The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-BZA-1988-06-06 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JUNE 6, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPEAL NO. 1843 Ron and Carol Schmitt 3 413 North Cayuga Street if IT Deliberations 16 it it Decision 20 APPEAL NO. 1844 John and Leslie Mather 21 415 North Cayuga Street Deliberations 23 Decision 26 APPEAL NO. 1845 J6hri dfid-. Mary Crowley 27 96 Ithaca Road " Deliberations 35 " Decision 38 More deliberations 39 APPEAL NO. 1846 WITHDRAWN APPEAL NO. 1847 HELD OVER APPEAL NO. 1848 Murry Daitchman 41 204 Ridgedale Road Deliberations 46 " Decision 47 APPEAL NO. 1849 Jagat P. Sharma 48 702 Willow Ave. (WATERFRONT) Deliberations 64 " Decision 68 More Discussion 69 APPEAL NO. 1850 Mark Wenham 71 311 South Albany St . Deliberations 83 " Decision 87 More deliberations 88 APPEAL NO. 1851 Leland & Gloria Knuppenburg 89 619 W. Court Street Decision 94 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 95 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 6, 1988 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the June 6, 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 include: HERMAN SIEVERDING JOHN OAKLEY JACK PECK STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD PETER DIETERICH, ACTING SECRETARY TO THE BOARD AND DEPUTY BUILDING COMMISSIONER BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the agendum. First we are going to hear from the appellant, and then ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible, 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. 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 PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 work within that two hundred foot boundary. 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 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 microphone so 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, both pro and con, 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 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 about our procedure? [none] Then, can we proceed to our first case? PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The first case is APPEAL NUMBER 1843 FOR 413 NORTH CAYUGA STREET: Appeal of Ron and Carol Schmitt for an area variance for deficient lot area and front yard setback under Section 30.25, Columns 6 and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the three-unit apartment house at 413 North Cayuga Street to six units. The property is located in an R-3a (Residential, multiple dwellings) Use District in which the existing and proposed uses are permitted; however Sections 30.49 and 30.57 require that the appellants 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: Are Ron and Carol Schmitt here? If you would come up please. For the record, if you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MR. SCHMITT: I 'm Ron Schmitt and this is my wife Carol. We live at 302 East Upland Road, Ithaca. Carol and I are purchasing the house at 413 North Cayuga Street and plan to fully renovate the interior and retain as much historical detail as possible. We want to change the building from three large apartments to six smaller apartments. We need an area variance for two deficiencies, the front yard setback and twenty percent lot size deficiency. 413 North Cayuga is already an existing multiple. What we are trying to do is change the configuration. With three large existing apartments, there is room for about fifteen bedrooms which are most likely to be rented to undergraduate students and Carol and I have PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 found that this kind of group housing is really noisy - it is difficult to control - it is inappropriate to the neighborhood on Cayuga Street - increases traffic in and out of the house and is a far more intensive use of the house than we plan. We are both native Ithacans and own and manage our own properties. Our recent projects have been to renovate interesting downtown homes - one at a time - and we do all the work ourselves. We are also pleased to see that there is a lot of other interest in upgrading downtown areas. MS. SCHMITT: We brought a few pictures - just because we are so proud of our work - so you can see the loving care that we put into some of our previous projects - before and after pictures. MR. SCHMITT: The first two are both downtown houses - one is on Fair Street and the other one is on Auburn Street - and these are just exterior photos, but we also do a nice job on the inside. The second photos you might recognize - they are from 106 Sears Street, which is the same neighborhood as the Cayuga Street house. You can see the results of our work there. We had to come before you for a use variance on that and we had a lot of neighborhood support and, I think, by looking at the pictures you'll see that we did a nice job and we really appreciated your support to help us save that house - it is a Queen Anne house. That was just two years ago. All of our projects - we are really proud of the results and in each case the neighbors have made a point of telling us how pleased they are with our work. Carol has one letter from somebody - this is from our recent notification. . . PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MS. SCHMITT: These are answers from people who have just stopped us on the street and called us - supporting it - and also one nice note from someone thanking us for the Sears Street project. So anyone that has spoken to us on this has given us a very positive response on our new project because they do know us (unintelligible) MR. SCHMITT: The house at 413 North Cayuga is also in the Historic District - it is an Italianate brick building, built around 1870 and we are not going to make any changes to the outside. In the rear there is a large carriage house and a carport and a number of uncovered parking spaces also - there is parking for about ten cars right on the grounds. There is plenty of parking. MS. SCHMITT: So parking won't be a problem. It won't matter how many people are in that house - it is an enormous area back there. MR. SCHMITT: Inside - the downstairs is really nice - there is a grand staircase and a couple of marble fireplaces and a lot of ornate plaster work. MS. SCHMITT: It is beautiful inside. MR. SCHMITT: However the second floor is badly deteriorated and so is the basement. And the heating system is unsafe and the plumbing is really outdated (unintelligible) also. MS. SCHMITT: When it was inspected around the first of the year, I believe, or at Christmas time, the City had issued the previous owners a long list of deficiencies involved. . . MR. SCHMITT: We also have some updated plans that we would like to pass out. MS. SCHMITT: These are modified (unintelligible) . . PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. SCHMITT: As you can see from the plans, the new apartments are going to be large, they are not just - most of them are going to have separate kitchens and each bedroom is going to have its own bath. Also, each unit is going to have separate utilities, hot water and so forth. We are also incorporating preservation of as many of the details of the house as we can - the woodwork, the plaster - we are going to try to use the lighting fixtures and things like this to make it. . . - and again, based on past experience I think the kind of tenants attracted to living in a historic downtown house will be quiet adults - they will be working people, or retired people - possibly grad students, or faculty members and they all seem to make really nice neighbors and all our neighbors appreciate that. And, as Peter said, the neighborhood is an R-3 - there are a few families - not too many in the area - there are a few retired people and some elderly people - there are lots of apartments around there - there are law offices, businesses and doctor's offices. A lot of these are non-conforming uses and we really feel that the six apartments is going to be appropriate for the neighborhood. We think that six small apartments will decrease the density and have fewer bedrooms - being quiet, easier for us to manage, less traffic, less cars and from the results of the letter that we sent around, the neighbors seem to agree with the kind of apartments we plan to have. We believe they will have less impact on the neighborhood. Carol and I hope you will grant us this variance. We are willing to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. SIEVERDING: Would you explain how going from what currently appears to be five bedrooms to nine bedrooms is going to cause a decrease in density? MR. SCHMITT: There is three apartments in there now. Most of them have a living room, a sitting room, a parlour, a kitchen. . . . and then maybe one or two bedrooms. MS. SCHMITT: They are enormous rooms. MR. SCHMITT: It is just a huge place. MS. SCHMITT: It is already zoned for multiple, there are now three apartments - it is not a single family home that we would be breaking up. It already has three apartments in it - with a lot of unused space and we feel that, if we were to rent it as is, which we could - and probably profitably - we would have student housing. We would have students in there because there is so much room that it would end up to make sense for us to put in a lot of students and we have found that we are very much more comfortable dealing with adults that like smaller apartments. MR. SCHMITT: Carol is saying students because there aren't many other people who want five bedroom apartments, and not because we like renting to students. MR. OAKLEY: You don't legally right now have five bedroom apartments, though. . . MR. SCHMITT: No but there is not a problem with that in an R-3 neighborhood. MS. SCHMITT: There is a very shabby apartment in the basement. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you say a little bit more about that? MS. SCHMITT: The basement? PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. It seems as though that is widely known, or at least it's known in the community of people that have been looking at the building over the last couple of months. MS. SCHMITT: Apparently, I think it is an unfortunate lady who lives there - or who lived there - and we did go in and it is quite a mess and one of the things I know that the City had noted was the ceiling seems to be coming down - in the basement. It is a beautiful old ornate plaster casting - you can see the details in the old stairway of the grand old house - but it really is just falling apart - it is a mess down there. Of course we would gut that entire apartment down there, change it. MR. SCHMITT: But the upstairs wouldn't be changed (unintelligible) MS. SCHMITT: The first floor, Evelyn Blair had lived there by herself. She was an elderly lady and just had - so it was not rented on the first floor. The second floor she did rent out and that's enormous - upstairs. I don't know the people that were in there. MR. SCHMITT: If you look at the plans you will see that there is close to fifteen rooms that are about two hundred square feet. MS. SCHMITT: These are big rooms. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is the sale to you contingent upon the area variance being granted? MS. SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you have already purchased it or entered into a contract? PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MS. SCHMITT: Well we haven't had a closing but we do have a committment and we will be buying it. Did that answer your question? MR. SIEVERDING: I think I understand what you are saying, I mean there are rooms that may not be designated as bedrooms but for all practical reasons they are not being used as bedrooms because (unintelligible) MR. SCHMITT: The lot is really large. The house is large too. The carriage house is forty-two wide so you can tell that the lot itself is wide. (unintelligible) MS. SCHMITT: And of course the outside - not only is it in the Historic District, but it is a Nationally Registered Landmark. We've already been in touch with Barbara Ebert and will be turning to her for any advice we may need - we would only restore details if they were needed - we don't want to change it because it is beautiful. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. SCHMITT: I 'm just curious - after you gave us the use variance on Sears Street - if anybody has gone by that house to see what we have done? That really came out nicely. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We've all probably gone through it in one sense or another - or gone by it. Sure. Jack, any questions? MR. PECK: No. I 'm just looking at some numbers for the R-3 area. MS. SCHMITT: We feel that our plans will really have much less impact on the neighborhood - small apartments will create a quiet housing condition there and our only alternative would be to rent PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 to larger groups - the house is zoned as a multiple and I am concerned about managing. . MR. SCHMITT: Just one thing the house has been for sale for almost a year and it is just too big for single family - we have really put a lot of thought into this and it is a wonderful house - we put a lot of thought into it. . . MR. OAKLEY: I guess I should ask one more question. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I thought there would be one more question. MR. OAKLEY: I 'm not sure that I am supposed to ask this kind of question - I mean obviously the basic problem has to do with area which - if I do my math right - (unintelligible) some kind of area deficiency. . . MR. SCHMITT: Three allowed - almost four. MR. OAKLEY: Almost four. Why not five instead of six? MR. SCHMITT: Because of - two reasons - we have to make it financially feasible and our only other alternative - if we made it five - we would have one bigger group in there and you really can't mix groups in the same house. It is really tough in the same neighborhood but in the same house it is impossible. MS. SCHMITT: The house - as you can see - the original house and then a whole addition of equal size was added on later - so because of that configuration it broke up more naturally - for entrances and everything too - into two units on each floor. MR. SCHMITT: These deficiencies - they are all existing because we can't do anything about the outside. MR. OAKLEY: And then just one more question - is it not true that two cars currently park in the carport? PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. SCHMITT: No cars are in there now. There was one that was. . . MS. SCHMITT: It was an abandoned car. MR. OAKLEY: There are two oil stains that suggest that there were two cars parked there. . . MS. SCHMITT: We asked them to move some of the old things like that. MR. SCHMITT: There are three vacant in the carriage house and there is enough for three small cars under the carport plus probably at least four others - plenty of parking. MR. OAKLEY: Plenty of asphalt. MR. SCHMITT: More than one per person who will be living there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's Sherlock Oakley over there, you better be careful. Thank you both. Question? MS. SCHMITT: We do have Chris Anagnost who was kind enough to come here as a consultant and representative for us and I wondered whether that. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we will next ask whether in fact anyone wants to speak in favor, okay? MS. SCHMITT: Okay. He is not a resident within two hundred feet and so I 'm not sure whether. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is he going to be representing you in some sense? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MS. SCHMITT: He is our realtor and consultant. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Chris, do you want to come forward under the aegous of the intended buyers? MR. ANAGNOST: Sure, be glad to. I spoke on their behalf when they did the Sears Street renovation. PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: I understand. Again, for the record begin by identifying yourself. MR. ANAGNOST: I 'm Chris Anagnost, 304 College Avenue. I am the realtor who sold the house to the Schmitts and I am also a friend of theirs. The point I wanted to make is the R-3 zoning - the allowable use of three apartments does not limit the number of bedrooms per apartment so actually, legally they could be asking for an expansion of an existing number of bedrooms and still keep within the three units. A lot of people that looked at the property were looking at it to have a tourist home or a bed and breakfast because a large Victorian house like that - and I think that would cause a greater traffic and impact on the neighborhood so I feel that six permanent or semi-permanent residents would have less of an impact - people going in and out - than a tourist home would. That would be more transient traffic - a lot of overnight guests and a lot of friends of guests that are staying there so you would have considerably more traffic even though the zoning does allow tourist home uses. So I think their use would be less intense than what is allowed there also. Single apartments are not usually created anymore because of the fact that it costs as much to do a kitchen and bath for a studio or a one-bedroom as it does for a three-bedroom, so most of the conversions look to make three-bedroom apartments - most new construction makes three-bedrooms also. I think that in an effort to provide smaller units for single people, or working people, this is a good solution - to have this house which is already a multiple - changed internally to add more smaller units than what is allowed and what PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 is there now. There are examples - and people who have come before you seeking to make larger units (unintelligible) people actually come to you and ask to make smaller units, so I think it would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the Schmitts would do a very good job. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Questions from members of the Board? [none] 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? Come forward if you would. Again, begin by identifying yourself and where you live, please. DR. HERSH: I 'm Jerry Hersh, I live on 111 Cottage Place. Actually I work right across the street at 402 North Cayuga Street. I wasn't sure whether I should come up before when you asked for someone in favor, or someone against. I 'm probably neither. But I thought I would come at this point - I 'm really up here to speak to the house, rather than what they are planning to do with it. All to often we see larger houses in town, I 'm sure we've all seen them, that the person that does the reconstruction does a very nice job - to have the house for five years or ten years - and sell it, and sure enough, instead of three apartments or two apartments, it is six apartments with lots of beds in it and the house deteriorates. The house itself is in the Historic District and is a magnificent structure. The reason I came tonight was really to not urge this group, if in fact you do give the variance, that there should be some guidelines in rehabilitation of such a building. When we read "retaining as much historical detail as possible" - is that ninety-five percent or five percent or one PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 percent? When we look at "quiet tenants", does that mean quiet this year, but not next year, or five years? The reason I have come is really to urge that, if in fact, you do give a variance, there are a set of standards put out by the Department of the Interior for rehabilitation of historic structures. I think any building in a Historic District should be rehabilitated according to those standards. I think that the reason that I would urge this is that it is beneficial to everyone - beneficial to the City because the building and the house - beneficial to the people that rehabilitate it because there is a significant tax advantage to go by the guidelines, and I think a benefit to the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Because it is in a Historic District, doesn't the Landmark Preservation Commission have some control? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. Let me clarify that a little bit. Not to spend a great deal of time with it. The Landmarks Historic Preservation Commission in the City of Ithaca has given onto it certain responsibilities. The Secretary of Interior Standards go with the money which is given to the City which, essentially, drives the staff position, in part, and the mechanisms of the Landmarks Commission. So that the Secretary of Interior Standards are directly applicable through the Landmarks statute, okay? It is handled through that Board. This Board, as a matter of course, doesn't deal with those issues. We get our authority through a completely different state enabling legislation, so that you can see that those two responsibilities are separate. Now insofar as - and that has to do with the Standards that you may want to put PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 together, in a sense, for the rehabilitation of the structure. The second part of your comment, from what I understood, was something about the nature of the inhabitants, in a sense, the people to whom it might be rented, and in likewise fashion, we don't have much control over that. We can essentially deny or grant - given the fact that we feel as though it is in the best interest or sympathic, or not sympathic, with the neighborhood - or something of that sort. But as a matter of course, we have no right of review as to who the property is rented to. DR. HERSH: And I have no quarrels with that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. I just wanted to be clear, so that you knew what our role is, specifically, in this particular instance. I couldn't agree with you more outside of this Board's responsibility in all of those areas but, nevertheless, it is not within our scope here at this point, okay? DR. HERSH: Okay. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? Comments? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Or, on the borderline, as in the case of the last instance? [no one] Okay, if that's the case, we'll deliberate and begin to think about a motion. PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 DELIBERATIONS ON APPEAL NUMBER 1843 FOR 413 NORTH CAYUGA STREET MR. OAKLEY: The area is the obvious problem. Basically (unintelligible) not much regard to the area requirements, it seems to me. I 'm generally kind of enthusiastic about area requirements but I have to concede that this is a pretty big house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tell me about practical difficulty please. MR. OAKLEY: You are asking for a motion? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, I 'm just asking for a practical difficulty. Tell me about the practical difficulty. MR. OAKLEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) practical difficulty - is the difficulty in dividing the house up in any other way without essentially turning it into (unintelligible) - a single apartment, an excessively large apartment. MR. SIEVERDING: I think the practical difficulty really relates to the relationship between the footprint of the house and the lot itself and it is a large lot and a large house, but it is in the neighborhood of large lots and large houses. I don't think it is very much different than those other properties, and they all face the same problem if they wanted to do a conversion that is consistent with what the zoning allows, which is what they are proposing. So I think the practical difficulty with regard to lot area is that they would have to acquire more land, which is infeasible, because it is all bought and built on, or they would have to reduce the size of the house - I think which is an onerous burden to place on the appellant (unintelligible) . . . MR. SCHWAB: Or go to fewer apartments. PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. OAKLEY: Well reduce or go to fewer apartments - the size of the house has nothing to do with it. Or does it? MR. PECK: No, it is lot area. MR. OAKLEY: Not free lot area, lot area. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie is getting ready to say something. MR. WEAVER: I am? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I thought so - it looked like it. MR. WEAVER: Well I just was saying that behind that is that the conversion regulations are silent on one-bedroom apartments versus two or three and treats them as dwelling units - so many is okay without further describing them. So, although I don't know that it's a practical difficulty within the strict confines of this Ordinance, there isn't any recognition for one-bedroom apartments which are being proposed here and it just seems to me that the equivalent amount of density of population will probably be met. The intent of the Code will be met by this different confirmation which isn't fully described in the Ordinance - that's not a practical difficulty, I 'm just saying that as far as our decision is concerned it would just seem to me that, if someone had free land and were going to build, obviously if they were driven by this Ordinance they would put two- and three-bedroom apartments - which would not benefit the neighborhood by any reduction in number of occupants - quite the contrary. MR. OAKLEY: I 'm not exactly sure what Charles is saying. I mean, the Ordinance seem to me - I mean, perhaps unfortunately (unintelligible) the Ordinance seems to me to be fairly clear and in fact, it imposed even more stringent requirements on conversion PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 than on new construction - an extra thousand feet to start with. In other words, seven thousand feet for the first one to three units versus - and actually an additional two hundred and fifty feet for each additional unit. The problem I have is how do you interpret the intent of that - I mean, I 'm not particularly fond of that provision for reasons that have to do with something that didn't come before the Board. But how do you interpret the intent of that provision in any way other than to say that it means to stop people from doing this sort of conversion? It seems to be specifically the largeness of the lot is not so much a practical difficulty as it ought to be an opportunity. The largeness of the house, it seems to me to be the major practical difficulty. That it is practically (unintelligible) . I have no problem with believing that. I suppose you could make more two-bedroom apartments - I will stop. I 've said what I have to say. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: For the moment. Stewart, any thoughts? MR. SCHWAB: No I don't have any thoughts - I 'm willing to be guided by the others. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we getting any closer to a motion? MR. WEAVER: Well, I 'll ask the floor - what conversion would be allowed without a deficiency other than the front yard setback? Would any conversion be allowed? MR. OAKLEY: None. MR. WEAVER: None. okay. So we've got a big old place with a fairly large basement apartment and two others - one per floor. PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. OAKLEY: I haven't read on the law, but what is the definition of conversion? Is converting three or four bedroom apartments a conversion from three (unintelligible) apartments? MR. WEAVER: It could be from a single family dwelling for that matter. MR. OAKLEY: Sure - there is some conversion involved. . . MR. WEAVER: They propose some but to stay by the law, as I understand it, no conversion is allowed because they don't have a big enough lot. MR. OAKLEY: It might be appealed to on the idea of the smallness of the lot but .not on the largeness of the lot. PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1843 FOR 413 NORTH CAYUGA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Ron and Carol Schmitt for an area variance to permit the conversion of the three-unit apartment house at 413 North Cayuga Street to six units. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1843. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The front yard setback - which is 50% deficient - cannot be corrected without demolition of the structure. 2 . Practical difficulties are a very large dwelling which currently has three apartments of a size that are not generally popular in the market. A solution could be to create a COOP. A second solution is being proposed by the appellant as an economical solution; subdividing the house into small apartments that can bring enough income, can bring enough control, so that the building, as altered, will not be more burdensome upon the community. VOTE: 5 YES; 1 NO GRANTED PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1844 FOR 415 NORTH CAYUGA STREET: Appeal of John and Leslie Mather for an area variance for deficient lot width under Section 30.25, Column 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the retroactive conversion of the house at 415 North Cayuga Street from a dwelling unit plus a doctor's office to three apartments. The property was converted without a building permit or a variance for the area deficiency; the appellants are now attempting to correct this violation. The property is located in an R-3a (Residential, multiple dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however Sections 30.49 and 30.57 require that the appellants obtain an area variance for the deficient lot width before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are the Mathers here? Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MR. MATHER: I 'm John Mather. MS. MATHER: I 'm Leslie Mather. MR. MATHER: We live at 415 North Cayuga Street. We are here tonight to get a variance for, I guess, lot width on one side of the house and - this is the same as the last one only I hope this won't take as long - we haven't got any other houses so we don't have any pictures to show you. The lot is big enough - we have our PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 own driveway - we don't share a driveway like the house next to us. There is plenty of parking, we have already - as it says - converted into three apartments with three bedrooms each. As far as cars being parked - we've had at most - unless it was a weekend when friends were up - during the week three cars parked in the driveway. So most of the people that we rent to are students and they don't have cars - they live downtown and they take a bus. It is not a historic house on the inside. It was doctor's offices - the wood panelling does not require code school (sic]- we are replacing all the wood panelling downstairs - the way we split it up is the front part is one apartment, first floor and second floor - kitchen and bathroom on the first floor and the other apartment is in the back two-thirds of the house on the first floor and our apartment, where we live is on the second floor (unintelligible) of the house. We are painting it - somebody went by yesterday - we are scrapping all the paint off, putting new shingles on and we put a new roof on it already - it is going to be a very nice looking house when we are done and what we are asking for here, I think the discrepancy is about a foot or so on either side - that is basically what we are looking for. Any questions? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? Why haven't we seen you before? Why didn't the Building Commissioner see you before? That's the obvious question. MR. MATHER: We didn't know, we called the office for an inspection awhile back, and the urgency of this matter was never made clear to us. Maybe we should have had a lawyer or something, but I didn't - you know - we were talking with them constantly from the first week PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 that we moved in and the subject of this being an extremely important meeting was never brought up. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: With all due respect to my colleague Stewart, who is a lawyer, it is not necessary, please, to bring in lawyers. MS. MATHER: We'd like to - I mean, we really want to do things the proper way and being first time home owners and being first time landlords, we really - we just didn't know the proper process and now we are - as it says in the appeal - we are trying to correct that and we really - no we are not trying to cut any corners but we did - we are kind of learning as we go along. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is true that once you buy a home, particularly your first home, you ought to have an instruction on building and zoning code - that is a basic truth. Further questions from members of the Board? Fine. Thanks. 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 will consider it. I 'll entertain a motion or further discussion. DELIBERATION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1844 FOR 415 NORTH CAYUGA STREET MR. OAKLEY: I want to ask just one question. Number 12 - line 12 - south side yard seems not to be a problem. Am I correct? Even though on the form it says that there is a problem. MR. WEAVER: What does OK stand for? MR. OAKLEY; The worksheet has the minimum side yard being adequate and the front page says that we are looking for an area variance for the (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good thought. In other words, which is correct? PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. OAKLEY: We need not. . . well it looks like - I mean they need a case (unintelligible) - kind of small, I can't really tell you from that. It doesn't look like a big problem to me, I suppose we could grant the variance but I 'd hate to do it unnecessarily. Give away our favors for free. MR. SIEVERDING: Was that scaled off the site plan, Peter, when you did the worksheet? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Well most likely, I think what I did was I took it off the survey. Which deficiency are we talking about? MR. OAKLEY: It looks like we are talking about the ten and a half foot - the required ten foot side yard which here says it is ten and a half feet. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Front yard deficiency is a. . . MR. OAKLEY: The only deficiency that is evident from the worksheet is the lot width. MR. WEAVER: Where do we get a side yard deficiency? MR. PECK: It's on the front page of the appeal. The cover - which is the appeal. MR. OAKLEY: The worksheet is simply for. . . . MR. SIEVERDING: Shall we just grant the variance or dismiss the case. MR. WEAVER: Well for this seven tenths of a foot - let's take a chance, that we won't severally be sued for an inaccurate stating of this. Let's proceed. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the only question is the side yard - that probably would be it. The owner. . . PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. OAKLEY: There is four foot, nine inches between the boundary line and the next house and so there is clearly five feet between the back and it looks like there is clearly ten feet on the other side, if you want to scale - if you look down at the survey of that adjoining property it says - just above the word "pipe found" it says 4.9, which makes it look to me like. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Shall we take the worksheet as correct? MR. OAKLEY: We should take the worksheet as correct, I think. MR. SIEVERDING: In other words, we should have one motion that deals with the lot width? MR. OAKLEY: Yes. Okay. PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1844 FOR 415 NORTH CAYUGA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Leslie and John Mather for an area variance to permit the retroactive conversion of the house at 415 North Cayuga Street from a dwelling unit plus a doctor's office to three apartments. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVEDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1844. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The minimum lot width deficiency is an existing condition that will not be affected in any way by the conversion of the property. 2 . That the exception observes the spirit of the Ordinance and will not change the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1845 FOR 96 ITHACA ROAD: Appeal of John and Mary Crowley for an area variance for excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for the front yard, side yard, and rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the addition of a one-car garage to the north end of the existing single-family house at 96 Ithaca Road. The property is located in an R-1b (Residential, single-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 Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed construction. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourselves? MR. CROWLEY: My name is John Crowley, I live at 96 Ithaca Road. MS. CROWLEY: My name is Mary Crowley and I live at 96 Ithaca Road. MR. SIEVERDING: I'd like to state that there may be a potential conflict of interest on my part so I 'm going to withdraw from participating in this case. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Thank you Herman. Do you want to say a little bit about how this differs from the last time - just kind of pick up the discussion. MR. CROWLEY: First of all the reason for our appeal is to hopefully add a one-car, one-story garage to the north end of our PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 home. This will help us convert the present two-car garage to a family room and allow us to alleviate a hardship for our family living space, that's the reason behind what we want to do. As you may remember, the last time we appealed we were hoping to add a two-car garage with an efficiency apartment overhead in the same location, attached to our home. There was a difference of opinion and our neighbors kindly stated those. I think that I can characterize them in three different ways. One was design considerations. There were some folks who had some opinions about the way it was going to look. Another was an accessory apartment - whether it was an appropriate use of that space for an accessory apartment - it was a little bit different than what the regulation had previously spoken to. Third was zoning considerations which were still essentially the same except for the footprint - it is a much smaller footprint at this appeal. And lastly there was one consideration for - one of my neighbors was concerned because they were afraid that I would block their view of the hills. So there were four kinds of observations that people made. What I 've done in the meantime, since that was denied, was to talk with each one of my neighbors individually, in person, as well as communicate with them in writing three different times - and I worked very extensively with my neighbor immediately next door, Mr. David Gross, and we've developed a plan using landscape architects mostly, but also letting him, and I, discuss the architectural plan for the house that I think will be amenable to both of our uses of that joint property. He is immediately adjacent to me on the PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 Mitchell Street side, and my closest neighbor. I hope a letter that he has written to the Board has found its way into the file. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, it has. MR. CROWLEY: Okay, good. So, what I hopefully characterize now is that, having talked with each of my neighbors, discussed their concerns - we have hopefully come up with a plan that they have looked at and - either through their affirmation or not showing up tonight to talk against it - can agree with. So that's basically where we've been in the last - that's the journey we've taken in the last six or eight weeks. And I think it's - hopefully - satisfies all the concerns that we faced as we made our first appeal. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? While they are suffling around these papers, I noticed that Planning and Development Board said something - the Committee - I'm quoting here - "urges the applicant to explore design alternatives for the roof shape shown. It would make the addition more architecturally compatible" - by that they mean - do you know? MR. CROWLEY: Yes. I talked to Susan Blumenthal, who is here tonight, and that was one of the considerations I meant to stress when we talked about the four kinds of things that we talked about with the neighbors. And that is the opinion of the people - the roof attached to a Dutch Colonial styled house isn't particularly appropriate and what we decided to do is work - if you look at our schematic you will see that - I think that opinion was drawn from that schematic. What we hope to do is make the roof line appropriate and we are working with our architect to make it as PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 compatible with the present lines of our home as we can. So it is likely that the roof line will be changed from the severe peak look that it has now. As a matter of fact, we have preliminary renderings that show a different roof line. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions? MR. WEAVER: I would inquire as to whether such a recommendation comes to us from solid enough form so that that Board is asking us to grant a conditional approval or a. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think we will get a chance to ask that in a few minutes if we need to. . . . MR. WEAVER: Well I want to in this discussion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you like to comment gentlemen - further - on whether this recommendation comes to us in the form of a recommendation sufficiently formed that it could be used as a condition? Am I phrasing that correctly Charlie? MR. WEAVER: Close. MR. OAKLEY: In other words, are we going to send them for Planning. . . how does that - I have not had this regulation (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it's not a regulation, it's. . . MR. OAKLEY: I mean their proposal. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You've got Jon Meigs. . . . MR. OAKLEY: I think that you would have the form that's probably being accepted - somebody approving it as being architecturally adequate or we could say that it is more architecturally compatible than (unintelligible) condition (unintelligible) . . . I mean, if PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 they can simply define what is or is not more architecturally compatible, that's hardly a condition imposed. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charles, is that sufficient answer for the moment? You asked the question. MR. WEAVER: I asked that question. You suggested we would be able to get an answer to it? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We might be able to. MR. WEAVER: I didn't think John's was intended to be an answer. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Further questions of the appellant? You are to be commended - from my point of view - of having gone the extra mile. MR. OAKLEY: I think I want one question answered - usual fashion. The proposed garage, although it is not as close to that rear lot line as the existing building, is still (unintelligible) MR. CROWLEY: 1. 3 feet. MR. OAKLEY: 1. 3 feet. Okay, I 'm not even sure (unintelligible) briefly why. MR. CROWLEY: It came about in discussions with my neighbor - we've looked at the original proposal, as you may remember - it was the extension of the regular - the existing line behind the house and we wanted to have a garage that - and we are continuing the line at the front of the house. . . MR. OAKLEY: Okay so you actually are in line with the. . . MR. CROWLEY: With the front of the house, yes. So to have a sufficient size garage, that's pretty much where we ended up so we stood out there one Saturday afternoon and move a two by four PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 around (unintelligible) and so we came up with that which looked pretty good here and that's essentially how it happened. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? (none] Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? We have all but issued you an invitation. If you would begin by identifying yourself. MS. BLUMENTHAL: My name is Susan Blumenthal and I live at 305 Mitchell Street and I 'm here to speak as a private citizen, but if you would like, I will address - do you want me to speak privately or. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Whichever way you would like to. . . MR. WEAVER: How about both? MS. BLUMENTHAL: Well that to. To address the question - the Planning Board made that recommendation as a Body, so I think they would appreciate it if you took that seriously, if you choose to grant conditional approval, that would be very helpful. MR. WEAVER: The reason for my question was, if we make - the only way we can impose that recommendation upon this granting is by a conditional variance, so trying to phrase a condition - I 'm a little bit wary of saying that it is compatible - there is quite a bit of judgement involved. . . . MS. BLUMENTHAL: So if we had phrased the. . . . MR. WEAVER: I don't know how - what you ought to do, I 'm just saying, you put me in this position and say, architecturally compatible with the house and then, who is to be the Board - your Board will decide whether it is or not? PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You see, if you had said, for example, the garage must have, or should have, a Dutch Colonial roof, and its ridge should be parallel with the ridge of the building. . . . MS. BLUMENTHAL: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I guess we should talk some time about how we did the Grossman's one, I think that was a very successful effort, actually. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that too was very fuzzy, very fuzzy. MS. BLUMENTHAL: Was it? Well maybe we should talk about this. MR. WEAVER: Well I wasn't at the meeting so probably it is fortunate, because I looked at that and said, how on earth does the Board of Zoning Appeals say to an appellant - we can say no orange paint - that's specific - but to say, it's okay with us if it is okay with somebody else, seems to me to be kind of fuzzy. I don't know whether we are meeting our obligation. . . MS. BLUMENTHAL: No I think this is worth exploring further - but we did - for your information - meet with the representative of Grossmans who came to the next meeting and was very agreeable and we ended up with some very good solutions. . . Okay, we can discuss this some other time. . . I think you will see the results. . . MR. WEAVER: Well I 'm not arguing about results, I 'm arguing about the procedure. . . MS. BLUMENTHAL: The methods . . . I 'd be more than happy to talk about that. . . . MR. WEAVER: We have one member here that is kind of not - I don't find it very easy to hand it over to anyone and say, I approved this - if somebody else approves it - without knowing what PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 standards they are using or whether they will - it may look horrible to me when they get done. MS. BLUMENTHAL: Right, okay. So that's as Chair of the Planning Board. And now as a private citizen - let's see, first of all I should clarify something that I would have spoken last month about this - or two months ago, whatever it was - about this variance except that I was not officially notified and wasn't aware that I was within two hundred feet and that was through, apparently, some mistake. I am a new owner of this residence and the assessor apparently has both owners on the record and I wasn't aware of that since our taxes are in escrow, so I now know that because I finally got this one because it wasn't certified and it came to me. So, anyway, I was not aware of this last time and I didn't measure it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well you missed a great case, because. . . MS. BLUMENTHAL: I guess so. I 'm sorry I missed that. Anyway - so in any case, I would like to support the Crowley's variance this month, I think that they have a legitimate need for more space and I appreciate their wanting to increase the size of their house for their uses. I 'll be brief then, the only concern that I do have is about the roof line. As proposed here, I have spoken with them and they have informed me that they are working with the architect with a plan that I did see - I think it is now in keeping with the character of the house and that is an important place in the neighborhood. Other properties are very significant in certain parts of the City, on major streets, this one - a lot of people see this house because of its particular location. I think that is all that I want to say. PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. OAKLEY: I guess I 'm still not clear on Charlie's - the answer to Charlie's question - which is, how do we phrase this condition? I mean, what - you obviously can't tell, I mean, we have to make that decision. You can tell us what you think the Planning Board. . . MS. BLUMENTHAL: I think that is something that has got to do with the angles and the matching of the house - I don't know if those kinds of terms help you, but that is something that is more - that doesn't help you either? MR. OAKLEY: That doesn't help me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we'll get to deal with it as - if we deal with it, we'll deal with it one way or the other. MS. BLUMENTHAL: Well sometime we'll talk - I think that we should talk. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It's a long discussion, Susan. MS. BLUMENTHAL: Fine. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: 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 we will begin to entertain motions and hear further deliberation. DELIBERATION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1845 FOR 96 ITHACA ROAD CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think, Charles, to the degree - if you were to condition - I 'm not saying we should - but to follow up the discussion just a bit - if you were to condition, I think one of the concerns that comes out of it would be height. I think one could deal with the height. I think another thing that one can PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 begin to deal with, perhaps, would be adopting the roof form - its relationship to the house. I think some people - I 'm not saying we should go this far - but I 'm merely suggesting that one could turn the building and again, keep the ridge parallel to the building which is there and go with the gambol as opposed to a gable. One can begin, now I 'm not saying we should go that far, but that's the way in which I would develope were Susan here and the two of us having a long and involved discussion about this. Because those are the things that I think give character or define and are termed in urban planning literature, character defining characteristics or nuances that one begins to deal with but I 'm not here to give that kind of urban design lesson, I 'm merely saying, those are the things that one deals with and you can't say a thing. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I'm biting my tongue. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You had your chance. MR. WEAVER: I don't know whether that flat roof over the existing garage is dutchy or not. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It's Dutch Colonial. It is Dutch Colonial. The Colonial side of the Dutch. MR. WEAVER: Are they the people that are responsible for all these leaky flat roofs around town? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, it is a completely different era. Could we have a motion of some sort, perhaps? If you are reasonably set on this. MR. OAKLEY: (unintelligible) I 'm almost beginning to be convinced of the possibility of making a motion on this. . . PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I was just going to - if we could - just focus for the moment on the practical difficulty with the area variance. . . MR. SCHWAB: The only question I have - what was the lot coverage going to be? MR. OAKLEY: It's going to be twenty-nine. . . . MR. SCHWAB: Twenty-nine. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: But if you can focus - if we can, for the moment at least, at the outset and do the area variance and then deal with the - if you want to deal with the condition - deal with that as a separate issue, it might be easier. MR. OAKLEY: Two motions? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, just merely as an extension of the first. MR. OAKLEY: I still think it would be better to phrase the condition first and then make the rest of the motion. It seems to be fairly straight forward. PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1845 FOR 96 ITHACA ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of John and Mary Crowley for an area variance to permit the addition of a one-car garage to the north end of the existing single-family house at 96 Ithaca Road. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1845 with the condition that any alterations in design will not increase the height of the addition. MR. PECK: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The appellant is in need of additional living space and this effectively provides them with that. 2 . The proposed addition does bring the lot into deficiency on the question of percent of lot coverage and to some degree exacerbates the rear yard deficiency. However considering the shape of the lot it would be extremely difficult to build a garage which was compatible with the house without, in some marginal way, violating the rear yard deficiency. 3 . It would be practically difficult to otherwise reduce the size of the house or increase the size of the lot by buying nearby property. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSTENTION GRANTED WITH/CONDITION PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MORE DELIBERATION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1845 AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Now do we want to discuss further or do we not - this whole question of compatibility? MR. OAKLEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Was that on the record or off the record? MR. OAKLEY: It's on record enough. I thought you were suggesting that one possibility was. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's one possibility. I would be pleased. . . MR. OAKLEY: Considering the dimensions of the building I find that. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I would be pleased simply with the height restriction and let the problem be worked out. MR. OAKLEY: So that the condition is that a design more compatible with the Dutch Colonial style be arrived at without increasing the height of the garage and if possible (unintelligible) . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie I 'll let you take that on. Did you understand something about compatibility there? MR. WEAVER: No, I 'm not in the proper mood to understand it. Let me suggest - while you are forming your motion - the possibility that this not be a condition variance, that we just grant the variance based upon what you've already expressed and from what the appellant already remarked - take him on faith - that there will be a happy solution and there won't be a law requiring him to. We'll take that risk. It just doesn't seem to me to be quite such a critical matter that we start to try to design the damn garage. Pardon me - the garage. PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. OAKLEY: I 'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You don't have to second it, it wasn't a motion. MR. OAKLEY: I know. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So we are not going to deal with the condition? At least that's what the suggestion is from the people on this side of the table that are wearing jackets. Now on this side of the table - the people who don't have jackets may want to suggest something. . . MR. OAKLEY: How about - I think we are essentially proposing - I mean our proposal that the design is not going to be exactly what we see - I think it might be wise to make a condition that any alterations be designed not to increase the height of the building. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie seems as though he'll live with that. MR. WEAVER: I can't imagine him building it higher, but go ahead. MR. OAKLEY: I can't either. MR. WEAVER: Well - which continues to argue against a condition. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we have that as a condition then - will we accept that as a condition? The seconder will accept that as a condition? Please? MR. PECK: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There is simply a height restriction. Further discussion? Could we have a vote? Good. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Appeal 1845 has five votes in favor and one abstention. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John and Mary Crowley you have your conditional variance. Congratulations. PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1847 FOR 109 OXFORD PLACE. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That one is withdrawn. . . or held over. 1847 has been held over for those of you wishing to speak at that particular one. 1846 has already been withdrawn. So moving on to 1848. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: APPEAL NUMBER 1848 FOR 204 RIDGEDALE ROAD: Appeal of Murry Daitchman for an area variance for excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and both side yards, under Section 30.25, Columns 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of an addition to the rear of the single-family dwelling at 204 Ridgedale Road for additional living space. The property is located in an R-1b (Residential, single-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 Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed construction. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MS. FLANAGAN: My name is Roberta Flanagan, I live at 204 Ridgedale Road. MR. DAITCHMAN: I am Murry Daitchman and I live at 204 Ridgedale Road. PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. YOUNG: My name is Ken Young, I 'm the designer for the project. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Welcome all. If you begin perhaps with a few words as to the whys and wherefores of this particular area variance. MR. DAITCHMAN: When the family comes - I have four children, Roberta has one - four children with about fifteen, sixteen, seventeen grandchildren - come and. . . CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: They do not all live in this house? MR. DAITCHMAN: No but when they do visit there really is no room for husband and wife to sleep in the same room - the rooms are so small they only have a single bed in them. Just, simply there is no room for my children and grandchildren to visit. This has been a cause of concern (unintelligible) I can say that we've tried to look for another place with no success. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: This is a fairly hefty addition, perhaps you might want to say something about the size. . . MR. DAITCHMAN: Well there is a - the upstairs would then give one bedroom where husband and wife could sleep and then we have our bedroom and the downstairs it would give us one room where we could all kind of gather together with a family of four grandchildren and five grandchildren. MR. YOUNG: The addition may seem larger in proportion to the house but it really isn't because it does encompass part of the existing house. MR. DAITCHMAN: We are taking part of the - we are taking the whole kitchen away and encompassing it (unintelligible) MR. YOUNG: We made a previous appeal based on too much lot coverage and insufficient side yard easement. We have since moved PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 the addition away from the side yard - the existing building in fact is in violation of the side yard code. There is no other way to accomplish what we needed in terms of space - we want to provide a dining room and a living area as well as a kitchen. We are forced to go - we feel - less than a hundred square feet over the allowed maximum. This, in fact, gives us room to have a separate dining zone - it is more like an alcove than a separate room. MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm sorry, did you say that one side yard deficiency no longer exists? MR. YOUNG: The existing side yard deficiency does exist still. MR. PECK: That is the original house? MR. YOUNG: The original house, yes. MR. SIEVERDING: That's on the side that is away from where the addition is going to be constructed? MR. YOUNG: That's right. MR. SIEVERDING: You are building the addition on the side that currently doesn't have a side yard deficiency but, because of the way the addition is sited, you are creating one? MR. YOUNG: No. There is no further side yard. . . MR. OAKLEY: Our notes say that you are creating a side yard. . . MR. YOUNG: I realize that. I believe that is incorrect in the notes because the project does stay ten feet away from both side yards. This was news to me when I saw that. MR. SIEVERDING: I think it is good, if it doesn't have. MR. WEAVER: My sketch shows 11.4 but I don't know where it came from. MR. SIEVERDING: Well I believe that refers to the existing house. Just looking at the worksheet and assuming that the existing PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 condition suggests that the side yard there is 11.4 feet but then with the addition that is reduced to 8.5. Ken is saying that that actually is ten feet away from the side yard. MR. YOUNG: That is correct. You are also seeing the roof overhang which is not included in the side yard encroachment. It can project two feet over the encroachment. MR. SCHWAB: So you (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: So you are suggesting that the only deficiency that is being appealed is the 1.7 coverage? MR. YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have a basement under the front of the house? MR. DAITCHMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you propose a basement under the rear of the house? MR. DAITCHMAN: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: From the last scheme we saw, what is the difference in the square footage between that one and this one? MR. YOUNG: Square footage? Oh, I couldn't tell you, I don't have the last scheme anymore - that went out the door two months ago. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That disappeared as we disapproved it. Was it about the same? MR. YOUNG: It was very close to the same, yes. Slightly bigger, I think, by something like sixteen square feet bigger. It took the western boundary of the house and continued the line. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I think the extent of the deficiency was greater - the first proposal was far greater than this one. This one gives the whole thing actually - shifts it off to the right. PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. YOUNG: That's right. MR. SIEVERDING: And the deficiency, I think, has been significantly reduced by doing that. MR. PECK: Do we need an official word on that one side yard setback - do we need to correct that or. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it should be noted in the record that essentially we can take as "given" this part of the drawing - the sketch - as our guide as opposed to the worksheet - we believe that to be true. MR. PECK: So we disregard that? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. MR. YOUNG: Just the setback deficiencies revolve around the existing house. MR. WEAVER: Well the discussion also is around the new building on the east side setback, isn't that what we are talking about? MR. OAKLEY: Well that's, you know, it is hard to tell with a drawing because of the way the lot angles in. Have you actually measured from the back of the. . . MR. YOUNG: Yes. As close as we could determine - the center of the driveway - it is a shared driveway. MR. OAKLEY: Okay. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Was this surveyed? MR. YOUNG: Yes it was surveyed. MR. OAKLEY; I would be inclined to grant a variance for the potential side yard, because I think it is so narrow that actually we could grant it. It is such a close thing in terms of the survey and so forth that it might be wise (unintelligible) and not worry about it. PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions of the appellants? [none] Thank you all. 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 we can proceed to a motion. DELIBERATIONS ON APPEAL NUMBER 1848 FOR 204 RIDGEDALE ROAD MR. SIEVERDING: Do we agree that we are just going to deal with the lot coverage - did you say that we can accept the east side yard as being ten feet? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well you can condition it if you would like. MR. OAKLEY: I think we can just grant them a variance (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well you can essentially state that from the center line - one should, or must be, ten feet back. . . MR. OAKLEY: Or we can state that they need not. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Or that they need not - but if you say that they need not be - you ought to say how much. MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, I 'd like to approach that by saying from that center line being (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It's the cleanest way. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I agree. Can I make a motion? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please. PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1848 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 dwelling at 204 Ridgedale Road for additional living space. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1848. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The one deficiency that is created by the enlargement of this property concerns lot coverage and - given the additional space needs of the family, and having explored various design alternatives, some of which we have seen - that this is the most efficient addition possible and the deficiency created is minor, at 1.7%. 2. The east side yard, as measured from the property line shall be ten (101 ) feet minimum. 3. The variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance and character of the district. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal to be heard is APPEAL NUMBER 1849 FOR 702 WILLOW AVENUE: Appeal of Jagat P. Sharma, Architect, as agent for Bill Avramis, for an area variance for deficient off-street parking under Section 30.25, Column 4, for a variance from Article 35, and for a variance from Article 30.43 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a 975 square foot addition to the existing restaurant/bar at 702 Willow Avenue ("The Waterfront") . Article 30.45 requires that at least 20% of the area of the site be landscaped according to specific standards for the Use District in which the property is located. Article 30.43 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits construction of a new structure within twenty feet of an inlet wall or bank or stream. Both the existing building and the addition will be within twenty feet of the edge of Cascadilla Creek. The property is located in an M-1 (Marine) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, the appellant must obtain an area variance for the deficient off-street parking and variances from Articles 30.43 and 30.45 before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the new addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself. MR. SHARMA: Good evening. I 'm Jagat Sharma, Architect with offices at 312 East Seneca Street. I represent Bill Avramis who is the owner of the property at 702 Willow Avenue and commonly known, or generally known as the Waterfront. The building today looks PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 like this (holds up a photo] . . . I have different pictures from last time - I left those here. The building was reconstructed in 1984 after a fire destroyed an earlier assembly of many small buildings which were wood framed and tin framed and whatever and a new building was constructed on the existing foundation walls and was granted grandfather rights from zoning regulations, including Article 30.43 - Distance between Structure and Every Water Level which is (unintelligible) . After the building had been occupied for the last several years it became a very popular place and it is only used in the evening and night hours - until 1:00 o'clock, I believe and there is a great demand that some more space should be found to accommodate the great demand for seating space. As a result we have an appeal in for a fifteen foot wide addition to the west of the building which will be on this side and covering this wall. Also filling up the space between the building and the next building which is a boat house. But this addition requires three different variances that we have appealed for. One of them being that it is too close to the water line and (unintelligible) we are continuing the existing building line westward and - if you will look at a site plan - Cascadilla Creek - Willow Avenue - and the building is built here and we are continuing this existing west line of the building fifteen more feet. This will give us some more space in the building and also by bringing it all the way to this point of the building we will clean up and fill in existing - like a dump area right now when the water level is down (unintelligible) and filled up with glass and junk - we will clean it up and put the building on stilts so that is the reason for bringing the building in line on the creek face of the building. PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 Also the dock on the back that is presently built will also serve the new addition. So that is the reason for that appeal and variance. The next two involves parking - it is deficient in parking and requires landscaping of the site and I want to point out that drawing - color to indicate the point I want to make - the blue line is the original site that the owner had and the yellow is the building. After the building was constructed the owner enjoyed grandfather rights and had only six parking spaces. Recently the owner has acquired and bought the pink area here (unintelligible) one-two-one acres - he bought one-two-five acres and provided additional parking. The parking that he has now is thirty-three if we lay out a parking plan but in reality - because of the timing and the time that the building is used - usually in the late hours - people park almost everywhere. At a cost of additional land and the land development that he has already done, he wants to recover some of the cost by putting the fifteen foot addition on the west side which will not take away any of the parking which is already provided - it will be on the west side of the building and fitting in between the two buildings. It is not taking away any of the parking that he already has. I think the owner has gone out on his own and provided additional parking even though he has grandfather rights - from six spaces to thirty-three spaces. We started out with .21 acres - the building was almost (unintelligible) occupancy of 219 - required parking forty-nine - we have available parking spaces of six. But this is all grandfathered. He is adding a lot which is 2 . 