HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1980-02-04 i
I' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW. YORK
FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
{ TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
;MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ITHACA,
NEW YORK - FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
� P awe
APPEAL NO. 1289 Robert C, Wood 2
319 Hillview Place
APPEAL NO. 1289 Executive Session 11
I
APPEAL NO. 1290 Mack Travis 12
105-107 N, Quarry Street
(APPEAL NO. 129.0 Executive Session 32
!APPEAL NO. 2^1-80 King W. Tang POSTPONED 33
I 114-118 West State <Street
!E
APPEAL NO. 2-2- 80 JVRC Enterprises POSTPONED 33
602 West Buffalo Street
.APPEAL NO. 2-3-80 Cayuga Electric Supply Co. POSTPONED 33
307 West Lincoln Street
i
WPEAL NO. 2-4-80 D. L. & G. Audio , Inc. 33
I! Tech HiFi 205 Dryden Road
I
APPEAL NO. 2-4-80 Executive Session 36
(APPEAL NO. 2-5-80 The Automobile Club of Syracuse 37
328 North Meadow Street
APPEAL NO. 2-5-80 Executive Session 39
i
�PPEAL NO. 2-6-80 Chanticleer Restaurant POSTPONED 40
101 West State Street
I� PPEAL NO. 1291 Anthony J. Albanese (Silk Screening) 40
102 Adams Street
I
APPEAL NO. 1291 Executive Session 43
i9
iPPEAL NO. 1292 Anthony J. Albanese (_Piano storage) 44
102 Adams Street
PPEAL NO. 1292 Executive Session 46
1.
APPEAL NO. 1293 U-Haul Co. of Central New York 47
POSTPONED
!
i
I
i,
i.
'I
I'
l� TABLE OF CONTENTS - FEBRUARY 4 , 1980 Page 2
I�
I,
��I; APPEAL NO. 1294 Stephen J. Carroll 47
i 108-110 Cascadilla Street
'; APPEAL NO. 1294 Executive Session 60
li
I
`APPEAL NO. 1295 Planned Parenthood of Tompkins Co. 61
314 West State Street
'APPEAL NO. 1295 Executive Session 65
i
I
APPEAL NO. 11-2-79 Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity 66
140 Thurston Avenue
iAPPEAL NO. 11- 2-79 Executive Session 69
I
( CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 70
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
f
4
i
I
i
I
1
I
i
i
I
I
I
i
i
,I
iI
(`
�I
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
I� COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
jl CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
f
i.
FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
I
SECRETARY HOARD: I ' ll call to order the February 4 , 1980 meeting
of the Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals . The reason I 'm calling the
meeting to order is that the man who was elected chairman last
month is in Florida. With us tonight : Ms . Natalie DeCombray
Dr . Martin Greenberg
Mr. Morris Angell
Prof. Alfred Aman, Jr.
Mr. Thomas D. Hoard, Bldg.
Comm & Secy to the Boaid
Mrs . Barbara Ruane , Record -
ing Secretary
ABSENT: Mr. Joseph Gainey, Jr.
Mr. William Wilcox
�
The first order of business tonight will be to elect a chairman.g
Do I hear any nominations from the Board?
DR. GREENBERG: I nominate Fred Aman to be Chairman of this Board.
MR. ANGELL: I second the nomination. i
SECRETARY HOARD: Alright , we have a nomination and a second,
Mr. Aman. Do I hear any other nominations? (none) May I have a
motion to close the nominations?
MS. DECOMBRAY: I make a motion to close the nominations .
MR. ANGELL: I second the motion.
SECRETARY HOARD; All in favor of Mr. Aman.
3 Ayes (Mr. Aman abstained)
SECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Aman, you are duly elected. j
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Some of you may be familiar with the proceedings
before the Board, perhaps my first official act here will be SiMplir
Ito briefly, describe the proceedings here tonight . The Board' s
procedure requires four affirmative votes , before the Board can gr nt
any of the variances requested. That means that since there are olily
four members of the Board here tonight that all four rmembers would
have to vote favorably on your request , We take the cases up in
order and we ask that the appellant come forward, state your name
and address and state your case, Be prepared to answer questions j
fxQm members of the Board. AFter you have stated your case , those
who wish to speak to the matter are also welcome and we will hear
I I
I - 2 -
from those who are , first, for the proposed variance and then
those that are against the proposed variance. I 'd like to remind
I
all of you that since these proceedings are on record, it is neces-I
Isary that if you do speak for or against, you come forward and make
'your remarks from the podium here on my left. After hearing all of
the testimony in all of the cases , the Board then goes into execu-
tive session and we deliberate and reconvene in public and provide
the results of our deliberations . Naturally if you don' t stay
luntil the end of that , and if there is a heavy docket , it sometimes
takes a while, naturally the appellants of course , will be notified
by mail. But if you do , we do reconvene and the results are
iavailab"-e. Mr. Secretary will you call the first case?
SECRETARY HOARD; The first case , Mr . Chairman, is appeal number
11- 2-79: Appeal of Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity for a
sign variance under Section 34 ; 5 of the Sign
Ordinance to permit retention of the existing
signs at 140 Thurston Avenue . The existing
sign exceeds the maximum size permitted in j
the R-U (residential) use district in which
the property is located. This appeal was
held over at the request of the appellants .
Is there anyone here to speak for this appeal? No one here to
speak on the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity appeal? (no one present
for this case) . The next case then is appeal 1289 :
Appeal of Robert C. Wood for an area variance
under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 7 , 14 and 15 to
permit conversion and reconstruction of the
single family home at 319 Hillview Place to
a two-family home. The property, located
in an R-2a (residential) use district , is
deficient in required street frontage , and in
rear yard depth. This appeal was held over
from the January 7 , 1980 meeting at the
appellants request.
R. WOOD; I 'm Robert Wood, 210 Franklin Street, Ithaca. This lot
as divided in 1923 and it is a six-sided lot so it is very oddly
shaped - it has insufficient rear and insufficient frontage - rear
depth- and frontage but it is perhaps one of the largest lots on
the block, it may be the largest , I''m not sure . I guess zoning
I
permits two-family dwellings in that neighborhood and the reason
that T want to do this , actually, is that the foundation is unsound
in this building and I want to raise it up and put a new foundation
nder it which- requires dropping the f%rst floor about a foot be-
I�
i
3 -
( cause of insufficient ceiling height on the first floor. You see
' the building , to be habitable really, will have to be raised up for.
4a new foundation and in the process of that I 'd like to put a base-
(
jment apartment in it which would help to defray the cost. That is
actually all I have to say. Do you have any questions?
DR. GREENBERG: I think you mentioned something about combining
properties with. other properties. Deos this enter into your appea
at all - will the property have less need for a variance if you
took some off the other or adjacent property - is that a possibility?
i
MR. WOOD: Well , for parking my plan is for off-street parking s
it is to park. I also own 315-317 .
DR. GREENBERG: You own it already?
MR. WOOD: Yes and in order - I want to combine the parking behind
315317 which I can do through easements and so forth, but I guess
I don' t want to combine the two properties because that wouldn' t
� be sufficient either. The other, I guess , has sufficient frontage
I
but the combination of the two isn' t sufficient .
DR. GREENBERG: I see . There would be no gain then in seeking - i
satisfying the zoning requirements by combining the properties?
MR. WOOD: No , there wouldn' t be any.
MR. ANGELL: I notice it says basement apartment . How high - how
much depth are you going to be in the ground?
MR. WOOD: Well about 4% feet. That won' t change, that ' s what the
�Ibasement is now - into the ground 41-,. feet.
MR. ANGELL: But you are putting in a new foundation?
MR. WOOD: Yes.
MR. ANGELL: Exactly the same as the old foundation except you are
( going down deeper to raise the ceiling height is that it?
I
MR. WOOD: No , the foundation will cover the same area. The building
is going to be lifted up. There is bedrock there, you can' t go
+deeper so it' ll go up.
MR. ANGELL: But , existing, it is 42 feet down?
MR. WOOD: Right .
MS. DE COMBRAY: So it would turn from a two-family unit building
to a three-family building? i
I
'I
i�
4 -
i
'SMR. WOOD: No , one-family to a two-family.
II MS. DE COMBRAY: But at the moment, there are two apartments in it .
IMR. WOOD: No , there is - it is a single family dwelling.
IMS. DE COMBRAY: It ' s just a single family unit?
IMR. WOOD: Right.
MR. ANGELL: Tom, would this conform with a basement apartment?
SECRETARY HOARD: If it is constructed properly.
MR. ANGELL: Constructed properly it would conform,
CHAIRMAN APEMAN: You mentioned parking before, how much parking do
you have for the two units?
MR. WOOD: At 315-317?
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Well, at 319.
MR. WOOD: At 319? There is sufficient parking area at 319 to par
two cars, I think it really is an aesthetic point that if there
were two driveways to two separate parking areas - with the lack o
frontage it would look like all driveway and all parking. So what
I want to do is have one driveway and one parking area.
MR. ANGELL: The parking area will be here in this back lot, is th t
it?
MR. WOOD: It will be behind, . . .
MR. ANGELL: Behind 315-317 in the lot pertaining to 319?
MR. WOOD: Yes . It will be right behind 315-317 , yes . And the
driveway will go right along the line there that is between 315-31
and 319.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions? Thank you Mr. Wood.
MR. WOOD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Does anyone wish- to speak for the proposed vari-
ance? (no one) Does anyone here wish. to speak against the pro-
posed variance?
MRS . JONES; My name is Anne Jones and I live at 502 Turner Place
land I would like to speak against the variance . Basically, I
guess, in planning terms it appears to me that this is the first
t
time that these two pieces of property are owned by the same perso
And that is a very logical time to replat that piece of property s
i I
, that it becomes one single piece of property for which there can b
� I
I
Ii
�I
,Isome plan for the development of that. And that is why I am speak-1
iI
ding in opposition to granting the variance. If the piece of
�1property were larger, then you wouldn' t have to be discussing the
i)
variance.
SECRETARY HOARD: If the two properties were combined together ,
then we 'd be discussing a use variance because the number of units
would not be permitted. A maximum of two units would be permitted
for the property. So we would have another problem.
MRS. JONES: I understand, but isn' t one of the problems going to
occur when the separate piece of property, which is under discussion
tonight , goes up for sale again? Because then somebody has some-
thing which does not conform to the Zoning Ordinance and for
which. another variance at another time - and we sort of go on and
on and on.
SECRETARY HOARD; Well , once the variance is granted, the variance
would run with the property. Variances are granted for the indi-
vidual parcels . Those variances will go with the property and the
property alone - it wouldn' t matter who owned which.
MRS. JONES : Alright , but is not this a logical time when one perso
owns those two pieces of property, to look at the platting of that
total piece of property?
SECRETARY HOARD: Well I wouldn' t disagree with that , no .
MRS. JONES: That' s the question that I want to raise tonight. I
have some I think the word that was used was aesthetic , I must
say that I do have as I see two sets of parking lots on front
lawns on that same street - that I have some real questions about
setting up another one . Thank you!
MR. ANGELL: What would you propose that he do?
MRS. JONES: Submit the two pieces of property to be replatted as
one piece of property.
MR. ANGELL: There are two separate houses .
MRS. JONES: I understand but I think one of them requires getting
a variance you know, it ' s not big enough to do with the kind of
thing which- one wants to do, without getting some kind of an excep-
tion and I guess the question that I am raising is let's try to get
_ 6 _
it in order so that it is in some kind of planning order for . . .
II MR. ANGELL: Well as I see it he is not
putting the parking on
; fronting on the street, he is putting it to the rear of the proper
y
ii MRS. JONES: That may be. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you Mrs. Jones . Is there anyone else who
i
would like to speak in opposition?
i
MR. MOON: My name is Francis Moon and I live at 507 Turner Place .
� I received a notice about the hearing before the Planning Committe�
in, I think, December and I attended the meeting but the hearing I
i
i
was cancelled and I had no opportunity at that time to speak. I
was not notified subsequently of either the meeting last week befoie
the Planning Committee or this meeting and I don' t think any other
neighbor was notified of the rescheduling of the meeting. I under
stand that there is some loop hole in the law that allows an appli�
cant to cancel the hearing without the neighbors being notified so
i
I ' d like to make one protest that the neighbors really haven' t bee
I
notified of either the hearing last week or this meeting this week.
I
First of all , let me tell you something about this area. First
of all the this: property and the one , the 315-317 have been in
slum condition for years . I 've lived in this area for the last
i
three years and they have been in slum condition for those three
years. I am happy that somebody has finally bought the property
and may turn it into somthing that looks compatible with the rest
i
liof the neighb_orh.00d. Now, although this is R-2 , this is like four;
I
houses from an R-lb zone . And the City, across the street is plan
ning to put in a park for children. However, right across from j
this particular house there are at least thirty apartments . It isl
i
essentially an Ithaca College dormitory across the street. I gues�
in this one - t called two-family - ther
� what I fear, by converting t �. p its
are no families who are going to move into these houses . They arel
going to be students or at least they are going to be people with-!
out families . My fear is not this particular property but the who ile
package because the other two properties is a duplex, each with twO
floors and so there is the potential that the next go-around well
hear a variance for four apartments in those and so there is the
jj
- 7 -
{f
I' potential for maybe eight or ten cars . So , my worry is that
I
we are going to see more apartments and no improvement on the aes-I
f!
'! thetic appearance of the properties and this will not be compatible
! with the neighborhood. With the third apartments across the stree� ,
there are - most of the houses on half of the street have apartmenits
and there are many cars . As you may have heard - or read in the
newspaper with the Turner Place, South Hill Terrace area there is
great difficulty in parking on the street because of the Morse Chain
situation. I agree with the applicant that it would be nice to pull
I
the parking behind the 315-317 house but it seems to me that shout
be part of the total package. It seems to me you can't say that y u
go ahead and expand the one package and we' ll let you put the park
ing in back of another parcel that is not even up before the Board
for -review. So I am certainly happy that a developer has come to
improve the properties but , so far, we have not seen any plan as
' to what this is going to entail for these three , there is really
f three houses that we are talking about with the potential , if he
I
wants to put in two , th.e potential for six apartments . Now, you
i know, six apartments can turn into twelve cars and I thank some
planning has to be thought of and T don' t think that this has been'
aired properly before the City or the neighborhood considering th
very high density area. Thank you,
DR. GREENBERG; Mr, Moon, I didn' t quite get one point in your re-
marks, If we make it a condition of the variance of the parking
lot being built , would that satisfy some of your objections?
