Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1986-07-07 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JULY 7, 1986 PAGE APPEAL NO. 1678 DAVID & FLORA SAGAN HELD OVER 705 N. AURORA STREET APPEAL NO. 1698 RUTH MORGAN WITHDRAWN 532 SPENCER ROAD APPEAL NO. 1702 AGUSTIN S. BERNAL 6 120 THIRD STREET " It DISCUSSION 24 " DECISION 27 APPEAL NO. 1703 WITHDRAWN BY APPELLANT APPEAL NO. 1704 ANTONIO PASQUALE MORROW 28 411 HANCOCK STREET DISCUSSION 31 DECISION 32 It " MORE DISCUSSION 33 APPEAL NO. 1705 JOHN D. MACLEAN 35 429 CAMPBELL AVENUE It " DECISION 38 APPEAL NO. 1706 CAROL AND RICHARD BOOTH 39 110 DELAWARE AVENUE DECISION 44 APPEAL NO. 1707 BOBBY JONES, SR. 45 118 SOUTH PLAIN STREET DECISION 47 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 48 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening . I would like to call to order the July 7, 1986 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter , the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board 's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight: MR. STEWART SCHWAB MR. CHARLES WEAVER MS. TRACY FARRELL MR. HERMAN SIEVERDJNG MR~ MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD MR. THOMAS HOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE BOARD MS. BARBARA R@ANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT: MS. HELEN JOHNSON The Board will hear each case in the order which is 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 PAGE 1 '- — BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 of an " interested party" . While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record . The record consists of the application materials filed with the Building Department, the correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department , the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations, if 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 directly opposite me here so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and be heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and will therefore not be considered by the Board in its deliberations. We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed , no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during our 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 . Tonight, because we are short of one member , that BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 is, we are down to five members and it does take a minimum of four votes to approve or deny, we give those appellants who wish to, the opportunity at this point , to withdraw their case, without prejudice if they would so like to. So this is the time, if that is the case - if you would like to do that - and I would entertain, further , any questions about the procedures under which we operate. Question? JUDGE CLYNES: Mr . Chairman, are we assured that there will be a full Board in a month? CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: Are we assured, no , we are not assured . I think there should be, but I 'm not positive at the present moment. Board? MR. SCHWAB: If it is the first Monday, I won' t be here. CHAIRMAN l[0MLAN: We are down one already I 'm hearing . JUDGE Ck-YNES: So it will be five next month? CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAN: It will be five - it looks like it will be five in a month as well . Again, you would get the same option next month, if that 's what you would like. I think ` we would be back up to strength in two months, if that helps. ' ^ JUDGE CLYNES: That would be in September? ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's right . Summer being what it is, ' things slow down around here. Further questions? Then can we proceed with our first case? SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal is APPEAL NO. 1678 FOR ' 705 NORTH AURORA STREET: . PAGE 3 . BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 Appeal of David and Flora Sagan for an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front , side and rear yards under Section 30.25, Columns 11 , 12, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit conversion of the existing garage at 705 North Aurora Street for a "home office" and for storage. The property is located in an R2b (Residential , one... and two-family dwelling ) Use District in which such private use of an accessory building is permitted; however under Section 30.49 the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the setback deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the proposed conversion. This appeal was heard by the Board at its March 10, 1986 meeting and a variance granted; it is being reheard in response to a petition from neighbors which states that they did not receive proper notification. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Flora, David . . . MR. SAGANc I 'm David Sagan. Since there are only five people here, I think we'd like to postpone appealing this and wait for a full Board . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. MR. SAGANz Thank you very much . CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: It is understood that all those people, both for and against , in that particular case, we will be PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 postponing it for a least a month and perhaps two, if that J.7, okay. See you all next month or the month thereafter . ' ` ` PAGE 5 � BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal on the Agendum is Appeal Number 1698 for 532 Spencer Road - that has been withdrawn because the property was sold . So , the next appeal is Appeal No. 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 non-conforming uses for more than twenty years. However , the non-conforming 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 non-conforming use. Therefore the appellant must obtain a use variance before the non-conforming ' use can be resumed. This appeal was held over by the Board at its June 2, 1986 meeting to permit the appellant to appear with additional information from the property owner . JUDGE CLYNEB: I 'm James J. Clynes, Jr . , I 'm a local attorney and just so the record doesn' t present a problem later on, I am the City Judge and I am duly authorized and PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 ethically authorized to appear before this Board, so that question doesn' t come up later on. The prospective tenant evidently appeared before this group a month ago and then the group adjourned it so that my real client, the landowner , could appear and that is why we are here. I 'm not sure what is in the record but I would like to offer the front page - my client obtained this particular property at a Federal Government Auction - Small Business Association Auction - in other words, the property went under and the property in question has been operated as a restaurant since approximately 1900 and really why we are here is because, with the foreclosure, etc . , twelve months have elapsed since the operation of what was commonly known as Ozzies Restaurant . In other words, it took that long to foreclose - the gentleman left town, etc . I would like to offer that , that's the front page of the Auction - but in particular the fourth page of the Auction, which shows that my client bought this property as a restaurant and bar with living quarters in town - in other words, part of the auction, the ' SBA deal - he had to buy the equipment - and he paid seventeen thousand