Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1975-07-07 I( BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK ` JULY •7, 1975 i A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, was held in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca New York, on July 7, 1975. PRESENT: Peter Martin, Chairman C . Murray Van Mar ter Gregory Kasprzak John Bodine Edgar Gasteiger Edison Jones, Dep. Bldg. Comm. and Secretary Olga Potorti, Recording Secretary Chairman Martin opened the meeting listing members of the Board present. The Board operates under the provisions of the City Charter of the City of Ithaca and under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinances. The Board shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct of the hearing, but the deter- mination eter-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 disucssions to the pertinent facts of the case under consideration Secretary Jones announced the first case to be heard. APPEAL NO. 1085: Appeal of American Red Cross for area variance to Section 30.25, Column 11, at 201 West Clinton Street in an R-3 district. Mr. Arthur-Golder will present the case. • ARTHUR GOLDER: Gentlemen, the first thing I would like to say is that when, and this is in fairness to the Planning Board, failure to recommend the variance I believe was brought about by the fact that unfortunately the Ithaca Journal published a picture of what was pretended to i "2- be an addition to the facility that exists, and certainly we have to agree with it, that picture was not in keeping with the building { itself. That had been abandoned quite some time back. At the present time, we have designed something that is in keeping with the facility. I would like this to be passe around to the various members. This is just a rough sketch. MR. MARTIN: Are you able to leave this with us in evidence for the hearing and have it become part of the record of the hearing? MR. GOLDER: Yes. Mit. MARTIN: As that's being passed around, you might jus outline for us the precise difficulty you have with the Zoning Ordinance, in other words, the issues that bring you to us for a variance. MR. GOLDER: Well, for example, the measurement on the east side of the proposed structure which, being a corner lot, calls for a minimum 10 foot frontage, the same as the north side which faces Clinton Street. What we're asking for is 18 to 20 feet which would leave 6 1/2 to 8 1/2 feet recess rather than the 10 feet required by the Ordinance. MR. MARTIN: Now, attached to the appeal is a plan. Mine doesn't show where Clinton Street lies. It shows the present building and the addition. i -3- Am I right that Clinton is right here at the bottom? M. GOLDER: Yes. The north side facing Clinton Street is no problem because there is approximately 45 or 50 feet frontage there from the present building. Then the other requirement is that the structure shouldn't contain more than 35% of the total lot. If we were to have this granted, it would run about 37%. NR. KASPRZAK: What is going to be your new front yard? I presume Clinton Street would be your front yard. HR. GOLDER: C lin ton Street. Yes. MR. KASPRZAK: What's the distance from the new building to the right of way? MR. GOLDER: To Clinton Street? MR. KASPRZAK: Yes. MR. GOLDER: Let's see. Roughly about 20-25 feet. MR. KASPRZAK: So your extension is about 38 feet. ]MR. GOLDER: No, 28 feet from the present building. Now if any of the members have any questions, I'd be glad to attempt an answer . MR. MARTIN: Would you amplify what the papers in the appeal show in connection with the need for the additional space, and the reason why this space can't be obtained in a building that would comply with the Ordinance. MR. GOLDER: Well, the present facility for which we need this addition, and the need is urgent, are s i -4- are for the following reasons: 1) Blood bank efforts have been held in several places - Cornell University, Ithaca college, National Cash, etc. , all at distant i I points, making it necessary to transport food, coffee, etc . , to these distant places. In the case of emergency flood requests, it has been necessary to rent space in the downtown area. 2) The addition would provide space for first aid classes which has been previously held frequently twice a month in rented space at the Ramada Inn, Knights of Columbus building and other places at quite reasonable rates. 