Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1988-03-07 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 7, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 1815 Jagat Sharma for Bill Avramis 3 205-217 Linden Avenue APPEAL NO. 1815 Deliberations 39 APPEAL NO. 1815 Decision 49 APPEAL NO. 1820 Donald Lucenti (Held over) 1001 Giles St. APPEAL NO. 1821 David & Barbara Davison 51 412 Linn Street APPEAL NO. 1821 Decision 53 APPEAL NO. 1822 M. Travis & Jason Fane (No one showed) 405-407 College Avenue APPEAL NO. 1823 Joyce Sirlin-Rand 54 217 Bryant Avenue APPEAL NO. 1823 Decision 57 APPEAL NO. 1824 Kinga M. _-Gergely 58 326 North Geneva Street APPEAL NO. 1824 Decision. 67 APPEAL NO. 1825 John Bodine (Dick Wilsen Real Estate) 68 119 West Green Street APPEAL NO. 1825 Decision 81 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 82 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 7, 1988 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the March 7, 1988 City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight are: JACK PECK JOHN OAKLEY HERMAN SIEVERDING STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THOMAS D. HOARD, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, ZONING OFFICER AND BUILDING COMMISSIONER BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we are going to 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 two hundred feet of that PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 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 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 the matters or 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 the deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or special permit. In the rare cases where there is a tie vote the variance or special permit is automatically denied. Are there any questions about our procedure from members of the audience? [none] Then may we proceed to our first case? PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal Mr. Chairman, is Appeal Number 1815 for 205-217 Linden Avenue: Appeal of Bill Avramis for an area variance for a deficient rear yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the completion of a parking structure for 44 automobiles at 205-217 Linden Avenue. The project, which is 50% complete, was to supply parking for two new multiple dwellings to be built on the site. One of the multiple dwellings is complete; construction of the second multiple dwelling was stopped by a construction moratorium, and is now the subject of litigation. The appellant wishes to complete the parking structure, but the rear yard setback requirements have changed since the lower portion of the structure was constructed creating a nonconformity for the property. A building permit cannot be issued for completion of this structure because that would constitute the enlargement of a nonconforming structure. The property is located in an R-3b (Residential, multiple dwellings) Use District in which a parking garage for residential parking is a permitted use; however, the appellant must obtain an area variance for the deficient rear yard before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the project. This appeal was held over from the February 8, 1988 meeting at the request of the appellant. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you work and you might take into consideration PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 in your opening comments, if you would, we have a couple of new Board members so you are going to have to refresh and go through, in essence, some of the history. . . MR. SHARMA: Yes, I intend to do that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thanks. MR. SHARMA: My name is Jagat Sharma, Architect with offices at 312 East Seneca Street, I 'm here on behalf of Mr. Avramis, owner of the property on Linden Avenue and before us is Appeal 1815 to complete the partially completed parking structure at Linden Avenue. To bring the Board up to date on the history of this - the owner bought the property in 1983 and while he was obtaining the property, we wrote to the Building Department - the Building Commissioner - asking whether our proposed use would be in accordance or in compliance with the zoning at that particular time. We wrote the letter on March 7, 1983 and received a reply that (unintelligible) was in compliance with the Ordinance in 1983. There was a building at 205, 207, 217 and a parking garage in the middle - our proposal at that point was to construct an apartment building with the parking garage under Phase I and then under Phase II or Phase III build two more buildings on the site by tearing down the existing buildings. We started - after getting the letter from the Building Department that this proposal would meet the requirements of the zoning and we had to get a permit, we went ahead and did the drawings and this proposal had the four levels of apartments with one level of parking under each building. We went out for bid in September 1984 - the bids were too high because the cost of placing the parking under the building made the cost of the PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 building way out of reach. We did not apply for the building permit - we revised our scheme and (unintelligible) final site plan where we have two separate apartment buildings, five stories each - four stories plus a basement - and a separate parking structure with four levels of parking - really two levels but the way the hill works, we had four levels by the time you go around. (unintelligible) twenty-four spaces for this building - building number one and building number two. We applied - we did not know at that time that we should apply for the whole apartment - we applied for the permit for building number one and started construction - the permit was granted in December 1984 - started construction and completed the building in August 1985. While this was going on we applied for a permit, under a separate application for the parking structure because that has to be ready by the time this building is ready. We completed two levels - the permit was granted May 8, 1985 - date from my files. We completed the two levels of the parking and for various reasons, one of them the cost of financing, interest rates, and of course the tragedy in the family - most people know, the Avramis's children were hurt in a serious car accident - the project was never completed. Anyhow it provided the parking and this building was occupied. We also applied and updated the apartment for building number three apartment building which permit was granted in July 29, 1985. For the same reasons, we could not start the building and complete that and then the moratorium was in effect from September 4, 1985 to March 5, 1987 and sometime during the moratorium - I don't have the date in front of me - we wanted to start building number three and PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 we were told that the moratorium was in effect and the permit cannot be renewed. (unintelligible) case of building number three in litigation but at this point we want to complete the parking structure which already has two levels complete and we want to go ahead and complete the remaining two levels. That is the history of this project - we applied for the variance - we were held over by the Planning Board one month - they indicated that they did not have sufficient information and time to think about it. Subsequently we sent more drawings and photographs to each Planning Board member and also gave a copy of the pictures and information to Mr. Hoard and I submit the drawings I have and the photographs that I have - same as I have given to the Planning Board and I have more copies of these pictures if you will pass them along. As you can see from the pictures we have completed two levels - they were a very expensive two levels - we had some rock excavation to be done. We placed all the concrete footings and the steel for the future two levels and a lot of cost has gone in as the Planning Board complete for our structure and at this point the structure is lying vacant uncompleted and we have really problems that if we don't complete it right now we will have some more corrective work to do on the foundation and the anchor buildings that you can see in one of the pictures. Continuing on the project, Mr. DiPasquale suggesting that we go ahead and complete this as soon as possible, otherwise we will have a problem - we also have a temporary (unintelligible) placed on the top of the footings where the steel columns will finally come and that also is not the best way to do structure. We had - last month we had requested another loan to PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 (unintelligible) this appeal for one month and the question that came up at the Planning Board - why we want to do this building at this point - the reasons are that we have waited quite some time - the structure is demanding that we complete it now - money is available - interest rates are low - and, depending on the outcome of the appeal on building number three, we want to schedule it that this building is completed - if it is started sometime this month it will be completed by August - the middle of August it will be done so if anything happens on the appeal, the next building - with proper scheduling and financing for the owner - the outcome is not known, as you know, but we do want to complete this - at present the owner is renting some spaces from here and there, I don't know the exact number, and he has had to go out of the country and he is not available - but, depending upon how the rent arrangements are made and how many people are there, at this point he has to go out and rent spaces for other buildings that he owns. So, the appeal that we have - during the moratorium, the Zoning Ordinance was revised, new regulations were put on property located in the transition zone between R-1 and R-3 and as a result we have different requirements for height, (unintelligible) and front, side and rear yard. When we got the permit we were under the old rules so we did not need a variance, we have gone through and checked it out and the only deficiency we have now at this point to complete the parking structure is the rear yard. Under the new ordinance we are required to have 29.258 - we have 19.58. We believe that due to the fact that we already have retaining walls and foundations in place and it is a physical and practical hardship to comply with PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 this Ordinance at this point and request that the variance be granted so that we can go ahead and complete it. Some other points that came up at the Planning Board meeting was that the building should be more compatible with the building that is already in place and we have no problem with complying with that request because the pre-cast panels have the same materials as will go into the facade in the tier on the building and we can match it. The other requirements that was - conditions that were put forward or recommendations made by the Board - required that some type of landscaping be done in the front and rear yard - we have no problem with it. One of the neighbors in the back was concerned about screening from her property and I talked with Mr. Avramis and he said that if she would let us do some landscaping on her property, which (unintelligible) in Collegetown to work on somebody else's property, he would be willing to do that or work out some kind of agreement with her. There was concern about this parking structure being more than four levels and it cannot be - it physically cannot be expanded - there is just no room to go and turn around. But you can condition it no more than four levels be there and we will accept it. Then there is concern about can this parking ramp be used only (unintelligible) parking house existing on Mr. Avramis's properties. At this point without the Board's deliberation, I don't know which way the Board will be inclined -if you decide that we have some problems with it (unintelligible) the outcome of building number three (unintelligible) Mr. Avramis is always expanding (unintelligible) portfolio and doing other things and the law right now is that you can use parking within one thousand feet PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 for whatever project you want to do and the same should apply to Mr. Avramis - he is willing to accept the condition if the Board decides to do that - that he does not rent the parking spaces to other people. I think there was concern raised at the Planning Board meeting that some other people may rent from Mr. Avramis on Linden Avenue and build one or two bedroom additions. That condition Mr. Avramis will accept but the blanket condition on (unintelligible) that he can only use the building only in a certain manner - we have a problem with that. At the same time we do want the variance to be granted so we can go ahead and complete it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SHARMA: Can I make one more point? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. MR. SHARMA: There was also a point number 3 concern about how high and what is the effect of this rear yard deficiency is - this is a drawing taken from Delaware Avenue to Linden Avenue. This is approximately (unintelligible) depending on (unintelligible) we just have to eyeball it but we do have a wall that is three or four feet high and then the site slopes and there is a garage here and you can see that the height of the garage at this point will be only ten feet from this level and you probably could almost look over this thing so the effect is very minimal whether the building is at that point or, you know, a few feet higher. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let me start with just a question of my own - you were talking about the woman that abuts that owns the garage - is that not Ann Snipper that owns that property? PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 MR. SHARMA: Yes, I think that is the house. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And the landscaping that you were referring to that would be on the rear of her property to either side of the garage? I 'm just wondering. . . MR. SHARMA: We don't have any land available for landscaping. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right so it would be on her property. . . MR. SHARMA: The abutment would be on neighborhood property and with her consent. MR. SIEVERDING: This is something that you've worked out with her already? MR. SHARMA: No we have not because there didn't seem to be any point. If you give us a variance today, we'll work it out but whatever it will take - you know - some evergreen trees, shrubs and things, would be a small thing to do. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions? MR. OAKLEY: I 'd like a clarification - on the restrictions on renting the parking so that other people - I got the impression you were saying you could work out something so that the parking would not go with the new apartments, is that what you were saying? MR. SHARMA: What I was saying is that if somebody else - a different owner - wants to rent from Mr. Avramis, so that he complies with his apartments on the parking - that is a condition that Mr. Avramis would accept - that he would not rent to other property owners, that they could come before this Board and they have parking. . . MR. SIEVERDING: But he wants to be able to use it himself for other property that (unintelligible) PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 MR. SHARMA: Use it himself . . . whatever happens, now or in the future. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. SIEVERDING: A clarification, I guess, relative to the transition rules on the height. I guess the rule reads if there are three stories, it can be thirty-five feet would be the maximum height that would apply in this case, since it abuts the R-1? SECRETARY HOARD: Well it's a stepping down. . . MR. SHARMA: (unintelligible) two stories. . . is the way I look at it. MR. SIEVERDING: And then the height? MR. SHARMA: Height. Where do you want to take the height from? MR. SIEVERDING: From Linden Avenue, that's the property address - isn't that the way that works? MR. SHARMA: The Linden Avenue elevation is 338 and the topmost height is 316, it would be forty-two feet - below the maximum height. MR. SIEVERDING: Forty-two feet, so it's below the maximum height. MR. SCHWAB: How many spaces are there currently - it's going to go to forty-four, that's what you are proposing? MR. SHARMA: Yes. MR. SCHWAB: How many are there currently? MR. SHARMA: Twenty. MR. SCHWAB: Twenty. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We were looking for those amendments - the last set. PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 MR. SIEVERDING: Jagat says that the elevation at Linden Avenue is (unintelligible) which would be well below the level of the apartment window anyway. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: And I raise the question only because it seemed to be a key point in the letter of opposition that we received. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Make sure that whenever that comes up that Barbara has something on the record aside from mumbles. MR. SIEVERDING: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: I will have a question but I don't know whether it's of the appellant or Webster or who. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let's try it. MR. WEAVER: It's in the letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals from the Board of Planning and Development. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We'll hear from them directly Charles. . . MR. WEAVER: Item 4, we will? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We will hear directly from the mouth of the Board. MR. WEAVER: That would be great because 4 has me stymied. I can't understand it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand. I can't say the mouthpiece exactly. . . they will send their representative forth. . I guarantee. Any further questions from members of the Board? Jack are you with us? MR. PECK: Yes, I 'm with you - my understanding now is that the second building, the second apartment building is part of the PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 moratorium - that was the one that was built on this property according to the original plan - that has been stopped as a result of the moratorium, what I 'm wondering is, this parking structure was originally supposed to service both buildings? MR. SHARMA: Correct. MR. PECK: And making it to forty-four spaces will do that essentially? Is that correct? CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: One assumes, right? MR. SHARMA: Correct. MR. PECK: So that will service both buildings in the future. MR. SHARMA: Correct. We are short by two (unintelligible) now so this building (unintelligible) MR. PECK: I notice you have a twenty unit apartment with fifty-nine beds is complete - that is the one that is complete. Yes, well that's what it says on the sheet. MR. WEAVER: Tom, or either of you, I don't care, the current law suit, I need to be refreshed on exactly what the contention there is - what permit was refused - a permit for the garage or a permit for the garage and the other apartment house? SECRETARY HOARD: It was a permit for the second building - the second apartment building was caught in the moratorium. MR. SHARMA: We had a permit, we did not start and the permit ran out - at that point the permit was given for one year, which I believe should have been two years - I 'm not editorially speaking for the litigation but I 'm giving to you an architect's views - when the owner was ready to complete the building, we went to the Building Department to renew the permit and was told that it could PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 not be renewed because of the moratorium which surprised us because we had always thought this to be one project, two buildings and the parking - we had designed the parking structure and building number three (unintelligible) retaining walls and (unintelligible) excavation and foundation and the way I look at it, just be doing the foundation work we had started to do number three but the Building Department didn't agree with it so I gave it to the owner to get it sorted out. MR. SIEVERDING: And I think the decision that we made when we heard that appeal was, I think, revolved largely around the issue of whether in the twelve months that permit was issued there had been made substantial progress - any type of progress on the building and apparently. . . MR. WEAVER: We can't settle that suit tonight, either. MR. SIEVERDING: Right. MR. SHARMA: That is not part of this appeal. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: That's right, we understand. MR. WEAVER: Yes, but the implication. . . MR. SCHWAB: What we can ask (unintelligible) and that building is built as Jagat proposed, what are the parking requirements for it? MR. SHARMA: This parking structure when built to four levels will give enough parking for the two buildings, that is the way it was designed. MR. SCHWAB: Okay and just about for those two buildings? MR. SHARMA: Yes. MR. SCHWAB: Not much extra? MR. SHARMA: No extra, no. PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 MR. SCHWAB: If you lose - and presumably that means that you now have to comply with the current Zoning requirements for that transition block, what would the parking requirements be for that building then? MR. SHARMA: We don't know, we would have to design some new building under the new laws. We have not done that work. It would be a smaller building - only three floors and thirty feet high and (unintelligible) less - if that were the way we go, we'll have to supply less parking and everybody (unintelligible) if I am spending the money I should have the right to use my property the way I see fit, the same rules that apply to everybody else. MR. SIEVERDING: Why isn't the owner waiting until the litigation is solved, since most of these spaces seem to be for the new building? Obviously divided between the two but he apparently doesn't need the additional spaces right now because there is sufficient parking spaces on-site. MR. SHARMA: He rents spaces from other people, I don't know the exact number but he is short by two for (unintelligible) the building. . . MR. SIEVERDING: For the existing building? MR. SHARMA: Yes. And the other reasons I said, the climate is good, interest rates are low, money is available, (unintelligible) calling every day, a lot of money, and he wants to get it done. (unintelligible) earlier, we have other work in front of us and I don't know how - at what time the appeal at the Court will be decided. (unintelligible) PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Oh, you want to come forward Joe at this point? Okay. Again begin by identifying yourself, who you are and how you are related. MR. DALEY: My name is Joe Daley and tonight I am here representing the Planning Board. First, I 'd like to thank this Board for allowing us to speak, I think it's the first step in what could be a good communication process between the two Boards, one which I think is needed. On this particular appeal we dealt with - or we looked at it because it was an abutting property to an R-1 zone and that was the rationale behind the Planning Board looking at this appeal. We did recommend that your Board grant the variance with five conditions that the Planning Board put on it and the reason why we voted with those conditions were for two reasons. One is the most affected property owner - which is the woman directly behind the project - was at our meeting and was agreeable to the conditions that we put on the applicant for screening. She was willing to work with the owner to come up with a scheme which would give her the maximum screening without blocking her view forever and we felt that that was a good compromise, that if she was willing to accept, we, as the Planning Board, were also willing to accept. The second reason why we passed it with these conditions is that we asked for some serious things to be done on the part of the owner. The fact that we did ask that it not be used for any other new proposed building - the fact that we wanted to have the building blend in as much as possible to the other existing PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 buildings that are in the area and if - you mentioned the lawsuit - or it has been mentioned - if the applicant wins the lawsuit he will be able to build as of right this structure with no conditions, no input from the City at all so we felt as a Planning Board, that it was in the interests of the City view of this that he be given the variance to proceed now at a time when the City had some control in exacting conditions from the owner, rather than await the results of the lawsuit, which, if the applicant wins, the City would have no ability to exact any conditions at all, and so for those two reasons, the Board voted in favor of recommending the variance to this Board. I am willing to answer any questions as to how we arrived at those conditions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions? MR. OAKLEY: I guess the question that all of us have, which is condition number 4 - it is the one about limitation of the rental parking spaces. It seems that there is a significant disagreement between you and Mr. Avramis's architect, Mr. Sharma, and just to expand on the question - I would like you to expand on your conditions because I don't quite see how you can limit rentals to existing units - doesn't that just free up spaces elsewhere for new units in other locations? How does that limitation really work to achieve the end which I assume you desire which would in some way restrict the total density in that area? MR. DALEY: Well, first of all, when Mr. Sharma left the meeting with us we were under the understanding that it was an agreeable - Mr. Avramis was not there and I 'm guessing that what happened is, when told of this condition, he was less sanguine about it than Mr. PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 Sharma was at the meeting that we had. Our feeling was that Mr. Avramis has deficiencies already in existing units - the only way that this parking garage would have excess spaces is if he does, in fact, lose his lawsuit - otherwise the parking garage would only fulfill the requirements for the buildings that he intends to build. And that the excess parking should then be used to alleviate existing deficiencies in his buildings rather than be used as a springboard towards another potential development at some future site at some future date and that was the rationale. MR. OAKLEY: So you are proposing something to the effect of that all of the parking spaces - all of the excess parking spaces after development is completed on this site - should be devoted to resolving existing deficiencies in the Avramis buildings before they are used to satisfy the parking requirements for any other apartments. MR. DALEY: I think the Board went as far as to say that it would not allow them to be used for new projects. MR. WEAVER: It says "or conversions". MR. DALEY: Right, what we were thinking of is that one way around this might be a substantial conversion with increased units and density on an already existing building which would be against the spirit of what we had in mind - that it was not to be used to allow for increased density. If the lawsuit fails, the reason for the lawsuit in the first place is that the City has decided that it doesn't want the density to be as great as it could have been under the old zoning and so the feeling of the Planning Board was that PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 the spirit of that should be kept and not allowed to be moved four doors down in order to sort of circumvent the spirit of new zoning. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Joe, if I could interrupt here because in my opinion, or just in whatever member of the case and what has come forward with the lawsuit, is that it really doesn't involve much, if at all, parking garage - I 'd like Tom to elaborate from his point of view - unless you've seen the lawsuit - I haven't seen the lawsuit. . . MR. DALEY: No, I haven't seen it. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'd like Tom to comment about what that lawsuit contains, because I 'd like to separate the issues slightly, if I could. SECRETARY HOARD: My recollection is that the lawsuit dealt only with the matter of the second apartment building and, in fact, I 've been trying to figure out what the scenarios would be if the parking ramp were turned down and Avramis won the court case on the apartment house, or vise versa, get into a lot of peculiar situations . . . MR. DALEY: Have you seen the lawsuit - because my understanding at the Planning Board, was that it involved both, because wasn't the original permit to do both? SECRETARY HOARD: No, the permit that was denied. . . . MR. DALEY: No, the first one that was granted. . . SECRETARY HOARD: It was in phases and the actual parking ramp started with the first phase, it had to be built with the first building - then the phase came in with the second building and that's the one that - you see the parking garage had been started PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 and it was under way when the moratorium took effect and the moratorium only applied to dwelling units, not parking structures, so the moratorium did not affect the parking structure. It did affect the second building. MR. DALEY: It could be that the Planning Board was operating under a misconception then because we were under the impression that the lawsuit involved both the parking structure and the second building. To win the lawsuit would be to allow them to do both structures. Now, if that's not the case then we are dealing with something else. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John, did you have a question? MR. OAKLEY: I had the impression that Mr. Sharma suggested that part of the claim that the second building had been started was that the foundations for the parking garage had been started. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, that's part of - yes, your impression was correct, he did say that. MR. DALEY: That's why we thought that the parking garage was involved in the lawsuit. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A second or two - we'll come back to that question. Are there any other questions of. . . MR. WEAVER: Yes, I do. Was there any discussion on the Board over the City's position - I don't know whether the City has moral positions - but there is a lawsuit now to find out whether the City had a right to refuse this person the use of his land and to develop it as he proposed. This would be an indirect way to deny him that use by a second means. . . MR. DALEY: Which would be an indirect means? PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 MR. WEAVER: The conditions. MR. DALEY: You mean, you are specifically speaking to the one about the - using the parking spaces. . . MR. WEAVER: About what these parking spaces would be for and that we say, sure - you may sometime be right - we were wrong in denying you and when he finally gets that right out of the courts, ah, we will have him - he can't use his parking garage that was designed to make this a conforming development. . . MR. DALEY: It may be the way it is written - but it is not intended to not allow those spaces to be used for the proposed building next door, is that what you are getting at? MR. WEAVER: Well, I 'm reading four and I don't see how you could possibly develop phase two if you will, and use those spaces. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I think you have two contradicting clauses. . . MR. DALEY: The requirement for the dwelling units currently existing or to be built on the subject premises - the subject premises was the other unit. MR. OAKLEY: You might solve it dramatically by putting a comma after - or a semi colon in place of the comma on your subject premises to sort of make it clear what. . . . MR. SIEVERDING: Because the confusion is over the very last part of number 4 - but not to serve any units later created by conversion or new construction. . . MR. DALEY: Right. That was not intended to include the proposed building next door - never intended to include that. That was supposed to be as part of the requirements of the dwelling units currently existing or to be built on the subject premises. It was PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 only for those and not for some at some future unknown date or place. MR. WEAVER: If we accepted this recommendation and his suit were to fail, then you would have a new structure that exceeded your requirement. . . MR. DALEY: That's right. And what we would like. . . MR. WEAVER: And that cannot be rented out. . . MR. DALEY: Can only be used to satisfy existing deficiencies in Avramis properties, which both tonight and previously, Mr. Sharma has alluded - or mentioned - that he currently has deficiencies in which he is renting spaces from others in order to satisfy current building certificates in other properties that he owns and we wanted it to be used to satisfy those deficiencies rather than to satisfy a future unknown building that he might want to construct. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John? MR. OAKLEY: Two questions, which are both related to this. One is, are any of the deficiencies - deficiencies as far as the Zoning Board is concerned - that is to say that there actually are apartments that don't have parking spaces associated with them, either rented or owned - or are all of those deficiencies, deficiencies simply in the sense that he has to rent parking spaces from somewhere to fill them. MR. DALEY: I can't speak to that knowledgably other than to say that the Board's understanding of what he meant by deficiencies were deficiencies that were acquired by the certificate of compliance in order to be in compliance. That they weren't just PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 excess parking spaces that he wanted - as a nice guy - to give to. . . MR. OAKLEY: But he had satisfied those deficiencies in one way or another? MR. DALEY: By renting spaces from other owners. MR. OAKLEY: And we don't have any idea what the quantity of those deficiencies are? MR. DALEY: No. MR. WEAVER: Do you have a list of the properties involved? MR. DALEY: No, it was never mentioned as to number or where. MR. OAKLEY: It did seem to me that if we accept what Mr. Avramis already has - parking spaces - that conform to the Zoning Ordinance, even though he doesn't own four of those deficient parking spaces - then all that we accomplish by this regulation, it seems to me, is to say that essentially Mr. Avramis can move his people from their parking space into his parking lot but that then other people can build and fill up those parking spaces, so we don't really affect density very much. MR. DALEY: It's possible that that might be the end result. . . MR. OAKLEY: And so if the Zoning Board is simply good about not allowing people to fill places without sufficient parking, then we essentially have the same affect on density without imposing any complicated way to enforce restrictions, right? And we just don't make the density regulation particularly specific (unintellgible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Joe, do you want to respond? MR. DALEY: No I think that John does have a point. There are certain differences between the two sites, one is - this is a PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 concentrated group - it is going to be used in a way that it may not be possible to use what is probably a diffuse number of parking spaces that may be scattered throughout the neighborhood and so I don't think of it necessarily as a quid pro quo that by moving these spaces out into the neighborhood they could not accomplish some decrease in density. A person somewhere on that block even, may not be able to build by having to round up all the spaces that are let go by Mr. Avramis, merely because they may not all be within the thousand feet - even if he was able to get every one of them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: My impression in reading this condition was that all it is really going to do is make people walk in different directions to get to their cars. What's going to happen is Mr. Avramis is going to assign all of these spaces to existing properties - then he is going to free up spaces elsewhere, which, under the new ordinance - or it's a little over a year old now - he would be able to use for new construction elsewhere - so I don't see that you are stopping him from building something new somewhere. He can just juggle things around and drive us nuts by telling us that these are assigned to this property and these are assigned to this property - he'll have his tenants walking all over the place to get to their cars and I don't think it really solves anything. MR. DALEY: I agree with you - it is essentially the same argument that John has. There is one other thing though, which on Wednesday - as you are probably aware - the front yard parking ordinance that PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 is about to go into effect - I have no idea how that might end up affecting current available parking, either. So that is just one other. . . MR. WEAVER: If it doesn't influence the parking on the sidewalks, I 'm not interested. MR. DALEY: We'll see it does. I can't defend that condition any more than I have, I think that this Board has a legitimate point that it may just be a shell game but the reason for the condition are pretty much as I have stated and you can weigh that in your decision. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions? MR. DALEY: Thank you for. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you for coming. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? John, do you want clarification from Sharma? Or do you want to pass on that and continue? MR. OAKLEY: Well I think we are all dealing pretty hypothetically about what the lawsuit is. My inclination is to say that if we don't know what the lawsuit is we should try to arrive at a decision which stands - whatever the lawsuit is so maybe the clarification is unnecessary. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. Thanks. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak then in opposition? Come forward if you would. Again, welcome. If you would begin by identifying yourself, where you live or work. MR. GOLDER: Hello. My name is Neil Golder. I 'm an interested party living at 203 College Avenue. Let me know if you can't hear PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 me, I 'm having a little throat problem. I also represent the three other owners of 203 College Avenue, David Gallahan, Marty Blodgett and Kathy Yoselson and I have lived at 203 College Avenue for sixteen years. I think I 'm speaking as a person who is part of the - expressing what a lot of people in the neighborhood feel when I 'm speaking. I want to do a couple of things - I wanted to suggest - from listening to what was happening that if the Planning Board was operating under a misconception about the lawsuit and made their recommendation under this misconception, I don't know if it is possible for this to go back to the Planning Board - I don't know what this Board would do with that. The other thing is that it also sounds to me like granting this variance is going to allow the twenty extra spaces, which will then enable the apartment building which is in question, which is the source of litigation - to be built and if the City really believes, and I assume that it does believe, that it did not grant the variance for the apartment building and was justified in not granting it. It is my understanding that not granting the increase in size of the parking garage would mean that that apartment building could not be built and I think that would express the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Before I make any more comments I would like to read parts of a letter that was written by Kathy Yoselson, also at 203 College Avenue? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine, go ahead. MR. GOLDER: She writes: "Dear Board Members: I am writing to express my opposition to granting a variance for the parking garage on Linden Avenue (Appeal #1815) . I was not able to attend the PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 Board of Planning & Development meeting and cannot attend tonight. As a resident and homemowner at 203 College Avenue, I am extremely troubled by the potential impact of granting this appeal. The changes in the Zoning Ordinance now affecting this property occurred as a result of strong disapproval over the construction of the Avramis apartment building on Linden Avenue and the hope of blocking future development out of scale with the character of Linden Ave. [I would like to make a couple of editorial comments - just as a person in the neighborhood - a lot of people in the neighborhood were appalled by the construction of that apartment building and that garage, they were totally out of character with the neighborhood and Linden Avenue is a very narrow street - it increased traffic on Linden Avenue tremendously] The logic of the change in the Ordinance was that there should not be dramatic jumps between zoning levels of neighboring zoning categories. In a larger context, the Moratorium required the creation of an overall strategy for limiting and controlling development. It's questionable whether this goal has been achieved in general. In this particular case, of course, the change in zoning regulations was a compromise. Now we have a case where a developer wants to begin whittling away at that compromise. There is no sense to the argument in the appeal that buffering of Rlb is achieved by the design of the building and therefore we can ignore the zoning regulations. The zoning regulations should be adhered to as the minimum protection for the neighborhood, and any further design features that will increase that protection should be encouraged. Current regulations are not 'unreasonable or impossible to comply PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 with' (Zoning Ordiance 30.58) for the purposes to which this developer wishes to put this land. The Ithaca Times reported that five restrictions were attached to a recommendation for granting a variance. [which we talked about tonight] Are these spelled out in enough detail to be effective, and is there any enforcement mechanism for them? I understand that some of the impetus for granting a variance for this parking garage is a lawsuit against the City over the restrictions placed on the proposed second apartment building on Linden. Apparently this suit is having a chilling effect. Are the City's prospects of winning the suit so risky that we need to base our current policy on a presumed loss? That would be a sad state of affairs. Finally, there is an overarching [sic] question that has not been addressed. Namely, why are parking garages and ramps considered appropriate structures in residential areas? From Section 30. 37B of the Zoning Ordinance, it appears that in residential areas it is assumed that the regulations are not for ramps or garages, as zoning laws require landscaping or barriers 'a minimum of 4 feet, in order to protect adjacent areas from emissions, light, or glare from the parking area. ' Why are we even considering a garage? The assumptions of the Zoning Ordinance are in keeping with common sense, that ramps and garages are not appropriate structures in residential areas. The Zoning Ordinance needs explicit working to such effect. In a related issue, I understand that new regulations allow required parking for a structure to be offered within 1000 feet of the structure. If garages are allowed in residential areas, we'll obviously be faced with a situation [and I think we will see this PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 happening] in which developers are encouraged to tear down residences near the core of Collegetown and build more parking structures. This would definitely destroy the residential nature of these areas and therefore is counter to the spirit of the zoning regulations. For all these reasons, I urge the Boad of Zoning Appeals to deny this variance. /s/ Kathryn E. Yoselson" I would just like to add a couple more things, in speaking of the proposed height of the this garage, I understand that that proposed height - the maximum height is for the height of the building on a certain piece of property? Is that true? Or is it the height of a garage? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We were talking about the height of a garage. MR. SIEVERDING: Right. It is the same. . a garage is a structure. MR. GOLDER: Okay. I just wanted to bring out that a garage is a very different structure from a house - it looks very different in the neighborhood and it has a very different effect. I 'll just conclude by saying a parking garage would also increase the traffic along Linden Avenue, which is a very narrow street, even though it is called an Avenue, it is still a very narrow street and there aren't many children, but we have a few children living in our house. That's all. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? SECRETARY HOARD: I would respond to one item - in an R-3 zone a private garage for four or more cars is a permitted use. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you Tom. Does anybody want to take a crack at any of the rest of the points that were raised, just by virtue of clarification as best we can? PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 MR. SIEVERDING: I think the main thrust of the letter seems to be how these transition regulations affect this piece of property - it actually meets all of those transition requirements with the exception of the rear yard, which was an existing condition since the parking structure was started before the transition regulations were put into place. So, relative to whether or not it is unreasonable and impossible to comply with, it would seem to me that it is pretty difficult to take an existing structure and move it in order to comply with a regulation (unintelligible) after the structure was started. As far as the lot size and maximum building height, and the percent of lot coverage by the building, that is all of which are addressed in the transition regulations, the proposed parking structure meets those requirements and in terms of height, it is significantly less than what is allowed under the R-1b, which is thirty-one feet - this is a twenty-two feet high building so - you know, it seems that it sort of addresses those issues that the transition regulations were designed to. . . MR. GOLDER: But the transition regulations came about in response to the increased building in the area - both of a building - a large apartment building and a large parking garage and the point is that allowing this parking garage to increase in size is changing the character of the neighborhood, increasing the number of cars and implicitly - possibly somewhere down the line - allowing for this other apartment building - making it easier for this other apartment building to go up, that the Board did not grant the appeal. . . PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 7, 1988 MR. SIEVERDING: That is a large unknown in this case but I think it is pretty clear that the project does address - or meet the standards imposed by the new transition regulations. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But for one. MR. SIEVERDING: But for one, which is the rear yard, which is a pre-existing. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John? MR. OAKLEY: I can't think of any questions, it is not clear to me, reading the Zoning Ordinance that your argument - I just want to clarify this - is the Zoning regulation really designed to prevent development and I 'm unwilling to read it that way - and it seems to me that is one of the central points of your argument - it is not clear to me that parking is inherently incompatible with residents. If you want to respond to that you can. . . MR. GOLDER: Parking garages are - I realize that we need parking but . . . MR. WEAVER: I would just like to remind all of us that we are here to administer, if you will, the Zoning Ordinance, and we are not planners and I hope we don't become planners. We do look, sometimes, upon the efforts of others - including the legislature, to try to accomplish end goals - but we use the stick they give us, not what we think it ought to be. MR. GOLDER: In effect, you have a lot of affect on planning by whether or not you grant. . . MR. WEAVER: Yes, sometimes we cause them to get a new ordinance. The argument tonight is over the ordinance as it applies to this application. PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart, any thoughts? MR. SCHWAB: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Come forward please. Good evening, if you would begin by identifying yourself. ALDERMAN BOOTH: My name is Dick Booth, I live at 510 Mitchell Street and I 'm one of the two Alderpersons who represents the Third Ward in which this property is located. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: This is located in the Third Ward? Is that true Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: Beats me. I try to stay apolitical. MR. WEAVER: Where is the Ward boundary? ALDERMAN BOOTH: The Ward boundary is the center of Linden Avenue. You may take my word for it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Proceed. ALDERMAN BOOTH: This building had a negative impact when it was built. It was built very close to the rear property lines and while it conformed with the Zoning Ordinance, the impacts were negative - I have received a number of comments about that. Not only was the proximity to the property lines but the nature of this building - the size of this building meant that its impact on nearby properties was negative. I think enlarging this building will expand those negative impacts, I don't believe that a building of this nature in this location can be effectively screened, there may be some landscaping but I don't think it will change the essential nature of what is being proposed. It seems to me that you are being asked to allow the expansion of a building for which PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 there is no reason at this time to expand it. This property owner does not have any permission to proceed with another building he does not have any plans at the present time, as far as I know, before the City for proceeding with another building. And what this will do is simply allow the building to be enlarged and then some future set of decisions to determine how the building will be used. I would urge you not to get caught up in the story of this particular landowner. This is a sophisticated landowner. He received permits to build a building and parking for that building and went ahead and did so. Whatever the landowner's future plans may have been for this property, the fact remains that the landowner did not get the necessary permits and get started complying with the various City laws. This is a new project, it should be treated as a new project and shouldn't be treated in any other way. If, for some reason, including the law suit that is now pending, the landowner is permitted to build another building adjacent to the one that is built now on Linden Avenue, perhaps there is a different story that would have to be wrestled with at that time but the point is, I think, now there is no need for this building to be built and therefore, in my opinion, there is no hardship that has been shown - the landowner simply wants to expand something in order to bet on the future economic realities related to the area. I would urge you not to get caught up in the lawsuit - that sounds to me to be a very uncertain basis for making any set of decisions. This project does not comply with the City Zoning Ordinances - as I said, when it was built it had negative impacts, this project in particular led to amendments in the City Zoning PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 ordinance, generally referred to as the transition requirements for the residential zoning in this neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: You say no hardship has been shown but I am sure you realize that hardship doesn't have to be shown as a practical difficulty. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: This isn't a use variance. ALDERMAN BOOTH: I understand, practical difficulties. I don't see - the point that I was trying to make is, you don't have anything that this is connected with and therefore I don't see any reason to have it being built. . This guy doesn't have any proposed plans at this time for the use of this parking that I can see and. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Why is that an issue Dick? I mean the use to which a person wants to put a piece of property - in an instance where that use is an allowable use. . . ALDERMAN BOOTH: Well, I think all of this goes together and has to be assessed completely and I think the reality is that there is no parking that is now needed for which this property will serve. It will have negative impacts on the neighborhood - I think the building is way too close to that property line and it seems to me that all those things taken together would indicate no necessity to issue this permit. But it stands to right though, I shouldn't have used the term hardship. I forgot from my days when I used to be on this Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand, it happens. PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 MR. SCHWAB: The negative impact, because it is too close to the rear lot line, what about the neighbor who apparently is agreeable to the bushes? If the bushes put in is agreeable? ALDERMAN BOOTH: Well, that neighbor hasn't - I don't know that of my own information, I heard that tonight. The comments that I heard have been negative about this building. . . MR. SCHWAB: Including other neighbors there on the rear? ALDERMAN BOOTH: Neighbors along the rear of that - along and near the rear of that property. I don't know whether that particular neighbor is a consenter or not. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: Well I 'm a little troubled by your saying there is no need for it when the Common Council last year passed an Ordinance that would make this sort of thing possible - where a property owner could develop his property for parking and parking alone. ALDERMAN BOOTH: I understand that parking is a permissible use but it seems to me that all things have to be taken together and I think that what the landowner is really trying to say to you is, we started this thing before and you ought to let us finish it and I say, that's not the circumstance. This landowner understood the nature of what he was doing when this building was built and they didn't get the necessary permits and now they ought to abide by the requirements. . . . SECRETARY HOARD: But they did get the necessary permits. . . PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 ALDERMAN BOOTH: They got the permits, they didn't get sufficiently started. Isn't that correct? SECRETARY HOARD: They got sufficiently started, it's fifty percent built. . . ALDERMAN BOOTH: Did they get a permit to build this entire parking garage? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. ALDERMAN BOOTH: Then what stopped them at that time? SECRETARY HOARD: They stopped for whatever reason, I don't know. They had permission to build. . . ALDERMAN BOOTH: And you had ruled that they need another permit now to continue. . . SECRETARY HOARD: That's when you were on the Board, that's when that came up. Moratorium. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The moratorium came up when you were around. ALDERMAN BOOTH: I don't believe the Avramis thing came up when I was. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes it did. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes it did because you gave the same speech. ALDERMAN BOOTH: Herman were you on the Board then when he came in? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes Herman made the motion as a matter of fact, I remember that. ALDERMAN BOOTH: Well Herman and I didn't serve on the Board together. MR. SIEVERDING: I took his spot. When the issue came for the second building, I was on the Board, and Dick had graduated to the Common Council. PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 MR. SCHWAB: But Dick, your point is that - well a permit was issued for this entire parking garage, only two floors - the basement and two floors, more or less were built. It lapsed, they need a new one and the one one has to abide by the new requirements and this one doesn't. That's why we are here because it requires the variance. (unintelligible) point basically you don't see. . . ALDERMAN BOOTH: My basic point is that I think this thing has a negative impact on the neighborhood and I urge you to take that into account in making your decision. I don't think. . . MR. SCHWAB: And not the current need to the owner? ALDERMAN BOOTH: Yes, I don't see what it is connected to. And your questions are absolutely correct that perhaps this suggestion doesn't have to be (unintelligible) to anything but I think when you are considering the granting of a variance you need to take everything into account and I think the fact that this isn't connected with any particular use is one of those factors that needs to be taken into account. If at sometime there is a future building that is proposed and meets the City's Ordinances or this person wins their lawsuit, maybe that is a different set of circumstances but I think at the present time I don't see that circumstances that necessitate a conclusion that this building should be enlarged. MR. WEAVER: In trying to meet the needs for off-street parking in this crowded area, do you perceive any way that that might be done by private enterprise? ALDERMAN BOOTH: I think it might be and I think that that perhaps is desirable. I don't think that buildings of this kind which may PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 do comply with the Zoning Ordinance but I think impose some very serious negative impacts along Delaware Avenue - I don't think that's the way to do it - yes, I think private enterprise could provide parking. As Tom said before, it is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, I don't have any problem with that. But I think this building was a mistake in the first place and this is only going to enlarge the mistake. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you Dick. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Do members of the Board want to readdress any questions to Mr. Sharma again? [none] Fine. PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 DELIBERATIONS ON APPEAL 1815 FOR 205-217 LINDEN AVENUE CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to open up any discussion? MR. SCHWAB: I think (unintelligible) it strikes me as quite clear that this parking garage does have a negative impact on Delaware Avenue. The real question for us would be, I think, how much does the extra ten feet of closeness - does that increase the impact because that is essentially what we are being asked. Balancing things - real practical difficulty being to get further away - given where the (unintelligible) are. I think we've been quite close to that line - actually it does back on the other - I 'm not sure it is fully buffered by trees and bushes. I think that should be taken seriously by us. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John? MR. OAKLEY: I tend to agree with Stewart. I think particularly when the buffering has to be on the neighbor's property rather than on the original property that there is some problem there - I think that in terms of our normal practice of deciding what practical difficulties are for granting use variances that we normally do them but we normally don't have the negative impacts that we are talking about here. I 'm still really wrestling with the problem of exactly how much of a sort of practical difficulty is involved - how much this is an entirely new permit in some sense - in which he is constructing a parking garage and the fact that he has abutments that are in the wrong place for it is irrelevant and how much we are considering the fact that it is a continuation and the fact that he has abutments ten feet out of place to that continuation, do seem to be rather relevant. I honestly don't know - I have not PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 resolved that in my mind and if anybody cares to enlighten me I would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's a good point. MR. SCHWAB: I think on that score - I think we should treat it just the same as if this property owner had sold it to another and the other came in and asked us to expand the parking lot. I think he is coming in here asking for a new permit but now the new owner - in other words the new owner, knowing full well that he is too close, had the abutments - on the other hand it is the obvious place to build a parking lot. Up higher - the parking lot is, as Herman pointed out earlier, in all other respects meets the requirements but I don't think we think we should give him a break because of it is continuing. I don't think it is a continuing permit. I mean, if it were, he wouldn't be here. MR. WEAVER: In the list of giving people a break, which I guess any variance is an accommodation, it's not the strict application of the Ordinance, except as variances are a part of it. It would seem to me that the history is significant and the fact that, if we are starting from zero tonight, that here is a property with a foundation in place and anything else that would serve a garage there is in place, to tear it up and move it ten feet - which would reduce its capacity and would increase its cost substantially - that looks like a practical difficulty to me. I care not who owns it. The other thing that speaking of protecting the neighborhood, I 'm a little bit surprised to see opposition to private enterprise building off-street parking - where the City subsidizes very large parking garages, but generally it has been understood that private PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 enterprise can't afford that except in a very concentrated - a very dense development situation. So that that parking capacity will not all be to the detriment of the existing home dwellers or to the street. Certainly it won't cure things up there. I can see the one test of practical difficulty is very clearly involved in what structure is there - in what it and the building next to it were designed to do. MR. SCHWAB: That strikes me as obvious too, (unintelligible) set the course that we have to come to is, will it change the character of the neighborhood. What are your thoughts there Charlie? MR. WEAVER: Well I used to have a job working for the City and I can't say that I ever fell in love with the existing conditions on Linden Avenue and thought they ought to be protected. Quite the contrary, I thought a bulldozer would be the right way to start and looking at some of them now, in some way fantasize the perpetuation of that on Linden Avenue and including some of the frosh hells on College Avenue, suggest that there could be policy that would improve living conditions for whoever survives up in the general area of Collegetown. Of course, that's a revolutionary idea, I understand. . . I 'm delighted with a fire resistive, modern place to live in Collegetown, of all places. SECRETARY HOARD: Stu, when you are talking about changing the character of the neighborhood, are you talking about the two levels or the difference between the rear setback now and the rear setback (unintelligible) . . MR. SCHWAB: Well I guess I - you know, if we deny this, the parking lot stays at grade essentially, so. . . or he comes back PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 with a proposal that - no, actually any proposal will have to come back to us, right? Unless they tear it up. I mean, even if the top two levels come back the ten feet, that comes back to us, because the grade is too close. So I think in part we do compare a structure two stories up and the only other point I wanted to add before I perhaps ultimately sign (unintelligible) I should add, I 'm just trying to hash this out - is I think we have to look a little more to Delaware Avenue because that is the rear lot line, that is the one that is being invaded, or, not complying with the Zoning Ordinance and is, you know, said a little tongue-in-cheek, I essentially agree on Linden, that this will not affect Linden so much to its detriment, as well as the Zoning Ordinance seems to allow it for Linden, as far as those setbacks but maybe looking to Delaware, you know, do the bushes and whatnot - is that a good enough compromise? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any comments from this side? MR. SIEVERDING: I view it essentially, well based on the other (unintelligible) I think it is the transition regulations that we have to look at relative to the parking garage and the only deficiency is the rear yard and it gets back to your question of how sufficiently protected are the property owners on Delaware who back up to this thing and I guess the only question I have is how real is this agreement between the property owner immediately to the rear, apparently on whose property some of this landscaping buffer will take place. It seems to me that that is pretty real agreement and that seems to be a feasible condition to attach to the granting of the variance. PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John? MR. OAKLEY: I 'll pass for the moment. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack? MR. PECK: Well, I 'm glad I 'm not the only one who can't make up their mind right now, John. I 'm glad it's not in my back yard, I can tell you that and if it's part of the job of this Board to act as citizens in the community then I feel that way. On the other hand, my recollection from Sunday's drive around, was that to the north of it is business next to the upper level of the parking lot, is a business area, as I recall. And the real impact is on the properties behind it, not to the sides, but. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There is a house immediately to the north. MR. PECK: Is there a house? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. I didn't know that, it seemed to me there was a. . . VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: There is a house between there and the WVBR building. MR. PECK: There is a house, okay. MR. OAKLEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) continuing practical difficulty. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. PECK: On the other hand you have somebody that did get a variance at one time to build the garage that close to the line, right? SECRETARY HOARD: It was as of right. MR. SCHWAB: It met the Zoning Ordinance. MR. PECK: It met the Zoning Ordinance, that's right. Okay, so there was no problem. The building got erected to a certain point PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 and stopped - it seems to me that the opposition is really to the non-existing building, is what it seems to me, right now. The people that don't want the parking ramp completed are the ones that think that that would somehow suppress the second building. I would hate to be put in that position - to have to make that decision. I think that is a planning decision and not a BZA decision - I think our real job is to say, is this ten foot setback a problem or not and not for us to act as planners and suppress the existance of another building. I wish somebody else would say something. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we coming close to a motion? MR. PECK: I 'm not going to move. I guess I 'm moved to speak but I 'm not going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. MR. OAKLEY: I think we often do - I mean, the Zoning Ordinance requires us to make decisions which affect the planning of the community - that's the way the Zoning Ordinance is written and so if what we do is to forbid the building of another building, well and good, that seems to me. That's presumably what the Ordinance was made to do and if it wasn't made to do that, they can amend it. I am rather drawn to Stewart's argument - I 'm not sure that Stewart is drawn to it anymore - that we should consider the present permit as a permit submitted as if almost by a new owner and I am not particularly attracted by Charlie's argument that the mere existence of walls in the back constitute - the mere existence of existing structures in any way prevents or makes inconvenient the construction of additional structures. In other words, to require PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 little bit to the outside in a form that I think we generally don't permit ourselves, but sort of in the Planning Board mode of speaking, on the other hand what they could do as of right, strikes me as being potentially considerably less appealing than what they might do as a permit and I don't know how I 'm going to vote. Those are the points as I see them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MR. SCHWAB: What is your meaning of (unintelligible) as of right? They can't build on this any more, as of right. MR. OAKLEY: Can't they come in ten feet? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well let's, first off, deal with the question of lawsuit. We don't believe the lawsuit deals with this parcel whatsoever. They could come in within ten feet, without. . . MR. SCHWAB: Well they would have to rip up the existing, as I understand it. MR. OAKLEY: There is no reason to rip out the existing. . . MR. SCHWAB: The existing is deficient, it doesn't. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Theoretically one could build anything. MR. SCHWAB: Well let's put it, I think, to my mind it has some relevance - it is my understanding that this current parking lot - although when it was built or when the permit was applied for - met all Zoning Ordinances - it no longer does, so that any addition to it - except for ripping it out and pulling it back in ten feet - would require a variance from us, even if the stories above it do comply. MR. OAKLEY: That's true. PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 MR. SIEVERDING: You've got the existing structure which is already (unintelligible) . . . MR. SCHWAB: Now, what the owner. . . MR. OAKLEY: That's true, that's true. . I 've never known us to deny a variance on that ground. MR. SCHWAB: What the owner certainly could do is rip it all up, pull it ten feet back and build up the parking lot as far as he wanted to, so part of our decision is, he could do that but that has, as Charlie points out, enormous practical difficulties to it - a rather large waste. So, in part, we compare that - what he could do as of right - with what he is asking us to do, which is build the thing ten feet closer to the neighbors. Practical difficulty coming close - on the other hand, I am now switching a little bit from my earlier statement, saying it is sort of conditioned impact that we should consider, to put it the other way. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Now, John? No? MR. OAKLEY: I 'm not going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Herman, question? Comment? MR. SIEVERDING: No I think to continue with what your last comment and I think that ought to be the focus of our discussion - is whether or not this Planning Board recommendation that the variance be granted with the stipulation that some sort of a landscape buffer design be approved, actually by them, prior to the issuing of the building permit and I think that would give opportunity for the property owner who lives immediately behind the structure to go to that Planning Board meeting and sit down with Avramis and his architect and work out the design that is mutually compatible. Now PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 my suggestion would be that we deal with a resolution that would grant the variance with the first three Planning Board conditions attached to it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charles? MR. WEAVER: To try to look at the Planning Board's recommendations, page 2, paragraph 5, is in no way a condition suggested to us, so. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: He said one through three. . . MR. SIEVERDING: The first three, forget four and five. MR. WEAVER: Four and five don't seem to have anything to do with it and that the neighbor, according to the best information that we have, the neighbor most directly involved has agreed that she can handle the landscaping to her satisfaction - in other words, she can build the requirement - well, it just seems to me that that has been settled by the most immediate neighbor, if not by the whole neighborhood and that - so we are talking about [changed the tape here so missed some of the dialogue] that the panels be in the same mode as the finish of the existing structure. To say that not allowing this would protect Delaware Avenue just seems to me to be wishful thinking. MR. SIEVERDING: But I think what we are saying is approve it with these conditions. It was in fact - can I ask Joe the question? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Only if we bring him back up here, yes, and he identifies himself. MR. SIEVERDING: Well, lets do it because I would frankly like to provide for an opportunity for this design issue to get resolved between that neighboring property owner and the architect and I PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 think use the Planning Board to achieve that. Now it is my understanding that this person wasn't at the Planning Board meeting. MR. DALEY: My name is Joe Daley, I'm representing the Planning Board. The person most directly affected was at the Planning Board meeting and the agreement that was worked out was between the Planning Board, that affected property owner and Mr. Sharma, as representative of the applicant. It was an agreement - as an aside, there was no other proximate neighbor there that spoke against this particular appeal. There were general neighborhood concerns but none of the other property owners on Delaware Avenue came and asked for a denial. This one property owner did come and did not ask for denial but was agreeable with the compromise as stated in our recommendation. MR. SIEVERDING: And part of that compromise is that the whole design question go back to the Board for its approval, prior to the issuance of the building permit. MR. DALEY: That is correct. We would notify her and we would get her into it as well. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John? MR. OAKLEY: It, on the whole, sounds reasonable to me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack any further questions? MR. PECK: No further questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you Joe. Are we coming closer to a motion? PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1815 FOR 205-217 LINDEN AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Jagat Sharma for an area variance to permit the completion of a parking structure for forty-four automobiles at 205-217 Linden Avenue. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1815 conditioned upon the following: 1. The property owner and his architect preparing a landscape design that would address the buffer zone between the rear of this property and the property that abuts it fronting on Delaware Avenue and that that design be brought to, and approved by, the Planning and Development Board prior to the issuance of the building permit. 2 . That the facade of the parking structure be compatible, in terms of material, with the existing apartment structure that adjoins it and that it be brought to, and approved by, the Planning and Development Board prior to the issuance of the building permit. 