Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1987-09-01 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMGERS SEPTEMBER 1 , 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 1780 TIMOTHY TERPENING 2 118 SCHUYLER PLACE APPEAL NO. 1780 DISCUSSION 28 APPEAL NO. 1780 DECISION 33 APPEAL NO. 1781 IRENE PETITO 34 423 CASCADILLA STREET APPEAL NO. 1781 DISCUSSION 38 APPEAL NO. 1781 DECISION 41 APPEAL NO. 1782 VERNON C . GAMBRELL, P .E . 42 517 WEST STATE STREET APPEAL NO. 1782 DECISION 51 APPEAL NO. 1783 WILLIAM ZIKAKIS 52 715 -719 HANCOCK STREET APPEAL NO. 1783 DISCUSSION 72 APPEAL NO. 1783 DECISION 81 APPEAL NO. 1784 SCHICKEL CONSTRUCTION CO. 82 201 WORTH STREET APPEAL NO. 1784 DECISION 91 APPEAL NO. 1785 ROBERT MARTIN POSTPONED 119 THIRD STREET CERTIFICATION OF. RECORDING SECRETARY 92 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the September 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 Ordi- nance and the Board's owr Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight are: STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER JOHN OAKLEY HERMAN SIEVERDING MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN THOMAS D. HOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER, ZONING OFFICER & SECRETARY TO THE BD. BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT: HELEN JOHNSON The Board is going to hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we will hear from the appellant and ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible and then be available to answer questions from members of the Board. We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the Board considers "interested parties" to be persons who own property within two BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 hundred feet of the property in question or who 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 relating to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations when there are any and the record of tonight' s hearings. 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 by the tape recorder and be heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and will therefore not be considered by the Board in its deliberations on the case. We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during our deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or a special permit - in the rare cases where there is a tie vote the variance or special permit is auto- matically denied. Now tonight, although we expected six members, there are only five members present, if any of you do wish to PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 withdraw without prejudice at this point, now is the time perhaps to request a postponement - that is, once again, you have to have four votes one way or the other - certainly for approval you need four votes - that means four out of five. If there is anyone who feels as though, in one way or the other, they would like to wait until next month, now is the time to indicate your wish. [no one] That being the case, are there any questions about our procedure? Sure. . . VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: The letters that you have already received, are these considered part of the record? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Letters? Letters which we have received - that is, the Building Department has received, have been duplicated and given to members of the Board for their consideration, yes. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: By interested parties. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: By interested parties, both pro and against, yes, we have a record of all of that. If there is anyone else who would like to come forward - at the appropriate point in the proceeding I 'll holler and you should respond accordingly. By virtue of the fact that you may have sent in a letter, you may want to say something in addition, for example, some people would just like to reiterate what they've said, and you have that option as we go forward. Any other questions about our proceeding? Fine, then if we can move ahead with the first case. SECRETARY HOARD: The first case Mr. Chairman, is Appeal Number 1780 for 118 Schuyler Place: Appeal of Timothy Terpening for an area variance for deficient lot area, deficient lot width, excessive PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for the front yard, both side yards and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of decks at the first and second floor levels at the rear of the two-family dwelling at 118 Schuyler Place. If approved, the proposed decks will replace enclosed porches and open stairs that have already been removed, and will result in an increase in lot coverage by 4.4 percent, and a decrease in the rear yard depth by 1.6 percent. The property is located in an R2a (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: Welcome, if you would begin by stating your name and where you live so we can have that on the record. MR. TERPENING: Okay, I 'm Tim Terpening, this is my wife Jennifer. First I 'd like to ask - I believe there were two letters that were sent in opposition to this plan and I just wanted to ask you if you have read the letters. . . MR. OAKLEY: Three of them actually. MR. SIEVERDING: There was one here on our desks when we arrived tonight. PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. TERPENING: I think if I respond to the one letter from Mr. & Mrs. Grippi, I think I can respond to pretty much the general flow of the objections but before I start I just wanted to say - there was just one thing in the letter that I wanted to clear up - I couldn't ask the Board to give us the nod on a project if we had first gone ahead and tried to circumvent the normal channels and, as was stated in one of the letters, the disregard for the zoning and I just wanted to give you a little bit of back ground on what transpired. I talked to Dannie Conrad - I met him at the property and there was no doubt and no disagreement between us that this porch had to be removed. Let me just pass around this photograph, you can see what it did look like before we tore it down. That was just a case of many years of neglect and we bought the house in the spring of 1986 and this was - other than the roof - this was right on the top of our list to have it taken care of and Dannie was delighted that we were going to it. I spoke with him, we were standing right there at the back porch and I said, what can we do here - what can we build here - and he said, well, and as I remem- ber the conversation, he said, well if you don't go back any further than where you are right now - or if you do go back further you'll have to have a variance and you'll have to go before the Board and it will take a month or possibly two months to get a variance and I didn't want to do that - I said, we want to get the job done, we want to get this thing done - it was in the spring and we wanted to have it for this past summer. My intention was to stay with the nine foot depth, which is the existing structure, and I never asked him about the width - I thought if I stayed with the PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 depth I didn't have to get a variance. I assumed, very incorrect- ly, that if - you know - the width, if I could go three feet wider and I wasn't going to cause anybody a problem - so there you are. We got stopped on the project right in the middle of it and I was embarrassed and my contractor had come in and being from out in the country, he bought ten foot lumber and - trying to save me money, in good faith he put the footers in ten feet back - thinking that as long as the lumber was ten feet, he wasn't going to have to cut it - so he went an extra foot in depth - so here we are - I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood that we were trying to approach this thing up front and do it the right way and we just got stopped because mainly I assumed something that I shouldn't have assumed and so. . . in any event, the plan that we have here - let me just talk a little bit about why we are trying to do it the way we are trying to do it. When Dannie came over and stopped our operation, we right then had the choice of backing up and building it in the same configuration as we had before, which was nine feet by thirteen feet, and again these measurements that we are using are being taken from my measurements when I was there but more specifically, this map - the survey map - it is not exact, to be honest with you, it is one inch equals ten feet and the side measures about ten and one-eighth inches roughly. I figured the overhang of the porch, too and I came up with thirteen feet and so the original idea - do you all have a copy of this? BOARD MEMBERS: Yes. MR. TERPENING: Our approach in any project that we have ever done has been to try to do it the way we would do it if we lived there PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 and it usually ends up costing us a lot more money - it always ends up costing us a lot more money but I think we put quality first and that's why I designed this thing - I 'm not an engineer or an architect or anything - I 'm just thinking about the utility of the porch and how it will be to have one deck directly over top of another - I think that that is not a good design - I just think it is poor and we tried to avoid that by having the top deck offset to the right side of the building so that when the upstairs people come out of their door they come on to a very narrow - it is a three foot area right there at the door and then it widens out gradually into what is their deck on the top floor. And this is away from the lower deck so they are not right on top of people below them. I was perfectly satisfied with the nine foot deck, I am asking you for ten feet because I have got footers in and the bottom deck is partially started so I am asking you for one extra foot on the depth of the porch - of the decks - and I am asking for two extra feet on the side bringing it from thirteen to fifteen feet and I am asking for the top deck to be moved over to the right side of the house. I think it wouldn't be a good use of the property, I think an owner would be somewhat remiss if he didn't try to utilize the beautiful view that is there, from the second floor, as you stand there on the second floor and look out any of the windows or on this hypothetical deck, you can look right over top of the first house which is two lots from ours and it happens to be Mr. and Mrs. Grippi 's property - you can look right over top of that house and you can see the City and the hills on the other side and I would like to be able to take advantage of that view. I PAGE 6 EZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 don't want the porch to be enclosed - the decks to be enclosed. One of the first reactions from our tenants when we removed the porch, in fact I think one of them even called us up and said, I hope you are not going to close this back because it is so bright in our kitchen and, very true, that old porch just blocked the light right out of the kitchen and with this thing opened up it has just brightened up both kitchens in the house. I believe, we believe, that this is the right design for this approach. I think I have read four or five times this letter from Mr. and Mrs. Grippi - I am very, very sympathetic to concerns about privacy in the neighborhood - I think that they voiced a very legitimate objection to this - to anything here with regard to a deck or a platform or an open porch. We are kind of the new guys on the block, we have been there two years, we haven't had a chance to meet everybody. The other houses that we have in the City, we know some of the neighbors and we have a good neighborly relationship. They don't know us and we haven't really established outselves yet with the house and how we handle our tenants. I think their objection is very legitimate, my reaction to it is - the way I understand the way the law works, is if I can replace the deck or the porch that I had, which was nine feet by thirteen feet, with two decks, one below the other - that was my understanding after talking with Dannie Conrad about how the law works. They had a structure there and we can replace it with something of the same configuration - the same dimensions and not go over that, okay. My reaction and my response to the objection about privacy is that what we are asking the Board for, being a foot on the back and two feet on the side PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 9/l/87 and to take the top and move it to the right, I am absolutely positive in my heart of hearts that there is not going to be an added negative from those things that we are trying to do as compared to taking this over and under nine by thirteen structure, that I trust that part we are not up for a question, but it is just what we are trying to do over and above the original - one foot back and two feet on the side and moving it over - I don't believe is going to add - or rather take more away from the privacy. There is going to be, without question, a reduction in their privacy. I am not denying that. We had a totally enclosed porch - we are going to put a deck on it, we want people who live in our house to be able to use their back yard area and up to now there really wasn't anything back there for them to use. The yard is small, even if we don't put a deck on, the yard is tiny. The old porch is not even safe. Dannie and I, he told me that we had to do some- thing with these steps and I agreed one hundred percent and I went over - because right at that time, I couldn't just tear the thing down right off the bat - I had to do something - we had to shore up the steps - the wood was rotten and this was no encouragement for our people to come out on that porch and do anything or to use the stairway - it was dangerous. So what we are trying to do is provide our tenants with access and to be able to utilize their back yard, what is rightfully their back yard. And where you have a neighborhood where you have basically four quarters of - there is four buildings around in that little cube of property back there, there is no question when you add two or three people or four people to the numbers that are using their back yards, it is going PAGE 8 FZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 to reduce everybody else's personal privacy - it is just - it is going to happen. But I don't think that our people should be denied the use of their back yard in a realistic and not abusive way to make it so that other people don't have anyone there in their field of vision or whatever you want to say. So I am very sympathetic - we are making a change in this back yard area, it is a change, it is long overdue that it has come and today people are not really going into enclosed porches, decks are what you can expect enclosed porches to be replaced with today - on the back of a house - it is just the way designs are going and it is what people expect and with treated lumber it is very durable and it is going to be there - and here again, is another reason why we have set all our tools aside and we've sent our contractor home for over a month now because we feel that this is so important, we are not going to get a second chance to do this right. If I put one deck over top of another it is going to be a problem for their - I mean it is not going to be necessarily a problem, but it is going to be substantially less than what it could have been and that's all that we are trying to do is just maximize what we can do without going over board and I don't think that a ten by fifteen - I mean, that's the size of a customary dining room - it is not a huge space - I mean, you are not going to be - it is just not a huge space, it is I think a very reasonable space for a deck. Again, we have to give our deck - with this privacy thing - I 'm sorry that we have not - all of our neighbors - I 've met a number of them, Mrs. Liddell, we have met, she lives in the house just above us and she lives there alone, I understand, and her daughter comes and visits her PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 occasionally and uses our driveway to do so and I think we have had several various conversations with her - the property on the opposite side of us to the north is a four unit house with the orientation completely away from our house - the orientation is due north and they have a garage that backs up to our yard. The next property that wraps around the corner to the west - the immediate property to the west is I believe a two-unit house with an owner occupied situation - their yard comes fully to the back of ours, creating a little bit of a buffer - I would say about fifty feet of a distance buffer between us and the next property over which is Mr. and Mrs. Grippi and they have a deck, and a very nice little deck that is going to be similar to ours - pressure treated uncov- ered type of deck. As far as - there were a few things mentioned about noise and a police report. We weren't aware of any police report of a noise complaint - there might have been one, I know they can't keep exact records but the letter