations on the appeal. Mr. Secretary would you introduce the case. Commissioner Jones lists what case No. 1060 is to be. APPEAL NO. 1060: The Appeal of R H P. Inc. for a use variance under Sec. 30.25, Col. 2, at 201 Prospect Street in an R-3 zone. ROBERT WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Zoning Appeals I would like first, if I may, to briefly summarize the facts of the case and go back over its history and then I would like to introduce into evidence the testimony taken at the March 4t hearing if I may do that rather than go and read it all. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Have all the members of the Board received well in advance of this meeting a transcript of our prior hearing of the -2- case. All right so as not to be redundant this evening we all have a copy of the past transcript so that a brief summary perhaps and then whatever new evidence you have this evening. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes I would appreciate that Mr. Chairman, I would like, however, it put in the record that the record taken at the March 4th hearing would be a part of this record. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All right that transcript is before all the members of the Board and is a part of this hearing. MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. Very briefly I would like to start at the time the lot was purchased up on Prospect Street. It was bought back in April of 1971 for a cost of $17,500, the lot is dimension wise 107' by 961 ,. Incidentally as we all know this is a request for a variance to use this lot, this parking lot, in the day time for tenants leasing space from R H P, Inc. and using it on nights and weekends for neighbors wishing to park their cars there. In all cases for the neighbors it would be free of charge the same as the occupancy now had at the parking lot of R H P, Inc. diagonally opposite this particular lot in question. In the fall of 1973, early fall, Mr. Burns, who is the Vice President of R H P, Inc. , obtained a demolition permit for this particular house locate on this particular lot and thereafter on October 25 of 1973 he obtained a building permit to construct this parking lot. At that time in the presence of the Mayor, the Planning Director, the City Attorney, and the Building Commissioner, Mr. Burns was given to understand that he could, in fact, use thispparticular parking lot as I have just described; namely, parking for the tenants of R H P, Inc. during the day time Monday through Friday during business hours and on weekends and evenings for the neighbors free of charge. ,At that particular hearing as was testified at the March 4th hearing the minutes of which have now been incorporated Mr. Burns made it clear that he, in fact, was intending to use the lot in that magner, on page 28 of the testimony taken at the March 4th hearing I want t -3- just quote briefly the testimony taken from Mr. Jones: MR. WILLIAMSON: Was it about October 25 of 19737 (This refers to the time the building permit was issued. ) MR. JONES: I think that' s correct. MR. WILLIAMSON: At that time did he come to your office? 1 MR. JONES: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: Was there anyone else present in your office with you and Mr. Burns? MR. JONES: Not when he first come in there, he asked for this permit to build a neighborhood parking area and I told him exactly what a neighborhood parking area was and the next thin I known:-I had the Mayor and I had the Planning Director, the Assistant Planning Director and the City Attorney in the office. MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you discuss the parking lot request? MR. JONES: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: Were all those gentlemen present? i MR. JONES: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: Was it made clear that what R H P wanted was parking for its tenints in the day time and neighbors at night MR. JONES: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: Was a building permit then issued? MR. JONES: Yes. Now relying on this statement and on this permit which was issued October 25, 1973, R H P, Inc. then started construction on this parking lot and I want to stress that it was completed on or before November 25th, in other words Thanksgiving of 1973, this was before any interpretation issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals on the meaning of neighborhood parking lot in December of 1973 and, of course, it Was way before the hearing on March the 4th. Mr. Burns had spent on behalf of R H P, Inc. approximately $30,000 in the construction of this lot. He had consulted in the construction of the lot with the City Engineer, Howard Schlieder, and other city officials and making sure on curb cuts and on drainage that what he was building would be in conformity with exactly what the City of Ithaca wanted. Now I feel that the, we meet the tests of a varianc ; namely, three tests that are economic hardship, uniqueness, and that what we are asking for will not in any way materially be different � f i -4- than what is presently in the neighborhood. At the hearing of March 4th again which testimony is already made a part of this hearing, Mr. Gallagher testified on the economic loss and I will later this evening through Mr. Burns introduce further evidence ( along those lines based on recommendations of this Board. Mr. ( Gallagher testified that the investment being the $30,000 and a $90,000 apartment which would be allowed on this particular corner under the old and new ordinance would result in a cash loss each year of approximately $7,400. He testified that renting 20 spaces and these 20 spaces that we would rent are based on recommendations again of the City Engineer; Mr. Burns when he first talked with the city wanted 27 spaces, the city recommended 20 and Mr. Burns went along with the recommendation of the city. He also followed their recommendations and suggestions on the landscaping of this particular lot. But based on just 20 spaces at $15 per month it would produce a yield of seven or eight per cent at the most which would be satisfactory to R H P, Inc. Mr. Gallagher also testified that the spirit of the ordinance in his opinion would be upheld. The lot is located as we all know diagonally opposite the home office of R H P, Inc. and the Terrace Hill complex formerly occupie by Agway. ' It' s one of the best buildings in the City of Ithaca, it' s adequately maintained and maintained in excellent condition; it has tenants who are all good neighbors here in Ithaca, Ithaca Gun, General Recreation, the Social Security Office, and formerly Unemployment office as well as other offices N C R to name one. The lot itself without the house certainly in the opinion of Mr. Gallagheras well as others gives better sight at this particular intersection. If you are coming down Aurora Street, that is to the north, you cettainly have better visibility as you look to the east on the one-way, Prospect Street, which is one-way to the west and of course if you are coming one-way west on Prospect Street you are going to be able to see more easily up Aurora Street. It has to eliminate congestion on the streets as far as parking of vehicles on the streets because it provides 20 spaces of off-street i parking in the summer time and winter time when the roads are being plowed and snow removal is in progress. At the previous hearing we showed you the maps and plans as far as landscaping is concerned and of course those will go forward. We feel that the better sight and the landscaping and the removal of this home have in no way violated the spirit of the ordinance. We feel the hardship is unique and our uniqueness we feel justifiably so is on the actLons of the officials of the City of Ithaca with Mr. Burns acting in reliance on those conversations which are part of the testimony of the March 4th hearing left the office of the Building Commissioner feeling that he had the authority to construct this parking lot. MR. KASPRZAK: Uniqueness as I understand it in the Zoning book applies to such land or buildings and not applying generally to all land or buildings in the neighborhood and the actions of the city officials does not in my opinion apply to uniqueness for hard- ship? MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Kasprzak, recent cases indicating that reliance by actions of city officials does satisfy the unique category of the three. MR. KASPRZAK: Can you give me an example of what kind of city officials fall into this category? MR. WILLIAMSON: The case I have is the Jaynes case which is a court of appeals case in which there also was reliance on actions of the city in issuing a building permit, and Justice Keating in the decision in the court of appeals stated that the other two factors being present this is enough to satisfy the uLiiqueness test. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Perhaps we would organize things best if you proceeded to present such new evidence that you have and then respond to questions of the Board on that evidence other aspects of the case based on the transcript of our prior hearing and then summarize whatever arguements you have? I� i -6- MR. VAN MARTER: Do you want to describe again the $30,000 figure you gust mentioned, that didn't occur in the prior testimony? SMR. WILLIAMSON: When I say $30,000 I am using an approximation, to Mr. WnMarter, and I would have to go^the exact figures but my recollection is of $17,500 paid for the lot, the demolition was $2,000, well let me say this that there was $6,000 spent up to the time that we stopped work on it but to complete it would be $30,000 and probably I should say to complete the whole thing. Right now it is approximately $25,500 to $27,000. I was commenting on the uniqueness and I think I have said enough on that and I would at this time"Af I may call on Mr. Burns to testify further on some new evidence. I would like to in introduction to Mr. Burns' testim ny refer to your decision of March the 4th item #2 under the Findings of Fact there was a dtatement by this Board that the possibility of using this property for a neighborhood parking area was not considered as is by the expert testifying on the possibility of achieving a reasonable return on the property as is for a use permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on that recommendation t would now like to go into the new testimony. Mr. Burns your full name is Robert Burn;? MR. BURNS: That' s correct. MR. WILLIAMSON: Your title is Vice President of R H P, Inc.? MR, BURNS: That' s right. MR. WILLIAMSON: In your discussion with me on or about March 15th did we arrive at some actions to be taken on your part? MR. BURNS: Yes we did. AS. WILLIAMSON: Would you please describe to this Ooard the action taken by R.H P, Inc. at your direction? MR. BURNS: In order to comply with what the ordinance stated we wanted to make every attempt to rent the property to the neighbor- hood so we sent out 550 lettersto the neighborhood and this, when I -7- I say neighborhood I mean from the creek up to Coddington Road within the city limits and from Giles Street over to Turner Place. SMR. WILLIAMSON: When were those letters mailed out? i MR. BURNS: On the fifteenth day of March 1974. MR. WILLIAMSON: To how many people did you mail those? MR. BURNS: There was 550. MR. WILLIAMSON: Would you read for the record What the notice to each individual stated? MR. BURNS: I'm sorry I said March 15th and it was on March 11th. It said: Dear Neighbor, Off-street parking is now available on I South Hill at the corner of Prospect and South Aurora Street. We have presently twenty car spaces to lease at $15.00 per month per space. If you wish to rent a parking space, please fill out the enclosed card, return it to me, and I will get in touch with you to make the necessary arrangements. Cordially yours, Robert M. Burns. With the enclosure of a card with our address on it. NPI. WILLIAMSON: Did you on or about the same date March 11th put any ads in the Ithaca Journal or any other newspaper? IMR.. BURNS: Yes we put a display ad in the Ithaca Journal and we ran this for approximately three weeks and this said: Neighborhood parking for South Hill residents. Off street parking is now available on South Hill at the corner of Prospect Street and South Aurora Street. Twenty spaces presently available at $15.00 per I month per space. For further information, call Bob Burns at 272-9020. The above mentioned documents were marked into evidence as Exhibits 1 and 2. 