HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1975-05-05 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW
YORK, MAY 5, 1975
------------------------------------------------------------------
At a regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of
Ithaca, held in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca, New
York, on May 5, 1975:
�• PRESENT: PETER MARTIN, CHAIRMAN
GREGORY KASPRZAK
EDGAR GASTEIGER
JOHN BODINE
C. MURRAY VAN MARTER
EDISON JONES, Building Commissioner and
Secretary
CHRISTINE SMITH, Recording Secretary
ABSENT: ELVA HOLMAN
Chairman Martin opens meeting, listing members of Board present
and stating that one member is absent and it takes four votes one
way or the other for an appeal and anyone wishing to hold their
case over to the next time in hopes of having a full Board present
may do so. This Board is operating under the provisions of the
City Charter of the City of Ithaca and of the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinances; the Board shall not be bound by strict rules of
evidence in the conduct of this hearing, but the determination shall
be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same. Th
Board requests that all participants identify themselves as to nam
and address, and confine their discussions to the pertinent facts
of the case under consideration. Please avoid extraneous material
which would have a delaying effect.
Commissioner Jones lists what case No. 1075 is to be.
APPEAL NO. 1075: The Appeal of William P. Sullivan for inter-
pretation for use variance under Section 30.25
Column 2 and 3 at 417 N. Aurora Street in a R-3
use district.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, there are
two things that we are asking for tonight. First is a interpretation
,of the Zoning Ordinance insofar as it relates to the definition
of Home Occupation contained under the definitions. As you know
from a prior proceeding that was had before you, we would like to
be able to use the premises at 417 N. Aurora Street as a portion
of the premises as a professional Law Office. At the present
time, my father lives at the premises, he intends to continue to
live at the premises and the proposal would make use of a portion
of the first floor premises as a professional law office. I suggest
to you that this comes within the definition of Home Occupation
where it provides it where a member of the family at least in a
relevant part, where it provides a member of the family residing
in the home, may conduct a business which is then entitled a
Home Occupation. The family living at the premises is the Sulliva
family a member of the family conducting the business would be me,
as a member of the family and I think that it does comport with
all the other requirements of the Home Occupation provisions. In
addition, we are here tonight asking you also for a variance. A
variance which would permit the use of a portion of the premises
as a professional law office. There are several basis on which
we make that request, with the permission of the Chairman, I
i
will defer those in some reform- until such time as we've had a
opportunity to put in before you all the evidence through the
testimony of my father, Mr. Sullivan, and through the testimony
of myself and through the testimony of Mr.' Agard, here present
L tonight.
MR. MARTIN: In other words you are asking for the chance to
summarize the support of evidence as you 'see it. I think that it
might make sense before .proceeding the request for a variance, if
there are any questions that there might be on this matter of
interpretation. Do any of the Board members have any questions
on that point?
MR. BODINE: Do you maintain a residence someplace other than at
this location?
MR. SULLIVAN: At the present time I reside at 310 Taylor Place
on west hill.
MR. MARTIN: Your argument is that the - language of the Home
Occupation section when it talks about residing in the dwelling
t
unit is referring to the family and not to the particular member
who is engaged in the occupation?
-3-
MR. SULLIVAN: I believe that is a fair reading of the statute
and again without getting terribly technical where there is a
question raised by a statute such as this, the courts have indicat d
that these type of statutes are derogation of the common law and
therefore, must be strictly construed against the municipality.
On that principal of interpretation and upon a fair reading of the
provision involved, I think that so long as a family resides there
any member of that family can conduct whats called a Home Occupation.
MR. MARTIN: I'm curious then, what' s you definition of a member
of a family is? I note that in the definition of family in the
Code, it speaks of persons occupying a dwelling unit presumably
together and then it goes on to limited by certain characteristics
i
(blood, marriage or adoption or other legal relationship) .
MR. SULLIVAN: Right, but a member of the family does not necessarily
1
have to reside there, I don't think. A member of the family is k
anyone related by blood or marriage to the family, which I think
is a basic definition.
f MR. MARTIN: May I ask the other side of it under the interpretation
you've argued for. How much living there does your father have to
do for it to remain his residence which would then allow you as a
member of his family to- practice law there.
MR. SULLIVAN: Of course, the law says where a person intends to
a
have a place as his residence, then that is his residence. My
father lives their, he votes from there, he occupies aportion
i
of the premises , he also in as much as he is retired from time to
time does leave the state for periods of time.
MR. MARTIN: So, theinterpretation you argue for is that as long
as it is one person' s legal residence however tenuous their
physical contacted with it, another member of their family anyone
related to them by blood, can use it for a Home Occupation.
MR. SULLIVAN: I think that is right.
MR. GASTEIGER: From the discussions that were made at the Planning
Board, their reference made to Anderson Zoning Law Practice,
New York State and your position to need a variance with their
interpretation from that source?
I �
MR. SULLIVAN: Well of .course, Anderson is a treatise that deals
with or purports to deal with a summary of applicable cases in
New York. I'm nottsure that the editorial summary has any force
other than persuasive force in law. To my knowledge this narrow
question has never been put before the courts in that context
before. In the narrow context that we are framing it here tonight.
This is a case, I think at least in New York, a first impression.
Are there any other questions on that? If I can, I would like to
go on to the question of variance. Whatever your determination
on the question of the interpretation is, I think when we deal
with the question of variance there is little doubt but what a
variance should be granted. I'd like to start, if I could with
the Zoning Ordinance itself, and a document upon which that Zoning
Ordinance purports to be based. That is the general plan which
was adopted in 1971 by the City Planning Board. That particular
document provided at least in relevant part page 29 and if I may
I'd like to read a section from it. "It is anticipated that
the residential character of the Fall Creek neighborhood will
a
continue in the future. The conversion of the large ,houses to
multiple dwelling units and offices is an increasing trend in the
neighborhood. Because of the large size of the building (south •�.-•-�
of Marshall Street) it is anticipated that the conversion of the
buildings will be contained within this area, that is between
Court Street and Marshall Street. The increased open space
suggested should enhance the residential character of the area"
and it goes on later to talk about proposals and it talks about
convenience commercial centers in the northern end of the neighbor-
hood that' s down in the Fall Creek area that it refers to should
not be permitted to expand. Constraints should be placed on the
neighborhood commercial center between Cascadilla Avenue and
Marshall Street. New convenience shopping centers in the area
should not be permitted. I think that the master plan anticipates
an expansion as far North as Marshall Street of the commercial,
'. professional, service oriented uses that we now see pushing into
the R-3 district. We are dealing here of course, with- an R-3
district or at least what the statute calls an R-3 district. I've
ii
-5-
done a survey and I'd like to submit before the Board some
photographs and as I . . . . . may I pass them to you?
MR. MARTIN: Are you entering these as evidence?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am. May I pass them to you as I describe r
them to you one by one. Is that acceptable?
MR. MARTIN: How many do you have?
MR. SULLIVAN: There are 95.
MR. MARTIN: Well, will it take 95 minutes or. . . . .
MR. SULLIVAN: I hope not.
MR. MARTIN: Okay.
MR. SULLIVAN: The photograph marked number 1 is a picture taken
on the Aurora Street over Cascadilla Creek which looks in a
generally westerly direction along Cascadilla Creek and shows both
Tioga Street where the first car is seen and Cayuga Street where
you see a second car well in the center of the picture much in
• the distance which I will be referring to later as I deal with
the other pictures. Incidentally these pictures were taken during
the first week of April, I myself took the pictures. Picture # 2
is a picture taken from about the middle of the 300 block of N.
Aurora Street looking north that is looking toward the subject
premises that we are referring to. Among 'other things in this
F
picture you might note the character of •the buildings in this
neighborhood which is some three or four hundred feet away from
the subject premises. • Many of the premises are less than a
block away. This picture of the 300 block of N. Aurora of course,
is a R-3, I'm sorry a B-1 district which permits a professional
law office' s in that area. The third picture is a picture taken
again in the middle of the 300 block of North Aurora Street looking
south that is looking toward what we might call the downtown
district and it shows clearly the commercial nature of the buildin s
in that area. Picture # 4 is a picture of the subject premises
417 North Aurora Street, in the rear on the right side of the
picture is a small house which is 415 North Aurora Street, about
which we will give further exhibits here tonight. Picture # 5
is the same picture but from a little different angle again of the
subject premises. Picture # 6 is a little closer view of the
-6-
premises of 415 North Aurora Street. Picture 3 7 shoe Wagner
Funeral Home which is located immediately north of the subject
premises and on the right hand side, of the picture you may see
the corner of the subject premises. Picture # 8 is again another f
picture of Wagner Funeral Home from a little different angle and
you may see in the right corner of the picture, the subject
premises. Picture # 9 was taken from the front porch of the
subject premises looking in a westerly direction and shows the
Teen Challenge Center located directly or nearly directly across
t
the street from the subject premises. Picture # 10 is one of,
in fact, it might be the only picture of residential buildings
shown within the R-3 district. It' s shown simply for the purpose
of showing the condition of repair of some, of the buildings in
y
k
that particular neighborhood. Picture # 11 shows the offices
of Robert Duthie a dentist, located at 436 North Aurora Street,
less than %2 block north of the subject premises. Picture # 12
shows the premises located on the corner of North Aurora Street
and Farm Street, again in the 400 block of North Aurora Street,
about Y2 block north of the subject premises occupied by and used
by Doctors Neish, and Gardner as dental offices. Picture # 13,
shows premises which are presently used at least in part by Mr.
