Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1988-01-04 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JANUARY 4, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 1807 Joseph & Mary Petrillose 4 102 Homestead Road APPEAL NO. 1807 Discussion 10 Decision 15 APPEAL NO. 1811 William and Barbara Pardee 16 226 Cleveland Avenue APPEAL NO. 1811 Decision 19 APPEAL NO. 1812 Helen D. Macali 20 211 North Geneva Street APPEAL NO. 1812 Discussion 26 Decision 27 APPEAL NO. 1813 James Bilinski/Ithaca Times 28 109-111 North Cayuga Street APPEAL NO. 1813 Decision 35 APPEAL NO. 1814 Jason Fane 36 101-107 East State Street and 103-111 South Cayuga Street APPEAL NO. 1814 Decision 43 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 44 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 4, 1988 SECRETARY HOARD: Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the January 4, 1988 Board of Zoning Appeals. This is the one opportunity that I have to open the meeting. This is the first meeting of the year in which the Board must elect a new chairman and adopt its Rules and Regulations for the new year. I guess we can start with the nominations for chairman. MR. SIEVERDING: I 'll nominate Mr. Tomlan for another term. SECRETARY HOARD: Do I hear a second? MR. OAKLEY: I 'll second that. SECRETARY HOARD: Do I hear any other nominations? [none] The nominations will be closed and I 'll call for a vote. MR. WEAVER: Acclamation adequate? SECRETARY HOARD: Okay, acclamation. Mr. Tomlan, it is all yours. MR. TOMLAN: After that thundering round of applause, right. Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the January 4, 1988 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provision of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight: STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER JOHN OAKLEY HERMAN SIEVERDING BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THOMAS D. HOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER, ZONING OFFICER & SECRETARY TO THE BOARD BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY Note: Sixth member not appointed to the Board as of the date of this meeting. 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 the Board. We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the Board considers "interested" parties to be persons who own property within two hundred feet of the property in question or who live or work within that two hundred feet of the property. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of an "interested" party. While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record. The record consists of the application materials filed with the Building Department, the correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations when there are any, and the record of tonight's hearing. Since a record is being made of this hearing, it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones which are opposite PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 me here, so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and are 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 in 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 is closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during our deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or a special permit. In the rare cases where there is a tie vote, the variance or special permit is automatically denied. Now tonight there are, as you notice, only five of the six seats filled. Therefore the appellants have the right to request a postponement until we have a full six member Board. We don't know, I should add, exactly when that may be. That is, it is really up to the Mayor to make the appointment and for Common Council to approve it. But you certainly have the right to request a postponement and if any of you would like to do so at this point, please indicate. [no one] Okay. Are there any questions about our procedure? [none] Then can we proceed to our first case? Charles, you have a question? MR. WEAVER: Before we proceed to our next case, may I propose that we adopt the Rules of the Board as printed. . . CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: We didn't do that, exactly, in order - okay, fine. PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 MR. WEAVER: I didn't understand that we did - so we need a record of doing that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right, okay. Sure, well we are going to go ahead then and do that now. We've got copies? Okay, I will accept a motion then that we adopt the Rules and Regulations of the Board - this is a formality that we have to go through, as with the opening. Same as last years - haven't changed. I'll accept a motion Charles - would you make it? MR. WEAVER: I so move. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we have a second? MR. SIEVERDING: I' ll second it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good. Moving right along. . . acclamation? ALL BOARD MEMBERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Now we will move ahead to the first case. Thanks Charlie. SECRETARY HOARD: Before we go to the first case, Mr. Chairman, some people may be here for Appeal Number 1815, which is the last one on the Agendum, which is for 205-217 Linden Avenue. That one has been held over at the request of the Planning and Development Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We are all clear about that out there? [no response] SECRETARY HOARD: The first case being heard tonight then will be Appeal Number 1807 for 102 Homestead Road: Appeal of Joseph and Mary Petrillose for a Special Permit for an Accessory Apartment for 102 Homestead Road under Section 30.27 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 located in an R-1a (Residential, single-family dwellings) Use District in which a second dwelling unit is permitted only under a Special Permit issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals. According to Building Department records, a second unit had historically existed in this structure as a legal, nonconforming use; however the previous owner discontinued the use for more than twelve consecutive months, terminating that use under the requirements of Section 30. 50 of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal was held over from the November 30, 1987 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals at the request of the Board of Planning and Development. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Anybody here for this case? If you would come forward please. Have a seat. Not that we will keep you forever, it is just that it is more comfortable that way. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. PETRILLOSE: I am Joe Petrillose, 102 Homestead Road. As I say, I am asking for a permit to rent the apartment again. When I bought the house there was a gentleman living in there and I just assumed that everything was okay. The Building Department told me that it had been discontinued, so now I am filing again. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: When did you purchase the property? MR. PETRILLOSE: September 1 this past year. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Is the apartment still occupied by. . . MR. PETRILLOSE: By another tenant - I have since rented it. MR. SIEVERDING: To one individual? PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 MR. PETRILLOSE: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: And the parking for that unit, is that in your driveway off of Homestead or does it come off that other side? MR. PETRILLOSE: No, my driveway is off of Homestead Road. MR. SIEVERDING: And that is where this person parks his car? MR. PETRILLOSE: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: And then - I couldn't see - how does he get from there down. . . MR. PETRILLOSE: From the driveway to the entrance to the apartment? He has to go between the house and the garage, down some stairs, around the back of the unit to a side entrance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The side entrance is on the east side or the west side of the house? MR. PETRILLOSE: The west side. MR. OAKLEY: The west side and the steps come down on the east side. I guess my question concerns the neighbors. The first question - there was something mentioned in the Planning Board's suggestions that a fence be built there. It strikes me as - I am wondering if the