Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1987-02-02 BZA MINUTES - 2/2/87 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK FEBRUARY 2, 1987 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the February 2, 1987 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordi- nance and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight are: MR. CHARLES WEAVER MR. STEWART SCHWAB MS. TRACY FARRELL MR. MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN MR. THOMAS HOARD, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, ZONING OFFICER & BUILDING COMMISSIONER MS. BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT: MS. HELEN JOHNSON MR. HERMAN SIEVERDING 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 PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES - 2/2/87 in question or who live or work within two hundred feet of that property. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of an "interested 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 there are any and the record of tonight's hearing. Since a record is being made of this hearing it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones that are just opposite me here, so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and be heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and will not, therefore, be considered by the Board in its deliberation on the case. We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during its deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or a special permit. Of course to- night, because there are only four of us present, any of the appellants does have the right to request a postponement. Is there PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - 2/2/87 anyone out there who would like to do so at this point? Are there any questions about our procedure? VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Would you repeat what you just said? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We have to have four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny. There are only four of us here so that the appel- lant in this instance is given the opportunity to withdraw without prejudice, and be heard at a later time when there are more of us here. Assuming you want a variance it takes the four of us to agree - it doesn't give you the normal chance - that is percentage ratio - so you have your choice, in that sense. Any further questions? Okay, can we proceed with our first case? SECRETARY HOARD: All right, the first case on the Agendum is Appeal Number 1728 for 119 Third Street - that has been held over until the April 1987 meeting, by the appellant. So the first appeal that will be heard tonight is Appeal No. 1739 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 conversion of the single-family dwelling at 419 North Albany Street to a two-family dwelling. The property 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 PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - 2/2/87 conversion. The appellants had filed an earlier appeal (#1737) for this property, but withdrew it at the January 5, 1987 meeting. This appeal is for the same number of dwelling units; but for a greater number of bedrooms. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Again beginning with your name and address. MR. TOMLINSON: My name is Phil Tomlinson, I live at 106 Fayette Street in Ithaca. You have the proposal just read to you, I guess what I did by way of preparation was to bring a few photographs of the building, if it is all right I would like to just pass those around quickly so you can see what we are dealing with. Essential- ly what remains of this building is a workable shell. Everything else about it has to be replaced, there is no gas service in it, it was being heated with a coal furnace. Everything is being redone. Plumbing, wiring, heating, new dry wall, structural repairs, new rafters, new floor joists and based on our estimates - cost esti- mates - and numbers that we went over with the bank, the only thing that works for us is to convert it to two, three-bedroom apart- ments. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you had any comments from the neighbors? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, Mr. Marshall who owns the property directly behind us called me on the phone to find out about the meeting and about what we were doing and he complained about the previous owner whose garage had fallen over into his back yard and he said that the place was a slum and wanted to know if we were going to fix it up. I invited him to go and look at another house that I own on South Albany Street and he did and was pleased with the work and looked at our plans and said he was going to be here tonight in PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - 2/2/87 support of us but he is not here, but he does support the idea. And the other neighbor that I talked to owns the property next door and they are also in support of it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: As I recall from last month the debate is between two bedrooms and three bedrooms in the two apartments? MR. TOMLINSON: Right. MR. SCHWAB: So can you briefly tell me why you decided that you need the three bedrooms? MR. TOMLINSON: The simple answer is that I made a mistake. At the point where I decided to apply for the variance the first time around, I called the Building Department and said when is the deadline? It was two days away. I went over there and whipped out a set of floor plans, came up with two, two-bedroom apartments, brought it in and applied and then proceeded to do my estimate based on that and the minute I looked at the estimate, I realized that there was no way it was going to work - that everything that you have to do for two, two-bedrooms, you have to do for two, three-bedrooms - that all the - the roof needs repair, the walls, the floors - all the mechanical systems and the structural repairs that have to get done - have to get done and the only way the two, two-bedrooms just doesn't work - there is no way that it would pay for itself. So the alternative is to either move towards slumism, which I can't do, or make a project that pays for itself. And the rooms are all good sized, I think that you all have floor plans. The bedrooms are all good sized, there is a dining room and a PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - 2/2/87 living room, as well as a kitchen so it is not like it is squeezed into a small space. MR. SCHWAB: I'm trying to recall, was there something about moving into the attic or was that not right? MR. TOMLINSON: I toyed with the idea and then just rejected it. MR. SCHWAB: Because that is not on the plans. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, there are no plans to do anything with the third floor except insulate. MR. SCHWAB: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Do you have any questions Charlie? MR. WEAVER: No, no. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? MR. SAWYER: My name is Paul Sawyer and I live at 423 North Albany Street, two houses down. Instead of saying that I speak in opposi- tion, I think maybe I should say that I 'm concerned. I have two concerns, I think one of them is irrelevant to this meeting tonight, I think that concern should have been dealt with a week ago at the Planning Board meeting, which I couldn't attend, so let me know if any of you are concerned about being back in the neigh- borhood as a whole is irrelevant to tonight's meeting. That is one of my concerns and maybe I should say questions about conversion of this house to a two-apartment rental. The other concern is small but related to the broad concern of what the appearance is going to be around this house and that is the parking. The parking PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES - 2/2/87 situation on North Albany Street is, I suppose, as you know, one of those impossible situations where you have to switch every night of the year and only one side of North Albany has parking permitted on it so as a resident of that block I have to take my car and put it on Esty Street one night and bring it back to North Albany Street the following night because the street is fairly narrow and heavily trafficed and the house at 419 has a little tiny driveway and a small back yard and I 'm not sure I understand how it has the parking for a minimum six tenants could be arranged without simply turning that backyard into concrete. Can I go on and speak about the neighborhood? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure, why don't you. MR. SAWYER: Okay. I 'm sorry that I couldn't be at the Planning Board hearing last week because my concern about the neighborhood is this. I 've lived there twelve years - I 've lived there ten years this January and my understanding of the neighborhood is somewhat limited but I have also been a long-time observer of the neighbors and the neighborhood can be perfect for low income and moderate income people - the kind of neighborhood that INHS has done so much service for. Right now the number of all their houses and some elderly owners of those houses have kept the houses up very well - is no doubt a few years now - more of those houses will be up for sale. It's the kind of neighborhood whose character could easily tip over into a slum neighborhood unless a great care is taken of those properties. Now there are already rental proper- ties - particularly on the side of the block between my house - 423 and Court Street. I think there are about four houses now between PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 2/2/87 my house and - we have row houses on the corner - and if this house becomes a rental dwelling then that part of the block will be at least fifty-fifty if my rough sense is right - rental dwellings. okay, what would be the problem with that? I don't question at all the ability or the good intentions of the present owners of this house but I do know what a rental ghetto looks like, I know what some Collegetown streets look like and I want to raise the question generally of what it would do to this neighborhood if a good number of homes - the houses were converted into apartments with a lot of transient dwellers in it. I don't mean that one house would make a difference or one bad tenant would make a difference but I am concerned about the trend there. Now I understand that it is not in the purview of this appeal whether the house will be owner-occupied or rented - I expect it will be rental property but it would seem to me the perfect solution here would have been to rent it out to a family but I think Mr. Tomlinson said last time that that would have been uneconomical for him to use as one dwelling. My feeling about that - unless I can be persuaded otherwise is that the single family idea still seems like the best idea for that neighborhood from both reasons - from the point of view of responsible occupants of the building and secondly from the point of view of the parking. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? SECRETARY HOARD: I would just like to point out that the Board of Planning and Development sent this Board a memorandum dated January 27th and said "The Board of Planning and Development has determined that the referenced appeals [including this one] do not involve PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - 2/2/87 long range or city-wide planning issues and refers them to the Board of Zoning Appeals for its action without recommendation or comment. " MR. SAWYER: Oh, so they did not make a recommendation? SECRETARY HOARD: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you Tom. Further questions, comments from the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? That being the case it is ours. MR. TOMLINSON: Do I get an opportunity to respond to that or is that. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No. Is there further question from the gentleman who just walked in? VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: What are we discussing, I 'm sorry I 'm late. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We are dealing with appeal number 1739 at 419 North Albany Street. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: That is not the one I'm here for. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, thank you. SECRETARY HOARD: Which one are you here for? VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: The sign on Cayuga Street. SECRETARY HOARD: Okay, that's been held over until next month. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Will I get a notice so I 'll know what day it will be? SECRETARY HOARD: It will be published in the paper. There will be no other notice but usually the first Monday of the month, but give us a call the end of this month, I guess we' ll decide tonight. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We've got two members missing so it's a matter of polling the Board to see what's the best night. PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES - 2/2/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1739 FOR 419 NORTH ALBANY STREET MS. FARRELL: I have a question. What would the legal occupancy be of this building? SECRETARY HOARD: What would be the legal occupancy? MS. FARRELL: I mean, I know this is all. . . . the number. SECRETARY HOARD: Oh, you mean the whole thing. The maximum number of unrelated people would be three in each unit. The maximum number of related people would be twelve. MR. WEAVER: Well that's assuming that it stays in two apartments as proposed but if it were a single family dwelling it could house more than that because of the space proposed be used as a second living room, and that sort of thing, could be bedrooms in the event it remains a single family dwelling - it could really take care of a Morman family - an extra wife, I 'm adding in. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: More discussion? More thought? PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 2/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1739 FOR 419 NORTH ALBANY STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals met to consider the request of Richard Gordon and Phil Tomlinson for an area variance to permit the conversion of the single-family dwelling at 419 North Albany Street to a two-family dwelling. The decision of the Board was as fol- lows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance request- ed in Appeal No. 1739. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The use is permitted in the R3a zone. 2 . The front yard setback deficiency could only be met by demoli- tion of the front porch, and maybe more than that. 3. The side lot deficiency cannot be met, there is an adjacent property already developed and there is no space even by acquiring adjacent land that would make a correction possible. 4 . The parking requirements are met. 5. Deficiency in lot area for the size of the building - addi- tional land that would be required to meet that deficiency is not available. 6. The use is compatible with the use of adjacent properties in the neighborhood. VOTE: 4 YES; 0 NO; 2 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 12 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 Appeal number 1739 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. � 1 Barbara Ruane i Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this day of =� �� _ 1987 Not'4rPublic JEAN J. WINXINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, ST.=.rE OF NEW YORK QUALIFIED if iJC4 i COUNT' MY CC"b1:SS!^P!F... ^,CH 30,19_,.._ BZA MEETING 2/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: Ralph Nash is here to discuss the Cornell Heights Appeal. Should this be done in executive session or not? MR. NASH: I don't truly know, if you want my advice. I 'm not sure what headings this would come under. I guess it is part of litiga- tion even though the litigation is pretty much finished and it is clear the direction. . . MR. WEAVER: An experienced Board member often wondered about the penalties for violation of the open meetings. . . MR. NASH: I wasn't prepared. . . MR. WEAVER: I haven't found that anybody has been jailed or. . . MR. NASH: No there doesn't seem to be in the statute itself any specific punitive remedies. It is basically any action properly taken. MR. WEAVER: I watched the legislature doing an awful lot of business in caucus this year so my conscience doesn't hurt me too much. MR. NASH: Okay, I 've decided that it is a proper manner. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Is it open or . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What is the Board's feeling? MS. FARRELL: Let's go into executive session. MR. SCHWAB: What is the issue - Barbara has to record it this? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well you've also got the Press here. SECRETARY HOARD: She is going to record it for the other members of the Board who are not here tonight. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I have no strong feelings but I think it would probably be better to have it in executive session than not. That's my own thoughts. PAGE 14 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. WEAVER: I hope I have already indicated my attitude, I would be glad to be in executive session, right or wrong. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: Either way is all right with me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tracy says - well that's three to one. Okay, if you would excuse us [to the Press] . MR. NASH: Okay I think you all have a copy of the decision. On Friday I was served with a copy of an order from the Supreme Court which basically is in accordance with the Court of Appeals decision which basically ordered the matter remitted with directions to remand to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Ithaca for consideration and special use permit application in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals and of papers required are returned to the Supreme Court. The matter is remanded to you with direction to consider claims to application for special use permit for the proposed use of 316 Fall Creek Drive for the Modern Indone- sian Project in accordance with Court of Appeals decision and as you know, clients were also awarded costs and disbursements which amounted to twenty-seven hundred dollars, which is a matter that I 'm taking up independently to justify that because the Brief and the record on the appeal weren't that big but they get twenty-six hundred dollars of paid printing cost. MR. WEAVER: The stuff they use themselves they send to Utica for printing - low bid. MR. NASH: What does this decision mean? Basically I think in a nutshell there are two points. One is that the Board of Zoning Appeals can no longer consider need either generally as to PAGE 15 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 expansion needs - generally or need as expressed on a specific area or site and obviously that had always been a big issue before because the Court of Appeals had said it was a big issue - now they've changed that. The other point is that basically your traditional zoning criteria can be applied under a special use permit system to educational uses just like any other uses and so the type of things you can look at are the impact on traffic congestion, property values, municipal services, anything you look at with - be it commercial or non-commercial or other type of use. I think the things you have to focus on are, as I expressed in my letter, how significant the impacts are in this area - whether anything can be done [unintelligible] and then basically what your net is. I think the problem still - still got to hit a pretty high or a fairly moderately high standard to deny it because they do still carry the presumption of being in furtherance of public health safety and welfare. Small negative effects don't outbalance the - if there are indeed greater community benefits. If you get into the area of stronger negative effects - you get traffic safety concerns, property value concerns which seem to be significant and strong problems with providing municipal services because of the street width or something like that, then you've got something to deny them a special use permit. A special use permit by its very nature, as you know from your zoning decisions and your work, is not as high a standard as a use variance. By its very nature a special use permit indicates that those types of uses are allowed in that area under - you know, with special conditions so that it PAGE 16 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 is obviously not the same standard you applied before as far as the use variance. I don't know if you have questions. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Ralph you and I talked a little bit about this on a couple of occasions. On the impact on the neighborhood, if, for instance, of course I doubt this would happen but if Cornell filed an appeal and no one from the neighborhood showed up to testify, how would this Board be able to determine the affect on the neigh- borhood? MR. NASH; Well the decision does also cite general plan for development of a community and I think that - even though you don't have anyone coming in specifically testifying [unintelligible] down or that this is a residential neighborhood and this will disrupt it, you could probably find some support - I 'm assuming the City does have some overall comprehensive plan. . . SECRETARY HOARD: You've seen the comprehensive plan? MR. NASH: Yes. I 've seen mention of it in the record - below - that it provides for orderly development of the community which is been adhered to generally by the City. That's something to consid- er. It is really tough to say how much is too much and how much is too little. But. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I want to follow that down if I can because most of what you've said and most of what I 've read, and I got a copy of the entire - the original paper work - not just what Tom sent through - the entire decision. It seemed to me that a lot of what you were - just going through and what has come down through the interpretation - seems to be planning issues, I mean, it is a matter of their - in this instance, at least, with the special use PAGE 17 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 permit - it seemed to be more an opinion on planning matters than it was particularly traditional BZA sorts of feeling. once you've taken use away - I mean, we all know what - I think we have fairly clear cut ideas - we can begin to understand how to go about the use variance. we even, I think, understand fairly well what area variances are, believe it or not, but the whole notion of what special use permits are, I think is often fuzzy for all of us. MR. NASH: Yes, well it's intended as a fuzzy area - you have to provide that in-between, between use variance and permitted use and it is becoming increasingly popular. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In point of fact, in most cases, a special use permit at least in my experience, seem to fall sometimes beneath, not above or between use and area, but beneath area variances and that's just the way in which I think we have tended, on occasion, to look at it so I 'm really looking hard at this because in essence I am' seeing in the decision very little chance for this Board, in any practical sense, here today given the fact that our Planning and Development Board never speaks of a master plan, we get no recommendations like we did this evening from the Planning and Development folks, one way or the other. They never mention in point of fact, anything with the master plan. As Tom points out the master plan is a disaster and is never even used by the Plan- ners, they are so ashamed of it so point of fact is when looking at this whole thing. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Is that a direct quote? PAGE 18 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But, you know, I really do wonder - do we have any chance? I 'm sitting up here kind of wondering - if they came in today, do we have any chance? MR. WEAVER: Yes. MS. FARRELL: Yes, I mean don't you just have to weigh sort of what the neighborhood comes up with and things like that too? Do you think the Planning Board will say anything on that one? MR. WEAVER: No I 'm delighted to have two lawyers here because I have crazy ideas that don't exactly go - I don't think they could enter and matriculate through law school but it seems to me that this whole thing cries for a conditional variance - it just invites it. I 'm reading the - out of the whole thing - never mind the nasty details and I also look at Cornell 's position - if we use some condition that seems to us that would emigerate the affect upon their moving in. What little we can use, can find that would do that - it puts them in a position to argue against a condition - our procedures being reasonable and looking at the Sarah Lawrence conditions as they put them down, seems to invite quite a bit of comment about traffic and I think - I know the University is in the business and has been for a good number of years - of obstructing community traffic to their own benefit. You can't get across the damn campus except by walking. . . MR. NASH: They say that about the Commons. . . MS. FARRELL: Wait a minute Charlie, you just drive by fast. . . MR. WEAVER: Drive by and fast, yes - I go by and wave. . . and so in the adjacent territory additional traffic attraction - spread out in a particular place could well exacerbate a pretty difficult PAGE 19 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 traffic situation - now I would be very glad in a condition - to comment upon the University's action to try to help traffic in the reverse and that there is some room here for the whole neighborhood of the City of Ithaca to be - not protected but at least have a day in Court in which we could - with a particular condition - talk about limited cars and parking and that sort of thing - that are not necessarily in the Ordinance. I 'm not talking about what color tree to have in the front yard but I do think that there could - in this specific case - be some room - not to be totally defeated. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I find that a tough one - I 'm with you - I 'm looking at traffic, I 'm looking at property values which I thought was even stronger if we could get any statistics. I 'm looking at what findings of fact do we have Charlie - when coming up on this sort of thing? You named one - the notion of traffic, how do we a hold of statistics figures that deal with traffic in one sense or another. I was looking at the notion of how do we get figures for specifics on property values? What is going to hold up in a finding of fact? MR. WEAVER: Well their - I realize that you are being caught the rest of your life because their property values - their evaluation on their properties is probably as unreal as some our assessments. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you see, so is their traffic studies. MR. MASH: In other words you don't like the information they submit? You want some independent. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm not going to tell them what we really need to know to make the decision - I don't blame them. If I were sitting in their shoes I would do the same thing. PAGE 20 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. NASH: Because I 'm trying to figure out how maybe you could get some guidance from the municipal. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm trying to get specifics - I 'm trying to get something to hang our hat on on these things. . . MR. NASH: Because you know the decision does talk about site plan review and imposition of conditions designed to mitigate adverse factors. I don't know what you use for special permit applications now? Do you use anything which tries to illicite information as to proposed use? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well see the thing we do with special permit that happens most often are the accessory apartment sort of things. Where you have specific review, you have specific criteria, they meet the criteria we ask - do they have the alternative, you know, do they have another entrance which isn't going to mess up the facade and things of this sort. I mean, it may have to deal with design review of one sort or another but we are - I think - rela- tively, although not completely, relatively comfortable with that sort of special permit. Now for the rest of it. . . MR. SCHWAB: Another kind of special permit is accountants who want a little office in their houses. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There you go. . . MR. SCHWAB: And that gets more back to traffic - we have denied some of those if the neighbors. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MS. FARRELL: Yeh but a lot of times it is people have enough parking spaces or something and I am assuming that if they are saying they want fifteen people to live that they would have enough PAGE 21 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 parking. And that sort of stuff, I mean, I don't know - what is the program - does it attract other people who are coming and going all the time, more than it would be if people were living there? SECRETARY HOARD: Well Cornell 's claim is that the Modern Indonesia Project would not draw cars, the people who were involved with the Modern Indonesia Project would walk from the campus proper. MR. NASH: Is this the people using the learning center and facili- ties there - were the people actually going to live there also? SECRETARY HOARD: No. MS. FARRELL: They weren't? Okay. But there were going to be fifteen people working there every day? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: At least. MS. FARRELL: That's a lot of people. MR. NASH; Were there that many? MS. FARRELL: Yes - it said fifteen someplace. MR. SCHWAB: Court of Appeals decision. Who knows if they had it right. MS. FARRELL: Involving fifteen people on a full time basis, it is a large house. MR. SCHWAB: Is Cornell coming back soon? MR. NASH: I talked to Tom Santoro today about what they would be doing and also about this cost thing. He didn't really seem to know but he thought that somebody was going to get the ball rolling because they were already considering whether they wanted to present new evidence or go on what they had presented so far or whether or not they thought they should file another application to PAGE 22 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 convert the current application, so I assume they are thinking about it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Can you come back to the site plan review a little bit, for a moment? Is there - can either you or Tom think up or devise or in any way - just brainstorm a little bit with that and see if anything comes up? MR. MASH: You mean as to what they should give us as far as. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, insofar as information that would be useful for us to make the decision on. . . MR. NASH: Are they going to make any renovations to the building, I mean structural changes? SECRETARY HOARD: Last time they were here they said there would be no exterior changes made - to maintain - they keep talking about how it is disintegrating and they've got no use for it. MR. NASH: When was the last time we had an inspection there? SECRETARY HOARD: Oh about four or five years ago. It is vacant. It has been vacant all this time. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: They have kept it vacant on purpose, I 'm sure. MS. FARRELL: How stubborn they are. SECRETARY HOARD: Well they don't want to show that it has another use. MS. FARRELL: That it can be used for anything else - absolutely nothing. SECRETARY HOARD: They've had offers, in fact they had an offer for it right on the floor of the BZA meeting. MR. NASH: An offer right there to sign or something? PAGE 23 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MS. FARRELL: Well did they have enough parking places - how many parking places does it need (unintelligible) it looks like a big building, I mean how do you go and how many parking places do they need? MR. NASH; If we considered it as a commercial establishment with fifteen full time employees, what would be the parking? . . . well the parking requirements, traffic requirements - we' ll say it is a high tech - a computer thing, I don't know - people drive cars (unintelligible) to an office building. . . MS. FARRELL: (unintelligible because three people were talking at the same time) SECRETARY HOARD: Well it is really based, you know, we have to be - I think we have got to be fair on this. . . MR. NASH: No, I 'm just looking for standards. . . MS. FARRELL: I think it's an office building in a residential neighborhood, it's an office building. MR. NASH: Is this an R3 Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: This is in an R2a. MR. NASH: Are there any other such uses in that neighborhood - academic uses, office uses? SECRETARY HOARD: Not - well office use - Cornell Press - Cornell University Press is right around the bend, so to speak. MS. FARRELL: How many people work in there? SECRETARY HOARD: In Cornell University Press? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Quite a few. SECRETARY HOARD: It's a big operation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You don't want to ask. PAGE 24 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. SCHWAB: I bet more than fifteen people. MS. FARRELL: All right, we don't want to ask that question. How would you decide a reasonable parking requirement (unintelligible) MR. NASH: How wide is this street? Is this a narrow street? MS. FARRELL: Narrow, very narrow. MR. MASH: Straight? Twisted? SECRETARY HOARD: It winds along the - goes along the gorge. . . MR. WEAVER: Right at the end of the swing bridge. MR. SCHWAB: Is this right across from the swinging bridge? MR. WEAVER: Yes. MS. FARRELL: Yes. MR. NASH: Is there parking on both sides of the road? MS. FARRELL: No. MR. NASH: Neither side? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The gorge is on one side - a little bit of parking along there. SECRETARY HOARD: There are some no parking signs along the gorge but people park there anyway. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Anyway, right. MS. FARRELL: Yes but. . . MR. NASH: That's not a legal spot though? MS. FARRELL: . . .but Cornell specializes in no parking signs everywhere. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Well those are City no parking signs. . . MS. FARRELL: Oh, yeh but I think they pay the City to put em there. PAGE 25 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. NASH: Do you remember what their hours of operation were, were they going to be open at night? SECRETARY HOARD: Oh yes, they were going to have night seminars. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What's the difference between the office use and the classroom use? Is it really being used as much as a classroom? MS. FARRELL: I 'd like to know that, I mean, . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It seems to me that it's past office - to me it's seminar classroom - instruction. Office implies. . . MS. FARRELL: But does that mean then that they are going to be having classes there and attracting other people who might. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I would assume - I have assumed that all along. SECRETARY HOARD: Our Ordinance doesn't give any parking require- ments for classroom use. MR. SCHWAB: Actually it strikes me as fairly reasonable when they say that they think most people will walk there. . . not the employ- ees but most of the students will walk. . . MR. NASH: You see we've got a place with fifteen employees. . . MS. FARRELL: It sounds to me like it is fifteen employees - involving approximately fifteen people on a full time basis. You've got to have several cars - maybe you won't have fifteen but you'll have a lot. . . if you did it. . . . MR. SCHWAB: But as far as people coming to the seminars above the fifteen. . . MS. FARRELL: Well it depends. SECRETARY HOARD: Well if you call it an office it would be one space per two hundred and fifty feet of floor area. PAGE 26 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And that's an awful lot of parking spaces, if that's the case. MS. FARRELL: Do they have a parking lot behind it? SECRETARY HOARD: No. All they have to do is say, well we will provide parking. . . MR. NASH: In lot so and so. . . SECRETARY HOARD: . . .on our property which is within five hundred feet and that means anywhere on the Campus. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: . . .garage next to the Stadium. SECRETARY HOARD: Our Ordinance says. . . you measure property line to property line - right across the street. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: They are building a garage on the basefield field so that counts. . . MR. WEAVER: Sure. Well and they also, of course, tell us that they have an excellent bus service. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh yes, absolutely. MR. NASH: Do you ever give conditional permits? SECRETARY HOARD: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We've given them conditional. . . MR. WEAVER: Sure. MS. FARRELL: You were talking about trading accessibility in roads. MR. WEAVER: I'm not trading anything but I do think that - as I read our present code, there is a required plan that must be submitted for any special permit and that really is a plot plan but it also talks about the arrangement of the building. And the second part talks about in addition to the plan requirements setforth in subsection 1 above an applicant for a special permit PAGE 27 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 for a school or a related use must provide the following informa- tion: information on the nature of the proposed uses to be conduct- ed or facilities to be located on the premises, including but not limited to course of studies and subjects to be offered, size and composition of student body to be accommodated, size of faculty and staff required, daily hours of operation and annual periods of operation, type and location, support of facilities required, information concerning the type and number of living accommodations which may be required to serve any increase in the institutions enrollment resulting from the proposed action, including the location, availability of those accommodations, documentation and so on. . . . The only problem - after I get through reading that - after they have given us that, what are you going to do with it? That's too many people - or that's too much congestion and it just seems to me that we will have. . . I make a distinction between successful Article 78 's and some of this nagging winging it stuff that you are apt to get out of a Board trying it's damdest to - the other thing we are expected to get a recommendation out of the Planning and Development and we could make certain. . . MR. NASH: You mean the Planning Board? MR. WEAVER: Yes they review all the. . . MR. NASH; Not the Planning and Development Committee? MR. WEAVER: No the Planning Board. And they review all of our applications each month. . . MR. NASH: They go there first, right? MR. WEAVER: Yes. . . PAGE 28 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. NASH: And how many days do they get them before they come here? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we get them in our packet whenever it comes. . MR. FARRELL: I think it is two weeks before. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes they get it about ten days, two weeks. . . MR. WEAVER: They have a meeting. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But the problem is they never do anything. MS. FARRELL: Well I don't think they could possibly say that this didn't have City-wide zoning implications. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh, I 'll put money on that Tracy. . . MS. FARRELL: Oh they would probably say something - they are going to say something about this one - and if they don't, we can send it back to them to say something about it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I don't know that that is a reasonable alterna- tive. MR. WEAVER: Well. . . MS. FARRELL: In a way, now that I'm thinking about Cornell, it doesn't matter if they have parking or not because it is true, the City says that you can't park on the streets or around there so the cars have to go someplace else so it is not going to be an issue for the neighborhood probably. You know, unless they put it on a lot in the back but if they don't have that they can't park on the street around there so it shouldn't be - it could be excess traffic in the neighborhood - you know - dropping people off and picking people up or circling around looking for spaces - but there are PAGE 29 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 only so many spaces and they are all the spaces that are there already. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you are saying. . . . MS. FARRELL: So I 'm saying that the parking conditions won't particularly change unless there are residents there that are trying to find those hard to find spaces on the street and there are few of them. . . MR. WEAVER: I can't imagine someone - permanent resident that lives in that area that expects to find a place on the street to park. MS. FARRELL: No I can't either - that's what I'm thinking. . . MR. NASH: It is just too narrow to park. . . MS. FARRELL: They must have a driveway. . . MR. WEAVER: No they have to have a driveway to survive up there. MS. FARRELL: They would lose their minds if they were circling every day looking for parking spaces. What I am thinking is the amount of parking spaces that are there are what are there and they are not - it is not going to create more congestion because there is no place to put them on the street. MR. NASH: They can't take anybody else's spot because. . . MS. FARRELL: Because those aren't anybody's spot - they are just divided out every morning. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; It is already full. So much for parking. MS. FARRELL: Go right to A lot. MR. WEAVER: Well it does talk about chemical, biological and other hazards that may be totally unsatisfactory to all of us but there are - there is some language - it probably can't be supported but PAGE 30 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 it talks about documentation of its evaluation of suitable alterna- tive sites for the proposed activity. MR. NASH: No. They don't have to show specific need for this. MS. FARRELL: They want it and that's that. MR. NASH: Let me ask you another thing. Do you do any environmen- tal review on special permits, use variances? SECRETARY HOARD: On use variances, short form. MR. NASH: Short form. Area variances, no? SECRETARY HOARD: Area variances are excluded by SEQR. That's a state law. MR. NASH; Special permits? MS. FARRELL: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) MR. NASH: I 'm not trying to bring it up one way or another. . . SECRETARY HOARD: I think they are excluded, I 'll have to look. MR. NASH: You haven't in the past? I don't know, this SEQR stuff is getting jambed down more and more and it seems to me. . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes except that the City keeps making its Ordi- nance more and more and blind to the fact that there are all sorts of administerial actions that aren't covered by it so why do the exercise? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If I 'm looking for property values, what am I looking for? I know it's tough Charlie but I am trying to get every handle out here. MR. WEAVER: I don't disagree. . . MR. NASH: Generally the way I 've seen that done is somebody comes in and says - a real estate appraiser and salesman and has worked in the business for ten years and it is my opinion - and they put PAGE 31 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 that in there that the property values have increased in this neighborhood. SECRETARY HOARD: In the earlier cases here - or the earlier presentations - one neighborh - McKersey - hired a real estate appraiser to come in and talk and I think the Association may have had someone come in. . . MR. NASH: And of course the traditional argument is that if it is a well maintained - well run facility it will add to the neighbor- hood instead of detract from the property values. MS. FARRELL: Yeh, if there were still going to be a dormitory, I 'd say property values. . . MR. WEAVER: Well back at the origin of this case there was no shortage of people that testified before the Board and told about how Cornell did not maintain its property - didn't mow the lawn - didn't clean the walk - let the property go to hell in a hand basket - pretty generally - and talked about the building from which this was to be transferred and it was over on West Avenue and it really was a shambles. MS. FARRELL: Oh it was? MR. WEAVER: Oh yes - well they. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Was and is. MS. FARRELL: Is their program still in that house? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MS. FARRELL: Well that is very interesting. MR. WEAVER: On the other side, however, their plans are to get out of there and tear it down. . . MS. FARRELL: Oh they are going to tear it down? PAGE 32 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. NASH: They are going to put a parking lot there. MR. WEAVER: There is no demonstration of what they are going to do with it - no demonstration - except that they aren't putting in any additional funds into the structure. MS. FARRELL: But nobody lives in this building - at least it is not a. . . . SECRETARY HOARD: No - nobody lives in it. . . they talked about the building that they are in now as though it got deteriorated by some kind of act of God - fully out of control of the University. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Like most of the buildings that they have - fully out of the control of the University. MS. FARRELL: How many people work for Cornell? SECRETARY HOARD: At this table? Three of the four voting members here tonight. MS. FARRELL: Well I don't have a permanent job there, you know. MR. WEAVER: No one has a permanent job except with tenure. MS. FARRELL: Well right, but there is. . . MR. SCHWAB: I 'm up for it next year. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm two years after. MS. FARRELL: Now we are talking nobody permanent. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Neither one of you has tenure? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. SECRETARY HOARD: Let me tell you what happened the last time this went around - we had a couple of untenured members of the Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I believe it. I 've seen this coming down the road some time ago. I 've got options I don't worry about it. MS. FARRELL: I don't have options. PAGE 33 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well you ought to get some. MS. FARRELL: No, I mean I don't do that tenure stuff. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Impact on neighborhood. . . . MR. WEAVER: Well first of all this case was an argument between the City and that establishment up there - on whether we could regulate at all and to some people's surprise, we can regulate it. Which is a step beyond what we had before - at least what Cornell was claiming. So rather than wring our hands, say isn't that grand? Now we'll probably have to get in the experimental stage in which we impose some standards, winging it, probably. In fact, tactfully it will probably be better for us to muddle around and mess one up than to have Ralph try to lay down a set of five rules and get in a fight over whether this was rule 2 and whether rule 2 was constitutional or not and all that jam. . . rather we come up with one and somebody will have to decide - draw their own conclu- sions over whether that is the kinds of regulations that we have a right to have. But I do think that they can't easily put a six story dorm in my side yard over in the Cornell Heights area and as they do, they better have some - I guess probably they better own the adjacent property at least on one side. There could be a valid argument. . . MS. FARRELL: They could cross the street too. . . MR. WEAVER: Somebody gets isolated within. . . MR. SCHWAB: Weren't they asked the question the last time, arguing they could put a bus terminal right here - bus turn-around and terminal right here and they said yes. MR. NASH: Well I think that issue is . . . PAGE 34 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MS. FARRELL: I mean, I agree with you, this does seem sort of positive - it seems (unintelligible) . . . MR. NASH: I think what you've got to do - by the same token you've got to treat 'em like anybody else. . . . MS. FARRELL: Right. . . MR. NASh: What if somebody wanted to put in a high tech computer offices there. . . MS. FARRELL: I 'd say, fifteen people - size of the building - where's your parking. They wouldn't be able to say we own the campus and we have - you know - X number of spaces over there. I would definitely ask about parking. You know, based on the size of - I would call it, probably, office space. What do we call it though? I mean they are coming to us and saying what they are going to do there. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MS. FARRELL: And then do we talk about it as - because if it is a school building. . . MR. WEAVER: Well, I think Tracy, that we can make some distinc- tions. What is it? It's educational. Cornell is doing it. But whether it is a repair garage or an office building or a classroom structure. . . or a dormitory - the distinction within those catego- ries is something that we can give some attention to. That the garage and the dormitory. . . MR. NASH: As it affects the neighborhood. MR. WEAVER: In what is otherwise a residential neighborhood. MS. FARRELL: Yes. PAGE 35 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. WEAVER: . . .of fundamentally single family to duplex homes or over there - I was worried about that whole thing because there were so many - so many multiples and big multiples - of fraterni- ties on the lower edge and the whole thing. I thought it was a fairly frail case to be talking about the damage. . . MR. NASH: It was tough at the Court of Appeals to argue that Cornell Heights shouldn't be part of Cornell University. It sounds like it. . . but I think you can - you know - you've got to look at what it is going to do negatively to the area - what do you really feel - regardless of who is doing it or why they are doing it or what experiences you have had in the past - I think you've got to look at the actual facts right there - are they going to jamb up the street, are they going to cause a lot of noise - is there going to be a lot of commotion - are they going cause people's property values to go down because of those things - are you going to be able to get fire trucks through there during the day - police vehicles - if you don't have a general plan for the community I guess it is hard to relate back to it. Cornell certainly has a general plan for that area. But obviously maintaining the existing structure is something - I mean they aren't going to knock it down and put up a six story building or something right in there. . . MS. FARRELL: And with this special permit they couldn't - that would be a whole separate issue - if they change that building they would have to come back - if they changed the outside of that building, I mean, if they change that structure, wouldn't they have to come back? PAGE 36 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. NASH: They would have to substantially increase the use - wouldn't they, or something? You could put a condition on. . . MS. FARRELL: You could put a condition that that building would stay the way it was. . . MR. NASH: A condition that what they say they are going to do now - that they are not going to have people park in that narrow street - that their hours of operation are going to be from eight in the morning until eleven at night and they are not going to do a lot of excessive things there - whatever it is - you know - hold large meetings and stuff. SECRETARY HOARD: Modern Indonesia Music Festival. . . MR. NASH: Yes. MS. FARRELL: No Modern Indonesian Music after eleven. MR. WEAVER: Southeast Asia cookout. MS. FARRELL: Okay, so we could talk about traffic, we could talk about parking, we could talk about anything about special per- mits. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Do you think Frank Rhodes would have to live there? MS. FARRELL: They could rotate. So it seems different - this then becomes - it is not like an owner-occupied thing that is getting a little special permit, it's - how about the day care center some- body would live in it to get a special permit. . . MR. WEAVER: Well I think absolutely there would be number one condition that the granting is based upon the proposed use as outlined in their application. And then it can't turn into traffic PAGE 37 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 control or phys ed or whatever without their violating their variance. MR. NASH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) . . . what would you have to do before they could open it, could you - do you have any building codes? SECRETARY HOARD: They would have to meet the building code. They have no exemption from that. MS. FARRELL: They have got a lot of minor things. . . MR. NASH: It's going to cost them a bundle isn't it? MS. FARRELL: They don't care. MR. NASH: To bring that thing up first rate? SECRETARY HOARD: That's a very difficult building to change the way they want to. MS. FARRELL: You know what is a really important. . . . MR. NASH: But they would have to do it before they opened it? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. NASH: Then you what, get around to them every three years? SECRETARY HOARD: No. MR. NASH: Never again? SECRETARY HOARD: Only if they want to change the use or. . . MR. NASH: Because nobody is living there? SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. NASH: Would they have to sprinkler? SECRETARY HOARD: I don't know. If they go to the third floor (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But they are willing to throw that money in (unintelligible) they can develop the other . . . . they don't care. MS. FARRELL: Money? PAGE 38 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. WEAVER: They don't mind. No, but I 'm just saying. . . . MR. NASH: No but that is good, you know, bring it up first rate to Code - they've left it open. . . MS. FARRELL: Right. But what about when the construction takes place in that skinny little street? I mean. . . MR. NASH: You can't really prevent somebody from bringing their property up to code because it is a narrow street. . . MS. FARRELL: Okay. MR. WEAVER: Well put it back to what it was and the fact that this was - I guess - an elderly couple finally died and left the proper- ty to Cornell - but the building is big enough for a large family. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes it is a large, very nice building and it has servant's quarters, servant's stairs, nice place. The heating for it though is somewhat exorbitant. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Nice location. MR. WEAVER: Well probably if you fixed it up the taxes would be substantial. The use that they propose was not all that startling for the variety of things that Cornell might introduce into resi- dential neighborhood and had it not been for a very militant neighborhood group, I would guess that it would not have startled a Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance, had the appellant. . . MR. NASH: They would have had a hard time showing a hardship though, wouldn't they? I mean, because you weren't really just trying to see whether it is compatible with the neighborhood - right? You wouldn't have had that authority. . . . MR. WEAVER: Don't forget they are the owner of this building. MR. NASh; Right. PAGE 39 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. WEAVER: And all they would have had to do is to prove that it wasn't economically feasible to use it for residential purposes. And put the money into it to fix it up first-class - in other words put a real load on it and then say the going rate for a room or per bedroom in this community is only so much and we can't get that out of it and I don't - mere speculation - but it wouldn't have been a bad exercise for Cornell to prove a hardship had they entered with that sort of set of rules but they entered with a rule that they are above all of this and. . . SECRETARY HOARD: What Charlie is saying is exactly right - if it hadn't been for the neighborhood getting all excited about this it probably would have gone right through like other Cornell things went through in the past. MR. WEAVER: Not necessarily to the destruction of the neighborhood in that this building I think is the last one before the big curve, isn't it? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. WEAVER: So it is at the very end of the street if you will, and what's beyond - the tennis courts by Risley - so who is across the street - the gorge owned by Cornell. What is across the street the other way - next door neighbor - I 'm quite sure they own the house around the corner too. That doesn't make any difference at the moment, we are pretty darn close to being the neighbor affected is Cornell to a great degree. It isn't like Buffalo Street or Linn Street, they aren't the neighbors across the street from anybody, they are the neighbors across the street from Fall Creek Gorge. And so, anyway, they were the smart guys that were above any zoning PAGE 40 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 regulations so here they are, they are stuck with - right at the moment, they are stuck with six of us, whatever that is. And for a City Attorney - God help you because if we are just going to wing it each time - that's not much different from what the Planning Board recommendations have been historically. No set of standards that I 've ever been able to identify that came out of there, so they used to say this was good and this was bad and here is the hedge down through here that makes it all. . . . MR. NASH: This community is really fluid. I can see where it is tough to come up with a ten year plan. You can say what you want, you know what I mean, we rezone Collegetown one way and four years later we rezone it the other way. . . . I'm not saying it's good or bad but it is hard to look ten years ahead. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Dynamic planning. SECRETARY HOARD: We've heard this before when people call me and ask me if they've got the current zoning ordinance - I ask them if the ink is dry - if it is dry it is out of date. MR. WEAVER: But there again, coming from this Board, one member, the planners and the Planning Board have been busy, busy, busy spot zoning ever since I 've been on the Board of Zoning Appeals. MR. NASH: I wouldn't call it that. MR. WEAVER: Oh, of course the Ramada isn't spot zoning, I suppose. MR. NASH: That's an unusual case. MR. WEAVER: Just a slight exception for one block. MR. NASH: We want to develop business - commerce . . . MR. WEAVER: We've got industrial development down here and a plan that we need more housing. PAGE 41 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. NASH: Yes it tough - the housing is always. . . . MR. WEAVER: No problem. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What it boils down to is that Common Council or the people as a whole participate in every single decision on everything. All the time. . that's basically what it boils down to. MR. NASH: I agree with you but you know the thing to do is to focus down - what are the things that this thing can cause that is to the detriment of the other people living around there - in the neighborhood - list of four of five things - I mean, it is not - I mean to tie it down - it is a special use permit for a particular use - particular site. . . MS. FARRELL: Particular building - the way it sounds. . . MR. NASH: Particular building, yes - button it down. . . MS. FARRELL: No sign. MR. NASH: If you do give it to them - they are probably going to go with it -then you've got the hooks in them, at least. MR. WEAVER: We are being - all we have been talking about is turning one down - we also have the. . . MR. NASH: And I 'm not advocating one way or another - but that is a possibility. . . MR. WEAVER: That neighborhood had a couple of buildings - one of them was the black center that burned - these were originally faculty dwellings that had a number of students in with Professor Jones and his wife - and that was also true up and down Central and East Avenue on Campus - in fact - I don't know whether they ever owned the land but these privately owned structures initially and PAGE 42 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 so this has evolved from residential into academic administrative work of some sort - it has moved down into South and West Avenue, Edgemore Lane, squeezing that way - we've got community parking lots that well - goodness knows - if they aren't moving into what was originally residential, I don't know where they are going. So I 'd say that Cornell ought to have the general right to move into something zoned that will allow private school and so forth. MR. NASH: I think that's, again - it's a legal given. MR. WEAVER: Yes. And so what do you want to do there? Well good God, if it is going to be the music building - you can close the windows - have it air conditioned year round - or something so that somebody doesn't have to listen to the clarinets all day. I 'm thinking of some practical things that Cornell needs to do and, incidentally I 'm not on the faculty, I don't work for them, and I won't. What they need to do and they do get land and buildings given to them or they also have some that they will take first option on - that would be reasonable directions for them to expand their activities. I don't agree with the community and the commu- nity thinks that Cornell ought to house all of its students on campus and have have all of its activity on campus, wherever the heck that is. And actually if we could have private enterprise putting up their housing and paying taxes, maybe we would have enough money to run this city. But no, the City - over and over again I 've listened to people say they ought to house their stu- dents, those rascals, and then we will have all tax exempt dormito- ries. And they will be on campus and that'll mean that the Univer- sity itself, in it's academic and administrative activities will PAGE 43 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 move into this - just this kind of neighborhood, exactly. And the students - the more you push them out to Freeville, they will be commuting. It seems to me that from a planning standpoint we are reasonably confused, as a community. But that doesn't help us - I really think this does give Cornell a right to expand into residen- tial neighborhoods, period. But . . . . it gives us a right to say, keep the building approximately the way it is, don't put a ten story addition onto the back of this house, for example, don't build right out to the street, we need a right to have this main- tained. . . . MS. FARRELL: And to look residential. . . as the other buildings look residential. . . in the neighborhood . . . whether they are the printing thing or whatever - that looks residential when you look at it. MR. WEAVER: Yes . . . this is an opportunity for us to say that they maintain the exterior essentially in the same right - what's that - there is an advisory board or commission or something that. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Design Review Board? MR. WEAVER: Design Review. They review and recommend - they don't have any power but we have power to accept their recommendation and enforce it - on a condition - so there is some places where we might influence. . . what will undoubtedly happen is an expansion of Cornell. I don't think it is unreasonable to predict that. In the 1930's the landlords in Collegetown were worried that Cornell was going to put up all of these dormitories and put them out of business and there they are. . . poor fellows. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Poor fellows? An interesting term. PAGE 44 BZA MEETING 2/2/87 MR. WEAVER: Well the City has got quite a bit invested in that Dryden Road development haven't we? That looks like student housing to me. But it is low income. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Low income. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Some of it is low. . . MR. WEAVER: Yes, I understand, twenty percent? MR. NASH: Are they going to tax municipal services in that or what - by this use? SECRETARY HOARD: Is who going to tax. . . MR. NASH: Cornell. Is it going to have any effect on that? (unintelligible) fire, police, water and sewer. . . are they going to put up a traffic sign at the corner? MR. WEAVER: Well it would be very easy for Cornell or anybody else to take a large dwelling over in that neighborhood and improve it and reduce its load on municipal services. . . MR. NASH: To bring it up to Code - I guess that would be some- thing. MR. WEAVER: Well they would bring it up to Code and sprinkler it and say, we've. . . MS. FARRELL: Is it not up to Code for a house? SECRETARY HOARD: Oh, for a house? MR. NASH: At this point they would have to bring it right up to State Code, wouldn't they, right up to the new stuff? Because it has been vacant that long. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Well it's a conversion. MR. WEAVER: Probably would reduce its demands as far as Municipal Services are concerned. MS. FARRELL: Except don't they have problems with sprinkler systems a lot of times at Cornell that cause false alarms? -MR. WEAVER: No. SECRETARY HOARD: Smoke detections . . . don't ever say that to a fire chief. . . MR. WEAVER: Well the smoke detectors, historically, and I 'm not the resident historian but they usually have no protection. . . . end of taped discussion. . . . . . PAGE 45