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