! MR, MOON: Well , I 'm also concerned about what does it mean to red
the places. The places look like they should be torn down. T !
i
mean, are they going to be redone so that they are compatible with
the rest of the neighborhood or are they simply going to look as
ugly and terrible and we are just going to end up with more cars
!
on the lawn and the driveway and this is the concern that someho
I know nothing of the applicant or whether his past history n
or whatever. S - so I 'm not prejudging, but just what ' s there now!
it isn' t very pretty to look at . If the neighborhood is going
(I to get both. houses improved, new siding and there is going to be
P � g g g
{I
�I
8 -
I f
some shrubbery and the parking will be to the rear in some logical
fashion and there are assurances that the duplex isn' t going to
ii
; turn into four apartments instead of two , I think there is no i
I
jproblem with regard to the neighborhood but they are all - consider-
Iing the past history of these two properties , there is some skepticism
as to this is going to be another absentee landlord and it is
going to be another mini-dormitory that is not going to be good for
( either the people who live there or the neighbors who own property
near by. So , I hope that the applicant has some nice plans for the,
loverall development of the two pieces of property. I encourage him
to make them presentable but so far we haven' t heard and I think
what Mrs . ,zones said, I think they both have to be looked at in
total and some idea given to fitting these two in with the rest of
the neighborhood. As I said, across the street is one of the mast
densely populated 30 - there must be at least 30 apartments there
( that must be the most densely populated section in that area of
south. hll , And right it ' s only one half a block from R-lb zone.
I 'm not against it in principle but I 'm just skeptical without
knowing what 's going to happen to that other piece of property
315-317 .
DR. GREENBERG; Tom, isn' t there some plan supposed to be presented
to the Board, some sort of development or redevelopment like this
which is going to take place? Aren' t we supposed to get some floor
plan - some overview?
SECRETARY HOARD: Okay, the problem in this particular case is it is
going to require the magnitude of the work involved to redo this.
building, under state law is going to require architect 's plans-.
But before he invests in architects plans, he wanted to find out
if its even reasonable to talk about putting two units in.
DR. GREBNBERG; I don' t no which_ , it ' s like putting the cart before
the horse.
MR. MOON: The question is this if the two units .. the other two
i
units- which are duplex ., now that has the potential for four apart--�
ments . I
SECRETARY HOARD; I't ' s not large enough for four apartments . f
�IMR. MOON: Well , the present property is not large enough for two
it
i
it
II
- s - iI
I
�eapartments so are we going to see the sequential thing? Right? So
la �
Ila plan would say there is going to be no more than four apartments
lin these two buildings and there is going to be in back of the thin
�I
( that there is room for six or eight cars and the two buildings are
going to look presentable to the neighborhood and I know there is
not going to be any question. But right now you are saying, well w
are going to put in back of the other two but we don' t have the pla s
for the other two. So I mean, I hope that he is able to do - to
make them look nice and maybe he can make a profit too , but we don'
ant to have the present slum continue as a slum and just have a to
ore cars and traffic - I think that is the concern the people have
DR. GREENBERG; Does Mr. Wood want to answer that?
R. TRAVIS : Is it possible to speak for that?
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Speak on the other side? Yes .
R. TRAVIS: My name is Mack Travis and I live at 1651 Taughannock
I
Blvd. in Trumansburg. I know Bob Wood as a contractor and Mr. Moon ' s
oncern about what they are going to look like - Bob took a house
own on Franklin Street that was a slum and made it into a beautifu
little home for his family and he has got an extreme ., well he ' s l
of architectural background and when he does something, my mpres- I
i
ion I 've considered him as a contractor on some of my work is I
that he does it in a very pleasing manner and I am sure that he wil
e an asset to that neighborhood. As far as the parking and so
orth, I can' t answer to that, I know those buildings and they are
un down but I''m sure that Bob does the kind of work that you can
count on the fact that he ' ll make them look nice . That ' s all I
ant to say.
HAIRMAN AMAN; Anyone else?
RRAY LEWIS ; Mr. Chairman? I 'm going to request that the Cayuga
Electric hearing be held over until the next meeting of the Board,
Alright?
HAIRMAN AMAN; Alright.
R. LEWIS: Thank you very much-
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Since there are only ,four members here, if anyone
fishes to withdraw and have their hearing held over, that is your
1
ght. You will have to have four affirmative votes for any action
II
it
10 -
1
I
fby the Board. - affirmative action by the Board. That is the right
i�of those appellants who want to take advantage of it. The next
Ic ase Mr. Secretary?
I i
i
i
i
i
i
1 I
ii
I�
;I
II
i
i�
s BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
II FEBRUARY 4 1980
EXECUTIVE SESSION
i
1IAPPEAL NO. 1289
II I
IMR. ANGELL: I move that the Board grant the area varianc
requested in appeal number 1289.
MS. DE COMBRAY: I second the motion.
VOTE; 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent.
FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) It will improve the property.
i; 2) It will not change the character of the
neighborhood.
3) This is a permitted use. The area variance
would only require minor exceptions .
4) This is providing for adequate parking for
two (_2) properties together.
5) There are indications that the aesthetic
appearance of this property will be improved.
Area variance granted,
i
i
I
1 '
I
II
i
ii
II t
I i
'I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
II COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I� CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
i
i! FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
i
( SECRETARY HOARD: The next case Mr. Chairman is appeal no. 1290 :
Appeal of Mack Travis for an area variance '
under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 6 and 7 to
permit the addition of four more bedrooms it
the reconstruction of the third floor of the
fire damaged apartment house at 105-107
North Quarry Street. The property is
located in an R-3a (residential) use district
and is deficient in minimum required lot size
for the number of apartments on the property,
and is deficient in minimum set back for one
side yard. This appeal was held over from I
the January 7 , 1980 meeting by the Board ofl
Zoning Appeals .
SMR. KERRIGAN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I 'm Jim Kerrigan, I 'm an
attorney and I represent Mack Travis who is also here this evening,
i
and owns the property in question. At the outset I ' d like to apoloj�
�gize, particularly to members of the neighborhood over last months
i
postponement which was caused by a outnof---state death in the - Mr. I
Travis ' s family. Turning to the application itself, this is an
application in regard to 105-107 N. Quarry Street . It is one or tw�
i
uildings in from the corner of State on East Hill , to add four mor
edrooms to the existing duplex if you will . Although it is a
i
Irequest to add four more bedrooms , I think that once you have heard
i
what we are trying to do you will agree that the total number of
people who can reside at this particular property is reduced by two
� So , although we are adding bedrooms , because of the maximum permitt d
umber of people in a bedroom, I think you will find that there are
� I
( -ewer total people who can reside in the property, I would also I
ike to point out , as a preliminary note , that this is in conjuncti n
ith a reconstruction of this building after serious fire damage. I
I
nsofar as the fire damage is concerned, Mr. Travis I believe , undel
� the Ordinance is entitled to rebuild the property to the state and i
� ise it was prior to the time of the fire and has received from the
I �
1 'uilding Commissioner a building permit to do that, There is at th�
resent time construction going on at these premises , I wish. to
I
i
oint out however that that construction does not affect the relief
requested for this evening. The construction that is proceeding at `
i!
li
13 -
i'
;` this time is involved with restoring, rebuilding the roof on the
` property, and interior work that is requested. If the relief re-
�
!,quested this evening is not granted, one of the options available
Ito Mr. Travis is to restore the room layout and the occupancy of
the property prior to the time of the fire and so we are not pro-
ceeding without a building permit and we are not attempting to
present to this Board a fait accompli . In terms of the property an
the issues before you, the application for this change in the prope ty
i as denied by the Building Commissioner, as I understand it , based
I n the concept that the area, the lot size was deficient and based I
n the fact that the building which has been at the site for approx
mately 100 years is too close to the north property line . The sett
ack required by the Ordinance is five feet. The distance between I
he building and the north line is approximately four feet. In terms
f the response before this Board this evening, I think we will be
ble to show you that the lot size is not in fact deficient ; that
t meets the requirements of the Ordinance . We will attempt to con-
ince you, if we can, that Mr. Travis is entitled to a building per it
In accordance with his plans and hopes to reconstruct a building
I
1nd not to enlarge the pre-fire occupancy or use of this building.
would point out perhaps at this point that this is a conforming usIe .
n other words , in an R-3 district multiple dwellings are , of course
ermitted and non-conforming aspect relates to concededly a four foot
I
nstead of a five foot side yard requirement and arguably in regard
i
o the size of the lot itself. The third aspect of perhaps we are
i
rying to convince you this evening , is that practical difficulties
insofar as the non-conforming lot is concerned suggest to the Board,
hope , is that this permitted use should be permitted within the
cope and intent of the Ordinance on the non-conforming lot. Insofal
s the lot size is concerned if I can find a convenience point to
ow you a sketch of the property, the records of the Building Com-
Taii
ssioner, if I am not mistaken, indicate that the lot is approximlat�ly
450 feet, if I 'm not mistaken. I think that was the basis for the
ilding Commissioner' s determination. The Zoning Ordinance , under
ree different possibilities , would require one of three lot sizes
I
I
,i
i - 14 -
�I �
11for a multiple residence with five apartments on the property. i
JJ
IThe most - or the largest lot required would be for a conversion of,
ja dwelling, I believe the Ordinance would be converting a one or a
it ^
, two-family home to a multiple dwelling - would be a conversion of
i
Idwelling to a five apartment house which this is proposed to be an
which it has been for a number of years - would require 8500 feet . 1
' i
! If it is new construction with the same use , it is 7500 square feet
!
if it is other uses , its 6 , 000 square feet. There may be some argu-
ments that lawyers would like to play with as to whether or not it ;l
should be six or seventy-five or eight I think that is academic
because I can show you, I believe, that the lot size is greater
I
than 8 , 500 square feet as required. The confusion in terms of th.e
I
lot size to the extent that there is I don' t wish to really
i
admit there is confusion - the Building Commissioner' s records
apparently indicate something of 8 , 200 feet approximately. The
deed itself has used the same legal description since 1836 or j
I
thereabouts when it was deeded first to Eliza Cornell and then latelr
to Ezra Cornell . It was a part of a larger tract that was owned
acquired at one point by Ezra Cornell , running from Quarry Street
on the west, to Eddy Street, uphill and to the north. The deed des-
Icriptions when this parcel was cut off (pointing to chart)
lindicated that the depth of the lot there is no dispute , by the w�y,
�as to the lot being sixty-five feet wide . As to the depth of the
lot .. there is no confusion in any of the sources that I have been
able to locate, that that distance from the sidewalk line if you
1
, will , of Quarry Street to the corresponding sidewalk line on Eddy
Street, is 264 feet. The City Engineer there are about three
i
sources for that. There is an 1874 deed from Ezra Cornell who owne
Ithe entire tract at one point and is conveying another piece of
property that touches this property, in which Mr. Cornell indicated
Itha.t the depth- of the lot , of half of the lot was 132 feet . The j
� I
11836 deed to Eliza Cornell indicates, that . The calculations then, �
1 '
�ibased on the one-half of Quarry to Eddy Street deed description
I
' which was used in the deed last fall when Mr. Travis purchased this
! fire burned property - was 65 x half of the depth of the lot and
i'
I
i� i
i
f - 15 -
i
i
; sixty-five times half of the depth of the lot in a rectangular
i
(parcel is 8 ,580 feet. There are two other sources that I can poiInt
to you as well . The City Engineer' s maps are based in part on the
former City of Ithaca assessment rolls which in turn, based on my
I
review of the maps in the City Engineer' s office today, indicate or
are in turn based, I believe, on the old Simeon DeWitt survey which
Maid out the City in the first half, I believe it was - I 'm not a
historian - of the 19th century. The City Engineer ' s maps indicate
that that full lot is 132 feet - excuse me , the full depth of the
( lot - Quarry Street to Eddy Street is 262 or 264 feet. I believe i
is 264 feet , which would indicate that half of this is 132 feet . If
i
it is 262 feet rather than 264 , there is still a surplus of some
15 feet in terms of total square footage required. The County a.sse s-
ent rolls indicate that the depth of the lot is 140. 8 feet. A
greater lot which. is something on the area of 9 ,152 feet . Today,
ith a tape measure , T went up to measure the depth of the lot and to
try to get some further definition as to the depth of this lot and
also to establish the lines of occupation because whatever Ezra
ornell said in 18745, when he or his widow conveyed the property
if the lines have been used differently, under adverse possession
it is possible for that line to have moved. It does not seem as
hough that would be likely for at the rear of this property is a
twenty to thirty foot cliff running, not quite parallel to , but som�-
hat parallel to Quarry Street. So the lines of occupation, the
measurement from the sidewa,lk. to the base of the cliff, which I mad
today indicate a third possibility which is - there was a distance
measuring from the east edge of the sidewalk.., not from the curb lin, ,
although I but I, think there may even be a possibility that that ! 4
lie appropriate starting point. But measuring from, the east edge o
he sidewal.k. to the base of the cliff at the north of the property,
he distance is 122 feet. At the south- of the property toward Stat
treet, the same measurement is 14118" . The total calculation,
including this (pointing to chart) rectangle and the triangle above
he 122 foot line would be 8 ,568 - 8 , 569 square feet. So , I would
ubmit that the lot size requirements for a five apartment multiple ,
i
i
(i
- 16 -
I
!!dwelling at this address are satisfied under any state of circum-
stances . I would like to turn for a moment to the setback require-
;
� ment in addition. And although they are not planned to go back to �
I
,!the set back - the total lot size requirement , I think what I am
,saying is equally true even if it were to be determined that the
( total lot size were a couple hundred feet short or whatever other
I
calculations would be made. For the lot size has been that size
since - I 've forgotten the date - somewhere between 1836 and 1874 .
