Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1988-05-02 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK MAY 2, 1988 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the May 2, 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 MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THOMAS D. HOARD, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, ZONING OFFICER & BUILDING COMMISSIONER BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT: CHARLES WEAVER The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we are going to hear from the appellant as 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 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 two hundred feet from that 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 if there are any, and the record of tonight's hearing. Since a record is being made of this hearing, it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones which are opposite me here so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and 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. Tonight we've only got four members of the Board present so that any appellant - five, I 'm sorry - so any appellant that wants to withdraw without prejudice at this point - has the right PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 to request a postponement until we have a full Board. If there is anybody out there who would like to request that postponement? Question? VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Point of information. How many people are normally on the Board? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There are normally six, it takes four votes. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: And if the decision is made with the Board not in full attendance, that decision cannot be appealed at a later Board meeting? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You would have to change the nature of the case substantially. The idea is that if you are going to come forward, that you are presenting the case as best you can and you, in a sense, accept the decision of the Board with the partial Board present. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: It is my understanding that a vote of three in favor would allow for. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Three does not count. You have to have four. You have to have four of the six votes. Does that influence the course of your presentation? You' ll go along with it. Okay, fine. Are there any other questions about our procedure? [none] Some are old hands at this, some are new hands. If that's the case, may we proceed? SECRETARY HOARD: The first case, Mr. Chairman, is Appeal Number 1837 for 322 Pleasant Street: Appeal of Michael Weinstein for a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2, and an area variance for deficient lot area and deficient front yard setback, under Section 30.25, Column 6 and 11 of the Zoning PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 Ordinance, to permit the continued use of the property at 322 Pleasant Street as a three-unit multiple dwelling. A previous owner had obtained a variance for this use (Appeal No. 1669) , but a building permit for the conversion was not obtained within a year of the December 3, 1985 decision, as required by Section 30. 58 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the meantime the area in which this property is located has been rezoned from an R-3a (Residential, multiple dwellings) Use District to an R-2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District, in which multiple dwellings are not permitted. The appellant is therefore requesting a retroactive reinstatement of the previous variance, a new use and area variance, or a waiver of the requirements of Section 30.58 of the Zoning Ordinance, so that a final Certificate of Compliance can be issued for the property. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please come up front and sit right across from us. Pull out a chair and make yourself comfortable and if you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. WEINSTEIN: My name is Michael Weinstein and I currently live in Binghamton, New York, do you need my exact address? It is 28 Dellwood Road. The City Building Department has my address, they send me letters all the time. I think the proper way to proceed in terms of arguments for, is to explain why we have waited till this point or why we didn't exercise the option to use that variance that had been given. I purchased the property in the fall of 1986, just a few - three or four months before the expiration of that variance. When I purchased the property, I knew that there had PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 been some variance given, I wasn't aware of the conditions - the person who had owned the property was not terribly organized - the house was a mess, it required a lot of work - we still do not have it up to full Building Department code - there are some things that we are waiting for warm weather to finish on the exterior of the building. We encountered problems that we didn't expect to encounter when we started clearing out junk and debris and being a relative newcomer to property ownership I didn't have a sufficient number of people to do the work in a hurry. The City Building Department was very gracious in cooperating with us and allowing us to take time to make the necessary changes and I think it is on record that most of those changes, especially ones that related to safety, electrical, plumbing and so forth, were made relatively early but the cosmetics in terms of presentation of the property - those are the last things that are being worked on and are almost complete. So during that period we somehow lost sight of the fact that this variance was expiring. I didn't even know at the time of the closing that there was an expiration to the variance. My assumption was that when I obtained the building permit and when the place passed the City Building Department code that we would be set. There are three current reasons why I would like to argue for the retroactive granting of that variance. Number one is when I purchased the property there had been structural changes inside made in anticipation of it being a three-unit building and we are, in fact, renting it as such. It is being rented that way now. Technically I suppose we are in violation - we don't have over occupancy in terms of number of people - which is I guess why the Building Department has left the situation alone for the moment. PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 But we have families living there rather than students. If the building were allowed to be three units, it would be a lot easier to rent to families than it would be to students. If it were two-units - given the size of the units, and given the cost of carrying the property, the only way to get the rent to cover the expenses would be to put students in there. I personally don't have a bias against students but I know that the area is a residential area and that's one reason it went from R-3a to R-2b. It can be verified that in many of my properties I 've got families and I 'm not moving families out necessarily to replace them with students unless it becomes an economic necessity based on the cash flow of the building. Those are basically my arguments. Essentially that - I 'm not asking for any change in the decision that was granted before - we are not asking for any additional concessions other than what was made by the previous Board in 1985. We have not changed the layout of the building, it conforms to the way it was when we purchased it and we are not asking for any change in occupancy - we are not changing the occupancy in terms of number of individuals - we are not asking for that change - we are not asking to increase occupancy - just asking for the division that already exists in the upstairs which is two units and the kitchen which was there when I purchased it to be allowed to remain. