Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1987-06-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JUNE 1 , 1987 PAGE APPEAL No. 1763 David & Flora Sagan 3 719 North Aurora Street " itDecision 17 APPEAL NO. 1764 Elizabeth & C . Selvarajah 18 101 Edgecliff Place Discussion 30 n rr Decision 32 APPEAL NO. 1765 Robert $ Julie Poole 33 309 North Meadow Street it Deliberations 35 it Decision 36 APPEAL NO. 1766 Peter $ Kathleen Malison 37 421 North Cayuga Street " Deliberations 41 " Decision 42 APPEAL NO. 6-1-87 Robert H. Dein 43 158 East State Street itffDeliberations 58 tv if Decision 61 APPEAL NO. 1767 Jeremy Smith 62 413 West Court Street " 1767a Decision 69 " 1767b Jeremy Smith 70 " itDecision 80 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) JUNE 1 , 1987 BZA MEETING APPEAL NO. 1768 Joseph A. Ciaschi 82 401 College Avenue Decision 98 if if Discussion 100 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 105 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 1, 1987 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the June 1, 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: STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER HELEN JOHNSON JOHN OAKLEY HERMAN SIEVERDING MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THOMAS D. HOARD, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, ZONING OFFICER & BUILDING 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 ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible and then be available to answer questions from the Board. We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the Board considers "interested parties" to be persons who own property within two hundred feet of the property PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 in question or who live or work within two hundred feet of that property. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of an "interested party" . While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record. The record consists of the application materials filed with the Building Department, the correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Boards' recommendations and findings, if any, and the record of tonight's hearing. Since a record is being made of this hearing, it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones which are opposite me here so that the comments can be picked up in the tape recorder and heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and will therefore not be considered by the Board in its 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 deliberation. 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 denied. Are there any questions out there about our procedure? [none] That being the case, may we proceed. PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The first case is APPEAL NO. 1763 FOR 719 NORTH AURORA STREET: Appeal of David and Flora Sagan for an area variance for excessive lot coverage by buildings and defi- cient setbacks for the two front yards and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 10, 11 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit a Certificate of Compliance and a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued for the conversion of two one-bedroom apart- ments at 719 North Aurora Street to two two-bedroom apartments. This conversion was completed without a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy for the change of use. The property is located in an R2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Section 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the property. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening, if you would begin by identifying yourself and your address. MR. SAGAN: My name is David Sagan and I live at 701 North Aurora Street. This appeal is for a variance for deficient setbacks at 719 North Aurora Street. I make this appeal in order to use the house at 719 North Aurora as a two, two-bedroom apartment house and currently the house has a certificate for two one-bedroom PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 apartments. I have some photographs to pass around. This map here shows the layout. As you can see, the front has a deficiency of about five or six feet. The Code requires ten feet. Similarly on the side - on Tompkins Street, there is a deficiency. The rear has seventeen feet to the property line and would need (unintelligible) seventeen and a half feet and the last deficiency is that the house covers thirty-six percent of the land and - well a maximum of thirty-five percent is allowed. I have some pictures to clarify this situation. This first one is looking along Aurora Street - it shows the front of the house. The second one is taken from Aurora Street and shows the front of the house directly. The third one shows the side lot. The next picture shows a view from the corner. And finally, the last picture shows a view of the house from Tompkins Street. Now I guess one question that comes up is - are these deficiencies out of keeping with the neighborhood? I would - a recent inspection that I made of the neighborhood shows that, indeed, many houses there have deficient lots - in fact you can see in the picture, and on the drawing here, that the two nearest houses are, in fact, within about two feet from our lot line. So my feeling is that these deficiencies in no way detract from the general character of the neighborhood. And also I should note that there is no good way to correct these deficiencies short of a major reconstruction job. As for the interior of the house - the former owner was an old widower who lived in the downstairs, she just had one bedroom, of course and she let the upstairs to a woman and her daughter and the woman upstairs took care of her for many years until she died and then me and my wife bought the house from her PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 estate. As such, they only used it as one bedroom units. However the downstairs has about six hundred square feet of space - besides a kitchen and a bathroom, it has four other rooms. If one were to use that as a two-bedroom apartment, that would give it two other rooms to be used as a living room and a dining room - it has plenty of space as a two-bedroom apartment. The upstairs is slightly smaller - about five hundred and fifty square feet - and besides the kitchen and the bathroom, it has three other rooms. The kitchen is large, it can be used as an eat-in kitchen and if you used it as a two-bedroom apartment the living room would have about two hundred square feet, so it, again, is a good sized two-bedroom apartment. Now today I went by the Building Department and picked up the letters that had been sent in concerning this and I would like to read them and respond to them, if I may. The first one was written by John and Jacqueline Brooks who live at 804 North Aurora Street, it says: "In reference to Case No. or Appeal No. 1763, we the residence [sic] of 804 North Aurora Street are against the variance of this case as we feel we have enough apartments in the area and we are very limited on parking space and this variance would handicapp [sic] the family homes and property owners in this neighborhood. Sincerely, /s/ John and Jacqueline Brooks" In response to the letter, let me say this, what we propose is no increase in the number of apartments. Secondly, the house has two parking spaces which is what is required - there is no problem with that - and thirdly, I live just down on the same block - 701 North Aurora Street and I have never found a problem of finding parking spaces, so I feel (unintelligible) problem. Let me read the other PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 two letters. The next letter is from Rose M. Brown at 717 North Aurora Street. "Dear People on Zoning Board: I am writing this letter on behalf of David and Flora Sagan concerning their appeal for 719 North Aurora Street. I have lived in the neighborhood, in this house for over 25 years, and have seen many changes in the owners on the block. Some of the owners (such as the landlord who owns the house next door at 707, and two across the street) have not taken care of the houses and we are seeing what were nice houses become wrecks. The Sagans, on the other hand, have put a lot of care and effort into what they own, and I feel 719 is no exception. I think the house is charming, and they will certainly keep it that way (including painting it-something that has not been done for many years) . I think people like them should be encour- aged, and I think you should not give them any problem but give them a variance without further hesitation. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, /s/ Rose M. Brown" The last letter is from Gino and Kristin Cascioli - they live at 717 North Aurora Street which is right next door to 719. "To Whom It May Concern: In regards to appeal number 1763, concerning the property at 719 N. Aurora Street; We believe that David and Flora Sagan intend to keep the property in it's present condition, and that that condition is totally acceptable to us, as neighbors. They have high standards for their tenants, and show concern for the appearance of the property to their neighbors. Therefore, it is acceptable to us that they be granted the zoning variance they requested. Sincere- ly, /s/ Gino and Kristin Cascioli" In conclusion, let me say that I feel that the house and grounds are not out of keeping with the PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 rest of the neighborhood. I can give you my word that - as these letters imply - that we will - we have been keeping the place up to standards, and we will keep it up. And that the house is certainly big enough to be a two, two-bedroom unit house. I therefore ask you for the variance. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: When did the conversion take place - from the one-bedroom to a two-bedroom? MR. SAGAN: When we bought the property - that was one year ago, I think - approximately one year ago. MS. JOHNSON: So you changed it to two two-bedroom units? MR. SAGAN: We put in - it was big - I can explain. Right now downstairs there is a family - mother, father and daughter and upstairs there is two single men. Come August 15th the family downstairs will be remaining - upstairs there is couple moving in so we will have two couples (unintelligible) MS. JOHNSON: Can you give any reason why you did that without the proper permits? MR. SAGAN: I 'm sorry - it was my fault, I didn't realize that to change the use from one-bedroom to two-bedrooms - when there was no problems with bedroom size - was illegal. MR. OAKLEY: Did you change the layout of the apartment at all? MR. SAGAN: No it was vacant. MR. WEAVER: How many properties do you own or manage. MR. SAGAN: At this point we - including our house - we have six. PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. SIEVERDING: And you've been through an appeals process before with obtaining variances to improve or do work on those other properties? MR. SAGAN: Yes, we came before the Board, if you remember, before and asked for. . . okay, you have to understand that my wife started this and that I married her approximately two years ago, so I can't - I don't think there was anything earlier than two years but the only ones I can think of personally is - I came before the Board to renovate a garage that was next door to us - that we were going to use as office space and that renovation has been successful, we've got many compliments on what a nice job we've done. I know that before some neighbors raised concern about - well maybe it would increase traffic or something like that - I can safely say that you wouldn't even know it was there unless you look for it. MR. SIEVERDING: There was a second part to that particular appeal, wasn't there - regarding the fence? SECRETARY HOARD: That was another property. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No it was the same property Tom. MS. JOHNSON: Are you planning to stay at 701, I noticed there is a rental sign out front? MR. SAGAN: Okay. We live in the downstairs and we rent out the upstairs. (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Where is the second parking spot? I only see one or is it the fact that you will put one in tandem with the other in that same driveway? MR. SAGEN: Yes. PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you take over the back yard, more or less to make the extension? MR. SAGAN: Is that required? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is that the idea? MR. SAGAN: The idea is in tandem, yes. MR. OAKLEY: By tandem, you mean side by side? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, one in front of the other, which is legal. Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you David. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? You have to come forward if you are going to speak and sit down up here next to the microphone. The micro- phones are sensitive, but not that sensitive. And begin by identi- fying yourself and give your address. MRS. KENNEY: I 'm Mildred Kenney and I live at 710 North Aurora Street, in fact I live across the street from Mr. & Mrs. Sagan. We've lived there about ten years and we have been very happy with them living in the neighborhood because they really have been a big improvement to the neighborhood because they have fixed up their property and its so much better looking - adds a lot to the proper- ty. And I think they should - I can't see any reason why they shouldn't have a variance for the house on the corner. I can't see where it will make one bit of difference to the neighborhood as far as traffic or . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board, of Mrs. Kenney? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? Come forward please. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: No, I 'm not in favor. PAGE 9 r BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. If there is no one else in favor, then let's go the other side, is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Again, beginning with your name and address. MS. TAGLIAVENTO: My name is Debbie Tagliavento and I have written a letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals, but apparently it was not received. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We do have a copy of that, although it was not referred to by virtue of the appellant, given the fact that he may want to know what you are saying, so go ahead and recap it if you want to. MS. TAGLIAVENTO: Shall I read the letter or. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Suit yourself. We have a copy of the letter - if you can recap it. MS. TAGLIAVENTO: I would like to ask Mr. Sagan, I have lived on Tompkins Street for thirteen years and I would like to ask Mr. Sagan why, when we received the information describing the variance, it was not stated that the work had already been done. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well perhaps I can address that - more specifically, your questions have to be before us and not the appellant, in any event. There is nothing that says that he has to describe that it has been done. He can essentially write whatever he wants to, so that, in essense it is partial to the system. We certainly, by virtue of the procedure, know and the appeal notice contains the information that the work has been undertaken. MS. TAGLIAVENTO: Okay, my other - two other questions I have - the parking situation may not be noticeable on Aurora Street. It is however, noticeable on East Tompkins Street where we live. There PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 are three other apartment houses on that street plus four residences - permanent residences with no apartments - we have a lot of cars and if you were to come to visit a person on East Tompkins after 5 P.M. you would probably have to park on Linn Street - on a good - or bad night - whatever. Another question I would like to ask is, Mr. Sagan has also remodeled other properties without obtaining a building permit before doing the work - one other property that I know of - I want to know why this is happening. He is doing the work and not obtaining the permits before the work is done - it is started. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that's a rhetorical question but we'll leave that open for speculation on our part, certainly. MS. TAGLIAVENTO: Well, I guess that's all. I 'm just asking that the variance be denied because I feel that Mr. & Mrs. Sagan have not explained fully in their variance description exactly what has happened or what is going to happen. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. Any questions from members of the Board? [none] Very good. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition on this particular case? [no one] Okay, that being the case, we shall begin our deliberation. MR. WEAVER: I have a question of Mr. Sagan, if I may. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. Mr. Sagan, if you would come forward and have a seat. . . MR. WEAVER: Referring to the sketch - the survey that has been somewhat related to - there is a gravel drive indicated - do you know approximately the length of that gravel drive? PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. SAGAN: This isn't actually - is is not really a gravel - it is more like a dirt spot, but what is in use now as a parking space, extends more like - beyond where it shows. . MR. WEAVER: Do you have an idea how long that is inside the sidewalk? MR. SAGAN: Inside the sidewalk, okay. Inside the front of that line would be about twenty-five feet. I have a picture of that MR. SIEVERDING: So you are saying that extends to about. . . (unintelligible) MR. SAGAN: Well you can do it with respect to the house. MR. WEAVER: Quickly - do you know the width of the house on the back? MR. SAGAN: The width of the house in the back - not quickly - I could measure it . . . twenty-six feet - twenty-seven feet. MR. WEAVER: And have you ever parked two cars back there? MR. SAGAN: The tenants have parked two cars, yes. MR. WEAVER: With any regularity or. . . MR. SAGAN: Yes. MR. WEAVER: Do they confine themselves to the space that you have indicated as a gravel drive? MR. SAGAN: No, it goes further than that. I don't know - can you see on that photograph. . . MR. WEAVER: I 've looked at the house and I 've been down there and I just wonder where the second car goes, it seems. . . MR. SAGAN: It goes in tandem - one in back of the other. They are not side by side. PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. WEAVER: I understand that and I wonder where the other is. There is not enough - do you agree that there is not enough dis- tance in this sketch to accommodate two automobiles? MR. SAGAN: That's exactly true but as I said, they are not - what they are using as a drive extends beyond what is marked on the map. And as you look on the picture, there is certainly no obstacle for that and they have been doing that - that's what they have been doing. MR. WEAVER: Well I guess I have a question of both you and the Commissioner, a yard with a curb cut is all that is necessary - grass or otherwise? SECRETARY HOARD: Well it is supposed to be a moderately hard surface - it doesn't have to be paved until it is over four or more cars. MR. WEAVER: I live in the neighborhood - I 've never seen two cars back there and I don't see - this sketch is not representative of space that would accommodate two cars and I just wonder whether this is supposed to be representation of what exists or what you say is a representation of what will exist or on occasion. . . MR. SAGAN: This was made - it says map of Bertha M. Fox Estate - that was the woman who owned that house before us - so this was made by the person who surveyed the. . . MR. WEAVER: You don't propose to make any changes? MR. SAGAN: If at any time it became muddy or - I mean last winter there was no problem - or in the spring - no problem with the parking - we had no complaints from the tenants. If it ever - the situation (unintelligible) became muddy we would put gravel or PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 something down. It is a pretty packed surface anyway. It is not totally grass free but it is not soft ground because it has been driven over repeatedly. MR. OAKLEY: Is it possible to avoid parking there in the spring when the snow is melting and stuff like that? MR. SAGAN: I wouldn't say that I 've checked regularly - all I can say is they never said anything to me about the hardness of the ground back there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions Charlie? MR. WEAVER: I just would be happier if I could see a floor plan, see what we are talking about, other than listening to his repre- sentations - that suggest to me a condition - if it is granted - a condition that would clearly require a driveway that would accommo- date two cars, off-street, would be most desirable. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you Mr. Sagan. Further discussion from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Just a question about what we will end up with - the fence variance (unintelligible) was granted or. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, it was denied and the fence has been there ever since. MR. SIEVERDING: It hasn't been corrected. Have they been notified that they need to correct that fence? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you received any confirmation that, in fact, the fence will be corrected? SECRETARY HOARD: Not that I know of. MR. SIEVERDING: I think what concerns me the most about this case, is not the deficiencies themselves - it seems they are fairly PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 regular in that neighborhood - we've dealt with these cases before but I think what bothers me more is the fact that here we have professional landlords who own multiple properties around the City, who regularly deal with this Board, who have been here before and who have been asked to do something - and they haven't done it - they go and convert a property without a building permit and we are being asked to retroactively approve it with nothing to suggest that on the next property we are going to be faced with the same situation. Is there any kind of penalty that can be imposed upon this occurrence or is it just something for the Board to decide whether or not to grant the variance and if they don't. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Well there are penalties for the zoning viola- tions and, in this case, doing work without a building permit is also - changing the use of a building without a building permit. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But is it generally the case that the City Attorney isn't going to find this the highest on their priority list, I don't suppose. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: I fee similarly uncomfortable with granting yet another variance to someone who shows us - I don't want to call it bad faith - in terms of the others . . . MR. WEAVER: Well it raises another question - variances aren't just for the convenience of the owner. If there is any difficulty there, it is seems to me to be self-imposed - the building stood successfully in this neighborhood until about a year ago. And the conversion is obviously to increase the income. The granting of a variance - I heard nothing from the applicant that would indicate PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 any need for it - no discussion of why it couldn't be left alone. My judgment, without any measurements - none other than what the application is showing - that there is not a driveway that will accommodate two cars in tandem. Now it may be, but I 'll depend upon the application as it is presented. MS. JOHNSON: If this is going to be two, two-bedroom apartments then there will potentially be eight - at least eight who can live there? SECRETARY HOARD: No it will still be limited to what the zoning allows - no more than three unrelated per unit. MR. OAKLEY: Are the bedrooms sufficiently large enough? SECRETARY HOARD: I 'm not sure. MS. JOHNSON: It would be helpful to have the floor plan. SECRETARY HOARD: In the first floor apartment there is one bedroom which is one hundred six square feet - that is only large enough for one person. There is another room that is one hundred and seventy - one I don't have a figure for, but I guess it is more than a hundred and twenty. So that would be three people capacity in that one. The second floor has two bedrooms, one is one hundred twelve square feet - the Housing Code only allows one person in a room up to one hundred and twenty square feet. And the other bedroom is one hundred and forty-eight, which would allow two people. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Seven total? SECRETARY HOARD: No, the Housing Code won't allow. . . three in each unit. Six total. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we coming any closer to a motion? PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1763 FOR 719 NORTH AURORA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of David and Flora Sagan for an area variance to permit a Certificate of Compli- ance and a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued for the conversion of two one-bedroom apartments at 719 North Aurora Street to two two-bedroom apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1763 . MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There was no practical difficulty demonstrated and the diffi- culty that exists, based on the properties that the appellant owns, appears to be self-imposed. 2. There has been no finding of a special condition or circum- stance in terms of hardship that would suggest granting the variance is appropriate. 3 . The exception would not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. VOTE: 5 YES; 1 NO DENIED PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1764 for 101 Edgecliff Place: Appeal of Elizabeth and C. Selvarajah for a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2, and an area variance for deficient front yard setback under Section 30. 25, Column 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the single-family house at 101 Edgecliff Place to an owner-occupied bed and breakfast inn. The property is located in an R2a (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is not permitted. Therefore, under Section 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordi- nance the appellants must obtain a use variance for the proposed use, and an area variance for the existing front yard setback deficiency, before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself and giving your address. MS. SELVARAJAH: My name is Elizabeth Selvarajah, 101 Edgecliff Place. I am asking for a variance for this property to operate a bed and breakfast (unintelligible) As it is in an R2a zone which allows for only two other people to occupy the property. All we are asking for now is - it will still be owner-occupied but it will be two other people rather than have two permanent tenants living in the house all the time. Because right now we can rent the rooms PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 to people on a lease basis but when the owner wants to use the property, we have a tenant in there. So if it is a bed and break- fast, we can have the rooms when we want to have it. This property has been on the market previously and has had great difficulty in marketing. (unintelligible) of the property because some day I will have to market it and it will be on record at that time. From 1979 to 1984 this property was on the market - there were only two real purchase offers and both of the times the people asked that I go to the Zoning Board and get a variance for multiple dwelling and at that time it was not the best thing to do and the interest rates were only - in 1979 - about eleven percent and I have not put the property back on the market purely because I would like to be able to get the once in a lifetime break - like when you are fifty-five - and I 've carried the property for such a long time (unintelligi- ble) market now. But I would like to use it as a bed and break- fast. It will not change the character of the neighborhood purely because I have a hugh apartment house next to me - I think there must be (unintelligible) apartments in there, there is a sorority down the street - it has fourteen people living there - there is only one other permanent resident in that little area and that is Ms. Pettengill - I have spoken to her and she has no objections at all. She would have been here but she had another meeting to be at and I spoke with a couple of other neighbors and they don't have a problem with it because it is zoned R2a which would enable me to have two tenants at all times - all that I am asking is - instead of having two permanent tenants - letting me operate as a bed and PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 breakfast so that I can have tenants when I want and not have them when I don't. That's about all I have to say. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MS. JOHNSON: So, with the bed and breakfast you would continue to live in the house? MS. SELVARAJAH: Oh yes. MR. SCHWAB: It would be a bed and breakfast with how many people are you planning? MS. SELVARAJAH: I am going to have two others. There are four bedrooms in the house and they would probably just be Cornell people. But it would be most feasible for me because I work at Cornell - so I would probably rent, or should I say, I would have overnight guests that are (unintelligible) MS. JOHNSON: Do you live in the house now? MS. SELVARAJAH: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: Have you had difficulty leasing your rooms? MS. SELVARAJAH: No. It is a hot spot - everyone wants to stay there purely because it is so close to the campus. And when we do rent it out - people are so friendly in the area (unintelligible) and I only lease it out to graduate students, they are very nice people - but when you stay in a place for nine to ten months they are so accustomed to everything that you don't really take care of the place - you have visitors and you have relatives and - it is very hard to say no to some of their requests. If you have all night guests you don't run into those problems. MR. SIEVERDING: But the current leasing situation is sufficient for you to maintain the property? PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 MS. SELVARAJAH: It is extremely - I can maintain it by discipline. Because the taxes are very high there and both my husband and I are Cornell employees. MR. SIEVERDING: And you think that by converting the property to a bed and breakfast will improve. . . MS. SELVARAJAH: Much improve it, that is why Mrs. Pettengill, who is a neighbor, who was very concerned about the neighborhood more than anybody else, because she is the only other permanent resident there. She sees what I see that there would be more finances available to maintain the place in that situation - it will have more character. MS. JOHNSON: You think you can make more money with renting out two rooms a night with a bed and breakfast occasionally - than having a permanent. . . MS. SELVARAJAH: It is not only making money, it is maintaining the place. When you have tenants living there all the time, they take the place for granted - one will call up and ask, can I have my grandmother here for overnight - you run into other kind of prob- lems (unintelligible) With a bed and breakfast you are not going to run into that kind of problem and you have some - okay, when somebody comes to you, it is all very nice but after you have lived two or three weeks with somebody, you find that everything is not very nice and what do you do, you already have a lease. On the other hand, when you have a bed and breakfast you have an overnight situation and it is over with (unintelligible) you have the rooms - so you have some control over the situation. PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You mentioned a moment ago that sometimes you leave town for awhile, have you been renting the house at one point, could you elaborate on that a little? MS. SELVARAJAH: I have leased - I mean, I have rented rooms and I still rent rooms in the house but with the new school year coming I don't want to rent rooms in the house. I want to be able to use it as a - live there and use it as a bed and breakfast but make my own decisions when I want people and when I don't want people. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MR. OAKLEY: For awhile - I was just looking at the realtors form here and they have the owner's address as living in Brook Haven or something like that so for a while you did not live there. . . MS. SELVARAJAH; I rented the place but it is not something that one wants to do, when you like your property I don't think that you want to rent it to somebody and live someplace else because it runs down very fast. MR. SIEVERDING: Do you own other property in town? MS. SELVARAJAH: Yes I do. MR. SIEVERDING: I have a general question - typically in use variances we see site plans and floor plans and some sort of an analysis that shows how the proposed use - I mean what is unique about the proposed use (unintelligible) and use variance should be granted. I mean, a lot of this information isn't here, in fact the only thing that we have. . . . MS. SELVARAJAH: It is a very simple four bedroom - four and one-half bedrooms, whichever you want to consider it. You enter through the lobby of the house - the foyer - the dining room and PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 living room and a den and four bedrooms upstairs - that's about it and . . . MR. OAKLEY: And its got an efficiency apartment? MS. SELVARAJAH: Yes, that's the one downstairs, in the basement. MR. OAKLEY: So you are talking about rent, then. You are intend- ing to lease the efficiency apartment? [CHANGED THE TAPE HERE SO MISSED SOME OF THE DIALOGUE] MS. SELVARAJAH: . . .but I did not rent the apartment downstairs because it is a basement apartment - it does get humid and some- times when one is just coming for the spring semester and doesn't want to stay for the fall semester and you run into those problems. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. OAKLEY: Let me just make sure that I understand exactly what is going on. You are proposing having your building - the effi- ciency apartment in the basement plus, is it one or two rooms in the rest of the building? MS. SELVARAJAH: When my son is home I will rent one room - when my son is not at home, I will rent two rooms. When my son is home is when I can rent two rooms - there is four of us - there is three of us in our family. MR. OAKLEY: How old is your son? MS. SELVARAJAH: Nineteen. MR. SIEVERDING: Where is the parking going to be provided? MS. SELVARAJAH: There is lots of parking space. MR. SIEVERDING: Where? MS. SELVARAJAH: Around the house. Outside in the rear yard, even in my own yard, there is lots of parking space. PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In the front yard. MS. JOHNSON: On the grass? MR. WEAVER: No. There is a curb driveway. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A circular driveway and there is some grass sections there. That's a two-car garage. MS. SELVARAJAH: There is room for four cars but then there is the garage, so - and the tenants, they have more cars than - they have friends overnight. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. 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, if you would come forward please. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: May we come forward together? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh, I suppose so, we've got two microphones, so long as you begin by identifying yourself, you can come together. MS. PENNER: I 'm Katherine Penner, I live at 121 Kelvin Place. MR. PENNER: I 'm Dick Penner, I also live at the same address. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Now I see why you wanted to come together. MS. PENNER: We have several points that we want to make. First we also want to say - I believe you received a letter from David Clark? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's true, we did. MS. PENNER: Okay, and you've read that. Hector and Laura DeBruno who live on Thurston, across the street from the drive that goes down to this property would have been here - Laura intended to come to the Planning Board last week and then it was moved on to the PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 Zoning Board Appeals and she is not in town this week. (unintelli- gible) and I know that Ruth Pettengill had concerns about the parking - I don't know what the present conversations were. But one of our concerns is that currently there are no commercial operations in Cornell Heights at all and that is very much to the liking of the neighbors - there is universal opposition to changing that situation. MR. PENNER: To continue, my understanding is that for the variance the applicant needs to indicate a unique aspect of the structure or of the lot and we don't feel that there is any unique physical feature which prevents it from being a very attractive single-family home, or a home with one or two rooms - whatever is allowed in an R2a district. In addition, we feel - I don't know what experience Mrs. Selvarajah has had in trying to sell it - but in most parts of Cornell Heights, homes are sold very, very quick- ly, often without a realtor, often to one of the first or second or third people to visit the home. And she talks - mentions that it is a hot spot, very convenient for students - it is equally conve- nient for University Faculty and Staff and that is what makes the neighborhood attractive to Cornell University employees. MS. PENNER: Houses this size and larger have sold recently to single families, and so we just can't - we don't think it would be a hard house to sell. MR. PENNER: I think the principal concern is that should a vari- ance be permitted, at least we are not certain what kinds of controls there might be then, and the applicants being able to sell it and a new owner being permitted to use it then as a multiple PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 apartment house or as a rooming house for students and in 1980 there was an application to have it rezoned for multiple dwellings or at least for student housing and I think that was withdrawn before there was a decision. But if there is a variance, we would be concerned that a future owner or this owner at a later date, might be able to convert it - to move out and use it simply as a rooming house for students and that clearly goes against the character of the neighborhood, which is a mixture of owner-occupied homes and existing fraternities and sororities and student resi- dences. But the neighborhood's hope is that we maintain as many of the owner-occupied dwellings as we possibly can. MS. PENNER: Then we had a couple of lesser concerns, but I think they are worth mentioning. We drove by the house tonight and I don't see how it could accommodate seven cars, for example, there is a single lane driveway leading to a double garage and short of cars parking on the lawn or blocking each other - that is, people would be trapped in, in fact, if they parked simply along the driveway - there is a problem there. Furthermore, Edgecliff is on what is something of a blind curve - a dangerous corner anyway, on Stewart Avenue - so as you approach it toward the bridge, if people were looking to see if, indeed, there is a possibility of a room being for rent or if a sign were out there, it would cause a hazard at a corner that is already a very difficult corner to negotiate so it doesn't seem particularly desireable in that way either. MR. PENNER: Well there are - the people who live very close by, David and Gladys Clark, who have adjoining land facing on Stewart Avenue, although their address is Needham Place, and the DeBrunos PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 who live immediately across the street - their address being on Thurston - both were unable to be here tonight - had hoped to come to the Planning and Development Board a week ago, and both are opposed to the variance to operate this home as a bed and breakfast operation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You mentioned a moment ago that - I think it was at the beginning of your statement - that "many" people in Cornell Heights had opposed this variance - do you have any further sub- stantiation of that? or do you represent in any official capaci- ty. . . MS. PENNER: I 'm the President of the Cornell Heights Neighborhood Association. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MS. PENNER: Indeed, this conversation is word of mouth - but there was a large turnout when this was to be an issue. . . MR. PENNER: Six or seven years ago there was a letter from Bryant Robey, who was then the President of the Association, he has since left Ithaca, and from Mr. Clark and from other neighbors at that time. This is an area that is on the edge of Cornell Heights and isn't surrounded - one side has apartments and either a fraternity or sorority, but on the other side - has some residences - but by the terrain, is not surrounded by a huge neighborhood of other permanent residents. The applicant' s statement says that it is the only house faced with certain adverse conditions - there are other houses in the area which have the same (unintelligible) problems which Mrs. Selvarajah describes - there are certainly many other houses which are near fraternities and sororities and we, in fact, PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 have both an apartment and a sorority backing up against our lot and it certainly isn't. . . MS. PENNER: Maintain the single home balance. . . MR. PENNER: She describes it as being isolated from other R2a zones by terrain and Stewart Avenue - that's true, but there are other R2a homes next to it and across Stewart Avenue so it is not - it is isolated by those facts, but it certainly is (unintelligible) other R2a owner-occupied residences. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Come forward, again David, begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. LEWIS: I 'm David Lewis, I live at 205 Thurston Avenue. I just wanted to respond to the earlier question to the Penners as to whether they represented the Cornell Heights Association of Neigh- bors. They certainly do and I am here only to lend support to their position credence to the point that they are making. In addition to that I would just like to add a comment that when the house was on the market my wife and I looked at it seriously as a single family dwelling, with the intention of buying it - we liked it very much and the thing that caused us not to buy it had nothing to do with the facts that are being discussed tonight but it was near the gorge and we had small children and that we were just concerned for their physical safety - as a home it was a delightful structure - it would have made a beautiful single family residence. Thank you. PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions? Thank you David. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, shall we begin our deliberations? PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 DELIBERATIONS ON APPEAL #1764 FOR 101 EDGECLIFF PLACE MS. JOHNSON: I 'm not convinced that an actual hardship has been shown here. I would have felt more comfortable if she had shown figures (unintelligible) or that it isn't saleable. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Certainly that's been Board's policy in the past with respect to use variances, though there have been exceptions certainly, as well. Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: Yes, only I don't want a blanket rule that only money matters but there has been no demostration that she even has to rent it to anyone but she wants the flexibility or she wants the money - leasing is not as desireable, I can understand that. But I am not convinced that hardship has been shown. MR. OAKLEY: I guess I have a question of the Zoning ordinance. What exactly is permitted - the use currently is a family living in the apartment plus (unintelligible) plus a bedroom or two being leased, is that right? SECRETARY HOARD: In an R2, yes you can have a family - individual or family plus two unrelated in each unit. MR. OAKLEY: In each unit. Okay. SECRETARY HOARD: Does that help ? MR. OAKLEY: Yes that does, I was just. . . MR. SCHWAB: A bed and breakfast is just different than that, is that right? ' SECRETARY HOARD: A bed and breakfast falls under the category of a tourist home in the Ordinance and is not allowed in an R1 or R2 zone. PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 MR. WEAVER: In fact, it allows a transient multiple dwelling if the owner occupies - pardon me. Maybe I shouldn't say this. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Unless you want a whole rash of those sorts of establishments beginning. MR. SIEVERDING: Rooming house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Rooming house, that's right. Do we have a motion coming along here somewhere? MS. SELVARAJAH: Can I say something before you . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No I 'm afraid not. If you had to say something, then they'd have to say something and then you'd have to - you know, that would go on forever. Well shall we discuss things a little further - ready for a motion maybe? MR. WEAVER: Well I guess, before we get a motion, I personally need to have some findings of fact. It seems to me clearly that there is no showing of hardship and I wonder if there is any uniqueness and it seems to me the uniqueness would apply to that R2b zone. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: To that parcel within that zone. MR. WEAVER: As that parcel might be unique versus other parcels in that same zone and I 'm not ready to know what that zone is, al- though the testimony indicated that we. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you feel better looking at a map? MR. WEAVER: That's what I want to dig for but. . . [discussion took place here among the Board Members which wasn't picked up clearly by the tape recorder] PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES 6/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1764 FOR 101 EDGECLIFF PLACE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Elizabeth and C. Selvarajah for use and area variances to permit the conversion of the single-family house at 101 Edgecliff Place to an owner-occupied bed and breakfast inn. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board deny the request for use and area variances in Appeal Number 1764 . MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. None of the information provided to this Board at this hearing would persuade the Board that there was any showing of hard- ship at all. 2 . The conditions applicable to this property are not unique to this property but are shared by other properties in the immediate neighborhood. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO DENIED PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1765 for 309 North Meadow Street: Appeal of Robert and Julie Poole for an area variance for deficient lot width and a deficient side yard setback under Section 30.25, Columns 7 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the enlargement and enclosure of the one-story porch at the rear of the single-family house at 309 North Meadow Street for a family room. The property is located in a B2a (Business) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellants must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Compliance can be issued for the proposed work. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. By now you should know the proce- dure, you've been watching. MR. POOLE: I 'm Robert Poole. MS. POOLE: I 'm Julie Poole. We both live at 309 North Meadow Street. What we want to do is take our screened in porch on the back - it has a roof over it - we want to extend it out seven feet ten inches and make it into a family room. With the traffic on our street - as you know, its Meadow Street - we have a small living room in the front and you can't open the windows and listen to your TV because of the traffic outside - so we thought if we put a family room in the back, at least then we could open a screen door in the summertime - in the hot weather - and not have to turn up our TV really loud. It is a single family home and it will remain PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 that - we just want to have a family room large enough to have company down and be able to have room in our house. MR. POOLE: That's about it - clear and simple - straightforward - it is not going any wider or anything - just extend it. . . MS. POOLE: No, just towards the back. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? STEWART SCHWAB: Did you get any comments from the notices that you sent out? MS. POOLE: None at all. Well our neighbor came by from next door and she said "no problem" . We haven't heard any complaints from any of the others. MS. JOHNSON: Just going to be one story? MS. POOLE: Yes, just one story. MR. OAKLEY: How large is your house? I can see it on the plan. MR. POOLE: Let's see, downstairs we have. . . MS. POOLE: As you walk in there is just a small room, and then we have the front room that is our living room now and that is a small room and then we have the kitchen and a bathroom downstairs. We have four bedrooms upstairs. . and the back porch. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of teh Board? [none] Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of granting this area variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Moving right along, it is all ours. PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 DELIBERATIONS ON APPEAL NO. 1765 FOR 309 NORTH MEADOW STREET. MR. OAKLEY: I can't see any problems with this one. I mean, obviously there is just a side lot deficiency. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John I can tell you are going to be an asset to this Board, there is no question. MR. SCHWAB: I agree. PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1765 FOR 309 NORTH MEADOW STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Robert and Julie Poole for an area variance to permit the enlargement and enclosure of the one-story porch at the rear of the single-family house at 309 North Meadow Street for a family room. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board grant the area variance request- ed in Appeal Number 1765. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The basic problems with this building are that the lot width is somewhat deficient - it seems rather impossible to change them and one of the side yards is deficient. On the other hand, it is pretty typical of the neighborhood, at least according to this map and according to my impression, in terms of total lot coverage and everything, they are well within the bounds there. 2 . In terms of the use appropriate to the area, it seems that it is rather well under the desired use there. 3 . It would be impractical to move the house to comply with the Ordinance. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1766 FOR 421 NORTH CAYUGA STREET: Appeal of Peter and Kathleen Malison for a side yard setback variance under Section 35.4 of the Swimming Pool Ordinance to permit the installation of an above-ground swimming pool behind the two-family dwelling at 421 North Cayuga Street. The property is located in an Ria (Resi- dential, multiple dwelling) use District in which a residential swimming pool is a permitted use; however the appellants must obtain a variance for the deficient side yard before a building permit can be issued for the swimming pool. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Please begin by identifying yourself and give your address. MR. MALISON: Yes, my name is Peter Malison, I live at 421 North Cayuga Street - I am here requesting an area variance because I have one side yard deficiency. I meet all the other necessary setbacks except for this one side yard. My wife and I are looking to have a swimming pool in the back yard off from our back porch. I did bring a brochure with the particular pool - if somebody wanted to see it - I would like (unintelligible) buy. And on the back there is materials of how it is made, and so forth. We would be getting another fence on top of the pool - the picture doesn't show that. MS. JOHNSON: What did you say the picture doesn't show? I mean. . . MR. MALISON: On top of the railing - of the top picture there - there will be another - I think - three or four foot high fence that goes on top of that. I would like to note that - it is PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 mentioned that - yes we do have a two-family house but currently the tenants upstairs moved out two weeks ago when school was out and that we are going to be taking the entire house back (unintel- ligible) the downstairs. And one of the main things - well we have children and stuff - we are going to get enjoyment out of it - just like they will too. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MS. JOHNSON: This is probably a question for Tom. Are there fence requirements for pool safety? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: It has to be three foot high, right? SECRETARY HOARD: Well, you either have to have a fence on the pool itself or the area where the pool is located has to be fenced. MR. MALISON: Yes there will be a fence on the top - what you see is the top railing - there will be another white fence - I 'm guessing it is three to four feet. MS. JOHNSON: And this pool - it looked as though - I guess the drawing - it was right next to the deck so you could step from the deck to the pool? MR. MALISON: Right. MR. SCHWAB: Is there a fence between you and your neighbor? MR. MALISON: Yes. On the deficient side. He has a picket fence. MS. JOHNSON: Is the deck new? MR. MALISON: No. MR. OAKLEY: How near is the house on the deficient side, to the line? PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. MALISON: Well the house - it is actually right next to the side yard - the house is farther up towards the street. I guess it shows my house - this house would be just about the same way. MS. JOHNSON: Do you use the garage in the back? MR. MALISON: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: Is there a road that goes to it? MR. MALISON: Well the whole driveway is blacktopped. It comes down along the other side - the southerly side of the house. That's all blacktop driveway. There is a three-bay garage back there. MR. WEAVER: I understand the dog moves to the garage? MR. MALISON: The dog is definitely moving to the garage. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: Have you gotten any comments from the neighbors? MR. MALISON: No, we get along very well - we help each other out - we are on very good terms. I sent him a notice (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: Is the width of your lot unusual for North Cayuga Street? I notice that yours is forty feet, the adjoining property is forty-eight - I don't know what it is on the other side. MR. MALISON: Yes there are different size lots down there - across the street - at least a hundred feet wide - yes I think it varies quite a bit on that street, if you look at some of the houses. When I say "quite a bit" I might mean ten feet, possibly more. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? [none] Thank you Peter. 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 PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 opposition? [no one) That being the case, it is time for a motion. PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1766 FOR 421 NORTH CAYUGA STREET MR. SCHWAB: I 'm always a little nervous about these pools. We don't get too many and it seems to me I quite easily (unintelligi- ble) why these setback requirements - owners want to use the pools. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We get them every summer, Stewart. MR. SCHWAB: I only recall about one or two a summer. MR. SIEVERDING: It's been unusually warm. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right, it has been unusually warm - it's early in the summer. MR. WEAVER: Stewart, I 've observed in a couple of old cases that the pool would be - or was proposed to be up against somebody's kitchen window or something of that sort and they can go to a substantial height with an above-ground pool, and I know that - at least in one case - that was a matter of serious consideration - this one is up against somebody else's back yard, not their house. What else, other than you need windshield wipers if you are too close or something - I have no idea what the people have in mind who write these Ordinances mean or intend. SECRETARY HOARD: So the neighbors can't hear you having a good time. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There was some discussion awhile back - you remember Charlie - about the drainage of one pool into somebody else's lot or something. Occasionally you get that sort of ques- tion. Well perhaps we have a motion? PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1766 FOR 421 NORTH CAYUGA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Peter and Kathleen Malison for a side yard setback variance to permit the installation of an above-ground swimming pool behind the two-family dwelling at 421 North Cayuga Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the side yard setback variance requested for the installation of a pool at 421 North Cayuga Street. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The existing width of the lot does not allow for two fifteen foot setbacks and yet the proposed pool - eighteen feet - is in a reasonable proportion to the width of the deck and in fact would not exacerbate the narrow setback of the deck. 2 . The existing side yard deficiency does not impose a site or a proximity threat to the neighbor on the seven foot side - to the observation of this Board member. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 6-1-87 FOR 158 EAST STATE STREET: Appeal of Robert H. Dein for a sign variance under Section 34 . 6 of the Sign Ordinance to permit four signs (three "People's Pottery" signs and one "Irresistibles" signs) that were installed without a sign permit to remain at 158 East State Street (People's Pottery) . Section 34. 6 of the Sign Ordinance permits a maximum of two signs for each business in the B3 (Business) Use District in which the property is located. MR. DEIN: My name is Robert Dein, I 'm the proprietor of 158 The Commons, the building and of the store, People's Pottery, located in the same building. My previous store location was four doors to the west of our new location and in that location we had a sixteen foot wide store front on The Commons and a single pain of black carrera glass upon which we displayed our identifying sign "Peo- ple's Pottery" - sub-title "Irresistibles" . That's been our identifying logo and singular name for the past fifteen years, essentially. On the Commons we've identified ourselves that way for the past five years. I purchased the property - negotiated to purchase the property beginning last August of 186 and in those negotiations sought some insight and some input from the Building Department, had one of the Building Inspectors go through the existing location to make sure that I felt - anything that would be necessry to make a change for my proposed use would, in fact, be acknowledged and made clear to me and I, in fact, received a letter PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 from Mr. Naegely, of the Building Department, telling me in detail what, in fact, would be necessary to move People's Pottery to that location and to take the former Charjans Store, which was located there and existed on the main floor and in the basement, and use it for my retail establishment - for the same purposes. So with that in mind I received a letter and proceeded to have a dialogue with the Building Department and in that dialogue we basically looked at the entire building, commercially as a retail establishment and also the upper three floors and the exterior and talked about access, entrance, its use - and to my knowledge we have complied with all of the input that we received from the Building Depart- ment. We also, in our negotiations, were clear to ask the former owners of the building in the business Charjans, the Ellis' , if, in fact, they had had any problems with the City in operating as they had previously been for twenty some years in that location - and didn't receive any information to the contrary that they had any situations that were existing to their knowledge that were requir- ing change. So basically the building is a pretty obvious keystone on the Commons and the difference between my previous locating, having a single front facing the Commons of sixteen feet and this location is that there is a sixty foot long facade that, in fact, has four distinct display windows. This facade, essentially, has a pedestrian approach, number one from the north direction, which is the Shearson, Lehman, Tompkins County Trust Company, Citizens Savings Bank corridor. Number two from the east direction - from the Outdoor Store, Norstar Security Bank, Iszards direction. Number three approach would be from the Center Ithaca direction or PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 the Home Dairy direction, which is south and then the fourth approach to the facade is from the westerly direction. All of those approaches require a certain definite means of identity. One is a landmark to find where one is, if one is looking for the business and two, to essentially identify when one is closer, the distinct windows and the merchandise that we show. So we took a look at the building as it was, and I have pictures with me this evening which show previous signage that Charjans, in fact, yes, legally had. MR. WEAVER: We have copies of those pictures. MR. DEIN: Okay, fine. These are in color, they may well enhance the experience of this decision - looking at it. Basically Charjans had signage and I 've noted on this sheet under the pic- ture, the approximate size of the letters and the length of the signage that previously existed for quite a number of years. In my approach to it we looked at the building and said, well, this is what exists, it certainly is not in keeping with the character of the nature of my business and I needed to change. I should proba- bly say this - in reading the posted letter on the door - I was not aware of the requirement of having a sign permit. I applied and received a building permit and talked to Mr. Naegely about anything necessarily to be done. I guess I will offer up at this point that in my previous location People's Pottery and my other business on the Commons, Especially in Ithaca, I have not applied for a sign permit. SECRETARY HOARD: We' ll note that too. PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. DEIN: You may note that. Nobody has come and said you need a sign permit. Building permit, certainly. So I think educationally speaking, it may be important to. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I would imagine that you are grandfathered, were you not? I mean, if you were in that position prior to the Sign Ordinance being documented, you'd be grandfathered in any event - you wouldn't have to come before us for any permit. MR. DEIN: Well those two cases aside. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Just to let you know. MR. DEIN: Okay. Essentially we looked at this building - we said, one the signage seemed escessive - there is no reason to leave the aluminuM overhang that was existing - there is no reason to paint over it and put our name up - there is no reason to really leave the plastic signage which was some four feet high and the entire south face of the building - twenty-four feet - and another ten feet around the east side. It seemed excessive to me and it also made a statement that seemed very clear that it was necessary - maybe not in that scale - certainly not for my needs aesthetically but it was necessary to, in fact, identify the building from these various approaches and, in fact, I didn't bring pictures but a couple of people have come and given us some photographs of the transition of the facade of the building in the last - well between January and March 26, when we opened - recording Ledley's Drugs which was there previously - under the plastic signage that we removed. In fact, that defined the need for a directional sign to the south and one to the east and one to the north. So we approached it aesthetically and we also then looked, as we PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 uncovered and took off the plastic signage that was there, the aluminum signage that you will see there, we uncovered the architecture of the building, which we were thrilled to find and we found that the details of the building itself - the lintel which is twelve inches in height across the front - south facing facade of the building - which wraps around the east corner and heads to the north and continues in that scale. That dictated, structually, where a sign might go - there was also existing leaded glass band that was installed in the 1920 's. That also was a find - an important aesthetic find, I think - for the character of the nature of the building on this corner - the relationship of the store front to the upper portion of the building. We felt that finding that intact - it was essential to leave that structure as it is to restore it - to clean it - and to have it be part of the statement of the identity of this building. So what was left was a twelve inch by some twenty-two to twenty-four foot expanse across the front of the building, a twelve inch expanse to the northeast side and then as we head further north towards the Trust Company, there was an existing window with an eye-beam above it that continued the character and the nature of the lintel and, in fact, functions as a lintel over that window - that also dictated where the identity of that window and if somebody is coming from the north approach - on Tioga Street, how one might identify what establishment and what merchandise is, in fact, there. We decided to do what we have done and I guess you have xerox copies - I 'd like to pass around origi- nal photographs which might be somewhat clearer and a duplicate copy of three of those in color - that will enhance the PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 understanding of this situation. So my feeling is that there are four distinct approaches to this property and to this commercial establishment. There are a certain number of trees on the Tioga Street corridor that prevent one from approaching from the Shearson Lehman, Tioga entrance to the Commons, and seeing any other signage for identifying the merchandise in that window there. As a land- mark, as a keystone building on the Commons, if one was to chose to meet a friend, or somebody - in fact lots of people just wind up meeting at People's Pottery now because they find it so central a location - not because they are coming to shop and it is a pleasant place to be. That being the case there is definite need for identification of the facade. Given that, given what was existing, given the nature of our aesthetic changes and our desire to identi- fy our business, those are the reasons I chose to identify it as such. Under these pictures I 've also noted - both the previous pictures and the present - the approximate size of the previous signage - in its feet and height - and in the size of the letters or the feet and length, I 'm sorry - this is actually not on your - I don't think it is on your xerox copies - it is on these copies that I have brought this evening - but it shows you the front being a twenty-four feet previously some four foot high in signage - presently twelve inches in signage. The side - the east side facing the Outdoor Store direction - previously - again, four feet high and ten feet wide - presently, seven inches of sign - letters essentially and eight feet wide. on the north window - previously approximately sixteen to eighteen inches in painted signage of letters and then ten feet wide and our signage now being eight feet PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 wide running eight feet long and seven inches high in letters. As far as the - well that's basically why we've done what we've done - we based it on previous existence, we were guided by that - we weren't advised by the Building Department that what had been there previously was in violation - if you move in you will need to reduce the number of signs to two. There was no mention of that and we decided to try and basically make our statement - no judg- ment on theirs - it is not right or wrong - it is just we were guided by the guidelines that were in existence. Also, I may pose the question that if in fact an Ordinance was passed recently and if there was a reason a part of that Ordinance was to comply with it, we weren't advised by the previous owners or again, by the Building Department that there was any violation of the existing situation and that we should be, one - apply for a sign permit and two - did not follow suit. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: There is one way of stating the basic problem of this third sign which (unintelligible) the one over the window to the north is the one sign too many? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Technically two signs too many because "Irresistibles" is looked at as a separate sign. As far as I understand there is really only one business - it is not. . . MR. DEIN: People's Pottery - Irresistibles is the way we advertise and it is our sub-title. The nature of the lintel being twelve inches in height and twenty some feet across - it was impossible to have People's Pottery run at maybe five inch height and then Irresistibles at four inches high letters and force it in there. PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 The possibility did exist to put People's Pottery and run across twenty-six feet of the building as Charjans had done previously. People's Pottery - Irresistibles - singularly on a plain that being our name. We didn't chose to do that, again as a structural detail there - a lintel over the door facade itself which seemed a logical place to establish the rest of our identity and our name. MR. OAKLEY: Could you clarify one thing for me. In discussing your hardships so far, what you seem to be describing are great opportunities - you have a wonderful location, it is on a corner lot - it is obviously a better location than a store that is not on a corner of the lot. I can't quite see that you've made a case for a hardship. What exactly, I mean, perhaps you cannot fully exploit your opportunity but is there any other argument for hardship? MR. DEIN: Well the hardship as I see it presented is - I guess the second fact that I have not mentioned is that the north entrance to the upper portion of the building - the second floor of the build- ing is occupied by Dr. Stephen Hand - it is identified there as the Ellis Building, Dr. Stephen Hand, Orthodontist. That's directly adjacent to this ten foot window space that Mr. Schwab has men- tioned. There is no way to identify the merchandise there and any pedestrian approaching from that direction really could look at merchandise there and conceivably go in the two doors that head off in another direction or upstairs. . . MR. SIEVERDING: That's not a secondary entrance into your store? MR. DEIN: That is not - that's an entrance to the second floor which is, in fact, a professional space and the third and fourth floors which are under my jurisdiction - they are two bedroom PAGE 50 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 apartments - one on each floor. So I see one aspect of the hard- ship being that it is important to identify that - that is our merchandise, it is there making a statement, it is only visible from pedestrian traffic to the north and the trees block any visibility as you see in some of those photographs, to the front portion of the building. MR. SIEVERDING: Is there an entrance to the store in that sort of well that takes off by. . . MR. DEIN: The stairwell going down? There is an exit but we do not use it as an entrance, now - for security reasons. I guess the other aspect of my vision of the hardship is that it is important to identify ones business from each direction and that's sixty feet in length on one facade facing two definite approaches and twen- ty-four feet across the front facing two other definite approaches. In fact, as I sat here this evening and have read the posting on the front door, it was clear to me that Center Ithaca has their awning signage that comes out from the front of their building and, in fact, addresses three distinct locations - a view from Tioga Street from the north, one from the east direction of Iszards and one from the west - Home Dairy - and they don't have - there is no other way of entering from the south, in their case but they definitely address three pedestrian approaches and the nature of my property is that we have essentially four. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. SCHWAB: One part of your argument might be - it seems to me in relation to some of the other - the Sign Ordinance is there be- cause, you know - you take a walk on the Commons and you could be PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 visually overwhelmed if everyone has got a gigantic sign. And compared with your neighbors - actually your overall signs are - the length of the signs - are not that much greater, especially if you tried to drop Irresistibles down - as you described - it follows the old building, and what not, so first aesthetic and historical - what other reasons - it seems to sort of separate the sign in two - it is really not more and bigger, in fact, than the neighbors? MR. DEIN: I don't think it is more of a visual impact - I guess I don't want to. . . MR. SCHWAB: It doesn't really go a third of the way off - dropping down of this Irresistibles. MR. DEIN: I don't think it is my place to compare other signage of other businesses on the Commons - I don't want to put myself as a colleague of theirs in that position and the opportunity was there to simply keep the existing structure (unintelligible) and do People's Pottery letters four feet high, twenty-six feet long and then four feet high and ten feet long around the east facade - it just wasn't in keeping with ours - nor did it seem necessary to identify the store and/or the landmark - the building in that way. And I feel that it is totally important for pedestrian traffic both (unintelligible) and just for the City to know where one is at. I 'll meet you in front of People's Pottery - I 'll meet you on the Commons - I 'll meet you in front of Center Ithaca. . . MR. SIEVERDING: The difficulty with the Sign Ordinance, Tom, is not so much in the square footage of signs, (unintelligible) he only has four signs, the total square footage of signage on the PAGE 52 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 building is in fact less than what the Zoning Ordinance allows or the Sign Ordinance allows. SECRETARY HOARD: Well we didn't even look at the square footage. It doesn't appear to be a problem. Let me talk a little bit about some of the things that he referred to. Charjans was cited for having illegal signs. They were cited in 1979 when we had a Sign Inspector who did a sweep of the City. The Sign Ordinance was passed in 1972 - there was a seven year grace period for everybody to get rid of non-conforming signs and the Sign Inspector did an inventory of the entire City - he cited a number of people - we got hundreds of signs down, but at the end of the year it was deemed not worthwhile to keep the Sign Inspector, so we didn't - obviously we didn't take Charjans to court for their illegal signs - but they should have known - the citation is in the file here so it isn't something I just made up. The Building Inspector is not the Zoning Officer - he probably should have mentioned something about needing a sign permit but apparently he didn't. The problem here is just the number of signs - nothing wrong with the - the aesthetics are great - it is a real improvement, that's what is difficult about this case is that you have greatly improved the appearance of a building but it is in violation of the Sign Ordinance because the Sign Ordinance is blind to aesthetics - it is only saying number of signs, square footage of signs, how high, how wide, where they are located, whether they blink, flash, flutter, wave, whatever. . . and that's the difficulty we have with this is that there are too many signs. PAGE 53 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. WEAVER: Well while we are all still together - the conversa- tion here and the written appeal refer to hardship. It is my understanding that practical difficulties need to be shown, not hardship, is that correct? SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. WEAVER: So not by anyone's chosing, but apparently misunder- standing or a use of word where it means something special to us and not necessarily to the appellant - the findings of fact merely need - I shouldn't say merely - need to show practical difficulties - do not need to show hardship. MR. DEIN: At this point, hearing Mr. Hoard's information which I appreciate, I paid the eighteen hundred dollar bill at Cayuga Signs today. It would be a significant hardship for me to remove some of the signage. I would much rather have preferred to have been advised that in fact the Building Department felt like this - that this previous business had been cited for non-compliance with the Sign ordinance (unintelligible) and at this point in 1987 we are still in violation and in my taking it over, one of the concerns I would have to have would be to simply change the letters from Charjan's Cards and Gifts in red plastic letters to People's Pottery Irresistibles in red plastic letters. If I had been advised of that or the fact that you will need a sign permit and in fact then that the current situation does not comply - we will need to change this, I would not have gone ahead and had letters made. In fact - well I guess it is superfluous for me to mention what else I had thought of but it was a considerably more expensive and better quality than what I did - it was high polished metal letters PAGE 54 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 of the same nature which would have lasted probably forty years but fortunately - were this to be against me - these are only going to be twenty year letters so. . . I 'm only out half of what I might have been. But it is a hardship if I 'm asked to remove these because of the amount invested and I will plead that at this point. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John, I see a question forming. MR. OAKLEY: I have a question of the Building Inspector. First of all if the Charjan's sign was in violation - I now understand the previous question but it still seems to me - on looking at the Sign Ordinance that a sign could conceivably wrap around the corner in the way that the Charjan's sign did, is that correct? SECRETARY HOARD: Wrap around? MR. OAKLEY: That it could actually take a ninety degree turn? SECRETARY HOARD: Well I suppose so, yes. MR. OAKLEY: So it doesn't have to be a flat surface, which was mentioned I think by. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MS. JOHNSON; So that could be one sign? MR. OAKLEY: I assume you would have to have - I mean - the defini- tion doesn't seem that clear. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's why we are here. MR. SCHWAB: Is that too big, as one sign? Wrap around - People's Pottery - People's Pottery. SECRETARY HOARD: It is two signs. MR. OAKLEY: But what is the definition of - I mean, if you look at the pictures, just to take an example - you look at the picture with the (unintelligible) is that one sign or three signs? Three PAGE 55 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 elements - I would say, rationally, it is one sign but when you come to making definitions, you have three disjointed elements - you have (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: Well it depends on things like the background and if its. . . MR. SIEVERDING: The words that make up the name of the business put together are one sign, you don't look at the individual words and say that is one sign, this is two signs, this is three signs. . MR. OAKLEY: Okay, all right. I tend to agree. MR. WEAVER: But even if we torture this into one sign we still have too many signs. We either like it or don't like it, think it is a reasonable exercise of our responsibility to approve. . . MS. JOHNSON: Does one have to get feelings from other people (unintelligible) for a sign variance? I mean, did you have to question your neighbors? MR. DEIN: I didn't, I was - I had to send an announcement stating that I was having an appeal to all property owners within two hundred feet of each corner of the property. MS. JOHNSON: Did you get any response? MR. DEIN: Yes. I had Mr. Leo Wells come in and say that - are you Mr. Dein? And he thought we did a beautiful job and he didn't understand why we might change anything that we had done. I did in fact speak with Stuart Lewis and - I really wasn't aware of the procedure here - people speaking for or obviously against, as well. But I definitely would have asked other business colleagues of mine who might in fact feel competition saying that Mr. Dein has three or four, as the case may be, signs. I 'd be open to their input, I PAGE 56 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 know that we have had nothing negative about what we have done, in fact people have really thanked us for doing what we've done for downtown - at least the people who have expressed their opinion - I 'm not saying that's the majority, I don't know but I 'd say, out of probably seven hundred - off the top of my head - responses to the front of the store - the building - and the facade - nobody has mentioned anything like your signage is overbearing - there is too many signs - why do you need all these signs - nor have any of my colleagues - other merchants - mentioned that they felt what we have done is excessive. I haven't looked behind me since I sat down but - there may be somebody who will be here to say. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions or have we exhausted the inquiry here? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this particular sign variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] If that's the case, it is ours. PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 DELIBERATIONS ON APPEAL NO. 6-1-87 FOR 158 EAST STATE STREET CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think we were about to enter our deliberations as to how many signs and what size signs, all of that. Do I have a motion, is there a motion? MR. SIEVERDING: I think we ought to discuss it a little bit first. Okay, let me offer a motion to see if that generates any discus- sion. I think there is a practical difficulty in a sense, given the location of this property on the Commons and the fact that he does have two corner facades on the building - one on the State Street side of the Commons and the other on the Tioga and each represents a distinct approach to the property. And even though, I think - this is not a motion, I 'm just sort of discussing it to see what we can come up with - I think - it is important to me that the square footage of signage that is on the building is less than what the zoning allows. And that is very integral to the operation of the business - to properly identify it - what it is - particularly along that sixty foot facade that depends on (unintelligible) - so for me, I think there is both a hardship even though that is not keynote of consideration for a sign variance but also I think a practical difficulty in properly identifying the business in this type of a location. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Just to follow that out a little bit further, the square footage I found interesting as part of the argument. Did you copy down enough of the specific figures as he was going through that we can compute the square footage and compare it to the fifty square feet in area and the other, essentially to match it? PAGE 58 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. SIEVERDING: I really didn't do that - that isn't the response to my question to Tom. . . MR. SCHWAB: I have it still. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Because it seemed to me that it was clear that the sum total was. . . MR. OAKLEY: I think it was roughly (unintelligible) feet. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Seven inches by ten feet. . MR. OAKLEY: Average gives you a total square footage of something under twenty square feet, for the three signs - the Irresistibles is obviously something else but would probably add up to - still under twenty square feet. MR. WEAVER: I would be cautious about being too exact on this because we could get into an argument about what a sign is. I don't want to start to measure the letters and find out that the background counts too, and that sort of thing. So to generalize I think would be appropriate but to get our facts and figures out would possibly be damaging to our findings. It seems to me quite obvious that on the east facade, to provide a sign large enough to lay clean to the whole sixty feet. It might be possible and practical but quite damaging to the exterior decor, if you have such a thing. I don't know what it is when you move it outdoors, whether it is decor yet or not. And that the intent of the Ordi- nance is better served by accepting two signs rather than one because of the widely separated distance between the two show areas, one being a continuation of the front and the other one being quite a substantial distance set apart and as for Irresistibles, in its location, it is certainly not more obtrusive PAGE 59 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 than putting up the address would be - really it is in a most sensitive and quiet location - on the front of the store. Seemed to be a good practical difficulty - doing other than what they did and one would be to maintain the theme of the origins of the building and still conform with the Sign Ordinance would be damag- ing to the first enterprise. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that looked like it was coming closer to a finding of fact. Want to give it a try? PAGE 60 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 6-1-87 FOR 158 EAST STATE STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Robert Dein for a sign variance to permit four signs that were installed without a sign permit to remain at 158 East State Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the request for a sign variance in Appeal Number 6-1-87. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There exists a practical difficulty in complying with the Sign Ordinance in that (1) the signage as presently configured is an integral component of the operation and marketing of the business and (2) it is part of the theme that the appellant has established with the property. 2 . The location and the number of signs are necessary to properly identify the building - both on its State Street facade and on the long facade that runs along the Tioga access of the Commons. 3 . The property is unique in that it is located on the corner of the Commons and therefore it has those two facades which need to be identified for the operation of the business. 4 . Granting the variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance in that the signs as presently configured - while they exceed the number of signs permitted - the total area of signage appears to be less than the total square footage that would be allowed according to the Ordinance. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 61 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1767 FOR 413 WEST COURT STREET: Appeal of Jeremy Smith for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation under Section 30.25, Column 3, and for an area variance for excessive lot coverage by buildings and for a deficient front yard setback under Section 30.25, Columns 10 and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the use of the premises at 413 West Court Street for a contractor's home office, and to permit an addition to the second floor for a bedroom. The property is located in an R2b (Resi- dential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which a Home Occupation is permitted only under a Special Permit issued by the Board of Zoning Ap- peals. The existing use as a single family dwelling is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30. 57 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. MR. SMITH: I 'm Jeb Smith, I live at 413 West Court Street and this is my wife. MS. DENNIS: I 'm Jane Dennis, I live there too. MR. SMITH: I would like to ask, first of all, that the use vari- ance and the variance needed for us to add a bedroom - that is the area and setback variance - be considered separately. What we want PAGE 62 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 to do is add a third bedroom to the house. It is a two-story house with two additional one-story rooms on the back - there is a dining room and a kitchen that are one-story and what we want to do is put a room over the dining room so the fact that the house is too close to the front of the lot is not affected by what we want to have. The amount of the lot that is covered by the building is also not affected by what we want to have. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Might I just stop you there for a moment. The official notice indicates a Special Permit and Area Variance - and there are two pieces to that. Our homework doesn't indicate anything up here and he is beginning to ask about the difference between an area and a use variance. Can we get a clarification as to what exactly we are doing with respect to the official notifica- tion. SECRETARY HOARD: For the additional bedroom it is an area variance that he is requesting. For the home occupation, special permit or a use variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Special permit or a use variance, okay. And you are saying. . . I just heard two different things - what Tom had said and what the official notice was saying was one thing and what you were trying to say was a different thing, I wanted us to be clear as to what we were addressing before we began. MR. SMITH: Is there a difference between a special permit and a use variance? SECRETARY HOARD: Well a special permit is for a home occupation which - depending on what all you are doing there - a home PAGE 63 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 occupation special permit is more limited than a use variance for a business. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You want to take that again from the top? I 'd understand - I mean, I want you to think about it a little bit. SECRETARY HOARD: Home occupation has no extra - no signs - gener- ates no extra traffic. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Limitation on the number of employees involved in the business. MR. SMITH: Involved in the business or involved on the premises? SECRETARY HOARD: On the premises. MR. SCHWAB: Well one thing - if you sell the land, the special permit doesn't stay. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. SECRETARY HOARD: Special permit is issued to you for the use you describe. A use variance goes with the property and is tougher to get. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Now the way in which the official notification went out, it said - for a special permit for a home occupation under Section. . . right? And you went on then - also - and for an area variance for excessive lot coverage. That's different than a use variance and an area variance. MR. SMITH: Oh I see. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay? The use variance in the latter case that I have just described is more difficult in that it requires that one prove some sort of economic hardship and come equipped to address that issue. Okay? Now what you had just said when you began your statement and this is what triggered in the back of my head is that PAGE 64 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 you were looking for an area variance and a use variance. That's not what the official notification said - so I wanted you to be clear and for us to be clear as to what you are addressing. MR. SMITH: Okay. I didn't realize there was a difference there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it is also reflected to some degree - in your description in which you said an area variance and a use variance as well. But I noticed the confusion because neither - in Item No. 3, page 2 "type of appeal" - neither was checked. So to me that indicated there was some ambivalence - then when I began to compare it with the appeal number, I was beginning to wonder what was going on. So now are we clear - we are dealing with - the official notification was for a special permit and for an area variance - not for a use variance. MR. SMITH: Okay. As I understand what you are saying, all I need is a special permit - so that is fine. I was just misusing the term "use variance" . MR. SIEVERDING: You need a special permit to conduct your business on the property, number one. If you want to add a bedroom, then it is also going to need an area variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The area variance in addition. MR. SIEVERDING: So you are. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That I understand you want to separate as two issues and address separately. Okay fine. MR. SMITH: Yes. SECRETARY HAORD: That is the way the application reads here. MR. SMITH: My reasoning is that the bedroom that we want to have doesn't affect either of the area violations and it seems to me to PAGE 65 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 be a pretty straight forward thing. What complicates it is the fact that I 'm a contractor (unintelligible) came up and mentioned it - that I was a contractor. I have an office in my home and I 'm self-employed. There are no signs and there is no traffic generat- ed by the fact that a contractor lives in this house and that is why I want the two things to be considered separately because what we need to do as a family - as a four person family - is get the third bedroom and some more closet space in the house. MR. SIEVERDING: Shall we deal with the area variance first and then go on to the special permit? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine if you prefer - if that is all right with the appellant. MR. SIEVERDING: That is sort of a separate decision so we can discuss the pros and cons of that and then go on and discuss the special permit for the home occupation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well if you are going to proceed in that fashion, it requires we merely ask who, out in the audience, is going to be more or less - it just requires the procedure - I don't think there is going to be a whole lot of supporting commentary out there one way or the other, so we can go ahead and proceed with it if you would like. MR. SIEVERDING: I would just as soon do that and get that issue behind us and then go on and discuss the special permit for a home occupation (unintelligible) for a contracting business. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other thoughts from members of the Board? MR. OAKLEY: It would be a whole lot easier to devise a motion on two things instead of one - they would be easier to separate. PAGE 66 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. That is what I think Herman is saying. I think so. Do we have any further questions then of the appellant with respect to the area variance for the bedroom? MS. JOHNSON: What is the size of the kitchen? MR. SMITH: The bedroom is going to be over the dining room. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The footprint of the building does not change by the addition. MR. SMITH: Right. This is the addition. The bigger one there is the downstairs - the smaller one is the upstairs. MS. JOHNSON; Okay, so even though the bedroom is essentially over the dining room (unintelligible) MR. SMITH: Right. The next sheet shows the proposed addition. I think it is seventeen by thirteen. . . fourteen. . . MS. JOHNSON: Okay. Are you going to try and (unintelligible) MR. SMITH: That's going to be hard - it is almost a flat roof. What I had thought of doing first is take the entire roof off and making it steeper - a little steeper - still so that it would be a hip roof but with more pitch (unintelligible) I am thinking now that what I 'll do is put the same type of roof over the addition, that is a hip roof - it will be a little higher and come and fall onto the existing roof - because of the expense. And yes I do want to stay in character with the house - I want to carry the cornice detail right around. . . All the input from my neighbors has been that nobody has any objections. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So the roof is going to be raised or is it not? MR. SMITH: The existing roof will stay the way it is. We are putting an addition on a little steeper and a little higher. PAGE 67 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But in any event it is a crawl space, it is not living space? MR. SMITH: Oh, no, it's not even useable. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Any questions Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, that being the case - if you will just sit still, let me ask if in the audience there is anyone who would like to speak in favor [no one] and if in the audience there is anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Fine then if we move ahead with a motion or further discussion on the area vari- ance. PAGE 68 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1767 FOR 413 WEST COURT STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Jeremy Smith for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation and for an area variance to permit the use of the premises at 413 West Court Street for a contractor's home office and to permit an addition to the second floor for a bedroom. The decision was split into two motions, 1767a and 1767b. 1767a is as follows: MS. JOHNSON: I move that the Board grant the area variance re- quested in Appeal 1767a for the addition of a second floor bedroom. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Practical difficulty exists in complying with regulations for the front yard; he would have to move the house back to the minimum setback. 2 . The addition of the bedroom on the second floor would not affect the footprint of the building on the lot, therefore it does not exacerbate the percentage of lot coverage that is already exceeded. 3 . This would not adversely affect the character of the neighbor- hood. VOTE ON 1767a: 6 YES; 0 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 69 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 TESTIMONY ON APPEAL NO. 1767b FOR 413 WEST COURT STREET CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Now if we can move on to the special permit for a home occupation as a contractor's office. Do you want to say anything further about that? MR. SMITH: Yes, I don't think that I should . . . say that I have a shop in my garage that is used in the construction business. Although my neighbors have also been supportive of this, they have all gone to some length to say that they don't have any objections about my working there. And I 'd also like to say that there are other shops in the neighborhood for personal business use I 'm not sure but there are other noise making shops around. But at any rate I can understand the Board's not being happy with a shop being in a residential district and I am ready to move it - it is not big enough for what we do anyway. As far as having my office in my house, I write pay checks there, I pay bills, I collect mail, and I occasionally receive a bill or a set of prints dropped off by somebody - but that's the extent of the public use of the house as an office. There is no regular traffic generated by it - I have no sign, I have no need of a sign to use a room in my house as an office. And if I couldn't do what I do there, it would be a hardship for me to go somewhere else to do what is a daily part of my work schedule. I spend maybe a half an hour to an hour in there every day just kind of keeping up and to have to go and do that somewhere else or to have to hire a bookkeeper to do it would be a substantial hardship. PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MS. DENNIS: I want to say that it is really nice to have your husband working in the house - for the kids - and that kind of thing - to have him available for them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: Do I hear you saying you really aren't pressing the shop in the garage? MR. SMITH: No I 'm not. MR. SCHWAB: You don't want us to grant that? MR. SMITH: No - but I won't be surprised if you won't and I 'm not making a big argument in favor of my having a shop there. MR. SCHWAB: Okay. Should I ask you this next question, seeing you say you do on an intermittent basis - what does that mean? MR. SMITH: Well, I have a partner and most of what we do is we build new houses and most of the time we are at the job site building a house. Occasionally we build a kitchen and when that happens then one or the other of us spend several weeks in the shop building cabinets and staircases. So in that sense it is intermit- tent - it is not always being used. MR. SCHWAB: And as far as the extended - how could you meet a client - if a client came to your house or customer or whatever? MR. SMITH: Almost never. It has happened, but almost never. MS. DENNIS: They usually go to the client's house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How did this issue come up, if I can ask? The issue about contractor's home office? MR. SMITH: Oh, I got a letter from the City saying that I should appear in Court because I was running a business at that address. I was in violation of something. Apparently the City had been PAGE 71 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 trying to get hold of Peggy Cebe, the former owner, for years, not knowing that I had bought the house two years ago. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Did she have a business there? MS. DENNIS: No. It was because he is listed as a business - we have a business phone and I think that's when they decided we had a business there. MR. DENNIS: I am in business there - yes it is listed in the phone book as a business address. SECRETARY HOARD: You may recall some months ago you had a case before you of another contractor who was doing quite a bit more in a residential zone and at that time, we looked to see who else was listed in the phone book and it happened that Mr. Smith was listed in the phone book and it happened to be at the same address as this Peggy Cebe, who was someone we have been trying to get ahold of for years so while we were waiting for a response, the City Attorney's office sent out a summons. . . MR. SIEVERDING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they were using the adjoining property. SECRETARY HOARD: No. Oh, the previous case yes. MR. SIEVERDING: They were using the adjoining single family . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh, okay, now I am with you. MR. SIEVERDING: As a location to operate (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You'll forgive my asking but sometimes it has a definite - I think in this case - even a definite bearing on the case. SECRETARY HOARD: There was no complaint filed, if that's what. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's what I 'm really after. PAGE 72 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. WEAVER: Maybe I can simplify this. You are after what you asked for - a special permit to run a home occupation at your home address. We - it seems to me - have a right to grant or deny a permit for a home occupation or in the granting of it, to put conditions on it. So I don't know that we are - I don't want to be in the position to advise the applicant, but the appellant has the opportunity to ask for what he can have, essentially, without necessarily exposing - and the possibility of losing entirely on what he might have to settle for. Is that accurate? MR. OAKLEY: In other words we can grant less than he asks for? MR. WEAVER: We can grant him a condition which - for example, I would want the condition that he not park contractor's equipment in the yard and - like big dump trucks and (unintelligible) in a residential neighborhood, okay? But it seems to me that we can consider this as for what he asks - other than the fact that he asked for use in the printed document. But we can consider the special permit without risk of asking for the shop being a yes or no . . . is that correct? MR. SMITH: So you can allow me to have an office but not a shop? MR. WEAVER: We could allow you to have the whole works. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No dump trucks, no tractors. SECRETARY HOARD: You can also put a condition on that the permit is valid only as long as there aren't valid complaints. I would say "valid" complaints because there might be complaints that have no merit. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are you going to decide that? PAGE 73 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: Well, I can decide to bring it back to this Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: He loves misery. Can we move along to a motion perhaps - and I know that is the hard part but there are other people in the room waiting. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes but they were here last month. MR. SCHWAB: Well I 'm stunned by how little is going on in this office - that he even needs a special permit. It strikes me as perfectly - it is no different from what I do in my study and I 'm not about to go for a permit. But I don't have a business. . . SECRETARY HOARD: You can't get a permit in your zone. MR. SCHWAB: That's why I haven't tried to get one. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Particularly not from this Board. MR. SCHWAB: And I 'm a little reluctant, given our previous encoun- ter, to grant the special permit to use a house for a contracting business - I mean it is not - it is a sensitive area. Maybe I should ask Tom - how much can you do in a house before you need a permit? For instance, essentially no clients come in there - no employees come in there - he writes a few bills in his private study - (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: Well that's - rather than the type of business, it is the nature of how the property is used - it is different in this case. They are both contractors but the other case had - all the people would report to work at that property - there were materials stored in the building - there was a lot of equipment in the building - it was quite different. PAGE 74 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. SCHWAB; I guess my question is, do we have to grant a special permit? What can you do without a special permit in the way of writing bills, using your desk in a bedroom/study? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In other words is . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Well I 'm looking for an interpretation from the Board of Zoning Appeals on this because I really don't know where to draw the line. We run into a lot of cases where people are consultants - the only office. . . MR. SCHWAB; Every professor in town is going to do that. MR. SIEVERDING: Well does every professor in town, who is a consultant, have a yellow page - or whatever - in the phone book? MS. JOHNSON: You have to have a federal I.D. . . . MR. SIEVERDING: I don't want to get these people involved in a discussion that maybe is better left to us separately in terms of how we are going to deal with it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, I think the discussion is better, in some way here - to the degree that Tom would need some guidance. And I think Helen's point that she was bringing up there - is not a bad one to consider - which goes back to the way in which one. . . you were thinking about your license numbers and things of that sort? MS. JOHNSON: Yes and federal I.D. - if you are a consultant (unintelligible) you have to have a federal I.D. if you are a consultant. MR. SCHWAB: Do you have a federal I.D. number? MR. SMITH: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: This is part of his business - he doesn't do things on the side. PAGE 75 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right - it is not really consulting - this is his business. MR. SIEVERDING: It is not an incidental use of the property. [DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE HERE WITH SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TALKING AT THE SAME TIME - NOT TRANSCRIBABLE] MR. OAKLEY: . . .the I.D. number - a lot of the faculty at Cornell see students at their homes and give out their home telephone so just receiving phone calls at your home - it doesn't seem. . . MR. WEAVER: I 'd like to respond to the Commissioner. He hasn't asked us for an interpretation so I propose that we not give him one and that there be a - well there is an application before us for a home occupation - special permit - and we have heard from the appellant and a contractor who doesn't use the home as a location for all of the activities of his business. However, currently or in the recent past, has used a wood shop in his garage for cabinet building and repair of furniture, or building new furniture. So it seems to me that we grant it or not grant it and in having reserva- tions over what we don't want to allow, that we get involved with the granting with conditions, which I suggest - not only one but any number that we may come up with as a Board. MR. SIEVERDING: I like that approach, for one. I think your recommendation relative to no equipment related to the contracting business be stored on the site - to that I would add this use of the shop and that the shop in back of the property not be used for production purposes such as building cabinets and all that heavy duty . . . to get involved in a more intensive commercial use of the property than what I think is meant by a home occupation. PAGE 76 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we going to limit the number of employees as well? If he grows, let's say - three years down the line he is very successful . . . MR. WEAVER: It would be my understanding that granting a home occupation would allow him to have not more than two employees, if that came to pass. If that came to pass he would be happy as anyone in the room. Again, though, discussing the shop, it seems not inappropriate that a person have a home occupation that would include repair of furniture on premises and that at the point that they move in - day after day after day - running the saw to build my model kitchen, is a jump beyond that - so it would seem not necessary to say "no saws in the garage versus. . . " MR. SIEVERDING: We could say "no facilities for business or production related work" - is really what we are talking about here. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there more to that? MR. SIEVERDING: What, do you want a motion to. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It would be nice. MR. SIEVERDING: Any other comments before we make a motion? MR. WEAVER: Well I for one am not convinced that there should not be a shop there but if there is a consensus that there should not, I still recommend that we allow occasional work there. MR. SCHWAB: One of the key points is that they mention in the Ordinance - is noise - we actually have a letter to the effect that there is some noise here. I 'd be inclined not to grant a special Permit for the shop because of the noise. MR. SMITH: Did you say you received a letter about noise? PAGE 77 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, from Mr. Randel, who was very positive, in essense, about the first part and I think his objections are laid out in the third paragraph. MR. SCHWAB: I mean this is just like - it denies - you know, he has still got all his shop tools there and he is still allowed to build anything he wants for his house and obviously nothing is going to happen if he slips in occasionally and builds the odd cabinet but it doesn't have our stamp of approval on it. MR. SIEVERDING: I am not at all opposed to the idea of occasional use of the shop for personal use but I don't know how you then define the standard that is going to be used to identify what has sort of occasional use - all of a sudden becomes production use. MR. OAKLEY: What type of equipment you have there? MR. SMITH: Well there is a table saw, there is a (unintelligible) alarm, there is a joiner, there is jamb saw, plainer, and a shaper in a twenty-two by twenty-two garage. It is really stuffed. MR. OAKLEY: So that's considerably more than the average home has and it is something of a hardship - I believe - to have all that equipment in there if you could not use it in your business - is that correct? MR. SMITH: Yes I would have to move it to another place if we were not allowed to use it for a business. MS. JOHNSON: But you said it wasn't big enough - that it is too small. . . MR. SMITH: The shop is pretty cramped to work in. I would rather not have to have a time table imposed on me but within (unintelli- gible) PAGE 78 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well perhaps a motion now? Charlie did you have one half formed before that we could kind of beat into place? PAGE 79 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1767B FOR 413 WEST COURT STREET MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the Special Permit for a Home Occupation for the office part of the contracting business as requested in Appeal Number 1767b, with the following conditions: 1. That construction machinery not be stored on the property and 2 . That the shop not be used for production work in the contracting business. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. In the office part of the business there is no traffic created and clients do not come to the house. 2 . There is no noise or other annoyance created. VOTE ON 1767b: 6 YES; 0 NO SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS PAGE 80 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MORE DELIBERATIONS AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE AND BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further discussion? MR. SCHWAB: I think I used the word "regular contracting business" MS. RUANE: Regular work in the contracting business. MR. SCHWAB: Regular work in the contracting business. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How are you going to define that? No, I 'm curious. MR. WEAVER: I 'm curious - call it production work. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Production work? MR. WEAVER: Sure. MR. OAKLEY: Could we also say, instead of just noise - annoying noise? MR. WEAVER: Hey we are talking and so is the appellant talking about - what do you mean? If we say occasional use, that might mean eight hours one day and none for the next month or it might be an hour a day forever so - these words are the best we have in our language without going to the Senate and the House of Representa- tives. MR. SIEVERDING: Charlie (unintelligible) is the regular production use of that (unintelligible) MR. SMITH: So we are permitted some use of the shop? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. MR. SMITH: I have a question too, about what is meant by equip- ment? Do you mean large equipment in the driveway? MR. WEAVER: Back hoes and . . . trucks, etc. barricades, twenty foot pile of barricades. . . PAGE 81 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The last appeal tonight is APPEAL NO. 1768 FOR 401 COLLEGE AVENUE: Appeal of Joseph O. 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 five-story building with retail uses in the basement, first, and second floor, and three floors of apartments above, at the former J. Gould College Outfitters store 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. A previous appeal (Appeal Number 1760) was denied by the Board at its May 4, 1987 meeting; the appellant is returning with a proposal which includes provision of some of the required off-street parking. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. As you may have noticed, we have a new Board member so that, as opposed to perhaps previous instances, where you need only supplement what you would have presented last month, I am afraid that in this case, to be fair to our new Board member, you are going to have to go pretty much from the top - but we would hope in recapitulated form, okay? If you would begin by identifying yourself for the record. MR. CIASCHI: My name is Joseph Ciaschi, the other Board members saw the - they have the print. . . PAGE 82 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. OAKLEY: I also have it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: He has all the information that we have, but none of the explanation we were privileged to have last month. MR. CIASCHI: All right, George why don't you explain - you can explain what we plan to do here. MR. HASCUP: Basically - do you have a map in front of you? MR. OAKLEY: Yes I do. MR. HASCUP: As you can see it is the 401 - the Sam Gould property - as was discussed earlier - this is another keystone urban site in Ithaca - this corner here in Collegetown and what we are proposing to do is put in a five story brick building - the material will be brick with limestone sills, windows very much in scale - double hung windows - very much in scale with the Sheldon Court and the architectural history of that block. It is a very important strategic site and in many ways I kind of see it - in effect - as one of the gateways of Collegetown. In terms of the use of the building, the ground floor is a shop which will have a lower level like Triangle Book, which will be the same shop - so you go down- stairs and you can see it through an open stairway. The first level above grade will also be a shop and then we move up to the third floor - the plans are a bit confusing because we have option- al plan configurations there but basically on the third floor we are proposing a seven bed apartment and on the fourth floor we are proposing a special apartment which goes up to the fifth floor. The fourth floor will contain five beds and the fifth floor, which we are calling the penthouse floor, will have three beds but possibly five. It is a special penthouse floor so we are sort of PAGE 83 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 thinking that students won't necessarily try to double up, up there and the rooms are quite tight so we are suggesting that that would be a three bedroom floor but it would be contiguous with the fourth floor so there is a special - kind of grand two-story apartment on A the fourth and fifth floors. We are trying very much to respond to the Johnson building, the Triangle Book building, which is probably one of the most important historic buildings in Collegetown, it has a fine cornice and a beautifully pilastered brick and we are basically matching cornice and sill lines and maintaining the quality brick material to kind of make the final end rhythm of that block. And as you can see by the nature of the site plan, this site is a unique site in Collegetown, it is only twenty-five feet wide and it is seventy-five feet deep with a ten foot service alley. It is a very, very difficult site to develop because of the fire exit, handicapped requirements with modern construction, the scissor stairs at the elevator take up a large percentage of the floor area and it is a very tight building to develop so one of the ideas that we came up with was the idea of the bay window - it is a small projecting window that comes out approximately eighteen to twenty inches. There are a lot of examples of that in Ithaca - up in Collegetown as well. But these brick windows (unintelligible) to help the building work, in terms of the size of the hundred and twenty square foot size for a minimum bedroom. And we have been through the Department of Public Works to discuss that and they assured us that the air rights concept was okay, but there is a fee that we will pay for the privilege of doing that. Basically that's it. We feel it is an appropriate urban building with a mixed use PAGE 84 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 of commercial and student housing up above. The fifth floor will be set back to identify the special measure of the end block and it will be pulled back of the fifth floor windows of the Johnson building. That's basically it in terms of the nature of the building and why it is an important urban building. I guess the more important explanation has to do with his [Joe Ciaschi 's] phase of the discussion here, in terms of the parking requirements relative to commercial and housing - Joe do you want to go over that? MR. CIASCHI: The way I understand it, I 'm here for two variances, one for a lot size variance and the lot size is what it is - it is a sliver piece of property, so I am asking for a variance for that and I guess - it was classified at the last meeting that we had - an unofficial type meeting - on how many spots I did need. Is that right Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. CIASCHI: The only variance needed that the commercial parking - the parking for commercial would be in a residential zone so that is the other variance I would be needing, right? SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. CIASCHI: For three of the spots, is that right? SECRETARY HOARD: Right. We figured that the requirement there would be five spaces for the apartments and then four for two of three retail floors because the ground floor - because there is housing above, doesn't need parking, and one of the spaces was going to be on-site. MR. CIASCHI: One would be on site. . PAGE 85 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: So that left three that would be in a retail area. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: For the benefit, particularly of John, who has not been here, go through that one more time, specifically. SECRETARY HOARD: Okay. For the apartments, the requirement would be five parking spaces - one space per every three persons. The parking for the retail use is based on one space per five hundred square feet of retail floor but in that zone they allow you to waive the parking requirement for the ground floor retail, if there is a residential floor above - of equal or greater floor area. MR. OAKLEY: So they have to provide for two of the floors? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) SECRETARY HOARD: So there are four spaces required for retail use and one space will be on the property, three would be off-site but the appellant has gone through the neighborhood looking for spaces and the only spaces available were in the residential zone. And there is a new amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that was passed last February 4th that requires that all land which is used to provide off-site parking must be restricted to that use only for as long as the building - excuse me that is the wrong one. Okay - all off-site parking areas must be located in the zoning district in which the building use or activity that the off-site parking is intended to serve, is a permitted use. So he needs a variance for the exception to allow him for a commercial use in residential. . . MR. OAKLEY: For a commercial but not (unintelligible) as a resi- dential. . . I guess he needs a variance for three spaces. PAGE 86 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: And the argument to justify that is that the parking would be far enough away so that it really wouldn't be customer parking because they wouldn't know where to find it so it would be the employees would park there so it does get the cars off of College Avenue. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you have secured a lease for some of that parking? MR. CIASCHI: So on the parking I have - as Tom has mentioned, I have one on-premise - I have six here in a lease and it is a fifteen year lease which makes seven - and I am just about ready to acquire the last two that I need. So I will have those and will take the responsibility for acquiring them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Where are those six? MR. CIASCHI: These six are at 210 Linden Avenue. MR. HASCUP: It has to be within a thousand feet right? This is within the thousand foot radius. MR. WEAVER: Well let's keep our language clean. SECRETARY HOARD: The retail has to be within seven hundred fifty feet, and the residential has to be within a thousand feet so you may need a variance for distance. MR. WEAVER: Those are not radii - those are along the street line. He is a thousand foot radius I don't want to. . . I don't know who is saying what but when I heard the radius . . . MR. SCHWAB: It is within a thousand feet but more than seven hundred fifty by the street. . . MR. OAKLEY: How many feet do you have, do you know? MR. CIASCHI: I think it is about seven hundred fifty feet. PAGE 87 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. OAKLEY: Now we are dealing basically with granting a variance for the use of the three parking spaces and that won't affect his need to get two more parking spaces, is that correct? MR. CIASCHI: No, I still will have to get the other two. The two that I am working on are closer in distance than these. MR. SCHWAB: Well more background - last month this proposal came in with one parking place and it was denied because there was not enough parking so in the last month you have gone out and found parking but with these complications. So what we. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Of the six spaces that are at 210 Linden Avenue, part of those will be allocated to residential and then one to retail? Then you will have one in the alleyway in the back for retail? MR. CIASCHI: Right and then two elsewhere. MR. SIEVERDING: You will negotiate a lease for two elsewhere? MR. CIASCHI: Yes. MR. SCHWAB: Will they be on long term lease? MR. CIASCHI: Well as long as I - at one of the other meetings I told the people at the meeting all the difficulties that I was running into because people just don't want to tie up their proper- ties for so long. I was very fortunate here and the other two places - I think I can get a fairly long term but I 've knocked on a lot of doors and talked to a lot of people and for a lot of differ- ent reasons - rightly so - they just can't be tied down for years and years and years and years. So at that time it would be my responsibility again, the way I understand it, that I would have to - if that happened I would have to hunt for more spots - or part of PAGE 88 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 the building would be shut down. That's the way I understand it am I right? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: What is 210 Linden? SECRETARY HOARD: It is a four unit multiple dwelling. I 've talked with the owner - he called me to find out what his requirements were to meet his parking requirements and then what he could rent beyond that, so that is taken care of. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is that Avramis? SECRETARY HOARD: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What I 'm looking at is that entire - I mean, we've already had a lot of complaints and problems - one way or the other and I 'm just trying to think of where all of that is going to fit. MR. WEAVER: If you are wondering where everything is going to fit - it isn't going to fit but that's not a part of this appeal. It is a matter of that Ordinance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I just don't want to go double counting Charlie. MR. SIEVERDING: So the variance is for satisfying the parking requirments in other than a B2 zone? SECRETARY HOARD: Right - other than a business zone. MR. SCHWAB: Possibly a distance. . . MR. SIEVERDING: How do we answer that question?; are we going to get an answer to that before we have to make some decision? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure I think that would be. . . well at any rate, conditional. PAGE 89 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. WEAVER: How do we get an appeal on such an important matter without any input from Planning? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's a good question. . . MR. OAKLEY: You could have made it conditional last meeting. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No. MR. SIEVERDING: You left here last meeting - certainly with your permission that there is provision in the Ordinance that allowed you to go out and lease parking a thousand feet for the residential and seven hundred fifty for retail. We've got the leases for the spaces - you have the address for the spaces and we only need to know the distance. So the question is, do we have to grant a variance for not only spaces located in a different zone but we would also have to grant a variance for the distance. (unintelli- gible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The Building Commissioner is going through some fancy mathematics. . . MR. SCHWAB: To anticipate the purpose of that difference, I would think is so customers could use this - basically they aren't going to be using these spaces anyway - the employees will. MR. CIASCHI: I understand - on the parking up in the parking ramp is for retail - for the customers. I mean, a customer can't go to a store and say, okay you have reserved parking two blocks to the right and they go park their car and come and shop at that place. I 'd never see that happen, it is impossible to happen. MR. OAKLEY: I mean, I don't think any of your customers. . . MR. SCHWAB: I think it shows - do you think your employees and your tenants might use those spots? PAGE 90 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. CIASCHI: Yes - the spots that are leased, right. So it is not like the retail spots would be used at all - the workers and the retail and even if they walked - rightly so, I didn't measure the spots - I know they are under a thousand - to be exact and I would say the two that I am acquiring are under the seven fifty but if they were workers and they had to park in that particular spot - assigned parking, whether it was seven fifty or eight fifty, I don't think it would make any difference. MR. SIEVERDING: Right. MR. SCHWAB: They would be glad to have assigned parking. MR. CIASCHI: Right, this parking is assigned for 401 College Avenue. MR. SIEVERDING: I understand that. MR. CIASCHI: The shoppers would park in the ramp or something like that. MR. SIEVERDING: But there is a technicality within the Zoning Ordinance on which somebody could possibly fault a decision that we make tonight which, I think, may have repercussions. MR. WEAVER: Tom is going after the big map. MR. SIEVERDING: Right, to measure how far. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Should we adjourn until they return? MR. WEAVER: I 'm left a little afloat on how to handle a suggested, I think, questionable term, two more somewhere. This does not provide for all the required parking - he is looking for two more. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand, yes. MR. WEAVER: I don't know how a resolution tonight, without. . . PAGE 91 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. SCHWAB: Can't we grant a conditional on his finding two more parking spots? MR. WEAVER: I think you deliver the lease. . . MR. CIASCHI: May I just say one thing, it might answer a lot of questions. Probably the reason of all the Collegetown problems have been parking. The biggest opposers have been Bryant Park and I think rightfully so. At this meeting I had last week, this unofficial meeting, I acquired the leases that I had, especially one being the long term one and what I 've gone through to get this, along with what else I had to do. So this satisfied them - other- wise they would have been here tonight. They were quite satisfied. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie did you have more follow - did you want to follow that up? MR. WEAVER: Well if we are adjourned, yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we haven't really adjourned ourselves to the degree - I mean, this is all on the record. MR. WEAVER: Two observations - I can't imagine anyone trying to develop anything in Collegetown that won't run into precisely the same problem and the solution will become more and more severe until there is a crises and they decide to change the Zoning Ordinance or blow it all up or something. This new Zoning Ordi- nance is not a solution and we don't have a solution, the Board of Zoning Appeals, unless each time one comes in to say, well go hunt for some and if its this side of Belle Sherman somewhere, it's okay. It just is going to shove parking out or shove development out, you have to make up your mind. It isn't there - if it were there we wouldn't have a new Zoning Ordinance - we'd have the same PAGE 92 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 old stuff. And historically, up until very recently, Zoning Ordinance for this property required no off-street parking - for years and we got a lot of development and no parking and now we are going to get a lot of parking and no development or something of the sort. I 'm speaking to our new member, in particular, that this is City policy, in the Ordinance - it went from apparently no concern for off-street parking to a pretty rigid set of standards overnight - well over a year and a half moratorium. So I don't think we, as a Board, need to feel any demand to help developers or help Bryant Tract or anything else. We have to decide on each case and on judgement case because certainly the Ordinance isn't going to help us. MR. SIEVERDING: I agree with you one hundred percent. MR. CIASCHI: I also think this Board is here for one thing - for a variance - otherwise, why is this Board here? And I think - I am the first, maybe, to go through this but just because I am the first I shouldn't have to pay a penalty. . . that's why you are here. MR. WEAVER: Well when the next guy comes in, he has a feeling that he has the right to the same variance that was granted. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Gentlemen, if I could interrupt here perhaps bring this thing back to . . . do we have any kind of determination as to how many feet . . . we are measuring how many feet. MS. JOHNSON: What is happening with the new parking ramp, parking ramp up there? MR. SIEVERDING: The Board of Public Works is trying to decide how many parking places. . . PAGE 93 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is the parking garage going to provide. . I don't think they have made up their mind have they, as yet? I think, as Herman says, they are still trying to decide how many really are going to be open to the public. MR. SIEVERDING: The garage has been under discussion in Collegetown since 1980, when I was actually working in the Planning Department when the whole concept was under consideration. Here we are in 1987 and they are still trying to decide on what the actual space is going to be between long-term parking, retail parking, where they are going to sell permits, what is the price. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So there really is no decision in that regard so we can't really turn to that. SECRETARY HOARD: Yep. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yep, what? SECRETARY HOARD: Under a thousand feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is within a thousand feet. More than seven fifty? SECRETARY HOARD: Counting the street cross? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Counting the street? SECRETARY HOARD: Crossing the street counting? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. He is using his rubber ruler. Eight hundred? About eight hundred. SECRETARY HOARD: It is just over the seven fifty. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Now with that additional piece of information. . . MR. CIASCHI: I wasn't alone - one of my men was with me (unintel- ligible) so I went by speedometer on my automobile and I figured PAGE 94 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 that it was between seven and eight - probably more like eight, the other two spots are under that, considerably so. MR. SCHWAB: So the distance of these is what? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: About eight hundred feet. MR. SCHWAB: About eight hundred feet. MR. SIEVERDING: The two that you are currently negotiating for, how close are you to a deal on those two spaces? MR. CIASCHI: Days. And there is a case of, well - people just don't want to tie themselves up. I 've talked to many, many, many people and - so the ones I 've got are going to be for the longest I can get and like I say, it will be my responsibility after that, also. MR. SIEVERDING: The lease on the. . . MR. CIASCHI: It's up to his office to enforce it, so it should be, - I don't think it's right, but if that's the way it has to be, then, you know, fine, because this is total to the limit in Collegetown and if I wanted to rush this through, when I bought this piece of property, I could have jambed it through - got my permit and (unintelligible) but I didn't do that. I just thought, no way would it be zoned any other way than total commercial - you know - whatever you want to do - no holds barred. It would just take less people infiltrating into the neighborhoods, really. But I 'm the first so - you want the parking - I have the parking and when I don't have it, it is my responsibility and I ' ll deliver. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John, you had a question? MR. OAKLEY: So we could, in fact, grant a use and distance vari- ance for the three necessary business spots and the Building PAGE 95 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 Department then, essentially, can settle whether they have adequate residential spots within a thousand feet without further reference to the Board of Zoning Appeals is that correct? SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: That is for parking, not a use variance - parking. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well he is looking at the use of the residential - that's what he is saying Herman. MR. OAKLEY: So, in other words we can actually decide everything at this meeting - I mean, we can decide enough to leave it to things that don't need to be decided by the Board of Zoning Appeals so that Mr. Ciaschi doesn't have to come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the final two spaces? SECRETARY HOARD: I think what you could do is say, if you are willing to accept this substitution of parking in a residential zone for the business parking, and extend the distance from seven fifty to eight hundred and two feet, which is what it comes to, and make that conditioned that he provide that or at least give us the direction that you would accept that, you would grant a variance for the distance - the lot size - the distance of the parking places and the location in a residential zone - then we would subject the building permit and the Certificate of Occupancy to his meeting those requirements. Just as if he could have gotten those in a business zone - he wouldn't be here for anything except the lot size. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions of the appellant? Do you want to add anything? PAGE 96 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. DOWNING: I thought you were going to say, is there anybody who would like to speak for the appellant. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Will you identify yourself Bill for the record. MR. DOWNING: My name is William Downing, I live at 215 North Cayuga Street. I would like to quickly point out that the building is of frame construction that is currently on the site. It could not be substantially improved because I don't believe it could be done and meet the building code - it would have to be brought up to fire resistant construction (unintelligible) and if the building should burn or be torn down for one reason or another, it can't be replaced because of the zoning code so - it is permitted to pay taxes on it of course, but I think under the circumstances, where the building can't really be improved is significant or it cannot be replaced then that is the hardship. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? [none] Thank you gentlemen. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Then the deliberations shall begin PAGE 97 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1768 FOR 401 COLLEGE AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Joseph Ciaschi for an area variance to permit the construction of a five-story building with retail uses in the basement, first and second floor, 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 grant the area variance request- ed in Appeal Number 1768. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Board recognizes that the lot area deficiency cannot be corrected - there are major buildings on two sides and public rights-of-way on the other two sides - which just do not allow for acquiring any extra land and therefore the existing lot is the existing lot and it would be a taking of the property to not allow it to be developed. 2 . The provision for off-street parking cannot be met within the restrictions in the Code in that a search of the district has not brought forth any strictly complying off-street parking in that the parking that has been located is not in the business zone and business parking is required in that same zone - none could be found in a business zone. 3 . Upon the receipt of the lease that six (6) spaces at 210 Linden Avenue will meet the requirements for six off-street parking spaces and that the appellant has claimed that he has two (2) more parking spaces that will be closer than 210 Linden - that upon the delivery of a lease of a reasonable PAGE 98 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 duration for those other two spaces be delivered to the Building Department, that it will be the Board's judgement - in this difficult area - that the off-street parking require- ment has been met. 4. That the off-site parking to be provided does not meet the precise requirements of the Ordinance in that they are in a residential neighborhood and that they exceed the total distance along a public street - but in the judgement of this Board this meets the best that can be had in this difficult location - the off-street parking requirement. VOTE: 5 YES; 1 NO GRANTED PAGE 99 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL 1768 FOR 401 COLLEGE AVENUE - AFTER THE MOTION HAD BEEN MADE, BUT BEFORE THE VOTE MR. WEAVER: As I see our rather dim future, the next application in this newly zoned area can be expected to have the same darn problem and we are going to judge that parking is adequate when it is inadequate - as a finding of fact, over and over again. I 'm not sure that it wouldn't be okay to imprecisely approve specific off-street parking and what I was trying to say is, six spaces at 210 Linden and two others to be provided - not more distant than that, is, in our judgement, adequate off-street parking. Mr. Chairman is not convinced. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, I 'm not anywhere near convinced. Can we have a second for the rest of the motion as stated? Thank you. My own feeling is that we are headed for trouble with that sort of scenar- io and to the degree that it should be changed, it really ought to go back to Council. MR. WEAVER: Well in other words that they've given us an impossi- ble task and no way does this application. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes and I look at the whole scenario that you just painted as ad hoc, ad nauseam which quite frankly, I am unwilling to go through. SECRETARY HOARD: Well knowing how Joe went around and approached all of these people, I don't think you could get another applica- tion. . . because I don't think anybody else is going to get any- thing within a thousand feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well what I look at though, is the same rationale with respect to parking in a residential area being used by the PAGE 100 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 people to satisfy - within that thousand feet or within however many feet that seems reasonable based on what we are establishing tonight. I think we are really heading for trouble. SECRETARY HOARD: Did he bring up the meeting that was held the other day? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. SECRETARY HOARD: With the Bryant Park Civic Association? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I don't even think they know what they are in for. MS. JOHNSON: (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: I think what I hear here is there is general concurrence that the parking that is being provided is sufficient for the project that he wants to build. . . MR. WEAVER: None of them serve on this Board and if they under- stand. . . MS. JOHNSON: Shouldn't we vote on the motion? MR. SIEVERDING: I understand. . . MR. WEAVER: And if they understand. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, we are just discussing the motion after there has been a second. M.S. JOHNSON: I seems like we are discussing (unintelligible) here. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. MR. SIEVERDING: Well not really, there is going to be a time when somebody else is going to come to us with a request to put up a building in Collegetown. . . MR. SCHWAB: I am interested in more finding of fact - I mean, this one is fairly relative (unintelligible) in that he has met all the PAGE 101 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 parking requirements - he has got the entire number - with my calculating there is only one retail space has to go into residen- tial - is all he is asking for. MS. JOHNSON: This isn't as many spaces as were required by the last appeal - this is the new agreement, right? Because there were thirteen or fourteen required last time. MR. SCHWAB: What do you mean, new agreement? The Zoning Ordinance is only requiring nine, isn't that right? MR. WEAVER: Yes. One on premise, eight off. MR. SCHWAB: There is no agreement that - it is true that last month we came up with twelve or thirteen. . . CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Was that an inaccurate number? SECRETARY HOARD: That was what we estimated, given what the architect gave us at the meeting for square footage and number of beds. MR. WEAVER: The comments of the chairman - I agree that we, being the City of Ithaca, are headed for trouble in Collegetown - they are not headed for it, they are in it - but I think some of our judgement here is that this appellant has come darn close - and close counts in variances, as far as I am concerned. The next guy - oh, boy - or the next one - this is going to become less possible with each application in that district, and if the City doesn't know it already, I suggest that we write them a note. I agree that this is - looks as if we are headed for a variance after variance after variance - but the variance we are granting here - to be specific to this case, which is what we are talking about, although we have been talking about projected others in the future - this PAGE 102 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 comes darn close to meeting all - providing all the spaces required as close - or almost as close as the Ordinance requires - and with the exception that some of the retail parking space is in a resi- dential district. Now, for Collegetown that may be a record of getting close - that may be one of the best we' ll ever see - however I don't think that we are setting a precedent that requires that anybody who wants to put up a building in Collegetown - go ahead. Quite the contrary. We are discussing the quality - location - distance - all of the requirements and making exceptions and the exceptions aren't very gross, as I see them. MR. SCHWAB: I agree with that, in fact it would almost suggest adding one more finding of fact - the fifteen year lease is another factor - it is a little more convincing that these parking places are really going to be there. I think it is guaranteed that the next developer is going to come in and say well I met seventy percent of the parking, or fifty - you let it in the last time, why not let it in this time. It strikes me that this one has come very close. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Well he has got one hundred percent of his parking requirement - you can't get it any closer. MR. WEAVER: That's not close, that's it. MR. SIEVERDING: And I think that is the key consideration - to provide one hundred percent of the parking and I think it is a tough standard for subsequent developers to meet, particularly since subsequent developments are likely to take place on lots that are bigger than twenty-five by seventy-five - and as the zoning - you have much more building (unintelligible) apartment requirement. PAGE 103 BZA MINUTES - 6/1/87 MR. OAKLEY: So what you are suggesting. . . this is a precedent which will allow us to look at other. . . MR. WEAVER: We have no reason to be embarrassed by what we did last month - we' ll have enough trouble next month. PAGE 104 I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the Minutes of The Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1763 , 1764, 1765 , 1766 , 6-1-87 , 1767 and 1768 on June 1 , 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 . R ane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this 9 ag day of 1987 Notary�c JEAN J. HANKTNSONi NOTARY PUBLIC,STATE OF NEW YORIC1 No.55-1660800 QUALIFIED IN TONIPKINS COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 30.194-1 105