HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1980-09-08 I I
I' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
!1 COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
I SEPTEMBER 8 , 1980
CHAIRMAN AMAN: I would like to call the September meeting of the
Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals to order. As you may know, the
Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter,
the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and the Ithaca Sign Ordinance. Presen
this evening are four members of the Board:
Mr. Morris Angell
Mr. Peter Walsh
Mr. William Wilcox
i Mr. Alfred Aman, Chairman
Mr. Thomas Hoard, Building Commis-
sioner & Secy to the Board
Mrs . Barbara Ruane, Recording Secy
ABSENT: Ms . Natalie deCombray
Mr. Joseph Gainey
ISince there are only four members of the board present tonight,
that means that for any variance to carry - any proposed variance
j to carry, you must have the votes of all the members here tonight
i
for a variance to be granted. Now, our rules are such that we do
I
j allow people to withdraw their request at this meeting if you woul
I
like to and wait for next month when there will bemore members of
I� the Board present . But you will need four votes to carry. The Bo rd
I
takes the cases up in order - we ask that first those requesting
the variance come forward and succinctly state your case and what
it is that you want from the Board and the reason why you feel that
you are entitled to the variance. Members of the Board may then
have questions for you and after they have asked their questions w
will ask whether or not there is anyone in the audience who supports
your petition and then they will come forward and then we will ask
1
whether anyone wishes to speak against the petition. It is impor-
tant that your statements be made from the podium here. On occa-
sion a conversation or a dialogue will get going and that' s rather
confusing because we can't then get it on the record. While we
jdon' t operate on the strict rules of evidence, we do take a record
I of what' s been said and base our decisions on that record. After
i
we've heard all of the cases we go into executive session and
i
I
i
i
2 -
•k
deliberate and then issue the decisions . That is done in private,
k however you may stay and wait to find out what the decisions are o
l' you will be notifed either by mail or you can call Mr. Hoard' s
office. With that as an explanation of how we handle the cases -
I
jMr. Secretary will you call the first case?
SECRETARY HOARD: The first case Mr. Chairman is appeal number 1317 :
Appeal of Edythe and Richard Conway for an
area variance under Section 30.25 , Column 13
to permit the change in use of the property
j at 214 Linn Street from a one-family dwelling
to a multiple dwelling (five unrelated tenants) .
Multiple dwellings are permitted in the R-3b
(residential) use zone in which the property
is located; however this property is deficient
in one side yard. An appeal was denied for
this property by the Board in its August 1980
meeting; the owners have reappealed with a
new plan which reduces the number of zoning
deficiencies from four to the one side yard
deficiency.
iMR. GALBRAITH: My name is Dirk Galbraith, I 'm an attorney, I have
1professional offices at 308 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York and
I am appearing this evening as the Conway' s attorney concerning
i
Ijthis area variance application. This matter was before the Board
I'
`, in a slightly different form previously and therefore I think you
I
! all may have some knowledge of this appeal . However, I would like
Ito have the Conways at this point tell you their reasons for asking
i
for the appeal and give you the background concerning this property.
� Mr. Conway, can you tell me what the condition of the property at
p214 Lake Street was at the time you purchased it and what your
knowledge was concerning the suitability of this property for use
as a multiple residence.
- MR. CONWAYThe property was generally in good condition and used
as a single family residence by the Greenwoods and as a business -
they had operated an auto repair and welding business for autos
and trucks there for more than twenty years. It is an old house,
the electrical service was antiquated, the plumbing was similarly
I
old - both needed work. The upstairs also needed remodeling and
! g
the bathroom was very old-fashioned and the upstairs hadn' t been
used very much since the Greenwood's children left home. We knew
that the property was in an R-3b zone and knew that this would permit
!! it to be used for a multiple dwelling. We also knew that the Gree -
i
; woods had been trying to get a variance for permanent business us
ii
ii
I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
i
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ITHACA,
I� NEW YORK - SEPTEMBER 8, 1980
i
P_ge
i
APPEAL NO. 1317 Edythe & Richard Conway 2
214 Linn Street
I APPEAL NO. 1317 Executive Session 23
I
APPEAL NO. 1318 J. Alexander $ A. Jaeger 24
110 North Meadow St .
APPEAL NO. 1318 Executive Session 30
APPEAL NO. 1319 Withdrawn
APPEAL NO. 1320 Arthur M. Cicchetti 31
308 Ithaca Road
.i
APPEAL NO. 1320 Executive Session 33
CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 34
I
i
i
i�
i
I
i
I
i
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
i
(
I�
3 -
i
lof the property and in their hearing the Planning Board of the Cit
; has described the neighborhood as being one of multiple dwellings ,
!' apartment houses and single family homes so that the business vari
ance was denied as being inappropriate. The Planning Board though
i
! that this was a residential neighborhood.
! MR. GALBRAITH: Now was it ever your intent to use the commercial
! garage for the purpose for which the Greenwoods had been using it?
MR. CONWAY: No, not at all. From the very beginning we told the
Greenwoods and the neighbors we spoke to and people in the Buildin
I
Commissioner' s office that we intended to rent the house and we
i
intended to use the garage for our private purposes - for our own
i
hobby shop for woodworking and for a place to store a sail boat
and a place to store furniture in connection with rental of the
i
house.
i
j MR. GALBRAITH: So that the commercial use would be and is discon-
tinued, is that correct?
MR. CONWAY: That is correct.
MR. GALBRAITH: Now how many occupants were there in this house
C
when the Greenwood' s owned it?
jMR. CONWAY: Well the Greenwoods lived there - raised three children
there - in recent years there had only been the two Greenwoods .
i
On the other hand the business was rather active. Mr. Greenwood
estimated that from ten to twenty cars per day visited his garage
on the property.
MR, GALBRAITH: When did you close on the purchase of this property?
MR. CONWAY: April 14th of this year.
MR. GALBRAITH: And what was your acquisition cost?
MR. CONWAY; $58, 000 for the property.
P y•
MR. GALBRAITH: Now what off-street parking exists on the property?
I
MR. CONWAY: Due to the fact that it was used for a garage there is
a great deal of parking. In the back of the house there is place
ffor seven cars off-street.
MR. GALBRAITH: And is the access to this through an alley which
Iruns down the back of the property?
II MR. CONWAY: That ' s right,I; g an alley between Farm Street and Marsh 11
I
i
i
i
- 4 -
I
!' Street in this one block only.
I
IIMR. GALBRAITH: And precisely what did you know of the alleged non
(; conformity of this property with the zoning regulations when you
!, bought it? Let me ask, did you receive a letter from the Building
�IDepartment?
MR. CONWAY: Mr. Greenwood received a letter from the Building De-
ipartment, at our request. The letter listed the things that would
I
have to be done by anyone who wished to use the house for rental
, purposes . At the bottom of the letter there was a footnote that
i
said the property appeared to be deficient in side yard and rear
i
yard areas.
IMR. GALBRAITH: Now after you purchased this property did you per-
Iform some improvements to it?
