Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1983-11-07 t BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 7, 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page '; APPEAL NO. 1525 Orson R. Ledger 1 317-319 West Seneca Street APPEAL NO. 1525 Action of the Board 4 ''' APPEAL NO. 1526 Gerald $ Kathleen Daghita 5 407 Utica Street ' APPEAL NO. 1526 Action of the Board 9 ' APPEAL NO. 1527 Susan T. Tingey 10 335 Cascadilla Street APPEAL NO. 1527 Action of the Board 11 APPEAL NO. 1528 David Radin 12 107 West Falls Street APPEAL NO. 1528 Action of the Board 16 APPEAL NO. 1529 Postponed ', APPEAL NO. 1530 ,Tames & Patricia Maybee 17 6 Hawthorne Circle ! APPEAL NO. 1530 Action of the Board 19 APPEAL NO. 1531 Moses Peter (Alternatives Credit Union) 20 301 West State Street APPEAL NO. 1531 Action of the Board 32 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 33 i 1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 7 , 1983 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I would like to call this meeting to order . This: !is a formal hearing of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca 1'New York under the rules adopted in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Ithaca. The Board will not be held by strict rules of evidence , however its decisions will be based upon sufficient !legal grounds to support its decision. Our method of procedure is to hear the cases in the order in which they are published on the !official notice. First we listen to the appellant and following the appellant , anyone else who wishes to speak in support of an japplication. Following that we call upon anyone who wishes to ':speak in opposition. And then the Board makes its - after due de- !'liberation - makes its finding and announces the results . I ' d , like to introduce the Board: Jean Cookingham Bea Brownell Peggy Haine j Michael Tomlan Charles Weaver, Chairman Thomas D. Hoard, Building Commis- sioner & Secy to the Board Barbara Ruane , Recording Secretary ABSENT; Bette Bagnardi ;II believe we are ready for the first case . 'SECRETARY HOARD; We have Mr. Ledger here with us again tonight . ;!!Our first appeal is Mr. Ledger' s appeal no . 1525 Appeal of Orson R. Ledger for an area variance under Section 30 . 25, Column 13 (minimum requirement for sideyard setback) to permit the change in the configuration of apartments in the existing apart- ment building at 317-319 West Seneca Street . The property is located in a B-2a (business) use dis- trict; however the appellant must obtain a vari- ance for the listed deficiencies before a building ' permit can be issued for the proposed conversion. The appeal is rescheduled from the October 3, 1983 ' meeting, because the appellant did not appear and was not represented at that meeting as required by the Board' s Rules and Regulations . I 0AIRMAN WEAVER: Mr. Ledger. You' ll need to introduce yourself and ,tell us who you are and where you live . MR. LEDGER: Well , I 'm, Orson Ledger and i live at 192 White Church toad, Brooktondale . I have this 317 W. Seneca Street, an eight room I f 2 - apartment . It has been rented as four (4) unrelated persons - it is getting in a point where it needs renovation. I applied to Section 8 thru HUD to get a Section 8 certificate on the building ,; if I could get it remodelled to two, three-bedroom apartments . To rent one eight room apartment , in order to get a decent return on your investment you pretty well have to rent it to unrelated per- sons and I thought under the circumstances I would just as soon i redo it and split it into two threes and rent it to middle to low income families through the Section 8 HUD program. When I came in to get my permit I found that I was deficient in lot width on i one side of the building - on the west side about two to two and one-half feet. We have set back and the other side yard, rear yard requirement and parking. I guess that ' s about it . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is this - will it be a multiple dwelling when ". you get done? MR. LEDGER: Yes it will be a multiple dwelling . The HUD Section 8 program ended the end of September. They held this one over - I Becky Bilderbeck - which is working under contract with Section 8 j HUD program got New York HUD to hold this over for the variance to see if they wanted to or if I could get the variance - if I could get the variance - they held the contract over for this - it': is all set to go except for the variance . !i MS. COOKINGHAM: You couldn't get Section 8 for the larger apart- ment? I don' t understand. . . MR. LEDGER: I could but you can ' t get a return on your investment' to make it worthwhile. MS. BROWNELL; You aren' t changing the outside of the structure? j MR. LEDGER: I beg your pardon? MS. BROWNELL: You are not changing the outside of the structure of the house? MR. LEDGER: Am I changing the outside - not much except for paint- ing it and straightening up the back porch side porch and back porch. MS . BROWNELL: But you aren't changing the lot and side yard? MR. LEDGER: No . One room upstairs in the back that I 've either got to get a variance through the Housing Board of Review or 3 - raise the roof - it' s a little bit deficient in height of one of the bedrooms in the back. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions? MS . COOKINGHAM: Is this house treated as - well it has a double address - is it still just one house? MR. LEDGER: Well , it is one house - it is a duplex, up and down 'i on each side. MS. COOKINGHAM: And how are the apartments going to be arranged?11 sj MR. LEDGER: The ones on the 319 side are two, two-bedroom apart ments . The ones on the 317 side are going to be two, three-bed- PI 1 room apartments. MS . BROWNELL: That is the one that is now an eight room apartments? MR. LEDGER; Eight room apartment, yes . We will change some of i' the partitions upstairs put a hallway in, put private entrances - th.e upstairs apartment will have a private entrance and the 'i downstairs apartment will have a private entrance. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: These are not zoning matters that you will be ii obliged to meet the building code and the housing code on those i violations . Thank you. Is there any other questions from the 'I Board? Alright . Thank you Orson. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this application? Anyone who wishes' to speak in opposition to this application. ii SECRETARY HOARD: We do have a letter, Mr. Chairman, from Rebecca Bilderback; "Better Housing for Tompkins County, Inc. September 27 , 1983. To Whom It May Concern: Orson Ledger has applied for al zoning variance for his property at 317-319 West Seneca Street . I' thought it might help you to know what he plans to do with the property. Mr. Ledger has applied to the Section 8 Moderate Rehab ilitation program to convert 317 West Seneca Street into two three-bedroom apartments . To qualify for this program the units must be brought up to the Section 8 Housing Quality Standards as well as meet the local codes. The Section 8 Program has a contract for fifteen (15) years . This contract includes annual onsite house ing inspections to guarantee continued quality standards. Rents will be based on the actual verified costs of ownership and r i ii - 4 - renovation. This will provide decent, safe and sanitary units at affordable (subsidized) rents to low or moderate income families for the next fifteen years . Sincerely /s/ Becky Bilderback Director" BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 7 , 1983 ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO. 1525 : !i The Board considered the appeal of Orson R. Ledger for an area variance to permit the change in the configuration of apartments in the existing apartment building at 317-319 West Seneca Street. I The property is located in a B-2a use district ; however the appell lant must obtain a variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the proposed conversion. The Ii decision of the Board was as follows : j MS. HAINE: I move that the Board approve the area variance requested in appeal number 1525 : MS. BROWNELL: I second the motion. ! VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Absent Granted II FINDINGS OF FACT: I 1) The deficiency is an existing condition which will not be exacerbated by the granting of this variance. 