The building is approximately 100 years old. As I indicated at the
outset , on the north side there is approximately a four foot set
back - distances if you will , between the building and the north
property line . The Ordinance requires five feet. The property to
the north, for your information, is approximately thirty feet north(
of this same line that we are talking about . The reason that I
would submit that this Board should grant this application for a
variance based on the fire loss as a question of law to some degree,
relates to the provision of the Ordinance that indicates a non-
conforming building devoted to a conforming use as this is a multiple
, dwelling in an R-3 zone - it may be rebuilt or reconstructed in
whole or in part - fire damage. Mr. Travis can proceed, I believe j
i
without question, and based on the building permit he lawfully has
at the present time, to rebuild this in substantially the same for
that existed prior to the time of the fire with the same use and
size permitted. Insofar as the note that I have tried to make , I
have some - there are - it ' s almost a duplex although there are
I
'three apartments in one side of the duplex and two in the other.
105 is toward State Street to the south. There is a basement apart-
ment in 105. Prior to the time of the fire there was legally per-
mitted, by bedroom size , one person in the basement apartment .
Actual occupancy as approved by the Building Department prior to
the fire was one - we have no plans or suggestions to change the
basement apartment in 105 . Apartment - there is no basement apart
Iment - there is no corresponding basement apartment underneath 107 -
�the north half of the duplex, The next apartments we come to are t o
and four which are substantially similar before and after the fire .
.I
I
i
17 -
'Apartment two in 105 had a - I submit to you - a permitted use
prior to the time of the fire insofar as the number of people that
could reside there are three people. There were two bedrooms. On
of those bedrooms was large enough under the State Building Code fir
two persons to reside in, the other was large enough for one person
and I submit to you that the permitted occupancy was three in the
first floor bedroom at 105 . Approved in the City Building file is ,
I believe, an approved list of tenants as of March 78 , which I
looked at today. In March of 78 there were two tenants residing
there - this discussion may be somewhat academic - there were before
and after, two bedrooms , Mr. Travis is hoping , I think may entitle
to - to retain two tenants two persons in that number two apart-
ment at 105. The maximum legally permitted in that apartment -
apartment 2 , after the work is completed, it ' s not as substantial
at this level as it is upstairs - would be two because Mr. Travis
is adding closets, is slightly rearranging the room arrangement , I
think on 105 , if I 'm not mistaken, is that correct?
MR. TRAVIS : No , it is 107 .
MR. KERRIGAN: Okay, On the other one - is rearranging a room so
that the front entrance is no longer the kitchen, which it had to
be to comply with state building code, so that you didn' t have to
ego through one bedroom and the other. On both two and four, whether
or not the prior occupancy was three on the two first floor apart-
ments , Mr. Travis wishes to continue with it at two and by adding
closets and a slight rearrangement that is all it can ewer be per
mitted under the state building code. The issue that I think brings
us here this evening are the top two floors, The second floor and
the attic of the two properties . Turning to them, I guess starting
with- 105 , at 105 prior to the time of the fire there were three
bedrooms. The permitted occupancy in those three bedrooms was a
total of five for in one of the second floor bedrooms was a one
person bedroom, the other second floor bedroom was large enough for
two people to occupay, a two=person bedroom. In the attic upstairs
was a large open attic running substantially R was large enough again
for two residents . The proposed occupancy for the - the legal
I
II - 18 -
I
i
I
i
loccupancy in an approved March 1978 building occupancy for that
I
i
apartment was five residents . The legal maximum was five resident .
'!Mr. Travis ' s request in terms of the number of people remains at
: five residents . His proposal - the crux of his proposal is to change
the layout of the bedrooms so that instead of five people in three
bedrooms, there would be five people in five bedrooms . Instead of
Ia large attic running the length of the upstairs of the apartment
there would be - on the 105 side, three bedrooms surrounding a
cathedral ceiling , which as a matter-of-fact , goes down above the
living area of the - in the second floor. So at 105 the request i
to continue the same number of people to have the living area of
jthe second floor extend right to the ceiling of the attic with threle
legally sized bedrooms around them - all of a size such that under
state building codes no more than one person can reside in any one
lof them. There is a minor difference in terms of 107 , in an area
of uncertainty insofar as I am concerned. Again, apartment four
the ground level apartment at 107 does not change other than from In
arguable three to a legal maximum of two in two bedrooms . The up-
stairs attic at 107 on the north side of the house is a larger room .
It runs the length of the house „ it has been approved and was ap-
proved in March. of 78 , and I don't think there is any dispute about
this for five people, which was a one one-person bedroom on the
second floor; one two-person bedroom on the second floor and anothejr
two persons occupying the entire attic of the property. I think,
but I will admit that I am not sure of this, that that attic at 107
I
was large enough for three people . The summary of what I am trying
to point out , not only to the Board but to the neighbors , is that
th-e total occupancy permitted prior to the fire and prior to the
changing hands of ownership of that property was 17 , and possibly
18 . If we can got an extra one sleeping on a mattress in the corner
of the attic before the fire , it was possibly 18 . I think it was
clearly, 17 . The Building Department on a March 78 inspection,
i
( clearly acknowledged, I believe, that 15 could reside in both halfs
sof the duplex, Mr. Travis ' s proposal in terms of density is 15
,,people . The change is that a request to go from eleven bedrooms to
I
I
I
19 -
;I
fifteen bedrooms . No more multiple bedrooms , no more open attic
bedrooms. The reason that the request is made based on that as being
lone for which practical difficulties exist , to which I ' ll come bac
Ito in a moment and one which is in the spirit of the Ordinance as
I
contained in that section, and I think also in the best interests
of the neighborhood, is that no longer on both sides are there two
, attics upstairs running the length of the house. No longer, as has
been on information, I don' t know this personally - I have been toll
by people that I have talked to - no longer are the large open attic ,
either crash pads , band practice rooms , which they were used to and
1were delightful for, at one point - for the person on the drums ,
I 'm not sure about anybody else in the neighborhood, no longer are
they attractive to large groups who wish to be able to expand over
a very large room. Instead the market for which a bedroom, large
enough for one person, is aimed - Mr . Travis has proposed and hopes
for tenants , is - would be families who want separate bedrooms for
heir children, or students who want separate bedrooms bedrooms
arge enough. for themselves , bedrooms where they can have some
rivacy, bedrooms where they can sit and study, rather tlian party.
think that is one of the reasons it is in the spirit of the Ordi-
ance and also, quite frankly, in the best interest of the neighbor
ood. Insofar as the practical difficulties are concerned, we are
1,talking about a conceded approximate one foot shortfall in the nort
�property line. The building has been there for 100 years - it ' s a
Legal use . It can' t be moved.. The five apartments can be maintain d
s they were with the barn type attic bedrooms if necessary. The
of size, I submit is large enough legally, if it is not large enou h
Legally, if it does turn out to be 8 ,30.0 feet - if a survey were do e
th instruments and so forth, I still submit the existence - pre,
ence or absence of another thirty square feet or one hundred squar
eet of cliff in the back of the property and that is the area wher
i
e are in some doubt as to the property line. There is not a
etermining factor and obviously the lot cannot be expanded after
ne hundred years of use . It is a permitted use. Insofar as the
egal issue is concerned I think, and I would submit , that the asI
I
I
j - 20 -
1
I
'Ilong as someone is rebuilding a fire damaged conforming use , as this
11is , in a non-conforming neighborhood, that they are entitled to the
I I II
same unless they are expanding the nature of the shortfall . If we
were building closer to that lot line , we couldn't do it . If we
!i
wanted to sell off 50 square feet of land and thereby make it a
I
smaller lot then it had legally been before, it could not be done
sunder the Zoning Ordinance. But as long as the nature side yard
and lot requirements are not shortfalls , if you will are not being
increased, I respectfully submit to this Board that Mr. Travis is
entitled, as a matter of law, but our principle thrust of course , i
is that his reconstruction will benefit the neighborhood, it will
I
not increase the density and it will improve the nature and charactjer
of tenants in the property. All of the other requirements of the i
Ordinance are met by the property. I 'm happy to answer questions.
Mr. Travis may wash to add something that I forgot and if I 've over[
looked something - if he wants to add something . . . yes sir, . .
R. ANGELL: I 'd like to pin you down a little more on the occupanc .
R. KERRIGAN: Yes six.
I
R. ANGELL: Up here (pointing to the chart) you said this was goin
to be reduced to three?
R. KERRIGAN: No sir, you' re pointing, I believe to apartment
three at 105 , which is the second floor and attic apartment. It' s
apartment three, the occupancy would remain the same.
R. ANGELL: But you said there was only going to be three bedrooms
R. KERRIGAN: And there would be three bedrooms on the top floor.
here would be two bedrooms on the second floor , all part of the
second apartment in addition to a bath, a living area and kitchen
nd an entry way. Two baths an entry and a living area.
S. DE COMBRAY; Have you got any plans - architect plans?
� .R. KERRIGAN: Is there - an architect did the plans . . .
I4R. ANGELL: And this other apartment is the same - that ' s three
1�nd two also?
IN1R. KERRIGAN: I 'm sorry. On apartment five sir? Apartment five i
ubstantially the same . I don' t think there is any dispute but
efore there were five occupants in three bedrooms but what Mr.
�I
I'
f
i
- 21 -
! Travis is asking to do is to have five occupants reside in the
! five bedrooms in addition to which there would be two baths , a
living area, kitchen and entry area. i
DR. GREENBERG: Am I to understand that you are clearly saying that
i
it is not only the intention of Mr. Travis to have fifteen residents
there - that ' s the legal limit of the number of residents if he
builds according to his present plan.
MR. KERRIGAN: Yes , under the state building code you require so
many people for so many square feet to put two people in a bedroom.
Some of these bedrooms are being made smaller none of them are
large enough to accommodate two people, We would have no objection,.
I am sure, to a stipulation either in Mr. Hoard' s approval of
building plans , your granting of a variance or subject to architect
and Mr. Hoard and Mr. Travis confirming that representation. Is
that - I can make - I 've got Mr. Travis ' s authority to make that
representation. There is - Mr. Travis does not wish to have large
groups of two and three people to a bedroom would hope that there
would be some families, and if not families in east hill in apart-
ment$ , there will be students living, of course . I would hope to
have the students serious enough to be studying rather than looking
for large place to have a party. I 'll sign any instrument to con-
firm that. Which can be running with the land. We are willing to
make it running with the land. Okay, there were also first and
second floor plans - perhaps the one other issue that might be of
assistance to the Board is - Mr. Hoard can correct me I believe
the Ordinance requires either five or seven parking spaces . I .
think it is five as I read the Ordinance - there is another inter
pretation that might say seven, I believe it is five . There are
eight parking spaces, including a four car enclosed garage on the
property. So off-street parking is more than adequate . I also
have first floor plans but not - the plans that are here are the
plans dealing withthe attic or third floor which is the only
Isignificant change proposal being made -t they are not completed
in regard to the first two floors which remain substantially the
1same and construction of which I believe has been approved under
!f
- 22 -
:!the fire damaged provisions of the Ordinance . For this approval ,
,�it does involve making one of the first floor apartments somewhat
smaller, but I think that' s going to be by adding a closet so it
cannot be used by two people in one bedroom. Mr. Travis , do you
1have anything you wish to add?
MR. TRAVIS: I think you've covered it. If there are any questions
I
I ' d be glad to answer them.
SMR. KERRIGAN: Thank you. I hope I 'm not cutting the Board short .
Do you have questions that I have cut you off on? (none)
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Is there anyone wishing to speak on behalf of the
proposed variance? (none) Is there anyone wishing to speak against
the proposed variance? Come forward and state your name and
address please?
MR. DALY: My name is Norman Daly and I live at 110 N. Quarry Stree
which is across the street from the property in question. Mr. Ker-
rigan said a moment ago that the off-street parking would be ade-
quate. The off-street parking is most inadequate. It is what I
would like to speak about now. There is only parking on the east
side of North Quarry Street. There is no parking on the west side .
From frosh-alley down, part of the parking space is restricted be-
cause of - it would be a blind area in terms of frosh-alley. This
leaves very little parking space there. I am the only person -
single dwelling in this area south of frosh.. My wife is an invalid
and I have to hire a special parking space for the nurse and when
I
that is taken up by students then the nurse finds it very difficult
to be on time or to even get there. The students don' t observe the
! regulations and the figures about how many people will be in the
house is not really an index or gives you no idea about how many
cars are actually going to be on the street or of people in the
house . For instance, Mr. Kerrigan quoted a figure as the previous
occupants being one person in the basement in the south. Why, I
have lived across the street from there, I know that all times ther
were two and more people in that basement apartment. The parking
problem is bad, I dont see how i,t can be - how any arrangement can
e permitted that would make it worse.
I
i
f - 23 -
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you Mr. Daly.
i
IMR. PARSONS : I 'm K. C. Parsons , I own the property at 128 Eddy
( Street which also has apartments and I 'm really not objecting
inecessarily, I have three questions to ask, I don't know who can
answer them. The first question is , how many bedrooms will be in
the five or seven apartments, I 'm not sure how many apartments I
(lost track in your record here and I think that - incidentally the
presentation was very good - very clear and although I have some
serious questions about the occupancy, I think from a legal point
of view I can' t see any problem - that is from a legal point of
view - but there certainly is a neighborhood problem about student
parking which Professor Daly referred to and I really don' t know i
what the standing is , in this case, of - you know - that particular
issue of there be a certain occupancy now which has - the owner has'
a legal right to he is not increasing that and so I suppose there
is none. However, I think that the statement that those units are ,
in fact, going to be occupied by no more than the occupants now
and that the bedroom sizes do not permit more occupancy than that ,
really needs to be answered more specifically. 1) How many bed-
rooms are being planned for, what is the occupancy proposed for
those bedrooms? I think, if I understand it they are all one perso
bedrooms , is that right?
R. KERRTGAN: That is correct,
R. PARSONS: What is the legal - my second question is , what is
legal area requirements for two person occupancy? T suppose . . ,
SECRETARY HOARD; 120 square feet.
R. PARSONS: 120 square feet. Then the third question is , what
is the area proposed for each of those bedrooms in the completed
project?
MR. TRAVIS; Yes , its between 116 and 119,
R. PARSONS ; So they are all under 120?
R. TRAVIS: They have to be.
i
�R. ANGELL: There was one on the blueprint that was 120 , T just
saw it,
I R. PARSONS: I 'd simply like to be assured that in fact the bedroo s
l�
ij
II
24 -
! are - you know - the legal occupancy is as stated - that is , that
fall one-person bedrooms . If there is one bedroom or two bedrooms ,
I �
',that in fact, according to your plans are 120 square feet - that
'i
�Imeans that later the occupancy could be increased and I think the
Board ought to take that into account . That' s really my only
concern.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: To make sure that we have all of this on record,
i
�1perhaps Mr. Kerrigan - after we hear from everyone - might want to
come up and respond to those questions .