James McCarthy for McCarthy Real Estate which is located approxi-
mately 1 block north of the subject premises. Picture # 14 drops
down to the 500 block of North Tioga Street about a block and a
half or two blocks away from the subject premises and it shows
the premises occupied by Judd Welch and other accountants as
part of an accounting business, again within the residential
district. Picture # 15, shows a picture of a house which is locat d
in the same relative position on Tioga Street as the subject
.premises are located on Aurora Street that is immediately north
of the Creek on the East side of the street. These premises
are used as a book store by a person by the name of Mr. Gould.
The premises shows a picture of that commercial use. Picture # 16
shows the Church is located in the 400 block of North Aurora Stree .
y .
"MSS�+Mk}�y :ew-iewr�'.w<.sc..armxw..ronx�a,.:.. •- _ ,.._..s....�.....,_f _ _...___
-7-
I'm not sure what the exact name of the Church is but, it' s the
Temple of Christ or Temple of Lord and Christ, I'm not sure of
the exact name. It' s in the northern part .of the 400 block of
North Aurora Street. I'm sorry Tioga Street. Picture 17, is a
picture looking in a generally easterly direction from Tioga
Street toward Aurora Street in the background you can see the
subject premises. In the foreground you see a sign which says
Tioga Street and this is a block away from the subject premises.
Picture # 18 is a picture of a building which houses several
dentist and several Real Estate Salesmen. The dentist are
Dr. Baldini, Dr. Cappucci, and Dr. Fey. The Realtors are J. D.
Gallagher Co. Inc. and I'm advised there are some seven or eight
Realtors which occupy or work out of the upstairs of this building
which is located a block away in a residential district from the
subject premises. Picture # 19, is a picture of a building locate
on the corner of N. Tioga Street and East Court Street which is
presently occupied by Fay Hewitt Realty and I understand there
are several realtors or several salespersons who work out of this
building. This is located about a block and Y2 away from the
subject premises again in a R-3 district. Picture # 20 shows
the Temple Beth-El located again in the 400 block of N. Cayuga
Street. It's about two blocks or a block !/2 away from the subject
premises. Pictute # 21, is a picture of 408 N. Tioga Street which
is occupied by a Realtor in a residential district. Patterson
Real Estate also Gardner Real Estate which involves management
of Real Estate properties in the City.' There are several persons
working for Mr. Patterson in addition to Mr. Gardner. Also in
addition to these uses there are at least two dentist offices in
this building. About a block or a little more than a block away
from the subject premises. Picture # 22 shows the Tioga Building
located immediate) north of
y the premises in picture # 21 which is
occupied and used for commercial uses by a number of dentist. Thi
premises is also located about a block away. I should also mentio
the 400 block of N. Tioga Street there is a picture which apparently
was not developed. Maybe my film techniques are not what they
should be, ;involving Weaver, Schempp and McNeill which is located
1 ,
x '
E
i>
Just south of the building housed by Gallagher Real Estate and
Doctors Baldini, Cappucci and Fey. I'd like to move to # 23 and
this shows a view of one angle of the northerly block of the 400
block of N. Cayuga Street which houses a restaurant, super market,
Mickey' s Market and also has a vacant store in between those two
buildings. I ask you to note exhibit 23 and 24 which follows
the view of the same premises from a different angle. The traffic
patterns in that picture shows the nature of the neighborhood
�i
there. Picture # 25 is a picture of a gas station which is locate
t
on the corner of Farm Street and Cayuga Street and I think it
speaks for itself. Exhibit # 26 is a picture of the North Side
R
Pharmacy in the 500 block of N. Cayuga Street. Again, that speaks r
for itself, clearly a commercial use in the building. Exhibit
# 27 is a picture of Guy Natali' s Insurance Agency in the 500
i
block of N. Cayuga Street. That particular building has what
appears to be a modern structure appended to the front of what
otherwise would have appeared to be a traditional residential
type home which is used for commercial use. Exhibit # 28, is a
° picture of the 500 block of N. Cayuga Street showing The Ithaca
Foreign Car Service Center. At the intersection of Cayuga and
Marshall Street. We then head back in a southerly direction to
the corner of Cascadilla Street and Cayuga. Street or Lake Avenue.
There is a picture of a business operated under the name of
Finger Lakes Typewriter and Adding Machine Service at the rear
of the premises on the corner of Lake Avenue and Cascadilla Street
I refer you next to picture # 30 which shows I believe Esther
Martins Real Estate Offices located in the 400 block, 425 N.
Cayuga Street again in a residential area, a commercial use. The
next premises are shown in picture # -31 at 417 N. Cayuga Street,
the identical number of the premises at 417 N. Aurora Street two
blocks west which are presently occupied by Robert Hines an
Attorney and used as Attorney' s offices. Since that time, the
~ time that this picture was taken, I understand a sign has been
added to the front of the building showing Robert J. Hines Attorney.
Picture # 32 shows again the corner of Cayuga Street and Cascadilla
Avenue, this is the west side of the street now where there is an
antique shop and a Real Estate Brokers Office, Phoebe Moore' s
Real Estate Office, again two blocks away from the subject premise
clearly a commercial use. Exhibit # 33 is a picture of a Beauty
or a house which houses a Beauty Parlor, I'm sorry at this time I
can't remember the name of the people, the address is 422 N. Cayug
Street.. Exhibit # 34, is a picture showing a house which also
houses a photo studio and again this is located at 408 N. Cayuga
Street but I don't remember the name of the people who operate
the Photo Studio, again 2S2 blocks away from the subject premises.
Next, picture # 35 is of 404 N. Cayuga Street which shows the
premises there occupied by several doctors. I think there are
four doctors or five doctors names on the plaque and I think there '
is another doctor whose name is not on the sign outside. Number
37 is a picture at 308 N. Cayuga Street which I recall is also a
doctors office although I don't recall the name of the doctor
there. Number 38 is a picture again in the 300 block of N. Cayuga
Street occupied by two Attorney' s. On the first floor Wesley
McDermott and Fred Weinstein. The second floor occupied by the --"
Speno family business. Number 36 which I passed over of course,
is a picture of the Tompkins County Library and that also I
suggest is not a residential use although it is located approximately
three or so blocks away from the subject premises.
MR. MARTIN: You are less than half way through the pile if I
recall your numbers. I think you can assume all the members of
the Board are familiar with the area and perhaps if you could
summarize them in groups, or if you like proceed one by one.
{
MR. SULLIVAN: What I'm concerned with is that if there is any
questions later on among you people- or for anyone else as to
what the pictures show so that it is clear what picture . . . . . . .
MR. MARTIN: Alright identify them as you wish, I'm only pointing
out that you may not be giving us a kind of total sense that you
want in any better fashion by identifing them one by one.
MR. KASPRZAK: Are these numbered?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they are.
MR. KASPRZAK: Can we accept them as evidence pictures number 1
through whatever they are?
- - 1
MR. MARTIN: His point is that he would like to be able to
describe them precisely what and where they are.
MR. SULLIVAN: What premises they are and that is not on the
pictures, I'm sorry.
MR. GASTEIGER: Could a list be submitted with the pictures?
MR. SULLIVAN: I don' t have anything in writing for you at this
time. I'm sure that you want to decide this case tonight.
MR. MARTIN: Can I suggest insofar as they come in clumps that
you can identify them by streets.. . . . .
