Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1978-11-13 I� TABLE OF CONTENTS ii it MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ITHACA, NEW YORK - NOVEMBER 13, 1978 Page APPEAL NO. 1230 Bill & Maria Avramis 1 406-408-410 College Avenue I APPEAL NO. 1230 Executive Session 18 i APPEAL NO. 1231 Newton Williams (Cayuga Electric) 19 i` 310 Dey Street APPEAL N0. 1231 No decision on the appeal no. 1231 . i !i no one appeared to present the case . i APPEAL NO. 1232 William Lower (WITHDRAWN) 22 453 Floral Avenue i APPEAL NO. 1233 James E. Gardner 22 514 S. Aurora Street APPEAL NO. 1233 Executive Session 26 ii jl APPEAL NO. 1234 John W. Gibson 27 i; 501-505 N. Cayuga Street j� APPEAL NO. 1234 Executive Session 30 I APPEAL NO. 1235 John Petrillose, Sr. 31 128 Dryden Road APPEAL NO. 1235 Executive Session 36 i a APPEAL NO. 1236 Karl & Sophie Hitzelberger 37 ! 126 Farm Street (WITHDRAWN) i I j 1 APPEAL NO. 1237 David L. McCreary 38 137 Crescent Place APPEAL NO. 1237 Executive Session 40 i REVISED APPEAL FORM Executive Session 41 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 42 Clarification of Appeal 1229 (S & M Company) decision j made at the October 2 , 1978 hearing : 43 i i! !i 'I II I! 'I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS it CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK hit NOVEMBER 13, 1978 Ii ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let me call to order the November meeting of the li jilthaca Board of Zoning Appeals . Present this evening to comprise Ila quorum, but only a quorum, are : Mr. Gregory Kasprzak Dr . Martin Greenberg Mr. William Wilcox I Chairman Peter Martin I{ Mrs . Barbara Ruane , Rec 'y Sec 'y � j Mr . Thomas Hoard, Bldg. Comm $ ii Secy to the Board ; ABSENT : Mrs . Judith Maxwell I Mr. Joseph Gainey, Jr. f The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter,I tithe Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and various 11other Ordinances that give us some degree of authority. Our pro- ! E± ceedings , for those of you who are not familiar with them, do not i! ! I dinvolve rigid adherence to rules of evidence. We do follow, is though, a standard approach which is as follows : we hear all of ;,! the testimony on a particular case, first we hear the appellant i Ilpresent his or her case, we then invite anyone else present who f wants to offer testimony in support of the requested variance or i ,; whatever other relief is sought of the Board and then we invite i ';! anyone present who wishes to present evidence in opposition. We 1 I jask that all people who present testimony or evidence in the hearing lcome to the front of the room, to the microphone up here, identify i ,, themself clearly by name and address and then limit their remarks i I :,; to the issues that are in front of the Board. After hearing all oi, it the cases that are on the Board' s docket, we then go into executive ' session to deliberate on what we've heard, reaching findings of I .; fact and decisions resting on them, based on what we 've heard, we i : then reconvene in public session to announce the results . Mr. i; Secretary, what is our first case? ; SECRETARY HOARD: Appeal No . 1230 : Appeal of Bill and Maria Avramis for an area variance under Sectionl j 30. 25 , Columns 4 , 6 , 10 , 12 , 13 and( i` 14 and Section 30 . 37 , Subsection A,� I; Paragraph 4 , to construct a two or � three story building to house a theater , a disco and stores at 406-1 410 College Avenue in a B-2 use ' i district. The appellants are also I ii 2 - I I� requesting an interpretation of Section 30 . 51 which permits recon- struction of non-conforming build- ings in whole or in part when j� damaged by fire. The project as f� proposed would be on a lot that do s Ij not meet the minimum lot size , would exceed the maximum permitted lot �i coverage , and would have no side o rear yards . The property would have no off-street parking on the prem! es . ,! Mr. Galbraith is here to present the case. 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: As Mr. Galbraith comes forward let me say one '! other thing that I neglected to mention. There are only four mem- , hers of the Board present this evening. Four members just compris ' a quorum. However it takes , under the Ordinance, four votes to i !! grant a variance so that those of you presenting requests for var- ;I iances this evening are shooting for four of four rather than four Iof six, which would be the case if the full Board were present . ;; Given the odds , if anyone would like for whatever reasons , to with ,I I' draw their case this evening and present it at the next public ;! hearing, the Board would be pleased to grant that request. Mr. IlGalbraith. MR. GALBRAITH: In light of what you have just said, may I have .; thirty seconds to speak with Mr. & Mrs . Avramis about that? - :' Thank you. I think we are prepared to proceed. For the record, i! iImy name is Dirk Galbraith, I am an attorney with professional offi es l� at 308 N. Tioga Street and I represent Mr. & Mrs . Avramis on this I 11application. So that the members of the Board can orient themselves {1concerning exactly what the property we are discussing, I have som4 it ( photographs with me this evening that I would like to pass around ,,! initially. Is there any particular order that you prefer I do j i d this in? f CHAIRMAN MARTIN: No. Are these photographs that you' ll be able I to leave with us as part of the record of the hearing? If f 'i MR. GALBRAITH: Yes. , CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright . So they should be marked in some fashi�n Has they come in so that we can be sure we have them all . I I MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, fine. I don't know what your procedure for ` it I I doing that is i I I! i I! - 3 - i ? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well , why don't we just mark them with the numbe 1of your case and then 1 through however many they are. !, MR. GALBRAITH: Okay. I might point out that the property we are ; describing here - this is the front view of it (exhibit 1230-1) t that is 406 College Avenue , the darker building and the lighter 11 �1 ;! colored building is 408-410 and the application concerns 406 �I :; through 410, I think it is really substantially one structure . i JThere are some other photographs there that kind of put it in its �i 11perspective with the rest of the Collegetown locale (exhibits 2 ,, through 19) . Now this property is presently occupied at 408 by th ii Hill Drug Store which is going to be moving shortly. The property 1next door is a burned-out restaurant, I think it was formerly Stea - lia-roma and then 406 is kind of an abandoned shop of some kind - jIthere is no activity going on there at the moment. The premises ( where the restaurant were located were substantially destroyed by i Ifire about two years ago and, as a result, the property is unusabl 11as it presently exists and I think you' ll agree after looking at ilthe photographs , it is somewhat of an eyesore . Now Mr. $ Mrs . 'iAvramis, when they bought this property, have proposed to demolish !r s6406 , 408 and 410 and construct on that site what would essentially ! !; t Ilbe a two-story building housing a discotheque, shops on the first ' floor and a movie theater on the second floor . Attached to the ilapplication there is an architect ' s drawing of these proposed uses . ! The picture of the shops was actually an alternate plan there. I l! !! think if the variance were approved that would be something we would .i (,I! have to work out with the Buidling Commissioner 's office although 4I I believe both of those designs essentially conform to the code . jIThe property itself has a frontage of 44 ' on College Avenue and it i� iiis approximately 60 ' in depth. It 's built up presently to the !! side yards and there is presently no front yard and no back yard, A 'Win fact the present structure encroaches on College Avenue by abou 12 ' but we do not propose to build out into the encroachment, rathe Jany new construction would be within the existing property lines . ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Before you get too far beyond the alternative I ; treatments of the shop level , could you explain just what the li ii I i - 4 ,I ;Ialternatives are? I couldn' t make it out. MR. GALBRAITH: Okay. I think briefly one . . . jCHAIRMAN MARTIN: One has a lot , it has two levels for the shop, i { is that . . . ? i MR. GALBRAITH: Yes, one would have a mezzanine level and the othe �I jwould be without the mezzanine level. Otherwise I believe they ar 11fairly . . . ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So the alternate gives you actually more area - lselling area? l'MR. GALBRAITH.: Yes it would give you more floor space. i1 HCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. 'i 11MR. GALBRAITH: The first part of the application for a variance I ;' here concerns a variance from the side yard, front yard and rear E� yard restrictions . Now, as I said, the property has a frontage of �i 1144 ' right now and if the side yard restrictions were to be inter- �ipreted literally this would leave the Avramis ' s with 29 feet of I� 'useable frontage. I don't believe anybody that ' s looked at this ;;proposal so far - the Planning Board, the Building Commissioner' s ; Office, really believes that side yards would serve any useful 11function in this locale. I 'd suggest in Collegetown the last thin !' anybody needs is a couple more alleys created. The building is J ;;presently built up to the walls of the adjoining structure and this i His what the Avramis ' s would like to do here. Now along with the i! It �1application from the - for the variance from the side yard restric- , tions we have requested an interpretation of the Ordinance in this } regard and this is really kind of in the alternative. There is a jprovision in the Zoning Ordinance which provides that any non- conforming structure may be rebuilt to its existing dimensions if +it is damaged by fire - damaged or destroyed by fire and, although 'Ithe entire three structures were not destroyed, the one in the ;middle was substantially damaged and - as really an alternative Hasking for a variance to permit building up to the side yards - we I,i �jmight ask you to interpret the Ordinance to provide that we could ii �'do this as a matter of right. Now the proposed structure, I believe, i( I!would be somewhat taller than the existing structure but I think as 'i ii i! f! - S - f itI { the architect' s drawings indicate, it would still be within the ; height requirements and there would be no variance needed heightwise I 11on this building. I think . . . i ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What is proposed would be a far more intensive ( use measured by a number of factors other than what was there be- ; fore? i ( MR. GALBRAITH: Yes . I believe that this would be a more intensive Fuse - at least in terms of the overall use. The uses that are there ;;now are conforming uses , or really the one that is left, which is a ldrug store. The uses that are sought would also be conforming uses . it This is strictly an area variance- permitted uses in a B-2 zone. ;(The uses that are there now - the remaining use is a daytime use i {and the restaurant, while it functioned, was also a daytime use. '(Here we are seeking to put in shops which would essentially be ! daytime use and then a discotheque and a theater which would be uses ! functioning principally between 8 : 00 P.M. I imagine the theater i ! would close up around 11 : 00 P.M. and the disco might go as late as 111 : 00 A.M. So although it is more intensive , you are really using Amore of the clock here than - and spreading the use out to some ex-� hent. Now there was one aspect of this proposed use which the ap- iplication, as it is presently constituted, does not satisfy - and I ;think if this Beard were to grant us a variance it would have to be .! 