HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1986-11-03 TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
NOVEMBER 3, 1986
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
APPEAL NO. 1722 Robert E. & Linda Terry (Parking Lot) 70
207-209 S. Aurora Street and
202-206 Prospect Street
Appeal No. 1722 Decision 81
APPEAL NO. 1723 Edmund A. and Joyce Hurd II 4
117 Treva Avenue
APPEAL NO. 1723 Decision 10
APPEAL NO. 1724 Leland F. & Gloria W. Knuppenburg 36
409-415 Third Street
APPEAL NO. 1724 A. Interpretation Decision 49
B. Use & Area variance decision 58
APPEAL NO. 1725 Leland and Gloria Knuppenberg 59
315-17 N. Meadow Street
APPEAL NO. 1725 Decision 69
APPEAL NO. 1726 Christopher George Corporation 11
312 College Avenue
APPEAL NO. 1726 Decision 15
APPEAL NO. 1727 Robert Martin - POSTPONED
119 Third Street
APPEAL NO. 1728 Robert Martin - POSTPONED
119 Third Street
APPEAL NO. 1729 F. Newton Williams (Cayuage Elec. Bldg) 16
305-07 West Lincoln Street
APPEAL NO. 1729 Discussion 32
APPEAL NO. 1729 Decision 35
CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 82
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK
NOVEMBER 3, 1986
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening , I 'd like to call to order-
the November 3, 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 Boa,..-d ' s own Rules and Regula-
tions. Members of the Board who are present tonight are:
HERMAN SIEVERDING
CHARLES WEAVER
STEWART SCHWAB
MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN
THOMAS D. HOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER
& SECRETARY TO THE BOARD
BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY
ARRIVED 7:44 TRACY FARRELL
ABSENT HELEN JOHNSON
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 par-
ties" who are in support of the application, followed by
those who are opposed to the application. We should note
here that the Board considers " interested parties" to be
PAGE 1
92A MINUTES - 11/3/R6
persons who own property within two hundred feet., of the
property in question or who live or work within two hundred
feet of the property , thus the Board will not hear testimony
fi-om persons who do not meet the definition of an " interest--
ed party" . While we do not adhere to strict rule_ of
evidence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding
and we base our decisions on the record . The record con-
sists of the application material=_ filed with the Building
Department , the correspondence relating to the cases as
received by the Building Department , the Planning and
Development Board ' s findings and recommendations, if there
are any and the record of tonight ' s hearing . Since a record
is being made of this hearing , it is essential that anyone
who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into
the microphones that are opposite me here - so that the
comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and heard by
everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience
will not be recorded and will , therefore, not be considered
by the Board in its deliberations on the case. We ask that
everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the
case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the juris-
diction 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
PAGE 2
92'A MINUTES - 11/3/86
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 . Now tonight , as you
may have noticed , there are only four of us present . We are
expecting a fifth member in under an hour . That means - you
are certainly advised hereby that if you would like to
withdraw - request a postponement of your case, until we
have five or six members present , we would be more than
happy to entertain that or you can proceed . But the idea
is, remember , that it takes four votes to approve a motion
to grant or deny a variance or special permit . Is there
anyone out there who has any questions or is there anyone
who would like, at this point , to request a postponement?
MR. WINN: We would like to at least await an hour on the
second and third appeals .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, shuffle you to the bottom of the
deck . Is there anyone else?
MR. WEAVER: What one is that? Appeals 1724 and 1785.
MRS. HURD: We don' t know.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You don' t know. . . well that 's a perfectly
legitimate position to hold .
MR. AGARD: Speaking on behalf of Newt Williams, Laura
Flolmberg who is representing the Cooperative Extension in
this presentation, isn' t here - I 'd like her in on the
decision of waiting or not , she will be right here. .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right , fine . We ' ll proceed then with
the order listed , with the exception of 1724 and 25 and see
PAGE 3
92A MINUTES -- 11/3/86
where we stand in a few minutes, if that is okay . I think
by that time both our fifth member and your appellant will
be in place . Okay , any other questions? Tom, shall we
proceed?
SECRETARY HOARD: I should have pointed this out before
people made their decisions. Appeal No . 1722 for 207-204
South Aurora Street and 202-206 Prospect Street has already
been moved to the end . So if anyone was counting on that as
being a buffer first , that isn' t going to happen. So the
first appeal then would be APPEAL NO. 1723 for 117 TREVA
AVENUE:
Appeal of Edmund A. and Joyce Hurd II for an area
variance for deficient lot area, and deficient
setbacks for the front yard and one side yard,
under Section 30.25, Columns 6, il , and 13 of the
Zoning Ordinance to permit a twelve by twenty-four
foot addition to the southeast side of the
single-family home at 117 Treva Avenue. The
property is located in an Rlb (Residential ,
single-family dwellings) Use District in which the
existing use is permitted; however under Sections
30.49 and 30.57 the appellants must first obtain
an area variance for the listed deficiencies
before a building permit or Certificate of Occu-
pancy can be issued for the proposed addition.
PAGE 4
132A MINUTES - 11/3/86
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Good evening -- if you would begin;
by identifying yourselves for the record because the tape
recorder- can' t see.
MRS. HURD: I 'm Joyce Hurd .
MR. HURD: I 'm Edmund Hurn; .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Briefly then just describe or outline what
your variance is about .
MR. HURD: We purchased this property - it hadn' t. been
surveyed or anything since 1895 - something like that and
where we thought the lines were and where they were was a
little different . So we found out that the front porch is
actually right on the street line and we 'd like to rebuild
the front of the house and put an addition on to the south
side of the house.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You have some plans there that are essen-
tially the same as what we have here?
MR. HURD: Yes but I have the blue prints of the house -
what we would want to do . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good . Perhaps you might want to pass
those around so the Board can see what you are doing there.
MR. SCHWAB: Are you living there now?
MR. HURD: No sir . The house is in very bad condition.
MR. SCHWAB: It looks, from your application, that you are
living there .
MR. HURD: No we aren' t .
MRS. HURD: It ' s in very poor condition .
MR. SCHWAB: Yes, I didn' t know quite how to say that .
PA GE 5
B-ZA MINUTES - 11/3/86
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: As diplomatically as possible.
MR. HURD: You wi 11 have to excuse us -- this is all new to
US .
MR. SCHWAB: So you are keeping that width there. . .
MR. HURD: Yes, as much as we can. On the blueprint you
will see the solid square which is the original house and we
are going to try to keep the foundation and the structure
itself -- we are going to have to change the roof.
MR. SCHWAB: Now as I drove by there, you are really on t`:e
street there . . .
MR. HURD: Yes, well - no it 's not - the street ends right
there . The right-of-way of the street comes right along the
edge of the porch . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm just checking to see whether you' -.e
got all the information that we have by virtue of the
letters that have corresponded with respect to the develop-
ment of Treva Avenue.
MRS. HURD: We received a copy from Lucente. . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right . We received a copy of that as
well .
MRS. HURD: And a copy from Ernest Robibero - we spoke with
him on the telephone .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board?
MR. SCHWAB: Could you .just start over and not use what yogi
are using there or . . .
MR. HURD: You mean take it all down?
MR. SCHWAB: Yes .
PAGE 6
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. HURD: I Hadn' t even thought about taking it all down.
MR. SCHWAB: Would that be . . .
MR. HURD: It would be a lot more expense.
MRS. HURD: We are trying to salvage what we can of it .
MR. SCHWAB: I mean, there is something to be said . . .
MR. HURD: Oh yes, yes. yes! I know, from the outside,
they 've got asphalt shingles, they don ' t - it just looks
like - but it is pretty solid , it is a lot more solid than
it looks like from the outside.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We' ll trust your judgement on that .
MR. SCHWAB: What is this exactly - this sub-division chart?
What connection does that have to do with this case?
SECRETARY HOARD: That was the old sub-division, under the
Forest City Investment Association - whatever that was.
They planned to sell off all of these lots and this is .ghat
the neighbor across the street sent this in - well actually
the neighbor doesn' t live across the street - that is vacant
but he was concerned about what has happened with that
road - I spoke with him on the phone and he was concerned
that the Board of Zoning Appeals might make some decision
that would affect where that road goes and I said that
doesn' t happen at all -- the Board of Zoning Appeals does not
have anything to say about what happens with that street and
that it was my understanding that neither -- well , of the
three things that are shown here, none is correct as far as
what the road really is and it is irrelevant that this road
is not going to be going through any of these lots.
PAGE 7
BZA MINUTES - 1113186
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you have a lot of paper but it doesn' t
really help much .
MR. SCHWAB: Well , where is the property , as far as this
goes?
SECRETARY HOARD: This property is lot 34 .
MR. SCHWAB; Oh , okay, I didn' t get that far . I see .
SECRETARY HOARD: It ' s high-lighted on the map that I have
which makes it a lot easier .
MR. SCHWAB: It ' s on what is called Maple Street . . .
MR. HURD: Yes, it was originally, now it is Treva Avenue.
MR. WEAVER: Is it our understanding or should it be our
understanding that , with this correspondence, that our
deliberations can go on the basis of an understanding that
the City will not allow a dedicated street to continue from
the present end of Treva Avenue?
SECRETARY HOARD: Correct .
MR. WEAVER: It raises a question of whether this is a
setback from a street or where the street ends. You see, if
I were to look across the street at the end of the straight
line, I 'd conveniently end up at the northern lot line of
the subject property and I wouldn' t be on Treva Avenue.
SECRETARY HOARD: You mean if the property line were actual-
ly in the center of the extension of Treva Avenue?
MR. WEAVER: No I 'm just saying that I don' t know whether
117 is on Treva Avenue, if the City will not allow an
extension in that I don' t know which leg - looking from top
to bottom of our sheet of paper - whether the top line is
PAGE S
BZA MINUTES - 11/3/86
the end of Treva Avenue or the bottom line is the end of
Treva Avenue . They are not at 90 degree cut . WL-115 I 'm not
trying to raise the point other than to . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Ever with all the schemes on which way
Treva Avenue would go , if it were extended , none of them
encroach on this property - it is more of a concern to the
man across the street . . .
MR. SIEVERDING: But 117 would be eight on the edge of the
right-of-way?
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes_. .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Further questions
SECRETARY HOARD: It is not part of the inner-belt route . .
MR. WEAVER: Nor the outer- .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions' Inone] Thank you
both . Is there anyone else who would like to speak: in favor '
of granting this variance? Eno one] Is there anyone who
would like to speak in opposition? Eno one] That being
the case, I think we can line up four votes .
MR. WEAVER: There are bound to be at least two .
PAGE 9
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1723 FOR 117 TREVA AVENUE
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Edmund
A. and Joyce Hurd for an area variance to permit a twelve by
twenty-four foot addition to the southeast side of the
single-family home at 117 Treva Avenue. The decision of the
Board was as follows:
MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area
variance requested in Appeal Number 1723.
MR. WEAVER: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . There are practical difficulties with respect to moving
the building in order to comply with the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. This exception observes the spirit of the Ordinance.
VOTE: 4 YES; 0 NO; 2 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED
PAGE 10
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
SECRETARY HOARD: We' ll move then over , for the time being ,
Appeal 1724 and 1725, to APPEAL NO. 1726 FOR 312 COLLEGE
AVENUE:
Appeal of Christopher George Corporation for
an area variance for deficient setbacks for
two side _yards and the rear yard under
Section 30.25, Columns 12, 13, and 14, to
permit the splitting off of a 1000 square
foot portion of the parcel which will be
added to a parcel known as 312 College
Avenue, which will be added to a parcel at
124 Catherine Street. The main portion of
the property, containing a 43-room motel , is
located in a 82a (business) Use District in
which a motel is a permitted use; however,
Section 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance re-
quires that an area variance be obtained for
the listed deficiencies before a Certificate
of Occupancy can be issued for the parcels
that will result after subdivision.