steps are even adequate for bringing furniture into that apartment - if it is really possible to bring them in - it looks like the space between the house and the garage is very narrow, and the steps themselves are rather steep. . . MR. PETRILLOSE: I brought a lot of furniture for my house through that and - the steps - I don't know, I had pictures of it, I guess the Planning Board had them. . . SECRETARY HOARD: They are here. PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 MR. PETRILLOSE: There was a landing - we put in a landing with two sets of stairs to ease the grade there. As far as the fence on that side, that was at the request of the neighbors on that side, that the tenant not use their driveway to walk, unload furniture and what not at any future time. MR. OAKLEY: That seemed to be the obvious driveway for that apartment. MR. PETRILLOSE: Yes but that is not a problem. MR. SIEVERDING: Is that a problem for you? MR. PETRILLOSE: Not for me. It is for them, of course. MR. SIEVERDING: No, I mean installing a fence. MR. PETRILLOSE: Oh, installing a fence? Well I have a strong opinion on that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Why don't you air that opinion? MR. WEAVER: Speak up. MR. PETRILLOSE: If they want a fence there they should put it up. If they want to protect their right-of way or their property, it is okay with me if they want to put a fence up. I would prefer not to. MR. SIEVERDING: And you think you can adequately control your tenant's use of the neighbor's driveway for access to that apartment? MR. PETRILLOSE: Sure. I 'm not going to forcibly go out there to restrict them but I think if I ask them in a nice way, he wouldn't do it. MR. OAKLEY: The other question, just in terms of the Planning Board's decisions or suggestions, is that - I assume it is if there PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 is no fence that a determination be made of legal liability for what happens on that driveway - your tenants - or involving your tenants. I guess my question is, the Planning Board seems to be suggesting that - or may be suggesting that some City authority should make that determination, in saying that the determination should be made by the appropriate authority - my inclination would be to suggest that you make that determination - that you hire an attorney to make that determination. Because I don't see why the City should pay for that kind of dispute resolution. MR. WEAVER: What dispute? MR. OAKLEY: The dispute over the liability. . . MR. WEAVER: There is liability in the front yard. MR. OAKLEY: Oh, I agree, but it is a question of who is liable, not whether there is liability. MR. WEAVER: Well without having any training at all - it is the owner's liability. That is what homeowner's policies are for. I can't imagine the next door neighbor trying to buy liability for the guy next door. MR. OAKLEY: But, who is the homeowner. . . MR. WEAVER: Well I am just saying that the recommendation from the Planning Board is a little hard for me to understand - if they are suggesting that Mr. Petrillose protect his neighbor from liability of somebody trespassing on his land - not Mr. Petrillose's but the guy next door - isn't that what they are saying? MR. OAKLEY: They are suggesting that somebody be made to determine that and obviously that is not a popular suggestion with the Board. PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 MR. WEAVER: It is unpopular just with me, I 'm not speaking for the Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions on any other tacks or points? MR. SCHWAB: If I could just get the dates again - I 'm not sure that you know - you bought the house in September 1987? MR. PETRILLOSE: 1987. MR. SCHWAB: And there was a tenant in there then? MR. PETRILIASE: There was a person living in the unit, yes. MR. SCHWAB: Do you know when the lapse occurred? MR. PETRILLOSE: No I don't. MR. SCHWAB: Do you know that Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Then it is all ours. PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD ON APPEAL NUMBER 1807 FOR 102 HOMESTEAD RD. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we want to talk about fences? MR. WEAVER: I 'd be glad to. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Be my guest. MR. WEAVER: Well I think it would be more appropriate to talk about the memorandum from the Board of Planning and Development which suggests a couple of things - one of the - the last paragraph on the first page of that. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, January 4? MR. WEAVER: "Stipulations that the appellant install a fence along the property line between 102 and 100 Homestead Road, if inspection by appropriate City officials indicates that a fence at that location would not present a life-safety hazard and that a determination be made by the proper authority as to the legal liability of the owners of 100 Homestead Road in case the use of their driveway by occupants of 102 Homestead for access. " I find those two recommendations - and I guess they are - a convoluted construction of the recommendation makes it a little bit unclear. But one proposition - not the appellant - build a fence between the two properties, if it is not unsafe to do so. It seems to me to get us in a position of requiring something that we don't know whether it is safe or not. This recommendation could have come along with somebody going up and looking at it and deciding rather than referring to proper authority - whoever that might be. Do you have a fence safety person on your staff? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No such person in the Building Department? PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: I could think of a couple of puns to make, but no I don't. MR. WEAVER: Well, I find that - suggesting that we grant a conditional variance, or special permit, pardon me - with that as a condition - without indicating who the proper authorities would be and for what purpose, I find that there ought to be some discussion or some indication of what the reason or what the objective of the fence would be and why the appellant should be burdened with that as a - if there is going to be a hazard over there, it would just seem to me that it would be a hazard that the next door neighbor would - if he is concerned about it - he would get a fence up there in a hurry. And, after how many years, I don't know but the two structures have been there for some time. Why there is suddenly concern is beyond me. And how we establish legal liability for lands - I propose that we consider that we might understand that liability to property goes with the property and somebody is ruled to create a hazard, that would be something for the Civil Courts and definitely not something for the Board of Zoning Appeals. MR. OAKLEY: I don't think that. . . MR. WEAVER: Stewart is sitting here quietly - probably wiser than I, but I can't imagine this Board getting involved in decisions on liability, I find it quite the opposite from what we ought to be doing. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John? MR. OAKLEY: I guess I wasn't under the impression that the Board of Planning and Development was suggesting that we determine liability but I am not quite sure what the Board was suggesting but I am PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 pretty sure they weren't suggesting that. It does seem to me, though, a legitimate concern. I mean, when you go and look at that building, particularly if the residents of the apartment are going to Cornell on a regular basis. There is a great temptation - one to which I would succumb if I was living there - to tromp across the neighbor's driveway rather than going around back of my apartment and up the steps onto my own official entrance. And that the Board does have some reason to consider that, particularly since one of the reasons that that temptation exists is precisely because the apartment's door is so close to the property line, in violation of the area requirements. And I think that we do have some obligation to think about it in those terms. I don't think we have any power to determine what the liability is but I think we do have an obligation to consider the probability of tresspassing when we grant this variance. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Stewart did you have any thoughts in that Charles referred to you as a much wiser person actually. MR. SCHWAB: The first level, yes, if injury occurs on your property you are in trouble as a home owner but that is not to say that the one next door, kind of inducing it, might not be liable as well. But I 'm not quite sure exactly how relevant that is because I think it would be the owner of 100 - he has got a legitimate beef if he wants to be that kind of a neighbor - stay off my property - regardless of liability, really, I don't want your tenant going over my land. One can counter that - build a fence. MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm just not sure though whether we would need to condition the permit for an accessory apartment on the fence. It PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 seems to me if there is going to be a problem then one of the two parties is going to come to the conclusion that a fence is going to have to be built and I think they will come to that result between them. Given the letter that we had from the neighbor, they are simply suggesting here that if the owner of the property recognizes that it is his responsibility to keep those people from using the driveway at 100, then they wouldn't consider not objecting to (unintelligible) . . . I think, you know, why don't we ask the question and you say - then he will recognize that it is his responsibility and he will talk to us then - you know - he will warn the tenant that he is not to use that driveway and if it does become a problem then I think the fence will come about by one of the two parties. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John, do you have any questions about the fence the fence coming up by itself or are we just going to just water it and it will spring forward? MR. OAKLEY: I have problems with the (unintelligible) neighbors are not here - it is hard to determine whether their concern is liability or fences or people occasionally walking down their driveway and I am at a bit of a loss - I mean - a fence seems to me to be - in spite of what Robert Frost said, I 'm not sure that a fence is the most neighborly thing in the world. MR. SCHWAB: Do you have any understanding about the possible life/safety hazard of a fence? MR. OAKLEY: Well then there is the question of whether the fence. . . MR. SCHWAB: That doesn't have any meaning to me. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Nor to me. PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 MR. OAKLEY: Who knows - they may have just decided that since it is going to go shooting out into a gorge that there is a problem or that in the case of a fire that there should at least be a stable fence that is running around the whole. . . although that is probably not the wisest thing. MR. WEAVER: You mean a fence with a smooth top? SECRETARY HOARD: This is not a new apartment we are talking about. MR. SIEVERDING: No it has been there for awhile. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we have a motion coming about? PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES 1/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1807 FOR 102 HOMESTEAD ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Joseph and Margaret Petrillose for a Special Permit for an Accessory Apartment for 102 Homestead Road. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the request for a Special Permit to have an Accessory Apartment at 102 Homestead Road. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT: 1. The appellant has met the requirements and the criteria set forth in Section 30.27, subsection D, and the requirements for special permits for accessory apartments. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO * GRANTED *Sixth member not appointed to the Board as of 1/4/88. PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1811 FOR 226 CLEVELAND AVENUE: Appeal of William and Barbara Pardee for an area variance for deficient lot width, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and both side yards under Section 30.25, Columns 7, 11, 12, and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of one of the two apartments in the two-family house at 226 Cleveland Avenue from a two-bedroom apartment to a three-bedroom apartment. The property is located in an R-2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MS. PARDEE: I 'm Barbara and this is William Pardee, we live at 104 Warwick Place. The apartment that we are speaking about had a room which is off the kitchen and was connected to the kitchen by only an archway. I assume that that is why - at some earlier time - this was not counted as a three-bedroom apartment. When we bought the house, the family that was living in there was using this space as a bedroom (unintelligible) . This summer we went into the apartment to redo the kitchen, which had been in a very bad state and at the same time put a door on that room and sheetrocked it. It is a legal size bedroom and really the only thing which is PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 keeping it from being a three-bedroom is a variance for one side and for one foot in the front. MR. PARDEE: I 'm not sure - this says that both sides are deficient - I think the requirements are ten feet on one side and five feet on the other. We have more than five feet on one side but less than ten on the other. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tom, do you want to take a look? SECRETARY HOARD: According to the survey, one side is one point five feet and then the stairway that comes down from the second floor is one point two feet. MR. PARDEE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The stairway is counted. SECRETARY HOARD: You count the stairway, yes. Any projection from the building. MRS. PARDEE: That's at the very back of the house. Most of the house has four feet sideyard for eight feet. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Even if it went out to the end of the lot and turned right, it would still be the same. MR. PARDEE: I might comment on the other side there it is a shorter dimension - it is not like there is another house there - it is a parking lot for Mister Donut, so there is not a structure there. MS. PARDEE: So it has plenty of ventilation and light. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The proposed bedroom has a door that is being proposed or that is extance - leading to the rear deck. MS. PARDEE: There is a door which leads out - which we left because it is not to be usable if it is used as a bedroom but it PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 does give a second exit in case of fire or in case of a person caring to have more ventilation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And that was basically what determined the original width of the back deck, I would assume - because you are going over that far before you had to drop down to the steps, more or less. MRS. PARDEE: No, the back deck comes from the upstairs. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, but the back dimensions are (unintelligible) the point. Questions from members of the Board? [none] We have clarified the side yard. . . MRS. PARDEE: The apartment is approved for three unrelated people or a family. We are not increasing density. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The silence of my comrades up here indicates that there are no further questions - it is overwhelming. Thank you both. 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] Moving right along. . . we'll entertain motions. PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1811 FOR 226 CLEVELAND AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of William and Barbara Pardee for an area variance to permit the conversion of one of the two apartments in the two-family house at 226 Cleveland Avenue from a two-bedroom apartment to a three-bedroom apartment. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1811. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed change does not exacerbate any of the existing deficiencies. 2 . It will create a sub-division within the apartment that would improve the living conditions in the space. 3 . The proposed increase in bedrooms will not have any effect on the footprint of the building. 4. It doesn't cast a shadow on the Mr. Donut property. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO GRANTED NOTE: No sixth member of the Board has been appointed at this point in time. PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1812 for 211 North Geneva Street: Appeal of Helen D. Macali for an area variance for deficient lot area, and a deficient setback for one side yard under Section 30.25, Columns 6 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the Single-family house at 211 North Geneva Street to an office plus two apartments. The property is located in a B-1a (Business) Use District in which the proposed uses are permitted; however, the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you are from. MRS. MACALI: I am Helen Macali and I live at 211 North Geneva Street, I own the property. MR. GREENBERG: I 'm Richard Greenberg, I'm Mrs. Macali's Counsel - she has asked me to present her application tonight, if that is all right with the Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. MR. GREENBERG: We are requesting an area variance for Mrs. Macali's premises at 211 North Geneva Street. Mrs. Macali and her late husband bought in 1954 and they raised a family of many children there. At that time it was a residence of single-family homes. At this point in time it is the only remaining PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 single-family home on the block. All the other buildings there are used as multi-family or medical or offices, so she lives in the house alone - her husband passed away last year - she would like to move and sell the property. The property is zoned B-1a, we are not requesting any type of use variance but we are requesting the area variance because the lot - as it is presently situated - is not large enough and has a side yard requirement - parking requirements which will not permit it to be used for the contemplated use. And that is what we are seeking. We have a contract to purchase the property. It has been on the market for some time - there has been no interest whatsoever in this property as a single-family dwelling. There have been prospective buyers who have said that we will buy it at a single-family price but I 'll take my chances with the Board, hoping to get the variance themselves, at my client's expense. That is why. she is here. She does have a purchaser who has signed a contract. Mr. Ronsvalle, who is not the same Ron Ronsvalle, by the way, who is involved with your Board on another issue. This is his father and he has nothing to do with that. I 'd like to go on record. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Not this Board. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Not this Board. MR. GREENBERG: Not this Board? This is the Senior Ronsvalle. But we have given you, in our application, a copy of the survey, the generalized proposal which Mr. Ronsvalle would like to do with the property - he would like to have a Financial Consulting Office - his practice, a Financial Consultant downstairs and have a efficiency apartment downstairs and one apartment upstairs, if we PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 can get this permitted by the Zoning Board - if other than for the lot size. Mr. Ronsvalle has made arrangements to lease three parking spaces off the premises, if you feel that is necessary. At this point, I think our application speaks for itself. My client is here if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The parking requirements are four, is that right? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, the parking requirements for the conversion would be four - two for the apartments and two for the offices. MR. OAKLEY: I guess one kind of - I see that he has a letter promising to lease the parking spaces - I have sort of a generic question of you Tom. Do you have any way of keeping track of all this parking spaces? SECRETARY HOARD: What we do is we tie the Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance, depending on whether it is commercial or residential, to the time factor. MR. GREENBERG: To just clarify the parking - the letter (unintelligible) makes arrangements for the lease of three but I agree with Mr. Hoard that four are necessary. Of course, we have space on the premises for parking - I think there is no question that there is room for two - it may be possible to get more than two but to be on the safe side I suggested that the buyer make arrangements to lease three - so I think it is pretty clear that two are well permitted on this property, so we've got a margin there of one. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 MR. WEAVER: Question or discussion, both I guess. The duration of the lease that is anticipated, I didn't see any indication by the letter that I understood to be more than a day to day. . . MR. GREENBERG: Yes - I don't know - Mr. Ronsvalle is here and perhaps he could better answer that question. MR. RONSVALLE: I think the letter said indefinite. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, it does say indefinite. MR. WEAVER: One day - anything more than a day is indefinite. MR. RONSVALLE: Well I can have that reworded. MR. OAKLEY: Tom, you can make the C of 0. . . you can require parking. . . MR. SIEVERDING: It does make reference to. . . MR. WEAVER: Where did you see it? MR. SIEVERDING: It does make reference to an annual lease, doesn't it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Last paragraph, last page. . . MR. SIEVERDING: . .will be negotiated at a future date and on an annual basis. MR. WEAVER: Yes but the lease agreement - that could be the price. I just think that we ought to make a condition of a granting, if a granting becomes our piece of business, on some clearing this up to some degree and deciding that a lease of some minimum duration - it would seem unreasonable to grant it on the expectation that parking requirements would be met and have no more than a one year lease. MR. OAKLEY: I would think that the C of 0 should be no longer than the parking. . . PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 MR. WEAVER: All right, if you think that's okay, it is all right with me but Tom and the new owner are going to be up the path once ayear. . . MR. OAKLEY: I hope not. MR. WEAVER: Well that's what is being proposed, if I understand it. So it would be a question whether it would be renewal 'of the C of O annually. MR. SIEVERDING: When are C of O's typically renewable? SECRETARY HOARD: Three years for rental property. MR. SIEVERDING: Three years. What are you saying. . . MR. WEAVER: I 'm just. . . MR. SIEVERDING: No, I mean do you have a problem with at least tying this with the duration of a C of O? MR. WEAVER: Okay. I 'm just thinking that our granting have some condition more than Pasquali's letter. I would encourage a lease. . . MR. SIEVERDING: But then did I also hear some objection to the idea of an annual lease? MR. WEAVER: I 'm making a pitch for a longer lease. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Okay. I just want to be clear on what you are saying. . . MR. OAKLEY: Well essentially (unintelligible) you don't really have to - you don't make a variance for the parking - that Tom can set - or we simply don't mention the parking on the variance and then administratively Tom can grant a C of O only on the condition that there is adequate parking. It seems better than granting a variance, to me. PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 MR. WEAVER: With a condition, you are saying? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we can go on with this discussion - there is a question from a member of the audience - I 'd like you to come forward and identify yourself first, because you are an interested party and trying to help at the moment. MR. RONSVALLE: My name is Ron Ronsvalle, I am the potential purchaser. I can get a three year lease or whatever the Board deems necessary. The wording was a little wrong - it said indefinite - and somebody said that indefinite could be a day - and that is true - so I will try to get a three year lease - that is no problem. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Further questions from members of the Board on that point? [none] Good. Now, any other questions about parking or anything else with respect to this particular appeal? Stewart you are so quiet. MR. SCHWAB: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No questions. Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Okay, if we can continue perhaps, our discussion about parking. Well then we can move on to a motion if we all clearly understand. PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1812 FOR 211 NORTH GENEVA STREET MR. OAKLEY: Do you feel Charlie that we should specifically mention the term of the lease in the variance, or do you feel, as I do that we should simply not mention the parking in the variance and trust Tom to demand an adequate lease for a C of O, which seems to me to satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance, without any need for any kind of a variance at all except for the setback variances. MR. WEAVER: I think technically you are true and I think if we have a change of lease Tom will have to worry about it once every three years instead of every year, which seems to me not the most desireable thing from an enforcement standpoint. And the proposed owner has just told us that he is willing to get a three year lease. MR. OAKLEY: Maybe we should add a condition that adequate parking be required with the understanding that we are not granting any variance on the parking. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I think we are getting closer to a motion. PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1812 FOR 211 NORTH GENEVA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Helen Macali for the conversion of the single-family house at 211 North Geneva Street to an office plus two apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1812. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed use is in conformity with the zoning and character of the district. 2 . The proposed use will not exacerbate any of the existing deficiencies except for the parking. 3 . The Board is granting no variance for the parking deficiency. 4. The side yard deficiencies and the lot area deficiencies would indeed present great practical difficulty to correct. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO GRANTED NOTE: The sixth member has not been appointed to the Board at this point in time. PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal Number 1813 for 109-111 North Cayuga Street: Appeal of James Bilinski/Ithaca Times for an area variance for deficient rear yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the building at 109-111 North Cayuga Street from its former use as a restaurant and a retail store to an office plus eight apartments. The property is located in a B-3 (Business) Use District in which the proposed uses are permitted; however, the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the deficient rear yard before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I think you know the procedure. MR. SHARMA: My name is Jagat Sharma, Architect with offices at 312 East Seneca Street. I am here to represent Jim Bilinski who is the new owner of the property at 109-11 North Cayuga Street. This property was formerly used as a restaurant and (unintelligible) . What I would ask the Board members (unintelligible) - I 'll pass around the pictures - that is something I learned at the last Planning Board meeting - bring a lot of pictures. The proposal that we have is to convert the existing building to office space for Ithaca Times - the basement and the first floor will be converted to office area. The second and third floors will be converted into four apartments each with a total of eight - six one-bedroom and two studios. The reason for the appeal - the site plan shows that we comply with most of the requirements or all of PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance except for the area. The building is three stories, facing North Cayuga Street and one story in the rear part of the building - one story which has been used as the kitchen for the restaurant and used to be office for the Antique Store. We have a second means of egress and a two and a half - pardon me - of the six foot wide (unintelligible) area connecting the rear yard to a right-of-way and to Cayuga Street. The drawings (unintelligible) are based on what will be turned into office space. The first floor will be completely be taken over by the Ithaca Times with the offices (unintelligible) tentative layout but the main reason for this appeal is the conversion of the second and third floor which has not been properly used and has many code problems and this is the first step that we have taken - we understand that we will have to go to the State to obtain (unintelligible) variances. I think the Building Department's records have not shown, but the second and third floor of this building were used as rooming house - I think six or eight on each level - some of them have been converted to apartments - (unintelligible) will show that the building has been used for apartments and historically it will show that the building has been used for apartments both as permanent and transient dwelling units. We are converting them into - as I said - eight apartments. We will comply and create (unintelligible) also some of the other fire safety features in the building, second means of egress, sprinkler system required and other details that are needed following the application for the building permit. The exterior of the building at this point - we plan to take the blue color off and get it back PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 to the natural brick. I believe it will be fairly simple to do, the windows will be changed and most of the other factors will be there and the detail in the front of the building (unintelligible) will be retained or emphasized (unintelligible) . (unintelligible) here in that we have a real hardship - in that we cannot move the building and create a rear yard and with that in mind we request that the area variance be granted. In support of this we say that we will be creating much needed housing in the central Ithaca - center city and use a building which is not properly used or fully used to its full potential. It is a much needed apartment, I think there are some other people here who support this - that the downtown needs some activity after five o'clock when the commercial activity comes to an end. It is an excellent building and will make a very nice apartment. We have available details to construction or anything that you want to know. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The second and third floors are vacant now? MR. SHARMA: They are vacant now. MR. SIEVERDING: And none of the renovation work would push out the exterior walls at all? MR. SHARMA: No. Everything would remain intact. In fact if you see - the rear yard there is a big kitchen exhaust and (unintelligible) and everything we are going take of - clean it up and hopefully some of the narrow alleys and - I think the City had somewhat a different plans but they can be incorporated in a large scale development of some kind of a rear alley development - but we intend to clean it up and have a proper rear yard. PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 MR. WEAVER: When you say "clean it up" you mean remove it? MR. SHARMA: Well take it out because the kitchen will no longer be used - that will become the office - we will paint it or pave it or put some kind of a different finish on the walls. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? The off-street loading deficiency is created how? By the conversion Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Simply a matter of the conversion? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. WEAVER: You rate this a conversion from an empty building to a - it used to be a hotel. . . but because of discontinuance of activity and that sort of thing, it is a conversion? SECRETARY HOARD: Well it is a conversion because it is a rearrangement or change of use. . . MR. OAKLEY: What is it that requires a loading - I mean, did the restaurant not require a loading area (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: Offices require one, I think. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is a minor point. I was kind of curious because it doesn't show up often and in this case it has shown up - I was kind of curious. MR. WEAVER: Is there any evidence of fire char in the basement? MR. SHARMA: Yes there is. I think what they have done is they have put two by twelves on the side where the charred beams and boards across and . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Office building - one space. MR. WEAVER: From office space on - you have that? PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 MR. OAKLEY: Where B-2 requires (unintelligible) . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? Have a seat if you will. MR. SCHLOUGH: Question is whether we have appropriate position to speak from. The Commons Advisory Board. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are Commons Advisory Board? MR. SCHLOUGH: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have a seat. But begin, if you would, by identifying yourself. MR. SCHLOUGH: I 'm Charles Schlough, Vice Chairman of the Commons Advisory Board. MS. DEMMING: I 'm Jean Demming, Commons Coordinator. MR. SCHLOUGH: I can speak regarding support for both the Bilinsky appeal and the one for Jason Fane at the same time. During the last year, members of the long range planning committee for the central business district and the Commons Advisory Board began a project to see about an increase in the number of living units in the downtown, by encouraging property owners to develop vacant space or upgrade under used spaces in existing buildings. Presently these buildings offer the only opportunity available to increase the number of living units in the downtown area. Because so many of the downtown buildings are old and require a great deal of money and creativity to function effectively and efficiently, cooperative efforts will be necessary to maximize the use of these buildings and the limited amount of open space near them. Your support of the Bilinski and Fane requests for variances will make additional PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 housing available, therefore assisting the downtown neighborhood to become a stronger twenty-four hour a day community. MS. DEMING: I 'm here to read a memo from Kathe Evans who is also working on a project that we have which is part of a long range planning committee for the central business district. This is a memo to the Board of Zoning Appeals. "I understand that you are reviewing two proposals to add housing in the Commons area, one for Commons West (Fane) and another for the Ithaca Times Building (Bellinski) (sic) , in which property owners have deficient rear yards. I wish to offer strong support for area variances being extended to the owners of those properties. Additional housing in this core area is needed for a variety of households. Housing around the Commons will provide a fuller use of a commercial area busy during the day, but often quite vacant in the evening. In addition, these structures already exist, resulting in a more efficient use of our built environment and avoiding some of the local concerns about construction of new housing on vacant parcels in existing neighborhoods. Housing is traditionally located in city centers and its maintenance there promotes and supports an active and healthy downtown. Hopefully, the board will agree with these points and support variances for these housing projects. " CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Board members should note that the letter was addressed to us but it apparently didn't get to us in time to be xeroxed and distributed. MS. DEMING: I have it for you all - just didn't get it ready for you ahead of time. So, there is a set - two for each of you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Questions from members of the Board? PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 MR. SIEVERDING: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sounds good. We' ll move along then. 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] That being the case, I 'll entertain a motion. PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1813 FOR 109-111 NORTH CAYUGA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of James Bilinski/Ithaca Times to permit the conversion of the building at 109-111 North Cayuga Street from its former use as a restaurant and a retail store to an office plus eight apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1813 . MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The two deficiencies, namely off-street parking and rear yard, are existing deficiencies which will not be exacerbated by the proposed conversion of the property. 2 . The proposed conversion makes more efficient use of the underutilized facility in the downtown. 3 . It will improve and enhance the character of that area. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO GRANTED NOTE: 6th member of the Board not appointed as of the date of this meeting. PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The final appeal is Appeal Number 1814 for 101-107 East State Street and 103-111 South Cayuga Street: Appeal of Jason Fane for an area variance for deficient rear yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the fifth floor of the Commons West Building at 101-107 East State Street from offices to 20 apartments, and conversion of the second, third, fourth and fifth floors of the Ivy Building at 103-111 South Cayuga Street from offices to four apartments. The property is located in a B-3 (Business) Use District in which the proposed use for apartments is permitted; however, the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the deficient rear yard before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Once again. . . MR. SHARMA: Jagat Sharma, Architect. I am presenting the appeal for Jason Fane for converting the empty space at Commons West and the Ivy Building. I am sure all of you know the building at the corner of the Commons and Cayuga Street, the first part known as Commons West, the back part is known as the Ivy Building. There are only four floors on the Ivy Building and five floors on the Commons West, plus a basement. The top floor, the fifth floor, of the Commons West and the second, third and fourth floors in the Ivy Building were occupied by the Department of Social Services and PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 MR. OAKLEY: Where B-2 requires (unintelligible) . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? Have a seat if you will. MR. SCHLOUGH: Question is whether we have appropriate position to speak from. The Commons Advisory Board. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are Commons Advisory Board? MR. SCHLOUGH: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have a seat. But begin, if you would, by identifying yourself. MR. SCHLOUGH: I 'm Charles Schlough, Vice Chairman of the Commons Advisory Board. MS. DEMMING: I 'm Jean Demming, Commons Coordinator. MR. SCHLOUGH: I can speak regarding support for both the Bilinsky appeal and the one for Jason Fane at the same time. During the last year, members of the long range planning committee for the central business district and the Commons Advisory Board began a project to see about an increase in the number of living units in the downtown, by encouraging property owners to develop vacant space or upgrade under used spaces in existing buildings. Presently these buildings offer the only opportunity available to increase the number of living units in the downtown area. Because so many of the downtown buildings are old and require a great deal of money and creativity to function effectively and efficiently, cooperative efforts will be necessary to maximize the use of these buildings and the limited amount of open space near them. Your support of the Bilinski and Fane requests for variances will make additional PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 housing available, therefore assisting the downtown neighborhood to become a stronger twenty-four hour a day community. MS. DEMING: I 'm here to read a memo from Kathe Evans who is also working on a project that we have which is part of a long range planning committee for the central business district. This is a memo to the Board of Zoning Appeals. "I understand that you are reviewing two proposals to add housing in the Commons area, one for Commons West (Fane) and another for the Ithaca Times Building (Bellinski) (sic) , in which property owners have deficient rear yards. I wish to offer strong support for area variances being extended to the owners of those properties. Additional housing in this core area is needed for a variety of households. Housing around the Commons will provide a fuller use of a commercial area busy during the day, but often quite vacant in the evening. In addition, these structures already exist, resulting in a more efficient use of our built environment and avoiding some of the local concerns about construction of new housing on vacant parcels in existing neighborhoods. Housing is traditionally located in city centers and its maintenance there promotes and supports an active and healthy downtown. Hopefully, the board will agree with these points and support variances for these housing projects. " CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Board members should note that the letter was addressed to us but it apparently didn't get to us in time to be xeroxed and distributed. MS. DEMING: I have it for you all - just didn't get it ready for you ahead of time. So, there is a set - two for each of you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Questions from members of the Board? PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 MR. SIEVERDING: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sounds good. We' ll move along then. 