Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1975-12-01 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, DECEMBER 10 1975 At a regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, held in Conon Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca,, Now York, an December 1, 1975: PRESENT C. Murralasprmsek Vanarter, Temporary Chairmw Gregory John Bodine Elva Holman Edgar Gasteiger Edison Jones, Building Commissioner, Secretary Christine Smith, Recording Secretary ABSENT: Peter Martin The first order of business was to elect by a unanimous vote C. Murray YanKarter as Temporary Chairman, in the absence of Chairman Peter Martin$ Temporary Chairman, V'anMarter opened meeting list members of Hoard present and stating that one member is absent and it takes four votes one xray or the other for an appeal and anyone wishing to hold their case over to the next time in hopes of having full Board present, may do no, This Board is operating under the provisions of the City Charter of the City of Ithaca and of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinanceai the Board shall not be bound y strict rules of evidence in the conduct of this hearing, but e determination shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same. The Board requests that all participants identify themselves as to name and address, and confine th*lr discussions to the pertinent facts of the case under consideration. Please avoid extraneous material which would have a delaying effect ppeal No. 1101: Appeal of 232 Giles Street Inc. for an area variance at 4101 Columbia Street and 212 Giles St. under section 30.25 Col. 11 in an R-2 district. CLUNE: Good evening my name is Robert Clune and Ifa an%oy in Ithaca, New York with the firat Mazza, willismson and Clune d I represent before this Body, 212 Giles St. Inc, which is an orporation of the shareholders of which are Jack Squior and illiaaa A. Dillon Jr. Mr. Squrier and Mr. Dillon are present here tonight to assist ae if necessary and answer any questions th .t the Board may Ivo. This is an application for a variance in order obtain a permit for occupancy and it pertains to two sets of 2 townhime :aparteeents located in the Giles Street, Corbin Street area. As the Board may know historically, this corporation ac in 1962, property with frontage on Exiles Street and then in 1967 they acquired property that was behind the Giles Street property, or to the south and also that additional property that they acquirid in 1967 had some frontage on Columbia Street* with respect to the property that they additionally acquired in 1962, there was +coags ucted, nine townhouse with frontage an Giles, there- after in 1967 they constructed on the newly acquired property which sits in back of the townhouse apartments that were built on Giles Street, thirteen (13) townhouse units. The ingress ant egress for the townhouse units are located on Giles Street, is by virtue of the chiles Street an a public Street, In other words their ingress and egress to the Giles Street units is by Giles Street. With respect to the townhouse un.i.ts. that are in back of or to the south of the Giles Street apartments, those townhouse units access is gained by way of Columbia Street. There is a unopened and non public Street from Columbia Street called Charles Street which services and serves the occupants of those 13 units located on Charles Street and behind the Giles Street units. In an effort to place these two groups of townhouses in the personal names and witt personal ownership in the ttockholders, it was decided by the stock. holders that they would dissolve that corporation with Mr. Dillon taking one not of the townhouses and Mr. Squiur taking the other not. The problem arose and the reason that we are before the Board of Zoning Appeals is that in dissolving that corporation and split- ting these two properties, we find that with respect to the properties that are behind Giles Street there is no frontage except the 24 foot unopened public street, Charles Street, which fronts an Columbia. So are do not have the required frontage for the second row of townhouse apartmeasts. The use to which the apartments will be put upon a disillusion of this corporation, with Mr. Squier taking one not of townhouses and Mr. Dillon the other, will be exactly the same as the apartments are presently being used. That Is the Giles Street units will still be serviced by the same tract 3 of land that it always has been, the ingress and the egress to the Giles Street units win be the seas* as it historically has been that is by way of Giles Street. The use and the occupation of the units behind the Ghee Street units, we call these the Charles St. units for clarification will be utilised by the tenants and by the particular owner in the seats fashion, That is they will have the sage area that they have always had and enjoyed plus the ingress and egress to these Charles Street units will be exactly the same as it has been historically, That is they will gain access to their units by virtue of the drive which opens up on