The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-BZA-1986-02-10 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 10, 1986 PAGE APPEAL NO. 1670 INTERPRETATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 4 DECISION 29 APPEAL NO. 1671 SOPHIE S. MOON 30 437 NORTH TIOGA STREET DECISION 32 APPEAL NO. 1672 PHIL TOMLINSON s ROSEANN IACOVAllI 33 525 SOUTH ALBANY STREET it " " DECISION 35 APPEAL NO. 1673 BARBARA BRAZIL 36 405 EAST MARSHALL STREET DECISION 39 DISCUSSION 40 APPEAL NO. 1674 MR. & MRS. DAVID CHANG & MR. MRS. DER-JIUN LEE 42 109 ELSTON PLACE DELIBERATIONS 62 DECISION 64 MORE DELIBERATIONS 65 APPEAL NO. 1675 STANLEY BISKUP 68 617 SPENCER ROAD DECISION 72 CERTIFICATION OF THE RECORDING SECRETARY 73 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK CITY COURT FEBRUARY 10, 1986 SECRETARY HOARD: I 'd like to call to order the meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals . I am Thomas Hoard , the Board Secretary , Zoning Officer and Building Commissioner and it is one of my duties in a new year to open the first meeting of the year , we didn' t have a meeting in January, and preside over the election of the Chairperson _~ for the new calendar year , as provided for in the Board 's Rules and Regulations. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter , the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board 's own Rules and Regulations, which will be readopted later tonight . Before I call for nominations for the Chair I would like to introduce the members of the Board as well as other staff members who assist in the operation of the Board . From my left and clockwise: MICHAEL TOMLAN HELEN JOHNSON TRACY FARRELL CHARLES WEAVER HERMAN SIEVERDING STEWART SCHWAB BARBARA RUAWE, RECORDING SECRETARY ^ 1 BZA MINUTES - 21101E-,z:-.-- 1 /10/86I will now entertain nominations for Chairperson. This is only open to members of the Board , by the way . MR. WEAVER: I nominate Michael Tomlan. ' MS. JOHNSON: Second . ' SECRETARY HOARD: First and a second for Michael Tomlan . Any other nominations? Will someone move that the ' nominations . . . Will you accept? MR. TOMLAN: Sure. SECRETARY HOARD: Not hearing any other nominations, we will take a vote. All in favor of Michael Tomlan? 6 AYES; O MAY ' , it 's unanimous. You happen to be sitting in the right ' chair . CHAIRMAN l[QMLAN: We' ll adopt the Rules and Regulations ' first . You have the Rules and Regs that were distributed ' about a month ago , amended as of March 1985 . If we could have a motion? ' MR. WEAVER: I move their adoption. � MS. FARRELL: Second . CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: All in favor signify by saying Aye. 6 AYES; 0 NAYS. Okay , so we are operative. Good evening , you've been witness to our democratic procedure here, so we will go on with the procedure which will follow. The Board is going to 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 . . 2 | --- BZA MINUTES 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 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 , the correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department , the Planning and Development Board 's findings and recommendations, if there are 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 microphone, which is up here on the table so that it can be picked up by the tape recorder and we don' t have a P.A. system so you might be a little louder than usual this evening . 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 ' ` 3 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 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 special permit and in rare cases where there is a tie vote, the variance or special permit is automatically denied . Are there any questions out there, about our procedure? That being the case, can we proceed? SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal tonight is APPEAL NO. 1670 FOR INTERPRETATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE DWELLINGS Request of the Building Commissioner for interpretation of the off-street parking requirements for a dwelling unit or apartment with four or more unrelated tenants. The Building Commissioner has ruled that any dwelling unit with four or more unrelated tenants falls under the definition of a cooperative dwelling and must therefore meet the increased off-street parking requirements for a cooperative dwelling. This ruling has been challenged as to whether this interpretation was intended by the drafters of the 1977 Zoning Ordinance, and whether it should prevail . For the benefit of the people in the audience I will read what I submitted to the Board so that we are all on the same ' basis here. "During the recent boom in apartment house ' ' 4 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 construction in the Collegetown/Bryant Park neighborhoods, questions were raised concerning the off-street parking requirements for those apartments within multiple dwellings in which four or more unrelated persons reside. On July 10 , 1985, I issued the attached memo to the Building Department Staff in which I attempted to clarify this question by stating that any dwelling unit with four or more unrelated tenants must be considered to be a cooperative dwelling , and must therefore have off-street parking provided which meets the one space per two tenants formula. This formula results in a requirement for more parking spaces than would be the case if the formula for dwelling units be used , which relates to the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit , rather than the number of tenants . Some examples of the differing results of application of the two formulae on hypothetical situations are portrayed on the attached chart entitled "Comparison of Parking Requirements: Cooperative Household Requirements vs. Dwelling unit Requirements (Examples) " . Since the issuing of my memorandum, several property owners and/or developers have challenged my interpretation, stating their belief that the cooperative dwelling definition applies only to cases in which a single-family dwelling is being converted from family use to cooperative use by four or more unrelated persons. I disagree. Had the definition of "cooperative household" referred to the occupancy of a one-family dwelling by four or more unrelated persons, I would agree with the challengers' interpretation . However , . . 5 ' ' BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 the definition of "cooperative household" uses the term "any Welling unit" , which includes all dwelling units, regardless of whether they are isolated in what was formerly a one- or two-family dwelling , or are included as apartments in a multiple dwelling . It has also been argued that the committee that drafted the 1977 Zoning Ordinance did not intend that cooperative dwelling unit parking requirements be applied to apartments in multiple dwellings. As one of the staff people who attended all of those meetings, I do not recall that the committee ever got that far in its discussions, but if it did , it failed to incorporate appropriate wording in the draft of the ordinance necessary to clarify the issue. The fact is that the Common Council enacted the Zoning Ordinance with the wording that I have described , and whatever the Council `s intent , it is what is written in the document that counts. " The memo that I put out to the staff is referred to , goes as follows: "This memo is intended to clarify for the record the official interpretation of the parking requirements for apartments with more than three unrelated tenants. The 1977 Zoning Ordinance defines a dwelling unit in an R-2 or R-3 zone as one being "occupied by an individual or family plus not more than two unrelated individuals" . It defines a unit with a group of four or more unrelated persons as a cooperative. ' Therefore, a unit with four or more unrelated persons, whether utilizing an entire building or just an apartment within an apartment house is a cooperative, and must meet 6 BZA MINUTES the parking requirements for a cooperative. For examples an apartment house with five five-bedroom apartments could end up with two or more different parking requirements, depending on how it is occupied . If each unit is occupied by a family , or a family plus no more than two unrelated persons, the parking requirement for the building would be five, or the number of apartments, times two , the number of spaces required for a five bedroom, single family unit , or ten spaces for the entire building . On the other hand , if each unit is occupied by six unrelated persons , the parking requirement for the building would be five for the number of cooperative, times three, a cooperative requires a parking space for each two tenants, or fifteen spaces for the entire building . Obviously this can make a substantial difference in the parking requirements for a building , and would , in most cases eliminate conversions of single-family or apartment houses to cooperatives due to the much higher parking requirement . Also note that any time the occupancy of a building goes from the single-family definition to a cooperative, it is considered a conversion, and the lot size requirement goes up as well as the parking requirement . " So that is what you have before you and you have two letters from neighbors or people who have raised questions about the interpretation. CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: Does the recent Court of Appeals' decision defining family have anything to do with this? ^ ' 7 . --- BZA MINUTES SECRETARY HOARD: McMinn vs. Oyster Bay? No . And it would not affect this Board 's interpreting the Zoning Ordinance or questioning the constitutionality of the Zoning Ordinance , which is what McMinn is doing , questioning the validity of the Oyster Bay Zoning Ordinance. MR. SCHWAB: To define family right? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes ' MR. SCHWAB: But you are saying even if unconstitutional , it is our job to interpret the Ordinance? SECRETARY HOARD: Right . It is not your job to decide whether the Ordinance is constitutional or not but to interpret what the Ordinance says. MR. WEAVER: I have another procedural question. Because this interpretation was requested by the Building Commissioner and not by some champion of the other side , is it obligatory that we have a hearing of persons or does the . Board go into its interpretation decision at the moment? . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think that would be at the discretion of the Board MR. WEAVER: I thought it was going to be the Chairman. CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: Well , certainly I could make it , but I would rather turn it back to the feeling of the Board as a whole. I mean, I believe it is under Robert ' s Rules of Order that I could make that sort of declaration, but given the scenerio . . . MR. WEAVER: Well the reason I raised the question is not to narrow the discussion specifically , but rather that the 8 BZA MINUTES questions are questions of the Ordinance itself and not as they apply to a specific decision . It would just seem to me that to throw it open to a variety of decisions would not necessarily indicate anything in particular other than a personal experience of one or more people rather than clarification that would assist the Board . Were this on property X I would think that property X most assuredly would be represented but it is not ., CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other feelings? MS. JOHNSON: How do we define a family? SECRETARY HOARD: We - our Ordinance defines a family in the traditional sense but the difference between our Ordinance, or one difference between our Ordinance and the Oyster Bay one that has been challenged is that the Oyster Bay one had a couple of things wrong with it , one was that it made the distinction that it made an exemption for people over sixty-five - it said that you could have only a family in these neighborhoods. Except that people over sixty-five were exempt and therefore a number of unrelated people over sixty-five could share a house together . So that was the first thing that the Court threw out and then it - well , what it looks like to as, is that in Oyster Bay, the village . is largely zoned R-1 - there are practically no other- neighborhood therneighborhood zoning other than the commercial zoning . So , here were four young people who wanted to be permanent . residents of the City , had grown up there and they wanted to stay there and they were not allowed to live in almost all 9 ' -- - BEA MINUTES of that area, whereas our Ordinance would allow that kind of accommodation in a much greater proportion of the City . So we don' t know exactly what all - it is sort of a funny decision in that it sort of goes off in directions and then stops, we're not sure just what the implications are going to be and , Ithaca, like many other municipalities, is waiting for someone to fire the first shot or the next shot I guess, and see what happens. MR~ SIEVERD2MG: Tom, prior to today , what formula, or how were you calculating the parking requirements for projects where you had units that were being occupied by four or more unrelated individuals? By the bedroom count or by body? SECRETARY HOARD: Well , I think what had been going on was that - if you were looking at that chart you might pick up ' one or the other and not knowing how a property was going to ` be occupied , if someone came in for a building permit and ' said I want to build four apartments , three bedrooms each , ' ` you might just stop at that description of apartments. What happened was that last summer when one of the buildings in ' Collegetown was built , and they came in with their application for a Certificate of Occupancy, it suddenly became apparent that there were going to be Cooperatives in some of these dwelling units and not traditional families or- just rjust three people and so that was when the question really came up , so that is when I wrote the memo to clarify it for my staff . MS. FARRELL: So have you been following that since then? 10 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 SECRETARY HOARD: That 's what we have been following , yes . And even before that , actually, where we knew . . . MR. SIEVERDING: Where you knew what the occupancy was going to be. But you don' t know, really, at the time that the project is submitted and the building permit is applied for or even variances are requested . So it is only when the C of O is being issued , and even then it is not always apparent . SECRETARY HOARD: When they fill out a form that says how many people are going to - how many families - how many unrelated individuals - that 's when it came to a head , yes. MR. WEAVER: Well Tom, it is not an unusual dilemma with other types of building permits, so isn' t that true that commercial buildings, that are shells, there is not a specific parking requirement until it 's occupied or designed for occupancy and then there may be rather severe or rather minor parking requirements. Example of place of assembly in a building that might otherwise be a merchantile - there would be a great range of possible parking requirements, not known at the time of construction. ' SECRETARY HOARD: Probably not known by either the applicant ^ ' or us. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? SECRETARY HOARD: Did you decide whether you were going to hear from the public? ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No . We didn' t decide but I think I will and that is that I think that we will keep it within the 11 BZA MINUTES bounds of the interpretation , if that is suitable with everyone else? And proceed? Which means that we, at this point either stand with a motion to confirm or , essentially, accept , what would , I suppose , follow the interpretation suggested by Meigs or simply take the interpretation as stated , probably clearer , in the legal notice . If we could just move . . . Well you've got two . . . VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: You stated earlier that when there was an application, you would listen to the appellant and then you would first take the comments in favor and then the comments against . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That `s true but this is not , strictly speaking , an appellant , this is a request for an interpretation on the part of the Building Commissioner , which is as a matter of courtesy, included in the public notice but it does not necessarily require a public hearing . VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Well I 've written out my comments, I would like to submit them to be part of the record even I cannot say them aloud . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You can certainly submit them. (Short discussion took place here between Secretary Hoard and Chairman Tomlan which wasn` t picked up by the recorder ) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let 's bring that up before the Board as a whole. Tom has raised a point with respect to the rules that we have just adopted . If you would take a look at page 3, Item B, and consider for a moment whether , in fact , the public might better , or at least be thought of as being 12 - -- - — - BZA ;V! heard under that particular provision, particularly paying attention to the last sentence . MR. SIEVERDING: How do we determine whose property is going to be adversely affected? . MS. FARRELL: Is it relief sought from the Board , though? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well one wouldn' t think it was relief. . . MS. FARRELL: It 's hard to figure where this fits. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's right . MR. SCHWAB: I see no har� in letting people talk . . (unintelligible ) MR. WEAVER: Would you say that louder please? MR. SCHWAB: I didn' t want to say that real loud . I see no harm in letting people talk , even if it adds an hour to the meeting , that 's my personal view. ' SECRETARY HOARD: If it adds only an hour to the meeting . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well again, I will throw it up to the —f—d . Within the context of Item perfectly prepared to sit wn my rights as Chairman at this point , to close ^ this or to restrict it to an interpretation and I 'd like to do that but I am perfectly amenable, if you would like to bring it to a vote. MR. SIEVERDING: If we go with Item E? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: "T' Essentially t�at . . . MR. SIEVERDING: Any person who represents someone whose property is going to be adversely affected? 13 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's right . Essentially we would assume that we would open it for the moment to anyone who could be adversely affected . MR. WEAVER: Well I think there is a difference here. That language is not tortured but it goes back to who is to be heard on an ordinary variance and that is the people in the immediate neighborhood whose property might be adversely affected . In this case we have the opportunity to listen to the entire City, as potentially interested and my reason for wanting to limit this is not to shut off debate but rather to have some limit on it and I can' t see how there can be a limit with . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: That 's my problem as Chair . It would be extremely difficult for me to say who is adversely affected Co who is not . I mean, literally , everyone in the room could get up and say something . MR. SCHWAB: You do , of course , have discretion on repetitive testimony. CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: That's true. Any thoughts from this side I'D the table? MS~ JOHNSON: Could you limit individual testimony to five minutes, ten minutes or - assuming , if we counted the people in the room and give them each five minutes . . . . CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: I would like a motion one way or the other to settle the matter . MS. JOHNSON: Well I think I am with Stewart , I think it is better to let people speak . . 14 ------ — -- — - BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tracy? MS. FARRELL: Five minutes apiece. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So it looks, at the present , as though we are three and three, which means we probably should go ahead , Charlie, with the public saying something . Sorry. All right , that being the case, it being the Chairman's perogative , I ' ll reverse my stand and we' ll give Mr . Fane back his piece of paper so that he can present it . After we have heard from anyone who , at first , would like to speak on behalf of our positively - that is, following the interpretation as we' ve begun to discuss it , an interpretation which would more narrowly limit things, one would assume, than would otherwise be the case . Is there anyone who would like to speak for the interpretation we have been discussing? (no one) Well , we' ll move along to those people who would like to speak against . MR . SIEVERDING: There is half of it right there. CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: Right , we are down to the second half. MR. FAME: I `m pleased to be in the majority of the public . I would like to discuss the new interpretation of parking requirements for larger apartments . . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Excuse me, could you identify yourself for the record? MR. FAME: Oh , I ` m sorry . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We know who you are but let the tape know. MB. FAME: You are absolutely right . My name is Jason Fane, I live at 133 North Quarry Street and I own one or more 15 BZA MINUTES apartments of the affected sizes in the City of Ithaca and I have, on occasion, rented an apartment to four or more persons and I expect to continue to do this in the future. I would like to discuss the new interpretation of parking requirements for larger apartments and provide some thoughts and the results of a study done by my office. Since 197711 the zoning law in R zones has required one parking space for up to three bedrooms, and a second parking space for the next two bedrooms. You already know the recent Oyster Bay court decision which confirms that unrelated people and related people must be treated the same in the zoning law. Thus, if two parking spaces are required for four unrelated people, then two parking spaces must also be required for four related people . Now, until this moment , without hearings, legislation, or publication there has been an interpretation that an apartment becomes a co-op house if rented to four or more unrelated persons, and is therefore required to have one parking space for each two persons. As I understand it , because of the Oyster Bay decision, the recent interpretation means that if a couple with one child has a second baby, and they bring the baby home from the hospital , a crime is being committed unless they first find a second parking space. Does the interpreter think the parents or their landlady is the criminal because a newborn lives with his parents? And , if no parking space is ' available, where should the newborn baby live so that the affected adults can avoid criminal prosecution? Getting 16 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 back to cooperative groups, how much parking do they use, anyway? The 1982 Travers Collegetown parking study , paid for by the City, found one car for every five students living in residences of all types . My office recently reviewed our Collegetown tenants and found that the average in Collegetown has remained one car for every five students . However , there is only one car for every seven students in the larger apartments, and even fewer cars for rooming house tenants. The occupants of studio , one, and two bedroom apartments have about one car for every three to four people in Collegetown. Both the 1982 Travers study and our own 1986 figures clearly show that the new interpretation is not needed to provide parking for residents. Incidentally, if there is a greater need for overnight resident parking , the cheapest way to provide it is to end the alternate side of the street rules, and the most productive way to encourage off-street parking is to have meters that charge for parking twenty-four hours a day . So to summarize: The interpretation smacks of lawmaking by an unelected official . 