IMR. CONWAY: We performed quite a few improvements to it - several
!different kinds . The Building Commissioner' s office had given us
I
a detailed list of the things that had to be done to bring this
( building into compliance with the City Code for rental . This in-
cluded a rather substantial upgrade of the electrical service, a
'revision of much of the plumbing, the addition of handrails , the
jaddition of new stairs to the basement , locks on the doors , window
locks . Then there was a second category of improvement of things
that we wanted to do just to make the property more attractive -
this included carpets , curtains , painting - almost throughout the
(entire house. Replacement of an old bathroom which the Code didn' t
(require - but aesthetics did and then finally we made some changes
is imply because the neighbors wanted them. We removed a storage
hed, removed a fence because several of the neighbors objected
� o their presence . . .
�R. GALBRAITH: What was the aggregate cost of these improvements?
IR. CONWAY: We spent $7 ,400. and effectively held the cost down
�i.ecause we did a great amount of the work ourselves . I estimate
That we spent about 300 hours of my time and Mrs . Conwayls time
urng the months of April , May and June working on the property
i
� ut our actual cost of materials and contractingwas $7 ,400.
� R. GALBRAITH: AFter you had performed these improvements and
i
li
I;
5 -
i�
!; corrected the violations which were contained in the Building Com-
�Imissioner' s letter, what did you do then in terms of getting a
Certificate of Occupancy?
iMR. CONWAY: Well we went to the Building Commissioner' s office an
i;
; asked for a Certificate of Occupancy and were somewhat surprised
at that point to be told that there was one other thing that had
Ito be done and that had to do with an area variance or several are
i
variances at the time and therein lies our long story and our cur-
Irent difficulty.
MR. GALBRAITH: Incidentally, prior to your purchase of this prope -
' ty, had you ever owned any income property?
MR. CONWAY No, we hadn't.
MR. GALBRAITH: And did you ever have any previous experience with
i
! either a Board of Zoning Appeals or obtaining a variance?
' MR. CONWAY: No sir, not at all .
i
,! MR. GALBRAITH: Now what is the proposed use that you wish to put
I
this property to?
MR. CONWAY: We would like to rent it as a single household, as a
! multiple dwelling to a group of five students - students that Edytlle
! and I have had in a class previously from the present group we w uld
! hopeto be able to select students similarly in the future.
iMR. GALBRAITH: And how many of these students are presently
' occupying the premises during this controversy?
iMR. CONWAY; Only three of them are occupying it at present. We
were told that that ' s the maximum we can under the present re-
1 strictions,
i
MR. GALBRAITH: Okay. And what arrangements have you made for the
other two students?
MR, CONWAY: We've rented an apartment nearby for the other two
students .
IMR. GALBRAITH: Now Mr. Conway, can you tell me generally, and I 'd
like you to refer to the handout which we prepared for the Board
members - what the R-3b zone, which this property is in, is like
and for purposes of brevity here, Vol 'like you to refer to figure
i
"1" which is in the handout, what does that depict?
1i
i!
6 -
i
i!
�1MR. CONWAY: The heavy line on figure "1" shows the outline of the
�, R-3b zone which covers essentially two blocks of Linn Street right
I'
at the foot of University Avenue .
! MR. GALBRAITH: And is your property denominated in that zone?
I'
? MR. CONWAY: Ours is the one marked 11214" - in the lower right
I
11hand area.
�IMR. GALBRAITH: Referring to figure 11211, which is the next page -
can you tell me what that map depicts?
IMR. CONWAY: I went through the R-3b area and computed the square
foot area of each one of the lots there- the ones that are cross-
! hatched are larger in square feet than 214 . There are seven of
( those, so its the 8th largest of thirty-three lots in the R-3b zon .
i
, Ours is the 8th largest.
i
i
MR. GALBRAITH: To your knowledgey Mr. Conway, are there any other
Jots in this zone which have comparable off-street parking facili-
jties?
IMR. CONWAY; No, there are none - welve driven around looking and
,Itlhere aren't any that have seven spaces.
MR. GALBRAITH: Referring to figure 113a" which is the next attach-
ment, can you tell me what that map depicts?
i
IMR. CONWAY: Mrs. Conway went to the Building Commissioner' s office
Mand looked through records there that were available to her and
tried to identify properties in this particular R-3b zone that had
,some rental aspect, either completely rental or multiple - some of
!them are owner-occupied, with rooms to let , some of them are
(strictly rental - all of those properties are shown cross-hatched
�on the area.
'MR. GALBRAITH, And did you happen to are either some
!or completely rental on that map?
IMR. CONWAY: No I didn't.
MR. GALBRAITH-, Well that' s okay a I think the document speaks for
itself. Refer to figure "3" which is the next attachment, can you
!tell me what that map depicts?
MR. CONWAY: This is the same sort of information , now with respec
to a 200 ' radius of the 214 propertyrather than just the R-3b zone,
�f
I,
- 7 -
i
r.
; essentially showing that a very large majority of all the neighbor
'; ing properties surrounding 214 are, in some respect rental .
! MR. GALBRAITH: Referring to figure 11411 , what does that map depict
MR. CONWAY: This is simply an attempt to break down the propertie
ii
Iin the previous figure as to the ones that are owner-occupied
I
rental, rental without owner-occupied, or no rental at all - three
different - the white ones are no-rental , the dotted ones are
! rental without the owner present , the striped_ ones are rental with
the owner present in the building.
I
!! MR. GALBRAITH: Now referring to figure "5", the last map, can you
tell me what is depicted on that?
c
(i MR. CONWAY: This shows only the properties with that 200 ' radius
= which are classified as a multiple dwelling by the city office.
1
�! MR. GALBRAITH: And are those - but since there are really several
categories of multiple dwellings under the Zoning Ordinance that
l[ we have here , can you tell me what kind of a use is involved?
MR. CONWAY: Well these are anything that satisfies the City' s
definition of multiple dwelling - three or more apartments , five
! or more unrelated dwellings - owner-occupied with four others - I
jforget the exact categories . What the figure shows is that there
, are some, in this case there are exactly seven multiple dwellings
' within this 200.' radius of 214 but that these are not in any sense
! the majority of' the properties .
IIMR. GALBRAITH Now I 'd like to give you a break for a moment and
i
Task Mrs. Conway a question, if I could, Mrs . Conway, are you away
of any recent variances granted by� the Board of Zoning Appeals in
( your immediate neighborhood for occupancy similar to that to which
yyou would like to devote this property?
MRS. CONWAY: Well in going through the various folders in the
! Building Commissioner' s office, I was interested to note that in -
M ast year in May and June of 1979 - that the house across the
` street, which was a five person, five unrelated people multiple -
i
; did ask for an area variance so they could put an addition on thei
house. The house itself was on the lot line which many of them ar
in that neighborhood and so I followed the lot line for 27 ' and
i
i'
- 8
, then jogged jogged back 31 . The south lot line had plenty of room - it
'iwas 14 ' but the north lot line - either the house was on the lot
; line or 3' away from it. The request for the addition was to foll w
lithe existing house, so they were requesting a 32 ' addition which
would be 12 ' in depth to continue the width of the house which would
i
then put the new addition in violation of the present Zoning Code ,
I
! as I understand it. This property was given an area variance by
I
the Zoning Board to add this addition to put this new building with
a deficiency of 21 . And that is what we are asking for is an area
i
variance for 21 . The house that we are asking for is an old house
i
' and it has been there a long time - it is not a new addition.
