Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1966-11-07 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, NOVEMBER 71 1966 Appeals Nos. 720, 724, 726, 727, 728 PRESENT: GEOFFREY WEAVER, Chairman RALPH BALDINI GEORGE R. PFANN, JR. W. H. ELWOOD JOHN EWANICKI RICHARD COMSTOCK C. MURRAY VAN MARTER, Building Commissioner & Secretary THE CHAIR: May we come to order, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The members present are Doctor Ralph Baldint, Mr. Pfann, Mr. Elwood, Mr. Ewanicki, Colonel Comstock, Mr. Van Marter, Building Commissioner, and myself as Chairman. There are five cases on the calen- dar for tonight, so it would help if you, who wish to spec would confine your remarks to hardships, practical diffi- culties, unique circumstances, and matters pertinent to the hearing. Our first case is No. 720. This is the appeal of Adele Lesley Wells, Maplewood Drive, Ithaca, New York, for an exception under Section 79 Column 7, minimum lot size for four apartments at 211 Eddy Street, Ithaca, New York, in an R-3 zone. Do we have, some-one here to represent the appellant? MRS. LAURA HOLMBERG: I am Laura Holmberg, representing the appellant, Mrs. Wells I am sorry that Mrs. Wells is unable to appear, but she had to go to Europe. I have with me the affidavit of service by mail to all neighbors. I believe that the request is almost self-explanatory. Mrs. Wells has bought this proper-y and is planning to convert this property to four apartments She is planning to have one apartment on the first floor, one on the third, and if the exception is granted, there would be an apartment for one person and an apartment for two on the second floor. It will cost $12,000 and by in- creasing the number of apartments to four, the rental incom would be increased by $1,000 per year. The square footage as computed would be 2283 square feet per family, which is just under the requirement in the Code. I might point out that if it is new construction, it is about 700 square feet more than requirdd for new construction. It would serve to add to the appearance; there would be no changed in the size -2- of the building in proportion to the lot. There will be parking in the rear for four apartments. The work will be done immediately, and we have approve plans for the renovation, of first quality. And now, I do not know what questions you might have. The variation is size is minimum and it will not change the character of the house. It has never been an apartment house, but under the present regulations three would be permissible, and under this exception, four would be. THE CHAIR: How many cars would it accomodate out back? MR. VAN MARTER: Four cars, which is the requirement under the Ordinance. THE CHAIR: Do we have the plans here? MRS. HOLMBERG: Yes, I have a set of plans which any one may look at. Board members look at plans THE CHAIR: Is there any one here appearing in favor of this appeal? None. Is there any one here opposed to this appeal? ROBERT LANGHANS: 106 Cook Street. I have appeared before the Board previ- ously, generally representing the East Hill Civic Associa- tion, but this has gotten closer, so-I guess I am represen ting myself. To be consistent with our philospphy, we have tried to broad- cast these matters and talk to you people, and we would necessarily have .to object to the granting of this exception because it is allowing more apart- ments in a building than the Zoning laws have been designed for. Five min-A-18 ago we had our first opportunity to look at these plans, although we have ha representatives who have gone downtown previously to see them. They said th t this building before had been a rooming house. I do not know whether this i true officially of this house, but this was the house Miss Hitchcock lived i and previous to that she had had two or three girls on the second floor, and a single boy on the top floor during the winter. I notice that I counted bedrooms and if this is to be rented on a bedroom basis, they could fit in something like twelve or so people. This would increase the density, more than if it would for students. One of our problems has to do with parking. I think the other objection would be, if they have gone to the trouble of sketching in how they will fix the inside of the house and have ignored this parking situ. ation that we have fought already, - they say four cars in the back yard and I am not sure that is possible. Right now it is in a garden type area, and so I would assume it would mean the removal of trees, and so forth, these being a few of the reasons we would request that you deny this exception. JOHN HARDING: 202 Eddy Street. I have also appeared here before this Board representing the East Hill Civic Association. In this patticular case, it seems the essential issue is the question of lot size, and there seems to be a good deal of difficulty in determining just what the facts of the case are. My wife has checked the file which was presented to you when the request was first made for the exception, in