Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1986-06-02 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JUNE 2, 1986 w PAGE APPEAL NO. 5-1-86 R. WOOD MOTORS, INC. 3 335-37 Elmira Road APPEAL NO. 5-1-86 DISCUSSION 26 APPEAL NO. 5-1-86 DECISION 32 1 I APPEAL NO. 1698 RUTH MORGAN (NO ONE SHOWED TO PRESENT 34 532 SPENCER ROAD THE APPEAL) APPEAL NO. 1700 JOSEPH DALEY 41 i 111 NORTH PLAIN STREET i APPEAL NO. 1700 DECISION 46 APPEAL NO. 1699 AMERICAN RED CROSS 34 717-171 WEST COURT STREET APPEAL NO. 1699 DECISION 40 APPEAL NO. 1701 CAROL LIN 47 126 COLLEGE AVENUE APPEAL NO. 1701 DISCUSSION 59 APPEAL NO. 1701 DECISION 61 APPEAL NO. 1702 AGUSTIN S. BERNAL 62 120 THIRD STREET APPEAL NO. 1702 DECISION TO CARRY OVER TO NEXT MONTH 74 CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING SECRETARY 75 � BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'd like to bring to order the June 2, 1986 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter , the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight include: MS~ HELEN JOHNSON MS. TRACY FARRELL MR. HERMAN BIEVERDING MR. STEWART SCHWAB MR. CHARLES WEAVER MR. MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD MR. PETER 0IETER%CH, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, ' ZONING OFFICER & DEPUTY BLDG. COMMISS. ' MS. BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the ' Agendum. First we will hear from the appellant and ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly , as possible and then be available to answer questions from the Board. We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the ' , Board considers " interested parties" to be persons who own property within two hundred feet of the property in question ' ' or who live or work within two hundred feet of that property. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from ' persons who do not meet the definition of an " interested PAGE # 1 ' BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 ' party" . While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record . The record consists of the application materials filed with the Building Department , correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations, if any, and the record of tonight's hearing . Since a record is being made of this hearing , it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones that are opposite me here so 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 and the Board will ' deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during the deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or a special permit . In the rare cases where there is a tie vote the variance or special permit is automatically denied. Are there any questions out there about the way in which we proceed? PAGE # 2 -- - — -- BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Are there any extra agendas? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There are extras up here in front . There is also one posted in the back if you are interested . Any other questions? Okay, Mr . Secretary? ACTING SECRETARY D%ETERXCH: The first appeal is APPEAL NO. 5_1_86 FOR 335_337 ELMIRA ROAD: Appeal of R. Wood Motors, Inc . , for variances from the Sign Ordinance 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 a building) , Section 34.6, Paragraph B (prohibiting projecting signs in a B-5 Zone) , 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 same message ( "VW 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 ' PAGE # 3 _ -- BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 (business) Use District in which the existing uses are permitted; however the appellant must obtain a variance from the sections cited before a sign permit can be issued for the new signs. This appeal was held over by the Board of Zoning Appeals at its May 1986 meeting so that the appellant could provide information required by the Sign Ordinance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Will you come forward? MS. 00WLEY: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Amanda Cowley, I appeared before you last time on behalf of Wood Motors and I have with me Mr . Terry Long who is with Wood Motors and will be assisting me this evening . We have first of all prepared a diagram which will hopefully assist you in showing you what we propose to do . Along the left hand side of this diagram we have the photographs of the existing signs on the building and they are numbered 1 through 6. There are altogether 7 signs that we intend to remove totally both from the building and from the pole outside. In place of that - we have a map here - which was prepared by Cayuga Sign Company, showing the proposed new signs. ' ` Essentially those new signs are: 3 mounted on one projecting ' board which is on the top of the building and we intend to ' leave the pole where it presently stands but to remove the two faces on each side of the pole and just to have one diameter sign saying "VW" . I ' ll pass these around in a minute but I would just like to particularly point out that PAGE # 4 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 on this diagram we have marked in red where the existing signs are located . They are not exactly to scale but we have the total square footage of both signs on this diagram. They come to one hundred and ninety-nine square feet and the proposed new signs would come to a hundred and forty-seven square feet . I would just like to correct an error . On the diagram that you have, they have put - for B - eighty square feet, because the man who was preparing this diagram assumed that we were going to put two VW - we were going to remove the VW Used Car sign from the pole outside and put the two faces of that sign onto the building . In fact , we are only going to be putting one of those faces onto the building , so it would, in fact , be forty square feet, not eighty square feet. That also means that on this sheet that I believe Mr . Dieterich prepared for you, down at the bottom where it says "E" - it is cited as a violation because it was assumed that we were putting on three signs saying "VW Used Car" but in fact it is only two so that would not be a violation under 34.6, paragraph B. MR. SIEVERDING: So is E - 1 VW Used Car - 40 square feet? MS. COWLEY: Yes, it should read: 1 VW Used Car - totalling ' forty square feet . ' MS. FARRE0L: So then that's not a violation at all? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: They are proposing to use one face of the - there was a double-faced pole mounted sign and they are proposing to use just one. PAGE # 5 ' DDA MINUTES 6/2/86 MS~ COWLEY: So I believe that takes care of that problem. As far as. . . MR. WEAVER: It does if I decide which one you are doing away with . One was a pole sign and the other was a building mounted sign, which one is being eliminated? There are two building mounted signs on this workup - this sheet of paper . MS. COWLEY: What this sheet said was that we were going to take the two sides of the existing sign - that says "VW Used Car" and we are only going to take one of those signs and affix it to the building - and I 've got a photograph over, on this side showing where we propose to affix it . So that would only be one mounted on the building and the other part Of it would just be put away - we won' t be using the other part of it at all . MR. WEAVER: On the property there will be only one used car sign? MS. COWLEY: That is correct, there will only be one sign saying "VW Used Car" . MR. SIEVERD3NG: One sign on the building and one sign on the pole along the highway? MS. COWLEY: No , the pole is going to just . . . MR. WEAVER: That 's what I am trying to find out. . . MS. COWLE`f: We are going to pull off that rectangular VW ' Used Car sign and replace it with a circular sign which ' simply says "VW" . ' MR. SIE#ERDING: I see. ' PAGE # 6 ` BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MS. COWLEYz So there will only be one Used Car sign and that will be affixed to the building. . MR. SIEVERDING: So on this sheet that we are all looking at, where it says "B - 1 VW Used Car" - is it just one VW? . MS~ COWLEYc Yes, it should read: " 1 VW Used Car" . . MS. FARRELL: So one used car is gone. . . CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAN: Is "Used Car" there or not? MS. COWLEY; "Used Car" is going to be on the sign. . . . MR~ SIEVERDINGz On the circular sign that is mounted on the . freestanding . . . . . MS. COWLEY: On the circular sign there is no words "Used Car" . . MS. FARRELL: Oh so that 's the one that goes and then the ' one on the building still says "Used Car"? MS. COWLEYc There is no sign on the building, right now, ' that says "Used Car" . There was a sign on the pole that said "Used Car" but that will be removed . ' MS. FARRELL: Okay. ' MS. COWLEYc Is that - perhaps when I pass around this ' diagram it will hopefully make it clearer but I did want to address that first because I believe that that will take care of one violation (unintelligible) The other violations � ^ that we are faced with are the three signs that we propose to put up and which do in fact project . Mr . Long will better be able to tell you why he needs to do it in that ' particular way. Essentially it is because - we've drawn on this diagram here - the right-of-way - you see, the property PAGE # 7 _ BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 ' line comes to only a few feet of the building - after the . road was widened there was - there is very little room between the property line and the roadway and Wood Motors has a right-of-way now, which I understand runs along here -- I 've I 've drawn it in orange - it 's twenty feet wide. There is . no way that we can put this proposed - the pole line as it stands at present , violates the Ordinance - but there is no way that we could put it back any further without putting it . right back into the middle of the Used Car lot where it just . wouldn' t be seen at all , as you can see from that photograph . So for that reason alone we are requesting the ' variance. As you can also see from this photograph it is on a grassy area, it 's a fairly small sign, as it exists, and ^ ' it will be even smaller when we change it to a circular sign ' with a diameter of only twenty-eight feet , so I really don' t , ' believe it would be any - twenty-eight square feet - I ' really don' t believe that it would cause any hazard to traffic or anything else and if you make us comply literally ' with the Ordinance, we might as well not have any sign there ^ ' at all because we would have to stick it right back into the ' middle of the lot. The same goes for the sign on the ' building . Essentially what we are trying to do here is just get rid of all these signs - it's a mess - it 's an eyesore and just have, essentially - instead of all these seven signs dotted all over the place, just have the existing small circular sign here on the grassy area and to put one . neat sign on the building with a total square footage of, I ' PAGE # 8 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 believe it 's - eighty-eight square feet - it 's on this diagram. Separating the three - as I mentioned last time, one reason that we have to separate them is Porsche will not allow their name to be on the same sign as Audi so we have to separate them out and we just propose to do that and just add the name of Wood Motors on the sign - R. Wood Motors -- just just on the top - and just make it one neat sign. Again, if we were required to literally comply with this Ordinance, you can see the location of the building, to put it right back, it would be totally invisible from the roadway. There is no conceivable way, really, that you could affix it to any part of that Wood Motors building where it would be reasonably visible, indeed conceivably visible, it would require people who were driving along looking for the identification of this business, to have to turn directly either to their right or left before they would be able to see any sign. I believe, I 'm not certain about this, but I believe there are other existing projecting signs along that roadway - the Friendly sign and a few others - that do face the road - you know - at a ninety degree angle and project slightly. The proposed sign here is certainly no larger than those. MR. WEAVER: Before you leave it - we lose our chart - the orange line is what? MS. COWLEYm The orange line represents the right-of-way. The blue line, I 've drawn down a broken blue line along here which represents the existing property line and then the PAGE # 9 - --- - BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 orange line represents the right-of-way that Wood Motors was given so