MR. ANAGNOST: I ' ll just pass out these maps that have in
color , the portion that we are talking about .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Chris if you would begin by identifying
yourself. . .
MR. ANAGNOST: Right , I 'm Chris Anagnost , my address is 304
College Avenue and I 'm one of the owners of the property at
312 College Avenue and 124 Catherine Street . You will see
PAGE 11
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
on the map , Collegetown Motor Lodge property is outlined in
green . It is an assemblage of six parcels of land (unintel-
ligible) in '59 when Bob Orcutt built the motel originally.
The orange strip is part of this green parcel right now and
that is a ten foot driveway that I 'm looking to split off
from the motel property and add to a property at 124 Cathe-
rine Street . At one time there was a house behind 124
Catherine Street , which was known as 126 Catherine Street
and this driveway was access for that property . The house
was torn down in 1962 when the new wing on the motel was
built - there was sixteen rooms that were added in 1962.
The driveway now goes up against an embankment and a blank
wall , which i.s the end of the new wing of the motel . The
house at 124 Catherine Street is a multiple dwelling con-
sisting of one dwelling unit plus six rooms to let . Since
the driveway is of no use to the Collegetown Motor Lodge,
since we are going to be - in our agreement with the
Rostens, who are operating the motel , in transferring the
deed to them - we reserved the right to delete the parcel of
land - and then found out that it had to be approved by the
Zoning Board because of the deficiencies in lot size at the
motel . Not lot size - I mean deficiencies of the building -
area deficiencies . The Planning Board heard this and
approved the sub-division. Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Ouestions from members of the Board?
MR. SCHWAB: 126 Catherine Street is where 4 is?
MR. ANAGNOST: Where 4 is, yes .
PaRF 1P
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. SCHWAB: So the purpose of this is just to give 124 more
room?
MR. ANAGNOST: It 's own driveway and a larger lot size which
will make it . . .
MR. SCHWAB: For parking basically , or for - what are you
going to use it for?
MR. ANAGNOST: It ' s still a driveway for the house, it ' s
just that this way it can go with that property - they still
have access because . . . .
MR. SCHWAB: They 've already been using it?
MR. ANAGNOST: They' ve always been using it yes. They had a
right-of-way for that property . . . On the zoning maps, in
fact , the Planning Department also has a different zoning
for the motel and for that driveway . The zoning map cur-
rently is R--3a - or R-3b and that ' s attached to - whereas
the motel is 9--2a and you can see on the drawing that they
skirt that driveway and include it with the house anyway .
It 's more of a technical reason for doing it . Any other
questions?
MR. SIEVERDING: That ' s ;not used for an access in .any way it
it , for the motel ?
MR. ANAGNOST: Not for the motel anymore .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There is no reason for it insofar as fire
safety or anything of that sort?
MR. WEAVER: Well no matter how it is zoned , it is there.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is still going to be there, regardless.
It doesn' t make any difference.
mAr_C7 I M
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. WEAVER: Yes, it doesn' t make a bit of difference.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In point of fact , half of 4 is gone, right
- that is where the addition is, right? As I understand it ,
or is it all . . .
MR. ANAGNOST: It is probably - what is left - fifty percent
of lot 4 .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is what I would guess, yes. Further
questions? [none] Thank you Chris. Is there anyone else
who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance?
Cno one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposi-
tion? Cno one] That being the case, it is ours.
nnrr i,
:IuC-T4 _
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1726 FOR 312 COLLEGE AVENUE:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of
Christopher George Corporation for an area variance to
permit the splitting off of a 1000 square foot portion of
the parcel which will be added to a parcel at 124 Catherine
Street. The decision of the Board was as follows:
MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance
requested in Appeal Number 1726.
MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . As currently attached to the motel property it serves
no useful purpose to the motel or to the operation of
the motel .
2. The proposed transfer does not exacerbate any of the
existing deficiencies in the motel property.
3. This proposal does provide an improvement in the area
of the Catherine Street lot.
4. There will be no negative impact upon the Catherine
Street properties.
VOTE: 4 YES; O NO; 2 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED
nnrr c
BZA MINUTES 11/3/86
SECRETARY HOARD: The next case is APPEAL NO. 1729 FOR
305-307 WEST LINCOLN STREET:
Appeal of F. Newton Williams for a use
variance under Section 30.251 Column 2 of the
Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of
the building at 305-07 West Lincoln Street
(formerly Cayuga Electric Supply Corp. ) from
a wholesale/retail business use to office use
by Cooperative Extension Association of
Tompkins County. The property is located in
an R-2b (Residential , one- and two-family)
Use District which does not permit business
uses. Although Cayuga Electric operated
under a use variance granted in 1966) the use
variance does not include the proposed use
for offices; therefore the appellant must
obtain a use variance before a building
permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be
issued for the proposed conversion.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening .
MS. HOLMBERG: I 'm Laura Holmberg and I 'm representing the
Cooperative Extension Service which has a contract to
purchase the property at 305-307 West Lincoln Street and I
might tell you that Mr . Williams, the owner , is here to-
night , his attorney, Judge Dean, is here and there are
members of the Cooperative Extenion Board of Directors who
are here if any of you have questions . There was an error
PAGE 16
DZA MINUTES 11 /3/86
in our appeal , apparently my multiplication wasn' t too good
on the square footage in the building and we overstated it .
It is about , according to the appraisal that we had made, it
is a total of ten thousand , a hundred and twelve square feet
gross for the building . There are, on the sketch that was
submitted , shown thirty-two parking spaces, I believe, we
have a statement from the Architect that - with the rear-
rangement of the parking lot - that we could put forty cars
there, if it were needed . I think there is more than ample
space for any kind of parking - it is certainly a lot more
space than Cooperative Extension has had in its present
location. As indicated , the operation has been a business
operation, as far as I remember , ever since that building
was constructed . There was an addition put on it at a later
date, and the most recent occupant was Cayuga Electric
Supply. Mr . Williams had no interest in the building for
residential use and we have submitted two letters, one from
Mr . Agard of J.D . Gallagher Co . , Inc . and one from Anton
Egner the Architect , that it is impractical to consider this
building for residential use. It would probably have to be
torn down to be converted and the space for residences would
be very costly and not especially attractive . I think you
want to remember too that this site faces north and faces
Route 13 which all along Route 13 is now primarily devoted
to commercial use. On the west - and you cross the creek ,
there is the City of Ithaca water works and property belong-
ing to the City which are not developed and probably will
PAGE 17
BZA MINUTES 11 /3/86
not be. The parking area is fenced . The use is not only
offices, of course. They do have meeting rooms, the Cooper-
ative Extension uses a lot of - covers a lot of activities
for various groups - 4-H and other groups and there will be
meetings there and their office staff totals about twen-
ty-six full and part time people. I don' t know what else
you would like to have from us . As I say , we have a number
of people who can answer questions if you any .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board?
MR. WEAVER: I have a question, if I may . My worksheet
shows that additional parking spaces would result from using
adjacent land . Has that been changed?
MS. HOLMBERG: filo . I put that statement in there simply
because included in the purchase offer is a lot facing on
Dey Street which adjoins and has presently a three-car
garage on it - otherwise is vacant . No , the additional
spaces that Mr . Egner is talking about would come on the
rearrangement of spaces on this lot . There is no plan at
the present time to use that vacant lot .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You should have received a revised work-
sheet . .
MR. WEAVER: I may not be managing my paper very well .
MS. HOLMBERG: There is no present plan to use that vacant
lot - I put that in - only that the Cooperative Extension is
going to be owning that lot - if additional space were
needed .
PAGE 18
BZA MINUTES 11 /3/86
MR. SIEVERDING: Right now on the existing lot , there are
' how many parking spaces?
MS. HOLMBERG: Thirty-two , I believe is the number that was
shown on that sketch and then on Mr . Egner ' s (unintelligi-
ble) up to forty .
MR. WEAVER: I don' t want to wear that other lot down - and
it is not essential to this application, as I understand it ,
however extension into that would be an extension of this
use into . . .
MS. HOLMBERG: I assume we would have to have another
variance.
MR. WEAVER: Okay .
MS. HOLMBERG: I didn' t check on it because it isn' t materi-
al except that it is there. It 's presently - I don' t know
if you know that - the parking area is completely fenced in
and that lot is at present cut off and there is a three-car
garage across the back of it .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: fly concern is much the same, in a sense,
to the degree that it can be tracked - do we have any idea
of whether Cooperative Extension has reached its maximum
size - that is , in its growth cycle, or whatever? Have we,
with twenty-six people, reached as many people as we are
likely to have or are we going to grow to thirty-five
people?
MS. HOLMBERG: Why don' t I ask one of them, I think . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we' ll get a chance. . .
PAGE 19
BZA MINUTES 11 /3/86
MR. WRIGHT: My name is Francis Wright , President of the
Board and I would say at this time that it looks like we are
at the maximum. It 's kind of hard to tell what the Govern-
ment will do - we are subject to the goodness - anyway the
federal tax cuts - our funds come partly from the Federal
Government , State Government and County Government and right
now, with the tax crunch on the way it is, we are, more
likely to cut staff than to add it , at the present moment .
Now I can' t project growth - that is hard to do .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we are just looking at the notion of
a use variance and a hardship is required and , of course,
whether in fact the use is going to be extended into the
neighborhood becomes a bit of a concern. I 'm also wondering
about the kinds of programs you are conducting - whether
there is going to be - by virtue of - you see the activity
occurring within the building - is extending - by virtue of
the number of cars and things of that sort .
MS. HOLMBERG: Well I would say , no , I think they are
primarily small groups that use the facility - for meetings.
' There are workshops - they don' t generate a lot of traffic
or a lot of additional parking . I think , as I say , that the
present location down on Fulton Street has had a lot less
parking available, on-street and otherwise, than this
' facility will have. . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure, the difference is it is not abutting
a residential zone quite in the same way.
PAGE 20
BZA MINUTES 11 /3/86
MR. SIEVERDING: Do you know from the number of employees ,
plus the number of activities that occur within the Exten-
sion, which otherwise come, which have parking - what that
demand is?
MR. WRIGHT: That is a little bit rough to answer . I think
Ms . Matthews can have some additional information. . .
MS. MATTHEWS: We are partial .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you , perhaps, want to take the third
microphone over there in the corner? Again, begin by
identifying yourself for the record . Thank you.
MS. MATTHEWS: I 'm Anne Matthews and I 'm the Administrator
of the Cooperative Extension Program . Most of the times
when we have meetings are at hours - the meetings tend to
not coincide with office hours. As we put in the applica-
tion, many of the meetings are in the evening , so that the
parking spaces that are taken up by the staff , are not ,
unless it is people coming in for information - most often
on an individual basis - you don' t have both groups there at
the same time . Our current lot holds twenty-two , so it is
ten less than this plan.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could you be specific , if I can come back
to the notion of funding sources - what are the specific
funding sources. . .
MS. MATTHEWS: The specific funding sources are County
Government , State Government , and Federal Government .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: State Government and Federal Government ,
in what programs?
PAGE 21
BZA MINUTES 11 /3/86
MS. MATTHEWS: It ' s all together in one association. The
funding comes in for the whole association. The Federal
Government funds - federal funding comes through the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay .
MS. MATTHEWS: The State funding comes via State Common Law
224 - that is administered through Cornell University . It
just happens that the State Administrator for the entire
program is in the same community as this Extension Associa-
tion. The Associations exist in all the other Counties in
the State.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is the State Administrator housed in your
facility?
MS. MATTHEWS: No - at Cornell University .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: At Cornell .
MS. MATTHEWS: No , we just are in the same Community .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see.
M
[DISK FULL - NEXT PAGE 23 - NEW DISK]
PAGE 22
D`A MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MS. MATTHEWS: It makes it aDmewhat confusing . So that the
local programming is guided by the Local BoaFd of Directors .
And that ' s - you know, the twenty-six people, including full
and part time, some of those people are people that only
come in - because they mostly work off--cite - on rare
occasions do they come in - they are not there all day long .
But we figured that you had to plan if they all care in at
one point . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there an increase in that kind of part
time personnel , or decrease?
MS. MATTHEWS; No . i don' t think it has really changed .
We've actually -- at depends on vagaries of funding . The
staff has not grown in the last probably four or five years .
It really has remained fairly stable . The growth occurred
when many of the service agencies had growth occurring in
the '600s .
MR. WEAVER: Question. We don' t have any plan=_ of the
interior and I 'm not anxious to see them but is there a
Filactom' for medium sized meetings or large meetings or . .
MS. MATTHEWS: There are two m of i ,grooms being planned
for .
MR. WEAVER: Could you give me the rough footage on either=
MS. MATTHEWS: I gave it to someone in Toms office. One is
a little bit bigger than the other . Just utilizing wails
that already enist rather than . . .
MR. WEAVER: So the largest meeting roam is more than half
of this footage?
PAGE 23
BZA MINUTES -- 11 /3/96
MS. MATTHEWS: ?ust about that . it depends on what we are
going to do for storage . But we looked at the size meet-
ings - well one of the things we 've done, is moved any very
large meetings out - well ; k-je used -WQyntusn; vi c- uE—eo the U
a,-id EieGtriC buildiing and other buildings when we have large
meet1 ng� becausewhen t`iC P 1=i i t adequate parking 'lU 6 jtl t
gun _ plarl for it . Citi+d ,,lith a vc, y large group . . .
MR. WEAVER: wJeI I I ' l l =_hoTt--cir-cuit this - ComtT,lssJ,W!1=r
what would it take to have a place of assemb-1,1i out of the-<e
IISe e t ling r l o ffl f Ill i T n i m urlf — i't a;; i m u m size?
SECRETARY HOARD: Well , :sing the guidelirne of fifteen,
square feet per person—
MR.
erson—MR. WEAVER! So sixty-five . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes.
MS. MATTHEWS% We also have to have a meeting that that many
people would come to - we haven' t had that . . . .
MR. WEAVER: We require as much parking for an empty theater
as we do for one jammed full of people, so it makes no
difference whether you are successful or rrOt .
SECRETARY HOARD: I gave a talk down at their present
quarter=_ last Tuesday night and there was no parking pr+--�b-
lem.
MR. WEAVER: Well you shou.�dn' t 1h-a e let then, k:novi +rjho the
speaker was .
MR. SIEVERDINS: You mentioned earlier that there is no
overlap between when you have your employees there and when
other people come"
P`0E c
HSA 1-11NLT
MS. MATTHEWS: No , but it just isn' t usual . There are times
When there aremeetings , hitt the tend to be fi,all
,
Because most people are working outside the home now. That
wasn' t true thirty years ago but as I look at the meeting
r.e'u'.il !_-e i t. tCi!QS to be what we ha`:e a teed 11or t^-may - f
three outside people - four outside people, and the rest are
`
staff .
MR. SIEVERDING: How about evening meetings?
MS. MATTHEWS: Well 1 t a i depends on what the act : •1i' y ;
that we are having . Pour people at a session last week . It
�•..15t .-a;nges de�Der!d i n 'min it_ie p'e jg,Bmg "'ut as e ver WA,
mentioning , yot-1've got to have the same amount of off-street
parking whether or not everybody is in or not . Many of aur-
e :e-:inq meG'ings are committee eetings, plat}'ned group
meetings for the Board itself . There aren' t a lot of
activity meetings, We can use G-H acres,, which we owrt, fOr
' a;._ti'.:jities - dog obedience training arnd al "l of that kind of
stuff . That ' s why it is good to have that sort of a semi--
nar , and that hasn' t been done - you know our building i=sn' t
appropriate for that kind of meeting .
educational programs run from tree pruning and planning {our
perennial bed=_ and those kinds of things and straight
educational programs and not sheep shearing and things like
tiat. , _o,-,te people may cNander , that ' s why I said it , that 's
tih, .�.Ja ha:=e :_;--H acres which can be used for 'hose types of
th ings .
PAGE 25
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR= SIEVERDINGi Of the eighty hundred square feet that are
in this building , do you need all of that to the
e-xi tirig emplo'y'ees or is there space there. .
MS. MATTHEWS: That plus the store room - well some of that
i -. b ._aLls i.•Jha-ve rill-- c,{- contracted ted with an architect
for the design, so re o7-1 ha-,ie ro,.;gh figures . Th=t c,,;,g+,
ipr; rf;otta_ti C attr,r� feeti• Irl'' i?ides ail t}te office space, the
tiieeting T-Dom, for example the ,"food shop i=- s-,Tteth1--n.g that we
use ver-,F; rarely b_t is used by, sometimes a leader with
group of �: f ds , b,-At that ha=_. to be very heavily supervised
with a very small group . So there are spaces that are not
�s�d c Otlst3i t -1 •,' ail:i t.tls fiestitEg i u,-ii,s are r;,�t. used constant-
ly . So the four or five thousand ;q i t e feet 'tui- trio
office space is what gets used most of the time . I don' t
know if that answers your question .
MR. SIEVERDING: I guess what I was going to ask - if Lie
were to g;-ant - the next step would be the Dey Street
property or is there space within the building that you
could use . . .
MS. MATTHEWS: Oh , I think there would be space within the
building but I guess at the moment we are not - in reality,
neither our Board not- the Extension Administration at
Cornell , which is the State Administrator , is talking about.
orovith . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s hard to believe that the Univer-
sity isn' t thinking about growth but that ' s just an aside .
Bet' 1IN ;TES - 11 i /Sf,
MS. MATHEWS: That ' =_, for the Univer=_ity , not nece=sarily the
Eytension Service .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's right . I was wondering - the
building now has a sign in front of it saying it is sold , is
that contingent upon. . .
MS. HOLMBERG: That is contingent upon our securing this
variance . And I think: we ought to stress that the building
is not adaptable for residential use. To adapt it for
eside-n-e_ i..1o,u11d b a very c!-1St ' y affai' and woLi,�1d not
p i o d r t r C}�1':-i t f r�'? i i ti"i i 1�.... {-;_"i �e b t_'_i i-�H i`i 1 t-,4 1 1,y ''C�'_,i F.'�1 P a f`"�`�! i t _
aging to bcr de;`e? in '_f - 1f you use th + is
going to be -amoi eptebie in the present building ,
CHAIRMAN TOMLANI Further questions?
MR. WEAVER: Yes. The one residential neighbor that seems
to be -he n„i , ;_7:c H i re-}l y i nvo 1%-ed in whoever occupies
th i= building and f,_:r !nth=,tever- purpose, is South of tl,e
pnnpe t n,,,-i t�.l1 i Dow ¢j"`_'ef r4!e �f-!�{ h± s he fence pi ett-y c 10=-F- t�D
F Y
the side o'+c
his house. Has there been an•••s �.Qpro,ac:h o,- ar,•.,::
rr.rrc ., i }, F F r,ft r;- }H 4{-. 1-1ic r_ T-
MS.
MS. MATTHEWS: Well I know Board members spoke to almost all
the npighbors _..nri _ HCyn think they indicated
there was any problem with any of the people that we - no ,
they called me back and said (unintelligible)
MR. WEAVERp That number one neighbor - the one I 'm inter-
ested in. —
MS. MATTHEWS: As far as I know, they haven' t said anything ,
I could check my notes -- or have they indicated to you . . .
PAGE 27
P-u f`•1INII_IT2� - 11 /3/86
MR. WEAVERt I haven' t heard from them.
MS. MATTHEWSi No . I thought - you Know - the indication to
us is that they have no problem. The people who , at this
polrit , literally' border the parking int . . .
MS. HOLMBERG# 1 thing too .. that one of the beauties of it ,
Is t}-lt+.t the -- i f yon t ;are ccmi-ng cif* Ro,_tte 13, is that
./oi go aFound the ft-orit of the tuiidirg and into the oarki—
lot �,;ithout hay=ing any affect on the neighbors because you
:come right off 12 and go around into the parking area .
MR. WEAVER: Except for the one I ' m interested in.
MS. HOLMBERG: Even so , that ' s on the other side of the
parking lot .
MR. WFAVgRi Very few feet . I ' m not going to argue the
point .
MR. SCHWAB; Only one problem I see with this comparison
with the evening use with the daytime use is the greater
impact , maybe, on this one neighbor , with the evening
meetings . Would you like to comment on that? It seems to
me that ' s a g,-eater impact on a neighborhood . That use i._,
going to have a lot of evening activity .
MS. HOLMBERG; I should think that for most of the evening
activities, there wouldn' t be that many .
MS. MATTHEWS= Well there are people getting out of cars and
getting into cars, yes but it is not like fifty cars at
once., type of thing , it tends to be relatively small and it
is like -- there are fifteen members of the Board . . . a�_i I
said , I ' ll check my notes but I think that neighbor was
PAGE 29
BZA MINUTES - I1 /3D/86
contacted by one of our Board members and he didn' t indicate
that. re had any concerns. I think the letter included an
explanation that we did have evening meetings. I mean
thet ' s not the only - �omeone else migh� buy the property, I
grant you thet .
MR. SCHWAB: Sure .
MR. BIEVERDING: Of all the property owners within two
hundred feet who have been contacted , hes anyone reaponded?
SECRETARY HOARD: We have no letters from anyone. `
MS. MATTHEWS: As I said , our Board members contacted .
several neighbors andr except for like a cIarificafion .
question, we had no questions ra�sed that we heard of . .
Actu�lly there wes one person who said she wa� happy that we
might be able to move
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Further questions? [none] Is the oviner .
of the property here tonight? .
MS" HOLMBERGs Yes he is . He is sitting back with Mr ,
Agard .
CHAIRMAN T0MLAN: Any further I 'd like to talL '
to the owner , if possible. '
`
MR. WILLIAMS: I 'm Newton Williams, the owner of the proper- '
ty .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you . One of the questions that
immediately comes up in e� use variance, is the question of
economic hardship . Could you address thAt insofar as -
particularly the question of how long has the property been
,
�n tHv mar4et? And what your perception is and who you have
PAGE 29
BZA MINUTES
;-4--ide fr�m these folks, to sel ]
it to?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well it has been on the market - it was on
tt �:,robably two or three monthsod
with any real estate - not multiple listing . It hes been
unoccupied Since May, in effect - I wes not eble to put it
on the merket soonerthan that - it ' s my retirement program,
MS° FARREELL; Hes anyone else been interested in the build-
ing?
MR. WILLIAMS: We- `ve had a lot of people look at it ,
MS~ FARRELL_u What kind of things were they thinking of
doing with the building?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well the mther one that wzs most interesfed .
had a similer one - w;;nted to covert it to office use.
Others I ' m not reaIIy sure - the Automobtl1u b.. had �ome
ieret in it ` but never came through with an offer .
