Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1987-05-04 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY 4 , 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 2-1-87 Petr-All Corporation 3 920 North Cayuga Street Decision 11 APPEAL NO. 1741 Ken Peworchik 12 419 West Buffalo Street it " " Discussion 46 it Decision 52 it More Discussion 53 APPEAL NO. 1753 Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services 54 224-236 Floral Avenue Decision 63 APPEAL NO. 1759 L. J. Kolar $ Daniel F . Liguori 64 407 Cliff Street Decision 70 APPEAL NO. 1760 Joseph 0. Ciaschi 72 401 College Avenue it If it Discussion 110 It ititDecision 111 APPEAL NO. 1761 Nancy Falconer 112 410 West Seneca Street Discussion 122 Decision 123 APPEAL NO. 1762 Paul and Kristin Bennett 124 413 Hook Place " Decision 126 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 127 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 4, 1987 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I would like to call to order the May 4, 1987 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight are: STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER HELEN JOHNSON TRACY FARRELL HERMAN SIEVERDING MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN THOMAS D. HOARD, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, ZONING OFFICER & BLDG. COMMISSIONER BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum, first we will hear from the appellant and then ask that he or she present the arguments for the case and succinctly as possible and then be available to answer any 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 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 be persons who own property within two hundred feet of the property in question, or who live or work within two hundred feet of that property. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of an "interested party" . While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record. The record consists of the application materials filed with the Building Department, the correspondence relating to the cases, as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations, if any, and 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 opposite me here, so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and heard by every- one in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and will, therefore, not be considered by the Board in its deliberations on the case. We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during our deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or a special permit. In the rare cases where there is a tie vote, the variance or special permit is automatically PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 denied. Are there any questions from members of the audience about our procedure? (none] Then may we proceed with our first case? SECRETARY HOARD: The first case, Mr. Chairman, is Appeal No. 2-1-87 for 920 North Cayuga Street: Appeal of Petr-All Corporation for a setback variance under Section 34.8 of the Sign Ordinance to permit a free-standing sign to be placed on the corner at 920 North Cayuga Street (Mobil Gas Station) closer to the front property lines than permitted by the Sign Ordi- nance. The sign itself will conform to the maximum area limit (five square feet) of the Sign Ordinance for properties in residential zones. A previous appeal for a free-standing sign at this location was denied by the Board at its April 1, 1983 meeting. This appeal was held over from the February 2, 1987, March 2, 1987, and April 6, 1987 meetings of the Board of Zoning Appeals at the request of the applicant due to lack of a full Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we have anybody here to represent this case? SECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Hyde will you please come forward? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We are all here this month. Have a seat. MR. HYDE: My name is Patrick Hyde, I represent the Petr-All Corporation of Dryden, New York and I live in Dryden. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The reasons for your appeal, as you see them. MR. HYDE: Okay. Complying with the regulations for a ten foot setback that would locate the sign well within the drive areas of the gasoline pumps which would theoretically knock out the one island for useage and would make an obstacle that vehicles would PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 have to maneuver around. By putting the sign within the four and one-half foot of the setback, would put it close enough to the sidewalk to keep it out of any driving areas and it would not limit the vision of vehicles, also. The sign, as stated, is within the accords of the regulation five square feet and we would just like, at this time, to upgrade the property with a professional type sign for the business. So the basis for the setback really is to get the sign out of the drive area for a safe location. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: The size of the sign is five square feet? MR. HYDE: Yes. Well it is just a little less, it is twenty-one inches wide and thirty-one inches tall. Here is a picture of it. The Sign Company drew up a proposal for us - we'd like to. . . there is also, presently, a light pole already located right in the vicinity of where the sign would be located, so it's not like it is going to be a brand new installation where nothing else is already located - there is an existing pole based there presently. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are going to use the existing base in the new sign? MR. SCHWAB: There is a number of signs out there? MR. HYDE: There is none. . . MR. SCHWAB: Has there ever been. . . MR. HYDE: There hasn't been a sign there in at least six or seven years, since I closed (unintelligible) MS. FARRELL: Are those lights conforming? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. Well the lighting on the property was lighting - it has been changed but there has always been lighting PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 on the property. By conforming, the only thing the Zoning Ordi- nance says is that it cannot cause glare on neighboring properties. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There is no site map associated with the applica- tion? MR. SIEVERDING: What is this one? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's what I want to know. SECRETARY HOARD: That one is from the owner of the property next door. MR. SIEVERDING: Okay, it is not part of his package? SECRETARY HOARD: No. MR. SIEVERDING: What is the problem exactly, in placing the sign in such a way that it conforms with the setback requirements? MR. HYDE: Well if you come in ten feet off the sidewalk, which is a requirement, it more or less sets it right in between two en- trances off of Jay Street and Cayuga Street so when you pull in, you would have to make sure that you pull around. I had a site plan on the original proposal. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It would be useful if we could have a site plan. . MR. SIEVERDING: We've got a sketch here and somebody scaled off ten feet, now how accurate that is, I don't know. SECRETARY HOARD: There is one on the back of his notice to the property owners. MR. SIEVERDING: That really doesn't show the curb cuts and the driveways relative to where the sign would be and how much of an obstruction that post would be. PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 SECRETARY HOARD: Well the curb cuts are right there. Mr. Rosenblum's drawing was taken from a drawing that was submitted by the other property owner some time ago. MR. HYDE: One thing also, the ten feet is required from the sidewalk so it is actually - I mean, if you are trying to relate it to the street, you are talking fourteen feet from the street - and from the sidewalk - four feet - just trying to relate it like you are thinking of where it is going to place in the lot - it is actually fourteen feet in from both corners - from Jay Street and Cayuga Street. . . MR. SIEVERDING: From the curb? MR. HYDE: Right. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The reason we are being so sticky about it is because in the application for the permit - Section 34. 10 of the Sign Ordinance - kind of prescriptively - a location plan showing the position of the sign on the building or on the land - as part and parcel of the application procedure - so it is the sort of thing that we look for automatically. MR. SIEVERDING: There is also a suggestion - I guess from some of the surrounding property owners - that the total number of signs on the property exceeds - if you count all the signs that are attached to the building or attached to the gas pumps or wherever - would exceed what is allowed - is that something that you have looked into? MR. HYDE: May I make a comment? Okay, on my proposal, the sign on the building would be taken down. The signage on the top of the pumps is required by New York law, so I don't feel that that should PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 be held against our Corporation in square footage on signage plus it is strictly price, that is the only thing we are allowed to post on top of the pumps - we aren't allowed to post the brand or anything that would enhance the sale other than the price. The only other sign, again, that stipulates that location is Mobil, is on the building and that would be taken down. The other thing that would be - marketing aspect - would be that the sign on the pole closer to the street would be more visible to the public, for anybody passing by to recognize the brand as Mobil opposed to setting on the building and having them not visually see the sign. MR. WEAVER: Herman, the criticism of the price signs on the pumps is common to every other - to every service station - they all have them and they are obliged to. I agree with the appellant. MR. SIEVERDING: And right now we are just talking about that one sign at the intersection of Jay and Cayuga, on the south of the property line? MR. HYDE: The only sign is right on the point of the property. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: We found a site plan which may help your case. I just want to circulate it to members of the Board so that at least we know exactly the location. We have been digging through the archives, you see. MR. SCHWAB: I 'm interested in hearing from the appellant (unintel- ligible) what will you do if we deny this variance? MR. HYDE: We would have to operate as we are now. We try to do anything that would help the marking of the location - which Mobil brand is a good one to have - we feel is a strong marketing point. PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. SCHWAB: So you are saying that you wouldn't put a pole ten feet back? MR. HYDE: No. Because I don't - as the site plan comes around I will show you - if we put it out ten feet then the next thing we'd have damage claims from people who hit it with their car doors or pull in and (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: There is a lot of precedent for the Board grant- ing exceptions to this sign setback for gas stations. The one across the street has one and a couple of them on Meadow Street have them, because of the problem coming in and a pole being right in the area where people expect to drive so the question really is less of the setback but whether there should be a sign (unintelli- gible) MR. HYDE: I 'm not aware of any other stations in Ithaca that do not have the setback that is being ten feet either as Mr. Hoard stated. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Oh, there is one? MR. SIEVERDING: Your January 2 letter stating - I guess listing a number of violations, they have all been corrected? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, except that the signs are still over the pumps but those are okay - oh no, the cigarette ads were taken off the pumps. MR. SIEVERDING: All those violations have been removed? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. SIEVERDING: You aren't the same company that holds the Mobil Station on the corner of State and Meadow, that is a separate. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. The vehicle is gone. MR. HYDE: May I have the picture back. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The picture is up here, I think the Commissioner has it. MR. WEAVER: I wanted to keep that because I hope to use the price on it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this setback variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] SECRETARY HOARD: I did indicate to Mr. Rosenblum that I would read his letter since he is not able to be here tonight, even though you have copies of it. This is from Joseph L. Rosenblum, 1045 Highland Road, Ithaca, New York, he owns the property immediately south of the service station and gas station. "Dear Members of the BZA: I am writing to express frustration about my inability to express concerns in the above matter before the BZA. Public hearings were advertised in Feb. , Mar. , and Apr. and on each occasion I had cancelled meetings to attend the hearing only to find that the hearings were postponed repeatedly because of the failure of the full board to be present. My schedule requires that I will be out of town on the day of your May 4th hearing and I want to inform you that my failure to be present is not due to lack of concern. I represent myself and others in the neighborhood and we have pre- sented our objections to the granting of the requested sign regula- tion variance on 1/30/87 and now in your hands. I believe that the PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 BZA is familiar with the New York State Zoning Law regarding variances, Section 18. 37 and Section 18.38 which states that it is not enough that the request be reasonable; that an applicant cannot qualify for a variance by showing that he is inconvenienced by zoning restrictions; or that a more profitable use could be made if the variance be granted. In the above mentioned presentation paper of 1/30/87, 24 existing alleged sign variations were cited. Since that time 3 additional alleged violations now exist. 1. A sign advertising the existence of a second business on the premises, a public garage. (unauthorized) 2. A sign advertising the business hours of the second business. 3 . Illumination of the 3 signs on an outdoor soda vending machine, 24 hours/day. Please read our 1/30/87 objections paper and this letter at the public hearing. Objectants believe that the granting of a variance would not be in the best public interest. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joseph L. Rosenblum" Just a couple of comments, the only sign we found relating to the garage was the required State posting of an offi- cial - that it was an official registered motor vehicle repair shop and also that it was a motor vehicle - an official motor vehicle inspection station. There was a sign some time ago advertising repair shop - that has since gone. The illumination of the three signs on the outdoor soda vending machine - I don't know how to handle that. I think you have had the other letter of objections long enough to peruse that - it is just far too lengthy to read tonight. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any discussion? PAGE 10 f BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 2-1-87 FOR 920 NORTH CAYUGA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of PETR-All for a variance from the City of Ithaca Sign Ordinance to permit a free-standing sign to be placed on the corner of 920 North Cayuga Street (mobil Gas Station) closer to the front property lines than permitted by the Sign Ordinance. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the sign variance requested in Appeal Number 2-1-87. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Strict application of the Ordinance will impose a hardship and placing the sign beyond the ten (101 ) foot setback require- ments would cause difficulty with entrance and exiting from the property. 2. The hardship created is unique and is the only use of its kind. 3. Granting of the variance is consistent with the way these issues have been handled with similar cases. 4. Granting this variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance and will not unduly change the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next scheduled appeal, Appeal No. 1728 for 119 Third Street has been withdrawn by the appellant, not held over but actually withdrawn. So the next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1741 FOR 419 WEST BUFFALO STREET: Appeal of Ken Peworchik for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation under Sections 30.26 and 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the home occupation of an accountant at 419 West Buffalo Street. The property is located in an R2b (Residential, one- and two-family) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted only under a Special Permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals. A previous request for a Special Permit was denied by the Board on January 5, 1987; the appellant is returning with new information to support his appeal. MS. FARRELL: Before we get started, I want to say that I am going to abstain from voting on this case because I am going to speak as a neighbor later. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. MR. PEWORCHIK: Good evening. My name is Ken Peworchik, I live at 419 West Buffalo Street (unintelligible) and I am bringing tonight additional facts from my first appeal when one Board member was not here at the last meeting when I came here with my appeal. I will reiterate some things so I hope you don't find it too boring. I 've got a copy of the minutes of that meeting and a few other items that I want to present to the Board, perhaps maybe some Board members did not get a chance to view the property and how it is located and what it looks like, so I 've got a few things that I PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 would like to pass around to the Board so they can take a look at it. This is a tax map of the area with my location - 419 in the green and also a picture of the property. At the last Board meeting there were some remarks saying that I changed the building by, I guess Ms. Farrell and Ms. Vaughn, two of the persons who spoke at the meeting - and changed the appearance of the building and I stated that I didn't - I don't know if it really got across that way but I was able to locate a picture taken in 1976, of that building - when the previous owner purchased it and I 've got another picture that was taken in January 1987 to compare with it, to show what the building looks like today, to let you draw your own conclusions as far as the changes to the building itself. I want to send that around first, if you have any questions interrupt me and I can answer them - that is, in regards to the pictures. The other item is my map of the area and I 've outlined my two hundred feet distances and I notice that 113 Park Place where Stephanie Vaughn lives is not within the two hundred foot area and she was allowed to speak last time and no one would let me speak up and say that she didn't - it is my understanding - you read it tonight - that if she is not within two hundred feet, she does not have the right to speak. I guess I wouldn't be so opposed - it is just that so many remarks came out that were untrue and I think - I 'm looking at the picture and I 'm reading it in the minutes of the last meeting - you'll see that there were a few remarks that didn't really make sense - such as how many cars are in my driveway and what I 've done to change the front of the building and the appear- ance is totally commercial now - the building itself has not PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 changed in appearance since Moses Peter was in there years and years ago. The building has had the facade put on the front of it, I don't know what other modifications were done to it back then but the building inside - the first three rooms are set up for an office, they've got thirty six inch doors, it's got overhead lights on it, it's got windows in the front - there are three on the side and as you've seen in the picture, they are not different than any other picture window on any house - they've got an open bottom window and they've said that - the people who were opposing this last time said that the windows looked too commercial and that the metal door on the front made it look commercial - well a metal door is not unusual on that type of business. When Moses Peters had an insurance company in there it was a standard basic plate glass door. That door has been in there ever since and it still is today. Another one of the comments was that the windows - you could see inside the windows and maybe I should put curtains up so people couldn't see inside the windows to see whether there was a bed there or whether there was an office desk. Well as I stated, I can change the curtains. The same curtains were in the windows at the last meeting - well I have changed the curtains - I 've gotten rid of the curtains and put in full length blinds so that anyone walking by - that really wanted to - could look inside - if they really wanted to they can come to the door and look inside, I have no objections. But I don't have any signs up on the building to make it look commercial and I just don't see where I 've made the building look anymore commercial today than it did in 1976 in that picture. I don't know when those renovations were done, maybe Mr. PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 Hoard could tell us. Making my circles on here, I went around and spoke to neighbors - I 've got a letter from my neighbors that are in black and red on the map, saying that they don't have any objections and that my problem was - I went around and talked with ten or eleven of these neighbors who had favorable opinions about me having a home occupied office and didn't have any objections because there were no signs, there wasn't a lot of traffic, which the opposition said that there was a lot more traffic and when this was a student rental housing unit, there were six students living in here - in and out - all day long to classes - they had cars and also that the students were here on weekends and on vacations they were home - they were gone home so it was basically vacant for the students that didn't go home - they were still there - but in the summertime it was rented to sublets and I am sure there were students living in there in the summertime and the various other items that go on with student housing and there I 've taken this away from student housing, have residents that are not students living up on the second floor - I 'm living in the first floor and my neighbors have said that the activity is much less now than it was in the last four or five years when the previous owner had it rented to students. So there definitely is a difference, you know, I went and talked with the neighbors - I talked with the ones that are important - one neighbor wouldn't do anything because he works for - he is self-employed and he doesn't have any type of special permit and he works out of his house - he doesn't have a commercial trade or any retail trade business, but I know he is self-employed and the only thing he mentioned to me was that he and his wife like PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 it much better because they don't have the traffic flow in and out of the area. So what I am stating is that the area itself - I haven't really changed the house - the design of the house, and I haven't really changed the activity in the parking lot. I 've got room out back that I put stone down to keep the dust down, I 've set it up so that it is parking for my employees so they are not parking in front of my neighbor's houses and as far as my clients go, I 'm not an active retail business where we see traffic in and out on an hourly basis - it just doesn't happen that way. Some of the other items that I had - I don't know if you wanted to see these but I spoke to Barbara Corradino at 414, which borders on my property and I 