Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1987-04-06 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 6 , 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 2-1-87 Petr-All Corporation HELD OVER APPEAL NO. 1728 Robert Martin HELD OVER 119 Third Street APPEAL NO. 1741 Ken Peworchik HELD OVER 419 West Buffalo Street APPEAL NO. 1752 Christopher George Corp. 2 124 & 128 Catherine St. APPEAL NO. 1752 Decision 10 APPEAL NO. 1753 I .N.H.S. HELD OVER 224-236 Floral Ave. APPEAL NO. 1754 Tom F . $ Clotilde E. Peters 11 428 North Tioga Street APPEAL NO. 1754 DISCUSSION 24 APPEAL NO. 1754 DECISION 26 APPEAL NO. 1755 Kevin Brew 27 408 University Avenue APPEAL NO. 1755 DISCUSSION 37 APPEAL NO. 1755 DECISION 40 APPEAL NO. 1756 Francis J. Paolangeli 41 123-129 West Falls Street APPEAL NO. 1756 DISCUSSION 57 APPEAL NO. 1756 DECISION 58 APPEAL NO. 1757 Charles F . $ Ann G. Hoover 60 411 Second Street APPEAL NO. 1757 DECISION 62 APPEAL NO. 1758 Nancy Falconer - 410 W. Seneca St. WITHDRAWN CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 63 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK APRIL 6, 1987 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the April 6, 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: STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER TRACY FARRELL HERMAN SIEVERDING MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THOMAS D. HOARD, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, ZONING OFFICER & BUILDING COMMISSIONER BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT: HELEN JOHNSON The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we will hear from the appellant and ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible and then be available to answer questions from the Board. We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the Board considers "interested parties" to be persons who own property within two hundred feet of the property BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 in question or who live or work within two hundred feet of that property, thus the Board will not hear testimony from person who do not meet the definition of an "interested party" . While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record. The record consists of the application materials which are filed with the Building Department, the correspondence related to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations, if any, and a record of tonight's hearing. Since a record is being made of this hearing, it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones which are directly opposite me there, so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and will therefore not be considered by the Board in its deliberation. We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will i 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, the variance or special permit is automati- cally denied. Tonight, because we don't have a full board of six members, we have only five, you have, as appellants, any one of 1 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 you, the right to request a postponement until a future date. We recognize that some of you may feel more comfortable with a full Board as opposed to just five of us. If that is the case, we'd like to have you indicate at this point - any of you out there who would like to postpone at this time? [no one] Are there any questions out there about our procedure? If not, may we proceed. SECRETARY HOARD: First of all, there have been some postponements requested by appellants - the first one, Appeal No. 2-1-87 for 920 North Cayuga Street, the second one, Appeal No. 1728 for 119 Third Street, Appeal No. 1741 for 419 West Buffalo Street and Appeal No. 1753 for 224-236 Floral Avenue - those have all been postponed because of the lack of six members. Another appeal has been withdrawn, that is Appeal 1758 for 410 West Seneca Street. So the first appeal that will be heard tonight is Appeal No. 1752 for 124 and 128 Catherine Street: Appeal of the Christopher George Corporation for an area variance for deficient off-street parking, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 11 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of 128 Catherine Street from a two-story, seven bedroom multiple dwelling to a three-story, seven bedroom multiple dwelling, with no change in residential density. The adjacent property at 124 Catherine Street will be combined with 128 Catherine Street to reduce the number of additional zoning deficiencies that would otherwise exist. The property is located 2 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 in an R3b (Residential, multiple-dwelling) Use District in which the proposed and existing use is permitted; however Section 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the appellant obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. MR. ANAGNOST: Good evening. I 'm Chris Anagnost, my address is 304 College Avenue and I 'm here on behalf of my family's corporation requesting a variance for the house that we bought two years ago at 128 Catherine Street. As Tom has indicated, we are requesting a seven-bedroom cooperative - it is an existing multiple dwelling and on the third floor there is a very large room which is not legal habitable space because it does not meet the requirements of a three story multiple dwelling - it has no second means of egress. There is - on the first floor - two bedrooms, a dining room, kitchen, there is no living room. I have found that by putting a sprinkler system off the domestic water supply into the hallways of the first and second floor, it will substitute for the requirement of the second means of egress from the third floor. In order to do that I would like to get your permission to use this third floor room and with that approval, we would do whatever the Code required to allow this third floor occupancy to be used. Another reason I would like to do this is because - over the' years - there is evidence the room has been used even though technically it is not supposed to be but once tenants are in the house, I find that there is evidence that it is hard to restrict the use of that room and 3 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 rather than bear the burden of illegal use of the third floor I wanted to find out what is legal to bring it up to Code and use it legally rather than have it - the burden of the landlord to monitor its use. It has been locked - closed off before when I purchased the property and there was evidence that people had broken the lock and still used the top floor. The property next door, which we also own, we are willing to combine with this - lot 128 is forty by fifty feet so it is below the minimum, but by combining this property with the one next door, then the lot is more than suffi- cient to meet the requirements of the zone. The only thing I can't do - the front yard and one side yard will still be deficient and one rear yard. I am asking for an exemption from providing the required parking because I am not changing the density and I feel that the parking that would be provided would not be close enough to the property to be used by the tenants anyway. I will also add that I would like to take the garage under the house and substitute as off-street parking that would be on-premises once the lots are combined because - first of all, the garage is under the living room and I don't feel that's a safe situation and we've had prob- lems because the water line for the house happens to come up in that garage and we've had pipes freeze. I didn't know whether that was a variance requirement but I put it in the variance because that's what I intend to do. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The substitute parking space, Chris, where is that? 4 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 MR. ANAGNOST: It is going to be in the rear yard of 124 - it will be on-premises. The access will be from College Avenue however. MS. FARRELL: So you have how many parking spaces now? MR. ANAGNOST: I have three right now, two in the driveway and one under the house, and I 'll still have three when I am done. MS. FARRELL: We have that you would have four - but you need eight. MR. SCHWAB: Do you have another one for 128? MS. FARRELL: Oh, there is one over there, okay. MR. SIEVERDING: The three required parking spaces. . . MR. ANAGNOST: The three requires seven. . . MR. SIEVERDING: The three spaces at 124, they are in a line or there is a provision for one of those cars . . . MR. ANAGNOST: There are two in a line and one will be entered from College Avenue, two will be entered from Catherine Street. MR. SIEVERDING: Oh, okay. Two separate entrances? MR. ANAGNOST: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: And you stack two in the access driveway from College Avenue? MR. ANAGNOST: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you have to enter the driveway - there is nobody parking in the driveway, there is actually parking down the driveway but not the driveway parking on College Avenue - only off Catherine Street - which is that driveway that I got the variance to cut off that parcel . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. SCHWAB: Is there any other purpose to combine the two proper- ties? I mean, it is not really doing anything for us. . . 5 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 MR. ANAGNOST: No, I just - since the lot was - you know, if I don't have to do that, that is fine, if you don't require that - it was just that it was non-conforming in so many respects and it was below even a minimum lot size for the request - so I am willing to do that if you want. If you don't want it combined, that is fine with me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I had the same question in reverse - I was trying to think of what advantage the second property would have by virtue of the combination. MR. ANAGNOST: It doesn't matter. It is just that if you combine it, obviously you can't separate it upon sale. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. ANAGNOST: With the combination, you'll still have three spaces still on premises if I take the parking space under the garage out - in other words, if it is separated, it is not on-premises, it's within the one thousand foot requirement, that's the only differ- ence. SECRETARY HOARD: Chris, maybe I 've got this parking thing wrong. I figured you needed eight parking spaces, you've got three on one parcel and one on the other for a total of providing four. The difference is the same. . . MR. ANAGNOST: The existing condition is three altogether - two on one and one on the other. I have a requirement of seven - you count eight as the requirement? SECRETARY HOARD: Well, let's see, you need four for the seven bedroom Coop. . . MR. ANAGNOST: Right. 6 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 SECRETARY HOARD: And three for the six bedroom Coop. and one for the one bedroom apartment. MR. ANAGNOST: Okay, then I made a mistake. SECRETARY HOARD: But I came up with another parking place - a parking spot - and I don't know where that came from. MS. FARRELL: So that all cancels out. MR. ANAGNOST: Well there can be two behind 124, it doesn't matter, that lot is fifty feet wide - so off from College Avenue I can provide four. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Which goes back to Herman's question, in part. . . MR. ANAGNOST: No, they would not be in the driveway (unintelligi- ble) off College Avenue I can provide two spaces which will not be driveway spaces, it actually will be lot spaces. MR. SIEVERDING: Coming off the driveway. . . MR. ANAGNOST: It's only the Catherine Street - I can not. MR. SIEVERDING: You can, in fact, though, have two cars stacked in the driveway. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. ANAGNOST: I could - it wouldn't do me any good on College Avenue because I need that driveway for the other spaces. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Because there are only two - I was trying to figure where you could pick up some more on the College Avenue property. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. WEAVER: Well before we are in to making a resolution here, do I understand that we can give a positive response that is condi- tioned by providing four off-street parking spaces? That doesn't 7 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 cause anything impossible - two off College Avenue and two off Catherine. . . SECRETARY HOARD: This is very much like the case you had last month, that is, there is no real net change in the requirement but because the Ordinance says that a rearrangement is a conversion, we have to send it to you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions Charlie? MR. WEAVER: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you Chris. MR. ANAGNOST: You are welcome. So actually, I have three spaces now and you want me to provide four? I made a mistake - the district requirements requires eight instead of seven. I made a mistake. My request is, though, that you leave it at three and I can provide the three. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, I ' ll entertain a motion - or discussion. MS. FARRELL: I have a question. On this - if the two lots are combined, is there still a deficiency in lot percentage - no, lot area and percent of lot coverate? SECRETARY HOARD: No, those are the things that are corrected by combining the lots. MS. FARRELL: Okay, so those two get wiped out by combining the lots. SECRETARY HOARD: One of them would have been woefully deficient. 8 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 MS. FARRELL: Okay, so you still have a front yard, a side yard and one rear yard that is deficient. . . (unintelligible) 9 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1752 FOR 124 AND 128 CATHERINE STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Christopher George Corporation for an area variance to permit the conversion of 128 Catherine Street from a two-story, seven bedroom multiple dwelling to a three-story, seven bedroom multiple dwelling with no change in residential density. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1752 with the condition that the appel- lant provide at least four (4) off-street parking spaces. MS. FARRELL: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The requested variance is to allow a reconfiguration of the apartment which doesn't result in any increase in density. 2. That by combining the two parcels, the lot area and percent of lot coverage deficiencies are corrected. 3 . There is a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance because of the existing lot size and impracticality of moving the houses to conform. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED WITH/CONDITION 10 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1754 for 428 North Tioga Street: Appeal of Tom F. and Clotilde E. Peters for a use vari- ance under Section 30.25, Column 2, and an area variance for deficient lot size, and deficient setbacks for two front yards, one side yard, and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 6, 11, 13, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the existing barn adjacent to the existing two-family dwelling at 428 North Tioga Street to a one-family dwelling. The property is located in an R2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which a third dwelling unit on the same property is not a permitted use; therefore under Section 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellants must obtain a use variance for the third unit, as well as an area variance for the listed area deficiencies, before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Would you begin by identifying yourself and your address. MR. PETERS: I am Tom Peters, one of the owners of the property in question. I brought a plan of the proposed conversion of the barn, unfortunately I only have it in the original form. The proposal that we make is - first of all, it permits the restoration of the barn which is financially not otherwise possible for us and also to save the barn, which we consider anyway, to be one of the most beautiful little barns in the center of Ithaca. PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But you are doing more than restoring the barn to a barn, you are doing something else, perhaps you would want to address that. MR. PETERS: That's right. The restoration of the barn - we have gotten several bids on that - the restoration of the barn is in excess of ten thousand dollars, in fact, one was twelve and one was twenty thousand dollars, which we could not afford to do without some return for the capital invested. Therefore the proposal that we made is to convert it into a two-bedroom unit, which would give enough return on the investment to cover the costs and allow us at the same time to retain the barn, which otherwise wouldn't be possible. MR. SCHWAB: If your appeal is denied, what will you do with the barn? MR. PETERS: I don't really know. I don't know whether we would have to demolish it or let it decay further and try and find out what else would be possible - whether we could transport it off the site and give it away - I don't know. MR. SIEVERDING: The twelve thousand dollars - that was for resto- ration as a garage or for conversion into. . . MR. PETERS: It cannot be used as a garage because you cannot turn into it off of Cascadilla - there is not enough room to turn a car into that - particularly since the structure itself blocks the narrow end of the barn. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: That's not true. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: May I reiterate our ground rules at the outset said that we are not going to be able to entertain comments from PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 the audience, okay? We will all have our chance in due course but we have to keep things orderly for the record. Thank you. MR. PETERS: I heard the comment. The problem is that in order to turn into the gable end of the barn, from Cascadilla, one can do it with a compact but that gable end is blocked by a structural member coming down in the middle of the barn from the ridge pole down to that end and there are three posts in line with that gable end so that the side - either one would have to change the structure entirely in order to make a double door there, so that one could turn in to it or one would have to enter in the broad side of the barn and that's not deep enough to park a normal sized car. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What are the dimensions? MR. PETERS: Twenty-three feet by. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It's got a scale of . . . MR. PETERS: one would have to measure. . . MR. SIEVERDING: . . . the drawings have the dimensions. . . MR. PETERS: I think it is sixteen or seventeen feet by twenty feet, if I 'm not mistaken. MR. SIEVERDING: The twelve thousand dollar bid, though, is that for restoration as a garage or. . . MR. PETERS: No, it is simply preventing it from falling down. MS. FARRELL: That's just exterior? MR. PETERS: That's simply exterior. MR. SIEVERDING: And no structural kind of work? MR. PETERS: Nothing. In actual fact, because of the way it is located, the way one can turn off into it with a normal size car, PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 it can only be used as a storage shed. Bicycles can be put into it and otherwise other materials but not automobiles. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie you had a question? MR. WEAVER: I do have one. The restoration or saving of the barn, we have a number for that but your solution to saving it is to convert it - do you have some numbers on converting? MR. PETERS: Yes we do. The bids that we have gotten now are very, very high indeed - they are between forty-five and fifty-five thousand dollars and the rental would just barely cover the outlay plus the taxes. But the option, you see, is to invest twelve thousand dollars just to keep it in the condition that it is, with the rocking bottom and all the rest of it - which would cost us, quite frankly, over a hundred dollars a month, which we can't really afford to invest. MR. SIEVERDING: What would be the premium that you could charge (unintelligible) existing building for (unintelligible) MR. PETERS: I 'm sorry, I don't understand the question. MR. SIEVERDING: If this were to be converted into a garage, what is the possibility of adding a surcharge to rent in the two units that you have in the existing structure for sheltered parking? MR. PETERS: The absolute maximum that you could ask for a garage would be twenty dollars a month. The more usual is fifteen. MR. SIEVERDING: For enclosed parking? MR. PETERS: For enclosed parking, yes. If there were some other - you see originally we entertained two different possibilities. One was to convert it into some kind of studio that could be used by somebody as a potter or painter or something like that but that's PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 of course a commercial use and that side of Cascadilla Creek is, of course, zoned residential - so we thought, given the two options of earning something in order to be able to pay for it - the restora- tion - we would chose the residential one because it is on the residential side - as being the lesser of two evils, essentially. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have an estimate Tom - a written estimate? MR. PETERS: No I have nothing. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. Further questions? MR. SCHWAB: Are there studies or something like that, in the house - I mean, does that tend to be an attraction. . . MR. PETERS: The upper story has a study area, the lower does not. MR. WEAVER: Question on hardship for use change. As I understand your presentation it would be a hardship to you to not grant this because - I 'm not sure what the proving of hardship would be. MR. PETERS: The alternative is really to destroy it or let it be torn down or let it fall down. MR. WEAVER: Well I 'm not sure I 'm in charge of that - I have a requirement - those who understand that there is a hardship for not granting the variance - which would be to allow its use - its conversion to a dwelling. MR. PETERS: Well as I see the hardship, the space is existing on the property and in order to retain that space and be able to use it for something - and I welcome suggestions because what we really want is just to retain that beautiful barn and to be able to restore it and the way I can see that it is possible to do it without putting ourselves out of pocket that we cannot carry it is PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 by converting it to some use which will bring some income to pay for that conversion and restoration. MR. WEAVER: Wouldn't this be true of every barn in the City? You know, if you let the barn deteriorate until it is quite expensive to repair it, we'll have to allow its conversion in order to save the barn, not necessarily to save a hardship. I 'd be glad to have you convince me otherwise but. . . MR. PETERS: I see the hardship in the fact that - here we have this beautiful barn on the property - it is derelict - it is not yet in danger of falling down but it soon will be and in order to be able to retain and maintain the space that exists on the proper- ty that was once built there, some form has to be found in order to be able to allow that. It is also a terrible waste of space in the downtown area - it is an awfully beautiful little barn. MR. SIEVERDING: The hardship created is really incidental to the prime use of the property - in other words the conversion of the barn to an apartment - in fact whether or not the barn is there is actually incidental to your ability to carry the main structure and the primary use of the property. MR. PETERS: Again, I 'm afraid I. . . MR. SIEVERDING: As a two-family dwelling. MR. PETERS: Well the barn has nothing to do with the two-family dwelling, essentially, which is a separate building. I welcome any suggestions on how to be able to do this because that is our main concern. MR. SCHWAB: What has it been used for in the recent past? PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 MR. PETERS: Storage. Because the only doors are on the side and by putting a vehicle in, either the back or the front sticks out. it is not usable as a garage. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you Tom. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting these variances, area and use variances? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Come forward please. MR. MANNING: I could give you a history of the. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have a seat first and identify yourself and give us your address, for the record. MR. MANNING: My name is Le Roy Manning, I live at 402 East Buffalo Street. 1939 we moved at 428 North Tioga Street. 1946 I pur- chased the property under the GI Bill of Rights. 1957 I gave the property to my mother. 1979, forty years later we sold the house to Judd Welch. Judd Welch worked a business in there, he also put an apartment in there. I know the history of the barn quite well, I know the history of the house quite well. I do not like the way the house is being torn apart and the way the barn is being talked about and everything like that. I think the barn could be restored but I do not like to see a apartment house going to satisfy some- body who wants to make some money. We lived there forty years - a one-family house. We sold the property way below cost because of the zoning laws. And Mr. Hoard knew what went on, in fact if he can't remember, we had quite a heated debate up here in regards to that. And we could have cared less about it - it was in my moth- er's will that we sell the property but when we sold it to Mr. PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 Welch and Mr. Welch put in an apartment upstairs and run his business downstairs, I knew it was in violation of the code laws of the City of Ithaca because the way it was explained to me at the time, a person that had a business there, in fact I lived there, which he did not. Now Mr. Peters has come forward with a hardship case of converting the barn into an apartment. I think it is very unfeasible. I don't want to see the barn torn down, I think the barn could be repaired. He is talking about forty or fifty thou- sand dollars to put an apartment in - I think that is a low esti- mate. He is talking about three pillars going down the center. I 'm the one who put in the pillars. Before my mother passed away in 177 we used to have a fellow do a lot of work for us and we asked him how much it would cost back then to shore up the roof. That's the only thing that needs shoring up in that barn. Of course the barn was deteriorated and I repaired the bottom of it. I could let them know how and everything - it could be restored. I painted the place twelve years ago, I was very disappointed that it wasn't painted again - I mean if somebody put a little work into it, it could be restored just like Mr. Weaver says. If everybody had a barn in the City of Ithaca and they wanted to tear it down and put in an apartment house - a one-story apartment house or something like that - you'd have a problem on your hands. It is a beautiful barn and I think it would enhance the property if some money was put into it but twelve thousand dollars I think is too much. I mean I was told that one time when this fellow who was doing a lot of work in Ithaca at the time said that we could take four by fours and build supports right straight through the roof PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 and that would support the roof. On the bottom and everything, we could easily use four by fours and other pieces of material and it could be scraped down - I did the paint job on it - I know how much it cost, I bought the paint - my labor was nothing because my mother owned the property. I 'm asking the Board to deny the variance to have an apartment put in there. I parked cars in there when we lived there, we backed up into both sides of those garages. MS. FARRELL: Excuse me, how many cars did you park there? MR. MANNING: Two, my car and my father's car. And there is only one way out - where you could come down along the creek (unintelli- gible) and we always had those doors working and, in fact, we replaced the one where you could drive in and drive out the other way and I would come down and I 'd slide the door over and I would back in because there was no opening on the other end but we always parked two cars there in the wintertime. And the only thing that we had done to that garage was when cars got longer - that was when Henry Thorne was Building commissioner in Ithaca years ago - he gave us a permit to put an addition on to it but I 'm asking the Board to deny the variance. MR. SIEVERDING: So you parked full sized . . . MR. MANNING: We parked full sized cars yes. It would be very unfeasible to put an apartment in there. In fact there is pit in that garage where we used to grease carriages. That's the history of the barn and I hear you can see the house (unintelligible) a two-apartment house but I 'm glad it is a two-apartment house instead of another business going in there because there is quite a big debate over that. Forty years living there and we never had no PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 problem - and we weren't the richest family in the City of Ithaca when we lived there. We always had means enough to maintain a thing like that. I always worked on the garage, in fact I can tell you twelve years ago I painted that garage and I was real surprised when we went to sell the property, we painted the house and we let the garage stay the way it was and I thought maybe the new owner would do something with the garage but - now it is a beautiful barn and I would like to - just like I say - I mean, I agree with Mr. Weaver - I think the barn should stay, I think it should be restored. And it can be restored for a lot less than twelve thousand dollars. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you very much. Anyone else who would like to speak? Either one, they both work. (speaking of the "mikes") In fact you can use them both if you want. MS. MILLER: My name is Ashley Miller and I live at 118 Cascadilla Avenue which is adjacent to the barn that is being discussed tonight. I have what has been a neighborhood effort - a petition which I would like to read. "We the undersigned homeowners and long time residents on Cascadilla Avenue and immediate vicinity strongly oppose any variance permitting the red storage shed at 428 North Tioga Street to be converted into a residence. In order to maintain the integrity of this little one way street with houses already closer together than is desireable, it is crucial, we feel, to ensure that no further living units of any kind be allowed. This is not, as many people seem to believe, primarily a rental area with owners living elsewhere. We wish to point out that all houses but one on North Cascadilla Avenue are owner-occupied. A PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 rental complex at the Tioga Street end of this block imperils the stability and character of our neighborhood. " It is signed by fourteen home owners and long time residents. Do you want me to name them or shall I just. . . SECRETRARY HOARD: They have copies. . . MS. MILLER: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thanks. Any questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposi- tion? Would you come forward please and speak into the microphone? We can't hear you from back there. No matter how hard you yell. MS. COBB: I am Virginia Cobb and I 'm at 432 North Tioga Street, which is next door and my main concern is that both the house and the barn are right alongside my property line - there is no land that they have except that which is over the fence into mine and I am concerned as far as adding another unit on my property line. MR. SCHWAB: What would you like to be done with the property? MS. COBB: Well it is pretty sad at this point. I know if they did it over it would be very expensive because I did mine over about seventeen years ago and at that time it was twenty-five thousand so I know that - and his is in much worse shape. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: When you said you did a barn over, did you convert its use or was this essentially the stablization as a barn? It was a conversion to a different use? MS. COBB: Yes it was a conversion. So I know its going to be a very expensive proposition to do that barn over but I 'm concerned - if it becomes a dwelling and its right on my property edge, what is PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 going to be construction and how much is it going to be intruding onto my land? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposi- tion? MR. PULIMAN: My name is Joe Pullman, I live at 114 Cascadilla Avenue and I think what I have to bring up is more a question - speaking of propositions. . it seems like - in one way I am looking at this - if what you say is true, I don't see a conflict here in what people on the street want and what Mr. Peters wants. He says that your primary interest is in restoring the barn because he says it is a beautiful barn. I don't think there is person here that doesn't feel that way - I 'd be interested to see if anyone didn't. And so, it becomes a difference as to how we approach the matter of keeping the barn on the street and having it be in good shape. And so, you know, a question I would ask is how can we all work togeth- er towards this end? Have such things been looked into as the possibility of - and here I 'm pretty vague because I 've never inquired into this kind of thing but the possibility of getting help from Historic Ithaca or any of the Agencies or Organizations that have helped people in the past to restore properties of historic value. That's what I personally would like to see us do, I really appreciate your interest in that building, I 'm just wondering whether you have looked into that solution? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I point out that this isn't exactly the forum for that discussion to take place. In general that would take, I mean the questions before us are really quite clear. PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 MR. PULLMAN: Okay to address the question that's before the Board at this point - I would have to also register my opposition to it being developed as a residential unit in favor of looking into possibilities for restoring it as a building to be used for another function. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine, thank you. Any questions from members of the Board? [none] Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Tom, I knew you had raised your hand earlier to say something in rebuttal but I 'm going to take that under advisement, I 'm going to exercise the Chairman's descretion at this point to close discussion because what I feel will happen is we'll have a rebuttal to a rebuttal - if only to be fair and I just really would rather not get into that, given what else we have to do yet this evening. If that seems all right by you, fine thanks. If then we could close the hearing and begin our discussion and deliberation, members of the Board? Do we have a motion or do we have some further questions or perhaps some discussion? PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1754 FOR 428 NORTH TIOGA STREET CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, I think if you let me begin, I 'll simply point Charlie's question earlier on, phrased in a different way, comes to the heart of this I think. The hardship created is or is not unique and is or is not shared by all properties alike in the vicinity. MS. FARRELL: It is probably the only little barn like that. MR. SIEVERDING: This is not the first time we have discussed converting an accessory structure to residential use - you know, particularly in this case where there are some serious deficiencies relative to the lot and side yard and I think we would create a situation that goes pretty contrary to the Zoning Ordinance. MR. WEAVER: Well in support of that, we've, as a Board, have been approached a good number of times for the conversion of an accesso- ry building and almost without exception, the accessory building may not even have met the requirements or minor requirements for an accessory building and certainly setbacks and that sort of thing - typically it was on a lot line or darn close to it and the appeal of saving a barn is certainly common among us. We question whether a conversion to a dwelling is a legitimate way of doing it - is still out as far as I am concerned - I 'm not ready to accept it without hearing something from legislature - which would be a change in the Zoning Ordinance rather than ad hoc placking away on it - deciding whether this gable is graceful or not - we will be in trouble forever. I think too that if I were persuaded that there is a hardship here that the hardship existed - I know that this property was purchased quite recently and the hardship existed - it PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 is not something that has come upon the property as a result of governmental action, quite the contrary, and that deferred mainte- nance is not, in my mind, a reasonable basis for proving a hard- ship. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart, any thoughts? MR. SCHWAB: I agree, I agree. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We should be getting close to a motion. PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES 4/6/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1754 FOR 428 NORTH TIOGA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Tom F. & Clotilde E. Peters for use and area variances to permit the conver- sion of the existing barn adjacent to the existing two-family dwelling at 428 North Tioga Street to a one-family dwelling. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board deny the use and area variances requested in Appeal number 1754. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Solid evidence to persuade this Board that there is in fact a hardship, or will be a hardship if this variance is not granted, was not provided by the appellant. 2 . Granting the variance would constitute very severe area variance in all respects - the little building is on too small a space for the proposed conversion. 3 . Approving a hardship would certainly require some evidence other than an estimate of twelve to twenty thousand dollars on repair - some evidence that conversion is the only way to run the property, not the barn. It seems that this is a property that has two dwelling units in it and that hardship would apply to the operation of the entire property. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT DENIED PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1755 for 408 University Avenue: Appeal of Kevin Brew 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 exist- ing multiple dwelling consisting of two one-bedroom and one three-bedroom apartments at 408 University Avenue to a cooperative dwelling with eight bedrooms plus one one-bedroom apartment. The property is located in a R3a (Residential, multiple dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Sections 30.49 and 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must 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: All right, now you've observed the procedure, you begin by identifying yourself. MR. BREW: Yes, I 'm Kevin Brew and I 'm the owner of the property. the property is a very large Victorian and it was - prior to my purchase of it in December - it was vacant for about a year with the exception of the one-bedroom apartment in the basement. Prior to that it was owner-occupied in the three-bedroom. The house is in quite disrepair, I 've brought some pictures of it, I don't know if that helps you out as to location and such, and my plans for it is to do some extensive renovations interior-wise, to bring it up to what I consider suitable living conditions - the bathrooms need to be completely redone in the major portion of the house -kitchen PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 needs to be updated - walls need to be replastered or wall-boarded over actually - the expense is - including the painting of the outside and the painting of the inside - would be in excess of forty thousand dollars. To use the house properly I wanted to convert it into a Coop. which is allowed there - the problem I 've got is parking. Anyone who knows University Avenue, knows the terrain there - the topography is pretty steep coming right off the street. If you look on the survey sheet, it looks like it is a great place to put parking - plenty of room on one side, plenty of depth behind it. The problem is that you go twenty feet off the back of the house and its about a thirty percent grade, which makes it a little bit tough for getting the cars out in the winter. Also makes it very difficult, because of the grade next to the house, just to get the cars around to the back. I am more than willing to do whatever I can to allow the parking, the only thing that I can come up with for parking on-site is to put a retaining wall on the one side - which is the south side - which would allow for one space on the south end of the property. The north side of the property I could put spaces there in front of the house except that I don't have enough set back for the house - in order to be able to do that without another variance. The cost of doing the one additional space on the south side runs in the neighborhood of thirty-nine hundred dollars, if I want to do it with poured con- crete - if I want to use - they've got some two ton cement blocks that I can use, which supposedly will last, but who knows if it will - given our weather - but that would run in the neighborhood of twenty-three hundred dollars. To do the two spaces on the north PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 end of the property run fifty-eight hundred dollars to do it with poured concrete and thirty-one hundred dollars to do it with the cement blocks, but once again that is a different variance that would be needed for that. Currently it was - I presume it was grandfathered is how it was structured - for no parking. The current use, the way the Certificates were issued in the past - was allowed for a variance for three parking spaces not to be there - but the way I want to do the conversion, it is supposed to be five parking spaces and it is supposed to have. . . MS. FARRELL: So the maximum, you are saying to add, would be one? MR. BREW: One without having to go for a variance for parking - for deficient setback of the house. To do two spots down the side of the house would require a twelve foot - actually fifteen foot retaining wall because of the pitch of the house - well the slope of the house or the property. MR. WEAVER: Question. Are you familiar with the maximum grades for driveways? MR. BREW: Yes, and the maximum grades are for four spots and above. And I can - but I can't put four spots behind the house. MR. WEAVER: What you are proposing would exceed those ideal maximums? MR. BREW: No, what I am proposing is to put in a retaining wall and bring it up to street grade and back fill in. MR. WEAVER: Okay, all right. MR. SIEVERDING: And that you could do on the south side of the property? PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 MR. BREW: I could do it on the south side and because of this fifteen feet between the building and the property lines - there is plenty of room there. MR. SIEVERDING: Are you going to do that or is it just an idea you had? MR. BREW: I ' ll do it if - yes, I 'm willing to do it. Originally I thought I had an estimate that came in higher than that but as long as it stays under five thousand I can justify it for the conver- sion. MR. WEAVER: There is not a curb cut there now, is there? MR. BREW: No there is not. Pardon my ignorance on this, is that another variance that is required for a curb cut? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Not from here. MR. WEAVER: I 'm ignorant too. MR. SIEVERDING: It might increase the cost though. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well there is always a question in allowing curb cuts or thinking about that - the trade-off in the public parking versus the private parking essentially. MR. BREW: Well that side of the street is only day - there is no all night parking, so we are not losing any all night parking on that side. The opposite side of the street is - as most of you probably know - is all night parking and there is no buildings on that side of the street. MR. WEAVER: But, in fact, on that side of the street the curb cut would take up as much space as a parking spot. MR. BREW: On my side of the street? MR. WEAVER: Any place. PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 MR. BREW: Yes, it would take up as much, but we are not losing an all night parking spot which is really what we are trying. . . MR. WEAVER: I understand. MR. SIEVERDING: And the opposite side of the street is typically full every night? MR. BREW: With abandoned cars and everything else. Actually it - almost always you can find a spot on that side of the street within a couple hundred feet of the property, I wouldn't say every night. MS. FARRELL: Depends on what time you get home. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The increase in density goes from what to what? MR. BREW: It can go - it goes from seven to a maximum of ten that would be allowed. There is currently two people in each of the one-bedrooms and three people in the three-bedroom, unrelated. With the eight-bedroom Coop. there would be eight people there with the one-bedroom still remaining, you could have two people there. So you would be going from seven to ten. MR. SIEVERDING: Why the conversion to a Coop. and not, just say, refurbish the house and refurbish the existing apartments and work with those? MR. BREW: Well I still have to increase the density to justify the expense. I could patch the place up and make it physically sound in terms of the dollars and cents of it but to do the thing right, requires a good shot of funds and to justify that expense it is going to have to increase the density. And I 'd much rather bring the thing up to what I consider good living standards instead of marginal, which I certainly can do. MR. SIEVERDING: With the additional three people? PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 MR. BREW: With the additional three people, yes. You see, in addition - leaving the conversion the way it was - since it was owner-occupied, one of the one-bedrooms - the entrance is through the owner-occupied section, so I 've got to - just to make it all rentable space, I have to take an outside stairwell and the esti- mates on that, with pressure treated lumber is in the neighborhood of four thousand dollars - just to make that accessible. So - I mean - there are trade-offs on both sides. Certainly the conver- sion would be the simpliest and the most economical. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Just one additional question. There is a parking lot two or three houses south of your property. . . MR. BREW: That's about eight houses south and I 've been in touch with him on it and he is not willing to negotiate on that. MR. SIEVERDING: I see. MS. FARRELL: Is there any other negotiable parking that you have checked that. . . MR. BREW: Yes, I 've checked on Ravenwood which is the only other thing that would have any kind of size to it - everything else is pretty much in the same situation that I am - there is not enough parking to meet their own requirements (unintelligible) Cornell I don't think is willing to do anything on the other side of the street. MR. SIEVERDING: You anticipate this being student rental, primari- ly? MR. BREW: Yes, given the location. MR. SIEVERDING: And you will live there yourself? PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 MR. BREW: No I will not. I currently live at 21 Penny Lane up in the Town of Ithaca. MR. SIEVERDING: Is it feasible to control parking through this arrangement (unintelligible) MR. BREW: You lost me, where would I find the parking spaces? MS. FARRELL: (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: I wondered whether you could make some arrangement with Cornell for long term storage (unintelligible) A lot and B lot or Stewart and. . . MR. BREW: Is there possibilities of doing that? Sure there is possibilities - how do you control it? I mean you can write it into a lease and you can't enforce - you can't tell persons that they can't park on the streets. I 'd be glad to put it in if you want to police it. MR. SCHWAB: I think that is totally unenforceable. You can't say that you can't park on a public street. MR. SIEVERDING: So it really is first come, first serve as far as parking on University Avenue - if you can't find it on University Avenue then (unintelligible) 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? Come forward please. MR. ELLIOTT: I 'm Charles Elliott, I live at 410 University Avenue, which is the next house up the hill from the subject property. This is the first time that I have done this so if you will be patient. . . I 'm not sure what arguments will move you so I will PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 quickly and briefly try to give you some background about where we come from. We moved here in 1968 with a family of four kids, one just on the way and selected this house - not only because it was a good big house for raising children but also as a hedge against retirement as a place that we could count on in later years to retire to, which would give us a little income. We congratulate ourselves even more for having done so, since the years have not been financially quite as kind to us as we had hoped they would be. As a picture of the neighborhood - to our right and to our left, up and down the hill - are all rooming houses - multiple dwelling houses - I think there is Mr. Ball 's house up near the top of the hill is another single dwelling house and down the hill there may be one - possibly two - family dwellings - so it is the fate of the buildings along University Avenue to be multiple residences. As for the parking across the street - it is pretty tight, especially since Ravenwood moved in. Now, I am unable to determine why that should have an effect on parking on University Avenue, up and down and down as far as we are, which is about I would guess about a third or halfway down the street, but it has been fairly tight. I guess my problem is very simply this, that if we do as we had hoped to do, and plan to do, which is to convert the upstairs of our house into rooms for students while we live still in the downstairs part of the house, that when the time came for us to do that conversion, and we came to this Board to ask for a variance for parking across the street, the response would probably - quite justly - be I 'm sorry there is no more room. And so I am speaking PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 in my self interest and with that plan in mind, when I ask you to deny this variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: As I gather, your essential argument, would be to keep it more or less as is with seven people and sort of a slap-dash job on repairs versus making it look nicer. . . MR. ELLIOTT: You mean, what are our plans for the house? MR. SCHWAB: No, on this house - the house under question - does that trade off - what do you think about that trade off? This house could look nicer, he is saying, if we allow the ten people in there Coop style. . . MR. ELLIOTT: Of course we have only seen the house from the outside, very seldom from the inside. The Jordons, who owned it before collected antiques and used part of it for storing their antiques and they - in the seventeen, eighteen years that we have lived there - they were always very careful about tenants, so they got very quiet people, except for one foreign student who set fire to the downstairs apartment - usually couples, graduate student couples and it was not overcrowded - so there was never appeared to be a parking problem with people in that house. It appears, although it needs paint, it appears to be sturdy from the outside. But, of course, you have pictures which will tell you better than I can. MS. FARRELL: When you say the parking is quite tight, do you park on the street? MR. ELLIOTT: We have already - with our house there is a cement parking ramp which we use for one of our cars. The other car, PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 which is under repair now is partly used by our son - is parked across the street. We also park our motorcycles across there. MS. FARRELL: And you were able to find parking spaces regularly or. . . MR. ELLIOTT: Luckily most of the time, of course, always with our own ramp. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, shall we proceed? Any discussion? Comments? Motions? PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1755 FOR 408 UNIVERSITY AVENUE MR. WEAVER: Going back to our requirement of proof - I guess my question is whether there is a practical difficulty in maintaining the status quo. The appellant said that in order to fix it up jim-dandy, inside and out, that it would require three more occu- pants to carry the load but we really didn't ask for or hear a discussion of the building as is, maintained by whatever means. It is a big question to me as to what the practical difficulty is of not granting - which amounts to maintaining the status quo and not increasing the off-street parking requirement. MR. SIEVERDING: You are thinking, Charlie, something on the order of cost estimates relative to financing involved in doing it, whether you absolutely need ten people in there to. . . MR. WEAVER: Not at all, what is the practical difficulty of maintaining it as is? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Cost estimates would go more to the use variance and that is not under discussion. MR. WEAVER: You see we got into the discussion of whether there is or is not a neighborhood parking but not whether there is - or what is reasonable to stay the way it is or not - put additional burden on neighborhood parking. MR. SCHWAB: He did give the figure of forty thousand dollars for paint and other repairs outside and in as far as what the record reveals at this point. Of course, this is within the use - the proposal is. . . allows the use for the property. He is asking for net of one - if we do the plan of one parking place, which he said he would do - the (unintelligible) shows its a net or it is an PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 added deficiency of one car. So you are asking what is the practi- cal difficulty to justify the added net deficiency of one car? MR. WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Not to divert our attention, but are there any thoughts about item number two - would the exception observe the spirit of the Ordinance or do you find that pretty much a wash? We seem to be stopped on part 1 of the normal variance requirements. Does anyone have any feeling about that? MR. SCHWAB: Well is it realistic - is there room for parking on that street - (unintelligible) I think all of these houses - you've got no realistic chance of a lot of parking required for a multiple dwelling. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I tend to agree with Stewart - I think the idea of a variance that would require his adding at least one space on-site so that the increase in deficiency is just one. I don't think (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Tracy, any thoughts? MS. FARRELL: I guess I feel about the same way. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Looks like we are coming closer to a motion somewhere, I'm not exactly sure where. MR. SCHWAB: Do you see a practical difficulty at all, Charlie? To answer your own question? MR. WEAVER: Oh yes, no question but what there is a practical difficulty in providing off-street parking and to turn the argument around, it is acceptable to put ten people in there. It is legal and it is a proper use of the property under the Zoning Ordinance so the only question is off-street parking and whether any general PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 benefit will result and whether the neighborhood will be saved by not granting this is quite problematical. East Hill will be deficient in parking while I 'm around. MR. SCHWAB: Oh really? MR. WEAVER: Oh yes, we have another thirty or forty years to go. PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1755 FOR 408 UNIVERSITY AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Kevin Brew for an area variance to permit the conversion of the existing multiple dwelling consisting of two one-bedroom and one three-bedroom apartments at 408 University Avenue to a cooperative dwelling with eight bedrooms plus one one-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 No. 1755 conditioned upon the appellant install- ing a parking place for one car on the property. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There is a practical difficulty in meeting the parking re- quirements because of the slope of the property - it is very hard to park cars on that property. 2 . The proposed use is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the requirements of the zone. 3 . Granting the variance would only cause a very minor increase in the parking deficiency. VOTE: 4 YES; 1 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED WITH/CONDITION PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1756 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 11 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 expansion. An earlier appeal (Appeal No. 1751) was partially granted by the Board at its March 2, 1987 meeting; the appellant is returning with a new proposal which includes the removal of one of the existing buildings on the site. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening gentlemen. MR. MAZZA: My name is Edward Mazza and I am representing Mr. Paolangeli. I have some sketches of what the proposed building would look like, I don't know whether you want me to put this on the Board. . . PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please, why don't you. MR. MAZZA: I have others to pass around. (unintelligible) As you will recall, we were here not too long ago and at that time we received a variance to add to the garage on the southeast corner. We were denied the variance for putting a second story on the office building. At that time it was the suggestion of one or more members of the Board that we look into using the area which was the building on the northeast corner of the lot, which was used as a shop at this time. Mr. Paolangeli looked into that carefully and found that the cost of renovating that space to use it as office space, coupled with the cost that would be incurred by having his offices split between two buildings and having to go back and forth to get the various records from one building to the other, having a secretary, possibly - would have to be added to this other build- ing. Mr. Paolangeli would have to have a secretary or a reception- ist of some sort with him over in this other building. All the costs put together, in doing that, the inconvenience in running back and forth, the time lost, the extra equipment that would have to be put in, he would probably have to use his computers and the phones obviously would have to be run from one building to the other to tie into the same system. All that put together would cost him much more than putting on the second story to the current office space. The shop building - I put in the papers that we submitted was twelve hundred square feet. I 'm told that that is not quite accurate, that's an interior space measurement and the nine forty-five on the second story of the office space is an exterior measurement. So if we are going to compare apples to PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 apples, we'd look at about thirteen forty-four for the existing shop and nine forty-five for the second story of the office build- ing. What Mr. Paolangeli proposes to do is to tear down the shop building rather than convert it, if he is allowed to put the second story on the office building. Doing so would allow him to, this is the second part of the request, would allow him to increase the depth of the garage in the back. The reason that we would like to increase the depth of the garage in the back to make it - and let me make just one correction too - we had put thirty-eight feet originally - we'd like to make that forty feet and there is a reason for that number. The reason is that if you made it forty feet you could put two pickup trucks and two of Mr. Paolangeli 's dump trucks - one behind the other - so that you almost double the amount of use of that garage by taking it out another ten feet. The reason that he didn't ask for that before, he would have liked that before but the reason he didn't before, was because the shop building existed and there wouldn't be enough room to maneuver the vehicles. So the second benefit, both to Mr. Paolangeli and to the neighborhood in general, by taking this shop building down and that is to increase the garage to house more of his equipment inside, out of the view of the neighborhood. and out of the elements for Mr. Paolangeli 's sake. We have another proposal to add to this and that is Mr. Paolangeli would agree to put some plantings along the easterly boundary of the premises and along the northerly boundary up to about the westernmost edge of where the shop building cur- rently exists. The reason for this, of course, would be to further shield the property from the neighborhood's view. Additional PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 comment that I would like to make would be that by taking this shop building out and putting a second story on the office building, it would reduce the percent of lot coverage - before we were approxi- mately at the maximum, which I think is thirty-five percent and this would reduce that lot coverage. We did get one call from a neighbor, I don't know if they were able to reach City Hall, but Mr. Listar, who lives back along the southeast boundary of the property, called Mr. Paolangeli to ask what he could do - he was in favor of the project and wanted to know what he could do. We didn't ask him to come here tonight because it is a big time commitment - I don't know if he was able to call or not, he didn't reach us until about 4: 30. Okay, specifically what we are dealing with here is a use variance and two area variances. The use variance is for - I guess it is technically because we are changing - we are not going to be increasing the use there, as a matter of fact, as far as office space is concerned, we' ll be decreasing the use there - we'll be taking it from thirteen forty-four down to nine forty-five square feet so the intensity of use will probably remain the same or actually decrease. The second two variances are area variances - one is a front yard setback and the other is a rear yard. The front yard setback is where the office building is now and, of course, that is already a deficiency and it will not be increasing the deficiency that currently exists and the rear yard variance is for this new garage which was already dealt with at a prior meeting, but, since we are increasing that building, I guess we technically have to ask for that once again. With regards to the use variance, I think that the strict application of the PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 Ordinance would produce an undue hardship as I outlined before, all the increased costs and inconvenience associated with using the shop building as office space would be an undue hardship for Mr. Paolangeli. This hardship is unique to the neighborhood because this is not a normal circumstance in the neighborhood and I don't think that the spirit of the Ordinance is going to change - it is not going to change the character of the district, it is going to remain approximately the same, possibly be improved by the in- creased garage space and by the screening that Mr. Paolangeli is willing to do. With regards to the area variances, there are practical difficulties and special conditions for the front yard - the office space is there - unless we are going to put in a sepa- rate building or move it someplace else on the lot, there is a practical difficulty there - putting it on top of the current space is the logical thing to do and the most convenient. Once again, I don't think the spirit of the Ordinance would change - wouldn't be hurt - this will not change the character of the district by that - I think the same things can be said for the garage in the back, as we discussed at the prior meeting. Mr. Paolangeli indicates that in the shop building he can renovate that and probably because of the layout of it and all that, he could put in four offices over there. What he is asking to do by the building plans - as you can see from the drawings - is to - second floor, you would have one office and the estimating room, where he does his bids so that the net increase in office is, which I think is to be intensity of use, would be that he would have an office and an estimating room rather than four offices or three offices and an estimating room. PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 MR. SIEVERDING: Would you go through that once more? MR. MAZZA: Okay. The shop building that exists on the property, the way that is laid out. . . this one up here in the northeast corner. . . at the prior meeting it was labelled office - it is really - it has been used differently over the years, I think it is currently used as storage and shop - not as much office at the present time, although it has been used back and forth. He could design that into four separate offices or three offices and a bidding room. What he is asking for here is to increase it by adding one office and an estimating room. So that if you are looking at the intensity of use on the premises, he is going to end up with two rooms rather than four, to put it another way. This drawing shows how the building will look - how the building will be used - it is going to be approximately the same except one story up higher. It is going to be on a concrete block, the same as it is now. This is the garage building which is essentially the same as the one that he asked for before except forty feet in depth rather than thirty feet and it is going to be a steel/metal building. MR. PAOLANGELI: The demolition and tearing down of that one building allows me to go out further. With the building the way it was, as you can see if it goes out forty feet, you wouldn't be able to negotiate to get in and get out of the new building. That was why we stayed at that thirty foot and also that was the maximum lot coverage without asking for a variance for the thirty-five percent lot coverage - but we are tearing down approximately thirteen hundred square feet and adding on just a portion in the back, is all, to enable us to put more vehicles inside. It is to my PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 advantage to get them inside because the weather will do a lot less damage if I keep them inside - it is to my advantage to have them inside, opposed to parking them outside. MR. SIEVERDING: The dimensions for the garage for which you were granted a variance last time was thirty by eighty? or thirty-eight by eighty? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thirty-eight by eighty, I believe. If I remember it correctly. MR. PAOLANGELI: No. . . MR. MAZZA: I think it was thirty. . . I don't want to make it look like we are asking for more this time than we got last time. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that's the whole idea, let's find out what we are really. . . MR. MAZZA: What we had before was thirty feet by eighty feet width. And as we say, the reason for that was we really couldn't make it deeper and still negotiate the turns out here. This said thirty-eight but since we made that request, we recalculated and figured widths of the walls and the garage handles and all that stuff - we could just barely fit in two pickup trucks back to back or two dump trucks back to back so that instead of putting one vehicle in each stall, we are now going to be able to put two vehicles in each stall, by having it go to forty feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Follow Herman? What they did is alter the xerox that we had. . . MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) is the revised dimension not the original one. PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 MR. MAZZA: Yes the thirty-eight is for this request and like I say, I wanted to correct that to make it forty, so that we can do that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You still have jog. As I remember we discussed the. . . MR. PAOLANGELI: The jog is for the electric service - we didn't want to move the whole electric service (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. We do remember a few things from one month to another. Further questions from members of the Board? Now that we have our dimensions straight. MR. SIEVERDING: When you were discussing hardship with respect to district, you talked about hardship in the sense of the difficulty of splitting your functions between two offices. Refresh my memory I guess, for the real hardship issue which is why do you want to have more office space. MR. MAZZA: Well, okay, the reason that Mr. Paolangeli wants to have more office space is that right now he has got himself and three other people that work on-premises and right now Mr. Paolangeli has to use his office to do the bids as well as do his other duties of meeting with people. He finds it extremely diffi- cult to do bids with having people interrupt him all the time. He would like to have a room where he can do bidding and he also would like to have more privacy in his own office. I think right now you share the office with somebody else. . . MR. PAOLANGELI: If I could explain that, if I may, right now - the way the building is situated, there is two offices, nothing can be done about it, they are small offices - there is two of them and PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 that is it - I can't change it - you can't juggle it around - you can't do anything with it. In the one office there is two people, okay they do payroll, they do all the bookkeeping - that's the public way in - they come right in that front door. We could be counting money for a deposit, doing checks and anyone can walk right in - we don't get that much walk in - but we do get some with people coming in - they want to discuss something with me, they want to go over a set of drawings or something like that - they can walk right in to that main office and that's where the two people sit, okay? When they are in the middle of something they quite often get interrupted. As a matter of fact I had one person quit because he just couldn't work in that kind of atmosphere, okay, and he was a very important person. He just couldn't handle the interruptions. My office is on the other side, okay, and I have a gentleman that helps me with estimates. We've got to share that office. When you are doing an estimate you've got to be totally isolated, you can't even have a phone in that room - you shouldn't. You can't be on track doing an estimate and somebody come in and ask you a question or you overhear someone talking behind - it is difficult to do - now, like today, a gentleman was in here doing an estimate - I had a person come in who was trying to discuss some private business, okay? In the middle of his estimating, I said, Dave would you excuse me and he had to go out of the office for forty-fivo minutes while I had to conduct the business that I had to - it was personal business, okay? It wasn't business related in the sense that it was about a job - it was about some other irons I have. So, he had to go out and sit in the other room for PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 forty-five minutes because all of his work was in my office and he was spread out - when you do an estimate, you spread out, okay? You put drawings here, you put them up on the board, like you have behind your desk so that you can do your take off. Well he lost the track there. So what should take someone two hours, maybe to do a very simple estimate, with interruptions like we are getting, with people walking right in anyplace, and I can't intercept them - the way it is built, I can't screen them, I can't have a guard at the door who says wait a minute, halt, you can't go there. What would take normally two hours, may take six to seven hours because once you stop on a train of thought you've got to start over again. It is not easy, if you forget or misplace a decimal point, in our business, it can be a disaster. If it should be thirty thousand and you put down three thousand, or it should be three hundred and you put down thirty, it is difficult, believe me, I don't know if you have ever tried to do anything quietly - you don't need inter- ruptions. Well the way it is set up now it is becoming a definite hardship - it is getting to the point where it is getting - it could cost me money in making a mistake, number one, number two the efficiency is bad and being bad, I may have to hire more people just to try to keep it straightened out - I don't have anyplace to put them. If I can isolate one person, they could do the work that two of us are doing right now, in less time. That's all I 'm asking for. I 'm giving up thirteen hundred square feet which I can make into four offices. It is kind of difficult to ask a secretary to run across the driveway to get a paper and I can't have a duplicate paper of everything, having someone run across to pick up something PAGE 50 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 to bring it over to another office. If that would be the case I may have to try to figure someway to put a type of walkway - I 'd have to take the existing gate out, move the existing gate up closer to the houses that are there, which I don't want to do, I have it as far to the west as it can possibly go and still be on my property. I can't ask someone to be walking back and forth - I 'm trying to have bookkeeping, payroll and estimating and myself in contact with what is going on and be in two separate buildings so I am willing to give up a building, okay, just tear it down, just for the sake of economics, to let me build it in one spot, that's all, I just want to make it much more efficient to do what I have to do. That is all I 'm asking for - two buildings just won't work. I know this is not your problem, it is mine but it definitely poses problems for me. MR. SIEVERDING: Our problem is with the hardship issue and sort of a demonstration by you that there is some hardship involved rela- tive to denying the request for additional space because it is a non-conforming use within a residential zone. MR. MAZZA: Okay, let me clarify the way you phrase that additional space - it is not additional space because we can take that other building and put offices in there so it is not additional space, it is actually less space. MR. SIEVERDING: Why don't you do that? MR. MAZZA: As he said, if he has to do it, a bit, he may have to get some books - well, now he has to go out and it is raining out - he has to go across the. . . PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 MR. SIEVERDING: I was just picking up on your comment earlier that you have to take up thirteen hundred square feet and put four offices in there in place of the two offices that you have now. MR. MAZZA: No, he wouldn't give up the current office space that he has. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I see, so you are saying two. . . MR. MAZZA: In addition - he would put those four offices in - he could, I don't know if he would - but he could, with the layout, put four offices in that building in addition to the offices that he has existing already. But to do that would be a hardship - the efficiency of it, number one, number two that building would cost more to renovate that and put the power lines going across - the computer lines, the phone lines and all that - put an adequate heating system in there. It would cost more to do that than to tear that building down and build a second story on where he is right now. It would cost more to do that - much less the possible added personnel because of being separated and the inconvenience of going back and forth - of having records in one place - having somebody over there he has to talk to. . . MR. SCHWAB: On this intensity of use, after you are all done, are you planning on hiring anyone additional? MR. PAOLANGELI: No I 'm not. I 'm just trying to provide for what I have (unintelligible) everyone that is there, right now. I have no reason to believe that I would need to hire more people. MR. MAZZA: Let me just clarify one thing - we are talking about the people who work on this property. He has four people, which PAGE 52 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 includes himself, on-site, but he has other people who work for him off-site, I just wanted to clarify that. MR. PAOLANGELI: My men - there are some that come there in the morning, to pick something up or something - they just come and go, okay? The people in the office are the only people there during the day and one person out in the shop, he just takes care of everything out in the shop. No, I don't plan to put more people in the office - I don't want more people, I am just trying - I could make do, very nicely with what I have, if I could just be more efficient - more privacy as well as efficiency. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Correct me if I 'm wrong but what I see here in square footage is an increase of six hundred square feet in the proposed new garage - with a decrease of three hundred square feet in the office space. Is that the bottom line? MR. MAZZA: That sounds about right. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: More or less. MR. MAZZA: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Well I didn't sit through this but just tonight so I am a little bit behind. I wonder what's the public benefit of our getting into designing where the offices will be or whether we retain an old building or replace it with a new building or whatev- er - if it were to impact upon the neighborhood in some way by getting closer to a lot line or increasing the violation of the setback or bringing activity in here that is foreign to the present use, I could see that we'd be very much concerned, but I 'm not eager to get into the design discussion here that we are having PAGE 53 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 about where the offices will be and how many will be in one build- ing or whether they need to be in one or two - if the net result is about the same amount of building space - about the same amount of land coverage and the same business stays there without bringing in a big piece of manufacturing equipment or something that will impact the neighborhood continuously, I don't see any - I 'm not sufficiently familiar with this to be in favor of one plan versus or Plan A versus Plan B or versus Plan C. MR. SIEVERDING: The original request, Charlie, was to add the second story to the nine hundred and forty-five square foot build- ing and leave the twelve hundred square foot building. MR. WEAVER: I understand. MR. SIEVERDING: I don't think it's so much a question of design as of his intentional (unintelligible) use because of the additional nine hundred and forty-five square foot plus twelve hundred square feet there and where we were coming from in the first appeal was to make efficient use of your existing facilities before you come in and request a use variance to increase the amount of space. MR. WEAVER: Again, whether material is parked inside or outside, I guess is really not an argument as far as benefit to the neighbor- hood. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Well we were talking about the offices (unintelli- gible) the addition to the building. . . MR. WEAVER: And I wasn't impressed that a second story on the building down against Route 13 was much to worry about. Maybe I have oversimplified it. . . PAGE 54 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 MR. SIEVERDING: Less to worry about, I think, in the context of their current proposal, which is to eliminate twelve hundred square feet of what could also be additional office space. MR. WEAVER: Well, with this amount of land there is not a limit on the storage of anything from a wheelbarrow to a piece of machinery in the yard, so I don't know that there is much opportunity to increase the intensity of use that would affect the neighborhood or affect the site from anywhere that I could see, including West Lincoln. All those old sheds that are backed up against. . . but again, unless there is some particular principle to be defended, I 'm afraid I 'm not prepared to worry, as far as the details are concerned. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further thoughts? Stewart any questions? MR. SCHWAB: This current plan, where you are saying you are double parking the trucks in the forty foot garage and limiting this other office building, do you prefer that proposal to keeping the office building and the smaller garage? MR. PAOLANGELI: Well to be very honest, what I would like is a bigger place to put the equipment and the office - that's what I would like. I don't like giving up that building but I will give it up. Just to show you (unintelligible) MR. SCHWAB: Well as I hear what you are saying, you can't have a forty foot garage, it is not a matter of giving it up - the garage and keep this office building - you just can't park or manuever your cars. . . MR. MAZZA: I 'm not sure that I understand the question but he can't make this a forty foot garage, if this shop building is there. PAGE 55 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 MR. SCHWAB: That's right. My question is, would you rather have a forty foot garage and no office building or a thirty foot garage and an office building? I just want to know where you are coming from - I doubt that you would be able to get this but. . . MR. MAZZA: Well the optimum thing would be able to add a second story to the current office - keep the other offices that we are talking about demolishing and have the smaller garage. MR. SCHWAB: Okay. MR. MAZZA: That would be the optimum. That's what we asked for last time and didn't get. . . MR. SCHWAB: That was last month. MR. MAZZA: So he is willing to do more to show that he is trying to do good in the neighborhood, including those plantings. To get that additional office space in the same structure that he current- ly is - it is that important to him. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions, Tracy? MS. FARRELL: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Herman, any further questions? MR. SIEVERDING: No further questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you gentlemen. MR. MAZZA: I assume that those photographs and all that stuff that we gave at the last meeting are still in that file? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We still have them, we don't throw away things. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in favor of granting these variances? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Well, we can enter- tain a motion. PAGE 56 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1756 FOR 123-127 WEST FALLS STREET MR. SIEVERDING: So we are talking about a use variance and an area variance all rolled into one? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's true. Well you can do it twice over but probably it would be a little more efficient if you did it all at once. SECRETARY HOARD: I don't know if it is a use variance anymore, if it is not intensification of use. MR. SIEVERDING: The way the current project is proposed, there is actually a reduction of four hundred square feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well on the other side of the question, could not one argue that there is an increase of a net six hundred square feet - or three hundred square feet, given a plus six hundred with the new garage and a minus three hundred with the office? Isn't that technically an increase in - Charlie says no. SECRETARY HOARD: The vehicles are there whether you wrap them or not. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, the vehicles are there if you wrap them or not but is this not a building? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, that's why you need an area variance. MR. WEAVER: Mr. Chairman, who raised the question? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, let's give it a fly. A variance of one sort or another. MR. SIEVERDING: Well I would feel more comfortable, we could do an area and use variance - I would be willing to make a motion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's what is on the sheet. MR. SIEVERDING: All right. PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1756 FOR 123-129 WEST FALLS STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered 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: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the use and area variances requested in Appeal Number 1756 with the condition that the appellant provide landscaping on the north and east boundaries of the property to provide screening of the yard from the residen- tial neighborhood as stated by the appellant in the testimony. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT - USE VARIANCE: 1. The proposal to take down the 1, 200 square foot office and add a second story to the existing 945 square foot office creates a reduction of approximately 400 square feet in office space use. 2 . Strict application of the Ordinance produces a hardship in that functions that are conducted on this site cannot be efficiently and economically split - and by splitting there is an increased cost to doing business. 3 . The hardship created is unique and it is not shared by all properties in that zone. That is the only use of this kind in the neighborhood. 4. This particular use variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance. Similarly denial of that portion of the variance PAGE 58 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 for the addition of ten feet to the new garage would create a hardship in the deterioration of the appellant's equipment; inasmuch as the proposed addition shelters equipment from the weather. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT - AREA VARIANCE: t 1. There are practical difficulties in meeting the front yard deficiency in that the building cannot easily be moved and the proposed addition doesn't exacerbate that particular deficien- cy. 2 . With the rear deficiency there are practical difficulties in meeting the rear yard requirement in such fashion that the addition becomes functional. 3 . That the exceptions observe the spirit of the Ordinance. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED W/CONDITION PAGE 59 SECRETARY HOARD: The last appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1757 FOR 411 SECOND STREET: Appeal of Charles F. and Ann G. Hoover for an area variance for a deficient side yard under Section 30. 25, Column 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit an addition to the second story of the two-family house at 411 Second Street. The property is located in an R3b (Residential, multiple family) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellants must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Compliance can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. MS. HOOVER: Hi. I 'm Ann Hoover. I am sorry that Chad couldn't be here because I 'm sure he could explain this much better than I can. He is ill, so I 'll try to do my best. Basically, this is a two-family dwelling and we have been working on it, trying to get it restored, for the last couple of years that we have been living there - we are now working on the upstairs unit and the living room is quite deficient - I think by the Zoning - but because of the grandfather clause we have been able to keep it the size that it is but we are proposing that we extend it - but right now the living room ends right here [pointing to plans] the wall is here and the downstairs unit has a kitchen with a shed that extends out to this point and we are just proposing that we extend the living room six and one-half feet out on top of that shed roof to make it a larger PAGE 60 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 space. We have an expanding family and we are right now living in the upstairs unit because it has larger bedrooms and it would be much more pleasant to have a little bit larger living room. MR. SCHWAB: So your proposal won't increase the footprint of the house? MS. HOOVER: No it doesn't - it just increases six and one-half feet out over the shed roof. Our next door neighbor who lives on this side of the house - which it affects most - they are very open to the idea - they don't have any complaints about it - in fact they expressed that - and several of the other neighbors too, they wondered why we have to have a variance for that. Several of the houses in the neighborhood have very narrow lots and so they are in similar situations (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: 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] PAGE 61 BZA MINUTES - 4/6/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1757 FOR 411 SECOND STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Charles F. and Ann G. Hoover for an area variance to permit an addition to the second story of the two-family house at 411 Second Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in Appeal Number 1757. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There is a practical difficulty in meeting one side yard setback requirement, which can only be solved by moving the building. 2 . The side yard is only deficient by one foot, which is very minor. 3 . The proposed change would not exacerbate the current minor area deficiency. 4. The proposed change is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 62 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 1752, 1754, 1755 , 1756 and 1757 on April 6 , 1987 , 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 minues 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 r Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this day of 1987 Notary Public .JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUnLIC,STATE OF NEW YORIC N•C',.5E- •�U0800 QUALIFI£.J UI TOtvi Pi<INS COUIay, MY COM M155107i EXPIRES APRIL 90.18