HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1968-06-03 i
1
BOARD OF ZCNING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, HELD
Civ JUNE 3rd, 1968
PRESENT:
RICHARD COMSTOCK, Chairman
GEOFFREY WEAVER
GEORGE R. PFANN, JR.
BEVERLY MARTIN
JOHN BENTKOWSKI
C. MURRAY VAN NLRTER, Building Commissioner & Secretary
Meeting opened by the Chairman, COLONEL RICHARD COMSTOCK
THE CHAIR: The first case to consider tonight is No. 793, the Appeal of
Paul V. Anderson et al, 310 Winkworth Parkway, Syracuse, New
York, for exceptions, - off-street parking, maximum lot
coverage, front, side and rear yard dimensions, at 227 Linde
Avanue, Ithaca, New York, for multiple residence under Section
79 Columns 5,11,12,13,14,15 in an R-3 District.
Who is appearing?
PAUL ANDERSON: I am Paul Anderson, representing the appellant, and this
gentleman is Dan Leary of 5100 Harris Road, Syracuse, and
I would like to file with the Board this summary of the pro-
posal for the renovation of the existing structure, covering
the major points of the New York State Residence Code, and t
present these schematic preliminary plans of the Linden
Apartments.
Appellant's Exhibit 1, consisting of three sheets, marked
for identification.
If I might briefly explain, starting with the floor plans,
indicating the existing structure and the general proposal for
the new use. On the main level, one-half story, we are pro-
viding parking spaces and exits and egress for twelve vehicles,
plus two one bedroom type apartments, and general utility
space. From a public lobby on Linden Avenue we have access
to the existing floor and are proposing an additional twelve
apartmaits. The unusual thing is that there are two apartme s
which are completely interior and we propose to provide natuxal
light and ventilation through the use of operable skylights
to the roof area. Two accesses to this area would be by means
of enclosed stairways to the roof, and as well, this would b
a decorative type of area. Generally all of these provision
would be in keeping with the provisions of the State Multiple
Residence Law.
-2-
PAUL ANDERSON: Sheet No. 1 indicates our proposal for renovation to the
exterior of the building, in which we are proposing to
maintain the existing structure as is, other than cuttin
some holes for stairways. Basically, the exterior would
lend itself to the patching and repairing and the over-
coating, and we would be providing a horizontal round
of aluminum windows, and on the ground level on the street
side we would provide the glassed lobby entrance, and some
brick fill-in in between the existing concrete columns
and the bulkhead there now. Other than this patching an
repairing and the changes indicated, we would not be
cahnging substantially any of the existing building, so
this would entail only some patch repairing and general
re-coating, and starting with the basic structure we would
renovate the interior, providing fourteen apartment& as
shown in the plan.
MR. WEAVER: Is there any significance in the numbers "229"?
A. I think it is numbered 227-231. It has no significance.
MR. VAN MARTER: This would be conversion.
DAN LEARY: 18,000 square feet is the whole gross floor space for
fourteen apartments.
THE CHAIR: Any other questions by the Board?
MR. BENTKOWSKI: What is in it right now?
PAUL ANDERSON: It is used now by Southern Linen Supply and Linden Laund ies.
They are in the process of moving out and in the process
of closing the laundry down; they stopped running any
machines about a week ago. In 1952 Atlas Linen purchase
it; there have been problems with it, machine noise,
truck noise, the dilapidated condition of the building.
What we are asking for is an upgrading of the use of the
building from its non-conforming use as it stands now,
in a residential area. It was built as a stolrage garage
In the beginning, I believe. We would like to upgrade it
for apartment use.
DAN LEARY: It is structurally sound. This appears to be the most
economical use and it does exist already.
PAUL ANDERSON: I can give you Kiely's appraisal. This is an appraisal
of the property of Margaret E. Anderson, owner at 227-29
31 Linden Avenue, by Paul J. Kiely, as follows:
His suggested uses are 1) Motel; 2) Warehouse, Storage;
3) Utility or Contractors' Storage and Shop; 4) Wholesale
business; 5) Retail outlet; 6) Residential or Bar; and
7) Present usage.
l
.7-
MR. PFANN: How old is the building?