which it was claimed the lot was 8800 square feet, and she and Mr. Stuart Stein checked the CityAssessor's records which show the lot to be 71 feet by 110 •3*• which would be 7800 square feet. Mrs. Holmberg has informed us that actor» ding to the plan, giving 127 feet by 72 feet, it would be 9144 square feet. All of these three different estimates of lot size agree in that they are more than 7500 square feet, which would be the minimum for three units, and less than 10,000 feet for four units. Our feeling is that if we are getting close to 10,000 and about 500 square feet short, we would not object to rounding it up; on the other hand., with the lot size shown in the City Assessor's office as 7810 square feet, then you are asking the Court for a whole extra apartment%°on th basis of 300 square feet, which seems to me to be a clear violation of the Zoning Ordinance, So we would like to ask you to defer .a :.dec_is:ion on this until it can be ascertained just how big the lot is, MRS.. HOLMSERG: ' We have not had the lot surveyed and have had two people making tape check, but I think you know this old deed went back to 1901 and you do not know where the street line is. It has not been surveyed. THE CHAIR: Do you think a survey would produce more than 7500 square feet? MRS. HOLMBERG: Yes. On the 8800 square feet it was mine, using a round figure. THE CHAIR: Mr. Van Marter finds that it shows 7810 against the 10,000 MRS, HOLMBERG: Two tapes have shown 127 feet by 72 feet. MRS. BEDDOE: 105 Catherine Street. I live right next. My lot comes up to where these cars would be pdrked and I am concerned about the parking, and of course the more people in the house the more cars they would have. That is where my Interest lies. ARTHUR BURR: 101 Orchard Place. I wish to oppose on the basis this neighborhood is already overcrowded with parking and peopi and any exception should be opposed. MRS. JOHN HISTED: 209 Eddy Street. I live next door and wish to object on the parking. It is just going to make nothing for us. MRS. ARTHUR BURR: I wish to support the objections given, and I mostly objet to allowing them to have four apartments when it seems to us that there is other property available. I wish particu- larly to ask that this decision be deferred until it is investigated. I am also concerned about the nature of the neighborhood, not whether there are one, two, three or four apartments, but about the building being appropriate for the use it will be put to. I am concerned about the fact that there has been an elderly woman living here with no students, who has had a normal amount of garbage put on the curb. If she did rent to students, she rented to so few that that this would amount to the same thing you would expect in this type of house for a normal family, which would amount to the same amount of garbage and car parking. I am also concerned about considering this house -4» being available to a certain number of people. It will end up with so many more garbage pails on the street and also so many more cars. I do not know if it is possible to have four apartments and come within the law, but cer- tainly to begin with, the building as planned, the situation would not turn out to be what we would wish it to be. I will conclude that I feel if we allow this we are setting a precedent and the first thing we know there is no point in having a zoning law. MR. PFANN: How long has the appellant owned this property? MRS. HOLMBERG: They have just bought it from the Hitchcock Estate. I undo - stand that there have been students there but it is unoccu- pied at the moment. I wanted to point out the density - that under the zoning law this house can have three apartments as it is. This would of course mean with one apartment on the second floor instead of two, and I would assume they could put the same number of people in that space. Th present plan is that the fourth apartment would be for one person and with on additional parking space required. I would think it would be permissible to have four parking spaces which would be required. MRS. ARTHUR BURR: Having been in the Off-Campus Housing Office, I handled this property from that angle. I would like to say that Mrs. Hitchcock was very fussy about the situation. I feel that having three or four girls there, as she did, is different from having four apartments in the house. I do not think you can evaluate this from a matter of density. I am objecting to four because it was not necessary before. MRS. BEDDOE: I forgot to mention the garbage pails. I am the one who wii have to look at these and if it is like some others I will be at the police station most of the time. If I have to look out with all those cans, it will not be pleasant. MRS. ROBERT LANGHANS: How come they did not apply under the ADD for these apartments? MR. VAN MARTER: Everything that is asked for here is provided in the Zoning Ordinance. ROBERT LANGHANS: I was thinking from our viewpoint when a change was made like this we had to apply. MR. VAN MARTER: You