Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1986-12-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 1 , 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 1727a Robert Martin 76 119 Third Street Interpretation 90 1727b Testimony 91 Decision 101 APPEAL NO. 1728 Robert Martin (Held over) 119 Third Street APPEAL NO. 1730 Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services 103 109 Fayette Street Decision 106 APPEAL NO. 1731 Ken Peworchik (held over) 419 West Buffalo Street APPEAL NO. 1732 Dominick R. & Sheila H. Cafferillo 108 151 Oakwood Lane Decision 110 APPEAL NO. 1733 William & Marie Avramis 1 205-17 Linden Avenue Discussion 42 " Decision 48 APPEAL NO. 1734 Karl Kayser 50 108 South Albany Street if " " Decision 64 APPEAL NO. 1735 911 Associates 65 903 East State Street DECISION 71 APPEAL NO. 1736 Cecelia & William Sullivan 72 415 North Aurora Street DECISION 75 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK DECEMBER 1, 1986 CHAIRMAN TOMI&AN: I 'd like to call to order the December 1, 1986 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provision of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight include: STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER HELEN JOHNSON HERMAN SIEVERDING MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THOMAS D. HOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER, ZONING OFFICER & SECRETARY TO THE BOARD BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT: TRACY FARRELL The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we will hear from the appellant and ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible and then be available to answer questions from the Board. We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the Board considers interested parties to be persons who own property within two hundred feet of the property BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 in question, or who live or work within two hundred feet of that property. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of "interested party". While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record. The record consists of the application materials filed with the Building Department, the correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations, if any, and the record of tonight's hearing. Since a record is being made of this hearing it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones directly across from me here, so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and heard by everybody in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and will, therefore, not be consid- ered by the Board in its deliberations of the case. We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or a special permit. In the rare cases where there is a tie vote, the variance or special permit is automatically denied. Are there any questions out there about our proceeding? Then can we move to the first case? BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 SECRETARY HOARD: Before we get started, if I may, on Appeal 1731 for 419 West Buffalo Street, we had a call this afternoon about the notice and apparently there were at least eleven property owners who were not notified as required by the Ordinance. So we will have to hold it over a month so that everybody can be notified. MR. PEWORCHIK: Mr. Hoard, do you have a list of those addresses? I simply went down both streets and took the numbers off the houses. SECRETARY HOARD: Okay. I 've got a list - at least a partial list of some of those that are missing. There are nine of them. MR. PEWORCHIK: Could I get those now? SECRETARY HOARD: Sure. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So we can see you next month? MR. PEWORCHIK: Yes, I guess so. Sorry. SECRETARY HOARD: So if anybody else is here on that case, that will be held over until next month. BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1733 FOR 205-17 LINDEN AVENUE: Appeal of William and Marie Avramis for an excep- tion from Section 30.01 (Temporary Moratorium on Certain Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy) of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a new twenty-unit multiple dwell- ing at 205-17 Linden Avenue. The appellant was originally issued a building permit (#8944) for this building on September 3, 1985 but no con- struction was undertaken under this permit for six consecutive months so the Building Commissioner has ruled that the permit is void. The appellants have reapplied for a new building permit, but the Building Commissioner has denied the permit, ruling that the Temporary Moratorium specifically prohibits the issuing of building permits or certificates of occupancy which would "increase the number or the legal occupancy of non-owner-occupied dwelling units" in the Morato- rium area. The appellants are now requesting relief from the Moratorium, and/or an interpreta- tion of the Moratorium's effect on the case at hand. MR. KERRIGAN: I 'm Jim Kerrigan, I represent Mr. Avramis, who is with me and I will file an affidavit of service of the notice and return Mr. Hoard's file. Another preliminary PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 matter is one that has puzzled me for some time and there are some fairly complicated issues in this. With the permission of the Board, which I 'm hopeful will speed this up, I have prepared two fairly extensive affidavits, which are here and signed by Mr. Avramis and also by his archi- tect, Jagat Sharma, as to the details. One of the issues, for example, insofar as we are speaking of hardship and the Moratorium, is financial data, and I heard one of the earlier questions had to do - I guess they had fairly precise financial data - and what I would like to ask the Chairman of the Board - if I could file and make as part of the record, those two affidavits, for example, there is attached a copy of a deed that gets into one parcel - may expedite the whole proceedings. I think the other way that I have to do this is probably to ask Mr. Avramis questions and answers in matters that may pretty well be agreed upon and if those affidavits are part of the record, I think I can expedite this substantially. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Appreciating your wish to expedite, on our behalf as well as yours, on one hand, we do, I don't think there is any question about that - on the other side of the question, I think it would probably be to the benefit of the Board and everybody concerned if, in fact, we did take the time to go through it, because it is complicated. So that while I am perfectly happy, and I think we would be pleased to have you file the material, so that we have it as part of PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 the record, don't be a bit surprised if we go through a good deal of it starting. . . MR. KERRIGAN: Fine. I have no quarrel with that. I am just trying to get it as part of the record. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine, perfectly fine. MR. KERRIGAN: Then if I understand it correctly, I have made four copies, if that meets with the permission of the Chairman of the Board, I have an original, there is a larger site plan that I did not photo copy with the copies, so everyone has a copy of the affidavit and materials. Brief- ly, I assume most of you are familiar, or may be familiar with the neighborhood? I think there is an existing build- ing up on Linden Avenue. The issues that I am bringing before you, as I understand them, this evening, are the question of 30.48 of the Zoning Ordinance which indicates that the passage of the Ordinance and amendments thereto are not applicable and as I read the wording of the Ordinance - projects or building - when a building permit has been issued and when the entire building shall be completed, according to the plans within two years from the effective date of the chapter - which was perhaps 177 - or any amend- ments thereto. So one of my issues is that the Moratorium is an amendment to the chapter - there was a building permit in this - we are within the two year period of time. The second principle issue that we are speaking of is that there is substantial construction on the second building, which will perhaps make some sense in a moment and therefore the PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 Building Commissioner was incorrect insofar as telling us not to complete a project, the construction of which was substantially started. The third application we are bring- ing to you this evening is an application based on hardship under the terms of the Moratorium. As background, there has been built at Linden Avenue, an apartment structure - there are two blow-up photographs of the apartment that has been built at the property. There is a parking structure which shows - a portion of which, I believe, shows next to one, on one of the photographs to your left and on my right. The parcel we are speaking of has been one parcel for some time, I have not traced it back as to how many years but it appears to have been at least one parcel through all of the 1801s. It has changed hands from Bartholf and Petricola to Halkiopoulos to Mr. Avramis in 1983 as one deeded parcel. All the correspondence with the Building Department speaks in terms of one parcel - that it was called 205 to 217 Linden Avenue. At the time Mr. Avramis purchased the property in 1983 there were four numbers assigned - street numbers assigned to this one parcel. Starting in the northerly portion and working southerly at 217 there was a wood frame building in good condition, at 211 there was a vacant lot used for parking, as I understand it, at 207 there was, and there still is, a wood frame building in poor condition. There was and is a wood frame building at 205, which is in poor condition, which turn up, if I 'm not mistaken, in one of these photographs. Mr. Avramis PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 purchased the entire parcel in 1983 for three hundred and eighty thousand dollars. It was purchased with the contem- plation of additional construction and demolition of the existing buildings and contemplation of that our position is set forth at some length in the affidavit with the value at the time it was purchased - the part not to be demolished was three hundred and thirty thousand dollars was the land assemblage value involved. The plans that were submitted and the total of four building permits have been issued - involved the demolition of 217 - the northernmost building - which has now been done and there is a parking structure built where 217 once stood. There is at 211, the former vacant lot, a building - photographs of which I have shown you - there is no parking issue for us - all parking is and will be provided in the parking structure being built and the two wood frames are still there at 205 and 207. In summary, part of what I am talking about is that in excess of one point two million dollars has been spent on the project to date and part of our claim is that of that, more than three hundred thousand dollars has been spent solely attributable to the contemplated demolition and construction of a second apartment building at 205 - 207 and one that is not built. The expenses that we claim have been built to form the basis for the existing - or the claim that we have started construction on 205 and 207, the additional build- ing, is that there has been a hundred and seventy thousand dollars spent for parking. The analysis is that if the one PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 building were to be built on this entire parcel, and there is a site plan which was I think, the first document below the two affidavits, above the deed, which all of you have. 217, and this is the document in part to which I am refer- ring to, 217, the former wood frame structure, has been demolished and what we are saying in part of our analysis, is that if this project were to be built as a one building structure, as it is shown in the photographs, there would have been an entirely different scheme. 217, which was demolished for the erection of a parking structure, if it were to be a one building - one apartment building project development - what would have happened is that 207 and 205 would have been demolished and the existing building would be two mail box numbers south and parking would be in the former vacant lot and the existing structure - or the old structure at 217 would have been left there. Part of the hundred and seventy thousand dollar cost - I guess, to back up a half a sentence, on a one building development of this parcel, it would have been sufficient area to park at grade rather than the erection of a parking structure. 217 was built originally on top of the only rock outcropping on the site - it required extensive blasting to remove the rock which swung under 217 and headed towards the old lot at 211, none of that would have been necessary to build a parking structure because the site would have permitted - as I have indicated - substantial on-grade parking structure, so I am indicating that as part of our position, that this is one PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 project, although four building permits were issued, that the parking structure was not necessary and all of that cost is attributable to filling the parking requirements of the two apartment building, three structure, including parking structure, development of the property. I have pointed out, in terms of the cost - looking at Mr. Avramis' affidavit - an eighteen thousand dollars in architectural fees for the design of the entire project attributable to the second building, which is not yet built. Forty thousand dollars has been spent for handicapped access that would not have been spent if it were a one-building structure. The handi- capped access, of course handicapped access is required, if I 'm not mistaken, to twenty-five percent of the units in new construction of this nature, if it had been a one-building project the handicapped accessibility would have been provided for a building such as this, with a ramp, probably to the first floor or conceivably a lift and handicapped accessibility to the below grade, basement apartments. What has been done to provide handicapped accessibility, as part of this - what we claim is an inte- grated scheme - is that the parking which is now where 217 was - is there is a scheme for providing handicapped acces- sibility which goes into the building that exists at 211 and extends around and heads toward the building that we are asking to build at 205 - 207 Linden Avenue. Ramps are built - this design solution - to providing handicapped accessi- bility is required solely by the contemplated construction PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 of a second building - which is the building that brings us here today, so we are saying that the cost of that is fifty thousand dollars - handicapped accessibility for the one building alone would have been resolved - I think five units of that one building would have been resolved at a cost of ten thousand dollars and that we have spent already - as part of the start of construction of the second building - forty thousand dollars - fifty minus ten - as part of the building that we are seeking to point out. I have indicated in the affidavit that ninety thousand dollars was spent in rock excavation, which was required solely as a result of construction pursuant to an approved site plan for a parking structure, an apartment building, second building before us, that was not a construction surprise. Test borings would show on the original site plans indicated to the Building Department - indicate the developers knew prior to the start of construction that there was extensive rock under 217 - they have spent two hundred thousand dollars for the demoli- tion of 217 Linden Avenue and I am not talking about two hundred thousand dollars to knock it down, I 'm talking about combining - about the value of the structure that was demolished, and only demolished in contemplation of the building at 205 and 207 Linden Avenue. At the present time 207 Linden Avenue - the wood frame structure that turns up in the corner of one of the structures is - if I 'm not mistaken - is something in the order of five feet from the new building - that was permitted by the Building Department PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 under a valid building permit only under the assumption that 207 [I may have misspoken] was about to be demolished in re of the significance of that distance between these two parcels on the one parcel is the State Building Code re- quires ten foot fire types of setbacks and I think that gets into whether you have wire glasses or no glasses or build a fire wall between the two of them. At the present time - I suppose there could be - I can't agree that someone could require us to demolish 207 but I don't know what the other solution to that is - it is a further indication that we are submitting to you as a basis that this was one entire project. I have - in terms of all of the correspondence in the Building Department has identified this as one project - in terms of the total expenses that have spent to date, although there is parking there, the parking, of course, is tied to the useage of the buildings - which generates the ramp. The cost of the project, including land acquisition to date - as I indicated briefly at the outset - is about one point three million dollars. The cost of the substan- tially identical, I think identical in terms of occupancy, second structure that brings us here tonight is seven hundred thousand dollars, including the addition and comple- tion of the parking, which would fulfill the parking re- quirements of the second building. What I am indicating to you is that of a two million dollar project budget, six- ty-five percent has been expended, attributable to the cost of half of the structure and the reason for that is further PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 indication that this is one integrated, entire project that there is another seven hundred thousand dollars to build the second structure. The parking has foundations and structur- ally supports for an additional two above grade levels of parking. The foundation is there - the width of the con- crete - the steel - if there is steel in it, I assume there is but the design and foundation and the excavation back away from the street have been done to accommodate the parking requirements for the two. So what I am saying in terms of parking construction is that, although at present there are twenty-two or twenty-four parking sites, as required for the existing structure - the foundation and design is built so that most of the construction has been done for the addition of two additional levels of parking, as required by the City Ordinances. I 've indicated insofar as hardship is concerned that the income from the project at the present time barely covers - a matter of a few dollars on an annual basis - the operating costs in the existing mortgage. The existing mortgage is eight hundred thousand dollars, there is approximately five hundred thousand dollars invested in the project over and above the mortgage upon which the return on the investment is nominal and non-existent. I think that disappears entirely in the unlikely event that utility costs or city taxes, heaven forbid, might be increased and so there is positive cash flow but to a miniscule degree and nothing insofar as any adequate return on a five hundred thousand dollar investment PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 over and above the eight hundred thousand dollar mortgage. [changed tape here, missed some of the testimony] . . .devel- op - one project it was designed and planned in accordance with the Zoning Ordinances, there were site plan approvals, approved by the City. The only significant change between the two - the first site plan approval - I think the one that is submitted to you, as a matter of fact, contemplated the - it is the one submitted, below Jagat's affidavit - contemplated the building of three structures over parking - so there would be a level of parking and then four levels of apartment and three buildings. That was drawn formally, site plan approval was obtained, file documents were