Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1986-04-07 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 7, 1986 Page APPEAL NO. 1682 RON & CAROL SCHMITT 3 106 SEARS STREET DISCUSSION �9 DECISION 32 APPEAL NO. 1683 GORDON VAN NEDERYNEN 34 107 CATHERINE STREET DECISION 39 APPEAL NO. 1684 RICHARD W. GILBERT 40 223 EDDY STREET DECISION 46 APPEAL NO. 1685 WILLIAM LOWER 48 241 LINDEN AVENUE DISCUSSION 63 DECISION 70 DISCUSSION DURING THE MOTION 72 APPEAL NO. 1686 RICHARD & PATRICIA DUNN 75 415 ELM STREET DECISION 94 APPEAL NO. 1687 427 CAMPBELL AVENUE g6 ANTHONY & BARBARA SCHULTZ DECISION 99 APPEAL NO. 1688 AMERICAN RED CROSS 100 717-171 WEST COURT STREET DECISION 109 APPEAL NO. 1689 NEIL & SALLY SCHWARTZBACH 111 107 PARK PLACE " " " DECISION 114 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 7, 1986 PAGE 2 APPEAL NO. 1690 SEAN EVE 115 512 E. SENECA STREET DISCUSSION 127 DECISION 129 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 130 B,-,-:'A MINUTES - 4/7/86 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK APRIL 7, 1986 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening . I would like to call to order the April 7, 1986 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter , the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board 's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight: TRACY FARRELL STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER MICHAEL T0MLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THOMAS D. HOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO THE BOARD BARBARA RUANE' RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT: HELEN JOHNSON HERMAN SIEVERDING The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we will hear from the appellant and ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly ' as possible and then be available to answer questions from the Board . We will then hear from those interested parties ' who are in support of the application, followed by those who ' are opposed to the application. I should note here that the ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 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 the property. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet 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 received by the Building Department , the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations, if any, and the record of tonight 's hearing . Since a record is being made of this hearing , it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones which are across from me here so that they can be picked up by the tape recorder , these comments, and likewise be heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and will , therefore, not be considered by the Board in its deliberations. We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during the ' PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or special permit . In rare cases where there is a tie vote the variance or special permit is automatically denied . Now tonight , unexpectedly, two of our members have not been able to attend , so that you have the right , any of the appellants, have the right at this point to request a postponement of his or her case until five or six members of the Board are present . Let me go through that again, because there are essentially four votes necessary, if there are only four votes here obviously you could think yourself as being at a disadvantage. So if there is any appellant out there who would like to withdraw at this time, we'd like to hear from you. We:-.1. 1 give you a chance to talk about - or think about that , if you want --- we' ll we' ll let you withdraw up to the time your case is called . Once we've got you up here, though . . . okay, there are two folks? VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Two questions. When would it come up again, would it be next month? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes it would be next month and generally . speaking we are meeting on the first Monday of the month . . There is another question back there? ^ VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: With the shortage of members, what . is the procedure if the appeal should be denied? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The same as before. If you proceed , it essentially goes under the same rules and regulations as . PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 before. Okay? Any other questions? You said you had two questions? VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: No , there were two of us. CHAIRMAN TOMLANc Oh , there were two of you. Charlie? MR. WEAVER: If they fail , they fail with prejudice. They can' t bring it back again. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Isn' t that clear in any event? MR. WEAVER: Well I 'm not sure, generally no . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: It has been mentioned up here that if you fail , you fail without prejudice one way or the other . . . MR. WEAVER: With prejudice. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: With prejudice, rather , I 'M sorry. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Which means? CHAIRMAN l[OMLANc Which means you can' t bring the same thing back and claim that there weren' t all of us here, okay? Is that clear? Clear as mud . Any other questions out there about our procedures? Okay, then we will proceed with our first case. ' SECRETARY HOARD: Our first case is APPEAL NO. 1682 FOR 206 SEARS STREET: Appeal of Ron and Carol Schmitt for a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2, and ' an area variance for deficient lot size and ' ' width , excessive lot coverage by buildings, ' and deficient setbacks for the front yard , one side yard , and the rear yard under ' Section 30.25, Columns 6, 7, 10, 11 , 12, and PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the existing cooperative dwelling unit at 106 Sears Street to four apartments. The property is located in an R2b (Residential , one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use and existing uses are not permitted ; therefore under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 the appellants must first obtain a use variance and an area variance for the listed area deficiencies before a building permit or certificate of occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLANc Welcome and if you would begin by identifying yourself just for the record . MR. SCHMITTc I 'm Ron Schmitt . MRS. GCHIMITT: I `m Carol Schmitt . MR. GCHMITT: We passed out information previously but we just want to give you some more information - our impression of what we are trying to do . It is fairly brief. Both Carol and I are native Ithacans here and we own and manage our own properties, also I do heating and air conditioning work . We are also experienced and do our own renovations on ` all of our properties - do quite a nice job, we have quite ' ` nice tenants. 106 Sears Street, as you are probably aware is in really bad shape. Carol and I own a house at 118 ^ Sears Street and a few years ago became involved with the ' ` PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 neighborhood association and actually changed the zoning of the area and 106 was one of the houses we tried to get something done - improve - and it is the one house on the block that hasn' t been improved . In talking it over we decided to try to do something ourselves. MRS. SCHMITT: I should say that we never expected even to be looking at it ourselves, we always considered it an eyesore, as a neighboring property owner and never thought of owning it . MR. SCHMITT: We are, I suppose, representing Mr . Freeman, who owns the house, because we don' t own it yet and we have spent a lot of time and a lot of Mr . Hoard 's time discussing some options where we wouldn' t need a variance - it just wasn` t feasible without a variance, so we are pretty much representing Mr . Freeman to get the variance. The house right now - we passed out some pictures - I don' t know whether you have seen them, or have seen the house - but it is really quite a nice - do you have any questions? MS. FARRE0L: No , I 've seen it but I just want to look at the pictures. MRS. SCHMI7[l[: It is very pretty, it is an old Queen Anne style, according to Historic Ithaca. It is in very . dilapidated condition - it is a disgrace - it is such a . pretty old home with old oak woodwork but it has been allowed to come down to this condition but it has a lot of potential for the neighborhood and I think will be very PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 attractive once it is fixed up . At the moment it needs everything . MR. SCNMITT: I just want to point out what it needs actually. It needs siding , porch repairs, the windows all have to be reglazed and storms, the roof has to be redone, it has to be painted . It needs a lot of yard work just to make it look nicer . There has been a garage added that is really pretty awful . We are planning on tearing it down if we get this permission. Inside the house - it is only about half used actually. It is a huge house and they are allowed five people now - they are all huge rooms - there is a lot of oak woodwork that is real nice but there is almost no kitchen, the baths are awful - the electric and the plumbing is totally useless there and - I worked on the furnace recently - it is about eighty years old and really it just isn' t any good either . There is some woodwork that is broken and all the doors have been kicked in by - I don' t know if you realize - it is presently rented to Willard outpatients because that is the only people that he can get to rent it . So we have a lot of trouble in the neighborhood and one of the things that they did was kick in all the doors in the house, I don' t know why. We've not only ` written to all of the neighbors that we were supposed to , ' but we've gone door to door to get their reaction and . support . You've got a copy of the petition. A lot of people actually wrote letters in support on this. , PAGE 6 � BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MRS. SCHMITT: We were very pleased . We not only had their support but everyone was just delighted to hear that finally something - they have been so concerned about it - someone is going to pay some attention to it - so I 'm really -- that 's that 's not what you have to look at to make a decision but we feel it is a factor and we were very pleased that (unintelligible) MR. SCHMITTc Historic Ithaca has been pretty supportive too . MRS. SCHMITT: They are very interested and they are going to help us with color schemes and exterior work as well as interior renovations. They considered , also , of writing a letter of support - we are glad to see that they consider this house of value and are eager to help out . MR. SCHMITT: Now Tom mentioned all the deficiencies there but I 'd like to point out that it 's grandfathered as a multiple use house. I might be wrong but I don' t really think it is a cooperative house, I think it is a rooming house. MRS. SCHMITTc We can' t change the house as it sits on the property - we can' t move it and so on. By removing that ' garage, so called garage, it is just an old shed , we at ' least will be able to decrease the used area by over ten ' percent or so . And that will help bring it a little closer ' to conformance. ' MN. SCWMITT: Now for the use variance, again, Tom had a ' whole list of things but actually we spent a lot of time PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 talking with Tom and actually what we need is very little for the variance. We are asking for four apartments, three, one-bedroom and a two-bedroom, so we are not increasing occupancy. The inside of the house will meet all the City codes and regulations, room sizes and safety, and everything , there is no problems there and since, I don' t think it is a cooperative but a rooming house, we can have separate leases with the people, which you can' t do in a Coop . , I found out . Also we wouldn' t need a variance to add separate baths for each suite because there is at least two rooms for every one person there. And also , they also have refrigerators now, so it is kind of a kitchen, but it 's not . We are not allowed to put in anything to cook , no stoves or anything . . . MRS. SCHMITT: But essentially people are using these independent , separate living quarters already - they are not living together - so we just want . . . ^ MR. SCHMITTc So what we are asking is to make it apartments . so we can put kitchens in each apartment . In the papers we handed out to you, Mr . Freeman stated his hardship pretty well . He has been trying to sell the house for over eight years - had it sold at one time but actually had to take it back because of default . He significantly had to reduce the price to us because we have to put so much into it - more than we are buying it for - just to bring it up to Historic Landmarks and our standards. I don' t think if we can' t buy PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 the house, I don' t think anybody else will be able to either . MRS. SCHMITT: He is just very eager to have us be granted this variance and make the changes because he has had it on the market for so long - as a rooming house with this designation - he has been unable to sell it . And he has also been unable to bring in enough rent to improve it himself so he realizes he is sort of in a deadend . MR. SCHMITTc We looked at it as a rooming house actually, fixing it up and everything , but the insurance cost is prohibitive (unintelligible) normal insurance would be. The cost of purchase and improve it would be about the same whether you make it into apartments or use it as a rooming house and the income would be a lot lower . We just wouldn' t be able to afford to do it and the people are undependable, transient . So what we want to do is make the small apartments and we are aiming for affordable housing for older people and for working people downtown. We are trying . to make it a less intensive type of occupancy than it is now, even though it won' t be - to the zoning - it will be a lot more in compliance than it is now and the neighbors . really want that . And the rooming house - just isn' t in character with the rest of the neighborhood . MRS. SCHMITT: I think as a rooming house it really is a very intensive occupancy right now - intensive use - and by bringing it away from that transient kind of situation with tenants into - say - working people, older people - that ' PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 sort of thing , I think really that would be a less intensive use than is there so even though the zoning may be changed in one direction, I think the end result will actually be better . MR. SCHMITT: The only other thing I want to stress is we really have a lot of neighborhood support . I think everybody else can see it too, it is really (unintelligible) in all of it . MRS. SCHMITT: I think this will be enhancing the character of the neighborhood . It will be more in keeping with the character than it is now and we realize that is one of the reasons we have to show for the variance. I think it will be really nice - it house is not in keeping - it obviously is not being kept up that way and it would not be financially feasible for anyone to improve it enough to be liveable, unless you (unintelligible) and change it to good modern small units for the downtown working people. To me it is an ideal spot for that sort of housing for people who ' enjoy living downtown (unintelligible) ' MR. SCHMITT: The only other point I think I want to bring up is that we also looked at it as a single family or a two family and it just isn' t appropriate there, financially it is not appropriate either but we are trying to have ' individuals, quiet tenants, older people, local people and with the small yard , it is not appropriate for families and also I know it is not appropriate - real appropriate for students and larger groups because there is other ones on PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 the block and we thought we would change those around to families as much as we could . Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Who rents it now? MR. SCHMIl[l[: All the tenants I believe are Willard out patients. Mr . Freeman does his own renting . It is so terrible inside I don' t see how they can live there and they certainly couldn' t get anybody else to live there. MRS. SCHMIl[l[: It is very unhappy living conditions right now, roaches are crawling all over - first thing we will do is fumigate it - it is really quite incredible inside. It is worse inside than on the outside, if you can believe it . And so the type of tenants that are living there now are really quite a concern to the neighborhood, the neighbors are uneasy. MR. WEAVER: I think we all ought to be concerned about them but who rents the house? You said Mr . Freeman rents it but who pays the rent once a month? MR. SCHMITT: The tenants are all Willard outpatients. MR. WEAVER: I understand that but that is an evasion. My question is who pays the rent? Does the state or local organization or is there an organization that represents these people or . . . ^ MRS. SCHMITT: Maybe it is Social Services. ' MR. SC8MITTc It is not Social Services but it is some sort ' of assistance. ^ VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: SSI maybe. Federal payments like. . PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. WEAVER: I understand what SSI is but they don't rent anything . MR. GCHMI7[l[: I really don' t know but I know it 's funded but I don' t know where the funds come from. Other questions? MR. SCHWAB: There was some seventy-six thousand dollars in estimated renovations and a thirty-three thousand dollar purchase price? MR. BCHMIl[lF: Right . MR. SCHWAB: You are basically saying it is infeasible to continue as a rooming house, financially? MR. SCHMIl[l[: For us it would be because we don' t - we like to have nice places and we wouldn' t - I don' t want to go in and deal with roaches and bugs and stuff like that . It is just in terrible condition. I couldn' t morally rent it like that . MRS. SCHMITT: And we do have enough experience with renting to be able to judge the market and we've done calculations , obviously to see what rent would be brought in. MS. FARRELL: Could you talk about those since that is part ' of the hardship argument , what are your projected rents versus what are the projected rents keeping it a rooming house? ' MR. SCHMITT: Well as a rooming house they get around one hundred and seventy-five dollars a person. ' MS. FARRELL: So that is times five? ^ MR. SCHMITT: Times five. A little over eight hundred ' dollars a month . PAGE 12 ` ` BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MRS. SCHMITT: Somewhere around one seventy-five to two hundred I believe, and that includes utilities. MR. SCHM%TT: And I don' t think you could raise the rents as a rooming house, after it is improved . We'd still have to put all the money into it - and wouldn't be able to raise the rents. Whereas, as one-bedroom apartments a reasonable rent anymore is around three hundred dollars plus utilities and the two-bedroom apartment would probably be close to four hundred so it would be over four hundred dollars a month more. MRS. SCHMITT: We are expecting to make these very attractive apartments, I think we are always fair with the rents that we ask and we always have a very low vacancy rate so that tells us our rents are fair . We will be changing this over so that all utilities are separate, everybody will have their own new modern thing - and also , by the way, we do plan to insulate, we' ll put in new storms - triple-track and insulate everything - make this very efficient and utilities - so if you calculate then the difference we are talking about nearly twice as much in income for the small apartments and that is the only way we could operate. And by the way Mr . Freeman understands. We have a purchase . offer in with him, with the contingency that we will not . purchase this without the variance. He understands that we have looked into this as a rooming house and it won' t be ` feasible at all for us to make all the changes we hope to make to improve it (unintelligible) PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. SCHWAB: What if the purchase price went down or is that not (unintelligible) MR. SCHMIl[Tc A one family - it hasn' t sold as a one family and to buy it as a rental one family - I could rent to a family for around five hundred dollars plus utilities - that would be - I couldn' t get much more than that , which means that you would try to rent to students and you would be getting - it wouldn't fit into the neighborhood too well . MRS~ SCHMITT: We would hate to do that - any kind of student , unrelated , group housing - right there right off Court Street , I think is inappropriate. And the rents that we would get for a one family wouldn' t justify the amount of money we had planned to put into it for renovations. The renovations that we had planned would be inevitable, no matter how it is used . That amount of money has to be put into it to make it liveable, and therefore, taking that figure, you have to then look at potential rents to justify ' it . MR. SCHMITT: The amount of money that is listed there to renovate this is pretty close whether it is a one family or a two family or a multiple - I mean, it is just incredible inside. MRS. SCHMITT: Once we replumb and rewire, adding two kitchens or four kitchens, really will be much - least of the expense for us. (unintelligible) what will have to be done anyway so the majority of the work , I think , will have to be done no matter how it is going to be used and then we PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 have to look at what is practical in terms of (unintelligible} MR. SCHWAB: You are saying about the maximum, it takes two families at about a thousand a month . . . MR. SCHMITT: No two families. . . MR. SCHWAB: Less than eight