CHAIRMAN TOM���U ��� �R�r� ever any interest in doing
onything resldential with the Oro�-e�ty et �11v �he� you
heard of? '
MR. WILLIAMS: I donwhether you �re with
the property or not . . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm fully familiar with the property , I ' m '
neverthe]es� exploring bat ' s pLArt of the job �ere.
MR. WILLIAMS: I don^ t seepersonally ~ any way that it '
could be used for residential purposes w; thout demolishing
the building ,
PAGE 30
4 ti
CHAIRMAN TQMLAN: Okay , but no one said anything to you
about that , that 's the point .
MR. WILLIAMS: No , it was never considered ' ' '
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions?
MR. WILLIAMS: Of course, there is a business property next
door that is used �� ime,f-i1y fm-f- o-rficss a"d i4- has b�-en Lt sed
for other the veers. . I ' m sure you ;-mire aware
that they ne eff-etreet 0orking < unintelllgi-
ble} this property . We have alwaya had a good relatJonship
with the neighbors . In fa�:t " tDy m�F tn 4-in i�,tz�H �' H,�,6 �� k=�
south - he has elways had e key to the parking lot so he
could perk in there at night . He has been an excellent
neighbor ,
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? [none] Thank vou
both . Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor
ting �hi� ��� t����� rn� one] Is there anyone who
H Il�e t� �pe�k in opposition? [no one] That being the
ca se' it is ourS.
`
`
'
PAGE 31
BZA !-]1N11 I�ES - 1i/3/B6
DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD ON APPEAL NO. 1-7e9 FOR 305=07 WEST
LINCOLN STREET:
M5. FARRELL: the use that it
has been used for , what zone would that be under , is that
132?
SECRETARY HOARD: That would be in a B2. . .
MS. FARREL-L: And offices would be 81 ?
SECRETARY HOARD: Since it was - well 92 or I1 because of
that warehouse. . .
MS" FARREL~L: Okay, so it is 92. And then this use would be
B1 ?
SECRETARY HOARD: ThiE� �4 a e- �oul�
CHAIRMAN lFOMLAN: Discussion? Have we seen enough continued
economic hardship?
MR" SIEVERDING: I see Charley ' s point about the house on
the south side (unintelligible) that any other use substan-
4�jhet ��t� there now which was basically
an activity thet occurred during the daytime hours and shut
down at five o ' cloc� and was rareIy open on the weekends,
`
only Saturday mornings, is probably a tough thing to come
by ,
MR. WEAVER: Well I agree that a residential use would bring
on the automobiles, as well , and they would park somewhere
on the ork=-MiSee if fhev �:omo1v with the g Ordinance. T
we�n' t - I wes ju�t concerned that this - out of this big
Project that there could be or whatever would make
the neighbor happy as a TeasonabIe treatment of the parking
�ABE 32
-- --' BK-A Ml ---ES - 11 /3/B6 ----
lot . The last opportunity that we ' ll have until
Bramm-Rudmann or somebody else goes away and they grow
again-
CHAIRMAN TOMLANm Stewart , thoughts?
MR. SCHWAB: Economic hardship doesn' t bother me now that
the evidence is overwhelming - I think any realistic use of
the bui1dln,j " I '~ convinced he wouId have to tear it down
snd put it in residents - we've had this debate on other
onetearing it down and starting over would still
make it a viable property and I `m convinced - I think I wes
��n~ lnced on t�e 1es� c4se that that is a waste and not to
be requlr�d ^ Th� �ne o� i �+ ib-H- �h�� �� �h� �u�i����
or the unique condition of this with access off of 13 and
rlgh� in4�o tH5 pe�kiny lotr I think does, indeed , minimize
the effect on t�e� r�iboin - thet te to e
business use i-n a residential neighburhood - is minimized by
e -4- te 13 and parking which was
used a.s an argument in it ' avor . Two to three months is a
shorter time than we sometimes favor in demonstrating
hardship .
CHAIRMAN TUMLANI Tracy , are you writing all of that down?
MS. FARRELL: No .
MR. WEAVER: I don' t went to agree with Stewart on the
effect upnn the residential neigh�orhood - if they �ll
be gr�nd e5 fer �As re=-idences
r e-d
�s��� t� tH� ��i� ��l�g I ��i1d
�AGE 33
WO KNOW - Monti
like toy see is that they park along the curb out front and
have a sidewalk to walk into the place, which doesn' t seem
+a by but i as saying that 1 think coming around over on to
Willow Avenue is not de_.ir enable, although it is the only
practical solution:.
MR. SIEVERDING: Are you contemplating some sort of E.
inter-variance where if we granted . . .
MRs WEAVERS No , no , no , no . I ' m just saying I 'm not swayed
by the argument that it 's good for the ne:ighborhoao because
they come mound the corner into the quiet street of Willow
Avenue -- quite the contrary - they ' ll generate traffic on
Willow Avenue as well as coming off Of Route 13,
MR. SCHWAS tl.`. to perhaps other busi-
nesses
f point iria_ compared 1 __
nesses and other residences - this has lesser impact .
Mainly because it is only one side we are talking about .
MR. SIEVERDING: But would some of your concern relative to
the south end of this property - bordering the property on
OW _.OU0 - could it be reduced by a condition that .appy o-
otr late screening be (unintelligible ) or leave it up to them
to figure out?
MR. WEAVER: Well , i0m not going to design neighborhoods,
,.we7ve got enough trouble here.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAW Charlie always has trouble with a T-square
triangle,
MR. WEAVER: That 's -right .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we coming closer to a motion?
PAGE 34
!''11f'1ijTL':3 - 11i3r0
DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1729 FOR 305-07 WEST LINCOLN
STREET:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of F.
Newton Williams for a use variance to permit the conversion
of the building at 305-07 West Lincoln Street from a whole-
sale/retail business use to office use by Cooperative
Extension Association of Tompkins County. The decision of
the Board was as follows:
MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the use vari-
ance requested in Appeal Number 1729.
MS. FARRELL: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . Strict application of the ordinance based on the
testimony provided by the appellant and supporting
information provided by Architect Anton Egner, would in
fact create a hardship - that is, converting the
property to residential use so that it is consistent
with the zoning and the rest of the neighborhood.
2. That the hardship created because of the conversion
difficulty is unique to this property and not shared by
the surrounding properties.
3. The variance would not essentially alter the character
of the neighborhood, and that is the existing
non-conforming use.
4. The present proposed use would not substantially alter
the character of the neighborhood.
VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT USE VARIANCE GRANTED
PAGE 3=
BZA MINUTES - 11. /3/86
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1724 FOR
409-15 THIRD STREET:
Appeal of Leland F. & Gloria W. Knuppenburg for an
interpretation of the Use regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance, and/or for a use variance under
Section 30.25, Column 2, and an area variance for
a deficient side yard under Section 30.25, Column
13 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construc-
tion of a four-bay car wash on the commercial
property at 409-15 Third Street (Franklin Plaza) .
The property is located in a B2a (business) Use
District in which the Building Commissioner has
determined that auto-related uses are not listed
,as permitted uses. The appellant is asking for a
favorable interpretation finding that a car wash
:is similar to permitted uses such as a drive-in
bank or restaurant in its effect on the neighbor-
hood, and should therefore be permitted. In the
absence of a favorable interpretation the appel-
lants are requesting a use variance for the car
wash, and an area variance for an existing
sideyard deficiency as required under Section
30.57 before a building permit or Certificate of
Occupancy can be issued for the car wash.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We ' ve got three seat=_ up here, aie've
established that by precedence already .
PAGE 36
BZA MINUTES - 11/3/B6
MR. WINN: I 'rn Philip Winn and this is Leland and Gloria
Knuppenburg , they are the owners of the property at 409--415
Third Street which was formerly the Taynton Supply Company .
About a year ago we were here requesting an area variance,
the Knuppenbergs were then in the process of purchasing that
building and have since done so , after this Board met and
granted the area variance. At that time the K.nuppenburgs
presented plans - one, for the renovtion of the existing
building and secondly for the construction of a new build-
ing . I believe both of those proposals were approved at
that time . Since then, the former Taynton Building has been
completely remodelled and is now rented to four businesses.
The original proposal with respect to the new building was
the forty—eight hundred square foot building housing three
or four (unintelligible ) stores. Since that time there have
been difficulties in obtaining tenants and the Knuppenburgs
have revised their plans and wish to construct a four-bay
car wash and a facility with approximately two thousand
square feet; of rentable space. My initial question is
whether this car wash is permitted in this zone. 92 permit=_
commercial service facilities , the Building Department now
has taken the position that this is a use only permitted in
a 94 which relates to sales and service of motor vehicles .
Question is whether a car wash is a service facility that
could be limited to a 94 zone (unintelligible ) . Our posi-
tion is that it is comparable to drive-in facilities men-
tioned in -the common - in other 92a zones . If that
PAGE 37
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
proposition is not agreed with , we are here to request a
variance to permit this four-bay car wash . Basically the
Knuppenburgs purchased this property because they had a
scheme or a plan to rent the entire facility . The renova-
tion of the former Taynton building was not enough to
economically support the venture and it was purchased , and
that renovation was dependent upon being able to put (unin-
telligible) facilities in there. Now with the construction
of other commercial establishments in the area, including on
Meadow Street , there aren' t the tenants out there, so this
proposal is now being presented to you. We do not feel that
this will have any adverse impact on the area. Basically,
across the street you have an industrial zone, to the south ,
you have a 134 zone, it; is now a scrap yard of sorts - to the
north is the City of Ithaca property which is used for
various purposes. I think everyone will agree they have
done a pretty nice job down there and they have certainly
improved the neighborhood and this proposal will not have
any adverse affect .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could we come back to the first question,
that of interpretation, perhaps you would like to address
that a little further and perhaps answer some questions? I
like the analogy between the laundromat and the car wash -
that ' s the part that was written about . . .
MR. WINN: Did I write about that' They both use water .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: They both use water , yes, that ' s true . INN
doubt about that - and soap . Such a use is akin to a
PAGE 3e
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
laundromat , laundry, now located on the property rather than
a service station - I 'm quoting from your item 5, page 3 of
the material submitted .
MR. WINN: Well , my point , I guess , is when this Ordinance
was adopted , motor vehicle sales and service was the phrase
that was come up with . I think. then, car washes were not
considered - that would be my guess.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Why do you say that? Why do you think . . .
MR. WINN: Well , sales and service, the normal service of
automobiles would relate to a gas station that does repair
work .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But you don' t believe that the drafters of
the Ordinance knew about pay as you go car washes?
MR. WINN: I don' t know what they had in mind and , unfortu-
nately
nfortunately it ' s not . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It ' s not specific . . .
MR. WINN: There isn' t anything in here as to what was
intended .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But do you have any evidence to suggest
that they wouldn' t have thought of - or included it?
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: What you look at when you talk about the
car sales or a service station, there are generally cars
parked there for several days waiting in line to be worked
on or waiting there to be picked up or scrapped or new ones
setting around waiting to be sold and tires piled up and
cans of oil and things that are the refuse from a car
service place .
PAGE 39
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. WINN: When you take your car to be serviced , you don' t
take it to be washed , generally, you take it for a lube and
oil or whatever . .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: The car wash , they go in - it ' s going to
take two minutes, they drive through and it goes out . They
put their money in the machine and its . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If I can, from the perspective of one who
has looked at the history of automobile culture a little
bit , just share with you an observation - for service
stations - when they are called service stations of the
1930' s variety not the '20' s , which were at the individual
service stations up on a ramp and all of that - often had
lube in one bay and washing in the next - once they had bays
at all to consider things - I mean, they really were consid-
ered part and parcel , one hand in glove, very much a part of
the service station image as soon as - I mean - as soon as
zoning was adopted , in fact , they were part and parcel of
that . I 'm trying to get a line for your rationale that the
people in drafting the Ordinance wouldn' t have been able to
carry the image in their head that would have had washing
very closely alive at service stations .