2) There are practical difficulties in moving the house . ! 3) The exterior of the house will not be changed. 4) This will not change the character of the neighborhood. i ! i - 5 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 7, 1983 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1526 : Appeal of Gerald and Kathleen Daghita for an area variance under Section 30 .25, Columns 10, 11 , 12 , and 14 for excessive lot coverage and for deficient front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks , and under Section 35. 4 , Paragraph 3 (Swimming Pool Ordinance) for deficient dis- tance separation between a swimming pool and a house basement, to permit the construction of an : above-ground swimming pool in the backyard of the' single-family home at 407 Utica Street . The property is in an R-2b (residential , one-and two-family) use district, and a variance must be obtained for the listed deficiencies before a permit can be issued for the swimming pool . MR. GREEN: My name is John Green, I 'm helping out a friend, Jerry Daghita. j CHAIRMAN WEAVER: You are representing Mr. Daghita? MR. GREEN: Correct. I 'm a very close friend of the family and a professional planner so I was put into service. MR. DAGHITA: Free. t MR. GREEN: The advertisement, I believe there is a four vari-ances listed in the advertisement one of which is a distance of less than fifteen feet from the basement . The basement in the ; house is at the dotted line on your sketch, and that would make i the pool actually more than fifteen feet so no variance is re- quested or required. Other variances would be lot coverage , the pool is included as a structure and then the one side setback is :i i nine feet to the pool deck or eleven feet to the inside edge of the pool and eleven feet to the rear property line to the pool deck or thirteen feet to the inside edge of the pool . The - Mr. Daghita notified all the adjacent - well 200 ' adjacent property owners . He has a list of that - is that a requirement that the Board have a list of property owners? j SECRETARY HOARD: We do have a list. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Would you, for my benefit, repeat that? I am interested in the distance from the lot lines to the inside line of the pool . MR. GREEN: The deck is two feet and the . . . i; 6 - CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Uniformly two feet? MR. GREEN: Yes . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So what we read on here in 9, 11 and 16 foot dimensions can be increased by 2 to give us the distance to the inside line of the pool? MR. GREEN: Right that is the strict reading of the Ordinance i would be a set back of pool from the lot lines . MS. BROWNELL : The deck is bigger from the house to the pool therei on one side, isn' t it? MR. GREEN: Yes , it is eight feet. IMS. BROWNELL: Okay, so it is eight feet there and the rest of it i is two feet all the way around the three sides? ! MR. GREEN: Correct . And no variance is required for distance from the . . . I ! MS. BROWNELL: Let me ask you about where the stairs come down - i ' is there some way - is the yard fenced in to begin with? MR. DAGHITA: Yes , now it is . 'i !IMS. BROWNELL: The whole yard is fenced in? Ii MR. DAGHITA: Right. IMS . BROWNELL: And there is a lock on the gate? MR. DAGHITA: It is a chain link fence on two sides and just a wire fence on the other two sides , IMS. BROWNELL : So no children can get in there? !i IIMR. DAGHITA: Not unless they go over the fence. It is going to be an above ground pool and the only way you are going to be able to ;eget to the pool is off our back deck. You see we have a deck there ;'' now and we want to put a couple of stairs down to the other deck ' on the pool . That is the only way they can get in it . IMS. BROWNELL; The house deck is higher than the pool? `jMR. DAGHITA: Yes, two feet. MR. GREEN; The reason for moving the pool over to the north or fallowing sixteen feet from the pool deck on the one side and only less than that, nine feet on the other side- is because of the ' one foot rods . There used to be a paved driveway extending all ' the way back with_ a detached garage where the shed is now and be- cause of that one foot rise, it would entail extra or more i 7 - excavation to move the pool over or center it - where if it is ; fifteen feet, a conforming set back on one side and eleven on the ;. other side. Also it would be in line with the house deck and it would not be as visible from the street if it was centered right ; behind, as it is on the steps rather than move it to the south. ! MS. BROWNELL : What is the total size of the yard from the house deck? i MR. GREEN: From? SMS. BROWNELL: From the rear fence, do you have any idea? I mean, ; you would be putting this pool in what size yard? I am just trying to figure out what size (unintelligible) ' MR. GREEN: The width of the lot is 45 ' wide. +,i MS. BROWNELL : (unintelligible) j MR. GREEN: The distance I believe , well this could be scaled - 57, I believe 57 ' from the existing deck the existing house deck' do you know Jerry? jMR. DAGHITA: I think it is 54 ' from the deck now - all the way back. MS. BROWNELL : So you are putting a 32+ deck - 42 ' pool in a S7 ' piece of property? 'I MR. DAGHITA: Well , according to the Ordinance we are lacking two feet on the end -, that is what we are lacking . MR. GREEN: Are pools normally included in lot coverage required? "3 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well, I think we have a technical problem here deciding whether this is an accessory building in a free standing pool would, but the continuous deck raises a technical question. You have not, in fact, added to an addition to an addition. The I Board has faced this on other occasions - where the use is acces- sort' but continuity of structure may bring us into rear yard dif- ficulty just because they, are all connected. I don' t know what size crack you would have to leave between the two decks to cause it to become accessory but it is that technical , My point is that', if you put a lean-to shed on the back of your house , you would increase th.e size of the house , but if you put - set the shed free- standing in th.e back yard - it is an accessory building and you - 8 - don' t affect the rear yard requirement so the Board is able to ' deal with that - that 's what we are for. That' s why there is a Board of Zoning Appeals - one reason that I can think of anyway. , SECRETARY HOARD: Also, if it was a below-grade pool - would you subtract from that? MS. BROWNELL: Let me ask you a question. Do you, in the Building ; �i ;' Department check on the sewer drainage I mean the drainage of ? the water and so forth? That 's all done by your department? ; SECRETARY HOARD: Well it is done by the Plumbing Inspector. We ;i i check the wiring and make sure its ii MS. BROWNELL: Make sure no one will die . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Just one other question I have and then I - I ; don' t think I have had any experience with above ground pool !'' authorization that is the height of this edge of the pool to I,� the grade in the back yard when you get through. MR. DAGHITA: You mean how high the water is going to be in the !i :, pool? It is only a four foot pool - that's the deepest the water goes and then you have a railing which is three feet with a cover- ! ! ing that goes around so you can't see really into the pool , you ''' know what I mean like a fiber glass covering. . . . i MS. BROWNELL: Around the railing? ! MR. DAGHITA: Right. Do you have a picture of the pool there? ;; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Yes . I 'm not interested in the railing, I believe , ; but rather in the lip of the pool - the edge of the container - the water container and that is from top to bottom - four feet? jMR. DAGHITA: Four feet that' s it . '! CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Or the water is four feet? ,SMR. DAGHITA: The top is four feet but you usually go about that imuch - take six inches probably, off because you don' t fill it , right to the top - probably at least six inches off. i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So essentially you have a - at maximum is three ; and one-half feet of water and four ,feet of container . Are there zany questions from the Board? Do the two of you have anything to add? MR. DAGHITA: Not unless you want to know anything else. 9 - CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well , if we don't have questions . . . alright, thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? The neighborhood neither loves' nor hates pools , I take it . Do you think we would generate more interest in July? BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 7 , 1983 ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO,. 