Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1984-04-02 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK APRIL 2, 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 4-1-84 Bill J. Manos , 356 Elmira Road 2 APPEAL NO. 4-1-84 Action of the Board 11 APPEAL NO. 1553 Robert Leathers, Architect 12 216 and 218 Second Street APPEAL NO. 1553 Action of the Board 21 APPEAL NO. 1555 Craig and Keith Schaufler 22 321 College Avenue APPEAL NO. 1555 Action of the Board 36 APPEAL NO. 1556 Margaret Cecce 37 111 W. Jay Street APPEAL NO. 1556 Action of the Board 40 APPEAL NO. 1557 Judith Jackson 41 415 Elm Street APPEAL NO. 1557 Action of the Board 64 APPEAL NO. 1558 Robert Leathers, Architect HELD OVER BY PLANNING & 66 119 Third Street DEVELOPMENT BOARD APPEAL NO. 1559 David and Seymour Turk REFERRED BACK TO THE 66 323-29 College Avenue PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BD. APPEAL NO. 1560 Adrian Kitai 67 115 Utica Street APPEAL NO. 1560 Action of the Board 73 CERTIFICATION OF THE RECORDING SECRETARY 74 BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2., 1984 PAGE 1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK APRIL 2, 1984 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: This is a meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in a formal public hearing and several matters listed in the official notice of the meeting . In attendance tonight : Tracy Farrell Jean Cookingham Michael Tomlan Bette Bagnardi Richard Booth Charles Weaver, Chairman Thomas D . Hoard, Secretary to the Board 8 Building Commissioner Barbara Ruane, Recording Secretary The Board operates under the provisions of the City Charter of the City of Ithaca and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance . The Board will not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct of the hearing and the determinations shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same. The Board requests that all participants come forward and we have two chairs here for you and microphones for you - please don' t try to speak from the audience because we need to record any testimony and we need to have you up close enough so the recording machine does a good job and your remarks are not lost forever . We take these cases in the order in which they are listed on the official notification and first we hear the appellant and anyone in favor of granting the appeal and then grant time to those who are op- posed. Following that the Board discusses the case, has its findings and votes by ballot, after which the results of the vot- BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 2 ing are announced and we go on to the next case. Is there anyone who wishes to withdraw an application at this time? May we have the first c ase? SECRETARY HOARD: The first case, Mr . Chairman., is appeal number 4-1-84: Appeal of Gill J . Manos for a variance for a deficient sign setback under the require- ments of Section 34 . 8, Paragraph B of the Sign Ordinance. The property is located at 356 Elmira Road ("Talk of The Town") in a B-5 (business) use district in which a ten foot setback is required for signs . The appellant has reduced the area of signage on the property to comply with the Sign Ordinance, however a setback variance is required to permit the proposed location of the sign three feet, four inches from the property line . MR. THALER: Mr . Chairman., my name is Dick Thaler, I am with the firm of Thaler and Thaler,, I represent Mr . Manos who is here with me this evening . He has asked me to speak to the Board on his behalf . Mr . Manos has requested the setback . For those of you who are familiar with the premises - it was formerly called The Derby and when it was The Derby it had a sign that was not in conformity with anybody' s ordinance. However at the time that The Derby was constructed., the foundation for the present sign was installed - this was twenty years ago. When The Derby was sold the sign was continued and the fact that it was not enhanced but it was increased in size and was called the Faces . I brought with me this evening a copy or a photograph showing the way the sign was at the time that my client purchased the premises . One BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 3 of the first things that he did was to take down 150 square feet of sign so as to comply with the square footage of the Ordinance. What he would like to do, and I brought a diagram, is to - over• the existing kiosk-type foundation which is presently there, place a twenty-eight square foot - I think it is twenty-eight -I 'm sorry, twenty-two square foot sign indicating that it is the Talk of The Town. This, plus the worded sign which is twenty- eight square feet, would bring it to fifty square feet as opposed to the one hundred and fifty square feet that was there before . The problem that we have is that the concrete base of the exist- ing sign that was there before is only set back I believe six and one-half feet from the road right-of-way. Your Ordinance re- quires ten feet . There is no other place on the property wherein a sign of the type that my client would like to put there and would be in conformity with what he has done to the exterior of the building., could be placed. The fact that we are not moving a sign or we are not moving any structure, the fact that that structure has been in place for• twenty years, as far as the base is concerned, the concrete base and the existing structure upon which we would like to place the sign. We feel that it is a hardship if this variance is not granted in that he has no place other than that structure which is existing and that he bought as i an existing structure except maybe the side of the building which would not give him the visibility of the Elmira Road for traffic going by. Visibility is imperative to his existence in business, the sign that he intends will not change the characteristics of BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 4 the neighborhood - it would be more than in conformity with the other- signs, in fact it would be a great deal more artistically inclined than most of the signs down on the Elmira Road. For that purpose we would ask this Board to grant us a variance. When we were in front of the Planning Board there were members of the Planning Board that indicated that if they could give us con- sideration for the hardship., they would have done so but their being a planning function, they voted unanimously against this based on the planning staff' s recommendation. We ask this Board to grant us the variance. We feel that Mr . Manos has done a good ,job in enhancing the property and enhancing the neighborhood in which the building is located. If there ar-e any questions that you would like to ask, please feel free. I can leave this dia- gram here for- you - why don' t I just pass this around and then you can see the situation as it is or the way that we would in- tend it to be. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I have a question. The notice says that the sign is three feet., four• inches from the property line and you used six and one-half . Ar-e we talking about the same position in each case? MR. THALER: Well I think I got mine, Charles., from this render- ing., I 'm not sure at which point the three feet from the property line was taken. I took: it at the base and maybe it is at the top that we ar-e talking about because the top, I think, overhangs the base. I guess the three feet - whatever it is - is from the top, Charles, not from the base. I took mine from the base. h BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 5 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Okay . MR, BOOTH: So the variance is needed for about six and one-half feet? MR. THALER: Yes sir . MR. BOOTH: The reason it can' t be moved back toward the front of the restaurant is that it is too close? MR. THALER: No., the reason it can' t be moved further back toward the restaurant is that it would then interfere with the traffic pattern - of traffic coming off of Elmira Road, coming in front of the place of business under the awning so that people could be discharged under a protective cover . If you move the sign back then you can' t get a car or any other vehicle between the sign and the place of business . MS . FARRELL : How much room is there now between - under the awning? MR. THALER: Let me show you a picture - photograph of the front of the business as it appears now. MR. TOMLAN: What would preclude you from putting the sign on top of the building? MR. THALER: I believe that would be a violation of the Ordinance . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes it would. MR . TOMLAN: By height? SECRETARY HOARD: It would be above the roof . MS . BAGNARDI : Tom I have a question for• you. Why wasn' t the sign made to comply with the Ordinance in 1979 or shortly BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE G thereafter? SECRETARY HOARD: It was cited and somewhere in the process against the Derby - they went out of business and then Faces went in there and they went out of business . MR. TUMLAN: Now long has Mr . Manos owned this? MR. THALER: Less than a year . Bill when did you open? MR. MANUS : A couple of months ago. MS . COOKINGHAM: Mr . Thaler., in one of the exhibits there is an indication that you are presenting this as an undue hardship because additional unobtainable capital would be required - I assume to put up another sign . Would you elaborate a little bit on that? MR. THALER: Yes . This property was purchased for the particular function. The - since it has only been opened for two months there is no cash that is being generated at the present time on which to be able to go back: for a further loan to do further re- novations . The loan that was obtained was based upon some known factors - this was not one of those. I would think that after the business had been functioning for awhile and had a different cash flow or exceeded the cash flow projections that they may be able to get an additional loan but at this point they cannot . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is the new entry cover two lane, three lane, one and one-half lane? MR. THALER: One, well it is actually one and a quarter . In other words you can' t fit two cars underneath the awning at the same time . BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 1, 1984 PAGE 7 MR. BOOTH: How about if you moved the sign to either end of the property and set it back the required setback? MR. THALER: I think you are going to be interfering with the driveway where it comes in off the road. The width of the property at the present time is one hundred and thirty one point seven feet ( 131 . 7) . The width of each of the entrance-ways I believe is forty - so that is eighty - that leaves you with about fifty feet and the fifty feet is now planted . . . MR. BOOTH: In the middle . MR. THALER: Yes . As I say, I am not an architect nor an engineer . MR. BOOTH: The reason I raised that is because the Planning and Development Board suggested the possibility that the sign could be placed someplace else on the site . MR. THALER: My feeling is - as I indicated to the Planning Board I wasn' t sure where I would put it in order to conform - again on the roof would be great because then it would be completely out of the way but then you are in another violation and what Mr . Manos is trying to do is trying to comply. And I think everybody agrees that what he has done so far has been a benefit to the area because he has decreased the detraction of the signs that were there and that were cited. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any further questions? MS . COOKINGHAM: Mr . Thaler., I can understand your saying on the one side - I was out there yesterday - and on the one side I think: it would be - it would hinder the exit - I don' t know which BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 8 is the entrance and which is the exit - but I went in., I guess it would be on the east side of the building and came out on the west side. The west side - it is very narrow but on the east side there seems to be quite a bit of distance between the property line and the building . MR. THALER: The east side meaning closer to the city? MS . COOKINGHAM: Right . MR, THALER: That 's the right-of-way . Okay, there is an overhead - the electric right-of-way. Apparently cannot have a sign in. It runs along the east line . MS . COOK.INGHAM: Mr . Hoard., what is the condition of the other signs in the area? Are they out of compliance? SECRETARY HOARD: There are several out of compliance - the billboards are out of compliance - there are some signs that are - a gas sign out almost to the city line that is out of compliance. One of the used car dealers is out of compliance. MS . COOKINGHAM: Well are efforts being made to bring those signs into compliance? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes , MS . COOKINGHAM: Actively? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes . They are all tied into the billboard problem. MS . FARRELL : (unintelligible) variances . SECRETARY HOARD: Right . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions? MR. BOOTH: I have a question. Could you put a sign right on the BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 9 front of the marquee? SECRETARY HOARD: On the canopy. Along the long sides . MR. THALER: I suppose you could - along the long side. MR. MANOS : Excuse me - the canopy is cloth - and it just doesn't -you couldn't put the sign on it . MR. THALER: That is apparently a cloth canopy. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions? 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? Please come forward. We need your name and address . Have a chair . MS . STANTON: Carol Stanton, 408 Elm Street, Ithaca, New York and that is not why I am here. I appreciate Mr . Manos plea. When the Ordinance was set it was only a two-lane highway, not four and five in some cases . So it would be difficult to stay within the Ordinance of ten feet or whatever . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Could you tell me your interest in the property? MS . STANTON: I appreciate his - he is asking for a variance on something over which he has no control . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: My question is, do you own property on Elmira Road? MS . STANTON: No. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Go you live on Elmira Road. MS . STANTON: No . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Your interest is merely as a friend of the BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 10 applicant? MS . STANTON: That is right . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Alright . We have a restriction on those people we will hear and limited to people whose property would be influ- enced or who are involved with the business or have a direct in- terest in the neighborhood, I guess is the best word I can use at the moment . MS . STANTON: I ' m sor•r•y, I was not aware of that restriction. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? Thank you. BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1384 PAGE 11 The Board considered the request of Bill J . Manos for a variance for a deficient sign setback under the requirements of Section 34 . 8 Paragraph B of the Sign Ordinance. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. BOOTH: I move that the Board grant the request for- the deficient sign setback requested in appeal 4-1-84 . MS . BAGNARDI : I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The new sign will be built on an existing sign base . 2) Placing a sign on a different portion of the property would be difficult because of the existing configuration of automobile access to the site . 3) The proposed sign would be at least some improvement of what has historically appeared on the site. 4) This sign would not alter the character of the area. 5) Although the sign doesn't meet the Ordinance with respect to setback:, it will be brought into conformance as far as area is concerned. VOTE : 5 Yes; 1 No GRANTED BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PACE 12 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1553 for 216 and 218 Second Street : Appeal of Robert Leathers, Architect, for a use variance under Section 30 . 25, Columns 2 and 3 of the Zoning Ordinance, and an area variance under Section 30. 25,, Column 11 for a deficient front yard setback, to permit the use of the house at 216 Second Street for a day care cen- ter plus residential unit, and' the vacant lot at 218 Second Street for a parking lot serving patrons and employees of the Ithaca Fitness Center at 119 Third Street . The properties which are to be combined, are ,located in an R-3b ( residential, multiple-dwelling) use dis- trict in which the proposed day care center is a permitted use and the parking lot is not a permitted use. The appellant must obtain a use variance before a permit can be issued for the parking lot, and must obtain an area variance for the deficient front yard before a certif- icate of occupancy can be issued for the new use of the house for a day care center . This appeal was postponed from the March 1984 meet- ing at the request of the appellant . MS. FARRELL : Before we get started I have a question about whether we should be considering this tonight given the action of the Planning Board. If they wanted to defer on the parking lot they should have (unintelligible) . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: The chair would like to ask a question of the appellant . As I read the application, the term "neighborhood parking area" -do you understand that to mean for the use of res- idents of the area and would be restricted that way or is your intent to - I can't help but know about the other appeal and your discussion with the Planners and I would just like to try to i- dentify what this parking lot is for . What is it we are hearing, in this first case? MR. SMITHSON: If I may, I would like to start by introducing BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PANE 13 myself . My name is Frank Smithson, my address is 109 W. Seneca Street, I am a lawyer representing The Ithaca Fitness Center . As I understand it, our primary focus tonight will be the area vari- ance at 216 Center Street and, of course, we are willing and eager to answer questions about the rest of this variance but as I understand it, I think the Board will only be considering the area variance at 216 Second Street because the Planning Board deferred action on the rest of it . Now is that an incorrect un-' derstanding on our part? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We are trying to arrive at than . MR . BLAIS: I can answer your question about the parking area. My name is Steve Blais, I live at 207 W. Clinton Street . I work for Robert Leathers and we are also representing Mr . Martin with the appeal . That phrase as it is used in the appeal said "the park- ing area will be constructed in conformance with requirements in Section 301. 37 of the Zoning Ordinance for neighborhood parking areas" . And what it doesn' t say is that this is , a neighborhood parking area - what it says is that the parking area would meet requirements established for a neighborhood parking area which are setback and a screen of plantings or a fence, essentially . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: The use is what I am trying to . . MR. BLAIS: Okay. The use of the parking area would be for the Ithaca Fitness Center and for the child care center . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: So we really have - as I understand it - I ' m speaking to my Board now - as I see it., we would 'have a use variance as well as an area variance involved with the approval BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1964 PACE 14 of the development of a parking lot in that vacant corner lot . SECRETARY HOARD: I think in the wake of the Planning Board' s decision, Mr-. Blais came to me and said, "look what the appellant would like to do is go ahead with the appeal for- the setback re- quir-ement for- the house so that they could use that for a day care center, set aside the appeal for a parking , lot for• now until the Planning Board has acted. " So we ar•e dealing with a portion of this appeal . MR. BOOTH: So they have withdrawn part of it naw? SECRETARY HOARD: Well the Planning Board has withdrawn it for them. Is that correct Steve? MR. BLAIS: More or• less cor-r•ect . The idea is simply - we came here tonight hoping to gain relief from the front yard requirements that ar-e associated with 216 Second Street, which is the house to be used as a child care center- and also to be lived in by Bob Martin's daughter., who would run the child care center . That 's what we are asking for- in terms of zoning . I brought a plan here which I will give everyone a copy of . . . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well, before we start, I want to make sure and have the appellant and the Board agree that we ae-e hearing an appeal to change the use of a single family r•esi0ence at 216 Second Street? MR. BLAIS : That is correct, right . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: To an apartment - it is two family now? Thank you. So we ar-e changing a two-family residence to a one apartment and a day care center- without any reference - without BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 15 respect to the ultimate decision that may result from the discussion on 218 . So we are not hearing 218 at all? MR. SMITHSON: That is our understanding and our desire. MR. MARTIN: That is correct . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Alright., we' ve got two, I think Barbara has identified two of you and would you introduce yourself please? MR. MARTIN: I 'm Bob Martin., I 'm the director and owner of the Ithaca Fitness Center and the property that we are talking about . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. MR. SMITHSON: I 'm going to defer to Mr . Blais . MR. BLAIS : First I have some copies of the plan that shows three parking spaces being located on 216 Second Street . As I read the Zoning Ordinance and I believe I can say that I was advised by Mr . Hoard, for a property in a residential zone., it is allowable to have up to three parking spaces on the property without any special provisions and so essentially what we hope we are looking at is the front yard deficiency. In other words we are just pro- posing to take advantage of an existing curb cut on 218 Second Street and park three cars to serve the child care center and the apartment - anticipating - at Second Street . I should probably mention that we hope to take the corner of Madison Street and Second Street - that portion of 218 Second Street and use that as a play area for the children that would be staying at the child care center during the day . MS . FARRELL : So the parking lot idea (unintelligible) now is just a play area? BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 16 MR. BLAIS : We are hoping to continue on the parking area after the Planning Advisory Board comes to a ruling . MS . FARRELL : So the play area is just this part that is behind - where is the play area? MS . BAGNARGI : May I see? The proposed parking . . . MS . FARRELL : Okay, it will be this front corner - I see. MR. BLAIS : That is correct . MR . BOOTH: That would not eventually be used in a parking plan proposal? MR. BLAIS: NO. MS . BAGNARGI : Yes, that is what he said. MR . BOOTH: It would not? MR. BLAIS: Well - getting a little bit off what is right here. That - the ideas we have for a revised parking plan would leave that corner alone or use it as play area rather than parking area . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Well, now the reason we are involved with two properties in this discussion is that you proposed to meet the off street parking requirement in the adjacent property . No? MR. BLAIS: The parking spaces shown are on 216 - the same property . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Access to . . . . okay . So you use the other property for access to the parking, pardon me, not for the parking The parking itself is on 216 property lot.. right? MR. BLAIS : That access is guaranteed because Mr . Martin owns the property. The curb cut and part of the driveway are existing . BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 17 MS . BAGNARDI : What are your plans to shelter this play ground area? MR. BLAIS: Well the intention of the play ground area would be that it would be used by the occupants of the child care center . . . MS . BAGNARDI : Not by the neighborhood? MR. BLAIS: So that.. in other words, it wouldn't be a lot of kids so the activity could be controlled by Bob ' s daughter who is running the child care center and it would be fenced with a (unintelligible) fence. We haven' t built a design for it,, per se, yet so 1 didn't draw anything on the plan. But it would be screened . MS . BAGNARDI : When had you hoped to open the child care center, by fall? MR. BLAIS : Ask Bob that one . MR. MARTIN: Probably in the summertime. MS . BAGNARDI : And then at the same time that it is opened, all of the playground area would then be fenced in, the whole operation would be ready to go? MR. MARTIN: Here is the fence, if you would like to take a look at it . They are putting the fence between two (unintelligible) right now (unintelligible) Probably be very similar - a very nice looking fence. MS . BAGNARDI : Wood? MR. MARTIN: Wood, yes. But of course there will be shrubbery and stuff in front of the fence. It wouldn' t be right up against BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 18 the walk . MS . BAGNAROI : I see. MR . MARTIN: I originally had it in the back but we put it that way to screen the neighbor from seeing the parking lot - otherwise the parking lot, if it ever comes, will be in the back looking at another parking lot . MS . BAGNARDI : I see, this . . . MR. MARTIN: It could go either way back or front but I would rather have cars back on its own property and away from the residential area and cars toward the center and the Quick ' s Garage parking lot (unintelligible) MS . BAGNARDI : I see, thank you. MS . FARRELL : Is there enough space to have access to the proposed parking lot from the side of the day care center on Second Street rather than over on Madison? MR. MARTIN: No. MR. BLAIS: I would agree with that . There is an existing sidewalk and fire escape on - to the north property line on Second Street and the side yard on the south line is very narrow. One could build a drive but it would be very tight situation. MR. MARTIN: You would have to cut down a very nice tree. It isn' t shown . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Commissioner-, a question. As I see it, this application for use - the use is approved and the only deficiency is front yard setback? SECRETARY HOARD: That is correct . BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 19 MS . FARRELL : Can I ask:, is this going to be a drop-in type child care center for patrons of the fitness center or is it going to be a regular enrolled center or is it planned? MR. MARTIN: It is mainly going to be a personal pet of my daughters. Although, as long as it is next to the day care center we will have drop-ins . MS . FARRELL : You will have drop-ins from the Center? MR. MARTIN: From the Fitness Center, yes . But that is not the main purpose that I want it . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Question Jean? Further questions? 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? Yes, come forward. MR. SCHLATHER: It is not in opposition. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: That is all right . Come up and be neutral . MR. SCHLATHER: I 'm Raymond Schlather and I am one of the First Ward Alderpeople and the neighbors met in connection with this and the other request that had been made for variances and the sentiment of the community was that they were definitely in favor of the child care facility - they felt that it was necessary and everybody wants it - there was one concern raised about the height of the fence on the south line and I think: Bob had agreed - and I don' t know - Bob had you agreed. . . MR. MARTIN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) MR. SCHLATHER: Okay, the extra twelve inches - that ' s all taken care of? That 's fine. BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 20 MR. MARTIN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) MR. SCHLATHER: Very well - that 's taken care of then there are no other concerns. We did have reservations on the parking but that will be addressed at a later date. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Anyone else who wishes to speak: in opposition to this application? (no one) BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2., 1984 PAGE 21 The Hoard considered the appeal of Robert Leathers, Architect, for an area variance under Section 30 . 25, Column 11 for a deficient front yard setback, to permit the use of the house at 216 Second Street for a day care center• plus residential unit . The decision of the Hoard was as follows : MR. BOOTH: I move that the Hoard grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1553 as modified to deal ,just with the day care center . MR. TOMLAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The Ordinance permits this proposed use in the area. 2) The existing building is too close to the front property line to meet the Ordinance requirements and it would be very difficult to move it back . 3) The proposed use is completely consistent with the character of the area. VOTE : 6 Yes; 0 No GRANTED AS MODIFIED BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 22 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1555, 321 College Avenue: Appeal of Craig and Keith Schauf ler for an area variance under Section 30 . 25, Columns 6 and 15 of the Zoning Ordinance for deficient lot size and deficient rear yard setback, to permit the addition of a second floor with mezzanine to the existing one-story building at 321 College Avenue (College Liquor . The proposed use for a restaurant is permitted in the B-2b (business) use district in which the property is located; however., under Section 30 . 49 the appellant must obtain an area vari- ance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the addi- tion . MR. TAUBE : I 'm David Taube., I ' m an architect, and I 'm represent- ing Craig and Keith Schaufler who are here with us . The property is located on College Avenue ,just south of Dryden., between the Collegetown Deli and the Cameras and Things, Connection building next door . It is a one story building, the lot itself is thirty feet by sixty feet . The one story building was constructed thir- ty-four years ago - it has on it a six and one-half foot alley that is to the north of the property. The building only covers twenty-three and one-half feet of frontage of the total thirty foot frontage. We are requesting a variance for the ten foot rear setback and for the minimum lot size of twenty-five hundred square feet . The lot is presently eighteen hundred square feet . I would also like to think - as we get into this that we are re- questing a variance for an existing one story structure which would be taken down to build a new structure which - although may be a little deceiving, would still be a one story structure as , BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 23 determined by the Building Department., which is a little bit of irony because we have a cellar., below grade essentially . The grade from College Avenue slopes up towards the east almost twelve feet, thus the first floor is actually a basement . The restaurant level is a one story - the one story portion of the building and then the mezzanine does not qualify. We may put a plaque up to that extent - it is probably the only one story, thirty-eight foot structure in the city. The liquor store itself has been operating for about twenty years and Keith Schaufler recently assumed the operation following the death of his father . When he assumed the operation of the liquor store., it was quite evident that a problem that had existed for quite some time was a serious one and that was simply a matter of the available space. The building itself is approximately twelve hundred square feet of interior space, part of which is occupied for use as toilet facilities and mechanical space. Because the layout of this space, the remaining eleven hundred to twelve hundred square feet is not that efficient for the actual layout and display of the merchandise., our firm was retained by the Schauflers to look into the problem and the first element that was suggested - or possible, was simply to fill in the alley. I can pass this around. The alley is to the north - it is too narrow for a truck - it is just wide enough for garbage and it has been used very efficiently along the street simply as a zone for tossing litter . MS , FARRELL : Question. Does the alley connect anyplace? MR. TAUBE : No. It simply deadends in the back . And there are BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 24 no doors on either• building. If we were to add., simply, to the alley., we would pick up just under twenty-five percent additional square footage which was half of what is needed to operate the store efficiently. At present, because of the size of the store, certain storage is maintained off the site. At critical times -peak: times when quantities - large shipments have to be made for peak seasons, the additional supplies have to be stored off the site and trucked in as needed., which has presented great diffi- culties in that regard. The merchandise itself then becomes very limited in terms of the amount of inventory that can be main- tained on the site. We are looking for an increase of approxi- mately 50% of additional square footage which can actually be stretched with newly designed space by gaining SEI% additional square footage you are really increasing the amount of inventory by quite a bit more within an economic use of the space, simply by changing the design from the present design. In looking at that we also discovered very clearly that the cost for filling in the alley, would be, in themselves, quite high because of the design of the space and the inability to get into an alley and actually construct the footings and the walls that are necessary . There were discussions early on with the Planning Department re- garding the intent of Planning plans for Gollegetown and utili- zation of the site. And we began looking at greater• utilization of the site which would enable us to demolish the existing struc- ture which is inefficient and certainly we cannot go up effi- ciently to get just simply storage for the retail space, and of 82A MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 25 course we cannot go down to get basement space. MR. BOOTH: Why not? MR. TAUBE : Well., going down would be extremely difficult, exca- vating within the existing structure. Going up, we face the problem of having additional square footage, presumably for stor- age - we couldn' t do it for retail without providing handicapped accessibility. So we ran into a series of catch 22 issues - part of which were also dictated by the code requirements., since we would be building new or adding, we would have to comply with those new handicapped code requirements . About that time discus- sion came up to try and better• utilize the site and this is some- thing that the Planning Board was concerned with because of the nature of the one story building . College Avenue did have larger• buildings on it at one time - it certainly has f•r•om these photo- graphs, numerous four and five story structures . Bear in mind that anything that would be done to the building whatsoever would require the variances that we are presently seeking. We began to examine residential use above the liquor store to help justify the costs of construction► to gain the retail space that was nec- essary. And, again, because of the site - 30 x GD foot site - and dealing with construction code setback requirements, not zon- ing setback requirements for• natural light and ventilation, we would have had to set the building back twenty feet from the rear yard for the housing portion. Dealing with that sort of design►, we simply could not develop quality apartments and abandoned that idea. Shortly thereafter it came to light an interested tenant BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 26 for a restaurant within this space., and actually jelled rather nicely with the frustration we were going through of trying to justify building on for the liquor store in itself . Ned Macksoud, who owns Ruloffs., is the interested tenant and has ne- gotiated lease terms with the Schauflers on the basis that we can provide a restaurant on the site. What we had shown is, as I mentioned, a liquor store that is on-grade and a restaurant that is on the second level with a mezzanine which is a third of the area of the main floor - on another level above that . The liquor store occupies approximately eleven hundred square feet of the first floor but also has six hundred square feet of storage space in the basement . The restaurant entry would be off to the side - the main entrance coming into the primary dining space which would be a two-story space and would overlook the street . It is the intent of Mr . Macksoud to try and have french doors that would open up so that people - in the nice weather in Ithaca - which we will have someday - can relate to the street . It is not that high off but a grade and it is something that he feels would be very desirable for his operation. Having come into the main floor there is a kitchen, handicapped facilities, toilet facili- ties and a wheelchair lift which is designed to bring the handi- capped up to the second floor . There is also secondary exiting in the rear which comes directly at grade. As I said., the build- ing is thirty-eight feet tall and is designed with a brick facade and the operable windows on the second level . The restaurant itself would have a capacity . . . BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2., 1984 PAGE 27 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Pardon me just a minute. Without further- dis- cussion, give me just a moment if you will . When you get through with this plan, granted a variance and building permit and com- pleted as suggested here, the liquor- store will then have how many square feet storage and retail combined? MR. TAUBE : Almost eighteen hundred square feet . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: And how much does it have now? MR. TAUBE : Twelve hundred, including toilet and mechanical facilities . And storage, right . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: In other- words the total used by the business _ today is eighteen hundred? MR. TAUBE : No. At present the building is twelve hundred square feet . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Total of twelve hundred. And with this plan it will go to seventeen hundred? I heard you say eleven hundred and six hundred . MR. TAUBE : Yes., right - seventeen to eighteen hundred square feet which would gain fifty percent usable space. The twelve hundred square feet of existing space - that twelve hundred includes the toilet facilities, mechanical facilities so the net floor area is under- twelve hundred - it is much closer to eleven hundred square foot figure . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Other- than having trouble at rush times in keeping all the stock on premises, what other difficulties does the operation experience now as a liquor- store? MR. TAUBE : Lack of retail display space because the entire BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 28 square footage is used both for inventory and storage. They are simply trying to do the entire operation within too small an amount of space. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is it, therefore, a losing proposition or awkward and it would be nice if it were bigger or MR. TAUBE : Without question it would improve the operation and the profitability. I don't think there is a question about that, I ' m not addressing that specifically because since we are dealing with an area variance I ' m more concerned with the unique situation that we have in dealing with the site . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I 'm trying to develop more particularly what the situation is now. MR. TAUBE : Right . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: You've helped me some, thank you. MR. TAUBE : What we are requesting, in fact, is the relief of the twenty-five hundred square foot requirement dealing with a site that has been that way for many years - at least thirty-five years when the building was constructed. And the ten foot rear set back - also the building has occupied that full site straight back - as to the buildings adjacent to 321 College Avenue. The findings of the Design Review Board and the Planning Department and the Planning Board have all been extremely positive and I say that in the absence of any of the written literature which I have not received. The Design Review Board felt that it was an appro- priate application and utilization of the site as did the Plan- ning staff which strongly recommended it at the Planning Board BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 29 session. The Planning Board agreed that it is an appropriate project for the site., proper utilization but I believe passed on without recommendation to this Board because of the parking issues that the Planning Board is dealing with as an overall issue in Collegetown. We feel that - and the Schauflers had stressed to me the desire to do a project - in essence that they can be proud of . They expect to be here a long time - they are lifelong Ithaca residents and joining with Mr• . Macksoud as tenant for a restaurant., we know that we have a restauranteur who has had an extremely successful operation in Collegetown in former Ruloffs. We believe that this is a unique site because of its size and it has existed in that fashion and presents us with great difficulty in trying to solve a problem on such a small site without utilising the entire site and without beginning to use the height advantage which is allowable in the district . In addition a ten foot setback does not present - at least from everything that I have been able to access - any advantages as such to the property or• to the properties adjacent to it, be- cause of the nature of the adjacent properties . The building directly to the north is a retail operation - has no windows pre- sently - for• obvious reasons., mainly security, to the south into the alley. The project that I believe has already received a building permit to the south - Mr . Avramis' s building has been designed, taking into account a building that would be next to it in the form of• a three or• four story structure. So the require- ments for their building are in compliance with all the natural BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 30 light and ventilation needed for apartments. The property di- rectly to the east which is, as I mentioned, is actually twelve feet, or eleven feet above grade on College Avenue - has on it right now a garage, a very old garage that apparently is used for storage and there is another simple little structure in front of that . I will pass this around - this is the view standing on top of the roof of the liquor store looking back, and directly behind it is the side of the very old garage storage structure. The alley shown here indicates there are no doors into either proper- ty . The property to the east - again would not be restricted presumably from development if we were to maintain construction all the way to the rear property because in the form of a retail operation, just as we would be doing., a retail operation does not necessitate the natural light or ventilation towards the rear and would not present practical difficulties for anyone,, as this does not to us . MR. BOOTH: What if they build non-commercial? MR. TAUBE : If they build residential, they are required, again, by the New York State Building Code, to have that twenty foot setback minimum, depending on height requirement, that setback begins moving back further as the height requirement increases . MR. BOOTH: Would the setback for your building serve to help adjoining uses that were non-commercial if they were developed on Linden Avenue? MR. TAUBE : Well., no, because this property would already have its necessary light and ventilation towards the rear . BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 31 MR . BOOTH: I understand that but wouldn' t ten more feet improve that? MR. TAUBE : It might improve it but I think what we are presenting is that the practical difficulty of this property. . . MR. BOOTH: What if the pr-oper-ty north of you is developed for apartments? That ' s what we ar-e going to be considering tonight . MR. TAUBE : They have taken into account the fact that there is a building adjacent to them. I have looked at the plans which is where we got the information for their building and they have provided the necessary light and . . . SECRETARY HOARD: To the north. MR. TAUBE : To the north - they could provide the same thing . There is no side yard r-equir•ement so I don' t think the side yard issue would be a problem. If - I 'm not even sure which would be the rear• yard - I guess it is determined where the address is -College or• Dryden for• this property so there would be a rear yard one way or• the other . I think the intent - what has been shown here clearly is the intent to do a highly desirable build- ing.. as I said, one which all prior - three prior- boards have felt is appr•opr•iate and that based on the small site that has existed there for- a long time and the ten foot setback which does represent sixteen percent of the site•, that it is not unreason- able to grant the variance and provide our client with a building that would work on such a small site. MR . BOOTH: How big is this site compared to the sites both north and south of it, square footage? BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 32 MR. TAUBE : They are both larger but I 'm not certain how much larger . I don' t think the property map that we have indicates . MR . BOOTH: How big is it compared to other properties on College Avenue, in general? MR. TAUBE : I think it is probably one of the smallest without question . MR. BOOTH: But you don' t know? MR. TAUBE : No. But as I said - if you ,just marched down from the corner,, Student Agencies site is probably - well the Student Agencies site., in fact., is somewheres in the neighborhood, I believe, of four thousand square feet . The Duffy' s site is almost the same because I know the two sites combined are almost nine thousand. I 'm not certain what Mr . Travis' s is - it is certainly larger . MS . COOkINGHAM: What is going to be the estimated seating capacity for the restaurant? MR. TAUBE : The building rode would dictate that it be no greater than ninety-three. It is anticipated that the capacity would be around ninety. 1 believe when you do a layout, it is going to be difficult to get more than eighty-five or thereabouts in there but the code would dictate ninety-three by square footage . MS . FARRELL : Right now the building that is there goes all the way to the back property line? MR. TAUBE : Yes., the present building goes all the way back . MS . FARRELL : So there is the alley and then the building? MR. TAUBE : Right . BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 1, 1884 PAGE 33 MS . FARRELL : Ar►d it fills the whole site except for the alley? MR . TAUBE : Yes . MR. BOOTH: But you are going to tear down► the existing building? MR. TAUBE : Yes we would . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further questions? MS . COOKINGHAM: I ,just wanted to ask Tom to review the handicapped requirement? SECRETARY HOARD: They are complying . MS . COOKINGHAM: Are you saying that if you are going to build for your- own facility and it is just not going to be a customer area - it is just going to be for the use of the employees of the building., you still have to meet the handicapped requirement? MR. TAUBE : No., you mean for storage? MS . COOKINGHAM: Right . MR. TAUBE : Not under- these circumstances. Under others it would necessitate it . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: This is a restaurant . MR. TAUBE : Right a restaurant and it complys with the handicapped . MS . COOKINGHAM: I thought - somewhere in the discussion► you said that it wouldn' t be possible just to add on for your storage because you would have some handicapped requirements that had to be met . Did I misunderstand that? MR. TAUBE : Yes. I think maybe when I was talking about going up or- down., if we were doing it for storage - storage going up - we would have difficulties (unintelligible) with the space going up . BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 34 It is impractical . . . . MS . COOK.INGHAM: Is it impractical because of the handicapped law requirements? MR. TAUBE : No. Just the difficulty of going up structurally with a small building and the costs and the benefits and the return. I just have a question since we did not have an opportunity here to see the recommendations that were made by the Planning Board., I was curious to know if there was anything contrary to what I was assuming . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Motion made and seconded to make no recommendation to BZA because of parking problem but added comment that this was a good project . Further questions? Thank you. 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. SECRETARY HOARD: I have two letters Mr . Chairman. One is from the Design Review Board and you all have copies of that so in the interest of time. . . the other• is from Jason Fane: "Dear Boards : The appeal of Craig, Keith,. and Christine Schaufler for 321 College Avenue makes good sense and I hope you will approve their application. Side yards are detrimental in a commercial zone because they break the continuous wall of retail store fronts which are important to a good retail environment . Similarly back lots serve no useful purpose; they can only reduce the amount of construction and therefore reduce pr•oper•ty and sales tax collections and also reduce employment . Finally, the minimum lot BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 35 size should be waived as it, too serves no useful purpose. Very truly yours, /s/ Jason Fane" MR. TAUBE : While having the letters read I remembered one point, the Schauflers did send out all the required notices and received no negative comments either in writing or verbally . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: The Chair would like to point out the non- recommendation from the Planning and Development Board consti- tutes an action, as I understand it., in other words they con- sidered the case - they haven' t refused to hear it or whatever they do and they apparently formed no conclusions. I will say that in regard to our- discussion on the effect on governmental facilities an appeal in this area with the present confusion, in my mind on whether this is an area in which there are severe questions on parking - whether increases and utilization of sites and buildings is being met or is intended to be met by the legis- lative body - however-, we are looking at a zoning ordinance as it stands, which requires no off-street parking and therefore there is no off-street parking deficiency either in the existing struc- ture and the proposed structure. Obviously it will put an in- creased burden on such public facilities - there being a finite number of spaces in the Collegetown area. BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 36 The Board considered the appeal of Craig and Keith Schaufler for an area variance under Section 30 . 15., Columns G and 15 of the Zoning Ordinance for deficient lot size and deficient rear yard setback, to permit the addition of a second floor with mezzanine to the existing one-story building at 321 College Avenue. The decision of the Board was as follows:. MR. TOMLAN: I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in appeal number 1555 . MS , COOKINGHAM: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT : 1) The minimum lot size requirement would be exacerbated by the addition of additional height . 2) The special conditions clause of the ordinance was not fully dealt with in that it is not the only lot of its approximate dimension in the area . 37 The proposed variance would obviously increase the traffic flow and inevitable parking problems in the neighborhood. From personal observation there are serious traffic problems and parking deficiencies that seem to be area-wide. VOTE : G Yes; 0 No AREA VARIANCE REQUEST DENIED BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1084 PAGE 37 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Can we hear the next case please? SECRETARY HOARD: The next, case is appeal number 1556, 111 W. Jay Street : Appeal of Margaret A. Cecce for an area variance under Section 38 . 