Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1985-02-04 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 1594 JOHN TILITZ 8 121 CASCADILLA STREET DELIBERATIONS 20 DECISION 22 APPEAL NO. 1-1-85 CLINTON WEST LIMITED 24 609 WEST CLINTON STREET " DELIBERATIONS 37 " DECISION TO DEFER 38 APPEAL NO. 1603 EVAPORATED METAL FILMS CORPORATION 42 701 SPENCER ROAD DELIBERATIONS 47 DECISION 49 APPEAL NO. 1598 JOHN AUGUSTINE, JR. 50 327-329 SOUTH CAYUGA STREET DELIBERATIONS 54 DECISION 56 APPEAL NO. 1599 WILLIAM LOWER 57 407 ELMWOOD AVENUE DELIBERATIONS 72 DECISION 76 APPEAL NO. 1600 HAROLD SCHULTZ (HELD OVER) 78 120 HIGHLAND PLACE APPEAL NO. 1601 RANDALL HATCHER 78 205-207 VALLEY ROAD If " DELIBERATIONS 89 " " DECISION 92 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Page 2) PAGE APPEAL NO. 1602 LOUIS 0. NEZVESKY 95 712 WEST COURT STREET " DECISION 110 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY ill February 4, 1985 BZA BZA MINUTES 1/0/85 PAGE : 1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK FEBRUARY 4, 1985 SECRETARY HOARD: I ' d like to call the February 4, 1985 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals to order . I am Thomas Hoard, the Board Secretary, Zoning Officer., and Building Commis- sioner, and it is one of my duties to open the first meeting of each year., and preside over the election of the chairperson for the new calendar year, as provided for in the Board' s Rules and Regulations . The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance., and the Board' s own Rules and Regulations, which will be adopted later tonight . Before I call for nominations for the chair, I would like to introduce the members of the Board, as well as another staff member who assists in the operation of the Board : Mr . Michael Tomlan Mr . Richard Booth Ms . Tracy Farrell Mr . Stewart Schwab Ms . Helen Johnson Ms . Barbara Ruane, Recording Secretary Absent : Mr . Charles Weaver I will now entertain nominations for chairperson . MR . BOOTH: Let me speak to that Tom. Charlie Weaver, as you know, has been chairman for a while, Charlie is not here tonight, t►e has had a heart attack but continues to serve on the Board . My suggestion, if the Board is amenable, is to elect a chairman for just this: evening and wait until Charlie returns to see BZA MINUTES 2/1W/85 PAGE : 2 whether or riot he is interested in continuing . So I would make a motion that Michael Tomlan serve as chair this evening . SECRETARY HOARD: Do I hear a second? MS . FARRELL : I second it . MR . BOOTH: And by way of discussion, Michael is the oldest of our members , not chronologically but in terms of service on the Board . ' SECRETARY HOARD: Do I hear any other nominations? Does anyone want to move that the nominations be closed? MR . BOOTH: I move the nominations be closed . MS . FARRELL : Second . SECRETARY HOARD: All in favor say aye . 5 AYES; 0 NAY; 1 ABSENT . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: As Mr . Hoard mentioned, this Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance, and the Board' s own Rules and Regulations . Our first order of business will be to adopt our Rules and Regulations that will be in effect for the 1985 calendar year . Does any member of the Board or staff member have any suggestions or, comments as to additions, deletions., or modifications that might be made to these Rules and Regulations? You should have received them. I got my copy way back in January . SECRETARY HOARD: I do, Mr . Chairman, one of the problems we ran into in the past year was not having a deadline for filing an i appeal after an administrative action was taken and I passed out BZA MINUTES 2/+/85 PAGE : 3 some copies of pages from Anderson' s New York Zoning Practice and it says that , in Section 25 . 07 "The statutory requirement that a board of zoning appeals adopt a rule limiting the time for ap- peals is mandatory . " I think this Board ought to adopt some kind of a rule so that people who get permits aren' t faced with an appeal sometime after the permit is issued . SECRETARY TOMLAN: Discussion? MR . BOOTH: Do you have a suggestion about the amount of time? SECRETARY HOARD : Well thirty days seems appropriate . It might still cause problems if someone is equipped to get underway with a project after the building permit was issued, but it seems to me from reading through this section that they even say as few as I think, seven days is adequate. I don' t know if that is what this Board would want to do but I think there ought to be some way, where once the permit is posted, obviously if the person who gets the building permit doesn' t post it the neighbors wouldn ' t necessarily know that the permit was issued . MS . FARRELL : Do you have any way of knowing when a permit is posted? SECRETARY HOARD: Well when we issue a permit they get a card and we don' t necessarily know when it has been posted but we would say the date of issuance would be the posting date . MS . FARRELL : Okay . MR . BOOTH: It is my recollection that a person has thirty days to challenge your decision in court, isn' t that correct ( unintelligible) local zoning decision? BZA MINUTES 2/4-/85 PAGE *. 4 SECRETARY HOARD : Yes . MR . BOOTH: I guess my sense is that thirty days then makes some sense to make it consistent with that . Would it be possible for us to get a. recommendation from the Counsel ' s office and then to make a decision next month, would that make it unduly difficult? SECRETARY HOARD: Well I asked Counsel for a recommendation and tie said the Board should do what it wants to do . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Always helpful . MR . BOOTH : 1 would move then that - we will not write the language tonight - the Counsel ' s office will write the language and bring it back to us? SECRETARY HOARD : Okay . MR . BOOTH: 1 would move that the Board adopt thirty days as the time within which a person may file an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals . That thirty days would run, for example, from the issuance of the building permit by the Building Inspector -that ' s not the only time period., there may be others, but that ' s a common example . And I would add to my motion that we will ex- pect the Counsel ' s office to draft appropriate language and bring it to us at the next meeting . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That would be worded in such a way as being an amendment to the rules and regulations . MR . BOOTH : That ' s right . ACTING CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do I hear a second? MS . FARRELL : I ' ll second that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A voice vote would be sufficient? BZA MINUTES 2/ /85 PAGE : 5 SECRETARY HOARD : YES . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If all of those in favor would say aye? 5 AYES; 0 No; 1 ABSENT . MR . BOOTH: That means they will write the appropriate section where it should fit in the rules- and regulations . The other thing that I have about the rules and regulations, I may be looking at this incorrectly, but the copy that I got, that we were sent, says "Amended January 1684" . But the copy appears to incorporate amendments which were made in March of ' 84 . I have found notes that we made amendments in March . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So what you are saying is that this may not be the last one . MR. BOOTH: Well I think it is the last one, I think the amendments have been incorporated although I am not positive about that . Some of them have been incorporated, I ' m looking at page 3, for example , CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The last one that I have appears to be identical . MR . BOOTH: And what is the date of the last one? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I have January, as well . I remember sticking it in - I have every copy we' ve ever been given, stuck in my . . . MR. BOOTH: I have a copy dated March 5th with the amendments on it . I believe that we made those amendments and that amendment to E is reflected here on page 3 of the new copy . SECRETARY HOARD : Okay, these are the ones we discussed . BZA MINUTES 2/ff/85 PAGE : 6 MR . BOOTH: That we adopted . I think what you' ve got to do is go back: and make sure the copies conform. So I guess what I would do is move that we utilize tonight the ones that were handed out, 1 think: they are what we want, they just don' t have the right date on them. They do need to be checked to make sure they con- form. So to ' expedite matters, I would move that we use tonight the ones that were mailed out to the Board, dated January 1984 . 1 think the date is wrong on them and I would ask. the Building Inspector to - Commissioner to check on that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do I have a second? MS . FARRELL : Second . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Ready for a vote. All those in favor say aye . 5 AYES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN. Okay . Any other corrections, amendments, sub- tractions, whatever? Now that the Board is legally constituted and equipped for the year, I ' ll explain our procedures to be fol- lowed here tonight and in subsequent meetings I dare say . The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we will hear from the appellant, and ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible, and then be available to answer questions from the Board . We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the applica- tion . I should note here that the Board considers "interested parties" to be persons who own property within 200 feet of the property in question, or who live or work: within 200 feet of the BZA MINUTES 2/1/85 PAGE : 7 property . Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of an interested party . There has been some discussion, for those of you who have been following us, know about that from the recent past . While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence we do consider this a quasi-judi- cial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record . The record consists of the application materials filed with the Buil- ding Department, correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board' s findings and recommendations, if any, and the record of tonight ' s hearing . Since a record is being made of this hearing, it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded, and will therefore not be considered by the Board in its delibera- tions on the case . We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case, and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board . After everyone has r been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed, and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision . Once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will be taken, and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during the deliberations . I know you' ll have some burning questions, but you' ll have your chance later . It takes four votes to approve a BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 8 motion to grant or deny a variance or special permit . In the rare cases where there is a tie vote, the variance or special permit is automatically denied. Note here, if only four or five Board members are present we normally, in those instances, advise I the appellant that he or she has the right to request a postpone- merit . We have five here tonight, obviously . Are there any ques- tions about our procedure from members of the Board? From anyone out there in the audience per chance? Mr . Secretary? SECRETARY HOARD: Before I read the first case, if anyone is here tonight for appeal number 1600, for 120 Highland Place, that appeal has been held over by the Board of Planning and Development . The first case tonight is appeal number 1594, 121 ` CASCADILLA STREET I� t Appeal of John Tilitz for an area variance for deficient lot size, excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for the front yard, one side yard, and the rear yard under Section 30 . 25, Columns 6, 10, 11, 12, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the single-family house at 121 Cascadilla Street to a two-family dwelling . The property is located in an R-3a (Residential, multiple dwelling) use district, where the proposed use is permitted; however under Section 30 . 49 and 30 . 57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficien- cies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion . This appeal was originally scheduled for the December meeting, rescheduled to the January meeting when the appellant was not represented, and is rescheduled from the January meeting which was not held due to a lack of a quorum. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is Mr . Tilitz here? Please come forward . BZA MINUTES 2/0-/85 PAGE : 9 Again, for the record., your name and address . MR . TILITZ : My name is John Tilitz, I live at 15 Canaan Road in Brooktondale. I am applying for an area variance - it is zoned for - the house is zoned for a two-family dwelling but because of the undersized lot it ' s - I need to gain a variance and the rea- son that I feel that the variance should be granted on it -pre- sently it ' s - you can look at it either of two ways - it is either a four or a six bedroom dwelling . There are bedrooms up on the third floor that were used as a separate apartment at one point and presently could be used in the house if it were a sin- gle family dwelling . What I propose to do is to divide it -upper and lower and have the lower portion of the house be a one-bed- room apartment, wherein the living room remains a living room the kitchen remains a kitchen and the dining room will get converted into a bedroom. And I think that I have stated in the form that I was to send around to the people within 200 ' that I would have a common entranceway to the front door and block off the stairs and go upstairs from there and go either left or right into the living and dining room. I have since altered that only slightly in that I intend to block off the living room and dining room and leave that - the alcove that is the present entranceway as it is, with just a blocked off living room and dining room and I have here a map with the layout of the house which shows clearly - I have first floor proposed changes ( unintelligible) All I really intend to do is block off the entrance room and dining room, and as I said., leave the alcove to the second floor so that people BZA MINUTES 2/*/85 PAGE : 10 can use that as a boot room, or- a coat room and as you go up- stairs, there is a U-shaped stairwell - what I intend to do there - there ar-e four bedrooms on the second floor, what I would like to do is change one of those into a kitchen and one of them into a living room so there would be a two-bedroom apartment upstairs which leaves me with (unintelligible) The third floor - if possi- ble, I would like to possibly have that converted into part of the second floor apartment . Now I am not locked into that I am interested in having it be a two-family dwelling if its seen by the Board that it is impossible to incorporate the third floor into that, I would be willing to deal with an exception . My rea- sons for- doing this, appropriate to gain this variance are that presently there are four to six bedrooms, I am proposing three bedrooms, which obviously wouldn' t necessarily lead to more peo- ple living in the house . It would probably lead to less . There is off-street parking, there ar-e two parking spaces available . There is a driveway that is for- the exclusive use of 121 Casca- dilla Street . MR . BOOTH: The application says there is only one existing off street parking spot . MR . TILITZ : The application says there is one? I talked with Peter Dieter-ich, he told me - there is a driveway that goes all the way to the back of the house, that that would constitute two - there is a garage in the back of the house, too . MR . BOOTH: I ' m not questioning that, I ' m saying that the application says that there is one off-street parking space . BZA MINUTES 2/4/$5 PAGE : 11 MR . TILITZ : Who wrote that up - is that in my writing? I didn' t submit anything like that . One per unit maybe? SECRETARY HOARD: There is one now. What he is talking about is there is one in the garage and one in the common driveway . MR . BOOTH: What is there now? MR . TILITZ : It is a paved driveway and a sidewalk . MR . BOOTH: Does that count as one space or two? MR. TILITZ : I was told by Peter that it would be counted as two . MR . TOMLAN: The garage is one and the space in front of the garage is one . MR. BOOTH: I understand that . Why does this say one instead of two? SECRETARY HOARD : Because now he' s got one and he is planning to get permission from the neighbor to use the shared driveway as the second one . MR . TILITZ : I already have that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you already have permission? MR . TILITZ : Yes I have a signed statement from Helen Fisher who is the neir3hbor (unintelligible) "This is to indicate that the driveway sitting between 119 Cascadilla and 121 Cascadilla, although lying partially on both properties is for the exclusive use of the residents and owner of 121 Cascadilla. It is, and shall remain a source of off-street parking for 121 Cascadilla, not 119 Cascadilla . " CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you mind submitting that as part of the record? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 12 MR . TILITZ : No, that is fine . This is a photo copy, I have the original . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Are there any other questions from members of the Board? MR . SCHWAB : Where does 119 park? MR . TILITZ : They have a driveway on the other side of their house . MR . BOOTH: What kind of houses are near by? Are they one family or two family? Both sides., across the street . . . MR. TILITZ : I believe that the adjacent two houses on the corner of Geneva and Cayuga - I believe that is two family, I ' m not absolutely sure. I know the one right next door is a one family . As far as what the others are., I don' t really know, the only thing that I do know is that the area is zoned for two family dwellings . (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: As I understand it, there are no exterior changes to the building? MR . TILITZ : That is correct . There is just a front entranceway and a rear entrance and the rear entrance will be the main entrance for the downstairs ( unintelligible) MS . FARRELL : Are you planning to live in the house? MR . TILITZ : Yes . MR. BOOTH: And your purchase is contingent on getting this variance? MR . TILITZ : That is correct . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Any other questions from members of the Board? BZA MINUTES 2/+/85 PAGE : 13 Thank you Mr . Tilitz. Is there anyone else who would like to speak: in favor of this variance? Come forward please . No? Is there anyone out there who would like to speak in opposition? Again, beginning with your name and address . MS . DATZ : My name is Joanna Datz, I live at 117 Cascadilla Street., one house away . There is 121, 119 and then I ' m on the other side . The house - all three houses surrounding are single family houses . The corner of Geneva is a single family and there is 121 and there is Helen Fisher ' s house, single family, my house single family . Helen and I, as the adjacent neighbors have a shared alleyway, that is, neither of us have off-street parking . I ' d like to pass a map out that I have prepared., of all of these properties so everyone knows what we are talking about . The houses marked in yellow are all single family and the lot with the star on it is 121 . Neither 117; 119 or 437 Geneva has any off street parking . The people at 437 N. Geneva rent a garage across Geneva Street are elderly people and Helen and I park on the street . The next two properties, 115 and 107 also have a shared drive, but have off street parking and 105 does not . And across the street., 108., 110 is a multi-family with a three bed- room and a three bedroom on each side, no off street parking at all . And also, as you can see indicated, the even side of the street is no parking any time, so you see there is a critical parking situation in the neighborhood . Single family resident home owners mostly do not have off street parking, there is no parking at any time on one side and alternate side of the street BZA MINUTES 2/$/85 PAGE : 14 parking in effect at all times . I have several letters from peo- ple in the neighborhood and one signed by every single resident on the one hundred block of Cascadilla Street, expressing our concern, and this is not necessarily a disapproval of Mr . Tilitz' s idea. I think that, granted, the house does cover the entire lot except for the driveway, which is partially Helen' s drive . It does really, in effect, only have one parking space because the garage only has doors - like storage doors - it is not a .drive in garage, unless Mr . Tilitz plans to convert it to one . So in essense there is really only one spot in the drive between the garage and the sidewalk . This letter, I also have a copy - I don' t have a whole lot of copies, maybe two - is the letter signed by everybody on the block - all the single family home owners . "We the undersigned homeowners and resident occu- pants of the 100 block. of Cascadilla Street., City of Ithaca, would like the Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals to be aware of the following conditions before considering a requested vari- ance for the property at 121 Cascadilla Street for conversion to two apartments . The parking situation on this block is of great concern to single family home owners at the present time . " Then I reiterate what the situation is, which you have in front of you : no parking anytime on one side and alternate at all times . Home- owners at 117 and 119 have no off street parking making it neces- sary to park on the street as close to home as possible . The same is true of 108-110, a multi-family with no off street park- ing and six residents and 437 N. Geneva Street . So essentially BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 15 half the block has no off-street parking . Two, although the var- iance being requested asks for only a two bedroom apartment on the second floor, the dwelling contains two additional bedrooms and a full bath on the third floor . In the first request nothing was mentioned about those, and that is when this whole letter was written and then a second letter and request was reissued saying the third floor two bedrooms would be used as storage only and tonight Mr . Hoard says ( unintelligible) bedrooms, which creates four bedrooms in the upstairs apartment instead of two and four residents, possibly more, parking on the street that has very little off street parking . What I wrote about, number 3, is no longer true because the city has come down on the property at 108-110 Cascadilla StreEt which, on one side was zoned for three occupants, had six, but they have been evicted . Okay, in view of the above existing conditions it is the opinion of the 100 block homeowners that should a variance be granted for the creation of a two-bedroom at 121 Cascadilla Street, there should be strict enforcement on the part of the City, of no more than two unrela- ted occupants in the upstairs unit . And adequate off" street par- king be provided for the vehicles belonging to those residents . Should the city see fit to issue a variance on that basis, and Mr . Tilitz be willing to remain in strict compliance with his original request for a two-bedroom apartment only on the second floor, as resident home owners on the block, we would welcome Mr . Tilitz to the neighborhood . The other two letters were written by individuals, one is Dottie Krantz who lives on Lake Avenue, BZA MINUTES 2/*/85 PAGE : 16 which - she also received a letter - her - she is within 200 ' and, although her property is on Lake Avenue, her driveway is on Cascadilla Street - it is a drive through into her garage and this was written by Dottie : "To whom it may concern: Although I reside at 110 Lake Avenue my driveway is on Cascadilla Street . Parking in this area seems to be critical . Often people park in the driveway, blocking access to my garage . This problem makes it necessary for me to find the driver so that I can get into my driveway . The inconvenience is minor compared to the danger of being caught in this position near a busy intersection, which is the intersection of Lake and Cascadilla and Cayuga . " Then my letter which basically expresses the same concerns but the fact that the house is riot deficient in one area but has insufficient front yard, it comes right to the side walk, insufficient back yard , there is no back: yard, insufficient side yard, it comes right to the drive way and the house covers the whole area of the lot . I just wanted to say that I realize, as a realtor, also, that this is going to be a very difficult house to sell as a sin- gle family because it is huge and in no way does anybody on the block: want to impede the former owners from being able to sell it nor do we want to impede Mr . Tilitz from doing what he asks for as a ane-bedroom and a two-bedroom. But if that is what the city grants it should be strictly enforced . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? MR . BOOTH: Is the -what is the situation of the house at 121 now? Is there someoneliving there? BZA MINUTES 2/+/$5 PAGE : 17 MS . DATZ : It is vacant . It has been vacant since, I guess the former owners moved out and it was for sale for a couple of months, and not sold as a single family and then Mr . Tiitz made an offer as this . MR . BOOTH: And what is the situation at 115, 107 and 105? MS . DATZ : All single family houses . 115 and 107 - the yellow is just to indicate the houses with no off street parking . 115 and 107 share a drive . . . MR . BOOTH: But they are single family houses? MS . DATZ : Yes . The only two multi-family are 108, 110 and the last one which is kind of a rooming house . MR . BOOTH: What is that - what does it say on this map next to the rooming house? MS . DATZ : Multi-family building - house - multi-family boarding house . MR . BOOTH : Okay, I got it . MS . DATZ : Five residents but he has a parking lot beside this house . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How long has the property been on the market, do you have any idea? MS . DATZ : We' ve been waiting for the variance for three months but I think before that, a few months - maybe three months - I don' t know, what would you say? Probably a total of six months since it went on the market . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions? Thank you Joanne . Is there anyone else who would like to be heard in opposition? BZA MINUTES 2/x}/85 PAGE : 18 SECRETARY HOARD' I have a letter . This is to the Board of Zon- ing Appeals . It is from the owner of 116 Lake Avenue, Lee Naegely . "As the owner of an owner occupied single family resi- dence within 200 ' limit, I object to the conversion of this house to a two unit house for the following reasons : 1 ) This building has many existing zoning -violations ( lot size, setbacks and lot coverage) . 2) The creation of two units with more than one tenant each will quite probably add to the neighborhood parking problem as each tenant is likely to have her/his own car . Park- ing is already in short supply and large demand in the surround- ing area. 3) In the area there is a gradual movement toward owner-occupied homes and this house could be used as an owner occupied single family home without a variance and without creat- ing parking congestion and without practical difficulty . The creation of another ' student housing ' building is not desireable nor necessary. 4) Although not a criterion for the requested variance, no hardship is placed upon Mr . Tilitz by the denial of this variance as he is not the current owner of the property . My understanding is that his purchase offer is contingent upon the approval of this variance . " CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Mr . Tilitz, would you like to come forward again and say what you might, against the opposition? And likewise, those on the other side of the question . . . MR . TILITZ : The only point that I would like to make is the fact that it was just stated that I really don' t have two off street par-king spaces - where, in fact., the reason that that was indica- BZA MINUTES 2/+1/85 PAGE : 19 ted was that one would need to be in the garage . Three cars can fit in front of the garage in the driveway . I realize that two is the limit in terms of parking nose to nose but I ,just would like to say that three cars can fit in the driveway so two cars easily not a problem to park in front of the garage . That is the only point that I wanted to make . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Any other last rebuttals to the rebuttal? MS . DATZ : I ' m Joanna Datz . It seemed like the people who lived there before had two vehicles and one was usually parked on the street and one in the space. And also, if the primary owner is parking his car there and the other people are tenants, is he going to back out every time - it is single width - is he going to really back out every time his tenants want to get in and out or visa versa? CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Thank you. I think at this point the Board will begin its deliberation . BZA MINUTES 2/x-/85 PAGE : 20 DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO . 1594 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we have a motion or some thoughts? MS . FARRELL : Some thoughts . I understand that the residents are very concerned about parking . However, if the parking for this property with this proposed conversion meets the requirements of the Ordinance, I think it seems unfair to discriminate against this conversion because of parking concerns . If those other two rooms were used as bedrooms, that would require another parking space wouldn't it - because then there would be four bedrooms there? SECRETARY HOARD : Four bedrooms would require another one, yes . MS . FARRELL : So there is no way on their property that there is three parking spaces, so I would assume that he would MR . TILITZ : That ' s not true . There is space for another parking space on the other side of the house . There is nine feet between the house and the property at the other side . . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Mr . Tilitz, that ,just won' t be recorded in any way , shape or form and at this point we have to proceed, however blindly we may, on exactly the evidence that has been presented . If you don' t mind, thank you . MS . FARRELL : So with this evidence that ' s presented before us, there is room for two cars maximum in this parking plan, which would seem to indicate that two bedrooms plus the one bedroom in the other apartment . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Richard, any thoughts? MR . BOOTH: Tom, request was made that if we grant a variance BZA MINUTES 2/j/85 PAGE : 21 that we limit it to no more than two unrelated occupants in the upstairs unit . That kind of a request makes me very uneasy, has the City ever done that kind of . . . SECRETARY HOARD: The Board has granted variances like that - it ' s tough to enforce them . MR . BOOTH: But the Board has done that? SECRETARY HOARD : Peeking in windows at night . . . . MR . BOOTH: Is that the way that you get overtime? What about limiting it to just two bedrooms in the upstairs apartment? That would seem to be a much more common . . . . SECRETARY HOARD: That could be done . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Essentially it would be done on a yearly basis? Or what would be the mechanism? How would you enforce it? SECRETARY HOARD : Well if it were done on the number of bedrooms we wouldn' t be back: for three years . If it was done on the number of people, I suppose we would have to check the annual leases . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from Stewart or Helen? It all seems Greek., I ' m sure . Somebody wart to propose a motion at this point? BZA MINUTES 2f4,/85 PAGE : 22 DECISION ON APPEAL NO . 1594 - 121 CASCADILLA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of John Tilitz for an area variance to permit conversion of the single-family house at 121 Caseadilla Street to a two-family dwelling . Two motions were presented for consideration but neither motion gained the required number of affirmative votes to carry . The motions were as follows ; MR. BOOTH: I move that the Hoard of Zoning Appeals deny the area variance requested in appeal number 1594 . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) This is a house which, as it is located on the lot, has virtually no roof around it so the lot is already in a very crowded condition . 2) While technically it appears that the proposal involves two parking spaces, there is evidence to suggest that the creation of a second apartment in this house would exacerbate an already serious parking problem in this neighborhood . 3) While realizing the property has been on the market for some months., there has been no showing that the property cannot be used as a single family dwelling . VOTE : 2 YES; 3 NO; 1 ABSENT DENIED FOR LACY OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES #15948 MS . FARRELL : I move that the Hoard grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1594 conditioned upon BZA MINUTES 2/1$/85 PAGE : 23 there being two bedrooms only in the second floor apartment . MS . JOHNSON: I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) There are practical difficulties in meeting the present deficiencies which could only be solved by moving the house . 2) The proposed use is allowed within the zone . 3) Provisions have been made for parking . 4) The proposed changes do not exacerbate any of the present deficiencies . VOTE : 3 YES; 2 N0; 1 ABSENT DENIED FOR LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES BZA MINUTES 2/$/85 PAGE : 24 SECRETARY HOARD : The next appeal is appeal number 1-1-85 - 609 WEST CLINTON STREET (CLINTON WEST SHOPPING PLAZA) Appeal of Clinton West Limited for a sign variance under Section 34 . 6, Paragraph A (maximum size of signs permitted in a B-2a use district ) , and Sec- tion 34 . 6, Paragraph D (maximum number of signs permitted for a shopping center in a B-2a use dis- trict), to permit the addition of two additional free standing signs of a directional/informational nature to the Clinton West Shopping Plaza at 607 West Clinton Street . The new signs would bring the total for the property to three freestanding signs (some existing signage would be removed) , and the new signs would be greater than fifty (50 square feet ) square feet in area. The property is located in a B-2a (business) use district in which only one freestanding sign of no more than fifty (50 square feet ) square feet is permitted . This appeal was rescheduled from the January meeting which was not held due to a lack of a quorum. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening . Again, beginning with your name and position and address . MR . INGERSOLL * My name is Bart Ingersoll, I am the Vice Presi- dent and Manager of Clinton West Ltd, I am here to present our proposal for signage for the Plaza. First may I say that we have a truly hard problem at Clinton West in that we have a terrific identity problem. I could say "Clinton West" to a person on the street, they would say "where is that" and if I said the Coop, they would know exactly where I was talking about . Just to show the type of undue hardship that our tenants are going through, in our Christmas promotion campaign when we tried to show Clinton West and tried to create a ( unintelligible) I think we had to include formally the Coop Shopping Plaza. In our radio spots they had to say formally the Coop Shopping Center, and you can BZA MINUTES 2/4,/85 PAGE : 25 say it is in quite a few different news media and from different one of our tenants that they have to pay to tell who we are and where we are located and I ' d like to pass these around as this shows some of the undue hardship that our tenants are going through. These are (unintelligible) I ' d like to give you more exhibits as I go and I ' ll be walking, so I ' ll try to speak loudly so everyone can hear me . Clinton West is a very magnanimous part of the City of this particular block . Many of our tenants are located on the inside of our main building and if I can pass ex- hibit B around., which shows an interior drawing of the majority of our tenants are located on the inside of the building so this is the Hill Beauty Shop ( unintelligible) Electronics and if I mention any that you haven' t heard of, please mention it (unin- telligible) Printers Gallery, Penny Saver . On the back side of this building, not facing Clinton Street we have Little Crit- ters, the Army Recruiters and these people do not have the expo- sure to get business to them which in essense would be a benefit for the City in the fact that it would increase the (unintelligi- ble) also . So this is creating an undue hardship not only for us but for the City also . The present signage we have is located at our central doorways where our business would be, which is loca- ted approximately right where my finger is here and the main en- tranceway which is approximately right here, which has no visi- bility from the Clinton Street or Meadow or Route 13 and the signage for the people in the back, the Wash ' n Dry, Sturm Brothers and the ones I previously mentioned on the back of the BZA MINUTES 2/44/85 PAGE : 26 building are located right by their store entrances right here, which has absolutely no visibility to any of the traffic flow that goes past this shopping center . We ask that we be treated the same as our neighbors . On the east side the zoning restricts us from the type of signage we propose, on the left side, they do not . This is an old photograph of the area . At present we have Maguire Ford here and at present at this location right here, which is West Clinton Street, they have this current sign which is erected which is the exact same sign that we propose and you can see it as you drive by on listing the businesses that are located on West Clinton Street . The visibility as you come from the south or from the north on Route 13 to the Clinton West Shop- ping Plaza is non-existent . I think you can also see a lot of shrubbery that has been grown around the inlet there which really should be cleared out also . This might help show up some of our signage, if we could improve this shrubbery growth that is in here. And this is the last picture that is being passed, is the only sign that is in existence and it has nothing to do with any of our individual businesses that are within the Clinton West Plaza. And again, this is across the street basically, and it carries the same name as West Clinton -as our Plaza. We propose two signs, sign number one is exactly the same as I have in the pictures, it is located approximately at this location - at this time we propose to put one here., if it is approved - this sign which is tall and it will have a list of the businesses on it and on the back side a directional indicator to explain where the BZA MINUTES 2/0/85 PAGE : 27 business is located within this complex . MS . FARRELL : And how big is that sign? MR. INGERSULL : It is six foot eight inches tall and six foot wide and I have handouts and exhibits to give you. The sign was proposed to be constructed by Ithaca Plastics which has done the sign at this location . We did nothing more than copy their blue print . Proposal number two in the second location would be located at the entrance on the most east portion of our property which is located right here and that is a short sign but wider . ( discussion took place here between Mr . Ingersoll and Ms . Farrell which wasn' t picked up by the tape recorder) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It might help everyone if you did that on the larger map as well . MR . INGERSOLL : You' ve got to remember that this property encompasses all the way from 601, which is down here up to I think it is 630 - this building is 625, so I think 630 or something . This used to be alleyways and driveways., in fact this one is still a drive through here . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you be so good as to point those out on the map on the lower- right in such a way - that is more diagramatical . . . MR . INGERSULL : I will even do better- than that, I will give you one . The proposed sites are located on this map and there you will be able to see the proposals . MS . FARRELL : This is the kind of sign that you want? MR . INGERSOLL : Yes, this one here . BZA MINUTES 2/)/85 PAGE : 28 MS . FARRELL : And how big is this second sign? MR. INGERSOLL : The second sign is eleven nine by nine foot six . These would be ( unintelligible) this would be better for that . MS . FARRELL : Okay . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is it our understanding they► that the proposed sign location of number one replaces the sign which is already there or this an addition? MR . INGERSOLL : An addition to the Clinton West Logo sign . MS . FARRELL : Where would the placement be compared to that one? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It doesn' t seem to be indicated here . MR . INGERSOLL : The placement, the logo sign is where the block is, right here . . M'S . FARRELL : Okay, so this is the current sign? MR . INGERSOLL : That is the current sign . The other one would take place right here in front of the . . . . MS . FARRELL : Okay, got it . MR. INGERSOLL : It would identify the Plaza, it would register all our tenants, and it would give directional information for the location of where our tenants are located within the Plaza . Another aspect of this is safety . I have been sort of an expert at this area for the past several years, being traffic enforce- ment, etc . at the University - I ' ve noticed how they have handled the problem up there by placement of their signs, keeping people off the roadway and into the parking area where they will be able to look at the sign, be able to find where they want to go, it helps stops the confusion., the horn honking and the minor fender BZA MINUTES 2/0f/85 PAGE : 29 benders . Get the people off of West Clinton Street, in here, to be able to both identify where they want to go instead of driving around the building and being thoroughly confused. . It does help for safety reasons . And I think it will also serve our tenants in order to get the customer to the tenant . It allows us to - these are unique conditions that are not self made - these are things that have happened in doing this - restrictions impose a hardship on both the tenant and the public whom we serve. To help increase this undue hardship for us, we ask that these vari- ances and signs be placed. I think you' ll see that we don' t want to put the signs right out on the curb, I think you' ll see that we want to locate them at least thirty feet or forty foot back into our parking spot and still be visible from Clinton Street traffic . We want to place them well onto our property . MS . FARRELL : How far is this sign from your side border? MR . INGERSOLL : There used to be a house at one time and that was the driveway to it . The sign would be - is there a car parked there? - it would be approximately right where that car- is . MS . FARRELL : So you are forty feet from the street or from your side lot line? MR. INGERSOLL : It would be forty feet from the street and I have no idea - I would have to approximate it and say approximate what, say forty feet from the line . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But you own that lot? MR . INGERSOLL ' Oh, yes . Where you see this outline in black is our property line . BZA MINUTES 2/ /85 PAGE : 30 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions from members of the Board? MR . BOOTH: Well I have a comment . My comment is to suggest that this application be withdrawn and resubmitted in a form that we can study ahead of time . I think we have had a long and somewhat complicated proposal, I think the materials we were given ahead of time were virtually worthless in terms of understanding what the proposal is and I don' t think we should make a complicated sign decision on the basis of hearing it orally presented and then immediately making a decision . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other thoughts? MS . JOHNSON: I don' t know if this is out of order or not but it would be really helpful if we had some kind of a model so that we can visualize the size of the sign in relation to the buildings? Sixteen feet seems pretty tall but you don' t know how tall in relation to what ' s there . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Models in the past and I can' t remember one ever actually being presented but we have had, as Richard is suggesting, more preparation with this sort of ( unintelligible) before . Stewart? MR . SCHWAB : I have no reaction. I think I could study it now as well as later, my one question, does your current sign meet the sign code? MR . INGERSOLL : Yes it does . MR. FARRELL : And how big is that sign? SECRETARY HOARD: It ' s under fifty square feet . MR . INGERSOLL : Under fifty square feet . I ' ve never measured it BZA MINUTES 2/,4/$5 PAGE : 31 to be honest with you . MR. BOOTH: Well my problem is, I ' d like to go out and look at this - I go out and look at all the properties ahead of time and what you gave us was virtually useless for having any understand- ing of what you were proposing . You gave us three pages with virtually no information in it and so to be prepared ahead of time, in my opinion, was very difficult . To visualize what these signs are going to look like and where they are, I think it is important, at least for me, to go there . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I want to follow that up in a little different vein, if I might . I noticed that the existing sign you have could in essence be better utilized or it could be redesigned, that was my first question, have you thought about its redesign in con- junction with other sorts of signage within the complex itself is a keen item of some sort and secondly, if you would address the question of why two more signs are necessary as opposed to, for example, one more sign . There is a level there, I guess, as well which I would like to know a little bit more about . MR . INGERSOLL : We did not investigate our current sign because we could not do what we are proposing, one is list all our tenants and secondly, give directional information of this com- plex to - how to get there once you drove in . The reason for two signs is that our complex., as you can see, is so big that you have actually three main entrances off of this street, which is West Buffalo Street and we are trying to hit both ends, which end you come in to . That is why we are trying for two signs, mainly BZA MINUTES 2/,4/85 PAGE : 32 for directional and information to know that you are in the right location at the right time . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there any particular reason for the juxtaposition of the present - that is, the existing sign of the proposed sign location, number one? I mean, is there a reason for that juxtoposition, it seems to me one would, in fact, block: the other . I am ,just trying to help you a little I bit . MR. INGERSOLL : This sign that still sits there is down quite low and quite honestly, I think that we would like to do away with it . That is what we mean about doing away with signage . MS . FARRELL : This looks like that is incorporated into this one, I ' m not sure . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s what I am getting at, are we really dealing with one sign, two signs or three signs? MR . INGERSOLL : We would like two signs here, okay? One here and one here . Arid we' d like to do away with that one, but we don' t really want to give it up until we get the other signs in place . Okay? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see . MR . INGERSOLL : A bird in the bush is better than nothing in your hands . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand. Further comments? MS . FARRELL : Are we going to go through and decide this? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I ' ll entertain a motion either way . MS . FARRELL : I just want to say I would have a problem with BZA MINUTES 2/Al/85 PAGE : 33 increasing the signage so much in this location because there is residential areas all around . CHAIRMAN TbMLAN: Okay . Let ' s go on and see if there is anyone else who wants to speak: and we' ll go from there . Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this variance being granted? This is the time for plus people . All right, come forward . MR . ROMANOWSk'.I : My name is Bob Romanowski, very short, very brief . I am one of the alderman in the first ward . I ' d like to speak in favor- of different signage for this particular complex . I did not find any neighborhood opposition to the signage, no one spoke and said that they would not want that . Mr . Ingersoll ad- dressed the two things that I was mostly concerned with - first the safety aspect . A directory type sign is always safer when you have a complex like this and the second was the name recogni- tion . I still have people ask me where Clinton West is and I tell them it ' s the old Co-op building . I ' m concerned about the viability of business in the west end, we need all the tax dol- lars we can get . I would, myself, ask the Board to bear with Mr . Ingersoll and Mr . Groff and I ' m sure there can be some sort of mechanism worked out where they can get the type of signage they need . lust directly across they do have the type of directory they are looking for . This is what they need there and I do think it is a lot safer . I ' m sure both of these gentlemen are ` willing to work: within any constraints the Board might come up with and the Building Commissioner himself . I beg your indul- BZA MINUTES 2/$/85 PAGE : 34 Bence and as I say, I found no neighborhood opposition and I ' m very much in favor of what these gentlemen are trying to do . MS . FARRELL : Did you go around and ask the neighbors? MR . ROMANOWSKI : Yes, I did . As a matter of fact, I will probably speak on two more tonight also because I took it on myself to check and make sure the neighbors weren' t in opposition to it . MR . BOOTH: Has the City Council considered amending the Sign Ordinance to deal with this kinds of issues? MR . ROMANOWSKI : I have absolutely no idea. We' ve got so much other stuff, I haven' t ever► worried about the Sign Ordinance . We just got through with bricks . SECRETARY HOARD: Mr . Booth, you probably saw in the paper a few weeks ago the Mayor dedicated a sign similar to this for the Cherry Street Industrial Park . MR . BOOTH: Does that comply with the Sign Ordinance? SECRETARY HOARD : No sir . MR . BOOTH' A good example of double standard, I might add . SECRETARY HOARD: Well I pointed that out on that occasion and a few other occasions because there is a move toward signs of this type and here we have a project that has three sides essentially and the people over here are only entitled to signs facing that way and if you are coming down Clinton Street you' d never know they were there unless you went in and drove around . . . MR . BOOTH: Well reading subdivision D of Section 34 . 6, I guess, I take it this is classified as a shopping center? BZA MINUTES 2/44/85 PAGE : 35 SECRETARY HOARD : Yes . MR. BOOTH: In the case of shopping centers and other multi-use facilities , one freestanding sign should be allowed in development as a whole, it is not an illegal use . SECRETARY HOARD: But in the B5 zone they allow you to have this sort of thing . Why is there a difference? MS . FARRELL : Now the zoning map has been drawn . . . SECRETARY HOARD: That ' s been drawn a little bit at a time . MR . ROMANOWSKI : This is pretty complex here and I think that there is a lot of little nuances to it and I don' t suppose to speak for the owner and manager here . But I did look around that area and they have exposure on a couple of sides that they are trying to get visibility for their tenants and I really don' t know how to do it except to get a couple of signs and you are absolutely correct, the original one there, if they do have any sort of directory type signs., I ' d think. that they should do away with the third but that would be - I ' m sure that this is going to take a bit more thought but I am in favor of the visibility -even if its just for the safety aspect of it . People are coming down through there now and I ' ve watched them gawking around, trying to look: to see where they are trying to find some place and that ' s always an accident waiting to happen. A sign out that shows the directory of who is there is easy to see and easy to pull in and then your minor directions are easy to get at after that . Thank you for your time . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in BZA MINUTES 2/4-/85 PAGE : 36 favor of the granting of the variance? Is there anyone out there opposed? No one opposed? Should we have some discussion? BZA MINUTES 2/,*/$5 PAGE : 37 DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO . 1-1-85 609 W. CLINTON STREET MR. SCHWAB : What about your point., Dick, not deciding it now? MR . BOOTH: Well., I ' ve found it - particularly with sign ques- tions it is important to go and look at what you are dealing with and I ' m not one who likes to live closely to what the rules are but the application tonight seems to me to be substantially dif- ferent than the papers that we were given to look at . There is quite a bit more information so I would certainly prefer deferr- ing this, having it withdrawn and come back . Secondly, I think even when it comes back there is a - this isn' t just a variance that ' s being asked for, this is a variance of a very major pro- portion from what the sign requirements are . I haven' t figured out closely., but as I understood what was said - there are two freestanding signs, each around one hundred square feet in size . Requirements are one freestanding sign of fifty square feet in size . That ' s a four hundred percent variance that we are being asked to consider . Thirdly, I realize that they have visibility problems from a couple of different directions but that ' s both, I guess, an advantage and a disadvantage . If a shopping center of this kind were on a single road and had businesses in the back, they obviously would have single kinds of visibility problems . This just happens to have roads on several sides . So I am bothered by those things as well . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other comments? Do I hear a motion? BZA MINUTES 2/4J/85 PAGE : 38 APPEAL NO . 1-1-85 Gag WEST CLINTON STREET MR . BOOTH. I move that the application for variance 1-1-85 be rejected on the basis of insufficient information provided in the written application to the Board. And the applicant be advised that the Board will be happy to reconsider the application at a future date when a full application can be submitted . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Could the Chair make a friendly kind of suggestion, Richard? It might be better all the way around in that we get into the questions of difference between the first application and the second application . If we deferred action rather than reject it . MR . BOOTH: What difference does that make? CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Generally speaking there has to be a substantial difference from the first - the decision before us becomes- the question as to whether in fact it is different from the previous application if we reject it straight out of hand . If we defer action . . . MR. BOOTH: I would offer asking the applicant if he would consider withdrawing the application at this point? CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Well that ' s certainly an option . MR . BOOTH: Asking us to consider it again at a future time . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: What is the applicant ' s feeling about that, if you would come up and perhaps - seeing as how this is going to take a little negotiation, at least at this point . It seems as though we feel, as a group, that a better packaged proposal on things which in affect would define the placement, the size, the BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 39 general relationship, perhaps, to the complex, could be better spelled out . Although those things might be better spelled out at a later or subsequent hearing . We are perfectly willing to let you refire but at the same time be aware of the fact that we have some serious questions that in no way really says yes but merely the fact that we would like to see more of the case devel- oped . Does that seem reasonable? MR . INGERSOLL : Okay, let me see if I understand what you are saying . what you would like is the sizes, the placement and the location, in a better proposed package, different from the package that I proposed tonight . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right . We really didn' t have, as has been pointed out, a significant amount of information prior to going into this and I think we were all somewhat short changed in that -to that degree . I ' ll give you one suggestion, as has happened in the past . We have had overlays., for example, of photographs, just a simple tracing paper overlays, just to give us some sense as to how the sign looks in juxtoposition to the things around it and more particularly its size, its relative size . I think that was one of the major questions . MS . FARRELL : Well ever►, to me just having these new pieces of information and being able to go to the site and stand there and look:, and say, okay this is how far we are talking about and this how big we are talking about is very helpful . You know, so, I mean, certainly these pieces of information are very useful . MR . BOOTH: Yes, I think these are very useful and I think the BZA MINUTES 7/4/85 PAGE : 40 only other thing 1 can think of immediately is your proposal for the existing signs which I would like to have specified . I un- derstand you plan to take down some of them but riot all of them. Summarizing what you' ve said . I think these are fine, had I had these, I would have been able to figure out what you wanted and I think: I would have been able to wrestle with it sufficiently to come to a determination tonight . But I think you need to give the Board a chance to go and look at what you are proposing with this added information . MR . INGERSOLL : Would it be., in fact., better to defer it until next month? MR . BOOTH: That is what we are proposing . I made a motion to reject and the Chairman, in all of his wisdom, suggested a deference might be better . MR. INGERSOLL : I ' ll go for a deferring for later consideration, but I will not go for a withdrawal, which I thought was stated . Is that what - is there a difference between a deference and a withdrawal? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There is . MR . INGERSOLL : The motion was a withdrawal . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are quite right . Richard you made . . MR . BOOTH: I made the motion to reject it on the grounds that its . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there a second? MR . BOOTH: I ' m certainly willing to defer it if he is willing and I will withdraw my motion . BZA MINUTES 2/4./85 PAGE : 41 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, then we reed another motion to defer action . MR . BOOTH: I move that we defer action on this until the applicant can submit a full application and we will then consider it at the next meeting . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do I have a second? MS . FARRELL : Second . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is that agreeable? MR . INGERSOLL : It is agreeable to me . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay . All in favor, we might have a written ballot? I think it would be preferable . MR . SCHWAB : A yes vote is to defer? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s right . SECRETARY HOARD: We have 5 YES VOTES to defer . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We will see you next month . The next case? BZA MINUTES 2/,*/85 PAGE : 42 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is, we are taking this one out of order, is 1803 - 701 SPENCER ROAD Appeal of Evaporated Metal Films Corporation for a use variance under Section 30 . 25, Column 2 to permit the extension of an existing use variance, and an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard, one side yard, and the rear yard under Section 30 . 25, Columns 11, 13, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the expansion of the building at 701 Spencer Road (Evaporated Metal Films Corporation) . The property is located in a B-5 (business) use dis- trict in which the existing and proposed use for light industrial are not permitted; therefore the appellant must obtain an extension of the existing use variance and an area variance for the setback deficiencies before a building per- mit can be issued for the proposed expansion . SECRETARY HOARD: Mr . Shay will you come forward? MR . SHAY : Good evening . I ' m Michael Shay of Evaporated Metal Films and we are at 701 Spencer Road. Is there anyone who has not been near that location behind Zikakis Chevrolet? Let me show you a plot plan, in just a moment . 701 Spencer Road is lo- cated at the city line where - deadend at this portion right here. Spencer- Road comes down and then along Zikakis Chevrolet by this side door, down to the stop light, right here . So that the traffic: flow pattern is this way . This portion of the road services our loading dock in the rear and also the shipping and receiving for the state park, Buttermilk, which is located behind US . When the building was originally built the front yard re- quirement - there was a variance for that in this portion of the building of which we have - we reed a variance every time some- thing happens to our building . And if you noticed, we have been BZA MINUTES 2/4-/85 PAGE : 43 here a couple of times before . This time we would like to put an addition on the rear of the building and on the side of the buil- ding . Not any particular problem with the addition on the side of the building but at the rear of the building, this back corner simultaneously exceeds the side yard and rear yard requirements . And I would point out that we have an irregular shaped lot - this being on the deadend portion, it ' s back from view and also faces our parking lot along the back . And the construction of the building would maintain its character of the existing building and we would propose to fit in just like we do at the moment . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Mr . Shay, you have been here before, I can remember you on at least one other occasion . I guess, my question to you would be you continue to come back for more additions, where is it all going to stop? Where is it leading? MR. SHAY : Well, I would say that we have been one of those for- tunate industries that seems to be in a position where people continue to reed our services and needing them in larger quanti- ties and more sophisticated than they have been in the past and we are manufacturers of optical coatings that are used in simple things like copy machines to complex things like weather satel- lites, sophisticated telescopes, camera systems, optical equip- ment of that sort and we are in a position where we are maintain- ing the state of the art for those kinds of things and as a re- sult we have been a steady growth to the Ithaca - to ourselves for all of these twenty years that I have been associated with the' company. Recently we made a decision that we like Ithaca, we BZA MINUTES 2/#/85 PAGE : 44 want to stay here and to continue to service our Companies - the people that we sell to - that we need a little bit more room . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The plans are fairly explicit insofar as the arrangement of the interior, very nicely so . I was wondering if the additions do have to be in the location that they are proposed by virtue of the internal arrangements of the structure and the kind of functions that go on inside? MR . SHAY : That is correct . MR . BOOTH: What percentage increase is this over your existing plant? MR. SHAY : It increases the area of our lot coverage from MR. BOOTH: We have that figure but what is the . . MR . SHAY : It is an additional six thousand square feet . What we have now., about twelve thousand square feet . MR. BOOTH: It ' s about a fifty percent addition to your existing building? MR . SHAY : I think that is correct . I would also point out that we have been conscious of our fitting into the rules and require- ments of the area and since we have been here the last time you will notice that we have an additional sizeable piece of property on the back of our existing property that we did not have before that we have purchased the railroad right-of-way from Conrail in order that we might be a good neighbor and due to our unusual lot requirement we do have a problem with one corner, that is, it does simultaneously exceed both side and rear yard . MR . SCHWAB ' Is your neighbor Buttermilk Falls? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 45 MR . SHAY : Yes . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How much traffic, I was noting today there was a truck: going back and forth between Buttermilk and down that street, how much traffic is there really? MR. SHAY : Due to us or due to Buttermilk? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Buttermilk . MR . SHAY : Buttermilk doesn' t get very much traffic this time of year . Normally their traffic is in the spring and summer when they are getting supplies for operation of their park . If there was a tractor trailer, it was likely one coming to our loading dock . Our loading dock is this platform right back here . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions? MS . FARRELL : I ' m a little confused about the property negotiations, that ' s that corner? MR . SHAY : Yes . MS . FARRELL : Okay, now you currently lose this little corner? MR . SHAY : Our current line goes like this and we are now negotiating to swap this triangle for this triangle . MS . FARRELL : I see, okay . ( unintelligible) come closer to the . . MR . SHAY : If that were to take place, then, outside of our original requirement we would meet it all . MS . FARRELL : Okay . How long has this been under- negotiation, are you hopeful, are you . . . . MR . SHAY : The worst case is that New York State will give us an easement for this corner of the building . MS . FARRELL : That has already been assured? BZA MINUTES 2/j/85 PAGE : 46 MR . SHAY : Yes . The people at the New York. State Park Commission tell us that ' s for sure they will do that . Whether they will swap this piece of land for that is a political decision and we would be hopeful but I don' t know. We started this Conrail purchase in 1961 and you' ll notice 1985 and hopefully that deed is coming this week, so it takes a long time to work on these things . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Any other questions? SECRETARY HOARD: Mr . Chairman,, you mentioned how many times they have been back . I would point out that one time they were back because of a fire which damaged some equipment and they had to replace a vertical dohicky with a horizontal one . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right . Any other questions from members of the Board? Thank you Mr . Shay . Is there anyone else who would like to speak, in favor of the granting of this variance? Anyone out there who would be opposed, who would like to speak in opposition? All right, a motion? BZA MINUTES 2/q/85 PAGE : 47 DELIBERATIONS - APPEAL NO . 1603 - 701 SPENCER ROAD MR . BOOTH: Well the difficulty with the proposal is the use variance part of it, as I see it, and I would ask the Building Commissioner what has been done in the past? Have you been routinely granting use variances to expand this building? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It ' s an area variance . MR . BOOTH: It ' s an area variance and a use variance . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, both . I guess to answer the hardship question would be what do you do, pick up and move if they are 1 not allowed to expand. It is sort of a borderline use, it is not really industry in the sense that you think of industry, it is not a smoke stack industry, it ' s in the second most liberally, if you want to call it, use zone to the industrial zone, B5 allows more uses and then there is another jump to the industrial zone, so it is not as though it is a type of industrial use where you are concerned about distance separations and that kind of thing . MR. BOOTH: But it is an industrial use under the zoning ordinance? SECRETARY HOARD: Well there is also a thing in there called light hand fabrication . Working with lenses and things I don' t - they aren' t an industry in the sense that they are cranking out the same thing over and over and over again, as I understand it . You order certain kinds of lenses coated and things like that, you send the material to them and they coat it, process it . MR. BOOTH: Is that like a printing shop? Printing is allowed in BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 48 85, as are similar shops . SECRETARY HOARD: Print the material (untelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tracy you had a question earlier about the land swap, do you want to, perhaps, expand on that a little? MS . FARRELL : The way I understood it, if the two triangles that (unintelligible) were swapped, they► I think that this would be the required distance from the property and the only other deficiency would be the front deficiency which is a current deficiency . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you are not going to move the building . Right so the area variance requirements could be relatively well met within the proposed plans to acquire the additional property or to gain access to it - that ' s the use variance question which is beginning to be dickered with . Stewart? MR . SCHWAB : It strikes me that this is exactly the type of thing (unintelligible) Ithaca, its been here for twenty years, I almost find it, being a neophite on this Board, inconceivable that we would now worry about the use at its present location - it is not charging the use., potentially driving business out of Ithaca . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Helen any thoughts? MS . JOHNSON; I tend to agree with that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have any other worries? MS . JOHNSON: Not really . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We are coming closer to a motion Tracy, I think . MS . FARRELL : Yes we are . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 49 APPEAL NO. 1603 - 701 SPENCER ROAD DECISION The Board considered the appeal of Evaporated Metal Films Corporation for a use variance and an area variance to permit the expansion of the building at 701 Spencer Road . The decision of the Board was as follows : MS . FARRELL : I move that the Board grant the use and area variances requested in appeal number 1603 . MS . SCHWAB : I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The owners appear to have a hardship in meeting the require- ments of the variance because their Company ' s expansion would require relocation if it isn' t granted . 2) There was no neighborhood opposition to the current use of this property and the granting of an additional use or area variance . 3) The owners are attempting to resolve one of their area deficiencies . VOTE . 4 YES ; 1 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED BZA MINUTES 2/x/85 PAGE : 50 SECRETARY HOARD: APPEAL NO . 1598 327-329 SOUTH CAYUGA STREET Appeal of John Augustine, Jr . for a Special Permit under Section 30 . 26C-4 and Section 30 . 25 of the Zoning Ordinance, and an area variance for deficient lot size and deficient setbacks for the front and rear yards under Section 30 . 25, Columns 6, 11, and 14 of the Ordinance, to permit the construction of a selfservice laundry and one dwelling unit at 327-329 South Cayuga Street . The property is located in an R-3b (Residential, multiple dwelling) use district in which the selfser- vice laundry use requires a special permit as a neighborhood commercial facility . There- fore the appellant must obtain a special per- mit for the laundry, and an area variance for the lot size and setback deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the pro- posed project . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is Mr . Augustine here? MR . AUGUSTINE : I am John Augustine, owner of the property at 327-329 S . Cayuga Street and I propose to put a two story build- ing which on the first floor will house a laundromat and the se- cord floor will have an apartment . If you look at the map, there is an angular wall, thick: wall., and it requires a twenty foot setback., a ten foot setback from the front - with those two fi- gures in mind I have rendered the lot almost a useless lot . Now if I can get a variance to reduce that to seventeen foot, six, for four foot of the building., which would be on the southeast corner of the building, a four foot setback in the front, I could put a building up that would house the laundromat and the apart- ment . Also the four foot setback in front, I would keep in line with the neighboring buildings - it would conform with the sur- i rounding - buildings adjacent to it . The building would be con- BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 51 structed to look and blend in with both the building on the right and left of it . MR . BOOTH: What does the laundromat have in terms of what it vents to the outside, it vents hot air? MR . AUGUSTINE : Yes . MR. BOOTH: The water all goes into the City sewage system? MR . AUGUSTINE : Yes . MR, BOOTH: Any other venting? MR . AUGUSTINE : All the dryers are to be vented . MR . BOOTH: All the dryers vented, individually or through one? MR . AUGUSTINE : Through one stack . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The fifteen feet immediately to the north of the proposed building would be used - one assumes - for access to parking? MR . AUGUSTINE : Parking in the rear . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there any agreement between yourself and the adjacent owner to the north about the use and access of land? MR . AUGUSTINE : Well I own the property to the north of that . And the fifteen foot is the property line . And the building next to it would be two foot, six, beyond that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. Well my thought was, of course, that laundromats are notorious for having people park in any driveway, anywhere rear close, but I suppose in that you are - it is your driveway, you would look at it a little more closely than most . MR . AUGUSTINE : Well the back, the whole back of this area has been designated a parking lot . Have you been to this location? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 52 The parking for the laundromat would be angular into that wall and the parking for the apartment house next door would be to the north of that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you feel as though putting the parking angular to the wall would still allow sufficient access to the rear parking area? MR . AUGUSTINE : Yes . You go into the back you will notice that the way the curbing is arranged - it is arranged at an angle . That ' s why we put it at an angle, in anticipation of this . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. Any other questions from members of the Board? MS . JOHNSON: What ' s on the south side? MR . AUGUSTINE : Where the five foot . . . MS . JOHNSON: Next door, the other side . MR . AUGUSTINE : There is a house . MS . JOHNSON: And the five feet is - that is to that property line next door? MR . AUGUSTINE : Yes . MS . JOHNSON: This is going to be a two story structure? MR . AUGUSTINE : A two-story building . MS . JOHNSON: And with an apartment on the top? MR . AUGUSTINE : That is correct . MR . BOOTH: Following my line of thinking on the south side, the property owner on the south side is now using, perhaps, some of that lawn for parking? I was noticing a car or two in your - on the site - today - it appeared to be connected to your properties BZA MINUTES 2/$/$5 PAGE : 53 to the north. MR . AUGUSTINE : Well the - sometimes people pick up their dogs and they park: in there. There is clip joint next door . Once in awhile somebody pulls in there (unintelligible) I might add, she is the owner of that property, Sharon Peters at 331 S . Cayuga, her name was first on the list . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see . Any other questions? SECRETARY HOARD : John, could you clarify what you mean by clip joint? Just for the record . MR . AUGUSTINE : Dogs, clip the dogs . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, if there are no other questions, lets move along . Thank you Mr . Augustine . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the granting of this variance? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Discussion► from the Board, or a motion? BZA MINUTES 2/+ /85 PAGE : 54 DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO . 1598 MS , JOHNSON: There ar-e only two parking spaces required for a laundry - off street? SECRETARY HOARD : Yes . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I would note that the appellant said one or two apartments, it now becomes one apartment according to his statement . I was noting the difference between the verbage of the application . MR . BOOTH: Tom, two questions . The minutes of the Planning and Development Board stated that this is a use variance . I take it that that is incorrect, that this is not a use variance, it is a special permit? SECRETARY HOARD: That is cor�r-ect . I mean, you are correct, the Planning Board is in error . MR . BOOTH: Secondly, the minutes of the Committee Meeting note that Thys VanCor-t, the Planning Director, commented that this property is adjacent to a major- stream and an environmental assessment should be done . SECRETARY HOARD : We have done one . MR . BOOTH: You have done one. And what (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: There is no significant impact . There is one little corner- of the building that comes within the magic line . There is also a wall there, we looked at the property - that is the wall around the . . . . MR . BOOTH: Around the stream. . And this is at the back - basically slants toward the southwest . . . roughly, right? BZA MINUTES 2/1$/$5 PAGE : 55 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Did you receive any notice of this or any letters from anyone - it seems as though at the same Planning and Development Board meeting there was a Phyllis Maines, who is the owner- of the property . . . we didn' t receive anything in writing? SECRETARY HOARD : I received nothing . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I would entertain a motion. BZA MINUTES 2/4,/85 PAGE : 56 The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of John Augustine, Jr . for a Special Permit and an area variance to permit the construction of a selfservice laundry and one dwelling unit at 327-329 South Cayuga Street . The decision of the Board was as follows : CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I move that the Board grant the request for a Special permit and an area variance in appeal number 1598 . MS . FARRELL : I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The deficiencies are relatively minor given the nature of the lot that is, its dimensions being rather trapazoid in shape . 2) The proposal would not affect the character of the neighborhood . 3) The applicant seems to have made adequate off-street parking available . 4) The neighbors support the proposal and while there is a deficiency in front yard setback., the deficiency helps make the property conform with the setbacks of other properties on the street . VOTE : 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED BZA MINUTES 2/ /85 PAGE : 57 SECRETARY HOARD: The next ease is appeal number 1599 - 407 ELMWOOD AVENUE Appeal of William Lower for a use variance un- der Section 30 . 25, Column 2 (permitted uses) and an area variance for deficient front yard setback under Section 30 . 25, Column 11 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the conversion of the first floor beauty shop at 407 Elmwood Ave- nue to a five-bedroom apartment, resulting in a multiple dwelling consisting of one eight-bed- room and one five-bedroom cooperative dwelling unit . The property, which has been heavily damaged by fire, is located in an R-2a ( Resi- dential, one- and two-family dwelling) use dis- trict in which the previous use as a beauty shop was permitted under a variance issued to the previous owners, and the multiple dwelling portion was permitted as a "grandfathered" use, having existed legally prior to the current zoning . As an extension of the nonconforming use, the conversion of the beauty shop to a five-bedroom apartment requires a use variance . Therefore under Section 30 . 49 of the Ordinance a use variance is required, as well as an area variance for the deficient front yard, before a building permit can be issued for the conver- sion . MR. GALBRAITH: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dirk: Galbraith, I ' m an attorney and I have offices at 308 North Tioga Street in Ithaca, New York., and I ' m here on behalf of the applicant., Mr . William Lower . Mr . Lower is with me this evening . This is a somewhat unusual variance application inasmuch as the property as a whole is already a preexisting, nonconforming use as a multiple dwelling . I have a photograph of the property, this evening, I ' d like to pass around to those of you who aren' t familiar with the present appearance . When you look at the prop- erty., although that photograph was taken in the fall, the eater- for appearance of the property is still fairly similar to that, BZA MINUTES 2/$/85 PAGE : 58 it was heavily damaged in a fire and Mr . Lower acquired the prop- erty in its: fire damaged condition in August of 1984 . The up- stairs of the building, as the applcation indicates is presently a permitted use for eight bedrooms, as a multiple dwelling . How- ever downstairs•, which sustained quite a bit of the damage in the fire, was formerly a beauty shop, which was operated under a var- iance granted by this Board, I believe in 1971 . The area in which► this property is located is depicted on a map which I sent to the Board prior• to this hearing . I ' m sorry I only got that over• to you on Friday,, I don' t know if you have all had a chance to see that . I believe, if you do take a look at the map, and I request that it be made a part of the record, you will find that many of the properties in the area are multiple dwellings . Sev- eral of the nearby properties, however, are owner-occupied . Mr . Lower has talked to those people and a number of them have signed a petition which was also► forwarded to the Board, indicating their concurrence in Mr . Lower ' s conversion of the downstairs of the building, to a proposed five-bedroom apartment . We believe that, under all of the circumstances, this would be an appro- priate use for the downstairs in this property . It has about fifteen hundred square feet of space and under the current hous- ing code, it would have to be - building codes would have to be complied with, this is more than enough room to comfortably ac- commodate five bedrooms . We have forwarded a set of architect ' s plans, again I hope that you will have an opportunity to examine those, I believe, it is a fairly decent layout for this space . BZA MINUTES 2/,J/85 PAGE : 59 There is sufficient on-site par-kingfor seven vehicles and that does not need to be varianced . Now this is a use variance that we are asking for and as I understand the law on that, we do have to show an economic necessity for the granting of the variance, ther-efor-e, I had Mr- . Lower- pr-epar-e a cost breakdown that I would like to pass around at this time. I apologize for not having this pr-epar-ed any earlier- than this evening . I have that - copies made up for each of the Board members and I ' d like to try to explain what Mr- . Lower would like to do with the property . He purchased the property in August of this year, in its fire damaged state., for $25, 000 . 00 . He estimates that the cost of remodelling and restoring the interior of the building would be about $115, 000 . 00 . If you would like to ask Mr . Lower questions concerning the basis of that estimate, I ' m sure he would be happy to answer- them. He is an experienced property owner and manager in this City and he has restored properties of this nature before this . In respect to the restoration of the outside of the build- ing, Mr . Lower would prefer to restore it to the condition in which it appeared before the fire, in other- words, to preserve the appearance of the building as it was, and therefore, we have submitted two alternatives here concerning restoration of the exterior . The first would be, I think, the preferred method, and the second is somewhat cheaper method, which would be permitted under the code, but would involve less of a financial outlay . For- instance, Mr . Lower ' s preference would be to repair or re- place the wood siding rather, than going to vinyl siding . However BZA MINUTES 2/+x/85 PAGE : E0 we have estimates for both. Likewise he would prefer to repair the front porch and bring it back to its original condition rather than removing it and replacing it with a smaller porch . You will note in the photograph, the large dormer on the front of the building . That has a very ornate window in it, Mr . Lower ' s preference would be to restore that window., with its various di- vided panes to its original condition, that would cost about $2, 500 . 00 . The cheaper alternative is to remove it, which would be very inexpensive but would alter the appearance of the build- ing somewhat . Likewise with the roof, his preference would be to restore it to its original condition, the alternative to removing the dorm, would be to simply install trusses and have a more or less flat roof . The other cost estimate for the exterior of the building involves the installation of tail pieces on the roof and these are the ornate, kind of custom built pieces that you see hanging over., I guess, its the cornice, Bill? MR . LOWER : Cornice, yes . MR . GALBRAITH: Obviously if these aren' t replaced, there is no cost so we have two estimates for the replacement of the exter- ior . One about $21, 000 . 00, the cheaper alternative would be about $7, 200 . 00 leading to two different total cost figures . In operating this property Mr . Lower- would have certain expenses, the first of which would be - the largest of which would be in amortizing his costs . Then the acquisition of the property and the restoration► of it . We believe that the estimate that we' ve made is based on, for instance, the twelve percent interest rate, BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 61 which is probably cheaper than he can actually obtain the money and amortized over a depreciable life of twenty years . I think the operating expenses which Mr . Lower has given are in line for a property of this type and shows annual operating costs of be- tween $30, 600 . 00 and $32, 500 . 00 depending on which approach is taker► to the exterior . Projecting the income from the property based upon what Mr . Lower would like to do with the property and generally estimating the rental at $225 . 00 per bedroom, which I believe is a competitive estimate, in the area where this proper- ty is located., you see that his annual revenue from the building, the gross revenue would be $32, 500 . 00 based upon a ten month ren- tal, in other words, this would probably be rented to students . I believe if you take a look at these figures, ladies and gentle- men, you see that obviously Mr . Lower reeds permission to do something with that first floor in order to generate enough reve- nue to restore the building and pay the annual operating costs that he would have to meet . We believe that by seeking a vari- ance for a five-bedroom apartment this would be an appropriate use of this space, it would generate enough revenue to permit him to restore the property along the preferred lines, which is also the more expensive lines, which was outlined above here and fur- thers we believe that this would be more in harmony with the neighborhood and that the adjoining property owners would find that preferable. Further, this is a fire damaged property and I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, that something has to be done with the property in order to put it back: in ha- BZA MINUTES 2/4f/85 PAGE : 62 bitable condition. Mr . Lower has the property and he is willing to do that, but he needs a variance from this Board in order to do that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions? MR . SCHWAB : I notice you need a front yard setback variance . You are five feet short, is there a way of doing that without . . . MR . LOWER: We aren' t going to charge the front porch, it is going to be exactly the same as it is now . We prefer to just restore it . SECRETARY HOARD: Mr . Lower, would you please identify yourself? MR . LOWER : Oh, I ' m sorry, I 'm Mr . Lower . I ' ve talked to a number of the neighbors there and all of the neighbors that I ' ve talked to, I felt that I talked with the ores that I thought would be most concerned about the property and everybody I talked to, they seemed to be in favor of having the building restored pretty much the way it is . That ' s the way I want to do it, I don' t want to change the porch or enlarge anything, so it would be exactly the same - the way that it is, but it is very burnt . MR . GALBRAITH: I guess, in answer to your question, probably the only way to remove that deficiency would be to rip down the front porch, which, for a number of reasons I think is less desireable than restoring the front porch as is and try to preserve the existing lines of the building . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could you address more specifically the financial hardship question? Exactly what will occur if the variance is not granted, financially . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 63 MR . GALBRAITH! Okay . Financially, Mr . Lower would be able to rent out the upstairs of the building for eight bedrooms . He would have a large blank spot in the downstairs, unless a vari- ance of some sort is gran►ted by this Board and he would realize annual income from the upstairs of $20, 000 . 00 while still having to pay exactly the same operating costs as if the - if he were giver► permission► to do something with the downstairs - that would generate only about two-thirds the revenue that would be neces- sary to maintain► the building and would make the idea of remodel- ling the building entirely unfeasible . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay . Now going back to the P 8 D comments where, in fact, it was moved and seconded, as you know, to recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that this request be approved if the number of bedrooms was limited to three . What ' s the shortfall of that? And why is three not enough? MR . GALBRAITH: Well, okay . On an annualized basis, that would only produce - well it would produce sixty percent of $12, 500 . 00 in annual revenue or roughly $7, 000 . 00 . That would still leave Mr . Lower with an economic shortfall in terms of the operating revenue necessary to meet the cost associated with the property and would make investment of the money necessary to restore the property likewise a very unattractive investment . I think the other thing that the - I criticize about that recommendation is this - we have a fifteen hundred square foot area on the first floor of this building - in fact., if you look at it you will see that the first floor is just as big as the second floor is, which BZA MINUTES 2/j,/65 PAGE : 64 has eight bedrooms in it . I think that would be a huge amount of space to put a three bedroom apartment in and I think it would be a terrifically wasteful use of this space, particularly when you have succi► things as adequate onsite parking, really a large lot, and no other, deficiencies on the property, other than the front yard setback . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions? MR, BOOTH: Excuse my being naive about this but if the annual operating cost of 532, 523 . 24 a year and the projected annual income is• $32, 500 . 00, why is he doing it? MR . GALBRAITH: Okay, his equity that he builds up in this property as he amortizes those, the original investment is really Mr . Lower ' s profit . As an investor, that is his profit in this . MR. BOOTH: But he still would carry expenses of $32, 523 . 00 a year? MR . GALBRAITH: We believe so . I ' d be happy to have Mr . Lower go into detail on any one of those particular calculations, if you would like. I suggest that I think it is neither unreasonable nor particularly unusual in the field of real estate investment . MR. BOOTH: All right . My second question is, I take it the house now has no current use. The whole - I remember when the fire occurred, the whole place was gutted, upstairs and downstairs, correct? MR . LOWER : After the fire it was, yes . MR . BOOTH: Do you have any information to show that the uses that are allowed in this zone aren' t feasible on this property? BZA MINUTES 2/z4/85 PAGE : 65 MR . GALBRAITH: Yes, the only use that could be allowed - let me back up on that - the upstairs of the property is presently permitted to be used as an eight-bedroom apartment . MR . BOOTH: You say "is permitted" what are you referring to? MR . GALBRAITH: It is a pr-e-existing, non-conforming use and I believe that Mr- . Lower- has already received a building permit to restore it to that use . MR . BOOTH: Is that true? SECRETARY HOARD : Yes . MR . BOOTH: I thought when buildings burned down that are non-conforming they had to conform when they were rebuilt? SECRETARY HOARD: No . It can be rebuilt as is as long as they aren' t increased in floor- area, bulk, a couple of other items . MR . BOOTH: Well as I read Section 30 . 51 "RestorAtion after damage: A non-conforming building which is entirely devoted to a conforming use may be rebuilt or reconstructed in whole or in part when it is damaged by fire or other causes provided that the floor area occupancy, and exterior- dimensions are not increased . . . " SECRETARY HOARD : Right . MR , BOOTH: This is not devoted to a conforming use . SECRETARY HOARD: But it doesn' t lose its non-conforming rights . There is nothing in there - the only way you lose your non-con- forming rights is if you discontinue the use for twelve consecu- tive months . MR . BOOTH: That is not what this says . BZA MINUTES 2/x-/$5 PAGE : 66 SECRETARY HOARD: Yes but, you have to look at the Section that talks about non-conforming use . MR . BOOTH: I am looking at the section that talks about non-conforming use . ! SECRETARY HOARD: Discontinuance of a non-conforming use . The only thing that makes you lose a non-conforming use is if you stop using it for twelve consecutive months . MR . BOOTH: I understand that that ' s a provision, Tom, this is another provision that deals with fire, specifically, and it seems to say, you can rebuild a non-conforming building to its existing dimensions if it ' s a conforming use and seems to imply, although it doesn' t say, that you can' t rebuild a building that ' s used for a non-conforming use. (unintelligible) the Zoning Ordinance . SECRETARY HOARD: But at what point do you draw the line on this? If it burned to the ground? If its got roof damage? Where do you draw the line? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: 1 think: what ' s occurred is that the building has essentially been damaged but not completed destroyed . MR. BOOTH: The building, as we heard testimony, the building has been gutted. And it is not uncommon in Zoning Ordinances, not this one in particular, to say that where buildings - they say specifially where buildings . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right . That ' s a good point, one of the things that I want to get clarified from Bill, were you referring, when you said - when you answered Dick ' s question BZA MINUTES 2/q/85 PAGE : 67 about "gutted", were you referring to the building as it is now, which is that is, where the interiors are substantially removed, or were you referring to the original extent of the fire? Bill, it ' s a little different there. . . one way or the other . MR. LOWER: Well we are in the process of restoring the second and third floor already and now, you are speaking about after it burned? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well., when you answered Dick ' s question about it being gutted, when you said it was gutted, were you referring to the question in past tense or as . . . MR . LOWER: In past tense, after the fire . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: After the fire, that is kind of the way I assumed but I wasn ' t sure . MR . SCHWAB : Dick, what page are you reading from the Code? MR . BOOTH : 30 . 46 . SECRETARY HOARD: All they would have had to do to get around that is to remove the porch. It wouldn' t be non-conforming CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, but he didn't . MR . BOOTH: It ' s a non-conforming use . SECRETARY HOARD: It is not a non-conforming - the only reason that it is non-conforming building., is the front yard setback . MR . BOOTH: That is an interesting point . SECRETARY HOARD: I think Mr . Galbraith can testify to that because we had a fight some years ago over a case like this and we lost the Article 78 . . . MR . BOOTH : What did you lose? BZA MINUTES 2/*/85 PAGE : 68 SECRETARY HOARD: He was on the winning side . MR . BOOTH : What was the issue? SECRETARY HOARD : Restoration of a non-conforming building . MR . BOOTH: Was it a non-conforming use? SECRETARY HOARD: It was a - I don' t remember what the use was . MR . GALBRAIT.H: What I was actually going to say, was that I couldn' t recall a case when you were ever wrong about the inter- pretation of the Ordinance . Although that case that you are re- ferring to was a property up on College Avenue, I think, I think there were some differences between that and this situation . SECRETARY HOARD: But this section was amended because what they wanted to prevent was enlargement in the case that I was referring to . The building was enlarged when it was rebuilt and we lost the ease . This would seem to imply that if you had a building with a non-conforming use in it, and you had a roof fire, you couldn' t put the roof back on . MR . BOOTH: No I don' t think: that is what it means at all because sub-division A of 30 . 49 deals with repairs of non-conforming uses or structures . Well, I just raised that as a question . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions? MR . BOOTH: Let me go back. . Are you suggesting then that there is no other use that ' s allowable in this - under the Zoning Ordinance that would be doable in this building? MR . GALBRAITH: Yes I think that ' s correct . The situation, and I think you' ve hit the problem here, the thing that makes the ap- plication somewhat unusual is that you have a part of this build- BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 69 ing which is a pre-existing, non-conforming use, and can be re- stored for use as is, what you have in the rest of the building is kind of a void. Mr . Lower does not want to go into the beauty shop business and, in fact, under the terms of the previous vari- ance, I doubt that he could anyway . But I think almost as a mat- ter of law, he has to be given permission to do something with the downstairs of this building and the question is what ' s the most appropriate use? we believe that it is a five bedroom apar- tment . I guess the direct answer to your question, no I don' t think there is anything else that he could do with it . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the granting of this variance? If so, come forward . DR . ORCUTT : Dr . James Orc:utt, 324 Dryden Road . I admire your perserverance for sitting through all of this . I own the proper- ty directly across the street from Mr . Lower ' s property . I know Mr . Lower personally and I am really pleased that he has bought this property. One of the greatest fears that I had is that we were going to get one of the local "slumlords" buy it and perhaps make it conform with the requirements and tear that beautiful porch off of there. I am really pleased that he is going to take care of it . I look at this porch a couple of times a day as I go in the office and out the office for lunch and whatnot, I have always admired the house, I wish they would paint it another color other- than grey, but right now it is all charcoal anyhow . I speak in favor of his being granted the variance because I don' t think it is going to charge the character of the neighbor- BZA MINUTES 2/4/$5 PAGE : 70 hood, whatsoever . If you take the building immediately adjacent to it, to the north of there, what you have is the black frater- nity house that Cornell runs., diagonally across the street is another fraternity house, directly across the street is a three apartment dwelling, diagonally across - or next - or adjacent to that is my property and the property on the corner of Elmwood and Dryden Road is a private home, owned by Mr . Boone . From the neighbors that I ' ve spoken to, they are all in favor of it, they all, as myself, laud Mr . Lower• for buying the property and fix- ing it up, reestablishing it in the same condition it was in . As I mentioned before, it would be a shame if they did take the porch off . If you look at this property you will see that there is a very steep hill in front of it and if they took the porch off, it would really be a strange looking building . It is an immense house. This is a very, very large house and I am sure it has very high ceilings inside of it and it would be a shame if he couldn' t use this space adequately . I ' m pleased because I have to smell the building . When it was warm in Ithaca, sometime ago I can barely remember when, but when it was warm, there was that awful odor that you get from any burned out building and it sat that way so long and every time it would rain or we would have the humid weather,, it was horrible and I think that he has done a nice job already of reconstructing the dormers that were burned out and putting a new roof on . So I certainly hope that, in your wisdom you will grant him this variance that he so seeks . Thank you . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 71 CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Thank: you. Any questions? Yes . Is there anyone else out there who would like to speak in favor? MR . RYDER: My name is Jim Rider , 518 Stewart Avenue and I have a building right around the corner, about half a block from this property . And I ' ve beer► on East Hill for thirty years, since 1965, and there' s been a lot of pluses and minuses on that hill and I ' ve seer► the buildings that he' s done before, before and after., and every building that he has ever done has always been a plus . Thank you . CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak: in favor? Is there anyone out there who would like to speak in opposition to the granting of the variance? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 72 DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO . 1599 407 ELMWOOD AVENUE MR . BOOTH: Well I guess I would ask the Board what it thinks about Section 30 . 51 . What it was intended to do - when I read it., I would agree that the language is not the most artful in the world but it was my understanding that this applied to' this kind of situation . MR. SCHWAB : Well you are really reading a negative into it, aren' t you? You are saying a non-conforming building which is not entirely devoted to a conforming use cannot be done this way . MR . BOOTH: Well I ' m suggesting that might be the implication . The language doesn' t say that, I . . . MR . SCHWAB : Right, but the only way to say that this section opposes the variance is to read the negative input into it as opposed to saying it doesn' t say anything about this situation . What I am saying is, what it says now is a non-conforming building which is entirely devoted to a conforming use, can be rebuilt . And one way of ( unintelligible) it doesn' t say one way or the other whether the non-conforming building., which is not entirely devoted to a conforming use, what can be done with it . MR. BOOTH. Then what would be the purpose of the provision? MR . SCHWAB : To clarify the previous case that they tried to enlarge it . In other words, they are trying to say if you' ve got a building, and you can provide it., you can rebuild it, provided the floor area doesn' t increase. That ' s not purposeless reading (unintelligible) MR. BOOTH: What ' s the language which is entirely devoted to a BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 73 conforming use? Why the reason for that language? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, rather than partial, it would seem logical, that follows . MR . BOOTH : What? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That it be entirely devoted to a conforming use . Why wouldn ' t it? MR. BOOTH: It seems to me that it is strictly the buildings that are used for conforming uses, in other words, what would be the purpose of that language? SECRETARY HOARD: I think the kind of thing that you are talking about though, ir► other ordinances where I ' ve seen this kind of language, they have language that says that a building which is a non-conforming building blah, blah, blah, which is destroyed to the extent of fifty percent or more of its replacement value, or something like that - because here, where do you decide at what point you say to the guy, you' ve got to tear, the whole thing down or you' ve got to stop a non-conforming use? MR . BOOTH: I agree that there is that problem. This is a use that has beer► destroyed by the fire and I ' m trying to read that section and have some understanding of what City Council meant by it . MR . SCHWAB : Going back: to A - 30 . 49A, desired repair of any non-conforming construction, structure declared unsafe by proper authority, which I think would fit this case. I don' t know whether it has actually been declared unsafe, but I ' m sure it would be . BZA MINUTES 1/4J185 PAGE : 74 MR . BOOTH : I think that is meant to mean code violations . Well is it the Board' s sense that this provision does not apply in this case? SECRETARY HOARD: Well I certainly would say that it applies to the extent that it would not allow them to enlarge it without coming for a variance . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But it doesn' t seem, in this case, that he is enlarging it in any way, shape or form. MR . BOOTH: He is now proposing to enlarge the non-conforming use fairly substantially . MR . SCHWAB : The downstairs . MR . BOOTH : The downstairs . MR. SCHWAB : What Dick is suggesting is that he needs a variance for the upstairs . MR . BOOTH : I ' m asking that . MR . SCHWAB : Asking, yes . MR . BOOTH: I mean, I was puzzled by this language and couldn ' t think of any other reason that it was here except for this kind of case . I guess there is still a long list of things in the Zoning Ordinance that are unclear . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s probably true . Has everyone been satisfied with regard to the economic hardship provision of the use variance' I mean, what you have here are a lot of figures and essentially two schemes within that list of figures and you have a suggestion on the other hand by Planning and Development that perhaps inherently with the eight units upstairs, three BZA MINUTES 2/ft/85 PAGE : 75 would be sufficient downstairs . MR . SCHWAB : I guess I see no reason, if we are going to grant it, why not to grant five units over three, given that there is enough par-king . It does seem to me a waste of money - why limit it to three? I see no affirmative reason to limit, it to three, given that the parking is set, given that it is going to be multiple family, in other words., I would be inclined to say five or zero - its more rational than three . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Helen, any thoughts? MS . JOHNSON: No . MS . FARRELL : Looking around the neighborhood, and at some of the multiple - multiple fraternity type dwellings all around, I don' t see making an issue of five bedrooms versus three . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you are satisfied with the economic argument? MS . FARRELL : Well, I guess so . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that is the basic test . MS . FARRELL : Well there certainly is an economic hardship if it is not converted into something . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we getting closer to a motion? MS . FARRELL : Yes . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s what I wanted to hear . BZA MINUTES 2/44/85 PAGE : 76 APPEAL NO . 1599 - 407 ELMWOOD AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of William Lower for use and area variances to permit the conversion of the first floor beauty shop at 407 Elmwood Avenue to a five-bedroom apartment , resulting in a multiple dwelling consisting of one eight-bedroom and one five-bedroom cooperative dwelling unit . The decision of the Board was as follows : MS , FARRELL : I move that the Board grant the use and area variances requested in appeal number 1599 . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The owner would incur financial hardship if he is not allowed to convert the first floor into an apartment . 2) The use appears to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood . 3) Several neighbors have indicated that they support the variance . 4) Current area deficiencies are not exacerbated by the proposed variance and remedying the area deficiencies presents practical difficulties which can only be met by removing the front porch . VOTE : 4 'YES; 1 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED BZA MINUTES 2/$/85 PAGE : 77 MORE DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO . 1599 MR . BOOTH: I am going to - maybe for the point of underlying (unintelligible) maybe the Zoning Ordinance in a number of respects., I am going to vote against the motion . I think Section 30 . 51 was intended to apply to this case, it is not clear but I think what the City Council wanted us to do was to require variances for rebuilding non-conforming uses . I will vote against the motion . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other comments? MR . SCHWAB : I guess I ' d ask even if that ' s true, why are you not granting the variance - why are you not granting the variance for the upstairs as well . I guess maybe it hasn' t been asked for, is one thing . MR. BOOTH: That ' s right, it has not been asked for, it could be asked for and I think if it were asked for it would be hard to show that this property could not be used for a single family dwelling or a two-family dwelling which is the showing that they would have to make . SECRETARY HOARD: Well they wouldn' t be asking for it because they' ve already got a permit to rebuild it, so why would they ask for a variance . MR. BOOTH: I understand that . One of our jobs is to interpret this difficult ordinance and I think this provision was meant to deal with that issue . I will vote against it . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine . Shall we have some ballots? VOTE : 4 YES; 1 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED BZA MINUTES 2/*f/85 PAGE : 78 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal, I ' ll say again, was to be Appeal No . 1500 for 120 Highland Place - that has been held over by the Planning and Development Board, which takes us to appeal number 1501 for 205-207 VALLEY ROAD : Appeal of Randall Hatcher for an area variance for deficient lot area and width under Section 30 . 25, Columns 6 and 7 to permit the construction of a single-family home with apartment at 205-207 Valley Road . The property is located in an R-la (Residen- tial, single family) use district in which the pro- posed use is permitted; however because the com- bined lot is deficient in lot size and width for a residence-with-apartment, an area variance must be obtained by the appellant before a building permit can be issued for the construction . MR . HATCHER: I ' m Randy Hatcher . I bought this lot on Valley Road about a year ago and would like to build a home there to move with my family and I am investigating the possibility of putting in a one-bedroom or studio apartment to help make the whole project more financially feasible. I wrote a rather leng- thy explanation in my application. Why don' t I ,just summarize the points . The lot has a frontage of 99 . 9 feet and the R-la requires for a two-family dwelling, 100 feet, so it is 0 . 1 feet short in frontage. It has a square footage of 14, 280 square feet and R-la requires 15, 000 square feet for a two-family dwelling so it is 720 square feet deficient . It is - I might note that it requires 10, 000 for a single family dwelling so it ' s - it would be no problem building a single family house . Other area issues - R-la permits a maximum lot coverage of twenty percent . The lot S coverage would be no where rear that . The front, rear and side lot size requirements would be easily met . R-la requirements for BZA MINUTES 2/f/85 PAGE : 79 off-street parking for two-family dwelling with a three-bedroom unit and a one-bedroom unit ar-e two spaces and I am going to pro- vide three spaces to ensure no on street parking . Affect on \ character of the district : I ' m an architectural designer for - I ' ve done a lot of housing for- Sawtooth Builders and for other companies as well, on a consulting basis, and I would make every effort to - well I would build a two-story, clapboard style, pitched roof., traditionally styled house, similar in treatment to nearly all of the homes along Valley Road. I would use the front setback, similar- to the nearby homes, in fact, construction of a one-bedroom apartment in the basement would result in the volume of the house being more equal to the volume of the surrounding houses - there are some large houses in the are. There are also a couple of small houses . I ,just made a note in my application - there were some area non-compliancies in the area and the area had a history of small rental units, in effect two-family homes, in the past, although they are not on record now as being used that way . And at least one single-family home owner now rents a room, which is a permitted use . The lot is heavily wooded . I would plan to retain as many of the existing trees and shrubs as possi- ble and this is on the down hill side so that the apartment, be- ing in the basement would be virtually invisible from the street . I don' t think population density would be unreasonably affected because I could, in fact, build a four or five bedroom, single family dwelling and it would be an equivalent number of bedrooms . I sent this entire statement and the maps which I suppose you all BZA MINUTES 2/$/85 PAGE : 80 have, a survey map of the existing and just proposed a plot plan, to all the people in the neighborhood, all the required people . And requested on my letter, also., to - if you have any questions, please call me . It is a very nice neighborhood, I didn' t want to bother anybody or make any waves, I called someone I knew who lives up the street, who wasn' t on the required mailing list, and discussed with him what he thought the reaction on this would be, before I even made the appeal, and he is the one who described to i me the rental situations in the past and said that he suspected i that people would be glad to have me and my family there. So I went ahead and I have received one call - I mailed it out to twenty to twenty-five people, I ' ve received one call from Mr . Zumot who asked me what I was doing., I told him and he said, fine, sounds good, and I called the people - the Ramages who live on State Street, back: to back with the lot, because they had shown some interest in what I was doing when I first bought the lot, I gave them a call and told them this is what I - I ' m send- ing you a letter, this is what you are going to get and they seemed perfectly happy with what I was going to do, particularly because the house was going to be near Valley Road and retain the large back: yard and the trees . Other than that, I haven' t heard from anybody so that ' s it . Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else out there that would like to speak for the proposal, for granting the variance? ( no one) Is there anyone there who would like to speak in opposition to granting the variance? Come forward please . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 81 MR . STAIR: My name is Randy Stair and I live at 209 Valley Road which is immediately adjacent to this property and I do have sev- er-al concerns . We do own and occupy the dwelling and as you have heard the lot size is smaller in two respects than what is re- quired by the R-la ordinance, one of those being that 15, 000 square feet is required and, as well, 100 feet of frontage . I think that while Mr . Hatcher perhaps has good intentions at this point that he and his family may occupy the home, that they may rent it to somebody else or subsequently to a family member, I think: that we have no assurance that subsequent to the house be- ing built, that it is not, in fact., sold as a rental unit for income property . That area does come awfully close to bordering some of the areas where there is student housing, it is a street where there are some large homes, property values are somewhat high there. I think by looking at the map and showing the intent to build the three parking spaces, that, should something like this .occur, it would also have the appearance of being a rental unit on this residential street . So, we certainly would welcome to have a home built on that lot., however I am somewhat reluctant to consider what potentially may result on that lot, as well . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? MR . SCHWAB : May I ask you a question? Do you know how many renters there are now on Valley Road? MR . STAIR: No I don' t . We have just moved there about three months ago . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 82 opposition? Come forward please . MR . RAMAGE : I ' m Andrew Ramage and I live on 964 E . State Street, and my name was brought up already as being somewhat in connec- tion with this matter . My wife and I own the house which backs directly onto the lot on Valley Road and it is true that we were in conversation with Mr . Thatcher (sic) about the house and we had in fact, on three occasions, three previous owners tried to buy the house or the lot, as it were . When this was brought up there was no question of introducing by definition a rental apar- tment . There was the building of a house was suggested but not the rental apartment - that came when we got the papers which are required for people within two hundred feet and that, in a sense, is my problem, not that there should be a house there, which is quite appropriate, in the City, and is quite allowed for as has been sent out . But the fact that there has been provision for something which will produce a two-family house on a lot which, even if it is only slightly deficient, is close to an area which is popular for multiple occupancy subrosa, which is not very well policed by the City ever► though they know it, we' ve been burned across the street on State Street, which is actually an R-lb zon- ing arrangement, but some of the regulations are similar and I could remind people at a previous case where the zoning appeals denied certification of an existing use, which was non-conforming for just this kind of reason . It was a small study apartment, the estate wished to sell and it would be more attractive if it were legitimized and the Board saw fit, even in this more liberal BZA MINUTES 2/4+/85 PAGE : 83 zone, R-ib, riot to allow that because there has been a continuing erosion of the single family principle, so it is not really that an owner-occupier with a studio apartment is the problem, but it is the prospect of a non-owner-occupier without much supervision and with several spaces for- parking as has been pointed out, sort of eroding the quality, producing more coming and going - I don ' t think: it ' s a fact to say that a four bedroom house will produce the same coming and going as two apartments, especially in a (un- intelligible) student use is more likely, you are going to get more visitors, more cars, instead of small children and bicycles . So, that is really the problem that my wife and I have . Other things such as drainage, obviously affect us, but they are not part of the - really, the legal problem, as far as the zoning question, but I do want to be on record by saying that building in a two-family project seems to me inappropriate at this stage . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Come forward please . MS . HOBBIE : My name is Mar-gar-et Hobbie and I am co-owner of the property at 966 E . State Street,, between Ramages and Mt . Olivet Cemetery . The other owner is my husband, Robert Haden . The ap- peal before you is about a property on Valley Road, but this pro- perty very much affects East State Street . We tend to live at the backs of our houses, since we are on East State Street . And this may riot have been so apparent to those of you who may have visited the property in the winter because we are not out of BZA MINUTES 2/,4/85 PAGE : 84 doors as much in the winter, but it very much is an East State Street issue as well as a Valley Road issue . I am going to sound like a parrot of Andrew Ramage., I have many of the same things to say and the ward erosion is one that comes up, that I ' ve written down. Since we bought the house almost two years ago, I have been concerned about a number of things that have happened in the East State Street area, we are not that far from Valentine Place, we are close enough to be concerned about what is going on there, I ' m very concerned about the property at 965, right across the street, which the City doesn' t seem to be able to do anything about, we are all generally concerned about the movement of Cor- nell south, southward through Collegetown and in general the pro- liferation of multiple dwellings in the area . So I just want to express my concern about what I see as an erosion of the residen- tial nature of the area . I ' m not opposed to a new family in the area, we have a small daughter ourselves and I think we all want to stress that we welcome the Hatchers, we are concerned about the apartment . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions? Thank you . Is there anyone else in opposition? Please come forward . MR. WARD: My name is Larry Ward, I am co-owner of the property , at 962 East State Street and reside there . My property is di- rectly behind this proposed building . The proposed lot for buil- ding - is a double lot actually., that is why the Ramages are be- hind one part and I am directly behind the other . It is true, pretty much I support what Mr . Ramage and the others have said . BZA MINUTES 2/4q/85 PAGE : 85 Another point to consider about a - particularly an apartment in the rear-, it ' s true you won' t see it from Valley Road, you will see it from my house which is quite a steep hill, I don' t know what the angle is but even from the back of our own yard you can look: straight into our upper- - second floor windows, so it is quite apparent from that side and I think the neighborhood along that section is concerned about that sandwiching of more apart- ment type dwelling, when we ar-e faced on the other side with at least three that are probably out of compliance and we are told by the City that yes , they know about it but that is the way life is or- whatever-, and they aren' t all that willing to (unintelligi- ble) This one will be brand new but it is an additional bedroom apartment . One family, which is what most of those are - ob- viously it doesn' t need any kind of a variance anyway, it is al- ready legal . MR . BOOTH: Are there any apartments in any of the houses along your stretch of State Street? MR . WARD: I don' t think - the Hobbies are next to the cemetery, the Ramages are next, then the Slatterys, I don' t believe so, at least not for quite a stretch - that I know of - not all the way down to where Valley Road hits State Street - they are all one family. It is across the street - that ' s where you get the sandwich affect - where there is at least three starting across from us and - I don' t know the number- - then two others and all the City has told us., when we' ve asked about it, is that, yes those are problems and have given letters to whoever owns them BZA MINUTES 2/,q/85 PAGE : 86 but that ' s about it . And then behind us, again, Valley Road is all residential . MR . BOOTH' But Valley Road is in a different zone than you are, r i g h t? MR. WARD: I don' t really know the zoning, I ' m just responding to this particular question. (unintelligible) to an apartment, especially when it has been history that once something is in and there is some kind of charge, as has been pointed out, that there I is almost, from what we can see., no enforcement, even to hold it to that., that could end up with as many people as you can fit in . MR . BOOTH: How big is your house lot? MR . WARD: Fifty by one fifty, roughly . It ' s a different - it is i almost totally rectangular . 1 CHAIRMAN ThMLAN: Any other questions from Mr . Ward? Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to the granting of this variance? Mr . Hatcher, if you could make it brief . MR . HATCHER: Just a couple of points . First in response to Mr . Ward , we would plan to use the back yard and (unintelligible) consideration with - the apartment would not be visible from the back, it would be oriented to the side and there would be shrub- bery screening the apartment zone from the rear yard . We would intend to use that . I have the same concern for the back yard that he does, and I know the Ramages do . I am sorry that these people that are objecting didn' t call me, because I would have discussed it with them in advance and maybe alleviated some of BZA MINUTES 2/4-/85 RAGE : 87 their fears . The other thing I might note is in the R-1a re- strictions for a single family and for two-family dwellings, I believe that it would limit the tenancy - under the definition of a family - in the three bedroom portion of this house, to make it financially feasible to rent it to anyone other than a single family . If there is some way of either amending my appeal or putting in the appeal which 1 might be granted that the house has to be owner-occupied, in the large portion of the house, it would be perfectly amenable to me . Let me just say also that if I find that I - if I were to get this variance and were going to go ahead and build a house on it, and wasn ' t going to live in it myself.. I wouldn' t build art apartment in it . Now that doesn' t carry much weight because I could build it and sell it within a year.. I realize that, but perhaps the Board could make note to the concerned people about the restrictions of what a family is and how many unrelated people you can have renting the three bed- room portion of the house . MS . FARRELL : I have a question . Did you ever consider the new provision for accessory apartment? MR. HATCHER: No . I am not familiar- with tht . SECRETARY HOARD: It seems to apply to existing buildings only . MS . FARRELL : Oh., you can' t build them that way? SECRETARY HOARD: well its got language in there - we were looking at it today and its got language in there that applies to existing buildings . Also - if he goes to the bank for a mortgage and has a condition - all the conditions that are in that BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 88 accessory apartment ordinance,, I don' t know if he would get the mortgage . MR , BOOTH : I have a question . How big will the apartment be compared to the rest of the house - square footagewise? I realize that you don ' t have . . . . MR . HATCHER: One-quarter or less, so it has to be one-quarter or less, so it would have to be approximately one-half of the square footage of the basement . MR . BOOTH: So it will have one bedroom . . . MR . HATCHER.: A studio apartment or a one bedroom apartment so if we are talking half the square footage of the basement., we are talking one-sixth of the square footage of the house . MR . BOOTH : One-sixth of the square footage of the house . MR . HATCHER: Yes . We are actually about three levels, two stories , something of that order- . I would say a quarter to a sixth . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you . Is there any rebuttal to the appellants statement from any of the people who were opposed? No? That ' s just fine . We can then discuss it . MR . BOOTH: Well let me make a point for the record . Mr . Hatcher is a neighbor of mine, he lives across the street , let me say tht we have never discussed this case, I am sure he is surprised to see me sitting on this Board . I don' t think there is anything about that that removes my ability to vote in this case . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you . Any more thoughts related to the case, more specifically? I BZA MINUTES 2./$/85 PAGE : 89 DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO . 1601 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Deficient in lot size and width for a residence with an apartment . MR . SCHWAB : I would not want to rely on the width., which is barely an inch . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is true. That could be said fairly quickly . I think what the question really comes down to of course, is what happens with the apartment at least insofar as the neighborhood is concerned, where there is a lot size question . MR . BOOTH: Well the lot size deficiency is not terribly great . This is a large lot . . MS . FARRELL : What is the percentage? MR . BOOTH: It is considerably less than a thousand square feet deficient . I think it is seven hundred eighty square feet . . . MS . JOHNSON: Seven hundred twenty . MR . BOOTH. Out of fifteen thousand . If this were just a single family dwelling , the square footage requirement would be ten thousand square feet . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: With what the neighborhood is of course, arguing, is that it should be a single family dwelling, no more . MR . BOOTH: That is true. The zoning allows this use . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s true but we are talking about an area . MR . BOOTH: Right, but we are talking about a variance . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right . SECRETARY HOARD: Practical difficulties . DZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 90 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What are the practical difficulties? MS . FARRELL : I have a question, is it possible to tie in an owner occupancy clause? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have we done that? We have done that in the past haven' t we - an owner- occupancy clause? But does it have much meaning? SECRETARY HOARD: I can' t think of a specific case MR, BOOTH: The Ordinance certainly contemplates that , in fact the definitions of allowable uses talks of providing different requirements for owner-occupied versus non-owner-occupied so that would seem to be a condition anticipated by the Ordinance . I ' m not anyone who puts a great deal of reliance on some of the wording of this Ordinance . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is saying quite a bit . Any thoughts on this side of the table? MR . SCHWAB : I ' m listening . MS . JOHNSON: So we can make a provision that it ' s owner-occupied? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s right we could . MR . BOOTH: It would seem that we also could make a provision that the apartment not be more than a certain percentage of the square footage of the house, that is also anticipated by the zoning because the requirements ar-e different if the - evidently the rental unit is larger than fifty percent of the major unit . Then the requirements change . SECRETARY HOARD: That ' s right and it has to be owner-occupied automatically . BZA MINUTES 2/,q/85 PAGE : 91 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But I have to come hack to practical difficulty, what is the practical difficulty? MR . BOOTH: Well the practical difficulty is that the lot is slightly too small for the use that is proposed . We have many cases of that kind . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it seems like you are awfully close to a motion . I had to walk you into it . BZA MINUTES 2/9-/85 PAGE : 02 APPEAL NO . 11601 205-207 VALLEY ROAD The Hoard of Zoning Appeals considered Mr . Randall Hatcher ' s request for an area variance to permit the construction of a single-family home with apartment at 205-207 Valley Road . The decision of the Hoard was as follows : MR . BOOTH' I move that the Hoard grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1601 with the following conditions : 1 ) that the house will be owner-occupied and 2) that the rental unit not exceed 25% of the square footage of the major residential unit . MS . FARRELL : I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The deficiency in terms of lot width is so small as to be negligible . 2) The deficiency in terms of the size of the lot is modest . 3) The practical difficulty faced by the owner in terms of this proposed use is that by not allowing the two-family house the owner, would be left with a lot that is considerably larger than is required for building a single family dwelling and the lot is only marginally smaller than what is required for building a two-family dwelling . 4) It appears on the basis of the evidence that the proposed use is consistent with the character- of the area notwithstanding a variety of objections that have been raised . 51 The applicant has indicated that the proposed rental unit will face the side of the house . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 93 VOTE : 5 YES; G NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED BZA MINUTES 1/4/$5 PAGE : 94 COMMENT ON APPEAL NO . 1601 AFTER MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED : CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There was a point mentioned which I would only underscore, not necessarily insist upon, but I can remember a case in the not too recent past when there was some discussion about an Estate that was trying to sell a unit - very similar -that had an accessory or an adjacent rental income unit, and we did - as was pointed out - come down denying that variance . The question I raise is one that seems to nag me a little bit and I ' ve expressed this on . other occasions in other cases, is one of - in a sense - setting policy by individual examples and being consistent within that policy . Whereas, not to appear to do the same thing twice, really calls it a question, your judgement in each individual case . Granted, each case is different, which is the other side of the question . But I just point that out in flushing out some of the comments . BZA MINUTES 2/$/85 PAGE : 95 SECRETARY HOARD: The last case is APPEAL NO . 1602, 712 WEST COURT STREET : Appeal of Louis 0 . Nezvesky for an area variance for deficient lot width: and deficient setbacks for front, side and rear yards, under Section 30 . 25, Columns 7, 11, 13, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the resubdivision of two par- cels at 712 West Court Street so that two existing buildings can be sold separately on separate par- cels . As proposed.. one parcel will include the existing small animal hospital, and will be defi- cient in lot width and front yard setback ( it will have no street frontage) , and the second parcel will be deficient in setbacks for the front yard, one side yard, and the rear yard . An alternative proposal would result in adequate lot width, but would also result in inadequate lot size (Column 6) for the second parcel . The appellant must ob- tain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before the subdivision can be approved by the Planning and Development Board . MR . BECK : My name is Frederick Beck, I ' m an attorney and I re- tain an office at 309 N. Tioga Street., City of Ithaca and I ap- pear with Dr . Louis 0 . Nezvesky who is the owner of the property located at 710-712 West Court Street here in the City of Ithaca . This particular property approximates a square in shape and it is one hundred and thirty-two feet on the West Court Street and north sides and one hundred thirty-one point eighty-three feet on the east and west sides . At the present time there are two buil- dings on this property, one a building that is known as 710 West Court Street, which is presently utilized under the terms of a lease arrangement by Gadabout Transportation Services., Inc . which I think: you are probably familiar with . Representives of Gadabout are here tonight and I am sure can tell you a little bit more about the service they provide for the com- BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 96 munity . The building to the rear of the building at 710 West Court is• presently utilized by Dr . Nezvesky in his practice known as the Ithaca Small Animal Hospital . Dr . Nezvesky acquired the land in question in two separate transactions back in the mid- 1970 ' s . Gadabout I believe has rented the building at 710 West Court Street since some point in 1981 . Gadabout ' s present lease arrangement with Dr . Nezvesky expires in May of this year and as a result of that fact they have approached Dr . Nezvesky with the thought that they might be able to purchase the building at 710 West Court Street as part of a parcel which would front on West Court Street, one hundred thirty-two feet and extend back to the north, fifty-four feet . The proposition would reserve to Dr . Nezvesky a fifty foot right-of-way running north and south from West Court Street to provide access to the Ithaca Small Animal Hospital . In order to accomplish that transaction Dr . Nezvesky needs an area variance so as to seek permission for the resubdi- vision of these two parcels to allow that transfer . The present situation in terms of the use of that property has been what it is today for several years now - since 1981 I guess for Gadabout - you have had the Small Animal Hospital since 1.974 or 75 . So it is anticipated that the future use of this particular parcel would be consistent with what it is today . It is my understanding that many of the neighbors have been per- sonally solicited with respect to this application tonight and a ' petition with a number of signatures has been forwarded to the Building Commissioner ' s Office , is that correct? 1 BZA MINUTES 2/A/85 PAGE : 97 SECRETARY HOARD : I guess so, yes . MR . BECK.. : I ' m not aware that there is any opposition in terms of the neighborhood where these buildings are located, to this par- ticular request . This is, I believe, zoned industrially , As a practical matter I don' t believe there is any reasonable expecta- tion that any industry is presently appeared to utilize the west- erly portion of this parcel, at least in its present size . What we would like to accomplish is (unintelligible) in essence the use of the property as it is presently being used today only un- der circumstances where the Ithaca Small Animal Hospital would keep the northerly piece with dimensions of one hundred and thir- ty-two feet on the northerly and southerly sides and seventy seven point eighty three feet on the easterly and westerly sides . Gadabout would only - the road frontage subject to a right-of-way - have east and west lines of fifty four feet . Dr . Nezvesky has indicated that he would be willing to carry a mortgage for Gad- about Transportation Services and obviously this poses what we think is a real opportunity for Gadabout to continue the service that they have provided to our community for some time, under- circumstances where they can afford to do so . MR. SCHWAB : May I ask you why you are doing a fifty foot right-of-way which makes the back: landlocked but rather than having the Small Animal Clinic have an "L" shaped lot? t MR . BECK ,. It is my understanding that in order for this Board to favorably consider this application, that the grant to Gadabout had to consist of a parcel of at least five thousand square feet . BZA MINUTES 2/14/85 PAGE : 98 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is that the reason in your appeal, you essen- tially set up two alternatives? You said in one case, as pro- posed and then an alternative would result - if you are familiar with your appeal, you said, as proposed, one parcel would include the existing Small Animal Hospital and would be deficient in lot, width and front yard setback:, you would have no street frontage . And the second parcel would be deficient in the setbacks for the front yard, one side yard an-d rear yard . An alternative proposal would result in adequate lot width but would also result in in- adequate lot size for the second parcel . Would you begin to sort those c►ut and essentially - the plusses and the minuses, I guess, on either instance? You have essentially set it up on here that you have two proposals, and what I am more to the core of, is what are the plusses and minuses from your point of view in each one of those cases? MR. BECK : To be honest, it was my understanding that there was basically the one proposal - the one that I ' ve described and the one that both the property owner and the proposed buyer of this parcel particular- desire and that is the one that would give the Gadabout Transportation Services, Inc . the entire frontage along West Court Street, reserving the right of ingress and egress to Dr . Nezvesky to get back to his Ithaca Small Animal Hospital building . SECRETARY HOARD : Maybe I can explain the confusion, Mr . Chairman . What happened was that just before we had to file that with the Ithaca Journal, I believe it was Dr . Nezvesky came in RZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 99 and talked with the Deputy Building Commissioner - is that your writing sir? On this right-of-way, you crossed out the right-of-way and . . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s on the initial sketch that is what we were given so I am just trying to get clear what we are discussing here . SECRETARY HOARD: (unintelligible) cover both possibilities . DR . NEZVESKY : Okay . We originally went in and asked for- twenty and he said . . . forget it you' ve got to go fifty . We originally thought twenty would be adequate and ( unintelligible) request fifty, you would never approve twenty . SECRETARY HOARD: Well in either case you would need a variance for your lack. of street frontage or . . . DR . NEZVESKY : Right, so therefore this is a better way - to pick out (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is that clear to the members of the Board? It wasn' t clear to me . MS . FARRELL : The deficiencies are the lack of street frontage, MR . BOOTH: Side yard and back yard . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN. It is just a matter of getting the record clear as to what we are dealing with . SECRETARY HOARD : The option he is choosing would be that the - there would be that fifty foot strip provided for the back lot which would make the front lot deficient in lot size . MR . BOOTH : Why would it? SECRETARY HOARD: Well it would be under the five thousand square i .'j , _ .. �. .f. r f. a .. ." �..� I I I BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 100 foot minimum. MR . BOOTH. Fifty-four feet deep times one hundred and . . . MR . BECK : It would be one hundred and thirty . . . MR . BOOTH : Ninety-eight feet wide, right? No., one hundred and thirty-two feet wide . MR . BECK. : It comes out to something over six thousand square feet . If we were to do this the parking situation► in the back:, as I understand it, would allow for the parking of something close to fifteen cars, is that right? DR . NEZVESK.Y . At least, if we took: down the bull pens, we could park a few more . MR . BOOTH: What about parking on the front portion? MR . BECK : Well it is my understanding that we ' d get up to about thirteen? VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE : There is a cherry tree there - eleven if the tree stays . MR. BECK : Okay . No change ( unintelligible) MR . BOOTH: Are those two buildings joined? MR . BECK : There is some kind of a tunnel . DR . NEZVESKY : There is a walk-way . MR . SCHWAB : Tom, can you explain► to me better, why this becomes worse or even not to be considered as more than a right-of-way - the fact that the back parcel has frontage - which frankly bothers me . . . SECRETARY HOARD: We didn' t have any real preference which way it went but one way, if you give the fifty foot strip then you ' ve HZA MINUTES 2/$!85 PAGE : 101 got the lot frontage for the rear lot but the front lot goes down to four thousand five hundred and ninety square feet . MR . SCHWAB : But they really can' t do too much with that fifty foot right-of-way, right? I ' d be inclined to give the back lot sole control so that something potentially could be done with it in the future., is my thought . In other- words, have the proposal be Cir . Nezvesky keep absolutely the lot frontage as fifty foot rather than right-of-way and the fact, so that twenty years down the road when he sells the back lot, or wants to do something else with this, it can be done because Gadabout, it strikes me, won' t be able to use this the western half of its lot because it has got to keep it as a right-of-way . SECRETARY HOARD: Well the right-of-way is only twenty feet . . MR . SCHWAB : A fifty foot right-of-way . SECRETARY HOARD: No the right-of-way would be twenty feet and the alternative would be a fifty foot chunk of land that would go with the - it would either end up - one option is to go and put a fifty foot wide strip as part of this lot - which reduces this other lot to this . Let ' s call that option one. Option two would be to subdivide it so that this is all one lot., this is all one lot, but there is a twenty foot right-of-way across here (pointing to the survey map) I have no preference . MR . SCHWAB : I guess I - I guess it is up - I ' d like to hear- from the owners, I guess . I have a preference rather- than mess with the right-of-ways , giving full land to one people or the other so they czar► decide what to do with it, in other words, I ' d rather BZA MINUTES 2/4t/35 PAGE : 102 see no right-of-way, if the land owners are more or less indifferent . MR . BECK : I don' t think that, let ' s put it this way., I think we would like to keep that ( unintelligible) MR . BOOTH: Full title? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Full title or right-of-way, which are you speaking? MR . BECK : Well, obviously, I think that it enhances the value of the property in the back if you have full title . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s right. That ' s what we are raising, if that ' s . . . . . . in your best interest . MR . BOOTH: Fifty feet or twenty feet? Fifty feet . MR . BECK : Ideally, sure . SECRETARY HOARD: Now what about the people in the back, are they happy? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We ' ll get to them. MR . SCHWAB : But that is your option one . Fifty feet . Fee simple - the back owns it . An "L" shaped lot which strikes me as preferable . SECRETARY HOARD: With street frontage, with a front lot (unintelligible) MR. SCHWAB : Right-of-ways are messy . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Pardon us for shaping here . . . MR . SCHWAB : But that is not ruled out of hand . . . so different from the other proposal . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are there any other questions so we can move BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 103 right along and reach some sort of resolution . MS . FARRELL : I guess I have a question about how much parking happens on the Gadabout site now? DR . NEZVESKY : Would you repeat your questions again? MS . FARRELL : How much parking is there on the Gadabout site or this part that Gadabout is using? DR . NEZVESKY : They could have . . . MS . FARRELL : Or, how many cars ar-e parked there now? DR . NEZVESKY : A minimum of eight - they go eight and ten . MS . FARRELL : And there is room for- eleven? DR . NEZVESKY : If they go - if they bring one bus by the house and one in front of that, they can actually get three, seven and five, they car► actually get twelve, but they are using eight now . MS . FARRELL : Eight buses . DR . NEZVESKY : Eight buses . MS . FARRELL : Does that sound like it is (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: A normal amount of parking? MS . FARRELL : I mean, that ' s the legal amount of spaces . . . SECRETARY HOARD : Well the trouble is that the parking would be keyed to the square footage of that house . Because that is an office and they more than meet that parking but they have a greater need . . . MS . FARRELL : Isn' t this a little bit odd since it is a transportion facility? SECRETARY HOARD: But they have a greater need, it goes on our list . BZA MINUTES 2/1$/85 PAGE : 104 MS . FARRELL : Put it right on a list, please. I mean, I think it is a little odd to call something that has a lot of buses, an office, CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Moving right along . Any other questions? MS . FARRELL : Especially since all of the buses are out in the yard . MR . BOOTH: Are there two curb cuts there? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I ' m trying to think of the curb cut . MR . BOOTH: Oh, it is? I didn' t notice when I was down there . MS . FARRELL : Are any of the buses now parking on this area that is called the right-of-way? On this map? DR . NEZVESKY : They park right next to the building - they park one - two - three (pointing to the map) four - five - six - seven - seven or eight, Ms . Willis? MS . WILLIS : Eight . DR . NEZVESKY : Eight . So they put five here and three here and they could actually put in five more there . MS . FARRELL : Okay, but if we are talking about breaking up the lot up like this, all of those buses will parked on what was your property than, and only a few of them would be parked on what is their property . VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE : (UNINTELLIGIBLE) MR . BOOTH: That is what she is asking - with this division . . . DR . NEZVESKY : It would be five next to the Telephone building on our property - on the fifty foot right-of-way . MR. BOOTH: Well then it would cross the fifty foot right-of-way? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 105 DR . NEZVESKY : They have five there . MR . BOOTH: That ' s one reason I was opposed to making it a right-of-way., because the Gadabout people will have to park on l.t . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right, perhaps we can move along . MS . FARRELL : I have one other question . If they are all parked over there,, does that still give enough room to - how much room does that give to get through on this right-of-way? DR. NEZVESKY : No problems . In fact we have an egress - we' ve got beams - we go in here and out the other entrance - loads of space . We' ve never had a problem - never had an accident . MS . FARRELL : But they are relying on over there for parking and over here for parking? DR. NEZVESKY : Yes . MS . FARRELL : So, I think we should go for the right-of-way, rather than the (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s the other point of view. Thank you . Anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Now is your chance . MR. WENDT : Thank you , My name is Bill Wendt, I ' m the President of Gadabout Transportation Services . Gadabout provides handicap- ped and transportation for the elderly throughout the City and throughout Tompkins County . As you heard, we have made a pur- chase offer contingent upon a subdivision because we do want to keep that as a home for Gadabout . We' ve had a difficult time finding a good home in the City, where we could accommodate the BZA MINUTES 2/lq/85 PAGE : 106 needs for the six vehicles that ar-e there and have a place where we could park: our volunteer drivers . Most of the elderly and handicapped are drawn from the City population . This is a very convenient location off of Court Street and 13 because it ' s very accessible to all areas of the county and we do travel throughout the county . The need for parking is quite important and one of our- reasons for wanting the twenty foot right-of-way and basical- ly continuing business as it exists now, is so we can use that parking on each side . If we were to - we did not put in a pur- chase offer- that would give that fifty foot chunk away from us because that would hamper our parking . There is certainly ade- quate parking for, both facilities in the current configuration and we would like to continue that . We had a fear that there would be a hardship if Dr- . Nezvesky wanted to sell the Small Ani- mal Clinic and it was one parcel and that could mean that we would lose our- home forever . There has not been any need for him to use that building as part of the hospital and we would like to stay there and keep that as our home . Four years ago the former president ( unintelligible) before this Board several times be- cause we could not find another- good home in the City . Many of the commercial properties which tend to be out Elmira Road and in that zone., were not within a range that we could afford. We have an opportunity now to keep our costs low . We are dependent on County and City dollars to make this service work and as I said, the largest contribution really comes from the volunteer drivers who operate these buses each day . We are not excited about the 1 I BZA MINUTES 2/$/85 PAGE : 107 fact of trying to look for another building, we have been exclud- ed from the residential neighborhoods and, as I said, the commer- cial locations have proved too expensive in the past . We do need that central location, we have had a good relationship with the neighbor, third., I think we can see that all the neighbors are very supportive of our operation there . We have even had some of the neighbors volunteer and help us there, I don' t think there are any problems with the type of service we are using . We now have a favorable financial situation to purchase this property and use it continually as our home if this subdivision occurs . We cannot foresee that unless there is a subdivision of the prop- erty . We are not looking to make any changes in the nature of the building of our uses . The building that we are using - the front building at 710 is certainly adequate for our needs - it is very small . tour office staff is there, and it basically serves to dispatch those buses to various areas . The parking as a bus leaves, a volunteer driver parks in that place. We only have three staff cars and several volunteer drivers each day, while these buses: are out . We can accommodate more staff if we - but we really don' t expect any growth and expect this to be a good home for us for many years to come . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Any questions? MS . JOHNSON: You said that you prefer the twenty foot right-of-way? MR . WENDT , We prefer to operate just like we are, there is kind of a large corrall opening and there is a very adequate driveway HZA MINUTES 2/0/85 PAGE : 108 to go in and out of the back hospital that allows us to park on the right and left sides of the property . Yes, my point being that you would define the fifty foot area there that was not ours, it would not give us the parking that we desire, there . And it would probably be just a wasted fifty foot strip in the front of the property which has never been in demand by the hospital that I know of, while we have been there., to require that much parking for the hospital . It is strictly a gravel lot . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There has never been any confusion or difficulty with your buses versus his clientele? MR . WENUT : No . There certainly is plenty of room there for the small number of patients that are there at any one time and the buses going in and out . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Further questions? Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak supporting this appeal? MR . RUMANOWSK.I : Bob Romanowski, very short again. I made - independently made sure that people didn' t have any objections . I paid particular attention to the parking that is going on -off- street parking is only one side clown on West Court Street and as a result it is restricted . As far- as I can tell, most people - as a matter of fact, everybody down there has off-street parking . Very few cars park out on the street because of the restrictions: . There is a very large parking area ( unintelligi- ble) so 1 don' t see any objections from any of the neighbors, I don' t see any objections from ( unintelligible) . Gadabout has been a good neighbor, their operations are very minimal, they BZA MINUTES 2/4-/85 PAGE : 109 close down at night and Dr- . Nezvesky has been a good neighbor , too . So I czar► see no objections doing it whichever way they want to . We welcome both of these businesses in the west end . Thank you . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for? MS . HOLMBERG : I ' m not going to take up any time., I just - I ' m Anna Holmberg and I ' m an attorney in town, I ' m also Vice President of the Board of Gadabout and I ' m here with the Executive Director Judy Willis, in support of the application . I ' ve nothing really to add to what Bill said. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you . Is there anyone who would like to speak: for the application? Anyone out there against? Shall we discuss and move, and move along? BZA MINUTES 2/,+/85 PAGE : 110 APPEAL NO . 1602 - 712 W. COURT STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Dr . Louis 0 . Nezvesky for an area variance to permit the resubdivision of two parcels at 712 West Court Street so that two existing buildings can be sold separately on separate parcels . The decision of the Board was as follows : MR. BOOTH: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1602 with the condition that Dr . Nezvesky and Gadabout Transportation Services, Inc . agree that the right-of-way be between a minimum of twenty (20 ' ) feet and a maximum of fifty (50 ' ) feet . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: : I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1) The proposal incorporates existing uses and will not change the current use of the property . 2) Practical difficulty is that the lot, and its configuration, are Stich that one cannot create two conforming lots given the current zoning . 3) This would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood . VOTE : 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED I , BARBARA RIJANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1594, 1-1-85, 1603, 1598, 1599, 1601 , and 1602 on February 4, 1985 in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 E. 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 ell 4n day of - ���1 1985 Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 55.7.560800 QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COUN MY COt,:',IISSION EXPIRES MARCH 30,19 i it TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 1594 JOHN TILITZ 8 121 CASCADILLA STREET DELIBERATIONS 20 " DECISION 22 APPEAL NO. 1-1-85 CLINTON WEST LIMITED 24 609 WEST CLINTON STREET DELIBERATIONS 37 DECISION TO DEFER 38 APPEAL NO. 1603 EVAPORATED METAL FILMS CORPORATION 42 701 SPENCER ROAD DELIBERATIONS 47 " DECISION 49 APPEAL NO. 1598 JOHN AUGUSTINE, JR. 50 327-329 SOUTH CAYUGA STREET " DELIBERATIONS 54 DECISION 56 P APPEAL NO. 1599 WILLIAM LOWER 57 407 ELMWOOD AVENUE DELIBERATIONS 72 DECISION 76 APPEAL NO. 1600 HAROLD SCHULTZ (HELD OVER) 78 120 HIGHLAND PLACE APPEAL NO. 1601 RANDALL HATCHER 78 205-207 VALLEY ROAD DELIBERATIONS 89 " " DECISION 92 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Page 2) PAGE APPEAL NO. 1602 LOUIS 0. NEZVESKY 95 712 WEST COURT STREET DECISION 110 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 111 February 4, 1985 BZA t BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK FEBRUARY 4, 1985 SECRETARY HOARD : I ' d like to call the February 4, 1985 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals to order . I am Thomas Hoard., the Board Secretary, Zoning Officer. and Building Commis- sioner, and it is one of my duties to open the first meeting of each year, and preside over the election of the chairperson for the new calendar year, as provided for in the Board' s Rules and Regulations . The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance, and the Board' s own Rules and Regulations, which will be adopted later tonight . Before I call for nominations for the 1 chair , I would like to introduce the members of the Board, as well as another staff member who assists in the operation of the 1 Board : Mr , Michael Tomlan Mr . Richard Booth Ms . Tracy Farrell Mr . Stewart Schwab Ms . Helen Johnson Ms . Barbara Ruane, Recording ; Secretary Absent : Mr . Charles Weaver I will now entertain nominations for chairperson . MR , BOOTH: Let me speak to that Tom . Charlie Weaver, as you know, has been chairman for a while, Charlie is not here tonight, he has had a heart attack but continues to serve on the Board . My suggestion , if the Board is amenable, is to elect a chairman for just this evening and wait until Charlie returns to see BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE . 2 whether or, not he is interested in continuing . So I would make a motion that Michael Tomlan serve as chair this evening . SECRETARY HOARD : Do I hear a second? MS . FARRELL : I second it . MR . BOOTH: And by way of discussion., Michael is the oldest of our, members, not chronologically but in terms of service on the Board . SECRETARY HOARD : Do I hear any other nominations? Does anyone t want to move that the nominations be closed? MR . BOOTH. I move the nominations be closed . MS . FARRELL : Second . I i SECRETARY HOARD : All in favor- say aye . 5 AYES; 0 NAY; 1 ABSENT . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: As Mr . Hoard mentioned., this Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance, and the Board' s own Rules and Regulations . Our first order of business will be to adopt our Rules and Regulations that will be in effect for the 1985 calendar year . Does any member of the Board or i staff member have any suggestions or comments as to additions, deletions, or modifications that might be made to these Rules and Regulations? You should have received them . I got my copy way back: in January . SECRETARY HOARD : I do, Mr . Chairman, one of the problems we ran into in the past year was riot having a deadline for filing an appeal after an administrative action was taken and I passed out BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 3 some copies of pages from Anderson' s New York Zoning Practice and it says that, in Section 25 . 07 "The statutory requirement that a board of zoning appeals adopt a rule limiting the time for ap- peals is mandatory . " I think this Board ought to adopt some kind of a rule so that people who get permits aren' t faced with an appeal sometime after the permit is issued. SECRETARY TOMLAN: Discussion? MR , BOOTH: Do you have a suggestion about the amount of time? SECRETARY HOARD : Well thirty days seems appropriate . It might still cause problems if someone is equipped to get underway with a project after the building permit was issued, but it seems to me from reading through this section that they even say as few as I think, sever► days is adequate . I don' t know if that is what this Board would want to do but I think: there ought to be some way, where once the permit is posted, obviously if the person who gets the building permit doesn' t post it the neighbors wouldn ' t necessarily know that the permit was issued . MS . FARRELL ' Do you have any way of knowing when a permit is posted? SECRETARY HOARD: Well when we issue a permit they get a card and we don' t necessarily know when it has been posted but we would say the date of issuance would be the posting date . MS . FARRELL : Okay . MR. BOOTH: It is my recollection that a person has thirty days to challenge your decision► in court, isn' t that correct ( unintelligible) local zoning decision? BZA MINUTES 2/4/$5 PAGE : 4 SECRETARY HOARD : Yes . MR . BOOTH. I guess my sense is that thirty days then makes some sense to make it consistent with that . Would it be possible for us to get a recommendation from the Counsel ' s office and then to make a decision next month, would that make it unduly difficult? SECRETARY HOARD: Well I asked Counsel for a recommendation and he said the Board should do what it wants to do . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Always helpful . MR . BOOTH: I would move then that - we will not write the language tonight - the Counsel ' s office will write the language and bring it back to us? SECRETARY HOARD : Okay . MR . BOOTH: I would move that the Board adopt thirty days as the time within which a person may file an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals . That thirty days would run, for example, from the issuance of the building permit by the Building Inspector -that ' s not the only time period., there may be others, but that ' s a common example . And I would add to my motion that we will ex- pect the Counsel ' s office to draft appropriate language and bring it to us at the next meeting . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That would be worded in such a way as being an amendment to the rules and regulations . MR . BOOTH : That ' s right . ACTING CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do I hear a second? MS . FARRELL : I ' ll second that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A voice vote would be sufficient? BZA MINUTES 114/85 PAGE : 5 SECRETARY HOARD : YES . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If all of those in favor would say aye? 5 AYES; 0 No; 1 ABSENT . MR . BOOTH: That means they will write the appropriate section where it should fit in the rules and regulations . The other thing that I have about the rules and regulations, I may be looking at this incorrectly, but the copy that I got., that we were sent, says "Amended January 1684" . But the copy appears to incorporate amendments which were made in March of ' 84 . I h►ave found notes that we made amendments in March . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So what you are saying is that this may not be the last one . MR . BOOTH: Well I think it is the last one, I think: the amendments have been incorporated although I am not positive about that . Some of them have been incorporated., I ' m looking at page :i, for example . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The last one that I have appears to be identical MR . BOOTH: And what is the date of the last one? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I have January, as well . I remember sticking it in - I have every copy we' ve ever been giver►, stuck in my . . . MR . BOOTH: I have a copy dated March 5th with th►e amendments on it . I believe that we made those amendments and that amendment to E is reflected here on page J of the new copy . SECRETARY HOARD: Okay., these are the ones we discussed . BZA MINUTES 214./85 PAGE : 5 MR . BOOTH ' That we adopted . I think what you' ve got to do is go back and make sure the copies conform. So I guess what I would do is move that we utilize tonight the ones that were handed out, I think they are what we want., they ,just don' t have the right date on them. They do need to be checked to make sure they con- form. So to expedite matters, I would move that we use tonight the ones that were mailed out to the Board, dated January 1384 . I think the date is wrong on them and I would ask the i Building Inspector to - Commissioner to check on that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do I have a second? MS . FARRELL ' Second . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Ready for a vote . All those in favor say aye . 5 AYES; a NO; 1 ABSENT . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay . Any other corrections, amendments, sub- tractions, whatever? Now that the Board is legally constituted and equipped for the year.. I ' ll explain our procedures to be fol- lowed here tonight and in subsequent meetings I dare say . The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we will hear from the appellant, and ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible, and then be available to answer questions from the Board . We will then► hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the applica- tion. I should note here that the Board considers "interested parties" to be persons who own property within 200 feet of the property in question, or who live or work within 200 feet of the BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 7 property . Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of an interested party . There has been some discussion, for those of you who 'have been following us., know about that from the recent past . While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence we do consider this a quasi-Judi- cial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record . The record consists of the application materials filed with the Buil- ding Department, correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board' s findings and recommendations, if any, and the record of tonight ' s hearing , Since a record is being made of this hearing, it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak: directly into the microphones so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded, and will therefore not be considered by the Board in its delibera- tions on the case . We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case, and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board . After everyone has been heard on a given case., the hearing on that case will be closed, and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision . Once the hearing is closed, no furthertestimony will be taken, and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during the deliberations . I know you' ll have some burning questions , but you' ll have your chance later . It takes four votes to approve a BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 8 motion to grant or deny a variance or special permit . In the rare cases where there is a tie vote, the variance or special permit is automatically denied . Note here, if only four or five ! Board members are present we normally, in those instances, advise the appellant that t►e or she has the right to request a postpone- ment , We have five here tonight, obviously . Are there any ques- tions about our procedure from members of the Board? From anyone out there in the audience per chance? Mr . Secretary? SECRETARY HOARD: Before I read the first case, if anyone is here tonight for appeal number 1500, for 120 Highland Place, that appeal has been held over by the Board of Planning and Development . The first case tonight is appeal number 1504, 121 CASCADILLA STREET Appeal of John Tilitz for an area variance for deficient lot size, excessive lot coverage by buildings: and deficient setbacks for the front yard, one side yard, and the rear yard under Section 30 . 25, Columns 6, 10, 11 , 12, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the single-family house at 121 Cascadille Street to a two-family dwelling . The property is located in an R-3a (Residential, multiple dwelling) use district, where the proposed use is permitted,: however under Section :30 . 49 and 30 . 57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficien- cies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion . This appeal was originally scheduled for the December meeting, rescheduled to the January meeting when the appellant was not represented, and is rescheduled from the January meeting which was not held due to a lack of a quorum . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is Mr . Tilitz here? Please come forward . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 9 i i Again., for the record, your name and address . MR . TILITZ : My name is John Tilitz, I live at 15 Canaan Road in Brooktondale. I am applying for an area variance - it is zoned for, - the house is zoned for a two-family dwelling but because of the undersized lot it ' s - I need to gain a variance and the rea- son that I feel that the variance should be granted on it -pre- sently it ' s - you can look: at it either of two ways - it is either a four or a six bedroom dwelling . There are bedrooms up on the third floor that were used as a separate apartment at one point and presently could be used in the house if it were a sin- gle family dwelling . What I propose to do is to divide it -upper and lower and have the lower portion of the house be a ane-bed- room apartment , wherein the living room remains a living room the kitchen remains a kitchen and the dining room will get converted 1 into a bedroom. And I think that I have stated in the form that I was to send around to the people within 200 ' that I would have a common entranceway to the front door and block: off the stairs and go upstairs from there and go either left or right into the living and dining room. I have since altered that only slightly in that I intend to block: off the living room and dining room and leave that - the alcove that is the present entranceway as it is, with just a blocked off living room and dining room and I have here a map with the layout of the house which shows clearly - I have first floor- proposed changes ( unintelligible) All I really intend to do is block off the entrance room and dining room., and as I said, leave the alcove to the second floor so that people BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 10 can use that as a boot room, or- a coat room and as you go up- stair-s,, there is a U-shaped stairwell - what I intend to do there - there ar,e four bedrooms on the second floor, what I would like to do is change one of those into a kitchen and one of them into a living room so there would be a two-bedroom apartment upstairs which leaves me with ( unintelligible) The third floor -if possi- tile, I would like to possibly have that converted into part of the second floor apartment . Now I am not locked into that I am interested in having it be a two-family dwelling if its seen by the Board that it is impossible to incorporate the third floor into that., I would be willing to deal with an exception . My rea- sons for- doing this, appropriate to gain this variance are that presently there are four- to six bedrooms, I am proposing three bedrooms., which obviously wouldn' t necessarily lead to more peo- ple living in the house. It would probably lead to less . There is off-street parking, there ar-e two parking spaces available . There is a driveway that is for- the exclusive use of 121 Gasca- dilla Street . MR . BOOTH' The application says there is only one existing off street parking spot . MR . TILITZ ' The application says there is one? I talked with Peter- Uieterich., he told me - there is a driveway that goes all the way to the back of the house, that that would constitute two i - there is a garage in the back of the house, too . MR . BOOTH : I ' m not questioning that, I ' m saying that the application says that there is one off-street parking space . 1 Am BZA MINUTES 2!4/85 PAGE : 11 MR . TILITZ : Who wrote that up - is that in my writing? I didn' t submit anything like that . One per unit maybe? SECRETARY HOARD: There is one now. What he is talking about is there is one in the garage and one in the common driveway . MR . BOOTH: What is there now? MR . TILITZ : It is a paved driveway and a sidewalk . MR . BOOTH : Does that count as one space or two? MR . TILITZ : I was told by Peter that it would be counted as two . MR . TOMLAN: The garage is one and the space in front of the garage is one .' MR . BOOTH: I understand that . Why does this say one instead of two? SECRETARY HOARD: Because now he ' s got one and he is planning to get per-mission from the neighbor to use the shared driveway as the second one . MR. TILITZ : I already have that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you already have permission? MR . TILITZ : Yes I have a signed statement from Helen Fisher who is the neighbor (unintelligible) "This is to indicate that the driveway sitting between 119 Cascadilla and 121 Cascadilla, although lying partially on both properties is for the exclusive use of the residents and owner of 121 Cascadilla . It is, and shall remain a source of off-street parking for 121 Cascadilla, not 119 Cascadilla . " CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you mind submitting that as part of the record? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 12 MR . TILITZ : No, that is fine . This is a photo copy, I have the original . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are there any other questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB : Where does 119 park? MR . TILITZ : They have a driveway on the other side of their house . MR . BOOTH' What kind of houses are near by? Are they one family or two family? Both sides, across the street MR . TILITZ : I believe that the adjacent two houses on the corner of Geneva and Cayuga - I believe that is two family, I ' m not absolutely sure . I know the one right next door is a one family . As far- as what the others are, I don' t really know, the only thing that I do know is that the area is zoned for two family dwellings . (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: As I understand it, there are no exterior changes to the building? MR . TILITZ : That is correct . There is ;just a front entranceway and a rear entrance and the rear entrance will be the main entrance for the downstairs (unintelligible) MS . FARRELL : Are you planning to live in the house? MR. TILITZ : Yes . MR , BOOTH : And your purchase is contingent on getting this variance? MR . TILITZ : That is correct . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other- questions from members of the Board? BZA MINUTES 214/$5 PAGE : 13 Thank: you Mr . Tilitz . Is there anyone else who would like to speak: in favor of this variance? Come forward please . No? Is there anyone out there who would like to speak in opposition? Again, beginning with your name and address . MS . GATZ : My name is Joanna Gatz, I live at 117 Cascadilla Street, one house away . There is 121, 119 and then I ' m on the , other side . The house - all three houses surrounding are single family houses . The corner of Geneva is a single family and there is 121 and there is Helen Fisher ' s house, single family, my house single family . Helen and I , as the adjacent neighbors have a shared alleyway, that is, neither of us have off-street parking . I ' d like to pass a map out that I have prepared, of all of these properties so everyone knows what we are talking about . The houses marked in yellow are all single family and the lot with the star on it is 121 . Neither 117, 119 or 437 Geneva has any off street parking . The people at 437 N. Geneva rent a garage across Geneva Street are elderly people and Helen and I park on the street . The next two properties., 115 and 107 also have a shared drive., but have off street parking and 105 does not . And across the street., 108.. 110 is a multi-family with a three bed- room and a three bedroom on each side, no off street parking at all . And also, as you cart see indicated, the even side of the street is no parking any time, so you see there is a critical parking situation in the neighborhood . Single family resident home owners mostly do not have off street parking, there is no parking at any time on one side and alternate side of the street BZA MINUTES 1/4/85 PAGE : 14 parking in effect at all times . I have several letters from peo- ple in the neighborhood and one signed by every single resident on the one hundred block of Cascadilla Street, expressing our concern., and this is not necessarily a disapproval of Mr . Tilitz' s idea . I think: that, granted, the house does cover the entire lot except for the driveway, which is partially Helen' s drive . It does really, in effect, only have one par-king space because the garage only has doors - like storage doors - it is not a drive in garage, unless Mr- . Tilitz plans to convert it to one , So in essense there is really only one spot in the drive between the garage and the sidewalk . This letter, I also have a copy - I don' t have a whole lot of copies, maybe two - is the letter- signed by everybody on the block: - all the single family home owners . "We the undersigned homeowners and resident occu- pants of the 100 block. of Cascadilla Street, City of Ithaca, would like the Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals to be aware of the following conditions before considering a requested vari- ance for- the property at 111 Cascadilla Street for conversion to two apartments . The parking situation on this block. is of great concern to single family home owners at the present time . " Then I reiterate what the situation is, which you have in front of you : no par-king anytime on one side and alternate at all times . Home- owners at 117 and 119 have no off street parking making it neces- sar-y to park: on the street as close to home as possible . The same is true of 1018-110, a multi-family with no off street park- ing and six residents and 437 N. Geneva Street . So essentially BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 15 ' half the block has no off-street parking , Two, although the var- iance being requested asks for- only a two bedroom apartment on the second floor, the dwelling contains two additional bedrooms and a full bath on the third floor . In the first request nothing was mentioned about those, and that is when this whole letter was written and there a second letter and request was reissued saying the third floor- two bedrooms would be used as storage only and tonight Mr- . Hoard says ( unintelligible) bedrooms, which creates four- bedrooms in the upstairs apartment instead of two and four residents, possibly more,, par-king on the street that has very little off" street parking . What I wrote about, number- 3, is no longer- true because the city has come down on the property at 108-210 C:ascadilla Street which, on one side was zoned for three occupants , had six, but they have been evicted . Okay, in view of the above. existing conditions it is the opinion of the 100 block: homeowners that should a variance be granted for- the creation of a two-bedroom at 121 Gascadilla Street, there should be strict enforcement on the part of the City, of no more than two unrela- ted occupants- in the upstairs unit . And adequate off street par- king be provided for the vehicles belonging to those residents , Should the city see fit to issue a variance on that basis,, and Mr . Tilitz be willing to remain in strict compliance with his original request for a two-bedroom apartment only on the second floor, as resident home owners on the block, we would welcome Mr , Tilitz to the neighborhood . The other two letters were written by individuals,. one is Dottie Krantz who lives on Lake Avenue, BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 16 which - she also received a letter - her - she is within 2010 ' and, although her property is on Lake Avenue, her driveway is on Cascadilla Street - it is a drive through into her garage and this was written by Dottie : "To whom it may concern: Although I reside at 110 Lake Avenue my driveway is on Cascadilla Street . Parking in this area seems to be critical . Often people park in the driveway., blocking access to my garage. This problem makes it necessary for me to find the driver, so that I can get into my driveway . The inconvenience is minor compared to the danger of being caught in this position near a busy intersection, which is the intersection of Lake and Cascadilla and Cayuga . " Then my letter which basically expresses the same concerns but the fact that the house is not deficient in one area but has insufficient front yard., it comes right to the side walk, insufficient back yard, there is no back yard, insufficient side yard., it comes right to the drive way and the house covers the whole area of the lot . I just wanted to say that I realize, as a realtor., also, that this is going to be a very difficult house to sell as a sin- gle family because it is huge and in no way does anybody on the block want to impede the former owners from being able to sell it nor do we want to impede Mr . Tilitz from doing what he asks for as a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom. But if that is what the city grants it should be strictly enforced . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? MR . BOOTH: Is the -what is the situation of the house at 121 now? Is there someone living there? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 17 MS . DATZ : It is vacant . It has been vacant since, I guess the former owners moved out and it was for sale for a couple of months, and not sold as a single family and then Mr . Tiitz made an offer as this . MR . BOOTH: And what is the situation at 115, 107 and 105? MS . DATZ : All single family houses . 115 and 107 - the yellow is just to indicate the houses with no off street parking . 115 and 107 share a drive . . . MR . BOOTH: But they are single family houses? MS . DATZ : Yes . The only two multi-family are 108, 110 and the last one which is kind of a rooming house . MR . BOOTH: What is that - what does it say on this map neat to the rooming house? MS . DATZ : Multi-family building - house - multi-family boarding house . MR . BOOTH : Okay, I got it . MS , DATZ : Five residents but he has a parking lot beside this house . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How long has the property beer► on the market, do you have any idea? MS . DATZ : We' ve been waiting for the variance for three months - but I think: before that, a few months - maybe three months - I don' t know, what would you say? Probably a total of six months since it went on the market . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions? Thank you Joanne . Is there anyone else who would like to be heard in opposition? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 18 SECRETARY HOARD: I have a letter . This is to the Board of Zon- ing Appeals . It is from the owner of 116 Lake Avenue., Lee Naegely . "As the owner of an owner occupied single family resi- dence within 200 ' limit., I object to the conversion► of this house to a two unit house for the following reasons : 1 ) This building has many existing zoning violations ( lot size, setbacks and lot coverage) . 2) The creation of two units with more than one tenant each will quite probably add to the neighborhood parking problem as each tenant is likely to have her/his own car , Park- ing is already in short supply and large demand in the surround- ing area. 3) In the area there is a gradual movement toward owner-occupied homes and this house could be used as an owner occupied single family home without a variance and without creat- ing parking congestion and without practical difficulty . The creation of another, ' student housing ' building is not desireable nor necessary . 4) Although not a criterion for the requested variance , no hardship is placed upon Mr . Tilitz by the denial of this variance as he is n►ot the current owner of the property . My understanding is that his purchase offer is contingent upon the approval of this variance . " CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Mr . Tilitz, would you like to come forward again► and say what you might, against the opposition? And likewise, those on the other side of the question . . . MR . TILITZ : The only point that I would like to make is the fact that it was just stated that I really don' t have two off street parking spaces - where, in fact, the reason that that was indica- BZA MINUTES 2/4/65 PAGE : 19 ted was that one would need to be in the garage . Three cars can fit in front of the garage in the driveway . I realize that two is the limit in terms of parking rose to rose but I just would like to say that three cars can fit in the driveway so two cars easily not a problem to park: in front of the garage . That is the only point that I wanted to make . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Any other last rebuttals to the rebuttal? MS . DATZ : I ' m Joanna Datz . It seemed like the people who lived there before had two vehicles and one was usually parked on the street and one in the space . And also, if the primary owner is parking his car there and the other people are tenants, is he going to back: out every time - it is single width - is he going to really back: out every time his tenants want to get in and out or visa versa? CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Thank you . I think at this point the Board will begin its deliberation . BZA MINUTES 2/4/65 PAGE : 20 DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO . 1594 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we have a motion or some thoughts? MS . FARRELL : Some thoughts . I understand that the residents are very concerned about parking . However., if the parking for this property with this proposed conversion meets the requirements of the Ordinance., I think it seems unfair to discriminate against this conversion because of parking concerns . If those other two rooms were used as bedrooms, that would require another parking space wouldn' t it - because then there would be four bedrooms there? SECRETARY HOARD: Four bedrooms would require another one, yes . MS . FARRELL : So there is no way on their property that there is three parking spaces, so I would assume that he would . . . MR . TILITZ ' That ' s not true. There is space for, another parking space on the other side of the house. There is nine feet between the house and the property at the other side . . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Mr . Tilitz, that ,just won' t be recorded in any way , shape or form and at this point we have to proceed, however blindly we may, on exactly the evidence that has been presented . If you don' t mind, thank you . MS . FARRELL : So with this evidence that ' s presented before us, there is room for two cars maximum in this parking plan, which would seem to indicate that two bedrooms plus the one bedroom in the other apartment . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Richard, any thoughts? MR . BOOTH: Tom, request was made that if we grant a variance BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 21 that we limit it to no more than two unrelated occupants in the upstairs unit . That kind of a request makes me very uneasy, has the City ever done that kind of SECRETARY HOARD: The Board has granted variances like that - it ' s tough to enforce them . MR . BOOTH: But the Board has done that? SECRETARY HOARD: Peeking in windows at night . . . . MR . BOOTH: Is that the way that you get overtime? What about limiting it to just two bedrooms in the upstairs apartment? That would seem to be a much more common. . . . SECRETARY HOARD: That could be done . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Essentially it would be done on a yearly basis? Or what would be the mechanism? How would you enforce it? SECRETARY HOARD: Well if it were done on the number of bedrooms we wouldn' t be back: for three years . If it was done on the number of people., I suppose we would have to check the annual leases . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN. Any questions from Stewart or Helen? It all seems Greek, I ' m sure . Somebody want to propose a motion at this point? BZA MINUTES 1/4/85 PAGE : 22 DECISION ON APPEAL NO . 1594 - 121 CASCADILLA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of John Tilitz for an area variance to permit conversion of the single-family i house at 111 Cascadilla Street to a two-family dwelling , Two motions were presented for consideration but neither motion gained the required number of affirmative votes to carry . The motions were as follows : MR . BOOTH: I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the area variance requested in appeal number 1504 . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) This is a house which, as it is located on the lot, has virtually no roof around it so the lot is already in a very crowded condition . 