HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1986-05-05 TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MAY 5, 1986
PAGE
APPEAL NO. 5-1-86 R. WOOD MOTORS, INC. 3
335-37 Elmira Road
" Motion to Defer 17
i
APPEAL NO. 1691 JOHN NOVARR 18
126 WESTBOURNE LANE
DECISION 27
APPEAL NO. 1692 JACK & TAMAR SHERMAN 28
412 NORTH AURORA STREET
DECISION 31
APPEAL NO. 1693 DR. AUGUST LEINHART 32
312 ELMWOOD AVENUE
DISCUSSION
52
DECISION 63
APPEAL NO. 1694 BEVERLY EVERTS 64
1011 NORTH AURORA STREET
DISCUSSION 91
DECISION 96
MORE DISCUSSION 97
APPEAL NO. 1695 FLORENCE SMITH 99
423-25 SOUTH GENEVA STREET
DECISION 101
APPEAL NO. 1696 NANCY FALCONER 102
140 COLLEGE AVENUE
" NO. 1696A DECISION 136
" NO. 1696B DISCUSSION 137
" NO. 16968 DECISION 146
NO. 1696c DISCUSSION 147
" NO. 1696c DECISION 159
" NO. 1696c MORE DISCUSSION & VOTE 163
" NO. 1696D DISCUSSION 1 .4
NO. 1696D DECISION 166
APPEAL NO. 1697 PATRICIA S. BAKER 117 STEWART AVENUE - WITHDRAWN
`
'
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86 '
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK �
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MAY 5, 1986
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Good evening . I would like to call to
order the 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 :
MS. HELEN JOHNSON
MS. TRACY FARRELL
MR. HERMAN SIEVERDING
MR. GTEWART SCHWAB
MR. CHARLES WEAVER
MR. MICHAEL T0MLANp CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
MR. THOMAS HOARD, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD
ZONING OFFICER & BUILDING COMMISSIONER
MS. BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY
The Board will hear each case 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 opposed to the
lication I should note here that the Board considers
app ^
" interested parties" to be persons who own property within
PAGE 1
- -
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
two hundred feet of the property in question or who live or
work within two hundred feet of that property, thus the
Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet
the definition of an " interested party" . While we do not
adhere to the strict rules of evidence, we do consider this
a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the
record . The record consists of the application materials
filed with the Building Department, the correspondence
related to the cases, as received by the Department , the
Planning and Development Board's findings and
recommendations, if any, and the record of tonight 's
hearings. 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, those directly
across from me there, and speak directly into the .
microphones so that the comments can be picked up by the
tape recorder and heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous
comments from the audience will not be recorded and will ,
' therefore, not be considered by the Board in its
deliberations on the case. We ask that everyone limit their
comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on
aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board .
After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing
on that case will be closed , the Board will deliberate and
reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed , no further
testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to
refrain from commenting during the deliberations. It takes
PAGE 2
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance
or special permit . In the rare case where there is a tie
vote the variance or special permit is automatically denied .
Are there any questions from anyone out there about our
procedures? (none) If that 's the case, let 's proceed .
SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal is APPEAL NO. 5-1-86 FOR
335-337 E0M%RA ROAD:
Appeal of R. Wood Motors, Inc. , for variances
from the Sign Qrdindance to permit the
installation of six new signs at 335-37
Elmira Road (R. Wood Motors, Inc. ) ' each of
which would violate one or more requirements
of the Ordinance. Proposed are (a) three
projecting signs, which would violate Section
34.4, Paragraph B (prohibiting signs which
project more than 18 inches from the face of
the building) , Section 34.8, Paragraph B
(prohibiting projecting signs in a B-5 Zome) r
Section 34.8, paragraph B (prohibiting
.
signage within a ten foot setback area from
the front property line) ; (b) one
freestanding sign, which would violate
Section 34.8, Paragraph B (prohibiting
signage within a ten foot setback area from
the front property line) ; (c) two building
mounted signs, which, together with `^ (b) "'
above, would result in three signs with the
PAGE 3
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
same message ( "UW Used Cars" ) , violating
Section 34.6, Paragraph B (prohibiting more
than two signs for any one business) of the
Sign Ordinance. The property is located in a
B-5 (business) Use District in which the
existing uses are permitted; however the
appellant must obtain variances from the
sections cited before a sign permit can be
issued for the new signs.
MS. COWLEY: iar_+r_d evening . My name is Amanda Cowley, l 'fel an
attorney with Thaler and Thaler ,. I have brought with me Mr .
Rudy Christopher l`'roiii Cayuga Signs who can explain to Yi.:+U
and probably sho4J you clearly what: the proposed si g
.I. ' l l try to e:;plrpti.'til the reason why we want to do this -- the
existing sign has on it; both Porsche and Audi on the same
sign and Porsche has indicated to R. Wt:•,c+d Mi_+'t;c+r_ that it
will not permit it 's name to be on ttli=: same sign with Audi
so they are required to separate them both . I dc:+.i..i't believe
that we hlr.':t`:e mc:+ri^ than two of the same signs connected with
t:h e samebusiness fi c t:i v i t y g l::u t: Mr ... Chri.si::i:iphler canfill 'y f:+u
in on that . H.{.::=:o we propose t:("+ move t h'1 t.' existing signs
which sa'',% ++t_15=ed t..;a'rs and VWs" which are presently 1.C+catr_`d on
a st+ac:1•::i_d (unintelligible) near the r+-_+r.:+.dwz:ty and we (]rc+pc+se
to ,..,t_t t: them ontc l:h e.. buildingso that will probably be less
non-conforming t:{n<:,!n presently .ts:st•fi h:;t..t t .0 1 1 hand y o t..t over to
I"E r- ., Christopher <a n d .I: ' l l be happy t,c+ answer yi::+t..t'i' questions
if you -
------- -- - — � |
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. CHRISTOPHER: I 'm Rudy Christopher of Cayuga Signs.
Pretty much what we are asking to do - these signs �
(unintelligible) single face signs and - located on both
ends of the building - and we would like to put them all
together - making double-faced signs out of them on one post
out in front to tie them all together . The work
identification sign right now is a three by twelve painted
sign which we want to remove and make a smaller sign - three
by eight , which would be lighted to go with the Audi and
Porsche sign and we would like to pretty much center these
in front of the building right over the front awning so it
is a matter of getting the signs off from both sides of the
building and put them all on one sign - one structure sign,
together . The signs on the side - do you have drawings of
this?
MR. WEAVER: We have them, yes.
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Oh , you have them, okay . The side signs -
where there is an existing forty square foot sign with the
"VW Used Cars" - we would like to take those apart and make
single-faced signs and mount them on the "Used Car" side of
the building - so - with the existing "Volkswagon" sign
which is on the building , we want to put on the existing
pipe. So we would be switching the signs around on that
side where the used cars and the Volkswagons are . And
actually, by putting all of these signs together , we will
come up with one hundred and eighty-seven square feet
compared to over two hundred and forty, which we now have.
PAGE 5
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
So we are having less square foot than we did before. The
double-faced signs are counted as single-faced sign.
CHAIRMAN l[QMLAW: Audi and Porsche are on the same pole here
- that doesn' t violate any of your . . . .
MS. C0NLEY: Apparently that satisfys them as long as they
are separated into two separate signs, they will be happy.
. The way it is right now - we've got them both on the same
sign. We've got some photographs here too , if that would
clarify it for you.
. CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: It might , yes.
. MS~ CQWLEY: The one that I am just passing around now is �
. /
. the signs as they presently are on the building . The next '
one that I am passing around is the sign presently located
' on the awning which is jutting out onto the road which we
would propose to remove completely and replace with a sign
that will be attached to the building . And the third
' photograph is the sign which we also wish to remove, as you
can see, this is also located nearer to the roadway than we
would have it . What we propose to do is replace that -
where it says "Used Cars" to block that out and just have a
"VW" sign - with the "Used Car" sign on the building . We
have also - I believe you have a copy of our affidavit -
served this upon all the property owners within two hundred
feet and we didn' t get any responses at all , except one
inquiry from Friendly's, who asked us if it would affect the
visibility of their sign. Since it is on the other side of
the road , it would not .
PAGE 6
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. WEAVER: Actually they are on the same side of the
street . Is the "Used Car" sign going to be two-face VW?
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Both of the "VW's" will be taken off the
building and put on the pole. . . .
MR. WEAVER: In other words, it will be a two-faced . . .
MR~ CHRISTOPHER: A two-faced sign, right . Then the
existing sign underneath here would be taken apart and
mounted on the building - on the corner where the office is
- where the entire office is.
MR. SIEVERDING: And the circular sign would say what?
MR~ CHRISTOPHER: VW'
MR. SIE$ER%}ING: Just VW?
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Yes. They are both on the big building
right now will be put on the post by the parking
lot .
MR. SIEVERD%NG: Tc'm, the section of the Ordinance where
' they talk about two signs for one business - where is the
. three signs coming from in the summary? We've got the one
six foot diameter sign which is going to say simply "VW"?
And two "Used Cars"?
SECRETARY HOARD: Well - used cars - are considered a
different franchise, oddly, enough . Almost all of these car
dealers have got - well some of them have "Make A" and "Make
B" and "Make C" and then "Used Cars" which is a separately
run business. Historically we have considered them each a
separate business and allowed each to have its own sign.
PAGE 7
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. SIEVERDING: So the circular "VW" sign plus the two
square "VW Used Car Signs" are all related to the Used Car
business - is that right?
MS~ CAWLEY: I think we are only having one "Used Car" sign
- it is not going to say "VW Used Car" it is just going to
say "Used Cars" .
. MS~ 3QHWGQN: It says here - the sign says "Two-sided VW
"
. Used Cars .
MR. SIEVERD%NGc The existing perpendicular sign on Elmira
Road now says "VW Used Cars" , right? Those are now going to
' be mounted on the building?
' MR. CHRISTOPHER: Right on the edge of the building, right.
MR. SIEVERGING: That houses the used car portion of the
business?
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Yes that 's on the left hand corner of the
building - where the used car business is.
MR. SIEVERDING: And that circular sign that says "VW" , that
is also the used car portion of the business?
' MR. CHRISTOPHER: Right , that is my understanding because
that is where the used car - other sign would go , too .
MR. SIEVERDING: Okay .
' MR. CHRISTOPHER: That 's on the left-hand side of their lot .
' MR. GIEVERDING: And it is the addition of that third sign
then that creates the problem?
'
SECRETARY HOARD: That creates the problem because they are
all in the same business. The VW signs for the VW franchise
PAGE 8
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
- the VW franchise would be allowed two signs - the used car
business would be allowed two signs.
CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: You have a question - you look as though
you've got a question there.
MS. C0WLEY: No .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: No? You are with us?
MG. C8W0EY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) after we do these - remove
these additions, what we will end up with in total .
[discussion took place between Ms. Cawley and Mr .
Christopher which wasn' t picked up by the recorder]
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: We are coming to some conclusion?
MS~ CQWLEY: Basically where we are at variance is with the
additional VW sign.
MR. SIEVER%}ING: So one way to reduce the amount of
variances that we have to deal with , would be to say that
you have one "VW Used Cars"
plus the circular sign along the highway provided
(unintelligible> the fact that you don' t meet the setback .
It reduces it to one variance rather than two .
MS. C8WLEY: Okay. We are still reducing the total number
of square feet that we have in signs.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the
Board?
MR. WEAVER: Yes. That pole sign, which is the northernmost
sign on the property - not the proposed one - but the pole
sign that has "Used Car" signs on it now - as far north as
you can go on the property and still find a sign.
PAGE 9
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Right now that is the five by eight "Used
Car" sign?
MR. WEAVER: Yes, on a pole - on a post .
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Right .
MR. WEAVER: What is going to happen to that? .
/
MR. CHRISTOPHER: That 's where we want to put the round '
circle "VW" which is on the building . '
`
MR. WEAVER: Okay .
MR. CHRISTOPHER: We want to make that into a double-faced
szgn.
MR. WEAVER: And you don' t want to move the pole?
MR~ CHRISTOPHER: No , because as long as the pole is right .
there, it is the cheapest way out . Or else we would almost .
have to put the "VW" on top - include it with the front
sJ gn, because that 's their franchise. (unintelligible) the
front sign because I think it raises the height of the sign
over thirty some feet .
MR. WEAVER: The "R. Wood Motors, Inc . /Audi-Porsche" sign
proposed .
MR. CHRISTOPHER: They have the Audi and the Porsche signs
there now. They just want to put them back to back . So
actually the only new one would be "R. Wood Motors" , which
would replace their (unintelligible) that they have now,
which is three foot by twelve foot .
`
MR. WEAVER: Well I think it would , if you don` t mind , it .
would be helpful to me if we talked about signs - where they
are, how many there are, and forget the footage at the
PAGE 10
-- ' - ' ------
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
moment . We can add that up if we ever decide where the ^
signs are and how many there are - or it would help me -,- and
- question, Commissioner , I believe that the "R. Wood ,
Audi/Porsche" sign being either attached to , or so close to
the building , constitutes a sign on the front of the
building?
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes and it also constitutes a projecting
sign.
MR. WEAVER: Projecting sign. But in numbers the signs on
the front of the building - it adds to the number of front
building signs. Well , it makes no difference to me - but if '
you want to know how many there are, they are on the front
of the building as well as projecting?
SECRETARY
HOARD: Yes.
MR. SIEVERDING: Tom, they don' t project as much as these
drawings though right? They are not held perpendicular from '
the building at the moment?
SECRETARY HOARD: No , they are on the north end of the '
building . .
MR. SIEVERI)ING: Which is projecting out from the face. `
`
They are mounted right up next to the building . .
(unintelligible - short discussion between Mr . Sieverding .
and Secretary Hoard which wasn' t picked up by the recorder ) .
CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Further questions?
MR~ WEAVER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: You want to nail down specifics - why ,
don' t we ask them just to nail down specific places and - as .
PAGE 11 ^
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
you 've suggested, why don' t we nail down the specific places
and then we could go from there.
MR. WEAVER: Well , before we've left that - because these
count as signs on the building - it suggests to me that new
signs on the building would be of equal count , as far as
total signs but would probably increase the square footage
of signs. I 'm talking about going back where the VW circles
are presently on the building - they would be legally on the
building and not project . And from a count standpoint the
difference would be that the two-face sign only charges one
side.
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes.
MR. WEAVER: So we would increase the footage of signs but
we'd get them back off the rc'ad - ''we" - I won' t qualify
at . But I 'm just saying that there is a solution to that
th
projection - available structurally and it was used '
initially for the VW circles. And there could be two '
Porsche/Audi signs, one on either side. Right now they are '
,
only asking for one of each . '
SECRETARY HOARD: Right .
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Right now those single faced signs are on
both sides of the building .
MR. WEAVER: I understand and I 'm interested in visibility
and the comparison between what you are asking for - which
is a projecting sign. . . '
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Right .
PAGE 12
- - ---
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. WEAVER: Which the Ordinance does not allow versus one
that would be legally attached and might suit the
appellant 's purpose of high visibility because those are
pretty good at that point . Could I ask your reason for
using the pole sign pole - that 's economical - to use it
because it 's there?
MR. CHRISTOPHER: And mounting it to the building - you mean
the large one?
MR. WEAVER: No , not the one mounted to the building but
this one down here - with the "Used Car" . . .
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Oh the one with the "VW" . ' .
MR. WEAVER: You just want to use that pole because it 's
there?
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Just because it 's there and
(unintelligible)
MR. WEAVER: I don' t think I can tell how far that 's in
violation as far as right-of-way - is there . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: The one that is out there now?
MR~ WEAVER: Yes. The "Used Car" pole.
`
MS. JOHNSON: Doesn' t it say it is zero setback and
(unintelligible)
MR. WEAVER: Where do you get that Helen on the worksheet?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, on the worksheet .
`
CHAIRMAN l[[)h1LAN: Let me make a suggestion - shall we delay
action until such time as the whole thing is perfected , what
do you think about that? ^
MR. WEAVER: Do you want a motion?
PAGE 13
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
CHAIRMAN T0MLAN; I was just wondering how you would feel
about it - you are really the one who is proceeding with the
questioning .
MR. WEAVER: Yes and I `d like to have enough information to
be able to compare and I 'd like to know - they are asking
for a variance, several - and it just seems to me if you are
going to use a pole because it 's there, which will put a new
sign in violation - that it would be useful to the Board in
making a decision whether that 's unusually expensive to put
the pole back where it 's legal .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAW: Precisely.
MR. WEAVER: And the other thing of whether there is some
major differential in visibility and the cost of sigris -
where they would be legal .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN; Do you follow our line of thinking? I
mean generally speaking the people who come before us for -
particularly the sign ordinance - have to be very, very
specific about what is, versus what will be. At this point
it is apparent that your application and the pieces and
parts are just beginning to come together and jell in your
own mind - let alone trying to convey that information to us
�
and we are just a little bit shy, I suppose, at going into a
�
situation where we have to figure it out , as you figure it
out . We would rather you figure it out first .
MS. COWLEY: Well in that regard , though , I think I 'd like
Mr . Christopher to address you at this point about the cost
of doing it , as he said, putting everything on the building
PAGE 14
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
as opposed to using an existing Audi on the pole. I mean, I
believe that would be cheaper and that is why he proposed
it . Will you tell them about that?
MR. CHRISTOPHER: We tried to get away from - it is so close
to the road - and we tried to back it up as far as we could
and the only way we can make it solid enough is by mounting
the large signs to the back of the building and running the
pole just through the awning which is already there. The
other sign that is on the pole - the VW sign - I think our
problem there is backing it up - you would be in the
driveway - right in the middle of the driveway - even this
sign here - we are losing a couple of parking spots because
it is right in the middle of the parking lot - in front of
the showroom . So it just doesn' t have the room to tack
signs up .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I appreciate that explanation. I
would like to see that , though , as - I think I am getting
the sense of the Board that we would like to see that in the '
package - presented next month . '
MS~ CQWLEY: Okay. Would you like written submissions prior
`
to that time? .
CHAIRMAN T@MLAN: Well I think some explanation, yes, is '
necessary but I think the graphics - more particularly the .
befores and afters should be more explicit and the location
should be more explicit than what has been given on the .
little map thus far . You have begun to approach that with .
PAGE 15
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
the photographs but I think you have to be a little more
explicit . Okay?
MG. COWLEY: So this is going to be on the Agenda for next
month?
CHAIRMAN l[0MLAN: Right . Do I have a motion by the way,
from the floor , just to . . .
PAGE 16
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MOTION TO DEFER ON APPEAL NO. 5-1-86 335-337 ELMIRA ROAD
MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board defer this appeal until
the next Board meeting for further consideration.
MS. FARRELk-: I second the motion.
6 AYE VOTES; 0 NAY MOTION TO DEFER CARRIED
PAGE 17
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1691 FOR 126 '
WESTBOURNE LANE:
Appeal of John Novarr for an area variance for
deficient lot width under Section 30.25, Column 7,
of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the
construction of two new apartment buildings with a ^
total of fifteen apartments at 126 Westbourne '
Lane. The proposed buildings would be in addition
to the existing apartment building on the `
premises. The property is located in an R-U '
(Residential-Multiple Dwelling) Use District in
which the proposed use is permitted; however ,
under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 the appellant must
first obtain an area variance for the deficient
lot width before a building permit or Certificate
of Occupancy can be issued for the new buildings. .
A variance for the same number of units was .
granted to previous owners in 1978 (Appeal No. .
1205) , but the additional units were not built. .
MR. SHAPIR0: My name is Marty Shapiro , I 'm an attorney
practicing in Ithaca, New York and I represent the appellant .
John Novarr . What is being asked for tonight is as Mr . .
Hoard has said , an area variance for 126 Westbourne Lane.
Westbourne Lane property is kind of unique in several
respects. The City of Ithaca, not the property itself and .
in fact the existing building on the property is - give or .
^
take - bisected by the City Corporate boundary line. The
PAGE 18
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
problem comes in solely with respect to the front footage
requirement . The front footage on Westbourne Lane within
the City of Ithaca is plus or minus a hundred and three feet
and the Zoning Ordinance in an R-U zone requires a hundred
and twenty-five feet . I think it is important to note that
on Westbourne Lane alone, according to a survey we recently
had done - there is a hundred and ninety-eight point five
feet but everything over one hundred and three feet or
ninety-five point five feet is in the Village of Cayuga
Heights. Also with respect to this property, there is
another two hundred and ninety-three feet along Ridgewood
Road , which also is in the Village of Cayuga Heights. So
the problem here is not that the property does not have '
sufficient front footage, it is just that the sufficient '
^
front footage doesn' t exist within the Corporate boundary '
lines of the City of Ithaca. In 1978 this matter came
before the BZA. Virtually the identical variance was
requested and in addition an interpretation was requested .
The interpretation requested then was that front footage '
measured within the City of Ithaca and without the City of
`
Ithaca on the same property, should be counted with respect '
`
to City of Ithaca zoning requirements. The interpretation of
the Board of Zoning Appeals in 1978 was that the City could
only have the front footage within the City of Ithaca '
Corporate boundaries and not that without . The variance
requested was the same variance requested here. The
applicant then was intending to build an additional fifteen
'
. PAGE 19
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
units - that 's the same thing that is being requested here. .
`
The Board of Zoning Appeals in 1978 made a motion that the
area variance requested in the case be granted on condition .
that the land is not developed in a fashion where the total
'
footage, including that in Cayuga Heights, falls below .
Ithaca requirements. Well the Board then realized that
`
there was no way that that was going to happen, in other `
words if all the footage within and without the City of
Ithaca were counted , that it wouldn' t be violating the City
Ordinances no matter what they built here, just about . So
,
they made the following findings of fact : with the condition '
that there is assurance of the spirit of the Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance is complied with ; also that there is more adequate
`
frontage - the Board considers that portion of the property '
that extends into Cayuga Heights - and also , testimony
presented at the hearing indicated even without the
condition, the layout of the lot would prevent the total
frontage - counting the Cayuga Heights portion - from ever
falling under the Ithaca Ordinance requirements. The vote '
`
was unanimous: 6 Yes - 0 No . The only reason that the
appellant is here today, since this went through in 1978,
was that provision of the Ithaca City Zoning Ordinance - I
believe it's Section 30.58-B-3, towards the bottom of that ,
which says that " if the building permit is not obtained
.
within a year of the date of the variance, that the variance
becomes null and void . " So the variance from 1978 has '
lapsed and now some eight years later , a new owner is coming
PAGE 20
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
to the City of Ithaca and asking for exactly the same
variance that was granted in 1978. I point out that in all
other respects, both use - it is an RU zone - and area
requirements - in all other respects the Zoning Ordinance
will be met by the proposed useage. So the only thing that
is being requested here - the only thing that a variance is
necessary for , is the fact that within the City boundary
limits we are some twenty-two feet short on the front
footage. I reiterate, that of course if one considers the
front footage just on Westbourne, that runs into Cayuga
Heights, there is some seventy feet extra. I believe the
appellant submitted to the Building Department some
schematics of where the property was to be improved and some
layouts as to what would be contemplated at this point . We
don' t , of course, have actual architectural drawings because
it would be a little premature to do that before a variance,
due to the cost . But Mr . Novarr is here tonight and I 'm
sure would be happy to answer any other questions you might
have. I did bring along a copy - my only copy - of a survey
of the property, which I would be happy to pass around but
unless Mr . Hoard would guarantee that I would get it back
' tomorrow morning , I hesitate to leave it here tonight
because I haven' t finished researching the title and I need
the survey but if you would like to pass that around just so
that you can see that .
' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board?
^
^
' PAGE 21
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. S%EVER0ING: What happens to the existing structure on
the property?
MR. N0VARR: This is sort of a two-phase project .
SECRETARY HOARD: John, could you identify yourself?
MR. NOVARR: I 'm sorry. I 'm John Novarr and I ' ll be the
owner of the property at 126 Westbourne. It 's a two-phase
project in that about June 1 we will redo the existing
building - there are actually two buildings there - one
built in 1910 - 1920, I would guess, and one built in 196O.