1526 : The Board considered the appeal of Gerald and Kathleen Daghita for an area variance for excessive lot coverage and for deficient front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks , and for deficient distance separation between a swimming pool and a house basement , to permit the construction of an above-ground swimming pool in the ! , back yard of the single-family home at 407 Utica Street. The ! property is in an R- 2b (residential , one-and two-family) use dis- trict. The decision of the Board was as follows : - CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variances requested in appeal number 1526 . ,' MR. TOMLAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: ' There are practical difficulties in that complying with regulations imight change the character of the neighborhood. The side yard de- , ficiency is four feet less than the minimum required and in con- .: sideration of the existing grade its location nearer that lot line ! 1would not put the pool nearer another structure on a neighboring ; property. If the pool were located according to code it could not ibe aligned directly behind the house . The rear yard deficiency as far as the swimming pool section of the Municipal Code is con- cerned is but two feet and the buildings there are on grade garages ', of adjacent properties and wouldn't affect the enjoyment of the - property of those neighboring owners to any substantial degree . VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Absent Granted. - 10 - i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 7 , 1983 , SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1527 : Appeal of Susan T. Tingey for an area variance under Section 30 ,259 Column 13, for deficient front yard setback, and Section 30 .49 (extension or enlargement of a non-conforming structure) to permit conversion of the existing two-apart- ' ment dwelling at 335 Cascadilla Street into a three-apartment dwelling. The property is lo- cated in an R-3a (residential , multiple dwelling) use district in which the proposed use is per- mitted; however under Section 30. 49 an area variance must be obtained for the existing de- ficiency before a building permit can be issued ' for the conversion. MS. TINGEY: My name is Susan Tingey, I live at 335 Cascadilla ; Street and, as you said, my proposal is to change a two-apartment house into a three-apartment house and this house , 335 Cascadilla ' Street, is located on the corner of Cascadilla Street and N. Plain ' iStreet and the front yard in question is the one that faces Casca- .1dilla Street . I believe you have a picture of it don' t you? If ; you notice - there is a porch that extends approximately about six ; feet out from the house which is a part of the structure and becau$e of this the house is out of compliance - or it needs a variance. To give you an idea of the lot size - it is 66 ' x 851 . It has a ; very large back yard and a two-car garage with enough parking area ` to fit four large cars - I mean just physically fit them -- I guess ' factually it is only two parking spots plus the two in the garage, -' so there is four parking spots and a very large back yard. .. CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Are there any questions from the Board? IMS . HAINE : That is a really beautiful house. { MS . TINGEY: Yes it is gorgeous thank you. ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Any further comment from the Board? MS . BROWNELL You won't be changing the outside structure of the house in any way? ;' MS. TINGEY: No , I hope to paint it in the springtime but no the ! only thing that will be changing is the inside . It is mainly clos- ing off a door casing basically - but it will also give me an , opportunity to get rid of a few old walls and possibly update the electrical wiring too. I guess that 's . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions? Alright, thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this case? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this applica- tion? (no one) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 7 , 1983 ACTION OF THE BOARD i APPEAL NO. 1527 : The Board considered the appeal of Susan T. Tingey for an area var- lance to permit conversion of the existing two-apartment dwelling at 335 Cascadilla Street into a three-apartment dwelling. The I decision of the Board was as follows : MS. HAINE : I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in appeal number 1527. I{ MS . BROWNELL: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance in that it would be difficult to move the house . 2) This is an existing non-conforming situation. 3) This change would not appreciable affect the neighborhood. ;. VOTE; 4 Yes ; 1 No ; 1 Absent Granted !i r 12 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 7 , 1983 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1528 : Appeal of David Radin for an area variance under Section 30 . 25, Columns 7 and 12 for deficient lot width and side yard setback, and Section 30 .49 (ex- tension or enlargement of a non-conforming structurl) to permit construction of a bedroom and bathroom in , the attic of the single-family dwelling at 107 West ' Falls Street. The property is located in an R- 2b (residential , one-and two-family) use district in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under ' Section 30. 49 a variance must be obtained for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the "proposed" alteration. IMR. RADIN: My name is David Radin and I live at 107 W. Falls Stredt (i - I occupy and own the building. The building has a downstairs ,, with a kitchen, living room and a dining room and upstairs of four ; ,lbedrooms. I am living there with four children and two adults - !' every bedroom is occupied —there is no room for a guest and there '. is no hideaway from the children. The upstairs is a very large '' attic and it is very well constructed and I would like just to ' insulate it and sheetrock it and install sufficient plumbing in it ', for it to be like a master suite with a sink, a toilet and a small tub and the variance is required for that because the building pre- existed City Zoning rules and is too close to the sides of the lot ; from before so for that reason a variance is needed. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: In numbers I take it that the existing side yard ' is four feet wide and the minimum under the Ordinance is ten? MR. RADIN: It is a driveway between two houses . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: And that your lot is 33 and the present require ' ment is that the lot measure not less than 35 feet . Are there an y ! lquestions from the Board? !` MS . BROWNELL: You did start construction without a permit - can ;; you tell us why you did that? MR. RADI'N: At first we weren't sure exactly what kind of renova- tions. . . I bought the house in September and so we started to take ( a look at what possibilities we were at first just going to put T , we were replacing the front window which was leaking - the window that faced out onto Falls Street it was kind of comical - the 13 - 1, condition of that window - so we were fixing that up and consider- ing what type of renovation we were going to do, at that time . 