Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1984-02-06 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK FEBRUARY 6, 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPEAL No. 1541 Nick Plataniotis (Cosmopolitan Restaurant) 3 315-317 College Avenue APPEAL NO. 1541 Action of the Board 8 APPEAL NO. 1543: John J. VanGorder 9 107 Grandview Avenue APPEAL NO. 1543 Action of the Board 12 APPEAL NO. 1544 Stephen C. Parsons of Wm. Downing Assoc. 13 205 Eddy Street & 106 Cook Street APPEAL NO. 1544 Action of the Board 49 APPEAL NO. 1545 Stanley J. & Mary Ann Bowman 50 204 Willard Way APPEAL NO. 1545 Action of the Board 53 APPEAL NO. 1546 John J. Augustine, Jr. 54 319-325 S. Cayuga Street APPEAL NO. 1546 Action of the Board 59 CERTIFICAT"ION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 60 clxP�l2�i!2 � �G�e�l OFFICE OF ALLAN H. TREMAN (1899-1975) TWO STATE STREET �///Zd JAMES J. CLYNES, JR. � •, //� //•/� ' /fjj O• ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14614 �Ae/x jtz tJl{.G{LLn Qyy�t�(a� (716) 232-4440 1730 M STREET, N.w. JOAN B. HARMAN WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW (202) 223-9250 EDWARD C. HOOKS SENECA BUILDING, THIRD FLOOR 243 LAKE STREET POST,OOFFICE BOX 380 ELMIRA, N.Y. 14901 SALLY T. TRUE V 7 CIQfa CCC, //� (607) 734-4114 eta eJ TELEPHONE (607) 273.6444 February 24, 1984 Chairman Charles Weaver Board of Zoning Appeals C/O Building Commissioner ' s Office City Hall Ithaca , New York 14850 Dear Chairman Weaver : I understand that the propriety of my practicing law before the Board of Zoning Appeals has been raised by Professor Richard Booth . Please advise Professor Booth that years ago I consulted with the office of Court Administration and the Administrative Judge and it was determined that it was perfectly proper for me to do so , since my appeal from the Board of Zoning Appeals would go to Supreme Court and not to City Court . City Court is only used for enforcement problems , and obviously, I am not going to the Board of Zoning Appeals on an enforcement problem. Having learned that this newcomer to the Board had questioned the matter , I once again consulted with the office of the Court Administration and the Administrative Judge and I am entitled to practice before the Board of Zoning Appeals . Also, your board should realize that although my title is City Judge of the City of Ithaca , I am paid by the State and am a State Court Judge. Very t ul ,,_ yours , James J . Clynes , Jr . J JC/ime Enclosure BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page ! 1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW 'YORK FEBRUARY G., 1994 CHAIRMAN WEAVER ! I ' d like to call this meeting to order- . This is a meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals in a formal public hearing and several matters which are listed in the official notice. First I would like to identify the members of the Board and other people at the table here . Tracy Farrell Jean Cook: ingham Michael Tomlan Bette Bagnardi Richard Booth Charles Weaver,, Chairman Thomas Cl _ Hoard , Secretary to the Board & Building Commissioner Barbara Ruane.; Recording Secretary The Board is: operating under the provisions of the City Charter of the City of Ithaca and the provisions of the Zoning Ord- inances . The Board shall not be bound by strict rules of evi- dence in the conduct of the hearing but the determination shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same . I would request that all participants come forward to either one or both of these chairs that are at the table with us and identify themselves as to name and address and this will facilitate the full proceedings being recorded . If you make a remark: from out in the audience it will not get on the record and it is a waste of your time and ours . The Board will hear first the cases in the order in which they are listed and will hear first the appel- lant and anyone supporting the appellant followed by anyone who BZA Minutes 2.`6/84 Page! 2 wishes to oppose the application and upon close of testimony the Board will then discuss the case., make their findings of fact and will then vote by ballot and the decision will then be an- nounced. So,, at this time is there anyone who wishes to with- draw? SECRETARY HOARD: Mr . Chairman we have a letter from the Ithaca Friends. Meeting,, this is the first agenda item . It is from Mr . David L . Ruff, of 105 West Miller Road, Ithaca . Mr . Thomas D . Hoard, Building Commissioner "Dear Mr .. Hoard : Pursuant to our telephone conversation of this afternoon, I am requesting that the matter of the variance for the property at 227 Willard Way be removed from the agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting scheduled for tonight at City Hall . The Ithaca monthly meeting of Friends will be unable to have representation at this meeting . As you suggested we are asking for postponement until the March meeting of the BZA . Thank: you. David L . Ruff" CHAIRMAN WEAVER; Are there any other withdrawals? May we then . MR . BOOTH' At the meeting last month I wasn' t aware of this when we were in the meeting, but it is my understanding that the lawyer who represented the last client , Judge Clynes, who is the City Court Judge, and I would just like to rho on record expressing my sense that that is not a proper role for a City Judge to be playing - appearing in front of the Zoning Board, particularly= because, as I understand it, the Building Commissioner has to go in front of him fairly regularly . I don ' t want to do anything other than to just go on the record . I don ' t BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page : 3 think that is a proper role for a City Judge to be playing and would hope that we can screen out those possible problems in the future . CHAIRMAN WEAVER : Well., that is not a motion , that is merely for the record? MR . BOOTH : No , no , that is my statement for the record . CHAIRMAN WEAVER : Alright sir . SECRETARY HOARD : I would like to clarify by saying that I am before: the Judge on enforcement issues . CHAIRMAN WEAVER. They haven' t caught up with anyone else . . . Now are we clear=' We' ll hear the first case then please . SECRETARY HOARD . The first case,, after the one that was withdrawn is appeal number 1541 Appeal of Nick. Plataniotis for an area variance under Section 30 . 25, Column 14 ( requirements for rear yard setbacks) and Section 30 . 574 ( requirements for a Certificate of Occupancy for an altered structure) of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the extension of restaurant uses into the rear building (now a two-bay garage) at 315-317 College Avenue. ( Cosmopolitan Restaurant) . The property is located in a B-2b (business) use district where the existing and proposed uses are permitted; however the appellant must obtain an area variance for conversion of the rear building before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion . This appeal was held over from the January r__4., 1984 meeting at the appellant ' s request . MR PLATANI071S : My name is Nick: Platartiotis, 313 College Avenue , CHAIRMAN WEAVER' And now anything you would like to say on BZA Minutes 2/6/14 Page: 4 behalf of your appeal . MR . PLATANIOTIS : Well what we have tried to do it to make use of the storage building in the rear of the restaurant , to make that -well it is a fire hazard as it is right now because it is not in use and to make it so that ( unintelligible) the building and that we can use for the kitchen in the event that we are going to take over the next store - next to the Cosmopolitan - which is the Arcade (:unintelligible) by the Arcade right now . And we are going to make that into a restaurant . CHAIRMAN WEAKER : And if you were not granted this variance what difficulty would you experience? MR . PLATANIOTIS : Well it is going to be a problem to make the kitchen (unintelligible) the building and it is going to be more hazardous to take the exhaust system because it was built - the kitchen inside - but that is going to go right out of the apartment like it is in the restaurant right now., the Cosmopolitan , Instead on the outside the building that is in the rear now., that is not in use - if it is built with the fire codes , I think: it is going to be the best that - and the safety of the people being above the building . CHAIRMAN WEAKER: Are there any questions from the Board? MR . TCIMLAN: The staff recommendation of the Planning and Development Board on December 27th was denial due to the fire hazards and the lack: of adequate separation of this building and other buildings around it . Do you have any comment on that? Would you like to respond to that? BZA Minutes 1/6/84 Page ' 5 Mk _ PLATANIOTIS . When was that? MR, TOMLAN: In December when you came before the Planning Board . The staff recommenclation was for denial and they said that their reasoning was that it was due to the fire hazards in a high density population area and lack; of adequate separation of this this building and other buildings . MF' . PLATANIOTIS : I don' t see any lack: or connection with other buildings - I don' t see that there is any . with the present building that is occupied by the restaurant ( unintelligible) next to the Arcade there is a hazard as it is today but there is a wall between - separate wall built between the building and the garages. - ( unintelligible) the fire is going to be done in a different manner - it is going to be outside the building that is occupied by the people . This building is only a one-story building , it is not connected with the main building . MP . TOMLAN, Then it is my understanding you intend to modify? MFS . PLATANIOTIS : I intend to make it - to make it sure that the fire hazard does not exist . . MR . TOMLAN: Between the two buildings . . . Mtn . PLATANIOTIS ' Between, the two buildings ( unintelligible) cinder blocks with fire codes like the Building Commissioner would ask; for or, the Fire Department . MF•. . BOOTH ' You intend to tear down the existing building or modify it? MR . PLA.TANIOTIS ' No, modify it . Because the building is a stor- age room today . ( unintelligible) and the two walls are cinder HZA Minutes. 1/6/84 Page : 6 block. wails - one is with -commencing with the Avramis property on one side ( unintelligible) connects to nothing therefore - and the other two will be built the same way and soon it is going to be fireproof . MR . BOOTH: I understand what you said that this was to facilitate kitchen facilities if ,you acquire the Arcade restaurant? MR , PLATANIOTIS : Yes . MR . BOOTH' Which you haven' t done yet , the Arcade building? You haven' t acquired that yet? MR . PLATANIOTISi I will do that if I get the permit to use the back . I do have an agreement with the owner of the property, Mr . ( unintelligible) . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions? MR . BOOTH: If you - just to maintain the existing business is there any reason to expand the restaurant? The existing Cosmopolitan restaurant? MR . PLATANIOTIS : The existing Cosmopolitan Restaurant already has a kitchen - it is not going to do anything - it is not going to be connected with anything - they are going to be two separate operations . The new business is going to be a business that is going to be opened from KOD o' clock: on . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions? Thank. you, Nick: . Is there anyone who wishes to speak: in support of this application? (no one) Is there anyone who wishes to speak: in opposition to this application? (no one) RZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page : 3 The Board considered the request of Nick: Plataniotis for an area variance to permit the extension of restaurant uses into the rear building at 315-31" College Avenue (Cosmopolitan Restaurant) . The decision of the Hoard was as follows . MR . TOMLAN . I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1541 . MS . BAGNARDI : I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) There are practical difficulties in complying with the Ordinance by virtue of the duct work: . ?) The proposed renovations do not exacerbate the present situation . 3) This would not affect the character of the neighborhood . VOTE ' 3 YES; 3 NO VARIANCE REQUEST DENIED FOR LACE. OF FOUR (4) AFFIRMATIVE VOTES BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page' 9 ''-.SECRETARY HOARD . The next case is appeal number 1543 ' Appeal of John J . VanGor•der for an area vari- ance under Section 30 . 25,, Column 11 (minimum requirements for front yard setbacks) and Section 30 . 49 (extension or enlargement of a non-conforming structure) ,. and Section 30 . 57 ( requirements for a Certificate of Occupancy) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a two-story addition to the front of the single family house at 107 GRANDVIEW AVENUE ( replacing the front porch) . The property is located in an R-2a ( residential - one and two family dwell- ings) use district where the existing use is permitted : however under Section 30 . 49 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the addition . MR. VAN CORDER' John VanGorder . 107 Grandview Avenue . CHAIRMAN WEAVER! You just give us your reasons for needing the variance . MR . VAN CORDER' I could tell you what Ed Sharpe said but I better not . I want to put ars extra bedroom in m;,r house because of my family ' s size . I have three bedrooms which are very small. I have three young children and I also want to put a playroom in the basement and enlarge my living room and I also an additional full bath . So what I anticipate in doing is enlarging the basement to make a playroom and they will tie the same width as the existing basement - ten feet - that will be. my foundation for the extension on the living room which will be about a 10 by 21 foot addition and the second floor - I will be adding an additional bedroom and a full bath . CHAIRMAN WEAVER ' And ;,your difficulty now is not enough room to BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page : ld live in? MR . VAN GGRDER : That ' s right . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Alright . MR . VAN GGRDER: Ar►d not enough money to buy a new house . CHAIRMAN WEAVER , Any questions from the Board? MS , BAGNARDI '. So that will give you two full baths and how many bedrooms? MR , VAN GGRDER: Four bedrooms . MR . BOOTH: You are going to replace the existing porch? MR . VAN GGRDER: I am doing away with the porch . MR , BOOTH: Will the new addition come out any closer to the street than the existing porch? MR . VAN GGRDER: No, no closer to the street . MR . BOOTH: That ' s Grandview? MR . VAN GGRDER: Grandview Avenue, it will be no closer to the street - the difference will be approximately three foot on each side - on the east side and the west side of the existing porch now. The existing porch is . . . . . MR . BOOTH: Is in the middle of the house - I drove by it . MR . VAN GGRDER: And there is approximately three foot on each side . MR . BOOTH: So it is going to go out to the edge of the existing house? MR . VAN GGRDER : Right . Arid the front of the house will be ,just like the house is right now except no porch . MR. BOOTH. And two stories high . HZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page : 11 MR. VAN CORDER: And it will be two stories high . And I am anticipating on having the same roof and I did have a question . We began talking about - my wife and I began talking about possibly putting a deck - I don' t know if we will do it right away or sometime_ in the future . I was wondering if that has to be included or if we have to get a permit for that also? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well John first of all , without any dimensions we couldn' t consider it tonight so . _ . come see the Building Commissioner sometime between 030 and 400 week: days and tell him where and what you war►t to build and he will try to help you . MR . VAN GORDER: It was just a question I had . Okay . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions from the Board? ( none) Is there anyone else who wishes to speak: in support of this application? (no one) Is there anyone who wishes to speak in support of this application? (no one) RRA Minutes: 2.!6/84 Page : 12 The Etc►ard considered the appeal of John Van Gorder for ars area variance to permit a two-story addition to the front of the single family house located at 107 GRANDVIEW AVENUE which would replace the front porch . The decision of the Board was as follows ' MS , BAGNARDI : I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1543 . MR . TOMLAN . I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT 1 ) The change does observe the spirit of the Ordinance and doesn' t change the character of the area . 2) It wouldn' t affect the character of the neighborhood . 3) The practical difficulty in the front yard deficiency would be difficult to comply with . VOTE , 5 Yes ', 1 No GRANTED BZA Minutes 216t84 Page '. 13 SECRETARY HOARD : The next case is appeal number 1544 : Appeal of Stephen C . Parsons of William Downing Associates , Architects , for an area variance under Section 30 . 25, Columns 11 , and 14 (minimum requirements for one front yard, and rear yard setbacks)., Section 30 . 49 ( extension or enlargement of a non-conforming structure) , and Section 30 . 57 ( r-equir-ements for a Certificate of Occupancy) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a new multiple dwelling with six apartments at 205 EDDY STREET AND 106 COOK STREET . The property is located in an R-3a ( residential., multiple dwelling) use district in which the proposed use is permitted: however- under Sections 30 . 49 and 30 . 57 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the existing deficiencies (there are two existing buildings on the property) before a building permit and a certificate of occupancy can be issued for the new building . MR . PARSONS : Stephen Parsons of William Downing Associates , DeWitt Building . MR , DOWNINGS I ' m Bill Downing.. I live in DeWitt Park Apartments . I 'm here to represent Mr . and Mr-s, David Wong, 106 Cook. Street who own several properties_: in this area and on which he wishes to build ars additional six apartment building . The two houses that are existing on this property embrace a corner property . They sort of are a missing tooth to the urban landscape . They have paid taxes on this property for- a lone time and now they would like to develop it . Were. it not for the fact that the existing residence - the Wong residence at 106 Cook: Street violates certain setbac.k:s, established lone after its construction, we could build without a variance . There is no use violation or density violation or parking violation that we ar-e asking for and BBA Mina►tes 2/6/84 Page ; 14 we believe that the impact on the area would be typical in the neighborhood . Most corner lots in the east hill area are developed. I believe it would be a hardship not to be able to build because of a current violation that did not exist when the house was originally constructed . Mr . Parsons will show you where those property lines are and where the variances are needed on that . MR . PARSONS : This pian shows the existing conditions on the property which is presently - both lots are owned by Mr . Wong but it is subdivided into two separate properties . As you see the side yard and the back: yard and the front yard are now violated by the Cook Street house . The proposed development would legally ,join these two properties together and these existing structures would remain essentially the same. Stur.ture number one being a single family dwelling where Mr . Wong lives with his family and structure number two is a three-apartment house . One , three bedroom apartment and two, one-bedroom apartments . The proposed apartment building has six additional apartments, five of them being three-bedroom, and one of them being two-bedroom. All of the setback.., density, parking requirements are fulfilled by all new construction but, again, the existing dwelling violates setback: requirements . This red lir►e shows the minimum setback: envelope for the site and as you see on Gook Street, the front yard isn' t met , and a back: yard is not met either . Another interpretation,, you could say that this blue line - another interpretation of the Zoning would make this a side yard - again BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page: 15 it is not fulfilled. We have been able to - in looking at the number of bedrooms in the units, the maximum number of people that you could ever put on this site,, legally, would be thirty people, and we have parking for ten which would be able to be one parking space for three residents and we understand that the typical planning allowance is one in four in Collegetown . And so even beyond zoning, which this does fulfill., it fulfills a practical planning criteria . We are endeavoring to make it a residential scale development in keeping with the architecture of the neighborhood and believe that it will contribute to the quality of the neighborhood . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Identify the dotted red line that runs north and south right by your finger . MR . PARSONS : That is the back: yard setback: requirement for the lot . It is a corner lot MR . BOOTH: Measured from Eddy Street? MR . DOWNING : Yes ( unintelligible) corner lot that you could call the front yard - the Eddy Street . Now if you were to call the front yard took: Street that red line would become the blue line and that is the normal interpretation so that the house actually on the top there is only about three feet over and the street line is about five feet over or something like that . MS . FARRELL : But if you did that wouldn' t there be a new red line that was to the right of the red line that is on the left now? MR . DOWNING: Well , typically, you can call the - in accordance RZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page: 16 with the mor►ing law., you can call both streets the front yard so in actual fact the violation on the Cook. Street property is only a few feet on either side and it is the one property that was built prior to the zoning laws that was built a few feet off., unfortunately , Otherwise we wouldn' t be here asking for a variance , we have every other requirement for this neighborhood - for this zone, met . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Let me ask: another question for clarification . As the present owner bought these properties, did he buy two properties? MR . PARSONS : They are presently two properties . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Ar►d do they have - where is the line between the two properties? MR . PARSONS : Well it show: (pointing to the diagram) . We are proposing that they become one . CHAIRMAN WEAVER : Okay . MR . PARSONS ' Presently it is . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well, at the time the present owner bought them he bought - riot necessarily simultaneously but he bought a house on the lot over here and a house on the lot over here? MR . PARSONS : Yes . VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE : I think: they were purchased simultaneously . CHAIRMAN WEAVER : As you are proposing , how many units - how many apartments., counting the single-family dwelling as an apartment, how many other, units would be on this lot - this lot being BZA Minutes 2!6!84 Page: 17 combined? MR . PARSONS : Okay, it is three-units, one-unit and six-units . CHAIRMAN WEARER: So you would have ten . . . MR . PARSONS . Ten total units, each with three or less bedrooms requiring one space per unit . MR . BOOTH: What is the distance between the proposed building and the existing building., number two? MR . PARSONS : This diagonal distance . . MR, BOOTH: Not the diagonal distance but MR . PARSONS : This is twelve . MR . BOOTH: Twelve feet . The existing Zoning Ordinance requires - I mean., it doesn' t have a requirement but it goes a distance between buildings but it had yard dimensions . MR . PARSONS : The ,cards though are on the periphery of the property so if' you have many structures on a site the yards are set back from the edges of the ( Unintelligible) MR , BOOTH: But right now you have what are two sites, you have two separate properties and you are talking about building a new building which is very close to an existing building . MR . PARSONS : Which would not be governed by setback if there was no property line between them . MR , BOOTH: But now there is a property line between them. MR . PARSONS : Right , This is a reverse subdivision of sorts . MR . BOOTH: (Unintelligible) traditionally . CHAIRMAN WEARER' Let me ask: another question., though . that has to do with some of the fundamentals of the Zoning Ordinance and BZA Minutes 2l6184 Page: 18 that approaches density . MR . PARSONS : ( unintelligible) within the maximum density - 35% . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I haven' t asked yet . MR . PARSONS : I ' m sorry . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: If you had raw land here and proposed to have to build the existing building, number- two., how many square feet lot would you have to have? MR . PARSONS : I ' m sorry . CHAIRMAN WEAVER . You don ' t know? MR , PARSONS : I didn' t follow the question . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well I ' ll start with building one . If you had raw land here and wanted to put up building one, don' t worry about the setbac:ks, how many square feet is the minimum size lot for a single family dwelling? MR . PARSONS . Let me get my summary sheet . It is well within for a single family dwelling in an R-3a . MR , BOOTH: 5, 000 square feet , I think . CHAIRMAN WEAVER. I think: so too . I want to make a sheet of this . You need 5, 000 for a single family dwelling and now we got a three apartment house in building number- two and that requires a lot how big? MR , PARSONS : Using all of the computations for the side, I have a required square footage of the site of 12, 250 . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: How did you calculate that, did you take ten apartments and sere what the requirement was for ten apartments? MR . PARSONS . Yes , for ten apartments . BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page: 19 MR , BOOTH: But that means that you ar-e discounting everything that the existing houses are sitting ons' How big ar-e these properties ,joined together now - square footage ! MR . PARSONS : 13, 200 square feet . MR , BOOTH: Is that on that sheet , I missed that . MR . PARSONS : It is on the summation . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So if we were to put up a single structure on a new lot being described as the total property, we' d have 13, 200 and how many apartment=_: could we put on 13, 200? MR . DOWNING : Eleven . MR , PARSONS : I think: you could put one more apartment with 13, 2 . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: But that ' s not what we have, we have three separate struc:tur-es: proposed and one of them requires 5, 000 and existing building two requires 6, 000 . MR . BOOTH : 61000 . MR . PARSONS : At one point I made art assumption and I think it was based on conversation with Tom Hoard quite a while ago that this is all - could be all considered as a multiple dwelling . I don ' t know - all three structures as one multiple dwelling for the purposes of the Code . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well now that we are in a hearing this Board will have to decade its inter•pr-etation of the Ordinance as it applies to this proposal and we may ask. for- several versions if there is more than one here . What I am trying to at least ventilate the other r-egUirements . In a pictorial way you have given us the setback: deficiencies but I am trying to approach the BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page: 20 density and the density, as the two existing buildings are there it would seem to me that we have 5, 000 required for one and the multiple dwelling with three apartments would require - is that on our cap sheet? MS . BAGNARDI : No . CHAIRMAN WEAVER. Do you know what that is Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: What three multiple dwellings would require? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Building two is a three-apartment structure , is that not so? MR . PARSONS : Yes . SECRETARY HOARD . Three or four? MR . PARSONS : Building two is three apartments . MR . BOOTH: As I read the Zoning Ordinance, three units would require 6, 000 square feet . SECRETARY HOARD : For new construction . MR . BOOTH ' For new construction . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well using those requirements and, I don' t know what - my eye would say that they are in compliance with the density requirement now, but building three would six apartments would be 5, 000 for the first three and a thousand for each additional? MR . BOOTH: Six thousand for- the first three and 750 for each additional . ` C:HAIRMAN WEAVER: 750? Alright . . MR . DOWNING: I think:, for example, if you were to assume that property number one was not built irregularly., that is., met BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page : 21 present zoning laws , and you wish to build an addition of six apartments, I don' t believe there would be any violation of the code providing it is all one property and that is similarly, I think:, if you simply separate them and built that one on the corner it is our understanding that it is also no violation excepting for the fact that house number one wasn' t aware ,of what the future zoning codes were going to be . And I would like to ask: Mr . Hoard if that isn' t his interpretation? SECRETARY HOARD . Well my interpretation is that what you' ve got here is a situation - you could take the lot size and determine the number of dwellings, whether it is one building or two or three., it doesn' t really matter- but that the number one building is in the required rear yard almost entirely . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well., this is overly simple, but take the two existing buildings , the Zoning Ordinance requires 11 ,, 000 square feet for- them and from a gross of 13, 200 you' ve got 2, 200 foot building site to build on, from a density standpoint., as I understand it . MR . GOWNING: Yes , but that is identifying them as separ-ately- owned properties - this is one property . It might very well be considered . . . . as ten units . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: If we were: to come in with a couple of r-ow houses to stand on the two leas, for example - how many apartments could be there? MR . BOOTH : Isn' t what you are doing is double counting - you are counting all the densities: associated with the two existing BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Wage ' 22 buildings to create additional square footage for building a new building . Isn' t that the problem we are fatting here? MR . DOWNINGi No, I think: the only real problem is that because building number one was built in violation of the code we. couldn' t get a building permit . Otherwise we wouldn' t be here - we wouldn' t need a zoning variance . MR . BOOTH: I ' m quarreling somewhat with that interpretation . You are suggesting that we should essentially discount the existing buildings that are there in terms of the density of this new building' MR . GOWNING' No, I don' t mean to discount but what I mean to say is that as it is now - if these three buildings are now .joined under the terms of the request that we are making into one property which meets all of the zoning requirements, the variance requirement, the density requirements and parking requirements and my understanding from what I have heard from meetings with Mr . Parsons and Mr . Hoard that had it not been for the fact that that one building was over the setback: line, we would have no problem . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Let ' s talk; about that for just a moment . You say that it has a couple of setback: limitations, but it also has a right to 5, 000 square feet minimum lot on which to exist and it has it today . And if we were to bring that property out coming west on Cook; Street until we create a side yard far enough west to give us a 5, 000 square forst lot., we would be down somewhere in the middle of the apartment house that you propose . In other BZA Minutes 2/8/84 Page! 23 words it is unfortunate or not that the structure was put on the lot in the manner in which it was but it occupies, but it has a right traditionally and historically to the whole lot all the way to Eddy Street and so certainly if we are looking at it as a Gook Street property, it has a right to a side: yard on the west., adequate to meet the side yard requirements for one thing . And also to accommodate a 5, 000 square foot lot which it already has., before we start to building a new structure . If we create a 5, 000 square foot lot there it impinges, it seems to me, upon the outline of building three . MR . DOWNING' Well in the neighborhood, typically , those corner lots are not vacant - they have been built on and often in conformation► similar to what you see here . Many of them of course prior to the current zoning law . We would like you to consider this property as one property, it is not three separate buildings, but one property owned by the Fame people indivisible and under those circumstances you have ten units which meet all of the zoning requirements excepting that one building was built a lona time ago and if you consider the Gook: Street front yard - he has a three foot projection over the side lot and a small projection over the front yard as well . But in every other respect the three properties which are now one property, do, indeed, meet all the minimum requirements and the impact on the community - on the neighborhood would be typical of the east hill neighborhood . In other words keeping a vacant lot in that location is indeed a hardship and if you look at the drawing BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page: 24 underneath which illustrates the profiles of the properties in the neighborhood. The: one that is proposed to be constructed is on the right - it does not., I believe., appear- to be out of the ordinary in that general area . So in terms of having a negative impact upon the Community,, I would like to suggest that it would not , that it, in fact, restored that vacant corner to the urban street,, the urban landscape . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anything else you would like to add to your application? Any questions from the Board? MR . BOOTH: How large is the lot that the Cook: Street house now sits on`' It looks to me., roughly half so I can divide by . . . MR . PARSONS : One-half of 1, 320 . MR . TOMLAN: Is there any reason for having the main access on Cook Street, particularly? MR . PARSONS : Ir► the outworking of the plan it could fit there . MR . TOMLAN: I see . MR . PARSONS : It also helps to break: up that facade. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions'!, ( none) Thank you very much . Is there anyone: else who wishes to speak: in support of this application" Come forward please . MR . PICHEL : I ' m Michael Pichel,, I ' m the attorney for the Wongs . I also have two letters of two neighbors who have given notice of support of the application. One is from the Changs and one is ( unintelligible) First I would like to speak: to the questions that Mr . Weaver brought up about the lot size . I think that when you - the question you were asking about 5, 000 feet being for the BZA Minutes 2/6f84 Page' 25 single family house and maybe sig: or whatever it was for the three family house that - when you look: at it that way, you are again looking at it as though it is two or three separate lots . There is one lot - there is no question but that you don' t need the additive of the three separate buildings , And I think an easy way to look: at that is to look at this, if the architects had designed this as if the buildings were ,joined. They didn' t do that and I don' t think Chats something that the Board or the neighbors or anyone is particularly, is promoting but if these three buildings were ,joined together in any way., it would be one f building and there would be a space on this lot for eleven apart- ments and not ten if these buildings were combined by design or demolished or ,just if the third building were designed so that it bridged over to the single family residence or the three family residence, you just wouldn' t have the question, it would be one single building that would have certain side yard requirements and a certain lot size . So I think: if you view it in a way that the Ordinance is written and it has always been interpreted - I don' t think: there has ever been an interpretation where if you take a property and combine two lots into one that you then start adding up the old lots - that isn' t the way the Ordinance has ever been interpreted before . When you combine a lot you do away with the center side yards and you do away with the lot re- quirements . So if you have some questions about that I would hope that you would put that on the record so if there is any problem with this we know what you were considering - that that BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page : 26 would be a fine: because the applicant and the architect and the building department to date have been operating and making this application on the basis that there are no requirements of the Zoning Ordinance unmet other than the side yard r-equir-ements of the Wong' s single family residence on Crook: Street . CHAIRMAN WEAKER: May I ask: you a question? It may expand upon your opinion. If we look: at the Crook: 'street pr-oper-ty., the existing building two., I would consider- it a legal . . . number one,, I ' m sorry, I would consider- it a legal non-conforming single family dwelling in having two deficiencies - one it ' s distance between the property line on the east and its east side ar-e deficient and its front yar-d on Crook: Street is deficient, assuming that it is a Crook: Street oriented property . MR . PIC:HEL . Whether- you consider it Cook: {street oriented property or you combine the two lots., I think: you ar-e cor-r-ect . CHAIRMAN WEAKER , There might be rear, yard deficiency in that event . I don' t know,, without measuring, it makes no difference to my - the point I am making is., however, it is not non-conforming in the sense that it meet: the minimum lot size, it has more space than is the minimum r-equir-ement by twelve or thirteen hundred feet., I guess . The problem I see in interpretation is whether- that legal non-conforming structur-e afford=_: us a vacant corner, lot or is part of the required mimimum five thousand square foot lot for that single family dwelling . Granted that there: is grandfathered deficiencies in front yard BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page! 27 and side yard but not in lot size . MR . PIC.HEL. : Well once you combine the two lots you gain a great deal more building area on the lot because you don' t have to have a 5., 000 foot lot for each building or 6,, 000 foot lot for the three unit, you have a total of - you started out with a 5, 000 foot lot for the first and then you acid on for each unit on top of that . The point I am trying to make is that - it doesn' t matter if they are separate buildings and I think: that is where the Board is - I think. - confused , If you look: at this., if they put a roof over the whole building thein you wouldn' t have that problem - you wouldn' t even be thinking about that . If this were one building, it was somehow connected,, by a walkaway or something if you made that one building,, that entire issue disappears and I think it disappears whether- it is one building or not and that is the way the Ordinance has always been - I ' m surprised that there is any question about that here today, I don' t think there has ever been an interpretation where you had to have a 5, 000 foot lot for one and a 6, 000 foot lot for- the other and then consider the third building separately . If that were the case this application would have another- problem which would be whether there was the density requirement and I don' t believe that we are making any application with regard to a density requirement that is not before you. But if you are considering it that way I would appreciate it if you would put it on the record so that if there is a problem with this that it would be noted that you consider this to have a side yard requirement in BZA Minutes 1/6/84 Page: 18 addition to a density requirement or lot coverage requirement . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: A matter that fliers along with that same prob- lem is whether- building the new building is creating a new lot or ,just putting a building on a newly created combined lot . In other words historically we had two building lots with a building can each. Now, do we have one new lot that is a combination of those two historically created lots . MR . PIC'.HEL : That is exactly what we have here and that happens all the time . Otherwise you would be required to have side yards between these buildings . If you are going to consider whether these extra square footage then you are also - then you are going to have to find that there is no side yards and that is just not the ease when you combine a lot then you don' t have any interior- side yard requirements nor do you have separate lot size re- quirements you consider it as one lot . Let me go can, I think there are some other advantages to this . This entire plan was well thought out as a plan for this corner lot . It shows on the plan there are two garages that are torn down. Those are also presently non-conforming uses on the back: yard and side yard . Those garages are gone . We have a well thought out parking area there instead and a landscaped parking area. I think: that what you are going to be faced with and there is a practical difficul- ty here in that the existing building has a foundation and essen- tially if you turn this application drawn, what you are saying to the Wongs, is tear down your single family residence and re- develop your whole idea and put back: ( unintelligible) into the BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Wage ! 