Columbia St, So, in view of the fact that they do not intend to change the use in any fashion whatsoever, but simply to dissolve this corporation of which Mr. Squier and Mr. Dillon are the sole stockholders so that Mr. Dillon can have one not of apartments and Mr. Squier the other, we aft this Board for a variance. MR. VAAWTERs I recall none history in regard to the application for the original construction, could you review that? Are you familiar with that? MR. CLUNES I an not, but I recall air, that you were the Building Commissioner during this period of time. I think I can only guess because I wasn't a party for that application but I sum aise what happened was that when there was an application to build additional apartment units, and the lend was purchased, that at that time in view of the fact that Giles Street had sufficient frontage for bo apartment units even though ingress and egress was not going to be gconstruction aiinedd by the y�proposed now units, the building permit van issued wid V 7s�t3 uctioii MR. VANMARTERs I asked Ed this morning if he would bring with his those records, if I could ask his now to...,.... .. have you had a chance to look at them? MR. JONES: Yes, here in the full case. Mgt.. VANKARTER s Do you have any information in regards to lot size of the two an they originally were constituted? MR. CLUNES Yea, I submitted to Mr. Jones ,the surveys of... ,. ..., MR. JONES a I have thews here„ Murray, but they were so big I 4 couldn't copy then on any of the equipment that the City has here, so I brought thea all along. MR. KASPRZAKt Mr. Clune as far as you know, this is the only requirement of the City Zoning Ordinance that you can not meet, and that is the frontage? MR. CLUNEt That is correct air. MR. KASPRZAKt Can you tell us the number of units on eaaeih property? MR.CLUNEt Use the ones that front fineediataly on Giles and have access and ingress from Giles Stwwt, there are nine unite an that plot. On the back plot there are 13 units. MR. KASPRZAKt How many parking spaces are we talking within each property that is available? MR. CLUNE: Each property has at least two parking spaces. MR. KASPRZAKt Per unit? MR. CLUNEt Yes. MR, KASPRZAK: In other words, you have 26 plus 18? MR. CLUNEt That is correct, MR. KASPRZAKt Theis 26 will be exciting to Columbia Street and sti are at the moment? MR. CLUNEt That's correct. The topography let so point out to the Hoard for those *he are not familiar with this area. The top. ography is-sauch that immediately behind the Giles Street nits there is a significant incline; so that the back units based an historically based on the topography, do not utilize and can not utilize the land that the Giles Street units are an and vice versa. MR, KASPRZAKt Was this originally built under the Department of Devoealopaent district or built under the R.-2 requiremea�t apa�to CLUNES I can't answer that. . YANMARTERt If you don't mind this is the kind of thing that I'm looMg for Greg and the lot sim-wftpened out here and anagms some of the questions, I'm looking for the case..... , . CLUNEt Lest me point out to be helpful to you when, I looked at that development plan and the requirements back in 1967, I noted that in order to qualify under that plan the now units would have to access by a roadway that was 40 feet in width which leads me and our roadway is not that wide, which leads ae to believe that e building permit was not issued under M. KASPRZAK: when you say roadway, I presume you mean the right. • of-way? MR. CLUNK: The aright-of-vay, the driveway. MRS. HOLMANt The driveway is in fact the frontage that is being discussed? M. CLUNE: That's correct. MR. KASPRZAK: leo you have any idea, the size of the total prope ? In aeras of sq, foam or....«..«. MR. VANWTER: I have figures here that I have pieced out and on the- original 46,700 sq. feet for the 13 units. Appar atiy a total. of 1130000 sq, feet there is considerable amount of acroage in their, I have to bel vm that application had to do with some- thing like parking In the front yard, MR. GASTEIGER: Are these uniform units, one bedroom, two bedrooms MR. CLUNE: They are uniform structurally and let rte ask..««.«,«.. MR, SQUIER: ?hey are all three bedroom townhouse, each with their ova garage in the basement, where you drive into the garage, two floors on the hillside in other words, two floors above, living roe and dining area, bath, kitchen and the second floor three beds and a bath. MR. GASTEIGE.Rs when this was taken to the Planning and Develop. went Department the question that comourrance with the Board of Public 'forks and the Fire Department was raised, has there been any action on that? They approved of the request oweulitional upon the concurrence of the Board of Public works and the Fire Depart. sent that no problems would be caused by the division of the development into the two separate corporations, MR. CLUNE: Nell., I must ten-,,you that nothing has been donee In that area because we have never thought of any problem with respect to that and I don It know of my problem that there would be