The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-BZA-1975-01-06 Mr. Jones opened the meeting and asked that the first order of business be that a Chairman be elected for the year 1975. MR. VAN MARTER: I move that Peter Martin be elected Chairman. MR. KASPRZAK: I second that. MR. KASPRZAK: I move the nominations be closed. The secretary was instructed to cast one vote for unanimous ap- proval of the nomination of Peter Martin. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, JANUARY 6, 1975 ----------------------------------------------------------------- At a regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, held in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca, New York, on January 6, 1975: PRESENT: PETER MARTIN, Chairman C. Murray Van Marter Gregory Kasprzak Elva Holman John Bodine Edgar Gasteiger Edison Jones, Building Commissioner and Secretary Christine Smith, Recording Secretary Chairman Martin opened the meeting and listed members of the Board present. This Board is operating under the provisions of the City Charter of the City of Ithaca and of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinances; the Board shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct of this hearing, but the deter- mination shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same. The Board requests that all participants identify themselves as to name and address; and confine their discussions to the pertinent facts of the case under consideratio . Please avoid extraneous material which would have a delaying effect. • Commissioner Jones listed what case No. 1062 is to be. APPEAL NO. 1062: Appeal of NCR for a use variance under Section 30.25, column 2 at 705 S. Aurora Street in a P-1 District. WILLIAM BARRETT: My name is William Barrett and I am attorney with the law firm of Treman, Clynes & Barrett. I reside at 7 Cornell Walk in the City of Ithaca and we are representing the appellant, NCR Corporation. The property involved is a small area across from the NCR Plant #2. It is a piece of -2- land that has been used off and on from post World War II days as a parking lot and to the best of my knowledge has been used for no other purpose. The parking in the lot was originally a sporadic type of use that was terminated in the 1950's. The original agreement was between the NCR Corporation, or National Cash Register Corporation as it was known then, and officials of the School Board and it was not done on any type of formal basis. It was done reall on the basis of emergency overflow parking. Now, our need arises here because of a transition period that NCR Corporation is in. The new plant approx- imately across from Ithaca College is under construction and a parking lot is under construction in that area. The present problem arises because of the use of the #2 Plant in the City of Ithaca and the workers and the present use of that plant and parking lot is planned to go into the new plant when it is constructed. However, this new plant will not be completed until August of this year, hopefully. The problem arises because of an increase of business at NCR Corporation. The divisions that were transferred here in contemplation of using the present site have all been transferred here during this transition period, work has increased, the new plan is contemplating and it is necessary for NCR Corporation to have additional parking. Now, they have some on-site -S- parking and it has been sufficient until fairly recently. As a result of transferring these workers here in this particular division of NCR, the workmen'c. Plant #2, NCR invested in excess of a half million dollars in improvements in this plant and its property immediately across the street from the property we are talking about tonight. It is our contention that in order to use this property, they are going to have to find adjacent parking. There is no adjacent parking in the alternative anywhere in the neighborhood of the plant. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: One point on which I would like some clarification is NCR's interest in the property in question. NCR appears as the appellant and customarily the appellant in these cases is either property owner or somebody with a vested interest in the property. What property interest does NCR have in the subject property? ` WILLIAM BARRETT: As a lessee. Let me explain the situation. The property is owned by the Ithaca City School District. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Has NCR been authorized by the City School District to seek the variance? WILLIAM BARRETT: Originally, yes. They were verbally authorized to use the lot. That relationship has been altered to the extent that the School Board has drawn up a proposed lease agreement creating a landlord/tenant relationship. The lease agreement has been signed by NCR Corporation and the School District has approved the agreement. As a matter of fact they have drawn it up. All that remains to be done is to get the necessary clearance from the City officials and that's why we're here. I cannot say that we have a signed agreement but, it is my understanding that the School Board has voted in favor of this agreement and we are definitely here with a permission. As a matter of fact, with the express cooperation of the Ithaca City School District. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there someone here who will speak for them? WILLIAM BARRETT: Well, I saw Mr. Terry in the audience and I imagine that he can speak as a member of the School Board. MR. TERRY: I am a member but, I cannot speak for the School Board. I can only speak as an individual member. WILLIAM BARRETT: Could you at least confirm my statement that this is your understanding of it. MR. TERRY: I can confirm that the School Board requested that NCR come to the Zoning Board for a temporary variance for continuing use. Realizing what happened in the R.H.P. Case, we didn't want the same situation to arise. We felt it would be better, speaking as an individual member of the Board. I have gone to a certain amount of time as an individual member and as any of you. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Requested he come forward so everyone could hear and get this straight. -5- MR. KASPRZAK: Asked him to start by confirming Mr. Barrett's statement, speaking as an individual. MR. TERRY: What is it that I am confirming? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Two things. 1 . Does NCR have an inter- est granted them by the School Board at this moment? MR. TERRY: They asked could they use that land for temporary parking until next August. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And they have been granted permission? MR. TERRY: They have been granted permission subject to your decision. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: They have been authorized by the School Board to seek a variance which would authorize such use. MR. TERRY: The School Board did not want to by-pass this Board's feelings on how that land should be used. ` CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So it is authorized that NCR MR. TERRY: The reason NCR is doing this is because The School District didn't feel that they should stand the expense of going to this procedure. In other words, NCR is paying all of the legal costs. There is no cost to the School District and through this situation. We have asked NCR to present their case and to have you hear it. WILLIAM BARRETT: Now, we have several speakers here for NCR Corporation, Mr. Ewing will speak and tell you some of the details of their need for it. Due to the character istics of the neighborhood, it is almost impossible to find alternative parking anywhere in the vicinity. NCR Corpor- ation has explored, at my request the -6- possibility of finding shuttle bus service to shuttle the people to and from work and that has proved to be, from the estimates, exorbitantly expensive. The minimum cost of a shuttle bus per day is $90 and if this is carried on for eight months, approx- imately 32 weeks , the price would be $14,400 merely to shuttle the workers back and forth from some other alternate e parking place. Now, it is our contentio that this use and it's only intended to be a temporaty use, until August of 1975 8 months , and if it can be terminated before then, NCR would be glad to do it. But at the outset it looks like 8 months is the time needed. This is not a request for any type of permanent improvement and we earnestly feel that it is not the type of request that is going to seriously alter or effect in any way the character of the neighborhood. As I said before, this has always been used as a parking lot in recent history. Now, as far as any aspects of public safety to be considered NCR is more than willing to go all out to do any- thing they can to make this as safe a proposition as possible. The prospect of a private uniformed guard to be on duty was raised at the Planning Board and NCR's Corporation has no objection to this. They would be glad to cooperate in any way. They would add signs if necessary but, we don't feel that this -l- is really going to affect the neighbor- hood. The nearest building on the same side of the street is yards away from this parking lot. Immediately across from the street there is a thin strip R-3 zone, a small narrow strip of houses which exists between the street and the industrial district where the NCR Corporation is located. It is such a temporary use we can't believe it is going to effect the characteristic of the neighborhood. The traffic is already there on Aurora Street. It's going to be there whether this parking lot is there or not because these people do have to come to work and leave work in some manner of fashion. If this were a permanent improvement, I could see that somebody might possibly raise some objections. But I think there are a number of people who live in the neighborhood who really have no objectio at all to this , some of them that I have spoken to. MR. KASPRZAK: Can you tell me who is going to be using that parking lot, either the employees of NCR or the construction employees? WILLIAM BARRETT: It is not the construction employees in my understanding. It is the employees at NCR that are going to be using it. MR. KASPRZAK: But are the users of the parking lot going to be coming and going in shifts or is it going to be on and off all day? WILLIAM BARRETT: I have a list of the shift schedule . Mr. Schaffer can explain the shift -8- schedules for the plant. I have a list that says that the one shift starts at 7 o'clock a.m. and quits at 3:42. Another shift starts at 7:12 and quits at 3:54. Engineering offices start at 7: 30 a.m. and quit at 4:15. A complicat- ing factor here is that everybody doesn' t come and go at exactly the same time which creates problems with the shuttle bus. MRS . HOLMAN: When did NCR begin to use the school property for parking? WILLIAM BARRETT: In the immediate past or? MRS . HOLMAN: Yes , the renewed use. WILLIAM BARRETT: Mr. Schaffer can answer that better than I . Mr. Schaffer. MR. SCHAFFER: May 1974, full use. MRS . HOLMAN: May I ask another question? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If you are going to speak other than up here, please use your microphone. WILLIAM BARRETT: Maybe I can help because I would like to have Mr. Schaffer speak and I will defer any questions to him and have him come up. MRS . HOLMAN: If the property has been used for park- ing this time around since May, why is it that no application was made for a use variance until November? WILLIAM BARRETT: I cannot answer that. I did not get involved in this until after the School Board had taken its action. It is my understanding that the people were actin really without advice and they really didn't know. It is my understanding that before the use was contemplated -9- NCR expressly requested permission from the School District and I believe thought that was satisfactory. It was no intention I am sure to circumvent any public body or to do it without the owner's permission, or act in any way improperly. It is my understanding that they weren't really aware of the fact that they had to do this until the School Board advised them that perhaps before we created a more formal arrange- ment by a lease agreement that perhaps this might have to be looked into by the Board of Zoning Appeals. As I understand it some use was made of this before the parking lot was improved on a purely verbal cooperative basis between the School District and NCR to ease them through their hardship situation here and then as the use continued, it was felt that the land ought to be fixed up, the entrance ought to be improved and it ought to be graded and some improvements ought to be made. NCR believed then created a more formal arrangement with the Board by expressly asking the Board' permission before they went on and approved it then, when it sort of grew into this on a more elaborate scale involving some grading and improvements on the property that the Board of Zoning Appeals was first thought of. f I really feel the Board of Zoning Appeal shouldn't penalize NCR for failure to act at the outset because it is a very -10- unusual situation. It really wasn't their land at the outset. They went to the School District and asked them if it was alright to use it and thought they were doing it with everyone's permission without any problems. CHAIRMAN 14ARTIN: I would like to pose one more question and it may be that you have already got someone to speak to it, but as you know, the issuance of a use variance doesn't just follow from findings that it would be nice to use the land in that fashion and that it wouldn't have undue impact on the neighborhood but, we also have to find that there are peculiar circum- stances unique to the land and not a function of the personal situation of the appellant, which means that the land cannot be reasonably used for the designated use. I heard you speak of NCR's plan and hardship but that's of course interesting extraneous to the issue that's before us. WILLIAM BARRETT: Well I 'm aware that under the famous case of Otto vs. Steinhilberg, N.Y. that thats an element that certainly has to be considered and has to be shown for any permanent variance. You mut remember that this is not a permanent situation. We do not intend to take title to the land or to have any long term lease situation. It is simply a short term situation. I frankly feel that the unique circumstances to a certain extent should apply to the land across