Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1988-08-01 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES TABLE OF CONTENTS AUGUST 1, 1988 PAGE APPEAL NO. 1852 DAVID M. STREATER 4 102 HOMESTEAD ROAD APPEAL NO. 1852 DECISION 6 APPEAL NO. 1860 JOHN NOVARR 7 1001-1015 WEST SENECA ST. APPEAL NO. 1860 DECISION 11 APPEAL NO. 1861 HOMES PROPERTIES 12 311 WEST BUFFALO STREET APPEAL NO. 1861 DECISION 15 APPEAL NO. 1861 DISCUSSION 16 APPEAL NO. 1862 PETRU PETRINA 18 2012 WYCKOFF AVENUE APPEAL NO. 1862 DECISION 27 APPEAL NO. 1862 DISCUSSION 29 APPEAL NO. 1863 ROBERT MCCABE 34 108 GRANDVIEW PLACE APPEAL NO. 1863 DISCUSSION 42 APPEAL NO. 1863 DECISION 53 APPEAL NO. 1864 JEREMY AND ROBYN CHARLTON 55 832 NORTH AURORA STREET APPEAL NO. 1864 DISCUSSION 63 APPEAL NO. 1864 DECISION 71 APPEAL NO. 1865 CAREY PROPERTY MAANGEMENT 72 517 SOUTH AURORA STREET APPEAL NO. 1865 DISCUSSION 75 APPEAL NO. 1865 DECISION 77 APPEAL NO. 1866 JOHNSON & BARON WITHDRAWN 121-125 & 204-220 LAKE STREET CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 78 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 1, 1988 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the August 1, 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: MR. JACK PECK MR. JOHN OAKLEY MR. HERMAN SIEVERDING MR. CHARLES WEAVER MR. MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD MR. THOMAS D. HOARD, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER AND ZONING OFFICER FOR THE CITY MS. BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY The Board is going to hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we will hear from the appellant and ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible and then be available to answer questions from members of the Board. We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the Board considers "interested parties" to be persons who own property within two PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES - AUGUST 1, 1988 hundred feet of the property in question or who live or work within that two hundred feet of the property. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of "interested party". While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record. The record consists of the application materials filed with the Building Department, the correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations if there are any, and the record of tonight's hearing. Since a record is being made of this hearing, it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard come forward and speak directly into the microphones that are opposite me here so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and be heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and will therefore not be considered by the Board in its deliberations on the case. We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during our deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or special permit. In the rare cases where there is a tie vote, the variance or special permit is automatically denied. Tonight, as you will notice, there are five members PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES - AUGUST 1, 1988 present, not six. This, of course automatically - from our point of view - gives you all the right - that is, gives the appellant, the right to request a postponement of his or her case until the full Board is here. Is there anyone out there - any appellant out there - who at this time would like to request a postponement or a withdrawal? If you would identify yourself please? MR. JOHNSON: I 'm Ayrton Johnson. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And your case is? MR. JOHNSON: The last one on the agenda. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Appeal Number 1866. MR. JOHNSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you would like to withdraw at this time? MR. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Is there anyone else who would like to request a postponement or withdrawal? [no one] Mr. Johnson, if you want to say anything at this point, to the Press, why don't you go ahead and do that to the degree that you can but, for the moment we are going to continue as fast as we can with the rest of the hearing. MR. JOHNSON: I have no wish to make a comment but I do have a desire to turn over to you a document that explains our withdrawal. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine, we very much appreciate that and we will put it in your case file as we close that particular instance. Are there any questions about the procedure under which we are operating? [none] Then may we proceed to our first case? SECRETARY HOARD: The first case Mr. Secretary, is Appeal Number 1852 for 102 Homestead Road: PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES - AUGUST 1, 1988 Appeal of David M. Streater for a Special Permit for an Accessory Apartment for 102 Homestead Road under Section 30.27 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in an R-lb (Residential, single-family dwellings) Use District in which the Accessory Apartment is permitted only under a Special Permit issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals. A Special Permit had been issued to a previous owner for the existing Accessory Apartment, but the Special Permit is not transferable to a new owner. This appeal was held over by the Board from the July 11, 1988 meeting so that the appellant could provide additional information. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Mr. Streater. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. STREATER: My name is David Streater, I 'm from 102 Homestead Road and I have a statement that I believe you have received - that says I depose and say as follows. . . do I have to read it or. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No you don't have to read it, if we have a copy of it. You are in good shape. Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: I think the key thing we were interested in last time was addressed and that is - looking at the floor plans plus the deposition that you have - the affidavit from your attorney that states that nothing has changed since the time that we last reviewed this case. MR. OAKLEY: One of the things - the rental proposed is the studio apartment on the. . . PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES - AUGUST 1, 1988 MR. STREATER: Right. MR. OAKLEY: And there is no discussion of the family room up on the second floor? MR. STREATER: That would be part of the regular house. MR. OAKLEY: The would be part of the regular house? MR. STREATER: Right. There is no separate entrance. MR. OAKLEY: Good. Okay. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack, nothing? Charles? (nothing) Very good, Mr. Streater, we' ll move along. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this granting of the special permit? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] The case is ours. PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES - AUGUST 1, 1988 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1852 FOR 102 HOMESTEAD ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of David N. Streater for a Special Permit for an Accessory Apartment for 102 Homestead Road. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the Special Permit for an Accessory Apartment at 102 Homestead Road. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT: 1. The application and the file with it indicate that the property and the application meet the requirements of Section 30.27 of the Zoning Ordinance as listed in that Section, completely and that this has operated as an Accessory Apartment prior to this time and no substantial changes have occurred. VOTE: 5 YES; O NO SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal Number 1860 for 1001-1015 West Seneca Street: Appeal of John Novarr for an area variance for a deficient side yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 14 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a 1, 150 square foot, two-story addition to an existing building at 1001-1015 West Seneca Street for additional storage accessory to the contracting business. The property is located in an B-4 (Business) 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 deficient rear yard before a building permit or certificate of occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If you would begin by identifying yourself? MR. NOVARR: I'm John Novarr, I live at 511 Cayuga Heights Road. Tom, I was unclear about something. In the first line - where it says Appeal Number 1860 - it says "deficient side yard" and the further down "deficient rear yard" - something is off, I guess. To tell you the truth, I don't know whether this is a side yard or a rear yard. . . this decision. I guess about all I have to say here was that - did you all get this little drawing right here? MR. OAKLEY: Yes. MR. NOVARR: As you look at the building - the one with HOLT's name in the lower left hand corner - the long skinny building on the left - it says "BLDG" - well I guess they all say that - that's PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 one of the deficient buildings and the one in front of it - that is, right to the left of the proposed building is the other. Both of those buildings have been there for years - we are probably not going to pick them up and move them in order to be able to build this other little building. This thing also says that this is storage for a contracting business. This is, in fact, not storage for the construction business - we've turned the woodshop in the first floor of the old Sign Works building into a woodshop and it is storage for sheet goods - these are fancy plywoods and hardwoods that we use in the construction of basically cabinets and doors and things of that sort. We are going to use the building to create a bit more of a barrier to the actual yard so that we get a bit more security then we've already got. We'll take down that other chain link fence and beat up gate that is out in front there, if you've been down there to have a look. And that's it. I would be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? SECRETARY HOARD: Just a point of clarification. It is the rear yard that is deficient since it has three front yards. MR. SIEVERDING: Which is that portion of the lot backing onto the Inlet? MR. WEAVER: No. West. SECRETARY HOARD: It is west. The Inlet side forms a yard as well. MR. WEAVER: And the back yard is really the building - back yard of the building to which the addition is going to be placed, is that not correct? SECRETARY HOARD: Well trying to figure all of this out. . . PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. WEAVER: Or any other building that is too close to that rear lot line. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. NOVARR: It is actually going to adjoin the building . . yes, that's right. MR. OAKLEY: And the rear line is pretty well full. MR. NOVARR: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: It is difficult to get (unintelligible) squeezed in there up against the rear line. MR. NOVARR: And I brought a big picture - do you people have the big picture of that - this thing? In the process of doing this - our plan is to clean up the little garage that forms that - that does in fact make the rear yard too small - so that this is the existing building and this is the new building [pointing to picture) and we are going to take what now is plywood and make that brick and we are going to brick this in over here so that we have just a big gate system coming between. . . I don't know whether this all is very clear - this is the old time building - this is all Seneca Street out in front and that is west [pointing] . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So this is a two-story addition? MR. NOVARR: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And it looks like it is made of. . . MR. NOVARR: It is a combination of brick and drivit. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MR. NOVARR: Drivit is like a stucco - Andy Schrabba's building is made out of drivit. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the backside of the Performing Arts Center. . . PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. NOVARR: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: And a lot of the front. MR. NOVARR: I 'd rather not use that as an example. I can pass this around if you want. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No. Don't do us any favors there. Any other questions from members of the Board? I only have one, John. Why is it there - why is there most convenient, aside from the security issue? MR. NOVARR: We thought actually to put it back but we couldn't put it near the waterway - there is that new law. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. MR. NOVARR: So that's why it ended up where it is. Although it is not, from my point of view, a bad place for it - it is just that - had there been no other constraints, I would have put it in the back of the lot. I just couldn't do that, given the current building code. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Moving right along - the case is ours. PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1860 FOR 1001-1015 WEST SENECA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of John Novarr for an area variance to permit the construction of a 1, 150 square foot, two-story addition to an existing building at 1001-1015 West Seneca Street for additional storage accessory to the contracting business. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1860. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The one deficiency which is the rear yard deficiency, is in no way affected by this proposed addition. 2. The only possible way to correct the deficiency would require demolishing or removing the structure and relocating it elsewhere on the site; both of which are impractical and create an undue hardship on the owner. 3. The proposed variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and it would be in keeping with the zoning for that district. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1861 FOR 311 WEST BUFFALO STREET: Appeal of HOMES Properties for an area variance for deficient lot width, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and both side yards, under Section 30.25, Columns 7, 11, 12, and 13, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the addition of a deck at the rear of the existing Group Care Residence at 311 West Buffalo Street. The property is located in an R-2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the existing use is permitted under Special Conditions of the Zoning Ordinance; however, under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed area deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the proposed construction. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MS. SIMRELL: I 'm Amy Simrell, I work at HOMES, Inc. , an Agency located at 408 East State Street. This is Adelaide Amy, who is a staff person at the 311 West Buffalo Street residence. Our Agency operates Group Homes for mentally disabled adults in and about Tompkins County, primarily within the City of Ithaca. The appeal - the variance that we are requesting has to do with our residence located at 311 West Buffalo Street. This building has been used as a community residence for mentally disabled adults since 1976. It currently houses eight individuals and is staffed on a twenty-four hour basis. Because we have deficient width at street, front yard and side yard, we need to request your permission to put a deck - PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 gross dimensions are twelve feet - on the rear of the building. Programatically the deck allows our residents to have outdoor private space as well as outdoor small group space for discussion or have quiet activities. It also allows us, as a group residence, to have a picnic on the deck, or other relaxing types of activities in keeping with the neighborhood. The deck is not visible from the front street, which is Buffalo, or the rear street, which is Seneca - and forms part of an overall plan that we have for the property - to spruce up the exterior. We started last summer (unintelligible) the porch. Adelaide maybe can say a little bit more about the overall spruce-up, clean-up plan that the deck fits into. MS. AMY: I 'm not sure what I 'm supposed to say. We are proposing to build this deck - also to improve the existing back porch and stairs, by putting better - more sturdy railings on, and we hope it will look nicer - and also replacing some fence, which is currently ragged and barbwire - with (unintelligible) . MS. SIMRELL: The deck wouldn't have anything to do with the fence but it is all part of the landscaping and the clean-up kind of job at 311 West Buffalo Street residence. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The existing landing and stairs and deck are all at the same levels? MS. AMY: Yes, the porch and the deck (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: So you just stand on there to get on the deck? MS. ANY: Yes. We currently have a railing on one side but we are going to add it on the other side. MR. SIEVERDING: That pretty much dictates the location of the deck? PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MS. ANY: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any alterations to the picture window on the back side of the building - so essentially it is through the same door you've got - there is no additional door being created particular to that? MS. ANY: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you had any questions from the neighbors to the right of the building as you look at it to the west? MS. AMY: No. MS. SIMRELL: Have you had anything? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No. MS. SIMRELL: We've also contacted the alderperson for that neighborhood and to my knowledge she hasn't had anything either. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? [none] Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this appeal? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] The case is ours. PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1861 FOR 311 WEST BUFFALO STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of HOMES, Inc. for an area variance to permit the addition of a deck at the rear of the existing Group Care Residence at 311 West Buffalo Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1861. MR. PECK: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. All of the existing deficiencies relate to the house itself. None of those deficiencies would be affected by the construction of the deck. While the one side yard deficiency is extended, the location of the deck is dictated by existing stairs and landings which make access to the deck more practical than if it were located elsewhere. 2 . The proposed deck will not add to an increase in the density of use upon the site. 3 . This variance would not jeopardize the character of the neighborhood and will be in harmony of the zoning classification which exists. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO GRANTED PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1861 AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: MR. OAKLEY: I have a discussion question. Which is just that it looks to me like - from the diagram - the deck is nine feet from the property line. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Looks like more than nine inches between the end of the deck and the end of the building. MR. OAKLEY: Okay. . . SECRETARY HOARD: I think the nine inches which is partially covered over there is the distance between the corner of the building and the property line. MR. OAKLEY: And the property line, which accounts for (unintelligible) but the deck does come closer to the property line than ten feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MR. OAKLEY: It extends one of the deficiencies but I don't think this is an overriding difficulty but. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good point. MR. OAKLEY: Because it seems to me, in justification, that the positioning of the deck is to some extent controlled by existing stairs and porch and the doorway there. So they are not proposing a really large deck. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Herman do you want to make an amendment - change anything you've said? MR. SIEVERDING: Relative to that one side yard deficiency? While it extends the one side yard deficiency, the location of the deck is dictated by existing stairs and landings, which make access to the deck more practical than if they were located elsewhere. PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And the seconder accepts? MR. PECK: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you John for that clarification. Any further discussion? A vote? SECRETARY HOARD: The vote in Appeal 1861 is 5 yes votes. PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal Number 1862 for 201-1/2 Wyckoff Avenue: Appeal of Petru Petrina for an area variance for deficient lot area and width, and deficient sertbacks for the front yard, one side yard, and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit part of the roof to be raised on the single-family house at 201-1/2 Wyckoff Avenue for an additional bedroom and a study at the second story level. The property is located in an R-2a (Residential, one- and two-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 area deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the proposed construction. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The Petrina's are here? If you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MR. PETRINA: My name is Petru Petrina, I live at 309 Elm Street. I have a property at 201-1/2 Wyckoff Avenue which is a small house. Both ends of the house have second floors which were built at both ends of the house and the center part of the house has an attic. I ask very kindly for permission to raise the roof in that central area and instead of the attic - to increase the living space for a bedroom and a study. This improvement to the house will not change the zoning - will not affect in a wrong way, the house - because the location in that area will include the house and will create more room for my family. I have family of six who are in need for that living space. I think I attached several drawings. . . PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We have copies, thank you. MR. PETRINA: I have nothing to add. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Your present address is temporary quarters? MR. PETRINA: I just bought this place - 201-1/2 Wyckoff Avenue and at the time of making the appeal, my address was 309 Elm Street - and I am still officially there. But I will be living in 201-1/2 Wyckoff. I was renting at 309 Elm Street. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you heard from any of your neighbors - what they think? MR. PETRINA: I didn't hear anything about what they think. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We have - sent to us - just for your information - I was just not sure but that you had received a copy - but that doesn't seem to be the case. The DiPasquale's have written to us objecting. You weren't aware of that? MR. PETRINA: I was not. I didn't receive anything. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack is handing you a copy - just for your own reference. You might want to take a minute or two and look this over, with a notion of perhaps addressing some of those concerns - if you have any rebuttal. MR. PETRINA: Take comment number 1. The way the house is right now has both ends second floor - has an attic that is almost a living space - it is not high enough to walk in the entire area because the center part of the attic you can stand up - I mean (unintelligible) to stand up and it is right now - by raising that portion of the roof - will not change the neighborhood. All the houses around this property are three levels or more and this is the lowest house - so I 'm surprised that - Mr. DiPasquale's house PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 is much - is taller than this by any standard. And the way I propose the change - and this change will be done by professionals - it will be designed by somebody and built by professionals. It is going to improve the way the house looks - give a better, or nicer facade to the house - I will say that it will affect in a better way the way the house looks from the outside - we will improve the house. You can see from - if you compare sketches number 7 and number 8. On comment number 2 - the house is only the south - more like a north/south so eight feet increase to raise the roof will not affect, by any sense, his yard and the way - all around the houses are large old trees which have more shadow than this eight feet roof - raised to add to that shadow. There are all around the houses on his yard and the part of our yard - there are high trees all around, so they do not affect at all the shadow in his yard. On the comment number 3, when we bought this house - we got from Mr. DiPasquale - which was part of the deal that when we need to occupy or have access to the back of the house - we should get his access. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is in the deed? MR. PETRINA: Yes, I have that approved by him - I have a letter - so he approved that when we do - we have to ask him in advance. I heard that he requested this statement because when they raised the other part of the house, which is one end, somehow they didn't - or they weren't required to get approval from Mr. DiPasquale to use his yard to have access to the house, so he was upset because of that, so he requested us to have a legal agreement for when we want to walk on his property and we will get that. The roof - if it is approved to be raised - we won't have to walk on his property at PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 all, it will be done from the other side because the access is from the other side - from our side, not from the back of the house. I don't need to walk on his property for that. Except if I have to - not to work, but to walk on it - I'll get approval from him - if I don't get it, I won't do it. Now, talking about the density and he says that I should buy a larger house - I bought what I could and I came to this country one year ago and I have a family of six and I bought this house. So I don't know if - you can't buy what you want, when you want to buy it. You buy what you can and after that you try to improve what you have. So it is not a self-imposed. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You say you bought the house a year ago? MR. PETRINA: No I came to this country one year. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. So you just recently purchased and closed on the house? MR. PETRINA: A month ago. July 8 - the day when I came in for the appeal. And aesthetic - there are not aesthetic basis. The house as it appears right now, doesn't look aesthetic, but it is okay from any side and the proposal will improve that. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Are there any questions from members of the Board about any of that? MR. PECK: Yes. Your figure number 5, Mr. Petrina. It shows the existing attic, now is that where the bedrooms are existing? MR. PETRINA: Yes. MR. PECK: Is that scaled properly? That almost looks impossible. MR. PETRINA: Drawing number 5 - that's a cross section of the area where I 'm attempting to raise the attic. MR. PECK: But the bedrooms then are taller than the existing attic right now? PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. PETRINA: That is correct, both ends of the house are taller than the existing attic. This is a low roof. If you look on drawing number 8, (unintelligible) to get the house more even. MR. PECK: (unintelligible) existing? MR. PETRINA: Existing is. . . MR. PECK: And it is all the same level right now, across the top of the roof? MR. PETRINA: Just the top. . . MR. PECK: At the very top of the roof. . . MR. PETRINA: At the very top of the roof is the same, but the living room is a little bit. . . MR. PECK: Are they lower - is the living room. . . MR. PETRINA: The living room is higher, inside. So that made the attic. . . MR. PECK: So in other words, the two ends of the house have lower first floor and the middle of the house has a higher first floor? MR. PETRINA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) MR. PECK: And that is why that looks so strange? MR. PETRINA: Yes, a little bit. SECRETARY HOARD: The middle of the house is a very high ceiling studio. MR. PETRINA: The middle of the house is over what (unintelligible) MR. PECK: Okay. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are there other questions? MR. SIEVERDING: But the second floor, like where the bedrooms are, already have the walls that project up above the first level? MR. PETRINA: Yes. PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. SIEVERDING: To give the appearance of a story and a half, at least? MR. PETRINA: Yes. MR. PECK: The ceiling height in the second floor in the bedrooms, how high would you say that is - is that eight feet, or is it seven feet or. . . MR. PETRINA: It is about eight feet. MR. PECK: It is eight feet in the middle of the rooms - the bedrooms upstairs? MR. PETRINA: I think so, yes. About two and a half. . (unintelligible) I tried to do the drawings myself. . . MR. PECK: It just looked funny (unintelligible) because there obviously wasn't enough space to have a second floor in that space. I was wondering if that was off, or if it was really going to be raised that much - apparently it is. . . MR. PETRINA: That would be the cross section of that area in the middle of the house. The roof is higher now than the bedrooms are but it is lower at the end of the house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you Mr. Petrina. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? John? MR. NOVARR: I 'm John Novarr, I live at 511 Cayuga Heights Road. I manage the property for people that I work with - it is addressed 504 Thurston and 201 Wyckoff, I think. It has a double address. It is right next door to the house in question. I have had a small amount to do with all of this. I knew Petru and Katrina when Petru was doing graduate work at the Cornell School of Engineering - I think he got his PhD here many years ago. Then Petru and Katrina PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 and their children went back to Romania - for those of you that follow what is going on in some of those eastern block countries - Romania has gotten harder and harder to live in over the past several years and Petru and Katrina thought that they could have a better life for themselves and their family here so they came here with their youngest child. Their other three kids are still stuck over there and they are at some difficulty, actually, in getting two of the three back here. But they came here with nothing a year ago and Petru was fortunate enough to get a lectureship at Cornell, Petrina works for Mike Richardson and various other people, trying to help out. The reason they haven't bought a bigger house is that they came here with nothing and they - as Petru has said - they bought what they could afford - it is actually pretty amazing that somebody could come here and in one year's time make enough money to get any kind of a house in Ithaca, given what has happened with real estate here in the past few years. But, be that as it may, that's why they became interested in this home. Petru teaches at Cornell, it is - for all intensive purposes - on Campus - he will be able to walk to school and, as a first home for them, it makes a great deal of sense. To address the particular issues, as Petru was explaining - the two ends of the house are, in fact, a little taller than the middle. The middle was a large studio and for that reason the center section has a taller living room, but, in fact, does still have an attic over it. All he really wants to do is increase the height of the attic three or four feet - mostly at the edges of the roof, not necessarily in the middle but enough to give it a pitch. I can't see how anything that he is going to do there, is going to make any real PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 difference in the ability of the people who rent from me to live there or the ability for other people who live in that neighborhood, to enjoy life pretty much as it is - in fact it seems to me - for those people who are interested in rental versus home ownership, it would seem to me that those long-standing residents in that neighborhood should be pleased that a family is moving in rather than seeing the house being bought out by a John Novarr and turned into rental property. So I try to make the argument that what Petru is up to is good for him and good for the neighborhood. I certainly have no problem as a manager of a piece of real estate next door and I hope you will vote for it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Fine. The case is ours. PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1862 FOR 201-1/2 WYCKOFF AVENUE CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Discussion? Comments? Motion? Some of the above, all of the above. . . MR. WEAVER: Does this come under the category of affordable housing? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good question. MR. OAKLEY: I have a question for Tom. On the worksheet - I assume that the lot width is actually thirty-eight feet? SECRETARY HOARD: That figure - there is a narrow strip that goes to the - I had a feeling this was going to come up. . . MR. WEAVER: Lot width is usually measured at the street, John. MR. OAKLEY: Oh, I see. MR. PECK: It is shaped like a piece of pie. MR. WEAVER: At the street it is hard to find the address even. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's a very good comment - I wish there were larger numbers so that we knew where it was. MR. WEAVER: Maybe we can give it a conditional variance? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's not a bad idea. Big numbers out front. There is an Ordinance that describes how large those number should be. [short discussion here by several members of the Board - was not transcribable] That's right. Conditional variance. . . MR. OAKLEY: I was not able to visit the properties. . . I will attempt a motion. PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1862 FOR 201-1/2 WYCKOFF AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Petru Petrina for an area variance to permit part of the roof to be raised on the single-family house at 201-1/2 Wyckoff Avenue for an additional bedroom and a study at the second story level. The decision of the Board was as follows: Appeal No. 1862a: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1862 . MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed raising of the center portion of the building does not exacerbate any of the existing deficiencies. 