t: regarding that in that to gest to Charles Street units the 13 units 6 the access would always be the sane as it has been historically when we received our building permit and the same for Giles, the access would be the same. MR. SQUIER: The hillside site is such that the Charles Street units, the pavement that you drive in on is higher than the roof- tops of Giles Street and they are very separate as a matter of fact when we did build then we talked to the Fire Department. MR. GASTEIGER: Well„ I'm curious to know to to why that was ins* here unless they thought there might be some problem, MR. CLUNE s I was not at the Planning Boeaard MR. SQUIER: It was virtually mentioned in passing that this perhaps should be brought to the attention of the Fire Department but thatfs all that was said. KASPRZAKs In terms of the fire r*quost, I would assume the reason why the Fire Department was requested to pass a coaaeent an it was because of the danger of an accident of the equipment the drive- way only being 20 ft. wide doesn't give than extremely comfortable • access especially in emprgen+cies when people are coming and going. iMR. SQUIERs of course, this is the *KXxting width and as I said when we built it we went over it with the Fire Department and got their approval on the general meabanics and nothing is changing, MR. KASPRZAK s In an emmmmmm itgency, is there any other entrance or access or exit rather, they could use? MR. SQUIERs lea►, nor has there ever been, MR. CLUNES I might point out to the other members of the Board once you traverse for a distance of approximately 100 ft. the area in front of the apartnonts opens up sea that there is quite a Large parking lot in fent of the Charles Street units so that if there was any question about access for the fire vehicles, then I;d Just lige to make that observation that ftore isa- a parking • lot in front that would give you additional width: and space to traverse back and forth, MR. SQUIERs It's truly two land traffic without any problem at all even for fire vehicles. i MR. KASFRZAK: Did you ever attempt to acquire any property to enlarge the properties? MR. SQUIERt Well, actually there is just houses along the street there. There is no room and frontage available. MR. KAgPRZAKs You do have a pretty sizeable property in the back and with it comes only one access like this and it sakes it awfully difficult. MR. GAgTEIGERs Did I read that you own the two story frame dvelling with a two car garage and sold it? MR. SQUIER: Yes we did. RR. GAIGER.t so you lott frontage by doing that. MR. 3QUIERt It was a seperate piece essentially at all times. Actually, although I mould say there was frontage and although it would satisfy things theoretically there was no more access so it wouldn't satisfy anyway. MR. VANMARTER: - I cant quite satisfy myself on when the application was made before, unless it related to parking front yard on the first unit and second, the same question that occurs tonight on the divishon of the ownership Chats frontage on public way. The ownership will be divided? MR. CLUNES That is correct. MR. YANMARTERa Transfer of title and in each case? MR. CLUNEt That's correct sir. If the variance is granted it will be divided pursuant to the manner of which it was acquired. The original tract will go to one individual and the other tract will go to the other individual. MR. KAgW=t Can you relate this situation to the subdivision requirements at all? MR. CLUNES We say that the subdivision requirements are not appli cable for the following reasons: (1) That it never was a one tract of land we acquired it separately for *operate purposes. (2) As I understand the definition for a subdivision, it's for the purpose of selling the property or for the.... . . ... MR. KASPRZAKs The purpose of subdivision of land whether it is sold or not. 8 MR. VANMARTER: We might correct the definition division of more than two. MR. KASPRZAK: No more than two or more. MR. VANMARTER: That's what I questioned and needed corrected. Yvi can't divide into less than 2. I haCin mind more than two. MR. KASPRZAK: Two or more. MR. VANMARTER: I'm saying more than 2. Two is not subject to subdivision regulations. MR. KASPRZAK: I think that it is. MR. UNMARTER: 4k, that was the question. MR. CLUNE: That definition if I could call it to the Boards attention sags that the division of a parcel of land into two or more lots or parcels for the purpose of sale or for building development and at the time when we discussed it with the Planning Board we suggested to them at that time that we have always had two parcels our deeds are seperate parcels, one for the Charles Street units, one for the Giles, they have never really been merged other than the fact that there is a common owner of these two seperate tracts. We also indicated to them: at that time that it wasn't for the purpose of selling, we don't want to sell, we just want the stockholders to.. .. .. . .. . .. .. MR. KASPRZAK: In all fairness we don't have a jurisdication over the subdivision, I'm only questioning because the Planning Board has the SWYdivision regulations, MR. CLUNE: They did ask us and I feel thattwe satisfied them. MFL KASPRZAK: They did rule that it wouldn't be a problem of sub.