2) Because of the Oyster Bay decision, the interpretation could have disastrous consequences and 3) there is no need for this interpretation to provide adequate parking for groups of residents. So please, let the babies live with their parents and stay with the time tested interpretation that was intended by the Common Council , and I am submitting ` this paper for the record . Thank you. 17 ' - - BZA MINUTES - 2110/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? MR~ ANAGNOST: Chris Anagnost, my address is 304 College Avenue . I want to thank the Board for listening to me, since I came down purposely to speak to this issue this evening and I would just like to say that I think it would have been a very hostile action of the Board not to listen to the few people that are here because they came down purposely to do that . I sat on the Zoning Commission (sic ) in '77 and would like to offer my opinion as to the ordinance interpretation . We talked about cooperative houses being single family homes because there was a large number of homes that were being converted from single family to cooperative units . At the same time we were discussing expanding the RU district to prevent fraternity houses from being converted into apartment complexes, at that time . Mr . Weaver sat on that Commission also in '777 MR~ WEAVER: No , I was too young . MR. ANAGNOST: You didn' t? My memory failed me on that . Anyway , this Ordinance - up until - for the past eight years has been interpreted that a multiple dwelling was not the same as a cooperative household . A cooperative household was for a single family, a duplex house , where somebody took it and put four unrelated people or more, and that is what was happening . Up until this time there was no issue as to the number of people in an apartment house, but only the number of bedrooms and I think it should go back even four 18 BZA MINUTES or five years and look at the forms that are filled out so if it is three apartments, you need three parking spaces, as long as it had three bedrooms. So I think that - I have a feeling that you just can' t change this interpretation without due process and notification because it has been going on for too many years . I feel that it is an error to change it arbitrarily . Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions? Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Come forward . MR~ AVRAMIS: My name is Bill Avramis. This summer I built a complex on Linden Avenue. I have twenty-four parking spaces and twenty apartments. (unintelligible) six people from my tenants, they use it , the rest of the parking spaces have been applied for around the area . I feel mostly (unintelligible) have cars up there to park in my parking spaces and I invest over three hundred thousand dollars and I do not see I have no use for . That 's it . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Come forward please. MR. SHARMA: My name is Jagat Sharma, an architect with offices at 312 East Seneca Street . Like many other people here, I have to agree that the parking space requirements are related to the number of bedrooms, not to the number of people living in it . When we start out a project and find out (unintelligible ) how many bedrooms, how many apartments 19 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 and how many parking spaces, we do not at that time know that two people will share a bedroom. Either a building is an apartment building or dwelling unit or it is a cooperative household , you cannot have a building - just by having one more person in it - change the type of the building . Cooperative household , I know the definition the Building Commissioner has recommended but as we understand it in the profession, it is supposed to mean a single family home converted to people who are not related in a family. A dwelling unit or an apartment has a number of bedrooms and I have worked , not only in this city, but in many other cities in this country, and the parking is always related to the number of bedrooms . It has nothing to do with how many people are living there - how can you have a three bedroom unit and have one parking for it , if three people are living and if one more person moves in after three months, you need a second parking space, and if that person moves out, then you are back to one parking space. You take the example of five bedroom unit . The five bedroom have five people living in it , you need two , if you go by the number of bedroom counts. If five people are living - if you go by the . cooperative household definition - you need three parking ' spaces. What is the correct answer if you have to develop a program for the building? I am speaking here as an architect doing practice in the city and advising my clients in developing a program, what it will cost and everything else, I do not know the answer . Up until this time, when we ` 20 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 are doing a project in Collegetown, we always - the very first (unintelligible ) that you have in the audience - you look at a dwelling unit - you see three bedrooms, one space and you base the whole program on that premise - you develop cost projections, advice to the client , to go ahead and build a building and the very first time, this summer when it was brought to my attention that now you have to have additional parking because this is not an apartment , this is a cooperative household . My first reaction is, he must be kidding . When a building is an apartment building , a dwelling unit is not a cooperative household . How can you - out of twenty apartments in a building - twenty dwelling units - three or more bedrooms - half of them today or this month are cooperative households and then back to the apartment . What a nightmare you are creating . Year by year , month by month , every semester you will be changing . Is it a building? Is is a cooperative household? Or is it an apartment building? That is what I wanted to say. It is a nightmare, even, for architects to develop a program for clients . One way or the other I think it should be decided . And I think , based on all the experience that we have, in many other cities and places, the number of parking spaces related to the number of bedrooms. . MR~ SCHWAB: I understand your concern for planning but what about the point if you were building a commercial building , . not knowing who the tenant was going to be, whether it was . ' going to be a restaurant or . . . . 21 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 MR. SHARMA: That definition is clear - there is no confusion there. MR. SCHWAB: Well , as far as planning you have no idea on the number of parking places going to be required and yet you do it . MR. SHARMA: The Ordinance here says five hundred square feet per person for commercial . The Ordinance says one space for every five for public assembly . But the Ordinance here has a confusing made into it when it says dwelling unit , three bedroom, one space , five bedrooms, two . And then somebody reads the definition of cooperative household , so you've go-!-- more otmore than three people living here - four people are living here, it is a cooperative household . Then you go back to the chart and you look under cooperative household . Now I , designing buildings, have no idea - I have to look on more than one application - on designing dwelling units apartment building - I 'm only looking at how many bedrooms, how many spaces. MR~ SCHWAB: That would be nice, I guess my point - are you saying there is no confusion in the commercial building? MR. SHARMA: No . Not in this Ordinance. This only applies on the number of apartments - size of apartments in terms of bedroom or size of the apartment in terms of number of people living there . We have followed , and everybody else I think most people in this city has followed number of bedrooms to number of parking required . And until this summer somebody had a cooperative household . How can the 22 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 buildings - an apartment building with dwelling units be a cooperative household? Just because somebody would move in and w4en he moves out , it is back to the apartment building . What is it , the building type - you cannot fool around with building type. What building is it? That is the question we have. We have other projects on the drawing board , we don' t know what to do . That 's all I have to say . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. WEAVER: Yes one question. Let 's have a free standing single family dwelling with three very large bedrooms. Does the owner not have the same dilemma? MR. SHARMA: Single family, is it a single family living unit? MR. WEAVER: Well , that 's - I didn' t give you the answer did I ? Just as your client doesn' t give you the answer on whether he is trying to - or is in the habit of having cooperative households or . . . MR. SHARMA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I want an apartment building !, that means more families than with the apartment number of bedrooms. And then the Housing Code of the City of Ithaca (unintelligible) the size of the bedrooms to how many people can live in the bedrooms and that is what it is based on . Now just because another person moves in, a dwelling unit becomes a cooperative household . That , to us, is very confusing . 23 ' -- --' -- BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 MR. SIEVERDING� But when a builder gives you a program to build a building , does he also specify how many square feet is going to be contained in each room? MR. SHARMA: We together build C.) that - depending on what the rental market and the demand is, we usually design two bedrooms, four bedrooms, studios, or one or two . MR. SIEVERDING: Right . MR. SHARMA: And then when we decide that , then we develop how many parking spaces will be required from the number of bedrooms. He doesn' t know how many people he is going to rent to . MR. SIEVERDING: At this point I suppose you C'. argue endlessly but it seems a little bit inconceivab] e to me that somebody would build a building and not know how many people he is going to rent that building to because the financial calculations that he does, determine whether or not it makes sense to build �hat building , it is really based on the rent that he is going to be earning , which is based on the whole number of people that are going to be occupying that building . I think you could look at some of the projects on College Avenue to see that . It is a different rent schedule whether it 's being occupied by one person or whether it is being occupied by two people. MR. SHARMAz Our experience is that every client is different . When the client comes and I like to have all my bedrooms (unintelligible) and I want three bedroom apartments. 24 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 MR. SIEVERDING: And the flexibility to be able to rent that bedroom to either one person or to two persons, that is precisely what is happening . MR. SHARMA: Correct . MR. SIEVERQING: Well I think then this interpretation will sort of help clarify what the parking requirement would be relative to units not going to be occupied . MR. SHARMA: No . For one season, or one semester , three people walk in and they say, we'dlike bigger bedrooms and we like this apartment and we want to rent It remains a dwelling unit . One other person says, I 'd like to move - get somebody else here because, legally, two people can live here. Now what happens then? It 's a very temporary thing . Now how can you change the nature of the building about how many people are living there? (unintelligible) didn' t plan it that way . But this person says, we want this gir ] but we have four and this person is going to stay here for a few months. We really have a problem. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? SECRETARY HOARD: Jagat , let 's take an example of a single family home that 's converted , because that seems to be what everybody is talking about . A ten-bedroom, single family home, two of them, one next to the other . They are both converted to ten people in each , ten unrelated people one decides that well , we don' t want to have to fall under the cooperative rules so we divide off one room into an efficiency apartment . What you are saying is, that then, . 