stated that there had been a police report of a noise complaint. We have probably the most restrictive lease - I have a copy of it here, I don't expect you all to read it, I just wanted to show you - it is oversize paper, it is not large print, and it is two sides and our lease states that - with regard to noise - a tenant agrees to maintain quiet hours between eleven p.m. and nine a.m. and to refrain at all times from the use of loud musical equipment where the sound may travel to other apartments in the building or to other buildings. I know you don't know really how we operate unless you have heard rumours but we are pretty strict and we respond in person to any noise complaint that we get - we never call the police to answer a PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 noise complaint. I think we have had two and we have twenty-two apartment units and I think in the past many years we have had two - what we consider to be serious noise complaints where there was an eviction and where there was a serious development and we respond personally, promptly and we are delighted when neighbors, if they call us, tell us that there is a problem - we handle it right away and we don't give the tenants a second chance. If I come in the middle of the night to respond to a noise complaint, that's the last time that they get a warning and the next time they get a letter and a notice that we are going to evict them. We don't compromise - our leases are very strict, we try - here again, is another reasoning why we want this to be an unstacked - we try to get good quality tenants. I think our rents are very fair, they are not low and I believe this is going to result in a little higher rent from this house and our experience is that the higher the rent, the better quality tenant you have - the better quality of apartment - the whole situation - the better quality you have, the better quality tenant you are going to have and this is why - I think this is really the heart of the matter as to why we go out of our way to take care of our properties and make sure that they are top quality. We do everything that is humanly possible to prevent interference and intrusion on other people in our buildings and other buildings and we take a very active role in it. I think I have pretty much covered everything that I can think of to say - I didn't read the other letter but I would imagine that it said nearly the same things in regard to an objection - I can't imagine that anyone would write a letter to support a deck because it is PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 not something that one would actively do, I mean, unless they were a personal friend and were doing me a favor, they wouldn't do that. So I guess I 've said enough for right now - we would be interested to hear what any of the other verbal objections are, in addition to this letter. I was very concerned when I read the letter, I saw that one part about being disregard - we have worked with the City for years and I think we have a very good working relationship with the Building Department to do all the work that we do and we get building permits in every case and we just try to work through you guys to do it right. And that is what we are trying to do here. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let's see if there are any questions from members of the Board at this point. MR. TERPENING: Okay. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Board members, now's your chance. MR. SIEVERDING: Maybe you could clear up some dimensions for us. The nine feet includes - I mean, that goes from the back of the building to the outside edge of the fire escape, is that right? MR. TERPENING: That nine feet, yes. According to the survey map, as near as I can determine by the map, and I measured it, it was nine feet, but you have to go by the map. . . and I. . . MR. SIEVERDING: But it includes the fire escape structure. . . MR. TERPENING: I don't know what you use when you determine what is a fire escape versus just a stairway. I never heard this refered to as a fire escape, it is being removed - there will be no steps down from the back of this porch. The second level is going to be about thirteen feet from the ground and as far as I am concerned, I always consider safety in everything we do and I feel PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 that if there is a fire in this building they will be able to get out and away from it very handily and - as far as getting from the deck down onto the ground - I think that would be a matter of just climbing over the edge and getting down as they would off of a porch with a roof on it or something like that - as we have on the front of the house - we have a porch with a roof right off the living room. MR. SIEVERDING: In terms of replacing what was there, would the footprint for that include, typically, the stair structure? SECRETARY HOARD: It would include it, yes. MR. SIEVERDING: So if he wanted to replace what was there he could do something that is nine by - whatever that dimension is? SECRETARY HOARD: We would consider the footprint and we would also consider the setbacks. MR. SIEVERDING: But if he were to replace essentially what was there before, I mean, he could take what is showing on the survey - the fire escape plus the porch at both levels? SECRETARY HOARD: And build a deck of those dimensions. MR. SIEVERDING: You got started - this work is already in progress? MR. TERPENING: Yes the lower deck has the frame already installed, the footers are in and the frame is there. As Dannie said, you could put a ship on it, the thing is really solid. MR. SIEVERDING: And that frame comes out ten feet? MR. TERPENING: That comes out just ten feet. MR. SIEVERDING: And then you have that one extra footer over on the other side to carry the support for the . . . PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. TERPENING: There are two extra footers on the other side. On the right side of the building there are two extra footers - one in the center. . . MR. SIEVERDING: That's holding up the other end of the building so there is actually one footer to be used to support the second level? You are using the other ones to support the second level? MR. TERPENING: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The deck is in place, the uprights are in place, the ballistrade is not. . . (unintelligible) Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: So the upper deck is how high? MR. TERPENING: The upper deck as it extends out from the lower deck, as you look down - if you will look on the drawing, looking straight down on it, it is twelve and a half feet to the right of the other deck. Now that does not include the area of that deck which tapers back to the house and then goes in to a three foot area where they enter the door - the kitchen door. Just the part that is being offset is twelve feet wide - twelve and a half feet. That's how far we are moving it over, I guess you would say. MR. SCHWAB: These dotted lines. . . (unintelligible) MR. TERPENING: They indicate the second floor. MR. SIEVERDING: So it is not actually three feet anywhere really, other than at the head of the stairs? MR. TERPENING: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: Immediately at the head of the stairs it starts to come out. . . PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. TERPENING: At the head of the stairs it starts to come out - if you see my dotted line, it leaves about another three feet - just enough to walk by the chimney - that is the little square against the building - that is a chimney there, and they will be able to walk by there - that is not an area where it will be - I wanted it as narrow as possible so they wouldn't be leaving things right in that area - it is just a walk through and it doesn't extend over beyond where you see the dotted lines at the head of the stairs - that is where that ends. We are using the same upright footer that we are using for the stairway below to come up and meet the corner of that walkway. MR. SCHWAB: You have considered, I presume, on the lower deck there will be reduced privacy by putting it off to the side because you can see down from the upper deck. MR. TERPENING: Well to some extent that is true but I would rather have something offset where people are over there and not directly over me. If I am using a deck I don't want to have people right over top of me in a deck right above. If I had to do it that way I would probably be forced to use plywood flooring on it and I don't want to do that - I would rather use the 2 x 8 's or 2 x 6 's spaced out with a small area between them. MR. OAKLEY: Just in that same line - I 'm not sure questioning - but observation - a deck like that will take the sun away from the deck below, a little more effectively, if it is of concern. . . MR. TERPENING: You are right, I 'm not really - I 'm not too con- cerned about the sun itself, as it hits the decks - the other side of that coin is that it will provide a little shade. Now we have a PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 deck at our house that faces south and there are times when I can't even go out there, I have very sensitive eyes and when that sun is hitting the house it blinds me. MR. OAKLEY: A more serious question, what kind of railing are you talking about? MR. TERPENING: We are going to have 2 x 2 upright spindles or whatever you want to call them and they will be spaced somewhere around five inches apart. I 've always left the inch measurements to my builder, he is very good and he is experienced with these things. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: On the other hand he is the one that got you in trouble to begin with. . . MR. TERPENING: In all good faith he did, his heart was in the right position, I have to say, because a lot of contractors I would complain because they didn't think a little bit of a way to save me money and he did. MR. SIEVERDING: Whose responsibility is that though? To be sure that the structure that is being built is in conformance with. . . MR. TERPENING: It is my responsibility - I was right there when he put the footers in and I didn't measure them - if I had run my tape out I would have seen that the center of that footer was ten feet out from the building - I would have said, hey, you are a foot off. I never measured it. So that is my fault. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions from members of the Board? A parenthetical observation, if you know anything about the way in which uprights of that kind - though they are treated - they are treated with a water soluble salt and I noticed that you did set PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 them in the ground - what you are likely to have is rot there in a very short period of time because you've got no foundation beneath those posts, but that is just to let you know, parenthetically. MR. TERPENING: They are sitting on cement - we dug the holes and they are sitting on cement. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right but you have back-filled them in such a way as you've got earth covering them - just to let you know that you are liable to come into difficulty in the future because essentially the moisture is going to come right through . . . MR. TERPENING: They haven't been completely back-filled yet - would it help to put gravel for drainage? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The moisture should be away from the post, plain and simple. The concrete should have been above grade. Just to let you know. Thanks much. 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? MR. GRIPPI: My name is Salvadore Grippi and this is my wife Rosalind Grippi and we live at 423 Seneca Street - we are the house which he was speaking about - I think we prefer to - between those - from his house that he owns, and the decks, there are two lots - that's an error. Their lot comes up very close to our neighbor who is at 427 East Seneca Street and we are the next house over so there is only that garden at 427 East Seneca Street that is a buffer zone. As far as the decks, I don't know what view he is speaking about because actually the decks line up with our windows - then there is our roof - our house is quite high - so actually they are in line with our windows and we have lost - or will lose PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 all privacy by those open decks because with open decks - obviously from what he has been saying people are going to gather and use those decks - they are going to sit out there on those decks - before they were porches and the porches were very narrow and there was a fire escape - or a stairway. Both of those were enclosed so there was no problem about people sitting in those areas and overlooking our windows and our neighbor's windows. If you have received a letter from our neighbor at 423 - 427 you will notice that the decks are going to be in line with their child's window. They have a small child and it will be in line with that. Then also there are three home owners who object to this and if you notice there is only one property which, again, is a rental proper- ty and that is on the corner of Schuyler and Seneca. Also, I want to point out that that lot size at 118 is already over built - it has very little buffer zone. Of course if you read the notice in the paper - in the Ithaca Journal - it refers to the lot size as being small and the actual building is oversize for that lot. MS. GRIPPI: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) side and back. . MR. GRIPPI: The side, the back, both sides, the back, and front. . . MS. GRIPPI: I want to also say that we weren't provided with the design but we were told simply that they were shifting the top deck over. We have a very extensive, beautiful back yard that was built and put up in 1913, I believe, by Driscoll - this was the Driscoll family home - and they extensively terraced the back. Now that does give us some privacy - that back yard - there is no other house that faces it. By shifting over his deck, I think he is going to get that view because I hadn't ever anticipated that he PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 was providing a view for the decks - except our house - although if he shifts it over the right, they may be able to look right down into that one private area that we have that really should be considered because it is the stark. The other thing that I wanted to say, I wanted to answer some of his questions. He is concerned about privacy for his tenants by shifting the decks from one side to the other but I don't think that he - even though he says that he is sorry that he is going to invade our privacy and he does acknowledge - I think he said that it will substantially reduce our privacy - but yet we do enjoy that privacy now and he is the one who is going to be intruding upon it with the decks. Then he says that when Dannie Conrad looked at the porches - the enclosed porches which were enclosed and actually a buffer and assured us even more privacy, he said that Mr. Conrad said that he could replace them with the same configuration but now this is a differ- ent configuration - I don't know - can the Terpenings put up a new configuration? Also the enclosed porches were only six feet in depth and as I - the stair case which was a fire escape was - added the other three feet so actually if he is putting up the same configuration it should be enclosed porches and also they stopped at the edge of the chimney and now he is carrying them over toward Mrs. Liddell, who wrote a letter objecting because the people on the decks will look right down into her kitchen and invade her privacy. So even though he is shifting them to guarantee privacy for his tenants, he is not providing us with any regard for our privacy. Although he says that he is sympathetic to us. Then he has back yard space - Mr. and Mrs. Harmon are beginning to PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 reconstruct their garden - they have just now gone down the slope - had somebody clear that - we have also been upping our garden space. Mrs. Mitchell who lives next to us and the house next to that all have been working on our back gardens and I think if the Terpenings want to join in that effort they have a little garden space and they could put up bushes and provide some privacy for their tenants and also contribute to the neighborhood. Also I don't want to have to call Mr. Terpening and be a policeman for anybody else's tenant and say that your tenants are disturbing my rest - I think that's not - even though I might call him - I really prefer to have what I have now, which is quiet and peace and a peaceful enjoyment of my property. I also asked in my letter - or in our letter - that the owners of 118 Schuyler Place - that they began construction of the open decks without regard for City regulations that require them to appeal for a variance. It is not just the one foot in depth - it is also that they extended out to a shed all the way across to the other side of the house. Now they did this without regard for the City regulations which are in place to protect homeowners and neighborhoods. No special consideration should be given their appeal because they have already invested money in beginning these decks. Mr. Terpening also said that decks are the new thing and I agree that's probably true but this is not a new neighborhood, this is a historic district and the character of the buildings are such that if we want to make any renovation to our house or that's true of the house next door - 427 - which wrote a letter of protest of this plan - we would have to apply to the landmarks commission, I believe, so I think that this is another PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 thing that must be given consideration - decks may be the new thing - we are in a City landmarks area and we have kept up this area of Seneca Street - I think everybody says that is one of the nicest streets in the City and we do it because it is a community of neighbors and we do care for the way our houses look and we have worked together to keep it that way. You could see it when you walked down the street - our pride in the gardens and in the street is reflected in the fronts of our houses. Let's see, what else can I say about this - I hope you have all read my letter and the Harmon's letter and also Mrs. Liddell 's letter. The Harmons have just bought their house - they moved into it last year - they have done over the interior - they were going - they start on the gardens now and they are going to be working on the exterior with painting and restoring some dentals of the pedimental area that has to be done - this all takes a lot of money - it took us a lot of money to put our house into condition so that its historic character is preserved and I hope that these decks will not be allowed and I hope that anything that replaces what was there is in the same configuration - that is, enclosed and does not extend beyond the chimney space. And, as I say, there is garden there and you can do an awful lot with a small garden space if the Terpenings wanted to, they could contribute to the kind of immediate neighborhood that the house is located in. Is there anything else I might say? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: At this point, Barb do you want to change the tape perhaps? PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MS. GRIPPI: . . . . [changed tape here, missed some of the dialogue] our house and other people do to - I think people will become discouraged and the whole neighborhood - owner-occupancy will disappear from that particular area. Now three of these four houses are owner-occupied - two of them are single-family and another one is a new family with a baby or child, just moved in and I should think that should be encouraged and I think that is an important thing for the Commons too. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are there questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: One thing, as I understand this case - it is my understanding - I disagree with your use of the term configuration because as I understand what that means is the footprint - he is allowed to replace these with anything he wants - of the same dimensions. But now of course, that is not what he is asking to do, so as I understand - the way I am looking at the case largely, is that he is allowed to put up the deck of 9 by 13 exactly where the old stuff was. He is asking to come out a foot - an additional foot - and he is asking to slide that top one over and so I am looking at it - what are the extra problems really, given that he is allowed to do a deck. I haven't heard anything specifically - I am not sure you can - one foot out, on the other hand - it is his fault for planning it there. Let me just ask you to quickly restate - as I understand it, your complaint with sliding it over is that this will now give you on your back garden, which is your most private spot? MS. GRIPPI: That's true and also one foot matters a great deal when you deal with square footage and the amount of people that can PAGE 22 RZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 comfortably fit on a deck. Also why should the steps be considered part of that configuration - it was just a fire escape was at a diagonal and I think there is a drawing of it and why should this be considered part of the footprint, it doesn't extend from one side to the other - you've all seen this. . . then you should have a triangular footprint there. . . MR. GRIPPI: One other thing is that the lot size, according to what is being used by the house and the lot size, a foot is a lot of - is a good sized thing because the house is so close to the edge of the lot. All the other houses have buffer zones around them. We have ten - fifteen feet or so and he doesn't have that. MR. SCHWAB: Okay, I hear what you are saying. MR. GRIPPI: I want to answer a question about extending the deck over to the privacy of our garden is another loss of privacy - that is what we are trying to point out - the deck is going to be in line with our windows and with the windows of our neighbor, their bedroom windows. . . MS. GRIPPI: And their child's window. . . MR. GRIPPI: And we are going to lose even more privacy - not only are they going to be looking right into our windows but also they are going to be looking into our garden. So we are losing much more than just that privacy of the windows - people being in line with our windows. MS. GRIPPI: That garden is beautifully landscaped and we paid a lot of attention. . . PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. SCHWAB: I hear what you are saying - all I want is for you to be sure - this Board has got absolutely no power to make him put up enclosed porches. MS GRIPPI: What about that staircase - that's not part of the porch. MR. SCHWAB: It is my understanding that we've got no power to - he is allowed to put up 9 by 13 foot decks without coming to this Board. MS. GRIPPI: Not 6 by 13 and plus a staircase, that's the same configuration as was there. MR. SCHWAB: No configuration means anything that doesn't have a footprint is a 9 by 13 . MS. GRIPPI: Well I would like to ask this Board to be as exacting as possible to preserve the neighborhood, both for Mrs. Liddell, for my house and it is just not my living there, it is the whole neighborhood and the whole star character of this area and also for the Harmans who cannot be here tonight, who have just purchased their house a year ago with the idea of restoration too. They are going to look right into our windows - well I guess there is going to be some tension in the neighborhood for that but on the other hand I ask you to be as restrictive as possible for the City's sake and the people who will take this area over after us. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Help me in my orientation. Which house has the deck on it now? MR. GRIPPI: 427. MR. WEAVER: 427. That was Harmans? PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. GRIPPI: Yes, but that deck overlooks their garden, it doesn't line up with anyone's windows. MR. WEAVER: I just wondered. The historic district includes 427? MS. GRIPPI: Yes, they are historic building, in fact, it is one of the early buildings on that street. MR. WEAVER: It helps me because I will be able to anticipate the Board that approves alterations in the historic district is up with decks now, right? MS. GRIPPI: Yes, it shouldn't be, but as my husband said, their deck is accessible from their living room and then their kitchen and it overlooks their garden - they have an extensive garden, it goes back I don't know how much but it goes - well it goes beyond 118 Schuyler Place - it is sort of a U shape and then it drops down a steep slope all the way down towards State Street, this house does, and they may be terracing it to. . . MR. WEAVER: Do you realize that is why some other neighbors don't have any back yard? MS. GRIPPI: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: May I ask a question further? Would you have as much objection - I am going to paint a hypothetical here without prejudice one way or the other but I want to get to the question - if the Board were predisposed to granting the variance, would you have as much objection to superimposing one porch on top of the other as you do now with the second porch offset from the first? MS. GRIPPI: I think offsetting it is worse but I would like it to be as restrictive as possible because any deck which brings people out of doors - they are on a higher level than we are. . . . PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, I understand, but am I correct in assuming that if we superimpose them back in the original configuration you would have less objection to it than what you do know? MS. GRIPPI: And also back one foot. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand but I wanted to get some sense of how you are thinking. MS. GRIPPI: I would like it to be the old configuration exactly but not configuration only in a round plan but also enclosed as they were - just because that is a completely surrounded area - it is a U shape and that's - you know - voices carry across and so on and so I would like you to be as restrictive as possible - the fact that they are one foot - they have taken one more foot toward us means a great deal and also means something to the Harmons and to the Liddell 's - that they are shifting over to the right - it certainly gives them a view into our garden and into Mrs. Liddell 's kitchen and so on, so all in all it is very unpleasant arrangement and I hope there will not be friction but on the other hand I don't know how to avoid it except that I thought that they could be asked to keep it as it was - rebuild what was there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions from members of the Board? John, you looked like you almost had one. MR. OAKLEY: Well I 'm trying to figure out the privacy question - sort of hypothetical way that you are and I was wondering if there was some possible way of (unintelligible) the enclosure problem by increasing the density of the railing or the height that would be more acceptable to you or anything like that - short of enclosure but. . . PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the question with that - a bit, John - is that we don't want to get into designing it and we go through this time and time again and we are all ready perhaps approaching a little further than we need to. I am sensitive to the question. MS. GRIPPI: Anything that brings people out of doors - at a level of your upstairs and downstairs windows is intrusive. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. MS. GRIPPI: And I think the older way of life and the modern way of life - it is an old neighborhood. . . MR. GRIPPI: It's an old neighborhood and you can't redesign it by modernizing with decks and etc. It is out of the question. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure, I understand. Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case we will close the hearing and begin our delibera- tion. PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1780 FOR 118 SCHUYLER PLACE MR. TERPENING: Could I provide you with a photograph that might help you. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If you want to submit a photograph at this point, fine, we will admit that, but unless there are further questions we are going to close the hearing and begin deliberations. If we have further questions of you by all means, we will ask. Charlie you wanted to say something perhaps? No? Okay. MR. TERPENING: This photograph is of the property immediately in our back yard - of that house immediately in our back yard and that's the deck that you have been discussing. This is a picture of Mr. & Mrs. Liddell 's property. . . view from our yard. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's fine. MS. GRIPPI: May I see the photographs? Yes, this is the property - I can see it from our house and you can see there is no view there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Don't hog the pictures, guys, come on - pass them along. MR. WEAVER: Very nice pictures. MS. GRIPPI: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sorry we can't record the comment. Extraneous comments can't be considered. Tom, how is the four percent fig- ured? Please tell me. You said there was a four percent deficien- cy or eight percent deficiency. . . SECRETARY HOARD: It was in the legal ad - if you increase the lot coverage. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's what it was. PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: . . .by four point four percent. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. SECRETARY HOARD: That's not (unintelligible) to the deficiency. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right, fine. I wanted to make sure that I was understanding correctly. Anybody want to open the discussion a bit? John? MR. OAKLEY: Got to admit right at the moment I 'm inclined to find that it's a little bit hard to justify an extension of the (unin- telligible) construction. The property is already pretty deficient in a lot of ways. It's not exactly changing use - they are going from a set of porches which were essentially non-functional as porches - sort of mud rooms almost - and to effectively - if they just do what is in the permit - range - there is obviously a fair amount of neighborhood objection to this whole thing. The privacy issues seem to me, though, in favor of the neighbors because what he is doing is perhaps increasing the privacy - in some way - (unintelligible) the tenants but increasing from what they had previously (unintelligible) and potentially decreasing the privacy of the neighbors. I think there is no question of increasing noise - which I think is what is really - it is not so much privacy of observation as privacy of projection. Even if people talk quietly on a deck can be quite noisy so I 'd be - I find it hard to say that it would be in the spirit of the Ordinance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Herman? MR. SIEVERDING: I guess I come down to - you have to have two tests for an area variance - practical difficulty and special conditions and it seems to me that with new construction - there is PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 every opportunity to do something that fits within the zoning - there isn't any practical difficulty relative to building a deck there that is 9 x 13 which is what he can do as of right. Nor is there any special condition that I can see that would justify building a deck that is larger than what he can do as of right. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How about the other side of the table? MR. WEAVER: Well, what we've read and heard from the neighbors is a sensitivity to appearance and it would just seem to me that if we go back to the footprint in the strictest sense it will be far uglier than what is proposed. There is some balance to the propos- al - it would certainly be a radical imbalance to strict reading of the law. But I 'm not going to look at it myself. Also, it looks to me that some of the concern, not all of it, but some of the concern will be met by a combination of two things, one the angle, in both directions, a quite a severe vertical angle, and the fact that those are not just dark black lines, but are in fact fairly dense railing and spindle arrangement that, in fact, will affect both parties, if we were talking about looking in my garden or not looking in it, or when I can see something up there - it would not be as intrusive as just standing out there on a bare deck with nothing but a rope to hold you up there - that railing, it would seem to me, would be helpful in immurlating the neighbors concerns. On the practical difficulty, I agree with you except using modern materials and wanting to build a deck, which seems to be a univer- sal need in the 1980 's - that it isn't practical to stack them - that it would be far better to have them off-set if it is possible - if it is legal. In bad times as well as good, a deck beneath a PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 deck gets pretty wet or full of ice, or whatever from what comes down above, so I think that if you accept replacing the old porches with deck material is a reasonable thing then that creates the difficulty of reasonable location - one floor versus another. I think, too, it would seem to me that neighbors objecting to these decks - no matter what - because they are decks, would like to have them as useless as possible with the theory that no one will use them - it just seems to me that the one foot which has been ex- plained to us would be pretty hard to see and will not effectively intrude upon any neighbor that I saw walking around the properties up there. That's all. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart, how about you? MR. SCHWAB: Not that I want to prolong this with a lot of calcula- tions, but I do have a question about the worksheet and that is, showing that the lot area is not increasing the lot - well the rear yard depth - actually decreasing. . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Now what is the question? MR. SCHWAB: Why is the lot area the same under the proposed condition and in the existing condition? SECRETARY HOARD: Column 6? MR. SCHWAB: Yes. SECRETARY HOARD: That's the size of the parcel of land. MR. SCHWAB: Oh. There is no change in the parcel of land. What I am meaning to be looking at is Column 10. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We didn't solve that problem. We could have had them buy property from someone else and get around this whole PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 problem and we would never see them here but that's not in the cards, okay? MR. SCHWAB: It's going up to fifty-five point five to fifty-nine point nine. And its depth is the percentage. . . alright, now I do understand. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I had a question along the same line. If the percentage of lot coverage is increased - is the figure based on the footprint of the left hand half or the entire width? SECRETARY HOARD: The entire shadow, if you will, . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The shadow of the entire thing which really does stretch across the entire house. In my mind that is the porch, the porch stretches from one side to the other, it is not just the porch on the first story but rather the porch - the whole width, both stories, essentially. Do we come any closer to a motion - having agonized over it long enough. PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1780 FOR 118 SCHUYLER PLACE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Timothy and Jennifer Terpening for an area variance to permit the construction of decks at the first and second floor levels at the rear of the two-family dwelling at 118 Schuyler Place. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1780. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are no practical difficulties other than ones which have been created by the owners themselves and their contractor. 2 . It does not seem that in this particular case that any excep- tion would be in keeping with the spirit of the Ordinance. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE DENIED PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1781 FOR 423 CASCADILLA STREET: Appeal of Irene Petito for an area variance for deficient off-street parking, excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for two front yards and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 6, 10, 11, and 14 of the Zoning Ordi- nance, to permit the conversion of the multiple dwelling at 423 Cascadilla Street from three one-bedroom apartments to four one-bedroom apart- ments. The property is located in an R3b (Residen- tial, multiple dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appel- lant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please come forward and have a seat - begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. PETITO: Okay, my name is Angelo A. Petito and I live at Newfield, New York. MR. PETITO: My name is John Petito and I live at home with them. MR. A. PETITO: We are here to represent my wife Irene and John's mother Irene. First thing that I want to say is there is no available land in that area to eliminate any of the problems that are existing. It has been an apartment house down there for many PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 years. However we have come up with what we think is a solution - it is not perfect but we think it will satisfy the Board. If you look at the diagram that we have concerning the proposed parking area, there is an area there that is approximately thirty by forty feet deep - originally areas two and four were used for cars and it is all gravel there now - and half of one and three is also gravel. We propose to put a driveway ring where it says parking for parking two cars on the left and two cars on the right. Now running east to west there is a solid barricade type fence - it is six feet high, in other words it has slats that are right against each other so there is no visible view of the lot which would be directly south of the parking and on the east side there is a wire fence - the fence is completely surrounded by bushes that are fairly thick and they go from anywhere from five feet up to maybe eight or ten feet. Now the property line that you see there is actually the sidewalk and we could have about maybe four or five feet between the back two cars and the sidewalk and also the curb cut is about thirty - thirty-five feet, it is not just a normal curb cut. In fact it almost goes the full distance of the proposed - what exists now is the parking area but we propose to make that a larger parking area. I guess that is about the whole problem as far as we are concerned. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Question from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: As I understand it, you are proposing to increase the parking toward the back of the lot? PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. A. PETITO: That is a complete open area which is approximately - by my measurements - thirty feet wide and forty-three feet long, that is from the barricade - the fence to the sidewalk. MR. SCHWAB: And the front towards the street, you already park? MR. A. PETITO: Yes. . . MR. SCHWAB: Two and four are already parking? MR. A. PETITO: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: To follow up on that, I am assuming that the reason for the parking then down the center is so that one and three could get out - both two and four are in place. MR. A. PETITO: That's right. SECRETARY HOARD: That is not a requirement of the Zoning Ordi- nance. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That one and three be able to get out independent of two and four. . . SECRETARY HOARD: They could be right together so that. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is what I assumed - my next question I had - it seemed as though you were going to added expense or trouble essentially to accommodate the convenience rather than the letter of the law. MR. A. PETITO: I'm sorry, I 'm not following. . . MR. WEAVER: One and three could be stuck in there and would have to wait for two or four to get out of their way. MR. A. PETITO: Are you asking if they can get out without two and four getting out? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, no. What I am doing is really make a comment that you are - by providing the parking lane down the center, PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 exceeding what the minimum is required - you do not have to provide that by law, okay? In other words one and two could be right adjacent to three and four by the legal definition - there is nothing that says that you have to provide that added driveway. It's a perfectly reasonable one from the other side of the ques- tion, one might argue that you are chewing up more of the lawn, you see? That's the only counter-argument that one would argue on the other side. Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: This is all for a conversion that is about to take place or that has already taken place? MR. A. PETITO: Well actually there are four apartments there and - my wife acquired the property from her mother, she thought that there - well the Certificate of Occupancy before - that there was a Certificate of Occupancy for three and we applied for a building permit to renovate the fourth - when the Building Commissioner made us aware that the fourth apartment was illegal so what we are trying to do is make it a legal apartment, no one is there now, take my word for it - no one is there. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] 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] Wonderful. Moving right along, we'll entertain a motion. PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD MEMBERS ON APPEAL NUMBER 1781 MR. SCHWAB: Did the Planning Board make a recommendation on this? MR. WEAVER: No, just a discussion of the committee. MR. SCHWAB: Question as to whether you could fill your cars in here. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes and my comment was that their concerns could be solved by moving the cars closer together - not having such a wide. . . MR. WEAVER: There is a huge curb cut down there. MR. SCHWAB: Are you allowed to park this close to the sidewalk? MR. OAKLEY: There are rules about front yard parking. . . SECRETARY HOARD: This lot has enough frontage so that you can have two or more, I 'm not sure if it would qualify for three car widths perpendicular to the street, but I 'm sure it would for two. MR. SCHWAB: So all of this hatched area, you think is legal park- ing? MR. OAKLEY: So we essentially. . . . front yard. . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Overlapping the City. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that was my question about - are you going to essentially turn the whole thing into parking? That may or may not have anything to do specifically with whether we can grant the variance. MR. SIEVERDING: The parking is sufficient to satisfy the require- ments. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. OAKLEY: The other - exacerbation here is, of course, that the area requirements increase with an additional dwelling unit and as PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 a result the building becomes. . . I think it is line 6 - essentially that the building becomes deficient in terms of lot size because by adding the extra apartment you add an extra five hundred square feet of required area, which I must admit, it seems to me is an explicit provision of the Ordinance - that area should increase - the area should relate to the number of units - the number of dwellings in a building. So I have problems with that. MR. SIEVERDING: What is an eight percent increase in deficiency? You know, the fact of the matter is that you are in an area where the probability of acquiring land to mitigate that. . . . MR. OAKLEY: There is certainly practical difficulty (unintelligi- ble) once again we have a case where the deficiency is in fact being exacerbated and remaining as it were presents no, I mean the building will still be in violation but it won't be any more in violation than it is. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Silence from the other side means you are in agreement or disagreement? MR. WEAVER: Oh no, with that I agree that it will exacerbate the deficiency but I hear louder voices than that (unintelligible) this building about affordable housing. If there is any way to get it we' ll have to build it or convert it. . . . MR. OAKLEY: On the other hand it does seem to me one way around this - is to allow them to have a two-bedroom apartment to join some of the apartments that doesn't cause that problem. But leaving the size (unintelligible) I gather are not supposed to be discussed. Is that - it seems to me the legislative (unintelligi- ble) clearly stated that the area should relate to the number of PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 units. It seems to me that if Common Council wants us to put more people on to the same area in such a blatant way that they should perhaps invent the law and I 'm not sure that politically I would support such a matter. . . MR. SCHWAB: Well that is true but they also created a Board of Zoning Appeals for - it strikes me - precisely the situation - we give our judgement on the particular case when it goes over, we are assessing the whole thing whether it is a big enough deal or more precisely, whether there is practical difficulty or change the character of the neighborhood. Particularly, given the history, which is not uncommon here - it has always been four bedrooms so - or four apartments - even if it was illegal for awhile. MR. SIEVERDING: And in that particular area of the City - most of the lots in that particular section of the north side are typically fifty foot lots (unintelligible) very difficult to change. I think it is still a judgement call relative to the size of the deficiency relative to the proposed use and what the impact on the neighbor- hood will be - in my judgement I see a very negligible impact (unintelligible) . I think it is pretty much consistent with the other properties that surround it. It is an R3 zone - that is a zone that allows apartments. . . MR. SCHWAB: But at some point you do have to stop - if you were trying to put five and six bedroom apartments . . . . CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Stewart, now that sounds like you are coming down on the other side of the issue, maybe we ought to get on with this. . . PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1781 FOR 423 CASCADILLA STREET The Board of Zoning appeals considered the request of Irene Petito for an area variance to permit the conversion of the multiple dwelling at 423 Cascadilla Street from three one-bedroom apartments to four one-bedroom apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance request- ed in Appeal Number 1781. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are practical difficulties of fitting the four apart- ments onto this lot that would require expanding the lot since there is no more space. 2. This condition has existed for a number of years on this lot and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 3 . The parking is fully adequate for the four apartments. VOTE: 4 YES; 1 NO; 1 ABSENT AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES 9-1-87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1782 FOR 517 WEST STATE STREET: Appeal of Vernon C. Gambrell, P.E. , for a Special Permit for an electronics communications dish under Section 30.26 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the installation of a satellite dish measuring ten feet in diameter on the roof of the existing building at 517 West State Street (American Community Cablevision) . The property is located in a B2a (Business) Use District, in which a Special Permit is required from the Board of Zoning Appeals before a building permit can be issued for the installation of the equipment. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I urge you forward and sit down so we can move right along. If you would begin - for the record - by identifying yourself and your relationship to the case and where you are from. MR. GAMBRELL: My name is Vernon Gambrell, representing American Community Cablevision. With me is Pat Hourigan who is the Chief Engineer and we will answer any questions that you may have. MR. SCHWAB: Why do you want this satellite dish? MR. HOURIGAN: To give you a little better feel for the area, we own both 519 and 517 West State Street, they are right next to each other. We have an existing sevenmeter antenna for a station dish which we installed four years ago on 519 West State which services our needs for two satellites that we look at presently. The need for the much much smaller antenna that we are asking for at this point on 517 is to, for the most part, support our local news operation which needs to get news feeds off of satellite, also to PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES 9-1-87 provide us marketing promotional fees which come from our program- ming services which are on different satellites than the other antenna looks at at this particular plane and the smaller antenna would be used to pick up those feeds for those two areas. The antenna is designed more specifically for home use and is moveable by our electric motor to whatever satellite arc that you might want to pick that programming from. In news feeds you do not always know what transponder or what satellite those news feeds will be coming from. They rent those transponder spaces - sometimes hours in advance of transmission for the best guild they can get or how they can get that signal from Point A out of that area to Point B so to a large extent we need to be able to have that dish moveable to move to those locations at pretty much of a moment's notice. MR. SCHWAB: So you already have a dish there? MR. HOURIGAN: We already have a seven meter and five nineteen, yes. MR. SCHWAB: Did that require a permit? MR. HOURIGAN: Oh, yes, oh, yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: They were here before. MR. HOURIGAN: Yes, several years ago but we were here before. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We remember, those of us who were here. MR. HOURIGAN: At that point, I believe, it was unopposed also. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I believe so, I think you are right. I wanted to know how many of these things you have planned in the long run. I mean, how many dishes make a tea set or how many of these things can you really put up there? PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES 9-1-87 MR. HOURIGAN: At the existing locations, this is it. Any additional antennas that we would do would be for when we rebuild our cable system and those would be fixed antennas which we would put outside at our headend site, which - we have two presently, one in Connecticut Hill and one in Snyder Hill but those would be fixed and wouldn't be moveable, there isn't really a real good way to move those dishes around remotely over that length of distance. And the other antennas would be fixed permanent on one particular satellite, looking at that programming on that particular satellite for evidence. I explain this because it is not our normal use of an earth station in news feeds and promotional feeds - traditional cable companies don't do that, they look at one satellite for a certain set of programming and then that's it. The local news operation that we've done here has different needs than our pure cable business, so to speak, and this is to address those specific needs. MR. OAKLEY: How do you address those needs at the moment? MR. HOURIGAN: At the moment we take what we can get off of 3R and Galaxy birds which are the two that we look at right now. They are inadequate, if that's - they just do not meet our goal of providing as much local news coverage as we can and there have been many opportunities where we have brought in transportable dishes and things along those lines to accommodate that, but those are very, very costly to do and, again, like I said, we do not always have a day or two notice, which would be required to bring in a transportable of these events coming up. If something breaks, if some news story breaks at some point, it is there - I mean, the PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES 9-1-87 alarms go off and it is going to be there - you have to react quickly to that and be able to get that video program. And the other aspects of it - the marketing aspects of it - those are timed a little bit better - we don't always know what bird it will be on - what satellite it will be on and they shop around for the best deal they can get for that - for at least that time - so they don't always use the same bird. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A question perhaps, more to the engineering than to the electronics. Is there any particular reason for the location at the edge of the property line as opposed to. . . . MR. GAMBREL: Michael, the reason this particular location was chosen, first of all we had a member of the building which also provides the additional strength that we need for the wind loading, and so forth, and we checked out those calculations - this looks like the best location. The other thing is, there are several - three or four trees out front that shield the overall dish when you are walking or driving by the street - so it is really, it can't be seen from that location. If we moved it back on the building, it would be more obtrusive and could be seen from the street so that's why we selected this particular location. MR. HOURIGAN: There is a third consideration also in that it is in the shadow - would be in the shadow of the sevenmeter. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's what I was getting at - if there is any conflict essentially between the two. MR. HOURIGAN: In the lower range of the birds, because the sevenmeter is so large there, we do have a shadow as a result of it. But, yes we could move it back and forth but nestled in the PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES 9-1-87 tree growth there was really one of the primary reasons because we do have trees all the way down West State Street there intermittently but in front of our buildings they are pretty consistent, you know, when you get up by the logo place they kind of die for awhile and then take up again past the diner when you are going up State Street but in our little area right there, they are fairly well staggered and we also have trees on the parking lot - the smaller parking lot in front of 517 right adjacent to 519 's larger parking lot there is a row of trees right down that corner, right down that property line there and the pole is nestled right in that notch there so that you have trees in the front and trees on the side to shield it. You will still be - in my opinion, I 'm biased of course, but in comparison to the existing sevenmeter, this little ten foot dish is going to be somewhat miniscule in comparison to what is already there. For the most part we have had zero complaints about the sevenmeter, I don't know about the City but none have been brought to our attention anyway, as far as the existing antenna is concerned. MR. SIEVERDING: Has there been any response at all relative to your current proposal? MR. HOURIGAN: No. MR. GAMBREL: No. MR. HOURIGAN: As a matter of fact we took petitions around to the - we did the two hundred feet from the pole originally, with a petition, and then later on we reread the rule and Vernon advised that we should go from the property edge of 517, which was quite a few more people were included in that and letters were sent to PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES 9-1-87 those individuals also. We actually walked a petition around. There is really only one residential property right adjacent to us, Mrs. Volpicelli 's land is directly behind us. The sevenmeter was actually shadowing her garden, she is literally twenty feet away from our sevenmeter - this is a good deal away from her property. All the rest of the property in that general area is all commercial property. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And this will be roof mounted? MR. GAMBRELL: Yes it will be roof mounted - excuse me, it will be pole mounted but it will be right at roof level, excuse me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you gents. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this special permit? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, a motion? Calling attention to the section so that we can make sure we have the wording properly. MR. SIEVERDING: Is that 30.26? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. Glance through that and take up what you need as. . . MR. SIEVERDING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well in the past I can tell you - the fact that we haven't heard from them has been sufficient and that is really quite up to our discretion although it isn't in the Ordinance we have regularly taken it with a grain of salt. MR. WEAVER: What is that section? 27? PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES 9-1-87 MR. SIEVERDING: 30.26 on page 30.22a . . . I 've got 30.22b as the page number, 30.26 you are talking about . . . you maybe have an earlier version? Same difference. Same section. You with us? MR. WEAVER: Yes. . and what type of measurement are you using? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It depends on what edition of the Zoning Ordinance you have Charlie, but it goes 30.26 is the section that we have been dealing with and if you go down through there, Herman's question was with respect to - in my book, it is i-d - what is it in yours? MR. SIEVERDING: It is i-d. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Before hearing the appeal, the Board must have the written response on the proposal from a majority of those notified by the appellant as required in the procedure set forth in 30. 5e. This response as well as that expressed at the public hearing should be the principal factor in the Board's decision. SECRETARY HOARD: Do you have a copy of the petition you circulated? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Does the appellant have a copy of the petition? If you would. . . MR. GAMBRELL: The earlier petition you mean? MR. WEAVER: Yes, any petition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any petition would be useful for the purpose. What we are trying to do is satisfy the letter of the law. MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, we try to do that occasionally. . . we've got elevation and we've got a plot plan, it has been satisfied in PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES 9-1-87 every other way, yes. I have looked through the Ordinance - that was the one piece that was missing. MR. GAMBRELL: You have a copy of this, right? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: (unintelligible) but then they say, as required by the procedures put forth in 30.5a. Is there some law about having something approaching english in the Code? SECRETARY HOARD: The Planning and Development Board (unintelligible) . MR. WEAVER: There is a committee on that. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, there is a committee on it. No dice? Not immediately apparent. . . MR. GAMBRELL: Well I was advised by Peter Dieterich that the original one that was circulated was no good because it was two hundred feet from the pole itself. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you canned it. MR. GAMBRELL: So I canned it. MR. HOURIGAN: I believe that I probably have copies of it somewhere. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If you could provide the Building Commissioner. . MR. WEAVER: So this will be a conditional granting. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Conditional granting upon receipt of that piece of paper. . . MR. GAMBRELL: Oh, here we are. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You've got one. . . wonderful. MR. GAMBRELL: This was circulated May 13, 1987, if you would like to pass it around. There were thirty-one people contacted within a PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES 9-1-87 two hundred foot - I had that listing here, too, if you would like that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And nobody complained? MR. GAMBRELL: No one complained - we had. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there any significant difference between the one that Peter advised you wouldn't pertain and the one which, in effect. . . MR. GAMBRELL: Well he advised me that he would like the wording similar to what we had for this and all the people who received this be mailed in addition. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Does that make you happy? MR. SIEVERDING: Fine. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Then perhaps we can have a motion. PAGE 50 BZA MINUTES 9-1-87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1782 FOR 517 WEST STATE STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of American Community Cablevision for a Special Permit for an electronics communications dish under Section 30.26 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the installation of a satellite dish measuring ten feet in diameter on the roof of the existing building at 517 West State Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the request for a Special Permit in appeal number 1782. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT: 1. The appellants have satisfied the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 30.26-C-4ii relating to Towers. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1783 FOR 715-719 HANCOCK STREET: Appeal of William Zikakis for a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit use of the property at 715-719 Hancock Street for a parking lot for commercial uses. The property is located in an R3a (Residential, multiple dwell- ing) Use District in which a commercial parking lot is not a permitted use; therefore the appellant must obtain a use variance before a permit can be issued for such use. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You know the procedure, Dirk. MR. GALBRAITH: My name is Dirk Galbraith, I 'm an attorney with professional offices at 308 North Tioga Street in the City of Ithaca, New York. I am here this evening on behalf of the appel- lants, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Zikakis. Mr. Zikakis is with me and Mr. Mark Keller is with me and also I 'd like him to have the opportuni- ty to speak after we get finished here. Mr. and Mrs. Zikakis are the owners at the present time of 522 Cascadilla Street which property actually abuts Meadow Street and is presently developed as a commercial type building and it is the Video Store that is rented at the moment. The property that the variance is sought for, is 715-719 Hancock Street which is directly to the east and the north of Zikakis's present property and the Zikakis's have made a pur- chase offer to the Estate of Katherine Dorsey to purchase that property conditional upon obtaining a zoning variance. The proper- ty for which the zoning variance is sought is a square parcel of 52 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 land approximately a hundred feet square and I would like to point out that it is incorrectly described in our application as "pie shaped" . It is not "pie shaped", it is square. What the Zikakis's would like to do is acquire this piece of property and develop it for parking for use in connection with the commercial building at 522 Cascadilla Street. Now the property at 522 Cascadilla Street is in a area that is zoned business. This property for which the variance is sought is over the line in an R3b zone. It is really quite contiguous to Meadow Street, however, and I believe we filed with the Building Commissioner a survey indicating location of the building and after the initial application is filed we did file a site plan which had been prepared by Tallman and Tallman, showing the proposed development of the Dorsey Estate parcel for parking and if you have not seen - I guess you all have a shortened down version of it there - now actually in an R3b zone, as far as I can determine, a neighborhood parking facility is a permitted use, however it has to be accessory to a residential use, which this is not. This is clearly an accessory to a commercial use, which is located over the line, as it were, in the business district and that's the reason that we've made this variance application and I would add it is a use variance that we are talking about here rather than an area variance. We are prepared to meet the economic standards - I think that show that a use variance is appropriate here. I believe, and I 'm going to let Mr. Keller and Mr. Zikakis speak on this in a moment, that the particular hardship which is suffered by the Dorsey Estate and any owner of this property for which a variance is sought, is that it is really undevelopable as 53 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 residential property. It is presently a vacant lot and I will let Mr. Keller speak on exactly why we believe that is so. As I have indicated, the Zikakis's have made an offer on this to the Estate, conditional upon obtaining this variance. We believe that by allowing the property to be converted to parking, it would relieve a problem that has been created in this neighborhood, which is the parking of the customers of the Video Store on Cascadilla Street - and I think to some extent - Hancock Street as well. I don't know if any of you have ever gone down there to try to rent a video, particularly around dinner hour, some time, I think that if you do, you are going to find that the parking is fairly limited on the present premises and actually cars are parking quite a long ways down Cascadilla Street. We believe that by the development of additional parking area here, this would relieve traffic congestion in the neighborhood and would really be beneficial, not only to the Zikakis's but to the neighbors as well. Secondly, in terms of what this might be developed for, we believe that use as parking is really a fairly passive use which, in the manner proposed, should not be offensive to neighbors and thereby preserve the character of the neighborhood. On the subject of the neighbors, at the time we sent out the usual form notice to the neighbors, we also sent out a questionnaire and a letter inviting the neighbors to give us their comments about whether they like it or whether they don't like it, if they don't like it, why don't they like it - and out of approxi- mately twenty that were sent out to the surrounding neighbors, we did get five responses and with the permission of the Board - they 54 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 are relatively brief - I would just like to read them into the record. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please. MR. GALBRAITH: I have copies that I can file with the Board. The first response was from Margaret E. Wernicke at 606 Cascadilla Street and she said "I am opposed to the expansion of parking for Video Ithaca" - Reason: "I prefer green grass to a parking lot, I believe a parking lot will only serve to increase the amount of people and traffic because the traffic is light on Cascadilla most or all enter/exit there. If you have to be there at all, leave things the way they are - don't intrude on the neighborhood anymore than you already have. " Second response is from David Thomas who is also at 606 Cascadilla Street. He did not check in favor or against - he wrote "I have the following comments or suggestions concerning expansion of parking for Video Ithaca. I have mixed feelings - it would probably help relieve congestion on Cascadilla Street but I am concerned about the loss of greenery which provides a visual and sound barrier between us and Route 13 - I would definitely not want to lose this insulation. I also think that an outlet to Hancock Street is necessary. " Following receipt of this, I mailed Mr. Thomas a copy of this site plan which indicates 1) there is an outlet to Hancock Street proposed and 2) the existing plantings which surround the lot would be left in place, I believe, preserving the visual and sound barrier that he is looking for. Third response was received from Suzanne Morgan, 608 Cascadilla Street, she wrote "I am in favor of the expansion of parking for Video Ithaca" reason: "reduce traffic congestion" . The next one 55 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 received was from Philomena Paolangeli of 602 Madison Street and she wrote "I am in favor of the expansion of parking for Video Ithaca" - she didn't elaborate. Last one we received was from Moses Peter, 704-710 Hancock Street, and he wrote "I am in favor the expansion of parking for Video Ithaca, I have the following comments or suggestions concerning the expansion of parking for Video Ithaca - I would be very disappointed if variance were not granted. Need is obvious - benefits to all is very obvious. " Those were the five responses that we received. I would like to file these with the Board if I could. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you Dirk. MR. GALBRAITH: And that really concludes my remarks. I would like to have you hear from Mr. Keller in a moment but I am wondering, at this point, if you have any questions for myself or Mr. Zikakis? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Yes, 707 Hancock Street - is it vacant or - did you find an owner? MR. GALBRAITH: 707. . . MR. WEAVER: It is next door to your proposed driveway on Hancock Street. MR. KELLER: I don't think anybody lives there. MR. WEAVER: Whose garden? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There is a big garden, well kept garden there. MR. WEAVER: Yes but whose? MR. GALBRAITH: Maybe I can tell you from my mailing list. Naomi Broughton, 707 Hancock Street, according to the tax rolls. And according to this, a notice was mailed to Miss or Mrs. Broughton. 56 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Yes, while we are doing real estate. The house that is indicated next to - on Cascadilla, next to existing parking and building - is there a name on that? MR. GALBRAITH: I can tell you that is also owned by the Estate of Katherine Dorsey. MR. WEAVER: So this Dorsey Estate is not just this one hundred by one hundred but in fact goes through to Cascadilla Street. MR. GALBRAITH: Right it is two separate tax parcels. MR. SIEVERDING: Are both parcels being conveyed as far as. . . MR. GALBRAITH: No. The only parcel being conveyed in terms of the present offer that the Zikakis's have made is the vacant lot. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You might even notice Dorsey is on the plan, Charlie, next to that house. MR. WEAVER: I noticed it was but I didn't know where the lawn - whether it was back yard or what. . . Some place I think, in your written material you say it is not developable? Or shouldn't I blame you on that - the language? MR. GALBRAITH: It's probably something I wrote. MR. SCHWAB: Said it too, I think. MR. OAKLEY: You said, it is not usable as residential real estate. (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, I think somebody else is supposed to address that question Charlie. MR. WEAVER: I beg your pardon? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Someone else is supposed to address that - the way Dirk put together his scenerio. 57 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. SIEVERDING: Does the current parking satisfy the zoning? MR. GALBRAITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is that with or without a variance? SECRETARY HOARD: Without a variance. MR. SIEVERDING: Without a variance. So that entire parcel is part of that B2a. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It wasn't too long ago when we saw that. MR. SIEVERDING: Before my time. I 'm sort of sympathetic with the argument relative to - I mean, anyone who has driven down Cascadilla Street - you don't have to go to Video Ithaca to buy anything, all you have to do is drive down there to see the level of congestion - that's why I was wondering about parking in that parking lot there is sufficient - God knows - on both sides of Cascadilla Street for a couple hundred feet. . . MR. WEAVER: Zoning doesn't say how many customers, it says how many square feet. . . MR. SIEVERDING: How many parking spaces per. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I had - following up on that - just the same thought - the one, two, three, four, five spaces which are - it would be north of the present building are accessible passing - the east side are accessible. . . without any difficulty - free and clear - as I remember now. MR. SIEVERDING: Yes. But then there is a problem with traffic congestion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. Related to that as well, there are now three curb cuts on Hancock Street, between Meadow and the 58 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 residential area which begins to the northeast, which of the three curb cuts are you using, the first, the second or the third? By the diagram it is almost impossible here to be able to tell. MR. GALBRAITH: It is difficult for me to answer that, I don't know - Bill do you know - on Hancock Street? MR. ZIKAKIS: We have no exit right now on Hancock Street. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You have three curb cuts on Hancock Street - there now, pre-existing, probably by virtue of former houses on those sites. MR. ZIKAKIS: Okay, but on the existing property we cannot exit on Hancock. This land in front is owned by the State so that is what really creates congestion because people could come in and zip on out. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's not the question. The question is, essentially, which of the three existing curb cuts on the Dorsey property are you making use of? MR. ZIKAKIS: We would like to make use of the furtherest east. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The furtherest east puts you the closest to the garden. There is another one which is - I roughly estimate - about twenty feet beyond the garden going to the southwest and the other one which is closest to Meadow Street doesn't seem to be the one you are using, but it was impossible for me, on-site, to be able to get a sense - a clear sense - as to whether you were using any existing curb cuts or whether, in fact, you will be seeing the Department of Public Works in addition to us, for that. I 'd like to get some sort of orientation as to where you are coming out in traffic flow at that point. You have no. . . 59 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. GALBRAITH: That is hard to answer - about the only thing I can suggest is to try to scale this off on the map - which you probably can't do because. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I can't do because mine is xerox reduced and there was no way in which I could tell what the scale was. MR. SCHWAB: The current plan is to have driveway as close to the existing plantings. . . MR. GALBRAITH: I think the reason for that was to get the curb cut as far away from Meadow Street as possible for reasons of traffic safety but Mr. Zikakis has just told me he'd be satisfied, if allowed to devote the property to this use - to use any curb cut that the City felt was most advisable. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The reason I was asking the question, is how much intrusion, is what I am getting to - what kind of intrusion you have in the neighborhood. If you take the one which is farthest to the northeast you really do clip the corner of the garden rather severely and you are really moving into the neighborhood. The middle one is more or less where you are, but I 'm not sure and then the one that is closest to Meadow Street, I suspect would create all sorts of congestion at that corner, as you came onto Hancock. But you have no further notion. . . fine. Any other questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: I have one question. We've got a recommendation from the Planning Board to deny this variance because it would be rezoning - can you respond to that? MR. GALBRAITH: Well actually I think some of Mr. Keller's remarks might address that in terms of why the property is not really 60 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 usable as - or developable for any use that is permitted in R3b zone. I think that the property has no economic utility to anyone, with its present zoning. MR. SCHWAB: And so therefore it is not rezoning for us to recog- nize that? MR. GALBRAITH: No I think that - given the criteria of the use variance - I think this is the criteria of a use variance - I suppose really, anytime you grant a variance for a use variance you are rezoning to an extent but this is not an attempt to rezone under the guise of a variance application. MR. WEAVER: But your only basis upon which you make the judgement that it's not amenable to residential development is that it is close to 13? MR. GALBRAITH: Well that's part of it, yes. I mean, that goes to the whole question of economics, and I understand that we have to demonstrate economic hardship here - (unintelligible) the property to any conforming use. MR. SCHWAB: And the fact that this parcel is unique, I suppose, that this parcel is uniquely different from others that might have this problem, ie: being close to Route 13 . . . MR. GALBRAITH: Yes, I think that, given the configuration of it, in fact the district boundary between the zone that is a business zone and the R3b zone, follows the property line between these properties and, as you can see, it is skewed, it is not parallel to Route 13 and at its closest point the property subject to the present application is only - looking at the scale on the map here 61 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 - perhaps twenty or thirty feet from the highway right-of-way there, which is not true of any other property in that zone. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Just a comment. I think it still leaves open the question of whether a cleaner (unintelligible) deal of something like this would, in fact, through the rezoning where it just becomes B2a like the rest of the properties to which this property is going to become attached. MR. GALBRAITH: I wondered if we got into a rezoning application, if we wouldn't be left open to the criticism of perhaps spot zoning here? Then what do we do. . . do we move the district line back another X number of feet parallel to Route 13 which would seem to be the logical thing to do - move it back and include this property and the neighboring property as well. MR. SIEVERDING: Well right now the Video Ithaca Store is, in fact, a spot on the north side of Cascadilla and is part of a. . . but it is the only one there (unintelligible) MR. OAKLEY: The non-spot is the line on Meadow Street and. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Shall we go ahead and hear from the rest of the appellant's lineup? The speakers here. . . move along. Again, if you would begin by identification for the record. MR. KELLER: I 'm Mark Keller, I live at 111 Cambridge Place. I 'm a Real Estate Broker with J. D. Gallagher Real Estate. MR. GALBRAITH: Mr. Keller are you familiar with the neighborhood in which this property is located? MR. KELLER: Yes, I am. 62 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. GALBRAITH: And can you describe for the Board the surrounding neighborhood? MR. KELLER: Sure, it's primarily commercial in the surrounding areas, other than residential on Cascadilla Street and a house on Hancock Street. MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, what's the condition of the house on Hancock Street that adjoins this property? MR. KELLER: In fairly bad condition. It doesn't appear to be occupied at the present time. MR. GALBRAITH: Now can you give the Board an estimate of property values on Hancock Street and on Cascadilla Street in the immediate area of this property - in other words, what do those residences sell for? MR. KELLER: Generally they will run any where from thirty-five to upper forties, in that area. MR. GALBRAITH: Now, Mr. Keller, are you familiar generally, with the categories of permitted uses in an R3b zone? MR. KELLER: Yes. MR. GALBRAITH: And you are familiar with this property, are you not, that is the subject of this variance appeal? MR. KELLER: Yes. MR. GALBRAITH: The property is vacant at the present time? MR. KELLER: Yes it is. MR. GALBRAITH: Do you have an opinion, Mr. Keller, whether that property can be devoted in an economically viable fashion to any use that is permitted in an R3b zone at the present time? 63 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. KELLER: Personally, no I don't believe so. Anything involved in new construction, particularly for residential use on that lot would be quite expensive and I think the investment, I don't think an investor would ever get his money out of that parcel. MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, well Mr. Keller, are you familiar with the cost of residential construction in this City at the present time? MR. KELLER: Yes. MR. GALBRAITH: What would the cost of erecting a three-bedroom house on this lot be? MR. KELLER: Ballpark, I would imagine, (unintelligible) sixty to seventy-five thousand dollars. MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, that does not include land acquisition cost does it? MR. KELLER: No. MR. GALBRAITH: Mr. Keller, in your judgement as a Realtor, would anyone build a single family residence on this property at the present time? MR. KELLER: With the traffic - the noise and polution from 13 and the surrounding neighborhood, I don't believe so. MR. GALBRAITH: Now Mr. Keller, is there any other use that this property might be devoted to in an R3b zone besides single family residential? MR. KELLER: I believe multi-family use in an R3. I 'm not exactly sure how many units could be constructed on. . . MR. GALBRAITH: Now Mr. Keller, do you have an opinion whether the property could be devoted in an economically viable fashion to a multi-family use with new construction? 64 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. KELLER: I don't think the return would justify the cost involved for an apartment building on that site. MR. GALBRAITH: Is there other rental property in the area of this property? MR. KELLER: Not that I 'm aware of other than the housing complex down the street. MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, I believe that is subsidized housing. Do you have an opinion, Mr. Keller, if there was a multi-family dwelling developed on this parcel, would the range of rents be high, medium or low? MR. KELLER: I would imagine low. MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, what do you attribute that to? MR. KELLER: Location and surrounded by commercial and again the noise from the traffic on Route 13 . MR. GALBRAITH: Okay and would that generate, in your opinion, a sufficient return to justify the construction of a new multi-family residence on this property? MR. KELLER: I don't believe so. MR. GALBRAITH: Mr. Keller, do you have an opinion what the highest and the best use of this property could be devoted to as. . . MR. KELLER: My opinion, keeping the neighborhood in mind, I think the parking lot - the way he has it proposed here - would not harm the neighborhood. MR. GALBRAITH: Okay. Is there any other non-permitted use that might conceivably be developed on this property? MR. KELLER: Not unless somebody could get a variance for some office facility, neighborhood office facility. 65 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, that again, is not a permitted use in this zone. MR. KELLER: I don't believe so. MR. GALBRAITH: Okay. I think that is all I have for Mr. Keller. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board, of Mr. Keller? MR. SIEVERDING: Has the property actually been offered on the market? MR. KELLER: Has it been offered on the market - I wasn't involved in the sale so I don't know. MR. SIEVERDING: So whether or not it is desireable for residential use is . . . MR. KELLER: I think it is fairly obvious but that is just opinion at this point. MR. SIEVERDING: Right but it hasn't been put to the test in terms of whether or not there is somebody out there who would acquire the property for residential use. MR. GALBRAITH: I can answer that question - to the best of my knowledge it has not been listed for sale in any fashion. This is strictly a private offer made between the Zikakis's and the Estate. MR. OAKLEY: Has the neighboring building on the other parcel on the Dorsey Estate been offered for sale? MR. GALBRAITH: I believe it is presently listed for sale, yes. MR. OAKLEY: Do you know what they are asking for it? MR. GALBRAITH: I believe they are asking fifty thousand dollars. MR. SIEVERDING: As a residential building? 