Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1985-10-07 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 7, 1985 PAGE APPEAL NO. 1648 Myron & Pauline Wasilchak 3 110 Hawthorne Place APPEAL NO. 1648 DISCUSSION 37 APPEAL NO. 1648 DECISION 39 APPEAL NO. 1653 PETER PENNIMAN 41 135 FAYETTE STREET APPEAL NO. 1653 DECISION 43 APPEAL NO. 1654 MICHAEL N. & RUTH M. YARROW 44 405-07 HANCOCK STREET APPEAL NO. 1654 DECISION 46 APPEAL NO. 1655 SANDRA POLLACK 47 313 WASHINGTON STREET APPEAL NO. 1655 DECISION 49 APPEAL NO. 1656 ALBERT E. SMITH (SHORT STOP) 50 200 WEST SENECA STREET APPEAL NO. 1656 DISCUSSION 59 APPEAL NO. 1656 DECISION 70 APPEAL NO. 1657 LOUIS 0. NEZVESKY 71 710-12 WEST COURT STREET APPEAL NO. 1657 DECISION 82 APPEAL NO. 1658 DAVID RADIN 83 107 W. FALLS STREET APPEAL NO. 1658 DISCUSSION 87 APPEAL NO. 1658 DECISION 89 APPEAL NO. 1659 LELAND F. & GLORIA W. KNUPPENBURG 90 40g-15 THIRD STREET APPEAL NO. 1659 DECISION 94 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 2 APPEAL NO. 1660 MONCRIEF & EVA COCHRAN 95 REAR OF 205 HALLER BOULEVARD APPEAL NO. 1660 DECISION 99 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 100 ' . BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEN YORK OCTOBER 7 , 1985 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I would like to call to order . the meeting of Monday, October 7 , 1985, meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provisions of the City Charter , the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board ' s own Roles and Regulations . Members of the Board who are present tonight are : STENART SCHWAB ' CHARLES WEAVER HELEN JOHNSON TRACY FARRELL RICHARD BOOTH . MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THOMAS D. HOARD, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD AND BUILDING COMMISSIONER/ZONING OFFICER BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ' 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 pre- ' sent the argument for the case as succinctly as possible and then ' be available to answer questions from the Board, We will then ` hear those interested parties who are in support of the applica- tion, followed by those interested who are opposed to the appli- cation . Now I should note here that the Board considers " inter- ested parties" to be persons who own property within two hundred ' feet of the property in question or who live or work within two hundred feet of that property. Thos the Board will not hear tes- timony from persons who do not meet the definition of an " inter- ' ested party" . While we do not adhere to the strict roles of evi- ' — BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! Z dence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record . The record consists of the application materials filed with the Building Department - the ' 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 hearin8. 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 which are directly opposite me here so that the comments can be picked op by the tape recorder and be 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 deliberation . We ask that everyone limit their . comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on as- . pects 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 deci- sion . Once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during our deliberations . It takes four votes to approve a mo- ' tion to grant or deny a variance or a special permit . In the ' rare cases where there is a tie vote the variance or special per- . mit is automatically denied. Are there any questions about our ' . procedure? Yes. VOICE IN THE AUDIENC0 I have a question. Do you allow any printed material from someone who is not able to be here tonight? ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 3 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes we do . At the time, either for or against , in that particular instance, you come forward and essentially represent - essentially present that material as that persons ' representative. Any other questions out there? Then can we proceed with our first case? SECRETARY HOARD! The first appeal is APPEAL NO, 1648 FOR 110 HANTHORNE PLACE: Appeal of Myron and Pauline Nasilchak for an area variance for deficient lot size and defi- cient setbacks for the front yard and one sideyard under Section 30 ^25, Columns 6, 11 , and 12, of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the conversion of the existing garage structure at 110 Hawthorne Place to a single family dwell- ing. The property is located in an R1b (Resi- dential , Single Family Dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; how- ever under Section 30^57 the appellants most first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Cer- tificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion . This appeal was held over from the September 3, 1985 meeting so that all property owners within two hundred feet could be notified. CHAIRMAN TOMLANI Sir , op front here at those microphones . Beginning with identifying yoorself , ^ ^ MR. NASILCHAKI Yes, my name is Myron Nasilchak, I own the prop- erty at 110 Hawthorne Place . I am proposing to build a one unit - one-family home on this premises that I own right now which is a garage of five 8arages^ I ' ve owned this property for several ' years and during the years that I ' ve owned this property I ' ve pot in sixty-two windows through vandalismv three roofs, it ' s almost impossible to mow the lawn doe to the garbage, stones, rocks and / - -- ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE: 4 ' so forth and I feel that by putting a home on this property it would improve the neighborhood from what there is standing there . right now . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there , I am just looking over the applica- tion and the recent history - I think , in general , I ' ve been a . little troubled as to why you haven ' t come forward in the prev- ious meetings, is there any particular reason for your not having . shown op? ' MR . WASILCHAK : Well the last time I didn ' t show op was I had to ' resubmit to a list of property owners within two hundred feet. I neglected mailing a letter to one individual so therefore that ^ is the reason I am back . ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And what do you feel is the general - do you ' get any reading from the neighbors as to how they feel? MR, HASILCHAK: The neighbors are against it for some reason . I . feel that a home on a piece of property would improve the neigh- borhood from what is at the location right now . To me it ' s an eyesore ~ I try to keep it op as much as possible - it is imposs- ible to keep windows in it * It is a playground for the whole nei8hborhood ^ If they are so much against the property I ' d like to have them boy it off me or the City can boy it and use it as a playground. To me it is just a stagnant piece of pain in the neck to me . And I feel with a home built on there with a live-in tenant or a live-in person would maintain the property ^ MR . BOOTH: When did you boy the property? MR ^ NASILCHAK! About fifteen years a8o^ � - BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! 5 MR, BOOTH: What did you boy it for? MR . NASILCHAK : I bought it for storage porposes ^ I' m in the Office Equipment business and I needed a place for storage . I tried to rent the garages and nobody seems to want to rent any garages op there, but they do use it for parking when there is an emerSency, and so forth, the piece of property. MR . BOOTH: We have a letter that argues that this lot is too small to build a hoose on it . What is your reaction? MR. WASILCHAKI It is as good a sized lot as any lot op there , it is a nice corner lot - on the corner of Hawthorne and Pearsall Place . I think it is sufficient for one family home. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR ^ NASILCHAK: As far as parking goes, there is - I would say there is parking for at least six, seven, eight cars (unintelligible) building on the premises. MS. FARRELL: Do you plan to build a new structure on the present foundation? MR. NASILCHAKI Yes . MR. BOOTH: So the present foundation would be like a cellar? MR . NASILCHAK: More or less of a garage area - storage and so forth. That is solid rock op there and it is impossible to dig a basement to build a home . MR. BOOTH: So the main living floor is going to be above the existing structure? MR. NASILCHAK: That ' s right . In other words by tearing off about two feet of the present structure and dropping it down , BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 6 would be road level to Hawthorne Place. MS . FARRELL! So the five garages wouldn ' t still be there - it would be a hoose? MR. NASILCHAKI Ri8ht ^ Hell , there would have to be a place for storage and utilities - furnace and things of that natore ^ MR^ BOOTH : The front door would face which street? MR ^ NASILCHAK : Hawthorne Place , MS . JOHNSONt As I recall looking at the property, it is set perpendicular to Hawthorne Place, right? MR , NASILCHAK: No it ' s right on the corner . It is right on the ' corner of Hawthorne and Pearsall Place - it is a square lot^ ' MS. JOHNSON: So essentially you are going to build the front of the hoose on what is the back of the garage now, is that right? . MR^ NASILCHAK : The back of the garage will be the back of the house . The front of the hoose would face Hawthorne Place . I . think you have photographs of the present building that is at . this site ^ . MR. WEAVER: While that is going around, there are a couple of artist renderings of hooses that we have received with the . ' application , does any one of them have any validity - are there a set of building plans that go along with either one of them, or is that merely an idea of what might happen? MR ° WASILCHAK: It ' s an idea of what might happen. I haven ' t gone any farther than I have to without (unintelligible) and otherwise find out whether I am able to 8o ahead with the plans ^ MR. NEAVERZ Is there a strong reason that this hoose has to be � . BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 7 ` situated exactly where that garage is? ' MR . NASILCHAK Economically-wise, yes. To dig a foundation - it is solid rock in the area and it will be impossible , , ^ MR . WEAVER! Was there an excavation to accommodate the garage? MR . NASILCHAKZ At that time - the garage was pot op at the time when the V-12 was building homes op in that area and it was used as an office and a warehouse for the construction company . And Ernie Dahlman - I think the Pearsalls owned it at one time and ' Ernie Dahlman bought it from the Pearsalls, I bought it from Ernie Dahlman, ' MR. NEAVERt Well my question was about the foundation - was ' . ' there a foundation built to accommodate the garage structure that is there? ` ^ . . MR . AASILCHAK: Yes, right~ ' . ` . MR. HEAVERt So there are substantial footers , ^ . ' . . . MR , NASILCHAK: Yes. ' MR. WEAVER: Well it appears that the lot is just barely under the minimum but the location of the garage relative to side yard setbacks is unusually poor and^ ^ , ' MR, NASILCHAK: Well the front of the building to the side walk is a good thirty feet - thirty-five feet~ And the back is a good seventy-five feet^ ^ ^ MR. NEAVERt Yes and the other is one foot, MR ^ NASILCHAK: One side is right near the sidewalk which would have to be torn off I believe, to conform with the building ' codes. So that would eliminate the size of - it would bring it ' - - — BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 8 down to four units instead of five ^ MR^ BOOTH: What is the significance of that? You are reducing it from five units to four , why is that significant? MR , NASILCHAK: Well the building is right on the end of - right next to the sidewalk and, according to the zoning I would have to tear off , I don ' t know, four or five or six or eight feet, right Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: Well to make it conform you would have to tear twenty-four feet off ^ MR. AASILCHAK: Twenty-four feet . SECRETARY HOARD: That is why you are here , to get a variance , MR. BOOTH: Your plans are to use the entire structure as a ' foundation for the hoose? MR^ NASILCHAK : RiSht ^ MR. BOOTHt That is what I was trying to get at. When you say that the front door will face Hawthorne Place, you don ' t really mean that do you? The front door will actoally ^ ^ . MS ^ JOHNSON! He means Pearsall Place ~ MR , NASILCHAK: Pearsall Place, I ' m sorry. Pearsall ^ MR ^ BOOTH: The front door will face Pearsall , on the low side of ^ " the building - on the south side of the building? MR. NASILCHAKI Right^ ' MR. WEAVER: What are the dimensions of the existing building? MR . HASILCHAK! The depth is ten feet and the overall building is about fifty feet , MR , WEAVER: And you believe that the ten feet depth, as you list ^ _ , ' 8ZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE! ~ ' it, is adequate for the base of the intended single family . dwelling? MR. NASZLCHAK! Yes, it would be a two foot overhang in the front . and a two foot overhang in the back. MR. HEAVER: Go the whole hoose would be fourteen feet wide? MR^ NASILCHAK1 Right. MR , BOOTH | Are you planning to rent this, live in it, sell it? MR ^ NASZLCHAKI I don ' t know . According to the papers there is a . real need for housing. The Ithaca Journal had a big ad in there that South Hill was^ ^ ^ ^ ' MR . WEAVER: Let ' s pursue the dimensions that you say you need - ^ you need a base of ten by fifty or you intend to use a base ten by fifty? MR. NASZLCHAKt Ten by forty , probably , We will probably wind up . with ten by forty. . MR ^ HEAVER: In order to comply with the setback , if you took ^ twenty-four feet from the end of the garage, could you pot a hoose in there that would satisfy your needs? MR^ HASZLCHAK: Nor unless I tore everything down and started , from scratch and then I think there would be objections to building a house facing Hawthorne Place - that ' s the only alternative there would be . MR ^ BOOTH: Why is that objectionable, I ' m not - why is it objectionable to build a hoose facing Hawthorne Place? ` MR . NASZLCHAKt Well I ' d like to build on the present structure, price wise - cost wise. . BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE: 10 MR . BOOT& I understand that , but Mr . Weaver asked you, what if ' you tore down the whole thing? ' MR . NASILCHAK: Well I hadn ' t thought about tearing down the whole thing. ' MR^ WEAVER! Well , simply pot, what you are applying for is permission to pot a hoose on the existing structure? Yes or no . ' MR. NASILCHAK: Yes, that ' s right . MR . SCHWAB! So the size of the hoose that you want, it will be the base will be about ten feet by forty feet? MR . WEAVER: No, it will be about ten feet by fifty feet . ' MR. NASILCHAKt No, it will be forty by fourteen . ` MR . SCHWAB: Fourteen with the overhang. So that is about a four hundred and eighty foot square feet hoose? It is going to . be a one story plus basement storage? . ^ SECRETARY HOARD: The building now is twenty by fifty . ` MR ^ NASILCHAK: Twenty by fifty? I ' m sorry - twenty by fifty . ' MR, BOOTH: All right. Twenty by fifty and you say you are only going to use forty of the fifty? MR. NASILCHAK: Well if I have to tear off a portion of it , from the sidewalk , it would be twenty-four by forty, or whateverr . forty-two or whatever , the number of feet I have to tear off , . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this variance? (no one) Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? If you will come forward . . MR . CULLICAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I ' m Donald Culligan. My ' - - BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEt 11 residence is 627 Hodson Street but my property goes straight through to Hawthorne - my driveway comes from Hawthorne so the south side of my property abuts Mr . Nasilchak ' s^ We ' ve lived in this residence for twenty-eight years now. Behind me , coming later here are ten other residents all who live within the two hundred feet - regulation role - to oppose this variance for the 110 Hawthorne Place. Mr . Wasilchak mentioned here earlier that he has pot three roofs on the building, I only remember one and I live there every day, I am in and out every day . The biggest problem of eyesore the last few years has not been children ' s trash, I have to admit some years ago that was so, but the child- ren seem to have grown op and Sone away now, but it was two large rusted file cabinets from his business and one huge truck which he took over from somebody and set there next to my fence all winter - very much of an eyesore . The grass was never cot, the sidewalk has not been plowed in ten years and we feel that the structure is only - it is less than this distance from the side- walk right now - less than that distance - it is a very weak looking structure to begin with, it has been there I would say, thirty-five or forty years . Children in the past have actually taken small iron bars and pot holes through it, and it has been patched op . It is too small a structure for the housing that he wants, a three-bedroom hoose , as we understand it . South Hill in general , and I ' ve talked to so many people and I ' ve seen such a deterioration of South Hill . ^ ^ our Common Council , this is one of the biggest things in the next few years , is older people who BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: / have their residences there, this is an R-1 residency zone, that only two unrelated people could live in this hoose . Now if he pots three bedrooms in there and he is not going to live there himself , we know what he has in mind and that is to bring in stu- dents. And with students you get rent parties, football parties, noise, pollution of cars , parking situations, this is the one area of South Hill that is still a good residency and is equal with Bryant Tract area and I know they have been having problems over there , too. The people on lower South Hill are actually , the older people - it just makes my heart bleed to see the beau- tiful homes that used to be there, which are completely deterio- rated by absentee ownership and this is exactly what this situa- tion is and I know maybe that is not going to affect your detail- ed decision here but that ' s in the background of every person that is here tonight. The structure as it is now would have to be torn down if anything is going to be built on there -it would seem to me maybe a one or two-bedroom hoose - a very small ranch hoose possibly, but not on the permanent structure that is there now, it is too close to the sidewalk and the block is very small . We live with the eyesore as it is now, the neighbors and myself because the eyesore is at least quiet. ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? ' MR. BOOTH: Don ' t So away , ' MR . CULLICAN: Oh, sorry . ' ^ MR, BOOTH: What is the relevance of the fact that the streets haven ' t been shoveled and grass hasn ' t been cot, to this ' , ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! 13 particular proposal? MR. CULLICANZ You ' d have to ask Mr . Nasilchak that question. MR . BOOTH: But you made the comment and he obviously wants to pot a hoose on it , presumably wants to ^ . , MR . CULLICAN: Well if he is going to live there himself , I might accept that, he himself could be a good neighbor , perhaps, but that ' s not going to happen. MR. BOOTH: What about if a hoose gets built on this lot without this structure , would you say the same things? That is, they tear down the structure and build a house. MR. CULLICAN: If Mr . Hoard ' s Department would watch the building very carefully , the structure, as it was being built , and also watch the occupancy of the structure afterwards. There is actu- ally places on South Hill today where, I just mentioned rent par- ties - where - and I ' m going to the ABC Board with this -where they are charging five dollars at the door and they are stamping hands and there is beer and wine inside and they pay their rent that way - it goes on until two or three in the morning. The cops come and it quiets down for twenty minutes -they can do very little. This is happening on South Hill right now in three or four locations~ We ' ve lived with the situation as it is, storage - and no one has complained about that - there has been no noise from storage . His trucks come and go occasionally , no one is really complaining about that, MS . FARRELL: So your main complaint or your main concern as related to our thing tonight is that it is too close to the BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE : 14 sidewalk? And the lot is too small? MR . CULLICAY Absolutely. And as Mr . Hoard said, if it had to be twenty-four feet taken off , that ' s half of the structure right there to begin with. CHAIRMAN TDMLANZ Further questions from members of the Board? Thank you Mr . Culligan. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to this? DR . VISNYEI: Members of the Board, my name is George Visnyei and I ' m also representing my wife Catherine . We live at 631 Hodson Street - our property 629 - 631 - 633 Hodson abuts the 110 Haw- thorne Place property along the entire west side . We wish to object to the variance request for the following reasons* The lot does not meet a single dwelling requirement in size, the side yard is not enough by several feet, the present garage building is probably eighteen to twenty-four inches from the Hawthorne sidewalk, on the west side the garage, I am sore, is not more than four or five feet from my property line at the present time and three, the addition of the proposed structure over the old garage walls would be unsound and would be - again would be too close to the west property line. Four , the size of this corner ^ lot being so undersized would create a congestion in this area , especially if - not that I object to the parking places, but if . we had six to seven parking places and they are all occupied. ' Five, a very important objection is that the sketch presented is very inadeqoate . There are no details as to size or elevation, Actually details are so lacking that one has no idea as to size ^ ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE: 15 or structural plan . I request that consideration for a variance be held in abeyance until more detailed information is provided. I think some of the things Mr . Nasilchak brought out were very good, today I think he presented many things to you that are pro- blems there, and these are the problems to our neighborhood. He is adding to a congested area a building that wouldn ' t fit in to the locale architectorally^ And I thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? (none) Thank yoo ^ Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? MS . FARRELL: Could I ask a question? We don ' t have any dimensions on this building. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! That is troe ^ MS^ FARRELL: None^ Maybe, could we talk about that before we get finished? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well do you figure it would be proper , in the middle of a hearing to fine tone the application, perhaps would be inappropriate . MS, FARRELL: But if we don ' t have any of those things , I mean it is very hard to make those kinds of decisions, We have heard some very different building sizes from Mr * Nasilchak, you know, twenty, or fifty or ten or forty or fourteen or ten or ^ ^ ^ and I ' am all of a sodden thinking I don ' t have enough information to ' vote on. I mean, I can listen to the whole hearing but that ' s . not going to supply that information, CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that may be the case but at the same time . -- BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 16 we are in the middle of the hearing and I think we ought to go forward. How does everyone else feel? MR . HEAVER: I recall that I specifically asked Mr . Nasilchak if his application was as he had submitted it, yes or no and he said yes. So I assume he wants to build a hoose on the existing foondation ^ And anything that might modify that will have to be modified some other day for me. MS . FARRELL: Okay, We don ' t have any elevation* CHAIRMAN TOMLAN| Well I have a prospective sketch, we can let it 8o at that . MR. WEAVER! I think the application has to stand on its merit . MS . FARRELL! Okay ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAK Further comment? We can then continue? Sorry to keep you waiting. MR. ALLINCZ That ' s all ri8ht . My name is John Alling, I repre- sent my family, my wife and a couple of my children who are of voting age, We live at 623 Hodson Street and I am buying the hoose from my mother and dad who have been at this residence since about 1946 and I ' ll go along with Mr . Culligan that I re- call none of these renovations being done to the property as it is now. I guess this gentleman over here wanted to know what ' relevancy it had on this . The fact that Mr ^ Hasilchak brought it op I think is the reason that it deserves answering in opposi- tion^ I never remember any real repair being done to the struc- ture as it is now, which is a flimsy structure at best. As far ' as garbage , he said was the reason that he couldn ' t mow the - -- --- BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGEt 17 grassy the only garbage that I can recall is the broken op side- walk that has always been at this property. It has never been used as a playground as such, it certainly isn ' t an eyesore in the neighborhood where kids collect, causing problems or anything of this nature, which - as it is is fine ^ To pot a building on it, I believe eventually he would rent to students* We all do and this is my main reason for objecting and I wish that you would not accept this variance and vote against it * CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MS. FARRELK Well I have a problem with hearing that your main objection is against renting to students. If you are following the laws which say that op to three unrelated people can live there . You have other objections which are that it is very close to the property lines and that the lot is small , are those other big concerns of yours? MR, ALLINC: They are and the fact that it hasn ' t been kept op and maintained as he says, leads me to believe that it probably won ' t be no matter what ' s pot there . But also all of - close to the sidewalk - all of those things naturally - they have already been hit on - I certainly agree . MR. BOOTH: Would you be making the same objection if he were building a hoose from scratch? MR! ALLING: Yes I would . ^ MR . BOOTHt Doesn ' t that leave him with a piece of property that you are going to object to any use of? MR. ALLINC! Probably , I have seen no reason to think that he BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! , ) wouldn ' t maintain it to the satisfaction of the neighborhood . CHAIRMAN TOMLANI Further questions from members of the Board? Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? MR. NORMAK I ' m John Norman, I represent my wife and my daugh- ter , who is at voting age, at 122 Pearsall Place, directly across the street from the garage structure . I object to the building that he is proposing for one - main purpose the plans that he has - this is just a sketch - this sketch shows a basement, there is no mention of a basement. Mr . Nasilchak has a history of poor maintenance. The only roof I remember being pot on the hoose was done by Daryl Waterman, who rented the garage at the time. There is one bay that is being rented by a man who keeps his motorcycle there and he is very good about it, he doesn ' t seem to bother anybody^ As far as garbage being thrown on the property by the neighbors, that is not true * We assume that most of (unintelli- gible) are there , filing cabinets and it looks like some sort of electrical devices are pot there by him ^ The history of the man ' s ways of keeping the property op is just not very good. He has a very poor history of keeping the property op, he is very - I also oppose any kind of student housing there. I ' ve lived there for fourteen years and we ' ve gone through three or four of . these with Mr . Hasilchak^ He just doesn ' t seem to be very pre- pared or very serious about what kind of building he wants to pot . there. MR . BOOTH: Did you ever try to boy this property from him? ' ` ' --' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE! � MR . NORMAN ! Well there have been several occasions - I understand, there are people who did try to boy the property from him, but his prices were rather unreasonable. MR , BOOTH: But you didn ' t? MR. NORMAN : No I didn ' t , MR , BOOTH: Would you oppose his building a hoose from scratch on this property? MR. NORMAN: From scratch? If it was very carefully supervised by the Building Commissioner , probably not, if it was with the intentions of being sold to a family and not used for student housing. MR, BOOTH: The law doesn ' t require that. MR ~ NORMAN ! Okay. It doesn ' t even show which way the hoose is going to face. He claims that the hoose is going to front - the front door is going to be on Pearsall Place, which is the high side, not the low side^ MS. FARRELL: That is different from the drawing that we have ^ MR . NORMANZ Pardon me? Oh, that is different from the drawing you have, We received this one . MS ^ FARRELL: Sort of similar ^ MR. NORMAN : This also shows a basement, sort of a split level , MR. SCHWAB: If the property were sold to somebody else, just by chance, what would you like , ideally, to have done with it? MR ^ NORMAN: Nell , a one family dwelling, I wouldn ' t have any objection to it ^ MR. SCHWAB : That would be the ideal , in your mind, preferable to ` BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 20 what is here now? MR. NORMANt Yes, I really have no objection to what is there right now, like one of my other neighbors mentioned - at least it is quiet now , you know, we have sort of gotten used to the way this is. The only person that ever did keep it op was - like I say -the man he rented it to , Daryl Waterman, at one time, he painted it , he fixed the roof, he had electricity run to the building, he did a fine job ^ He kept the lawn cot ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Thank you Mr ^ Norman . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Come forward please ^ MR. MILLER : My name is Don Miller , and we live at 635 Hodson Street, which is just kidde-korner from the property in question. I speak in opposition for basically the same reasons that the other people do, with a couple of other points, one of them is that the New York State Electric and Cas has a power line which goes right across the middle of the property, I believe that that would be in violation of any Ordinances* It would also mean that the Cas and Electric would have to come through and tear out some telephone poles, reroute the electricity, which would probably affect my property, because the pole that it connects to is right on my property or right on the City property, actually . The ' other thing is that this is the third attempt for Mr ^ Nasilchak to get this variance . He has varied his ideas three times in a ' row^ Twice he didn ' t even bother coming to the meetings so I ' have a feeling that it was not a personal interest that he had in ' --- ^ BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 21 this piece of property , but a strictly financial interest. I would not like to see this property - a hoose built on there - which would be rented to students, so it is not clear in my mind what the roles are on a single family dwelling or how many unre- lated people can live in a single family dwelling. I believe you people are having all kinds of trouble with the properties in the streets below Pearsall Place . Prospect, Pleasant and those streets because of the same problem with the influx of private homes or apartments going to many students* It is slowly working op the hill and I believe our neighborhood is a very nice neigh- . borhood and I do not want to see this type of thin8. I don ' t disapprove of parties, but I do disapprove of parties where there are people standing five and six deep on the doorstep, yelling, . ' hollering, screaming at one and two in the morning, music which is being played -which you can hear op at Cornell and as I say, I am in objection to this particular thing. If a single dwelling . was to be built on that piece of property and it was to be given to a single family who would have children, it would be no place for the children to play . The property is not big enough to have a yard where young children play . They would end op playing in ` the street , Pearsall Place is not - it may be to most people a quiet little street - but when people come around that corner , . children playing in the street have to scurry to either side and children do play in the street so it would not even be suitable for a single family dwelling where there would be young children there because there would be no place for the children to play , ' ` - — - -- - ' -- BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGO 22 they would either have to play in the street or play on somebody ' else ' s property , and I don ' t believe that there is too many of ' the neighbors op there that have insurance big enough to allow ' other children to play on their property. And with Mr , Nasilchak ' s track record, as far as I am concerned, it is very, very poor , because he would not come to these meetings, where the ' rest of the neighbors did come to the meetings, and some of os ' ` who have other commitments besides going to meetings all of ' the time, have made the effort to get here, I am very much in - I would not approve of his - of a variance on this piece of proper- ty . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions? ' MS. FARRELL: So your major point of objection here is - related . to what we vote on - is that - I mean - we can ' t deal with the . student housing thing, we can (unintelligible) a one family hoose . and then if there is op to three unrelated adults living there, . that ' s what they choose^ He can ' t judge whether there is whether the yard is big enough for children to play in it~ Your . main points then are that it is too close to the side yard or it ' s ^ . , MR. MILLER: I said, in the beginning, all of the - what other people have said - since I have come in - which would mean too close to the City property, which is the sidewalk and the adjacent piece of grassy and the New York State Electric and Gas ' lines which go right over the top of the property. Somebody has got to move it, somebody has got to pay for it . I ' m a taxpayer , ^ RZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE: 23 ^ I ' m going to have to pay for it sooner or later . MR. BOOTH: NYSEC will move their own lines, if they have to move them . MR . MILLER: Somebody has got to pay them to move them, MR . BOOTH: Well I understand that but that ' s a different matter . Let me ask you a couple of things. You say the lot is ' too small to play on . This lot is fifty-eight hundred square ' feet and it is significantly bigger than many hundreds of hoose lots in the City of Ithaca, by an order of a considerable amount, I would guess , There are many lots, Tom, that are what , three ' thousand square feet? SECRETARY HOARD: Three thousand and less^ MR ^ BOOTH: And less. Hundreds of lots with single family hooses on them. I ' m not sore that I understand your point. MR . MILLER : It is a corner lot, it has two sides available to ' the street* . . Where is the protection for the children unless ' you pot the hoose close to the sidewalk and pot a fence around ' it? I have a corner lot and when my children were growing op we had to monitor them constantly until they eventually learned that ' the street you keep out of . ' MR. BOOTH! The parts of Ithaca that I live in, a fifty-eight ' hundred square foot lot is a big lot . And there are a lot of children that live in those areas . MR. MILLEK My lot is quite a bit bigger . ' MS, FARRELL! It seems like this is something that we are going to be judging . . ` , ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGO 24 ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLANI It seems like it is rather extraneous in any . ' event. Any other questions from members of the Board? Thank you . Mr . Miller . MR. MILLER! The other thing is, you have a different drawing . than we have. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! If you could, leave that with os and we will compare ^ Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to . speak in opposition? And if so, bear in mind please that we ' d ' like to hear new points if at all possible . MR . KREINICKt My name is David Kreinick ^ I ' m representing also ' my wife, Susan Blumenthal . We live at 117 Pearsall Place which is directly across Pearsall Place from Mr . Nasilchak ' s property , ' And right next door to Mr . Miller ' s property ^ I have to apolo- gize, our two year old son caught ill at six o ' clock this evening ' and therefore I missed Mr . Nasilchak ' s presentation but I hope that I haven ' t missed enough that my points aren ' t relevant. First, we have very little information about this situation? ' things that we would really like to know. How many people is ' this hoose going to accommodate? Is the downstairs going to be living space or storage space? Is it Mr . Nasilchak ' s plan to rent this hoose as a single family dwelling or does he plan to sell it to someone who is going to use it as a single family hoose? With all of these uncertainties it is not possible to say everything in great detail but there are some obvious problems . The lot is undersized ~ In area it is not very much undersized ' and that doesn ' t particularly concern me. I ' m a little more con- BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: -' cerned about the side yards which are only approximately two feet from Dr . Visnyei ' s property and about two feet or less from the sidewalk. So you have this twelve foot high cinder block wall , two feet or less from the sidewalk . Mr . Nasilchak is planning to build another twelve feet or so above that - the feeling of this hoose, once it is built, on Hawthorne Place, is going to be a lot more like downtown with the buildings right op on the sidewalk than it is in consonance with the rest of the neighborhood, which is a low-density residential area with many of the hooses being on double-sized lots or even larger . Now I can see three ways to alleviate the problem. One way would be to design the new build- ing very , very carefully and very brilliantly so that you don ' t notice that there is a building twenty-four feet above your head when you are sitting on the sidewalk. A second possibility is to cot off part of the existing foundation to make more of a larger side yard. I missed Mr . Nasilchak ' s presentation unfortunately ' and I don ' t know if that is what he is proposing but the proposal as I received it did not do that. The third possibility that I . can see is to raze the existing building altogether and start . with another building which instead of being oriented cross-wise across this lot with its fifty foot length across the fifty foot ' width of the lot, orient it along the lot which is the natural way to do things and just start all over . As far as I understand Mr . Hasilchak has not made a case that there is a hardship invol- ved , that he can ' t raze this building, he hasn ' t told os how much it is going to cost to cot that down and build the building that ' '-- - -- - BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEt 26 the lot was originally designed for on that lot . That is the solution that my wife and I would propose, would prefer - to level the existing structure and build a single family dwelling ' on this lot, which would be slightly undersized but not critical- ' ly undersized. That is not what we are considering today. If it ' is not razed, then it seems to me the designing of the new struc- ture is absolutely critical . Susan and I are both very concerned about how this new building will fit into the neighborhood. This is a twelve foot high cinder block wall and there would be more building on top of it , now the design that Mr . Nasilchak has just ' presented os is a considerable improvement over the flat roofed ' building that he was suggesting, and which looks to be a raised ranch, which is out of consonance with the rest of the neighbor- hood. Our hoose is a cape cod and the other hooses are with ' frame siding and that kind of a hoose and we are a little con- cerned that it might look out of place . The original building was designed as a garage and as an accessory building for a hoose . that is across the street . It seems to me that you are going to have to be very, very careful on how you design the conversion in order to make this into living spacer as opposed to a garage with a structure on top of it* Also, Susan and I are both concerned that if the living space is upstairs and the downstairs remains unfinished or a garage , we are concerned that the temptation in the future, to finish op the downstairs and rent that out in a use that would not be in consonance with the residential zoning of the neighborhood. So , in summary , Susan and I would like to / . .� VA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: suggest - would like to urge that the variance be denied . If it is not denied, however , we would like to suggest very strongly that the appellant be required to consult with a panel of neigh- bors and/or the Design Review Board before final approval to con- struct is 8iven4 We understand that two new people have been appointed to the Design Review Board who have strong backgrounds in design, we also understand that the BZA does have the discre- tionary power to grant a variance on the condition that these people on the Design Review Board approve the design of the plans before construction begins and if the variance is granted, we would urge that it be granted on this condition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MS. FARRELLt So you have serious concerns about this structure and closeness to sidewalk and stuff like that, you don ' t ( unintelligible) you could possibly see a one family hoose being constructed somehow on this property? MR. KREINICK: I think that is the natural structure to 8o on ' this property , if it doesn ' t stay as it is forever and be an eyesore or just be leveled and be a vacant lot . The right thing . to pot on there is a one family dwelling. That would be . perfectly in consonance with the use of that neighborhood and Susan and I have no objection to that . MR. SCHWAB: How long have you lived in your hoose? ' MR . KREINICK! We have - I think we are the newcomers, we have been there for almost eight years now. Let ' s see , we moved in in ' 178 - seven years, BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACO 28 MR * SCHWAB: When you said raze the building, it was stated elsewhere, he did testify that it would be very difficult to excavate a new foundation because of the large amount of rock in the area, MR, KREINICK: I ' m sorry, that ' s because my son was sick that I was late and I just couldn ' t get here . I don ' t know how expen- sive that would be but that seems to be the natural use for this piece of land . We have - a little over two years ago we came to this Board to ask for a variance in order to pot an addition onto our hoose and I presume that the soil isn ' t that different - we did excavate and there was no particular problem , CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Thank you. Need I ask if there is anyone else who would like to object? MRS, CULLICAN: My name is Jane Culligan and I have lived for twenty-nine years at 627 Hodson Street and, as my husband indica- ted, our property goes through to Hawthorne Place and so our back yard and our driveway abuts Mr . Hasilchak ' s property, I am con- ' cerned, after seeing the plans that Mr . Nasilchak first presented ' where he wanted to pot a structure on top of those garages and which he indicated was to be owner-occupied and then an apartment there, The drawings that he had at that particular time certain- ' ly did not indicate anything that had been seriously thought out and the other drawing that we have which is different than the ' detailed drawing that you have, but the drawings that were sent to os certainly didn ' t indicate that there was much more thought given to that particular structure and I object, in a way in Mr . /`7A MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 29 Nasilchak saying he could not excavate to build a building there by taking down that existing structure because every other hoose that I know of in the neighborhood does have basements, there are no hooses that I know of in the neighborhood that are sitting just on flat groond^ My concern is that obviously if he is ask- ing for a variance to pot op a building on top of that particular structure, then obviously it is not big enough for that particu- lar structure and I would like to ask this Board to defer any decision made on that so that some more detail design review could be made before you would grant this particular variance . I also would like to read a short letter from Nancy Yengo who is working tonight and cannot come and I will just quickly read that and she says! "I live with my family of three children at 117 Hawthorne Place and I have lived at this address for thirteen years. I am concerned about the proposed three bedroom hoose Mr ^ Nasilchak is planning on building if a variance is given to him. This residential area is zoned R-1b, which has restrictions of only two unrelated people living in a dwelling. Mr , Nasilchak ' s ' proposal does not indicate that it will be owner-occupied. Is it ' to be rental property? It is important to me that this neighbor- hood remain a family oriented neighborhood . I would ask the . Board to please defer your decision for a more detailed design review. ' I will leave that with you . CHAIRMAN TOMLAW Questions from members of the Board? If you would submit the letter please . ' MRS. CULLICAN: Thank you. BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE: 30 ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No questions? Yes, anybody else who would like to speak in opposition? ' MS , CUMMINCS! My name is Susan Cummings, I ' m the Alderwoman rep- ` resenting the second ward and I would like to speak in opposition ' to this appeal . I think you have heard residents speak tonight ' bringing forth a range of concerns which, strictly speaking, are not within your area of responsibility but I think it is impor- tant to understand that people are , indeed, reflecting the frus- tration they see as they look around them and watch their neigh- borhood deteriorate . The way that all plugs into this specific ' building is very simple . The proposal , on the face of it, is not ^ bad, the idea of putting in a single family hoose in a neighbor- hood of single family hooses , in a City which needs housing. Sounds lovely . What people really are concerned about and what we are all saying is, what sort of quality construction are we going to be getting? Along with the quality of construction, ' therefore , is what sort of quality of occupancy? And it doesn ' t matter whether we are talking about an owner-occupied family home, whether we are talking about a professional rental , or a rental to unrelated people. It is the quality of occupancy and that quality of occupancy - people who care about the property . and take care of it is directly related to the quality of the building. And I am extremely concerned because I think the qual- ity of information which you have received is inadequate. There have been several different sketches and the appellant has indi- cated that there are ideas, they are not a hard and fast guide- . ` ` BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACO 31 lines . I think it is very hard to tell what quality of housing we are going to be seeing on that site without the elevation of the specific building, the floor plan for the specific structure , I understand that the Planning Board, of course, considered dif- ferent questions than the BZA but when I sat on that, one of the things which was very helpful in determining quality of housing, was the floor plan - the layout -what sort of hoose are you buil- ding? Are you building something which is gracious and generous and in keeping with its surroundings? I would like to ask the Board to defer for further information, I think it would be ap- propriate to come op with vigorous, clear , concise plans detail- ing this project , because quite frankly, I have my doubts that , unless someone is very skilled, willing to spend a great deal of money and get some serious expertise , I have my doubts that he could create quality housing on that site, incorporating the ex- isting structure into it. CHAIRMAN TOMLANI Questions from members of the Board? ' MR, WEAVER! I have a question* Did I hear you say quality ' tenants? . MS , CUMMINCO Yes . MR. NEAVERZ What would you say we would do, start a Board that would qualify people as to being good ones - white hats and black hats? MS, CUMMINCS: Certainly, wouldn ' t that be lovely. No . I said that the quality of the housing stock has a great deal to do with the quality of the occupancy . If people are living in a trashy, -_- - . BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 32 . tacky building, as for instance, some of our older buildings, . which are in very rough shape, the buildings don ' t get adequate . care or treatment from those people who live in them, as well as ^ those people who own them and rent them - if we have several . -yes , we have several accessory structures in this town converted . to living units and it ' s asking for trouble to take a borderline . building and torn it into borderline housing units because the . people who then live in it will treat it with lack of respect. ` ' When the Common Council drafted the Accessory Apartment Ordi- nance , they had a real concern that people would - that these . owner-occupied properties might 8o and convert accessory struc- tures on the property to living units and I was really concerned ^ that those are hard to convert so they pot stipulations in that ' legislation making it very difficult to convert accessory struc- tures into housing - it had to meet a range of conditions. So that ' s what I mean by the relationship between quality of the ^ housing stock and the quality of the people who live in it. By quality I mean their attitude toward the property - respect for the property and the neighbors and the neighborhood, ^ MR ~ BOOTH: When your excuse me Stoart^ ^ ^ MR. SCHWAB : Do you have any basis for judging whether it would be any more difficult in this area than in another , to start ' over , and to build a new foundation similar - he is claiming that ' it is difficult to pot a new foundation in. MS ^ CUMMINCS: I haven ' t done soil borings on the site, nor , I ' suspect, has anyone . My understanding is that the properties in ' ' ` BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGEt 33 the area, all by and large, do have basements. I would expect ' there would be some similarity to the soil composition^ The hooses are close together so they are likely to have the same conditions , MR, BOOTH: When you say quality of housing, are you talking about anything other than what the Building Commissioner requires in terms of meeting the building code? MS. CUMMINCS: Let ' s see . It ' s always nice to be able to 8o be- yond standards set forth by the building code because a hoose can make code, I guess, and still not be absolutely the nicest or the best looking hoose in the neighborhood. I think this would be an opportunity where someone has to come for a variance, asking for . a favor , an exemption from strict roles of the City, to ask a little more of them in return, other than just meeting the basic eight by ten bedroom, all the minimum legal requirements, I think that you are legally in a position to ask more of that structure . - to be able to ask for slightly larger sized rooms, to be able . ^ to have Design Review as has been suggested, so that the struc- ture is an attractive looking structure and it will fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Quality of hoose can - the ' building and housing codes So a long way toward guaranteeing some ` basics, I think we are talking about being able to take it a step farther . . MR . BOOTHt So you are saying that where there is a variance ' involved we could attach a higher standard to the quality of the ` building? ^ ^ " ` , � BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 34 MS . CUMMINCS: I think that when a variance is involved, someone ^ is potting structure perhaps on a lot which