HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1968-08-12 EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL,
ITHACA, NEW YORK, AUGUST 12, 1968,, ADJOURNED FROM AUGUST 5, 1968 TO
CONSIDER APPEALS NOS. 804 and 805
APPEAL NO. 804
The findings of fact are as follows:
1) That the design and construction of this building, being of steel and
concrete, covering 100% of the lot, makes the cost of removal unreasonably
high.
2) That in order to provide a multiple dwelling building covering the per-
centage of the lot contemplated, under the Ordinance, the building would
either have to be removed or considerable additional land surrounding
the same, purchased.
3) That the cost of re-modelling the existing structure on the existing plot
as a multiple dwelling building would be in excess of $100,000.
4) That the evidence now shows that 14 apartments was the minimum number
needed to produce a reasonable retuvn on this property.
5) That the conversion of the building to apartment use returns the premises
to a permitted use.
Motion by Mr. Pfann: We therefore move to grant the applicaMn.
By Mr. Weaver: Second.
VOTE: Yes - 4 No - 2
I
APPEAL NO. 805:
r' The findings of fact are as follows:
1) That the neighborhood is in fact residential in character.
2) That the south side of Green Street is zoned residential in accordance
with the current Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ithaca.
3) That the north side of Green Street in this block, whereas zoned B-1, is i
fact predominantly residential.
4) That the said area has been residential for upwards of sixty years and has
been so zoned since 1961.
5) That the use of the barn on the premises as a storage facility has been
a non-conforming use even during the period between 1950 and 1961 when the
area was zoned for business.
6) That any hardship that now exists is a self-imposed hardship by reason of
permitting the premises to deteriorate to an excessive degree over a
period of years.
7) That there is no hardship shown to merit a variance from Zoning regulation;;
that a hardship caused by a failure to maintain the property is not justi-
fication for the granting of a variance.
8) That the evidence did not show a reasonable attempt to offer or sell the
property for any of its permitted uses.
MOTION BY MR. WEAVER: We there fore move to deny the application on
the grounds that there was no hardship nor
practical difficulty substantiated.
BY MR. BENTKOWSKI; Second.
VOTE: Yes - 6 No - 0
Communication from Planning Board addressed to Board of Zoning Appeals in
^ regard to the Spencer Road area, read to Board by Chairman Comstock.
Next public hearing of Board of Zoning Appeals scheduled for September 5, 1968
at 7:30 P.M.
I