' € s
MR. SULLIVAN: Picture # 39 is a picture of the Presbyterian
Church on the corner of Cayuga and Court Streets. Number 40 is 1 ;
a picture of the Episcopal Church on the corner of Buffalo Street
and away from J Cayuga Street just over three blocks the subject
Y o J
premises. Number 41 is a picture of the Dewitt Building, the
Dewitt Mall which houses several attorneys, several offices
including the offices of the Congressmen from this particular
district, several businesses and a number of apartments in that
particular building. Number 42 is a picture which depicts
the premises on the 100 block of E. Buffalo Street showing the
commercial nature of the uses of those premises for Open House,
for a Secretarial Service called Help Limited and some sort of
Boutique. Number 43 is the drive-in teller of Citizens Savings
Bank on the 100 Block of E. Buffalo Street.
MR.- GASTEIGER: Why are we looking at property down there in a
B Zone that are not relevant in this case?
MR. SULLIVAN: They certainly are relevant, Mr. Gasteiger, if I
may, they are relevant because what we are dealing with here not
withstanding, what the Zoning Ordinance says, we are dealing with
a area within three blocks, which houses more than 100 non-
residential uses and I'm attempting to show that within three
blocks.
'IUB, GASTEIGER: Could I make the point though, that there be no Y
Zoning on the basis of your argument.
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I think there is. It certainly affects the
value of the premises, I suggest it affects the value of the premi es
by restricting uses.
MR. MARTIN: But that would be true of any property.
MR. SULLIVAN: But that may be,, but I still thk that I'm entitle
to . . . . .
MR. MARTIN: Right, you're certainly entitled to present the
evidence and to argue that properties across t6e=2 line are
relevant to the issue. I do think arguably.; 1.- t4--` are relevant.
I said that we would raise again the question whether this is an
efficient way to make your point.
MR. SULLIVAN: If there is some other way that I could summarize
it, I'd be glad to do it.
MR. MARTIN: Please try the best you can.
MR. SULLIVAN: Exhibit 44 is a picture on the corner of North
Tioga Street and Buffalo Street showing the Telephone Building
which houses the equipment. Exhibit 45 and 46 are County properties .
45 being Boardman House and 46 being the annex to the Court House
in -the 100 block of Buffalo Street. 47 is the Ithaca Savings
and Loan Association Bank Building. 48 now on Tioga Street, the
300 block of Tioga Street is a Professional Building occupied by
' several attorney' s. Used by several Attorney' s I think seven or
eight at last count and an accountant and an architect. 49 is
the Court House property. 50 on the 100 block of East Court Stree
the Tompkins County Jail which incidentially is within a block and
a half or 2 blocks away from the subject premises. 51 shows a
view from Dewitt Park looking at the Baptist Church which also
fronts on the 100 block of E. Court Street. 52 is a picture of
the Old Court House. '53 shows a picture of the Ithaca Clinic for
Women which is located just a hair over 3 blocks away from the
subject premises and houses eight or nine doctors. 54 is a pictur
of another building which houses several doctors located just west
of the Ithaca Clinic for Women. 55 is The Chamber of Commerce
Building located in a residential area, I might add about 3%
blocks away from the subject premises. 56 is a building for which
you people have granted a variance in the past for use as a law
office, architect office, accountants office, which is sometimes
known as the Bank of Newburg Building located about 2 or 22 blocks
away from the subject premises. 57 is a building occupied by two
lawyers in a residential area, the offices of Norman Freeman and
Paul Tavelli located in the 200 block of E. Court Street. 58 is
a picture of the offices occupied by three Attorney' s, John LoPint ,
Mike LoPinto and Robert Stolp located in the 300 block of N. Tioga
Street. The other pictures between 59-64 represent all the other
buildings on the east side of the 300 block of N. Tioga Street
which show commercial premises including an insurance office,
another law office housing three lawyers, a office for Family
and Children Service, a office for the Drug Programming Coordinator
of Tompkins County, an office for 3 other lawyers a couple of
insurance companies being the new Thaler Building which we've all
read about in the papers recently and finally Reinhardt Interiors
which is a home decorating outfit. 65 is a picture of the YMCA
located about two blocks away from the subject premises. 66 is
a picture of the Telephone Companies Business Offices. 67 is a
picture of the Post Office and again, located within 2 blocks of
the subject premises. 68 shows a picture of a 5 story parking
garage which is located 2 blocks away from the subject premises
in the heart of Downtown Ithaca. 69 is a picture looking north
on North Aurora Street showing the Pine Tavern which is located
some two blocks away from the subject premises and other blocks
in that area. 70 is a- picture of the next shop down, The Oriental
Shop. 71, the next shop which is The Beam Travel Center, Inc.
72 a picture of Bools Flower Shop which is again traveling in a
northerly direction toward the subject premises within two blocks
of the subject premises. 73 is a picture of Stewart Home Alumni
Service which is located just north of Bools Flower Shop. 74 is
A picture of the Tectonics Building, ' the old Crescent Theater
which is now used for offices and where incidentially I have a
temporary Law Office two blocks away from the subject premises.
75 is a gas station on the corner of Buffalo and Aurora Street
which I think speaks for itself. 76 is a picture of the Unitarian
Church, kiddy corner from the last gas station. 77 is a picture
of the First Unitarian Church School Building at 306 N. Aurora St.
78 is a picture of 310 N. Aurora which is sometimes called the
professional building and actually it butts to the building of
-13-
Mr. Thaler recently built and there is another picture back on
Tioga Street. 79 less than a block away from the premises here
is a picture of a building which is occupied by Dr. Visnyei.
80 is a picture of premises occupied by Dr. Leone and McCarthy
Builders about % block away from the subject premises. We are
.now traveling to the east side of the 300 block of N. Aurora
Street showing the Boy Scout Offices and Community Chest or
United Fund offices in pictures 81 and 82. 83 shows the studios
of WTKO, the administrative offices of WTKO, a commercial radio
station located about % block away from the subject premises.
84 shows a picture of Mr. Richard Mulvey' s Office and his associates
Martin Shapiro, Philip Winn and Sally Jackle. I would note in
passing that that building is approximately 400 feet south of the
subject premises and houses both the City Attorney and his private
practice and also houses the Attorney for the Urban Renewal,
formally the Attorney for the Urban Renewal Agency here in the
City of Ithaca. 85 is a picture standing on the corner of Seneca
Street and Aurora Street looking South showing the clearly
commercial nature, I'm not talking professional now, commercial
nature of the buildings there. 86 shows a picture looking at the
east side of the 100 block of Aurora, showing the commercial
nature of the buildings in that area. 87 is a picture looking
west on the corner of Aurora and Seneca Streets showing the
commercial nature of the premises there, . including the tavern
or bar called The Dugout. 88 is another picture of the five
story parking ramp located two blocks away from the subject
premises. 89 is a picture looking north at the west side of the
200 block of N. Tioga Street showing the commercial nature of the
premises there about 2 or 3 blocks away from the subject premises .
We now come to exhibit 90 which shows the First Methodist Church
on the corner of Aurora and Court Street which incidentially
exhibit 91 shows a view faun the front porch of the subject
premises. 92 shows premises presently occupied by Theresa O' Brien
which are located nearly directly across the street. These are
residential premises which have several apartments in the building
4
-14-
I don't have a picture, which wasn't developed, of the premises
at the north east corner. of Aurora and Court Street which are
housed by Kiely Real Estate and Kiely Insurance. Mr. Kiely, of
course, being the past Mayor of the City of Ithaca. Those premise
are located just south of the premises shown in 93 which are
residential. The premises in 94 are the next premises in a northe ly
direction from 93. 95 are the premises which are presently owned r
s
and occupied by a family by the name of Carlson, which I understan
also, those premises have a use which is not strictly residential,
from time to time when Mr. Carlson teaches classes in those premis s
to students of his from the University. I'd like to if I may, and
I'm sure it is a relief to you after all of that, have my
father talk to you briefly about the premises that we are dealing
with 417 N. Aurora Street and the character of the neighborhood
as he has seen it develop over the past 20 or 25 years.
MR. SULLIVAN SR. : Good evening, my name is Bill Sullivan Sr. and
I live at and own the premises at 417 N. Aurora and also own the
premises at 415 N. Aurora. I purchased 417 ]ate in the forties and
I purchased the property at 415 in the early fifties, give me a
little leeway there. When I bought this home at 415, this
complete area from Buffalo Street down to Farm was primarily an
area catering to transits tourist. _ There were tourist homes
up on the 300 block both side of N. Aurora Street, there were
tourist homes on both sides of Court Street and Aurora Street. My
z
home was a tourist home, the home across the street was a tourist
home and there were a couple of tourist homes down the street.
