Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1983-03-07 i Ij I I j BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK j �i MARCH 7 , 1983 I� I TABLE OF CONTENTS (i Page i i APPEAL NO. 1480 Collegetown Motor Lodge , Inc. 2 312 College Ave . (� I APPEAL NO. 1480 Executive Session 10 APPEAL NO. 1481 William Zikakis HELD OVER 11 416 Elmira Road i APPEAL NO. 1482 Charles A. Fritschler 11 (+ 125-127 N. Quarry Street �i APPEAL NO. 1482 Executive Session 21 RTIFICATE OF REC RDISECRETARY CE 0 NG 22 ! 1 ! I I i .i it I �I I I I I ! i i I i i fi ! I � I i i i I i I ' f� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK j i I MARCH 7 , 1983 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: This is a hearing by the duly appointed Board II I I� of Zoning Appeals. It is a formal public hearing in two matters i listed in the notice, First I 'd like to introduce the members of the Board: Donna Ward Bette Bagnardi Michael Tomlan Peggy Haine Bea Brownell I' Charles Weaver, Chairman of the Board �I Thomas D. Hoard, Building Commissioner & Sec'y to the Board Barbara Ruane , Recording Secretary i I This Board operates under the provisions of the City Charter of 'Ithe City of Ithaca under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. t The Board shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the I ( conduct of the hearing but the determination will be founded upon I ( sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same . We request that all persons who wish to be heard identify themselves as to name Viand address , confine their discussion to pertinent facts relating I to the case under consideration and in the case of our sound systel and our recording system it will be necessary for you to come for— ward and speak into the microphone up front here. If in the condu�t I of the meeting you are one of the interested parties and find yourt I self back there and want to add something, be patient with us , get ! { my- attention we ' ll allow you time to come up here so all of your remarks will be a matter of record, Upon the completion of the hearing of the cases before us, the Board will then go into I executive session. After the completion of the executive session { we will reconvene in an open meeting and for those of you who wish t remain until that time you will be able to hear the decisions I o _ y i Edon the cases then. For those who wish not to wait until the ( termination of our executive session the results can be learned by calling the Building Commissioner' s office during office hours j ( tomorrow. We are ready for the first case please. i I I i 11 2 it i4 I jSECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal is appeal number 1480 : �i ! Appeal of Collegetown Motor Lodge , Inc . for 1 an area variance under Section 30 .49 and ji Section 30. 25 , Columns 4 , 12 , 13 and 14 for deficiencies in off-street parking , minimum �i setbacks for both sideyards and minimum rear yard setback to permit construction of a new I� office building or retail store adjacent to i �I the existing motel at 312 College Avenue (f (Collegetown Motor Lodge) . The property is located in a B-2a use district , in which the proposed use is permitted; however , under Sect tion 30 . 49 the appellants must obtain an area variance for the lasted deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the new building . A previous request for a variance i for this building was denied on February 7 , 1983 ; the owners are returning with additional) information. MR. RCSTEN: Arthur Rosten, 205 Willard Way, City of Ithaca. The I variance we requested was not for an off-street parking deficiency ) but because originally we - well we never asked for a variance for ! parking because we have always had adequate parking. It was a j ; side lot deficiency that we were asking a variance for. The park- ing question always comes up in collegetown, I guess , whether it l is there or it isn't . My architect, Bob Boehlecke , has drawings here and layout - all parking spaces that these drawings show are beingused now - the are existing spaces and I 'd like to have him ) Y g P come up and explain it to you and give you each a drawing to look i� at. IMR. BOEHLECKE : Bob Boehlecke, Utica Street, Ithaca. I am working ) for Art on this . I ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Just a minute Bob , and Mr. Rosten, I want to get ! ; your attention so both of you hear me , the last time this case was ; , heard it was the findings of the Board 1) that no practical diffi i culties were demonstrated to show that a building could not be i erected to conform wz;th the Ordinance, so I want to alert You to that finding and I hope that between the two of you you will ad- i i dress that particular finding before the meeting is over. I �I l } MR. BOEHLECKE: 'Yes. I guess I have a questions first from Tom's reading. As I understood it really the only way that what we are proposing is in violation of the zoning is the sideyard for that I building . You mention parking deficiencies . . . I I I i {+ - 3 - I� I `: SECRETARY HOARD: Let me clarify that . There was the mention of 11the possibility of using this new building for offices . If you fuse it for offices you would be short by one parking space. If flit is used by retail , the whole thing will comply with the parking : , requirements based on the number of parking spaces you have shown. ! i Offices require twice as much parking as retail space . IMR. ROSTEN: It is not offices , it