hundred . We' ll be adding one parking spot and also we will be adding two permanent spots at 118 Sears Street , we have a large lot there. So there will be plenty of parking spaces for the tenants. MR. WEAVER: You used to live on this street? MR. SCHMIl[l[: No we purchased the house over five years ago but - I lived downtown all my MR. WEAVER: You've always been an absentee landlord as far as Sears Street is concerned? MR. SCHMIl[l[: As far as Sears Street , yes. We are quite available for anybody although we don' t live there. MR. WEAVER: Well we hear that every month you know. MRS. SCHMITT: We joined the neighborhood association, I think the neighbors were very curious to know the landlord on the block and when we joined , they were very delighted that we were concerned owners and we worked very well with everyone and consider ourselves - obviously it is to our advantage to have a good neighborhood and we are very concerned and we are natives and enjoy the city anyway and care about it and we have always looked at this house as an eyesore, long before we considered buying it - as a neighbor ' in a sense, ourselves, we objected to its condition. PA8E 15 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. SCHMITT: Is there anything more that I can say? I think everything that I talked about . . . MS. FARRELL: Did you tell any lies? MR. GCHMITTc No . I had a long discussion with Tom about it . I spent a lot of time trying to work it out . MR. WEAVER: You were instrumental - one of the persons instrumental in getting the zoning changed so that it is illegal to have multiple residences on the street? MR 8CHMITT: Yes. MRS. SCHMJl[lF: Yes we tightened it up feeling that it was to our benefit - we were trying to protect - against the character of the neighborhood then. MR. SCHMITT: The point of it wasn' t to prevent multiple housing , it was to upgrade the neighborhood . MR. WEAVER: That's what the Zoning Ordinance says - no multiple dwellings. MR. SCHMIl[l[: Yes I know. MR. WEAVER: Can you speak any more about the hardship of the owner - not Sears Street , or you, but the owner - establishment . Apparently he has owned this house for a long period of time, according to your description, the amount of money that he put back into it is not visible? MR. BCHMITT: Yes, he has quite a complete statement . ` MR~ WEAVER: I 've read it complete - the nature of the advertisement for sale - the vigor with which it has been on the market for so long . . . ` PAGE 16 ' � BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. SCHMITT: I know a number of people who have looked at it . MRS. SCHMITT: He has listed it with realtors. He has had it actively listed (unintelligible) and he has had people look , as well as personally, trying to promote it . He obviously would like to sell it . MR. WEAVER: I understand personally promoting it but the listing with a realtor . . . MRS~ SCHMI7[l[: It has been on the market . MR. SCHMITT: He listed it - Bruce Cook was the last realtor to list it . I don' t know how many times he personally showed it but it has been showed a number of times. It was offered to Dr . Baker , Gordie went over and actually looked at it and decided it wasn' t even something Dr . Baker wanted . MR. SCHWAB: What would a two family house on that street go for - about - do you have any idea? MR. BCHMITl[: Well it depends on the condition . . . MR. SCHWAB: Your figures on the rooming house in the current condition persuade me, at least , initially, that a rooming house may not be the way to go . Say a little bit ` more why a one or two family - which is (unintelligible) ' feasible. . MR. SCHMITT: A one-family - it hasn' t sold as a one-family and to buy it as a rental one-family - I could rent to a family for around five hundred dollars plus utilities, I . couldn' t get much more than that , which means that you'd ^ PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 have to rent to students. It wouldn' t fit into the neighborhood too well . MRS. SCHMITT: But to do that - to have any kind of student , unrelated , group housing , right there, right off of Court Street, I think is inappropriate. And the rents that we would get for one-family wouldn' t justify the amount of money we had planned to put into it for renovations and I think the renovations that we plan would be inevitable, no matter how it is used - something - that amount of money has to be put into it to make it liveable. And then therefore, taking that figure, you have to then look at potential rents to justify it . MR. SCHMITT: The amount of money to renovate is pretty close whether it is a one family, a two family or a multiple, I mean, it is just incredible inside. MRS. SCHMITT: Once we replumb and rewire, adding two kitchens or four kitchens, really will be the least of the expense for us. (unintelligible) what will have to be done anyway, so the majority of the work I think will have to be done no matter how it is going to be - and then we have to ' look at what is practical in terms of (unintelligible) MR. SCHWAB: You are saying about the maximum, two families ' about a thousand a month . . MRS. SCHM%TT: Oh less then that . ' MR. SCHMITT: Two families would be less . . ' MR. SCHWAB: Less than that - eight hundred . PAGE 18 - BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. SCHMITT: But again, I don' t know if you have looked at the lot there but there is - if you are getting into a family, then you have children, and there is really not a yard for children or you would be getting into students again and you've got the same kind of . . . MR. SCHWAB: You might except that students at least if there are no more than three of them, is okay under the Ordinance. MR. SCHMITT: It is okay but it is a more intensive use you are getting people in and out every year . . MRS. SCHMITT: Parking would then be a problem I am sure, because they all have cars and they are very rough on the places. Our choice, personally, in business, is to try to avoid that , so , again, we have to look at the type of tenants we hope to have and renovate with that in mind . MR. WEAVER: So you agree with the owner that this land and frame and foundation work is worth thirty-three thousand? MR. SCHMITT: I think it is a lovely house, basically. MRS. SCHMITT: Considering its potential and the location and the fact that it is a sound structure - it is really . nice for a downtown building , it is a large building - he ' has dropped it a lot . So , yes we do think it 's worth that . MR. WEAVER: I am impressed by the fact of his absence, for ' someone who is anxious to and has been trying desperately to sell this house for a number of years, that he put that in your hands rather than coming over here and vigorously ^ PAGE 19 ' --' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 appealing on the basis of his hardship, not yours, not the neighbors. MR. SCHM3TT: I suppose so but we are the people that are concerned - he doesn' t even have his office across the street anymore. MR. WEAVER: I understand . MRS. SCHMITT: We were very pleased to see that Dave Ferris of P. W. Wood has bought Mr . Freeman's house, directly across the street and Mr . Ferris is also highly aware of our plans and very eager to help us change the eyesore that would be next door to his business location, now. Mr . Freeman has no intention of changing the designation. He is not asking for the variance, he understands that we are, as a contingency to the place - that he would not be asking for it, he would continue to run it as it is, and as he says in his statement , which he is very kind to go into at length for us, he feels the income as it is is not sufficient to do anything more than minor repairs. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: On that point , if I might interrupt , do we have any idea what he is receiving by way of income on the property? MR. SCHMITT: Yes he is receiving $175.00 per person. . MS. FARRELL: So like $875.00 a month? MRS. SCHMITT: And the insurance costs for a rooming house is incredible - if you can find someone to cover you. So ^ that is a factor which I am sure he has to face, therefore cash flow, I 'm sure, is (unintelligible) PAGE 20 ' -' -- -- BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MS. FARRELL: I wonder if he even has it insured? I mean, YOU know, he is not here to tell us. . . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Yes I have one. As people very interested in this neighborhood , I am also very interested in the tenants who are, if not wards of the State of New York , will be wards of the County, so rather indirectly the landlord is one element of our government - you and me - where will these people go? What will happen, in other words, if there are no more rooming houses in Ithaca cheap enough , will they all move to Tioga County or will we have all neighborhoods nice and no people in them that are poor? MR. SCHMITl[: I suppose this is a problem. I know one of the people is moving out - not knowing that we will be renovating or anything - they are moving to Etna, to an apartment there. But no matter , they shouldn' t be allowed to live where they are now anyway. MRS. SCHMIl[l[: It is a shame - they need more supervision. It is a dilemma - it is an enormous problem and I am really ' - I don' t know, frankly, Mr . Freeman understands that these people (unintelligible) they don' t even have leases or at least he has been very casual about it and he has agreed to offer the house to us vacant , with their possessions removed since there is quite an amazing situation inside and I 've been very concerned , I don' t really know and I 'm not PAGE 21 ^ - -- BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 familiar with the situation of these people or where they would go , what happens. We are only looking at , obviously, as a business proposition and also in terms of the neighborhood since we have property there, to improve it . It needs improvement - it can' t be left as it is. (unintelligible) MR. SCHMDTT: You couldn' t work on it with those people there anyway. MRS~ SCHMITT: Well there would be no point (unintelligible) It is a shame. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this application? Please come forward . MR. SHELLY: My name is Tom Shelly, I ' ll make this quick as I have an appointment in five minutes. I live at 118 E. Court Street at the corner of Court and Sears, which is due south of 106 Sears Street . My property - back property line abuts against 106 Sears Street . I have been associated with the house for eight years, I 've owned it for the last two years, I also do real estate management as a business in Ithaca - Shelly Enterprises - so I know a lot about the real market in Ithaca and what`s possible and what 's not possible. Two years ago when I bought 118 E. Court Street I ' also attempted simultaneously to buy 106 Sears Street . (unintelligible) Historic Ithaca in Tompkins County and have been very interested in pushing someone into resurrecting that house - it is in the Historic District , it is in the PAGE 22 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 National Registry - it is a gorgeous 1906 example of the classic victorian stick kind of architecture - a real relic of its kind and I think it is very much worth preserving , as is. At one point when I attempted to buy it , Norm Freeman was asking $47000. for it and I figured that I would have to put at least more than the purchase price into the building to bring it up to code and my idea at the time was to convert it into a single family dwelling and sell it and when I did all sorts of statistics and other mathematical work on it I figured I would lose a lot of money - it was just not feasible to me to make it a single family dwelling given today's construction costs and the fact that the building had to be completely gutted , rewired , replumbed, new roof and paint , lots of exterior work - most of the siding needs to be replaced - the chimney was torn down and a really ugly block structure was put up as a substitute chimney so I was going to rebuild the chimney which was $5600. alone. So at that point I abandoned the idea of buying it . During that interval time, Mr . Freeman, on three separate occasions sent me proposed offers, you know, . inquiring as to whether I still wanted to buy the property ' and so forth - he was very eager to sell it to me for ' obvious reasons. So that is one - my main interest in it - in another light , I have been, since its inception - a ' member of the local community association of Cascadilla ^ Creek - neighborhood association - and everyone in the ' entire organization is very eager for Ron and Carol to buy ^ PAGE 23 ^ BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 the building and fix it up or for someone to buy it and fix it up and they are the only people who have come forth with the financial wherewithal and ideas for doing it , which I think are very, very highly commendable. I know a number of people in the neighborhood , I 've seen in the last week or so , have been talking about it , sort of the local grapevine, you know, about them buying the house, and everybody is very excited about the possibility. Many people, especially older people in the neighborhood , have been very fearful for the people who live there - there have been a lot of borderline psychotic people living in that property, during the entire time I 've been there. I first lived there in 1978 - 77 - Court Street as a tenant before I purchased the property and during that time the police have been there on the average of maybe once a week , sometimes more, lots of damage has been done to the building . One window has been replaced three or four times in one week and the quality of people being there have been so that the neighborhood has literally been in terror a lot of times and the old people are afraid to go out at night - all kinds of hideous things have gone on over there. I personally know some of the people. Some of the people there are very nice people - there is an older retarded woman who has had a lobodomy who has lived there for a number of years - five or six years - and she is moving to Etna. She is very happy to be leaving , very happy to be going to a nicer environment . In terms of my own personal interest , I would really like Ron and Carol PAGE 24 � BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 to buy the property and renovate it to their specifications. I 'm afraid that somebody over there, who isn' t playing with a full deck of cards is going to just start playing with fire and might burn the place down and all the places all around it, because the house is on a very narrow lot , it is very close together . I think that this is a good opportunity for Ithaca to salvage a very historic building. It is a good opportunity for our particular neighborhood to be upgraded . It is a good opportunity for the people who are there to seek some kind of additional assistance maybe in terms of problems that they have, too . They are going to be forced to deal with some other things (unintelligible) Any questions? MS. FARRELL: Yes. What was your final offer to Mr . Freeman for the property and what did he drop his asking price down to? MR. SHELLY: He did not drop the asking price but he was willing to carry some paper for me. MS. FARRELL: So he continued to ask the $47. 1' MR. SHELLY: Right . He was willing to take one-third down and carry the rest - which . . . MS. FARREK_L: That was two years ago? MR. SHELLY: Two years ago . I had the down payment at the time but I didn' t fifty - sixty thousand dollars to fix it up . I got estimates from Sawtooth for doing the exterior , . which was twenty-five thousand dollars. The roof was another fifty-five - six thousand dollars. Plumbing was PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 around a thousand dollars - the chimney was fifty-six hundred dollars, just to bring it back up to code and restoring it was between fifty and sixty thousand dollars by the time everything was added up . At that time, that was two years ago , as you know construction materials and costs have gone up enormous amounts in two years. CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SHELLY: Thank you very much . Any one else who would like to speak in favor? Come forward . MR. CEDERSl[ROM: My name is Jake Cederstrom. I own the house on 120 Sears Street , next to 118. I will be even briefer than Mr . Shelly, I concur absolutely with what he has said . This seems to be an opportunity to save the beautiful house that has been allowed to get run down. I am confident - having lived next to 118 for six years - the Schmitts will take care of it and be very concerned about the people to whom they rent it . I hope you will go along with their plans and allow this eyesore to be upgraded and the neighborhood and the whole city to be made even more beautiful . Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLANr Any questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in . favor of granting this variance? Chris? . MR. ANAGNOST: I wasn' t planning on speaking - I know the . Schmitts quite well . I 'm Chris Anagnost , 304 College Avenue. I realize the Board is probably in a hard position PAGE 26 ` BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 because this is a use variance but I think , from what has been said tonight that Mr . Freeman has dropped the price considerably on the house and I 'm afraid that if it got dropped much further in order to sell it , because obviously he is not going to fix it up, somebody is going to buy it and tear it down and turn it into a parking lot . I think the alternative of having the Schmitts at least put an improvement there (unintelligible) one more vacant lot on that block . So I would hope that somehow the Board can grant the variance that would continue the use. Below thirty-three thousand dollars somebody might tear it down and you'd have the same thing on that side of the street that you do across the street so I know the Schmitts live up to what they said they are going to do and what they will do will be a good improvement to that very diminished neighborhood as it is right now. I hope you can grant the . variance. CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Chris, just as - you know we have interested parties to deal with . If you could - I 've allowed your testimony to go on record - could you indicate how you are an interested party? MR. ANAGNOSTz I 'm not - I just know the Schmitts - but I - other than having - CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAN: That's what I thought . MR. ANAGNOST: As a realtor I guess I 'm speaking because the question came up about property values. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. ' PAGE 27 - - BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. ANOGNOST: And nobody has really addressed property values. . . (unintelligible) about the original price and I was afraid that if it goes down too low somebody is. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But we have to keep the hearing at least , YOU know, within manageable limits in time, so lets. . . Any questions? MR. SCHWAB: My one quick question is, just in your opinion, . could this be used as a single family house or a two family house? MR. ANAGN0ST: I think there are other properties in the ^ neighborhood that can be bought , when I say "the neighborhood" I mean that Tioga Street , Sears Street that can be bought for sixty thousand already done - say sixty to seventy thousand , one or two family - that would make it more feasible to buy those then to sit there and try to put fifty or sixty thousand into this property. ' (unintelligible) probably beyond salvation - a redemption of ' that size. ' CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would ' like to speak in favor of granting these variances? Is ' there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (no one) That being the case, it is ours. ^ . PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1682 106 SEARS STREET CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Don't all jump at once. MR. SCHWAB: I think one thing that I 'm inclined - one thing that helps things is that it already is a non-conforming use grandfathered and all this is doing is changing use - it doesn' t seem to be - it is not a situation going from one or two family to apartments. I don' t know exactly how that fits into our standards of showing hardship but . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Can you talk about dollars and cents in any way / MR. SCHWAB: What are you saying, are we supposed to really think this from Freeman's point of view? CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Well it goes with the property so you have to think about it from the property's point of view - present owner certainly. [changed tape here so missed some of the dialogue] MR. SCHWAB: . . . except for what he might sell it for and it has been on the market for a number of years - he cannot sell it as a single family house. We do have testimony from the applicants and a neighbor who is also a realtor and Mr . Freeman that it can' t be restored into a single family house and again - I guess I 'm not that impressed that perhaps he could eke out - although it is in horrible condition - as a rooming house - which is already grandfathered , non-conforming . Maybe that is where it comes in, although this other one is not a conforming use it is really no worse . PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 and neither the current owner or the prospective buyers could not economically use this property consistent with code. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. MR. SCHWAB: Convince any of you at all? I 'm kind of just talking . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's fine - to get it out on the table if only to develop the arguments, it is useful to see how far they go one way or the other . To what degree is the hardship unique? MS. FARRE0L: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) let the property run down itself - and then he claims hardship because it is in bad shape. It is unique, especially since he says he bought it to protect his own property - that he was using . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie do you want to be a help or a hindrance? MR. WEAVER: I could be either very easily. I 'm disturbed at the tone of the proceedings so far in that neighborhood has just recently been saved by the Common Council and the ' Planners is now asking for just the opposite from what was legislated very recently on a basis of the fact that the ' proposed developer is a good guy and that the current owner is somewhat less than that . I 'm not sure I ought to be able to identify these people - the white hats and black hats. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's funny - just leave it a little . grey. PAGE 30 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. WEAVER: Well , I 'm quite impressed that the proposed owners are as energetic as they are about this appeal and that the owner certainly demonstrates a remarkable lack of interest . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: It is certainly one of the better documented cases. MS~ FARRELL: Well we do have all of this written testimony that he provided , you know, gave us a lot of points here. He has had it on the market for a number of years. It 's probably an extremely difficult property to sell by now. MR~ WEAVER: Well I - without getting too fussy about hardship , we can all settle that in our own minds - I think it is important for us to exercise our judgement on a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use and distinguish among them as being more intense or less intense or good or bad or whatever - that the grandfather non-conforming use can sail merrily along as it is or can be altered to another non-conforming use or technically the same thing . If this is a rooming house or if it is a Coop , in either case, as I understand it , it is a multiple. So a multiple is a multiple is a multiple under the Zoning Ordinance and I don' t see precisely a change of use. I do agree with you Tracy that the reward seems to be going to � the person who has given the least to the neighborhood . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we any closer to where we were when we began? I think so . ' ` PAGE 31 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1682 106 SEARS STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Ron and Carol Schmitt for use and area variances to permit the conversion of the existing cooperative dwelling unit at 106 Sears Street to four apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARREk-i-: I move that the Board grant the use and area variances request in Appeal Number 1682. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT - USE VARIANCE: 1 ) The owner 's written testimony states that he has unsuccessfully been trying to sell this property for many years as a grandfathered rooming house and also maintains that he is unable to improve this property with the income it now generates, which could be construed as a hardship . 2) The prospective owners have shown why it would be financially impossible for them to repair the house without converting it to four apartments and obtaining the income ' that those apartments would provide. 3> There is strong neighborhood support for the proposed . conversion. 4> This is a chance to bring a seriously deteriorated property up to the building code standards. 5} The proposed use is going from a grandfathered non-conforming use to another non-conforming use that is not more intensive. PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT - AREA VARIANCE: 1 ) There is a practical difficulty in meeting the current area deficiencies in lot area, lot width and front and rear yard setbacks which would only be solved by moving the house. 2} The current deficiencies in percent of lot coverage and parking would be reduced and therefore improved by the proposed changes. 3) On the other hand the rest of the area deficiencies would not be exacerbated by the proposed change. VOTE: 4 YES; 0 NO; 2 ABSENT AREA & USE VARIANCES GRANTED PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1603 FOR 107 CATHERINE STREET: Appeal of Gordon VanNederynen for an area variance for deficient off-street parking , lot size and front yard setback under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 6, and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit conversion of one apartment in the multiple dwelling at 107 Catherine Street from a one-bedroom apartment to a two-bedroom apartment . The building , which currently has one three-bedroom apartment , one one-bedroom apartment , and seven rooms to rent , is located in an R---3b (Residential , multiple dwelling ) Use District , in which the proposed use is permitted . However , under the requirements of Section 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or certificate of occupancy can be issued for the conversion. MR. : Good evening . I 'm Gordon VanNederynen, . the owner of 107 Catherine Street , the building in question. I ' ll give you a little background of the building , I 've . owned it for approximately eighteen years, part of that time ' I have been in a partnership , the last three years I 've . owned it solely myself. We have done quite a few BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 improvements to the building , to start with , we put a dormer on two years ago to help meet the building requirements that we had to . We lacked one bathroom at the time and in order to do that we were granted a building permit to put a new bathroom in and the dormer on. So in doing so this move freed up the area in the basement so that we could increase the size of the basement apartment . The reason for increasing the size, we lack room size right now to meet the housing code for the apartment down there so - in doing so we have a one-bedroom apartment in the basement that is large enough for two people. What I am proposing to do is to make the one bedroom smaller so that it can only occupy one person and utilize the rest of the space in the basement which I can meet all light and ventilation requirements and building codes necessary at the time. And use part of that space as a second bedroom - large enough in square footage for only one person. Since I am not increasing density in doing this and the apartment is fairly old and needs to be upgraded and it is the last one in the building to be brought up in good shape and make good housing for the students, I realize my lot size is deficient and parking but ' right at the present time, with what parking space I have, ` I 've been able to have enough parking for everyone that has asked for it . And I just hope that you will consider ' letting me do this to make a better housing unit there, in ' the building . ^ PAGE 35 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. SCHWAB: So to restate it, the changes are only in the basement? MR. : Right . MR. SCHWAB: It is going from a fairly large one bedroom to a two-bedroom apartment where each bedroom is smaller? MR. VANNEDERYNEN: Right , so it can only occupy two people. Two people total . Which I can also occupy with two people right now, in the one bedroom. Also the living room is deficient in size - square footage, right now I don' t have a room in the apartment of 150 square feet . And I have all of this space where we moved a cooking unit for the rooms that was located in the basement , that is upstairs now along with the new bathroom and all the roomers on the second and third floor have useage of that and it freed up the area in the basement so that I can make this one bedroom larger . CHAIRMAN 7[OMK-ANc Further questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Is this spelled out specifically in your application - the size of the bedrooms proposed . Is there plans submitted that - does the Building Department have a copy of a plan that indicates the proposed bedrooms with . . . SECRETARY HOARD: There are sketches here. MR. WEAVER: Okay, but , all right . I 'm supposed to be able to multiply. All right . One twenty, however , allows two ' does it not? ' SECRETARY HOARD: Yes that `s right . PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. WEAVER: So there will have to be a technical alteration in them in order to conform with what he says he is going to do . MR~ VANNEDERYNENc By building a large closet in that one bedroom - it will cut the size down to under one hundred and twenty square feet . On the drawing - the existing drawing and then the proposed new drawing - there should be two drawings there. At this time, if I can do this, it is the only part of the house that doesn' t have energy efficient windows and this I can change over at this time. We would have a new heating system - completely rewired to bring it up to the new standards. MR. WEAVER: If this proposal were submitted to the Housing Board , would the south bedroom be approved for one or two persons? Does the closet impinging upon the total dimension - does that - is that subtracted from the area? SECRETARY HOARD: That is subtracted from the area, yes. MR. SCHWAB: With the overall dimensions being eleven by eleven (unintelligible) MR. WEAVER: Well that is easily brought down. MR. SCHWAB: Less the closet . MR. WEAVER: And the same thing is true of the other ` bedroom isn' t it? . MR~ : At the present time there is no closet in ' that bedroom (unintelligible) be redoing to make it a lot nicer floor plan - layout - for a more desireable apartment . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions, Tracy? ' ` PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MS. FARRELL: No . CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: No . CHAIRMAN TOMLANz Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this application? (no one) Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (no one) that being the case, it is ours. ' PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1683 107 CATHERINE STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Gordon VanNederynen for an area variance to permit conversion of one apartment in the multiple dwelling at 107 Catherine Street from a one-bedroom apartment to a two-bedroom apartment . The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal No . 1683. MS. FARREX-K-: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) Granting of this variance will not increase the density of occupation in the building . 2) Practical difficulty in that the front yard setback could not be corrected without demolition of the building . 3) The lot area deficiency is the same as the neighboring properties are not available for - increase in lot area. 4> That the proposal will not exacerbate any of the existing deficiencies. VOTE: 4 YES; W N05 2 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED ' , PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1684 FOR 223 EDDY STREET: Appeal of Richard W. Gilbert for an area variance for two deficient sideyards under Section 30.254 Columns 12 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit conversion of the multiple dwelling at 223 Eddy Street from three apartments plus four rooms to rent to six apartments. The property is located in an R-3b (Residential , multiple dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted ; however under Section 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or certificate of occupancy can be issued for the proposed change. MR. GIk-BERT: To keep me from rambling , let me give you this and I will run over it and then answer your questions. The first floor of this property. . . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAh4: Excuse me, just a minute, if you would identify yourself for the record? Thank you. MR. G%k-BER7[: I 'm Richard Gilbert . I 'm the owner of this property, along with my wife. This was a property that I just recently purchased and when I purchased it I had these conversions in mind - I felt I was clear until the survey PAGE 40 - -- -'-- . BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 . came and and we were going through the process. The first floor is currently a rear two bedroom apartment and a front ^ one bedroom apartment . I propose converting two-thirds of the front porch to two additional bedrooms, making the front unit a three bedroom apartment . The second floor is presently set up as a rooming house, with the tenants sharing a public bathroom in the hallway and a common kitchen in the basement . Privacy is minimized , since anyone needing to use the bathroom in the middle of the night obviously must use a public hallway. The kitchen shares a medium sized area in the basement with the furnace for the building . The kitchen table is located less than 10 feet from the furnace, and is the main area for food preperation. I propose converting the rooms on the second floor into two efficiencies and a two bedroom apartment . Since each unit will be self-contained , privacy is assured and modern kitchen areas will certainly provide more sanitary conditions. The third floor of the building would remain unchanged . The dilapidated garages in the rear of the building , now only used for storage since I hesitate to put anyone's car in them, would be torn down to provide parking for six cars. The reality of the situation is that six new parking spaces would be provided in the area. The area is zoned for multiple dwellings and the use would remain the same. While the density would be increased by two , the additional income for the two bedrooms is needed to help offset the expensive conversion of the second floor . The PAGE 41 --- - ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 property, at one time, must have been eleven units because there are still eleven doorbells outside. The adjacent property on the south is currently an owner-occupied rooming house with eleven tenants, while the property on the north is a new project with eight apartments and thirty bedrooms thus, the usage is consistent with the area. The lot size is sufficient . Side yard measurements are the only deficiencies, and obviously it is impractical to move the ' building . Removing the garage in the rear will place that area of the property in compliance with regulations, as well . as provide the necessary parking required for the property. In addition we need five feet on one side and ten on the other . The one side is three feet nine inches, the other side would be zero . There is a carport there that I could remove if you would desire, I prefer to keep it but we could . bring one side of the building into compliance by removing the carport . I would hope that the Board of Zoning Appeals would look favorably on this request . CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: I don' t understand your sentence of removing the garage will place that area of the property in compliance? MR. GILBERT: Right now the garage is right on property line, literally. MR. SCHWAB: Okay ' MR. GILBERT: So by removing it we would obviously have your minimums. Everything else seems to be in compliance, the PAGE 42 -- -- --- - BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 square footage in the area - this would give us the necessary parking . ' MR. SCHWAB: Okay. So all the parking - all six spaces are behind the building? MR. GILBERT: Right , that 's the garage right now, that takes most of that space up . One of the side walls is almost ' falling in because of the dirt pushing it forward . It was used as storage when I purchased the property in January and it has continued to be used as storage. MR. SCHWAB: Your desire to keep the carport is. . . why? ' MR. GILBERT: I guess because it is there. It would not be hard to - actually that area stands out on the drawing . It was originally the entrance to the property at one point in time and that is why the carport was built , it has been there for some time. Certainly if that would stand in the way of the appeal being granted - you know - there would be T-10 trouble with taking it down. We could probably take it down in half a day at the most . MR. SCHWAB: I 'm not sure it would stand in the way but . . MR. WEAVER: If the carport were not attached to the house, would it then become an auxiliary building? SECRETARY HOARD: That is correct . MR~ WEAVER: So you are making a one inch determination in one sense of the word . If that were a free standing garage rather than a carport attached to the house it would be legal . The materials might not be but as far as (unintelligible) they don' t have to have a separation. PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. G%LBERTc Essentially it is corregated fiberglass roof with three steel poles and some metal supports - it wouldn' t be hard to . . . MR. WEAVER: I think it would be legal - you know - power hack saw. What I am trying to describe is the operation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I don' t think we consider those in this hearing . Thanks. MR~ SCHWAB: There is no real value to it to it permanently it is just the problem and expense of tearing it down. MR. BILBER7[: Really it wouldn' t be much to take it down. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Thanks. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? Come forward . MR. ANAGNOSl[: I own the property next door and we used to own this house for sixteen years and sold it to Rick . It was something we always planned to do because of the set up of the rooms on the second is really inadequate and the shared bathroom and having to go down two flights into the basement to use the kitchen is really - - so then we were always going to do - and it wasn' t until this survey came up that we realized that the property sat too close to the line on one side. But it can meet all the requirements of the parking and there won' t be any additional change in the neighborhood use - it is all multiple dwellings - so I hope you grant it based on the fact that it is something that should be done. It will create an improved living situation and he can meet all the requirements of the area. PAGE 44 . BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Questions? Thanks Chris. 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? That being the case, it is ours. / PAGE 45 -- - - — — — | . | ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 ' DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1684 223 EDDY STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of ' Richard W. Gilbert for an area variance to permit conversion of the multiple dwelling at 223 Eddy Street from three apartments pluse four rooms to rent to six apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: . MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal No . 1684. . MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) Practical difficulty in meeting the side yard setback . deficiencies has been shown by the appellant in that it ^ would be necessary to move the house or the carport to correct . . 2) Granting of the appeal would not exacerbate these . deficiencies. 3) Demolishing the garage would provide the additional ' parking necessary to meet the needs of the property and would also eliminate a current deficiency in parking . 4> The proposed change is consistent with the character of the neighborhood . VOTE: 4 YES; 0 NO; 2 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1685 FOR 241 LINDEN AVENUE: Appeal of William Lower for an exception to the temporary Zoning Moratorium under Section 30.01 and an area variance for deficient off-street parking , lot area, and setbacks for one side yard and the rear yard, under Section 30.259 Columns 4, 6, 13, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the conversion of the multiple dwelling at 241 Linden Avenue from nine apartments plus one room to rent to five apartments, with no increase in density. The multiple dwelling currently contains six efficiency apartments, two one-bedroom apartments, one two-bedroom apartment , and one room-to-rent; which would be converted to three efficiency apartments, one two-bedroom apartment , and one seven-bedroom apartment . The property is located in an R-3b (Residential , multiple dwelling ) Use District which is currently under a temporary moratorium restricting the issuing of certain building permits; therefore the appellant must obtain an exemption from the moratorium and under Section 30.57 must also obtain an area ` variance for the listed area deficiencies before a building permit or certificate of occupancy can be ' issued for the proposed conversion. ^ PAGE 48 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Good evening . If you would please begin by identifying yourself. MR. LOWER: I 'm William Lower , I 'm the owner of the property. It all sounds pretty complicated but I guess if there is anything that anybody is confused on I hope I can get it straightened out here. First of all I received a letter the other day that I guess was sent also to the Board here. I want to express that my views are not shared in the letter that was sent to the Board by Mr . Fane. Of course I had no knowledge at all about it . Okay, what I am trying to do here is to correct a situation which , as you have heard in the past , where bathrooms are shared in halls - it is unhealthy - maybe unsafe and we have several apartments that are sharing bathrooms in the halls and one room that is sharing also in the hall with these other apartments. I propose to take two floors of this house that has total of five apartments and one room and make that into one unit and correct or enhance some of the living standards there, not only from health standards but also from a safety factor . I think that by doing these floors over we would be required to meet somewhat stringent housing codes that are not necessarily required when a building is already . . existing. We would be doing both floors with fire code C . project in its entirety. We would be insulating all of the . exterior walls so the sheet rock that we would use in itself . would make it much more retardant to fire and we would be putting new bathrooms in the unit - we would not only be PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 putting bathrooms that are there now, we would - of course those would be removed and we will be putting additional bathrooms which would make it even healthier for the people that live there and I am proposing to put one apartment on two floors and if I could tell you what we have existing there, now, then I can maybe explain why I think this should be permitted to put one apartment for many reasons. First of all we have existing on the third floor - if you have a copy of the plans - we have an existing third floor now - we have an apartment facing on the left - I don' t know exactly what the apartment number is there - but anyway that particular apartment is an efficiency apartment and then the one on the right is another efficiency apartment and then in the center there is a room. Okay? And existing on the second floor is three apartments there, one of which is one bedroom plus a study and the other is a large kitchen and a bedroom and the other one is an efficiency consisting of the one room. Now if you were to take these two floors, according to New York State Housing Code we have a right to occupy these apartments - according to square footage - by two, four , six , eight , ten, eleven people. The apartment that I am proposing to put in on the second and third floor , we are intending to put one, two, three, four , five, six - a ' maximum of eight people. Now when I say a maximum of eight ' people - most of these bedrooms, if you will notice, are ' under the hundred and twenty square feet , which is the maximum number of people you can put in is one, of course, ' PAGE 50 ------ -- - BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 and in one case here, we do have one here that is one hundred twenty-three square feet . Now I have no intentions nor would want to put two people in that particular bedroom and so I have to say that the way that the bedrooms are layed out now, under the New York State Housing Code, there could be - instead of eight people - there could be nine, if you were to say that this hundred and twenty-three square foot room could occupy two people, but I would even persuade this Board - if they decided to permit this - to limit it to eight people. I would , as a matter of fact, be in favor of that so the intent here, and I think that under the Housing Code we would be permitted to have less people in the apartment that is proposed , then what we would be permitted to have in its existing form. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: How many people are currently living there? You said a maximum of eleven - is that full up? MR. LOWER: Twelve. Twelve people can be in the apartment now. MR. SCHWAB: Twelve can be in there now? MR. LOWER: Yes you see because, as a matter of fact I have - this shows the number of people can occupy the apartments . now. This is existing - this particular apartment is one . hundred sixty square feet - which certainly can have two . There is one hundred and eighty-eight - I said two but I think that one hundred eighty-eight even - you are permitted to have three - I 've never , ever rented to three in that ' PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 size room, so I 'm not even familiar with that kind of - what- the hatthe limits are. And here is another existing - which would be the second floor - there would be two permitted here - it is one hundred thirty-two square feet , and this one is one because it only has a bedroom a hundred square feet and the kitchen, of course, isn' t considered habitable space. And this, again, is two , so if you add all of these up I think it is twelve people that could live in these two floors. MR. SCHWAB: Do you know how many people are actually living there now? MR. LOWER: Well I don' t have that information with me but I certainly could verify that - at least for the Zoning Board . MR. WEAVER: Let 's go back to those plans, Bill . MR. LOWER: I do think this house - if one goes by it and looks at it - would agree that it does need some attention. Now just what extent this - doing this particular apartment over will have in the overall house, I don' t know at this point , I know that at some point I would like to make a major effort to make the house look nicer on the outside as well as the inside and , as a matter of fact , the reason I bought it is because it is an awful looking place and I own property all around it and I just had to own it so I could ' fix it up . There will be no more income, as a matter of ' fact , I haven' t dared to calculate to know what my income will be in comparison to what I can get now because I think it will not be any more. Consequently it could be less but that 's the concern here. And I 'm not saying that I will go ` PAGE 52 ' — -- ~--- -- --'' - BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 ahead and do something that I know is going to make me a lot less money but ultimately in the end I ' ll be ahead even though it would not generate any more income because the overall plan would be - at a future date - or even sooner than that - maybe it will be something on the outside of the house to enhance the looks of it . Certainly a lot of landscaping work is going to be done there. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Charlie did you want to go back to the plans did you say? MR. WEAVER: Well I want to go to the plans at least once more before I 'm prepared to make any kind of a decision. I agree with your original count of eleven would now be legal - that is your statement it could legally be occupied by . . MR. LOWER: Twelve. I believe twelve, but eleven is okay. MR. WEAVER: Somebody is in the coal chute or somewhere. I don' t find the twelfth but no use arguing about that . MR. LOWER: Okay, eleven, that it okay with me. I may have made a mistake in there, but anyway, it is going to be less than eleven now. MR. WEAVER: The proposed second floor will have four - technically five? MR. LOWER: Could I show you this one, it is a little larger and may help us to . . . . MR. WEAVER: This is what you propose? MR. LOWER: Yes. ' MR. WEAVER: It has the same numbers. PAGE 53 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. LOWER: The reason I want to show you this - it does there is quite a lot of more living area here that does away with a lot on the top floor . MR. WEAVER: Now you are talking third floor? MR. LOWER: Yes. Well , this is second and third - the apartment will be on two floors. This is the proposed third floor - you see the large living area for the apartment as compared to what it was. This is the bedroom and that is a bedroom - this is all living area with a bathroom here that is for everybody - this bathroom is a private bathroom. I might add that they are all complete bathrooms with - we will have an apartment of seven bedrooms and four bathrooms. That might lead somebody to believe that I am preparing to be competitive with other , more desireable housing in the neighborhood, whether it be new or older . I don' t think you will see too many apartments that have seven bedrooms that have four bathrooms. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions Charlie? [changed tape here and lost some of the dialogue] MR. WEAVER: and I understand five on the second? MR. LOWER: Yes if you. . . MR. SCHWAB: I think there is six on second floor . MR. LOWER: Well if you decide I . . . . MR. WEAVER: This is the sixth one you are counting ` (pointing to the plans) ' MR. SCHWAB: Yes. . PAGE 54 ` BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. LOWER: I would only ask this Board to grant permission for eight persons in that apartment . Anything that would have to be done to satisfy you - only eight people would be in there - could be in there - I am prepared to do . I have no intentions of renting it to more than eight people - nor would it ever be. MR. WEAVER: I 'm not going to be the owner or the builder but if we could get a closet in bedroom number . . . . MR. LOWER: Oh , that ' s no problem, no . MR. WEAVER: Three, it would make me feel comfortable. MR. LOWER: I think that I had expressed to Mr . Hoard that I would change this if needed be, and of course, I didn' t get around to it I guess, nor did I - I would change it this way so the closet would be larger - in fact it needs to be larger . MR~ WEAVER: Is that one hundred twenty-three netted out - with or without the closet? MR. LOWER: That is one hundred twenty-three not counting the closet . The closet isn' t part of the. . . . So if this closet were turned around so it came out to this partition and went this way [pointing to the plans] the depth would be (unintelligible) and it would come out here further and take - so that it would be one hundred and nineteen square feet . MS. FARRELL: Where are you talking about the closet now? ' MR. WEAVER: Bedroom 3. ' MS. FARRELL: Where would it go? ' MR. LOWER: Well it would just change it around . ` PAGE 55 ` BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR~ WEAVER: Turn it ninety degrees. MR. LOWER: And make it a little larger because it 's a fairly small closet anyhow. MS~ FARRELL: Oh I see. MR. LOWER: And it protrudes out into the room which is not good planning . Of course, I 'm not an architect so . . . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Neither is our Fire Commissioner . MR. LOWER: Now if anybody would like to look at this, if anybody would like to look at the existing plans that I have, I put some dotted lines so that it separates the apartment - it shows separation between the apartments, if anyone wanted to see that . CHAIRMAN l[OMLANz Bill I 'd like to raise another question completely and that is, we've been addressing for the most ' part the area variance part of your application. Would you ' address more specifically how you feel you should be ` exempted from the moratorium? For your own information the . appeals procedure specified by the Common Council says that in essence if you can demonstrate a hardship as a result of the moratorium. . . . MR. LOWER: Certainly I think there is hardship here - it is next to impossible to put bathrooms in every one of these apartments and that in itself is a violation of the Housing Code today - so I thought when I came here that I could just get a permit because I was correcting violations but . . . PAGE 56 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Well there is a bit more involved , but why ' is it that you would have to proceed with this before ' September of this year? ' MR. LOWER: Well it is not a matter of life and death but I think it is a problem - it will be a problem for me to rent them - I `m embarrassed to rent apartments where somebody has got to go out - I mean, put yourself in my shoes, you've got to rent an apartment - you say, well you've got to go out in the hall to use the bathroom - in the apartment? I don' t . have any that way. I have a number of apartments - I don' t . have any - that's like saying , well you have an outside . bathroom or you go outdoors - it 's embarrassing to me. Not only that it 's a hardship to rent it - in my opinion, it is a hardship in many ways - you get much less rent, I would . assume and it 's just hard to rent them. I have enough other apartments - I know that this particular piece of property will be a nuisance to me to rent . I had to really, really work at it - it cost you more to rent it . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have any particular figures to back that up? Any specifics? I mean, you've experienced difficulty but can you show us or demonstrate to us anything ' more specific than the fact that you've had difficulty? . � ' MR. LOWER: No , except the fact that I 'm an expert at it . . / In the past I 've had a number of them that we've corrected . . | ' I don' t have any now, when I say I don' t have any, it ' ' doesn' t mean I haven' t had them. I 've had them and I know what my experience has been - they are very difficult to ` ' PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 rent and I don' t think you could find anybody that will say that they are not . As far as dollars and cents, I haven' t researched that but I could give you a guess but not right off the top of my head . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MS. FARRELL: Is part of the hardship related - do you want to get it changed before rental season or - I mean - if the moratorium goes until September . . . MR. LOWER: Oh absolutely. I 'm just about all rented out you know, for next year - and . . . MG. FARREK-Lc Have you rented this place as is? MR. LOWER: Oh no . As a matter of fact , we did , at one point venture into renting it and it 's tough - well , I 'd like to say it 's impossible but it isn' t impossible. You take the people that are the people that are desperate for something and I wish I had all the leases I could show you the leases ' on this particular property. I didn' t rent it last year - I . bought it after it was rented last year and it was rented ^ real , real late and I know why it was rented late because you can' t get anybody else to rent them until people get in and there is nothing else left . I 'm not accustomed to renting apartments that way. I mean, I have all of my apartments - I don' t run ninety percent occupied or ' ninety-eight , I 'm a hundred percent occupied all the time and I will have vacancies with these, I just know. I know I will have vacancies here. ^ PAGE 58 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: One point that the Board might want to consider is especially the bathrooms outside the apartments. In 1979 the Council passed the law requiring locks on all apartments to protect people from being assaulted . It wasn' t a burglary measure, it was a problem with people getting assaulted in their apartments. It doesn' t make much sense to put the lock on the door if the person has to wander out in the public hall to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night so . . . my Department is trying to encourage, wherever possible, that apartments be self contained , with the bathrooms inside. MR. SCHWAB: Is this building grandfathered or currently in violation? SECRETARY HOARD: Well it is grandfathered, yes. He can continue but the practicality of it is that the tenants are still going out in the public hallway in the middle of the night . MR. WEAVER: Well while we are having a town meeting here, looking at the Ordinance of September 4, 1985, I wonder and I did wonder initially about the interpretation of Section 30.01-1-a, because it seems to me that this moratorium is a moratorium against any alterations, additions or new ' construction that would increase the number or the legal ^ ` occupancy of a non-owner-occupied dwelling unit and if the proposal does not increase the legal occupancy, I raise the question of interpretation and if this - I understand that ^ this Board has a right to interpret and if there are not all . PAGE 59 -------- -- -- BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 kinds of hazards in such an interpretation - first I wonder if this application does increase the number or the legal occupancy of this structure as we propose to approve it or as the applicant has agreed it will ultimately be changed . In such case, taking the applicants count and some of ours, it seems that it does not . I 'd be interested in somebody shooting at that . . . MR. SCHWAB: The word - the number means new construction basically, do you think? MR. WEAVER: God knows what the Common Council meant . We are God at the moment - we decide. MR. SCHWAB: What does the Supreme Court say? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm not sure I 'd go that far Charlie, could we. . . MR. SCHWAB: What is practical - let 's take - the common language is you can' t issue a permit for any construction that will increase the number or legal occupancy of dwelling units - which would not increase the number of dwelling t..tnits. . . MR. WEAVER: Are we getting more dwelling units, is the real key, possibly? MR. LOWER: No, we are decreasing it by four or five. The ' dwelling units. . . MR. SCHWAB: There is just now one dwelling unit at this ' apartment? ' MR. LOWER: No - there is two dwelling units on the top ^ floor plus a room for rent and the next floor down there is ' PAGE 60 ^ BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 three dwelling units that are apartments. We are going to take five apartments, which are mostly all efficiency apartments, and one room for rent , we are going to put one apartment - so we are decreasing four apartments and one room for rent . MR. SCHWAB: So you are decreasing the number of dwelling units? MR. LOWER: Yes. MS. FARRELk_: Well it says on the worksheet , nine apartments Plus one room to rent . . . . MR. SCHWAB: And decreasing the legal occupancy of the. . . MR. LOWER: I 'm very confident we are decreasing the occupancy that would be permitted under the New York State Housing Code, that is for sure. MR. SCHWAB: I guess the only problem I see here, Charlie, it wouldn' t increase the number of units but it would increase the legal occupancy of at least one of those units, creating a super big unit . One unit he is creating has eight people in it . SECRETARY HOARD: I think you have to look at the net for the whole building . MS. FARRELL: Yes I just assumed you did , I mean that is an interesting way to look at it . . . . ` MR. WEAVER: Did you say a sinister way to look at it? MR. SCHWAB: There is an "or" . Okay, all that goes to say . is like most things, you could read it either way. ' ^ PAGE 61 — -- - BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could we continue questioning the appellant and then come back to this issue? MR. WEAVER: Yes I didn' t want to stop the hearing . MR. LOWER: I just started to enjoy myself. CHAIRMAN l[QMk-AN: I understand . We can' t have too much of that . Any further questions from members of the Board? MR. LOWER: Mr . Weaver is there anything that you might have been confused in the way that I 've drawn it up . . that I can clear up? MR. WEAVER: I 'd rather stay the way I am. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you Bill . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance and exemption? (no one) Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to granting this variance and exemption? (n(::, one) Now then gentlemen, if you would like to continue the discussion, if you would like too . ` PAGE 62 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1685 241 LINDEN AVENUE MR. SCHWAB: We do have recommendations from the Planning Board , right? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's true. MR. SCHWAB: They are essentially interpreting this moratorium as - not in Charlie's way - he doesn' t have to - it is not applicable but at least the spirit of it . . . CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Well they recommend approval . . . MR. SCHWAB: Because the occupancy is going down. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: With the condition that the number of occupants be limited to eight and there is a minority objection by virtue of the fact that it was difficult , I would imagine, to enforce the number of people. MS. FARRELL: However the way we talked about changing the clause, that it would . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you suppose so? MR. WEAVER: It wouldn't have to be limited , as I understood it . MS. FARREk-U-: No legally limited to eight . MR. WEAVER: Well may I speak in support but based upon the question of what the intent was. And although it is not ` totally clear it seems to me they were trying to say that ' there is a moratorium on building that will increase the . occupancy - by that I mean the number of warm bodies that . can legally occupy a dwelling - I 'm reading into that quite . ^ ' � PAGE 63 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 a bit , I 'm afraid - however , I don' t know what else they could have meant . SECRETARY HOARD: Well otherwise, using Mr ' Schwab 's analogy, if you took a four apartment building and wanted to convert it back to a single family dwelling , like you were saying - it would make that move illegal - and I certainly don` t think they. . . MS. FABRE0L: Say that again please. SECRETARY HOARD: If you are saying that the total occupancy - you take a four apartment house - four apartments - and somebody said , I want to convert this to a single family dwelling , what he was saying is that he would have more people in the dwelling that would result in it being illegal under the interpretation that is suggested . I don' t think that they ever intended to prohibit making a four unit building down into a single family dwelling . MS. FARREK-k-: But if what we are thinking about - which is net - decrease in occupancy - net - decrease in number of . bedrooms or units - then it seems like this is a case that doesn' t need to come under this? MR. WEAVER: No , I wouldn` t agree to that , I agree that if we made that interpretation that it wouldn' t need to come before us as an appeal because the Building Commissioner doesn' t have a right to decide - in a close call - what the ' Code means, but rather to ask us for an interpretation or lacking that - we making an interpretation, even as a part of a granting or as a separate interpretation. The fact ' PAGE 64 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 that this is a temporary moratorium, possibly, at least as stated might well be good enough procedurally to never refer to our understanding , if we have a common understanding of the intent of the moratorium and that intent being as I am suggesting we might . . . MR. SCHWAB: Well one way to ask this - more generally - we would all know the concern of Common Council in that area and it wanted the moratorium to stop it - is there any way in which this new apartment would be less desireable to Common Council than the current apartment - current building? CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Well that 's the point I had raised essentially, I tried to get at with demonstrating hardship - it is difficult to be able to second guess what Council had in mind . For example, one could get into a scenario where everything were down-zoned or up-zoned or changed in one sense or another - nothing like it is at the moment - it ' s impossible to say. MR. SCHWAB: It seems to me - I think the overall intent is clear . Common Council doesn' t know what to do with this area, it wants a halt for one year while it thinks about it . CHAIRMAN l[OMLANz That 's right . MR. SCHWAB: (unintelligible) cases of hardship we can. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's where I 'm stuck , I see no hardship . ' MR. SCHWAB: I see no hardship but if we interpret this as . ` meaning you don' t have to show hardship if density is going . down - that 's fine and I think the way that makes me most . PAGE 65 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 comfortable with saying that is what this "a" means is, assuring ourselves there is no way in which this new building - whatever Common Council decides to do with this area . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could be in a better situation than that which we propose. I just need to be convinced of that because at this point , not knowing what Common Council wants to do , I 'm inclined to believe that we have to hold unless there is economical hardship . MS. FARRELL: Well , I mean. . . MR. WEAVER: Unless we, excuse me. . . MS. FARELk-: What was there could be grandfathered - what we changed it to could be grandfathered and what we change it to would be less density and less units. CHAIRMAN l[K]MLAN: Well what we are getting into is a scenerio where, again, we are doing the zoning for Common Council - we are essentially setting that - the way in which I interpret this entire thing is, essentially, they want to "hold" unless there is something really exceptional , . where someone is really being hurt and I don' t see that necessarily being the case. ' MR. SCHWAB: I don' t think that is the wording of this "a" as Charlie points out . This isn' t a complete moratorium, it says "no buildings that would increase the number of legal occupancy of the unit unless hardship is shown" . If, on the ' alternative we want a complete moratorium of all types, no ^ building at all unless hardship is shown, they would have PAGE 66 ~ , BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 probably written it a little different . They would have said "Building Commissioner no permits at all unless hardship is shown" . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No I don' t think they could have done that legally, Stewart . MS. FARRELL: But this is what we are looking at , I mean, I agree with Stewart , it doesn' t seem that what we are talking about is a condition under "a" so therefore we don` t need to talk about the hardship . It is not increasing the number of legal occupancy in a non-owner-occupied dwelling units in the area described . So it isn' t doing that but it doesn' t seem like you need to show hardship . . . CHAIRMAN l[0MLANz Then why are we - why is it before us for an exception to the moratorium . . . MS. FARRELk-: Because we are all reading this and deciding what the interpretation of this is and that seems to be a logical interpretation. MR. WEAVER: Because the Building Commissioner can' t interpret . . . I 'm not speaking lightly, I 'm serious - that where it comes to a matter of interpretation it is a matter ' to come before the Board . ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I guess I remain harder to convince ' in that respect . ^ MR. SCHWAB: Well , I guess, how do you interpret 1a? It says "you won' t issue a building permit which would increase the number or legal occupancy of the dwelling units" . Mr . Lower 's point is, or we are making it for him, this building PAGE 67 - - - - B7(:) MINUTES MINUTES - 4/7/86 permit would not increase the number or the legal occupancy and therefore is not subject to the moratorium. I think what having to do is read "a" essentially less precisely to ban all construction - all alterations, additions or new construction of any type unless hardship is shown. And I guess it doesn' t say - rather than saying any - cease to issue any building permit for alterations, additions or new construction of any kind, it says "construction which would increase" . . MS. FARRELLz It seems not to be concerned with something that decreases. . because that was the concern there. MR. SCHWAB: And so going back to my more general policy it seems very unlikely that Common Council would be concerned when a house decreases in occupancy - density. MR. WEAVER: I agree with you Stewart , the question is the mechanism by which we come to the conclusion with truly an inadequate presentation of hardship . I 'm assuming that you have seen the inadequacy in the proving hardship? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's for sure. I 'd be interested in seeing how you are going to put that together . I guess I 'm ^ willing to be convinced if you could . . . MR. WEAVER: Well this Board hasn' t - please I need some help on finding the section. . SECRETARY HOARD: On hardship? ^ MR. WEAVER: No , interpretation. SECRETARY HOARD: Bottom of page 30.48. It doesn` t say a lot . ' PAGE 68 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: That 's not much help Charlie. MR. WEAVER: You mean, we are making a mistake to look at the Ordinance? MR. SCHWAB: Well I guess the way the mechanism would be is a motion proving (unintelligible) perhaps this is a finding of fact , that the proposed construction would not increase but would rather decrease the number or legal occupancy of the unit , therefore under 30.01-1-a, this application is not subject to the moratorium. MS~ FARRELK-: Are you doing a . . . MR. SCHWAB: No I 'm not doing a motion. MS. FARRELLz Why don' t you do one? MR. SCHWAB: Do one? Okay. . . what the heck ' , ' PAGE 69 ----- ' -- --- BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1685 241 LINDEN AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of William Lower for an exception to the temporary Zoning Moratorium and for an area variance to permit the conversion of the multiple dwelling at 241 Linden Avenue from nine apartments plus one room to rent to five apartments, with no increase in density . The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board approve the exception to the temporary zoning moratorium and the request for an area variance. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT - ZONING MORATORIUM: 1 ) The proposed construction would not increase but would rather decrease the number and the legal occupancy of the building at 241 Linden Avenue. 2) Therefore under our interpretation of Section 30.01-1a this application is not subject to the moratorium of September 49 1985. � PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT - AREA VARIANCE: . 1 > The proposal will not increase the deficiencies in lot area and setbacks for one side yard and the rear yard depth . 2) The off-street parking, while still deficient will be less deficient than under the existing use. PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 3) There is practical difficulty in complying with side yards and rear yard depth requirements, and lot area, which can only be corrected by moving the house. 4) The proposed use is consistent with the character of the neighborhood . VOTE: 4 YES; 0 NO; 2 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 71 MORE DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1685 DURING THE MOTION TO GRANT AND BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: MR. SCHWAB: I am making no finding on hardship. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You need to have a finding on hardship - that is part of the appeals procedure. MR. SCHWAB: I don 't think so. I am saying this is the moratorium does not apply - I am saying because of the finding that decreasing density the moratorium does not apply to this proposal . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But you have to address the question of the appeals procedure. You have to say something about its demonstrating hardship. MS. FARRELL: I don't think you do - why do you if it doesn't seem like it fits? SECRETARY HOARD: It becomes an area variance. MS. FARRELL: It is still an area variance. MR. SCHWAB: Oh, maybe I need - I probably do need further findings on the area variance. MR. WEAVER: But if that is expressed as one of the findings it would seem to me beyond that we could ignore the proof of hardship. MR. SCHWAB: There has been demonstration that this would decrease rather than increase the number of legal occupancy. That ' s the finding of fact made. And what we are saying, if we agree to it, is that that finding of fact is sufficient to say the moratorium does not apply. If the proposal increased the number of legal occupancy then our conclusion would be the moratorium applies and one must find a hardship to be granting a variance out of the moratorium. So under the proposed motion we aren' t giving a variance to the moratorium - MR. WEAVER: And we are (unintelligible) the area variance. MR. SCHWAB: We aren' t exempting the individual from the provisions of the moratorium which is what the finding of hardship - we are declaring that the moratorium does not apply to this application. MS. FARRELL: So the case doesn' t - yeh, right. MR. SCHWAB: Rather then, it applies and we exempt it. . . MR. WEAVER: I guess the only people that could sue us would be Common Council and neighbors. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 've had it. MR. SCHWAB: Well , what this is saying - I 'm not sure what we say - Mr. Hoard will do in future cases but either he or us will say - whenever a proposal up until next September - comes in that proposes to decrease the number and legal occupancy of the unit, one should ignore the moratorium as far as it goes and just treat it as an application from the rest of the City. Page 72 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are saying that or you are not saying that? MR. SCHWAB: I am saying that would be the import of what we are doing tonight. We are setting a precedent for establishing an interpretation. I am not - again - in a close case whether the number of legal occupancy would go up and down should be brought to the Board - otherwise it strikes me the Building Commissioner could handle this. MR. WEAVER: It would encourage administerial conclusions in such a case. MR. SCHWAB: That if the proposal is proposing to decrease density - we' ll say it is okay up there. Increases have to show hardship. MS. FARRELL: I agree with that - (unintelligible) MR. WEAVER: Is it appropriate to have more than one second to a motion? MR. SCHWAB: I guess we could throw in as another thing - the Planning Board - although they didn't quite go into this level of detail on intent of this moratorium - seemed clearly in accord or agreed that this was - purpose of the moratorium was to be worried about increases in density - not decreases in density. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let me run by a scenerio - what happens if in fact there is a slight decrease - and as a administerial action it is waived through and Common Council in its wisdom down zones further beyond the point that has been okayed. See where I get a little queasy? I can't tell you exactly which way Common Council is going to go - nobody can. MR. SCHWAB: Well you are saying - well take this case - this case is currently zoned Okay for 11 people. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right and we are bringing down to 8 - it seems perfectly reasonable. MR. SCHWAB: And you are saying Common Council could come down to 4. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: 4 - 6 - 7 whatever. MR. SCHWAB: The point is - is that it would grandfather in 11 just as well as it would grandfather in 8 - I mean it is going to have to grandfather in the current house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, but the intent of Council was to wait until such time as they could get 4 or 6 or 7 in place, is my argument you see? SECRETARY HOARD: It would be grandfathered if that. . . MR. SCHWAB: But 11 . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But in any event by not granting it at this point and having it come back at some other point you are only doing so much. . . Ak. SCHWAB: We are only doing so much but it certainly - even then - in the right direction. Under your scenerio - would Common Council prefer a house grandfathered at 11 or a house grandfathered at 8? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That seems easy and obvious but in effect I 'm still .. . MS. FARRELL: Well I think we can only deal with what is written here and it seems like Page 73 our interpretation is fair - paying attention to part a. MR. SCHWAB: What convinces me is - I think it is the more natural reading of the words of "a" and it seems to me consistent with what both the Planning Board - and - we just generally know that they are concerned with density there. Decreases in density were not a concern with the moratorium. MS. FARRELL: This is still an area variance. . VOTE WAS TAKEN AT THIS POINT PAGE 74 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is APPEAL NO. 8686 FOR 415 ELM STREET: Appeal of Richard and Patricia Dunn for a use variance under Section 30.255 Column 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the two-family dwelling at 415 Elm Street to a four apartment multiple dwelling . The property is located in an R-2a (Residential , one- and two-family dwelling ) Use District in which the proposed use is not permitted ; therefore under Section 30.57 the appellants must obtain a use variance before a building permit or certificate of occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening . MR. D0NN: Good evening . I 'm Richard Dunn and this is my wife Pat . We've made a purchase offer on 415 Elm Street with the contingency of the variance. MRS. DUNN: We are asking for the variance in that the house is over six thousand square foot in size. There is already four units - four beautiful units of good size, with no problem. We propose to put it up to fire standards, put a new kitchen in on the third floor , enlarge the bathroom on the first , (unintelligible) put vinyl siding (unintelligible) as the outside is in bad repair and needs something done immediately on clapboard window sills. . . PAGE 75 - - -' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. DUNN: On the back of the house - the front is not as bad . The back is in real bad shape. MRS. DUNN: The roof on the barn needs to be done immediately or I 'm afraid the barn is going to come down. It is already in the four units, we are just asking for a variance to be able to make use of all four units as the house is much too large and would be much too expensive for us to even consider as a single family. It has been on the market over four years - or I guess it is four years right now - it has never had a single family inquiry. It is bordering West Village, which I believe is a different zone. I believe across the street they are zoned differently. It is centered - just about center on two point six two acres of land . There is ample parking for five cars or six cars. We actually are not asking for any more - we don' t feel that there will be any more cars there when the owner and her children are leaving - I think it will make up the difference in what we are asking to be able to rent so there will not be a bigger traffic flow or it will not prove to be a lot of people on the area. Each unit is - I don' t know exactly but they must run approximately one thousand to fifteen hundred square foot per unit and they are beautiful . ' ^ The house itself is absolutely beautiful other than the ^ outside being in need of repair and the inside just being ^ brought up to what the Code require for four units. ' MS. FARREQ_: Are there any changes that you propose to make ' to the outside of the house? ' PAGE 76 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MRS. DUNN: The back has to be done immediately. Water has gotten in around the clapboards and around the fire place. MR. DUNN: There will be no structural change. Just fix the siding . MRS. 0UNN: It will stay right in character with the neighborhood , just as it is, but we would like to put siding, shutters, do new landscaping , clean out a lot of shrubs and bring it back to its federal look . It is a beautiful home and it needs to have the upkeep done on it to bring it back to the original . MS. FARREk-L: The apartments that there are that number of parking spaces there now? MR~ 0UNN: Yes, it is blacktopped - it has a circle drive. MR. SCHWAB: You say there are four units already, were they used in the past or why are there four units there, do you have any idea? MRS. D0NN: I believe at one point I think originally Mr . Schickle put the four units in. It is now being rented as owner-occupied , one apartment and two unrelated girls - they are not able to use them under the zoning - the way it is ' right now. We do have to put in fire rated doors and jambs and (unintelligible) but there is actually four units broken ` up right now. ' MR. WEAVER: So when you say units you are saying four . bathrooms, four kitchens? MRS. DUNN: Yes. We are putting in a new kitchen on the third floor , if we get the variance. PAGE 77 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. DUNN: Everything else is there - the two apartments on the second floor has two kitchens and two bathrooms. MRS. DUNN: It has new insulation in it - it has new storms on it , I think that Mrs. Jackson has done the very best that you could ever expect any one single woman to do with that size house and it being a hardship to her - she has put what she has been able to put into it has been done where it is necessary - but the outside - it is now necessary to do something with it . The house has twenty-eight rooms so , obviously, you know, it would be impossible to think of having it for a single family. MR. SCHWAB: What about a two family? MRS. D#NN: I do not think you could afford it . You couldn' t afford the upkeep to have two families in it . MR. SCHWAB: Just the upkeep , you are saying , (unintelligible) MRS. %3UNN: Well the taxes, the cost of it , the repairs, the doing the outside - on a house that size - just paint alone would be tremendous, not to mention siding or shutters or anything . Two families - I don' t believe could support . that. I think that is one reason why she is having such a hard time. She is trying - and I think she has done a ' wonderful job . . . ^ MR. SCHWAB: Do you know what the taxes are on it? ' MRS. D0NN: Thirty-four hundred a year . We intend to do all ' our own maintenance - we intend to do all our own landscaping and snow removal - leaves - lawns - we live PAGE 78 . - ' - - -- — BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 right in the City - I 've been a resident of Ithaca my whole life - I was born here. We eventually intend to move (unintelligible) We have a home we own down in Ithaca, downtown Ithaca. MR. SCHWAB: The concern I have in the application is that in showing the use variance - what is required is the showing of evidence that the allowed use - which would be a two-family - just isn' t feasible - I mean the house looks big to me - it is big - can you give me some more detail? MR. 0UNN: It has been on the market for four years and this is the first time that anyone - I guess she has had a couple other offers but they wouldn' t go through the zoning . There was a bed and breakfast at one time, somebody wanted it for that - that was turned down. MR. SCHWAB: Was she asking too much money? MR. D0NNz No . MRS. DUNN: No , I don' t think so . The house is structurally beautiful and it is sound . MR. DUNNz It is in the City, just on the edge of the City - ` it has (unintelligible) . . . ' MRS. DUNNz As a matter of fact (unintelligible) problem ' with unable to find tenants or unable to find a single family or someone who could afford to rent , own it as a ' (unintelligible) I think the price is probably - I would say it is very reasonable for the quality and what you are getting as far - but there is no way that you could operate ' it - this is why our contingency (unintelligible) to get a ' PAGE 79 ` - — BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 variance because we couldn' t afford to live or live there and have another (unintelligible) it would be impossible. [note: people were walking in and out of the small conference room - and were very noisy - therefore the tape didn' t pick up Mr & Mrs Dunn's dialogue clearly] MR. SCHWAB: How long has she been there? MR. DUNN: I 'm not sure, she is here tonight , but I 'm not sure how long she has been there. CHAIRMAN 7[OMLANz Further questions from members of the Board? You weren' t at all familiar with the previous request for a variance - the last one in '84 - March of '84 - you didn' t see any of that - just checking . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? MS~ JACKSON: I 'm Judy Jackson, I own the house at 415 Elm Street . The basis on which we are applying for this is on hardship , the history being that it has been on the market for four years, I 've had a number of offers on the house, not out of line with the amount of money I am asking , as a . matter of fact I had one in December for exactly the same , amount as the Dunn's are offering . The people couldn' t sell ^ their own house, they just couldn' t follow through on it but ' - the price I don' t feel is out of line - it was eighty thousand dollars ten and one-half years ago and it has about twenty thousand dollars put into it and that kind of appreciation (unintelligible) twenty-five thousand scale ' (unintelligible) inflation rate averaging the last ten and PAGE 80 - -- -- BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 one-half years on your own house. I 've been here twice before asking for variances - the first time was for the bed and breakfast , everybody liked the idea but the Board's response was that I hadn't had it on the market long enough to prove that it couldn' t sell as a single family - and at that time it had been on the market for maybe two months. So I came back again two years later and asked just for permission to turn it into a multiple unit just so I could have that variance on it to make it attractive for somebody to buy and the response was, no they wanted - they weren' t saying they didn' t like the idea specifically but they wanted a specific proposal such as the Dunn's are making . The zoning behind me, I believe, is R3 - it is West Village. On my side of the street , which is behind West Village is R-2a and across the street they are 1a, (unintelligible) and change in there and under the hardship regulations, as I understand them, the variance we are asking for would not change the use or the neighborhood any substantial way, such as putting in a school or a gas station or something really dramatic other than just a residential area. I think that ' is about all I have to say, I ' ll be glad to answer any ' ' questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could you address the question of hardship , financial hardship , a little further? MS. JACKSON: It is real expensive. . (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Specific figures, so far as taxes, so far as income - expected - I mean, we've seen you before, we are PAGE 81 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 looking at one another for the second or third time, I 'm glad that you have been able to catch up , I mean, be able to add to your application in this way. What I am trying to do is get more information . . more of the specifics that essentially lead you to come here. MS. JACKSON: Why do I want to sell the house? Is that what You are saying? MR. WEAVER: No , outside of the capitol investment you have in the property, what - other than the financing - what does it cost to carry it in taxes, heat , light , power , and . . . MS. JACKSON: As of now, before they raise everything , about three thirty a month in taxes and about twenty-five, two fifty in utilities, MR. WEAVER: Heat? MS. JACKSON: That includes heat . It needs some repairs though . If I took out a loan, for example, to make the repairs probably would be at least seven hundred dollars a month in the types of things that they were talking about doing. MR. SCHWAB: So you bought it ten and one-half years ago for eighty thousand dollars, and put twenty-five thousand into it , is that what you are saying? MS. JACKSON: It was kind of a (unintelligible) and we fixed . it but since then I have also put in one apartment plus . fixed up the rooms that I rent out too so that has been in addition to what we put in originally and to repair it . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Can we talk about the question of how often ^ PAGE 82 ' ^ BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 you have had an offer on it? You said , you have had two or three offers? I was just kind of curious as to what those were about . MS. JACKSON: Okay - just before Christmas I had an offer for the same amount of money as the Dunn's were offering , it was contingent upon the people being able to sell their own house, which they weren' t able to do . CHAIRMAN l[OMLANc Was that a single-family arrangment? MS. JACKSON: No , I haven' t had any single-family arrangements offered , they have all been. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What did they propose? MS. JACKSON: Three or four units, I forget which . CHAIRMAN l[OMK-AN: I see but they never got before us? That deal fell through , and the next one? MS. JACKSON: That was the most recent one before this. Prior to that? A year ago - I think it was a year ago this time some people wanted to convert it to four units, they didn' t want to do what you have to do to come here - I don' t know if you all appreciate what it takes to organize an appeal like this - the Dunn's have worked very hard and have spent a long time and not a small amount of money - not ^ everybody is willing to do that . It also is a problem, too , ' with people who - the Dunn's and I got together fairly early ' in the year - the offer a year ago, they didn' t see the ' house until March or April , I forget what it was, but by the ' time they could organize their appeal , everything would have ` gone through, it would have been middle to late summer and PAGE 83 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 that gets expensive - then it 's a problem of getting everything ready so they can rent what they are not going to - getting everything converted and getting a loan and getting the work done so you can rent it out before everybody is finished renting out for the year in September . So (unintelligible) both of those. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: So there was a question of timing . Okay. And the previous one to that? I 'm trying to get a track record, trying to get some idea of what you have gone through . MS. JACKSON: Let 's see there was one - actually I think between that and the people at Christmas, I think it was between that there was a person who wanted to buy it and he wanted to use it as a rooming house. He didn' t want to pay enough money for it so we didn' t get together on that . I can' t remember right now anything between the original people who were interested in using it as a bed and breakfast . . . It seemed like there was at least one a year . I think there was something between those two , but I can' t recall what it was right now. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And in the meantime you continue to more ' or less make do? You are operating at a loss? ' MS. JACKSON: Well I live there, I don' t know what you ' exactly mean by a loss. It 's not - you've got to pay to ' live somewhere so - yes, it costs me money to live there, it ' cost me more money than I really feel I can afford to ' continue to do this - my goal is to find a place that I can PAGE 84 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 afford to maintain, I feel like I make do but it is difficult . MS. FARRELLz Well it also sounds like the maintenance is catching up with you - you make do and then . . . MS. JACKSON: That's true. I have taken extremely good care of the inside of the house, I mean that 's where I have put my money into - the outside shows it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: What is your asking price? MS. JACKSON: One hundred and twenty-five. MR. SCHWAB: So you are essentially trying to break even. Well , no that 's not true. Eighty thousand you bought it for , twenty-five thousand invested, that 's one hundred and five over ten years. . . MS. JACKSON: It would have appreciated over ten years. MR. SCHWAB: Yes - I guess - maybe twenty thousand dollars over ten years. . CHAIRMAN l[OMLANc Question Charlie? MR. WEAVER: No . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? . MR. D0RMAD}Yc I 'm Jim Dormady, I live at 403 Elm Street . .Pfn I m what you would call an interested party, I live within . one hundred and fifty feet . I have nothing to gain or lose here, I ' ll just put the facts on the table as they are, as far as I can see. I 've lived at 403 Elm Street for ^ PAGE 85 ' ` BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 twenty-three years. The property in question was rented out as a four apartment unit when I first moved on Elm Street . I have no qualms - the neighborhood and everything else - there are no problems with renting that out as a four apartment unit . The house is big enough - I don' t see how one person - even a two-family unit - could actually afford the upkeep on a house that large. I live in a seven room house and - the way taxes and everything else go - along with the heat bill - tack on a house with twenty some odd rooms has got to be enormous. I personally live adjacent to West Village - they built it in my back yard - you've got two hundred and thirty three apartments on seventeen acres and you are talking four apartments on two point some acres. The house and the apartments - when it was operated as apartments - were no problem to the neighborhood . The house has always been well kept and I am familiar with both parties here so basically I would say in favor that I think the four apartment units would support that house and would not hurt the neighborhood at all . CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? Thank you. MR~ SCHWAB: Do you have any feelings from the other neighbors one way or the other? MR. D0RMADY: Yes they would like to get West Village to hell out of there. . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: You've got the wrong Board . . PAGE 86 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. D0RMADY: I have no feelings from the other neighbors. If they had any opposition they would be here, I would think . CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAN: Is there someone else out there? I thought there was - who would like to speak in favor . MS. DATZ: I 'm Johanna Datz , you've probably seen my face before, Cascadilla Realty. I 've had this on the market for- sale orsale as the listing broker for four years now. I would like to just read the letter that I wrote to the Board , I don' t know if everyone got a copy - it just reiterates the essence of the whole situation. "Board of Zoning Appeals: This letter is to express my concern, as the listing broker , regarding the Jackson property at 415 Elm Street , City of Ithaca. The above property has been actively marketed on multiple listing for a period of four years now. It is my professional opinion that this twenty-three room house will never sell , under current zoning regulations, as a single family residence, with an accessory apartment . Ms. Jackson has been before this board on two prior occasions with requests for a variance. Upon this third request , the board must be aware of the following facts: ( 1 ) The house is approximately six thousand square feet , and three stories high . 2) The lot size is 2.63 acres within the city line. (3) The rear property line of 415 Elm Street abutts West ' Village, a large scale housing complex , zoned R3a. The ' ` subject property is zoned R2a. The properties across the street from the front yard , are zoned Ria. Therefore, the ' PAGE 87 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 subject property is literally between a veritable rock , and a hard spot . The History of the Marketing of this property is: 1 ) Upon the first request for a variance, to turn 415 Elm Street into a bed and breakfast inn, the property had only been actively marketed for a period of two months time. It was the BZA's ruling on that request , that the property had not been on the market long enough , to consider it a hardship case for the seller . And I would just like to add at that time, other comments were given by one of the Zoning Officers that if it had been on the market six months to a year the Board might at that time start to consider it as a hardship case. Now we are into the end of the fourth year . (2) After two and a half year 's active market time, multiple listing , and extensive other marketing procedures, and still no prospective purchasers, Ms. Jackson again approached the BZA for a variance on a hardship basis, asking for approval on conversion of the property to a four to six unit dwelling , within the present 6000 square foot building . The BZA ruled that they would not give blanket consent for this conversion, but would hear specific and detailed proposals along with any serious purchase offer on the property, on a new proposed use. (3) Tonight , after four years of hardship in selling this property, Ms. Jackson's case returns to this board . There is a specific and detailed proposal for conversion of the property at 415 Elm Street to a four unit dwelling . In my opinion, this is the most ' benign use the neighborhood could hope for , for this PAGE 88 . _ BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 property, without condemning the owner , a single parent with three children, to living in, and maintaining, a twenty-three room, 6,000 square foot house, for the rest of her life. It has also been my impression that rulings have been handed down in the past by this board , without the board members having first hand familiarity with the property itself, and its actual magnitude. Since this is a serious request , with consequence of great importance not only to the purchaser , but also to the seller , I urge you, as board members to discuss this matter with reference to the nature of the property, with Thomas Hoard , who has taken the time to make a personal visit to the Jackson residence, and tour the premises, to better comprehend the physical magnitude of this dwelling , and the problems involved in selling it as a single family dwelling . Thank you for your cooperation.~ /s/ Johanna Lewis Datz , Cascadilla Realty. I would be glad to answer any questions on the marketing situation over the past four years. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions? MR. SCHWAB: Why won' t - this could be a one or two family house - two hundred and fifty dollars a month in utilities strikes me as amazingly low for such a large house - my house is practically that - taxes are thirty-four hundred . dollars - that seems to be a fair amount - a hundred - a hundred twenty-five thousand dollars - someone with several kids - why can' t they sell it? A house like this, with this cost would easily sell in other parts of the City. ' ' PAGE 89 ' - - -- BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MS. DATZ: There isn' t another house like this in other parts of the City. MR. SCHWAB: Well is it just the size of it or ' . ' MS. DATZ: Yes the magnitude - would you - I mean, it is unfair to ask without you having been in this house - and that is why I asked you to consult with Tom Hoard, who has taken the tour - would you buy a twenty-three room house, even if you had five kids - under present circumstances? There is, right now, peeling paint throughout the outside of the house - Judy has had estimates which ran all in the vicinity of twelve thousand dollars to paint the house, number 1 . Any improvement that you have to do on a house of this size is going to be huge in terms of cost and labor . People nowadays have gone to energy conservation and are thinking more compact - definitely more compact than twenty-three plus rooms - and I think the other number of twenty-eight was mentioned - well I 'm not including bathrooms and pantries and halls and laundry areas and extra areas besides the twenty-three rooms. But there is not , I am convinced and when I say "never" after four years - there is not a person who has looked at this in four years, for a single family residence. MR. SCHWAB: I hear you almost saying regardless of cost it is just too big? MS. DATZ: It is a white elephant for a single family house. And again, I urge the people on this Board because I feel that people don' t realize - they think we are just talking . PAGE 90 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 | about a big house - don' t realize what it is and I think it . was a real eye opener for the Building Inspector who came ' and Tom Hoard , once they toured the house. ^ MR. SCHWAB: I 've seen the outside of the house - it is a ' big house there is no doubt about that . ' MS~ DATZ: I don' t think you can really comprehend until you ` have been inside, how rambling - it is like a hotel . In terms of your other question, I would like to address something you brought up - while Judy is just about breaking . even - well , when someone owns a house for ten and one-half years they don' t expect to just break even on what they ' purchased it for and she is just about doing that . By rights the house should have appreciated to about a hundred eighty-five thousand at this point in time but because it is a - let 's say - defunct use at this point in time - for all intensive purposes it hasn' t appreciated, it has depreciated in essence, based on single-family use. ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie, I thought you had a question? MR. WEAVER: Oh , I don' t think I have a question, well maybe, do you find there is a prejudice on this particular location - in other words, if I 've got the bucks to buy this and support , I 'm not going to buy that one because of its location? MS. DATZ: That 's something else I have brought up at a ' previous meeting and I 'm glad some of the same people are still here and might remember , but when someone is going to purchase a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollar house, ' PAGE 91 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 they definitely consider location, location and location and that does not mean a location with a chain link fence back to a two hundred thirty-three unit apartment complex that is subsidized by federal housing . If you have a choice to make on a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollar property, that would probably not be the location. MR. SCHWAB: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the apartment complex building roughly? MS. DATZ: I wasn' t in Ithaca at that time, it predates Judy's purchase, I believe. MR. SCHWAB: So it was there when she bought the house? MS. DATZ: I would also mention, because this was brought up last time, someone said , why did you buy the house? Judy's situation, in terms of hardship now - she is a single parent with three children. When she bought the house they were a married family and better able to cope with maintenance at that point . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? MS. M0OREc I would like to speak in favor . ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right , then by all means come forward . We' ll count this in favor . MS. MOORE: I am Harriet Moore from J. D. Gallagher , the selling agent and I 've been asked to make it clear that the buyer 's visited all the neighbors in the neighborhood and that at least ninety-five percent of them were in favor of PAGE 92 ' ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 using this for a four unit dwelling and I believe there are no neighbors here tonight to oppose this. They are glad to see that something is being done and that the house has deteriorated gradually through the years and that Judy Jackson cannot keep it up, and again, I don' t believe there are any neighbors here tonight to oppose it . And I wonder how long we are going to ask Ms. Jackson to carry this albatross? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could you tell me about the five percent who are opposed? MS. MOORE: I think that they are only a couple of people and I am not sure who they were but I don' t even believe that they were that opposed because they aren' t here tonight . CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Fine. Is there any question from members of the Board? (none) Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting the variance? Then, is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (none) That being the case - the white elephant - she is . ours. ^ MR. WEAVER: Albatross. ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh , albatross, I heard white elephant . earlier . . MS. FARRELL: I heard both . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We heard both, yes. I remembered . elephant . ' PAGE 93 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1686 415 ELM STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Richard and Patricia Dunn for a use variance to permit the conversion of the two-family dwelling at 415 Elm Street to a four apartment multiple dwelling . The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the use variance requested in appeal number 1686. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 > For the past four years the owner has continually tried to sell this extremely large property which contains twenty-three rooms. 2} A realtor testified that it has been impossible to sell the property as a single-family house. Anyone who has ever shown interest in buying the house has wanted to convert it into additional units. 3) There are unique problems associated with selling this large house as a single-family property because of its location adjacent to a large apartment complex . 4) The owner and a neighbor have testified that the property was previously used as a four apartment unit with ' no negative impact on the neighborhood . 5) The property has no area deficiencies nor would the proposed changes create any deficiencies. Therefore to ask PAGE 94 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 the owner to continue to try to sell this house as a one or two-family unit would create a financial hardship . VOTE: 4 YES; 0 NO; 2 ABSENT USE VARIANCE GRANTED ' PAGE 95 BZA MINUTES 4/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: 1-1-,e-: lie:?t yi-tp lea l i.s APPEAL NO. 1687 FOR 427 CAMPBELL AVENUE: Appeal of Anthony and Barbara Schultz for a Special Permit under Section 30.27 (Accessory Apartment Ordinance) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction and use of a single family dwelling plus accessory apartment at 427 Campbell Avenue. The property is located in an R-1a (Residential , single-family dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use requires a Special Permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals MR. SCHULTZ: M,?, riarr,e is Scl-t!t1.t'z arid l r-im the: ow,11el-' of the <-it 427 Campbea l .l Avei'it..te„ I a.fr, i-.'e?:at_tpst i i'ig cc,iisic.1ei-atic,ii fc,'i' this special h:,er'rr,it to bc.ti. ld a iietra C,Wdiie(" G,C'C=t.t17].e?