Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1978-06-05 �1 !! I li F `i TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ITHACA NEW i !� YORK - JUNE 53, 1978 ,I Page Rehearing of Appeal 1172 Rudolph Christopher 1 330 W. State Street 111 i; APPEAL NO. 1172 Executive Session 12 i; APPEAL NO. 1204 Local 589 13 622 W. State Street E APPEAL NO. 1204 Executive Session 16 ii 'i APPEAL NO. 1205 M. J. Pichel and 17 �i William Lower I 126 Westbourne Lane !! APPEAL NO. 1205 Executive Session 22 Ii ; APPEAL NO. 1206 Lawrence G. Thayer 23 417-419 W. Seneca Street ii '! APPEAL NO. 1206 Executive Session 25 i! !! APPEAL NO. 1207 Comin B. Blanton 26 it 132 Esty Street ! APPEAL NO. 1207 Executive Session 28 1. ,k ( APPEAL NO. 1208 Columbia Coop. Inc. 29 i' (Sawtooth Builders) Columbia Street Annex I� APPEAL NO. 1208 Executive Session 37 ( CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 38 1` ii II I fl ji f li I li I j i I i! Il ;I r BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - CITY OF ITHACA COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS ;k — JUNE 5, 1978 ii i A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, was held in the Common Council Chambers , City Hall , Ithaca, New ;' York on June 5, 1978 . ,; PRESENT: Peter Martin, Chairman Judith Maxwell Dr. Martin Greenberg William Wilcox ! Joseph Gainey, Jr. Gregory Kasprzak �! Thomas Hoard, Building Commissio er $ Secretary to the Board .i Barbara Ruane , Recording Secreta y ;! The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter , ; the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and any ;i :, other Ordinance that gives the Board power. Our proceedings , let me outline briefly for those of you who have not been part of them �I before. Our proceedings are quite simple . We take the cases up i ; numerical order that they have been advertised, as we hear a parti-j jicular case we have the individuals who are directly involved speak ) ! first, person presenting the appeal; we then invite anyone else ' present who has testimony in favor of the appeal to present it ; th iD ! we invite anyone present who wishes to oppose an appeal , to speak. t, 11After hearing all the testimony on a particular case, we move on toy Ithe next . AFter hearing all of the cases the Board then goes into 11 Ijexecutive session to deliberate on what it has heard and formulate RR � jfindings on cases and reach decisions. After it has reached those ;! decisions the Board reconvenes in public session and announces jthem. Mr . Secretary, what' s our first case? �I I 1111SECRETARY HOARD announced the first case to be heard: f ,;APPEAL NO. 1172 : Petition of Mr . Anthony Ceracche for reconsideration of the Board' decision on Appeal No . 1172 . This case involved an area variance for j a side yard at 330 West State Str et, where the owner planned to const r ct an addition to an existing buildi g within the required side yard. T e I petitioner has stated that a cond - tion imposed by the Board has pla ed a hardship on his property next dpor. ! 2 - CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If everyone who has something to say could come , up to the front, identify themself clearly by name and address andj ;' then speak to the issues in front of the Board. This case is her Alin a posture of a request that the Board reconsider a decision it jmade at an earlier point and it makes sense to hear from the party 11who has asked that the Board reconsider the matter. it ;; LAWRENCE BERGER: Mr . Chairman, my name is Lawrence Berger, I 'm with ,' the law firm of Wiggins , Tsapis , Holmberg and Galbraith and we rep e- i !jsent Mr . Anthony Ceracche, the petitioner for rehearing in this ca e. ;An October of 1977 the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance jto Mr. Christopher, who has a premises at 330 W. State Street, re- i , quiring him that he build - he extend his building flush with the building located next door which is owned by Mr. Anthony Ceracche f' flat 334 W. State Street. As a result three air conditioners which ii (presently protrude from Mr. Ceracche ' s building , on its right side , '!would be required to be removed, as a result of the building - the i! '!new building. We are here tonight to formally object to the grant- ;ling of the variance . By removing - there is a total of six air con- ;; lditioners presently in 334 W. State Street. There are three on one i "side of the building and there are three on the side of the building i4 IE !which would be affected by the variance . By forcing Mr. Ceracche i Tito remove three of his air conditioners he would effectively knocke ;lout of one-half of the total air conditioning in the building at ;this point. He would be required to seal off the holes in which t4 i� Fair conditioning presently sits , he would be required to wall up ,i Ithe windows in which - there are three bar windows on the side of ;(the building and in order to effectively air condition and adequately it 'lair condition the building he would have to install some sort of jcentral air conditioning mechanism at great expense. I think that i� � ;lin - that if Mr. Christopher were to build as he originally intende !Ito build, with a two-foot differential between Mr . Ceracche ' s build! �i "Jing and Mr. Christopher' s building, that some suitable arrangement !scan be made between Mr . Ceracche and Mr. Christopher to board up the i� 'i ?i i' I i i i 3 - alley that would be inevitably formed in an aesthetically pleasing manner so that the problem of maintenance and tin cans and climbin I ; roofs could be eliminated. I think this would be - it certainly f would be cheaper to Mr. Ceracche and at this point we request that ' as a result of the expense and the inconvenience that the Board ' reconsider its variance and grant the variance which would be d essentially - let Mr. Christopher build, but let him build only tw feet away from the building. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay, let me review very quickly the Board' s I� iearlier decision, which is the Board' s meeting of October 3 , 1977 . Jon that occasion Mr. Christopher asked for a variance that would H '' permit building up within 21 . The Board considered the problems created by such a small gap between buildings , the matter of the a r i� i; conditioners mentioned and the Board granted the variance which I ! is - my reading at least, requires that the building ,be an abuttin ijone and not leave that two foot gap and it is the inconvenience iicaused by that condition of the Board' s earlier variance that you are asking to be removed. i ! MR. BERGER: That is correct. In the line of some suitable arrang - jment, certainly Mr. Ceracche is quite sensitive to the fact that i there is an alley there and we ' d like to do something about it . H w- lever, I think with respect to his interest it would be cheaper and !i ji I it might be more efficient to attempt to devise some arrangement I ibetween him and Mr. Christopher boarding up the alleyway rather than putting him to the expense of removing the air conditions , rel walling the whole side and installing a central air conditioning system, that is going to be quite expensive . I I IMR. GAINEY: What ' s this re-walling that you are talking about? IMR. BERGER: Well , there are three windows on the side of that i ( building, in addition to three holes which presently hold the air ' conditioners . I ;IMR. GAINEY. Three halls? � MR. BERGER: Three holes - th-e air conditioners, th-e back of the it j jconditioners lay outside. Certainly the holes would have to be re-I ; walled some way and the windows, I guess , should not be left simply I I!