have accomplished the same thing. THE CHAIR: (Reads aloud the memorandum from the Planning Board). MR. PFANN: How many people would normally live in these three apartment as they stand now? MRS. HOLMBERG: Seve*l I think, three on the again floor, the third floor, single, and the second floor, one and two. ROBERT LANGHANS: I model[ counted six bedrooms. -5- MRS. HOLMBERG: The second floor would be a two bedroom apartment. I do not know if they are looking for students or for faculty members. MR. VAN MARTER: Mr. D. Boardman Lee, representing Lela Myer, by letter registers opposition in granting the appeal. THE CHAIR: We will now go on to the q#xt case. THE CHAIR: The next case is No. 724, the appeal of the Center Street Building Corporation, 212 Center Street, Ithaca, New York, for a variance and exception under Section 7, Colusus 2 , . and 14, extension for use and side yard in an R-3 zone. Who is appearing? RALPH S. MARVIN: I am Ralph S. Marvin, appearing for the Center Street Building Corporation. I hope you will excuse my attempt at a model but I would like to show what I propose to do. At present there exists the warehouse (showing on model) in the back. At present there has been and is an open shed over the concrete platform, with an enclosed room. I propose to replace this with an enclosure which will come around, leaving the platform where it is and covering the entire area out to the edge of the building. The proposed addition would not extend the building in any way, but would square off the appearance. I would like to present photographs to show what the building looks like at present. Shows Board photographs. Between 1915 and 1917 this was the Burns Carriage Shop and here is a photograph. We have a building on a lot and it is impossible to move it. So we are limited in lot position, and in addition, in any addition we could make. The proposed addition asked for is on an interior line, be- tween buildings, and does not affect nor in any way change the character of the neighborhood. The use would be the same as it is today, with no enlarg _' of the use. At present there is a difficulty in that our salesroom is actually the hall way, and this is an impediment with people passing through the hall way. This is the proposed addition which I would- like to make. It is between our building and the Towner Electric building. At present there is 8h feet between the Towner building and our building and I propose to make an addition of 4h feet, which would still leave a four foot alleyway there. THE CHAIR: I am checking this on the photographs. MR. MARVIN: The edge of the platform would be the edge of the building going out 4h feet towards my neighbor's building to the ea The driveway would be from Plain Street. By changing it a trailer would have to be in on the property and by changing it, no truck would be sticking out into the roadway. -6- Dr, BALDINI: Will Mr. Marvin explain about the front of the building and what it will look like. MR. MARVIN: I propose to close off the present entrance and put a new entry into the new section. On the front it would be Ilk feet. At present the 4'i feet is only along the back sec- tion. The building is wider at the rear than at the front The building would be no closer than four feet from the Towner property. THE CHAIR: So you would be two feet within your own lot? MR. MARVIN: That is my proposal. Mr. Towner is two feet within his lot line. MR. VAN MARTER: This would have to meet the fire loading requirement. Plans are shown to interested people in audience. MR. MARVIN: The elevator would remain where it is. THE CHAIR: Any more questions? Any one here in favor? MR. TOWNER: Representing Towner Electric. I favor any improvement on that corner. It is a big asset to that locality. Right now all it is is a temptation to all the kids in the neigh borhood to raise Hell down there and I have no objection to the addition. THE CHAIR: Is any one opposed? L. S. EVANS: 107 Center Street. Opposed to having unloading of tractor trailers from Center Street. Until the company moved in a 1 the loading was done from the rear lot. You get a tractor trailer at right angles to the street, there isn't room for a car to pass. I think this is a injustice to the people living there; I think it is a fire hazard. They hav plenty of room on their lot for parking and they always use the street. I d not object to their fixing up the property. I think it could be a decided Improvement but I believe they should have a loading lot diagonally off of Plain Street. I am not acquainted with their elevator facilities but it definitely is a traffic hazard to have these tractor trailers blocking Cents Street. MR. MARVIN: Most of our unloading at present is done in the rear. Oco casionally some is done directly to the elevator on Center Street from a tractor trailer. MRS. ARTHUR DICKERSON: 211 Center Street. I am also opposed to this traf- fic hazard, particularly with small children in this area, and I am also opposed to their not keeping up their side- walks and some times it's as early as six in the morning before they are unloaded. -7#* MR, MARVIN: I did neglect to say that in conjunction with the addi- tion, there would be new siding on the outside of the entire property. THE CHAIR: Any questions, gentlemen? None �8.