At that time there -were no, in that area if. my memory serves me
right, there were no commercial ventures and by commercial I mean
-professional. North Aurora Street from the 300 block down was
primarily other than the church was primarily homes. Doctor
Forester had an office next . to the Unitarian Church. . Next there
was Mrs. Bates where Thaler is now. It was strictly residential
area, strictly. Through the years because of development in
other area, developments of Hotels, motels and such, the tourist
business deteriorated. These residents then changed into
e.,.•.r ews:....-.,... -..::_ ...•10....x.. ,o.,...t...
apartments bedause of personal reasons, illness in the family, I
was forced to do the same. I had to remodel and renovate and I
put apartments upstairs. The apartment business today, I think
you all know what it is, the cost of remodeling is prohibitive.
I have had a tenative price of trying to remodel my downstairs
into apartments of approximately $15,000 and that is just out of
i
the question. I' ll end up with two, three room apartments that
will have no numeral value.
MR. MARTIN: Could you describe again the present use of the
building.
MR. SULLIVAN SR. : I have three apartments upstairs and downstairs
I have a living area for myself. What the proposal is . . . . .
MR. MARTIN: Is there any reason to believe it wouldn' t be rentabl
as it is now as a single unit downstairs?
MR. SULLIVAN, SR. : I doubt very seriously if we could get an
adequate return. I just don' t think so.
` MR. MARTIN: Could you expand on the use to be made at 415 now?
MR. SULLIVAN.SR. : Well, if you want to talk about 415 when we
bought the house at 4173, 415 was a chicken coup. The people that
we bought the house from remodeled it into a small house. Several
years after that, of - course, they kept a right away, several years
after that to protect the front property, I was forced to buy it.
Through the years I have rented it to students, the reason I rent
it to students is because it' s too expensive for the type of house
that it is, it would be too expensive for a couple to maintain and
live in it with the heat and pay the rent. �.
MR. MARTIN: Have you had difficulty keeping it rented?
MR. SULLIVAN SR.: No, I rent it to the same students, the same
basic fraternity house for 15 or 18 years. Not the same students i
but the same group. The cost on 'it when you pay the water, heat, fj
light, it' s just not feasible. If it will help your thinking any,
I paid my -last Gas and Electric bill for last month and it was
nearly as much as my heat was for the first year that I owned the
house at 417. So. I have tried, I have tenants that have been
there for ears. One woman has been there for a and 1
Y 10 years every
f -16-
since she has been there I haven't raised her rent. The second
i
one has been there for seven years and I have never raised the
rent on them, so it is a real problem to make this financially
feasible. As I started to say, downstairs is occupied by myself
and my daughter. It is my expectation that I don' t believe I' ll
be there during the winter although I expect to be there in the
summer. It is to be my residence, it' s my home. It is the only
place that I have. I haven't lived-: anywhere else in 25 years .
And I hope to die there, but I hope not soon. So, the area has
changed as I've told you when we moved in we raised four children,
it was residential, the traffic was no where near what it is now.
c
When the University lets out in the afternoon, the traffic is back( d
up from State Street down to Court, a solid line of traffic. So,
I just don' t think that it is a place to raise children and
downstairs would be, if someone rented it and wanted children and
I'm sure would have children and I'm sure they wouldn' t care to
be next to the creep as it is or next to the traffic on the road.
Are there any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
MR. MARTIN: Thank you Mr. Sullivan.
MR. VAN MARTER: I have a question if you want to get into it.
�r
Bill lead us on a route around the area, at the time you went
there Dr. Carry had his home and office on the corner of --Farm =
and N. Aurora.
MR: SULLIVAN SR: Dr. Carry?
MR. VANMARTER: Yes, 'Dr. Carry.
MR. SULLIVAN SR: There was a, not a medical Doctor, I don' t
believe.
MR. VANMARTER: He was a physician.
MR. SULLIVAN SR: I don't remember him, Which corner of N. Aurora
. k
MR. VANMARTER: Where Dr. Gardner and Dr. Neish are.
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I don't know, that is down the other side, I
don't remember it.
MR. VANMARTER: This is the route that Bill Jr. lead us. Across
the corner Conklin Sanitarium. Corner of Tioga and Farm was
the Market Basket Store.
9
MR. SULLIVAN SR: I don't remember any store on the corner of
Tioga and Farm. I'm not saying that it wasn't there, but I don' t
remember.
MR. GASTEIGER: I'm not sure that I heard this but did you say
that you felt that the neighborhood had gone down?
MR. SULLIVAN SR: I don' t know what you mean by going down. No,
I'm perfectly content to live there. I'm not sure that I'd want
to live there and raise a family that I did 25 years ago. I don' t
1
want to give the impression that the neighborhood is deteriorated,
it has changed. We have a radio station in the next block which
f
was a single home, we have a Community Chest in the next block whi h
was a single home which I think was the Livermore Home. Across
the street we have an office building, so I don't think that it
is deteriorated I just think it has changed.
MR. MARTIN: Any further questions?
MR. SULLIVAN JR. I will pass out affidavits by Mr. Agard and
he is here to make a presentation which may vary from that
(affidavit) just a bit. That affidavit is sworn to May 5, 1975
and you may want to mark that as an exhibit.
MR. MARTIN: We are.
MR. AGARD: My name is Richard Agard. I'm a Real Estate Broker
with my office at 415 N. Tioga Street. I don't intend to read
that report that is there, if anyone has any questions. I would
t
just like to say I'm going to be extremely brief. That having
had my office in the area for 15 years, having lived two doors
from the subject property. Back in the early fifties,- we moved
I. believe in 1958 from the area, so I do feel that I can speak
intimately about the area. Both from a residential point of view
and from business point of view. I don't think that there is any
question of the character of the neighborhood has changed over the .
years. I would certainly take exception of any reference that
it has gone down and I don't think any connotation should be
attached to that. It' s just things do change. I moved my family
'from the area because of, to some degree, some of these changes
primarily traffic, I must admit. I would like- to say a couple of
• things that may or may not be a fine. edged kind of thing in regard
to granting a variance but they are things that I feel. I think
that sometimes we have to be reasonable in our judgement. I do
think that this location is very desirable for offices especially
for law offices because of its location relative to the Court
House, to the assessors office, to the County Offices in general,
to the banks and to other law offices which are in the area. I
think that there has been perhaps some concern expressed that
having offices in that area might make the neighborhood go down
and I think this could be just the opposite. I think that offices
in an area are very good neighbors. They are quiet, they generate
minimal traffic and I can speak from having been there. Personall
I feel that a refusal to approve this request, would in fact, create
a genuine hardship on both the owner of the property, Mr. Sullivan
Sr. who you've heard, who I suspect needs the income that this
would generate without the cost that would be involved in renovation.
I think Bill Sullivan Jr. eludes to the fact that I might speak
towards your question about could it be rented as a single family
residence? I don' t think that there. is any question that it could
be rented, it' s a question of highest and best use in my mind it
is a question of that and whether or not it would be a good return.
It seems to me that as long as Mr. Sullivan Sr. wishes to live
there and he doesn't need all the space this would be the best
most practical use. Whether or not it would financially, I have
not done a cost breakdown. I would suspect that it might not
return a very good dollar as a single family. I think that in
addition to the . . . . . . . .
MR. MARTIN: How many bedrooms are there in. the downstairs unit?
MR. AGARD: I think that there are three. There has been some
discussion I think, about the possibility of splitting into two
smaller apartments which certainly _would .be a feasible thing. I
just think that perhaps it would not be dollars wise acceptable
with todays cost -for plumbers and so on. I have not personally
gotten into that, I think perhaps Bill Jr. might speak to that.
I have not conducted any surveys of cost, I know what it cost for
plumbers and electricians however. I think that again this may
-19- ...
not be a point that could be considered but it seems to me that
it should be considered, is that whereas I think that a hardship
could exist for Mr. Sullivan Sr. also I think a hardship could
exist for Mr. Sullivan, Jr. I think he had a very personal family
reason for wanting to run his law office from this particular
location which was his family home and he grew up there and I
think that is hard to judge on a written report. I think further
that a refusal to grant this request would not be consistant
with the actions taken with other properties in the past. I
personally can see no valid reason for a refusal. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN: Any questions?
MR. BODINE: Dick, about half of the properties in this block
are being used for conforming uses either as a single residence
or home dwelling . What makes this property unique in that it can
not be used for a residential unit as opposed to the other properties
in the neighborhood?
MR. AGARD: Johq, I don' t think that there is any special thing
• that makes this property unique over your property or others. It
f' just seems to me that the circumstances right now and on this
property are unique, now again. . . . . . .