2) While technically it appears that the proposal involves two parking spaces, there is evidence to suggest that the creation of a second apartment in this house would exacerbate an already serious parking problem in this neighborhood . 3) While realizing the property has been on the market for some months., there has been no showing that the property cannot be used as a single family dwelling . VOTE : 2 YES; 3 NO; 1 ABSENT DENIED FOR LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES #1594B MS . FARRELL : I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1594 conditioned upon BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 23 there being two bedrooms only in the second floor apartment . MS . JOHNSON: I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) There are practical difficulties in meeting the present deficiencies which could only be solved by moving the house . 2) The proposed use is allowed within the zone . 3) Provisions have been made for parking . 4) The proposed changes do not exacerbate any of the present deficiencies . VOTE : 3 YES.; 2 NO; 1 ABSENT DENIED FOR LACK. OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 24 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 1-1-85 - 609 WENT CLINTON STREET (CLINTON WEST SHOPPING PLAZA) Appeal of Clinton West Limited for a sign variance under Section 34. 6, Paragraph A (maximum sire of signs permitted in a B-2a use district ) , and Sec- tion 34 . 6, Paragraph D (maximum number of signs permitted for a shopping center in a B-2a use dis- trict), to permit the addition of two additional free standing signs of a directional/ informational nature to the Clinton West Shopping Playa at 607 West Clinton Street . The new signs would bring the total for the property to three freestanding signs (some existing signage would be removed) , and the new signs would be greater than fifty (50 square feet ) square feet in area. The property is located in a B-2a (business) use district in which only one freestanding sign of no more than fifty (50 square feet) square feet is permitted . This appeal was rescheduled from the January meeting which was not held due to a lack of a quorum. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening . Again, beginning with your name and position and address . MR . INGERSOLL : My name is Bart Ingersoll, I am the Vice Presi- dent and Manager of Clinton West Ltd, I am here to present our proposal for signage for the Plaza. First may I say that we have a truly hard problem at Clinton West in that we have a terrific identity problem. 1 could say "Clinton West" to a person on the street., they would say "where is that" and if I said the Coop, they would know exactly where 1 was talking about . Just to show the type of undue hardship that our 'tenants are going through, in our Christmas promotion campaign when we tried to show Clinton West and tried to create a (unintelligible) I think we had to include formally the Coop Shopping Plaza . In our radio spots they had to say formally the Coop Shopping Center, and you can BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 25 say it is in quite a few different news media and from different one of our' tenants that they have to pay to tell who we are and where we are located and I ' d like to pass these around as this shows some of the undue hardship that our tenants are going through. These are (unintelligible) I ' d like to give you more exhibits as I go and I ' ll be walking., so I ' ll tr-y to speak loudly so everyone can hear me . Clinton West is a very magnanimous part of the City of this particular block . Many of our- tenants are located on the inside of our main building and if I can pass ex- hibit B around, which shows an interior drawing of the majority of our tenants ar-e located on the inside of the building so this is the Hill Beauty Shop ( unintelligible) Electronics and if I mention any that you haven' t heard of, please mention it (unin- telligible) Printers Gallery, Penny Saver . On the back side of this building, not facing Clinton Street we have Little Crit- ters, the Army Recruiters and these people do not have the expo- sure to get business to them which in essense would be a benefit for the City in the fact that it would increase the (unintelligi- ble) also . So this is creating an undue hardship not only for us but for the City also . The present signage we have is located at our- central doorways where our business would be, which is loca- ted approximately right where my finger is here and the main en- tranceway which is approximately right here, which has no visi- bility from the Clinton Street or Meadow or Route 13 and the signage for the people in the back., the Wash ' n Dry, Sturm Brothers and the ones I previously mentioned on the back of the BZA MINUTES 2/4185 PAGE : 26 building are located right by their• store entrances right here, which has absolutely no visibility to any of the traffic flow that goes past this shopping center . We ask that we be treated the same as our neighbors . On the east side the zoning restricts us from the type of signage we propose, on the left side, they do not . This is an old photograph of the area. At present we have Maguire Ford here and at present at this location right here, which is West Clinton Street, they have this current sign which is erected which is the exact same sign that we propose and you can see it as you drive by on listing the businesses that are located on West Clinton Street . The visibility as you come from the south or from the north on Route 13 to the Clinton West Shop- ping Plaza is non-existent . I think you can also see a lot of shrubbery that has beer► grown around the inlet there which really should be cleared out also . This might help show up some of our signage, if we could improve this shrubbery growth that is in here. And this is the last picture that is being passed, is the only sign that is in existence and it has nothing to do with any of our individual businesses that are within the Clinton West Plaza. And again, this is across the street basically, and it carries the same name as West Clinton -as our Plaza . We propose two signs, sign number, one is exactly the same as I have in the pictures, it is located approximately at this location - at this time we propose to put one here, if it is approved - this sign which is tall and it will have a list of the businesses on it and on the back side a directional indicator to explain where the BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 27 business is located within this complex . MS . FARRELL : And how .big is that sign? MR . INGERSOLL , It is six foot eight inches tall and six foot wide and I have handouts and exhibits to give you. The sign was proposed to be constructed by Ithaca Plastics which has done the sign at this location . We did nothing more than copy their blue print . Proposal number two in the second location would be located at the entrance on the most east portion of our property which is located right here and that is a short sign but wider . ( discussion took: place here between Mr . Ingersoll and Ms . Farrell which wasn' t picked up by the tape recorder) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It might help everyone if you did that on the larger map as well . MR . INGERSOLL : You' ve got to remember that this property encompasses all the way from 601 , which is down here up to I think; it is 630 - this building is 625, so I think 630 or something . This used to be alleyways and driveways, in fact this one is still a drive through here . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you be so good as to point those out on the map on the lower right in such a way - that is more diagramatical . . . MR . INGERSOLL : I will even do better than that, I will give you one . The proposed sites are located on this map and there you will be able to see the proposals . MS . FARRELL : This is the kind of sign that you want? MR. INGERSOLL ., Yes, this one here . 8ZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 28 MS . FARRELL : Ar►d how big is this second sign? MR . INGERSOLL : The second sign is eleven nine by nine foot six . These would be (unintelligible) this would be better for that . MS . FARRELL : Okay . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is it our understanding then that the proposed sign location of number one replaces the sign which is already there or this an addition? MR . INGERSOLL : An addition to the Clinton West Logo sign . MS . FARRELL : Where would the placement be compared to that one? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It doesn' t seem to be indicated here. MR . INGERSOLL : The placement, the logo sign is where the block is, right here . MS . FARRELL : Okay, so this is the current sign? MR. INGERSOLL ' That is the current sign . The other one would take place right here in front of the . . . . MS . FARRELL : Okay, got it . MR . INGERSOLL : It would identify the Plaza, it would register all our tenants, and it would give directional information for the location of where our tenants are located within the Plaza . Another aspect of this is safety . I have been sort of an expert at this area for the past several years, being traffic enforce- went, etc . at the University - I ' ve noticed how they have handled the problem up there by placement of their signs, keeping people off the roadway and into the parking area where they will be able to look at the sign, be able to find where they want to go, it helps stops the confusion, the horn honking and the minor fender BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 29 benders . Get the people off of West Clinton Street., in here, to be able to both identify where they want to go instead of driving around the building and being thoroughly confused . It does help for safety reasons . And I think it will also serve our tenants in order to get the customer- to the tenant . It allows us to - these are unique conditions that are not self made - these are things that have happened in doing this - restrictions impose a hardship on both the tenant and the public whom we serve . To help increase this undue hardship for us, we ask that these vari- ances and signs be placed . I think you' ll see that we don ' t want to put the signs right out on the curb, I think you' ll see that we want to locate them at least thirty feet or forty foot back into our parking spot and still be visible from Clinton Street traffic . We want to place them well onto our property . MS . FARRELL : How far is this sign from your side border? MR . INGERSOLL : There used to be a house at one time and that was the driveway to it , The sign would be - is there a car parked there? - it would be approximately right where that car is . MS . FARRELL : So you are forty feet from the street or from your side lot line? MR . INGERSOLL : It would be forty feet from the street and I have no idea - I would have to approximate it and say approximate what, say forty feet from the line . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But you own that lot? MR. INGERSOLL : Oh, yes . Where you see this outline in black is our property line . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 30 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions from members of the Board? MR, BOOTH: Well I have a comment . My comment is to suggest that this application be withdrawn and resubmitted in a form that we can study ahead of time. I think we have had a long and somewhat complicated proposal, I think the materials we were given ahead of time were virtually worthless in terms of understanding what the proposal is and I don' t think we should make a complicated sign decision on the basis of hearing it orally presented and then immediately making a decision . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Any other thoughts? MS . JOHNSON: I don' t know if this is out of order or not but it would be really helpful if we had some kind of a model so that we can visualize the size of the sign in relation to the buildings? Sixteen feet seems pretty tall but you don' t know how tall in relation to what ' s there . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Models in the past and I can' t remember one ever actually being presented but we have had, as Richard is suggesting, more preparation with this sort of ( unintelligible) before . Stewart? MR . SCHWAB : I have no reaction . I think I could study it now as well as later, my one question, does your current sign meet the sign code? MR . INGERSOLL : Yes it does . MR . FARRELL : And how big is that sign? SECRETARY HOARD: It ' s under fifty square feet . MR . INGERSOLL ' Under fifty square feet . I ' ve never measured it BZA MINUTES 2/4/$5 PAGE : 31 to be honest with you . MR . BOOTH: Well my problem is, I ' d like to go out and look at this - I go out and look: at all the properties ahead of time and what you gave us was virtually useless for having any understand- ing of what you were proposing . You gave us three pages with virtually no information in it and so to be prepared ahead of time, in my opinion, was very difficult . To visualise what these signs are going to look: like and where they are, I think it is important., at least for me, to go there . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: I want to follow that up in a little different vein, if I might . I noticed that the existing sign you have could in essense be better utilized or it could be redesigned, that was my first question, have you thought about its redesign in con- junction with other sorts of signage within the complex itself is a keen item of some sort and secondly, if you would address the question of why two more signs are necessary as opposed to, for example, one more sign . There is a level there, I guess, as well which I would like to know a little bit more about . MR . INGERSOLL : We did not investigate our current sign because we could not do what we are proposing, one is list all our tenants and secondly, give directional information of this com- plex to - how to get there once you drove in . The reason for two signs is that our complex, as you can see, is so big that you have actually three main entrances off of this street, which is West Buffalo Street and we are trying to hit both ends, which end you come in to . That is why we are trying for two signs, mainly BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 32 for directional and information to know that you are in the right location at the right time . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there any particular reason for the juxtoposition of the present - that is, the existing sign of the proposed sign location, number one? I mean, is there a reason for• that juxtoposition, it seems to me one would, in fact, block the other . I am just trying to help you a little bit . MR . INGERSOLL : This sign that still sits there is down quite low and quite honestly, I think: that we would like to do away with it . That is what we mean about doing away with signage. MS . FARRELL : This looks like that is incorporated into this one, I ' m not sure . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s what I am getting at, are we really dealing with one sign., two signs or three signs? MR . INGERSOLL : We would like two signs here, okay? One here and one here . And we' d like to do away with that one, but we don' t really want to give it up until we get the other signs in place . Okay? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see . MR . INGERSOLL : A bird in the bush is better than nothing in your hands . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand . Further comments? MS . FARRELL : Are we going to go through and decide this? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I ' ll entertain a motion either way . MS . FARRELL : I just want to say I would have a problem with BZA MINUTES 1/4/85 PAGE : 33 increasing the signage so much in this location because there is residential areas all around . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Okay . Let ' s go on and see if there is anyone else who wants to speak and we' ll go from there. Thank: you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this variance being granted? This is the time for plus people . All right, come forward . MR . ROMANUWSKI : My name is Bob Romanowski, very short, very brief . I am one of the alderman in the first ward . I ' d like to speak: in favor of different signage for this particular complex . I did not find any neighborhood opposition to the signage, no one spoke and said that they would not want that . Mr . Ingersoll ad- dressed the two things that I was mostly concerned with - first the safety aspect . A directory type sign is always safer when you have a complex like this and the second was the name recogni- tion. I still have people ask me where Clinton West is and I tell them it ' s the old Co-op building . I ' m concerned about the viability of business in the west end, we need all the tax dol- lars we can get . I would., myself, ask: the Board to bear with Mr . Ingersoll and Mr . Groff and I ' m sure there can be some sort of mechanism worked out where they can get the type of signage they need . Just directly across they do have the type of directory they are looking for . This is what they need there and I do think: it is a lot safer . I ' m sure both of these gentlemen are willing to work within any constraints the Board might come up with and the Building Commissioner himself . I beg your indul- BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 34 gence and as I say., I found no neighborhood opposition and I ' m very much in favor of what these gentlemen are trying to do . MS . FARRELL : Did you go around and ask the neighbors? MR. ROMANOWSKI : Yes, I did. As a matter of fact, I will probably speak on two more tonight also because I took it on myself to check and make sure the neighbors weren' t in opposition to it . MR . BOOTH: Has the City Council considered amending the Sign Ordinance to deal with this kinds of issues? MR . ROMANOWSKI : I have absolutely no idea . We' ve got so much other stuff., I haven' t even worried about the Sign Ordinance . We , just got through with bricks . SECRETARY HOARD: Mr . Booth, you probably saw in the paper a few weeks ago the Mayor dedicated a sign similar to this for the Cherry Street Industrial Park . MR . BOOTH: Does that comply with the Sign Ordinance? SECRETARY HOARD : No sir . MR . BOOTH: A good example of double standard, I might add . SECRETARY HOARD: Well I pointed that out on that occasion and a few other occasions because there is a move toward signs of this type and here we have a project that has three sides essentially and the people over here are only entitled to signs facing that way and if you are coming down Clinton Street you' d never know they were there unless you went in and drove around . . . MR . BOOTH: Well reading subdivision D of Section 34 . 6, I guess, I take it this is classified as a shopping center? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 35 SECRETARY HOARD: Yes . MR, BOOTH: In the case of shopping centers and other multi-use facilities, one freestanding sign should be allowed in development as• a whole, it is not an illegal use . SECRETARY HOARD: But in the B5 zone they allow you to have this sort of thing . Why is there a difference? MS . FARRELL ' Now the zoning map has been drawn . . . SECRETARY HOARD: That ' s beer► drawn a little bit at a time . MR . ROMANOWSKI : This is pretty complex here and I think that there is a lot of little nuances to it and I don' t suppose to speak for the owner and manager here. But I did look around that area and they have exposure on a couple of sides that they are trying to get visibility for their tenants and I really don' t know how to do it except to get a couple of signs and you are absolutely correct, the original one there, if they do have any sort of directory type signs, I ' d think that they should do away with the third but that would be - I ' m sure that this is going to take a bit more thought but I am in favor of the visibility -even if its just for the safety aspect of it . People are coming down through there now and I ' ve watched them gawking around, trying to look to see where they are trying to find some place and that ' s always an accident waiting to happen . A sign out that shows the directory of who is there is easy to see and easy to pull in and then your- minor directions are easy to get at after that . Thank you for your time . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 36 favor of the granting of the variance? Is there anyone out there opposed? No one opposed? Should we have some discussion? BZA MINUTES 2/4/$5 PAGE : 37 DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO . 1-1-85 GGO W. CLINTON STREET MR . SCHWAB : What about your point, Dick, not deciding it now? MR . BOOTH: Well, I ' ve found it - particularly with sign ques- tions it is important to go and look at what you are dealing with and I ' m not one who likes to live closely to what the rules are but the application tonight seems to me to be substantially dif- ferent than the papers that we were given to look at . There is quite a bit more information so I would certainly prefer deferr- ing this, having it withdrawn and come back , Secondly, I think even when it comes back there is a - this isn' t just d variance that ' s being asked for, this is a variance of a very major pro- portion from what the sign requirements are . I haven' t figured out closely., but as I understood what was said - there are two freestanding signs, each around one hundred square feet in size . Requirements are one freestanding sign of fifty square feet in size . That ' s a four hundred percent variance that we are being asked to consider . Thirdly, I realize that they have visibility problems from a couple of different directions but that ' s both, I guess,, an advantage and a disadvantage . If a shopping center of this kind were on a single road and had businesses in the back, they obviously would have single kinds of visibility problems . This just happens to have roads on several sides . So I am bothered by those things as well . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other comments? Do I hear a motion? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 38 APPEAL NO. 1-1-85 609 WEST CLINTON STREET MR, BOOTH: I move that the application for variance 1-1-85 be rejected on the basis of insufficient information provided in the written application to the Board. And the applicant be advised that the Board will be happy to reconsider the application at a future date when a full application can be submitted . CHAIRMAN TGMLAN: Could the Chair make a friendly kind of suggestion, Richard? It might be better all the way around in that we get into the questions of difference between the first application and the second application . If we deferred action rather than reject it . MR . BOOTH: What difference does that make? CHAIRMAN TGMLAN: Generally speaking there has to be a substantial difference from the first - the decision before us becomes the question as to whether in fact it is different from the previous application if we reject it straight out of hand . If we defer action . . . MR . BOOTH: I would offer asking the applicant if he would consider withdrawing the application at this point? CHAIRMAN TGMLAN: Well that ' s certainly an option . MR . BOOTH: Asking us to consider it again at a future time . CHAIRMAN TGMLAN: What is the applicant ' s feeling about that, if you would come up and perhaps - seeing as how this is going to take a little negotiation, at least at this point . It seems as though we feel, as a group, that a better packaged proposal on things which in affect would define the placement, the size, the 8ZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 39 general relationship, perhaps, to the complex, could be better spelled out . Although those things might be better spelled out at a later or subsequent hearing . We are perfectly willing to let you refine but at the same time be aware of the fact that we have some serious questions that in no way really says yes but merely the fact that we would like to see more of the case devel- oped . Does that seem reasonable? MR . INGERSOLL ! Okay, let me see if I understand what you are saying . What you would like is the sizes, the placement and the location, in a better proposed package, different from the package that I proposed tonight . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right . We really didn' t have, as has been pointed out., a significant amount of information prior to going into this and I think we were all somewhat short changed in that -to that degree. I ' ll give you one suggestion, as has happened in the past . We have had overlays, for example, of photographs, just a simple tracing paper overlays, just to give us some sense as to how the sign looks in juxtoposition to the things around it and more particularly its size, its relative size. I think that was one of the major questions . MS . FARRELL : Well even, to me just having these new pieces of information and being able to go to the site and stand there and look, and say, okay this is how far we are talking about and this how big we are talking about is very helpful . You know, so, I mean., certainly these pieces of information are very useful . MR. BOOTH: Yes, 1 think these are very useful and I think the BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 40 only other thing I can think of immediately is your proposal for the existing signs which I would like to have specified . I un- der-stand you plan to take down► some of them but not all of them. Summarizing what you' ve said. I think these are fine, had I had these, I would have beer► able to figure out what you wanted and I think I would have been able to wrestle with it sufficiently to come to a determination tonight . But I think you need to give the Board a chance to go and look at what you are proposing with this added information . MR . INGERSOLL : Would it be, in fact, better to defer it until next month? MR . BOOTH: That is what we ar-e proposing . I made a motion to reject and the Chairman, in all of his wisdom, suggested a deference might be better . MR. INGERSOLL : I ' ll go for a deferring for later consideration, but I will not go for a withdrawal, which I thought was stated . Is that what - is there a difference between a deference and a withdrawal? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There is . MR . INGERSOLL : The motion was a withdrawal . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are quite right . Richard you made . . MR . BOOTH: I made the motion to reject it on the grounds that its . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there a second? MR . BOOTH: I ' m certainly willing to defer it if he is willing and I will withdraw my motion . i BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 41 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, then we need another motion to defer action . MR . BOOTH: I move that we defer action on this until the applicant can submit a full application and we will then consider it at the next meeting . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN. Do I have a second? MS . FARRELL : Second . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is that agreeable? MR . INGERSOLL : It is agreeable to me . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay . All in favor, we might have a written ballot? I think: it would be preferable . MR . SCHWAB : A yes vote is to defer? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s right . SECRETARY HOARD : We have 5 YES VOTES to defer . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We will see you next month . The next case? BZA MINUTES 2/4/$5 PAGE : 42 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is, we are taking this one out of order, is 1603 - 701 SPENCER ROAD Appeal of Evaporated Metal Films Corporation for a use variance under Section 30 . 25, Column 2 to permit the extension of an existing use variance, and an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard, one side yard, and the rear yard under Section 30 . 25, Columns 11, 13, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the expansion of the building at 701 Spencer Road (Evaporated Metal Films Corporation) . The property is located in a B-5 (business) use dis- trict in which the existing and proposed use for light industrial are not permitted; therefore the appellant must obtain an extension of the existing use variance and an area variance for the setback deficiencies before a building per- mit can be issued for the proposed expansion . SECRETARY HOARD: Mr . Shay will you come forward? MR . SHAY ; Good evening . I ' m Michael Shay of Evaporated Metal Films and we are at 701 Spencer Road . Is there anyone who has not been near that location behind Zikakis Chevrolet? Let me show you a plot plan, in just a moment . 701 Spencer Road is lo- cated at the city line where - deadend at this portion right here . Spencer Road comes down and then along Zikakis Chevrolet by this side door, down to the stop light, right here . So that the traffic: flow pattern is this way . This portion of the road services our loading dock in the rear and also the shipping and receiving for the state park, Buttermilk, which is located behind US . When the building was originally built the front yard re- quirement - there was a variance for that in this portion of the building of which we have - we need a variance every time some- thing happens to our building . And if you noticed, we have been BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 43 here a couple of times before . This time we would like to put an addition on the rear of the building and on the side of the buil- ding . Not any particular problem with the addition on the side of the building but at the rear of the building, this back corner Simultaneously exceeds the side yard and rear yard requirements . And I would point out that we have an irregular shaped lot - this being on the deadend portion, it ' s back from view and also faces our parking lot along the back . And the construction of the building would maintain its character of the existing building and we would propose to fit in just like we do at the moment . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Mr . Shay, you have been here before, I can remember you on at least one other occasion . I guess, my question to you would be you continue to come back: for more additions, where is it all going to .top? Where is it leading? MR . SHAY : Well, I would say that we have been one of those for- tunate industries that seems to be in a position where people continue to need our services and needing them in larger quanti- ties and more sophisticated than they have been in the past and we are manufacturers of optical coatings that are used in simple things like copy machines to complex things like weather- satel- lites, sophisticated telescopes, camera systems, optical equip- ment of that sort and we are in a position where we are maintain- ing the state of the art for those kinds of things and as a re- cult we have been a steady growth to the Ithaca - to ourselves for all of these twenty years that I have been associated with the company . Recently we made a decision that we like Ithaca, we BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 44 want to stay here and to continue to service our Companies - the people that we sell to - that we need a little bit more room. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The plans are fairly explicit insofar as the arrangement of the interior, very nicely so . I was wondering if the additions do have to be in the location that they are proposed by virtue of the internal arrangements of the structure and the kind of functions that go on inside? MR . SHAY : That is correct . MR . BOOTH: What percentage increase is this over your existing plant? MR . SHAY : It increases the area of our lot coverage from MR . BOOTH: We have that figure but what is the . . MR . SHAY : It is an additional six thousand square feet . What we have now, about twelve thousand square feet . MR . BOOTH: It ' s about a fifty percent addition to your existing building? MR . SHAY : I think: that is correct . I would also point out that we have been conscious of our fitting into the rules and require- ments of the area and since we have been here the last time you will notice that we have an additional sizeable piece of property on the back of our existing property that we did not have before that we have purchased the railroad right-of-way from Conrail in order that we might be a good neighbor, and due to our unusual lot requirement we do have a problem with one corner, that is, it does simultaneously exceed both side and rear yard . MR . SCHWAB ! Is your neighbor Buttermilk Falls? BZA ,MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 45 MR. SHAY : Yes . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How much traffic:, I was noting today there was a truck going back and forth between Buttermilk and down that street., how much traffic is there really? MR . SHAY : Due to us or due to Buttermilk? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Buttermilk . MR. SHAY : Buttermilk doesn' t get very much traffic this time of year . Normally their- traffic is in the spring and summer when they are getting supplies for operation of their park. . If there was a tractor trailer, it was likely one coming to our loading dock . Our loading dock is this platform right back here . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions? MS . FARRELL : I ' m a little confused about the property negotiations, that ' s that corner? MR . SHAY : Yes . MS . FARRELL : Okay, now you currently lose this little corner? MR . SHAY : Our current line goes like this and we are now negotiating to swap this triangle for this triangle . MS . FARRELL : I see, okay . ( unintelligible) come closer to the . . MR . SHAY : If that were to take place, then, outside of our original requirement we would meet it all . MS . FARRELL : Okay . How long has this been under negotiation, are you hopeful, are you . . . . MR . SHAY : The worst case is that New York State will give us an easement for this corner, of the building . MS . FARRELL : That has already been assured? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE , 46 MR . SHAY ' Yes . The people at the New York State Park Commission tell us that ' s for sure they will do that . Whether they will swap this piece of land for that is a political decision and we would be hopeful but I don' t know. We started this Conrail purchase in 1981 and you' ll notice 1985 and hopefully that deed is coming this week., so it takes a long time to work on these things . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Any other questions? SECRETARY HOARD : Mr . Chairman, you mentioned how many times they have been back . I would point out that one time they were back because of a fire which damaged some equipment and they had to replace a vertical dohicky with a horizontal one . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Right . Any other questions from members of the Board? Thank: you Mr . Shay . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor, of the granting of this variance? Anyone out there who would be opposed, who would like to speak in opposition? All right, a motion? BZA MINUTES 2/4!85 PAGE : 47 DELIBERATIONS - APPEAL NO . 1603 - 701 SPENCER ROAD MR. BOOTH: Well the difficulty with the proposal is the use variance part of it, as I see it, and I would ask the Building Commissioner what has been done in the past? Have you been routinely granting use variances to expand this building? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It ' s an area variance . MR . BOOTH: It ' s an area variance and a use variance. SECRETARY HOARD : Yes, both . I guess to answer the hardship question would be what do you do, pick up and move if they are not allowed to expand. It is sort of a borderline use., it is not really industry in the sense that you think of industry, it is not a smoke stack industry, it ' s in the second most liberally, if you want to call it,, use zone to the industrial zone, B5 allows more uses and then there is another jump to the industrial zone, so it is not as though it is a type of industrial use where you are concerned about distance separations and that kind of thing . MR . BOOTH : But it is an industrial use under the zoning ordinance? SECRETARY HOARD: Well there is also a thing in there called light hand fabrication . Working with lenses and things I don't - they aren' t an industry in the sense that they are cranking out the same thing over- and over and over- again, as I understand it . You order certain kinds of lenses coated and things like that, you send the material to them and they coat it, process it . MR . BOOTH: Is that like a printing shop? Printing is allowed in BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 48 B5, as are similar shops . SECRETARY HOARD: Print the material (untelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tracy you had a question earlier about the land swap, do you wart to, perhaps, expand on that a little? MS . FARRELL : The way I understood it, if the two triangles that ( unintelligible) were swapped, then I think that this would be the required distance from the property and the only other deficiency would be the front deficiency which is a current deficiency . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you are not going to move the building . Right so the area variance requirements could be relatively well met within the proposed plans to acquire the additional property or to gain access to it - that ' s the use variance question which is beginning to be dickered with. Stewart? MR , SCHWAB : It strikes- me that this is exactly the type of thing ( unintelligible) Ithaca, its been here for twenty years, I almost find it, being a neophite on this Board, inconceivable that we would now worry about the use at its present location - it is not changing the use, potentially driving business out of Ithaca. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Helen any thoughts? MS . JOHNSON; I tend to agree with that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have any other worries? MS . JOHNSON: Not really . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We are coming closer to a motion Tracy, I think . MS . FARRELL : Yes we are . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 49 APPEAL NO . 