- MR. Wi�isi..Wn.. . .+wi. i. . • sub» MR. CLUNE: That 18 correct. MR. GASTTEIGERt Will Charles Street be part of the 13, that proper is part of the 13 units that you call the Charles Street apartmuent . MR. CLUNE: Yes sir. MR. GASTEIGER: So that a single individual will own and be reopen sible for that. MR. CLUNE: That is correct sir. MR. VANMARTERs If you will emouse me for delaying I've got some- 9 thing rattled is the back of my mind and I can't think what it is. In fact you're saying thea that parcels sever were infact joined? MR. CLUNE: That is correct sir, MR. VANMARZER: Each one stood as a seperate emity but had the some ownership. MR. CLUNES That is correct sir. MR. VANMARTER: So. now if it is transfered to two individuals they remain precisely as they have and no implication for the subs• division that has been discussed. MR. CLUNES That is correct sir. MR. VANMARTERi An I correct that these were constructed so that there is individual service and so on to each unit? MR. CLUNES That is correct. MR. V'ANIARTER: The potential of this was that it could is fact involve individual ownership of individual units under the law. MR. CLUNE: That is correct. MR. VANMARTER: Do you read any implications in this. M. HOLMAN: So that in fact the units then could be sold off individually. MR. VANMARTER: By MRS. HOLMAN As condominium type. MR. VANMARTERs And with the additional investment each unit was provided with individual. service. MR. GASTEIGER: it's always been that way. MR. VANKARTER: That is correct, MRS. HOLMAN: Is there any intent to sell the property is that fashion. MR. CLUNE: No mars' it was at a time when there was a great deal of discussion about condominiums so when they constructed them they covered that area but let no suggest to you that the price and the cost of transferring these into condominiums is extremely excessive and there is no intent presently by any of the owners to do anything like that. MR. SQUIER: Let me add one thing, they are not apartments is any sense, they are like rural houses in Georgetown with a 12 inch 10 i Imasonry wall between each and each parson controls his own utilities and pays for his own utilities and he has his own furnace and so forth. They were conceived as individual houses in any case as for function so that they would be different apartments and it wasn't just a notiim of a dorm tiutms we wanted to provide two tovnhouses not apartments. MR. VANKARTERs May I ask a direct question, would it put a burden on you if we put this condition upon this variance that these not be sold individually? ISR. KA9PRZAKt When you say they will not be sold individutally# could you explain that because I believe under the present fl a in the City they can not be sold individually. MR. VANMARTERt I guess I don't understand that. MR. KASPRZAKt I don't think that they can be sold individually beca*se there isn't sufficient land to maintain the propac .. ...;.. MR. VANMARTERt alts this is what would have been necessary by cluster, clustered in fact ok, that's not a good question then men excuse me. Any other questions? MR. CLUNEt Let as point out to Mr. Gasteigar, he indicated that when we sold off a piece of Umd, possibly we could have kept a little more frontage an that dwelling house and I wanted to sugges to him that the problem we had is a very huge maple, very close to the driveway, very pretty maple. As a matter of fact and In order to obtain more frontage on that driveway, we would have had to of uprooted that and we gust didn't feel that that would be appropriate for the �tdwei3.3ng. t,.,.. t,,, MR. VANMARTERt I rber clearly the parcel in question was the private home of the owner of this land that was acquired. Is that correct? MR. CLUNES Yes, wry Pew was his name. MR. VANMARTERt It was clearly stated in the hearing that this was not a part of for economical reasons, could not be made a Part Of and should remain $Operate and should be available to be disposed of or Rept as they did choose. Any more questions? i . DILLON: Id like to say that as we are all concerned with all 11 of these types of things in our community that it's worth hearing about changes in the neighborhood or building closer to a neighbor or environmental or ecological impact, nothing of that type is transpiring itts paper transfer that's all. The property remains the same, the entrance and egress remains the same, the fire exit is sate, it has been for the past 6 pears and it in a two ray street going in and out. Nothing essentially changes it's paper transfer period. As far as the neighborhood or neighbors or anybody nothing changes, tomorrow it's the same as it is today, nothing changes as far as anyone outside is concerned. MRS. HOLMAN: The patterns of occupancies have changed a bit, I think, I can't resist that. MR. VANMARTERs I'd like to close with the misunderstanding of the Planning Board putting an conditions of this over which