MR. WINN: I think this was more all encompassing - gas
stations - as part of their service, might have washed a
car , they were not facilities - my feeling is that this is
an isolated aspect which , if we had the motor vehicle in
here, that particular word , we wouldn' t have a problem at
all . Listening to Cooperative Extension, if we had the
PAGE 40
B-ZA MINUTES - 11/3/86
sheep come in here to be sheared , I don' t know where that
would fit , I don' t know if that ' s a B2, or if that ' s a -
probably it ' s a 92 - it ' s a service facility . I think we
are all hung up on the word "motor vehicle" - anything to do
with motor vehicle must be 94 . 1 don' t know if that ' s the
intent , or was the intent .
MR. SIEVERDING: It seems to me that the service provided in
a car wash is closer to the definition of service of motor
vehicles in B4 - than it touches services that are described
in 92, which is food , financial transactions, and I think in
terms of character of the structure that you build to
provide this service - the character of a car wash struc-
ture, I think more closely resembles garages and the like
then it does a McDonalds, or a Burger King . . .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: We don' t intend that ours should resemble
a garage. The design is meant to match the existing build-
ing with the arches, so that , and I don' t mean McDonalds,
but the arches that we have on our building , to make it a
nice looking thing , and it is supposed to be - it is not a
"sit there for a long time deal " it is going to be on the
idea of a drive through - like McDonalds - it is a speedy
thing - it takes two minutes - you put your money in a
machine that sits out very similar to the ones at the bank ,
actually, where instead of a tube, you put your money in the
little - I don' t know what the word for it is - and it takes
it in and you push the buttons for what you want done to
your car - washed , waxed , sprayed under it - or whatever -
PAGE 41
B-ZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
and then you drive in and stop and the machine goes around
you and it takes two minutes and you are out . So it 's not
going to be a sitting there with stacks of tires and all
this sort of thing -- it 's going to be a very clean, neat
operation.
MR. WINN: The basic question is what was intended to be
prohibited in the particular zone . And I don' t - my guess
is that oil , machinery, was the idea and not " in and out" .
I think it will have less adverse impact than McDonalds .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: At lunch time at least .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the
Board'
MR. SIEVERDING: Relative to the interpretation question
or . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Yes . I think we ought to deal with that
first before we go on to the question. . .
MR. WEAVER: That ' s the only question before us at the
moment .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That ' s right .
MR. SCHWAB: The in and out , isn' t that the main part of a
gas station - in and out'
MR. WINN: Well except that you have flammables for one
thing .
MR. WEAVER: Not that it helps us any , but I see a clear
difference between a self-service car wash and any kind of a
general service of automobiles, where, sooner or later ,
PAGE 42
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
there is a beat up one . This doesn' t chew up any automo-
biles does it?
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: I hope not .
MR. WEAVER: Where there would be a stack of cars waiting
overnight or whatever for - plus the number of employees on
site that an automobile repair brings with it . But I can' t
see any clear definition here in any direction . It would
be, I think , considerably cleaner than almost any other
automobile service, using "service" as all encompassing ,
most servi,ze is what I hope to get at my new car dealers -
what I usually get is an old second-hand gas station but in
each case there is some fallout and , particularly the
storage of cars here - other than a waiting line, I can' t
see any permanent storage of any sort that would visually
impact . However , to interpret this and be ready to accept
this anywhere in 92 is the problem that I have. And if I do
rule this way, I can see the present site and see the
practicality and the suitability - I can' t see it in the B2
zone which is quite a different thing .
SECRETARY HOARD: Does this kind of a car wash device have
the drying .. . .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: No , it is a high pressure wash (unintelli-
gible)
SECRETARY HOARD: But there are no blowers?
MR. KNUPPENBURG: No .
SECRETARY HOARD: There used to be a car wash - I 'm going to
back up a little bit - on your question of what was in the
PAGE 43
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
minds of the people that wrote this Ordinance -- I don' t know
exactly what they were thinking , but I know at the time that
this Zoning Ordinance was written in 1977, there was a car
wash diagonally across - part of the ARCO - it was one of
those "drive-through" and it made a lot of noise . You could
hear it from this building and I don' t know if that was in
their thinking , but there was some adjustment made as to
where auto-related things were allowed , in the Ordinance.
MR. SCHWAB: Well is this a self-service car wash or is this
a drive through?
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: It is self-service on one hand - it isn' t
like anything in town - there are no brushes or sponges or
anything like that , nothing touches the car but the water .
It 's. . .
MR. SCHWAB: But do you get on a little track and go
through?
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: No , you drive in to a point and stop .
And this machine goes around you .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: It ' s on a track and the machine actually
goes around you .
SECRETARY HOARD: So you better close your windows before
you drive in.
MR. KNUPPENBURG: That is one thing - there is a three phase
plan for if' you did want to just wash your own car .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: We figured it was very compatible to the
laundromat because while people are doing their laundry , the
Mr . will drive over and do the car .
PACE 44
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. SCHWAB: Mr . Winn would you distinguish between (unin-
telligible) can that go in a 92 zone?
MR. WINN: Good question. There you have people on duty and
I think they do a little bit more than what 's intended here .
They service inside-outside , I think they do some mechanical
work as well . .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: They actually bring a vehicle in and clean
out the inside for you and everything else, where you can
leave it there.
MR. SCHWAB: It seems to me absolutely obvious that that
should not go in a 92 - that one - and then we really - it
seems to me - to be drawing really fine lines if we say ,
well this kind of car wash - which is largely exterior - is
okay .
MRS. KNUPPF_NBURG: Maybe it ' s the area that is different , in
that right around us there aren' t any houses. You don' t
have anybody/ that 's there that it ' s going to bother at any
time . Everything around us - we could be over a few blocks,
the only thing is, we happen to own this land and it ' s . . .
MR. SCHWAB: Well that may go to the variance - it seems to
me though - on whether this is allowed in B2 as opposed to
just 84 - I 'm worried about that other kind of car wash .
MR. WINN: Well my point is - there is a doubt as to what ,
at least a doubt in my mind , as what was intended and we are
taking away a property owner 's rights as to how he can use
the property - this ought to be cleared up one way or the
other for future cases .
PAGE 45
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. SCHWAB: Sure, I guess what - unless I hear something -
it 's clear in my mind that that one right down there near
K-Mart is the one that I 'm thinking of, is clearly pretty
close, in terms of its big equipment , and maybe the noise
and whatnot and I 'm perfectly willing to say that that goes
in the B4 only . What you are proposing - different in the
minds of the drafters - if I am convinced on that one - are
you - would you be willing to say that that one - that other
one . . .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: For one thing , I know which one you are
talking about - the one down by K-Mart - it is automatic ,
they have employees there - they are doing drying and there
is noise added and whatever and brushes - what we are
looking at down there is similar- to Moses Peters, there, the
State Farm Insurance - the little four-bay car wash that he
has there -- that is the size we are looking at here . And
this automatic one can be in the space of one of those
little bays so it is not a big , huge - it is not a monster .
Actually there is no noise except water noise.
MR. SCHWAB: Okay , but once I hear that the line is now
being drawn between types of car washes, I 'd just as soon
think it is; cleaner and more in the spirit of my guess to
draw on the other side of car washes - as far as interpreta-
tion . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It 's cleaner?
MR. SCHWAB: Maybe that 's the wrong metaphor .
PAGE 46
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. SIEVERDING: It 's a car wash but it 's not a car wash , we
are not going to try to define between types of car washes .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: Maybe employees would be my thought
because we are not servicing anything mechanical . Actually
we are. . .
MR. SCHWAB: We are trying to get back to the Ordinance
which basically says in 94 - car and service - servicing a
car . Among car washes -- really worries me.
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: Among car washes or among places?
MR. WEAVER: To distinguish between types of car washes ,
seems to me a bit much for us to be burdened with . Trying
to work, backwards on this, I wondered how this got zoned the
way it was because at the time of the change of zoning ,
there was a truck terminal there and how that got converted
to 92 - God only knows - but it certainly doesn' t help me in
determining how this works in the master plan for our
orderly development . Now that I 've helped everybody . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there a motion, does anybody have half
a motion?
MR. SIEVERDING: I would prefer not to make an interpreta-
tion such as car washes are allowed in the B2 zone.
MS. FARRELL: So you would have to move that car washes are
considered to be in 84 zones. . .
MR. WEAVER: Make an interpretation.
SECRETARY HOARD: It is mainly an interpretation question
first .
PAGE 47
BZA MINUTES - 11/3/86
MR. WEAVER: We have to have a vote and a finding of fact on
the interpretation. .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What I 'm looking for is a motion on the
interpretation question, that is either upholding Tom' s
position or taking our oain position or taking the appel-
lant ' s po=sition, any of the above.
PAGE 48
BZA MINUTES - 11/3/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1724A - INTERPRETATION QUESTION FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 409-415 THIRD STREET
MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board make the interpretation
that car wash facilities are not allowed in the B2 zone.
MS. FARRELL: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT:
1 . Other approved uses appear to have less impact on the
immediate neighborhood which is generally more person
oriented than equipment oriented and could, considering
all types of car wash facilities in the future at some
other site or any other site, bring a negative impact
upon a commercial neighborhood.
VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT BUILDING COMMISSIONER'S
INTERPRETATION UPHELD
PAGE 49
B?A MINUTES - 11 /3/86
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; So the motion passes and I would assume
` that
you now want to go on to the bottom of page 5, request
for a variance?
MR. WINN: That 's true. I think I (unintelligible ) pretty
much on the economical factors since purchasing the property
and description (unintelligible ) . . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have any figures to support that?
' MR. WINN: Well it ' s the figures on inability to get ten-
ants.
MR. KNUPPENBURG: Yes it ' s very difficult - for example -
the building down the road there, Cayuga Electric , now that
has become available and a couple of others up the street ,
across from Purity - that 's available space. Then on up
further there is still more available spaces . We had to
actually cut some rents and do some stuff to rent what we
did get rented , already . (unintelligible) the other way we
definitely have a hardship . I can see where it will continue
to be a hardship because of the volume of places that
haven' t been rented yet . We definitely have it .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions?
MR. SIEVERDING: In October of '85 you all were here and got
a variance that included the forty-eight hundred square foot
new building? (unintelligible ) renovation of (unintelligi-
ble )
SECRETARY HOARD: So the only question now is the . . .
MR. SIEVERDING: The other building doesn ' t change - oh , I
see, the car wash .
PAGE 50
BZA MINUTES - 11/3/e6
SECRETARY HOARD: The car wash .
MR. SIEVERDING: As long as they can build in two thousand
square feet without . . .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: Forty-eight hundred , actually .
MR. SIEVERDING: Forty-eight hundred?
MR. KNUPPENBURG: Yes .
MR. SCHWAB: You haven' t built the new one yet?
MR. KNUPPENBURG: No . We can' t find a tenant .
MR. SCHWAB: I see, you don' t want to build it until you
find tenants?
MR. KNUPPENBURG: Well we would be our own tenant if we
could do the car wash , is what I 'm saying . That would give
the property a use ( unintelligible) you never know when you
can rent or when you can' t rent . Right now we are not
renting . 'The one we did rent in the older building - there
again we had to knock the rents down - well we are not
charging any maintenance or anything for a year and stuff
like that . It is difficult .