is basically a travel agency. I I dont ' know if that is classified as retail or . . . ! ; SECRETARY HOARD: Well I wanted to cover that in case . . . I MR. BOEHLECKE : I guess first of all I would like to deal with the parking thing and I thought that what we had shown here on this - fare your remarks about the deficiencies based on this plan that you've looked at or the previous. . . ? O SECRETARY HOARD: No. If -- taking as given, the number of park- 4 ing spaces that you said you had and the proposed building, you I1comply if the proposed building is used for retail space. If it I Eis used for office space you would be one parking space shy. IMR. BOEHLECKE: And is that based on the 250 square feet per car? I SECRETARY HOARD: One parking space per 250 square feet of office space . ! MR. BOEHLECKE: Okay and we have now we are showing a building tat i lis just a thousand square feet or one-half square foot under, whic would require four spaces Iand the forty-one motel rooms , forty-onel (I spaces and we have - I dont believe there is a deficiency even foi ! office space . It is slightly smaller than what was presented be- fore e- fore yes . �' SECRETARY HOARD: Okay, so you got it under that one extra . . . I IIIMR. BOEHLECKE: Exactly, yes - that 's right because we are just a I� ! few square feet over and SECRETARY HOARD: And the other the other side yard and rear yar deficiencies are existing . i �IMR. BOEHLECKE : Existing, there is nothing we can do about that or ? MH address . But the parking I would like to clarify that we are no asking really for a parking variance -. I p g a of any sort we are providin : the required number of parking spaces for the proposed use. ! j ! I - 4 - MR. ROSTEN:The plans show location of the building and the two driveways - the entry and the egress - shows two driveways - each of thirteen feet seven inches wide and we park cars between them and it shows twenty feet of parking. If we move the building off to allow for that five feet of sideyard clearance it would make th driveways either too narrow, less than the thirteen feet six inches which I dont' think would be adequate or would eliminate very many parking spaces in the middle because we just have twenty feet there . So, with the building the way it is , it just fits in. MR. BQEHLECKE: It can't really be moved.. The only practical solu tion to complyance strictly with the Ordinance would be to make the building four feet eight inches narrower and instead of a twenty- four foot building have a nineteen foot four inch building which starts to get a little too narrow for practical purposes . I guess we are skipping ahead the thing I wanted to immediately determine is whether or not we are asking for a parking variance and I don' t believe that we are - I believe that for what we are proposing weave satisfied the parking and that the only thing that we are really asking for is that side yard variance for the new building . If that is not correct I would like . . . SECRETARY HOARD; Yes you do comply with the Ordinance . MR. BOEHLECKE: Okay. So the number of parking spaces is really na a question, Itts merely a matter now of the five foot side yard requirement, isn't it? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes . MR. BQEHLECKE : Okay. MR. ROSTEN: We just - having a building twenty-four feet we just don' t - unless we make it nineteen feet - we just don' t have five feet there because it would infringe on either the driveway or - well the parking area in between we would have to have in order to have the spaces that we do have on the layout. I 'd like to say that all of these spaces are being used - we are not making - all the existing. . . MR. BQEHLECKE: All the ones except the ones we are revising in the . . . MR. ROSTEN: Yes but they are all existing spaces and there is i - 5 - i nothing that we arehaving to fill or tear anything down to make parking out of. The last time that I was here I just didn' t reali e I i' that there was a problem other than the side yard and I was led to believe by the Planning Board that it really wasn 't that important because it just was more trouble - having five feet there , another five feet, would just do nothing for collegetown or anybody - it was just a useless space. Right now the five feet there is just filled with three fences and it' s used for nothing . MR. BOEHLECKE : We are prepared to answer questions but it sounds like we are moving on to the side yard. If I could just briefly explain what we have here . If this is the property line (making a sketch on the blackboard) and here is roughly where our proposed building is going and there is a present building here . At the property line now is one chain link fence that goes all the way an one redwood slat fence going back part way. Roughly five feet or six feet side yard of this building , If we were to have our five foot side yard as required, what we 'd have is about a ten foot spa e with two fences down the middle (unintelligible) As a design or a cleanliness factor I just don' t see the difference of having two five foot spaces split by a fence or a building wall I (unintelligible) I realize that is not technical ) information. If the parking question is not under consideration then that is really what is left to decide whether it is reasonabl and I would say that it is impossible to move the building further and still have proper clearances for parking and to make a buildin only nineteen foot wide and losing a foot on each side for walls - you start to get to the point where it 's a pretty narrow space to deal with. I guess. we could answer questions . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Do your plans propose to eliminate the fence at the point that the building might be almost on the lot line? MR. ROSTEN: No I don' t even know whose fence it is, If it is any fence I would take i,t down, If it i;s not my fence - we are staying eight feet from the property line and if it is my fence I would take it down of course I Imould have to but if it is not there are two fences there one next to the other and I really I 6 - i I1don' t know - one of them - the redwood fence I know is mine . The i other - the cyclone fence I really am not too sure about . �I CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from members of the Boar? � MS. BAGNARDT : Has it been leased to a travel agency. I ( MR. ROSTEN: Not as yet, no . � MS. BROWNELL: And we don't know if it will be a travel agency or i I an office or a retail store. i MR. ROSTEN: It won't be office. If something happens and the i travel agency doesn't lease it , it would be filled - it wouldn't j Abe office. If it 's office space we still as far as parking ( goes , we still qualify. . . i, ! MR. BOEHLECKE: The travel agency is office space. . . (I!fMR. ROSTEN: Well yes , then we qualify but really I can't enter into a lease unless I know - before I know I can build the buildin I and if something happens between now and then and we do build it , it will be rented to somebody - it is not going to be a restaurant because I 'm using motel water and sewer system and the electric probably - electric service probably will be from the motel . It fwon' t be anything with heavy use like that an& it certainly won't I be anything that requires a lot of parking . We might use it our- i selves but primarily the only reason we are interested in the M building is for a specific travel agency and but there is no lease i entered into, , MS. HAINE : I have a question of Tom. I don' t understand. Is it j i violations that concern retail or office's Is it office? I (unintelligible) retail business. What is it? SECRETARY HOARD: I would consider retail a business . i IMR. BOEHLECKE: But in either event the parking is complied with, I � MS. BROWNELL : It says here one space deficient if an office . SECRETARY HOARD: That was before . . . � MR. ROSTEN: That was before the building. , . , + MR. BOEHLECKE: I believe it reads one space for every two hundred i fifty square feet or part thereof and we had one thousand twenty I square feet or something. . . . SMR. ROSTEN: And we cut it down to nine hundred, f I I - 7 - j I MR. BOEHLECKE: We cut the building down to nine hundred and ninet ! nine square feet to technically comply with that additional space . . lAm I correct, Tom, or is that . . . jlCHAIRMAN WEAVER: You've been before the Plannin gBoard and I ; notice that in their discussion about side yard some ambivalence as to whether they were of value or not . They are in the Zoning I Ordinance - now we are mere interpreters and appeals , rather than designers and planners of the Ordinance so that it would seem that ! I your difficulty here is something you are creating in terms of I deciding to put a building here, And you have a right to fully Il develop your property - now the question is whether there are dif- � ficulties with putting a building in there that would conform and it would be interesting to hear, with an architect here, why this i building could not conform - in other words, when you say, getting down to nineteen feet or so, starts to get there are possibili+ ties of mezzanines or possibilities of narrow buildings and those i ( possibilities are not being discussed by you, It seems to me that they would help the Board to form some sort of a judgment on the practical difficulties - now I have said this twice and I would hope that, if you have anything to say on it that you would add it to the record. MR. BOEHLECKE: Well I guess what I; could say on that is that as ! Iyou point out Mr. Rosten would like to develop his property to the extent that is allowed within the Zoning and to move the build w �Jing any further as we pointed out, we are within inches of the standard minimum driveway widths - for this type of parking - withl j� out squeezing it down any further and to take five feet off the building cuts it down to a size that, well it takes off two hundred square feet - it gets down to eight hundred square feet or under i which i,s getting a little small it is small for an office layout particularly, of the type that he is talking about. I don1t there are very few people who want to have whole building that is only eight hundred square feet and the other point would be the narrowness of i,t. It would cut it down to nineteen feet minus the walls it is starting to get too narrow for a good interior layout �of a single space office space. Other than that I can't re li ally. . . . I I � 8 I MR. ROSTEN: We can't make the building any longer and make up square footage and narrow it because then we would be eliminating another parking space. And in order to keep about one thousand square foot which is the ultimate , we figure that ' s . . . and we onl have five parking spaces - about forty-five feet in length to buil over because those are five existing nine foot parking spaces . It comes out to twenty some odd - twenty-four feet wide . MR. BOEHLECKE: I can 't deny that there may be some potential ten- ant out there that can live with a eight hundred square foot space that is only seventeen foot wide but we can' t deny that maybe that ' s potentially possible but it 's not a good space to work with for the types of use that are being considered. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any other questions from the Board? MS . BROWNELL: This won' t be connected in any way with the Collegetown Motor Inn? MR. ROSTEN: It' s on the property . . . IMS . BROWNELL: It has nothing to do with your business? MR. ROSTEN: It won't be - no it would be a complement to it - having a travel agency on the property might be an advantage and make reservations and this , that and the other thing but it ' s notl - financially - we just would be collecting rent and having nothin� to do with operating the business . And if it wasn't a travel agency it would be another retail business as such. MS. BAGNARDI: Will there be a basement? MR. ROSTEN: No . MR. BOEHLECKE : Basically it will be a one story building about eleven feet high r about three feet higher than the existing chain link fence or (Unintelligible)' MR. ROSTEN: As far as the appearance of the of the place - it would be much it would be more decorative and add to the appear- ance from what we have now, MR. BOEHLECKE : The previously submitted drawings of the appearance of the building are essentially the same other than that we have taken eight inches off the width- in the process of introducing this is there a set of those here? I assume that everybody has seen it . fyll ` li (I - 9 - I ' CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I am not sure that we will be very much influenclid by the aesthetics of theI) proposal anyway. Any other questions? i Alright thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in I 11favor of this? Mrs. Rosten did you have a comment you wanted to Ladd? Please come forward if you do . 11MRS . ROSTEN: Ellen Rosten, 205 Willard Way in Ithaca. The only i other thing that I might add is the initial drawing seemed to in- dicate that the building was going to be just concrete block but w i Ido anticipate having it with the brick veneer . It wouldn' t be just' is concrete block building on College Avenue. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Alright. Is there anyone else who wishes to i Mspeak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to ispeak in opposition to this application? Do we have a letter Tom`. ! SECRETARY HOARD: I have a letter that is addressed to the Ithaca 11 �lCity Building Department . "Sirs: I enclose a copy of the notice I lof appeal which I received in the above . I write this letter on j behalf of Mr . $ Mrs . Moshe Pelli , and myself, owners of adjoining i ! property at 306 College Avenue , Ithaca, New York. The variance is ! I requested for "Area regulations." Collegetown Motor Lodge, Inc. , i' Just recently applied for, and received, a variance to build a new ; '! structure adjoining our property, right on the property line , with r ' (no side or back yard whatsoever. As a courtesy, we do not object to this application, We do object to this new application by i. lCollegetown Motor Lodge, Inc. It was my understanding that Colleg - i Mtown Motpr Lodge, Inc, , last time, received variances with regard i ! to area, side yard, back yard, and parking. This application must � i The in violation of the side yard requirements, and the lot coverage requirements , and the parking requirements. The City of Ithaca, ! ��fthrough its Building Department, requires us-, at 306 College Avenin i oto comply in every respect with the zoning and building codes , ever i ,idenying us the use of an apartment, which existed long prior to �Ithe enactment of the zoning and building codes. Ian view of the I j strict requirements imposed upon us , the next door neighbor, we object to relaxation of any further rules and regulations for our I (neighbors . Yours truly, /sl Michael J. Pichel" i ! - 10 - i �i jICHAIRMAN WEAVER: Alright, there being nothing more to be heard on it �Ithis case , . . . sir? 1MR. BOEHLECKE: May I just comment to that? That is somewhat 4' incorrect in that we arenot applying for a parking variance or a I lot area variance . i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We are aware of what the variance is for . May w� have the next case please? I I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MARCH 7 , 1983 EXECUTIVE SESSION I i APPEAL NO. 1480 : i I, The Board considered the appeal of Collegetown Motor Lodge , Inc . I Ifor an area variance to permit construction of a new office build- 11ing or retail store adjacent to the existing motel at 312 College Avenue . The decision of the Board was as follows : MS. HAINE: I move that the Board deny the area variance request�d in appeal number 1480 . MS. WARD: I second the motion. I VOTE: 6 Yes; 0 No Denied I FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) No practical difficulties were shown such as design of a build - ing that would conform to the Zoning Ordinance . i 1 1 i f i i I �I I r it - 11 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MARCH 7 , 1983 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal was appeal number 1481 : Appeal of William Zikakis for an area variance under Section 30 .49 and Sec- tion 30 . 