MR. KERRIGAN: Thank you sir.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Do we have another person to speak? Sir?
MR. PARKER: My name is Reeve Parker and I live at 123 N. Quarry
Street in a single family house with my two children. And my con-
cern - T guess I would like to address the question for a point of
information to the Commissioner - which is , in your experience , in
this kind of a situation, is it realistic to assume that a legal
I
limit of fifteen will be observed in practice - does one find, in
other words , fifteen students who remain single in their rooms
during prolonged tenancy in a house like that or is it apt to be a
t
situation where the house will begin to fill up without any adequat
control over it? Or do you have inspections regularly enough to
control this situation? Because I think the danger would be that
the fifteen would grow to twenty or twenty-three or twenty-four and
that that .would seriously aggrevate the congestion and the noise
actor in the neighborhood. I brought a letter with me tonight that
as written by one of the previous owners of the house next door
he house that i believe, is now owned - across the street from Mr.
Daly but also owned by Mr. Daly which indicates that he had to move
ut of the neighborhood because of the noise factor coming from the
ouse for which the variance is being sought . He lived there with
,s wife and child. So I am very concerned because the issue is no
'ust an issue for the property in question, though I can understand
ha.t technically the variance has to be addressed on that basis .
It' s an issue of the character of east hill . East hill has lost
`ts school but it hasn' t lost a lot of its families and the attrac-
�jtiveness of the neighborhood depends very muchon keeping 4 tight
- 25
I
(control over the expansion of the student population. I 'm on good
terms with the students who live in the neighborhood but I would be
very unhappy to see an increase in the numbers . And so that' s the
question I would have - is it realistic to assume that such a limit
will be observed because you are increasing the number of bedrooms 'i
i
and I see a danger there of the thing floating out of control . And
again, I would also be very concerned as the last gentleman, Mr.
( Parsons , was concerned. I ' d be very concerned about this specific
i
designation on those plans of the square footage so that there
wouldn' t be a question in the future of, say removing a closet in
order to increase space, in order to permit double occupancy to the
rooms .
1
SECRETARY HOARD; Your question is a little difficult to answer
because there aren't any hard and fast rules but . . .
MR. PARKER; I 'm really appealing to your experience as much as to l
your . . .
SECRETARY HOARD; Our experience has been that there is less abuse
when there are smaller rooms rented in such a way where individuals
I
have a room when you have an apartment that has very large rooms
then you start finding extra tenants who are just staying for the
!weekend and that sort of thing. We have a hard time controlling
that . There aren' t any really good rules . . . usually we respond
we inspect on a three year basis and then in between we respond on
a complaint basis . If the neighbors say there are too many people
in that house then we go in and check, It ' s difficult to control .
I don' t know if that answers your question or not . . . .
CHAIRMAN AMAN; Anyone else? �
MS. KASKE; I 'm Carol Kaske and I own the property at 121 N. Quarr
Street and I would just like to speak from experience of my friend
who lived at the property immediately to the north of the property
in question , 111 r as to the sort of things that went on and they
reinforced the wisdom of the law the five feet set back and th.is �
is simply that objects are thrown out of the windows and land in
the yard regardless of the fact .that the yard is thirty feet wide
�I
my friend still objected when used contraceptives and sheets full
11 I
26 -
hHof vomit were thrown out of the windows and landed in her yard and
Mr. Travis , I think, doesn' t intend for this to happen and has
Ij
!assured us that it won't happen, but how can we be sure that this i
+going to be reinforced if this law is going to be enforced when Mr .
Travis lives in Trumansburg? That is , it is going to be a little
bit hard for him to ride herd on the students in a way that would
prevent this happening again. And I think that one foot that the
lot falls short could be a very crucial foot - even a civilized house
keeper shaking her dust mop is going to stretch out into Mr. Daly' s
property and the dust is going to fall out. That , in itself, is
not too bad but if you have students we can expect these other
things as well.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone else?
MR. PARSONS: I am very sorry, I really don't want to overdo this .
But it seems to me that in this situation one needs to be very
I �
( precise and I would ask the Board to be very precise in looking at
i
the plans for this structure to determine the bedroom size and' if
i
fit' s very near 120 square feet for quite a number of the bedrooms
i
that there be - if there can be some provision in your approval of
this particular variance. If that ' s permitted under the law that
ithose bedrooms , in fact , be restricted clearly in your approval as
was requested by the attorney for the appellant to the occupancy
(!that he has stated. Because it seems to me if some are119 square
feet, it would not be difficult to come back at a subsequent hearing
Band request for just a little old one square foot to increase the o -
I
cupancy to a number of the rooms . Now, I 'm not sure of the specifi
sizes , I 'm simply asking the Board to look very carefully at these
plans and make this determination so there is an opportunity at
(least to enforce the legal limit if you do grant the variance .
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone else wishing to speak against the variance?
MRS. SCHULER: I 'm Nancy Schuler and I live at 110 Ferris Place .
� I 'm also one of the alderman for the 4th Ward where this property
I
'is located. I just want to further support the concern of the
neighbors in that we live in a very unique neighborhood. It has ai
i
very interesting mix of students and families and older people and
I
- 27 -
it is crucial that it remain the interesting mix that it is now.
'As Mr. Parker mentioned, the fact that the school is gone certainly
!does not help the fact that families would want to come back into
that neighborhood or stay there and I think the concern is that we
are just sure that the density is definitely not increased there .
i.
The main concern of the neighborhood is density, noise , parking,
garbage and dogs . And if you have more density of people you have
more garbage, dogs , noise - the main concern being if, as the other
gentleman had said, if we can be assured that the apartments each
have one bedroom within each apartment then you are not increasing
your density and the other hope being that as an absentee landlord
he would still be concerned with the property for the people who
have chosen to live as neighbors . Thank you.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone else wishing to speak against the proposed
variance?
MR. KERRIGAN: Mr. Chairman may I respond in just a moment?
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes, I wish you would answer those specific questio S .
MR. KERRIGAN: I think Mr. Travis would also like to , maybe after
I respond to some of the specific questions , I believe Mr. Travis
would like to respond a little bit to . . .
CHAIRMAN AMAN: May I hold you up a little bit? We do have a letteCr
which. we would like to read into the record.
SECRETARY HOARD; You may want to respond to this one .
I
MR. KERRIGAN; In other words , look out? Is that what that means?
SECRETARY HpARD: This letter is from John Novarr at 202 Eddy Stree ,
Ithaca, New York:
"Board of Zoning Appeals
Ithaca City Hall
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
"I live at 202 Eddy Street, close to the building on Quarry Street
which Mac Travis is rebuilding, it is my understanding that Mr.
Travis is adding four bedrooms on the third floor in an area which,
previous to the fire a few months ago , was essentially attic space .
In order to do this, Mr. Travis has drastically changed the roof
line of the building. Mr. Travis is deficient in the side lot re-
quirement and total lot size, and is asking for a variance with
regard to these deficiencies . f
"1 wish to object to Mr. Travis ' plan and ask that no variance be
issued. As you may know, Mr. Travishasalready rebuilt the
structure with the roof line changed. The Planning Board denied
I
I
28 -
I
I i
111him their recommendation, in part, because of this changed roof
dine. They felt that preserving the architectural integrity on
{ Quarry Street was desirable.
jj"I realize that asking for a denial on the basis of a roof line may
; seem unfair, but it ties into what is happening to East Hill in a
! general way. The whole complexion of the neighborhood is changing.
Collegetown has become a slum and the mess is moving onto Eddy and
Quarry Streets , not to mention other areas all over the hill . Land
beautiful
ords tend not to see the area as one of the older and more
areas of Ithaca, but instead see it as bedrooms . They
1maximize their investment by turning lawns into parking lots and
1 orches , attics, living rooms and dining rooms into bedrooms . The
value of the property no longer depends on what it looks like and
hat shape it is in, but upon how many dollars it can produce . Con
equently, East Hill is slowly becoming an unsightly slum with
several thousand more people living there than the area was designe
o have. The population density of East Hill has to now be the
reatest in the City. I would urge the B. Z .A. to reject all var-
iances that result in adding yet more people to an already
,crowded building ."
+ 's/ John Novarr
John Novarr 1
002 Eddy Street
thaca, New York 14850"
i
R. KERRIGAN: Very briefly and if I can in order perhaps insofar 4
r. Daly' s concern is , I 'm not an expert as to the parking require- �
ents but what I intended to point out was that while the Ordinance
�Iequires five or seven spaces , there are I think its five , but it
ay be seven - there are eight on this particular lot. For five
partments not in lawn, as Mr. Novarr suggested but at the back of
the property where there has been parking for years . Insofar as th�
i
oncern which I share and I think Mr. Travis shares as to two peopl
Living in one-bedroom apartments or two people who have lived in th4
asement , I think Mr. Travis ' s experience at other properties on I
ast Hill - other properties in town, the Building Department ' s
i
xperience with him in his commitment to build the building so that !
he next owner can' t get two people , speaks for itself to some degr e .
think that insofar as Mr. Daly' s concern - coupled with that of
s. Kaske if I am pronouncing that correct in terms of the side
i
yard n the three foot side yard trash, whatever else is being
thrown out of the windows . The building at th.e time of the design
i
� f the roof line, intentionally left no windows on the north side
Of the property so that that could not happen. There are windows II
believe on the second floor where they have been all along which wa�
of destroyed by the fire . So there are no third floor windows to
I
I
I� I
i
i
- -
29
;
i
! create - facing this side yard that we are talking about - and I
i
! think that will minimize the problem but I think more significant,
it will be minimized more if that attic, now a space without north
windows , becomes a space of small bedrooms rather than wonderful
parties , or whatever else. I think Mr. Hoard, to some degree ,
expressed some of that in terms of - its easier to count the numbe
of people living in 119 foot bedrooms then it is to count the numbgr
of people living in a 700 , or 800 or 900 square foot attic. I 'm
not sure how large that attic is . Do you know Mack? An attic run-
ning - its pretty difficult to count the number of people at 2 : 00
o' clock in the afternoon when Mr. Hoard' s inspectors get there to
determine how many people slept there the night before in a hugh
sprawling attic - at one time, which is a bedroom that can take a
number of people. You put a desk and a bed, chair in a room and you
will not have six people sleeping in 119 square foot room or even
two , I would submit.
i
CHAIRMAN AMAN: What is the largest bedroom that you plan to put i
there, besides the . . .
MR. KERRIGAN: The architect in drawing this , drew one at 120 feet .,
It has since been cut down, on the instructions of Mr. Travis to
119 for that legal limit , on purpose to get it under that. Some o
these bedrooms and I think a substantial legal case could be built
i
if these were 121 foot bedrooms and to get five more people ; two
more people in to some of these bedrooms, He has intentionally
kept it under the legal limit ,
MR. ANGELL: Would you submit to a condition of less than 120 feet?
MR. KERRIGAN; Absolutely. We ' ll submit to any condition limiting
the occupancy of these bedrooms to one person. Mr. Travis is hear-
ing that and agreeing with me . Any condition of any nature : deed,
zoning, building department no hesitation whatsoever. The - I
think. in part that is an answer to Mr . b'arker' s concern that with.
Ia smaller bedroom, a more family type apartment unit - it is far
Iless likely to be used by groups of people who would not be helpful
Ito east hill . Mr. Novarr appeared to be concerned about an increase
11n the density - IFm not sure that this is, I think that the lawn
l
I
I-
I
I
- 30 -
I{
jof this property will be returned to lawn, which I don' t think it
I
�!has been for a great many years - based on what I 've observed of
ii
+ Mr. Travis ' s other properties in the City of Ithaca and I think he
wants to talk a little bit about his concern for the City and not
east hill .
MR. TRAVIS: Just briefly if I may. Just to assure my neighbors
there and the Board of Zoning Appeals , I had an experience last
year restoring a house on Eddy Street and it was made very clear
that the only way the variance would be granted was if we limited
the density in that tremendous house to twenty- one people . I
designed the house with an architect which I did -= he is the same
architect here and we limited the building to that - to twenty-one
; people, I lease it to just that many people . I make it very clear
I
to my tenants that that is what the occupancy is , in my lease .
iSo the intent is certainly there. I will say too that I am con-
Icerned about the quality of apartment life. I own a number of
� �. y �
( apartments and the legal size for a one-bedroom apartment is 80 square
feet - that' s about the size of your bathroom - a little larger.
I 'm trying to get in the largest bedroom that I can and still keep
it a single bedroom hence the 119 square feet. As far as John
' Novarr' s concern about the roof line, I had an architect design
this and we settled, after considering a mansard roof and various
other designs , on a gambrel roof, which. Mr.. Novarr' s home itself
has as well as several houses within a couple of hundred feet of
that area have gambrel roofs. It fats right into the architecture
of that area and its my intent to turn this house it has been
run - I would call it a slum for the thirty years that the previous
owner, or T don' t know how long it was a slum, but certainly - for
a long time it has been a slum - into a pleasant , cheerful addition
to your neighborhood, As far as living in Trumansburg, I live in
a cottage on the lake out by Taughannock. I maintain an office
( right around the corner on Cayuga Street, I have a twenty-four
I
hour answering service and a full time maintenance group so - to
f
Imy neighbors , if you have any problems call me up.
MR. ANGELL: Is your only occupation property management?
}
I�
- 31 -
j MR. TRAVIS : No it is not . I also have a motion picture company.
!;MR. ANGELL : One other thing . Is it possible or would you put a
is
;' couple additional parking spaces in there or not? Are you satisfi d?
MR. TRAVIS : Well there is a four unit garage, the eight parking I
places there account for taking out some debris and adding one so
I think eight parking places is substantially the limit .
MS. DE COMBRAY: How much of the work has already been done? Did
I understand . . .
MR. TRAVIS : Well we have stopped now as far as we can' t do any
more inside until a decision has been made by the Board of Zoning
Appeals . We've got another couple of days work in enclosing the e
building. The roof is entirely on the building and shingled, I
have people cleaning up the downstairs - all the trash, the burned ,
debris has been taken out - the water damaged plaster , the floors
that rippled and had to be replaced, and so on - so there is a
' considerable amount of work but we have not studded in the interio
sof the walls there is just a big space left there waiting for a
decision. We've only proceeded under the Building Commissioner's
what he said we could do and Elmer Stickler is up there inspecting
it periodically.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you Mr. Travis . The next appeal Mr. Secretary?