� If ;i Ei 4 - i there to be staring at another wall . I guess those would be re- '; walled also. i IMR. KASPRZAK: Are the air conditioners protruding into the - or i ;fare they up to the . . . + CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The testimony at the earlier hearing indicated ;; that they extended across the property line with the consent of '! Mr. Christopher . i J MR. BERGER: That is correct . i ! MR. GAINEY: These are the only windows that are on that side of ii the building? IMR. BERGER: Yes . Three windows. IMR. GAINEY: Were they installed for this purpose to put air condi- 1tioners in? MR. BERGER: No the windows my understanding is that the windows �Jwere there in the building originally. The holes which presently j hold the air conditioners were, of course, installed specifically dfor the purpose of holding the air conditioners - I think a number ! of years ago . i !!DR. GREENBERG: There is enough - as I understand it the addition i! dto the Christopher building would elave enough wall space, I think i� !!at least 20 feet, on that same side as the present air conditioners , !Ito install at least two additional air conditioners . MR. BERGER: Well , I think that there might be room to install may e ; one but not two. IDR. GREENBERG: And the back of the building, which faces the yard ,!in which there are no air conditioners - has lots of room to instal i bother air conditioners. I think the question of the central air i ,conditioning system is a little bit exaggerated perhaps because you ��would still have one possible air conditioner on the side that at +the present you have three and you would have the opportunity of 1?utting at least another one or two on the walls which isn't pre- flsently being used for any air conditioner. IMR. CERACCHE : To my knowledge that is not so . There is not any i; I1other wall space. Any maybe Rudy can explain whether there is or Potbut . . . Pot it 'f ;j it - 5 - CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Could you gentlemen come forward, get your name I and address on the record, please. We can have a caucus up here . I I Please identify yourselves in turn and then you can . . . j MR. CERACCHE : I 'm Anthony Ceracche, 1107 Highland Road. i MR. CHRISTOPHER: I 'm Rudy Christopher , 15 Atwater Road and I 'm 1the one who owns the building. I feel now I made a mistake in asking iJor the two foot variance originally. After talking with you people Jand others who have been in the shop, I wish I had asked for up against the wall . Mr . Ceracche has two air conditioners where the addition will be. I wouldn' t mind seeing both of those moved and „ he can put one of them in the front of the building which I have n � 11objection to. He would only be losing one air conditioner. There 11is two windows back which would be - one would be half covered and lthe other covered. But the air conditioners - one of them, or two I of them will have to come out and he has my permission to put one 1,11n the front of the building so he 'd only be losing one air condi- i d tioner. I I ` .SMR. CERACCHE:Where would the front of the building be, you mean. . . ? `i 'IMR. CHRISTOPHER: Between your front and where the first air condi- ,.tioner is there is room. I don' t know inside, but from looking at 'I Ilthe wall you would have room there . I don' t know what' s on the I inside . I�MR. CERACCHE: I don' t know how far forward your building comes . I IHow far back from the sidewalk? �!MR. CHRISTOPHER: It 's only twenty- six feet. So you are onl ;going - the last two air conditioners you would be losing, you woul 'still have the third one there. SMR. CERACCHE: You mean the nearest . . . . l� ICHAI`RMAN MARTIN: Can I interject please? The Board is not in a `position of sort of adjusting between neighbors , property disputes lof this kind. Let us collect testimony in an orderly fashion, it I1will permit us to decide whether or not we are going to stand by jithat original October decision. Board members , questions for Mr. ICeracche or his attorney? i� it ii i •.i 6 - 1 i ; MR. GAINEY: Yes , I do . These air conditioners , they are situated is it a one-story mezzanine , offices or what? .! MR. CERACCHE: It' s a one-story building and they are up quite high .; and they can' t be raised any higher to avoid the construction of the 1! addition. MR. GAINEY: And you have no access on the other three walls of the `fbuilding to put these air conditioners? IMR. CERACCHE: No, the building is sort of "L" shaped and, as you go i 1back, it turns off in an "L" so that there isn' t any outside wall i ; space on that side of the building. On the opposite wall there is jalready three air conditioners taking care of that side . In other words , if we could - if I could just go ahead and make some changes ( fairly easily, I wouldn' t mind that, but the only problem - the only way I could restore what I have now, which is a large room, 1which is about 10 , 000 - not 10,000 , around 6 , 000 square feet, if I I recall - in order to restore the proper air conditioning there , I I' iwould have to do away with these three units and put , maybe, a new E� junit on the roof and use the duct system to feed that side of the i ;froom. There seems to be - there is a lot involved whereas the i! ioriginal application was to build within two feet and everything !`would have been great. ;iMR. GAINEY: We are aware of what the original was , there seems to 11bean awful lot of alleyway there that air conditioners could be imoved. 'i iMR. CERACCHE: If you saw it, there isn' t that much. lMR. GAINEY: I 've seen it. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Can I have a question? It seems to me that the ,lair conditioners are there only with Mr . Christopher ' s leave at the moment? MR. GAINEY': Right . I SMR. CHRISTOPHER: Right . 1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So that your situation is precarious at the start ';!and the fact that Mr. - that our prior variance allows Mr. Christo- pher to build up to his property line which he may then chose to do, ii r i �i - 7 - 4 is a matter of adjustment between the two of you but I don' t see ' how that bears on the wisdom of the Board's decision. MR. CERACCHE: Is it permissible to take a building that ' s been up ii ; for quite a lot of years with windows , to permit somebody to build j up and completely seal off those windows? This I don' t know. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well , that' s what the Board did in October , but to focus on the air conditioners , which is what you've asked us to I� j do, it seems to me that they are there - I mean that Mr. Christo- ) {i 1pher could tell you to take them down without regard to putting ups i j an addition. I don' t know the terms of the original arrangement ; and I guess I don' t really care to because - I mean - that' s a matter between the two of you. , MR. CERACCHE: Is it permissible for the . . . i MR. KASPRZAK: Is your building line, or your building wall on they 'i property line or are you off the property line? , MR. CERACCHE: As far as I know it' s on the line, now how close I �j Ijdon' t know. I haven' t had it surveyed and . . . II i MR. KASPRZAK: Well in that case you really have no argument becaue jyou are trying to trespass on his property in terms of windows and i` light. �tiMR. BERGER: Well there is a question of law here also in referenc Ito prescriptive . . . !IMR. KASPRZAK: Yes there is , you both have had the light and ventil lation rights preserved since you didn't, in that case we can' t really i! i largue with either one of you. 1i ii MR. CERACCHE: I mean, is it permissible for you to seal off win- 1 Jdows on a building that ' s been up for many years? ,1MR. KASPRZAK: We could be strict and say you move your wall 10 ' o f land he will move his wall 10 ' off, if we wanted to be strict, ac- !( cording to the law as you have mentioned, or whatever the require- ! 'Iments are. Neither of you is going to meet that requirement when I ? the dispute is between you two, not between us and you two. i 'ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Let' s see if we can' t get clear in for ;; the Board - what the impact of taking those air conditioners out i I ii I 8 - j�will be, since that is what you've asked us to consider as grounds ; for reconsideration. 1MR. CERACCHE: We are losing light. ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Three, maybe two , air conditioners will have to Igo out and they' ll have to be replaced by some air conditioning ! capacity. You say central, there has been some possibility dis- i icussed that maybe there are other places for wall air conditioners . i ' MR. CERACCHE: Well there aren' t, this I know. r ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: There aren' t, you say there aren' t, okay. I MR. CERACCHE: The cost would be such that I would not put in a j !central system which means that now I have a building that is no I i longer properly air conditioned, because of the cost involved in ;!doing it. It' s something that I can' t see investing that kind of imoney to do that so I am going to be left not only without three windows , which- is one thing, which I didn' t mind so much, it ' s the r fact that I lose the three windows and I got a lot of work involved ;las far as restoring the interior of the building when these units ! are removed and the walls are patched up and so forth, I end up go- ing to quite a bit of expense and I have a building of lesser i ;!value, after spending a substantial amount of money I mean, that' s siwh_at the - and I don' t know what the laws are when a building has ;!been standing for many years with windows that have been there for ,!many years and suddenly somebody is told they can put a wall right I up tight to your wall and you lose your windows . Now, I whether i I:now if you have that power to do that then you have the power to do� I I , flit. (CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We have the power to grant variances if you have 1 !some other legal claim based on prior agreement, or other legal j ;!doctrine with your neighbor why that' s not within our jurisdiction. !i i� MR. CERACCHE : You see there wouldn't have been - if the original i ! application had been granted everything would have been great, but as it it was a change was made which- makes it very difficult for the party that isn' t that' s. ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Which is why we made it possible for you to comet 1 t� i li - 9 - I ;' tonight and make clear the impact of what the Board did in October. e .,; 1MR. GAINEY: How much of an overhang is there on these air condi- tioners? I ,IMR. CHRISTOPHER: About 8" probably. j ii '! MR. GAINEY: And the original wall would coarse how close to these? �, MR. CHRISTOPHER: The original that I had originally asked for? ij MR. GAI'NEY: Yes-. 'MR. CHRISTOPHER: That 's 2 foot . ! MR. GAINEY: Two foot w ;thi_n the air conditioners? ; ;, CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well , you asked for 2 foot within a line which . jMR. GAINEY: So you are talking about 15"? jMR. CHRISTOPHER: I't ' s a matter of two windows not three and it ' s ? a matter of two air conditioners . ' CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there further questions for Mr . Ceracche? ; Then I' ll shift to Mr . Christopher. DR. GREENBERG: I don' t know who will answer this question, it ! doesn' t matter, as I went 'around the building, I got the impression i ! that the furniture building extends to the back alleyway. Does it? I MR. CHRISTOPHER: Behind the sign shop , it looks like an "L" . f jiMR. CERACCHE: It turns, it wraps around, it wraps around the other. . . dDR. GREENBERG: There ' s a wall that faces the alleyway in back. Is� ,i lthe wall of the store face that back alleyway? ;o iMR. CHRISTOPHER: I don' t quite follow you. It' s like an "L" and m� ;building is right in that corner of the "L" . 'DR. GREENBERG: Come here and maybe I ' ll be able to explain it. i I�This is State Street - and this is the bordering street - is that i 1Plain? Then there is a driveway here and where does the store end?I �iMR. CHRISTOPHER: This runs back this way (pointing) . iI 'DR. GREENBERG: So there is air conditioning here (.pointing) and th re i1 ;,lis a possibility of air conditioners here , right? IMR. CHRISTOPHER: No, they are on the other side here . ii ;IDR. GREENBERG: They are presently here. What about this side here? HMR. CHRISTOPHER: Oh, I don' t know, Ive never gone back there and ;checked. i 'i ; 1, I { r 'i II f 10 - i iIDR. GREENBERG: There are no air conditioners there but they look I gjlike windows that have been boarded up at that point . . MR. CHRISTOPHER: Yes , but I don' t know about that . . . i 'i ;!CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay, the observation that probably didn' t get on I' ! the record is that the store owned by Mr. Ceracche has a back wall 'facing an alley. I ,IDR. GREENBERG: That' s right, a wide driveway. i I !!CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Which, as you've observed it, appears to have �i !boarded up windows? ! li DR. GREENBERG: That' s right. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And the question is why that couldn' t be location '!!for window air conditioners? f 'MR. CERACCHE: Well the room is like 60 x 100 feet and you would be !jputting some on the very extreme end and they wouldn' t be doing any 'i dwhere' s near proper a job if they were opposite each other in the ;!main show room area where your glass area is- where your heat loss ! is and where the air conditioning is really needed. jiMR. GAINEY: I don' t think that was the question. I think the ques :,tion was can you locate an air conditioner in the back? i` IMR. CERACCHE: Not properly, no . Not to properly cool the area tha i !,the present air conditioners were cooling. �i IMR. GAINEY: Thank you, that' s what we asked. ii if 1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there other questions from members of the i 'lBoard for Mr. Ceracche? Okay, is there anything that you have . . . i i IMR. CERACCHE: All I can really say is that if I 'm forced to do thi I will remove the air conditioners, I will have to go to some ex- ;�pense of sealing up the openings and restoring the interior wall i� ',because I can' t leave holes showing, I 'm certainly not going to , leave air conditioners there that don' t work. There was a 220 volt line that was run to those air conditioners about five years ago , i I' !!that' ll be useless , so that can' t be utilized so I 'm just losing ' something that the building presently has , which means it ' s going I ijto have less value and to restore the air conditioning that we ;originally had becomes a major job and it ' s something that we i 'i ,i ii ' '1 - 11 - ;+ I s j presently have which we won' t have, so it creates a hardship and a i� !! loss which didn' t appear to be necessary that' s all . The other way, ,Iwas a simple way, this was it makes the other building two feet larger but at the same time it creates all kinds of problems for ar� ii = existing building that has been there for a lot of years and it ( didn' t seem to be - it seemed to be a lot more reasonable the othe jway. It might be a gain for one party and a loss for the other ;( party. There is money involved which has to come from me and . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Thank you very much. Are there questions ! ' for Mr. Christopher? (none) Thank you. Is there anyone else her ,, who would like to be heard on this case, either in favor of the !! original variance granted or of cutting back on it? We ' ll move on I I jto the next case. i l I I i �j i i `I I fi it i i I I' it ! i� 'i i i i 1 i i �i 12 - i ! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA .TUNE 5 , 1978 EXECUTIVE SESSION ! ( APPEAL NO. 1172 (.rehearing) ;SMR. KASPRZAK: I move that the Board sustain it' s ii decision of October 3, 1977 . I I,MS. MAXWELL: I second the motion. i i( !!FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . The testimony presented does not raise any new considerations that the i Board did not consider at that earlier i� hearing. 2 . The concerns of the property owner adjacent to the Christopher property i it were considered at that earlier hearing i' even though he was not present. i� iVOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No . ii l I !f � l I I! i� ;i ! I! ii jy ii I ii it i� j it I i! I; - 13 'j SECRETARY HOARD announced the next appeal to be heard: 1 ; APPEAL NO. 1204 : Appeal of Local 589 Building Corpora- tion for an area variance under Section 30. 25, Columns 4 and 13 (off-street f parking and minimum side yard require-I i ments) to permit construction of a newt '! meeting hall at 622 West State Street ! 'j in a B-4 (commercial) use district . If the new building is constructed onel side yard will be deficient, and the i property will not meet the off-street parking requirements. There is a non- conforming structure on the property now that will be removed. i! 11MR. WOOD: I am Stanley Wood, I am treasurer of the Building Corp. I jI live at 364 W. King Road. Right at present the original building i ; covers the whole lot. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. IMR. WOOD: I was planning on building a new building which would lgive us a 10 ' driveway on one side with parking in the back for sixi 1 '. cars which at present there is no parking. And at present there is i ; three foot between the building on the east side , B $ W Supply, and our building. If we build a new one there will be five foot instead :!of three foot . I ;CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So in terms of all the Zoning Ordinances require- ilments , this - the new building - will be a distinct improvement. There will be six spaces for off-street parking where there were jnone before, there will be a 10 foot drive on one side , where ;Ibefore it would smack against the line, and . . . IMR. WOOD: There was a driveway there but it belonged to the buildi g ilnext to it. HCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. And a five foot side yard on the other sid . lHow many offices will be in it? MR. WOOD: Six. 11I 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: In terms of the traffic to the building, any rea- � Eson to expect difference with the new building from the old? it I(MR. WOOD: no. You mean more traffic? liCHAIRMAN MARTIN: More traffic. It will essentially serve the same „functions as the old building did but better? 'MR. WOOD: Same, right. Much better. 