dollars for the equipment - in other ` words there was no other contemplation of anything being involved except the restaurant and bar - because that's all it has been since 1950. I am reading from his notes now, so I am paraphrasing - he purchased the restaurant at a U.S. Government, Small Business Association Auction and if this . equipment were to be removed from the building it would be PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 absolutely worthless because it has been there forever and it would create an immediate loss of seventeen thousand dollars which is the amount that he paid for the equipment . He had two architects review and visit the building and the site and both of them told him that the best site use of this particular location would be a restaurant . Mr . Boehlecke, who is a local architect , states that to make a one to three-bedroom and one to two-bedroom and one bedroom would be very expensive if he were to do something other than a restaurant . It would involve new plumbing, electric and heating which would be needed and you've got a contractor 's estimate of that. We will offer that. The parking area is sufficient for the restaurant because it has been used as a restaurant since practically 1900, it is off the street and out of the way. He is prepared to reseal and remark the blacktop , repaint the building a nice soft white with dark trim, repair the sidewalks and bricks and stone steps around the building make a nice desirable, nice quiet restaurant . In his opinion, my clients, it would be an asset to the neighborhood - as it would be to many of the neighborhood people. I don' t know how many are here - and ' it would be a great hardship to tear this building down or to do anything other than a restaurant . Is there anybody ' here from the area? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Questions from members of the Board? JUDGE CLYNES: Anybody want to say anything? Opposed? CHAIRMAN TOMLANc If you will wait a moment . . . PAGE 8 . BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 JUDGE CLYNES: Oh, okay. SECRETARY HOARD: You are doing his job . MR. SIEVERDINGc You mentioned earlier that the equipment within the restaurant was purchased for seventeen thousand dollars. How about the land and the building itself, what was the purchase price? MR. GIORDANO: My name is Vincent Giordano, 57 Woodcrest Avenue, owner of 120 Third Street . MR. WEAVER: Question, what was that purchase figure? JUDGE CLYNES: Sixty and seventeen. MR. SIEVERDING: So the total there is seventy-seven thousand that you have tied up in that land and in the. . . MR. GIORDANOc Well it is close to a hundred now. I did some improvements - all the water pipes were busted - they froze and so I had to put in new water pipes and then some child threw a hair spray - sprayed hair spray all over the back corner of the building and caught it on fire and burned two roofs off - the kitchen and the back . . . JUDGE CK-YNES: This is the arson of awhile back . MR. GI0RD,%NO: I didn' t want to prosecute little children. I have over one hundred thousand in the property as of ' today. ' MR. SIEVERDXNGc In your work with some of the architects in ' town, in terms of exploring alternative uses, or residential ' uses of the property because that is what the zoning ' currently allows - did you look at both - did you discuss rehabing the property in terms of residential use? . ^ PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 MR. GIORDANOc The study that Mr . Boehlecke did - we passed the letter around to you - he stated that we could possible make one three-bedroom, one two-bedroom, very small units with one-bedrooms - we would have to actually completely gut the place, put in new plumbing , new heating , new electric , new siding on the outside because we would have to put windows in - Anderson variety - something to give us the proper light for four apartments and the proper siding and things like that . I did have a contractor . . . JUDGE CLYNESz Well that is in the letter Vinnie, I read that . MR. GIORDANOc Between ninety and ninety-five thousand - my estimate - that I have actually done. I got estimates from Albanese and Bear Electric and (unintelligible) Company, I 'm up there about one hundred and twenty-seven thousand to turn that into apartments - extra, over what I have in there now. The rent that you can get - that being sort of a low income neighborhood - it would be economically unfeasible for me to try to do this and come out - in fact I thought if I could get away (unintelligible) any money on it at that point - I am paying approximately nine hundred dollars a month to the SBA - I paid twenty-five percent down and am making a monthly payment of ten percent so I 'm paying over a thousand dollars a month now plus taxes plus I leave that big light on in the parking lot because of the vandalism in that area, light up that area and that is costing twenty-seven dollars a month for the gas and electric for that area lighting . I PAGE 10 - - - BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 had contemplated - when this came up - after the arrangement to lease it to Mr . Bernal , I didn' t realize that I couldn' t use this as I purchased it and when this came up - at that point I was just coming up to get a permit to put new storm windows on, new windows, patch the siding, paint it white -- fix fix the brick walls and sidewalks and things like that . I just stopped when I found it might not be feasible. I do intend on spending money to clean that corner up and make it a nice neighborhood operation. I hope to have it look very very nice - put new gates up around those walls and things like this so that we can have a nice operation there. It was at one time when Mr . Ciaschi had it as the Villa Restaurant and he first put up those walls and things for some outside dining and things - it was very very nice restaurant . The inside of it is so conducive to a restaurant - being in the building business for over forty-four years - I know it would be very very hard to change it and it would create quite a hardship on me to try to change it for a variance. I also wouldn' t select a bad operator . I will tell you this, I interviewed three or four people, in fact five people - that wanted to go in there and most of them could pay an awful lot more money than Agustin. ' I sat down with all of them and interviewed them. In the ' ^ interviewing of them one fellow wanted to make it a tavern ' and a bar and a rowdy type of a tavern. I said absolutely not . Another person wanted to make an Italian Restaurant . out of it and I didn't particularly - she wasn' t the class PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 of person that Agustin is and then another person (unintelligible) in there - and they also weren' t the class of people (unintelligible) . After interviewing three or four perspective clients, Agustin had the nicest use for the building in a neighborhood atmosphere area and I agreed to lease to him, for this operation because I think he will do a fine job, he and his partner that is going to be in the building with him. They were selected on that basis up there - integrity and the fine person that I believe he is. MR. BERNAL: I have to say I didn' t know a thing about this, just for the record. CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAN: You' ll accept any compliments, right? MR. BERNAk-: Yes, I will . SECRETARY HOARD: If you would