11conditional upon us doing one other thing and that is satisfying a I I Poading requirement . Now, I think obviously no one wants any of j { these proposed uses doing their off-loading and on-loading off IlCollege Avenue because of the traffic that is generated up there and, in fact, the Ordinance does require that uses such as this demon- 11strate the capability or have a delivery space in the back or off- ,Istreet. Now . . . I 1ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: That ' s not part of the requested variance at this ' point? MR. GALBRAITH: Well it ' s something that came up before the Planning lBoard so I thought I 'd better address it at this point. ;'CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But it ' s not one of the listed deficiencies that ' i; ;mentioned in the public ad so that it is not in area of the Ordinan�e 1' ,I I - 6 - i in which you are formally requesting a variance at this point? It couldn' t be part of this. MR. GALBRAITH: Right and I suppose technically we may have to com back before you at a later time on this . I know there had been a f liquestion about it so I thought I had better address what I hope is � �i ; going to be the solution. When we made this application originally i j�we were under the erroneous impression that we had an easement across ii the property to the south for access for delivery space. We found i rout after that that although the easement existed on paper the ad- , joining property owner had, in fact, constructed an addition onto this building which now sits right in the middle of the easement, so jthat easement is no more. I , on behalf of the Avramis ' s have written ; to Cornell University which owns the property immediately to the ii west which is basically a driveway that goes into Sheldon Court and II am hopeful that we can work up some sort of accommodation with , Cornell on this. I see Mr. Bentkowski is here this evening, I don' liknow if you are here for this or not but I hadn' t talked to Mr. iBentkowski about it but I had talked with a couple of other people ii up at Cornell so I think if you were to grant a variance it would I have to be conditional upon us doing something with Cornell to arrange i for delivery space in the back. Now the other aspect of the appli I 11cation for a variance here concerns parking and I think this is the i' ,: area that has really had the most discussion in this application so i ' far. You are right when you say that the uses that we are seeking j1to put in here would be of a higher intensity than the present uses IThe present uses have almost no intensity, the drug store and two I ! empty buildings . I think the problem with the property is this , that I; + 1nless somebody is willing to bend somewhere on the zoning ordinances , hat we are going to have up there - for the foreseeable future - i 1 wo empty buildings and a drug store which is going to be an empty building in another month. I believe the property simply cannot be it j�economically developed in any form without some flexibility on the i 1�arking - I think this was brought up pretty much before the P1anni g ji poard when we discussed it there. Now there is perhaps a little bi ,pf difference between the Avramis ' s and the Planning Department when i, R i� i - 7 - they looked over this application concerning exactly how many park- i Ting spaces we would need. I believe we calculated that we would j�need forty-four (44) spaces based on a one hundred sixty (160) sea ( theater and a roughly sixty (60) seat discotheque. That would ;; result in - I think dividing that by five - roughly forty-four (44) 1dspaces . I believe the Planning Board came up with a figure of , I�fifty-five (55) spaces and I 'm not sure exactly what numbers they lwere using but for purposes of this discussion we are going to nee i! ; someplace between forty-four and fifty-five parking spaces to satis- I iffy the requirement of the Ordinance. Directly behind the property !! ''and it is pretty well depicted in the photographs that have been !submitted - is a Municipal Parking lot and I believe the - someone I ions the Planning Board indicated that there were about eight parking spaces in this lot. Now . . . ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Your application says one hundred eighty (180) . i '1MR. GALBRAITH: Yes . The application is in error on that and I am 11prepared to accept the Planning Board' s statement because I believe 11they know better than I do about how much parking there is in that I ; Municipal lot - that there are eighty (80) spaces there. Now, I do ! not believe that the proposed .uses would unduly burden that for several reasons. One , and I think the main reason, is that the uses seek to attract your Cornell community - your student body - the movie theater, the discotheque which are the higher intensity usesf. In this area a very short distance from Cornell University I would ! w �IIsuggest that most of the traffic that the Avramis ' s are going to get yis going to be walk-in traffic rather than drive-in traffic. He i� ' wants to open an establishment there that is going to cater to the ,I students . It ' s going to be within easy walking distance or possibly a short ride on the Cornell bus over to near the spot and then a walk over, rather than a use which would attract a great many people I� 'who would be driving in from all parts of the county in automobiles . ; The lot itself is well within 5001 , in fact it ' s really just a few i, ! feet to the back across Cornell ' s driveway and the uses - the theater I and the discotheque would be operating at a time in which they would 'not compete with other uses in the area your daytime shops , the ,i ! i i 8 I - - 1 i' �Ibank up there , any of the other stores that are open. Now . . . , CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How heavily is that lot used in the evening time now? There are other nighttime uses up there, restaurants and bars . 11MR. ar . 1MR. GALBRAITH: I don' t believe that it is spilling over at the 'moment. You are right there are other . . . ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The question is whether there is capacity there fat the moment to absorb an additional load of forty or fifty cars? i IMR. GALBRAITH: Well, in the first place I think the projection of � an initial forty - fifty cars on a given evening for this use . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That ' s the Ordinance ' s figure , you say that over Hstates the car traffic these uses will draw? i i1MR. GALBRAITH: Yes . The answer to that is I don' t know - I don' t 'think anybody knows at this point . I 'm sure the traffic up there ; now on a given evening varies from night to night. You have several bars that are open in the area. I think they are the only night I time uses . There - I don' t know the seating capacity of those , I , think they are all fairly small - the French Connection, Number 9 ' s i ;(somewhat down the street, and Ruloffs . I don' t know again, most 1=of those places draw the college crowd which, again, is walk-in i !traffic. I believe that - and I have no statistics to back me up I ! at the present parking up there is not now over burdened and would , not be overburdened by this proposed use. In point of fact every � ')commercial use in collegetown depends on Municipal parking up there ; hIand on-street parking with possibly the exception of the bank and I'i lEganls Super Market and in this way the proposed use of the Avramis ' s ''want to put in here would be .no different than that. ;CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well, the new Hill Drug is going to have some 1parking too, although it required a variance so that they don' t have i, as much as the Ordinance may require . IiMR. GALBRAITH: Right . And again - you take that for instance, this !would be open at a time I 'm not sure that the Hill Drug Store would i` be open at all during the times the discotheque and movie theater would be open - I don' t - if they close at 9 : 00 like most of the mother stores in the area. I guess the point I am trying to make is i ' that although it is a higher intensity use than is in there now, i I; (i t - 9 - 'lit wouldn' t be competing for parking space that the day time users i; 1I jwould employ up there . I guess really that is our application. fJNow, in closing the only thing I would like to say is that the - Ii i think this was pretty well brought up by a member - one of the ;i imembers of the Planning Board when they considered this application, 1 that it is - oh, to some extent - a kind of daring venture that th� ' Avramis ' s are proposing here. It ' s one that ' s already amounted to a substantial financial outlay for them. It ' s one that would entail i flan even more substantial financial outlay but it ' s one that I be- 1lieve would greatly improve the appearance of Collegetown. It 'i , would serve a need - there is a market for the services they would ! ; I be providing and it would be a permitted use within the district land I think the only way that that kind of development is going to , ii ;; take place to the benefit of Collegetown as a whole , is to have i 1,1some flexibility on the matter of parking. I 'd be happy to addres ii `iany questions that anybody has . 