drawn up when the bids came in, it just wasn't feasible to build residential construction in this community above parking so the second site plan, and the only difference between the two site plans, which were approved, were to take the parking out from underneath the building we are asking to build, out from underneath the building that has been built and put it all together in the third building located in substantially the same area on the site plan, so it would become, instead of three buildings above parking, one smaller building, with parking and two buildings with apartments connected as I had indicated as part of the same project. The City approved over a period in 1985, I believe, four different building permits. I think the reason for the four different building permits were that they wanted - I think, I may be mistaken as to which one was PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 issued - two were issued, as I recall, for the parking, one for foundation, and I think the reason that the second building permit for the parking wasn't approved initially is that they wanted to proceed with demolition and construction of the foundation prior to the approval of - or the review of the drawings for the balance. The building permit was issued for the building that is up and another building permit was issued, if I 'm not mistaken in - must have been September of 184 - on it's face - which indicated it was good for a year for the building before us. In the interim the Moratorium was passed. Our position is that even though four building permits were issued, one of which related to the completion of drawings, perhaps a couple of them, that there was a point in time when all four building permits were issued and we say that the existing construction was really part of the one that hasn't yet been built. An application for a renewal - or an extension of the existing building permit was made and I 'm not sure of the timing. It had been believed by the architects - I think most of us felt that renewals but for the Moratorium - that's another issue I ' ll come back to - were routinely granted where building permit had already been approved. Building Permits are defined in sequence with Mr. Sharma's affidavit - talks about. . . MR. SIEVERDING: The sequence of four building permits, that was at Mr. Avramis's initiation? PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. KERRIGAN: It was made - he was the owner of the proper- ty and I believe Mr. Sharma applied for them, but absolutely at Mr. Avramis's initiation. MR. SIEVERDING: All right, but the strategy of going four separate permits as opposed to just one entire permit - one permit for the entire project - was the way he wanted to approach the project and develop it? MR. KERRIGAN; They, I think on the garage, absolutely not. The garage was one, the building permit for the foundation of the garage and demolition of the existing structure and the second, they didn't intend to start there. The timing of the second had to do I think mostly with the timing upon which they were building. It was not planned as four different structures, I 'm not sure if I either understand the import of the question or if I 'm answering it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You might rephrase it Herman. MR. SIEVERDING: I suppose now there are two ways that you can approach it, right? You can design a project, put all of its components together and commence with the plans and apply for one building permit that is going to cover the entire thing that you want to do. Two residential buildings and an apartment garage. You all elected to approach it piecemeal and then as various stages of the project were, presumably, ready for the Building Department review and issuance of the building permit, you submitted that phase of the project, got issued the building permit, started con- struction, proceeded with the design of the subsequent PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 phase, came in for the building permit - you approached it that way? MR. KERRIGAN: The sequence of the issuing of the building permits is as you indicated, I think the reasons had to do with both convenience of the building permit, of the fact that the plans for the second building were substantially reproductions - it was not done as part of a three project or four project approach. There are some common portions of the structure having to do with utility supplies which are set forth in Mr. Sharma's affidavit - TV Cable, Telephone, Electric are all in place for the second structure. I think those are the factual background of what we are talking about so what I am submitting to this Board is that - first of all Moratorium, 30.48 that I 've talked about says "no amendment, Zoning Board amendment, affects anything for which a building permit has been issued within two years. " We are within that two years, I think we are still within that two years today and if we weren't it is merely because of delay of being a) we can't proceed now because of the failure to issue a building permit. We are talking about the Moratorium has been in effect right now for fourteen months, I am guessing, certainly much less than twenty-four. At the time of its enactment we had valid building permit for the building that we now want to build. I am asking you to interpret and read - or tell me how else it can be read. MR. SCHWAB: When did this building permit - when was it issued again - September of 185? PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. KERRIGAN: Yes. MR. SCHWAB: It is only September of 186. MR. KERRIGAN: Correct, or less than two years from that date to today. MR. SCHWAB: Right, so you don't need any tag on it from the Moratorium - you are saying you are within - let me restate it if I can. You are saying the Moratorium amends the Zoning Ordinance? MR. KERRIGAN: Yep. MR. SCHWAB: And that in the Zoning Ordinance it says "amendments won't affect any building permit for two years. " MR. KERRIGAN: Correct. The second issue, I am saying and presenting to you is that we have started, and we are substantially under construction for the remaining building. We haven't poured the foundations, we haven't demolished those, but three or four or five hundred thousand dollars, as I recall the figures, has been spent, to date, for the next building and we are not talking about plans, which are not the start of construction, I am saying that a Zoning Ordinance has to permit us to continue to build what we have started to build prior to the enactment of the Moratorium, which is the only ordinance stopping us from proceeding right now. We have spent, on construction, planning as specified almost five hundred thousand dollars for this second building - the building that we are asking to build right now. The third argument is related to that in terms of the fact that we have spent five hundred dollars in cash, PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 there is no return on that money whatsoever and that is financial hardship imposed by the Moratorium preventing us from completing the existing structure. Those are the three arguments. MS. JOHNSON: What have you spent the five hundred thousand on - that is not construction? MR. KERRIGAN: Some of it is construction. It is one hundred and seventy thousand dollars on the parking struc- ture which if it were to be a one building project would not have been built at all. Parking would have been available at grade, there was enough land. Eighteen thousand dollars in architectural fees and this is in the affidavit - I 'm looking at page 3 of Mr. Avramis's affidavit. Forty thou- sand dollars for the cost of the handicapped accessibility solution, which is a two-building solution and handicapped accessibility to date is fifty thousand dollars. A one-building solution would have been ten. That's forty thousand dollars in excess costs. They have spent ninety thousand dollars in rock excavation. That rock was under 217, that structure would still be there on top of the rock, which would not have been taken out, but for the two -- couple hundred thousand dollars. As to the value of the building, exclusive of the land and demolishing, 217 was the first of the three buildings to be torn down. MR. SCHWAB: And ninety thousand dollars for rock excavation on 217? MR. KERRIGAN: Yes. PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SCHWAB: And why is that different - figured than a hundred and seventy thousand dollars spent for the parking structure? MR. KERRIGAN: Concrete - there is concrete where the rock used to be. MR. SCHWAB: First you blasted the rock out for ninety thousand dollars and an additional hundred and seventy thousand to build the parking structure? MR. KERRIGAN: And that parking structure includes - there is added cost in that because of the foundations to go up and build the next two levels of parking to service the other building. So there are twenty spaces - twenty-two spaces for two hundred and sixty thousand dollars, which is more than even the City spends to build a parking structure. MR. WEAVER: May we go back to the time that your building permit was issued, September of 1985? MR. KERRIGAN: On the building that we are talking about here right now, yes. MR. WEAVER: Is that correct? MR. AVRAMIS: Yes. MR. WEAVER: I see before me an ordinance that was adopted by Common Council in September of 1985, which came first here? Did you have in your possession or had you applied for this building permit prior. . . MR. KERRIGAN: The building permit was issued before the Moratorium, is my understanding. PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SIEVERDING: It appears Tom, from the record, that the building permit was issued on September 3rd and the Morato- rium was passed on September 4th. MR. KERRIGAN: And was probably effective a week or ten days after that. SECRETARY HOARD: There was a stampede. MR. WEAVER: Well, but there was a - but this was issued prior to and was a valid permit at the time the Moratorium was imposed. And then in your - in the Building Commission- er's judgement, that permit expired at the end of six months? SECRETARY HOARD: Well what happened - in the building code part of the Municipal Code, Section 26. 30-k, expiration of permits, it says "if, after a permit has been issued opera- tions authorized thereunder have not commenced within six months or if authorized work has been started but discontin- ued for a period of twelve months, such permit shall become void and the building or structure may be declared aban- doned. " And that is the reason for the. . . MR. WEAVER: And the one year is the one that you consider is applicable in this case - that it was. . . SECRETARY HOARD: That nothing happened in six months. Under the building permit for the second apartment building. MS. JOHNSON: So when was the permit issued for the first building, that was (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: November 13, 1984 a foundation permit for the first apartment building was issued. Then in December PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 of 184 a permit for the balance of the first building permit was issued. MS. JOHNSON: Okay, but the one we are dealing with is September 185? SECRETARY HOARD: September 3, 1985, yes. MR. WEAVER: I still don't understand it. Is it the posi- tion of the Building Department that no work had been done under this permit at that time or that a substantial amount had not been done or. . . . SECRETARY HOARD: That no work had commenced under building permit 8944, which was for the second apartment building. MR. SIEVERDING: Strictly? SECRETARY HOARD: Strictly. MR. WEAVER: I 'd like to ask the appellant here - I can't imagine why, if all your plans met the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code, that you would want to have a permit to do less than that unless there was some saving of money or some other motivation that I don't understand, that I can't anticipate. Is there some reason to - that there was a permit for - four different permits on this issue - did the appellant have a reason for four separate permits? MR. KERRIGAN: There were tenants in this, I think it also had to do with the timing of the - completing the drawings and getting drawings done. There was no economic reason that I 'm aware of. PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. WEAVER: So the fourth permit that was issued is the one we are discussing tonight? MR. KERRIGAN: Yes. SECRETARY HOARD: There were problems because some of the buildings were occupied. MR. KERRIGAN: Correct. SECRETARY HOARD: And also with phasing this so that the parking structure kept pace with the construction of the apartment buildings. So that he had to have the first level on the half of the parking ramp - parking structure - completed to provide the parking for the new building that is there now. He has to complete that parking structure to provide enough parking for the new building - the building that has not yet been constructed. We couldn't issue an overall permit unless he started demolishing the buildings all over the place. MS. JOHNSON: So the parking structure is completed for both? MR. KERRIGAN: No. Foundations and first two levels of the parking structure are there. The erection of this building will require the addition of two more levels of the parking which is permitted by the Ordinance. From the actual cost point of view (unintelligible) that's the icing on the cake. The money is. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Also the building permit that was issued for the parking garage was for the first one and a half levels so he has to come in for an additional permit to - PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 which he could get under the Moratorium, to complete the parking garage because the Moratorium is silent on parking garages. MR. WEAVER: No living space involved. SECRETARY HOARD: Right, as long as there isn't any living space in the parking garage. MR. SIEVERDING: Why is it apparently then, that since September 3rd, 1985, no work has been done under the 4th building permit? MR. KERRIGAN: They were building on the first two of their occupancy with the completion of the parking - another reason is that it just had to do with getting started. MR. SIEVERDING: When did that occur, I mean, when was the parking completed and when was the first residential building done? MR. KERRIGAN: Completed in the fall of 185. MS. JOHNSON: So why was nothing done . . . MR. KERRIGAN: Tenants in the existing structure, was part of it. It was permitted by zoning in terms of what was done. A portion of it had been done, as part of the exist- ing structure but it did not continue at that point. MR. SCHWAB: So you obtained this permit September 3, 1985 and you couldn't get in the building because of leases with some tenants until when? This past June of 186? MR. AVRAMIS: Something like that, yes. PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SCHWAB: So if it is required, some action on that, it would lapse within six months, what you are arguing is these other things, mean you started on the permit? MR. KERRIGAN: On the six month requirement, I 'm saying that the building permit says it is good for a year. I didn't know until I read the files, as part of my homework tonight, there was a six month provision. I 'm saying it has started, I think that's a building code issue, I 'm not prepared fully to tell you - answer, I haven't read the six month provi- sion, I 'm not familiar with it, I 'm very familiar with the twelve month provision, which may have both of them in it and I know the building permit states that it's good for twelve months on its face. These did, as issued - twelve months. MR. SCHWAB: Okay. Why didn't you tear down (unintelligi- ble) MR. KERRIGAN: It just had to do - I don't know that there was any specific reason to or not to tear it down. It wasn't a rush building project as to what was going - it was a project that had started two or three years ago. MR. SCHWAB: It is your position then that that is an irrelevant date? MR. KERRIGAN: Yes. MR. SCHWAB: That you have done enough to allow for the building permit? MR. KERRIGAN: Yup. And I 'm saying that that is true tonight because I 'm still within two years. PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SIEVERDING: Within two years of what? MR. KERRIGAN: The issuance of the building permit. MR. SIEVERDING: Which building permit, the first permit was issued in November 1984 . MR. KERRIGAN: September 1985 - the building that I am talking about right now. MR. SIEVERDING: Okay, but nothing has apparently been done on that building in twelve months? Six months or twelve months - that's evident - looking at the site. MR. KERRIGAN: That was finished in - a little less than twelve months from the time that we could not proceed as a result of directions from the Building Department. MS. JOHNSON: It's been a year and three months. MR. KERRIGAN: I don't think Tom would have been very happy if we had started to build in October of this fall without some piece of paper and that is the reason that we are here. MR. SIEVERDING: Having a building permit that is only good for twelve months, and I think in October 1986 it would have expired. MR. KERRIGAN: September or October of 186 - by its face - by the Ordinance - I say it is two years. MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm beginning to get the impression that you want to have it both ways. That if you say that you've gone two years from the time the building permit was issued to complete the project and the first permit was issued in November of 1984, when you first initiated this scheme, that includes a parking garage and two residential buildings, PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 then you would have until November 1986 to complete the project. MR. KERRIGAN: I don't happen to agree - when you are building a forty story tower - I get to thirty after two years - I stop there. MR. SIEVERDING: In the alternative, you've gone with sort of sequential building permits - you were issued one in September of 1985 and I guess, regardless of how you look at it - whether it is the six month rule or a twelve month rule - it doesn't appear to be anywhere initiated on that permit. MR. KERRIGAN: It doesn't appear to be anywhere initiated MR. SIEVERDING: Any work on the permit issued. . . MR. KERRIGAN: . . .the garage, the excavation in back of 205 - there is excavation in back of 205 and 207, the garage, the handicapped is all part of the scheme to develop the entire project. MR. SIEVERDING: Then that suggests to me that it throws you back to November 19, 1984 date, which is the first building permit and you have two years from that date to complete the project. MR. KERRIGAN: We got another one a year later, is that meaningless? MR. SIEVERDING: It seems that that was when the project was initiated, that is when you started to do the work for the first residential building. From my way of thinking, you either pick when the first permit was issued and the project PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 was initiated as a starting point for when the two year clock starts ticking. or you look at the individual build- ing permits and see what work has been accomplished under the terms of those individual building permits and then judge whether, either under the six month rule or the twelve month rule you've met the provisions of zoning. And in either case, it appears to me that hasn't been done. MR. KERRIGAN: May I suggest the two year rule starts on September 14, 1985 when the Moratorium was passed. And it hasn't run yet. No amendment to this ordinance affects anything, when there has been a building permit, within two years is what I am saying. It has nothing to do with when you apply for and issue a building permit - your ordinances. That's my position on the two year rule. MR. SIEVERDING: I think the whole question of the Moratori- um is a separate issue from questions as to when these permits were issued and how much time you have to complete the work, for which a particular permit has been granted. MR. KERRIGAN: Well that's your interpretation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well without getting too much further into interpretation, I want to bring it back to a couple of specifics, what agreements, rental agreements do you have at 205 and 207, at the present time? MR. AVRAMIS: Up to June. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Up til June? MR. AVRAMIS: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: 187 or last June? PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Of 187, this coming year. MR. AVRAMIS: For two years, the lease is for two years, up to 187, yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So it is June of 187 - the June coming up? MR. AVRAMIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Counsel mentioned a positive cash flow although it was miniscule? MR. KERRIGAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could you tell us a little bit about that? Does that include the income of 205, 207 or, more specifi- cally, related to the part of the project which has already been finished? MR. AVRAMIS: The one that is finished. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The one part that has been finished. Okay. Could you give us some idea of what level of - what the cash flow - what those two properties, 205 and 207 are generating? MR. AVRAMIS: Yes. About three and a half thousand a month. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Three and a half thousand a month. I see. MR. KERRIGAN: Is that before expenses for those two. . . MR. AVRAMIS: No. MR. KERRIGAN: A matter of gross figures? MR. AVRAMIS: Gross. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Gross. MR. AVRAMIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And we are dealing with, I want to just make sure that I have the specifics right - an eight hundred PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 thousand dollar mortage and about five hundred thousand in operating costs, is that what you said? MR. KERRIGAN: No, five hundred thousand dollars in addi- tional investment in the property. There are two five hundred thousand dollar figures. One is our claim for added construction costs but the area that you are talking about has got about one point three spent up there and it is an eight hundred thousand dollar mortgage. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Further questions from members of the Board? Let me share with you Board Members a bit of my thought. There are four parts to what has been requested here and unlike the previous instance where - or previous instances where we have divvied up into part a, part b and part c and dealt with them each individually, I would suggest that, because, I 'm sure, there is going to be some comment from the audience, that we essentially hear the comment from the audience and then come back and address specific questions framed to deal with parts a, b, c and d. Does that seem reasonable, rather than having each time we present a, essentially the audience commenting on a, and then b, and then c, and then d, I think it seems most expedient in my mind. All agree? MR. SCHWAB: Sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, thanks. Any further questions of the appellant and Counsel at this time? We'll perhaps get a chance to readdress at a later point. Thank you gents, we'll take a ten minute break. [reconvened the meeting] We PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 are at that part in the proceedings where we were about to ask if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the appellants? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Please come forward, one at a time. Again begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. GOLDER: My name is Neil Golder, I live at 203 College Avenue. I 've lived there for fourteen years, I am part owner of the house with three other people. I want to speak against it mainly because of the impact on the neighborhood and what the impact that we've seen from one apartment building already. Linden Avenue is - we live on College Avenue - Linden Avenue is - compared to College Avenue - is a little bit more rural, there is more trees, it is a very narrow street, it is a place that we go walk the dog, take the kids to play and things like that. It obviously looks completely different - I think you have a picture of the building itself, but if you had a building itself next to the houses that are there, you'd see the aesthetic change in the neighborhood, the change in how much light is allowed in and a change in how much light comes out at night from this rather huge building, which is out of place. Of course, I think another one would be even more out of place, it would even be further - closer to the rural, residential area. You have a letter from Mrs. Anita Gillette that I think you all have had a copy of. This is a woman who is eighty-eight years old, who has lived on Linden Avenue for probably over fifty years - she lives almost directly across the - she PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 lives directly across the street from where the new building would be and almost directly across the street from where the recent one has been put up and she points out a lot of the detrimental effects to her personally, and the neighbor- hood and also the fact that Linden Avenue is an especially narrow street and a one-way with - already with some prob- lems with traffic. I 'll also point out that I understand there has been some discussion about rezoning of the Collegetown area, and there has been some proposals that are coming before Common Council for an intermediate area of zoning that would enable some kind of an apartment building to be put up but one that would have a lot less impact and would fit in a lot more with the neighborhood the way it is. A building like that - the one that is already there and the one that is proposed - I think it would have its place someplace else. The neighborhood is mainly students but there is a difference between having a huge apartment building filled with people and a lot of cars and individual houses - there is more of a sense, even though it is stu- dents, there is more of sense that people know each other, or that you could get to know people. And since there are a lot of people here to speak against, I think I 'll leave my comments right there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? Thank you. MS. STANTON: Good evening. My name is Anne Stanton, I live at 212 Delaware Avenue, I 'm the owner of this, it is a PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 two-family duplex and it's zoned R-1, owner-occupied. I live there with my husband, my twenty month old daughter and my ten year old son and I 'm really glad to have a chance to talk to you about this tonight because I didn't have a chance to talk to anybody about it when this whole project started. I called to see if it was legal and I was informed that it was. My acquaintance with this project began in the summer of 1985 on a Saturday morning at 7:00 o'clock, when I heard chain saws and I went out and people were starting to cut down the trees on the back of my property. They had already cut one by the time I got there, I informed them that it was my property line - they said "no it isn't, this is for the new parking garage that is going in. " If I hadn't happened to be home, I wouldn't have any trees in my back yard right now and it is kind of a metaphor for me, how this project, if that is my family's life, that I sort of feel that I have to be there every second and even when I 'm there, I don't have much of a chance. To give you an idea what the impact of this project is on my family personally, people have been talking about size and distance. The retaining wall for the parking garage is forty-five feet from my kitchen window so that's about from here to that back wall. Well, they say it is four stories and a base- ment, but believe me, it looks like five stories. The five story apartment house with forty plus apartments, however many apartments there are currently, in that building is kiddi-korner, it starts basically at the edge of my garage. PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 Tonight's paper, had a very, sort of congratulatory article about how the drinking age has been worked in with college students and there is no problems with bars going under and so forth. Let me tell you, as a resident of that neighbor- hood, what has happened to all the students that aren't on Aurora Street anymore, they are in that apartment building every weekend night, Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday night having kegs and bringing in all of their eighteen and nineteen year old friends and over-flowing into the parking garage, having sometimes bar-b-que pits on the concrete thing right in my back yard - parties that go on late at night and thank goodness for winter, I don't know what I 'd do if I lived in Southern California, they could do it all year long. So this has had a tremendous impact on me, who as a homeowner in an R-1 zoned house - a direct impact. I 'm concerned about the parking garage going up because it is going to mean that the sun is going to set on my house at 3 : 00 o'clock in the afternoon. It's going to be a big concrete wall. I talked with Mr. Hoard today, he said at my end it will be twenty-three feet high, at the end of Linden Street [sic] it will be twenty-nine feet high. I feel like I 'm living in downtown Los Angeles right now. I don't know what to say because I don't want to make it sound like, you know, I don't believe in any development whatsoever. I know there is a need for housing. When I bought the house I accepted that I was going to be living in a mixed neighbor- hood. I teach college students. I 'm a professor at Wells PAGE 31 r BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 College so I like that age student. I think that my major problem at this point is a problem with density. We started joking about the termites acoming. It's - when there are that many people in such a small space, things become really - just a really overly-crowded feeling. I think that a reasonable compromise is the thing that they are working on at the Planning Commission, so that at least the buildings, instead of being gigantic buildings that are right there abutting against R-1, it would be sort of a compromise between what is there now - it wouldn't be quite so tall. My feeling is that - I 'm hearing a lot about financial hardship and five hundred thousand dollar this and that - there is some serious neighborhood hardship too, it isn't all students that are living in that neighborhood. They don't all move on in two years - I've lived there since 1978 and when I bought the place I assumed I was going to be living there for the rest of my days and that is becoming more and more difficult for me, just because of the incredi- ble density and the kind of life-style, frankly, that transient students who are interested in blowing off some steam on weekends, want to live. When there is smallish apartment houses - that's difficult enough but I can have personal relationships with all of those guys. What I usually do is, in the beginning of the summer and the beginning of the fall, I send out a letter to all of the neighboring houses around me, introduce myself and my kids, tell them that I ' ll be glad to take in mail for them over PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 vacations, tell them that what we would really like them to do is to not park in our driveway, and to watch out for the kids. Now I can maintain that kind of personal relationship when it's like Mr. Carey's apartment house next to me, that has six apartments in it. When it is this kind of apartment house, with forty apartments, and with cars speeding up and down the parking garage, there is no way to have a personal relationship with those folks. I go out and say, you know, would you mind cutting out your partying a little early and I get curses hurled back at me. I don't like living that way and I don't see how it is going to improve by adding another apartment building that is going to double the denisty that this first apartment building already did. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Any questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else? MS. TOWNSEND: My name is Bickley Townsend and I live at 109 Oxford Place and I 'm speaking on behalf of Bryant Park Civic Association. This property is within my boundaries. Our Association has been quite active in the last couple of years, in fact the impact of the construction that has already occurred on this site is one of the reasons why, I think, it was one of the straws that broke the camel 's back in terms of the increases in density in the neighborhood spill-over that has occurred in Bryant Park. It was one of the things that caused us to mobilize and Council to adopt a Moratorium that is now in effect, covering this particular property. To give you an idea of the impact, some of which PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 you have already heard about, I 'd like to just read an except from a letter from another resident of Linden Avenue who couldn't be here tonight. "When I moved to 123 Linden, just three years ago, I believed it was a good neighborhood for my daughter and myself. The houses on my end of the block were all well tended and had, and still have, beauti- ful gardens and are nearly all occupied by families. In the three years I have lived here, we have experienced a dramat- is decline in the quality of life on Linden. Much, although not all, of this decline is due to the large complex that has already been committed and built. Double parking in front of the complex is common. Often no one is sitting in the cars to move them and traffic is blocked for many minutes. The fire hydrant across the street has a car in front of it almost every night, they are only ticketed about once a month. The matter of garbage and litter that blows down our street has increased dramatically. Dogs roam free and tip over garbage cans. Many apartment dwellers do not bother to pick them up again. Twice this fall my daughter has been awakened from a sound sleep, after midnight, by loud party music. Partying has become a Thursday to Sunday continuous ritual. Parties move from one house to the next, as many of the residents can no longer get into bars. Permit me to register my strong disapproval for granting this variance. There are still families and permanent Ithaca residents on our street. Please consider our needs too. " I do have a couple copies of this letter. This is PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 from Sarah Rynes at 123 Linden Avenue. Just to reemphasize what Anne Stanton said, I think that since the first apart- ment complex here on Linden was built, there has been a change in drinking age, which does mean that the impact of this kind of density is even greater because drinking is being pushed back from the bars into the residential neigh- borhoods. Another theme in this letter, which I think is interesting, is that this apartment complex has created an even greater parking problem. You would think this would not be the case, with the parking provided there, but often that parking lot is half empty and I can only assume that that is because the owner must charge for parking and, even though that is not permitted under the Ordinance and resi- dents must take their chances on the street or the lawns across the street or the fire hydrant or in front of peo- ple's driveways instead. I 'd just like to reemphasize that this is a special situation here where you have an R-3 district abutting - directly abutting back yard to back yard, an R-1 district. This hardly occurs anywhere in the City and when this first apartment complex was built it was clear, I believe, to the Planning Staff and Board as well as to us in the neighborhood, that the impact was a lot greater on the adjacent R-1 neighborhood than anyone had anticipat- ed. And that's why new zoning regulations have already been drafted and have received preliminary approval from the Planning and Development Committee of Council, that would greatly mitigate the impact of this type of development in PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 the future, after the Moratorium is lifted. It would still allow a developer, like Mr. Avramis, to build an apartment complex but it would compromise in terms of lessening the impact on the immediate neighborhood by reducing the bulk and increasing the setback requirements for such a project. To grant this appeal tonight would undermine that whole effort and fly in the face of the Moratorium and we ask that you not do that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? Thank you. MR. BOOTH: Good evening. My name is Richard Booth, I live at 510 Mitchell Street. I 'm the Alderman for the Third Ward within which the property you are discussing tonight is located. I am speaking tonight on behalf of what I perceive the sentiment of people that live in this part of the Third Ward and a number of residents have spoken to me, both in the last couple of weeks and then over a period of months, about this particular property. I also used to live very close to this site on Delaware Avenue, I moved recently and had walked by the site many times and watched it over a long period of time. Let me begin by stating my understanding of what you are looking at tonight. This developer received permits to build an apartment building and a garage. The garage is partially constructed, the garage that is there is entirely at the grade level. One apartment building has been built. This developer acquired a permit to build a second apartment building. In the opinion of the Building PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 Commissioner, did not undertake any construction within six months of having acquired that permit and because of the terms that are in that permit, that permit is now void and therefore, it is my understanding that what's really being asked is for a new permission to go ahead and build. Now Bickley Townsend referred to the purpose of the Moratorium and I think that is important to keep in mind. City Govern- ment enacted that in order to give it some time to figure out what should be the future, in terms of zoning and planning issues in the East Hill/Collegetown area. That period of time will come to an end some time next spring. A new set of rules will be in place and development presumably will go forward in accordance with those rules. I think it is safe to say that this particular property and one other project on Dryden Road, probably more than any other activi- ties generated the momentum that caused City Council to pass the Moratorium in September of 1985. What happened with the first apartment building was the construction of a large apartment house that is large, particularly in terms of Linden Avenue, with no opportunity for public comment and essentially with no kind of public notice. I think many people who live in that part of the Third Ward feel that the building that has been constructed is entirely inappropriate in terms of its magnitude for that particular location. We come then to the circumstances that you face tonight. I think you can support, clearly and easily and with good conscience, the determinations of your Building PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 Commissioner. This is a situation in which separate build- ing permits were issued for separate buildings. The demoli- tion activities that proceeded, or would proceed construc- tion in this case, occurred separately - that is the activi- ties required for the demolition activity required for the garage and the building that is already built, occurred many months ago, to build this new apartment building would require an entirely separate demolition activities and then separate construction activity. When the Moratorium comes to an end this landowner will be able to do something on that property, presumably build a substantial apartment building, although in likelihood not as large as the devel- oper now contemplates. The garage will be able to be used to serve a second apartment building, if that's what is desired to be built and so I think we have a circumstance in which at most you are looking at a developer asking you to bend the rules so this developer can get going some months prior to other development activities getting going in this part of the City. I think