identify yourself for the record. MN. BERNAL: I 'm Agustin Bernal , I was here a month ago and I made the original appeal to you . . . MR. SCHWAB: When was the restaurant last open? JUDGE Ck-YNESc Ozzies? MR. SCHWAB: Yes. MR. GIORDANQc Mr . Barr from the SBA told me they had quite a time locating Mr . Osmun down in North Carolina after he left here. . JUDGE CLYNEB: About when, is his question. . . MR. GIORDANO: Approximately a year and a half, two years. JUDGE CLYNES: That's the only reason we are here is because . it is more than twelve months. He came into town and . , ` PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 operated it and then left without notice, because the restaurant has been a restaurant since 1900, but he left and then with all the machinations of the small business people and all , it took that long to foreclose on him. He went back to North Carolina or South Carolina. MR. SIEVERDXNGz If I could ask another question. Based on this construction cost estimate here for one hundred and twenty-seven thousand dollars is to convert the existing building to a two-unit apartment structure? MR. GIORDANO: No , one bedroom. . . . JUDGE CLYNES: We aren' t talking about that , we want a variance for a restaurant . We aren' t talking about building a house. . . MR. SIEVERDDNG: I understand, but to get the use variance you need to demonstrate hardship . . . JUDGE CLYNESc I understand that . . . MR. SIEVERDING: The current zoning is residential so it seems to me that you need to go through at least a demonstration that residential uses of the property have been looked at before one can grant a hardship variance. JUDGE CLYNES: That could be your opinion . . . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: That is more particular the way the Ordinance has been written so we are trying . . . JUDGE CLYNES: Yes and you've got a former member of the Planning Board sitting here, who shouldn't be here but go ` ahead . . ^ PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 MR. BERNAL: Can I make a point about this? It may be that this situation - whatever you have - what the law says - but the fact of the matter is that the place has been a restaurant for thirty years - forty years - and the situation is that . . JUDGE CLYNES: How about eighty? MR~ BERNALz It is a different one so you may be hanging onto the wall to turn something that has been a fact for forty years and I think the facts weigh more than the Ordinance in this particular case. MR. SDEVERDING: I agree but I think in order to make that determination you really need to know what the facts are and at least investigate the possibility that residential in terms of uses are probably (unintelligible) MR. GIO0DAN0: In answer to your question - yes that is based on one, one-bedroom, one, two-bedroom and one, three-bedroom apartment. . . MR. SIEVERDING: What about the alternative of not renovating the building and taking that eighty-five hundred square foot lot and developing new housing either as rental or for sale, is that an alternative? MR. GIORDANO: I bought it for a restaurant (unintelligible) JUDGE CLYNES: He bought it for a restaurant and that is just exactly what . . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: One at a time please. JUDGE CL\fNES: We are getting far afield now Counselor , if . YOU are an attorney, and I 'm not going to stand for this. PAGE 14 ^ BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 MR. GIORDANO: Believe me, there is a house on the corner of Monroe Street and Third Street , right now, that has been for rent for two months - an empty half of house. My sister used to own it and now somebody else has done a very nice job remodelling it and it looks like a very nice - they did a really nice job on it . I 've looked at other areas and other apartments - there are apartments for rent down there that are. . . JUDGE CLYNES: Never mind , Counselor , the only reason we are here is because twelve months have elapsed , this place has always been a residence [sic] and it bothers me if any Board tries to tell an individual that they've got to put in a low income housing and all the rest of it . We want to put a restaurant there, it has been a restaurant there for ever except the last fourteen months - that 's why we are here. MR. SCHWAB: The point is, in your client 's interest , unless he can show that he can' t make a go of it as residential he is not going to get the variance. JUDGE Ck-YNES: I understand that . MS. FARRELL: This is starting to support that so it is not . . MR. SCHWAB: Yes, so it is entirely relevant , I 'd like to / discuss it a little bit . MR. GIORDANOz I owned a house at 116-118 Third Street , right next to this. I had a tremendous loss in rents which ' I can show for the last sixteen years, trying to rent that ' ^ as two-apartments and I had remodelled them and they were ' , nice apartments - only to get torn up and I had to throw the ` PAGE 15 ^ BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 tenants out because they tore the house up and didn' t pay me any rent . And I went through this for years and years and years and the corner of Third and Monroe - or Madison Street - is not a place for apartments, believe me. I owned a house there for the last twenty years, 116-118 Third Street , thank goodness I just sold it and the new landlord is having as much trouble as I had . MR. SCHWAB: What would be approximately the rent that you could get? MR. GDORDANO: I had a hard time getting three hundred dollars a month , with them paying the utilities. And it was a nice - two nice apartments. They were up to Code. They were half of houses, actually. CHAIRMAN 7[OMK-AN: Tracy, do you have any questions? MS~ FARRELL: No . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie? MR. WEAVER: Yes. Last month the Board spent most of its time discussing the necessity of hardship in this case and I ' was prepared to discuss the case then. Of course, I am ^ again tonight . There are two things that are involved with ' getting entangled with the Ordinance - as I see it - one is ' that I don' t agree that it is absolute that a finding of hardship is required . I believe that under unique or ' unusual circumstances that the Board has a right to grant . That's an opinion but I hold it firmly. The other thing is ' that the assumption that the owner has to agree to demolish ' the structure on the property and develope it into housing ° ' ' PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 if he can make it economically feasible is, I think , an indirect taking of the property. I looked this property up in the Assessor 's Office and the assessment is sixty-five thousand nine hundred . The land is assessed at twenty-nine hundred . So , if those figures are accurate, if we base them on at least a proportion, we are talking about demanding that a property that has been vacant primarily because of ^ legal procedures rather than neglect of an owner , that the property will have to be given up . There is a value there ' and that that value must be abandoned in order to follow ' some general directions of a Zoning Ordinance, seems to me to stretch the Ordinance quite a bit and I have no ' difficulty with - from my own experience - you said a hundred years - I know its been a restaurant for fifty years . because I was a customer there fifty years ago . To be a ^ little bit like the meter man that stands there and when the flag goes up , writes the ticket and says " I got you" , I don' t think the City intended that the Zoning Ordinance . would operate that way, that the minute there was a . technical violation that it would grab that and say "now we have a master plan and that that master plan will be dominant over the rights of the owner of the property. " MR.SIEVERDING: I don' t think we viewed the Zoning Ordinance as a sort of cultural proposal (unintelligible) we said , you ' know, whenever there is a problem we should bring it down (unintelligible) say, this is what you are required to do . But I think it does provide an opportunity to review land PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 use patterns in conformance with , or in conjunction with a master plan and the Zoning Ordinance was constructed to (unintelligible) that master plan so I think you have to at least have to take the opportunity to review these situations and then determine whether the existing - the use that has continued over time is appropriate or whether it is, in fact, an opportune time and the concerns as to whether or not it makes sense to make that piece of property conform to the current zoning . I think that is the whole hardship case in a sense because if it is a residential zone then I don' t think it is much to ask an owner of a piece of property to come before the Board and demonstrate why making that property conform to current zoning . . . . MR. WEAVER: I 'd like to argue that a minute more because a less sophisticated applicant could spend a rather substantial amount of money coming in here to prove exactly what could be produced on that property, once you demolish the buiJding . If you assume that the City has the power and wishes to exercise it , in these special circumstances, that it would require the applicant to come in with that much information means that he not only is in danger of losing the equity in improvements on that property - but also that he will spend a substantial sum of money in order to file an ` application before this Board . I think both of those are pretty unusual as far as the operation of this Board is ' concerned and I submit that it goes beyond the intent of the City in adopting a Zoning Ordinance. . PAGE 18 . BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well if we could continue this discussion, perhaps the questions to the three gentlemen in front of us rather than - save our deliberations between ourselves until later . MR. WEAVER: Well . . . I don' t think they have been dismissed and it just seems to me that an expression of my opinion at this moment is appropriate. If it's not, you are the Chair . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: I think it is perfectly fine, but I think if there are any further questions, now is the opportunity and perhaps we can move along. JUDGE CK-YNESc Could we hear from the audience ultimately? CHAIRMAN l[OMk-AN: We will hear from the audience ultimately. JUDGE CLYNES: I don' t know whether there are any here or not . CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: The procedure is such that after you are dismissed , we' ll ask them. JUDGE CK-YNES: As long as we can hear what they have to say. CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAN: That's fine. They will get their chance. JUDGE Ck-YNESc I mean, with us here. CHAIRMAN 7[0MLAN: Yes, perfectly fine and in conformance with the rules and regulations that we operate by. MR~ SCHWAB: I 'd like to just do a quick restatement just to see if I 'm in the ballpark . You have, you say, approximately one hundred thousand dollars. MR. GIORDANO: Yes. ' MR. SCHWAB: To turn it into some kind of apartments, one, ' two three-bedrooms, you are suggesting there would be . ^ PAGE 19 ' BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 another hundred and twenty-seven thousand dollars, according to estimates? ' MR. GIORDANO: That's right. MR. SCHWAB: About a quarter of a million dollars. You quickly said to me at one point , maybe three hundred dollars a month in rent, perhaps per apartment , so maybe a thousand dollars a month in rent for four units? MR. GDORDANO: Yes for four apartments. JUDGE Ck-YNEB: Twelve hundred, total . MR. SCHWAB: Twelve hundred dollars, total - (unintelligible) off of a quarter million dollar investment. ' All right, we've done calculations about as gross as this ^ before, quarter of a million - ten percent of a quarter a million is twenty-five thousand dollars a year - that sort ' of covers. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I can tell you right now that based on the ' room count and the rent levels on the north side, there is no way, that given the (unintelligible) - even if you get it ^ . financed to the maximum amount - just in terms of - if you . can get ninety or eighty percent financing, it still isn' t going to work because you have the (unintelligible) there. This is one of two possibilities, I think the other possibility is there any kind of economic sense at all in taking down that property and redeveloping that eighty-five hundred square foot lot for some other form of housing? ' MR. GIORDANO: No. The building is in real good shape as it sits now. We applied for the permit to bring it up to code ' PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 for a restaurant - you will find that there is very little to do , in fact, in Mr . Boehlecke's letter he states we should put some handicapped bathrooms and some areas and I think that the Building Department employee who was down there with Mr . Bernal , when he went over the things to be done were the very minimum as it is now as a building . The building is in very good shape - the ceilings have already been fire proofed - two hour rated - between the first floor and the second floor so the apartment would be occupied before Mr . Osmun came in. This is one of the reasons he went out because when he came in he wasn' t prepared to spend sixty - seventy thousand dollars on the building and he did - he brought it up to code. Well he borrowed it from the bank and he had so many payments that he just couldn' t pay -- he he was over two hundred thousand dollars - two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in debt and he was paying something like thirty some thousand dollars a year in interest alone for his debt - that 's one of the reasons he had to leave. The First Bank was owed a hundred and eighty-four thousand and the Trust Company was owed - well anyway this is beyond that - now that I bought it reasonably, with the equipment , seventy-seven thousand and a hundred - maybe I will put another twenty, twenty-five in it , to bring the outside of ` the building to what Mr . Bernal needs to occupy a restaurant . With a hundred and twenty-five - a hundred and thirty in that property, I could give him a reasonable lease ' so he can exist (unintelligible) payment - not payments to a . PAGE 21 ^ ' BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 contractor , not payments to a bank - there will be one payment and that 's one lease payment that I would have with him and the lease agreement is at a fairly reasonable rate so that he can exist and run a nice restaurant at that location. If you have too much money in a property you just can' t make a small restaurant operate and the people in the past had that problem except for when it was a family restaurant and there wasn' t that big debt. It was at one time, early - when I was a young boy it was the Oakhurst Hotel - that's got to be forty-five years ago . 