25, Columns 11 and 13 for de- ficiencies in minimum front yard set- back and minimum setbacks for one side yard to permit construction of a mini- storage facility at 416 Elmira Road. The property is located in a B-5 use district, and the appellant received a variance for the proposed use on June 7 , 1982 ; however, the appellants must ob- tain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the new building. This appeal has been held over by the Planning Board until next month so the next case before the Board tonight is appeal number 1482 : Appeal of Charles A. Fritschler for an area variance under Section 30 ,49 and Section 30. 25 , column 4 for deficient off-street parking to permit continued use of all five apartments in the ex- isting apartment house at 125-127 North Quarry Street. The property is located in an R-3a use district , in which the existing use as a multiple dwelling is permitted; however, additional apart- ments have been created in this property without the required off-street parking and under Section 30. 49 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiency before a Certificate of Compliancecan be issued for the existing use , A previous appeal (#1218 by a different owner was denied on September 11 , 1978 . R. FRITSCHLER: I 'm Charles Fritschler, I live at 127 N. Quarry treet in Ithaca and I 'm requesting a variance of three of the nine parking spaces that the Building Commissioner requires for issuing Certificate of Compliance . I have either complied with or receiv d ariances for all of the other housing violations or zoning violati ns or the building and it 's difficult to rent parking in the area - ost of the other buildings in the area have - do not have off-stre t �arking and are allowed to operate because of the grandfather claus . asically T would like to have if I could have there is only si people that are living in the house that own automobiles so I would ike to be able to just try and rent the six spaces in the neighbor i 11 i - 12 - i hood rather than having to rent nine where there is only six peoplel I I that need the parking spaces . Any questions I would be glad to try! i ;Ito answer them. j S . WARD: Have you been able to rent the six spaces? l R. FRITSCHLER: I tried previously - I thought that I had to have ` I twelve spaces and tried to rent twelve spaces and wasn't able to do !it. I believe that I could rent six spaces , when June comes around i �ecause there will be some parking spaces becoming available . S . WARD: Where? R. FRITSCHLER: I think there are some garages - some people thatl have small parking lots around the area -- I think I could go around land rent - you know one here and one there. i �,S. WARD: On Quarry Street? �R. FRITSCHLER: Well on Quarry Street or Seneca Street. However if I am unable to rent the spaces then if by granting me the vari- ance it doesn' t do me any good so I've got to get the six spaces or� . f S. WARD: When did you buy this building? I R. FRITSCHLER: Approximately three years ago. l ' I S. WARD: You own other properties don' t you, in Collegetown? R. FRITSCHLER: Ihave, but I sold it, �S, WARD: How long have you been a well when did you buy the first property? R. FRITSCHLER: Approximately five years ago. S. BROWNELL; Did you know this problem existed when you bought the house? j r R. FRITSCHLER,: 1 was unaware of the extent of the problem but I l knew that there were some problems . S. BROWNELL: You knew there were some but you didn!t delve into exactly what they were when you bought the house? i R. FRITSCHLER: That is correct. S . BAGNARDI': Which apartment do you live in, the north side? , KR. FRITSCHLER: It is the 127 side, I was just trying to think. . . S. BAGNARDI : Facing the house, you live on the right or the left?i R. FRITSCHLER: Left. I S. BAGNARDI : And twenty-four people live in that house? if I (� I i I - 13 - i R. FRITSCHLER: Yes . j i KS . BAGNARDI : And out of the twenty-four, how many did you say hada I ars? f" R. FRITSCHLER: Five others and myself. S. BAGNARDI : So six people? i % i R. FRITSCHLER: Yes . S. WARD: And they are parking where now? %R. FRITSCHLER: I think a couple of them are renting spaces in they I eighborhood and others are parking on the street. j %S. BAGNARDI: The other properties that you own, were they also ` n the Collegetown area's R. FRITSCHLER: One was.. Actually two were., HAI'RMAN WEAVER: If this were operated as a four apartment house ould you then be in compliance , R. FRITSCHLER: I would have to ask you to direct that question to i r. Hoard, I 'm not really sure , HAIRMAN W'EAV'ER: My question was , if this house were to be operated s a four apartment house, would it then be in compliance with. the i arking regulations.-_? i R. FRITSCHLER: And I 'm deferring to Mr. Hoard, I !m not really sure n that point. ECRETARY HOARD: It would depend on the number of people , the numbeir f bedrooms . It would have to be used pretty much as it was back i 968 . IHATRMAN W'EAV'ER: So I take it from these two comments that the house id operate in conformance with the parking regulations before changes ere made in the design of the house? ( i ECRETARY HOARD: Up until 1968 , Mr, Chairman, it was, a grandfathered I ituation. The Gallaghers occupied the main apartment on the 125 side . :'oseph Gallagher was the owner then. They had five persons on the i ether side. I presume they were unrelated but I don't know. And hey also rented the two basement apartments. That situation was I grandfathered up until 1969 when or 1970 when the property had i een changed by previous the owner between Mr. Gallagher and Mr . rtschler. HAIRMAN WEAVER: Alright . Are there any questions from the Board? I� � I - 14 - Alright , thank you. j�R. FRITSCHLER: Thank you. �ICHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor! �i I of this application? Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? i1Come forward. IkR. PARKER: My name is Reeve Parker and I live at 123 North Quarry treet. i�CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Will you see if you can get that thing to - it is . I n I take it . The Board can hear you, I 'm not sure if anyone else an. I I�R. PARKER: I live at 123 N. Quarry Street which is immediately .ext door to the property in question. I've lived there since Augu�t I I 975 and I have one automobile and a second one loaned this year - �oth of them garaged off the street, one house down from me . That i Is partly because since I moved on to Quarry Street I have never een able - except when either Ithaca College or Cornell is on vaca I ion - to park in front of my house and often when they are not on I acation, there is no place either, For the last three days there 1�as been a nifty little blue convertible parked right in front of i y steps so T can' t use them. I oppose the appeal for a variance i bn these grounds . I also would point out that I would believe that ither Mr. Fritschler or his building manager, or perhaps the pre- ious owner whom I believe has been an associate of his - I believef he previous owner was Jason Fane - owns at least one and probably ��two trucks that are currently, I believe , in Ithaca - one I know is n Ithaca those trucks in the last three years - four years , have i regularly been parked on North Quarry Street , sometimes for six - I fight ten days without being moved. One of them is a large six i een foot bed truck, closed vehicle that says "Blown Insulation" oni it. The other is a similarly sized truck the first is a Chevrole ruck, I 'm not sure what the second is and that says on it "For Sall" . bout three months ago I saw perhaps eighty to one hundred bags of I lown insulation being taken out of the house next door to me and II } oaded onto the truck which made me concerned that perhaps it was ! eing used as a - the property was being used as a warehouse . About I �I - ls - (l i a week before I received a notice in the mail of the appeal for a variance, the trucks disappeared from North Quarry Street. I I { found out where one of them is because I walk regularly across the ' 't foot bridge - it is parked on Giles Street. It has been there ford I � - since well before the 21st of February. Three days before the I I 21st of February I propped a stick against the front tire of that truck. Eight days later the stick was still there - ten days late I it had been knocked down - I put it back up it is still there . 1 The truck simply hasn't moved - and my worry is that - I mean, Giles Street has its problems - my worry is that Quarry Street will I get the truck back when the variance is over. I don't know who th� �i truck is registered in the name of -- license is 42798GA New York i commercial license . There are other difficulties with living next door to a house with twenty--two people in it , none of which, I am ! sure , bears immediately on the parking issue on that variance , I I though if you do grant the variance then the population stays high 0 and I am sure that no one ever imagined that house would hold that many people. I was one of the people who rasied the issue about four years ago that it seemed that a screened porch on the i back had been closed in and designed as a bedroom without a build-! i j ing permit . I believe it was partly on the basis of that and f i other violations that court action was eventually initiated against I the previous owner and perhaps: against the present owner, I 'm not j surewhat the state of that is but the density of that dwelling I is a continual, harrassment to the neighbors and I suffer under it ' and I hope you will oppose the variance . Thank you, Any question � I'd be glad to answer them,. i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? j MR. PARKER: I did write a letter to the Board of Planning and I Development that I hope was forwarded. And I also gave to the I i Board on the 22nd of February a statement in opposition to the variance from a Mr. Daley, who lives on Quarry Street and from a j Mrs . Caskey, who is my neighbor. I would hope they would have been forwarded. I' have copies of my own letter if anybody would. . . . i I. I i s 16 - j CHAIRMAN WEAVER: It would seem to me that we would make this part I of the record and possibly we better read them into the record, ( Tom, and also there is a memorandum from the Commissioner to further clarify the issues . ' SECRETARY HOARD: The first is Mr . Parker ' s letter dated February 21, 1983 : "To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the appeal filed by Charles A. Fritschler for I a variance of six of twelve parking spaces required for his proper} ty at 125-127 N. Quarry Street. I have lived at 123 N. Quarry Street since August 1975. I have a wife and three children, in- cluding a five-month-old daughter. Since I moved to N. Quarry Street there has never been a time--except for two or three week stretches in June and August--when it is possible for me to park in front of my house , unless I'm lucky enough to arrive just when one of the tenants ' cars at 125-127 is pulling out . I must rent an off-street space in my neighbor 's garage. Because that garage is some 150 feet from my front walk, I am forced to