3Someone notified the Building Commissionerthat the front window was removed from the attic and said we were doing construction without " _' a permit and so I went in to - applied for a permit . We didn' t ', apply earlier because we didn' t have any plans - we were figuring gout what we were going to do and we were granted a permit to finish ;' that work and the entire renovation pending the variance . So k! there was this big hole in the side of the house. MS. BROWNELL: You just didn' t realize that you had to get a permit ',; when you changed the outside structure of the home? 'i ' MR. RADIN: Yes, I thought it was just my home and I could go ahead ,i land do that . I am sorry that I proceeded in that kind of way - I + didn't realize that a permit was required at that early a stage . IMR. TOMLAN: When were the skylights installed? =MR. RADIN: The skylights were installed when I had half installed i , prior to notification of the Building Commissioner. That was also ;,not with complete plans as to full renovation but just - it was ;' actually in my ignorance, about the permit, so a carpenter friend ; came in and was going to redo parts of the attic and we were con ' sidering changing - and putting in another bathroom and this and ,, that and the whole idea of the permit just passed me by. There ;wasn 't extensive construction - we just done about two days work, 1 !!opening up the existing front window and opening up, I believe - none - I don' t even know at what stage the construction was at when ',the complaint first came . I don' t know who was the complaintor - '1the building inspector came by I wasn' t doing the work myself a friendof mine was doing the work- - I can' t really tell you the !details on the timing of it all . The plans are to put in a perma- nent window - he had drawn up full plans because he had to draw up ',a plan which included plumbing and he just didn' t do that. AS, BROWNELL: It says here '('unintel'ligible) cleaning and renovation (unintelligbl'e)' , MR. RADIN: It was submitted with the MR. TOMLAN: That was my next question, were they was the plot ,'plan submitted . . . . 14 - MS. BROWNELL: Well that is not his fault . . . that is your fault? SECRETARY HOARD: I don 't know yet, how big was the plan? Was it a roll? MR. RADIN: No, I think it was graph paper - sketched out on graph ' paper. ! MR. TOMLAN: A plot plan was more specifically. . . ; MS. BROWNELL: A plot plan and a drawing for planned renovation ark enclosed. We don't have any. :; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well , let' s talk about what again, would be ;; important to this Board - what is separable from the need for a ;' permit. It would seem to me that it would be exceedingly fine to ' decide that replacement of a window with 'a window of somewhat dif- ' 'Iferent dimensions and confirmation would in fact require a permit , ] ,, not an extension or whatever it may from across the street go '! beyond that and look with your intention was to do more than that . : = I'm not going to spend much. time this evening discussing your in- tentions . The other thing is the plot plan could be important to ;' this Board if in fact the renovations were to extend beyond the existing structure and therefore have an effect upon those things �i { that are of our concern as increasing a side yard deficiency, rear ' ;; yard setback or whatever. The other question would be whether there !! is no change in use - there is now an application to create a bed ;; room, and a bathroom on this floor and what they -- how muc a bath ; room and how much a bedroom won't have any visible effect upon the ! ';neighborhood or anyone else nor the city for that matter. So it '. ,;would seem to me that without plans but the plans are necessary for ;; the issuance of a building permit , that we have what information is `':.essential to granting a variance which is an extension of an approved use within the existing structure that will not exacerbate the de- ficiency that practical difficulty with solving that in that the lot can' t get any bigger without buying part of the neighbor' s lot or moving the house - wouldn' t do anything to the 33 foot lot so it would seem to me that within the restrictions of what we are :interested in from a zoning variance standpoint - that if there is an argument about the design of the interior, that that will have to be met with the application for the building permit as far as i the details are concerned. Would you have any objections to submission of the (Unintelligible) plot plan would be a misstate-.; ment . Building plans but not a plot plan that - plot plan there is a house down there and there are the outside dimension of it and they won' t be changed, so I can't see that submitting one would in any way influence our decision. MR. RADIN: I think the house was constructed prior to zoning j regulations . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: However, the Ordinance understands that there are a good number of non-conforming buildings , that their position, or their bulk or whatever, and it prevents the extension of such structures without a variance - whether it be internal or external that ' s why we are here tonight, I understand. Are there ques- tions on the Board, because I 'm not trying to run this case - it does seem to me that we - if we had every minute detail of the ii building plans it wouldn' t help us a bit in granting this variance'. Are there any questions of the appellant? Thank you. Is there i anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this application? i Ids there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Do I hear a motion? i w' 16 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 72 1983 ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO. 1528 : i The Board considered the appeal of David Radin for an area vari- ance under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 7 and 12 for deficient lot width, If and side yard setback, and Section 30 .49 to permit construction of a bedroom and bathroom in the attic of the single-family dwelling at 107 West Falls Street . The property is located in an R-2b use district in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Section 30.49 a variance must be obtained for the listed deficien- ' cies before a building permit can be issued for the "proposed" i alteration. The decision of the Board was as follows : MS . HAINE: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- i quested in appeal number 1528 . MS . COOKINGHAM: I second the motion. I FINDINGS OF FACT : 1) The practical difficulties of the existing side yard deficien i cy will not be exacerbated. 2) The proposed changes would not adversely impact the neighbor- hood. i3) The minimum lot width cannot be changed with the existing structure. 1VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Absent Granted i i 17 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 7 , 1983 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1530 : Appeal of James & Patricia Maybee for an area variance under Section 30. 