MR. GALBRAITH: Now what was the address of the property across
the street?
MRS. CONWAY: 205 Linn Street.
IMR. GALBRAITH: And who are the owners of that property?
l
iMRS. CONWAY: Carmen and Virginia Canestaro.
IMR. GALBRAITH: Thank you. Mr. Conway, did a time come when you
obtained a copy of certain maps from the Building Commissioner' s
office?
MR. CONWAY: Yes sir.
iMR. GALBRAITH: And is a photo copy of that attached to the handout
( that we have distributed tonight?
IMR. CONWAY; Yes it is it is the second to the last page of that
handout .
i
IMR. GALBRAITH Okay, Now is your property depicted on that map?
MR. CONWAY: Yes.
MR. GALBRAITH: What number is on the lot?
IMR. CONWAY: Old number 19 underscored. It says "see file" under
that.
MR. GALBRAI,TH: Okay. Now, Mr. Conway, do you have any special
training as a draftsman?
1
�MR. CONWAY: Well I was graduated as a mechanical engineer and I
1have had a good deal of drafting training in the process.
IMR. GALBRAITH: And are you able to interpret maps?
w
11MR. CONWAY: Yes sir.
i
II
i
i'
9 -
i;
' MR. GALBRAITH: Okay. Now, is the map that you obtained from the
Building Commissioner' s office drawn to a scale?
MR. CONWAY: Yes it is supposed to be. It seems to be.
1;
MR. GALBRAITH: And what is that scale?
I! MR. CONWAY: The scale here is 1" to 501 .
MR. GALBRAITH: Now the alleged side yard deficiency concerning
your lot is on the north side is it not?
{ MR. CONWAY: That is correct.
! MR. GALBRAITH: Did you have the opportunity to measure on that
Ir
map the distance depicted between the building and the side yard?
SMR. CONWAY: Yes I did.
MR. GALBRAITH: And what is the actual distance on the map?
MR. CONWAY: In inches?
IMR. GALBRAITH: In inches, yes .
' MR. CONWAY: Just over an eighth of an inch.
MR. GALBRAITH; And on a scale of 1" to 501 , how many feet would
that indicate?
MR. CONWAY: Just over 61 .
iMR. GALBRAITH; And what is the minimum that is required for a sid
( yard?
MR. CONWAY: 51 .
MR. GALBRAITH: Now have you measured on the ground the distance
between the north side of the house at 214 Linn Street and a certain
fence which appears to be erected there?
MR. CONWAY; Yes we have.
MR. GALBRAITH: And what is that distance?
I
MR, CONWAY, Well the fence and the house are not exactly in line.
ilAt the closest point it is 21101, ,, at the other end of the house
Iit is just over 31 .
SMR. GALBRAITH; Do you know for a fact that that fence is on your
property line?
MR. CONWAY; I haventt any idea and no one else seems to , There
Ihasn' t been a survey in that block for many years .
I
IMR. GALBRAITH Okay. But , Mr. Conway, if the map in the Building
! Commissioner' s office is correct, you have more than 5 ' there, do
iiyou not?
I
- 10 -
ii
�! MR. CONWAY: That is correct.
i
1' MR. GALBRAITH: Now, Mr. Conway, did you prepare a map which was
; really reproduced from the Building Commissioner' s map?
MR. CONWAY: I did so and that ' s the last page of the handout.
MR. GALBRAITH: And does that map depict the actual distance
between the house at 214 Linn Street and the adjoining structures?
i
SMR. CONWAY: This map is an exact scale up of the previous one shov -
ing only the three properties that seem mostly concerned with this
issue. I just doubled the size so that it would be easier to see and
! showed the scaled distances between the neighboring property to th
north, 216 and the neighboring property to the south which is 210.
,,MR. GALBRAITH: And what are the differences - the distance , I 'm
( sorry, between the house at 214 Linn Street and the neighboring
I
! property to the north?
i
MR. CONWAY: 25 ' to the north and to the south it is either 18 or
X23 feet depending which part of the house you measure. I might
! point out that in the entire area of the block and beyond, that
s
i25 feet is a larger distance between houses than any other pair of
,properties in the neighborhood and the second largest distance is
i
the 18 ' on the other side.
MR. GALBRAITH: Okay.
MR. CONWAY: That property is unique in having these large side
clearances .
I
MR. GALBRAITH: Now, Mr. Conway did you cause some photographs to
The taken of the property which show the distances between the
i
structures surrounding 214 Linn Street?
MR. CONWAY; Yes I did.
i
IMR. GALBRAITH: And are those the photographs that we 've got up
here in front?
MR. CONWAY: Yes sir. The particular photograph which shows this
north side yard is the lower right hand photograph on the left
display which shows the side. The white house is our building,
it shows the side yard and in fact the neighboring house to the
i
!north doesn't even quite make it into that picture, there is so
Imuch separation between the houses there.
.i
i�
it
i
! MR. GALBRAITH: Now . . .
{
MR. CONWAY: Here' s the fence Mr. Galbraith was describing , side
of the house and the neighboring house is somwhere over here beyon
I the tree.
� MR. GALBRAITH: Finally, Mr. Conway, did you prepare a financial
statement showing the income - projected income and projected
Cexpenses which you and Mrs . Conway are going to incur concerning
ithis property?
i
! MR. CONWAY: Yes sir, that is included in the distribution.
MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, now you show mortgage payments under expense
There of $9, 232 . 44 , to whom do you make those mortgage payments?
IMR. CONWAY: In two parts , there is a mortgage to the Greenwoods and
I�
is note to my family.
i
II MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, and are you, in fact , actually making those
payments now?
1MR. CONWAY: Absolutely.
MR. GALBRAITH: You show a cost for taxes of $830. 00 , can you tell
�me howy ou computed that?
MR. CONWAY: This is an estimate . The figure the Greenwood' s gave
us for taxes was $753 .00 for a year. We haven' t owned the property
long enough to have a complete years tax ourselves . I inflated the
, Greenwood' s figure by loo being told that city taxes were going up
by more than that this year. I think the figure is conservative.
MR. GALBRAITH: And you show a cost for insurance of $243. 00 . Is
that the amount that was actually billed to you?
MR. CONWAY: Exactly. For fire , comprehensive and liability.
MR. GALBRAITH: And you show an estimate of $400 . 00 per year for
maintenance. In your mind that is a reasonable estimate for main-
tenance for the property?
MR. CONWAY; Well it was when I put the figure down but in the las
three weeks I have spent a quarter of that already so I suspect
that also is somewhat conservative.
MR. GALBRAITH: Okay. Now in terms of income from this property,
jfirst of all does the time come when you lease this property not
i
to unrelated individuals, but rather to a family?
!
i�
�I
12 -
ii MR. CONWAY: During the summer we rented it to a family for two
' months during the summer. Rental price during that time was $350.
a month. We tried for more rental but that was the most we could
11 get for the summer months .
I,
MR. GALBRAITH: Well how much did you initially advertise the
Is
" property for?
i
! MR. CONWAY: We were trying to get $400. 00 a month for it.
! MR. GALBRAITH: And were you able to obtain a tenant for $400 . 00?
MR. CONWAY: No, not at all . We had some interest, but no tenants .