MR. MARTIN: You're referring to the per$onal situation of the
parties.
MR. AGARD: The personal situation of the parties which involve
t
property in my opinion. Now, I have not closely read the book and
perhaps I should but I can't obviously say that and I wouldn' t
say that this property is any different that perhaps a property
four houses or five houses away. The Spencer property where the
Spencer' s live which is perhaps five houses away and the Murray
family and others certainly a family could reside there, a family
did up until the Sullivans grew up.
MR. MARTIN: The book which tells us the three things that we have
to find to grant a variance, tells us that one of the things that
we have to find is special circumstances or unique conditions not
applying generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood which
prevent the land or building in question from yeilding a reasonabl
return if used for any other permitted use.
MR. AGARD: Well, again I could not speak to an exact interpretati n
of that. I would again say that in my opinion circumstances in:
this case would make it very easy for me to see beyond that. I
recognize that I'm over here and you're over there so I don' t
know what more that I could say too, to that point.
MR. GASTEIGER: Mr. Sullivan Jr. developed a case towards this
being more of a business district or at least closely aligned to
the business district and I think there was an implication that,
that depreciated it somewhat as a residential. What is your posit on
on this for instance, I've encountered Real Estate Agents that
say there is a growing need for residential property such as this
within easy range of churches, medical facilities, shopping and
so on.
MR. AGARD: I don't think there can be any quarrel with that, I
think that part of the Urban Renewal program was pointed in that
direction for certain areas which incidentially have not developed
quite that way. I think Stillwell could speak more intelligently
about that, Mr. Brown but I don't think there is any question
that there are . . . . . we can pick any subject mentioned and say
yes but or can you prove it. I don't think there is any j
question Ed, but what we need residential properties of certain
kinds. Now, if we are thinking in terms of a family and I know }
that there are families living close by that are quite content
but I think that we have to perhaps think in terms of a9 eneral
overall situation and it does seem, again perhaps I'm a little
bit biased, I'm certainly biased because I have an office in this
area and that I've invested a considerable amount in and I'd hate
to leave, somehow we got in there and I think we are legitimate
but we are in an R-3 zone. I don' t know what kind of a hardship
existed then but the fact remains that I am there and others are
there too. We didn' t have quite the same personal situation
involved.
MR. VANMARTER: Dick, I have a question in regard to hardship.
3'
Define for us , we must look at the hardship as it relates to
the building to the land. Could you speak to that? You mentioned
the hardship to Bill Jr. and Bill Sr.
:r�
-21-
MR. AGARD: I think I could elude to that Murray, but I think
again there could always be exceptions to this. I think that
Mr. Sullivan Sr. spoke very convincingly to me about the hardship
created by the size of the building and these are known facts
that can't be argued. I don't know what it cost him to apply
aluminum siding quite recently but I can expect that it was '
considerable and still we have the expensive cost to heat, and
taxes and so on. Whether or not that will be sufficient to pin
point this particular property, I don't know. I don' t know what
it takes Murray to create a clear enough outline for hardship
in any given situation. Again it seems to me because of the
circumstances surrounding this particular situation, I can see some
hakdship.
MR. SULLIVAN JR: Can I ask a question that might clear this up?
Dick, is it fair to say that the money or financial consideration
that you referred to about rents and the need to obtain a return
on a investment, a fair return, would apply to anybody that owned
the premises and not just to my father Mr. Sullivan Sr.?
MR. AGARD: Obviously, very definitely it would.
MR. SULLIVAN JR: Is there any correlation between rents with the
respects to professional uses such as a* lawyers office, one could
reasonably expect from that, and the rents one could reasonably
expect from residential uses?
MR. AGARD: Very much so.
MR. MARTIN: But that would be true also of any other properties
up and down the street.
MR. AGARD: Very definitely yes. Do you want me to answer the
question?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes I would.
MR. AGARD: I would say that the rent, we don't rent houses or
apartments on a square footage basis. Offices and commercial
space is, but if we did figure it on a square footage basis, it
would probably be roughly 2 to 1 or maybe 40% greater for the
office space than the strictly residential space. I think that
again, that on a comparative basis, could be considered definitely
a hardship. In other words if the space that we occupy now in
-22-
a R-3 zone had to be used as residential, it would be financially
unfeasible for Dr. Baldini who owns the building.
MR. MARTIN: But, my question is, isn' t that true of all these
properties on this street that are zoned R-3?
MR. AGARD: Not necessarily.
MR. MARTIN: Assuming that they are compatible with office use
one could up the rent by converting it to offices?
MR. AGARD: I would say that would be true except that I think
that as your question was put, it wouldn't be true necessarily
that all is the same because there are a number of properties that
just by virtue of their size they are smaller and more compact
and Imore compatible to a single family than other properties. Now,
I'm sure that there are other properties, large properties that
are more compatible to smaller apartments or commercial. This one
just happens to be located compatible to the Court House and others
where perhaps in the 500 block it wouldn't be as interesting.
MR. MARTIN: Are there any other questions?
MR. KASPRZAK: You mentioned in paragraph 5 that it would cost
about $14,000 to renovate that apartment and you are using someone
elses statement, then you inferred that the return of such an
investment, of the total property do you mean the three apartments
upstairs included or just the two apartments downstairs?
MR. AGARD: Yes, I would say Greg that the concept there as you
mentioned the $14,000 is not my figure it is one that Bill gave
me and I don' t know I suspect that to be very reasonable but it
isn't my figure. In all I'm saying that if it was in fact something }
near $14,000 to create another apartment on the first floor that
there in the total investment that Mr. Sullivan has in the house
now, plus that, probably would -not make it a sensible kind of an
investment. _
MR. KASPRZAK: In other words, you are not including the three
apartments?
MR. AGARD: Yes, sure it would have to. In other words lets assume
for a moment that the property as it exists right now, has a cost
factor or a value factor of $409000, this is just an illustration
it doesn't relate necessarily to the fact. If one spent an
additional $12,000 or 14,000 on top of that, it probably wouldn' t
be financially feasible, that' s what I think what was the clearest
illustration that I could make.
MR. MARTIN: Any further questions?
MR. GASTEIGER: I wonder if there is a trap here. If this varianc
were given and Bill Sullivan Jr. modified the downstairs into
a law office and his father took legal residence in Florida, then
would he not have wasted this investment?
MR. AGARD: I guess I don't understand the question, Ed.
MR. MARTIN: He is asking for a variance in this half of the case
in which event he would remain legal after his father moved his
legal residence.
MR. GASTEIGER: Then the whole question of Home Occupation. . . . . . .
MR. MARTIN: On the variance side of the case is irrelevant.
MR. SULLIVAN: May I ask one other question of Dick?
MR. MARTIN: Sure.
MR. SULLIVAN: Can you talk with the Board in terms of the need
for office spaces in the area which is encompassed or encompasses
the subject premises here. Is there a pressure away from the
downtown area for office needs in this area and what can we expect
in the future?
Nit. AGARD: Well, I don't know whether I could say that there is
pressure for offices. There is in recent months some pressure
for offices in this area. This created by the renovation of the
offices in the Savings Banka A number of offices, in fact, many 4
of the offices there have been asked to leave just as an example,
Dave Barr had to move and the Ithaca Board of Realtors had to move
and is in occupancy right across the street from my office which
}
is in a R-3 zone.
MR. SULLIVAN: So they moved. from a business district to a }
residential district, The Ithaca Board of Realtors?
MR. AGARD: We weren' t aware that we were in violation.
MR. SULLIVAN: I'm not sure that you are.
MR. AGARD: - I'm not sure that we are either. To answer your
question, I would say that there has been and probably will continue
-24-
to be demand for offices. I don't know if that is the answer that
you want, but that happens to be truthful, I think in that we
know of a great deal of pressure just recently created by the ;
Savings Bank, there have been in the past some of the similar
type pressures created this was a year or two ago, perhaps longer ,
than that when the First National Bank did the same thing.
They keep putting their own people upstairs. So, the location,
this doesn't speak to hardship now, unfortunately but the location
1
i �
of his is just so ideal for this kind of Real Estate or Law Office
because it is close to the Court House and that is very precious
to me but it may not be a hardship for you.
MR. VANMARTER: Dick, you speak in here about the pressures from ,
other professions like Doctors, dentist, lawyers and so on. Do
you recognize that the doctors, dentist and chiropractors are a
permitted use in these districts according to the Ordinance and
r ;
too, any of them might be a permitted use as a Home Occupation ` g
i
if they did in fact, meet the definition for a Home Occupation. -�
MR. AGARD: I'm aware of that.