The old Beta Sigma Roe Fraternity and it went through a -
well what I think was a bad renovation into an apartment
house in 1978 so our plan in June is to redo that building
and make it sizeably nicer inside and out , then it is and in
late August - well , early or late August - somewhere in the
month of August , start the new nin
uts ad e havthem ready by
the fifteenth of January, which is a marginal rental period
for the City of Ithaca for students but certainly better
than having the units ready March 1 , or something like that .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John, have you gotten any feedback from
the neighbors one way or the other?
MR. NOVARR: Most of the neighbors - and this is a guess
just by looking at what was on the tax rolls when I sent out
all of those letters two weeks ago - most of the neighbors
seem to be fraternities or sororities or other landlords. I
have talked to a landlord or two - one of them asked me if I
thought it was necessary for them to come here and speak for
`
me - I told him that I didn' t think so . I spoke with one
PAGE 22
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
neighbor , Mrs. Salpeter . At the time that I spoke with her
. we were trying to get a sorority to move back into that
' building - we weren' t able to do that so I have not had any
conversations with her concerning our present plans, though ,
as Marty said , those plans are the same, roughly speaking ,
' as the ones that were presented here in 78. I can tell you
^ in all fairness that in 1978, I believe that the Salpeter `s
were not in favor of that change to the property next to
them. We would hope to do a good job and make the existing
buildings that much nicer than they are and build pretty
' apartments. I can' t tell you whether that statement would
' make Mrs. Salpeter any happier or not . But I did call her
'
and tell her - she actually is sort of a family friend -
that is, she knows my mother and father and I thought rather
^ than just send her a letter that the right thing to do in
this case was at least tell her I was purchasing the
' property.
.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions?
MS. JOHNSON; Isn' t it still a regulation, though , that you
. have to inform the people what the variance is about?
,
. MR. NQVARR: That took place later . I 'm sorry, within a
week or two of the time that I knew I was buying the
' property, long before this formal letter needed to go to
everybody and long before, in fact , our plans were firmed
' up , I thought that the reasonable neighborly thing to do was
' at least give her a call , because of the prior family
' connection. But , of course, we complied with the law and
PAGE 23
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
sent everybody that formal notification, including Mrs. .
Salpeter - what , sometime around the twentieth of this month
- last month , I 'm sorry.
MS. JOHNSON: I have a question on the schematic - the whole
drawing - it says that their required parking is
sixty-eight , fifty-seven for the City portion. Where are
all those spaces?
MR. N0VARR: Those spaces are in the - there are a few
spaces amongst the complex but the majority of parking wraps
around the project in a semi-circular fashion and that area
today exists as sort of an overgrown tennis court and a .
parking lot and drive-through that doesn' t seem to be used
very often.
MS. JOHNSON: Isn' t that a fairly steep enbankment there?
MR. NK]VARR: I think there is going to have to be some work '
done to make this work properly, yes. I think it is fair to
say that none of this will work , without our providing .
adequate parking - that 's one of the City's regulations and ,
of course, we would provide that .
MS. JOHNSON: Could you describe a little bit what an
elevation might show which is - or the exterior materials
on the exterior of the proposed building?
MR. N0VARR: Most of the buildings in that area are two or
three story wooden buildings and they appear to be like a
lot of our neighborhoods - built in the 20's and 30's -
there are some shingle style houses there and some clapboard
style houses there. We would not be building a
PAGE 24
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
Ravenwood-like project in the middle of all of that - our
buildings would look very similar to the ones that were
there so that they, begin to match the architecture of the
existing neighborhood . I think , too , if this were a
different sort of forum I could tell you that you could go
and look at some of the other projects that we've done and
see whether we are indeed sensitive to the sorts of issues
that you are approaching . I think that you would find that
WE! are. I think that I can make that property look better
after the construction is done then it presently looks. It
doesn' t look very nice right now.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the
Board?
MR. SCHWAB: You aren' t asking for an interpretation of the
Ordinance are you?
MR. SHAP2RO: No , just for the area variance.
MR. NOVARR: I 'd like to follow up on what you are asking ,
for one minute. The cheaper way of doing this is to build
one building rather than two . The reason that we split it
up was we felt that one building with fifteen units in it
would not be in keeping with the architecture of the
neighborhood - it would be too big and massive. We thought
that by splitting it into two smaller buildings it would
L
egin to make a little more sense with the way - you know -
in conjunction with the way the neighborhood looks.
CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Thank you gents. Is there anyone else who
would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? (no
PAGE 25
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
one) Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition?
(no one) That being the case it's ours.
'
`
PAGE 26
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1691 - 126 WESTBOURNE LANE
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of John
Novarr for an area variance to permit construction of two
new apartment buildings with a total of fifteen apartments
at 126 Westbourne Lane. The proposed buildings would be in
addition to the existing apartment building on the premises.
The decision of the Board was as follows:
MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance
requested in appeal number 1691 . The granting will have the
effect of the property being treated as if it did in fact
have 125 foot frontage in the City of Ithaca.
MS. FARRELL: I second the mot-
ion-PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 ) There are special circumstances in that this property is '
in two jurisdictions, one of which this Board has no control '
over and yet frontage is available that more than meets the
requirements and the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance.
2) To prevent development of this property beyond its
present use would reduce the potential for housing in that
district .
VOTE: 6 YES; {) NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED
PAGE 27
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: The next t app e a l is APPEAL NO. 1692 FOR
412 NORTH AURORA STREET:
Appeal of Attorney David Gersh, on behalf of
owners Jack and Tamar Sherman for an area variance
for a deficient front yard setback under Section
30.20, Column 11 , of the Zoning Ordinance, to
permit the addition of a solarium to the rear of
the building at 412 North Aurora Street. The
property is located in an R2b (Residential , one-
and two-family) Use District in which the existing
use is permitted; however under Section 30.57 the
appellants must first obtain a variance for the
deficient front yard setback before a building
permit or Certificate of Compliance can be issued
for the addition.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If yc.+k._c sar..ul.d begin by identifying
yourself'!''
MR. ZWIEBEL: fly name is David Zwiebel and this: is Cynthia
Stewart: , The current owners of the building are Jack and
Tamar Sh Ffzi +i1aY'1 ;t l's d David Gersh is their attorney. They
selling the property and we have a purchase offer , t.{::+f: enter"
with my mother , to buy the property which we intend to live
in as C1Yresidence. T he purchase - ter is contingent _ : on
us obtaining a variance to put this addition on the
building. The circumstances are that the property is in
complete accordance wi.'t;h_+ the regulations in all othe.r..
aspects:_ except ')`'or- the distance "(-'i"orn the front of the
PAGE 21.3
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
building to the sidewalk , which in this zoning is required
to be ten foot and the building is eight foot from the
sidewalk . I would like to note however that that is the
front porch which is not an enclosed front porch , it is an
Open front porch and that the actual structure of the
building is fifteen foot nine inches from the sidewalk . So
we are not talking about a building which is right against
the sidewalk to begin with . All other aspects of the area
variance are actually in very good circumstance. We have a
lot of room on all other sides, in fact , the property has a
particularly large lot . So our addition is not filling up
the lot , so to speak . Additionally, in fact the addition is
in the back of the building and will not have an impact on
any view from the street at all . So we are faced with a
circumstance in order to have this we have to come to you,
we could, presumably, I suppose, tear off the front porch to
place the building in compliance. It happens to be an
integral part of the architecture of the building - it was
built in 1910 - almost the entire building is original and .
looks that way and everything seems to fit in nicely along
with the other buildings on the same side of the street - on
both sides of the street . In an attempt to figure out what
our neighbors felt , we decided to visit the people in the .
neighborhood . It is an R2b zone, however it seems the
majority of properties are owned by lawyers and doctors and
'
real estate agents within two hundred feet of this building
and we contacted some of them and they didn' t seem to feel
PAGE 29
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
one way or the other . I 'd like to note that we are not a
lawyer or a doctor and we do not plan to have that kind of
use of the building - the use will be strictly residential .
I did contact everyone who I could who is actually an owner
living in the building themselves and there are a number of
the neighbors who are in that position. (unintelligible)
with very few specifically and was surprised actually to
find out that they were all very positive that someone was
planning on maintaining it as a residence as opposed to
something else and were very happy to have us improve the
property, from this point of view and I 'd like to present to
the Board a petition that the seven people who are close to
the property and are - these are the residents who live in
the building that they own - within two hundred feet of the
building . I think that 's about it .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to submit the petition? Just
circulate it around the table.
MR. ZWIEBEL: And there is a drawing on the back of this - I
assume you will want to see that .
MS. JOHNSON: Is this a one story solarium?
MR. ZWIEBEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Further questions from members of the '
Board? (none) Thank you . Is there anyone else who would
like to speak in favor of granting this variance? (no one> '
Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (no
one That being the case it 's ours. '
PAGE 30
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1692 - 412 NORTH AURORA STREET
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Jack
and Tamar Sherman for an area variance to permit the
addition of a solarium to the rear of the building at 412
North Aurora Street . The decision of the Board was as
follows:
MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance
requested in Appeal Number 1692.
MR. WEAVER: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 } There were practical difficulties in meeting the front
yard setback that could only be solved by removing the front
porch.
2) The proposed changes don't exacerbate the present front
yard deficiency.
VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED
PAGE 31
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1693 FOR 312
ELMWQOD AVENUE:
Request of Dr . August Leinhart for an
interpretation of Section 30.25, Column 2
(Permitted Primary Uses> , of the Zoning Ordinance
as to whether "grandfather" rights were
established for use of the main unit at 312
Elmwood Avenue for five unrelated tenants. The
appellant has stated that the previous owner of
the building had already moved out of the building
before the appellant purchased it , and therefore
had established graer
ndfathrights for five
unrelated persons. The Building Commissioner has
ruled that , because the Certificates of Compliance
that had been issued were issued on the basis of
owner-occupancy, no grandfather rights for use by '
five unrelated tenants were established . The '
property is located in an area which has recently .
been rezoned R1b (One family dwelling ) Use
Dis rict from R2a (One- and two-family) Use
District ; neither district permits the existing
occupancy.
DR. 0EINHART: Good evening . My name is August Leinhart-
.1. cl
I 'd like to present how I arrived at my interpretation of
the current use, by presenting the historical perspective on
the use of this property . 312 Elmwood is a six bedroom
house which is divided into two units (unintelligible> need
`
PAGE 32
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
to go back - occupied by the Crance's who leased it to four
students in addition to occupying the main floor of the
house. They occupied the house for - I 'm not sure for what
length of time but we are talking about - history of
approximately forty years of occupancy by six individuals in
this house. The house was sold to Elizabeth Li who was a
PhD candidate in Economics at Cornell - she owned the house
for five years. She resided in Pennsylvania for three years
out of those five years and during the time of her absense
it is listed for five students. There are letters from the
Building Office to Ms. Li to her residence in Pennsylvania
during this time. I purchased the house in 1983 and at that
time the house - at the time the (unintelligible ) purchased
the house it was occupied by five students and the previous
owner produced a lease demonstrating this. On negotiating
the purchase of the house, I had the City inspect - this
resulted in approximately a thousand dollars in repairs for .
electrical renovation, new kitchen floor - not to mention
the expression occurred after some lag period between the
initial issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and my .
purchase - I think it exceeded the three year period , the
initial duration of your original Certificate. In any event
I moved into the property for a brief period of time and
subsequently moved out and at the present time the upstairs
part of the building has five bedrooms and is leased to five
`
people. My interpretation is, first of all , that there is
this precedent and perhaps that precedent led me to some
PAGE 33
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
erroneous assumptions about its permitted uses - I 've
learned a lot about building codes in the interim - but the
fact remains that the house is occupied by six individuals
for a period of forty to fifty years. The proposed use
would result in no change in density from an owner plus four
or five people residing there so I don' t feel that it
violates the spirit of the Moratorium, which I am supportive
of. It really would have no impact on the neighborhood .
The parking ratio - legitimately by City Code methods of
calculation - four legitimate parking spaces. There is a
detached garage and two spaces in front of that - there is
space for four . That ratio has existed also four to six
years. That 's pretty much the essence of my - at how I
arrived at my interpretation of the present use under the
determination that this really - should the allowable
occupancy decrease from six to five, this will incur
economic hardship and will decrease the operating budget of
the property significantly. Although at the present time I
am just seeking an interpretation from the Board .
CHAIRMAN l[OMLAW: Questions from members of the Board?
MR. SCHWAB: So just to review quickly, when you bought it '
the previous owner , Ms. Li , for a couple of years it was
owner-occupied - of the five years that she owned it , the
last three, she was in Pennsylvania and was renting it to
five students. You purchased it in 1983 - at the time there
were five unrelated - you continued to rent to the five -
for a while you moved in - when did you live there?
PAGE 34 '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DR. LEINHART: Fall of '83.
MR. SCHWAB: Fall of '83 - so when you first bought it you
moved in - fall of '83 - and then you left - since the fall
of '83 and the beginning of '84 it has been rented to five
unrelated . Do I understand correctly?
MR. SIEVERDINB: The present occupancy of the property is
now?
DR. LEINHART: The present occupancy is five upstairs and
one in the basement .
MR. SIEVERDING: But you no longer reside there?
DR. LEINHART: Right .
CHAIRMAN 7[QMLAN: Could you be a little bit more specific
about when the first inspection took place after you
purchased it in 1983?
DR. LEINHART: It was actually in the context of the
purchase offer - there was a contingency - subject to
inspection by the Building Department at that time - that
was thrown into the negotiations - a lot of renovations were
needed at that time - it actually preceeded the purchase
,
offer . . .
MR. SCHWAB: So what you are asking for exactly is an
interpretation of your grandfathered use - that would be
five unrelated? I 'm not sure - I guess I 'm trying to
pinpoint what specifically you asking us to interpret in the
Code.
DR. LEINHART: I suppose my somewhat , perhaps ill-
informed ,
approach was that grandfather rights existed
PAGE 35
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
(unintelligible) and impression at the present time is that
the proper route be taken (unintelligible)
MR. SCHWAB: So to interpret grandfather rights which you
are urging - you have grandfather rights for five unrelated
people in this house? Okay .
MR. WEAVER: Another question. When was the C.O. issued?
DR. LEINHART: Certificate of Occupancy - I 'm not really
sure when it was issued . It was - also in the fall of `83.
MR. WEAVER: You purchased it in '83?
DR. LEIWMART: Yes.
MR. SIEVERDIMG: Fall of '83?
SECRETARY HOARD: April of '84 .
MS~ FARRELL: Certificate of Occupancy issued then?
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. Certificate of Compliance.
MR. S%EVERDING: With the building code or zoning?
SECRETARY HOARD: Both .
MR. SIEVERI]%NG: Both . So that was issued on the basis of
owner-occupancy. . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Owner-occupancy.
MR. SIEVERD%NG: Owner-occupancy - not on the basis of there
being five plus. . .
SECRETARY HOARD: It was issued - used and occupied as "two
dwelling units plus four rooms to rent within the owner 's
unit" .
CHAIRMAN T0MLAW: Further questions from members of the
Board? (none) Thank you. Is there anyone e1se who like to
speak in favor of granting this variance? (no one) Is
PAGE 36
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Come
forward please?
MR. QQNW: My name is James Dunn, I live near the property
in question, across the street from it . I hesitate to come
to speak against the interests of a nice neighbor but I
think I need to speak for my own interest and the interests
of neighbors who are even closer . I 'd like to share with
the members of the BZA a little history, as Mr . Leinhart
did . Approximately five years ago - and I 've lived in the
neighborhood over ten years, approximately ten years --
approximately
approximately five years ago there was one commercial ,
residential house in the Elmwood/Harvard Place sector under
discussion - one commercial , rental property that was
non-owner-occupied . Within five years there were eight
non-owner-occupied commercial rental properties. Now
(unintelligible) in even more perspective, department of
ethics, in an area that is zoned Rib , there are only - all
of the green [holding up a chart] are non-owner-occupied
multiple units - in the orange squares are the only three
single family residences in the area that is zoned Rib . Now
most of this transition. . .
MS. FARRELL: Excuse me . All of the yellow there is .
non-owner-occupied?
MR. DUNN: The green is non-owner-occupied - there are nine
non-owner-occupied . There are just three houses - actually
there are three houses on the block which Mr . Leinhart and I
live - only three on the entire block , including his house -
PAGE 37
`
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86 '
that are now owner-occupied . Why this type of rapid change
in a residential neighborhood took place and whether or not '
it should have taken place is not the issue here. I don' t
understand how it took place but I 'm to the point now that I
think I need to speak up . The issue is not that the
neighborhood is anti-student , the issue is not that it is
anti-rental - we've always had students, we've always had
rentals in the neighborhood . The issue is owner-occupancy.
Because with owner-occupancy comes greater selection in the
tenants that you do put into your property, you don' t have
three or four or five cars parked in your driveway, across
the sidewalk and your neighbor 's driveway. You don' t keep '
garbage on the porch and you don' t have a lot of parties
when you live in the same property. Now, as soon as it
becomes non-owner-occupied , and this property in question
has had a number of complaints about noise and parking in
recent years and it was not the case when - early rentals -
even though Ms. Li did live there - and after she left it
was still a closely controlled property. The neighborhood
is under tremendous transition. It is zoned
owner-occupancy, the Certificate of Occupancy is for
owner-occupied property and we would like to see it
maintained that way - now when I say "we" , I have to speak
for myself because [passed the chart around] this is my
house here, this is the house in question - one other '
neighbor who is directly next door to the property cannot
speak because they are on sabbatic and we are house-sitting .
PAGE 38
6E 390:1
Aes 04 105 aA, I Ile AlleTquassa s, 4eqj . 4a"Aew Al "Wel at.'[:
uo 4ou . qamAew IeTnAawwon a44 uo BUTOB ST ;j 4eqq s4saBBn---.-..
AlAealn QAadoAd aq; A, anjAd BulMse aqj -uaTqsanb BUTAOW
0 sj AadolaAap e 04 SaO5 AO AllWel e 01 SaOB Q Aaq4aqM PUe
Anuednoma.AaAO BuIpAebaA AATnbul QTO go ' AUTM I 14insa-I
0 se g4alnew aqq uo 4uam Al4uamai Isn! jeq4 asnoq jaqqoue
aAUq am gs, qnqsplaA wqq Aliadaid aq4 aseqnjnd A14uana.-k
Allwey aua Peq aAeq am anueleq snaTienaid AWA e UC)
s! 41 . Mau 4qBIA a3ueleq u! sy paa4joqq5jau aqj -Ul aAjI
o4 alll p,am pooqjoqqBTau go pull aq4 pue ojuj IqBnoq am
poaqvoqqbTau go pull at-4 ; ,usem jeq4 pue 4jed Wq4 uO as=-!
lel4uaplsaA 4sel aqq a 11 , 1 asnemaq gosle asn JeTnAawwo:.-..j
o4 Aliadaid Aw go BuTuozaj e jol BulMtip e ajaq aq Ilim
I 43adsns I GAaq4jnj qnnw lllqumop SaOB pooqioqqB,au aq---I.
IT Qjadaid aq4 IT joel l pue dn leads o4 41al poomwl-_--�j
uo sAoqqBlau Auew 4ou sl aAaq4 as 4pajdnnna.jaumo.uou auob
Ile seq 4T lelwawwon auoB Ile seq 4T asnenaq A;jadoj(::l
a 10 44jou a= o 4aal paApunq oml uTq4Tm sjaqq5jau
jaq4o Auew 40u We aAaq4 mON - jeT4uapjsaj pooqaoqqBlau
BuTdaaM qnoqe ' PAeOH - AW q4jM UjaMUOD 10 la44al e PajTj aAet.1
Aaq4 Pue 21E wOJI sJOOP 0% sl q3Tqm Qjadoid ejBBTS aq4
4qbnoq A14uanai seq Wajua3 s4jV Bulwiagiad aqj go sjo4mai1a
Mau aqq go aura s! oqm gqnqsplaj " jw WS " WTUO; IIaujo.-*.**)
4e s4uaw4Twwon peq aq asnenaq aAeal 04 peq 4nq Aalljea
ajaq sem . ajaq 4ou ST umop SA00P omz JoqqBTau jaq4ou''j
-asnoq AlTwey alBuTs e sy 4T . TeT4uapjsaj poaqjaqqbTat..t
aW Eu_ Tdaal ~E nage apn4144e Alaqj maul I -waq4 -''OI
98/9/2 - S31nNIW VZ8
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
and I 'm sorry to have to speak against the issue because the
Leinhart 's, I think , are good neighbors but they are also
far enough away from the property that they really - it '
doesn' t bother them nearly as much as it bothers the
neighbors much closer .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAW: Questions from members of the Board? '
Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in '
opposition?
MR. MILLER: . . .please the Board , my name is Jim Miller , I
live at 213 Bryant Avenue, I am extremely concerned over the .
'
proposed development . What Mr . Leinhart is proposing is a .
very basic change. He is proposing to take it from an .
owner-occupied house, which is to a purely economic and .
commercial property. Until now the neighborhood depended .
upon owner-occupancy - it is a nice neighborhood - that 's
the neighborhood we purchased and bought into and hope that
we have. I think Mr . Leinhart is woefully out of tune with .
`
the neighborhood . He comes up to you and states that he
does not believe that this is going to have any effect on
the neighborhood and yet this is the "pock" of the
neighborhood . There are numerous people here that would ^
like to speak that are not even within the two hundred foot
radius. I vehemently oppose it and hope that you deny that
application. One of the questions I would hope that you
might want to ask Mr . Leinhart is "how long did he live at ^
312 and did his wife and children live there?" He has on
file with the City the fact that he lived at 107 Harvard '
PAGE 40
_- -
^
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86 '
^
^
Place, he lived at 312 and at 305 Elmwood . Now every ^
address he gives is for his own benefit . I have a document
notarized signed by he and his wife that when he purchased
his present home, he went from 107 Harvard Place to 305. He '
comes to you and insinuates that he lived for a time at 312. '
~
I have serious doubts. I have talked with the neighbors --
people
people that saw his kids on a daily basis at 107 Harvard
`
Place . And yet he comes here and suggests that one of the `
reasons that you should look in his favor - give him a '
'
favor , is because of his owner-occupancy. Frankly I think ^
he did it for his own interests and I don' t believe his
whole family lived there. If he would like to come and tell
us exactly the dates that his whole family lived there, I 'd '
like to hear him say that because I don' t believe it . I 'd '
be happy to answer any questions.
MR. SCHWAB: Why do you think it makes a difference whether
it was once owner-occupied . . . .
MR. MILLER: Well I think that is something that he is '
trying to insinuate to this group that it was owner-occupied
as one of the reasons why you should grant this. I don' t
think he has been honest . He hasn' t been honest with the
City either and I think Mr . Hoard can verify that neighbors
have gone to his properties to check on his numbers of
students - he knows how many students are allowed in the
`
units and there are more - constantly more people there than
are allowed by law. And it is only because the neighbors
`
PAGE 41 .
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
are constantly checking on his property and bring it to the
attention of the City that we are here at all , today .
CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Further questions from members of the
Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to
speak in opposition?
MS. WISSENS0N: My name is Janet Nissenson and I live at 221
Bryant Avenue. My home is in back of the residence in
question, sort of kiddi-korner , in fact I am kiddi-korner to
two pieces of property that Dr . Leinhart owns and rents out .
I 'd like to speak to the spirit of the zoning in the area.