3) The addition would provide space for the care of fire or flood victims on a temporary basis. Recently a small family was taken care of in present quarters, but if it had been more than one family, it would have been necessary for us to rent motel rooms or any available living units . Training will be provided for service to military families, volunteers. Classes will be held in the new space which will give us a chance to expand this service and to handle it more expedit- ously. That about sums up the need. There are a number of other considerations that perhaps f j -5- would 5- would not be necessary, but these are the urgent needs. MR. MARTIN: And can you explain to us why this additions required space, or needed space, cannot be accomplished by an addition that would have the required setbacks. Is it simply not feasible? MR. GOLDER: That's right. We just don't have the room. This is due mostly to the fact that a corner lot is treated as having two front yards. On the east side in order to get the 10 foot setback, it would cramp us too close to the present building. CHARLES BARBER: May I interject right now with your permissicn Arthur? May I speak from here? MR. MARTIN: Please identify yourself. HR. BARBER: I am Charles Barber and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Red Cross I'm also residing at 206 Linn Street, which is not in the district in question; however, as a friend of Red Cross and a member, I would like to speak. We are required by the National to have, I've forgotten the number of square feet for a blood bank. Can you tell me Dick, the number of square feet for a blood bank? (question asked of Dick Davidson, a spectator, who replies, "Off- hand, no.") We have a minimum requirement of square feet to hold a blood bank and -6- there's several organizations in town that have wished to sponsor blood banks but do not have the square footage. This is what our minimum square footage was actually based on, plus the fact that in our first aid classes we have found that we're averag- ing 30 to 50 people per class, and for stretcher training and the other lift train- ing, and so on, we have to have this extra room. That's why it's designed in an L shap 10 We could have classes in one side and training sessions in the other side, with, we hope, a sliding partition between the two. So half the class could be in training and the other half in lectures. So all of these things were thought of beforehand. And also, the City Planning Department has requested that the Red Cross sponsor a handicapped and elderly bus service in Ithaca, and we felt there was a need for this service, and therefore, we have applied to the State and Federal government for this grant that they have for it. We put up 207. for the sponsor- ing agencies, so we are planning on the Clinton Street side of this, a wheel chair ramp with a waiting room with chairs, tables, reading materials for the handicapped. In other words, we'll bring them downtown. They'll have no place to wait for the bus, -7- and we'll bring them back home. We have i a driveway for the Clinton Street side now. An entrance there with a wheel chair ramp so that we can wheel them right up and into the bus. So this is just one of the extra features that we wanted into it. We have no � public facilities. In other words, if some other unit such as the volunteers wanted to have a training session, we have no faciliti s to loan them for this purpose. This room would become available for other agencies to use at no charge. For transportation for the elderly; we're also hoping someday to get braille books in there for the blind. These are all things that the board has been ' thinking about, and the reason the board is requesting this appeal. MR. GOLDER: Thank you Chuck. I think that adds a whole lot to the edification of the board. Are there any other questions? MR. MARTIN: Do any members of the Board have questions? MR. GASTEIGER: Where would this wheel chair ramp be placed? M. BARBER: The wheel chair ramp is a ramp which is designed by an architect with the new State i standards. It's along the easterly side of the wing with a door to the south. It would be paral le 1 to C lin ton S tree t. MR. GASTEIGER: What is on the east side of the property, a residence? MR. BARBER: No, just a street with a hedge between us i -8- and the sidewalk. MR. GOLDER: And across the street from there, there is the school. MR. MARTIN: Any further questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to speak in favor of this appeal, this reques for a variance? We have several written communications. I will, with your indulgence, run through them quickly. The first is from Janet Cantrell, 228 South Geneva Street. Gentlemen: Hopefully, you will not be swayed by the Planning Board's rather surprising objection to a variance for the Red Cross building, corner of Clinton and Geneva Streets. It may have been a decision made in a state of shock, following the somewhat hysterical idea of a 106 story building in Beautiful Downtown Ithaca, and not a reasoned decision; actually, the house in question has already been somewhat altered even since we moved to 228 South Geneva in 1951. I can envision much worse things happening than allowing this rather modest variation--in fact, so many already have happened, thatthis seems straining at a gnat after having swallowed vast numbers of camels. Sincerely yours, Next, someone named Baker at 320 South Geneva Street. I would like to see Red Cross have an addition for instruction, etc. , I have i -9- begged and paid from my own pocket for class space for first aid for 30 plus years. I am sure that it would