• THE CHAIR: The next appeal is No. 726 - Appeal of Temple Beth E1, for an exception at 132 East Court Street, 402 North Tioga Street, under Section 7, Column 5, and Column 11, offm street parking, and percentage lot coverage in an R-3 zone. Who is to speak for this appeal? MR. HECHT: I am secretary of the Temple Beth E1. There are twd exceptions being asked tonight, and first is the question of offostreet parking. This is a peculiar problem for our Temple because the calendar on which our services are held is different from that of the neighboring churches* Therefore, whatever parking problems we may have do not add to the normal problems others may have, as to church services. In addition to this, there are a goodly numbs of people of our faith who walk to services, That is on of the rules and regulations which some of our people observe, and therefore I feel that the rule of so many seats, requiring so many parking spaces, may not strictly apply. The off-street parking problem really is not a regular one; in other words, we do not have big atten- dances - maybe onee or twice a year the building is filled. We do have a problem in terms of wanting to expand, of having gone to an architect and procured plans which would improve the neighborhood, but require more seating and technically therefore require eight more parking spaces, because of the increase in seating. According to these plans, there is no provision for additional parking. The adjoining lots are narrow and are presently built on. But in order to build the size of extension we need, we can do fairly well within the area which we presently own, by taking down the building and replacing it with a moderm addition and tacking it on to the building which stands at the corner of Tioga and Court Streets. The other exception is of course the lot coverage, and our architects advise that to best meet our requirements, we need a religious school and more room in the sanctuary and in order to do this we are adking that you permit us to extend to the forty-five percent (45%) lot coverage. I have some plans which you may care to look at. We also sent the necessary notices to the neighbors, and I have copies of a certified list. We also have a letter from Wiggins, Tsapis & Golder, advising us that they have no ovjection to the application, which I will turn over to Me Board of Zoning Appeals. I was given permission to borrow the folder. We have preliminary plans which you may care to look at. They are more internal than otherwise, but may give you an idea, Mr. Hecht exhibits preliminary plans to the members of the Board. 09" THE CHAIR: Is there any one here to appear in favor of this appeal? None. THE CHAIR: Es there any one here opposed to this appeal? MARGARET HASSAN: 404 North Tioga Street. I object to the parking because I don't see how they can accomplish what they intend to d . THE CHAIR: The parking will be no different. WILLIAM HASSAN: Part of the notice sent out said that there would be parking. Mr. Hecht reads copy of notice sent to neighbors. THE CHAIR: Nothing changes in regard to parking. MR. HASSAN: I might say that the eontestion around the corner is that which normally the other people do. There is just solid parking there on that corner. -'100 THE CHAIR: The next case is Number 727. This is the appeal of Earland Mancini, 22 Renwicks Heights Road, for a variant under Section 79 Column 2 and a special permit, Section 79 Colvmn 4, for a retail paint store at 401 Hancock Street, use not permitted - sign size not permitted in an R-3 zone. Who is there to speak for this appeal? JAMES McCARTHY: 515 North Aurora Street, appearing for the Mancinis and the Barnes, buyers under contract. I will say first that we are withdrawing part of the petition, that seeking the sign. We are appealing this as a hardship, more to the Mancinis in that the property has been for sale for some months and has not sold. It is in an R-3 zone, as you understand, but it is not sought after as a residential area. As to the matter of the blacktop, it would take Nine Hundred Dollars to remove the black top and grade and seed to put the grass back in if it were sold as a residence. There is a real hardship to Mr. and Mrs. Barnes who are buyers under contract, as they are being displace by flood control, and have sought since sumer to find a suitable location. We feel that this property would be well situated as it provides adequate off-tstreet parking for cars, customers or loading. There is room for about eight cars, with egress to both Hancock and Second Streeti# The properties which Mr. and Mrs. Barnes have seen either did not conform, were not in good repair, or beyond their financial capabilities. We have shown them other proper. ties and other realtors