HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1976-11-23 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES CITY OF ITHACA
Regular Meeting, 23 November 1976 , 7 :30 p.m. , Common Council
Chambers
PRESENT: Chairperson LeG. -Benson, N.Meyer, R. Moran, R.
Hildreth, S. Stein
ALSO: H. M. Van Cort, Mayor E. J. Conley, Marjorie E.
Waldman, Walter Wiggins, JoAnn Jalento, Charlotte
Fogel, Sherry Sincerbeaux, David W. Lippitt, A. J.
Golder, K. A. Gaffny,. Neil Taylor, David Cornelius ,
Daniel L. Rhoads, Patricia M. Carlson, Marvin A.
Carlson, Thomas Hanna, Katherine Hanna, Rev. Richard
J. Thomas , Richard Morrison, Gerald Frand, Robert
Williamson, Richard Schechter, Richard Baker,
Natalie P. Baker, Thomas Hoard
CALL TO ORDER: The Chairperson called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER MINUTES: Mr. Moran MOVED approval of the
minutes of the last meeting. Mr. Hildreth seconded. Minutes
APPROVED.
CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: The Chairperson reported on the Multi-
County Economic Development District being developed by the
Southern Tier Regional Planning Commission. They are hoping
to bring more jobs and better financial health to the area.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS : Mr. Moran complimented the staff on
the Waterways Report.
ZONING:
Appeal 1140 : Request for an examption from Section 30.59 ,
Temporary Moratorium on Certain Building Permits
and Certificates of Occupancy to allow premises
at 412 N. Aurora, in an R-3 zone, to be used as
multiple family dwelling. Premises now vacant, but
prior to this year had been a nonprofit group
house.
The property, currently owned by Teen Challenge , was formerly
a private home, according to the Building Commissioner' s records .
Under present zoning ordinance, two dwelling units are allowable
on the property, but the moratorium prevents conversion of the
single family home to more than that number of units. A prospective
buyer would like to convert the building to three units . There
are other apartment buildings in the neighborhood. The Planning
and Development staff recommended that a variance be granted for
use as a two-family dwelling.
- 2 _
The attorney for Teen Challenge introduced the prospective
buyer to the Board. He stated that Teen Challenge had eight
bedrooms in the building and that he had plans to convert the
building to two residential units. In response to a question
by Ms. Meyer, the buyer stated that the building would not
be owner occupied. Mr. Hildreth noted that the property had
been off the tax rolls for awhile, and that the proposed
usage would return it to the tax rolls. Ms. Meyer noted that
the city was attempting to preserve the family quality of the
neighborhood in question. They buyer stated that he had
submitted a purchase offer the first week in October, before .
the moratorium was enacted. He stated that he planned for a
total of eleven bedrooms in the two proposed apartments, eight
in one and three in the other. Mr. Van Cort informed him that
this would require a minimum of six parking spaces. The buyer
stated that there was a garage and three spaces on the property
and that he could make room for more spaces on the lot. Dan
Rhoads , a member of the Fall Creek Civic Association, noted
that residents of Fall Creek worked for the moratorium because
so many of the homes in that neighborhood have been converted
to apartment houses. He said it was his understanding that
houses would not be converted except in extreme cases , and he
did not feel any house should be converted at least until
the zoning study was completed. Pat Carlson stated that she
lives across the street from the property in question, that
she did not think it would be a problem to sell the house to a
family, and that she did not feel that there was a hardship
involved. She noted that when the property was on the market,
buyers expressed interest. David Cornelius, President of the
Fall Creek Civic Association, stated that the Association�.lhad
submitted a 400-name petition to Common Council, requesting
R-1 zoning. He noted that parking in the neighborhood was
becoming a problem, and that because there were fewer families
in the neighborhood, the School District was thinking of closing
schools. He expressed his concern over the neighborhood' s
changing population profile, and its detrimental effects on
the families remaining in the neighborhood. In response to
a query, the buyer noted that the contract was signed, but
that the closing was not yet effected. He also noted that
the house is only a block away from a commercial area. Teen
Challenge' s lawyer said that the house has been on the market
since lastspring, and that the organization is deeply in
debt. It was his opinion that conversion to apartments was not
a problem for this part of Fall Creek. He noted again that the
transaction was close to completion when the moratorium was
passed. A representative of Teen Challenge said that the
organization was in serious financial trouble, and that the
buyer had given them the only offer which would allow them
sufficient funds to satisfy their creditors. They had one other
offer, but the interested party failed to come up with the money.