� h10Mez Orl that site with an aGCeSSG,rV Apai-tfr,eiit . The sgUare fc,c,tage is t=,ai.th.i.n the regUi.rc�fnents of the new zoi`sing change as well . [ tli`ci'i4: at 'the rnc,riieiit the best l ?:-ail do is aiiswer' a;i'y gt_te: 't:i.c,'f'is t-hiat might be bi-c,t_t?aht i::he 1ayc,t,tt !::tr;?:1 the design, l bel :i.evf !, speak 1'c,i' thie:rnt.el.Y.e=:. MR. SCHWAB: Thie eiii;r<-iiic ?e {::?, l:tii: t-iFa,::ti trr�eiit i.s trat�F-:i-e: ' MR. SCHULTZ: It i=_.. iii tIte I-iasefnen't; leve=l .. MR. SCHWAB: Elac:l-:: q fi-ont c:,'i- side" MR. SCHULTZ: It is c:,i-, the side., 1-he oii.ly :i.sst_ter 1: have, 1-ic-.?i'e: i s t h a t 't:h i s: would become ct fn].i"'"i"'t,,i' i f-ii a g e •_ _. c .. gai'-age bei.rig loo-a.ted c,ii the other side. "rhe s1.(:,Pe away dY-astica..11y oil this partit:..U.1ai" lcit ai'lc1 a,; a rec=_t 1.].t 0f• PAGE. 96 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 having to worry about a large amount of fill , it will just be moved to the opposite side of what now shows the north portion of the building - will be the south portion actually. The actual layout will be just reversed . And it ' is a two story apartment , portion of which is in the basement and obviously on the first floor. - the main portion of the house - two bedroom apartment . MR. WEAVER: Maybe I can save some time here. Mr . Commissioner , on the worksheet it shows no deficiencies. Can we read that to mean that the plans as submitted in all respects meet the requirements of the accessory apartment ordinance? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes they do . MR. SCHWAB: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ' MR. SCHULTZ: I probably sound a little bit more conservative than liberal . ' M�. ����E�: We don' t know what that is either so . . MR. GCHQLTZ: Okay. ' MR. SCHWAB: I drove up through there yesterday but couldn' t ^ . find exactly where 427 is, is it right . . . . MR. SCHQLTZc As you make the left turn off North Taylor , . there is still a lot that is owned by a Mr . John McLean. Now between Mr . Cesear George and the corner is the portion I own, which would be on the east side of Campbell Avenue. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tracy, any questions? MS. FARRELL: No . PAGE 97 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Okay, thanks. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance or special permit? (no one) Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (no one) That being the case I ' ll entertain a motion. PAGE 99 li, is C'17i'dlJiC: 3 4r"1r'86 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1657 427 CAMPBELL AVENUE The Beard of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Anthony & Barbara Schulte for a Special Permit to permit the construction and use of a single family dwelling plus accessory apartment at 427 Campbell Avenue. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the request for a Special Permit in Appeal Number 1657 for an accessory apartment. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT: 1 ) The proposed structure meets all of the requirements of the Ordinance as stated. VOTE: 4 YES; O NO; 2 ABSENT VARIANCE GRANTED BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1688 FOR 717-717-1/2 WEST COURT STREET: Appeal of the American Red Cross for an area variance for deficient lot width and deficient setback for one side yard under Section 30.25, Columns 7 and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the structure at 717-1/2 ' West Court Street to a five-bedroom unit . The building, which currently contains a two-bedroom apartment and a garage, is located in a B-4 . (business) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted . However , under Section 30.57 the . appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or certificate of occupancy can be issued for the . proposed conversion. ' MS. SILVERMAN: My name is Deidre Silverman, I am the Assistant Director of the Red Cross and specifically I am in charge of the Emergency Shelter and Emergency Service Programs. We've been operating the Emergency Shelter at 717 West Court Street since last August and - if I can just take a couple of seconds to answer a question that came up - I think it was during the first appeal - as to what happens to ' ' the people who get displaced when the single rooms disappear - they come to me, okay? And we have to deal with the impossibility of finding other places for them to live. Our clients are primarily living on public assistance. The PAGE 100 ^ BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 public assistance rent allowance for a single person in the City of Ithaca - including heat and utilities - is one hundred and sixty-five dollars a month , and there is virtually nothing that 's available at that rate. This is a problem all over the State and because of that we have received money from the State of New York to convert the back building into five bedrooms with shared living space. Now I can understand the Building Department 's objection to that kind of shared living space but no one else is going to be able to rent to these clients - virtually no one. Because both the purchase of the building and the renovations have been subsidized through the Gannatt Foundation, City of Ithaca and now the State of New York , we will be able to afford to rent the rooms at prices that these people can afford to pay. The apartment is currently occupied by four people - we are proposing to increase the occupancy to five. We will add an additional parking space - we currently have two spaces on-site and three through agreement at the Finger Lakes Fabricating location - we will add another space on the property. Virtually none of our clients at the Emergency Shelter have cars - it is something like fewer than five percent of the people who stay there and we anticipate that the people who live in the back building will not have cars. I suppose I should address, right from the beginning , the letter that you received from the Robinsons, which I just found out about at quarter of nine this evening . I imagine you all got copies of that . I ^ PAGE 101 -- --- -- - - - BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 spoke to the Robinsons before I sent out the notice of the appeal - Mrs. Robinson indicated that they had no problems. I spoke to Mr . Robinson the following week after they had received the appeal and he indicated that they had no problem. This letter is the first indication that I 've had of any problems. MR. WEAVER: Well are there any problems? MS. SDLVERMANz Well I know from speaking with Bob Romanowski that some employees of the Department of Social Services have parked their cars in the driveway and he has tried to talk to them and he has had trouble with them and I 've been talking to them and I 've been talking to their supervisors. I don' t think that there have been problems -- I I know that on one occasion the Robinsons called me and I spoke to the people who lived in the back building about it . As I said , I anticipate that - because we will be renting to low income people - the number of vehicles that would be around the buildings would be greatly reduced . I should also mention that the staff of the Emergency Shelter do not have cars. One of the problems of working for Human Service Agencies is that often you get paid so little that you can` t afford to own a car , and none of the people who work in the shelter have cars. The Shelter has twenty-four hour supervision, there are staff people there all the time to ` deal with neighbor 's complaints. The Robinsons have never approached any staff person in the Shelter with a complaint ' about the driveway or the situation around the building . ' ^ PAGE 102 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 Our response from the neighbors in general has been very favorable and I do have a letter of support - I don' t have enough copies but if you would pass this around - the letter of support from Dr . Nezveski who owns the property directly across the street . MB. FARRELL: Is that who you rent the parking spaces from? MS. SILVERp$ANz No . We rent the other spaces from the Wallace Corporation that owns the Finger Lakes Fabricating lot . Another point that I would like to make is that in this neighborhood - this neighborhood has traditionally been owner-occupied houses. In compiling the list to notify the property owners in the neighborhood , I noticed that between - we notified thirty-four property owners - there are very narrow lots and everybody is very close to one another . Last year there were eight absentee owners, this year there are fourteen, so the neighborhood is definitely changing and I think the feeling among most of the neighbors - and the property that we are in had an absentee owner before we bought it - I think the feeling among most of the neighbors is that having the twenty-four hour supervision has been very effective in keeping problems at a minimum and the ' neighbors have been very supportive of the Shelter being there. ' MS. FARRELL: You currently own the back building right? Who is renting it now and how many cars are associated with them? PAGE 103 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MS. SILVERMAN: One. Although I imagine that they have visitors. It would be possible for us to write leases for the back building - which would require people to keep their cars off the property - to use the spaces at the Finger Lakes Fabricating lot . CHAIRMAN 7[K}MLAN: I seem to remember the last time you were before us - that is, the Group was before us, not specifically you - that we had had comments from the neighbors as well and this seems to crop up again here. Obviously it is not going away or not going away easily. And obviously you are in close quarters, I mean there is no question about that . Has there been any attempt to get together , I mean - has there been any dialogue between yourself and your neighbors in such a way as to decrease the friction which apparently is there? MS. SILVERMANz Well as I said , I have not been aware of any. This is the first I 've heard of it since - I think this one time when there was a snow storm in December . Now this is the first communication that I 've had about any problems - they haven' t approached my staff - if I had been aware that there were these problems I certainly would have ' tried to do something about it . I also think that the parking plan that we've proposed , which would involve creating this space perpendicular to the existing spots, will enable the cars that park in the two existing spaces to back up into that perpendicular area and thereby avoid ' they have been going over into the Robinson's side of the ' PAGE 104 ` ` ^ BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 driveway - avoid doing that . It is very hard when you have a shared driveway - to say which side belongs to who - most cars are more than half a driveway wide. CHAIRMAN TQMLAN; Well I would find it impossible to make it down that driveway without being on someones else's land but that is perhaps because of my automobile being wider than yours. SECRETARY HOARD: It 's the way you drive. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: That could be it , too . Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: What is the average length of tenancy for the people - how long are they there? MS. S%K-VERMAN: In the Emergency Shelter? MR. SCHWAB: Right . MS. SDLVERMANc They are generally there for five days - five days is the average. MR. SCHWAB: The point is basically is - the back shelter now - you can have four people there and you are trying to ' change it to five? MS. SILVERMANc Well the back apartment is a two bedroom apartment and the ground floor is unoccupied garage space - it is not used as a garage either . The plan is to create two bedrooms on the first floor , which would be handicapped accessible (unirite lligible) , enclose the staircase between . the two floors and have an additional bedroom upstairs so ' there would be five bedrooms which would be occupied by ' single individuals. PAGE 105 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MR. SCHWAB: So it would go from two bedrooms to five bedrooms? MS. S3LVERMAN: Yes. MS. FARRELL: And those people would be long term tenants? MS. SILVERMAN: Yes. MS. FARREk-L: As opposed to your five day. . . MS. SILVERMAN: No , no . The people who are staying for five - the average of five days - are staying in the Emergency Shelter which is the front building . MS. FARRELk-: Right . MS. SIk-VERMAN: This would be the back building - the people who are staying there now are on a ten month lease. Presumably the people who would be staying there in the future would be on a long term lease. CHAIRMAN l[OMLANc Further questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? MS. FARRELk-: Wait , I do have one question, excuse me. Where have the people been parking - like - this problem with parking - where are they parking now - on this map -- the the one that is the problem? Are they going over on to their driveway? MS. SIK-VERMANz In the two existing spaces that are shown there behind the rear building? MS. FARREk-L: Yes, but when the Robinsons talk about problems with parking , where are they talking about? Like, just drifting over into their driveway? PAGE 106 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MS. SILVERMAN: I think that what they mean is that when they back up to pull out of these spaces, that they are backing up over the property line into the Robinson's parking spaces which are sort of - the driveway goes up and then it widens out and this side is theirs so I think they are backing up over that line which , you know, that line is not painted on the driveway in any way. MS. FARRELL: Is that all? Apparently that is not . . MS. SIL\/ERMAN: Well there was the one (unintelligible) somebody skidded and - as far as I know the blocking of the driveway has been the Department of Social Services - those are the only instances that I "ve heard of. MS. FARREK-L: Okay, when they talk about constantly - do you have any idea about how often that is? MS. SILVERMAN: No , I do not . MR. SCHWAB: The one comment you said about the snowstorm - someone slipping - didn' t hit their car , but came close. . MS. FARRELL: What is - here is another question - I 've seen the property - but I forget - okay, there is a tree here, is there something that blocks here? I mean, when they talk about - this is the other thing - this is all supposed to be on-site vehicle parking for the house and shelter? On the drawing - the locations there have been three and as many as four cars in back - where are those three and four cars going - is there. . . . ' PAGE 107 -- --- — - BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 MS. SILVERMAN: I don' t know. MS. FARREk-Lc Okay, I mean, I wondered if. . . MS. SILVERMAN: I `ve never seen it . Everytime I 've gone there, there has always been space for me to park in one of those two spots. But I don' t go there at night usually so . . okay, so I don' t know where they go - the Robinsons do have their parking area clearly marked with "no parking" signs. MS. FARREk-L: Okay, so that is marked already. CHAIRMAN l[0k1i-AN: 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) Further discussion? A motion? Any of the above? ' PAGE 108 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1688 717-717-1/2 WEST COURT STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Deirdre Silverman for an area variance to permit the conversion of the structure at 717-1/2 West Court Street to a five-bedroom unit . The decision of the Board was as follows: MOTION TO GRANT: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1688. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) There are practical difficulties in that the existing lot width deficiency of three (31 ) feet cannot be corrected. 2) The minimum side yard deficiency of three (3' ) feet could not be corrected with the existing structure. 3) Neither of these deficiencies will be exacerbated by the granting of this variance. 4) Granting of this variance will increase the housing stock in the neighborhood. VOTE: 3 YES; I NO; 2 ABSENT MOTION FAILED ( lack of four affirmative votes) MOTION TO DENY: CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I move that the Board deny the area variance request in Appeal Number 1688. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: PAGE 109 BZA M I NLY'r'ES -- 4/7/196 1 ) The practical difficulty in this instance seems to be one that is self imposed. 2) Difficulty with the neighborhood seems to persist and there seems to have been ample opportunity to resolve those differences and they don't seem to have done it. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IS DENIED. _ BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1689 FOR 107 PARK PLACE: Appeal of Neil and Sally Schwartzbach for an area variance for deficient lot width , and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard , under Section 30.25, Columns 7, 11 , and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the enclosing and extending of the existing porch on the two-family I ome at 107 Park Place for increased living space. The property is located in an R----2b (Residential , one- and two-family dwellirig ) Use District in which the existing use is permitted ; however under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or certificate of occupancy can be issued for the proposed work . MRS~ SCHWARTZBACH: My name is Sally Schwartzbach . MR. SCHWARl[ZBACHc I 'm Neil Schwartzbach . We are asking for ' a variance because there are pre-existing area deficiencies on the lot . What we would like to do is take the back porch of the house and on the first floor - enlarge it and leave it as an open porch - on the second floor we would like to enlarge it as well as enclose it and make that into habitable living space. The property is currently zoned for ` two apartments - two bedrooms each apartment , we'd like it to remain that way - we are not asking for any more bedrooms ' ^ PAGE 111 ' — `-- - - ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 ' so we are not asking for an increase in density of occupancy. We are just asking for - we would just like to ' create more living space. We bought the house in August and ' since we bought it , we`ve undertaken a major renovation ' program, a new roof - in two weeks the front porch is jacked ' up , leveled out , repaired - new lattice work - a few weeks ' after that our house will be painted . What we would like to do is stay for awhile but we are running out of room right ' now and . . . ' MRS. : It was an absentee landlord that we bought it from so we are making (unintelligible) ' MR. : Right . And to remain at that property we need to enlarge one way or another . MRS. : The porches that the - the enlargement would not go beyond the borders of the house - you know - it is a small porch that takes (unintelligible) and half the width so we wouldn' t be changing the space on the outside of ' the house between the houses next door . ' MR. : We've done (un irite lligible) from ' contractors on whether we should demolish and rebuild or ' . simply rebuild and frankly we aren' t sure on that yet . It . is a question of whether the foundation posts should go from . . . the ground all the way up or should have the first floor . . . porch intervene. . . . . . CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Questions from members of the Board? The . ' addition as you have shown on your second diagram shows that . . . PAGE 112 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 it is essentially going to incorporate the stairs portion that comes down off the back steps? MR~ : The stairs coming down off the front porch , it will be the back (unintelli(jible) as it is now, there is no stairs to the second floor porch . It is just the stairs to the first floor porch and I think . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLANc Right . But if that is the case, you are incorporating . . . MRS. c It would be moving out , its going to be four feet less. Replacement of the steps would be the same in relation. MR. : Right . In the description I said nine by thirteen for the first floor porch . That does not include the steps, so that adds on maybe a foot and one-half at least - two feet - three feet. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: But the steps are going on out to the back , not to the side lot line? MR. SCHWARTZBACH: That 's right , to the back . CHAIRMAN l[QMLAN: Questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? (no one) Anyone else opposed? (no one> Do we have a motion? ' PAGE 113 ' DZA MINUTES 4/7i26 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1689 - 107 PARK PLACE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Neil and Sally Schwartzbach for an area variance to permit the enclosing and extending of the existing porch on the two-family home at 107 Park Place for increased living space. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1689. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) Practical difficulties in meeting the present deficiencies have been shown for the deficient lot width, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard which could only be solved by dismantling a portion of the building. 2) The proposed changes wouldn't exacerbate any of the existing deficiencies. 