the -11- street. In order to make as best use of that land across the street they have to meet the unusual transition circumstances here before they can get into the new plant. It's not a permanent situation. A major addition is to be made to the community in the new plant and the parking will all be up at the new plant. This would all go right back to the School District and is not a permanent situation. I am sure that the School District may have some other use for this land and this is not the only use that the School District could put to this land and it is certainly the only use that NCR could have for this land on their lease. They have no other designs, aims or any other possible use for this land. They have no other reason for having a lease with the School District. There was some talk made at the Planning Board meeting that this would make a nice baseball field. Well, it might and I 'm sure that the School District has a use for it perhaps as a baseball field. It is in a P-1 Zone. It's not in any industrial or residential zone. It is frankly a very unusual situation and I hope it is one that this Board will listen to with some sympathy. It is no intention made to circumvent the Board of Zoning Appeal and there is no intention on the part of NCR to alter the character of this neighborhood. I don't know who is here -12- tonight and I have made no effort to solicit anybody. I have spoken to several people who live in the neighbor- hood. I spoke to one fellow an hour ago and he says it certainly doesn't make any difference at all and I would be interested in seeing how many people who actually live in the area of this and would conceivably be immediately affected by it, would stand up and oppose it here. I frankly have not seen it. I have seen some action by the South Hill Civic Association but I 'm not honestly sure that it represents the main feeling of thought of the people in the neighborhood. I understand they have been involved in a hard fought battle involving another parking lot and some statements have been made that this is a similar situation and I would say that I do not see the similar situation at all. I think reference has been made to the Park Broadcasting parking lot situation. Now this should not be identified with that in any way and I feel that it is unfair and unfor- tunate if anybody thinks this. No building has been destroyed and no permanent use is contemplated and we're not really changing any use. We are not taking an active ball field and turning it into a parking lot. We're not tearing down any buildings. We are not creatinng any permanent situation. As I said we are just continuing on a temporary basis -13- the only use to which this property has been made in the last 20 years and it is only on a temporary basis. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Do you have some people you would like to appear? WILLIAM BARRETT: Yes, unless anyone has any questions of me about what I have said. MR. GASTEIGER: NCR has surfaced the parking lot? WILLIAM BARRETT: Mr. Schaffer can explain exactly what they have done to the parking lot. Mr. Schaffer. MR. SCHAFFER: My name is Elmer Schaffer and I am Manager of Industrial Relations for NCR Corporation Date Entry Division. I will try to make it as brief as possible. I realize we have a lot of people here who would like to talk and I think it might make it easier if you all are aware of this , so if I may step out here Are you familiar with locations? I will come up Aurora Street as I think that will be easier for you to understand. The location of the parking lot in relationship to NCR and Morse Chain. This area first became a parking lot in World War II . The curb cuts were in, we asked permission of the School Board to use this area. I am not sure who was contacted, Mr. Saggese was called and one other person and permissi n was granted in May for us to use this and at that time approximately 40-60 cars were using this lot. This all started in the month of October when -14- it became excessively muddy and the employee's began to complain that it was unsafe to drive in the lot and cars wer getting stuck so they complained and asked if it was going to remain through the winter like this so at that time we suggested some sort of a temporary surface stone and tar. It is not an asphalt. It is a temporary surface. At that time the School Board gave its tacit approval and suggested we contact the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. As you know they stop paving at a certain time of the year. We reached that moment and we are still trying to get what we needed and what we did go ahead and put in this surface. As far as the use is concerned it hadn't changed. It was closed for two days to put in surface and immediately the cars started parking there. Apparently what concerns me about the problem is until November when we applie for this , no one ever objected in all that time with approximately 40-60 cars a day driving in and out of there. Brad Hill of the South Hill Civic Association said that if we had their permission they probably wouldn't have objected so I don't know what all the hullabaloo is about. All we are asking is that you permit us this area which hasn't been anything except a parking lot in the last three years. We haven't changed it except to put the temporary I -15- surface on. I will answer any questions. MRS . HCLMAN: Where did the employees park the two days that the lot was closed for surfacing? MR. SCHAFFER: I 'm not certain. I rented two station wagons in an attempt to shuttle them back and forth, but we had very few shuttled. I did get a complaint from Morse Chain that I had to get our cars out of their parking lot so I think most of them were over there taking their space. Along the curb stones and parking illegally upon the sidewalks and things during those two days. Yes sir. MR. KASPRZAK: Is it possible to arrange your shifts for people parking in that area with such a timing that it would not cause any conflict of the major level of traffic? Like 8 to g and 4 to 5: 30. MR. SCHAFFER: All of our parking at the present time is coordinated with Morse Chain and has been for many years to eliminate as many traffic jams as possible on an already overcrowed street and so we stagger and Morse Chain staggers their starting and quitting times to eliminate as much of the overcrowing as possible. That's the reason for some of our odd starting and quitting times now. MR. KASPRZAK: Could you possibly tell us, if you can, the heaviest use of this parking lot in terms of people coming and going. MR. SCHAFFER: Well, sir, it's used for one shift a day. Very few people go in and out other than at starting and quitting -16- times. A few go out to lunch and maybe occasionally a personal matter during the day. MR. KASPRZAK: Then it would be about 7 o'clock in the morning and about 4 o'clock in the afternoon that you have the heaviest traffic in that particular parking lot? MR. SCHAFFER: Yes sir. Any other questions? MR. BODINE: Yes , you indicated that this has been used for a parking lot for the last 30 years. MR. SCHAFFER: Off and on sir. I was looking at a very brief history and in World War II it was used as an overflow parking lot because of the many people working in that plant. It dwindled down and then I don't know what happened. Then in 1955 or 1956 our new building which is the one we are now adding on to was being built. Once again we became very much overcrowded and at that time we received permission from the School from a man by the name of Gregg or Craig or something like that and by then the General Manager at that time, Red Fowler, received permission from him to use the parking lot, this same lot. So we used it then for 2 or 3 years until our Danby Building was completed and then we stopped using it again as a full time parking lot until May of this year when we started using it full time again. In the interim you would see two or three cars, I don't think more than 4 at any one time, parking -17- over there during the interim period but otherwise its been there, the curb cuts have been there and really there hasn' t been any basic change. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions? Thank you. WILLIAM BARRETT: We have some other speakers. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If you have finished with those which you have arranged, our procedure is to invite those who wish to speak in favo of the appeal to speak first and those opposed to speak second. HORACE BROCKWAY: Mr. Chairman, I am one of those. I am Horace Brockway and I live at 107 Lenr c Court. I have no sheets of paper but, I have two articles from the Ithaca Journal News in front of me. I should like first of all to say I have been looking around this room this evening and I see no one here incidently, who has lived here longer than I. If he is here will he please stand up. In other words, I'm what is called a native Ithacan, Mr. Chairman. I have been reading and listening and even been active in a small way in this whole thing I call a tempest in a teapot, a mountain made from a molehill. Now, first of all, I should like to say, I have been a past president , Mr. Tienhoven of the East Hill School. Al three of my children went there. I read in your letter to the editor Ari that almost all of what you say here has to do with the safety factor of the children, of the traffic, of -18- South Aurora Street. Well, it' s been a factor for 100 years. A great factor. There are people who come and go from NCR and Morse Chain and Therm and Ithaca College and Ithaca College enrollment will increase not decrease so long as we taxpayers pay the money and it looks as though with the growth of NCR and Morse Chain that all of South Hill will grow in assemblage and the people who live there. Oh, I remember very well Mr. Kirsen who was the Vice President and General Manager of Morse Chain. He lived on the corne , and I was in his house many times, of Aurora and Prospect Streets. He had four boys two girls, one of them is dead, but not from S. Aurora Street. My children, all three, went to East Hill School and I defy you to show me a more dangerous corner than Stewar Avenue and East Hill. Sure we have guards. They're not guards. They are little girls who come out and stop the traffic going up or coming down. So safety is a problem anywhere in this City. It is not the great problem with that parking lot. Now, we need these industries. We need NCR and its growth. We need Morse Chain and its growth. We need Therm and its growth. We need South Hill and its growth. We need the children. We need South Hill School and you realize that that parki g lot that is already paved now when NCR -19- is through with it in its brief time, they will tear that fence down, they21 come through from the South Hill Playground where it is now and they will have one already built. WILLIAM BARRETT: I would like to thank Mr. Brockway for speaking on our behalf. I neglected t say I do have a couple of other speake s. Mr. O'Connor did you say you have something? MR. D. J . O'CONNOR: Mr. Martin, Chairman and Members of th Zoning Appeals Board, I am D. J. O'Con or, Business Representative of the Machini is Union. Home 151 Sapsucker, Office 638 Elmira Road. I speak on behalf of the NCR' s position in requesting a temporary variance to this piece of property. I feel that I am compelled to do this, not representing the Company' s point of view, however, representing the employees' point of view and also because our organization was somewhat responsible for pressurin NCR, the company, into getting adequat parking space for their employees. I can fill Mr. Barrett' s presentation into the Board historically somewhat. NCR while they were not using this for a fabricating plant, they were using this for a storage plant during the early days that NCR Corporation bought it. At that time Morse Chain employee were using the parking facilities at the old Allen Wales or the now NCR -20- plant #2 parking plant. When NCR expanded their plant #2, they also needed more space and we were pressure at Morse Chain to get more space. In the mean time it fell into place. Morse Chain built their additional lots up up off of the Danby Road which meant the Morse Chain then could park adequately which meant that the NCR when they started to expand at the plant #2 were faced with the same problems that they were at Morse Chain that we were pressuring Morse Chain previously. It is because of our pressure, we feel to a degree that NCR utilizing this area as a temporary parking area. And Mr. Barrett is absolutely correct, this has been used off and on for a parking lot since the Forty War and has been used as such. Now there is certain consideration that we would feel to compel the Board to seriously consider in its decision to grant a temporary variance. We know that the law is specific as far a the use of that land is concerned. I think the Company knows this and I ' think their attorney knows this. But this is a temporary arrangement. I think as far as the oral or the verbal arrangement, the Company representativ had with the representative of the School Beard. I think it was an hones mistake, an honest assumption that everything was in order. They did not -21- do anything, I believe, that was illegal. I don't believe that they attempted to encounter any of the legal boards such as your, I think they just made an honest assumption that what they were doing was a legitimate and approvable thing to do. Now I speak t the safety of the children and if the safety of the children at that school were involved, I wouldn' t be here speaking on behalf of this variance. I would oppose it. But, I ride up that hill once each day and it is my opinion that the crossing where the main school crossing is, is so far removed from this temporary parking lot that it doe not create a hazard or a safety condition as far as the children are concerned. If this lot were to be used on a permanent basis take one inch of school and away from the playground for the children or a potential playground for ` the children, I wouldn' t be here tonight because I believe the children should have all the playgrounds they can have. This is not the case. If I believed that this was a safety to the existence of the playground I wouldn't be here tonight. But that playground is fence in and has a high fence around it. There is absolutely no possibility of children being injured by this tempora y parking arrangement of these children. If this land were to be defiled on a -22- permanent basis, I wouldn' t be here because I have had the personal experi- ence of watching a beautiful sheep pasture be turned into a housing project that we're not too happy with in the neighborhood that I live in so I, know the feeling of some of the people in the South Hill area. This will not be the case. In August or September when this lot is no longer being used as a temporary facility for parking, the blacktop can be removed as easily as it was put down and it can go back to grass, the same as it was before 1942 or 1943. Because of the compelling reasons that I think that the company is faced with, and I'm not speaking on behalf of the company, I' ll have it clearly stated, I am speaking on behalf of the employees, there have been alternatives mentioned. A shuttle bus is not the answer, because this is a logistic problem. We have 60 employees parking there which is about 120 people, they average about 2 per c4r. It means a logistic problem. It means babysitting upsetting because the peop e that work at NCR Plant #2 have baby- sitters and their schedules have been made over the months so if their park- ing times are changed, it means an upheaval as far as the timing and the scheduling of the employees are cancer - ed. It is our humble opinion that the company has done its level best to meet the objections Of t1he bargaining -23- agent in providing parking facilities for its employees and I would certainly!, request that the Board in its consider- ation (1) it' s temporary, if it were permanent I wouldn' t be here, (2) we don't believe that it is unsafe as far as children or we wouldn' t, be here and (3) in September or October that will go back to grass the same as it was a number of years ago so for those reasons Mr. Martin and members of the Board, we would request that the variance that the company is requesting be granted. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any questions from the Board MR. GASTEIGER Is there an agreement to restore the loss in any way? WILLIAM BARRETT: The agreement between the School District and NCR requires NCR to remove any improvements and to regrade to sub- stantially the original contour adding any fill if necessary to regrass the area or the School Board' s option to leave it the way it is so NCR will do anything the School Board wants. We would improve it, leave it there, or remove all the improvements and do it like the contract says. This is some- thing that was put in at the insistence of the School District because we didn' t draw this document up. The Board prints that The President of Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce has requested this agreement on behalf of it in our favor -24- MORT PRINCE: Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals I'm Mort Prince, 1032 Hanshaw Road and President of the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce. The Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce is a cross section of our economic community, over 500 members representing business retail/wholesale and service, industry and all four of our major educational institutions. The Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce asked me to appear here tonight on behalf of NCR because we feel that this request that they are making is in accordance with the goals of the Chamber of Commerce, which are to promote the economic welfare of our community. We feel that the request made by National Cash Register is a reasonable one, one that is essential to their effective operation and to the welfare of their employees. We have a number of points to make and listening here tonight, a number of these points have already been made. For example, it has been brought out about the hardship that would be incurred by the company and by their employees and that no other adequate area is available. There has been no adequate proof that I have seen or heard that any dangers or hardships are being levied on anyone i the surrounding area as a result of this proposed usage. We've heard that this in no way can be regarded as a paralle -25- to Roy H. Park, Inc. parking problem, which was a request for a permanent change involving a new parking facilit , while this request is only for a temporary variance involving the existing parking area. We've heard that the School Board did support this sentimen to allow NCR to use this area on a temporary basis, and we've heard that NCR has improved the area but is willi g to restore it to any condition that the School Board deems proper. Ladies and gentlemen, we of the Chamber of Commerce are confident that as members of the Appeals Board, you will weigh wisely this request and resolve this matter in the best interests of the community at large. We submit that NCR' s request is in the best interest of the Community . . . . today, tomorrow and for the foreseeable future. Our industries such as NCR contribute much in taxes and in jobs to our community, not to mention their generous charitable participation. In return for this, the record will show that they ask very little. I believe that we are fortuna e here in Tompkins County and Ithaca to have such firms as NCR who are largely responsible for our unemployment rate being among the lowest in the nation. I believe an affirmative position on the part of your Board can help to -26- assure this community the continuation of a favorable environment for business and industry. We do ask that you permit them this temporary variance. If ther are those of you who are apprehensive of the future, then grant the variance with a time stipulation where all concerned can feel secure concerning the future use of the area after the dates in question. Thank you. WILLIAM BARRETT: Dave Terry has indicated he would like to speak. DAVID TERRY: My name is David Terry. I live at 828 Hector Street. I come as an individual and not as a representative of any of the organizations to which I may be affiliated. Because at least one of t e hats that I wear I have been involved in the decision that you are going to be now faced with. I went into this hopefully with an open mind and this is what I've tried to do on this. I have spent more time talking to people who represent the South Hill Civic Association than I have with people representing NCR. I understand how Dr. vanTienhoven feels and why, and I guess that I feel that this is one of the reasons that as a School Board member individually, that I asked that NCR come to you and hopefully support what I felt was a temporary variance for a piece of property that has been in my understanding, has been -27- used as a parking lot. It is my under- standing that it will be temporarily used and also I guess selfishly, I saw that land as a field not being used and with NCR' s use, I realized that there are all kinds of rental that might be acquired from this, but I guess I was more interested as an in- dividual in the fact that when they got through using it, maybe they would put it back as a better area for a play- ground for the kids, because it certainLy wasn' t a playground before. We have actually asked NCR to put it back in a better usage than it was put to before. That means putting the curbing back in and hopefully grading it off. It' s my understanding having been on the Youth Bureau for several years, I am aware that there is a long range plan for the use of that land. The long range plan says something like a play area and fields. It wasn't that before. Hope- fully, when they get through using it, they can put it back so its closer to being used for a playground area for which it can be used. I guess as an individual in this community, I need t feel that we do need NCR and we also realize because of what happened on other parking lots in the community that as a School Board member, I wanted you better than I. to say that this was a proper temporary use and in my opinion it was only meant to be a temporary -28- use and would be put back something closer to what the school can use. But again, this was my personal opinion, and I don' t know how the other members felt. Thank you and I didn't really prepare this and it looks that way. Questions? Yes. MR. KASPRZAK: In the last two or three speakers I heard them say or imply that if that parking lot isn' t granted to NCR, they will move out of Ithaca. Is that what you are trying to tell us, sir? MR. TERRY: No, no way. It is my understanding that like any business that is forced with a situation, they will have to make do the best they can. I guess my feeling was I can understand why maybe they didn't come to you first. Otherwise, historically had it been used as temporary parking, I guess as an individual I can understand why maybe they didn' t feel having been use that way, why their temporary use couldn't be used that way. I guess also reading the newspapers on other parking lots that I felt a better way to support the concerns of the South Hill people so that they won' t feel that the School District was trying to by- pass other people that should have a voice in saying I don't think the School District can necessarily say anybody can use that land. This is why I as an individual member of that -29 Board felt that it might be good or a better way, especially if it were being repaved, it might be a better way to present the situation to you people and hopefully if you agree that it' s a temporary situation, that maybe that' s one of the possibilities and also I wanted to show as an individual the people on South Hill that I wasn't afraid to say if the Zoning Board says no, definitely, then I'm not going to usurp that and say, yes you can. I just needed to know how you felt on it because you have to deal with these kinds of matters on an ongoing basis and are better able to than I, as a School Board member. But, I do as an individual person support the temporary use of it and I was not asked to come here. I didn't even know until 5 o' cl ck whether I had the nerve to do it. MR. GASTEIGER: In the previous use of the space for parking, was the School Board, I'm talking about years in the past, in on that? MR. TERRY: I am reasonably sure in my own mind th t the School Board has never been asked to make the decision on how that land should be used. I think it' s only because the current feeling that corporations are trying to take over private land for their own use and thi is why I support the need of South Hill to have a procedure to go through. I' not aware of any permission for past -30- use from either the Zoning Board or th School Board. I think as human beings they have always accepted the fact that it was a temporary situation. The School District was not using it as a playground. It' s been just a vacant field and I'm not even sure that the School Board had the right to say that NCR had to come before you, but I just felt as an individual that it would be better and it would show good faith to the people on South Hill if we at least used your evaluation of whether you feel it is a justified temporary use to support an industry that I feel that we need in this community. How else can we show them that we really want them. WILLIAM BARRETT: A local attorney, Stan Tsapis asked me some time ago if we would mind if he came and spoke on our behalf. STAN TSAPIS: My name is Stan Tsapis. I live at 1113 Taughannock Blvd, not in the City of Ithaca but I am interested in the City of Ithaca and have worked here for 25 years. I came because when I read in the newspaper that the Plannin Board had turned down this request I became so upset and obsessed by that thing that I came back a day early, unlike Dave Terry, I didn' t have any problems. I came back a day early from New York to be sure not to miss this meeting although I was 5 minutes late for it. In any case, I strongly -31- urge that the good cooperation shown by the School Board to a local industry should be followed through by this Board for us, of the City of Ithaca to say to NCR or to any person or any employer seeking to better this community and to help this community, even though it' s helping itself and making a profit on its own side, maybe just incidental) helping the City of Ithaca, should be encouraged by the City of Ithaca, if i fact it does not destroy or injure a neighborhood. Unfortunately, zoning is looked upon by many people as a basis for resisting any change in a neighborhood, ever and we all know that the purpose of zoning is for the orderly development of a neighborhood and not to arrest any possible change in the place. Now, what they're asking seems to me like a very logical and reasonable thing to be requesting here. All they are asking as I understand it, and it is something that you have the power to do, that is to say that they want to use this lot until September 1st or whatever it is, and you can say yes you can use it until then. After that it is illegal and that would be it. You could place whatever reasonable restrictions you decide to place upon that use or; that you feel are neces- sary to protect the neighborhood. The neighborhood is never going to like -32- any change in a neighborhood. That' s not unusual or unreasonable from their point of view. However, from the overall look at this whole thing for the community, it' s ironic to say that that thing in the newspaper, that decision from the Planning Board was i the newspaper, on or about the same time our Mayor was in New York City trying to get somebody to come up here ,,,and develop something downtown. I just seems to me that we keep shutting the door in the face of anybody that decides that they feel as though something could be done in this community to increase its tax base or its employment base an I really urge each and every one of your members of this Board to vote affirmatively for this and not to be swayed by any local problems that might be involved that can be solved by your restrictions and your specifications. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further people to speak in favor of the appeal? LEO SWEENEY: My name is Leo Sweeney. I live at 125 Hawthorne Place in Ithaca. I've been a resident of South Hill for 22 years. I own my home up there. I hav sent 2 children to South Hill School, one of which is attending now. I wish the Board would give consideration to NCR to allow their employees to use the parking lot. I have no objection. -33- WILLIAM BARRETT: I would like to mention that Henry Doney, Chairman of the Planning Board, expressed to me and at the Planning Board meeting his avowed intention to come and speak on behalf of this and indicated that he was voting against the recommendation against this by the Planning Board just so he could cone and speak, but Henry is unable to come CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor? EDNA CHESSMAN: I am Edna Cheesman, 403 South Aurora Street,. I am a past employee of National Cash and I know their word is good. I have lived upon the hill for 47 years. I hate to tell my age but, I just retired in 1971 from there. I left a lot of good friends up there th t are coming up into retirement and I know they want to be able to keep thei jobs as much as I kept mine. I know that National Cash, when they give you their word that that parking lot will not injure a child or a person or anything, that their word is as good as if you had a contract signed by the President of the United States. That' what I think of National Cash. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who wishes to spe k on behalf of the appeal? Then we will ask any of those present who would lik -34- to speak in opposition to this request- ed variance to come forward. ARI VAN TIENHOVEN: My name is Ari Van Tienhoven. I live on 9 Hudson Place. I represent the South Hill Civic Association. I would like to divide my arguments into two groups. One is simply pragmatic agruments which have to do with safety, environmental impact and so forth. I would like to make a second group of arguments which I would like to call formal arguments. Now there is going to be some overlap between the two. With respect to the pragmatic argument there is a clear encroachment by the industry on a residential area. The fact that the thing is blacktopped by NCR, means an encroachment on this R-2 area. The granting of a zoning variance will make such an encroachmen permanent and I will present later why I think that this encroachment will be permanent rather than temporary, and a such it means a clear and eminent dang r for the integrity of the neighborhood. Secondly, there is an argument on the environmental impact. The parking lot simply looking at it is ugly. This is especially true for the people who live across the street. Now in some cases and for about half of the year when there are leaves on the bushes in Ithaca you cannot see the parking lot and I readily grant that, but the -35- other half of the year when there are no leaves, the parking lot looks rather bad. Before this lot was blacktopped, or whatever you want to call it, it was a gravel base with grass on it. And I want to point out very clearly and I only found this out Saturday when I talked to Miss Lockwood, who is the teacher of the kindergarten, that that area was one of the few areas on the South Hill property of the school where they could see wild strawberries Now that is destroyed. It may be that it will come back but, it certainly is not sure after it has been destroyed and after it has been changed in the base. So actually, it was a teaching area, it' s true for kindergarten children but it still remains a teachi g area. There is an absolute danger to the children that go to school. Now, I tried to point that out at the Planning Board and again I would like to borrow your drawing. May I use it? I would like to point this out. You can see this path which goes from the school where the children play to South Aurora Street. The children leave there after school, whether it is Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other things very often use this macadam road that ends up her and you can see that the parking lot exits right here. The children do not use the crossing guard because the crossing guard by that time is gone. i -36- Also, children that have gone home and come back and use this area to go back to the playground instead of walking all the way around the school. It is a simple fact that parents should have told their children not to do that but, it is the shortest way between their home that is for the children particul rl� from this side of South Aurora Street, to the school. Now, I went on this parking lot with my car to make abso- lutely sure that I knew what I was talking about. There is a sign here which blocks the view this way so ther is a very great danger that people will try to rush off this parking lot becau e they can' t really see what traffic is coming. They have to kind of guess an they will try to get into the line of traffic that goes down the hill here. That may very well endanger any child- ren that are standing here or that are trying to cross and are not aware that a car may come out of here. There is also a danger on this side where there is a parking sign here. The people th t want to exit here to get to this direction on Aurora Street, in other words up hill, simply cannot see the traffic. Maybe the traffic sign can be moved, but the way it is now, it is extremely dangerous because it abso- lutely blocks the view. I originally thought that I said at the Planning -37- Board that a little gas house that is used by the gas company is blocking the view, but it isn' t, but when I tried it with my car, it didn' t block the view. It is blocked by the sign. So there is a definite danger here for the children and here for people that would like to get into the traffic. This would be dangerous to people coming down because they don't know that they is a parking lot there and they might not expect anybody to come out and it is dangerous to the people who exit in this direction when they have to go up hill. So I think there is simply no doubt in my mind that it is dangerous. Now, I think it foolish for anyone to guarantee that there will be no accide ts, It is also foolish for me to guarantee that there will be accidents, but I think it is a clear danger and this increases the danger. Now, I would like to make some formal arguments. I would like to point out that there are some almost uncanny parallels between the RHP parking lot and the NCR parkin lot. In both cases an- administrative officer gave permission to use a parking lot which is clearly illegal. In one case it happens to be the Mayor and in the other case it happens to be the Superintendent of Schools. In both cases also, the plea is made that this is for the benefits of the community. I want to point out that the community -38- objects. The South Hill Civic Associ- ation had a meeting in which it was clearly advertised, both over the radio and in the press, at which it was state that this parking lot was going to be discussed. Mr. Schaffer was present, was anybody else from NCR present, Mr. Schaffer? Mr. Schaffer was present and there were some people who live across the street from the parking lot, Mrs. Hoover, who isn' t here tonight and there was one other gentlemen whose name I have forgotten, and other people who were not members of the association and there were members of the association. The past of this parking lot is very difficult to ascertain. I called immediately when I heard about the blacktopping and so forth, Mr. Paul Butler who is in charge of Buildings an Grounds for the School District, after I talked to Mr. Schaffer and Mr. Schaffer said, "we have used the parking lot for years. " I asked Mr. Butler about this quote. He said, well I certainly wasn' t aware of that. He said, but why don' t you talk to Mr. Banner who is the Assistant Superintendent for Business. Mr. Banner was also not aware of the continued use of this parking lot. So, if it was used, it was done without the permission of the School District, that is of the School Board, and it is afte all the School Board who is the governing body and it is the School Board that -39- makes the policy. I also want to point out that between May and September, th School Board and the Superintendent of Schools, were not aware that this scho 1 property was being used. That was an agreement between NCR on the one hand, Mr. Saggese and Mr. Banner on the othe hand. Now, maybe that was sloppy administration within the School District, but nevertheless, the School Board was not aware of it. I would like to take issue with Mr. Terry and I could never find out whether he was talking as a private individual or as a member of the School Board, but I want to point out that the School Board voted to continue the use of a parking lot whic was clearly illegal. The School Board knew at the time when they were voting on this, Their school attorney had told them, that the use of this parkin lot, when they did not have a zoning variance was illegal. So, in other words they voted for breaking the law and I don' t think that that is a good defense. I think, the fact that they didn' t know they needed a zoning variance, is a very poor defense. I'm a Chicken Physiologist and I could fin out in five minutes whether or not a zoning variance was necessary by callirig the Building Commissioner. I cannot understand how a School Board which has very competent lawyers and by NCR who has very competent lawyers, couldn' t -4o- have found that out for themselves. So, I don't believe that that is a real defense in their favor. The future of the parking lot: The fact that NCR now claims the legitimacy of the use of that parking lot on the basis that they have used it in the past "on a temporary basis" means how permanent it is . I am sure that the 1945 or whenever it was used during World War II , that they said that , this is only temporary. Now is really almost permanent. That is one point of view. I am perfectly willing to concede that NCR has the best intentions of abandoning the parking lot when they find sufficient parking for the other new plant. However, there is nothing in the resolution that the Board of Education passed nor is there anything in the contract that Mr. Barrett read, that assures anybody that the School Board will not continue to use that parking lot. They may well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Saggese told me that it might be an attractive parking lot especially during the summer when there are games at the play area, to have cars parked there instead of at the South Hill School. Why he thinks that is attractive, I didn t ask him, this is simply a statement. So it may well be that although NCR is willing to abandon the parking lot, the School Board isn't. I can well see next year in September or October somebody from the School Board standing here say- ing, you have granted the temporary permission and I didn't know that they -41- can grant the temporary permission, and I would like to know, can you? I have read the Zoning Ordinance and I didn't see anything about temporary zoning variance. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It speaks of conditions and I would assume that a possible condition would be to do this . MR. KASPRZAK: If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you have objections whether the School Board is using that particular piece of land for parking lot or NCR. Is that correct? ARI VAN TIENHOVEN: Yes, I 'm not anti NCR, I 'm pro South Hill. MR. KASPRZAK: Are you objecting to the parking lot or whether you're objecting the School Board and NCR having lived there and their problem? MR. VAN TIENHOVEN: No, I object to the use of the parking lot right now for safety reasons. MR. KASPRZAK: By NCR or by the School Board? ARI VAN TIENHOVEN: By NCR. By the School Board there probably wouldn't be much of a safety reason because the . . . I want to point out incidentally, that the school child- ren come out of South Hill from after school activities about the same time the parking lot people leave. So, there is a concentration of traffic just at the time when the children are leaving the school. I also want to point out that of course, there is traffic coming from both directions , from the big parking lot and this parking lot. But, I also object to the school using the -42- parking lot on esthetic grounds and on the grounds that they have destroyed a natural area which happens to be a teaching area. I also want to point out, that the School Board, although that is not an issue but a side issue, that the School Board never consulted with their own PTA which has apparently plans for this general area, about this parking lot. So the School Board I think has acted irresponsible. Now, some people have raised the question, why didn' t we state our objections earlier? Now it is true that we should have been more alert, but we cannot be inspecting everyones property and see if whether or not their in violation. Secondly, I want to point out that the Planning Board hearing and this hearing are the first official opportunities that we have to protest against this parking lot. What we could have done otherwise, would have been to go to the Building Commissioner and ask him to either start civil proceedings or I think it is called criminal proceeding ;, in other words give tickets if we had wanted that. It is my understanding, that even if the Building Commissioner was willing to do that and had the time to do it and could find the Polic Officers to give these tickets, it is my understanding that the prosecuting attorney of the City would not prosecute. So, it is really a dead issue. Now, -43- another point that has been made, is the hardship that the non use of the parking lot would be for NCR and it' s employees. Now, it is true and I can- not calculate the cost that Mr. Barret has given us. Obviously, anything that they are going to do is going to be more expensive than renting a parking lot for 60 cars which Mr. Schaffer incidentally gave a figure of $15 per car per month. So that is $900 for 18 months which is about $18,000. Now, you cannot always make a deal like NCR has made with the School Board for one dollar. That is the whole price that NCR has to pay to the School Board and other considerations and possibilities of rearranging the soil after they get off. Obviously, anything over one dollar is going to be more expensive, so I do ' t think that is a valid argument. A case has been made that the shifts do not all come off or enter at the same time Now, it seems inconceivable to me that a company that sells computers cannot compute a time that everyone can leave at the same time. It seems that compu en can do better than that. Now, it is true, it may be a inconvenience for people but, we should distinguish between an inconvenience to people and an hardship to people and I think the hardship is to people on South Hill. I want to point out that virtually everyone except the last lady that -44- talked here, virtually everybody that has been in favor of the parking lot does not live on South Hill. That is very cheap. We have to bear the burden . We have to bear the burden of essentia 1} the rate of the piece of land, increased traffic , spoiling a piece of teaching soil and teaching grounds. I think that those are compelling reasons for you not to grant t1e variance. Thank yo . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any questions? Are there an others who wish to speak in opposition CAROL BONNICHSEN: My name is Carol Bonnichsen and I live at 507 Turner Place. I'm President of the South Hill PTA. As the primary officer of the PTA, I want to keep my comments to just those strictly relate to the School. As you can tell from my address if you live in the city, we also live in that traffic hazard pocke below Aurora. All the children that live on the west side of Aurora that a e in the South Hill School District do c oss and they cross at one spot, that is at Hillview and Aurora which is just barely down the hill from where this parking lot is. So there is a traffic problem I have four children myself, who cross this street daily both going to school coming home for lunch and returning and have after school sports. Because they are alive I don' t say there is no traffic problem, which is the argument that was used earlier, b . ;r . p6 le '.who "spoke here tonight. We do have -45- a terrible traffic problem on Aurora Street. Referring to an article in the Ithaca Journal just recently, talking about the increase of Morse Chain and NCR, there was eight hundred to twelve hundred new people in the past two years, this is a wonderful growth. I' very happy for the jobs, as a citizen, very happy for the tax base, but as fo the traffic of course, this increases the traffic hazards to traffic safety on Aurora Street. I cannot countenance any use which is not in accordance witli our zoning variances which increases the traffic hazard and which might be hazardous to our children. I also can not say that there are going to be accidents. I say that the increase th t there is an increase in the probabilit , because of the very proximity of this parking lot to our official crossing station for the school. I think there are two parking lots facing each other this is on a steep hill there is also a hill there. The other question that I would be against as far as the School is concerned is also that of esthetics and the fact that we have an open field there. Now, it has not been developed, some people snickered when they were talking about wild strawberries, but really having a wild spot, this was just a grassy pasture area that you could take children out and they were taking children out occasionally to walk through this grassy meadow for a nature study. -46- This was one of the few green spots left on South Aurora Street. There just isn' t anything else left. The best thing you can say about it, let' s put it this way, if there eas no devel- opment as far as an established play- ground there before, it was a marvelou screen. It screened Aurora from the School yard. I must correct the gentleman that spoke before, there is not a fence around the playground. There is a fence on the developed play ground which is not an enclosure. There is a fence between the developed play- ground and parts of Aurora Street. There is no fence around this playground, there was a large grassy, shrubby cover, a screen along this area. This screen screened out a lot of the traffic , the sites, the sounds and just speaking as a citizen now, and not as an officer o the PTA, can you think of these, when you talk about peoples rights? Can you imagine the feelings of those peop e that live in those 6 to 8 houses, that live in that thin little strip of R-3 district or R-2, I have not looked at the map recently to see. In back of them they have the Morse Chain, the factory and the lots and now across the street from them where before they had a nice grassy high screen and a path where their children went up to play, they have another parking lot. -47- So, are we really balancing between the rights of a few people, the rights of the whole neighborhood, the rights 4f the school to have a little more peace and quiet, a little more green space and the rights of the inconvenience of some employees. This is an incon- venience, but it' s not taking anything away from people. I think it is taking away from people on South Hill. Now, if you want to be very pertinent to what is going on tonight, that propert where that parking lot is, it' s a P-1 area, and as far as I can see that land can only be used for recreational or educational use. I can not see how any other use can be granted, other than that. As a citizen of South Hill and as an officer of the school organ- ization, I would like to see it remain a nice grassy spot. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any others present, who would like to speak in opposition? DAVE FULLER: My name is Dave Fuller and I live at 316 Turner Place. I am Vice Presid nt of the South Hill Civic Association. I noted that at the beginning of the comments, that our representatives of organizations both NCR and their Union were here speaking on behalf of granti g the variance. In a way I feel that I am speaking on behalf of the Civic Association and members of that Civic Association who were at our last meet- ing. Some of the members who were -48- there did live, as it was pointed out, across the street where the property was adjacent to the parking lot. They felt threatened by the parking lot. That either cars would slip into it or that they were being surrounded, but in a sense they felt that their property might be endangered and that in a way it was an inconvenience to have the parking lot there. Perhaps, most of the comments that were made have already been covered. I would like to point out that it is not only a school issue it is a little broader than that. The property owners in the immediate area, at our meeting, when asked specificall how they felt about this, stated that they felt threatened by the parking lot being there, and that we as an organization have felt we needed to represent them just as NCR is represen ed by others. WILLIAM BARRETT: May I ask Mr. Fuller, I hesitate to interrupt, but references have been made that these people are representin certain people belonging to the South Hill Civic .association. I would like to hear, for the record how many people were at these meetings, what the votes were, and how many people, indeed, you are representing. Does everyone on South Hill belong to this Association? -49- I used to live on South Hill and I belonged to the Association and they used to have pretty few people at their meetings. DAVE FULLER: Recently we have had better attendance I would measure about 20 people at the meeting although, I'm not sure that is the most accurate figure. People who did live right across the road were there and we did ask for their concern about this. There were three seperate properties represented. In a sense we felt that we needed to deal with their concerns. I think some time ago, we did have some talk about slicing the salami and from that stand point, what can happen in a community is for it to be divided and picked off in little pieces and therefore, some unity of the community is necessary. If people living in three or four houses in one area feel a problem that someone livin five blocks away perhaps, should offer them some support because the next tine around it may be their property that' s endangered in some fashion. I suspect that as an individual, I felt somewhat surprised that property was being used without granting of a variance from this particular board, for such a long period of time. I suspect that privat citizens who have done this sort of thing in the past have often felt some sort of penalty for this. I recall a couple of years ago, a man had a -50- trailer out here somewhere and he hadn't gone through proper procedures for that and he had to remove his trailer from his property and put it back again, until after he got the variance. In this case, I suppose I have been somewhat surprised that the procedures that should have been taken, were not taken and no organizat or felt that there shouldn't be a non use of the property until the legal requirements had been taken care of. I'm not sure that would be extended to each and every private citizen in his dealings. On the other hand, we do have the inconvenience of the people on South Hill who have been asked to bear the inconvenience. As it has beet' suggested it is a $1.00 inconvenience, to someone else, the inconvenience of this community are something a little different, I suspect. WILLIAM BARRETT: May I ask one more thing. I have been told, I was not at that South Hill Civic Association meeting, but was told by someone who was there that there were indeed, only five positive votes in favor of your action on this issue and two votes were in favor of the parking lot. DAVE FULLER: I don' t have a copy of that with me but, I don't believe that is correct. _51- WILLIAM BARRETT: Are you sure it isn' t correct? DAVE FULLER: No, I'm not sure that it isn' t correct But, I don' t think that anyone else has a bonafide copy of what those book were either.If I recall correctly, on Zoning Bcad of Appeals matters, seems to me it' s a private matter of a couple of neighbors or so. The usual procedure is to ask the immediate neighbor if their property is somewhat threatened by what was going on. Thos people were concerned the most and I think that these were the people involved in that meeting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there others to add further in opposition to the case? RICHARD SLOCUM: I have a question to ask. It' s not a statement of positive or negative attitude towards the variance. I want to direct the question to the represent- ative from NCR, regarding the parking lot as I understand it now is an over - flowed parking lot and therefore, there are no other parking facilities in the area to be used by NCR for parking provisions at this time. WILLIAM BARRETT: That is correct. RICHARD SLOCUM: Now, when the building is completed up on the more southern part of Aurora Street, the 60 cars that represent 120 people now will all move to that location. 120 people in that building now, that will become 120 people less essentially and that parking lot will become empty. But, this will be -52- allowing an area in this building to be possibly in the future be occupied by 120 more people. If that is true, where will those cars park at a future time? My concern here is that if a variance is put off until the end of August 1975, can the variance be extended to such a time that people will be blase or reluctant to say well, they've used it to this point, the people are moving out but there are new ones coming in from Dayton or Cambridge or other places for NCR. WILLIAM BARRETT: We cannot guarantee that this will remain forever wild and forever free, I don't know what the future will bring. NCR doesn' t know what the future will bring but, we can sign a blood oath that we' ll never ever ever use it again. We could sign one right now, but to the best of my knowledge they have no interest to do so, we have no designs or motives to make this a permanent situation. I don't know what we can do to impress upon you people that this is indeed a temporary agreement that we are willing to put in writing or have you put it in writi g or carve it in stone but, I can't do anything else, the School District may not own this property in 50 years. MR. SCHAFFER: As far as the present is concerned, the contract drawn up by the School District says: The agreement shall commence on November 1, 1974 and shall terminate on August 31, 1975. This -53- was the binding contract, we have already agreed to this, and to all the other aspects of the contract. After that time we have even agreed in this contract to remove a curb cut at the request of the School Board, so that there could no longer be a parking entrance at the other end. The ones a e left in for the entrance to the basket- ball court and tennis court. CHAIRMAN MARTIN; I think that it would help tie the whole matter up if I put the following question. If the Board were to grant the use variance on the condition that it be limited in time to the time in the agreement with the School Board so that you would have to come back for a further use variance if any parking uses continue after that point, that would be acceptable to the company. WILLIAM BARRETT: Yes, in fact that is exactly what we want, a time limit, We do not want it to extend beyond August 1975. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any other statements in opposition to the request? If there are no further then we will move on to our next case, our procedure being to go into executive session after having heard all the cases. WILLIAM BARRETT: Are we allowed to speak in rebuttal? I understood it from the Secretary of the Board that that was the final procedure. -54- CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If you have some rebuttal or remarks, please do. WILLIAM BARRETT: I would like to clarify a few statemen s The last speaker, Mr. Fuller, responde that he wasn' t sure what the vote was, I believe that there are a few people here tonight that will varify that there were two votes taken against the action of the South Hill Civic Association and an approximation of 5 votes in favor of it. So we do not have a wide spread community uprising here and I noticed after all the speakers and all the people that were notified on this list of all the adjoining properties I can't find any of these people here to speak in opposition to it except for the PTA President who I think was here in the PTA capacity. She talked about the proximity of the crossing guard, the crossing at Hillview Place and Aurora. I'd like to impress upon everyone that in my estimation from the map, it is at least 7 or 8 hundred feet away, it is not a close situation. If we are talking about changing the character of this neighborhood, there are loads of parking in here, it is loaded with parking. This is a very small percentage of the increase of the use and it is not going to transform Aurora Street from a peaceful street into a heavily used street, it is already a heavily used street. The character of that neighborhood is already determined by the location of the industry there, there was existing parking, it is not going to create any different use. I feel that Mr. Van Tienhoven is really grasping for straws here because his arguments seem to be addressed to the School Board and the way they do their business. Ari and I were on the School Board together and the time to argue about the School Board is past. I think that we both had our time on the School Board and some of these people seem to be making a career out of opposing these variances every time they crop up and I strenuously object to his attempts to tie us into the Roy Park situation. He says it is the same because of the administrative official locative that the School Board uas unaware of. I'd like to say we just went to the property owner I don' t know if NCR was aware that this was zoned otherwise. They just went to the property owner, asked permission and got it. I don't see any ulterior motives in that and I really object to tying this in with the Parks situation, it is not the same at all. When we are talking aboLrt wild strawberries, less than 10% of this field in my estimation looking at this is affected by this. When they talk about removing the screening 1 -56- no screening has been removed that brush is still there between the street and the parking lot and it' s just wild brush. There isn't any great rape of verdant fields here, I think thats a gross exaggeration. I think it tends to show these are shrill attacks by a few people in an organization that would like this organization oppose any request for a variance. Now, we can certainly be sympathetic with the desire to maintain a neighborhood, but gentlemen look at this, this is not an alteration in the neighborhood. It' s not creating a dangerous impact on the community and it is not permanent. I don't know how we can impress upon you and all these arguments. The School Board may continue to use this for a parking lot, should not be used in opposition to this. We can' t tell what the School Board is going to use this for in the future and if you gran our variance it is certain not going t create anything binding and permanent that will allow the School Board to continue the use. I think enough of a record has been made here that on a temporary nature of the request and it is temporary not permanent at all. I also don't think it destroyed any teaching area. I haven' t seen any count of number of children that cross here. The creation of this parking lot does not create a dangerous crossi g where a safe crossing existed. If -57- children were running across Aurora Street, and even in that neighborhood its a dangerous situation now and it deserves to be corrected. This parkirg lot doesn' t have any effect on that, now that' s balderdash. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Now, I'm sure rebuttal invites rebutta but , I would like unless there is some- thing new to be added, to end this now MR. VAN TIENHOVEN: I would like to say that we are not a shrill bunch of discontents. I would like to ask Mr. Barrett what the vote was at the meeting of the Machinist Union? MR. BARRETT: I did not attend. I have no knowledge of what it was and I didn' t rapport to represent that the Machinist Union is entirely in favor of it. MR. MARTIN: The point has been made, is there anything new to be added? MR. VAN TIENHOVEN: Yes, I wish to emphasize again, that a teaching area is a teaching area whether it is with wild strawberries, wild flowers or anything else. I also want to say that we are not paid for our opposition, we're not out of anybodies pocket, we oppose it because we are interested in the name. Thank i you. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: This concludes this case. May we move on to the next case. EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, JANUARY 61 1975 APPEAL NO. 1062: MR. MARTIN: I move that the variance be denied. MR. KASPRZAK: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) That the NCR Inc. acting in accord- ance ccordance of the authority of the Ithaca School District, has failed to show the hardship associated with the property which the Zoning Ordinance requires for the issuance of a use variance; 2) Nothing appears in the record to show that the land can not be used as dictated in the City Zoning Ordinances; 3) Even if hardships should be shown, serious questions hereby is raised by the evidence presented what the impact of a parking lot would be o traffic and pedestrian safety; 4) The board takes particular note of the evidence presented, as regards to the needs of NCR in particular relation to the economic situation but, the board is not in the busin ss of granting variances of Zoning Ordinance; 5) The board' s feeling is, that this finding is in keeping with Section 30.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. VOTE: YES - 4 NO - 2 -58- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, JANUARY 6, 1975 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Commissioner Jones lists what case No. 1064 is to be. APPEAL NO. 1064: The Appeal of 'William Tucker for area variance under Section 30.25, Column 6, at 502 South Plain Street, in an R-3 district. WILLIAM TUCKER: My name is William Tucker, and I live at 307 South Plain Street My reason here tonight is that I would like to convert 502 S. Plain Street into a third unit. The house is big enough and I have enough room for three cars to park off the street, so maybe the lot is not big enough according to todays zoning. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Perhaps, I can ask a question to the Building Commissioner. There seems to be a question of interpretation that' s buried in this request for a variance and that is whether or not the require lot size for a three unit building in an R-3 zone has to have forty-five hundred or more. What is your reading of the Ordinance? MR. JONES: As I read the Ordinance and interpret it, I say that the minimum lot size for one unit must be 3,250 sq. feet. 1,500 sq. ft. for each additional dwelling unit. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Now, infacto while that kind of language appears in an R-2 where there is per dwelling unit plus so much for each additional unit, then when we get down to the R-3 in column 6, 3,250 is said to be a minimum and then later on we have so many square feet per dwelli g -59- unit which might suggest that the minimum figure is for dwelling units for however many units, one or two, but one for each unit, one has to have 1,500 sq. ft. , so that for a three unit dwelling all that' s required is 4,500 which is above the minimum and three times the amount required per dwelling unit. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, If this board says that the way the Building Commissioner is to interpret that thing, I'm more than pleased and Mr. Tucker doesn' t have to be here. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright but, it' s your view that it should be read the other way? MR. JONES: Yes indeed. My reason for that is if the man builds a one family dwelling unit and six years later decides he wants to add an additional unit to it, and he only has 3,250 square foot of land, the way you're doing it he could ' t still do that. Now, he has come back two years later and decided he wants to build another unit in the existing building in the attic. He has enough room there, the height is right, he has a second means of egress. . . . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But, suddenly he can' t do it and needs a variance. Excuse me, but this is beside the point except it is critical, because if the Board should interpret the ordinance as requiring only 4,500 -60- square feet, then you don' t need the variance. It' s only if Mr. Jones interpretation prevails that you need an area variance. Would you then explain for us, what it is that leads you to say that the building can't be reasonably used for simply two units, which is what you have in there now. What difficulty is it for you, that you only have two? WILLIAM TUCKER: Well, I've got enough room for three but, presently I'm only using it for 2 units. I can' t see any sense in only using 2 units when I can have 3 units. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any questions from the Board? MR. GASTEIGER: Do you have construction going on Cher now? WILLIAM TUCKER: Well, it' s almost completed. I didn't do any remodeling or add anything to it or change the building. MR. GASTEIGER: Do you have a Building Flermit to do this? WILLIAM TUCKER: Yes, I had a Building Permit when I renovated the 2 units. MR. GASTEIGER: Were you advised at the time that you would need a variance. WILLIAM TUCKER: That' s why I'm here. MR. GASTEIGER: How long was that that you received a Building Permit? MR. JONES: He took out a permit to do some repair to the building and a second means Out of the attic because the attic and the second floor was being used as one unit. Now, it appears that it' s more advantageous for him to make two complete units out Of that and the one unit on the first floor to end up with 3 units rather than one large and one small unit. MR. GASTEIGER• But, are you saying the work has not begun for the actual conversion? MR. JONES• The third unit has not been done yet. That is the installation for the kitchen but, as far as the second meand out there, it is already there. MR. KASPRZAK: Can you tell us in terms of square feet, how big the units are? WILLIAM TUCKER: They' re all about the same size. Abou-t 50 feet long 28 feet wide. The third floor is just as large. There is just as much room on the third floor as whats on the bottom floors. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions from the Board? One of the points on which the Board would have to make a binding if they felt a variance was necessary and if it felt to grant one vyas in terms of the impact on the neighborhood. What can you tell us about the impact that this would have on the surroundings and whether 6t ftat it' s consistant with the surrounding property? WILLIAM TUCKER: Well, as far as the surrounding property is concerned, I wrote everyone that was on the list. So, the ones that disapprove should be here tonight to voice their opinion. MR. BODINE: Are there other two or three family houses in the neighborhood? -62- WILLIAM TUCKER: Well, almost all the houses are just as big, when I was renovating I completed the attic and it was used with the second floor as one unit. MR. KASPRZAK: Besides the fire exits that had to be put in . . . . . . . WILLIAM TUCKER: Everything is in, I did this when I first bought the house, I don't like to spend my money foolishly. MR. KASPRZAK: Are you going to do any other changes to the exterior of the building? WILLIAM TUCKER: No nothing at the present time. Maybe in a couple of years I might put up aluminum siding. MR. KASPRZAK: What I meant was would you have any rooms sticking out ? WILLIAM TUCKER: No, I won't be adding on any rooms. MRS. HOLMAN: How many parking spaces do you have? WILLIAM TUCKER: I have plently of room to park. There is room to park 3 or 4 cars. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions from the Board? Is there anyone who would like to spea in favor of the request? ELEANOR STURGEON: My name is Eleanor Sturgeon, R. D. #5, Ithaca. I'm a property owner at 320 Center Street, which is in the immediate area. I was also one of the persons contacted by letter. I feel that adding another apartment in this area, would be well within what is established already. There is a housing development going up on the corner of Center right in that immediate area. There is multiple -63- housing at Titus Towers and McGraw. There' s a definite need for added housing in the downtown area. My apartments on Center Street are almost always full and I'd like to see this area develop more. I'm very much in favor of seeing this happen because there is a need for housing, there' s a need housing for the elderly in the downtown area where they can walk to stores and the theater. I'm very much in favor of it and I'd like to see more expanded housing in that area Thank you. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else that would like to speak in this case? MARY FRANKLIN: My name is Mary Franklin, I live at 402 S. Plain Street. I own the property at 313 Center Street also and it' s very close within range of 502 S. Plai Street, the place that Mr. & Mrs. Tucker own. To me I think that it would be very good if they were grant- ed permission to increase or add on this third portion that they are asking for. For the home owners around there I think they should have a little bit f leeway because for instance this apartment building is going up right across the street from them and this will make a hardship on the home owner3. I'm very much in favor of them receivi g this variance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else who would like to speak in this case? Is there anyone who -64- wishes to speak in opposition to the case? If not that completes the hearing on this case. EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, JANUARY 6, 1975 APPEAL NO. 1064: MR. MARTIN: I move that the variance be denied. MR. GASTEIGER: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Appellant failed to produce evidence of practical difficulty or special conditions that would make lot size unreasonable or impossible to comply with; 2) The difference between the subject lot and 6250 square foot required is so substantial that the grantin of a variance would not be consist nt with the spirit of the regulations VOTE: YES-6 NO-0 -65- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, JANUARY 6, 1975 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Commissioner Jones lists what case No. 1065 is to be. APPEAL NO. 1065: The Appeal of William Sullivan for use variance under Section 30.25 Column 2, at 417 North Aurora Street in an R-3 district. WILLIAM SULLIVAN: My name is William P. Sullivan, Jr. and I appear on behalf of my father who owns the premises at 417 North Aurora Street. These premises have been owned by the family since I've been 4 or 5 years old. My father has occupied the premises as a dwelling since that time. There was some renovation made to the premises, approximately 10 or 15 years ago at which time my mother became ill and was unable to negotiate stairs. At that time, the upstairs was made into apartments, a new back porch was put on and then the family moved all under the downstairs level. Since that time myself and my brother and two sisters have grown, left the house, my mother has died and my father now lives alone Presently, and for the time being, one of my sisters is occupying a part of the downstairs premises, although