4� II CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there questions from members of the Board? l ?IMR. KASPRZAK: You said you have explored or at least you indicated ' that economically it wouldn' t be feasible to build anything else . ( Have you explored that possibility and can you show it to us that it wouldn' t be? MR. GALBRAITH: You mean a lesser intensity use? '! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Or simply refurbish the existing structures and i; I !; continue to have lower key businesses essentially dependent on ilwalk-in traffic . f i II ;SMR. GALBRAITH: In respect to refurbishing the existing premises '3 ! I think you can tell from the photographs that I submitted that th� I 11middle building of the three which formerly housed the restaurant , 1' is really pretty fairly well destroyed and it may be possible to i' i� refurbish the thing but I think a lot more attractive structure cold be built by tearing it down along with the other two . To try to j{ directly answer your question, would it be possible to put some other I '! kind of use in there, yes it might be possible but . . . Id MR. KASPRZAK: You haven' t explored it? : MR. GALBRAITH: Well , this is the kind of use that I think would b1 I w ,I II - 10 - i� 11the highest and best use - you know what I mean - it would produce the maximum economic return from the property. I would add that t e purchase price of this real estate, fire damage and all , was $155 , 0( ( which means whatever goes in there is going to be carrying a prett !; high debt service just to keep going. It ' s very desireable real ; estate . As it is, the buildings that are on there are useless. i� '! DR. GREENBERG: Since you are not asking for a use variance and i� assuming that there is a change in use, in other words , more inten- sive during the day such as a restaurant, are you committing your- i tself to these uses now and in the foreseeable future if we allow t e ;' structure to be built? You have a discotheque , for instance, in t e I ! basement. If the discotheque is a flub and you want to put a res- . taurant in, that would really be intensive during the daytime and Tithe stress is on the time element. You could do that without coming lback to us . ! MR. GALBRAITH: If the Board wanted to put something in the variant 1'requiring us to come back in the event that we changed any of those uses , I 'm certain that it would be alright. I mean - we intend to ;Igo forward with this and apparently Mr. Avramis has had a good deal ! of experience in this kind of business and I think he knows when (something will go and when it won' t so that would be no problem. IDR. GREENBERG: That would be no problem, alright. ' yk !CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well you've made a point of the purchase price an j,debt service. The three addresses were recently purchased according f !Ito the application for that price? ii R. GALBRAITH: Yes . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How were they owned before, were they owned as a total package or were they separately owned? 1� ' MR. GALBRAITH: Yes, Mr. ,john Retrillose owned the three properties i. ! He sold them as a group t o Mr. Avramis . I think Mr. petrillose i�acquired them - I think he acquired 408 410 at one time and 406 a f. 'Janother time. By the time he sold them he owned all three. ii i1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. Then the one that has remained vacant 'lfor - I mean it currently has no tenant, how long has that been ;� ithout a tenant? i - �1 ii I� MR. GALBRAITH: That - well one store, I guess 406 I don' t know. . . I+ Bill - how long has 406 been vacant? '' MR. AVRAMIS: More than a year. ! MR. GALBRAITH: More than a year. ;; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How do the numbers go? I have been a bit confus d. You refer to 406 as . . . . il ! MR. GALBRAITH: Can I point it out to you? ;; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes . The application says 406 is the Drug store . ;i ii MR. GALBRAITH: Yes , the application is wrong in that regard. I was jas confused as you are. 11 ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Now this is 406 - 408 410? (pointing) �iMR. GALBRAITH: Right. 406 - 408 410.. (pointing) jCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. !IMR. GALBRAITH: And the drug store is 410 . iICHAIRMAN MARTIN: So 406 is the vacant one? ai I� 1 MR. GALBRAITH_: Yes. Well actually 406 and 408 are presently vacant . ilAnd aca t . lAnd 410 will be vacant within a few months . R HCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there further questions from members of the li ` Board? Thank you. i1MR. GALBRAITH: Thank you. 'i 'ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who has testimony to presen �f in favor of the requested area variances in case 1230? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? �iJOHN BENTKOWSKI : My name is John Bentkowski, I am the Real Estate jImanager for Cornell University. I am speaking not in opposition Abut I need some clarification from the applicant. There has been �j I! misinformation, I think, delivered at the planning Board and I 11would like to clarify some of these things. First of all , as far i as a right-of-way, there is no right-of-way on Cornell University' (; property. The only right-of-way that exists, if there is any, is i jbehind 402 - 404 College Avenue which_ is Mrs . Fapayanakos ' s proper Y. I� ; And going back into th-e records , there is no boundary no numbers given as far as the width- of this right-of-way. Now I have taken , some photographs of the property. ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are you able to leave these with us? i' I� I ` 1 !! - 12 - li 6 I SMR. BENTKOWSKI : Yes sir. This is the addition to the Papayanakos '!s I, property (exhibit 1230-A) . There are approximately 4, courses of ,! 12 inch block which reduces that right-of-way to about 52 inches - ii4? feet. This is a photograph (exhibit 1230-B) of the property fr m i? ,, the block wall to the University property line and that is about if 1:14 feet. So all the deliveries in the Papayanakos lease and the easement given by Mr. Dye to the owner at that time of the Papayana�ko property, 402-404, was for ash haulage, for grocery delivery, etc. I; 1It was not to be used for deliveries per se. Now I don't - in hea in Ij ; the testimony, they are talking about rebuilding, they are talking �labout building, I would like to know from Mr. Galbraith, are they 1Italking about building right to the property line? E; !, CHAIRMAN MARTIN: First of all , let 's get this question of right-o - �y 1 way on the table. Mr. Galbraith indicated that they - as they under- stand nd r- stand it - have no easement at the moment on which they can rely f r I deliveries to the rear and they are seeking to negotiate some kind I Of arrangement with Cornell so that what you have shown us tends t i, ' confirm, I gather , what he is conceding already. i! cI ;SMR. BENTKOWSKI : Yes, that' s right. It was not brought out at the Mast meeting. The Manning Board meeting. . . ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. So now the question for him is whether th y are planning to build right up to their property line and I under- � stand from the application the answer is yes. Do I understand cor r� 'lrectly? i!MR. GALBRAITH: That is correct. I I ' 111MR. BENTKOWSKI : Okay, if that ' s the case, the question that I hav I lis , if he is building a building which has a tkater on the top flo r i ;( and a discotheque in the basement and stores in the middle , what t provisions has he made for a secondary means of egress from the ;,I property? In both of these, the top one , the theater and the disc - Itheque will be intensive useage. They have to have a secondary means i of egress from that property. If their secondary means of egress is at the back of the building he will have to - there will have to b ilsome provisions made to eliminate vehicles parked so that these doors !,can swing open. This is a typical situation where the vehicles are ;w 11 13 - �' f right up to the building. i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright , this is parking on Cornell property? '!! MR. BENTKOWSKI : It is parking on Cornell property. We have sixty ;' four . . . ' CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is it controlled? 11MR. BENTKOWSKI: Yes by Cornell . 4' `ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. ,i SMR. BENTKOWSKI : There are sixty-four (64) parking spaces running I from College Avenue or from Dryden Road clear back to the brick wa 1 j1which is the boundary between Sheldon Court and the property of th i� �lapplicant and beyond. So it is a continuous stream of parking places . i� a Now in order for him to have a secondary means of egress out of this iE ( building he has to have some provisions for swinging doors out. With sthe vehicles there he has no provisions for swinging doors out and !, this is taken from the State Building ConstructionCode applicable ;i ' to General Building Construction 1966 - still valid - New York State . i ; One of the provisions says "Exits shall be maintained as to provide i ;' free and unobstructed egress from all parts of the building" and here you have parking right up to th-e building so if they come out I+ ( they are right up against the cars . i !i MR. WILCOX: Well these cars don't seem to be right up against the ii Gbuilding (.looking at exhibit Q . i, IMR. BENTKOWSKI : That' s not the building, this is the building. 3i !1MR. WILCOX: Right in here they are (pointing) . 1IMR. BENTKOWSKI: That ' s the building, right (exhibit B) . Okay, i� there is another provision for space requirements for a C 5-1 usea e i; �jwhch this is what this will be. And it says "Exit doorways shall i! Ihave a clear width of at least five feet where doors are hung top i land bottom pivots they shall not, when open, project more than six ii 1,1inch.es into the required clear width of the exit. " Then if he has iia theater on the top floor, Section C, 2-1,2-4 . 