MR. WINN: The existing building does not support the entire
property . This was bought as a package, in effect , with the
intention to build (unintelligible ) one building and con-
struct a new building and it rents from eight businesses
which would support the whole project . And the rent from
four businesses do not adequately support (unintelligible )
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could I explore the issue of what you had
going into the forty-eight hundred square feet a little
further? That is, you had mentioned someone had gone in, or
PAGE 51
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/96
was thinking of going in there but is backing out? You
certainly didn' t go into this blind , you had some idea , I
would assume, of what was going to occur in these buildings
prior to this proposal with the car wash .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: We knew that there were several area
businesses looking to relocate at the time that we bought
d
it . Sherwin-Williams was looking - they have since built
their own next to Purity.
CHAIRMAN TDMLAN: There were no contractural relationships
between yourselves and Sherwin-Williams or any other per-
spective renters''
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: No . Well , just the laundromat at the
time.
MR. SIEVERDING: How long did it take to lease the balance
of the space there?
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: The last one rented last month . So it
has been a year .
MR. SIEVERDING: So it has been a year to find tenants for
the other three sections of that building .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: Basically , yes the last one was - it will
be a year now.
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: Rather than build it and have it sit
there empty and have to pay for the construction, we would
like to put a car wash up , which we know will immediately
produce revenue and then build the two thousand square foot
(unintelligible)
PAGE 52
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. SCHWAB: So you won' t build that until you find a
tenant?
MR. KNUPPENBURG: Actually it ' s just taking the existing
plan and - on the existing plan it shows the new building -
the proposed new building - we are just taking part of that
proposed new building and putting in the car wash .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE ) right now we can' t
picture four people who would want to rent it .
MR. SCHWAB: So it is going to be two stores and a car wash ,
something like that?
MR. SIEVERDING: Isn ' t it possible to build forty-eight
hundred square feet in phases and build sections of the
building rather than . . .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: It `s not economically feasible to have a
builder come in and put up part of [changed tape here , lost
some of the conversation] car wash would pay for it .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: The two thousand square foot for the car
wash - we hope - would pay for it until we are able to
manage it - then we would be set , say , for another year
(unintelligible )
MR. SIEVERDING: So you are saying that the car wash will
throw off e=nough income to support itself plus the construc-
tion. . .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: It is projected to . . .
MR. SIEVERDING: Two thousand square feet . . .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: That should do it . And the two thousand
square foot would be - the shell would be there, okay . . .
PAGE 53
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/S6
once you get that done then you are more apt to rent . We
don' t dare build just forty-eight hundred square foot of
retail - we know the car wash would generate - it should do
it .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: The car wash is a business that can
operate itself with somebody going in a couple of times a
day to make sure that there is change there and that all the
hoses are working out of full ballast - and we can' t spread
ourselves any thinner to put in a business that would
require somebody there all the time.
CHAIRMAN TCMLAN: What about the notion of another retail.
facility - we have mentioned McDonaids before, and I don' t
want another McDonalds, particularly in town, but I 'm kind
of wondering about that nature and the fact that it could be
really easily constructed and we could produce some income
fairly easily and it still would be within the Code.
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: Our restaurant - we have agreed with them
not to put in a similar facility.
MR. KNUPPENBURG: There again, that was one of the things
that we had to do in order to rent it .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: And banks do not like to finance restau-
rants because they come and go so fast .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh , sure. But have you explored other
options within the allowable use? Right across the board?
MR. WINN: You mean as a - it has been in the hand of real-
tors for the past year plus. . .
PAGE 54
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/B6
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: The biggest thing going around is Videos ,
we 've had two of them and one went out of business before it
opened up - that 's. . .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: It has been advertised steadily in the
newspaper , the new building . We are still looking for
tenants but . . .
MR. SCHWAB: So you have advertised in the paper for the new
building?
MR. KNUPPENBURG: Oh , yes . . .
MR. SCHWAB: For how long?
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: It 's been with Coldwell Bankers for about
six months.
MR. KNUPPENBURG: And before that it was advertised right
along with the existing . . . ( unintelligible) existing building
plus the new one, so we have steadily advertised it .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: For a year .
MR. SCHWAB: For a year?
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: Yes.
MR. SIEVERDING: Do you think the location of a car wash
would help in renting out the two thousand feet?
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: You mean, help to rent it? It would help
to pay for it .
MR. SIEVERDING: For the retail type of activity , being
located ne;,t to a car wash . . .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: Yes, there is one we've looked at and
that 's that paint/car - what is it , they sell stuff to
people who do things with their cars . It 's at the Ithaca
PAGE 55
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
Shopping Plaza right now - they sell customizing things for
people for their cars. They are an allowed use, I would
think , if the battery place is allowed , they would be
allowed . They don' t do the stuff there, they just sell it .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: I 've talked with him quite a few times
and , with the car wash , he would be very interested in
renting part of it .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: People that care enough to keep their
cars clean may buy these other things too , is what they
are . . .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: I was talking with him only a week or so
ago , well less than that - and he is now out of space where
he is at - it looked real good to him, if we could do it .
MR. SIEVERDING: Do you think there is a problem as far as
access into this site? You 've got a four-bay car wash , the
plan here shows just one car standing waiting to get in - I
know that I 've been at four car washes in the City at
various times of the year , when you 've got a half a dozen
cars lined up waiting to get in .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: We went to Hartford , Connecticut to look
at one of these (unintelligible ) because it is a new idea
and (unintelligible ) fast and be gone. . .
MRS. KNUPPENBURG: At the time you drive up and put your
money in, the guy ahead of you is already done and is
driving out . It ' s that fast .
MR. KNUPPENBURG: We have the architect - fie've spent a lot
of time - we actually went out and marked it out - where it
PAGE 56
BLA MINUTES - 11 /3/06
goes to be sure - physically - we had enough space for cars
to come in - traffic flow is no problem - we've put a lot of
study into it - we've had those buildings going ever which
way - what I am saying is, we've done a lot of research into
that .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Thank you, all three.
Is there anyone else who would like to be heard in favor of
granting the variances? [no one] Is there anyone who would
like to be heard in opposition? [no one] Okay , if that ' s
the case, it is ours . ,
DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1724 FOR 409-415 THIRD ST.
MR. SCHWAB: Tom, one technical point - you say they already
have the area variance for the tenants, I thought if you
didn ' t use it within a year , it lapsed?
SECRETARY HOARD: Well , they started on the variance when
they converted the other building . The variance was for the
whole site - they did start work within the year .
MR. SCHWAB: I see, so now . . .
MS. FARRELL: I 'm ready with a motion. . .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We are ready to entertain it . . .
PAGE 57
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1724 FOR 409-415 THIRD STREET
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Gloria
and Leland Knuppenburg for a use variance for a car wash and
an area variance for an existing side yard deficiency. The
decision of the Board was as follows:
MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the use and area
variances requested in Appeal 1724b.
MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . The owners have stated that they would suffer an
economic hardship if they were limited to uses consis-
tent with the B2 zone and they have not been able to
find suitable tenants for the property, as zoned, for
the past year .
2. This property is unique since it is next to a scrap
yard and the City Water and Sewer Department facilities
and warehouse which are uses more intensive than those
allowed in a B2 zone.
3. Because of the unique location of this property, a car
wash would not negatively affect the character of the
neighborhood.
4. No neighbors have expressed any opposition to this
proposed use.
VOTE: 4 YES; 1 NO; 1 ABSENT USE & AREA VARIANCES GRANTED
PAGE 58
9ZA MINUTE - 11 /3/S6
SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1725 FOR
315-17 NORTH MEADOW STREET:
Appeal of Leland and Gloria Knuppenberg for a use
variance under Section 30.25, Column 2, and for an
area variance for deficient rear yard setback
under Section 30.25, Column 14 of the Zoning
Ordinance, to permit the construction of two
additions to the dry cleaning business at 315-17
North Meadow Street (Angelo Dry Cleaners) . The
existing building is located in a B2a (Business)
Use District in which the existing use is permit-
ted; however one of the additions will encroach
into the adjacent R2b (residential , one- and
two-family dwellings) Use District in which a dry
cleaning business is not a permitted use. There-
fore, the appellants must obtain a use variance ,
for the encroachment into the residential zone, as
well as an area variance for the deficient rear
yard setback before a building permit or Certifi-
cate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed
,
additions.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Welco;me once again.
MR. WINN: I ',m Phili-on Wi-t; this is Glo, : anupper,t'3urg Or, T,
right and Leland Knuppenburg is on my left . This one we
were also in before although it was about a year and a
half ago . Dasically we have the same argument this time as
we did in June of e5. A variance was granted in June of
PAGE 59
BZA MINUTES -- 11/3/86
'85, I believe, to make additions to Angelos. Dry Cleaning .
Basically the same problems were conf;-onted , the side lines
- setbacks and use rL—t! ictions . At that tirr,e it was
proposed to construct a second story on Angelo ' s and bas i.--
Cally to add a little jog on the northeasterly part of the
building . A couple thingEdelayed proceeding with that
application, one was the purchase of the Taynton building
and the second one was the fact that the cost did not work
out . The previous architect , I guess assumed that we could
just add - second story i•aithout any problems but , aftei-
doing some research , the roof on the present Angelo ' s
building did not support a second story so we 've gone back
to the drawing board and tried to come up with a solution
that would allow the Knuppenberg ' s to add the additional
space needed and yet not deviate from the zoning regulations
of the City . I don' t know if each of you has a copy of the
original plan as compared with the new proposal . A year and
a half ago it was proposed to add on to the northeasterly
corner of the building - this was somewhat - quite close to
the property at 619 W . Court Street . I will pass this
around - it shows what was originally approved by the then
Board . The new plan does nott encroach upon the residential
district to the extent that was approved a year ago . One of
the concerrs at that time was the pro>; imity of the riew ,
addition. to the residence at 619 W . Court Street , basically
some forty to fifty feet to the south of the south part of
that building . The new, present proposal is an additiciiai
PA G E f,(1
BZA MINUTES -- 11 %3/86
hundred feet to the south , so les,: of an impact on that
particular property . With respect to the individual re--
quests - we have use, front yard setbacks and rear yard
setback . On the front ya-d setback , that relates to the 619
'rJ. Court :�ts-eet residence. The problem
p operty tis,hich is a
is , and .vas, that the front porch is too close to the front
Iot line . There have been no change.: to that front porch ,
neither anticipated , basically that is the way the property
was constructed , I believe . On the rear yard , I guess this
relates to both 619 and to - 619 W. Court Street , which is
residential , and Meador-j Street: property which is in a B2
zone . As noted in the Appeal , A nge I C. S that Angeio
building has been there quite aaihile - I think it rias
constructed prior to the adoption of the Zoning - has been
used . . . how many years?
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: Since- 1926.
MR. WINN: Since 1929 in that fashion and basically there is
no way to make it comply without tearing down the building
and then you 1,,,ouldn' t be able to do anything on that partic-
ular property . I believe since the last hearing the ,
h'nu.ppenbergs have purchased 619 W. Court Street - the time
when we were here before, Mr . Paolangeli had title - the
k:nu ppenberg-, were the contract purchasers befog, and now
they are the legal owners of that property . Use, again,
obviously is a major concern . We discussed at length last
-year where are the boundaries of the commercial zone . There
was some question on the map as to what the extent of the
PAGE 6i
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
eastern lire of the commercial zone is. Also pointed out
and I ' ll again point out , that this property has a fairly
narrow tore depth as compared to other areas on North Meadow
Street . This is some si :,t, -six feet deep and other proper-
ties on that block are one hundred feet or more. The need
for this , at four , for space. We spent some time discussing
the affects of steam and preserving and protecting the rest
of his property and that is why this appeal . The structural
problem=_ a,7d the cost drawn to the side rather than the
(un inte1li(;i.ble) .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board?