out of the 6 or 8 rooms downstairs, she occupies 3 of them. The house is constructed in such a way that it woul not be possible to make apartments downstairs largely because of sewer problems, hooking up to the sewer and there is a concrete basement which enc-Dys-ems the pipes in such a way -66- that it would be very difficult to get drainage facilities for lavatory and kitchen. The proposed use to which the property would be put, would be professional offices. I would be usirK the premises as a law office. I mentioned, I think that the area is a half a block inside the R-3 district. Court Street divides the business district and residential district this is a half a block North of Court Street, it' s the first house North of Cascadil a Creek and the first house North of the premises that we are dealing with is Wagner Funeral Home, of course is a non conforming use and has been there as long as I can remember. I mention also in passing, that some of the other premises in the area are used for professional offices, for reasons that I don't quite understand. The present Zoning Ordinance permits the use of Doctor' s offices, medical offic s but doesn' t permit the use of Attorney' s offices or other professional offices. Nevertheless, in the immediate area, two or three block area, there are a number of Attorney' s offices, there ar Realt6rs offices and other items set forth in the petition and application. I have filed with the Chairman tonight a document signed by several of the neighbors who have indicated they have no objection to the 'relief thats requested here. I have also spoken -67- to several others and was unable to make physical contact with them and have them sign the document . The others whose names are not included, include Elwood Wagner who is the immediate neighbor to the North. I also talked with Bill Manos who indica ec that his wife would be willing to sign a document to this effect, also she' s a property owner just to the East and South on Linn Street on the South side of the Creek. Are there any questions that I can answer for anyone? MR. VAN MARTER: No other tenant contemplated? WILLIAM SULLIVAN: I have subject to the approval of this body, I have talked to another attorne . It' s possible that we may have some- one else in the office but I won' t know that until later this week. Regardless of what this Board does I'm still waiting to talk to this individu 1. I should also mention that there is abundant off street parking in the area. At the present time there is 5 parking spaces and we are attempting subject to approval to this body, to make arrangements for two more parking spaces off street on premises without destroying any esthetic effects of the area. We will of course, do landscape g after the time becomes appropriate. -68- CHAIRMAN MARTIN: My question concerns one of the prerequisites for a use variance. That is the use designation in the Zonirg Ordinance is inappropriate given the nature of the property. In making such a finding we're not to look at the personal situation of the owner,, but rather the property itself and find that it can' t be used reasonably for what the Zoning Ordinance says it should be. I don' t quite andastand why the first floor, which is now occupied by your father can' t continued to be used as a residence. WILLIAM SULLIVAN: Well, it certainly can it would necessi - tate his divesting himself of the property in which case he' s retired now and not living in the area. I don' t quite agree with your analyses that you can' t look at the personal situation of the individual involved. I think that becomes very relevant. In this particular case he' s retired, he' s lived there all his life. The us for which it' s being used now is lying vacant or dormant. It' s not being utilized in any productive fashion, so far as the City' s concerned, so far as the community is concerned. The use for which application is made would in fact, make a productive use out of the first floor of the building, which isn' t happening now. That' s the purpo e -69- for the application. Additionally in the area you would have to find a sit- uation where someone would have to move in to a house where it's quite frankly business or professionally orientated in at least that area of that district. Within 3 or 4 houses either side, you have a Funeral Home, Teen Challenge, Therapeutic Community across the street, ,you have a church on the other corner with Day Care facilities which generate alot of traffic , a Real Estate office and I 'm not sure what the possibilities of finding such a tenant and or purchaser would be particularly in this economy. CHAIRMAN MARTINs In your application, you note that if this was your own house and if you were living in it, you could conduct your profession as a home occupation. WILLIAM SULLIVAN: That is correct. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And as yet you describe a scale of what you invision down there, I 'm not so sur that would be the case. That is to say, if it were a home occupation it would be something you yourself would carry on and no more than two people not related. No more than two persons outside of the family should be employed in an home occupation. WILLIAM SULLIVAN: Well, at the present time, I 've made arrangements for a part-time secretary who will become full time when the need arises. -70- CHAIRMAN MARTINS You have spoken about having two other attorneys. WILLIAM SULLIVANs No, I 've talked about one other attorne . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So at maximum, you'd have one other attorney and one secretary. WILLIAM SULLIVANs At this point and time. When I met before the Planning Board, they asked how much traffic I expected and I said I 'd hope there will be one hundred people an hour coming in and out. I don't know how many people are going to come in and out of the office. Frankly, I don't think you'd be dealing with mor than 6 or 8 a day on an average. That' subject to revision later on. Any othe questions? MR. KASPRZAK: Is ,your father going to continue to liv their on and off.? WILLIAM SULLIVAN: When he 's in Ithaca, he 'll live there. That's his home. MR. KASPRZAK: How many apartments are there? WILLIAM SULLIVAN: There are three apartments upstairs. There is a two bedroom apartment and two one bedroom apartments, I believe. MR. KASPRZAKs Are those apartments having their own parking spaces or have they not been thought about? WILLIAM SULLIVANs No, there is parking facilities for each of those apartments and parking facilities for the little house that sits just South. I guess there is park- ing for 6. I have seen as many as 7 or 8 cars in the driveway. We are going to -71- move some bushes and that sort of thing and add a couple more in any event. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any more questions from the Board? MR. GASTEIGER: I get the feeling that you feel the general classification of this area that is R-3 isn't correct and your major argument as I see it is that changes already have taken place in that neighbor- hood. WILLIAM SULLIVAN: Well, what I 've indicated is that in so far as the Zoning Code excludes Attorney's offices , I don't understand the rationale for it. CHAIR14AN MARTIN: That kind of argument should be directed to City Council. WILLIAM SULLIVAN: I understand that but I 'm indicating in response to the question that I don't understand the rationale for excluding professional offices when medical office and dental offices are permitted. Which by the way, I think generates more traff c . Leaving that aside, I think the major argument here relates to the general character of the neighborhood, relates to the family nature of the premises and the continued use of the premises in a family nature. Particularly in view of the home occupation provision of the Zoning Ordinance as it's presentl written. MR. GASTEIGER: Do you think it appropriate that the Zoning Board approve a variance here that they put a time limit on it so that when -72- your father moved out for the property became that of someone else? WILLIAM SULLIVAN: Well, if you are going to do something like that, I 'd say when it would leave the family, but I don't know that that' necessary. Again, I think one of the overriding considerations, is that in the 400 block of North Aurora Street, you have a Realtor office, Therapeutic Community which is Teen Challenge, you have Wagner Funeral Home right next door , you have two dentist offices. The property is located a block and a half away from the Court House. The use as a professional offices in any event, don't really jeopardize or injure the neighborhood. It's a productive use that I think fits well within the scheme of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. GASTEIGER: I 'm just left rather uneasy in the sense that I see so many things happen despite what we decide here. For instance, in good faith if we rejected this, would you then give up the idea of a family business there. WILLIAM SULLIVAN: I 'm not sure what I 'd do. MR. GASTEIGER: Have you not already begun construction? WILLIAM SULLIVAN: We have not begun construction. I have been painting, although the painting that I have done is not anything that changes the character of the building in any way. There has been a carpenter 1 -73- in, who has lined one closet with ply- wood in preparation for putting shelves in the closet, which could be used for any purpose whatsoever. There has been some other work that doesn't change the character of the premises in any way. The front door was rehung because it didn't close right and this type of thi g.' No, we have not started construction on this. In order to that, in fact I very specifically not begun it because I didn't want to preempt the Board in its decision. MR. GASTEIGER: For the work that you have done so far, has it been necessary to obtain a Build- ing Permit? WILLIAM SULLIVAN: Not in terms of requirements under law. We have not exceeded $250 of expenditur s at this point in time. MR. GASTEIGER: You said that you have made no attempt to sell the property. WILLIAM SULLIVAN: It 's not my property to sell. MR. GASTEIGER: Well, ,your father has made no attempt to sell? WILLIAM SULLIVAN: That's right. MR. GASTEIGER: It strikes me as being a valuable piece of property. William Sullivan: In order for my father to sell the property at that point, he's got to give up his family residence in order to do that, this will continue the use of the residence in the family. -74- Looking down the road if I can, three o four years , it may well be that I would want to purchase the property from my father to continue the use of the prope ty in the way that I 've indicated here. If you were to indicate that when he divests himself of the property that the use variance would terminate , I 'm not sure where that will leave me. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any other questions by the Board? Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this appeal? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Then we will proceeJ.d: with the next case. EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS , CITY OF ITHACA, JANUARY 6, 1975 APPEAL NO. 1065 MR. MARTIN: I move that the variance be denied. MR. GASTEIGER: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Evidence presented by appellant did not convincingly demonstrate that the property could not be used for permitted use in R-3 zone, the only evidence on this score was a reluctance to sell the property by the owner. The circumstances for the property and not the owner is relevant to use variance; 2) While a lawyers office, under pro- visions of the home occupation is permitted use but, those provisions have no application when a person does not reside within the property 3) The evidence presented was unclear as to the possible establishment of a second law office within the pr6perty. VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0 -75- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS , CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, JANUARY 6, 1975 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Jones lists what case no. 1-12-74 is to be. APPEAL NO. 1-12-74: The appeal of Beam Travel Center, Inc. provision of the Sign Ordinance Section 5 paragraph B , at 207 North Aurora Street in a B-2 district. RICHARD THALER: I am Richard Thaler, from the Firm Thaler and Thaler, 309 North Tioga St. Mr. Edward Beam, who is President of Beam Travel Center can not be here this evening, he wishes to have me express his regrets. He is in San Francisco this evening taking a computer course for his new business . I feel a little bit reluctant to take much of your time after such a long evening and after the heated debate to begin with. I would like to take this opportunity to pass among you three pictures which show the sign which is the crooks of our argumen in this matter. I think that we had a very interesting discussion with the Planning Board, and although they took a vote which was contrary to our appli- cation. They came to a conclusion almost unanimously at that Board meeting that our sign that is shown in the picture is a great improvement over what was there before and that we have not change the size of the sign or the fittings or done anything other than upgrade what was there before. I also have a letter -76- signed by Mr. Richard Lounsbery, who is the property owner next North of the premises which lodges the Beam Travel Center. I will give the letter to the Chairman, but let me read it. It's to whom it may concern: In regard to Beam Travel Agency Inc. for Sign Variance under Section S paragraph B, the Sign Ordinance of The City of Ithaca. "Pleas be advised that the undersigned has no objection to the continuance of Beam Travel Center sign and does in fact hereby petition the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant the variance. " And probably preempting or second guessing the question that might be asked and that is that why didn't we come here prior to the time that the sign was changed? I think I 'll take full respon sibility for that as the Attorney for the Corporation and as the Attorney for Mr. Beam. Mr. Beam asked me for my interpretation of the Ordinance as to whether or not he was in violation or whether he had to make application, if all he did was change the name of the Business on the existing signs. I indicated that in my opinion, that he did not have to. My feeling is that Mr. Jones has indicated to me that he feels that I am wrong and I 'm in