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? Come forward please. MR. WEAVER: Judge and Vinnie. . . the procedure of the Board is that you come up here and speak so that we can record it and then you get out of the way. . . MR. WILLEc I 'm Dennis Wille, I live at 201 Third Street about diagonally across the intersection from Ozzies Restaurant . Basically I feel that the variance should be granted . I think the worst thing that the Board could decide is to keep that building vacant for the forseeable future and it would create a lot of problems in the neighborhood - arson, vandalism, things like that . I think that high density residential on that site doesn' t make ` sense for the neighborhood, despite the zoning and that a ` restaurant there would definitely be an asset to the . PAGE 22 ' BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 neighborhood . I don' t think the non-complying uses in the neighborhood - and there are a few - are a problem at this point . I think that non-owner-occupied rental is probably a larger problem in the neighborhood than a restaurant would be. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: (Duestions? Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (no one) That being the case, it is ours. ` PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1702 FOR 120 THIRD STREET CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Now gentlemen, if you want to continue your soliloquy or dialogues. . . MR. GIORDANOc I just forgot to mention one point. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: One point - all right - quickly. MR. GI0RDAN0: The Insurance Company adds a hardship . The Insurance Company - I have now switched from True because he shut off my insurance on the building and now Pace Insurance has it and their Company has warned me that an unoccupied building is not going to be insurable. So that presents a . hardship . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: With all that discussion earlier we came awfully close to a motion. MR. SIEVERD%NG: I have no interest in continuing the discussion with Charlie about whether - on this whole hardship test. I think it is pretty clear where I am coming . from - I just feel it is important aspect of the Zoning ' Ordinance that really ought to be maintained . And you take advantage of these opportunities to review the current existing properties to see whether it is in fact the kind of use that you want to have continue over a longer period of time, recognizing that it is non-conforming with the general zoning of the neighborhood . Having said that - I had a long discussion with Dennis last night who lives across the street , I live in the neighborhood , I 've done my own survey of property owners in the area and generally I think people do, in fact , feel that the continued use of that property is PAGE 24 . BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 the most important aspect and as a vacant property, is, in fact creating somewhat of a hardship for the neighborhood itself and that most of the people I 've talked to have no particular objection to seeing continued restaurant use. But I still don' t think that sort of automatically carte blanche excuses somebody from not presenting a hardship case which is in fact the basis for which a use variance is granted . I think use variances really need to be considered as pretty serious steps and really need to be considered , I think , of the kind of test that the Zoning Ordinance sets up. CHAIRMAN T0MLANc Charlie, I 'm sure you would like to reply. MR. WEAVER: Well , simply that there is case law to indicate that unique and special circumstances can be considered in the finding for a use variance and that it isn' t that clear , in other words, we make a decision - someone sues us and it gets into the Courts for proper review - that your position is completely defensible in an ad hoc , not in an overall situation. If these are not unusual circumstances, I never heard of any. CHAIRMAN TOMLANz Tracy? MS. FARREK-k': I ' ll make a motion. Any more discussion before I do? ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Just that - following up a little on Charlie's point of uniqueness in and of itself would be sufficient , I 'm not sure that I 'm convinced. I mean, in general - this particular case I would agree with you but ' ' PAGE 25 - ---- BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 the Ordinance as agreed, sets up three conditions and those three conditions are serial , they are not either/or - they are a, b and c . I think , to some degree, having gone through with you one addresses those, I think in this case we may come out in agreement and I think everything in this case might come down (unintelligible) but I think Herman`s sense of what is proper in this case, is more in keeping with my own and I would just like to express that. Tracy, I 'm ready. PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES 7/7/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1702 FOR 120 THIRD STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request for a use variance to permit the reestablishment of a restaurant at 120 Third Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Hoard grant the use variance requested in Appeal Number 1702. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . The estimated high cost of renovations demonstrate that it would be a financial hardship for the owner to convert the building into residential apartments. 2. The building has historically been used as a restaurant for many years and has existed peacefully in the neighborhood. 3. There is adequate parking for a restaurant. 4. Neighbors are not opposed and indeed one neighbor spoke in favor of having a restaurant reestablished at this location. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal , Appeal 1703 was withdrawn by the applicant so the next appeal to be heard is APPEAL NO. 1704 FOR 411 HANC0CK STREET: Appeal of Antonio Pasquale Morrow for an area variance for deficient off street parking and lot size, lot coverage exceeding the maximum permitted, and deficient setbacks for front yard and one side yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 4, ` ^ 6, 10, 11 and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, to ` permit the conversion of one of the units in the ' two-family dwelling at 411 Hancock Street to a cooperative dwelling unit for up to five unrelated ' persons. The property is located in an R3b ' (Residential , multiple dwelling) Use District ` where the proposed use is permitted ; however under ' Section 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an ^ - area variance for the cited deficiencies before a ' building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be ^ issued for the proposed conversion. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Begin by identifying yourself. ^ MR. MORROW: I 'm Antonio P. Morrow, I work at Cornell University, Statler Inn. . . CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAN: And perhaps a few words as to - perhaps elaborate on your proposal . ' MR~ MORROW: Well I talked to all of my neighbors and I sent , ' a letter to all of them within two hundred feet of my property. They were totally surprised that I have to ask . PAGE # 28 BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 permission to rent my house the way I want to . I 've talked to Norton, he owns the property across the street and he sees no problem with a couple of cars being in his lot over night as long as it isn' t during the day during business hours. I have asked his permission on that several times before and he sees no problem at all . MS. FARRELL: Right now how are you using the house, you have two apartments, you live in one of them? MR~ MORROW: I have the apartment upstairs and then I have an apartment downstairs and my family lives in it . MS. FARREk'L: And is the one bedroom apartment upstairs? MR. MORROW: Yes it is a one-bedroom upstairs. Originally I wanted to make two separate apartments downstairs but due to the yardage and the space - the zoning wouldn' t permit that at all because there is no proper yardage for three individual families. So by unrelated , I figured I could - everybody knows it is pretty much a college town and I could ' ` rent to students or something like that . My neighbors don' t see nothing wrong with that . I have adequate parking in the driveway for two cars anyway, so. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have a lease or do you have any . piece of paper which , in effect, permits two of those other . spaces on the adjacent lot for your use? MR. MORROW: I don' t understand . Do I own the property? ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No I 'm not saying that at all . If you are deficient by a couple of spaces by your proposed use, the only way in which you can meet that deficiency is simply by PAGE # 29 BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 renting space from the adjacent land owner or having an agreement made out in writing which would . . . . MR. MORROW: Well there are houses directly on both sides of me, there is just no way to get any yardage. . MS. FARREK-k-: Well the parking lot across the street , could you get a written lease or something from the owner of that space? MR. MORROW: What , for parking or play area, or . . . MS. FARRELL: No , for parking . . . MR. MORROW: I imagine I could, sure, if that 's what you want . CHAIRMAN l[OMK-ANc Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Which is the unit that is going to be rented out? MR~ MORROW: The downstairs unit . MR. SIEVERDING: Is that the one-bedroom one or the ' three-bedroom one? ' MR. MORROW: It's the three-bedroom. CHAIRMAN l[0MLAN: Further questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor, of granting this variance? (no one> Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this variance? (no one) . PAGE # 30 ' BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 [changed tape here so missed some of the dialogue] DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1704 FOR 411 HANCOCK STREET MR. SIEVERDING: . . .has to do with the apartment - you know - the increased requirements - once you have the unrelated individuals living there and where those two additional spaces are going to come from - seems to me that there is not that much parking on the side of the street where the property is located . If some kind of an agreement could be worked out between you, as the owner , and Norton to allow the use of their parking lot for the other two cars. I think that 's - and we have that as a condition to grant the variance, if that 's the way it's going to go , I mean, that being an acceptable approach . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other comment? MR. SCHWAB: So you are suggesting granting a conditional on getting . . . MR. SIEVERDING: A conditional subject to getting two additional parking spaces being provided from the parking lot across the street . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: This one is generating tremendous discussion compared to the last one. MR. BIEVERDDNG: Are we ready for a motion? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Sure. ^ PAGE # 31 ' 11INUTES --- 7/7/e6 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1704 FOR 411 HANCOCK STREET 'The L�oard of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Antonio Pasquale Mor-row for an area variance to permit the conversion of one of the units in the two-family dwelling at 411 Hancock- Street to a cooperative dwelling t..tnit for up to five unrelated perso-ns. 'The decision of the Board was ZRS f o I lows-. MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal No. 1704 conditioned upon the appellant obtaining an agreement to use two (2) parking spaces at the Hancock Plaza parking lot or within five hundred feet of the property. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . Practical difficulty relative to changing the configuration of the existing structure so that the front and side yards and lot area exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance can be complied with. 2. This particular exception observes the spirit of the Ordinance and does not change the character of the district where the property is located. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; I ABSENT GRANTED W/CONDITION PAGE # 32 BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 MORE DISCUSSION AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN ON APPEAL NO. 1704 FOR 411 HANC0CK STREET: MS. FARRELL: As a comment , it probably is the easiest place for him to rent spaces (Hancock Plaza) or he could get an agreement for spaces, but it would just have to be within five hundred feet. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Five hundred feet, yes. Charlie? MR~ WEAVER: It's the width of the street in this case. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The width of the street is five hundred feet? MR. WEAVER: No I say the parking he is talking about is across the street . I didn' t understand what you said about the percentage of lot coverage. It doesn' t change but I know you mentioned it but I don' t know why. ` MR. SIEVERDINGc He is - with the allowing the use of the property to a conversion of one of those units to a ' ' cooperative dwelling , as I read the lot area coverage, he is thirty percent deficient . SECRETARY HOARD: Minimum lot size. . . ' MR. SIEVERDING: It is minimum lot area . . . . ' MR. WEAVER: I thought you said percentage of lot coverage ' and I misunderstood . . . . MR. SIEVERDINGc Columns six , ten, eleven and twelve, how's that? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you understand what we are driving at? MR. MORROW: The lot size is too small . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: With respect to the parking in particular . . ^ PAGE # 33 , ^ BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 MR. MORROW: Well there is both Second and Third Street there is parking on both sides of the street - there is odd-even nights. That is less than two hundred feet or less ' than forty feet from my house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we are thinking specifically off the street parking being dedicated specifically to the people who live in your building. Okay? MR. MORROW: So you want an agreement from me and the owner of the lot across the street to give me permission to do this? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; That 's right . That 's a condition. ' MR. MORROW: When would you like that next month? CHAIRMA TOMLAN: Well it will be made . . . ' MR. MORROW: Just mail it in? CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: It will be operative through the Building Department . Give it to Tom, or send it to his office. Do ' we have a vote? PAGE # 34 BZA MINUTES -- 7/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1705 FOR 429 CAMPBELL AVENUE: Appeal of Jahn D. MacLean for a Special Permit under Section 30.27 (Accessary Apartment Ordinance) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction and use of a single family dwelling plus accessary apartment at 429 Campbell Avenue. The property is located in an R1a (Residential , single-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use requires a Special Permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals. MR. MACLEAN: 1 "m John MacL..ean, I own the p-roperty and I want to build a house there with ars apartment in the basement .-- one-bedroom apartmerit . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questiolis? MR. SCHWAB: Car; yoU e-nli(_fhten me as to where the apartment entrance is going to bel MR. MACLEAN: On the lower level - rear ele-vatiort. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We =should congratulate YOU on one of the most straight forward applications we've seen. MR. MACLEAN: 'T"hani--: you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further- questions from members of the Board'-, We all know where the secondary entrance is - so it passes the Design Review MR. SIEVERDING: Is there a relationship between the -- :just in terms of this accessory apartment in the Ordinance - between the size of the unit relative to the total territory PAGE: #L3S ` BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 of the property - of the building itself? There is that question when they talk about the - number four - what is ' the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling unit and ' what is the floor area of the proposed accessory apartment , ° I guess there is some sort of relationship that should be ' maintained there? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. ' CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes there is a percentage. ' MR. SIEVERDINBc Is that the thirty-third - thirty-three and . ` a third percent referred to . . . . CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Almost forty percent. ' MR~ BIEVERDING: The only reason why I ask is on the floor . ^ plans the apartment is listed as having six hundred and . ^ eighty-six square feet and in response to the question it is . five hundred and eighty-six square feet . I guess it is six . eighty-six , is that the actual size? . MR. MACLEANc I don't know what the actual size of the . ^ apartment is. . ' MR. SIEVERDINGz On page six of the drawings, the total feet . ` of the apartment is listed as six , eighty-six? MR. MACLEAN: Yes. ^ MR. SDEVERDING: And then the response to number four it says five, eighty-six, in other words. . . , MR. MACLEAN: I don' t know where that came from. . . MR. GIEVERDINGx But in either case there wouldn` t be any ' problem . . . ^ CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The stipulation is. . . PAGE #36 ' ^ BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 MR. WEAVER: Call it seven hundred. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLANc The floor of an accessory apartment within ' the principal dwelling building shall not exceed thirty three and one-third percent of the total habitable floor ' area of the building in which it is located. It goes on to ' read if the Board of Zoning Appeals determines that a ' greater floor space is necessary because of the ' configuration of the building makes meeting these requirements impractical , then the Board of Zoning Appeals may waive the maximum. So we have that discretion as well . ' Further questions? (none) Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance or special permit? (no one) Is there anyone who would like . to speak in opposition? (no one) . PAGE #37 ' BZn MINUTES - 7/7/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1705 FOR 429 CAMPBELL AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of John D. MacLean for a Special Permit to permit the construction and use of a single family dwelling plus accessory apartment at 429 Campbell Avenue. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the request for a Special Permit to construct a single family house plus accessory apartment as requested in Appeal No. 1705 for 429 Campbell Avenue. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT: 1 . The application meets all the required conditions for an Accessory Apartment VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED Pt,GE #38 EcZA MII`JLITES - 7/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1706 FOR 110 DELAWARE AVENUE: Appeal of Carol and Richard Booth for 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 construction of a two-story addition to the south side of the single-family residence at 110 A Delaware Avenue, and the construction of an open deck at the rear of that building. The property is located in an R-ib (Residential , single-family) Use District where the proposed use is permitted; however, under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed additions. MR. BOOTH: Good evening. My nam_ is DicE:: Booth a-rid I live at 1. 10 Delaware avenue. I sent YOU Ek lei-igthy, and .l' hope clear , apf:,lication. We have lived at 110 Delaware since 1177, we propose to add an addition on the southside of our . house containing two --oof-fis •-- on the first f loon , a family room and on the second floor , a study oi­ wori---. room and we also propose to put a df_?c4.-:/porch , ori the aaes•t side of our house. We are removing the existing porch and replacing it with a porch and deck: . We have gore out and gotten some bids -from contractors .- I thirAbecause the interest rates PAGES # 39 '— - — BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 are down, prices are up - so the bids are quite a bit above what we anticipated . Accordingly, we are in the process of making some changes in the proposal but the basic scheme remains the same. We are not going to place a bathroom on the first floor , as we had proposed . We may ultimately place the bathroom somewhere else on the east side of the main house but not in this addition. We are considering moving from the vertical windows which we proposed and which are on the diagrams, to windows which are like the windows on the main house (unintelligible) so it 's possible that instead of the kind of window arrangement you see, looking at it as two windows on the top floor and two windows on the bottom floor on the south side and one window on both the east side and west side. Again those are details we are working out with the architect and the contractor . We also are not going to have a full basement , we' ll go toward crawl - simply a crawl space under the addition. We will not move � the cellar door which we anticipated possibly doing and that related to the drainage for the bathroom but we simply won' t be putting a bathroom in the addition so that won' t be necessary. And we will delay building the deck for some ' time, although we are still proposing to build the deck , we won' t build it at the present time. Those details will be subject to a somewhat further negotiation, but you have the ' main scheme as we propose it. We need a variance because ` the house, as built, is too close to our front property line ' and too close to the side yard line on the north. On the ' ' PAGE # 40 ' ' BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 south side of the house, where we propose to build the addition, there is