251, Columns 6 , 11 and' 14 for deficient lot area and front and rear yard setbacks , to permit the addition of a shed at the rear of the single-family house at 6 Hawthorne Circle . The property is located in an R-lb (residential , Single-family) use f district in which the proposed use is permitted'; however,an area variance must be obtained for the listed deficiencies before a building per- mit can be issued for the proposed shed. MR, MAYBEE: I 'm James Maybee, this is Pat , my wife, she is the boss and I guess she is going to talk. l MRS. MAYBEE : We are James and Patricia Maybee and we live at 6 Hawthorne Circle. We had tried to put together several different proposals in figuring out how we were going to put our shed and our deck in our back yard. The back yard is , number 1 , very - it ' s an odd-shaped back yard - as well as being quite small . At first I was going to put the shed out to the side of the house and; j the deck in the back yard but then I still was having a problem of having to obtain an area variance because we still weren' t far enough from the side lines then. The one thing that we ran into was we thought that we had finally come up with a plan - that i met the three feet from the back line and six feet from the side i' lines that we had been told that we had to meet. The only problem; then was that we were putting the shed on the deck and the deck is, attached to the house it was a different story then so when we came to get the permit we found out that there was another restric- tion yet so the deck has been built and it is right down low to the ground and I guess structured so that the shed could go on there with all the proper supports underneath and ghat not . The shed itself, at least as far as we are concerned, is going to be no more than just a storage shed for bikes and lawn mower and i things of this nature . It will not change the it will stay as a single family dwelling. And there is a shed to the side of the house a metal shed which we will be taking down. T 'm figuring all the way around it will at least make the area itself look a 18 - little bit better. MS. BROWNELL : It is going to be built out of metal or wood? MR. MAYBES: Wood. A wooden structure. It is going to be a per- manent structure on the back (unintelligible) MS. BROWNELL: When was the deck built? MS . MAYBEE: About a month ago. MS. BROWNELL: You didn't need a variance for the deck? MS. MAYBEE : No . i '! MR. MAYBEE: No . j MS . MAYBEE; The building permit was granted for that . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We are approaching the problem that has been ex-' i I pressed, at least, by planning and Development - what happens to our proliferation of decks when they start to close them in and !i roof them over, etc. , etc. , etc. , and I think the Board probably ii should be sensitive to exactly what these are and that as each comes in, treat it in essentially an ad hoc manner , in that there isn' t an automatic granting once you have the deck you have another bedroom or . . . MR. MAYBEE: We were told at the time - the Building Commissioner told me this when I came in and talked to him earlier this summer i he said that you can build a deck but you have to keep it - at least where I am, you have to keep it as low as you can to the it ground, which I did and you can' t put a roof over it so we haven' t done that either - so I ,guess he did say that we 'd like to put a nice roof over it then there again, you'd have to go for a build- ing permit and you'd have to get a variance before you could do that so . . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So here you are . MR. MAYBEE : Well I think if you do it legally and get a building permit you are going to have a problem you don't need to come back' again. SECRETARY HOARD: This is what we were talking about before .. if th.e shed had been shut off by itself it would be an accessory structure. Now by merit of connecting' (unintelligible) !1 - 19 - MR. MAYBEE: (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from anybody on the j Board? Any comments? Alright . Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this application? Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? Do I hear a motion? it j BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 7 , 1983 ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO. 1530: The Board considered the appeal of James $ Patricia Maybee for an area variance to permit the addition of a shed at the rear of the single-family house at 6 Hawthorne Circle. The property is located in an R-lb use district in which the proposed use is permitted, however, an area variance must be obtained for the listed deficient cies before a building permit can be issued for the proposed shed. ; ' The decision of the Board was as follows j 'i !SMS. BROWNELL I move that the Board grant the area variance i ' requested in appeal number 1530, MS , HAINE: T second the motion. '! FINDINGS OF FACT: ' 1) This change will not adversely impact the character of the i neighborhood. ' 2) The relocation of the storage shed from the side yard to the rear yard would enhance the visual affect upon the property and the neighborhood. !! VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Absent Granted i - 20 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 75, 1983 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case - the last appeal is appeal number; 1531 : Appeal of Moses Peter for an area variance under Section 30. 25 , Columns 4 , 14 , and 15 , for:; deficient off-street parking and minimum rear yard setback, and Section 30.49 (expansion or enlargement of a non-conforming structure) to permit the conversion of the second and third floors of the existing building at 301 West State Street to office space. The second floor; now contains office space. The property is located in a B- 2a (business) use district in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Section 30. 49 a variance must be obtained for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the proposed conversion MR. COLEMAN: I 'm not Moses Peter, I 'm a Board member of the Alter- natives Federal Credit Union which is a credit union that anyone can be a member of and as is Board policy we have reinvested mil- lions of dollars in the community and Tompkins County through our members for business and personal uses for purchase of homes . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Let' s be personal - what is your name? MR. COLEMAN: Jeff Coleman. Sorry. Currently we are located at 102 W. State Street - we have a two-room office on the second floor and we have six employees working there plus we transact all busi i ness of the credit union at that office and it is substantially overcrowded, in fact there is not enough space for each employee to sit down at the same time. That is why we thought a building purchased - we have spent a good part of the last year looking for' 4 a building we have looked at nearly a dozen buildings and have 4 come up with the so-called Moses Peter building at 301 West State Street. . . as a building that specifically suits our needs . We ! feel the character of the building is in line with the type of building we need. We have to get a variance on two grounds , the j first is the rear yard deficiency which has , in most cases , it is 1 impossible to comply with because it would require moving the build- ing but we feel that this deficiency is easily outweighted by the money we are investing in exterior renovations and in complying ; with the City' s Sign Ordinance and adding a handicapped access ramp on Albany Street and working with. the City's West State Street de- ' ; velopment fund in Historic Ithaca. The other variance we need is i .i ii - 21 - i j for parking spaces - I know it is an issue on the 300 block - you i are familiar with, I suspect at least. Because of the addition of:, the office space on the second floor we need an additional eleven parking space, according to the Zoning Ordinance which requires so many spaces per square feet. The parking issue is actually a great concern to the Board when we were considering this building - we really spent a couple of months informally looking into the parking on that block to make sure that we felt it was suitable to serve the reeds of our members . I don' t know - I would assume ilk that you are familiar with the study that was done for Planned Parenthood but that concluded pretty strongly that there was ample; '.! parking on the 300 block of West State Street and the surrounding areas provide that much parking for business use. In addition you'. are probably aware there is also a 31 space Municipal lot on which !; I is also helpful to the parking problem. The strong consideration ii is the fact that we are only moving two blocks and the two block move should not significantly affect the parking patterns of our members and also our membership - we've a transient use people come in for ten or fifteen minutes and then leave and it seems like most people either walk in or take the bus in - even those that are driving