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] That being the case, I'll entertain a motion. PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1813 FOR 109-111 NORTH CAYUGA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of James Bilinski/Ithaca Times to permit the conversion of the building at 109-111 North Cayuga Street from its former use as a restaurant and a retail store to an office plus eight apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1813 . MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The two deficiencies, namely off-street parking and rear yard, are existing deficiencies which will not be exacerbated by the proposed conversion of the property. 2 . The proposed conversion makes more efficient use of the underutilized facility in the downtown. 3 . It will improve and enhance the character of that area. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO GRANTED NOTE: 6th member of the Board not appointed as of the date of this meeting. PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The final appeal is Appeal Number 1814 for 101-107 East State Street and 103-111 South Cayuga Street: Appeal of Jason Fane for an area variance for deficient rear yard setback under Section 30. 25, Column 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the fifth floor of the Commons West Building at 101-107 East State Street from offices to 20 apartments, and conversion of the second, third, fourth and fifth floors of the Ivy Building at 103-111 South Cayuga Street from offices to four apartments. The property is located in a B-3 (Business) Use District in which the proposed use for apartments is permitted; however, the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the deficient rear yard before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Once again. . . MR. SHARMA: Jagat Sharma, Architect. I am presenting the appeal for Jason Fane for converting the empty space at Commons West and the Ivy Building. I am sure all of you know the building at the corner of the Commons and Cayuga Street, the first part known as Commons West, the back part is known as the Ivy Building. There are only four floors on the Ivy Building and five floors on the Commons West, plus a basement. The top floor, the fifth floor, of the Commons West and the second, third and fourth floors in the Ivy Building were occupied by the Department of Social Services and PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 have been vacant since they moved out. The owner has tried to rent them as office space and has done some work in the building but has not been able to rent it. Apparently office space in downtown is kind of not so much in demand. The present proposal is to convert the second, third and fourth floor of the Ivy Building into a one, three-bedroom apartment and the fifth floor of the Commons West into twenty or twenty-one apartments. I have here (unintelligible) different areas of the two buildings - photographs. The present apartment building - not by elevator - but by doing this conversion from the office space will make elevator entry operated from Cayuga Street and I think this will add to it quite a bit - of the features of the apartments in downtown (unintelligible) . The reason for the appeal - here - as I pointed out in our letter - is deficiency of rear yard on the site plan that was submitted - the Commons, Cayuga Street, Commons West and the Ivy Building - built in three different phases - have an exit on the back toward Cayuga Street - on the rear yard - back of the Colonial building and has access to a loading dock and a (unintelligible) - so we do have a forty feet wide rear yard but it does not continue all the way to the Commons - the Colonial building being the next building which is a real hard thing to tear down to get the rear yard (unintelligible) not a desired area in the downtown. This being the case, we request that the variance being granted for deficient rear yard and once again because we are creating more housing in the City of Ithaca - the center district - this is something that is in great demand right now. I have other information about the different floors. . . PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Does this project bring any further protection to the building or its occupants? MR. SHARMA: The construction is already - it is not 1a - it is 2a and we have a sprinkler system in the building (unintelligible) MR. WEAVER: That will be maintained? MR. SHARMA: Yes that will be maintained. A real plus will be that being five floor apartment building, we will be required by Code to have (unintelligible) exits and to make the elevator on the Cayuga Street side serve the apartments. MR. OAKLEY: So in essense there has got to be no separation between the Ivy Building and the Commons West? MR. SHARMA: The Ivy Building and the Commons West - the floors don't line up - for whatever reason - the fourth floor of the Ivy Building is half a floor below the fifth floor of the Commons West. MR. OAKLEY: Okay. MR. SHARMA: And for whatever reason, they have the elevator stop at the fifth floor of the Commons West level so those new apartments will have exits by the elevator. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: When were those buildings built, do you know, roughly? MR. SHARMA: 1923 was the Commons West building and 1934 the Ivy Building was built and at that point they left a gap between the two - fourteen feet wide gap - which was corrected in 1940 - 1940 onwards the whole block was built. And as I understand it, the 1923 building was replaced (unintelligible) which was destroyed by fire. PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 MR. OAKLEY: I am just curious about where the lot lines actually go here. I couldn't figure out what the survey line was on the site plan. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tom, seeing as how you have notes in the clouds here, perhaps you want to. . . SECRETARY HOARD: I looked up on the tax maps - now Mr. Sharma has a survey. . . MR. SHARMA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) . . .site plan - I was looking, myself, and I can't tell - on the Commons they say - lot, sixty-six feet and the next building which is the Colonial building - another sixty-six feet - but Fane already had a right-of-way and now he owns the building so he has the legal right-of-way and now the owner of that rear yard - loading surface area. MR. SIEVERDING: This is that rear yard that is sort of tucked in behind City Hall. . .Rose Bud and. . . MR. SHARMA: Correct. . and this drawing here says sixty-six plus eight - three, four inches - on that area - so I can't tell whether the eighty-four came with this property at that point - in any case, this thing is open. MR. OAKLEY: And you could tie it up Court for a long time. MR. WEAVER: If he sells the two properties one at a time, is that a sub-division? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please, let's not even think about that. MR. SCHWAB: The Ivy Building (unintelligible) and did you say (unintelligible) too? MR. SHARMA: Yes. PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: So now all that trash and everything - we have a common owner? MR. WEAVER: Yes, it is all his. MR. SHARMA: We are working toward cleaning this area up. MR. SIEVERDING: We tried that once before and it didn't work because of the multiple ownership at the time that the City took proceeds from the Center Ithaca and did the improvements along Green Street - we spent a long time working with those three owners trying to get that little. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Cubby hole fixed? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, for lack of a better description. And that was precisely the problem, so now that it is all under one ownership, it would be nice to see a continuation of those improvements into that corner. . . SECRETARY HOARD: A new plaza. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? My only comment, and it is unrelated to the Zoning Ordinance, so I put that in as a proviso - having done some of these versions myself, I hope we could deal with the question of where the partition walls come in the middle of the windows - a little more favorably - from the outside. The way you have dealt with this - you are sheetrocking over half the window in some instances - on the outside. You could move over, I think, in some instances and pick up a little space, maybe, one way or the other, in such a way that it will look a little better once the lights are on in the inside. But as I said, that is unrelated to the Zoning Ordinance - just kind of a comment from me to you. PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 MR. SIEVERDING: Just have a three and one-half inch wall. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand. Just to pull it back a little bit and line up the walls correctly and save yourself that grief, I think. MR. SHARMA: That's what he has done on the fourth floor - even now the windows are too big and too much light (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, you know, the way in which this is dealt with normally, in another contact, is you would leave those full height windows and drop down a plenam, say eight foot or ten feet into the room, just use that as your service corridor, along side your double loaded corridor, so that your services are run all in through here and these walls line up correctly in between. I think you can do that, even here, from what I see. I have just completed a couple of very similar buildings myself, you should be able to do it fairly easily. Thank you though. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? MR. SCHLOUGH: My name is Charles Schlough, I 'm the owner of the adjoining property directly to the south of the Ivy Building at 113-121 South Cayuga Street. I just want to speak in favor of the appeal to make the adjustment in the rear yard requirements which is a consquence of structural conditions which have been created over a long period of time will have to be dealt with in other conversions which are coming up, including one which I am anticipating doing. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? [none] Very good, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or against? PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 MS. DEMING: Both of the memos apply to both the Bilinski and the Jason Fane appeal, so do I just need to say that I would like to have those both. . . CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: I think we will take that into consideration and let it go at that. Thanks. Now there is no one else in favor and no one else against so perhaps we can go on to a motion and perhaps bring this to a conclusion? PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 1/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1814 FOR 101-107 EAST STATE STREET AND 103-111 SOUTH CAYUGA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Jason Fane to permit the conversion of the fifth floor of the Commons West building at 101-107 East State Street from offices to 20 apartments and the conversion of the second, third, fourth and fifth floors of the Ivy Building at 103-111 South Cayuga Street from offices to four apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1814. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposal will not change the configuration of the building or exacerbate the rear yard deficiency. 2 . The proposal will not change the character of the core business district downtown. 3 . The proposal will create housing downtown. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO GRANTED NOTE: 6th member of the Board not appointed as of the 1/4/88 Board meeting. PAGE 43 ITlIq�, yam: --.r•�---'?'0 R. CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE 272-1713 CODE 607 December 18, 1987 INSERT IN LEGAL NOTICES: Thursday, December 24, 1987 and Thursday, December 31, 1987 . CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 30. 58 , Paragraph C of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ithaca, that a public hearing will be held Monday, January 4, 1988 at 7 : 00 P.M. in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, New York to consider the following appeals: APPEAL NO. 1807 102 HOMESTEAD ROAD Appeal of Joseph and Mary Petrillose for a Special Permit for an Accessory Apartment for 102 Homestead Road under Section 30. 27 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in an R-1a (Residential, single-family dwellings) Use District in which a second dwelling unit is permitted only under a Special Permit issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals. According to Building Department records, a second unit had historically existed in this structure as a legal , nonconforming use; however the previous owner discontinued the use for more than twelve consecutive months, terminating that use under the requirements of Section 30. 50 of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal was held over from the November 30, 1987 meeting of the Board of Zoning appeals at the request of the Board of Planning and Development. APPEAL NO. 1811 226 CLEVELAND AVENUE Appeal of William and Barbara Pardee for an area variance for deficient lot width, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and both side yards under Section 30. 25, Columns 7 , 11, 12 , and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of one of the two apartments in the two-family house at 226 Cleveland Avenue from a two-bedroom apartment to a three-bedroom apartment. The property is located in an R-2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. An Equal Orrortumty Ernrlo)-—than Allrrma!rve Action Prograrn" . f Insert in Legal Notices: 12/24/87 & 12/31/87 Page 2 APPEAL NO. 1812 211 NORTH GENEVA STREET Appeal of Helen D. Macali for an area variance for deficient lot area, and a deficient setback for one side yard under Section 30.25, Columns 6 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the single-family house at 211 North Geneva Street to an office plus two apartments. The property is located in a B-la (Business) Use District in which the proposed uses are permitted; however, the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. APPEAL NO. 1813 109-111 NORTH CAYUGA STREET Appeal of James Bilinski/Ithaca Times for an area variance for deficient rear yard setback under Section 30. 25, Column 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the building at 109-111 North Cayuga Street from its former use as a restaurant and a retail store to an office plus eight apartments. The property is located in a B-3 (Business) Use District in which the proposed uses are permitted; however, the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the deficient rear yard before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. APPEAL NO. 1814 101-107 EAST STATE STREET AND 103-111 SOUTH CAYUGA STREET Appeal of Jason Fane for an area variance for deficient rear yard setback under Section 30. 25, Column 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the sixth floor of the Commons West Building at 101-107 East State Street from offices to 20 apartments, and conversion of the second, third, fourth and fifth floors of the Ivy Building at 103-111 South Cayuga Street from offices to four apartments. The property is located in a B-3 (Business) Use District in which the proposed use for apartments is permitted; however, the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the deficient rear yard before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. 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 1807, 1811, 1812, 1813 and 1814 on January 4 , 1988 , in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara C. Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this day of ct,2 L -� , 1988 `Notary Public •.7TARY rVE'.'C. OF S'W 1YORA QU.^-•.1 IF ..1,NS COUN ;j ACR1L 9U.13..