25 ` BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 two different rules would apply to those two buildings, because one would be an apartment house and you would be using the apartment count and the one next door , which had only one unit would be a cooperative. My point is you don' t get away from this problem the way you are suggesting . MR. SHARMA: No I think , what I am led to believe from the people who sat in on the 1977 zoning meeting , is that when a single family dwelling is converted into an unrelated - it can be challanged again - occupied by unrelated people - then it becomes a cooperative household . It does not apply - cooperative household definition does not apply and should not apply to new buildings (unintelligible) design of the apartment building , multi-story, several units in it . How can half of the building be an apartment building and the other half a cooperative household? SECRETARY HOARD: Well I was there when those discussions took place, and they also talked about apartment houses in Fall Creek that used to have a family in each unit , duplexes that had a family in each unit and now had a bunch of students in each unit . So , it wasn` t just talking about single families being converted . It was talking about a whole problem with all kinds of buildings, suddenly being changed from families in each unit to a whole bunch of unrelated people. MR. SHARMA: I 'm sure you have your own problems but when we draw up new projects for our clients we have a big problem. You don' t know what (unintelligible) . 26 BZA MINUTES SECRETARY HOARD: I 'm talking about , this is the discussion in '77, I 'm not talking Llout problems . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. WEAVER: I think just one more, I 'm sorry, but you used the word apartment house and I don' t know what an apartment house is - two things, my basic ignorance and also looking at the Ordinance, which has no such term in it that I know about . There are . . . . MR. SHARMA: Apartment house is a building type, which consists of considerable apartments, building units . MR. WEAVER: Well you can tell me anything you want to and I won' t believe yc'u because it is not in this Ordinance. So under the definitions here we are dealing with multiple residences, we are dealing with single family dwellings, we are dealing with the terms that are used repeatedly in the Ordinance and also dealing with the Ordinance as it stands without the help of certain, maybe more refined definitions, but not necessarily , that use a different approach to that , and one of the differences of approach is a system that you hear more about after we get to the discussion on the Board . I see a difficulty in that you feel convinced .-.A an apartment house ought to have a specific set of regulations and we don' t have a specific set of regulations for an apartment house, as I see it . There is no such thing . So we are dealing with this, you have to deal with it too , I 'm afraid . 27 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 MR. SHARMA: No we are not dealing with this, we are bringing to the attention of the Board that there is a problem, there is a building type going on in this City for which we do not have a clear cut definition. and we must develop it and until such time, I think we should accept - My feeling is that the number of parking spaces would be related to the number of bedrooms. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions? Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? (no one) That being the case we will close the public hearing . And we are back to where we were twenty minutes ago . No bad . Very efficient . I would entertain a motion one way or the other in such a way that we can get this on the table and discuss it further if there is more discussion. 28 - - -- BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 MOTION ON APPEAL NO. 1670 - INTERPRETATION MR. WEAVER: I would like to move approval of the current interpretation by the Building Commissioner as submitted in evidence with his application. In Section 30.37-4 the plan of off-street parking requirements is based on two criteria: design and occupancy . Without a change in design but with a change in occupancy different requirements may result . For example, a property in use as a retail store, if converted to office or bank use would double the parking requirement . Also note that a rooming or boarding house changed in use to a fraternity or sorority would increase the parking requirements. It is clear to this Board that the off-street parkin� requirements for a "dwelling unit" based upon the number of bedrooms or sleeping rooms is a basic ( mum) standard and the other residences based upon "persons housed" are separately set forth precisely for the purpose of imposing stricter requirements. ' ^ MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Discussion? VOTE: 6 YES; O NO BUILDING COMMISSIONER'S INTERPRETATION APPROVED ^ 29 . � BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 ' ' HOARD: The next case is APPEAL NO. 1671 FOR 437 NORTH TIOGA STREET: Appeal of Sophie Moon for an area variance for a deficient front yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the single-family dwelling at 437 North Tioga Street to a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an R2b (Residential , One- and Two-Family) Use District, in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Section(s) 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the deficient front yard setback before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there someone here to represent this case? Come forward , if you would? MRS. MOON: J. the owner . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are the owner . If you would begin by identifying yourself and your address just so we can get it on the tape . . . MRS. MOON: I 'm Sophie Moon and I live at 439 North Tioga Street , next door to 437. CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: Perhaps you would like to explain, just briefly, why you'd like such a variance. MRS. MOON: Because I 'd like to make this single family home into apartments and I 'm -f, changing the floor plans or Ii there is already a bathroom upstairs and all I PAGE 30 - -' - BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 want to put in is a kitchenette and bedrooms - there will be three rooms and a bath upstairs and downstairs it is - there is already a kitchen and a bathroom, just modernize it . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How long have you owned the property? MRS. MOON: Since May . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: There is parking? MRS. MOON: Plenty. There is a large lot . MR. SIEVERDING: And you have a two-car garage behind the house for parking? MRS. MOON: Yes, MS~ JOHNSON: Is it unoccupied right now? MRS. MOON: It is being remodelled ' MR~ SCHWAB: We have one letter here from Mrs . Davis which supports you. Have you gotten any other reaction from the neighbors? MRS. MOON: No . Everybody is in favor , my neighbors all say okay, even the neighbor behind me . And as far as the front yard being deficient , all of those houses are set that far back , only that far back . They all have apartments, you can' t move the house. 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? (no one) That being the case, it is ` ours. PAGE 31 �-- -------------- BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1671 - 437 WORTH T%OBA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Sophie S. Mo'�n for an area variance to permit the conversion of the single-family dwelling at 437 N. Tioga Street to a two-family dwelling . The decision of the Board was as follcws: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area vari- ance requested in Appeal No . 1671 . MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) There is a practical difficulty in meeting the front yard setback that could only be solved by moving the house. 2) The proposed change wouldn't exacerbate the present deficiency~ 3) The proposed change is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED , ^ PAGE 32 / BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1672 - 525 SOUTH ALBANY STREET Appeal of Phil Tomlinson and Roseamn Iacovazzi for an area variance for a deficient rear yard setback under Section 30.259 Column 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit use of the third floor for additional habitable space at 525 South Albany Street. The property is located in an R2b (Residential , One- and Two-Family) Use District, in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Section 30.57 the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the deficient rear yard setback before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the property~ MR. TOMLINSON: My name is Phil Tom] inson, I live at 525 South Albany Street and I also own the property. CHAIRMAN T8MLAW: And your reasons for wanting a variance? MR. TQMLINSOW: My reasons for wanting a variance are so that I can continue living in the house. When I bought the house in 1983 one of the rooms on the third floor was being rented as a bedroom by the previouslandlord and I finished off the other room on the third floor . But the occupancy - the number of bedrooms in the apartment remain the same because I took out one downstairs to enlarge the bathroom, which was only about three feet wide and you had to walk PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 sideways past the bathtub to get into it . So it remains a three bedroom apartment . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: What do you have there an apartment on each floor? MR. TOML3NSON: One on the ground floor and one on the - the second and third is one unit . SECRETARY HOARD: Two units' MR. SCHWAB: So , as I understand it , the previous owner had not gotten a variance and he moved into the attic (unintelligible) MR. TQMLIMSON: As far as I know that is true. SECRETARY HOARD: As far as we know that is true. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? (none> 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? (no one) That being the case it is ours. Do I hear any motions? PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 MOTION ON APPEAL NO. 1672 525 SOUTH ALBANY STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Phil Tomlinson andRoseann Iacovazzi for an area variance to permit use of the third floor for additional habitable space at 525 South Albany Street . The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area vari- ance requested in Appeal No. 1672. MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) There is a practical difficulty in meeting the rear yard depth requirement which could only be solved by parti- ally dismantling the house or moving the house. 2> The proposed change wouldn't exacerbate the present deficiency. 3) The proposed change is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 6 YES; O NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED � SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1673 FOR 405 EAST MARSHALL STREET: Appeal of Barbara Brasil for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation under Section 30.26, and an area variance for deficient off-street parking under Section 30.25, Column 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the owner-occupant to use the premises at 405 East Marshall Street for a small business as a seamstress. The property is located in an R2b (Ore- & Two-Family Dwellings) Use District, in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Section 30.57 the appellant must first obtain the Special Permit and an area variance for the deficient off-street parting before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the home occupation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Ba,,^ MS. BRAZIL: .l I!l.# .I: d #. ..fi;.;_i._a�l;: ::: ..`.e��;:� (fi...:�t:i _ t:,:_.# .:a.;-t:::. ..:.:. c:??.?'.: r-,•�� .t.,{..ie-i"e (:-J.f..: .a C,}.f..ie i.'!; L;... :i±E.=' 1fif::.'.v.'..•Cvi .i(::s!"I;oC'vC;; .,_';{..:�]"{•:.:' ?.�::: ';1{::.. �F:�:Y". �i1"i {::'�-'z::'fi...v....... ,1:�;±C"F:•a r .., a ...,... ..i» v;.v.�..C.. .... .., i .y. ..t G _ ....... .. 1 �•..{.i!