Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1987-08-10 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 10 , 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 1774 ABRAHAM A. LEE 2 248 Floral Avenue APPEAL NO. 1774 DECISION 8 APPEAL NO. 1775 JAMES ZIFCHOCK 9 1109 North Aurora Street APPEAL NO. 1775 DECISION 14 APPEAL NO. 1776 JAMES MEROD & NANCY COOL 15 513 West Buffalo STreet APPEAL NO. 1776 DECISION 18 APPEAL NO. 1777 BARNEY, GROSSMAN, ROTH & DUBOW 19 315 NORTH TIOGA STREET APPEAL NO. 1777 DECISION 24 APPEAL NO. 1778 HOMES, INC . 25 507-509 WEST GREEN STREET APPEAL NO. 1778 DISCUSSION 42 APPEAL NO. 1778 DECISION 44 APPEAL NO. 8-1-87 WILLIAM ZIKAKIS 45 370 ELMIRA ROAD APPEAL NO. 8-1-87 DECISION 55 APPEAL NO. 1779 GERALD P . SCHICKEL 56 202 & 204 SUNRISE ROAD APPEAL NO. 1779 DECISION 59 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 60 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 10, 1987 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'd like to call to order the August 10, 1987 City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight are: HERMAN SIEVERDING CHARLES WEAVER HELEN JOHNSON STEWART SCHWAB MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD PETER DIETERICH, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD FOR THIS EVENING AND ALSO THE DEPUTY BUILDING COMMISSIONER & ZONING OFFICER BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT: JOHN OAKLEY 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, then will 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 "interested parties" are persons who own property within two hundred feet of the property in question or who BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 live or work within that two hundred feet. 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 that is relating to these cases, as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations, when there are any, and the record of to- night'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 microphone, which is right here in the middle of the table and you will be sitting opposite, there, so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder. I 'd ask also that you raise your voice perhaps a little louder than usual, because the air conditioning is running in here and the people in the audience who may want to - in some way - comment upon what you may have said as an appellant - it will be important that they understand what was said, clearly. Extraneous comments however, 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 particular case will be closed and the Board will deliber- ate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed, we aren't going to take any further testimony and the audience is going to be PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 requested to refrain from commenting during our deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a special permit or a variance - in the rare cases where there is a tie, the variance or special permit is automatically denied. Now you will note tonight that we don't have a full complement of six members of the Board; therefore you have a right - if any of you are appel- lants - to withdraw, without prejudice and wait until there is a full Board. But understand that four of the five votes will be necessary - in your favor - to grant or deny, if you are going forward. If there is anyone who would like to withdraw at this point, we'd like to hear from you. [no one] Are there any ques- tions about the way in which we proceed? Then can we proceed to our first case? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The first appeal is APPEAL NO. 1774 FOR 248 FLORAL AVENUE: Appeal of Abraham A. Lee for an area variance for defi- cient off-street parking, deficient lot width, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 7, 11, and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the one-family home at 248 Floral Avenue to two dwelling units. The property is located in an R3a (Residential, multiple dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Section 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must first obtain an area vari- ance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 proposed conversion. This appeal was originally sched- uled for the July 6, 1987 meeting of the Board, but has been rescheduled because the appellant was not present at that meeting. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself for the record. MR. LEE: My name is Abraham Lee. I live at 144 Bundy Road. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to say a few words about why you want the variance? MR. LEE: I didn't bring a copy of it with me but basically it is a two-bedroom house - not much in the way of usable rear yard space. If you are familiar with the geography along Floral Avenue - the way the hill grades up and also the elevation from the street to the house somewhat precludes it from its marketability as a single family house. Again, it is basically a two-bedroom house - there is a third space which you have to go through to enter another bedroom. Basically the appeal is to - the request is to convert it to two apartments, one one-bedroom and one two-bedroom. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to say a word about the parking deficiency? MR. LEE: The parking - again because of the topography along that strip is difficult. Very few of the houses have off-street park- ing. The City has created some spaces on the inlet side. In the narrative that was mailed to I guess both the City - the City's description and also to the homeowners in the area - mentioned the possibility of my participating with some of the other home owners. There was a preliminary discussion about creating some additional PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 spaces with the City's cooperation. I am amenable to that, depend- ing on the economics of the cost of those strips. There is suffi- cient parking heading up Floral Avenue on the left. It does belong to the City, right now it is about a third to a half used and there is more than sufficient parking for the one increase anticipated tenancy. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Do you have - I noticed nearly five feet of the property spills over the property line onto the neighbors. . . MR. LEE: Yes, well there is an encroachment - on the left and an encroachment on the right. This property belongs to Ithaca Neigh- borhood Housing Service, the adjacent property on the left en- croaches on my property line so before we closed on the house there had to be easements drafted up for all three bodies. My encroach- ment on INHS and the encroachment of the adjacent house on my property. So all of that has been legally taken care of. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any comments from the neighbors? MR. LEE: No, not personally. MR. SCHWAB: How many of those houses now are single family and how many are. . . on that strip, yes. MR. LEE: Well facing the house - on the left - there is only about three houses before - it is fairly wooded and dense area. It has foliage - those are single family houses. INHS renovated the one adjacent on the right - I believe that is single family - there are a couple of - at least three houses along that strip - Ben, there are three houses along that strip that are multiple dwellings with at least two units? The Sawyer house and. . . PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. CURTIS: Sawyer - two and two and then there is a rental. . . MR. LEE: So I believe there is at least three, this would be the fourth. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Questions? MR. SIEVERDING: Does the conversion to two apartments involve an addition as well (unintelligible) ? MR. LEE: No it doesn't. Basically it maintains the general basic envelope of the building - there are no anticipated changes to this configuration. It is typically an internal modification involving a few walls and plumbing. I started out saying that it is a two-bedroom house, essentially - there is a third space upstairs which technically is not a bedroom. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's all? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? Well, if she wants to come forward, she can. [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Do you want to speak for or against this particular case? MS. TAYLOR: I don't know what it is all about. What is it for anyway? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Are you within the two hundred feet of the property in question? MS. TAYLOR: I think I am. I live at 250 Floral Avenue and what he is talking about is 248 isn't it? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could we have your name? MS. TAYLOR: I 'm Pearl Taylor. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Now do you want to speak for it or against it? MS. TAYLOR: Well for what he wants, you mean? PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MS. TAYLOR: I don't care if he puts in the apartment. They've always rented it ever since it has been there so. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So that is more or less, for? MS. TAYLOR: Yes. I don't care. Just as long as they leave my sidewalk so I can get up in through it to my house. We got a small narrow sidewalk in between the houses - not like a regular front sidewalk, it is between the houses. And we've both got to use it and I 've lived there for years - the steps out in front, we've had to put them in and we've had to put steps up in back. Now they was on that other side that he is talking about - there was a stairway but the man in 246 tore it out. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could I ask you about the parking? Have you had any parking problems? MS. TAYLOR: No. We park in the first - well, the place that they fixed for a parking lot - there is three of them which the - I think they should have put one down farther for the people that live in our block - could use that, but we've got to walk way up the street to get into it. MR. SIEVERDING: But there is always enough parking in those strips on the opposite side of Floral Avenue? MS. TAYLOR: Yes, sometimes you don't get in where you want to get in because the people have company - they've got all their company who drive in, you are out of luck. MR. SIEVERDING: But the space is there? MS. TAYLOR: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: If you want to walk a little bit, you can. . . PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MS. TAYLOR: You've got to walk farther to get in. But there is a third parking spot that she put - nobody uses it - there is no houses nor nothing down there, the people way down the other end might come down and use it, I don't know that - or some of their company. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. MS. TAYLOR: Are you through with us now? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. Is there anyone else who would like to speak, either for or against? [no one] Very good, thank you. That being the case, I ' ll entertain motions or discussion, either one. PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1774 FOR 248 FLORAL AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Abraham A. Lee for an area variance to permit the conversion of the one-family home at 248 Floral Avenue to two dwelling units. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1774 . MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Practical difficulties related to the side and front yard requirements, given the topography of the site and the loca- tion of the house, make meeting those requirements impossible to correct. 2 . The parking appears to be adequately provided on the City constructed lots on the opposite side of Floral Avenue. 3 . The variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 1775 for 1109 North Aurora Street: Appeal of James Zifchock for an area variance for lot coverage exceeding the maximum permitted and deficient setbacks for two front yards under Section 30.25, Columns 10, 11 and 13 of the Zoning Ordi- nance, to permit demolition of the one-story portion of the existing two-family dwelling at 1109 North Aurora Street and construction of a two-story addition in its place. The one-story portion now contains a three-bedroom dwelling unit; the new two-story addition will contain a four-bedroom dwelling unit. The new addition would follow the same foundation lines as the razed section. The property is located in an R2b (Residential, one- and two-family) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed work. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. ZIFCHOCK: My name is James Zifchock, I live on Route 227 in Trumansburg, New York. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you are the owner of the property? MR. ZIFCHOCK: Yes. PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to say a few words on your behalf as to why the appeal should be granted? MR. ZIFCHOCK: Well basically what we have is - we've got one unit of the two unit house that is in serious need of repair and, as we got looking it over, it makes more sense to get rid of it - there is no cellar under it, the foundation doesn't exist - everything under that wing is rotted so we'd like to take it off and replace that. It seemed to make sense to go up two stories with it and gain a little bit more space. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The foundation, I assume, would contain a base- ment at that point or you are thinking it is going to be a slab on grade and you' ll go from there? MR. ZIFCHOCK: Slab on grade and go from there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is essentially an addition to the original house, right? MR. ZIFCHOCK: It appears that way, yes. The original section is a two-story - that is in fair condition, that'll get remodelled and blend in along with what I have in mind. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MS. JOHNSON: Do you have any elevations or renderings of what it will look like? MR. ZIFCHOCK: No I don't, but if there is a picture - did somebody take a picture of it? MS. JOHNSON: I just wondered how the addition would blend in with what is there - the new section. MR. ZIFCHOCK: If we could see the picture - I don't have any renderings. PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. WEAVER: The proposed ridge will coincide with that of the original house? MR. ZIFCHOCK: Yes. If you see the original section, this will just be - it will just kind of wrap around, I had photographs but they didn't come out very well. I was aware that somebody came down and took photographs. . . . that's why I know you have a picture. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think most of us are familiar with it. He will hunt while we continue. Any further questions? MR. SIEVERDING: Will there be an increase of one bedroom relative to what is there now? MR. ZIFCHOCK: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: And that will all be contained within the new addition? MR. ZIFCHOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The parking, essentially, goes on around back, is that the idea? MR. ZIFCHOCK: Well it's around the barn - there is a barn on the south end that sits back in - let me see - if you look at the survey, there is no parking problem - the survey shows the barn - actually, in terms of cars, we can fit five or six cars in this space. The barn is a three car - we could essentially park two more cars there if we really had to. MR. SIEVERDING: And so how many people do you think - I mean, the bedrooms would be sized for single occupancy or double? MR. ZIFCHOCK: Probably would accommodate double. MR. SIEVERDING: Each bedroom? PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. ZIFCHOCK: Yes. I mean it would give the house flexibility. You see my parents live in that end of the house right now. My father is an invalid and the house needs repair. We would like to get somebody to come there and live and help my mother take care of him. She is not able to take care of him anymore so we really need more space, it is just too tight to have another person living in that same area. That's our primary target at this point is to create a little bit more room and have somebody on the premises as an aid. MR. SIEVERDING: Residing in the same dwelling unit or. . . MR. ZIFCHOCK: Yes, they would pretty much have to be there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We found the picture. It was in the last folder. MR. ZIFCHOCK: Do you see the two story section? The one story would just rise and blend in with it. MR. SCHWAB: The most serious setback deficiency, I guess, is the porch - do you need that porch there? MR. ZIFCHOCK: Well it is a little bit of a problem in protecting the front entrances - both of these are off that sidewalk and it is really not much of a porch but it keeps the weather off the door. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to granting this variance? [no one] Board members will note that we have a letter in favor - we do have copies, right. That is, we have a letter of "no objection" - it isn't a letter in favor, but a letter of no objection. Any discussion? Your neck of the woods, Charlie, any comments? PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. WEAVER: No, except that distinction of two stories would be compatible with the design of the original structure. PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1775 FOR 1109 NORTH AURORA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of James Zifchock for an area variance to permit demolition of the one-story portion of the existing two-family dwelling at 1109 North Aurora Street and construction of a two-story addition in its place. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance request- ed in Appeal Number 1775. MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Practical difficulties were shown by the appellant in correct- ing the two front yard setback deficiencies that would require demolition of the building. 2 . The addition would be at least compatible with the design of the original house and would be in keeping with the general conditions in the rest of the neighborhood. 3 . The percentage of lot coverage will not be exacerbated by the granting of this variance. 4 . Granting of this variance would be in conformance with the intention of this Ordinance. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES 8/10/87 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1776 FOR 513 WEST BUFFALO STREET: Appeal of James Merod and Nancy Cool for an area variance for deficient lot width, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 7, 11, and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit a Certificate of Compliance and a Certificate of Occupan- cy to be issued for the conversion of one two-bedroom apartment of the two-family dwelling at 513 West Buffalo Street to a three-bedroom apartment. The property is located in an R2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which this 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 where you live. MS. COOL: Good evening. My name is Nancy Cool and I live at 1695 Taughannock Blvd. , Trumansburg. We requested a variance, since we couldn't change the size of the lot, we are returning the house - it had been a two-family dwelling previously - changed back to a single family dwelling and we want to restore it to a two-family dwelling, which meant a modification in the upstairs - which is very awkward - it had large closets in the middle of the floor and we thought the space would be better used if made into three bedrooms, living room, dining area and kitchen. PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES 8/10/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Who owns the lot to the left, it is not you, is it? Is it Benedict? MS. COOL: No. Right. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So the great garden is theirs, not yours? MS. COOL: Right, we wish. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We were looking at the vegetables. But you do have a paved driveway going on back to the garage? MS. COOL: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So your parking is adequate. MS. COOL: Right. And this doesn't change the scan of the house at all. We are just doing internal renovations. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MS. JOHNSON: So what do you think the occupancy will be. . . MS. COOL: Maximum three people, possibly just two. MR. SIEVERDING: Will there be any change at all to the exterior of the building? MS. COOL: No. MR. SIEVERDING: So it will stay as is. MS. COOL: As is, right. I didn't have a picture attached. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we have one. MS. COOL: Oh, you have one, okay. MR. SIEVERDING: How do you get upstairs? I 'm looking at the floor plan here, is it an exterior stairs? MS. COOL: Yes. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The floor plan is upside down, literally, from the plot plan. PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES 8/10/87 MS. COOL: This is the front. The entrance to downstairs is here and the entrance to upstairs is back here. MR. SIEVERDING: Okay so it is an exterior stairs going up. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's one of the questions I had too when I first looked at the plan then I figured out that it is upside down. It is not necessary to use a parachute. MS. COOL: Well we are closing off the inside stairway so we will have more floor space. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you Nancy. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, I 'll entertain either discussion or a motion. PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES 8/10/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1776 FOR 513 WEST BUFFALO STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of James Merod and Nancy Cool for an area variance to permit a Certificate of Compliance and a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued for the conversion of one two-bedroom apartment of the two-family dwelling at 513 West Buffalo Street to a three-bedroom apartment. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance request- ed in Appeal Number 1776. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposal will keep the footprint of the house and thus not increase any of the existing deficiencies. 2 . There are practical difficulties in correcting the deficien- cies that would require demolishing the house. 3 . The house was formerly a two-family dwelling and returning it to that would not change the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1777 FOR 315 NORTH TIOGA STREET: Appeal of Barney, Grossman, Roth, and Dubow for an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard and two side yards, under Section 30.25, Columns 11, 12, and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a two-story addition to the rear of the office building at 315 North Tioga Street for additional office space. The property is located in an B1b (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 Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Will you begin by identifying yourselves. . . MS. CHANG: I 'm Grace Chang, HOLT Architects. MR. BARNEY: I 'm John Barney. MR. GROSSMAN: I 'm Peter Grossman. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Peter Grossman is in the Co-Pilot's seat back there - the navigator's seat. Anyway do you want to say something, perhaps, about the need for the variance? Who goes first, Grace? MS. CHANG: I can start. What we would like to do - the addition we are proposing is to extend the existing - if you look at the site plan, it is already shown - is to extend the existing walls of the existing structure straight back into their back yard and in doing so we would meet the side yard - on one side we would be PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 deficient by about six inches on the other side (unintelligible) back yard requirement and we would remain deficient with the front yard requirement because we are not touching that side of the house. The existing house is also deficient in side yard further toward the street by a couple of feet on the other side at its furthest point out so we feel that it would be most appropriate to the house to simply extend these walls rather than have little jogs in the building is why we are asking to be allowed to do this. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Does anybody want to say something about parking? MS. CHANG: We've got the required parking space, I believe. We are required to have one space for the office and there are four spaces which will still be able to be used in the back yard. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: You don't park there now? MS. CHANG: No, we do use four spaces and. . . MR. SCHWAB: Where the addition will be or. . . MS. CHANG: No, behind it, right in here. . . and the same spaces will be used. MR. WEAVER: I know where the parking lot is. Question in mind, the worksheet shows a requirement for one parking space per office. Will you have just four offices after your addition is completed or will you be adding four offices? MS. CHANG: Well we are adding office space. Now my understanding is that it is one space for an office. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Two hundred and fifty square feet. MR. WEAVER: Does that mean per shingle or per desk or. . . PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Two hundred and fifty - let's see, one office for two hundred and fifty square feet. How many square feet are there in the floor plan? MS. CHANG: Two thousand square feet. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: For the overall. . . MS. CHANG: Well I guess that's per floor. MR. BARNEY: No, it's about twenty-three hundred square feet, I think, now and it will be about an eight hundred square foot addition, so it will be about thirty-one hundred square feet. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: One space - looking at the building in the overall, it is one space per two hundred and fifty square feet of floor area. MS. CHANG: Okay, that was it. MR. BARNEY: Then we would be deficient. MR. GROSSMAN: Aren't we in the Courthouse Special Use District? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Could we think about the deficiency and get some sort of determination on that? MR. GROSSMAN: I thought we were Courthouse Special Use. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are going to have to pull up a chair and introduce yourself if we are going to bring you into the conversa- tion because we won't know where the comment came from otherwise. MR. GROSSMAN: I 'm Peter Grossman. MR. WEAVER: Peter the worksheet doesn't indicate any such - the calculation is the reason for my question and I don't know what the answer is (unintelligible) MS. CHANG: Yes, when I had gone over this with you Peter, my understanding then was that we only needed one space. PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: A space for two hundred and fifty square feet. The information here is that it is B1b - I ' ll check that, if it is a B1b zone. I ' ll take a look at it. MR. GROSSMAN: I thought it was Courthouse Special Use. MR. SIEVERDING: B1b? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Right. Do you have a zoning map? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: He will find the facts on the map. MR. SIEVERDING: Well the facts aren't on the map under Blb. There is no off street parking requirement. It says "none" . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are right - thus far, as far as we can find, it is "none" . MR. SIEVERDING: There isn't any parking requirement in a B1b. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Okay, you are right. [short discussion took place here with three people talking at once, not decipherable] MR. SCHWAB: So you went from acquiring twelve - to zero? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let's stick with the variance at hand. MR. SIEVERDING: That's what I 'm looking at now. Yes, you are in the very small area of downtown that is B1b. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You say you had twenty-three hundred square feet prior? MR. BARNEY: Approximate, yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And this is about eight hundred square feet? MR. BARNEY: Yes, under two stories - four hundred square feet roughly on an extension of twenty-one by twenty-two. . . PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. SIEVERDING: We had a note from the Planning and Development Board regarding Landmarks Commission, have you all gone to the Landmarks Commission and run this proposal by them? That's next? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Yes, that's next - if you grant the variance, that's Design Review. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well so long as there is not a blank, black door, I think the rest of it has some nice windows. Further questions from members of the Board? Stewart, questions? MR. SCHWAB: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How about this side of the table? [none] Thank you, all three. 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] I will entertain a motion, discussion. . . any of the above. PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 1778 FOR 315 NORTH TIOGA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Barney, Grossman, Roth and Dubow for an area variance to permit the con- struction of a two-story addition to the rear of the office build- ing at 315 North Tioga Street for additional office space. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1777. MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The front and both side yard deficiencies are existing condi- tions for the present structure and the addition is not going to exacerbate any one of those deficiencies. 2 . The variance would be in keeping with the spirit of the Ordinance and the character of the district. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1778 FOR 507-509 WEST GREEN STREET: Appeal of HOMES, Incorporated, for a variance from the maximum occupancy and side yard setback requirements of Section 30.26 of the Zoning Ordinance (Special Conditions for Group Care Residence for eighteen residents, and for an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard setback under Section 30.25, Columns 11 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit an addition to the existing building at that address. The property is located in an R3b (Residential, multiple dwellings) Use District where Group Care Residences are permitted; however the proposal will not meet those Special Conditions requirements for Group Care Residences in an R3a Use District that limit the number of residents to twelve, and that require minimum side yard setbacks of ten feet. Therefore a variance is required from these requirements as well as an area variance for the yard setback deficiencies under Section 30.49 before a build- ing permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed use and addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening to you all. Perhaps we ought to start off with one side or the other, who is the spokesperson? MS. SIMRELL: I 'm the spokesperson. I 'm Amy Simrell, I am repre- senting HOMES, Incorporated (unintelligible) I 've brought along Anna Holmberg, as Counsel and my Executive Director, Jan PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 Bridgeford-Smith. I believe this is Mrs. Bard who is here to speak in favor of the. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We'll give her her chance as time goes on. Okay, fine. Do you want to say a bit more about these very nice draw- ings? MS. SIMRELL: I actually have some updated drawings. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh, you have some updated drawings? MS. SIMRELL: I will have to share with you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. MS. SIMRELL: As I understand it, there was some local level concerns, and also some State concerns from our licensing group regarding fire safety, so the changes in the drawings pertain to that. They would be the second floor of the existing and the planned addition. So I ' ll just try to answer questions on those changes as best I can. The group responsible for these beautiful drawings is Ithaca Neighborhood Housing and we have Ben Curtis here to answer further questions, if I can't handle any questions that you may have about the changes in the drawings. Now I could start by - how shall I start - shall I give you a history of this project or should I simply (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A brief history and then we will get into the things that really make the difference insofar as a variance is concerned. MS. SIMRELL: First of all, we propose and hope to locate an eighteen person group home at 507-509 West Green Street. In order to do this - this district is zoned R3b - Group Homes are permit- ted, as you know - but we have to meet special guidelines. We have PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 three variances needed for the property. Two are existing condi- tions and one has to do with the number of residents that we seek to house. The two existing conditions are that the east side yard is deficient. The current building is a little bit at an angle but its least distance from the east side yard is about two feet. For a group home it needs to be ten feet. We would need a variance there - that would be the first. The second variance pertains to the setback. The setback is currently five feet, I believe, and we need - is it ten or is it twenty-five? It is more than what we have for a group home. The third variance that we request, which has also been called an area variance, but I guess it is an unusual one, is to house eighteen people - the City Ordinances under the Special Conditions section, stop at twelve people as a maximum population. This lot has enough square footage for eighteen so we are requesting a variance on population. Now those are the vari- ances that we request. I could give you a history of the project - how we got to 507-509 West Green, if you would like and who has been involved in it, or. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well perhaps something that would be of interest to us as to how the history of the project would reflect on the number of people. MS. SIMRELL: I think that for us, that has really been a key question. This group home, if we are successful, will be licensed by the New York State Department of Social Services, it will be an adult residence. This is similar to Ithacare, which is an adult home, or the County Home, which is an adult home, both of which, however, serve an older population. We seek to serve a younger PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 group of people, thus the adult residence certification. The population that we are looking at falls from eighteen to fif- ty-five, in that general age range. The State Department of Social Services certification would allow us to receive colligate care reimbursement per day. That's SSR level 2 reimbursement which is, for our purposes, would be $639. 00 a month per bed. In order to operate the house adequately, staff it adequately twenty-four hours a day, to supervise residents adequately, to offer support services such as supervision of medication, if necessary, one family style meal a day, linen service and so forth, we need to have eighteen occupants, and quite frankly we arrived at the number eighteen by simply looking at the map. The pool that we were working from, figures supplied to us by the Tompkins County Department of Mental Health, which has been involved in the planning of this project, was a pool of fifty-three individuals. Eighteen is the number that we arrived at. I brought a copy of the operating budget if you'd be interested in seeing how tight it is. MS. BRIDGEFORD-SMITH: I think a couple of other points worth mentioning, this is a group residence that is not like the resi- dences that we currently operate. We operate other group care facilities - we generally have fewer people in those facilities, and there are a couple of reasons why this particular residence - we are requesting more beds. First of all, all of our other residences are certified by the Office of Mental Retardation or the Office of Mental Health, which means we not only receive Social Security funding but we also receive funding from the State of New York to supplement what we get from Social Security. In this particular PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 residence we will not be receiving any additional funding from the State of New York, all we will be receiving is the Social Security payments, so that is a considerable amount of dollars that can't be budgeted in. For example, our current contracts with a supervised residence for nine individuals from the office of Mental Health, we receive funding from the State in addition to what we bring in from Social Security of approximately a hundred and twenty thousand dollars. That's the kind of difference we are talking about, in terms of financial support. Secondly this is a project that was designed with the intent to really - in some way - begin to address the issue that is rapidly coming to the fore in this community - and that is to provide a safe, reasonable place for individuals to live, who are currently either in a homeless situation, a transient situation, a situation where they are already in this community but they are living in very sub-standard kinds of places, with no supervision whatsoever. So this is an attempt to try and address the need for additional supported housing and provide at least a minimal level of services to people living there. As Amy told you, we are talking about laundry services, linen services, housekeeping services. In years gone by, a lot of the ways in which this kind of housing need was met was through boarding homes, which no longer really are here in the community - the County Home, which is closing. And, as I said, still continues to be met in, oftentimes would be considered I think, sub-standard housing, but more impor- tantly in places where there is no one who is really overseeing the welfare, if you will, of individuals residing there and attempting to reduce the kind of stress that can come from living in very PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 difficult circumstances. Particularly if you already have other kinds of problems that you are trying to deal with. So this is a project to really try and begin to meet that need. And as I say, it is a project that is somewhat different than what we have offered in the past. Our current group residences are highly structured programs - rehabilitation programs - this is not. MR. SIEVERDING: You have group residences within the City now? MS. SIMRELL: Yes, we have several. MR. SIEVERDING: Are all the people who are going to be living here disabled in one way or the other or not necessarily so? MS. SIMRELL: I think the best way to describe this population and, that the population is in part dictated by the certifying group which, as I said - in this case - is the New York State Department of Social Services. The best way to describe the population is people who are living inadequately in sub-standard, non-permanent housing who may have histories of mental disability but that is not a criteria for residents - who may have histories of other kinds of disability, for example, substance abuse, but again that is not a criteria for entrance, and is carefully watched over in the refer- ral and screening process, which, again, the State supervises. But to say that these people would simply have one kind of disability would be incorrect. MR. SIEVERDING: In your other homes, you have some sort of ratio between - say people who are non-disabled and people who might be disabled? MS. BRIDGEFORD-SMITH: In our other residences they are all certi- fied to serve people with specific disabilities - either PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 psychiatric disability, if they are certified by the Office of Mental Health, or a developmental disability, if they are certified by the Office of Mental Retardation. This, because it is being certified by the New York State Department of Social Services, does not put the same kinds of strictures on who can live in that type of a dwelling and that was another reason that we are looking at doing a project such as this - to try and open up, a bit more, in terms of who can actually be served in a supportive residence. So there is not the same criteria that has to be met for admission. It is conceivable for example, that someone would be referred to this residence who simply was receiving