Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1987-03-02 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MARCH 2, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 2-1-87 PETR-ALL CORP. (POSTPONED) 920 NORTH CAYUGA ST. APPEAL NO. 1740 Michael LoPinto 25 309 East Buffalo Street It it IT Decision 28 APPEAL NO. 1741 Ken Peworchik (POSTPONED) 419 West Buffalo St . APPEAL NO. 1742 Kevin M. & Joanne M. Shea 29 560 Spencer Road Decision 33 APPEAL NO. 1743 Wickes Lumber 34 100 Commercial Avenue " Decision 37 APPEAL NO. 1744 College Avenue Realty 38 306 College Avenue it it It Decision 47 APPEAL NO. 1745 Kasonic Builders 48 529 South Meadow Street Decision 55 APPEAL NO. 1746 Albert E. Smith 56 200-204 West Seneca Street " Decision 65 APPEAL NO. 3-1-87 Albert E. Smith 66 200-204 West Seneca Street " " Decision 78 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2, 1987 MEETING PAGE (continued) APPEAL NO. 1747 Elizabeth B. Leonardo 79 111 Franklin Street Decision 82 APPEAL NO. 1748 Stephen Blumenthal 83 225 South Fulton Street itIt ifDecision 89 APPEAL NO. 1749 Harold Schultz 90 120 Highland Place Decision 98 APPEAL NO. 1750 David B. Gersh 99 407 North Cayuga Street It it it Decision 104 APPEAL NO. 1751 Francis J. Paolangeli 4 123-129 West Falls Street Discussion 17 Decision 23 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 105 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MARCH 2, 1987 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the March 2, 1987 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Ap- peals. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight are: STEWART SCHWAB HELEN JOHNSON TRACY FARRELL HERMAN SIEVERDING MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN THOMAS D. HOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO THE BOARD BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT: CHARLES WEAVER The Board is going to 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 members of 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 PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 hundred feet of the property in question or who live or work within two hundred feet of that property. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of an "inter- ested party". While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record. The record consists of the application materials filed with the Building Department, the correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations, if any, and the record of tonight's hearing. Since a record is being made of this hearing it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones that are directly opposite me here so the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and be heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and will therefore not be considered by the Board in its deliberations 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. Obviously when you have an agenda as long as our is tonight it is particular- ly pertinent. After everyone has been heard on a given case the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during our deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or special permit. In the rare cases where there is a tie vote the variance or special PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 permit is automatically denied. Now tonight, as you will note, there are only five of the six members present. By virtue of that, anyone of the appellants has the right to request a postponement until a later date when all six people are present. Is there anyone out there who is an appellant who would like to request a postponement at this point? [No one] Are there any questions from any of you about our procedure? Then may we proceed? SECRETARY HOARD: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the Appeal No. 2-1-87 for 920 North Cayuga Street has been held over at the request of the appellant as has Appeal No. 1741 for 419 West Buffalo Street. So those will be heard next month - if anybody is here to testify on those. PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: Appeal No. 1751 for 123-129 West Falls Street: Appeal of Francis J. Paolangeli for a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2, and an area variance for defi- cient setbacks for two front yards and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 13 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the extension of a non-conforming use (a contractor's yard and office) and construction of a second floor addition to the existing office building, and construction of a garage for contractor's vehicles at 123-129 West Falls Street (Paolangeli Contractor) . The property is located in an R2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the existing use is permitted only by the existing variances; there- fore, under Sections 30.49 and 30. 57 the appellant must obtain a use variance and an area variance before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed construction and expansions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. MR. MAZZA: My name is Ed Mazza, I represent the appellant Mr. Paolangeli. I have some things that I would like you to look at that were not presented earlier and it includes some photographs of the property and some elevations of the office building which we are asking to have a second story put on. I ' ll pass these photos around, I 'm not sure if you are familiar with the property but if you want, I 'll be happy to answer some questions. What they are supposed to do is show you what the existing office building looks like, a little bit about what the property across the street looks PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 like and a little bit about the area where Mr. Paolangeli would like to put a garage, a storage garage. The yellow building that is out of concrete block is the office building. Also I have three copies of the elevations of that office building and the floor plans that I will pass out. I should have four . . . I 've only got three. MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) shown on the property across the street. . . MR. MAZZA: This one is the property across the street . . just to give you some idea what the neighborhood used to look like down there - the immediate neighborhood - directly across the street. MR. SIEVERDING: Right, and as you go further up the street toward Cayuga, it is all single families. . . . MR. MAZZA: It is all residential. . . except for the - on the same side of the street as Mr. Paolangeli, there is one photograph in there of their use - as you get to that one I'll point it out. This is where the garage would be [pointing at a photograph] MR. SIEVERDING: Which would be . . . [discussion between Mr. Mazza and Mr. Sieverding while looking at the photographs] MR. SIEVERDING: That would go back toward Cayuga rather than toward Route 13? MR. MAZZA: Yes that is correct. This is the neighbor's property, this is where our garage would be - this would go down - and this is the neighboring use - this is another picture showing the neighbor's use. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Which is. . . PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 MR. MAZZA: Which is the one next towards Cayuga Street - who owns that? MR. PAOLANGELI; Marty McElwee. MR. SIEVERDING: That's sort of a garage - or an oversize garage on a private piece of property? MR. PAOLANGELI: Yes and there is a woodworking shop next to it. . . MR. SIEVERDING: For - as a business or just personal. . . MR. PAOLANGELI: No, he is in business for himself. MR. SIEVERDING: How long have you been operating on this site? MR. PAOLANGELI; Eight or nine years. MS. FARRELL: You had a variance that allowed you to do this or. . [two conversations at once at this point - wasn't able to transcribe this portion] CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, so are we all on the same footing now? MR. MAZZA: This is an R2b district and this use of this property has been existing for about fifty years. . . MR. PAOLANGELI: Since the twenty's. . . MR. MAZZA: Over fifty years. It actually used to be larger than it is now before Route 13 went through and took part of the proper- ty. What Mr. Paolangeli wants to do is on the southeast corner of the property where he currently stores the backhoes and other trucks and other things of that nature, he wants to put a storage garage. This is not a garage where there will be any work done, it will be merely to house the vehicles. Mr. Paolangeli wants to do that for two reasons: one, he wants to keep his equipment out of the weather elements because it has to be replaced sooner if it stays out in the snow and the rain. A secondary reason, and it is PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 to make it look more presentable. At this point you have seen a lot of bulldozers and backhoes or whatever equipment that he has down there - trucks - sitting out in the yard, which he can do all over the lot and currently does. He would like to put those pieces of equipment in this garage. These are pieces of equipment that, when they don't work at the site, they are taken out of the site when they are needed for a job and sometimes the pieces of equip- ment don't come back to the site for quite some time - they may be out all summer - come back if they are in need of repair or some- thing like that - but normally the equipment goes out and does not work around here - although there may be some fork lift or some- thing like that - is there anything like that? MR. PAOLANGELI: There is a fork lift there. . . MR. MAZZA: Yes that moves some stuff around down there. The other thing that he would like to do down here is - where the office currently exists, there is a one-story concrete block building, he would like to put an identical second story on that - it would not increase the outside limits of that office building, it would just increase it by one story. The reason that he wants to do that is - right now he works there with three office employees and there is two offices and it is kind of cramped in there - they can do it but what is happening is - in order to do a bid on a construction job, he kind of has to spread things out and with everybody all there it makes it difficult for him to do that, so at times he is finding himself taking the stuff home - or elsewhere - to do these bids and he finds when he is out of the place that - he needs to have somebody there to replace him, to take care of other PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 responsibilities, so the fact is, he is finding that he may have to employ another person to take care of the situation at the office while he is away from the office doing these bids. So what he would like to do - on the second floor - is put his office up there with a bidding room where he could spread out at a table, there would be no phones in there, he could just go in there, close the door and do his bids. I 'm sure that one of your concerns with him putting a second story on this is going to make it more use down there - it is going to make it a more intensive use of the proper- ty. Mr. Paolangeli and I talked about that. Right now he has himself and three office people working for him. There are other employees but they work away from the premises and, of course, he has a lot of people that work for him through the union but he doesn't really employ but they come to the job site, not to his office. What he is willing to do is to say that he would limit the number of people working in this office to himself and three employees so that the use would not be increased at all - it would just make this a lot easier for him to operate his business and actually make it a financial hardship if he is not allowed to do that because he is going to have to hire somebody to take care of that - which may, in fact, increase the number of people driving in and out of this site. So he is willing to limit the number of people who work there on a daily basis. The garage, I think that - and these are all dealing with the use variance - as you know we have to get a use variance to increase a non-conforming use. The other one I believe is a hardship because storing his equipment outside is wearing away the equipment a lot faster and also I think PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 the neighbors - it is an undue hardship on the neighbors, them- selves, having to look at all this equipment rather than a nice building. MS. FARRELL: Excuse me, I have a question. No equipment would be stored outside then, if this building were built? MR. MAZZA: No, there would be some equipment - the types that we store outside, depending on how much would be there at one time. But there would be, I could say this, there would be less stored outside. Right now he stores equipment in that southeast corner and also on the western side of the property which faces Route 13 . There will probably be at times, some stored over there as well. But predominantly, for his own purposes and for the neighborhood purposes as well, he would store equipment primarily in that garage. Right now he has that other building which is called a shop, which he stores some stuff in there. So I think that there is a hardship on Mr. Paolangeli and the neighborhood and that these things - to be in strict compliance with the Ordinance would continue that hardship. In addition to the use variance, he has to get some area variances. We are on a corner, I guess - two front yards - one is on Route 13 which is fenced off by a chain link fence - but nevertheless it is a street and we have a front yard deficiency there. Of course, that deficiency has been there for some time, as well as the deficiency for the front yard on West Falls Street. We are not increasing the deficiency except for the fact that we are going two stories instead of one. Of course there is no problem with the height there because I think that it is thirty-four - thirty-five feet allowed in that district, so we PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 won't approach that. And the neighboring properties are pretty much two story properties but we have to get an area variance for that because we are deficient now. The other deficiency would be for the rear yard and we are deficient there now with what is currently existing on the premises - that shop is only two feet from the back line at one side and two point three feet on the other side. The building that Mr. Paolangeli proposes to put up to the east of that shop building would be the same deficiency. It would just continue that shop line right across and that shed that is shown - on one plan it was shown faintly - it would be removed - I saw that in those photographs. This building does back up to a concrete block garage and that is where this building would go - so we need a variance for that rear yard setback as well. I don't think we are increasing the deficiency and the use is going to be the same - of that property - whether there is a building there to house the vehicles or whether the vehicles are there without anything to house them and the use is going to be the same for that piece of land. It is going to be to park vehicles and the only question really is, do we want to allow him to put something up that is going to be more attractive and an improvement financially for Mr. Paolangeli or do we want to keep those things stored outside. I would think that the equities of it would be to allow the variance and I think the neighbors - none of whom I see here - would probably like that very much. MR. SIEVERDING: What would be involved in terms of the new garage to site that so that it met the rear yard requirement? PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 MR. MAZZA: Well I think - supposed to have a twenty-five percent of depth - this is a hundred and thirty-two feet deep - you would have to - my math isn't that good but probably wouldn't be able to - thirty some feet up - and then the building itself - you wouldn't be able to put any vehicles going in there - you wouldn't be able to bring the vehicles in. . . MR. SIEVERDING: So you would be getting too close to this fourth building on the site, labelled office. . . MR. MAZZA: It is labelled office but it is a shed - it is really shot. It was mislabelled as an office, it is really a shop - the surveyor labelled it as an office. MR. SIEVERDING: Isn't that, though, a similar type of construction as the office where you are now? MR. MAZZA: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: In fact it almost looks identical to. . . MR. PAOLANGELI; Yes, we tried to make it look (unintelligible) we had a permit several years ago to fix it up - it was just an old beat up building and we just redid it and tried to make it look like the rest of the buildings. . . it looked like that building across the street before I started. MR. SIEVERDING: Why couldn't that serve this function as an estimating room rather than. . . MR. PAOLANGELI; It is isolated from that building over on the other side. . . there is no windows or anything - just has a garage overhead door - no windows or anything in it - just another empty building - must have been a shop. It is not - I guess you could remodel it for an office but, you know, it is a matter - if I need PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 some information I have to walk from one office over to another office to get what I need out of . . . MS. FARRELL: What is in that shop/office now, I mean shop called office. MR. PAOLANGELI: Just some equipment - nothing particular - just a drill press, maybe there is a lathe in there - some old furniture - nothing special. MR. SIEVERDING: May I see those photographs again? Is there a shot of that? MR. PAOLANGELI: That particular building? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes. MR. MAZZA: Yes. Not in the photographs you saw before but I have some other ones. I have some other photographs here. I don't think they are very helpful but that one shows that building . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you tried any other configuration with respect to the placement of the garage on the site? MR. PAOLANGELI: Yes. Well, not really because there is no place left to go - over by 13 - you can't put it up along there (unintel- ligible) you just can't go over there - you can use that land over there but it cannot be built on because there is a sewer main that goes down through there and the City would frown upon that and there is no other real place to put it - there is not that much room to build it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The sewer main is where? MR. PAOLANGELI; Way over by the fence on 13. MR. MAZZA: As you see in those photographs - that chain link fence - that's the fence that the State put up but their property line is PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 some twenty-five to thirty feet in from that. He does not own over to the chain link fence. SECRETARY HOARD: Speaking of those photographs, you are going to leave them as exhibits? MR. MAZZA: I 'll leave them if you would like - all of them. MR. SIEVERDING: What sort of equipment, again, are you keeping in the yard back there? MR. PAOLANGELI: Well we have - on occasion - backhoes there, front end holder, fork lift - there are three single axle dump trucks and several pick up trucks. . . MS. FARRELL: And how many of those would fit in the new garage? MR. PAOLANGELI: Every space in that garage that can take a vehicle gets it every night - they go inside - I put everything that I can in the building - there is not an empty spot in there for equipment - as a matter of fact you can barely - it is just difficult to get around in there now. And what happens, if you need one piece of equipment - there is only four or five people that come to the yard in the morning to take a piece of equipment out of there - the rest of the people go right to the job sites and sometimes you need the truck that is up here - everything is in a straight line in there - it is not a (unintelligible) and they have to move one to get another one out - and then put it back. We try to keep as much as we can inside - especially in the winter - it is very hard to start diesel equipment in the winter so every thing that is diesel definitely gets put inside although the building isn't big enough to put it in. PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 MR. SIEVERDING: A lot of this equipment gets hauled out of here on a flat bed trailer behind one of those dump trucks? MR. PAOLANGELI: There is only one piece down there that we haul around - it is just a small piece - everything else is pretty much on rubber tires. I have two machines that have never ever been to the yard - I just don't bring them there, they are too big so I just leave them (unintelligible) just move them from job to job, they never get to the yard - if I need to store it, I rent a space somewhere out of town - I wouldn't even try to bring it down that street - it is too big. MR. SIEVERDING: You also have a - sort of a septic pumping kind of service - is the equipment for that particular activity stored there as well? MR. PAOLANGELI: Yes there is a septic tank truck - there may be a picture of that truck . . . yes - back in the corner. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I 've seen it, I was just curious where - is that part of the Contracting business or is that a separate business or how does that work? MR. PAOLANGELI: That particular piece is too big to get in the doors - I can't get it in the shop - I can't put it inside. MR. SIEVERDING: So it will always be stored outside? MR. PAOLANGELI: Well no, the new building has a stall - I have a stall for it - it's going to be put inside - it freezes up in the winter - there is •liquid in it . . . MR. SIEVERDING: I was going to say - does that ever sort of travel in and out of this area full of stuff or do you pump something out and then dump it and then bring it back empty? PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 MR. PAOLANGELI: We have two dump sites that we go to - approved dump sites. When it comes in there is nothing in it but you can't drain it out one hundred percent - there may be five gallons into it. What is left in it - if the truck is parked in the wrong position it can drain to the valve in the back and freeze and it is a matter of having to thaw that out before you take it back out. You can't open the valve (unintelligible) - you can't open them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In the new garage you have one section which is twenty foot long and twenty-six foot deep and another section which is sixty foot long and thirty feet deep - why the difference? MR. PAOLANGELI: Because they is - right over here - there is a concrete pad and some windows on the side of this one warehouse and I don't want to lose - there is an electric service that goes up there and I 'd have to move that electric service and everything else related - in order to get that extra four feet and it is twenty-four feet and twenty-six is enough for a pick up truck - so even a dump truck can go in there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MR. PAOLANGELI; On the side of that one building, I don't know if you can see that? You can see the electric service comes in the side of it - right here - the electric service. . . . I 'd have to move it all. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Herman do you have any questions? MR. SIEVERDING: No I don't have any further questions. PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There is no one out there that can protest one way or the other, so why don't we go straight to our deliberations and motions. PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 DELIBERATIONS ON APPEAL 1751 FOR 123-129 WEST FALLS STREET MR. SCHWAB: On this garage, I 'm struck with the similarity between this and Bottle Bert's - the stuff is already there, we are just trying to enclose it to make it look better. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Another use variance. MR. SIEVERDING: This one is a little bit different. Bottle Bert's you are talking about a commercial use on a heavily trafficed - predominantly commercial street. Here we are talking about a residential neighborhood - we've got a - granted it's a legal non-conforming use that has been here for a long time and I think you are going to have to look. . . SECRETARY HOARD: No it is a variance. MR. SIEVERDING: It's a variance for the use? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Up to the point. . . MR. SIEVERDING: At it's current level. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. SECRETARY HOARD: Well in an unspecified level. . . MR. SIEVERDING: At an unspecified level. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let's be a little more specific. . . SECRETARY HOARD: It was granted to McElwee Construction back in 1954 and at that time there were different buildings and there have probably been buildings since then. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Access from Route 13 or from . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Probably different access at the time. MS. FARRELL: Yeh, it would be real different (unintelligible) PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, so follow through with your thought please Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: It is one of these strange things - the entire yard has been used for this use and vehicles are all over it, McElwee used it pretty heavily back when he was in business, the McElwee next door is a relative and a different McElwee. So when he gets to building buildings, we have to look at that as some kind of an extension or enlargement of the use. MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm generally sympathetic to your argument regard- ing the need to enclose the equipment in a garage and, in fact, I think it is probably an improvement relative to the neighborhood because you are not looking at that equipment - what I am concerned about is the extension of the office and adding a second story on that one story building and I really view that as an expansion of the non-conforming use. In a way that could essentially impact the neighborhood. Further I think, there is in fact, apparently, space on the site in this twelve hundred square foot lot that is - while not part of the existing office, nevertheless twelve hundred square feet of space, that could be used for the proposed - for what they want to do on the second floor of the existing building. In my estimation it is sort of viewed - I don't know whether we can take it apart like that and grant or consider granting a variance for the addition to allow the construction of the new garage only. Along the same lines of our previous discussion, that you are really enclosing equipment that is already there and that is being stored on the site. It really isn't to add to their capacity to do PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 business. But not allowing that portion of the request that would allow them to add a second story to the already existing structure. MR. SCHWAB: You say that shed labelled office - my impression is that if they wanted to turn that into office, they'd have to come for a use variance too. MR. SIEVERDING: Right but that could be accomplished without adding to the physical structure on the site, I mean, it is already there and in terms of impact and visual. . . MS. FARRELL: Why do they have to get a variance for that if it is already there? SECRETARY HOARD: To change that to office? I don't think they would. MS. FARRELL: Well it is labelled office on the drawing, I don't care whether . . . . SECRETARY HOARD: If they were going to change that to an office building and rent it to someone else, yes, but not for his own use - we are not concerned. MR. SIEVERDING: So he could do that as of right - move into this twelve hundred square foot office/garage without coming back to us for a use variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'd like to hear from some other folks. Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: Well it seems to me, what Herman is saying is the second floor - the different is - I guess he could remodel that shed for an office and as he said, he has got to walk out in the cold between his two offices. Is that hardship enough - compared to the relatively minor extension of the use - like you are saying PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 he could have a twelve hundred foot office anyway and we are giving him a nine hundred forty-five foot office. . . MS. FARRELL: Yeh, but it is a new building, I mean, the twelve hundred square foot building is already there - it is visually on the property, the neighbors are dealing with that - to add a second story is increasing the non-conformance. I can see packaging the vehicles in the garage, I mean, I can see a pretty good argument for that but I 'm not sure I see such a great argument for increas- ing the office space. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Helen, any thoughts? MS. JOHNSON: I guess I 'm not as concerned about the second floor addition to the office space. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have any feelings about the garage? MS. JOHNSON: I think the garage is a good idea - it gets the equipment covered up. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well let me give you my own thoughts which, in some ways are searching for the findings of fact. For the use variance there has to be some sort of economic tie, one would assume the economic tie as we have understood it, would be the depreciation or the relative depreciation of the equipment, vis-a-vis covered versus not, right? So you've got some sort of rationale for making a decision here. I don't see anything in the testimony which says that the office - because that too would be part of the use variance - that there is any financial hardship suffered by the appellant by not having built the second story and that is what I am a little troubled by. PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 MR. SCHWAB: Well the testimony would be that he would have to hire another person because when he has to go off site to bid he has got to hire another person to check on things. MR. SIEVERDING: But there is an alternative that doesn't require him to go off-site, it requires him to move twenty or thirty feet outside of the existing structure into another structure. MR. SCHWAB: Good argument, but use variances, as he said, he is willing to limit the number of people that can use the office and so as far as the use, as opposed to adding to the height, area-wise, to what extent is he expanding the use of this? Well, the use of that office. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we coming closer to a motion? MR. SCHWAB: I 'm not. MS. FARRELL: I 'm not. MR. SIEVERDING: I think I could respond to that. There is, on that particular building a hundred percent increase in the physical structure that is presently on the site. It seems to me that when you have non-conforming uses, particularly something like this in a residential area, and there are other alternatives available to actually adding to the physical structure, I think they ought to be taken care of first - taken advantage of first before you start increasing the intensity or the density of the non-conforming use. This use is essentially here as - it is an encroachment on the neighborhood in a sense. And while the neighborhood has learned to live with it, there are impacts. And I think there is a way to accomplish their ends in a manner in which those impacts are really mitigated and it is really by making, I think, more effective PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 utilization of the existing structures on the site rather than going in and adding to them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sounds like that is coming closer to a motion. MR. SIEVERDING: Well I 'll make a motion if you are ready for it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: Yes, I 'm ready. PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1751 FOR 123-129 WEST FALL STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals met to consider the request of Francis J. Paolangeli for use and area variances to permit the extension of a non-conforming use and construction of a second floor addition to the existing office building, and construction of a garage for contractor's vehicles at 123 and 129 West Falls Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: No. 1751a: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the use variance for the construction of a new garage as requested in Appeal No. 1751. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Strict application of the Ordinance does, in fact, impose an economical hardship on the business and that the intent of the new garage is to reduce the depreciation of his property (equipment) because it is exposed to the elements, and to protect his investment in those assets. 2. That the hardship that would be created by denying the re- quested variance is unique to this property. 3 . The variance to allow the construction of the new garage would essentially observe the spirit of the Ordinance and not appreciably change the character of the district. VOTE IN 1751a: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED No. 1751b: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board deny the request to con- struct a second story addition to the existing office building in Appeal No. 1751. PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The appellant has not demonstrated that economic hardship would result if the variance were denied. 2 . There are other alternatives to adding a second story on the site, such as by making more effective utilization of existing structures. 3. This particular hardship is not unique and a denial of the variance is within the spirit of the Ordinance and protects the character of the neighborhood. VOTE IN 1751b: 3 YES; 2 NO; 1 ABSENT MOTION FAILED (lack of four affirmative votes) No. 1751c: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the request by the appel- lant to expand the office building as requested in Appeal No. 1751. MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The office building would not increase the use of the property in that the same number of employees would remain there. 2. The adjacent buildings are of similar character so the expan- sion would not change the character of the neighborhood. 3 . The proposed expansion would not increase the use; therefore economic hardship need not be shown. VOTE IN 1751c: 2 YES; 3 NO; 1 ABSENT MOTION FAILED (lack of four affirmative votes) PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal tonight will be Appeal No. 1740 for 309 East Buffalo Street: Appeal of Michael LoPinto for an area variance for deficient lot size and deficient rear yard depth under Section 30.25, Columns 6 and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the two-family dwelling at 309 East Buffalo Street to a professional office, beauty parlor, or similar establishment. The property is located in a B2b (business) Use District in which the proposed uses are permitted; however under Section 30. 