that they could allow cars to drive in to the front of the building . Otherwise you would literally have the. . . ' I mean the . . . ' M0~ WEAVER: This is - was this granted by the State of New ' York? . MS~ COWLEY: Yes. MR. LONG: I pay for it - there is a monthly rental . . . ' MS. COWLEY: They pay for this right-of-way. So this is the ' edge of the right-of-way right here on the property line, . which is right next to the building, the lot is back in . here, so to set it back ten feet you would be putting this one into the middle of the lot . To set this one back , you'd . be putting it right back into a totally obscure place - correct me if I 'm wrong - right in the middle of the . showroom somewhere. . MR. LONG: (unintelligible) the elevation of the building there so if I set it back , then I go back to having to put up a sign on each side of the building and get a double-face ' - it just clutters again and it doubles my signage and I am ' trying to get within your standards because I knew it was ' out of standard when I came here. We have much too much signs and much too much clutter - we are trying to change that . ' MS. FARRELLc How wide is that right-of-way? MS. COWLEY: Twenty feet . ' MS. FARRELL: And that 's rented? PAGE # 10 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR. LONG: We pay - I 'm not sure to whom either - but either it is to the Town, or the Zone or the City - we pay for that right-of-way - it was something granted during the initial bargaining ten years ago. Apparently the road was twenty . feet further out when the building was already existing, so signs weren' t probably that big an issue. Since they`ve ' changed the road styling and moved it closer to the building , I have no place to go . I have no place to put a sign unless I put it in back of the building or out in the ' end of - way on the other end of the property - where it ' wouldn' t even be seen if I even tried to take and settle to ' ^ what you are asking - I 'd be way back in the middle of a ' road - it really wouldn' t make any difference - you wouldn' t be able to see the sign. I 'm really trying to clean up the situation - it has really been a hazard since I 've been ' there and that 's only a year ago . I knew then we were ' ' against - we had too many signs - I was told then - so I ^ ' tried to go to work on this to see what we could do to try to put this together . When Cayuga Sign came down and told ^ me what the variances were and what we were dealing with , I realized at that time that we were going to have to apply for some kind of a variance from the Zoning Board because we just had no place to put a sign. I know we can' t go any higher - I can' t go on top of the other building because it is too high - I can' t go any further out because I would be ' in the road and if I go any further back people wouldn' t see it anyhow, it would be behind the building . PAGE # 11 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MB~ COWLEYc Perhaps in that regard I should explain - this is where we've drawn - as you can see there are only spots where the new signs are going to be - one is this - it 's really only going to be one board consisting of three little separate signs. We wouldn' t even have the R. Wood Motors sign there at all , except we understand that it is a requirement that you put the name of the proprietor on the sign. In any event , it's really only the one sign that is going to be just projecting slightly there - oh , how far will it come over the canopy - about two feet or something? M0. LONG: About that . MS. COWLEY: About two feet and there is already an existing projecting sign which also comes out and which we are intending to remove. MR. LONG: I think the two conflicts came from - because they didn` t want signs attached to the building - it had to be ten foot from the building - and that would put me in the middle of the road, so I can' t do that . Or it would put me in the middle of my driveway so I can' t do that because I have to pay for the right-of-way to go back and forth through the driveway. So I (unintelligible) to the building keeping it out of my driveway which you can drive through across the front of the building or I 've got to remove them all completely. MR. SIEVERDINB: What's the problem with taking those signs and rather than mounting them perpendicular to the building, mounting them parallel with the face of the building? PAGE # 12 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR. LONG: I had thought of that but the problem I thought was that if I did that you'd have to turn completely to the right or to the left and I 'm going to cause a traffic hazard, somebody is going to look to leave my building because it is not something they have on a eye line and they are going to facing to the right in line with the guy in front of them. MS. C0WLEY: And we thought that the way it is proposed - by having this - it 's a total of eighty-eight square feet - one sign perpendicular - would give good visibility and would not be a hazard whereas if people had to turn to look at signs affixed to the face of the building , the visibility would be extremely poor - people wouldn' t see it at all unless they were right - you know - unless they were right outside the building driving past and had to turn right or- left rleft to look at it . I think that would be a traffic hazard. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Charlie, you have a question? MR. WEAVER: Yes I do . I 'm aware that - in the real world here - that the Elmira Road public right-of-way - public ownership does not have an even confirmation. There is some extraordinarily deep setbacks where - for lack of any other owner - the public owns it and that's not common nor was it required to accommodate the highway. In other words, if the highway needs X amount of space beyond the shoulders or from the center line - there isn' t any kind of an even line along the highway where they took that land in order to accommodate a highway - quite the contrary - these PAGE # 13 ' BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 properties were sold - bought and sold over a period of years with an uneven street face. I think it would be - the reason I am asking this is I am trying to find out in fact, we think of the right-of-way as we will in some of the residential neighborhoods, as something to do with the curb or the sidewalk - that 's not true out there and if the state is granting a twenty foot right-of-way, they certainly didn' t let him out onto the shoulder of the highway in order to accommodate that - there was an irregularity or they wouldn' t have - there was no highway need or there wouldn' t ' have been this granting and my theory. So I would - would ^ it be difficult to get a property map so that we know what the general alignment is out there? MS. COWLEYz Well this is a property map , as such , it is a survey. . . MR. WEAVER: I want to know what the neighbor 's line looks like. Does everyone have a uniform thirty feet or so from the edge of the working highway or is that quite uneven? MS. COWLEY: I can' t tell you here tonight. ^ ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: On the west side I know it is irregular because I 've had experience with that . On the east side I really don' t know, I . . . MR. LONG: Maybe I could answer portions of that, I 'm not as familiar maybe but the building that we are in was built way back - I think it was in the early 50's. The buildings that ' are on either side of me are only up in the last ten - fifteen years so they were able to comply with the road when PAGE # 14 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 they moved in and built the building. My building was there before the road was - so the other ones - there is a pizza store next to me that must sit back seventy feet from the road - yet further down - U Haul It - the same way - it is quite a ways back off the road - the road came in after our- building urbuilding was there - we didn' t have a chance to . . . MR. WEAVER: Some of those building setbacks were for other purposes - to accommodate gas pumps and - way back when - and also front yard parking, and a number of other considerations. . . . MS. COWLEY: Well I looked at the title - at least when Wood Motors acquired it - and already by the time they acquired it which was in '76, the State had already acquired the road . So they only got - as you can see - it is just a couple of feet from the existing building and they had to get back this right-of-way just so they could continue to allow any - just one-lane traffic into this front part of their property. The only other history I can tell you about the right-of-way, is there was some kind of mistake by the State - they took more than they required - all this grassy area is really theirs and I know that Cutting Motors, for example - when the State came in and started widening the road - Mr . Wood from Wood Motors tells me that they were all up in arms about it too because they were proposing to go ` right through their lot . But other than that I can' t really ' tell you about other rights-of-way that other owners might ' have. ` ^ PAGE # 15 ^ BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR. WEAVER: One more question on the map , if you will please. Where is the curb? MS. COWLEY: The curb as it now exists is - where the orange line is - that 's where it is - the orange line. MR. LONG: From the front of my building to the curb is only some twenty feet , measured - so I have a little bit better than a twelve foot drive-through , is all that is there. I have a - there is a curb in there. . . MS. COWLEY: If it would be helpful I will pass this around. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN; Why don' t you start it over in that corner? Further questions from members of the Board? MR. BIEVERDING: When you were talking about the signs, either to be mounted perpendicular to the building, you were ' talking about a two foot projection. Where. . . . . MR. WEAVER: On the front of the building. . MR. SEIVERDING: On the front of the building - is it two . feet or is it not eighteen feet from the front of the . building? . MS. COWLEY: The projection - actually - over the front is . only a couple of feet isn' t it? ' MR. LONG: The projection over the front - yes, that 's ' right . We have an awning that sets there already - it is ` ' two foot past the awning. . MR. SIEVERDING: Past the awning. . . ' MR. LONG: It would be eight foot from the building . ' MS. COWLEY: Okay, so it 's only a couple of feet over the ' actual canopy or awning . . . ' PAGE # 16 ` - -- BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR~ SIEVERDINGc What are we using - sign ordinance? MR. LONG: Eighteen inch projection from the building . MR. SIEVERDING: From the building, so . . . MS. FARRELL: But you don' t count the awning as part of the building? MR. LONG: No I haven' t, I need the building face. . . MB. FARRELL: Is that common or . . . MR. LONG: Yes. MS. FARRE0L: How much does that current sign stick out from the building? MR. LONG: More than eighteen inches. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: That appears to be probably an illegal sign. MS. FARRELL: Yes. I mean, is the one we are talking about similar in projecting. . . MS. COWK-EY: It 's similar but not so much in violation. That one sticks out two and one-half to three feet. MS. FARRELL: Okay. . . from the awning? MS. 00WLEY: Yes and one - the proposed one, will be set back - it won' t be exactly the same place as that one, it will be a couple of feet to the - I guess, south. And it will not project over the canopy as much . MS. FARRELL: So how much is that signage out of compliance now .- ACTING ow?ACl[ING SECRETARY D%ETER%CHc I think all of it is in one manner or another or at least, say most of it . I 'd have to look at the photographs. I itemized the various - well PAGE # 17 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 actually the way I wrote up the appeal - that the existing signs will be removed or replaced or relocated because there was a real mix of - I 'd say the building mounted signs are legal in the fact that they are flush mounted on the building but any of the projecting signs and the roof mounted signs are all illegal and the pole mounted signs -- because because of the location - because of the setback question are illegal - so I basically started with a clean slate here when I made up the appeal and a note saying : all existing signs will be removed, replaced or relocated which is basically what they are proposing to do . MR. S%EVERDING: This one down here on the bottom - the VW Used Cars - you say is an illegal sign? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERDCH: As it stands now, by location, MS~ COWLEY: But that is standing. . . ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICHc I really didn' t pay attention ' as to if the sign itself is illegal but the location is illegal . MR. SIEVERDINGc Is that just inside your property line now? ' MS. COWLEY: That 's - as it stands now, it is set back from the right-of-way. . . MS. FARRELL: It 's a little bit inside the property line. . . MS~ COWLEY: It's just inside the property line - the car . lot starts - and you can see - this isn' t to scale but the lot starts in there - it 's just - that 's the property line essentially there . . . PAGE # 19 _ BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR. BIEVERDING: So where all of these light extensions as well as the extension for the pole - this is your property line? MS. COWLEY: I wouldn' t say - it is inside the property line so the property line would come along here. All of that grassy area is essentially a part of the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN TOMLANz We have a copy of that one in our worksheet unless there is anything that has changed? MS. COWLEY: Well the only change is that I note on this that it is just in fact only forty square feet not eighty square feet . CHAIRMAN TOMLANz Fine. MS. COWLEY: And also on this - this is the circular sign that we wanted to put out on that pole - it will just say "VW" - that 's all . Also the square footage of that is ' actually incorrect, it should be - let's see, six foot in diameter - it should be twenty-eight square feet, not ' nineteen. ' MS~ FARRELL: So the part here that - there were three problems last time, but now the 34.6 paragraph b - signs permitted in a B-5 zone, that 's not a problem anymore now that "used cars" is taken off that sign. MS. COWLEYc Yes. MR. WEAVER: Do I have the dimensions of that existing pole mounted used car sign and the dimensions of the new? PAGE # 19 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MS. COWLEY: The existing sign is five by eight, which is forty square feet . And the proposed new circular sign would only be twenty-eight square feet . MR. WEAVER: That doesn' t help me particularly. One that's got a diameter of six feet and the other one has a width of five feet? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right . MS. C0WLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN l[OMk-AN: Further questions? MR. WEAVER: Yes. The canopy - there is no existing deficiency, there is no violation - the canopy being closer than so many feet to the right-of-way? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Well the canopy - the problem with the canopy at this point would be, I 'm sure if it were to be built today it would probably have a non-conformity - I ' ll have to look at the sign ordinance - it 's a building so the building - it would have the setback requirements in a ' 9-5 zone but since it pre-existed 1977 - the building is ' it bit older than that so you'd have to look at the quite a , ' old zoning - I suspect it - s probably all right and ' grandfathered at least . . . ' MR. WEAVER: Grandfathered . CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Further questions from members of the ' Board? ' MS. COWLEYc Would anyone like to see this . . . or . . . ` MR~ WEAVER: We have that. . . MR~ SJEVERDINB: We have reductions of that in the packet. PAGE # 20 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 . MS. COWLEY: Just to briefly conclude, I just would like to . say that what we are trying to do here is clean up a lot of . existing violations - would be these seven existing signs . all marked in red and just replace it with two signs that . would look a lot better and would certainly not create any . further violation than already exists and would, in many . ways be a substantial reduction. I mean, the main problem we are faced with is just the limited space that we have , from the building to the right-of-way - there really isn' t . ' any other way to put up these signs to accommodate both , safety and visibility without doing it by way of the ^ ` ' perpendicular projecting sign and I am sure it will look a ' lot better than plastering things all over the face of the ' building which would probably create more of a hazard . CHAIRMAN TOMLANc One last chance for questions. MS. FARRELL: How big is the - in square feet is the sign that is projecting from the building now? MS. C0WLEY: The square footage of the one that is projecting is - all we can say is that it is longer than the one that is proposed to replace it - which says R. Wood Motors. The one that is proposed is twenty-four square feet. This is probably in the length - if the proposed one is eight feet then that is probably twelve by three. . MR. WEAVER: Well is there not something that we all agree on - that you are not in violation on too many square feet now and you don' t propose to be? MS. C0WLEY: Sorry? PAGE # 21 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR~ WEAVER: Too simple? You are not in violation on the square footage now? MS. COWLEY: No . MR. WEAVER: As it exists? MS. COWLEY: Yes we are. Yes, we are in violation on the square footage now. MR. WEAVER: Okay. And you are proposing to correct that? MS. COWk_EY: Yes - the proposed signs would not be in violation of any square footage - that is the one thing that . . . MR. WEAVER: It is none of our business how you arrange the (unintelligible) maximum and it is my judgement here that if they are not going to be in violation, do we care where they are correcting or where they are changing - it makes no ' difference to us - it is none of our business, in a general ' way. But we have your assurance that this is below the . maximum? MS. COWLEY: Yes. That is one thing that the gentleman from Cayuga Signs did do for us. MR. LONG: I tried to use a local Sign Company so he would . be well aware of all the local ordinances. He drew everything up well within specs (unintelligible) MR. SCHWAB: If your property line were the right-of-way would there be any violations with what you are proposing to do? MS. COWLEYz I don' t think so . I mean, I think - as you can see by looking at this Used Car Sign on the grassy slope - I PAGE # 22 _______----____________________________ BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 ' mean, I would say just by looking at that - that that is clearly ten feet back from the curb. So I would say that if that was in fact the property line then we would not be in violation there and just extending it along to the face of the building, I don' t think - I can' t be sure - I don' t think we would be in violation either - with the proposed projecting sign because - no, in fact, we wouldn' t be because it 's a twenty feet right-of-way and we are only proposing to project over the canopy by eighteen inches so we would be well back from the curb . We would be twenty minus eighteen inches back from the curb . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The question in that case would be whether ' in fact you take the face of the building as the face of the . building or the face of the canopy for your projecting measurement - because you still have. . . . MR. WEAVER: What was the dimension on that canopy again? ' MR. LONG: Four foot. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well you've got eighteen inches that you are allowed to project . MS. FARRELL: From the building. ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: From the building. If you take the projection from the face of the building , not the face of the canopy, they are in violation of the projection regardless. MS. JOHNSON: But he was talking about the property line and setbacks. PAGE # 23 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: That 's right - that's where they are not in violation, assuming that would be the case, that you take that property line out there in the road. MR. LONG: The only thing protecting the canopy would be the grandfather clause, I would presume. Then we still don' t know which one to measure from. . . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: That 's right . MR. WEAVER: Well if we - we' ll get tough and measure from the building - ignore the awning - the question is - you've got some non-conforming stuff out there for a quarter of a mile - known as an awning - and whether a sign that projects eighteen inches further exacerbates the general problem -- I 'm I 'm trying to think that - what am I looking at - no matter where we might measure from technically - the building certainly has been there since the 50's and . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? ' MR. SIEVERDING: Just one more question about the property ' line in relation to the awning . Is that - the two to three feet in number one there (unintelligible) two to three feet? ' ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: I didn' t have any exact figures ' because what I was working from wasn' t exact so . . . that small map here shows - here is the canopy and here is the property line [pointing to chart] . . . MR~ SIEVERDINGc So the edge of the canopy is (unintelligible) from the property line? ������ %�IETER%CH: Very close to the property ' line. PAGE # 24 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR. LONG: So if in fact the sign were to go up it would still hang well within my property line and not out over the variance - because from that awning there is some existing two to three feet before we get to that property line so it would still be within our own property line - it wouldn' t be in the variance. (unintelligible) MS. JOHNSON: Just barely. MS. COWLEYz Where it is a little misleading I guess, on that - you are looking for 34.8, paragraph b, minimum side setback - two to three feet - it 's really two to three feet from the property line, not from the right-of-way, it 's ' really twenty-three feet back from the edge of the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have we exhausted all the questions? Very ' good . Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? (no one) Is ' i there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (no one) It is ours. ' PAGE # 25 - ' -- BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 DISCUSSION OF APPEAL NO. 5-1-88 FOR 335-337 ELMIRA ROAD CHAIRMAN lFOMLANc Peter did you want to say a few words? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: I will try to clear up the question of these signs here. The proposed signs - number 1 , a, b and c - R. Wood Motors, Porche and Audi - square footage wise there is no problem so the only question there is a matter of setback . The next sign - the proposed pole sign, the VW Car - striking the Used - that would be the pole sign - the second sign - the proposed pole sign - if it's a Volkswagon sign - and that I assume is the new car dealership for Volkswagon? MR. LONG: Right . . ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: So that is a separate business , activity from the Used Car? MR. LONG: We are a three franchise group - we have three different franchises - that would be the franchise for . Volkswagon, yes. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Okay, then you have the franchise. . . ' MR. LONG: One for Porsche and one for Audi . ' ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: And then you have another business activity which is Used Cars, I suspect . MR. LONG: Right , yes. , ACTING SECRETARY X}IETERICH: Okay, so the Volkswagon sign is legal then, except for , again, the setback question because the business activity is allowed it 's signage and the square PAGE # 26 _ BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 footage is not problem again, so that particular proposed pole sign - the question again, is setback . Then the next sign - building sign - the Volkswagon Used Car sign - again being a separate business activity - square footage being no problem and the sign being building mounted , flush - that sign is then legal so it really comes down to setbacks of the R. Wood/Porsche/Audi sign and the Volkswagon sign. MR. SCHWAB: Peter is the current pole sign grandfathered and therefore legal non-conforming or is it illegal right now? MR. WEAVER: There aren' t any legal non-conforming signs. . ACTING SECRETARY DIETERXCHz They were all supposed to have been removed a couple of years ago actually - I thought was the deadline for that so . . . this question came up when we started looking at the signs and started - I think it was mentioned last year - and we are just trying to clean up the question. ' MS. COWLEY: Just with regards to that pole sign, though , we can' t put it back any further without putting it into that ' lot , into the Used Car lot . I understand that it needs at least twenty feet back from the. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do I hear a motion? MR. SIEVERDINS: I 'd like to get some sense as to what the other members of the Board are thinking . . . my sense of the issue is - we've got two issues to deal with - projecting signs - I read it as an eight foot p ' ojection which is a considerable variance, I think - with the eighteen inches as PAGE # 27 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 . proposed by the Sign Ordinance and I think there is a rationale behind eighteen inches in a sense of cleaning up . visually, Elmira Road. I 'm not entirely convinced that . having signs mounted parallel to the building would really render them useless in a sense of visibility from the highway (unintelligible) as you drive up and down Elmira Road , given the distance (unintelligible) you are away from the property - on a four-lane highway - I think mounting and parallel to the building - all those issues, as I understand ' them, are no longer issues, I mean - you no longer have a projecting sign - you are in conformance with the Zoning ^ Ordinance or with the Sign Ordinance there. It doesn' t appear , although it is a little fuzzy given the dimensions of the setbacks from the property lines - that you wouldn' t ' have a setback issue. If, in fact , from that sketch, you are eight feet out , which is only a couple of feet beyond ' the edge of the awning , which you also say included three feet from the edge of the property line. So by mounting ' those signs parallel to the building it seems that you meet ' the ten foot setback requirement . There again, my sense of ` the issue is mounting those signs parallel to the building rather than perpendicular to the building is entirely in ' keeping with the Ordinance (unintelligible) and grant his request . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have any thoughts about the second part of it? MR. SIEVERDING: The second part of . . . PAGE # 28 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The location of the proposed pole sign. You addressed the three here on this pole - which is the first section up on the top - do you want to venture any thoughts about the other? MR~ SDEVERDING: I guess a little bit of a less concern there given the existence of that right-of-way - that green space you've got between the edge of the highway and their property line. CHAIRMAN lFOMLAN: Further thoughts? MR. WEAVER: Yes. Before you leave that, you are assuming that the projection of the proposed triple two-faced sign is in violation because it projects more than eighteen inches from the building - that is not necessarily pertinent because it 's in violation because all of it is closer than ten feet to the property line and it is my belief that the makers of the Ordinance were thinking of a cosy old business district in which we had uniform building fronts and they ` were going to allow polite boards that might stick out not more than eighteen inches but no more and that they wouldn' t be controlled - there wouldn' t be a need for - necessarily a permit if they didn' t exceed a certain footage - I 'm on dangerous ground here now because I `m without direct reference - so I don' t think talking about the fact that it projects more than eighteen inches is a valid argument but in fact, it 's location being too close to the property line is the entire concern and whether they can have a sign on the front of the building that would make all of that ten PAGE # 29 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 feet not a problem is what we are talking about . Another thing about cleaning up the Elmira Road, which is a very nice prospect, I should live that long, we are in a neighborhood where there is a great number of signs that are associated with the highway in order to have a long sight line and I don' t think we find very many of those businesses out there by looking at a sign flat on the front of the building but , quite the contrary, the signs that are at ninety degrees to the flow of traffic . I don' t see that we would strike a blow for the new Elmira Road if we were to be very, very rigid on anything that projects more than eighteen inches. I think that what is important here is whether we do damage to the neighbors and whether we invite all of the neighbors to be in next month with a similar application so that they will be out - everybody nearer and nearer to the center of the road with the edge of their sign. It seems to me that this property may be unique - it is darn close to it - in its proximity to the property line and to the right-of-way - which are the same thing as far as our Ordinance is concerned . His granting of a right-of-way by some authority, notwithstanding , that doesn' t have any effect upon this Ordinance but it does have an effect upon our judgement of what he is projecting out into and what he might do as a traffic stopper and what he might do in obscuring other signs - what he might do as in damage to the immediate neighbors and that sort of thing as far as sight , line to their property as well . And I think the greatest PAGE # 30 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 thing we could do there is to eliminate part of his building all the way across in order to get back where a building ought to be according to the existing Ordinance, which is obviously quite impractical . Sc I don' t look at either of these signs - I 've driven that road a few times since this application was received - and looked at it to see what effect it would have aesthetically - I haven' t any idea - I have no aesthetic sense - so I ' ll bow out of that thank God - what it does to the neighbors, as a homlier measurement seems to me this is in the realm of practicality without - that 's why we are here and why the Sign Ordinance is a - makes reference to us - exercise our judgement as it might apply to unusual cases. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further thoughts? Tracy? MS. FARRELL: I agree. I think what that twenty foot right-of-way - you are seeing something that's in actuality set quite far back from the road. It doesn' t bother me as much as if there weren' t that right-of-way and the property line was as close - well , the property line was right on the road , in other words - so I feel that that right-of-way does set things far enough back from the road so as not to be a problem. And it seems to observe the spirit of the Ordinance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: That does sound like a motion. ` PAGE # 31 ' BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 5-1-86 FOR 335-337 ELMIRA ROAD 'T•he Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of R. Wood Motors, Inc . for variances from the Sign Ordinance -to permit the installation of new signs at 335--337 Elmira Road . The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL; I move that the Board grant the sign variances requested in Appeal Number 5-1-86. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) Because there is currently a right-of-way of twenty feet (20' ) , the proposed signs, in actualityg would be set back more than ten feet ( 10' ) from the road. 2) There is currently a projecting awning that extends over the building - the proposed sign would project about two feet (2' ) from the edge of this awning. 3) While there is presently too much square footage of signs on the property, the proposed signs would be within the allowed square footage. 4) If the signs were set back the required number of feet from the road they would be much more difficult to see. 5) This property is unique in that the existing non-conforming building is approximately two feet from the right-of-way and yet the operating highway curb is about thirty feet (30' ) from the face of the building. The ordinary objection to projecting signs does not have a practical application and the granting of a variance for the PAGE # 32 DZA M'I'NUTES 6/2/86 projecting sign - sign number 1 - which has Woad Audi and Porsche on it would not seriously obstruct line of sight to any adjacent property or signs in the immediate neighborhood. 6) The position of the existing pale sign (VW Sign) is not a serious abjection for the same general reasons. VOTE: 6 YES; D NO SIGN VARIANCES GRANTED PAGE # 33 HZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1698 FOR 532 SPENCER ROAD: Appeal of Ruth Morgan for a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 (permitted uses) and an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 11 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the continued use of the property at 532 Spencer Road for occupancy by up to four unrelated individuals. The property is located in an R-2a (Residential , One- and Two-family) Use District in which occupancy by more than three unrelated persons is not permitted; therefore the appellant must obtain a use variance for the existing use, and, under Section 30.57, must also obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the property. No one here representing Ruth Morgan? The next case is APPEAL NUMBER 1699 FOR 717-717-1/2 WEST COURT STREET: Appeal of the American Red Cross for an area variance for deficient lot width and deficient setback for one side yard under Section 30.25, Columns 7 and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the structure at 717-1/2 West Court Street to a five-bedroom unit. The building, which currently contains a two-bedroom PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 apartment and a garage, is located in a B-4 (business) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted. However , under Section 30.57 the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. An appeal for this use (Appeal #1688) was denied by the Board at the April 7, 1986 meeting; the appellant is returning with new information to support the appeal . MS. SILVERMANt I 'm Dierdre Silverman, I 'm the Assistant Director of the Red Cross with responsibility for the Emergency Shelter . Do you want me to go through the whole thing or just give you the new information? MR. WEAVERt There are two members. . . MS. SILVERMANt Oh, the two of you who weren't here last time. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLANt Yes, I think you better go from the top . MS. SILVERMANt Okay. The property has two buildings on it . The building that is closest to the street is being used as an Emergency Shelter - it has a maximum occupancy of eight residents plus one staff person and the average occupancy is actually about four or five people plus one staff person. The second building that is further from the street is currently used as a two-bedroom apartment, occupied by two adults and two children. Our proposal is to convert that into five single bedrooms with shared common living space. PAGE 35 HZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 That would be done by adding an additional bedroom to the second floor and converting the first floor , which is garage space, into two bedrooms and a bath, which would be handicapped accessible. The intention of this conversion, and this is tied to the grant money that we've received to do the conversion, is to make this (unintelligible) available extremely low rates that are not otherwise obtainable in the City of Ithaca. Specifically to tie the rental rates to the rent allowance that is allowed by the Department of Social Services. The objection at the meeting two months ago was from the neighbor on the west side with whom we share a driveway and I 've since met with that neighbor and we've worked out all those differences and you should have received a letter saying that things were all right with them. CHAIRMAN TOMLANs Could I ask you to elaborate on the substance of the discussion as some of us know, following the Robinsons and the American Red Cross haven' t always been rosy - their note says everything is fine, but I would hate for them to come back and . . . MS. SILVERMAN: Right . Evidently what happened, and I don' t exactly know why this happened, was that the Robinsons said that they did not get the notice of the last appeal . Now we didn' t get any returned in the mail , you know, so I don' t know why they didn' t get it or , you know, what happened. But at any rate they had a number of questions which they did not raise with us before the meeting . So that is what PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 we discussed - specifically the fact that the people who would be renting the back building would , in all likelihood not have cars and if they did have cars, it would be written into their leases that they would not use the parking spaces on the premises, that they would park at Fingers Lakes Fabricating . That these rooms were not intended to be rented to people with children, so that there wouldn't be problems with children around the swimming pool , that they would be long term leases, rather than transients and generally that we would not be turning the building into another West Village. That was one of the fears. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: In terms of parking there, seven spaces are required Tom, is that right? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes seven spaces are required. MS. SILVERMAN: We were told that six spaces were required, we have two spaces on the property now and we have three spaces leased from the Finger Lakes Fabricating and we were told that another space would be required. SECRETARY HOARD: Well you went from a requirement of five. With the conversion of the garage to a five-bedroom unit - from a two-bedroom to a five-bedroom meant that you needed two additional spaces. MS. SILVERMAN: Well you know I 've met with Peter Dieterich three times and this is the first time I 've heard that I PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 need two additional spaces. I submitted plans for an additional space. . . SECRETARY HOARD: . . . . I think it was from the last meeting . MS. SILVERMAN: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Did you see a copy of the worksheet? MS. SILVERMAN: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Why don' t you share with her - show her your worksheet . MS. SILVERMAN: Can we go back through the number of rooms in the shelter and the number of rooms in the back building and see how you come up with seven? SECRETARY HOARD: Okay. MS. FARRELL: How many spaces do you have? MS. SILVERMAN: We have currently - currently we have two on the property and we have three at Fingers Lakes Fabricating and we are proposing adding another on the property. This was not raised at the meeting two months ago . SECRETARY HOARD: Well the only thing I changed on the worksheet was the appeal number and the date from last time. MR. SIEVERDING: You have it here as they meet the parking requirements. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, they were proposing to provide seven was my understanding, total . Some on the property and some off. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie? MR. WEAVER: May I clear things up by asking another question? PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. MR. WEAVER: If the existing condition is - that there are five bedrooms in this structure? MS. SILVERMANs 717-1/2, the room structure? MR. WEAVERS That 's what I 'm concerned about . SECRETARY HOARDS 717 has nine individuals in it? MS. SILVERMAN: 717 has a capacity for nine individuals. MR. WEAVERS I 'm not asking about that , I 'm asking about 717-1/2 - that 's what this hearing is about, isn' t it? SECRETARY HOARD: Would be for five. MR. WEAVERS There is five bedrooms existing in 717-1/2? SECRETARY HOARD: Now? There are two . MR. WEAVER: Two bedrooms. And we are going to end up with five and an apartment? SECRETARY HOARD: No, just the five bedrooms. MS. FARRELL: If seven spaces is required then they need seven parking spaces? MS. SILVERMAN: Yes we have a back yard that extends for another , I think it is ninety-eight feet beyond the existing parking spaces that we have and I also think it wouldn' t be any problem to get an additional space from Finger Lakes Fabricating, they've donated that space to us in the past . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? (no one) Is there anyone out there who would like to speak in opposition? (no one) That being the case, it is ours. PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1699 717-17-1/2 WEST COURT STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of the American Red Cross for an area variance to permit the conversion of the structure at 717-1/2 West Court Street to a five-bedroom unit. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance conditioned upon the appellant obtaining one ( 1 ) additional parking space within the immediate neighborhood or on-site. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) Practical difficulties were shown, one being that the lot width is three feet (3' ) deficient and the side yard is also three feet (3' ) deficient. These are conditions that are shared by all the properties in the area. 2) The proposed use will not exacerbate the existing deficiencies, as long as the additional parking is provided. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is APPEAL NO. 1700 FOR III NORTH PLAIN STREET: Appeal of Joseph Daley for an area variance for deficient off-street parking, lot coverage exceeding the maximum permitted, and deficient setbacks for both sideyards and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 10, 12, 13, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit continued use of a dwelling unit that was added to the building at 111 North Plain Street by a previous owner without a building permit or zoning variance. The property contains eight dwelling units ( including the one in question) , plus a coin-operated laundry and a business office. The property is located in a B2a (Business) Use District in which the existing uses are permitted; however under Section 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the property. ` MR. DALEY: Im Joe Daley and let me just start off by saying that there is one minor problem with this description - which is that there are eight dwelling units there now, however one of them is the business office - and that's ' where the problem with the certificate comes in - that the City considers one of the units to have been certified as a ' business office and a previous owner put in the dwelling ' PAGE 41 ' -- ----' ---------------- BZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 unit - it was never rented as a business office, it was the owner who had it as a business, used it as his own office. And a subsequent owner then turned it into an apartment but never bothered getting a Certificate or a building permit to make it legal . The apartment itself is up to code in all aspects except one room has a deficiency in ventilation - as a result of a window and I was waiting to see whether I was going to be granted this variance before changing that over . The existing deficiencies are exactly the same - whether it is as an office or as an apartment . The deficiencies for being an office are exactly the same deficiencies and in the same manner and the same severity as it would be as an apartment except for parking which - it is deficient by one parking space as an apartment and would be deficient - and is currently deficient by one and a half parking spaces, as an office. So that's all that I have to say about . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: The worksheet says parking is - under the current use - is guess it is a busines - is ten? And under the proposed it will be ten places? You are saying that business would be one-half - I suppose that's ten point five? The only point being - is the proposal less than the ` apartment - lessening the deficiency - that 's the only ' reason I 'm even asking. SECRETARY HOARD: The commercial office would be one space per two hundred fifty square feet of floor space. . . MR. DALEY: And it is currently - it 's a seven hundred and PAGE 42 ^ BZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 forty or seven hundred and eighty square foot space we are talking about - so it would require three parking spaces for commercial and what is it , five hundred square feet for residential? SECRETARY HOARD: For residential it is based on either the bedrooms or the occupancy. MR. DALEYc Okay, so it would require two . I think that. . . SECRETARY HOARD: How many bedrooms? MR. DALEYz Two . SECRETARY HOARD: One unless there are four people. MR. DALEY: No. SECRETARY HOARD: If there are four people it would be two, if it is just two bedrooms and with three people, it would be one space. MR. DAK-EYc Okay, so it is actually lessening it by two , however it's deficient in either case. CHAIRMAN l[OMK-AN: How long have you owned the property? MR. DAi-EY: One month. I immediately asked for a certificate - for a walk-through by the Building Department as soon as I bought the property to make sure that everything was up to code and that's when this came to light . MR. SIEVER0ING: Tom, all these other properties that are deficient in parking have been sort of grandfathered in over time? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. PAGE 43 � BZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? SECRETARY HOARD: So the net change would be - this reduces the parking requirement . . . MS. FARRELL: What does it reduce it to? SECRETARY HOARD: Well let's see, we have. . . MS. FARRE0L: We had ten before - it says ten on the worksheet (unintelligible) but its not ten. SECRETARY HOARD: It would have been more than ten based on the - I don' t know if Peter figured in the (unintelligible) MR~ DALEY: (unintelligible) say it was ten deficient or ten total? SECRETARY HOARD: That the requirement before was for ten, seven for the residential units and three for the business. MR. SDEVERDING: So the net deficiency is being reduced because of the use of this particular unit for residential purposes rather than office or business purposes? MR. WEAVER: Hang in there a minute. The square footage for business purposes would require three? . SECRETARY HOARD: Based on the figure he gave for square . footage. There is something missing here, I know that doesn' t add up. . MR. WEAVER: That's quite all right. There isn' t any ki It's all o the record . But it d ' par ng anyway. . . n o . u does improve the deficiency. SECRETARY HOARD: It does diminish the requirement . . . MR. WEAVER: Diminish - a better word. ' PAGE 44 , BZA MINUTES - 6/2/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLANc Further questions? Thank you Joe. 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 45 ' BBA MINUTES - 6/2/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1700 FOR III N. PLAIN STREET -1-he Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Joseph Daley for an area variance to permit continued ►_►se of a dwelling unit that was added to the b►..►ilding at III North Plain► Street by a previous owner without a building permit or zoning variance. The decision of the Board was as follows. MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1700. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) The proposed use does not exacerbate any of the existing deficiencies. 2) Indeed, it slightly decreases the deficiency in parking. 3) The proposal is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 4) Practical difficulty in changing the deficiencies in the building because it would require shrinking the building to comply, and somehow acquiring parking. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1701 FOR 126 COLLEGE AVENUE: Appeal of Carol Lin for an exemption from the Temporary Moratorium on Certain Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy under Section 30.01 , an area variance for deficient lot area under Section 30.25, Column 6, and a variance to permit a second front yard parking space/driveway under Section 30.37A-5 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit conversion of the single-family house at 126 College Avenue to a cooperative (multiple) dwelling for six or more unrelated individuals. The property is located in an R3b (Residential - Multiple Dwelling ) Use District in which the proposed use would be permitted except that a temporary moratorium is in effect that prohibits the issuance of building permits or Certificates Of' Occupancy for increases in residential occupancy; therefore the appellant must obtain an exception from the Moratorium, as well as an area variance for the deficient lot size and front yard parking proposal under Section 30.57 before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion. I should say that a previous appeal , Number 1395 for conversion of this property to a cooperative dwelling was denied by the Board on August 31 , 1981 but in that case they PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 were not proposing to meet the parking requirements. The earlier appeal , they were asking for a variance from the parking requirements as well . The current appeal proposes to provide additional off-street parking . MR. SIEVERDINGc Wasn' t that previous appeal also for occupancy for seven. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, it was the same kind of an appeal - they were requesting the same kind of use but they were not claiming to provide additional parking. MR~ MECENAS: My name is Mark Mecenas, I 'm speaking on behalf of Carol Lin who has since taken up residence in Detroit . My family owns the adjacent property at 122 Pine Tree Road [sic] I will be appealing this on the basis of hardship on behalf of Carol . SECRETARY HOARD: Excuse me, I think you mean 122 College Avenue, not Pine Tree Road . MR. MECENASc Excuse me. A couple of things - Mr . Hoard mentioned front yard parking - the parking we are proposing will be side yard in between 122 and 126 and I know that --- it it was brought to my attention that maybe some of the information that you have states that the deficiency in lot size is one where the area part is seven thousand square feet for a cooperative - that 's true if it's R-3a but this is R-3b which requires four thousand square feet area for a cooperative or multiple dwelling. MR. SCHWAB: How long has this property been on the market? PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR. MECENAS: This property has been on the market since - actively since November 1985. MR. SCHWAB: And I gather from the proposal , there are several offers contingent on that being able to be used for a multiple dwelling? MR. MECENAS: Yes. Let me give you some background. Carol is currently working but will be going to graduate school in California in the fall so she needs the money. She won' t -- right right now there is a member of her family who is here in Ithaca who has been able to look after it - after July he won' t be here so she will have to employ someone to look after it . Besides that the numbers don't quite work out - it's being rented to three people, to say the least . MR. SCHWAB: What do you mean, they don' t quite work out? MR. MECENAS: Well - it's not even close. If someone wants ' to buy the house at a fair market value of approximately a hundred thousand dollars, even with existing interest rates, what they are - after you get done with taxes, insurance and what not, if you were to rent it out to three people, not including utilities, let 's say - two hundred dollars a month, you are talking six hundred dollars as a gross monthly revenue and your expenses are going to be let 's say somebody - it would be non-owner-occupied so they took out twenty percent, he would be getting an eighty thousand mortgage - the monthly payments are going to be working out to roughly - taxes, insurance, everything - probably close PAGE 49 ' ^ BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 to or the better part of a thousand dollars, certainly. Much closer to a thousand than six hundred at any rate. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Who is David Xiong? MR. MECENAS: That 's Carol 's nephew. MR. XIONG: I am David Xiong and I am the manager of the nouse. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you live in the house? . MR~ XIONG: No . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Where do you live? MR. XIONGc I live in Gaslight Village. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: I see. Thank you. MR. SIEVERDING: In reading through the statement here - not SO much the typos as what you are saying there. The . difficulty in selling the property is apparently - you say ' it is currently zoned for use by a single family or no more than three unrelated individuals and that most serious buyers have said that a zoning change is necessary? MR. MECENAS: Right. MR. SDEVERDING: But it is in fact in an R-3 zone? [changed the tape here an missed a small part of the dialogue] ' MR. MECENAS: Well it 's zoning variance, I think I - that is ' not quite correct , it should read zoning variance throughout . MR. SIEVERDINGc Okay. � " MR. WEAVER: I have trouble with that . We have a house in ' the Moratorium area where showing a hardship is required to ^ ' PAGE 50 ^ BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 exempt, when you are increasing the capacity so it has the same requirement as a use variance. ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. Would you address the ' question of the parking a bit? � MR~ MECENASc I beg your pardon? ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you address the question of parking, what parking would be required? MR. MECENAS: Okay. What 's required is a minimum of three parking spaces. Existing parking allows two cars. We are ' proposing construction of another side driveway on the other side of the property for an additional two cars, thereby getting a total of four , which is one more than what is ' required by the zoning law. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So it is your intent to park the cars two deep on the downhill side of the property? MR~ MECENAS: Correct . ' MR. SIEVERDINGc And the front yard where you propose to add the additional space, what is there now? M0. MECENAS: No , I don't propose to - at this point in time . - do not propose to add an additional space in the front yard . Well , let 's define front yard . Are you saying . . . MR. SIEVERD%NGz The College Ave frontage. . MR. MECENAS: Okay. Well , of course if it 's a driveway with . , entrance from College Avenue there is going to be something . crossing the walk and crossing part of the front yard but it won' t be in front of the house - directly in front of the ' property. It will be a driveway that is adjacent to the ' ^ PAGE 51 ' , BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 house but it enters from the street , yes. But there won' t be any cars parked directly in front of the building - it will be to the side of the building . ' MR~ SCHWAB: The Moratorium requires that you show hardship . It is my understanding the Moratorium expires in September . ' Could you tell a little more, why waiting until September is . . ' a hardship? ' MR. MECENAS: It's basically one of finances for Carol . She no longer lives here. Her property has been - the City is aware of this - has been rented out to more than the allowed number because she had no other recourse. Once - what will be there now - after - I think - as of June 1 - will be ' three unrelated and, this is my understanding - you know basically the numbers don' t work out. Her personal situation - leaving her job - moving her residence once . again - moving to California - starting up graduate school not earning any income - all these are contributing factors . to her hardship situation. . MR. SCHWAB: What are the three people who will be ^ continuing - what rent are they paying? MR. MECENASc I 'm not aware of that right now. . MR. XIONG: They will pay three hundred and thirty dollars _ each - no, no - that's total . One hundred and ten each for . every month. And also - another problem is that I am leaving now - I have graduated from Cornell and I just . joined the Commencement yesterday and I should leave right ~ now but I can not leave because of this. When she came here ' , PAGE 52 ' BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 the day before yesterday, we were talking about how to sell ' this house and I have more than - let's see - more than ten ' people gave me the offer and their offer is contingent upon ' they can rent to more than five or six people. ' MS. JOHNSON: Can you give us a sense of her expenses and ' how the potential purchaser would be . . . I assume she didn' t buy the house (unintelligible) ' MR. MECENASc Certainly. Okay. This is - MS. JOHNSON: So what is her financial hardship situation ' right now? MR. MECENAS: I just said that - she is going to school in ' the fall , she is leaving her job, she is changing ' ` residences. . ` MB. JOHNSON: I know but that doesn' t give us a financial ' hardship , that is just geographical . ^ ' MR. MECENASz Well , personal financial hardship - she will . ` be having to subsidize the property in addition to all the ' other expenses she is ocurring now because of the changes in . her personal life. . MS. JOHNSON: But it is hard for us to know - when that is ^ the case - she may be making money on it, and how do we know that? MR. MECENAS-. Oh, okay - she certainly hasn' t supplied me with the books, so to speak - but she has been earnestly trying to sell the house since November and I don' t think ' anybody will dispute that the fair market value of the house ' is in the neighborhood of one hundred thousand dollars. ' ` PAGE 53 ' ^ BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 ^ MR. SIEVERDINGc Based on occupancy of six or seven ' ^ unrelated . . . . MR. MECENAS: Certainly based on that occupancy - based on ' ` the market values of other houses on the street . ' MR. SIEVERDDNG: Were there any offers received for use of the property as a single family residence? ^ MR. MECENAS: Not to my knowledge. ' MR. XDONG: No one wanted to live there for just a single family - they said " I don' t want to live on College Avenue, ' if I buy this house I have to rent it. " That is what they ' told me and also Carol 's situation is - Carol is going to ' ^ the University of California in Los Angeles and she is going ' to business school so she has to pay tuition and she is ^ ' leaving July 1st . And now we cannot sell the house and she ' has to pay the mortgage on this house also . . MR. SDEVERDING: How long has she owned the property? . MR. XIONGc I think it is six years. . MR. SIEVERDING: And she was the appellant, Tom, in 1981 . when it came in and asked for a variance for this particular , use , . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. . MR. SIEVERDING: And that variance wasn' t granted? ^ SECRETARY HOARD: Right. . MR. BIEVERDING: But yet the property was continued to be . ^ used in an illegal non-conforming fashion? . , SECRETARY HOARD: Correct. In spite of many notices. . MR. SIEVERDINGz So when they argue that. . . . PAGE 54 ' ` BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Yes. Your description of hardship talks about a new owner and a purchase price of a hundred thousand and some other assumptions. Let's take the present owner who is the appellant here and find out that maybe we didn' t have a hundred thousand invested and that, in fact, we have very little equity in the property at this moment and then develop the hardship for me. I 'm not willing to accept the fact that you can' t buy this house and make a profit on it as a hardship. That might be a hardship on a new owner - it would be a self-imposed hardship but I 'm talking about Lin and not about somebody that we haven' t met yet . MR. MECENAS: Certainly I can appreciate what you are saying . But as - from her point of view - there is an urgency to sell the property. I think I 've established that through explaining here her personal situation. MR. WEAVER: But if it was purchased at sixty-five thousand instead of a hundred thousand, something of that sort, I would be interested in what the numbers are here so I can understand that there is a hardship . MR. MECENAS: Sure. All right . If it were purchased now at sixty-five thousand , is that what you are saying? MS. FARREK-k-: . . . how much of her money is in it , and what the rents are and how that balances? ` MR. MECENAS: Okay, what's her current . . . ^ ` PAGE 55 ' BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR. WEAVER: And she has been having an income, irregard less of the City Ordinances, she has had the house full of people that paid the rent I assume, most of them pay their rent? MR. XXONG: Yes. MR. WEAVER: Well , I 'm just saying that the hardship doesn' t exactly bear down on me that in that she has been making out okay so far, irregardless of the Ordinance and the restriction on the property. And I also don' t know whether she's got a nickel invested . MR. XIONG: May I say one word? MR. WEAVER: Say everything you want to, that 's what we are here for . MR. XIONGz Okay. When she bought the house, right? The heating system was completely down and after she bought the house, maybe several months, she changed the whole heating system and that cost her more than ten thousand to do that . She completely - almost (unintelligible) and I don' t have any idea how much it cost her - I am just the manager - I do not get involved with that . And also she fixed the roof --- that that is since I was manager and also she painted the house also. So I would think that six years ago she paid sixty-five thousand - you see, I don' t know how much she paid then. . . MR. WEAVER: I don' t either . MR. XIONG: Okay, let's - who said? MB. FARRELL: We don' t know. ' MS. JOHNSON: It was just a guess. ' PAGE 56 ' BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR. XIONG: I thought you - well , seventy-two or sixty-eight, it is around seventy thousand , when she bought the house and I don' t think