PAUL ANDERSON: Forty some years old. I think about 1922.
MR. BENTKOWSKI: You are asking for an exception for two units of off-
street parking?
PAUL ANDERSON: That is correct.
THE CHAIR: Is there any one here to speak in favor of this application
None.
Is there any one here to speak in opposition?
EUGENE PAINTER: Yes, my name is Gene Painter, 41-a Hasbrouck Apartments.
I own the apartment right next to this building, and I
have suffered ever since they have -been in there. If th
get a permit I might as well give up; there's nothing
legal that's there. The ramp doesn't belong to the place;
Carl Crandall said it's an inch over the line on my side;
there have been fires there, such noise; I myself per-
sonally paid for a glass block to put in the windows so
I could keep my tenants. I am not against progress but If
they are going to do something there, let's do it and do
It right. But they can't do anything when they haven't
any land to do it in. They better swing that building a
little. I don't see anything on that place that's legal
nor any reason for an appeal here. There is absolutely
nothing there that is right. Go up and look at the place .
The windows are all out, the steel frames have pushed out .
The place is a hazard, no question of that. I own the
place next door and have tried to keep it up, and it has
cost me every single cent to keep my property up. They
were supposed to operate from eight to five but they didn 't.
Since the Zoning Board is downtown they did as they wanted
to do. I am not going to live by anything like that.
Let's have a Board of Zoning Appeals. These fourteen
apartments sound good, but if you only knew - the biggest
part of the building is underground; the whole back wall
is underground and the sides are practically underground
If they want to build an apartment house there they better
swing the outside walls and get where they belong. How
will they work on it? We got sold down the river the lait
time. We will have a law suit this time.
STUART JOHNSTON: 308 Bryant Avenue. My mother's property goes from Bryan
through to Linden and right now numerous people are usin
It as a thoroughfare. Also, when it comes to parking,
where are they going to park their cars when all of
Collegetown is so crowded with cars the tax payers can't
even park. He says he will use the lower deck for parking
but what happens if he turns that into apartments with n
windows - how can he do it?
i
I
-4-
MRS. JOHN HARDINGs What is the actual lot size?
MR. VAN MARTER: 8360 square feet.
MRS. JOHN HARDING: Then I would object on the grounds of density.
MR. VAN MARTER: Conversion requires 2500 square feet of lot site.
HUNNA JOHNS: I do agree with-these gentlemen. I as for it. I have
nothing on the block but I would say offhand that a
garage and laundry is a nuisance. If it remains commer-
cial it can get worse. If these boys here convert this
into living quarters it's going to make that block that
much more residential. It is up to the Building Com-
missioner to see that windows are cut into the building.
That's up to the Building Commissioner. If we get enough
cars the City may move and create a parking lot. Offhan
I would say if these boys have a plan that meets the
Building Commissioner's thinking, I think it would be, go d
for the area and increase the valuation in the area. I
am in favor of any kind of change. We have to remember
one thing. In the last couple of months the builders ha,%e
turned down about everything. The biggest share of our
properties don't have .a valuation of over $15,000. I am
for variances because we can tell them what they can do
and what they can't do. There are many rooming houses
in, that block anyway, and you won't stop Cornell Univer-
sity from building. But this doesn't give ua anything
on the tax rolls, - if Cornell University builds these
apartments. We need houses and we need cars.
ROBERT LANGHANS This is going to be a conversion construction which re-
quires 2500 square feet per unit. What is the total square
footage for building?
PAUL ANDERSON: It is about 9,000 square feet.
ROBERT LANGHANS: So roughly a little over three units is allowed, and you
are asking for fourteen?
A. Right.
MR. BENTKOWSKI: How high is the back in relation to the roof?
A. Approximately fifty percent is below grade. The rear
apartments and on the main floor would have light and
ventilation through sky lights.