IMR. GALBRAITH: Okay, and you were able to rent it to a family for
! $350. 00?
I
lMR. CONWAY: Yes that is correct.
IMR. GALBRAITH: Now did the time come when you entered into a leas
1with five students?
i
MR. CONWAY: Yes sir.
MR. GALBRAITH And are those the five students you previously
I
; mentioned?
i
MR. CONWAY: Yes, somewhat prematurely we entered into the lease
I
lbefore we had satisfied the last step of the getting the area
I
! variance.
MR. GALBRAITH-; And what was the monthly rental which you were
going to charge the students?
MR. CONWAY; $7.40 , 00.
IMR. GALBRAITH: And, as far as you could tell is that comparable
for similar rentals in the City of Ithaca?
� MR. CONWAY: It seems to be for this kind of property.
' MR. GALBRAITH; Okay. And that would have generated income of
$8 , 880. 00 for you, is that correct?
MR. CONWAY: That is correct.
IMR. GALBRAITH; Now I think the obvious question is , even with tha
jincome You showa loss of $2,000 , per year on the property. How
Ildiad you intend to operate the property like that?
!MR. CONWAY: Well the loss is $1,800. by my calculations and I
i
, considered this reasonable rental for the garage. The fact that
jwe were not renting the garage, T was renting it to myself for tha
!
r
i
i'
13 -
i
figure - that seemed like an equitable arrangement .
I
iMR. GALBRAITH: And that was really for your own use of the garage
' not for any commercial venture?
MR. CONWAY: That is correct .
SMR. GALBRAITH: Now, your present students - the three that are in
; there, how much rental are they paying you?
,! MR. CONWAY: They are paying $450. 00 a month.
MR. GALBRAITH: And that is approximately 60% is it not , of the
original rental?
MR. CONWAY., Yes.
MR. GALBRAITH: And on a twelve month basis that turns out to be
$5 ,400. per year, is that correct?
IMR. CONWAY; That is correct.
IMR. GALBRAITH: And by those figures you are operating this property
s
fat a net loss per year of over $5, 000. per year?
I
!MR. CONWAY: That is correct, $5 ,300. by these figures.
i
MR. GALBRAITH; And is that a loss which you and Mrs . Conway can
afford to bear - even give the garage?
MR. CONWAY: No, that seems unreasonable excessive for the garag . . .
MR. GALBRAITH; And would that work an economic hardship on you?
IMR. CONWAY: Yes it will .
�MR. GALBRAITH: Okay. I have nothing further that . . .
MR. CONWAY: Mr. Galbraith, should we not say something about the
difference between this appeal and last time the . . . ?
(MR. GALBRAITH. Okay, if it is not clear from what Mr. Hoard said
Iat the outset, perhaps that would be a good idea to explain what y u
I
have done in terms of altering the property or agreeing to alter the
property - to remove the other three violations .
MR. CONWAY: It must be apparent that we are very new at this and
didn' t really know what the nature of these variances were last tine
until we discovered after the meeting that the three of the four
variances that we were being charged with last time had to do with
the technicality that the garage was connected with the house by a
( breezeway, hence the garage was considered part of the main struc
Iture and side yard, rear yard and area coverages were being com-
I�
is
�f
- 14 -
j'; puted including the garage. What has been suggested to us now is
( that by detaching the garage , by modifying the breezeway - it no
i
Monger is part of the main structure - it no longer counts and if
we had known this , this would have been part of the original pro-
i
posal. We apologize for bothering you twice in this regard but we
6
l, simply had no idea that that technicality was the source of our
,
difficulty. So with that detachment the only thing that remains
lis this one north side yard deficiency where we are essentially 3 '
( rather than the required 5, but where the total separation between
buildings is the largest in the whole neighborhood.
MR. GALBRAITH: And that alleged deficiency that you have describe
assumes that the fence line is your property - the property line ,
is that correct?
iMR. CONWAY: Yes . It is not our measurement - it came from - we
Ireally are not sure where. The Building Commissioner thinks it
came from Mr. Greenwood, we really don' t know. It' s based on some
earlier drawing -whose providence we really don' t know.
MR. GALBRAITH: And, in fact, if the Building Commissioner' s map
his correct, there is no deficiency is there?
MR. CONWAY: That is correct.
1MR. GALBRAITH: I think that' s about all we have to say at this
I;
!
point.
IMR. WALSH: Has there been any tape check on the property or could
la tape check be readily done to see where the property line
;actually lies?
MR. GALBRAITH: Well , one point in this - we asked a local surveyo
i
;for an estimate for a survey of the property to determine the
property line and he quoted a fee of $500 . which seemed rather high .
I think our legal position on this is that it is not up to the
Conways to prove where their property line is in seeking the
variance and certainly if the cost were less I think we would have
done it by now.
IMR. ANGELL: Well, Mr. Conway at the last appeal pp al you stated that ,
11 asked you if you didn't have the five students in there,ere, would it
;be an economic hardship and you said no.
i
�f
i'
I'
i
I;
15 -
i
i'
MR. CONWAY: I think I said exactly that it wouldn't bankrupt me s
:lit is a question of what one means by hardship. I don't really
I
; want to pay $3,500 a year out of my other income in order to suppo t
i
; this property. I think $300 a month for the privilege of operatin
i; this property is unreasonable and a hardship on me.
IIMR. ANGELL: Did Mr. Greenwood tell you that a variance would be
�
I
required?
IMR. CONWAY: No he did not .
i
MR. ANGELL: Did you know that Mr. Greenwood had come to this
Board for a variance?
r
IMR. CONWAY: We knew that Mr. Greenwood had been seeking a busines
variance we understood that he went to the Planning Board but
Inot to the Board of Zoning Appeals with- the request.
IMRS. CONWAY: I understand he was asking for a use variance , where s
' what we are asking for is the five unrelated people is a permitted
fuse in that area and right across the street there are five unrelated
of this multiple dwelling in that area.
MR. CONWAY: We had thought that since the Planning Board had
, recommended against business use and in fact had described the
i
; neighborhood as being characterized with multiple dwellings , apart
i
Iments, residences - that what we were proposing would be very muc
i
din keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood - it
would be an improvement for the neighborhood over the business use
previously.
i
'IMR. ANGELL: Well , Mr. Greenwood withdrew his appeal when we asked
! him what his prospective buyer - what use he was going to make of
fthe property and this was not brought up in the discussion when
you bought it?
MRCONWAY:.
. C NWAY: I m sorry, I didn't realize he had actually come to
j this Board. All that we understood all that he told us was that
he had gone to the Planning Board. He had no we had told him
r
Il precisely what we intended to do wi:th. the property he never aske
I
us to come with him to one of these hearings and I really wanted
jj to stay out of it because I didn't want to be accused of jeapor-
i
dizing in any way, the request that he was making. He still owned
the property at the time .
i.
I;
16 -
1
!; MRS. CONWAY: Before we purchased the property I asked the Buildin
Commissioner' s office to send the inspectors to the house so we
I
i! would know - so we had the Plumbing Inspector , and the Housing
'i
` Inspector, the Electrical Inspector - I don' t remember what Mr.