66 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. GALBRAITH: It is vacant at the moment, to the best of my knowledge. MR. OAKLEY: And you said that is a better neighborhood - better house than the average house in the neighborhood or worse house? MR. KELLER: Probably not as good but I have never seen it. MR. OAKLEY: I 'm just trying to get at the value that you get for properties selling in that area. MR. KELLER: It hasn't sold. MR. OAKLEY: I realize that it hasn't sold. . . (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you - during the course of the conversation between the two of you - question and answers - there was a refer- ence to offices, do you think professional offices might occupy that site? MR. KELLER: I suppose it is possible, yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So things like dentist offices or an architect's office or an engineer's office is a possibility? MR. KELLER: I would imagine, sure. MR. WEAVER: Mr. Peters has demonstrated insurance should be in there. MR. SIEVERDING: Right across the street. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. Further questions from members of the Board? MR. GALBRAITH: I have one thing. There was a question raised whether or not we believed that this would be more appropriate for a rezoning application than a variance. I kind of deferred that to Mr. Keller, I just want to make sure the question has been an- swered. 67 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. SIEVERDING: The general sense I 'm getting though, is that it is not suitable for residential use and that it is more appropriate for some type of a commercial use, which, in my mind, (unintelligi- ble) a cleaner way of handling the situation would be rather than through a use variance if, in fact, you recognize what is the "highest and best use" of this property - if that is a factor - that the market is telling us and go for rezoning. Another zoning of B2a similar to the Video Ithaca property. MR. KELLER: I think that (unintelligible) the way the traffic is currently, and the risk involved with traffic coming off Route 13 on Cascadilla Street when there is parking on the street, is just going to get worse rather than better because I believe a portion of the building has been rented and once that is occupied the parking is going to get worse. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Oh, I agree with you, I am not arguing whether - I think this makes a lot of sense (unintelligible) question to me is whether the issue is properly going for a use variance or through rezoning. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we can go on with that discussion for some time and get no answer. MR. SIEVERDING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Shall we deal with that in our deliberations? MR. WEAVER: Mr. Chairman, if the Counsellor will just stay with us, he might want to help me, but I am asking you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure by all means. 68 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. WEAVER: The step here is that this is Dorsey land and a prospective owner is talking about its not being practical. If Dorsey or his or her representative was in here and said, I 've got this whole property and talking about the hardship and would wish to have it subdivided in this manner - so it would seem possible that there would be a case. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand where you are coming from. MR. WEAVER: Well, if in fact we have a pass-through, if you will, it might well be a reasonable argument that a lot as deep and as large as is occupied by the one dwelling is out of reason as far as the use up and down the street is concerned. It is far larger than one house requires and one house would be able to pay land rent on, if you will. The discussion of driveway - I 'm hesitant to say this is fine without hearing from our traffic people, because even up there, at the present moment Hancock has nothing but a stop sign and that' s awfully close, even extended as far east as is possible and I just think that maybe we can consider this a petition of Dorsey by way of an option, I don't know, but the other thing is a question - do we have any basis upon which to make judgement on the local traffic implication of the driveway proposed? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Does the Commissioner have anything on that? SECRETARY HOARD: No, not from the traffic people. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Just to explain or expand on your point relative to size of that portion of the Dorsey property that contains a structure. . . 69 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. WEAVER: My judgement sees a hardship for the Dorsey Estate in that they've got too much land and too little building but if they came in with a request to tear down the house and put multiple housing in there, you and I would be amenable to that - but that would be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. We might not be hearing from a commercial interest, other than a housing developer. MR. SIEVERDING: But is this - are there two parcels here or what? MR. GALBRAITH: Two. MR. WEAVER: One is land-locked except as it faces Hancock. It is certainly land-locked from Cascadilla - appears-to be. Ten thou- sand square feet is certainly adequate for a residential develop- ment. How much, Tom? MR. OAKLEY: You could put quite a few units on that - more than you could imagine. It's about 5, 000 for the first three and then an additional 500 for each extra unit so you are talking. . . SECRETARY HOARD: 3 , 500 for the first three units. . MR. OAKLEY: Oh, excuse me. SECRETARY HOARD: Plus 500 for each additional. . . MR. OAKLEY: Okay, so that's sixteen units. There aren't many sixteen unit apartment buildings around there. . . MR. SIEVERDING: But I think there are some there - consider the location for residential use, I 've got some question as to whether - if you look at what is directly opposite on Hancock - to this particular parcel. . . the only residential use on that stretch from Fifth Street up to Meadow is the vacant house and then there is one house on the corner of Fifth and Hancock that faces Fifth - that is about the only residential use on Hancock (unintelligible) parking. 70 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 That raises a real question as to whether (unintelligible) but again it is right down (unintelligible) everybody's part until the parcel is actually made available and you put it to the test. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions of the appellant? [none] Thank you gents. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of this application? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case it is ours. 71 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1783 FOR 715-719 HANCOCK STREET CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: My line of questioning by the way, gentlemen, was to follow up on the notion that between residential use and commer- cial use are professional offices, in the classification. By the appellant's own testimony, professional offices are an option. Therefore, I don't see any question but that, in fact, to drop down to commercial use without considering another use - the Ordinance states very clearly that it's essentially residential - of some- thing short of commercial that we could go to, so to me there is no question about the issue. Insofar as what we are asking for here is the extension of a commercial use, which to me. . . MR. SCHWAB: You are saying in R3b you can have an office? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What I am saying is, according to the Ordinance, when you look at this, okay? and you start off at the top with residential, even with R3 - between R3 and Business are two other classes which include professional offices. By the appellant's own testimony, you get, in essence, that the option or the capability of making use of the property for other than commercial use. MR. SCHWAB: So it would require a variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it would require a variance but of lesser impact than commercial. . . MR. SCHWAB: Than a parking lot? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Than commercial - this is the extension. . . MR. SCHWAB: They are asking for a parking lot (unintelligible) which impacts more on the neighborhood. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But it is the extension of a commercial use that we have with the parking lot. . . 72 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. SCHWAB: Well I understand that an office building is. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: To me an office building might be viable - you could put an architect's office or an engineer's office in on the site. . . MR. SCHWAB: And which would be more intrusive, that or a parking lot? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: To me it could be designed and put on the proper- ty without any question at all. . . MR. OAKLEY: On the other hand, the argument might be made that - or I might make the argument that by granting a use variance, which is rather a specific variance, allows them not to rezone this business area but, in fact, to use it as a parking lot is consider- ably more restrictive than allowing an office building and in fact, is in some ways a more restrictive use than allowing a sixteen unit residential, which I think is a (unintelligible) but in that sense, if you rezone it to a business zone, then I think you have a serious problem for the neighborhood because it opens up all sorts of possibilities. If you give them a use variance for a parking lot, you, in fact, have a rather controlled, I think, rather low impact compared to. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let me argue just further on the other side, what happens if we come back and put a second or third story on the first building on the corner and make use of the adjacent parcel for our - at some point in the future - I 'm not saying that they will. . . MR. OAKLEY: For our increased parking. . . 73 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: For increased parking - you've met all the parking requirements - you are in a residential zone - it seems to me that, in essence, though you may not have zoned it that - though you may be as restrictive as you have, you certainly increased the use of that level. SECRETARY HOARD: But office use has double the parking require- ments. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm not saying if it - I 'm saying if this remains commercial - forget it. . . but one could make use of this to satisfy increased density in the business area, in the future, unless, again, one were to specify that that is exactly - that many, and no more or to the degree that you have limited it some way. MR. WEAVER: All very interesting but this is a residential zone. The only demonstration we've had that it can't be used productively for residential is reference to a single family dwelling at that location and try to think of how much minimum, single family dwelling would be and who would buy it and who would occupy it. Contrary to that, however, put it up for grabs that we have a piece of property with access to Hancock Street - that can be developed to multiple dwelling and let somebody else work out how much will fit on the property - there has been nothing of that sort and I wouldn't expect anybody present tonight to come up with the answer but here is a legal use of it that hasn't been discussed at all and they are not prepared to discuss it, which is quite understandable. But opposing the use as the Ordinance grants it, seems to me to have to have some reason better than being too close to 13 . We've had a lot of residences close to 13 - two you could add to all of 74 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 them, but still occupied and still productive in one way or anoth- er. We are going the other way and trying to get multiple housing in there, we could have all kinds of nice barriers and things in a proposal that would make that a pretty hot place to be. As you say, it's an open block - no bad neighbors. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: I think we've had some testimony by Mr. Keller, after being asked about the single family - he was asked what about multiple and he said it would be between low, middle and high rent - it would be low, and given new construction, not worth it. MR. SIEVERDING: Conjecture at this point. I don't think it has been put to the test relative to offering the property (unintelli- gible) MR. SCHWAB: Yes, although - that's true - the question is do we make him go out and put it on the market for six months to a year - we've done that on other cases when they have proposed something. I think, to me, that judgement is to what extent does his opinion jibe with what we think and are there residential units around there - multiple family ones - that make it realistic that you could put - build a new multiple residential place and I 'm frankly skeptical that you could. Meaning, if you can't then you've got to find some other use. MR. WEAVER: Is there some hardship claimed here? MR. SCHWAB: The hardship is that the Dorsey Estate can't sell this without a variance because no one will buy it for residential use because it can't be developed. . . 75 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. OAKLEY: The cost of existing construction to construct a house in an area which hasn't been selling - the Realtor said thirty-five to forty-five, which - I don't know many houses in Ithaca that are advertised quite that low, but below fifty thousand, it would be difficult to indeed build a house on the lot for anything less than fifty thousand, particularly if you include any sort of reasonable cost for the lot. I assume that was the hardship that was being indicated - that essentially the lot could not be developed at a cost which was less than the (unintelligible) shown. Ultimate selling price of the lot. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good summary I think. MR. WEAVER: Well A to Z doesn't have hardship and they are not claiming any and Dorsey isn't here. Here is a prospective owner who is talking about his land and it isn't - I can't quite make the jump, I 'm just saying that if Dorsey or their representative were in here asking for some type of variance, because of some known or presumed difficulty with the existing property, I can hear that, but I can't quite get through - there is one thing that hasn't happened yet and this is not an agent of Dorsey, this is an agent of Mr. Zikakis, appropriately, and he is not an owner and he doesn't have any kind of hardship with this land, at all. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I get the feeling that we are all on the same side of the fence but we are struggling with how to reach a motion which phrases this correctly. Is that true? MR. OAKLEY: I am not sure which side of the fence you are on, but maybe I know which side of the fence I 'm on, but I 'm not quite sure how to . . . 76 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's the question. I think we are all groping with the findings of fact. MR. OAKLEY: Well I think, I mean, Charlie's difficulty, it seems to me, is that we don't have - in a real sense - we don't have a legal applicant - appellant. I mean, the appellant is supposed to be the property owner. SECRETARY HOARD: Well the appellant - the property owner has authorized. . . MR. OAKLEY: So that Mr. Zikakis is the property owner's agent. Is that correct - I mean, in legal terms, he is acting as the property owner's agent. SECRETARY HOARD: I'm not a lawyer but the Estate has authorized him. . . MR. OAKLEY: I keep envisioning a weeping widow Dorsey, but, of course. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No we don't have, what we have is a weeping estate, if there is a weeping estate. An estate which, essential- ly, would want to sell for whatever it can get, to make maximum use of the property, I would assume. MR. SCHWAB: Well presumbably, from all the testimony that we had - well the whole thing is moot if they aren't going to accept this offer so presumably the Estate will only accept the offer if they think it is worthwhile to do so. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. SCHWAB: So I think we can take it that the Estate thinks that this is a worthwhile proposal. Now what we don't have is that necessarily the Estate thinks it is impossible to build a 77 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 multi-family testimony - we just sort of got outside testimony that it is impossible. MR. OAKLEY: Well I believe that the norm is to have several years of real estate agents offering the property for sale, which seems, in itself, sort of a hardship. . . . MR. SIEVERDING: I don't know whether they need a specific refer- ence - a specific time reference is necessary. MR. OAKLEY: No, I did not mean. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Demonstration. MR. SIEVERDING: But what we have is no demonstration really that there isn't anybody out there in the market who would put this property to (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You would agree to that? I am trying to get to a motion. MR. SCHWAB: We can't say we don't have evidence because Mr. Keller said that he didn't think it could be done - that is his opinion as a real estate agent. MR. SIEVERDING: Generally we've relied on some evidence that that has actually been - but the test then - put it to the test by putting it on the market. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Even in fact have at times asked for figures. MR. SIEVERDING: It seems to me that there are two alternatives here. One is that somebody comes in and makes a presentation where the various requirements for a use variance have been put to the test and then present a case (unintelligible) this particular process - you know, we looked at the requirements - the test - and 78 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 we need a use variance because there is no other use of the proper- ty . . . MR. OAKLEY: It's true, that if the argument is correct, the Estate could offer the piece of property for an extraordinarily reason- able. . . MR. SIEVERDING: The second approach. . . MR. OAKLEY: And - I take it was clear that the Board was not about to change things - that was proven quite quickly. Most of the appeals that come before us - the property seemed to have been offered for a fairly enthusiastic price or a fairly optimistic price to start with. Perhaps the whole process could be sped up by offering at a more realistic - or more realistic by their own assessment. Their own assessment is that if they offered the property for a dollar that it would not sell very quickly because of the fact of the problem of the cost of putting something on it. It seems to me that their assessment is that the property is worthless, except in speculative terms. MR. WEAVER: Well if we decide to deny on the basis that there has been no showing or we are not persuaded that there is evidence that the property cannot be used in a legal manner, without a variance, it just seems to me that there can be improvement in the demonstra- tion if that's the course, or there can be a renewal of effort on the part of the Dorsey Estate to see what they can do with this, rather than to say I have a buyer for part of the land - part of the Estate. From all I hear the first buyer in sight. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I heard the first half of a motion and I thought I heard even half a finding of fact. 79 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. WEAVER: Well if you are going to call it half, I 'm not sure that I will make a motion. 80 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBE4 1783 FOR 715-719 HANCOCK STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of William Zikakis for a use variance to permit use of the property at 715-719 Hancock Street for a parking lot for commercial uses. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board deny the use variance requested in Appeal Number 1783 . MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There was not a clear demonstration that the property could not be developed for residential uses. The only example given being that of a single family dwelling. 2 . No indication was made that the property had been on the market, as such, for any particular period of time, no evidence of any offers nor any indication that there had been a definite investigation of the possibility of legal use of the property. VOTE: 4 YES; 1 NO; 1 ABSENT DENIED 81 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1784 FOR 201 WORTH STREET: Appeal of Schickel Construction Company for an area variance for deficient setbacks for one front yard and the rear yard under Section 30.25, Columns 11 and 14, to permit the construction of a one-story addition to the existing single-family home at 201 Worth Street for a music room and additional living space. The property is located in an R1b (Residen- tial, single-family dwellings) Use District in which the existing and proposed uses are 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 addi- tion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Thank you for your patience. If you will begin by identifying yourself. MR. SCHICKEL: I 'm Bruno Schickel of Schickel Construction, I live in Dryden New York. MS. DIECKMANN: I 'm Jane Dieckmann, the owner of the house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. The reason for the variance? MR. SCHICKEL: Well, it's, for starters, there is a front yard deficiency - requires twenty feet and there is only fifteen and then the rear yard deficiency - well we are quite deficient in the rear yard, if you call that the rear yard of the house - and that's kind of part of the question, I guess, that I would ask - since it PAGE 82 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 is on a corner lot, does the front of the house set in stone as such to Worth Street or could Cornell Street be called the front of the house? You will notice - I don't know whether anybody has the little plot plan survey but there is a six foot little jog in the proposed addition and that is an outside staircase that would go up to a deck over the first floor - essentially over the roof of the house. That stairway could be moved around to the other side of the addition, if that was a problem. MR. SIEVERDING: The other side being just. . . ninety degrees? MR. WEAVER: East? MR. SCHICKEL: Yes, east, right. Which would give you a twelve foot setback from that property line. If Cornell Street was considered the front of the house then they would have the neces- sary ten foot setback from the side. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you received any comments from the the Clavels? MS. DIECKMANN: No. I 've talked with the Clavels about this and they are delighted. I 've talked with the neighbors who are most affected by this construction and those that I could talk to - the ones - the neighbors who are on sabbatical leave in the State of Washington and I got a postcard from her yesterday saying she was very happy to hear about it - she would like to get me some plants and start a new garden after the construction. The whole idea of this addition was that I inherited a grand piano and I do not have enough room in the house that I live in to put it. The idea was to have a room on the back of the house so I could have a music room and would not have to play the piano in the dining room. And we PAGE 83 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 want to make an effort to put an addition on that would be in keeping with the appearance of the house. For that reason, the decision was made to go in that direction. The part of the house which is seen by Worth Street and Cornell Street - it is a very handsome house and we wanted to make an effort not to destroy the appearance of the house on the corner, so the plan was to build towards the Clavel 's property. They have no objection - they will be very happy to hear the music. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. OAKLEY: I guess I - since you were talking about moving the staircase around to the other side - why is the staircase situated where it is now and . . . MR. SCHICKEL: Well that's obviously the preferred location but. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You say obviously - because it provides access to the rear from the garage, the rear of the lot. . . MR. SCHICKEL: I guess the main reasoning is that if you brought it around to the side, it would be in front of some windows that look out onto a terrace that would be there and so that's essentially the reason. There is no window on that side of the addition, I don't believe. . . MS. DIECKMANN: Yes. . . high ones. . . MR. SCHICKEL: Yes there are, excuse me. They are high ones. But it would be placed in such a manner as to be. . . MR. OAKLEY: Why did you place the windows higher on that side? MR. SCHICKEL: I 'm not the designer, okay, so I can't answer that. MS. DIECKMAN: The windows were placed high because that is the least attractive aspect - the least attractive view from my house. PAGE 84 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 The view is out upon the house of my neighbors and upon the addi- tion which they put on their house which is not. . . the most beauti- ful thing I 've ever looked at in my life. MR. OAKLEY: In other words you would rather look at your own yard than at the Cravel 's? MS. DIECKMANN: That is correct. And also I think it is also better for the piano, it is not going to get as much light. . . MR. OAKLEY: Okay. It's also nice to have one wall. . . MS. DIECKMANN: That's true and also a wall for bookshelves. Also, the other thing is that we do not intend to take down any trees at all - there is a row of trees on the Cornell Street side of the lot and I don't even think that the addition will be particularly visible from Cornell Street because of the trees. And they will stay where they are. There is another large tree in the back yard which might be able to stay. MR. OAKLEY: Again, we should ask the question of Tom, some of us are waiting for the answer, which is how do you decide which is the rear yard? SECRETARY HOARD: The Ordinance says that it is the yard opposite the street address and this Board is allowed to make interpreta- tion in other cases. . . MR. OAKLEY: You mean, we may make another interpretation (unintel- ligible) SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: So we can simply - as long as the post office knows what the number is and that the other yard is their yard. PAGE 85 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MR. WEAVER: We certainly can take that into consideration if you are wondering about the intent of the Ordinance. MR. OAKLEY: Yes, I just wanted to make sure that it was as I suspected. MS. DIECKMANN: Well the total back yard of the house is quite large (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well to spring off that a little bit, another apartment, of course, is what I am concerned about, I suppose - increased density of what might become - under a future owner - yet a different parcel. You are putting - I noticed, bathroom facili- ties in your new. . . MS. DIECRMANN: Yes, there is no bathroom on the first floor of this house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You see, I am just thinking ahead a bit - I 'd rather have the staircase pointing toward the back yard because there is less likelihood for auxiliary units with street access to Cornell Street. MS. DIECRMANN: I see what you mean, yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you see my point? MS. DIECKMANN: Yes I do. SECRETARY HOARD: No auxiliary unit is permitted except as an accessory apartment - and she would have to come to this Board for permission and have another shot at it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MS. DIECIQIANN: I was wondering whether the Board had received any objections because I have not received any myself and I just wanted to be able to respond to them if. . . PAGE 86 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The slate is clean as far as we know, right? Absolute silence from the Building Commissioner's office. MS. DIECKMANN: Actually he will be able to see this from his house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's true. I was going to ask him if he had any objections. . . . MS. DIECKMANN: I don't think he does because I think he would have told me. At least I hope he would. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions from members of the Board? Moving right along, 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? MS. ROSICA: My name is Rose Rosica and I live at 213 Cornell Street on the corner of Cornell and Worth (unintelligible) faces the side of my house. I have several concerns. I do not have a concern with the appearance of what they are adding - I 'm sure it will blend in very nicely but I do have concerns with the use. In view of the fact that I would like to ask a question - it is being specifically tagged "music room" - are they planning to sound proof this? I doubt it. From past experience - I appreciate Ms. Dieckmann's talent - she is a very talented - musical person. However I don't like to have somebody else's taste in music imposed on me at a time when I don't feel like listening to it. I think there have been times when you are out in the yard and you are working and you listen to some classical vocalizing which rubs you the wrong way when you would like to appreciate the quiet outdoors. I am concerned very much with this added space - the amount of PAGE 87 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 additional noise - it will be used more - I am concerned with the hours that might be played - piano being played at nine o'clock in the evening - I realize that is a nice relaxing time to play but it could be annoying to somebody who really doesn't want to listen to it at that time. I am also concerned with what you mentioned, Mr. Tomlan, regarding the future use. I question if the whole bathroom is necessary on the first floor - why not a half bath? A full bath is very conducive for future use as rental space. I am concerned with the rental trend in our area of everybody making changes for family use and the next owner uses it for rental purposes and I have questioned a couple of these in our neighborhood and the City tells me they are in compliance. I don't see how a new owner can come in and - if it was done for personal use then the new owner should understand that that is what it is to be used for - personal use and not for rental space. If there were some way that we could get around that to protect any further development in this neigh- borhood - I feel that we are very close to College Avenue - we have already gotten traffic - with the parking and all of that and we have enough problems (unintelligible) very quickly, so for those reasons I do object to it. The noise is the main thing and the future use is the next. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I hear what you are saying - being a resident further down the hill - I can understand completely and that is why I asked the question. Tom's response though does give property owners, as well as the Board, by right, the appellant, the owner, can come back and ask for Accessory Apartment use and in such case you would be notified. . . PAGE 88 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 MS. ROSICA: Yes but this is not being placed in our neighbor- hood. . . that concerns me, it is just sort of automatically happened and . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, I am with you - the other thing - let me note - that the elevation which would face your property - as I read the drawings - assuming things are built the way proposed - right? MS. ROSICA: The one plus that I can see is that it is going to be on the other side of the house. I will not be exposed as much to it - however, as I said, in the summertime when the windows are open and the sound carried. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That was the point I was getting to - if it were the case that perhaps there wasn't as much easy flow of music through the walls - with the windows in that particular direction - would you be happier with the design, one would assume?' MS. ROSICA: Yes. The design does not bother me (unintellgible) and the possibility also that because of this added space - because of the other entrance - because of the deck on top - there is additional constructed large entertainment use - whether it will be used as such or not by Mrs. Dieckmann, it could be done so by future owners if the house were ever sold. I agree with Mrs. Dieckmann it is a handsome house - I 've lived across the street from it for years. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Well it doesn't look as though there is anyone out there in addition at this point so I suppose no one else will speak PAGE 89 BZA MINUTES - 9/l/87 in opposition. Do I have a motion or do we want to have further discussion? I 'll accept either. PAGE 90 BZA MINUTES - 9/1/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1784 FOR 201 WORTH STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Bruno Schickel for an area variance to permit the construction of a one-story addition to the existing single-family home at 201 Worth Street for a music room and additional living space. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1784 with the condition that the location of the stairs in the south yard be such as to maintain the ten foot setback that would be required for a rear yard. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed addition doesn't exacerbate any of the existing deficiencies with the exception of the rear yard depth. 2. The Board found that although the address is on Worth Street, which technically makes the south side the rear yard, for the purpose of this variance the Board is considering the south side to be a side yard and the east side to be the rear yard. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED W/CONDITION PAGE 91 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 1780 , 1781, 1782 , 1783 and 1784 on September 1 , 1987, in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street, 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. io CRuane Barbara C . Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this DAY OF 1987 Notary Public JEAN J. HANKNNSON NOTARY PUOLIC,STATE OF NEW YORR NO.55.1 6i 3800 QUALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COUN,'X MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 30.18