not hurt our neighbor- hood and could be a credit to Ithaca. Next, Mrs. Woodrow Werner of 207 West Clinton Street. To Whom It May Concern: As property owners and residents next door to the Ameri- can Red Cross, we wholeheartedly support their request for a variance of zoning regulations in order to build an addition to their present facility. Woodrow Werner, Marcella Werner. To Whom It May Concern: As owners and resi- dents of 316-318 South Geneva Street, which is adjacent to the property occupied by the local chapter of the American Red Cross, we have no objection to the addition proposed for a teaching facility on the east side of the present building to the hedge along the sidewalk on South Geneva Street, so long as the construction is in keeping with the character of the existing structure. Virginia Bell, Lawrence Bell. Is there anyone here this evening who would like to speak in opposition to this requested variance? I notice Mr. Cort is present. Do you want to explain the recommendation of the Planning Board Mr . Cort? THYSE VAN CORT: Thank you, Professor Martin. I didn't come to speak tonight, I came more to observe, 1' -10- but I think it might need a little explana- tion - the Planning Board's recommendation on this case. It is a very difficult case because of course we all support the work of the Red Cross, and want to be sure that they can continue to do the kind of work they have in the County and in the City, but the reason the Planning Board recommended against the variance, is that they felt that the addition would have a negative effect on the neighborhood, because it would significantly alter the character of the building in question. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Golder suggested perhaps before you came in that the recommendation of the Planning Board may have been made based on an earlier version, and then he showed us a sketch plan of a new addition. MR. VAN CORT: The Planning Board had no sketch at all. We assumed a building of roughly that configura- tion, roughly 4 1/2 to 5 feet high, maybe a little less . I don't know exactly how high the proposed addition is. It's nonetheless in the front of the building, both front sides, that is, both sides that face the street. For anybody walking by, it would be clearly visible. Any adult could see over the hedge and see an expanse of roof, either that, or they would see an expanse of wall depending on how they treat the hedge. Ther is i -11- i no question that this would alter the building significantly. This afternoon I took the time to walk around town and see some of the additions that have been put on buildings that were built in the nineteenth century, and it really has to be done with great sensitivity if it isn't to change the character of the building. I don't know the age of the Red Cross building, but it is a nice old building. It's surely older than 75 years, and that was the reason why the Planning Board felt that it should recommend to you that a variance not be granted. They recommended in their written memorandum that this be sent back and that another architectural plan be drawn that might be more sympatheti to the basic character of the building. And I know this is a very difficult grounds on which to make a recommendation that is not on the grounds of density or on the grounds of parking, but rather on the grounds that it will look, that the aesthe- tics of the buildings will not be in keep- ing with the existing structure, but that is the grounds that the Planning Board chose to stand on. KASPRZAK: You said 4 or 5 feet high building. Did you make a mistake or do you really mean that. -12- MR. VAN CORT: No, I really mean that. I assume that that's the height. MR. KASPRZAK: Is this above the ground and the rest beim below the ground? Nit. VAN CORT: That's right. I don't know if you've seen the plan. MR. KASPRZAK: I think the sketch is slightly misleading. I had a picture of it being a little bit more above the ground. It's 3 feet 2 below the ground according to these demensions here, therefore, I would have I to say it would have to be at least 6, 7 feet above the ground. MR. GOLDER: 7 feet 8 inches, possibly greater than that, because what we are aiming for is to bring it out on a level with the first floor of the old building. MR. KASPRZAK: Why did you choose the flat roof and flat structure. Any reason for that? MR. GOLDER: Just so that it can be architecturally right. MR. KASPRZAK: Don't argue on architectual grounds Art, because you have no leg to stand on in this particular case, but is there any other reason than architectural? MR. BARBER: There was in the original plan. We had a doorway to the front that we were hoping in real hot weather - we do not have air I conditioning, we do not have air condition in the plans. We thought on good days we I ! -13- could possibly teach some of our classes out there on the roof. We're hoping to have it high enough. It's one of the things we were thinking about. We'd like a little railing around it so that