we have no control and this Hoard can not be responsible or act for recommendations of the Hoard of Public works or the City Fire Department, Anyone rho would like to speak in support of this application? Let the record show that none appeared. Anybody present who would care to speak in opposition to this application? Lot the record show the sauce. That aonoludes the hearing an this aas% I 12 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 9 CITY OF ITHACA,, EMCUTIVE SESSION DECMM 1, 1975 APPEAL NO x ].01ou w•�iwMw+rwwwn w� wr MR. GASTEIGERt I move to grant the area variance under this application,. It is granted for the existing thirteen (13) units and shall in no way pertain to ar► other units than the existing thirteen (13) units. MR. BODINE 1 I second the notion. FINDINGS OF FACTS 1) Testimony shows proposed use is no different than existing use 2) The effect on the neighborhood is not changed. 3) Application contains no provision for additional living units or change in density. VOTE t Yes - 3 No - O Application has been granted,. 13 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACAt NEW YORE, DWEMBER It 1973 APPEAL NO* 11Q2, The Appeal of Paul T. Ward at 202 Bxyd3.ge street for an area variance under section 30.25 column 13 in an R-2 district. MRS. YANOFa Ladies and gentlemen, my was is Elizabeth YAnof and Ila an attorney in Ithaca. Ism representing Gladys and Paul Ward who are here tonight as are several of their neighbors. We're a applying to the Boal of Zoning Appeals under Section, 35 of the General City Law for a building permit to build a garage on land which appears to be on aimped city street but land to which the City apparently has not acquired title. I thin Ind like to give you a bit of background so that you will kaon why it is that we are here under that section of the law, The Wards own the props immediately adjacent to what is shown on your maps as Treva Avenue and that section of Treva Ave=* has never apparently been utilized as a city street, although it is shown on the maps as Treva Avenue The Wards deed indicated that their northern bomudry goes right up to the edge of what is called Treva Avenue and if you stand on Bridge Street and look at the Wards property it appears from the my the grass is out and the general topography that their boundry at the north goes several feet beyond the edge of their driveway. The Wards decided that they wanted to build a garage at the ends W'their driveway and appLi.od a permit. It was at that point that they discovered that the boundry Tine of Treva Avenue does not go 5 or 6 feet on the north aide of their driveway, but in fact goon right down the middle of their driveway. I haventt mentioned in the application or the letter for the permit but you should know a little bit of the background and that is that the Wards thought that crate solution to their problem might be that the buy the land known as Treva Avenue from the City and then they would have no trouble in getting their permit to build their garage , They were told that they could buy the strip of band which would be 8 feet in width by 148 feft depth for a nominal price, What happened was the proper procedure was followed to enable the City to sell the Wards this property but it turned out that the neatnal price came to almost $700 and it wasnft wi.tbin the Wards desire 14 ior means to pay $700 for this strip of land which was 8 feet by 248 feet. The majority of the $740 pride was $500 for what was the appraised value of that land. The appraised value was $500 and frankly the Wards never thought that it would be appraised so high because if you appraise each 8 by 148 strip of land in that area at $5th you come out something close to 190dCan acre. The Wards had purchased their own property in 1972 for not very mush more than that with of course, the existing house. So the Wards then decided to explore other means by which they might get *beir, building permit and that is why we are here tonight. Several cases mere discovered indicating that it the persons deed indica that they own right up to the edge of the moped city street but umn*d by the public, then in fact, they own to the center of the Street. Similar to the ownership to the center of the Street of public highways which are owned only of coarse subject to the rights of the way to the public. But the** are no rights of ray granted to the public in a case like this because the street is zot used. The other aspect of the Wanda appo&l to this body lies in the fact that the City apparently never acquired title to that strip of land shown as `!Teva Avenue. I say that based on my own examination of the abstract of title to the property. The Wards abstract covers their own parcel of land plus land to the north all the way up to state street. There is no deed to the City In the abstract at all but there is in 3.911 a right-of-way gran to the city to lay a water main and my understanding is that the crater main is now on what is known as Treva Avenue and if you go out there, the water main is obvious, where it has been