have also, and there are businesses in this area now, and I do not feel that this would be an objectionable business in any way. Trucks can be unloade right on the premises. I might add that I feel this woul be beneficial to all, even to the City. It would give a better tax base and carry a higher assessment if kept up as a business property. THE CHAIR: Are there any questions by the Board? None. Any one appearing in favor of this appeal? None. Any one appearing opposed to this appeal? MR. McCARTHY: Mr, and Mrs. Barnes are here if there are any questions. They would like to continue in the west end. COLONEL COMSTOCK: Where is the property located in relation to the A & P? MR, McCARTHY: Diagonally across the street. There is an independent grocery across now;the Victory store is closer than the A & P store is. -11- THE CHAIR: The next case is Number 728, the appeal of Century Wholesale and Supply Company, 707 Willow Avenue, Ithaca New York, for a special permit under provisions of Section 7, Column 4, proposed sign 68 square feet not permitted in an I-1 zone. Who is appearing? ARTHUR J. GOLDER, Sr. Appearing for Century. (Consults drawings) First let me say that I do not think-that this is too much of a request because the Board by special permit may permit a sign up to 250 square feet, but the regu- lation states 50 square feet, so with 68 square feet, there is an encroachment of 18 square feet. This is about 7.2% of the 250 square feet which would be permitted under a special permit. This sign is an open letter sigi, to be put above the roof line of the building, so that it would be visible from Route 13. It is not what you would consider an advertising sign except for the fact that any time your name is in print it is considered advertising. But it is an identification sign for those people who have been taDld that the Century Wholesale is near Route I3. The building itself is not close enough to the main highway to use a conventional signq for their purposes. There is nothing and probably never will be anything beyond them which would cause any difficulty or obstruction to such sign, so they have asked for this special permit to give 18 feet over the 50 feet allowed. Let me add that if they put flood lights on it, they would be directed away from Route 13 rather than toward it. MR. VAN MARTER: In the application this is described. MR. GOLDER: The letters are four feet high by seventeen feet long. THE CHAIR: Where would it be mounted? MR. GOLDER: As I understand now, the plan is to erect steel angle irons on the edge of the building, the portion away from Route 13 and to have it high. The total height of the sign above the ground would be 19 feet. No, more than that because the building height is 16 and 3 is 19 and 4 is 230 So the top of the sign would be 23 feet off the groutid. THE CHAIR: Is there any one here appearing in favor? None. Anyone opposed to this appeal? None. THE CHAIR: That concludes the heating of the appeals and we will go EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NOVEMBER 7/66 TO CONSIDER APPEALS Nos. 720, 7249 726, 727 and 728 THE CHAIR: Appeal No. 720. DR. BALDINI: Move that we grant the exception for the reasons that this will not necessarily change the number of occupants and will permit greater return, encouraging more im- provement, and further, that the number of parking space per dwelling unit will not change. MR. ELWOOD: Second. VOTING: Yes - 3 No » 3 THE CHAIR: Appeal No. 724. DR. BALDINI: Move the granting of the variance and exception because hardship has been shown as far as sales are concerned; this will improve the off-street unloading; the fire kafety of the building would be improved by the new construction as required by the Building Construction Code; the plan to re*side the entire building will im- prove the appearance of the neighborhood. MR. EWANICKI: Second, VOTING: Yes - S No - 1 THE CHAIR: Appeal No. 726. DR. BALDINI: Move that the appeal be granted bocause basically it does not change the existing use of the building; it is Impossible to comply with the rule of the Ordinance as far as off-street parking is concerned; it will improve the appearance of the neighborhood and would not generate • any more traffic than is now generated, at this time of d y. COL. COMSTOCK: Second. VOTING: Yes - 6 No - 0 THE CHAIR: Appeal No. 727, MR. WEAVER: Move that the appeal be granted because this will not change the character of the neighborhood, and because of the character of the neighborhood, the hardship in selling the property as a residence has developed, and further, it will be in keeping with the atighborhood as the tone of the neighborhood is developing, it being surrounded at the present time by business properties. COL. COMSTOCK: Second, VOTING: Yes - 4 No - 2 THE CHAIR: Appeal No. 728. MR, PFANN: Move to grant a special permit. MR. ELWOOD: Second. VOTING: Yes - 5 No 1 DR. BALDINI: Move to instruct the Building Commissioner to rescind the motion granting in the matter of the appeal of Grossman's.