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The actual conversion from a two-unit to a three-unit property, is that something that you did or was it already done when you purchased the property? PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 MR. WEINSTEIN: Not only was it already done, it may have been that way for ages. It was owner-occupied and I know for a fact that there were problems with obtaining a certificate of occupancy on the part of the previous owner. So I don't know what the arrangement was before him. I know that when we came in, one of the - there was a problem with fire separation, even in terms of allowing it to be used for two-units - there wasn't proper fire separation. That was one of the first things that we did to the building - that's on record with the Building Department. But there were an unexpected number of violations - electric - plumbing - and a large amount of work. Most - as I said - most of which has been completed - I think in terms of obtaining a C.O. - other than the decision of this Board, I think it is a matter of we have some siding left on one side of the house to put up and I think we have some gutters that we have to correct the situation as it is now but the interior of the building is (unintelligible) . MR. OAKLEY: Could you describe - and I have some plans here but I 'm not clear on the plans - at any rate what the existing internal structure of the building is and I can let you look at these plans if that will help you. . . and what the proposal is. . . MR. WEINSTEIN: I think I can describe it so that they can be understood. The house apparently is a house that was built in the early 1900 's or late 1800 's and was added on to twice and you can tell it has been added on to, at least up until this point - when we get the siding on I suppose it will all look uniform. For what purpose, I 'm not sure - when I purchased the building and inquired as to the history of its use, apparently there had been an apartment in the basement in which the parents of this fellow lived PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 and then the main floor was occupied by family and the upstairs was rented, so apparently it was - whether legally or not - it was used as three units. The City code - the building code or state code does not allow for the basement to be used as an apartment - it is not being used as such and I don't know if that became apparent to the previous owner so that at some point he divided the upstairs in two and the separation - there is a clear separation between the old part of the building - the old building and the new building. And that's where the separation occurs. The upstairs is divided into two units. The downstairs is not divided at all. The only changes that have been made in the downstairs is that a side entrance - that used to be a common entrance for both the downstairs and the upstairs - we put up separating walls to separate the entryway and to separate the upstairs from the downstairs to comply with the fire code. MR. OAKLEY: So the division is - I take it that this is the front of the building [pointing] the division runs through this closet and bath here? MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes, that is correct. MR. OAKLEY: And there is a kitchen in the back - is there a kitchen in the front too? MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes, and that's an old kitchen - MR. OAKLEY: In the front here? MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes, well I 'm not sure that's the location of the kitchen but there is a kitchen in the front. . . one kitchen is relatively recent - when I say relatively, it might be ten years old. The other one is - God knows how old, but it is old. And that is apparent from the fixtures that are there, and the plumbing. PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 The only thing, I believe, that we put in to the - to be fair about answering your question about the existence of two kitchens, I think we put in the refrigerator and stove but all the connections were there, the plumbing - the sink was there for the kitchen. . . MR. SIEVERDING: In other words. . . (unintelligible) MR. WEINSTEIN: Well I 'm not clear if the previous owner took out the appliances and we just replaced them or if they didn't have appliances and people were sharing the one kitchen. I do know that both those sides were rented because there were two different people in there but there is a doorway in between the two apartments that one can go from one apartment to the other. MR. OAKLEY: And so the building permit would - if a building permit was granted - would involve putting (unintelligible) in between. . . MR. WEINSTEIN: It has already been done. There is proper separation there. MR. OAKLEY: Closing the door off. MR. WEINSTEIN; I think that is why we've been allowed to leave the situation the way it is, we comply with. . . MR. OAKLEY: Did you put in the separation or did the previous owner? MR. WEINSTEIN: The Building Department asked us to put in separation in a number of parts. I don't know if specifically between those two apartments the separation was proper but there was a separation - if we had been asked to do it, we probably did. I know that between the upstairs and the downstairs there was improper separation - that was one of the bigger issues with the Building Department. PAGE 9 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPEAL NO. 1837 Michael Weinstein 3 322 Pleasant Street APPEAL NO. 1837 DISCUSSION 27 DECISION 28 APPEAL NO. 1838 Grossman' s Inc . 30 505 Third Street APPEAL NO. 1838 DECISION 35 APPEAL NO. 1839 Jagat P. Sharma WITHDRAWN 36 702 Willow Ave. APPEAL NO. 1840 Pat Lord 36 116 York Street, East APPEAL NO. 1840 DECISION 40 APPEAL NO. 1841 Dennis and Michelle Mogil 41 256 Floral Avenue APPEAL NO. 1841 DECISION 43 APPEAL NO. 1842 Herman and Anne Sieverding 44 114 Monroe Street APPEAL NO. 1842 DECISION 48 CERTIFICATION OF THE RECORDING SECRETARY 49 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 MR. OAKLEY: So what you are telling me is that you don't whether you put in the separation or whether. . . MR. WEINSTEIN: I know there was a door in between the two apartments, now whether that door was a legal fire door, I 'm not sure. I can check, we have records of purchases and repairs and repair orders, I could find that out. MR. SIEVERDING: Back to the chronology of how we got to where we are. So in 185 the Axtells were given a variance to convert the building? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: The building - he didn't get his permit within the year? SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: And then he subsequently - not Mr. Weinstein. . . MR. WEINSTEIN: I purchased the building before that expired - before the year was up. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: When did you purchase the building? MR. WEINSTEIN: Fall of 186. MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: September, October, November? MR. SIEVERDING: He was granted a variance in December of 1985. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the variance then expires in December. . . MR. WEINSTEIN: It expired December of 186. . . MR. PECK: So he bought it - did you in fact buy it in the fall of 186? MR. WEINSTEIN: I thought that it was still in effect when we purchased it - we just didn't know it was to expire. PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 MR. SIEVERDING: Okay, but the conversion to three units took place when and by whom? MR. WEINSTEIN: I believe the City records will show that everything had been done except there was no proper fire separation so the City - as I said, that was one of the first things they cited us for was to get the fire separation done properly. Then everything else came after that. I know that was one of the first things we did, there was that, and there was a landing on a stairway that wasn't proper - we removed that. MR. SIEVERDING: What was involved in converting the building to a three-unit property? MR. WEINSTEIN: That was all we did to it. Everything else was there - we didn't put up any walls, except to put in the fire separation and this entrance - there was a common entrance for the downstairs to the upstairs - we created an entryway - in order to separate, we were asked to do that in order to separate the downstairs from the upstairs - so that the entrance on the side of the house that entered on the first floor became the entrance for the upstairs apartments. We did that. MR. OAKLEY: You sort of addressed this question. . . MR. WEINSTEIN: We would have had to do that anyway - even if there were two units, we would have had to put in that entryway to separate the downstairs from the upstairs and we put up the sheetrock and fireproofed it. MR. SIEVERDING: Right, so you actually have no investment in making the conversion of the property from two units to three units? MR. WEINSTEIN: No, other than minor amounts of money, we are not talking about thousands and thousands of dollars. I 'm not making PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 that argument, I didn't ask for it on that basis, I am not asking for a variance or the reinstatement on that basis. MR. SIEVERDING: On a hardship basis? MR. WEINSTEIN: No. I 'm saying, from the capital standpoint when I purchased the building I was told that it was going to be allowed to be three units and I (unintelligible) my numbers and cash flow based on three units and if that argument holds water in this hearing - that I think, is a valid argument. That variance was still in effect when I first purchased the building, I just didn't know it was to expire - we were told to get the C.O. and we would have a three-unit property. MR. SIEVERDING: But you were aware that there was a variance granted to make the conversion legal? MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes, that was one of the reasons I purchased the place, I wouldn't have purchased it otherwise. In fact, the year before I had been talking to Axtell and I can - I don't have written documentation but I can get an affidavit, if that were required, that I had negotiated with him the year before I purchased the property, and he didn't have the variance at that time and I told him I wouldn't purchase it as a two-unit. MR. SIEVERDING: You wanted to buy it with with the variance for the three-units? MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: But then you didn't check it out to see what the expiration date of the variance was and (unintelligible) . . . MR. WEINSTEIN: No, I didn't - I was naive - I know it was my responsibility but I didn't know - no one told us, we were told just to get the C.O. and everything would be fine. PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 MR. SIEVERDING: Do you own other properties and do you typically - say - go to the Building Department to check out the status of the properties relative to compliance with building code, zoning code and housing code. . . MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes. Sometimes we check them out before - sometimes we don't, because the purchase contract reads that the seller must provide the C.O. so in that case we don't usually check as closely as we would check if we were - in this particular case we, of course, checked in order to see what the problems were with the building. But previous problems don't necessarily dictate what the new problems are going to be (unintelligible) inspection. The fact is, you know, with property and with inspectors there are new things that come up - new laws and requirements - and the changes and also different inspectors might see different things - or it might be different things are missed at any given time, so, yes we had a (unintelligible) and there was a long list and with that we weren't naive - we knew that we were getting into a mess, but I made my decision based on the fact that the building was structurally sound - I had contracted an inspection, and we thought the electric and plumbing was okay - that was a mistake, there were violations and in the case of the electrical, there were major violations, I poured thousands of dollars into the place - I have forgotten that too. But that's a mistake that property owners make, that you can't see everything behind the walls, even with the contractor's inspection - you don't anticipate everything. MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm not so much concerned with the structural and the electrical and plumbing and mechanical systems of the building as I am about sort of, its legal status, relative to the zoning PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 code and, you know, all of these sort of building code issues that really (unintelligible) . . . MR. WEINSTEIN: We met with inspectors from. . . . MR. SIEVERDING: . . . from the zoning issues. MR. WEINSTEIN: We worked with inspectors from the start because we didn't buy the building with the previous owner having to provide the C.O. , so in order to maintain occupancy we had to cooperate with the City on that and our only problem as far as - I think, as far as the City would view it, is that we couldn't get everything done quickly enough - but that was a matter of reality - both finances, but more so because of going into the winter on a building that had so many problems, we couldn't get it all done externally - the external problems are not at all done. And the internal problems, we did them as we were able to - and the place - we must have hauled out thirty or forty loads of garbage and debris before we could even show it to anybody. The upstairs was occupied - two units. The downstairs, where the owners had lived, we couldn't even rent that until we hauled out all this stuff. And I believe that is even in the notes - the City cited the previous owners for the place being debris ridden and boxes and boxes of things they collected - old newspapers and whatnot. That should also be in the records. MR. SIEVERDING: Is it fair to say that all the housing code and corrections that were made to the building would have had to have been made whether it was a two-unit or a three-unit property? MR. WEINSTEIN: I think so, I know the City was proceeding on the basis that - I guess after the - I don't know if the City was even aware that that had expired, I 'm not sure. At no point did the PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 City say, oh, you can no longer have it as a three-unit, until recently did we become aware of it and that's why we have this appeal. SECRETARY HOARD: Let me correct that because - 1987, January 5th - Lee Naegely sent you a letter saying that the variance would expire. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John, you have been very patient. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm sorry John. MR. OAKLEY: No, no. It's fine, Herman has actually been asking relevant questions. I wanted to ask more directly - questions that respond to the use variance issue because I think most of the questions thus far have been just sort of reinstatement, which is a different issue. And I 'm not exactly sure how to phrase these questions but, what do you have to rent the apartments for as a two-unit in order to cover your expenses? MR. WEINSTEIN: In terms of numbers, ordinarily I would be renting by the bedroom to students, at approximately $225.00 - $250.00 per bedroom - for two units that would be three in each - downstairs three and the upstairs three. That would more than cover the expenses and allow for investment, etc. Now I 'm renting to families - the whole downstairs I believe is rented for $600. 00 and the upstairs - we've got someone on Section 8 - that's the Federal program - I believe that rents $437. 00 but I pay their electric. And then on the other side we've got rented for about $325. 00 - the old side of the upstairs. That income is close to what we would get from students, except that students would pay all their own utilities and right now I 'm paying heat for the whole building. I would rather rent to families than students. PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 MR. OAKLEY: So you are saying that in many ways there wouldn't be much difference to you, economically, between. . . . MR. WEINSTEIN: No, I 'm saying - no, I think there is a substantial difference. Looking at it percentage-wise, the downstairs is renting for about 20% less than it would to students, plus the students would be paying all the utilities. I 'm saying if I - you know, if it is two units - one of the units I absolutely could not rent to family - the numbers wouldn't come out. We would be talking about approximately six hundred per unit. . . MR. OAKLEY: How many students could you fit into the three units? MR. WEINSTEIN: I think, under the current laws, just three unrelated per unit. . . MR. OAKLEY: Each of the units would be three bedrooms? MR. WEINSTEIN: No, no. I thought you were asking about if it remained a two unit. . . MR. OAKLEY: If it were a three unit, what would you ask? MR. WEINSTEIN: I think one side of the upstairs is two bedrooms - the other side, I think is - well, it is renting as a one bedroom, I don't know if it is even a legal for more than that. The place, at one point, in the City records, had eight legal bedrooms. . . MR. PECK: You've got two one-bedroom apartments and one four-bedroom apartment written down. . . MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes, the four-bedroom would be the downstairs. . . MR. PECK: And two one-bedrooms. . . MR. WEINSTEIN: But the upstairs I think has two, maybe one room being used as a study - I 'm not sure how the woman is using it - it is just her and she has a baby, so yes, we only have one bedroom and I believe under the Section 8, the rent schedule - we will PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 