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