-5-
THE CHAIR: We will now go to Case No. 794, the Appeal of Humble Oil
and Refining Company, Hutchinson River Parkway, Pelham,
New York, for variance to demolish and rebuild existing
gasoline station at 501-507-513-515 South Meadow° Street,
Ithaca, New York, under Section 7, Column 1, in a B-1
district. Who is here appearing for this appeal?
HAROLD E. CRANE: Representing Humble Oil & Refining Company, Gentlemen,
I an here to request a variance in the OrdinaAoe for a
parcel of our land which we presently own at South Meadom
Street and Titus Avenue. At present we have a three-bay
station there; we have been there for years, but with the
re-alignment of Route 13, we find that with motorists
travelling north into Ithaca, they face the back of our
building. You can see that this does not put our best
foot forward, nor does it for the City of Ithaca, although
1 we do keep the rear always clean and free of debris. We
also find that with the widening of Route 13, we have lost
some of our property and now have our main island within
eight feet of the sidewalk and at such an angle that the
dealer has been forced to block off the main island,
thus limiting our island to one-half its useage. When
the road came through it was raised to such a level that
we new find ourselves in a position below grade, which
creates water problems and traffic hazards in icy weather.
All this creates a hardship to us. We propose to alleviate
this by demolishing the existing station, turning it around
so it faces Route 13, and building a modern brick three-
bay ranch type building, which we feel will upgrade the
neighborhood and improve the appearance of our station,
to the betterment of the City of Ithaca and our own opera-
tion. I have here an artist's rendering of our proposed
building.
Appellant's Exhibit 1 marked for identification.
In order to build this new building facing Route 13,
we will have, to use a portion of our property that now
lies in the southern end of our property, which we would
be unable to use because it is zoned. B-1. At present it
Is a vacant lot, and we are requesting a variance in the
Zoning so that we can use this property, and without it
we haven't enough room for this type of building.
Appellant's Exhibit 2 marked for identification, being
Plot Plan.
This, gentlemen, shows the existing building and the
proposed plan.
FRANK M. BRICKELMAIER, District Engineer, explains proposed plan to Board.
-6-
MR. BENTKOWSKI: What are the operating hours?
EDWARD B. FLOREK: 504 Five Mile Drive. The hours are 7:30 to 12:00 daily,
and 8:00 to 10:00 on Sundays. Supporting what he has
said, we will demolish the building, use the empty lot
If this is granted, and thus increase the tax base.
THE CHAIR: Any one in favor?
JOHN VASSE: I am quite familiar with this proposed site as I handled
work in the Lynch estate and for three years I have tried
to sell this gas station and couldn't because it faces
north instead of west, and I know exactly what they are
up against, and I do feel it would be asset to the to
roll and it will clean up the neighborhood. I would like
to say again I am in favor.
I
HUNNA JOHNS: I agree with what these fellows said.
JOHN WARE: 114 South Plain Street. I am in favor of it.
THE CHAIR: Is there any one in opposition who wishes to speak?
None.
i
-7-
THE CHAIR: Our next case is Appeal No. 795, the Appeal of Ansar
Husain, 1812 Sharon Avenue, Albany, Georgia, for excep-
tion for new construction at 309 Eddy Street, Ithaca,
New York, multiple dwelling, under the provision of
Section 7, Columns 7, 11, 12 and 13 and 15 in an R-3
district. Mr. Husain?
ANSAR HUSAIN: I am here to say something about the plans for a new
building at 309 Eddy Street, and the existing building
there is fairly old and dilapidated. The general ap-
pearance is not good. We would change it to a new buil-
ding and we have run into some problems. First is the
total square footage under new construction is 1500 square
feet per living unit or a total area is 8621, with 16
units on it. This falls short for the total area re-
quired, or 24,000 square feet required. This would be
just about one-third of the required area. Tha. maximum
lot which is covered by the actual building is actually
357., but when we take the area covered by the terrace,
then it comes to about 73%.