I
( Stickler ' s official title is but anyway, they - these four in-
spectors came and I talked with each one when they were there abou
; using it for rental property - what would we have to do if we had
five people in there or six people in it or two apartments or thre
apartments - we really didn't know what the rules were.
MR. ANGELL: You asked this of the Building Commissioner?
I
MRS. CONWAY: No, I asked it of the men who came to the house.
' MR. ANGELL: But you didn't ask the Building Commissioner if you
( needed a variance?
I
( MRS. CONWAY: No, not per se. I thought the people who came to the
house represented the Building Commissioner , which I gather now -
they do not, but I thought so at the time. When I went to the
i
Building Commissioner on April 9th to request a building permit
1we discussed in a general way the improvements that we would make
I
for it but T never said do I need an area variance? because I didn t
( know enough to know that I should have asked that and so he granted
us the building permit, which. I guess I assumed meant that it was
, okay to go ahead and do it. And so I guess we just were mixed up
in it.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Presently there are three unrelated people living
in the house?
( MRS . CONWAY; Yes, which is legal .
i
! MR. WALSH: May I ask about the City Assessor' s map. I am not
mechanically trained and I can not interpret maps very readily but
you estimate, as I recall , the distance between the adjacent house
in the neighborhood. Is that based on eye-balling of the neighbor
, hood or is that based on your assessment of this map?
MR. CONWAY; That is based on my assessment of this map but it
certainly is born out by driving up and down the street.
IMR. WALSH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions?
(none) Thankou ver
i
Y y
I
i
is
- 17 -
much. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak for the proposed
requested variance? (no one) Is there anyone here who wishes to
' speak against the requested variance?
i!
! MR. WEAVER: My name is Charles Weaver, I am a resident and the
! owner of 221 Linn Street, one of the dwellings in the 200' zone
around 214 Linn Street. I carry with me a petition signed by my-
self and twenty-two other residents and/or owners of property
iwithin that limit.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: These are all within the area zoned for multiple
i
( dwellings?
MR. WEAVER: They are all within the 200' distance to 214 Linn, in
I
jthis particular case. The former hearing, we included some people
in the 100 block beyond the 200 but this petition is limited to
people within the 200 ' measurement from 214 Linn. I delivered a
( copy to the Board or would you want me to read that?
CHAIRMAN AMAN: We can read it ourselves. If you would like to
read it as part of your statement, go right ahead. If you have
flan independent statement, go ahead with that.
MR. WEAVER: In addition to the petition which speaks for itself,
iII 'd like to comment that the neighborhood is an old neighborhood
and does suffer existing conditions which are substandard if the
present Zoning Ordinance is our standard. And although much is
made of the fact that the neighbor has a wide yard, that' s not true
i of 214 , in fact, that wide yard is the yard of the largest multiple
in the 200' limit, it has the greatest number of apartments and
, itself has a north side yard violation so it is certainly needed
Eby the property to which it belongs.
I 'd also hope that in an
i
i
attempt to maintain a minimum standard that we realize that the
= Zoning Ordinance contains arbitrary limits and they are, I hope,
p
designed to be the maximum allowable for the minimum standards and
going beyond those minimum standards is stretching what already
was figured to be the least acceptable standard. Also , as pre-
sented, the appeal is for conversion of this dwelling to a multipl
' dwelling and al'th.ough. there was a discussion of five unrelated
: students, once the appeal has been granted there is no nothing
i'
!I
I
- 18 -
li
ilin the Zoning Ordinance that would limit the occupancy to five
' unrelated persons, after that appeal has been granted. So that
1this dwelling could be occupied by more than five unrelated person
i
!
, once a multiple is allowed. It is true that the property was
(! originally operated as a single family dwelling and a commercial
garage. From my observation over approximately ten years , the
commercial garage was not the busiest in town, it was a one-man
loperation and it confined its activities to daylight hours and I
think it is obvious that the concern about a multiple occupied by
6unrelated students is a concern not particularly directed toward
what conditions prevail daytimes but in fact what conditions pre-
val after daylight hours , as has been experienced the last couple
of weekends here in the rest of the city. The question about the
` north lot line is , in fact, that is a matter of concern - it cer-
tainly can be established without question where that lot line is
; that is going to make a difference on which measurement to believe
jbut as I heard the testimony, the appellant agrees that the one
I
side yard is deficient. Oneadditional fact I 've been asked by
IDan Rhoads , the President of the Fall Creek Civic Association to
express on behalf of that Association their continued objection to
Ithe appeal . I thank you very much..
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank. you sir.
MR. GALBRAITH; Pardon me, I don' t know if it would be out of
I
!order, I am wondering if I could ask Mr. Weaver a couple of quest! ns
about a couple of the things he said?
!CHAIRMAN AMAN; Alright, if you could do it quickly.
MR. GALBRAITH: Yes six. Mr. Weaver, were you aware that on or
labout Tune S , 1979 a variance was granted to Mr. & Mrs . Carmen
i
Canestaro to enlarge the premises directly across the street from
r
,this to create a nonconformity which is substantially similar to
,the one that exists at this property?
MR. WEAVER; I was not aware of the issuance of the variance until I
.i
IIsaw a building permit that had been issued for the property.
'MR. GALBRAITH; to the best of your knowledge, nobody passed around
Lia petition about that variance application did they?
i
i
19 -
', MR. WEAVER: Not to my knowledge.
", MR. GALBRAITH: Mr. f Mrs. Canestaro have lived in the area of Lin
11 Street quite awhile, haven't they?
I'
,IMR. WEAVER: Yes .
ii
!' MR. GALBRAITH: And in fact, Mr. Canestaro signed this petition
didn' t he?
i
IMR. WEAVER: I didn' t look at it that way. His objective, in
i
layman' s language . . .
SMR. GALBRAITH: Okay, in fact if Mr. & Mrs . Conway lived in the
I
' Fall Creek area there probably wouldn't be any objection here woul
, there?
MR. WEAVER: We'd be delighted to have them.
IMR. GALBRAITH: use their property for five
unrelated students , would you?
MR. WEAVER: Yes I would. There is a big difference - you see -
the very labeling of this as residential it continues to be a
business use - the business has changed from a commercial garage t
Ila commercial dwelling.
I
IMR, GALBRAITH A multiple residence is a permitted use in this zone ,
is it not?
MR. WEAVER: Yes.
IMR, GALBRAITH: A permitted use for the Canestaros and the Conways
(alike, as long as the property complies , is it not?
I
IMR. WEAVER: You are trying to argue a point of law with me and I
(can' t help P You a bit.
IMR. GALBRAITH: The only thing we are talking about . . . .
!CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak against
Ithe requested variance?
E
(SECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to make a
statement here about some things that were brought up tonight that
I
jI think ought to be clarified. First of all on the question of the
i
!nap, it is referred to as the map in the Building Commissioner' s
bf£ice - it is an old assessor's map that we try to use but from
I
!time to time we find that it is not invariably accurate so the re-
i
uirements for a zoning appeal include the requirement that the
i
- 20 -
, appellant submit a dimensioned plot plan, accurately showing the
distances between buildings and the property lines . Now the origi
knal appeal by Mr. Greenwood included a dimensioned plot plan which
! doesn't agree with the assessor' s map but it was the same map that
was submitted by the Conways at their first appeal and that is
( where all these indications of deficiencies existed - originated..
