Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1968-07-01 i ' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK JULY 1st, 1968 APPEALS NOS. 798, 799, 800, 801, 802 PRESENT: RICHARD COMSTOCK, Chairman GEOFFREY WEAVER GEORGE R. PFANN, JR. RALPH P. BALDINI JOHN BENTKOWSKI BEVERLY MARTIN C. MURRAY VAN MARTER, Building Commissioner & Secretary THE CHAIR: Opens meeting, names members of Board present, reads cases to be heard. THE CHAIR: At the request of Richard B. Thaler, who is here as attorney in the case of Appeal No. 801, he has a hearing at eight o'clock in the Town of Danby and has requested that we take this case first. If there are no objections, we will proceed in that order. Case No. 801 is the Appeal of Ansar Husain to construct a new multiple dwelling of eight living units at 309 Eddy Street, exceptions required under the provisions of Section 7, Column 7 and 11 in an R-3 District. RICHARD B. THALER: Gentlemen, if I may have your attention just briefly to the appeal by Mr. Husain in the reconsideration of his case . The previous case number was 795, and at the time this was submitted to you there was a recommendation by the City Plan- ning Board that the requ6st be granted. However, by a 4 to 1 decision because of certain exceptions to the Zoning Ordinanc you chose not to grant him the exceptions. Mr. Husain has amended his plan as previously submitted and now has a re- drafted proposal. But unfortunately, because of the timinx, I am not able at this time to give you the complete re-drawin of the blue print. I have marked the other plan, the one you have considered, over, and have it here to show you the factois necessary to come into compliance. One objection was density, the number of living units in the prescribed area. We have cut these in two and now there will be eight units. This is well within the Ordinance itself; therefore, no exception is necessary for this particular item. There is, however, anoth r item we find impossible to comply with and for which we are asking an exception. This is as to the percentage of ground ti cover. On the previous blue print there was a covered area of terrace on both sides of the building which covered the underground parking. This will now be done away with, and therefore I believe that the percentage I have worked out is about the same as the Building Commissioner. I believe this to be 387.. The maximum is 35% so we are just about within the maximum. Because of the terrain in the back we can not i -2- fit the building we have and come out at 35%. 38% is about the best we can do. We are asking for this exception, the exception on just about the same par, within three percentage points of what it should be. The Planning Board has said this would be an asset to the community. I do not think that any one testified at the last meeting who had objections to what is there. The question seems to be as to whether it is too crowded as far as conditions there are concerned. There will be two more parking spaces than is required by the Zoning Ordinance. He will not have ten parking spaces. This again will be a lard owner providing for parking where parking is at a premium. Exceptions have been granted in this area for apartments buil- dings. We are just asking for an exception for three percen- tage points. We have chopped the living units in half from sixteen to eight. I think you have a recommendation from the Planning Board that this would be beneficial to the area. If you are familiar with the present site I think you will be glad to have most anything there. Mr. Husain will invest a great deal of money to improve this, good parking space and provide first class living accommodations immediately adjacent to the Campus. I ask you respectfully that you re-consider and gran this in the two areas we have requested. I have marked the plan to show you where the original drawing will be changed. You will notice that one kitchen on each side has been elimi- nated and the terrace and one wall on each side. The skeleto will remain the same. Appellant's Exhibit 1 marked for identification This is the architect's drawing with the printed legend as to which is to be eliminated and which is to be included. I have been in personal contact with one of the people who did object the last time and she has withdrawn her objection. And Mrs. Anagnost has indicated that she is in favor. MR. VAN HARTER: How about the certificate of mailing? MR. THALER: I do not have it. THE CHAIR: Any questions by the Board? None. Any one here who wishes to speak in favor? None. Any one here who wishes to speak in opposition? None. MR. BENTKOWSKI: It seems to me that previous to my coming to the Board there was a question of legality, that some of the paper work was not complete. MR. WEAVER: I think we can resolve this. -3- MR. PFANN: If in favor we can make it contingent upon the mailing. MR. THALER: If you are so disposed to grant this subject to my getting this approval I will do so. As I say, I think all of the property owners within a radius of 200 feet have been con- tacted. MR. BENTKOWSKI: I would prefer that we get an original drawing for an ex- ception instead of that one. MR. THALER: We will submit that to the Building Commissioner. We have not had time yet to do this. i -4- THE CHAIRS We will now go to Case #798, the Appeal of Paul V. Anderson et al, to establish a multiple dwelling of 14 units, at 227 Linden Avenue, exceptions required under the provisions of Section 7, Columns 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 in an R-3 distr ct. Who is appearing? LOUIS K. THALER: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, before I start my presentation, in behalf of my client I would like to furnis the Board with a copy of the architect's proposal, and the certificate of mailing. Appellant's Exhibit 1, consisting 6f three sheets, and being Architect's Proposal, marked for identification; accepted. Case No. 798, the present one, was previously numbered 793 and was thus presented, and I was not present. I would also like to present and offer in evidence a petition by propert owners in the vicinity, and they are substantial tax payers Mrs. Anagnost, Mr. Petrillose, Mr. Egan, people who own sub stantial properties in the vicinity. Appellant's Exhibit 2, being such petition, marked for identification, and offered in evidence, and accepted I am personally acquainted with this piece of pnvperty; it was built in 1922 or 1923, at which time it was a garage an there was some objection at that time. It appears to me th t this proposal as now revised, will be a substantial improve ment to that community. It has been approved by the Planni g Board in the memorandum. If you will look at the schematic drawings, I would like to go on. The front of the building as it is now and the way it will be is different as day from night. There will be a covering with this coating (demon- strating) on all the walls. One other thing, is that on the roof of this building as it is now, are these structures, witich, if I lived near them I would not like. They will be entirely eliminated. Take this for instance, which is on top of the building right now. Appellant's Exhibits 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14, and 15 Marked for identification, being pictures of building. Exhibits 3 through 15, ladies and gentlemen, are photograph of the building, inside and out, as it exists now. Number 3 shows the top of the structure on top of the building, which will be eliminated entirely, and more are shown on Exhibits 4 and 5. Exhibit 6 is the present interior of that building as compared to the apartments as proposed on the schematic drawings. That will be a great improvement. On Exhibit 7, these tanks will be gone, which would be objectionable. These tanks are inside. 8 Shows in color some of the roof structure which will be eliminated. I -5- DOCTOR BALDINI: Are we looking west? MR. THALER: As you look at the front of the building, you are looking towards the east. Here again is something else which will be eliminated, whit has been a source of irritation - this smoke stack shown in Exhibit 5. This will be eliminated entirely. On Exhibit 7 which is an indication of what the front of the building to ks like now, and you can imagine what it it would look like afterwards with windows and a nice lobby. As to the questkmn of parking, by re-arrangement with the architect, he now shows 14 parking spaces, one for each tenant. Until recent y there were at least 40 employees in that area and with them eliminated, that seems a great improvement for Linden Avenu . It would certainly alleviate the parking and traffic situat on in that area. You will notice that downstairs it shows jus two small apartments. That is not a public lobby and will not be used by any one but tenants. Each of the tenants will be provided with a key to the lobby and each apartment, en- trance by key only. The center apartments will be lighted by skylight as approved. All of the ideas as incorporated by a professional architect are such that they will meet the approval of the Building Code, and must meet the approval of the Building Code because it must have that approval before the Commissioner can put his final seal on it. Also I wish to point out that it would be a rather undue hardship on the owner of this building if the petition is not granted. He has gone to the trouble to obtain estimates of the cost to demolish the building, and this runs from $20,000 to $40,000. And you would have a vacant lot. In- stead of destroying, he wants to take this building, which is very structurally sound, or he could not accomplish what he wants to do - it is well built and sound - he proposes to improve it in such a way that it will be more to the liking