3 . That the maximum height of the parking structure shall not exceed four (4) levels. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The parking structure meets all the requirements of the transition regulations with the exception of the rear yard requirement. PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 2 . The rear yard deficiency was caused by the fact that the structure was pre-existing prior to the adoption of the transition regulations. 3 . There are practical difficulties which make compliance with that portion of these regulations impossible. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED W/CONDITIONS PAGE 50 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal on the Agenda is Appeal Number 1820 for 1001 Giles Street: Appeal of Donald Lucenti for a Special Permit for an Accessory Apartment at 1001 Giles Street under Section 30.27 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in an R-1b (Residential, one-family dwellings) Use District in which a second, or accessory, apartment is permitted only under a Special Permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals. It is my understanding that this has been held over by the Planning Board. So the next appeal is Appeal 1821 for 412 Linn Street: Appeal of David and Barbara Davidson for an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard and one sideyard under Section 30.25, Columns 11 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a two-story addition to the rear of the single-family house at 412 Linn Street for increased living space. 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 deficient setbacks before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin with your name and address, who you are, so we have that on the record. MR. DAVIDSON: I 'm David Davidson, 412 Linn Street - I 'm the owner of the property. Would you like me to summarize the. . . PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please. MR. DAVIDSON: We want to build a two-story addition to the back of our house for private use. The upstairs would be my private study and the downstairs would be storage space. We don't have a basement and our attic is unusable and inaccessible so this is essential. The major reason for the addition is that I have two daughters, six and twelve, and both of them need their own bedroom so this means that they get one and I get space too. The reason why we had to apply for a variance was because evidently when our house was built it was - the front was built too close to the - is less than ten feet from the sidewalk and the southside of the property line - we are less than five feet there. The addition is actually being placed on the northwest corner so it doesn't infringe on either of those two boundaries - I don't see any problem with that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? [none] No questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak against? [no one] That being the case it is ours. We have letters. Two letters in support. Do we have a motion? PAGE 52 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1821 FOR 412 LINN STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of David and Barbara Davidson for an area variance to permit the construction of a two-story addition to the rear of the single-family house at 412 Linn Street for increased 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 1821. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are practical difficulties in order for this house to comply with the existing zoning, in that it would have to be moved to comply. 2. The proposed addition does not in any way affect the existing deficiencies. 3. The proposed addition does not alter the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 53 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 SECRETARY HOARD: Before I read the whole thing on Appeal No. 1822 for 405-407 College Avenue, is there anyone here on that appeal? I don't see the appellant or the appellant's representative. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So we can skip that one. SECRETARY HOARD: And forgo the reading of the legal ad? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, I think so, in the interest of time. SECRETARY HOARD: All right. The next appeal then is Appeal Number 1823 for 217 Bryant Avenue: Appeal of Joyce Sirlin-Rand for an area variance for excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one sideyard under Section 30.25, Columns 10, 11 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a one-story addition to the rear of the single-family house at 217 Bryant Avenue for increased living space. The property is located in an R-1b (Residential, single-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the deficient setbacks before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: By now you should know the procedure. We start off by identifying yourselves and where you live. MS. SIRLIN-RAND: My name is Joyce Sirlin-Rand and I own the property and live there at 217 Bryant Avenue. I don't have much to add to what was read. Basically we want to put a one-story addition that would be a family room, a bathroom and an expanded PAGE 54 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 kitchen for the use of myself and my family. The addition would take up thirty-two percent of the property because the current house and garage take up twenty-three percent so I need a variance for that and also for the side yard and front yard. At the time the house was built they didn't have zoning regulations and so the house currently sits only twenty feet from the right-of-way and seven feet from my neighbor's house - from both sides - so I need a variance for that. I don't anticipate that this will change the character of the house or the neighborhood at all inasmuch as it is going to be just for the use of my family. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you mind saying a few more words, perhaps, about what kind of rooms are going to be added. MS. SIRLIN-RAND: Yes. It is going to be one-story addition that will have a family room, a bathroom and we will enlarge our existing kitchen. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is not particularly clear - that is, the outline that is given on the plan - but in my mind I am thinking about some other use or that is, some other owner making use of the property in the future - so I want to get some idea of the character of what you are adding. MS. SIRLIN-RAND: The family room will be an open room - it has one wall that is continuous with the kitchen - open to the kitchen so if you are concerned about it being a bedroom in the future - that would be pretty hard to do, since it is open on one side to a music room and open on the other side to the kitchen. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? PAGE 55 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 MR. SIEVERDING: Is your lot smaller than other lots in the neighborhood? MS. SIRLIN-RAND: I think it is the smallest one on the block. MR. WEAVER: The existing garage too, is a factor in the total coverage. MR. SIEVERDING: True. Other properties have, or don't have - I seem to recall having dealt with a couple of other similar types of variances we have had, the lot coverage not being a factor - I was just wondering what was creating the deficiency in this case. MS. SIRLIN-RAND: There is currently a two-car garage on the property that takes up a fair amount of this space and I think there was a zoning variance granted for another property on that block and you didn't see a problem. . . SECRETARY HOARD: The Miller variance. MR. SCHWAB: That was two months ago. MR. SIEVERDING: And that exceeded the lot coverage as well? MR. SCHWAB: In fact we have a letter from him tonight. MR. SIEVERDING: From Mr. Miller. That's what prompted the question. I had forgotten that he had a lot deficiency there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] It is ours. Discussion? Motion? PAGE 56 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1823 FOR 217 BRYANT AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Joyce Sirlin-Rand for an area variance to permit the construction of a one-story addition to the rear of the single-family house at 217 Bryant Avenue for increased living space. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1823 . MR. PECK: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The existing deficiencies, namely front and side yard setbacks, are existing conditions that cannot be corrected without demolition. 2 . The proposed addition will exceed the maximum lot coverage by a small percentage and will not directly affect the rest of the neighborhood. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1824 FOR 326 NORTH GENEVA STREET: Appeal of Kinga M. Gergely for a use variance and an area variance for deficient off-street parking and lot area, excessive lot coverage by buildings, and . deficient setbacks for two front yards and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the use of the building at 326 North Geneva Street for professional offices. The property, which now contains a chiropracter's office plus two apartments, is located in an R-3a (Residential, multiple dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is not permitted. Therefore, under Section 30. 57 the appellant must obtain a use variance for the proposed use, and an area variance for the listed area deficiencies, before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed use. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself. MS. GERGELY: I am Kinga Gergely and I own the property at 324-326 North Geneva Street. First of all I would like to clarify the fact that I am asking for a variance on the unit that is a doctor's office. I understand that it was grandfathered as a doctor's office - I have already rented the upstairs as a one-bedroom unit. The other side is already rented as a four-bedroom unit, residential. The reason I am asking for a variance is - it is a unique situation - the unit is grandfathered in - the office stands PAGE 58 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 as an office - the reception area has a counter and it is built in and would have to be dealt with - it has no kitchen, no bathroom, it has the three rooms in a row. To convert this to a residential would be a major undertaking especially since these rooms are tiny - measured off a bit would look like this. Otherwise my choices would be to go to social worker, psychologist, most of them find it a little too big or too expensive. Usually they work from one or two room offices - not that we have found any but that would be the case. My problem is - I have to make a decision right now - do I keep trying for a doctor's office - in order to do that I have to keep it vacant. If I rent it as a residential, I have to do something about the space. If I wait for a doctor, it has to be vacant - how long do I wait? And I looked around - in December I sent flyers to all the real estate offices - they have been working on it - two in particular, Century 21 and Preferred Properties and Preferred Properties came back to me - Marcia Torrance has been doing some research - she went up to the hospital to talk with doctors and the consensus is that young doctors coming in just don't have the money to furnish offices. Older practices are staying put until there - I guess it is no longer a rumor, they are coming in - it is a Health Organization - some doctors will have to give up their practices - well, not have to give up but will chose to give up practices to join this Organization. I talked to one doctor, Doctor (unintelligible) he is a Dermatologist, he is about to make a move - he would be ideal because he doesn't need X-ray machines and things - he said, quite frankly he wants to go to where the parking is a little more accessible. That's one of the PAGE 59 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 reasons this doctor is moving - not the only reason, but one of the reasons. Most doctors see six to eight patients an hour, conservatively and that area just does not accommodate that kind of parking. So I - with Century 21 - have been working on this. One office - a Mortgage office - one man Mortgage office situation - these people are low traffic, they do most of their business on the phone, when they get ready to close, that's when they have their customers and I don't know how many closings a month a Mortgage office has, I wouldn't assume more than two or three a week. I would like to keep it an office situation - I think it is compatible in the fact that I have three spaces available on the property and in the past we have used the three spaces for the office during the office hours and in the evening and on the weekends, the residents use it - so it breaks up the parking problem - it is not - well it has been an office for years and years. Dr. Greenberg had been there decades probably and it's not as if I 'm asking to turn a residential area into an office building, it is this unit only that is already in this funny situation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. OAKLEY: Do you - for a mortgage office - do you intend to take down the exam room walls? MS. GERGELY: I can't do that because most of these walls are existing there - I don't know which ones are - I would like to leave the set up as it is and not have to put money into it. That would be a major undertaking - moving walls. If I were to move walls I would make it residential. PAGE 60 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 MR. OAKLEY: Okay. MR. SIEVERDING: Have you looked at making it residential? MS. GERGELY: Well I have looked into it - I talked with a man who does work for me. The most practical thing would be to put a kitchen here and a shower in one of the closets - the rooms are so tiny - you know, it would be a very unusual situation and I don't know what kind of people would rent this sort of setup. MR. SIEVERDING: Looking at, say, the cost of renovation relative to the kind of rent that could be generated by this type of an apartment - have you looked at it from that perspective? It doesn't work? MS. GERGELY: If I were to do it right, I would really have to move some walls and do major renovations and it just doesn't work. As far as - I would have to gut walls, some of these are weight-bearing walls - it is major reconstruction. I haven't even delved into it that far because as far as cost of putting in a kitchen and a shower - that is about as far as I could go - that I could afford at this point - you know, to start moving walls and doing it right - it's a historic house, I don't want to blotch it up. MR. SIEVERDING: But it hasn't really been thoroughly investigated? MS. GERGELY: As I said, you know, what I can afford at this point is to put in a kitchen here [pointing to diagram] and a shower there [pointing] and leave these rooms as, say, bedrooms. Take a counter out and you get a little room. It would still leave it a very unusual situation as a residential. . . PAGE 61 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 MR. PECK: Could you combine with the upstairs to make it into a more reasonable living space? MS. GERGELY: Again, I have these tiny cubicles and - I imagine that at one point it was one living area but it had been, at one point, gutted to have these office exam rooms put in - it had been a dental office - I would have to gut the whole place and start all over if I were to do it right. It is really a major undertaking. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this use and area variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Chris? Again, you know the procedure, begin by identifying yourself. MR. ANAGNOST: I 'm Chris Anagnost, my address is 304 College Avenue, I live in Eastwood Commons. My wife and I own the property at 312-314 North Geneva Street. I am against the granting of this variance because it is a use variance and not an area variance. Medical offices are no longer consistent with the R-3a zoning use. There was a change in zoning about a year ago, I believe, to eliminate doctor's offices in R-3a. Since they are no longer strictly a neighborhood use but actually a professional use and they require a lot of parking and a lot of traffic so the doctor's office - which, I understand is grandfathered in here - it is already a non-conforming use and I feel that if a professional office - which this is not zoned for - is a double detriment to the neighborhood. I feel that the variance may set a procedure [sic] for other professional uses in the area and I am afraid of that because this is one block that has no professional use other than PAGE 62 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 the doctor's office at the other end. This is now a chance - with the moving of the chiropractor - to replace it with another medical use, which it is grandfathered for, or to have a non-professional use established on the block. I feel that if the Zoning Board and the Planning Board want a professional use in this block that they should rezone the entire block and bring the issue up to the property owners there as a block issue and not an isolated case and I feel that the use of that office for professional use - and I sympathize with the property owner's predicament as far as dilemma as to what to do with this office space - I can understand that. I feel that the issue is a neighborhood issue and is more important than the cost of renovation which - even though may be expensive to convert the property to a residential unit - as property investures it is the kind of investment that can be written off over a long period of time so I don't think - even though it is an initial expense - it is not a hardship because it is an investment property, it is not a residential property. And I think this investment can be recovered over a period of time. I think that the residential attraction of this block is the fact that it is basically - attraction of units on this block is because it is a residential area. And I feel that if you grant the variance it would be like hooking a fish - it takes a little tiny hook to catch a very large fish and I feel that little hook would be hooked into that block and I think it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: You do think that a person could renovate this and rent it or turn it into residential, this floor? PAGE 63 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 MR. ANAGNOST: I haven't looked at it. Anything is possible - sometimes it takes a little more money than others. If these walls were put in - if the house was originally a one family or a duplex, walls were installed and obviously the walls can be taken out and somehow a unit could be put back in there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you had any trouble in your neck of the woods renting property for residential? MR. ANAGNOST: In the rest of the block? No. It is a very attractive block and I think it is attractive as residential use. I 'm not saying that professional use couldn't be done there but it should be done on a block-wide basis - it should go for a zoning change and the neighbors should be consulted but I think it is dangerous to have an isolated variance that may be an anchor for the change of use in the rest of the block. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions? MR. OAKLEY: Just an observation - I think that a single variance is likely to allow considerably less development than a general rezoning. . MR. ANAGNOST: I don't want to see a rezoning but if they are going to do it, I think the neighbors should have the option of all of them coming together and saying, look we either want or don't want it but I don't think it should be on a variance basis. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions? Thanks. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Come forward please. Once again, your name and address. MS. ROSSITER: My name is Mary Ellen Rossiter, I live at 316 North Geneva and own that property and I also own 318 North Geneva, as a PAGE 64 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 rental property. 318 is only two doors from the property under discussion, 316 is three doors away. I did not receive a notice about this change and I learned about it from a neighbor and had to call the Building Department to get any information at all. Now I have the notice but I think that continuing a grandfathered - changing something that is grandfathered simply isn't fair. The other business on the block is Dr. Sprinkle's house at the opposite end, on the same side of Geneva. He doesn't live there and it presents problems when the owner doesn't live there and there is a business on the ground floor. Luckily his daughter now occupies the apartment upstairs in Dr. Sprinkle's office. But the outside of that place is generally very messy because no one who cares about it is around and I feel that the property that is under discussion has also been a very messy property in the years that I have lived on North Geneva Street - I 've lived there since 1979. If the Doctor is moving out and wants to move out, I think that's a very good thing and I don't see why we should continue having the ground floor business going when the owner does not even live in the neighborhood - the owner of the building and we have a sloppy end of our street. I think it would be a good investment to make it into an apartment - the ground floor. I spent a great deal on 318 North Geneva Street - which was a total wreck and I now have a ground floor apartment and a second floor apartment. The income from them is very good - they are very desireable and although I am just breaking even at the moment, the value of the property has certainly risen with what I have done - with what Mr. Anagnost has PAGE 65 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 done to 312 North Geneva and that's the way, of course, that we want our block to go. So I really am opposed to this. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, deliberation or a motion? PAGE 66 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1824 FOR 326 NORTH GENEVA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Kinga Gergely for use and area variances to permit the use of the first floor unit at 326 North Cayuga Street for professional offices. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board deny the use and area variances requested in Appeal Number 1824 . MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Hardship has not been demonstrated. To have a real estate listing from December until the present date is not very significant. 2. To indicate that it cannot be used as a legal use for residential is not demonstrated - there was a lack of any solid demonstration from which the Board can make a judgement that it is impractical or impossible is not supplied. 3 . The continuation of the grandfathered part is a matter of right but continuation of other business uses would be in violation of the current zoning and the apparent intent of the zoning map. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO DENIED PAGE 67 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The last appeal is APPEAL NO. 1825 FOR 119 WEST GREEN STREET: Appeal of John Bodine for an area variance for deficient off-street parking and a deficient setback for one side yard under Section 30.25, Columns 4 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the removal of the one-story portions of the office building at 119 West Green Street (Dick Wilsen Real Estate, Inc. ) and replacement with a two-story addition for expansion of the existing business. The property is located in a B-1a (Business-offices) 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 area deficiencies, before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed project. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If you would begin by identifying yourself. MR. BODINE: My name is John Bodine, I 'm the president of Dick Wilsen Real Estate, I 'm also the owner of the property at 119 West Green Street. My residence is 118 Strawberry Hill Road, Ithaca. In 1969 Dick Wilsen Real Estate opened an office at 119 West Green Street. It had previously been a single family home that was converted in 168 or 169. At that point it housed Dick Wilsen Real Estate and I believe three other professional offices. I believe there was an architect, an insurance person and another office, I 'm not sure what that was. I bought the business and the building from Dick Wilsen in 1979. Over the years our office has grown from PAGE 68 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 about fifty-seven people in 1969 to over sixty people, including my office staff. About two years ago we built the new office up on Triphammer Road which accommodates over half of our sales staff but our downtown office is very good for our business and has a long history of where our business actually started. The building that we are in was built about 1840 - it is a Greek Revival building - when the renovations were done in 1969 some of the renovations were not the best and were not in keeping with the character of the building. If any of you drive by it you will see that there is a great big three section plate glass window on the front which is very out of character with the building. The building is also very old - a lot of the lumber and the exterior of the building is clapboard is weathered, cracked and (unintelligible) - a lot of the windows do not work properly - most of them do not open. The roof is an old metal roof - if you look at it (unintelligible) you will see that it is not square and straight anymore - we have contiguous problems with it. Our heating and air conditioning systems that were installed in 1969 and because of a lot of new equipment, things like copying machines and computers and things like that, our electrical wiring system is not adequate. With the opening of our new office, over half of our sales staff moved to the new office and our downtown office, right now, accommodates twenty-five sales people, a manager and two secretaries in that office. Our sales people do not spend eight hours a day in the office, our office is open approximately seventy hours a week - we are open Monday through Saturday and we are also open on Sundays. The sales people do not spend more than on the average of about two hours a PAGE 69 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 day per person in the office. So when you say that there are twenty-five people working out of there, it sounds like a lot of people but if you go by the office at almost any time, rather than perhaps after a sales meeting, on the average you will find four to six sales people in the office plus my manager and two secretaries. The reason for doing the renovations to the building are, number one, because the building is an old time building and needs some major renovations for it to operate efficiently and for it to meet our working needs. Also if you take a look at the building, you will find that the traffic flow is very awkward in the building - anybody who wants to go from our back office, which is where all our files and everything is, to the upstairs, which is where the working spaces for the sales people are - all have to go to the front of the building and go up the front stairway. With the renovations that we are proposing, we would ask for a stairway in the back of the building and that would have two purposes; the primary purpose would be for much better traffic flow up and down from the back of the building on the first floor - the work spaces on the second floor. The second thing it would do would be to give us an extra exit in case there were a fire or any other kind of problems up there. Also, the present building sits about four steps above ground level and is not handicap accessible. Our new building in the northeast is handicap accessible and (unintelligible) several of our sales people have relatives that are handicapped (unintelligible) access to the building and it would also be in keeping with the spirit of the present registration. So with the renovations we would have handicap PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 accessible first floor of the building with a ramp (unintelligible) proper elevation to the ramp and also would be able to make the bathrooms handicap accessible (unintelligible) of the building. We currently have eighteen desks in the building - under the new renovation we would have fifteen desks. Normally our sales people share desk space and we have at least two people working at a desk - we do not have individual desks for each person. We would also pave the parking lot - I know that that is not critical in a lot of people's eyes but it would make the surrounding area of the building much cleaner and neater - it would give us a better way to define the landscaping - we are also proposing putting a fence around the property which would more clearly delineate the property lines - right now there is an old wire fence around the back which is very unsightly and doesn't serve any useful purpose. We are asking for a variance for two reasons - one reason is that the east side of the building is less than five feet from the property line. All the new construction that we do will be in compliance with that requirement of the five foot but the existing building - there is a little alcove that sticks out that is only about a foot and a half from the property line and I think the existing wall is only about four feet from the property line. We currently have about nine or ten parking spaces off-street - it is not clearly delineated because we don't have a hard surface parking lot that we can mark. With the changes we will increase the square footage of the building by approximately three hundred square feet - it would increase our parking requirement from twelve to thirteen spaces I believe. Under our site plan we show nine spaces - under the new PAGE 71 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 plan we would be deficient by four. We have been in Ithaca for a long time and have had an office down here - we very much want to be a part of the downtown Ithaca community. We have tried to look for other alternatives to have for office space where we might have more off-street parking but we really like this site - it has been a good site for us and I think we would like to put the money back into the building and (unintelligible) improvements in keeping with the brick house to the west of us and the stone