! Until there is an accurate survey, we have no way of knowing which
its more accurate - Mr. Greenwood' s map or the assessor' s map.
! Number 2, on the question of any statements that ivre made by people
in the Building Department, they do all report to me , they do all
represent me. Mrs. Conway was in our office many, many timeson
some other properties as well as this one and she did talk with me
about properties - one on Eddy Street that I remember , one on Blai
Street - we talked about deficiencies . In talking with the inspec-
tors, as a result of what has happened here, they've all said, well ,
!we saw Mrs. Conway talking with you, we presumed that that was about
!this property as well as the others so there may have been some
breakdown in communications here but by the time I found out that
'the Conways were planning to use this as a multiple dwelling, it
was already too late to do anything about it - they owned the
property. The inspection by the inspectors - the only thing - thele
lis no requirement listed on that inspection that is specific to a
�jmultiple dwelling. It is all for a single family dwelling because
i
! the building codes for a multiple dwelling have a different thres-
hold than the requirements for zoning . In other words , if you
have more than three unrelated people in a building - under the
zoning it becomes a multiple dwelling but it isn't until you have
more than five under the Building Code that it becomes a multiple
dwelling, so this use that we are talking about is a multiple dwell -
ing as far as zoning is concerned but its not a multiple dwelling
i
jas far as the Building Code is concerned. As far as using the
! property as rental property, there was the requirement that locks
be installed on the property - that 's the only thing that is uniqu
its the fact that the property is for rental . So we really didn' t
I
, get in a situation where the zoning question came up, as far as th
I
f
21 -
',' inspectors were concerned but as far as I was concerned, I just
i1
found out about it too late.
MR. GALBRAITH: If I could briefly comment, nothing that the Conwa s
1
for I said was intended to attac the good faith of the Building
Commissioner 's office in any way, of whom we all have the highest
i
Iregard, really. The Conways were simply a little bit in the dark
!i
, when they bought this property and about the precise compliance
; with the side yard requirements The second thing, in talking with
�k
jthe Conways after hearing Mr. Weaver speak - they've indicated to
jme, the Conways , that they would stipulate to limit the use of this
4roperty
' -to five unrelated persons and no more, if the Board would
f
; grant this variance.
i
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any other statements?
MR. WILCOX: I 'd like to know, what is the general density in that
( neighborhood are there very many buildings where there is five
i
students? Twenty students? Do you know?
iMR. GALBRAITH: I think Mrs. Conway may know.
iMR. WILCOX: Well I presume you just submitted this material to
show certain density in the neighborhood and certain owner-occupie
and non-owner-occupied do you have any idea about what the density
is in some of these places, how many students are in - how many
unrelated people are in the neighborhood now?
MRS. CONWAY: Many of the properties are . . ,
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Mrs, Conway perhaps you could better give us that
! answer up here.
I MRS. CONWAY:, No, I dont know the number of people except that as
,! I have gone around the neighborhood, after the fact, you know,
getting acquainted and trying to see what the problem really was .
Because when we first f r came we dust really expected that it was a
kind of ordinary request and that the area variance would be
granted. When it was not we then went back and did some homewor
f to find out what it was that we should have done. So I did talk
with- quite a few of the neighbors , for example, Mrs . Joseph, next
door, lives in the house by herself and she rents it to a couple
i
so that there are three people in that house . Next door is Mr.
�f
it
i,
22 -
li
Mrs. Barber, who work for the city, so that there are the two of
,I
those in that house. The house next door is rented to his son,
; who has several children, and many of the houses there are older a d
!; the families have lived there for some time so their children have
ijgrown up and left home and it is the older couple who is left there
1who have added the rental apartment to their home in order to
i
, generate some income.
i
!! MR. GALBRAITH: How about the Canestaro property across the street
li
,i
1MRS. CONWAY: They have five unrelated, they have a rental property
i
! in their own home so they have their own family, which has , I know
lat least two children - I don' t know if there are more or not and
, then they have two students in an apartment in their own home. Th
house next door has - which was brought up before - is the largest
multiple on the - in the area and it has , I think, six units and
( they seem to be couples with one child or no children - two children
iat the most - so it seems the one next door is the one that would
have the most number of people in it. Otherwise they really - Mrs
Banfield at 220 lives by herself and she rents - her grownup son
' lives upstairs . The Weavers , I think just have two in your house?
ISo it seems to be mostly kind of two with maybe two people in a
i
rental unit.
iCHAIRMAN AMAN, Any further questions? If not we will move on to
the next case.
i
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
,i
i
it
ii
i.
- 23 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ii COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
i' CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
i
�i SEPTEMBER 8 , 1980
I
!; EXECUTIVE SESSION
i�
�' APPEAL NO. 1317 :
i
The Board considered the reappeal for an area variance under Section
(! 30. 25, Column 13 to permit the change in use of the property at 21
Linn Street from a one-family dwelling to a multiple dwelling. Th
l
�1property is located in an R-3b use zone where multiple dwellings
i'
jare a permitted use; however the property is deficient in one side
II�
Ilyard.
IE!MR. WALSH: I move that the Board grant the requested area variant
!with the following conditions : 1) that the maximum occupancy be
limited to five persons as suggested by the appellants , and 2) that
Ithe breezeway be removed, leaving the variance pertaining only to
the remaining north side yard deficiency.
MR. WILCOX: I second the motion.
!VOTE: 4 Yes; 0 No ; 2 Absent Area variance granted with conditions
FINDINGS OF FACT:
11) The variance sought has been reduced to a single instance of
i
side yard deficiency of a minimal consequence.
2) The persons seeking the variance have stipulated that maximum
occupancy of the dwelling will be limitedtono more than five
unrelated persons , thereby only marginally increasing the density
I
of the neighborhood.
3) Adequate off-street parking is present.
�4) Permitting occupancy of the building by up to five unrelated
persons will not materially alter the character of a neighborho d
I which is already zoned for multiple residence and has a substan-
tial portion of dwellings occupied by renters .
�5) The Board is cognizant of the concern of residents of the neigh-
borhood
eig -borhood who have indicated their opposition to further increasing
j the density of the area. While we do not feel a variance may b
reasonably denied in this instance, it is our strong recommenda
tion that Common Council reevaluate the existing zoning here with
an eye toward preventing increased papulation in the neighborhood.
24 -
I
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
i' COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 8 , 1980
I
I I
SECRETARY HOARD: The next case Mr. Chairman is appeal number 1318 :
I
Appeal of John Alexander and Arthur A.
l Jaeger for an area variance under Section
30 . 25 , Columns 12 , 13 and 14 , to permit
conversion of the residential property at
110 North Meadow Street to a business use.
The property is located in a B-4 (busines )
use district where businesses are per-
mitted; however the property does not meet
the requirements for minimum side yards
and minimum rear yard.
MR. KERRIGAN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board
I 'm Jim Kerrigan, I represent John Alexander and Art Jaeger, who
are the proposed purchasers of the DeChellis property. I have jus
filed with the Building Commissioner the plot plan and have given
i
each of you a copy of a photo of this - a photo copy of a portion
hof this survey which is filed late because it was just completed
i
! today. Also before I forget, if I may, I ' 1.1 also file the Owner' s
i
Authorization form which I don' t think has been filed. That was
completed some time ago. The - it 's basically the application of
i
iSeaboard, Inc. which is a small business in the community, to con-
i
! vert an existing single-family residence with a rental , separate
house out back to commercial use a permitted use in a B-4 zone.