14 - ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there questions from the Board? '( MR. KASPRZAK: You say that if this variance is not granted, you jwill have to "shrink a building" . By how much would you have to d that? w !! MR. WOOD: Well, I guess the five foot, isn't there at present? 'i rt cut the building down three foot. It is about one-third the Si2e 1of the building we had originally but the new one will be about a I ! third the size . We don' t see where we can cut it down by more than i� i� that. i ?, CHAIRMAN MARTIN; What would it cost, I mean what would you lose i you had to shrink it by . . , . ? � MR. WOOD: Office space, !j CHAIRMAN MARTIN And would it knock out a whole office or . . . ? I i f MR. WOOD: No. It would just make one side offices smaller or offices on both sides , you would have to cut down. ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And is that something that ' s endurable or . . . ? 1! MR. WOOD: Well, I suppose we could live with it, but a new building is going to improve it by two feet already. There is only three i. jlfoot between the two buildings now. !IDR. GREENBERG: Any plans? 1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Do you have plans that you can show? Is this a set that can be left with us? 11 1MR. WOOD: You already have one somewhere. I left one . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How many offices are in the old building? i { MR. WOOD: Well we have quite a few empty ones seven. 'ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Do the plans provoke any questions? � I 1MR. WOOD: This is just a rough floor plan. We didn' t want to go ahead with actual plans until we got the okay on it . 3 CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any questions after looking at them? ?i MR. WOOD: I see the architect is here, maybe he could speak up on i, ;3 ! this . Would it cut down on - could he come up? I 1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes sure! � y• 11MR. WOOD: I didn' t know he was going to be here. Maybe he is her i1for some other reason. �f 3 ii i� 'E •i .E - 15 I� ;CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The question posed is this : what would be the I� Jeffect of full compliance with the Zoning Ordinance in terms of the 'I ;new building? ;SMR. BOEHLECKE: Tom, what is the parking requirement? i�MR. HOARD: Well, the parking requirement is one space for five it ;!seats for a meeting room. E' 11MR. BOEHLECKE : Okay. Well that would be impossible. MR. HOARD: I don' t know how many seats you would have . 11MR. BOEHLECKE: As far as the side yard thing goes , it would squeez '!the offices down to just a little bit smaller than they wanted them i ,land it cuts the toilet area down - makes it a little bit tighter, I1not quite as - but it ' s not impossible . 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So that , without question, we are in a posture `!where a variance is required because of the off-street parking. i' MR. BOEHLECKE: Yes . ;SMR. KASPRZAK: What' s the useage to the east of the building? The jinext property, what is it used for? 'i ,E MR. WOOD: B & W Supply. They sell office supplies . ,CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any further questions? Thank you very ij ,,much. Is there any one else here with testimony on this case? No �9 sone else with testimony on this case? We'.11 move on to case 1205 . j I i! II 1 'I i; f i ii j I' :f i i! - 16 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA JUNE 5 , 1978 i EXECUTIVE SESSION r ;! APPEAL NO. 1204 : IMR. GAINEY: I move that the area variances in appeal 1204 be granted. i '' MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. ? FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 . They have improved their off-street ! parking from zero spaces to six : I i ii spaces . i 2. They have also improved the deficiency of the side yards . 3 . They have also improved the nature anj I' I the looks of the building by putting i' anew building in place of the old j structure. 4. It would not be possible to comply ! with the off-street parking require- '! j j ments of the ordinance and have any i building on that lot. i i ! VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No . ! Area Variance granted - unanimously. i s ` i i! �) I ! i ! I f f ! 'i s 17 - iy .i ( SECRETARY HOARD announced the next appeal to be heard: ;( APPEAL NO. 1205: Appeal of Michael J. Pichel and Willia Lower for an area variance or inter- pretation of Section 30 . 25 , Column 7 , to permit construction of a fifteen unit multiple dwelling at 126 Westbourne jl Lane in an R-U (Residential) use dis- trict. The property does not have i; sufficient street frontage in the City of Ithaca, but has additional frontage on a public right-of-way in the Village of Cayuga Heights . The owners are re- questing an interpretation as to wheth r the street frontage requirement may be met only by frontage on City of Ithacai streets or in the event that an adverse interpretation is made, are asking for an area variance . The property now has an existing multiple dwelling with eight apartments and twenty rooms to S rent. "j Mr. Pichel is here to present the case . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: . Let' s take the questions up in order, shall we do ; the interpretation point first? im. PICHEL: Yes . The application is an application that conforms i , in every respect . The building thats applied for would conform as j to front yard, side yard and lot coverage , number of units and all i ;ion property within the City of Ithaca. So if one calculates all of '' the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance this building would be oka�. �k ;;The problem is the property fronts on Westbourne Lane and another road, I'm sorry I don' t know the name of it off hand - in Cayuga ? Heights. The property is split right down the center by the City ;' line, so about one-half of the property is in the City and one-half On Cayuga Heights. The property has about 500 ' frontage along the I 1public right-of-way in fact, it has more than adequate frontage alo g �i dWestbourne Lane but the city line gives us only 102 ' within the j ('City of Ithaca and column 7 requires, I believe , 1251 . Column 7 if >Idoesn' t mention anything about frontage within the City, it saysth t it lots hereafter used for a permitted use in each district shall have (;frontage measured on a public right-of-way equal to or greater than :(the width specified in this column and we believed that we had fron ,stage greater than 125 ' fronting on a public right-of-way and we I (never had any problem before. We recently, within the last two yeas ° 'i i fi i� i 'f 18 p - - l " purchased this building which was an old fraternity house with a ne �laddition on it, not constructed by us at all and we applied to the ! '' City for a permit to completely renovate it, to bring this building ;; completely up to code, which we did and the Building Department at i ; that time gave us our permit and didn' t . . . of course , the building wouldn' t conform if this 102 ' frontage was all that would have been +i ! considered then we would have had to have a variance. There was no� i! ! question about it then, in fact the City Building Department ap- sproved our permit and we allowed them - and they inspected the buil'din I ! most of which is in the Village of Cayuga Heights , they inspected ;tall of it and we met all the requirements of the City. And there was �I Flnever any . . . i' CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And you were also inspected by Cayuga Heights? � MR. PICHEL: They didn't bother. They weren' t interested. Our I zoning is proper in both areas , we're in multiple residence. What lwe wanted to do was would have been approved under their zoning without a variance also. We are in a multiple residence zoning in ; Cayuga Heights and in the City of Ithaca, the new ordinance puts 11us in an RU, which I think is University type housing and that' s i �Iwhat we have there and that ' s what all the neighborhing properties ;Jaye, fraternity houses and what we propose to do is build an addi- Itional building on our property that conforms with the RU Zoning. i 1Th_e only problem was this 102 foot frontage and we thought that we did have frontage along the public right-of-way. The Building De- jpartment thought there was a problem, that this may not be enough i,because it' s not all within the City so they suggested we ask for I� Fan interpretation from the Board and that if the Board gave us an interpretation which wouldn' t count our frontage in the Village , that we would then ask for a variance. We were before the Planning ! Board, they dust declined to . . . ! I ± (i1 CHAIRMAN MARTIN: They ducked on the interpretation. . . MR. PICHEL : On the interpretation, they thought that was strictly , the job of the Zoning Board of Appeals but they did recommend that I ! �i - 19 - i cif there was an adverse ruling on the interpretation they recommen ed that the variance be granted. j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright . Let me frame what seems to me to be thel it 11argument why it should only be frontage on a right-of-way within the i! City of Ithaca, and invite your response to it. It' s an argument !! that may not make sense in this particular case, in terms of any threat but that one wants a proper interpretation that deals with = sound rationale for the rule in lots of situations , not just yours . :, It seems to me that in the case of a property that extends beyond j I,fthe City limits , the piece of the property that is beyond the City ;; limits is not subject to the City Codes and Ordinances . i 11MR. PICHEL: Correct. ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And so if you rely on frontage or side yards or size of lot a piece that extends beyond th-e City, there ' s no assur-i fiance that later that piece of frontage counted on that extends beyond the City isn't used for other purposes unregulated by the I City. I �IMR. PICHEL: Can I answer that? 1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes. MR. PICHEL: I understand your problem and I think that maybe the 1 ianswer to that is to just give a variance. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Grant a variance , that's right, thatts where my jjargument leads I think. i IIMR. PICHEL: Because, th-e property in Cayuga Heights has such an , expansive frontage that there is no way that it could be used up in { Cayuga Heights because the frontage is so much greater than our lot jcoverage. If we were to apply for a building permit for additional i! ! structure in Cayuga Heights we have just too much frontage , because j 'lit wraps all the way around and our limiting factor in Cayuga Heights 'jwll certainly be lot coverage and size of the lot so I don' t think !! that' s going to be a problem here and maybe the answer to that is t (just do a variance . I 've researched this myself and I have not fou d l 'lany case on point. There are many, many cases where lots are in - 1split by zoning, by zones and when a lot isn' t one zone in another i I i �! I - 20 - I Ri E hone, of course it ' s in the same municipality. I think the rule i i ! that you have to allow some use into the second zone for the first - i; especially if you are building one structure but that doesn' t answer ii ,, your problem because those cases all referred to split lots where it lwas the zone that was split and not the city line. Our problem here ' is if we did - I think the answer if we could get an answer from the i ( City, one way or the other, would be to have this property put either into the Village or the City with a - so that we didn't have that problem. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes , but your problem would also be cleaned up by ja variance - I mean, assuming my argument on interpretation be i cleaned up by a variance subject to the condition say, that you ; didn' t - in what you did in Cayuga Heights bring the total frontage 'f ;, down below the requirements of the City of Ithaca. j1MR. PICHEL: There is no problem with that. If we get the variance '1we really don' t care what the interpretation is . I think the Ordi-j fI I inance does state though that it is just frontage on a public right- I� IS iIof-way and it doesn' t require to be in the City but our application +here is not - is to build this. building and we want to comply in ;' every respect but we can't comply with this 102 feet . ii i; , CHAIRMAN D4ARTIN: Are there questions on the interpretation point? i l; Further discussion on the interpretation point? You have more you want to add on the area variance, assuming that we have to get to it? I! MR. PICHEL: Okay. I can speak to that - as to the - we aren' t �i ,'really asking for an area variance - again, all we ask. for . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well , it' s not a use variance and that leaves us 11with_ - yes , okay . . . HMR. PI'CHEL: Whatever it' s called. The variance that we ask - the � jibui.lding that we propose is to comply with. the multiple residence law, with the back yard, side yard, with. the lot coverage . The onl fivariance we would ask for is that Column 7 requires 125 feet frontage !;along the public right-of-way, if your interpretation that the frontage is only to be counted within the City it 's 125 feet that' s !;required by Column 7 . That ' s the only variance we ask for is the i 'I E i' 21 frontage and as I said, I don' t think there is any problem here if i, we were to build some other building in Cayuga Heights which we have no plans for but I understand that this is your concern that we do�it fuse the same frontage twice. Count it both- in the City and then count ; it in the Village. There is just no way that it could happen. We i have more frontage than we could ever use in Cayuga Heights and no ,', enough lot. You see this building that' s shown on here is the old ;; city map . There is a new building which covers quite a bit of the i' Cayuga Heights lot already. This is an old mansion and then there was a new addition, so I don' t think there is any problem with tha ! I think the lot itself would limit that possibility of counting the '; frontage twice . 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any questions on the variance, assumin the variance is necessary? HMR. HOARD: I 'd just like to clarify one point - that you made abo t !1the frontage requirement back when you got your original building 11permit. At that time zoning called for 100 foot frontage . As of E, 1May of a year ago it went to 125 when they came up with the RU zone . ; That' s why there ' s the difference. ' MR. PICHEL: Now that you mention it, I would like to ask somethin i! else. Back that time, Mr. Lower and I applied for a building here ; again which would have complied with all the zoning requirements a4d jthe permit was denied for the reason that there was a moratorium. j �oNow I think the equities are with us on that point because we aske for a permit then. The ordinance wasn' t even changed to the 125 f4t M! requirement until long after that and we waited, we waited until ndw 11because you didn' t give us a permit we made an application and it las j jidenied because there was a moratorium on, because you were conside�- ding enacting a new ordinance. But you are correct, that was 100 f et then. jCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else to be If i said on this: case, is there anyone who has further testimony, firs i� jin favor of the requested interpretation or alternatively variance iAnyone with testimony in opposition? Let' s turn to the next case . i 22 I II BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA JUNE S , 1978 3 i I i EXECUTIVE SESSION If ;! APPEAL NO. 120SA (Interpretation issue) ij ,! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that in case 1205 the Board ! adopt as its interpretation that "fron I tage measured on a public right-of-way' jmeans frontage on a public right-of-wa �! within th-e City and that frontage out- side the City of Ithaca cannot be counted I! toward the requirements of the Ordinan e . DR. GREENBERG: I second the motion. i VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No , APPEAL NO. 120SB IiCHAI:RMAN MARTIN; Imove that the area variance requeste !j in Case 12.05 be granted on condition i I that the land is not developed in a s; fashion that the total frontage includ it ing that in Cayuga Heights falls below i if the Ithaca requirements. 11MRS. MAXWELL: I second the motion. VOTE: 6 Yes , 0 No . j FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . With the condition there is assurance I I that the spirit of the Ithaca Zoning if Ordinance is complied with. I 2 . There is more than adequate frontage t i' when one considers that portion of the ji i property that extends into Cayuga Heig ts . !i I it 3 . Testimony presented at the hearing indi�- 1 II it cates that even without the condition he II layout of the lot would prevent the to al frontage counting the Cayuga Heights pr- tion from ever falling under the Ithaca Ordinance ' s requirements . f 23 I! SECRETARY HOARD announced the next case to be heard: I i APPEAL NO. 1206 : Appeal of Lawrence G. Thayer for an area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 1 (required rear yard depth) to permit construction of an addition which would connect two commercial buildings at the rear of the property at 417-419 West jSeneca Street in a B-2 (business) use district. The new building would be against the rear property line within the required rear yard. I I { MR. THAYER: I am Larry Thayer of 103 Woolf Lane and we are request- ing this variance and I 'd like to have Ted Bronsnek who is the pro - josed gentleman who is going to construct it give the explanation o r i` what we are trying to do down there . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, as you do it, could you relate it to I 'I what you proposed to do when we granted you the variance back in 1976? MR. THAYER: 1976 , right. �I MR. BRONSNEK: In May of 1976 the Board approved an addition that s i� larger in square footage than the one that is proposed now and the !j project had to be postponed at that time due to the cost above bud get. The new proposed structure . . . 4 CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And that variance is no longer any good due to 1 pse I of time? ,i i I MR. THAYER: That ' s why we 're back. �i 'sl CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That' s why you are back here needing a variance for a smaller addition? I jIMR. THAYER: Right, that ' s it exactly. 1 iMR. BRONSNEK: The new structure being smaller , less in cost and ; therefore we the variance. The new structure does meet t e j( building code requirements, and it does meet the zoning requiremen s I I, if except for the back lot line . Now I have a drawing of the propose lstructure and . . . The proposed structure will connect 417 and 419 . ITh_e back lot line is, right over here. Bishops has built right on o lftheir line so that what we propose to do is build right against th re i 1the common property line . If we were to abide by th.e code we woul �ileave a 10 foot dead space there is absolutely iis- nacc ii visible . It doesn' t seem sensible . . . j ii - 24 - E (Discussion took place which wasn' t picked up by the tape recorder . ) MR. GAINEY: There is no alleyway there now? EMR. BRONSNEK: No , there is nothing there now. j� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, now most of that exchange missed the record so the important pieces of it ought to get on. i! MR. WILCOX: Well , the existing walls do buttup against Bishops . ;I I If they add another wall on the line . . . t! � MR. GAINEY: It' s just going to . . . MR. WILCOX: It' s just dead space anyway . . . IMR. BRONSNEK: We' d like to continue that building on. . . jMR. HOARD: Bishops doesn' t have any air conditioners do they? i MR. THAYER: Fortunately not. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Do you have any questions? Alright, the prior a di- ltion was in an "L" shape . This one is just extending straight acr ss , j� right? I1MR. THAYER: That ' s right . ii IjCHAIRMAN MARTIN: In terms of the problem with the ordinance , ther ;i !; are the same? 11 MR. THAYER: Exactly, the lot line problem. ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The lot line problem. (( i (MR. GAINEY: Where is your unloading area as far as trucks are ii concerned? i 1IMR. THAYER: Well , our warehouse is really not in this area so we Hdon' t really unload and load except we do have a back door that is over here (pointing) , where we bring appliances in and out of the ;,store . Our warehouse is not in this area, it is up the street. ;)CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions? Thank you. Is there any- lone else with testimony on Case 1206? Anyone who wants to speak in i ;favor of the requested variance? Anyone wh.o wants to speak against � i Jit? We ' ll move on then to the next case. it ii i �I I! i� 25 - I � l BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CTTY OF ITHACA JUNE S , 1978 EXECUTIVE SESSION i if HAPPEAL NO. 1206 : i' l CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the area variance in Case k '! 1206 be granted. i ;SMR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. !IFINDING OF FACT: 1 . In May 1976 the Board granted an area 'I variance for an addition posing precisely i the same problem as the addition which ie !� is the subject of this application. That variance lapsed because the construction did not occur within the period required i; by the Ordinance. Nothing has changed ° i, and the addition which is the subject of this application is smaller than the one I� I fj proposed in 1976 . 11VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No . j Area Variance Granted. 'i I 'I i �I is ii I ! i t �I !i ! 1� I� it 26 - i 11SECRETARY HOARD announced the next appeal to be heard: ( APPEAL NO. 1207 : Appeal of Comin B. Blanton for an area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Columns i; 11 and 13 (required front yard and sid yard) to permit construction of a small addition to the rear of the single family house at 132 Esty Street in an R-2b (residential) use district . The house {i is non-conforming in that it is defici nt in minimum front yard and one side yar requirements . The addition would exte d i into the deficient side yard. �iSECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Blanton would you come up front please? ! MR. BLANTON: The variance that I 'm requesting is just to move thel- H extend the bedroom. In April I got married. As long as I was sin�le !' it was laright . After getting married naturally ladies want thing 11changed so this is the predicament that I am in. The bedroom is t o i� jsmall and just bringing it straight back with the lot and its prop r ij ;, structure that its - now I already have - just extending the bedro m. Ii ;, I ' ll be very grateful if this would be granted. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, so that in terms of - you are extending lback a side wall? 11MR. BLANTON: That ' s right . 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That - in an area where there is a deficient side `, yard in terms of the zoning ordinance? Is that right? I mean the e 11is deficient side yard? MR. BLANTON: Yes. I j; ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You are not moving that side wall out any? IIMR. BLANTON: No, not at all . ` CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You are simply taking the building back? 1 11MR. BLANTON: Yes , that' s right . MR. HOARD: I do have pictures of the property and a sketch that ,!was submitted to show how it would go together . It shows that the ,, building basically is a modified "L" and the addition would go right 11in that "L", and sort of square off the back of the building. ,! CHAIRMAN MARTEN: What are the rough dimensions of the addition? i I�MR. HOARD: About 131-2' x 111 . g1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is the only problem the side yard? I mean the on y ' problem. . . I i i it 27 MR. HOARD: The front yard is deficient but it doesn' t. . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any questions from members of the Boar ? I guess there are no questions , Mr. Blanton, thank you. 'iMR. BLANTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else with testimony on this case is I! We' ll move on to the next. i •I i .i - 28 - it BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA ii JUNE 5, 1978 I ! EXECUTIVE SESSION s j APPEAL NO. 1207 : CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the area variance in 'i case no . 1207 be granted. ;I t, MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. ! FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . The existing structure has a deficient ) front and side yard. i, 2 . The proposed addition which simply in- creases the size of one bedroom will i 'j have no affect on the front yard and f simply carry back the side wall of the ii existing building extending the de- !� ficiency but not increasing it. i! 3 . There was no evidence presented of any ii i serious adverse impact on neighbors . 11; VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No . I Area variance granted. i } I i i; i ii !i !i l 'I i I 'I I! i i! s 'i ;s 29 - i; SECRETARY HOARD announced the next case to be heard: a APPEAL NO. 1208 : Appeal of the Columbia Cooperative, Inc . , for a use and area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 2 , 9 , 11 and 14 (per- mitted uses , maximum building height , j and required front and rear yard depths) to permit conversion of the Columbia ' Street Annex (the old South Hill School) to six dwelling units . The property i located in an R-2a (residential) use district in which only one-or-two family dwellings are permitted. The property is also deficient in the required front yard set back and rear yard depth. SECRETARY HOARD: Jonathon Cottrell and Charles Guttman are here t i present this case. j jMR. COTTRELL: My name is Jonathon Cottrell and I 'm a partner in Sawtooth Builders and we have made an offer to the School Board to i buy this and act as a developer of a Cooperative - Housing Coopera i tive that would be of six units . They will be owner/occupied. Th i �i i' owners of the units will own shares in the Corporation that will hold the building . We need a variance to go to six units there as it i -i presently only zoned for one and two family. And I believe also t e fj building is too high and is not set back from the road far enough for the sidewalk, I believe it is, it has to go to 25 ' and I think it' s 20 . And it only has 27 ' of back yard and I believe it has to I have 25% of the depth of the lot - has to be in the back yard and that is not. I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright now let ' s separate out the two things fo our consideration. One is the use variance and the other concerns! ii !I these other various yard requirements. Taking up the second first your changing none of the external you are not making the building bigger on any of its sides? �! MR. COTTRELL: No. As we understand it, it has been designated a historic landmark so it can be not modified in any way on the ex- li !i terior, so we will be just renovating or restoring the exterior - I painting , that sort of thing. We will be putting on some double hung storm windows which we are attempting to find some at the prey �I sent time which will conform to the existing double hung nature of I? i the windows . l �f - 30 - ii Ij CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And you will comply with the off-street parking i! requirements? MR. COTTRELL: Yes we have in the site plan there there is pro- visions for eleven parking spaces and . . . ,I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And so , there - I mean it 's an existing building I and there is no way without knocking chunks off of it that you cou d comply with the various yard requirements. IMR. COTTRELL: Yes , yes . i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You'd have to knock the top off. . . MR. COTTRELL: Right. ii j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, now moving to the use variance , tell us about why that couldn' t be used for a two--family home? I ii MR. COTTRELL: Well , I suppose it' s possible to use it as a two- 11 family home . The renovations that are going to be required to re- store the building, the exterior of it, do the necessary plumbing li and heating, would probably bring the cost of the building up to {i $75,000 to $80 , 000 per unit. So, given the nature of the housing ; market in town, most people who are opting for a duplex type living , situation do not usually have the financial whereforall to put up f� !4 $75 ,000 or $80 ,000 , so it' s mainly the economics of the issue . t CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright , so that given the size of the building ;land the cost of the renovations , a minimum of six units and your ; application notes that the next bid was to be premised on more i units . . . 1MR. COTTRELL: Yes it was and it was a rental situation whereas th s has owner occupants in the building. I ,I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Questions? jMR. WILCOX: Where you show the trees here, isn' t there in fact a ,; house pretty close? ii ( MR. COTTRELL : Yes , there is . There is a house around to the othe side . It ' s not exactly visible from that . There is also a house hat !` would be - it' s on the site plan - it ' s just to the - what would b i the east of the building. There is a house right there . The Ban- Igerter ' s residence is there. That is on a terrace level above the i+ jproperty. i i ! i !f ii it 31 - i i' � Ii MR. WILCOX: You can' t drive all the way around the building but you 1! 11 can go all the way - there is room to go all the way around the !i Ijbuilding on your own property? i� '1MR. COTTRELL: Yes . The narrowest measurement is on the east side ;; and from the area that is the addition - that was the addition to I ; the original building that was done about 1925 I guess , that moved i M over to the line so it ' s about 17 ' from the line , I believe it is . MR. KASPRZAK: In terms of square footage, how big are those units I I I `j MR. COTTRELL: They run from 950 to 1350 plus they all share in ; the common space in the building. There is a large area in the i lcellar that could be used for recreation room, utilities , there will I, be washers, dryers , laundry work shops , that sort of thing . There �i liis one large room that is about 30 x 30 that will be probably used ! by - as a recreation room of some sort . And then there are large s � i' common halls . i ;SDR. GREENBERG: Do you have the tenants arranged already or are j you . . . ? I ;,SMR. COTTRELL: Presently, myself and my family are going to live ., there . And two other members of our business , Sawtooth Builders , i! ;land their families are going to live there and we have to other ipeople who are giving strong consideration at this point . It' s II Imuch - moving into a situation like this is much like buying a !1house because people have to put down down payments , there will be - they pay a share of the mortgage based on their square foot useagel I! 7 sof the building and their own utilities and common costs for heating iIthe common areas and maintenance, a contingency fund, capital fund lis built up for maintenance and to replace washers , dryers , what have you - as things break down. 11, !! MR. KASPRZAK: In effect it' s a condominium that you are roposing ;II p1 here? IH MR.MR. COTTRELL: It is a condominium probably with - except where th� i,1owner/occupants are required by the Corporation to run the Corpora H tion itself. Whereas a Condominium usually it ' s a developer who ; then charges a condominium fee and he handles most of the mainten- � ? ance and that sort of thing . Using this approach it ' s generally - �i �I I i 32 - I I i there are lower costs than condominiums , so they are able to suppl '; moderately cost housing for people . ;f j! MR. KASPRZAK: Hopefully better care. ; II MR. COTTRELL: Yes , that as well . it CHARLES GUTTMAN: There will be a provision in the Corporate By-Laws which will mandate that the occupants of the dwellings will be the ; owners of the Corporation. There probably will be some exceptions !� if someone wants to go away for a month or two but they could sublet it but beyond that there will be provisions that the actual occupants { will be the owners . i ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any more questions? Is there anything more that you want to add? MR. GUTTMAN: One further note that I might add, the adjacent prop erty is a park which is still presently owned by the School Board. i There is - has been an offer from the School Board from the City o �IIthaca to sell this park for $1 . 00 and this is - in accepting that j� the City of Ithaca pledged its support in obtaining the necessary variances to convert this property into residential dwelling. j� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who woul i, �i like to be heard on this case? DAVID FULLER: I'm David Fuller of 316 Turner Place, which is dire tly across from the property that Sawtooth Builders wish to renovate . jI 'd like to speak in favor of their proposal . A couple of weeks ago , � or three weeks ago I' think it was, before the Sawtooth Builders went i (! before the Planning Board my wife and I held a community meeting a i our house and asked the neighbors to come and meet with Sawtooth Builders and therefore we had an afternoon community meeting, whic iwe met at our house and later went directly across the street and i walked around the property and checked it out and people made some ; 11 recommendations . There are several reasons why I - the community, or at least those who came to the meeting, do support their propos 1 . jiOne - a good many of the people in the community like or support fthe idea of the old Columbia School Annex building being maintaine as a historic site and they are used to driving into the city and I� seeing that dome up at the top and they would hate to see that 4� 33 - , disappear. So from the standpoint of some of the variances sug- jgested, it ' s not that we' d like to have anything cut down but ;; rather maintain it and they have agreed that they intend to fix up !. the outside of the building so we see that as a real plus , not onl ;, for our immediate neighborhood but for all of Ithaca because it is '; very pleasant to drive in and see those landmarks . Secondly, we I � lenjoy, or we think that the concept of cooperative would improve 1the neighborhood. A cooperative better than some organization i ; which would simply rent rooms there . The idea that people who ii ;; would own their own apartment in the building certainly seems ad- visable in terms