've been there since last August, so I 've been there nine months now and I think if I had a lot more traffic that was annoying people I am sure they either would be here - or maybe they are here tonight and would speak up but I haven't had any bad responses in the last two months that I 've talked with these individuals saying that they were objecting to the increase in activity. I 've got Helen Mike who lives across the street at 408 West Buffalo Street, Tom Kenton who owns the property across the street, Pam Finkle who lives and owns the property across the street - from me again. Doris Johns who borders me on the back, my back yard. Virginia and Steve Knapp who are my neighbors, who share a driveway with me - they don't share a driveway, our drive- ways butt up against each other - and Herb Hartwick from the lodge across the street, Ithaca Lodge No. 71. Joe Daley who owns the property down on the corner. Hugh Caery who owns the property and runs the Frame Shop across the street. Guiliano Lucatelli and his PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 son both have properties on that block of Buffalo Street and I 've talked to all of these individuals and I get no negative response from them as far as an objection to having the business. They don't see an increase of activity, mainly because Buffalo is a busy street anyway - if there was an increase, they said they wouldn't be able to tell it, they don't notice the traffic going in and out of my driveway because it is so minimal. I 'm passing the letters around for anyone who would like to see the signatures or to read the letters. Some of the findings that were brought out at the last meeting - one was the occupation proposed - accounting - does not appear to bring noise, fumes, dirt, etc. into the neighborhood. And that was one of the findings and what I don't understand is however I find these findings positive, I didn't feel I was given a fair representation with only five Board members, maybe, present and one of them being a neighbor who was against it and spoke out opposed to it - was given a fair representation of the Board and what the Board acts on and what the Board does. Two, the use of the building with the owner occupying it seems to be a direction that might be better than conditions that have prevailed where it was all residential but not occupied by the owner - so that was a positive response by the Board, findings of fact, but still I didn't have an overall positive response from the Board since this request was denied. Number three was that there is adequate off-street parking, that I 'm not taking up space in front of someone's residence or blocking driveways - no more than what a residence would be. One of the last things that I would like to speak on would be that I am not asking for a zoning change, I 'm PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 only asking for a Special Permit, only while I occupy the residence and while I meet the standards, I do only have the two employees and myself. I come clearly within the guidelines of the type of work - home office I think I qualify for this and also for the amount of activity that I have as far as the size. One of the other things is that if I was to have to start looking for another office, move out of my residence, I 'd be faced with - the office is set up in the front three rooms - when it was residential before you weren't able to - they had a bedroom in the front office where the big windows are and no closet in the room - there would be considerable renovation to change that back to some type of resi- dential in those front three rooms - considerable cost to me with the overhead lighting and just the general layout of the floor plan of the building. It is not set up for residential use in those front three rooms - that's the way it was designed when Moses Peter had it - it isn't compatible - the large windows and the side windows. The cost to turn around and convert that back over would be somewhat prohibitive and would cause some type of hardship for me or anyone - I think that is why the owner didn't do it the last time - it wasn't really converted back to any type of residential set up - it was a business and they put a bed in there and if you have students - students take a room and they don't really care what its like as long as its got space in it and a place to put a desk to study and whatever else they do there. So those are some of the points that I wanted to bring out this time in addition to the points that were brought out the last time. PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are you aware, by virtue of the fact that the map you submitted - I would assume it is scaled and it is a surveyor's map - that in fact it appears that Ms. Vaughn is within the two hundred feet - barely - but nevertheless that is the case - you can scale it off for yourself. MR. PEWORCHIK: Well I know she is right close to the line. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: She may be right close to the line but. . the way you drew the circles was from the center - more or less a specific gravity if we were to think about it - the center of the property, that's not the way in which the Ordinance reads - it is from the edge of the property. If you take the edge and scale it off for yourself, you'll see that she falls within that two hundred feet. I 'll grant you it's limited - the line isn't going to go in there more than two or three feet but you should be aware. . . MR. PEWORCHIK: Okay, I 'm not going to argue the point - I don't feel that she should be shut out because she is a couple of feet out but if we are getting to the point where people are going to bring topics up and state facts which are totally - or are not necessarily the truth - I think I deserve, as a taypayer, to push the law to the point the same way that another individual may do it, even though I didn't do that the first time through. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I just wanted it clear and on the record that by your own evidence and materials you submitted yourself that it seems as though Stephenie Vaughn is within that two hundred foot limit. Secondly, the point you made earlier that there were only five members - at the outset of the meetings and by virtue of the previous appeals that were heard that evening, you must have been PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 aware - or at least we made every effort to tell you whether implied explicitly or implicitly, that you have the right to withdraw - there is nothing saying that you had to go forward with that appeal at that moment. I want to make sure - those are - to me running the meeting as Chair of the meeting - those are things that I am looking for, okay? That we have a fair hearing and I want to make sure that you understood that was the case. MR. PEWORCHIK: Yes, I did understand that I had a chance to appeal but I didn't understand that an opposing neighbor was on the Board and carried the weight of one-sixth of the Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we'll address that - you' ll notice this evening she has withdrawn - in this particular instance she'll act, I would assume, as a neighbor as she stated. Are there any ques- tions from members of the Board? MS. JOHNSON: It seems as though your neighbors all have very similar writing style. MR. PEWORCHIK: No, no. That was just a basic form letter that I prepared - they read it and I explained it to them - it is one thing to ask a person to give their opinion and when you say, would you like to come to the meeting and they start hemming and hawing, I said well I don't want to take up your time because they were talking about having children and they would have to get a ba- by-sitter - the letter probably doesn't carry that much weight but it does show that I did make an honest attempt to talk with some individuals and did receive a positive response. I just don't want to say - I could come up here and say that I talked with all of them and they all said positive, except for one or two - but that's PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 not the case - I didn't talk with all of them but the ones that I did talk to, I did receive a positive response on - whether or not they will be here tonight remains to be seen yet. I wish I could get them out here tonight. What I am pointing out is that - even if people are in agreement or have no objection, if they don't show up at the meeting and voice that, I don't think that they should be counted as not saying anything at all or as just saying no that they are opposed to it - the request in my application. I feel that, although not a majority rules by any means, there are people out there - neighbors out there that are concerned about that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. SIEVERDING: You've been at this property for how long? MR. PEWORCHIK: Since August 1986 - it has been nine months now. MR. SIEVERDING: And the appeal first came here in February? MR. PEWORCHIK: That is correct. MR. SIEVERDING: And had you been using it prior to when the appeal was filed for your office? MR. PEWORCHIK: Yes a home office since the third week - fourth week in August. MR. SIEVERDING: And what brought you here, is that something on a complaint or. . . MR. PEWORCHIK: Complaint by Tracy Farrell. MR. SIEVERDING: I see. Were you aware when you acquired the property that special permits are required for home occupations in residential zones? MR. PEWORCHIK: No I wasn't really aware of it and being that Moses Peter had an office there at one time I didn't think it was PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 something that I was going to have to be real concerned with as far as having to get a special permit for something that had one at one time - there was a home office in there or an office of some type - some commercial type and that the Frame Shop was across the street, even though he doesn't live there that's grandfathered in I believe under some other law. But mine was not a retail type office and the last place that I had a home office was at 428 North Tioga Street which was an R2b also and I was there for two years in a home office and I guess maybe because there were never any com- plaints, I never met any type of opposition from the neighbors for two years in that area. . . SECRETARY HOARD: That one was under litigation. (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: Explain that. SECRETARY HOARD: We took him to court - the owner of 428. MR. PEWORCHIK: Not me. SECRETARY HOARD: Not you, right. There was no law against a home occupation. MR. SIEVERDING: Now was that also a home occupation? I see. The point of the litigation being a home occupation when it was not the owner of the property who was conducting the business. . . SECRETARY HOARD: He wasn't living there. MR. SIEVERDING: I see. MR. WEAVER: Well I'd want further explanation. I 'm aware of quite a wave of attorney's offices in what I think is a residential neighborhood - generally that far north in the City of Ithaca, are they home occupations or are they settlers or are they - just what are they? No, I 'm talking - your question about was there an PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 enforcement - what's the status of those offices or do I have to be specific? SECRETARY HOARD: I don't think you need to be specific, I think you know that we notified all those people they were in violation and turned it over to the City Attorney's office about three years ago - four years ago. MR. WEAVER: Well I just wanted to bring this out because the rush here sounds as if we have someone violently ignoring the law is a little beyond what I deduce the appellants. . . well we' ll have a discussion on this later. MR. PEWORCHIK: No, I 'm really not trying to pull what some of the attorneys have pulled in this town and still getting away with, this is a home office and a small business, not a large attorney's office of any kind. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Just the number of employees. You did say there were two persons? MR. PEWORCHIK: Two persons. MR. SCHWAB: I think we went through this last time but remind me how many would be your estimate of people per day or people per week coming to your office? MR. PEWORCHIK: If I had to pick an average I would say - some days I get none. Today I had no people in the office, not one person came but I have on the average - five days a week - maybe two people a day - perhaps three, depends on the time of year. From January to April 15th I 'm sure I get four maybe but outside of that I am nowhere's near as busy - just the clients that we see four PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 times a year - I 've got maybe thirty businesses and we are talking one hundred and twenty out of two hundred fifty days a year so maybe half a person on the business end of it - individuals once a year - so I 've got perhaps two hundred individuals, so I 'd say two or three a day on an average would be fair. But again, today I had none and it depends on the time of year. MS. JOHNSON: Would you - has the number of employees been constant since you (unintelligible) MR. PEWORCHIK: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: Do you plan to grow? MR. PEWORCHIK: Everyone likes to plan on growing - it would be nice to but I 've also found a niche in the Ithaca community in my profession, which isn't really filled - and it takes a lot of time, manpower, partners, to compete with some of the larger firms in town and I just don't feel that that's what I want to spend the next twenty years doing - is building a larger firm - I 'm very content with what I am and if I had realized it - if I do, indeed, decide to grow or if I have the opportunity, I certainly wouldn't be able to do it in a home office because of the zoning but also because there just isn't the space in three rooms to be able to do that. I don't anticipate - but surely if I do, I will move from that location as far as being a full time - you know - regular office and multiple rooms - when you get into that size the whole ballgame changes in the profession, when you start getting that much larger. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You live there now? MR. PEWORCHIK: That is correct. PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this special permit? Could you step forward please? Take the other microphone. MR. KNAPP: My name is Steve Knapp and I live immediately adjacent to 419 West Buffalo Street. I live there with my wife, we are residential and, of course, all of those houses along there are very large so almost everybody rents out the upstairs portion of their house or something of that nature. When I purchased our house it was being used for commercial purposes, there is a back building out there that now is used for storage - it was a ceramic shop and I understand they did do some retailing out of there although that was very limited but we have, of course, not carried on any ceramic operation there and currently it is purely residen- tial. We do, as Ken mentioned, almost share driveways. There is two driveways there separated by a line of shrubs, basically. And so I would say pretty much, I legitimately would be the neighbor mostly impacted by any kind of traffic or by any commercial use of that property whatsoever. I 'd like, I think, to describe what the conditions were before Ken moved in to start with and just what the total residential use of that building entailed. Pretty much he is correct in saying that they were mainly college students who were leasing the properties there. They oftentimes, I was a college student here in town, nonstop parties were part of the function at this residence, there were oftentimes people hanging out - even in the wintertime - in the back yard, in particular, the area that is adjacent to our house. Certainly many more people were there on a daily basis than resided there and the traffic was quite frequent, PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 probably not fifteen minutes went by on a weekend when somebody wasn't driving up and down the driveway which, unfortunately, included several motorcycles. The garbage very often was not cleaned up in the back yard. There was debris strewn about, also the front was really not cared for, there would be a significant amount of leaves, garbage, or whatever in the front yard and the sidewalks were not shoveled. I did read the minutes previously - the minutes of the meeting that occurred previously on the hearing on this topic and certainly if anybody thought - in those minutes - that the sidewalks were not shoveled, they must have been thinking of the periods before Ken moved in. Since Ken has moved in, I believe the appearance of the residence itself has changed slightly in that it is clean in the front now, whereas it used to be - it is not the worst on the block but it definitely was a distraction to me coming outside at times but now it does have a clean appearance, certainly the sidewalks are shoveled on a regular basis. The amount of traffic has decreased dramatically as far as I am con- cerned. I have had, not only the opportunity, of course you notice a lot more of this on the evenings and also on the weekends, but on the days that I have had off for various reasons, again I 've noticed that certainly a much - the traffic is definitely in decline - I would say by two-thirds of what it used to be. Cer- tainly the climate - the relationship as neighbors - is there whereas it was not owner-occupied before. There were several situations where, for instance, the bushes that are on a common line - even in talking with my surveyor, they form the line of the property - I purchased the house approximately six and one-half PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 especially because of the motorcycles ripping in and out and because of the traffic, it was really difficult to, for instance, keep our front stairs clean because of the amount of dust that was generated. Now there is stone in there so we really don't notice much dust at all, if anything there is dust from my driveway that we have to contend with. Parking is at a premium there in that part of the neighborhood and certainly the amount of parking that is now made available via this driveway and parking area in the back - has certainly cut down on the problems with people visiting ourselves - who are trying to find a parking space - there is more parking available - that is the general sense that I have. So certainly I have noticed absolutely no negative elements since Ken moved in, at all, and in fact I have noticed a lot of very positive things. I also have noticed that the general comment amongst the neighbors has been either neutral or positive towards Ken's having moved in and there has really been no mention of the fact that there is actually a business going on there during the day. I think that is insignificant as far as anybody might notice any- thing, I mean, people walk down the sidewalks frequently anyhow and the fact that a few people go in occasionally - I think on the average it is a few - from what I 've noticed during a business day - the times that I have been home. The other things I noticed in the minutes - having read them - is simply there just seems to be an attitude that any change whatsoever is bad and what I would propose to the Board simply is that the nature of the comments - at least that I read in the minutes - certainly would have had to have been contrived because I see no justification for the negative PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 overtone in the minutes whatsoever and find no justification for it at all. And as I said before, I am right next door. And if traffic were bothering anybody it certainly would be bothering us. I can also speak for my tenants who live upstairs and they have found it to be certainly much nicer to live there because of the lack of parties - I know my tenants were bothered by the noise all night and things of that nature as well, so I for one am very impressed with the current situation that we have there and I would certainly be disappointed if Ken were forced to move due to the fact that the special permit were not granted and it certainly seems to me that it - without that permit there would be probably little or no motivation to try to maintain a whole floor of the house for one person. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this special permit? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? MS. FARRELL: I would like to speak in opposition, as a neighbor. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Very good, no longer a member of the Board but as a neighbor. MS. FARRELL: My name is Tracy Farrell, I live at 429 West Buffalo Street, three houses away from 419 West Buffalo. In early fall I first noticed this activity at this building. Somehow the property looked different to me, it looked like there was a business going on there, it no longer looked residential. I asked the Building commissioner, mostly in curiosity, about what was going on there. I knew no variances had been granted for the property, which is in PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 a residential zone and I wondered what was going on and what was happening. I found out later that it was being used as a business and that the person, Mr. Peworchik, did need to apply for a permit or a variance. For many years the house has been used as two apartments, one apartment on the first floor and one on the second floor and, despite what I heard tonight about this being strictly students in and out all the time, there are several tenants who are still in the building, who have been there for a very long time. I know one of them who has been there for over seven years. So, you know, maybe he has gotten a lot quieter during those years, I don't know, but there certainly have been long term tenants in that building. Anyway I talked with the Building Commissioner about what was going on there anyway and it was not until several months later that Mr. Peworchik applied for a home occupation permit. His first hearing was delayed because he did not notify all of the property owners within two hundred feet, including me, which is sort of hard to believe because I (unintelligible) special rela- tions could tell that I was two hundred feet away along the street. I find it hard to believe that Mr. Peworchik, in his line of business, didn't know that he would have to apply for some sort of variance or special permit when he bought the property. During the following months, as I observed the property, I became certain that the first floor was no longer being used as a residence. The second floor still was. No vehicles were parked between 7:45 A.M. and 5:30 P.M. in the back parking lot - there were only vehicles there during business hours. I did have opportunity to observe the parking lot - I have a new puppy - I walk my puppy all the time - PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 so I was going by at odd hours all the time. Several times I also observed Mr. Peworchik parking his truck in the lot behind the house about 8:00 A.M. and then leaving at about 5:00 P.M. Finally I pieced together - okay - so I knew - I generally knew that no one was living there but I didn't know where he was living. I finally pieced together information from several different sources and learned that Mr. Peworchik lives with his wife Carrie in Horseheads, New York. The current telephone directory for Elmira has two listings for the Peworchiks - at 99 Edgewood Drive in Horseheads - 739-8260 is listed as Ken Peworchik and 739-1406 is listed as Ken and Carrie Peworchik. I suspect that the first number is for Mr. Peworchik's real home office. According to tax map records on file in Horseheads Mr. Peworchik and his wife began building their home at 99 Edgewood Drive in July of 1985. As a matter of fact, when I went into the Tax Record office there and asked to look at information about this property the Clerk asked me if I was Mrs. Peworchik. So I went to look at their home - it is a beautiful, substantial home. They are still working on it. I have photographs of the home, if anyone wants to see it. There is quite a difference between this home and the business property at 419 West Buffalo Street. Since Mr. Peworchik is not living at 419 West Buffalo, he is merely using the property for his business office, and therefore he can't legally apply for a special permit for a home occupation, in my view. I deeply resent this subterfuge and I sincerely hope that this situation will not be allowed to continue at the expense of our residential neighborhood. It is true, PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 Buffalo Street is a very busy street and it would be very easy to turn all the properties there into businesses. So that's my view. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board to our neighbor - neighbor in this case being Tracy. MR. WEAVER: Just a general question. Are conditions on Buffalo Street worse or better as a result of the present occupancy and use? MS. FARRELL: I don't know now Charlie. My feeling is, this whole case shouldn't be looked at as to whether conditions are better or worse. At this point it is no longer - it should no longer be viewed as an application for a home office. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you Tracy. MR. SIEVERDING: Well this is a pretty serious charge, are we talking about the same Mr. Peworchik, I guess that is the only question I would have to ask - are you pretty confident that it is the same person? MS. FARRELL: I am, yes. MR. WEAVER: Well Herman, the Board has the right to talk to Mr. Peworchik - he may not have a right to speak up, but we have a right to ask him questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well shall we save the questions until such time as we've heard from the other folks in the audience? Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in opposition to the granting of this special permit - if you would come forward please. PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MS. FURMAN: My name is Nellie Furman and I live and own the property at 423 West Buffalo Street which is two doors away from Mr. Peworchik's house and I have a number of things that I person- ally resent in Mr. Peworchik's claim here. First of all the claim that he is living there which is the first one, I just don't like to be lied to. The other things that I do resent - I have lived in the neighborhood for twelve years and during my twelve years in that neighborhood the house was never a commercial - a business - in my twelve years there. Now I do resent the way the house looks. The outside of the house - on the first floor there is plastic on the windows - torn plastic - I dislike the way the siding is a hodge-podge mixture of sidings on the top floor. The house is beginning to look like a slum building and I do resent that. When I moved in to the neighborhood this was basically a residential neighborhood and I certainly wouldn't want to see it turned into a business street and therefore I would be against it - what is proposed (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? (none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposi- tion? Come forward please? MS. VAUGHN: My name is Stephanie Vaughn, I live at 113 Park Place which I 'm glad to hear is within two hundred feet of the property since I was invited to speak here the last time but not otherwise accommodated - I received a notice that I was within the two hundred feet. . . MR. PEWORCHIK: You got a notice this time too, anyway. I covered all the bases. PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MS. VAUGHN: I got a notice this time too, yes. Since I spoke at such great lengths last time and I was the only one to speak last time, I 'll try to be a little briefer since you have more input. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. MS. VAUGHN: I would just like to add that I too am distressed to learn that Mr. Peworchik apparently does not live even in our town nor very close to our town and that his real residential neighbor- hood is on a fairly nice piece of land in Horseheads and that suggests, as many of us have feared all along, that he doesn't have a stake in our residential - in the residential nature of our neighborhood and that is why I have come again - to request the Board to deny the special permit and to proceed insofar as you are able to close this business down and thereby interrupt the prece- dents that are already, apparently, being established in the neighborhood. I 'd like to say that because Buffalo is already a busy street - I 've touched on this before but I 'd like to say it again - just because West Buffalo and the surrounding area which we live in is a busy street, it doesn't mean that it should become busier or that it should become more commercial. We are a neigh- borhood of some grandfathered business but largely a residential people, including not only home owners but renters and I think it is unfortunate that Mr. Knapp had to live next to very loud party students who drive up and down driveways but - and perhaps he does have a better neighbor now, but I think we don't want to live in a business neighborhood and I would remind you as I reminded you before that this property is one-half block from two schools and I think it will always remain - at least in the forseeable future - PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 one-half block from two schools - this is a growing neighborhood, there are many babes in arms, three of them within two houses of me, and many small children living in this neighborhood already, who will be walking past these driveways on their way to those schools. There is lots more that we could cover here but I think the main point is that this application seems inappropriate. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are there any questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Come forward please. MR. SCHWARTZBACH: I 'm Neil Schwartzbach, I live and own 107 Park Place. I would just like to say that I was just shocked to hear that Mr. Peworchik said that he had covered all the bases, notify- ing people within two hundred feet since I haven't received notifi- cation of any of these meetings since the first notification went out in December and I am clearly well within two hundred feet. I 've been dismayed all the way along that I 've only found out about these meetings on the night of each meeting. Several statements that Mr. Peworchik made were distressing - one, to state that Buffalo Street is a busy street anyway merely highlights the problem rather than obsolves the present situation - in fact, Buffalo Street is a busy street and therefore has the potential always to become busier and to move more towards a business orient- ed kind of street. Clearly this is not the direction that I would like to see the neighborhood go in, nor is it the one that my neighbors would like to see it go in. On the 100 block of Park Place there are eight houses, three of those eight houses were owned by absentee landlords two years ago. Now they are all owner-occupied and including HOMES of Ithaca, which I consider to PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 +be owner-occupied. So the neighborhood is clearly moving in what I think and I think what the Board probably thinks, is in the right direction - owner-occupied and clearly residential. And I was distressed when I first heard the suggestion that Mr. Peworchik wasn't living at the premises - that it was not, indeed, an owner-occupied business. I called up Horseheads directory myself today, to find out - indeed there are two listings and at the residential number there is no recording - at least to indicate that the phone is disconnected - that you can reach the individual at such and such a number or whatever. So I have my doubts about that. I certainly haven't seen any signs of residents - that it has been occupied on the first floor - although I might confess that I haven't been entirely vigilant on that matter either. But directory information in Horseheads - at least, have two numbers. There are, I might add, throughout the evening - I 'm sympathatic to Mr. Knapp but I don't think the issue is necessarily one of busi- ness versus students and - as the history of Park Place suggests - places can become owner-occupied where they were previously owned by absentee landlords. So all in all, I find this application distressing and I find the previous proceedings of Mr. Peworchik to be quite objectionable since he purchased the property without even making it contingent upon receiving a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. He never applied for a variance, when he did apply, he didn't notify everyone and, as I have said, I haven't been notified of a meeting since December. So if that's what defines a good neighbor, then perhaps I should move to a friendlier community. PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposi- tion to the granting of this special permit? [no one] That being the case, it is the pleasure of the Board. Does anyone want to address Mr. Peworchik further - you suggested that you might want to Herman? MR. SIEVERDING: Well I think this whole issue of the residence in Elmira, in view of the fact - do you live at Horseheads or do you live at 419 West Buffalo Street? MR. PERWORCHIK: I live - my primary residence is 419 West Buffalo Street. MR. SIEVERDING: And your secondary residence? MR. PEWORCHIK: Is in Horseheads, New York, if you want to call it secondary. My wife - when I met my wife she lived in Elmira, I lived at 428 North Tioga Street and we were married. After we were married we looked for land - she wanted to build a house, and so did I, we found a piece of land in Horseheads - it was good for both of us - it was in between both of our work locations - my profession relying on being in the area and living in the area. My commitment was made to Ithaca - that house in Ithaca was bought long before any house was ever built in Horseheads. Horseheads was after the fact. So the different reasons here - as far as the primary residence, Ithaca was my residence long before Horseheads and still is - I still maintain a residence in Ithaca and as far as the nights that I spend there, I spend as many nights in Ithaca as I do in Horseheads and what I do with my weekend time, personal time as far as traveling and not being home - and every time that PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 I 'm not home in the evening or on a weekend - the times that I 'm not here, doesn't mean that I 'm in Horseheads. MR. SIEVERDING: But your family resides in Horseheads? MR. PEWORCHIK: I wouldn't say my family. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Your family resides in Ithaca? MR. PEWORCHIK: Well it's a funny situation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Funny situations - just plain explain it. MR. PEWORCHIK: I 'm registered to vote here - I vote here, this is where I live and my wife lives in Horseheads - I mean that's not. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Does she visit you on some weekends and you visit her, I mean is this one of these kind of trans-continental marriag- es, I mean - how does it work, I guess is what we really want to know, we are trying to establish where your primary residence is. And I think in line with recent decisions the Board has had with respect to single owner-occupancy and the kind of redefinition of family units, it is not completely out of line that we ask the questions. Care to enlighten us? MR. PEWORCHIK: I 'm sorry? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Care to enlighten us? MR. PEWORCHIK: I still maintain that my primary residence is here in Ithaca. MS JOHNSON: What do you mean by primary residence, how would you define that? MR. PEWORCHIK: This is where I live, this is where I reside, this is where - this is where I spend, primarily, most of my time - is in Ithaca. PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. SCHWAB: Let me ask you another average question. On an average week or month, how many nights do you spend here? MR. PEWORCHIK: Not counting weekends, well over half. And counting weekends, surely half. MR. SCHWAB: Maybe you can help us out here. It seems to me the point of allowing special permits to the owner-occupier of a house is - as one of the speakers said - to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and to ensure that that business person also cares for the property, as a resident. Could you speak to this - that you are here enough - that you are around as a resident and not. . . MR. PEWORCHIK: Oh surely - no doubt in my mind. I think my neighbors have seen that - that the condition of the building - I 'm around - they see me - I think I 'm around enough as the owner of the building - and occupying the building. MR. SIEVERDING: In 419 - where do you reside, in the downstairs apartment or the upstairs? MR. PEWORCHIK: Downstairs. The upstairs is rented. MR. SIEVERDING: And in terms of taxes, do you claim that as a business expense - do you take, say, depreciation. . . MR. PEWORCHIK: I take one quarter as individual and one quarter as my home office in the front and then one-half is rental. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is your drivers license and your registration for your automobile in Ithaca or Elmira? MR. PEWORCHIK: My drivers license is in Ithaca, automobile is in Ithaca - my pistol permit is in Ithaca - everything. PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. WEAVER: Mr. Chairman, possibly the Commissioner could help us. We are involved with the Zoning Ordinance here and home occupation - home being a rather homely word at the moment - what are we trying to define - are we trying to define that there is a legal residence at this location? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right - that this is essentially his primary residence. MR. WEAVER: Well a legal residence - does that have anything to do with where he sleeps? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: One would assume. MR. WEAVER: Well I don't. I have seen several of these hat on a coat rack residents around town and I just wonder what the legal definition that meets the requirements of this Ordinance . . . SECRETARY HOARD: There is not a clear definition in the Ordinance. I 'm sure we have discussed . . . MR. WEAVER: If a person votes from - that has traditionally been one of the ways of identifying residence - not that it proves it - are there other requirements of proving a residence for the purpos- es of law or are there not? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well Charlie, let me just, if I can, expand on what I see as related. I 'm not saying that it is, I 'm not trying to make a wall with respect to this particular instance but the Ithaca Municipal Code was amended because - you remember - we had difficulty defining what a functional family unit was, with respect to a residential situation - whether it was a single family or two family and what the Council tried to do was give us some guidance as to how we could define whether the property was being used by a PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 functional family unit or a single family or in a residential fashion. What I 'm trying to do, is essentially get more specific to the degree we can, to determine whether, in effect as has been charged - this is or is not - it seems the question - whether this is or is not primarily his home - or his residence - his place of residence. MR. WEAVER: Which does the Code use - it uses residence doesn't it? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well essentially right now we are talking about residence - one and two-family is R2b - this is the zone it is in. What I am trying to do is to see whether, in fact, we meet that one and two family definition with respect to the current zoning we have been charged with enforcing. And this is why - it may seem obtuse - nevertheless - to direct questions about voter registra- tion, drivers license - because these are the questions which the Council, essentially, put before us, as tests - or some of the tests that we can use to guide us in determining whether in fact the individual coming before us was in compliance. MR. WEAVER: And those standards are. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: They are in the paragraph 28, Subdivision B entitled. . . and it goes on from there. It is essentially Section 30.3b-2-20-a as was passed on February 4, 1987 . MR. SIEVERDING: And this is why all that discussion on voter registration, driver license. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All of those things - I 'd be glad to pass this around - I mean, I had given some thought prior to the meeting because I could understand that there was some difficulty about how PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 one would define "home". But to the degree one can define "resi- dential one and two-family R2b use" it seems entirely appropriate that those questions be asked. MR. WEAVER: I 'm not questioning whether it is appropriate or not, I 'm just wondering what the test is. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well those are some of the tests - to give us some guidance. Those aren't the only tests, I might add - I just happen to tick off a couple of them and bring them up. MR. SIEVERDING: I think within the definition of home occupation, there is that whole section of the paragraph that addresses the home occupation - the home occupation is incidental - sort of secondary to the primary purpose of the property. For me the big question is, you know, what's the primary motivation for buying the property - to have a convenient location for an office and then the residential portion becomes secondary - given the residence in Elmira - or is it the other way around - I mean, for me it is a very grey - not too clear - area. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Helen, any thoughts? or questions? MR. PEWORCHIK: After listening to all the things you can do - you can clearly see it is a grey area. My situation may be unique to others but I don't think it is one worth making jokes about - laughing about - I 'm not creating humor - I 'm not implying that you are degrading me but it has happened. I live in Ithaca - that's where I 've been living - for four years now and its not a matter - once you are married and you only have one-half say, if you want a reasonable marriage - and we just ended up with two locations - two residences. PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MS. FARRELL: May I add something? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, I 'm afraid not Tracy. MR. PEWORCHIK: So . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Maybe you have a feeling of what Senator Hart is going through now. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it is a particularly sticky question for us all along. MR. SIEVERDING: It's not only that - this seems to be a very, very fluid kind of situation that could change immediately after grant- ing the variance and that's what makes me very uncomfortable - the fact that there are two residences involved - both of which are claimed to be primary. MR. PEWORCHIK: Primary for one spouse? I don't know how to answer that. MS. JOHNSON: That doesn't meet the definition of a functional family unit. MR. WEAVER: Well, do we have any more questions of Mr. Peworchik? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have any more questions? MR. WEAVER: I don't. MS. JOHNSON: I have one more question. Was there any interruption between your doing business in Ithaca between 428 North Tioga and the Buffalo Street? MR. PEWORCHIK: Interruption? MS. JOHNSON: Did you move right from one to the other? MR. PEWORCHIK: Yes - not a big move - mine is not a big office. I moved out of one on Saturday and was operating on Monday. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart, any questions of the appellant? PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. SCHWAB: I haven't seen the list - do we have it for the Board? MR. PEWORCHIK: I certainly intend to continue to live in Ithaca. My business is a personal type of promotion business - advertising - and it is a PR type of business - you build your clientele with the clients you have and the clients that you meet at social functions and what not, so I always plan living in Ithaca, New York. If the situation changes, I don't know how you - I just can't see it, if I was to primarily live in Horseheads, I don't think I would have my office in Ithaca. There are clients in the Horseheads area too, I have people from Cortland, Syracuse, Watertown - there are people that I have made friends with over the years that go into business - in Rochester - but not a lot of them - I travel to Rochester - I travel to Utica and Albany - but I 'd say that Ithaca is where I am from and that's my base. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart, now that you've seen that, any ques- tions? Does it help or confuse things? MR. SCHWAB: Do you have any children? MR. PEWORCHIK: Yes, one children - one child. MR. SCHWAB: Who lives in Horseheads? MR. PEWORCHIK: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The child lives in Horseheads? MR. PEWORCHIK: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm sorry, say that again? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The child lives in Horseheads. Okay, the conclu- sion of questions for the appellant, perhaps we want to close discussion and begin to think about some sort of motion. PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. WEAVER: I would like to clearly make sure that Mr. Peworchik is excused and departs our turf. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh, surely. MR. WEAVER: And to find out whether we have discussion or not. I don't want him participating. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No I was going to stop that in a hurry. MR. WEAVER: I assume that our "neighbor" will remain silent. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Our "neighbor" will remain silent. MS. FARRELL: It will be hard though. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand it's hard Tracy, but you will attempt to be quiet. PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1741 FOR 419 WEST BUFFALO STREET MR. WEAVER: I find a key thing to know whether, in fact, the establishment of a residence - a legal residence - which may be a technical compliance but nevertheless could be a legal one, is sufficient to support such an application. What you are referring to is trying to define a dwelling unit. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Residential use. MR. WEAVER: No question about residential use but not establishing a residence as far as meeting the requirements of the law. My wife and I spend half of our time in Key West - and half of it in Ithaca. We could determine that we want one or the other to be our residence. We would establish that probably primarily by voting and paying taxes every place, but the - then the argument about where our residence is would be an argument over where we had established residence, rather than what, in fact, was the use. If we stayed one day extra in either one, I don't think it would damage our legal residence qualifications and I 'm just saying that I 'm not trying to make a case for or against this appeal, I 'm just saying that I don't see the establishment of a home occupation on the basis of residence - meeting that requirement as being quite as black and white as our discussion has been so far and I 'm also aware that the legal profession being very successful at establish- ing a residence and never living there - or maybe a cot one day a year or some darn thing that is common useage in the City of Ithaca. So, not in support, nor in opposition to this, I do feel personally a modification of a decision that we know where the appellant's residence is because he has got a house in Horseheads. PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 Secondly, it is appropriate to ask the question whether things are better or worse on West Buffalo Street as a result of this - is there more noise or other things that would be objectionable in a residential neighborhood. So, I guess I was told in one way or another not to ask that question because its a business, whether it is good or bad - in a neighborhood and to give this special permit we really need to answer that question, whether we would like to or not. And finally, certainly the fact that this was once a use for business doesn't have any effect to me at all - any property in a residential neighborhood used for a non-conforming use - that use being abandoned for a period of time, has no grandfather rights, as I understand it and so this property - I don't care long the insurance business was there - it is a long time ago and it has no affect upon present classification of the building in the neighbor- hood - it is a residential use. That's all I have to comment on. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further comments from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The only other comment I have has to do really, (unintelligible) centers around the residency and what is primary and what is secondary. As I read the definition of a home occupa- tion - the way it is defined anyway - is that the occupation is really secondary - it is a secondary use of the property - not a primary use of the property and I think the fact that the appellant has a property - a substantial single family - newly constructed house - not too distant from Ithaca - really clouds that defini- tion. I 'm not quite sure whether he has met that neighborhood test of what a home occupation is. PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 SECRETARY HOARD: I just want to remind the Board that this is coming back after having been denied so you first have to decide whether there is new information for reopening the hearing. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you Tom. Charlie, with respect to dwelling, owner-occupied shall mean a residential building containing one or more dwelling units. Which one is the property owners principal residence and is in fact occupied by the owner for more than six (6) months of the calendar year - that is how it reads - just as a reference point. Helen, further questions or comments? Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: I go along with Herman. I think that - largely from what we heard the last time - I think that if he lives there, I think this is a case for a special permit, in that accounting is at the heart of a special permit and the parking seems to be taken care of. I think it is significant that the next door neighbor, who would be most immediately affected, said that there is no problem from the business aspects. So, if we can determine that this is an owner-occupied house I am inclined to grant the special permit but I 'd have to see whether it is. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Let's go back to Tom's question, I think it is a good one - we have to decide as a Board whether in fact there was additional information presented and I think that should be up front as a motion before we proceed to considering if, assuming the motion is positive, that there is new information. MR. WEAVER: Well whether it was a clear understanding or a further understanding, certainly a picture before and after, lets me understand that there hasn't been some major alteration to the front of the building. In fact, I do miss the tree. PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There is the difference between the tree, I noticed that myself. Assumedly the question, Charlie, is more specifically, is there between the last time this was heard, and this time - the appellant returning with new information to support his appeal? MR. SIEVERDING: It's information brought by the appellant? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. WEAVER: Also - not that he brought anything new - but that was not available to him at the time of the original application. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MS. JOHNSON: I didn't feel there was anything new. MR. SIEVERDING: I was absent last month. . . everything was new to me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: Well what is new, I think could have been brought in last time - mainly the new thing is the next door neighbor who wasn't here last time. The other difference, of course, in proce- dure though, of course is that Tracy was participating last time, which I don't know exactly what the rules are on that but I think that is a significant difference. I don't know exactly how that affects things. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you are willing to believe that the appellant is returning with new information? MR. SCHWAB: Well it is not new information, she was here last time. MS. FARRELL: She is not here this time. PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. SCHWAB: And she is not here this time. If that was a mistake last time I would like to proceed this time, but I 'm not sure whether it was a mistake or not. Do we have - is there a rule on that? SECRETARY HOARD: On the neighbor? MR. SCHWAB: Whether a neighbor can participate as a member of the Board - a person within two hundred feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: As long as the member of the Board acknowledges that he or she is within the two hundred feet, it's really up to the member of the Board to state whether in fact he or she feels so encumbered by that position or by being within the two hundred feet - to bow out or not. MR. SCHWAB: Which of course, the funny thing is, if she had bowed out last time it has the effect of a negative vote anyway. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Exactly. The result would have been the same regardless of whether she would have - essentially - withdrawn from voting - participating - assuming she voted negative. MR. WEAVER: And becoming a neighbor this time, is a no vote - just as effective. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. Essentially it's the same thing, it is a wash in both cases. Didn't help you much there I guess. So let me just ask, is it the case then that somebody is willing to make a motion that in fact there was new information presented to support the appeal? MR. WEAVER: Well further discussion on that matter - we can take the position that there was not, which means that we won't hear any of this. Take the position that there was and being in the PAGE 50 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 uncomfortable position of making a decision. I can't see any - if we are going to be useful and enforcing the Zoning Ordinance that the latter course of ignoring the niceties of how perfect the second application was, we get into the question - which is the real question, is he eligible for a home occupation there? Without predicting the composition of the Board has changed by one member since that time? Yes. SECRETARY HOARD: Well you could say two. One off and one on. MR. WEAVER: I think the neighbor is here both times - with a negative vote. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: One way or the other, it doesn't make any differ- ence - it's a wash. . . MR. WEAVER: I would - whether this is true or not - I 'm not absolutely prepared to fight . . . PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1741a for 419 WEST BUFFALO STREET MR. WEAVER: I will move that there is sufficient new evidence submitted by the appellant that supports the need for a new hear- ing. MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. VOTE ON 1741a: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSTENTION CARRIED DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1741b for 419 WEST BUFFALO STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation to permit the home occupation of an accountant at 419 West Buffalo Street. A previous request for a Special Permit was denied by the Board on January 5, 1987. MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board deny the Special Permit requested in Appeal Number 1741. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. It hasn't been shown that the use being appealed clearly met the definition of a Home Occupation. There is a big question as to whether the primary purpose of this property is office or residential given the fact that he owns a substantial dwelling not too far from Ithaca - in Horseheads. 2. It is apparent that the applicant splits his time substantial- ly between the residence in Ithaca and Elmira, with a substan- tial portion of that time being spent with his family at the Elmira property. VOTE ON 1741b: 4 YES; 1 NO; 1 ABSTENTION DENIED PAGE 52 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MORE DISCUSSION WHICH TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE MOTION ON 1741B WAS MADE AND VOTED UPON: MR. SCHWAB: It seems to me, the trouble I have, it seems to me that if it is on sort of counting up the type of things as to where you vote, where your pistol permit is, that sort of thing, he met the test (unintelligible) and got those things here in Ithaca, if its a more count against that - the statements that Herman made - that this is a very crude situation. We've got no control once we grant this special permit of him leaving - even if he keeps all his voting there - but it is unclear to me where to draw the line on that sort of fluid thing - if he takes off - I think this is not a situation just to laugh at, I think it does happen that husband and wife live apart and each can have separate residences and I don't think we (unintelligible) although we are coming pretty close to (unintelligible) we look at reality - what is going on. MS. JOHNSON: It seems to me the word "primary" is important. I 'm not sure how we should define it. MR. SCHWAB: This being that the occupation is the secondary thing to residence, which is primary? That the reason for this house is business as opposed to living there? MR. SIEVERDING: That's what it hinges on for me - is whether or not he has met the definition of a home occupation and my feeling is that he has not. I think that is where I am going to come down on the issue and I think that is primarily (unintelligible) in Elmira and I think it is just a matter of convenience and the primary purpose of the property really appears to be the office use. PAGE 53 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1753 FOR 224-236 FLORAL AVENUE: Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for an area variance for deficient off-street parking under Section 30.25, Column 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the subdivision of the existing parcel at 224-236 Floral Avenue into two separate building lots for one- and two-family homes. The property is located in an R3a (Residential, multiple-dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however Section 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the appellant obtain an area variance for the deficient off-street parking before a building permit for the houses can be issued, and Subdivision regulations also require that the Zoning deficiencies be corrected or variances obtained before the proposed subdivision can be approved by the Planning and Development Board. This appeal was held over from the April 6, 1987 Board meeting at the request of the appellant. MS. FARRELL: Before we get started, a point of clarification, I 'm on the Board of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services and I wanted to know from Tom whether there is - does it seem like there is a conflict of interest for me to vote on this? I don't have any financial interest in this Organization. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you are not a contiguous property owner? MR. FARRELL: No. PAGE 54 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The City Attorney - I've forgotten how the City Attorney ended up with this. MS. FARRELL: Well you said that it might be a conflict of interest but we never clarified it totally. MR. SIEVERDING: Well you do, sort of, have a vested interest in seeing to the policies of the Neighborhood Housing Service. . . MS. FARRELL: All right if there seems to be a problem, I will abstain again. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We would appreciate your silence. MS. FARRELL: Well I can talk but I won't vote. MR. CURTIS: I 'm Ben Curtis, I 'm the Rehab Coordinator of the Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. The City recently conveyed the property known as 224 - 236 Floral Avenue to INHS for develop- ment into housing for low and moderately income residents. INNS proposes to subdivide the lots into three parcels, two building lots, suitable for one or two family houses and one parcel to be conveyed to an adjacent property to satisfy an encroachment problem and a side yard deficiency. The area is zoned R3a and the use is permitted. The proposed lots and structures to be located on them, conform with City area requirements in all ways except for the provision of off-street parking. There are practical difficulties in providing off-street parking on these lots due to the steep bank between the building lots and Floral Avenue. The problem is common to many of the houses in this area and traditionally residents in those houses have parked across the street on the east side of Floral Avenue. The City's Floral Avenue improvement project eliminated the private parking on the east side of Floral Avenue PAGE 55 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 but in recognition of the continued need of neighborhood residents for such off-street parking, the City provided public parking areas on the east side of Floral Avenue. There are currently fourteen houses in this stretch of Floral Avenue, ten of which lack off-street parking, other than that provided by the City. The houses we are proposing will bring that number up to twelve. The City has provided approximately thirty-five parking places. Although adequate and available off-street parking exists within five hundred feet of the lots and within one thousand feet along public pedestrian thoroughfares we must request a variance of the off-street parking requirements because that parking is in a public parking area. As such it does not appear to exactly fulfill the conditions set forth in Section 30.37 Al, location requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, even though these parking places were provided for the purpose of off-street parking and are generally used as such by the residents of this area. We feel that on this basis granting a variance would be very much in keeping with the spirit of the Ordinance and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. I 'm not sure if I made available to the Board a map of the parking situation in that area. Do you have a map of the lots? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, I think so. MR. SCHWAB: Have you seen the April 8th memo from Mr. Gray? MR. CURTIS: Yes I have. I read it and I responded to it, if you like I can read you the response to that. I also talked to Mr. Gray. I can read it quickly, if you like. "In response to your memo to Jon Meigs of April 8, 1987, I would like to clarify my PAGE 56 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 position regarding parking on Floral Avenue. The "existing" parking problem about which I contacted the Enginering Department pertained to the location of parking areas on the east side of Floral Avenue, not to the number of spaces provided. By our count the City has provided thirty-five parking places on the east side of Floral Avenue - there are currently fourteen houses in the stretch of Floral Avenue, ten of which lack off-street parking. There are more than enough parking places to meet the current need. There will be more than enough if we add two houses. It is for this reason, coupled with the practical difficulties of providing parking on the west side of Floral Avenue that I feel a variance for the off-street parking requirement would be in order. The parking has already been provided. As a separate issue, it has come to our attention that none of the cutouts of the parking areas provided by the City are in convenient proximity to 242 - 256 Floral Avenue. Seven of the ten houses lacking on-site parking. It is our understanding that prior to the Floral Avenue improvement project most of these houses had proximate parking and there seems to be some feeling among the residents of those houses that the City Engineer at that time promised that there would be parking across from their homes. What might seem like a petty annoyance, having to park two hundred to five hundred feet from ones house can be a real hardship during severe weather or for older residents. The practice of unloading groceries in front of the house with emergency lights flashing is not unknown in this area. We are suggesting that the City consider the installation of another cutout to accommodate eight cars located across from 246 Floral PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 Avenue. . . " and then we get into some estimates of the cost and so forth. MS. JOHNSON: You are proposing that the new cutout be across from 246? MR. CURTIS: Yes there is an open area with trees and whatnot (unintelligible) Other departments of the City are looking into that as a separate issue - I think regardless of whether houses are added here or not added here, the issue of parking for those residents should be considered. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Ben, would you mind submitting a copy of that letter you just read - that you wrote in response - to complete the file? MR. SIEVERDING: What is the problem Ben, with providing parking - with that lease has a property at 224 - I can see what the problem might be with 236 because it doesn't have any access and you have to go through 224 to get there but is there a way to provide some on-site parking at 224? MR. CURTIS: It is possible to do it, it wouldn't be without considerable difficulty - it would require grading the driveway up alongside of the sidewalk that was recently installed there, there was a similar situation a couple of doors down, we restructured the sidewalk in the area to eliminate that situation (unintelligible) a sidewalk proximate to a driveway. MR. SIEVERDING: You did 222 as well? MR. CURTIS: Pardon me? MR. SIEVERDING: You provided. . . PAGE 58 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. CURTIS: No the parking at 222 is currently there, however the sidewalk at one time used to pass right through the middle of the driveway to 222 . The sidewalk was moved and the access path that was used to bring the house that currently sits at 236 onto that site, was then used as the location for a sidewalk since it would provide the opportunity to change grade without stairs, thereby make it a little bit more comfortable for people - particularly people who might have physical limitations. SECRETARY HOARD: I noticed today there was a house trailer on the 224 parcel, is that the property of NHS or. . . MR. CURTIS: No I believe that is the property of the residents of 222 . This is a property to whom we are conveying part of this land in order to satisfy their encroachment and give them a legal side yard. The trailer does go beyond that point and would have to be removed in order to use that for a building lot. MS. JOHNSON: So 224 is the house that is there now? MR. CURTIS: No 224 is one of the proposed houses, 236 is the house that was formerly near the corner of State and Meadow and was moved over there some time in the past. MS. JOHNSON: In using this parking from the cut across the street, that is not adequate because that is needed for other dwellings or what kind of off-street parking. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Pardon me? MS. JOHNSON: The parking across from 222 (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: The Zoning Ordinance does not count the parking that you see on the Inlet Channel side of the street as satisfying the parking requirements. PAGE 59 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. SCHWAB: Because it's public. . . MR. SIEVERDING: What exactly is the parking deficiency? The note on the worksheet says that one or two family dwellings - do you know what you are going to do there? MR. CURTIS: 236 would be a single family, that one is already - the drawing is already complete for that. 224 would be a one or two family, due to the size limitations there, if it were a two-family I suspect that the second unit would be a small unit, a utility or efficiency unit. MS. JOHNSON: Do you have a house for that - are you moving a house onto that 224 spot? MR. CURTIS: No we don't have a house specifically targeted for that. In fact there is a possibility that we might build a new house. SECRETARY HOARD: How about one of the ones up on Elm Street that you own? MR. WEAVER: You can bring it down through the steep back yard? MR. CURTIS: We'll talk with Norm about it. MS. JOHNSON: If you didn't put 224 there, could you make that parking? MR. CURTIS: Well we would have the same difficulty of bringing a driveway up the bank and into the area. Of course, that would require a fair amount of excavation and so forth. In addition to that we are in an area where there is quite a bit of parking available and open spaces are something of a premium. MR. WEAVER: Whose sidewalk is that? Did you install that? PAGE 60 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. CURTIS: Yes. Previously the sidewalk used to go almost directly in front of 222 and then through their driveway. MR. WEAVER: But you hold the deed to this property? MR. CURTIS: Yes at this point the City has conveyed a deed to us. We placed the sidewalk prior to getting a deed to the property but the City has conveyed a deed to us for that property, now. MS. JOHNSON: At 214-216 or 222? MR. CURTIS: 224 through 236. These lots pictured here [pointing to plot plan] CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you Ben. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? MS. STUCKEY: My name is Myrtie Stuckey and I live at 208 Floral Avenue and I 'm just here to say that Ithaca Neighborhood Housing has done a lot for the low income families and I would like to say we need as many low income houses as we can get on Floral Avenue so I 'm just here in favor of more houses on Floral Avenue. We do have a lot of parking there. The parking lot in front of where I live there is hardly ever anyone there, overnight, so there is plenty of parking space, so I'm just saying that we need more housing - low income housing on Floral Avenue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this appeal? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, it is ours. Further discussion or a motion? PAGE 61 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. WEAVER: A matter of curiosity, rather than fact, how does City dispose of these properties, do they have an auction, or do they declare this property surplus or. . . SECRETARY HOARD: I think it was open to bid. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to purchase one? MR. WEAVER: No - without a variance and without a subdivision, and so on, it is quite a speculation. MR. CURTIS: No the property in this case was conveyed - do you want me to address this? MR. WEAVER: You don't need to answer the question. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: His idle curiosity - we don't have to get into that, let's move along and see if we can get a motion out of someone here. I think we've got one moving. PAGE 62 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1753 FOR 224-236 FLORAL AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Ben Curtis (for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services) for an area variance to permit the subdivision of the existing parcel at 224-236 Floral Avenue into two separate building lots for one- or two-family homes. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1753 . MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. That there are practical difficulties in providing on-street parking given the amount of site that is available for siting buildings because of the topography and the fact that access to both properties is difficult because of the topography. 2 . There appears to be plenty of off-street parking available on the east side of Floral Avenue. 