If in fact the newest zoning is done so that we have a
maintenance of family and residential units, I don' t see any
logical reason to grant any kind of variance against that
zoning - just generally . I think we have zoning - there is
a reason for zoning and to allow people to continually
change the zoning because of their own personal interests, I
think divides the spirit of zoning in the City and changes
an environment that was intended to be . Living sort of
kiddi-korner to both of these properties I can say that
^
there just simply is a difference in homes occupied entirely
by students and homes where there are owner-occupants. I
have heard the parties which , you know, young kids may have '
them - I hope they have them - but not in a residential
neighborhood where I live - I wouldn' t have chosen to live
`
there if I thought I 'd be disturbed by activities of College
students. In addition to the numbers and different life
styles is basically what we are talking about . I also
PAGE 42
_
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
understand that there has been violations of existing zoning
with seven names on the mailbox of this house. Seven
doesn' t meet any standards - past , present or future. So I
suggest that Dr . Leinhart does not have a serious regard for
the laws as we have them and I would like to ask you not to
allow his request .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board?
Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in
opposition?
ALDERMAN BOOTH: My name is Dick Booth and I live at 110
Delaware Avenue which isn' t within the two hundred foot
radius but I am the alderman for the Third Ward and - it is
nice to be back here with this group - although I think your
meetings are longer than ours are. Let me just speak very
briefly and give you my sense of what I hear from the
neighbors in this Ward about this in general and how I
interpret what I have heard about this particular variance.
The Leinharts are good neighbors and they are good friends
of lots of people who live in the Ward and they have strong
interest in many of the facets that keep the neighborhood a
strong one. I think it 's most accurate to characterize the
feeling of a Ward as being opposed to both this variance and '
to looser interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance . I think
that most of the people that I have talked to , and I 've
talked to several about this particular variance, strongly
support the Moratorium and strongly support fair and strict
interpretation and application of the City's Zoning
PAGE 43
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
controls. I think most people in the Belle Sherman
neighborhoods support and enjoy the balance in that
neighborhood that exists - owners and tenants - long-time
residents - students who are there for a single year . And I
think there is a balance - it is precarious in general and
more precarious in particular places and there has been a
lot of concern about this particular block on Elmwood so I
saw it as my responsibility to come and tell you tonight
that - from what I `ve heard - there is opposition to
loosening or a perceived loosening of the zoning
requirements in this particular case. I also would say that
it seems to me that there are several interpretations of
Zoning Ordinances that you can come up with under the facts
of this case and I think the Building Commissioner has
attempted to deal with several ambiguities to arrive at the
interpretation that appears before you.
CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: Questions from members of the Board?
MR. SCHWAB: Do you think the Moratorium has anything to do
with this? As I understand it , we are not being asked for a
variance - he claims there has always been a violation at
this property with five unrelated and that 's continuing . .
ALDERMAN BOOTH: Well I think that technically that is
correct , I think though that in reality any of the decisions
that involve those neighborhoods at this particular time are
seen as reflected to some degree in the Moratorium. The
City is struggling with trying to answer a number of
questions about those neighborhoods and hopefully the
PAGE 44
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
Planning Department and Common Council can come to a
successful resolution. So I would agree with you that it
doesn' t directly involve the Moratorium but I think the
perception is that a decision granting the interpretation
that Dr . Leinhart is asking for will be seen by a number of
people as running contrary to the Moratorium, at least the
spirit of the Moratorium.
MR. SCHWAB: And more specifically, as I understand the
facts, basically this is an owner-occupied neighborhood that
is really objecting to any change from that - that 's what
this residence has always been. He is now asking for a
change from owner-occupied - is that your feeling?
ALDERMAN BOOTH: It is my perception, from some people who
have talked with me, that the belief is that this property
was owner-occupied for a long time. What the specific facts
are, I 'm not able to tell you any more than what I 've heard
from various people who have called . I know which property
it is but I don' t know whether it was owner-occupied - from
my own information. I think many people feel that that is
what the record is - recollections that I have heard ,
suggested that that is true. Again I think Tom's records
are the best source of information we can have about this.
MR. SIEVER%}ING: Is it correct to think of the key
neighborhood concern as the fact - not so much that there
are a number of people living in the property - but that
there may be a number of people living in the property
without the owner-occupant residing there as well?
PAGE 45
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
ALDERMAN BOOTH: I think there is a general perception that
- and I would tend to agree with that perception - that
rental properties that are owner-occupied are used in
somewhat different ways than rental properties that are not
owner-occupied . That 's not to say that there aren' t numbers
of people in owner-occupied properties - but that somehow
the ambiance and the overall character of the use is
different when they are owner-occupied . There seems to be
more stability, more care to the garbage which is put out -
more care about the parking and so on and I think that is a
general perception and from my information that's generally
true. Again, I don' t see most of what I hear in the
neighborhood as being anti-student . I think these
neighborhoods have lived with lots of students for a very
`
long time and that is going to continue and I think most
people understand that and accept it and many people enjoy '
that mixture. So it is not a question of students or '
something else, I think it is a question of the character of
the ownership and therefore - not the ownership - but the
character of how the owner relates to the property that he
or she owns. '
'
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Thank you Richard . Is
there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition?
MS. T8WNGEND: My name is Bickley Townsend and I also am not
'
- I live at 109 Oxford Place which is not within the two '
hundred foot area. I 'm President of Bryant Park Civic '
Association and if you will allow me, as a representative of '
PAGE 46
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
the Neighborhood Association, I would like to make a brief
comment .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Briefly.
MS. l[QWNSEND: This situation at 312 Elmwood and also at Mr .
Leinhart 's other rental property on Harvard Place is exactly
what galvanized our neighborhood last summer into supporting
a Moratorium on increases in density and also I think what
caused the Council to rezone this very block from R2 to R1 .
As we said at the time, to Council , we feel somewhat like
the burgers of Amsterdam nervously watching a crack develope
in the dike behind our houses and hoping that somebody is
going to do something about it . Not because we are
anti-student or anti-renters, any more than the people in
Amsterdam are anti-water . But it is a question of survival
and we are more or less living below sea level , being as
close to Cornell as we are. We do believe this is still a
very viable neighborhood for families and owner-occupants
but we think it is under seige. I would just like to raise
two issues quickly on behalf of the Association. First this '
appeal is in the form of an interpretation but it looks a
lot more like a zoning change to us. Dr . Leinhart is asking
you to reinterpret "owner occupied" to mean the same thing '
as "non-owner-occupied" . In other words he is asking you to
eliminate the distinction made in the Ordinance between
owner-occupancy and non-owner-occupancy, absentee ownership .
Now whether or not that is a valid distinction I could
address quickly in a minute but the Council did have reasons
PAGE 47 `
'
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
for adding it to the Zoning Ordinance so it seems to me that
for you to eliminate it would have very far reaching
implications and every R1 district in the City. Certainly
it doesn' t seem like this is the time to make such a drastic
change. During the Moratorium - in the most sensitive part
of the Moratorium area and the very point in time when
zoning revisions are under way , so we are suggesting that it
is sort of back door rezoning and we'd like to ask you not
to let it happen. Now the second issue - what about the
validity of distinguishing between owner-occupied and
non-owner-occupied properties, which is really what is being
challenged in this interpretation. We think that 's not just
a valid distinction but it is really quite a critical one to
the character of the neighborhood . And I am not asking you
to believe me, I can cite the City's own survey - East Hill
Neighborhood - that was just completed and it says " it was
frequently noted that rental housing is often in poor .
condition and that the yards and parking areas associated .
with rental housing are not adequately maintained . There is
a fairly widespread sentiment on behalf of both home owner
and renter groups that the City of Ithaca should be more
aggressive in dealing with absentee landlords. " I guess
that is what we are asking you to do tonight . I think it
was clear to Dr . Leinhart when he bought 312 Elmwood that a
Certificate of Occupancy specified owner-occupancy and it is
our understanding that when a non-conforming use legally
PAGE 48
-- '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
estaL,lished lapses, that you lose your grandfathering
rights. And it clearly lapsed in late 1983 and has been
more or less illegally occupied since then and we'd like to
ask that he obey the existing laws for that neighborhood and
if he feels that it is an economic hardship , we believe that
there are enough people who would like to move into our
neighborhood , that it could probably revert to the
owner-occupancy that it was in before.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: Questions from members of the Board?
MR. WEAVER: Yes. You talk about owner-occupied versus
non-owner-occupied but I think the crux of this question,
I 'm lookingin permitted uses in R2 and I think any
reasonable person would understand that this has been and is
a duplex in use.
MS. TQWNSEND: This neighborhood was rezoned R1 .
MR. WEAVER: I 'm not talking about the neighborhood , I 'm
talking about this house.
`
MS. TOWNSEND: It had what I guess we would think of as an '
accessory apartment in the basement , Mr . Weaver .
MR. WEAVER: So , in effect , it was a duplex , in fact .
MS. TQWNSEND: With the main unit owner-occupied . '
MR. WEAVER: There is no reference to owner-occupancy in the
R2, that I see.
MS. TQWy4SEND: Well this was a multiple dwelling in an R2
district where multiple dwellings were not permitted at the
time Mr . Leinhart bought it because there were four people
in addition to the owner , so he did have to have a
PAGE 49
B,-:.:.A MINUTES
certificate of occupancy and the certificate was for owner
plus four .
MR. WEAVER- I appreciate that , I 'm just trying to find out
with Planners and Legislators working on this problem over a
long period of years that the Code that I 'm supposed to read
and follow, doesn' t seem to respond to what I hear tonight -
not just in the Moratorium area but generally. That would
mean that all of Fall Creek - there is no reference that I
understand to owner-occupancy. Is it significant or is it
not , is a question I wouldn' t expect anybody here to answer
but it just seems quite unreasonable that this Board
appears to be ignoring owner-occupancy when in fact the Code
does and . . .
MS. T0WWSEND: Well owner-occupancy is explicitly recognized
in all R2 districts as grounds for a minor density bonus.
MR. WEAVER: It is?
MS. TQWNSENB: In R1? [changed tape here and missed some of
the dialogue] 77, or whatever it was, why it specified
owner-occupancy then, all we know is that it did . And
subsequently the Ordinance was to recognize owner-occupancy
as a valid distinction and a valid reason for granting a '
density bonus and if the owner-occupancy lapses then you
don' t get the bonus any longer - for all those reasons that
I think our neighbors have stated .
MR. SCHWAB: Let me ask you once again. In 1983 when this
was zoned R3, do you think he had to file for a certificate
of occupancy?
PAGE 50
B"'-::.A MINUTES - 5/5/86
MG. T8WMSEND: In 1983? It is my understanding that he took
over a certificate of occupancy which - for his own property
which specified owner-occupancy and that he allowed the City
to believe that he would be the owner-occupant - even though
I believe he only closed on this property in November of 83
and as ofJanuary 84, the Manning Directory showed him
living at 305 Elmwood , which is his current address, Scat
the very most he couldn' t have lived there more than two
months.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Thank you. Is there
anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? (no one)
That being the case it is ours.
^
PAGE 51
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1693 - 312 ELMWQOD AVENUE
MR. SCHWAB: Let me ask you, Tom, why does this Certificate
of Occupancy say "owner-occupied" on it? Was there any need
to do that.-
SECRETARY HOARD: That was always the policy - a matter of
(unintelligible) if it was owner-occupied it was issued that
way whether the zone carried with it any benefits or not .
What's happened in this case though , it has moved into an R1
zone, which does recognize owner-occupancy, and up until we
had a complaint our records show that the owner listed it as
owner-occupied .
MR. SCHWAB: Is the precise point then to prc'ject against
future upgrading in zones? Is the reason for requiring
owner-occupied on the Certificate of Occupancy tc' - if there
is an upgrade in zoning . . . the Certificate of Occupancy
won' t carry . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Well it 's that and it 's just the idea of
studies are always being made about what neighborhoods are
like and what the complexion of the neighborhood is - if we
have them listed that way it is much easier to keep trace of
them.
MR. SCHWAB: So just to have an accurate statement of what 's
going on on the Certificate of Occupancy.
MS. FARRELL: Tom, if this property were not owner-occupied
in 1983 and if it had a Certificate of Occupancy, what would
PAGE 52
_
BZA MINUTES
have been the maximum number of people for each unit? That
wouldn' t have been any, different , would it?
SECRETARY HOARD: If it had an existing Certificate of
Compliance as fully rental , that 's what would be
grandfathered .
MS. FABRELL: Okay. And what would that occupancy have been
for that? It would have still been the . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: It could have been the same.
MS. FARRELL: Because that was - the occupancy was being
grandfathered - somehow it was grandfathered as
owner-occupancy? I 'm not sure what I mean. '
MR. SIEVERDIMG: Let one ask that a different way . Under
current zoning in either an R1 or an R2, if you have an
owner-occupied dwelling , you are allowed the maximum of two '
unrelated individuals in addition to the owner? Is that
correct?
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. In R2 you are allowed an individual
or family plus two regardless of whether it 's owner-occupied
or not . In an R1 , you are allowed one unrelated in addition '
to the individual or family unless it is owner-occupied ,
then you are allowed an additional person. And that ' s what
we are getting into here. What I 'm doing . . .
MS. FARRELL: So here it would have been - it was
owner-occupied - it could now be four people - an owner plus
two unrelated? .
SECRETARY HOARD: Owner plus four in the main unit , is what
`
I understood we were going into this R1 zoning with . We
PAGE 53
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
found out after the fact that the owner is not there, so I
don' t think it knocks off all the other people - it knocks
it down to two people - I think it knocks one off.
MR. S3EVERD%NG: Soit 's the owner plus four in the main
unit and in that other unit . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: The other unit is grandfathered for one,
right .
MS. FARRELL: So you are thinking now that it should be. . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Four in the larger unit and one in the
other . . .
MS. FARRELL: Because it would be. ' '
CHAIRMAN T0MLANc We have three other letters and I thought
we would make note of them for the record .
SECRETARY HOARD: Well , three letters were received at the
,
beginning of the hearing - Susan Brown s, Savishinsky's, and
the Winn's letters have all been distributed . There is one
that was not distributed because the submitter of the letter
thought he might be able to speak but he had to leave before '
he had a chance, so I said I 'd read his letter . It 's from
David Feldshuh , 11 1-1 Professor at Cornell "Dear Sir :
Because I cannot stay for the complete hearingthis evening ,
I wanted to make clear my vigorous opposition to any
re-interpretation of the occupancy requirements for Elmwood
Avenue, in particular 310 and 312. I have recently bought
308 Elmwood and it is my hope to raise a family at this
residence. I see no advantage to creating rental dwellings
that do not require the homeowner to live on the premises.
PAGE 54
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
One need only look at the block to see the deterioration
that has occurred in those homes are occupied by multiple
renters. On Elmwood away from college town the homes are
well kept and the lawns cared for . Closer to college town
the reverse is the case. This is a lovely neighborhood that
has begun to deteriorate because of absentee landlords. It
is a street that is most appropriate for family dwellings,
dwellings in which the owner-occupant takes pride. Please
do not re-interpret the occupancy requirements to allow
rentals in non-owner-occupied homes. If you do , it will be
a severe blow to the well-being of this area in the future.
Thank you for considering my point of view and this request .
Sincerely, /s/ David Feldshuh , M.D. , Professor"
MR. WEAVER: Mr . Chairman, we are asked for an
interpretation and that 's our duty to follow that regardless
of all the implications. Do I understand that this C.O. was
issued in - or how about the application for the Certificate
Of, Occupancy - did it occur in 1983? I think the appellant
said he bought the property sometime in . . .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: 1984 --- that 's what Tom said . That 's when
it was granted .
MR. WEAVER: The C.O. was issued , but the purchase was. . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: 1983.
MR. WEAVER: But when in '83?
SECRETARY HOARD: The application was - this can' t be right ,
he has written 9-10-89 - must be '84 - okay, it is '84.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: September of '84.
PAGE 55
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: The Certificate was issued April 17, `84.
MR. WEAVER: And the application for - the purchase was
when?
MR~ SIEVERDIMG: 1983.
MR. WEAVER: Yes, but when? That 's a whole year . Nov this
zoning . . .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Fall of '83 is what we were told .
MR. WEAVER: This zoning occurred , I believe, in June 1st ,
1983. . .
MS. FARRELL: The zoning changed?
MR. WEAVER: That 's my understanding . And if so , I 'm trying
to establish that it was R1 in June of 1983 and that this
purchase occurred after the change in zoning , so if you are
looking at an application for whatever , in the particular
zone - R1 rules apply. Regardless of the history of the
thing , it grandfathers only back to the change - as I see it
- for a new owner . Now I 'm not trying to make any law here
but I 'm trying to understand what did happen and where -
what the law was at the time he made the purchase.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: He had said specifically, fall of '83 is
when the purchase had taken place.
MR. WEAVER: Well that was my understanding and I refer to
the present zoning map and the certifications - that the
last one that I have is 6/1/83. Si.::, that the 1-;'1 didn` t
happen after this owner purchased the property and if I
understand grandfathering , the former use, if not granted by
a variance is legal non-conforming use on the basis of any
PAGE 56
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
old Ordinance that we had and suddenly here is a new one and
it only goes back to '83, is that tortured or reasonable?
SECRETARY HOARD: Well this was rezoned R1 last year .
MR. WEAVER: It is R1 now. But I 'm just saying that in the
purchasing of this property that it went from R2 to R1 and
that back in '83 I think it is interesting to know whether
to support the Building Commissioner in his interpretation
or whether , in fact , it was rezoned after being occupied in
a legal manner and I 'm not - I don' t know what that was.
MR. SCHWAB: When did you say this became R1 Tom?
SECRETARY HOARD: Last year .
MR. WEAVER: About a year ago . August 7, 1985. Sc' we had a
rezoning to R1 which certainly didn' t apply to the building
at the time of purchase. Now the other question is whether
the notation that ''owner-occupancy'' if it is not required
now in R2, it certainly wasn' t required in '83. So ,
Moratorium, what would be nice, etc . is fine, but this is
the Ordinance we have - I 'm not arguing for or. against , I 'm
just trying to establish the facts as they existed and the
^
fact of the notation on a C.O. would not - a variance '
granted on condition for something of that sort but merely a
notation - it could have been without , as I understand it ,
`
in R2, and that was R2 . .
SECRETARY HOARD: You are saying then that if it was R2 at
the time that he got the Certificate, it was an
owner-occupied property - then he went into - there was a
zoning change which now talks about owner-occupancy and
PAGE 57
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
sometime - and we discover that - we discover this after the
zoning had changed - that it was no longer owner-occupied -
what happens then?
MR. WEAVER: Well I `m just saying that if it were, in fact ,
R2 at the time of the purchase and at the time of the
issuance of the C.O. that only the requirements are
pertinent and the fact that it was owner-occupied is
incidental to the requirements or the issuance of the C.O.
If at that time it had five related , unrelated , or
otherwise, other than a single-family dwelling , and it was
occupied as two parts. I 'm not convinced that the Code has
- there is any track here that required owner-occupancy --
either
either - not even the C.O. - it would be like saying , it was
a nice day - it wasn' t anything or a requirement of the
Zoning Ordinance in '83, or , in fact , in '84 .
MR. S%EVERDING: I 'm having a hard time then with the
language in the Certificate of Occupancy - that makes
specific reference to owner-occupancy as a condition of
granting that particular C.O.
MS. FARRELk-: Is it a condition, though , or is it just a
notation? I mean, that 's what I am confused about there.
^
It seems as though it could have been absentee then and it
wasn' t really related to the - you know - I 'm confused with
`
this - but it seems like that - you are saying , Tom, that
that - the notation about being owner-occupied didn' t -
wasn' t a condition of granting the Certificate? `
SECRETARY HOARD: Not under the R2.
PAGE 58
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MS. FARRELL: Okay and that `s what it was then?
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes.
MS. FARRELL: All right .
MR. SIEVERDING: So the notation that you make on the
(unintelligible) there is that asterisk - stating that this
is grandfathered as two units, one bedroom, one person, five
bedrooms, four unrelated individuals without regard to
owner-occupancy, is that correct? Is that correct , I
understand that this property has grandfather rights for one
in the one-bedroom unit and four in the five-bedroom unit
without regard to owner-occupancy?
SECRETARY HOARD: The way I was looking at it was that he
had grandfather rights for four unrelated individuals, the
other person being the owner-occupant (unintelligible)
MG. FARRELL: Why were you thinking four and not three if it
was R2?
SECRETARY HOARD: There were five to begin with . There was
an owner plus four unrelated living there.
MS. FARRELL: When the Certificate was granted in '83.
SECRETARY HOARD: That was the application that was made.
MS. FARRE&-L: Okay, but that wasn' t legal in an R2 zone was .
it?
SECRETARY HOARD: No . This was R3 before that - or R2 under
a different set of rules.
MS. FARRELL: Okay, so those were the rules - it was okay
then. . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Way back . . . (unintelligible>
PAGE 59
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MS. FARRELL: Way back .
MR. WEAVER: Well was that the old rooming house definition
- back in R3?
MR. SCHWAB: I 'm not sure - I ' ll bring it up as a question
only, Tom. Under the Moratorium it does worry about issuing
new Certificates of Occupancy for change in use. Can you
J.ssue a new Certificate of Occupancy without this
designation of owner-occupant?
SECRETARY HOARD: That 's why we are here for an
interpretation. I said I couldn' t and he has asked for an
interpretation to find out if I can.
MR. SCHWAB: But even if the Zoning Ordinance allows it -
somehow it is grandfathered - he doesn' t have a current
Certificate of Occupancy for non-owner-occupied . Is that
right? C.O. says owner-occupied .
SECRETARY HOARD: C.O. says owner-occupied .
MR. SCHWAB: He is not in compliance with it?
SECRETARY
HOARD: Right now he has not complied with what it
says.
MR. SCHWAB: If he were to ask for a new one, it doesn' t
require owner-occupied - the Moratorium would stop it -
^
would it
'
SECRETARY
HOARD: Yes, under my ruling I would not be
allowed to issue a C.O. for the current occupancy.
MR. WEAVER: I 'm sorry, but the Moratorium - 30.01a talks
about alterations and construction building . "b" says "any
Certificate of O�cupancy for a change in use which would
PAGE 60
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
increase the legal occupancy capacity of any
non-owner-occupied dwelling unit , or the number of such
units, in the area described in subdivision 2 of this
ordinance. " I think what they were saying was that you
can' t issue a C.O. that would increase the occupancy . It
seems clear .
MR. SCHWAB: But I would argue in addition - particularly if
you read on "capacity of any non-owner-occupied dwelling
unit" and that would certainly include a C.O. that 's newly
non-owner-occupied , in other words, the increase in the
legal occupancy of non-owner-occupied has gone up from zero
to five. I guess as I 'm grappling with the technical issue
here, which I suppose we've got to - there is almost two
questions, the one is what are his rights under the zoning
as this C.O. says "owner-occupied" even though at the time
the zoning didn' t require owner-occupied , and he is now
carrying that forward into the new Ria - we could interpret
it all to say that you complied with your C.O. 's until you
get new ones and you can' t get a new one now - your old C.O.
said "owner-occupied" - to get a new C.O. , you've got to
comply with what the zoning says. Then there is a second '
question, even if we say no that 's not right , there is a '
`
second question I think , the zoning law allows
non-owner-occupied with the grandfather rights - the second
question - the Moratorium, seems to me - can a C.O. be
issued now, given the Moratorium - given that it's a shift
in C.O. I 'm personally inclined not to be quite so '
PAGE 61
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
technical with this. Here again, I guess I 'd like to hear
one more time what Tom's thinking was, which was - or let me
reinterpret what it is and if you disagree that that is what
it was - that this was a Certificate of Occupancy - for
owner-occupancy - it 's not being complied with . He has to
get a new one. And I ' ll be willing to make a further
finding, there has always been owner-occupancy in this
property . (unintelligible) occupancy requires
owner-occupancy. Now when he has applied for a new C.O. -
to meet the conditions - it doesn' t meet the zoning
requirement and all that has been grandfathered back is
owner-occupancy. Is that the gist of what you are saying?
SECRETARV HOARD: The gist , yes.
MR. SCHWAB: Let me move this along and make it a little bit
more formal - then we can see. Who knows how far it will
lead .
PAGE 62
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1693 812 ELMWOOD AVENUE
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Dr .