I
I
ii
,I
- 32 -
i!
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I
FEBRUARY 4, 1980
EXECUTIVE SESSION
i
Appeal No. 1290 :
CHAIRMAN AMAN: I move that the Board grant the area
variance with the condition that no bedroom
be over 119 square feet , there be no north
facing windows on the third floor; that
there be one occupant per bedroom and the
total occupancy shall not exceed fifteen
(15) tenants .
1DR. GREENBERG: I second the motion.
VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent.
FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Under the conditions stated the variance
does not increase the density of use of the
property.
2) The proposal does not change the character
of the neighborhood.
3) The property meets the off-street parking
requirements .
i
4) The non-conforming aspect of the property
is minimal .
5) The appellant is entitled to rebuild the
premises to its original form. The plan he
proposes would improve upon the fire des-
troyed building in that only bedrooms for
single occupancy will be allowed.
6) The design of the roof of the proposed
building is not within the purview of the
Zoning Board.
I
i.
i
- 33 -
i
I l
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
I1 CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
'I
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
( SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 2-1-80 . I ' ll
read it into the record, it has been postponed, as I understand it ,
at the request of the Planning Board.
Appeal No. 2-1-80 : Appeal of King W. Tang for a variance under
Sections 34. 4B (regulations for projecting
signs) and 34 . 3 (historic sign regulations)
to permit retention of the existing sign
at 114-118 West State Street in a B-3
(business) use district. The existing sign
projects more than eighteen (18) inches fro
the face of the building. The appellant
is also requesting designation of the sign
as an historic sign.
That appeal will be put over until next month.
Appeal No. 2-2- 80 is also put over:
Appeal of JVRC Enterprises for a variance
under Sections 34 . 4B, 34 . 8 and 34 . 3 to
permit retention of the existing sign at
602 West Buffalo Street in a B-4 (business)
use district . The existing sign projects
j more than eighteen (18) inches from the
face of the building , exceeds the total
area permitted, and projects within eighteen
(18) inches of a sidewalk. The appellant i
also requesting designation of the sign as
an historic sign.
The next case then was postponed at the request of the appellant
arlier this evening, appeal number 2-3-80 :
Appeal of Cayuga Electric Supply Co . , Inc.
for a variance under Section 34 . 5 to permiti
retention of the existing sign at 307 West
Lincoln Street in a R-2b (residential) use
district. The existing sign exceeds the
total area permitted.
he next appeal is appeal number 2-4-80 :
Appeal of D.L. & G. Audio , Inc. d/b/a Tech
HiFi for a variance under Section 34 .6 to
permit retention of the existing signs at
205 Dryden Road in a B-2b (business) use
district. The existing signs exceed the
total area permitted.
s these someone here from Tech HiFi?
R. GOLDMAN: My name is Richard Goldman, I 'm one of the owners of
.L. & G. Audio, Inc. which does business as Tech HiFi in College-
, 'own,
e-
1 g
own. We purchased this business in July of 1979 . One of the firs
hangs we dial when we purchased the business was inquire about the
i
II I
- 34 -
sign because the signs there are rather expensive - they run a
I
total cost of about $5, 000. 00 and part of our purchase was to pur-
chase signs that were already in existence. So we asked the previo s
I �
owner if he had had permits to put up the signs , being aware that
( there was Sign Ordinances that were going to be coming into effect .
+ He said yes there were and he produced copies of permits that were
granted in, I believe, May or June the summer of 1975 , one or two
ears after the Sign Ordinance went into effect. Our attorney
Ichecked these over and said yes these permits were good and valid
and they were granted and so we said okay. So we purchased the
I
business and the signs were part of that. Then we received a lette
that we were in violation of the Sign Ordinance. This was a little
peculiar being that we had received these permits already. And, in
act , the signs are beyond the legal limit of 45 square feet for
that property. There are two signs there, one facing Dryden Road,
he main sign and one facing College Avenue which is a small 5 x 5
foot sign. We would ask that we be allowed to keep both signs ,
umber 1 , because the permits were granted after the Oridnance was
assed and number 2 because they are important in the running of ou4
I
usiness. Currently the sign the main sign that is in question
s the second sign which approaches College Avenue that ' s right now ,
n front of the lot that was just purchased by the Turk Brothers .
here are plans , I understand, approved on the building , but no bui d-
ng has gone on there and it does provide us good visibility from i
College Avenue. The other sign which is on . . ,
CHAIRMAN AMAN: I 'm sorry - how big is that sign?
i
R. GOLDMAN: That sign is 5 feet x 5 feet across about 25 square
eet. That' s basically our request,
S, DE COMBRAY: It says here that the sign costs $2 ,500 . to put up .
R, GOLDMAN: A similar sign today would cost approximately $5 , 000 . 1
R. GREENBERG : T don' t find this quite eligible . The sign exceeds
he allowed limit by approximately and then it (the appeal applica- �
ion) gets vague , What is it?
R, GOLDMAN: I don' t know.
ECRETARY HOARD: The existing signs total 17 square feet based on
I
'f
I
il
35 -
i
;I
I
Ithe frontage of the building. They would be permitted a maximum
sof 42 and 3/4 square feet.
IMR. ANGELL: What is the sign on the front - size on the front?
i
i
.ISECRETARY HOARD: The sign on the front is 45 square feet .
MR. ANGELL: And he is allowed 42?
MR. GOLDMAN: and three-quarters .
SECRETARY HOARD: For the record - it is quite correct that the
sign permits were issued in 1975 - two separate sign permits .
DR. GREENBERG: With the knowledge that the Sign Ordinance would
go into effect - with a warning that it would go into effect?
( SECRETARY HOARD: The Ordinance was in effect at that time.
DR. GREENBERG: But the permits were granted?
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any other questions? Anyone wishing to speak on
behalf of the variance? (no one) Anyone wishing to speak against
the variance? (no one) Thank you very much.
I
I
I
I
1
I'
i
- 36 -
'I I
I �
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I'
�I FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Appeal No. 2-4-80 i
DR. GREENBERG: I move that the Board postpone the decision
on this appeal pending discussion with the
City Attorney.
R. ANGELL: I second the motion.
i
,I
I
I
i
j - 37
II
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
f� CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
I I
FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
�ISECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 2-5-80 :
Appeal of The Automobile Club of Syracuse ,
Inc. for a variance under Sections 34 . 4B
to permit retention of the existing sign at
328 North Meadow Street in a B-4 (business)
use district. The existing sign projects
more than eighteen (18) inches from the
face of the building and projects within
eighteen (18) inches of a public highway,
waterway or sidewalk.
I�MR. DELANEY: I am Jack Delaney, I 'm with the Automobile Club of
Syracuse. We are fairly new to your lovely community down here - we
merged with the Finger Lakes Automobile Club back in October of 1976 .
At that time there was a sign in front of the building which was
rented by the Finger Lakes Automobile Club and we - in 1976 put a
new facing on it to read Syracuse Automobile Club. The sign was put
up back in September 14 , 1967 , to the best of our recollection from
the records that we obtained from the Finger Lakes Automobile Club .
The Triple A national emblem, of course, is worldwide known and in
the letter that we received from the City of Ithaca the purpose of
this chapter is to promote and protect the public health, welfare,
and safety by regulating existing enclosed outdoor advertising.
Outdoor advertising signs and outdoor signs of all types . It is
intended to improve communications within the community, to protect
property values , create a more attractive economic and business
climate and enhance and protect the physical appearance of the
community. And we would be no means want to detract from this
beautiful area in the Finger Lakes . However, we do feel in fact
e are in a business district, we are on route 13 which is the main
thoroughfare through the community and it is our opinion that there
isn' t mucfi_ else we can do regarding this sign, Unfortunately the
wilding that we purchased sits only about 36" from the sidewalk
and it was not moved there it was there when we moved in, As I
stated in my, rhetorical letter to you people , we are serving 10 ,000
embers in this area and along with- that , of course, naturally, you
have many visitors to this area and you also have Itwo rather large
i
- 38 -
ii
j'univers ' ties in the area and we service many of these university
students as well. The - many of the people do come to the automo- �
I�bile club headquarters , for which we have ample parking in the
';rear - several people do call for service but the majority of them
come in to pick up routings , find out where the hotels , motels are
in the community and we feel that if we had to take this sign down
icor change it to any great degree , aside from the expense and the
(cost of it , it would not allow the people an opportunity to know
I
where our office is located. There are other signs in the area that
will , I understand, have been applied for under historical sign
variance. We are not falling into that category, unfortunately, but
it is our sincere hope that you will reconsider the fact that the
sign, although it ' s a very sturdy sign very well constructed and
in my estimation at least, not the least bit of obtrusive to the
motoring public would allow us this variance to keep the sign
at its present location. Thank you.
I
CHAIRMAN AMAN; Are there any questions? Anyone wishing to speak
i
on behalf of this variance?
MR. SLATTERY; My name is Don Slattery: I 'm the first ward city
( alderman and I would like to speak in favor of the variance. It
seems to me that the sign is an integral part of their business ,
( their business would be damaged if the sign were not there , I think,
it is appropriate that the variance be allowed.
CHAIRMAN AMAN; Anyone else wishing to speak on behalf of the 0
variance? (_no one) Anyone wishing to speak against it? (no one)
;
i
!' I
39 -
I
I;
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
I!
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I
FEBRUARY 4, 1980
EXECUTIVE SESSION
I
APPEAL NO. 2-5-80 :
DR. GREENBERG: I move that the Board grant the sign
variance requested in appeal no. 2-5-80.
MR. ANGELL : I second the motion.
VOTE: 0 Yes ; 4 No ; 2 Absent .
Sign variance denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT; 1) The sign protrudes 51-,' from the building
and within 18" from the public right-of-way.
2) It would present no undue hardship to the
I
Automobile Club to affix the sign to the
front of the building.
3) The building is easily identified by a sign
on the north side and now on the east side ;
with the present sign affixed on the east
side • it would be easily identified.
4) Through that stretch of Meadow Street the
buildings are very close to the street and
1 the problem of "side friction" is compounded
with a sign overhanging the right--of-way.
I
I
f�
f '
i
i
I
40 -
�I
f
i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal has also been postponed. It is
appeal number 2-6-80 : Appeal of Chanticleer Restaurant for a
variance under Sections 34. 4B and 34 . 3 to
permit retention of the existing sign at
101 West State Street in a B-3 (business)
use district. The existing sign projects
more than eighteen inches from the face of
the building. The appellant is also re-
questing designation of the sign as an
historic sign.
;The next appeal is appeal number 1291 :
Appeal of Anthony J. Albanese for a use
variance under Section 30. 25 , Column 2 to
permit rental of space in the building at
102 Adams Street for a silk screening
business . The property is located in an
R-2b (residential) use district in which
commercial uses are not permitted.
MR. ALBANESE: Mr. Chairman, Board Members , I 'm Anthony Albanese ,
I
T own the Ithaca Calendar Clock Factory, which I purchased in 172
i
and it is in a residential area and through a few appeals here it
has been designated a commercial building and since that time we
I
have it about 500 occupied a little bit less than 50% . In our i
( appeal this evening, we would like to introduce a printer' s gallery)
Iwho want to rent the second floor - this is on the Adams Street sidle,
facing the park - which has an equivalency of about 3 ,000 square
feet and the use being they want to have a silk screening businesis .
He doesn' t happen to behere this evening - he has a representative i
here so if there are any questions about - or pertaining to his
business, I'm not too familiar with it outside that there would be
about 2 to 4 employees. I 've been looking for a tenant to try to
keep this in a low profile because of it being residential - and
having only 2 to 4 employees it fits the purpose pretty good. It
will have deliveries two or three times per month and, let ' s see , I
I
the working hours will be from 9 to 5 through the working days each!
week, And he has an outlet , I believe at the Commons . There won' t
Ibe any retail business to this . If there are any other questions ,
I ' d be more than glad to answer if possible , if not , I have his
i
i
I�
it
41 -
i
�jrepresentative here. The second floor of Adams Street there is
11about 3 , 000 square feet . I have had plenty of opportunities of
ix
.i
�Irenting it but they were always to smaller businesses and it just
i
wouldn' t work, putting in utilities and entrances and all the
utilities that whereas this one will have just one bath, one
heating system and it will keep a low profile in that area and this
is what we have been trying to do. And as far as the parking we 1
have almost thirty parking areas of which right now we 've got about
twelve of them occupied.
DR. GREENBERG : How is silk screen printing done? What kind of
equipment is used?
MR. ALBANESE: Printing - they print T-shirts , jackets and sweaters
of that nature .
DR. GREENBERG: Is it heavy equipment , noisy equipment or a lot of . .
MR. ALBANESE: No. As far as I am concerned we had a tenant similar
to that who had silk screening and they were right next to our
office and its a matter of some kind of a press which they just
spray the stuff on and - he doesn' t happen to be here and I haven' t
been able to get ahold of him but , it ' s a light work and we have ar
elevator and they' ll have an entrance on the Dey Street side and a
exit on the Adams Street side. So it fits the building just perfe t .
DR. GREENBERG: No odor and no noise , no objections as far as you
can . . . ?
MR. ALBANESE: As far as I am concerned it is an ideal tenant . I ' e
been looking for someone who would consolidate that much area with
the least amount of people. It will minimize it takes up the
whole front of the second floor. Now the remainder of that second
floor is where the book club is and they are there during the fall
of the year so it is not going to bother anyone. We have ample
parking and we also have , the entrances are there and I might add
i
that the building has been a landmark a designated landmark and
so there won' t be any changes unless there might be a door that th y
might want to increase by two or three inches - that doesn' t mean
change the outside structural part but just the framwork which was
approved by thein. Now this is the intent and I , I ' ll lease it -
I
!i
iE
42 -
1
II can probably swing , if I can get this rented with this lease here ,
i,
jI can accommodate it very nicely and this will leave me about one
'i
' more rental on the first floor and I would have it about two-third
i
, rented. The building hasn' t really been carrying itself up to this
time and this is going to come real close to it .
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you, sir. Anyone wishing to speak on behalf
of the proposed variance? (_no one) Anyone wishing to speak against
it? (no one)
i,
i
'i
i
f
i
1
I
i - 43 -
1
ji BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
I�
FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
(( EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 1291 :
MS. DE COMBRAY: I move that the Board grant the use variance
requested in appeal number 1291 .