laid, itis obvious. That is the rather tedious route by which wen got here although I think the proposition is simple. The Wards would like to build their garage at the and of their driveway and they would also like to do it before the weather really turns cold. It seems that section 33 of the General City Law vas the appropriate vehicle so here we are and I will try to answer questions and as T said the Wards are here also. MR. VANMARTER: You have described to us a routine by which the property could be conveyed and you have gone through the motions i of having the apprasial and the arrangement of a sale by the City to any bidder as required by law. MRS. YANOFs That is correct. MR. VAN ARTER: Ok, and this has not been not, MRS. YANOFa I'm not sure what you mean that it has not been net. MR. VANMARTERs The sale was not held and there was no bid, MRS. YANOF: The auction was held although no one made a bid. MR. VANMARTER: Right, ok, so infact the routine of trausfering the land in question has not been net? I'm saying clearly in my mind as you have described it and as I read from the Letter which came as a memorandum, it's outside the Jurisdiction of this Board to entertain such an application if it is provided for in the Municipal Law the routine was described and it was gone thio and included bidding and it was not connate and this is clear. outside the purview of this Board, I believe and I'd like to hear any suggestions that you have or what the Board members have. MRS. YANOFa We11, as I understand it that was one of the choice* that the Wards had was try and salve their problem but another &operate and completely digit choice was to apply directly to this Board under Section 33 of the General City Law. The reason I hesitated when you asked the question about transferring the ownership of the property to the Wards which is a good question because we are here before you saying that we are aonteRnding that the Wards own the property alroddy. The reason I hesitated in answering your question was because the City said that they would give a quick claim deed to the Wards of that property. They never claimed that they owned the property but that they could give clear title to the Wards, they simply said that they would grime whatever interest they had in the property to the Wards and when I spoke to Marty Shapiro he indicated that part of the procedure is not to check whether or not the City has title but simply to draw the deed which would give whatever right the City has to that property to the Wards. So it wasn't really a transfer of title$ it was simply the City giving up whatever claim it had to the land. MR, VANKARTZRS It would occur to so, follow this if you will 16 please, if they did in tact exercise a quick claim deed, this is something you could take to the County Clerk and get recorded and this would become either a part of that lot or the use of it wound be permitted in conjunction with that lot, In that ba.siaal y correct? MRS. YANOF: It would become a pert of the history of the title yes, but it is not a guarantee that ownership of the land would ithen be Ah the Wards, it would simply be that the City was grantLng any ownership rights that they had in the land to the 'Wards. If in fact Mr. X awned the property and lived `yelsewhere, it doesn't matter where he lives but if Mr. X 'in fact owned that property the City can still grant a quick claim deed. +4 the land to the Wards which preveats the City from naming ate' plaiming any owner■• ship but it doesn't prevent Mr. X from coming and saying that he *vne it. MR. VANMARTERt Ok, you have described a second routine that aou11l be completed to arrive at the use of this land, And that has not been done. MRS. YANOF: That is correct. MR. VANMARTER: I would suggest and Ism speaking to the Board members now, that this Board is constituted under the prrovidions of the General City Law in section 81 and I suspect very strongly that this is under State Zoning Law and the purview of the Board is limited to those duties described in the Zoning Ordinance, Now, you hens described a second routine and neither one of these have been consumated, is that correct? MRS. YANOFFt I'm not sure what you mean by the second routine? MRS. VANMARTER: The first one was the bidding by public sale, MRS. YANOF: Yes. MR. VANMARTERt The second one was the City exercising a quick claim dried. MRS. YANOF: That was part of the first plan, MR. VANMTER: I see, MRS. YANOFt It was part of the bidding, had the auction taken place and had the Wards bid on the land the City would have then signed a quick claim deed. That's part of the first procedure, 17 MR. VANMAARTER: Ok. The quick claim deed is in liew cf a direct transfer which involves all rights for ever thea? MRS. YANOF: It's in liew of a warranty deed which mould give free title.... ..... MR. VANMARTER: Ok, so the City van not even in a position to furnish a warranty title? MRS. YAKOFFs Apparently not.. M. VANIARTER: Right, I nes. I'd like to hear from the Board members oomments please. MR. BODINE: It would seem to me that if the