57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. A similar appeal (Appeal No. 1663) was granted by the Board on November 4, 1985 to a previous owner; however the conversion was not undertaken within one year as required by Section 30. 58 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the variance therefore became null and void. I should point out that this should be a B2c district now under the latest change in the zoning - this week's change. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: This week's change in the Zoning Ordinance. Good evening, if you would begin by identifying yourself for the record. MR. LOPINTO: My name is Michael LoPinto and I don't have much to add to what I have already given you in writing except that I would like to state to you that I have a tenant, a beautician, who is PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 interested in occupying this space. He has already signed a lease with a contingency - the contingency being the granting of the variance applied for. I ' ll be glad to answer any questions you might have - this is a new experience for me so I don't really know what is troubling you, if anything is troubling you. If you want to ask me any questions, I 'll be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Just to let you know what was troubling me, there seems to be an administrative error on the second page of your appeal which indicates that it is both an area variance and a use variance and I have compared that in my files - which are independent of the City's files - to what your previous variance on that property had been granted for - which was for an area variance only. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on what kind of variance we were seeking before we began. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Not an administrative. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right - well, an appellant's administrative error? He checked the wrong blank. . . MR. LOPINTO: It's mine, I don't know - I 'm an attorney but this is a mystery to me. . . . I confess ignorance. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are one of those other kind of attorneys, not that deal with these issues, I understand. . . MR. LOPINTO: I have much more interesting problems than this. I 'll tell you about them if you've got all night. . . I 'll be glad to answer any questions. MR. SIEVERDING: The beautician who is interested in leasing space there, that is just is just for a portion of the space within the building or. . . PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 MR. LOPINTO: Just the ground floor. MR. SIEVERDING: Okay. The second floor would be. . . MR. LOPINTO: There is a lady living on the second floor. MR. SIEVERDING: And that will remain residential? MR. LOPINTO: Yes sir. MR. SIEVERDING: A question for you Tom. If we were to grant a variance like this and you have commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor, would he need to do anything else (unintelligible) convert the second floor to. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Later on? No because he would have acted on the variance. What happened before, the reason he is back tonight is no one acted on the variance to any degree before. . . MR. LOPINTO: This will be acted on very promptly. We've already been - the Building Commissioner has already been notified - what has to be done in order to do it properly. . . MR. SCHWAB: When did you purchase the property? MR. LOPINTO: March of 1986. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Helen, any thoughts? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, it is ours. PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES 3/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1740 FOR 309 EAST BUFFALO STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Attorney Michael LoPinto for an area variance to permit the conversion of the two-family dwelling at 309 East Buffalo Street to a profession- al office, beauty parlor or similar establishment. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in Appeal No. 1740. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There is a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of lot area, percentage of lot coverage and rear yard depth requirements which could only be solved by dismantling part of the building. 2. The proposed variance would not exacerbate the prsent area deficiencies. 3 . The proposed use is permitted in this zone. 4. There is adequate off-street parking for the proposed use. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal - as I said earlier, Appeal No. 1741 for 419 West Buffalo Street has been postponed at the request of the appellant. The next appeal then is Appeal No. 1742 for 560 Spencer Road: Appeal of Kevin M. and Joanne M. Shea for an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard under Section 30.25, Columns 11 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the single-family home at 560 Spencer Road to a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an R2a (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Section 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Again, if you would begin by identifying yourself for the record. MR. SHEA: My name is Kevin Shea, I 'm the owner of the property and I also am the occupant. Currently it is a one-family dwelling and I would like to change it to a two-family which would conform to most of the housing dwellings in that area and I need an area variance for the foot and one-half deficiency on the side yard and two and one-half feet in the front yard to obtain the building permit. PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm curious as to the parking - it is going to be in the rear in the blacktop parking area? MR. SHEA: That is correct. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So there is nothing on the street, per se, you have enough behind, according to the worksheet. MR. SHEA: That is correct. We have enough room for four cars and even enough room for turning around and access. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The floor plan that we have here is for the unit that you are going to create in the basement? MR. SHEA: Yes it is. MR. SIEVERDING: And what is up on the second floor? MR. SHEA: The first floor and the second floor is where we live. MR. SIEVERDING: And up above is a two-bedroom house or a three-bedroom house? MR. SHEA: It is a three-bedroom house. MR. SCHWAB: So this is currently unfinished - the basement? MR. SHEA: That is correct. It has been excavated and levelled, with eight foot ceilings to conform to the building ceiling heights. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In the meeting you had with the Planning and Development Board, it was suggested - and I 'm not suggesting for a moment that you should change it - but it was suggested at the time that you investigate the possibility of an accessory apartment special permit. Was there any reason for you doing one or the other? I 'm curious with respect to just in general, your approach in this case. PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SHEA: As I understand from the Building Department, the accessory permit is just that - it is a permit that applies to me directly, a variance would apply to the property - two advantages of that, from my point of view, would be that my property would be worth more and secondly three years from now I won't have to go through this again - not that I - I don't mind you people at all - what I do. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand. What is it this evening, so far, everybody is on our case. . . MS. FARRELL: Why would you have to go through it again in three years? MR. SHEA: I understand the permit expires in three years. SECRETARY HOARD: He would have to reapply. MS. FARRELL: I guess I didn't know that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Is it the process of having to come back for an appeal - is that bothersome or the fact that it always limits the use of the property - it has to be owner-occupied. . . MR. SHEA: That is it exactly - it will be worth substantially more in general if the property has a variance for two apartments. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Thank you Mr. Shea. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, I 'll entertain a motion or discussion. PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 DISCUSSION WHICH TOOK PLACE FOLLOWING THE MOTION BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Why don't we further note on this - not that I think (unintelligible) but you will notice that the driveway is really across the property line. I 'm aware of other instances where that has occurred in the past but as long as what you are really intending to do is just increase the scenerio. . . PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1742 FOR 560 SPENCER ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Kevin and Joanne Shea for an area variance to permit the conversion of the single-family home at 560 Spencer Road to a two-family dwelling. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in Appeal Number 1742 . MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There is a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, for front yard set back and one side yard set back, which could only be met by moving the house or buying additional property. 2 . The proposed use would not exacerbate the existing deficien- cies. 3 . The proposed change is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1743 for 100 Commercial Avenue: Appeal of Wickes Lumber for an area variance for a deficient frontyard setback under Section 30.25, Column 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of an additional building at 100 Commercial Avenue (Wickes Lumber) . The property is located in an I-1 (Industrial) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the deficient front yard setback before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed construction. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Again, start with your name and address. MR. SNYDER: I 'm Carl Snyder, manager of Wickes Lumber. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to speak to the question. . . MR. SNYDER: Basically we are applying for an area variance, as noted on the appeal. Wickes Lumber purchased the property from Empire Building Supply back on September 29, 1986. When we applied with Peter Dieterich for a building permit for a new building - we discovered that one of the existing buildings was built too close, by Empire a year ago, to the front property line and to go back, according to Code, twenty feet, and it was set back approximately ten feet. It is an existing building used for material storage - it is twenty feet wide, one hundred feet long - the only side that PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 is actually used is the side that faces away from Commercial Avenue and it should not change the character of that particular area. Basically, again, it is an area variance we are appealing for. MR. SIEVERDING: As I understand it - what you are asking for here is to rectify an existing condition before the Building Department will issue a building permit to put up another structure? MR. SNYDER: We are asking that the building that is presently there be approved so it complies with their Codes. It is a build- ing that is anchored to a concrete pad that logically shouldn't be relocated. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How did they get to build it to begin with? SECRETARY HOARD: They had a building permit and everything but we don't have a surveyor now. I mean, to our inspector when he went to the site, he couldn't tell where the property line was. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see, so in other words whenever it was built, you assumed that the property line was where Commercial Avenue is? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. You can't really tell, there is no curb. If you've been down there - there is just a dirt path, basically. MS. FARRELL: So is that right-of-way for Commercial Avenue then before the property line starts? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What are the plans for Commercial Avenue, does anybody know? SECRETARY HOARD: It will be - there is only one project that is going to be using that and that is the Zikakis project - that we know of now - that will have access from Elmira Road - secondary PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 access from Commercial. There aren't any firm plans for back there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions of the appellant, from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Moving right along. . . PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1743 FOR 100 COMMERCIAL AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Wickes Lumber for an area variance to permit the construction of an additional building at 100 Commercial Avenue. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal No. 1743 . MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are practical difficulties related to picking up the building and moving it back so that it meets the zoning requirements. 2 . There is a special condition in that it is an existing struc- ture that violates the setback requirement of the Ordinance. 3 . There is an additional special condition in that while the building is set ten feet (101 ) from the property line, it is a significant distance from the road because there is a large right-of-way attached to the road. 4. The exception observes the spirit of the Ordinance. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1744 for 306 College Avenue: Appeal of College Avenue Realty for an area variance for deficient off-street parking under Section 30.25, Column 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the multiple dwelling at 306 College Avenue from two studio apartments, six one-bedroom apartments, and one two-bedroom apart- ment, to one one-bedroom apartment, one two-bedroom apartment, two three-bedroom apartments, and one five-bedroom apartment. The property is located in a Blb (Business) Use District (that should be B2b] in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Section 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the deficient off-street parking before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. MR. EGAN: Good evening. My name is Jim Egan, I 'm a partner in College Ave. Realty. It sounds a lot more complicated than it is. I don't know if you want to go through it floor by floor. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That might be useful, if you have the material in front of you. . . do you have a copy of what was submitted? MR. EGAN: I don't have a copy but I know what. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You know what is going on, okay. We have "befores" and "afters" which are tremendously useful. PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. EGAN: On the ground floor, is that your first plan? We are simply going to combine a studio apartment with a one-bedroom apartment, create three bedrooms in that area. It is already approved for three people to live in that area - it is occupied by three people now. We are not increasing the occupancy of the building, we are not changing the outside of the building, we are simply moving partitions to give everybody their own bedroom. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. So the studio becomes the bedroom? MR. EGAN: It becomes two bedrooms. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And everything else stays . . . the way it was. MR. EGAN: Everything else stays the same. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, moving on to the next floor. MR. EGAN: On the first floor, it is approved for five people now, three people in the larger apartment and two people in the one bedroom apartment. What we are doing is creating a hallway, taking a living room and making it into a bedroom, a kitchen into a bedroom and a room that doesn't conform to anything - expanding it into a bedroom, so there is four bedrooms and one bath on that side; putting a hallway through to the other room and leaving that the same. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is it true that after you get finished on that floor that the first apartment has a hall - I mean, do you have to walk through that bedroom essentially - not that it is of particu- lar concern to me - but it seems strange. . . MR. EGAN: No you won't have to walk through a bedroom. PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It looks like the hall goes from this bedroom all the way on back [pointing to floor plan] and to gain access to that bedroom. . . MR. EGAN: No you gain - oh, to gain access to the bedroom? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MR. EGAN: Through the living room on the other side. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MR. EGAN: Okay, that is just an extra door. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see so what you are doing is just coming around, okay. MR. EGAN: We can block off the door - you could block it off. MS. JOHNSON: So you are essentially changing it from two apart- ments to one large apartment? MR. EGAN: Yes, one large apartment. That's what we are doing in each of those cases. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So the idea is to essentially allow a group of students to get together. . . MR. EGAN: Well, yes. In all of these apartments - like in the larger apartment there there is a one-bedroom and a living room which can be used as a bedroom and then a kitchen and a bath. What we are doing is giving everybody their own bedroom. MS. JOHNSON: So how many people do you rent this space to? MR. EGAN: We rent that space to five now and it would still be five. The difference we are taking out the living rooms and turning them into bedrooms. We are taking out one of the kitchens to make a larger bedroom. PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In the present arrangement you have three bed- rooms, is it? MR. EGAN: No, two bedrooms. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In the present arrangements you have two bedrooms, I see. MR. SIEVERDING: In terms of bedroom size. . . MR. EGAN: One person. MR. SIEVERDING: One person and not two? MR. EGAN: Not two. I can't say that. We are not decreasing the size of the larger bedrooms so they are large enough for two people. MR. SIEVERDING: So it is possible that the result of these changes could actually be a higher occupancy than what you currently have? MR. EGAN: Yes but we are not anticipating that. If you want to limit the occupancy, that is fine. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And last but not least on the top? MR. EGAN: On the top floor we are taking the one-bedroom apart- ment, giving a hallway down through into the studio apartment and making the kitchen and living room of the studio apartment into two bedrooms. That can be rented now to two people in the one-bedroom apartment and one person in the studio apartment. MR. SIEVERDING: Previously, in terms of parking, as I understand it from looking at the schedule in the back there, you had seven- teen people living in this building before and the intent is to maintain the occupancy at the seventeen? MR. EGAN: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: Previously - was this previously B2? PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: This was previously B2a, it required parking under a different schedule. Now it is B2b which eliminated a lot of the yard requirements and changed residential parking require- ments to being based on number of persons. MR. SIEVERDING: Rather than on the number of bedrooms. SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: And previously the parking requirement was. . . MS. FARRELL: It says six before and six now. SECRETARY HOARD: Well that was under the B2b schedule. B2a would have been nine - it would have been a higher requirement under the old zoning. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Where do you provide parking? MR. EGAN: We don't. We don't have parking - there is no parking. MR. SIEVERDING: There wasn't before and there isn't any provision for parking now? MR. EGAN: No, there is no space - there is a map of the area - there is no space on that map. We have a back yard but we have no access to the place so we can't provide any parking. MR. SIEVERDING: Have you investigated the possibility of leasing space from other owners - I think - I think zoning right now still allows a property owner to lease space from adjoining property owners within a certain distance of your property - has that been investigated - is that a possibility? MR. EGAN: No. We haven't even investigated it. I 'm not sure that anybody in the building has a car even, I 'm not sure - it is within walking distance from the Campus. PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SIEVERDING: The reason why I 'm asking - particularly on parking - we have just gone through an eighteen month moratorium in Collegetown where there wasn't anything going on - primarily because of the density question and the fact that there were a lot of properties up there that aren't providing parking. SECRETARY HOARD: The moratorium is still in effect. MR. EGAN: We aren't in the moratorium area. MR. SIEVERDING: Just outside? SECRETARY HOARD: This is in the moratorium zone but he is not increasing density. MR. EGAN: And if the density is a factor you can stipulate that in the variance by just stating what it is. MR. SIEVERDING: Right. But I think for me parking is more of a problem than density. MR. EGAN: Okay we have no parking, we have no access to the back yard to obtain parking and I don't know where we would get it up there. SECRETARY HOARD: What we have here is really a wash as far as the parking requirements go because there is no change in density. And so there is going to be no more demand under this plan than there was before but because he is rearranging the layouts of the build- ing - technically under the Zoning Ordinance it is considered a conversion and that means that he has to get this variance. What was grandfathered before, in a way is grandfathered now - I mean he is not changing the people - he is just moving the arrangement of where they live a little. PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. EGAN: It basically will make it easier for us to rent - it is easier to rent a bedroom to a single person than it is to find two fellows or two girls - lots of times - who want to share a bedroom. And that is what we are doing. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart you have a question? MR. SCHWAB: But the legal occupancy is increasing? SECRETARY HOARD: No the occupancy is staying the same. MR. SCHWAB; I thought the size of some of these bedrooms allowed two people to be in them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that is one of the questions that we asked and the appellant is willing to keep the same figure associated with that. That is, that there will be no increase in occupancy. MR. SCHWAB: Well that is a little different then, I mean, that is a conditional variance. . . MR. EGAN: In two of the bedrooms - the bedroom on the ground floor is remaining the same and it is for two people now. On the first floor, the bedroom - we are going to put closets in and I 'm not sure if that will - I would think that would probably cut down the size to one but if you want to stipulate it for just one person, that is fine. SECRETARY HOARD: This is an old problem we have - we tell somebody to cut down the room sizes so that the Housing Code provides a limit for the Zoning Ordinance and by doing that provide less comfortable housing for people - whether we say - have the Board put a limit on it and then we would just enforce that the way we do anything else. PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SIEVERDING: I don't have difficulty so much with the idea of a conditional variance relative to the density of the building, I 'm still a little concerned about the provision of parking and even though you may have had - I mean there is no change in the current occupancy, there is - I think everybody recognizes a parking problem in Collegetown - although this property might be just on the border of what that moratorium zone is - for all practical purposes it is within that area of Collegetown where parking and density is a problem. MR. EGAN: That is probably true but the parking is not going to get changed either way. If I didn't get the variance I 'm not going to change the parking - I can't change the parking either and if I get the variance, I still can't change the parking. The parking for the building is going to remain the same either way. MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, well that's true. MR. SCHWAB: The only other possibility would be a proposal - kind of - from the City's perspective there is no change in the parking and you are getting more easily rentable units - with the possibil- ity that they could go down in total occupancy a little bit which would reduce the demand on the parking, conceivably - I 'm not really suggesting that it will go down but it is certainly a third possibility. MR. SIEVERDING: Or the additional requirement that there be some effort made to lease parking. . . MR. SCHWAB: I 'm not too impressed with leasing space up there because I do have a feeling that that would just take it from somewhere else - I mean, all available parking is used up there - PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 whether they go to these people or somewhere else, I think it is a good point that he has no way of creating a new parking place. MR. EGAN: We've talked, about this and the only way of perhaps we can create new parking is to - we border with the motel - if the motel will give up two or three of their spaces we can get access to the back yard and use that for parking but what they have to do is be willing to give up their spaces and we don't - we haven't formally approached them but we've talked about it before and they weren't very anxious to do it. SECRETARY HOARD: And theirs is more critical to the City anyway. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. SECRETARY HOARD: They have been to the Board a few times. MR. SIEVERDING: I think they probably have parking deficiencies themselves. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right - they have a parking deficiency. MR. SIEVERDING: It would only be exacerbating their problem by . . MR. EGAN: Exactly, in the summertime (unintelligible) otherwise we have no way of getting to the rear of the house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] 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? [no one] Further discussion or a motion? PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1744 FOR 306 COLLEGE AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the requst of College Avenue Realty for an area variance to permit the conversion of the multi- ple dwelling at 306 College Avenue from two studio apartments, six one-bedroom apartments, and one two-bedroom apartment, to one one-bedroom apartment, one two-bedroom apartment, two three-bedroom apartments and one five-bedroom apartment. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in Appeal Number 1744 conditioned upon the property being occupied by a maximum of seventeen (17) persons total for the property. MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There is a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; the area deficiency for percent of lot coverage could only be solved by removing part of the build- ing. 2 . The proposed change would not exacerbate the existing area deficiency. 3 . The density of occupancy would not increase under the proposed change, it would remain the same. 4. The current deficiency in parking spaces would continue unchanged, and would not be exacerbated. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED W/CONDITION PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1745 for 529 South Meadow Street: Appeal of Kasonic Builders as Agent for South Meadow Street Properties for an area variance for a defi- cient side yard and a deficient rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 13 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit a second story addition to a portion of the Meadow Court Motel at 529 South Meadow Street. The addition would add 11 motel units. The property is located in a B5 (Business) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Section 30.49 and 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the deficient setbacks before a build- ing permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Good evening. MR. KASONIC: Good evening. My name is Barry Kasonic, I represent the owners. Basically the - you are probably all familiar with the restaurant and motel area - we are trying to take on the southside - the one-story existing structure and upgrade it by renovating the first floor units and adding a second floor, adding more units. At the same time take the front area office and renovate that also to upgrade the whole project. When we met with the Building Depart- ment they warned us that the existing building has deficiencies in setbacks and that is why we are asking for a variance. I 'd like to address one - I 've got a copy of a letter from the Planning Board PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 on the issue and they are concerned about losing some housing to give us the parking that we need there (unintelligible) new build- ing. If this is a concern, the owner is more than willing to give both of these houses to the Neighborhood Housing. They can move them and do with them what they please. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You've made that known to them? MR. KASONIC: Unfortunately I didn't get this until Friday after- noon so. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Same time we did. MS. FARRELL: That's a nice offer, I 'm the Board president of Neighborhood Housing but the problem is always with moving the building - it is extremely expensive to move buildings because of all the telephone wires and electrical wires that have to be moved, as the building is being moved so while it is very nice to have buildings donated, sometimes there is no place to put them or the cost is prohibitive. MR. KASONIC: I appreciate that but that is the only available spot on the land left to be used for parking. And we feel that once this project is completed it will enhance the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? SECRETARY HOARD: Barry were you at the Planning. . . MR. KASONIC: No I wasn't, I was out of town until Sunday. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you had any feedback talking about - with respect to the neighborhood - have you any feedback particularly from the people along South Street with respect to your proposed plan? MR. KASONIC: I haven't had any. PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SIEVERDING: Have you looked at any other way - other alterna- tives to providing that parking? MR. KASONIC: None that we know of. MR. SIEVERDING: And how will you gain access to that space, it is essentially behind the. . . MR. KASONIC: Yes we are going to shorten the front of the building there - where we renovate the office area there - there is present- ly three units there that are going to come down - renovate the office area and that will give us the access to the back. MR. SIEVERDING: Are there three motel units there that will be taken out? MR. KASONIC: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: To gain that . . . MR. KASONIC: Yes there will be the renovation (unintelligible) the office setback and renovation work. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Is it possible to take those three units from the opposite end and come around the back side and provide parking in this area. . . MR. KASONIC: No, because unfortunately this plan is a little - there are a few buildings that are shown there that aren't there but there is one that is there that is not shown - it is in the back corner - there is a present building that is not shown. If you look to the southeast corner, the existing building - south of the building there is an existing building there that would prohib- it any moving around. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Which is not part of your property? PAGE 50 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. KASONIC: It is part of the property but it is a building that is used and even if we had access back there, there still isn't enough room for parking there. MR. SIEVERDING: You need eleven spaces right? MR. KASONIC: That's what we feel and I 've heard contrary that we need a few more but we are providing about ninety-nine spaces. We are actually adding about twenty-five spaces. MR. SIEVERDING: I am a little confused about where this additional building is that prohibits you from . . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you post those up on the board and perhaps point to them. . . MR. KASONIC: Presently there is a building that sits right about here (pointing to the diagram] exact location (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: What type of shelter is it? MR. KASONIC: It is part of the Motel - it has storage of equipment and stuff for the motel so actually this area here wouldn't gain enough parking to take care of the needs. The parking is not up in here. . . if we gained access here coming out to park it really wouldn't be that convenient for people that are using the restau- rant or the motel to ask them to park here and come all the way around here - where if they had the access to the parking here then they could just basically come here and go to the restaurant or to the motel room. So for the additional parking that we are required - it is actually more advantageous to be in this area than it is to be back here. PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are the entrances to the units - inside of the Court - always in all cases . . there is not going to be any access from the rear? MR. KASONIC: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: Is that building critical to the function of the motel? MR. KASONIC: Yes I believe so. Even if we parked here, we still wouldn't be sufficient to maintain this property - you know - it is getting pretty close there. MR. SIEVERDING: Right, but (unintelligible) if there wasn't space there - the space from here to here (unintelligible) MR. KASONIC: (unintelligible) eleven spaces. . . MR. SCHWAB: You see they are deficient now, they need eleven more plus they are deficient. . . MR. KASONIC: Seventy-four and we need ninety-four - we need twenty-five spaces. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So what is the square footage of the lot - could you draw that in on the plan there - the square footage on the parking - would you put it where those houses are presently. MR. KASONIC: All of this parking back here? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes that's what I was wondering about - it is interfaced with what is on South Avenue - there is a property where it says "site plan" there is a property there - I was wondering whether they had responded but . . . . MR. KASONIC: I haven't heard anything. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Because it seems to me they have a parking lot right in their back yard - a fairly good sized one. PAGE 52 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. KASONIC: I don't anticipate (unintelligible) I assume this will be more for the overflow because most of the people are going to want to park over on this side here. But we are trying to meet the parking requirements - we are a few short already. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. SCHWAB: Do you feel you are short now? MR. KASONIC: I don't know - let's see. . . MR. SCHWAB: I mean with the Motel. . . MR. KASONIC: There is seventy-four spaces there now. MR. SCHWAB: Yes, seventy-four - fewer than are needed now? MR. KASONIC: I 'd have to go back and check my calculations. . . MR. SCHWAB: No, I believe that it is required but I was wonder- ing. . . MR. KASONIC: . . .there is seventy-four spaces there now and I think at the present stage there would have to be . . . MR. SCHWAB: The worksheet says eighty-eight. MR. KASONIC: Eighty-three - there is fifty-eight rooms now - twenty-five for the restaurant would be eighty-three. MR. SCHWAB: We have written up five for employees maybe? MR. KASONIC: I don't know. SECRETARY HOARD: For the apartments. MR. KASONIC: I apologize for the map - when I got it reduced to where you can hardly read it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is fine, glad you brought the big one though. Further questions? (none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? (no one) Is there anyone else who PAGE 53 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 would like to speak in opposition? [no one] I 'll entertain either discussion or a motion. DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD ON APPEAL NO. 1745 MS. FARRELL: Is the parking lot supposed to be this whole area back here except for those two existing buildings? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MS. FARRELL: So the building will go right out to the lot line? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. It goes right out to the lot line that is proposed the one with the (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: Is that right? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: From what he drew on the map that is certainly the case. MR. SIEVERDING: Okay, not the entire block - you carry this line over here and it would be this section immediately behind the Motel. And that other existing building stays there. MR. KASONIC: Correct. MR. SIEVERDING: That is further south of the one that is going to be. . . SECRETARY HOARD: That one has been demolished hasn't it? MS. FARRELL: Yes, this one is gone. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further discussion? Stewart we've had some motions on the other side, how about one on this side now? PAGE 54 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1745 FOR 529 SOUTH MEADOW STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Barry Kasonic (representing South Meadow Street Properties) for an area variance to permit a second story addition to a portion of the Meadow Court Motel at 529 South Meadow Street. The addition would add eleven motel units. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance request- ed in Appeal Number 1745. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed use is permitted by the zoning code and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 2 . The area deficiencies in side yard and rear yard depth are relatively minor. 3 . The proposed use would correct an existing deficiency in parking. 4 . While it is unfortunate that some housing will have to be removed there seems no other way to comply with the parking requirements. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 55 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal Number 1746 for 200-204 West Seneca Street: Appeal of Albert E. Smith for a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2, and an area variance for deficient setbacks for two front yards and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 13 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the extension of non-conforming uses (a convenience store and a bottle and can recycling center) and construction of a connection between two non-conforming buildings at 200-204 West Seneca Street (Bottle Bert's and The Shortstop) . The property is located in an R3a (Residential, multiple dwelling) Use District in which the existing and proposed uses are permitted only by the existing variances; therefore, under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 the appellant must obtain a use variance and an area variance before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed construction and expansions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Begin by identifying yourself. . . MR. SMITH: My name is Albert Smith. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to say anything in particular about the 1746? MR. SMITH: Okay, I've got just a real simple statement here. I own the property at 200-204 West Seneca Street, my wife, Cindy, and I operate the Shortstop Deli and the Bottle Bert's Redemption Center located at that address. Each business has a variance to operate PAGE 56 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 at its location. Over the last year I have had several requests that I replace the two storage trailers that set between the Shortstop and Bottle Bert's with a building. During this past January I was able to arrange financing for this building. We are requesting a variance to build a building of approximately one thousand square feet between the Shortstop building and the Bottle Bert's building. The Shortstop will use half of this new space and Bottle Bert's will use the other half. A ten inch block wall will be built between the two uses at the property line. We do not intend to change the use of this property but only to make the operations neater and more efficient. An area variance is needed because the property is deficient in side and rear lots. These deficiencies already exist and they will not be increased by the new building. A use variance is needed to use the new building in our operations. Our hardship is that if we remove the storage trailers we need additional building space to operate our business- es. We are also requesting a sign variance to erect a thirty-eight square foot sign in the southeast corner of this property. The face of this sign will be directed to the West Seneca Street traffic only. This sign would be erected on the same base that once held a forty-eight square foot Mobile sign. If granted this sign, we plan to landscape the area under the sign with evergreen plantings. We also will be removing an eight square foot Shortstop sign. The sign variance is needed for this sign because this zone allows only five square foot of signage and because this sign would not have the normal ten foot setback. We need a sign to compete with the large signs across West Seneca Street. Our lot is not PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 very deep - only sixty-six feet deep - and to set the sign back a full ten foot would put it into our parking area. If granted our sign would have a setback equal to some signs on the other side of the street and greater than others. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Before you go any further, hold if you can on the Sign Ordinance, okay? We will deal with that after we have read through the appeal number. Let's go back and specifically deal with both the use variance and the area variance for the property, per se. One of the basic stipulations for a use variance is that one demonstrate a unique hardship and that is generally termed - some sort of economic terms - some demonstration of the fact that using the property as supposedly being used is somehow or other uneconomic and any other use that is equivalent to it allowed by the Code would also somehow or another not work financially. Do you understand what I am saying? MR. SMITH: I think so. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Do you have any specific figures or added information about your not being able to make do, essentially, your not providing any kind of - you don't have an adequate return on your investment or do you have any specifics with respect to how depriving you of those trailers, if deprivation is even necessary - which is an open question - might affect your business? MR. SMITH: Economically, I could operate forever with those trailers sitting there - I don't wish to - I have neighbors and people in the community that have asked me to remove them. I 've got some pictures of the trailers as they now sit. I could proba- bly - economically - live forever with those trailers sitting PAGE 58 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 there. As far as using the property for what it is zoned, which is residential - a recent appeal, I pleaded a case concerning how that wasn't feasible. . . MR. SCHWAB: As I understand the basic position - as you say, you could work with the trailers, you essentially - you couldn't work without the trailers but you are essentially proposing replacing trailers with this building with no change in, essentially, the extensiveness of your operation? MR. SMITH: Correct, I just want to bring the operation inside to eliminate the eyesore. . . MR. SCHWAB: To make it look better - so you are - although it is a new use variance, you aren't proposing to increase your activity on the site? So it is a little difficult I guess, but I am maybe suggesting for him to show figures that he is under a hardship now because he is not claiming that he is. SECRETARY HOARD: There is an aspect of this that I don't think Mr. Smith is aware of and you all should be aware of. There is legis- lation pending somewhere in the City mill that would make it illegal to have trailers like this on the property and I don't know where it is, as far as the flow of legislation in the City, but eventually he may have to give up the trailers. I think that the general feeling in the City is - I really can't speak for the City - but they would rather have a building there than trailers. They can tax a building and it is somewhat more attractive than the trailers. The trailers have been under complaint for sometime. PAGE 59 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SIEVERDING: I appreciate the argument and I appreciate what he is doing, but where does that put us with respect to the hardship issue? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is my question. SECRETARY HOARD: Well if he is not expanding the business, per se, he obviously can't put residential use in there between Bottle Bert's and the Shortstop so that's out. The other question is if we make him back up and give up the use that he's got - he' ll get some more use out of what he has got now but how much is the question - the building would be more efficient than trailers but how much more, I guess is incremental rather than any real measur- able amount. MR. SIEVERDING: The two buildings would be used for exactly the same purpose that the trailers are presently being used for? MR. SMITH: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: Which is what? MR. SMITH: Storage. MS. FARRELL: That's where the cans go. MR. SMITH: You know, it is virtually impossible for me to keep that area clean and even if it is clean it still wouldn't be attractive. Bags blow underneath the trailers and what not and it is virtually impossible to maintain the trailers both from the eyesore standpoint and also sanitation from the Ag Marketing people that inspect the Shortstop. SECRETARY HOARD: That's the cooler between the Shortstop and Bottle Bert's - a walk-in cooler. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? PAGE 60 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SCHWAB: You've always kept this as two properties, right, two distinct properties? MR. SMITH: Yes, it is two separate properties - 200 West Seneca Street and 204 West Seneca Street and the reason that we are going to build (unintelligible) at that point is to maintain the integri- ty of each of the properties so that they - in a sense that would be an undivided line. MR. SCHWAB: Is that in your interest to do? The only reason I 'm asking - is that the side yard deficiency? MR. SMITH: No the side yard deficiency lies on the Shortstop side, that's built almost on the sidewalk right now - right to the sidewalk. MR. SCHWAB: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: So half of the new building would be used for the Shortstop? MR. SMITH: Right. MS. JOHNSON: And half for storage of cans? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So half of it is going to be used for the storage of cans? MR. SMITH: Right now one of the - the one trailer is using - that sits there is exclusively used for storage of cans. The other one is used for Shortstop storage and also for Bottle Bert's - storage of boxes and the proposed use of the new building is that half of it be used for Bottle Bert's and storage of bottles and cans and the other half would be used by Shortstop. SECRETARY HOARD: You may be getting a little confused here. I did the worksheet on the basis of considering the properties being PAGE 61 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 combined so in splitting the properties there may be a few more side yard deficiencies. . . MR. SCHWAB: Which is really exacerbating. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. Is there any other arrangement you consid- ered for the additions on the property or is this merely filling in the two, so to speak, with the missing bridge - to use a crude analogy? You are essentially erecting, as I see it, three walls. . . front, back and one in between, right? MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And as you describe the case, primarily your need is for additional storage space for the bottles and cans. It would be logical, if that is the only need, and not for expanding the non-conforming use of the existing Shortstop, to put the addition on the other side of the existing station - in which the can operation receptacle might be. . . what I 'm looking at is this, in effect, the best - I'm following up Stewart's point - is this the best scenerio? SECRETARY HOARD: I think you would block the very attractive building that is just north of Geneva Street. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm well aware of the attractive building, thank you Thomas. MR. SMITH: Long term on that piece of property, I hope to some day come before you and request a use of the property that is less of an impact than Bottle Bert's - so long term - . I don't know whether it will be two years from now or five years from now - if somebody wanted to put a shoe shop in there or wanted to put a plant shop in there that could pay the rent - we could move Bottle Bert's other PAGE 62 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 places - then that would be my druthers - in the part of the (unintelligible) buildings that we have - that would all be store- front there, if that makes any sense. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. Any questions? MS. JOHNSON: So you don't see this as an increase of employees or activity or business? MR. SMITH: Absolutely no increase with Bottle Bert's, hopefully long term by having a little more room at Shortstop that we could - that the business will increase there over time - but Bottle Bert's the intent is just to be able to bring the cans and bottles inside. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? [none] Why don't you stay right there and I ' ll just ask whether there are any - anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in favor of granting this particular set of variances? [no one] Anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] We can move on to considering 1746 on its merits? PAGE 63 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD ON APPEAL NO. 1746 FOR 200-204 W. SENECA STREET MS. JOHNSON: What we are considering is the use variance? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We are considering both the use and area varianc- es. MS. FARRELL: But there is a question about how much this use would really change if you count those trailers as being used for the current use? MR. SIEVERDING: Are we dealing with these separately? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well you are dealing with 1746 different from the 3-1-87. MR. SIEVERDING: Which is the sign variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: We will deal with the use variance as opposed to the area variance. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Essentially one appeal. MS. FARRELL: So the area deficiencies - just to get this straight - are the side yard of Shortstop and the rear yard depth behind the whole building - behind both buildings? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MS. FARRELL: And those would stay the same with this proposal? PAGE 64 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1746 FOR 200-204 WEST SENECA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Albert Smith for use and area variances to permit the extension of non-conforming uses and construction of a connection between two non-conforming buildings at 200-204 West Seneca Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the use and area varianc- es requested in Appeal Number 1746. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed extension of business use on this property would merely replace unsightly business use trailers with a build- ing. The building would mostly be used in the same way as the trailers are currently used. 2 . If the owner were forced to remove the trailers without replacing them, he states that he would suffer a financial hardship. 3 . There are practical difficulties in meeting the current area deficiencies of one side yard setback and the rear yard depth, which could only be solved by dismantling the present build- ings. 4. The current area deficiencies would not be exacerbated by the proposed changes. VOTE: 4 YES; 1 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 65 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 3-1-87 for 200-204 West Seneca Street: Appeal of Albert E. Smith for a sign variance under Sections 34.5 (permitted signage in Residential Use Districts) and 34.8 (required setbacks for free-standing signs) of the Sign Ordinance, to permit the erection of a 44-square foot free-standing sign eight feet from the front proper- ty lines at 200-204 West Seneca Street (Bottle Bert's and The Shortstop) . The property is located in an R3a (Residential, multiple dwelling) Use District in which signage is limited to a maximum of five square feet, and free-standing signs must be at least ten feet from the front property lines. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There we are, back to where we were a minute ago. MR. SMITH: Okay, basically I read what I had prepared concerning the sign. If I may pass around - I made reference to the three stumps that - when Mobil Oil left the property they left three sign stumps on that corner of the property or bases that signs were or where signs and lamp posts once sat at. My hope is to be able to place a sign on the middle case and to landscape and bury the other bases so that that corner of the property is - you know - looks attractive there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Why do you feel that you need a sign as large as the one proposed? PAGE 66 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SMITH: Well actually the - I scaled that down a little bit, I 've got several copies here of the sign that I wish to. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Like this one? MR. SMITH: Well, okay, but that's - the one I want to place there is smaller - the total square footage is thirty-eight square foot as opposed to forty-four square foot. MS. FARRELL: This sign will be where? MR. SMITH: It is on the southeast corner of the Bottle Bert property and right on that corner is where Mobil had light posts and there are three stumps there where they had signs and light posts - I 'd like to erect a sign and I 'd like to clean up that corner once and for all - on the property and this spring - now that I 'm granted a variance to build the building there, I want to repave the whole parking lot, so any electrical lines can be - so the sign can be put underneath the pavement at that time and then repave the lot and do it all at one time. MS. FARRELL: So the sign will face. . . MR. SMITH: It will face the traffic coming down east hill. MS. JOHNSON: Why not move it two more feet so it complies with the ten foot set back? MR. SMITH: Well, basically as I stated in there, the further I set it back - because I have a hardship in the sense of building a new base for the sign as opposed to using the existing base, but also it puts it that much more into the parking lot area. MR. SCHWAB: You could use the existing base, is that right? PAGE 67 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SMITH: Yes. The pole there that I erect the sign on would be placed right in the base - the bolts still sit there - and what not. MR. SCHWAB: The signs across the street are this big? What are the signs. . . MR. SMITH: There are several signs across the street. There are signs for the gas station, there are signs for cigarettes, there are signs for the price of the gasoline on another post. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Is that the situation across by. . . SECRETARY HOARD: It is in a business zone. MR. SIEVERDING: A business zone - oh, I see the change runs right down the middle of the street and you are in a residential zone. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The zone allows only five square feet, what does it allow if it were across the street? SECRETARY HOARD: Well if it were the same as across the street it would allow one and one-half square feet of signage for the lineal foot frontage - the building has - it allows a fifty square foot free-standing sign. . . MS. FARRELL: Fifty square feet? SECRETARY HOARD: I believe so, let me check here. MS. JOHNSON: Is this sign going to be constructed just the way it shows here . . . (unintelligible) MR. SMITH: No it won't be - it is attached to the top - actually what it is - the sign that now exists on the corner of the building - it will be built into this sign here. MS. JOHNSON: So it will be the square plus the ball on top? MR. SMITH: Yes. PAGE 68 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SIEVERDING: And the sign would be lit? MR. SMITH: Correct. MR. SIEVERDING: From within or. . . MR. SMITH: From within. SECRETARY HOARD: The property across the street is permitted a maximum free-standing sign, size of fifty square feet - it is allowed one and one-half square feet of frontage for each lineal foot of structure of building frontage. Each sign on the building and the total of all signs not to exceed two hundred and fifty square feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How did you come up with either the forty-four square foot or the thirty-eight square foot figure? MR. SMITH: Well, forgetting my geometry, the square portion of the sign is thirty square foot and the round portion of the sign is something less than eight square foot because I never knew what Pi was. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: 3 . 1416. MR. SMITH: Okay. MS. FARRELL: So that the major part of the sign is thirty square feet? MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the only reason I bring this out to members of the Board is essentially if you have a five square foot sort of arrangement - if you - and yet on the other side of the question you are comparing it to a commercial at fifty square foot, the range is obviously quite considerable and I think to the degree you have just essentially, in essence, allowed the variance for an PAGE 69 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 expansion of the non-conforming use, it, in essence, becomes a commercial property - quite clear and simple - we are no longer recognizing it as residential. I'm wondering to what degree you all feel is appropriate, to be consistent with either the commer- cial side or the residential side or where we come down in between. MS. FARRELL: It's tough but it's next to residential property. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Very much. MS. FARRELL: So you don't want a sign that is totally encroaching on them. But a five foot square sign is too small. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm also looking ahead at the notion - as the appellant stated in the last case - not that I want to cross testimony - but if this does become the flower shop in between the gas station, or whatever, you know, you have a series of things going in there - you have yourself a mini-plaza. Each one of those being a separate store means that you are essentially faced with separate signs. MR. SIEVERDING: Possibly but it would be possible to structure the variance. . . . MS. FARRELL: But we don't have to think about that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right we don't have to think about that. SECRETARY HOARD: But each additional sign has to come back. Each additional use has to come back. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Each additional use, each additional sign, but are we talking about residential or are we talking about commercial - how are we going to be consistent with what we are essentially prescribing in between - two sides? PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MS. JOHNSON: Well we also gave a variance for the property across the street - is that Albany Street there? I think it is inappropriate to allow a commercial use of it and then not allow a similar sign. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that's true and I 'm not suggesting that - it certainly is legal to five feet but is it - how far out does one go - all the way to fifty feet? MS. JOHNSON: Well (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Or is thirty-eight or forty-four feet - I 'm opening that up for discussion. MR. SCHWAB: Well I certainly wouldn't grant it over what he is asking for, which is thirty-eight feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that's one way to look at it. MR. SIEVERDING: With respect to the property at the south - (unintelligible) you could provide a use variance for a zoning change and I think if you got a zoning change you are going to have a more intensive use than what you have on the property by granting a variance and I think that's appropriate. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Assuming there was that change. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, right, but at least you have an opportunity to place some restraints on the intensity of commercial develop- ment, given the fact that it is right on the border of a residen- tial zone. (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine, keep going. MR. SIEVERDING: I have problems with allowing signage that would be allowed, if you were entirely within a commercial zone, given the fact that you are right on the border of a commercial zone. If PAGE 71 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 you have five square feet, I don't think that's thirty square feet may not be a bad number. I would ask how essential that ball is on top of the sign - maybe cut it down to something that is a little less obtrusive on that zone then say . . . MS. FARRELL: How tall is this sign? How high off the ground does this sign start? MR. SMITH: That's not one hundred percent determined. Basically I intend it would go from like eight foot to however many - fourteen foot or fifteen foot, whatever they want. MS. FARRELL: Is there a regulation on how tall it can be? SECRETARY HOARD: But I 'm not sure there is one for the residential zone - for the others it is thirty. MS. FARRELL: What is it for commercial? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A hundred and ten - whatever you would like, right? MR. SCHWAB: The sign would be eight feet above. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Are we going to design the sign. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; That's what we are doing. MR. SMITH: To answer your question about how essential the big ball is, okay, well, to me it is real essential in the sense that it is identification of the location and the store. Also that has already been purchased and paid for - that portion of the sign - where the rest of it, I 've got to go out and buy - so if I don't use the baseball, I 'm basically throwing away the sign, unless you allow me to leave it where it is. I intended to take it down from where it is - which is on that property, and then incorporating it into this sign here. PAGE 72 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SIEVERDING: That's the one that is on the building right now? MR. SMITH: Yes. If you have a picture that shows the trailers, it also shows the sign - the ball. . . it sits on the corner of the property now - I wanted to incorporate that existing. . . . MR. SIEVERDING: You wanted to take it away from this location and put it with the new sign? MR. SMITH: Correct, incorporate it into this new sign. MS. FARRELL: I forgot, I walk by here all the time, but do you have other signs on the outside of the building? MR. SMITH: For. . . . there is a sign on the front of the Shortstop that says "Shortstop Deli" . MR. SIEVERDING: In letters over the entrance. MR. SMITH: Well it sits - well, yes, over the entrance. . . MS. FARRELL: Do you have a picture of that? MR. SMITH: It's a legal non-conforming sign, I got the variance eight years ago for that. And also this is a legal non-conforming (unintelligible) for a variance. . . MS. FARRELL: Well how would you feel about moving that sign back two feet, if you need to? MR. SIEVERDING: And leaving the ball on the building where it is and just have a plain six by five square sign at the corner? MR. SMITH: That latter portion I like that in that the - because of the narrowness of the lot and the traffic and how they back in and out - there is no defined exact traffic on the property - we used to put lines on the lot, but everybody parked across the lines so we decided that they were going to go where they are going to go and if we move it further into the parking lot, I think that they PAGE 73 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 would have to go backing into it or the chances are better that they would back into it. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Right now the pads are eight feet? MR. SMITH: I 'm not sure where that number came from. MS. FARRELL: I didn't make it up. Somebody said it was two feet - wait - there is not a ten foot setback, I thought that we heard it was eight feet back. . . MR. SIEVERDING: No it is an eight square foot sign. . . MS. FARRELL: So we don't know how far back that is? SECRETARY HOARD: Which? MS. FARRELL: The place where the old signs were. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We have no indication of how far back those (unintelligible) MR. SMITH: That might be where that came from - I didn't provide anything. . . . it is actually six and one-half foot from the side- walk, so actually it might be closer than eight and one-half foot to the property . . . when I originally looked at ten and a half foot, it put the sign almost in the middle of the - seemed like in the middle of the parking lot - because it is on a corner so it would be ten foot from bolt that you set it in to what (unintelli- gible) is the middle of the parking lot. MS. JOHNSON: Now does this mean ten feet in from the property line where the sign post is, or the center of the sign or the edge of the sign? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It would be the post upon which the sign would be on. MS. FARRELL: The post is supposed to be ten feet back? PAGE 74 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; That's right. MS. JOHNSON: Could we look at a picture of those old sign places again? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Old sign places. . . MR. SCHWAB: There it is, right there. MS. JOHNSON: You were thinking of erecting it in the center? MR. SMITH: Yes. That is where the Mobil sign was and then either burying those other two with landscaping dirt or having them dug up completely. MS. FARRELL: Do you have any idea how far that is in feet? MR. SMITH: That is six and one-half foot from the sidewalk. MS. FARRELL: Okay. MR. SMITH: From the center of that post it is six and one-half foot both ways. No the relationship of the actual parking lot with the sidewalk, I 'm not sure. MS. JOHNSON: I sort of tend to agree that putting in a new current pad, it makes more sense - having been in a car that had an acci- dent in this parking lot by trying to back up. There is not much space there, I wouldn't want to take much more space out of the turning radius for the cars. (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have any feeling about the size, Helen? Are you comfortable with thirty, thirty-eight, forty-four, how do you feel about that? MS. JOHNSON: I 'm comfortable with the thirty-eight foot - I don't love the ball on top, but I understand - that's a much more impor- tant part of the sign than the cold storage sign because it is a PAGE 75 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 recognition - it's a logo recognition - which is much more - it means much more. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No one else has a hard ball coming at you down the street. MR. SMITH: I 'm not opposed to the idea of leaving the ball where it is now - where it sits - and grant a thirty square foot sign on that corner. MR. SIEVERDING: Just go with a simple six by five square foot sign on one of those existing pads. . . MR. SMITH: I 'd still have the recognition of where it sits now. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, before you all completely caste this sign in stone, let me ask the audience - let's hear if there is any objection from the floor or if there is anyone else who would like to speak on behalf out there in the audience. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on behalf of granting this particular sign variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Then if we can go ahead with our construction here. PAGE 76 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 3-1-87 FOR 200-204 WEST SENECA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals met to consider the request of Mr. Albert Smith for a sign variance to permit the erection of a forty-four square foot free-standing sign eight feet from the front property lines at 200-204 West Seneca Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the request for a sign variance to permit the erection of a free-standing sign eight feet (81 ) from the front property line, conditioned upon the sign being no larger than thirty square feet and the logo to remain on the top of the current Shortstop Deli building. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Strict application of the Ordinance will produce undue hard- ship given the limitation that is placed on the square footage of signage permitted in residential zones, in the context of this particular site, which is right on the border of a commercial zone, and is immediately across from a property which is in fact permitted to have fifty square foot free-standing signs. 2 . The hardship created is unique and it is not shared by all properties alike in that those other properties which are used for commercial purposes do in fact have much larger signs. 3 . The variance would preserve the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of the district provided however, that the structure on this particular sign be limited in size by no more than thirty square feet and that the logo PAGE 77 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 for the Shortstop Deli remain on the building where it is presently located and that the sign on the street be simply a 6 x 5 ' sign. 4 . The variance is granted for the setback provision of the Sign ordinance in that the infrastructure for a sign is already on the site and creates an unnecessary hardship to require the appellant to remove those pads. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED WITH/CONDITIONS PAGE 78 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1747 for 111 Franklin Street: Appeal of Elizabeth B. Leonardo for an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard under Section 30.25, Columns 11 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the addition of an enclosed porch/entryway to the front of the single-family home at 111 Franklin Street. The property is located in an R2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the existing use is permitted; however, under Sections 30.49 and 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certifi- cate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addi- tion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. MR. LEONARDO: I 'm Sam Leonardo. I 'm here to get a variance. Do you want me to state the situation? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please. MR. LEONARDO: As I understand it, the reason that I have to be here is that I 've got fifteen feet (151 ) from the house to the sidewalk and the proposed entryway is going to come out eight feet (81 ) which takes away about - which will leave seven feet (71 ) from the house to the sidewalk. The reason for the entryway is twofold. I have just completely weatherized the house - insulation and what have you - throughout and the way the house was designed and built, the front door opens up to the street and actually empties out of PAGE 79 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 the air in the house. Facing the north side we thought that the vestibule or entryway would be a great help to complete the energy requirements, or (unintelligible) so that is basically the reason why we want the entranceway. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand perfectly well your reason and I can sympathize certainly - I was just kind of curious as to how often you make use of the front entrance? It would seem to me - you know - a lot of folks just go through the garage. . . MR. LEONARDO: Well I don't know - I haven't lived there yet, I just bought it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MR. SIEVERDING: You are going to occupy the property? MR. LEONARDO: My own house, yes. MS. JOHNSON: Have you gotten any reaction from the neighbors? MR. LEONARDO: Yes, all on the positive side. We had a couple who asked if they wanted any letters or anything, on behalf of doing this and I said I didn't think there was any reason for it - I didn't anticipate any negative reaction at all. Incidentally the house on each side of me both have an entryway, so it would be conforming with the neighborhood - actually the house on each side of me and a couple across the street. . . all the houses on my side of the street, in that block, have an entryway, except myself and one or two houses across the street so it would not be changing the nature of the neighborhood. MR. SCHWAB: An entryway that close to the sidewalk - these other houses do? MR. LEONARDO: One of them is right up to the sidewalk. PAGE 80 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is true, it was one of the more interesting characteristics and renovation on that block. MR. SIEVERDING: On that block. I noticed one of the houses - I think it was 104, which is diagonally across the street from your property - it seems to be under construction - was that in here for a variance or does that comply with. . . SECRETARY HOARD: It doesn't ring a bell. MR. LEONARDO: It is my understanding that that has been that way for a hundred years or so - they are just putting siding on the house. MR. SIEVERDING: Does this house come out eight feet? Could you do it within. . . MR. LEONARDO: Well I would like it to come out for the simple reason as long as I am doing it - the house was built in 1949 in the civic lot building and the only way to effectively insulate was to insulate it from the inside and if we had to bring all the walls out four inches throughout. Interesting enough, also, they made no provisions for closets and I think there is a floor plan with it, if you will look at the back wall of the entryway, you will see where we want to put a six foot closet right across the back way of the entryway. So it is going to serve twofold, it is going to help the entryway of the house and it is also going to provide us some place to put a closets on the first floor. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you Mr. Leonardo. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? [no one] PAGE 81 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case it is our. DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1747 FOR 111 FRANKLIN STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Elizabeth and Sam Leonardo for an area variance to permit the addition of an enclosed porch/entryway to the front of the single-family home at 111 Franklin Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1747. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are practical difficulties in building the proposed entryway so that it complies with the zoning requirement. This is the minimum size for an entryway that would serve the appellant's needs, given the size of the house. 2. The exception observes the spirit of the ordinance. 3 . The proposed entry is consistent with what is found in other properties on that street. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 82 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1748 for 225 South Fulton Street: Appeal of Stephen Blumenthal for an area variance for deficient off-street parking and deficient rear yard depth under Section 30.25, Columns 4 and 15 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the office build- ing at 225 South Fulton Street (Cooperative Extension offices) to retail and commercial office uses. The property is located in a B4 (Business) Use District in which the proposed uses are permitted; however, under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certifi- cate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conver- sion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. MR. BLUMENTHAL: Thank you. As stated, I am Stephen Blumenthal, I am the owner of the property at 225 South Fulton Street, this is my Designer Ken Young, who will assist in answering any of your questions. We are applying for an area variance primarily because the building was subdivided from Ithaca Agway Farm and Home Store and it sits twenty-four inches from the property line on the north side. It lacks a back door as required by Section 30.25, Column 15 and the building also has twenty-six parking spaces instead of the required thirty, thereby violating Section 30.25, Column 4 . The two variances I believe, fit under your hardship alternative clause PAGE 83 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 because we can neither move the building nor increase the parking spaces. MR. SCHWAB: Why in your display do you say there is ample off-street parking? MR. BLUMENTHAL: That was based - if you have had a chance to read the paragraph - that is referring to the proposed route 13 change of traffic pattern. According to Kathe Evans - she was saying that when the route 13 is transferred to one lane north on Fulton and one lane south - there will be parking off the street for an additional eight cars in that area - one the street, excuse me. We were showing that for retail office space - we had parking in two different areas and we consider it ample parking, given the normal traffic patterns that are required (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: Is that route 13 realigned as being part of the (unintelligible) that sits on it? MR. BLUMENTHAL: I assume that's the same project. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The addition of the canopy - I guess this is a question for your designer - in what way does that exacerbate the side yard or front yard deficiency? MR. YOUNG: There is only a rear yard deficiency. There is actual- ly three front yards. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. . MR. YOUNG: They are all conforming. It is only the rear yard. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Only the rear yard. . MR. BLUMENTHAL: Only the Agway on the one side. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So it is unclear by virtue of the plans whether you have enough room there. PAGE 84 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SIEVERDING: For the canopies? On the Meadow - route 13 side? Right now you are anticipating that you will be the primary tenant and then. . . . MR. BLUMENTHAL: I will occupy roughly four thousand five hundred square feet on the first floor and there will be - at this point - two other tenants. MR. YOUNG: The floor plan that you have shows four tenants on the ground floor - there is only two tenants there. MS. FARRELL: You know now that there are going to be two tenants, you are just dividing this space and then. . . MR. BLUMENTHAL: Right, we are dividing according to tenant needs at this point - my firmest commitments would allow three tenants. That could change, though. MS. FARRELL: And on the second floor? MR. BLUMENTHAL: The second floor is thirty-four hundred square feet and the proposed use for that is for office space. MS. JOHNSON: How many people currently work in this building? MR. YOUNG: Something like. . . MR. BLUMENTHAL: Fifty-four was the last count that Anne Matthews gave me. Right now the building has much hard use in terms of the number of people in the offices - I guess it is under the grandfa- ther clause as far (unintelligible) they are currently parking thirty-six cars on that lot. MR. YOUNG: They are not legal defined parking spaces. MS. FARRELL: They currently park thirty-six vehicles there though? PAGE 85 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. YOUNG: That's right. . . In fact there are some parking spaces that are assigned based on the time the guy goes home so that he can get out before he moves. . . . MS. JOHNSON: (unintelligible) MR. BLUMENTHAL: There is a fair amount of - Cooperative Extension is a public service agency - they have people come into their reception area all day long - I would imagine forty to a hundred people probably a day - not to mention in the evenings - they have meetings with fifty to a hundred people attending. SECRETARY HOARD: Of course what they told you last month when they were going for their own variance - it was a whole different story. MR. BLUMENTHAL: I 'm sure that was one of their considerations they gave. . . they didn't want to find themselves in a similar situation. MR. SIEVERDING: Right - it has a sizeable parking lot there anyway. The most you can sqeeze out with what you have there is twenty-six spaces? MR. BLUMENTHAL: At this point, yes. MR. YOUNG: Yes, those are legally defined parking spaces. (unin- telligible) park there. MR. BLUMENTHAL: There are considerably - there are three other spaces that Coop uses now that require that a car be driven over the sidewalk in order to cut in and get into the spaces. Conceiv- ably there could be three other parking spaces if the sidewalk is not considered. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Does our Zoning Ordinance require - it is a uniform dimension for parking spaces? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. PAGE 86 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SIEVERDING: Like nine by ten. . . . MR. YOUNG: One hundred and eighty square feet. MR. SIEVERDING: We assume that cars are basically rectangular. MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, I know what you mean - but in parking garag- es, do they allow for a ratio of a full size car and compact cars to increase the efficiency of the space that you've got. MR. YOUNG: In fact we do that - mix up the sizes in. . . MR. SIEVERDING: You do? MR. YOUNG: It ranges from a minimum width of eight point five feet and minimum size of a hundred and eighty square feet for each lot - so a lot could be ten feet wide and eighteen feet long or nine feet wide and twenty feet long. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Right but not exactly the size that you need to park a Sentra or a Rabbit or something like that. . . but zoning wouldn't allow (unintelligible) sometimes you can fit in that parking lot so there are spaces for a compact. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Right. Because the last space is the one that - you know - the grand daddy in his caddy comes . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: As a related - but not so related issue, the message gazebo is not part of this. . . in any way, shape or form? MR. BLUMENTHAL: No. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I just want to make sure. MS. FARRELL: The what? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The message gazebo. That was picked up in the Planning Board and I just happened to note. . . MR. BLUMENTHAL: We realized that there were problems with that so we are going to cut it and we will do something else. PAGE 87 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you gents. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard in favor of this particular variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] I will entertain a motion. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1748 FOR 225 SOUTH FULTON STREET MS. FARRELL: I have a question. Before this building required forty-six spaces and the worksheet now - for this use - requires twenty-six spaces? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MS. FARRELL: And they have twenty-two spaces so the parking situation has improved? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. PAGE 88 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1748 FOR 225 SOUTH FULTON STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals met to consider the request of Stephen Blumenthal for an area variance to permit the conversion of the office building at 225 South Fulton Street to retail and commercial office uses. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1748. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are practical difficulties in meeting the rear yard and maximum coverage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in that there are existing conditions and these conditions won't be exacerbated by the proposed renovation of the building. 2 . With respect to parking, the parking situation relative to the previous use has been improved and the extent of the deficiency is relatively minor. 3 . This exception observes the spirit of the Ordinance and will change the character of the district but in a positive way. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 89 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1749 FOR 120 HIGHLAND PLACE: Appeal of Harold Schultz for an area variance for deficient off-street parking, deficient lot size, and deficient rear yard depth, under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 6, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the addition of a penthouse and an exterior enclosed exit stairway to the four-unit apartment building at 120 Highland Place, with no increase in the number of apartments or residential density. The property is located in an R3a (Residential, multiple dwelling) use District in which the pro- posed use is permitted; however, under Section 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. MR. SCHULTZ: I 'm Harold Schultz and this is my Designer, Ken Young. I just have a couple of points that I would like to make, there are six tenants that live in that apartment now and if I live there, there will only be me so that would decrease that building by five tenants. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Run that by one more time? MR. SCHULTZ: There are six tenants that live in that apartment right now and by doing the penthouse apartment there will just be me that is living there. PAGE 90 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In other words a deduction of one? MS. FARRELL: No a decrease. . . of five. MR. SCHULTZ: What we are trying to do, I 'm really in love with the building and I want to create a really nice building and I also want it to look nice from the College Avenue bridge and we are proposing to put in - sort of like a garden on the top floor of the building and make it look better from the College Avenue bridge. And also in response - I got a letter from one person, Jason Fane, who approves the project - you probably have the letter on file there - and everybody seems to like the project. We are also putting in a fire escape - I guess we have to do that - but to do the project, it actually makes the building safer by putting in the back fire escape. MR. YOUNG: It is a new fire tower (unintelligible) it is not going to change the footprint of the building. MS. JOHNSON: Where is the fire tower now? MR. YOUNG: You can see it on the site plan. That would be done in the same character as the building - the brick building. MR. SCHWAB: How long have you owned the building? MR. SCHULTZ: I 've owned the building since December 1978. MR. SCHWAB: So you were in here for a previous appeal? MR. SCHULTZ: Right, two years ago. But right now all I want to do is just the apartment for myself. MR. SCHWAB: There is a lot less dramatic in the last. . . MR. YOUNG: It was smaller - but just as dramatic. MS. JOHNSON: Has anything been done about these. . . . PAGE 91 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes there has, we put a letter in to Thomas Hoard, we had an engineer - I did a lot of work in there - I put in thousands of dollars to make those fire escapes safe and I think you had a letter from the Engineer. . . SECRETARY HOARD: The Engineer, yes. MS. JOHNSON: So you still have to add. . . (unintelligible) MR. YOUNG: The fire stair in the rear, yes. (unintelligible) He should have one now but it. . . MS. JOHNSON: So will (unintelligible) the entire exterior of the building? MR. YOUNG: No it only covers about forty percent of the top - of the roof - the rest is. . . (unintelligible) MS. JOHNSON: But that will be useable space? MR. YOUNG: Yes but not enclosed. MS. JOHNSON: He has his own Trump Tower. MR. SIEVERDING: So the new stair tower will have to further protrude into the rear yard? MR. YOUNG: That is correct. MR. SIEVERDING: And that enclosed tower is something that is required. . . MR. YOUNG: By the Building Code. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tell me why the change of heart. It seems to me the last scheme that we are remembering was twice as large as the present building and obviously was an intensification and this is obviously just the reverse. MR. SCHULTZ: The last time, what I wanted to do - I wanted to put in a structure so I could get maybe the same amount of rents - so I PAGE 92 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 wouldn't lose rents. The way I 'm doing it this year, I collect pretty good rents from that one apartment, I get thirteen hundred dollars for that apartment, I will lose that and there is no way I can gain that but the way I wanted to do it last time, you know, I want to do another building alongside so I could get the same amount of rents. By doing it this way - or something like this - I 'm losing the rents but I want to live there myself so it is sort of a change in how. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Maybe I can refresh your memory - you helped him have a change of heart by denying. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I remember that. . SECRETARY HOARD: . . .the variance request. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I remember that quite well, that's why I 'm asking the question. SECRETARY HOARD: Right. Well he would have to do something else if he is going to do anything. MR. SCHULTZ: I want to live there. If I can't live there - it would have been a lot easier financially to live there the way I wanted to do it two years ago, like I 'm losing about seventeen eighteen thousand dollars a year income by living there plus whatever it is going to cost me to construct it which will be excess of one hundred thousand dollars probably - so it is really expensive for me to live there but I like the site and I like the building and I really like to live in something spectacular like that and I like that building to look good from the College Avenue bridge. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? PAGE 93 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 MR. SIEVERDING: Just one about my favorite topic, parking. MR. SCHULTZ: Well there is the same spaces there and there is going to be less tenants there and that was sort of insufficient but that was sort of grandfathered in. MR. SIEVERDING: And there isn't any space around to pick up additional parking? MR. SCHULTZ: No. MR. SCHWAB: Well as I recall in the last proposal there was a proposal to have a lot of fancy parking. MR. YOUNG: It did extend but a lot of earth (unintelligible) and Cornell was actually quite unhappy with that - they have an ease- ment on the edge of the gorge and they didn't want any building there. It would have also meant that you were basically parking in the basement of the new building. There is no new building going in so there is no basement to park in. MS. JOHNSON: But could you put more parking (unintelligible) MR. YOUNG: It is very very steeply sloped. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you gentlemen. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone in opposition? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I did have a telephone call from Lew Roscoe of Cornell University, this afternoon, who expressed Cornell' s concern about this building and what it would look like from the stone arch bridge, but he didn't give me a negative and he didn't give me a positive - so. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It was just a pleasant conversation. PAGE 94 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: It was just they are concerned. MS. FARRELL: Nice to know they are interested. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Yes, particularly from the stone arch bridge, which they are going to tear apart and rebuild - being a national historic engineering landmark. Do we have a motion? PAGE 95 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 FOLLOWING DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE FOLLOWING THE MOTION BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN ON APPEAL NO. 1749 FOR 120 HIGHLAND PLACE CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tom, is there any way - as proposed - this variance is granted - that one might go back to acquire an increase in occupancy without coming back to us? SECRETARY HOARD: Well you can put a condition in this, but I don't think you want to go quite as far what he has represented - in other words saying only one person and then. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I guess my concern is that in a sense where I do approve of allowing the thing to be approved and I think that is perfectly wonderful with respect to what we have in front of us but I 'm just kind of wondering what future owners - and what might likely be the case. SECRETARY HOARD: Well I 'm not really sure how a variance would affect an existing grandfathered situation . . . I don't think you'd have to put conditions on it if you want to make it clear what you want to have happen to the building. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you follow my point? MR. SCHWAB: How many people can go in that - could legally go in that penthouse? SECRETARY HOARD: It has two large bedrooms, so, realistically you are talking about four people. There were six instead of four. . MS. FARRELL: It's all right if they are family, right? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Students can double up. MS. FARRELL: They can share a washing machine or they could buy a toaster oven together. PAGE 96 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I guess my bottom line is, is there any situation where the improvement, as we've more or less begun to think about it improving it, is there any instance in which - with the change of ownership - the density in the building could in- crease beyond the point it now is? Because if that's the case, my reaction is completely different. . . SECRETARY HOARD: I think, unless this Board puts a condition on it, he has got the grandfather rights for what was there. MR. SIEVERDING: But for any more than what is there? SECRETARY HOARD: No. MR. SIEVERDING: You could never do more than what is there? SECRETARY HOARD: Right. Not without coming back to this Board. MR. SCHWAB: Would he have to come back, Tom, just to change it again? Take us through the plans if he wants to change again, won't he have to come back for area variances. SECRETARY HOARD: If he changes it yes, he'd have to come back. PAGE 97 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1749 FOR 120 HIGHLAND PLACE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Harold Schultz for an area variance to permit the addition of a penthouse and an exterior enclosed exit stairway to the four-unit apartment building at 120 Highland Place, with no increase in the number of apartments or residential density. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in Appeal Number 1749. MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There would be practical difficulty in correcting the current area deficiencies in lot area and rear yard depth which can only be solved by removing part of the building. 2. The proposed change wouldn't exacerbate the current area deficiencies. 3. The proposed change would decrease the occupancy in the building and therefore decrease the parking requirements and thus improve the parking situation. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 98 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1750 for 407 North Cayuga Street: Appeal of David B. Gersh for an area variance for excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 10, 11, and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the two-unit apartment building at 407 North Cayuga Street from one having one one-bedroom apartment and one two-bedroom apartment to one have two three-bedroom apartments. The property is located in an R3a (Residential multiple dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Section 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conver- sion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Sorry for the delay. MR. GERSH: Good evening. I 've been very impressed with the dedicated public servants. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We do our best. MR. GERSH: Ladies and gentlemen, the building at 407 North Cayuga Street is a very large spacious building. I purchased it from Samuel C. Johnson - the name may be familiar to you, Mr. Johnson owns the Johnson Wax Corporation in Wisconsin. Mr. Johnson is a very good friend of Cornell University - his family having given PAGE 99 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 them the Johnson Art Museum and he recently gave twenty million dollars to the business school, which is now. . . SECRETARY HOARD: You don't get credit for that. . . MR. GERSH: Anyway, I 'm trying to convey to you people that this is one heck of a beautiful house. Mrs. Johnson had a sister, appar- ently (unintelligible) for the use of their mother who lived in this big house with her maid until her death. At that time the house was put on the market. Because of the use that they had made of this huge house, it is shown in the Building commissioner's files as having just one one-bedroom apartment and one two-bedroom apartment, it is shown as a two unit house but with only a total of three bedrooms. The rooms are very large, the living room is about twenty-eight by eighteen plus a dining room that is twelve by fifteen plus upstairs rooms are fifteen by thirteen, nine by ten bath plus two other full baths. The attic is fifty-two feet long and twenty-six feet wide and twelve and a half feet high. It is magnificent. What we propose to do is simply to utilize that house as permitted by zoning in an R3a zone, which I understand to be a three-bedroom unit in each of the two units. The deficiencies for which we ask variances tonight are small, I believe. The front yard is two and a half feet deficient. One side yard is one and a quarter - one and a third feet deficient and the building exceeds the lot coverage by nine percent. None of these things were created or exacerbated by us - they all existed perhaps for the hundred year life of the building. There are practical difficul- ties and special conditions which make compliance impossible simply because we can't change any of these things without removing part PAGE 100 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 of the building. We think that granting the area exception would observe the spirit of the Ordinance in that the deficiencies are small, they were not created or worsened by anything that we did and it would permit us to use the building in a way that is allowed by current zoning. The character of the district would not be changed in any way. The four hundred block of North Cayuga Street is now one- and two-family homes and it would stay just that way. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MS. JOHNSON: Are you planning to live there? MR. GERSH: No. MR. SIEVERDING: I wonder if you would explain something to me. In your addendum to the zoning appeal, in sort of the middle, it says, if this request is granted the work we will do will not increase the number of people who can legally live in the house as the house stands. MR. GERSH: Six people can legally live in the house as the house stands and what we will do will not change that because we are not seeking a use variance, we are not seeking to increase the density. It is legal as a six person house but because this elderly woman and her maid lived there, they just had the run of the house, and so it has been, if you will, under-utilized all of those years. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? The way in which you are planning to make use of the building is essentially, one family up and one family down? MR. GERSH: Yes. PAGE 101 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The access to the second story is through the inside of the house and by virtue of exterior stairs, what on the north side? MR. GERSH: The north side. [changed tape here - missed some of the dialogue] reviewed it with Tom and Dan Conrad and I understand from them that there are requirements which they will pose, such as possibly sprinklering the stairs - there is insufficient headroom as you round the landing of the existing staircase and we will have to raise the present roof - put a jog out - am I expressing that right? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: Could that be used as a bedroom in the future? Actually there is no limitation on how that attic space can be used? SECRETARY HOARD: I am not sure if I remember this right but I think there would have been a problem with using that as a bedroom. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: By virtue of ventilation? SECRETARY HOARD: By virtue of two means of egress. MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) way to get out - other than that one interior stair. SECRETARY HOARD: Does that sound right? MR. SIEVERDING: So if they were to use it as a bedroom then they would actually have to come back and ask - they would have to build an exterior stair - fire escape? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: No garage with this house? MR. GERSH: No. PAGE 102 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It was built before garages. MR. SCHWAB: I see. No carriage house? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It was probably demolished. Further questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] I 'll entertain motions. PAGE 103 BZA MINUTES - 3/2/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1750 FOR 407 NORTH CAYUGA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered Mr. David Gersh's request for an area variance to permit the conversion of the two-unit apartment building at 407 North Cayuga Street from one having one one-bedroom apartment and one two-bedroom apartment to one having two three-bedroom apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in Appeal No. 1750. MS.FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The area variance is percentage of lot coverage, front yard and side yard setbacks, which are relatively minor deficien- cies and would not be exacerbated by the proposed change. 2. The use is permitted and would conform with the existing neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 104 I, BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I TOOK THE MINUTES OF THE Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1740, 1742, 1743 , 1744 , 1745, 1746, 3-1-87, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 and 1751 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 C . Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this r f� day of ,� w .� 1987 Notary Public , Au 105