5 acres - there will be twenty-seven parking spaces - making it thirty-three. The new building area will be 54/50 square feet - required parking is fifty-six - parking provided: PAGE 50 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 thirty-three. We are asking the variance on the deficiency of twenty-three parking spaces. The argument (unintelligible) that he has already gone out and bought some more land and provided parking to (unintelligible) and the other thing is - with the area where we are located, there is no other use in the night - of any of the other property and I believe that some of the Montessori School people park in this parking lot during the daytime and the evening hours people from this side go and park there, so it is give and take. This is what I 've been told and I 'm relaying the message here. So that is the reason for the second variance for parking and the third one is connected from the standpoint of being in the Marine/commercial District twenty percent of the lot has to be - it is not clear - twenty percent of the street frontage or twenty percent of the entire lot has to be landscaped. Now we cannot comply with this because if you take the twenty percent land and provide trees and shrubbery you do not have any parking. So one leads to the other and if you look at the overall factor of the area, there aren't any curbs - no curbing, and there is no grass, no nothing and this building has really - after being rebuilt - has improved the - in whatever way - the (unintelligible) and is compatible with the area. So any requirement on that would only increase the deficiency already existing on the parking. So we are asking that the variance be granted from the parking requirements. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The existing boat house to the west - how far does that extend? MR. SHARMA: That also comes in line with the front side of the new building. PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. SIEVERDING: And how long is it? MR. SHARMA: I don't know. I think it's quite a long building. MR. WEAVER: In that district - you don't have any exterior wall requirements? I'm looking at a greenhouse next to a boathouse. In my mind - the Building Code doesn't cover that at all? It doesn't have to? Wouldn't have any fire (unintelligible) at all. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The window wall. MR. WEAVER: Ten minutes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The fire resistance in the neighboring addition would be - whether any requirement existed for solid wall. . . MR. WEAVER: I beg your pardon - it's not before this Board anyway, but I was just curious and amazed. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Well I guess the only thing you would have would be distance separations. Probably distance separations is the question and that's about it. They are not in a fire zone. And the type construction - I think it's type 4 construction so that would give you some limitations to that - but mainly distance. MR. SIEVERDING: Jagat you had mentioned that there is this sort of informal give and take with regard to parking where some daytime activities use your parking during the day and during the nighttime activity - what's the possibility of formalizing that in terms of complying with the parking requirements of the Ordinance? At least for those additional spaces that are required? MR. SHARMA: I don't know whether we can still be, you know, particularly the use of the Waterfront, depends - on weekend is more used - Saturday nights; Sunday - totally down; Monday - during the week it starts picking up - it varies from day to day PAGE 52 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 and right in front of the Waterfront - on the other side at Donahue - the Plumbing shop. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Donahue-Halverson? MR. SHARMA: Yes. People just park. MR. SIEVERDING: Is there a lunch time business in there? MR. SHARN: No lunch time - only evenings. MR. SIEVERDING: So it is strictly an evening facility. MR. OAKLEY: I do have a picture if I am following the question. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Well I think the question is, would their client be adverse to a condition on the variance that says that he is going to lease the additional required spaces for the surrounding property or. . . MR. OAKLEY: During certain hours but that also implies an additional condition perhaps that he not open for business before a certain time. . . ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The parking is probably different during the nighttime than it would be during the daytime - anytime. MR. OAKLEY: Well I realize that, I mean we could do it - interpret it (unintelligible) about the nature of the parking regulations. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I would think - just again, to follow this line of thinking - twenty-three spaces? MR. SIEVERDING: That's the extended required. . . MR. OAKLEY: I would be inclined to think twenty-three. MR. SHARMA: Right - there is something different - one hand questions the other one, I was told that formalizing and going to attorneys and what time and how many cars park there - you know it would be just be too much in my opinion it probably would not work PAGE 53 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 out. What I could give him and what he could give me, you know? In practice it works. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions of the appellant? MR. SIEVERDING: With respect to the landscaping requirements - there is no space on the site where any kind of landscaping is possible? Leave alone the question of point (unintelligible) MR. SHARMA: The layout - the way the site is and the building is located and we tried to lay out the parking and you come in here [pointing to sketch] and try to park in this area - to be able to get in here and if you have a curb here - some of these things won't work out. And when people come in - I have seen them park - if you tried to formalize it, why you put in curbs and cross strips and things - they would just walk over it and drive over it - and it would really just become a maintenance and nuisance problem. MR. WEAVER: Jagat, down there in that point - which is the highest on your piece of paper - what kind of car do you plan to put down in there? MR. SHARMA: That is not to be used for parking but. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's the cycle parking Charlie. MR. WEAVER: I 'm just saying - when you say there is no space. . . a tree grows in Brooklyn - also on that corner, if we really talk about what is possible and what is not. MR. SHARMA: Yes, that is possible. . . MR. WEAVER: It's not useful and I think there is another corner or two there that would be subject to the same kind of question. MR. SIEVERDING: At the opposite end. . . MR. WEAVER: I 'm just saying that I don't agree that there is no possibility of any landscaping because of clients that run over it. PAGE 54 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 Well, they would have to put up some new - either that or train their clients. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I assume you laid this out with some eye toward turning radii and general vehicular circulation on the site. I 'm assuming further, correct me if I 'm wrong, that the space on the plot plan - which is not specifically designated as parking area - seven spaces - nine spaces - six spaces and so on - the space that isn't, could in fact be used as green space, with a curb, is that true? MR. SHARMA: If we followed that route, yes. But, again, you are looking at a drawing and saying why can't the curb go from here to here and here to here and this corner - I can understand that some kind of a - I think the landscaping and some development has already taken place - and you can see some tree and some shrubs in this area but. . . MR. SIEVERDING: And in that little section there. . . . there are sort of three triangles along that very long property line that is Willow Ave and there is one right in the middle as well - between the area that you have - there is sort of a boxed out area within what you have written in and then there is sort of a rectangle that comes off forty-five degrees and it is six spaces and that forms a fairly large triangle - the base of which is Willow Ave - your property line here. So I mean - you know - it seems to me there is at least sort of three opportunities on that part of the site that is probably most important in terms of people seeing what kind of landscaping you might do - which is right along Willow Ave. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is not our job to do your job for you. . . PAGE 55 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. SIEVERDING: But it may make a gesture toward satisfying this particular requirement of the Ordinance. MR. SHARMA: We can do that and start and see what happens - we have done it in different parts and in real life they just pull them out and they disappear and after awhile it seems as though we are just wasting our time. But if there is a condition on this - what I understand the Board is saying - eight are here - eight are here and eight are here and eight are here and eight are here - yes could kind of put in some kind of treatment to blend it in. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well at a minimum I would expect - again, just my gut reaction is at least a tree lawn with curb breaks such that you - I mean, if you don't want to go through the convoluted geometry in a sense that - at a minimum from your side, you should expect us to require that much. I mean, that's common courtesy to the rest of the City. MR. OAKLEY: I would like to give you a chance to relieve an impression that we have which - your last comment about what happens to landscaping - your comment about what has happened to the small area - that depressed area - is that you give me the impression that the Waterfront is kind of a public nuisance - the clients of which throw trash into waterways and rip up landscaping and do you want to alter that impression? MR. SHARMA: No, really I 'm not saying that - the clientele that goes to the Waterfront is more mature - more professional and people - they are not students - I 'm not saying students in the sense that some remarks will be taken that way. . . . MR. OAKLEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) PAGE 56 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. SHARMA: There have been times when a greater demand for interior space - you know - people knock on the door and cue up in the front of the door. I don't go there very often so I don't know what it is really like, but this is what Mr. Avramis has conveyed to me - you know - there are times when - Friday night or Saturday night and everybody wants to get in and they can't get in and they, you know - they take out their frustration on something else and that is why we really need to put the addition on - to have some other space available to more people. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Why can't they get in? There isn't enough space in the building? MR. SHARMA: That's right. MR. SIEVERDING: So you build more space and more people can get in, so (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It seems to me awfully sequitious. MR. SHARMA: No they come - one car brings a lot of people. I 'm willing to accept the - if you want to put a condition that we provide some landscaping (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well in the interest of your drawing this to a close, do we have any further questions of the appellant? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance and a number of other variances associated? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? If you would come forward please. MR. CLEVELAND: I'm not speaking either way. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You have to come up front to express your maybe. And you have to begin please with your name. . . PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. CLEVELAND: My name is Tom Cleveland, I represent Johnson Board Yard, which is the property immediate adjacent to the Waterfront. I have three concerns - I want to make it clear that it is not necessarily opposition, but I am concerned. Number one is the building out into the creek - Cascadilla Creek - it is unclear to me whether they propose to fill in the area between their building our boat house or whether they propose to build this on some sort of stilt? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you seen the appellant's presentation? MR. CLEVELAND: I read it and it said that they intend to fill it in, which concerns me. I 've heard them tonight say that they intend to build it on stilts. My concern is that if they fill the area in it will change the flow of water in the creek and it will adversely affect our boat house, which is immediately adjacent to that because by changing the flow - it causes the boat house to fill in with silt, making it very shallow. The flow of water in the spring during heavy rains washes that boat house out and if there is a wall or a dam immediately in front of that, it will effectively stop the flow of water. So I am somewhat concerned about what they propose to build out into the creek. I would like that to be fairly strongly regulated in some manner, by this Board or Department of Environmental Conservation or whoever will be ultimately in charge of that area. My second concern is, I 've spoken with Mr. Dieterich, I 'm not clear as to setbacks between our property and their property in that particular area. It appears that this will be very close to ten feet and I 'm not sure. . . MR. PECK: It only has to be five. PAGE 58 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. CLEVELAND: It only has to be five. That may be all right, but I 'd like that checked because it will run very close to our property line, I believe. The third concern is definitely parking. At night at the Waterfront, cars are parked all over and I understand that that is not really controlled by Mr. Avramis, he really has no way of controlling that, however, what commonly happens is the gate in our fence, which allows access to the Marina is blocked up with parked cars and I think this presents a real fire hazard, if there is a problem there - limited access for fire trucks or any other emergency vehicles. I don't know how he is going to control that but I 'm concerned about it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you looked at the parking scheme as it was proposed? MR. CLEVELAND: I say a sketch, yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Does that exacerbate the access to your property? MR. CLEVELAND: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It's the same as it was? MR. CLEVELAND: Our gate is further to the north of his property, so it really doesn't affect our particular gate and the only comment I 'm making is that I know the requirement is thirty-some or forty-some - whatever the number of cars is - but in actuality there is probably more like a hundred cars there on a good night. Those extra forty or fifty cars park where they will. My only concern is if that - I 'd rather they did not park in our access. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The hours that you operate overlap, one would assume, with the hours in which they operate? MR. CLEVELAND: In the summertime - we are not officially open but many of our boaters do come to their boats in the evening and are PAGE 59 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 going in and out during - so, yes, I would say they do overlap in the summertime. MR. OAKLEY: But what you are chiefly worried about is fire access? MR. CLEVELAND: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: With respect to the first part of your question, that is, how the flow is changed into the front side of your boat house - as I understand the proposal, the proposal would, yes, fill in the space between the existing building and your boat house but, as I would also understand this proposal, the deck essentially, the deck and structure would be continued at the same kind. MR. CLEVELAND: It is hard to describe, but if you imagine. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's why I want to be clear about what your objection is here. . . MR. CLEVELAND: The edge of the stream - our boat house projects into the water on that edge of the stream. Their current building - the current Waterfront projects away from us - away from the edge of the (unintelligible) . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MR. CLEVELAND: The greenhouse - I 'm not sure about - is that going to be built out over the stream or not? MR. SIEVERDING: In line with the existing building. MR. OAKLEY: But are you suggesting that that area which is sometimes full of water and sometimes not full of water - is part of the stream - which is. . . MR. CLEVELAND: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: The relevent function of your boathouse? MR. CLEVELAND: Well, at any rate, if I understand correctly, they intend to build a deck as part of the greenhouse over. . . PAGE 60 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The deck is there. MR. OAKLEY: The greenhouse, in fact, is going to extend over that area. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. The site plan is useful. You see, essentially, the proposed addition, in cross hatch, extends across that entire side of the building. MR. WEAVER: Where is the property line? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good question. MR. WEAVER: It seems to me as though the deck is out over the public water. MR. CLEVELAND: Well I see what they call an extended deck - that would be built out into the creek. The seven feet from the greenhouse is over to our property line and then approximately five more feet to our boathouse. Our boathouse is in line with the extended deck and actually starts where the door of the greenhouse is opening onto that deck, in other words, it is actually in the creek so if they fill in the area that they are calling "extended deck". . . MR. OAKLEY: Now you also are going to the area that is actually under the greenhouse - this area here - which is sometimes full of water - is also important to your. . . . MR. CLEVELAND: No that - if I - I believe the actual water line would be very close to the frontage line of the building. . . MR. OAKLEY: The water line actually varies in that area because that - when I looked at that area, at one point this area was full of water - the water line, I think, was a vertical thing (unintelligible) back of the stream. MR. CLEVELAND: Well their existing deck is built on silt. . . PAGE 61 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: It is built on pilings and I assume the deck addition will probably be built on pilings - I wouldn't think they would be permitted to fill that with earth if that's what you are saying. . . I can't imagine that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's what I wanted to get straight. MR. CLEVELAND: That's exactly what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The architect would like a word or two to clarify? MR. SHARMA: We have pictures here to indicate the deck construction and we will continue the same (unintelligible) and open construction of the deck. With regards to the construction in the area - when we took the pictures there was no water - we would put either fill in or have (unintelligible) whatever works in your best interest. MR. CLEVELAND: Stilts. MR. SHARMA: Stilts? No problem. We have. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are there further questions in this particular instance? MR. CLEVELAND: No. MR. SIEVERDING: Only - based on what Jagat just said - it would leave one of your main concerns, the parking situation and free access to your site. MR. CLEVELAND: But as I say, I don't think - I 'm not sure that that's in your bailiwick to control. (unintelligible) on City property or away from their property. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Given the fact that the appellant is asking for a variance that would include a variance in parking, it is very much our concern in this particular instance, that is why we are following this up. PAGE 62 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. SHARMA: But his gate is beyond. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We understand. . Charles, you had a question? MR. WEAVER: Yes, for both of you maybe. You own boathouses that come to the water? Obviously. MR. CLEVELAND: Yes, boathouses that actually hang out over the water. MR. WEAVER: The adjacent one to this property? MR. CLEVELAND: Yes. MR. WEAVER: Is there any way - could you extend your boathouse out to the middle of the stream or - do you know that you own something or you can't go beyond the bank or. . . MR. CLEVELAND: I suspect that at this point in time it would be cost impossible, number one, but secondly I would imagine that getting any sort of a permit to do that would be almost totally impossible - to extend any further out into the stream. MR. WEAVER: I guess my question is - what do you own? In other words - do your feet get wet going to your property line or do you stand on dry land? MR. CLEVELAND: I honestly don't know where our property line is in terms of how far out into the stream it goes. I suspect it goes halfway across the stream. MR. WEAVER: Jagat, can you help me. . . MR. CLEVELAND: It depends on when we asked the City to help us dredge it out. . . . MR. SHARMA: The survey that I have indicates the property line about a foot south of the building and the deck is built over - well again, grandfather rights - the deck would be built on the (unintelligible) that they hada PAGE 63 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. OAKLEY: So the City owns the waterway? MR. WEAVER: Let's leave it to God - I don't know - but these people don't know. MR. OAKLEY: I don't think it's important. MR. WEAVER: Well it's important for me to approve. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We won't ask about the fish either. Any further questions for any one of these people? [none] Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak against this particular variance? Or have any other questions, comments relevant? [no one] Very good, then we will bring it to a close and begin our deliberation. DELIBERATIONS ON APPEAL NUMBER 1849 FOR 702 WILLOW AVENUE CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to take them one by one? MR. OAKLEY: Well we are doing one motion - we can discuss them. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right, however you would like. MR. PECK: It just seems to me that we are asking to make a situation worse under any circumstance. I mean, you've already got a parking problem there that exists. You are increasing the inside of the building so you can increase the occupancy, which means more people can be there. We haven't had any demonstration of hardship, if that is appropriate in this case - for a variance (unintelligible) . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We need practical difficulty. MR. PECK: I guess I don't see that - maybe somebody could help me out with that. . . MR. OAKLEY: It seems to me the Ordinance was created in some way particularly to counteract the existing situation. I mean, with the awareness of the existing situation - was not what the PAGE 64 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 Ordinance described and that the Ordinance was meant to move this in that direction, particularly the part requiring landscaping. And I think, also, by requiring setbacks from waterlines. And from the waterline - what is the exact term - but anyway, from the waterline. And that the fact is that this addition will simply exacerbate all of the - it will make it, in fact, worse. . . MR. SCHWAB: As far as the waterway - it extends the current line and the next building is the same thing - it is overstating it to say. . . MR. OAKLEY: No, I mean the deck, in fact, brings it out and in terms of the exacerbation of the difference - I think - I mean in normal - simply on dry land we consider an extension of a building along a property line but - in violation of setback requirements to be an exacerbation and I think this is rather a serious one. I think particularly since this particular area is in dispute. It seems to me that the average waterline is in fact somewhere back in the middle of that sunken space because the low waterline is somewhere at the edge of that - the outside edge - and the high water line is somewhere on the inside edge and if you draw the lines as the map suggests, they are not simply close to the water line, they are actually over. And the greenhouse as well (unintelligible) and far be it for me to define what it - in ecological terms a waterway is. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; Would you like to define. . . MR. WEAVER: Waterways? Sure - it's where it is all wet. No - you and I can go down there and the deck is out over the creek. . . MR. OAKLEY: There is no question the deck is out over the creek. PAGE 65 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. WEAVER: And they are there because they were grandfathered in reconstructing after a fire, so currently you couldn't build that. So it is grandfathered to what it is but if you wish to expand the business because it is so good, then the grandfather just ran away from you. He has no grandfather for anything that is being asked here, as I understand it. So, first of all, I wouldn't let him drive a stack out in the water on my own authority. Now the second thing is whether - because business is so good that we should grant a variance so they can expand a non-conforming building. But that's what is being asked and landscaping is obviously - they say they can't and it is quite obvious they can. . . . . . MR. OAKLEY: You are arguing, briefly, also that there is some - that actually there should be a use variance - the building inspector was not absolutely on his toes . . . MR. WEAVER: No the use is appropriate. . . MR. OAKLEY: (unintelligible) I 'm sorry, you said it was non-conforming. . . (unintelligible) MR. WEAVER: Well it's non-conforming on an area basis. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think we are getting a little closer to a motion. We certainly have, I think, a concensus. MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm just wondering whether there isn't another way to look at this. There is a situation there right now that is not particularly helping anybody out. He is coming in and asking for a variance to extend the building and I think it may be possible that it could be done with conditions that begin to address some of his questions - the parking. That he lease the additional twenty-three spaces that are necessary to get him up to fifty-six. If he can do it then he gets a building permit, if he can't do it, he doesn't. PAGE 66 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 That the landscaping that he takes - you know, the spaces that we've been talking about before, fronting on Willow Ave. and use those to landscape the area to sort of soften that edge along Willow Ave. And with respect to the extension of the building itself, if it were done without the deck extension. . . . MR. WEAVER: Well, Herman, I 'm - you said to somebody else here - we aren't here to do your work for you or someone said it - and I 'm just saying there are so many things here that would I approve extending the deck? No. Would I approve making the off-street parking worse by allowing a bigger load of people in the building? No. And can he do it without any landscaping? No. Now if he wants to come in and meet our objections - ours - I'm sorry, I misspoke - my objections, then I would look more kindly on it but what he is asking for is everything he can get and I would not be particularly sympathetic to the request. MR. SIEVERDING: Okay. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Rather than three conditions, Charles. . . . MR. WEAVER: Well condition, condition. Unless you want to condition. MR. SIEVERDING: Let him do it, okay, fine. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack have you heard anything to change your mind? MR. PECK: No, in fact, I think that we have almost reached a consensus. PAGE 67 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1849 FOR 702 WILLOW AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Jagat Sharma (for Bill Avramis) for variances to permit the construction of a 975 square foot addition to the existing restaurant/bar at 702 Willow Avenue - The Waterfront. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board deny the variances requested in Appeal Number 1849. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The appeal is not in the spirit of the Ordinance relating to the Marine Use District. 2. On the grounds that the appellant has not demonstrated any practical difficulties that are not essentially created by his proposed alteration. 3 . The proposal creates a parking deficiency of twenty-three (23) spaces. 4. It significantly extends the deficiency in terms of construction adjacent to the edge of the waterway. 5. No landscaping proposal was presented by the appellant. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO DENIED PAGE 68 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MORE DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1849 AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BUT BEFORE FINDINGS NUMBERED 3, 4 AND 5 WERE INCLUDED AND BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any friendly amendments or are you going to let it stand as it is? MR. SIEVERDING: The parking deficiency is actually outside of the Marine District regulations? MR. OAKLEY: I didn't mention the parking ordinance [sic] but I was aware that that was - I mean, I could also add then that nor is the proposal in the spirit of the parking ordinance. MR. SCHWAB: Well I would be more specific here, I mean, you know, we are talking with someone who is fairly sophisticated and we would just as soon he comes back to appeal this. I would suggest saying - you know, he is requesting - asking for a variance of what - twenty-three parking spaces - forty-three percent deficient - which is a great parking deficiency, as a specific finding. The proposal then is no - there is no proposal for landscaping - when the testimony indicated there is at least some areas where landscaping could be done consistent with as much parking as possible. And then three on the setback - the width of the deck is actually going further - not only continuing the existing distance into the creek but going further. MR. OAKLEY: I guess my only problem with making motions on that order is that it suggests that the introduction of some landscaping or the simple continuation of the extension of a deficiency, is all right - it seems to me unecessary to suggest that, in the case of denying an appeal - to set up sort of negotiating grounds upon which we might, in the future, grant the appeal. That's rather my PAGE 69 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 preference (unintelligible) sort of create a half-way ground that might lay the. . . MR. WEAVER: Stewart hasn't suggested anything, when they said there was no landscaping plan, and it is required, none isn't a negotiating position, it's a denial because it wasn't included. MR. OAKLEY: Well that's - it's the parking that I 'm worried about. MR. SCHWAB: (unintelligible) he is proposing twenty-three additional spaces - a great deficiency. What I am suggesting is more specific findings of fact so he is not going to run an Article 78 for us. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well you've made a motion, it has been seconded - these are more or less friendly amendments - the question is which of the friendly amendments do you accept so that Barbara can make sense of this. MR. OAKLEY: Okay, in that case I will accept, certainly the amendment that the finding of fact that the proposal increases the parking deficiency by - it creates a parking deficiency of twenty-three spaces. It significantly extends the deficiency in terms of building adjacent to the waterway and no landscaping proposed at all. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The seconder accepts the amendments? Thank you. Further discussion? A vote, a yes is a no. A yes is to deny. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Appeal number 1849 - six yes votes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So the appeal has been denied. PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1850 FOR 311 SOUTH ALBANY STREET: Appeal of Mark Wenham for an area variance for deficient lot area and width, excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the single-family home at 311 South Albany Street to a multiple dwelling (cooperative) for four unrelated individuals. The property is located in an R-3a (Residential, multiple dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however Sections 30.49 and 30. 57 require that the appellant obtain an area variance for the deficient lot width before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. WENHAM: I 'm Mark Wenham, I live at 405 Esty Street, Ithaca. I 'll be a first time home owner and I am requesting a variance to have a four person - or a third person as well as myself in the house. The house is deficient in five areas - by one foot on the side yard, forty-five percent deficient in the front yard and that has an asterisk which indicates that it is to the front stairs and it is actually twelve foot one inch to the house - with the six foot of stairs being out of compliance. The lot coverage exceeds forty-two percent - where the maximum should be thirty-five percent. The two big areas are the lot width - twenty-four percent PAGE 71 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 deficient and the lot area which is forty-six percent deficient. I am requesting to have the variance so that I can have a third renter in my house and changes that would be made in the house are such to keep it as a single-family house and not tear up the structure of the house as it is currently and that would be just adding a bathroom on the first floor and a bedroom, which would be my living space on the first floor and converting that room - which used to have an open doorway there. Then on the second floor there is a bath and a quarter, I guess - the second bath there - the half-bath doesn't have a sink - I 'd like to add a sink there so that the tenants upstairs would have a bath and a half to use. Then the front porch roof has a leak and the wood above the porch is rotting out and that needs repairing. That's basically what I want to do. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are you the owner now or is this. . . MR. WENHAM: The closing date is June 14th. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you've not closed on the property. Is the sale contingent upon the appeal being approved? MR. WENHAM: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Did the previous owner say anything about practical difficulties they may have had with the building? MR. WENHAM: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Did the previous owners ever say anything to you about practical difficulties they may have had with the building? MR. WENHAM: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The deficiency is being created because it is being converted to a cooperative? PAGE 72 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. WENHAM: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: According to this (unintelligible) MR. WENHAM: That's right. MR. OAKLEY: Who are the (unintelligible) MR. WENHAM: They are co - they will be partners in the ownership of the house. MR. OAKLEY: I know that Ithaca has changed the definition of family and I 'm not sure what degree of economic personal commitment is involved in defining family. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Well that's. . . MR. OAKLEY: I wondered if co-ownership of the house wasn't. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would you like to hear the long definition of what a family is? MR. SCHWAB: Are your co-owners going to be living there? MR. WENHAM: No they will not be living there. MR. SCHWAB: Oh they won't. . . MR. WENHAM: This is an investment for them. MR. SIEVERDING: What I was getting at by asking whether the deficiencies were created because it is being converted to a Cooperative - that there is this thing called functional family unit. . . ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: That was just under discussion. That isn't a functional family unit if the person doesn't have some interest. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: For example, one of the conditions for a functional family, is that they all eat together, use the same refrigerator - you know, this sort of thing. MR. SIEVERDING: And he is converting this to two units. . . PAGE 73 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. It's clearly not, in this instance, the issue. I don't want to have to recite the other nine conditions. . . Further questions? MR. OAKLEY: Have you considered what (unintelligible) making this into two apartments? MR. WENHAM: Yes. In walking through with the Building Inspector, it seemed that it couldn't be practically done without drastically changing the structure (unintelligible) the house, providing secondary means of egress was the major problem and rather than having to tear out walls and put in fire escapes and things like that, although the variance's deficiencies are higher converting to a family cooperative, I am basically asking for one person - then I still only need two parking spaces which is all I have. Basically what I am asking, I guess, is a variance to have one more person other than two unrelated. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? Charles, do I see a question? MR. WEAVER: Well, talking of this as a Co-op in which I see no reason why it couldn't Co-op into more than one person for bedrooms. We aren't talking about how many people are there, with any certainty - if we allow a Co-op there. MR. SIEVERDING: Unless you place a limit of four. MR. WEAVER: Yes, I am saying that as asked, just Co-oping it, I think wouldn't have to be too creative to end up with more than one, and one, and one and one. It could be at least room for a couple here and there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are you suggesting a condition, Charles? MR. WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Does that seem reasonable to you? PAGE 74 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. WENHAM: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: Limiting the occupancy to no more than four persons, correct? MR. WENHAM: Correct. Our target area is graduate students at Cornell University - they need a quiet study area. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions of the appellant? [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? By now the routine should be clear. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. WEISKERGER: I want to bring this up close to me, [the microphone] I have a forty percent hearing deficiency so if you have any questions speak up. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The first question is name. We do need your name. MR. WEISKERGER: My name is Weiskerger - Ector Weiskerger - you never heard a name like that before. I had the longest name on my high school graduating list. My wife and I moved to Ithaca in 142 and we have lived in the southside area ever since, so we have been forty-six year residents of the southside. MR. PECK: Where do you currently live? MR. WEISKERGER: We live at 323 South Albany Street. We are the first house in that block that has land-owner residency. All the houses between us and Clinton Street are owned by absentee landlords and this has become a problem in our area. These people - having made myself known - I was Scout Master of Troop 15 at St. John's school for fifteen years. I was chairman of the United Fund, Business Division for two years - I 've been very active in PAGE 75 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 civic affairs in the City - now you people don't know me - I don't know you - I was comptroller of Rothschilds Bros. for twenty-eight years, Chairman of the Steering Committee for the Downtown Business Association, so I 've been active in Ithaca a long time. We like it here, we like the southside and we are trying to keep it nice. But the absentee landlords are creating a problem and I 'm going to show you some pictures to prove what I say. This is why I 'm here. I am not representing myself, I am representing the whole area - outside of the absentee landlord area - so other than that, I am going to read my statement. As a property owner and resident in the 300 block of South Albany Street, let me firmly state at the outset, we do not object to people buying property in our area, we did this ourselves - we bought there. It is a God given right to do so - what we strenuously object to, is absentee landlords buying properties and using them for one purpose only, namely to satiate their greedy appetite for outrageously large returns on their initial investment. They do not live in the area, therefore they have no concern for maintaining the quality of the area, therefore let me state unequivocally right here and now that the right to buy property does not automatically give them the right to erode and destroy the quality of living in the area. And this is what is happening. Now then, the situation at hand. What are zoning laws for? Isn't their purpose to protect residential areas from encroachment and exploitment - exploitation? If we neutralize their purpose by granting variances to every Tom, Dick and Harry that comes along, who is not an area resident, then what good are our zoning laws? This request comes from the fourth absentee landlord in our block. Now this may be a little bit out now PAGE 76 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 because if Mark Wenham is a part owner then - but there is still another person who is an absentee landlord here. What do they see here? A wonderful area in which to live? Oh, no. They wouldn't live here on a bet but they smell an excellent area to exploit. Now I can prove this later on, if the questions warrant that. Now down to basics. This property shows three deficiencies out of four categories. One of the deficiencies, almost fifty percent. As though this was not enough to refuse the variance requested, let me cite some others. Unruly and undisciplined children running rampant. Now you may say, this has nothing to do with the variance, but I will point out relevance - just listen. Using neighboring properties as playgrounds and in so doing breaking flowers, bushes and twenty year old landscaping in my property. I have landscaping there that was planted by Cornell University. And when we came back from Florida, one whole corner of it was destroyed - children jumping into it - it wasn't done by icicles or anything like that because the roof slides the other way. This has nothing to do with the variance on 311 but it has everything to do with the area in which this house is situated. Walking in neighborhood is highly hazardous - mainly, wheel toys left all over the area and in driveways. Pedestrians have to dodge racing bikes and tricycles. Empty soda pop cans and bottles lay littered around. Kids going into private yards - helping themselves to flowers and deliberately discarding them on the sidewalk. Climbing trees - breaking off branches and leaves and scattering them all over the area. Autos parked on the sidewalk impeding pedestrian right-of-way. Grass cuttings left on sidewalk after mowing. In rainy weather this creates treacherous walking conditions. PAGE 77 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 Shrubbery between houses not trimmed so that it extends out over the sidewalk and strikes pedestrians in the face and this is the shrubbery on the property under consideration. I have been hit in the face twice because I have a fractured neck - I have difficulty looking up and in walking my head is down and I 've run into that shrubbery a number of times. I 've learned to avoid it now - you learn through experience on these things. Garbage cans left at curbside, days after collection and I will prove that with these pictures. Shrubbery - I mentioned the shrubbery. Absentee landlords - interested only in income derived - not the quality of the neighborhood and its environment. Check the sides and backs of their homes - that's what I will show. Many elderly and handicapped persons at the Reconstruction Home use this lot for their daily airing and wheelchair rides. These conditions are not conducive for their well-being. Lastly, Super Market shopping carts left on lawns instead of returned to the stores from where they were obtained. Now these are all conditions caused - in this area, owned by absentee landlords. (unintelligible) support these reasons, I hereby show you some pictures I have taken - all were taken within the last ten days. There was an old saying, if Mohammad won't go to the mountain, take the mountain to Mohammad and that's what I 'm doing here. Now I 've got two sets of pictures, they are in sequence of being taken. I 'll pass one side - look on the back and you'll see the things that I want you to note. The last two pictures are my own residence and as I stated before, I am the first house on the southside of South Albany Street that is not an absentee landlord. As you view these pictures, consider four things. Number one: would you want to live every day under these PAGE 78 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 conditions or have them in your own neighborhood? Do you have a mother or father or grandmother or grandfather, uncle or aunt at the Reconstruction Home? Or living around the corner, like the Marshalls? Two Marshalls live right around the corner from this house under consideration. Ninety-six and ninety-five years old. They walk around the block when the weather permits. They both use canes. Now they are subject to these conditions that I have outlined. Also, the people in the Reconstruction Home right across the street - elderly people, invalids - wheel chairs - they are subject to the conditions that you will note on these pictures. Do the longtime owner-residents in this area have to put up fences to protect our property and our lives and our well-being? What good are zoning regulations if we are going to issue variances to every absentee owner that chooses to exploit our area. And this is what is being done here. Let me cite you to prove this. The people next door to me live in Geneva. They are not here. I don't know how much they paid for their house but last year they came to me and asked me if we were interested in buying their home. I said, well, we might be if everything is reasonable. So they took us through this house and we went through the house and I had another person with me who might have joined with me in buying the place. But after I got through the house and asked them what they wanted, they were asking a hundred and sixty thousand dollars for this place. And it is pictured there in these pictures. They wouldn't have paid more than forty or fifty for it, I said, well my goodness - that's outrageous. This place isn't worth half that. Well, they said, you are not buying a house, you are buying income. I 'd also be buying - not only income, but a house that needed forty PAGE 79 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 or fifty thousand dollars repair work on it. Look at the back end of that house. The last time he came to mow it, I asked him, I said, what are you going to do about the back yard? Oh, he said, I 'll take care of it. So the next to the last picture there shows what he did to take care of it, he mowed the lawn in the back but nothing about the weeds and the weeds are as high as this table. Finally, we owner residents feel that in view of the stated deficiencies, the property under consideration for its proposed usage plus the additional reasons just outlined, this variance be denied. Thank you. Now, not only do I ask this, here are five letters from other people in this area who received notices about this meeting that could not be here. "To Whom It May Concern: We, Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Marshall, who live at 207 West Clinton Street just around the corner from 311, the property under consideration. After reviewing the situation in our area request that the variance be refused. We are ninety-six and ninety-five years old and use this area for daily walks and a further relaxing of zoning regulations would endanger our well being. Sincerely, /s/ Herbert Marshall, Blanche Marshall" Another one: "To Whom It May Concern: We have studied the situation concerning the requested variance on 311 South Albany Street and considered the number of deficiencies that exist plus the numerous living conditions in that area as indisputable evidence to refuse the variance. Furthermore, a like variance was granted to the owner of the residence next to ours on South Geneva Street and it did not work out as planned. Therefore we are firmly against the granting of this variance. Sincerely, /s/ Arlene Baker and Beverly Baker" There is the letter - signed letter. Other than that I have nothing to say. PAGE 80 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEISKERGER: I do have one thing more. where did you live before? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Wait a minute - stop, stop, stop, right there. You can't ask questions back there. If you want to address the Board, fine. We'll address questions back there. Address the questions, please, to the Board. MR. WEISKERGER: All right. Ask Mark if he is acquainted with the owner of the residence next to him - Attorney Barney. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Mark do you have any acquaintance with the attorney next door? Please come forward. But I would like, if you can, to address - keep the conversation going this way as opposed to that way. MR. WENHAM: No I do not have any acquaintance with Mr. Barney. He is a lawyer for Patricia Eric and Michael Richardson, who are co-partners with me. He also owns the building next door. And his name is one of the letters we had to send out. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see, so he was notified? MR. WENHAM: Right. MR. WEISRERGER: I consider this kind of fishy. Here is a relationship between the partner/owner next door and people buying this property. MR. WENHAM: Michael Richardson is an electrical contractor in town for a long time and he has had Mr. Barney as an attorney. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you Mark. MR. WENHAM: Can I make any statements. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No. Are members of the Board satisfied - do you have any other questions of this particular witness? I have only PAGE 81 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 one question, and that is, will you permit us to keep your photographs and the letters you have submitted? Are they submitted as supporting evidence? MR. WEISICERGER: Yes, if I can get them back. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In other words you want them returned. MR. WEISKERGER: Do you need both of them? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We'd be glad to give you whatever you want but we'd like to keep at least copies of the letters for the record. MR. WEISKERGER: You are entitled to keep one set. I don't mind that but if you keep both sets I want one of them back. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. We' ll give you both sets of the photographs but we'd like to make a copy of the letters. Okay? Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Board? Your photographs are being returned now. And we'll send back the originals - or we will keep the originals and send you back a copy, I think, of the letters, if that's okay by you. MR. WEISKERGER: You don't want these now? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No. Thank you. We have all looked at them. The letters are right here. Okay. Fine. Any other questions? [none] Thank you very much. MR. WEISRERGER: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Do members of the Board feel there is any need to readdress the appellant? I don't but I thought I 'd ask if you all feel that things are clear or as clear as you would like them. [no questions of the appellant] Fine. Mark we are going to let it rest right there. That being the case perhaps we can begin to think about a motion. PAGE 82 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 DELIBERATIONS ON APPEAL NUMBER 1850 FOR 311 SOUTH ALBA" STREET MR. PECK: Well its the age old problem of family housing in Ithaca versus individual housing in Ithaca and conversion of a family dwelling into a dwelling for individuals. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I am assuming that the owner in this particular case - one of the owners - Mark, is going to live there. And in that sense we do not have exactly a case of absentee ownership. MR. PECK: That's true. MR. OAKLEY: It seems to me that that assumption is - I didn't particularly want to ask Mark because I don't think that we should really consider it in terms of what he intends to do but are we talking about granting a variance - the possibility of granting a variance which essentially is something like an accessory apartment permit - a variance which is conditional upon the continued occupation of an owner of the property to do such a thing. I mean it is not clear to me that we have done such a thing. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well this is an area variance, it is not a special permit. MR. OAKLEY: Exactly. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So we have to be clear about what we are responding to. MR. OAKLEY: I realize that. What I 'm saying is, can we grant an area variance with conditions such that it would become very like a special permit? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In some respects, it might, but in others, it would not be. MR. OAKLEY: Okay. PAGE 83 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. SIEVERDING; (UNINTELLIGIBLE) like the issue that has already come up with limiting the occupancy of the building to no more than four unrelated individuals. MR. OAKLEY: Could we limit it - go further than that - and limit it to no more than four individuals? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I think the more pertinent question in this particular instance - if we were to consider the objections of the neighbors - it would be that - could we, or should we limit it to at least partial owner-occupancy and also consider the question of unrelated. . . MR. OAKLEY: Yes (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think that that is really more the issue in this particular instance - as I 'm reading the neighbors. MR. WEAVER: Well, I'm looking at a - this is in our packet - and signed by Mr. Wenham and it says "I propose to use this house as a multiple dwelling Cooperative of four people. " And if we grant what he requests, we are - I think we are abiding by his wishes and still meeting what we are worried about - how many people will be stacked in there. On the questions of residents, we hear by the month about absentee landlords but nowhere in the Ordinance - other than special permits - nowhere in the Ordinance does it say anything about who owns the house - who lives there and that sort of thing - whether it is rental or owner-occupied or what - which is certainly something I don't want any part of. I 'll be glad to have Common Council legislate it anytime they decide to do and I 've heard a great deal of silence. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Did I hear you say you'd be glad to have Common Council. . . PAGE 84 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. WEAVER: To have them. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, right - you want them to pass another Ordinance. . . MR. WEAVER: Oh, I 'd be glad to - they've been silent for the last quarter of a century on the matter and so we can come in here and listen to questions about absentee landlords each month - I think quite safely. Anyway. . . the man is asking for a variance. I propose that we grant specifically what he has asked for. By that I mean limiting occupancy to four persons. MR. OAKLEY: Do they promise not to have any babies? MR. WEAVER: I don't care whether babies or otherwise. CHAIRMAN TOMI,AN: For your information, a Cooperative household shall mean a group of four or more unrelated persons, so the definition essentially, if we restricted it is sufficient and there is no way - as I 'm reading this - by which you can go back and consider it a single family - I think it is clearly an R-3 Cooperative dwelling. . . MR. PECK: At the same time though, I 'd like to add something on the other side - it is clear that the zoning laws are trying to - I mean (unintelligible) change from the family to the (unintelligible) as a result of that. Everything is the same - the deficiency (unintellgible) things like that - I 'm not so worried about the forty versus fifty feet or or the lot area. . . MR. WEAVER: Jack, I agree - your observation is absolutely correct that the major deficiencies created by this are the one extra person and if we grant it - but then limit it to the four, it seems to me that the recognition of that fine line - that only four people in this house - it is not a Co-op with as many people PAGE 85 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 stuffed in there as the Housing Code will allow - or more. It very clearly makes it a limited Co-op. It just seems to me that it is not a very great move from a legal family of three to this illegal family of four. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we coming closer to a motion? PAGE 86 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1850 FOR 311 SOUTH ALBANY STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Mark Wenham for an area variance to permit the conversion of the single-family home at 311 South Albany Street to a multiple dwelling (cooperative) for four unrelated individuals. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1850 with the condition that the total occupancy in the building be limited to four (4) persons. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Of the five deficiencies that exist, three are existing and are in no way affected by the proposed conversion. The remaining two deficiencies - minimum lot area and minimum lot width - relate to the conversion to a Cooperative dwelling. 2. It is the opinion of this Board that by limiting the occupancy of this Cooperative to four (4) , which is at the very low end of what would be possible, that the granting of this variance would be in harmony with the Ordinance and with the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 4 YES; 2 NO GRANTED WITH/CONDITION PAGE 87 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MORE DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NO. 1850 FOR 311 SOUTH ALBANY STREET WHICH TOOK PLACE AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Discussion? MR. OAKLEY: I want to ask you one question. You made that comment about the difference between converting to cooperative housing versus family housing - was that meant to be a response to my question way back at the begining, first of all - and second of all, were you suggesting to me that once we've made a cooperative housing that they would have to get a variance to turn it back into a family housing? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No. MR. OAKLEY: You were simply, then, talking about the question I raised . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No I wanted to be clear about what cooperative household meant and that by restricting to four we were - as Herman suggested in the findings - limiting it as closely as we could. He can't have a cooperative household with three, is what I'm saying. MR. OAKLEY: No, you don't - that fits in with the definition. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. A vote? MR. OAKLEY: Now can we actually - just to make sure - I realize that Herman said that considering that we were planning on limiting it - did we actually condition it? Should we then go on to say that we do limit it to four? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It probably should - it would clarify things. We didn't say it that explicitly, I suppose - did we Barbara? MS. RUANE: That by limiting it to four. . . MR. OAKLEY: By limiting it to four it will. . . PAGE 88 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. PECK: We haven't limited it to four. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So your amendment really goes at the outset. MR. OAKLEY: At the outset or as a condition. MR. WEAVER; That's a friendly amendment? MR. OAKLEY: Yes, that's a friendly amendment. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's a friendly seconder approves it? MR. SIEVERDING: I 'll accept the amendment. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Then we can have a vote? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: Appeal 1850 there are 4 yes votes - 2 no. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So the appeal is granted as conditioned for four people. PAGE 89 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1851 FOR 619 WEST COURT STREET: Appeal of Leland and Gloria Knuppenburg for an area variance for deficient lot width, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 7, 11, and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the retroactive conversion of the house at 619 West Court Street from a single-family dwelling to two dwelling units. The property was converted without a building permit or a variance for the area deficiencies; the appellants are now attempting to correct this violation. The property is located in an R-2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however Sections 30.49 and 30.57 require that the appellants obtain an area variance for the deficient lot width before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the conversion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourselves and before you begin, I 'd like to say thank you for being so patient. MR. WINN: I 'm Philip Winn, I 'm an attorney with offices at 109 East Seneca Street and I am here with Leland Knuppenburg who with his wife are the owners of the property at 619 West Court Street. As noted, this property is in an R-2b zone where one and two family dwellings are permitted. Mr. and Mrs. Knuppenburg purchased this property in 1985. At that time it was advertised, represented and sold to the Knuppenburgs as a two-family dwelling. At the time of PAGE 89 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 the purchase and to date there have been two separate dwelling units in that house, two separate kitchens, two separate baths. According to the records on file in the Building Department, in 1974 the property was inspected and at that time, apparently listed as a one-family dwelling. In 1979 it was again inspected and at that time listed as a two-family dwelling, so some six or ten or twelve years before the Knuppenburgs purchased it, it was either converted by a prior owner or - one possibility is that it was always a two-family - anyway, Mr. Knuppenburg purchased this property with the understanding that it was a two-family and for at least six years that had been the case. We've been here twice recently about this property - related matters. The application with respect to Angelo Dry Cleaners - this property came in because it was contiguous - the Knuppenburgs own that property as well, and we addressed both use and area deficiencies at that time. In both of those matters a variance was granted. It was my understanding and the Knuppenburgs understanding and probably the Board's understanding or impression that it was a two-family dwelling at that time, so we never addressed this issue. I 'm not quite sure how we have gotten back to this but Mr. Knuppenburg is seeking to have what he has always thought to be the case, recognized and made legal. It is his point that really it is not economically feasible to use this as a one-family dwelling - it is very difficult to rent - it is adjacent to a commercial zone - he bought it with the understanding that there would be some return and unless it is a two-family, that is not feasible. There was an application at one time to have this rezoned as commercial and the Board denied that application. I should note that no structural changes have been PAGE 90 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 made by the Knuppenburgs and probably the house has always been at its present location - clearly the steps that are too close to the street line, have always been that way and the building has always been approximately two feet from the one side line. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You mentioned at the outset that the property was transferred - it was advertised, sold and transferred. . . MR. WINN: Represented and sold. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Represented and sold as a two-family residence? MR. WINN: To the Knuppenburgs in 1985. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: To the Knuppenburgs - do you have any evidence of that? MR. KNUPPENBURG: I think the biggest thing - I would go back - I 'm Lee Knuppenburg - the biggest thing I would go back to is before we bought the property, we heard word that there was a lot of little things to do, you know what I mean, to get it into compliance - which is no problem and when we checked back when - your records even showed it as a two-family, is what I 'm saying. MR. WINN: The letter attached as Exhibit B clearly indicates that in 1979 it was inspected and listed as a two-family dwelling. MR. KNUPPENBURG: Now the question is, I guess, on our part is, we were told not to rent it again as a two-family until we got a (unintelligible) Otherwise it is an actual two-family, I mean, it was built that way, I 'd say. MR. SCHWAB: It has two kitchens in it and two baths and all of that? You didn't put them in? MR. KNUPPENBURG: No, no I didn't put them in. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: There are properties in the City that look like two-family dwellings which are mother and daughters and PAGE 91 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 are families living upstairs/downstairs and they are aren't legal two dwelling units. I 've had people come into the office and ask (unintelligible) upstairs, and you can't deny someone a kitchen in the upstairs because someone relative wants to move upstairs, it is still a single dwelling unit. MR. SIEVERDING: But the 1987 letter pretty strongly suggests that in 1979 when they did the inspection, it was noted as a two-family dwelling, right? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What is the basis in the 79 letter? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: I just see a check mark. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: While we are looking for that, this is a use variance - can you tell me something about that? MR. WINN: It is permitted, it is a one or two family dwelling in this particular zone. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Somebody checked off the wrong. . . I noticed the previous ones didn't even have it checked off. ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: . . . that's the one we are talking about - 1979 it was checked off as single and then somebody checked it off as two - so, from what I see, that doesn't tell me much. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: For the record, let it be shown that the 79 housing inspector report had apparently a one-family check next to it and that has been crossed off, apparently with the same pen, and two-family check has been put in place. Does this suggest anything further to us? ACTING SECRETARY DIETERICH: There was an upstairs and downstairs in 79. . . . (unintelligible) MR. SCHWAB: I guess I 'm not sure how relevant that is. MR. OAKLEY: It's relevant in the sense (unintelligible) PAGE 92 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 MR. SCHWAB: It's not relevant. . . AGING SECRETARY DIETERICH: (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Some place between 74 and 79 the previous inspection report 8/22/74, indicates it is a single family. . . . MR. WEAVER: So it's a single-family with somebody's records - we have the right to allow it to become a two-family home in an R-2 district and none of the deficiencies will be exacerbated by the action. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions of the appellant? [none] Then there are the facts. MR. WEAVER: You didn't bring along any opposition? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No further questions? [none] Thank you gentlemen. Let the record show there is no one else in the audience, so therefore no one else can either speak in favor or against. PAGE 93 BZA MINUTES - 6/6/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1851 FOR 619 WEST COURT STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Leland and Gloria Knuppenburg for an area variance to permit the retroactive conversion of the house at 619 West Court Street from a single-family dwelling to two dwelling units. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1851. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed use of this dwelling as a two-family dwelling will not exacerbate any of the existing deficiencies. 2 . The existing deficiencies would be impossible to correct without moving the house. 3 . The proposed two-family dwelling will not alter the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 6 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 94 I, BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of Appeals numbered 1843 , 1844 , 1845, 1848, 1849, 1850 and 1851 on June 6, 1988 in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 E. Green street, Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara C. Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this 9 day of ,�`� ,�� 1988 Notary Public JEAN J.HANKINSON �6-ARY,PUBLIC.STAT OF�NF_W YORK NO.5E-1C 3E,00 QUALIFIL-D IN TOI✓PKINS COUW jdy COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 30.19