house - the Wilkinson building to the east of us. I 've got a picture of the building the way it looked prior to 1900 - I will pass this around and I 'd also like to have Steve Blais, who is our architect, show you our elevation drawings and the site plan for the property. MR. BLAIS: My name is Stephen Blais, my business address is 411 Second Street, Ithaca, I live at 17 Old Payne Road, Newfield. I 'm not a registered architect, for the record, I 'm a design consultant. It says here, looking at the old photograph - it is a good place to make the point - the intention with the street side of the building is to essentially restore it - take off the plate glass bay that is there now and reproduce the (unintelligible) around the original double hung windows - replace the columns that you see in the photograph with ones that match as closely as we can discern from looking at that photograph, which is really our only record and replace shutters that were removed at one time. I 'll show you the site plan now which will help clarify the remaining elevations. The idea is to essentially extend the west side of the building back about thirty-three feet. On the eastern side we are pulling the building back to the five foot setback that is required PAGE 72 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 on that side leaving the existing bay in place. Taking a look at the west elevation, this portion is existing - also presently existing are two single story previous additions which will be torn down and replaced with a two story addition. We want to carry over an idea from one of the previous additions and that is to keep the roof line in back lower than the roof line in front, assuming I 'll have some beneficial impact on sunlight (unintelligible) from surrounding properties. Access to the rear part of the building will be accomplished at this juncture and a ramp would be available for access by the physically handicapped. Moving around to the south side of the building, I think, as you will have seen from the other elevations, the intention is to carry the detailing of the older building around into the addition as much as possible. In other words, clapboarding, friezes, and so on. Finally, to the east elevation, this is the existing bay, you will notice that the wall of the addition is pulled back approximately ten inches to a foot from the wall of the existing building to achieve the five foot setback. MR. SIEVERDING: This is the facade of the building that looks at the Convenience Store/Gas Station? MR. BLAIS: Right. The immediate neighbor is the law office of Grossmore. . . I believe you have copies of the floor plans. (unintelligible) I will try to illuminate Mr. Bodine's point about the purpose of this addition - which is to improve and reorganize space inside. The steps - handicap access - bring it up to this point - this would be a reception area towards the front of the building and at present, reception and the secretarial areas are, PAGE 73 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 essentially one room and directly accessed from the back door around (unintelligible) front entrance - this would be a secretarial area, the dormer bay that you see on the west side is the manager's office on the first floor and staff lounge on the second floor. At present there really isn't any provision for staff when they aren't actually at their desks. On the first level a primary concern to Dick Wilsen Real Estate is the addition of two conference rooms. At present there is really only one dedicated conference room for meeting with customers and the addition of two handicapped accessible bathrooms on the first floor would, of course, make things more convenient for both the Realtors and Staff and the customers. In the addition - on the second floor there would be a general work area - these two rooms towards the north side would have desks in them - work space for the Realtors and it is my understanding that the intent of this other room would be as a staff training area or casual conferences. The improvements that are proposed are substantial - in other words, the intention is to do the job right and do it in sympathy with the historic nature of the building. I think, at this point, rather than express my obvious opinion, I think it would be a nice thing to see this happen, I 'd like to answer any questions you might have about what is being proposed in terms of building. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: Have you thought of ways to get more parking on the site? PAGE 74 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 MR. BODINE: Physically there is no way to put additional parking on that site. We basically used all of the site, other than the perimeter of plantings around the edge. MR. OAKLEY: Could I ask Tom a question? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. MR. OAKLEY: This follows on the parking lot. Actually, I 've got two questions, first of all, when I looked at the worksheet I see the square footage of the business increasing and the number of required parking spaces decreasing, is the worksheet hind side up or upside down? That is to say that it appears to be thirteen in the upper line and twelve in the lower line. SECRETARY HOARD: To tell you the truth, I got the thirteen from the worksheet from the proposal they had before, a couple of years ago - which was, as I understood, based on the square footage rather than. . . MR. OAKLEY: So that was the proposal - that was from a proposal larger. . . SECRETARY HOARD: That was from what was existing then. I don't know whether something changed in the square footage count or not. MR. OAKLEY: Okay. MR. WEAVER: I think it is obvious down there on the site that there are nine spaces and possibly a tenth, but the handicapped access will wipe out number ten. MR. OAKLEY: They have thirteen listed. MR. WEAVER: No, as a requirement. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: As a requirement. . . MR. OAKLEY: Parking requirement, yes. PAGE 75 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Let me compliment you on the drawings. . . MR. OAKLEY: Much better than unfolding blueprints. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh, much better. (unintelligible) In fact, the final drawings are better, of course, than the sketches, obviously you moved from a four over four to a six over six double hung sash, which is important in the scheme. MR. BLAIS: I 'm glad you noticed. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I did and a lot of other details, too. You put some time into it, and I appreciate that. MR. BODINE: To make something perfectly clear, Tom mentioned that several years ago we came and applied for a variance - that was before we built our office in the northeast and at that time we had proposed a larger addition to the back of the building. It wasn't as well thought out - I don't think it would have worked as well for us but we did propose that about three years ago, I believe. That was turned down by the Board of Zoning Appeals and subsequently we had built the office in the northeast - it is six thousand square feet and so we accommodate all of our administrative things, extra things, there, the increase in our sales staff is there. Our office does not work well downtown with more than about twenty-five people working out of that office. If we doubled the size of the building, it would not make sense for us to try to work with much more than twenty-five people out of that office - the market isn't there - the facilities just aren't there and people have to have reasonable access to the building. What happens is, they will be out working with customers, they stop into PAGE 76 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 the office to pick up messages or keys - they do not normally spend long periods of time there - and so on average, probably find four to six sales people there at any one time. But the building would not work well for us, if it was substantially enlarged by five or six thousand square feet. But it does work well about the size it is or a little bit larger and the reason that we need an extra couple hundred square feet is so that we can accommodate the larger requirements for bathrooms for handicapped and also install the back stairway, because that does make the building work much better, (unintelligible) sales people have a much better access to files and information and copying machines - being able to go up and down the back stairway. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions, comments? MR. PECK: Do you have a feeling for how much you are increasing the footprint of the building on the lot? MR. BLAIS: As opposed to the overall square footage footprint? MR. PECK: Yes. I assume the square footage refers to the extra space on both floors that you are adding? MR. BLAIS: Right. Diagmatically you can see it. MR. PECK: I just wondered if you had the figure where we could see it. MR. BLAIS: I 've never made a calculation. MR. BODINE: There are two rather poorly constructed one-story additions on the back of the building. One probably was a woodshed many years ago, which we now use as a storeroom and the other one is attached to the building and is used as the manager's office. But it is very cold and difficult to heat - if you close the door PAGE 77 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 for any more than about a half an hour you freeze people out back there. So this addition will replace those two structures and they are not well constructed, they tend to be sagging and they are not very well built. MR. OAKLEY: The percent of lot coverage goes from twenty-four to twenty-five. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It isn't much. MR. OAKLEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) seems to improve the deficiencies. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the fact that he stepped back the side yard - again, nice detail, it really helps get around that particular piece of regulation. MR. PECK: Have you currently air conditioned the building? MR. BODINE: There are currently two air conditioning and heating units - the two air conditioning units are located on the ground - they are just behind the wing off the west side - the furnace is located in the basement - the basement is about six feet tall, it has a dirt floor and the second heating unit is hung above the overhead ceiling in the second floor. Both of them are older units, they were put in in 1969 and they are not real efficient. MR. PECK: The air conditioning units on the plan are at ground level then? MR. BODINE: Yes. MR. BLAIS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Stewart, is that half a question that I see? PAGE 78 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 MR. SCHWAB: That is half a question - just to clarify - do I understand, you are losing one parking place from what is currently there now with the proposal? Is that what you are saying Charlie? MR. WEAVER: I am assuming that the tenth space that the count is there. . . MR. BODINE: Right now we park one or two cars by the back door which tends to block passage into the back door but we park there anyway. We would lose those parking places and one of the problems is that because the parking lot is not paved, there are no lines in the parking lot - it is not clearly delineated, so people come in and park irradically and we do lose some space for parking with people not parking in nice even rows or lines, or - we end up with three cars where we should have four. . or four cars on this side of the driveway where we might have five. . . MR. SIEVERDING: To the extent you are short on on-site parking, I imagine people park either on the street - because both sides of Green Street, I think, are metered. . . MR. BODINE: Right. Both sides of the street are metered - there are normally adequate parking spaces on the street - not guaranteed - not all the time but there are normally parking spaces open along that section of Green Street. MR. SIEVERDING: Plus you have around five hundred spaces within the block. SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. BODINE: It is also my understanding that the line between the districts - between our building and the Wilkinson building - my understanding is that they have no requirement for off-street PAGE 79 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 parking for office space - the line - I think, if you look at the zoning map, does go right through the middle of the block there. MR. WEAVER: Not that that was a good idea but. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. SIEVERDING: Nice design. MR. WEAVER: There is the possibility that all day parking - get storage - in other words if you have employees that are in the office and stay there - that there might be parking available on the West State Street parking lot - they rent them out by the month or whatever half of that space back of the Fire Station. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes, if you want to stand in line. MR. WEAVER: Yes, it is the same way with the upper part of the garage. The Green Street garage. MR. BODINE: We really only have two people that are based - pretty much there all day, every day, those are the two secretaries - and normally one of those goes out for about an hour and a half in the afternoon to do errands - go to the post office and drop things off for the sales people, other than those two people, pretty much everybody else is in and out, including the manager. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No further questions? [none] Thank you gents. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] If you want to speak in favor you've got to come up front. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Then perhaps we can consider a motion - or discussion - or whatever. . . PAGE 80 BZA MINUTES - 3/7/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1825 FOR 119 WEST GREEN STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of John D. Bodine for an area variance to permit the removal of the one-story portions of the office building at 119 West Green Street and replacement with a two-story addition for expansion of the existing business. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1825. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The side yard deficiency relates to the existing portion of the building and will not be affected by the proposed addition and, in fact, the proposed addition has been held back to comply with the side yard requirement. 2 . Given the existing lot size and the configuration of the building as designed, maximum use of the site is being made to provide as much on-site parking as possible and there being sufficient parking spaces within the immediate neighborhood, granting the variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and not change the character of the District. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 81 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 1815, 1821, 1823, 1824 and 1825 on March 7, 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 Q, , 1988 G Notary Public JEE'AN J. HANIKINSON i_OTARY PU2 IC,s T A T F OF N 'W YORK f.'O.5 1 S:OBOO QUALIF=IDI COUN):)(A. Aly COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 80.19