August Leinhart for an interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance as to whether "grandfather" rights were
established for use of the main unit at 312 Elmwood Avenue
for five unrelated tenants. The decision of the Board was
as follows:
MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board deny the appellant's
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.
MR~ SIEVERDING: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 ) This property has essentially always been
owner-occupied.
2) The most recent Certificate of Compliance notes that the
property is owner-occupied.
3) The house is currently occupied by five {5} persons in
the main unit and one ( 1 ) person in the one-bedroom unit
based on owner-occupancy.
4} The zoning currently requires owner-occupancy.
5> We conclude that the grandfather rights, given the .
continuous history of owner-occupation for this property, is .
for an owner-occupied dwelling unit.
VOTE: 5 YES; 1 NO BOARD RULED IN FAVOR OF THE BUILDING
COMMISSIONER'S INTERPRETATION
PAGE 63 '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1694 for
1011 NORTH AURORA STREET:
Appeal of Beverly Everts for an area variance for
excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient
setbacks for the front yard , one side yard , and
the rear yard under Section 30.259 Columns 10, 11 ,
12, and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the
conversion of the single-family dwelling at 1011
North Aurora Street to a two-family dwelling . The
property is located in an R2b (Residential , one-
and two-family) Use District in which the proposed
use is permitted ; however , under Section 30.57 the '
appellant must first obtain an area variance for '
the listed deficiencies before a building permit '
or Certificate of Compliance can be issued for the
proposed conversion.
MR~ TAVELLI : My name is Paul Tavelli , 405 North Tioga
Street , Ithaca, attorney for Beverly Everts, who sits next
to me, her address is 305 E. Falls Street , Ithaca. She
resides not too far from the subject property. She has a
contract to buy this particular piece of property - she is
not the owner - she has a contract with certain
contingencies that require us to be present here this
evening . I do want to emphasize, again, that this is an R2
zone, it does allow the use that my client intends to put
this property . First of all , it is a seven bedroom house,
PAGE 64
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
two-story, frame house at the present time - seven bedrooms,
three down, four up . Mrs. Everts intends, or hopes, or
wants to take one of the bedrooms out upstairs and put in a
kitchen and return the property to a duplex . We discussed
this at length , and I have advised her of the current uses
that may or may not be available. Obviously she could
currently rent this to a family with a number of children,
six , seven children - however many - that is not her
intended use, it is impossible to find a family of that size
with no yard in that particular neighborhood . I have
advised her of the recent changes in law - the McGinn [sic]
case, which I am sure you are all aware of - I 've advised
her that she very possibly could rent this to six unrelated
people and I don' t think she would have a substantial
problem. She does not want to do this - she wants to turn
it into a duplex , which is allowed and the reasons are - I 'm
going to pass this map around but I ' ll - it is color-coded
for some help . The property in question has got the "X" on
it - all the other yellow properties Mrs. Everts already '
owns - so she owns - one, two , three, four , five, six places
^
around this particular unit , all of which , I may add , have
Certificates of Compliance and Occupancy. This is really a '
mixed neighborhood - we've got the Fall Creek House up here ^
in red - you all know - we've got a Laundromat, we've got a
restaurant , we've got - all in red are the commercial -true '
'
commercial uses - not a commercial meaning rental - but '
commercial being commercial in the true sense of the word .
`
PAGE 65
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
We've got a number of duplexes, blue, surrounding - we've
got a number of single family occupancies that are rented -
not owner-occupied - they are in purple, so we've got all
kinds of uses in this particular neighborhood . Now the
history - I did a little study of the history just to find
out what this property was always used for - starting in
1930 it was a duplex and it was pretty much a duplex all the
way up to about 1960 - checking the City Directories - it
was always a two-family house - in about 1947, the LaRock
Family bought the house - they used it as a duplex for a
certain period of time - best estimate is sometime in the
late '50's or 1960 they changed it back to - they took the
kitchen out of the second floor - I can' t find any other .
changes they made - there is still a bathroom upstairs and a .
bathroom down - they removed the kitchen from the second .
`
floor sometime - as best we can tell - in the late '50's. ^
My client basically wants to put that particular kitchen .
back in, she does not want to turn this into a rooming .
house, she wants to turn it into a two-family house which
very possibly could have the same density as is allowed now
if it is rented to two couples, which is very possible and '
extremely likely. As I 've said, it is a mixed neighborhood
`
- I 've taken a walk through the neighborhood - I can' t find
any houses that comply with the side yard and the setback
requirements. Now I didn` t take a tape measure and measure '
every house in the neighborhood, but a visual observation '
`
would indicate that nothing in that particular part of the
^
PAGE 66 '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
City complies with side yard and setback requirements. Mrs.
Everts can' t comply with side yard and setback requirements
- this lot is only fifty feet deep , she'd have to build
something that would look like the Washington Monument to
comply with side yard - or to modify it - it can' t possibly
be done on that size lot . We contend that this is the
classic practical difficulty case, I mean, - it is beyond
that , it is a practical impossibility - she can' t possibly
comply with the Zoning Ordinance or it 's intended use. We
maintain that if the City of Ithaca - as you've done before
- wants to put in Ordinances requiring you to owner-occupy
or one-family, to change the zoning - this is not the case
that was talked about a few mintutes ago, where the zoning
was changed - this particular zone allows two-families ---
there
there isn' t any question about it and it 's practical
difficult and impossible to do anything about the side yard
requirements - it can' t be done - and , in fact , while I
think Mrs. Everts does not want to turn it into a rooming
house - it is because of all these yellow houses - one of
them is occupied by two daughters - another by a son - a
third by a son - a fourth by a mother-in-law and another by
'
an aunt and a cousin - so these are pretty much a family .
neighborhood - her entire family lives in these five houses .
so - and she lives - her own house is 305, which is just one
^
house away - where she resides with her husband . So she
maintains that she is going to look after this place, even
though that isn' t a requirement , and I do want to speak -
PAGE 67
--- -- - -- — -
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
we've gone through the neighborhood - I 've canvassed most
people - as best I can tell , there is just a couple of
people in opposition - I 'm going to file with the Clerk , if
I may, a number of letters that I have received from both
tenants of Mrs. Everts and people living in the neighborhood
that think that this is an excellent idea - that it be
turned into a duplex and have endorsed her request here this
evening . Now this isn' t a court of law, I realize, but I
had to sit through the Planning Board last Tuesday night so
I 'm aware of what is going to happen next with respect to
the opposition - I assume you are going to see a slide show
on the aesthetics of this neighborhood . First of all , I 've
got a case and I ' ll file it with you that aesthetics have
really no bearing on this Board . Mr . Hollander , who sits
behind me is upset with the house that Mrs. Everts owns
across the street . All of the places down here have
certificates of compliance - the one particular house that
he is upset about is not going to be completed until October
and we have a letter from the Building Commissioner giving
my client the opportunity to complete this house in October
of 1986 so I can' t object to some of the things that are
going to follow me but I just want to go on record as saying
I think they are irrelevant - if I was in a court I would be '
objecting to their even being discussed . The nature of
other properties that she owns isn' t really relevant , what
is relevant is - we've got a history of this property being
a duplex for about twenty-five or thirty years - we've got a .
PAGE 68
'— -- '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
use that is allowed under the Zoning Ordinance - we've got
setback and side yard that she can' t comply with
textbook case of an area variance - it meets all of the
requirements of practical difficulties. If the City wants
owner-occupation or wants one-family houses, there are ways
to do that , but I do not think the way to do that is to deny
an area variance when one is justified under the current
circumstances.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board?
MR. SIEVERDING: How would the property be used if she
purchased it , it would be a two-unit?
MR. TAVELLI : It would be a duplex .
MR. ��I��V��RDINB: With how many bedrooms up and how many
down?
MR. TAVELLI : Three up and three down, is that-
MRS.
hatMRS. EVERTS: Correct .
MR. TAVELLI : Currently there are three down and four up , so
we maintain the density probably would even be decreased by
a duplex rather than the current situation which -
apparently the property is in foreclosure now - it is owned
by an absentee landlord , there have been numbers of
residents - say anywhere from five to ten in the house - we '
have no direct knowledge of that - but it has been alleged - '
it's been owned by an absentee landlord for a few years now.
We want it back and owned by somebody in the neighborhood
and someone who will turn it into a duplex rather than a
rooming house.
PAGE 69
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Further questions? Thank you.
MR. TAVEQ-I : Should I leave the map and the letters?
CHAIRMAN 7[OMLANz Please do . Is there anyone else who would
like to speak in favor? (no one) Is there anyone who would
like to speak in opposition? Come forward .
MR. HOLLANDER: My name is Andrew Hollander , I own and
occupy a residence across the street from the property that
the appellant currently owns. I live directly next door to
the house in question and , in fact , if the property does
change hands there could potentially be a question as to
property lines - that 's how close the properties are to each
other . So I yield to Mr . Tavelli and agree, that there
ain' t no way in hell guys, that you can even address the
issue of the number of inches the house is from the front
sidewalk or the number of feet - I don' t really believe that
that 's an issue from the standpoint of zoning as so much as
the question is what will the additional use be, what will
the density be, if the property is allowed to change from
currently a one-family house, to a two-family house. Mr .
Tavelli pointed out that there are seven bedrooms in the
house - that 's irrelevant - I believe the property is zoned
single-family currently which means, under current law in
New York State, three unrelated parties, if I 'm not ^
mistaken. Although history on the property, Mr . Tavelli was '
`
correct in pointing out that it was a two-family house for
^
some twenty years, I trust his math - but that was
twenty-six years ago . For the past twenty-six years, ^
'
PAGE 70 '
------ -- - --' --- -
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
according to Mr . Tavelli 's figures, the property was a
one-family house and , in fact , except for the last five or
six years it was owner-occupied . After Frank LaRock sold
the house to , I believe John Rancich , who sold it to John
Cusick , who sold it back to John Rancich , who repossessed
the property and it bounced back and forth playing ping-pong
we ended up with the house being sold to a gentleman who now
lives, I believe, in Rochester , who bought it as an
owner-occupied house. Unfortunately he bought it as an
owner-occupied house for college student himself, at Cornell
University and it is my understanding his intention was to
go to Cornell as a night student and when he found out that
Cornell did not have night classes, his comment was "oops" ,
he moved to Rochester where he is - as I understand it -
going to night school , but was left with the problem of
owning a piece of property that he acquired to use for
something that he could no longer make a profit doing . Paul
Tavelli has pointed out that the property is in foreclosure,
I don' t question his research , it may very well be. I don' t
think that 's a point that the Zoning Board needs to address
because the property was, in fact , owned and lived in very
^
nicely, I believe, by Frank LaRock . The fact that a series
of landlords - absentee landlords - have sold the property .
back and forth to each other - for whatever reason - and
raised the price beyond perhaps what a one-family dwelling
can afford - is again, not an issue of the Zoning Board - so
that the problem of the current owner is perhaps best
PAGE 71
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
addressed by the current owner realizing they made a
mistake, eating their mistake, and selling the property to
somebody who can occupy it as a single-family dwelling . I
bring that point up because I believe one of the issues the
Zoning Board should be addressing is one of increased
density of use of the property and some of the questions
that we have relate to the altering of the character of the
neighborhood . If you take a piece of property that has
perhaps three people living in it and convert it to a piece
of property that could have six unrelated parties living in
it , I think what you have is an awful lot of unrelated
parties - some of which may be very late at night , which , I
believe will alter the character of the neighborhood . In
addition one of the problems that you will have with six
unrelated parties or six parties not from the same family
unit is one of health and garbage. Will those people take
care of the property and maintain the property in the same
manner as an owner-occupied property would be. My
contention is that it wouldn' t occur . I believe there would
be more of a chance of a fire safety situation in the
property if we had unrelated parties - a family unit , I '
believe the City has done a study on - states that an '
owner-occupied family unit is a more cohesive unit with less
impact on the community. The question that Mr . Tavelli
raised about returning the property to what appears to be an
original use, I think is a very noble concept and I 've been
wanting to go to the drive-in movies for the longest time
PAGE 72
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
but driving out of town is an inconvenience to me and we do
have a location downtown that was formerly a movie theater ,
it is currently now a drive-in location and gosh , golly,
gee, why don' t we propose turning the Tompkins County
drive-in window to a drive-in movie. I don' t think that 's a
relevant point . I think the question here is not so much ,
what was the prior use of this property, but what is the
current impact going to be on the community if the property
is in fact changed from a single-family occupancy to a
two-family occupancy. You are about to see a slide show and
I believe the Planning Board has addressed the issue of the
relevancy of these slides by saying " it 's not in their
province to address the issue of maintenance - that 's an
issue for the BZA. " Thys Van Cort , at the Planning Board
meeting said , and I guess I quote - it 's out of the
newspaper - "that was one of those real tough situations
where I would have liked to have made a recommendation. I
think Mr . Hollander brought up some very important points. "
The side comment I received afterwards from speaking to one
of the members of the Planning Board was that "unfortunately
the Planning Board is blind to the fact that one of the
things that they should be planning for is deterioration or '
lack of deterioration of the community. " And I think that
is an issue that the Zoning Board can address. If we are
talking owner-occupied - I have a hard time arguing that an
owner-occupied residency there can' t be two-family. On the
other hand if we are talking about a landlord obtaining this
PAGE 73
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
^
property, I think it becomes relevant as to what can we '
'
expect the property to be maintained as. One of the points
that was made in John Novarr `s presentation was that he '
would be attempting to make the property more in keeping '
with what the community was and what the neighborhood was
like and I think that - whether it 's a Planning issue or a '
Zoning issue, it 's an important issue - and I think that it
is important for someone to address the fact of
deterioration of a neighborhood or if we are not going to '
call it deterioration in a neighborhood then what is the
direction that the neighborhood is moving into . When I '
purchased my house and - unfortunately I don' t qualify as a .
"townie" , I 've only lived in my property since roughly 1972 .
^
which is, I believe fourteen years. [changed tape here and .
missed a small part of the dialogue] conduct for an
owner-occupied house that might be slightly different than a
standard expected for a non-owner-occupied house. The
appellant currently, I believe has a valid building permit
on a property that you will see a picture of directly across
the street from me. Mr . Tavelli was nice enough to comment
on the way up in the elevator something to the effect that `
he has already seen my show. I live with it on a daily .
basis and I applauded , unfortunately, the application for a .
'
zoning variance when the property across the street from me
was condemned . The property was condemned , the Everts put .
in a zoning appeal requesting to improve the property and .
this was going back probably, Tom, seven years? My memory '
PAGE 74
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86 '
is really not that great on the 408 E. Lincoln Street
property, but I think what we have is a situation where the '
appellant is saying one thing and then doing something that , '
in my opinion is slightly different from what they are
saying - what their application for the zoning appeal
implies and I am reading from their application - it says
that the house is owned by absentee landlords and the
appellant lives only a short distance away and will maintain '
the property. That implies to me that the appellant is
going to do any necessary repairs on the property in keeping
with the community . He is going to maintain the property
better than an absentee landlord would . And I maintain that '
^
what you are about to see will indicate that perhaps the '
appellant has wonderful intentions but is currently not '
capable of maintaining additional properties because the
properties they already own - although perhaps in compliance
with any number of zoning and fire and safety codes, begin '
to get out of sync with what is just normally considered '
nice and I think that 's an issue that the BZA or the
Planning Board has to address and the Planning Board said ,
,
basically that it was a zoning issue and that I should bring '
those points up here. So that if you are not going to ^
`
address the issue of is it an appropriate way to maintain a `
property and does the landlord have the appropriate ability
to maintain a property, then you should not rule tonight and '
^
what you should do is send it back to the Planning Board , '
because either the Planning Board or the BZA is responsible `
^
PAGE 75 .
~ - - - ---~
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
for the condition of our community. I 'd like to show you
some slides now, taken in the area. The property in
question is the grey house on the right side of the screen,
what you are looking at is east up the block towards Gun
Shop . There is a Century 21 for sale sign in front of the
property. The laundromat is in fact on the right side - it
is a wonderful laundromat , there is a Diner directly where
Tom Hoard is sitting and it is a wonderful Diner and I 'm
really glad it 's in the community - it is in fact an asset
to the community. This is a piece of property directly
across the street and I believe it 's owner-occupied and I
believe this is one of the people that probably said they '
are in favor of what the Everts want to do . Side view of '
the property and as you can see the fence is probably six '
feet or less from the side of the house and it sits -
^
probably sits on the sidewalk , for all that I can tell . ^
There is no way, I don' t believe, that you can appropriately "
^
address the question of setback . That house I can reach
probably from my (unintelligible) so that the question of
setback is irrelevant here. It 's really a question of
density and the effect on the community . Again, a picture
showing that in fact the house south of the property in '
^
question sits, again, right on the property line - they, in '
fact , share a common driveway and a common carport . The `
parking available for the property is what you see there
^
the left side of the driveway - we have had from time to ^
^
time as many as seven cars parked there. You could probably ^
`
PAGE 76 '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
get three cars in - face in - one on the side so maybe four
vehicles could park there. An owner-occupied house would
probably not have four vehicles. And whether or not a
family of six or seven people - regardless of race,
religion, creed or national origin, would want to live there
- would they have seven cars is a question that I think we
could answer , no they probably wouldn' t have seven cars -
would they have seven guests? Probably not at the same
time, unless it was one of the kids birthday parties. With
a duplex situation we could , in fact , have, as I understand
it , as many as six unrelated persons living there, with as
many as six house guests living there on a temporary basis,
which means twelve people, which means potentially twelve
cars, and as it stands now, I have yielded my two parking
spaces on the street by parking my motorcycle in my driveway
and our car in the other side of our driveway, and as it is,
you jockey for parking spaces. I believe I have paid enough
in parking tickets to buy space in front of my house.
Adding six to twelve more people will not reduce the impact
on the parking needs. What you see in the front right-hand
corner of the property is basically their yard . There
really is no yard there. The house on the left is the one I
live in, the house on the right is the property in question
and again, it is shown just how close the property is to us. .
The point that the Everts made was that it is a property
that is absentee owned and implied that they would be able
to maintain it . It is in fact beginning to show signs of
PAGE 77
-- -
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
wear and tear . The paint is beginning to peel , the back
porch is beginning to need repair work on it - there is two
or three different types of lumber being used , the lower
left hand corner is some of the garbage that has been piled
up there and currently I really can' t complain - the garbage
situation with this property has been in fact , pleasurable.
I walk out my back door and I see what would normally be
considered as the average amount of garbage. When the
property had six or seven unrelated parties living in it the
garbage was virtually unbearable . There were six or seven
garbage cans and if they remembered to take them out Sunday
night , the garbage men picked them up on Monday - otherwise
they sat there all week and the dogs and the raccoons got to
it . So again, I contend that changing it to a two-family
house would increase the impact on the community by '
potentially increasing the garbage, which I assume the
^
Everts would come over and tell the people to take out .
This is one of the pieces of property owned by the Everts on .
the block - I 'm not sure whether it was just painted white
on the front or if it 's in the process of being painted -
it 's a nice looking property - it 's not a bad property and I ~
don' t mind looking at it , in fact , in another couple of .
weeks the tenants on the property will have cascading .
flowers off the porch . Very nicely maintained . This is the '
property across the street from my house - in fact it 's the '
property that 's in back of the Everts' house or the Everts' .
house is in back of this one, this was taken, I believe, `
'
PAGE 78 .
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
either last fall or a year ago just after a building permit
had been issued to renovate the property and the work was
begun sometime in the fall - I believe it was the fall of
1984, I 'm really not quite sure on the dates. But it was at
least two years ago that they began work on this house and ,
again, when they put in for their variance application, I
applauded it because this property had been deteriorating
over the ten years that I had lived there already and it was
really nice to see somebody taking a nice old building and
doing something constructive with it . This is a picture
taken recently of the property, showing some of the work
that they have done, again, it appears that the property is
being fixed up . Unfortunately this picture was taken
probably a month or so ago - two weeks ago and we are
talking , it 's been three years guys, you've been through I
don' t know how many building permits - let 's finish the damn
thing already. And , I 'd like to take this time to point
out , I believe the wonderful french cafe awnings are hanging
over the sidewalk and I don' t know if that 's a violation of
the City Code or not but we have a piece of property here
that I look at on a daily basis - that 's a hodge-podge of
construction materials that appears to be being painted at
the current time, which implies to me that that is the way
it 's going to look when it 's done. So my real question here
is what happens if the house next to mine begins to
deteriorate, are they going to do repairs on it and are they
going to do repairs like this? And now you are beginning to
PAGE 79
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
say to me, why am I picking on these people - I mean, they
are really doing their best to fix up this property - they
have put an awful lot of money into it . And they really
have - probably put an awful lot of money into it . And will
they have enough money left over to finish it , if they
purchase another piece of real estate? This is the back
yard of the property with either construction materials or
construction going on, I 'm not quite sure - this was taken
last fall . Another picture of the back yard of the property
again, probably taken last fall - and it really hasn' t
changed a whole lot . You can go down there now and you can
probably see the same stuff back there. Those windows, I
believe, are in compliance with the new City Ordinance
regarding insulation and storm windows. Unfortunately, in
putting them in to be in compliance , the rest of the
building was left with an unfinished condition, which , as I
understand it , is not in violation of any zoning or building
code, but it begins to fall into the category of, are these
people going to maintain the property that is in question,
in a manner in keeping with the Community or have they begun
with this green house, as it 's called , begun to establish
what is in fact the Community and if this is the Community,
I hearby apply for a reduction in my real estate tax
assessment because this is not what I moved into , when I
moved into the neighborhood and I moved in ten or fifteen
years ago . Again, a final shot , I noticed a delicate touch
^
of flowers out front - they are not uncaring people, I think '
`
PAGE 80
' -
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
they really are trying to maintain the property as best they
can but I question, are they going beyond what they are
capable of doing by overextending themselves on one more
property . And , we have to keep in mind that this is a
property that Paul Tavelli was nice enough to point out is
occupied by one of their family and if this is how they
treat their family, I 'm a bit concerned as to how they are
going to treat total strangers. Again, the front of the
house - and I hate to beat it in, but I 've got to look at it
and that 's what we see now. That 's a very nice house but ,
again, I 'd like to point out , it 's beginning to show signs
of deterioration and that is one of the points the Everts
made. And what am I getting to? What I 'm getting to is, I
don' t think we are looking at a situation of are they
currently fixing up a piece of property that was condemned ,
are they keeping a piece of property on the City tax rolls ---
this
this is their house - right around the corner . I assume it
has looked like this for at least five or six or ten years -
it has looked like this for as long as I 've lived there.
And , again, are they improving the property, I assume they
are, I assume they have a building permit - they are working
on the property and they are maintaining it and they are
doing their best to make it look beautiful . The side of the
house showing some overlapping construction materials,
you've got some sort of wallboard , some sort of window that
was taken out and you have flatboard that was patched over .
The back of the house which I have had the Building
,
PAGE 81 '
,
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
Department and the Fire Department down on several times -
it appears to me that that back yard has got to be not in
' compliance with something . It is an eyesore, as I was
quoted in the Ithaca Times last week , it defines the concept
of "yuck" - it 's really not something I like to look at on a
daily basis and fortunately spring has sprung and the trees
will come out and I won' t have to look at that back yard .
That is not a piece of rental property, that is their
personal residence. And if that is how they maintain their
personal residence, I 'm afraid as to how they are going to
maintain a piece of property next to my house and I think
that is an issue that the City has to address. If you own a
piece of property, as a landlord , it 's a responsibility that
you have to maintain your property correctly. It was my
understanding from the last phone call to the Building
Department , and it was not to Tom Hoard, it was to one of
his assistants, that , in fact , they had sent someone down to
discuss the issue of the back yard and , in fact , the
merchandise in the back yard was qualified as building
materials currently being used in projects under way on the
property. And I assume those are building materials being
used on either the Everts' house or on the 406-408 piece of
property - but that is what I look at on a daily basis .