of the people in the community, but also will be a great Improvement for Linden Avenue and the immediate Collegetow area. It seems logical and reasonable that this application be approved even if not the nth degree in compliance per- fectly with the Zoning Ordinance. If he is proposing an improvement to the community it should be granted. The architect is here and one of the owners and they would be glad to answer any questions. Appellant's Exhibits 16 and 17 marked for identification, being estimates of cost of demolition of building. -6- MR. THALER: Exhibit 16 is a statement by Dan Leary, Architect, that he has investigated concerning demolition and received an estimate of $20,000 from Hughes Crane Service, Ithaca, of $40,000 from S & L Paving of Syracuse, and of $30,000 from Pelnik Wrecking of Syracuse and Ithaca, and as shown on Exhibit 17, an estimate of $23,000 from E. Simmons Moving & Wrecking Contractor, Syracuse. As you and I know, in these days where you remodel it is going to go high. DAN LEARY: At this time I can give a figure of $104,160. MR. THALER: Yes, that cost estimate for remodeling is as shown in Exhibit 16, which I am going to leave with you. That, plus the present cost of the building is substantial and it probably will run more. MR. WEAVER: 35,000 square feet is required by the Ordinance and you have 8. MR. THALER: I think it is a little over 9. You have to be practical under the circumstances and the fact that the building has existed there for 42 years, and here is something which will be a great improvement over what has been there previously. MR. PFANN: Could it be used for any other use permitted in an R-1, 2 or 3? MR. THALER: R-2 indicates it is an apartment development. This seems to be a better use than some of those that are indicated. DAN LEARY: Many of these uses listed would not be particularly fitting to a building where most of the useable space is on the second story. Most of the rest of the uses come under multiple dwelling, whether dormitories, fraternity houses or such, of which the least density would be R-2. MR. PFANN: If there were less units than the fourteen you have, would there be a reasonable return for the investment? ROBERT HINES: Mr. Leary is not qualified to answer. DAN LEARY: A great deal is involved in the exterior of the building, and also the garage, and so forth. These would not change We have to reach a point of economy somewhere. MR. THALER: It would probably be better for the investment if they could get more parking in there but it is not feasible nor possi le. THE CHAIR: Is there any to speak in favor? -7- MR. THALER: Mrs. Anagnost has also sent a letter which I would like to present to the Board, indicating that she is very much in favor of it. Appellant's Exhibit 18 marked for identification, being letter over signature of "Margaret Anagnost". THE CHAIR: Is there any one to speak in opposition? ROBERT HINES: May I have the petition? Thank you. I am from the firm of Wiggins, Tsapis, Golder & Holmberg. Immediately I notice on the petition that my mother's name appears at the head of the list, and she told me she was against it. I think it is revealing to pore over these names. Most of them live quite a ways away. Frank Egan doesn't live there; John Hogarty lives on Bryant Avenue, Petrillose on Mitchell Street and Mrs. Genart on the Heights. I am just commenting here - Isabel Larkin way out on Dryden Road, Joe Leonardo not in the neighborhood and George Coles lives way out State Street. MR. THALER: His name is crossed off. MR. HINES: For what these things are worth - my mother's name is on there and I doubt if she supported this. I haven't heard any evidence of hardship; I have heard a lot about beauti- fication of the neighborhood only. What the adjusted base value of the property has been after depreciation for a num- ber of years. I believe this property was acquired by devise. It has been used as a commercial property ever sin e I was in short pants. I suspect its value has been extracted. I would like to point out that those of use who lived in the neighborhood would like to see the property beautified. But I still do not know what relevance that has - it seems non sequitor to me. There seems no evidence that construc- tion of a permitted number of dwelling units would be a hardship. I haven't heard anything but $20,000 would be lost in demolishing the building. I have not heard what the value of the property is, the adjusted base these people have in this property if it isn't depreciated. I think that Is relevant. They are asking to construct approximately three times the number of units permitted. There is no evidence that the number permitted would be unfeasible. We have just heard that more units would be feasible. Very probably it is economically better to jam in more apartment but that does not give a reason to deviate from the Zoning Ordinance. It