3 again to a C 5 type' i ; building "Exterior stairways shall terminate in a legal open space '!with access to a street. No part of that exterior stairway shall be i Ijwithin five feet of any interior lot line. " So in effect if he pu s ' an outside property outside stairway to clear the second floor for ii i 1, ! - 14 - " fire or any kind of a stampede he has to have clear access to the 11property line . Farther on the Building Code "Every grade level exit to the exterior shall be open on a level grade in landing not less i ;; than that of the swing of the door." Okay. The door size is determined by the amount of occupants . I haven' t been able to det r- imine that - wide how big that door shall be . But it has to be that I I 11 wide plus 12 inches more. So in affect when the door swings open, Ihe swings out into the parking lot and runs into a car - he can' t ; open the door. Now, when Mr. Galbraith spoke I took notes . There are sixty-seven (67) spaces that we rent to tenants of Sheldon i Court and to any other person who wants to rent space . We have a 1priority setting - we rent to tenants of Sheldon Court, that ' s our ,priority. In the evening there is no policing of the property. ! There is policing during the day. In the evening we do not police 3j Lithe property for the simple reason that we run into - as the City `Police say - John you are asking for trouble to clear parking in ! there at night because they come in from a gin mill, tavern, res- taurant and we start tagging cars - 11 : 00, 12 : 00 on paid parking. '! It just does not work - you are asking for trouble - so we tend to lback away. The lot at night is full - it is full from . . . ,,CHAIRMAN MARTLN: You are talking about your lot or the public lot? ',MR. BENTKOWSKI : The whole lot is full.. For the simple reason that jialternate parking exists in that area. With the number of cars in lithat area the student rooms, they have got to go somewheres so they i, go into the city parking lot, so they don' t run into the alternate parking situation, where they come into our lot . They know that if they aren' t out of there by 8 : 00 A.M. we will tow them out. o From personal experience and from being called by the Campus Patrol! Viand the City Patrol there is the problem of parking. Okay, one !other thing. 406 is vacant in that lot - in that set up - 406 is ! vacant by virtue of a lease agreement, the last I could determine. !The reason it 's not rented is because somebody has it leased out Hand they are paying rent on it. So it 's an empty building but in i ,jeffect the owner, or whoever it was, was obtaining money for it . I have - I don' t want to oppose this thing, the University tries to if li E maintain a low profile but it is something which is an intensive !fuse of a small piece of land in a highly useable area. We have li ?I, Ruloffs - has a large group of people come in there, it has ar- 1rived at a point where it is very famous and we have travelers !! coming from all over - Aurora, Elmira - to go to Ruloffs . And jthey use our parking lot so we already have intensive use there . ` I don' t think that the University can encumber a piece of property f 1, by permitting some barrier - it has to be barriered to permit the i door to be opened. We would not be in that position to give this jjdeveloper a permanent easement so that they could have a secondary ,1 11means of egress out of the building. That means some way to block doff the cars so they don't come up against it. HCHAIRMAN MARTIN Alright. You also heard Mr. Galbraith express tithe hope that some sort of an easement to allow access for deliv- Ileries could be negotiated with Cornell? 41MR. BENTKOWSKI : That would require a permanent easement. IICHAIRMAN MARTIN: That would require a permanent easement and I j think I just heard you say that a permanent easement limiting the 1, Eiparking there or other uses is not something that Cornell would I ;1grant? iI i 11MR. BENTKOWSKI : I will just - I don' t know the case but all I have Ito do is to refer back to the case that was before the Zoning Board lion Eddy Street - no, Stewart Avenue _ the Clemente request for a i! !permanent license to use the University property on Williams Street ;korner of Williams and Stewart Avenue. We ran into an impass on that. The University will not encumber property which they might ! convey to somebody. f 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any questions for Mr. Bentkowski? Okay '1I would like to invite the appellant to respond to the question I ► about egress. i i� JMR. GALBRAITH.: Okay. Shall I respond from the floor here? 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Why don' t you come back up here . Are you finished 11Mr. Bentkowski? I didn' t mean to cut you off. ;i 11MR. BENTKOWSKI : Yes . For the record I would like to submit the - 11 have a map of the property but I ' ll let itg .at that , I i i) I� r - 16 - j� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Our attention has been drawn to the problems of ; emergency egress . SMR. GALBRAITH: Okay. Obviously any construction that goes on on j this site is also going to require that the Avramis ' s comply with i the applicable building codes . Now regardless of what this Board I did . . . jlCHAIRMAN MARTIN: He will still have to comply with those codes . lWe don' t grant variances from them, but on the other hand it ' s kin I 1of silly for us to even think seriously about a variance when you lrun up against an insurmountable obstacle in some other . . . i MR. GALBRAITH: Okay.- I don' t think the obstacle here would be 'linsurmountable . What it may require from listening to Mr. Bentkow- 1ski - for the record, I think his point is well taken about the I I �lproblem of the egress in back, It may mean having to leave - not llbuilding completely to the back property line, but, for instance , i ; leaving 5 feet in the back or whatever it takes to open the door i� and provide that kind of ground level exit. On terms of our nego- tiations with Cornell now, I don't know if Mr. Bentkowski read the i dletter that I wrote to Mx. Mattyas or not following the Planning ;;Board meeting - I had hoped that I could get a response from someonle Hat Cornell prior to this meeting. Maybe this was their response, !! I don' t know. But obviously Cornell rents parking space to other ! ( individuals up there - we were hoping that they might rent us de- ; livery room - access - simply the ability to run a couple of trucks i! !jin and out of there, perhaps a few times a day at the most. As I !said, obviously anything that this Board does would have to be con-! Iditional upon us reaching some kind of accommodation like that with jCornell. I don' t believe - I don' t think Mr. - I ' ll withdraw that i! I{ Incidentally, before the Planning Board I don't think that I cer- 1tainly made any statement that we ever believed we had a right-of- Hway over Cornell ' s property to the rear. That ' s never been our I !!position and we don' t now - anything like that is something either i I da license or simply the rental of delivery space would be something ii ! that we would have to work out with Cornell in the future. I would t, ladd that this particular piece of property - while we don' t have a ! (i ! i ;i i I - 17 i� ;1 I right-of-way over it - Mr. Petrillose who owns the gas station next I ;! door, does have a right-of-way over it and it seems doubtful to me i! ,, that Cornell would ever construct anything in this driveway. I i ! think it' s a driveway now, it ' s going to be a driveway forever 1there. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Further questions? Thank you Mr. Galbraith. i Yes, Mr. Bentkowski? ! MR. BENTKOWSKT: I have the letter that Mr. Galbraith sent to Mr. i ! Mattyas and . . . �ICHAIRMAN MARTIN : You do have it? IMR. BENTKOWSKI: I have it, yes I do. !l CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you. 'JMR. BENTKOWSKI : Mr. Avramis did, in fact, rent from us - two ii ! spaces , when he was in business , for garbage. He still owes us re t. I I flCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who has testimony on case i; 11230? Our next case. !I i i! 1! 1 l i� ,I 'i li f' i I' I ii i� i I I i i it !i it i ! ii ,I �I 1 i, Ij 1` �I �I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS Ii I' ,i NOVEMBER 13 , 1978 EXECUTIVE SESSION 16 I� !; APPEAL NO. 1230 ,1 CHAIRMAN MARTIN: T move that the area variances requested in I j Case 1230 be denied. I IMR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. ,I I FINDING OF FACT: 1) It was clear from the testimony of the representative of the appellants and also the i representative for Cornell University that th !� problems of access for deliveries and emergency i egress from the proposed buildings have not yet been solved. Without an adequate solutio !� to these problems, variances permitting such I I �j an intensive use would be unwarranted. If anc� i when those problems are solved the Board woul 'c entertain a motion to reconsider the variance i �} denial. 2) The Board notes , however, that there is aI fl serious parking problem in the area. While I the appellant argues that the most intensive i! i; use proposed for these buildings - the theate and disco - are nighttime uses , there is evi- dence that even at night there is little avai - i; able off-street parking at the moment , includ �o I! ing the public lot on which the appellant relies . ;( VOTE : 4 Yes ; 0 No; 2 Absent. Area variances denied. I i� i� I i I I I I. l is i;' !+ I ' l - 19 - ( SECRETARY HOARD Announced the next appeal to be heard: 'I Appeal No. 1231 : Appeal of Newton Williams for a use I variance under Section 30. 25 , Col- umns 2 and 3 to permit use of the property at 310 Dey Street for a driveway and parking area for a ii business , and for future expansion of the business . The property is (' located in an R-2b use district, i ! which business uses are not per- permitted. I IMR. HOARD: Is there anyone here to present this case? 'I jCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone here to present this case? We Iimove on to the next, calling this one - Mr. Bordoni? !! jALDERMAN BORDONI : I 'm not here to present it but I am here to speak H j against it. May I have that opportunity sir? l ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It ' s a bit pointless to have the opposition if ', there is no target for it . On the other hand it' s an imposition jon people wh.o come to oppose, not to have a chance to do so. How I 1, many people here have testimony on case 1231 that they would like to present? (.show of hands indicated three people) Why don' t we i ii jcreate the opportunity for you to present your opposition, we will ii ;; not render a decision tonight without someone to present the appell jllant' s case but at least you will have your opposition in the public ; record and need not come forth another night to present it. In case 1231 there is no one to represent the appellant but there ar ( some individuals who wish to speak in opposition. ALDERMAN BORDONI : First of all , I am the alderman from that area �11ii Land one of my primary purposes in being an alderman from that area, I ,lis to maintain its residential character and this particular area (' clearly is just exactly that . The house in question that they wis to tear down and turn it into use as a driveway and parking area ( for a business that is presently located on the corner of Lincoln jStreet and Willow Avenue already has plenty of parking on a very Ijsubstantial parking area. In addition to the parking area that they have, they also have available off-street parking on Willow ;' Avenue and Lincoln Street so there is definitely no shortage of jjparking in that area. If the appeal were granted this would, in i; 1 effect, isolate the home on the corner of Dey Street and Lincoln �j i I II s !