That 's not Tobacco Road , that 's downtown Ithaca and I really
don't think it 's necessary - I think the Everts can take a
little bit of time and maintain their property a little
better and be, perhaps a little more in keeping with what I
PAGE 82
- - -- — --
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
think the Community standard is. I believe the Community
standard is this - I think that 's what most of the people in
the Community want to look at - I think I 've said enough .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board?
Thank you.
MR. : You have an opportunity - and I 'm not
turning around so I don' t know if she is still here, but the
Chairperson from the Planning Board was here a little while
ago and if you guys are at all concerned as to who is
responsible for Community standards" I think this would be
an excellent opportunity to argue it out . I 'm sorry Sue .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I believe there was someone else who would
like to speak in opposition.
MR. NORKQS: I 'm Greg Norkus and I am the owner-occupier of
409 E. Lincoln Street which is adjacent to Andy Hollander 's
house, my neighbor . I guess Andy's presentation certainly
points out - while I am sure that the Everts are sincere in
their intentions to maintain the property at 1011 N. Aurora
Street , the grey house on the corner , I think that there is
some question as to whether or not the present status of
their existing properties in various stages of construction
and renovation are. Whether or not they can adequately
maintain them - it appears to me that they are over-extended
in the projects that they have taken on - they have a number
of uncompleted projects - at least from an exterior
standpoint that certainly affect the neighborhood in terms
of my on enjoyment of living there and certainly the
PAGE 83
`
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
property values of the neighborhood . The discussion of the
corner house as a seven-bedroom house, I guess they are -
depending upon how you might define "bedroom" as a room that
was constructed solely for use as a bedroom or whether
bedrooms have become other public spaces that might be
considered other living spaces within a normal single-family
dwelling , such as a sun porch , which is the one room with
white curtains that run to the corner of the house - I
believe it is currently being occupied as a bedroom - as is
another room on the E. Lincoln side of the house that -
while they qualify as bedrooms in terms of the number of
people that might possibly live in those bedrooms, if a
single family were to occupy that house, I would believe
that those rooms would revert back to their original status
as either a porch or a den or a reading room and therefore
we would not be looking at a six or seven bedroom house but
possibly a four or five bedroom house with the traditional
types of living spaces that a single family owner-occupied
structure would have. I have a little concern about the
objectivity of the support of the various tenants. As their
attorney had mentioned , when in fact it was demonstrated the
numbers of family members that are also tenants of those
properties and I am concerned about the relationship between
a family member writing an objective letter of support when
they are, in fact , also a tenant of a family member 's
property . The lot restrictions in terms of the coverage of
the property are certainly severe in this case and I think
PAGE 84
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
that the dramatic severity of those property constraints is
also an issue here - I don' t think that we are just talking
about a front yard setback , or a side yard setback or a
total area, but we've got the whole ball of wax in this
particular property here and as I understand or interpret
the hardship clause in terms of whose responsibility it is
to demonstrate hardship in the use of their property, in my
reading , it boils down to the owner . As the appellants are
not the owners of the property now but do wish to purchase
the property, in my own mind here, while there might be
hardship for the present owners, that is the present owner 's
hardship and if that is a situation that is not tolerable
for a potential owner , then perhaps it is not a property
that should be pursued as reverting back to a two-family or
a duplex type of a house. As Andy , I am also very concerned '
about the parking limitations. I own and occupy this as a '
single family dwelling and I share a common driveway with my
neighbor - between us we have three vehicles and we
obviously have some parking problems in terms of off-street
and , if you ever travel on that road , there are many cars on
the road - it is a narrow road , it is difficult to park cars '
on both sides of the road at the same time - with any safety
for your vehicle parked there, let alone competing for
additional parking places in the event that it is approved
to be used as a duplex property with a potential for
possibly four cars - which if they do fit in the driveway,
many times are actually parked over the sidewalk and impede
PAGE 85
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
pedestrian's progress around that entire property. I guess
as was stated , I think an issue here is the status of the
neighborhood in general and while a Certificate of Occupancy
is certainly great for the owner of the property and allow
them to either occupy the structure themselves or rent it
out to tenants, it does little to improve the appearance of
the outside of the house as was evidentally seen, which is
something that the neighborhood , who are property owners, do
have to look at on a daily basis, and I am concerned about
that from a property value standpoint and certainly am
concerned about it from my own personal enjoyment as far as
living in that neighborhood . A couple of the references to
the numbers of houses on the block that are bordered by
North Aurora, East Lincoln, Linn Street and Queen Street on
the opposite side - there are fifteen houses on that entire
four block area. There is a wide range of types of owner '
and occupancy of those and a number of them are single '
`
family, owner-occupied structures and a number are rental '
properties but the bulk of those properties are single
family related , occupied structures and they are not
duplexes or , with the exception of five properties - five of '
the ten are multi-unit type of a structure and ten of the
other fifteen properties are single - not necessarily
owner-occupied but single related family member occupied -
which does lend a sense of single-family housing to that
particular area, even though they are tenants living there.
`
I would question the granting of the variance in this case, '
PAGE 86
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
based upon some of the comments that were made. Thank you
for your time.
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Questions from members of the Board?
Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in
opposition?
MS. BODMAN: My name is Anne Bodman, I 'm co-owner of 405
East Lincoln Street . Basically I 'd like to just support
what Andy Hollander and Greg Norkus have said in terms of
zoning issue and I wish you would address why it is
appropriate for you . Think both about occupancy of this
house and maintenance of the appellant , what the appellant
can do for maintenance. I 've lived there for three years
with the one across the street turning from a small green
shanty to a taller green shanty and I do not want to see
this happen next door to me. There is three of their houses .
across the street that I look at every day and there is one
next to the laundromat , across the street from the house in
question, that I look at every day. I think the quality of
my life, visually, is important and I think this is an
important question for the City to address in terms of what
is happening to our neighborhoods and that the occasion of a
zoning appeal is the appropriate occasion to look at both of '
these questions for this house.
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Questions from members of the Board?
Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in
opposition?
`
PAGE 87
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
ALDERPERSON PETERSON: My name is Carolyn Peterson, I reside
at 110 De-y Street , I am one of the A1derpersons from the
Fifth Ward . I have been asked over this past year , even
prior to this request , to look at this neighborhood and a
couple of residences in particular . I do share concerns
with Mr . Hollander over the problems of ill kempt yards,
storage of materials and poorly kept residences and we hope
the BZA will please review this issue beyond the
technicalities of the side yards. Mr . Tavelli mentioned
that a visual check show non-compliance of most homes in
this area . A visual check would also show that the
neighborhood needs support similar to the support that INHS
gives to neighborhoods. In fact people ask me if INHS
intends to move into Fall Creek , if they would ever expand
in that direction. This particular neighborhood is often
cited to be extremely needful for those type of services. I
simply ask that the Board seriously consider whether the
nature of property that an appellant owns in the .
neighborhood has a bearing on their appeal , such as this. `
Thank you. .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board?
`
MR. WEAVER: Do you have an opinion that the appearance does .
`
have an effect on the Zoning Ordinance?
ALDERPERSON PETERSON: I ^m not familiar with the particular
charges on the BZA but I would hope that if this is not the
proper forum, that it would indeed be referred to the
Planning Board and have that issue studied .
PAGE 88 '
"
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. WEAVER: We've already had it .
CHAIRMAN 7F@MLAN I think we've already had it Carolyn, I
think the bigger message here that the Board has been
assailed with is not one that is rightfully ours to consider
at the moment and I think it should be clear . It really
does rightfully fall back on Common Council .
ALDERPERGQN PETERSON: As a zoning issue.
CHAIRMAN TQMLAW: No , well - more specifically if you could
deal with aesthetics beyond what the Zoning Board has been
charged with and more specifically - we are dealing here
with a particular instance, with a particular variance, we
can' t begin to look at the entire City and make comparisons
on every case in this Court - we'd be here month after month
- I think this is an extremely long hearing as it is. I
think for you to understand that is particularly germaine by
virtue of the fact that you represent that Ward .
ALDERPERS0N PETERSON: Yes and I do understand that - I also
represent constituents who have been very concerned and have
asked me. . . '
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it 's not to say we don' t share your '
concern, but the Ordinance is very clear about what it is ^
saying , at least clear within certain parameters. There is '
a question here of how far you are attempting to push it .
ALDERPERS0N PETERSON: Yes, I understand , that 's your
decision. .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAM: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would
like to speak in opposition - that is, anybody else who has .
PAGE 89
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
not been heard from? Thank you. That being the case I
think we will begin to reach a decision.
^
PAGE 90 .
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1694 1011 NORTH AURORA STREET
MR. SCHWAB: We all know the proposed use is a permitted one
under the Ordinance. Common Council does allow duplexes
here. There are a number of deficiencies in the area
requirements - preexisting that won' t be exacerbated by the
proposed use. I guess I have a general question, when the
area deficiencies are not being exacerbated - what is our
discretion, where are we supposed to look at it - I suppose
to some degree the extent of the preexisting use goes beyond
- Council thinks is certain - in terms of lot area and
coverage and what not - some aspect on the overall situation
of the house in relation to the lot . And I can see you
certainly pay attention to your front yard and side yards
and lot area coverage - I mean, they are there for a
purpose, I guess the purpose is probably one of aesthetics
and density and that type of thing . My problem is when they
aren' t being exacerbated , it 's difficult to see, even in
`
what area we can have some discretion to deny . I 'm not even
sure what the particular argument would be.
CHAIRMAN l[8MLAW: Further comments?
MS. JOHNSON: To change the subject a little bit . This
Ordinance number - 85-5, lawns and (unintelligible> is this
applicable?
SECRETARY
HOARD: Not to this action tonight .
MS. FARRELL: No , but it is applicable to these sort of
problems?
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes.
PAGE 91 '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MS. JOHNSON: Part of the Zoning Ordinance. It would seem
to me that we need to deal with the issues that we can deal
with .
MR. WEAVER: I 'd be happy to do that Helen. And I 'd be very
happy to turn back to the people who were professionally
selected because of their special training and knowledge of
aesthetics and other somewhat exotic judgements that were
not required for appointment to this Board . And
particularly I 'd be interested that we have had two
Alderpersons present tonight to beg us to do whatever they
consider to be right and what they hear in their
neighborhood that they would - that body would spend some
time reading the Zoning Ordinance and wondering how that
could possibly be expected to concern itself with the facts
of these cases and the case law that limits the judgement
and actions of Community Boards of Zoning Appeal . It is
quite common for us to be reviewed in an Article 78 and this
particular case - there is some case law that would indicate .
that unless there is a generally applied standard to apply .
it in a specific case would be erroneous.
MR. SIEVERDING: Apply some type of aesthetics and . . . _
MR. WEAVER: It is all right to have it in the Zoning .
Ordinance if you have it in the Zoning Ordinance but to
apply it tonight , for example, when there is no mention and
there are no requirements, as I understand it , in reading
this Zoning Ordinance, would be erroneous. I 'm not talking '
PAGE 92 '
^
^
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
about whether it 's a proper thing for Community interest ,
but rather . . .
MS. JOHNSON: I agree.
MR. S%EVERDING: That 's right .
MR. SCHWAB: I think the only argument we could take would
be along the following lines: this goes into a duplex , I
think particularly your point Charlie, the Zoning Ordinance
deals with properties not with people, is an important one
and in proposed uses. Now this is a proposed duplex on a
lot that is very small - too small by current zoning
standards. I think we could go the route, saying - is a
duplex as opposed to the single family mean that these
deficiencies become too problematical , too critical that we
should not allow the variance. I think that is the scope of
our discretion. As I see it , that 's not met because even on
a single family it is going to be very close to the lot
lines, you' ll have the parking problems and it is difficult
to judge exactly how they will be exacerbated or not on a
duplex . I do think there is some play for us - looking at
the properties. I think it is inappropriate really to look
at the individuals going with (unintelligible) does that '
`
make sense to you? '
MS. JOHNSON: Is it likely to be more of an impact with a
duplex configuration rather than a non-owner-occupied '
building where seven to ten students would be living? Is '
that likely to be a . . .
PAGE 93
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86 .
. �R. WEAVER: Yes, the Ordinance - an approved use for a .
. single family dwelling in an area where a duplex is allowed .
would not allow that many unrelated persons in a single '
dwelling . It wculd , in fact , be a conversion to a multiple
dwelling . .
MR. GIEVERI)ING: Which would require - if somebody wanted to '
do that and came in here for a variance - right now - if .
^
somebody were to buy that as a single family residence, they ^
' could live there plus have a maximum legal of two unrelated
individuals living with them and that would be the maximum .
' use as a single family. .
` MR. SCHWAB: And the family could be five or six people. ^
MR. BIEVERDING: Yes.
' MR. SCHWAB: It 's a little hard to make a judgement on
In particular when most of these setback requirements go ^
with the house - you aren' t changing them. '
MR. SIEVERQING: Yes, but I think the question is then
given the deficiencies of the lot , whether that condition is
exacerbated by allowing at duplex to exist on the property or
whether to - given the limitations that you've got - decide
^
to stop with a single family dwelling . (unintelligible) And
that single family dwelling is not going to - considering '
the parking problems - is not going to generate the kind of '
visitations that . . .
MR. SCHWAB: Again, you have to remember that this will meet ^
parking requirements for a duplex . Council has - again it '
is not our absolute discretion on what the parking problems
PAGE 94 ^
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
^
^
are (unintelligible) Is this property right , Tom, that they
are currently deficient in parking , it requires four , now,
with the single family house? '
SECRETARY HOARD: Seven bedrooms, yes. '
`
MR. SCHWAB: Sc., indeed according to the Ordinance, the
parking situation is improved by the proposed use. Cutting
against this trial balloon I am suggesting - to get us
going , I 'm willing to suggest a motion.
SECRETARY HOARD: Before you get to that , I just want to
bring up one thing . In August of 83 the owner filed a
declaration of intent that he was renting the property to
only three unrelated individuals so - and that 's the last .
document in here relating to the use - so he's limited -
there may be seven bedrooms, but he can' t put seven
unrelated people in there, under the Zoning Ordinance. So
if you are thinking , that because it has seven bedrooms .
that 's seven unrelated - it is limited to three unrelated .
MR. SCHWAB: Right . Three unrelated or family plus two
unrelated .
SECRETARY HOARD: Right .
'
~
`
'
PAGE 95 '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1694 - 1011 N. AURORA STREET
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of
Beverly Everts for an area variance to permit the conversion
of the single-family dwelling at 1011 North Aurora Street to
a two-family dwelling . The decision of the Board was as
f(:-,llows:
MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance
requested in Appeal Number 1694.
MR. WEAVER: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 ) The proposed use is a permitted one under the current
zoning law.
2) The current deficiency in off-street parking will no
longer be a deficiency under the proposed use.
3) The deficiencies of the two front yards and rear yard -
while significant will not be exacerbated by the proposed
use.
. 4) There has been considerable testimony and evidence about
the character of the neighborhood which shows that it has
. varied uses in it.
5) The proposed use is consistent with the character of the
.
neighborhood.
. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED
PAGE 96
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MORE DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1694 AFTER THE AREA
VARIANCE WAS GRANTED:
MR. HOLLANDER: Mr . Chairman, may I inquire as to who
oversees what the due process is or whom I can contact in
the morning (unintelligible)
SECRETARY HOARD: Article 78 proceedings in Court .
MR. HOLLANDER: Pardon?
SECRETARY HOARD: Only the Courts.
MR. HOLLANDER: City Court?
SECRETARY HOARD: No , Supreme Court , County Court . Article
78 proceedings, it is called .
MR~ HOLLANDER: I would like the records of this meeting to
show that the persons that spoke against the variance intend
to file such action as is necessary to stop the variance
from taking effect and that should the owners of the
property so sell the property to the applicant , that the
applicant has been publicly warned of such legal action.
SECRETARY HOARD: You would have to file those proceedings
within thirty days.
MR. : I 'm just letting you know that it is on the
record before I go out and speak to the guys from the Ithaca
Times .
VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: So no City Board has jurisdiction
over our question on blight , is that on the record also ,
then? .
MR. TAVELLI : I assume the record is closed . . .
`
PAGE 97 .
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: It is closed , the record essentially is
complete at this point . We are going on to the next case.
We can continue this discussion afterwards if you would
like, just as a matter of information. We really have to
move along .
PAGE 98 '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1695 FOR
423-25 SOUTH GENEVA STREET:
Appeal of Florence Smith for an area variance for
one deficient side yard setback under Section
3- - J Column 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to
permit the conversion of the single-family home at
423-25 South Geneva Street to a two-family
dwelling . The property is located in an R2b
(Residential , one- and two-family dwelling ) Use
District in which the proposed use is permitted ;
' however under Section 30.57 the appellant must
' first obtain an area variance for the listed
' deficiency before a building permit or Certificate
' ofCompliance can be issued for the proposed
conversion.
MS. SMITH: I 'm Florence Smith , I 'm the owner and resident
of the property at 423-25 South Geneva Street . The side
' area is deficient by three inches and my lot is bounded by a
^
chain link fence and it is in compliance in all other ways.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: There will be no exterior changes?
. �S. SMITH: No . There will be an entrance built in the rear
. of the house for the apartment .
CHAIRMAN l[8MLAM: As is shown in your plan here with a new
door up around here? Further questions from the Board?
' MR. SCHWAB: Do you currently own this?
' MS. SMITH: Yes I do . I purchased it in 1983.
PAGE 99
' BZA MINUTES
^
' MR. SCHWAB: 1983, so you have been living in it as a single
' family and want to convert it to the two-family? `
MS. SMITH: Yes. .
' CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: And you plan to stay there?
' MS. SMITH: Yes, I do .
' CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: Any further questions? (none) Thank you. '
' Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? (no
' one) Then is there anyone out there who would to speak
against this variance? (no one) That being the case, we' ll
. move right along and reach a conclusion.
^
PAGE 100
' BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1695 423-25 SOUTH GENEVA STREET
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of
Florence Smith for an area variance to permit the conversion
of the single-family home at 423-25 South Geneva Street to a
two-family dwelling . The decision of the Board was as
follows:
MS. JOHNSON: I move that the Board grant the area variance
requested in Appeal Number 1695.
MR. SCHWAB: % second the motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 > practical difficulty was shown regarding the side yard
deficiency which is only 2% - which caused practical
difficulty that makes compliance impossible.
2) The property is located in a zone which permits the use
proposed.
3) The property is consistent with the character of the
neighborhood.
VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED
,
^
PAGE 101
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: The final appeal for the evening is APPEAL
NO. 1696 FOR 140 COLLEGE AVENUE:
Appeal of Nancy Falconer for ( 1 ) an interpretation
Of, the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map , (2) a
special permit under the Zoning Ordinance, (3) an
area variance from the Zoning Ordinance, and/or
(4) a use variance from the Zoning Ordinance ,
under Sections 30.01 ( "Temporary Moratorium on
Certain Building Permits or Certificates of
Occupancy" ) , 30 .3B-18 (definition of "Cooperative
household" ) , 3O.3B-17 (definition of
"Conversion" ) , 30 .3B-22 (definition of "Dwelling
Unit" > , 30.3B-23 (definition of "Dwelling ,
Multiple" ) , 30 .3B-24 (definition of "Dwelling ,
one-family° > , 30.3B-25 (definition of "Dwelling ,
owner-occupied" ) , 30.3B-28 (definition of
"Family" } , 30.3B-65 (definition of "Non-conforming
building , structure or lot" ) , 30.3B-66 (definition
of "non-conforming use" } , 30 . 3B-70 (definition of
"Parking space" ) , 30.3B-76 (definition of "Rooming
House" ) , 30 .3B-87 (definition of "Tourist home'' > , ,
30 .3B-97 (definition of "Yard" ) , and 30.25, line
!::;'3b , Cslumns 2 (permitted uses> , 4 (off-street
parking ) , 5 (off-street loading ) , 6 ( lot area) , 7
( lot width > , to permit ( 1 ) the conversion of the
existing one-family dwelling at 140 College Avenue
to a bed and breakfast operation with eight
PAGE 102
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
. bedrooms, or (2) to continue its use as a multiple
residence, or (3) to operate the building as a
multiple dwelling , under a variance or (4) to
. continue its use as a boarding house as a
. non-conforming use, or (5) to operate the building
as a boarding house under a variance, or (6) to
rent the property to unrelated individuals limited
only by building code. The property is located in
an R3b (Multiple Dwelling ) Use District in which
' the proposed uses would be permitted except that a
temporary moratorium is now in effect that
prohibits such conversions.
MR. KERRIGAW: 10:30 . I 'm sure it will be 10:30 and that
includes five minutes for all of the questions. And I
should open by apologizing for the scatter shot - I
recognize it 's there. Can I have the permission of the
Chairman to file an affidavit so I don' t have to
' (unintelligible) all the facts. I am filing the affidavit
of mailing , but also an affidavit of our understanding of
' the facts and with permission, may I circulate a copy of
this to members of the Board . I am going to try to be very
quick and speak very quickly - if you will forgive me and
criticize me for speaking quickly , if I can. I am not sure
' that it is really necessary for me to address all of the
issues in the application of Nancy Falconer - it is for a
. permitted use of a bed and breakfast . You see on the top
page of the document that I gave to you a rendering of what
. PAGE 103 .
`
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86 '
I would - Ms. Falconer and her architect , Jagat Sharma, are '
here - what they would like to do as part of the historic �
renovation of this property at 140 College Avenue on a
permitted use - the easy application I submit , although I
think they are all quiet easy, is to dispense with the '
second sketch . The Building Commissioner or the Ordinance
apparently requires for an eight bedroom bed and breakfast ,
either eight or nine - someone told me nine parking spaces. `
There is a plot plan that Jagat has - it indicates that '
there are seven parking spaces in the back of the property
entering from Cook Street , the side street . The eighth '
parking space, or the ninth one, if that ' s the determination '
that 's needed , so I guess I 've now got an interpretation of '
a variance or both , can also be put in the front yard . Ms .
Falconer , as part of the historic structure, would like to '
surround the property with the historic rod iron type fence
and grass rather than blacktop - the market for the bed and '
breakfast we believe - this is all referred to in the .
affidavit - is people who wish to fly into town and spend a
week , a day, three days - visiting Cornell Campus and want .
to walk to the Campus. If there are going to be eight .
occupants - we think that will be very rare - we think most ^
^
people who have their cars here are more likely to stay at .
parking facilities in Collegetown, closer to the Campus or .
the Ramada or I think the market is for the people who want .
to walk to Campus, the major portion of it . So , there's an
`
argument that it is one or two spaces short - it can be "
^
PAGE 104 `
,
�
BZA MINUTES
accommodated but I think at a substantial detriment to the
aesthetics which is not your purview, I think you've already
ruled tonight . In terms of the use - the bed and breakfast
is a permitted use - we are involved with a Moratorium,
perhaps the building code would be complied with in our
specs, in fact State approvals have recently come through .
In terms of the hardship , whether it 's a variance or the
Moratorium, there are, we believe, four properties within
the two hundred foot mailing distance, some forty-two
properties that appear to be owner-occupied , single family
residences - there are forty-two with properties within two
hundred feet - three of the four single family,
owner-occupied neighbors signed the petition, which is filed
but not duplicated , I don' t think , for you, in support of
this application. There is no other property in College
Avenue that appears to be owner-occupied - Bud Gerkin's
property at the corner of Mitchell and College is - it 's a
Mitchell Street address - it 's of course, owner-occupied at
the present time. Bud Gerkin has signekd the petition in
support of this use. The Planning Board has. There is some
documents - some information - financial information that
indicates that operating expenses for this huge three-story
brick property would require rental payments of twelve
hundred dollars a month , just for heat utilities. No debt
service, no return to owner investment - there is either
debt service or owner investment it has to be rented for
twenty-five hundred - three thousand dollars, I think I '
PAGE 105
^
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
would submit that 's hardship . An impossibility in terms of
market conditions as a claim - if you don' t agree it 's a
single family home - as a claimed single family home. Under
your present Zoning Ordinance there is not fifteen hundred
or two thousand or twenty-five hundred dollars or three
thousand dollars a month in rent for the single family use.