double-park (;illegally) whenever I have anything bulky or heavy to unload; recently, my wife and I have had to double-park in order to unload the car-seat with our baby daughter, exposing her to the peril of cars moving in either direction up or down the strong incline at that point of North Quarry Street. Frequently, our very front ( steps (leading from the curb) are totally blocked by vehicles ' belonging either to Mr . Fritschler or his tenants . By my reckon- ing , Mr. Fritschler is apt any given year to have in excess of twenty-two tenants , mostly Cornell students , living at 125-117 . I there are only six tenants there this year with cars , that 's a miracle , and I dispute absolutely the notion that in a ' typical ' year the number is 3-4 , as his appeal indicates . My understanding of the off-street parking requirement he wishes to have lowered by variance is that it is designed to foster responsible landlords in a neighborhood, so that high-density dwellings do not pose a nuisance and harassment to neighbors . As anyone who has followed the recent history of the establishment at 125-127 knows , the owners have been continually charged with code violations for i I II - 17 - I illegal addition, for health conditions , for failure to provide lsufficient parking. There is simply no basis for entertaining a il variance that will relieve a pressure designed to prevent land- I it lord abuse , and I hope that the Planning Board will issue a strong it �i recommendation against the appeal . Cordially yours , /s/ Reeve i (! Parker" The other letter is a memo to the Board from me , as I Building Commissioner to try to just outline the - what 's happened! the history of this and Mr. Fritschler, if you disagree with any! I of this you have the right to come forward. "To : Members of the I aboard of Zoning Appeals , Date : March 4 , 1983 As some of you may I already know, this appeal is the result of almost five years of enforcement action by this Department . Since this is a somewhat complicated case , T thought I would try to briefly summarize the salient points in this case. The story begins in 1968, when this ! Joseph 1 ers At that time the (` property was owned by the Jo h lagh� Ga m , building consisted of four apartments, but since a fire wall sepa- I rated the building into two halfs , the Building Department classi- i i fied it as two duplexes separated by a fare wall . Each. side had a main apartment , and a small , one-bedroom basement apartment , so I i (! that the basement, first and Second floors were occupied on each if i Iside . The third floor was used for storage only. Our records als� show that five persons (presumably unrelated students) occupied the main apartment on the 125 side, the Gallaghers occupied the main apartment on the 127 side , but no indication as to the occu- pancy of the basement apartments, and that a letter of approval ` for thi..s occupancy was issued in April 1968 , At sometime in 1968 or 1969 the property was sold to Jason pane. On March 3 , 1969 Mr. 1 Pane was given a letter of approval for the use as described above ! Later that year this Department discovered that the third floor was being occupied and required that a fire escape be provided. There was also the matter of the zoning requirements to be resolved i' since a non-conforming building was being increased in occupancy. Mr. Pane proposed deeding a portion of the adjacent property at 131 Northuarr Q Y to this property to meet lot size requirements , i I� and dedicating five parking spaceSL at 802 East Seneca to this I I� i� I I j I - 18 - 1 �I {' property to meet parking requirements . This Department approved the increase in density based on this proposal and the construction liof the fire escape. In 1978 , in response to a neighbor's complain , we found that a rear open porch was being enclosed, presumably to �? add an additional bedroom. We were refused entry to the premises , I jand the owner told us that only maintenance work was in progress . When we returned with a search warrant, we found that : 1) the , porch had been enclosed, had new windows, flourescent lights , and i Inew electrical outlets; 2) a second apartment had been installed in the cellar of 125 North Quarry; 3) new bedrooms had been added i on the third floor of the 125 side ; and 4) four new bathrooms had j been added throughout the building. All of the above had been i done without the necessary building permits and zoning variances . I'n addition, we subsequently found that Mr. Fane had sold the adjacent property at 131 North Quarry Street, as well as the prop- s erty at 802 East Seneca. As a result , he no longer was meeting i Zoning requirements for lot size and off-street parking for the earlier changes in the building , not to mention the changes that jhad subsequently been made without our knowledge. We took legal 11action against Mr. Fane and succeeded in having most of the code III I� problems in the building corrected, and having Mr. Fane fined i $1 ,0.0.0. 