MR. ANGELL: I second the motion.
VOTE : 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent
Use variance granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT: l) In previous appeals for this property the Boar
determined that it was impractical to use the
building for residential purposes . It deter-
mined that each case be looked at through the
appeal process .
2) The proposed use will generate no customer
traffic.
3) It will involve 2 to 4 employees .
4) The retail operation associated with this
business is located elsewhere , in a business
district.
S) There is ample parking.
6) Testimony indicated that the use will not be
noise, or generate unpleasant ordors or
traffic and will not adversely affect the
residential character of the neighborhood.
i
i
II
II - 44 -
!+ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
� FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
I
( SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1292 :
�) Appeal of Anthony J. Albanese for a use
variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 2 to
permit rental of space in the building at
102 Adams Street for piano repair and storage
a use which is not permitted in the R-2b
(residential) use district in which the prop-
erty is located.
IMR. ALBANESE: I won't make this a habit . The second appeal is for
the Finger Lakes Music people who have a place at the Pyramid and
they want to use an area in the back which was formerly rented to
the Ad People. The Ad People have reduced their size and they are
using just part of the back entrance where the old boiler room used
to be and the balance of that space, the Finger Lakes Music would
like to use it for storage - pianos and they have - there will be
Ino employees there, they' ll make deliveries about ten times a week
and the representative is here now, Mr. Barnes - if you would like
to - this here is in the back of the building where the boiler used
fto be where the Ad People it' s on the Auburn Street side - this has
been vacated now for about a year. The Ad 'People cut their business
down they have just one person back there, so it doesn't change -
there won' t be any employees there only there will be deliveries
for storage, If there are any questions , if I can't answer them,
I
Mr. Barnes 1s here and will be glad to answer any questions .
SMS. DE COMBRAY: Did you just say > deliveries ten times a week?
Is that what you dust said,
MR. ALBANESE: I think I better let him elaborate on it .
MR. MILLER: I 'm Clyde Miller from Finger Lakes Music. What was
your question?
MS. DE COMBRAY: I understood Mr. Albanese to say that deliveries
would be made ten times a week?
I �
MR. MILLER; At the most , yes. I would like to say they would be
ten times a week.
MS, DE COMBRAY", Right, and what would these deliveries consist of?
MR. MILLER: We have 1000 square feet where we are presently. In
i
- 45 -
j
14 , 00 square feet I have to have a certain back up of instruments ,
i
I can' t carry - I don' t have any warehouse there, so it would be
backup instruments in that sense , or used instruments we have take
in trade until the time when we can take them up to our floor space
there to be sold. As far as trucks or anything like that , any
deliveries that would be brought to us from a manufacturer would be
unloaded at our retail location because most of the time when that
is done half of them stay right there for us to put on our own
truck and take them down there. Our truck - if you are worried
about a truck, its a step-van the same type that Cornell uses , in
fact they used it for their library. We purchased it from them -
so it is not a big truck by any means . As far as placement of the
truck, the particular part of the building that we have has a very
big garage door that we can back our truck right up inside and
i
close it, in fact , so I don' t think we would really bother anybody.
The one thing I did want to add, we may do a little electronic re-
pair there as far as our service man on taking a trade-in instru-
ment and checking it down there before we put it on our floor.
That presently is also done in the building now with a company call.-d
the Circuitry, in fact they used to do it for us . Are there other
questions?
CHAIRMAN AVIAN: Thank you.. Anyone else? (no one)
1
I�
�i
i�
I
- 46 -
I
I
ii BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
f
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i
I�
FEBRUARY 41, 1980
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 1292 :
CHAIRMAN AMAN: I move that the Board grant the use variance
requested in appeal number 1292 .
I
DR. GREENBERG: I second the motion.
i
VOTE : 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent
A
Use variance granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) In previous appeals for this property the Board
determined that it was impractical to use the
building for residential purposes. It deter-
mined that each case be looked at through they
appeal process ,
2) The proposed use will generate no customer
traffic.
3) It will not adversely affect the residential
character of the neighborhood.
4) The retail operation is located outside of th
city limits .
5) There is ample parking available.
I�
I I
i
I
I
I
I
i
- 47 -
ii
II BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
I COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
FEBRUARY 4 1980
SECRETARY HOARD: The next case has also been deferred, appeal
i number 1293 : Appeal of U-Haul Co. of Central New York for
an area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column
for a use variance under Section 30 . 36 , and ark
area variance under Section 30 . 43 , to permit
construction of a one and one-half story moving
and storage building totaling 34 ,600 square feet
at 343 Elmira Road in a B-5 (business) use
district and to permit extension of a commercial
use into an R-2a (residential) use district .
The proposed project would be deficient in re-
quired off-street parking, the building would
be within twenty (201 ) of a stream, and the
appellant is requesting permission to use a
portion of the property which extends to Spencer
Road in a residential district for commercial
vehicle parking and for access .
That case was presented to the Planning Board last month and as a
result of that meeting the appellant is going to go back and chang
their plans so a new plan will be coming before this Board.
The next case then is appeal number 1294 :
Appeal of Stephen J. Carroll for a favorable
interpretation or an area variance under Sec-
tion 30 , 25 , Columns 4 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 and 14
jl (.required off-street parking, minimum require
lot size, maximum permitted lot coverage , mini -
mum required side yard, minimum required fron
yard depth, and minimum required rear yard
depth) to permit conversion of the two-family :
house at 108.110 Cascadilla Street to a multile
dwelling (cooperative or rooming house) . The
property, located in an R,3a (residential) us
district , is deficient in minimum required of -
street parking , minimum required lot size ,
minimum required front, side and rear yard
depths , and the maximum permitted lot coverag
is exceeded.
MR. CARROLL; I 'm Steve Carroll and the appeal is actually the
estate of Wilmar Carroll , which Ilm the administrator. This is a
jduplex house where my family has lived in one side for over twenty
years and the other side has always been a rental unit and due to
! the fact that it is in the estate and I'm left there by myself now,
Ilm trying to sell the property. This is a six bedroom property o
the side where I live and a five bedroom on the rental unit side aid
I have not been able to sell it and I. can1t find anybody with a
I
large fam ,lr that wants six bedrooms where you have a very small
yard. Any perspective buyers I have want to make this into a rent l
i
- 48 -
i
' unit and rent out each bedroom individually - that means you have I
I
six tenants - six people on one side and five on the other side .
I
This is why I am asking for the variance to enable me to sell the
property. As I said, these are the existing rooms , there is no
construction, there is no change in the property itself it is just
using what is there. I want to point out that the problems that
are here - the side yard, front , rear yard are all problems caused
by existing physical characteristics of the property. The side
i
yard requirement is a questionable one - whether it is deficient o
not - it requires five feet on one side - which there is easily
and ten feet on the other side - and without getting a surveyor , it ' s
questionable whether it is 9111" or 1012" it ' s very, very close
on that. The front yard is deficient , obviously there is nothing
we can do about that without moving the building or the sidewalk o
something. The same way with the rear yard and percentage of lot
coverage is such that there is nothing you can do without making
the building smaller or the lot bigger. These problems - I think,
are somewhat unique to this house because most of the other houses
in the neighborhood are single family houses which don' t have - yol
know, which are very saleable or useable for a small family or a
single tenant , whereas this one isn' t because of its large size .
There are at least three other houses , however, right in the imme-
1diate neighborhood, one next door , one practically across the Streit
land one diagonally across the street that are somewhat similar
that are quite large places that don' t have off street parking and
which don't have the required side , front, rear yards with all thel
( same types of problems that mine has and these three houses are used
as rooming houses , They have obtained variances or at least they
are being used that way. I think this request would observe the i
spirit of the Zoning Ordinance since this an R-3 zone . Rooming
houses area permitted use and , as I said, there are at least three
other properties in the immediate neighborhood that are used this i
way. The Planning Board recommended against this for a couple of
i
reasons . I ' d like to answer those if I can. The Planning Board
staff recommended against it - primary reason being the property
i
i
I�
- 49 -
is in very good condition and they felt that the change to a roomi g
house might tend to let the property run down in some way. I 'd
like to say that I have seen other v ariances and have been at
other hearings at different times - I think there was a case in
i
point tonight as a matter of fact , where a house was in a deteri-
ated state and this was one of the reasons for granting a variance
so as to enable the person to put more rental units into the
i
property to actually change the property and generate more income
in order to rehabilitate it. Now this being the case, I don' t
think that I should be penalized for keeping a property in good
condition. The fact that it might run down is a questionable con-
sideration at best and as I say, I think it should be considered
that the property is in good condition as a point in favor of this
rather than a point against it , which is the way they considered it�
Also if this is made into a rental property the City Ordinance and
the rules for inspections , etc. are more restrictive if it is used
s a rental property then if it is an owner-occupied dwelling. So
Ke actually have better control over the condition of the property
f it is a rental property. The other reason the Planning Board
ecommended against it was that there was a petition from several
esidents in the neighborhood and I ' d like to answer the points tha
they raised. The petition mentioned that the fact that they felt
that this would detract from th.e residential spirit of the neighbor-
hood and as I 've already said there are at least three other houses
i
n the immediat. neighborhood that are used as rooming houses and I
o have these same types of deficiencies .. The petition also men-
tioned the other point in the petition was a potential increase in
raffic due to this conversion.. They mentioned that it was a busy
treet and the traffic had increased over the years . I would surely
gree with that, in fact I 've gone out and counted cars for five or
en minute periods several times to project a traffic count. I did
hiss five different tunes just since the Planning Board meeting las
eek and certainly I didn' t happen to hit the absolute maximum but
he highest number I happened to observe was 300 cars an hour
,hrough traffic up and down the street. Now this is quite busy and
I�
� I
50 -
I would like to point out that if this was used as a rental propert�
� I
tenant ' s cars would not be through traffic, they would be stopping
and starting up from a point within the block - wouldn' t be going
( through at the speed limit or over it all the way through and when
you consider 300 cars an hour, the fact of eleven or twelve tenants
in this building is way less than to increase in the traffic. Per-
fectly willing to agree that it would increase the traffic but I fell
on the increase is so minute as to not even be noticeable. Now the
I
other point that was rasied and one that I have to agree with is
parking. I 've lived there, as I say, over twenty years - parking i
a problem. For quite some time I have spoken to my alderman and
tried to create some more parking spaces on the street down there and
haven' t had much success. The biggest part of the problem is the
fact that Cascadilla Street for quite a long time had parking only
n one side. They have changed it now to allow overnight parking
n the other side of the street and around the corner on Lake Avenu
there is parking only on one side because the other side of the
'Istreet is the Cascadilla Creek. So the problem is between the Lake
� venue and the Cascadilla Street where there are approximately
�Ithirty to thirty-five parking spaces in total on the one night ,
when the date changes on the next night you are down to the one side
f Cascadilla Street where there is only about five spaces . If the
ity would ever change the parking regulations down there it would
solve the problem. That, I suppose is another question but the mai
problem with. the parking is because the way the street is laid out
and the way the city parking regulations read. On the even date
ou only have about five parking spaces whereas on the odd date
here is upwards of thirty-five , so I can't really answer that
question except to say that the biggest part of the problem is of the
i.ty' s creation and not mine . The only other possibility with. this
rroperty, which is not practical but if the Board passed it this
I
aY, it would at least give me some leeway to sell the property.
I
he house at 110 Lake Avenue - which the rear yard of that abuts the
ear Yard of my house - has a real real big rear yard with lots of
pace for both houses if it was ever split up . The owner , however,
I�
i�
I�
i
-
,
i
lwon' t split it up. He wouldn' t sell me any space out there to use
I I)
Ifor parking spaces. The only possibility is to buy the whole
property which is upwards of $40 ,000 which I don' t think I 'm
i
( trying to sell one house, I don' t especially want to have to try t
sell two. But if this was the only way it would pass , at least it
would give a potential buyer some option where he could buy both
houses and combine the rear yards and have two legal properties tht
i
would both have adequate parking . As I say, I don' t think that
would be a great help but it would give me some leeway. If that i
(Ithe only way it would be approved why I would work with that and
attempt to sell the property on that basis . Are there any questio s?
DR. GREENBERG: Excuse me. I don' t quite follow the question of
the third floor bedroom that you speak of. They are legal bedroom -
they are ready to be used legally, now, are they in use?
i
IMR. CARROLL: They are not in use , no.
DR. GREENBERG: But they are empty bedrooms?
MR. CARROLL: Right.
DR. GREENBERG: But no change that has to be . . ,
MR. CARROLL: The Housing Board is going to inspect them - there
possibly might be some minor changes . If so , it would be a matter
of a window that might have to be enlarged a few inches or something
I
like this,
DR. GREENBERG: Do you know anything about this Tom?
SECRETARY HOARD: - Yes I do.
MR. CARROLL: The Housing Board has themselves have not looked at
I it. One of the building inspectors has been down and measured
,
the rooms and such,
SECRETARY HOARD: There is an appeal to the Housing Board of Review
on this and the Board was going to visit the property to inspect
it before it ruled on it . On the 108 side , third floor, the
ceiling heights for all three bedrooms in this unit are deficient.
Required height is 716 and bedroom number 11, south, the ceiling
heights run from 4 ' to 714" and bedroom number 2 , center, the
ceiling heights run from 41 to 7 ' 3 I don' t know if that is sup-
posed to be 7 and 311-, inches or 7131"?
i
i
1i
I�
52 -
i
i
�jMR. CARROLL: 7 ' ceiling height.
I1SECRETARY HOARD: And bedroom number 3 - the ceiling height runs
from 4 ' to 713" . The south bedroom is deficient in natural light
j and ventilation. Required natural light is 20 . 2 square feet and
i
the room has 2. 7 square feet . Required ventilation is 10. 1 squarel
feet and the room has 2 . 7 square feet . The center bedroom is de-
ficient in natural light and ventilation. Required natural light
is 12 . 6 square feet and the room has 4 . 5 square feet. Required
, ventilation is 6 . 3 square feet and the room has 4. 5 square feet.