1.4R. WILLIAMSON: About how many times did the ad appear in the Ithaca Journal? i (IvF— BURNS: It was in the Journal about eight times. i MR. WILLIAMSON: Was it in eight consecutive nights? MR. BURNS: No it was over a period of three weeks. MR. WILLIAMSON: Was there any more than one mailing made as you testified to the neighbors on South Hill? MR, BURNS: No we did it just once. MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you receive any response from anyone whatso- ever? MR. BURNS: No, not one. IVR. WILLIAMSON: Not,-one inquiry. Did you receive any cards back? MR. BURNS: No. MR. WILLIAMSON: At the present time you are not renting any spaces out, is that correct? MR. BURNS: That' s correct. IdTl. WILLIAMSON: Have you, Mr. Burns, received any objections from any of the persons named in the affidavit to whom the notice of this hearing was mailed on or about August 30th of this year? MR. BURNS: No. MR. WILLIAMSON: I have nothing further of Mr. Burns so if the Boar wishes to question him. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Burns, nobody will respond to a spot for $15 if there are spots available for $12 or even $13, how did you come up with a figure of $15; I assume there is off-street parking on South Hill, what is the going price for it? � . BURNS: I don' t think there is any parking lot as such that they rent spaces there are some garages and some back yard type -9- parking. I'm really not sure how much they charge most the time the people who park there are usually tenantsof the house but I have heard anywhere from $10 to $12 to $13. CHAIR14AN MARTIN: But if one can buy parking for that kind of price then $15 is not attractive? MR. BURNS: Well that' s true if the parking is available but on that street there isn' t to much off-street parking. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So where did $15 come from why did you advertise at that price when as it turns bot it' s a totally unattractive price? MF,.. BURNS: Well we have parking at Terrace Hill right now and we are in the area of $12 to $15 for parking and this is what I used to base this on. Downtown parking at some of the bank lots I think they are over $15, they are $15 to $18 for parking spaces per month. It' s very difficult to get comparable value of parking on South Hill now maybe East Hill would be entirely different, I don't know. CHAIRMAN:MARTIN: I have other questions relating to the arguement that there has been detrimental reliance here on various representa- tions by city officials which created the unique hardship in this case. As I reread the transcript of our earlier hearing I found myself a bit confused on that point and so I would like Just a bit more detail. The building and lot were acquired in 1971, what was the intent of R H P at that time, was it intended to have a parking lot there? I,R. BURNS: Yes. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And did you get the advice of counsel at that point about the legality of using it for that purpose under the "Fining Ordinance? MR. BURNS: No I was told that the area did allow parking lots. -1G- CHAIRNI4N 141ARTIN: Told by whom? MR. BURNS: By city officials. I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: To whom did you speak prior to purchase to get that kind of firm assurance? ,VR. BURNS: I talked to Mr. Schlieder and to Mr. Jones, this was back in 1971. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And you were told by both of them that a parking lot is allowed there? MF.. BURNS: Yes. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well a parking lot is allowed in an,<R-3 zone but a neighborhood parking lot. Did you get firm assurance that the Loning Ordinance allowed the kind of lot that you proposed; namely,) one for use of your commercial tenants? MR. BURNS: Well if I didn' t receive it, I would not have bought the property. I mean I am buying the property for a parking lot. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right but there are times one makes mistakes and there are times one takes risks that one isn't aware of now you are telling me that you did not secure the advice of counsel but instedid you talked to some people here in city hall and they gave you assurances at that point. The next step as I understand it was getting a demolition permit and that occurred in October of 1973 no about September of 1973 and again you got assurances from whom at that point that you could do what you wanted to? MR. BURNS: The building department. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: They told you that you could have a parking lot there to serve your Terrace Hill complex? I,,T,. BURNS: That' s correct. I i -11- CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And then those assurances again occurred on October 25th? W. BURNS: That' s correct. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How did you square those verbal assurances on the 25th with the written letter which you received which gave you the building permit but made it clear that this was to be a neigh- borhbod parking lot and indeed reiterate the language of the Ordinance and elaborated on it? MR. BURNS: Well I was assured when this letter was submitted and I again questioned the four people in the room, I said now my lawyer is not here and I will sign this but I just want to be sure that I Ican use the parking lot during the day and the nei0hborhood at night and on weekends. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Did you get advice of counsel on the bindingness of those assurances? MR. BURNS: Not at that point. MR. GASTEIGER: I would like to ask the reason for the two year delay if your intent at the time you bought the property was to make a parking lot out of it? MR. BURNS: Well we had some tenants in there one Has a family with three or four childred and they had been in there for quite a few years and the former owners son had an rOpartment on the other side and so we decided to not do anything to it we were getting rent for the property, it was carrying itself until these people moved out and we decided then as long as they had moved out we would go ahead and take it down and continue with our program. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: While the building was standing and you were renting it how reasonable a return did you get col the property as a rental property? I I i -12- MR. BURNS: I don't have those figures here but I think that it was just about carrying the interest charges and the taxes and minor upkeep. MR. VAN MARTER: Do I understand clearly that you said the property was carrying itself at that time with that income? MR. BURNS: When you take into consideration the depreciation, the taxes, insurance, repair and maintenance, heat, gas and electric, we etc. we were losing but when were concerned with the interest and taxes and minor repairsiit carried itself for those purposes. MR. VAN MARTER: And this was at a time when no improvements had been made to the property? MR. BURNS: That' s correct. MR. GASTEIGER: Were there unused apartments available in the property during those two years? MR. BURNS: No. The owners son took the first floor apwtment of the west side of the house and the family took the first and second floor on the east side and the second floor on the west side of the house, MR. WILLIAMSON: During the two years or from 1971 to the time you demolished the building was it operated on a cash loss? MR. BURNS: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you know the exact figure of that cash loss per year? MR. BURNS: Not without going through my files. MR. WILLIAMSON: Well it was a cath loss? MR. BURNS: That' s correct. MR. WILLIAMSON: Dd you know of any other parking lots as such on -13- South Hill aside from the Morse Chain or the N C R or your own • R H P parking lot at Terrace Hill and the one occupied by the City of Ithaca near the police station? MR. BURNS: No. MR. WILLIAMSON: There are individual home lots, is that it? MR. BURNS: Right I didn't make a survey but I imagine there are, there are quite a few apartment houses there on Aurora Street and I think they probably have some parking in back of them. MR. WILLIAMSON: At the time you first acquired the house where the parking lot is now located, were you completely filled with tenants in your main buildings at R H P, Inc.? MR. BURNS: No. MR. WILLIAMSON: And then as the years progressed, did you acquire new tenants? MR. BURNS: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: And did that require you to have more parking spac ? MR. BURNS: Yes it did. MR. WILLIAMSON: And was that another consideration which you made when you started your demolition in the early fall of 1973? MR. BURNS: That' s correct. MR. GASTEIGER: May I ask what the relationship was with the bank that gave a mortgage on the property, did they understand it was to be demolished for a parking lot? . BURNS: Back in 1971, I'm not sure but prior to the demolishing of the structure we had to have their approval, but they may have been. I know it was made clear prior to demolition and at that time. -14- CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. WilliAmson in order to pursue the reliance point I would like to ask a few questions of Mr. Jones and then I would like you to have opportunity to summarize but I don' t care in which order those occur. MR. WILLIAMSON: That' s fine and you go right ahead. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Ed, do you recall having spoken with Mr. Burns or others of R H P prior to their purchase of this lot and building in April of 1971 about its use and what could be done with it? MR. JONES: I remember Robert Burns coming in there and Glenn Boda, Deputy Building Commissioner, at the time were discussing this thing and it come around to the question of a parking lot and a neighborhood parking lot was permitted, no question about that. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Did you and they talk about what that meant and whether that included a lot that would be used in the day time by the tenants of Terrace Hill? MR. JONES: I have no recollection of that being discussed in 1971. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You do not recall then assuring them that what they proposed was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in 1971? MR. JONES: Nothe question was asked about a nei0hborhood parking lot and a nei0hborhood parking lot is permitted in that zone and it is immaterial as to who puts it there. There was no question about a neighborhood parking lot. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It was also just testified by Mr. Burns that assurances that what they proposed was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and that such assurances were given prior to the issuance of the demolition permit in September or so of 19732 MR. JONES: That is correct. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Could you elaborate, what did you or others tell Mr. Burns prior to the demolition of that building about what could be done there? -15- . JONES: When he come in and asked for the demolition permit proposing to build a neighborhood parking area that' s when the question was first asked do you understand what a neighborhood parking area is according to the Zoning regulations. HAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay you asked that of them and then what follows they said as we understand it is a lot in which we can allow our Terrace- Hill tenants to park and you said that' s right or what? JONES: This is what we agreed to yes. AIRMAN MARTIN: You then agreed to an interpretation of the Ordinance, you said it was consistent with the Ordinance, their tenants could park there in the day time. So that you told them hat before the demolition permit and then apparently that same kind ,of assurance was given when they got the building permit? JONES. That' s correct. HAIRMAN MARTIN: And then where did the cautious language in the building permit itself come from? . JONES: Right after the demolition permit was issued there you now the sky opened up and everything happened. We heard from various aldermen, ,.ve heard from irate neighbors up there that R H P as going to buildia parking lot there for its own personal use. 'HAIRMAN MARTIN: Which you already knew? JONES: Right. HAIRMAN MARTIN: But because of the concerned neighborhood then he building permit took pain to use the language of Ordinance ithout resolving the question in writing whether they could have heir Terrace Hill tenants park there in the day time? . JONES: Yes. HAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions from the Board? -16- f ram VAN MARTER: In relation to the income property as found when you did acquire it did we ever get into that? . WILLIAMSON: Other than what you have asked today, Mr. VanMarte the actual cash loss we would have to look through the folder; it was a cash loss operation from the time we acquired it. VAN MARTER: Would you care to give that as an estimate? BURNS: I would guess that we lost probably an average of $130 to $140 a month MR. GASTEIGER: In real estate terms what do you usually mean when you say that the property is carrying itself? BURNS: When I mentioned that, we were interested in an interim measure and we wanted to carry the interest and the taxes and whatever repair and maintenance that was necessary on the property. When talking about darrying the property you have your taxes and insurance, water and sewer and what everyone knows as costs and with this in mind we were losing money against the income. MR. VAN MARTER: Is it fair to say in this case that there are costs of administration as might not apply to an individual? MR. BURNS: Well yes, that would be an additional cost. MR. VAN MARTER: On the basis of an annual loss of less than $425 a year on a property of this size the house had some capability for additional income? MR. BURNS: That was $140 a month for 12 months. MR. VAN MARTER: On the basis of less than $17700"a year could you guess what kind of an investment might put that on a break even basis? MR. BURNS: At that time the building needed complete renovation I would guess that we probably would have had $40,000 to $50,000 in it and we couldn't have received the type of rent that would sub- stantiate that type of investment. i -17- MR. GASTEIGER: At the time in 1971 when discussions about a possible parking lot on that si4b were held with you was the Word demolition used or the tearing down of that building? MR. JONES: Not that I can recall. MR WILLIAMSON: I would like to say this that following the receipt of the building permit in October of 1973and before any hearings were held by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Board concerning this parking lot R H P, Inc. had expended these monies for the construction of this lot based on that building permit. That' s before the November and December hearings held by the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals respectfully so that there was this vested interest at that time. I would like to briefly summarize. I feel we have met the three criterion which authorize this Board to grant us a variance. I think we have shown a hardship in the sense that there is an absolute cash loss to us unless we can rent this out as a 20 parking space area. That will yield a small return but one which results in no cash loss. If we operate it as an apartment unit which under the testimony taken at the March 4th hearing because there is a limitation on how high you can build then, it' s forty feet, we cannot realize any cash profit in fact the testimony showed that there was a cash loss of $7,400. The testimony that Mr. Burns brought forth this evening based on th suggestion of this Board at the March 4th hearing indicates no one as even interested in renting space in this lot as a neighborhood arkirr_. lot. Secondly I feel that this is not in violation of the pikit of the Ordinance and I point to Howard Schlieders' testimony ho said that he wished there were more parking lots like this; this as his testimony at the March 4th hearing. I would say that my ow recollection of availability of parking lots on South Hill would lead me to believe that there are none other than what I have men- tioned. I don't believe there are parking lots other than for the p3&rtment houses themselves I don' t think there is a parking lot in itself other than Morse Chain, N C R, the Terrace Hill complex which is operated by R H P, Inc. and the city lot near the police station and across the street from it. I don' t believe there are any parks g lots as such. I feel that the spirit of the Ordinance is not vio- lated, it makes for better sight at this intersection and we have constructed after consulting with the city officials, Howard Schlie er, and others curb cuts and things, we tried to do exactly what they wanted, we spent money with Giordano Construction on the drainage of this particular lot to try to conform with exactly what the city wanted; we have no entrance from Aurora Street into this lot it is only from Prospect Street. I feel it provides off-street parking, it provides better sight at the intersection and all in all it does n6t violate the spirit of the Ordinance. Lastly I feel, and I would like to say that Mr. Jones was very candid in his remarks he told it exactly as it was and I appreciate that because he has tonight reiterated the fact that Mr. Burns in his mind felt he had a parking lot allowed for tenants during the daytime and the neighbors in the evening and on weekends. And in reliance on that and there were other city officials present, Mr. Jones wasn' t alone, the Mayor was present, the Planning Director, the Assistant Planning Director, the City attorney were all present and when Mr. Burns left the office as he has testified he again reiterated is this going to be okay, this letter .I'm signing am I acing to have my tenants permitted to park here in the day time and the neighbors free of charge in the evening and on weekends and I iaht ad here that these parking facilities not only at this lot ut on the lot across the street are open in the evenings and week- ends free of charge to all residents of South Hill and they have been and they will continue to be; and it' s a large parking lot on that Terrace Hill complex as I'm sure you all realize because it di t one time accommodate the Agway employees. I feel that that reliance on these actions of these city officials under the Jaynes ase fits the uniqueness test under the Ordinance and I therefore eel that we have met all three criterion and I aoain respectfully sk that this Board grant this variance. Thank you. -1(p,- C1 1AIRM;V MARTIN: Now our procedure is to hear next from anybody • else who wishes to be heard in favor of the requested variance, is there anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? None. Is there anyone here tonight who would like to be heard in opposition? ARTIE VAN TIENHOVEN: My name is Artie VanTienhoven and I speak as the President of the South Hill Civic Association. First I would like to give a fact and that is that there is a parking lot on the corner of Hudson Street and Columbia Street which is as far as I know owned by Mr. Dooley for which he charges $3 per week and I think that he cannot find enough people to park there. I may be somewhat repetitive because I have not seen a transcript of the previous hearing but it seems to us that very little has changbd and that we therefore ask you not to grant the variance. If we look at the record we can see that R H P, Inc. a building permit f o a neighborhood parking lot, this is in writing, the letter is clear the interpretation of the Zoning -Ordinance is clear as you yourself have done in the hearing of December. It seems to us that regardle s of what was said by city officials that the wording of the Zoning Ordinance is clear and that even if it weren't that ignorance of th lave is no excuse and I assume that the Zoning Ordinance is part of the law. It is also our understanding that this appeal is made on the basis of a hardship on the property or the variance is not granted but that you should consider the repercussions which this parking lot would have on the neighborhood. In the first place I wish to point out that R H P, Inc. had agreedto landscape and scree the parking lot and at the last meeting they submitted this drawing which i resubmit in evidence. The above mentioned document was marked into evidence as Exhibit 3. I would like you to anytime you wish to go to the corner where this parking lot is and compare it with the drawing, you will find -20- that any resemblance between the two is purely accidental. I wish • to point out that as far as we know there are several tenants, we assume they are tenants of R H P, Inc. , because they park their car there between eight and eight-thirty and they leave between four an five and they disappear into R H Parks building which to us is presumptive evidence that they are tenants who are parking their cars there now in violence of the Ordinance. Some of these people not only park their car in violence of the Ordinance, but they drive into a one-way street in the wrong direction which is obviousLy hazardous not only to everybody but especially for children who may want to go to the South Hill School. I want to emphasize that thes three points are absolute violations of the law. With respect to the hardship we want to point out that in response to a question by you, Mr. Chairman, it is my recollection that Mr. Gallagher answered that the best use of the lot when the house was still on it would have been to rehabilitate the house and either rent it or sell it. If that is true and that is my recollection, to claim hardship now is similar for a slave owner to rape a slave girl and to claim that he can' t sell her because she isn't a virgin. The claim of a hard- ship because of an oral understanding between Ns. Burns on the one hand and the city officials on the other hand seems to be invalid with respect to the variance. It seems to us that this is a mAtter that needs to be settled between R H Parks, Inc. and the city. According to the Ithaca Journal this matter is now before the court ;. So far I have dealt with facts which can be verified and which are based on the records and my recollection that I have of the previou eetings. I would like to enumerate whatever repercussions there re we have stated them at previous occask6nss. If this variance is granted it is the opening wedge for the residential area. It is s I pointed out at a previous occast@nn it is like the slice of salami and especially if we use the agguement that was' used by the ity Engineer that there should be a parking lot in every corner hen I can just foresee on the one side of Aurora Street parking lots and on the other side multiple dwellings and you could hardly AL1 call that a residential area. Secondly it seems to us that if this variance aere granted because of the mistakes or incompetence by city officials that it would be the South Hill residents who would have to pay for these mistakes rather than the whole city. Finally I want to state some of the things that have been said during the las few months and especially again in the last few days that in the United States we live under a government of laws and not a govern- ment of people, the law as you