probably get one-bedroom rent. I believe it is a legal two-bedroom. The upstairs is the same size as the downstairs so it would be logical that there would be more than two bedrooms (unintelligible) upstairs - two legal bedrooms, even with the extra kitchen. MR. OAKLEY: I 'm done with my economic questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack, any questions? MR. PECK: No questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: If I can just pick up there a little bit on the economics - I guess I remain unclear on what you thought the overall differential would be between whether it is a two-unit or three-units. . . MR. WEINSTEIN: I don't even know if that's a valid criteria on which to make a decision. Not having any experience with what your criteria are - to make a decision, I don't know if that's a valid, I 'm saying from my standpoint, there is a difference in how I 'll decide to rent - that right now, with three units, I ' ll have both options - the option of putting in families and/or students. I'm not representing that I 'm making a legal committment to keeping families and maintaining the nature of the area, however, I have a track record of other buildings where I haven't gone and stuck the apartments with students. If the building reverts to two-units, there is a more compelling economic reason to rent to students. MR. SIEVERDING: But it works as a two-unit property? MR. WEINSTEIN: I 'd have to give you the exact numbers to be able to say, it doesn't work. PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 MR. SCHWAB: I guess I hear two arguments. One is simply reinstating the old variance and that issue can be debated, although as an experienced landlord, I have a few doubts. Then the other issue - the difficulty. . . MR. WEINSTEIN: I just became a landlord in 1985, so you are looking at a building that I bought just a short while after I became a landlord. MR. SCHWAB: Okay. MR. WEINSTEIN: So my experience is a function of someone else's view of what experience is. I don't think one year of being in the apartment business is necessarily. . . MR. SCHWAB: Okay. Well that's useful information. The other thing though, you see, the real difficulty, the former variance that you are asking us to reinstate was just an area variance because this was a legal use, when the former Board granted it. Today, of course, if it were just simply a variance, you would be asking for a use variance and if you are basically saying, well there is not much difference in economic terms between a two-unit and a three-unit, it seems to me you haven't shown the financial hardship necessary for a new use variance. Now part of the argument is you don't have to show it. But if you did have to show it, I 'd be real skeptical that it has been shown. MR. WEINSTEIN: And I don't think I made a representation that this would create a hardship for me, I 'm just saying it makes operating that apartment as a business kind of difficult, as with any business where you cut out the possibility of more cash flow. I know I 'd make the building work, of course that's what a business man has to make (unintelligible) otherwise we'd sell the building. PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I only have one question and that is, if you were notified in January of 1987 that the variance previously granted had expired, why has it taken you until March of 1988, better than a year later, to follow up on the issue? MR. WEINSTEIN: Okay, I was not aware that the variance had expired. The letter was sent and it apparently was opened by a previous - a maintenance man, whom I fired, and I haven't tried to avoid responsibility for not exercising that option, had I been clear on that option expiring, I would have done something about it at the time. (unintelligible) the head maintenance man was dealing with the City on the code violations and any changes that had to be made and the City can verify that they were dealing directly with Mr. John Ward on code violations in that building (unintelligible) to make the corrections necessary. I was not aware that there was an expiration of this option of the variance at the time. The issue came to a head in the last few months because the City came to us and said, "you've got to do something about it, you can't leave the occupancy the same". CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? If you would come forward please. If you would begin by identifying yourself for the record and where you live. MS. BOYD: My name is Verlaine Boyd and I live across the street from 322 Pleasant at 315 Pleasant. I sent you a letter that I think you maybe have. I would just like to read a couple of things from the letter that to me are important and they start with this: "That we are opposed to the granting of the reinstated variance. PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 We feel it is imperative that only owner-occupied multi-apartment dwellings be allowed on Pleasant Street. " You ought to look at me - I am an endangered species on South Hill. I am the person who owns a single-family house and I live in it. There are very few of us left. That's one of my very important points. When I moved in, it was a real neighborhood place, it was a lower class neighborhood, firemen, policemen, all kinds of people - people who worked at NCR, the house across that Mr. Gardner has done such a fabulous job of renovating had three families in it, which would no longer be legal, but they were families and they all knew each other and all the kids knew each other and it was a very different place. Well times change, people sell things and so on and so forth, so when the Axtells asked for their variance, way back whenever that was, and I wrote in favor of it. I wrote for this: "They were long-time residents of 322 Pleasant Street. I think Mr. Axtell actually had been born in the house but I 'm not quite sure. I did get that story once from his mother, who lived at 322 until she died and that's one of the other three parties that lived in that house on 322 that Mr. Weinstein is referring to. The mother lived there until she died just a few years ago. We knew the Axtells were on a fixed income and that the house was in need of repair. You really did not need to be very intelligent to know that that house was in terrible shape. And we hoped that the variance would help them with their financial problems. We said that we would be in favor of the variance, only if the Axtells clearly stated that they were planning to live there for at least five more years and the reason that we said that was because of something that Mr. Weinstein brought up. Their house had been for BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 sale - with a sign out front - and then suddenly the for sale sign was gone and then we got the request in the mail for the variance to make it a three-family dwelling. And then I wrote the letter in support, that's why I brought that in because I thought it was questionable - well I didn't want to say, hey listen, what are you guys pulling on us? You know, because they are your neighbors and so I thought if I put that in they might understand because, as people on the street, they were always concerned what was happening to the street - very much so - so I thought they would understand that and they would have some neighborhood feeling. Well obviously their intentions were different - they left without saying goodbye to us, which I was very sorry about - I didn't know they were leaving and I found it very strange after living across from them for eighteen years and being very friendly - so I really felt like they had in a way, really, used me. I 'm very sorry about it. But over and above that, I have other things to say. I took some notes as Mr. Weinstein was talking. He said something about continued use for three family. I doubt very much that that actually was a three-family dwelling when he bought it. I know for a fact that Mrs. - the old Mrs. Axtell - Clifford Axtell 's mother, lived there and I know for a fact that the boxes and boxes of stuff that had to be moved from that house belonged to that old Mrs. Axtell, because she never threw away a scrape of paper. And I am sure that any Historical Society would have loved to have gotten their hands on those papers and I hope some historical society did because she saved everything - I think she probably had every Ithaca Journal that was ever printed, since she was born, and - you know - there are people like that, they don't ever throw away any scrape of PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 paper and I 'm sure