has initial problems which is less than op to the standards of a neighborhood, there- fore to make the whole thing - deficient lot plus hoose, equal the standards of the neighborhood, the hoose better be better than bottom line. ' MR. BOOTH: Have you pointed to any possible authority for doing that? MS , CUMMINCS : Oh, well , the Design Review Ordinance - my understanding is when the Design Review Ordinance was written, creating a Design Review Board, it was in response to just such a ~ situation - a granting of essentially a windfall profit to two ~ commercial areas of the City, allowing certain downtown areas and certain Colle8etown areas to have more intensive development on small lots and in return for that gift - that favor - that ' ` exception, the property owners would submit to Design Review . ` , MR, BOOTH: But does that Board have any jurisdiction in ^ residential areas? . MS. CUMMINCS: Let ' s see, I ' m trying to think exactly where it operates. It is a B1b or B2b, the Courthouse Special Use by action of Council attached to it and it has been on occasion . asked to take op additional special - I ' m trying to think of . ` those - and as far as residential areas 8o, the Accessory Apartment Ordinance refers projects to the Design Review Board . when a second front door would be pot on the building, so that is the residential area in which it operates. BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 35 MR . WEAVER! It doesn ' t have any white clapboard sections in it? MS, CUMMINGS! You mean it should require a white clapboard? MR . WEAVER: Well I was just interested in what design details would be acceptable in the residential area if we aren ' t for white clapboard, what will we hold for? MS. CUMMINCS : Well I think that the goal of the Design Review Board is to assist appellants in designing structures which are sympathetic with their environment . That doesn ' t mean duplicat- ing the existing structures but making sure that the properties are of a scale, a size , a relation to the lot, perhaps a quality of building material , or details, I mean, there are certain de- signs which you can extract from any neighborhood. There is a certain design pattern which exists in that neighborhood, which is of one and a half story hooses down along Hawthorne and Cres- cent and then on Crescent intermingled with duplexes, but a stan- dard which is very different from, say, the design standards of downtown much older neighborhood on the flats. For the same rea- son you wouldn ' t want to take a hoose, one family ranch hoose and try to use that for infill down in an older victorian neighbor- hood, so you wouldn ' t want to take a very strange , inappropriate- ly shaped structure and try to pot it on South Hill . Each neigh- borhood has its standards and the Design Review Board does have . professionals on it who are aware of this ^ ^ ^ ^ if that answers ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! Thank you Susan. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Please come forward. MRS, BONNETT ! I ' m Mrs . Ralph Bonnett and we own property at 121 ^ � BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE: 36 Pearsall Place . I cannot say anything more than what has already been said . We are opposed to it, my husband Ralph and I. There is three or four other gentlemen that are opposed also, but I think we have covered everything that all of os feel . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is good to hear . MRS . BONNETT: So I really don ' t want to repeat myself , but we are opposed to this variance . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are there any questions? Thank you. I will ask one more time then, is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to granting this variance? (no one) That being the case, the case is ours. Thank you. ^ BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE! 37 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO, 1648 110 HANTHORNE PLACE ' MR . BOOTH: I ' d like to have the applicant come back and talk about the quality of that building. ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is that a serious request? In view of the ' hour? Particularly , I mean, we ' ve spent over an hour on this case Richard. ' MR. WEAVER : Do you think it would be decisive? MR . BOOTH: I will hold that in abeyance, let ' s have our discussion . CHAIRMAN TOMLAQ Thank you Richard ^ I think to be fair to the . ` other applicants tonight, I don ' t feel as though we can So on ^ forever about this particular instance, if you don ' t mind. If we . could have a discussion that revolves around an area variance and practical difficulty and all , it would be really nice. MR , BOOTH: Well , I think we heard a lot of testimony about a lot of things , I think it was critical in terms of the area . variance - the proximity of this building to Hawthorne Place and . the impact of that on the character of the neighborhood. That ' s what I filter out of the great deal that ' s ascerned, some of ^ which I think goes clearly beyond the intention of the Ordinances of the City of Ithaca, into some fields that we properly stay away from, MS . FARRELL: Yeah, this is a lot that ' s just just barely deficient in area. I ' m not convinced that there is not another way to orient the building on the lot. The major problem seems to be its closeness to the street and it is very, very close and ' ^ BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 38 it is close to the other side yard too. MR. SCHNAK What concerns me is in showing the practical diffi- culty - he wants to build on the existing foundation which is really the only reason to stay close to the lot line, largely ignoring the lot area which I think we would do in another case. And I remain very unsure what , if anything, would be saved by using this foundation, if it could be reoriented - and I think -part of that is the sketchiness of the plans and the information because there is no basis to know whether its even a practical difficulty to be forced not to use that existing foundation* I really don ' t know one way or the other . MR . HEAVERt Well Stewart , if this is rejected there is certainly plenty of room for a new design for another application , certain- ly we aren ' t doing any damage to the appellant by rejecting what- ever this is and I agree with you, we don ' t know what is asked for - there is not even a plot plan on the site so we have any idea of its orientation relative to the neighbors -other than the worksheet. And I ' m not at all anxious to defer this to have it ' perfected, I would much rather find out what one is some day, and ' listen to that, rather than this much blue sky ~ ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! Helen, any thoughts? MS. JOHNSONt I would agree that it would be interesting to see, at some point, if there are special conditions or practical ^ difficulties but it hasn ' t been proven, -- - -- --- -- - BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! 39 DECISION ON APPEAL NO , 1648 110 HAHTHORNE PLACE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Myron and Pauline Nasilchak for an area variance for deficient lot size and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard to permit the conversion of the existing garage structure at 110 Hawthorne Place to a single family dwelling. The decision of the Board was as follows : MR. BOOTHt I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in Appeal No^ 1648^ MS, FARRELK I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) The proposal requests a very substantial variance in terms of the yard requirement fronting on Hawthorne Place ^ 2) To place a residential structure this close to Hawthorne ' Place would be seriously out of character with the rest of ' the neighborhood. ' 3) The proposal involves an accessory building, the use of which apparently has given the owner a reasonable return on the expected life-cycle of that accessory building. ` 4) The Board has been presented with very sketchy plans in terms of the details of this structure and the applicant has not carried the burden of showing that this proposed structure would be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. MR ^ BOOTH: Now, having made the motion I want to disassociate that motion from any interpretation of it that it relates to comments about students and so on, because I think I ' m trying to , BZA MINUTES 10!7/85 PAGE' 40 tie this jest to the things this Board deals with, VOTE+0 h YES; G NO AREA VARIANCE REQUEST DENIED BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 41 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1653 FOR 135 FAYETTE STREET : . Appeal of Peter Penniman for an area variance for deficient lot width, and deficient setbacks for the . front yard and one sideyard under Section 30,259 . Columns 7 , 11 and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit conversion of the single-family hoose at 135 Fayette Street to two dwelling units . The property is located in an R2b (Residential , one- and two- family dwellings) Use District in which the propos- ed use is permitted, however under Sections 30^49 ' and 30^57 the appellant most first obtain an area ' variance for the listed deficiencies before a buil- ding permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. ^ ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! If you would begin with identification^ MR. PENNIMAN: My name is Peter Penniman, presently living at Elston Hill Road in VanEtten^ I ' m the owner of the property at 135 Fayette Street and , ^ ^ ' MR . BOOTH: Your attorney? ^ MR. PENNIMAN: My attorney? ^ MR . BOOTH: Who is your attorney? ' MR^ PENNIMANZ This is my son, he has been very patient. Neither of os realized that being second on the Agenda, we would be the thirteenth or fourteenth ones to come forward. I don ' t have much ' to say other than what is on my application. I guess I could read the description which I sent out to all the neighbors. MR , WEAVER! We have a copy of that. ' MR, PENNIMAN: You have seen that, then, I don ' t have much to add, I was, I applied for this same variance two years ago and I was under the impression that I had an unlimited period of time to make the structural changes in the property . Since then I BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 42 realize that the one year time limit had expired and that is why I am here again, applying for the same variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR . HEAVER! Is it correct that there will be no external changes in the hoose? MR . PENNIMAN! Yes, MR. BOOTH: Therefore you will not increase any of the existing deficiencies? MR, PENNIMAK That is right . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No further questions? Thank you Mr . Penniman. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? (no one) Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to granting this variance? (no one) I ' d love to hear a motion. BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! 43 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1653 135 FAYETTE STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Peter Penniman for an area variance to permit conversion of the single-family hoose at 135 Fayette Street to two dwelling units . The decision of the Board was as follows: MS, FARRELLt I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1653^ MR . WEAVER! I second the motion, PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) The proposed use is allowed in the area and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood~ 2) Practical difficulties in meeting the present deficiencies in side yard and front yard and lot width can only be solved by moving the present hoose and adding more property to the present lot . 3) The proposed changes wouldn ' t exacerbate any of the three present deficiencies. VOTE: 6 YES; O NO AREA VARIANCE REQUEST GRANTED ` BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE! 44 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO . 1654 for 405-07 HANCOCK STREET Appeal of Michael N . 8 Roth M . Yarrow for an area variance for deficient front and side yard set- backs under Sectidn 30^25, Columns 11 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a one-story addition to the rear of the single- family hoose at 405-07 Hancock Street^ The prop- erty is located in an R3b (Residential , multiple- family) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Section 30 ,49 and 30 ^57 the appellants most first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building per- mit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the new addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Welcome. MS, YARROW: I ' m Roth Yarrow. We are proposing a six foot addi- tion on the south side of our eastern room on the bottom floor only . This addition extends into the middle of our property, it is really in the very center . It would be seventeen feet from the nearest property line . We sent letters to all the neighbors and various ones have come op to os and have offered to write in favor of the addition . I don ' t think it would change the char- acter of the neighborhood in any way . ` CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you describe the nature of the addition ' insofar as the foundations, the footings and things of that sort , just in general? MS. YARROW: Yeah, there will be footings - it will be built on footings and just one story, as I said, so there will be, ^ ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jost a simple shed roof addition? MS . YARROW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? ' -- ----- -- BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 45 MR , SCHNAK The deck is already there? MS ^ YARROW: The deck is already there^ We have a beautiful back yard with a little pond and everything and our thought was - it is on the south side and and if we had enough windows we could enjoy the yard during the Ithaca winter . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? (no one) Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to granting this variance? (no one) Moving right along, it is oors^ ` ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 46 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1654 405-07 HANCOCK STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Michael N . and Roth M. Yarrow for an area variance to permit the . construction of a one-story addition to the rear of the single-family house at 405-07 Hancock Street . The decision of the Board was as follows : MS, FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1654 ^ MS, JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) The proposed use is allowed in this zone and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood . 2) Practical difficulty in meeting the present deficiencies in the front yard and side yard which could only be solved by moving the hoose on the property. 3) The proposed changes wouldn ' t exacerbate either of the present deficiencies . VOTE: 6 YES; O NO AREA VARIANCE REQUEST GRANTED ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE� 47 SECRETARY HOARD� The next appeal is APPEAL NO- 1655 for 313 WASHINGTON STREET � Appeal of Sandra Pollack for an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard and . one side yard under Section 30 ^ 25, Columns 10 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the replacement of an existing rear porch with a one-story addition on the single-family hoose at 313 Washington Street. The property is located . in an R3b ( Multiple Dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted� however . onder Sections 30^49 and 30^57 the appellant most first obtain an area variance for the list- ed deficiencies before a building permit or Cer- tificate of Occupancy can be issued for the pro- posed. posed a , CHAIRMAN TOMLAN' Hello. MS, POLLACK� Hello, ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN� Please begin by identifying yourself . ' MS. POLLACK� Right. My name is Sandra Pollock ^ Ba Stopha and I ' own property at 313 Washington Street and we live in that hoose and we are applying for a variance to add an addition to the rear ' of the hoose - the east side of the house , The property is pre- sently deficient in the south side and the front side. The de- signs for the addition have been drawn op by Ithaca Neighborhood ' Housing and will be - the building of it will be supervised by INHS so we are presently here to apply for that variance . ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN� Any questions from members of the Board? , MS. JOHNSON� Is your addition the same as the old porch? MS^ POLLACK� No it is bigger than the porch . The porch on that design extends - the porch will now - the new entranceway - the . door will be on the - that north side, You will enter where the ^ BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE ** 48 current porch is and the addition will 8o out to the east side - the back porch - the back addition, so there will be all windows there - concrete pad will all be demolished and there will be grass that will be planted there ^ That was at one time - the previous owners had a garage at that place ^ It is a very thin concrete pad^ The whole hoose has a very nice yard. The north side (unintelligible) so we want to be able to extend the garden area^ MR, BOOTH� This will not exacerbate any of the existing ^ deficiencies? . MS ^ POLLACK � This will not , no. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN� Further questions? Thank you Ms ^ Pollack ^ Is . there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting . this variance? (no one) Is there anyone who would like to speak . in opposition to granting this variance? (no one) That being the case it is ours. . . BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEZ 49 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1655 313 WASHINGTON STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Sandra ' Pollack for an area variance to permit the replacement of an existing rear porch with a one-story addition on the single family hoose at 313 Washington Street. The decision of the Board was as follows : MS^ JOHNSON! I move that the Board grant the area variance ' requested in appeal number 1655^ MS, FARRELLt I second the motion, PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT : 1 ) There are practical difficulties in moving the hoose to meet ' the deficient side yard and front yard setbacks ~ ' 2) The proposal doesn ' t exacerbate any of the existing . deficiencies in the hoose~ 3) This addition wouldn ' t change the character of the neighborhood. VOTEt 6 YES; O NO AREA VARIANCE REQUEST GRANTED BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! / SECRETARY HOARD! The next case is APPEAL NO. 1656 for 200 WEST SENECA STREET: Appeal of Albert E . Smith for a use variance under Section 30 ^25, Column 2, and an area variance for deficient rear yard under Section 30^25, Column 14, to permit the use of the property at 200 Nest Seneca Street (former Mobil Cas Station, now "Bot- tle Bert ' s " ) as part of the adjacent Shortstop Grocery-Deli operation for the return of deposit beverage containers . The property is located in an R3a (Residential-Multiple Dwelling) Use Dis- trict in which the proposed use is not permitted; therefore under Section 30 ,57 the appellant most obtain a use variance for the proposed use and an area variance for the deficient rear yard before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed use . MR . SMITH: Hi . My name is Albert Smith, I and my wife Cindy , ' who is with me this evening, own and operate the Shortstop Deli ' located on Hest Seneca Street here in Ithaca . We also own this property being 200-204 Nest Seneca Street, The property at 204 Nest Seneca Street is the side of that block that the Shortstop sits on and the Shortstop was opened there in June 1978 ^ We have ' a legal nonconforming use variance for that property ^ 200 Nest Seneca Street was used as a Sas station from the mid 1950 ' s until ' June 1983^ Starting in September 1983 the Shortstop has used ^ this building to store empty bottles and cans. In May 1984 ' Shortstop opened the bay doors of the station, under the name ' "Bottle Bert ' s' to take in bottles and cans at that location, Presently this redemption portion of the Shortstop business em- ploys five people, four full-time and one part-time. This summer Tom Hoard requested that Shortstop get a use variance for this 200 West Seneca Street property , We would like to, at this time , BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACK 51 . request the right to use 200 Nest Seneca Street in our Shortstop . Grocery-Deli operation. Our intent is to orient sales at 204 . Hest Seneca Street and to orient the return of deposit beverage . containers at 200 Nest Seneca Street. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? ' MR ^ BOOTH: The variance that you got for the Shortstop applies ' only to that structure and that property, not to the two ' properties together? MR . SMITH: At the time there was a gas station operating there on the other corner and the only thing that we used was the 204 Nest Seneca Street property, that is correct . ' MR . BOOTH: Did you then own the gas station? MR. SMITH: No, MR, BOOTH: When did you acquire that ^ ^ ^ MR . SMITH: I acquired that in June of 1983 ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! I ' m curious as to why it took so long before we . . ' saw you - or why it took so long before you actually came before ' os? ' ' MR. SMITH: Nell , my question - or my - I was surprised that it � took Tom so long to request that I do so . It is my understanding that a strict interpretation - that along about two years ago I should have applied for a variance when I was going to use 200 Nest Seneca Street for anything besides a Sas station, But I didn ' t do so. CHAIRMAN TOMLANt Further questions? ' MR. SCHWAB: If you didn ' t use it for bottle return, what could BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 52 you use it for? MR. SMITH! That ' s a good question . I ' ve owned the property for a little over two years now and the only request that - or inquiry that I have had as far as leasing the property , has been for a service station. Having a neighbor there - being a service station for four years - I didn ' t find that (unintelligible) for the Shortstop , CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you considered any other uses? Have you actively explored any other possibilities? MR. SMITH: Well I ' ve - since acquiring the property in ' 83, I ' ve talked - on a number of occasions - with Jon Meigs from the Plan- | ning Department and pot ideas together to try to improve the pro- perty . I spend anywheres from fifty to seventy hours there a ' week and my wife would - admit that oftimes, most weeks I don ' t spend that much time at home and I take a certain amount of pride ' in the property and I like to improve the property . He, in ' 83, ' had - actually Jon Meigs - it was his idea at the time, or he helped me develop the idea of creating a small plaza there and . improving the fascia of the buildings - in fact, I have plans ' here that an architect , Bob Tallman, drew op for me in 1983, of trying to tie the two buildings together and it is still my long- term hope that at some point in time I will be able to do that , if you want to see this^ ^ , I would need a variance to do so, but to build a small one thousand square foot building between the two existing buildings and to tie the buildings in to8ether ^ It still is my longterm hope to be able to do that at some point in ' . . -^ BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE� time ^ MS, JOHNSON� Can you prove any unnecessary hardship in not being granted the variance? MR. SMITH� Hell , I guess given the opportunity I could, I have no other use for the boildinS^ The use that we are now using complements the Shortstop, it helps os as far as reducing the redemption of bottles and cans that we actually have at the Shortstop and being a Deli operation, handling food prodocts, that this is to our advantage as far as the things that come back ' in bottles and cans plus we can clean out the Shortstop several . times a day as far as taking bottles and cans over to Bottle Bert ' s and keeping the storage there at a minimom^ Also what it ' does with our operation, is that it does provide a service and we . are able to enjoy as many - I think it averages about a hundred customers a day that the redemption center brings in the Short- . stop. MR. SCHNAB� But will you detail a little bit more the . difficulties you were having with the gas station? I mean, in . what way is that (unintelligible) the Shortstop? . MR ^ SMITH� Well one difficulty is that the rent that people seem . to be willing to pay for a gas station is far less than what my . mortgage cost is for that property^ Also when we were operating ' next to a gas station - parking is very important to os - and because we torn over people pretty fast, we don ' t need a lot of ' parking places but what we have, we have to have and we found ' before with the service station, is people bring their cars in BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 54 for servicing - all of a sodden they take op a lot of space be- cause the number of cars that they are working on that day have to be there for the most part, for most of the day - so it in- fringed on parking places necessary for the convenience store. MS, SMITH: What are those two big trucks that are between the two buildings? MR^ SMITHt Those are used for storage, one of them is used for storage of bottles and cans for Bottle Bert ' s. The other one is used for short term storage , I hope, of equipment , that I was forced to quickly remove from Third Street^ We had another store on 315 Third Street that was a very unsuccessful operation for . os ^ He had to remove the equipment from there - we had nothing ' to do with it so we temporarily had to pot it here^ MR ^ BOOTH! When you purchased the lot that Bottle Bert ' s is now on, what did you pay for that? MR . SMITH! I paid $220,OOO^ ' MR, BOOTH: How big is that lot? MR . SMITH: Oh, I ' m sorry. I paid $220,OOO^ for the whole property which is both the Shortstop property and - 204 and 200 Nest Seneca Street ^ ' MR ^ BOOTH: You bought the Shortstop property first? MR, SMITH: No I bought them both at the same time ^ I bought them both in June of 1983 ^ Do you want the total dimensions or ^ ^ MR, BOOTH: Hell , if you have them, yes. MR. SMITHt The total dimension across the front is, I can ' t read this, it is approximately 200 foot across the front and it is 66 ' ^ - BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE� 55 foot deep . MR, BOOTH'* That is both parcels together? MR, SMITH� That is both parcels. � MR. BOOTH� $220 ,O00^ In terms of the bottles that you handle, � you are obviously handling bottles from far more than just the � Deli . You referred to the fact that you could clean out the Deli by taking bottles over to Bottle Bert ' s. Your bottle customers ' are coming from a much larger area? MR. SMITH� He take back a lot more bottles than we sell ^ MR. SCHNAB� Other than the gas station and Bottle Bert ' s is ' there anything else that you can do to get a return on it? MR , SMITH� Well it hasn ' t been - no one has come forward with a request to lease it and as far as myself , I am not in a financial position to do anything else. There is a number of things - there is good traffic through there but I don ' t know anything that I could do in the near fotore^ . SECRETARY HOARD� He would have to come back here to have a . service station there^ MR, SCHNAB++ (unintelligible) can ' t do anything with this . property. SECRETARY HOARD** It has been more than a year since there was a service station there. MR, NEAVER� He could pot op a , . , MR. SCHWAB** What is allowed there? SECRETARY HOARD� Residential . Multiple dwelling. Neighborhood convenience store . BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEt 56 MR . SCHNABZ So do you think there is any residential that would get you a return? In other words, anything that would be conforming? MR . SMITHt I don ' t conceive of anything conforming that would pay my mortgages let alone Sive me some kind of retorn ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR ^ BOOTH: There is still a chronological problem that I am having, You got the variance for the Shortstop in what year? MR . SMITH: 1978 ^ I leased the property from the original owner . CHAIRMAN TOMLANt Thank you Mr . Smith, Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? MS . HAINE: I ' m Peggy Haines Fourth Ward Alderwoman^ This is not in my Ward but I drive by it about four or five times a week and it has only been in the last couple of months that the open - I will call it a trash bin - has been fenced off from the street ^ There are two semi-containers sitting on the property and it looks like the domp ^ When Mr , Smith came before this Board pre- viously, there was a question of signage on the first property and he was allowed to pot op a reasonable sign for that - that said Shortstop and to Set the amount of signage that he wanted for that property he set back maybe four feet or five feet from the glass windows, enormous signs that say "soda" , and whatever ^ When you drive past the place it looks like Route 13 . I think that there are a lot of things that could be done with the prop- erty , just off-hand it seems to me that somebody clever could BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! / make a decent return on a gourmet pickup, a bake shop, anything that serves an automobile trade and it seems there is an awful lot of traffic on that street. I would ask, because I don ' t think that Mr . Smith is particularly interested in keeping op the appearance of that block , I would ask that you deny this request for a variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAK Questions from members of the Board? MR . BOOTH: Could we explore for a moment what other uses you think are possible. You just proposed several commercial uses. MS . HAINK Right . That would be in keeping with the residential area and that would also make use of that property - you know, it is on the thoroo8hfare ^ MR , BOOTH! But this is a residential zone which only allows neighborhood commercial facilities, not most retail businesses. MS. HAINE: A gourmet pickup in some neighborhoods is a neighborhood commercial facility ^ MR. BOOTH: Interesting interpretation. CHAIRMAN TOMLANI Further questions? MR, WEAVER: Any chance for rezoning? MS . HAINE: There is always a chance for rezonin8^ I ' m sore that in your neighborhood it would So over very well . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Peggy were you on the Board at that time? MS, HAINEt I was either on this Board or I was serving as secretary to the Planning Board when he came before^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAK I only mention that because on pore strict roles that we set out, to begin with, you are outside the ` ` BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 58 interested party definition and I ' d like, in some sense, just to call that into the record, the fact that you are or you have been connected with the case in some sense. Further questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to this variance? (no one) Then the case is ours . MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 59 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1656 200 HEST SENECA STREET MR, BOOTH! I' ll go through my usual routine of saying that the standards for proving that one has the requisite hardship for a use variance is much higher than that required for an area vari- ance ^ My sense of it is, I am sympathetic with his proposed use or with the existing user in a number of ways, I don ' t see that the owner has brought forth adequate evidence about possible al- ternatives . I ' m not suggesting that I know what those alterna- tives are, but I don ' t see that evidence ^ I would also say that I made the same statement about the property across the street from the Shortstop - which we recently granted a use variance for - which I voted against for the same reason, so we have been near this property in recent months^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAQ Further comment? ' MR^ HEAVER! Well if there is any puzzlement on the part of our ' . . ' member - the very fact that this is zoned residential on that ' . . ' high speed street is the reason we are getting all of this action ' ` . ' I would guess and that my rather flip question about rezoning is ' something that we don ' t do - otherwise both the owner and this . Board are going to be pestered with an impractical and impossible . use of the property so it is going to be an ad hoc zoning by the ^ Zoning Board, which makes no sense to me, MR^ BOOTH: I didn ' t think your question was a flip question, I think it goes right to the central issoe^ . CHAIRMAN TOMLANI Did you think we were taking you lightly Charlie? BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 60 MR , WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAQ We weren ' t , We know you much better than that . MR . SCHWAB: Are you saying that nothing can be done with it - you don ' t think anything can be done with this property? MR, WEAVER: I ' m talking about legal use of it is for residential purposes , can you imagine someone building a dwelling there? MR. SCHHAK Certainly not willing to pay whatever - the $200,OOO^ mortgage ^ ^ . MR* WEAVER: Well that is part of the equation - the land on that street is so valuable that - the traffic count is so high that it is an impractical place to pot a dwelling. That ' s part of the impracticality is that it is too high priced land to be putting a hoose on. MR, SCHWAB: Does that mean that he has shown undue hardship in complying with the Zoning Ordinance would be an undue hardship . MR. NEAVERZ No I don ' t think it is unique to his property . ' MR . BOOTH: Tom, when the use variance came op for the Shortstop, was there a discussion of treating that as a neighborhood ' commercial facility? Do you recall? ' SECRETARY HOARD: I don ' t remember - I don ' t recall whether it was treated as a neighborhood commercial facility or as an ^ outright variance , MR , BOOTH! I think the one thing that struck me as I went through this, as a neighborhood commercial facility is a special permit ' use for this area . I ' m not entirely comfortable with the notion that that is what this is but it seems to me at least something BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEZ 61 that we should discuss . Charlie ^ ^ ° ` ` MR, WEAVER: Well I prefer not to have any memory and start with ' tonight and there is a question here of whether this former Sas station which , by the roles, has lost its legal nonconforming position but there is another question in my mind because each of these persons that are selling beverage containers in this state is required to take back anything that comes in the door and the very fact that he is storing them in a separate building versos ` ^ his primary building is really the technical difference here. If ^ they were attached, I am sore we wouldn ' t be scurrying around deciding where the cans ought to go, empty ones and full ones here , So your local grocery store is a Bottle Bert ' s without a - ` sign in front of it advertising it ~ They are handling the cans too and I ' m just saying that if we are chasing cans tonight, we . are certainly off on a track that I don ' t want to follow. My . point being. . . MR. BOOTH: What does that lead you to? MR. WEAVER: Well it leads me to question whether he needs to be . here at all and whether in fact he doesn ' t have a right to use that property as an extension of his business rather than as a specific can recycling place ^ I ' m not against bottles here, but . it is almost all cans~ And so if he were in here for an exten- sion of the use of the Shortstop Deli , I might have a totally different question. I ' ll take the question we have tonight which is a recycling, separate business, if you will , But I really think that there might well be an opportunity to discuss the use ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE: 62 of the entire block for the general purposes of the Shortstop rather than chopping it up. MR, BOOT& Well it seems to me that this is a separate bosiness , in fact the state bottle law contemplates separate redemption centers, just like what this one is , as separate businesses. But I raise to the Board the possibility that this maybe is a neighborhood commercial facility , What do the other people think? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: My response to that Richard, very simply, is that we heard testimony to the effect that he in fact is collecting bottles and cans from more than the neighborhood, so I am somewhat troubled by that ^ It is not something which is directly tied to the neighborhood in any sense or services a need that can be expressly (unintelligible) Again we 8o back to what Charlie said, that they have to accept cans from all over the . City and I dare say, they do. . MS. JOHNSON: Well doesn ' t it follow that anyone can use someone ' s mom and pop grocery store even if it is a neighborhood ' facility - I mean, do I have to live in the neighborhood of the Red and White in order to use that - for that to be considered a neighborhood retail service? MR, WEAVER: Well there is technical involvement and how we can specially allow commercial enterprise in a residential ' neighborhood and a special permit allowed - we are supposed to role that it is a neighborhood facility. MR . BOOTH: Primarily . BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! 63 MR . WEAVER: I don ' t remember whether it says primarily or ^ . ^ MR . BOOTH : No, no but I think that is the practical thing SECRETARY HOARD: Add other symbols to the can - VT . , CT . , MR^ BOOTH: Eddy Street ^ Well I tend to agree with Michael , my sense is this is not a neighborhood commercial use but it is a close enough question, I thought we ought to think about it, MS. FARRELL: If a primary problem is "mess" of operations - landscaping concerns (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! I don ' t see that as a primary problem. I think it goes back to undue hardship and uniqueness. MR^ SCHWAB: I think an undue hardship has been shown^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Nell , has it? Let me posh that just a little bit forther ^ I mean, in other cases where we have granted use variances , I ' m playing the devil ' s advocate , but there have been more statistics - more figores ^ MR, SCHWAB! Well we ' ve got a figure of $220, OOO^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But we have no idea of what the annual income is. Again, just posh on that just a little bit - what the annual ' income is, the expenses - the entire mode of operation^ ^ MR, SCHNAK Well you don ' t - what you need then is really for ' the hypothetical alternatives - which is residential - would they ` ^ be sufficient to pay the mortgage? ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! Well I ' m only saying that in other cases, we ' ve ' ^ had considerably more information. ' MR ^ SCHWAB! One possibility is to bring Mr . Smith back and ask him what his annual mortgage is - we ' ll never Set an estimate of ' ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEt 64 ' what he could rent out a hoose at that property for , ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s right. Nell , my point is, essentially, that without those one doesn ' t really demonstrate the ' alternatives. MS. JOHNSON: I would guess that the money maker is the fact that ' people bring their cans there and have to take the slip next door to the Shortstop to get the money , therefore* * * ' MR . SCHWAB: I ' m quite sore he makes money off the Bottle Bert ' s. ' The question is, has he shown an undue hardship ^ Is complying ' with the Zoning Code , which means that lot has got to be ' residential , would it be an undue hardship to make him do it? . MS ^ JOHNSON! Maybe he should make it into a gas station. ° ^ MR. SCHNAK No a gas station is nonconforming too . It would have to be a house . Would that be an undue hardship on him? With . Charlie ' s point being - I agree with you Michael , there is almost ^ no figures have been shown and I bet they could be shown fairly ' easily, Charlie ' s further point, this isn ' t unique. ' MS . JOHNSON: Maybe we need to see some figures. ' MR. BOOTH: Well my sense of it is, we have as much information here as we did on the lot that is becoming the dentist office, right? ' MR . WEAVER : Would you identify what property that is? MR. BOOTH: Didn ' t we grant the use variance across the corner - ' the other corner across from the Shortstop? MR. SCHWAB: And he gave no evidence on housing prices. MR. BOOTH : I agree and I think that level of evidence is not ' ^ ^ BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! 65 ' adequate to granting a use variance . But I think this applicant ' has shown as much as that applicant did^ My guess is, to show ' that multiple dwellings could be built on this property and used ' profitably - the way the rental structure is in this town right now, you might have to 8o a ways to show that this property couldn ' t be used for that porpose^ This is a fairly - how big is this particular lot - he gave os the size for the whole lot, two twenty by sixty six. MR. HEAVERt That ' s the whole block - two twenty . MR . BOOTH: That ' s right - two hundred by sixty six . So we could assume this is half of it? MR, WEAVER: Half of the block? The owner says that it ' s almost in the center of the block . MR. BOOTH: Well you only get three . ^ ^ SECRETARY HOARD! One hundred ninety nine point six by sixty six . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! Do we have a motion or are we coming closer to ' a motion? ' MR. NEAVERt I ' m not coming closer to a motion that I feel , but do you have further questions of the owner that might be ^ . available here tonight? It is op to os. MR , BOOTH: I ' ll make a motion. The motion is that we deny this . variance without prejudice to submission of a further appc ^ li ation The findings of factt 1 ) That the applicant has ' not demonstrated with sufficient factual evidence that none of . the uses allowed in this particular zone are not feasible on the . property that Bottle Bert ' s now occupies and 2) there is evidence ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! 66 in the record suggesting that Bottle Bert ' s as presently managed ' is not consistent with the character of this neighborhood, ' ` CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there a second? ' MR . BOOTH: Well there is some testimony that the way the ' property is managed is unsightly and this is zoned - at least in theory - residential - a residential zone. MR. HEAVER! I think your motion may be improper in that the procedures of this Board provide for os to return an application ' ^ for further information but to deny a variance and allow it to be retorned^ ^ ^ ' ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! Jost for the sake of just a place of order , I will second the motion so that we can record your comment. ' ^ MR. WEAVER! Record or not, I am speaking to the fact of the ' first part of the motion which said, without prejudice to further ^ appeal - it would just seem to me that under the law and under ' the Ordinance - if we deny this application, we are not allowed ' ` to come back here and discuss Bottle Bert ' s at that location ` without some fancy alteration to the request and the request is ' to operate a commercial establishment for collecting and ' ^ recycling bottles - we have another method of doing it which is ` not to deny it but to return it for further information and to be specific about what further information you want. ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLANI In other words , to defer action on the ' application? MR , WEAVER: Well if he wanted not to prejudice the opportunity ^ for the appellant to come back here and further perfect an appeal ' ^ ^ BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEt 67 to use this for recycling, it just seems to me that he most ask ^ that it be deferred - consideration be deferred for further consideration and for information that you may specifically want. MR. BOOTH : Well I would prefer to make a decision tonight. I understand what you are referring to, Charlie, I think the role in the Ordinance about on line applications is one that we utilize - it is for our benefit to maintain our agenda - it seems ' to me that this is a somewhat difficult case and it may well be ^ ' impossible for the applicant or the applicant may not be desirous of coming back with another application. I would just as soon leave my motion the way it is, I think we have enough leeway to allow that to happen, CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: As your seconder , Richard, to allow this discussion to continue, I think I would prefer that you tone it a little bit more specifically to deal with the questions of use ^ variance and area variance, just so it is on the op and op^ I mean if you could address other issues in the requirements for . applications for a use variance - deny or positive - either way - from what I could see, maybe one reasonable way ^ ^ ^ one principal point and the second point I wasn ' t particolar ^ ^ ^ you are not saying anything about undue hardship or economic . . .? MR . BOOTH: That is the test - you have to show that no use is feasible, that is the legal test . What I ' m saying is , in my opinion, he hasn ' t brought in sufficient evidence to show that that is the fact of the case . He has to show that each use that the Zoning Ordinance would allow is not feasible on that piece of BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 68 ' property - I think that that accurately portrays what we have ^ ^ ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLANZ Okay fine . Further discussion? MR . WEAVER : Yes, under discussion . As I understand it, an affirmative vote on this motion would deny the appellant the use of the property for recycling and he will have lost his opportunity to further appeal to this Board for that ose ^ ' MR . BOOTH: The way I have stated my motion was not to prejudice ' in future applications^ . ^ ' CHAIRMAN TOMLA& The point is, though, Richard, you can ' t pot ^ . that proviso in there , . MR , BOOTH: I think I can^ Why not? SECRETARY HOARD: It doesn ' t stop me from enforcing it in the meantime . MR, BOOTH: I understand that , ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do the rest of the members of the Board understand the implications ^ ^ ^ ' MR . SCHWAB! Is the implication that under Charlie ' s proposed motion - which would be to defer - the Building Department cannot enforce - cannot 8o after Bottle Bert ' s? , SECRETARY HOARD: That would stay it ^ ' MR ^ SCHNAK And under Dick ' s motion - which is to deny - would leave - you will So after him for a month or two? That strikes me the difference ^ I personally prefer going with Charlie ' s - with fine toning - but it leave him free to apply . I think - my feeling is that a good case can be shown for undue hardship here ^ ' I mean - there is some debate on the multi dwelling - what it can BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE� 69 do, one way or the other - especially given across the street - we said residential was infeasible^ ^ ^ MR . BOOTH � In the interest of time and ammicability, I withdraw the motion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN� Now we can have a substitute motion. ` BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEt 70 MOTION ON APPEAL NO. 1656 200 WEST SENECA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Albert Smith for a use variance to permit the use of the property at 200 Hest Seneca Street ( former Mobil Cas Station, now Bottle Bert ' s) as part of the adjacent Shortstop Grocery-Deli operation for the return of deposit beverage containers . The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board defer action on appeal number 1656 and instruct the applicant to return with additional information showing that he cannot use this for the uses allowed in the zone and showing that the proposed use would return an adequate return to support the cost of the property . The applicant is further requested to come back to this Board at the next regular scheduled meeting, or Monday, November 4, 1985^ ' MR . BOOTH! I second the motion. VOTE! 6 YES; 0 NO MOTION TO DEFER CARRIED , ` BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 71 SECRETARY HOARDV The next appeal is APPEAL NO , 1657 for 710-712 HEST COURT STREET: Appeal of Louis O ^ Nezvesky for an area variance for deficient lot size, and deficient setbacks for the front yard, one side yard, and the rear yard, under Section 30^251 Columns 61 11 , 13, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the subdivision of the lot at 710-712 Nest Court Street (Gadabout Transportation Services Inc. , and Ithaca Small Ani- mal Hospital ) , into two separate parcels . Approval was given by the Board of Zoning Appeals for zoning deficiencies associated with a subdivision scheme that was subsequently rejected by the Planning and Development Board. The appellant is now returning with a different scheme that requires a different set of variances. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think you know the procedure. MS , HOLMBERC: I ' m Anna Holmberg, I ' m Vice President of the Board of Directors of Gadabout and I ' d like to say that Dr . Nezvesky who is the appellant here, is out of town and was unable to come tonight. We are here in support of the application. I think all of you on the Board, with the exception of Chief Weaver , were present at our previous application which was for a subdivision which would have given os a lot of one hundred and thirty-two feet frontage on Nest Court Street and fifty-four feet depth. Our previous application we had indicated that, with regard to the piece being retained by Dr , Nezvesky , we were going to Sive him an easement for ingress and egress - a permanent easement over an area that is presently used as the driveway^ After our variance was granted the Planning Board rejected our application for subdivision approval . I gather that it was their sentiment that the parcel in back - the piece being kept by Dr ^ Nezvesky . BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 72 would - had to have fifty feet of frontage through title owner- ship on Nest Court Street . So we have come op with a different scheme which now reduces the area of the lot that we would be ' purchasing and it makes it now deficient and reduces the size to approximately four thousand four hundred and twenty-eight square . feet (unintelligible) required to have five thousand square feet. ' The other deficiencies, the front , rear and side yard deficien- cies are all the same as they were in our previous application. . The scheme now would be that we would purchase a parcel with , eighty-two feet of frontage on Nest Court Street, the fifty feet . to the west of it would be retained by the rear parcel and Cad- . aboot would have an easement over the fifty feet that is being . retained by Dr ^ Nezvesky to use that as a driveway and also for ' . parking buses for Gadabout - we have , I think it ' s four spaces - ^ is that correct? Four spaces on the west end of that fifty feet, ' to park some of our buses , A practical difficulty is that we ' can ' t purchase this hoose until we have the Planning Board ' s ap- proval of our subdivision application and we can ' t come op with ^ any other alternative to meet the Zoning Ordinance ^ ' MR. BOOT& Well in fact you can ' t divide that property without ^ ^ having deficiencies of some kind^ ~ ' MS ^ HOLMBERG! That is correct . In fact I don ' t think there is ^ ^ any other way to divide between those two boildings ^ , ° MR, SCHNAK So under the new proposal you are having an easement ' over his fifty foot strip^ ` MS^ HOLMBERC: That is correct . ' ^ BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEZ 73 ' MR. SCHWAB : Is that a permanent easement or for a year . , ^ ^ MS. HOLMBERC! That is my understanding, that we would have a permanent easement . Certainly to use a portion of it as a , driveway and for parking as well . MR^ SCHNAK Meaning that - the whole point I gather from the Planning Board, that when these things are sold for different ' reasons (unintelligible) in the future, they want frontage. So ' this - what is going to be your Gadabout, if that is sold in the ' future, that will have permanent rights , easement rights, over ' the back parcel? MS . HOLMBERV No. It will have a right - we haven ' t sorted out ' exactly how we are going to