yourself have stated is clear and we hope and trust that you are willing to uphold your previous de- cisions. Thank you very much. MR. GASTcIGER: Did you receive an offer of rental? NI. VAN TIENHOV Er1: Yes I did but I live a goodly distance away and I could have rented from Mr. Dooley for $3. MR. VAN MARTM: Could you describe briefly the lot at the corner of Hudson and Columbia please? MB. VAN TIENHOVEN: I can't tell you exactly what the size is but it is not very well kept, there is no hardtop on it as far as I know, it' s not a very nice looking lot but there are only two or three cars parked there. MR. VAN MART:P: There is no landscaping? MR. VAN TIMOVM- : When we came to live there tho lot was already there in that shape and I don't know whether this was a variance or whether it was already in that shape. I don' t know the history of the lot. I might also point out that across on Hudson Place are therep number of parking lots which go with the apartments on oddington but the parking lot is actually on Hudson Placeand some- times people will park there. ,ARCL SCNNICHSEN: My name is Carol Bonnichsen and I reside at 507 Turner Placeon South Hill and I am speaking tonight on behalf of myself and my husband as co-presidents of the South :dill Parent -22- Teacher Association as such I would like Just to discuss a few things that have occurred over the past year that relate particularly to our concerns in the Parent Teacher Association mainly the welfare and safety of our children. When the South Hill PTA first brought this matter to city attention it was two days before the building permit was issued that is on record that was a Planning Board meeting on a Tuesday evening. I myself took the letter which was written by then presidents William and Marilyn Norton as their representative as they could not attend and they had hand delivered a copy to the Mayor, to the Planning Board, and we had given copies previously to our aldermen, Anne Jones and Dick Boronkay. In that letter last years PTA presidents hearing from all the residents and hat was going on and seeing what was going on were very disturbed and wished to bring it immediately to the attention of the city. They believed that there was quite a definite hazard if there was parking lot there and they also believed from what they could tel from the Zoning laws that it was probably an illegal usaggebecause even at that time people know who had bought it and knew what the proposed use was and people felt that it was not right. Now since that time it was two days later that the building permit was issued ver our obJections and this matter was discussed that night in the fanning meeting including the definition. Unfortunately I don't believe that there was a regular secretary at that meeting and the inutes did not get down quite as correctly as they show have. Since that time the South Hill Parent Teacher Association and its epresentatives have cooperated with the South Hill Civic Association n pursuing this in the best way that the people knew how to do. The first thing they were able to do was they appealed the decision f the Building Commissioner in granting the building permit after t was issued which came before this Board and it was agreed the efinition seemed to be as clear to this Board as it was to the rdiflggY citizens who read it. The only thing that went on at this ime when their construction had gone mead during this time with o halt when the people first brought this up; personally 1 think -23- hat it was probably poor business Judgment at the time not to halt ut this is just a personal opinion. So it finally came up to the oint where the variance was asked when it was found that only a eighborhood parking area could be used and that was turned down by his Board of Zoning Appeals. Now in the time since that period articularly over the summer there have been very many complaints bout residents in the area also coming to various people who are representing groups in the area; people complaining about the activity, about the lot looking unsightly a lot of cars and its seeming to be full all the time. There was another Planning Board seting coming up at which this proposal was first to be brought, the proposal for a variance, so for two weeks before this meeting took place a survey was made of this lot and the cars that seemed to come and go from it. The time picked for this survey was that time when the children on South Hill went to school in the morning. There were cars parked in there overnight, I dontt know who they belong to but there would be eight to ten spaces that would be empty at that time in the morning during this time these eight to ten spaces were filled up every single morning. This was also the time when it was noticed that several people were turning the wrong way off of Aurora onto that one-way street in order to quickly Jump into that lot before somebody else took the spot. These people left their cars and walked over to R H P, Inc. Now I'm not saying that R H P. Inc, was renting these spaces, that is not my intention at all. All I am saying is that nothing has been done to improve the lot or to rent it, that people are filling it up from the office complex. Also the people that live down there have noticed that there are very young Vh&j4**n that are playing in that lot, may I remind 'you that this is across the street from the B-1 district where there are residential houses on both sides, this is a corner lot there are residential houses across the street on that block and on the other side. So we feel that any granting of a parking lot there, and at this time I have to say any parking lot, would create a definite traffic hazard for our children. The street is I -24- really to narrow which is the reason it's one-way. If people are blatantly violating the law and half the people are using it now at the time when our children are going to school and they are blatantly violating the law 1n_{oxa6rkto}jgo pff Aurora Street even if the street were changed back the other way wouldn't they blatantly same persons violate the law to get out on Aurora Street and even if they, everybody were obeying the law as far as turning the right way onto the one-way street if you will look at a map if you have one around you will see that in order to either gain access or to get out of that lot you have to go through the resi- dential area; in other words you have to go out Prospect to Hudson or you have to come in that way depending on which way the street goes. So therefore it is not only just the corner there that is hazardous for our children, it' s also people crossing from the lower portion of South Hill who have to cross Prospect Street at that corner where we don' t have a crossing guard and also children who are crossing Hudson it that point and we definitely feel that the conditions on South Hili as far as traffic records are concerned because of our narrow streets, because of the heavy traffic on Hudson and Aurora that this is the worst place in the world to have any sort of a parking lotand I would very much agree with the Planning Board that as far as planning is concerned a lot has no use there whatsoever. May I make just a small comment just on my own. There are several lots that are rented for parking on South Hill, I would say that they are much smaller, I would say essentially they are nonconforming as far as the strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is concernod, nonconforming I mean as far as being paved but the lots are there. There are three empty garages behind my Ouse they did rent for $5 a month. I got some information while VanTienhoven was talking, the lot he referrdd to rents for $3 month, not $3 a week and personally I also got a notice to rent lot, we have something we can put in a lot we have a trailer we an' t put on our lot, it' s to small, as I told the Planning Board -25- the other day I have taken it to private property out in the countrr and it isn't because of cost but I don' t have to look at it, and my neighbors don' t have to look at it. WILLIAMSON: Where are these other lots that you mentioned? 5. BONNICHSEN: I can' t think who owns all of them, you would have to walk through there particularly on the east side of the gorge, you will see a trailer or two parked here and you will see some place where it says lot for rent. There are essentially, I beHave, vacant lots that are owned by ppople who probably have residences adjacent to them and the garages I have talked to people I said there were three empty ones behind me which did rent for $5 a month, that' s a closed garage and other people I've talked to also mentioned this figure of $5 to $10 a month for renting an enclosed garage. It' s my personal feeling that the matter of how much money you make should not be a function of this Board because you cannot rectify somebody' s business judgment as to how much money they should make. GASTEIGER: In your opening remarks you said something about Bing aware of who bought the property, can you put a date on that? 5. BONNICHSEN: I believe what had happened, this week end it cam own, I don't know somebody mentioned Columbus Day, it was a three ay Monday holiday, that was the day that it first came down where eople could see; in other words you and I don't know who has applied for building permits from the Building Commissioners' offic nless we go and look. Most of the finding out of the facts was one that week after the roof came off. We did not know back in 1971, not to my knowledge at least. EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, SEPTEMBER 9, 1974 APPEAL N0. 1060: MR. MARTIN: I propose that we deny the requested variance. The evidence presented which was in addition to testimony taken at the prior hearing on appeal #1038 presented no new information on the effect of the proposed use on the neighborhood nor did it indicate other than that the position of the petitioner in this case and any resulting showing of hardship rests upon actions taken by the petitioner; namely, the purchase of the building for $17,500 in 1971 and demolition of the building in 1973, therefore, as at the prior hearing we find: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Any special circumstances or unique condi- tions making it impossible to obtain a reasonable return from this property appear to be a result of actions taken by the petitioner whether or not encouraged by city officials; such actions contem- plating a use not authorized by the Zoning Ordinance do not, in our vie% Justify a variance; 2) There was substantial evidence that the use requested would pose problems of traffic safety and impose other harms on the surrounding neighborhood. There was additional evidence which tended to show that spaces in the lot could not be rented to residents in the area for a price of $15 permonth. Since this price, according to testimony heard, is in excess of that charged for other off street parking in the general area it is not clear that this demonstrates the infeasibility of using the property for such purpose. KASPRZAK: I second that. OTE: 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 Appeal No. 1060 on September 9, 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 abilitt. DARLEEN F. STENOGRAPHER Sworn to before me this day of S (',^r'l�t�Y � 19 r"71-T I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 9, 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 September 9, 1974: PRESENT: PETER MARTIN, CHAIRMAN GREGORY KASPRZAK C. MURRAY VAN MARTER ELVA HOLMAN EDGAR GASTEIGER JOHN BODINE EDISON JONES, Building Commissioner and Secretary DARLEEN LISK, Recording Secretary Chairman Martin opens meeting, listing members of Board present. The Board is operating under the provisions of the Charter of the i City of Ithaca and the new Zoning Ordinance. Our hearings are not bound by strict rules of evidence but we ask that all those who speak or present evidence limit their remarks to the issues before the Board. Would all those speaking please identify themselves by name and address and would all those speaking please come forwar to the microphone up here to make their remarks. Before proceeding with our first hearing tonight I have a note from one member of the Board, Mrs. Holman, which says that because of her interest in this case she wishes to be excused from participation and deliberations on the appeal. Mr. Secretary would you introduce the case. Commissioner Jones lists what case No. 1060 is to be. APPEAL NO. 1060: The Appeal of R H P, Inc. for a use variance under Sec. 30.25, Col. 2, at 201 Prospect Street in an R-3 zone. ROBERT WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Zoning) Appeals I would like first, if I may, to briefly summarize the facts of the case and go back over its history and then I would like to introduce into evidence the testimony taken at the March 4t hearing if I may do that rather than go and read it all. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Have all the members of the Board received well in advance of this meeting a transcript of our prior hearing of the t i! I I -2- case. All right so as not to be redundant this evening we all have a copy of the past transcript so that a brief summary perhaps and then whatever new evidence you have this evening. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes I would appreciate that Mr. Chairman, I would like, however, it put in the record that the record taken at the i iMarch 4th hearing would be a part of this record. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All right that transcript is before all the members of the Board and is a part of this hearing. MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. Very briefly I would like to start at the time the lot was purchased up on Prospect Street. It was bought back in April of 1971 for a cost of $17,500, the lot is dimension wise 107' by 961 . Incidentally as we all know this is a request for a variance to use this lot, this parking lot, in the day time for tenants leasing space from R H P, Inc. and using it on nights and weekends for neighbors wishing to park their cars there. In all cases for the neighbors it would be free of charge the same as the occupancy now had at the parking lot of R H P, Inc. diagonally opposite this particular lot in question. In the fall of 1973, early fall, Mr. Burns, who is the Vice President of R H P, Inc. , obtained a demolition permit for this particular house locate I on this particular lot and thereafter on October 25 of 1973 he obtained a building permit to construct this parking lot. At that time in the presence of the Mayor, the Planning Director, the City Attorney, and the Building Commissioner, Mr. Burns was given to understand that he could, in fact, use this particular parking lot i as I have just described; namely, parking for the tenants of R H P, Inc. during the day time Monday through Friday during business hours and on weekends and evenings for the neighbors free of charge. At that particular hearing as was testified at the March 4th hearing jthe minutes of which have now been incorporated Mr. Burns made it ( clear that he, in fact, was intending to use the lot in that manner, on page 28 of the testimony taken at the March 4th hearing I want t I I I -3- just quote briefly the testimony taken from Mr. Jones: MR. WILLIAMSON: Was it about October 25 of 1973? (This irefers to the time the building permit was issued. ) MR. JONES: I think that' s correct. MR. WILLIAMSON: At that time did he come to your office? MR. JONES: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: Was there anyone else present in your office with you and Mr. Burns? MR. JONES: Not when he first come in there, he asked for this permit to build a neighborhood parking area and I told him i exactly what a neighborhood parking area was and the next thin I know I had the Mayor and I had the Planning Director, the Assistant Planning Director and the City Attorney in the office. MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you discuss the parking lot request? MR. JONES: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: Were all those gentlemen present? MR. JONES: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: Was it made clear that what R H P wanted was parking for its tenants in the day time and neighbors at night MR. JONES: Yes, MR. WILLIAMSON: Was a building permit then issued? MR. JONES: Yes. Now relying on this statement and on this permit which was issued October 25, 1973, R H P, Inc. then started construction on this parking lot and I want to stress that it was completed on or before November 25th, in other words Thanksgiving of 1973, this was before any interpretation issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals on the meaning of neighborhood parking lot in December of 1973 and, of course, it was way before the hearing on March the 4th. Mr. Burns had spent on behalf of R H P, Inc. approximately $30,000 in the construction of this lot. He had consulted in the construction of the lot with the City Engineer, Howard Schlieder, and other city officials and making sure on curb cuts and on drainage that what he was building would be in conformity with exactly what the City of Ithaca wanted. Now I feel that the, we meet the tests of a varianc�; namely, three tests that are economic hardship, uniqueness, and that what we are asking for will not in any way materially be different i t -4- than what is presently in the neighborhood. At the hearing of March 4th again which testimony is already made a part of this ( hearing, Mr. Gallagher testified on the economic loss and I will later this evening through Mr. Burns introduce further evidence along those lines based on recommendations of this Board. Mr. Gallagher testified that the investment being the $30,000 and a $90,000 apartment which would be allowed on this particular corner under the old and new ordinance would result in a cash loss each year of approximately $7,400. He testified that renting 20 spaces and these 20 spaces that we would rent are based on recommendations again of the City Engineer; Mr. Burns when he first talked with the city wanted 27 spaces, the city recommended 20 and Mr. Burns went along with the recommendation of the city. He also followed their recommendations and suggestions on the landscaping of this particular lot. But based on just 20 spaces at $15 per month it would produce a yield of seven or eight per cent at the most which would be satisfactory to R H P, Inc. Mr. Gallagher also testified that the spirit of the ordinance in his opinion would be upheld. The lot is located as we all know diagonally opposite the home office of R H P, Inc. and the Terrace Hill complex formerly occupied by Agway. It' s one of the best buildings in the City of Ithaca, it' s adequately maintained and maintained in excellent condition; it has tenants who are all good neighbors here in Ithaca, Ithaca Gun, General Recreation, the Social Security Office, and formerly Unemployment office as well as other offices N C R to name one. The lot itself without the house certainly in the opinion of Mr. Gallagher as well as others gives better sight at this particular intersection. If you are coming down Aurora Street, that is to the north, you cettainly have better visibility as you look to the east on the one-way, Prospect Street, which is one-way to the west and of course if you are coming one-way west on Prospect Street you are going to be able to see more easily up Aurora Street. It has to eliminate congestion on the streets as far as parking of yehicles on the streets because it provides 20 spaces of off-street i i -5- parking in the summer time and winter time when the roads are being ( plowed and snow removal is in progress. At the previous hearing w ' showed you the maps and plans as far as landscaping is concerned and of course those will go forward. We feel that the better sight, and the landscaping and the removal of this home have in no way violated the spirit of the ordinance. We feel the hardship is . unique and our uniqueness we feel justifiably so is on the actions of the officials of the City of Ithaca with Mr. Burns acting in reliance on those conversations which are part of the testimony of ' the March 4th hearingleft the office of the Building Commissioner g feeling that he had the authority to construct this parking lot. MR. KASPRZAK: Uniqueness as I understand it in the Zoning book applies to such land or buildings and not applying generally to all land or buildings in the neighborhood and the actions of the city officials does not in my opinion apply to uniqueness for hard- ship? MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Kasprzak, recent cases indicating that reliance by actions of city officials does satisfy the unique category of the three. MR. KASPRZAK: Can you give me an example of what kind of city officials fall into this category? MR. WILLIAMSON: The case I have is the Jaynes case which is a ( court of appeals case in which there also was reliance on actions fof the city in issuing a building permit, and Justice Keating in the decision in the court of appeals stated that the other two factors being present this is enough to satisfy the uniqueness test. I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Perhaps we would organize things best if you proceeded to present such new evidence that you have and then respond to questions of the Board on that evidence other aspects I � of the case based on the transcript of our prior hearing and then summarize whatever arguements you have? I i i -6- I MR. VAN MARTER: Do you want to describe again the $30,000 figure you just mentioned, that didn' t occur in the prior testimony? MR. WILLIAMSON: When I say $30,000 I am using an approximation, to Mr. YanMarter, and I would have to goAthe exact figures but my recollection is of $17,500 paid for the lot, the demolition was $2,000, well let me say this that there was $6,000 spent up to the time that we stopped work on it but to complete it would be $30,000 and probably I should say to complete the whole thing. Right now it is approximately $25,500 to $27,000. I was commenting on the uniqueness and I think I have said enough on that and I would at this time if I may call on Mr. Burns to testify further on some new evidence. I would like to in introduction to Mr. Burns' testim ny refer to your decision of March the 4th item #2 under the Findings i of Fact there was a statement by this Board that the possibility of using this property for a neighborhood parking area was not conside ed as is by the expert testifying on the possibility of achieving a reasonable return on the property as is for a use permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on that recommendation I would now like to Igo into the new testimony. Mr. Burns your full name is Robert Burn ? MR. BURNS: That' s correct. MR. WILLIAMSON: Your title is Vice President of R H P, Inc.? MR. BURNS: That' s right. MR. WILLIAMSON: In your discussion with me on or about March 15th did we arrive at some actions to be taken on your part? I MR. BURNS: Yes we did. MR. WILLIAMSON: Would you please describe to this Board the action taken by R,H P, Inc. at your direction? MR. BURNS: In order to comply with what the ordinance stated we wanted to make every attempt to rent the property to the neighbor- hood so we sent out 550 lettersto the neighborhood and this, when -7- I � I say neighborhood I mean from the creek up to Coddington Road within the city limits and from Giles Street over to Turner Place. �I IMR. WILLIAMSON: When were those letters mailed out? MR. BURNS: On the fifteenth day of March 1974. MR. WILLIAMSON: To how many people did you mail those? MR. BURNS: There was 550. � MR. WILLIAMSON: Would you read for the record what the notice to each individual stated? MR. BURNS: I'm sorry I said March 15th and it was on March 11th. It said: Dear Neighbor, Off-street parking is now