ample room between the proposed addition ' and the south property line - there is also plenty of room ' . on the west side for building the deck . We feel we have a ' . ' practical difficulty in that the need for the variance is ' caused by the fact that the house was built too close to ' . . ' those property lines, it would cost us a great deal of money ' ' to move the house - we happen to live on one of the lots, I . . guess you can actually do that - we would be forced to do . . that, the lot is big enough but the expense would be . extraordinary. We will maintain the house as a single . . . . family house and as such it is and will be consistent with . ` the neighborhood . Many of the surrounding houses are single . ` family houses but not all of them. There is a duplex across the street and there are several rental properties within a . not very great distance. Our proposal will not increase any ` ` of the existing deficiencies and we have mailed the notice ` as required by your rules and all the neighbors that I have , � spoken to - well I haven' t spoken to all of them but all the ^ ones I have spoken to have expressed agreement with our ^ o sl ` pr po a . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Your deck addition is going to be built or is not going to be built? MR. BOOTH: It will be delayed . We are continuing to ` ' propose it but we will not build it at this present time. ` CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So it is being considered as part of this? ^ In the next twelve months there will be a deck? , ' PAGE # 41 ' ^ BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 ` MR. BOOTH: Yes. Well if there is not , I realize that we will lose the right to build it and we have to come back . I understand that . The answer is we will not build it for the next twelve months but we continue to propose it in case money falls from heaven. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: That's all I was going to say. ' CHAIRMAN 7[OMLAN: Further questions? MR. SCHWAB: I guess, you are actually extending the deficiency on the north line, is that right? ' MR. BOOTH: Well I suppose it depends on how you interpret - ^ I interpreted it that we weren' t extending the deficiency , because actually the deck will not be as close to the north . property line as the existing north side of the house. ^ ^ MR~ SCHWAB: Too close? MR. BOOTH: It will not be as close. . MR~ SCHWAB: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) . MR. BOOTH: It will be less than the side yard requirement it will be much less than ten feet. But the existing house, . the main body of the house is within two feet of that property line. As I said in the application, we haven' t ' been able to determine exactly where the lines are because we bought this before it was required to get these lots ' surveyed . CHAIRMAN TOMLANz Further questions? (none) Thank you ' Richard . PAGE # 42 - - - ------ ' - BZA MINUTES - 7/7/86 MR. BOOTH: Nice to see you all again. CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Anyone out there wishing to speak in favor or in opposition? (no one) In that case, it is ours. ^ PAGE # 43 ' Vit;A MINUTES ._. 7/7/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1706 FOR 110 DELAWARE AVENUE: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Richard and Carol Booth for an area variance to permit construction of a two-story addition to the south side of the single-family residence at 110 Delaware Avenue and the possible construction of an open deck at the rear of that building. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1705. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . There is a practical difficulty in meeting the current front yard and one of the side yard setbacks which could only be solved by moving the house. 2. The proposed change doesn't exacerbate any of the current deficiencies. 3. The proposed change is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED 'ACC: # 44 B .'A MINUTES -- 7/7/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1707 FOR 118 SOUTH PLAIN STREET: Appeal of Bobby Jones for an area variance for deficient lot size, side yard, and rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 6, 12 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a deck at the rear of the single-family home at 118 South Plain Street. The property is in a B-2a (Business) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the deck. MS. JONES: Good evening . frly name is Alicia Jones and rr,y parents would l ik:e to put a twelve by fourteen foot decl.... on the -north side of their house. MR. SIEVERDING: That deck: - right naw there is a driveway there? MS. JONES: `fes. MR. SIEVERDING: And would the deck: be built out and sort of tai%e the space sof the driveway? MS. JONES: '`fes.. MR. MOLOCK: hely name is Ilarvey 11olock. and I 'm a frier-rd of the family. T'he deck: is only going to tal-:e up) maybe - let 's see ._ fourteen foot coming off the back end of the house is only going to taN%e up maybe four foot of the driveway and there still will be room for two car- park:i ng and this is PAGE # 45 BZA MINUTES only a one-family dwelling anyway. But the main reason is for the grandkids - he has grandchildren and one of his grandchildren is handicapped so she uses the wheel chair very often and it will be a lot simpler taking him into the side porch area - back area - then it is to carry her up and down the front entrance of the house, which you know, is (unintelligible) down the main section of Green Street to play - (unintelligible) for kids - so he sort of wants to have everybody more or less around that area of the house because it is a lot safer and also more convenient for him. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. SCHWAB: Have you gotten any comments from the neighbors? MR. MOLOCK: Nobody has said anything and we sent out the proper letters to everyone and we talked to a few neighbors and nobody had anything to say. CHAIRMAN l[OMLAN: What are the dimensions of the deck? MR. h$OLOCK: Twelve by fourteen. CHAIRMAN TOMK-AN: No more questions? Thank you. Seeing how there is no one else out there to ask , either for or ' against, we can proceed . PAGE # 46 BZA MINUTES' -- 7/7/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1707 FOR 118 SOUTH PLAIN STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Bobby Jones, Sr. for an area variance to permit the construction of a deck at the rear of the single-family home at 118 South Plain Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1707. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . There are practical difficulties with respect to the house on the lot meeting the requirements of Columns b, 12 & 14 ( lot area, side yard and rear yard depth) . 2. That the exception observes the spirit of the Ordinance and does not change the character of this particular zone. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE # 47 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 1702, 1704, 1705, 1706 and 1707 on July 7, 1986 in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall , 108 E. Green Street, City of Ithaca, New York, that I have trans- cribed 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. �4 jwtt Barbara Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this i day of 1986 Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 55-1660800 QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES &1ARCH 30,19 / PAGE # 48