25., Columns 4, 11, and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance for de- ficient off-street parking, and deficient setbacks for both front yards, to permit the enlargement of an existing exterior stairway landing on the east side of the house at 111 W. Jay Street . The property is located in an R-2b ( residential, one-and two-family dwellings) use district in which the existing use as a two-family dwelling is permitted; however the appellant must obtain a variance for the listed area defi- ciencies before a building permit can be issued for the alteration. MS . CECCE : I 'm Margaret Cecce, 111 W. Jay Street . Last year I came asking for• a variance for- increasing a deck which was wider and would have added width 'and added another deficiency. This year I am considering no increase in width so it would not in- crease the number of already existing deficiencies which the property has and it would allow better access in terms of getting large items into and out of the second floor apartment and more convenience for- my tenant without changing any of the other exis- ting deficiencies of the property . MR. BOOTH: This is just involving the enlargement of that existing landing? MS . CECCE : Yes it involves the landing currently is 4 x 4 feet . I intend to extend it back 6 feet so it would be a 4 x 10 foot landing. So it will just involve extending the landing, no increase in roof or• any of the other• things - .just for access BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 38 into and out of the apartment to give her some maneuverability . MS . FARRELL : When I looked at the house - the landing that you are talking about is sort of a little bit above ground level - it is right there and you go up . . . . ? MS . CECCE : No the landing is at the second floor . MS . FARRELL : Okay . MR. BOOTH: On the east side of the house? MS . CECCE : Right . MS . FARRELL : So its the porch? MS . CECCE : Right . It would give - she would be able to have a chair• out there if she wanted to in the summertime but it also currently - the four foot landing makes it extremely difficult to get things into and out of the apartment . MS . FARRELL : And that is her exit? MS . CECCE : That is her exit . MR. BOOTH: This does not increase any of the existing deficiencies? MS . CECCE : Right and it would not add - where if I had gone wider it would have added another deficiency - staying the same width does not affect the side yard setback . Any other questions? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: You have done well with our language. Are there any further questions? Thank you. 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? Do I hear a motion? BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 40 The Board considered the request of Margaret A. Cecce for an area variance under Section 30 . 25, Columns 4, 11 and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance for deficient off-street parking, and deficient setbacks for both front yards., to permit the enlargement of an existing exterior stairway landing on the east side of the house . The decision of the Board was as follows: MS . BAGNARDI : I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1556 for 111 West Jay Street . MR. BOOTH: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The use would not affect the character of the neighborhood . 2) The side yard deficiency is a practical difficulty which makes compliance impossible . 3) This change observes the spirit of the Ordinance and does not affect the character of the area. VOTE : 6 YES : 0 NO GRANTED BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 41 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1557, 415 Elm Street : Appeal of Judith Jackson for a use variance under Section 30 . 25., Column 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the conversion of the existing house at 415 Elm Street to up to six apartments . The property is located in an R-2a ( residential, one- and two-family dwellings) use district in which the existing use as a single-family dwelling with income apartment is a permitted use; the proposed conversion to a multiple dwelling requires a use variance under Section 30 . 57 of the Zoning Ordinance before a building permit or certificate of occupancy can be issued for the change in use . MS . JACKSON: I am Judith Jackson and I own the property at 415 Elm Street . I came here about two years ago to ask for a vari- ance because at that time someone wanted to buy the house to use it as a country inn - bed and breakfast type place.. It was fin- ally turned down because there weren' t enough yes votes and the two reasons were I had not demonstrated economic hardship for the property and the property had been listed for sale for a rela- tively short period of time. It had been on the market three months by that time. I am back asking for- another use variance to allow the building to be converted into up to six separate units to try and make it attractive to someone who would be in- terested in buying it . I need to sell it . The request for six units is for• the following information. The house has over six thousand square feet living space in it . Plumbing is already in the house for five kitchens - it has four full bathrooms and two BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 42 half bathrooms - six outside entrances - it has two stairways to the second floor - two stairways to the third floor - the amount of space available in the house - in the layout of the house as it is now divide quite comfortably into six, one and two bedroom apartments - quality apartments (unintelligible) people who could afford the rents necessary to support the building. Supporting the fixed expenses of financing, taxes, insurance, general main- tenance and also to provide the utilities which have to go along with the building . That support would be - needed would be in the area of twenty-two to twenty-four hundred dollars a month or about four hundred dollars per apartment which are realistic rents for nice apartments of that type in that area - in an area like that - including utilities . If you just divided the house sort of mathematically - simply - there are twenty-three rooms in the house plus the bathrooms . If you had six apartments, you would have to have six kitchens and six living rooms to make an apartment . Those twelve rooms taken out of the twenty-three ex- isting rooms would leave eleven rooms and even if you turned every one of the eleven rooms over to bedrooms for• the different six apartments, that is, in effect, eleven people at the most . There are seven people living there now so it is not a huge num- ber of people that the house would be holding. And there is more than enough parking to support that number of apartments already without changing the front of the house or the driveway or any- thing at all . The house sits on two point six acres -almost ex- actly in the center of the property which is about six times more BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 43 property than is necessary - legally necessary for that many apartments and I don't think it would change the residential character of the neighborhood in any major way. My appeal is based on hardship . I feel that my property qualifies for a vari- ance based on this economic hardship factor under the zoning reg- ulations . It is a conforming property in an R-2a zone. I ' ve had it on the market for two years . The first year it was on the market - it has been on the market with Century 21 which is a multiple listing agency - the first year we played up its size - the many rooms., the large amount of city property available with it, interesting but unusual features in the house -called it an estate. The second year, I rented out the apartment and the apartment gets $395. 00 a month - it has two bedrooms, played down the size, called it a four- bedroom house with an income apart- ment, shut off the third floor - called that extra space - re- duced the price and I haven't had a single offer on the house under any circumstances - in almost two years - in May it will have .been on the market two years . MS . FARRELL : Zero, nothing? (unintelligible) MS . JACKSON: No, not even any informal inquiries like that sort of thing - would you do this or- would you consider - nothing . The only discussed interest - not with me but with the real estate people is (unintelligible) A few weeks ago I asked Century 21 to please tell me how I can sell this house and the sales man- ager, Ed Dellert, came and toured the house and he had an immedi- ate reaction and that was that I quit trying to sell it as a BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 44 single family house because he didn't feel it was going to sell because it was too huge - it also has the drawback - in that case - of sharing the common rear boundary with West Village which is an apartment complex of perhaps two hundred apartments . I think the house has unique disadvantages that have prevented it so far from selling - and will continue to prevent it from selling as a single family house. I have already demonstrated its size -there is not another house anywhere like it in the area - probably not on West Hill - maybe not in Ithaca. Between the two streets - it is on Elm Street - between the two streets on either side of it which are West Village Drive and Elmcrest Circle - the only other buildings there is on West Village Drive there is a small two- bedroom house and next to that is a little bungalow that they own and rent out and there are several empty lots and then my proper- ty which is about three hundred feet across the front and then more empty lots and then Elmcrest Circle. The rear boundary is the West Village parking lot - the two of us meet . So nothing around me shares my problems either in size or location or con- version possibilities. It has been two years - and a lot of time and a lot of money and effort - as I say, I have had nothing - absolutely nothing. I think the variance I ask for would make only a small change in the building as it is used right now - just mathematics tells you you can't make more rooms out of - it is a big building but it is limited and it also - because it na- turally divides - because of the plumbing and the stairways and other• things - that is not., in my opinion an unreasonable divi- BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 45 Sion of the building . I think the fact that it has been two years and the singular circumstances and hardship of the house - peculiar-, unique hardship and sharing the boundary with West Vil- lage - which is a zoning area that would allow my sort of project if I was mooned the same as West Village and the fact that I feel the conversion would have - of the many things one could ask for - a minimal affect on the neighborhood, I am asking for the vari- ance . MR. BOOTH: What about dividing it into three or four units, have you considered that possibility? MS . JACKSON: I can't do this, to begin with, I 'm trying to make it attractive to a buyer . MR. BOOTH: I understand that . MS . JACKSON: However-, again, if you divide the house up into X number of rooms and - you know - the less kitchens and living rooms, the more bedrooms you have and if you have larger bed- roomed apartments, you would begin to attract groups . Small one and two bedroom apartments I think, attracts one or two people, couples, young - in an area like that, it is not suitable for raising a family - it would be for young couples or working peo- ple . MS . FARRELL : You might have more chance if you could have it owner-occupied with a couple of other - you know - a significant portion of your house with a couple of other apartments . Just out of curiousity, did you buy (unintelligible) MS . JACKSON: I was married nine years ago and we bought this and BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 46 things were a lot different . MR. BOOTH: The apartment is rented now? MS . JACKSON: Yes . MS . FARRELL : The other question I had, it sounds like really there could be a lot more people in it than the - what did you say eleven bedrooms, or• something - if the bedrooms are big enough they could have two people in them (unintelligible) MS . JACKSON: One can always extend the possibilities and that is true but, technically that is not okay and . . . MS . FARRELL : Well if there are (unintelligible) MS . JACKSON: Some are and some aren' t but I think you also have to consider that we are talking about a fairly expensive building and a conversion and I don't think it would make any sense for anybody to take it and turn it into junk . It is not in a college popular area, it is all the way across town and it is residential I mean, anything is possible, of course. MS . BAGNARDI : Mrs. Jackson, how long have you owned the house, did you say? MS . JACKSON: Since 1975 . MS . BAGNARDI : What is the assessment of the property? MS . JACKSON: Tax assessment? MS . BAGNARDI : Yes . MS . JACKSON: $82, 500 . I think . MS . BAGNARDI : Have you done a lot of work to the house since you bought it in the 70 ' s? MS . JACKSON: I will have to guess at this . BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 47 MS . BAGNARDI : Have you done any renovation to bathrooms or any of the kitchens or . . . MS . JACKSON: Well, actual renovations to make . . . MS . BAGNARDI : Furnace., new furnace, air conditioning - did you put any new windows in or . . . MS . JACKSON: Well things like storm windows, carpeting the whole place and . . . painting the driveway. . . MS . BAGNARDI : You did put the new storm windows in? When you were here last., when the house was on the market for• only three months., you had someone who was very interested in it for a bed and breakfast - and that was denied when you came in for the bed and breakfast facility - we turned you down. What happened to that interested party, did they want to come back and MS . JACKSON: They bought something else. That was two years ago . MS . BAGNARDI : So they dropped out completely? MS . JACKSON: They are definitely not now a possibility, if that is what you mean. MS . BAGNARDI : No, I know that, I know what they own at this point but could that have - how can I say this - would that have been a possibility if you - had you come to terms when you came here for the variance - teems of contract, when you came here? MS . JACKSON: With them? MS . BAGNARDI : Yes . And it was contingent on obtaining the variance, was that right? MS . JACKSON: In a general sort of way, yes . MS . BAGNARDI : And then when we turned you down they completely BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 48 lost interest? MS . JACKSON: Well one of their problems was that time and money became a problem for them - having to wait, things got more difficult for them financially and they were no longer able to wait out - they didn' t have any money left after they waited out the . . MS . BAGNARDI : Period of time? Okay . MR. BOOTH: You said it had a history of use as a multiple dwelling? At what point was that? MS . JACKSON: When we bought it it was being used as a great huge rooming house., as near- as I could tell . Everything that wasn' t a bathroom or a kitchen was lived in by two or three people - somebody - you know, singles and doubles and there were a lot of people living there . MS . BAGNARDI : There are seven people living there now, you and the children? MS . JACKSON: Yes and the people in the apartment house . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other- questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this application? Yes please come forward . MS . DATZ: My name is Joanna Datz and I work with Century 21, I ' ve been the broker for two years that has represented Judith Jackson. I would just like to reiterate for the case of hardship that we have really given every effort to marketing this house as a single family and that in terms of putting any expense in, not only our agency., but Judy has kind of sat here modestly - she put BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 49 in that whole apartment, which she now rents out for $395 . 00 last summer which was a total renovation and expense in an extra kit- chen and remodelling that apartment . She has also insulated the entire house in terms of improvement from its prior assessment and, unfortunately housing - although is supposed to be assessed at market value - are not always - and that we have over time made many different kinds of efforts, as she said, in marketing it as a house with extra space, a house with less space, a house with an 'apartment., a house without an apartment, a large family house, a family house with an apartment - just over time have made several efforts to market it different ways and have not been successful and it has been on multiple listing for two years now, going back to April 1982 . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Mould you comment on the $112, 000 . asking price for 6, 000 feet? MS . DATZ. That is highly unusual - that is very low for that amount of square footage. However pure amount of square footage doesn't even relate to the price - it would be a bargain at that price if someone could use it for a multiple imaginable uses -however-, people just have a single family, even with an apart- ment consider first the extra amount of room that they have no use for and second, the utility bills right away . People just usually walk in and are overwhelmed and in fact after the last Board meeting at which Judy was turned down, we invited Tom Hoard and the area building inspector to come and see the building - walk through it completely so that they would know what was BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 58 there, I don't knew if anyone else from the Board has been through the house but it is probably unimaginable in size - it is extremely overwhelming for any single family prospect so the price is almost irrelevant . We could put a much lesser price on it and someone would still look at the utility bills and the extra amount of space - no single family has wanted to deal with it . MR. TOMLAN: What do you think the borderline would be - how far down would you have to go? MS . UATZ: I think the more down you got, the less in price you got., the less favorable someone would be of handling the utility bills, the taxes, the maintenance on the house, so I think you would need an over S100, 000. buyer to handle the taxes, the util- ities - someone who is qualified in that range to keep up the maintenance in that type of house, even if you had reduced the price you have a lesser qualified buyer to manage that size property . MR. BOOTH: In terms of selling or converting it to units, do you have any sense of how many units would be the minimum that would make it an attractive (unintelligible) MS . UATZ : I think it would work as five or six - the only reason we had even contemplated five was that there would be no need in terms of the stair cases and entrances for building an outside staircase to the third floor - it could be arranged - there is an inside staircase to the third floor and that would support five units. However, that would put some rooms to waste in terms of BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 51 bedrooms and in terms of a buyer ' s point of view, making it more attractive. Six apartments would support ,just about a break even investment with an estimated range of renovations that would be required to make it into apartments . And that is ,just about break even with putting in a substantial amount of cash to do the renovation . MR. BOOTH: Who made those estimates, did your agency make those estimates? MS . UATZ : Our agency worked on that, Judy and I worked on potential plans for what - visions of what - Judy consulted with Tom Hoard in terms of possible types of divisions of the building -the assessments in terms of what would make it break even were based on conservative rental amounts for each apartment . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Further questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this application? (no ones Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? Don't be shy - someone has to be first . MR. HARTMAN.' My name is George Hartman, I live at 404 Elm Street right across the road and we've got one West Village there, we don't need anymore. You know that, don't you Charlie? CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? MR. WILCOX: I won't be quite as to the point as George is . My name is Jerry Wilcox, I live at 414 Elm Street, just across the street - I ' ve lived there ten years and during the previous round of requests for- the BZA, I testified in favor of having this be- BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 52 ing a bed and breakfast . My concern at that time was that we maintain a good neighbor, because the Jacksons have been good neighbors and I warted to have somebody who would live in the building . I am concerned about this now because I did live there for one year when, as Judy aptly described it, every available room in the building was occupied by somebody not related to any- body else and it was really hell on the neighborhood. I know that ' s not what she is describing now but we do get enough noise from West Village - the noise pollution, especially in the sum- mertime - with what we have and I am concerned about what might happen if we turn this into six units . I 'm sympathetic with Judy's situation because I don't want to have her stuck with a house that she can't use and yet I 'm also not planning to leave I am going to be there and I can predict what is going to happen when other people come in - whether or not they will care for the property, if it is an absentee landlord and I think that ' s pretty much what we are talking about . So that is why I finally came down reluctantly on the side of opposing this . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any questions? Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? MS . BERGSTEN: I ' m Helen Ber-gsten and I live directly across the street . I would go along with marry of the things that Jerry has enumerated. We did go through absentee landlords and it was dreadful . We do have noise and West Village has depreciated our life so I would be in the same situation► as Judy if this goes through . BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2., 1984 PAGE 53 MR. BOOTH: How large is your house? MS . BERGSTEN: We have an acre and six tenths across the street . MR. BOOTH: How big is the house? MS . BERGSTEN: Nine rooms . MR. BOOTH: Nine rooms? MS . BERGSTEN: Yes . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any other questions? Thank you very much. MS . BERGSTEN: I am Carol Ann Bergsten - this case I am very in- terested in. That was my mother . I reside at 408 Elm Street, Ithaca., New York and Mrs . Jackson' s property is exactly opposite . Mr . Romanowski, our• councilman, pointed out last Thursday night that the land attached to Mrs . Jackson' s property could be ex- panded whereby there would be forty-two occupancies and not six . If she were to have the building taken down or whoever bought it - expand it onto the land which she also owns, there would be forty-two occupants, not six . And my father• helped build that house in which Mrs. Jackson now lives and I went to school with all the Schickel children and that house was built for a big family and they had a big family and we don' t have them anymore. But that is no reason to convert a house into whatever . Mr . Romanowski said forty-two or- tear• the whole thing down and put a gas station in there, put a parking lot there. I like the house that I see across the street - I don't think it is appro- priate or fitting with our neighborhood because the first day that Mrs . Jackson moved into her house I walked across the street and welcomed her . She was not there, her- husband - and was as- BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 54 sured that it would be a one-family house. It never has been and I don' t see that it ever will . MR. BOOTH: What has it been? MS . BERGSTEN: It has been as she has described it . We knew the Schickels, I grew up with them. It was absentee landlord . Louie and Kentucky had no idea of who was living there. MR. BOOTH: What has it been the last nine years? MS . BERGSTEN: Nine years? Anything you want . When you think of three families, you think: of perhaps four or five cars, not nine . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Any further• questions? Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? MS . HARTMAN: I ' m Virginia Hartman, Mr . Hartman is my husband. Our house is about nine rooms and we have apartment upstairs which we don't rent because of• the noise problem. In the summer when the windows are open, which they have to be, it is so noisy that you can't even sleep in the upstairs . We just go sleep in the back, downstairs and so we just didn't want more cars going in and out because they sound like they are coming right in and out of your own driveway. It must be something to do with the way the lay of the land there. I realize that she has a problem of what to do with that house. We hate to have it back the way it was with so many cars going in and out . It is like a commune - the whole circular• driveway was full of cars - in and out all hours . I guess that is all I have to say. CHAIRMAN WEAVER : Thank you . RZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 55 MR. SCHLATHER: I ' m Raymond Schlather, live at 201 Sunrise Road, West Hill resident, also First Ward Alder•per-son. This is diff- icult because Judy Jackson has always been a good neighbor and a good resident and well liked on West Hill . But the bottom line is, from the neighborhood standpoint, to permit six apartments in that building is going to breach very seriously the zoning con- tract that these neighbors have with the City and I say this quite seriously because in that neighborhood now - other than West Village - there is only one other home that has an apart- ment, in other words it is all single-family residences with one home that has art apartment, down the road on Elm Street . And there are some large homes on that street - the Clynes' home is quite a large home and that is just down the road - it is one of the features of that neighborhood. No question about it, none of them is as large as this building, as this house. This is a wood structure house by the way - it is not a brick building - it is a wood structure home - it is a frame home. But the bottom line is that it is a single-family neighborhood and to permit six resi- dential units in that neighborhood is going to totally disrupt this single-family flavor that is there. The other point to keep in mind I think: is very important - is that there is not a pur- chase offer on this property at this time - it is not as if you are coming here with some proposal that you can mull over and sift through and kind of kick around - but instead what is being asked here is for a check for any type of a landlord to come in and put six apartments in there - be it an absentee landlord BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 56 -which would be the worst case scenario - or perhaps as one sug- gestion was made, it might be someone coming in - an owner- occupied primary residence with a couple of spin-off apartments, but it is a lot easier for the neighborhood to react if we are talking about a particular plan - but we don't have a plan here, to some extent I question whether or riot - by the granting of this variance you will in effect be alleviating any economic hardship because, first of all there is a claim of economic hard- ship but there is no demonstration here that the grant of a vari- ance would somehow alleviate that because there is no buyer in hand at any price and under any circumstances . I would submit that the better- course would be as was done with the bed and breakfast and that was that an offer- was made, or at least there was noise of a contract being entered into - that they► was pre- sented to the neighborhood, the neighborhood reacted, it was a split neighborhood - there were some people in favor of the bed and breakfast and some opposed - that the lines of opposition were more on the issue of commercial vs non-commercial as opposed to the density factor and the vote was taken. They didn' t have the votes. The bottom line here - and I think it would be a lot easier from the neighbors standpoint, if they could get a pro- posal made and then to be able to come in and react . It may be that somebody may come in and suggest three condominiums instead of a six unit apartment - that might be acceptable to the neigh- bors, assuming certain conditions could be attached that would make it palatable to the neighborhood. But to simply come in BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 57 here and write a check for six units, I think is a big mistake. I guess the other point to keep in mind and it has already been brought up but I think it deserves emphasis is that this is - to some extent - a self-inflicted hardship . The building was there, it was coned residential when it was purchased, West Village was there when it was purchased and it was bought as a single-family residence with the right to put in a spin-off apartment and the - in other words, the Jacksons moved in with eyes open, they under- stood what they were getting into and I don' t think it was fair to the neighbors, as one neighbor has indicated here tonight - she may leave and - but they have to stay., the neighborhood stays and they have to bear the brunt of the decision that is made here this evening. I think there may be other possible solutions that haven't been explored here, such as it may be that sub-division of the parcel may be feasible which would permit some economic recovery to the (unintelligible) here. I don't know whether Cen- tury has pursued these options or not but that is something that could be explored. I guess in closing the point I want to make here is that zoning truly is a contract between a neighborhood and its community and to the extent that that contract is en- forced, then to that extent people can rely upon it - people buy and sell - people make improvements to their property, it is something - there should be a presumption there that that is something that is not going to be breached. The granting of a variance in the face of neighborhood opposition is a breach of their contract - it is saying to the neighbors, look you may have BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 58 that contract but we are not going to enforce it in your situa- tion and I think that under the circumstances of this case, there is not a sufficient basis to breach that contract . I would opt on the side of the neighbors and I would urge you to deny it and perhaps with the message being sent out - bring us a concrete proposal and maybe we can react to it - maybe we can work with something along these lines . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: One thing - as an alderman - you repeated something that we hear every month about absentee landlords and I ' d like to point out to you that there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance or any other Municipal Ordinance, that I am aware of, that dictates who shall or shall not own property and whether they are obliged to live in - including single family dwellings or R-2, fully in compliance or anything else - although most of the neighbors know exactly what they are talking about when they have had a bad experience with a property with an absentee landlord -there is nothing that the Municipality has in place that would protect anyone in the City against that possibility. MR. SCHLATHER: From a legal sense or a constitutional sense, it would be pretty difficult for any governmental entity to say - in other- words to control ownership of property in that fashion - to have special rules for absentee landlords as opposed to owner-occupied landlords - the point is well made and I think that the problem is that the absenteeism somehow becomes a function of size. The larger the project, the more likely it is that the owner- is an absentee owner- and that it is a commercial BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 59 venture. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this? MS . DATZ: I would like to respond . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Yes . Come up here . MS . DATZ : I would like to respond as the marketing anent to two points that Ray Schlather made. One is the sub-division of a lot which possibly could be a consideration but you can't sub-divide the house. You can take an extra lot off and sell but then who will buy that tremendous house on a smaller lot even than 2 .63 acres where you will have a tremendous house and a very small lot? So it is not as it that hasn't been under consideration. Secondly talking about well let ' s come to the Board with a pro- posal or a buyer• who has a proposal and consider• that specific proposal - it is very difficult to market something that isn' t -the buyer• asks and this question has been repeated over and over from buyers - what is it zoned f•or? And we tell them what the zoning is currently. Timing is an extremely important factor in a sale of a home. The timing was partially the reason that Judy lost her• last buyer . We had to wait for months for the hearings the Planning Board and the Zoning Board - and by that time they were on to other things and had lost part of what they had ac- crued. Very often an investment buyer - to an investment buyer -timing is extremely important - whether it be before taxes or within a certain tax year• or• money that he has to transfer from one investment to another . Now it may still be an owner-occupied BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 60 unit in the end but if it is going to be a multiple unit it will likely be an investor- and to an investor, timing is very impor- tant and we have to say to this person that it is currently resi- dential - you could possibly do all this r•econstr-uction and come before the Zoning Board and find out if you could make it into a multi-family, in which case it becomes not as attractive right away . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you . MR. BOOTH: I have two questions. One is that we have heard testimony that the asking price for this house is about thirty percent above it assessed valuation. Is that unusual, or is that usual? MS . DATZ : You will find if you look at the assessment rolls -al- though they ar-e supposed to be in accordance with current market value - they ar•e hardly ever- that . The range usually varies in accordance with how long the property has been owned. If it was sold to a buyer two years ago, it is likely the assessment is more cur•r•ent because there are changes after- the sale, not neces- sar•ily to what the people paid but it is up considerably . MR. BOOTH: When was this assessment made? MS . DATZ : I am not sure, but Judy has owned it for- nine years -what tends to happen., to my knowledge, or the way I have viewed it, is when a person owns a house for- a long time it gets up in little, little increments.. but not in accordance with the way the market values ar-e rising - an appreciation - real appreciation -market appreciation. So, since they have owned it for nine BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 61 years, the assessment might tend to go up by little bits but not as if it were resold within the last two or three years and that market price would indicate a change of assessment . MR. BOOTH: Second question - as a real estate agent, do you agree with the general characterization of the rest of the neighborhood in terms of traffic? MS . GAT2: Elm Street is a more main thoroughfare on West Hill -I 'm also a West Hill resident, I live on Hector Street which I consider a busy thoroughfare - Elm Street is not - that portion of Elm Street is not nearly as busy as Hector Street but it is also a main thoroughfare - it is not what Warren Place or Richard Place or the little residential neighborhoods - however, the peo- ple that are speaking live across the street and that does main- tain a fairly residential character - along that side of the street . Judy lives across the street, back to back with West Village and the noise that they talk about is very apparent but she shares that by the nature of the fact that they are in her back yard - she can't do anything about that . And I personally -talking about noise - we are talking about the noise of six more units compared to however many hundreds there are in West Village I don't think it is going to increase the noise factor noticably . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. I 've allowed her to speak again - is there anyone in opposition that feels any need to respond? Alright thank you all . MS . JACKSON: May I say something? BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 62 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Yes briefly. Come forward. I ' d like to give everyone a fair hearing - I ' d also like to get on with the subject . MS . JACKSON: This is just in response to several things that I have heard people say. What somebody said about forty units - she was totally incorrect . In fact Mr . VanCort who in effect recommended for - and I know he is not a voting member -recom- mended for this plan, pointed out that I have enough land to sup- port forty units - he was merely pointing out the amount of land available there - he wasn't saying that anybody had the right to do that . And in fact, the house has no need to change dramati- cally on the outside even at all by doing what I am proposing . It can't go back to the rooming house that we salvaged it from nine years ago - I don't even think it is possible by zoning laws - but certainly not by what I am asking (unintelligible) . My variance - the thing I am asking for is as close to what it is now as about anything you can get . I also would like to suggest too that being an absentee landlord is not a guarantee fifty- fifty that the person is going to be careless. I own a building downtown and I don' t treat it that way - it looks nice - there are plenty of people that treat property well and I would also suggest that if we were to spend a lot of money on it - it would be foolish to let something like my property turn into a small slum or a - and I think if someone needs to put money into an al- ready expensive property suggest that it would be taken care of . And I also want to suggest to be a tenant doesn' t mean you can' t BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 63 be a desirable, decent neighbor- . It doesn' t mean you are loud - it doesn't mean you ar-e disrespectful - it doesn't mean that you don' t care about where you live . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard? MR. SCHLATHER: Two points. One is that West Village certainly is there but West Village is - the nearest building is probably I would wager- - is almost one hundred yards from Elm Street - in other• words it is quite a distance compared to this home' s proxi- mity to the neighbors who have spoken earlier . Second point is that indeed this land is surrounded by vacant parcels and one real concern is that if a variance of this magnitude is granted for this particular pr•oper•ty, there will be pressure from the owners of the other" vacant parcels to come in and say, hey we can't build a single-family dwelling on these properties because we ar•e next to a six-unit apartment and West Village, therefore we want to put in an apartment on these parcels - so all of a sudden we ar-e going to end up with the south side of Elm Street, north of West Village's entrance is going to be apartment units and the north side is going to be very disgruntled and unhappy single family dwellers who may., indeed, leave. In other words, there is a real erosion of the neighborhood and that is the best way to start it to legitimize multiple dwelling . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Ready for the question? BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 64 The Board considered the request of Judith Jackson for a use variance to permit the conversion of the existing house at 415 Elm Street to up to six apartments . A comment was expressed by one Board member to the effect that in the three months that he has sat on the Board, this case was the most difficult; that there are strong reasons on both sides of this case. The decision of the Board was as follows : MR. BOOTH: I move that the Board deny the use variance requested in appeal number 1557 . MR. TOMLAN: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT : 17 There is an existing valid use of the property, it obviously has difficulties attached to it but it is an existing feasible use . 