available on South Hill at the corner of Prospect and South Aurora Street. We have presently twenty car spaces to lease at $15.00 per month per space. If you wish to rent a parking space, please fill out the enclosed card, return it to me, and I will get in touch with you to make the necessary arrangements. Cordially yours, Robert M. Burns. With the enclosure of a card with our address on it. MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you on or about the same date March 11th put any ads in the Ithaca Journal or any other newspaper? MR. BURNS: Yes we put a display ad in the Ithaca Journal and we ran this for approximately three weeks and this said: Neighborhood parking for South Hill residents. Off street parking is now available on South Hill at the corner of Prospect Street and South Aurora Street. Twenty spaces presently available at $15.00 per month per space. For further information, call Bob Burns at 272-9020. The above mentioned documents were marked into evidence as (Exhibits 1 and 2. MR. WILLIAMSON: About how many times did the ad appear in the Ithaca Journal? �II �I MR. BURNS: It was in the Journal about eight times. MR. WILLIAMSON: Was it in eight consecutive nights? `I MR. BURNS: No it was over a period of three weeks. MR. WILLIAMSON: Was there any more than one mailing made as you testified to the neighbors on South Hill? MR. BURNS: No we did it just once. MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you receive any response from anyone whatso- ever? MR. BURNS: No, not one. IMR. WILLIAMSON: Not one inquiry. Did you receive any cards back? MR. BURNS: No. MR. WILLIAMSON: At the present time you are not renting any spaces out, is that correct? MR. BURNS: That' s correct. MR. WILLIAMSON: Have you, Mr. Burns, received any objections from any of the persons named in the affidavit to whom the notice of f' this hearing was mailed on or about August 30th of this year? MR. BURNS: No. MR. WILLIAMSON: I have nothing further of Mr. Burns so if the Boar (wishes to question him. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Burns, nobody will respond to a spot for $15 if there are spots available for $12 or even $13, how did you come up with a figure of $15; I assume there is off-street parking on South Hill, what is the going price for it? MR. BURNS: I don' t think there is any parking lot as such that they rent spaces there are some garages and some back yard type i I ►► i -9- 1parking. I'm really not sure how much they charge most the time the people who park there are usually tenantsof the house but I have heard anywhere from $10 to $12 to $13. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But if one can buy parking for that kind of price then $15 is not attractive? MR. BURNS: Well that' s true if the parking is available but on that street there isn' t to much off-street parking. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So where did $15 come from why did you advertise at that price when as it turns out it' s a totally unattractive price? MR. BURNS: Well we have parking at Terrace Hill right now and we are in the area of $12 to $15 for parking and this is what I used to base this on. Downtown parking at some of the bank lots I think they are over $15, they are $15 to $18 for parking spaces per month. It' s very difficult to get comparable value of parking on South Hill now maybe East Hill would be entirely different, I don' t know. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I have other questions relating to the arguement that there has been detrimental reliance here on various representa- tions by city officials which created the unique hardship in this case. As I reread the transcript of our earlier hearing I found myself a bit confused on that point and so I would like just a bit more detail. The building and lot were acquired in 1971, what was the intent of R H P at that time, was it intended to have a parking) lot there? MR. BURNS: Yes. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And did you get the advice of counsel at that point about the legality of using it for that purpose under the Zining Ordinance? MR. BURNS: No I was told that the area did allow parking lots. I I -10- CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Told by whom? MR. BURNS: By city officials. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: To whom did you speak prior to purchase to get that kind of firm assurance? MR. BURNS: I talked to Mr. Schlieder and to Mr. Jones, this was back in 1971. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And you were told by both of them that a parking lot is allowed there? SMR. BURNS: Yes. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well a parking lot is allowed in an R-3 zone but a neighborhood parking lot. Did you get firm assurance that the Zoning Ordinance allowed the kind of lot that you proposed; namely, one for use of your commercial tenants? MR. BURNS: Well if I didn' t receive it, I would not have bought th property. I mean I am buying the property for a parking lot. i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right but there are times one makes mistakes and there are times one takes risks that one isn' t aware of now you ---s telling me that you did not secure the advice of counsel but instea you talked to some people here in city hall and they gave you assurances at that point. The next step as I understand it was getting a demolition permit and that occurred in October of 1973 no about September of 1973 and again you got assurances from whom at that point that you could do what you wanted to? MR. BURNS: The building department. (CHAIRMAN MARTIN: They told you that you could have a parking lot there to serve your Terrace Hill complex? I MR. BURNS: That' s correct. { i -11- CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And then those assurances again occurred on October 25th? MR. BURNS: That' s correct. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How did you square those verbal assurances on the 25th with the written letter which you received which gave you iithe building permit but made it clear that this was to be a neigh- borhood parking lot and indeed reiterate the language of the Ordinance Ll and elaborated on it? MR. BURNS: Well I was assured when this letter was submitted and I� again questioned the four people in the room, I said now my lawyer is not here and I will sign this but I just want to be sure that I can use the parking lot during the day and the neighborhood at ! night and on weekends. I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Did you get advice of counsel on the bindingness of those assurances? MR. BURNS: Not at that point. MR. GASTEIGER: I would like to ask the reason for the two year delay if your intent at the time you bought the property was to ma e a parking lot out of it? MR. BURNS: Well we had some tenants in there oneves a family with three or four children and they had been in there for quite a few years and the former owners son had an apartment on the other sid and so we decided to not do anything to it we were getting rent fo the property, it was carrying itself until these people moved out and we decided then as long as they had moved out we would go ahead and take it down and continue with our program. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: While the building was standing and you were jrenting it how reasonable a return did you get on the property as � a rental property? i, -12- f MR. BURNS: I don' t have those figures here but I think that it was just about carrying the interest charges and the taxes and minor upkeep. MR. VAN MARTER: Do I understand clearly that you said the property was carrying itself at that time with that income? MR. BURNS: When you take into consideration the depreciation, the taxes, insurance, repair and maintenance, heat, gas and electric, we etc. we were losing but when^were concerned with the interest and taxes and minor repairs...it carried itself for those purposes. SMR. VAN MARTER: And this was at a time when no improvements had been made to the property? � MR. BURNS: That' s correct. MR. GASTEIGER: Were there unused apartments available in the property during those two years? I MR. BURNS: No. The owners son took the first floor aprtment of , the west side of the house and the family took the first and second floor on the east side and the second floor on the west side of the house, MR. WILLIAMSON: During the two years or from 1971 to the time you demolished the building was it operated on a cash loss? MR. BURNS: Yes. SMR. WILLIAMSON: Do you know the exact figure of that cash loss per year? IMR. BURNS: Not without going through my files. MR. WILLIAMSON: Well it was a cash loss? MR. BURNS: That' s correct. MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you know of any other parking lots as such on i i -13- South Hill aside from the Morse Chain or the N C R or your own R H P parking lot at Terrace Hill and the one occupied by the City j I of Ithaca near the police station? MR. BURNS: No. r MR. WILLIAMSON: There are individual home lots, is that it? MR. BURNS: Right I didn' t make a survey but I imagine there are, there are quite a few apartment houses there on Aurora Street and I think they probably have some parking in back of them. MR. WILLIAMSON: At the time you first acquired the house where the parking lot is now located, were you completely filled with tenants in your main buildings at R H P, Inc.? MR. BURNS: No. MR. WILLIAMSON: And then as the years progressed, did you acquire new tenants? MR. BURNS: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: And did that require you to have more parking spac ? � MR. BURNS: Yes it did. MR. WILLIAMSON: And was that another consideration which you made when you started your demolition in the early fall of 1973? MR. BURNS: That' s correct. MR. GASTEIGER: May I ask what the relationship was with the bank that gave a mortgage on the property, did they understand it was to be demolished for a parking lot? MR. BURNS: Back in 1971, I'm not sure but prior to the demolishing of the structure we had to have their approval, but they may have j been. I know it was made clear prior to demolition and at that time. -14- CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Williamson in order to pursue the reliance point I would like to ask a few questions of Mr. Jones and then I would like you to have opportunity to summarize but I don' t care in which order those occur. MR. WILLIAMSON: That' s fine and you go right ahead. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Ed, do you recall having spoken with Mr. Burns or others of R H P prior to their purchase of this lot and building in April of 1971 about its use and what could be done with it? MR. JONES: I remember Robert Burns coming in there and Glenn Boda, Deputy Building Commissioner, at the time were discussing this thing and it come around to the question of a parking lot and a neighborhood parking lot was permitted, no question about that. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Did you and they talk about what that meant and whether that included a lot that would be used in the day time by the tenants of Terrace Hill? . JONES: I have no recollection of that being discussed in 1971. HAIRMAN MARTIN: You do not recall then assuring them that what they proposed was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in 1971? . JONES: Nothe question was asked about a neighborhood parking lot and a neighborhood parking lot is permitted in that zone and it is immaterial as to who puts it there. There was no question about a neighborhood parking lot. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It was also just testified by Mr. Burns that assurances that what they proposed was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and that such assurances were given prior to the issuance of the demolition permit in September or so of 1973? MR. JONES: That is correct. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Could you elaborate, what did you or others tell Mr. Burns prior to the demolition of that building about what could be done there? I I -15- MR. JONES: When he come in and asked for the demolition permit proposing to build a neighborhood parking area that' s when the question was first asked do you understand what a neighborhood parking area is according to the Zoning regulations. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay you asked that of them and then what followed they said as we understand it is a lot in which we can allow our Terrace Hill tenants to park and you said that' s right or what? JONES: This is what we agreed to yes. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You then agreed to an interpretation of the Ordinance, you said it was consistent with the Ordinance, their tenants could park there in the day time. So that you told them that before the demolition permit and then apparently that same kind of assurance was given when they got the building permit? . JONES: That' s correct. HAIRMAN MARTIN: And then where did the cautious language in the building permit itself come from? JONES: Flight after the demolition permit was issued there you now the sky opened up and everything happened. We heard from various aldermen, we heard from irate neighbors up there that R H P as going to build' a parking lot there for its own personal use. HAIRMAN MARTIN: Which you already knew? JONES: Right. HAIRMAN MARTIN: But because of the concerned neighborhood then he building permit took pain to use the language of Ordinance ithout resolving the question in writing whether they could have heir Terrace Hill tenants park there in the day time? JONES: Yes. HAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions from the Board? -16- from . VAN MARTER: In relation to the income property as found when you did acquire it did we ever get into that? MR. WILLIAMSON: Other than what you have asked today, Mr. VanMarte the actual cash loss we would have to look through the folder; it was a cash loss operation from the time we acquired it. MR. VAN MARTER: Would you care to give that as an estimate? MR. BURNS: I would guess that we lost probably an average of $130 to $140 a month. MR. GASTEIGER: In real estate terms what do you usually mean when you say that the property is carrying itself? MR. BURNS: When I mentioned that, we were interested in an interim measure and we wanted to carry the interest and the taxes and whatever repair and maintenance that was necessary on the property. When talking about carrying the property you have your taxes and insurance, water and sewer and what everyone knows as costs and with this in mind we were losing money against the income. VAN MARTER: Is it fair to say in this case that there are costs of administration as might not apply to an individual? BURNS: Well yes, that would be an additional cost. VAN MARTER: On the basis of an annual loss of less than $425 a year on a property of this size the house had some capability for additional income? MR. BURNS: That was $140 a month for 12 months. MR. VAN MARTER: On the basis of less than $1,700E; a year could you guess what kind of an investment might put that on a break even basis? MR. BURNS: At that time the building needed complete renovation I would guess that we probably would have had $40,000 to $50,000 in it and we couldn' t have received the type of rent that would sub- stantiate that type of investment. -17- MR. GASTEIGER: At the time in 1971 when discussions about a possible parking lot on that site were held with you was the word demolition used or the tearing down of that building? MR. JONES: Not that I can recall. MR WILLIAMSON: I would like to say this that following the receipt of the building permit in October of 1973and before any hearings were held by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Board concerning this parking lot R H P, Inc. had expended these monies for the construction of this lot based on that building permit. That' s before the November and December hearings held by the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals respectfully so that there was this vested interest at that time. I would like to briefly summarize. I feel we have met the three criterion which authorize this Board to grant us a variance. I think we have shown a hardship in the sense that there is an absolute cash loss to us unless we can rent this out as a 20 parking space area. That will yield a small return but one which results in no cash loss. If we operate it as an apartment unit which under the testimony taken at the March 4th hearing because there is a limitation on how high you can build the*, it' s forty feet, we cannot realize any cash profit in fact the testimony showed that there was a cash loss of $7,400. The testimony that Mr. Burns brought forth this evening based on the suggestion of this Board at the March 4th hearing indicates no one was even interested in renting space in this lot as a neighborhood parking lot. Secondly I feel that this is not in violation of the spirit of the Ordinance and I point to Howard Schlieders' testimony who said that he wished there were more parking lots like this; thi as his testimony at the March 4th hearing. I would say that my ow recollection of availability of parking lots on South Hill would lead me to believe that there are none other than what I have men- tioned. I don' t believe there are parking lots other than for the apartment houses themselves I don' t think there is a parking lot in tself other than Morse Chain, N C R, the Terrace Hill complex which -18- is operated by R H P, Inc. and the city lot near the police station and across the street from it. I don' t believe there are any parki g lots as such. I feel that the spirit of the Ordinance is not vio- lated, it makes for better sight at this intersection and we have constructed after consulting with the city officials, Howard Schlie er, and others curb cuts and things, we tried to do exactly what they wanted, we spent money with Giordano Construction on the drainage of this particular lot to try to conform with exactly what the city wanted; we have no entrance from Aurora Street into this lot it is only from Prospect Street. I feel it provides off-street parking, it provides better sight at the intersection and all in all it does not violate the spirit of the Ordinance. Lastly I feel, and I would like to say that Mr. Jones was very candid in his remarks he told it exactly as it was and I appreciate that because he has tonight reiterated the fact that Mr. Burns in his mind felt he had a parking lot allowed for tenants during the daytime and the neighbors in the evening and on weekends. And in reliance on that and there were other city officials present, Mr. Jones wasn' t alone, the Mayor was present, the Planning Director, the Assistant Planning Director, the City Attorney were all present and when Mr. Burns left the office as he has testified he again reiterated is this going to be okay, this letter I'm signing am I going to have my tenants permitted to park here in the day time and the neighbors free of charge in the evening and on weekends and I fight addhere that these parking facilities not only at this lot but on the lot across the street are open in the evenings and week- ends free of charge to all residents of South Hill and they have been and they will continue to be; and it' s a large parking lot on that Terrace Hill complex as I'm sure you all realize because it di t one time accommodate the Agway employees. I feel that that reliance on these actions of these city officials under the Jaynes ase fits the uniqueness test under the Ordinance and I therefore eel that we have met all three criterion and I again respectfully ask that this Board grant this variance. Thank you. w -19- CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Now our procedure is to hear next from anybody else who wishes to be heard in favor of the requested variance, is there anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? None. Is there anyone here tonight who would like to be heard in opposition? ARTIE VAN TIENHOV EN: My name is Artie VanTienhoven and I speak as the President of the South Hill Civic Association. First I would like to give a fact and that is that there is a parking lot on the corner of Hudson Street and Columbia Street which is as far as I know owned by Mr. Dooley for which he charges $3 per week and I think that he cannot find enough people to park there. I may be somewhat repetitive because I have not seen a transcript of the previous hearing but it seems to us that very little has changed and that we therefore ask you not to grant the variance. If we look at the record we can see that R H P, Inc. a building permit for a neighborhood parking lot, this is in writing, the letter is clear the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is clear as you yourself have done in the hearing of December. It seems to us that regardless of what was said by city officials that the wording of the Zoning Ordinance is clear and that even if it weren' t that ignorance of the law is no excuse and I assume that the Zoning Ordinance is part of the law. It is also our understanding that this appeal is made on the basis of a hardship on the property or the variance is not granted but that you should consider the repercussions which this parking lot would have on the neighborhood. In the first place I wish to point out that R H P, Inc. had agreedto landscape and scree the parking lot and at the last meeting they submitted this drawing which I resubmit in evidence. The above mentioned document was marked into evidence as Exhibit 3. I would like you to anytime you wish to go to the corner where this parking lot is and compare it with the drawing, you will find -20- that any resemblance between the two is purely accidental. I wish to point out that as far as we know there are several tenants, we assume they are tenants of R H P, Inc. , because they park their car there between eight and eight-thirty and they leave between four an five and they disappear into R H Parks building which to us is presumptive evidence that they are tenants who are parking their cars there now in violence of the Ordinance. Some of these people not only park their car in violence of the Ordinance, but they drive into a one-way street in the wrong direction which is obvious .y hazardous not only to everybody but especially for children who may want to go to the South Hill School. I want to emphasize that thes three points are absolute violations of the law. With respect to the hardship we want to point out that in response to a question by you, Mr. Chairman, it is my recollection that Mr. Gallagher answered that the best use of the lot when the house was still on it would have been to rehabilitate the house and either rent it or sell it. If that is true and that is my recollection, to claim hardship now is similar for a slave owner to rape a slave girl and to claim that he can' t sell her because she isn' t a virgin. The claim of a hard- ship because of an oral understanding between Mr. Burns on the one hand and the city officials on the other hand seems to be invalid with respect to the variance. It seems to us that this is a matter that needs to be settled between R H Parks , Inc. and the city. According to the Ithaca Journal this matter is now before the court5. So far I have dealt with facts which can be verified and which are based on the records and my recollection that I have of the previou eetings . I would like to enumerate whatever repercussions there are we have stated them at previous occas bns . If this variance is granted it is the opening wedge for the residential area. It isl s I pointed out at a previous occasion it is like the slice of salami and especially if we use the apguement that was used by the ity Engineer that there should be a parking lot ine✓ery corner hen I can just