if kids or people are walking by, they do not just reach and throw things up on the roof. We wanted this high enough so that this does not happen. I'd like to make one more statement here. As one of the letters pointed out, part of that building does date back to the early 1900'x . The section that we're building on dates back to the 1950's. MR. VAN C ORT: I see . I saw that there is definitely an early part of the building and a later addition. I didn't know when the later addition was built. The later addition does - it is very sympathetic to the orig- inal building. It has flush siding.. , Both the addition and the original structure had flush siding on the Clinton Street side and overlapping siding on the Geneva Street side, and it's quite similar in a lot of respects. MR. KASPRZAK: Couldn't you build the whole story above ground? MR. BARBER: We could, definitely. This would save us the ramp, but we felt that it would be -14- more pleasing to the neighborhood if we kept it a low profile so that they could still see the original building behind it. This is what we are trying to achieve. The Board studied the aesthetics on this quite carefully and this is what we came up with the second change on it that Art spoke of. Originally, it was planned with cinder block walls all the way, and then the Board felt they wanted to keep the character of the old building by putting in the same type of finish on the building that we got on the present building. Ther will be windows on the side we hope, in keeping with the present building. MR. MARTIN: Any further questions? Yes, Ed. IMR. GASTEIGER: Nothing has been said about parking. It seems to me you're expanding an operation here and using more space than is usually alloted. Can you comment on this, because if you're putting large numbers in there for blood bank operations, certainly it's going to congest the neighborhood. How much off street parking is there? MR. GOLDER: Probably, I think room for 10, 12, maybe 15 cars. MR. GASTEIGER: This is in there on the right. M. BARBER: We have it in there on two sides of the building now. MR. GASTEIGER: So you'll be reducing it by nearly 50/0. i -15- MR. BARBER: No. The space we're using will not reduce the parking space in any way. It's all a I grassed area. We're not extending at all • into the parking areas. MR. VAN CORT: I'm a little confused now about how high the roof is actually going to be, because when I was there this afternoon, it seemed as if the bottom of the windows, the present first floor windows, are about 4 1/2 feet. MR. BARBER: They're a little higher than that. MR. VAN CORT: No, I don't think they're any higher than 5. MR. BARBER: About 5 feet there and another 2 feet wall above that. MR. VAN CORT: So the set is 5 plus 3 1/2 is 8 1/2. That' the height? MR. BARBER: Right. MR. VAN CORT: I think that will be more visible than we thought it would be. I don't think it makes it any better in terms of the Board's objection, the Planning Board's objection. MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on this appeal? That concludes our hearing on Appeal 1085. i -16- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA JULY 7, 1975 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1085 MR. MARTIN: I move that the area variance be granted. MR. KASPRZAK: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The evidence presented tended to indi- cate that the required additional space could not feasibly be obtained in an add- ition that complied with the set back re- quirements of the Ordinance. 2) The degree of non-conformance is rela- tively minor, only 3 feet 4 inches of set back and 2% of lot coverage, with the result that the proposed structure would not have a serious impact on the neighbor- hood. 3) The Board is concerned, like the Plan- ning Board, about the design of the propos addition, and strongly urges that efforts be made to redesign the addition so that it might be more consistent with the archi- tectural character of the neighborhood and the building itself. VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 0 i -17- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK JULY 79 1975 Secretary Jones announced the next case to be heard. APPEAL NO. 1088: Appeal of Myron Wasilchak for area variance to Section 30.25, Column 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 140 15 at 110 Hawthorne Place, in an R-2 district. Mr. Michael Pichel will present the case. MICHAEL PICHEL: I think the Board is rather familiar with this appeal. I presented it last month, and Mr. Wasilchak has amended his appli- cation now, I think to take care of the objection - I h6pe, to take care of the objection that the Board had. This is an appeal to build a residential structure, a two family dwelling at the corner of Hawthorne and Pearsall. This also is a corner lot, and the same problem there of two front yards. In addition, there is an existing structure there - a 5-bay garage, and he wants to utilize that structure and I � add on to it. The garage