she spent more than ten thousand for the heating system and if you (unintelligible) you will believe that she spent more than ten thousand for the heating system and also when she changed the roof - not changed the roof completed - almost (unintelligible) and some part a new roof, okay, and also paint the house and there is - let's see - if I add those up that will cost her somewhere in the neighborhood of eighty-five thousand . And (unintelligible) to rent the house I only rent to people for three unrelated but when I rented it, they signed a contract that said "no more than three unrelated" I mean, they pay three unrelated people - rent - but they still move in - four or five - which (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: The difficulty with the hardship , from my perspective is, regardless of how much she has invested in the property, there is a current asking price for the property that based on the current use of seven, plus or minus, individuals - multiple occupancy and you are trying to create a hardship argument on the basis of an illegal use. The owner of the property has had nearly five years to come back to this Board and ask for precisely the kind of variance that you are currently asking for . And apparently there was no effort made to do that . MR. XIONG: No I 'm not trying to use that as a hardship , I ` am trying to use how much money can pay for the house, PAGE 57 ' BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 right? I didn' t - she doesn' t get a raise - she cannot get even the money back which she has paid for the house. MR. SIEVERDING: That may be. The owner of the property has had since August 1981 when her variance request, very similar in nature to what is currently being requested , was denied. Five years to correct the deficiency so that she wouldn' t be in this position that she is in right now. MR. MECENASc Five years to correct what deficiencies? MR. S%EVERDING: As I understood your comments, there was the same proposed use was requested in 1981 that was denied and she didn' t want to add the additional parking spaces. That is six years past with no apparent attempt to correct that. I think that is a long time to wait and also now she is in a situation where she is no longer in Ithaca and she has to sell the property and we are being asked to grant a variance because of the Moratorium on the basis of hardship . And I think , given that period of time to correct the . deficiency and having enjoyed an illegal use for six years, . it is kind of a hard basis to salvage or it is kind of a hard basis on which to grant the hardship request . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Thank you gentlemen. Is there anyone else who would ^ like to speak in favor of granting this variance? (no one) ^ Anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (no one) That being the case, we' ll entertain a motion. . ^ ` ^ PAGE 58 ' BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1701 FOR 126 COLLEGE AVENUE MR. SCHWAB: One thing that I would like to point out is that unlike the Moratorium variance from last month which also was on College Avenue, this one comes to us with a negative recommendation from the Planning Board and if you read the Moratorium on the appeals procedure, it says " if an individual covered by this Moratorium can demonstrate hardship as a result of the Moratorium, he or she may appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals which, at its sole discretion upon recommendation from the Board of Planning and ' Development may exempt the individual . " You could read that ' as requiring a positive recommendation from the Planning Board - after which we have sole discretion - we don" t have ' ` to go along with the Planning Board but essentially they ' have to get three yes votes - I 'm not sure that I would do ' that in this case. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart I think you are raising a whole . other can of worms which , for the moment , I think we ought to put aside. I would point. . MR. SCHWAB: Well I do think we can partially say - we cannot do it - certainly is a strong factor that Planning . Board is recommending denial of this - unlike the previous appeal we had last month . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. My only comment, in addition, is that the sidewalk cut - in such as way as to create the curb cut required to create the parking - of course denies parking on the street front so that, in essence, while you PAGE 59 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 are making - that 's a small point but we have had other cases in Collegetown where this has occurred - where additional parking has become - penetrated past the sidewalk into alongside sideyards or front yards - whatever it may be - and essentially we have given up curb parking to the private property owner . I just wanted to point that out . MR. WEAVER: It works in Fall Creek you know. Takes about a parking space to make a driveway opening . CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAN: Yes. Do we have a motion? PAGE 60 D'4*1-"A MINUTES 6/2/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1701 FOR 126 COLLEGE AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Carol Lin for an exemption from the 'Temporary Moratorium and an area variance to permit a second front yard parking space/driveway and to permit conversion of the single-family house at 126 College Avenue, Ithaca, N.Y. to a cooperative (multiple) dwelling for six or more unrelated individuals. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board deny the request for an exemption from the Temporary Moratorium and an area variance in Appeal Number 1701 . MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 ) Strict application of the Moratorium Ordinance does not create a hardship. 2) A record has been established that the appellant has had plenty of time to correct the problem and make an appeal in a timely fashion in the five years since they were last here. 3) The hardship created is not unique in that granting the variance would not observe the spirit of the Ordinance which was precisely designed to place a moratorium on those conversions that would increase the density of properties within the Moratorium zone. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO VARIANCE REQUEST DENIED PAGE 61 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The final appeal tonight is APPEAL NUMBER 1702 FOR 120 THIRD STREET: Appeal of Agustin S. Bernal for a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2, to permit the reestablishment of a restaurant at 120 Third Street (formerly Ozzies Restaurant ) . The property is located in an R-3b (Residential , Multiple Dwelling ) Use District in which a restaurant is not a permitted use, and various restaurants have operated at this property as nonconforming uses for more than twenty years. However , the nonconforming use has recently been discontinued for more than twelve consecutive months, and under Section 30.50 non-operation or non-use of a non-conforming use for twelve successive calendar months terminates the right to operate the nonconforming use. Therefore the appellant must obtain a use variance before the nonconforming use can be resumed . MR. BERNALc My name is Agustin Bernal and I am the person on the application for this use variance. I really don' t have a lot to add to what I stated on the application - just the fact that I intend to rent a building that was used for many years - over twenty years as stated here - and the . building is in a residential zone and therefore requires the application for a use variance in spite of the fact that it has been used as a restaurant for twenty years under ^ ` BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 different ownership . So that - I guess I don' t know anything else to tell you. I didn' t know I would need to do that. MS. FARRELL: You are renting the property from the owner? MR. BERNAL: Correct . MS. FARRELK-: The owner should be here to show hardship if this building is to be used for something other than the permitted use. CHAIRMAN TOMLANz Can you comment any at all on the economic hardship the owner may be facing? ' MR. BERNAL: Well I could - after I comment on that - the owner is a builder , Mr . Giordano , I suppose now that you make me think about that - the fact that he is a builder - it may make things easier for him to turn the building into something else perhaps. I hadn' t thought about that but , I guess it would entail redoing the building entirely in order- to rderto do that because the building is set up for a restaurant, even the upstairs is an apartment, but the downstairs - the two floor - and the downstairs was a restaurant - it was over the restaurant - I don' t know what it would entail , to turn the building into something else - I think I quoted a figure of about seventy thousand dollars, something like that - my own estimate of what it would take to turn the building into something else. MR~ SIEVERDING: This is your figure, not. . . MR. BERNAL: That is my figure, that is my own figure. No , I haven' t discussed this - I figure, just to defend the ~^~- ' ~ BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 proposal , that it would - well it occurred to me, just one day passing by the place and because I have this idea with some other people that were interested in opening up a restaurant - and all of a sudden it just occurred to me when I saw the building - that it would be a nice idea to do (unintelligible) all the change in the type of operation into something else - I will try to describe it as best I can - the application - but I think it would be an enhancement to the area and I believe that all that there is in developing into something like that - there is something else going on on the corner of Tioga - Des Amis, I believe it is, some developer - restaurant and things like that -- not not the kind that you see in Collegetown or maybe Aurora Street or wherever - more quiet places and I believe that it ' could be (unintelligible) doing it elsewhere would entail even building a different building specifically for that purpose. I don' t know what plans Giordano has . . . MR~ SIEVERDING: I think he becomes a key figure in this - this is such an unusual - I appreciate the long time you have been sitting here listening to the rest of these discussions but the whole question of use variance depends on hardship and it seems that the only person that could address the hardship issue is the owner of the property and in this instance he is a builder . He should demonstrate to ' us that there is, in fact, a hardship in relation to granting this request to allow a restaurant to operate on that property. �,�� ' BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR. FARRELL: I agree. MR. SIEVERDINGc And there just - I don' t know how much we can accomplish without having him here to present his case as to why there is, in fact, hardship . I don' t know what alternatives there are. SECRETARY HOARD: Well I did not advise the appellant to bring the owner - there are a couple of reasons that I won' t go into here - but one of the things - it seems to me that what has happened with this property is it has been a restaurant for years and when one operator quit either another one went in within a year so we didn' t have this lapse in service. The problem this last time around was that the owners actually went bankrupt and, as I understand it, left town. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The restaurant owners, not the owners of ' the . . . . SECRETARY HOARD: The operators of the restaurant and the ' owners of the property - and the property was auctioned off and it was the legal process that caused this delay and ' caused the hardship. ` MR. BERNAL: In fact it was at the second auction that Giordano bought the building . At the first one, nobody ' showed up to buy the building. I was told by a previous owner of the building - Rudy Saccucci , I guess. (unintelligible) before I even thought about this. Why this question of hardship now - something I don' t PAGE 65 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 ^ understand . If the building has been a restaurant for . twenty or so years, why. . . . , CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well once you've gone beyond the twelve ` months, the whole question of use has to be considered and . that use, essentially is hinged to the ownership ` specifically. MR. BERNAL: All right, if the owner . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could demonstrate that there was a hardship with respect to this parcel , in the dealings with Tom or yourself would elaborate on at some - Tom obviously ^ can' t elaborate - but Tom is referred to - and yourself in a sense thickened the plot - as it were - by adding the other pieces of information. Then perhaps you might stand a chance - not prejudicing the case one way or the other - but ' ` it seems clear to us that more information is necessary and ' the information is best emanating, shall we say, from the owner . Charlie? ' MR~ WEAVER: Yes, if I may. How many members of the Board are personally familiar with the interior of the building as ^ a restaurant? MR. SIEVERDING: I 've eaten there a couple of times when it was Ozzies. MR. WEAVER: You've been in? MR~ SIEVERDING: Oh, yes. The last time it was open. MR. WEAVER: Yes. So the two of us have a personal knowledge of the interior - just two out of six? No wonder ^ it went bankrupt . Well , I think it is obvious from a run . BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 from the back door to the front that if it 's not a single purpose building, it 's certainly most inappropriate for residential use - it's not - it doesn' t appeal to me as an instant conversion by any means. The history of use - some of the appurtenances, including equipment inside and there is equipment inside? MS. FARRELL: Is there any equipment left or was that sold at the sale? MR. BERNALz Yes, yes. It 's got everything . . . MR. WEAVER: Certainly there are a few things that they don' t pull out , hoods, and stacks and a few things - and the parking lot that's probably king size for residential use and a number of other things that are pretty obvious that - this thing being empty and that we wouldn' t have to speculate too hard to see that it would take a major infusion of money and a rather precise workout to ever ` determine that it could stand on its own as a residential ' property. And if it can't then it's use as - per historical precedent - is as a reasonable alternative. So , you know, ' I 'm not - I 'm willing to debate this tonight without further information, obviously the appellant can' t give it to us and ' I doubt very much, in short order , that anybody else could, including the owner because the authorized use now, as residential property would require somebody to do all the ' hard work necessary to find out how much that would cost and what kind of a buck they could get out of it per month, to ' see whether it would carry itself. . PAGE 67 --' --- ------------ BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MS. FARRELLc As a builder though, I think the owner might be well qualified to figure that out rather quickly. I 'm not - I mean, I want a little more - this is a use variance, it is a hardship case - I want a little bit more information than it historically has been a restaurant . If half the, building right now is an apartment and, you know, I don' t know how much he paid for it at the tax sale, he might have gotten it dirt cheap and he could put a little money in and change it to apartments - and I 'm not saying that 's the best use for it either , but I want to hear a little bit more information than I can get tonight, before I can make that decision. MR. SIEVERDING: I think - it is more of the distress circumstances - God knows what he paid for the property. I think you are also looking at an eighty-five hundred square foot lot. One alternative is that it could be converted - the existing building and you could make apartments out of that - the other alternative is that , if it really was a distress sale and it was bought at a pretty low price, then even for want of position price, and that wouldn' t be a bad deal - you could lodge the building - and on eighty-five hundred square feet , in one of the few R-3 zones that we've got in the City, you can actually get a fair amount of density - residential density - and since we are in a residential zone, it seems to me it's an alternative that we ought to be looking at in view of a hardship requested for continued use as a restaurant . PAGE 69 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLANz Helen, Stewart, any thoughts to add? MS. JOHNSON: I would agree with Tracy's and Herman's conclusions. I would like more information. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Is it the feeling of the Board that. . . SECRETARY HOARD: I would like to throw something in here. My department has some investment in time in this building because we have made them put in the fire separation between the restaurant and the apartment above at no small expense. We made them put in new hood systems. We made them - the past owners - MR. SIEVERDING: Prior to the time that Giordano acquired. . SECRETARY HOARD: Prior to that , yes. So there has been quite an investment in the building in the past eight years. MR. BERNAL: I would like to add something too . The fact that part of my lease agreement is an option to purchase the ' building, okay, so I have an interest in this as a restaurant as it is now. So, that 's - I don' t think you have considered that . . . MS. FARRELLc You would be the owner . . ' MR~ BERNAL: Yes, yes. I have an option to purchase there (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLANz Well I think , again, you are bringing in more vegetables to thicken the stew, as time goes on, more information is coming out. More information is coming out , ' I - the Building Commissioner 's comments notwithstanding , you've got to get to that information or someone else has to get the information and sit over there and present it to us, PAGE 69 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 not him, but you - that's where, I guess, we are coming from. I 'd like the feeling of the Board with respect to an issue I have raised, whether in fact, we are looking at continuance for a month, if that's amenable to the appellant or whether we want to proceed and judge the case on its merits, or whether, in fact, we would permit at this point , for him to withdraw. I 'd like some comments on that . MR. GIEVERDING: My sense of it is, I would like to know more information about the property - I appreciate what you are saying regarding how much the previous owner may have invested in the property. The fact is, on a distress sale circumstances, the property - they really had a hard time getting rid of the property and its (unintelligible) material . The new owner acquires it for whatever can be done with the property and I 'd like to know, under those circumstances, what other alternatives there are and is there, in fact, a hardship case relative to allowing a restaurant to continue to exist on that property as opposed ' to doing something else with the property, either renovating the building for residential purposes or tearing it down and redeveloping an eighty-five hundred square foot lot . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right , but if I can keep you on the wave length, you'd like to see more information. Tracy? MS. FARRELL: I 'd like to see more information. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Helen? MS. JOHNSON: I 'd like to see more information too. PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: On this side? Charlie have you got enough information? MR. WEAVER: No , not necessarily. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: I ' ll either vote no , now, or be glad to hear more information later . MR. WEAVER: Well , see I wouldn' t want this case encumbered by a denial that will require somebody to hoke up a difference in the application in order to get here. I had no prejudice against the fact that this was asked tonight and came in with inadequate information. I don' t think the nature of the application indicates any connivance - quite the contrary. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Mr . Bernal , would you accept that as essentially a continuance for a month - would that be sufficient time for you or would you prefer . . . MR. BERNAk-: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to supply information or try to bring the owner here to supply information? CHAIRMAN l[OMk-AN: In either case, but you see our dilemma is clear , we do not have sufficient information with respect to ' the economic hardship as has been shown. MR. SCHWAB: If I could say something from my point of view, generally, when you get a lapse of twelve months, you know, legal but non-conforming use, the City generally views that ^ as a opportunity to get conforming with the zoning - they like to leap on it unless someone can show hardship . The ° problem, I sense personally, is we kind of like the old PAGE 71 ' - -- - BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 restaurant - figure you would do a good restaurant - but as far as the zoning law goes, they prefer residential there, so unless you can show that residential can' t work , we are in a bind . MR. GERNAL: I can sense that . All right , so (unintelligible) what happened and everybody is opposed to -- and and you are trying to direct this person in a particular way (unintelligible) either that or let the building sit there for . . . MR. WEAVER: Do I understand you to say you have a lease or is it a conditional lease? MR. BERNAL: No, I 'm - I do have a proposal presented to the owner as to what I intend to do , and a schedule of what possible needs - I haven't committed myself to anything yet until knowing what is going to happen here. MR. WEAVER: Well if he would like to lease it or sell it that might be quite a way to encourage him to get in here with some good arguments on why. . . (unintelligible) if you haven' t got too much invested you haven' t . . . MR. BERNAL: I sense that a few members here - I don' t know if it is the majority have made up their minds as to what they want to do with it. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I don' t think that 's the case at all . We are giving you, I think , every benefit of the doubt to perfect your case. I mean, we can judge it as it is and simply turn it down, which as Charlie is suggesting , is probably not the way we would like to go . PAGE 72 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR. BERNALc The thing is, I don' t think I have much of a say in this - of course, it is between the Board and Mr . Giordano , who is absent from here - because I have no - I cannot do anything - I cannot show any hardship because I don' t own the building . I cannot prove anything - otherwise that one thing would be better than something else. I can' t prove that because I don' t know. MR. SIEVERDING: Did you say that Mr . Giordano is interested in leasing the property to you (unintelligible) he will make an effort to be here and present us with information that we will need to make a hardship case. . . MR. BERNAK-: Do you have any suggestions as to how I can do that? MR~ SIEVERDING: I was just going to ask Tom, what is the procedure on something . . . is the owner of the property contacted relative to what we decide or . . . does it stop here with . . . SECRETARY HOARD: They will both get letters. ' MR. SIEVERDING: They will both get letters. ' MR. BERNAL: So the . . . SECRETARY HOARD: We notify him as the owner , and Mr . Bernal ^ as the appellant. ' MR. BERNAL: So we get an extension? CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Another month . MS. FARRE0L: We have had other hardship cases where the ' owner has not come in but has supplied a lot of information. So . . PAGE 73 BZA MINUTES 6/2/86 MR. BERNAL: Now is that going to be stated on the letter the kinds of information that you want . CHAIRMAN l[OMk_AN: No that is spelled out in the Ordinance itself but if you have any questions certainly you could ask the Building Commissioner 's office as to specifically what other people have supplied . Is that agreeable? MR. BERNAK-c Yes. CHAIRMAN l[OMk-AN: Could we have a motion to that effect from the Board? DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1702 FOR 120 THIRD STREET MS. FARRELK-: I move that the Board continue Appeal Number 1702 until next month (July 7, 1986) when more information can be presented by the appellant concerning hardship . MR. SIEVERDINGz I second the motion. 6 aye votes; 0 nay MOTION CARRIED / PAGE 74 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, 1698, 1699, 1700, 1701 , and 1702 on June 2, 1986 in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall , 108 E. Green Street, City of Ithaca, New York, that I have trans- scribed 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. t- Barbara Ruane Recording Secreta y Sworn to before me this /4 day of ��� 1986 r ` Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK N0. 5 5-1 650800 QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COUNTY- My COMNISSION EX^IRES MARCH 30,19