foresee on the one side of Aurora Street parking lots and on the other side multiple dwellings and you could hardly -21- call that a residential area. Secondly it seems to us that if this variance were granted because of the mistakes or incompetence by city officials that it would be the South Hill residents who would have to pay for these mistakes rather than the whole city. Finally I want to state some of the things that have been said during the las few months and especially again in the last few days that in the United States we live under a government of laws and not a govern- ment of people, the law as you yourself have stated is clear and we hope and trust that you are willing to uphold your previous de- cisions. Thank you very much. NIR. GASTEIGER: Did you receive an offer of rental? MR. VAN TIENHOVEN: Yes I did but I live a goodly distance away and I could have rented from Mr. Dooley for $3. MR. VAN MARTER: Could you describe briefly the lot at the corner o Hudson and Columbia please? MR. VAN TIENHOVEN: I can' t tell you exactly what the size is but it is not very well kept, there is no hardtop on it as far as I know, it' s not a very nice looking lot but there are only two or three cars parked there. MR. VAN MARTER: There is no landscaping? MR. VAN TIENHOVEN: When we came to live there the lot was already there in that shape and I don' t know whether this was a variance or whether it was already in that shape. I don' t know the history of the lot. I might also point out that across on Hudson Place are there a number of parking lots which go with the apartments on Coddington but the parking lot is actually on Hudson Placeand some- times people will park there. CAROL BONNICHSEN: My name is Carol Bonnichsen and I reside at 507 Turner Placeon South Hill and I am speaking tonight on behalf of myself and my husband as co-presidents of the South Hill Parent -22- Teacher Association as such I would like just to discuss a few things that have occurred over the past year that relate particulary to our concerns in the Parent Teacher Association mainly the welfar and safety of our children. When the South Hill PTA first brought this matter to city attention it was two days before the building permit was issued that is on record that was a Planning Board meeting on a Tuesday evening. I myself took the letter which was written by then presidents William and Marilyn Norton as their representative as they could not attend and they had hand delivered a copy to the Mayor, to the Planning Board, and we had given copies previously to our aldermen, Anne Jones and Dick Boronkay. In that letter last years PTA presidents hearing from all the residents and what was going on and seeing what was going on were very disturbed and wished to bring it immediately to the attention of the city. They believed that there was quite a definite hazard if there was a parking lot there and they also believed from what they could tel from the Zoning laws that it was probably an illegal usage because even at that time people knew who had bought it and knew what the proposed use was and people felt that it was not right. Now since hat time it was two days later that the building permit was issued over our objections and this matter was discussed that night in the lanning meeting including the definition. Unfortunately I don' t elieve that there was a regular secretary at that meeting and the inutes did not get down quite as correctly as they should have. Since that time the South Hill Parent Teacher Association and its representatives have cooperated with the South Hill Civic Association 'n pursuing this in the best way that the people knew how to do. The first thing they were able to do was they appealed the decision f the Building Commissioner in granting the building permit after it was issued which came before this Board and it was agreed the definition seemed to be as clear to this Board as it was to the rdinary citizens who read it. The only thing that went on at this time when their construction had gone ahead during this time with o halt when the people first brought this up; personally I think -23- that it was probably poor business judgment at the time not to halt but this is just a personal opinion. So it finally came up to the point where the variance was asked when it was found that only a neighborhood parking area could be used and that was turned down by this Board of Zoning Appeals. Now in the time since that period particularly over the summer there have been very many complaints about residents in the area also coming to various people who are representing groups in the area; people complaining about the activity, about the lot looking unsightly a lot of cars and its seeming to be full all the time. There was another Planning Board meeting coming up at which this proposal was first to be brought, the proposal for a variance, so for two weeks before this meeting took place a survey was made of this lot and the cars that seemed to come and go from it. The time picked for this survey was that time when the children on South Hill went to school in the morning. There were cars parked in there overnight, I don' t know who they belong to but there would be eight to ten spaces that would be empty at that time in the morning during this time these eight to ten spaces were filled up every single morning. This was also the time when it was noticed that several people were turning the wrong way off of Aurora onto that one-way street in order to quickly jump into that lot before somebody else took the spot. These people left their cars and walked over to R H P, Inc. Now I'm not saying that R H P, Inc. was renting these spaces, that is not my intention at all. All I am saying is that nothing has been done to improve the lot or to rent it, that people are filling it up from the office complex. Also the people that live down there have noticed that there are very young children that are playing in that lot, may I remind you that this is across the street from the B-1 district where there are residential houses on both sides, this is a corner lot there are residential houses across the street on that block and on the other side. So we feel that any granting of a parking lot there, and at this time I have to say any parking lot, would create a definite traffic hazard for our children. The street is -24- really to narrow which is the reason it's one-way. If people are blatantly violating the law and half the people are using it now at the time when our children are going to school and they are blatantly violating the law in order to 'go off Aurora Street even if the street were changed back the other way wouldn' t they blatantly same persons violate the law to get out on Aurora Street and even if they, everybody were obeying the law as far as turning the right way onto the one-way street if you will look at a map if you have one around you will see that in order to either gain access or to get out of that lot you have to go through the resi- dential area; in other words you have to go out Prospect to Hudson or you have to come in that way depending on which way the street goes. So therefore it is not only just the corner there that is hazardous for our children, it' s also people crossing from the lower portion of South Hill who have to cross Prospect Street at that corner where we don' t have a crossing guard and also children who are crossing Hudson at that point and we definitely feel that the conditions on South Hill as far as traffic records are concerned because of our narrow streets, because of the heavy traffic on Hudson and Aurora that this is the worst place in the world to have any sort of a parking lotand I would very much agree with the Planning Board that as far as planning is concerned a lot has no use there whatsoever. May I make just a small comment just on my own. There are several lots that are rented for parking on South Hill, I would say that they are much smaller, I would say essentially they are nonconforming as far as the strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is concerned, nonconforming I mean as far as being paved but the lots are there. There are three empty garages behind my house they did rent for $5 a month. I got some information while Mr. VanTienhoven was talking, the lot he referred to rents for $3 a month, not $3 a week and personally I also got a notice to rent a lot, we have something we can put in a lot we have a trailer we can' t put on our lot, it' s to small, as I told the Planning Board -25- the other day I have taken it to private property out in the county and it isn' t because of cost but I don' t have to look at it, and my neighbors don' t have to look at it. MR. WILLIAMSON: Where are these other lots that you mentioned? MRS. BONNICHSEN: I can' t think who owns all of them, you would have to walk through there particularly on the east side of the gorge, you will see a trailer or two parked here and you will see some place where it says lot for rent. There are essentially, I believe, vacant lots that are owned by people who probably have residences adjacent to them and the garages I have talked to people I said there were three empty ones behind me which did rent for $5 a month, that' s a closed garage and other people I've talked to also mentioned this figure of $5 to $10 a month for renting an enclosed garage. It' s my personal feeling that the matter of how uch money you make should not be a function of this Board because you cannot rectify somebody' s business judgment as to how much money they should make. GASTEIGER: In your opening remarks you said something about being aware of who bought the property, can you put a date on that? S. BONNICHSEN: I believe what had happened, this week end it cam own, I don' t know somebody mentioned Columbus Day, it was a three ay Monday holiday, that was the day that it first came down where people could see; in other words you and I don' t know who has applied for building permits from the Building Commissioners' offic nless we go and look. Most of the finding out of the facts was one that week after the roof came off. We did not know back in 1971, not to my knowledge at least. i I� EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, SEPTEMBER 9, 1974 APPEAL NO. 1060: MR. MARTIN: I propose that we deny the requested variance. The evidence presented which was in addition to testimony taken at the prior hearing on appeal #1038 presented no new information on the effect of the proposed use on the neighborhood nor did it indicate other than that the position of the petitioner in this case and any resulting showing of hardship rests upon actions taken by the petitioner; namely, the purchase of the building for $17,500 in 1971 and demolition of the building in 1973, therefore, as at the prior hearing we find: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Any special circumstances or unique condi- tions making it impossible to obtain a reasonable return from this property appear to be a result of actions taken by the petitioner whether or not encouraged by city officials; such actions contem- plating a use not authorized by the Zoning Ordinance do not, in our vieA justify a variance; 2) There was substantial evidence that the use requested would pose problems of traffic safety and impose other harms on the surrounding neighborhood. There was additional evidence which tended to show that spaces in the lot could not be rented to residents in the area for a price of $15 permonth. Since this price, according to testimony heard, is in excess of that charged for other off street parking in the general area it is not clear that this demonstrates the infeasibility of using the property for such purpose. . KASPRZAK: I second that. OTE: 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 Appeal No. 1060 on September 9, 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 F. LISK STENOGRAPHER Sworn to before me this day ofiM :'r'-' 19 - u v $; Yorl.