Appellant's Exhibit 1 marked for identification
But the actual building will be as it is on the preliminary
drawing and this would go to more than 35% of the area.
It comes to about 3,000 square feet, which is roughly
357. of 8621 square feet. But the building can be con-
structed without the terrace. It just adds to the decora-
tion, It is a kind of roof to the parked cars and adds
to the appearance of the building. The proposed sixteen
apartments could be reduced to eight, but for that amount
of area covering each apartment becomes too big. This
would mean 1600 square feet, roughly, which is big for a
apartment.
Appellant's Exhibit 2 marked for identification
The grade on the back of the building is very steep with
no access from the back, so it makes parking very diffic lt.
It has to come from the front and the parking has got to
be done in the basement. This throws off the parking for
16 cars for 16 apartments. There are very few houses in
the vicinity which can accommodate parking but we were
I able to do it. In general I feel the building will be
an asset to the City and will add to the cleanliness of
the general area and provide better accommodations for
people to come and live there.
MR. WEAVER: Do you currently own the property?
A. Yes.
i
-8-
THE CHAIR: Any other questions by the Board?
None.
Are there any here to speak in favor?
DONALD LUCENTE: 327 Eddy Street. I am in favor. If it doesn't go
through - I don't know what the plans are - I would
rather see a new building but I am strongly in favor
of it.
HUNNA JOHNS: If he can do this, he should be given an award. There
again this is an improvement to the block. He seems to
have a good plan.
THE CHAIR: Is there any one in opposition?
RONALD NORDHEIMER: 117 Terrace Place. Do I understand that the Planning
Board has recommended this previously
A. Yes.
MR. NORDHEIMER: In speaking with Mr. Kasprzak, he said that at no time
did they discuss density of the population. They looked
at the plans as they fit on the lot. I would like to diect
my remarks to this problem of density. Under the presen
Zoning regulations a total of six and one-half units wou d
be allowed, whereas in this case they are asking for six
teen units, over two but less than three times the amount
required. The building has, I understand, sixteen units
and each unit is a two-bedroom apartment. This generall
breaks down into most of the units being occupied by
students. But in no way can we prohibit this. But this
does not increase the problem with cars. When a person
wants to develop an area in excess of density allowed,
he can negotiate, under the A.D.D. provisions. . What density
In Zoning is supposed to do is limit population in one
spot. Most of the buildings there are already cut up into
rooming houses. Density brings traffic and also creates
problems with trash removal and storage. Parking problems,
fire protection, police protection, should all be reason
for limiting density. This is similar to the property o
Buffalo and Stewart Avenue, where the City and the neigh
boring people have certain rights to the laws, but they
can not be enforced by the Board of Zoning Appeals. I
• think we must look, not at the condemned building that
is on there now. I think we should look to fifty years
hence.
-9-
MRS. JOHN HARDING: 202 Eddy Street. I endorse Mr. Nordheimer, and say that
In addition to the A.D.D. there is an option in going to the
City Council. We had hoped to see a nice good building
there. This is an eye sore. I would suggest that almost
tripling the density will set a precedent that we will have
to fight all the way up the line. With the car problem,
this adds to the other problems, and parking is really
tight on that block. When you figure two and possibly four
students in each apartment, and most with cars, you know
you are going to add to the density. I would suggest it
go to the Council for decision on this problem.
ROBERT IANGHANS: 106 Cook Street. I would like to say first that I think
it is a fine thing, to be thinking of replacing 309 Eddy
Street as this has been one of the sore spots of College-
town; it has been closed by the City because of its dis-
reputable appearance, so we really should not object to
replacement of this building. But we are all concerned
with the density and the parking of cars. The reduction
of apartment size from 1500 down to just about one-half
that is quite a bit, and I assume that the 1500 feet was
set for a specific purpose. The other point I would like
to make is that mention was made of the topography of the
area, and again, I think you have all seen the signs painted
on the front door. How can they get fifteen cars parked
in the basement of this building? Right at the front of that
property the level of the cars, the roof level is just atout
even with the sidewalk level, which would indicate a goot
drop from the sidewalk level down to the street. This
would become quite a hazard to pedestrians or even peopl
driving along the street or driving in and out of this
i place. And this would empty out right in the top of
Buffalo Street, which would be another hazard.