goes right to the street line now, and I think one of the objections was that there was no set back at all if that garage was left as it • was . So the application is now amended to allow, to take 10 foot off the front of that garage, allow a 10 foot set back, otherwise, the application is pretty much the same. The way the Zoning Ordinance reads there, you couldn' t get any reasonabl i -18- � f structure on the lot. I think it was about a 70 foot building about 8 foot long, would be about all you could put on there, and that's not a reasonable structure, so he's made this application. The lot cover- age - they do own the lot to the center of ! the road, and the lot size, not counting the road is 55 X 110. It would be 80 X 110 counting to the center of the road, so if you count their entire lot to the center of the road, the lot coverage is within the 25%. If you don't count the lot to the center of the road, they're slightly over on the coverage. Other than that, they're asking for a variance on set back on the side, front, and the back yards. Right now, all there is, is a fairly unslightly garage. I don' t think it's any benefit to the neighborhood. Last time there were some objections by neighbors who didn't have any objections to a residence there, but they objected to a two family residence. But this is in the R-2 zone, and I doAW think a two family residence is an allowed use, so I don't think he should be required to just go to a single family residence because I he's in an R-2 zone. I MR. MARTIN: The difference again to identify the -19- difference between the appeal this month and the prior appeal, is taking off 10 feet from the existing structure so that there will be a greater set back from f Hawthorne Place. MR. PICHEL: That's right. He wants to utilize as much of his garage as possible. The last appli- cation utilized the whole garage which does go to the sidewalk line. I understoo from the comments and from the report of the Board, that they were unhappy that there was no set back, so in this applica- tion, he's proposing to demolish the garage to the extent of 10 foot back and give him a front yard there . As I understand it, there is no hardship in applying for an area variance, so he hasn't made any appli- cation on the basis of hardship. The neighboring properties, almost every prop- erty in that neighborhood, has some varianc from the Ordinance as far as set back requirements, particularly these korner lots . They hardly ever are completely within the Ordinance. W. MARTIN: Are there any questions from members of the Board? VAN MARTER: The building as outlined, involves space for parking or garages are incorporated. PIC HEL: No, there'll be parking on the side yard 1 -20- as it's allowable. There's adequate space for parking. We're not asking for any variance on parking. • MR. VAN MARTER: This ends up with a one family house with 1,970 square feet. Right? MR. PICHEL: No. It's a two family house. It's in an R-2 zone. Two family dwellings are allowed . There's enough frontage here and there's enough lot area for a two family house. MR. MARTIN: Any further questions from members of the Board? Oh, I see someone in the audience who has a question. I think I will ask that questions from members of the audience be reserved until after we've heard out both additional parties and then if you ha 7 a response at that point, you can put it. GEORGE VISNYEI: Before that happens, the question I have to ask is to clarify this. Just what is he asking for. I'm not quite clear there at the moment. MR. MARTIN: All right. As I heard it, we are asked for what's called area variance rather i than use variance. That is, the R-2 zone permits a two family dwelling, and if I'm not mistaken, there is adequate - the lot i is of adequate size, total square feet for a two family dwelling. The problem comes with set back in yard requirements, and we're being asked to grant various modifi- 1� -21- cations of the set back requirements for this zone. MR. PICHEL: There is adequate frontage and there is adequate square footage for a two family dwelling. PSR. MARTIN: Is your question answered? MR. VISNYEI: The basic thing I'm asking here is, you're asking for a variance in the set back requirements, is that it? MR. PICHEL: The set back and the yard size . The set back and the side yards . MR. VISNYEI: That clarifys the situation to me now. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: You're initial presentation is finished? MR. PICHEL: Yes. MR. MARTIN: Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to speak in favor of the requested area variance? Is there anyone here who would like to speak in opposition, but before hearing such, let me again read ' letters that we've received on this case. The first is from Donald J. Culligan, County Representative, 2nd District. Gentlemen and Lady: I am sorry that anoth meeting at the Court House prevents me fro being in attendance at your meeting tonight . I want to place my objection, and that of the neighborhood on any two family resid- ence being allowed for the lot on the cor- ner of Pearsall Street and Hawthorne Place . -22- A 22-A one family home on this lot would be okay; otherwise it does not fit into the established neighborhood. Sincerely. The other communication we have is from Linda Runyon, Helen Goodman, and Susan Eslinger of 118 Hawthorne Place, 117 I Pearsall Place and 22 Hawthorne Circle respectively. Dear Persons: Concerning the property at 110 Hawthorne Place, we oppose the application for a variance if the garages presently there are to remain and be incorporated into the proposed structure . However, we would have no opposition to a two family residence there if the garages were removed. Hopefully, the property would be better cared for if there were persons in residence there . Now, those present who would like to speak in opposition to the variance. Mr . Van Cort. MR. VAN CORT: The Planning Board referred this to its Codes and Ordinances Committee which in effect means that they have no recommenda- tion at this time . I believe it's my understanding that the BZA needs to wait for that recommendation. Maybe that's only on use variances . The reason they did that is that it was their feeling that the drawings submitted were inaccurate or insufficient representation of the exist- ing conditions of the site, and didn't ii -23.- show 23-show in sufficient detail what the appel- lant wants to do on the site . I'd like to ask his representative whether it is the appellant's intention to use the garages on the site as garages or as some other use . MR. PICHEL: The garages are going to be completely renovated. It's going to be one new building as far as the outside appearances. MR. VAN C ORT: The garages are not going to be garages. Okay, it was the feeling of the Board members that since this was a request of variance that it was the obligation of the appellant to give a pretty good idea of what would occur on the site. And this sketch, while showing something about this proposal, really ignored a lot of realities .. of the site. It's a slope and this shows a level site. There are a lot of other problems with the drawing that really - this drawing asks more questions than it answers, and that is why it was referred to the Codes and Ordinances Committee so that they could look at the site, perhaps meet with the appellant and get a better idea of what the proposal would look like. NR. MARTIN: All right. Picking up the first point that you made, namely, that it was referred to committee and therefore, we don't have a report from the Planning Board, I will simply note without resolving the question -24- now, 24-now, that the Ordinance says that when a variance or special permit is requested, no Board of Appeals action thereon shall be taken until the Planning Board has give us a report. That language comes from an earlier version of the Code in which it seems fairly clear it's talking about a use variance, but the language is preserve in the Zoning Ordinance .,now in which vari- ance includes both area and use variance. So, it may be that under the Ordinance, we can' t take action on this case tonight, and ask for anyone else here who would like to be heard. MR. VISNYEI: My name is George Visnyei and I reside at 631 Hudson Street and abut the property being discussed. I understand that since I've been up there, the zoning has been changed. I may be a little bit rambling here for a moment if you'll bear with me. We were a number one zone at one time, and suddenly, how it happens, we suddenly change. My understanding was at that time that to build a two story house, the person who owned the house had to live there, but I think that the zone variance now, I don't imagine that is true. I made a mistake in that. However, I object to this variance. We've been through this property now, this -25- is the third time around one way or anothe to try to utilize that old structure. I've been up there since 1948 and the structure has been there. At one time it was a veryf i good structure, but it has deteriorated. Very little has been done to maintain it and since the last meeting, I have taken the liberty of circling the property there and looking at the structure, and I person- ally, if I were building, I think it would be a very jerry built structure using the existing walls, and I think that before anything is decided, that this wall and I structure should be inspected by our City Building Inspector, if I may put that in, and my feeling is, there are some letters here that a nne family home would be very desirable, two of course, you say is possib e so I have no objection there because I can' object. However, there is another factor that seems to me hasn' t been brought up, that in this lot you have a right of way by the New York State Gas & Electric which hasn't been discussed at all. Well, what's the story on that as far as the building and so forth is concerned, and which way are these power lines high voltage are going over and around these buildings. So, I think