MR. SIEVERDING: This proposed addition would add ten fMet
on to the south side? So what., you are going to do is add
ten feet on and wrap around the building?
MR. WINN: That is correct .
MR. SIEVERDING: Plus the office on the no!- th side?
MR. WINN: Northeasterly side, yes .
MR. SIEVERDING: 6,19, what ' s that used for?
MR. WINN: That ' s a house.
MR. SIEVERDING: That ` s a iesidential . . .
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: We rent it , thee is two apartr:ents in
it .
MR. SCHWAB: Help me out here -- what the area variances are.
Will this ten foot addition to the south create anything?
Just on the east side'
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: Right here Epointing to the site plan] ,
you see the property line goes down like this, they had to
r nrw ba
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/S6
jog it out to get that building bac_4< there - years ago when
13 went through they chopped off the front of the building
and added to the back and so they let them have this little
jog for the building . If we put this on, Nae are going to be
over that jog - just this little bit right there .
MR. SCHWAB: Oh , this is part of 6197
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: Yes . This lot - 619 goes like this -
actually this particular �-quare goes with the dry cleaner=,
years ago Angelo and his son did it so that they could park
vehicles back there. Th,--- particular piece goes all the way
back . And just at the othe7- side, the next house here goes
this way - this house has a short lot because they go this
way - that house there goes all the r-;ay back to here . CMrs .
Knuppenberg was pointing to the site plan all through this
discussion::
MR. SCHWAB: _ was having trouble focusing on this one . 1 ,
you could just tell me, last year . . .
MR. WINN: I remember- that , last year it was made to go up
in that 'fashion?, and that was granted , now we are not,
requesting that anymore, we are requesting to go to the
south rather than to the north and go to that point [point-
ing to site pIanI . .
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: It is actually less space we are ccv er--
ing .
MR. WINN: This is the area into a•n residential zone versus
that . . .
DZ'A MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. SCHWAB: And where are the other =a antes 0 n .has
building? Will this, - to the west will there be any prob-
lem?
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: No .
MR. WINN: To the west is . . .
MR. SCHWAB: Yr;u can go all the way to the sidewalk:?
SECRETARY HOARD: To the west , yes . Tn t'r-.e west and to the
north . . .
MR. SCHWAB, And south there is no problem and to the north
there is no problem. So it is just this little . . .
MR. WINN: I think: we have the (unintelligible) for this and
the parking so it is the back corner of the proposed addi-
tion. . .
MR. SCHWAB: All right , you are trying to {move it a itt .e
bit into a residential zone. . .
MR. WINN: Correct .
MR. KNUPPENBERG: That ' s the part that is really in question
here.
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: One of the neighbors came and asked me to
explain to her what we were doing as she felt that as long
as we weren' t tearing down anything and putting up more
building there - we are just extending the back: line of the
building do+Nn ten feet . It 1,ias Mrs . Longo . She said that
she had no problem with it and she wrote me a 'Letter which I
left at home .
MR. WEAVER: Will there be any changes in the parking lot`?
Pgr:F 44
B A MINUTES - 11 /3/36
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: NoI not where we park , parking is all
i- ight along here .
MR. WEAVER! No , I 'm talking about; the east of the building
or the proposed building - or the building and the proposed
addition. Up Court Street . Back of 619 and whatever 617
or 1.5 or whatever it is, will the parking space - anybody
know when that became a commercial parking lot" Is it of
right or licensed . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: I do- ' t k:noLl, I do know that Paolangeli
was parking vehicles there - back in the mid '70 's when I
carne here. .. .
MR. SIEVERDING: This is behindi 619 Tom'
MR. WEAVER: Yes .
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: The o r,1; question was when he pai-ked jh i s
septic tank truck there, the neighbors complained so we
don ' t allow him to park his septic tank truck. there .
SECRETARY HOARD: That ' s N;her-, I. found that there :-aae parking
back there .
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: In fact the neighbors use it nights and
weekends.
MR. SIEVERDING: I have a question - why are we looking at
619?
SECRETARY HOARD: Becau=.e this extension creeps into the
corner of the - a little bit of this building extension goes
into that . . .
0
MR. SIEVERDING: Into that residential . . . 1
SECRETARY HOARD: `res.
PAGE 65
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. SIEVERDING: And because of that we wi 1 l then have to
loot: at whatever deficiencies exist; on 619 ( unintelligible )
SECRETARY HOARD: Odell . . .
MR. SCHWAB: Is it maybe 619 is residential '
MR. WINN: Yes, basically .
SECRETARY HOARD: That ' s the amain thing . And this is a . . .
MR. SIEVERDING: Encroachment . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes .
MR. SCHWAB: So just to repeat my mind - I 'm slowly getting
it -- in your mind this is no different than the - I mean
it 's a little different in site but to your opinion, a
little easier use variance because it is further away from
the house -- otherwise identical ?
MR. WINN: Yes, basically that is correct .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions?
MR. WINN: It is less of an encroachment upon it .
MR. SCHWAB: Less of an encroachment - less of a b'uFden on a
residential . . .
MR. SIEVERDING: Not to drag this out any further but since
I wasn' t here for the first appeal , I 've got to asp: the
question, why are you building the addition?
MR. WINN: Basically we reed the space to MOVE around .
Things are Ming over the machinery and equipment -- where it;
shouldn' t be - air space above the equipment .
MR. KNUPPENBERG: Air space - just plain people space _. and
we need to stretch out some of the equipment a little bit .
PAGE 66
BZ A MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. SIEVERDING: And it is to ease your ability to operate
the business efficiently or economically?
MR. KNUPPENBERG: Right . 'Jery mutat-; so . Actually , fie ' ie
thought of everything we can to find places to store clothes
even, because we are cramped with the normal stuff that has
' to be there .
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: We have ra-^ks hanging from the ceiling
which cut down greatly on t`,e air flow to the fans. While
everybody else is freezing , we are generating a lot of heat
and it gets very warm back: there - all year around - and we
have to have the fans so that they can operate the equip-
ment .
MR. KNUPPE14BERG: That ' s basically it .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Last ch anc_e for questions . Tracy? !,+D .
Thank you all once again. I must ask if there is anyone
else who would like to speak in favor or anyone else
against?
SECRETARY HOARD: Mr . Chairman, we received a letter at the
beginning of the evening from Mrs . Helen E. Romanowski of
610 West Buffalo Street . "Board of Zoning Appeals - To Whom
It May Concern: I oppose further encroachment of Angelo ' s
Dry Cleaners or any business to expand onto Court Street in
a residential neighborhood . We already have enough problems
keeping and maintaining good homes in this neighborhood .
Sincerely Yours, /s/ Mrs. Helen E . Romanowski "
MS. FARRELL.: Is. that within two hundred feet'.'
PAGE 6?
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/06
MR. WEAVER: Wel l ;,;hether n'+- riot , the ,,jrite15 t i�
on the other side of Meadow Street - west of Meadow Street
around the corner from what used to be Joe' s Restaurant .
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, she is on the notification list .
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: We had two letters that said that they
-;._.
`,•.,..er-1 [,= yf } p-, o-pdosed _ :fir: - that wN._ Dr Nezvesk i
and Mr=_ . LDngo .
MR. WEAVER: We have Dr . N'ezvesl< i ' s . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: We have D-, . f',le_vesk i s but we don' t `lave
Mrs . Longo 's .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have a copy of that letter?
MRS. KNUPPENBERG: Not with me.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The case being ours, do I hear any discus--
` slon?
MR. SCHWAB: I tend to agree that this case is slightly
easier than the last one, for granting .
PAGE 68
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1725 FOR 315-17 N. MEADOW STREET
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Leland
and Gloria Knuppenberg for use and area variances to permit
the construction of two additions to the dry cleaning
business at 315-17 N. Meadow Street. The decision of the
Board was as follows:
MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the use and area
variances request in Appeal Number 1725.
MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . A similar appeal was granted by the Board in 1985 which
had the following findings of fact:
a. The business has expanded substantially now,
necessitating additional space.
b . The area that is zoned commercial is uniquely small
in depth on this property.
C. The appellant has shown undue hardship to continue
with their expanding business in the existing size
building.
d. The area deficiencies in front and rear yard depth
has an encroachment of approximately two feet,
which is exceedingly minor .
2. The new proposal has an encroachment on to the residen-
tial zone that is further from the house at 619 W.
Court Street and therefore would be less of an invasion
on the residentially zoned neighborhood.
VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT USE & AREA VARIANCES GRANTED
PAGE 6q
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/06
SECRETARY HOARD: And finally , our first appeal , APPEAL NO.
1722 FOR 207-209 S. AURORA ST. AND 202-206 PROSPECT ST:
Appeal of Robert E. and Linda Terry for an area
variance under Section 30.37, Paragraph A-5b
(requirements for parking in front and side yards)
of the Zoning Ordinances to permit a parking area
to be extended to a line parallel to and ten feet
from the front property lines at 207-209 South
Aurora Street and 202-206 Prospect Street . The
property is located in an R2a (Residentials One-
and Two-family Dwellings) Use District in which
the Ordinance requires that parking spaces paral-
lel to a front property line be set back at least
•twenty feet from that property line.
MR. TERRY: Everybody have a picture?
MS. FARRELL: Yes .
MR. TERRY: I 'm Bob Terry , owner of the property . The
dotted lines from the driveway of the house labelled 202 is
the parking area we are talking about . The driveway had
previously been the only parking at 202. At the far end of
206 there .s a driveway and that had been the only parking -
it seemed the ideal thing to me to make a nice parking area
for both of these houses to get some of these cars off the
street over there . This parking area is quite well shielded
at this point by t)-ees and bushes and also matches the front
porch , if you ' ll notice, of 206 Prospect - it lines right up
the boundary does but it turns out there is a small
PAGE 70
B7_A MINUTES -- 11 /3/96
problem. The parking lot regulations says twenty feet and
it ' s approximately ten - to conform to the zoning , we have
to remove two of those parking spots or ask for a variance
and that 's what I 'm here for tonight .
MR. WEAVER: I was with you until you got into the map , how
do you lose two parking spots in ten foot width?
MR. TERRY: Okay . If you look at the northern boundary,
there is a little shed , it is actually a barn, and there are
some fairly large trees remaining there, right side of them,
that is a pleasant way to stop the parking lot , because
without removing that barn and the trees there, we have no
place for expansion in any direction - in the northerly
direction -- so approximately six cars can use that , as it
exists now and by taking ten feet off from there - that will
make removal of two spaces necessary, so there would be
four . That 's what we started with , as a matter of fact -
the driveway at 202 - they were parking at least four cars
in there - playing musical chairs - I could never- plow the
parking lot . This way we can go in there - plow the parking
lot and maintain it - it is a lot more pleasant arrangement
for everybody .
MS. FARRELL: How many parking spaces do you need altogethe,-?
MR. TERRY: By today ' s standards? Tom could you enlighten
us on that" Everything here is grandfathered , I presume, so
we are - by today ' s standards, I 'd say there might be a
question.
PAGE 71
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. WEAVER: Well , if you had two driveways and nothing
else, you had four parking spaces. So if there weren' t any
ways of going beyond that , they can' t be more than two deep .