HUNNA JOHNS: This building is in bad shape and has been condemned; it
has plywood on all the windows. I would say offhand that
this building could be there for another fifty years, an
I think it could be done with less than 1500 feet. It
isn't as bad as it appears and could get worse. He says
he can get fifteen cars in. Next door we have a parking
lot to accommodate about twenty cars. As long as they
can park over on the street they are going to park for
nothing. This is a commercial block, not residential,
up to that particular house. I as very such in favor of
it.
THE CHAIR: Apparently there is no one else who wishes to speak at
this time.
i
_10-
THE CHAIR: We go now to Case No. 797, which is the Appeal of the
Ballet Guild of Ithaca, Incorporated, 105 Sheldon Road,
Ithaca, New York, for variance for use as a ballet school
at 504-506 North Plain Street, Ithaca, New York, under
provision of Section 7, Columns 2 and 3 in an R-3 distri t.
Who is appearing?
JOHN VASSE: John Vasse, realtor. The Ballet Guild and the Christian
and Missionary Alliance Church have entered into a pur-
chase agreement to dispose of their properties at 504 an
506 North Plain Street. I have been trying for over a
year to 'sell these properties. In a year's time, due to
its limited functional use, there have been very few
offers to purchase. But the Ballet Guild has offered to
take this property and to demolish the house at 504 Nort
Plain and to utilize the church building at 506. The
Church has suffered vandalism. We have certified our
mailing for filing today. Here is a photograph of the
old house that is to come down.
Appellant's Exhibit 1 marked for identification
The property at 504 has been examined and he suggests th t
it be condemned. We are willing to take this down and
utilize the area for parking. It is now unoccupied and
has been for over a year.
THE CHAIR: Are there any questions of the Board?
None.
Any one who wishes to speak in favor?
LUIGI RUBENS: 510 North Plain Street. I an in favor because as it is
the house on the corner and has been a fire hazard. Jus
two weeks ago the back door had to be locked because the
kids were going in and out.
DONALD SLATTERY: 410 West Court Street. First, what are the hours when
It is going to be used?
ALICE REID: I am the director of the school. Our first class is
at 3:30 P.M. and then a 4:30 class, and three evenings,
7:30 to 9:00 P.M. This is mostly classical music as we
` teach only ballet, not tap dancing or jazz dancing or
the musical composition dance. We are a non-profit or-
ganization, not a promotional.
Q. Do they plan on recovating the building?
A. I do not know too much yet what we have to do. We will
have to have mirrors and bars on the walls, and will
probably paint it.
i
-11-
MR. SLATTERY: How about sound-proofing?
A. I do not think you will find sound any problem. They
never even hear us now.
MR. SLATTERY: How many parking spaces have you planned for?
A. Most of the children are within walking distance from
Central School and Boynton Junior.
Q. How many actual spaces will be there?
A. I would guess about eight to ten cars.
MR. SLATTERY: I have talked to several neighbors and all seem to be in
favor of it.
REVEREND JOHNSON: I speak in favor because of the benefit to the children
as a whole.
THE CHAIR: Is there any one here in opposition?
HUNNA JOHNS: On some of these variances we approve for one line of
business and then they sell. If this is sold to another
dance school and it gets noisy what control do you have
for it? This could be true of a garage also. I think
some of these variances should be limited to that buyer
only and that they should come back for another sale,
BEN BOYNTON: I want to suggest a possible solution. It would be pos-
sible to put a deed restriction in so this is for one
party only.
ALICE REID: Ballet mistress of the Ballet Guild. We are incorporated
as a non-profit organization, which means when we disband,
so to speak, we can only give property to another non-
profit organization.