these things should be considered. I will again reiterate the fact that I F -26- object to your variances to this building. Thank you very much. MR. MARTIN: Any questions? Anyone else who would like to speak on this subject. Yes? JOHN NORMAN: My name is John Norman. I reside at 122 f Pearsall directly across . My property sits on the corner of Pearsall and Hawthorne, so my side yard would be directly across from the property that we're discussing now. My concern is the zoning laws them- selves. Now, if I'm not mistaken, the zoning laws read now that there has to be ++; a 25 foot frontage to this area. Am I I� � mistaken in saying this. No. I believe that since we had to follow zoning laws, that everybody else should have to follow zoning laws. If I want to put up a struct- ure, I have to follow them to the letter and everybody else should too. The realis- tic point of this is that we all have to i live up there. The streets are narrow. I there is any off street parking, we have children who play up there and what I'm mainly concerned about is that if there i are cars parked on the sides of the streets, and this being a narrow street on Hawthorne and Pearsall, kids running in and out I through there, which there are several. You come up by my house any time of the day up to 9 o'clock at night, and there's I -27'- five or six kids always in my property. They're always running in and out of the street, and what I'm saying is that it will be an extreme hardship on the property owners that have children in this area, an not only cars going up and down that street , our main concern would be the children being hit by one. Now this is the way I feel about the piece of property. I mean we have to be realistic about it. There's certain things that laws don' t cover, and this is one of them. That's all I have to say. MR. MARTIN: Any questions? MR. KASPRZAK: Would you have objections, or can you have objections if the structure built there was completely new? Rather than an additicn. MR. NORMAN: I would have no objection at all. I object to a two family dwelling, but there's , nothing I can do about that. MR. KASPRZAK: Well, we have to assume that the law allow it, therefore, it can be built. But what I'm talking about, is are you actually objecting to the fact that they are planning to add a structure to an existing structure . MR. NORMAN: We don't like the existing structure and I agree with Mr. Visnyei that it isn't a ver safe structure. I can't see where it's a very safe 'or a very sound structure at all. MR. KASPRZAK: So, you're objecting to the structure as ,i -28- well 28-well as the fact that there is a parking problem that you envision. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: Anyone else who would like to be heard. on this case. MR. PICHEL: Let me speak first about the plans. The Ordinance only asked for a plot plan and an elevation sketch to scale and that's what Mr. Wasilchak has presented. As far as this being a slope lot. . . . . MR. MARTIN: Well, it says a sketch drawing of the main elevation indicating proposed building materials and landscaping treatment. It does sound a bit more detailed than what's been furnished. MR. PICHEL: I can add to that if you wish. Maybe that will help. As far as this being a slope lot, this is an almost level lot. There is a slope from the road to the existing garage on one side, which his intention is to fill which would make the lot almost level except for one slight slope to his lot. That's going to be his parking area. From the front elevation the way it's shown now, it's practically a level lot. MR. GASTEIGER: Where's the parking area to -be? MR. PICHEL: on the side. On Pearsall side. That's f where if you look at the plot plan from C the end of the garage facing Pearsall to the other opposite end of the lot, this is a level lot, there's a slope from Pearsall i -29. - to 29.-to the end of the existing garage, and it goes down and it comes up and it's going to lend itself to be pretty much smoothed • out with a slight slope going down towardsi the building. The existing structure has II a concrete foundation and concrete block walls. The building has been there a long time. There are no cracks on the walls, nor anything like that. That's why he wants to utilize the existing building. The roof is going to be torn off completel , and a new roof up on the garage with a new frame building, with a concrete block structure next to it. If there are any other questionsI can answer about the building materials or the architecture of the building, I'll try to do that. I thought that his application was okay as far as the plot plan and the elevation. There was no mention made of that at the last presentation, so there was really no change made except for the set back. M. MARTIN: Any further questions? I guess not. That concludes our hearing on case 1088. -30- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA JULY 72 1975 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1088: MR. GASTEIGER: I make the