MR. VANMARTER: Number two, do you want to speak to the general
r
plan? The general plan adopted by the City in 1971.
MR. AGARD: I did not mention it Murray. -
MR. VANMARTER: No, it was entered. Do you want to give it an
opinion?
{
MR. AGARD: You'd have to review it. You mentioned it Bill.
_ , a
s
It says here the pressure from Marshall Street up. Is that
what. . . . .
MR. VANMARTER: Yes, it was mentioned in the report. Would you
suspect that this might happen in any way other than (1) by
4
rezoning or (2) by variance on individual cases?
a
MR. AGARD: I think first, I' ll have to ask for clarification of
-the master plan insofar as it applies to what we are discussing.
I .again repeat, was it in regard to the changes in the Fall Creek
area?
MR. VANMARTER: How they might come about. . . . . . . .
MR. AGARD: Whether or not it was going to be by a variance or by
change.
-25-
MR. VANMARTER: Going to agree tht the changes may happen.
MR. KASPRZAK: May I enter this discussion since I was one of the
authors of this plan? It does not say in this plan and I quote as
Mr. Sullivan Jr. quoted and it might be taken out of context but
I' ll read it further. The part that he quoted is a description
of the current situation rather than the future projection of the
master plan and the future projection of the master plan reads
"Constraints should be placed on the neighborhood commercial cente
between Cascadilla Avenue and. Marshall Street." Otherwise, it mea s
don' t let it happen. It' s fine, we can let it happen and it
will go for ever, it will go all the way down to the High School
but if we talk about a master plan, we have to talk in terms of
what has been projected and I refer you again to The Land Projecti n
i
Map which clearly indicated this area is suppose to remain !
residential high density because of the pressures spoken of in the
paragraph before. Otherwise, there is enough support to rezoning 4
request or variance request by the master plan because it speaks
to just the opposite.
MR. MARTIN: Members of the Board have any other questions to ask
Mr. Agard?
MR. SULLIVAN JR: Mrs. Brown is here from• the Christian Science
Church.
MRS. BROWN: I am Louise Brown, Mrs. Stillwell Brown and I represe t
the trustee of the First Church of Christ Scientist on University
Avenue which has a parking lot on Linn Street which abutts the
property. I have no recommendation but we have certainly no
objections.
MR. SULLIVAN JR: I'd like to if I could, just a couple of things
to amplify this question about- the amount of money necessary to
renovate the downstairs. I spoke with Andy McPherson from
McPherson' s Builders and he gave me what he called a very rough
estimate that it would run just over $14,000 to make two apartment
out of the existing downstairs area. The reason for that is that
in order to make two apartments, it would involve the installation
of two brand new kitchens and one brand new bathroom because of th
existing structure, existing entrances and floor plan of the
y
-26-
structure. There was another factor too, that was mentioned and
that is that inorder to make this renovation it would involve
really a desecration, if you will, of the interior architecture
of the building. Anyone who has been in the building knows that
I
there is a double living room in the front of the building.
These double living rooms between them have a set of columns ani
kind of a grand passage way between them. In order to make the
changes necessary to convert these into two apartments, it would
9 Y p
be necessary to close off this archway and box in these structures
inorder to provide for both closet space and a doorway to a bedroom . '
I think this. . . . . . .
MR. KASPRZAK: The dimensions given on the drawings are approxi-
mately correct.
MR. SULLIVAN JR: The drawing that I handed out during one of the
recesses, yes they are approximately correct.
MR. KASPRZAK: I would suggest that if they estimated this, it
• is actually a good estimate and if you can do it for this mach,
grab it .
MR. SULLIVAN JR: Except it is not financially feasible to do it
for that much because of the return involved and I understand
and appreciate your understanding of the problem but when you
come to a return this ties into the -rents presently being charged
on the second floor. A total of $330.00 per month which includes
all utilities. $330.00 a month for basically $14,000 or $15,000 _
T
square feet of living space and in order to make that incremental
x
cost that we've referred to, anybody that had the premises would
run into the same problem.
MR. MARTIN: Projecting the upstairs rents, you are taking the
same frozen level that they have been?
j
MR. SULLIVAN JR: They are not frozen, they are the existing level
• because of tenancies long term tenancies. . . . . . . . .
MR. MARTIN: They haven' t been increased for a very long time?
F
MR. SULLIVAN JR: I might mention, the front apartment which is
the one which is been increased most often is $135.00 a month, it
is a one bedroom apartment, the middle apartment which has a
-27-
living room, dinette area, very small apartment with a bathroom
is $85.00 a month and I'm not sure how much higher that could go
perhaps I could go to $100.00 so lets call it $235.009 if you
want to project and the back apartment which has two bedrooms,
living room dinette and bath which is presently $110.00, it
could go perhaps to $135.00 or $140.00, which would maybe increase
the whole thing by another $50.00 a month. Again it doesn't
project in the terms of a great return on both the invested capital ,
the present value of the invested capital and the incremental
investment that would be necessary. I•d like to submit to you
exhibit # 3 which is a letter from Teen Challenge of Greater }
Ithaca.
Teen Challenge of Greater Ithaca
t
Directors: 412 North Aurora Street
Rev. 8 Mrs. Robert Mott Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-8936
May 2, 1975
William P. Sullivan
417 N. Aurora Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
The Executive Board of Teen Challenge met on April 29, 1975 and
expressed their views on your building located at 417 N. Aurora St. ,
as being set up as a law practice. There are no objections on the
part of Teen Challenge.
Much success in your endeavors.
Sincerely,
Carole E. Bowman
Secretary to Teen Challenge Board
4
• � ijjikk
n j
� 3
-28-
I'd like to also submit a letter from John Deal and Marian Deal.
May 5, 1975
112 Linn Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Chairman
Board of Zoning Appeals
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Re: Appeal of William P. Sullivan
Gentlemen:
We are writing to advise you that we have received notice
of Mr. Sullivan' s application to permit him to use a portion E
of his premises on North Aurora Street as professional law offices
For your information, our property abuts Mr. Sullivan' s property
on the east.
We are satisfied that the use of a portion of Mr. Sullivan' s
premises as a professional law office will not injure or change
the character of the neighborhood. For this reason, we urge
that the application be granted.
Very truly yours,
John H. Deal
Marian N. Deal -'
I'd like to also submit exhibit # 5 which is a letter from Theresa
O'Brien at 410 North Aurora Street.
May 5, 1975
410 North Aurora Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Chairman
Board of Zoning Appeals
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Re: Appeal of William P. Sullivan
Gentlemen:
I am writing to urge that. you give favorable consideration
to Mr. Sullivan' s application to use a portion of his premises as
a professional law office. My husband (now deceased) and I have
lived almost directly across the street from Mr. Sullivan' s home
for the past 54 years. I have seen the neighborhood change in
character from residential to a combination of residential-profess ' onG
I believe that the proposed use of Mr. Sullivan' s premises would
compliment other uses of neighboring premises.
Very truly yours,
Theresa O'Brien
0
-29-
And I would also like to submit exhibit # 6. ,
Burns Realty Company
January 27, 1975
To whom it may concern,
Re: Application by William Sullivan to utilize his property at
417 North Aurora Street, Ithaca, New York for professional offices
It is my firm belief that there is no rational reason that doctors
and dentists should be allowed to maintain offices in an R-3
residential zone, and other professional occupations such as
lawyers should be excluded.
It seems to me that it is a distinct hardship on Mr. Sullivan that
he is not allowed to utilize his property for professional offices
My experience in the past has shown that such operations have
caused an upgrading of the neighborhood, rather than a detracting
influence.
I sincerely hope that you will consider the fairness of Mr.
Sullivan' s application, and grant him relief.
Yours very truly,
BURNS REALTY COMPANY, LTD.
John C. Burns
President
I've spoken with Mr. Burns tonight and he authorizes admission of f.
this to you people tonight. Rather than take any more of your
time, you have been very gracious in the time that you have allote
in a nature of a summation, I just like to close with this thought
the whole purpose of the Zoning Variance is to really ameliorate
the harsh edges of the Zoning Ordinance. What we have here is par
property which even conceding Mr. Kaspr2ak' s reading of the
master plan will really be locked in to a residential use in a
area that would otherwise include professional and other commercial -0
uses on a mixed basis. This is so because immediately north
of these premises, is Wagner Funeral Home, it has been operated
as a Funeral Home in the past for many many years and presumable
it will continue to be operated as a Funeral Home. To isolate,
to make an island out of this one piece of property in the
projections is near to us as 1990 that Mr. Kasprzak is referring
to, I think is something that is terrible harsh and that is the
whole purpose of a variance. We've come before you tonight, we've
shown hardshio. Mr. Agard was I think was more than candid. He
really wasn' t sure what you were looking for in terms of your
definition of hardship but what he said, I think is no reasonable
return can be made upon the premises given the investment, given
the current value of the property. For that reason we have shown
hardbhp, we've hsown the nature of the neighborhood and incident
ially just by calling it residential, it doesn' t make it residents 1,
I don't think. I think you have to look at the existing uses.