•� , ._v ?. v'-'f i i v i I{»a G v (ii':T::'... ._;...ra't. 6�.!:.v.f..!. .i., fi._C:_'r".it�. t.`�` � ':;!±•`'•. :; f.:!•i.. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: :: 'r`i'^ f � r_!I:::,:_a?:1:: .t:i...,: r.(.I t 4...ie r'fi s g BZA MINUTES - 2/10/S6 MS. BRAZIL: Nothing in writing . Two of my neighbors came up and said they were all for it . Other than that , no , no one has said anything or written anything . CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: Questions from members of the Board? MS. FARRELL: I have a question about parking . How many spaces do you have now? MS. BRAZIL: I have one behind my house . MS. FARRELL: Okay, it is a common driveway? MS. BRAZIL: Yes, it is like an alleyway that runs. . . MS. FARRELL: Yes. MS. BRAZIL: Right through the walk and there is a lot of parking places back in there . MR. SIEVERDIMG: Is that parking space with your property or do you rent that from the other owner? MS. BRAZIL: No, I rent that from people on the corner . MR. SCHWAB: Would it be possible to rent another place from them? MS. BRAZIL: It is possible down the alley, perhaps, I didn' t check into it , it is not possible right next to my house . Where my, house is situated is, - say this is the alley running through here and this is Marshall Street , my house is here, so the alley is running right next to it and I park directly behind my house. There is one other space there that someone else rents. Down along the alley, I know there are several parking places and they are not owner-occupied buildings, all of them, so there could be spaces along in there, I am not sure what is available. PAGE37 ' BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 MR. WEAVER: I 'm personally familiar with the neighborhood and the on-street parking as she has described , the only problems are after dark and daytime business hours, parking there is no competition. The curb parking is generally, and generously, available. CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: Further questions or comments? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting both the area variance and the special permit? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? There being none, it is ours. PAGE38 -- -- --- ' ' BZAMINUTES - 2/10/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1673 405 EAST MARSHALL STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Barbara 1`3 for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation and an CA variance for deficient off-street parking for property located at 405 East Marshall Street . The decision of the Board was as follows: MR' WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the request for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation and an area variance!. in Appeal Number 1673, based on special requirements under Section 30.3, Para- graph 48, Sections A, B, C, D & E which will be met by this application. MG. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) Even if the off-street parking deficiency were cor- rected, it would not substantially improve parking in the neighborhood in that daytime parking is generously available. 2) The front yard and other side yard and rear yard depth ' deficiencies are existing and create a practical dif- ficulty which could only be corrected by dismantling the house. ' 3> None of these deficiencies would be exacerbated by the proposed home occupation. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO SPECIAL PERMIT & AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE39 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 2673 AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: �R. SCHWAB: .1. just have one question, I 've noted icthat we have been rather strict with parking in general and as I heard the motion, basically, Charlie, you are saying in this area the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance aren' t needed , which gives me some pause. MR. WEAVER: Well I 'd be glad to exhaust that a little . This is asking for a permit for a Home Occupation, not asking for an increased occupancy of the dwelling , so , as I see it , and as described by the application, there might be the imposition of one or two cars into the neighborhood as parkers, but I assume that the business hours will be somewhat like other business hours, primarily in the daytime. Thisis a residential area, most of the load on parking is at night , where several of the multiple dwellings nearby have a good number of student occupants and therefore they come back in a swarm at nightand the one single side parking also applies from after midnight on, so suddenly one side street gets two sides to park on all day long and it , from my personal observation over fifteen years, I ' ll guarantee there is not a problem, although we've been solidly told that there is no problem in Collegetown and a few other places, this is a little different . MS. FARRELL: But not by you Charlie. PAGE40 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 MR. WEAVER: I think also that the business doesn' t impose a twenty-four hour parking requirement because of the allowed home occupation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Just for the new members convenience, I 'd like to point out that this discussion is one which we try to come back to in the notion of tying back the parking , so Stewart 's question, I think , is a logical one, although I agree with Charlie's interpretation, certainly . It seems to be a perennial problem, almost . PAGE41 ` . � , / BZA MINUTES SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1674 109 ELSTQN PLACE: Appeal of Mr . & Mrs. David Chang, and Mr . & Mrs. Der-Jiun Lee for an area variance for deficient front and rear yard setbacks under Section 30.25, Columns 11 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit conversion of the single family home at 109 Elston Place to a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an R2a (One- & Two-Family Dwelling) Use District, in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Section 30.57 the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the deficient front and rear yard setbacks before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion. MS. N0LMBERG: I 'm Laura Holmberg . Mr . & Mrs. Chang are here if y:.i have questions for them. I did some art work , I don' t have copies for everyone but if you cpuld share these, to show all of the - I did just Elston Place and Ferris, ' which shows that most of those - all of the shaded lots are all multiple residences and none of them are owner-occupied as far as I could tell . I checked I..: City Directory for most of them, and I would point out that what we are asking for is an area variance. This is a very large PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 lot but the house was built about 1909, the lot was established at that time and the depth of the lot can' t very well be changed ' The house is only ten feet from the edge of Elston Place but there is no - if it had been turned the other direction it would comply with the Zoning Ordinance, under any circumstances. I assume it is grandfathered in as a single family dwelling because, of course, it doesn' t meet - comply with those setbacks either . It would , I believe, meet the requirements for a mu] tiple residence. There is ample parking , there are presently three spaces, but there is room for more if that were a requirement . It is just not possible to make a change which would fulfill the area requirement as far as the setback for the front is concerned . As I recall from the Planning Board report , the back is only one foot deficient . I have a feeling that when this question has come up before this Board and before the Planning Board before that the sins of the former owners were being pressed upon the new owner that what had happened ' before would happen again. Mr . & Mrs. Chang plan to reside ' in this property , they plan to use the second and third floors and attached are the new plans which I believe were also sent to you in the mail , which shows that they would be - that they have one teenage daughter and a son who is in college who , for him the third floor would be when he is home and then their proposal is that the first floor , which already has a kitchen and a bathroom separate, would be a two-bedroom apartment . The rooms are adequate, the area for PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 the first floor apartment - it is a fairly large apartment , there was a question, why didn' t they ask for an accessory apartment permit , well it didn` t seem to me that this is a proper situation for that - I mean, it is an area question, an area variance that we are asking - it isn' t particularly the purpose for which I read that accessory apartment permit - was to permit apartments in areas in which they normally were not allowed as an assistance to families who needed additional income and while we can show that there would be hardship on this property, economically, if they have to keep it as having two roomers and a family . That ' s not the primary concern. The primary concern is that it will make a more viable living space for their family , if they can have the privacy that two apartments would provide, they would want to have family in the first floor apartment , too , they don' t want to have it become a student house. So that , while I know that the plan at the time that they bought the property, everything was bedrooms . There were no living rooms, no dining rooms and this would be an entirely different arrangement . I don' t feel that the denial of this application would further the purposes for which the area . setback requirements are established . It isn' t primarily a single family neighborhood , as you can see, I mean, these are primarily multiple residents, certainly not , except for one parcel over on Ferris Place , as far as I could tell , the two properties on Ferris which back up to this, these two are single family and this one, I believe has an apartment PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 in J. judging by the City Directory . But the rest of them were all multiple so that I don' t feel that we are going to increase density at all . Mr . & Mrs. Chang are here if you have any questions for them, l 'm sure they would be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN TO��LAN: Questions from members cf the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Is there renovation currently going on in the property? MS. HQLMBERG: Well I think all he has done, he has applied for a - and I didn' t ask him if he has gotten it - a building permit to change the entryway , which wouldn' t have any appreciable affect , and he didreplace a rotten window, as I understand it , on the third floor . I don' t think he needed a building permit for that - I don' t think the cost was enough and it was a window that definitely had to be replaced . ` MR~ GIEVERDING: The property has always been used as a single family residence? MS. HOLMBERG: As far as I can tell , it has been zoned as a single family residence, but it certainly hasn' t been used that way . MR. SIEVERDING: The only reason I ask is I notice - in looking at the property - there are two electrical meters ` attached there on the north side of the property . MS. HOLMBERG: Oh yes and there are two kitchens and two bathrooms. . . ' MR. SIEVERDING: But it has never beer hooked up? ` PAGE 5 ' - BZA MINUTES MS~ HOLMBERG: But it was - when Changs purchased it , it was all bedrooms. So , as I say , I think the past use has put a pall over the fears of what will happen to it but I can' t think that their proposal would be anything but an improvement . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Thank you. MS. H8LMBERG: And as I say , Mr . and Mrs. Chang .Al here if there are questions for them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting the variance? (no one) Is there anyoI e vv,howould like to speak in opposition? MR. SCHULER: I 'm George Schuler , I live at 110 Ferris Place. This is the third time I am here to talk about a variance to convert the property at 109 Elston to a multiple dwelling . MR. WEAVER: Pardon me, this is not an application to convert to a multiple. MR. SCHULER: It is an application to add an apartment? MR. WEAVER: Yes, duplex . MR. SCHULER: Sorry . As you see, the green properties here are single family dwellings on Elston Place. The orange multiple dwellings in the R2a area. They existed in that form when the R2a zoning was put in place. There have been ' several appeals to convert to duplexes - there was an appeal to convert a property at the corner of Elston and State, over here - all those appeals have been denied . The owners of this former Kingsley ;n, were able to get a physician PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES to move in. To grant this variance would be inconsistent with the history of how this property has been treated . There is no question that the 109 Elston property is a large house . According to the - I think the '78 county assessment data, it occupies something under twenty-two hundred square feet . The Cohen property, which was one of the green ones on this map here, immediately bordering the Elston Place property is larger , twenty-four hundred square feet , occupied by a single family and my own house on - you are welcome to look at these of course - occupies twenty-two hundred square feet and has been a single family dwelling . The other green property here, the other single family dwelling is smaller , may be at seventeen hundred square feet , we weren' t able to get accurate data on that . And the other green place here, I don' t have the data, this is an owner-occupied duplex on the other side of Ferris Place. So there are a lot of large houses there, with relatively high tax and utility bills and we've existed here, in this situation, pretty comfortably, we regard this as reasonable ' ^ use. The Chang and Lee appeal points out that it would . ' create financial difficulty for them to use the house as a single family dwelling . This may be the case, I read the modified statement in which they point out the financial status of the family, but these conditions existed when the family bought the property, when the two families bought the property and I 'm sure they must have been aware that this was a large house and they must have been aware of the tax PAGE 47 ' BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 bills and the utility bills so if this is a hardship , it is something they created for themselves. The immediate neighboring properties, none of them are multiple dwellings, the data on the original appeal statement has some errors on it , I think they say something like eighty percent are multiple and that is not the case, it is under eighty percent and the closest properties are one hundred percent single family . The reference at the end of that first paragraph is confusing , they refer parenthetically to R3a and their property is in an R2a zone. They report that the house has all facilities for two apartments and this disturbs us. Mrs. Holmberg pointed out that the sins of the former owners seems to be brought down upon the current owners but we were here two or three years ago in response to a previous appeal for this same thing and that was denied . Now we discover that there is a kitchen on the second floor . I don' t know what is going on, it seems that work was done, apparently that was inconsistent with the former BZA decision . We also observe that two new large,,- windows argerwindows have been installed on the third floor and on the north and the west sides and two new electric service boxes have been installed . These were done recently , as far as I ' know and these were mentioned in notes to the file of the ' Building Department with a note at the bottom in item number ' twelve that any of the above changes required a building ' permit and I have just heard that there have been no ' building permits issued . What we worry about it not the ' ` PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 Changs and the Lees. We were pleased , in fact , when we learned that families were interested in the property . We are disturbed by the large number of young people living in our area , who , as you pointed out , at night start coming home in large numbers, seem to take pleasure in exercising their vocal cords. With reference to the - well you talked about the front and the rear yard deficiencies - their appeal says it is slightly deficient and our calculation said it was eighty-seven percent deficient , using that three foot statement on the map and I see the BZA worksheet ' indicates there is a ten foot depth and a sixty percent deficiency and based on their original appeal , I 'm not sure which they regard as the front and which they regard as the rear yard or the side yard , but I think the worksheet clarified that for me. At the Planning Board , Mr . Lee said their intention was for the Changs to live upstairs and maybe some Cornell students to live in the other part and the statement , at that time, was misleading , or at least confusing me because when I read the changed appeal , they talk about now having a couple living downstairs. I 'd love to see that but I 'm worried what happens - Mr . Chang says that he is a Fellow in Chinese studies and Mrs. Chang will be a graduate student - that has transient written all over ' it . I am worried what happens when the Changs decide to ` ` leave - this has already been granted a variance and ' families need not live in it - there is no requirement that ' families have to live in the house . We are afraid of noise, . PAGE 49 ^ BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 we are afraid of density, we are afraid of trash increase, I won` t bother you with them, but I could show you photographs of trash left around the neighborhood . They claim that changing the occupancy will not alter the neighborhood . I 'm afraid that it will because of the reasons that I have told you, there have been young people living there in the past and we have had difficulty in several spheres. Are there special circumstances or unique conditions here? Well I pointed out , we live in large old houses, we are able tu live there comfortably, maybe it is foolish in this era, but we are able to do it . We can reasonably use our houses as family dwellings . I just wanted to make sure I covered all of my points with you - well , in conclusion, I ask you to deny this variance for the same reasons we`ve asked you in the past , I have respect for the Changs and the Lees and I think they have every good intention of doing what they say they want to do but I am worried about what this is going to do for the future and respectfully ask you to deny the variance and I also would like to reserve the right to respond after the appellant makes another statement . CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: We' ll reserve that right to the Chair for . the moment , if you don' t mind . . SECRETARY HOARD: Mr . Chairman, if I could clarify . something . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes , sure' SECRETARY HOARD: Mr . Schuler , you mentioned that there were two denials, those were only by the Planning Board . Neither - ' PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 Mr . Freeman nor Mrs. Scoones ever went to the BZA. They were through after . . . MR. SCHULER: Well I remember appearing before the BZA when Mr . Galbraith - I beg your pardon, that was the Kingsley case . Yes, I think you are right about that . SECRETARY HOARD: This property has not been before the BZA, although two appeals have been made, they never . . . MR. SCHULER: They never got to the BZA, okay . Thank you. MS. FARRELLc I have a question for you . We were just given this information which shows all these are more than single family - you know, you have been using the term multiple family and . . . . MR. SCHULER: Let me see, this is the Chang and the Lee property, these are single family dwellings, this is - I 'm not sure of this map - I think this one here is a single family dwelling . . . MR. WEAVER: You are classifying the. . . MS. FARRELL: But I mean, just of all of these , are these all more than single family? MR. SCHULER: Yes. These are not in the R2a zone. . SECRETARY HOARD: This isn' t getting into the official record - this, these and those - them. . . MR. SCHULER: Okay. On the map submitted by the Changs and ' the Lees, number three and four - no I 'm not sure of that but it appears that numbers three and four are the Cohen and the Schuler property, respectively and number nine, if I 'm interpreting the map correctly, number nine is owned by PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 Lyons and one of the buildings on that is this owner-occupied , what I called a duplex - oh , that would be this one , okay. . . VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: And the apartment isn' t being rented anymore. MS. FARRELL: But it is a duplex , so that would be a . . . MR. SCHULER: And the number seven, then - this map is not to scale because these properties are up further and number seven is an owner-occupied , that 's occupied by the Cashman family, so this is a multiple, number five is, okay? MR. SIEVERDING: Now when you say multiple, more than two units or are these two apartment units? MR. SCHULER: Well my impression is that they are occupied by hordes of students. MR. WEAVER: That doesn' t help us - your impression. We are going to have to deal with something specific . . . MR. SCHULER: What is the specific question, maybe I can answer it . MR. WEAVER: The specific question that I would like answered is, when you refer to a neighborhood and the appellant presents a map that refers to the neighborhood , you made a remark that suggested that your map is limited to the R2b . . MR. SCHULER: R2a. MR. WEAVER: R2a. And no other properties are shown, colored or otherwise? Is that how you mean it? PAGE 52 ' BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 MR. SCNULER: I wouldn' t swear to that , no . You see, these are R3 up here, these purple . Along State Street and the west side of Elston Place. It would be, I think , R3a, number three, four , one and two , yes . Is this he]pful to you? MR~ WEAVER: Yes, except I would like to limit the discussion to some area other than East Hill . The east elevation is enough and I 'm finding that a little difficult because we have such fancy outlines for that R2 zone. MR. SCHULER: I know' SECRETARY HOARD: Here is an older map . I 'm not sure if these colors are still right but that shows the limits of the R2 zone. . . MS. FARRELL: And that `s what we are talking about right now, R2. MR. WEAVER: Well I 'm not sure the Board is limited to anything , I would like to establish that we are talking about some common area. MS. FARRELL: Okay . CHAIRMAN TQMLAW: We can agree on that . MR~ SCHULER: I 'm not sure - you have this blue area. . . . SECRETARY HOARD: This was done back in '82 . . . MR~ SCHQLER: Okay, so this, I think , is R2a also . . . MR. WEAVER: Now these are R3 all along the State Street . MR. SCHULER: Oh , I beg your pardon, I 'm going the wrong . way. PAGE 53 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The zoning lines are right , but the use of the buildings may be outdated on that because that is the '82 appeal . MR. SCHULBR: Scoones . that ' s the Lee and Chang property . MR. WEAVER: This is the property in question . MS. FARRELL: All right . MR. WEAVER: Well this map , regardless of its source, indicates three single family dwellings in the whole R2a area. SECRETARY HOARD: In 1982. MR. WEAVER: In 1982 ' SECRETARY HOARD: And I am the source. MR~ WEAVER: Do you think there is some possibility that some of them have gone from duplex to single or . . . MR. SCHULER: I wish they would , but it hasn' t . MS. FARRELL: What was this then? MR. SCHULER: Single family . MS. FARRELL: Why did that get a different color? MR. WEAVER: Because they asked for a variance . MS. FARRELL: MR. WEAVER: Well the legal use within this black line is ' single family and duplexes . MS. FARRELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Yes' ^ MR. SIEVERDING: And the limit on the density or the occupancy within those duplexes is what? PAGE 54 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 SECRETARY HOARD: Maximum of three unrelated per unit , or family plus two per unit . MR. SIEVERDING: So under the R2a we talking about a maximum occupancy of six people in this house? SECRETARY HOARD: Six unrelated . MR. SIEVERDING: Six unrelated individuals, providing you can get around that , area deficiencies. MR. WEAVER: Would you mind if we depended upon this to the degree of identifying the single family dwelling sites? MR. SCHULER: No . MR~ WEAVER: Mrs. Holmberg? Are you aware of what we are ' trying to say? MRS. HOLMBERG: I think it is the same as mine, these are ' the Cohen and Schuler , and this is Lyon, that is the one with the apartment in it . This is, I `ve forgotten the name ' of the people, that is a single family. ' MS. FARRELL: And this little guy over here is? ' MS. HOLMBERG: I don' t know, that fronts on the other street , I didn' t check on that . ' MS. FARRELL: It is a duplex I guess. MRS. HOLMBERG: And all I was trying to show here was that these - I don' t know what you call a neighborhood , but it ' doesn' t seem to me that the artificial line of R2a . essentially describes a neighborhood , it seems to me that 's a whole area. ' MR. SCHULBR: May I say something here? . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please do . PAGE 55 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 MR. SCHULER: I 've heard a couple of times, one of the problems with the setback is you can' t move the buildings reasonably and I agree. My wife and I sometimes feel we would like to move our building into a residential neighborhood but we can' t . We've looked for other housing and it would create extreme financial hardship for us to be able to find something as nice as we have here. We are worried about the delicate balance in this neighborhood . We are worried that if there is an opportunity for the density to increase, that it will make it even harder on us and that ' s why we have consistently opposed these and apparently we have been more successful than I thought - it never got here. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else? MR. COHEN: My name is Harold Cohen, I live at 108 Elston Place. I haven' t got the slightest idea what color it is . Excuse me, 108 Ferris Place. I agree with all of the ' comments that Mr . Schuler made about the ambiguity of the ^ petition. I 'd just like to speak for a moment about the neighborhood , which is what I spoke to in the Planning Board . I would define that as the R2a zone and the R3 zone adjacent to it and I would just say that this property is a lynch pin in my opinion. The neighborhood is in delicate . balance, it has multiple duplexes, I `m sorry if I get the terminology wrong , plus single family homes. We live with a certain degree of noise, we live, as Mr . Schuler said , with ' PAGE 56 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 a certain degree of trash that is scattered around , we live with constant parking problems, day and night , unlike some of the areas mentioned here, we live with all of the other attendant problems that come from absentee landlords in many cases and a minority of uncaring , transient tenants. I 'm just afraid that if 109 Elston goes, that will eventually mean that the rest of the single family houses go and turn this in to an entirely multiple dwelling or duplex situation. That would be a shame. One can live with the constant level - with the current level of these problems but I 'm afraid that one cannot live if they are exacerbated . ' I too do not necessarily question the good faith of the ' Changs and the Lees, but if you will look at the original ' drawings that came in, they are quite different from the ' drawings that are here. It is almost not the same appeal . The other drawings had , I believe, at least eight bedrooms , many of which would take two and possible three students, so there is a possibility of over , I would say eight to sixteen ' people in that house and I 'm not visiting the sins of ' previous owners on the Lees and the Changs, I am just concerned about that . After that meeting , somehow bedrooms were turned into studies, bedrooms were turned into living rooms, bedrooms were turned into - I don' t know if there . were any other options, they were turned into studies and living rooms. I 'm just afraid of what will happen afterwards , I 'm not sure that a major change would be PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES desireable and I would urge you to deny the variance . If I could speak again, if it becomes necessary, I hope I may. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? Anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? MRS. COHEN: My name is Ginger Cohen, I live at 108 Ferris Place. When we bought the house, thirteen years ago , the only children on the block were my two , and one next door . Since that time there have been more families in the area, we now have two children next door , instead of one next door , I have one more child myself, another family has moved in with three children. The neighborhood has been changing to more of a family area, less of a transient or student area. When the Scoones lived there, which is what that appeal was, we could hear their teenage daughter singing in the shower , we could hear their teenage son playing his drums, that 's how close these properties are. Our whole back yard borders on their back yard . Our house is probably . , the closest to it . When the Scoones moved out and Mr . ^ Freeman bought the property, he had students living there. They had toga parties on the back lawn, they undressed outside, they urinated on the property , unbelievable things, trash all over the place . We have called police countless numbers of times for their actions, the people in the Scoone house, after the Scoones left it , for other students on Ferris Place. I called the police, as a matter of fact , just this past Friday night when they were having a party and it got out of hand and there was some fighting going on ^ PAGE 03 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 outside and the police came very quickly . The noise didn' t stop . We really don` t want a whole lot more of that . When you talk about the slight inadequacy of the front space, it is not slightly inadequate, it 's grossly inadequate. Sixty percent by your figures, is not slightly . Yes the lot is very large but the house isn' t situated in the middle of it . When Mrs. Holmberg talked about they replaced a rotten third story window, they did that . They also enlarged it tremendously . It looks to me like people are going ahead and assuming that these things are going to be granted . I don' t understand how the building now has two kitchens when it was only supposed to have one. How did they get the other one in there? I didn' t know about that until this ' thing came out . Don' t people have to get building permits and why are they granted if they are not supposed to be if the other Board has said they shouldn' t be granted and they never came to you . The houses are so close that the noise ' level and all of the other problems that we run into with students will be a lot increased . In this R2a district , which is what the house is in now, the majority of those . properties are single family or owner-occupied duplexes and I can point those out to you on the map , if you would like to see what is different here. Okay, these two here are the only two that are large apartment buildings, okay? This is owner-occupied , this is owner-occupied , this is owner-occupied , this one, the owner lives here so we consider it owner-occupied , I realize that 's an opinion, but PAGE 59 ----------- _ BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 since he lives right next door , it is owner-occupied , and these two , obviously they are also owner-occupied . So there is really only two exceptions, if we could move these two out we would love it . I don' t think that is going to happen. But this area - this R2 area - is not as blatantly multiple or duplex as has been shown on the map there, which doesn' t use this area, it uses a much larger area. I hope that you will not grant this variance. The neighborhood is a neighborhood and we'd like to keep it that way . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? MRS. SCHULER: I 'm Nancy Schuler , I live at 110 Ferris Place. First I have a letter here from the Koschmanns that live at 115, if you would like me to read it for the record , I could do that . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Why don' t you go ahead , since you brought ^ it . MRS. SCHULER: Dated February 10, 1986 to the Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. "The Koschmann family opposes Appeal No . 1674, by which Mr . & Mrs. David Chang and Mr . Mrs. Der-Jiun Lee request a variance to area regulations to permit conversion of the building at #109 Elston Place to two units. The granting of such a variance would adversely affect the neighborhood 's already precarious balance between single-family and multiple-family dwellings. Your,- Sincerely, oursSincerely, /s/ J. Victor Koschmann" The only question I PAGE 60 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/W::-- when /10/86when we were at the Planning Board , we had heard from Mr . Lee and that he had said that - I 'm sorry, we`d had heard from Mr . Chang that Mr . Lee was going to be living in the house. In reading a letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals it mentions that he is a Fellow and is traveling between here and spends time in China and spends time here, which is contrary to the impression that we got at the Planning Board meeting , so that is a concern, because we have talked about owner-occupancy as an important piece . The only other part that I would offer at this point is that if it will help with the financial burden, we would be willing to discuss purchasing some of that large grassed area, to the south of the property . CHAIRMAN TOMLAM: Questions from members of the Board? Thank you Nancy . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? (no one) That being the case, it is . OUTS. ! ' PAGE 61 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD - APPEAL NO. 1674 109 ELSTON PLACE MRS. HOLMBERG: Mr . Chairman , could I say something to answer some of the allegations that were made? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I ` ll bring that up . Do the members of the Board need any further clarification? . . . . . I don' t believe so at this time, I think everything has been - if we have difficulties, we will ask for further clarification but it seems as though we've got enough information at the moment . MRS. H8LMBERG: I just wanted to explain about the earlier plan that was referred to . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: For the moment , let 's just stand as it is, thank you . Further discussion, or a motion? Do I see a motion Herman? MR. SIEVERDIW8: No , you see a question. If you are in R2 and the density limit is 1 ) three unrelated persons per dwelling unit , how is that enforced over time? SECRETARY HOARD: Well that 's enforced through the periodic inspections of rental properties. Number one, to make sure that that 's the way the property is being used . In the interim, through complaint . If someone - once we issue a Certificate of Compliance, if they put more people in after the inspector walks down the street , we wouldn' t know about ' it for three years unless someone complains. . PAGE 62 - ' - BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 MS. FARRELL: That 's basically true about place . You know, you could put six people in and think it was a family, you could . . . MR. WEAVER: Which includes its present confirmation - to enforce the same way it is on the present building . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, if there are people that continue to violate or refuse to correct it or it is clear that it is an intentional violation, then we take them to Court . And the policy has been that there is a minimum fine of two hundred and fifty dollars for the first violation. That can be added on to if the violation continues, of course. CHAIRMAN TQMLAM: Further discussion? Tracy, I hear some discussion . MR~ WEAVER: That wasn' t a discussion, that was an aside. Except for the obvious increase in neighborhood interest in this application, I see no substantial difference between it and two or three others that we had tonight . R2 zone, a duplex is authorized , the area deficiencies are specifically ' on our worksheet , however , walking down in there and looking at the building , it seemed to have more open space than anything else I could see in the neighborhood , including . Schuyler Pl . Now I 'm not sufficiently familiar with Schuyler . Place so I am not posing as an expert up there, but . certainly it has reasonable separation and more, rather than less than seems to be the community situation, so I will support a motion that would approve the granting of the variance. PAGE 63 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1674 109 ELGTON PLACE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Mrs. David Chang and Mr . & Mrs. Der-Jiun Lee for an area variance to permit conversion of the single family home at 109 Elston Place to a two-family dwelling . The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area vari- ance requested in Appeal Number 1674. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) Practical difficulty in conforming would require moving the building which has been long established in its pre- sent location and it would be unreasonably expensive to comply with. 2) The unusually large side yard gives a great deal of green space and open space for two dwelling units which . is being requested by the appellant. ' 3) There is no difficulty with respect to parking. The property is obviously able to provide the necessary . parking that is required for the proposed use on-site. ^ 4) Density is not inconsistent with the general character of the neighborhood, regardless of where you draw that ' zoning line between 2a and R3a it is predominately an area of duplexes and multi-family dwelling units. ' VOTE: 5 YES; 1 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE �4 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 MORE DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1674 AFTER THE MOTION BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: MR. SCHWAB: It seems to me the only - obviously you've got to link it to some deficiency or they wouldn' t even be here and the only deficiency they can link it to is this front yard which - and rear yard - it strikes me as the front yard , percentages - I don't think we should go on percentages to much here, but it is a twenty-five foot requirement and they have only ten. I think distinguishing some of the others tonight were only a couple of feet , a few feet - I think what we should be doing is looking at the peculiar circumstances - focusing on this fairly large deficiency in the front yard - we do , as you suggest in your motion Charlie - note that this side yard does put a lot of green space in the lot . MR. WEAVER: Well I 'd also point out that the front yard deficiency , which is major , sixty percent , is a deficiency on Elston Place, not on the Elmira Road , or Aurora Street , or whatever , so that the neighbors are not impacted by that house being too close to Elston Place, in any way that I can ' see. I was not ignoring the fact that it is very substantial , if all you are using is your rI.! but that is what we are here for and as I see it , the front yard setback requirement as applied to Elston Place, well , for instance, the house across the street has an even greater deficiency but so what - in simple vernacular it doesn` t make a darn PAGE 65 � BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 bit of difference to the amenity of living or trying to turn your car around on Elston Place. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we have a vote? MR~ SCHWAB: Tom, does the fact that this is a private street affect this front yard in any way - or front yard deficiencY? SECRETARY HOARD: MR. SCHWAB: I see an asterisk on '' lot width" but not on front yard . SECRETARY HOARD: Well the case that we had years ago that involved a private street was one where the - we were talking about deficient frontage on a public way - the way the wording is for street width - and the Board denied a variance for the appellant in that case, the appellant went to Court and the Court ruled against the City, saying that it wasn' t clear - the Ordinance wasn' t clear about a private way and so - what we were saying was since it was - we were trying to say that the property had to have a certain amount of frontage on a public street and this property was on a ' private street and the Board said , well you have to have it on a private street and we are not giving you the variance. . The appellant went to Court and the Court said that the Ordinance was not clear enough on that and that it was unfair , essentially , to deny somebody the right to use a property the same way somebody else could if they were on a City street , without showing wI-- There was a real problem wit- t.hat . I 've forgotten what all the things were . PAGE 66 BZA MINUTES MR. SCHWAB: So the previous. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Maybe Mrs. Holmberg knows, it was her firm MR. SCHWAB: So that previous case was - the City wanted to distinguish between - treat a private street clifferently than a public street - or not count a private street? MR. WEAVER: Not for street frontage . . . MR~ SCHWAB: For street frontage . . . whereas in this case the City is wanting to treat this private street like any other street , requiring twenty-five feet back from . . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Right so we are not discriminating against a private street in this case. They have all the same rights and privileges. PAGE 67 BZA MINUTES ` . ' SECRETARY HOARD: The final appeal is APPEAL NO. 1675 FOR 617 ' SPENCER ROAD: ' Appeal of Stanley Biskup for an area variance ' for a deficient front yard setback under Section 30.25' Column 11 , of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit construction of a ' ' two-family dwelling at 617 Spencer Road. The ^ property is located in an R2a (One- & Two-Family Dwelling) Use District, in which ' the proposed use is permitted; however under ' Section 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the deficient front yard setback before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the new building. MR. BISKUP: My name is Stanley Biskup , I live at 617 Spencer Road . Five years ago I built a foundation for a future house and my figure was - from the road - you know, I measured and it was thirty-five feet and some road now is thirty-five feet wide, some of them is sixty and that particular one, the survey measured , was kind of narrow - so it measured twenty-four feet from the center of the paving , I.! know, that 's my property, then start my property twenty-five feet (unintelligible} I was short some places . like three feet or more, which (unintelligible ) from the ditch so that my building is thirty-five feet and I do nct know how that figure came out , you know , but spending , you PAGE 68 9ZA MINUTES know, ten thousand dollars , (unintelligible) around the measurement - but like [ said , you know, you take Elmira Road is a road , okay, and so you talk about Spencer Road , you put two cars on each side and the - you know - hardly can cars pass each other and you figure you measure from - the survey al twenty-four feet - so (unintelligible} and from the road I am thirty-five feet , you know - to the house, which - you know - to the foundation. SECRETARY HOARD: How did it happen that you didn' t have a building permit to do this? MR~ BISKUP: Well it happened that I built it five years ago , my house, at that time, you know, I went down because living near Buttermilk Falls, I have to go down like ten feet down in the rock , okay? So what happened , lots of water go through , okay? (unintelligible) I was planning , you know, to build another house, because the property is like four hundred feet long and straight , and so I (unintelligible) destroy my drainage pipe which was down like six or seven inches below surface, so I wanted to avoid , you know, to big heavy equipment go through . So at that time our landscape all the same time . MR. WEAVER: Did you build your original house without a building permit? MR. BISKUP: No , no , no I didn' t . MR. WEAVER: You got a permit for that? MR. BIGKUP� Yes I did - two family, got parking lot for twenty PAGE 69 - BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 MR. WEAVER: I don' t care what you got built , I was just wondering . . . . . MR. BISKUP: They watch me, you know, very good now, so I got a building permit . MR. WEAVER: You got this foundation in though? ' MR. BISKUP: Right . Now this is a - nothing is above, okay, just below. I had my garden on it . I didn' t know earlier that I was going to build a house or not , okay? MR. WEAVER: This might be classified as landscaping then? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Big landscaping project . SECRETARY HOARD: This is it , the brick wall (holding up a photograph ) I mean, the block wall? MR. BISKUP: Yes, right . I had - five and one-half years and no yard - garden. ' MR. WEAVER: I 'm sure you will tell the Building Commissioner how much that wall cost? MR. BISKUP: Yes, right , so that would be around ... from the - because I did - not long ago - so I - six hundred dollars I paid for a mason, okay? And another three hundred dollars I paid for cinder block . CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Further questions C., members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Just cne about access -t.. the site. I noticed that on the sheet here, the parking is there and everything but how do you get to it , I guess is the question. CHAIRMAN TOMLAM: How are you going to get up there? PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES - 2/ 10/86 MR. BISKUP: (unintelligible) because a parking lot is . (unintelligible) twenty-feet wide and goes all the way back , you know, two-hundred and fifty feet and then what you have right here (pointing to a map ) entrance. . . MR. WEAVER: Well one more thing then, while we are looking ' at it , these floor plans indicate a front door , where is ' that on this after you set the building on it? MR. BISKUP: The blueprints will be right here, the ' ' blueprints (unintelligible) okay? Facing the street , right . SECRETARY HOARD: Here is the front door Mr . Weaver , the opening in the block foundation . MR. BISKUP: Yes, right . The reason why I did that , okay , I had a garden in there and part of the foundation, I put up plastic , okay, to lay plastic , you know, and during those years, dirt kept falling inside, okay, and I wanted (unintelligible) so I had a big garden, okay . . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: Further questions? SECRETARY HOARD: I can' t tell from this picture whether these blocks are laid right side up . MR. BIBKUP: Oh my goodness. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think that is the end of the 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? (no one) That being the case I ' ll welcome a motion. PAGE 71 BZA MINUTES - 2/10/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1675 FOR 617 SPENCER ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Stanley Biskup for an area variance to permit construction oF a two-family dwelling at 617 Spencer Road . The decision of the Board was as follows : MR. SIEVER%}IWG: I move that the Board grant the area vari- ance in Appeal No. 1675. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) Practical difficulty exists in that picking this block wall up and moving it back into the hillside would be difficult~ 2> The deficiency is relatively minor - 13% 3) The proposed use meets all of the other requirements of the zoning for this particular area. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 72 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 1670, 1671 , 1672, 1673, 1674 and 1675 on February 10, 1986 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. Z�'l Barbara Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this day of a,� J 1986 'Notary 'Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 55-]C;0800 QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COUNT MY CCh°;;ISSION EXPIRES MARCH 30,19-2-1 - 73 -