would not be taking up parking spaces for long i periods of time. Currently, as you've mentioned for the building,, it is used on 'the first floor as four employee office space and also a one-bedroomjapartment . Our proposed use is for the first floor is to keep itlas a four employee office space and there would no 'i longer be an apartment there. The second floor is currently a j three bedroom apartment and we plan on housing two employees and and computer services on the second floor . Basically our pro posed use will not cause a great increase in the intensity of the j use of this building and the need for parking . Also we feel that our moving into this building and investing lots of money in it is very consistent with the City' s plan for commercial development on West State Street - we feel our existence there will have a strong; impact on than area - a strong positive impact . We've also come across a lot of support from our neighbors for our moving in there,. - 22 - We have actually received two letters and have had close to a dozen phone calls from businesses in the area who are very much in favor of our presence there . MS. HAINE : Ilhave a question. How many of your employees drive to work? MR. COLEMAN: Iwo . MS. BROWNELL: And your total number is how many? MR. COLEMAN: Six. si CHAIRMAN WEAV R: Before we proceed, on the possible chance that i now or in the ,future there might be a perceived conflict of inter- est on my pard , I am faced with two prospects - one would be to j abstain which in itself is mischief because the effect is a nega- ' ;i tive vote and the other is to declare to you that I intend to proceed as a Member of the Board - I 'm Chairman of the Board at Citizens Savings Bank and it might be construed to my activity on this case as a potential competitor might be biased but I think by declaring this in the presence of the applicant and the rest of r the members of the Board that we will proceed from that and it will give you the opportunity in the future to lay claim to that if it becomes necessary. MR. COLEMAN; Probably, don't have to worry til we buy our next building. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'm not sure from a purport standpoint what my position would be I just wanted to make sure you - we were Ii identified properly. MR. TOMLAN: have you in hand any leases for any off-street (unin telligible)pa king? MR. COLEMAN: I don't have in hand but we have been offered spaces' f for free from the Salvation Army and we have also been contacted by the owner of the lot on Cayuga Street and State Street and there is ample parking available for rent. MS. BROWNELL: How many spaces from the Salvation Army? MR, COLEMAN; I don' t know - they gave us just a general sort of permission for the lot for our members . MS. COOKINGHAM: Do you have that permission now? MR. COLEMAN: Do we have . . . MQ rnnurrrrTJA TAT t 1 rP-znart to vmir - -.rima Zrnn nra 1 n r n in nnw 23 - MS. COOKINGHAM: With respect to your - where you are located now are you saying . . . MR. COLEMAN: No - for our new location. They came to us with that offer - we did It go to them asking for it. MR. TOMLAN: How long have you been involved in looking at that j particular pro erty - would you refresh my memory? MR. COLEMAN: Probably at least six months . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Commissioner , as I read the worksheet, the ;j present use - the off-street parking is four spaces . . . is that correct? SECRETARY HOA D: That is correct . 'i CHAIRMAN WEAV R: Without any changes? I am aware that there is a driveway on the west side of the property. It is my observation' i i that they used; to park cars side by side in that driveway which if the dimensions are adequate would allow four approved off- street parkin spaces . I just used to go by there frequently and there would b four cars in there and only no one of them i blocked by mox{e than one car. But I don' t know whether - does that mean that the driveway would have to be developed? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes it would have to be developed, I think they gave us the information that there were two spaces . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are you familiar with that driveway that I am describing? MR. COLEMAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN WEAV�R: Can two cars park side by side in the driveway? i MR. COLEMAN: I believe so . It would be a little tight but I think there i� also room for more than two in a row there . CHAIRMAN WEAV R: They can' t be more than two deep and qualify as ' parking spaces but it was just my observation without any measure ments it woul seem to me to be within the possibilities to pro- vide what are legally four off-street parking spaces there but I am not at all sure. MS. COOKINGH When I went by there yesterday it looked to me j like they have been parking on what was originally lawn and the !' thing that wo ried me was how far does that property line exten4? i i - 24 - CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I don't know either. MS. COOKING It is possible that they might be extending over onto the property of the neighbor , I don't know. I think the number of parking spaces there is a question. MS. HAINE: Mr. Coleman, if you have the spaces from the Salvation; Army, could you post a sign someplace on the building that said j I that parking was available at Salvation Army? i ' MR. COLEMAN: ''Sure. i MS. HAINE: Because it seems to me that if it is tight enough i ii there, I mean it is not horrible but I think (unintelligible) MS. COOKINGHAM: One of the things that concerns me about the i Salvation Army parking lot was the representation that we received! in connection with another case that parking was very tight in thajt area and that they said their lot was filled lots of times as I recall and I think we need something a little better than just i someone' s word that they are going to have spaces available . I mean, how many spaces are going to be held, I think, is what be- comes very important here - more than the specific use of the Credit Union. MS. BROWNELL. I was down there about 12 ; 30 last week on my lunch ; hour and thatlwould be the hour when I would go to the bank, I don' t know when anybody else goes to the bank but working people generally go between 12 and 1 or 1 and 2 and there were eight or nine places available at the Salvation Army. MS. COOKINGHAI : That 's the time the nutrition program is on, I don' t know wh t day . i j MS. BROWNELL: I think it was WEdnesday. That certainly is a busy* I part of the day and people get out for lunch and go traveling dowp- town and do their business matters CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well I 'd like to observe that it would be a de- i parture from past practice to have some permission vs . a lease that something a little more solid than a gentleman' s agreement in order to hear considering a conditional variance . MS . HAINE: Can we then make it conditional if the . . . i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well the condition would not have to be focused I t� it 25 - on a single solution at the Salvation Army but within the allowed distance and would generally require a renewal and notification. MS . BROWNELL: I would have liked to see those four spaces nailed down here tonight. I would have liked to have seen you come in with a piece of paper with those four spaces leased. . . >' MR. TOMLAN: I too . MS. COOKINGHA : I would like a clarification too on that - how, whether or not there will be an invasion of anyone else ' s property; i - that parkin at the side . MS. BROWNELL: I think if it were, it would be those people ' s problem. MS. COOKINGHAM: No, I don' t think so . ii CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well we are either recognizing legal parking i spaces on the appellant' s property or the lease holder or not . . . i MS. BROWNELL: We are only recognizing two of them right? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: That' s right. . . MS. BROWNELL : Okay, Weare not recognizing four of them. . . I CHAIRMAN WEAVER: No. MS. BROWNELL: It certainly took , without (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN WEAVER: And if we are considering a conditional variance; it would be conditioned upon the accomplishment of X number of parking spaces, beyond the two that are in the application. Is there a detail, in the entrance dimension on parking - the question; that I raised has not been answered satisfactorily to me . . . SECRETARY HOARD: According to our figures though the side yard is j ten feet, or pardon me the side yard is twenty-three feet so the', general width of the driveway is statistically the only figure they gave here is that the parking space is 180 square feet ten by ii eighteen? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: No, but the typical parking space parallel '! parking assumes a car as much as fourteen feet in length and five plus in width and the parking space- I always thought was liberally 20 Y, 10 - 20 x 10 would be twenty feet over your 180 . So to accommodate my . . . SECRETARY HOARD: They ought to say no wider than ten feet per 26 - ;, parking space if it is perpendicular to the curb . (unintelligible) twenty-two feet in depth measured from the property line and no ;, wider than ten feet so that would be . . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVE : Yes and that, without doing any forestry work, at least there is space there for I believe, four, rather than two ; '' But the total equirement - the existing deficiencies are four E (unintelli ibi ) two off -street parking but for the proposed use ' they pick u7- not a requirement for six but a total requirement of : seventeen, is that not correct? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes . MS. BROWNELL : So they need to have seventeen? ,, CHAIRMAN WEAVER: They are increasing the requirements of the build ing by elevent,. . . ., MS. BROWNELL: And they only have two? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well the question I can't answer is whether the ;lifour spaces for exactly what the present spaces are assigned to. a . MS. BROWNELL, I have a strange question. Is it possible to ask th.e appellant to come back and not vote tonight , if we ask him for what spaces are available on his property that we don' t have : any diagrams to assess exactly how many spaces he has and con- i `! tinue it until the following week and ask him to come back with a diagram as to how many spaces are available and how many he ; needs and ask him to have a lease for the ones that he needs? ; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well there is another solution to that and that if " is to grant a conditional variance and decide how many parking spaces you are going to require and then where he creates them I1whether he creates them on his property or by way of lease on ! someone else' sproperty - I shouldn' t think would be a matter of ,! deep concern to the Board, So if you decide how many - if you ;fare going to allow less than seventeen how many less , question ', one, where is ­h_e next question and it wouldn't seem to me that it would make a heck of a lot of difference whether off-street !; parking' either by contract or creation would seem to me could meet any would make any solution possible that is legally possible a available to the appellant. 27 - MS. BROWNELL : I just don' t think the parking has been thought out „ well enough . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I agree , he is not ready to move in. MS. BROWNELL: I don't mean to talk about you like you are not here. . . MR. COLEMAN: That 's alright . ' MS . BROWNELL: It 's rather an important issue for us . MR. TOMLAN: Well in other cases we have had a lease in hand and I ' ,i think before, at least as far as I am concerned, you need to make it - at least in other cases we have dealt with I would think to have the thing nailed down as far as possible would be in his best ' interest and to present his strongest case. I think for us to ! waffle on the question of approving something later, doesn' t do us i a whole lot of good and I think we ought to see it all presented well - all at once if at all possible . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Not to disagree with you, but the question is off-street parking, as a result of the increase of need required by his change of use of the property. The increase , as I read it, is an increase demand of (unintell . ) and he doesn't come in pro- posing to do anything about it and we can say yes , conditioned upon meeting some or all of that requirement or no and the no would re- quire him to come in with a different application which would be supported with a lease. Now, time has value and if our conditional variance gives him the opportunity to bulldoze the space on his property or contract for space off his property within acceptable distance it seems to me that it would not be a departure from what ii we have required - in other words a lease in hand before the vari- ' ance is granted - that would be a condition of the granting. Now, j as well as just having it in hand and presenting it to you and granting it , seems to me not a matter of any difference as far as the procedure of the Board is concerned. When you grant a condi- tional variance he doesn't have the variance yet. . . MR. COLEMAN: Also a reason for not having a lease in hand now, is we don't have the guidance yet as to how many spaces you would want. We know they are available. . , MS. BROWNELL: You knew you needed a lot of spaces . . . basically. 28 - MR. COLEMAN: Well that ' s MR. TOMLAN: It wasn' t exactly clear the Planning Board said four ; and if you look back at what they are dealing with . . . MS. BROWNELL: I don' t understand why they said four. ' MR. TOMLAN: I don' t either. They didn' t understand what they were : doing. MS. BROWNELL: Obviously, because he is deficient eleven, really. MS. HAINE : Eleven is a lot for what we 've seen the parking traffic to be on that street and it seems to me he could come in with a '; request for several fewer than that. , MR, TOMLAN: That ' s right . MS. HAINE: I don't know what the Planning Board came up with four .' !MR. TOMLAN: The other observation that I make , Charlie , is that ' the owner of the property isn' t here and its the appeal of Moses Peter - I think we are getting a little bit behind ourselves - be- hind the eightball by letting people who are likely to take over ; the property insofar as making use of it - I 'd like to see - this its just my observation but it would be a stronger case if someone ; closer to the ownership of the property were perhaps present and ( supportive. , MS. HAINE: Do you have a purchase offer? MR. COLEMAN: Yes we close in a week or two . !i MR. TOMLAN: Well at this point it is his appeal and not yours . dMR. COLEMAN: Well it is only a name. We have the owner ' s author- lization. ?SECRETARY HOARD: He has authorized him to submit the appeal . MS. COOKINGHAM: You are buying this without having the proper ';variance? SMR. COLEMAN: Well we already have the permitted use to use the !; first floor for office. MS. COQKINGHAM: That 's true but you knew that you had deficiencies ; and you didn' t provide for that in the contract? The purchase con tract? 'MR. COLEMAN: No . !MS. BROWNELL: Because if he didn' t turn the second floor into an ;office, it would be okay the way it is now. 29 - MS. COOKINGHAM: I understand that, but that wasn' t (unintelligibly) wasn' t their plan. . . MS . BROWNELL: They are just taking a chance - they didn' t want to lose the building (unintelligible) MR. COLEMAN: And the timing, it was available. You can' t always have things perfect. I was before this Board a few months ago getting a variance before I had - well actually closed on property ' that I was committed to . . . , the same situation. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any further questions of the appellant! i (none) Alright thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak :! in support of this application? Yes . Please come forward, if you ,' are not up here the tape machine can' t pick you up. ;': MS. TISCHLER: My name is Camille Tischler and I live at 433 West ii ;, Buffalo Street . I have been acquainted with the Alternatives Federal Credit Union for many years and it serves a lot of people in the Ithaca area. I live in the area and I work in the area and ; I have never noticed that there is any problem with parking so I i think that it would be within the City' s interest to grant the ; variance. i; ' CHAIRMAN WEAVER: And what was your address again? MS. TISCHLER: 433 W. Buffalo Street. ; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We really couldn' t accept you as an affected 1a ; neighbor - you weren't notified by letter or anything on this ap- peal? ' MS. TISCHLER: No . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Alright, thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this appeal? Yes come for- ; ward please. MS. VIASKI: My name is Ann Viaski and I live at 120 First Street . ' CHAIRMAN WEAVER 120 First Street? Well that isn' t in this neight- borhood. Do you have a specific interest in this neighborhood - do you own .or lease . . . MS. VIASKI : Well I am also familiar with the Credit Union and I also walk that particular block regularly from my street heading over to Woolworths to the bus stop. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well let me explain the rules of the Board. In I - 30 - listening to people speak on the issue, we are limited to people within a 200 foot circle of the property in question and - other than just general understanding or sympathy or whatever, we are restricted to that. MS. VIASKI : Okay. Thank you. , CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So thank you very much. Is there anyone else who ., wishes to speak in support of this application? Anyone who wishes ': 'f to speak in opposition? MR. SULLIVAN: My name is William Sullivan and I represent the ; Knights of Columbus . I am not sure that I am here to speak in ! opposition but I simply want to remind the Board how this ruling in another case first of all , I disagree with the Chair with respect to the people who wanted to speak I think they are en- titled to be heard I think it is wrong for the Board not to hear what they have to say. I simply want the Board to understand; that, of the pressures with respect to parking in that particular ! neighborhood. You people heard a great deal of testimony -, it wasn' t testimony, it was statements, unsworn statements - about a month and one-half or two months ago, and I would ask that all of ,i those statements be incorporated into this record and be made a Ipart of this record for purposes of your decision. The Planned Parenthood people in a particular case in question had numerous parking deficiencies some of which were recognized by the Board and some of which: weren't and all of which seemed to have been glossed over . I have no doubt , nor does the Knights of Columbus have any doubt , that the Alternatives Federal Credit Union would be a good neighbor and probably an asset to the area but whatever the character of their tenancy, it ' s absolutely clear, I think, that they are going to put further pressure upon an already crowded. ; parking area. I 've heard comments from some Board members tonight, about - they went thereat 12 : 30 on a particular day or they went there at a differen ttime - we can all talk about personal exper- iences at a particular point in time but those people that live inl the area and know the area , many of them appeared a couple of months ago and made statements , some of which you heard, some of 31 - which you refused to hear, I think wrongly. I think all of that , as part of our statement tonight - we are incorporating all of those statements by reference as a part of this record. Whatever may happen in this case, you mentioned something about within the prescribed limit - I don' t know of any limit whether it is 100 ' or 200 ' or 500 ' or whatever , there is all kinds of limitations for : different purposes set forth in the Zoning Ordinance . Clearly there are deficiencies , if the use proposed is going to be approved :! then those deficiencies have to be met. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Pardon me but you used the word "use" and this is knot an application for a use variance it ' s an area variance . lMR. SULLIVAN: Well the Courts have held that the question of park- ring is a combination use , area variance - it ' s a combination - it' s not one, it ' s not the other, it ' s both and to characterize it as ''' an area variance, minimizes and there is a standard of proof in- volved. :; CHAIRMAN WEAVER: As a participant in this particular hearing I ' ll ! clarify for your purposes and the Chair will rule that this is an !. ,, area variance request and not a use request so that there will not be any confusion over what we are talking about. And if that is ail error , of course, that' s you are at liberty to take any action : necessary to make your point more forceful . „i MR. SULLIVAN: Well all I 'm saying is that if the variance is granted to permit the use of the second and third floors , as I !i understand the application I haven' t read it - as 1 understand , th.e discussion here tonight, to permit that - then at that point :: there are going to be seventeen deficiencies. If you start adding ' !' the deficiencies in that block up, you are going to come up with more than you can count on your hands and feet together and they've ;; got to be dealt with they've got to come from some place and : while the number of deficiencies can be infinite, the land in the ;' area - that can be used for parking is finite, That 's something ', that this Board has got to consider. I don't have any other state= Iment but if anybody has got any question, I would be glad to answer. , CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Yes , thank you. Are there any questions from the Board? Is there anyone:. else who wishes to speak in opposition? - 32 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK NOVEMBER 7, 1983 ACTION OF THE BOARD APPEAL NO. 1531 : The Board considered the appeal of Moses Peter for an area Vari- ance for deficient off-street parking and minimum rear yardiset back, to permit the conversion of the second and third floors of the existing building at 301 West State Street to office space. The second floor now contains an apartment, and the third floor it !' used for storage. The decision of the Board was as follows ! 1531A MR. TOMLAN: I move that the Board deny the area variance re- quested in appeal number 1531 with the finding of fact that no provision was made for adequateoff- streetparking in the neighborhood. MS. COOKINGHAM: I second the motion. ; VOTE: 3 Yes ; 2 No; l Absent Denied for lack of (four ii affirmative votes . 1531B: ,, MS. HAINE: I move that the Board grant the requested area variance with the condition that the appellant provide a lease for five (5) parking spaces within the required 500 feet , making a total of seven (7) parking spaces . ' MS. BROWNELL: I second the motion. .; FINDINGS OF FACT: '! 1) The use would not affect the character of the neighborhood or impact upon the neighborhood unduly. ' 2) If the appellant makes provision for these parking spaces it would show an effort on the part of the appellant to comply. ' VOTE: 2 Yes ; 3 No; 1 Absent Denied for lack of four affirmative votes . I j 33 - I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the , Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of ' Appeals numbered 1525 , 1526, 1527 , 1528 , 1530 and 1531 on Novembers ! 7 , 1983 in the Common Council Chambers , City of Ithaca, 108 'IEast ,' Green Street, Ithaca, New York ; that I have transcribed same, and ! the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of : the meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals , ' City of Ithaca, New York on the above date , and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara C . Ruan Recording Secretary ;' Sworn to before me this if day of 1983 Notary Public JEAN .. l•IANKINSON NOTARY PUS^LIC, STATE OF NEW YORK QUALIFIED !i' TOM?KINS COUNTYh -? h1V EXPIGLS MARCH 30,19 d i!