the facts are clear, and I drove by the site again tonight and sat for a couple of minutes and looked at it. The second building has not started. The parking garage that is there is entirely at ground level, the developer could simply decide that one building is enough and to leave the parking garage as it is, or perhaps expand it to serve the existing building. I don't see that the parking garage generates a conclusion that the second building is somehow underway. The buildings which exist on PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 the site are still up and they are rented we heard tonight through June of 1987, I think those facts clearly indicate that this was not contemplated as a single project but rather as separate buildings built at separate times pursu- ant to separate authority. The developer has argued that several features of the building that is already construct- ed, including handicapped access and the location of the existing apartment house, somehow were predetermined by the fact that they were going to build a second apartment building at some point. I would suggest to you that there are many factors that go into those kinds of decisions and I don't think that the facts on their face generate a conclu- sion that this was one integrated project. I think the critical factors are that the building permit issued con- tained a provision that said that if construction did not begin within six months then the permit was void. This is not some mom and pop operation coming into conflict with the building requirements of the City of Ithaca. This is one of the City's most sophisticated builders who has built many things and has done so, knowledgeably. To suggest that, for some reason, this land owner should not be held to these requirements seems to suggest that we do not hold people to the specific requirements of City permits. So I think the provision was clear, that six months were available to begin construction and when that did not occur, then there was no longer a valid permit. Reference has been made to Section 30.48 of the City Zoning Ordinance, I think the purpose of PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 that Section was to make clear that where projects are proceeding legally, pursuant to valid permits, they have a two year period to get completed, notwithstanding changes in the Zoning Ordinance. The critical thing is you have to have permits that are valid and be proceeding pursuant to those permits. Here there is no longer a valid permit - the building permit expired on terms that were stated on its face. What this comes down. to then, I think, is whether this particular land owner should be seen as having hardship justifying an exemption from the Moratorium. I think that cannot be shown and it has not been shown. First, the Moratorium does not have a great deal of time left to run, secondly, the land owner in this case is essentially asking what any land owner might ask, who comes in to ask for an exemption from the Moratorium, basically arguing, I have an existing building and somehow that justifies my expanding that operation by building onto that existing building or, in this case, building a second building. I do not think that that establishes grounds for hardship in the way that language is used in the Moratorium. In summary, the senti- ment in this part of the Third Ward, I think, is very clear, the first building built on this property was the very substantial impacts that were largely regretable, a second building of that magnitude, or the magnitude that is pro- posed, would be too great. The Moratorium is in place, it is valid, it should not be violated for purposes of allowing this land owner to go ahead at this time, the City should PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 have time to make its planning decisions, amend its Zoning Ordinances and other building controls and then let develop- ment proceed in accordance with the new rules that then exist. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Maybe just a general comment regarding the existing structure and the fact that the existing structure was built in conformance with the existing zoning. . . MR. BOOTH: I understand that. I do not believe that I suggested anything to the contrary. I still happen to believe that that building - while it was in conformance with the existing zoning, made absolutely clear - the conclusion that the existing zoning had to change. MR. WEAVER: I did hear you refer to the possibility that the Moratorium would soon be over and there would be a change in the Zoning Ordinance? MR. BOOTH: I think that is likely to happen. MR. SIEVERDING: What is expiration date of the current Moratorium? MR. BOOTH: March of 1987. It was extended for six months. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, it is ours. Would you like to redirect any questions at this point? I hesitate to get into rebuttals because rebuttals then mean counter-rebuttals. If you have any questions, perhaps now is the time to raise them. PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1733 FOR 205-217 LINDEN AVENUE MR. SCHWAB: I 'm confused about the six month or one year. It may be the idea that it doesn't make much difference in our case. What is your understanding Tom? Does the build- ing permit last six months or one year? SECRETARY HOARD: It lapsed because under 26. 30, operations had not commenced within six months. MR. SCHWAB: And that's not something that we typically have before us so what do we do with that basically? You are saying that the building permit has lapsed - actually we don't care why the building permit lapsed, as far as this Board is concerned. SECRETARY HOARD: Well I can't think of a time that this kind of situation has come before this Board, at least, not since I 've been here. That doesn't answer your question. . . MR. SCHWAB: Right. MR. WEAVER: Well it raises the question, or continues the question in my mind of whether we have any jurisdiction over the exercise of the building code and its enforcement and stop right there and certainly is unique to my experience. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is your question sufficient to refer to Council, which is one of our perogatives? MR. WEAVER: Well if that becomes a deciding issue it certainly seems to me that the authority has ruled that the appellant does not have a building permit and it is none of our particular business whether he does or not, he has a remedy somewhere else other than here, for that argument. PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SCHWAB: I do understand that as one of his major arguments. That he thinks construction is begun. MR. WEAVER: Well I 'll casually say that I don't care what his major argument is, I can't have any sympathy with a long discussion or an opinion based upon our decision that whether the Building Commissioner did or did not rightfully rule that under the building code no permit is available and the fact. . . MR. SCHWAB: You are saying we don't review that? MR. WEAVER: Well I 'm not prepared to review it in the context that we would decide that yes this permit is okay, no it is not. I don't think we have any jurisdiction. Granted that the Building Commissioner has already ruled under the building code that no permit, and assuming that the appellant is in here asking for a variance so that a permit might be issued is the only thing that I am particu- larly interested in. MS. JOHNSON: Well we are looking at an exception from the Moratorium here, essentially. MR. WEAVER: Well, I 've said enough. MR. SCHWAB: I think that's the bottom line - catchall. MS. JOHNSON: Is the building permit void? SECRETARY HOARD: That's my ruling. MR. WEAVER: There is a letter here. MR. SCHWAB: The argument two, okay, and I hear you Charlie, you are just saying we take that as a given, we don't review that in any way, let's go that route, at least for a minute. PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 Argument two was - there is something in the Zoning Code that says that when the Zoning Code is amended you get two years from your building permit. Do we have to think about that argument? CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Provided the thing were in construction, it might be an argument but the question is whether it was under construction, that's the further question. MR. SCHWAB: Right. I 'm asking Charlie first, does he have a clever way - we don't even think about that question. MR. WEAVER: I 'm not trying to be clever, I 'm just. . . MR. SCHWAB: Okay, I 'm not - do you think that we have to think about that? MR. WEAVER: Well it has been brought to our attention, I don't know whether we need to think about it. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: There are a lot of things that have been brought to our attention - all over the map. MR. SCHWAB: Maybe I should be a little bit more technical there - is this Board the appropriate place either for the appellant to bring that argument or for us to rule on it? MR. WEAVER: Well with my overly simple mind I 'm not pre- pared to be interested in an argument based upon a denial of a permit and to say no permit exists - that is a building code rule. I don't think we have any jurisdiction to interpret or to grant any exceptions to the building code and so any arguments that lean upon that, if the appellant wants to bring that argument to some authority, saying that over here in the Zoning Ordinance it says I 've got two PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 years, it still is over the argument of whether a building permit - there is a valid building permit and the authority already says there is none. If they want to attack the authority, this is not the avenue in which they can do that. MR. SCHWAB: So you are saying both questions one and two, then are really - well the arguments - there is a valid building permit and that is an argument that we don't entertain? MR. WEAVER: I don't see it in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. SIEVERDING: I would be willing to go along with that and just deal with the question - I think the next obvious question then is - we simply make no decision regarding what Tom has already decided and that stands as it is and the next question is whether we are prepared to grant some kind of an exemption from the Moratorium that will allow them to come back and reapply for the building permit. And that would seem to be for us - the question at hand and whether we are prepared to do that. MR. SCHWAB: That's the hardship - to show hardship. MR. SIEVERDING: And I think that's where the focus of our discussion right now ought to be. MR. WEAVER: It's the only issue that I think we have authority - jurisdiction over - that's my opinion. MR. SCHWAB: Well on that - we've heard testimony and I think we know ourselves, that this - unlike a couple of other cases that we've had - this one does go to the heart of the Moratorium, the purpose for the Moratorium, certainly. In PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 other words, allowing a variance from the Moratorium in this case would damage - if not gut - the entire purpose of the entire Moratorium. Then the arguments on the other side - further, there is a positive cash flow on the project - covers operating costs - miniscule positive cash flow, I guess was the phrase, the return is inadequate. MR. WEAVER: However Stewart, as I heard that, I understood that the cash flow on the new construction, the new struc- ture, was essentially zero. However, that did not include three and a half thousand a month gross income from the structures that occupy the land upon which the second phase might some day be erected. So to say that - to the owner that he is suffering a hardship, status quo, would, I think require that you add whatever the net is on the existing structures, not just the existing new structure. So I don't imagine they are running those other houses for nothing, or they probably would be vacant and that there is some profit in the operation of those and that was - you see the cost of acquiring them was also part of the cost of the overall cost of the acquisition of the total property. If we are talking about a total project here. MR. SIEVERDING: It seems to me that no matter how you look at it, whether you look at it as an entire project in the way that you are suggesting and combine the cash flows, or whether you look at it on an individual basis, just the cost of carrying 205 and 207, I am not persuaded that a hardship has been demonstrated. PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Helen, any further comments? MS. JOHNSON: No. I would agree with Herman. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It seems as though we are coming closer to a motion. PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 DECISION ON APPEAL 1733 FOR 205-217 LINDEN AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of William Avramis for an exception from Section 30.01 (Tempo- rary Moratorium on Certain Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the con- struction of a new twenty-unit multiple dwelling at 205-217 Linden Avenue. The decision of the Board was follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board deny the request for an exception from the Moratorium in Appeal Number 1733. MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Building Commissioner has ruled that there is not a current valid building permit. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Board to review that decision. 2. A hardship under the Moratorium has not been shown. 3. Granting a variance would destroy the central purpose of the Moratorium. 4. There is a positive cash flow for the overall property as a whole. On the specific portion in question, there are gross receipts of $3,500.00 a month. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: For the record, it should be shown that I am within two hundred feet - within the notification area - but it doesn't seem - by virtue of - from what I know of the project - come anywhere close to my back yard, so I don't really feel as though it is going to affect me one way or the other. MR. WEAVER: Are you making that a matter of record? PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I'm making that a matter of record. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT EXCEPTION FROM THE MORATORIUM DENIED. PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1734 FOR 108 SOUTH ALBANY STREET: Appeal of Karl Kayser for an area variance for deficient off-street parking, deficient lot width, and one defi- cient side yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 7, and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit conversion of the apartment at 108 South Albany Street to additional office space, thereby converting the entire building to office use. The property is located in a B2a (business) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Section 30.57 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Thank you for your patience. If you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MR. GUTTMAN: I 'm Charles Guttman, an attorney practicing law with an office at the Clinton House in Ithaca, New York. I am appearing as Counsel for Mr. Kayser who is the appellant. Karl Kayser is the owner of the property at 108 South Albany Street, Ithaca, New York. He is also the owner of the business known as the Grapevine Press, which is housed in that premises. This is an appeal for an area variance for off-street parking, deficient lot width and deficient side yard. At present the building houses the Grapevine Press the majority of the building houses that. In the building there is also currently a one-bedroom apartment. The appellant has decided to terminate the use of that one-bedroom apartment and convert that PAGE #50 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 to part of the space for his business there. With regard to the lot width and side yard, there is no practical way we can eliminate these deficiencies. The building has already been approved for office space in a B2a, I believe, district and it is needed for his business to take the area that is now used for a one-bedroom apartment and use it for the business. In particular he is going to be expanding some of his computer facilities in the business and will be using the area which is now used as an apartment to do that - he also needs additional room in the building for some of the other newspaper work that he does in posting and putting layout. With regards to parking, it is deficient in parking there, however this problem is alleviated by the fact that in back of the premises adjoins the City Municipal Parking Lot so parking is not really a parking problem in that area. Eliminating the apartment there will actually probably ease any parking problem that would exist since there won't be anyone living in that area. With regard to the nature - character of the area - district, it is essentially a business district at present. On one side of the building is the Alternatives Federal Credit Union business, which is also a commer- cial business use - also on that block is one blocking which is used for rental apartments - there is also the Knights of Columbus building. Across the street there is the Family Medicine building - there is a law office and a real estate office so - by eliminat- ing the one residential unit there is going to be no significant change to the district at all. For business purposes - it is necessary for his business to convert this space from residential to office or business purposes and we feel that the area variance PAGE #51 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 should be granted. There is no practical way we can eliminate the deficiencies and it is needed. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Yes, on parking. I have observed, regardless of all the generous space behind the building, that they occupy the sidewalk rather frequently - just a minute kind of parking, or whatever it is, I see a car straddle the sidewalk there - I have, personally, seen cars several times straddling the sidewalk. Is there any way that management could influence that by some dedicat- ed space in the parking lot behind or. . . MR. GUTTMAN: Actually we have taken steps and that is five spaces - five permits recently in the Municipal Parking Lot have been purchased by the Grapevine Press for it's employees. MR. WEAVER: That's a permanent. . . MR. GUTTMAN: Yes, I think there are sixteen employees - eleven employees work fulltime in that building, two of them are Karl and his wife so that is only one car among themselves. Four of the employees walk to work, so there is only a limited number of employees actually who drive. We purchased five permits for parking spaces in the Municipal Parking Lot and others in another parking lot. MR. KAYSER: (unintelligible) MR. GUTTMAN: How many parking spots do you have there? MR. KAYSER: Around four. MR. GUTTMAN: So there is a total of nine. . . MR. KAYSER: Oh, three at the Knights of Columbus. PAGE #52 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. GUTTMAN: So a total of eight parking spots which we have purchased, which more than fulfills the needs of the employees who work there. The others are available for customers or anyone else who is going to come there. MS. JOHNSON: So how many parking spaces do you have that are leased or altogether? MR. KAYSER: Eight. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: On premises? MR. GUTTMAN: No, these are not on premises, these are parking spaces which he - either purchased from the Municipal Parking Lot, purchased permits for, so he can use those, or purchased from the Knights of Columbus, the use of spots in their lot. MR. SIEVERDING: There are seven on-site plus the eight that you are leasing - am I interpreting that correctly? MR. GUTTMAN: No. . MR. KAYSER: Are you talking about metered parking? MR. SIEVERDING: Oh, I 'm sorry, there is no on-site parking. MR. GUTTMAN: There is no on-site parking - all the spots that we have - there is no room on the site to have on-site parking, so what we have done in exchange, is purchase off-site parking to provide available parking for the employees and for customers. MR. SIEVERDING: The City spaces are on a monthly permit? MR. GUTTMAN: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: Some sort of first come - first serve to whoever wants access to those spaces? MR. KAYSER: Yes. PAGE #53 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. WEAVER: Is the other lease with the Knights of Columbus more than thirty days at a time? MR. KAYSER: Yes. The lease that we have with them is paid monthly but we have it there - it's been there for the last couple of years. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we have a copy of that lease? Does the Building Department - does the file have a copy of that lease? SECRETARY HOARD: No. MR. KAYSER: As far as the permits that we've bought? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well any of this parking - any of the parking that is proposed - either the Municipal or the Knights of Columbus parking. MR. KAYSER: I can get you one. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: Could you get more parking or would you want to? MR. GUTTMAN: We could get more if there was a need at this point. We have purchased more than sufficient parking spots for all of the employees who drive to work. There also is on-street parking and there is, from our experience, that that has supplied the needs of the Grapevine Press itself. MR. SCHWAB: I 'm just speaking - sort of a jump ahead - using this chart as a current use - is seven deficient and the proposed is sixteen deficient - an increase of nine and you almost have that. If you had nine, we could make the statement and tie that to the variance perhaps. . . MR. KAYSER: Well I went to the City - I applied for more but the day that they give it out - I think there is one day - and I was PAGE #54 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 there - I think it is three days before the end of the month - and I was there that day and I took every one they had. So I will try the next time to get - I think they only give it on a monthly basis, I 'm not positive about that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So every month you have to go down there and apply again? MR. KAYSER: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's the procedure? MR. SIEVERDING: Stand in line, I think that's the way it works. You go to the City Clerk's office - stand in line - and hope there isn't someone in front of you who is going to buy for fifty some employees in their same office. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. So there is no guarantee whatsoever. . . MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see, is that how it happens. There is no guarantee then that next month you are going to get the same as you had last month. Or you could get more or you could get less. MR. SIEVERDING: That's right. Depending on the person who is in front of you. MR. GUTTMAN: The Municipal Lot behind the building - actually adjoins the building - joins the premises itself, not only has some spaces reserved for permits and some spaces which are metered. In practice, it seems that most times during the day there are empty meters there also, so there is parking available right behind the building at all times, if anyone needs to use it. There may be a situation where customers either of the Grapevine or - I would suggest more likely - the Alternatives Credit Union - which is PAGE #55 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 right next door - which has much more customers, chose not to park there - it is quicker to park on the street. MR. KAYSER: To answer your question - there is a place for manage- ment to talk to other management of the building next door to make sure that. . . MR. WEAVER: I didn't ask anybody whose car. . . MR. KAYSER: Right, but to answer your question, yes I will talk with our neighbors to make sure that. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you know whether the Credit Union is open on Sunday? MR. KAYSER: I believe it is not. Almost positive that it is not CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I just offer that as confirming evidence to Charlie's observation - on Sunday I noticed a car parked across the sidewalk. It is acknowledged, there is a difficulty there I am sure. MR. KAYSER: We are not open on Sundays. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I saw it with my own two eyes. MR. KAYSER: Was it in front of the Grapevine? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It was sitting right there across the driveway - across the sidewalk, in the driveway. MR. WEAVER: Let me ask another question about this. Do you have a legal parking space in a driveway on your property? One legal parking space in your driveway - on your property? MR. KAYSER: I don't have a driveway on our property. MR. WEAVER: Okay. And does the neighbor have space to park a car inside the sidewalk? MR. GUTTMAN: The neighbor, which neighbor sir? PAGE #56 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. WEAVER: Alternate. . MR. KAYSER: The neighbor? MR. GUTTMAN: The Alternatives Credit Union is on the north. MR. WEAVER: I understand. MR. GUTTMAN: And on the south is a building which is used for rental purposes. MR. WEAVER: But does she have . . . MR. GUTTMAN: I don't know if it's a she, but they have a driveway. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Any further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The conversion that you proposing would be - right now it is strictly for Grapevine use? MR. KAYSER: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: You are not leasing out to any other party? MR. GUTTMAN: If the conversion is approved the whole building will be Grapevine Press. MR. WEAVER: I have a question on the worksheet. How do we handle - District Regulations for existing is recorded as seven off-street parking spaces and Regulations for the Proposed, sixteen. How do we get an additional nine off-street parking requirement for one - the space occupied by one bedroom apartment? SECRETARY HOARD: It is based on the square footage. MR. WEAVER: I understand but there is that much square footage in this one-bedroom apartment? SECRETARY HOARD: Two hundred and fifty square feet per parking space. MS. JOHNSON: But thirteen hundred square feet total? Is that with the apartment or - down here on the bottom of the page. PAGE #57 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. WEAVER: I don't understand it. MR. SCHWAB: What percentage of the building - square footage of the building is the apartment? MR. KAYSER: A quarter. MS. JOHNSON: What's the square footage that that totals? MR. SIEVERDING: If you have thirteen hundred square feet. . . MR. KAYSER: We've never heard of any problem with parking, not that that would have anything to do with. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we still have to satisfy - we are trying to get some idea or a line on why we came up with specifics here on the worksheet that we do. MR. SIEVERDING: You are using all three floors in the building in the first place, right, for offices so you've got three floors, thirteen hundred square feet- all the floors are equal all the way up? MR. KAYSER: No. MR. SIEVERDING: In the attic, obviously you have less space. MR. KAYSER: There is less space in the attic. MS. JOHNSON: So it, well it is thirteen hundred per floor. MR. SIEVERDING: So it would allow eleven spaces for the first two floors plus what you have in the attic. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Does that make sense? SECRETARY HOARD: I didn't figure this out. MR. WEAVER: Well the note says there is thirteen fifty per floor, but I don't - that doesn't tell me how many floors, for example. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well there are at least two, right? PAGE #58 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. GUTTMAN: There are three floors, the third floor is smaller than the bottom two. MR. SIEVERDING: Two floors plus an attic. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So let's assume that that is how they got the figures. Does that help at all Helen? MS. JOHNSON: A little, even if you figure it at that rate, it could be even sixteen. MR. SIEVERDING: But the issue really is, I mean, whether it is thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, I mean, you've got a parking requirement - all of which appears - it's got to be provided off-site because there is no on-site parking. MR. GUTTMAN: That's correct - there is no space on the lot. . . MR. SIEVERDING: And although the Grapevine currently doesn't have a lot of employees that have to drive, you may not need all those spaces - but the fact is, once this variance is granted it's got to run with the land and any subsequent owner, I guess, would be free to put any kind of apartment - he would sort of get this as of right. It couldn't, in fact, be creating a parking demand that is not going to be appropriately satisfied - increasing the congestion in the neighborhood. Obviously the question that it comes down to is whether there is some plan that you all can devise to satisfy what is a pretty serious parking deficiency. One that is a little bit more concrete than having to go and apply to the City on a monthly basis for permits. MR. GUTTMAN: I think the best answer we have to that is that the building and the premises actually adjoin the Municipal lot where there is parking available and also that the change in use which we PAGE #59 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 are contemplating is not something which is just going to increase parking [changed tape here so missed some of the dialogue] soon have a parking problem - (unintelligible) because what is going to happen is that you are going to have less people who presently are residing there who have cars, were not going to be residing there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I think we have addressed the parking question, are there any other questions perhaps? Very good, thank you gentlemen. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak against? [no one] That being the case, we could entertain a motion or some discus- sion. MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm concerned about the parking. I think the parking in this particular instance is a pretty serious deficiency and it doesn't seem to me that there is that (unintelligible) or approach put together that really does justice to the deficiencies. I think it is not - the parking requirement is there, I think, for accommodation of both employees and people who actually come to do business and need to conduct their business there - so the basis of that one parking space for two hundred and fifty square feet of use. My inclination, actually, would be to offer a resolution to or a motion to deny the variance until some appropriate plan is - the variance request - until some appropriate plan is devised to come up with the required parking. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other comments? MS. JOHNSON: I would sort of agree with that because I know in other appeals where there was maybe an adjacent Municipal Parking lot we didn't consider that . . . PAGE #60 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. WEAVER: Well absent a plan and another hearing on this, very clearly we have a parking deficiency existing and a taking of certain space that will increase the requirement, and it seems to me that a conditional granting would not be inappropriate if among us we can decide what the number of off-site parking spaces should be, rather than saying that - come in with a plan, which would be fine if we are not willing to say, you figure out how to do it and we will grant it - if you provide proof of an adequate number of off-site parking. I 'd like to also observe that the requirement for sixteen spaces - totalling meeting it with an existing struc- ture and an existing lot that has been there forever, for all practical purposes, and I think is a rather severe expectation - granted that there is not a new building going up there that would bring - knowingly bring a good number of new employees. So it seems to me that, providing something in the area of eight to ten spaces, but providing us with some security - or the City with some security that they will be available - and will be there and not maybe - so that delivery of a lease, some other proof that whatever our number is to be met - would be a reasonable motion to make, assuming that we grant. The only other deficiencies are lot width and a side yard, which will not be exacerbated by the granting of a variance - certainly a practical difficulty - so the only thing, it seems to me, the only thing I 'm hung up on is off-street parking, and if the rest of you are - have in mind what is a reasonable amount of off-street parking, I 'd suggest that we could grant a conditional variance requiring a lease or other proof that that off-street parking will be supplied. PAGE #61 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) MR. SCHWAB: If we could figure out, one idea would be to start talking - is some idea on the exacerbation. Right now they sort of - we are all looking in general, not in the specifics, and they are already - whatever business comes in there - is seven below what the Planners say is ideal so they don't exacerbate that. And they are perfectly allowed to do it. I 'm a little unclear what - well for one - is that sixteen right? The right number? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that would be my question, quite frankly, to stir the pot a little further. I mean, I 'm perfectly fine but you remember your comment, if we could decide - what I 'd like to know is what the figures are based on to begin with and I 'm kind of with Herman's original notion that they should essentially go back and reformulate a plan and let's get some real live justification for this, to the degree that we at least know what we are talking about. MR. SIEVERDING: I don't think that is their problem. MR. SCHWAB: No, that's not their problem. What I need to know is if sixteen is an accurate number? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right, fine but between - I think that the application on its face doesn't give us enough information. One way or another it is kind of a pot shot - what is the proper number? MR. SIEVERDING: I think that's a way of working toward what Charlie suggested. We seem to have been living apparently without any major difficulty with the existing deficiency of seven spaces. And if you say that the proposed new parking requirement, as a PAGE #62 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 result of this conversion, is sixteen, then let them present him with an agreement for nine spaces. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Except, again, you are putting a proviso in from the beginning and that is assuming for the moment that we've been able to live with it and there have been no problems. And both Charlie and I have observed differently and I 'm sure others could have as well. So you see, I 'm still uneasy there. MR. WEAVER: We had a motion but no second. MR. SIEVERDING: I didn't make a motion - that was just discussion. I would be prepared to make a motion along the lines that you suggest. A conditional variance and asking for. . . MR. WEAVER: Well the only way, internally, we can resolve this is for one of us to arbitrarily select a number and we can vote it up or down. MR. SCHWAB: Tom is this sixteen . . is that good enough for you? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tom has absolved himself. It is our decision. MR. SCHWAB: Is the requirement for the proposed use, sixteen spaces, Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: I'm trying to figure out where that came from. MR. WEAVER: Well there is a note on the bottom of the worksheet that says thirteen fifty per floor. That works out to sixteen, pretty close. SECRETARY HOARD: So you think that thirteen fifty is taken from the floor plan. This is a conversion but I don't have a floor plan here so I. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So does the conditional variance rest at sixteen? PAGE #63 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1734 FOR 108 SOUTH ALBANY STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Karl Kayser for an area variance to permit conversion of the apartment at 108 South Albany Street to additional office space, thereby converting the entire building to office use. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance request- ed in Appeal Number 1734 subject to the following condition: that the appellant provide a lease or other proof of providing off-site parking for eight (8) automobiles. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. That the structure is a frame dwelling that would not ordinar- ily be converted into the occupancy density normally expected of an office building. 2 . That the existing side yard setback and lot width cannot be met as a practical difficulty in that it would require demoli- tion of the building. 3 . That those two deficiencies will not be exacerbated by the granting of this variance. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. VOTE: 4 YES; 1 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED W/CONDITION PAGE #64 IBZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1735 FOR 903 EAST STATE STREET: i Appeal of 911 Associates for an area variance for a deficient side yard under Section 30.25, Column 13 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the retention of the corner of the building at 903 East State Street which intrudes two and one-half feet into the required sideyard. Appellant originally intended to remove this portion of the build- ing as part of the construction project, but is now requesting a variance so that it can remain. Under Section 30. 57 a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued for the project unless a variance is obtained or the corner is removed. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You know the procedure. MR. SHAPIRO: My name 'is Marty Shapiro, attorney at law, with offices at 304 Clinton I:House, Ithaca, New York. I represent 911 Associates, the appellants in this matter. I have with me Mr. John Novarr, one of the general partners of the 911 Associates. As Mr. Hoard has advised you, we are here tonight for an area variance. The fact situation is fairly simple. The existing structure at 905 East State Street, excuse me, 903 East State Street is approximate- ly two point five feet too close to the side yard. There has been additional development on that land with the understanding that the appellant would either 1) obtain an area variance for the two point five feet deficiency or in the alternative, if that were not forthcoming, would commence whatever demolition is necessary to move the side of the existing building back the two point five PAGE 65 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 feet. The existing building is quite old, I would guess something along the lines of fif y or sixty years old. The situation has existed there all this ime - it was grandfathered in - a matter of pre-existing the Zoning Ordinance. But as you know, with the additional development n the property, that situation has to be rectified one way or another, either by variance or removal. The two point five feet, b the way, on the side of that particular building - on the ground floor, encompasses what is now a garage which was part of the original building. Above it is an area that was kind of an extension of the living room area. If the variance were denied, what the appellant would have to do and the appellant would do, although with some real difficulty, would be to remove the side of the garage and just move it back five feet. Obviously the practical consequences of that would be that the garage would disappear as far as a useful garage goes and the living space upstairs would be decre sed by some two point five feet also, on the length of the house. I would point out that generally in that area, the houses are, give or take, of the same age group and I believe there are numerous other instances where deficient side yard requirements exist, so leaving it as it is certainly doesn't change or wouldn't affe, t the neighborhood one way or the other. I point out for those of you who might - for anybody in the audience who might think that the entire project should be considered in this - the entire project could be either one way or the other - the only thing that we 'are really talking about here is whether or not the garage should �be made into essentially a storage area at some considerable cost and whether existing living space should be PAGE 66 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 decreased because of the side yard deficiency. It would seem to me that for the good of the public and the use of the property nothing would be served by that but it is something that could be done and would be done if the Board saw fit not to grant a variance. The application for area variances have to demonstrate that 1) there are practical difficulties and special conditions which make compliance with regulations impossible. Well, I don't know that we can really show that it is absolutely impossible without demolish- ing a wall of the existing structure as it has existed for many, many years - it would be impossible without moving essentially one parking space, interior parking space in an area that needs all the parking spaces it can have. I would point out, of course, that the project itself has the required number of parking spaces and for that matter complies with all the laws, rules and ordinances, etc. This is the only deficiency whatsoever in the entire project. 