1603 - 701 SPENCER ROAD DECISION The Board considered the appeal of Evaporated Metal Films Corporation for a use variance and an area variance to permit the expansion of the building at 701 Spencer Road . The decision of the Board was as follows : MS . FARRELL ' I move that the Board grant the use and area variances requested in appeal number 1603 . MS . SCHWAB : I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The owners appear to have a hardship in meeting the require- ments of the variance because their Company' s expansion would require relocation if it isn' t granted . 2) There was no neighborhood opposition to the current use of this property and the granting of an additional use or area variance . 3) The owners are attempting to resolve one of their area deficiencies . VOTE : 4 YES, 1 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 50 SECRETARY HOARE), APPEAL NO . 1598 327-329 SOUTH CAYUGA STREET Appeal of John Augustine , Jr . for a Special Permit under Section 30 . 26C-4 and Section 30 . 25 of the Zoning Ordinance, and an area variance for deficient lot size and deficient setbacks for the front and rear yards under Section 30 . 25, Columns 6, 11, and 14 of the Ordinance, to permit the construction of a selfservice laundry and one dwelling unit at 327-329 South Cayuga Street . The property is located in an R-3b (Residential, multiple dwelling) use district in which the selfser- vice laundry use requires a special permit as a neighborhood commercial facility . There- fore the appellant must obtain a special per- mit for the laundry, and an area variance for the lot size and setback deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the pro- posed project . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is Mr . Augustine here? MR . AUGUSTINE : I am John Augustine., owner of the property at 327-329 S . Cayuga Street and I propose to put a two story build- ing which on the first floor will house a Laundromat and the se- cond floor will have an apartment . If you look at the map, there is an angular wall, thick: wall, and it requires a twenty foot setback., a ten foot setback from the front - with those two fi- gures in mind I have rendered the lot almost a useless lot . Now if I can get a variance to reduce that to seventeen foot, six, for four foot of the building, which would be on the southeast 1 corner of the building, a four foot setback in the front., I could put a building up that would house the laundromat and the apart- ment . Also the four foot setback in front, I would keep in line with the neighboring buildings - it would conform with the sur- rounding - buildings adjacent to it . The building would be con- BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 51 structed to look and blend in with both the building on the right and left of it . MR . BOOTH: What does the laundromat have in terms of what it vents to the outside, it vents hot air? MR . AUGUSTINE : Yes . MR . BOOTH: The water all goes into the City sewage system? MR . AUGUSTINE : Yes . MR . BOOTH: Any other venting? MR . AUGUSTINE : All the dryers are to be vented . MR . BOOTH: All the dryers vented, individually or through one? MR . AUGUSTINE : Through one stack . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The fifteen feet immediately to the north of the proposed building would be used - one assumes - for access to parking? MR . AUGUSTINE : Parking in the rear . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there any agreement between yourself and the adjacent owner to the north about the use and access of land? MR . AUGUSTINE : Well I own the property to the north of that . And the fifteen foot is the property line . And the building next to it would be two foot, six, beyond that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see . Well my thought was, of course, that laundromats are notorious for having people park in any driveway, anywhere near close., but I suppose in that you are - it is your driveway, you would look at it a little more closely than most . MR . AUGUSTINE : Well the back:, the whole back of this area has been designated a parking lot . Have you beer► to this location? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 52 The parking for the Laundromat would be angular into that wall and the parking for the apartment house next door would be to the north of that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Go you feel as though putting the parking angular to the wall would still allow sufficient access to the rear parking area? MR. AUGUSTINE : Yes . You go into the back you will notice that the way the curbing is arranged - it is arranged at an angle . That ' s why we put it at an angle., in anticipation of this . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see . Any other questions from members of the Board? MS . JOHNSON: What ' s on the south side? MR. AUGUSTINE : Where the five foot . . . MS . JOHNSON: Next door, the other side . MR . AUGUSTINE : There is a house . MS . ,JOHNSON: And the five feet is - that is to that property line next door? MR . AUGUSTINE : Yes . MS . JOHNSON: This is going to be a two story structure? MR . AUGUSTINE : A two-story building . MS . JOHNSON: And with an apartment on the top? MR . AUGUSTINE : That is correct . MR . BOOTH: Following my line of thinking on the south side, the property owner on the south side is now using, perhaps, some of that lawn for parking? I was noticing a car or two in your• - on the site - today - it appeared to be connected to your properties BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 53 to the north. MR . AUGUSTINE : Well the - sometimes people pick up their dogs and they park in there . There is clip joint nest door . Once in awhile somebody pulls in there (unintelligible) I might add, she is the owner of that property, Sharon Peters at 331 S . Cayuga, her name was first on the list . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. Any other questions? SECRETARY HOARD: John, could you clarify what you mean by clip joint? Just for the record . MR . AUGUSTINE : Dogs, clip the dogs . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, if there are no other questions, lets move along . Thank you Mr . Augustine . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the granting of this variance? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Discussion from the Board, or- a motion? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 54 DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO . 1598 MS . JOHNSON: There are only two parking spaces required for a laundry - off street? SECRETARY HOARD : Yes . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I would note that the appellant said one or two apartments, it now becomes one apartment according to his statement . I was noting the difference between the verbage of the application . MR . BOOTH: Tom, two questions . The minutes of the Planning and Development Board stated that this is a use variance . I take it that that is incorrect, that this is riot a use variance, it is a special permit? SECRETARY HOARD: That is correct . I mean, you are correct, the Planning Board is in error . MR . BOOTH: Secondly, the minutes of the Committee Meeting note that Thys VanCort, the Planning Director, commented that this property is adjacent to a major stream and an environmental assessment should be done . SECRETARY HOARD: We have done one . MR . BOOTH: You have done one . And what ( unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD : There is no significant impact . There is one little corner of the building that comes within the magic line . There is also a wall there, we looked at the property - that is the wall around the . . . . MR . BOOTH: Around the stream. . And this is at the back - basically slants toward the southwest . . . roughly, right? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 55 CHAIRMAN TOMIAN; Did you receive any notice of this or any letters from anyone - it seems as though at the same Planning and Development Board meeting there was a Phyllis Maines, who is the owner of the property . . . we didn' t receive anything in writing? SECRETARY HOARD: I received nothing . CHAIRMAN TUMIAN: Well I would entertain a motion . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 56 The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of John Augustine, Jr . for a Special Permit and an area variance to permit the construction of a selfservice laundry and one dwelling unit at 327-329 South Cayuga Street . The decision of the Board was as follows : CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I move that the Board grant the request for a Special permit and an area variance in appeal number 1598 . MS . FARRELL : I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The deficiencies are relatively minor given the nature of the lot that is, its dimensions being rather trapazoid in shape . 2) The proposal would not affect the character of the neighborhood . 3) The applicant seems to have made adequate off-street parking available . 4) The neighbors support the proposal and while there is a deficiency in front yard setback, the deficiency helps make the property conform with the setbacks of other properties on the street . VOTE , 5 YES.; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 57 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1599 - 407 ELMWOOD AVENUE Appeal of William Lower for a use variance un- der Section 30 . 25, Column 2 (permitted uses) and an area variance for deficient front yard setback under Section 30 . 25, Column 11 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the conversion of the first floor beauty shop at 407 Elmwood Ave- nue to a five-bedroom apartment, resulting in a multiple dwelling consisting of one eight-bed- room and one five-bedroom cooperative dwelling unit . The property, which has been heavily damaged by fire, is located in an R-2a ( Resi- dential, one- and two-family dwelling) use dis- trict in which the previous use as a beauty shop was permitted under a variance issued to the previous owners, and the multiple dwelling portion was permitted as a "grandfathered" use, having existed legally prior to the current zoning . As an extension of the nonconforming use, the conversion of the beauty shop to a five-bedroom apartment requires a use variance . Therefore under Section 30 . 49 of the Ordinance a use variance is required, as well as an area variance for the deficient front yard, before a building permit can be issued for the conver- sion . MR . GALBRAITH ' Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dirk. Galbraith, I ' m an attorney and I have offices at 308 North Tioga Street in Ithaca., New York, and I ' m here on behalf of the applicant, Mr . William Lower . Mr . Lower is with me this evening . This is a somewhat unusual variance application inasmuch as the property as a whole is already a preexisting, nonconforming use as a multiple dwelling . I have a photograph of the property, this evening, I ' d like to pass around to those of you who aren ' t familiar with the present appearance . When you look at the prop- erty, although that photograph was taken in the fall, the exter- ior appearance of the property is still fairly similar to that, BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 58 it was heavily damaged in a fire and Mr . Lower acquired the prop- erty in its fire damaged condition in August of 1984. The up- stairs of the building., as the applcation indicates is presently a permitted use for eight bedrooms, as a multiple dwelling . How- ever downstairs, which sustained quite a bit of the damage in the fire, was formerly a beauty shop, which was operated under a var- iance granted by this Board, I believe in 1971 . The area in which this property is located is depicted on a map which I sent to the Board prior to this hearing . I ' m sorry I only got that over to you on Friday, I don' t know if you have all had a chance to see that . I believe, if you do take a look at the map, and I request that it be made a part of the record, you will find that many of the properties in the area are multiple dwellings . Sev- eral of the nearby properties., however, are owner-occupied . Mr . Lower has talked to those people and a number of them have signed a petition which was also forwarded to the Board, indicating their concurrence in Mr . Lower ' s conversion of the downstairs of the building., to a proposed five-bedroom apartment . We believe that, under all of the circumstances , this would be an appro- priate use for the downstairs in this property . It has about fifteen hundred square feet of space and under the current hous- ing code, it would have to be - building codes would have to be complied with,, this is more than enough room to comfortably ac- commodate five bedrooms . We have forwarded a set of architect ' s plans, again I hope that you will have an opportunity to examine those, I believe, it is a fairly decent layout for this space . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 59 There is sufficient on-site par-king for seven vehicles and that does not need to be varianced . Now this is a use variance that we are asking for and as I understand the law on that, we do have to show an economic necessity for the granting of the variance, therefore; I had Mr . Lower- prepare a cost breakdown that I would like to pass around at this time . I apologize for not having this prepared any earlier than this evening . I have that - copies made up for each of the Board members and I ' d like to try to explain what Mr . Lower would like to do with the property . He purchased the property in August of this year, in its fire damaged state, for $25, 000 . 00 . He estimates that the cost of remodelling and restoring the interior, of the building would be about $115, 000 . 00 . If you would like to ask: Mr . Lower questions concerning the basis of that estimate, I ' m sure he would be happy to answer them. He is an experienced property owner and manager in this City and he has restored properties of this nature before this . In respect to the restoration of the outside of the build- ing, Mr . Lower would prefer to restore it to the condition in which it appeared before the fire, in other words, to preserve the appearance of the building as it was, and therefore, we have submitted two alternatives here concerning restoration of the exterior . The first would be., I think., the preferred method, and the second is somewhat cheaper method, which would be permitted under the code, but would involve less of a financial outlay . For instance., Mr . Lower ' s preference would be to repair or re- place the wood siding rather than going to vinyl siding . However BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 50 we have estimates for both . Likewise he would prefer to repair the front porch and bring it back to its original condition rather than removing it and replacing it with a smaller porch . You will note in the photograph, the large dormer on the front of the building . That has a very ornate window in it, Mr . Lower ' s preference would be to restore that window, with its various di- vided panes to its original condition, that would cost about $2, 500 . 00 . The cheaper alternative is to remove it, which would be very inexpensive but would alter the appearance of the build- ing somewhat . Likewise with the roof, his preference would be to restore it to its original condition., the alternative to removing the dorm, would be to simply install trusses and have a more or ` less flat roof . The other cost estimate for the exterior of the building involves the installation of tail pieces on the roof and these are the ornate, kind of custom built pieces that you see hanging over, I guess, its the cornice, Bill? MR , LOWER : Cornice, yes . MR . GALBRAITH: Obviously if these aren' t replaced., there is no cost so we have two estimates for the replacement of the exter- ior . One about 521, 000 . 00, the cheaper, alternative would be about $7,, 200 . 00 leading to two different total cost figures . In operating this property Mr . Lower would have certain expenses, the first of which would be - the largest of which would be in amortizing his costs . Then the acquisition of the property and the restoration of it . We believe that the estimate that we ' ve made is based on, for instance, the twelve percent interest rate, BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 61 which is probably cheaper than he can actually obtain the money and amortized over a depreciable life of twenty years . I think the operating expenses which Mr . Lower has given are in line for a property of this type and shows annual operating costs of be- tween S30,600 . 00 and $32, 500 . 00 depending on which approach is taker► to the exterior . Projecting the income from the property based upon what Mr . Lower would like to do with the property and generally estimating the rental at $225 . 00 per bedroom, which I believe is a competitive estimate, in the area where this proper- ty is located, you see that his annual revenue from the building, the gross revenue would be $32, 500 . 00 based upon a ten month ren- tal, in other words, this would probably be rented to students . I believe if you take a look at these figures, ladies and gentle- men, you see that obviously Mr . Lower needs permission to do something with that first floor in order to generate enough reve- nue to restore the building and pay the annual operating costs that he would have to meet . We believe that by seeking a vari- ance for a five-bedroom apartment this would be an appropriate use of this space, it would generate enough revenue to permit him to restore the property along the preferred lines, which is also the more expensive lines, which was outlined above here and fur- ther we believe that this would be more in harmony with the neighborhood and that the adjoining property owners would find that preferable. Further,, this is a fire damaged property and I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, that something has to be done with the property in order to put it back in ha- BZA MINUTES 2/4/$5 PAGE : 62 bitable condition . Mr . Lower has the property and he is willing to do that, but he needs a variance from this Board in order to do that . CHAIRMAN TGMLAN: Any questions? MR . SCHWAB : I notice you need a front yard setback variance . You are five feet short, is there a way of doing that without . . . i MR . LOWER: We aren' t going to change the front porch, it is going to be exactly the same as it is now . We prefer to just restore it . SECRETARY HOARD: Mr . Lower-, would you please identify yourself? MR . LOWER: Oh, I ' m sorry, I ' m Mr . Lower . I ' ve talked to a number of the neighbors there and all of the neighbors that I ' ve talked to., I felt that I talked with the ones that I thought would be most concerned about the property and everybody I talked to., they seemed to be in favor of having the building restored pretty much the way it is . That ' s the way I want to do it, I don' t want to change the porch or enlarge anything, so it would be exactly the same - the way that it is, but it is very burnt . MR . GALBRAITH: I guess, in answer to your question, probably the only way to remove that deficiency would be to rip down the front porch, which, for a number of reasons I think is less desireable than restoring the front porch as is and try to preserve the existing lines of the building . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could you address more specifically the financial hardship question? Exactly what will occur if the variance is not granted, financially . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 63 I, MR . GALBRAITH: Okay . Financially., Mr . Lower would be able to rent out the upstairs of the building for eight bedrooms . He would have a large blank spot in the downstairs, unless a vari- ance of some sort is granted by this Board and he would realize annual income from the upstairs of $20, 000 . 00 while still having to pay exactly the same operating costs as if the - if he were given permission to do something with the downstairs - that would generate only about two-thirds the revenue that would be neces- sary to maintain the building and would make the idea of remodel- ling the building entirely unfeasible . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Okay . Now going back to the P k D comments where, in fact , it was moved and seconded, as you know, to recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that this request be approved if the number- of bedrooms was limited to three . What ' s the shortfall of that? And why is three not enough? MR . GALBRAITH: Well., okay . On an annualized basis, that would only produce - well it would produce sixty percent of $12, 500 . 00 in annual revenue or roughly $7, 000 . 00 . That would still leave Mr . Lower with an economic shortfall in terms of the operating revenue necessary to meet the cost associated with the property and would make investment of the money necessary to restore the property likewise a very unattractive investment . I think the other thing that the - I criticize about that recommendation is this - we have a fifteen hundred square foot area on the first floor of this building - in fact, if you look at it you will see that the first floor is just as big as the second floor is, which BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 64 has eight bedrooms in it . I think that would be a huge amount of space to put a three bedroom apartment in and I think it would be a terrifically wasteful use of this space, particularly when: you have such things as adequate onsite parking, really a large lot, and no other deficiencies on the property, other than the front yard setback . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions? MR. BOOTH: Excuse my being naive about this but if the annual operating cost of $32, 523 . 24 a year and the projected annual income is 532, 500 . 00, why is he doing it? MR . GALBRAITH: Okay, his equity that he builds up in this property as he amortizes those., the original investment is really Mr . Lower ' s profit . As an investor , that is his profit in this . MR. BOOTH: But he still would carry expenses of $32, 523 . 00 a year? MR . GALBRAITH: We believe so . I ' d be happy to have Mr . Lower go into detail on any one of the►se particular calculations, if you would like . I suggest that I think: it is neither unreasonable nor particularly unusual in the field of real estate investment . MR. BOOTH: All right . My second question is., I take it the house now has no current use. The whole - I remember when the fire occurred., the whole place was gutted, upstairs and downstairs, correct? MR . LOWER : After the fire it was, yes . MR . BOOTH: Cao you have any information to show that the uses that are allowed in this zone aren' t feasible on this property? BZA MINUTES 214185 PAGE : 65 MR . GALBRAITH: Yes., the only use that could be allowed - let me back up on that - the upstairs of the property is presently permitted to be used as an eight-bedroom apartment . MR. BOOTH: You say "is permitted" what are you referring to? MR . GALBRAITH: It is a pre-existing, non-conforming use and I believe that Mr . Lower has already received a building permit to restore it to that use . MR . BOOTH : Is that true? SECRETARY HOARD : Yes . MR . BOOTH: I thought when buildings burned down that are non-conforming they had to conform when they were rebuilt? SECRETARY HOARD: No . It can be rebuilt as is as long as they aren' t increased in floor area, bulk, a couple of other items . MR . BOOTH: Well as I read Section 30 . 51 "Restortion after damage: A non-conforming building which is entirely devoted to a conforming use may be rebuilt or reconstructed in whole or in part when it is damaged by fire or other causes provided that the floor area occupancy., and exterior dimensions are not increased . . . " SECRETARY HOARD : Right . MR . BOOTH: This is not devoted to a conforming use . SECRETARY HOARD: But it doesn' t lose its non-conforming rights . There is nothing in there - the only way you lose your non-con- forming rights is if you discontinue the use for twelve consecu- tive months . MR . BOOTH: That is not what this says . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 66 SECRETARY HOARD : Yes but, you have to look at the Section that talks about non-conforming use . MR . BOOTH: I am looking at the section that talks about non-conforming use . SECRETARY HOARD: Discontinuance of a non-conforming use . The only thing that makes you lose a non-conforming use is if you stop using it for twelve consecutive months . MR . BOOTH: I understand that that ' s a provision, Tom, this is another provision that deals with fire., specifically, and it seems to say., you can rebuild a non-conforming building to its existing dimensions if it ' s a conforming use and seems to imply, although it doesn' t say, that you can' t rebuild a building that ' s used for a non-conforming use . (unintelligible) the Zoning Ordinance . ! SECRETARY HOARD: But at what point do you draw the line on this? If it burned to the ground? If its got roof damage? Where do you draw the line? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think what ' s occurred is that the building has essentially been damaged but not completed destroyed . MR. BOOTH: The building, as we heard testimony, the building has been gutted. And it is not uncommon in Zoning Ordinances, not this one in particular, to say that where buildings - they say " specifially where buildings . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right . That ' s a good point, one of the things that I want to get clarified from Bill, were you referring., when you said - when you answered Dick ' s question BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 67 about "gutted", were you r•efer-ring to the building as it is now, which is that is, where the interiors are substantially removed, or were you referring to the original extent of the fire? Bill, it ' s a little different there. . . one way or the other . MR . LOWER : Well we are in the process of restoring the second and third floor already and now., you are speaking about after it A burned? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well , when you answered Dick ' s question about it being gutted., when you said it was gutted, were you referring to the question in past tense or as . . . MR. LOWER: In past tense, after the fire . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: After the fire., that is kind of the way I assumed but I wasn ' t sure . MR . SCHWAB , Dick., what page are you reading from the Code? MR , BOOTH : 30 . 46 . SECRETARY HOARD: All they would have had to do to get around that is to remove the porch. It wouldn' t be non-conforming . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well., but he didn' t . MR . BOOTH: It ' s a non-conforming use . SECRETARY HOARD: It is not a non-conforming - the only reason that it is nor►-conforming building, is the front yard setback . MR . BOOTH: That is an interesting point . SECRETARY HOARD: I think Mr . Galbraith can testify to that because we had a fight some years ago over a case like this and we lost the Article 78 . . . MR . BOOTH : What did you lose? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 RAGE : 58 SECRETARY HOARD: He was on the winning side . MR . BOOTH : What was the issue? SECRETARY HOARD : Restoration of a non-conforming building . MR. BOOTH. Was it a non-conforming use? SECRETARY HOARD: It was a - I don' t remember what the use was . MR . GALBRAITH: What I was actually going to say, was that I couldn' t recall a case when you were ever wrong about the inter- pretation of the Ordinance . Although that case that you are re- ferring to was a property up on College Avenue., I think, I think there were some differences between that and this situation . SECRETARY HOARD : But this section was amended because what they wanted to prevent was enlargement in the case that I was referring to. The building was enlarged when it was rebuilt and we lost the case. This would seem to imply that if you had a building with a non-conforming use in it, and you had a roof fire, you couldn' t put the roof back on . MR. BOOTH: No I don' t think that is what it means at all because sub-division A of 30 . 49 deals with repairs of non-conforming uses or structures . Well, I just raised that as a question . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Any other questions? MR. BOOTH : Let me go back . Are you suggesting then that there is no other use that ' s allowable in this - under the Zoning Ordinance that would be doable in this building? MR . GALBRAITH : Yes I think that ' s correct . The situation, and I think you' ve hit the problem here, the thing that makes the ap- plication somewhat unusual is that you have a part of this build- BZA MINUTES 2/4/$5 PAGE : 69 ing which is a pre-existing, non-conforming use, and can be re- stored for use as is, what you have in the rest of the building is kind of a void . Mr . Lower- does not want to go into the beauty shop business and, in fact, under the terms of the previous vari- ance, I doubt that he could anyway . But I think almost as a mat- ter of law, he has to be given permission to do something with the downstairs of this building and the question is what ' s the most appropriate use? We believe that it is a five bedroom apar- tment . I guess the direct answer to your, question, no I don' t think there is anything else that he could do with it . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor- of the granting of this variance? If so, come forward . DR . ORCUTT : Dr . James Orcutt, 324 Dryden Road . I admire your perserverance for- sitting through all of this . I own the proper- ty directly across the street from Mr . Lower ' s property . I know Mr• . Lower personally and I am really pleased that he has bought this property . One of the greatest fears that I had is that we were going to get one of the local "slumlords" buy it and perhaps make it conform with the requirements• and tear that beautiful porch off of there . I am really pleased that he is going to take care of it . I look at this porch a couple of times a day as I go in the office and out the office for lunch and whatnot, I have always admired the house, I wish they would paint it another color other than grey, but right now it is all charcoal anyhow. I speak in favor of his being granted the variance because I don' t think it is going to change the character of the neighbor- BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 70 hood, whatsoever . If you take the building immediately adjacent to it, to the north of there, what you have is the black frater- nity house that Cornell runs, diagonally across the street is another fraternity house, directly across the street is a three apartment dwelling, diagonally across - or next - or adjacent to that is• my property and the property on the corner of Elmwood and Dryden Road is a private home, owned by Mr . Boone . From the neighbors that I ' ve spoken to., they are all in favor of it, they all, as myself, laud Mr . Lower for buying the property and fix- ing it up, reestablishing it in the same condition it was in . As I mentioned before, it would be a shame if they did take the porch off . If you look: at this property you will see that there is a very steep hill in front of it and if they took the porch off, it would really be a strange looking building . It is an immense house . This is a very, very large house and I am sure it has very high ceilings inside of it and it would be a shame if he couldn' t use this space adequately . I ' m pleased because I have to smell the building . When it was warm in Ithaca, sometime ago I can barely remember- when, but when it was• warm, there was that awful odor• that you get from any burned out building and it sat that way so long and every time it would rain or we would have the humid weather, it was horrible and I think that tie has done a nice job already of reconstructing the dormers that were burned out and putting a new roof on. So I certainly hope that, in your wisdom you will grant him this variance that he so seeks . Thank you . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 71 CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Thank, you . Any questions? Yes . Is there anyone else out there who would like to speak in favor? MR . RIDER : My name is Jim Rider, 518 Stewart Avenue and I have a building right around the corner, about half a block from this property . And I ' ve beer► on East Hill for thirty years., since 1965, and there' s been a lot of pluses and minuses on that hill and I ' ve seer► the buildings that he' s done before, before and after•, and every building that he has ever done has always been a plus . Thank you . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank: you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak: in favor? Is there anyone out there who would like to speak in opposition to the granting of the variance? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 72 DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO . 1599 4017 ELMWOOD AVENUE MR . BOOTH : Well I guess I would ask the Board what it thinks about Section 30 . 51 . What it was intended to do - when I read it, I would agree that the language is not the most artful in the world but it was my understanding that this applied to this kind of situation . MR . SCHWAB : Well you are really reading a negative into it, aren' t you:' You are saying a non-conforming building which is not entirely devoted to a conforming use cannot be done this way . MR . BOOTH: Well I ' m suggesting that might be the implication . The language doesn' t say that, I . . . MR . SCHWAB : Right, but the only way to say that this section opposes the variance is to read the negative input into it as opposed to saying it doesn' t say anything about this situation . What I am saying is, what it says now is a non-conforming building which is entirely devoted to a conforming use, can be rebuilt . And one way of (unintelligible) it doesn ' t say one way or the other- whether the non-conforming building, which is not entirely devoted to a conforming use, what can be done with it . MR . BOOTH: Then what would be the purpose of the provision? MR . SCHWAB : To clarify the previous case that they tried to enlarge it . In other words, they are trying to say if you' ve got a building, and you can provide it., you can rebuild it, provided the floor area doesn ' t increase . That ' s not purposeless reading ( unintelligible MR . BOOTH : What ' s the language which is entirely devoted to a t BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 81 MR . STAIR: My name is Randy Stair and I live at 209 Valley Road which is immediately adjacent to this property and I do have sev- eral concerns . We do own and occupy the dwelling and as you have heard the lot size is smaller in two respects than what is re- quired by the R-la ordinance, one of those being that 15, 000 square feet is required arid, as well, 100 feet of frontage . I think: that while Mr . Hatcher perhaps has good intentions at this point that he and his family may occupy the home, that they may rent it to somebody else or subsequently to a family member, I think: that we have no assurance that subsequent to the house be- ing built, that it is not, in fact, sold as a rental unit for income property . That area does come awfully close to bordering some of the areas where there is student housing, it is a street where there are some large homes, property values are somewhat high there . I think: by looking at the map and showing the intent to build the three parking spaces, that, should something like this occur'., it would also have the appearance of being a rental unit on this residential street . So, we certainly would welcome to have a home built on that lot , however I am somewhat reluctant to consider what potentially may result on that lot, as well . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB : May I ask you a question? Go you know how many renters there are now on Valley Road? MR . STAIR: No I don' t . We have just moved there about three months ago . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 82 opposition? Come forward please . MR . RAMAGE : I ' m Andrew Ramage and I live on 964 E . State Street, and my name was brought up already as being somewhat in connec- tion with this matter . My wife and I own the house which backs directly onto the lot on Malley Road and it is true that we were in conversation with Mr . Thatcher (sic) about the house and we had in fact, on three occasions, three previous owners tried to buy the house or the lot, as it were . When this was brought up there was no question of introducing by definition a rental apar- tment . There was the building of a house was suggested but not the rental apartment - that came when we got the papers which are required for people within two hundred feet and that, in a sense, is my problem, not that there should be a house there, which is quite appropriate, in► the City, and is quite allowed for as has been sent out . But the fact that there has been provision for something which will produce a two-family house on a lot which, even if it is only slightly deficient, is close to an area which is popular for multiple occupancy subrosa, which is not very well policed by the City even though they know it., we' ve been burned across the street on State Street,, which is actually an R-lb zon- ing arrangement, but some of the regulations are similar and I could remind people at a previous case where the zoning appeals denied certification► of an existing use, which was non-conforming for just this kind of reason. It was a small study apartment, the estate wished to sell and it would be more attractive if it were legitimized and the Board saw fit, even in this more liberal BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 83 zone, R-lb, not to allow that because there has been a continuing erosion of the single family principle, so it is not really that an owner-occupier with a studio apartment is the problem, but it is the prospect of a non-owner-occupier without much supervision and with several spaces for parking as has been pointed out, sort of eroding the quality., producing more coming and going - I don' t think: it ' s a fact to say that a four bedroom house will produce the same coming and going as two apartments, especially in a (un- intelligible) student use is more likely, you are going to get more visitors, more cars, instead of small children and bicycles . So, that is really the problem that my wife and I have . Other things such as drainage, obviously affect us, but they are not part of the - really, the legal problem., as far as the zoning question, but I do want to be on record by saying that building in a two-family project seems to me inappropriate at this stage . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Come forward please . MS . HOBBIE : My name is Margaret Hobbie and I am co-owner of the property at 966 E . State Street, between Ramages and Mt . Olivet Cemetery . The other owner is my husband, Robert Haden. The ap- peal before you is about a property on Valley Road, but this pro- perty very much affects East State Street . We tend to live at the backs of our houses, since we are on East State Street . And this may not have been so apparent to those of you who may have visited the property in the winter because we are not out of BZA MINUTES 1/4/85 PAGE : 84 doors as much in the winter, but it very much is an East State Street issue as well as a Valley Road issue . I am going to sound like a par-r-ot of Andrew Ramage, I have many of the same things to say and the word erosion is one that comes up, that I ' ve written down. Since we bought the house almost two years ago, I have been concerned about a number of things that have happened in the East State Street area, we ar-e not that far- from Valentine Place, we are close enough to be concerned about what is going on there, I ' m very concerned about the property at 965, right across the street, which the City doesn' t seem to be able to do anything about, we are all generally concerned about the movement of Cor- rell south, southward through Collegetown and in general the pro- lifer-ation of multiple dwellings in the area. So I just want to express my concern about what I see as an erosion of the residen- tial nature of the area . I ' m not opposed to a new family in the area., we have a small daughter- ourselves and I think we all want to stress that we welcome the Matchers, we ar-e concerned about the apartment . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Any questions? Thank you . Is there anyone else in opposition? Please come forward . MR. WARD: My name is Larry Ward, I am co-owner of the property at 961 East State Street and reside there . My property is di- r-ectly behind this proposed building . The proposed lot for buil- ding - is a double lot actually, that is why the Ramages are be- hind one part and I am directly behind the other . It is true, pretty much I support what Mr- . Ramage and the others have said . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 85 Another point to consider- about a - particularly an apartment in the rear., it ' s true you won' t see it from Valley Road, you will see it from my house which is quite a .steep hill, I don' t know what the angle is but even from the back of our own yard you can look straight into our upper - second floor windows, so it is quite apparent from that side and I think the neighborhood along that section is concerned about that sandwiching of more apart- ment type dwelling, when we are faced on the other side with at least three that are probably out of compliance and we are told by the City that yes, they know about it but that is the way life is or whatever, and they aren' t all that willing to (unintelligi- ble) This one will be brand new but it is an additional bedroom apartment . One family., which is what most of those are - ob- viously it doesn' t need any kind of a variance anyway, it is al- ready legal . MR . BOOTH: Are there any apartments in any of the houses along your stretch of State Street? MR. WARD: I don' t think - the Hobbies are next to the cemetery, the Ramages are next, then the Slatterys, I don' t believe so, at least not for quite a stretch - that I know of - not all the way down to where Valley Road hits State Street - they are all one family . It is across the street - that ' s where you get the sandwich affect - where there is at least three starting across from us and - I don' t know the number - then two others and all the City has told us, when we' ve asked about it, is that, yes those are problems and have given letters to whoever owns them BZA MINUTES 214!85 PAGE : 86 but that ' s about it . And then behind us, again, Valley Road is all residential . MR . BOOTH: But Valley Road is in a different zone than you are, right? MR . WARD: I don' t really know the zoning, I ' m just responding to this particular question . ( unintelligible) to an apartment, especially when it has been history that once something is in and there is some kind of change, as has been pointed out, that there is almost, from what we can see, no enforcement, even to hold it to that., that could end up with as many people as you can fit in . MR . BOOTH: How big is your house lot? MR . WARD: Fifty by one fifty, roughly . It ' s a different - it is almost totally rectangular . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions from Mr . Ward? Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to the granting of this variance? Mr . Hatcher, if you could make it brief . MR . HATCHER: Just a couple of points . First in response to Mr . Ward , we. would plan to use the back yard and (unintelligible) consideration with - the apartment would not be visible from the back., it would be oriented to the side and there would be shrub- bery screening the apartment zone from the rear yard . We would intend to use that . I have the same concern for the back yard that he does, and I know the Ramages do . I am sorry that these people that are objecting didn' t call me, because I would have discussed it with them in advance and maybe alleviated some of BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 87 their fears . The other thing I might note is in the R-la re- strictions for a single family and for two-family dwellings, I believe that it would limit the tenancy - under the definition of a family - in the three bedroom portion of this house, to make it financially feasible to rent it to anyone other than a single family. If there is some way of either amending m,y appeal or putting in the appeal which I might be granted that the house has to be owner-occupied, in the large portion of the house, it would be perfectly amenable to me . Let me just say also that if I find that I - if I were to get this variance and were going to go ahead and build a house on it, and wasn' t going to live in it myself, I wouldn' t build an apartment in it . Now that doesn ' t carry much weight because I could build it and sell it within a year, I realise that, but perhaps the Board could make note to the concerned people about the restrictions of what a family is and how many unrelated people you can have renting the three bed- room portion of the house . MS . FARRELL , I have a question . Did you ever consider the new provision for accessory apartment? MR . HATCHER : No . I am not familiar with tht . SECRETARY HOARD: It seems to apply to existing buildings only . MS . FARRELL : Oh, you can' t build them that way? SECRETARY HOARD: Well its got language in there we were looking at it today and its got language in there that applies to existing buildings . Also - if he goes to the bank: for a mortgage and has a condition - all the conditions that are in that BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 88 accessory apartment ordinance., I don' t know if he would get the mortgage . MR . BOOTH: I have a question . How big will the apartment be compared to the rest of the house - square footagewise? I realize that you don ' t have . . . . MR . HATCHER: Cine-quarter or less, so it has to be one-quarter or less, so it would have to be approximately one-half of the square footage of the basement . MR . BOOTH: So it will have one bedroom . . . MR . HATCHER: A studio apartment or, a one bedroom :apartment so if we are talking half the square footage of the basement, we are talking one-sixth of the square footage of the house . MR . BOOTH: One-sixth of the square footage of the house . MR. HATCHER: Yep: . We are actually about three levels, two stories, something of that order . I would say a quarter to a sixth . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank: you . Is there any rebuttal to the appellants statement from any of the people who were opposed? No? That ' s ,just fine . We can then discuss it . MR . BOOTH: Well let me make a point for the record . Mr . Hatcher is a neighbor of mire, he lives across the street, let me say tht we have never discussed this case., I am sure he is surprised to see me sitting on this Board . I don' t think: there is anything about that that removes my ability to vote in this case . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank: you . Any more thoughts related to the case, more specifically? , BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 89 DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO . 1601 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Deficient in lot size and width for a residence with an apartment . MR . SCHWAB ' I would not want to rely on the width, which is barely an inch . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is true . That could be said fairly quickly . I think what the question really comes down to of course, is what happens with the apartment at least insofar as the neighborhood is concerned,, where there is a lot size question . MR . BOOTH: Well the lot size deficiency is not terribly great . This is a large lot . . MS . FARRELL : What is the percentage? MR . BOOTH: It is considerably less than a thousand square feet deficient . I think it is seven hundred eighty square feet . . . MS . JOHNSON: Seven hundred twenty . MR . BOOTH: Out of fifteen thousand . If this were just a single family dwelling, the square footage requirement would be ten thousand square feet . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: With what the neighborhood is of course, arguing., is that it should be a single family dwelling, no more . MR. BOOTH: That is true . The toning allows this use . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s true but we are talking about an area . MR . BOOTH : Right, but we are talking about a variance . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right , SECRETARY HOARD: Practical difficulties . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 90 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What ar•e the practical difficulties? MS . FARRELL : I have a question, is it possible to tie in an owner occupancy clause? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have we done that? We have done that in the past haven' t we - an owner occupancy clause? But does it have much meaning? SECRETARY HOARD: I can' t think of a specific case MR . BOOTH: The Ordinance certainly contemplates that, in fact the definitions of allowable uses talks of providing different requirements for owner-occupied versus non-owner-occupied so that would seem to be a condition anticipated by the Ordinance . I ' m not anyone who puts a great deal of reliance on some of the wording of this Ordinance . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is saying quite a bit . Any thoughts on this side of the table? MR . SCHWAB : I ' m listening . MS . ,JOHNSON: So we can make a provision that it ' s owner-occupied? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s right we could . MR . BOOTH: It would seem that we also could make a provision that the apartment not be more than a certain percentage of the square footage of the house, that is also anticipated by the zoning because the requirements ar•e different if the - evidently the rental unit is larger than fifty percent of the major unit . Then the requirements change . SECRETARY HOARD : That ' s right and it has to be owner-occupied automatically . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE , 91 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But I have to come back to practical difficulty., what is the practical difficulty? MR . BOOTH: Well the practical difficulty is that the lot is slightly too small for the use that is proposed . We have many cases of that kind . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it seems like you are awfully close to a motion . I had to walk you into it . r BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 92 APPEAL NO . 1601 205-207 VALLEY ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered Mr . Randall Hatcher ' s request for an area variance to permit the construction of a single-family home with apartment at 205-207 Valley Road . The decision of the Board was as follows : MR. BOOTH: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1601 with the following conditions : 1 ) that the house will be owner-occupied and 2) that the rental unit not exceed 25% of the square footage of the major residential unit . MS . FARRELL : I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The deficiency in terms of lot width is so small as to be negligible . 2) The deficiency in terms of the size of the lot is modest . 3) The practical difficulty faced by the owner in terms of this proposed use is that by not allowing the two-family house the owner would be left with a lot that is considerably larger than is required for building a single family dwelling and the lot is only marginally smaller than what is required for building a two-family dwelling . 4) It appears on the basis of the evidence that the proposed use is consistent with the character- of the area notwithstanding a variety of objections that have been raised . 5) The applicant has indicated that the proposed rental unit will face the side of the house . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 94 COMMENT ON APPEAL NO. 1601 AFTER MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED : CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! There was a point mentioned which I would only underscore., not necessarily insist upon, but I can remember a case in the not too recent past when there was some discussion about an Estate that was trying to sell a unit - very similar -that had an accessory or an adjacent rental income unit, and we did - as was pointed out - come down denying that variance . The question I raise is one that seems to nag me a little bit and I ' ve expressed this on other occasions in other cases, is one of - in a sense - setting policy by individual examples and being consistent within that policy . Whereas, not to appear to do the same thing twice., really calls it a question, your judgement in each individual case . Granted,, each case is different, which is the other side of the question. But I just point that out in flushing out some of the comments . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 95 SECRETARY HOARD: The last case is APPEAL NO . 1602, 712 WEST COURT STREET : Appeal of Louis 0. Nezvesky for an area variance for deficient lot width, and deficient setbacks for front, side and rear yards, under Section 30 . 25, Columns 7, 11, 13, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the resubdivision of two par- cels at 712 West Court Street so that two existing buildings can be sold separately on separate par- cels . As proposed, one parcel will include the existing small animal hospital, and will be defi- cient in lot width and front yard setback ( it will have no street frontage), and the second parcel will be deficient in setbacks for the front yard, one side yard, and the rear yard . An alternative proposal would result in adequate lot width, but would also result in inadequate lot size (Column 6) for the second parcel . The appellant must ob- tain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before the subdivision can be approved by the Planning and Development Board . MR . BECK' My name is Frederick Beck, I ' m an attorney and I re- Iain an office at 309 N. Tioga Street, City of Ithaca and I ap- pear with Dr . Louis 0 . Nezvesky who is the owner of the property located at 710-712 West Court Street here in the City of Ithaca . This particular• property approximates a square in shape and it is one hundred and thirty-two feet on the West Court Street and north sides and one hundred thirty-one point eighty-three feet on the east and west sides . At the present time there are two buil- dings on this property, one a building that is known as 710 West Court Street., which is presently utilized under• the terms of a lease arrangement by Gadabout Transportation Services, Inc . which I think you are probably familiar with . Representives of Gadabout are here tonight and I am sure can tell you a little bit more about the service they provide for the com- BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 96 munity . The building to the rear of the building at 710 West Court is presently utilized by Dr . Nezvesky in his practice known as the Ithaca Small Animal Hospital . Dr . Nezvesky acquired the land in question in two separate transactions back in the mid- 1970 ' s . Gadabout I believe has rented the building at 710 West Court Street since some point in 1981 . Gadabout ' s present lease arrangement with Dr . Nezvesky expires in May of this year and as a result of that fact they have approached Dr . Nezvesky with the thought that they might be able to purchase the building at 710 West Court Street as part of a parcel which would front on West Court Street, one hundred thirty-two feet and extend back to the north, fifty-four feet . The proposition would reserve to Dr . Nezvesky a fifty foot right-of-way running north and south from West Court Street to provide access to the Ithaca Small Animal Hospital . In order to accomplish that transaction Dr . Nezvesky needs an area variance so as to seek permission for the resubdi- vision of these two parcels to allow that transfer . The present situation in terms of the use of that property has been what it is today for several years now - since 1981 I guess for Gadabout - you have had the Small Animal Hospital since 1974 or 75 . So it is anticipated that the future use of this particular parcel would be consistent with what it is today . It is my understanding that many of the neighbors have been per- sonally solicited with respect to this application tonight and a petition with a number of signatures has been forwarded to the Building Commissioner ' s Office, is that correct? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE . 97 SECRETARY HOARD : I guess so, yes . MR . BECK : I ' m not aware that there is any opposition in terms of the neighborhood where these buildings are located, to this par- ticular request . This is, I believe, zoned industrially . As a practical matter I don' t believe there is any reasonable expecta- tion that any industry is presently appeared to utilize the west- erly portion of this parcel, at least in its present size . What we would like to accomplish is (unintelligible) in essence the use of the property as it is presently being used today only un- der circumstances where the Ithaca Small Animal Hospital would keep the northerly piece with dimensions of one hundred and thir- ty-two feet on the northerly and southerly sides and seventy seven point eighty three feet on the easterly and westerly sides . Gadabout would only - the road frontage subject to a right-of-way have east and west lines of fifty four feet . Dr . Nezvesky has indicated that he would be willing to carry a mortgage for Gad- about Transportation Services and obviously this pose$ what we think is a real opportunity for Gadabout to continue the service that they have provided to our community for some time, under circumstances where they can afford to do so , MR. SCHWAB : May I ask YOU Why You are doing a fifty foot right-of-way which makes the back landlocked but rather than having the Small Animal Clinic have an "L" shaped lot? MR, BECK : It is my understanding that in order for this Board to favorably consider this application., that the grant to Gadabout had to consist of a parcel of at least five thousand square feet , BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 98 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is that the reason in your appeal, you essen- tially set up two alternatives? You said in one case, as pro- posed and then an alternative would result - if you are familiar with your appeal, you said, as proposed, one parcel would include the existing Small Animal Hospital and would be deficient in lot, width and front yard setback, you would have no street frontage . And the second parcel would be deficient in the setbacks for the front yard, one side yard and rear yard . An alternative proposal would result in adequate lot width but would also result in in- adequate lot size for the second parcel . Would you begin to sort those out and essentially - the plusses and the minuses, I guess, on either instance? You have essentially set it up on here that you have two proposals, and what I am more to the core of, is what are the plusses and minuses from your point of view in each one of those cases? MR . BECK : To be honest, it was my understanding that there was basically the one proposal - the one that I ' ve described and the one that both the property owner and the proposed buyer of this parcel particular desire and that is the one that would give the Gadabout Transportation Services, Inc . the entire frontage along West Court Street, reserving the right of ingress and egress to Dr . Nezvesky to get back to his Ithaca Small Animal Hospital building . SECRETARY HOARD : Maybe I can explain the confusion, Mr . Chairman. What happened was that ,dust before we had to file that with the Ithaca Journal, I believe it was Dr . Nezvesky came in BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 99 and talked with the Deputy Building Commissioner - is that your writing sir? On this right-of-way, you crossed out the right-of-way and . . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s on the initial sketch that is what we were given so I am just trying to get clear what we are discussing here . SECRETARY HOARD: (unintelligible) cover both possibilities . DR . NEZVESK.Y : Okay . We originally went in and asked for twenty and he said . . . forget it you' ve got to go fifty . We originally thought twenty would be adequate and (unintelligible) request fifty, you would never approve twenty . SECRETARY HOARD: Well in either case you would need a variance for your lack of street frontage or . . . DR . NE2VESKY : Right, so therefore this is a better way - to pick out (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is that clear to the members of the Board? It wasn ' t clear to me . MS . FARRELL : The deficiencies are the lack of street frontage, MR . BOOTH: Side yard and back yard . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is just a matter of getting the record clear as to what we are dealing with . SECRETARY HOARD : The option he is choosing would be that the - there would be that fifty foot strip provided for the back lot which would make the front lot deficient in lot size . MR . BOOTH : Why would it? SECRETARY HOARD: Well it would be under the five thousand square BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 100 foot minimum, MR. BOOTH: Fifty-four feet deep times one hundred and . . . MR . BECK : It would be one hundred and thirty . . . MR . BOOTH: Ninety-eight feet wide, right? No, one hundred and thirty-two feet wide . MR . BECK : It comes out to something over six thousand square feet , If we were to do this the parking situation in the back, as I understand it, would allow for the parking of something close to fifteen cars, is that right? DR . NEZVESKY : At least, if we took: down the bull pens, we could park a few more .' MR . BOOTH: What about parking on the front portion? MR . BECK : Well it is my understanding that we' d get up to about thirteen? VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE : There is a cherry tree there - eleven if the tree stays . MR . BECK : Okay . No change (unintelligible) MR. BOOTH: Are those two buildings joined? MR . BECK : There is some kind of a tunnel . DR . NEZVESKY : There is a walk-way . MR . SCHWAB : Tom, can you explain to me better, why this becomes worse or even not to be considered as more than a right-of-way - the fact that the back parcel has frontage - which frankly bothers me . . . SECRETARY HOARD: We didn' t have any real preference which way it went but one way, if you give the fifty foot strip then you ' ve BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 101 got the lot frontage for the rear lot but the front lot goes down to four thousand five hundred and ninety square feet . MR . SCHWAB : But they really can' t do too much with that fifty foot right-of-way, right? I ' d be inclined to give the back lot sole control so that something potentially could be done with it in the future, is my thought . In other words, have the proposal be Dr . Nezvesky keep absolutely the lot frontage as fifty foot rather than right-of-way and the fact, so that twenty years down the road when he sells the back: lot, or wants to do something else with this, it can be done because Gadabout, it strikes me, won' t be able to use this the western half of its lot because it has got to keep it as a right-of-way . SECRETARY HOARD: Well the right-of-way is only twenty feet . . MR . SCHWAB : A fifty foot right-of-way . SECRETARY HOARD : No the right-of-way would be twenty feet and the alternative would be a fifty foot chunk of land that would go with the - it would either end up - one option is to go and put a fifty foot wide strip as part of this lot - which reduces this other lot to this . Let ' s call that option one . Option two would be to subdivide it so that this is all one lot, this is all one lot, but there is a twenty foot right-of-way across here (pointing to the survey map) I have no preference . MR. SCHWAB : I guess I - I guess it is up - I ' d like to hear from the owners, I guess . I have a preference rather than mess with the right-of-ways, giving full land to one people or the other so they can decade what to do with it, in other words, I ' d rather BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 102 see no right-of-way, if the land owners are more or- less indifferent . MR . BECK : I don' t think: that, let ' s put it this way, I think we would like to keep that (unintelligible) MR . BOOTH : Full title? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Full title or- right-of-way, which are you speaking? MR . BECK : Well, obviously., I think that it enhances the value of the property in the back: if you have full title . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s right . That ' s what we are raising, if that ' s . . . . . . in your best interest . MR. BOOTH: Fifty feet or twenty feet? Fifty feet . MR . BECK : Ideally, sure . SECRETARY HOARD: Now what about the people in the back, are they happy? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We' ll get to them. MR. SCHWAB : But that is your option one . Fifty feet . Fee simple - the back: owns it . An "L" shaped lot which strikes me as preferable . SECRETARY HOARD: Witt► street frontage, with a front lot (unintelligible) MR . SCHWAB : Right-of-ways are messy . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Pardon us for shaping here . . . MR. SCHWAB : But that is not ruled out of hand . . . so different from the other proposal . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are there any other questions so we can move BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 103 right along and reach some sort of resolution . MS . FARRELL : I guess I have a question about how much parking happens on the Gadabout site now? DR. NEZVESKY : Would you repeat your questions again? MS . FARRELL : How much parking is there on the Gadabout site or this part that Gadabout is using? DR. NEZVESKY : They could have . . . MS . FARRELL : Or., how many cars are parked there now? DR . NEZVESKY : A minimum of eight - they go eight and ten . MS . FARRELL : And there is room for eleven? DR. NEZVESKY : If they go - if they bring one bus by the house and one in front of that., they can actually get three, seven and five, they can actually get twelve, but they are using eight now . MS . FARRELL : Eight buses . DR . NEZVESKY : Eight buses . MS . FARRELL : Does that sound like it is (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: A normal amount of parking? MS . FARRELL : I mean, that ' s the legal amount of spaces . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Well the trouble is that the parking would be keyed to the square footage of that house . Because that is an office and they more than meet that parking but they have a greater need . . . MS . FARRELL : Isn' t this a little bit odd since it is a transportion facility? SECRETARY HOARD: But they have a greater need, it goes on our list . BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 104 MS . FARRELL : Put it right on a list., please . I mean, I think it is a little odd to call something that has a lot of buses, an office . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Moving right along . Any other questions? MS . FARRELL : Especially since all of the buses are out in the yard . MR . BOOTH: Are there two curb cuts there? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I ' m trying to think of the curb cut . MR . BOOTH: Oh, it is? I didn' t notice when I was down there . MS . FARRELL : Are any of the buses now parking on this area that is called the right-of-way? On this map? DR . NEZVESKY : They park right next to the building - they park one - two - three (pointing to the map) four - five - six - seven - seven or eight, Ms . Willis? MS . WILLIS : Eight . DR . NEZVESKY : Eight . So they put five here and three here and they could actually put in five more there . MS . FARRELL : Okay, but if we are talking about breaking up the lot up like this, all of those buses will parked on what was your property than, and only a few of them would be parked on what is their property. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE : (UNINTELLIGIBLE) MR . BOOTH: That is what she is asking - with this division . . . DR . NEZVESKY : It would be five next to the Telephone building on our property - on the fifty foot right-of-way . MR . BOOTH: Well then it would cross the fifty foot right-of-way? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 105 DR . NEZVESKY : They have five there . MR . BOOTH' That ' s on►e reason I was opposed to making it a right-of-way , because the Gadabout people will have to park on it . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right, perhaps we can move along . MS . FARRELL : I have one other question . If they are all parked over there, does that still give enough room to - how much room does that give to get through on this right-of-way? DR . NEZVESKY : No problems . In fact we have an egress - we' ve got beams - we go in here and out the other entrance - loads of space. We' ve never had a problem - never had an accident . MS . FARRELL : But they are relying on over there for parking and over here for parking? DR . NEZVESKY : Yes . MS . FARRELL : So, I think we should go for the right-of-way, rather than the (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s the other point of view. Thank you . Anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Now is your chance . MR . WENDT : Thank: you . My name is Bill Wendt, I ' m the President of Gadabout Transportation► Services . Gadabout provides handicap- ped and transportation for the elderly throughout the City and throughout Tompkins County . As you heard, we have made a pur- chase offer contingent upon a subdivision because we do want to keep that as a home for Gadabout . We' ve had a difficult time finding a good home in the City, where we could accommodate the BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 106 needs for the six vehicles that are there and have a place where we could park our volunteer drivers . Most of the elderly and handicapped are drawn from the City population . This is a very convenient location off of Court Street and 13 because it ' s very accessible to all areas of the county and we do travel throughout the county . The need for parking is quite important and one of our reasons for wanting the twenty foot right-of-way and basical- ly continuing business as it exists now, is so we can use that parking on each side . If' we were to - we did not put in a pur- chase offer that would give that fifty foot chunk: away from us because that would hamper our parking . There is certainly ade- quate parking for both facilities in the current configuration and we would like to continue that . We had a fear that there would be a hardship if Cir . Nezvesk:y warted to sell the Small Ani- mal Clinic: and it was one parcel and that could mean that we would lose our home forever . There has not been any need for him to use that building as part of the hospital and we would like to stay there and keep that as our home . Four years ago the former president (unintelligible) before this Board several times be- cause we could riot find another good home in the City . Many of the commercial properties which tend to be out Elmira Road and in that zone, were not within a range that we could afford . We have an opportunity now to keep our costs low . We are dependent on County and City dollars to make this service work and as I said, the largest contribution really comes from the volunteer drivers who operate these buses each day . We are not excited about the BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 107 fact of trying to look for- another building, we have been exclud- ed from the residential neighborhoods and, as I said, the commer- cial locations have proved too expensive in the past . We do need that central location, we have had a good relationship with the neighbor, third, I think we can see that all the neighbors are very supportive of our operation there . We have even had some of the neighbors volunteer and help us there, I don' t think there are any problems with the type of service we are using . We now have a favorable financial situation to purchase this property and use it continually as our home if this subdivision occurs . We cannot foresee that unless there is a subdivision of the prop- erty . We ar-e not looking to make any changes in the nature of the building of our uses . The building that we are using - the front building at 710 is certainly adequate for our needs - it is very small . Our office staff is there, and it basically serves to dispatch those buses to various areas The parking as a bus leaves., a volunteer driver- parks in that place . We only have three staff cars and several volunteer drivers each day, while these buses are out . We can accommodate more staff if we - but we really don' t expect any growth and expect this to be a good home for us for many years to come . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions? MS . JOHNSON: You said that you prefer the twenty foot right-of-way? MR . WENDT : We prefer to operate just like we are, there is kind of a large corrall opening and there is a very adequate driveway BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 108 to go in and out of the back: hospital that allows us to park on the right and left sides of the property . Yes, my point being that you would define the fifty foot area there that was not ours-, it would not give us the parking that we desire, there . And it would probably be just a wasted fifty foot strip in the front of the property which has never been in demand by the hospital that I know of, while we have been there, to require that much parking for the hospital . It is strictly a gravel lot . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: There has never been any confusion or difficulty with your buses versus his clientele? MR . WENDT : No . There certainly is plenty of room there for the small number of patients that are there at any one time and the buses going in and out . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Thank. you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak supporting this appeal? MR. ROMANOWSKI : Bob Romanowski, very short again . I made - independently made sure that people didn' t have any objections . I paid particular attention to the parking that is going on -off- street parking is only one side down on West Court Street and as a result it is restricted . As far as I can tell, most people - as a matter- of fact, everybody down there has off-street parking . Very few cars park out on the street because of the restrictions . There is a very large parking area (unintelligi- ble) so I don' t see any objections from any of the neighbors, I don' t see any objections from (unintelligible) . Gadabout has been a good neighbor,, their operations are very minimal, they BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 109 close down at night and Dr . Nezvesky has been a good neighbor, too . So I can see no objections doing it whichever way they want to . We welcome both of these businesses in the west end . Thank you . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak for? MS . HOLMBERG: I ' m not going to take up any time, I just - I ' m Anna Holmberg and I ' m an attorney in town, I ' m also Vice President of the Board of Gadabout and I ' m here with the Executive Director Judy Willis,, in support of the application . I ' ve nothing really to add to what Bill said . CHAIRMAN TUMLAN: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak for the application? Anyone out there against? Shall we discuss and move, and move along? BZA MINUTES 2/4/85 PAGE : 110 APPEAL NO . 1502 - 712 W. COURT STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Dr . Louis 0 . Nezvesky for an area variance to permit the resubdivision of two parcels at 712 West Court Street so that two existing buildings can be sold separately on separate parcels . The decision of the Board was as follows : MR . BOOTH: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1502 with the condition that Dr . Nezvesky and Gadabout Transportation Services, Inc , agree that the right-of-way be between a minimum of twenty (20 ' ) feet and a maximum of fifty (50 ' ) feet . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: : I second the motion . FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The proposal incorporates existing uses and will not change the current use of the property . 2) Practical difficulty is that the lot, and its configuration, are such that one cannot create two conforming lots given the current zoning . 3) This would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood . VOTE : 5 YES; 0 NO.; 1 ABSENT GRANTED I , BARBARA RIJANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1594, 1-1-85, 1603, 1598, 1599, 1601 , and 1602 on February 4, 1985 in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara C. Ruan Recording Secre ary Sworn to before me this day of 1985 Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 55-1560800 QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COUNTI MY r ..a;^;^gIOY EXPIRES MARCH 30,19_