Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1987-01-05 'TABLE OF CON'TEN'TS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 5, 1987 'TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 1731 KEN PEWORCHIK 4 419 WEST BUFFALO STREET APPEAL NO. 1731 DISCUSSION 14 APPEAL NO. 1731 DECISION 20 APPEAL NO. 1737 RICHARD GORDON & PHIL 'TOMLINSON 21 419 NORTH ALBANY S'TREE'T (WITHDRAWN) APPEAL NO. 1738 DIANE D. WILLIAMS 27 333 CENTER S'TREE'T APPEAL NO. 1738 DECISION 30 APPEAL NO. 1-1-87 ROBERT "THEISS & SHIRLEY SMEDLEY-7HEISS 31 313 NORTH MEADOW S'TREE'T APPEAL NO. 1-1-87 DECISION 36 CER"TIFICA"TION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 37 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JANUARY 5, 1987 SECRETARY HOARD: I 'd like to call to order the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of January 5, 1987. I 'm not the Chairman of the Board, I 'm the Building Commissioner and Zoning Officer but this being the first meeting of the new year we do not have a Chair and it is the first order of business for the Board to elect a new Chair. I will however, introduce the members of the Board: STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER MICHAEL TOMLAN HELEN JOHNSON TRACY FARRELL THOMAS D. HOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO THE BOARD BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT: HERMAN SIEVERDING As I said, the rules of the Board require that a new Chair be elected annually and I will ask for nominations from the Board. MR. WEAVER: Mr. Chairman, a nominating committee has met and, after due deliberation, would like to present the name of Michael Tomlan. SECRETARY HOARD: All right. Do I hear a second to that? MS. FARRELL: Second. PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: Any other nominations? Would anyone like to make a motion to cast a unanimous ballot, unless there are dissenters? MR. WEAVER: I move that there be a unanimous vote for the candi- date. SECRETARY HOARD: All right. It just happens that we have his sign right here. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Democracy in action. SECRETARY HOARD: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you all. All right, then as the first action we should deal with, is to adopt the Rules and Regulations for 187. Do I have a motion? MR. WEAVER: I move that we adopt the Rules of the Board for 1987 as presented to us in a cover letter dated December 30, 1986. MS. FARRELL: Second. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further discussion? Perhaps then a voice vote would be quick enough. All in favor? 5 AYE VOTES; 0 NAY VOTES; 1 ABSENT CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right then, we are operational and we' ll move along with the procedure under which we operate. 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 argu- ments for the case as succinctly as possible and then be available to answer questions from the Board. We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the Board considers "interested parties" to be persons who own property within two hundred feet of the property in question or who PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 live or work within two hundred feet of that property. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of an "interested party" . While we do 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 which are directly opposite here so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and, therefore, will not be considered by the Board in its deliberations. We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during our deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion or to grant or deny a variance or special permit. In the rare cases where there is a tie vote, the variance or special permit is automatical- ly denied. Tonight, because there are only five of us present, as opposed to the full Board at six, the appellant - that is, any of PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 you who have a case - can request - has the right to request a postponement of the case until all of us are present. Is there anyone out there that perhaps would like to take that action at this time? [no one] Are there any questions about everything that I have just gone through, any of the procedural questions, from anyone out there? If not, may we proceed? SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal, Mr. Chairman, is Appeal No. 1728 for 119 Third Street. If anyone is here for that, the appel- lant has asked that that be held over until next month. So the first case on the docket tonight is APPEAL NO. 1731 FOR 419 WEST BUFFALO STREET: Appeal of Ken Peworchik for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation under Sections 30.26 and 30. 3 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the home occupation of an accountant at 419 West Buffalo Street. The property is located in an R-2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted only under a Special Permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals. This appeal was originally scheduled for the December 1, 1986 meeting of the Board, but was rescheduled due to lack of proper notice to owners of properties within the prescribed area. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself. MR. PEWORCHIK: My name is Ken Peworchik, I reside at 419 West Buffalo Street. PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You would like to elaborate, perhaps? MR. PEWORCHIK: I think nothing more than is stated as description on my application and that I do bookkeeping and accounting - office that I operate out of my apartment. I 've got two employees which, I understand, is okay under this Special section. I use those three front rooms. My apartment is located across the street from the Frame Shop, which is at 414. Again, as is stated here, my business wouldn't require any additional parking, I don't feel, as to the size - what I do, my business - being that it is not a retail type of operation or service where you see multiple individ- uals on a daily basis. I 've got ample parking - off-street parking - because it was rented to students at the time and the previous owner had the back enlarged into a larger parking area. There aren't any signs or congestion because of the small amount of work that I do do and I don't believe there would be any change to the neighborhood or structurally to the building other than maybe making it a little nicer on the outside appearance and therefore I am requesting this permit. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MS. FARRELL: There were two apartments in that building before you bought it, are there still two apartments? MR. PEWORCHIK: Correct. MS. FARRELL: And so, if - what size is the apartment that you are using for your business? MR. PEWORCHIK: Size of the apartment? It's eight rooms. MS. FARRELL: And that is the downstairs of the building and the upstairs is still rented. PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 MR. PEWORCHIK: Right. The upstairs - there is an additional eight more rooms. MS. JOHNSON: So you are going to be living there? MR. PEWORCHIK: That is correct. MS. FARRELL: Are you living there now? MR. PEWORCHIK: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: So, where are you - are you renting the other space now and living in this space? MR. PEWORCHIK: Yes the upstairs is rented to three individuals - non-student rental. Not that I 'm against student rentals but it has its ups and downs. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You have two employees, they are part time, full time? MR. PEWORCHIK: Two full time employees. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you see any increase in the number? MR. PEWORCHIK: No. No, increase. In fact it is pretty much limited. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: To. . . MR. PEWORCHIK: To two people and myself. Unless you consider my IBM computer - that works real well. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It would have to. MS. FARRELL: I have some concerns of this building the way it is now. I live three houses down. The building, the way it is now, really looks like an office. It doesn't look like a residential property. PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 MR. PEWORCHIK: According to the records - the previous owner - I guess Moses Peter originally started out with an office in that building - I think that is why it has the metal door. . . . MS. FARRELL: Right - then it became residential for awhile and it looked different, I mean, the people put curtains in the windows - it didn't look like a business window - you know - no coat rack in the hall - no lights on - it is just - when I go by now it doesn't look like a residence anymore, it looks - you know, there is no sign out but it is real clear - you can tell that it is not a residence anymore. MR. PEWORCHIK: I haven't changed the curtains at all. I don't know how long they have been there. MS. FARRELL: It just doesn't look like a residence - it doesn't blend in with the residential houses that are in the block. MR. PEWORCHIK: I probably would agree with that but it has a large window instead of - well it depends on how big your picture windows are - it does have larger windows. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie, questions? MR. WEAVER: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Helen, any more? MS. JOHNSON; No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this Special Permit? MR. PEWORCHIK: I would like to - if there is no one else here - I did go around and talk with some of my neighbors - the closer neighbors - asking if they would be attending tonight and they said they wouldn't and I asked them if they would mind jotting down a PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 note stating whether they approve or disapprove - I 've got copies of those - five or six individuals. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Very good. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? We have some opposition. If you would step forward please. Have a seat. MS. VAUGHN: My name is Stephenie Vaughn. I live at, and own, 113 Park Place, which is around the corner from 419 West Buffalo, but it is indeed within two hundred feet. I was not one of the neigh- bors contacted about this matter. I must say that I regret that I am coming forward to speak vigorously in opposition to this request and I regret it because there is already a business there and has been for some time. I can't say when I first noticed that there was something going on but I did notice because as Ms. Farrell said, the building clearly looks as though it has an office and clearly looks as if there were normal business hours being conduct- ed there. The imagery of the front of the building says commer- cial, commercial, commercial, although the houses on either side of it say residential, residential, as do the majority of the houses in this neighborhood - which, by the way, is the Washington Park neighborhood. Washington Park is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the City of Ithaca and it has had many bad times in recent years, but is now one of those rebounding neighborhoods, largely because the owners of the houses have been rescued from absentee landlord and are now in the hands of people like myself who are trying to restore them and preserve them as owner-occupied resi- dences. I say I regret that I have to speak to this issue, I wish I could have spoken to it before a business was established there, PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 I don't want to feel that I 'm in a position of putting somebody out of business. I only hope that of all this vacant downtown office space that we now have that maybe some of that would be accessible to Mr. Peworchik. He says that there would be no significant change to the neighborhood and he points out that the Frame Shop is indeed across the street from him and that is a commercial busi- ness. I would submit that any business which has employees and which does have clients, maybe not the kinds of clients that you see everyday but clients that you do have to see periodically, or they are not clients, especially if you are an accountant, you would like to see them more than once, you want them to keep coming back to you. I would submit that any business which has employees and which has clients and therefore has cars coming and going - starting up their engines, turning off their engines, starting up their engines again - and by the