work out the parking, I would presume ` that in the future - Gadabout needs the extra parking because we ' ` have eight buses and that ' s why this property is so attractive to ' . . os in the first place ^ We are the tenant there presently and it ' ' has been very difficult to find an appropriate place in the City ' ` . to hoose the Organization and we use - we presently use the ' spaces over on the west end of that forty - that fifty foot strip . that is shown on the map . We have not sorted out with Dr ^ Nez- ' . vesky as to whether this is going to be a long term - as far as ' parking is concerned - a long term lease or if it is going to be an easement that will not necessarily run with the land for the next owner ^ I ' m not sore that the next owner is going to need the space for the boses ^ We would have certainly - there would certainly be a permanent easement to use the driveway for the entrance into the other parking area which is just to the west of --- BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 74 our building. MR. BOOTHt With the easement, is the Planning Board going to accept this? MS, HOLMBERC: The Planning Board has approved it . MR ^ BOOTH: With the easement? MS , HOLMBERCZ Yes it has, MR^ SCHWAB: I don ' t see the advantage ^ ^ ^ if there is an easement running with the land this other way, I don ' t see the advantage to the back lot in the future . I guess that is the only (onintelli8ible) , is that right? MR^ BOOTH: I ' m not sore the applicant sees that either . MS. HOLMBERC: It rather surprised os when we went for our subdivision approval and it was not approved because we had assumed that some of these people that looked at the application previously, before it came to the Board of Zoning Appeals - I ' m not - practically speaking from our point of view, it probably doesn ' t make much difference how it is arranged, as long as we have the use of the area that we need for parking but the rationale that was given to os was that it was poor planning not ' to permit that back piece to have title ownership of fifty feet ' on Nest Court Street ^ ' MR, SCHNABZ Well I can see that , but not if there is going to be ^ ~ a permanent running with the land easement - it means that he can ' t really control that anyway. So unless your easement is not . running with the land^ ^ ^ ' MS. HOLMBERC: I would agree with you but it was Mr ^ Meigs who, I BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE� r= think , suggested to the Planning Department - people on the Plan- ning Board that this is the way it be done and - you see we have- n ' t sorted out completed with Dr . Nezvesky exactly how we are going to handle the parking, whether there is going to be an easement that runs with the land or if it is going to be an ease- ment only so long as Gadabout owns it . But the idea, when it was approved, as I understood it , by the Planning Board, was that it . be a permenant right to park and^ ^ ^ MR. BOOTH� Would you have problems with our conditioning it on its obtaining a permanent right to park, if we should decide to . make that a condition? MS. HOLMBERC� Have problems with it? No. ' MR, NEAVER � Was the original scheme pleasing to your as the ' potential buyer? ' MS. HOLMBERC� Well the original scheme was more pleasing to os as the buyer , but the original scheme had given os one hundred ' and thirty-two feet on Nest Court Street was the one that the ` Parties had originally come op with and it was when we went to get the subdivision approval that we were told that the applica- tion was denied so then we worked with the people in the Planning ^ Department to come op with a scheme that would be acceptable to ' Dr . Nezvesky and to os and practically speaking, as long as we ' have the right to park and use the fifty feet or the driveway ' . that is there, to 8o in and out, I don ' t think from our point of ` ` ' view it matters that much. ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN� When did you 8o for subdivision approval? - - -- BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 76 MS . HOLMBERC! Well I can ' t remember the exact date ^ ^ ^ it was in April - April 15th we were denied, so we made our application some time in March after the - I think we were here before the Board of Zoning Appeals in February. An application was made shortly thereafter for the subdivision approval - was at the March 26th meeting that we were denied. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well my question is really one of policy, not specifically attached to your question . This whole thing as you may or may not know has caused a couple of notices and notes and . various other things to So back and forth and I ' m just trying to ' sort back through the case, wondering whether we made a mistake ' or they made a mistake and everybody is kind of pointing a finger ^ - not quite at one and another but by one another and I ' m trying ' ^ to get that straight in my own mind. Further questions from members of the Board? ' MR. WEAVER: Well I wonder - I can ' t help but have an opinion on ^ the results of the subdivision, whether it will be beneficial or ' detrimental to the two parcels, if there are two . There aren ' t ^ two, that ' s my problem. And that acceding to the opinion of the Planning Department that that ' s the only subdivision acceptable will in fact be beneficial to the two parties . I am looking at ^ ' the Ithaca Small Animal Clinic as being there forever , not neces- sarily a Clinic, and what else can it be - I guess almost any- thin8 in that nei8hborhood^ The types of things that can be there do not need the space we originally tried to provide for a dwellinS. I don ' t know how much of a hurry you are in, since BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: m7 February , but I would hope that we could be as supportive as we can of this subdivision, or whatever it is, to the benefit of the two parties, than to some rather incomplete suggestion, to me, that this is good planning - that this result is good planning, I don ' t think there is much planning here in the subdivision of that small a piece of property . We don ' t have to decide whether we have curved streets or straight ones - curbs, and sidewalks and so on. So if - what happens if we deny or send back to the Planners that the two parties wish this, and that there seems to be no damage done to the neighborhood certainly and that the re- sulting subdivision will be quite a viable operation - certainly 710 would benefit , would it not? MS. HOLMBERC: From our point of view certainly - that ' s why we had our original application where we did. MR. BOOTH: Well but Charlie is proposing to lengthen the process, are you reasonably satisfied with the arrangement that the Planning Board has ( unintelligible) on you? MS . HOLMBERC! Well we can live with it. MR. BOOTH! I agree it is a crazy result , MR . NEAVERt Given no choice, she is very pleased. MS* HOLMBERC: From our point of view, obviously, we preferred it the way it was when we originally applied, we would like very much to purchase this property . ^ . MR ^ BOOTH! Quickly . MS , HOLMBERG : Well we would like to purchase it before next March 1st. BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEt 78 MR. SCHWAB: Where, under your original plan, where was the easement that the Small Animal Clinic had. , . , MS ^ HOLMBERC: Well there is presently a driveway that goes down - approximately down the middle of what is the easterly half of ' the - I mean the westerly half of the whole lot so halfway ' between the dotted line and the west boundary line, in that area, there is a driveway that is about twenty-five feet, ' SECRETARY HOARD: I have a copy - that was altered in the ' ~ original right-of-way scheme ^ ' ` MR, SCHWAB: If I get the sense of the Board, which would you ' prefer of two results - having this variance granted or having it denied and - with some statement that we ' d like the first one, ` MS . HOLMBERC: From the point of - and I ' m only speaking for ' Gadabout now - from Gadabout ' s point of view we would prefer the ^ subdivision as we had originally proposed it^ ' MR ^ SCHNAK Fantastic, isn ' t it? They are coming in here and ' asking os to deny their own variance ^ ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That may be a first, ^ ^ MR . WEAVER: Nell , seriously, it seems to me that this issue could get back to the Planning Board and get back op here before spring^ That was your deadline wasn ' t it? MS. HOLMBERCt March 1st . Yes , we ' d like to have it before March^ MR, WEAVER: We might pot a note on it that early spring is the ' deadline . SECRETARY HOARK I think, in looking at the record of this, that ` ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEt 79 the reason that the Board wanted the larger lot, chose to approve it with the larger lot for Gadabout and the right-of-way, was . that it would be assured then that Gadabout did have control of . the parking area (unintelligible) to lease it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s right * MS. WILLIS: I ' m Jody Willis, I ' m the Director of Gadabout and I . have a question at this point . What would happen if the Planning Board does not - if they don ' t have a - they don ' t have a final vote on this, do they? It is a recommendation rather than a final binding - I ' m wondering what happens if they shoot this . down? ^ SECRETARY HOARD: Then you don ' t have a subdivision. That is the . one thing where the Planning Board has the final say - is on subdivision, everything else they do is recommend to some other . body . Subdivision they have the final say^ ` MR, BOOTH: Right , ' CHAIRMAN TOMLANZ I ' m only thinking now back to the earlier ' conversation, about denying a variance and not allowing somebody to come back on the same point. I ' ll play detective just for a ' moment, but I think it is important to keep our skirts clean that way. How are we going to phrase this Charlie? ' MR^ BOOTH: How about if we approve alternative variances, let ^ ` them. ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! Well I would suggest deferring action again and ' let them 8o back and essentially deal with the Planning and Development Board - try it, and essentially - if they can come op BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE: n" with something different - that seems to be the most reasonable way to proceed. I know, Richard, you don ' t like deferring action, I understand, bot ^ ^ , MR . BOOTH: Government at its worst. MR, NEAVERt Well I don ' t want to sit here and approve a variance on a basis of fact that someone said there is a planning issue. I don ' t know what that is and I certainly don ' t want to do mischief to the appellant. What I see the appellant asking for is perfectly reasonable , MR. BOOTH: The first time. MR^ WEAVER! Yes, MR. BOOTHt So did we. We wrote it that way . I guess what I also hear the appellant saying is they are willing to live with this if they can ' t get by the Planning Board, MR . NEAVERt They don ' t have any choice or . ^ ^ SECRETARY HOARD: Maybe we should have a joint Board meeting, CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Heaven help us. You can strike that from the record . Well I would move that we defer action until whatever time, if this is the way we are going to think about it^ I ' ll essentially, for the moment, pot everything on hold and we will . , continue with the proceedings to see if there are any objections , one way or the other , but that is where I ' m holding* . MR . SCHWAB! Would the appellant prefer that to an - an ' improvement? ' MS. NILLISt I guess my question is, if the Planning Board has already spoken and indicated that they didn ' t want to give os the ' i MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 81 subdivision without the fifty feet of frontage, what recourse do we have with them? There is no other - I can ' t figure out, although I have been trying to figure out for a long time what else we could do with this piece of property . Those seem to be the two possibilities. I don ' t know what our recourse would be in terms of getting subdivision approval from them. MR. SCHHAK You did hash this out with them and they said "we want it the other way"? MS. WILLIS: That ' s right. MS. HOLMBERC! So that ' s why we came back here, figuring that we had to live with that and as I said, we can live with that. MR. WEAVER: I read what are purported to be their minutes and I wasn ' t convinced by anything in them that - I couldn ' t understand why they were instructing you to go this way^ I ' d like very much to second the motion to defer and refer it back to the - that this Board refer it back to the Planning Board and gently remind them that the appellants - the two - optimistically, the two new owners would be better served, according to their own testimony by the original application and ask them to reconsider the appliction in its original form . CHAIRMAN TOMLANZ Further discussion? BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 82 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1657 710-12 HEST COURT STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Louis O~ Nezvesky for an area variance to permit the subdivision of the lot at 710-12 Nest Court Street (Gadabout Transportation Services, Inc, , and Ithaca Small Animal Hospital ) into two separate parcels . The deicison of the Board was as follows: CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I move that the Board defer action on appeal number 1657 to permit the two appelicants to return to the Planning 8 Development Board with the statement that the two new owners would be better served, according to their own testimony , by the original application and request recon- sideration of the application in its original form, and that there be a timely response be- cause there is a critical deadline on the part of the appellant of very early spring 1986 . MR ^ WEAVER: I second the motion^ VOTE: 5 YES; 1 NO MOTION TO DEFER CARRIED ' ^ ` BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEZ 83 SECRETARY HOARV The next appeal is APPEAL NO . 1658 for 107 NEST FALLS STREET: Appeal of David Radin for an area variance for deficient lot width, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard under Section 30 ^25, Columns 7 , 10, and 12, of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the replacement of the existing front and rear porches with small additions on the single family hoose at 107 West Falls Street . The property is located in an R2b (Residential , One- and Two-family Dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30^49 and 30^57 the appellant most obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed additions, MR . RADIN! My name is David Radin, I own and reside at 107 Hest Falls Street , I purchased the property in September 1983 or 84 -I purchased the property, and since that time have been renovat- ing it in accordance with the needs of my family , The front porch and back porch are both rotting out - the back porch is . falling down and the front porch - the roof is rotted out -not ' just the shingles but under the shingles is also rotting out and will need to be replaced . The back porch is five and one-half deep now and we would like to extend it to eight and one-half ^ feet and enclose it so that it can be used as a dining area off ' the kitchen^ I am living there with my wife and five children and she is pregnant with our sixth child and there isn ' t really a dining room for os to ose ^ Also the neighbors who live on our side have that exact same addition to the back of their hoose at 105 Nest Fall ^ The front porch we would like to extend also, so that - simply so that the area will be useable by everybody at ^ BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! one time - so that we can all sit together around the table on the front porch and so I don ' t believe that the changes will have ^ any impact on the character of the neighborhood. I guess that is ' all . CHAIRMAN TOMLAK Questions from members of the Board? MR . BOOTH: Why do you need to extend the hoose toward the street? I realize that it is a minor amount but I wasn ' t clear , MR . RADIN! Because right now, with the depth of the porch, we can ' t pot a table and chairs out there - or even chairs that will allow all of os to be there at one time . Jost given the size of our family , six children. Since we have to redo the roof anyway , we have to - and the stairs are being redone now - or given this variance - that we ' d like to request a slightly larger front porch so that it will fit our needs better . MS. FARRELL: Are you talking about replacing the front porch or are you talking about making that a room or ^ . ^ MR, RADIK No^ The front porch we are just going to extend. The roof has to be redone so we would just have it come out two feet further and pot another floor on the porch - actually on one side of the porch - two foot further out . . ` MR, BOOTH: The hooses on either side of you - do you know how . close they are to the sidewalk compared to your hoose at the present time? MR^ RADIN: Well the hoose on one side - 105 - is a sister hoose, ' they are identical . The other side, I can ' t really say, I think ' it is out as far but I ' m not sore, ` ` , ` BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: n- MS , FARRELL: (unintelligible) MR. BOOTH: As it currently is - as far as your hoose is? MR. RADIN! I believe so, 105 has the back porch exactly enclosed. MR, BOOTH: I was asking about the front porch , MR ^ RADIN: Okay. It has the same porch that we have now . SECRETARY HOARD: The front porch would still meet the ten foot ' setback requirement. MS , FARRELLt It doesn ' t say so here. The front yard is nine ' foot five feet now (unintelligible) MS , JOHNSON: So the proposed changes in the back won ' t make any ' difference in terms of (unintelligible) MR. RADIN: Right now it is an enclosed but unheated space and so ' we would extend it slightly and then have it finished with an ` insulated - right now it isn ' t insulated - just storm windows and enclosed porch. MR . SCHWAB: With the front porch as it is - can you fit some ' chairs on, just not eight or so? ' MR* RADINZ Right. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you could fit a smaller table in there, I suppose? MR. RADINt Well actually the design ideas come mostly from my wife who looks at these domestic things from her point of view . and so she would like, ^ ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: She would like more space MR, RADIN; More space because in the summertime we often eat on BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE� the front porch. The back porch - south porch - is much hotter . So in the summertime we eat on the front porch - we don ' t fit, really , MS, FARRELL� What are the current dimensions of the front porch? MR^ RADIN� Well it is the width of the hoose minus a few feet on each side. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN� There are dimensions on the drawing Tracy - eight by twenty-one, MS. FARRELL� Eight by twenty-one are the front dimensions? MR ^ RADIN� Part of it is an entranceway , by the stairs op and through so the part from the door to one side is really not use- able as a sit down space ^ So it is actually eight by, I ' d say slightly more than half of that - eight by twelve,. MS . FARRELL| And you propose to (unintelligible ) this addition doesn ' t 8o all the way across, it is jost . ^ , MR^ RADIN� It is just from the steps over . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN� Further questions? (none) Thank you. Is there anyone else out there who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? (no one) Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (no one ) That being the case it is oors^ BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE: 87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1658 107 W. FALLS STREET MR. BOOTH: I realize it is a small point, but it occurred to me in looking at that street that the hooses seem to be more or less in a line , I didn ' t know - I couldn ' t vision whether this would make a substantial difference in terms of how street would look. CHAIRMAN TOMLAK You mean the addition of the front porch? MR . BOOTH: The addition on the front porch, right . It seems to me the addition on the back porch of the hoose is entirely consistent with many variances that we have granted. CHAIRMAN TOMLANt Further comment? I would tend to agree in general . ' MR. SCHWAB! It is sort of minor but it is sticking out a little further than the other houses . In terms of practical difficulties - well to get a porch as big as they would like they . would have to move the hoose , would be the way to phrase it in the affirmative. It would change the character of the neighborhood - we could do that, or phrased in the negative you ' d have to say something like the porch is big enough now - we don ' t think you need a bigger one , if that is what they want to do^ MR, BOOTH: We do have a letter from the next door neighbor urging os to approve the variance ^ MR . SCHWAB: The 105 neighbor-, MR ^ BOOTH: Across the street . MS . FARRELL: 106^ MR, BOOTH: Oh, I ' m sorry - these people are at 106. MR ~ SCHWAB: (unintelligible ) it doesn ' t change the character of ` ?ZA MINUTES 10/7185 PAGE: 88 ' the neighborhood+ CHAIRMAN TOMLANZ Coming close to a motion. BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE ,' 89 DECISION ON APPEAL NO . 1658 107 NEST FALLS STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of David Radin for an area variance to permit the replacement of the existing front and rear porches with small additions on the single family hoose at 107 Nest Falls Street , The decision of the Board was as follows*. MR, BOOTH� I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1658 , MR . SCHNAB� I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT� 1 ) The proposed additions are compatible with the character of the neighborhood. 2) Given the existing location of the structure the owner could not make the proposed use of the property without moving the existing structure which would constitute an undue difficulty for the appellant . 3) The proposed front addition does exacerbate the one existing deficiency except by a very minor amoont^ ' VOTE** 5 YES; 1 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED ` ^ - ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEt 90 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is APPEAL NO. 1659 409-15 THIRD STREET Appeal of Leland F . and Gloria W. KnoppenborS for an area variance for a deficient side yard under Section 30,25, Column 13 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a new building and con- version of an existing warehouse at 409-15 Third Street (formerly Tayntons Truck Terminal ) for re- tail and service commercial facilities , The prop- erty is located in a B2a (Business) Use District in which the proposed uses are permitted; however under Sections 30^49 and 30^57 the appellants most obtain an area variance for the listed deficiency before a building permit or Certificate of Occu- pancy can be issued for this project, MR . NINN: I ' m Phil Winn and I ' m the attorney for the Knoppen- borgs. They have entered into a contract with Taynton via the Bankruptcy Court to purchase the property down on Third Street^ Attached to the application is a map drawn by T .G. Miller which shows the location of that stroctore^ The main problem is -the only problem is, the building is located approximately a foot and one-half from the southeasterly line . Since this building was constructed to utilize the railroad spur that used to run where what is now the Norton Electric Boildin8^ Literally the cost of moving this structure would be rather enormous. As Mr ^ Hoard ` mentioned, I think the property is in compliance otherwise, it is ` in a 62a zone , the uses proposed are permitted -you also have plans prepared by Victor Ba8nardi which show the proposed use and development of this property. I have one letter from a neighbor that I ' d like to submit, it is from Nancy Mintorn of 414 Adams Street which is in support of the application^ Also I would like to submit the owner ' s authorization form signed by the Vice Pres- ' ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 91 ident of Taynton^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? SECRETARY HOARD: I would just mention that the parking requirements are met as long as the uses are all retail . So if a restaurant and/or bar were pot in there they might run out of parking spaces - they have a greater requirement. MR . BOOTH! How long a period of time do you think it would take to rent these commercial spaces? MR. NINN: To rent the commercial spaces? Apparently there are prospects now in the works. Presently the building is unoccupied, as you know, and has been for quite a while - it is somewhat deteriorated. The Knoppenber8s plan to make a major capital investment in the property . MR^ BOOTH: Would you give os a more specific idea of what ' s ^ ^ ^ ' MR . KNUPPENBERG: Rented right now is two-thirds^ ^ ^ MR. BOOTH: Can you tell os for what uses? MS ^ KNUPPENBERC: Yes, it is a laondromat ^ MR, BOOTH! Is that the two-thirds? MR ^ KNUPPENBERC: No. MS . KNUPPENBERC: That is a little over half. We have some more specs^ MR. KNUPPENBERC: I would guess two-thirds is rented. One end is rented to ourselves for a coin-operated laondromat and pick-op station. The other end of the building is rented to a restaurant � - we don ' t have a lease signed yet, but it should be real soon. And the other - then we have two small stores left and we are ^ --` -- --- -------~ —BZA MINUTES MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE: 92 just talking the Taynton building, the original building and the other one we are still negotiating with so at this point two-thirds of the original building - the existing building is rented. MR , BOOTH: What is the restaurant? What does the restaurant do to the parking? SECRETARY HOARD: I would have to know the size of the restaurant. MS, KNUPPENBERG: Sixteen hundred square feet is all he wants . MR ^ KNUPPENBERC: So far , the building that isn ' t built yet, we can always downgrade it to accommodate what we do rent - so it is not a problem^ MS^ KNUPPENBERC: And the other prospective tenant ^ , ^ SECRETARY HOARD: They would have to comply with that since they are not asking for . , , MR ^ BOOTH! You don ' t see a problem? SECRETARY HOARD: Well if they keep it in scale, even if they keep the parking in proportion, CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR ° WEAVER: I wonder if there is a clear understanding here off-street parking requirement for place of assembly, which a restaurant is, versos most of your retail oses^ And so that^ . ^ . MR* KNUPPENBERC: Slower traffic as opposed to fast traffic . MR ° WEAVER: No one can say what ' s enough parking until you say ' what the proposed use is and we can ' t answer that if neither party here can answer that tonight - but I want you to understand ` BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE! 93 it. MR. KNUPPENBERC: Yes, our thought is to rent the existing building to capacity and then we will know what we have left to build the second building, So right now we are calling for forty-one square foot, we might have to drop that down to forty-five or forty-six , whatever , . ^ Our thought is to get the first one rented. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay . Thank you. Further questions from members of the Board? ( none) Thank you all . Is there anyone else who would like to be heard in support of this application? (no one) Is there anyone in opposition? (no one) It is ours. . ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 94 DECISION ON APPEAL NO, 1657 409-15 THIRD STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Gloria and Leland Knoppenber8 for an area variance to permit construction of a new building and conversion of an existing warehouse at 409-15 Third Street (formerly Tayntons Truck Terminal ) for retail and service commercial facilities . The decision of the Board was as follows: MS, FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance . requested in appeal number 1659^ MR ^ BOOTH: I second the motion ^ . PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) The proposed uses are permitted in this zone and are consistent with the character of the neighborhood . ' 2> The present side yard deficiency can only be solved by moving . the present boilding^ ' 3) The proposed use of this building doesn ' t exacerbate the present side yard deficiency ^ ' VOTEt 6 YES; O NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED ` ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 95 SECRETARY HOARD: The last appeal is APPEAL NO . 1660 for 205 HALLER BOULEVARD: Appeal of Moncrief and Eva Cochran for an area var- iance for deficient lot width under Section 30^277 Column 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a single-family dwelling. The pro- perty is located in an R1a (Residential , Single- family Dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Section 30 ,57 the appellants most first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiency before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the new construction. MR . PFANN: My name is George Pfann, I ' m an attorney and friend of Moncrief and Eva Cochran. They are not here tonight because they had a previously scheduled trip out of town and could not make any changes . I have with me, though , Bob Miller , who is the husband of the daughter of the owner of the property and I would like to have him address this application first . MR° MILLER: I ' m Bob Miller , I represent Mr . and Mrs. MacDaniels, who because of their health, can ' t be here but they own this three acre plot of land, I think you all have a sketch. If you don ' t I have some extra ones , and it has frontage of twenty-five feet on Haller SI-vr�~_but it Spes down to a three plus acre lot^ The lot is now overgrown apple orchard - almost a jungle - it is bordered on the east side by a city park. It is approximately ' three hundred and thirty foot or thereabouts, square* We are asking for a variance to build a - to use the lot as a residen- tial lot. I think that this would improve the neighborhood, hav- ing a nice residence - it would improve the tax base for the City ' of Ithaca because it is now assessed at a very low figure and if ^ ' BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE� 96 somebody could pot a hoose on the lot I ' m sore it would increase the tax base for the City. The present twenty-five foot frontage would be used as a driveway into the lot . MR . PFANN� I might say that the Cochrans have a purchase offer that is contingent upon the granting of this variance . The Cochrans live on Haller Blvd^ The twenty-five foot strip which comes from Haller Blvd ^ and goes back into the property and runs along property that is already owned and occupied by the Cochrans, as a residence. When the three lots along Haller Blvd ^ were divided op a number of years ago, we believe that there was some understanding with the City at that time, that leaving a twenty-five foot right-of-way would give enough access to that property back there. We haven ' t been able to find any proof of that and we are not trying to hold anybody to that, but we do believe that that was the existing situation, It seems to me that this is the perfect kind of a case for - and the reason for a Board of Zoning Appeals . We have a piece of property that any- body could build on except for seventy-five foot frontage along the - along Haller Blvd. so we are asking this variance . MR . BOOTH� Are there more hooses coming after this one? MR^ MILLER� I beg your pardon? MR . BOOTH** Are there more hooses that will be proposed in the future on this lot? MR^ PFANN� No , Well the Cochrans haven ' t finalized those plans but I can say that they wooldn ' t ask for anything other than what the variance allowed and the zoning allowed. They are really ---------- BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACEt 97 interested in a one - a single-family residence on that property so if you limit it to that, they certainly are willing - they have no objections to that . My guess is that we could probably come here - and the lot is big enough and we could probably be talking about more than one residence but they are not going to be interested in that. MS . JOHNSONZ If we approve this, does it mean that for the ` future this land is tied to a single family use? SECRETARY HOARD! Yes, unless it - they would have to go through subdivision to have more than one single family dwelling. MS. JOHNSON: I should mention that I am an abutter to this - I own property that abuts this - I am not going to abstain from voting. CHAIRMAN TOMLANI Further questions from members of the Board? MR, WEAVER: A serious question, what is the status of Warren Place Extension, has it been deeded to the City or offered to the City or , ^ . ' MR. PFANN: The City owns that Warren Place Extension as far as I onderstand^ Talking with Jonathan Meigs - there are no immediate or future plans to ever pot that through there - I think ' basically because there is no way to get it all the way through to Elm Street Extension, MR, MILLEK They would have to exercise the right of eminent domain all the way to Elm Street - they are not going to do it ^ SECRETARY HOARD: The Planning Department has been sharpening op their eminent domain procedores^ BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PACE: 98 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN! Further questions for this gentleman, despite Mr . Hoard ' s intervention . Very good. Thank you gentlemen. Seeing no one else out there in the audience, I think there is any reason to So through the usual procedure, if that is okay . Can we get to the motion? BZA MINUTES 10/7/85 PAGE** 99 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1660 205 HALLER BLVD , (REAR) The Board considered the request of Moncrief and Eva Cochran for an area variance to permit the construction of a single-family dwellin8. The decision of the Board was as follows '* MR . BOOTH� I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in appeal number 1660 conditioned upon its allowing only the building of one single family dwelling and those uses that are normally appurtenant to a single family dwelling. MS, FARRELL� I second the motion* PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT� 1 ) The existing lot width cannot be enlarged without a great deal of expense by the owner . 2) The proposed use is completely compatible with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE� 6 YES; 0 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED N/CDNDITION . - 100 - 1 , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1648, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1659, and 1660 on October 7, 1985 in the Common Council Chambers of City Hall , City of 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 Ruane Recording secretary Sworn to before me this -7 9 day of 1985 i Notary Public JEAN .7. I-§ANKINSGN NOTARY PUBLIC, :>T,77 OF NEW YORK ho. 55-1-�,;o800 QUALIFIED 1,,,;i:;P:<.'ti;NS COUNT`F 7 MY C ...,I SiOY ,.,i;i". .'. RCH 30,19__