Ms. Carlson said that the house was off the market during the
summer and asked how long a period had .elapsed after the last
offer until the house was put back on the market. The Teen Chal-
lenge representative replied that it was off th%� market for two
months. Gerald Frand of the Ithaca Board of Realtors said that
the building had to bring $40,000 to get the organization out
_ 3 _
of its financial bind. He noted that the house had not been
repaired or kept up for several 'years, and that an additional
$10, 000 would have to be invested to make the house livable.
In response to a question from Ms. Benson, Mr'. Frand said
the house now had eight bedrooms. Ms. Meyer asked if there
is now a unit in the building which is an apartment. Mr. Van
Cort replied that there was only one unit in the structure, but
that parking was inadequate for the proposed usage, and that
there was less parking than the staff originally had thought
there was. The buyer noted that he could add another two spots.
Ms. Meyer then MOVED to refer the matter to committee for fur-
ther study. Mr. Moran seconded. Mr. Stein pointed out that
referring the matter to committee would mean that the BZA could
not act on this matter at its next meeting. Ms. Meyer then
rescinded her motion, Mr. Moran his second. . She, then MOVED
that the Board recommend denial to the BZA. Mr. Stein seconded.
He noted that the appellants were asking . the city to set aside
the moratorium, and that he did not feel this was a good idea.
A vote was called with the following results :
AYE: S. Stein, R. Hildreth, N. Meyer
ABSTAIN: R. Moran
Appeal 1141 : Request for Interpretation and Use Variance to
permit use of second floor of 412-14 N. Tioga St. ,
in an R-3 zone, as commercial real estate office.
A similar appeal made in August was denied; prior
to 1976 the space was _in residential use.
Mr. .Van Cort noted that the same case had been brought before
the Planning and Development Board in August and that the staff
was then split.. The building has had a residence in it for many
years. The BZA recommended denial in August because the building
is in a residential zone. The appellant' s attorney noted that
in 1961 Dr. Baker had purchased two homes, demolished them and
built° an office building. His mother resided in an apartment
on the second floor of the new building and she had since moved
out. The Atlantic Dental Company was also on the second floor,
but this too has been relocated. The appellant has requested
an interpretation because he maintains that in 1961 when the
building permit was issued, the building was constructed so that
the entire facility could be used commercially. A real estate
office is now on the second floor; there are 75 parking spaces
available. Mr. Stein asked. if there was some new reason for re-
appealing. Attorney Williamson replied that Dr. Baker was
requesting an interpretation of the ordinance based on their
earlier appeal in 1961. Under the first variance, he claimed,
the entire building was to be used for professional office
space. Dr. Baker showed the Board slides of the buildings torn
down, and the rehabilitation of a home near the facility now
housing the dental and realty offices. The building in question
is well maintained. The appellant' s attorney noted that he
felt the use request to be compatible with the area, and that
the County Assessor' s Office had the building listed as all
office space.
- 4
Ms. Benson noted that one of the buildings the appellant
demolished to build the office building had won a national
award for domestic architecture in 1911. Mr. Carlson noted
that the word commercial does not appear in the variance.
He said that the building has always been considered a
professional building, mostly for medical offices, and that
the Board should bear in mind that there is a difference
between a professional office and a commercial office. He
and his neighbors are concerned about erosion of housing
stock in the area. The block in question has lost approxi-
mately 500 of its housing stock. He said that Dr. Baker
had bought four houses, destroyed three and converted one
into an office building. He stressed the importance of
maintaining the residence in the office building. Dr. Baker
replied that he did not destroy three houses -- that there
had been a large empty lot used for parking. He claimed the
houses he. had bought were not restorable , and that North
Tioga Street `had turned to professional usage, and had put
$93, 000 on the tax rolls. He claimed that there is a
shortage of downtown professional offices, and that his
development had encouraged professionals to move downtown. He
said the residence in his building was never used for rental
purposes.
Mr. Van Cort said he was wary of getting involved in legal
issues , but that the staff could see little difference between
this and the last appeal. The staff thinks the area should
remain residential, though the recommendation on this case
is split. Mr. ' Moran MOVED approval of the interpretation and
use variance. ; Ms. Meyer seconded. Mr. Stein noted that he
supported the essence of the motion, but that there was a
possible conflict. He said he shared Mr. Carlson' s concern,
but the building was built and appears as a commercial building.