19 others or build your eleven unit apartment in another way . I don' t believe that is what the neighborhood warts and I don' t believe that is what the people - I wasn' t at the last meeting but I read the report of the Planning Board, I don' t think that is what the people who spoke in opposition to this want and I don' t think: that is what the Board would want - Our position is that this is a lot that you could build eleven units of this size . Now the only application the Wongs are making is to leave their house where it is . Now these are not absentee landlords., the Wongs live in that single family house, they have been living there,, it is obvious from this plan that they wart the house to remain and to continue living there . If the plan is turned down, what they would be faced with would be to either- abandon the plan, and I don' t think: that is their intention or some kind of either moving their house or redesigning this so that their house did not have those side yard requirements and then they wouldn' t be before the Board of Zoning Appeals they would be before the Building Commissioner and I believe that they will ,just be grant- ed a permit to put up eleven units one way or the ether without side yards . And I would point out that these side yard require- ments have been made variances have been granted fairly often . I owned a property at 306 College Avenue where the applicant,. the Collegetown Motel, made an application to do some work: to build a brand new building right adjoining my lot line in the rear with zero lot line - not an existing but zero - I guess that was a wall there and they wanted to build on top of the wall . Their BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page: 30 application met the requirements of the zoning in every other way and you permitted them to build a new building , not - right on my lot line and there are quite a few other, applications where you' ve approved these side yard and back ,,card requirements . I think if you turn the Wongs down you are ,just telling them, if you want to develop that lot to its potential, to its lawful potential,, or near its lawful potential., then tear down your house or move your house and I don' t think: that is what anybody wants there, I think that that isn' t going to gain anybody any- thing . I wrote a letter to every neighbor asking them to appear . How many appeared I - I have two people supporting the applica- tion - I invited people to look: at the plans in my office who are heve to speak: so I guess there are probably other people that want to speak: on this application . I am willing to answer any questions . MR . BOOTH, There are now two deeds to these two properties? MR . PICHEL : I ' m not sure., I don' t think; that has anything to do - any significance whatsoever . This is a - it is owned by one individual , MR . BOOTH, It has a legal sign►ific:anc:e in terms of if they sold them separately . MR . PICHEL : They could sell them separately now, yes . If this is approved there: is no question about whether they can sell them separately . MR , BOOTH: I am talking about today . Can they sell those properties separately? BBA Minutes 2/6/64 Wage . al MP . PICHEL : I think: they could be sold separately . They are legal non-conforming uses but if this application is approved or if it is developed in some other way so that it couldn' t be sold separately, and even if it were, let ' s assume it were sold separately I don' t think: it could and that could be part of the application, it still wouldn' t be any detrimental thing to the community, it wouldn' t add any density, it wouldn' t add anything detrimental to the community, I don' t think: that ' s an issue . These two lots now are: combined, they are owned by one person, there could be a declaration to that affect and if it ' s developed in this way,, the answer is no it couldn' t be done separately be- cause the properties would then have insufficient side yards, they would have insufficient lot sizes and other problems . The idea - this happens all the time where properties are combined . That ' s what ' s been here all along . Now the Wongs want to de- velope their property., not even to its, full potential, they want to develop it near its potential., they are not asking for the very last apartment to be added, they are not asking to have the very minimum parking, they are gust asking to leave their single family residence where it is . If this single family residence could be moved over into the center of this lot and the parking be where the single family residence is now, nobody is going to be in front of this Board., we would .just get a building permit or if the building were taken down and I doubt if there were just one large structure put up in this area, it would fit in as well with the area (unintelligible) properties that were designed in BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page : 32 the same size and appearances as the houses that are in the area , I think: that this is an application that should be approved . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions? Thank: you . Is there anyone else who wishes to speak: in support of this: application? Yes sir . MR , PARSONS : I ' m Kermit C . Parsons, I live at 1604 Dryden Road, Freeville, New York: . I own the property at 12£' Eddy Street, just across from this, which we purchased about ten years ago with the idea of moving into Ithaca . We still plan to move into Ithaca at some point but have delayed . I would like to speak: in favor of the variance . I am persuaded that in the long term interest of the neighborhood - and in which I have a long term interest -that this addition is superior- to whatever might happen either in the immediate future or in the long term future, in the way of the kind of structure which I think: could be put on this corner prop- erty in a much less thoughtful way than the current design has done it . I think: that both - as indicated in the drawing -the character of the proposed building fits in with the neighborhood, I think: that since it is a multi-family area, that if one does treat this: as a single building, which, in fact, it could be, and I think: would be a poor design if it were a single building, less liveable space with one less single family house in the neighbor- hood . That neighborhood would be - the only advantage I can see in that for the neighborhood would be the next house on Cook: Street would have a wider side yard because I think: that is prob- ably what would happen . In other words it just seems to me, as BZA Minutes 1I6f64 Page: 33 someone who has a stake in the neighborhood that accepting the idea that it is a multi-family neighborhood and that is it ' s main character , that since the density requirements are met, the park- ing requirements are met., etc: . , if one interprets this as one lot, that this in fact is a desirable addition to that site and I plan to spend a lot of time there . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank: you . Any questions? MS . BAGNARDI ' I have a question. Your house at 116 Eddy Street, is that a single family or a multiple family? MR . PARSONS : It ' s a multiple family - it ' s a large bottom unit which has about six rooms and there are two small apartments above - well really less than one bedroom apartments - they are one or two per-sort apartments . They were built by the previous owner . MS . BAGNARDI : So there are three units then? MR . PARSONS : There are three units in that apartment house, yes . MS . BAGNARDI : And you' ve owned it for ten ,nears? MR . PARSONS : That ' s right . MS . BAGNARDI : Thank you . CHAIRMAN WEAVER : Thank: you . Is there anyone else who wishes to speak. irk support of this application? ( no one else) Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this applications' MR . NOVARR. I ' m John Novarr and I live right across the street from the Wongs . Let me start out first by saying that I have no real problem with multi-family housing on Eddy Street, I have a couple of apartments in my own house and I own apartment houses BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page : 34 within a few blocks of Eddy Street in a couple of different di- rections . I think: of myself as being reasonably familiar about how the Planning Board and BZA work:, I ' ve seen some of you here before on problems that I ., myself, have . A lot of what has been said here is absolutely true, Eddy Street is, by and large, now a multi-family area - there: are probably three times as many people living on Eddy Street than there were eighty years ago . All the single family houses are houses that were built originally as mainly family homes with an apartment to accommodate a college student . These have now been turned into student housing . There is no place to park on that street at right, if you come in after ?: CEG or 8: 00 o ' clock at night, with par-king only on one side of the street, you may have to go several blocks., or you may have to circle the area several times waiting for something to open up . The - it is my understanding in talking with Cornell - Cornell traffic or parking division, that one out of every two Cornell students owns a czar, which does not save - the last re- port you heard is wrong -there are two different kinds of ways of looking at Cornell Students and their automobiles . I ' m not as familiar with new construction and lot line deficiencies as I might be but within my memory usually you don' t find people here over, lot 'tine deficiencies on new construction , Usually, within my memory, people like myself come here and say they have bought a house that is a single family house in a multi-family area and they wish to use the house as multi-family and their problem is that within Mr hoard' s intepretation of the zoning law even if BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page! 35 you' ve got a conforming use if you' ve got a non-conforming build- ing you have: to appear here and explain what you are doing, which is something that I agree with because it gives you people a shot at taking a look: at whether what that person wants to do with the building makes any great amount of sense or not . It ' s not un- usual at all for there to be buildings in the whole old east hill area, that is Seneca, Buffalo, Stewart, Ferris, College., Linn, it isn' t unusal at all for those buildings to have lot line defi- ciencies . The Zoning Ordinance as it stands now was written I believe after most of those buildings were put up . But what is important is that the City has taken a point of view, as I under- stand it, that through the legal examination of these lot line deficiencies, it does give the City a shot at figuring out whether things make sense or not . This is not a rehabilitation of an old building with a lot line deficiency, as I see what we' ve got up there . There are two distinct City lots, I don' t know who drew the lots originally but I suspect that somebody went through portions of the City at one time or another and de- cided that you needed so many square feet to put a building on and in this case on Eddy Street with the two lots that we are talking about, they have fifty feet alone Eddy Street and one hundred thirty-six or eight feet deep, so what we don' t have first of all is an extra lot - there is no extra lot -there are two lots and what you've got there is a side yard or a front yard, depending on how you want to try to adapt the thine to your own use . It is the urge of the Wongs to put a third building on 8ZA Minutes 2!6/84 Page: 36 a side yard, in fact., that I don' t think: our forefathers in Ithaca ever intended to see a third building put on and in fact I believe that if the two buildings that were there were placed reasonably on their individual lots, no one would be in here be- cause there wouldn' t be any room to guild a third building, if that - particularly the one on Cook: were slit down so that it had sort of a natural front yard and side , yard arrangement - there wouldn' t be enough square feet there to put a third building . In fact, I think; that the Wongs and the {rather many other people that they have hired to support them - what they are up to here, is they are looking for a loophole in the law in order to be able to build a third