The south bedroom is also deficient in natural light. It has 8 . 2
square feet or required is 8 . 2 square feet - the room has 4 . 5 squa e
feet. On the other side, the 110 side, third floor ceiling height
of both bedrooms are deficient . Required is 716" and the heights
are 712" and 7 ' 4" . The center bedroom is deficient in natural
light required is 9. 8 square feet and the room has 4 . 5 square
feet. The north bedroom is deficient in natural light and ventila-
tion. Required natural light is 10 . 2 square feet and the room has
i
4. 5 square feet . Required ventilation is 5 . 1 square feet and the
room has 4 . 5 square feet.
( DR. GREENBERG: So in a sense what should be coming to - legally he
cannot use these spaces for bedrooms , is that correct?
SECRETARY HOARD: They would either have to get variances from the
Housing Board or physically change it .
i
DR. GREENBERG: Am T to understand that if we were to eliminate
the question of these bedrooms there would be no need for a vari-
ance in this case? Forgetting - if we were to eliminate the ques-
tion of the third floor bedrooms, there would be no need for a
I
( variance? It could be used as a duplex with a certain amount of
�lbedrooms and as far as required, in that area, owner-occupancy, it
lisn' t required.
SECRETARY HOARD; Right , if the third floor was just closed off,
i
then there would be no requirement for coming before this Board,
R. GREENBERG : So , we are really mixing our oranges and bananas I
i
lin discussing this, case . I think the request has to come to us and r
the nature of not--conversion of a double family duplex to a multipl
I
- 53 -
iidwelling but the question of increasing the density by increasing
, the number of bedrooms .
;' SECRETARY HOARD: Well , no there is a distinction being made here
i
they are talking about renting it , as I understand it , either as j
a Cooperative or as a rooming house , bringing into play the third
, floor, which when you have more than three unrelated people it be-
i
comes a multiple dwelling. If you have more than three unrelated
i
people on either side, then it becomes a multiple dwelling, which
his permitted but here we are expanding - we are talking a mon-con-
Iforming structure and changing it from a two-family dwelling to a
' multiple dwelling .
IMS . DE COMBRAY: Do you intend to run this rooming house yourself
i
� or do you have a buyer?
I
MR. CARROLL: No , I have a buyer.
DR. GREENBERG: If the buyer were completely aware that the possi-
bility of getting these bedrooms converted, is very small - you kn w,
up in the third floor area - would he still be interested in buyini
it? `II
MR. CARROLL: No.
� MS. DECOMBRAY: How long has the property been up for sale?
MR. CARROLL; About seven or eight months .
I
MS . DE COMBRAY: So it is still possible that a buyer might come
along who would like to buy it and have it as a duplex?
MR. CARROLL: I't 's possible but I 've shown it to about twenty people ,
Tall of whom are interested in income property. It ' s just the way
the house is set up. There are these five bedrooms on the third
Ifloor and everybody that has looked at it wants to be able to use
( them. There are questions , as Tom said, but my understanding , it
is fairly minor points , a matter of a couple of inches of ceiling
i
height and such. These are all finished rooms . The three on the
108 side have been used over the years by my own family. The ones
on th-e other side have not - they have just been used by the tenantls
I '
jas storage rooms because there isn' t a fire escape there. So we
have never rented out those third floor rooms on the rental side of
the house. The buyer is also going to have to add a fire escape ,
i
i
a
i
I - 54 -
I
I
S. DE COMBRAY: What about bathrooms?
I
R. CARROLL: There is one and one-half on the 108 side and one on
the 110 side. There is adequate bathrooms for-. the Ordinance .
; CHAIRMAN AMAN: If this were a rooming house what would the total
occupancy be?
MR. CARROLL: It would be twelve. Eleven. Six on the one side and
five on the other.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anticipating one per bedroom?
MR. CARROLL: Yes . From an earlier thing here, I 'm not sure -
there is one second floor bedroom on each side that might be large
enough for two people . These I haven' t checked on or anything. So
you could have possible thirteen, if those bedrooms are large enouh
and if they were used that way. I might just add maybe thirteen
sounds like a lot but there were five people in my family that liv d
in the one side and, if you rented the other side to a family, it
is entirely possible to have five or six people so the numbers o
people we are not really talking about that much of an increase.
You know it is entirely possible to rent each side to one family
and have eleven or twelve people there very easily.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone wishing to speak on behalf of the variance?
(_no one) Anyone wishing to speak against the variance?
MR. LISDELL: I 'm Herbert Lisdell , I live at 117 Cascadilla Street )
I believe I have more questions to ask than I do basic objections .
And that is it ' s a duplex house at the present time being request e
to go to a multiple housing situation. A multiple housing situati n
generally means that you have an absentee owner. Is there any
paper or any information been submitted that could verify whether
this would be an absentee landlord situation, what kind of control
there would be over the tenants , has anything been submitted to
the Board on that?
MR. CARROLL; I 'm virtually certain it would be an absentee land-
lord situation, As I say, I have potential buyers who, if I can
get this okayed, are
going to make a purchase offer for this house
Iand I 'm sure that that specific individual would be an absentee
Ilandlord. If it was approved and not sold to him, but to somebody
I�
� I
i
i1
else, it probably would be also. There is a possibility that it
, might not be but it probably would be.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Again, if you speak from the floor , you should come u
to the microphone .
MR. LISDELL: The reason I asked that was because that other known
property, generally with absentee landlords , requesting or having
multiple housing, generally has less control over the tenants un-
less they have at least a twenty page lease and enforce the lease.
Mr. Carroll also stated that one side of the house has five bed-
rooms , I believe, and the other side has six bedrooms . I might
ask how many rooms there is in the house or if they intend to
( convert every room, kitchen, bathroom, living room, dining room,
into a bedroom space - because that accounts for eleven rooms in
the house as it was stated - which I don't believe there is eleven
bedrooms there at the present time.
MR. CARROLL These are all existing rooms . The 110 side of the
house, which is the side that has been rented, has five bedrooms :
three on the second floor and two on the third floor. There are
three rooms on the third floor, one is a very small practically a
closet over sized closet. The first floor of that is three rooms ,
I
Ili.vi.ng room, dining room and kitchen. The bathroom is on the seco d
floor. As far as T know, there are no plans to convert the down-
stairs rooms into bedrooms , if that was your question.
MR. LTSDELL; That was my question.
MR. CARROLL; The 108 side, again there is no plans to convert the ,
downstairs, That is three bedrooms on the second and three bed-
rooms, on the third again, living, dining room and kitchen and
one-half bath on the first floor. A full bath is on the second
floor, The bedrooms in question would just be utilizing the
existing second and third floor rooms, leaving the first floor as
living And dining and kitchen.
MR. L15DELL; Thank you. Mr. Carroll also stated that he feels it
wouldn' t upset the general environment of the area or neighborhood
(since there are at least two other multiple h-ousilng buildings in
the block- one adjacent to his property and one across the street .'
I
i
i�
s — 56 —
I;
I--personally feel that it would upset it because , in his block
j
which is across the street from me 0 there is four buildings on
the block - one of them on the corner, a multiple housing building.
His building converted to multiple housing would represent 50% of
the block into multiple housing which I feel , personally, is ex-
treme for a residential family owned neighborhood where at least
80% of the people live in and own the properties across the street
from and adjacent to Mr. Carroll ' s property. The parking situatio
is the next one, which I feel is totally inadequate after living
there for ten years , to support what is already there . It is alte -
Inate parking which means the residents that are already there , owning
! their properties do not have adequate space to park. They have to
look around the corners on Geneva Street , other areas - for parking .
This with. fifteen more people - possibly fifteen more cars , could
I
double the parking requirements of that particular block. I ,
( myself, and my neighbor and I who share a driveway are constantly
} having problems of people infringing upon our driveway because
( there is no place to park. That means that we call the police , we
have to have cars towed away because there is no place to park.
I feel that this definitely would cause a bigger problem then what ,
ewe already have. Other than that , I can only say that I feel that
Ian area that is 80% family owned and lived in, another multiple
housing building in that particular block would upset , what I
consider a very decent, quiet, family owned neighborhood. Thank y u.
CHAIRMAN AMAN; Anyone else?
MR. SLATTERY; I1m Don Slattery, First Ward Alderman and I guess I
would echo the last gentleman's remarks here before this Board.
I'm concerned, as a representative of the Ward that we are seeing
more and more conversions being made of single family homes , duple es
into multiple family dwellings. I can speak to the issue of park-
ing in that area because Mr. Carroll petititoned me to do something
about the parking in the area several years ago and I appeared be-
Ifore the Board of Public Works and asked that alternate parking be
permitted on that street.. And at one time , only one side was
allowed to be parked on. As a result of the petition, they did
i�
ii
- 57 -
i
I!
,allow alternate side street parking on Cascadilla Street . The
' point I guess I 'm trying to make is that there has to be somewhere -
some sound reasoning and a halt to the conversions that are going
Ion in the city. We see many, many times responsible landlords
operating multiple family units but in a large percentage of cases
,the property tends to run down and deteriorate over a period of
years . It is not kept up where the landlord is on the premises .
The profit motive certainly is a very strong one in this community
because of the University and Ithaca College and the opportunity to
make money converting single family and duplex homes over into
ultiple family units . I£ there is indeed a great hardship here ,
I 'm not sure whether or not it has been proven. It seems to me
that if the property has been on the market for eight months , I 'm
of sure because of the financial constraints that everybody is
faced with nowadays , if that is sufficient enough time for that
property to be on the market. I 'm not sure what kind of a financia
train that puts on Mr. Carroll but T am certain that the other
esidents in the area and the other properties in the area, the
eople are concerned and the property values certainly - in my es-
imation - will not increase if a duplex is cony erted into a mul-
tiple family home . Largely it depends on how it is done and who
is going to operate it , I ' ll grant you that - but going door to doo
.own in that area, and observing the number of private homes that
Ince were individually owned and lived in and now you find four
oorbells there , four mailboxes, oftentimes six mailboxes - it is 1
ust the: property that I have looked at has deteriorated to a
reat degree. Now I am familiar with the particular piece of prop
rty on Casca,dilla Street because I have talked with Mr. and Mrs .
arroll many times -t obviously they have lived there for the past -
believe you said twenty years, Steve?
R. CARROLL; Over twenty years.
R. SLATTERY: Over twenty years and they've managed to rent the
Other side obviously for twenty years .
R. CARROLL: Yes .
�IR. SLATTERY: There is a need for enough bedrooms for larger
I
I
i
- 58 -
families and so I 'm not sure that that couldn' t continue to be
rented - I 'm not sure how much - if you could make as much money
running it as a duplex but it seems to me that there is a need
for duplex housing here in the City and I would hate to see anothe�
I piece of property converted over and I know that this is going to
i
come before this Board many, many times and it is a fact of life
that there are a lot of entrepreuners out there looking to make
the fast dollar and the way they are going to do it , is they are
going to convert single family homes and the duplexes into multipl
family properties and it just doesn' t seem to me to be in the best
interest of the City - not protecting our residential areas and
that is an R-3 zone I believe, if I 'm not mistaken.
SECRETARY HOARD: R-3.
MR. SLATTERY: It ' s an R-3 , which is a residential zone. I think
we had another case tonight on Quarry Street, I didn't hear the
entire case but there was another instance , I think, of a conversion
I
on Quarry. There is another matter coming up, I think it has
,been postponed tonight - on the Elmira Road, where a U-Haul Rental
( people want to expand their property into a residential zone . I
think what we are seeing here is the profit motive being exploited -
I 'm not saying that this is the particular case - because I 'm not
sure of the fi.nancies involved here but I think we have to be
awfully careful when we grant variances and exceptions to the zoning
laws because we are dealing with very precious areas of our City an
the residential area is deteriorating and I think we have made a
lot of inroads into bringing it back - both in the north and the
south sides of the City but T think we have to be very keenly awarel
here of what is happening here and try to protect the residential
zones as much as possible. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes sir.
R, RUMSEY; I am Ralph Rumsey, 107 Cascadilla Street. I guess thi�
Board is aware of the proeprty at 110- 112 Cascadilla and it is a j
Itwo-fam ,ly house with approximately 12 - 14 rooms - prospect of
aybe more - and the parking situation down there is terrific right
now and we do hope that Mr. Carroll sells the property but not as
- S9 -
I�
a rooming house. There is no land to the property practically andl
when they have an outdoor party it has to be on the sidewalk or
someplace and it makes it very disagreeable situation. I would
I '
I liek to see it kept in a private property.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you very much, sir.
MR. RUMSEY: Any questions? (none) Thank you.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone else wishing to speak? (no one)
I I i
I
I
i
I
I
I
r
60 -
I
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 1294 :
The Board considered the request for an area variance under Sectio
30. 25 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit conversion of the two-
family house at 108-110 Cascadilla Street to a multiple dwelling.
The property, located in an R-3a use district , is deficient in
minimum required off-street parking, minimum required lot size ,
minimum required front , side and rear yard depths , and the maximum
permitted lot coverage is exceeded.
MS. DECOMBRAY: I move that the Board grant the area variance
requested in appeal number 1294 :
MR. ANGELL: I second the motion.
( VOTE: 0 Yes ; 4 No ; 2 Absent,
Area variance denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) There are multiple and substantial deficienci S .
2) The proposed variance would increase the density
of the neighborhood and contribute to an al-
ready heavy traffic flow.
3) No provision has been made for adequate off-
street parking in a neighborhood which alread
suffers from a lack of parking.
4) Testimony from neighbors and a petition indi-
cated that the neighbors felt that a conversi n
would be harmful to the neighborhood.
I
5) There was substantial neighborhood opposition
I
I
I
I
j
61 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
I
I
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1295 :
Appeal of Planned Parenthood of Tomp-
kins County for an area variance under
Section 30. 25, Column 4 and Section 30. 37
to permit use of the property at 314
West State Street for a clinic. The
property, which is located in a B-2a
(business) use district , is deficient
in required off-street parking.
MR. DUNBAR: My name is Rich Dunbar , I 'm a lawyer but I 'm not here
in that capacity. I 'm here as a member of the Board of Directors
of Planned Parenthood of Tompkins County. Just a little background,
Planned Parenthood has been operating for the past nine years out
of Sage Hall up on the hill - thanks to Cornell University. Basic
ally they have been giving us space and Cornell and certain ser-
vices , including physician services for the past nine years . They ,
are building their own family planning services in Gannett up on
Cornell on the campus so Planned Parenthood is moving from Sage .