( - 20 - fl (Street which belongs to Mr. Longo. He has been a resident at that i i iEhouse for twenty-four years , I believe it is , and he takes probably has good care of his home as - I 'd say his home is probably in the I ; top 10% of good care in the Fall Creek area. There is a lot behind i IMr. Longo on Dey Street now is used by a garage for tire storage I, i,so that piece of property gets some commercial use. The property inext to him on Lincoln Street has at various times been a small ;woodworking shop, presently it is some sort of a light industry. I` If the house which is in question were torn down you would, in j�effect, be isolating Mr . Longo and completely surrounding him by icommercial or business properties which would, in turn, reduce the y value of his property. I think it would be true that we would only j1be losing one house out of the entire housing stock, but we are Lt a time when the housing stock in Ithaca is low, the house in , question looks like it could be reused as a residential place with Little difficulty. In addition to my feelings on that I have a iipetition which was circulated amongst the people on the Dey Street block and it reads as follows : "We the residents and owners of property in the 300 block of Dey !!Street, Ithaca, New York, protest the use of the property at 310 f it iDey Street for business use , driveway and parking use by Cayuga ( Electric Company - 309 West Lincoln Street, Ithaca, New York: 1. Joseph F. Longo 3D1 W. Lincoln St. 10/28/78 Ii 2 . Kammill M. Seppos 308 Dey Street 10/28/78 3. Theresa Massimilla 306 Dey Street 10/28/78 I I� if 4 . Albert R. Burns 116 Franklin 10/28/78 f S. Margaret Amici 313 Dey Street 10/28/78 i' 6. Margaret Amici 307 Dey Street 10/28/78 I� 7. Susan Haggerty 310 Dey Street 10/31/78" , It is signed by seven residences in the immediate area only. This +was not circulated in the general neighborhood, only in the homes ;(most closely associated with the property in question. I 'd like to have that entered in on the official record. I also have a letter !j 'I 1 9 I? - 21 laddressed to the Board of Zoning Appeals : I1Board of Zoning Appeals IIthaca, New York 1! Gentlemen: "We would like to have it on record that we are against having the ;. Cayuga Electric Co. use the property located at 310 Dey Street as ;. Cayuga driveway and parking area. i "There is much traffic on Dey Street by large trucks , etc. from th ;; City Barnes located across Route 13 at the intersection of Dey Mand a great deal of general traffic from Route 13 . For a residen- Itial area there are too many trucks and heavy equipment traveling 11this street now. Therefore we are against having a driveway and parking area to add to the problem on Dey Street. H i; "We are unable to attend the meeting in person for my husband work ,Inights and I am unable to attend due to illness but we wish to lyvoice our objections. "Sincerely, E( /s/ Battista Massimilla /s/ Theresa Massimilla 1306 Dey Street ? Ithaca, New York" I, (ALDERMAN BQRDQNI : And to enforce what they are saying there, Dey I IStreet, as you probably all know, is a feeder street to Route 13 . jilt does get a great deal of traffic coming in and off there. Chil- ly jdren have been struck on the corners of Dey Street and Willow Avenue, hdogs ven e, dogs have been killed there - these are cases I'm mentioning because ! they have happened, say, within the last year. It is sort of a speed way. To have an access driveway where tractor/trailer trucks jlmay be pulling in and out would cause more confusion. There are a lot of children and pets In that area and we do have a serious I1traffic condition there so I would just like to leave those thoughts I I Ifwith. you and perhaps will have to comeback next month and go 1through the same thing but I 'd like that all entered on the record. JThank you. KHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any questions? Thank you. IyALDERMAN BQRDQNI : Thank. you. I �f f IiCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else who would like to speak in opposition' I ' on case 1231? Alright, if there is no one else who would like to r 1�be heard, we will conclude this part of the public hearing on 1231,) ? 1although we will call the case again at the very end of the hearing jin the off chance that someone to represent the appellant has come !forth. The next case? I, �i 1 22 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i i NOVEMBER 13, 1978 !iSECRETARY HOARD: The next case, Mr. Chairman, has been withdrawn by the appellant and that was the appeal numbered 1232 , request of William Lower for an interpretation. So the next case that we have i is number 1233: I ; APPEAL NO. 1233 : Appeal of James E. Gardner for an interpretation of Section 30 . 47 , or , if necessary, an area variance under Section 30. 25, Columns 2 and 11 , to permit sub-division of the property !; at 514 South Aurora Street so that i the western portion can be sold to the City of Ithaca for a park without impairing the continued use of the remainder of the property for a legal ! non-conforming use. The eastern por- tion of the property contains multiple dwellings, a non-conforming use in the I R-2a use district in which the property i is located. The latter property also contains structures that are within I the required front yard. ! SECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Gardner is here , were you planning to present i i ii it? !I ! +MR GARDNER: My name is Jim Gardner, I 'm co-owner of the property at 514 S. Aurora Street. The City approached me well over a year ago with regard to vacant land which is part of this parcel extend-1 ' I ding from Hillview Place to Columbia Street, with regard to a need ! '! for a recreational or playground area to the west of South Aurora '; Street, that being a fairly dangerous pedestrian crossing, especia ly ifor young children. Since the zoning in this neighborhood is I ; changed in the recent past, the vacant land is no longer - it is nj ; longer feasible to develop that for housing, in my opinion, and I 'lam convinced at this point that the highest and best use of the la d !lis, in fact, the kind of open area recreational area that the ! E City proposes . We have come to terms on a price and the reason I I ' am here asking for a variance if in fact a variance is necessary, 1, his simply to confirm that a sub-division of this sort will have nol jundesireable affects on the remaining property, which is pre- j i; , existing, nonconforming , multiple residence use . 1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay, could you sketch. for us what will be left ! ,I 23 I I ; after the sub-division and the kind of non-conforming use that iI I exists there. i ! MR. GARDNER: I don' t know whether I can sketch it but I can give s a . . . "t �ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Word picture. SMR. GARDNER: Word picture , I hope . We are basically talking about I " Ilan L shaped parcel . This is S. Aurora Street and Hillview here it Mlpointing to a map) . My land starts at the corner of South Aurora {{ and Hillview, extends back to the west , and then northward toward i jlColumbia Street. The land in question is a vacant stretch - ;j ; piece - between Hillview to the south. and Columbia to the north. � Ln determining with the City the dimensions or the layout of this i�parcel, I have tried to we agreed that it would be well to extend it fthe westerly boundary in proximity to the existing buildings in j j ) order to give a good buffer zone between the parking area of the building on Hillview and the park. For this reason there is a little 11 ; bit of a jog in the property at this point.. The rest of the i E' property is adjacent to the rear or side borders of property owners) I , ;ion Turner Place and Columbia Street. What remains is two structure`s , { twenty-three C23) units, with a parking area for each building. f � JCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any questions from members of the Boardi? IIMR11 . GARDNER: One of the non-conforming - two non-conforming uses i 'gat present, as a result of the zoning change - one is the set back j 1of the building on Hillview Place and the other is simply the multi- I I ple residence use in that neighborhood. Both of these of course awere legal before the zoning change. I I (CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. And the record already says it but I 'm i clear in understanding that you are not proposing any change in the , use of these buildings? I ! IMR. GARDNER: Of the existing buildings , that is correct. ;;CHAIRMAN MARTIN: This is here simply to assure yourself that this I ,i i i = proposed severance of park area will not have any adverse impact on! ' your ability to continue to use those buildings as you have? I l I IMR. GARDNER: I 'm not proposing any change nor have I made any i o change since purchasing the buildings five years ago , except ti I ii ,l i� i - 24 - decrease the number of units in one building and there is a possible there is a question as to the count of the number of buildings - the ; number of units in the other building but I have made no change i! whatsoever. i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any questions? DR. GREENBERG : I think I understand clearly that you have enough !I parking left after this sub-division, right? �IMR. GARDNER: There is the same parking as has always been there and . . . DR. GREENBERG: And that has been sufficient? i! MR. GARDNER: It has been sufficient . . . IDR. GREENBERG: To satisfy the parking, right? i; ;; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: No questions? Anything further to say? Thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak - anyone else li , who would like to speak in favor of the requested variance? 11ALDERMAN HOLMAN: Elva Holman, 141 Pearsall Place, alderman for th jsecond ward. Some time ago it became evident that there was a nee Hand that need has existed for years, for some sort of recreational 1Ispace for the residents of the south - north - whatever - side of lAurora Street. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: West. ii ALDERMAN HOLMAN : West side of Aurora Street , thank you. Because I ! Aurora Street, as Mr. Gardner has indicated, is indeed very dangerous Ifor young children particularly, to cross . There are no traffic i ;+ lights and when the crossing guard is not present at school time, llthen a parent must be present to help children cross the street . ,iThe neighborhood had looked for some time at the property behind 11what was formerly known as "the Home" and which is now Mr. Gardner ' s property and he was kind enough to agree that the City might use iti 1iuntil, and that was the agreement until such time as his Insurance , , Carriers became very nervous about liability, and it was at that 11point that the City began seriously to talk with him about the i! 'possibility of purchasing that property for park land, I think that lithe neighborhood is convinced, and I as an Alerman am convinced, , ; that sub-dividing the property and allowing the City to purchase i �I Y 25 - Ij that part which has been divided from the major portion of the i 'iproperty, will satisfy the requirements of the zoning code for the !green space necessary for the number of units he has. The City has !every intent to keep that a green space - an open space - and I �I would suggest to you as a result of that , that the requirements or i lithe intent, I should say, not the requirements , the intent of the j szoning law will be satisfied by continuing to provide adequate gree i space for the number of units which Mr. Gardner has on the front 11part of the property. He does have adequate parking for the number i! of rental units and I would urge you to consider favorably the sub- jidivision because the space will remain green space. ;CHAIRMAN MARTEN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like `1to be heard on case 1233? No one else on 1233? We will move then i to the next. u it ii ij i I� !j I ii Ij I f I I ; i i� �I i` i{ ffi i i� i i! i i �i I; i! i" i tI 11 i 26 - I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK �I COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 13, 1978 !I EXECUTIVE SESSION I� APPEAL NO. 1233 CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the area variance requested in I case 1233 be granted. 'I IMR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. FINDING OF FACT: 1) The proposed sub-division will permit jl park use which will assure the amount of separation, openness to light and air , access I to the building which the yard requirements ii of the Ordinance are intended to assure. i 2) No proposed change in the use or occupanc of the buildings which will remain in the parcel held by the appellant is proposed. ; VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No; 2 Absent. Area variance granted. i� •i �i E I I� i� ii ii ii i I I� 'I 'f ;i 'i i; I - 27 - 1 l� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 13, 1978 ( SECRETARY HOARD announced the next appeal to be heard. i 1IAPPEAL NO. 1234 : Appeal of John W. Gibson for an area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 12 (minimum required side yard) , to permit renovation of the structure I, at 501-505 North Cayuga Street for j� use as a dental office. The property I is located in a B-2 (business) use district and has one deficient side yard. I�MR. HINES: My name is Bob Hines . When this building was constructed ;lin 1953 it was constructed within a foot of the north line of the property. At that time Northside Liquor & Wince and Northside Drug Ii Store were located immediately north of the property. It was ; operated as a gas station until a year or so ago. Cornell has had � it on the market since that time and the applicant is a contract !!buyer of the property. I 'd like to submit in evidence before you �I a blue print drawing of the property showing its boundary lines andl Ii two photos of its present appearance, a floor plan showing the p ro- ;'posed remodelling of the structure and the architectural plans show- ,ling ho - ,ling the elevation and other views. The market for gas stations on i Cayuga Street has changed since the construction of Route 13 - lwitness the demise of the two or three stations along that area and i ! this use the applicant intends to make of the property is for denta SII iloffices-. Dr. Greenberg is looking at the plan which shows the change. There will be a proposed slight addition to the front of the building but other than that the structure will remain the samel. j'As I stated the use of the property - the construction of the I property was legal when done and, of course the zoning law change land made it a greater set back than is now current required. The I Caking se of the property is permitted so that the only request we are ii is for the set back exception and, as I pointed out at the I Ilplanning Board, it' s a masonry building. The hardship and unique Viand unusual circumstance occasioned by its construction within a Ilfoot of the property line make it impossible to move. If it isn' t I i�permitted to be used for this there isn 't any other use that would I it 'k Ik 28 - !! be permitted except the gas station which is a continuation of the '; previous use. In other words , as I understand the ordinance - if '! you change the use, even though its a permitted use within the zon ;! you have to obtain a variance or an exception because of this set 11back. So, unless its continued to be used as a gas station, it 11can' t be used as anything so we think that there is a unique and 11unusual circumstance present which make it equitable that this ex- ! jception be granted. Jim Truman, who is the owner on Farm Street Ito the immediate east, appeared before the Planning Board and I spoke with him again today, he has no objection, as a matter of �ifact he would be quite happy to see the use of the property change k land we expect that it would be a more attractive use for the neigh- ;�borhood than it had been previously engaged in. John Bentkowski !who is the - represents Cornell , the contract seller, asked if I i 11would apologize for his absence. He says I must apologize for not I ybeing at the hearing for the John Gibson appeal but I have another I! '! zoning hearing in the Village of Lansing. Actually Cornell ' s I! ;! interest in it is to sell the property. Rather than to take any Imore of your time, it seems fairly apparent what the problem is . 'IAre there any questions which . I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You say a modest amount of construction is !involved, but that ' s on the front? 11 1MR. HINES: It ' s cosmetic and a few feet. I think - where ' s the . .i. jf iICHATRMAN MARTIN: And it will not affect the dimension in which !;there is the problem? MR. HINES : No. The dimension where there is a problem is in the �kback and we are a foot away. 11CHAI N MARTIN: �! RMAYes. i 1IMR. HINES : The contract provides that if the - if upon John Gibsons C ,,purchase of the property that we remove the gas tanks and then will! ;immediately will undertake cosmetic changes and make the property ! (more attractive. Of course it' s consistent with the zone use of !the property as a dental office. And John Gibson' s interest is pri !� arily because - or Jim Truman, the neighbor - this will practicall Ileliminate the itinerant� t parking on the property, which has become ;I k �f kk c �I I - 29 - 'ifan eyesore in the neighborhood and, of course , it is all pot holed l, and the windows are broken now so . . . And as I indicated, my cousin ; used to own the gas station down the street - Cayuga Street is not plan attractive gas station street anymore , since the traffic is off on Route 13 . So I don't know what other use of the property would I � be feasible and this seems to be one of the better uses one could i� make of it . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any questions? I IMR. HINES : You don' t feel any conflict of interest, Dr. Greenberg? DR. GREENBERG: Not at all. I� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well if he disqualifies himself, you lose your case. DR. GREENBERG: Right, you mustn' t ask that question. i ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else here who wishes to present i ' testimony on case 1234? i (ALDERMAN HOLMAN: The second ward is on your docket tonight. Elva Il Holman, 141 Pearsall Place. Alderman from the second ward. For . some time the neighborhood has encouraged Cornell to take care of j� that property because it has become a problem for the neighborhood. I HIt has been Cornell ' s stance that they were trying to sell the prop- 'I iferty, that it was a hardship for them and that they were not at all' fhlanxious to maintain the property until such time as they felt they Thad a buyer for it. As I understand it , the addition on the front I ' jwill not interfere with front yard requirements or anything of that ''I I sort. We do have a building that exists in non -conformance with th I` Ifpresent zoning law. There is precedent in the City for converting ,,gas stations into medical facilities of one kind or another and ';they have - I think it has been proven that they can be good neigh- bors within the neighborhood. Thero osed use would have less ` P p v impact on the neighborhood T believe than the current vacant does zf I Band certainly less impact than a gas station would have because of i ; the nature of a professional office and its limited traffic flow. i ; For those reasons Ithink the neighborhood does support the variance 'land certainly I have heard no opposition. Thank you, CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there 'anyone else who wishes to be heard on ii !i I 1 - 30 - I i` ! this case? We will move on to the next. i ii EXECUTIVE SESSION f ( APPEAL NO. 1234 CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the area variance re- quested in 1234 be granted. !SMR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. I� 11FINDING OF FACT: 1 . The proposed use is both consistent it with the requirements for a B-2 zone and is a less intensive use than the I gas station which preceeded it . ii ' 2 . The building was established one foot i from the lot line prior to current I zoning requirements and it is not feasible to comply with the current I ! side yard requirements . 3. No change in the area in which the yard is deficient is proposed. iIVOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 2 Absent . it Area variance granted. 4 i, II ij I I it i' II �f i� 1 I li I I� 1fl 1 I' I' I� i1 !i I t i I; } f 31 - I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i NOVEMBER 13 , 1978 f ;SECRETARY HOARD announced the next appeal to be heard: I i I�APPEAL NO. 1235 : Appeal of John Petrillose , Sr. for a use variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 2 to permit use of the property j at 128 Dryden Road for a used car lot. The property is located in a B-2 use district, in which a used car lot is not a permitted use. A similar appeal was denied by the Board on i September 11 , 1978 . 