The purchase price in terms of computing the debt service
was under fifty dollars a square foot - it cost eighty or
better to build residential , over a hundred to build
commercial properties. There is one pro forma, not two , my
mistake. It shows - I think the original affidavit was not
duplicated at 7:35 and I was worried - I was going to be
late for this hearing - as I rushed out of the office - we
did two pro formas - one at sixty-five percent occupancy and
one at seventy percent occupancy - hotel , industry, nation
wide and fifty percent occupancy - with football weekends
Nancy could sell all eight rooms. July 3rd and December
27th , zero , I suspect . I may overstate both . There is a
rate of return projected of four to six percent , depending
on those two . The Moratorium: the property was purchased
before the Moratorium was passed . At the time the purchase
was contemplated this property was not included in the
Moratorium, for the original Moratorium line ran down the
middle of College Avenue. The night after the purchase the
Moratorium line of Council was moved west to include this '
property at the time of the purchase. The Moratorium went '
into effect and Council couldn' t vote on it because of that '
PAGE 106 `
BZA MINUTES
expansion - for another thirty days - they did a month-
three weeks afterwards - in the interim there had been an
application for a building permit that was turned down for
this permitted use. When I talk about a previous use of the
property, I hope you will remember that the Moratorium is
only applicable to increases in density in properties within
the Moratorium zone and I submit - as you will see when I
talk about the property - we are not talking about an
increase in density . The Building Commissioner 's file - up
until October of '85, after the Moratorium - after the
closing - after the first building permit application ---
going
going back to C. Murray VanMarter - I asked Tom's office
' that the file be here - I think it is - indicates that it
was a multiple use. On October 10th the present Building
Commissioner , I think , wrote - October 8th - wrote a series
of notes in the files indicating that his previous opinion -
^
I don' t pretend to quote him on this - it is written in the
file - that it was a multiple use - was or may have been
'
incorrect . The Planning Board , which was active in the
' Moratorium proposal , has supported this application at its
' meeting a week ago - they voted in favor of the granting .
Previous use, as I continue to rush so I can finish my
. paragraph before 10:30, indicates that there are statements
attached from Hugh Reilly , the son of the deceased seller of
the property, indicating that the '70`s - eight , nine, ten
people - the eight bedrooms upstairs were rented by Mr .
Joseph Reilly to boarders and students. There is a '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
' statement attached to the affidavit of someone who lived
' there in the '80's, '84 and I think '83, that the second and
third floors were substantially and continually occupied by
the eight bedrooms with eight students and it is based upon
that information as well as the documents in the Building
Commissioner 's file at the time of the closing, and prior to
. the Moratorium, that it was a multiple use. In '61 , C.
Murray VanMarter , the Building Commissioner , approved the
multiple use - '77, I think the same thing , I don' t have my
notes and I 'm not going to bore you with all of that . The
' only reference to the contrary is that Mr . Reilly put a note
. in, in '75 that he was going to convert it to a single
family use and quite obviously never did , I would submit .
There were three kitchens at the time of the purchase, there
' are three electrical services, there are three doorbells -
parking I 've talked about . So I guess in conclusion and
before I ask Jagat to show you some sketches, I 've got a
' photograph of the existing property , if anybody wants some
diversion after a long evening . It is submitted that there
is no increase in density, the Moratorium - I guess I am
asking for either a variance or an interpretation - that it
is not applicable - or if it is applicable, that there is
the hardship contemplated on this pre-moratorium purchase
for a three thousand square foot home, out of brick and
three stories . There was, for years, a basement apartment
that we have not talked about here. If it is not - if the `
`
application for the restoration for the bed and breakfast is ^
PAGE 108 ^
'
'
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
not granted - the seriatim applications beyond that are
applications to permit continued use of the property as a
multiple residence. Jagat I 've taken all of your time, I
promised them 10:30 and it is now twenty seconds before
10:309 you 've got some sketches, I ' ll try and be quiet and
. you can show them the plot plans and that type of thing . No
' exterior expansion - some exterior reduction as the frame
wooden porch on the back of the building will be removed .
Thank you.
MR. SHARMA: Jagat Sharma, Architect, with office at 312
East Seneca Street , on behalf of Nancy Falconer here. After
Nancy bought this building she applied for a remodeling for
what seemed to be routine kind of a building permit to
' change the existing use and redecorate it . That building
permit application was denied by the Building Commissioner
citing this to be a conversion from a single family to a
multiple dwelling and both Nancy and Jim will talk about
that . What it did , in terms of architect 's work , it took
away the grandfather rights of the existing use and the
' Commissioner then gave us a series of things that we had to
comply with to convert into a multiple dwelling . There was
some that we couldn' t , so we went to the State for obtaining
a variance and we have received all the necessary variances.
The only thing that is holding this up right now to go ahead
with the remodelling of the property is the Moratorium on
this particular piece of property. I have three drawings
here in front of me, some of them are in support of the '
PAGE 109
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
facts that Jim gave to you. This drawing is a site plan,
College Avenue, Cook Street - the building (unintelligible)
present building has a wood porch in the back , also wood
construction on the south end and the existing curb cut on
' Cook Street and existing curb cut on College Avenue. The
building as it stands now complies with all the zoning
questions in terms of lot coverage, lot area, setbacks - we
have been able to provide (unintelligible) parking , seven
parking in the back and one parking off the College Avenue.
To do the job properly, as shown in the sketch here,
(unintelligible) we would like to make this parking so we
could have some kind of decorative fence in the front .
There is also a question of how many months (unintelligible)
we were led to believe sometime that we need only one for
three people housed or one per bedroom, but this will comply
with eight bedroom dwelling - eight parking spaces.
MS. FARRELL: Eight parking spaces, including the one in
front?
MR. SHARMA: The one in front . The present building - on
the main floor has a kitchen (unintelligible) marking but
basically will stay the same, it has a kitchen and a study ,
� bedroom, dining room and a parlor and the entrance on the
porch in the front . The existing building on the upper
level - second and third (unintelligible) has four bedrooms
and used to be - or still - an open wood stairway and one
kitchen and one bathroom on each floor . The plan '
`
(unintelligible) third floor - we have the wood porch in the
PAGE 110
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
back as the second means of egress. When we went for the
variance the main objection was the open interior stairway .
We have since prepared another scheme and went back to them
and they accepted it and granted a variance. On the typical
second and third floor we have enclosed the stairway with
(unintelligible) fire separation. We will take out the wood
porch - we will build an exterior stairway on the south end
for the second means of egress. Each bedroom will have a
guest bath as you see in the plan and the ground floor or
the first floor also will be changed to make a bath and
kitchen in it and a sufficient hall . Primarily what was the
concern of the wood construction around the building has
been taken out and the building (unintelligible) some of the
pictures that you see here - that were circulated earlier -
the work that Nancy had already done is of high quality and
high calibre and (unintelligible) find in the Collegetown
area and she intends to do the same thing on the other rooms
on the other floors. The building , as you can see, is an
excellent old structure and I understand the Moratorium - I
may be wrong in saying so but it is my understanding that
the Moratorium was initiated by the Planning Department to
study the area. The Planning Department has - last week -
approved this application and I request that the Board of
Zoning Appeals do the same.
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? '
Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in
^
favor of granting this interpretation or any number of `
^
PAGE 111
- --
BZA MINUTES
variances? Is there anyone out there who would like to '
speak in opposition? It is ours, I believe . '
VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: I would like to speak for it . '
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Would you? Would you like to come forward '
and speak for it?
MS. MONDY: My name is Nell Mondy and I own property at 130
'
College Avenue. She is one of thefirst people who has ever '
written me about a change - I actually got a letter through
the mail - I went up and saw the house and I was very '
pleased to see the improvement that she is making in the '
property. I hope that it would improve College Avenue so I '
am in favor of it .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Thankyou . Any questions? .
SECRETARY HOARD: I would like to ask Mr . Kerrigan where he
found his Certificate of Compliance? .
MR. KERRIGAN: Where I found it? I didn' t say I found a
Certificate of Compliance. I said in going back to C. .
`
Murray VanMarter - may I look in the file?
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. Under the Mitchell Law it would have
to have a Certificate. I take it you are not familiar with
the Mitchell Law?
MR. KERRIGAN: No I 'm not sir , I 'm familiar with the Zoning .
Ordinance insofar as this application is concerned . .
MR. SIEVERQING: Is the property presently unoccupied? .
MR. KERRIGAN: There are four people there right now, sir . .
Since it was purchased last fall by Ms. Falconer . Let me
,
get my notes because my notes are related to eight . . . '
PAGE 112
112.1 if) MINUTES
MR. SIEVERDING: The existing use is considered single
family?
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Would you believe, yes.
MR~ SCHWAB: Why do you say that Tom, what do you base it
on? The Certificate of Occupancy?
SECRETARY HOARD: I can find no approval - when I went
through it again today - I could find no approval - no
certificate for a multiple dwelling .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And it is the same as Peter 's note in the
file. . .
SECRETARY HOARD: And pretty much refusals to comply.
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Tom wrote BZA members a cover note on May
2nd and behind that is Peter 's note of May 1st - first
paragraph addresses it .
MR. KERRIGAN: I `m back - just working my way forward I have
`
a document that appears to be 1950' s - I don' t know, there
are notes on it - 1962 - 62ish - number and occupancy - six , .
number of stories - three. .
^
SECRETARY HOARD: Those were just inspections. `
MR. KERRIGAN: Well all I 'm doing is looking at this to '
indicate from the commencement of this file that that `s what .
it has been used for . This is a document in 1959 - number
of stories: three plus basement - apartments: 3. We
going back prior to the commencement of zoning in this area.
MR. WEAVER: What year was that? '
MR. KERRIGAN: That was 1959.
PAGE 113
BZA MINUTES - 86
SECRETARY HOARD: You are saying that zoning commenced in
1959?
MR. KERRIGAN: No , I am referring to documents when this
le was - seems to have been started in 1959. The-r-
J. e are
references to theuse of the - the first piece of paper -
the farthest back and the piece of paper talks about use of
the second and third floors there are earlier
references to 59 -
SECRETARY HOARD: The problem is Jim, what the 77 Zoning
Ordinance says is that at the time of the enactment , if you
didn' t have a valid Certificate of Compliance - at that time
had ninety days in which to show that you had a
Certificate of Compliance.
MR. KERRIGA��: I also understood the Ordinance to say that
non-conforming uses were continued and there were
non-conforming uses going back to sixty - or something .
Whether or not - or why Nancy Falconer should pay a price
for whatever was or wasn' t enforced , I don' t know. There
are references . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Well , why a landlord should be able to get .
away without bringing his property into compliance and then
come in and say - hey, now I want to have this in compliance
- after the zoning is changed .
MR. KERRIGAW: Ms. Falconer purchased the property, Mr .
Chairman in '85 - in the fall of '85. There was no single
family residence until October 8, 1985. You agree with that '
^
PAGE 114
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
- you agree that it was October '85 when you went back and
said , hey, this is a single family home.
SECRETARY HOARD: Before, yes, before (unintelligible) my
attention. . .
�R. KERRIGAW: That was after sh� bought Well , be that
as it may, your own notes say that you had been saying that
it was multiple until October C.:' '85.
MS. FALCONER: I also applied for - when the initial bed and
breakfast was turned down - before the moratorium was passed
it was strictly legal to use it that way - so I went to the
Building Department and said that I could use it as a
multiple - it 's a legal use, I will do all the code work
necessary . I was told I couldn' t do that and that was
before the Moratorium was passed .
SECRETARY HOARD: Well I don` t think you had a specific
proposal , I think you had a lot of questions, but I don' t
remember a specific application.
MS. FALCONER: No sir , I already had plans in front of you .
for the six bedroom B & B which included sprinklers - I
said , I will follow every piece in the code that needs to be .
done, I will do the things that need to be done and I was .
told at that time that I did not have time to submit '
extensive plans to show what I would do . I said , go on the
basis that I will do the sprinkling and the other things
that are required and the list that is in the file - I will
do those things.
PAGE 115
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: The way the Moratorium worked was we had
to have a complete application - as Mr . Sharma can tell you
because he had a bunch of them for other properties. . .
MR. KERRIGAN: Well that is one of the interpretations that
we are asking this Board for , whether you can come in and
apply for a zoning variance without ten thousand dollars
worth of architectural drawings. We obviously differ on
that . But I mean in 1981 . . .
MR. SIEVERDING: The alternative being just by virtue of
acquiring a piece of property you are automatically entitled
to all the zoning and (unintelligible) at the time you
purchase the property .,
MR. KERRIGAN: When the Building Commissioner 's files says -
and '81 is where I am now - that there are seven and eight
people there and that 's what the file shows, yes. It
doesn' t get taken away because she doesn' t have a complete
set of architectural plans on September 10 or September 3rd ,
1985. There is nothing that says that Jagat 's inability to
draw up complete plans in three or four days loses the .
zoning classification for this property. 1980 question.
Can I have a unit and seven bedrooms to let? (MLTP) .
marginal note - apparently Building Commissioner 's writing ,
O.K. - 1981 - four years after this Code. There is a sketch
on the property - in the '80's - 1981 that shows on the top
floor - four rooms plus kitchen plus bath . On the third
floor - four bedrooms plus bath . On the first floor
just skipped one because there is a basement and I 've been '
PAGE 116
BZA /8
MINUTES - 5/56
counting that in my counting - apartment , two bedrooms - in
the basement - two legal size rooms and cellar . That is a
note in the Building Commissioner 's office - in 1981 - four
years after this
c cd e that says it 's a single family
residence . There is nothing in this file that I can find
that says it was a single family residence until October
9th , 1985.
MR. SCHWAB: What you pointed to thereinspection
reports indicating . . . .
MR. KERRIBAW: Yes . .
MR. SCHWAB: Is that what you are reading from?
MR. NERRIGAN: They appear to be questions and inspection
reports - I don' t know who drew this diagram, I don' t know
who wrote the O.K. to a question "Can I have a unit and
seven rooms to let?" B. four rooms - two rooms 1:: floor ,
each Inas its own way out - one bathroom each floor - that 's
in 81 .
MS. FALCONER: But there was also a list from 1981 , listing
the things that had to be done to bring it into conformity.
That' s the list , I said I would follow - before the
Moratorium - I will follow that list of things that has been
noted that has to be done.
MR. KERRIGAN: For a multiple. 17 July 1981 , a letter to '
Mr . Joseph Reilly - talking about the third floor rooms, it
goes for three pages - it is handwritten Re: 140 -
`
inspection of the premises revealed : they talk about three
floors and eight to ten rooms and unnumbered occupancy - ^
^
PAGE 117 ^
^
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
third floor rooms - they are talking about second means of
egress - there is a typewritten letter - Lee Naegely, August
5, 1981 - that talks about all third floor rooms which are
being let out by Joe Reilly, who lived in the first floor
apartment . It talks about the present owner 's unit on the
first floor . Second floor rooms - third floor rooms - on
and on - the file is totally consistent - up until October
5, 1981 - the way I read it . I don' t know anything about a
C.O. , I don' t know that you don' t get occupancy rights as a
multiple residence if you don' t have a C.O. - she is asking
for a permitted use.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could I ask a question?
MR. KERRIGAN: I ' ll try and respond , shortly.
CHAIRMAW TOMLAN: I think the file indicates that you - Mrs.
Falconer applied for a building permit in August of 85, is
that correct?
SECRETARY HOARD: I think it was . . .
MR. KERRIGAN: Yes, that is correct . Before the Moratorium.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Then why, has it been - this is May - when
the Ordinance notes that Appeals from a decision of the .
'
Building Commissioner must be filed with the secretary
forms approved by the Board within thirty days.
MS. FALCONER: I was not told anything . . . '
MR. KERRIGAN: Where is - I 'm sorry - are you reading .
Section 3 of the Moratorium? '
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; No it 's page 5 here . . .
MR. KERRIGAN: Of the rules of this Board?
PAGE 118
- -- -- -- - -- - -
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: Amended March of 86.
MR. KERRIGAN: The Moratorium statute, as opposed to your
rules , in the appeals procedure, does not have a thirty day
clause and the first reference I find the thirty days is
after that .
SECRETARY HOARD: We are arguing a decision now. If you are
not arguing a decision, if you are just going right on into
the Moratorium. . . . (unintelligible>
MR. KERRIGAN: Well that is the basis upon which it was
turned down. It was turned down because of the Moratorium.
I don' t see any thirty day clauses. And those rules are
after these applications and there is a new application for
building permit that was filed t e day that this appeal was
filed , simultaneously - thirty-seven dollars was paid .
CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: So when was that last appeal - the last
appeal was filed when?
MR. KERRIGAN: The day that the application for a variance
was filed . They were filed simultaneously. A building
permit and an appeal was filed simultaneously in April 1986.
Pardon me?
SECRETARY HOARD: Of this year '
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Of this
MR~ KERRIGAN: Of this year , so there is a current appeal
andI think the old one is still good , that we can - I don' t
know that that is what we are fighting over .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it is my feeling , I 'd like to hear '
from other members of the Board - this is an awful lot to
PAGE 119
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
swallow all at once and I 've just been given this wad of
paper and I 'd like to sit down to review it - if nothing
else - I don' t know how you feel .
MR. SIEVERDING: Just postpone thirty days. . .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: At least thirty days until such time as we
can get some sense as to what this is about . Because I
think tlhicere are so many aspects of it that to sit here and
to grind through every aspect would be counter-productive.
MR. SIEVERDING: Every aspect being all the various things
that . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, 1. mean, there are so many different
aspects to it . If you don' t feelI 'm perfectly
willing to entertain either way - I just feel as though -
for the moment - I 'm having difficulty sorting through all
the pieces and parts that have been thrown at us.
MR. SCHWAB: The Moratorium ends when?
SECRETARY HOARD: September .
`
MR. SCHWAB: If you are talking about postponing until June, .
`
I assume they are in some sort of rush , otherwise why not
just wait until the Moratorium is over and the whole thing .
ends. . . '
MS. FALCONER: It ' s been a year .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Well the first question, of course, we've
got to come to grips with is whether , in fact , this is an '
increase in the density, okay? And then we go through all
the rest of the various . . . '
MR. SCHWAB: Hardship ' ' '
PAGE 120
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
CHAIRMAW T8MLAN5 Exactly. AI d I just feel as though , to
try to deal with that all in one lump , without having
digested - and give fair reading to the material - is doing
it a disservice - I mean, he has spent a good deal of time,
obviously, preparing it . Do you feel the same way? If not
we can sit through . . .
MR. SCHWAB: I 'd like to hear the applicants - I mean, on
this proposal . . .
CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: Fine'
MR. KERRIGAN: May I at least request that you consider the
application for the B & B and dispensing with the front yard
parking? And perhaps postpone the rest of it after that?
She has been since - she bought the property last August - .
she`s got four people - three thousand square foot brick .
frame structure on College Avenue. . .
`
MS. FALCONER: What I would like to suggest to you is that I
`
can neither rent the house even to five people for next
year , until I know - I can' t sign leases with people, I 've
been putting that off waiting to hear about this. I 've been
spending a year trying to work through the building codes in
Syracuse and getting - going to meetings - continuously
talking with Tom and coming back . . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAW; I don' t doubt that you tried your best .
MS. FALCONER: And there is no way I can get - I can get it
reaoy .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand . It is just that whenever I '
look at what is apparently about a half of page of compare
PAGE 121
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
and contrast for me, with the Ordinance, I just like more
time and I 'd like to hear from other members of the Board as
to whether or not - I am just putting myself out on the line
as an individual at this point - but I 'd like to see whether
in fact they feel the same way.
MR. KERRIGAN: I think the issue for me, more to the point
is, is this whole business of the Moratorium, and - you know
- the Common Council and presumably it has the Planning
Board 's endorsement - and I think that is why
(unintelligible) their recommendation is a little bit
puzzling . They decided to adopt the Moratorium because there
are a lot of things happening in Collegetown and they needed
to sort out the situation.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's right .
MR. SIEVERDIMG: And my understanding of that Ordinance is
that substantial changes in use occupancy are precisely the
types of things that the Moratorium was designed to
basically freeze until they had an opportunity to take a
look at the Zoning Ordinance and other issues in Collegetown
and come up with some kind of a plan that would sort of make
it whatever kind of effects new development would be and in
my mind , if that 's what the Council wanted when they passed '
this, my inclination would be to stick to the terms of the
Moratorium and not go with new uses, change of use until
after we have heard that Planning study and they come up
with a recommendation or the Moratorium has expired ,
whichever occurs first .
PAGE 122
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. WEAVER: Herman, reading the Moratorium, the Moratorium
was a limited Moratorium, it didn' t say "nothing shall
happen for a year" - it said and I ' ll read it if I can find
it "so cease to issue any building permit for alterations,
additions or new construction which would increase the
number or the legal occupancy of a non-owner-occupied
dwelling unit" - so if you are going to say, " let "s be loyal
to the Moratorium" the Moratorium, if in fact this place by
some construction is allowed to have eight bedrooms, or was
allowed to have eight bedrooms, at some magic date last
year , either before or after the Moratorium and if we are
looking at the Moratorium for guidance, it was merely to
consider applications that would increase the occupancy so
if this bed and breakfast , and , incidentally, I don' t know
what a bed and breakfast is - it is not in the Zoning
Ordinance under definition - so I don' t know where I would
go for an authoritative definition - but it doesn' t
specifically come under the Moratorium, if it doesn' t
increase the occupancy .
MR. SIEVERDIWG: But there is some question regarding that
right?
MR. WEAVER: Yes' . .
MR. SIEVERDING: There is the memo that suggests that this
was a single family house and it seems that we need to
resolve that question, I guess, before we go on and discuss
the merits of the Moratorium . . .
PAGE 123
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MS. FARRELL: I agree with Charlie, thought , I think we do
need to - you know - we can judge things before the
Moratorium is over if it doesn' t seem - we can judge that
something is not going (unintelligible) easier or something ,
that is what the Moratorium is supposed to put a hold on and
if that 's not the problem then it would seem to do it - but
here the question is, is it an increase in occupancy - what
is the occupancy. . .
MR. WEAVER: Well additionally, if we all agree, and I `m
sure we wouldn' t , that the Moratorium does apply, there is
also an appeal procedure that may be appealed on a basis of
hardship , under Section 39 or paragraph , or whatever it is,
and there has been information submitted , as I understand ,
that would support a finding of hardship . I don' t know what
the quality of that argument is but it 's been presented to
us so we can' t just say, I think the Moratorium ought to
apply and wait until some time this fall . I think we are
obliged to at least deal with the effect of the Moratorium
and whether , in fact , this property can meet the
requirements of the Moratorium, if it does apply. So , I 'm
quite willing to see all the material , but I am just saying ,
on what little we know is present - has been presented to
us, there is material that would assist us in finding
hardship or in determining applicability of the Moratorium
in entirety, or determining whether it applies to an
increase in occupancy. So question one is well before us,
maybe we haven' t had time to read it all and to understand
PAGE 124
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86 '
^
among ourselves, but I can' t see that we can decide right '
now that the Moratorium applies and that therefore this '
^
application shouldn' t be considered - I don' t think that `
would be appropriate - for the reasons that I have indicated
here.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other further thoughts? '
MR. SIEVERDINB: If I follow Charlie`s logic , I guess the '
additional information in this packet here - that would show
hardship or that would establish that this (unintelligible) '
is single family or multi-family . . . .
MR. SCHWAB: Of course, they do make an argument and the '
^
first argument they say is that the Moratorium doesn' t apply
because they requested the permit before the Moratorium was
in effect . If we can answer that yes we can leap the whole
Moratorium hurdle. The argument was that they - Ms. .
Falconer submitted a building permit with some level of .
`
detail before the Moratorium - level of detail wasn' t .
completed - architectural plans, until after the Moratorium .