2) the exception would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and wouldn't change the character of the district. Obviously it is not going to change anything, it's been sitting there for any number of years and I don't believe the Ordinance was really meant - in such cases as this - to require a demolition of useful existing space for a very relatively minor encroachment on the side yard require- ments. So, that having been said, the appeal is before you, I 've brought Mr. Novarr along who would be able to answer any questions that you might have relating to this particular problem or the entire project, if you ; have any questions along those lines. Of course, we do, and have tried to bring this up in an expeditious manner because there are questions of completion of the project and PAGE 67 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 certificates of occupancy that we will be looking for in the very near future. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: These back buildings are houses? MR. NOVARR: One of - there are three buildings going up in back of the existing houses on separate lots that we purchased with the houses. One building is a house, though strictly speaking, proba- bly not the kind of house you envision as a house, it is a twelve-bedroom house, three bathrooms, two-story living room and its intended use is to rent to college students. The other two buildings are each six unit apartment houses. All three new buildings are designed to look like the general housing stock in that neighborhood - they are cedar clapboard houses with steeply pitched roofs. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Just one. You may have covered it in your presen- tation and I may have missed it but apparently you originally intended to remove this portion of the building and subsequently changed your plan? MR. SHAPIRO: Well that's partly true, I suppose. We went into this knowing that we had a small problem there and it seemed that the best thing to do would be to not let the tail wag the dogs going with the project, knowing that if we got turned down on an appeal for a variance that there was, obviously, a way to remedy the whole situation at some considerable cost and disruption of the existing space but we could remedy the situation and that was a relatively small thing to deal with considering the extent of the PAGE 68 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 entire project. So initially we thought well, if we had to move it we would move it, we also thought that we would be applying for a variance and if we got it, I think that would certainly solve the problem and - to our way of thinking - it would be the best solu- tion. So one way or the other, we knew that we would be able to either comply with all the laws and ordinances, either by variance in this particular case, or a demolition and removal of the wall. MR. SCHWAB: What would be the cost to remove the wall - a rough guess? MR. KOVARR: Oh, we'd probably have five or ten thousand dollars in that thing. If it were simply a matter of taking the garage down, it wouldn't be that, but because there is living space above it, we wouldn't just take the garage down, we'd just shorten everything by two and a half feet. Actually it is even a little messier than that. The wall doesn't run parallel to the property line so the far end of the wall is in compliance. The front corner of the wall is the two and a half foot problem, so it runs from two and a half feet to nothing along the side of the building, in terms of the. . . MR. SCHWAB: You are saying, if we deny you it would just cost you five to ten thousand dollars? MR. NOVARR: That's right. One way or another I have to comply or Tom isn't going to give me a Certificate of Occupancy. I 'm build- ing something approaching a million dollars worth of buildings in back and it doesn't make a lot of sense to make a big issue out of the garage and living space above it, in relation to the rest of the project that is there. PAGE 69 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SHAPIRO: I would point out that there is an additional cost here, over and above what the developer would have to spend to rectify the situation with demolition and a reconstruction there and that is he would lose a parking space - an off-street parking space - sheltered parking space - and would also cut down somewhat on the living space in the unit and, not to sound too self-serving as far as the developer goes, I think those are worthwhile consid- erations for the public welfare, also in that we do have a defi- ciency, generally, in the City with off-street parking and it seems kind of absurd to be talking about demolishing one for want of two and a half feet. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Further question from members of the Board? Thank you gentlemen. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? (no one) That being the case, I 'll entertain a motion. PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1735 FOR 903 EAST STATE STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of 911 Associ- ates for an area variance to permit the retention of the corner of the building at 903 East State Street which intrudes two and one-half feet into the required sideyard. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance request- ed in Appeal Number 1735. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are practical difficulties in meeting the side lot requirement in that the garage would have to be at least partially demolished. 2. This demolition would cost between $5, 000. and $10,000. 3 . The deficiency is not being exacerbated by the proposal. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; I ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED. PAGE 71 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The last appeal is APPEAL NO. 1736 FOR 415 NORTH AURORA STREET: Appeal of Cecelia Sullivan for an area variance for deficient lot width at the street, and deficient setbacks for one side yard and the rear yard under Section 30.25, Columns 7, 13, and 15, to permit a second story addition over the one story portion of the single-family residence at 415 North Aurora Street. The property is located in an R2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30. 57 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. MR. SULLIVAN: Good evening. My name is William Sullivan, I am one of the appellants and I am also an attorney, I have an office at 417 North Aurora Street. Cecelia Sullivan is here with me. I was worried about getting here by eight o'clock. The property in question is located - it is a land-locked piece of property - located just east of the property at 417 North Aurora Street. There are two separate parcels, both next to Cascadilla Creek - both abut the creek - and I am not sure whether this is part of your file but there is - what is called a city property map - that shows the location of the building at 415 North Aurora Street. That was part of the file of the Building Commissioner, and I will pass it around, if it is not part of it already. The north end of the property presently has a one story guest room, washing area, PAGE 72 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 where there is a washing machine and at the extreme east end of that there is also the heating plant for the building. It's the intention of the appellant here to put a second story over that one story portion of the building. It will not change the ground lines at all. The property at 415 North Aurora Street has been in the location, without any change, since prior to 1949. It has been in the Sullivan family since late 150's when it was purchased from Donald Mosher. There is no plan to change the use. It is used right now - the building is used by Cecelia Sullivan as a resi- dence. She teaches at Lansing Central School - she is an elementa- ry school teacher - she has a number of school related materials which are stored in the basement at 417, as well as in boxes elsewhere. She would like to consolidate and use the room for crafts and sewing and other (unintelligible) . I would like you to treat the appeal, which is sworn to, as testimony and if you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: So this is a variance just to increase the living space available? MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Instead. of going up one story, you are going two stories. It is not going to change to any substantial degree the roof line of the building either. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What are the provisions for access between the two properties? MR. SULLIVAN: In the deeds there is a right-of-way which runs from Aurora Street back to the property at 415. Since both parcels are owned by the same persons, that is, by my sister and by me, there PAGE 73 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 are no access problems. But there is a right-of-way that goes through the driveway, which is located on the south side of the 417 North Aurora Street property. There is seven or eight spaces - parking spaces that you can get without stacking cars and still maintain that open driveway - that open right-of-way. Parking is not an issue in this case. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions, any further questions? MR. SULLIVAN: The big problems are two - well there is no street frontage at all and then the house is built in such a manner that it is right on the creek wall, on the south side and the property on the east side abuts the property of Jack and Marian Deal and there is virtually no back yard where there is three feet - four feet - whatever, back there. So its been that way since I was a youngster and even before. In fact, the fence has grown into the tree or the tree into the fence, or whatever, in back there, to show you how long it has been there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor or against? [no one] Shall we have a motion? PAGE 74 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 DECISION ON "PEAL NO. 1736 FOR 415 NORTH AURORA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Cecelia and William Sullivan for an area variance to permit a second story addition over the one story portion of the single-family residence at 415 North Aurora Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1736. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Practical difficulties were shown relating to the size of the building on the site, such that it is impossible to make it meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 2 . Special condition that the proposed alteration won't exacer- bate the existing deficiencies and that it will be done within the foot print of the building. 3 . The exception observes the spirit of the Ordinance and does not change the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 75 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 SECRETARY HOARD: First then is APPEAL NO. 1727 FOR 119 THIRD STREET: Appeal of Robert Martin for an interpretation of Section 30.49 of the Zoning Ordinance (limits on extension or enlargement of non-conforming uses or structures) and Section 30. 57 (Requirements for building permits and Certificates of Occupancy) , or in lieu of a favorable interpretation a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 and an area variance for deficient rear yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 14, to permit the retroactive approval of the conversion of an apartment to locker room and shower space for the gymnasium at 119 Third Street (Ithaca Fitness Center) . The property is located in an R3b (residential, multiple dwelling) Use District in which a gymnasium is not a permitted use; therefore it is the Building Commissioner's interpretation that enlarge- ment of the gymnasium facilities requires a use variance as well as an area variance for the deficient rear yard before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion. The owner has indicated that the conversion was undertaken by a previous owner. Do you want to do both of these at once or do you want to do one at a time? MR. STUMBAR: It's the Board's pleasure. If it would be clearer to do them one at a time - the issues - some of the issues are the same, some of the issues are different, it's however the Board feels. PAGE 76 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think we better take them one at a time. MR. STUMBAR: Okay, I 'll just avoid repeating myself on the issues that are the same. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's fine. MR. STUMBAR: Or attempt to do so. I 'm Rich Stumbar, I 'm an attorney and I 'm here on behalf of Bob Martin who is also here and Bob will - the first appeal has to do with a problem that Bob Martin ran into - or he discovered, anyway, after he purchased the building. This building goes back a long ways and has been through this Board a few times on various issues. The main variance was granted back in 1977 and that was for the gymnasium part of the building. I don't know if you people are aware of the building, but it's a large structure and it has mainly two significant components - one is a long gymnasium type area and the other one is the older part of the structure which was built like an old lodge or something like that - it is hard to describe it. Historically there were a number of apartments in that building as well as the gymnastic center. The gymnastic center has changed over time - what with the changing in attitudes of fitness and health and whatever - at one time it was mainly a gymnastic center with kids, as well as a fitness center. The emphasis now is more in fitness. In any event the prior owners, who owned the building prior to Mr. Martin were not able to rent the downstairs apartment. There was one apartment downstairs and four apartments upstairs at the time the variance was granted in 1977. So the use variance covered a structure to be used as the gymnastic and fitness center along with five apartments. As I said, four of the apartments were upstairs PAGE 77 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 and one was downstairs, on the northern end of the building. Over the years part of that downstairs apartment had vacilated back and forth between being used as part of an apartment and being used as locker space - locker room space for the gymnastic program. At the time that the prior owners held the building - this is in the early 180's we are talking about - Bob Martin was leasing the structure for his gymnastics center and his fitness center and the owners leased out the five apartments as well. They were unable to lease that downstairs apartment because it was right next to all the facilities for the gymnastic and fitness center so they asked Mr. Martin if he would like to lease it and essentially turn it into locker room space because he didn't really have locker room space for the women's program. So Bob did take over that downstairs apartment and in approximately 1984 converted it to use as a women's locker room facility. I don't know if you got the map of the or the diagram, the schematic of the downstairs, or at least part of the downstairs that we are interested in, the initial women's locker room was in the corner here - it is in green - and after you eliminate the showers the locker room space was a small space of approximately five feet by about eight feet - it is a very, very tiny space - totally unsuitable for women's locker room space, so what happened, in 184 was that Bob Martin took the rest of this apartment - the kitchen and the bedroom and what was the bathroom and he converted that into locker room space - expanded the women's locker room area and that was the nature of the expan- sion. At the time he didn't realize what the variance situation was - you know, that he could not spend the money to do this - the PAGE 78 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 owner suggested that it be done because they couldn't rent this downstairs apartment which was adjacent to the women's locker rooms and the other areas downstairs in the building. So at the time Bob did it - as I said, he wasn't the owner and didn't realize there was a problem and it was something that he needed to expand his locker room space. The gymnastics area - the fitness area was in no way expanded by that particular move - it was just that the lockers were made - the locker area was made more comfortable - larger, so people were not sitting on top of each other and they could have lockers etc. Bob Martin bought the property in 1985 from the prior owners and at the time part of the purchase offer was a stipulation that a Certificate of Occupancy would be granted and it would be obtained by the then owners before Bob closed. In September Bob got a letter from Tom Hoard saying that a Certificate of Occupancy would be granted for a building - essentially a gym and a fitness center with five apartments. Tom Hoard knew the history of the building and knew that the original variance was given with five apartments. Bob Martin didn't grasp the significance of the five apartment concern, he just assumed that that meant he was going to get his Certificate of Occupancy and didn't realize the fact that one of the apartments had been converted was going to change the situation. So, in any event, he closed, bought the building in October of 185 and shortly thereafter, upon an inspection, he found out from the Building Commissioner that this expansion of the women's locker room facility into that one apartment was, in Mr. Hoard's view, a violation of the zoning law because it was an expansion of a non-conforming use. So the nature of our first PAGE 79 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 appeal has to do with retroactively requesting that - if the zoning law is applicable to this situation concerning non-conforming uses, that Bob Martin be granted a variance so that he can continue to use that first floor apartment as locker room space. If you look at the reasons for that - as I said, the first reason is the fact that there was insufficient locker room space in that structure and more room had to be found for locker room space, if the facility was going to remain hygienic. The second matter is, of course, that you can't have an apartment on the first floor when the rest of the floor is occupied by aerobics classes and people on bicycles and locker rooms and whatever, it is just not a feasible mix of uses. The apartment was essentially unrentable because of all the interference and noise and the hubbub that was going on right next door with the lockers and the showers and whatever. The third fact of the matter is, this is not really an expansion of the use per se, there is no additional floor space as far as use for fitness facilities, it is just adding to the locker room space for the women and making the accommodations a little more reasonable but not to add to the use itself, of the facility. In fact, I have an affidavit here, which I would submit, concerning the use of the facility and essentially we find that the use has decreased over the last several years and has, in fact, decreased since the conversion of that first floor apartment. In 1983 there were fifteen hundred sixty-five members, in 1984 there nineteen hundred and ninety-eight members. Mr. Martin has always limited himself to two thousand members as the top and he has been before this Board before and that's his limit. 