motion that the Board adjourn the hearing on Appeal 1088 until the next scheduled meeting at which time the Board will have available the report of the Planning Board concerning solution of site problems . MR. KASPRZAK: I second that. VOTE: Motion to adjourn Appeal 1088 until the next scheduled meeting was unanimously agreed to. if -31- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA C ITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK JULY 7, 1975 Secretary Jones announced the next case to be heard. APPEAL NO. 1089: Appeal of Will Robert Teeter for area variance to Section 30.25, Column 4, at 311-315 Eddy Street in a B-2 district. Mr. Bruce Bard will present the case. BRUCE BARD: Mr. Teeter wanted to be here tonight, but he was called away due to a death in his immediate family, and so I'm representing him. MR. MARTIN: Perhaps we can, to save just a bit of time and get to what new evidence you have to present to us - this case is really here in the posture of a request for a rehearing . There was some discussion at the last meet- ing in which this was the case about whether or not the building initially had contained the 7 units. MR. BARD: Two businesses and the 7 units. MR. MARTIN: There was an impression at that time that the original had not, and there had been some conversion in the meantime. MR. BARD: Right. MR. VAN MARTER: Can I make a statement for the record? I injected a thought that I was very positive that the application did not call for 7 and found on examining the records, that it did, and it was constructed according to. The hearing of the variance described ;r -32- correctly 32- correctly as the 2 commercial uses and 7 living units. This was opposed to what I stated last time, and I have to apologize to the appellant and the Board also. MR. MARTIN: All Right. So that the original - the action taken and the action being premised upon belief that there had been some chang since the initial building. MR. VAN MARTER: We did ask to get in the records that that's the way it was when we started. I hope that removes any prejudice . I felt very awkward about it. MR. MARTIN: So that the building built pursuant to a variance after the prior structure was destroyed by fire did have 7 dwelling unit iand 2 businesses. IMR. BARD: That's correct. MR. MARTIN: And that's the new evidence that you're bringing us this evening. In all other respects the request is as it was before . MR. BARD: Yes, and it is a request for parking variance which was incorporated in the original branch of the structure and we would just like to make the needed renova- tions to the building to improve it for habitation and to adjust to the codes as they stand now, and continue a parking are on this particular site. MR. MARTIN: Are there questions from members of the Board? Anything else that you want in I -34- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA JULY 72 1975 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1089• MR. MARTIN: I move that the requested variance be granted. MR. BODINE: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The variance which permitted construct- ion of the existing building without off street parking permitted a building of 7 apartments and an area of commercial space . Any rearrangement of the present • building cannot be reasonably accomplished without some variance from the requirement of the Ordinance. 2) The evidence presented at this hearing and the prior hearing on the requested variance indicated problems of code com-. pliance in ventilation with the current arrangements of apartments . 3) The evidence presented did not suggest • that the conversion of those units from two large apartments to four efficiency apartments would have a serious effect on parking in the area, and in effect, it is possible, it might decrease the parking burden. VOTE: YES - 4 NO - 1 i -35- Secretary Jones announced the next case to be presented. MR. JONES: Mr . Chairman, the next case is Appeal 1070 the appeal of George Mercier for area variance to Section 30.25, Column 4, 8, 9 and 15 at the northwest and southwest corners of State and Cayuga Streets in a B-3 district and there's nobody here to present the case, so you can't act on it. MR. MARTIN: That being the case then, unless there's further business to present to the Board, that concludes the public session. We will go into Executive Session and deliberate on the three cases on which we heard evidence tonight. 1 � -36- !I i C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, OLGA POTORTI, DO CERTIFY That I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals Nos . 1085, 1088 and 1089 on July 7, 1975, at City Hall, City of Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting hand 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. Olga fotorti Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this W.- day of J U�Y , 1975. d. P.A N ryf Public JOSEPH A RUNDLE t'ry Public, State of New York >\o. 55-4507134 ;. —lified in Tompkins Count 'e.1111 Expires March 30, 19% I