way, those parking spaces in the back of his house are adjacent to three residential houses - any such business is going to have an effect, a negative effect, on a residential neighborhood. I am therefore opposing the granting of this permit for two reasons: one, that I think it will have an effect and is having an effect and two, that this creates a terri- ble precedent for our rebounding, struggling neighborhood - just as he says, there is a Frame Shop there, why not add another business. Some one else can come along and say well now there are two of them, why not have a third. We are, as you know, in a very precar- ious position - our neighborhood. We are between Meadow, Route 13, which is almost completely commercialized and, of course, has to go that way - the rest of the way. Then we are between - and on the PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 other side is downtown. In the mill - by the way there are two schools which we are already putting up with a great deal of vehicular traffic in the residential neighborhood and if we allow further encroachment of business on that residential neighborhood - it will disappear and I think that people will be discouraged from buying those houses and restoring them and there are still others that are candidates for restoration - houses built in 1860, 1870, 1880 - and I 've made, myself, a commitment to this neighborhood - I like to live in the City of Ithaca - I don't want to live outside of the City of Ithaca - I like living in an old neighborhood - I 'm not enthusiastic about seeing the Frame Shop there, but after all, it is grandfathered - I think that is the term - and I am willing to tolerate it but I wouldn't want to see other businesses move in. I 'm sorry that this business is already there because I don't want to undermine a man's livelihood but at the same time, I don't want to see someone coming into the neighborhood and undermining it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: Your reaction - you said what the neighborhood groups are fighting against most was the encroachment of business on residential - and particularly the non-owner-occupied housing. It is my understanding that this is owner-occupied. MS. VAUGHN: It is, but as Ms. Farrell has pointed out it is obviously a commercial establishment - all you have to do is drive by it, I don't know if you have a photograph of it or whether you use photographs in your Board meetings, but it is obviously a commercial institution, even though it is a very small one - a very modest one - as is the Frame Shop, which is on that street - and my PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 point is that if we have one, does that mean that we want two, if we have two, does that mean that we want three? I think there is a domino effect - once a neighborhood begins to go commercial, eventually it becomes commercial - people are discouraged from perceiving it as a residential neighborhood. And it is very much a residential neighborhood now, and it is not one that's any longer in decline - I 'm sure if you are familiar with that neighborhood, you know that it was in decline for many years - did you know that? MR. SCHWAB: I 've driven by there a number of times. MS. VAUGHN: There were houses that weren't up to code and I 'm ashamed to say that my house is one of the ones that needs paint now, but I do mean to paint it, eventually. But there are houses that were owned by people who were just real estate speculators who bought them, waited for the price to rise and put no money into them and now let them fall to the ground. Many of them are now being restored - many of them are by the way, multi-family houses but they are residential houses - they are houses - they are not businesses. I am simply opposing additional business use in a residential community. MR. WEAVER: I 've heard both you and Tracy refer that that place looks commercial. Did it turn commercial while you were a resident there or did you arrive later? MS. VAUGHN: Well I 've been in my house only a year and a third. So I can't answer that. But it certainly changed while I 've been there. MR. WEAVER: Well I thought maybe you would speak for yourself [to Tracy] but my observation is that this roof that obviously didn't PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 come with the house and originally identified an Insurance Company, have been there a few seasons and if the present owner were to make a nice little apartment out of the present office space and move in some people, rather than some clients occasionally, that it wouldn't change the shape of that front - or wouldn't require the change of that front, if we are talking about appearances, con- structively, what is proposed to make it look in some way, some- thing that you would find acceptable. How would that happen? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: To follow that up if I can, Charlie, I 've noticed the same thing, are you objecting to the appearance of the building or are you objecting to the activity in the building? MS. VAUGHN: I 'm wholeheartedly objecting to the activity in the building but - and secondarily, of course, objecting to the appear- ance, but only because it was raised as an issue by Ms. Farrell. Everything about the appearance, and it is not just that facade but it is the bright lights, the picture window, the coat rack, the plate glass door - not just the plate glass windows but the plate glass door - giving on to - what you see in a car - you don't have to go stand in front of it - just drive down Buffalo and look over your left shoulder. The plate glass door giving on to the coat rack all says this is not residential - it all says, this is a commercial institution. As for the issue of architecture, I think that is another matter, whether. . . MR. WEAVER: I 'm glad to hear you say that because I don't see anything in the Ordinance that puts that under our jurisdiction. MS. VAUGHN: I think that home owners are entitled to make their own choices about what kinds of roof lines and porches and so on PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 that they will have but in this instance, beyond the architecture, are many visible signs of commercial activity and has sent signals to the street, as businesses always wish to do. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposi- tion? [no one] If that is the case, it is ours. PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1731 FOR 419 WEST BUFFALO STREET CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tracy, did you want to address things further? MS. FARRELL: Yes, I 've lived there for six years and that roof line has been there and I 'm not objecting to that, but all of a sudden I 've been walking by and saying this is a business, this was an apartment and now it's a business and I mean, I was just picking up on that walking by. It doesn't look like its an apartment - people had made it look like an apartment - so it had been used , as an apartment - so now it looks like a business and it looks like a (unintelligible) business right in the middle of my block. MR. WEAVER: Tracy, could we hire an interior decorator and meet your objections - such as the coat rack? MS. FARRELL: I don't know. I also am afraid that it is generating more traffic and things than I would care to see in the middle of a residential block. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: [UNINTELLIGIBLE) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In a short form, no. At this point, we have closed the public side and we have to reach a decision. If we have any specific questions we'd like to address to either of you, we will, believe me. But for the moment I think it is best that we try to make up our own mind, based on what we have in front of us. Any further thoughts? Charlie? MR. WEAVER: Well I don't know whether either Tracy or the other lady that was here have observed an increase in traffic or an overwhelming of the parking facilities - there is some evidence that if it is already a business and it is already there, there ought to be plenty of evidence of damage to the neighborhood, PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 rather than speculation about it. Is there or isn't there a flock of cars and. . . MS. FARRELL: I haven't been counting the cars, Charlie. They are behind the house, I mean the whole back yard is a parking lot, which also doesn't feel very residential, so no, I haven't been back there counting cars. Buffalo Street is a very busy street. MR. PEWORCHIK: There is a lot of traffic on Buffalo Street. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart, any thoughts? MR. SCHWAB: I guess I 'm nervous about the inclination that the objections raised largely - either - I think more generally toward the non-owner-occupied, which I think is different or (unintelligi- ble) Maybe the owner would put up more drapes or whatever it was. . . it seems to me that a special permit focuses more on the actualities of increase in traffic and that sort of thing and I 'm not sure what I 've heard about - we all know that yes, Buffalo is a busy street and I guess the owner (unintelligible) accountant, I guess I don't recall quite hearing (unintelligible) I think, as I recall in other sections of the City that allows Special Permits, we are fairly lenient on accountants, as being types close to the center of what was intended for a Special Permit, precisely because they are very occasional white collar work. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Similar to lawyers, right Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: Similar to lawyers except they've got the advantage, they don't have to run to the Court House as often. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. SCHWAB: No, probably accountants are closer - lawyers. . . certain streets are very controversial about lawyers but, as I PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 recall, what it took was a zoning change to avoid those owner-occupied - particularly owner-occupied, special permits. Or maybe the anxiety there - should go to the non-owner-occupied lawyer. Those are just my thoughts, maybe not important. MR. WEAVER: There is an absolute requirement of the appellant being the occupant of this house and if the neighborhood feels threatened, it would seem to me that he'd have as big a stake, being a resident of the neighborhood, as do the rest of the neigh- bors, and maintaining a decent residential - maybe some of the suggestions tonight might take him home to look through the Sears catalogue for drapes, but I 'm speaking lightly - but that seriously - here is a resident of the residential neighborhood who wishes to have a permit to use part of his home for non-residential uses that are allowed under Special Permit, and I hear comments about the design of the front of the house and comments that there is even too much off-street parking, which are a little bit contrary to what we usually hear, here, and feeling of threat to an incoming activity. It is obvious that I am inclined to find no solid information that would give evidence that this is or does pose a threat to the neighborhood. MS. FARRELL: Well, I would say the reason perhaps that there is too much off-street parking is that this place has been used before as a business. I mean, yes, that is why the facade was created the way it was, that's why the huge windows were put in, whatever, whatever, the plate glass door - coat rack, whatever - just because it was that way at one time and then was used as a residence, doesn't make me inclined to favor making it back into something PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 that looks so commercial again. I would also recommend, perhaps, that he invest in a snow shovel. Usually owner-occupants shovel their walks when it snows - there is things like that, I mean, slightly. . . MR. PERWORCHIK: I was not home over the weekend, I tried to shovel it Friday but I had to go out of town and it snowed after I left. MS. JOHNSON: I 'm confused, I guess, about how much of the - now I assume you are going to be living in the bottom - the first floor - and working there as well. . . MR. PEWORCHIK: That's right. MS. JOHNSON: How much of each - is it about half and half? MR. PEWORCHIK: A little bit less than half. It is just the front three rooms. . . MS. JOHNSON; For the business? MR. PEWORCHIK: Right. MS. JOHNSON: And the back? MR. PEWORCHIK: And the back for the personal. (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And there is yourself and how many other people living in that sector of the house? MR. PEWORCHIK: Myself. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; That's all? MR. PEWORCHIK: That's the key. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MS. FARRELL: I have a question. Would you consider making it look more residential? MR. PEWORCHIK: Well just to let you know - the only thing I 've done to that building is clean the window (unintelligible) and put PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 a coat rack in the entrance lobby, if you will. I haven't done anything other than clean the windows and trim back the bushes, maybe I shouldn't have cut that one little tree down. MS. FARRELL: It makes a difference though - it looks commercial now and it didn't before. MR. PEWORCHIK: I haven't done anything to make it look more commercial. . . MS. FARRELL: Well you've got it lit up - you know, you can see the sheet in the bedroom . . . instead of somebody's bed. I understand. MR. PEWORCHIK: That's just security reasons. Somebody's bed you could see? MS. FARRELL: If you peeked. MR. PEWORCHIK: Well, it is definitely on my priority list to make the appearance so people walking by don't really want to look in and see the desk in the front of the room versus a chair and a bed. As far as putting drapes up there for security reasons, I would do that - that's the other reason that I have the lighting - the other tenants that were living - the students didn't have lighting - I mean the light bulbs were out and the landlord didn't replace them - I replaced two of them when I moved in. I didn't want to light the other side of that - it has four of them that would light the whole front of the building - I stayed away from that, I only lit up the steps so that someone could get up and down the steps in the dark and I 've started to make my appearance type renovations to the house itself - you know, the storm windows, keeping it clean and trimming back the hedges and making it more of a residence - before it was - what it was - it was an unkempt PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 residential rental and now it is owner-occupied and it did look - like I say, it was probably one of the sorest looking houses on the street when I got it. I 've only tried to spruce it up a little bit to make it more attractive. MS. JOHNSON: How long have you been doing business from that house? MR. PEWORCHIK: We started late August - third week in August. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we getting closer to a motion? Even a little bit of a motion? Let's see if we can't frame something that addresses what a Special Permit is all about. MR. WEAVER: We could discuss all of the generalities - I don't read any specific requirements other than the idea that he will be in conformity with the general neighborhood - use. And what has been discussed is what is not and a back yard being taken over to parking and a facade that is far from the original and a coat rack. PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1731 FOR 419 WEST BUFFALO STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Mr. Ken Peworchik for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation to permit the occupation of an accountant at 419 West Buffalo Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the request for a Special Permit in Appeal Number 1731, for a Home Occupation. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The occupation proposed - accounting - does not appear to bring noise, fumes, dirt, etc. into the neighborhood. 2 . The use of the building with the owner occupying it seems to be a direction that might be better than conditions that have prevailed where it was all residential but not occupied by the owner. 3 . There is adequate off-street parking to accommodate more than the residential needs of the structure. VOTE: 3 YES; 2 NO; 1 ABSENT REQUEST DENIED (LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES) PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES - 1-5-87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1737 for 419 North Albany Street: Appeal of Richard Gordon and Phil Tomlinson for an area variance for deficient lot area and deficient front yard setback under Section 30.25, Columns 6 and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the conver- sion of the single-family dwelling at 419 North Albany Street to a two-family dwelling. The proper- ty is located in an R-3a (residential, multiple dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however Section 30. 57 requires that the appellants 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. MR. TOMLINSON: Good evening. My name is Phil Tomlinson, I live at 106 Fayette Street in Ithaca. One thing that Mr. Hoard, in his reading of the application was that we are applying for a variance to convert it to two-family and one of the things which I spoke to him about on the phone about, earlier, was that in my application I specifically said that we were going to convert it to two two-bedroom apartments. Since that time I discovered two things. One is that my architect is a little bit more skilled than me and the second was also - in speaking with Mr. Hoard - that the State has changed its interpretation of the rulings allowing occupation of the third floor of a wood frame. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All of which means, in both cases. . .? PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES - 1-5-87 MR. TOMLINSON: All of which means that we would like to convert this to two three-bedroom apartments. We are in the process of working with an architect on this and if it means coming back in a month because of the way the notice was sent out, we are certainly willing to do that. What we would like to do in the meantime is to get approval for what we have asked so that we can go ahead and begin demolition on the building. If you are familiar with the building, it needs demolition, no matter what you do to it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Complete demolition or do you mean interior? MR. TOMLINSON: Interior demolition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. Well as I see it we could go either one or two ways. Either it stands as it is and you come back and try to modify it or you can withdraw, certainly, at this point and come back with a different appeal. Actually, in some ways, the second might be cleaner. MR. TOMLINSON: Would that be what the Board would prefer? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I don't know, what would the. . . MS. JOHNSON: I would rather see some drawings. MS. FARRELL: I would rather see the whole thing proposed at once. MR. WEAVER: Does the new proposal increase capacity - total capacity of the house? MR. TOMLINSON: I 'm not sure what you mean by that - do you mean the total number of people living there? MR. WEAVER: Before you listen to your architect how many people could occupy your house and, after your architect interfered, how many people can occupy the new plan? PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES - 1-5-87 MR. TOMLINSON: Well beforehand it would have been two what are called double-sized bedrooms, which I guess is really four people. This is what I would consider to be three single occupancy rooms, although they are all one hundred and twenty square feet or more. SECRETARY HOARD: Capacity increases. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Capacity increases. Stewart any thoughts? MR. SCHWAB; I 'd be inclined to hear it all but - unless you want to speak to some more detail. . . MR. TOMLINSON: Well we just - we are waiting to go to work on the house - it is sitting there with no heating system in it and I 'd like to begin demolition of it - remove the plaster from the walls - remove the lathe from the walls - take the old heating system out - rip out the old plumbing - rip out the old wiring and by that time it will be time for the (unintelligible) even if the building got left as a single family house (unintelligible) what this will do is - it will give us room to go ahead and make our first draw from the bank so that we can begin demolition on the project. We' ll have it all torn out, we' ll have a set of drawings by the next hearing. MR. SCHWAB: Let me ask, what were you going to do if we denied you the two-bedroom or three-bedroom (unintelligible) . . MR. TOMLINSON: Well I suppose I could have done one of two things. One would be to try to leave it as a single family house which doesn't really work economically. I 'd like to do something with the house. The other one is to turn around and sell it to someone else. PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES - 1-5-87 MR. SCHWAB: In other words, you wouldn't want to do this interior demolition unless it would be at least two apartments with two-bedrooms. MR. TOMLINSON: It is a very expensive proposition - gutting the whole house and putting in new heating, new plumbing. . . MR. SCHWAB: Oh I believe that (unintelligible) MR. TOMLINSON: To do it as a single family house would be . . . MR. SCHWAB: Okay, so as I hear it you wouldn't have our saying a thirty days delay would certainly inconvenience you - but a lot more if it were denied. MR. WEAVER: Mr. chairman, looking at those things that put this under our jurisdiction, namely two deficiencies, one I think we could agree that the front yard setback is not a major considera- tion ordinarily but a twenty percent deficient lot size might well be significant if we are playing around with numbers that might substantially increase the potential occupancy versus holding it at some level - not preconceived by me - what that level might be - so the serious concern that this throws to us - I think is the defi- cient sized lot and we have a vacant house - I would suspect. It is a big old place and it is one of those that generally - now adays - requires it being cut up at least into a duplex in order to make it economically feasible but then the next step is what you don't have with you. I would like to have that and be able to talk sensibly about how big a load is going to be put on the lot. MR. TOMLINSON: Are you thinking in terms of off-street parking or? MR. WEAVER: No, I 'm talking about how many people living in that big old house on that sized lot. PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES - 1-5-87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The entire scheme. I think what we are hearing from members of the Board - you put the question to us - I think you have heard from everyone - we would like to see the entire thing spelled out in greater detail. You should be aware of the fact that - while you may go ahead with the demolition - Stewart has pointed out - we can't and we will not - in any way guarantee ahead of time what might happen at next month's meeting. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, can I ask you a question about that? If we do the demolition on the house and come back with a proposal for two three-bedroom apartments, for instance, and you think that is too much, can you on the spot say - two two-bedrooms is fine or will I have to start all over again with a whole new proposal and come back with a lesser scaled down scheme? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the hearing would be advertised within the maximum. We could, by virtue of our authority scale that back and limit you further. It couldn't go anything beyond that. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. What I am trying to find out is how abso- lutely specific I have to be and how absolutely specific the ruling is and I think you have answered that question. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think so. Okay? So, in essence you are withdrawing this month, to readvertise and clarify, okay? There is a question from a member of the audience. Is there any other question from members of the Board for the appellant at this time? MR. SCHWAB: It is my understanding - if you come with with two, three-bedrooms and we say no - although you could provide a propos- al in the alternative (unintelligible) PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES - 1-5-87 MR. MARSHALL: My name is A. F. Marshall, I live adjacent to 419 North Albany - I live on North Geneva however, we are back to back. [Since the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant - no further testimony from Mr. Marshall was taken] PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 1-5-87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1738 FOR 333 CENTER STREET: Appeal of Diane D. Williams for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation under Section 30.26, Paragraph C of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit her to operate a part-time catering business from her home at 333 Center Street. The property is located in an R-2b (residential, one- and two-family) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted only under a Special Permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. MS. WILLIAMS: Good evening. My name is Diane Williams and I live at 333 Center Street. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you are here for a Special Permit? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes I am. Basically I want to operate a home industry which will be a part-time catering business in my home. We have a seven room home and I plan on converting one room to the catering kitchen and one room for an office. Basically that is the only change. Now in my appeal reasons, I mentioned a lot of the things that wouldn't change - there would be no signs and no customers that come to the house. I will talk with them at either their offices or their homes. There are no delivery trucks - I have no employees, there is no outside construction, there is no noise or disturbance, there is no parking places necessary and no outward indications of the business at all. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You seem to have anticipated all the objections that one could possibly raise in this instance. Let me ask a PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 1-5-87 little bit about the delivery trucks or lack of delivery trucks. How do these baked goods - or whatever it is, essentially, go from one place to another? MS. WILLIAMS: Well basically I have to operate out of another kitchen, according to the Health Department requirements, so the only thing I do is shop, I do my own shopping, but I prepare food elsewhere and that is what I want to be able to do now by putting in another kitchen. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are putting in another kitchen? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, it has to be a separate kitchen from my own, I can't use my own home kitchen. MS. FARRELL: Oh so you are putting in a kitchen at this address and you are cooking there? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MS. FARRELL: And you have been doing it someplace else? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Is that all perfectly clear to you Charlie? MR. WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good. It wasn't to me. MR. SCHWAB: Are you saying that all caterers must have a separate kitchen to be a caterer? That's a State law? MS. WILLIAMS: Well it's a Health Department - County Health Department requirement. MR. SCHWAB: I wasn't aware of that. PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 1-5-87 MS. JOHNSON: So you are changing it and putting in a second kitchen (unintelligible) and it is not going to change the outside configuration of the house? MS. WILLIAMS: No. MS. JOHNSON: So when you have this new kitchen and you are, in think, what Michael Tomlan is getting at, how do you prepare all of this. . . MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, I just take it in my car to where the catering site is. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else out there who would like to speak in favor of granting this permit? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case I 'll entertain a motion. PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 1-5-87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1738 FOR 333 CENTER STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Diane D. Williams for a Special Permit for a home occupation to permit a part-time catering business from the premises located at 333 Center Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the request for a Special Permit to operate a part-time catering business as a home occupation at 333 Center Street. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The use will be in harmony with the existing and intended character of the neighborhood. 2 . This use will not discourage the appropriate use as residential use of the neighboring homes. 3 . This use would not be objectionable to nearby property by reason of noise, fumes, increased traffic or parking demand. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The last appeal is Appeal No. 1-1-87 for 313 North Meadow Street: Appeal of Robert Theiss and Shirley Smedley-Theiss for a variance from Section 34 .8 of the Sign Ordi- nance to permit the placing of a free-standing sign for a real estate office closer to the front proper- ty line than the required front yard setback. The property is located in a B-2a (business) Use Dis- trict in which the Sign Ordinance requires that free-standing signs be set back at least ten feet (101 ) from the front property line. The appellants must obtain a variance from this requirement before the sign can be erected. MS. SMEDLEY-THEISS: My name is Shirley Smedley-Theiss, I am half owner of the property and I am also the real estate broker in question - the Real Estate Professionals. We have requested a variance on a Sign Ordinance because physically there is not enough property in front of the building to meet the three requirements. The sign will be five feet from the building, eighteen inches from the property line as opposed to ten feet from the property line. Does everybody have the diagram? In addition to how that shows up on the diagram, our property line is two feet from the sidewalk so it is even back further than what is typically found on North Meadow Street, so I think asking for the variance is in keeping with all the other signs that are on the street and even more generous than a lot of them that I already see there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 MR. WEAVER: Just one question. Is the sign going to be illuminat- ed? MS. SMEDLEY-THEISS: Yes it is a lighted sign. MR. WEAVER: Will that be. . . MS. SMEDLEY-THEISS: An interior light. . . MR. WEAVER: Will that be on a timer or. . . MS. SMEDLEY-THEISS: Yes, I will put it on a timer. MR. WEAVER: Some kind of a light (unintelligible) MS. JOHNSON: The sign that you have there now is - you feel is inadequate? MS. SMEDLEY-THEISS: Yes very much so. When people drive by it would lead one to believe that maybe the house is for sale because it is my actual yard sign. It is just a temporary one. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you considered mounting something along the building or what other alternatives have you considered aside from the. . . MS. SMEDLEY-THEISS: Speaking with my sign man, he thought a lighted sign was much better on a pole than something attached to the building. MS. JOHNSON: The idea of a lighted sign would mean that you would have it on at night? MS. SMEDLEY-THEISS: Yes, on a timer. I don't think that I would leave it on after midnight or something, but, like this time of year it would probably go on about four thirty and would probably go off around midnight. PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 MR. WEAVER: Commissioner, there is not a worksheet on this so - have you reviewed the description in this application as to accura- cy? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes the worksheet works out - the Sign Ordinance, as you know, is pretty confusing, but there is a requirement that a free-standing sign be at least five feet away from the face of the building so that it doesn't look like a projecting sign and then, of course it has the setback requirement from the street and there just isn't enough room there to meet both requirements. MR. WEAVER: The proposal, as I understand it is defective in that the post, not the sign will be nonconforming. That was a question. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes the way the Sign Ordinance was written you don't know whether the sign itself has to be ten feet back or just eighteen inches back. The post has to be ten feet. MR. WEAVER: But the proposal - the sign is okay if we could find out how to have a cantilevered post. Size of the sign - location of the sign. . . CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Well first off, let's give it one at a time - I mean the area is. . . MR. WEAVER: That's what I am trying to. . . CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: The area of the sign is okay? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, it is just that the post is supposed to be ten feet back from the front property line and it is only five - eight. MR. WEAVER: Okay. So that's bad - the post. But the sign is not too big - it is not too close to the lot line or to the building? Do I read this correctly? PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: Well here is the problem with the Sign Ordinance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let's really get him confused. MR. WEAVER: Well that's part of the problem. SECRETARY HOARD: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) but it says said sign or sign structure shall be set back at least ten feet from any public right-of-way and then you go to the other part and it says that the hole has to be back ten feet and the sign itself eighteen inches. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Ten feet from the building? SECRETARY HOARD: No, ten feet from the right-of-way. MR. SCHWAB: And five feet in front of the building? SECRETARY HOARD: Five feet - any part of the sign has to be at least five feet from the building. MR. WEAVER: So if we designed a sign that was a flag type sign instead of a center supported structure and that could get the post back ten feet away and everything would be hunkie-dorie. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's what he is asking. SECRETARY HOARD: But this one section says, no part of the sign shall be within ten feet. MR. WEAVER: Oh. SECRETARY HOARD: What you want is one that is on a tract that moves back and forth - measure the distance from the building. . . MR. WEAVER: A shuttle sign you mean. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A sky hook would be even cleaner. Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Very good. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak against? [no one] That being the case, do we have a motion? PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The interesting part of all of this is that the Zoning Ordinance allows a building to be right on the property line but signs have to be set back. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there any other logical alternative to putting it back along side the building? SECRETARY HOARD: Along side the building, so you can't see it? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Defeats the purpose. The other adjacent proper- ties come out flush. SECRETARY HOARD: Well you just granted one for the building to the north to build out to the front property line. MS. JOHNSON: Briarpatch has a nice sign (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well unless we have some other brighter ideas I would entertain a motion. PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 1/5/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1-1-87 FOR 313 NORTH MEADOW STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals met to consider the request for a variance from the City of Ithaca Sign Ordinance to permit the placing of a free-standing sign for a real estate office closer to the front property line than the required front yard setback, at the property located at 313 North Meadow Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the request for a sign variance in Appeal Number 1-1-87. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The size of the sign meets the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. 2 . The sign will be five feet (51 ) from the house which meets the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. 3 . Although there is a problem that the pole is too close to the lot line this seems minor given the character of the street. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 36 I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY 'THA'T I took the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1731 , 1738 and 1-1-87 in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this t� /la day of .cv� , 1987 Notary Public JEAN J. HAN KINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No.S �_Z280J QUALIFIED I;3 QOUNTI4