complete accord with Mr. Jones at this time . I admit my mistake. The sign actually is a necessity. There is a hardship here and it is a hardship which I think this Board has had precedent in front of it. e I -77- And that precedent is the change of the name of Esso to Exxon. The Busines being the same, the location being the same but the name of the Corporation being changed. In this instance, Mr. Beam bought the Cook-Gauntlett Travel Agency. It was paramount to him in the purchase of that that the premises remain the same where the public who had previously come to the Cook-Gauntle t Agency to buy their tickets , would then go to Beam Travel Center. The only thing that has been changed really, has been the sign itself. It has been cleaned up, spruced up and the logo added to the sign. The number of words on the sign that overhangs the sidewalk has been decreased. The number of letters in Beam Travel Center Inc.being more than what was in Cook-Gauntlett. The sign that hangs on the side of the building, had to be increased in size inorder to accommodate the extra letter,.: . As far as our purpose of our applicatio being within the intent of the law, I believe that the Sign Ordinance and the Zoning concept is to make sure that a neighborhood is not injured by a change and in fact, that Zoning helps enhance the neighborhood in which something new is added. I believe by your observatio of this sign, what Mr. Beam has done has enhanced that neighborhood. If you could consider any sign an enhancing of the neighborhood and I think the Planning Board acknowledged that they were all i -78- favor of the change of the sign. However, under the terms of the Ordinan e they could not, as a Planning Board go on record as being in favor as to what we had done. As far as the neighborhood is concerned, I don't think that we hav changed the character, I think we have enhanced it. I think Mr. Beam, in his store has done more to upgrade the neighborhood to which he is residing with his business than probably anyone else. He has decorated the outside of his building, I think he has attractive window settings. I think this sign and the sign on the side of the building goes along with his concept of what it is that a Travel Center should be. We have a problem in that the street is now limited as to parking. In the immediate vacinity between the hours of three and five. This was done subsequent to Mr. Beams purchase to this business. In order to make sure that the public knows that he is their where Cook-Gauntlett was before. It really is imperative for him to have th sign visible to the passing public, not the parked public . And my feeling is that this is something that came upon us after the contract was signed. As I said, I accept the responsibility personally for the fact that we were no here before he changed the sign. It was my error. _79 CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Had that error not been made, how difficult would it have been to erect signs adequately displaying the name of the new Incorporation within 45 sq. feet required by the Ordinance? MR. THALER: We would have changed the purchase pric . Because we bought the existing signs that were there. The only sign that was changed in size was the sign that is against the building. The flat sign CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right, but between the flat sign and the one that's up you exceed . . . . . MR. THALER: That's correct. We exceed it by I think 23 or 24 square feet. The reason for the exceeding is the additional letters in the sign that was there before as to what we have now. There has been no addition as far- as size is concerned in the hanging sign. It's the flat sign and in the planning of the acquisition. We fully understood that the overhanging sign has to come down pursuant to the Ordinance, I believe in three years. We felt in three years time , the identification would be made, and if it wasn't made by then Mr. Beam is in the wrong business and he shouldn' t have bought it to begin with. But my feeling is that the flat sign that is against the building, is the sign that was designed to stay there after the hanging sign is to come down. And to answer your question I don't think that I 've done it directly. What we tried t do in order to minimize the amount of -80- expenditure that he had to go in, was to plan what we were going to use in the future for identification after the hanging sign came down. We would have adjusted the purchase price accordingly. MR. GASTEIGER: On the pictures you showed you also include a sign of the flower shop. MR. THALER: Well, we didn't mean to but if you take a shot of Mr. Beams sign in either direction, you're going to pick up the adjoining sign to the South which is the Pine Tavern and Bool's Flower Shop which is the adjoining property to the North. MR. GASTEIGER: Now, in about 1977 that sign according to the Ordinance, will have to be changed. 1979 I believe. Can we expect support from Beam? NMR. THALER: Well, Mr. Beam as I have just indicated and his plan and as I reviewed the law with him, I told him that the over- hangine sign had to come down in 1979• We all agreed in our Board meeting that if Mr. Beam had not made his publi aware of where he was with that over hanging sign he shouldn't have gone into the premises to begin with. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So the request of variance is a variant that corresponds with the remaining period of time that has been allowed the prior sign to nonconforming use. MR. THALER: Exactly! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions from the Board? -$1- MR. THALER: As I think that I have indicated to the Board, when we talked to the Plann- ing Board, the Planning Board was all i favor of what we had done to upgrade the signs there. As you can see his sign is an improvement over what is adjoining there and if ,you could recall the Cook-Gauntlett sign. The Cook- Gauntlett overhanging sign was the exact same size hanging on the same fixtures and the board on which Beam Travel Center appears was with Cook-Gauntlett and it was the original sign that had never been changed , was rusted, dirty and hardly visible. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions? Is there anyone here who would like to speak in behalf of this appeal? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? DICK SLOCuM: My name is Dick Slocum. I live at 17 Woodlane Road, R. D. #2, Ithaca. I 'm the owner and operator of Lifeline Nutritional Center at 304 East State Street in Ithaca. I went through a very similiar situation as to what Mr. Beam, I 'm sure is going through now. Roughly, two years ago when I purchased the store from the previous owner, I also had a sign that overhung the street in a similar fashion although rather than being perpendicular to the building it enclosed a building around a sort of window extension around the top, much like a bay window, actually it extends and violates the Sign Ordinance by about 6 inches. At that time I contactcd I -82- a local sign painter, and he contacted Mr. Jones or his representative relative to painting or reconstruction of signs in accordance with the Sign Ordinance. At that time he was instructed and he related to me that if any part of that sign was changed in any manor whatsoev r, that it would have to come down and another sign constructed in its place because it would in fact, be in violation of the Sign Ordinance. The title on the sign now says "The Natural Food Store" when in fact the title of my business is Lifeline Nutritional Center . I feel although I 'm not against the variance, that Mr. Beam is requesting for his business , but since I abided by the request of the City Ordinance and I feel justified, therefore, at this point to also if he is essential) granted this, that I could come back here because my arguments are exactly the same as his. In fact I have a sign that I wanted to paint over in exactly the same manner it was before, no larger, it was the exact sign but only painted with my new title. I recognize at the time , and I didn't want to violate the Sign Ordinance, and I did not have a change. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else who would like to be heard on this case? -83- MR. THALER: The last speaker, I 'm sympathetic with him. I think we have an ordinance really that overlooks one specific item. That is where you have a change of ownership in a business and the business character is remaining the same . In buying a business , you try to keep the same c1-ient6l&7.. that was there with your predecessor if he has good will and part of the purchase price is the purchase of good will. You try and maintain an image that will not only pick up what was there when you take over the business but also add to it. The Sign Ordinance, I don' think takes that into consideration. It isn't the question of whether or no you keep the same sign or whether you keep the same area of sign. It's a question of identification of the business that you are purchasing. I think your Board has had two separate instances, one is the Exxon case which I 've mentioned to you, where the Board did grant them the variance. The othe I believe is a case up on College Avenue, where the Board did not grant the variance The difference was the character of the Business was changed, even though the signs were not. The difference is the hardship to the purchaser of the premises. 1) A person who buys the premises for a change of business, is not buying good will of the business that he buys or the location that he buys. When you take over a -84- location and part of the purchase price is the good will or the customer that are used to going there. Identi= fication is important and the identifi- cation sign is important to that Busin ss I 'd like to call that to the Boards attention, that I 'm aware of your previous rulings and I think there is that distinction and I think that there is that hardship with Mr. Beam, and I ask you for the variance. Thank you MRS . HOLMAN: I'+lay I ask Mr. Slocum a question? Mr. Slocum, do you think that your Busines was affected adversely by the fact tha you could not have that sign? MR. SLOCUM: Well, I think it wasn't a question of the size, it was a question of the extension over the street. I think to a certain extent, it has , because there has been numerous people who hav attempted to call my Business. They think that it is called The Natural Food Store, they ask the telephone operator to get through to the Natural Food Store but the operator doesn't know the name of the Business. Becaus the Business sign has not been changed to my present Business. There is confusion in the store for example in check signing. Frequently, checks are signed to the Natural Food Store and I have to ask them to change it to Lifeline Nutrition Center. You may think that thats a small thing but nevertheless , it is an inconvenience and yes it does make a difference. -0.)- MR. GASTEIGER: When was the Beam sign put up? How long ago? NIR. THALER: There was a newspaper picture, I belielre taken on November 6 or 7 I believe. That was the day that the sign was hung because that was the date of transfer of the Business. I think that the point that was just made here just makes my point that much more valid. That is that Mr. Beam is advertising on his stationery and all his advertis ing is Beam Travel Center, formerly Cook-Gauntlett. The gentleman back here with the Natural Foods , if he wanted to do the same thing that Mr. Beam is doing and if he feels that he is loosing business because the confusion of names. I only point this out to him as being all the more reaso if people are used to coming to that location , they look for the location and if the sign is there they'll associate the name with the location. That just proves a point that there is a difference between using the exact same sign but for a different Business MR. JONES : In defense of the Building Department Mr. Thaler, I might say, had the Building Department been apprised of what you were contemplating, you would have got the same information that Mr. Slocum got. MR. THALER: I 'm sure that that's true Mr. Jones and that is why as I say I started out my presentation with accepting full responsibility for What Mr. Beam has -86- done and saying that you had no part and I now agree with you that my feeling is that it is not misinterpret- ation on your part it's on mine. My feeling is I think really that this is a hyades in the Zoning Ordinance itself. The City Fathers that drew it, did not think about the situation where a Business was going to be bought out and part of the purchase price was the good will that went along with the location. I might add, I think this is why you made your decision in the Exxon case. I think that Exxon probably ran across this all across th country. That when they decided to change the name from Esso to Exxon, they had to maintain the Business they had at the locations where they were. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That concludes the public portion of the meeting. The Board will go into executive session to reach a decision in these cases. EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS , CITY OF ITHACA JANUARY 6, 1975 APPEAL NO. 1-12-74: NSR. MARTIN: I move that the request for exception be denied. MR. GASTEIGER: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) As the board has held in prior cases, a change of sign including those accompanying change of owner- ship constitutes a new sign and must comply with Sign Ordinances. 2) Evidence presented was not suffici nt to persuade the board that the new business, can not be reasonably advertised with signs complying wilK present Sign Ordinances . 3) Any hardship that does exist rest upon a misunderstanding of the Sign Ordinances. VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0 C .E R T I F I C A T I O N I CHRISTINE A. SMITH, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals No. 1062, 1064, 1065 , and 1-12-74 on January 6, 1975 at City Hall, City of Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed the same and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the executive session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, on the above date, and the whole thereof, to the best of my ability. Christine A. Smith Stenographer Sworn to before me this 25 day of r fIPPU AX Y 1915 c 1e14,0JY JOSEPH A. RUNDLE Notary Public, state of New York No. 55-4507134 Qualified in Tompkins COU$6, Term Expires March 30, 14. f