- it was denied after the Moratorium. Can we say that 's ^
before the Moratorium? Or was this an application for a
building permit before the Moratorium - the Building
Commissioner ignored the - not ignored the Moratorium . . .
MR. WEAVER: I 'm interfering - I know - with what you are
trying to say but that 's the real point in this first
question of whether the Moratorium applies - is whether a
person who owns a property can submit an incomplete '
application for a building permit and get the advantage of
PAGE 125 '
' BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
the early date and subsequently perfect that application
with detail - but getting the original date of application
/
as the effective date of application - even though it ' s not
sufficient for a Building Department to approve or
disapprove in that it is incomplete and so as I think the
attorney said , that - so that the property owner doesn' t
have to come in here with architectural plans before a
permit is granted , but the application, even though -'I. was
incomplete, may well establish in our minds or in tryingto
be fair , to establish that they said - here I am and I want
to do essentially this with it - does that establish proper
early enough date for someone to avoid the Moratorium?
SECRETARY HOARD: Maybe I should respond to that question.
We have had two Moratoriums since I have been he.; - I ' ll go
on record as saying that I haven' t liked either one of them.
But the opinion of both City Attorneys was that the building
permit - an application is not enough got to be
complete and approvable - otherwise you get all kinds of
applications and that would be the foot in the door -
everybody would be in - and so all the applications that we
got had to go through the same degree of completeness.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What does completeness consist of?
SECRETARY HOARD: Something that can be approved under the �
Building Code and under the Zoning Ordinance.
CHAIRMAN TQMLAM: Does it not or does it have anything to do
'
with forms?
'
'
PAGE 126 '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, if it is certain kinds of work that ,
under the State Education law require the seal of an
architect or engineer , then that `s required .
MS. FARRELL: Sc, this one was rejected because of nO
umerous
code deficiencies of the plans. . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Right .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Question?
MR~ KERRIGAN: One sentence comment , if I may interrupt your
deliberations. Isn' t every "fast track" building or
operation submitted with incomplete building plans?
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tom?
SECRETARY HOARD: Fast tracks were not permitted under that
- it had to be a complete application.
MR. KERRI�A��: Where does it say that , if I may stretch my
one question to two?
SECRETARY HOARD: In the City Attorney's guide lines . In
other words it had to be complete because a fast track
there are different interpretations of what fast tracking
is. Some are that with a high-rise building you can build ,
you have to submit the entire structural thing and then you .
can submitfloor plans as you develop each floor . Then
there are things like multiple groups of houses. Then there
is at tracking where they a complete foundation - then
build the rest - but under a situation like the Moratorium,
you have to have complete plans.
MR. KERRIGAN: That 's for the Board to determine, I don' t
see that in the guidelines.
^
PAGE 127
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: Well otherwise someone could come in to us
with a foundation plan and say I 'm fast tracking . What are
you going to do? Well , I ' ll let you know.
MR. KERRIGAW: Well it will be built in accordance with the
State Code. (unintelligible) permitted by law
(unintelligible
SECRETARY HOARD: But where do you draw the line on that?
(unintelligible)
MR. KERRIGAW: You don' t draw the line two weeks before the
Moratorium and say, hell , we are going to wait two weeks
and go with the Moratorium, if you' ll - excuse me.
SECRETARY HOARD: Well nobody did that .
MS~ FALCONER: Tom, I don' t understand why it wasn' t enough
to - you gave the list , there were no major structural
thngs to be done to the house, when-J. it was talking about
the number of (unintelligible) room but simply using as a
multiple - you already have the list of things that must be
corrected - how could you draw a plan with that? It was
simply going along with changing those things.
SECRETARY HOARD: Well there were things like correcting the
second means of egress. . .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAW: You want to consider the question of the
Moratorium any more?
MR. SCHWAB: I guess the - I mean the openings - all of this
is going to be rulings by us.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes and that 's what I see. I see a series
of rulings right down the line.
PAGE 128
^
- --
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. SCHWAB: I 'm not , I guess, you know, I don' t think the
hour - it ,s obviously affecting us but it shouldn' t on this
question. Well the real question is, can we do it better in
a month than right now?
CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: I think we can. I would submit that if
you take a look at the paper that - the amount of paper that
has been put together , insofar , particularly with respect to
the hardship figures, pro forma, spin out of what the cash
flow is going to be under various scenerios, things c-, this
sort , I would think at least we would have the basis for
creating an informed decision or more informed decision than
we do now.
MR. KERRIGAN: I can deal with that in forty-five minutes
less than Mr . Hollander showed pictures. .
CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: I understand but we are not forty-five
minutes or even an hour and a half ago , so bear with us. I
am only asking for ideas, there is no decision at this
point .
MR. KERRIGAN� . . . (unintelligible> and ask him for about '
tLree minutes. .
MR. SIEVERDING: Were we to have gotten copies of . . .
MR~ �ERRIGAN: No . There was the pro forma, there was the '
original , there is a paragraph and the affidavit that talks
about the. . . .
MR. SIEVERDIWG: You alesuggesting that we take another
thirty days to digest this materials - (unintelligible)
PAGE 129
' -
' BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
these issues and come back and deal with the bed and
' breakfast?
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's right . Exactly, I mean, we have, I
would imagine, some discussion before we can even deal with
the bed and breakfast - what is a bed and breakfast? The
Code doesn' t have that in any way, shape or form, addressed .
MR. KERRIGAW: It 's a tourist home. That 's not even an
issue as to whether it 's a permitted use, I don' t think .
I 'm sorry - that 's argumentative. . .
CHAIRMAN lFOMLAN: A tourist home, maybe . Well you see we
have to decide that - you may, have opinions, but we have to
go through that ourselves.
MS. FALCONER: Mr . Tomlan, we are losing another whole year ,
another whole year . I cannot get it ready and I can' t rent
it .
MR. SCHWAB: It seems to me we should - do we vote on this,
in other words, I 'd just as soon decide the questions
seriatim tonight - largely on this argument that an answer
in June is a lot less helpful than one in May, but A. you
know - that ` s just an up or down call - there is some
important stuff handed to us tonight that is going to make
it a little tougher . Do we vote on this or . . .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: No I 'm just trying to get a sense of
whether or not you want to proceed . If that 's the case
we ` ll take it right on down from the top . Charlie, do you �
want to go ahead?
MR. WEAVER: I need a key to the men's room. `
PAGE 130
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A key to the men's room is necessary
first .
MR . SIEVERDING: I am actually inclined to try to deal with
this issue tonight . I 'm not sure whether that 's a
multi-family (unintelligible)
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tracy? Go
MS. FARRELL: Go for it .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Go for it? Helen, go ahead?
MR. SCHWAB: Should the proposal be after discussion to
figure it out , to vote one at a time?
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think so . Charlie, we won' t do anything
important without you .
MS. JOHNSON: Is there any way that we could get the - that
we could vote by mail if we get this information - that they
send the information - the pro forma and the cost - then we
could . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You could but I 'm not sure we would want
to go through the logistics. Okay then we want to kick
around the notion of the Moratorium further?
MR. SCHWAB: Well I would suggest the first vote is C:, was
the submission on August 28th before the Moratorium took
effect sufficient - you know - to sort of kick in before the
Moratorium. . . .
MS. FARRELL: So you would start there and then. . .
MR. SCHWAB: That 's the first question, then the second
question would be, does the Moratorium apply because it is
aI gued that this is not more dense.
PAGE 131
�
�
BZA MINUTES
MS. FARRELL: Or if it is more dense, does it not apply
because of hardship?
MR . SCHWAB: That would be the third question.
MG. FARRELL: Okay . All right .
MR. SCHWAB: Once we get into those three, maybe we will
find - we will certainly find others. And I personally
wouldn' t be too adverse to an occasional comment from Mr .
Kerrigan. . .
MR. KEp�R2GAN: I ' ll keep my tone of voice down.
MR. SCHWAB: Well this is a little different than our usual
- not different , but it 's more complicated than usual .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That `s right . Do you want to come up and
take a seat .
MR. SCHWAB: You know, not an up or down judgement but are
'
we off track . .
`
MR. SIEVERDING: If I understood your comments earlier , Tom, .
the City Attorney has established your basis as to what .
'
constitutes a complete application for a bui-.*iA.,-.J-i-,----
SECRETARY
permit? .
HOARD: Well , no . There is a standard
(unintelligible> approval for a building permit . What he
has said is because we were getting so many applications,
everybody was trying to beat the Moratorium, so okay what
,
you ve got to do - two City Attorneys said this for two
different Moratoriums - you have got to have complete
application with no "what ifs" or so if it needs some kind
of other variance - it 's got to have that in place, you
know, a building code variance or a housing code variance -
PAGE 132
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
everything has got to be in place - that ' s the only fair way
tC. do
MR. SCHWAB: So itis essentially the City Attorney 's ruling
that fast tracking is not going to count , shortly before a
Moratorium.
SECRETARY HOARD: We go through these everytime. . .
MR. SCHWAB: When was the other moratorium?
SECRETARY HOARD: Every time the deadline approaches -
everybody comes in and says "what if - what if I do this,
what if I do that?"
MR~ SCHWAB: When was the other moratorium, roughly?
SECRETARY HOARD: That was when the ,77 Ordinance was - that
was a City-wide moratorium.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAM: I suppose then we su
holdfair -
ask you to rebut .
MR. KERRIGAW: It seems to me that someone is interpreting a ^
Moratorium which has not yet been passed , to preclude
something that preceeds it . Circular reasoning I think .
Council is going to do something next month , so we've got a
new standard for building codes and fast tracking doesn' t
apply and there is no such reference to this standard in the
Ordinance. ^
SECRETARY HOARD: Well it says if you don' t have a building '
permit issued by the time the Moratorium starts we can' t do
anything for you.
MR~ KE�RIGAN: She says that she was entitled to a building
permit prior to the date it was passed - the same way my '
`
PAGE 133
' --
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
building got one without fifth floor plans - she has minor
deficiencies in the State appeal . I had a State appeal for
200 E . Buffalo Street on glass on the north side - I got a
building permit and started construction. There was no
difference :1. the law - there was no Moratorium when I
applied for a buiI ing permit at 200 E. Buffalo Street ,
there was no Moratorium when Ms . Falconer applied for a
building permit for 140 College Avenue .
SECRETARY HOARD: You wouldn' t have been deprived of the
use.
MR~ KERRIGAN: Pardon me?
SECRETARY HOARD: You wouldn' t have been deprived of the use
if your appeal to the State had been successful . . .
MR. SCHWAB: Let me ask you this Tom, but for the Moratorium
- if this had been the year before - would you have approved
Ms. Falconer `s permit - August 28, 1984 has been submitted .
What you got by Moratorium time, would you have approved it?
SECRETARY HOARD: By Moratorium time? No .
MR. SCHWAB: It was by September 1st of the year before. .
MS. FARRELL: Yes, if it wasn' t Moratorium, would you. . .
SECRETARY HOARD: We could not have issued a building .
permit . '
`
`
MR. SCHWAB: Under any of this fast tracking or any of this
kind of stuff. . .
MS. FARRELL: So it wouldn' t have fit into the fast tracking '
category? '
PAGE 134
- ----- ' -
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: Right .
MS. FARRELL: No matter - Moratorium or no Moratorium?
SECRETARY HOARD: Right .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Does that bring you closer to a motion?
'
-
PAGE 135
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1696A FOR 140COLLEGE AVENUE
MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board deny the applicant `s
interpretation that her filings prior to the Moratorium were
sufficiently complete to entitle her to a permit before the
Moratorium took effect .
MS~ FARRELL: I second the motion.
PR8POSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 ) Acording to the Building Commissioner J-
... permit was
not sufficiently complete to permit the Commissioner to
approve the application .
2) This permit was not in any category that would allow the
Building Commissioner to issue a building permit pending
completion of the application.
VOTE: 6 YES; O NO BOARD RULED IN FAVOR OF THE BUILDING
COMMISSIONER'S INTERPRETATION.
~
^
^
`
^
PAGE 136
' -- ---- '
BZA MINUTES
DISCUSSION AFTER THE VOTE IN 1969A AND BEFORE THE MOTION AND
VOTE IN 1969B
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Okay. Next question we have.
MR. SCHWAB: Does the Moratorium apply - I think because of
density - thoughts. . .
MR. SIG�VERI}I��G: I think it comes back to the May 1 memo and
whether theproperty was considered or exactly reported on
to the Building Department as a single family residence or
whether in fact itwas something else.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right . According to Peter `s note
it 's a single family house .
MR. SCHWAB: Pm' persuaded that your last point - in fact ,
it was something else - I don' t think , you know, the
Building Department probably denies that - the point as I
hear it was - there is no official notice - there isn' t
anything else. . . the question is, does that matter? At all
times, even up through now, certainly having - I guess there
was some testimony that there was three or six or some
number of apartments - that 's all permitted uses
apparently never officially notifying the Building
Department that that was the use. There were inspections
and whatnot - are you agreeing with this Tom?
CHAIRMAN TC}MLAN: Where is the Certificate of Occupancy that
the file would show? '
SECRETARY HOARD: There is no Certificate of Occupancy.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAW: There is no Certificate?
PAGE 137
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETA�Y HOARD: None. Until Ms. Falconer got one - she
got one as a single family dwelling .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: As a single family dwelling - that was the
first one?
SECRETARY HOARD: That was the first one.
MS. FARRELL: It seems like it could have an illegal use for
years and years and everybody could know it was there, but
unless there was a Certificate of Occupancy issued , the use
was never acknowledged as (unintelligible) . . .
MR. SCHWAB: Well the point here is that that is not an
illegal use. It was permitted under the Code. This is not
a single family area.
MS. FARRELL: Not that much, I don' t think .
MR. SCHWAB: What is permitted here?
SECRETARY HOARD: He didn' t have the parking - they are
develsping the parking .
MR. WEAVER: He didn' t meet the exit requirements forever ,
did he? .
SECRETARY HOARD: Well yes, as far as building code goes,
yes, but he didn' t meet
MR~ WEAVER: Well it was advantageous to an owner ,
historically, not to apply for a C.O. because it would bring '
on a review of such things as multiple residences, fire
retardation in the basement and a few other things that an
owner would avoid if he felt so inclined . He certainly `
wouldn' t be anxious to have the Building Department in.
PAGE 138
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. SIEVERDING: That would then be an illegal or a
non-conforming use?
MR. WEAVER: Well , no , I 'm getting out of the zoning , I 'm
saying that . . .
MR~ SIEVERDING: Building code requirements. . .
MR. WEAVER: Mitchell law and later the building code both
require alternate means of egress and that the building
didn' t meet them - adequate means of egress.
MR. SCHWAB: As far as zoning goes, for the multiple
residency, it wouldn' t meet the parking , is that . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, that is what I think is the crux of
the zoning question .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Councilor?
MR. KERRIGA0: A sentence if I may. Rooming or Boarding
House, one space per three person - I understand that six
spaces is enough for eighteen people in there under an R3
district - the off-street parking requirement . There is a
curb cut to College Avenue, there is another curb cut to the
garage coming off Cook . I respectfully disagree with the
count . I `ve got two parking spaces, three parking spaces -
I 've met my occupancy parking requirement (unintelligible)
this discussion. '
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Noted .
MR. SCHWAB: We are trying to establish what - this O.Z.-
either
seither a multiple dwelling , is that right? Is that what we
are calling it? '
MS. FARRELL: Yeh .
PAGE 139
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. SCHWAB: Several apartments or single family?
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's right '
MR. SCHWAB: Multiple dwelling was at all times permitted
under Zoning Ordinance?
MR. SIEVERDING: Within certain restrictions, I mean, there
are various requirements related to multiple family use on
the property that would have to be met .
MR. SCHWAB: Well there were requirements presumably, for
single family residency that had to be met .
MR. SIEVERDING: Yes but this property didn' t meet the
requirements for multiple family occupancy .
MR. SCHWAB: Such as, what?
MR. SIEVERDING: Apparently the parking requirement , for
one .
MR~ SCHWAB: Well we got to the base. .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That was the question that was answered . . .
MR. SCHWAB: He says there were three and that is all that
is required .
MR. KERRIBAN: Three parking spaces covers nine people. We
are asking . . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Well if you know what you are calling it .
because at one point you are sayingwhat three
apartments? re saying it 's a rooming house . . ^
MR. KERRISAN: The Building Commissioner 's notes here
(unintelligible) '
SECRETARY
HOARD: That 's the dilemma . '
`
PAGE 140 '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. KERRIGAM: I 'm quoting him. . . "Joe Rel. ly lived in an
apartment on the first floor - there is an apartment in the
basement - there were eight separate bedrooms rented in the
top two floors. " Call it what you will , maybe that is why
you get the. . .
MR. SCHWAB: Under that description - apartment in the
basement , apartment on the first floor and eight houses
[sic] on the top floor , what would you call it Tom?
Assuming that 's the fact .
MS. FARRELL: No , it 's two apartments plus eight rooms to
rent .
MR. SIEVERDING: There's an accumulative parking requirement
isn' t there? There is a parking requirement for each of the
apartments, plus a parking requirement for the eight rooms.
MS. FARRELL: Yes.
MR. KERRIGAN: We've met the one though for the density
^
which (unintelligible) with this new application so there is ^
`
no increase in density under the Moratorium, is all I am .
saying .
MR. SIEVERD%NG: Assuming that you can meet the parking '
ECLfor two apartments plus eight rooms . Because
otherwise you have an illegal non-conforming use.
MR. KERRIGAN: Assuming I can meet the parking requirements?
The same eight rooms that Joe r"R., rented out upstairs that ^
I want to rent out as a B & B. '
CHAIRMAN T0MLAW: Are there any other conditions that would '
be. . . . ^
`
PAGE 141 '
' BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR~ KERRIGAN: The Building Commissioner turned down the
application to the side parking (unintelligible )
MR. SIEVER8ING: On the August 85 application?
' MR. KERRIGAN: Or the one a month ago - there was one filed
in April .
SECRETARY HOARD: No , the zoning requirements weren' t there
because one of the first things Mr . Sharma did was come in
' with a parking plan for approval - that was one of the first
steps .
' MR. SHARMA: The Building Commissioner said that we had
' zoning problems (unintelligible)
'
CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: Back to you Stewart .
' MR. SCHWAB: We are having trouble going forward ,
. unfortunately . If this is single family - okay we' ll decide
. that (unintelligible) - if this - well was it always - you
see I 'm having a problem when they don' t notify anything -
you are saying - or maybe said - it didn' t comply with
^ rooming house or three apartments. Did it certify with
. single family requirements? Is that all met? I mean, it
could be that it didn' t conform to anything .
. SECRETARY HOARD: Well it was originally constructed as a
' single family house so it has grandfather rights as a single
family house. But then at some point they started doing
' different things with it and . . .
' MS. FARRELL:
SECRETARY HOARD: Whenever . . . but anyway, they did
different things with it and then when we - my predecessors
' PAGE 142
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
were inspecting the building they found problems with it and
they said - you've got to do this to comply with the
Mitchell Law - the Mitchell Law was 1951 - one year after
the first Zoning Ordinance . So - he didn' t comply - right
after that and in 1960 he didn` t comply with the Mitchell
Law - and in 1980 something , when Mr . Naegely went through
there - the ceiling at the lowest level was still exposed
joints - so it was still out of compliance with the Mitchell
Law - not to mention the means of egress. So it was never
brought clde.
MR. KERRIBAM: The Mitchell Law is only applicable to
multiple residents, right?
SECRETARY HOARD: Right .
MA. KERRIGAW: So you are saying it `s a multiple residence
to comply with the Mitchell Law. You didn' t do a building
code. . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: I `m saying that because they couldn` t make .
it comply to the requirements for a multiple dwelling , it
was never a legal multiple dwelling . So maybe - what you .
are saying is - it was not a legal multiple dwelling but
then this says that any increases in legal occupancy
is what you are running into now.
MR. KERRIGAN: I 'm saying , it is not up to this Board to
interpret and define the State Building Code - either the
Mitchell Law or the new one. And the fact that they wanted '
him to comply with the Mitchell Law proves that it was used '
as a multiple residence for zoning purposes.
PAGE 143 '
-----
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
. SECRETARY HOARD: But you have to get a Certificate of
Compliance. . . .
. MR. KERRIGAN: (unintelligible) but this Board doesn' t talk
about (unintelligible)
MR. SIEVERDING: But to understand your comments, you
couldn' t get it because you didn' t comply with those
particular sets of code building requirements.
SECRETARY
HOARD: Right .
' MR. WEAVER: I think it is improper for us to discuss McNeil
' Mitchell and any other thing that applies to building - we
' really are discussing why this single family dwelling was
never - never had a C.O. for any thing else, although there
' is evidence that it was used illegally as a rooming house or
' something . It doesn' t make any difference what but
something that was certainly not a single family dwelling ,
unless you want to say that it was a single family dwelling
' with eight roomers. I 'm not serious - but it just seems to
' me that howcould you get this place - you get to this place
by an owner who figures I ' ll leave it alone and I won' t
' apply for a damn thing and if they want to take me to Court
' I ' ll probably hear from them. And so far we haven' t made it
speaking of the City . So I don' t think - I disagree
that it is none of our business - we, to understand - how
. could you possibly - it isn' t the ineptness of the
inspections or the Building Department that we arrive at
this - finally - there is a day of reckoning in which - if
. this isn' t a multiple dwelling - or if it is a multiple
PAGE 144
_
--
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
dwelling - it is because someone has abused and ignored the
law for years and years and years - and having been
successful doesn' t grandfather any rights to the new owner ,
it doesn' t seem to me - quite the contrary .
CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: Does that help you some Stewart?
MR. SCHWAB: That helps me quite a bit . Question. If the
zoning were changed to require a single family, would this
property have any grandfather rights as something else?
Because I wouldn' t want to say, in fact , it has been used as
something else - but it has never gotten the required
permits. It would be your interpretation Tom, no , right?
It has no grandfather rights.
SECRETARY HOARD: Right .
MR. SCHWAB: Unless you get a C.O . , I guess that 's what is
needed - as something else - that the property was legally
non-conforming - I guess, is that the proper word? Maybe
I 'm willing to go forward with a motion. . . .
^
PAGE 145 '
'
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1696B FOR 140 COLLEGE AVENUE
MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board interpret that the
Moratorium does apply to Appeal Number 1696.
MR. WEAVER: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 ) This house was originally built as a single family home.
2) There has never been a Certificate of Compliance for any
other use.
3) The proposed change is to some form of multiple dwelling
or tourist home which would increase the legal occupancy.
4) Therefore the Moratorium applies.
VOTE: 6 YES; O NO THE BOARD RULED IN FAVOR OF THE
MORATORIUM APPLYING TO THIS APPEAL.
^
PAGE 146
--'
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1696 FOR 140 COLLEGE AVENUE AFTER
THE VOTE QN #1696BAND BEFORE THE MOTION ON #1696C:
Sc-.1 the next question then
MS. FARRELL: S , is there hardship?
MR. SCHWAB: Right . Let 's read the exact wording here. J-..,:-
Et
fan individual applying for a building permit can demonstrate
hardship as a result of a Moratorium, he or she may appeal
to the BZA which at its sole discretion, upon recommendation
of the Boardof Planning and Development , may exempt the
individual from the provisions of the Moratorium. I guess
it is 1 ) in our sole discretion, 2) we have had a
recommendation of approval from the Board of Planning and
Development . . .
MS. FARRELL: Not based on hardship .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good observation.
MR. SCHWAB: Let 's see - what was the thrust of their - no
change in use?
MS. FARRELL: Density. .
MR. SCHWAB: Right - we just voted on it . `
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: That 's right .
MR. KERRIGAW: May I speak to hardship for a second? More
than a three thousand square foot brick structure - not well
insulated - I have set forth in paragraph six of Nancy`s
affidavit , the costs of operating the property . Twenty-nine
hundred dollars in taxes - fifty-five hundred dollars for
heat and utilities - eighteen hundred dollars in insurance -
two thousand dollars in annual building maintenance
fifteen hundred dollars for furniture and snow and yard
PAGE 147
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
maintenance - a guess at eight hundred dollars in
advertising and that depends a little bit on how it 's used .