Wards own the propefty they don't need a variance to build there. If they don't own the property any variance that we give them„ vouldn't be any good MRS. YANOF: May I respond to that. As I read Section 35 of the General City Law, if the action must be initiated in the Board of Zoning Appeals. This isn't an appeal from d denial, this is an action initiated in this body because Section 33 says that you owk apply directly to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a building permit in a situation like this. MR. VANMARTER: That may be but I will read our instructions to this Board and the only way wW application gets to this Beard is by an application under a special permit or by the denial of an application or permit to build or an application for permit for occupancy. Now, I believe that is the extent of our duties and powers. MR. KASPRZAK: Actually if I may add there is another Item that you haven't mentioned which is taking this case basically out of our twisdiction. And thit is the action of the Council in terms of the master plan which indicates that Treva Avenue is going to be used as a public right-of-vay whether it is or not, is not the issue right now, not by us anyway. Therefore since the Council has adopted such plan we can not overrule them under any circumstances no I would suggest that you get together with Writhe the City Council or the City Attorney or somebody. MRS. YANOF: Ok, I think that Mr. Ward wants to respont to that. MR. VANMARTER: Mould you cess forward so that we can get it on Us 18 tape and in the record please. MR. WARD: In response to that last question, I'm not sure that it is to the point of the question but I'd life to point out that the Hoard of Public Works is on record as of August, I believe wi respect to this portion of Trove. Avenue as saying that it is Burp us land and that the City has no plans of using it whatsoever. MR. KASPRZAKt Its sorry but the Board of Public Works can not rule a legal decision on the Council at this point. MR. VANKAR.TERs The master pias has status, it is an official document and it has been adopted and it is I would suggest vhat 1972 it 3. MRS. YANOF: My understanding and one of the reasons of appearing before the Planning Hoard was to clear up any questions about who the pians for that particular area might be and the Planning Boards recommendation being that......... M. KASPRZAK: That might be true but.. . .... .. .. MR. VANKARTER; That's right I don't get this opportunity very often but I'm going to directly and openly otiticiae the kind of recommendation we get from the City Planning and Development Hoard and the record is clear here, this has never been done beta and I'm speaking directly and I will read this for the benefit of those people who do not have this copy. Director of Planning and Development Van Cort then informed the Boadd that he had discussed the case with Attorney for the City, M. Shapiro. It was Attorney Shapiro's opinion that since the City had done an appraisal of the propOty and put the property out-toy-bid, at a cost of approximately $154 at the request of the Wards, that no permit should be issued until this money has been reinbureed to the City. This is absolutly no concern to this Board, the infor- mation maybe of value to somebody but not to us. This mer continues "after discussion it was resolved that "the Planning & Develop mt Board recommends approval of the variance on the basis of planning principle, and hear is a Board which didn't in great part formulate the General City Plan and here they have chosen to ignore it and they use the word planning principle 19 further " and leaves vesolution of the legal question to the Board of Zoning Appeals". This is entirely out of our provence always has been and I hope it will be, and the Attorney for the City, now this is directly after in the first sentence having sal that they had confirmed with the City Attorney. I think that it s a share whon a city department does this to a property owner, citizen and somebody who has an interest and is m king an applicat- ion to this Board or any other such routine. I think that they had thought perhaps that they more trying to assist Mr. & Mrs. Ward and Its suggesting that they had not. MRS. YANOFs Something that continues to confuse ue is the fact that as I understand it is that Council passed the plan to sell the property to the Wards and it seems to as that inorder to have passed that they must have believed that they would not be using Treva Avenue as a Street. So, I don't understand that apparent inconsistancy. MR. KASPRZAKs This is nom against you or the Wards, this is strictly going by the books and unfortunately we have no legal Jurisdiction. They dial not explicity indicate to us or anybody in the City that Treva Avenue is no longer going to be used by #� City under condition therefore, it can be disposed of as they wi Just became they night have completely forgotten about it, that' all it means to so. Just because they didn't concur when asked about it they said they would sell it. Does not dispose of the