IWe 've already "purchased what used to be the Shea-Tryon Funeral
home which is on 314 W. State Street and those photos I 'm passing
around show the building which V m referring to - it ' s the kind of
1institutional green building, As l said, it used to be a funeral
( home and what Planned Parenthood is going to do there of course , i
family planning services . We ' ve changed the focus from one end of
the life spectrum to the other, essentially, The building itself s
� a beautiful old 100 year structure which has been kept up really
well by the prior owner, Mr. Tryon, as you can see from those phot
graphs . The building is in very good shape and Planned Parenthood
would like to keep it up at the same level . It' s in an area on
West State Street surrounded around by commercial enterprises es-
sentially—
s-sentially - except for the building right next to it which is a
building very similar in design and that is owned by Tony Egner
and Egner Architects Associates are in that building. What Planned
Parenthood proposes to do is convert it into a family planning ser-
vice where we will have family counseling, sex counseling , gyneco-
logical examinations and probably certain clinics such as VD
I
- 62 -
clinics at that area. Presently the plans , and we do have archi-
tectural plans for it - they call for the renovation in 4 ,000 squa e
feet. 4 , 000 square feet of useage would require, under the zoning
regulations , sixteen off-street parking spaces . Currently if you
i
' look at those photographs I showed the driveway along the right
! hand side facing the building and there is a garage in the back an
also a parking area in the back. Currently we would be able to put
in about eight spaces there. There are eight spaces - that ' s a
conservative estimate - these are eight spaces if you only have t
move one car. If we backed up cars right next to each other in
that driveway, then of course we could put a lot more in. Conser-
vatively there are eight off-street parking spaces there rather
than the sixteen that' s required. I think the sixteen that is
required in this particular building is unrealistic for a couple
of reasons. First of all the 4, 000 square feet that we' ll be usin
in that building is not indicative of the kind of traffic that the
building will have . A lot of that space is mandated by the State
Health Department - you have to have certain kinds of extra useage
because of the. State health regulations clean closets and dirty
closets and extra room and waiting spaces and nurses stations and
things like that. So a lot of that area is not indicative of the
use . The second thing is that the use during the week will be not
that intensive. Generally there are nine employees of Planned
Parenthood there during the normal 9: 00 to 5 : 00 working day. And
one or two patients at a given time so that would allow for ten
or eleven people . The only time that the building would be used
more intensely is during the clinics. The clinics are presently
held twelve hours a week during the 9. 00 to 5 , 00 time and then
another twelve hours a week on Saturdays or early evenings . During
the clinic time there would be a maximum of twenty-four people.
Since we have moved the building the Planned ,Parenthood downtown
We expect that public transportation will be used a lot more fre-
quently. People won' t have to drive - we are on a main artery on
State Street and we hope that we will get more use from downtown
community and probably less use from the Cornell community. The
- 63 -
other thing about the parking space is that right across the
street and it shows in those photographs , is a public lot which
has approximately forty off-street parking spaces - it is right
�Ibehind the Fire Station there. And there is a lot of on-street
' parking on that area - a lot of metered parking. The executive
director of Planned Parenthood did a survey prior to our meeting t
with the Planning Board and during that survey where she went at
various times to the area nine times to be exact , she found that
there were anywhere from ten to twenty unused parking spaces in th
i
lot across the street - and that is right across the street and I
generally an average of ten unused spaces unmetered parking right
in that block.. As I said, the block that - that building - the
I i
character of that block is commercial , There is a lot there is
Ila used furniture store there is another market - down the street
'Iis the family medicine clinic and right next to it on the other s ce
ibis the garage R some kind of a repair shop and a garage. I think
; this building and the use we intend to make of it will be compatible
{ with that area of W, State Street, in fact I` think it will be a
,benefit to that area, having nine professional and some occupational
I�
people in that area with access to downtown, close to the downtown
I
area will be a benefit to the downtown area. It certainly is not �n-
( compatible with. the character of that area. As I said, it had bee
Bused as a funeral home in the past. There must have been times when
I
there were 100 people or 150 people using that partculat building !
I
when there was a. funeral # obviously. It will never have that kind
I
of intensive use now. We hope to keep the building up and to in
fact improve it . We our architectural plans now call for an I
i
investment of over $100, 000 , in the building. We've already spent
$87000, to buy, the building and fi think it will be for the benefit,
, our community and will help that area if anything , rather than
, of
be incompatible because of the zoning restrictions . If there are
i
, any, questions about useage or what we intend to do there , I would
lbe, glad to answer them. The Executive Director couldn' t be here ,
fishes at a meeting in Connecticut,- �
i
DR. GREENBERG: Didn' t you put the cart before the horse , in buying,
i
i
64 -
the building and then coming to us and asking us for a variance to
its use.
MR. DUNBAR: I think we did. The Board, I believe, saw the house s
a unique deal and decided to go ahead and purchase it. We had an
I
ultimatum from Cornell basically to get out and it is difficult to
find a building in the downtown area which is accessible to a lot
i
of the community, that doesn't have a lot of problems . This building
was in very good shape and - at that time we weren' t planning - th
other problem was we didn' t think we would need 4 ,000 square feet .
We were thinking more in terms of 2 ,000 or 2 , 500 square feet to
start out with which would have been fine as far as the off-street
parking was concerned but when the architect started to put in
all the rooms that we were going to need and also to build in that
building - to add to change the space of that building, in order
to keep the integrity of the building a lot of the rooms are large
than what we had planned - these old buildings have beautiful livi 19
rooms , for instance, with an inlaid fireplace and to keep that - w
wanted to do that as a waiting room and we put a lot more space -
used a lot more space in the waiting room because you want to keep
the integrity of the inside of the building as much as possible.
We didn' t want to just rip this up and totally shell it out and
I
just make it into little cubicles - it really wouldn' t have been
appropriate for the building. So under the architectural plans th t
we have, I think that the space use is not the most efficient , how.
�je,ver as far as aesthetics are concerned it probably does the building
( well so consequently we are going to have to use both the first
I
and second floor and originally we thought we would only be using
i
i
the first floor,
DR. GREENBERG; Aren' t you afraid of what the Right of Lifers will
say about the Planned Parenthood taking over an undertaking estab
l ;shment?
MR. DUNBAR; I don't know, I 'm hoping not . We don' t have an abor-
tion clinic planned right there so T don't think we have gotten any
political flack for it yet. Maybe we have some out there right no .
HAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone wish to speak on behalf of the proposed
ariance? (no one) Anyone wishing to speak against it? (no one)
- 65 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
,I COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 1295 :
The Board considered the request of Planned Parenthood of Tompkins
County for an area variance under Section 30 . 25 , to permit use of
the property at 314 West State Street for a clinic. The property
which is located in a B-2a use district, is deficient in required
off-street parking .
The decision of the Board was as follows :
�i
MS. DE COMBRAY: I move that the Board grant the area variance
i
requested in appeal no. 1295 .
MR. ANGELL: I second the motion. i
i
I
VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent.
Area variance granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) This property is in a business distract .
it
2) The proposed use will not change the characte
of the neighborhood.
j3) The deficiency in parking spaces is made up
I
by adequate on-street parking as well as a
j Municipal parking lot which has space for
forty (40) vehicles.
i
I
i
jl
i
i
I
i
i
I�
66 -
f
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
i
iSECRETARY
HOARD: The next appeal is appeal no. 11-2-79 :
Appeal of Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity
for a sign variance under Section 34 . 5
of the Sign Ordinance to permit reten-
tion of the existing signs at 140
Thurston Avenue. The existing sign
exceeds the maximum size permitted in
the R-U (residential) use district in
which the property is located. This
appeal was held over at the request of
the appellants.
SMR. SLAWSBY: I 'm Stuart Slawsby, the present master of the house.
When the sign went up I was the house manager at the time . I 'm
sorry about not being here earlier but I wasn't informed in any
written notice or anything that the meeting was tonight and I was
informed by somebody that was here so I came right down. The basic -
lour feeling is that we had a pledge project last year was our firs
I
pledge class and it was decided that it would be nice to put our
fraternity emblem on our front windows . At that time we did not
know that there was a Sign Ordinance in the city and we proceeded
to paint on our front windows the three letters , an A an E and a
XPi which comes quite over the Sign Ordinances specified area for,
I believe, for an establishment of organizations . Correct?
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes , a social organization of this type would
The permitted a sign of 25 square feet and this sign measures 82,
square feet .
IMR. SLAWSBY: I may have been a little rambunktious but , you know.
I believe it is done in an aesthetic and modern - in keeping with
the house and the area. It is viewed from only two sides from
Barton Place and coming up on Thurwood Avenue going towards Cornell
University, not away. We do use the sign as , you know, trucks
delivering - we do get deliveries and since we do share a common
f driveway with. the house next door it is easy, you know, so that
1people can see. I believe the main reason that we are brought
! here is 1) the size and the second that it was claimed that it was
i not . that it was a "nuisance" although we sent letters to all
the area residents who are all other fraternities and aside from
i
67 -
L
! laughing at, I guess , or not understanding what the problem was ,
I
they have no complaint and are willing to come down or sign a
, petition saying that they felt that it was all right . I don' t
lireally know what else to say about the sign in general I don't
, know how we are going to actually take it off - we put is on with -
there is a technique for etching paint into windows which we
cleaned the windows and then we sort of etched the paint in so I
Idon' t know physically what the price is . I do have a semi price
iof how much that would cost since it would have to be total removal
of the windows plus replacement and it runs into a good bit of
' money, at least for a fraternity that is just a year old or a year
( and one-half old. The other thing is , as it being a nuisance , it
i
took the sign inspector a year to find it , which I though was that
if it was such a glaring argument that since this is his job to
hunt down nuisance signs , that if it took him a year that we reallir
couldn' t have been too much of a nuisance. So , that is my basic
sayings about the sign. Aside from the fact , I believe the Plannilig
Board decision was that we should take it down, I feel that this
i
his sort of unjust as there are other houses and things that I
' believe will be coming before you or I believe they will be looked
pinto other houses with signs the same size or larger and there
i
Iwas a ruling on that in December when I was here that they were
i
�igoing to check into the other fraternity - Cornell fraternity
' owned houses.
! SECRETARY HOARD; All the fraternities and sororities were to be
i
checked.
MR, SLAWSBY, Right.. And so I don' t know what is going to be going
on with. those either. That is going to be interesting also. As
I
! you can see i - it ' s sort of a hornet' s nest or whatever - a stick
i
type situation for the City and, you know, for the fraternities in
3
general , I guess, I guess I 'm the vanguard of that so that if we
''
were, you know, sort of hoping that it would be - that the Planning
! Board' s decision would be over turned, We have been here since
i
jSeptember coming back and forth - over these different things so
! that we would like some sort of decision on something , somway or
i
I
fifg
j
I - 68 -
I
j
; other. We hope again since we are a new house and we are trying t
I
come back on the hill that this or that any past or any animosity
or whatever between the City and fraternities or Cornell and fra-
ternities or Cornell and the City would sort of not be looked at
as we are trying to be a decent and upstanding place . That ' s basi
� cally our premises I believe that is the premise of all fraterni-
ties too, so that if there are any questions about the house
! about fraternities or what is going on in this type of a thing sin( e
' I am on the IFC Council also. All the masters and presidents of
i
houses are - I may be able to answer something like that.
! CHAIRMAN AMAN: You said all of your neighbors are fraternities?
; What do you mean by that? Is the house right next to you and behi d
i
lyou a fraternity?
SMR. SLAWSBY: Yes. We have one we have two absentee landlords
i
across from us but there is a big hedge and they cannot look into
our front. We have Delta Chi is on the hill which overlooks us ,
i
Phi Kappa Tau also overlooks us , Dee Phi E is on the other corner .
Next to us used to be SME but they went under and now it is an
i
absentee landlord who - at least he painted the front of his house
I
land made it look better than animal house - we are very happy
about that. On the other side of him is Alpha Zeta and that' s it
in the immediate -- within the 20.0 - 2 ,000 square foot area around
! the house. Behind us is a drop and just straight land. So that w
feel that we are not infringing upon anybody' s rights or aesthetic
� or anything. It is as I said, a modern - I don' t know if you have
I
� a picture of this Tom, or not - it is a modern brick- front house
i! wtih gold and blue letters which are our fraternity' s colors . Qka ,
any, other questions? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN AMAN; Thank you. Anyone else washing to speak on behalf
i
or against this variance? (no one) The Board will go into execu-
tive session at this time, The hour is late , I don' t know when we
! will come out of executive session but when we do we will be able
Ito announce our decisions on the cases , Thank_ you.
I
i
i
- 69 -
i
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
I COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
I
I FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 11-2-79 :
��Ihe Board considered the appeal of Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity for
sign variance under Section 34. 5 of the Sign Ordinance to permit
etention of the existing signs at 140 Thurston Avenue. The exist-
i
�ng sign exceeds the maximum size permitted in the R-U use district
(j.
�n which the property is located.
6e decision of the Board was as follows :
I
S. DE COMBRAY: I move that the Board grant the sign variance
requested in appeal number 11-2-79 .
IR. GREENBERG: I second the motion.
NOTE: 0 Yes ; 4 No; 2 Absent.
I�
Sign variance request denied.
INDINGS OF FACT; 1) Although the Ordinance recognizes the need
for larger signs for social organizations , the
sign in this case already exceeds the more
liberal size permitted for social organization
i
by over three times.
it
2) No evidence was presented to indicate that it
i
I
would be an undue hardship to comply with the
!
i
existing sign ordinance.
i
I
!
i
I
1
I
I
it
I
i
i
i
!
70 -
i
I
I
iI , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board
i
�! of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals
inumbered 12893, 12909 2-4-80 , 2-5-80, 1291 , 1292 , 1293 , 1294 , 1295 ,
land 11-2-79 on February 4 , 1980 at City Hall , City of Ithaca,
i
New York; that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a
i
true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the
jExecutive Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca
; and the whole thereof to the best of my ability.
i
I
I
ii
Barbara C. Ruane
I! Recording Secretary
I
i
i
I'
f
i
I
Sworn to before me this
day of 1980
I I
li
j Notary Public
JEAN I HANKINSON
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW.YORK
N.. —5'16,—Z300
QUALIFi'-D IN TOMPKINS COUN1�y%y�,�
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 30,19LL
I�
t
I
1
I
I
iI
I
i
II
u
is