We've tried to show .you those. Within the R-3 - area, let me rephra e
that within the two blocks north of Court Street, between Linn
Street and Cayuga Street there are some thirty uses of existing
structures which are not commercial or which are not residential
in nature. These include things like Wagner Funeral Home, Mickey'
Market, and they include a number of other structures. Including
)j
numerous professional offices. I'm going to ask that you deliber-
ations on this matter be made in my presence so that I may know
what it is that concerns you in the event that there is some j
opposition of the Board. I will stay tuns l you've completed
your deliberations and I ask to be present at the time that your
deliberations are made.
MR. MARTIN: Well, you will be present at the time that we announc
our findings. You're asking to be part of the executive session
which we hash out and debate the merits of various bits of evidenc .
That is totally contrary to the rules of the Board. We do re-
emerge into public session after executive session and state
i
our findings and you are welcome to that public session.
MR. SULLIVAN: I'd like to be present during any sessions that
you have any deliberations relating to these premises.
MR. KASPRZAK: Just for the record the neighborhood that you are
speaking of is 53% residential.
t
MR. SULLIVAN: So that means it is 47% non-residential.
MR. KASPRZAK: No it doesn't. It means also that 33% of the area
considered as a neighborhood is a street. So that makes a need of
a neighborhood a residential neighborhood 85% . . . . . . . .
z
MR. SULLIVAN: That is in the two block area between Farm . . . . :
Oh, alright now you're talking about everything in Fall Creek.
I'd like to limit our consideration to two blocks.
MR. KASPRZAK: We can' t do that Bill, you know that.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is not true. I'd like you to limit your
consideration to the two blocks between Court Street . . . .
MR. KASPRZAK: I can't! You have commercial on one side and you'r
x
taking residential on the other side. You expect me to mix it and
say consider it that way. I can't do it.
f
MR. SULLIVAN: I'm asking you only to consider the. area between
Court Street and Farm Street which is two blocks on Linn Street,
Aurora Street, Tioga Street and Cayuga Street and see what your
percentages are there. I suggest that the percentages are
terribly different than:53% and 33%.
I
-31-
MR. KASPRZAK: Under the new perrameters it is definitely so, I
won' t argue that.
MR. SULLIVAN JR: I have nothing further.
MR. VANMARTER: The route on which you lead us north included
for instance Real Estate Office in the 500 block, McCarthy for
instance, would you agree that that is a legal Home Occupation?
MR. SULLIVAN: I'm not questioning, the dentist operations are
legal there are some thatrl don' t know whether they are legal or
not perhaps you will want to go ahead and look into those but
the dentist operations and doctors operations are legal. The
lawyers operation at the Bank of Newburg Building is legal because
you have given a variance, although it is in a residential area.
We're not talking about legal we are talking about what is the
area, is it residential or is it commercial? Through the use of
variances you people can control the orderly flow of businesses
into this area and I suggest that this is an appropriate case in
which to take that step.
MR. VANMARTER: I agree and I say it is to be done under the out-
line of what is called for in the way of hardship you have mention( d
for instance Mickey' s Market are you aware that a restaurant in
a business district. . . . . .
MR. SULLIVAN: I understand that that area is an island, it is a
area that is spot zoned bwtween Cascadilla Creek and Farm Street
1i
for a strip of % block northerly and it includes Mickey' s Market,
1
it includes the Old Frozen Gold Restaurant, the Busy Bee, I think
it is called now, it includes a gas station, it includes the
pharmacy, it includes Guy Natali' s and it includes the Ithaca
Foreign Car Service Center. That may be business zoned but I'm
saying that it has an effect on the whole neighborhood and I
think that ought to be clear. You ask anybody whose home was or
may have been effected by the fire at the Northside Liquor Store
when it burned down, the old store which is in that same area.
That has a direct effect upon the areas immediately surrounding
that V2 block zoned business that is on the map.
r
—32—
MR.
2MR. VANMARTER: Okay, you agree that it is on the map and that
it does exist, it existed even prior to 1951.
MR. SULLIVAN: Alright, I don't know when the last change was,
I will note for you that there has been no effective change in the
zoning in the 400 block of N. Aurora Street since. . . . my memory
slips me as to when the amendments were made but for the last
10 or 15 or 20 years there has been no change in the zoning of the
400 block of N. Aurora Street, or Tioga Street or Cayuga Street
and yet the character has changed. Witness the action of the City
in placing parking meters in the 400 block of N. Cayuga Street.
i
The parking meters aren't shown in those pictures that I passed
out because they were put in between the time I think it was April
9 when I took them and todays date which is May 5. The parking
meters in the 400 block of S. Tioga Street. There has been public
mention about placing parking meters in the 400 block of N. Aurora
Street. This is not consistant I suggest with residential areas
normally in residential areas you don' t have parking meters
normally.
MR. VANMARTER: Do you agree then, that the proper way to cure thi r
area would be by rezoning? '
MR. SULLIVAN: That may be fine as you will know, .we"_'bane=had
.an application before the Common Council since January to do that.
MR. VANMARTER: No, I didn't know.
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I'm telling you that now. To help alleviate
some of the hardship involved here. Nothing has been done on it,
I shouldn' t say that, whats been done has not reached a conclusion
we don't know how much longer it' s going to go. I have personal
3
commitments that I've had to make. That is why I've come back to
a
you. It has cost me well over upwards of a $1,000 is what it
has cost me in the five months to conform with the Zoning Ordinance.
And coming back to now at thispoint trying to show you the hardshi
involved not the personal hardship, the hardship running with the
land. I suggest to you that I've done that here and I strongly
urge you to take affirmative action with respect to the request.
MR. MARTIN: Now, I think that we. have some more who wish to
-33-
speak on this case. Is there anyone else who would like to speak
in favor of the appeal? Anyone who would like to speak in
opposition?
MARVIN CARLSON: Members of the Board, I'm Marvin Carlson. I
reside at 407 North Aurora. I think a picture of my residence
• was one of the last that you received. I reside in the house
which is next door across the creek from the property in question.
I find this a rather awkward situation in that our limited
acquaintance with Mr. Sullivan has been very pleasant and I find
it difficult to speak against him particularly in that I recognize
that the Sullivan' s are an established family in the neighborhood
and an important part of the history and the traditions in the
neighborhood. I think what concerns me the most, if I may state
it briefly, is to take part of Mr. Sullivans summation. What
he suggested, if I'm quoting him correctly, by means of variances
this Board may expidite the orderly flow of business into this
district. This is what we are afraid of, frankly. We are much
interested if at all possible in preserving the residential
character of the neighborhood. My wife and I moved into the
neighborhood two years ago. We are fairly long termed Ithaca
residents, 15 years now. We've never lived in the downtown area
before. We made a choice to do so: We've not at all regretted
r
that choice. Many of the things that Mr. Sullivan has mentioned
to you and has shown you pictures of we find very nice to be
near. It is most convenient to us with two children, 8 and 10
years old. To be just two or three blocks away from the YMCA and
the Public Library and doctors offices and downtown. We and
they like to be able to walk where ever we want to go. Indeed,
we walked over here this evening. We .like this sort of convenience.