of maintaining the neighborhood. They have a sta e i Jin their building and in the community and therefore we feel that' I1probably the best way. They really are property owners in the com- Ijmunity with us . And that particular item, my parents have a - liv� H in a cooperative in a large city and so I am somewhat familiar with ;; this kind of operation and, from what I can see , it is by far the I, best kind of arrangement for anything that is multiple housing, I ,; believe that - the neighbors did talk about off-street parking andl I ,la few other comments and as I recall the builders did respond to the comments which. th_e neighbors did make in relation to off-street Hparking and a couple of other items which now escape my mind, but I� jth.ink that was the biggest concern. The other one was just getting ( familiarized with the whole cooperative concept and the statement i made about the By-Laws , I believe is something which covers any of th-e questions that the neighbors had at that time. So I think that;' 1i 1anything that came up as a question at the time of our meeting has !! been pretty well clarified by the builders . They have been most cooperative in responding to neighborhood interest. At the end of j jour meeting we did have a sheet of paper with a little petition wit ii !Jsome signatures. I understand that that was in the documents or ' came in the documents that were passed on to this Board and it should 'i i Jbe included in there somewhere . Of th-e people that were involved j llin our meeting, two of them hold property directly bordering on thi r, s i4 It 34 property, so that where property directly borders on the Columbia ii School Annex, two of the three people involved have met with the li it s builders and met satisfaction and I believe signed that petition. i� jj We do understand that of the various bids put on this property it j there were a variety of density of use and that this seems to us to be the best density use of the building. And indeed the whole proposal which. Sawtooth Builders has presented seems very, very ii i; property for our community. I would also like to comment too, as mentioned, the City has made an offer to purchase the property dowil !i in front which is a response to the neighborhood again, which wanted to protect its interest in the community, that did detract f� from the amount of land which would go with this property but the neighborhood felt that the securest way to keep additions from growing on to the building from any future owners would be for the property to be cut off, so to speak, and some of it owned by the 1� City and that would put real limitations on the future of that property. If you are familiar with the area up around the corner �I ?1 there was an old home which a person purchased some years ago and i� that was alright with the neighborhood but then they proceeded to put up some abominable buildings which have caused considerable ,j ` j confusion in the neighborhood, eventually people parking on other people' s lawns and running over trees and other various things and �o the neighborhood was really interested in precluding any such kind of a building and therefore it was with or through meetings with j the City Officials that we worked an agreement with them that we is hoped that everything moves along and that we will be able to see i! the City purchase this other piece of property. That does put Sawtooth Builders in the part of their problem of needing some var� f � E iance in terms of the land which goes with the building but we would like to have you understand that we understand this problem i ii and that part of it has been of the neighborhood' s doing and there i fore we support any variance in that area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The petition that you mentioned, I believe is a i - 35 - 'i document that we have as part of the record of this hearing, it' s dated May 21st? i I MR. FULLER: Yes . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. Let me mention it so that it is clear that we 've got it. It' s a page that at the top says : "We , the ,f undersigned neighbors approve of the proposed renovations to and change in use of the "Old South Hili School" by Sawtooth Builders . ' and that has some eleven or twelve signatures of residents of Turner Place and South Hill Terrace on it. The underneath part ha those who disapprove but nobody has signed there . And that is par of the hearing in this case . Is there anyone else who wants to be i; heard on this case? j MR. GUTTMAN: I would just like to make one further point, at the ;f Planning Board Hearing, there also was a Frances Rune , Nancy Fulle i� and Richard Baer, all three of them members of the community but none of them is present here tonight. Mr. Fuller is the only one + I and all three of them spoke in favor of the variance . i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. 11 DR. GREENBERG: There is a label on the building now, it is named ii as a public school - is this what - does it have any indication of what it has been used for? And will that be changed at all? MR. COTTRELL: I think there is a big white painting on the - not ii painting, it 's just a white strip with black letters that says 110 Columbia Street, painted on the side of the building below where the bushes have grown up but as far as I know, there is no I designation of the original use of the building. What we have bee trying to do is find original photographs and things like that of ii the building and the use and intend to put them up in one of the !' I halls and that sort of thing to try to document the history of thel building. DR. GREENBERG: But you have no external sign that you are puttin up a Cooperative? i i', MR. COTTRELL: No, there is nothing on the outside of the building iE ii as far as I know. 'P s 1 ii d 36 - MR. WILCOX: Is there a bell in that tower? MR. COTTRELL: No there is not. We hope to be able to get some- thing up there interesting. f CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any further questions? Alright , that concludes our hearing on that case. Now we also have a request fo E, ; an interpretation? MR. HOARD: No. That was referred by the Planning Board to the �! Planning Staff so it didn' t get this far. d ji d; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright , so unless I 'm mistaken that concludes this part of our public meeting, we will not go into executive i session to consider these cases and we' ll invite any of you who are still around at the end of that , back in when we announce the re- suits. s� i! it i ,3 it E i t, i! ,d i I! �i ! I ! !i E� dl fj it j I� ij li ,4 is i - 37 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i! CITY OF ITHACA { JUNE 5 , 1978 i i EXECUTIVE SESSION r I! APPEAL NO. 1208 : MR. WILCOX: I move that the use and area variances , in Case No. 1208 be granted. i j MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. i i FINDINGS OF FACT: Use Variance i 1 . Testimony presented suggested that eco - f I+ omic factors prevented the conversion j� of this school to a use permitted in l this zone, a two--unit structure was �i it economically prohibitive . i �S 2. The six-units proposed will be owner occupied and are a relatively low den- sity, given the size of the building . i` ` { 3. Testimony on behalf of the neighbor- I( i{ Ehood suggested that the proposed use iiwould be quite consistent with neigh- { i borhood interest. Area Variance : ii 1 . The propsed building will comply with i the off-street parking requirments of the Ordinance . !i 2 . The deficiencies concerned building height , percentage of depth and front I { yard, none of which is being changed byt ii the proposal . i i I � I� 3. The historic designation of the building ii assures that external changes will not ', occue and that the character of the building will be maintained. 'i E VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No. 'i �f i 'I - 38 - I , Barbara Ruane, Do Certify that I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1172 , 1204, 1205 , 1206 , 1207 and 1208 on June 5 , 1978 at City Hall , City of Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed same , l; and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes ii itof the meeting and the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning I I! Appeals , City of Ithaca, on the above date, and the whole thereof l j to the best of my ability. E i! 1� Barbara C. Ruane j Recording Secretary I; I k i !I I� 'i i i ,i Sworn to before me this i �I 20 day of kYVkY 1978 . jl rI � i No aryl Public � JOSEPH A. RUNDLE Notary Public, State of New York s No. 55-4507134 Qualified in Tompkins Counbr Term Expires March 30, 19-77 f j 'I i , I ( I j it ii ij � I fI ii II j3