We come to you with the unanimous recommendation and support of th
i
; application of the Planning Board. The property that we are speak
i
fling about is at 110 N. Meadow Street - we are on the west side of
I
! Meadow Street in the block between State Street and Seneca Street
so starting at State Street, if you will, we have Dasher Cox' s at
the corner, there is a paved parking lot in the next lot , there
I, is a residential property which is now shown on the portion of the
survey that I have delivered to you this evening, referred to as
? Benesi, which is used as a residential use - the nature of which I
I!
' am not sure - the next property is the DeChellis property which is
r
; the question that we are concerned with here this evening, which
has the three buildings shown on it , The property next to that is
I
�Ithe property of Knuppenberg, which is at the corner of Seneca and
I
I
,i
1
.i
I,
- 25 -
li
jMeadow Streets across the street, I 'm sure you are all aware of
1'
that - I think the two gas stations it's principally a commercial
i; use. The deficiencies in the use of the property are parking, which
;
his reasonably close and set back requirements which are not proposed
it
�jto be changed. Speaking briefly first, if I may, the set back and
i
side yard requirements - there is another complication that you
should be aware of in that in this district, we are informed by the
, Building Commissioner that any conversion of this nature has to
: comply with the provisions of the State Building Code which will
require an application for a variance because of the framestructure
din a commercial use and we have no objection at all if whatever
' action you take this evening is contingent upon the approval by the
State Building Code Appeals Office, if I have that nomenclature co -
rect, on an application that will be made - that has not yet been
submitted. In terms of the dimensions of the lot , there is a side
( yard set back - these is no outside construction proposed at all .
The rear yard which is at the top the west of the survey, away
from Meadow Street - the Zoning Ordinance requires 15% or 201 , 150
would be about 19. 2 feet, the existing structure in the rear of th
1property is by scale on that survey about two feet from the rear
lot line that presently does not comply with. the Ordinance. In
' the short term that would be continued to be used as a residential
rental ultimately, and this is a request to permit its use as a
commercial use as well . The side yard requirement requires - the
two side yards require one side at least being ten and the other
five, there is ten feet to the south. of the property, there is a
4hree foot encroachment to the north of the property. For your
linformation the house has been there for about seventy years , I
I
would guess. i would expect that the legal questions that obviously
would come up from that will be resolved. For your information,
, Knuppenberg property to the north, towards Seneca Street, the hous
! is not shown on that sketch but there is a good twenty or twenty-
Ifi.ve feet of side yard on the Knuppenberg property the house is
i
! not immediately next to the proposed use, there is quite a bit of
( distance between those two. The house, which is probably a thirty
I
I
26 -
;' foot house, guesstimate from my traveling through the neighborhood
jrecently to look at this , is pretty close to the corner of Seneca
I
land Meadow Street. The front yard requirement , although set forth
' in the appeal, is met. I would respectfully submit , insofar as
practical difficulties , these cannot be used with the expansion of
Meadow Street some years ago , it is not a residential neighborhood -
it is not suited for that in the long run I wouldn't think, I thin
fits the type of thing that the City should be encouraging - commercial
use of Meadow Street I would submit that the side yard set back re
quirements , with a contingency dealing with meeting fire standards
! of the State Building Construction Code , which we are principally
concerned with., should be granted. The nature of the business that
I
we are talking about which is also related to this to some degree
and also the parking into which I am moving, is that Seaboard is a
�i
; small computer software business which is principally at the
l
1present ,time involved in designing John Alexander can answer these
( questions better than I is designing and marketing computer
; programs that will tell an institutional food purveyor, for exampl ,
Cornell , that if they have so many students that so many of them
ion Tuesdays , will order hamburger and will tell them how much ham-
burger to order, what the price of that, how much salt is needed
for the course of a year and a great many other aspects of the
business that I do not-am not familiar with., and could not understand
seven if he had tried to explain them to mein more detail . Most o
` their market is across the country in international - I asked him
this evening when the last time a customer came to their existing
place of business which is in cramped quarters on State Street to
i
the west of Meadow - it was a week and a half ago that a customer
( came by. In ,terms of the - so its not this proposed use is not
! intensive in terms of traffic or parking requirements but the ap-
plication of course would be applicable to a future user if there
; were a different user in the future in terms of the property. The
, parking requirement in a zone of this nature for this use is one
jlspace per 250 square feet. On the lot at the present time if one
, car were parked along the south edge of the driveway, there is rood
i
i
27 -
for five cars and another car at the front of the garage which wil ,
11
!lin all probability not be used as garage space, there are six spac s
on that very nicely paved driveway at the present time. There is
room for future parking expansion at the present time. The useabl
! office space which is how I read the Ordinance, indicates that in
Il the main house up by Meadow Street there is about 1 ,500 square fee
fof useable office or commercial space, another 400 on the house in
! the rear and another 300 in the garage, although the garage will
!, probably be used only for storage. It is not insulated - it would
!
jrequire a building permit for major alterations to improve the
garage for anything other than storage, which would indicate a
! total of 2 , 200 square feet or about nine parking spaces . There are
, six easily available now. The present employees of Seaboard are
Cabout seven, half of whom are usually out of town traveling to
Icustomers - wherever they may be. There is a potential for the use
of this building by fourteen or fifteen employees at some point but
i
I would submit that if the expansion were to that extent, the park
i
!
ding could be accommodated in what we are talking about - the
( parking requirement is one space per 250 square feet . So I would
1
respectfully . . .
( CHAIRMAN AMAN: How could it be accommodated?
i
IMR. KERRIGAN: The requirement is if we are asking for a variance
to go from 9 to 6 . For 2 ,200 feet it requires 6. There are a
couple of other routes - a very nice lawn and garden area between
!
the two houses could be paved if necessary. I suppose they could
park on the grass there is sufficient room back there between the
two without violating any Ordinance. As a practical matter with the
! number of people that would be traveling for the Company it is
( unlikely that even if there were twenty employees that there would
1be more than seven or eight on premises at any time for this parti -
cular use - although it is an application that is made - we are
I
requesting not to be limited to Seaboard' s use. So what we are
asking for is the permission to for some - what I would char-
acterize as a small variance in the parking requirements and the
f variance in terms of existing structures on set back and rear yard
�� requirements.
I�
il
- as -
CHAIRMAN AMAN: What was the deficiency in the side yard?
MR. KERRIGAN: The north line would require - as I read the Ordi-
nance - a minimum of five feet. The building presently encroaches
!i on a survey that was made today, three inches onto Knuppenberg
described property. The eaves go another twelve inches or so and
a five foot requirement, we are deficient about five feet three
inches at least. We are deficient more than the requirement at
the present time. So there is no side yard at all and five feet
is required.
jMR. ANGELL Would your client be agreeable to making it contingent
fon increasing the parking?
MR. ALEXANDER: Right now the rental property out back is the
property because it has a front yard. Mr. DeChellis has kept a
I
11 garden and all of the lawn in pretty nice shape .