building on the two lots . The last time that I looked at this plan or at least I guess., one that was sent to me, there was: a parking arrangement and I asked the architect, Mr . Parsons., in fact, I mentioned to him, sort of in jest, toward the end of the Planning Board meeting that one of the things he might look: at between the time that we were at the Planning Board meeting and the time we came in here was the parking because I didn' t believe that the parking would work: as it was shown on my plan., and, in fact, I went to Term Hoard' s office the other day and asked him to cut out a little white square that represented a car and show me how you could turn into these individual parking places and it ' s my memory that in Mr . Hoard' s office it didn' t work; that there isn' t enough parking or that is, the little white square couldn' t go in those designated little parking places that are in what is now the side yard and the back: yard of Mr . Wong ' s 6ZA Minutes 1/6/84 Paye! 37 house . I question the answers that the Wong' s lawyer gave you having to do with for►y term ownership of this . If this third building gets built , you know how three buildings on a lot., by necessity, has to be one lot . If the Wongs even wish to sell any of this separately., their lawyer ' s answer to that was , "well they won' t be able to because they will have all sorts of deficien- cies"., that is certainly true, but there is alleviation for that, they can come right back: through a pr-oc:ess similar to this one and ask: for- a subdivision, but if they were to ask: for sub- division now, in order to do what they wanted, if they tried to create a third lot from the two that they have they wouldn' t get the subdivision but if they come here ter, years from now and say that they' ve got a problem., they can' t sell all those buildings at once, they, they' ve got - they' ve "suffered" and because of that they can say they are unable to sell and they have the right to a subdivision. In other words there is the chance, it seems to me, that they are backing into something which they can' t get right at the moment . I think that that is all that I have to say . I ' ve covered all of my notes here . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions from the Board? I thank. you . MR . NOVARR' I ' m sorry, I have one other comment that I would like to make. Mr- . Pic:hel spent a few minutes telling us what a great Alar► we have here and how beautiful it is and what an asset to the neighborhood we are going to have . 1 think: we heard Mr . Gowning say that as well . I didn' t finish architecture school but I went to part of it and what we' ve got here doesn' t show us BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page : 38 anything . I doesn' t show us any materials, it doesn' t show what kind of siding we have or what kind of a roof we have or anything else . What we are seeing here is a plan. And so I suggest that if there is any chance at all that this plan might be accepted I would ask: that the house get designed according to the houses that are on the street . Which means., no texture one allowed and we' d like to see a clapboard home or cedar shingle home with pitched roofs and something that truly does work with the char- acter of the neighborhood. My only other comment here is that - in the only way that I can - one of the only comments that I can make here is that by and large Eddy ;street has managed to avoid having all its yards turned into backstop . It has been able to do that, not because of the magnanimity of the landlords., but be- cause it is: a screwy street . It is so steep off the street in both directions that it is very difficult to get parking into either the front yards or the back: yards of the homes and so I don' t really see this, in plan anyway., as conforming to what we have and., in fact, as I look. up Eddy Street in line with the Wong' s side yard, up through their Cook: {street side yard, up through the ether buildings on Eddy Street, {doing up the right hand side of the road - they all kind of lined up, they all seemed to have front yards, they were almost exactly the same distance from the street and the building as drawn here doesn' t have that at all, in fact , I guess_: it depends on whether again, you consider this a front yard or a side yard but in fact if you try to look: up Eddy Street from this: point., so that you are look- RZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page: 39 ing past all these porches, you run right into - probably fifteen feet into the new building that they are proposing to guild, so again I don' t see this - what little I can see - as conforming in design to what else is on Eddy street . Thank: you. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? Please come forward . MS . HANNA: I ' m Kathy Hanna and I live at 210 Eddy Street, right across the street and my objection is that regardless of the re- quirement it will change the neighborhood quite a bit and lot of us are ,just very upset about another space being filled up with lots and lots of students and lots and lots of cars - this is not going to be a house that a family will be interested in., in the slightest . There will be more cars then there will be apartments - that goes without saying . Where they are going to go nobody knows . A lot of us are just very concerned that Eddy Street is just one big dormitory and it seems to me that at some point somebody has to say no we don' t want to be a big dormitory, that it is time to say no . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank: you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak: in opposition? Come forward . MR . HANNA: My name is Tom Hanna, I am the Chairman of the East Hill Civic: Association., I live at 210 Eddy Street . I deliver over to you - and this is from another neighbor from Reed Parker who lives on the block: immediately 'behind our house at 210 and therefore also just one and one-half houses away from the lot in question. Mr . Parker raises the concern in his letter that EZA Minutes 2l6/84 Page, 40 enough is enough. We have neighborhood that is under- extremely severe developmental pressur-e and we sat across the street from this lot from the time that we' ve owned our house -ours is a mul- tiple family house - we' ve been in the house since 1970 . We have a studio apartment in our- basement., we came to you because we needed a side lot variance, we had two and one-half feet less because we had a bay window that extended out on the side of our property and at that time that bay window was issue enough to cause. us to come before you . We built within our structure . I wanted you to know that when I sit here now. What we ar-e con- cerned about in our neighborhood right now is that the law is saying "This is going to be an exception" if we grant it . This is extremely important to our- entire neighborhood . Every single piece of property that we have from State Street to Eddygate; from Mitchell Street to the Campus bridge, from Dryden Road all the way down to College Avenue is susceptible to the most intense development possible on the basis of the side yard here or a few feet there (unintelligible) there have been ars enormous number of building permits that have been thrown into the hopper recent- ly and they all have one tendency and that is to take advantage of every scIuar-e foot that is available . Cour concer-n which we bring on a number- of issues.. is that we exercise the law in terms of this limitation . While our- neighborhood -while the developer while the Planners and while Common Council and all the others who are involved have enough time to make sense out of develop- ment in that area - that is the over-riding concer-n of the neigh- BZA Minutes 2/5/84 Paye : 41 bor-hood and that is why it has pressed to have resolutions from the Civic: Association for East Hill and from the Bryant Park Civic: Association . There have been explicit r-ecommendations given and they ar-e tending to say., in civil terms "straighten out what we' ve got, put some limits on what noes forward now - use the laws that are in place until we can yet a decent plan for our- neighbor-hc>od. An irony for- me in looking acr-oss the street at the Tony' s house, ar-e two ironies -the first is that it has been a pleasure to live across the street from the Wongs . I don' t know of a lawn and a property that has been better kept in our neighborhood. They are very good neighbors; we' ve enjoyed shopping at the shop that they used to own up the street . We are glad for- the things that have been happening for them that have made it possible for them to come and consider- with you the possibility of this development . The other side of that irony is that I own a lot that is not quite the same size but I could be forced to come back: to you., should you decade to accept this plan and show you that my property ac- ross the street is also a double lot, it also can be developed to within the last square foot of the 35% limit and., fr-ankly, I don' t want to do it and I don' t want to be forced to do it and I think: those of us who have the room to do it; who have the homes really don' t want to do it . My next doer neighbor on my left up the street, that is Frank Flannery., I hope that you have received his letter , he made a point of approaching me. on the issue, he doesn' t live in that house - he grew up in that house - he has BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page: 42 students in that house - we work: very closely together- in trying to keep mood living relationships between us on our side of the street . He has the ability to put a parking lot in the back of his house . He has the ability to come before you and say that he wants to divide his place up into more units . He has the side lots, he has the back: yard . I think: that for many of us, we are trying to hold off - we don' t want to see the collapse - we want to keep our homes: there - we want to keep the Wongs as neighbors - it is delightful that they took. over the Langhans; house and that they are living in it and we would love to have them con- tinue there. As you may have heard., I think. that there is an underlying thing from the neighborhood which is that this is just way too much for- what is there . Some people have looked at the lot and they cannot imagine how you cart put any structure there . We are riot - from our point of view - saying that ' s impossible to put some: kind of a structure there which cart enhance their well being and could take as best advantage as they might think needs to be done there . But what we see here is an enormous intensity and from some neighbors points of view., we have a hard time thinking of them being able to stay in that house once they have the development that they have proposed here, actually in place . Ther► it just goes again to something else. It is hard to have neighborly concerns come before you . We haven' t been able to talk: to the Wongs about this plan or to know about it before it was public: business . There might be some kind of thing that should happen there and is decent to happen there and is suitable BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page: 43 for all of us but in terms of the pr-essur-e it puts on the rest of Lis., if this goes through we' d be most appreciative if you would take this as one of those signal events that it is too much: it is out of confor-mance, there is certainly no compelling reason for- it to happen and therefore why change the neighborhood as much as this would? CHAIRMAN WEAVER : Any questions? Alright thank: you . Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this matter? Now I assume there has been enough discussion here and it usually stimulates someone that was on earlier- to add a few remarks . I would like to say that we' d be salad to listen to everyone all over again but this Board is here to interpret the Zoning Ordinance - to administer the Zoning Ordinance -practical- ly no planners or- designers reside on this Board and -at least actively - and so any r-emarks or clarifications will please be confined to points that would further- develop the requirements for our granting which is that there are practical difficulties, that there ar-e existing conditions that would not allow these owners to benefit from their, ownership of the property . And if there are none . Yes, Stephen . CHAIRMAN WEAVER : We have some letters,, while you are coming up, if you will bear with us . . . . SECRETARY HOARD : The first two ar-e the two that Mr . Pichel brought in and they are supporting . "Mrs . Cheng and I are owners of near-by property at 209 Eddy Street . We support the applica- tion of Wong and ask: that the variance be approved. is/Chien BZA Minutes 2!6184 Page: 44 Cheng" The second one is from Ping-lei Wang, 948 East State Street : "This letter is in support of Mr . and Mrs . Wong' s appli- cation for a variance for the 205 Eddy Street and 106 Cook Street properties . My wife and I are owners of property at 116 Cook Street . We do not object to the application and ask that your Board approve the request of Wongs . Sincerely, /s1(Mrs . ) Pilwun Wang 948 East State Street ,, Ithac:a., New York: 14850" The other two one is from Frani,: and Gail Flannery., 1157 Taughannock Blvd . "Dear Members of the BZA: As owners of 114 Eddy Street., we feel the addition of 17 bedrooms and 5 parking spaces would be over utilization of this lot . The parking problems in the area are well documented. Numerous grandfathered buildings make for an already overcrowded situation . We can forsee that increasing the number of bedrooms from 8 to 15 with an increase in parking from 5 to 10 spaces is going to be inadequate . We therefore oppose this variance, Sincerely, s/s Gail Flannery 8 Frank: Flannery" This is from Reeve Parker, 123 Norah Quarry Street : "I wish to register my opposition to the proposed variance at 205 Eddy Street sought by Mr . 9 Mrs . David Wong . As a resident of North Quarry Street, one block away, and as a citizen who frequently walks and drives along Eddy Street, I think that the principle ought to be that when a property is in violation of the zoning ordinances, a variance ought to be granted only when it will con- tribute to the enhancement of the neighborhood , The proposed variance will contribute only to the further crowding of the Eddy Street area, and this at a time when construction on Dryden Road BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page : 45 and College Avenue is certain to lead to the sizable infusion of further residents and further automobile traffic . I have no ill wishes for Mr . & Mrs . Wong, but think: that the opportunity to increase the tenancy on a property would in this case be deleter- ious to the neighborhood., and I therefore urge the Zoning Board to reject the variance. 'fours sincerely, /s/ Reeve Parker" MR . PARSONS : I would like to add some points in answer to Mr . Novarr ' s comments c:onc:erning the traditional development of this neighborhood - what our forefathers might have intended in the density . Almost every other- cor-ner lot in this neighborhood vio- lates setback: or- density requirements in the subdevelopment pat- ter-n. Within three blocks I have seven intersections, each with one or two properties in violation - so there was no real density considerations - especially in situations like corner lots -that was quite ambiguous to them pr-c,bably . And the other- point is that I believe the par-king does work it has 180 square feet re- quired for each space with a twenty foot back: up space . And also the figures I was using., the one in three - one in four that of- ten is used for- student needs for parking was taken from Sheldon Court and Casc:adilla Hall and it is often one in five . One se- mester that was quoted to me was one in three but if this site was packed., which I don' t think it will be, one in three is pro- vided and those ar-e the only points . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you . Yes John . MR . NOVARR: Without running this whole parking thing into the ground, what he is refer ring to ar-e dormitories that ar-e each BZA Minutes 2l6/84 Page: 46 -well one of which is actually on campus at this point - I be- lieve Cascadilla is now - in fact I think what you could really consider- both Cascadilla and Sheldon Court on campus - Cornell land that has Cornell roads going through it at this point . I own an apartment house a few blocks away with thirty-five apart- ments and fifty-six people living in it and I have (changed tape here - unintelligible) when I designed my lot that I minimally, from my point of view - I am not talking about toning now but from my point of view I felt to take care of my people so that no one was parking on the street . I needed one place for every two students . I have fifty-sig: students and I am finding that indeed I needed twenty-eight places . I have more than that because by law I need thirty-five but my experience has been that the one and two number in apartment complexes does hold up though it is not., in fairness to this plan, relevent to the toning issue . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank. you . Yes . . . . MR , DOWNING : Thank you for your patience , I would like to point out that in the consideration given to the original construction of these two properties - it is indexed curious that this house was built way back: within something like two feet of the property line . And this house was built over - quite close to its proper- ty line, leaving a rather large open space on the corner . I think it wouldn' t be unreasonable to conclude that that space was intended for a house to be built someday that ,just never got built . I would like, also,, to make one more point - if this house were either moved to join this house or- if it were con- BZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page: 47 verted to a two-family house, maybe someday, it would have to have a variance but of the type that is commonly given - as was pointed out by Mr . Novarr . We would still have the same - we might indeed find ourselves with the same kind of density if this were reduced to five and that were two. I realize you don' t want repetition but indeed we are not violating any of the require- ments of a single property e:-:c:epting this property line -this part of the house here - which is oven its blue line and over the line here (pointing to the chart) . So this is really a very small variance that is requested in order to allow a reasonable development of a property that clearly is a large vacant piece of property . I know the Wongs plant a lot of very pretty flowers there all the time but indeed if that were to be a public park the whole neighborhood ought to take oven and maintain it . I think: that is reasonable to consider- that as a building site . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you . SECRETARY HOARD : Well Bill the problem I have with what you just described is that when these two lots are combined this becomes a back yard so this is the set back: point . MR . DOWNING : Yes but on lots of your zoning - in your Zoning manual you show - considering this a front yard and side yard - there is a diagram in your . . . . SECRETARY HOARD: It shows almost that with a big back yard right here . (pointing to diagram) MR . DOWNING : Yes, well SECRETARY HOARD . So the back: yard has to be this set back . . . PZA Minutes: 2/6/84 Page ' 48 MR . DOWNING ' Yes well that is why we showed the red line to illustrate. what the actual requirements are but if this were considered thee front yard it would only have to be that far . So indeed that is the variance that is being requested . CHAIRMAN WEAVER, Thank-, vou . John , you' ve already said it twice . Thank. you There is no new person who wishes to be heard on this matter? ( none) Alright., thank ,you BBA Minutes. 2/6/84 Faget K4 The Board considered the request of Stephen C - Parsons: from William Downing Associates , Architects, for an area variance to permit the cons.tructior; of a new multiple dwelling with six apartments a 205 Eddy Street and 106 Cook. Street . +"CHAIRMAN WEAVER I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in appeal number 1544 . MR . BOOTH: I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) Practical difficulties: were not demonstrated that the property cannot be economically operated in its present form . 2) The Ordinance requires a rear yard and whether the proposed building is labelled as facing Eddy Street, the required back yard would be inside the existing structure of the single family dwelling or if it is a gook Street address , it would be within the structure of building number two as shown on the diagram . It would appear that granting this variance would violate the intent of the Ordinance by granting the opportunity to create a new building which itself would create a violation of the Ordinance . 3 1 The proposed building is, not consistent with the density requirements because the amount of square footage it needs to be associated with the two existing buildings does not leave enough on the total of 13, 200 square feet to build this additional building . VOTE :; 6 YES; 0 NO DENIED B2A. Minutes 2,16/84 Page : 50 SECRETARY HOARD '. The next case is appeal number 1545 Appeal of Stanley J . and Mary Ann Bowman for an area variance under Section 30 , 25 , Columns. 11 and 12 (minimum requirements for front yard and one side yard), and vection 30 . 