Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1985-12-02 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 2, 1985 Page APPEAL NO. 1666 Dale and Nancy Pennow 3 203 Hook Place DECISION 5 APPEAL NO. 1667 Travis and Travis 6 516 University Avenue Decision 11 Discussion 12 APPEAL NO. 1668 David Plaine (Advertising Associates) 17 528 West Green Street Discussion 26 Decision 27 APPEAL NO. 1669 Clifford H. & Joyce D. Axtell 28 322 Pleasant Street Discussion 37 Decision 39 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 43 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS DECEMBER 2, 1985 CHAIRMAN 7[8MLAN: Good evening . I 'd like to call to order the December 29 1985 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter , the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board 's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight : TRACY FARRELL RICHARD BOOTH STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THOMAS D. HOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE BOARD BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT: HELEN JOHNSON The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we will hear from the appellant and ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible and then be available to answer questions from the Board . We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the Board considers " interested 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. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of an " interested � 1 . BZA MINUTES - DEC. 2, 1985 party" . While we do not adhere to the strict rules of . ' evidence, 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 , correspondence relating to the cases as ' received by the Building Department , the Planning and ' Development Board 's recommendations and findings, if any, ' and the record of tonight's hearing . Since a record is ' being made of this hearing , it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones which are opposite me here so that their ' comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and therefore will not be considered by the Board in its deliberations on the case. We ask that . everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board . After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed , no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during the deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or a special permit . In the rare cases where there is a tie vote, the variance or special permit is automatically denied . Are there any 2 BZA MINUTES - DEC. 2, 1985 questions from the vast numbers of you out there in the audience? All rightN we can proceed . SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal is APPEAL NO. 1666 - 203 HOOK PLACE: Appeal of Dale and Nancy Pennow for an area variance for a deficient front yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a solar room addition and deck at the rear of the single-family home at 203 Hook Place. The property is located in an Rla (Residential , Single Family Dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the deficient front yard before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. MR. PENNOW: As Mr . Hoard pointed out, the. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Excuse me, please begin by identifying yourself? MR. PENNOW: Yes, I am Dale Pennow, 203 Hook Place. The deficiency is a front yard deficiency, the construction that we are proposing is in the back yard . Where, merely, we are proposing to do is to construct a solarium, greenhouse addition which will be supported by a raised wooden deck , extending ten feet off the back of the house and approximately sixteen feet in length . I don't know what other information you would like at this point , I would be glad to answer any questions. It is fairly straight forward. 3 BZA MINUTES - DEC. 2, 1985 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine, it is fairly straight forward . The raised wooden deck , for example, has what kind of foundations? MR. pENN0W: I 've contracted with Hovanec Builders and they are proposing concrete footers with posts sunk in concrete. There is no concrete, brick or any other kind of raised foundation other than traditional deck construction. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you received any comment or feedback from the neighbors? MR. PENNOWc I have had one phone call from my next door neighbor at 205 Hook Place and her only question was, do I need to follow up any further on this, other than moral support? No I have had no negative comments whatsoever . CHAIRMAN TOMLAM: Further questions from members of the Board? (none) Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? (no one) Then is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? No opposition, no more in favor . It is ours. 4 BZ() MINUTES - DEC. 2, 1985 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1666 - 203 HOOK PLACE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Dale and Nancy Pen-mow for an area variance to permit the construction of a solar room addition and deck at the rear of the single-family home at 203 Hook Place. The decision of the Board was as follows: MB. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal No . 1666. MR. BOOTH: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . There is a practical difficulty in meeting the front yard setback which can only be solved by moving the- building . hebuilding . 2. The proposed changes would not exacerbate the existing front yard deficiency . 3. The proposed changes are consistent with the character of the neighborhood . VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; I ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED 5 APPEAL NO. 1667, 12/2/85 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1667 for 516 UNIVERSITY AVENUE: Appeal of Travis and Travis for an area variance for a deficient side yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 12, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the completion of the apartment building now under construction at 516 University Avenue (Ravenwood Apartments) , and issuance of a Certificate of Compliance by the Building Commissioner . Through an error in locating the new building on the site, the building is 2.7 feet closer to the side lot line than is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore under Section 30.57, the appellant must obtain an area variance for the deficiency before a Certificate c'f Occupancy can be issued for the new structure. MR. TRAVIS: I 'm Mack Travis, the owner and this is Barry Kasonic, the contractor . What would you like to know? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right , seeing as how you have asked . Explain how this occurred . MR. TRAVIS: Well , I hired Barry to build it for me - we had originally had HOLT Architects design and layout the entire project when we began it in 1980 and they had designed Phase 1 which was the thirty-two units and done a - really a rough layout of Phase 2 which was to be the additional eight units. In building Phase 1 , I moved the buildings twenty feet to the south to save about a five foot diameter oak tree which cost me - I lost a couple of units in Phase 2. But really what happened is we laid out Phase 2 - instead of having HOLT do it, I had a different architect who was not as familiar with the site and Barry, as the contractor , got a licensed engineer to lay out the buildings on the site. And what happened , there are two property markers up on University Avenue - one of them sticks up above the ground PAGE 6 APPEAL NO,, 1667, 12/2/85 about that far (show of hands here) , a big pin and it is actually four feet four inches to the south of where the real pin is, which is underneath the grass, and as I understand it, the engineer picked the obvious pin instead of the buried pin and we laid out our buildings accordingly and excavated, poured footers and foundations and then discovered it - because we had to have a survey completed for the bank - we had T. G. Miller there for the survey. That is what happened . MR. BOOTH: What was the date that you discovered that? MR. KASBNIC: I don' t know, I think it was early in November , some where in there - about four weeks ago , three weeks ago, � if I remember rightly. It is not the whole building , it is � just the southwest corner . The building is on an angle, it is the last - the building is thirty-two feet wide and it is / the last ten feet that is sticking over , the rest of it is | � well within, because of the angle of the building . � � MR. B0QTHz What was built as of that time? MR. KASONIC: The slab was in and part of the foundation wall was up . MR. BOOTH- There is considerably more than that up now. MR. KAS0NIC: Correct . MR. BOOTH: Why did you proceed? MR. TRAVIS: That was my decision to proceed . We had two options, one was to - actually three options, I thought , I own the property to the north , through a partnership !. I 'm a general partner , I thought we would have a possibility of PAGE 7 APPEAL NO. 1667, 12/2/85 . the property lines to the north - that was one option. The . second option was to . . . ^ MR. BOOTH: What would that have done? MR. TRAVIS: Well that , you see you have to have, as I understand it , ten feet on one side and five feet on the ' other , we've got the five feet on the north and we had the ' ' ten feet, we thought, to the south - we are short about two feet, two and one-half feet, or something like that . So that , I thought was an option - and it turns out the buildings are too close together , they are twelve feet instead of fifteen - there is twelve feet between the buildings to the north of Ravenwood , instead of fifteen feet . The other - in saying to go ahead , that was one of my considerations, I hadn' t measured the buildings at that time. The second one was, Dave Gersh owns the property to the south . There is fifteen feet , just , almost , between ' those two buildings. We had discussed a rather complicated transfer of land that would have had to have gone through a . two month approval period, as I understand it, for subdivision approval , to change property lines. So we have . done all of the ground work for that . It entails my giving ^ him a right-of-way across my driveway to his back yard, / giving him six hundred square feet of my property - the west edge of my property - in exchange for one hundred sixty one square feet , is the way they have drawn it up - T. G. Miller drew it up in a way to give us the property that we needed and frankly it is a very - it is cumbersome, it will work , ^ ^ ^ PAGE 8 ' -- - ' - - - -�— -- - APPEAL NO., 1667, 12/2/85 David has agreed to it, I would prefer not to have to go that route. In talking with Mr . Hoard , it seemed perhaps the simplest way would be to proceed with a zoning variance. We did continue - I could not stop construction because I knew I had an agreement with Dave Gersh and I 've got several hundred thousand dollars tied up in this thing . I 've got leases ready to go , the fifteenth of January and if we had to delay for all the city meetings it would have been impossible to meet our opening date. MR. BOOTH: What was the third option? MR. TRAVIS: The Board of Zoning Appeals. MS. FARREk-k-: So , in other words, you and Mr . Gersh own the property next . . . MR. TRAVIS: I don' t own it , he does. MS. FARRELk-: If he owns that , does he have any objections to this proposal? MR. TRAVIS: No . It has been laid out to him, of course, he WOOS sent all the proper forms. This seemed to me to be the simpliest solution and the buildings, of course, have continued , but the buildings are down over the bank so it is not as though they are fronting right up on the street . Our building , Phase 2, is down over the bank . I don' t know if YOU noticed it at Ravenwood - so that it is not as though the two buildings were butted up against each other up on the street . I think it lessens the impact. CHAIRMAN l[0MLAN: Further questions? PAGE 9 -- - - ----- -- APPEAL NO. 1667, 12/2/85 MR. BOOTH: When do you normally do your survey for construction? After you begin construction? That doesn't seem like a very reasonable way to undertake things. MR. TRAVIS: In the first phase, obviously we did it all beforehand . We also closed long beforehand and, of course, had our building permit . In this phase, frankly the financial consideration, we had an architect that wanted one fee and for five times less, I had what seemed to me to be a legitimate floor plan drawn up for the building - we hired a licensed engineer and I thought that would be adequate to lay the building out and I think my contractor would agree with that . The only reason, frankly, we had a survey done was when we took the drawings of the licensed engineer in to my attorney to close with the bank - we had not closed because the bank trusts me enough now that we can go ahead -- we we had that title insurance and the licensed engineer 's drawings would not suffice the title insurance, so we had the survey done and discovered the mistake. You are right , generally you do a survey first and the next time I will do that (unintelligible) . CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Further questions? Thank you gentlemen. 