the house was a mess, I would never say the house wasn't a mess. But I think, if there were more than two kitchens - which I don't know if there were - that one would have been for her, one would have been for Joan and Clifford and one would have been for the upstairs person. I have been upstairs and when I was upstairs it was a one-apartment upstairs - that was maybe three years ago. They were working on the building last Wednesday before I left town - no last Tuesday and the week before - a lot of work has already happened again (unintelligible) If you are not sure your variance is going to go through, I wonder why that was happening? The work that has been done on the building is not the sort that - I have not been inside - it is not the sort, from the outside, that you can say is anything that is going to make the neighborhood really look that much better. It's wide, relatively wide aluminum siding - there is no attempt to bring back the nice victorian doors or windows. (unintelligible) does when they restore a building, to make the street look more beautiful, to make it look like a place where people would be proud to live. It is white aluminum siding - then they redid a doorway and they tore out the old doorway but the old stairs are still there - they tore out the chimney on the roof and they patched it with a big piece of patch. Well maybe all that will get better but ultimately the kind of renovation that has gone on inside the building is very minimal and very inexpensive. It is a little hard to believe that someone who owns other buildings and is in the business of making money by renting would lose sight of the variance - that is just a little side comment I have. PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Perhaps you would want to restrain your comments more to the use of the property rather than specifically the nature of. . . MS. BOYD: Well I probably shouldn't (unintelligible) but when he says I feel like I should. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand but the Board isn't concerned particularly with the nature of the siding, though I appreciate what you are trying to say, by virtue of the nature of the neighborhood. MS. BOYD: I just feel like someone like - you know - there are people who do take over a building and they do it with a kind - with not the idea of making - maybe all that much - I don't know - they don't think about it as a business, as he referred to it as a business - you know - and I think if its a two-family place and one of the residents lives there and then they rent the other one, it is very different experience than being in the business of making money off of renting buildings. And I know that there are people who own buildings and rent them, I 've lived in some of those, when I came to Ithaca and they were perfectly fine and they were very good about making repairs, but some people are and some people aren't. It seems excessively long since January 5, 1987 for him to finally get around to this. I also think, you know, that we have an additional problem in that the Axtells, in their variance, said that they would continue to rent to the quiet, nice little people that they had rented to - this is the part that I really hate to bring up because I really have no objection to most people being my neighbors. It was a low income family when I moved in there and it has remained so, and I certainly am agreeable to all of that, but PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 we have had some problem there with very abusive language, very late at night, when it sounded like people could really get hurt in that building and it was very scary, and we have also read in the Ithaca Journal, and have seen people being brought out of the building with handcuffs in the middle of the day and, you know, it is not a good feeling - that is not a good feeling that you read in the Ithaca Journal about the people who live across the street from you are involved in lots of burglaries - that is not quite the kind of quiet, good neighbors that the Axtells originally had said that they would continue to have live in the building, should they have three apartments there. I think probably the - as I said in my letter - that if you are interested in this part of it at all, you could get more information about that from the Ithaca Police Department. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Any questions from members of the Board? Thank you. MR. PECK: I have a question. Mr. Weinstein has said that he rents primarily to families. You seem to indicate that that is not the case. MS. BOYD: I don't know who they are. I have said hello to them. I can't tell you who they are. It seems to me like - I can't explain it, there is a lot of very unpleasant noise that emulates from that house, I don't know who these people are and you know, on our block, we always have all kinds of people, down the street, two houses we have a woman who takes in battered women - I think that's wonderful, I have no objection to things like that - I 've never had objections, but, you know, it's a (unintelligible) group and allowed all kinds of people to live there but there is something a PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 little uncomfortable about the tenants in that building. I haven't checked them out, I can't make accusations except what I (unintelligible) I don't know, I can't really tell you things that I don't know. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Come forward please. MR. WEINSTEIN: (FROM THE AUDIENCE) Am I allowed to respond at any point? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are not allowed to respond, no. Thank you. Have a seat. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MS. HOLMBERG: My name is Anna Holmberg and I reside at 319 Pleasant Street which is almost directly across the street from 322 . I also sent a letter to the members of the Board, which I would request be made part of the record. I don't really have anything to add to what I said in my letter except that I guess I feel that, in this case, it seems that an area variance was sought after and procured with the - perhaps the knowledge that the zoning was going to be changing up there rather soon - that seems rather evident from the minutes of the Board meeting, when the Axtells appeared and there was some notion that it was important to get an area variance before the zoning changed. As I indicated in my letter, I didn't oppose that because the law permitted it at that time but I do feel strongly that someone shouldn't be allowed to come in at this point - almost two and a half years later and say, well they weren't aware of the length of the variance and they weren't aware of how this was going to affect them, particularly someone who seems to - from the public records - seems to have owned quite a number of PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES- 5/2/88 properties in this area. And also it is my understanding that there isn't any real vested right which arises out of a variance such as the one that was granted, until a building permit is issued. So when Mr. Weinstein purchased it, I am not sure that he had a vested right at that time in any event, but it was encumbent upon him to educate himself as to what he was buying and what his legal rights were with it but. . . there is a letter in the file that I saw in the Building Department, that indicates that his lawyer was advised at the time of his closing, as to the termination of the variance so. . . that's all I really have to say, in addition to the letter I wrote, so. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? How long have you lived at that residence? MS. HOLMBERG: I 've owned the property since - I think, 1982 . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Jack, would you like to ask questions of Mr. Weinstein with respect to the nature of the occupants that he presently has? MR. PECK: No, I don't think so. I think that I 'm. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I didn't know if you had a line of questioning in one sense or another that you wanted to move forward on. . . MR. PECK: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Mr. Weinstein, if that's agreeable to you, there doesn't seem to be any particular need to proceed with that. That being the case, it is ours for further deliberation. PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD ON APPEAL NUMBER 1837 FOR 322 PLEASANT ST. MR SIEVERDING: Procedural item - there are three different pieces. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Three different pieces. MR. SIEVERDING: All of which would need to be addressed in the findings of fact. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: One would assume, yes. MR. OAKLEY: The three issues being. . . I don't see how we can really do it in one motion, anyway. It seems to me we have to address - I mean (unintelligible) is substantially different from the (unintelligible) issue and. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. OAKLEY: And the area variance issue. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well let's separate them all and deal with them one by one. Perhaps the most obvious then is to take the first. . MR. OAKLEY: Yes, I think we should deal with the extension first. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: With the extension first. PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1837 FOR 322 PLEASANT STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Michael Weinstein for retroactive reinstatement of the previous variance (Appeal Number 1669) , a new use and area variance, or a waiver of the requirements of Section 30. 58 of the Zoning Ordinance, so that a final Certificate of Compliance can be issued for the property. The decisions of the Board follow: 1837a MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board deny the request for a retroactive reinstatement of a previous variance (Appeal Number 1669) . MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are no provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for such an extension. 2. The appellant has shown no special circumstances which would have made it impossible for him to utilize the variance before its expiration. 3. Over a year has passed since the expiration of the variance before the appellant came forward to request reinstatement. VOTE ON 1837a: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT DENIED 1837B MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board deny the use and area variances requested in Appeal Number 1837. MR. PECK: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 1. There hasn't been a demonstration that a reasonable return is not possible if the property were put to the permitted uses for the district. 2 . There are no special circumstances that apply to this property which do not apply to all other properties in the neighborhood. 3. The granting of a use variance would not be in the spirit of the Ordinance and would have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. VOTE ON 1837b: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT DENIED 1837c MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the requirements of Section 30. 58 of the Zoning Ordinance not be waived by the Board in this case. MR. PECK: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There is no provision in the Zoning Ordinance that allows the waiver of any of its particular sections. 2 . Since the waiver would revolve essentially around a use variance, given that the difficulty is created because of the change in zoning, the previous motion has already addressed the appellant's inability to meet the test for the granting of a use variance. VOTE ON 1837c: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT DENIED PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1838 FOR 505 THIRD STREET: Appeal of Grossman's Inc. , Robert C. Cook, agent, for an area variance for a deficient side yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 13, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a new shed at the lumberyard at 505 Third Street ("Grossman's Lumber") . The property is located in an I-1 (Industrial) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Sections 30.49 and 30. 57 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the existing setback deficiency before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the new construction. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by stating your name and where you live for the record. MR. COOK: My name is Robert Cook, I 'm with Grossman's of Braintree, Massachusetts. I almost didn't get here. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we are glad that you did. MR. COOK: So am I. We have been here before for this same area variance, I guess each time we want to do something (unintelligible) in effect it requires a variance. We are adding a three-sided shed in our yard and the area variance that we are here for is on the main building that runs along the railroad tracks. The proposed three-sided shed will be on the forefront part of the property. There is no rear setback or rear yard on this site - I believe you have maps so you can see the configuration of the property is somewhat - in order to meet some of the other PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 requirements and make it a buildable site, we have to pretty much be on a zero setback along the railroad tracks. Did you get a copy of my mailing for the legal notices? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A copy of the mailing for the legal notices? MR. COOK: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I don't believe so. Tom, do you have that? You must have it. You mean the list of the people you circulated the notice to? MR. COOK: Right. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We generally do not get copies of that. SECRETARY HOARD: We do have that on file. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We have that on file. We assume you are going to do a good job, otherwise the Building Commissioner will tell us. MR. COOK: We are going to also pave that area in front and use it - right now we are using it as a gravel storage area and we'd like to pave that - we do have sub-surface drainage there so there is no problem with drainage - that's basically it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The area where the deficiency exists. . . MR. COOK: Is on the main building - that would be on. . . MR. SIEVERDING: And that actually abuts the easement for the railroad tracks? MR. COOK: Right. And the new building is down here - according to the code, I have to come back each time I do something to that site. MR. SIEVERDING: So the possibility of obtaining more land back there is virtually impossible with the Conrail owning. . . PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 MR. COOK: Yes and the right-of-way - if I had to meet the proper setback, that would mean I would have to tear down the main building which would be economically unfeasible. MR. SIEVERDING: There we go. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you have any reaction to the Planning and Development Board's recommendations to the exterior? MR. COOK: No (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You weren't around? MR. COOK: I was present. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh, you were present. MR. COOK: That was done in a lump approval and I didn't get an opportunity to respond to it but with regard to the landscaping I will be happy to work with the Planning Board on that. MR. SIEVERDING: Did they ask that this go back to the Planning Board for some sort of. . . . MR. COOK: Why don't you read the letter because. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You've got the minutes from the Planning and Development Board? MR. SIEVERDING: I don't know - I threw them down somewhere. MR. OAKLEY: It says, " . . .and requiring Planning Board approval of the design as a condition of the variance. " MR. SIEVERDING: Do you have any objections to that? MR. COOK: As far as the landscaping went? No. MR. OAKLEY: Well it says, "landscaping requiring Planning Board approval. " PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 SECRETARY HOARD: They also want them to reflect a more mature and sensitive Corporate design approach. They thought the old one was childish. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's what I thought I was reading. MR. OAKLEY: Right now you could build a building and we wouldn't see it for all the. . . (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we know what they meant by that Tom? SECRETARY HOARD: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Was it the fact that they didn't like the orange stripes or what? MR. OAKLEY: Yes, they didn't like the orange stripe. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I thought I had read the fact that they were objecting to big orange stripes. I just bring that up for the Board's consideration. MR. SIEVERDING: Well and I think that - what it says, though, is that some landscaping - recommending some landscaping and requiring Planning Board approval of the design. Not necessarily the design of the landscaping but design of the shed - basically, that's the way that I interpret that and I guess if we ask him to do that, I mean, (unintelligible) want to be clear that. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, I think you are taking the right approach in asking the appellant whether in fact this is - are you prepared to deal with all of this? MR. COOK: As far as the shed goes? Yes. No problem. I know what I 'm dealing with. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. As long as you get the message. MR. COOK: That I can accommodate. PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case we'll certainly accept motions. PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1838 FOR 505 THIRD STREET (GROSSMAN'S) The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Grossman's, Inc. for an area variance to permit the construction of a new shed at the lumberyard at 505 Third Street, Ithaca, New York. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1838 with the condition that the appellant meet with the Planning and Development Board to resolve the design issues that were raised in his previous meeting with them. MR. PECK: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are practical difficulties relating to the appellant's ability to acquire more property to correct the side yard deficiency. 2. The other alternative for correcting the side yard deficiency would require moving the building, which is also practically impossible. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED WITH CONDITION PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1840 FOR 116 EAST YORK STREET: Appeal of Patricia Lord for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation under Section 30.26 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the use of the premises at 116 East York Street for the owner's video production company ("Training Scenarios") . The property is located in an R-2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which Home Occupations are permitted only with a Special Permit issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MS. LORD: My name is Pat Lord and I live at 116 East York Street. I am appealing for a special permit in order to be able to continue to use a back bedroom of my home as an office space for essentially a mail order company - the mail order functions of this company. The last couple of months we have hired - the four of us who own the company are scattered amongst different districts of New York State and Massachusetts and thus Ithaca is home base for the company, essentially. What my piece of the action in the company is, is just to receive mail orders for the two video tapes that we sell and to distribute those back out (unintelligible) system to our clients and - so really what happens in the house is that somebody comes in on a parttime basis, picks up the mail from the post office, brings it into the house, sorts it, logs the information into the computer, responds to any telephone calls, PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 which are few, but there are some which come in for the company and sometimes issues correspondence and takes it back to the post office and does the bank deposits. And that's the extent of what goes on at the residence. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. OAKLEY: How many hours a week do you work? MS. LORD: Anywhere from one to six. MR. OAKLEY: How many hours a week does your parttime employee work? MS. LORD: Anywhere from two to ten. Sometimes that - because of the person, the employee, she will take the work back to her residence instead of working at the office, if you will, because she has her own computer and sometimes it is more convenient. MR. OAKLEY: You ship by U.S. Mail? MS. LORD: Yes. MR. PECK: Can you tell us what the average size of your shipments are? MS. LORD: A video tape. MR. PECK: Well, how many do you ship at a time? MS. LORD: Oh. That depends - the main group of people who are buying these tapes at this point in time are folks in higher education (unintelligible) training tapes - such that teach communication skills (unintelligible) residential environments, we are trying to market to institutions of higher education, fraternities and sororities - we try to test market the prep schools and the like. So all those groups go in, essentially, a seasonal cycle of crises times or crunch times to buy training PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 materials for their specific groups. So, right now we are shipping, maybe, a package a week. In the peak periods, which are July and January, for new staff coming on board to do the training, with the new staff or just before the academic seasons open, we will be shipping anywhere from two packages a day to twenty packages a day, just depends. But those are all crated down to the post office and taken into the back room and - you know - it is not handled through the house at all. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In the material that you purchase - the video tapes - is there anything else in addition to video tapes that you might require? MS. LORD: We have a guide that we send out also. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. And how are they delivered - these sorts of goods are stored in the house? MS. LORD: I have two bookshelves full of video tapes - this is really more of a hobby than it is a corporation, I mean, it is in the corporate sector because we are going to be totally above-board about all of that - but for all of us it is really a parttime kind of a hobby - as opposed to a fulltime. . . So the extent of the inventory that is in the house - probably twenty-five to fifty manuals and anywhere from twenty to fifty copies of each tape, which are on two bookshelves in this back room. MR. OAKLEY: Where do you store other manuals, or is twenty-five your total stock? MS. LORD: Twenty-five to fifty is. . . MR. OAKLEY: So you reproduce on a Xerox? MS. LORD: Yes, up at Cayuga Press. PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 MR. OAKLEY: I think there was one other question I was supposed to ask. Could you continue to operate your business if you were told that you could not use your house - could you rent an office? MS. LORD: It would probably bankrupt the company, but we could do it - I mean - if we had to, we'd have to. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this special permit? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] I will entertain a motion for this special permit. PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1840 FOR 116 EAST YORK STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Pat Lord for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation to permit the use of the premises at 116 East York Street for the owner's video production company (Training Scenarios) . The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY; I move that the Board grant the request for a Special Permit for a Home Occupancy in Appeal Number 1840. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The occupation is carried on wholly within the principal building, that is to say, the home. 2 . Only one person outside the resident of the household, is employed in the business. 3. There doesn't appear to be any outside exterior display or sign. 4. The business does not generate any offensive odors, noise, vibrations, smoke, dust, heat or glare. 5. The occupation does not appear to create any greater volume of traffic than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1841 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 construct a twenty square foot addition to the north corner of the single-family house at 256 Floral Avenue to square off the building and for additional and improved living space. The appellants are acquiring a portion of the adjacent property to enable them to construct this addition. 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 would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MR. MOGIL: My name is Dennis Mogil, I live at 256 Floral Avenue. MR. POLUDNIAK: I 'm John Poludniak with Ithaca Neighborhood Housing, I live in Etna. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Welcome once again. Are you going to say a few words? MR. MOGIL: We were here last month and a variance was granted for (unintelligible) and we have since gone before the Planning Board and they gave us preliminary approval for the second floor PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 addition. We are in the process of working out all the legalities with the neighbor for the transfer of the property at the present time. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: Has that been difficult? MR. MOGIL: Getting the property? MR. SCHWAB: Yes. MR. MOGIL: Well he's - I 've spoken with him several times, he is more than willing to let us use it - we are getting all the abstracts and everything together - all the letters that are necessary for him to sign. MR. OAKLEY: So it's a problem with the legal bureaucratic complexity and there is not a problem of neighborly decisions? MR. MOGIL: Right. MR. POLUDNIAK: As long as his first wife, who is still on the deed, follows through. MR. PECK: Does that affect us in any way? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let's hope not. Any further questions? MR. OAKLEY: I 'm trying to decide whether we need to develop a practical necessity (unintelligible) practical. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that's fairly obvious. MR. OAKLEY: Yes, I think so. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart, any further questions? MR. SCHWAB: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you, gents. And there is no one in the audience, let the record show, that can speak either for or against, so we will now deal with a motion. BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1841 FOR 256 FLORAL AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Dennis and Michelle Mogil for an area variance to permit the construction of a twenty square foot addition to the north corner of the single-family house at 256 Floral Avenue to square off the building and 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 1841. MR. PECK: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed addition corrects an existing architectural inconvenience in the house. Continuing the house in its present form causes practical difficulty - as I recall from the last meeting - both in the proposed addition to the top and in terms of daily living. 2. The proposed addition does not exacerbate the existing deficiencies. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The last appeal tonight is APPEAL NUMBER 1842 FOR 114 MONROE STREET: Appeal of Herman and Anne Sieverding for an area variance for a deficient front yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 11, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the enlargement of the open front porch of the single-family house at 114 Monroe 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 deficient front yard setback before a building permit can be issued for the proposed construction. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live, for the record. MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm Herman Sieverding and I live at 114 Monroe Street. For the record I will just state that I wish to abstain from voting on this appeal, as a member of the Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: As a member of the Board, let the record note: Mr. Sieverding is abstaining from voting on his own manor. MR. SIEVERDING: You may have noticed, if you've gone to take a look at the house that we are in the process of painting and repairing and we will eventually work our way to the front of the property and the porch, particularly since the whole left side of the house has been jacked up by about eight or nine inches as in sort of a preparatory condition, partly due to raising the house but also because there is a lot of water that has gotten through PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 between the flashing between the upstairs wall and the frame in the roof and a lot of the rafters and ceiling joints are rotted and the supports underneath the porch itself are not below frost and as a result there is a lot of heaving and the exterior column that supports the roof structure are about to fall off. So we are going to rebuild the porch - what we would like to do is rebuild it in such a way that just off the front door - there is an area just big enough for sitting - right now the dimension of that porch - the finished dimension is about four feet, six inches which is enough for circulation but if you've got a couple of kids, certainly not enough to sit out there and not have to move all the time whenever kids go running back and forth. So we want to extend that front section of the porch and bring it out in line with the front of the house, which would make it nine feet on that side that is parallel to First. And then just jog back in to where it is four feet, six from the house again and then go back out to Monroe where the steps are. The addition would measure approximately seven by five and it would add thirty-five square feet to the porch. There is the possibility, depending on whether or not we can work out the roof line because there is a complicated roof structure because it follows a pattern of the house - that we may want to add a second level deck to the porch. I don't know whether that makes a difference as far as you view it, does it? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the footprint is the same. MR. SIEVERDING: The footprint is the same but it may have a second level which would be equal to a section that if you carried the front line of the house just right over, including the addition, PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 that's an area nine by twelve - it would be rectangular up there. That's what we want to do. The deficiency exists because the house jogs over and because I 'm on a corner there are two front yards and the front yard requirement is ten feet and we only have six and one-half feet - or it is ten feet from the property line to the edge of the porch, which is where the addition is going to take place. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What's the nature of the foundations that you are installing? MR. SIEVERDING: We'll have piers down to about three - six, with a square concrete pier coming up and a girder line (unintelligible) and lattice work over the front. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Lattice work as in. . . MR. SIEVERDING: As in something that similar - finer than what you buy at Grossman's. The grid on the lattice would be finer than your normal four by eight pressure treated panel. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'll be honest with you, I mean, the only thing that I see in the future - the only question I raise is whether in fact somebody is going to come back and enclose in that top story, if you put the top story in there - we want (intelligible) with it insofar as the variance itself or that sort of thing - I don't know that that is a great problem, I 'm just wondering about it. You are going to over-structure the thing in such a way as to be able to allow somebody else to come in and cob it up later on. MR. SIEVERDING: No, I think the only way you could get habitable space up there would be to get enough load to carry both exterior walls and an additional roof structure. You have to over-size - PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 it's going to be framed out (unintelligible) and it's not going to be big enough to carry an additional room and roof. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? (none) Thank you. There should be noted in the record that there is no one else in the audience to speak either for or against which means I 'll entertain a motion. PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 5/2/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1842 FOR 114 MONROE STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Herman and Anne Sieverding for an area variance to permit the enlargement of the open front porch of the single-family house at 114 Monroe Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. PECK: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1842. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed addition will not exacerbate the existing deficiency. 2. It will make a nice addition to the house. 3 . In order to correct the existing deficiency it would be necessary to demolish part of the house. 4. The proposed addition will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 4 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT; 1 ABSTENTION GRANTED PAGE 48 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 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, and 1842 on May 2, 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 t Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this day of , 1988 4L J Notary Public JEANJ. HANKiNSON NOTARY PU&LIC,STATE OF NEW YORK NO.5-5-130800 QUALIFIED IN T0h7PKINS COU.2 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 90.19