57 Crequirements for a Certificate of Occupancy) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the approval and issuing of a Certificate of Occupancy for the two-family house at 204 WILLARD WAY . The property is located in an k-21 ( residential, one-and two-family homes) use district in which the use as a two-family dwelling is permitted ; however., under Section 30 , 57 the appellants must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the property . Mk . BOWMAN. I ' m 'Manley Bowman and this is my wife Mary Ann . I think what we. are asking for is considerably simpler than: what you have just had to face . CHAIRMAN WEAVER : That is acceptable . MR . BOWMAN' We ar-e seeking a Certificate of Occupancy so that we can have an efficiency apartment in the basement of our house at 204 Willard Way . We meet all the density requirements . The only thing that we are deficient in is in terms of setbacks on the north side: - .just on two sides of the property - on the north side we are one and one-third foot short of the requirement and on the: front yard we are three and three-quarters short of the requirement . I think: that what we are asking for is well within the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance and it would - obviously the only way we could meet the Ordinance is to physically more the house which would present a real hardship . I think: that you have probably rec:eivecl rrte letter of support in the: mail and I would BZA Minutes 2x6/84 Pare : 51 also report that we have rotten three telephone calls from people to whom we have sent our letter notifying them about our appeal, expressing their support and that is the Richtmans, Helen Sigler and the Everharts . `;o I hope you will grant our appeal . CHAIRMAN WEAVER '. Are there any questions; from the Board? MR . BOOTH'. This involves no outside construction in making the apartment inside the house? MR`. BOWMAN . We will continue to live in the house . MR . TOMLAN' ( unintelligible) the apartment ? MR . BOWMAN' Yes . MS . COObINGHAM; Do the: Ostros live in the area, I ' ve got 115 Lake Street . CHAIRMAN WEAVER . 115 Lake Street - MS . treet -MS . C:OOKINGHAM! Is that in back: of it? CHAIRMAN WEAVER ' Yes , MS . COOKINGHAM ' Oh it is? MS . BAONARDI : How long have you lived its the house? MR . BOWMAN: Since 1976 . CHAIRMAN WEAVER'.' Any further questions? Thank: you Is there anyone else who wishes: to speak: in support of this application? ( no one) Anyone who wishes: to speak: in opposition to it ? ( no one) MR . BOOTH: Charlie I would like to record to show that Professor Bowman and I are on the same college faculty at Cornell _ I do not think that that invalidates my participation in this proceedings . BBA Minute_: 2,`6./84 Page: 52 MR . TCIMLAN', Ditto here Charlie . CHAIRMAN WEAVER It certainly throws a question doesn' t it? MP BOOTHNot at all but the record should show that , 82A Minutes 2/6/84/84 Page! 5,1 The Board considered the appeal of Stanley J . and Mary Ann Cowman for an area variance to permit the approval and issuing of a Certificate of Occupancy for the two-family house. at 204 Willard Way . The decision of the Board was as follow=_: : MR . TOMLAN' I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1 :45 . CHAIRMAN WEAVER; I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1) There are practical difficulties in complying with the yard requirements that can' t be overlooked . 2) The use of the property as proposed does not affect the character of the neighborhood . 3) There is adequate off-street parking available . 4! The existing deficiencies will not be exacerbated by the granting of this variance . VOTE : 6 YES;: G NO GRANTED n7A Minutes, 2/6/84 Page 54 SECRETARY HOARD : The last case is 1546 ' Appeal of John J . Augustine , Jr . for an area variance under Section 30 . 25, Columns 6 , 10.. 11; 12,, and 13 (minimum requirements for lot size , maximum permitted lot coverage: and minimum requirements for front and side yard setbacks) , Section 30 . 41 (extension or enlargement of a non-conforming structure) and Section :30 . 57 ( requirements for a Certificate of Occupancy) of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the existing four-unit apartment house at 319-25 SOUTH CAYUGA STREET to an eight-unit apartment house , The property is located in an R-3a ( residential., multiple-dwelling) use district in which the proposed use is permitted; however., under Sections 30 . 49 and 30 . 57 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the conversion . MR . A►.lGUSTINE ! My name is John Augustine,. Jr . and I would like to convert this four,, two-bedroom apartment house into eight efficiency apartments . I recently purchased this house and got a demolition permit and started to tear it apart to find out just exactly what we had to do to bring this building into compliance . Due to the cost of construction I can' t :generate enough income from four, two-bedroom apartments, to get the bank to go along with this, renovation . What this renovation would include is complete rehabilitation of the inside, outside, roof and all exterior development . And hopefully you have all looked at the building and I think: that this renovation it would greatly enhance the :100 'block: of Cayuga Street . The bank: has verbally given me the okay, and they will give me the money bases! on the eight efficiencies . The additional $500 , 00 a month income generated from the efficiencies would make this; a feasible deal BZA Minutes 2. 6/84 Page : 55 for the bank: to make it more appetizing to them . The other alternative if I cannot get the variance would be to cut down the remodelling to a minimum, I ' ve provided for parking . I don' t think; - absolutely sure of, as a matter of fact , that we will not be increasing the density of that house, we will be decreasing it . It has two-bedroom apartments , There is 210 square feet per bedroom . Could inevitably - or it could house three people per bedroom, The renovation was more extensive than the motel . MS . FARRELL : Are: you char►ging the outside of the building? MR . AUGUSTINE : Only the rear of the building, The two little projections out the baeck of the apartment house will be removed on the top (unintelligible) there is two little projections out the bac:k'. - one is this garage wh►ic:h will be removed, the building would be straight line_ and we would keep the front porch► - the .decor of the front porches - it will be. vinyl siding, new roofs., sidewalks, front porches . CHAIRMAN WEAVEK John before you go to the bank will you throw in another buck: and put street numbers on that and your house next door? MR . AUGUSTINE : I ' ve already ordered them . CHAIRMAN WEAKER Good . I dor►' t care how fancy MS . C::C>OKINGHAM: Leo you make a practice of renting only to one person in your efficiencies? MR . AUGUSTINE : Yes . MR . C:OOKINGHAM: That ' s in your lease? MR . AUGUSTINE : Th►e lease that I have for th►e last efficiency, BBA Minutes: 2 '6/84 Page . 56 Yes . I would be more than happy to put that in the lease for this - if that is a stipulation . MR BOOTH : lust out of curiosity, what will efficiencies in that part of town rent for - what range? MR . AUGUSTINE : ,225 , 00 . , which is very reasonable and I max the two-bedrooms out at 5330 . 00 . I don' t think: in that area renting to a working class of people that you can really get much more than that . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: As a matter of clarification , This was a four- apartment house? MR . AUGUSTINE : Yes . CHAIRMAN WEAVEK And so you wouldn' t be here to rehab to a four apartment house? MR . AUGUSTINE : That is true . MS . BAGNARDP I have a rental charge here of `:x.330 . 00 a month . CHAIRMAN WEAVER ! Two-bedroom . MS , BAGNARDI : Oh, I see , okay . MR , AUGUSTINE : This is what I - I put a reasonable value on that and I thought that was approximately what they would go for , 5225 . 00 for the efficiencies . The efficiencies are not a crowded efficiency, they are 450 square feet , Mit . C:OOKINGHAM. Would that allow two people to live there? MR . AUGUSTINP The bedroom is large enough to accept two people . MS . C:OOKINGHAM: Oh, it is? MR AUGUST INE : Yes, it is , MS . t:OOKINGHAM` So you have the potential really, if you don' t - 8ZA Minutes 2/6/84 Page: S7 unless. you make a provision in the lease - of having sixteen people in the house . MR . AUGUSTINE : This is true . SECRETARY HOARY I would like to sayand Chief Weaver can also back; me up on this: - this house and the one next to it have been real bombs for years . MS . COOKINGHAM. What are you telling me by that'' SECRETARY HOARY We have had a terrible time trying to get them into compliance - with a series of owners . MR . BOOTH, Well what will the renovation - I ' m just curious about that - electrical renovations? plumbing? SECRETARY HOARDi He is going to bring µ:rem,,,=thing up to code . He has gutted the building and he will completely rewire and he is putting new fire separations in - the whsle shot CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I would prejudice my position by saying that this would be the miracle of Cayuga Street , Truly . I ' m delighted that he looked as far as he did so that he must bring it into c:omplianc:e with the zoning and housing codes: which never happened before to my knowledge . MR . FARRELL ' Just out of curicus;ity, when did you buy the building? MR . AUGUSTINE ! Shortly after I appeared here the last time . It was: just a nip ,and tuck: situation . It was really a forceful situation . I couldn' t upgrade my JZ7 and leave this; place the way it was, and I was lucky enough - I tried to buy it a year ago (unintelligible) people would come to lock: at my apartments and 82A Minutes 2x"6/84 Page ! 58 looking out the side window and going out the door or looking at that apartment house and not coming in to lack at my apartments . I couldn' t get teem in the door . Once I got them in the door then I could rent them the apartment, but they wouldn' t even came in the: door - There was garbage in the: hack: yard . . . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER! Any further questions from the Board? ( none) ire WOUtes 2/6/14 Page , 5'4 The Board considered the request of John J . Augustine, Jr , for an area variance to permit the conversion of the existing four-unit apartment house at 319-325 SOUTH CAYUGA STREET to an eight-unit apartment house . The decision of the Board was as follows : MS . BAGNARDV I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1546 , MR . BOOTH ' I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) This would not affect the character of the neighborhood it would indeed improve it . 2) Practical difficulty was found in that the building would have to be moved to accommodate the front and side yard deficiencies . VOTE : 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED } 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 1541 , 1543, 1544, 1545 and 1546 on February 6, 1984 in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 East 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. A. Barbara C. Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this 23rd day of February 1984 Notary Pub 1 i c JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. F5-1660800 QUALIFIED I;7 TOR?KINS COUNTY MY C0.'::"'S IOtd EXPIRES MARCH 30,19_t