MR. BENTKOWSKI: This is on the tax roil now?
JOHN VASSE: Yes, and it will still be back on the tax roll.
MR. SLATTERY: What effect would this variance have on any other property
on this block?
THE CHAIR: None. This is specific for this.
LUIGI RUBENS: Let's assume these people want to sell it out. Could they
sell to some one else and set up a beer joint?
THE CHAIR: No.
Apparently there is no one else who wishes to speak for
or in opposition. Thank you.
f
I
EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, JUNE 3rd, 1968
THE CHAIR: Case No. 793.
MR. BENTKOWSKI: Findings of Fact in Appeal No. 793 are as follows:
1) That the minimum lot size requirement is not met;
2) That the conversion requirement is not met;
3) That the granting of this appeal would increase the
parking congestion;
4) That the contemplated design and construction is such
that the density of population would be unreasonably
Increased in the immediate neighborhood beyond that
contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance.
We therefore move that the application be denied.
COL. COMSTOCK: Second.
VOTE: Yes - 3 No - 2
THE CHAIR: Case No. 794.
MR. PFANN: Move to grant the appeal because it is merely an exten-
sion of an additional 63 feet in width of a present non-
conforming use, resulting in improved appearance, a new
building, and further permitting full use of the land.
MR. WEAVER: Second.
VOTE: Yes - 5 No - 0
' f
i
1
THE CHAIR: Case No. 795.
MR. BENTKOWSKI: Findings of Fact are as followss
1) That the minimum lot size requirement is not met;
2) That the proposed density is triple that permitted
by the Ordinance and is considered an unreasonable
and unacceptable degree of exception.
We therefore move that the application be denied.
BEVERLY MARTINS Second.
VOTES Yes - 4 No - 1
THE CHAIR: Case No. 797.
MR. PFANN Move to grant the application because this is a use not
prohibited in the Ordinance and not dissimilar from the
use to which the building has been put over the last
several years, and that the proposed use would also be
In the best interests of the general improvement of the
neighborhood.
MR. WEAVER: Second.
VOTES Yes - 5 No - 0
. f
MR. PFANN: Move the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board direct a letter to
Mr. James J. Clynes, Jr., in answer to his letter of May 28, 1968, concerning
the individual recording of votes by the members of the Board of Zoning
Appeals;
That said letter should indicate that the Board of Zoning Appeals,
upon the advice of the former City Attorney, Norman D. Freeman, Esq., is not
required to show in its minutes the individual vote of each member upon every
question; and further
That said letter should indicate that Rule No. , duly } :
adopted and filed by the Board of Zoning Appeals, does not require the recor-
ding of the individual vote of each member of the Board upon each question." ` ,,
MR. WEAVER: Second
VOTE: Yes - 5 No - 0
Case # 794
Pfann
Move to grant the appeal because it is merely an extension of
an additional 63 feet in width of a present non-conforming use,
resulting in improved appearance, a new building, and further
permitting full use of the land.
Weaver - second
Vote yes-5 no-0
s
I
Case # 793
Bentkowski:
Findings of Fact:
1. That the minimum lot size requirement is not met;
2. That the conversion requirement is not met;
3. That the granting of this appeal would increase the
parking congestion;
4. That the contemplated design and construction is such
that the density of population would be unreasonably
increased in the immediate neighborhood beyond that
contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance.
We therefore move that the application be denied.
yes-3 no-2
F
1
Case # 795
Bentkowski
Findings of fact:
1. That the minimum lot size requirement is not met;
2. That the proposed density is triple that permitted
by the Ordinance and is considered an unreasonable
and unacceptable degree of exception
We therefore move that the application be denied.
Martin - second
Vote: yes-4 no-1
Case #797
Pf ann
Move to grant the application because this is a use not
prohibited in the Ordinance and not dissimilar from the
use to which the building has been put over the last
several years, and that the proposed use would also be
in the best interests of the general improvement of the
neighborhood.
Weaver - second
Vote yes-5 No-0