seems this appeal has not shown any real hardship - to balloon up an existing use three times on the evidence presented. I did not attend the last hearing. If this is all the new evidence, I submit it is not enough. -8- MR. THALER: In view of the fact that counsel is not on the Board and that his client does not live next to this property --- EUGENE PAINTER: Who said I didn't live there? MR. THALER: I said so. MR. PAINTER: Who said I don't live there? MR. HINES: Mr. Painter isn't on trial. I just attacked this per- missibly. . . DOCTOR BALDINI: Where do you live, Mr. Painter? MR. PAINTER: I live on my job. I don't think that's a fair question. I could vote from either place. DOCTOR BALDINI: Where is your legal residence? MR. PAINTER: I live in Hasbrouck Apartments in order to have my job. MR. HINES: The fact that sixty percent of the people in the neighbor- hood approve of a particular thing is not going to be determined by this Board; it has nothing to do with hard- ship. I speak with my mother every day and am just attacking the materiality of this. I am saying the evidence before this Board, legal or otherwise, to show a hardship, is not sufficient to sustain a hardship. MR. PAINTER: I manage Hasbrouck Apartments and have to be there. Whether I am there or in my home on Linden Avenue, what difference. They furnish me a place to live. MR. HINES: Do you maintain an apartment on Linden Avenue? MR. PAINTER: Right. MR. THALER: May I just say this? When you refer to Exhibit 16, you will see that the architect has estimated the total cost as some $120,000. As I understand the law, you have a right to draw on your own experience. You may do as you wish. You may look at it. I submit that based on all the factors, it is a considerable hardship on the owner of the property to do anything other than what he is proposing tonight. MR. HINES: I have urged in the past - when you are being urged to alter, it ceases to be an exception. An exception in the eyes of the law is some minor deviation to alleviate some feature. To balloon something three times does not seem to me to be an exception. An exception is not a major deviation such as this. This takes on the character of a major change. It is a use which is permitted but my point is that when -9- MR. HINES: you alter something to the extent they are asking, it take on the character of a use change. It is approximately three times what is provided for. That is not what is meant by an exception. MR. WEAVER: We are looking for density here. The lot size would not change. MR. THALER: We are just asking for re-modelling the inside of the building and to make the outside more attractive. We have been told time and again that each case stands on its own facts. MR. HINES: All I am saying is that when you have a substantial major change it is not an exception. MR. THALER: That is your opinion. Others of us differ with you many times. THE CHAIR: Is there any one else appearing in opposition? W PAINTER: I would like to say that at the time Southern Linen Supply came in Mr. Thaler represented us. We went in the Supreme Court in Norwich. MR. HINES: The change they want is so substantial I can not feel they should have it on this showing of hardship. They could beautify this property without a zoning change. This is putting in three times the number of units permitted by law. ' i I -10- THE CHAIR: The next case for tonight is No. 799, the Appeal of Sun Oil Company, 301 Hiawatha Boulevard, West Syracuse, New York, for a Special Permit at 348-350 Elmira Road, for a sign size in excess of fifty square feet, under the pro- visions of Section 7, Column 4, in an I-1 district. Who is appearing? EDMUND McLYMOND: Sun Oil Company representative. We are requesting a peti- tion to replace the existing sign with a larger sign. The existing sign of 11 feet to a 16 feet sign, at 348-350 Elmira Road. This property is a service station. The sign presently is located on the northeast corner of the lot and we want to re-locate it to the center of the lot and in- crease the height. from 11 feet to 16 feet, to have better visibility. This is beyond Miller's Garage and immediately north of the Clover Club. MR. WEAVER: How big is the sign? THE CHAIR: Yes, the dimensions of the sign itself? A. The same in width but we want to increase the height from 11 feet to 16 feet, or 128 square feet. In other words, we want to go to 128 feet from 88 feet. THE CHAIR: What is the type of sign? A. A plastic illuminated sign. Q. What does it compare with? A. It is a gasoline service sign. Q. A standard Sunoco sign? A. Yes, sir. (Shows type of sign) Q. Is the one there also a standard Sunoco sign? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the difference between them? What makes it neces- sary to change it? A. The visibility coming from the south. Due to other signs • in the vicinity you can not see it now until you are almost on top of it. By raising it, it would give us better visibility. THE CHAIR: Any one in favor who wishes to speak? None. Any one in opposition who wishes to speak? None. -11- THE CHAIR: Our next case is Case No. 800, the Appeal of Long's Motor Sales, Inc., 231 Elmira Road, for a sign at this address, Special Permit required for sign in excess of fifty square feet, under the provisions of Section 7, Column 4, in a B-4 district. Who is appearing? WILLIAM H. LONG, JR. I am appearing as president of the corporation. Appellant's Exhibits 1 and 2 marked for identification, Exhibit 1 showing as signs appear presently, and Exhibit 2 being a picture of sketch as to the sign as it would appear. What I want to do is have the authority to erect a new sign covering four franchises. I do not know the present size but the new one is to be 80 square feet. Also at the same time I want to take down all the signs on the building as it is now, and I have Exhibit 1 here showing as it is now. THE CHAIR: How many signs will be removed? A. Four. Q. What are the sizes? A. I can not tell you that now. One is about 12 or 15 feet high, and I am guessing about 20 inches. Another one about 40 inches square which no one could see. That is down. We have the standard jeep sign about 30 by 40 inches and an- other about 40 by 40. MR. WEAVER: With Long's Motor Sales, Inc. set forth also? A. Yes, across the building. DR. BALDINI: What will the new sign say on it? A. The schematic of the sign he wants to put up has the names of the maker, GMC Trucks, listed as the franchises he has. They are all standard signs. This nww sign would be out i the used car lot, which would be east of the building, about 10 feet from the northeast corner of the building. It is less than the 10 feet of the area to be covered. THE CHAIR: Any other questions? None. Any one either in favor or in opposition who wishes to speak? None. Thank you, Mr. Long. -12- THE CHAIR: Case No. 802 is the Appeal of the Estate of Peter Atsedes for a Special Permit to erect a sign in excess of fifty square feet at 535-537 West State Street, under the pro- visions of Section 7, Column 4, in a B-4 district. Who is appearing? GEORGE ATSEDES: This sign is just a matter of re-location. The sign was in existence on Tioga and Green Streets. I have a picture right here. Appellant's Exhibit 1 marked for identification. The Urban Renewal Agency requested that I take this sign down and the same sign will be mounted back on the wall. It is the only feasible place where I could see it would do any good at all. The new location would be Meadow and State Streets to be put on the building on the State Street side at 535 West State Street. The Swap Shop is there. I think eventually this will come down. This sign will cove part of the windows but I think they just use it for storage. THE CHAIR: Do you or the Estate of Peter Atsedes own that property at 535-537 West State Street? A. No, we do not. We will lease the space. MR. BENTKOWSKI: Are there lights on it? A. I intended to but if it is objectionable I will not do it. There were lights on the sign itself when it was at Tioga and Green Street, a regular bulb. It was a flooded sign. Would it be all right if I put lights on it? MR. VAN MARTER: It is permitted, yes. THE CHAIR: Any other questions by the Board? None. Any questions in opposition? None. Thank you, Mr. Atsedes. I EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, JULY 1st, 1968 APPEALS NOS. 798, 799, 800, 801, 802 THE CHAIR: Case No. 798. MR. PFANN: The following are the findings of fact: 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 percentage of the lot contemplated, under the Ordinance, the building would either have to be removed or considerable additional land surrounding the same, pur- chased. 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) There is insufficient evidence presented to determine whether the 14 apartments requested are the minimum number to produce a reasonable return. We therefore move to deny the application. MR. BENTKOWSKI: Second. VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 1 THE CHAIR: Case No. 799. MR. WEAVERS Move to grant the application. MR. PFANN: Second. VOTE: YES - 4 NO - 2 THE CHAIR: Case No. 800. DOCTOR BALDINI: Move to grant the application. COL. COMSTOCK: Second. VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0 THE CHAIR: Case No. 801. MR. BENTKOWSKI: The findings of fact are as follows: The lot size requirements is 12,000 square feet for eight units, and the appellant presents 8,621 square feet, a deficiency of 3,379 square feet or approximately 287.. We therefore move to deny the application. BEVERLY MARTIN: Second. VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 1 THE CHAIR: Case No. 802. MR. PFANN: Move to deny the application. BEVERLY MARTIN: Second. VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 1