public assistance but was unable to really adequately manage that money - maybe needed some over sight - or needed some assistance in making sure that they were eating properly, making sure that they were having the proper kind of clothing, making sure that if they needed to get to the doctor, that somebody said, you need to get to the doctor, without any particular named disability going along with that. We are applying for grant monies, assuming that we move through the process, from the New York State Homeless Housing Assistance Project. So, again, there is a - it is a broad definition - who constitutes homeless. MR. SIEVERDING: Is there a limitation on the amount of time that a person who is referred by Social Services could stay here? MS. SIMRELL: This is considered permanent housing, when in fact, that is a requirement of the capital fund (unintelligible) Homeless Housing Assistance program. There are two major sources of funding involved in this project. One is the capital money for acquisition and renovation of the property and that's from the Governor's PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 program called The New York State Homeless Housing Assistance Program - that is a gift, it's a grant. The operating money comes through certification of the State Department of Social Services and that's where many of the guidelines involving the kinds of services we have to provide and the overside of referral and the screening and the admissions and the discharge, which hopefully there will not be, since it is considered permanent housing, but that' s where many of the guidelines, the physical space require- ments. The reason we didn't have a lot of the fire safety stuff in our first set of drawings, was the HAP, the Homeless Housing and Assistance people, that was not a problem and their architect, who came for a site visit on July 22nd, didn't have a problem certify- ing it. However the local authorities said that you need to put a second exit on the second floor and do some other things. MS. BRIDGEFORD-SMITH: Our intent is to not make this transitional housing, I mean, clearly there will always be some level of turn- over but this is not considered to be a transitional residence. We are hoping that people will come there - and if they do move, will move into better circumstances - their own apartment or. . . MS. JOHNSON: What is your sense of the population out there that is in need of this sort of. . . . MS. SIMRELL: The count that we got from the Tompkins County Depart- ment of Mental Health, which is an unduplicated count, meaning that one body was not counted twice, was fifty-three individuals. We seek to house eighteen. I was also interested in another set of figures that they gave me which was that Willard Psychiatric Center discharged into this Community last year, one hundred and one PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 individuals and the year before that, sixty-nine individuals. That, however, was not an unduplicated count, so in other words, it is possible that the same person may have been discharged twice. . . but I think that that gives an indication of the number. MS. JOHNSON: How will you chose? MS. SIMRELL: Well the hurdles so far have been finding a site, doing these massive applications, but the project will be governed probably by an advisory committee that will answer to our HOMES Board of Directors and that Committee will be made up of service providers in this area of mental disability as well as the Depart- ment of Social Services, who is interested in being involved and has given us a letter of support for this project. And I 'm hoping to recruit some of our neighbors, who, in my contacts with the neighborhood, have been interested in the project - but also interested in who exactly is going to live there. There are also fairly stringent referral and screening procedures specified by the certified group - for example - if somebody is referred who has substance abuse in his or her history, there has to be a very elaborate checking into that and it has to be something that is in fact in that person's history, that is considered a problem, that is taken care of - there has to be a consulting physchiatrist brought in and a lot of fairly careful checking and I think that that is wise. MR. SIEVERDING: So if someone is referred to you for Social Services, you don't necessarily have to accept that person? PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MS. SIMRELL: No and hopefully by having somebody from the Depart- ment on this Committee, this governing Committee, it would handle a lot of that within the Committee. MS. BRIDGEFORD-SMITH: I should point out that that fifty-five number that was given to us includes, as I say, individuals who are already in this Community, and these are individuals who are moving around at the present time from place to place to place. And I think, as you can see recently, that can be an extremely distress- ful situation. MR. WEAVER: Anyone who thinks there is not a need - Tom and I would be glad to give you a tour. MS. BRIDGEFORD-SMITH: Well we toured those places ourselves - Amy has seen all of the large buildings that are currently housing people in the City and it is pretty amazing. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Might I ask, a seemingly mundane, but I think a much more germaine question in a sense, could you tell me something about the back yard, there is no site plan, per se. You are moving into the back yard, how much space is there beyond. . . . A survey would be very useful. I didn't have it as part of my application. MS. SIMRELL: It was submitted to Tom Hoard. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Somehow it never got duplicated. What I am trying to do is get some sense of where that is in the back. And it seems like there is enough room but I want to make sure. And how close do you really come to this lot, I guess. . . ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: There is a jog there - looks like probably about five feet - five feet off to the side plus. . . Ben, PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 am I right, it looks like about a five foot offset on the addition to the west. . . MR. CURTIS: Yes, we moved it over so we would have almost seven feet on that side yard but we had to keep it within ten on the other side yard. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Okay, so the east side is going to be seven feet and the west side is going to be ten feet? So that meets the Ordinance. MR. CURTIS: We originally, Peter, were trying to meet the Ordi- nance - five and ten. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We aren't going to be able to record you Ben. I ' ll bring you back up for that particular point. I just wanted members of the Board to look, if they would, at . . . because this in effect, becomes your side yard variance because you have to have a site plan in such a way as to get some sense of where it sits on the lot. I was trying to make sense of the plan and I couldn't see where the jog made any sense unless there was something else from the outside that would, in effect, influence the plan and there is the answer. We'd like a copy of that. . . MS. SIMRELL: You can keep those two, I have more. MR. SIEVERDING: The jog in the addition makes that portion of the structure conform to that side yard. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What's that Herman? MR. SIEVERDING: The jog - the fact that the addition is set back from the existing building line fits the zoning requirement. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fits the zoning requirement. PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: It's five and ten foot so Ben just made comment when I asked, he has allowed seven feet on one and ten on the other. So that portion will meet. . . MR. WEAVER: Do you have a rear yard setback for a car wash. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, at least - let's hope not a car wash - we'd have some other use difficulties for sure in that instance. Further questions from members of the Board? Clear Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: Looks clear. As clear as most. The side yard require- ment goes up for a Group Home as compared to a Cooperative? MS. SIMRELL: Yes. MR. WEAVER: It's a shame to have so many people and not ask you any more questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you all. MS. HOLMBERG: Oh, could I just make one comment? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. MS. HOLMBERG: My one comment only had to go with the limitation on the number of residents that is set out in the Ordinance. As you probably know, State law defines these Group Residences as family unit for purposes of zoning and that was a law that came into effect after this local ordinance went into effect and I think there may be some question as to whether that limitation, since we don't have a limitation on what a family - what size family limit is, may not really have any relevance anymore and so. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We've been advised of this by City Counsel. MS. HOLMBERG: I just wanted to make a comment for the record. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; That's fine, thank you. PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MS. BRIDGEFORD-SMITH: Well to follow up on that - our intent has always been to work cooperatively with the Community. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good, otherwise we show our teeth. Okay, thank you. Would you like to speak in favor while you are here or have you - this is your chance - if there is anyone who would like to speak in favor, now they come forward. MS. BARD: Well I did want to speak in favor because - I did hear some comments that the neighbors in the surrounding areas had different feelings such as the traffic of Green Street and I don't see where that should be an issue since we have children living along Green Street and they seem to have no problems. Another question was brought to our attention, was cruelty of the people in the neighborhood. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: People in the neighborhood are cruel, is that what you are saying? MS. BARD: Could be. Yes, that could be, to the residents of this particular building. But I think that people are being treated cruelly anyway and this is something that they will adjust to and I think the residents that live there will just have to learn to adjust also. What I am trying to say is I think that people are a little narrow minded when it comes to someone having a little less and need help and I have discussed this with a few people and they said that they could see where this might be a problem. I can see where it could be a problem but I don't see where it should be so much of a problem that this shouldn't be because I think that not only can the people use a new residence and profit by it but so can the neighborhood if they would only allow themselves to open up and PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 say, this could be me. And to say that they are not worthy of living in my neighborhood - I don't think that should be allowed. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. The recorder has asked that you identify yourself, just because we like to tie the. . . MS. BARD: I 'm Virginia Bard and I live at 124 Cleveland Avenue, which is sort of adjacent to the back of that lot. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Please come forward. MR. PAYNE: I feel the same way that she feels about it. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have a seat please and if you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. . . MR. PAYNE: I 'm Robert Payne and I live at 124 Cleveland Avenue. I would like to support it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any additional comments or additions to that? MR. PAYNE: That's it. I just feel the way she does. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN:Fine. Any questions from members of the Board? Thank you. Anyone else? Ben? MR. CURTIS: I 'm Ben Curtis from Neighborhood Housing Services, I work across the street from the property. I think a lot of the points have been very well covered so far, I would like to reiter- ate the points about the need. It has been painfully apparent to many of us that there are a substantial number of people that programs such as INNS have been unable to help - they are some of the most fragile people in the community and they are the people who - for whatever reason - are unable to manage very well in independent living situation. We have tried to work with these people with varying degrees of success and we have realized that PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 there are many of them that we simply cannot help through our program. I think other programs in the City are also unable to deal with this. For that reason we were very glad to hear that HOMES was going to undertake this initiative to address this particular population that we feel is in particular need. In working with HOMES early in their search for a site I went to a number of sites with them, it became apparent early in the proce- dure that there weren't very many sites that were suitable for this type of use for this number of people. This was far and above the best site that we came across and we looked at a number of differ- ent sites. None of them would have been in conformity with all the Municipal requirements and I doubt there is such a lot, after what we have reviewed. The projected use coupled with the style with which HOMES manages its property, we feel would be very consistent with the residential character of this neighborhood. The designs which we helped work with them on would be consistent with the architecture of the neighborhood. And a final point, I would like to say that HOMES has an established track record in the City as a whole, and maintains four units in various locations in our target area and on several occasions I have talked with people who did not realize that there was anything but a private residence in their neighborhood. This is how well managed these facilities are. I think that HOMES has demonstrated in a superlative fashion its ability to provide for this type of need without it being to the detriment of the neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: When you say four units, you mean four structures? PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. CURTIS: Four buildings for group living. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: One of the questions I had Ben, you were respon- sible for the redesign to accommodate the fire code? MR. CURTIS: Yes, our intern and myself. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I was just kind of curious as to - at this point you plan, essentially, to run that staircase above the side porch? MR. CURTIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Was there any thought to inverting the staircase to go down the rear, is one of the questions I had in the back of my mind with respect to the fact that you had enough rear lot vis-a-vis the fact that one would assume the units on this side might be more desirable by virtue of that. . . just a thought. MR. CURTIS: We tried desperately to avoid putting the fire escape in the front. We looked into the possibility of running the fire escape around the back side of the building - the side yard - as I understand it, by running the fire escape along the west side of the building that would reduce our side yard on that side, which is already at ten feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right but if you put your fire escape on this side and run it down this way - or run it out and down in some other fashion, you just avoid that question. I was just wondering, with respect to that - it is one reason that I began to ask the question about where this sat on the site because you really do have a great deal of space back there that you could make use of as yet. MR. CURTIS: Let me put it this way, we looked at .any way we could to avoid it and - I ' ll go further than that - to say that we are PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 very much open to suggestions as to how to arrange that. It had to do with how to empty both buildings - the front part and the back part but if your students can come up with a solution. . . tell them to call down. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: I 'm not volunteering, I 'm only commenting on the configuration of the site, which seemed to allow it. MR. CURTIS: No we would continue to look at that - I agree with you, it would be nice to get that. . . . MR. SIEVERDING: Is there a relationship between I.N.H.S and HOMES? MR. CURTIS: Just on this project. I think that they were looking at our track record in rehabilitating houses and we were very impressed with their track record in managing them once they were rehabilitated. MR. SIEVERDING: So you guys are going to be the contractors for the renovation. . . MR. CURTIS: We would oversee the rehabilitation, right. MR. WEAVER: Before we lose you, there is really not going to be a fire escape on this building is there? MR. CURTIS: Fire stairs. MR. WEAVER: Thank you. MR. CURTIS: I 'm sorry. MR. WEAVER: That made me very nervous. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] I will entertain motions, com- ments, questions or discussion. PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1778 FOR 507 WEST GREEN STREET MS. JOHNSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) considered a family. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right, this is considered a family from the point of view of the State. . MS. JOHNSON: And we can't really limit it to twelve? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's true. MR. SIEVERDING: So we just don't address that aspect of the appeal at all? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Paul [Bennett, Assistant City Attor- ney] mentioned that to be viewed as practical difficulties and condition similar to - as a question of an area variance should not be viewed as a use variance - that's what Paul said. MR. SIEVERDING: Falls within. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Hardship really isn't necessary. . . MR. SIEVERDING: All right but why is even an area variance neces- sary, because they go from twelve to eighteen, if what the State law appears to be saying is that this is the same as a single family residence and there is just no limit on the occupancy whatsoever. MR. WEAVER: I agree with you and let Paul defend us if you are wrong. MR. SIEVERDING: And just not address that . . . MR. WEAVER: I think so, because it just seems to me that it would just cloud the issue if it is addressed. What are we going to say about it? This Board thinks that a State law supersedes this Ordinance - what State law? You know, we don't have the law before us. . . PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Moving right along, please. . . could I have a motion? PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1778 FOR 507-509 WEST GREEN STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of HOMES, Incorporated for an area variance to permit an addition to the existing building at 507-509 West Green Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1778. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Practical difficulty exists in meeting the front and side yard requirements, given that they relate to the existing structure on the property and, in fact, that the addition has been sited in such a fashion that, given the constraints of the lot width, the maximum side yards possible have been provided and still meet the programmatic needs of the building. 2 . The proposed addition in no way affects the front yard defi- ciency which is an existent condition. 3 . The variance observes the character of the Ordinance and preserves the integrity of the neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 8-1-87 FOR 370 ELMIRA ROAD: Appeal of William Zikakis for a variance under Section 34.6 of the Sign Ordinance to permit the erection of a free-standing multiple sign structure with four business identification signs plus a plaza identification sign at 370 Elmira Road (Z Auto Plaza) . The property is located in a B5 (Business) use District in which a free-standing multiple sign structure is permitted, but the number of business identification signs is limited to three by the Ordinance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If you would begin by identifying yourself please. MR. ZIKAKIS: My name is Chris Zikakis and I live at 871 Cayuga Heights Road in Ithaca. MR. PETERSON: I 'm Solomon Peterson, 600 Warren Road, Ithaca, the architect on the project. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to say something about why you need to exceed. . . MR. PETERSON: We are attempting to, I think, accomplish several things with our request for a variance to the Sign Ordinance in this particular case. We are, as I understand the Sign Ordinance, permitted to have - for each one of the businesses operating out of that Plaza under the zoning situation that we have out there - two free-standing signs per each business of a stipulated size - per PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 each business, or one with stipulated signage on the building. What we are wanting to do to try and keep with the spirit of the architectural concept and also the Ordinances of the City, is to consolidate our street signage into one location. Instead of having a series of franchise identification signs strung out along the some four hundred feet of frontage that we have there - consol- idate everything into one free-standing multi-sign structure. Our situation is, as it stands right now, we have four businesses operating out of that property. The multi-sign stipulation only allows three signs to appear on a multi-sign structure. Our request is simply that we be allowed to add a fourth identification on a multi-structure sign to be located within the setback con- straints of the Sign Ordinance and basically our goal is to consol- idate signage and clean up the site and overall try to make a favorable atmosphere out there. We see the four signs along the Elmira Road out there as being of a negative impact - the consoli- dation being positive. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Board members note that once again the friendly Building Commissioner is way ahead of us with a plan and we weren't given copies of the plan. MR. PETERSON: I have an illustration of the project which also indicates the signage that we are talking about. The basic nature of the sign - it has not been totally designed - we are waiting on the answer from the Board but this would be the basic character of the project and consolidation on the . . . MR. WEAVER: This is on the north lot line? PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. PETERSON: Yes, facing the Elmira Road. Between the Hess gas station and (unintelligible) area. There is also another point and that is - this is designed to be an auto plaza and it is conceiv- able that in the future Mr. Zikakis would acquire additional franchises and we would hope the Board would also grant, this evening, stipulating some manner that additional franchise signs might be able to be added to the multi-sign structure, if he should ever acquire any additional franchises or anything like that. MR. WEAVER: What I have here are four different signs for four different companies and then some directional signs. MR. PETERSON: That is correct. There will be four franchise signs located remotely far back into the site. They are indicated on this site plan. The multi. . . MR. WEAVER: Well I 'm going to get myself a Volvo sign, other than out here on the multi. . . MR. PETERSON: Yes, you are going to get a multi - our request is for a multi-sign structure, at this point, along the frontage. And that there would - in conformance with the Ordinance, it does allow sign structures for each of the other businesses back in there, so we are anticipating at this time, a Mazda sign, to be located some seventy or eighty feet back off the road, a Subaru sign to be located similarly, about eighty feet off, and in this vicinity a BMW sign and a Volvo sign, in the neighborhood of three hundred feet - to three hundred fifty feet. MR. SIEVERDING: How large will they be? MR. PETERSON: They are in the neighborhood of sixteen feet. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Now do they come under the Sign Ordinance or not? PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. PETERSON: It is my understanding that they are allowed - the four signs, they are allowed - there is one sign - according to the Sign Ordinance - one sign allowed for each of the businesses in the Center and those are limited to, I believe, two hundred square feet, if you are going to do one, or you can do two signs for businesses, as I understand it, with the maximum of a hundred square feet per each. Or there is the option to do the multi-sign structure and that is what we are wanting to do is hold all the franchise signs well back off of the street and then do a multi-sign structure by the Elmira Road, to consolidate everything. MR. SIEVERDING: I see where the Service Shop sign is going, how about these others - Body Shop and Used Cars? MR. PETERSON; Those are directional signs - they will located up by the road and will be unlighted and will be - our interpretation of the Sign Ordinance would be - they would fall under the direc- tional category that is allowed. MR. WEAVER: I have also in my packet three signs - I don't know who is missing - I 've got Mazda and BMW and Volvo and none of those exceed eighteen feet. . . MR. PETERSON: I think they are all in the neighborhood of fourteen to sixteen feet in height. MR. WEAVER: Sixteen, well could we stipulate that they all are, because I don't know what the fourth one looks like. MR. PETERSON: Well it definitely would fall within the Ordinance, however you would want to stipulate that - it is our intention - that sign hasn't been purchased yet, but it is our intention that it would fall within the height requirements of the Ordinance. PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. SCHWAB: Is it your understanding of the Ordinance that this sign would be legal if it didn't say BMW? MR. PETERSON: That is correct, yes. MR. SCHWAB: And all the other signs are. . . MR. PETERSON: This is - my interpretation of the Ordinance, Peter, is that this main Mall or Center identification sign is limited to one hundred square feet - this one is sixty-four square feet and then there is a height stipulation on each of the individual franchise or business signs that are located in the Center which is one foot and there is also a separation a vertical separation stipulated by the Ordinance, which is eight inches. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: You are talking about a B5 multiple sign on a free-standing sign structure may be permitted and counted as a single sign if meeting the following criteria and then it says "all signs except the topmost signs must be rectilinear, must outline and must align horizontally and vertically and it says all signs except the topmost sign must be mounted so that there is a maximum of nine inches between the adjacent edge, less is pre- ferred. Not more than three separate signs larger than eight square feet, each may be mounted on the same structure but addi- tional smaller signs may be permitted that would be in total area of restrictions and topmost sign may be irregular in outline - is not required to align vertically and may be more than nine inches from the sign below" so that is what you are describing here. MR. PETERSON: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: What about the height? Is there any kind of limitation. . . PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The maximum height for a sign is - in a B5 zone - is twenty-two feet. MR. SIEVERDING: That's what he's got - he read the Ordinance. MR. PETERSON: I also had a nice long meeting with Tom Hoard. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Has Tom reviewed all those signs because I see quite a few signs in there and I was. . . MR. PETERSON; Yes, the basic - the understanding that Tom and I had was that as long as the other signage, such as the Body Shop sign, the Service signs, as long as they were not Franchise identifiers, as long as they were of a directional purpose and orientation purpose, trying to help the traffic floor and people get in and out of the dealership, that they would be within the letter of the Ordinance. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Well let me ask this, it says: new car dealerships - two hundred square feet - that's where the two hundred square foot number comes - all signs - so maximum square footage would be two hundred square feet, all signs. There is a choice here of two signs for each business - one a free-standing sign, a building mounted sign or two building mounted signs - various combinations (unintelligible) but it says, two hundred square foot - all signs - now I see basically duplicate signs or two signs for most all the activities that are on this front so. . . MR. PETERSON; They would all fall well below that two hundred square feet allowed per business. They are all significantly below. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Okay. PAGE 50 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. PETERSON: I think if you run some math on it you would find that to be the case - but they are all significantly below - in the neighborhood of a hundred and twenty to a hundred and thirty square feet per business as opposed to the two hundred that would be. . . ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: I guess I wasn't involved with this but there are two comments here, one of them talks about a multiple use sign and the other one talks about Plaza signs and under the Sign Ordinance - it says the Center as a whole - so it is called a Center or a Plaza - it says one hundred and fifty for one free-standing sign identifying the Center and then if you go to the car dealership - it says two hundred square feet overall for business activity so there seems to be two different things going on here. How large is that total sign there? MR. WEAVER: But they are not cumulative - the Plaza sign is a given - do you agree with that Peter? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Yes. Center as a whole, one hundred fifty square, yes. MR. WEAVER: And then we start from zero on talking about any one of the dealerships. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: But you wouldn't have any free-standing - if you have a sign for the Center as a whole, I don't think you would have any additional free-standing signs - that front sign would be one sign does that exceed one hundred and fifty? MR. PETERSON; Not the actual sign area - let's see. . . ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The sign would be for the whole structure. PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. PETERSON: The Plaza sign or the entire thing? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Whatever would be the full structure. MR. PETERSON; The Ordinance stipulates that - it is my understand- ing that the only thing it considers to be signage is the actual text and not the separations. That was our - when Tom and I were talking about this thing - that there were separations required and they can be put together in a variety of ways, vertically, recti- linearly, as long as it is within the configuration of the Ordi- nance. But that the only thing that is actually considered signage is the irregular identifier or center identifier at the top of the sign and the text of the three allowed - businesses - in the Center and the rest is - as Tom and I understood the Ordinance when we went through it - was not considered signage but was a part of the structure. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: When you say Tom, you are talking about the Commissioner? MR. PETERSON: Yes, Tom Hoard. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: Oh, so the square footage of the signage allowed is only what. . . MR. SIEVERDING: The lettered portion and in this case you are substantially below the one hundred and fifty, you are just slight- ly under one hundred square feet. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN; Perfectly clear Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: Well as I understand it, his interpretation is the only thing - the only variance they are requesting is to add BMW to this sign, the rest is all legal. PAGE 52 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. WEAVER: I agree that the application is for that and not for all the rest of this site. MR. SCHWAB: Who knows what you have to do, you may have to present all your sign plans but the only thing that violates the Sign Ordinance is this last BMW because they only allow three business- es on the sign. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. Well the reason I was being picky is because the letter of the law, essentially says that you do have to submit a site plan and I wanted to know where they were going to be. MR. SCHWAB: I agree. We should see all the signs. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good. MR. PETERSON: When the BMW sign is selected and available we will submit it to you. Our request at this time, is that we have four businesses in the Center and we are requesting that the fourth be allowed and we would also question the Board as to its feelings about possible future additions should Mr. Zikakis be fortunate enough to bring other businesses into Ithaca and into the Center. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It would be my position that whenever that occurs he would come back to us. MR. SIEVERDING: I agree with that, I 'd have a hard time actually giving approval for something that we don't know what it is going to look like. MR. WEAVER: Certainly can't demonstrate much need. MR. PETERSON: No, not at this time. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions from members of the Board that we have this as clear as we are going to get it? PAGE 53 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. SCHWAB: For the Sign ordinance, this is fairly clear. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you gents. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] I will entertain a motion. PAGE 54 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 8-1-87 FOR 370 ELMIRA ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of William Zikakis for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to permit the erection of a free-standing multiple sign structure with four business identification signs plus a plaza identification sign at 370 Elmira Road. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the variance from the Sign Ordinance in Appeal Number 8-1-87 for the "Z" Plaza sign only. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This variance will allow increasing the number of signs on the multiple free-standing structure; namely the "Z" Plaza sign, to four. 2. There are practical difficulties in identifying this business that cannot be met in any less intrusive manner - would be adequate for the applicant and certainly, in the neighborhood, better than average. 3 . Such granting would be appropriate to the intent of the Ordinance. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT SIGN VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 55 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1779 FOR 202 AND 204 SUNRISE ROAD: Appeal of Gerald P. Schickel for an area variance for a deficient front yard setback under Section 30.25 Column 11 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the resubdivision of the existing lots at 202 and 204 Sunrise Road into two parcels. There is an existing house at 202 Sunrise Road which does not meet the current setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the front yard, and Subdivision Regulations require that a subdivider obtain an area variance for existing setback deficiencies before final Subdivision Approval can be granted by the Board of Planning and Development. The purpose of resubdivision is to realign the property line between the two parcels. The single-family home to be built at 204 Sunrise Road will conform in all respects to the requirements of the Ria (Residential, single-family dwellings) Use District in which the property is located. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record and where you live so we have you clearly recorded? MR. CAFFERILLO: I 'm Dominick Cafferillo and Sheila Cafferillo, 151 Oakwood Lane. We are speaking on behalf of Jerry Schickel and we gave the sworn statement signed by Jerry's wife Irene, Co-owner of the property. This is a copy of a current survey which has just been completed of the property - it shows the existing dotted line and then the new proposed property line. We've just taken the PAGE 56 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 diagonal pie-shaped property line and relocated it to the existing back line of the 202 property. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: .The single deficiency that exists relates to the existing property - too close to the street. MR. CAFFERILL0: That's right. The City built the road too close to the house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Blame it on the City. MR. CAFFERILLO: The house - no the house, which was originally a mill has been there for a hundred years. The road was built in 1972 . So the road was actually built that close to the house so it was not the fault of the owner. It is just the way the road was constructed. He has an existing area to border on Westfield, which he acquired in 1968 when he renovated the house. The road was built after that. MR. SIEVERDING: It seems pretty straight forward to me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well you never know, you've got to look under- neath all the rocks. Any further questions? MRS. CAFFERILLO: There are some up there too. MR. SCHWAB: When was it initially subdivided? Because the new proposed line strikes me as - looks prettier - do you have any idea? MR. CAFFERILLO: I don't have any idea. I think it was that way as long as we know. It is in the original deed that way. MR. WEAVER: Are you talking about Westfield? PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 MR. SCHWAB: No, I 'm talking about the one on Sunrise - why they wouldn't have gone back to the back corner of that parcel - it seems like a sort of natural place. . . MR. WEAVER: Well the people that designed Sunrise are just like our fore-fathers - they took the easy way - there is nothing in the way - so they went thataway, as far as the road is concerned. And it was Taylor Place - was a deadend. It was a deadend further south quite a bit. That had only been extended about a block, versus what it is now. It was really targeted toward the end of the street back then. All of these - honest to goodness - they built them where there was nothing in the way. (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Were you around in 168 - on the Board? MR. WEAVER: Practically. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we've got the feel of 168 - corroborates all those ancient histories. Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Fine. Thanks. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Could we have a motion? PAGE 58 BZA MINUTES - 8/10/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1779 FOR 202 & 204 SUNRISE ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Gerald P. Schickel for an area variance to permit the resubdivision of the existing lots at 202 and 204 Sunrise Road into two parcels. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance request- ed in Appeal Number 1779. MS. JOHNSON: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed subdivision will not exacerbate the area defi- ciencies which were created when the road was built too close to the existing house that has been there for some hundred years. 2 . The proposed subdivison conforms with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 59 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 1774 , 1775 , 1776, 1777, 1778 , 8-1-87 and 1779 on August 10 , 1987, in the Common Council Chambers , City of Ithaca, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minues of the meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara C. Ruan Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this day of 1987 Notary Public JEAN J.HAWNSOIV NOTARY PUSL!C,STATE OF NEW YORK NO. ';_.x-"600 QUALIFI<D IN T','MPSINS COUNTY, MY COMMISSION ERYIR'=S APidL 30,i9