1f ROBERT PETRILLOSE, JR: I 'm Robert Petrillose , Jr. of 166 Pleasant �fGrove Road in Ithaca and I guess everyone knows what we are talking , about . I have sort of a picture map and in a sense what I want . . .� i '�CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are you going to be able to leave that with us? i i�MR. PETRILLOSE : Yes , you can have it. i ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. ( IMR. PETRILLOSE : What I would like everyone to notice here is just ', the fact that the property is surrounded by parking and, in a sense, i '!Iwe feel that since we can only put approximately six cars in front I of the building it would be no different than the - as far as the f I ;! aesthetic picture looking at the building from the street - it 1 i1 ! would be no different from the city parking lot or Cornell ' s Sheldon jCourt parking lot and in a sense it is an island in the middle of ` ,parking lots and I ' ll pass the . . . ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN : Let me sort of frame the question if I can Mr . 11Petrillose. This case was already here, the variance was denied 115-0 in September. Are you asking us to reconsider that decision? I ;lIf you are then you have to suggest what has changed, there has to I dbe something in the nature of new evidence rather than a mere re- i1 ilarguing of the case. The case was made and lost last September. MR. PETRILLOSE: Yes . We feel that possibly the Board didn' t !! understand exactly what we were talking about or what we wanted to l ldo. We also, as I am going to propose in a statement that I am fgoi.ng to read, do have something different to propose. `( CHAIRMAN MARTIN : Okay. 1j f� j - 32 - �i 1MR. PETRILLOSE : As far as a time limit on the variance or to whom i the variance can be used or by what parties the variance could be ;fused, etc. '! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay, so you do have something new? HMR. PETRILLOSE : Yes , we do have something new. I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright. I MR. PETRILLOSE: First of all I have a petition signed by fifteen 11 (15) merchants in the Collegetown area that I would like to present to the Board. I have three letters in support of our variance - 11one from the First National bank, one from the Christopher George ( Corporation and one from Ithaca Rental & Leasing and would you w ;' like me to read those or shall I just present them to the Board? ii iCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well , why don't you read them if you'd like to j ii ;(read them. MR. PETRILLOSE: And again, this is from the Christopher George f � IiCorporation, 304 College Avenue : "Board of Zoning Appeals November 8 , 1978 IiCity of Ithaca 1108 East Green Street ifIthaca, New York 14850 I it Re : Appeal of Robert Petrillose, Sr. & Jr . for use variance at 128 Dryden Road. IlGentlemen: 111'As property owners in the Collegetown area since 1947 we would !like to urge that you approve the request referenced above for the following three reasons : li 1. The property has been used for many years as a gas station and it ' s use as a auto sales garage will i present no significant visual change. j 2 . The request variance is for a limited time . I i� 3 . The Petrillose family have been conscientious property owners in this area for many years and would not , operate their business to the detriment of the area. r "Thank. you for your consideration." "Sincerely, j/s/ C. J. Anagnost ;i I,"CHRISTOPHER GEORGE CORPORATION I1304 College Avenue" 'cc: Robert Petrillose Sr. & Jr. ji 128 Dryden Road I Ithaca, New York 14850 ii !I - 33 - ; IMR. PETRILLOSE : This is from the First National Bank: 1 "October 25, 1978 ; Board of Zoning Appeals ;; City of Ithaca, New York I Gentlemen: it ;1 "As a representative of First National Bank of Ithaca, N.Y. i !lCollegetown office, I hereby support the request of a variance to IlRobert C. Petrillose, Sr. , and Robert C. Petrillose , Jr. , to use tithe property located at 128 Dryden Road, as a used car sales ;;property. "As it is now used as a parking lot, I cannot see how it would be adversely affected by selling used cars there. i ;;in I have known the Petrillose family for a long time, and know that Pif they promise to keep the area clean and respectable, they will . Ii i01"Therefore, upon my absence from this meeting, please accept this letter as the Bank' s vote, to grant to the Petrillose family the 11variance they request . 'i 1"Thank you for your attention and cooperation in this matter. " "Sincerely, it /s/ Joseph E. King jlBranch Officer $ Manager" ,MR. PETRILLOSE : From Ithaca Renting Leasing Co. : !'"October 30, 1978 I' I !"Board of Zoning Appeals IlCity Hall iflthaca, New York 14850 j 11Re: 128 Dryden Road ;, P iDear Board: ji"Robert C. Petrillose Sr . & Jr. have written me notice of your j �earing on 13 November 1978 concerning their application for a !i Variance to permit them to sell used cars at the subject location. , 1.�'I own property at 123 , 125 , and 127 Dryden Road all of which are rd.irectly opposite the appellants property. If any property is ihi.kely to be affected by their operation, my property must surely !4ualify. i P'As an affected party, a property owner and taxpayer , and as a bnowledgeable adult cognizant of the nature of the proposed usiness , I support the application and urge you to approve the ; application. " 'i !'Very truly yours, 'Vs/ Jason Fane" ,G i; i i !i - 34 - i{ IiMR. PETRILLOSE : I have just a brief statement. We are again asking for a variance for several reasons . One of them being that we do of ( feel that it is an unreasonable request for a variance and secondl dwe feel that the Board may not have fully understood our position. hhe Petrillose family has owned property and operated businesses i the Collegetown area since 1919 . My grandfather, John Petrillose, �Ihas seen Collegetown go through many phases . He has always tried ,i , to maintain a proposed project for the betterment of Collegetown. 0 ; You have our word that the property at 128 Dryden Road will not �The an eyesore or a detriment to Collegetown or the City. The prop- iierty at 128 Dryden Road has been vacant since July 1976 . Up until that time it had been a Sunoco gas station for thirty years . Be- ! tween July 1976 and July 1978 the building had numerous windows I broken and the small parking area in the front of the building was fused by the public as a free parking area and a place to deposit !papers and empty beer cans . A good example of this condition today �i !would be the former Texaco station on the corner of Dryden Road and ; College Avenue. In July of this year my grandfather, John Petrillo e , 11in an attempt to give me a start in business, offered me the E ! property at 128 Dryden Road, rent free until February 1979 . We !were unaware at that time that the zoning had been changed to B-2 ! from B-4 . It is unfortunate property owners are not made fully aware when the zoning is changed on their property. John Petrillos !;has had several opportunities to rent the property to such business s i !ias an auto body repair shop, a discount beer store, a small grocery !store and a clothing store, all of them. leaving the building in its jpresent configuration. Other rental inquiries have been made by i representatives of a movie theater company, a book store, a drug store, all of them needing a building that had to be built out to i ithe sidewalk with no parking provisions on the property because of ;its 45 ' x 100 ' size. The used car lot is a low key approach to Jutilizing the property in its existing state , refurbishing the out-! II' I 'side , of course. The lot in the front of the building can only i 'accommodate six cars unless you double park them, Any business 11generating high traffic could not be handled by the property or the i i 35 - l! ;( city parking lot next door because it is full from 9 : 00 A.M. on. `l In fact, I have to turn away several cars a day wishing to double 1park in front of the building. There is no doubt that the propert at 128 Dryden Road is very valuable by itself and also in terms of ! developing Collegetown, we will not stand in the way of an organize ,;effort to redevelop Collegetown when that happens in the future. ! Cornell University is very interested in purchasing the land , the ii '(City of Ithaca has been proposing a parking ramp for which they would need this parcel of land. This also makes one wonder how the j�City can sit in judgment of how property is used when they have a iknown vested interest in it. In closing let me remind you that you 1+have my assurance that the property will be well maintained and not ( become an eyesore. We will not put up any banners or strings of flights, our hours will be from 10 : 00 A.M. to 6 : 00 P.M. Monday thru i l�Friday. Also we would be agreeable to a variance limited to two Ij j�years with a reapproval option and limited to the parties requesting I this variance. I thank you for your attention. Any questions? !!CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well , to my ears what you had this evening was ';IInot anything more than an elaboration of the case made at the t jearlier hearing where the Board denied the variance . IMR. PETRILLOSE : And the fact that we are proposing the possibility E# j!of a two year variance. , I1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right, although it was quite clear at that earlie 1,hearing that the proposed use was a temporary one , that you were i 11not seeking . . . IMR. PETRILLOSE: Yes , we are setting an actual time limit on it now. ;i �JCHAIRMAN MARTIN: You are putting a time limit on it? IMR. PETRILLOSE: Yes . ii I IiCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Are there any questions from members of th Board? Thank you Mr. Petr ,llose, Is there anyone else who would hilike to be heard on this request for a reconsideration of the de- 1cision that the Board made in September? We ' ll move on then to the :t Hnext case. ii ii i E r I l fj i - 36 - j r BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK jj COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 13, 1978 I EXECUTIVE SESSION 'I € APPEAL NO. 1235 : i ' CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the Board not reconsider its decision of 9/11/78 denying a use variance t I� permit used car sales at 128 Dryden Road. i ii MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. ii FINDING OF FACT : 1) The evidence presented by the appellant at the November hearing was fully consistent i with the presentation at the earlier hearing. 'i It included no significant new evidence that i( t would justify the Board reversing that ii i earlier decision. ;+VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No; 2 Absent. ii ii i 1 it I� ii i f i i� 1�I � V I� r� I i I 'i ii 'i i! i " i - 37 - i! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i! CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i NOVEMBER 13, 1978 �i '! SECRETARY HOARD: The next case, Mr. Chairman, is appeal No. 1236 . ij iAPPEAL NO. 1236 : Appeal of Karl and Sophie Hitzelberger for a area variance under Section 30. 25 , Columns 6 , 10 , 11 and 12 to permit construction of a garage in the front yard of the property at 126 Farm Street in an R-2b use district . The property is deficient in minimum lot size, i! and if the garage is constructed, the property will also be deficient in required front yard ! and side yard depth, and the maximum permitted lot coverage will be exceeded. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is someone here to present that appeal? : HUGH HURLBUT: We are asking if we may postpone this until the next ;meeting since there are only four members of the Board here? iCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Surely. SMR. HURLBUT: And when is that meeting? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We have yet to determine when that meeting is . jWe could determine it right now if you would like, subject to check- ling with the two members of the Board who aren' t here because their javailability will affect the decision. The first Monday in DecembeIr when would that be? 11DR. GREENBERG: December 4th. i' ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: December the 4th. Any problem with that among the I four here? Alright our meeting will be scheduled for December 4th. ii 'SMR. HURLBUT: Thank you. "CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So case 1236 will be held over until the December I' meeting. That takes us to our next case. "I i , i , i! " ! ii " " 'E I !I '� - - 38 i' i j� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ji CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS �I NOVEMBER 13, 1978 i� ; SECRETARY HOARD: The final case is appeal No . 1237 . 'appeal No. 1237 : Appeal of David L. McCreary et al , for a use it variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 2 to permit use of the single family house at 137 Crescent Place as a residence for three �i unrelated persons . The property is located in an R-lb use district, in which a dwelling �I unit may be occupied by no more than two ,j unrelated persons . i'IMR. DUMONT: I am Peter Dumont of 37 Whig Street , Trumansburg , I am ,i iiagent for the owner, and I am also appearing for the appellant this ievening. I am a licensed real estate broker and a property manage- 1 jment company. The only significant thing that has occurred since ijthe submission of the application wherein we described in some de- 11tail the various hardships that would accrue to the out-of-town (owner and the three tenants who are there in violation because of i +ian error T made in looking at the little black dots on the zoning ;I Imap, is the fact that, as we stated in the application, the house ,lis under - is for sale and there is a strong probability that it i 1would be under contract which would render a long period of time ! kind of moot - as of this afternoon the house is under contract for :sale and that is substantially all Ichoose to say. iCHAIRMAN MARTIN: I have a question. From time to time owners of i, ; properties in R-1 zones are away for a period of time and they may j�find it attractive to rent to more than two unrelated individuals . j�What distinguishes this case from that larger number? IMR. DUMONT: The intent of the owner is to 1) sell the house, not tp !+ I trent it, it was listed in June . - There was beginning because of i� j'vacancy and the necessity to pay rent where they are now permanent) ,,living and make a mortgage payment where they had vacancy in Ithaca I�they requested that I rent it. I simply misread when I listed ithe house , not when I rented it , the zoning as R-2b. The only dif- !Iference is the size of the little black dots on the zoning map. it �i '�.as a three bedroom house, I proceeded to rent it to three people i who happen to be unrelated. ' And quite properly there was some con- y il , vary cern in the neighborhood. The intent is frank) not to the ii I !f � - 39 - i !!zoning, we wouldn' t be here . . . :!CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay, so that the limiting features - the dis- jl Itinguishing features are l) - that the owner ' s intent was honest and Ipure, the mistake was yours and it 's a problem for a brief period f? I 'iof time, the owner wants to sell , a contract buyer . . . i! (MR. DUMONT: The contract buyer now exists . 11 111CHAIRMAN MARTIN : Yes . 1i DR. GREENBERG : how long a lease do the tenants have? lIMR. DUMONT: They have a lease until June 1st. However there is a �Iclause that says from date of closing they have sixty L60) days to jIvacate, so if we close tomorrow, it would be two months . However , din fairness the probability is that it will not close until possibl (January or February. 1DR. GREENBERG: So actually what you are asking at most is up to Ju e? lMR. DUMONT: That is correct. And to address ourselves to the issue lof the zoning, we have some concern - it is a single family that is !willing to purchase the house and we have total emphathy for the 1people in the neighborhood who wish to preserve its character and ;!lits even with trepidation that we discuss the variance because of ,the precedent that it might set for somebody else to come in and i' jisay well look it , you allowed a variance one time, why not this jtime? And T don' t really choose to belabor that point since it is I 'i j jagainst our request. However the reason we are prompted to make f' I I1th. s request is the severe penalties that could accrue to the ownerl, were we not to comply. �i I !!CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any further questions? Thank you. Is f Hthere anyone else who would like to be heard on this case? =ALDERMAN HOLMAN: I think Mr . Dumont has presented his case. it !CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, and I see no one here who has recently 'appeared who might be here in case 1231 . Is there anyone here who j�would like to present views on the proposed revised appeal forms that the Board has given public notice of? I believe then that conclude i `!this part of the public hearing. The Board will go into Executive 11Session to deliberate. i i4 ii i! !{ - 40 - 'f BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS i! NOVEMBER 133, 1978 i; EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1237 : !CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the use variance requested in case 1237 be denied. �iMR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. 11FINDING OF FACT: 1) In order for a use variance to be granted ji it would have to be found that this property can not be used for occupancy permitted in an ii R-lb zone . There was no testimony to that ! j affect. 2) The situation in which the Zoning Ordinance created difficulty was one created by the j' ! owner or the owner ' s agent. Such self create {' hardship cannot be a bis for a variance . i, I� 3) According to testimony presented the i tenants who would be the ones to suffer by i �i enforcement of the Ordinance in this case held i I! under a lease which contemplated termination li in the event of a sale . So they should have i ' known of the possibility that they might not ! be able to stay through to the end of the it lease . I! ! VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No; 2 Absent. Use variance denied. { ! i I� { i i i i 'i �I I � - 41 - �I I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I NOVEMBER 13, 1978 EXECUTIVE SESSION r IREVISED APPEAL FORMS ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the document designated "rough draft" which has been circulated by the i� Building Commissioner as proposed new appeal form be approved by the Board. I MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. ' VOTE: 4 Aye ; 0 Nay; 2 Absent. ;C I c i i` I� !i !f 4I� ii �I 4 I�i ff i! I� II f� ii ii I! ') I j �i i i i i ! I iI - 42 - I� 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 1230 , 1231 , 1232 , 1233 , 1234 , 1235 , 1236 and 1237 on i November 13, 1978 at City Hall , City of Ithaca, New York; that I �i have transcribed same , and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, on the above date, i! and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. 'I !I I 1.� Barbara C. Ruane i Recording Secretary I 'I I i! I ii ij Sworn to before me this day of 1978 . l i j' Notary Public ! I RT -riT N: '�1 york i ! Notar. 3 i� i� I i it i I� i� 'I !i I - 43 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS �i G NOVEMBER 13 , 1978 't Fi EXECUTIVE SESSION i� IE CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the following statement be approve by the Board for transmittal to the City Attor- ney in clarification of the Board' s decision o October 2 , 1978 on the S $ M Appeal . i� DR. GREENBERG: I second the motion. I j� VOTE: Aye: 4 ; Nay: 0; Absent : 2 Statement : The first motion voted on by the Board was intended to determine whether there was sufficient support for a variance to warrant consideration of the appellant ' s four (4) specific proposals . !i Since the Board had, at its September meeting, denied a variance to the appellant, there seemed a fair likelihood the initial �i j motion would not pass , thus saving the Board the time necessary ii for detailed discussion of the individual proposals . The motion f was framed in general terms which would meet the approval of any Ej Board member willing to grant the variances required by any one ff of the appellant 's proposals . It was contemplated that if the l motion passed, as it did, the Board would proceed to identifica- tion of which of the proposals the Board would approve . f` i y I Subsequent discussion disclosed that while there were four member l present who would vote for at least one of the S & M proposals it (which is why the first motion passed) ; two of those members held mutually incompatible positions . One was prepared only to accept j a plan that provided the maximum possible amount of off-street parking; the other only a plan that did not require the destruc- tion of the structure at 315 N. Tioga. The consequence, reflecte i in the votes on the motions concerning the individual proposals , was that no specific variance request received the necessary support of four Board members . This led the Chairman, with the i f 44 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 13, 1978 'EXECUTIVE' SESSI'ON agreement of the Board members present , to conclude that no variance had been granted.