2) Substantial testimony that the proposed variance would alter the character of the neighborhood to a substantial degree. 3) This is somewhat of a chicken and egg problem but it is legitimate to read or hear this record to suggest that there are some opportunities to use this property that have not been explored which therefore defeat the granting of this variance. Having said all of that, I think this is a very close question . A statement was made in opposition to the motion. There is a very clear showing of a uniqueness of this specific property in its total size, its proximity to West Village and the size of the site. It has not been specifically stated here but the price HZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 65 bracket is such that a person with that much cash would shop -not just for• a different size and different price, but also would shop for- a protected area - protected against that major multiple dwelling that constitutes a whole area of West Village. If this motion is successful, the Hoard might be pr-epar-ed to hear a simi- lar application that might result in a conditional granting . Obviously this Hoard has no basis for a conditional granting of a variance now - because the si•x. apartment proposal is rather am- biguous, and because there ar•e other- considerations, such as the exterior- alterations for- an exterior- stairway yet to be designed which ar•e of concern both to this Hoard and to the neighborhood. The Hoard cannot grant a variance for a proposal that is in such broad form as this application is in, but might consider- a more specific and detailed proposal . VOTE : 5 YES; 1 NO USE VARIANCE REQUEST DENIED BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 66 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1558 for• 119 THIRD STREET which has been held over by the Planning and Development Board. The next case then is appeal number 1559 for 323-29 COLLEGE AVENUE : Appeal of David and Seymour• Turk for• an area var- iance for a deficient rear yard under Section 30 . 25, Column 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to per- mit the addition of two floors of four apartments on each floor (eight apartment total) to the ex- isting one-story merchantile building at 323-29 College Avenue (Turk ' s Army and Navy Store and Collegetown Convenience Store) . The property is located in a B-2b (business) use district where the existing and proposed uses are permitted; however, under Sections 30 . 49 and 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellants must obtain an area variance for the deficient rearyard setback before a building permit or• a certificate of oc- cupancy can be issued for the addition to the non-conforming structure. The existing building was constructed under area variances ( 1258 and 1266) issued in 1979 . After discussion concerning this matter between David and Seymour Turk and Board members., the following motion was made : MR. TOMLAN: I move that the Board defer action on this case and refer it back to the Planning and Development Board for a recommendation. MS . FARRELL : I second the motion . VOTE : 6 YES; 0 NO Motion carried BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 67 SECRETARY HOARD: The last appeal is appeal number 1560, 115 UTICA STREET : Appeal of Adrian H. Kitai for an area variance for a deficient side yard under Section 30 . 25, Column 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a second floor addition over a one-story portion of the existing single-family dwelling at 115 Utica Street . The property is located in an R-2b ( residential one-and two-family dwelling) use district in which the proposed use is permitted; however Sections 30 . 49 and 30 . 57 of the Zoning Ordinance require that the appellant obtain an area variance for the deficient side yard setback before a building permit or a certificate of occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. MR. KITAI : My name is Adrian Kitai . I bought the property last August and my intention was to improve the property, make it more in keeping with other properties in the neighborhood. Do you have copies of the plans? The reason that the plans are as I have sketched them is that if you look at the downstairs in the present structure, the living room is almost like a corridor - it is not very big - it doesn't allow much living space. It is ad- jacent to a bedroom and is not desirable for a family situation. The kitchen has to be passed through to get to the bathroom from any of the three bedrooms which are in the house. The rear of the house also has a utility room which does not permit any com- munication with the back yard which is very unpleasant because there is a large back yard. There is no window or anything else to the back. yard. That also made it less appealing as a single family dwelling . The renovations are designed to make a kitchen with a view to the back yard, a larger living-dining room which BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 68 would eliminate one bedroom downstairs and then in the addition upstairs of two additional bedrooms and an additional bathroom to maintain the accommodation in the house. The downstairs bedroom would be a study or a bedroom in the case of a single-family dwelling . You are not allowed more than three unrelated indi- viduals in a rental situation. That situation does not change. The reason that I need the variance is because the house is three foot ten inches over too far on the north boundary. Three foot ten inches further over- than it should be. I have made a picture here showing the houses in the neighborhood, showing that the lot size of my house is not significantly smaller or- larger than ad- jacent lots and I am showing that the house itself is signifi- cantly smaller than any of the houses in the neighborhood. I believe you have a copy of a letter- which was sent by a neighbor, is that correct? I would just like to go through some of his objections to the plan. First., he states that there is room for one car - well there is presently room for two cars. This was brought out at the Planning meeting. It was their thought that you are allowed to have two cars, one behind the other on the south side of the house which has the twelve foot . . . MR. BOOTH: That exists now? MR. KITAI : It exists now. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is that - the space exists but that hadn' t been developed into parking had it? MR. KITAI : Yes it has - you have the drawing there - a gravel driveway . 8ZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 69 CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Alright . I must say that I didn't notice that . MS . COOKINGHAM: I didn' t either . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Some of your tenants apparently are in the habit of parking between the sidewalk and curb . MR . KITAI : That is right . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: They don' t quite get all the way in . MR. KITAI : There is a problem now in that one of the tenants who broke his lease has left a car in the front yard of this house. None of us can move the car . MR. TOMLAN: It can' t be towed? MR. KITAI : I can tow it but have not done so. The leases of all the tenants end May the lath and I thought well I won' t do anything with it . I can do something immediately - I can get that car- out of there immediately . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I guess I must have assumed that the reason for that parking was that there was but one space beyond the sidewalk . MR. KITAI : No there is sufficient space - there is twelve feet there . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Alright . Thank you . MR. KITAI : And in terms of the house remaining a single family dwelling, I am not asking for any kind of a duplex. Duplexes are allowed in that neighborhood but that is not my intention. It says in statement number- three that the new elevation is in di- rect opposition - elevation to all other houses . I don' t really understand that but some of the pictures that I have passed BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 70 around does show that at least the adjacent - the next door house is very similar in appearance to the style of this house. The fourth statement that he makes is that I could put seven people in the house but I am only allowed three unrelated people - that ' s not a variance - I am not applying for a variance of that nature. Finally there was some concern by some of the neighbors may not have received my statements - my appeal and I know they have because the postman gave them a card which says they owe seventeen cents from the post office. I also verified with the two neighbors on each side of the house did receive notification and I have signed statements from them showing that they did in fact receive the notice within at least five days before the ini- tial Planning meeting . SECRETARY HOARD: Have you refunded the seventeen cents? MR. KITAI : I have offered to., so far nobody has accepted it . MR. BOOTH: The addition will go on the north side of the house as you look at it? MR. KITAI : The addition is on the upstairs of the single story portion of the house which is east of the (unintelligible) it ' s not on the side of the house, it is above the present ground floor . It does not extend any further than the present house on any side . MR. BOOTH: I know, I looked at the house though. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: It is only one story behind that (unintelligible) MR. BOOTH: So it is only one, I see. So the existing BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 71 non-conformities will not be enlarged? MR. KITAI : I have a picture of the side of the house - you can see the single floor area goes behind the single upstairs rooms . There is also at least six feet between the house and the house on the north side . MR. TOMLAN: As a matter- of curiosity have you (unintelligible) the walls of the house (unintelligible) at any point (unintelligible) house construction? MR. KITAI : It ' s a frame house . MR. TOMLAN: It ' s a frame house but you are not (unintelligible) construction? MR. KITAI : It has a concrete (unintelligible) concrete portion of the floor - the concrete footing part of the floor has a crawl space so the house needs engineering work done on it before I can proceed . MR . TOMLAN: And the walls are frame now? MR. KITAI : It ' s an old two by four• and the house has been built in several stages . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: And you propose to add one stage? MR. KITAI : That is correct, hopefully something that will make it more appealing to single family . . . . MS . COOKINGHAM: Although you wouldn't be required to rent to what I consider- to be a single family, which is not three unrelated adults, is the purpose of doing this to try to attract that kind of a tenant? MR. KITAI : That is correct . I wish to sell the house when the BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 72 renovations are complete., if possible, to a family as opposed to a landlord . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: With that car out front I can understand that . MR. KITAI : I have had nothing but trouble - the house was unfit for habitation when I acquired it and I certainly have made improvements since then . MR. BOOTH: When did you acquire it? MR. KITAI : In August last year . MS . FARRELL : Have you talked with a contractor or- someone about doing this kind of . . . . MR. KITAI : I am a contractor, I would be doing the work . CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Further questions? Well, for one thing, I don' t have to ask for comments, no one is here. BZA MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1984 PAGE 73 The Board considered the appeal of Adrian H. Kitai for an area variance for a deficient side yard under Section 30. 25, Column 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a second floor addition over a one-story portion of the existing single-family dwelling at 115 Utica Street . The decision of the Board was as follows : MR. BOOTH: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1560 . MS . FARRELL : I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT : 1) The existing building location would make it extremely difficult to comply with the existing area deficiency . 2) The proposed addition will not increase any of the existing deficiencies . 3) The proposed renovations will improve the character of the house . 4) The proposal is consistent with the character of the neighborhood in which this house is located. VOTE : 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED 74 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 4-1-84, 1553, 1555, 1556, 1557, and 1560 on April 2, 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. Barbara C. Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this .Z` a_q, day, of ,1984 Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 55-1660800 QUALIFIED IN TOM.PKINS COUNM,- mY CO`:i;",!SSICN EXPIRES MARCH 30,19-.:..-X