We're concerned about the possible pushing out of the downtown
area into residential areas and making it difficult or impossible
to have this convenience and this accessibility to the downtown
. area. I think that is really the main thrust of what I have to
say. There are several statements that Mr. Sullivan made, nothing
.that he says in terms of the description of the structure of the
+ � -34-
area, could I dispute. I do think, I'm sure many of you recognize
that a number of these are only a number of the representations
that he gives on only a partial representation. It is of course,
true that there are a great many businesses in the area though
the businesses as his presentation indicated and as the pictures
indicate, are of course as you go toward the concentration of
businesses around Mickey' s Market and of course as you move
downtown. Very few pictures indeed, I don' t know that any of the
pictures out of the 95 go in the other two directions from the
house. Of course, if we look at Linn Street, just on the other
i '
side instead of ?foga Street, we don't find anything like this
pattern of usage. If we go the same distance on, instead of
i '
going west, if we go east we find ourselves in a two block radius
t
going past the church out on Cascadilla Park which is a quite '
lovely residential area, one of the loviest and most desirable s
in the City of Ithaca, I think. There are few if any non-
conforming usages in that direction from the buildings. The
• business district certainly does move in close to this area, this
obviously is a part of the way the zoning works. The residential
zone indeed stops at the corner of our block. It is our hope that
it will continue to stop there and this will be maintained a
residential zone. I think the only other thing that I might
remark about is the question of to usefulness and the accessibilit
t
of this area to the churches, schools and court house. We're
of course, very much aware that the same thing that makes this a
desirable residential area for us that is accessibility to a number
of downtown things, the Post Office what have you the banks of
course make it also desirable for lawyers and other professional
people as well. I. think the only remark that I might make about
that is that it is our understanding that there are in the downtown
area a great number of potential vacant offices. Clearly these
are not as desirably for someone like Mr. .Sullivan who already has
an investment in a particular area but I don' t think that the :.
argument can really be made that there are no other accessible
areas for law practices. Indeed some of them I think are in the
V V '
1
f
pictures that you were showing. The Dewitt Mall, for example
has areas. I think the only other remark that I might make has to
do with the argument about hardship and a return on an investment.
Again, it would seem to me that this argument would have to do
with the use of the building itself. That is, if a building is
once conceived of as an investment, then one could argue about
the return but if the building as most of the buildings in the
area are, is conceived of as a residence. then the sense of finding
a return, it seems to me is not or should not be operable in
quite the same way. We don't make money on our house, either.
f
It' s only when one begins to think as the house as a business
operation that it seems that that question should arise. I
think again just to sum up that it would of course, as I think I
s .
said to begin with, be perfectly satisfactory with us and we would �-
beuite leased to have a home next to us a residence which had
q P �
a non variance use in it. If we felt that over a period, I would
hope, many years that we would be living in this neighborhood
that we could rely on the Sullivan' s to continue to maintain
this, We have a double concern, a concern that indeddperhaps
the older Mr. Sullivan might leave and we find simply that we have a
a law office next to us or even should that not happen, the
passing of this variance might set an example and a reference
s
point for further variances which would continue to erode the
neighborhood.
MR. MARTIN: Any questions?
MR. GASTEIGER: In respect to hardship the question of renting it
to a family came up, you have children in this neighborhood, do
you care to comment on that? Has that been a hardship in the
terms of raising your family, the traffic backed up?
MR. CARLSON: No. Our children are 8 and 10 as I say and they
walk each day to Henry St. Johns School, so obviously traffic
holds no terror for them. They need not of course, we are in an
area where they could go to Fall Creek, Henry St. Johns, or
Central which is another advantage. We have an option and they
prefer Henry St. Johns. With younger children this might be more
-36-
i
of a difficulty. I guess I could only say that the house immediat ly
behind our house on Linn Street, this weld be 405 Linn Street,
is now being in the process of being purchased by a young family
the Uren' s. The house immediately to our left on the other side
.' of us from Mr. Sullivan' s has been, I'm sorry the Uren' s are next
to us, the Monoaks are behind us, another young family. There are
two young families next to us. The neighborhood is not a neighbor-
hood with alot of children in it. Most of the residetial use
is older people in the neighborhood. I don' t think that there is
anybody in the immediate vicinity that has children precisely to
our age. So, I can only say we haven't had any difficulty. But
there are not alot of families to have that evidence.
MR. MARTIN: Any further questions?
MR. SULLIVAN: May I ask a question or two.
MR. MARTIN: Surely and he may have a few back to you.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Carlson, would you agree that one of the
reasons why there are so many older people in the area is because
of the fact that the area really isn' t suitable to children?
MR. CARLSON: No, I think that it mostly a matter of as in your
own case, it' s a long well established neighborhood. Many people
like Mrs. O'Brien across the street have simply lived there for
many years. I don't know what the particular motives are . . . . . . .
MR. SULLIVAN: Several apartments in Mrs. O'Brien' s home aren' t
there?
MR. CARLSON: There are two other apartments in that home.
MR. SULLIVAN: Are any of them occupied by children?
MR. CARLSON: No, as I say, I know of no other children within
this area.
MR. SULLIVAN: Let :me ask another question. Can I ask what you
spent in renovating your particular home?
MR. CARLSON: You can, I don' t know if I remember. I spend a
good deal. I've done a lot of the work myself. - Pat, . can you
help, what would be . . . . . When we moved into the home, it was in
very bad repair, indeed the roof in the back of the house had
completely collapsed and the bank required us inorder to take a
-37-
mortgage to spend $5,000 in renovation, which we did immediately.
I would say that since that time we probably spent another $5,000
in renovations.
MR. GASTEIGER: I didn' t feel free to ask the value of the Sulliva
property.
MR. CARLSON: I assume that it is germane. . . . .
MR. MARTIN: Well, it' s largely irrelevant and as long as you
are willing to answer, I'm. not going to protect you but. . . . .
Do you want to ask any more questions?
MR. SULLIVAN: Will you agree on Linn Street, there is a Church
on Linn Street. . . . . .
MR. CARLSON: Oh yes.
f
MR., SULLIVAN: There is a rental office for an apartment or
for a Real Estate person involved in the reatal of Real Estate
by the name of Theron Johnson on Linn Street, that I did neglect
to mention.
MR. CARLSON: I don' t know about that, but I assume thatyou are
right.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is in the 100 block of Linn Street. Are you =R--
aware of that.
MR. CARLSON: I'm not.
MR. SULLIVAN: And on Court Street 1n the 300 block of E. Court
Street, just around the corner from your premises, you will agree
that there is also an office of Help of Ithaca?
MR. CARLSON: Yes, that is correct.
MR. SULLIVAN: And that has been there for a period of time.
MR. CARLSON: Yes. That is a home office. That is a residence. a
MR. SULLIVAN: I don' t have anything else.
MR: MARTIN: Thank you Mr. Carlson. Is there anyone else who
would like to speak on this case? I don' t want to leave dangling
Mr. Sullivan' s suggestion that he will follow us into executive
session. I will defer on that question until we get ready -to go
into executive session so that we don' t have a large to do over
it now. But I'm disposed to rule against his request but I will
invite argument at that point and reaction to the Bard to the issu .
MR. SULLIVAN: While you are taking up the next case, could I
-38-
review the rules of the Board that you are referring to that
relate to this?
z
3
f
is
EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA
MAY 5, 1975
APPEAL NO. 1075:
MR. MARTIN: I move to deny Mr. Sullivan' s request for verbatim
transcript. Pursuant to our standard procedure, we do not make
a verbatim transcript of the deliberations in executive session
of this Board.
MR. KASPRZAK: I second that.
MR. MARTIN: For the reasons that I ruled to exclude Mr. Sullivan '
from our executive session, it would be inappropriate for the
full session to become part of the full public record of the heari g. '
VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 0
REQUEST DENIED
1075 Interpretation
Request of Interpretation of Home Occupation ;
MR. MARTIN: I move that we reject the interpretation we were
asked to make by the appellant, Mr. Sullivan. I would move that
we construe the reference to family in the definition of Home
Occupation in paragraph 42b of section 30.3 as being limited to
those members of the family who reside in .the dwelling unit
and not extend to members of the family who live elsewhere. This
interpretation is strengthened by the definition of family in
paragraph 28 of section 30.3 which limits that term as used else-
where in the Zoning Ordinance to related persons occupying a
dwelling unit.
MR. KASPRZAK: I second that.
VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 0
INTERPRETATION DENIED
. i
1075 VARIANCE
MR. MARTIN: I move to deny the request for variance.
MR. KASPRZAK: I second that.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1) The Board is not empowered to rezone areas in response to
changed conditions or its own view of desirable development. Befo e
EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA
MAY 59 1975
granting a variance the Board must find pursuant to Section
30.58 b3 of the Zoning Ordinance that . special circumstances or
unique conditions which do not apply generally to land or building
in the neighborhood justified it. We do not consider such finding
supported within the record of this hearing. A great amount of
the evidence presented by the appellant attempted to show a
condition in the neighborhood which would have an equivalent effec
on other properties there.
2) , Any finding of hardship which might support a variance must
rest upon condition of the land or buildings and not the personal
circumstance of the owner. The evidence presented failed to
establish that the building because of unique conditions, not
applying generally to other structures in the neighborhood could
not reasonably be used as permitted use. In fact, there was
substantial evidence that such residential space could be rented
in this neighborhood and that some families find this an attractiv
place in which to live.
VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 0
VARIANCE DENIED