And that is not from a bed and breakfast pro forma - that is
the present cost of trying to run that property. That adds
up to over fourteen thousand dollars which is over twelve
hundred dollars per month in operating expenses - no debt
service - no mortgage - no interest . I don` t know what sort
of mortgage or interest figure you want to put into it , but
even before getting to that , that house has to be rented as
' a single family home, in a neighborhood with no other single
family homes - certainly not on that street , as I indicated
to you - for more than twelve hundred dollars per month -
just to cover operating expenses - the property has been
' given to her . I don' t think that can be done under your
' Ordinance and it sits right now - with the number of related
and unrelated - I don' t know how many students you can get
in here - it 's less than the eight that is the increase in
density that we don' t want - eight at two hundred dollars a
. month is sixteen hundred dollars - which is four hundred
' dollars a month for a mortgage. I guess that would probably
. carry thirty thousand dollars as a return on the investment
. or a mortgage. When you crank in a mortgage in a six figure
cost set forth at the purchase price for this building - was
. less than fifty dollars per square foot - that 's a pretty
' reasonable purchase price - that 's a six figure item -
that's a hundred fifty thousand dollars - at ten percent
' rate of return is one hundred and fifty thousand dollars
' PAGE 148
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86 '
'
converted to a mortgage is - a thousand - twelve hundred and '
fifteen - or a hundred dollars per month - to break even on
the property it 's got to be rented to a single family home
or a group of I think maybe four students for three thousand
dollars. I submit that as classic hardship attributable to
the property. I would also submit the purchase when it was
out of the Moratorium and finding it in the Moratorium '..-k a
I of the ` amendment after the closing is the type of '
hardship that Council was contemplating as well when they
moved that back . So , economic hardship - buying the
property - knowing that the proposed use is legal
finding out the day after the closing that its got to set .
substantially vacant for a year . There are four people
using it now -
MS. FALCONER: There are three in there right now.
MR. KERRIGAN: Is there three in there right now? At less ^
than a thousand dollars a month in rent which is two hundred
dollars a month for Ms. Falconer to pay out of her pocket ^
every month - just for the operating expenses - that assumes
no interest .
MR. SCHWAB: The purchase price was roughly a hundred and
fifty thousand?
MS. FALCONER: It was a hundred and fifty-five thousand .
MR. SCHWAB: :-Id you are saying it adds fifty dollars per �
square foot? .
MR. 0ERRIGAN: Yes, (unintelligible> per square foot . '
PAGE 149
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. SCHWAB: Which you are saying is reasonable? 1-1 a
matter of fact low, very low.
MR. KERRIGAW: I agree.
MR. SCHWAB: All right . So you've got the large costs to
close your - knowing there was a Moratorium - knowing this
property was not in it - knowing may be a bit strong -
MR. KERRIGAW: That ' s the state of the proposal and it was
4--
MR.
MR. SCHWAB: That 's right . Subsequent changes. . . amendment
by the Common Council - I guess all that goes to - not good
faith - (unintelligible) even appropriate . . . .
MR. KERRIGAM: I was at Council that night (unintelligible)
another client and watched this woman whom I didn' t know at
that point sayingbought the property .1c - leave
me alone. /
MR. SCHWAB: And then there are unique circumstances - there
are no other single family houses. . . on this street . . . /
MR~ KERRIGAW: Not on College Avenue. Four in - out of the
forty-two within two hundred feet - are single families -
^
three of which single family home-owners have signed the
' petition saying , hey, sounds like a good idea. No
~ opposition.
MR. SIEVERDING: The dates of the changes in the boundary of
the Moratorium relative to the purchase - could you go over
. those again?
^ MR. KERRIGAW: Closing took place in the afternoon - it was
a Common Council meeting that evening . . .
PAGE 150
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86 ^
MR. SIEVERDING: When was the purchase offer made on the '
property? '
MS. FALCONER: Probably two months. . .
MR. KERRIGAN: Probably two months before the closing .
There was a closing in the afternoon of the Common Council '
^
meeting . This would have been August because what happens ^
^
in Common Council - a few hours after she closes - is that
the Moratorium had been proposed before the closing - I
don' t know if the Moratorium was closed before the purchase '
offer - the proposed Moratorium ran down the center of '
College Avenue - that was the status at the hour of the .
closing - let 's say two o 'clock . At seven thirty that
evening (unintelligible) suggestion I was at that Council .
meeting on the Collegetown project a block and a half away a .
multi-million dollar parking garage (unintelligible) that .
^
way why I was at Council that night - someone made a motion .
that Common Council - it was the first time it was discussed .
in public - the first time it was known to anybody - it may .
have been discussed at some meeting that afternoon - I don' t
know that - but all sorts of people at Council said , hey,
this is the first we have heard of that and that was moving '
the boundary of the Moratorium west to include that .
property . It was no longer four hours after the closing -
four hours after the closing was the first time any public
person had any knowledge of the Moratorium boundary would
have included this property. Council could not pass the '
amendment that evening because - you may have even been '
�
°
PAGE 151 '
`
B MINUTES - 5/5/86 '
there at this point - this was - the City Attorney, as I
recall that evening ruled that that was a substantial change
in what Council was doing with the Zoning Ordinance and said
you've got to publish and put it on the table for thirty
days and it sat for thirty days. So it was thirty - I don' t '
know twenty-eight - three and a half weeks - whatever the
deadlines are - later that it was passed . She had purchased
the property before there was any public discussion
including - it had been investigated and knew the property '
she was buying was not in the Moratorium at the hour of
closing - let alone the contract documents - two months '
earlier . '
CHA%RMAN TOMLAN: For what -.1+.- worth Herman, I was at that .
Council meeting andhis account of it is essentially correct .
. .
the way in which the whole thing transpired . .
. .
MR. SIEVERDIWG: What I am getting at is that there was a .
' little question as to whether hardship was self imposed and
whether you knew that there were certain changes going into
' effect at the time that you purchased the property. If this
` amendment to the Zoning - the Moratorium was adopted on
September 4th - that would suggest that on or about August
^ 4th the Council decided that they were going to change the
' boundary, which suggested that on July 4th there was already
,
the first notice in the paper announcing the original
borders . . .
MS. FALCONER-. The only map available showed the line going
' down the center of the street - the day before I bought the
PAGE 152
BZA MINUTES
house - a Building Department person told me that I did not
have to worry, the line went down the center of the street
and was not going to include the west side of College
Avenue . I subsequently closed the next day .
MR. KERRIGANc Deed dated August 7, 1985 - here it is. I
don' t know the date of the deed - I guess it is dated August
7th - this is a photo copy - a tax was paid - which is paid
when it is recorded on August 7th - twenty-eight -
twenty-nine days before the enactment of the Moratorium. It
was also the day of the first discussion of moving west .
MS. FALCONER: It was also five o `clock in the ft
aerno
on.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart I think we are back to you. Have
you got a motion ready for us?
PAGE 153
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MOTION ON 1696C WHICH RESULTED IN MORE DISCUSSION
MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board approve the exemption
from the Moratorium to permit the conversion of the building
to a bed and breakfast/tourist home at 140 College Avenue -
let me say, on the grounds that hardship has been shown. . .
MS. FARRELL: Wait - are we granting the - is this up to the
bed and breakfast - are we in to that part yet?
MR. SCHWAB: Is thatwhat we are doing?
MS. FARRELL: I think so .
CHAIRMAN TQMLAW: Well that 's the question. That is one of
the questions I think we ought to discuss at this point . '
MS. FARRELL: I think we should wait (unintelligible)
think that 's the next step because if there is hardship
proposed - you know - there is hardship - well it could I::) .
just that there is hardship - unable to use property as. . .
MR. SCHWAB: Single family . . . .
MS~ FARRELL: Yeh . But maybe we could skip that step and .
`
move right on to include the multiple in that - the bed and
breakfast .
^
MR. SCHWAB: All right . So the idea is the bed and '
breakfast/tourist home versus multiple - both of which are
`
L11 se variances being asked for .
MR. WEAVER: No . `
MR. SCHWAB: Because we are saying they are single. . .
MS. FARRELL: No , it 's an illegal use. . . ^
MR. SCHWAB: No , wait it 's a legal use . .
MS. FARRELL: It 's just that there is a Moratorium. . .
PAGE 154
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: They are just asking for an exception to
the Moratorium.
MR. SCHWAB: Well , okay, well I see no reason why not to
allow the bed and breakfast , does anyone have a discussion
on that point - for purposes of the argument?
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well what else . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: It has the same test '
MR. SCHWAB: What 's the same test?
MS. FARRELL: The hardship issue?
SECRETARY HOARD: It has the same test as a use variance
(unintelligible) '
MR. SCHWAB: Same test as a use variance - but on
question whether to go bed and breakfast or go multiple. . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAM: Something else - yes, that 's the question .
I have - whether a bed and breakfast isthe (unintelligible) .
you go to or do you go to something else? .
MR. SCHWAB: How do you decide that? `
M8~ FARRELL: Well they are applying for that use. '
MR. WEAVER: What would be. . .
MR. SCHWAB: It is certainly their preferred use. .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But is their preferred use in the best
interest of the Ordinance as a whole?
MR. SCHWAB: In the spirit of the Moratorium and
'
personally would like to see a bed and breakfast there but I
'
doubt if that is quite (unintelligible) or quite the
rationale to go on.
PAGE 155
' BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm afraid it 's . . . in a moment - a
momen� . . .
MR. SCHWAB: We need help here.
MR. KERRIGAN: May I make a suggestion that if you - I 've
got forty-three scatter shots sequential applications beyond
Jhat . There is a real possibility that by next month , if
the bed and breakfast were to be granted the balance would
be withdrawn and maybe you wouldn' t have to climb all over
the next eight that I have seriatim down to the bottom of
the page .
C-2. if you wanted to deal with the bed and
breakfast and the one parking space. . . we . . it is likely
. that within a month - if a motion to adjourn were made -
after that - if it were granted - it might be an appropriate
' point to break , you may never have to get to the others. . .
MR. SCHWAB: Well help us out here - it seems to me on the
Moratorium, Council is clearly concerned with density ,
' increases, that type of thing . Now, assuming that we have
' in voting - that we go the hardship - it seems to me there
would still be an interest in coming as close to the spirit
of the Ordinance - meaning density and this and that - I
guess density and whatever other issues covered by the
' Moratorium - comparing the bed and breakfast to multiple
housing which - in your opinion - comes closer to the spirit
of the Moratorium or is it a wash?
MR. KERRIGAN: It seems to me the spirit of the spirit of
the Moratorium has to encompass the spirit of Y"
as a whole and I think the tourist home is a less
PAGE 156
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
significant alteration - certainly as shown in the order of
permitted uses, I think .
MS. FARRELL: Tourist home (unintelligible) - why do you
call it a tourist home?
MR. SCHWAB: Are you saying (unintelligible)
MR. KERRIGAN: That 's what I - I get lost - I was reading
the wrong column. Actually . . .
MR. SCHWAB: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
MR. KERRIGAN: No it 's not , it ' s rank below a multiple
dwelling .
MR. SIEVERBING: That 's R3.
MR. SCHWAB: This one is R3 and the others R2?
MR. KERRIE;AN: No they are all in R3 - I don' t know if there
is any significance to their order of listing in an R. . .
MR. WEAVER: Good point Counselor . In a multiple residence
(unintelligible) there is no distinction on - there is on
some of the other regulations but the fact that it may be .
classed as a transient property isn' t a zoning issue, I .
hope. For a change. .
MR. SCHWAB: Do you see any basis, Tom, for how far our '
jurisdiction goes distinguishing between these two? Why we
should favor one or the other for any conceivable reason?
SECRETARY HOARD: Well I think you might be looking at the
degree of increase in occupancy or traffic or other things
but they are all permitted under R3 so . . . '
MR. SCHWAB: So it ' s a little tough to distinguish . . .
PAGE 157
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
SECRETARY HOARD: So once you get into - I don' t think you
are going to be endangered more by improving one over the
other .
MR. SCHWAB: Okay.
MR. WEAVER: Assuming a wisdom in this Ordinance, it
certainly doesn' t require a special permit and some
multiples do - but not so in this case so it seems to me
that a bed and breakfast is just as easy as some of the
other things you are adding - to me.
MR. SCHWAB: Well we' ll see how it flies.
`
^
PAGE 158
- - --- ---- ---- ---------
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DECISION ONAPPEAL NO. 2696CFOR 140COLLEGE AVENUE
MR~ SCHWAB: I move that the Board approve the exemption
from the I"! to permit the conversion of the building
to a bed and breakfast/tourist home at 140 College Avenue.
MS~ FARRELL: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 > Hardship was shown under the Moratorium.
2) The Planning Board has recommended approval of a
variance from the Moratorium albeit on different grounds.
.71 The testimony was that in this large structure there are
operating expenses of approximately $1 ,200.00 per month
excluding mortgage.
4) In addition the purchase price of $150,000.00, about
$50 .00 per square foot which seems reasonable rather than
excessive for this. To cover costs this structure might
need upwards to 'Zr per month .
5) It is very difficult to get that amount from a single
'
family dwelling . There are only three ( 3) single family
dwellings now within two hundred feet - none on College
Avenue.
6) The current rental situation brings in less than
$1 ,000.00 in rent .
7) The hardship seems to be without any fault to the owner .
Purchase offer and closing were done before it became
apparent that the Moratorium applied to this property . Only ^
after closing was the Moratorium extended to include this
property.
PAGE 159
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DISCUSSION WHICH TOOK PLACE AFTER THE MOTION AND FINDINGS OF
FACT BUT BEFORE THE VOTE - APPEAL NO. 1696C - 140 COLLEGE
AVENUE:
MS. FARRELL: Let 's discuss it - there is a parking
deficiency with the proposed parking - seven spaces. . .
MR. WEAVER: I think we ought to have D on that .
MR. SCHWAB: Yes, let 's make that D.
MR. WEAVER: Because that will be a variance.
MS. FARRELL: Okay .
MR. WEAVER: So far I 'm not sure I 've heard a variance.
MS. FARRELL: Wait a minute - I thought this was going to -
this was just wrapping it altogether .
MR. SCHWAB: No . All I 'm saying is . . .
MR. WEAVER: I don' t hear an area variance up to this point
and I don' t think I should have. But that would be. .
MS. FARRELL: Okay .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We are just getting through the Moratorium
at this point .
MS. FARRELL: So now . . . but then the next one is the area
variance . . . this proposed use . . . okay .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We should have more Moratoriums - we would
have this fun all the time .
MR. SIEgERDING: Can we have more discussion on this? All
in the sense that I am going to vote against this motion
because I feel like that a hardship . . .
MS. FARRELL: Wait a minute - there is no motion. . .yes . . . '
is there? '
PAGE 160 '
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh yes. . there is. . .
MR. SIEVERDING: In my mind , I think the hardship is largely
self-imposed , I don' t buy the argument that - I think if
Common Council is discussing a Moratorium in the Collegetown
zone a good two months prior to closing - I think it is a
somewhat risky supposition on the part of an owner or
potential purchaser of a piece of property - particularly if
I e is right on the border - that there wouldn' t be some
Chprior to the time that that body of legislation is
finally acted into law. So I think a prudent purchaser may
have decided to wait until after that issue was finally
settled and a Moratorium finally adopted . As far as they
completed the purchase of the property on which they have
made an offer - I think the Planning and Development Board
recommendation is largely decided (unintelligible> deals
with density and density isn' t really the question, I think ,
relative to this request . The operating expenses, although .
it is difficult to go through in any detailed manner here, I
think largely seem to be overstated . Fifty-five hundred
dollars for heat and utilities . . .
`
MS. FALCONER: I have the bills.
MR. SIEVERDING: Given the period of time, I think they
would likely . . . '
MS. FALCONER: I have the bills.
MR. SIEVERDING: If you would let me finish please. Given
the period of time within which the Moratorium will be
dropped and some other plan put in its place - this is about
PAGE 161
' - -
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
three or four months away . And there are other items, I
think , in that expenses that you are not presently occurring
because it is not that time of year . I think , lastly,
(unintelligible) I think for the change. Your fourth point
in your resolution - would you read that back please?
MS. RUAME: The purchase price of one hundred and fifty
thousand which is about fifty dollars per square foot which
seems reasonable rather than excessive.
MR. SIEVERD%NG: Okay - here is another issue that you have
relative to when the proposal for a change occurred and
there again I go back to the sequence of updates and I think
there is sufficient knowledge and discussion out there
against the changes to the proposed boundary of the district
where possible and I think for those reasons, it is largely
a self-imposed hardship and I just can' t go along with
saying that the Moratorium doesn' t apply in this instance.
And it is in fact - that was the last point that I wanted to
make - the proposed change is, as we just established , from
a single family to a much higher level of density which is
precisely the type of situation that the Moratorium was
designed to prevent from happening .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further discussion?
MR. WEAVER: I would agree on the self-imposed hardship if, ,
in fact , there had been a non-specific discussion of the
legislative body that they might impose a Moratorium
somewhere on East Hill but they got a little more specific
on that in the public discussion, as I recall it , they had
PAGE 162
BZA MINUTES
fairly well outlined or defined the area that they were '
concerned with and would lead even a prudent person to '
assume that that 's what they were going to do in a rather
specific way near the boundary - in fact , across the street
from the boundary - of the first proposal . And this is a
tough world in which let the buyer beware, but when you get
a legislative process in there, so they have to not only be '
beware of the seller but also be aware of the regulator who ^
may in some capricious manner make it a bad deal , I 'm not at '
all sure that that was what we would ordinarily consider a
self-imposed hardship . Now maybe I have used too many words
to say that , but I don' t really think that the average '
property owner ought to distrust the City and many of them .
think that the Common Council is a deliberative body that .
goes along in a very logical fashion. .
`
MR. SIEVERDING: Well I 'm not sure you are dealing with an .
'
average purchaser of property as opposed to some of the more .
inexperienced in dealing with these issues. ^
MR. WEAVER: I don' t know how smart a buyer is supposed to
oe . '
' CHAIRMAN TOMLAM: Further discussion? A vote? .
SECRETARY HOARD: The vote in appeal number 1696C IS
4YES AND 2NO. EXEMPTION FROM THE MORATORIUM GRANTED
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: So that cc,ie passes.
PAGE 163
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
APPEAL NO. 1696D FOR 140 COLLEGE AVENUE DISCUSSION '
MR. SCHWAB: Parking in the front yard .
`
MS. FARRELL: An area variance.
MR. SCHWAB: This tourist home needs eight parking places
according to the
MS. FARRELL: Yes '
SECRETARY HOARD: Right .
MR. SCHWAB: Seven can be complied with , in the back . '
Aesthetics would prefer not to have the eighth in the front .
Possibility of leasing one? You can always do that in that '
area. . . .
`
CHAIRMAN T8MLAN: Sure. Then we try to police it afterwards
or someone ooes. .
MR. SCHWAB: That- 's- .:7k good option?
MG. FARRELL: It 's acceptable I 'm sure (unintelligible) I .
wCuld want to see there be eight places. . . whether they are
^
in the back yard - the front yard or rented down the street
within however many feet it is to be. ^
MR. SIEVERDING: I feel - if they are going to go ahead with .
the proposal I 'd say - God knows parking is, in fact , one of '
� the main precipitating factors for all this discussion and '
' tprb
he o
lems in Collegetown and it certainly, I think , when
you (unintelligible) traffic coming and going that you want
to provide adequate off-site parking . And if the
requirement is one for every room?
SECRETARY HOARD: Well in a bed and breakfast it is one
space per bedroom.
PAGE 464
' -- -- -' ---- -
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MR. SIEVERDING: And there is no provision for staff? If we *
are looking at a hotel , are parking spaces per hotel room
is our Zoning Ordinance broken out in any way - some sort of ^
ratio per room - for guest rooms versus employees? ^
[short discussion with several people speaking which '
couldn' t be sorted out] '
SECRETARY HOARD: One space per guest room.
MR. KERRIGAN: (unintelligible) residential
SECRETARY HOARD: It 's the same .
^
MR. SIEVERDING: It 's the same, okay . '
MR. SCHWAB: What you are saying - I have two proposals
on-site? or a} within two hundred feet?
. MR. SIEVERDING: The requirement is eight spaces right?
SECRETARY HOARD: Right .
MR. SCHWAB: Sometimes that has been allowed by leasing
' within fifty feet is it? One hundred feet?
SECRETARY HOARD: Well if they lease it , they don' t need a
variance to lease. If they go out of here and can produce
eight spaces on the property, or if there is seven on the
property and they lease one elsewhere, you know, they don' t
need an - they would not need any action by this Board . The
only action that this Board wnuld have to take would be if
they want an out and out variance.
MR. SCHWAB: Less than eight?
MS. FARRE1-L: Right '
SECRETARY HOARD: Variance to reduce the requirement .
PAGE 165
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1696D FOR 140 COLLEGE AVENUE
MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board deny the area variance
for the parking requirements in appeal number 1696.
MB. FARRELL: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 ) Practical difficulties have not been shown that there is
space for eight places on the premises.
2) Parking is of critical importance in this neighborhood .
' DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1696D AFTER MOTION WAS MADE AND
BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN:
MR. KERRIGAN: One or two sentences I guess as a resident
' and not an advocate. . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I can' t believe that it will be just two
sentences but go ahead . . .
MR. KERRIGAN: (unintelligible> require the blacktopping of
' a front yards, particularly when you walk up College Avenue
^
' which is the first street I ever saw in this town, twenty
' years ago . And you see cars parked all over every front
yard on College Avenue and Linden and to not stop it , but
instead to require it , as opposed to Joe Ciaschi type fence,
' is upsetting to this resident . Not to a lawyer necessarily
but I think that with practical difficulties it is not going
to be full and practical difficulties - you are surrounding
a beautiful building - just like Lou Thaler did at 309 North
Tioga Street with blacktop - for big black monsters - two
^ blocks from a four million dollar parking garage that you
are building up the street .
PAGE 166
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86
MS. JOHNSON: Jim, one comment if you are interested in
historic preservation - think of this as a single family
home and not as a bed and breakfast .
MR. KERRIGAN: Find me a tenant who will pay twenty-five
hundred dollars a month and you've got it . '
MS. JOHNSON: I don' t know where but I . . .
MS. FALCONER: I have done some market research on this and
every indication I have is that the reason people would want
to use the place near Collegetown is so that they could
walk . Now I am not asking you to do away with all the
' parking , I 'm just saying that I think seven parking spaces
' is probably more than we will ever use and if that would
. .
' save the front yard , it seems to me a reasonable request . I
. .
^ will put it in obviously but it would be a damn shame to do
it and mess up the front lawn and then find that the most I
will ever have is maybe two or three cars in the back .
MR. SIEVERDING: Your motion, again, was to deny the area
, variance and require the eight parking spaces?
. MR. SCHWAB: Right .
. [DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE BETWEEN MR. WEAVER AND MR. KERRIGAN
. WHICH WASN'T PICKED UP BY THE TAPE RECORDER]
SECRETARY HOARD: The vote in appeal no. 1696D is 4 YES AND
2 NO. AREA VARIANCE DENIED
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you been satisfied that we have
addressed enough questions here that we can, at this point ,
cut if off?
PAGE 167
BZA MINUTES - 5/5/86 '
MR. KERRIGAW: Knowing the vote and anything else at
twelve-o-five, if I said no , I would be unanimous . I would '
certainly recommend that we quit (unintelligible) '
'
^
^
I , 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 5-1-86,
1691 , 1692, 1693, 1694, 1695 and 1696 on May 5, 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
Joh day of �}La� 1986
Notary Public
JEAN J. HANKINSON
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK
No. 55-1660800
QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COUNT
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 30,19
PAGE 169