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) It is ours. PAGE 10 APPEAL NO. 1667, 12/2/85 ` DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1667 516 UNIVERSITY AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Mack Travis for permission to complete the apartment building now under construction at 516 University Avenue. The decision ' of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1667. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. . FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 > The deficiency is a minor one and the particular site . has little or no effect upon the immediate neighbor on that side and is not - from an aesthetic viewpoint - would not have any effect on the general appearance of the project . ' 2) There are practical difficulties in that either a com- plicated and delaying transfer of land would be neces- sary to comply technically and , second , that the delay of the project at this time would obviously be finan- cially damaging . 3) The existence of two pins in this case created a situa- ' tion in which the landowner made an understandable error , initially , in surveying the property. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 11 APPEAL NO. 1667, 12/2/85 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1667 AFTER THE MOTION BUT PRIOR TO THE VOTE: CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Further discussion? MR. BOOTH: Charlie what do you do about the fact that this is clearly self imposed? MR~ WEAVER: No question but what it is self imposed but I am familiar with the mysteries of land surveys and , if you get one that is right you are lucky, even though it may, be certified, so making a two foot error is perfectly, within the - within my experience. It is one of those things that happens. SECRETARY HOARD: Have you seen this? The survey? It shows the problem with the old pin. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think it would have helped tremendously if we could have had the survey with the application. It makes clear a whole lot . . MR. WEAVER: I understand . . MR. BOOTH: What does? ' CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: That survey makes clear a whole lot - it would have been nice to have had that earlier . MR. BOOTH: Well who put these pins in? Other surveyors? There are two pins. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, the property lines do something funny ' here too . Ravenwood part is like this, Gersh `s property starts sloping back and this old pin may have had some function but it was nullified in the Travis project . . . PAGE 12 APPEAL NO. 1667, 12/2/85 MS. FARBEL'L: So this is the mistake, this was the old one, and this was the new one? SECRETARY HOARD: This was the one that the engineer got mixed up on. Of course that threw everything out of whack . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: It seems that the engineer should have had the correct drawings to begin with . He should have. SECRETARY HOARD: Maybe he did . MR. %9Q0l[Hc What does it mean by (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think you can see what is going on a heck of a lot better , with a drawing in front of you by virtue of a variance. MS. FARRE0L: In other words, a map is always nice. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: That 's right . MR. BOOTH: What's the distance between those two pins? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Four feet . MR. BQOTH: Four feet , is that what it is? SECRETARY HOARD: Something like that . MR. BOOTH: Does it say - that is what I am asking . SECRETARY HOARD: Does it say here? Four by five. MR~ BOOTH: So that would make up the difference? CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Yes. Further discussion? MR. WEAVER: I would like to answer Dick just a bit more than I did . I think when we are looking back at the Ordinance and trying to protect the Ordinance and being driven by the Ordinance, that 's what we are for and the other question that I asked was what would be accomplished by a strict application of the Ordinance. . PAGE 13 APPEAL NO. 1667, 12/2/85 MR. BOOTH: I don' t know. MR. WEAVER: You know, would some principle or would the neighborhood of the immediate neighbor , any of them benefit from the strict application of the Ordinance? MR. BOOTH: Well I think they would - the problem that we have is we are always facing people measuring things and here you have a very sophisticated operator making a mistake. It seems to be logical understandable. MR. WEAVER: Well we've got some bigger people than MacI-.- 1) avis. Travis making mistakes around the world . MR. %90Ol[H: I understand , but that is part of what is bothering me is what we will do the next time somebody comes in and misses by five feet . They say, well I didn' t do it with an engineer and a surveyor but I did pretty well . MR. WEAVER: I think it would be back in our lap . Again, what good does it do to defend and what damage will be done to grant? Maybe that is too simple language but . MR. B{]K3lFHc This is well within the density? SECRETARY HOARD: In fact he could . . . MR. BOOTH: He could build quite a bit more. MR. WEAVER: It is in the application the description of the relatively mild . . . . SECRETARY HOARD: He has got more than twice as much land than is required for the number of units. MR. SCHWAB: I agree with Dick that there is something on the other side and that especially sophisticated builders, you want to - the City c'r whoever , wants to encourage them PAGE 14 APPEAL NO. 1667, 12/2/85 to do it as accurately, and to do it as carefully as possible. But it still seems to me that it will come down ' to individual case and if the next case is five feet and it wasn' t just three weeks later they were coming in here, . admittedly as well as the story strikes me as fairly . reasonable as why they went ahead so I guess what I am . saying is, I do think there is consideration on both sides, . I think it is a balancing case and I am inclined to say this . is minimal enough , harmless enough , the balance is in favor of granting . ' MR. BOOTH: Tom did you see these pictures? Anybody from . your office? ' SECRETARY HOARD: Lee Naegely. One is down in the ground and the other one is obvious. MR. BOOTH: Is the old one still there? MS. FARRELL: Have they taken out the obvious old one? ' SECRETARY HOARD: Well the other one isn' t on his property. He can' t pull it out . ' MR. BOOTH: Say that again, oh , the one. . . SECRETARY HOARD: The one that caused the problem is not on ' his property. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Best not to pull it out . MR. TRAVIS: I think Mr . Gersh and I can certainly come to the agreement that we want to pull that out . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tracy, further thoughts? . MS. FARRELL: No . PAGE 15 APPEAL NO. 1667, 12/2/85 MR. BOOTH: Would you be willing to amend your motion to say because of the existence of these two pins, this creates a unique circumstance. . . . MR. WEAVER: You are proposing another finding . . . MR. BOOTH: I want something so that we don' t get somebody else coming in and saying I didn' t measure it right and . . . MR~ WEAVER: Why don' t you propose another finding of fact? MR. BOOTH: How about if we add a finding of fact that says, the existence of two pins in this case, created a situation in which the landowner made a understandable error initially, in surveying the property? CHAIRMAN l[ONLAN: Is that agreeable to the maker? And the seconder? MR. WEAVER: Yes. MS. FARRELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAhU: Well with that additional finding and additional discussion, perhaps we can get on to a vote. , PAGE 16 APPEAL N0. 1668 - DECEMBER 2, 1985 SECRETARY HOARD: T l�i e -next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1668 FOR 528 WEST GREEN STREET (ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES) : Appeal of David Plaine for an area variance for deficient lot width and one deficient side yard under Section 30.25, Columns 7 and 13, to permit an addition to the front of the one-story office building at 528 West Green Street (Advertising Associates) . The property is located in a B-2a (business) Use District in which the existing use is permitted; however under Sections 301.49 and 30.57 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: (:good ever-drig . If y(:- ..l begin by identifying yourself. MR. PLAINS: My name is David Pikir;e4 I 'm Presidea•rit; with Advc:-n-.tisi.ng Associates. I guess yot..t all beard the pui p)cose we propose to c:.onst i..t-tc t an addition to the e i st i•r"4g hrcti. lcii.r.c7 » We wol..tld Iii-,e very mc.tch for it to be the same width that we have of the e:::i.{ t`.r erg s_tr-t-tctl.lre and I hHve been gi,,ren to l. nd+:=rt-;tared that there is a r-c:.c::omrrrendAtion C-C:smrYrl t.tee recommertdat for-i 1.'i l yok..lr- hrc n'ds, that s 1..lC gL--,its that the side yard be mairrtai.neci for the ati(Ii•,iC.-n John mei.gs to Id ty-ie, I r f nl. I;j this k. that V1:0c. Id be to the: hcm..tse that is next door . 01..t) c�ri.r_.►i.rrtrl thOUghts we-f---, that what: we wot-tId do is bt_tild only cep tc, where the fence PAGE 17 APPEAL NO. 1668 - DECEMBER 2, 1985 now is, on the 526 West Green Street side and not go any further into the house and in any way affect those who may live in that first floor apartment . Either way, however , I appreciate that we were given the opportunity to add more Space to the office. MS. FARRELL: Have you considered an addition that maintains a five foot setback from the property line, which I believe is what is required? MR. PLADNEz We have drawings that allow for that , yes. What we would propose to do is just fill it out further into the lot with - and we have quite a bit of opportunity to do so . MR. BOOTH". Toward the street? MR. PLAINE: Toward the street , yes. MR. BOOTH: How much further would you build? MR. PLADNE: We have plans to come out twenty feet . MR. BOOTH: That is your current plan? MR. PLAINEz Yes. MR. BOOTH: You have to have a five foot set back - how far would YOU come out? MR. PLAINE: The current plan - what I was hoping to do , is to come out just the sixteen feet - just where the fence is. Coming out twenty feet would be what it is that we would propose that we would do, if the five foot rule was maintained . MR. BOOTH: So you could have a jog in your building or kind of an L? . PACE 18 - - - -- - — APPEAL NO. 1668 - DECEMBER 2, 1985 MR. PLAINE: Yes. MR. BOOTH: Is that doable, in terms of what you've got to do? MR. PLAINE: It's not as functional for us but it is doable, yes. CHAIRMAN 7[0MLAN: So we are talking about a twenty foot addition out the front . I am kind of curious as to - I want to know how long you've had the property, how long have you owned this property?d MR. PLAINE: I think it is a year . I don't have the exact date but Tom has all of that information. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: And the driveway to the left of your building is a common driveway? MR. F^k-ADNE: No sir , that 's the property of Advertising Associates. It is on the 528 West Green Street property. MR. BOOTH: I have forgotten. Did you get a variance before to put the business in this building? MN. PLAINE; A variance? No sir , I don' t believe I have . ever been before this Committee or any other to get a variance. SECRETARY HOARD: It 's a business zone. MR. BOOTH: It was already a business when you moved in? ` SECRETARY HOARD: It was already a business. . . MR. BOOTH: I see. What was in there? MR. PLAINE: A radiator repair shop . . CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Further questions? ^ PAGE 19 ^ APPEAL NO. 1668 - DECEMBER 2, 1985 MR. SCHWAB: I guess I 'm really not following it quite yet . I see scheme B and Delta here and then you are talking about a third one tonight , is that right? MR. PLAINE: A third one? No sir , let 's just stay with Scheme A for now. If you notice on Scheme A there is the presentation to add sixteen feet , fully width to the edge of the property as it now exists. The reason that I am here is that a variance is required since this property was before zoning , I guess, or something like that, and this wall that exists now, is too close to the adjoining property. MR. SCHWAB: Right . MG. FARRELK-z So what you really want is the sixteen feet and maintain the one foot side yard? MR. PLAINE: I think it would be most appropriate for the house next door and it is what I would like to do . My next option, if you agree with the Planning Group , is to suggest that you allow me to do twenty feet and maintain that driveway. MR. BOOTH: On which side? MR. PLAXNE: On the side which has the deficiency, sir . That 's the east side, yes. MR. BOOTH: That's where thejog would be? MR. PLAINE: That 's where the jog would be. You' ll have to forgive me, I 'm only in advertising, I 'm the specialist in communications. MR. WEAVER: You are trying to communicate with us right now. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We understand . . PAGE 20 APPEAL NO. 1668 - DECEMBER 2, 1985 MR. PLAINEc I don' t feel like I 'm doing an exceptionally good job . MR. BOOTH: I 'm confused , I 'm not an expert at looking at these diagrams. As I look at Scheme B. . . . MR. PLAINE: Well Scheme B is . . . . MR. BOOTH: Not to be looked at? MR. PLAINE: Would you please not? That was an architect 's rendering of what we might do - he gave me a couple of options and I made the mistake of give you both . MS. FABRE0L: Okay, so we are just considering . . . MR. PLAINE: Please. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you are considering Scheme A and you are considering a twenty foot addition to the south? MR. PLAINE: What I would like to have is a sixteen foot , to include the wall coming right up without the jog . That ' s what I would like for you to say yes to . MR. WEAVER: That picture is sixteen not twenty. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Okay. ' MR. Pk-AINE: And that would be sixteen feet . However if it is not possible to have that, then what I would propose is that we go out to the twenty feet . CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: And that is represented by the dotted lines except for the fact that you would bring it back from ' the property line? MR. PLAINE: That is correct . MR. BOOTH: Five feet. PAGE 21 APPEAL NO. 1668 - DECEMBER 2, 1985 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Five feet from the property line. Now I think we are all clear . MR. BOOTH: I think now we are getting there. I was looking at Scheme B and the jog was on the other side of the house and that is why. . . MR. PLAINE: Anybody know Bob Boehlecke? Bob did that . He is not here to collect the rewards. . . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: You ought not to tell stories about your architect . Further questions? Did you get any feedback from the neighbors? MR. Pk-AINEc Some people from the VFW came over and looked over the plans and said you' ll have no trouble from us. And some people from the Black Forest, is that what it is called? Forest City Lodge, came over and said we would have no trouble. MR. BOOTH: We have a letter now from INHS. MR~ F`K-AINE: I 'm not surprized. MR. BOOTH: Michael , did you see that? CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: Yes. Could you comment on that? MR. PLAINE: I don' t have a letter from INHS. MR. BOOTH: Here it is. I think it asks for what we seem to ' be talking about . I 'm not sure but I think it does. Is that how you take it? About they would favor the jog? SECRETARY HOARD: It seems to be asking for that, yes. MR. PLAINE: The house that would be negatively impacted by going out twenty feet belongs to INHS. The existing fence PAGE 22 APPEAL NO. 068 - DECEMBER 2, 1985 on the east side there is by INHS's property and it is on the 528 property. MR. BOOTH: There property is to the east of you - or west of YOU !' MR. WEAVER: East . MR. PLAINE; They've got five properties within two hundred feet of me. MR. BOOTH: They have one that is immediately adjoining your property, no? MR. PK-AINE: Yes that is correct - 526. And it would be the one just on the other side of the existing fence and that existing fence is on Advertising Associates property and it is that existing fence right there that is being used as a, I 'd say, a back yard barrier between the property that we have and the INHS property. It seems to me like the wall would be as appropriate a barrier as the fence. Right now the fence is there. MR. BOOTH: Would you leave the fence up? MR. WEAVER: Whose fence, do you know? MR. PLAINE: INHS. I 've chosen not to make any problems at all with the fact that that fence is on our property - it makes a lot of sense to me that it is there - to protect the back yard - advantage for the people who live there. As far as the maintenance is concerned, I can understand it - I can understand their concern. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tom, is the worksheet drawn up for which one of the many schemes that we have been thinking about? PAGE 23 ' — --~-APPEAL NO.NU. 1668 - DECEMBER 2, 1985 SECRETARY HOARD: The one that is shown on this - it is the twenty by twenty addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Twenty by twenty addition. I see. ' MB. FARRELLz But the twenty feet versus sixteen feet doesn' t make any more. . . MR. SCHWAB: It wouldn' t change anything on the worksheet ' though . SECRETARY HOARD: Well it would reduce the lot coverage by ' taking that strip out . MR~ SCHWAB: That 's right , but it is still okay. MS. FARRELL: But I mean, doing the twenty thing doesn` t make any problems with the front yard? SECRETARY HOARD: No . MR. SCHWAB: It extends the side yard deficiency. MR. BOOTH: What is the history of that building? Was it ' built as a garage, as an accessory building to the major structure? Or you don` t know? MR. PLAINE: It was part of 530 at one time and it was broken apart when I purchased the 528 from the Fontana's, who own 530. We also have an option on the 530 which we are hoping to exercise at some . . . . we were also hopeful of purchasing 526 - that `s another story altogether . MR. SCHWAB: 530 is where you presently park, is that right? MR. PLAXNE: We have four spaces there. MS. FARRELL: You lease spaces on two other properties, and ' you have all the spaces you need? ' PACE 24 ' APPEAL NO. 1668 - DECEMBER 2, 1985 MR. PLA I NE: Yes. And the additional space is not for any additional people. MS. FARRELL: What's it for? MR. PLAINE: Well it is for a conference room and a reception and waiting area. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Further questions? Thank you. Since there is no one else in the audience to say much of anything either pro or con, so why don' t we proceed . ` PAGE 25 ' APPEAL NO. 1668 - DECEMBER 2, 1985 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1668 528 WEST GREEN STREET MR. SCHWAB: As I understand it the immediate neighbors which would be impacted by this variance, are asking - not for strict compliance because strict compliance would deny the whole thing - the addition complies with the setback . I hear from the applicant - that is definitely number two choice but he could live with that , which makes me inclined to say go with that . MR. BOOTH: I think that makes good sense. MS. FARRELL: I want to state for the record that I am a member of the Directors of I .N.H.S. I think I can vote on this case clearly and fairly without that being a conflict of interest . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further comment? ^ PAGE 26 - - ----APPEAL NO.NO. 1668 - DECEMBER 3, 1985 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1668 528 WEST GREEN STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Advertising Associates for an area variance to permit an addition to the front of the one-story office building at 528 West Green Street . The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. BOOTH: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1.668 conditioned upon the proposed extension to the south of the existing building complying with the five (5' ) foot side yard setback requirement . MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 > The existing building is located closer to the side yard than the Ordinance requires and would be extremely dif- ficult for the landowner to move. 2) The proposal , as conditioned, would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood . VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; I ABSENT GRANTED W/CONDITION PAGE 27 APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 SECRETARY HOARD: The next: appeal is APPEAL NO. 1669 FOR 322 PLEASANT STREET: Appeal of Clifford H. and Joyce D. Axtell for an area variance for deficient lot size and front yard setback under Section 30.25, Columns 6 and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the two-family dwelling at 322 Pleasant Street to a three-family multiple dwelling. The property is located in an R-3a (Multiple Dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 the appellants must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Compliance can be issued for the proposed conversion. Please come forward >i.r . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sood evening , if you would begin just by identifying your-self? MR. AXTELL: 1 "m Clifford H. Amtel l . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And pert-,c::rps why y ou"d like the variance? MR. AXTELL: Well , the place is too big , under the cJ.rcumst•ances, for the two o'3' 1.?s, which is all there is in the family now %aril:{ we've always had one apartment: that we rented , we'd like to ;just fiYrlke one more. And if you t"li::i've he floor plan there, I think you will _.gee it is a big house. MR. BOOTH: Where is the existing apartment in the house? APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 MR. AXTELL: Second floor , front . MR. BOOTH: If you add an apartment , where will that be? MB. AXTELL: Well , it would probably be the addition in the rear that I built in early 60's. MR. BOOTH: That you used figuratively? MR. AXl[E0L: Yes. MR. BOOTH: And your mother-in-law, your wife's mother-in law? MR. AXTELL: No, my mother . She died in '83 and she had the three rooms and bath here in the front . MR. BOOTH: In the back? MR. AXTELL: Pardon? MR. BOOTH: In the back? MR. AXTELL: No she had the three rooms in the front , but actually we were all on one floor - had the whole run of the house. Now there is just my wife and myself and might as well say there is enough room for sixteen rooms, it is just too much . MR. BOOTH: So where would the new apartment be? The additional apartment? MR. AXl[ELL: The additional apartment would be the addition at the back of the house. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: In the building . ' MR. BOOTH: Fine. MR~ AXTELL: With reference to the size of the lot , which I believe, by all that is holy, pertains to how many parking spaces there would be. I had it roughly forty-six by fifty PAGE 29 APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 and to my knowledge, with everything that I 've had back there so far , we could possibly park at least five cars with no problems at all , which we have done. It is a joint driveway, the back yards of my place and 324 have always had four , five or six cars - there are no problems there. I believe if you read it over , in the letter that Eddie Mazza wrote for us, Section 30.25 - R-3a, Column 2, the first part pertains to front yard, which isn' t going to change in the least, because I 'm not going to move the house. Let's see the back yard - that's the only deficiency that would be created by conversion as requested would be a nine percent (9%) deficiency on the minimum lot size. And I believe the minimum lot size was seven thousand feet and I think we've come up with sixty-four hundred square feet . As I said, it has been a joint driveway between the houses - on the driveway side on the east side, there is approximatelyd twenty-three foot six inches between the houses - not counting the side porch that I have. This would delete possibly eight feet , so you have fifteen foot, six , between the two houses. On the west side of the house, at the front it jogs in slightly, it is seventeen feet and most of the side yard is thirteen foot, six . I know there was some ' question before - it was said that we had something like seven feet on one side and eight feet on the other and I don' t know who came up with those figures or how they ' arrived at them. As I said before, the house hasn' t moved . One other thing possibly in question, approximately, in the PAGE 30 ' -----' - APPEAL NO. 16,,59 - 12/2/85 house itself, everybody refers to an apartment as unrelated people, I haven' t to my knowledge, rented to anybody unrelated and no students, not that I don' t care for them, that is not the point , but sometimes they do get obstreperous. We have had places down the street to that finding and new owners, etc . have changed their methods too . Consequently with this change, this would make primarily two one-bedroom apartments and one, two-bedroom apartment , possibly three - there is one big room upstairs which could be used as a playroom, another bedroom, whatever . MR. BOOTH: Do you intend to go on living there? MR. AXTELL: I hope to , I 've been there sixty-one years already. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: We hope you do too . The letters or the reactions you've gotten from the neighborhood? MR. AXlFELL: I haven' t heard anything . Everybody that - only two people, Caesar Fontana, he called and he wanted to know what it was all about . I really think , if the weather ' hadn`t been such as it is tonight, he would have been here, because he would have liked to found out more, possibly, if there is more to it. Other than that, I haven' t heard from anybody and . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Did the Boyds give you a copy of the letter that they sent to us? MR. AXTELL: Boyd's? No . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Verlain and Michael Boyd? MR. AXTELL: No . PAGE 31 _ APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well they are in your favor . But one of the questions they raise is whether - the only letter , if I can read for you: "My only qualification to the above response has to do with setting precedents: I would like to see some restriction on resale added to such a variance--i .e. , making the variance void if the house is sold, say, within five years. I would like to see this modification not because of the Axtells, but because I can foresee how such a request could be abused by more grasping types. We already have enough student noise on Pleasant Street . One more student dormitory would be more than the street could bear . " MR. AXTELL: I think I can explain to you how this came about . This whole thing started down on Prospect Street, which is a block below us. One gentlemen, in fact Mr . Hoard knows who I am speaking about, came and wanted to buy our place because he wanted access from his back yard to my back . yard, which I told him to begin with, was out of the . question. My back yard is this much higher (show of hands) than his and he has no access, no driveway and he's got a double house and I think this is partly how this whole thing came about . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see, so there is a general neighborhood question about this? MR. AXTELL: Well apparently this is the only one. I can see their point . The only other one that did call me was ` Roger Dennis, which has 324, next door , and he wanted to PAGE 32 ' APPEAI N(D.NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 know if I was selling it, how much I wanted for it . I says, I 'm not selling it , where am I going to go? This is the point, so that 's it . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. BOOTH: If we put a condition on this that this building be owner-occupied, would that be bearable for you? MR. AXTELL: Sure, why not? MR. BOOTH: I 'm just asking . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Charlie, you ] ook puzzled . MR. WEAVER: I 'm not puzzled . Discussion of this case in general , your proposal on a limitatiun owner-occupied , somewhere down the road , if we get into that habit , it is going to be a mess, from a bookkeeping standpoint !. I don' t know whether the Building Commissioner checked the Courthouse every now and then to see who the owner was and ' owner-occupied - we have it in one special ordinance on ' apartments, and it would seem to me most inappropriate on others. We hear that - not every month - but nearly every ' month, as if that were the answer to some of the neighborhood problems. I don' t think it is realistic to think that it can happen, or should happen - in other words at the Cayuga Apartments, the owner may occupy the building but whether it is done' well or poorly, is not a function of . the occupancy but rather the management of the place and I PAGE 33 ^ APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 don' t know whether we would have the Cornell President living in the dorms or not , if we keep it up . MR. BOOTH: I might do us all some good. MR. WEAVER: It might help . Again, I 'm just suspicious of the result if that became a common restriction, grant a variance if you live there, is what you are saying . MR. BOOTH: Well I 'm not saying that as a general pattern, there is concern expressed in the Board 's recommendations to us - refer on this. MR. WEAVER: Well that Board has had this Zoning Ordinance for years, this neighborhood has been zoned for multiple dwellings for years and to decide in December of 85 that we've got some new form of religion is something I 'm not willing to buy. It might be convenient for them but it would be - I think - really, I think that all parties ought to be able to depend on the Zoning Ordinance, not just some. In this case the Planning Board is assuming that certain ` parties are interested in changing the zoning , which may or ' may not happen and that we ought to hold the whole works up until that happens. I think that someone ought to be able ' to depend upon notifications of official meetings and ' actions by our legislature and if they beat a deadline, they ' beat a deadline. I don' t think there is anything wrong with that . And it has been going on - well , Collegetown is a good example of people getting in before a deadline and most appropriate, just as all of us will do between '85 and '86 ^ tax laws. We ought to be able to depend on it . So, whether PAGE 34 ' - --- '--------- -----' APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 the appellant is willing to agree or not , it may become necessary three years from now for him to sell it as a matter of survival and what is he then selling? He is selling a two-family house? He puts the improvements in, what happens to them? I just think that it would be a pretty severe restriction, that 's not my puzzlement, but that's my problem. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions for Mr . Axtell? MR. WEAVER: I 'd like to agree with the Planning Board once in a while and I find it difficult to find this kind of recommendation that suggests an accommodation to certain interests that are trying to change the zoning . I think it is most in - I think it would be an abuse to say, well , we' ll hold this over until the zoning changes. And if it changes, is it going to be changed on the basis of a long study, a thorough study, or will it be another East Hill where we just say, nothing can happen for a year or so? MR. BOOTH: Is that vote on Wednesday, is that what you said earlier? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. We've had cases like this before where people came to this Board and - it was pending zoning changes that never happened . Collegetown was one and Valentine was another where it just didn' t happen. ^ ^ MS. FARREULz The zoning isn' t changed until its changed . ^ MR. AXTELL: Can I say just one other thing? This previous ' thing that I told you about that happened on Prospect ` Street , this is primarily what got dumped in my lap , because PAGE 35 ' — - - --- - APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 they did take the entire block of Pleasant, Hudson, Aurora and Prospect and they've made it - or tried to make it two family houses and , with this, I just can' t survive - that 's it . You've got a couple other people on Prospect Street , as I said, if the weather hadn' t been so bad , I think they would have been here, too , and that is Larry and Sue Driscoll . They just bought the Hernez place, Mr . Hernez died a couple of years ago , and now they are under the same impression that this is what it is going to be. Like in their case, it will be just a single family house. CHAIRMAN T0NLAN: Further questions? Stewart you have been awfully quiet . MR. SCHWAB: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Thank you Mr . Axtell . There being no one else out in the audience, yea or nay, do I hear a motion? PAGE 36 - - -- - APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1689 322 PLEASANT STREET MR~ WEAVER: Please help me with the total square footage in this structure. We don' t have that figure do we? SECRETARY HOARD: The total square footage? CHAIRMAN 7[0MLAN: About thirty-five percent (35%) of sixty-two hundred (6,200) . MR. WEAVER: Well , I 'd be prepared to say it is a big house, but that is a little bit in - not very precise. MR. BOOTH: In my estimation, it is a big house. Sixty-two hundred or sixty-four hundred? SECRETARY HOARD: Actually, going by the figures on this survey, which are better than our map , although surveys are now in question, it is sixty-seven, twenty. MS. FARRELL: Sixty-seven, twenty? CHAIRMAN l[0MLAN: That is a bit of a difference from sixty-two hundred . MR. BOOTH: Sc--- it is deficient by much less. SECRETARY HOARD: It would be four percent (4%) . MR. BOOTH: Where is the survey found? Is that what is attached? No . Where did you get that figure? SECRETARY HOARD: If my arithmetic is right . One hundred fifty-two and a half by one hundred and twenty-eight . . . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: I 'm beginning to think Ithaca is made from a piece of elastic , it stretches. ` MS. FARRELk-: So that is a four. percent (4%) deficiency rather than eleven percent ( 11%) deficiency? SECRETARY HOARD: Right . PAGE 37 APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 MR. SCHWAB: It strikes me as important - one thing that troubles me is not the holding over , but the Code does explicitly differentiate between old and new houses on this six thousand figure and if this is - as if they thought of almost this situation, if it were new construction, six thousand is fine but it has to be seven thousand for conversions. So as it creeps up towards seven thousand it becomes closer to what they had in mind . MR. WEAVER: Are you suggesting if we sit long enough it will get there? CHAIRMAN 7[0MIL,AN: I 'm still listening for a motion. PAGE 38 APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1669 322 PLEASANT STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Clifford and Joyce ( mtel l for an area variance to permit the conversion of the two-family dwelling at 322 Pleasant Street to a three-family multiple dwelling . The decision of the Board was as follows. MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1669. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) The lot area deficiency is minor and would not be exa- cerbated by the proposed conversion. 2) The front yard deficiency of three (3' ) feet cannot be corrected without demolishing the building. 3) The structure is a very large building andv according to testimony, could not be occupied and heated economically unless it does contain three (3) apartments. VOTE: 4 YES; I NO; I ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 39 APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 FURTHER DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1669 AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: MR. BOOTH: Could I ask one question? On the survey there is a penciled in notation that says approximate rear addition, do I understand that to be something that was built after that survey was done? SECRETARY HOARD: That was in 1960, yes. There will be no increase in the footage. MR. BOOTH: That is there? SECRETARY HOARD: That is there. MG. FARRELL: That is included in all the. . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. I might mention that for all the other South Hill cases there have been - these rooms have been crowded at the Planning Board meetings . The ones that got here at the BZA meetings. . . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Nobody shows up . MR. BOOTH: Was this one crowded? CHAIRMAN l[ONLAh4: Charlie you don' t have any question much about the Boyd 's comments? MR. WEAVER: The Board, I wondered whether that should be in . a finding of fact . CHAIRMAN TONLAN: I was wondering . MR. BOOTH: He said Boyd, not Board . . MR. WEAVER: Oh, I misunderstood you. SECRETARY HOARD: He thought you had a Brooklyn accent . CHAIRMAN l[QMLANz From Brooklyn? No , please. No , specifically we all know what the Planning Board is thinking PAGE 40 -' — - -- - — - - APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 about and we know what Verlaine and Michael are thinking about . I guess, I just wonder if that is not worth a second thought? MR. WEAVER: Well if it is not inappropriate as a finding of fact, really an explanation to the Planning Board would be most appropriate and it is my understanding that the Ordinance is the law that applies at the time of this hearing, that the possible rezoning under consideration may or may not occur , that to deny would delay the owner from enjoying the full use of his property for an indefinite period of time rather than just thirty days and that he, as well as the Planning Board have a right to depend upon the Ordinance, as it exists until it has been formally changed . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well let 's - I 'm glad to have had you go through that but that `s not exactly what I was thinking about . I think I will answer my own question and that is I think the deficiency is so minor and the fact the use is permitted , that there is no reasonable way one could restrict the variance in such as way as not to be abused by more grasping types - that 's what I was getting to - the increased density that might come with a succeeding owner . SECRETARY HOARD: As far as that goes, any changes in the building after the zoning changes will have to come back to this Board and there will be much stricter rules. He is asking for two efficiency apartments and one - two one-bedrooms and one, four-bedroom. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's what I was getting to . PAGE 41 — ~- APPEAL NO. 1669 - 12/2/85 MR. WEAVER: Well this bad guy that is going to buy it sometime has a three-apartment house and he can' t alter that house or the use of the house by further conversion without a variance. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: That`s what I wanted to bring out on the record . As I think at more appropriate response, in a sense, to the neighborhood concerns. MR. BOOTH: Are you not willing - from your earlier statement - to have this conditioned as being owner-occupied? MR. WEAVER: Well I 'd vote against it . MR. BOOTH: Well it is your motion so - you are not willing to . . . MR. WEAVER: No, I wouldn' t take it as a friendly amendment . MR. BOOTH: If you would , I would make it . MR. WEAVER: I understand that. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Further discussion? A vote. ` , ` PAGE 42 ' _ 43 - I , BARBARA RIJANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1666, 1667, 1668 and 1669 on December 2, 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. y Barbara Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this /7 day of e& 1985 Notary Public JEAN J. HANWISON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 5 5-1 6 50800 QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COUNT MY C8^::;IiSSIOf� EXPIRES MARCH 30,19