legal status as is. I do not want to be put in the position in which are have been before and taken to court. Fortunately we've been lucky so far. MRS. YAN©Fs I hear what you are saying is that the Council has done something to indicate to you that this property can not be used by the Wards or anyone else because it will be used for a City Street and what we know that they have done is to look at that question directly that specific particular question and said we are not going to use it for a street, it's alright with us to sell it. 20 MR. KASPR=t I hear you loud and clear but the enabling lsgisr- lation does not give them the lattitude approach to be direct and until they ars our hands are tied, MR. VANMARTERi I don't remember the Heard being in this kind of position before where the question remained. In oar experience this question has not come to use In this forac, I think that it is clear in my mind and I can surest a recourse for you, in my thin"*Fgand certainly yours from the legal standpoint has considerably more weight than my thought. I can't remember the Board being in a position before and I think that it is extremely aid and I certainly apol i.g ae to you for the war I have to look at this and what's been indicated by at least one Board member I don't have a solution and I don't have a suggestion truly. It you have other questions that you would like to have us rose or it there is a specific question you would like to have us address to the City Attorney, I'd be glad to entertain that. MR. KASPRZAK: May I sp eat something? MR. VANMARTER: Yes, please. MR. KASPRZAK: A letter from both sides be sent to the City Attor. ney to look into those two letters and give us a clear legal statement to what we are in pagers to do. MRS. YANOF s The two manners coning directly here en the initial application for the permit and the ratter of the City. . . . .. . .R. MR. KASPRZAKa I think that it is quite critical and I think that wee should have some sort of legal indication, MR. JONES: I bellreve Mr. Shapiro has spoke to Mr. Martin about this thing being two collegues and I gather from my conversation from Mr. Shapiro, if the Wards were going to be willing to pay the City the cost of the appraisal, that he Would be Trilling for t them to use that S toot of land with the full knowledge that if the City ever wants it, that they would hase to vacate it. mRS. YANOF: Since that has been brought up, let me speak to that specifically it I may. Although it was my belief that it might be 21 inappropriate for me to bring it up. Thor Wards have no objeetio for paying the City the money which the City has expended on the advertising and in order to get the appraiser out there to appraise the property. If this Board or anybody else can figure out a procedure by which the Wards could pap the City back for that but not pay the City the $5W which it was appraised at, that's fine with the Waris but I don't know what procedure that might b and I think that Mr. Shapiro's poisition that he has no objection if the City gets reimbursed its $150j is appealing in some senses but has nothing to do with what the law is as I understand it. MR. KASPRZ.Agt I mould agree with you. MR. VANMARTERa Absolutly pitiful. I would suggest if it would be acceptable to you that we do not act on this and that we hold the application and direct the two questions specifically to the City Attorney and perhaps some more of our am, if thatxs acceptabley to you, I'm afraid that that in the best that we can offer to you at this tine, MRS. YANOM I think that we will take it, if that is the best that you can offer. MR. VANKARTERs Thank you very soh. MRH. HOLMANt I would favor a special meeting sof this Heard if the rest of the Board ambers would concur to consider the answers to those questions before the and of this month. MRS. YANOFt The Wards would certainly appreciate that. They havik been trying for a long time to get their permit. MR. VANMAR.TERt Well, I would suggest that our oenwaication to the City Attorney contain the statement that time is of the essence* and see if it is succsessful and if it is you will have tho assurance of this Hoard to meet so as to not delay *hatever kind of a decision or suggestion that are get from the City Atternep, MRS. YANOFt Thank you. M. VANMARTER t Thank you very much. This concludes the publics hearing the Board will go into o"outivot session. 22 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, CHRISTINE SMITH, DO CERTIFY that I took the mutes of the • BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, in the matters of Appeal No. 1101 and 1102 on December 1, 1975, at City Hall, City of Ithaca,, Now York, that I have transcribed sawn, and the foregoing is a • true copy of the transcript of the mimxtes of the meeting and the Executive Session of the Hoard of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, on the abova date, and the whole thereof to the beat of my ability , Chrialtine bulth Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this day ofk 1976. Notary v York Comm s ;. >.i a County