3) The proposed changes are consistent with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 4 YES; 0 NO; 2 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The last appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1690 FOR 512 EAST SENECA STREET: Appeal of Sean Eve for a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the continued use of the single-family dwelling at 512 East Seneca Street as a cooperative household for six unrelated persons. The property is located in an R-2a (Residential , one- and two-family dwelling ) Use District in which the current use is not permitted ; the appellant has been notified of the illegal use and is appealing for relief to permit the use to continue. MR. EVE: Hello . My name is Sean Eve and I guess you know what I am here for . What I would like to indicate is the nature of the hardship . There are two problems which the house has - one, the expense of running it now - I purchased it two and one-half years ago from the Estate of Elaine Downing and at that time the purchase price for the house was eighty-seven thousand dollars on which I am still carrying nearly seventy thousand in mortgage. Between mortgage, taxes and insurance the monthly costs of the house are one thousand , four hundred and twenty-eight dollars. In addition to this the monthly utilities - and this is both electric and gas - is three hundred and eighty-five dollars a month . Since I 've owned it I 've tried to do as many improvements as have been possible with the money I 've had . '- PAGE 115 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 This includes putting fifteen thousand dollars into interior renovations which includes stripping woodwork , redoing walls, and preparing floors. In addition I put a new boiler in at a cost of four thousand, seven hundred dollars. I 've put new downspouts and have had some gutters at a cost of four hundred . I have put in plantings at a cost of a hundred and have redone the majority of the wiring in the house, including putting in a new service and a new breaker box . Though I have had five or six people living at the residence for the last two years, which apparently is illegal , as I understand it the R2a zone allows me to have six occupants that are unrelated but only if the house is divided into two apartments. The house is in a historic district and is a very important historic residence. It was built in 1865 for the Wicks and is probably one of the only large scale surviving Italianate houses in this City, which is not being divided inside. The plaster work is still there, a large amount of the woodwork - there is still medalions - so generally the house has a lot of its detail still remaining and is generally intact as far as the original structural division which is five bedrooms upstairs, a large living room, a study, a dining room and a kitchen. As far as what accommodations I have made to the renters in the property, the back stairs of the house have been - go directly outside and have fire doors both on the top and the bottom and they are sheetrocked in so that that effectively acts as a fire stair . The electrical work has PAGE 116 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 been put up to rental code except for the lights which are ' in the closets which I understand is not legal - to have ' exposed light bulbs, so that is something that I 've got to have changed . As it stands now, the house costs me between eight and nine hundred dollars a month to maintain in . addition to the rent that I receive. That is the maximum amount that I can afford to subsidize and continue restoring the house or even remain in occupancy of the building . I ^ realize that I should have applied for a variance earlier and that does reflect some negligence on my part . My understanding when I initially got a building permit to do ' the large scale work that was done when I purchased the ^ ' house was that it wasn' t particularly a problem since most of the concessions to the renters had been made. All the rooms that are occupied, which is five upstairs and one downstairs are between two hundred and twenty-five and two hundred and fifty square feet . In addition there is over ' ' two thousand square feet of living space for the people in ' the house. My rents are not exorbitant - the highest rent I receive in the house is two hundred and fifty dollars for a room and the lowest is one hundred and fifty dollars. There are two bathrooms, one upstairs and one downstairs and there is a kitchen downstairs - both baths are full - there are no half baths in the house. What I think - one thing that needs to be expressed is not only have I put in (unintelligible) amount of money in the house but I have gone to the Ithaca Landmarks Commission - I went to them in = . PAGE 117 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 the fall of last year to get permission to do exterior renovations to the building , which included complete restoration of all exterior woodwork detail - repair the brick - repair the chimneys and just generally overhauling all the windows and things like that . The cost of that , when added to the cost of doing the kitchen and bathrooms, which I intend, comes to almost forty thousand dollars. As it stands now, the house is worth less money divided into two apartments to house six occupants, then it is as a single family residence. So if I am to - basically not to default on my mortgage - I can' t - I could basically - what I am saying is can' t - if I divide the house, whatever money I put into it will be lost on top of the money that is put in to divide it . I think dividing the house is inappropriate because the street is half single-family but I would like to cite the fact that the house adjacent to mine has ten apartments in it . Sage Mansion across the street also has over ten apartments and the house next to the Holdheim`s property, which is immediately next to mine, going down the street , has eight apartments in it . In addition to that , a variance was granted , I think two years ago for 505 E. Seneca in order to have eight occupants - I believe it is six occupants in the main part of the house and the apartment upstairs. Also one of the small residents farther up the street has five occupants in the single house. In addition to that , a fraternity rents the house on ' the corner and a fraternity rents the Miller house which is ' PAGE 118 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 just being restored by (unintelligible) So I do not think that changing the house over from what it now stands as a single family residence to a one-unit which has six . occupants would be against the character of the neighborhood , in fact my feeling is it would allow me to put in the money necessary to restore the house, which is a . considerable amount and it is a very large residence, I don' t think it is too large for a single family to maintain and my hope eventually is to sell it to a single family. I feel that by not dividing it the historic character of the house can be maintained . I think it prevents the permanent destruction of East Hill buildings by division because if that house were to be divided, the value would probably only amount to eighty or ninety thousand with an absentee landlord and even with a live-in landlord , probably not much over a hundred thousand . The neighborhood is nice but it certainly is not perfect - there are very dilapidated structures behind it and around it . I think the single block itself - that block of Seneca Street is a very pleasant one but if the house were to be divided the way it stands now, with an upstairs and downstairs apartment , the living space would really not be large enough to warrant a high price. If one was to put in an apartment on the third floor , the problem would arise in terms of circulation ' inside the house. If you could - okay, the back part of the ' house does not reach the third floor - only the front ` ' portion of the house goes to the third floor - therefore if ^ PAGE 119 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 you were going to put in a staircase it would demand 1 ) either the destruction of the existing historic hallways, both on the first and second floor in order to allow for another staircase to go up while maintaining the integrity of the existing building , or it would demand the addition of an exterior staircase which seems both inappropriate and detrimental to a historic property of this nature. I am aware that the building is still in dilapidated condition in terms of the exterior but anyone familiar with the house and I think that - at least with the people on the block --- realize realize that I have put a fair amount into landscaping and I am doing more that - plants are in the works - that I have paid over fifteen hundred dollars to have the woodwork already milled for the outside and that the interior work that is being done is both historically accurate and of a very high quality. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: So to recap - basically (unintelligible) the one or two family with a hardship shown is splitting up and down. . MR. EVE: Well there are two - okay there are two reasons why hardship must be shown, in the first case that the costs of maintaining the house in its present condition and that is still being dilapidated - and this is with the mortgage of only seventy thousand dollars - which doesn' t include any ' of the money that I have put in - if I was going to sell it or any kind of depreciation that might have occurred - it ' PAGE 120 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 still amounts to almost eighteen hundred dollars a month . If you add to that the necessary introduction of forty thousand which I have put into the building to put it in the sort of shape that would warrant the kind of expenses that you are going to have monthly for a single family, you've got fairly huge expenses. No one is going to opt to purchase the building for a single family in this condition and I have looked around , because people are afraid of the capital investment and they are afraid of the neighborhood . However people have shown interest if the building was restored , in possibly purchasing it . For me, if I divide the building, the value of the building goes down, okay? If I divide the building - that is, if I divide it first to second floor . If I add a third floor apartment or basement apartment , that is a possibility, but a basement apartment would mean digging out of the basement , which is not nearly tall enough now, a restructuring of the entire heating system, reworking a lot of the electrical and the basement is really not (unintelligible) to the house. If an apartment were put in the attic , it would demand the addition of an exterior staircase and as I said , I don' t think the Landmark Commission would pass that through , for starters. And even if they would , it would be inappropriate and it would be detrimental because one thing that this street does possess or at least a few of the houses - is relatively low maintained yards - and that sort of thing really destroys it . One thing I wanted to say, which is PAGE 121 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 probably on there is that I can provide three parking spaces necessary for six renters. Right now it is costing me, as I said , well almost usually after I have paid eight (unintelligible) and come up every month - about nine hundred dollars a month - so my rent doesn' t amount to very much - it amounts to about eight hundred dollars. If I were to lose the renters that I have now, I would probably be able to get no more than four hundred dollars in rent from the two unrelated persons. That is not enough money for me to maintain the property and also . . . MR. SCHWAB: Your expenses are nine hundred a month - that covers. . . MR. EVE: No, I am saying the difference between one thousand four hundred and twenty-eight dollars and three hundred and eighty-five dollars which are the monthly costs of the house - not including (unintelligible) which amounts to usually about one hundred and fifty a month . All I am getting in rent is nine hundred and fifty dollars so that the disparity between the two figures is already between eight and nine hundred dollars a month for me. That 's what I am already subsidizing . And what I am saying is that I -- over over the past two and one-half years I have basically pumped about slightly over fifty thousand , almost sixty thousand dollars into the building . I am still looking at having a ' seventy-five thousand dollar mortgage, I want to put more ' money into the building and I do want to retain the building - I do occupy the building and I do wish to stay there but ' PAGE 122 �----- ------ BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 it is necessary economically - both in terms of investment for the improvement of the property and in terms of the property just being maintained in this condition. MR. SCHWAB: Did I hear you say that you didn' t think a single family would buy it in its current condition? MR. EVE: As restored , the house becomes much more desireable for a family because, although the expense would certainly go up and the monthly rates would go up , you know for a restored building , the capital to put into it wouldn' t be necessary - I do a lot of the work myself, which is the only reason the figure is about forty thousand dollars. The figure - if I 'm not going to do a lot of the work myself, would amount to eighty - ninety - almost one hundred thousand dollars by the time you do the (unintelligible) which means that people - you know - you are looking at an incredible amount of capital investment. Although it is a nice block , it is not that desireable - it is not going to warrant that kind of capital investment . I can' t get any grants from either the Federal Government in terms of tax subsidies or Historic Ithaca, to do the work because it is only East Hill - I don' t qualify for any home improvement loans, basically, any benefits in terms of the City for having historical property. So it means that the standards which have to be maintained for the work done are very expensive but there is nothing to accommodate that except an ' ` individual 's capital . One thing I did want to say is that ' ^ since I do occupy the building - although it has been and ' PAGE 123 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 hopefully will continue to be occupied by a group of students, there has not been - you know - I don' t think any examples of disorderly conduct - anything like that . I did have one individual who asked to have a party - the party was extremely loud and he was asked to leave and he agreed to leave. So the one situation that I can think of that was unpleasant , I dealt with . I know the people who live in the neighborhood - Ruth Shaw particularly is a good friend of mine, and I feel that they are in support of this improvement - that they do not mind this (unintelligible) being allowed to live there because the density is not being increased - that they are glad to see the property improved after so many years - that they understand the difficulties and they know my commitment to seeing single families come up on the East Hill , eventually. This renovation will prevent the possibility of any landlord purchasing that property (unintelligible) . CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Are you aware of Mr . Bogel and the Grippi 's objections? MR. EVE: No . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we have two letters. MR. EVE: I spoke to Mr . Bogel the other day and apparently . the letter that I had sent to him was unclear and he thought that I wanted to divide the house into five apartments (unintelligible) [Mr . Eve read the letters at this point] . One thing - I mean I can' t say what Linda Bogel is necessarily speaking of - that may, in some way be a ' PAGE 124 ' BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 response to what she thought my request was for , which is what Rick Bogel and I spoke about . They thought it was an apartment - it was a decision to divide the house into five apartments (unintelligible) . In regards to the letter from Rosalind and Salvatore Grippi , all I can say is that I do occupy - I 'm not an absentee landlord - that I have done a significant amount of work to improve the building - that I think I have been both available and friendly and seems to have been in a reasonable state of agreement with the neighbors, at least on my block - I don' t know the people who own the buildings behind . As far as offering a risk to single family units on the hill , I think it is exactly not the case. When I purchased the building I was the only person who approached the Downings, who did not wish to divide it . To give you an example of the sort of problems the house had , shortly after I bought it the dining room ceiling collapsed . Vines had grown in through the front window and had ripped through all the plaster in the study. The wiring was decrepit - the boiler was old and just ' cracked . The house had not been maintained for very many years and I 'm certainly not saying that I am the ideal purchaser of the house - in that hypothetically an individual might have purchased it who restored it at that time, however when I paid for the building - the reason that ' I was given preference over several other people who were willing to offer even several thousand dollars more, was that I was the only one who was interested in restoring the PAGE 125 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 building . In terms of the financial feasibility of restoring that building - it needs something like the income generated from five people. I don' t - I understand - this is something that I certainly didn' t understand when I first was organizing my appeal - I understand that appeals are made as permanent decisions on the property and what my original intention had been was to be granted an appeal for a year or two so I could complete the restorations. I know that that is not , you know, some sort of clause that you can put in to some way cover the neighborhood against it being a boarding house. All I can say is that the house will be over two hundred thousand dollars when it is restored - that the value as a rental property is - well , if one has six renters paying two hundred a month , it 's twelve - fifteen thousand a year - a maximum of maybe one hundred - one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. So there is no way that someone else can purchase the house and rent it that way and have it be feasible. And that 's one of the reasons that I bought the property and to restore it . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Further questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting the variance? (no one) Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (no one) It is ours. ' PAGE 126 . BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1690 512 EAST SENECA STREET MS. FARRELL: Tom, when did you first start notifying him that the property was not in compliance? SECRETARY HOARD: The first letter that was talking about the occupancy violation was December 12, 1983. MS. FARRELL: What has happened since then? SECRETARY HOARD: Several other letters. MS. FARRELL: Have there been complaints? Do you know of any? SECRETARY HOARD: We have had people report to the neighborhood planner that the building was being occupied in violation of the Zoning Ordinance - we didn' t get in there until December 1983. MS. FARRELL: Did you have appointments before then? SECRETARY HOARD: No . MR. SCHWAB: Well the thing that must be proved is that using this house as a single family - there is a hardship doing it . The problem that I am having with that is that he plans to eventually put it back into single family use with the statement being "no one would buy it in the current . condition but they might in the improved condition" because ' he is doing the work himself. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: It seems self defeating. ' MR. SCHWAB: What 's to prevent someone from buying the house ' now and hiring someone else to improve it and keep it in the single family. . . or the two family situation. I have some ~ PAGE 127 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 sympathy for his wanting to live there in the house with the other renters while he is essentially fixing it up . I 'm not sure I am convinced that that is the higher standard of proof required to convince us that this is the only way this property could be used . A lot of money has gone into this house. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Well my only observation is that in general for use variances there be more specific figures (unintelligible) -there is the beginning of that but I 'm left a little uneasy. MR. WEAVER: Well it is a rather peculiar variance - it is asking to grant a variance to use the building in what would otherwise be an illegal manner until it can be brought up to condition to put it back on the single family market -- that 's that 's certainly not the only way to get there. Ordinarily we close down and fix it and sell it . It would seem to me that if the present owner is going to be a one man rehab - it is going to mean that there will be a series of buildings that will - we will have to grant temporary privileges to it until he gets it done. I don' t know how fast he works but I 'm not sure I 'd want to put too much money on it . . CHAIRMAN 7[0MLAN: Tracy, any thoughts? . MS. FARRE&-L: Well I 'm not convinced that it couldn' t be ' used as a two-family house which is legal in that zone and . to be able to support itself that way. If it is infeasible ' or a hardship to continue use as a single family house. ' PAGE 129 BZA MINUTES - 4/7/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1690. 512 EAST SENECA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Sean Eve for a use variance to permit the continued use of the single-family dwelling at 512 East Seneca Street as a cooperative household for six unrelated persons. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board deny the use variance requested in Appeal Number 1690. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) The current use is an illegal use without permit or variance and has continued for several years. Evidence was not persuasive that the building could not be used for legal use that the Ordinance provides. VOTE: 4 YES; 0 NO; 2 ABSENT USE VARIANCE DENIED PAGE 129 1 , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1682, 1683, 1684, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1689 and 1690 on April 7, 1986 in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall , 108 E. Green Street, City of Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this 30th day of April 1986 Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 55-1660800 QUALIFIED IN TONIPKINS COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 30,19U PAGE 130