1984 was essentially the limit. In PAGE 80 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 1985, after the conversion, he had fifteen hundred and thirty members and this year he has thirteen hundred and ninety-five members. So the use really has not, as far as the use of this facility, itself, has not really changed, in fact it has decreased as to the number of members has decreased. I think if you look at the legal issues, the criteria you have to look at under the law, the hardship here is manifest. If Mr. Martin has to return this to an apartment, this was an unrentable apartment before he bought the building, he spent thousands of dollars during the time he was a tenant to change into locker room space, if he has to remove that locker room space to turn it back into an apartment, that is essentially unrentable. The other issue is that part of that apartment had formerly been locker room space and has been convert- ed back and forth between a bedroom and locker room space. This is certainly a unique building in that area. It is a building that was grandfathered in, essentially. There are no other buildings quite like it, either there or anywhere else and the granting of this particular variance is not going to change the situation down there. It is not going to change the neighborhood anymore than this structure itself has changed the neighborhood. As I said, that change has been fait accompli for two years and it hasn't increased the use of the building, in fact the use of the building has decreased over the last two years. I'm not saying that it has decreased because of the use of this apartment, obviously there are other market forces at work here, but I am saying Mr. Martin hasn't used this as a springboard to increase the activity down there and get a larger number of people down there. In fact there are four PAGE 81 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 hundred fewer members right now than there were in 1984 - almost six hundred fewer members right now than there were in 1984. Those are the arguments with respect to granting of the variance. There is a threshold jurisdicational issue which has to do with the whole definition of extension or enlargement of a non-conforming use. That definition is set forth in 30.49 of the variance and I think it is ripe with ambiguity as a lot of the sections of this code are. I think that it doesn't really tell us what an increase - what we are talking about when we extend or enlarge a non-conforming use. It says "a non-conforming use may not be extended or enlarged to other structures or to other land" - certainly we haven't extended this or Mr. Martin hasn't extended it to another structure, it is still in the same building. If you want to call an apartment a separate structure, I think you are stretching the definition here and your in derogation of the strict interpretation of the meaning. That also says "nor may a non-conforming structure be extended or enlarged except by means of a variance granted by the Board of Appeals. " Now when you are talking about extending or enlarging a non-conforming structure, obviously the structure has not been changed, the entire structure was non-conforming, it was not enlarged, there was no vision to it, it was not extended. I think that under the definition, a real strict interpretation would say that this simple change of some of the space in the non-conforming building to add to a function that does not increase the number of members of the club, that the real issue here as far as a non-conforming use is the use of this building for a gymnasium or an athletic facility or a health PAGE 82 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 facility - that use, itself, has not been extended by using this apartment. As I said the membership has gone down, the space useable for gymnastics or physical activities has not increased at all by this change and I would say that under the definition, this is not an increase in the non-conforming use. MR. SCHWAB: When was the apartment last rented? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Will you come up to the microphone and identify yourself please? MR. MARTIN: The apartment was rented probably back before he gave it to me - somebody came in - what was that - 184? - was when we changed it? It was not rented for about six months but before that it was rented - I say within two years - to about twelve different people completely. They just came in - out - in - out - in - out - then they made the decision - they asked me if I wanted it - I needed it and then I added that to the lease. MR. SCHWAB: The renters left because of this intolerable. . . MR. MARTIN: They kept leaving but, according to them, they thought the noise on the other side was the reason that everybody kept leaving. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Yes, I have a question. What appeal are we listening to? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The first one. MR. WEAVER: The interpretation? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Interpretation, and then in lieu of a favorable interpretation, the variance. PAGE 83 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. WEAVER: Well whether the tenants come or go doesn't seem to be very pertinent to the interpretation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart perhaps, is getting a little bit ahead of himself. . . MR. SCHWAB: Well, no, this is part of 1727. 1728 will be the other apartment. MR. STUMBAR: This is all part of the same appeal, we made kind of alternative arguments (unintelligible) first argument, if you say you do, we are bound by your decision - we are asking for a vari- ance whereas (unintelligible) retroactive condition. The second appeal is for a different change which is not retroactive and - which is different. MR. WEAVER: But in some fashion, Mr. Chairman, are we going to make a decision? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We implicitly - if we deal with 1727a, we implic- itly deal with 1727b, if I can divide those two pieces in parts. MR. WEAVER: I 'd be glad if you did, in that - well it just seems to me that we either talk about the interpretation or don't. Because we might ultimately grant a use variance doesn't seem to me to be pertinent to our decision on what the interpretation of it may be. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. If you would like to proceed. . . MR. WEAVER: If the appellant is asking for an interpretation which seems to me would be the end of the discussion on this particular use in this building - we don't listen to b, do we? And, if so, what for? PAGE 84 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SCHWAB: You are right. Would the code discussion outdo the interpretation - if they win we stop. If they lose, my tentative vote is that they lose subject to decision, if we go on to a use variance. SECRETARY HOARD: Can we back up a little bit? I want to make sure we are interpreting the right question. The appellant has put down Section 30.49 as the section which he feels does not apply. I agree, I don't think it applies - I think 30.57 is the section that applies. That's because that's what his application had on it. I put that down because that's in his application. 30. 57 is the one that I think applies. 30. 57 is the Certificate of Occupancy question and I. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So what we are essentially considering here are two sections? MR. STUMBAR: Right. MR. SCHWAB: Do you agree Tom with the argument that 30.49c is - that this is not an intent to extend the use? SECRETARY HOARD: That it is ambiguous and applies to going to other buildings and so on, yes, I agree. MR. SCHWAB: You agree that it is ambiguous but what is your thought. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Well I wouldn't have cited that - that was in the application - 30.49. I cited it as 30.57. MR. SCHWAB: Okay. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So it is then, incumbent upon us to deal with each one of the sections individually, is what you are saying? PAGE 85 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 SECRETARY HOARD: Well I think we ought to deal - at least with 30. 57. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well but the appellant has asked for 30.49 in addition. MR. STUMBAR: 30. 57 was added. I think that both of them are relevant - I do think 30.49 is relevant as giving definition to 30. 57b - an attempt to define what an extension of a non-conforming use is, since we don't get very much help from 30. 57b. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We appreciate your attempt to try to make our job easier. At this point, are there any more questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: On the issue of interpretation? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: On the question of interpretation - either 30.49 or 30. 57 - without getting to the use variance. MR. WEAVER: Well the phrase that is repeated, I think, by both the appellant and the code are extended or enlarged - talking about a non-conforming use being extended or enlarged and in the explana- tion of why - that has been changed to expanded - which is another word that could be added to this mess - and I just can't see that that is any more precise than extended or enlarged and in the section quoted that a non-conforming use may not be extended or enlarged, is not necessarily read - extended or enlarged to other structures - but could be extended, or enlarged to other structures and it is no clearer one way or the other and if I am cornered to make a decision on that meaning, it seems very clear that the author intended that there not be an increase - I 'll put another one in there along with expanded - there would be an increase in PAGE 86 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 this activity. An example I thought of was a six story building in which they had a non-conforming use on the first floor - can that then go to the next five floors without any variance? Is there no control - in other words, down there are all four apartments up for grabs if this interpretation - if the interpretation of the Build- ing Commissioner is not supported? MR. STUMBAR: If I might, I guess there is a problem with the definition of what is an activity? What is the non-conforming use that we are measuring? Is the activity the number of people taking the gymnastics program or is it simply the square footage used in the program? I think that the real non-conforming use was the fact that we have a large number of people using the gymnasium in the residential area. I think the conversion of that apartment into some extra locker room space did not add to the non-conforming use in the sense that it did not add additional members nor did it add additional programs to that non-conforming use. MR. SIEVERDING: Does anything increase the capacity of the gymna- sium to actually attract more members? MR. STUMBAR: Well I think, I mean that may be an' argument, in fact it hasn't - we have, in one sense we are lucky, because we can look at it retroactively, as I said there are six hundred fewer members now then there were at the time it was made and I think it makes it nicer for members to have a nicer hygienic locker room but it doesn't add any of the activities. It didn't add another nautilus, it didn't add another aerobics room, it didn't add another machine or barbells or any other area to do activities - so in that sense it hasn't added any space that would make it a more attractive PAGE 87 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 facility to more people because there is not more gymnastics activity or more athletic activity going on, there is just an expanded locker room where people can walk around without bumping into each other - that in itself, of course, may have an economic benefit to the extent that it will attract people because it is a more attractive facility - having done away with overcrowded locker rooms - not overcrowded nautilus spots or whatever. MR. WEAVER: Well, Herman, what I was looking at is if they had stayed strictly with the Ordinance, they wouldn't be over in this apartment space at all and had they needed more shower room they would have reduced the size of the gymnasium, necessarily. That's the only other way they could do it, without coming to this Board. PAGE 88 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SCHWAB: Well, generally, I think the Zoning Ordinance has a very difficult time measuring use, except by square footage even though it varies with different sizes. In general the only way we have to go on is the size of the bedroom - is what we look at rather than the number of beds that you actually put in there or some such thing. It is difficult to know what will happen to the use as apart from square footage. My inclination is to say that if your square footage has increased, you've expanded the use. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Helen, any thoughts? MS. JOHNSON: How long has it been since the apartment was rented? MR. MARTIN: It was in 184, around 184 is a guess. MS. JOHNSON: And did you try and rent it or did whoever. . . MR. MARTIN: I did not own it at that time - before, when I owned it before it was basically just the kitchen - we didn't really have an apartment - we actually took the one room over as a locker room. Then we converted it into an apartment just before it was sold - a small two-bedroom apartment and we rented it at that time, our- selves, without too much trouble, but they left very quickly and then we couldn't rent it again, and then we sold it. The building was sold at that time. Then the other people took it over and rented it and then there was such a traffic of people, I would say six different groups, I really don't know, there were so many people in and out and then they came to me and said - if you need to expand your locker facilities, you could lease the apartment and I said yes. MS. JOHNSON: How much did the apartment rent for? PAGE 89 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. MARTIN: I think it was two hundred dollars, and that included everything. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Gentlemen, if you just want to stay put, I dare say I could ask the audience very quickly if there is anyone who would like to speak on your behalf or if there is anyone opposed, and we could then go on to the notion of interpretation. Is that all right with members of the Board? [no Board member objected] Okay. Is there anyone out there who would like to speak in favor of this particular part of our interpretation? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, I 'll entertain a motion. DECISION ON THE INTERPRETATION PORTION OF APPEAL NO. 1727 FOR 119 THIRD STREET APPEAL NO. 1727a MR. SCHWAB: I move that Sections 30. 57 and 30.49c, which deal with extension or enlargement of the non-conforming use, be interpreted to mean that the non-conforming use has been extended or enlarged if the square footage of the building devoted to that non-conforming use is increased. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT BUILDING COMMISSIONER'S INTERPRETATION UPHELD PAGE 90 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 APPEAL NO. 1727b FOR 119 THIRD STREET CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right, shall we move to the next step? Is there anything else in addition? MR. STUMBAR: Well it is essentially the same arguments that I made before - I am not going to repeat. I was making those arguments initially before the interpretation issue, you are handling them separately, so I won't go through the same thing, just briefly as I said, the area was not substantially rentable, having its apartment bedroom right next to the women's locker room area. This is a diagram which I would like to make part of the record. The green is the old women's locker room facility and then the black area is the area that was the apartment downstairs. The women's showers and the women's sauna were just separated by an internal partition there - you can see why there was a large turnover and the diffi- culties we had. As I said, Mr. Martin spent several thousand dollars on that, before he owned the building and he bought the building thinking there was no problem. The use of the building, again, is not increased but is decreased by six hundred members or approximately thirty percent over the last two years and I think that it would be a hardship to Mr. Martin to have to just essen- tially leave that space baron - he is not going to be able to put an apartment back in there and he is not going to be able to rent it if he could - so if this is denied he is simply going to have to move the lockers out of there and have the empty space there, which doesn't seem to be within the spirit of the request here for a retroactive variance. PAGE 91 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SCHWAB: I 'm sympathetic to the idea that the bedroom next to the locker room is difficult to rent but if I can press you a little bit about your limits, anticipating your next appeal. Are apartments near a gymnasium or in the same building as a gymnasium, incompatible - unrentable? MR. STUMBAR: Well, certainly the ones on the same floor are. I think the argument is harder to make for the upstairs apartments that are separated at least by a floor and by not having people on the same floor and I hate to have Mr. Martin's appeal on this one prejudiced by the second appeal. I don't think that they are related in the sense that the first one would be denied just so he can't make the second one, I think that is inappropriate. But I think there is a physical difference, a large physical difference when you have adjoining walls on the same floor, then when you have a second floor occupied. It is difficult, obviously it is not the best location in the world to have your apartment on top of a gym but those places up there on the second floor at least have been rentable and the hardship is not somewhat on that basis although that does come into play. The rents are fairly low there and I think that is probably what attracts people, if you can imagine two hundred dollars a month for a downstairs apartment, it is ridicu- lous - it is a pretty good deal and I think that is part of the economics but the second floor is obviously easier to handle than apartments on the first floor. MR. SIEVERDING: This sketch that is labelled first floor, what is there now? For the conversion that has already taken place? MR. STUMBAR: Pardon? PAGE 92 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SIEVERDING: This floor plan here - this is what is existing right now? MR. MARTIN: Yes. MR. STUMBAR: Yes, you are looking at the second floor. MR. SIEVERDING: No, this is the first floor (unintelligible) MR. STUMBAR: I can't see it from here. MR. SIEVERDING: This is the former apartment that was converted sometime ago (unintelligible) MR. STUMBAR: Yes, right, right, exactly. Except for the lower left hand side there, where the women's sauna is, that was the pre-existing women's locker room and then going up from there the locker room, former apartment bedroom, and then the apartment kitchen area - that was converted in 184, those two rooms there. As well as that little bathroom area there, does it show on your sheet? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes. I see it. . . MR. STUMBAR: That was the apartment bathroom. So you can see the locker space for the women was just around the sauna there as a very tiny little area stuck in the corner there. MR. SIEVERDING: And this is what has been servicing these various numbers of clientele then that you gave us before? MR. STUMBAR: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: Sufficiently? MR. SCHWAB: There is a men's locker room too. MR. SIEVERDING: In the upper right hand corner on this sketch here? MR. STUMBAR: Yes, right. The upper right hand corner. PAGE 93 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. MARTIN: The women's is now sufficient but the men's is not. MR. SIEVERDING: I see. The variance that was granted in 1977 - to whom was that granted? MR. STUMBAR: To Bob. MR. MARTIN: We built an addition - put a metal building besides the wooden building. It doesn't look like another building because its got the two chalet top but that was an addition. I owned the building at that time. MR. SIEVERDING: So that you owned the building and then sold it to this group of outside investors and then subsequently repurchased the property? MR. MARTIN: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: And it was in that intervening period when the other investors owned the property that this building was convert- ed? MR. MARTIN: Right. That is when I leased it from him, that back apartment. MR. STUMBAR: The schematic that you have is just a very small part of the downstairs area, obviously. Over here in this direction would be the main gymnasium and where the aerobics rooms are and the nautilus machines and the aerobics floor and free standing weights and all that kind of stuff. This is just the area where the office complex (unintelligible) small part of the downstairs. MR. SIEVERDING: The variances that were granted in 1977, they were for the gymnastic center plus five apartments, is that right? SECRETARY HOARD: They were for the new addition. PAGE 94 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SIEVERDING: I see, and didn't deal at all with the existing structure? SECRETARY HOARD: It took into consideration what was there, yes. MR. STUMBAR: The existing structure was grandfathered in, as I understand it. He had to get a variance in 177 when he added on the gymnasium part to the south end of the building. MR. WEAVER: In effect the gymnasium was added to the gymnasium side of the building - there was already a very small one there in the old neighborhood house - totally inadequate even for the neighborhood house by today's standards and this building was added on, so I don't remember any discussion of how a change in use in that gymnasium part of the first floor, I agree that it was grandfathered - it was my understanding at least, that we weren't talking about a change in use, it was really an extension of the gymnasium out into this new structure, an extension of the struc- ture as well. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: I just have a question about parking. The twen- ty-four spaces that is listed on the worksheet here, with a foot- note of sorts, I guess, recommended by the Planning Board, I guess in the absence of any kind of parking required for a gymnastic center? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: Was that also with the 1977 variance? SECRETARY HOARD: No, that was for - it came before the Board a couple of years ago. PAGE 95 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. MARTIN: A couple of years ago we wanted to get more off-street parking and convert the back - I own the property next to (unintel- ligible) and we wanted to make that into - so we could bring more cars off the road and into the parking area onto my property - but it was refused. We leased the whole Hancock Parking Plaza anyway - I lease those from the Hancock Parking - in front of the Motor Vehicle Bureau. We tried to get more off-street parking but you didn't allow us to do that. MR. STUMBAR: There is an irony here - actually parking is the issue. Bob bought the house behind it and wanted to convert the area - the yard back there into off-street parking and that was disallowed so he couldn't add that extra parking on but he has leased the Hancock Plaza for the evening hours so he has the whole Hancock Plaza Parking Lot there for his people - his members to park there on evening hours. MR. MARTIN: Actually, anytime. MR. STUMBAR: Anytime? MR. MARTIN: Yes, we've rented it now for about (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: Right now your parking is on the south side of the building? MR. MARTIN: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: Toward Cascadilla there is a narrow little strip of parking there. Will the parking behind the building. . . MR. MARTIN: That is for our tenants and staff. MR. SIEVERDING: And not for gymnasium users? MR. MARTIN: No, it is like a big square and there is about one-quarter of it grass, one part of it was on the Fitness Center PAGE 96 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 property, which is the parking - and then the back of it was property on Second Street and you could just make a square and take out one quarter of it and the corner is the grass. . [changed the tape here so missed a few words of dialogue] CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A bit of clarification. How much of a hardship, by virtue of finances - dollars and cents - would it be to take this out of commission, in the way in which you intended? MR. MARTIN: Dollars and cents? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, can we attach any dollars and cents figure to . . . MR. MARTIN: To put a kitchen. . . appliances back in? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. MARTIN: I don't know what a contractor would do - a new kitchen, what it would cost, a new bathroom - ten thousand dollars? I 'm just trying to guess what it would be to put a kitchen and bath in there - it's a guess. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Thank you gents. We'll see if anybody else would like to speak in favor. If you would come forward. Either pull up an additional chair, whatever. MR. WILLS: I 'm Dennis Wille, I live at 201 Third Street, which is directly across the street from the Fitness Center and it seems with the zoning issues, very often the impact on the neighborhood is the real issue and my experience, living directly across the street is that I don't experience a parking problem at all. The woman I bought the house from - about a year ago - instructed me what to do when someone parks in front of the driveway - and that PAGE 97 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 was, call the police and hopefully they will tow. So I did that the first time somebody parked there and the car was gone before anyone got there to do anything, so the second time I called an officer came and said that it was probably someone from the Fitness Center, I 'll go over there and we'll ask them to move the car. Because it is a little bit of an ambiguous driveway, speaking of ambiguities. But at that point I decided if anyone ever parks there again I ' ll call the Fitness Center and I 've had to do that three or four times in the last year and in every case the cars have been moved very quickly and I just really haven't experienced what I would consider a parking problem - you know, with people parking in front of my driveway. And I think there are parking problems a lot of places in Ithaca, I lived on South Hill and it is very serious up there. I think, in this situation there is a structure - a facility which people can focus on and say, this is the problem and I think it is a bit unfair because overall Bob Martin is a very good neighbor, he keeps the property very well maintained, I think the street traffic of the members of his Fitness Center are a very positive impact in the neighborhood - you know walking all over the street in the evening hours and in general I would say that the building is being well used as a Fitness Center and variances that would cause that use to continue would be a positive impact on the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: Do you think most neighbors think like you do? MR. WILLE: I really don't know, one problem that I see in the neighborhood is a large percentage of it is non-owner-occupied PAGE 98 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 rental so that - you know - they don't have as much at stake. I would guess that the people next to me don't have any problem because I 've never seen anyone parking in front of their driveway along the Third Street side. Although I have been to other BZA meetings and I think I may be in the minority but I really don't know. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you Mr. Wille. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, it is ours. MR. STUMBAR: Mr. Chairman may I just add this to the record, the affidavit on the number of members . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. PAGE 99 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1727b FOR 119 THIRD STREET: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Robert Martin for an interpretation or, in lieu of a favorable interpretation, a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 and an area variance under Section 30.25, Column 14, to permit the retroactive approval of the conversion of an apartment to locker room and shower space for the gymnasium at 119 Third Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the use and area variances be granted, conditioned upon the use variance being limited to the first floor only. MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Strict application of the Ordinance does in fact produce a hardship on the property, given the cost of the reconversion back to apartment use. 2. The hardship created is unique and not shared by all proper- ties alike. 3. It is a legal, non-conforming use and the only one in the immediate neighborhood and not one that is shared by the other properties in the area. 4. The variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance as it was originally used and does not alter the character of the neighborhood, particularly since the alterations are confined to the interior of the building. 5. Practical difficulty related to moving the structure such that the rear yard requirements can be met. PAGE 100 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT USE & AREA VARIANCES GRANTED WITH/CONDITION PAGE 101 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1728 FOR 119 THIRD STREET: Appeal of Robert Martin for an interpretation of Section 30.49 of the Zoning Ordinace (limits on extension or enlargement of non-conforming uses or structures) and Section 30. 57 (Requirements for building permits and Certificate of Occupancy) , or in lieu of a favorable interpretation a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 and an area variance for deficient rear yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 14, to permit the conversion of an additional apartment to locker room and shower space for the gymnasium at 119 Third Street (Ithaca Fitness Center) . The property is located in an R3b (residential, multiple dwelling) use District in which a gymnasium is not a permitted use; therefore it is the Building Commissioner's interpretation that enlargement of the gymnasium facilities requires a use variance as well as an area variance for the deficient rear yard before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion. Is anybody here for this appeal? MR. STUMBAR: I would at this time like to ask that this appeal be put over until we have a full Board. We only have five members here tonight and (unintelligible) I think my client is prejudiced by having five members. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, see you next month. Thank you. PAGE 102 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1730 FOR 109 FAYETTE STREET: Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for an area variance for deficient off-street parking, and deficient setbacks for the front yard, one side yard, and the rear yard under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 11, 12, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the single-family home at 109 Fayette Street to a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an R2b (one- and two-family dwelling) Use District in which the use is permitted; however, under Section 30. 57 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion. MR. CURTIS: I 'm Ben Curtis from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. We are appealing for a variance to convert the building at 109 Fayette from a one-family to a two-family. We are required to get a variance because, although the use is permitted the lot size is deficient in the front, side and back yards. I think the difficulty in overcoming the deficiencies is obvious and the conversion won't affect the character of the neighborhood. It is our feeling that it would be within the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance to grant this variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: May I ask you about the parking on our worksheet - it says zero places and the proposal would increase the parking requirements in the Ordinance. PAGE 103 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. CURTIS: I think actually there was something of an error there, there are, in fact, parking places for three cars - back to back. At an earlier time there used to be a garage in the back of the property. I think there was an easement on the adjoining property which permits parking. There is a driveway along side the entry way of the building and there is a - you can actually drive down that driveway all the way to the back of the property, which is where the garage used to stand so there is parking for up to three cars - but certainly two back to back, which I think is the requirement, both now and what it would be were we to take the conversion. MR. WEAVER: Further question on that - would that mean that the stacked parking would occupy that right-of-way? MR. CURTIS: Yes a car in all likelihood, as it is now, cars probably park on that right-of-way because it is all gravel so you could park a car all the way to the one side, I suppose. There is roughly nine and a half feet in width there. MR. SIEVERDING: From the edge of the entrance porch to the proper- ty line? MR. CURTIS: Yes, to the next house. No, there is another two and a half feet of easement beyond that property line, specifically for parking. MR. SIEVERDING: Used only by 109 - not the adjoining property? MR. CURTIS: That's right, the adjoining property has its own driveway and garage. MR. SIEVERDING: On the north side of their property? MR. CURTIS: Yes that's right. PAGE 104 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MR. SCHWAB: So you aren't blocking the next house. . . MR. CURTIS: No, that's right. MR. SCHWAB: Just yours? MR. CURTIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The survey map shows the two foot right-of-way. MR. SIEVERDING: I see. The limit on stacked parking is two? SECRETARY HOARD: Two. MR. SIEVERDING: Couldn't they meet that, I mean wouldn't that be allowed in just terms of being. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes this would be allowed, we didn't pick up on this right-of-way. Without the right-of-way that would not be considered a legal driveway - it would not be wide enough. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What is the minimum width Tom, that is required for a driveway? SECRETARY HOARD: Eight to ten feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And what do you estimate, even with that two foot? SECRETARY HOARD I think there is about a ten foot width there. MR. SIEVERDING: Are they deficient in parking or not? SECRETARY HOARD: No. That satisfies it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Thank you Ben. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Moving right along we'll entertain a motion. PAGE 105 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1730 FOR 109 FAYETTE STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Ithaca Neigh- borhood Housing Services for an area variance to permit the conver- sion of the single-family home at 109 Fayette Street to a two-family dwelling. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance request- ed in Appeal Number 1730. MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are practical difficulties in eliminating front, side and rear yard depth deficiencies in that the building would have to be moved in order to correct them. 2 . Parking is adequate. 3. None of the deficiencies would be exacerbated. 4. The proposed use is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 4 YES; 1 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 106 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 MORE DISCUSSION AFTER THE MOTION ON 1730 BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN MR. WEAVER: I have a question. Does this increase the number of bedrooms in this? MR. SCHWAB: There is a statement in here that it does not. SECRETARY HOARD: The total number of bedrooms will remain un- changed. MR. WEAVER: So this is also a deficient sized lot, as well. I don't know at what point we decide that none of those requirements are operative but so be it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I had a thought, it was just a thought, not to defer discussion, I was wondering about the Accessory Apartment Ordinance as an option to a two-family dwelling in this case. That is not what is before us. Let's have a vote. PAGE 107 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1732 FOR 151 OAKWOOD LAND: Appeal of Dominick R. and Susan H. Cafferillo for a Special Permit under Section 30.27 of the Zoning Ordi- nance for an Accessory Apartment at 151 Oakwood Lane. The property is located in an R1a (Residential single-family) Use District in which a Special Permit is required for an Accessory Apartment. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening, if you would begin by identifying yourselves and we are off. MR. CAFFERILLO: My name is Dominick Cafferillo and this is my wife Sheila. MRS. CAFFERILLO: It's Sheila, not Susan. MR. CAFFERILLO: We are the owners of the property at 151 Oakwood Lane. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We know who you are by virtue of the paperwork here. MR. CAFFERILLO: In the process of refinancing the property it was brought to our attention that a Certificate of Occupancy was required - I went to the Building Department - they went through the file and brought to my attention that a Certificate had not been obtained when the property was originally rented and occupied by the contractors and the then owners. We immediately filed for the permit, based on the fact that it is an owner-occupied accesso- ry apartment - it had been rented for two years prior to our purchasing of it and we would continue that use. PAGE 108 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Nothing to add? Questions from members of the Board? MS. JOHNSON: You say you are not now renting. . MRS. CAFFERILLO: Oh yes, it is rented. We bought it rented and it has been rented ever since. MR. CAFFERILLO: You see it was our understanding that they had complied with all the requirements prior to the sale. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The entrance to the accessory apartment is on the rear? MRS. CAFFERILLO: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You have to go down the steps on the left around to the back? MR. CAFFERILLO: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I was looking for it. MR. SIEVERDING: So what's indicated in the dark outline is on this floor plan too then? (unintelligible) MRS. CAFFERILLO: It's there. MR. SIEVERDING: It's all there. MR. CAFFERILLO: It's been inspected. PAGE 109 BZA MINUTES - 12/1/86 DECISION ON APPEAL #1732 FOR 151 OAKWOOD LANE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Dominick and Sheila Cafferillo for a Special Permit under Section 30.27 of the Zoning Ordinance for an Accessory Apartment at 151 Oakwood Lane. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the request for an Acces- sory Apartment. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The apartment meets all the requirements for an Accessory Apartment. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED PAGE 110 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 1727, 1730, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1735 and 1736 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 meetina and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this a day of 1986 Notary Public NOTARY F:i^L!C, Si=tTE OF NEW YORK QUALIFIED IN Ob.:;!<!NS COUN MY COMMISSICN EX':r,-'. E'=_KCr1 30,19a 111