MR. SIEVERDING: Two stacked up in the driveway .
MR. WEAVER: I ' ll go back to my original question. Parking
spaces are usually about ten by twenty generously and then
we start to cheat a little bit on the width and to lose ten
feet there, I think is one space, not two . I 'm not trying
to park a car- there, I 'm just trying to look at this piece
of paper . The other question I have is, essentially in
front of the structure labelled garage, there is unused
space that seems to have originally been designed to accom-
modate automobiles .
MR. TERRY: There is a small problem - there is about a ten
foot drop between that driveway and the unused space you
see . There is a stone retaining wall there .
MR. WEAVER: I must confess that I got out of my car and
looked and I didn' t see it but looking from Prospect . . .
MR. TERRY: If you go in the driveway at 206 in front of the
garage there is a stone wall - very recently rebuilt by the
previous owner , Mr . Jeff Holmes and it is a real big drop ,
it is to the west . . .
MR. WEAVER: You are telling me then if we went into the
space marked "drive" which you now have as access to your
parking spaces, that there is no opportunity to turn left
and park. behind 202?
PAGE 72
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MR. TERRY: In back of 202 there is - it is considerably
down hill and it ' s. . . .
MR. WEAVER: I 'm after one parking space, not a parking lot .
MR. TERRY: It ' s down, hill in nature, it would be a little
difficult -- the access of it .
MR. SIEVERDING: Is the building labelled "garage" used as a
garage?
MR. TERRY: I think we are getting two garages mixed up .
The garage with the drop off side of it - I was referring to
- was the 206 Prospect garage.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That 's right , there was some confusion
there .
MR. SIEVERDING: We are talking about 202 . .
MR. TERRY: Now, 202 - there is a very general down hill
slope there and it 's a green area , there is no doubt about
it and my Reeling would be that we would like to try to beep
that looking as green as it is .
MR. WEAVER: Well there is a green area up where you have a
parking .lot too .
MR. TERRY: Yes there is , between the parking lot and the
sidewalk , there is ten feet remaining there, in addition to ,
there is a cluster of a couple of trees that - there were a
row of trees right on the border there - in existence before
we made thi=_ change and they were mostly pines that had died
back up underneath them, so we didn' t have a great deal of
remorse about removing those, as far as aesthetic considera-
tion . The encouragement always seems to be to provide
PAGE 73 �,
BZA MINUTES - 11/3/86
parking for these tenants in houses and we seem to have a
paradox; here - on one hand they would like it - on the other
hand they wouldn' t , you see .
MR. SIEVERDING: But I thin: the point then, is whether
there are other alternatives available on site , short of
asking for a variance from the zoning and still meeting the
twenty foot setback requirement which is really , I think ,
provided as a border - you know, the public , generally has
to pas=_ by the property .
MR. TERRY: The way this is situated between the houses it
is shielded on all sides and I would just like to respect--
fully submit it is immaterial whether it be ten feet or
twenty feet in its particular exposure because it lines
right up with the front of our porch .
MS. FARRELL.: I ' m confused . Now many parking places does
this proposed expanded driveway add - how many parking
places do you want to have - how many parking places are
required?
MR. TERRY: There are six right now there .
MS. FARRELL: That fit in this expanded area?
MR. TERRY: Right .
MS. FARRELL: So , that adds six spaces, if you moved it ten
feet back -- which would be within the regulations - it would
lose one space there so it would still be five, right?
MR. TERRY: Well , I think realistically , you end up with
about four . It is going to depend on what size cars you put
in there.
PAGE 74
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MS. FARRELL: How big an area is that?
MR. TERRY: Ninety-five feet to the street line and I would
say it is about half of that - is what it would appear to
be, I don' t happen to have an architect ' s scale with me .
MS. FARRELL: So , you would say forty-five feet?
MR. TERRY: That ' s what it would appear . . .
MS. FARRELL: About how wide? A parking space is how many
feet , Tom?
SECRETARY HOARD: One hundred and eighty square feet by
definition of the Ordinance.
MS. FARRELL: So it is forty--five by what?
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is really -- if I can interrupt Tracy -
I 've just =scaled it off using all the measurements on here
and if you can trust everything - other dimensions that he
gave us - it is exactly fifty-two by fifteen - having been
trained as an artichoke [sic ] . . .
MS. FARRELL.: It ' s useful sometimes . So that ' s four parking
spaces of the one hundred and eighty square feet variety .
MR. SIEVERDING: Five, I think . Nine by twenty . Typical
parking lots - they are generally about nine to ten feet
wide - maybe you could get away with eight feet on a compact
car or something . We are talking about five spaces .
MS. FARRELL: So we would lose one of those, so it would get
it back to four , using your ten feet thing . . . so right now
you would have four spaces . . .
R
MR. TERRY: The lot already exists the way it is and we are
going to have to undo it , so , I mean, this is . . .
PAGE 75
BZA MINUTF_S - 11 /3/86
MR. SIEVERDING: Is that a paved area?
MR. TERRY: It used to be a considerable depth there and it
was raised - several loads of fill brought in - it was
raised anc we are letting it settle with crushed rock and it
will eventually be paved , yes. Crushed rock , yes, in
addition to the fill plus there were some retaining walls
which had to be raised to accommodate the fill to make it so
it wasn' t as much of a dip to get in and out . . . the ease
of maintenance - snow plowing - is one thing I stress here,
the fact that the cars can all be pulled in, parallel parked
in the parking area - I can bring the plow in down in back
of the cars and swing west with the snow.
MS. FARRELL_: So are you still using the other four parking
places that: you had assoicated with the two properties,
between the two driveways?
MR. TERRY: No . The drive is the access to these spots . I
mean, that 's the point - everybody used to have to back out
into Prospect Street , now they pull down, swing ninety
degrees and back up and pull back out frontwards, into the
street . It used to be a disaster to try to back out of that
driveway into this narrow one-way Prospect Street . Now it 's
a far improved situation - I can do it - I have a Dodge Maxi
Van and an t_TD Ford Station Wagon, and either one of those
cars - I can go in there comfortably, turn around and go out
of there. Before I used to have to back on the lawn - go
over the curb and everything else to get out of there . It
is a very improved situation.
PAGE 76
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
MS. FARRELL: So this added three spaces to that property
because you took out the two spaces that were just the
driveway?
MR. TERRY: Right , that has been eliminated as parking
space, they now park in this new dotted area. They used to
have cars all over the sidewalk . . .
MS. FARRELL: Well how many spaces would you need if it was
by today 's regulations Tom?
SECRETARY (HOARD: I only have the file for 202 with me.
MS. FARRELL: Well just do 202 because it seems . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: Okay . 202 has three apartments, one
parking space each .
MS. FARRELL: So you need three spaces total?
SECRETARY HOARD: Yes.
MS. FARRELL: Do you still use the other driveway for park-
ing?
MR. TERRY: No , the other driveway we use access to the
buildings in back . If we have a spillover , they use. . .
MS. FARRELL.: To the garage, you mean?
MR. TERRY: Yes.
MR. SIEVERDING: Is 206 using this parking area as well ?
MR. TERRY: Yes.
MR. SIEVERDING: And how many units are in 206?
MR. TERRY: There is four units in 206 .
MS. FARRELL: So does -- is 206 grandfathered too that it
doesn' t need extra parking - I mean, these both are here
because they need extra parking , officially . . .
PAGE 77
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
SECRETARY HOARD: No , they were grandfathered as what they
were prior to '77 .
MS. FARRELL: So 206, by today ' s standards would need four
pa?-king spaces?
SECRETARY HOARD: Maybe. How many bedrooms in each and how
many tenants?
MR. TERRY: Two bedroom - two bedroom - one bedroom - two
bedrooms . . .
SECRETARY HOARD: How many unrelated in each of the apart-
ments, any more than three in any of them?
MR. TERRY: No .
SECRETARY HOARD: So that would be four parking spaces,
Tracy .
MS. FARRELL: Okay .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further- questions from members of the
Board?
MR. WEAVER: I ' d like to make a comment before we tear up
and try to decide. . . [changed tape here]
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Now you can make your comment .
MR. WEAVER: The present form is something that we have to
deal with just about everywhere parking lot parallel to
the street and the setback required - and here is a newly
constructed - not an existing one - granted it gives one
more precious off-street parking space but if that ' s what we
want we ought to have throughout the ordinance that we only
require ten foot setback and we improve things all over the
place maybe . The other thing is, I 'm still not convinced ,
PAGE 78
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
and with you here Cto Mr- . Terry] , please , on 202 there are
two structures against the rear lot line or approximately
there, one labelled shed , the other labelled garage and I
was surprised to see there wasn' t at least a parallel
parking -- parallel to the driveway , that is , space being
used in front of the garage and my eye of the grade was that
if you got that far down the driveway, that turning left
instead of right , wasn' t much more of an adventure,
grade-wise, that is. We hear frequently from people --
owners and others - that we need the green space, but the
Zoning Ordinance doesn' t - speaks about parking lots and not
green space . This may not be practical but it looks avail-
able to me at the moment and the - it is clearly encroaching
upon the required setback in the present instance .
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions or comments from the
Board?
MR. TERRY: I 'd just like to address that with the - snow
removal is one of the biggest problems . Somewhere to put
the snow. In the past we virtually couldn ' t plow it - we
tried to plow out our parking lots - when it is all full of
cars obviously , you can' t and if I have to use this parking
area here, then we have nowhere to put the snow, if there is
cars parked in that area over there . It ' s called a shed ,
called a garage, it 's hard to separate the two - it ' s one
building , basically . That ' s one of the biggest things I
have as far as using that area there for more parking -
where do we put the snow then? As it is now, my plow man
PAGE 79
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
can come right down in back: of the cars, swing west - up in
that area over there. And the area he is referring to is
what you actually need to back around into to go straight
out of the, driveway from the garage - actually back around
into that area, pull down in, turn ninety degrees, parallel
park , back out over into that area in front of that garage
and then go out the driveway , especially if it is a very big
vehicle.
CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Okay, if we can bring this to a close,
just for the record there is no one else here to speak in
favor or in opposition - perhaps we can move ahead and hear
a motion.
PAGE 8o
BZA MINUTES - 11 /3/86
DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1722 FOR 207-209 S. AURORA STREET AND
202-206 PROSPECT STREET:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Robert
E. and Linda J. Terry for an area variance to permit a
parking area to be extended to a line parallel to and ten
feet from the front property lines at 207-09 S. Aurora
Street and 202-06 Prospect Street . The decision of the
Board was as follows:
MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board deny the request for
an area variance for a parking area to be placed within ten
feet from the front property lines in appeal number 1722.
MR. WEAVER: I second the motion.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . There doesn't appear to be practical difficulty in
creating additional spaces on this site in such a
manner- that would conform with the twenty (20' ) foot
setback requirement that is stipulated in the Zoning
Ordinance relative to parking spaces.
2. There are no special conditions which would warrant
granting a variance, given the available square footage
of land on the site. It defines parking spaces that
would satisfy the demands generated by these two
properties.
VOTE: 4 YES; 1 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE DENIED
PAGE 81
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 1722,
1723, 1724, 1725, 1726 and 1729 in the Common Council Chambers, City of
Ithaca, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same,
and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the
meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca,
New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability.
'13-arbara Ruane
Recording Secretar
Sworn to before me this
4 day of 1986
N tart' Public
JEAN J. HANKINSON
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK
No. 55-1560800
QUALIFIED IM TCF PKINS COUNTY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 30,19 f�
- 82 -