3 . The exception observes the spirit of the Ordinance and will not change the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSTENTION GRANTED PAGE 63 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1759 FOR 407 CLIFF STREET: Appeal of Lawrence J. Kolar and Daniel F. Liguori for use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit expansion of the Kolar Machine facility at 407 Cliff Street, with the construction of a 60 foot by 70 foot addition to the south end of the existing building. The property is located in an R3a (Residential, multiple dwelling) Use District in which a light industrial use is not a permitted use. The existing use has been operat- ing under a series of use variances, and is there- fore legal. However, under Section 30.49 of the Zoning Ordinance the applicants must obtain a use variance for the proposed expansion, before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I think you know the procedure. MR. GALBRAITH: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dirk Galbraith, I 'm an attorney, I have professional offices at 308 North Tioga Street in the City of Ithaca, which I am pleased to say at a property which is zoned for law office use, and I represent the appellant in this proceeding, Mr. Kolar and Mr. Liguori. Mr. Liguori is here with me this evening. This application seeks a use variance for an addition to the existing Kolar Machine building on Cliff Street. It is to be approximately a sixty by seventy foot addition. We have filed a site plan and hope that the Board has PAGE 64 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 had an opportunity to look at it. There is adequate space on the lot that this can be constructed without a set back variance of any kind. The proposed construction is necessary in order to house some additional equipment and provide additional working space within the building for the employees. Kolar presently employs approximately fifty people and the proposed addition would lead to a staff increase of three to five people. There is additional on-site parking for all of the employees and any increase in the work staff as a result of this. The necessity for this, from an economic point of view is principally because of an increase production output by Kolar Machine and the necessity of having additional space to house the machinery and provide a safe and pleasant working environment for the employees without trying to cram more machinery into existing space. Now this is in an R3a zone on Cliff Street but I believe it is fair to say that the area - I think for a number of reasons - has really become less desireable as a residential area - I think that possibly with the construction of the new Route 96 - if it ever occurs - you are going to see less residential emphasis in that area. In the case of this property, none of the proposed Route 96 routes would involve the taking of any of this property. Route C, I think, which has been proposed would cut just to the south of it. I do not believe that the proposed change would cause any appreciable change in the character of the neighborhood. I believe it is necessary from an economic point of view - from the needs of Kolar Machine - I think it provides - it is a good employer in this Community particularly with other similar employers either cutting PAGE 65 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 back their work forces or going out of business altogether and I do not believe there would be any adverse affect on anyone in the neighborhood if this variance were granted. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We have not seen the site plan - may I ask to have it distributed? Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: Quickly, repeat or sum up, in a use variance you have got to show the necessity - say again what the need for expansion? MR. GALBRAITH: In order to provide additional space to house additional machinery which is being purchased to meet the produc- tion needs of Kolar Machine without trying to cram the same amount of machinery into the existing space - it would, I believe, provide what Mr. Liguori thinks would be a safer more pleasant environment for his employees - if he could have additional work space. I think also - along the same lines - the lot is large enough that it is not all being utilized at the moment and given the character of the neighborhood I believe it would be very unrealistic to think of developing any part of that for residential use. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What is the nature of the financial hardship? MR. GALBRAITH: I would say - and I will let Mr. Liguori speak to this as well - you have a fairly large lot here that is already developed in a commercial fashion - if he is not allowed to expand it in this way - he cannot meet present production needs at Kolar Machine and as a result he is either going to have to try to meet those needs by putting more machinery in a smaller space or he is not going to meet the requirements of the present production. Another thing - I had a question about that as well, in looking at this, that you also have a situation here of where this is not so PAGE 66 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 much going in and asking for a new use variance - in other words we are not trying to convert something that is R3a into industrial or commercial type use - what we've got is an existing facility that we are making an expansion to and it doesn't fit neatly into - I think - the traditional criteria for a use variance. So I guess the economic hardship is really that you can't use the land for a residential purpose - it can be used to expand the present commer- cial/industrial type purpose and we believe that that expansion is a hardship. MR. WEAVER: It hasn't been mentioned but it seems to me that an expansion to an off-site location would be impractical as a manu- facturing process would need some continuity of supervision and flow and so on. Is this in fact just an expansion of the existing business or is this a new venture that can be next door? MR. LIGUORI: This is the existing business. We've grown - we've added anywhere, generally, from one to three machine tools a year for about the last six or seven years and we are at the point now where we can't put in any additional equipment. We either have to begin trading in older equipment or we have to have an expansion. And we would like to grow and keep what we have and consequently buy new. MS. JOHNSON: Is the new equipment you are buying going to have any more of an impact on the neighborhood? Is it the same sort of thing that you have been using? MR. LIGUORI: Exactly the same. MS. JOHNSON: Just more of it? Is it noisy? MR. LIGUORI: No. PAGE 67 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. WEAVER: On Cliff Street? Compared to what? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you anticipate an increase in the number of employees by virtue of the expansion of the facility? Yes? MR. LIGUORI: Yes, I would say in the initial year after it would probably by three and it would go as high as five. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What kind of machinery are you thinking of adding? MR. LIGUORI: CNC machine tools. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Herman questions? MR. SIEVERDING: What would the impact of not granting the use variance be on the business? MR. LIGUORI: We simply couldn't grow any larger than we are right now, without a variance - without the expansion. If you were ever in the shop, you would see that we've got equipment in there and we simply cannot put another piece in. MR. SIEVERDING: But it could function at its present capacity without any kind of economic hardship. . . MR. LIGUORI: We probably would spread it out to some extent just from the safety standpoint. We are legal now but we are extremely crowded. MR. SIEVERDING: I see so you would want to extend the dwelling whether a new business or not, you would want to extend this. . . MR. LIGUORI: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: As I understand the nature of this structure and the nature of the machines in general, it is not a structure which you could go vertically or put anything else on top of it would be my other question. PAGE 68 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. LIGUORI: Primarily we are on a lot of fill there, and would have to do a substantial amount of (unintelligible) as it is just to maintain the single floor - we could never go two stories. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are thinking about an addition that would be similar in character to the building you now have, essentially the metal? MR. LIGUORI: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: Did the appellant provide the photographs or did you? SECRETARY HOARD: We did. MS. JOHNSON: I wondered what the purpose of the one with the. . . SECRETARY HOARD: It's the landscaping that. . . MS. JOHNSON; Character of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you gentlemen. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this use variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, any discussion? A motion? PAGE 69 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1759 FOR 407 CLIFF STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Lawrence Kolar and Daniel Liguori for a use variance to permit expansion of the Kolar Machine facility at 407 Cliff Street with the cosntruction of a 60 foot by 70 foot addition to the south end of the existing building. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the use variance requested in Appeal Number 1759. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The existing facility is being modestly expanded with the same type of non-conforming use. 2 . At present not all of the lot is being used and it is unreal- istic that it could be used for the permitted residential use given that there is a large manufacturing operation there already. 3. The modest expansion will be in character with the existing neighborhood. 4 . The area deficiency in front yard is not being exacerbated and could not be altered without moving the present building. VOTE: 5 YES; 1 NO GRANTED PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 DISCUSSION AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN ON APPEAL NO. 1759 FOR 407 CLIFF STREET: CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is anybody bothered by the fact that strict application of the Ordinance and uniqueness of the instance haven't been addressed within the context of the motion? MS. FARRELL: I think it would be nice if they were. MR. SIEVERDING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is not a reprimand, it is a comment. It is a question. MR. WEAVER: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right. PAGE 71 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1760 FOR 401 COLLEGE AVENUE: Appeal of Joseph 0. Ciaschi for an area variance for deficient off-street parking and deficient lot size under Section 30.25, Columns 4 and 6 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a four-story building with retail uses in the basement and first floor, and three floors of apartments above, at 401 College Avenue. The property is located in a B2b (Business) Use District in which the proposed uses are permitted; however the applicant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed construction. MR. HASCUP: On behalf of Joe Ciaschi, I 'm George Hascup with William Downing Associates and I 'd like to represent Joe Ciaschi in presenting to you what we propose on this site in Collegetown. Basically in the report that you have in front of you, what I would like to do is start off at a more general issue and talk about the significance of Collegetown and the role that this building plays in its development and why it is the way it is and then outline the facts of the building - what's in it and how much. As everyone knows, this is one of the few critical sites left in Collegetown, it probably represents one of the most dense and important corners in Collegetown and as you know, there is several million dollars worth of development with the new theater and the new law school project, the parking structure and quite a few other projects that are going on in Collegetown and I think the most important issue PAGE 72 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 that we've looked at is that this building would be representative of the building types on this street and we've looked at Sheldon Court and some of the other important buildings in the area, one of them being the Johnson building which is its direct neighbor. Currently, as you know, the Sam Gould property is a wood frame structure in a state of decay and it is matched on the opposite side of the street by a structure of equal ill repute - just waiting for future development. What we've attempted to do here is basically work a design that will fulfill the street line, in other words work with the development of the matching of the design to match the existing cornice and urban street line of the existing buildings, taking cues from Sheldon Court as well as the Johnson building which is immediately adjacent. So what we've ended up with is a very important urban corner statement that not only recognizes its immediate neighbor but we've tried to develop the building which is, in effect, a gateway to Collegetown in itself and I see buildings not in isolated role for themselves but as elements that could suggest future development so we've paid particular importance to the corner recognition. I was on the Design Review Board when the Convenience Store was being proposed and I worked very hard to get them to kind of cut back the corner and alleviate the pressure on that corner. It is sad that it ended up as a one-story kind of match structure that helps break down the scale of perhaps what a Collegetown (unintelligible) . So we've started out by filling this corner by developing a four and a half story building with a corner tower element that helps set up the idea of the gateway to Collegetown itself. We would hope that the PAGE 73 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 property across the street would recognize this and try to take advantage of what we are proposing. Joe has assured me that he wants to build - like many of the projects that he has done - he wants to build a quality building and we are conceiving and devel- oping the building based on the same brick type of Sheldon Court and would like to maintain the same detailing in terms of scale - in terms of the limestone, sills and (unintelligible) and also the window types. So it will not be one of these flat facade aluminum type plastic buildings that you see coming up all over Ithaca. The actual usage of the building is that the low grade level is commer- cial and will be completely used with the on-grade shops - the shop in effect is a two-level shop, very much like Triangle Book Store, you come in on the corner and you go down stairs as well as the ground floor situation. There is a small secondary entry to a shop which is proposed on the second level, this also depends on - actually the leasing arrangements - this is also being proposed as a possible apartment floor. Level three is a six or eight bed apartment - it could be designed as a six bed apartment or it could be an eight. Level four is a six bed apartment which has a pent- house with three more bedrooms. It is a little confusing when you try to add up the bed possibilities but in a nutshell the building has a minimum of fifteen beds and a maximum of twenty-three beds depending on whether or not we have commercial on the second floor. So just to summarize it, we are proposing perhaps three levels of commercial, and in that case you would have fifteen beds. If it was two levels of commercial, there would be twenty-three beds. The penthouse floor would be setback significantly from the cornice PAGE 74 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 line so that it would read as a typical top that many of these traditional buildings have. You can see on the model - in order to make the bedrooms work, for the hundred and twenty square foot, this is a very tight site, very hard to develop and hard to design in because of the setback requirements. In order to make the bedrooms work we had to do the bay window - a kind of Chicago bay window - that is, that it is cantilevered out perhaps twenty to twenty-four inches over the sidewalk so that the bedrooms are large enough for a hundred and twenty square feet plus adequate closet. In keeping with that we maintained that surface with a small octagonal tower to kind of indicate in a very traditional way that many corner urban buildings do - Ithaca has many grand examples of this condition - most of the newer buildings maintain this type of element and many buildings in Ithaca - downtown there is a - the LoPinto building opposite the courthouse - so it is part of the vocabulary of our fabric, in terms of the tower element. I feel in many ways that the fact that Joe Ciaschi is developing this, I personally see this - and I 'm serious - as a very important project, based on the history of the projects that he has done. I personally feel that the Clinton Hall restoration and the Boardman House are probably the most significant pieces of architecture done here in the last twenty or thirty years before Miller was here. I would say of more quality than any modern architect has been able to achieve to restore those buildings. The Farmers and Shippers, the Valley House, the Station Restaurant and plus the development at Community Corners, I think are examples of the quality of the type of architecture that will be brought to this site. So I feel PAGE 75 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 it is a significant site and that the materials will be in keeping with what a proper college town should have. I think that's the truth of the facts of what is behind the building itself and perhaps there is questions as to the numbers and the square foot- age. MR. MAZZA: Well maybe I can project something on it. The issues that bring us here tonight - my name is Ed Mazza, I 'm an attorney representing Mr. Ciaschi. The reason that we are here tonight, obviously, is to get a couple of variances. One of those is for the lot size, for the deficient lot size - we are below the minimum lot size. The lot is twenty-five feet by sixty feet, with a little jog out of that in the northeast corner of about one point seven five feet by six point four feet, so we are below the minimum lot size - we need to ask for a variance on that. There is nothing that we can do about the lot size, we can't increase it at all, obviously, both Jason Fane and the Johnson building are right on the property line - we can't acquire any more land nearby. So in regards to that variance request, there is obviously a practical difficulty and special conditions which make compliance impossible. Allowing Mr. Ciaschi to build on this would be in keeping with the spirit of the Ordinance and the character of the district. The second issue that we have is parking. We know that that is a serious issue but I think that that has to be coupled with the first request and that is the fact that we have such a small lot, it would be virtually impossible to economically build a building here and provide the adequate parking. By the time you took away enough land to put some cars on there you would end up building an PAGE 76 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 elevator shaft, as I can envision it. You really have serious limitations because of the size of the lot. An observation that I would like to make is that probably those people that would be using this as a residence, would probably be those people that would like to live in Collegetown, and probably people that wouldn't have cars. Those are the people that are going to be hottest to get close to campus because they have no means of getting to campus otherwise so there is probably going to be less of a need for parking, given the nature of where this is located. The second thing is, if you provide apartments - residences - in Collegetown, which is a commercial district, that is going to relieve the pressure - although it is going to be a small relief - it will be some relief of pressure for those people who will be living there to infiltrate the existing neighborhoods and create more of a problem than already exists in those neighborhoods. So I think that this is probably a logical place to provide additional housing, given those two factors. I think that the amount of parking that is necessary on this lot doesn't change much - I haven't actually gone through and calculated, depending on which way they go, but I think it is going to come out about the same, around seven or eight spaces that will be required, regardless of whether that one level is used for retail, commercial space, or whether it is used for residences. I 'm sure you are all familiar with the building that currently exists there. It is not an attractive building. You will probably be shocked at the value of that property - given the way it looks. Mr. Ciaschi started to negotiate for this property and had a plan in mind as to what he PAGE 77 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 was going to do there at a time when the Zoning Ordinance did not require the off-street parking and in fact, entered into a con- tract, although I think he closed the deal after the Zoning Ordi- nance was changed to require the off-street parking. He entered into a contract and became legally bound to purchase it at a time when the Ordinance did not require the off-street parking for this. So - he is now in a situation where he needs to get the variance in order to make this thing economically feasible. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: When did he enter into that contract? MR. MAZZA: I 'm not sure of the exact date. . . MR. CIASCHI: July 1, 1986. Even before then we were doing a lot of stuff but that's when I sent her the binder on the property. SECRETARY HOARD: Joe you have to identify yourself for the record. MR. CIASCHI: I 'm Joe Ciaschi. SECRETARY HOARD: I want to advise the Board that the worksheet that I gave you is based on a previous plan. . . this plan is somewhat different. MS. FARRELL: What would the parking be for this plan? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, let's go through this. . . SECRETARY HOARD: For this plan - if we could go through it. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right from the beginning because we have to get something - whether one is commercial or the other is residential - we have to nail this down in some sense so we know what we are dealing with. MR. HASCUP: They basically wash out the same because commercial has requirements for cars as well, so you can start out with the PAGE 78 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 simpliest one, which is three levels of commercial, that would be the lower level, the ground level and the second and then you have fifteen beds. MS. JOHNSON: I count ten beds on the fourth and penthouse combina- tion. I know it says nine here, I 'm wondering if this one is. . . MR. HASCUP: That is a single. SECRETARY HOARD: So there are three beds in the penthouse? MR. HASCUP: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: Three singles. SECRETARY HOARD: And the other two floors - third and fourth - there are six beds each - so that's five spaces or five parking spaces required for the residential. The first floor gets wiped out under the new Zoning Ordinance with no parking requirement. The basement - do you know what the square footage of that is? MR. HASCUP: Is that usable or gross? SECRETARY HOARD: Gross. MR. HASCUP: Eighteen hundred and fifty. SECRETARY HOARD: And then the second floor? MR. HASCUP: Approximately the same. SECRETARY HOARD: Is that office or. . . MR. HASCUP: That would be commercial. Does it matter whether it is retail or commercial? MR. CIASCHI: It won't be strictly retail - more in the office line. SECRETARY HOARD: Well office requires twice as many parking spaces. PAGE 79 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. WEAVER: As long as he is going to be a hundred percent defi- cient, who cares? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is precisely why we are trying to get it clear. SECRETARY HOARD: So if it is all retail. . . MR. CIASCHI: Well actually, it looks like it may be a travel agency, if it is not a travel agency it will probably be eight beds - it will be either one or the other. MR. HASCUP: So what's a travel agency? MR. CIASCHI: It's more along the office line. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, I guess so. MR. WEAVER: Send it back to Planning. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Commercial would imply more off-street traffic (unintelligible) assume retail. So what does that total by virtue of parking? SECRETARY HOARD: Well if we consider a travel agency where people come in and actually buy something - unlike offices, they don't have customers coming in, so I 'd call those both - I would say you need eight spaces for the retail and five for the housing. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thirteen total? SECRETARY HOARD: That would be thirteen total. Then if that one floor were switched, he would need four for the retail and that would have . . . MR. HASCUP: Twenty-three, if you go to eight beds. SECRETARY HOARD: So that would be eight spaces. MS. FARRELL: So its thirteen - or twelve - same ball park. PAGE 80 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. SIEVERDING: Now the question is where are they going to come from? MR. MAZZA: Where are the parking spaces going to come from? Obviously not on the site - we are having ten foot on the east side of the property, there is going to be a ten foot setback from Jason Fane's property - that is going to be ten feet by twenty-three feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you attempted to meet any of the parking requirements with off-site leases? MR. MAZZA: Well we've talked about that, of course, within that immediate neighborhood there are very few land owners who would be willing to give us a long term commitment for any parking spaces. They all want to keep their options open for their land, and understandably so. I don't know if, from year to year, if he could find somebody that would - within the proper distance that could do it or not but we couldn't find anybody that would make a longterm commitment to us. MS. FARRELL: You checked? MR. CIASCHI: Well it has to be within a certain distance from the property also - five hundred feet? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. SECRETARY HOARD: Well there is a new regulation. . . MR. CIASCHI: So it is not an easy situation. I think the piece of property is strictly commercial, there is no doubt about it and when I think about what I paid for this - you know - piece of property, it is just not feasible to do anything with it the way it is and I don't think that is the way it should be. It should be PAGE 81 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 the way most of the buildings are up there and it is not that - with all the construction going on - that they are that size - they have been that size for many years - from Johnny's, right around the corner - they are all that size, all the way down through - so it just carries around - it is like it should be there. I mean, it is too bad that I came in a little bit late but I tried to come in on time, also. So I don't know if I should be penalized for that or what. So that is why I 'm here for the variance for the parking. I think that is what should be there, no doubt about it. It should be what is - like across the street - the bank or Turk Brothers - that is my feeling. It passed both Boards - this afternoon and last week - they felt the same thing. I 'm clearly asking for a variance - not wondering where I 'm going to get the parking this year or next year or - yes maybe I can find some parking but let's be realistic about this. I do think a lot of people that live here are going to have no cars. I think - well the customers will be - hundreds of people walk by these buildings every day. MS. JOHNSON: And it is not feasible just to know that the basement of this store is retail economically? MR. MAZZA: Economically you would end up with having to do a pretty poor job of doing it. I think that what Joe wants to do is a high quality building - I think he has shown his intentions to do that in the other places and in order to get a high quality build- ing right there on that corner, I think he needs what he has asked for. MS. FARRELL: Could I see the other side of the model? PAGE 82 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. HASCUP: I think what we tried to do is el off the same verti- cal brick pile astors and reveal the detail structure - adjacent building - all floors are set on the exact same floor to floor lines - we've been using similar window types and I feel exactly as Joe, it would be a very sad day in Ithaca that this situation of urban infill - it would be very much like you've heard the term urban dentistry - this would be left as a permanent decay in the block - forever - if it were a one-story building - and that type of development on the corners of our City is basically what to me, destroys urbanism in the history of the City, so I think if it were to be allowed to be just an empty spot on the block, it would be very unfortunate for the fabric of the City. I 've been involved with planning for the last five years for Cornell and their parking plans and I think a grander view of the whole situation - they have recently added in over twelve hundred cars - they can move more than fifteen hundred cars with the new parking structure that we were commissioned to design. And there is massive amounts of parking and housing proposed in the next five years, Cornell has over five hundred million dollars worth of construction on the books within the next five years and they are really, finally, twenty years too late, addressing the parking crisis on the campus itself, which eventually will ripple back and perhaps alleviate some of the student congestion. We can have all the A lots and lots way on the other side of town, but I do think that the overall picture is worth looking at. MR. SIEVERDING: The overall picture still seems to suggest some shortage of parking. While I agree with a lot of your arguments PAGE 83 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 about the desirability of that type of development on that particu- lar corner - the fact is the City has recently saw fit to adopt a Zoning Ordinance that's got a parking requirement in it. Some way or other I think we have to come to terms with that and figure out where that parking is going to be provided. MR. HASCUP: I just have a question to the Board. I 've made a personal search in other college towns, I think they are very (unintelligible) places and I 've been to AnnArbor, Berkley, Boston, and they all have densities that are even greater than ours and have great - I 've lived in Belle Sherman for many years, and they seem to solve the problem through other types of Ordinances - through meter maids and through different types of parking rules and I often wonder why, by having the density where it should be, and a proper meter maid system, why the people who commute from Brooktondale and Turkey Hill, why does a project like this have to hurt a very special neighborhood? I really would like somebody to answer that question for me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's a question, I think, left at some other point, George, I would like to take it up with you sometime after the Board meeting, but I think that is a little outside the scope of what we are dealing with here. Have you, or has anyone, taken up any survey of adjacent - let's say the Collegetown neighborhood - to determine whether the site that we are looking at is uniquely small or is it somehow or another presenting a special condition that wouldn't be found somewhere else? Is this really an abnormal lot for that area? MR. HASCUP: For Collegetown itself? PAGE 84 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MR. HASCUP: This is one of the - in New York they call them "sliver sites" - this is one of the narrow strips - there isn't any one this narrow, to my knowledge on upper or lower Collegetown and it is very difficult to design handicap access, fire stairs and elevators plus anything in twenty-five feet, with our Fire Code requirements, so it is a very difficult site to develop and very expensive to develop. That is one of the reasons for the cantile- vered bay windows. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: I listened to this description by you to parking - did you say that there has been an increase in parking in Collegetown or on the Campus? MR. HASCUP: No, I 'm just pointing out that Cornell has recently added twelve hundred new parking spaces and a new seven hundred car garage at the stadium that can be used by anybody, if you pay a fee. That's the way other campuses have solved this - they have paid garages that students who have cars can book for sixty dollars a month. But Cornell, being land rich, has not bitten the bullet and helped us here in the City, but they are planning other facili- ties but it will be quite a while before they are built. MR. SIEVERDING: But the parking that is being constructed is short term parking - there is no, sort of, long-term storage facility being considered. . . MR. HASCUP: Not in the seven hundred car garage but the Law School has got some parking planned and there is a large facility being planned at the Polo area - the Polo barn behind the stadium - down PAGE 85 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 there they are proposing some parking. It is just a general condition that is going to help the student density but this is something that might help in the long-term - Cornell has finally had to address this. MR. WEAVER: On the other side of the bridge we have a brand new set of regulations - a result of a year and a half, or more, of study - which says that the development of property in Collegetown must furnish off-street parking. Did you have any discussion with these people that produced that Ordinance? I 'm not a Planner, nor are we, and we have an Ordinance that we are driven by - not where I think the people ought to live - I 've thought we were going backwards for a good number of years - but notwithstanding this Ordinance to solve this - you build - you provide off-street parking. After many years of not requiring it - for reasons that are beyond my understanding. MR. HASCUP: I 've followed it very closely and it was a general rule to apply to a difficult condition but here we have this specific circumstance that has to be addressed and unfortunately that rule kills the possibility of anything healthy being developed on this site. MR. WEAVER: On this site? How about next door or anybody else in town? MR. HASCUP: Well every site in Collegetown, of this density, has to be looked at individually. MR. WEAVER: Can you suggest one where they could provide the required parking? PAGE 86 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. HASCUP: Yes, Jason Fane - diagonally - he has amassed a fairly interesting amount of parcels at the bank and the contiguous property behind it and from my view of those properties and knowing the topography and the land that - when he develops I think he will be able to address the parking issue, for himself. He will be the only one, whoever owns the property across the street, which sits next to a seventy foot high building, to have that little residen- tial woodframe structure be there, would be just a civic joke - for those coming into town to see these little slum buildings next to all of this grandeur. The one across the street is even more exaggerated in terms of less than appropriate placement of urban use. So we have these two properties - they are both adjacent and they both happen to form the kind of urban gateway to Collegetown, as you can see. . . MR. WEAVER: Well the four hundred that you described by something being across the street - would you take that as a project and provide the parking? MR. HASCUP: This couldn't - this is a fifty thousand dollar urban design study that the City did - to look to see the appropriateness of this building in Collegetown and it was drawn just to show these problems - that there are these sort of small structures that come to the edges of Collegetown as it breaks down in scale and the same exact problem would happen to the place across the street - there is absolutely not enough room there to develop any parking and have anything develop economically. It costs eighty dollars a foot to go down and build these fire proof garages and there is not enough room for ramps and there is absolutely no economic way that this PAGE 87 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 can be done. I 've designed a proposal for Student Agencies which was half the whole block of Collegetown and the proposal here was to go from Triangle Book all the way through Olivers and bulldoze the whole block. There we could get seventy cars below grade but only with government financing at three percent interest and as you know, Novarr has gone ahead with development of just this one piece in the middle of the block and it looks like this [photo is shown] . This is what is being built now, it is a four-story building that matches the cornice line of Olivers and it would also match the same cornice line that we are proposing and the way that was done is that they are following the exact usage of that project that they had there before. They only have twelve beds in there, I believe, right Tom? Twelve beds - eight beds plus three levels of, two levels of office and one level of commercial. And that was signed in, I think, before this new law came into effect. So they were very lucky, they got appropriate scale and density built without the parking requirements. So you can see the end piece on the block, which finishes off the urban condition, is very much in need of something - I would hope that the City doesn't allow a one-story McDonalds. As you know, they are a very expensive company and the type of place that would probably come in here and try to do something. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The parking, I guess it is a thousand feet for residential? SECRETARY HOARD: A thousand feet for residential, seven fifty for retail. PAGE 88 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. SIEVERDING: And have you canvassed people within that part of the circumference of the property to see whether or not there are spaces available for lease? MR. CIASCHI: Yes, I have. MR. SIEVERDING: And it is just not there? MR. CIASCHI: No, (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: Seven fifty to a thousand - it is a thousand feet for residential uses. . . MR. CIASCHI: Oh, I see. MR. SIEVERDING: Seven fifty for retail. MR. CIASCHI: There may be a couple and there is none that would be leased for over a year at a time. MR. SIEVERDING: Is there a specific term to the leases that the City requires for that type of an arrangement? SECRETARY HOARD: It makes it difficult when someone is going to build a building and they have a one year lease and then if they can't renew it, then what do we do? MR. SIEVERDING: But does the City in fact require a specific lease term, if somebody seeks relief on the parking requirement with that approach? SECRETARY HOARD: Well it is tied to a Certificate. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's generally how it is tied in - with that. That's if it is a condition of the granting. MR. MAZZA: Well the difficulty is that even if we could get something for a three year period or whatever your Certificate period is, what does that mean at the end of the three years, if those all dry up? Does that mean that the building sits vacant? PAGE 89 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 If that's the case, I doubt whether this would go through. He couldn't make that kind of an investment. MR. CIASCHI: Given a whole lot of delays on this project too, who knows what is going to happen with the interest rates. I know when I did Boardman House, interest rates were fifteen - sixteen per- cent. Now things are pretty decent but they could very easily shoot right back up - you know - makes a big difference. MS. JOHNSON: What would you do if you don't get the variance - what would you do with the property? MR. CIASCHI: Well, I passed a check around - I wrote a check on this piece of property - I think - here it is a year later - if it was - knowing what I know now, I probably wouldn't have done it (unintelligible) MS. JOHNSON: Given that you did, do you have any alternative plans? MR. CIASCHI: No. I 'm hoping you will give me the variance. MR. SIEVERDING: But the property was purchased at a time when the City had a moratorium in effect up in Collegetown and we had pretty active discussions on what type of parking requirements would be imposed on this particular zone - were you aware of that? MR. CIASCHI: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: So it is not that you were in total ignorance of what the City was considering. I don't think you can argue with what the City had intended to do - given the urban design plan which suggests this type of dwelling is appropriate but at the same time you've got a parking requirement that makes it impossible to accommodate the structure. PAGE 90 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. CIASCHI: Another thing - that was written before the parking went into effect and not only that - there is other documentation where I was corresponding to buy this but the lady who owned this lived in New York - her lawyer was in New York and they just went back and forth for - in fact Mr. Mazza's father was the lawyer - so before it got to that point even, it was a number of points so it is not that - if it went off fairly smooth I am sure that I would have gotten in under the deadline and everything would have been fine - I mean - like I say, last year it was fine, this year it is not - I. . . MR. MAZZA: Without getting into the merits of the Ordinance itself, a special condition that your Ordinance says that require a variance - if they can fit within the spirit of the Ordinance that's when the variance should be granted. I think we have a very unique set of circumstances for this parcel and I don't think that the spirit of the Ordinance will be violated by granting that variance so regardless of whether the Ordinance on parking is - I think we have special conditions here that would suggest that the variance be granted. MR. SIEVERDING: You do have special conditions but every other lot in Collegetown has special conditions. . . . MR. CIASCHI: There are no other lots in Collegetown. MR. SIEVERDING: The Uni-Deli across the street - I mean eventually somebody is going to come in and they are going to want to redevel- op that property. . . MR. CIASCHI: You mean opposite this corner? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes. PAGE 91 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. CIASCHI: They probably should - they probably should have a variance to do exactly what. . . MR. HASCUP: That's it, they've got it - there is two of them in there - they are probably the only two sites in Collegetown. MR. SIEVERDING: Student Agencies have been trying to develop that property for the last six years and they would be in the same position that you are as well. They happened to beat the Ordinance because they knew what was happening and they only - they knew what was going on. I agree, the only one who can possibly do it is Fane because he has now acquired everything from the corner of College and Dryden all the way down to where he built that little retail space. Other than that. . . MR. HASCUP: But these two wooden houses are the two unique places left and they ironically are the two most significant as one comes into Collegetown. MR. SIEVERDING: I agree. MR. CIASCHI: If I had come in two or three years over the deadline here and - if things weren't as close as they were - I feel that I would have no right coming in and asking for a variance for this - in fact I would never have bought the property. That should be enough said. I wouldn't have bought it. And, like I say, there are no other lots, there is no other land - it is all owned by a few people up there - you can't rent anything and Collegetown is what it is - it's what it should be - that's what I think. I think you are here to do what' s right and I think in this particular case that's what I 'd like. . . . PAGE 92 r BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. MAZZA: I think the City has an opportunity here to get a quality developer to put a quality building up. If it ends up out of Joe's hands before some development and - I don't know if you will get - maybe you will - but you may not get the quality devel- opment that Joe has been noted for. I think that is an important factor. MR. HASCUP: I would invite anyone here to walk down the street in front of Clinton Hall and notice the almost complete change in the ambiance and the quality of that whole street by the addition of those several shops and that whole facade - it is just wonderful - what he did there - and here you have, in a way, a gift - I think it would be a great opportunity - there aren't many developers who build quality buildings and it would be a shame to lose this opportunity. MR. CIASCHI: I might add, Boardman House stood for many, many years - the County almost tore it down. Clinton Hall - it was condemned - you all know the story there. This property here was for sale for a long time - it was just a sliver piece of property - that is why nobody bought it so (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm generally sympathetic with your arguments in terms of the suitability of that design (unintelligible) the unfortunate fact is you are the first ones in after the City has just adopted the new Ordinance which imposes the parking require- ment. Now the question is. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Shall we move along? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, let's move along. PAGE 93 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you gentlemen. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Step forward please. Again, begin with identifying yourself and give your address. MR. GOLDER: My name is Neil Golder, I live at 203 College Avenue, I own the house - I 've lived there for fifteen years. MS. FARRELL: Is this within two hundred feet? MR. GOLDER: I don't think so. MS. FARRELL: That seems like a problem CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That seems like a problem, you are right. Very briefly. . . it's at the Chairman's descretion and I ' ll exercise it but it better be brief. MR. GOLDER: Okay. I 'm only going to talk about the parking because the parking does affect where I 'm living even though I am not living within two hundred feet. In a way I hate to speak against this because I like the building and I like what Mr. Ciaschi has done with buildings in town, however as anybody who lives in the Collegetown area can tell you, there is a tremendous squeeze on parking. I live with two young children, the streets are much busier - we often have trouble getting out of our driveway because where there is two parking spaces, there is always three cars and they are squeeshing us in so it is harder and harder and I really am worried about the parking situation, I think spaces should be found. The only other thing I want to say is that I am also worried that this will set a precedent for other areas, as they were saying, for example, across the street - that is actually PAGE 94 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 across the street to the south or to the west, I can forsee the same kinds of problems with people wanting to put up buildings with not enough parking and once the precedent has been made, those people won't be able to argue it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. Any questions? Is there anyone else within two hundred feet who would like to speak in opposition? Would you come forward please? VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: I 'm not within two hundred feet but I 'd like to request the opportunity to speak briefly on behalf of the neighboring Civic Association who has been primarily. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right. Again, if you would begin by identi- fying yourself and who you represent. MS. PETERSON: I 'm Jane Peterson from the Bryant Park Civic Associa- tion and there are a few points in terms of what was made tonight that I would like to respond to about the parking - again I think all of us feel very sorry, in a sense, that it is Mr. Ciaschi that we in any way have to challenge on this. We would very much like to see a developer like that in Collegetown, I think it would be in much better shape if we did have developers like that in Collegetown - that corner needs developing - it needs a good building there and we agree with all of those pieces. However, in their original presentation, I believe they said that they thought that the off-site parking requirement was five hundred feet and they have searched in that radius. Again, I believe, as one of you pointed out, it isn't five hundred feet, it is seven hundred, fifty to a thousand feet - I would urge a further search - that's a considerable expansion of that radius and I would urge a further PAGE 95 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 search in that area. I believe that Mr. Mazza mentioned that they don't expect - and I believe Mr. Ciaschi - they really don't expect tenants in that building necessarily to have cars - but again if I could point out that the study conducted by the City Planning Department a year and a half or two years ago indicated that more than forty percent of the residents in those buildings along that street had cars and, indeed, if you take out of that Sheldon Court, which is almost all lower class - lower level freshman students, who tend to be the group that don't have cars, that percentage really probably goes up. As Mr. Golder pointed out, the problem is already crucial all along College Avenue, if you drive past there you will see that people are parking in the front yards of the houses along there. If you go up Dryden Road and go off of Dryden just on any of the corners, you will see that people are parking in the front yard - there is not parking on the streets - it is true Cornell has tried to increase parking but that does not address long term parking and the possibilities which have been sort of made available on a token basis by Cornell for long term parking for students in A and B lots are down on Williams Street and involve a level of - a distance that most certainly are not going to take advantage of, at least our experience has shown that that is not the case, nor will other people, when they might be avail- able. In terms of the timing, again I believe, as you pointed out, the moratorium was in effect since September 1985 on and the primary motivation behind the moritorium - the initial impetus behind it - was the parking concern. And that was a year - a very public debate that led up to that moratorium about the parking PAGE 96 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 problem. The moratorium was imposed with - essentially with the mandate that a solution to the parking problem and some restraints placed on it, so I think that anybody had very good forewarning from September 185 on and probably a good part of it before then, that the parking situation was going to be drastically changed for anybody in there. Futhermore whoever was the current owner of that building would - again, timing - I think would have still have had to abide by this at this point if they had not filed a building permit. On the Student Agencies building, by the way, as I under- stand it, the reason there is not a parking requirement, is not timing - the moratorium was in effect when they came in - it went in because of the moratorium or despite the moratorium, because they were not increasing density and that was really the deciding factor - this does, in fact - a net increase in density, although not very large. The fact that it isn't - we are not arguing about a lot of parking places - I think is somewhat of an index of the magnitude of the parking problem in the area and, again, the problem of parking in the yards - parking in driveways and streets - blocking everything - it is a major problem - it is already a serious problem for police enforcement or for fire lanes, and neighborhoods have problems with snow removal for several weeks on end, certain streets in the neighboring areas have not been able to have adequate snow removal during the winter because of the parking problem, and so on. Finally, I think, again, Mr. Golder's point on precedence. It is not the only lot - there are other lots with further development - could occur or where things Could be torn down and replaced and, indeed, we have heard that one of the PAGE 97 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 landlords who has a building that is relative recent, is thinking of adding to it and would very much like to request a variance on the parking requirements, were he to do so, so I think the whole problem, again, as I believe that Herman said, that it is very unfortunate, in a sense, that he is the first one in after this - because there is a whole problem of precedence as well and you know better than I how much that affects what further decisions you have to make. But I do think we have to take that into consideration. I hope very much that Mr. Ciaschi can build his building, I hope very much that he can build it with some off-site parking. MS. FARRELL: I have a question. So your main point then is that we should absolutely have the twelve or thirteen parking spaces off-site before he can put up the building? MS. PETERSON: Well maybe it would be possible for you to work with him or however this is done, to come up with some compromise in that - maybe we could waive retail parking spaces. For instance, the local - the Collegetown parking garage will cover a lot of that reasonably well, I think - maybe waive that requirement and just open the residential. But I do think that we have to have - especially on the residential - given the whole situation that we have to have some of that provision in there - just given the whole complex and the whole set of things - but maybe there is some compromise piece and you can look at some of those possibilities. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have any suggestions as to where the parking might be leased? MS. PETERSON: No, I 'm sorry I don't. I do think that the thousand foot radius is an enormous area and I do think that the earlier PAGE 98 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 presentation suggested that had not been fully explored and I don't mean to minimize but I 'm sure of the difficulties in that - I would very much want to be sure that all (unintelligible) . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let me just share with you an observation that the Board has had in the past - this difficulty, obviously and certainly the Board would like to see the purchase of the property and the demolition of the house on it in such a way as to supply the parking - so we are really quite hard pressed and any help you can give us will be appreciated. MS. PETERSON: I agree - I would very much not like to see the corner lot become a parking lot, I would very much like to see the building that is on it replaced, I would very much like to see more than a single story building built there. From what I saw of the model, certainly from the description, certainly from everything we know about what Mr. Ciashi has done in the past - that would be a gain to us in those respects. I do think it should be possible to arrive at some solution which can also take care of some of the parking. And it really is tight, I don't think that - all you need do is drive through and see the cars in the yards - it is at a level that it is a real problem - I believe that Mr. Hascup men- tioned that a lot of other college communities solved these prob- lems different ways. Of course we've been trying all sorts of possible ways and a number of those avenues haven't been opened up to us yet. For instance, residential permit parking - that, as you know, so far have not been able to get enabling legislation from the State and that is very problematic whether that would be possible. There are any number of ways of handling these things PAGE 99 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 and possibilities but, in point of fact, a number of those have not been opened to us, secondly, if it has a very special - especially in that area - a very special terrain and construction of streets and sizes and so on, and it is very hedged in in certain ways that also limit some of the possibilities in terms of what the streets can take - that some of the other more open areas and some of the other kinds of Cities he was referring to - they are not quite as limited in some ways - so it is difficult, I know that. MR. SIEVERDING: And the unfortunate thing is we can't have it both ways, everybody seems to like this building, yet we are stuck with a Zoning Ordinance that - after a lot of input from the surrounding neighborhoods relative to the necessity and need for parking requirements - to place some limit on development - and here we have the first development proposal coming through and we really, I think, can't (unintelligible) our hands are really tied I think by the provisions of that Ordinance. MS. PETERSON: It is very difficult but on the other hand, what I am concerned about - I don't - if I thought that it were in any way justifiable on a personal basis, or any of our personal basis, to say that we like Mr. Ciaschi 's development - his is so much better than the rest of what we are getting, we should make an exception for him, fine. But you know, and I know, that that's not justifi- able and you can't very well come to the next developer who comes in and say you don't do the kinds of buildings that Mr. Ciaschi does, you don't do the quality that he does and you are not offer- ing us something as good, therefore we won't give it to you - at least, my understanding of how these things work or should work, is PAGE 100 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 that it can't operate on that basis. There are certain unfortunate side affects to that - by the fact that it needs to be that way. MR. WEAVER: You've heard of equal protection under the law? MS. PETERSON: That's - unfortunately sometimes ends up unequal doesn't it? I know. MS. FARRELL: Hypothetically - if they look within a thousand feet, if they are willing to look within a thousand feet and they can't find anything or they find a few spaces or whatever, then you've got the four story building and not enough spaces for a one story building - or what is there now, I guess - and it sort of - does the Civic Association have any thoughts about that? MS. PETERSON: I don't know, I 'll have to talk with the Civic Association, to take it that much further. Again, as I say, I think part of the problem is that the issue is not only this one building but there is a whole - there are going to be a lot more of these coming up and, as you know, a lot of people put a lot of time in this over a long period of time and it's not exactly fun time and its happened because its - because it is - people do feel it is an important issue - so pressing. So, as I say, I feel it is very important - that this particular one should be - if it needs to be a precedent - maybe it doesn't need to be, as I say, again, you know better than I what it means when others come. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I don't think its this particular one, I think it is basically any redevelopment proposal in Collegetown that we would be faced with this same exact situation. MS. PETERSON: It is and I don't believe it is impossible to get some parking provisions within a thousand yard [sic] radius, it is PAGE 101 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 just - that is a very generous radius, the question is, again, timing and how long it takes to put that together - those pieces - certainly. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I think the real. . . MS. PETERSON: I think that is a real problem. MR. SIEVERDING: I think the real question for Mr. Ciaschi is the long term availability of those parking spaces and the apparent timing with his subsequent Certificate of Occupancy. If that is renewable every three years and a lease on those spaces for how long they are available, and he is not issued a C of O, he is all of a sudden stuck with a vacant building. MS. PETERSON: But then if, as you just told me, that this is going to be the case for any Collegetown redevelopment, then basically you are saying that the Ordinance is out the window and we don't. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Oh no, I think the City has made a decision about Collegetown and that decision has been translated into the Zoning Ordinance. MS. PETERSON: Tom, what is the minimum lease for somebody to have a parking lease, twenty years? SECRETARY HOARD: No, there is no stated minimum and the problem is that if the Board granted a variance based on providing the parking for a year or five years, or whatever, then he lost it, then either the building sits vacant or he comes back and the Board has a gun to its head because here is this building worth so many hundreds of thousands of dollars and he can't use and so he has got a practical difficulty question - the Board, I believe, would be obliged to grant him a variance at that stage. PAGE 102 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. WEAVER: Certainly a conditional granting with this Ordinance at this time to put that building up, I don't care how long the lease is, the lease is not as long as the life of the building, would be ipso facto just the granting of the variance. Let's face it, there is going to be an immediate and easily proven hardship. SECRETARY HOARD: There are other things, I don't know, maybe we ought to wait until the discussion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Maybe that would be a good idea. If we could move along. Thank you. MS. PETERSON: Thank you for your. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Richard? MR. BOOTH: My name is Dick Booth and I live at 510 Mitchell Street. I am the Alderman for the Third Ward, which comes reason- ably close to this property, although it doesn't include this property. As a member of Common Council, I appreciate the need for good and sensible development and certainly Collegetown could benefit from it. This particular development has an excellent reputation in this City and he deserves that because he has brought a lot to the City of Ithaca. Having said that, however, I think this variance request as it is outlined to you needs to be rejected and denied. It is my sense that adding a structure in Collegetown at this time, involving - I was listening to Tom go through the figures and this may not be exactly right, but I got a sense of twelve to thirteen parking spaces - simply is an unwise step at this moment in time. The parking requirements established by Common Council were the result of a lot of deliberations, a lot of PAGE 103 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 compromise, they deserve time to work, Collegetown, I think, requires that they work over a period of time. If there is any part of this application which is based on an argument that this particular situation came about just around the time that Common Council changed the Zoning Ordinance, I would suggest to you that that is not grounds at all for issuing a variance. I think we do need to be realistic, I think both the commercial uses involved and the residential uses will have people with cars, significant number of cars, probably, in my opinion, a significantly greater number of cars than the Zoning Ordinance, in fact, contemplates. I think that we have to say no to development in Collegetown that does not have adequate parking (unintelligible) garage parking on an off-site location. If you grant this variance, I think, unfortu- nately, you will establish a precedent of significant (unintelligi- ble) in terms of future developments in the Collegetown area. The developer's reputation is excellent, his contributions to the City are great, but those are not grounds for granting a variance. I think the proposal is not consistent with the spirit of the Ordi- nance and I urge you not to grant the requested variance. MR. SCHWAB: What - this is a - if not unique, it is quite small, you called it sliver size - what does the Ordinance contemplate? MR. BOOTH: Well the Ordinance does not contemplate what goes on any piece of property, the Ordinance sets up rules for the general area. MR. SCHWAB: Right and this is the Board that does grant the variances for the exceptional case and - I agree with the appellant - it strikes me that - that was bought in July 186, there was no PAGE 104 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 way whatsoever - it seems to me we are stuck with the choice of a one story building like the one to the south - and even there, that would be probably deficient in parking - I guess one story doesn't require parking, so that would be okay. . . SECRETARY HOARD: One does require parking. . . . MR. SCHWAB: Oh it does. Well there is nothing you can do with this property. . . MR. BOOTH: I understand that and I think that there are two things - there are several things I could say in response to that, but one is there is a provision in the Ordinance for obtaining off-site parking - the distance within which that can be provided has been extended by Common Council, I think in this kind of situation you need a very clear showing that that's not possible. Parking is available for a price. If the price is met then presumably parking will be provided. Secondly, I don't think you have to see that each individual parcel has to be able to be developed right now in order for the Ordinance to work, to work its will. It may well be that this piece has to be combined with other pieces in the future to (unintelligible) development scheme for (unintelligible) . I don't know the answer to that. I also don't think that it is beyond a reasonable answer that a smaller variance might be al- lowed. This is twelve to thirteen parking spaces - that's not an inconsiderable amount in an area that is already jammed with automobiles. So a smaller use, requiring a smaller variance might be a reasonable conclusion. I see this is a significant variance and I don't think this is an area that can bear that. Finally, I 'm sure - may be designer friends will not agree with this, and I PAGE 105 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 understand that but the argument that it's a four story building or a one story building, there are a lot of pieces to that argument, I don't know that you have a case that's been made, in front of you, that this is the only size building that is feasible on that site and that this is a use that we have to have to extend this variance because I think - if you see this one variance as the only issue - I think the reality is that other variance requests will follow this one down the road. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What would be your response to the earlier suggestion that part of the parking be met by virtue of the public facilities? I think it was made a couple of speakers ago - the notion that part of it would be met, part of it, perhaps not met. MR. BOOTH: Well I 've said for some time now that I think the City of Ithaca is going to have to look at another parking structure in the Collegetown area - how we provide that, either with public money or private money or a combination, I don't know. I would not visual - although I don't make decisions that directly control this, be adverse to some part of that parking garage (unintelligi- ble) this kind of use but I gather that that is not the case at the present time. The opportunity for building a new garage somewhere in the Collegetown area, I think has to be explored - I think that is the reality of what we are - but I don't think the reality suggests that - with an ordinance that has just been adopted - the first development proposal that comes along - (unintelligible) . . MR. SIEVERDING: The garage that has been constructed - could he find relief for his retail requirement . . . PAGE 106 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. BOOTH: I 'm not familiar enough with the specific arrangements that have been made there to give you an answer on that. I 'd be glad to look into that but I think Tom could probably answer that much more quickly and much more effectively than I could. MR. SIEVERDING: But the garage was built to address the retail parking in Collegetown and not sort of long term residential use? MR. BOOTH: It was certainly not built to address long term resi- dential use. I think it was definitely built to address customer use in Collegetown. To the degree that you have offices that have kind of all day parking - I 'm not sure that it was meant for - to deal with that - at least a large portion to deal with that. SECRETARY HOARD: One of the things that Common Council did in this rezoning, was, it said that if you had residential above retail, you could wipe out the parking requirement for the retail by just supplying the residential. Now this building is proposed because it is a sliver lot - they have to go up, they can't go out. If you took this same square footage of retail, the same square footage of residential and had a lot where you could put it on two stories you'd wipe out all the residential parking requirements so you would only have to meet the five space. . . MR. BOOTH: You mean, you would knock out all the (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, you would wipe out all the retail require- ments. . . (unintelligible) just have five spaces required for the residential. MR. BOOTH: You want my response to that? SECRETARY HOARD: Sure. PAGE 107 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. BOOTH: I think Common Council was wrong in setting up a requirement that exempted first floor retail from parking require- ments in Collegetown - I said so when Council adopted that amend- ment. I think that was a wrong decision, but it is a decision that has been made and so we are here to implement it. SECRETARY HOARD: But they did it so from a practical sense aren't they saying, if you would supply equal square footage of residen- tial to what you have in retail, you ought to be able to just supply the parking for the residential. MR. BOOTH: I think what it says, if you have a floor of retail, right? SECRETARY HOARD: It says that, but right here we've got a unique situation. MR. BOOTH: I see where you want me to go Tom, I don't see that that is a rational conclusion. But I admire your trying. SECRETARY HOARD: Well I think that there would be the same result if it were spread out. MR. WEAVER: If, if, if - this is the Ordinance and. . . MR. BOOTH: If you had a bigger piece of land you would have a different situation altogether. MR. WEAVER: But as far as the way you row the boat, we grant or deny a variance based upon what is presented and it seems to me there is a court of last resort, the Common Council can always adopt local law number X of 1987 and do spot zoning. They are quite willing to do that other places in the town, I see no reason why it shouldn't work on Collegetown. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Can we move right along? PAGE 108 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. WEAVER: Yes, we just did. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Very good. Any further questions for this witness? [none] Thank you Richard. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to the granting of this variance? We have a letter from yet the other Alderperson. . . SECRETARY HOARD: We have a letter to the BZA from Jim Dennis, Alderman, 3rd Ward in reference to a variance request of Joe Ciaschi for 401 College Avenue. "The Common Council has recently passed a new Zoning Ordinance for the Collegetown area that has a parking requirement for new housing construction in the B2b zone. If the variance that Mr. Ciaschi is requesting nullifies the parking requirement, I would ask you to deny the variance. My reason is that this action would not serve the interests of Collegetown or the surrounding neighborhood. While there is a desire to see the old, "Sam Gould corner" redeveloped, it must be done within the parameters of the newly completed ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, /s/ Jim Dennis, Alderman 3rd Ward, 409 Mitchell Street, Ithaca. " CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further letters? SECRETARY HOARD: There is the letter that you received from the Pastor of the Lutheran Association and the letter from Susan Blumenthal as Chair of the Planning and Development Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That being the case, shall we move along to some sort of deliberation or motion or. . . whatever you deem is appropri- ate. Any discussion? PAGE 109 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1760 FOR 401 COLLEGE AVENUE: MS. FARRELL: How about if we ask them if they want to go back and look for more parking and then come back again? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is that something you all want to entertain? MR. WEAVER: I object to it Tracy for the following reason - if we deny it, which I hope and pray and see that we will, if there is going to be some bargaining, or whatever, I 'd rather they go to wiser heads than ours - they can go upstairs and get it where it belongs. There is a brand new ordinance out of Common Council and if they want to modify it out of some special circumstances, I 'd be glad to have them handle the whole affair rather than have it bounce back here again with the iffy's - which it will be a modifi- cation of the Ordinance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There has been a request from the audience that we speak louder. Would you like to make a motion Charlie? PAGE 110 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1760 FOR 401 COLLEGE AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for an area variance to permit the construction of a five-story building with retail uses in the basement, first and second floors, and three floors of apartments above, at 401 College Avenue. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1760. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There being approximately a dozen parking spaces short of the requirements means that this development would be almost completely without off-street parking. 2 . We have a new Ordinance which clearly sets an off-street parking requirement for any development in the entire B2b zone and that is the only B2b zone in the City, I believe. That clearly it was the intent of the legislature to obtain devel- opment that brought off-street parking with it. 3 . There was not demonstrated a uniqueness that this property has that is not shared by almost every other property in the zone in that there is very little opportunity for feasible develop- ment, that includes off-street parking. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO DENIED PAGE 111 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1761 FOR 410 WEST SENECA STREET: Appeal of Nancy Falconer for an area variance for defi- cient setbacks for the rear yard and one sideyard under Section 30.25, Columns 13 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the legal construction of one two-bedroom apartment over the garage behind the four-unit multiple dwelling at 410 West Seneca 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 appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Compliance can be issued for the proposed addition. An apartment was constructed over the garage some years ago without a building permit or area variance by a previous owner. This unit was heavily damaged by fire on October 14, 1984; the appellant is now seeking permission to replace this apartment with the two-bedroom apartment proposed. MS. FALCONER: I 'm Nancy Falconer and I live at 133 Giles Street in Ithaca. I brought some survey maps so you can see the position. Tom I have a question about something you said in your resume (unintelligible) do we need to know when he built that (unintelli- gible) necessary to apply for the variance? PAGE 112 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 SECRETARY HOARD: We don't know when he built the garage itself, but the apartment being built would have needed a variance and at least a building permit. MS. FALCONER: Okay, as Tom mentioned the appeal is not for two apartments, which was what was published in the paper, it is for one apartment. I am asking for a variance because this is a concrete and brick building - it was built too close, or within the five feet - it is not set back five feet from the lot lines and the corner. The building - I 've been using for storage below - the top - nothing has been done since someone set a fire in there, I think three or four years ago before I bought the property. The furnace is still on, the electric is still in, the plumbing is still in there, the apartment structure is all there. What I wanted to do was to remodel that apartment - make it a two-bedroom apartment on the second floor and in the process, also to fix up the outside. The building is something of an eyesore on the property - I am putting a fair amount of money into fixing it. (unintelligible) I have restored the exterior of the main house. The house sits on a lot (unintelligible) eight hundred square feet and depending on how you calculate, there are seven or eight parking spaces. There are four apartments in the main house - on the first floor there are fifteen hundred square feet, there are two people in that and there are two people on the second floor, one in each of two one-bedrooms and there is one person on the third floor. At any rate (unintel- ligible) allow me to do the apartment and in the process to also fix the exterior of that building. I obviously can't move the building - it is going to sit there. PAGE 113 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The first story of the proposal is to be returned to a garage, it stays here, and/or storage, what is your intent? MS. FALCONER: Pardon? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The first story of the building, as you proposed it in your application, says it can be either a garage and/or storage. MS. FALCONER: No, if that is the way it reads, that's not what I meant to do. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I guess what I want to know is what do you intend to do with the first story? MS. FALCONER: The first floor will be just storage. MS. JOHNSON: The first floor of the garage? MS. FALCONER: Yes, the garage part. It is two-bay, one bay was never opened so there are two-bays in there but there is actually three spaces. . . MS. JOHNSON; I drove in there, and I failed to figure out how you can fit seven or eight cars in there, can you describe that for us? MS. FALCONER: Yes, there are two spaces next to the house here [pointing to diagram] beside the garage. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you are driving into the back lawn? MS. FALCONER: I don't think they actually - along the lawn here there is some gravel around there. . . MS. JOHNSON: So you would pull two cars in - one behind the other? MS. FALCONER: No there are two that now come in there - one behind the house and then one next to it - between that and the garage. MS. JOHNSON; No way can two cars fit in. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Well she is only required to have five. PAGE 114 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MS. JOHNSON: (unintelligible) MS. FALCONER: Well there are - it depends on how (unintelligible) you can go straight across the back like this (pointing to diagram) this is forty-six feet going across. Now what we are doing right now is putting one in the corner and one - two - three - four - five and I guess the one in question here. One goes here right now. At any rate, I think there are enough parking spaces. MS. JOHNSON: I 'm just not convinced (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The distance from the garage to the barn that's northeast of your property line? MS. FALCONER: Pardon? To which? MR. SIEVERDING: We have a - is there a barn - I think I saw a barn - do we have a survey that somebody else has. MR. WEAVER: No there is a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Richard Joseph. MR. SIEVERDING: The adjoining property owner. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you got the other letter Tom? MR. SCHWAB: That's the Joseph's property that you've got there. MR. SIEVERDING: Well there is a barn diagonally across and I was just wondering how far. . . MS. FALCONER: I don't know what the distance is. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Helen, on the question of parking - it might be addressed to some degree with respect to that letter from the Josephs. I think that is what we were describing a little while ago. MR. SCHWAB: What is the parking there currently? PAGE 115 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MS. FALCONER: The parking is currently one car in the corner at the end of the driveway and three - four in front of the garage and one other when it is in there but actually it isn't. Right now I can put four cars in there. . . MS. JOHNSON: In the garage? MS. FALCONER: No, no, four cars parking in the lot. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Just one quick one. For as long as you have had the property, the apartment hasn't been used? MS. FALCONER: No. I don't know whether it is appropriate to say this but I think that it is permissible, from what I understand, to cut the apartment up, certainly on the first floor, with the amount of space that we have. I don't want to do that and I do want to fix this out building here, it is an eyesore. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: 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? One at a time please - unless you happen to be related? MRS. JOSEPH: Yes we are. MR. JOSEPH: Husband and wife. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, that's fine. It's just when you see that many people raising their hands all at once, we get nervous. If you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MRS. JOSEPH: I 'm Ada Joseph, I am part owner of the property at 406 West Seneca Street - that is adjacent to 410. MR. JOSEPH: I 'm Richard Joseph, I reside at 406 West Seneca Street also. PAGE 116 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MRS. JOSEPH: Now, first off, we have lived at our present address for twenty-six years. The previous owners - well first of all let me commend Mrs. Falconer on her beautification which she did on the house - which hadn't been touched in years and we certainly appre- ciate that. We are absolutely opposed to the apartment over the garage. It was built illegally, it was rented four different occasions illegally - as a matter of fact they had a chemical toilet in that apartment that they were renting out. The last tenant in there - it was arson - (unintelligible) Now, if you had - I think you have a survey of the properties - here is the build- ing that is a foot from our property. In the - I don't know who owns the lot directly behind us, or behind them - I do not know the people - the people behind me - I don't know their name, the house has been sold - they have a large wooden barn - there is an opening about three foot from the building on the Falconer property - the back. . . . I have a barn on my back corner which would be the northeast corner - between that barn and on the property at the rear there is only two and one-half or three foot - there is a fence there between these two - two-story wood structures. Then on the Plain Street side, which would be the east side there is the park - her property, her house, sits within four foot at the most, of my yard. She has a garage which is - there is just enough area to walk through - on her property. Next to that we are coming south - this is surrounding my property - there is another double garage (unintelligible) construction. We are boxed in on our property. It is a fire hazard, as you can see here. . . the second individual who lived in the apartment at the time of the fire came PAGE 117 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 home when they did - and this place was engulfed - really the whole floor - everything in that neighborhood would have gone. . . MR. JOSEPH: If there was a wind - may I speak also? CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Sure. MR. JOSEPH; If there was a wind - in other words - although she is going to put a - in the event - it is a structure - the structure itself is cinder block - the building - but there is nothing saying, when she puts a roof on there that if we get a wind it can go to the adjoining building - the barn - plus our barn, plus the whole corner - it is really like a funnel in there. Every noise that we hear, a car from the outside - we hear a car from the outside banging its door - the sound comes right in the back. In other words the only thing that we are opposed to is - privacy. Now we have had privacy and being quiet there - we've been there twenty-six years - for the past two years, since there has been no tenants in the back or any commotion in the back, is the first time in well I 'd say twenty-six years that we've had any peace because we had nothing but confusion back there with cars, tenants that they did have up there were holloring - had the hi-fi on and various different things - we could hear them arguing and every- thing else. MRS. JOSEPH: It is on record that we have complained. Now over the years - this is just what has come to my mind - let alone the apartment being illegal - now we tried to be a good neighbor but it was really impossible. I mean, we were a good neighbor but it was impossible to complain - it didn't do any good. They stored baked goods in there. The whole building was filled with nothing but PAGE 118 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 junk. They had a baton school there, one of the daughters taught - no this is a fact - taught baton. They had a taxi service there illegally - this was operating twenty-four hours a day. They had a second-hand store there - they sold furniture from 7: 00 o'clock in the morning maybe until 9: 00 o'clock - 10: 00 o'clock at night - they had it displayed out front all day - rain or shine, in a sense of the word - most of this furniture was kept in that back build- ing. They had a car repair in there at one time. . . they had a furniture refinishing place. . . MR. JOSEPH: It is getting late, these people are tired. . . MRS. JOSEPH: And all of this went on all this time without any consideration or satisfaction to us. We don't feel that there is enough room for another apartment back there, let alone seven cars. They have had seven cars parked behind there - and a couple of trucks at one time but they were piled on top of each other and knocking the fence down. I 'd like to know where she intends to put seven cars. MR. JOSEPH: She could possibly put seven cars if she jammed them in and put them right on the lawn . . MRS. JOSEPH: That is adjacent to our picnic area - our fire place and what little bit of privacy yard we have in the back there. And that would certainly knock out our privacy. . . we have four bedrooms that our facing her property and the rear, now we cannot change our house structure and the walkway to the apartments are all beside our bedroom windows between her house and ours and to the back and to the garage. PAGE 119 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 MR. JOSEPH: You see, our only complaint is - we are both retired - and the few years that we've got to be on this earth, we actually feel that we would like a little peace and quiet. We've had peace, believe me, since that place burned - that's the only time we've had any peace and quiet and that's going back twenty-five, twen- ty-six years - that's our only objection. We don't begrudge this women - this woman has (unintelligible) really. MRS. JOSEPH: No, we don't, really. . MR. JOSEPH: I mean, she actually - she has done a wonderful job with the house next door - we complement her on that, believe us. MRS. JOSEPH: We feel that the lot isn't that big - she has got four other apartments in there - who is to say there is going to be seven cars, eight cars, nine cars? Now the students that had been in there - they weren't too bad - now the students will - they will open the windows - they will put a stereo out on the roof - they will get out on the roof with their blanket and they have done it - all the windows are open - and that's all we hear. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you both. MR. & MRS. JOSEPH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] If we could move toward a motion or further deliberation if that is the case. PAGE 120 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1761 FOR 410 WEST SENECA STREET MR. WEAVER: I have a question on the rear yard. As proposed will it be less than a one percent deficiency in the rear yard? SECRETARY HOARD: The deficiency - the rear yard will be less than one percent of the depth of the lot. MR. WEAVER: Okay. MR. SCHWAB: Very deficient. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Very deficient, right. MS. FARRELL: Ninety-nine percent deficient. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Ninety-nine percent deficient (unintelligible) MR. WEAVER: Going to have to put better labels on these. . . MS. FARRELL: This case seems to have certain similarities with the Tom Peters case last month. And here we are with another back building - whether it is a garage or a barn or historical barn or historical garage or whatever, and as you can see, there are a lot of barns in this neighborhood - so it seems a little problematic. SECRETARY HOARD: This is a masonry building. MR. SIEVERDING: The Board has a long history of dealing with these types of problems. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. Well if it has had such a long history, it won't be very difficult at all to conjure up a motion will it? SECRETARY HOARD: The difference here though is this is a masonry building with no windows on the lot lines. MR. SIEVERDING: So as far as. . . PAGE 121 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The others all had building code problems, I 'm not talking about yours [to Herman Sieverding] , I 'm leaving that out for now. . . MR. WEAVER: The barn - under the building code and the Zoning Ordinance - if there were clear land out there the character of the construction wouldn't grant any reduction in setback requirements though, would it? SECRETARY HOARD: This? Under the building code this could be on the lot line as long as it doesn't have windows opening on the lot line. MR. WEAVER: But the Zoning Ordinance doesn't recognize. . . SECRETARY HOARD: No the Zoning Ordinance doesn't - that's the difference, though, from this and the others that have been before the Board. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Windows on the first floor or on the second floor? SECRETARY HOARD: There can be no windows opening onto the lot lines. MS. FARRELL: That is the building code - this is the Zoning Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We are just trying to respond. . . SECRETARY HOARD: I just know this gentleman over here is pretty familiar with the building codes, so. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Having had something to do with fires in the past. MR. WEAVER: I didn't have anything to do with this one. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: May we have a motion? PAGE 122 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1761 FOR 410 WEST SENECA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your requst for an area variance to permit the legal construction of a two-bedroom apart- ment over the garage behind the four-unit multiple dwelling at 410 West Seneca Street. The decision of the board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1761. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The building sits literally right on the property line and the deficiencies in terms of side lot requirement and percentage of rear depth coverage are quite excessive. 2 . Granting this variance would not observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would set a precedent relative to other similar properties throughout the downtown area. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO DENIED PAGE 123 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 SECRETARY HOARD: We have one more case. The last appeal is Appeal Number 1762 for 413 Hook Place: Appeal of Paul and Kristin Bennett for an area variance for a deficient front yard setback under Section 30. 25, Column 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the con- struction of a two-story addition to the single-family house at 413 Hook Place. The property is located in an R1a (Residential, single 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 deficient front yard before a building permit or Certificate of Compliance can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Give your name and address. MR. BENNETT: I 'm Paul Bennett, 413 Hook Place. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Reason for the appeal? MR. BENNETT: We would like to build an addition on our house. It was at one time a two-family house, before we bought it - excuse me, a two-bedroom house - before we bought it it became a three-bedroom house - the bedrooms are cramped. We obviously can't move our house backwards on the lot in order to get twenty-five feet for the front yard. I don't believe the addition will change anything and it should be in conformance with the side yard re- quirements. There is a diagram attached. There is plenty of rear yard. The use will stay the same - will still be a single-family house with the one additional room - a bedroom that is there now - we plan on knocking out the walls in one of the old bedrooms and PAGE 124 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 making that into one room. Pretty consistent with the character of the neighborhood as just about every house on our side of Hook Place, which is the odd side of the street, has a deficient front yard, except for two, I think, on the whole street. That pretty much covers it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? [none] Got a motion already? Any further questions? SECRETARY HOARD: Can we act without the co-appellant? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I don't know, we can take that under considera- tion. Noting there is no opposition and no questions, can we proceed to making the motion? PAGE 125 BZA MINUTES - 5/4/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1762 FOR 413 HOOK PLACE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Paul and Kristin Bennett for an area variance to permit the construction of a two-story addition to the single-family hosue at 413 Hook Place. The decision of the Board was as follows: MS. FARRELL: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in Appeal Number 1762 . MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There was practical difficulty in meeting the current front yard setback which can only be solved by removing part of the house or moving it. 2. The proposed change won't exacerbate the current front yard deficiency. 3. The proposed change will maintain the character of the neigh- borhood. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 126 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 2-1-87 , 1741 , 1753 , 1759 , 1760, 1761 and 1762 on May 4 , 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 minutes of the meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara C . Ruan Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this day of 1987 Nota y Public JEAN J. HANKINSON: NOTARY PUBLIC,STATE OF NEW YOR1< NO.55-1660800 QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS CO UIxTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 90.18