He said he still supported the zoning rules, but that this
seemed an obvious exception. Ms. Meyer agreed and noted that
recent legislation was discouraging disintegration of the
neighborhood. ' ; A vote was called and the motion CARRIED
unanimously.
Appeal 1142: Request for exception to the Moratorium and
Area Variance to permit a basement apartment at
210 Eddy Street, in an R-3 zone. Owners also
'reside in the house, which is within two feet
of one side lot line, requiring Area Variance.
The property is nonconforming due to a minor deficiency in
the side yard. It has adequate parking facilities . The use
would be permitted if it were not for the moratorium. The
property is owner-occupied. Staff recommended in favor of
the appeal. The appellants produced letters of approvel from
their immediate neighbors, and explained that they had
begun improving the house before the moratorium went into
effect. They explained that they need the extra unit to help
pay for the house, and that they had submitted their applica-
tion before the moratorium went into effect. They are work-
ing on a basement apartment, which would be permitted in an
R-1 zone. Ms. 'IMeyer MOVED recommending approval of the area
_ 5 _
variance based on the fact that the house is owner-occupied.
Mr. Stein added that adding another apartment would not
change the character of the neighborhood, and that no change
in the size of '; the house was planned. A vote was called;
CARRIED uanimously.
Appeal 1143 : Request for Area Variance at 229-231 Valley Road,
in an R-1 zone, as precondition for subdividing
the property into two lots, each containing one
house. Owner has applied for approval of subdivision,
which would create two nonconforming lots; City
Attorney had recommended seeking zoning approval
in compliance with Subdivision Regulation require-
ment that Planning Board consider the zoning
ramifications cif any subdivision, in the course
of making a decision on a subdivision proposal.
The lots created would be deficient in area,
frontage and one side yard.
Mr. Van Cort noted that this is the third time this case has
come up, and that the staff recommends approval. The appellant' s
attorney noted that the appellant was not planning to add any
more buildings or increase the number of persons occupying the
property. Under 1950 ' s zoning law, the property met all
requirements. He said they were asking for subdivision of one
lot into two. They have not been able to sell both units at
the same time. They would like to have the variance not be
conditional on their furnishing parking. The appellant noted
that there is one parking space for 229; 231 has three parking
spaces.
Mr. Moran MOVED approval. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED
unanimously. Mr. Stein noted that a public meeting on the
subdivision would have to be held. The attorney stated that
they had to appeal to the BZA first. Mr. Stein MOVED that
there be a public hearing, assuming the BZA approved the
appeal, to be duly advertised and to be held at the next regular
public Planning and Development Board meeting. Mr. .Moran
seconded. CARRIED unanimously.
Appeal 1144 : Request for Interpretation to permit use of
406 N. Cayuga St. in an R-3 zone by a non-profit
health-related social service agency. A previous
appeal for this purpose was denied in September.
The late resident-owner of the property bequeathed
it to a foundationfor use by a community service
agency.
It was noted that the Planning and Development Board recommended
favorably when ,this case was first appealed in August, but that
it was turned down by the BZA. The attorney for the Family and
Children' s Service introduced Marjorie Waldman, associate director
of the Service. She said that the Service was private and non-
profit, incorporated in 1956. Its primary programs are designed
to meet the emotional and physical problems of persons in the
community and help them function. The attorney stated that he
hoped to establish that the Service meets medical requirements
i
i
6 -
necessary for occupancy of a house in an R-3 zone; Mr. Stein
reminded him that it was not the Board's duty to make any kind
of legal judgment, which should be saved for the BZA. Ms.
Waldman noted that the Service has four basic functions: (1)
counseling - diagnosis and treatment, (2) home health aide
service, (3) mental health information and referral, (4) child
placement. She noted that the facility is staffed by a clinical
psychologist and social workers and that 94% of program referral
was done by physicians. The Service operates under the auspices
of the Department of Mental Hygiene. She said that the F&CS
program which is least health-oriented is adoptions, for which
there are only three in-office sessions per ::month. She noted
that parking is inadequate in terms of zoning requirements,
but that staff parking was available at the United Way offices.
