Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1988-04-04 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK APRIL 4 , 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 1820 Donald Lucenti 3 1001 Giles Street APPEAL NO. 1820 Decision 8 APPEAL NO. 1822 Mack Travis & Jason Fane 9 405-407 College Avenue APPEAL NO. 1822 Decision 13 APPEAL NO. 1826 Evaporated Metal Films Corp. 14 214 Elmira Road APPEAL NO. 1826 Discussion 22 Decision 26 APPEAL NO. 1827 Harry Durgin 28 120 Third Street APPEAL NO. 1827 Discussion 35 Decision 36 APPEAL NO. 1828 Jacqueline Livingston 37 401-407 North Albany Street APPEAL NO. 1828 Discussion 46 Decision 51 APPEAL NO. 1829 Nancy and Robert Dein 52 156 Cascadilla Park APPEAL NO. 1829 Decision 54 APPEAL NO. 1830 John & Mary Crowley WITHDRAWN 55 96 Ithaca Road APPEAL NO. 1831 John and Mary Crowley 55 96 Ithaca Road APPEAL NO. 1831 Discussion 75 Decision 82 TABLE OF CONTENTS April 4 , 1988 BZA Meeting Page 2 APPEAL NO. 1832 Charles B. Wells 84 142-144 East State Street APPEAL NO. 1832 Decision 88 APPEAL NO. 1833 Leo N. Renaghan 89 108 North Plain Street APPEAL NO. 1833 Decision 92 APPEAL NO. 1834 Martha Hamilton and Mitchell Weiss 93 APPEAL NO. 1834 Decision 98 APPEAL NO. 1835 Murry Daitchman 99 204 Ridgedale Road APPEAL NO. 1835 Discussion 106 Decision 108 APPEAL NO. 1836 Dennis and Michelle Mogil 109 256 Floral Avenue APPEAL NO. 1836 Decision 114 Discussion 115 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 118 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK APRIL 4, 1988 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I'd like to call to order the April 4, 1988 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight are: JACK PECK JOHN OAKLEY HERMAN SIEVERDING STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THOMAS D. HOARD, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER & ZONING OFFICER BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we'll hear from the appellant and ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible and then be available to answer questions from members of the Board. We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the Board considers "interested parties" to be persons who own property within two hundred feet of the property in question, or who live or work within two hundred feet of the PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 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 opposite me here so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and at the same time be heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded, and will, therefore, not be considered by the Board in its deliberations on the case. We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during our deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or a special permit. In the rare cases where there is a tie vote the variance or special permit is automatically denied. Are there any questions out there from members of the audience, about the way in which we will proceed? Yes, John. PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. CROWLEY: I have a question, the architect who has drawn up my plans is with me tonight. Does he not then reach the definition of an "interested party"? CHAIRMAN TONLAN: He' ll be an interested party. The question is, whether in fact, the architect would be considered an interested party and the fact that he would be, in a sense, representing you, or explaining some of what you have said - yes, he would be coming forward at the same time. Are there any other questions out there? VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Will the Board reach a decision tonight on these appeals? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. The question is, will the Board reach a decision on every case? We reach a decision immediately after we have heard from both the pro and the con. Any other questions? Then can we proceed to our first case? SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1820 FOR 1001 GILES STREET: Appeal of Donald Lucenti for a Special Permit for an Accessory Apartment under Section 30.27 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the addition of an apartment unit to the single-family house now under construction at 1001 Giles Street. The property is located in an R-1b (Single-family dwellings) Use District in which new accessory apartments are permitted only in owner-occupied houses, and only under a Special Permit issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals. This appeal was held over from the March 7, 1988 meeting at the request of the Board of Planning and Development. PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. LUCENTI: My name is Don Lucenti and I live at 701 Mitchell Street. MS. LUCENTI: I'm Loretta Lucenti, I live at 701 Mitchell Street. MR. LUCENTI: We are building a new house on Giles Street and we want to add an apartment - it is already in the plans and I hope to put my mother there, maybe. She is eighty-three years old and I think it will be for her. Then, of course, after that, we don't know. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are then intending to live in the house? MR. LUCENTI: Oh yes, we are going to live there, yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: It is all within the building envelope? MR. LUCENTI: Right, it is not being extended or. . . MR. SIEVERDING: And there are no area deficiencies of any kind, is that correct? MR. OAKLEY: And the entrance to this is just going to be down around the side of the. . . Is this down actually on the foundation? MS. LUCENTI: Actually it is on the first level. MR. LUCENTI: The first level - it is in the back and it comes right out at ground level. MR. OAKLEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or building plans or the zoning board plans. . . CHAIRMAN TONLAN: Yes, we are going to have to give you some lessons. . . MR. OAKLEY: Okay, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions for anyone - from anyone but John? He signed off. PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. PECK: I guess I have the same questions of this that I had of the other one, in general, and this is - what does an R-1 zone mean? The lot certainly - this is certainly much different from the other one [Appeal No. 1830 & 1831] we passed on - that is the lot size and the coverage and. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No doubt about that, but I think that is a general discussion - are there any questions for the appellant? Let's not keep them here all night. I guess they are dismissing you. Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Okay. PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1820 FOR 1001 GILES STREET CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Now then, Jack - now is the time to raise those broad questions. MR. PECK: Can I just say what I said - go back to what I said before - I don't know the answer to those and I just wonder if other people have questions. . . [see Appeal No. 1831] MR. OAKLEY: I think the Accessory Apartment law is not clear on all its points, but it is pretty clear on this issue - that Accessory Apartments are allowed in R-1. There is a significant difference between R-1 and R-2, in the sense that there are some rather vague restrictions on the nature of the apartments, particularly if it is a duplex to be built. . . and in addition there is a requirement that the owner live in one of the portions of the house and I think that those are fairly clear distinctions and the ideas that R-1 is meant to be basically single family residential. But the hope is that they can cram more people into it. SECRETARY HOARD: Let me take a stab at this because this, like many other things that happens in the City, we try to figure it out and it doesn't always make a lot of sense. The R-1 zone allows single-family dwellings, duplexes and one hundred percent, fifty percent, two to one apartments - up until only a couple of years ago. At the same time there was this provision for the Accessory Apartment and what Council was finding out was that when people were building new houses, they were building them with an apartment that didn't have to meet any of the requirements of the Accessory Apartment. The property could then be sold and both sides could be both major - both main apartment and small apartment - could be PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 rental. So they knocked that out to try to make it so that any apartments that were created in new buildings, or in existing buildings, would be only under circumstances where the building was owner-occupied. So there is no intention to cast a ballot on the right to have an accessory apartment in an R-1 zone because the whole Ordinance was redesigned to allow that. It is kind of screwy when you are trying to figure out how it happened that way. MR. SCHWAB: The key thing is owner-occupied? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: And that, in a sense, that the property owner is licensed. . (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We are coming closer to a motion? PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1820 FOR 1001 GILES STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Donald Lucenti for a variance to permit the addition of an Accessory Apartment to the single-family house now under construction at 1001 Giles Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board grant the request for a Special Permit for an Accessory Apartment at 1001 Giles Street. The applicant has met the requirements of the zoning laws that relate to Accessory Apartments. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The house will maintain the appearance of a single family house. 2 . The entrance to the Accessory Apartment will not give a clear message that there are two apartments in the building. 3 . The owner understands and he has agreed that he will live in the house as long as he rents out the Accessory Apartment. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1822 FOR 405-407 COLLEGE AVE: Appeal of Mack Travis and Jason Fane for an area variance for deficient off-street parking under Section 30.25, Column 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the subdivision of the property at 405-407 College Avenue into two parcels. The rear parcel is to be added to the property at 206-208 Dryden Road. The property is located in a B-2b (Business) Use District in which the existing uses are permitted; however an area variance is required for the lack of off-street parking spaces before the subdivision can be approved by the Board of Planning and Development. This appeal has been held over from the March 7, 1988 meeting of the Board because no one appeared at that meeting to present the appeal. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you begin by identifying yourself and where you live? MR. SHAW: Yes. My name is Bill Shaw and I represent the owner of the property, Mack Travis, and the buyer of the property, Jason Fane. I will start by saying, in the future - if you were wondering what I was doing in the back of the room - I was writing fifty times, "I will never be late for a BZA meeting again. " CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Only fifty times, though? Okay, let's move along. MR. SHAW: A brief background. This is a part of the process for subdivision approval. We are talking about a ten foot wide, sixty-six foot long parcel at the back of 405-407 College Avenue. There was a right-of-way conveyed from Mr. Travis to Mr. Fane about PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 five or six years ago over that parcel, to service one building. There was then, in 1986 - about two years ago - a purchase offer between Mr. Travis to Mr. Fane for the underlined property - the parcel we are talking about - the purpose was to provide handicapped accessibility to a new building that Mr. Fane built just up from Johnny's - known as Collegetown Court. In addition to that it would assure Mr. Fane with exterior maintenance access to his new building as well as improve the fire-safety for that building. That required subdivision approval, as you no doubt are aware - that process began in 1987 and took some four or five months - mainly due to questions they had about Collegetown Court, not the subject of the subdivision. We tried to answer those as the meetings continued and they finally did approve the subdivision plan but at the last meeting, in June, they brought to their attention, and to ours, and to your attention, that (unintelligible) grandfather issue, if you will, the subdivision law requires that both resulting parcels comply with the zoning requirements. Well in all this time, Council had passed the well known parking requirement in the Collegetown area. Now the parcel that Mr. Fane is buying has no buildings on it, he has no plans for any buildings on it, has no uses - in fact it is burdened by a right-of-way right over it - while he owns that, he would have to maintain that for the existing building on Johnny's. However the parcel that would remain in the ownership of Mr. Travis has some upstairs apartments in it and therefore, technically, this subdivision makes that a - I guess you would call it a new lot or something like that - which means that it technically comes under the requirement for the parking requirement and so we are here to PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 ask for a variance - Tom suggested that we have kind of a grandfathered issue and I think it is - what you should know is that there is no new use intended for this parcel - no new building or there isn't any buildings planned or intended by any of the parties. There would be no new tenants - no need for cars or parking - there would be no change in the area requirements for compliance with the area requirements for any of the buildings. The 405-407 would be the adjacent owners because (unintelligible) are all in compliance. There is no change in the parking requirements obviously, because there aren't any tenants (unintelligible) and therefore there is no change in the parking demand - so it is my very sincere hope that this could be approved while I am here to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: This property is going to be added to what was Johnny's? MR. SHAW: Actually it is added to what is Collegetown Court. MR. SIEVERDING: Collegetown Court. And it is purely for access and not for any additional development - or building? MR. SHAW: That is correct. The building is already built. Collegetown Court is a six story concrete building - I don't think it is physically possible, but more importantly, it is not the intention of this owner to add to the building or the stores on the main floor of Collegetown Court - well half of that building went through a phase when the law was changed - and required handicapped accessibility. There are a bunch of what they call mini-stores in there that require some reconstruction - redesign - because the building had been designed by then - and so there is now a PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 handicapped ramp that runs down about two-thirds of this sixty-six foot parcel - down in the basement. But also exterior maintenance would be a benefit. Mr. Fane would be assured of that as well as fire safety. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? [none] Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] It is all ours. PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1822 FOR 405-407 COLLEGE AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Mack Travis and Jason Fane for an area variance to permit the subdivision of the property at 405-407 College Avenue into two parcels. The rear parcel is to be added to the property at 205-208 Dryden Road. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1822 . MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are special conditions relating to this particular variance in that no change in use is anticipated that will have any effect on the two deficiencies, namely parking and off-street loading. 2 . The conveyance is simply to improve access to Collegetown Court and will not result in any additional development to either property. 3 . The variance will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1826 FOR 214 ELMIRA ROAD: Appeal of Evaporated Metal Films Corporation for a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the use of the building at 214 Elmira Road for light industrial use. The property, which was formerly the site of the Grand Union supermarket, and more recently a roller skating rink, is located in a B-5 (Business) Use District in which an industrial use is not a permitted use. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I think you've been here before but just to remind you, you begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. SHAY: Good evening. I 'm Michael Shay, President of Evaporated Metal Films, which is at 701 Spencer Road. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to begin by saying a few words about the property or. . . MR. SHAY: Yes, we - as had been mentioned earlier - have been here several times to seek a variance on our property at 701 Spencer Road and we have a particular problem, in that we have been successful, in spite of ourselves, and find business good for us and we have needed several times to add additions to our property at 701 Spencer Road, to accommodate the increased business that we are experiencing. We have tried to sort ourselves out and I have come up with a longer range solution than coming back every few years, to the Board, to put another addition on 701 Spencer Road. PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 We are currently looking at 214 Elmira Road to use and occupy that piece of property to take care of our further needs to expand our business in coating of optical thin films and that is also a B-5 zone, the same as where we are located at the present time. The old Grand Union has several problems in terms of trying to find a use suitable for it, for where it is located. As a grocery store it's not a very desireable piece of property. Wegman's has seen to that. And in the last week the grocery stores - empty grocery stores have increased by one hundred percent. There are now two in that area that are unoccupied. The people who own the property have been trying for about four years to find a suitable tenant of this sizeable building and, as such, will require somebody with substantial means in order to make it a viable location. We would propose to use that building for optical coatings, the same as we are doing at 701 Spencer Road and we believe that we would employ somewheres between twenty to fifty people per shift at that location. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. PECK: How many shifts are there? MR. SHAY: Currently we are operating two shifts - Shift I and Shift II. Shift I starts at 7:00 A.M. and Shift II starts at 3 : 30 in the afternoon. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Perhaps you would say a few words more about - to the degree that you know something about it - the effort made by Ithaca Valley Realty, the current owners, in selling or using the building as it is presently zoned. PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. SHAY: They have been trying for the past four years to find a tenant that is compatible with the zone there. The building is about seventeen thousand square feet, so it is a rather large building and it was designed for a retail outlet. There has been no interest, in terms of grocery stores or those kind of retailing outlets. It has been up for sale and they have convassed and have tried very hard to find that kind of a use - with absolutely no interest at all, they have turned to amusement purposes which is allowed in that zone and that didn't turn out to be very desireable either - as a seventeen thousand square feet - the kind of rent that that demands, it is difficult to find an amusement type business that will bring in that kind of revenue to support it. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Further questions? MR. SIEVERDING: Is it presently vacant or is the amusement business still operating in there? MR. SHAY: The amusement business went bankrupt at the end'of last year and I believe there is going to be an auction in the next two weeks to auction off their assets. MR. SIEVERDING: Have they been marketing the property during the time that the business had an active lease or has the marketing begun only when the amusement business went out? MR. SHAY: The marketing has again started, since the amusement business went bankrupt in December and so far we are the only people who have expressed interest in the property. MR. PECK: Could you tell us something about your manufacturing process, what is involved - I am concerned with the neighborhood PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 and I am concerned with what happens outside the building - noise, smells, things like that. MR. SHAY: There is little, if any, noise and little, if any, smells. What Evaporated Metal Films does is to take materials and evaporate them in a vacuum system much akin to boiling water on the stove. As the water boils, if your hand is nearby, it condenses - we do the same thing to metals and ceramics - we evaporate them inside a vacuum tank and the tank is a big metal tank - no noise associated with it and the resulting mirrors that we make are high quality mirrors that are used in copying machines, telescopes and cameras - things of that sort. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John? MR. OAKLEY: I was basically going to ask the same question. I 'm not sure that it is appropriate to ask if they have considered other locations. I realize the Planning Board asked that question and so, since the Planning Board has, I might as well. Why not - from your point of view - Cherry Street? MR. SHAY: That's a good question and the Evaporated Metal Films is owned by three gentlemen who live locally here - of which I am one of them - and with new construction, the cost is approximately seventy-five dollars a square foot to build a building of the type of construction that we need. The resulting building would be somewheres around one and a half million dollars and for the size of the Company that we are, if we do that - leaves nothing left to put machinery and equipment into it. So the alternative that we are looking for is to find a place that is already existing that we PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 can purchase or lease at a much less figure so that we can go ahead and put the machinery and equipment in it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How many square feet do you now occupay? MR. SHAY: About twelve thousand at 701 Spencer Road. MR. OAKLEY: The building on Elmira Road . . . MR. SHAY: About seventeen thousand. MR. SCHWAB: So you would vacate this building. . . MR. SHAY: No, we would - our business is growing and we would expand the new business into 214 Elmira Road. MR. SIEVERDING: And still maintain the 701 Spencer property? MR. SHAY: That is correct. What we would plan to do there is to do the development and research kind of jobs at that location and do the everyday kind of manufacturing at 214 Elmira Road. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: Just to go back to the one point that Herman was making earlier - the basic showing that we have to see is that this property could not give a viable return on existing uses to the current owner - we realize, of course, that that is not you. But just - you say that it has been actively listed since - or Real Estate people have been looking after this since December and you are the only one that has shown interest? In the previous four years - do you have any knowledge of how actively they looked while the bowling center [sic] was there? MR. SHAY: Yes. It has been advertised for - I believe - close to a year before they were able to come up with the current tenant that is Funtime. And that was the only real inquiry they had over all that time that they were looking for someone to occupy it. PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. SCHWAB: So it was vacant quite a lot of time during that four year period? MR. SHAY: Yes. Right. The problem that they are facing is that that section of Elmira Road for businesses that are based on traffic - it is out of the traffic pattern - and it sits back from the - you can't see it very well from the Plaza, where there are already stores - if you drive in there, unless you are looking - the Grand Union sits off by itself so that the people who have looked at it in terms of using it as a retail outlet have just not been interested because of the exposure of the property to potential customers. MR. WEAVER: How long has the grocery store been out of there? MR. SHAY: Four years. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have any idea of the rate at which you are expanding? MR. SHAY: Well we seem to. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We seem to see you quite often. MR. SHAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm just trying to get a projection here - how large is this - nothing against making money - or larger operations - but merely - obviously if this were the case and we grant a variance - I 'm not saying we will, but if we were, it would be a non-conforming use within the zone. Now are we going to see you back here in six months or six years trying to expand this building further, I mean, as you have been up there on Spencer Road. MR. SHAY: We project that this building - at the very least - should hold us for five years - at the very most, ten years. PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Then you are moving along. MR. SHAY: Yes. And I would say that we are adding manufacturing jobs to the City of Ithaca - we have added twenty-five employees since last summer. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. SIEVERDING: I guess, given that sort of a contents, I 'm still a little puzzled why you don't look for property in an area that is suitably zoned, I mean, you are classified as a light industrial use and there seems to be plenty of light, industrial property in the City along Cherry Street - but then also from Court west of Meadow, from Court right up on to just past Grossmans - in any of those locations there aren't any opportunities for you that you feel fits your existing financial situation? MR. SHAW: Well the kind of equipment that we use is very capital intensive - much more so than almost any other industry that I'm aware of. The piece of equipment that was in that brochure there, if you looked at it, costs in the neighborhood - one of those costs a little more than a half a million dollars and it doesn't take up very much space - it is a very complex piece of equipment and for the kind of company that we are, we don't like to borrow very much money - anymore than we have to - as good, conservative operating procedures - we are in high technology and things change very rapidly - what might be useful today may not work tomorrow and what we are trying to do is to come up with a balance of how to grow the business - take care of our customer's requirements and yet meet the needs with the capital equipment and space and one of the trade-offs that we can do is find space that will house our PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 equipment at a lesser value than it would be if you were to start out new. We would prefer to build new space in a light industrial zone but we have to try to make the two trade-offs work. So projecting our needs for the next ten years, we can make it work by finding space at less than what it would cost new and then put the money into capital equipment. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Then the case is ours. PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1826 FOR 214 ELMIRA ROAD MR. OAKLEY: We've all been aware that the bulk of the discussion has been about something that we consider largely irrelevent to making our decision. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. As long as we all recognize that. MR SIEVERDING: That's a good point and I sort of asked that last question at some risk because I think what we got was perhaps a description of the hardship that Evaporated Films itself might be faced with and not necessarily the owner of the property and I think when we usually consider a use variance - the hardship really has to revolve around the property itself and not the potential tenants going into that property, as I understand it. (unintelligible) MR. OAKLEY: That's my impression, I would have liked to have seen the real estate agent or the owner show up here. There was evidence presented but rather second hand - as to the hardship involved in the property. And it's not clear to me - the property clearly is not prospering at the moment - I wander by it quite often. And the proposed use does not appear to be offensively noisy or destructive - apparently less so than (unintelligible) . In some ways I realize that we should not consider these things and so in that sense I 'm sympathetic. I 'm not exactly ready to make a motion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack? MR. PECK: Well I have the same concerns that Herman and John do. I was concerned with the proximity of housing to it since it does back up onto a R-3 zone in both cases - the property does - but PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 when you look at it, it is really - I guess the closest thing is the towers to it - and it is all wooded area in there and kind of a park-like area, I was just wondering - I guess that's the way it is going to be - is that owned by Titus Towers and intended to stay that way? I don't have any idea, but at any rate there weren't any houses that were close by that would be affected by the variance - but on the other hand, we haven't heard from the property owners saying that there was a problem in selling the property - we have heard from the person coming in - I 'm not sure that that isn't a partial cop-out on his part, at this point, but I really don't know what to say myself, either. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How about the other side of the table here? MR. SCHWAB: I would say that I think it is relevant that a non-conforming use (unintelligible) it is a factor that it is not going to cause the neighborhood any problem. . . MR. OAKLEY: I think that is clearly so. MR. WEAVER: I think common sense would grant the variance. The Zoning Ordinance doesn't conform very much to common sense in this particular instance and so we need to have a finding of hardship. The finding of hardship has to be perfected as much as this Board requires and there is a solution to any one of our misjudgements in Article 78. I agree that it is a poor showing of hardship by the owner of the real estate, but I was satisfied that the appellant was not giving us any misinformation and that that hasn't been a productive building for anyone for about four years - which, silently, says something about it's viability as a grocery store or automotive related - or whatever. So, whether you have testimony PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 from an appraiser and a couple of real estate operators, and so on, would improve the quality of the showing, but I don't have any trouble that we had a showing of hardship. MR. SIEVERDING: I agree with you about the quality of information that the appellant has presented, but I 'm not sure that that is at issue here. I think it would be more appropriate to a body that would consider rezoning the site for the use that he would put it to, as an alternative - rather than going for a use variance, I think going to the Council and asking Council to change the zoning designation for that particular site to allow this particular use, given the situation that he is in and the nature of his business. But I don't think that is within our realm of responsibility. MR. WEAVER: Well in the ideal world, we would have had at least one or maybe more City Agencies out there trying to accomplish some use for the building - some creative application for both planning and zoning. MR. SIEVERDING: Community Development is actively looking for an economic development (unintelligible) to its CD Flood Grant application. I think it is approaches like that. . MR. OAKLEY: There is - it would be definitely spot zoning because otherwise retail businesses seem to survive and again we could make the argument that this is on the extreme edge of the - at least the function - of the retail area. And that perhaps this is the reason that particular building has not succeeded and it seems to me that the zone is one lot - rezone as one lot - would be peculiar and perhaps the existence of a use variance would allow for this isolated difficult spot. I don't think the traffic there - it is PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 not that low, actually. There is (unintelligible) there is a fair amount of traffic down there - I think someone should (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm prepared to make a motion. PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1826 FOR 214 ELMIRA ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Michael D. Shay representing Evaporated Metal Films Corporation, for a use variance to permit the use of the building at 214 Elmira Road for light industrial use. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board deny the use variance requested in Appeal Number 1826. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. A hardship relative to alternate uses of the property other than what is being proposed, uses that would conform to the B-5 designation don't appear to have been fully explored, given the testimony that the property has only been on the rental market since December 1987. VOTE: 5 YES; 1 NO DENIED PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MORE DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1826 FOR 214 ELMIRA ROAD WHICH TOOK PLACE AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BUT BEFORE IT WAS VOTED ON. MR. OAKLEY: I 'm trying to figure out how to do this. I know that there is a certain "something" to denying a variance, almost encouraging someone to come back and do it better next time. But I think there is very possibly a case out there, I think it is legitimate for this Board to insist that people make their case with a serious effort of making it, which I think is what Herman is saying - is that there really hasn't been a serious effort of making a case that we are interested in. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you are saying that Ithaca Valley Realty ought to try harder? MR. OAKLEY: My suspicion is that they could come back and do it again later and very possibly get a variance. In fact, there is a limit to the extent to which our imagination ought to be exercised. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We have a motion and a second, further comment about the motion? A vote? MR. OAKLEY: A yes is to deny, is that right? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. SECRETARY HOARD: The vote in Appeal Number 1826 if 5 yes votes and 1 no vote. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So the appeal is denied. PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1827 FOR 120 THIRD STREET: Appeal of Harry Durgin for permission to extend a nonconforming use at 120 Third Street under Section 30.49 of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant proposes to operate a bakery business as a separate operation, in addition to the existing catering business. The property is located in an R-2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which such commercial uses are not permitted. The existing use is legal under a use variance (Appeal No. 1702) granted by the Board on July 7, 1986; however under Section 30.49 the additional tenancy will require an extension of that use variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MR. DURGIN: My name is Harry Durgin and I live at 212 West Lincoln Street. MS. STEINHARDT: My name is Mouse Steinhardt and I live at 212 West Lincoln Street. We are partners in this business. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In which business? Both businesses? Perhaps you could start there. MR. DURGIN: Well, we are hoping to start a bakery which we would call Panaderia DeSola. The main scope of our bakery would be to supply the business of Bob Norman - he is the owner of Portable Feast Catering. We would supply his business with baked goods and cakes for his Catering. He was experiencing some financial hardship and he found that the facility that he is renting from Vincent Giordano has more space than he needs at this time and in PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 an attempt to reduce his overhead and also to give the kind of baked products that he has been used to purchasing from me when I worked for Elm Street Bakery a few years back when I supplied him at Turbacks, he asked us to come in and use part of his facility to take (unintelligible) for him - he felt that we could also sell some of our products at local markets such as Green Star, the Farmer's Market - no retail business at all. We said that we are interested and we are looking into being able to use part of his facility. But we do wish to operate as a separate business instead of being employees of his. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see, okay. MR. DURGIN: So that's a recap of our request. We will have no employees. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No employees and again, Giordano is the owner? MR. DURGIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Is it the ground floor of the building, that is being used? MR. DURGIN: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: For this business? MR. DURGIN: Right. MR. OAKLEY: Is there any physical expansion - are there any portions of the building which are not currently now used by Portable Feast - that would be used? MR. DURGIN: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: What are those areas used for now? MR. DURGIN: Storage. There is an old broiler which hasn't been used - if it was used in one of those (unintelligible) - it is the PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 area that was used for seating people - you know - customers, when it was a restaurant. So no, it isn't an area that is being used at this time. We would share (unintelligible) dish washing machine and so forth. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: To your knowledge, does Mr. Giordano have any difficulty in deriving income from the building as presently structured - as it is presently arranged? MR. DURGIN: That's hard to say, see, it is all based on whether or not Bob Norman can continue to function at the capacity that he has in the last year. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Has he been paying his rent? I mean, you may not know that. . . MR. DURGIN: Yes, he has been. I'm not exactly sure what kind of hardship he ran into last year, at the end of the year. There is a problem, a catering season - it is a seasonal business - the bulk of the business comes at a certain time of the year and during the winter it slows down, I know that. He ran into some financial difficulty at the end of last year and decided not to expand this year because, as he brought in new employees, his overhead increased considerably more and there is a limit to the size of his kitchen. So he could expand his business and the ability to pay the rent, because we will be paying him rent and also to provide the products that he needs by having us work with him. So, I can't say whether or not he would make it through this next fiscal period without us being there, or not, but evidently he believes that he would have a hardship. I can see that it would have been better if he had come, so he could speak to you personally. We are all prima donas at this. PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Understood. Further questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Well I think while they are still here and can talk about areas, the nature of the variance that is now in existence down there, how many square feet on the first floor for commercial use? MR. DURGIN: I can tell you the area that we wish to use would be approximately eight to ten percent of the area that he has a variance for. MR. PECK: And that's on the first floor of the building? MR. DURGIN: Oh, yes. MR. PECK: That doesn't include the tenants that are upstairs? MR. DURGIN: No, they wouldn't be affected in any way. We would be sharing a view (unintelligible) . As a matter of fact we would be only receiving maybe two deliveries a month - most of our supplies would come from his present supplier, which is Sisco, so when their truck came in, it is delivering his goods and they would deliver ours at the same time. MR. WEAVER: Well you came closer to answering my question. My question - what I am interested in finding out is, we granted a variance - used part of this for the present commercial use and you are going to occupy some of the area you think was granted a variance? MR. DURGIN: Yes, exactly. When I spoke to Mr. Giordano he said that the area that we want to use was included in the variance that is existing. MR. WEAVER: Will you be using some that was not granted? MR. DURGIN: No. PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. WEAVER: Without calculating it, Mr. Commissioner. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: He's got the figure now. MR. WEAVER: Oh, I don't want to disappoint him. We might be talking about two tenants in a space that is already granted a variance. MR. SIEVERDING: So why are they here? SECRETARY HOARD: Well, more than one business, which may have different hours. . . MR. WEAVER: I don't disagree with your denial, I'm just trying to find out what is there and what we might be doing if we granted a variance. MR. DURGIN: I think it is my understanding that if we did exactly what we are doing now (unintelligible) the operation as we are doing it, receive deliveries, park in this block, and so forth, that we are employees of Bobs - that we would not have to be here at all. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is true. But you don't like that idea? MR. DURGIN: Well we would like to try our hand at starting our own bakery and getting our name out there and this is an opportunity for us to have the name of the bakery so that eventually we can move into our facility and start a bakery with some. . . MS. STEINHARDT: Having our name already before the public is very important. . . MR. DURGIN: Good will. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So we are looking at incubator industry here. . . MR. DURGIN: Exactly, that's right. MR. SCHWAB: How many employees are there now on the first floor? MR. DURGIN: By Bob Norman? PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. SCHWAB: Yes. MR. DURGIN: Like I say, that is seasonal. At the slowest time of the year I believe he has between three and six employees and at the busiest time of the year, he has up to twenty-five but a lot of his employees do not prepare food. They serve food at functions - he is a catering business that will go to a facility and serve the food so I don't know exactly what you are asking. Do you want to know how many people work in the area at one time? I can give you that figure. MR. SCHWAB: Well are you - if you are there as independent operators, are you lessening by two the number of employees - not affecting how many employees he is going to have - or is he going to have more employees because you are also there. . . MR. DURGIN: Well we have some capital, okay? He would not be able to employ us as employees and bring in the equipment that is needed to do the baking. Okay, we would bring that in. If he had the money to bring in the equipment and employ us, then we would just be two more of his employees, right, so that would add to the number of people cooking, instead of ten it would be twelve. I guess the difference here is that we are bringing in capital so instead of him having twelve employees, he has ten employees plus two people functioning as a separate business that supply him with his goods. MR. SCHWAB: Yes, but your point is, either way there would be twelve people there, either call them all employees or. . . there is not going to be more employees because. . . MR. DURGIN: Because of us, right. PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. OAKLEY: But there are more employees after than there are now. He doesn't currently have a bakery on premises. . . MR. DURGIN: Right, exactly. Well there is one person there that is making his cakes and doing as much baking as they can out of the kitchen and that person would become a full time kitchen manager so actually he would be increasing the number of people in the business by one. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are doing well. If you can stand up, up against the questioning, you are doing real well. Further questions? [none] Thank you both. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak then in opposition? [no one] Then it is all ours. PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1827 FOR 120 THIRD STREET MR. OAKLEY: I have a question first. . is this Ithaca's greatest concentration of nonconforming uses in this neighborhood? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In this neighborhood? MR. SIEVERDING: There is one across the street, I think. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's an interesting question. MR. WEAVER: You noticed? MR. SIEVERDING: I live there Charlie. I think Charlie's point is pretty well taken relative to the variance that we granted last summer which essentially granted a use variance for what I understood to be the entire ground floor of the building which was formerly a restaurant and that they are occupying space for which a use variance has already been granted. (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie do you want to give a crack at that? MR. WEAVER: Well first of all, if this is a straight use variance we have the same difficulty we had on a recent case. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right, that's what I was pointing out - the owner is not here. . . MR. WEAVER: Which I think I made the statement that common sense would grant the variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I remember that. MR. OAKLEY: Actually I 'm not - it is not clear to me that we actually have an identical case because in fact, in the previous hearing, hardship must already have been demonstrated or we should. . . MR. WEAVER: I wasn't trying to debate that. . . PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1827 FOR 120 THIRD STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Harry Durgin for permission to extend a nonconforming use at 120 Third Street to operate a bakery business as a separate operation, in addition to the existing catering business. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the use variance requested in Appeal Number 1827. MR. PECK: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The space involved has already been granted a variance for food preparation use, technically the reason for this Appeal is that the use is being subdivided so that there are two operators rather than one in the space already approved. 2 . That, according to testimony that the present occupant does not have a business that is vibrant enough to require the total space on the first floor and that the appellant can use the spare space without any crowding of the facility or any substantial increase in traffic flow to the building. 3. With a very substantial off-street parking in the history of the building, there will not be appreciable damage to the neighborhood as a result of this granting. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1828 FOR 401-407 NORTH ALBANY STREET: Appeal of Jacqueline Livingston for an area variance for deficient off-street parking, deficient lot area, excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for two front yards and one side yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 6, 10, 11, and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the multiple dwelling at 401-407 North Albany Street from four four-bedroom apartments to four two-bedroom apartments and three one-bedroom apartments. The property is located in an R-3a (Residential, multiple-dwellings) Use District in which the existing and proposed uses are permitted; however, under Section 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MS. LIVINGSTON: I'm Jacqueline Livingston, I live at 10 Tyler Road, Ithaca. MR. BRISSETTE: I 'm Leo Brissette and I live at 10 Tyler Road, Ithaca. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. MS. LIVINGSTON: I have owned 401-403-405-407 North Albany Street for ten years now and all that time, each of these units have been four-bedroom units. It has been my desire all that time to make the change that I'm now requesting from you, which is, that in each PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 unit I would like to change the four-bedroom to a two-bedroom and a one-bedroom and in the case of one of those four units, I would simply like to change it to a two-bedroom. I realize this increases the number of units in the building, but it decreases the number of tenants from sixteen to eleven and it decreases the need for parking in the area from eight parking spaces to seven. It's been like this since I 've owned this building and this would relieve my hardship in terms of trying to rent four-bedroom units in this particular location. It has been difficult - all of these ten years - for me. My rents are lower than most people who have four bedrooms because of the location of the property and many times tenants - I 've always had to rent the units to four unrelated adults, which causes more damages to the property because it is not a family, who tends to upkeep the property. Sometimes it has been students, sometimes it has just been groups of people who chose to live together and oftentimes in the middle of the lease, someone doesn't get along with someone else, so then I am out the rent by that tenant and some years have been very difficult - I guess because of the demographics of the community and people not finding each other first - so I have had to rent to one person at a time as they came along and there has been incredible squabbles and almost always someone moves out in the middle of the lease - usually in the winter when it is hard to find someone. So what I would like to do is change these units to two-bedroom and one-bedroom unit - this will increase my rent, it will enable me to keep the building up better, although when I bought it ten years ago it was an eyesore in the community, I think it now looks very nice. Some of the houses indicated here as the row houses - in this historic PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 show, because I have kept it up. But I would like to have the finances to keep it up better and I could do that with these changes. If I were not going to increase the amount of money, I would still want to make the changes because it is such a hardship to find these four people for each of the units, every year. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? My only question was to make sure that when you remove some of those walls that the walls up above still stood - that's an aside on the plans. MR. SIEVERDING: You anticipate that the two bedrooms - even with one of them being twenty-four by fifteen, would basically have two individuals, or three individuals, living in those units? MS. LIVINGSTON: In the two-bedrooms? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes and the four-bedroom that you are changing to a two-bedroom unit - I note that one of the bedrooms is extremely large, twenty-four by fifteen - but you would anticipate that that wouldn't be further subdivided by tenants, once they got into the property? MS. LIVINGSTON: No I would only rent that unit to two people and I 've never even - the rooms are large presently, but I never rented to couples - that's even worse. They always squabble and leave me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Moving right along. MS. LIVINGSTON: Actual fact, the amount of space that that two-bedroom will have is the entire amount of space that the four-bedroom presently has. MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, I noticed that in your existing drawings, in fact (unintelligible) - I don't think they are much changed. MS. LIVINGSTON: I find that desireable because this past year I did find one person who was willing to rent the entire amount of PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 space, he is a professor at Cornell and I thought if it were even divided in a little more interesting way for that kind of person, perhaps that's the kind of tenant I could get. That's also the unit that is totally burned and it would cost me less to make it into a two-bedroom rather than make it into a two and a one or back to a four. So there is also a financial consideration there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from this side? [none] Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Joe. Again, beginning with the usual procedure. MR. DALEY: My name is Joe Daley, I live at 218 South Albany Street. I am here as an individual who owns property at 402 North Geneva Street and also ask to speak on behalf of Chris Anagnost, who has property at 322 North Geneva Street, Brook Ruzicka at 506 North Albany and Gary Marsden, 510 North Albany Street. We all feel that this conversion would be a real improvement for the location that it is. All the things that Jackie has described about those units being four-bedroom and the location and difficulty of tenants and some of the quality of tenants is true and all of us feel that it would be an improvement, not just a benefit to her but a benefit to us as adjacent property owners, if this conversion were allowed to take place. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions? MR. SIEVERDING: A benefit to you in terms of overall reduced density? MR. DALEY: Reduced density, reduced problems, that house - because of the problems that Jackie has described - tends to have more problems in it than most of the surrounding ones and it is because of those large number of unrelated individuals that are in there. PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you Joe. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? MR. MARSHALL: I should like to speak in opposition if you will, gentlemen. My name is A.F. Marshall, I reside at 416 North Geneva Street within two hundred feet of the property under discussion. I have here a letter from another neighbor who couldn't attend on account of she has three young children and couldn't get the baby sitter in and her husband is in route from family obligations on the west coast - her name is Cheryl Kallet Ostrom who lives at 415 North Albany Street, a neighbor of the property. I 've known her for ten years. " Now since I am not able to be at this meeting tonight I have asked Mr. Marshall to present this statement for me. I am concerned about and opposed to the idea of converting the 401-407 North Albany Street property from four apartments to seven for the following reasons: 1) I do not feel that the present building should house seven separate apartments, the rationale that the number of bedrooms will be less is not significant in view of the fact that the number of apartments will be almost double. 2) It is stated on the appeals, I notice, that all the units will be between one and two bedroom apartments. Do the landlords intend to have only one occupant in each bedroom, or two tenants? Will the two-bedroom apartments have two tenants each, or three or four? If these apartments do in fact have more than one or two tenants respectively, the number of parking spaces needed will be increased, not decreased. Downtown properties are changing from one family dwellings to apartment buildings at an alarming rate. To house seven units in that one corner building which is opposite PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 the children's center and public grammar school, will have an adverse affect on the neighborhood and I cannot support the idea. Signed: Cheryl Kallet Ostrom, 415 North Geneva Street, Phone number 277-0546. " a home owner for ten years at that address. I am also representing a Mr. Baldini who is adjacent to the property in question, who lives at 408 North Geneva Street - he is in Boston visiting his daughter over the Easter holidays. He more or less concurs with the views that I should like to express too, which is identical almost to what Mrs. Ostrom states. Now that - this is an aside - that house was a one-row house all wooden structure. It was built in the old days when landlords ran amok - property owners, rather real estators ran amok and built the slums of today. They are so closely packed that there is no fire break and the recent fire will demonstrate that. Fortunately at the time that this fire occurred there was only one part in that building and was able - the girl student at the end, the house next to it, alerted the fire department, ran into the building and roused this person out of his apartment - to get out of there. If this had happened at night the fire would have swept through and your loss of life would have been horrendous, I can assure you. On that reason, gentlemen, I wish you would reconsider doubling the number of apartments in that building because of the fire and because of the parking area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Mr. Marshall, would you be so good as to let us have those records, to make them a part of the official record file. Both letters, if you would. MR. MARSHALL: Well this, of course, was written before I realized that you people wanted to stick right with the discussion as you PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 announced from the Chair, there, at the beginning of the meeting. This is an aside - personal views - but I 'll. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But it does contain the substance of the discussion that you just referred to? MR. MARSHALL: More or less. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. If we could make a copy of that. Thank you. Questions from members of the Board? With respect to the fire break - I believe it is the case - there is a brick wall between those units, if I remember correctly. I've had occasion to investigate that building closely, of my own volition prior to the fire, independent to the appellant, whatsoever - there is a brick wall between each one of those units. Just for your own reference. MR. MARSHALL: That's an assurance. MR. SIEVERDING: You are not impressed at all by the reduction in the number of bedrooms - there will be five fewer bedrooms with this new proposal. . . MR. MARSHALL: If they increase the number of families - immediately when you increase the number of families, you increase the use of automobiles - that stands to logic - and that means more parking areas and there aren't any more parking areas. There is no room in the back of the house whatever - just a walkway and unless he can provide some more parking space for his tenants. . . MR. OAKLEY: Are you arguing that the landlord - the owner presented the case that in fact the four-bedroom apartments were rented to four unrelated individuals, who, in theory, might have owned as many as four cars separately. MR. MARSHALL: I didn't realize, it would be a (unintelligible) operation, I thought it would be a family operation. . . PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. OAKLEY: Well the question is, to your knowledge, were there - prior to this fire - were there families living in that building? MR. MARSHALL: To my knowledge, I understand in the past it was - I don't know how it is now. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack? MR. PECK: That was the question I had at the outset, I was concerned with the fact - what seemed would be very nice at the outset, would really not be that way. I was going to ask who it was rented to, and if it is in fact, sixteen different people, that you could depend on sixteen different cars. Now, we obviously cannot control how many people share a bedroom, I guess. MR. MARSHALL: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) MR. PECK: That's a concern - I mean, that would certainly be a concern of mine for the neighborhood. MR. MARSHALL: As a matter of fact - off the record - Mr. Baldini's property at 408 - gentlemen, if you want to see a property that is maintained, drop around and see that - there isn't a blade of grass that is out of order. Now that end house was owned by Mrs. VonShultz, who went to Europe and they had a drug bust there - already a drug operator was in there, and right on their front door it said "Do not disturb after 12:00 A.M. " - right on the door - it was a drug bust - some drug operator was living in there -the Feds moved in. . . that's what is happening to the neighborhood and it seems like this tears it down - as we were talking about. MR. PECK: I guess I really don't understand how this is (unintelligible) . . . MR. MARSHALL: Decay, decay. . . PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. PECK: I know, I know and the point is, I guess, if you are mostly concerned about the appearance of the building, whether it is four or five apartments shouldn't make any difference. . . MR. MARSHALL: The use of the building - the increase in those apartments - they are increasing the number of use of vehicles - we've got to. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Thank you sir. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to have entered into the record that there is a letter to the Board from the Second Ward Alderman. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You all received copies? [Yes, Board Members received a copy of Susan Cummings letter] You read it carefully? PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1828 FOR 401-407 NORTH ALBANY STREET CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Discussion? MR. PECK: Well I guess aside from the outside upkeep of the apartment, I guess the real question is, how can we be assured that we are making the situation better and not worse? (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's a good way to start. SECRETARY HOARD: I can answer part of that - by converting the building, more building codes come into play. If it is restored to what it was, it can be restored as it was. But now it would have to meet safety features that are required under the current code, with materials that are required under current codes, so I think it will end up a better building. MR. OAKLEY: In terms of the estimate - the zoning law - the parking situation is improved slightly. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. MR. OAKLEY: Area (unintelligible) . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is exacerbated. . MR. OAKLEY: Is supposed to deteriorate. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. OAKLEY: There's a - I mean - the fundamental thing I think it has to do with the area requirement as well as with the opposition is that the dispute about whether these row houses which presumably were started as family units - although I would not care to venture a scholarly opinion on that - are not being used as family units or until the fire, were not being used as family units at all - but almost as rooming houses, according to testimony - or something very close to that. And the new apartments, it seems to me, are rather unlikely to be used as rooming houses. I mean, they are PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 smaller units and they are less likely to have a mass of unrelated individuals in them. And if the contention that the apartments are essentially going from a rooming house to a set of families, or a set of somehow related units, is true, then I think that is an improvement in the housing. And what the building might be, or might have been - I 'm not sure is relevant. MR. SIEVERDING: I agree with that and I think the reduction of the number of bedrooms by five is significant, a mitigating factor relative to the deficiency in lot area. All the other deficiencies are unaffected - in fact, one is improved parking and the only one that is affected at all is the lot area - and again, I think the reduction (unintelligible) considerable mitigating factor, I think. MR. OAKLEY: I just want to clarify one thing. My memory is not yet perfect, I believe that all the four - when there were four bedrooms, all of those rooms were legal for two people, is that right? (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: They were large rooms, yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And now? The comparison, I think, is what you are leading to, right? MR. OAKLEY: Is that essentially, even the very large bedrooms are still only legal for two, isn't that correct? SECRETARY HOARD: There may be some that are larger. MR. OAKLEY: Twenty-four by sixteen would be the largest, which is a (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I would be interested in knowing the difference from the point of view of reassuring, particularly the neighbors who are opposed, as well as the Second Ward Alderwoman. PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. SIEVERDING: So it is a question of how many bodies can use three hundred and sixty square feet? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. Precisely. Well, if it's the case that we are making the conversion, if after the conversion, we still come down with fewer bodies then we did before, by virtue of Housing Code - not necessarily anything else. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Well, just quickly, without running through a lot of calculations, by converting to more apartments you burn up space because you have additional bathrooms, additional kitchens, additional living areas, so the net is going to be a reduction in the number of people. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Regardless, it is going to be. . . okay. Further questions, comments, discussion? MR. SCHWAB: What is the rationale of the zoning compared to this massive leak in this area requirement? SECRETARY HOARD: The idea was that additional apartments would have that many more people - but here it's going the other way, you are going from a big apartment to a smaller apartment, so you are getting a reduction. Usually you might have a whole series of four-bedroom apartments and if you keep adding those, you are going to get a lot more people. MR. OAKLEY: I think the fundamental theory is that if they only occupy (unintelligible) apartment, a family is more or less (unintelligible) so that. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think you missed the question. I think what - Stewart do you want to try that again because I 'm not sure that Tom - I don't know whether you care - but it would seem to me as though PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 the question you asked went right on by and Tom gave a different answer to it. MR. SCHWAB: Well, I 'm not sure about that - under the current use it is required - sixty-seven hundred square feet because the zoning somehow thought that the rooming houses - or whatever you call them - large apartments - what are they called - the current use? SECRETARY HOARD: The current use? They are still apartments - dwelling units. But they are Cooperative - if they are occupied by four or more unrelated people. MR. SCHWAB: So large apartments - only requiring sixty-seven hundred versus more smaller ones requiring ten thousand. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Part of the case is that you are going from existing to conversion and the Zoning Ordinance has a building penalty for converting existing buildings. Because it was assumed that whenever you converted you might take a three apartment building and make four or five apartments out of it, so they wanted to make it so that you had to have a larger yard but if it was a new building, then they were trying to give you a little break. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm still not sure he is answering. . . What I think he wants to know is, why we jump from eleven percent deficient minimum lot area to forty percent minimum lot area. MR. OAKLEY: We just have to look at the back of the map. It says clearly the unit is - the unit of concern in area requirements - is (unintelligible) and not the people and it is only people when you get into a room renting situation (unintelligible) in the R-3 anyway. There is a specific thing for rooms let for profit, but for the most part it's per apartment and even though multiple units PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 have exactly the same requirement as the regular units - I presume that this is because units are to be occupied by families. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we getting closer to a motion? PAGE 50 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1828 FOR 401-407 NORTH ALBANY STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Jacqueline Livingston for an area variance to permit the conversion of the multiple dwelling at 401-407 North Albany Street from four four-bedroom apartments to four two-bedroom apartments and three one-bedroom apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1828. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed alteration, in fact the Building Code will improve the fire safety of the building - will improve the parking situation and while it will substantially exacerbate the existing deficiency in lot area, it will also in fact, very probably decrease the actual occupancy of the building. 2. The proposed increase in the deficiency in lot area is substantially mitigated by the proposed decrease in the number of bedrooms and that the other existing deficiencies would not be exacerbated and would be exceedingly difficult to resolve. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal Number 1829 for 156 Cascadilla Park: Appeal of Nancy Jaqua Dein and Robert H. Dein for an area variance for deficient lot area, excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for three front yards under Section 30.25, Columns 6, 10, and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of an addition to the second floor of the single-family house at 156 Cascadilla Park for increased living space. The property is located in an R-1a (Residential, one-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30. 57, the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Please begin by identifying yourselves and where you live, for the record? MS. DIEN: I'm Nancy Jaqua Dein and I live at 156 Cascadilla Park. MR. DIEN: I'm Robert Dein, same address. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to say a few words about expanding? MR. DIEN: Yes. We've been living in our house for eight years, we would like to open up the west end of our master bedroom, extending the space out on top of our porch roof. The area of addition amounts to approximately twelve feet long and eight feet wide - ninety-six square feet. This addition does not increase the square footage footprint of our house on our lot. The house was built as it stands in 1909 and thus the new ordinances make its present PAGE 52 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 compliance with setbacks on each side for front yard distance and size of lot for percentage of house square footage used, impossible. By opening up our west wall and our master bedroom, we will take advantage of the wonderful view of the City, increase the insulation factors in our bedroom by installing double pane [Lowee?] windows and new insulation and increase our bedroom square footage from approximately twelve by twelve to twenty by twelve. We ask that we be granted the necessary variance considering that our intent is to increase and modernize our own personal living space and that, in doing so, we do not even increase the actual footprint of our house on our lot. I have brought along a series of photographs that give you a sense of the actual house and the lot that it sits on and the Cascadilla Park Road which winds around it on three sides. The house has existed this way for seventy-five years and - much to our surprise - we can't really do anything unless we have a variance, considering it is surrounded by street on three sides. The nature of the Park is such as sidewalk, the street and then the house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Do you have any post card photos? MR. DEIN: This is the best we could do. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions? MR. OAKLEY: I have no questions. MR. SCHWAB: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] The case is ours. BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1829 FOR 156 CASCADILLA PARR ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the requst of Robert H. & Nancy Jaqua Dein for an area variance to permit the construction of an addition to the second floor of the single-family house at 156 Cascadilla Park 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 1829. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Practical difficulties exist in creating a situation where the property would conform to the zoning. An undue hardship exists and it is impossible to comply without seriously altering the structure or acquiring additional property. 2 . The proposed changes have no effect on and do not alter any of those deficiencies. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 54 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1830 FOR 96 ITHACA ROAD: Appeal of John and Mary Crowley for a Special Permit for an Accessory Apartment under Section 30.27 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the addition of an apartment unit to the owner occupied single-family house at 96 Ithaca Road. The property is located in an R-1b (Single-family dwellings) Use District in which new accessory apartments are permitted only in owner-occupied houses, and only under a Special Permit issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals. I realize that I probably should have put these in the opposite order. Shall I go ahead and read the other one? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, go ahead. SECRETARY HOARD: APPEAL NUMBER 1831 FOR 96 ITHACA ROAD: Appeal of John and Mary Crowley for an area variance for excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for one front yard, one side yard, and the rear yard under Section 30.25, Columns 10, 11, 13, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a two-story addition to the north end of the single-family house at 96 Ithaca Road for increased living space and for an accessory apartment. The property is located in an R-lb (Residential, single-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted with a Special Permit for the Accessory Apartment (the subject of Appeal No. 1830) ; however, the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the excessive lot coverage PAGE 55 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 and deficient setbacks before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MR. CROWLEY: My name is John Crowley and I live at 96 Ithaca Road. MR. FORTNER: I 'm Burt Fortner and I 'm the Designer on the project and I live in Lansing. MR. CROWLEY: Our appeal this evening is to make an addition to our family home at 96 Ithaca Road. Over the years our space needs have increased and we hope to make an addition that is basically a two-car garage with a one-room efficiency apartment or a "granny" apartment overhead. Your packets have included opinions and observations that several of my neighbors have made, I have tried to answer those in writing with opinions and observations of my own. Any questions that you have about the way we have made those observations, I 'll be glad to answer. Basically I think what - first I guess I would like to say that the way I approached this project was as a fairly naive person who has never done this sort of thing before and the Belle Sherman neighborhood, in recent years there has been much concern - rightfully so, I think - about expansion and development and I think there is - on my part, a sensitivity to the expansion and development there. I have been living in that neighborhood for sixteen years and indeed my children are the fourth generation to live in that neighborhood. I think three things came to the fore as I made this appeal to you and also notified my neighbors of what I hope to do. The first is a design issue, the second is the accessory apartment issue and the PAGE 56 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 third is the zoning issue. I know that we aren't supposed to go off and design our accessory apartment issues specifically - but I think this was so affected by - I 'm sure that there is people here tonight from my neighborhood, who are very concerned about what I want to do so I briefly want to say that we are looking for a one room granny apartment and the expansion that we are looking for - I counted tiles when I was sitting waiting to come and talk to you - it is twenty-one tiles from there to the wall and about twenty-four to the seats behind you Mr. Tomlan - and that's about the square footage of what I 'm hoping to expand on the property and above that would be the one room efficiency apartment. The design has been modified as we have worked through the process and we have considerably lowered the roof line of the hoped for addition and we have pictures to show you - in just a moment. The original design however was approved by the Design Review Board. The second is the issue of the accessory apartment. Mostly, in my neighborhood, those have been done through building or through the rearrangement of space that presently exists. We hope to rearrange the space in the house as it now exists and make the addition in the way that it has been developed and is proposed. And that's a little bit unusual because most of the granny apartments in my neighborhood are indeed in the basement or in part of the house, or whatever, indeed there is quite a few of those and there is several within a block of my home. The third issue is zoning and those are - the present regulations - I 've come to appreciate zoning a lot more than I ever have before, but basically I understand that lot lines and structures were built prior to zoning laws and I find that if I were to build my house in the present location - as it is on my PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 property now - it would be illegal. I never considered that prior to starting to take out the tape measure etc. The zoning issue in my neighborhood is, indeed, intense and I appreciate that and I am concerned about it myself. I think that the thirty-three percent lot coverage I propose is in line with some other variances that have been granted but I do understand it hasn't been an issue like it is in my particular case. Lastly, a personal note, I spoke briefly about how long I have lived on that hill and how long my wife's family has been there. But what is most important to us, as a family, is the future and we have committed ourselves to living in Ithaca - we have raised our children here - we would like it to be our home for as long as we live - I think that's an important thing to say, although I don't know if that's exactly a zoning issue. In a more pragmatic way, what I 'm talking about is a substantial investment of money and I hope it is not a foolish investment and I wouldn't do that if I thought it would somehow be devalued over time by what I hope to do. There has been thought and some of the neighbors have shared with me the thought that we hope that this doesn't devalue our homes. Well I sure hope so too. My home is the most important asset that I have and I hope what I am doing for the property increases its value to myself, and the way to do that is by increasing the value to the neighborhood. Mr. Fortner has prepared some schematics and some ideas that he would like to share with you for just a moment. MR. FORTNER: As I said, I first want to pass around this set of drawings and photographs that details a little more rapidly the location of the proposed addition, shows the context of the surrounding buildings, the relationship to the road and the PAGE 58 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 openness of the site. One thing that I was struck with, just starting this, (unintelligible) was in fact how open the site is. If you look at the first page, it is shown, just the existing house in a rough context - this is taken from (unintelligible) - obviously the darkened in building is Mr. Crowley's and the dots represent the lot line. If you look at the second page that shows the proposed addition - in the context of the area and the dash line that runs vertically on the page represents a setback that seems to be fairly consistent in that area and you will note that the existing Crowley residence and the one-story house next to it are quite a ways beyond the existing typical setback in the area. And in fact, there is over fifty feet of front yard at Crowleys, which means that they are quite a ways beyond the twenty-five foot setback. The third just details, again, that addition with the existing building. The following pages - I tried to give the feel for - again, the openness of the site. For instance, this first gives sort of a panoramic view just coming down Mitchell Street and pointing at the corner. The Crowley's house is this house just to the left of the "hospital" sign. The next photo shows the existing building from Ithaca Road, the proposed addition, of course, is on, as you are looking at the photo - on the right hand side and would replace the area where the garage doors are. The next photo is looking across and shows that, in fact, the front facade of the two buildings - the house next door and the Crowleys - (unintelligible) and the nature of that yard - it is fairly wooded. The next photo shows in detail, the yard next door and shows the area that would be blocked by the proposed addition is primarily driveway. The orientation to the east of the house next door means that no sun PAGE 59 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 would in effect be blocked from the house. And, in fact, the addition hopes to make a court yard effect for that house, blocking it from some of the traffic coming down Ithaca Road. You can see the traffic lights at night, for instance, they would be directly shining into that house next door. Next page shows the house from a view from the north looking to the south - beyond the site. The last page just shows the area going up Mitchell Street and - to get a feel for the context - and that the highway developed landscaping that is in that area with the trees (unintelligible) . The proposal is to add the addition over here [pointing] of the existing building. You can see that the Crowleys have already built into their garage a form of family room. The proposal is to make the entire existing garage, family room - orienting it more towards Ithaca Road. The existing second floor is all bedrooms, with the exception of the deck that is sitting out quite exposed both visually and noise-wise, to traffic. Here is a photo of the existing elevation from Ithaca Road. The proposal is located here [pointing to drawing] outlined in green. There is various site plans. This blue line represents the area from a survey that had been done for the original owners by (unintelligible) , architect. It was part of the original drawing packet. Since then we've done measurements and checked the tax maps (unintelligible) - those show a little bit less site but only in this dimension and it doesn't affect the required setback, in fact, the building is sited such that the sidewalk runs exactly along this line of the property and adds about a foot and a half to this. . so the location of the building on the grounds, circumvented by this drawing. . this is the existing driveway and this is, in essence, a paved front yard - PAGE 60 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 entrance into the garage from here. The main block of the building [pointing] two-story - one-story deck. Again lots of trees, lots of coverage for that area. The proposal, by putting this addition here, we are both adding a front yard, which in this case would be all grass, we are in fact reducing the amount of paved area by three hundred and fifty percent, moving the driveway back from the corner - it is presently here, we are moving it back to this location. And the idea would be to move one tree which is currently located here [pointing to drawing] and move it over to this point to allow the curb cuts. You can see - the first floor (unintelligible) - we are talking about and asking for the variance is to use the line (unintelligible) out to the existing line of the front of the building - this line isn't in dispute - that is within the twenty-five foot setback and then the other variance is needed to allow the rear wall to match the rear wall of the existing building. The rental apartment to be on the second floor - stairs up - will occupy all of it - primarily oriented away from this deck but we will be including a door out to the deck for use by the family in the apartment. This shows the revised elevation of the building - one of the concerns that was raised - these have all been modified as we get more input from people and more input from the design process - the addition is quite small in relation to the main building. we are trying as hard as we can to make it not look like a separate building - so it is not this strange little apartment that is plunked on the site - but that it is all tied in and part of the main building complex. I think the concerns that the building would be obliterating a lot use - changing the character of the neighborhood - at least in my opinion PAGE 61 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 - aren't - that is, it is in the scale of the existing building and the scale of the neighborhood - it is a small addition - we are trying to work with the existing building using the roof lines, etc. - again, the use of a sort of a mansard roof, which is a derivative of (unintelligible) of the existing building helps to lower the scale and keep it small in relation to the site. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: You mentioned some changes in the design - and if I understood you correctly, one of them was_ taking the wall from the existing garage and pushing that forward? MR. FORTNER: That wasn't a change, I am sorry, that was part of the original design. This drawing? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes. MR. FORTNER: The intent of the design - when you are looking at it from the top - especially with the mansard roof of the apartment - we need to (unintelligible) with the existing house and we did that both for area and to keep the design similar and tied into the existing building and that was kind of necessitated by the roof structure. MR. SIEVERDING: The wall of the garage? MR. FORTNER: Yes. This wall stays the same. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, but I thought you were referring to that wall there - pushing that out to be in line with the . . . okay. Given the issue of the lot coverage, have you considered putting the - maybe it wouldn't make any difference - I was going to say, putting the, essentially, the apartment over what is now the garage and just adding a garage? MR. FORTNER: For lot coverage? PAGE 62 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. SIEVERDING: But that wouldn't (unintelligible) at this point. So that has no affect at all. MR. FORTNER: In fact, for the owners it helps but I think in terms of dealing with the site, I think and the existing building, so that we are not. . . MR. CROWLEY: If you would imagine the house with the garage here [pointing to drawing] a flat roof garage with a mass - I think it would be more massive looking. MR. FORTNER: I think you would need to extend - to make it look right - the existing roof line. MR. SIEVERDING: The existing roof line, oh yes, no question, but I think in my mind, the house would be more as - clearly a single family house, whereas to me it (unintelligible) now as an accessory structure with an apartment over it. MR. FORTNER: That's, of course. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Because it has a break in the roof line - I think that tends to stand out - as much as you are trying to integrate it into the present design - it still has a free-standing kind of quality about it. MR. FORTNER: Right, it is kind of a common design on it, though - house - breezeway - garage. I think you will find that fairly prevalent in the Ithaca area. MR. SIEVERDING: Right - breezeways tend to be a little more transparent than what you've got there - it is really a solid mass of building. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. SCHWAB: What was the basic reason not to just go with the garage? (unintelligible) PAGE 63 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. CROWLEY: All four of our parents are in their late seventies and it is apparent that we will have a responsibility for that somewhere in the near future. But that's not really the issue because they won't always be using that, should they be using it. It was an economic issue, partly, and for the same reason that other people ask for or have accessory apartments in their homes - I won't cloud the issue with some sort of - anything other than that it is economic. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. OAKLEY: Are we considering simply 1830 at the moment? MR. PECK: We are doing both. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We were read both - we will do them in tandem. MR. WEAVER: Who is in the front seat? 31? MR. OAKLEY: 31. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: 31 makes much more sense to attack first and then go on with 30. . . MR. PECK: Will that be two separate votes or one? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Two separate votes. Further questions with respect to either appeal? [none] Thank you gents. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting either the variance or the special permit? MR. DALEY: My name is Joe Daley and this time I am representing the Planning and Development Board on this issue. The Planning and Development Board did discuss this only in the aspect of the accessory apartment - the appeal involving the zoning is one which we wouldn't normally take an interest at all - it was only because of the recommendation for or against an accessory apartment that we PAGE 64 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 got involved in it and in the course of our discussion the Board came to the conclusion by vote - you get the results of our votes? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We got the results of that vote. . . MR. DALEY: That vote - okay - I figured you would probably be asking about it. Well let me just explain the rationale for all three then. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please do. MR. DALEY: The vote of the majority, if fifty percent is a majority, was that the proposed good result of an accessory apartment and, the fact that an accessory apartment tends to be better kept up, the fact that it is owner-occupied, etc. , at the same time increasing housing stock in the City, was a good which outweighed the negatives that are apparent in this case. The one negative vote was basically on the design considerations. Basically the same reservations that Herman raised. And, in fact, she felt that because the appellant was planning on redesigning it, that she felt that it was appropriate that it go back to the Planning Board and she wanted to make sure that I included that in my report. The two abstentions felt that while there was a basic good result to be gained by having an accessory apartment, they were worried about the precedent of allowing an accessory apartment by way of exacerbating an existing deficiency and so felt that they couldn't make a recommendation either way - that they felt that since you had more feel for the zoning - it was more appropriate that you make that decision without a recommendation by them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are they aware of the fact, just in parliamentary procedure, that if you don't vote that your vote essentially goes with the majority? PAGE 65 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. DALEY: Yes. They are aware of that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Just thought I would pass that back. MR. DALEY: I 'll make sure they get it. MR. SIEVERDING: That is a silent yes? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is a silent yes. MR. SIEVERDING: The accessory apartment provision of the Ordinance sort of spells out a relaxed area requirement when you are dealing with existing property but then it goes on to say when new construction is involved, then all the existing area requirements will be met - how did you all deal with that issue? MR. DALEY: We didn't deal at all with the zoning issue. . . MR. SIEVERDING: But that is part of the accessory apartment ordinance, not - we aren't talking zoning, we are talking accessory apartment provision. . . of the Ordinance. . . MR. DALEY: The Board feels that the - the majority of the Board feels that the proposed good of an additional housing unit in an owner-occupied property outweighs the bad of the deficiency and that's how we approached it - that it increases an existing deficiency, it doesn't create a deficiency but that was a distinction that two members made with their silent vote - that they felt that there was - that this was a precedent - it would be the first time that an accessory apartment was allowed with a deficiency such as that and they weren't prepared to make that judgement themselves. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There was a third part before I interrupted? MR. DALEY: Three parts. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That was the third part? MR. DALEY: Yes, the pros, the con and the abstention. PAGE 66 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Any questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you Joe. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? MR. BLOCK: I 'm David Block, I live at 324 Mitchell Street, which is katy-korner from the property. It was very nice to hear Mr. Crowley tell us about his concern for the neighborhood and he is right, there are a number of us who also share that concern. It has been a little difficult to keep up with all the paper work. He handed me these things as we came in tonight, so I am just going to sort of dispense with them and let them ride. What I 'd really like to come back to is that he also points out that a number of letters were written - at least two - and the one that I have here was signed by eight members of the neighborhood and I would like to reiterate the point that we call non-conforming conditions. Mr. Hoard, in the beginning read a whole series of deficiencies - the percent of lot coverage - the side yard - the rear yard - etc. and as we read the regulations for R-1 zoning, twenty-five percent is the maximum lot coverage - we are talking about thirty-three percent here. Similarly, district regulations require a front yard depth of twenty-five feet and a side yard depth of ten feet and a rear yard depth of twenty-five percent - all of these are in deficiency. As was also pointed out, what the property occupies right now, irrespective of what is being asked, is also a variance, so what we are really looking at is a variance on a variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: . Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: My only comment is that in an area where much of it is old houses, houses built before the Zoning Ordinance - is virtually PAGE 67 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 every house up there. As Mr. Crowley suggested, my guess would not be all the current zoning regulations but was built before the Ordinance - but that just leaves it to our judgement as to what to do about it. Certainly, for instance, reconfiguring houses than the existing - say, footprint - generally are dealt with fairly lightly because here there is a practical difficulty to move back that front yard when it never existed. Which is, I think, why the focus will be on the new deficiency that has been - that is proposed - will create. MR. BLOCK: I agree but I wonder if all houses are deficient in as many ways as this one is. Admittedly he can't do very much with his property as it exists but it is deficient in three of the areas, in addition to the size of the footprint, that are set out in our zoning. MR. OAKLEY: It is fairly common on corner lots, actually, because it seems to me we often get a corner lot. They are unfortunate because they have two front yards gets them into trouble. MR. SCHWAB: Just to ask you perhaps - on your own personal objection, is it more on sort of the view - I mean - since you are the kitty-korner neighbor - is it the view - the height of it - area (unintelligible) trees or what? MR. BLOCK: I think others will speak to this but I think it will essentially alter the character of the neighborhood. It is sort of a focus property because of where it is - I think that the design as submitted is going to change the aesthetics of the neighborhood and it is really going to change the character of the neighborhood that we love. PAGE 68 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Further questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? MR. GROSS: Good evening, I 'm David Gross and I 'm at 329 Mitchell Street - an immediate neighbor to the Crowley residence and I want to preface my comments by mentioning that I 've had a couple of thoughtful conversations with John recently, in the past couple of days particularly, and I do appreciate their wanting to address some of their future needs. Unfortunately their property doesn't lend itself to additional development and common sense kind of tells you that when you look at the property. They don't own enough land to expand the property - now that matters to me particularly as the adjacent neighbor, because I am concerned with expanding development on a tight lot - concerns my property in terms of its property values, and that is my immediate concern. I addressed those concerns in a letter to the Board on March 28th, I will just reference a few of the points there. I 'm concerned that it impacts my property value, primarily because I own a modest home and would find that this large complex of house/garage/now proposed apartment over garage would so dwarf this modest house that I have that I am concerned about its - the fact that it would be devalued by the proposed development. I might add that, while my house may be small, its attraction is that it is a very fine open and green space that is associated with the property - the views that are possible from it and I think that that is further aggravated by this - will certainly not be enhanced by this proposal. You have spoken a bit to the set back question. We are talking about a property that is currently six point seven feet from my property lines - obviously if it were to be built today, would not meet PAGE 69 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 setback standards - that's fine in a sense that the property is already there and the zoning came later. But the point is that we are talking about an expanded development here, running along that same line, with about the same setback - we are talking an additional building some twenty - twenty-two feet along that line - I think that is aggravating the situation further. I guess the final point and I raised several in the letter - but another one dealt with the issue of increasing the ratio to development - I have another term for that - we are talking about a great deal of built environment on top of this parcel of land and I guess what I am suggesting is - we are creating a tremendously tight situation - we are talking more development - talking about more people - and less space and that is the concern that I am asking the Board to address. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: If Mr. Crowley's proposal were to take the existing garage and turn that into a family room and then attach a garage to it, would that have any bearing at all on the situation? MR. GROSS: We are talking about degree of impact, we are talking about how strident is this proposal, I 'd have to see it, I mean, clearly that would seem to have less impact than the present, of course, but I frankly find the property well developed currently, as it is on the site, and find it difficult to believe he could have much more buildings on that property and have any sense of space in that particular corner of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MS. BRENNAN: My name is Beth Brennan, I live at 326 Mitchell Street, directly across the street from the residence. You all have received my letter - I am not the type of person who normally goes off and writes letters, but it is a very difficult issue here, I appreciate Mr. Crowley's sensitivity to the neighborhood and that it is a neighborhood right now that I think has felt threatened in the past and it's a difficult situation. We all worried about - you know - whether we should say something or whether we should not say something, but I think we decided that it was more appropriate to express our concerns and then see what happens. Looking across Mitchell Street at Crowley's - my biggest personal concern would be the visual impact. We look across at - we would look across at a two-story structure that I would feel comes out quite close to the edge of their property and, to me it is an unmistakably a two-family look - how else do you go from a two-story - one-story - two-story, without putting extra people in there, particularly when there is a separate entrance that we would look at. Now I do appreciate the fact that the plans have been modified and I do think that that is better, I know that - I can't pronounce the name - I know that you [Herman] have made the comment about would it be better if it were a two-two-one type of thing. From my point of view, again, it is all degrees. Maybe that would be better as a two-two-one, as opposed to a two-one-two, because my biggest concern is the view of the obvious two-family type of structure. I realize that there are - I don't know what a granny apartment is but I know that John mentioned it - there are these apartments right in our neighborhood but they do not appear to be apartments. This design, as proposed, is unmistakably two-family, because you PAGE 71 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 can't get from one portion - one part, without having a separate entrance and stairway. The other thing, I would propose possibly, is a - I realize that Mitchell Street and Ithaca Road are - it is an extremely busy intersection, I mean, we live on the other side of it, it's really the pits. We have a back yard, so we are lucky for that and the Crowleys don't have that - I guess you would call it a luxury - they do have their deck, which is beautiful for them and I 'd imagine they would want some privacy on it and to build a two-story structure over the garage would give them privacy on their deck - maybe a solution would be to put up a privacy fence over the deck - I don't know if you can technically do that, but, from my point of view, that would be less of a dramatic impact to the neighborhood and at the same time, maybe it would fulfill their privacy need - it certainly wouldn't give them additional space, but it would give them privacy. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. OAKLEY: I guess I will ask this - I 'm not sure how it will enter into our considerations - the fact that the addition will not cover the area that is currently covered by blacktop - which is what struck me when I looked at the building, was that there was a considerable bit of blacktop that I saw from the road - from both sides of the road - I wonder if you would just give me your impression of how the garage apartment affects your view and how that relates to the affect of the view of the existing driveway? MS. BRENNAN: To be honest with you - I know that it is mostly blacktop and I hadn't really envisioned before I saw the diagrams in the back of the room, tonight, here, that there would be more of a grassed-in area between the garage and Mitchell Street. I think PAGE 72 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 that any giving back of blacktop and making it into grass would certainly be overwhelmed by the fact that you have a two-story structure and it seems to be an awfully lot of house for the structure. I think it is a beautiful house as it stands, but I 'm not the Crowleys, living in the house, and you know, if they need more space, that's another issue, but still, I think there is going to be too much house for the lot - irregardless of the blacktop. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Further questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? MS. HEMSATH: I 'm Sue Hemsath, I live at 404 Mitchell Street - I 'm the house on the point, I straddle Ithaca Road and Mitchell Street and my property directly looks out over the Crowley's. I, too, in the last couple of years, have felt that I was a fairly naive person - I guess I 'm fortunate in that I tend to have about thirteen neighbors, but I 've seen my neighborhood change a lot and I 've worked hard for the last couple of years to try to prevent student housing and changes in the neighborhood that I felt would impinge upon myself and my two children. I think my basic objection is the apartment and the fact that it is a two-story - it takes out a significant part of my view. I have a fifteen foot window, my children and I practically live in that room, most of the time, and true, there are a lot of trees, but the majority of the year I have a view of the whole valley - I see all of Ithaca Gun, Morse Chain - oh, not Ithaca Gun - NCR, Morse Chain - all of Ithaca College - I look out to the Elmira Road - I can see the valley - I can see all the way to Connecticut Hill, the radio towers - it is a very good view at night. That second story will kill it - it will kill the major valley part of it, and the only PAGE 73 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 thing I can say is, I know Mr. Fortner said that he didn't see that it would affect them, but I don't think there is anybody in this room who has been in my room, and sat and looked at my view. I 've lived in the house for seventeen years. The second point that I feel strongly about, and I think I would even be open for a lot of changes, if they weren't done very hastily. When the plans came, I did call the Cold Duck Catalogue and talk with Mattie and Burt, both the architects, and at the time they didn't have the footage, they weren't sure it was accurate and they had to go to the tax maps and find out and I know one of the dimensions went from a hundred and twenty-six feet to a hundred and eighteen feet and to me they are trying to make some changes very quickly without being totally accurate about the footage - that is a mistake, and I don't - at least the blueprints that were handed to me at 7:20 tonight - I don't see any footages on them - I don't know what the dimensions really are. I question them because I know my piece of property has had taken from it and added on to throughout the course of the time. I would just like to see more time given to some careful thinking and planning instead of a hasty set of plans presented. I think the plans that were mailed to us are significantly different from the ones that are being presented tonight. I would like to have more time to think about it and have less of a negative reaction - if I felt some really careful planning was going into this. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? [none] You are aware of the fact that some plans are really scaled off and nothing more than the scale - they don't necessarily have the dimensions on them for any reason - just as an observation. Thank PAGE 74 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, it is all ours. DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD REGARDING APPEAL NUMBER 1831 FOR 96 ITHACA ROAD: CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Area variance first - practical difficulty - special condition, etc. MR. PECK: Can we talk to both issues at the same time? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure you can talk any which way you want to - the reason for considering one before the other is that it would be easier to deal with the second after we deal with the first. MR. PECK: I guess as the newest member of the Board - some of the things that I am concerned with are - what is an R-1 zone? And the whole accessary apartment issue - we potentially have two in front of us tonight, I guess the other one is still coming. It was my understanding that when that was created it was so that people could hold onto their houses, if that wasn't the letter, at least that was the intent - to allow people, as their families grew up and left, to keep their houses, by having people move into portions of the houses that weren't used. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The primary purpose would have been, to provide more housing, okay? If you read the way in which Common Council, in its wisdom, passed the legislation, it wasn't so that - it didn't say start off with the preamble - so that everybody could keep their house, we are going to pass this law - it addresses public good by virtue of additional housing. . . MR. PECK: Well then I guess my question is, what is an R-1 zone? PAGE 75 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well there are those of us who asked that question when the Ordinance was passed. . . MR. PECK: I don't see - my desire is to treat everybody the same, I guess, as best we can. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Within one zone. . . MR. PECK: Yes, within one zone and say well, either you can have accessory apartments or there have to be certain conditions in which they are - I mean - in this case with building an apartment, we are increasing lot size coverage. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that is certainly one of the conditions - one of the things that has come up in the discussion and will come up again tonight, is whether the Ordinance, as it was written - as the Common Council wrote it, I should say - really meant for us to interpret the building of accessory apartments as opposed to the fact that there was a building in which, a secondary use - an accessory use was originally - now if we want to turn the discussion to that. . . . MR. PECK: I just don't know where to start thinking about it - that's where I started thinking about it - I 'd be happy to hear from. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the reason - let me just share with you the reason I was going to other way, is because, in fact, if we deal with the area variance question first. . . then the other doesn't become an issue too much. MR. WEAVER: Could we assume that he is going to put his ping pong table in the new space - it is none of our business until it becomes an accessory apartment - that's another issue. PAGE 76 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. OAKLEY: When we are addressing the question of practical difficulties - or if we have to address the question of practical difficulties and presumably simply practical difficulties in adding on so many square feet of lot coverage (unintelligible) allowable lot coverage is not. . . . which is what (unintelligible) but we don't consider it if we don't admit that there is indeed an accessory apartment there. We don't (unintelligible) any use for that as an obstruction. But anyway. . . when we start talking about practical difficulties, if someone comes in and says I have an exceedingly small dining room, I need a larger dining room, I think I am referring to a real case here. The only way in which I could possibly obtain this perfectly reasonable wish is to exacerbate an existing deficiency. We recognize - we fuss around with what places in the house might hold the dining room - what affect that might have on the house, and so forth, and we then decide that that is the only place in which he can put a dining room that is a reasonable thing to do in this neighborhood. So we never are dealing simply with a structure - we are only dealing with a use which is being proposed in which there are practical difficulties in obtaining that use in any other way. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But this is an area variance, not a use variance. MR. OAKLEY: I am using "use" - I knew when I was saying "use" that Iwas. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That you would get caught, I understand. . . MR. OAKLEY: But I was using "use" in a different sense - I could not in an instant think of another word there - because we were talking about not a non-conforming use but a perfectly conforming PAGE 77 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 use, which the owner desires nevertheless it is not a use variance, it is an area variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Just make sure it is clear. MR. OAKLEY: And so it is rather difficult, I think it would be nice to sort of maybe start out with the practical difficulties - we may cull it out - hypothetical entirely in terms of use - hypothetical, uncontroversial use - say expanded living space and discuss the practical difficulties and whether, in fact, that we should discuss - we would grant that permit - in that sort of abstract idea that there is some use which we would approve. But it is hard to discuss - makes it difficult certainly. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Who wants to discuss John's hard to discuss theoretical situation? MR. WEAVER: You really invite me to say something. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I thought it was engraved actually. MR. WEAVER: The existing building is a single family dwelling in an area zoned for such use - serves whatever purpose for the individual owner and it just squeeks through the lot coverage limitation for that area. The proposal creates a deficiency. MR. OAKLEY: I agree with you. MR. WEAVER: The existing rear yard deficiency is one of those things that we deal with regularly - there it is and it shouldn't have anything to do with proposals that might go in some other direction except, in this case, it extends the non-conforming line by twenty-two more feet, give or take. I find that both of these are - one an exacerbation of an existing deficiency - the other created out of the new project entirely is a substantial deficiency in lot coverage. If we are to be sensitive to density and density PAGE 78 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 visual as well as actual in terms of occupancy, and bounce that up against the need for additional housing, I can see a lot of row houses being created in side yards - they certainly wouldn't - I don't find that as an acceptable reason for looking kindly or otherwise. I read Common Council 's several paragraphs - when they adopted the apartment ordinance and as long as we don't run out of middle income people, whatever that might mean, we'll always have a need for these apartments, so hurray - one paragraph will suffice. I do think though that there is an application for a zoning variance that there should be a demonstrated need that goes beyond the obvious creation of sub-standard conditions that do not now exist, namely the extension of the rear lot line and the creation of the sub-standard coverage of building ratio. MR. OAKLEY: To get back to me - I think the message I get from you Charlie is that you would find that the need had to be very substantial in order to create the area variance of this magnitude. MR. WEAVER: I didn't say that. MR. OAKLEY: You didn't say that, okay, then I didn't get that message. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Herman, do you want to take a try? MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm not sure whether you can separate them and deal with this excessive lot coverage as a separate issue from the accessory apartment building. I mean, we in the past, it was brought up last time by a question of an appellant who wanted to extend the back portion of a house and thereby exceed by roughly the same percentage of lot coverage - and the response from a number of us was - we routinely do this. You know, lot coverage - we grant variances for excessive lot coverage when the use is for PAGE 79 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 additional living space - there is just going to be one family living there and we do that. In that kind of sense, I think you could deal with 1831 in a similar fashion. But I think when it comes to the accessory apartment, it is something altogether different. In other words, had he come and said that "I want to take the garage and make it a family room and add a garage to it" that might be viewed a little bit differently than "I want to take my garage and make it a family room and add a garage and put an apartment on top. " MR. WEAVER: It certainly muddies up the need for additional living space. MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, it sure does. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But wasn't the prior case - just to clarify - a less concern with the exacerbation of the side yard or the rear yard deficiencies - I think that's the point that Charles makes that needs to be addressed. If I can quote you in that respect. MR. WEAVER: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The notion - we've had instances in the past - where yes there has been given a lot of given configuration - the notion that we could exceed lot coverage and feel comfortable with it if the adjacent parcel wasn't in any way affected or adversely affected by virtue of that addition. . . MR. SIEVERDING: So in other words, when lot coverage is really the sole deficiency. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: When it is the sole deficiency, I think the question here is really the neighboring property - to the degree - any exacerbation of that deficiency - which didn't exist - I mean, PAGE 80 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 we are creating the deficiency, if this is the case. Stewart, any thoughts? MR. SCHWAB: Do you think that this is different - this is going into the front yard or double front yard as opposed to the back yard - just how it will affect the adjacent properties. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that is certainly a concern too, relative to the example, I think, that Herman is thinking of, to be fair. Well we aren't coming very quickly to a resolution but we've batted around a point, however theoretical. MR. SIEVERDING: Well a resolution always brings it to a head. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. That's the other way to look at it, if someone wants to move, we can certainly battle past that point. PAGE 81 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1831 FOR 96 ITHACA ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of John and Mary Crowley for an area variance to permit the construction of a two-story addition to the north end of the single-family house at 96 Ithaca Road for increased living space The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1831. MR. PECK: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Creation of additional building on the lot will create a substantial deficiency in lot coverage. 2. The proposed structure will increase the rear yard deficiency by twenty-two (221 ) feet. 3 . The proposed increase in the building goes beyond meeting the desire for additional living space. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there further discussion? MR. OAKLEY: I don't quite understand the implication of the third finding of fact. MR. WEAVER: Well not toying with the findings of fact so far, but to answer - what I see is a perfectly reasonable need for family to increase the amount of space that it occupies in its home - this proposal goes beyond serving that need and creates a new apartment which I can't see that it ties in very closely to a need for more living space. I find that quite a different matter. PAGE 82 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. SIEVERDING: And in fact the accessory apartment provision in the Zoning Ordinance says that new construction should conform to area requirements in the district. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. MR. SIEVERDING: That was just support for his third finding of the resolution. MR. WEAVER: Well I 'm not emotionally involved with whether this is voted up or down, if that's a problem. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's good. Shall we have a vote on this matter? A yes is to deny. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO APPEAL NO. 1831 DENIED PAGE 83 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1832 FOR 142-144 EAST STATE STREET: Appeal of Charles B. Wells for an area variance for deficient rear yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the building at 142-144 East State Street from two retail stores plus four apartments to two retail stores plus five apartments. The property is located in a B-3 (Business) Use District in which the existing and proposed uses are permitted; however, under Section 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the deficient rear yard setback before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Thank you for your patience so far. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. WELLS: I 'm Charles Wells and I live at 1573 Taughannock Blvd. , Trumansburg. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to say a few words about why the change? The difficulties you may have with the property? MR. WELLS: This specific property has been in our family for many, many years and recently , the configuration of partnership has changed, allowing us now to do something about the building - prior to this, the managing partner was very stringent in keeping the building up and making any changes for the better - whatnot - so at this point we want to renovate the building, both inside and out - it is in very poor shape. The outside renovation is basically cleaning up (unintelligible) inside what we are proposing to do is PAGE 84 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 change the amount of apartments - if you are familiar with the building - it is on the Commons - but the way they are laid out is they are very long, narrow apartments and what we want to do is to try to better utilize the space. About the only way we can do this is - on the second - on one side, instead of having a very long, narrow one-bedroom apartment, we want to split it in two. It is not appealing the way it is - and create two studio apartments instead of a single one-bedroom. This is the only change - no footprint change of the building whatsoever and in doing this - changing the configuration of the apartments, we lack rear yard setback of ten feet - we only have five - we would have to virtually cut five feet off the building to meet this requirement - the five feet that we would have to remove from the building is occupied by one of the commercial tenants. The building is in excess of a hundred years old - I think the feasibility of doing this is very impractical - this is why we need the variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. PECK: Would you say something about requirements for natural light - how does that fit in - I guess the point is that the one-bedroom apartment uses it all, is that your point? MR. WELLS: The requirements for natural light and ventilation, I believe any habitable space, other than a kitchen and a bathroom, requires so many square feet of natural light and windows - also ventilation through windows, in order to be a habitable space - living room, bathroom, bedrooms - this kind of thing. The way these buildings are set up, there are only windows in the front and the rear of the building - no windows on the sides which creates a difficulty when trying to utilize the space efficiently. We have PAGE 85 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 enormous amounts of space with no windows, making it virtually - out of a thousand square foot area we would wind up with nine hundred square feet of bedroom - that's it, we can't utilize the area properly. The practicality of putting windows in the side of the building - it just doesn't work - there would be all kinds of legal problems if I tried to do that because they aren't existing now. One being, that if the neighboring property owners decided to go up a floor, you would lose all of your windows and be back at square one. The reason why we want to just sub-divide this one apartment - on the other side we can't do it - there is still not enough passage-length to the rear of the building - it extends further out - the second floor - the extension is taken out by the commercial tenant. The third and fourth floors are town houses - two-story apartments. There is no practical way to change those so we have to leave those as is and, again, there is a lot of wasted space - there is really no practical way that we could change that so they have to be left as is basically. (unintelligible) feasible area to do it. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So much for windows. MR. WELLS: Yes, lack of. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? (none] Thank you. MR. WELLS: Oh, I don't know if you received - I did get a letter from a neighboring property owner. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Who said? MR. WELLS: From Jason Fane. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine, we have a copy of it and we are in good shape. PAGE 86 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. WELLS: I did receive one return letter from a property owner that was not delivered by the postal service, I received that today from - D.P. Barr, 400 Founders Drive, Winsockett, Rhode Island and it is marked "Return, not deliverable as addressed - unable to forward" . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's fine - we' ll note it in the record and let it go at that. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case. . . . PAGE 87 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1832 FOR 142-144 EAST STATE STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Charles B. Wells for an area variance to permit the conversion of the building at 142-144 East State Street from two retail stores plus four apartments to two retail stores plus five apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1832 . MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Practical difficulty in conforming to the rear yard setback requirement was demonstrated in that it would require demolition of part of the building. 2 . No other deficiency exists and this would serve to allow a long needed improvement in an existing building in downtown Ithaca. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 88 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal Number 1833 for 108 North Plain Street: Appeal of Leo N. Renaghan for an area variance for deficient off-street parking and loading, deficient lot area, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and both side yards, under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the second floor apartment in the building at 108 North Plain Street to additional office spaces. The property is located in a B-2a (Business) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Section 30.57 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed area deficiencies before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. RENAGHAN: My name is Leo Renaghan and I live at 107 West Falls Street, Ithaca. My wife and I, Charleen Height are the owners of the property at 108 North Plain Street. It is a two-story victorian, it is the former Ithaca House Art Gallery - we operate a business on the first floor called Service Decisions, which is a consulting firm. The second floor is presently unoccupied - in the past it has been rented as a three-bedroom apartment. We wish to renovate the second floor and add office space so we can expand our business to the second floor. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? PAGE 89 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. PECK: You said that the second floor has not been rented for the past one and a half years? MR. RENAGHAN: Yes. MR. PECK: Is that because you couldn't rent it or because you didn't want to rent it? MR. RENEGHAN: No, since we've owned the building for a little over three years, we've had two different tenants - the last tenant we had we had to evict. It is a three-bedroom apartment - it has been difficult for us to find tenants that don't interfere with our business in terms of noise and helping to keep the character of the neighborhood and so, after the eviction of the last tenant, we just left it empty. We didn't try to rent it, knowing that sooner or later - we felt that our business would expand enough that we would want to have office space anyway. MR. WEAVER: How many more people will this accommodate? MR. RENAGHAN: We are looking to put three to five more people up there. Presently we have three full time employees and then when we have projects we add part timers for the length of the project. MR. SIEVERDING: Parking now is unavailable on the site - you just park on the street, when it is available? MR. RENAGHAN: Just parking on the street - there is no parking on the site. MR. SIEVERDING: Tom, with the additional conversion - with the conversion of this residential to office, the parking requirement doesn't increase? There is not. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) seventy five - or is it the five hundred foot rule? or what? PAGE 90 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: No. It didn't change because the apartment required parking too. MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) Then it is also correct that the proposed conversion has absolutely no affect on the existing deficiency? SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: Nothing changes under the zoning. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Worksheet shows you. MR. SIEVERDING: Right. (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. OAKLEY: I just wondered where Tom found the fifty-four percent of lot that wasn't occupied by building? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: He used his new scientific instruments. SECRETARY HOARD: What are we talking about? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: 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] Then it is all ours. PAGE 91 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1833 FOR 108 NORTH PLAIN STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Leo M. Renaghan for an area variance to permit the conversion of the second floor apartment in the building at 108 North Plain Street to additional office space. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1833. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are practical difficulties in making the property conform to existing regulations that would impose a hardship on a property owner. 2 . The proposed conversion does not alter any of the existing deficiencies. 3 . The exception would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and does not change the character of the district in any way. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 92 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1834 FOR 115 UTICA STREET: Appeal of Martha Hamilton and Mitchell Weiss for an area variance for deficient lot area, and deficient setbacks for both side yards under Section 30.25, Columns 6, 12, and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the addition of a small storage room to the side of the single-family house at 115 Utica Street. The property is located in an R-2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30.57, the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Again, beginning with identification and where you live. MS. HAMILTON: I 'm Martha Hamilton and I live at 115 Utica Street. MR. WEISS: I'm Mitchell Weiss, I live at 115 Utica Street. I can't add a whole lot to the information that you already have. Our intent is to build a small storage shed on the side of our house. We have lived in the house now for just about two years and the only problem that we found is the storage - it has no basement or attic so we have no place to put the lawn mower, bicycles, garbage cans, garden tools, and so forth. Before we lived there, the house was maintained by an outside agency - they brought in all that stuff so it wasn't stored on the premises - the reason we ended up having to apply for a variance is that we wanted to try and keep the aesthetics of our house - we wanted to continue the PAGE 93 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 roof line of our house, down with the shed. So that - or at least make it not look like this junky thing put on the side of our house. So we wanted to attach it to this part - which made it technically inefficient and we cannot meet the area variance on the side of the house. But the opposite side of the house we only have about a one foot clearance from our neighbor - so no matter what we have on the side that we built this shed, it doesn't matter. I don't know what else to say. There was a shed years ago in back, right in back of the house but that was torn down before we moved in and . . . MS. HAMILTON: And the whole house was also changed so that where that shed was, is now where our kitchen window looks out - and then there is also a patio there - it just wouldn't work very well with putting the shed there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: What's the dimension of the shed? MR. WEISS: I would say seven and one-half by nine. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is indicated on the drawings. MR. WEAVER: Well I can't read it. Reason for the question. MR. PECK: That would leave two and one-half feet between your shed and the neighbor's house according to this picture, or is it more than that? MR. WEISS: No it is more than that. . . MR. PECK: It says ten feet to the property line but it doesn't look like much more than that. MS. HAMILTON: When I measured it, it comes out (unintelligible) from our house there is thirteen feet from our house to their house. They are supposed to have one point two feet plus or minus PAGE 94 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 it says - on the scale it doesn't come out like that - the Building Commissioner drew that little drawing for me - he measured it to scale but when I measured the thirteen feet which would mean that if it comes out seven and a half feet, it still (unintelligible) MR. OAKLEY: Thirteen feet from you to the neighbor's house. . . MS. HAMILTON: No, but they still have one point five feet. . . MR. OAKLEY: They have one point five feet, oh, okay. MR. SIEVERDING: We have a survey. Actually though it is from the property line and by placing the storage shed on the side of the house you are coming to within two and a half feet of the property line, according to the survey, which is attached. MR. WEISS: Yes that is correct. MR. OAKLEY: So what you are saying is that the survey can't be accurate. MS. HAMILTON: It doesn't seem to me that it can be. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there a connection between the proposed shed and the inside of the building in any way? MR. WEISS: I think only an electrical outlet there - it has to come from the house. MS. HAMILTON: There is no entrance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But there is no entrance - there is not a doorway between the shed and the house proper - if you put the shed on - the shed stands. . . . MR. WEISS: The doorway would be on the side yard. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: On the side yard or on the rear? MR. WEISS: It would be on the side, I think. PAGE 95 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And the argument for putting it there is essentially convenience as opposed to, for example, on the patio or at the end of the patio? MR. WIESS: Right - well we wouldn't have a patio. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: At the other end of the patio. MR. WEISS: At the other end of the patio would be blocking our kitchen window. MR. SIEVERDING: And a free-standing structure in the rear yard - is that. . . you know, there is a provision within the Ordinance that allows for an accessory structure and that has a more relaxed standard - you can come within three feet of your property line upon building a free-standing structure in the rear. . . MR. WEISS: I guess the only reason we didn't want to build it there. . . MS. HAMILTON: Our yard is so small, it seems like it would take up a lot of the yard in back. I guess aesthetics is part of it. It seems to me it would fit much nicer on the side. We did go to our next door neighbor (unintelligible) MR. PECK: Well we have a letter don't we? From the next door neighbor? Didn't I read something? SECRETARY HOARD: Across the street. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: He is going to be looking at it, he is not next door to it. MS. HAMILTON: Were they opposed or. . . MR. PECK: Said something about clearance for ladders and stuff like that. . . if there were a fire or something of that nature. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you seen the letter? MS. HAMILTON: No I haven't seen the letter. . . PAGE 96 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 MR. WEISS: He sent us a letter but it didn't look like that one. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Go ahead John. MR. OAKLEY: Okay. It says, 113/20/88 I question the position of the shed. It places the edge of the house just 2.5 feet from the neighbors. This is hardly enough room to move ladders let alone get fire equipment in if needed. The shed will be a fire and safety hazard if built as proposed. It should be built elsewhere on the premises in my opinion. Thank you. /s/ Donald H. Bilderback, 112 Utica Street. " CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you John. Further questions of the appellant? MR. WEISS: The only thing I can say, you have the survey maps - if you go to our house and you inspected the property - it is not two and one-half feet from the property line. . . MR. PECK: I was there today and I looked at it - there certainly is more space on the south side than on the north side. MR. WEISS: That's for sure. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It's still tight. MR. PECK: It still gets pretty close. Are you really opposed to putting a shed in the back yard somewhere? MR. HAMILTON: I guess we are or we wouldn't have gone to this trouble. MR. WEISS: I 'm sure that is what we will end up doing if we don't get the variance, I guess - I 'm not sure. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case, I 'll entertain motions. . . PAGE 97 BZA MINUTES - 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1834 FOR 115 UTICA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Martha Hamilton and Mitchell Weiss for an area variance to permit the addition of a small storage room to the side of the single-family house at 115 Utica Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1834. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT: 1. There doesn't appear to be practical difficulties or special conditions which would make compliance with regulations impossible, given the accessory structure provision in the ordinance which has more relaxed area requirements for these types of buildings. VOTE: 5 YES; 1 NO DENIED PAGE 98 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal Number 1835 for 204 Ridgedale Road: Appeal of Murray Daitchman for an area variance for excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard under Section 30.25, Columns 10, and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of an addition to the rear of the single-family house at 204 Ridgedale Road for increased living space. The property is located in an R-1b (Residential, one-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30.57, the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. YOUNG: My name is Kenneth Young, I live at 609 North Tioga Street. I am the designer for the proposed project at 204 Ridgedale Road and the owner, Mr. Daitchman's representative, since he was unable to be here since he had a previous engagement. I brought with me an owner's authorization form that I would like to submit for the record. The extension of this house is based upon the owner's desire to have one large room in his house - his living room at present has dimensions of less than eleven feet by fifteen feet. He also has only two legal bedrooms in the house (unintelligible) a sub-standard bedroom. I wish to add to the back of the house a partial two-story and partial one-story addition. PAGE 99 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 In addition to that I want to continue the line of the building with the fence line. The building, as it stands now, is about three point five feet to four feet from the property line. The adjacent building, across the property line is approximately the same distance away from the property line creating a corridor somewhere in the neighborhood - depending on where you measure the buildings - about six to seven feet wide. It is our intention not to compound that problem by reducing access to the back yard but to maintain that line of the building until we get to the back yard. I also have a letter from the owner, Mr. Philipson, he is the immediate adjacent neighbor, it says: "I, Warren Philipson, of 202 Ridgedale Road have reviewed the planned extension of my neighbors at 204 Ridgedale. I understand the plans and find no objection. Sincerely, /s/ Warren R. Philipson. " We have been careful in planning this so that we wouldn't block any light into his house. He gets light from above their house anyway and any addition that is next to his house will be the one-story portion of the addition. The drawing that I believe you have on top page - the part that is labelled "addition" is the two-story portion of the addition. It is also his intention not to disrupt the character of the neighborhood by putting a larger addition on the house than would have been done originally. The area that we are exceeding the lot coverage by is one percent - the lot itself measures sixty-three hundred and thirty-eight square feet and exceeds it by an area of about eight by eight square feet - or eight by eight feet which gives us sixty-four square feet. On my drawing I have indicated the area that we are exceeding the lot allowance by - in this corner - that dark spot in the corner, eight by eight. PAGE 100 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The side yard to the west is the one that is deficient? MR. YOUNG: That is correct. MR. SIEVERDING: And then the addition would extend that deficiency, is that. . . MR. YOUNG: Yes, it would by another sixteen feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is the configuration of the addition predicated on any particular relationships to the inside of the plan and arrangement for the house? MR. YOUNG: Yes it is. The shape of the house is based upon the extension of the existing gable. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But that doesn't tell me about the plan, that tells me about the form. MR. YOUNG: Ask the question again. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Does the shape and extent of the addition - is that predicated to any degree upon the existing plan or arrangement - interior arrangement of the structure? In other words, if I were to carry it to the next step, have you thought through or what is the rationale for the extension of that side yard deficiency - could you rearrange the additional mass in the back yard, or what is the relationship there - in such a way that it is justified? What kind of practical difficulty do you have with the building serving its function as it is that necessitates this - that's a long preamble but. . . MR. YOUNG: I understand the point now. I think, to answer that question, the proportion of that addition exacerbates the problem - it is necessary to derive a room that's adequate to shape furniture PAGE 101 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 around. If it was any narrower than that, it would end up being six feet wide, I think - which is not enough for a room. MR. OAKLEY: So where is the existing living room? MR. YOUNG: In the front of the house. MR. OAKLEY: In the front of the house, so the back of the house is? MR. YOUNG: It's got sort of a small porch on to the very small kitchen - a six by eight kitchen. . . MR. OAKLEY: This section on here is kitchen and porch [pointing]? MR. YOUNG: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: Okay. And you propose to essentially make the addition and this section a living room? MR. YOUNG: No, just the - yes, that's the living room portion of it. MR. OAKLEY: This is the living room. Okay, so what's this other? [changed tape here so missed some of the dialogue] CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You can get some sense, though - you can use your binoculars to look at living room up above the top of that center sketch - you see, and then it shows stairs and hall immediately to the left and then what they are doing is essentially adding on as you move on down the page. Xerox reduction is nice but it doesn't help much when you are trying to read things. MR. OAKLEY: Also (unintelligible) framing seems to. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. Further questions? MR. SIEVERDING: At its narrowest point, where that addition comes close to the west side yard, is that four feet? MR. YOUNG: No, it would be about three feet. PAGE 102 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 MR. SIEVERDING: Three feet. And the further south you move, it begins to . . . MR. YOUNG: It begins to inch towards the property line. MR. SIEVERDING: That's moving north? MR. YOUNG: Yes, the further north it goes. . . MR. SIEVERDING: That's means it comes closer and closer to the property line. . MR. YOUNG: That's right. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. PECK: Did you try any plans that would not have made the situation worse? MR. YOUNG: Yes we did - we kept on adding towards the back but it became a very ill-proportioned house - it became very massive and it didn't suit the character of the - it is a 1930 's - depression era home and just the massiveness of it didn't suit it. We are trying to maintain the character of the neighborhood. That is why there are a number of jogs in the house to reduce the massiveness. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No 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? Again, if you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. HORN: My name is Bill Horn and I live and own the property at 210 Ridgedale Road. I 'm new at this, I 've only owned the property now for going on eight months and I received this notice about a month ago. I have four concerns. One is the affect that this modification will have on 206 Ridgedale - I believe it is 206 - it would be the property just up the hill from 204 - it is a house PAGE 103 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 that is currently on the market - I don't know if - you see, my property at 210 Ridgedale has a ten foot variance and I can see why - one of the reasons why they put that ten foot variance in - with a window facing somebody else's roof - I'm just concerned that that modification will affect the character of the neighborhood and cause the properties to be spaced closer. The second point is the extent of the modification - the only thing that I have is the paragraph written - no drawings and it is not clear to me whether they are building up or out or just exactly how the modifications will affect the visual character of the neighborhood. My third concern is the final use of this structure - my second hand information is that this structure has been used for rental property in the past and I 'm concerned that perhaps he is just adding space for rental purposes. And the fourth consideration is on the variance that is being requested. If I read it, it's no - there are a couple of different types of variances that can be granted - one is an area variance - another is a building within this ten foot side yard and from the discussion this evening, it wasn't clear to me if the area variance came into effect. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So long as you are clear, we won't go into it in any great length - but we are really dealing with an area variance, the other is a deficiency that comes within the scope of that. Okay? There are two kinds of variances, use variance, and area variance - we are thinking of an area variance at this point - there is no change in use. . . MR. HORN: I see, so (unintelligible) I 'm thinking of percentage of lot, something like that. . . PAGE 104 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Percentage of lot and all that, come under review within the context of an area variance, okay? And the side yard setback and what not. MR. HORN: I see, and what's in consideration here is the fact that it's within that side yard setback? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, right. . . MR. HORN: As opposed to percentage of lot. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the other as well. MR. HORN: Okay. That didn't - I guess that wasn't mentioned in this short description. My concern is that I really don't know how the change is going to affect the nature of the neighborhood and I 'm concerned. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Further questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case. . . Discussion or do we have a motion? PAGE 105 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1835 FOR 204 RIDGEDALE ROAD MR. OAKLEY: One point which I implied for public record but I felt that a large percentage of the applications that come before this Board are supported by thoroughly inadequate drawings which makes it very difficult to comprehend what is going on. I 'm not sure that's (unintelligible) for denying a variance but nevertheless I. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I grant you. . . that is I agree with you. MR. OAKLEY: I see no harm in siting it. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. Well are there practical difficulties and special conditions? Is the hardship unique? No, that really doesn't apply. . . Just special conditions. Practical difficulties and special conditions. Did we see any difficulties and special conditions? MR. SCHWAB: Well what makes us a little gun shy, of course, is here I think, similar to the last one, although lesser in all dimensions - going up to twenty-five and twenty-nine (unintelligible) while the other one went up to thirty-three - extending it. . . (unintelligible) this one also extends the side yard deficiency - as I recall the third finding in the case just previous - apparently for internal living space use - one difficulty is (unintelligible) isn't clear to me whether his alternatives have really been considered - there are other directions this house perhaps could go - although I sense that he is probably correct that he can't just go narrow back too far - that house (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thoughts from the other side of the table? PAGE 106 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 MR. WEAVER: I have a question. Does anyone here know what the side yard in the proposal is? It varies, obviously. The western side yard. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What the side yard is? MR. PECK: It gets closer and closer (unintelligible) MR. WEAVER: It gets worse and worse, but by how much? MR. OAKLEY: (unintelligible) but there is no change but. . MR. SIEVERDING: I think that was the question I asked before - at what point do you end up less than five feet along that - because it sits at an angle to the property line. MR. WEAVER: Well at what point does it become less than ten? MR. OAKLEY: It became less than ten, I think, quite far back. MR. WEAVER: According to the worksheet, there was five feet existing, so if it is, in fact, five feet. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Five feet at the front perhaps, but it certainly isn't, halfway back. MR. WEAVER: There is no structure anywhere else to make it from. So if we only have five feet up there, we are certainly less than five for the full route of the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I sure would like a motion. PAGE 107 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1835 FOR 204 RIDGEDALE ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Murry Daitchman for an area variance to permit the construction of an addition to the rear of the single-family house at 204 Ridgedale Road for increased living space. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1835. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed addition creates a side yard deficiency where one doesn't exist now. 2. The proposed addition would exceed the maximum percent of allowable lot coverage where one doesn't exist now. 3 . There hasn't been a demonstration of practical difficulties or special conditions which would make the granting of this particular variance possible. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO DENIED PAGE 108 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1836 FOR 256 FLORAL AVENUE: Appeal of Dennis and Michelle Mogil for an area variance for deficient off-street parking, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 11 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the appellants to replace the existing second story of the single-family house at 256 Floral Avenue with a larger second story for additional and improved living space. The property is located in an R-3a (Residential, multiple dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30. 57, the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you will begin by identifying youself and where you live. MR. MOGIL: My name is Dennis Mogil, I live at 256 Floral Avenue. MR. POLUDNIAK: My name is John Poludniak and I live in Etna and I work with Ithaca Neighborhood Housing. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you want to put on a new second story or replace the second story in part, right? MR. POLUDNIAK: Yes. Let me add interesting background to this. As we tried to help the Mogils in developing some plans we made one kind of assumption that we didn't find out until coming to this process of the appeal and actually seeing a copy of the survey map, which you have, which shows this unusual jog on the corner of the PAGE 109 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 house that - I should have realized that it follows the property line. Of course, in our process of plans, we thought it would be very wise to eliminate that little jog and in the new second story addition which now comes - or is proposed to come - to the back of the house, would also eliminate that jog. When I found out that the jog was there for the reason that they didn't own the property I had to very quickly have someone draw that corner out of the plans which you have - both for the downstairs and the new proposed second floor. So what I am doing here is - I want to ask if you can, in addition to this variance for the area - can you, at the same time, make a contingent approval that if the owner can find a legal way to acquire the right to use that little jog of property, either through ownership or some legal fashion that would enable them to use that, can it be approved that that corner would be added in? I guess settle it either way - kind of a supplement to what you have there - that would just show that corner added back in - it would be about fourteen square feet - and in addition to, you know, can the whole project be done without the corner - could it be done with that little fourteen foot square corner added in - if we can (unintelligible) the neighbor will allow for that legal feat to happen. If something like that . . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Given all of those "ifs" I suppose anything is possible. MR. WEAVER: Maybe (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If you understand that all of those are "ifs" let's take them one at a time. I can appreciate not having that kind of corner chewed out of a bedroom - that's. . . PAGE 110 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 MR. POLUDNIAK: Well it's the first problem that existed and in the existing plan you can see that it was a very small second floor - hardly usable for normal sized people and very deficient in ceiling heights and also very small and terribly laid out the way the rooms are divided in that initial plan. So the Mogils have not really - they have used it for storage space and basically have been living downstairs. They have two children now and so would like to be able to live in this home with adequate size bedrooms. So the new plan takes the - the upstairs would go from where it exists now - just extending over the existing footprint to the back, adding space for - if you will look at the existing footprint of the upstairs, it would kind of be like adding a new bedroom and bathroom but total space there for three bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs, with this proposal. In the process we would also be clearing up some very sufficient ceiling height problems that exist now in the back and the first floor - very low ceiling in the kitchen there and so, as this new addition would be put on, it would be also increasing those ceiling heights. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. OAKLEY: Yes. I guess the thing that struck me when I looked at it was the closeness to your neighbor. He doesn't have a lot of windows in that wall but he does have one in the back that looks like it is going to be affected and what looks like a bathroom window. MR. POLUDNIAK: Yes, we talked to the neighbor - Dennis has talked with him about it - I was, of course, concerned about that when you can see the new proposed front elevation shows the two houses - as far as how they line up there - overhang to overhang and the PAGE 111 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 windows in a relative position. We tried to keep that line as low as possible but in practice, both of those windows on the back corner of the neighbor's house are always - have opaque curtains - he doesn't look out them - I have never seen them opened - and so our immediate concern was that possibly he would be concerned because you can see from the alignment there that in the upper story window he would be looking out at this proposed roof. Where right now there isn't a roof section in that very back part of his house. And so, Dennis talked with him about that - he was not concerned about that and actually said that his only concern was to make sure that the overhang would be sending water directly at his house - that it would be guttered because they are very close and that seemed to be the only concern that he had. MR. MOGIL: Yes, that was all he was concerned about. MR. POLUDNIAK: That raises, I guess, what - forty-two inches would be the peak height that would be added there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John, questions? MR. OAKLEY: This is a rather speculative, but why not. Why essentially put the extra height - extra space - on that side of the house rather than on the other end where you have. . . MR. POLUDNIAK: On the other side where you have a lot of space? Well, because what there is there now - the second floor exists right in that particular place, so structurally it's set up for that at the front and then toward the back - there are a few problems that I mentioned - the ceiling height below is only six feet, five inches - very low in that back area - so it enables us to improve that ceiling height problem - also that roof is now - it wasn't very properly installed - very low slope roof with shingles PAGE 112 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 and even though its only a couple years old it leaks in that area. So we thought about trying to shift the whole plan to the (unintelligible) we considered that - that would mean an entirely new roof on the other side as well as - because the existing plan calls for keeping part of the existing roof and only modifying one section - the shed roof in the back - keep that minimal. The total renovation here really is quite expensive to do and yet quite necessary for the project so we are trying to keep as much of the existing structural space existing as we can. We did consider that shift and just looking at the way the porch structure - you can see how it comes - it has a jog in it and the way the structural bearing walls are, it would be greatly difficult to kind of make it shift over there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] The case is ours. Do I sense a motion in the winds? PAGE 113 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1836 FOR 256 FLORAL AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Dennis and Michelle Mogil for an area variance to permit the replacement of the existing second story of the single-family house at 256 Floral Avenue with a larger second story for additional and improved living space. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1836. MR. PECK: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed elevation of the house does not exacerbate any of the existing deficiencies. 2 . Efforts have been made to prevent the raising of the roof from causing inconvenience to the neighbor, who lives very close by. 3. There are significant practical difficulties to locating the addition at the other end of the house - which are structural. 4 . The proposed alteration would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED NOTE: This variance was granted in the way it was submitted to the Board. If subdivision is granted by the Planning and Development Board then the Appellant must return to the BZA for another variance. PAGE 114 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE - APPEAL NUMBER 1836 BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: MR. OAKLEY: 5th finding of fact - is this a condition or a finding? If the owners of the house resolve the difficulty with their property line which requires a corner to be taken out of the northwest corner of the house - that this variance shall go to permitting them to fill that corner with building rather than. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do I have a second? MR. PECK: I 'll second that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further discussion? MR. SIEVERDING: Just relative to that last point. If it is sold it is a subdivision, right? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If it is sold, it is a subdivision - that's a very interesting point. MR. SIEVERDING: So should we anticipate a subdivision and approve a variance that is going to be required to finalize the subdivision? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Then it goes back to Planning Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Is that what would happen (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Subdivisions go back to Planning Board. MR. SIEVERDING: If we accept this particular part of his resolution then that would obligate these people to come back here and to the Planning Board to get subdivision, if in fact the next door property owner agrees to sell them the property. That's very efficient, I think it's a good idea. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Does everyone agree with that? MR. WEAVER: If the Design Review Board approves. MR. SIEVERDING: Is that a problem? PAGE 115 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 MR. WEAVER: It just seems to me that we can't approve a variance for proposal as drawn but we can approve an alteration of the second floor that would create more legal living space as far as head room and so forth is concerned and make those. . . MR. OAKLEY: So what you are saying is that the variance is not for the drawings anyway? MR. WEAVER: That's what I think - we could say put on a second floor that will serve better. . . okay, we don't then, okay. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The drawings are drawings of record, right? They are documents associated - I would really wonder about getting - speculating in the sky - if we don't have drawings, in a sense, and words to buttress what we decide, we are in tough shape. I mean, I don't mind somehow conditioning it in such a way as to meet the requirements. . . MR. WEAVER: I didn't hear a condition. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I didn't either. I saw permission. . . we were really talking about a permission. . . MR. SIEVERDING: What sort of - how would you condition it? MR. OAKLEY: I mean, we could grant them a variance for the entire thing with the corner included, on the condition that any alterations conform to existing lot lines, although then what will constitute (unintelligible) existing lot lines (unintelligible) normal conditions that would - there would be some setback requirement, but obviously (unintelligible) . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It would be nicer if you withdrew that finding. . MR. OAKLEY: Do you want me to withdraw and we make them come for another variance when. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If they get that taken care of? PAGE 116 BZA MINUTES 4/4/88 MR. OAKLEY: If they get it taken care of? I mean, that's fine with me, I thought it might be a neat idea - not to have to come back to us because (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it would be cleaner because the documentation that we received prior to the time that he brought up the issue really - it doesn't. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Doesn't. . . (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right, exactly. MR. OAKLEY: So I will withdraw finding number 5. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And then we had a second? MR. PECK: Yes, I seconded it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you accept this? MR. PECK: Yes, I accept the withdrawal. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good. Now it is much cleaner just the way it was when it first came into us. . . MR. WEAVER: Do we have a vote? SECRETARY HOARD: The vote on Appeal Number 1836 if 6 yes votes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So it is granted the way in which it came. If you want the corner - to add the corner - come back to us and ask for the additional corner. Okay? If you have worked that out with your next door neighbor. Much cleaner that way. PAGE 117 I, BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matter of Appeals numbered 1820, 1822, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833 , 1834 , 1835 and 1836 on April 4 , 1988 in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 East 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 ��j , 1988 Notary Public JEAN:J.HPSNKMSaIq NOTARY PUBLIC.STATE OF NEN Y.QRM NO.55-1;;-0800 QUALIFI'r_C!N TOPAPtUNS COUNTY MY COf{mISS10N EXPIRLS APRIL 80,to