00 in City Court . The off-street parking question has neve I been resolved to our satisfaction and in the meantime Mr. Fane sol I I the property to the appellant , Charles, A. Fritschler. We have takon Ilegal action against Mr. Fritschler for failing to bring the w ' property into compliance, and he has already leen fined $250.00 , land has agreed in court to bring the property into compliance . Hel shad corrected all of the remaining building and housing code prob- lems as of last December ; now we must resolve the remaining zoning ! (j issue , the question of off--street parking. My interpretation on �jthis case has been that the property enjoyed grandfather rights for the original four apartments, plus the additional living space ) lion the third floor under the agreement with Mr. Fane in 1969, up until the time that he made unauthorized changes . When he started i I - 19 changing a ' legal non-conforming' building , he wiped out the j II I �i ' legal ' part of that designation through his illegal acts . That 11meant that all grandfather rights were lost, and he must either fit) comply in all respects with the 1977 Zoning Ordinance by pro- �Ividing the required off-street parking within five hundred feet , jor Z) obtain a variance for the parking, or 3) provide some of the I i parking and obtain a variance for the balance . My understanding is that he is first challenging my interpretation of the loss of the 'grandfather rights , ' and, if he is unsuccessful in his challenge , ] he is asking for a variance for some of the required parking." CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Do "u wish to make any comment Mr. FritschlerTI MR. FRITSCHLER: First of all , although I do not agree with. Mr. Hoard' s interpretation, I am not at this time challenging that P � g g , ] SII am merely asking for a variance of three of the nine parking I spaces that he announced that is requried and I guess: the only i other thing I would slay is that I have worked hard and I have j brought the building into compliance so that the only thing that i 1 is remaining are these nine parking spaces which Mr. Hoard is re- quiring which, since there are only six people in the building ] that have cars and I only would be required to provide six spaces I bather than nine spaces. j CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. jSECRETARY HOARD: Let me ask you a question. Are you operating a �Ibusiness at that number? I 'll warn you that I 've got the phone r lbook in front of me. MR. FRITSCHLER: yes, T answer the phone there . SECRETARY HOARD: You've got a display ad and two other places in 11the phone book advertising heat retention specialist at that I address . That is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance . MR. FRITSCHLER: I answer the phone there, that is the only - I luse it as an office. The phone rings in my apartment. (CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. I � SMS. SCHULER: T am Nancy Schuler, 110 Ferris Place . Just a ques I� lotion from Mr. Fritschler. You mentioned there are six tenants thatf +have cars , I am wondering how long a lease do they have . Are thosel I' i r I I - 20 - the only six tenants that have cars , I am wondering how long a j I i lease do they have? Are those the only six tenants that will be i, living in that house that will have cars? Sorry about this . You f i are indicating that there are only six people that will need it spaces for their cars . I am wondering what kind of guarantee you have that next year there will only be six people? Will you just rent it to six people that have cars or . . . will you rent to twent� two people who will have cars? MR. PRITSCHLER: Right now there are six people that have cars . I guess the Board could rule that I need up to how many spaces I need for how many tenants I have. In the past really I am sure j I that Mr. Parker may have had trouble parking on the street, but I I think there are a number of other houses on the block I dont ` 1l I really think. that all the cars on the block are coming from 125- i 127 N. Quarry Street. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to b� I I heard on this case? In that happy event we will now adjourn to � r Executive Session. For those of you who wish to hear the results I 'll meet you at the water cooler at some future time. I don1t i ; know exactly when. I 'f I ' I I� I I I� ! i I I i i I I ' I! �I II � I - 21 - II BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MARCH 7 , 1983 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO-1482 : The Board considered the appeal of Charles A. Fritschler for an li area variance to permit continued use of all five apartments in the existing apartment house at 125-127 North Quarry Street. The decision of the Board was as follows : MS, HAINE : I move that the Board deny the area variance re- quested in appeal number 1482 . IMS . BAGNARDI : I second the motion. i VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No Denied FINDINGS OF FACT: I 1) Application is nine (9) parking spaces short from what the Ordinance requires . � 2) The appellant did not provide evidence that he has any parking spaces nor did he show that he had arranged for any in the neighborhood. 13) The appellant agreed that he was aware of the deficiencies when he purchased the property. i p y' � I 1 i I i i I I I �I �I 22 - I I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, Common Council Chambers , City of Ithaca New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1480 and 1482 on March 7 , 1983 at City Hall , City of Ithaca, New York; and that I have transcribed same , and the foregoing is a true copy of the trans- script of the minutes of the meeting and the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, on the above date , and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara C, Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this day of 2�Z- 1983 Notary Public JEAN NOTARY PURL; ,'S :'.'L YOfdK M.