She noted that F&CS would use the whole building except for
one office for the Tompkins County Foundation, to whom the
building was left to be used for charitable purposes, with the
stipulation that the Foundation be provided offices in the
building. Mr. Moran asked what the neighborhood reaction
was when this case was brought before the BZA. The attorney
replied that the neighbors who appeared were not generally
pleased, but that the appellant did not have enough evidence at
the time that the F&CS was a health facility; Mr. Van Cort then
read the definition of a medical facility from the Zoning Ordi-
nance. Mr. Moran noted that counseling is not covered in the
definition. The appellant's attorney said that at the BZA
meeting questions revolved around non-legal issues. He then
introduced Dr. Neil Taylor, an emergency-room doctor at
Tompkins County Hospital, who is a former director of the
psychiatric department at Cornell ' s Gannett Clinic. As a
psychiatrist he referred many students ' wives to the Family
and Children' s Service; he stated that F&CS performs a health
function in restoring clients to good mental health. The
appellant's attorney then introduced Dr. Kathleen Gaffny,
County ,Health Commissioner for Tompkins County, and physician.
She noted that 88% of the services provided by F&CS are
paid for by the County' s health department, and that other
professionals besides physicians were able to provide health
services, referring to home health aides who are responsible
for providing services to persons ill at home. She said the
aides , on physicians' orders, provide professional health care
and perform some nursing duties, and that they are trained by
the Family and Children' s Service according to guidelines set by
the State Health Department.
Mr. Moran asked if the City Attorney was Chairman of the F&CS '
Board of Directors. The Mayor replied that he is Mr. Van
Cort noted that the staff recommended a favorable interpretation
of the meaning of "medical facility. Mr. Hoard noted that
there had been substantial resistance from some neighbors who
felt there was .a lack of evidence that this was in fact a
medical facility. Mr. Stein stated that he did not think
medical facilities should be permitted in residential areas at
all, but that since the zoning ordinance allows them, and since
he felt there to be sufficient evidence that this is a medical
facility, he MOVED that the Board recommend approval of the
appeal to the ZA. Ms.Meyer seconded. The Mayor noted that the
- 7 -
property was left to the Foundation for public use, and that
this is as good a community use as possible. Ms . Meyer suggested
that a facility such as this might also be considered for shared
usage with a school . Motion CARRIED by the following vote :
AYE : N.Meyer, R. Hildreth, S. Stein
ABSTAIN: R. Moran
COMMUNICATIONS : None
COPMMITTEE REPORTS: None.
OLD BUSINESS : - Mr. Van Cort reported on the progress of the
Zoning Study currently being done by the Department of Planning
and Development. Copies of the survey being used were distributed
to Board members . He reported that 400 surveys have been
returned so far, and that the surveys were expected to be
completed in approximately two weeks. The project is on budget
and going very well, providing good information on neighborhood
conditions. The staff estimates that interpretation will take
one and a half months before work on the ordinance can begin.
The staff has also sent a survey to two dozen college
communities which probably have problems similar to Ithaca' s.
The department has also begun to set up an ad hoc committee ,
as the Board recommended. The staff is also planning to meet
with two Cornell law professors who are zoning experts. The
department is converting county tax rolls to a readily acces-
sible data bank to get trend data. Mr. Van Cort noted that one
page of opinion questions had been added to the survey, as
requested by the Board. The staff is working with a 25% sample
of the entire city by neighborhood and use type. The survey is
being made of households in both residential and commercial
zones. Houses are selected by computer. Each interview takes
15-20 minutes, and surveyors are paid a fixed rate per interview.
Council had requested a survey of all households in the City.
This sample will provide a guide to costs .
Mr. Van Cort then reported,`on the District School Reorganization.
Roz Williams has been the City's representative of the Mayor' s
Task Force, and will attend two weekend workshops being set up
by Katherine Eisenberger. The Mayor' s Task Force is also
working on a joint occupancy plan which will be drawn up some
time next week. The Mayor' s Task Force has found inaccuracies
and omissions in the Board of Education' s data book. The Board
of Ed. has failed to use 1975 census data. Ms. Williams called
deans at Ithaca College and Cornell, and has found that there
is no policy against hiring junior faculty. The Board of Ed.
still seems set on closing certain neighborhood schools. Ms.
Meyer pointed out to the Board that three schools (Ithaca High
"School DeWitt and Boynton) have already been moved out of the
center of the City. Mr. Stein said that he had a feeling of
powerlessness in 'trying to influence the deliberations of
the School Board in . this reorganization process. He asked. whether
the staff had looked into the possibility of the City forming its
own school district separate from the, present centralized Ithaca
City School District. He suggested that research into this
possibility be undertaken by staff. Meeting adjourned 10 :30 p.m.