SECRETARY HOARD: Could you come up to the podium and identify your- ,
self?
i
MR. KERRIGAN: I think the principal question, if I may, Mr.
Angell , is at the present time it just about complies if the rear
building is not used commercially. I think thatrequirement is on
car for that building out back as it presently sets and that' s
pretty close to . . .
MR. ANGELL: One and one-half.
MR. KERRIGAN: Okay. One off-street parking space for separate. . . ?
SECRETARY HOARD: For one unit - one unit with three bedrooms .
MR. KERRIGAN: For one unit so it would not - we are down to
seven and one-half or eight cars if the rear is used as a residence
for residential , rental purposes rather than office purposes . So
I maybe if I could ask John to respond to your question, but talkin
j about if he converts the residence out back, which is part of thi
i
application - or at that time, if he would be willing to park in
the lawn and driveway if necessary.
MR. ALEXANDER: If it were converted to a - from a residential to
1
a business property then there would be no reason to keep all of
that grass and the rose bushes , so we probably would want to have
that paved and we' d use it as parking.
If
f
- 29
j' MR. ANGELL: Alright, we' ll make it contingent upon any time that
i
i! the two-story house in the rear is converted to business that the
the parking would be increased at that time.
r
MR. ALEXANDER: I think that ' s reasonable. No quarrel with that.
i
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions? Thank you.
i;
j MR. KERRIGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for the
requested variance? (no one) Is there anyone here that wishes
to speak against the requested variance? (no one) Mr.
Secretary, if you will call the last case for tonight?
'I
I
jI
I�
it
I
I
i
i
I I
I
I�
I
I
i
i
J
I
i
i
Ii
i
i;
I
i
- 30 -
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
'i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 8, 1980
i
i
EXECUTIVE SESSION
i
APPEAL NO. 1318 :
The Board considered the appeal for an area variance under Section
1 30. 25 , Columns 12 , 13 and 14 , to permit conversion of the residen-
tial property at 110 North Meadow Street to a business use . The
property is located in a B-4 use district where businesses are
! permitted; however the property does not meet the requirements
for minimum side yards and minimum rear yard.
CHAIRMAN ARAN I move that the Board grant the area variance re-
quested in appeal no. 1318 with the following conditions : 1) that
i
if and when the rear dwelling is converted to commercial use the
appellant shall fully comply with the off-street parking require-
ments then in effect, and 2) that the appellant shall comply with
all applicable New York State Building Codes .
MR. WALSH: I second the motion.
VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent Granted with conditions attached.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1) Practical difficulties have been demonstrated.
2) The distance between the north wall of the subject buildings
and the south wall of the neighboring building to the north is
i approximately twenty-five feet ; therefore the side yard defi-
ciency is not critical.
i
3) The parking does not bear on the projected use and can be
overcome in the future , if necessary.
I
i
i
I
i
j - 31 -
i'
I
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 8 , 1980
i
i SECRETARY HOARD: The final case tonight is appeal number 1320 :
Appeal of Arthur M. Cicchetti for an area
�j variance under Section 30. 25, Columns 11
!i and 12 to permit construction of a one-
story addition at the rear of the one-
family dwelling at 308 Ithaca Road. The
property is located in an R-lb (residen-
tial) use district and is deficient in
front yard depth and the depth of one
j side yard.
li
MR. CICCHETTI : The only thing I neglected to put on here was
north, south, east and west. The front of the house . . .
CHAIRMAN AMAN: Sir, if you would just give your name and address?
MR. CICCHETTI : My name is Art Cicchetti , I live at 308 Ithaca
Road and the front of the house is where the 1717" is and we would
like to add the addition on the rear of the house - the outside
dimensions would be fourteen feet in the depth and 2215" in the
width. We've sent out the letters, we've been to the Planning
Board and received their okay to go ahead and to come to this
` meeting and check it out with you people. The addition is going
to be used as a family room, our main purpose in doing that is
I(
j that we do have a large family and from time to time they are
i home - the living room is a small living room - it' s quite cut up
it has a jog in it . My sons now are not little boys anymore , the
are big boys , so when we all get home together it' s very crowded
and we would like to add this room on the back. We have had no
complaints from any of the neighbors I believe one letter has
been written in favor of it -the neighbor that lives on the short
f side - where the seven foot distance is to the lot line, Dr.
Robinson, was willing to come down to the PlanningBoard meeting
g
and/or here in support of our doing that. Mr. Meyers , who lives
on the other side would have done the same so, other than that
I haven't too much more to say.
!i CHAIRMAN AMAN; As I understand it, your proposed addition won't
I! affect the present . . .
I
�I
i'
i
- 32 -
I
'' MR. CICCHETTI : No, it is in the rear of the house , right, and way
back behind the lot line is a city owned park. On the one side
.' there is a big privot bush about eight to ten foot high, so we are
Ij
l actually really quite concealed. Meyers won't see unless they are
I.
on their second floor and Dr. Robinson is there about three months
�I
jout of the year, otherwise he is not there - but he doesn't really
i'
l
care so I don't see where it is going to bother anyone else.
r
j CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any questions? Thank you very much.
MR. CICCHETTI : Thank you.
11 CHAIRMAN AMAN: Unless you have something to say on this case, I
I
guess we are finished for the evening.
SECRETARY HOARD: I do have a letter from Michael Peech of 315
I
Ithaca Road "Gentlemen, I have no objection whatever to the Board
i
of Zoning Appeals granting of this variance to build an addition
and fail to see how this could detract from the properties in the
� p P
immediate neighborhood. Sincerely, Michael Peech. "
CHAIRMAN AMAN: The Board will consider these cases in executive
i
session and then announce our decision at some point this evening.
i
E
II
II
s
1
i
i
I
i
fi
I
I
I
i
i
�p
�I
l:
l!
+!I
t
�i
�I
- 33 -
Ij
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
I; COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
li SEPTEMBER 8 , 1980
i
�i
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 1320:
The Board considered the request for an area variance under Sectio
30. 25, Columns 11 and 12 to permit construction of a one-story
addition at the rear of the one-family dwelling at 308 Ithaca Road.
The property is located in an R-lb use district and is deficient
in front yard depth and the depth of one side yard.
CHAIRMAN AMAN: I move that the Board grant the area variance
requested in appeal number 1320 .
MR. ANGELL: I second the motion.
VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent Granted
FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Proposed addition sought by the appellant
will not exacerbate the area deficiencies that
i
presently exist.
2) It will not alter the character of the
neighborhood.
3) Practical difficulties have been demon-
strated.
i
I
34 -
i'
;i I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board
l
i of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals
li numbered 1317 , 1318 and 1320 on September 8 , 1980 at City Hall,
City of Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed same and the
w
; foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the
imeeting and the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals ,
fl
City of Ithaca and the whoel thereof to the best of my ability.
I
I
I�
I
Barbara C. Ruane
Recording Secretary
I"
�I
ii
I
i
I
Sworn to before me this
Jday of 1980
I
i
Notary Public
i
i JEAN J. HANKINSON
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK
No. 55-16'0300
QUALIFIED IN TOM1IPi; '+S COUNT /
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES A;APTH 00,19z„
I�
I�
II
I
I�
!I
I
i
i