2. The existing deficiencies involving minimum lot area, minimum lot width, front, side and rear yard setbacks are pre-existing and there would be great practical difficulties in resolving them which would involve either purchasing land from neighbors or demolishing the building in its entirety. 3 . The proposed addition will not substantially alter the appearance of the building - that is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 4. The proposed addition will allow a family to live in Ithaca where it might not otherwise be able to. VOTE: 3 YES; 2 NO DENIED - LACK OF 4 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES Appeal No. 1862b: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1862. PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The structure, as it exists, is seriously in violation of the minimum standards of the Zoning code, specifically the lot area is 30% deficient; side yard setback is 1-1/2 ' versus 10 ' required; another side yard is 2.9 ' instead of 10' required and the rear yard is 25% deficient. All of these deficiencies describe a lot that is too small for the existing structure. It is the Board's understanding that granting a variance, where practical difficulties make it impossible to do what the appellant wants to do with this - which doesn't seem that the grandfather clause carries with it a right to expand the structure in a substantial manner and this request seems to represent a substantial increase in total livable space. 2. It doesn't seem to the Board that ownership of this structure should impose upon this Board any requirement to "make well" an ill-advised purchase. VOTE 1862b: 2 YES; 3 NO DENIED - LACK OF 4 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MORE DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1862 AFTER THE MOTION (1862A) WAS MADE AND SECONDED BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further comments? Everybody is happy that this isn't a self-imposed hardship? MR. WEAVER: If you are trying to take a poll, of course not. MR. OAKLEY: Okay, then let's discuss it. MR. PECK: I didn't hear what you said. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I - point 4 of DiPasquale's letter - about the appeal being a self-imposed hardship. . . MR. OAKLEY: Well the difficult one. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What we are doing is granting a variance in anticipation of somebody getting out of Romania. MR. OAKLEY: You mean in (unintelligible) of this house. MR. PECK: Well I think the question is more - you know - whether we consider it a one-family house - we certainly don't limit the size of a family when we say it is a one-family house for one or two people. We don't have anything in the Zoning code that says that houses are limited to one and two people in a family. We have R-la and R-lb - it says a family can live there. I don't know. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; I 'm only raising the issue because I can see the day in the not too distant future when people would move out and we would have X number of bedrooms, instead of X number people in a family. MR. PECK: Three bedrooms instead of two. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: But you would also have an occupancy, Michael, that would be one plus two, right? Not three - which is actually less than what the Zoning Board allows in these cases - which might PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 be four to six. I think Jack's point is well taken. The proposed use of the property is, in fact, is consistent with the zoning for that area. MR. WEAVER: I have trouble - I read - specifically E under a variance in which we are talking about conforming to the intent of the Ordinance. The Ordinance describes minimum frontage, minimum lot size relative to the size of the building, setbacks - all of these indicating some understanding - or some concern about the density and proximity to the neighbors. I feel - I always have felt that we are in favor of sin and not too much and here we have some outrageously deficient measurements (unintelligible) . . . MR. SIEVERDING: Agreed, but none of those outrageously deficient measurements are going to change by virtue of this addition. It is all within the existing envelope of the building relative to the dimensions of that lot. So that stays the same regardless of whether this particular addition is built or not built. MR. PECK: Well the lot deficiency is an artifact of the lot, it is not really 84% deficient by any stretch of the imagination, right? Do you agree with that - that that is kind of an artificial thing because of the way that the lot narrows at the street? MR. WEAVER: Nothing artificial about it at all, if you say how do you find minimum lot width? Where do you measure? You measure it at the street. And - I just - certainly if this were cleared land and you are looking for a building permit - it wouldn't be considered, I should hope. Secondly, it is grandfathered in all respects but I 'm not sure that the grandfather also gives the right to further develop the property unless there is a pretty real need for it and in this case, there is a need - it is imposed by the new PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 ownership. I 'm sympathetic to the fact that somebody can buy a property and be unaware of the fact that there be some restriction on putting additions on and especially something like this. I don't know who sold it but - there is certainly one thing the new buyer didn't get for the fee. It is a. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Do you want to hear what the Board's decision was last time? MR. WEAVER: It would be helpful, maybe. SECRETARY HOARD: When they put the other addition on, in 182 . "The Board considered your appeal for an area variance to permit the second story addition to the existing single family house at 201-1/2 Wyckoff Avenue for additional family living space. The decision of the Board was as follows: Motion was made and seconded that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1426. Findings of Fact: The addition will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. 2) It doesn't increase the traffic or density of the neighborhood. 3) It will not violate the present use as a single family dwelling. " MR. PECK: And it was for essentially the same addition Tom, or. . . SECRETARY HOARD: It was for the addition on the end of the second story. . . MR. PECK: Both ends or just one? SECRETARY HOARD: Just one end. MR. WEAVER: One end over the garage. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I raise these issues just to make everybody think a little bit further. We have a motion with a second, is there any further discussion? (none) Then I should call for a vote. PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The vote in Appeal Number 1862 is 3 Yes votes and 2 No votes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So the appeal is denied for lack of four positive votes. MR. NOVARR: Could I ask a question before you move on? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John it is not on the record because, in fact, it is not part of the case - you can ask a question later. MR. NOVARR: I 'm just concerned about what will happen later. Is there a way of bringing this back when there is a full Board? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh, surely, provided you redesign that second story or the character of the application the next time is somehow different then it was this time. That could be, by virtue of the nature that - for example - the other two or however many - children come home. That may be entirely enough to make the difference. Or you can bring it back to the full Board if, in fact, the design perhaps or some other character of the application is different. MR. NOVARR: Are you - is there somebody on vacation or are you, in fact, missing a member? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We are missing a Board member. We expect one to be appointed soon, but that is not really our - as you know - our responsibility per se - we are just pushing ahead to make sure that we can get someone as soon as possible. We should have a motion on the negative side. . . Mr Streater, you have a question too? MR. STREATER: Yes, I was wondering - will I be receiving communication regards to this? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MR. STREATER: So I don't need to. . . PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You don't have to stay the rest of the evening, no. Might we have a motion on the other side to close this with something that supports the negative declaration? 1862b. PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal Number 1863 for 108 Grandview Place: Appeal of Robert McCabe for an area variance for deficient lot area, and deficient setbacks for both side yards and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 6, 12, 13, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the roof to be raised on the single-family house at 108 Grandview Place for an additional living space. The property is located in an R-2a (Residential, one and two-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 area deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the proposed construction. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we have anyone for that case? Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. MCCABE: I 'm Robert McCabe of 108 Grandview Place. I represent myself on this appeal. What I am proposing to do is raise the existing roof approximately six feet in order to provide more acceptable second floor existing living space. I will be improving that space - presently it is an area with knee walls and relatively low ceiling height of about seven feet. I will get rid of those knee walls and bring the height of the ceiling up to seven and a half feet, as required by the building code. In addition I want to add to the raising of this roof, eighty-four square foot additional living space above the existing kitchen. The footprint of the house will remain the same. I will be improving the quality of the home. Another advantage of raising the roof will be that - we want PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 some attic space to help alleviate some of the heat gain. The use of the house will remain the same - it is a single family house and I believe the alterations will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The side yard deficiency, on the back side, according to the site survey, which I think you all have a copy of, (unintelligible) five feet off the roofing but that lot that it abuts up against is an open area - there is nothing back there, in fact I mow the lawn - the area that's there. I believe - though I don't have any specifics on this - it is some type of greenway - it can't be built on because of the housing development that is further up the slope on the south side there. Of course, then the reason for my appeal is that - because of the side yard deficiencies - in order to proceed with my alterations a variance is required. The sketches you have detail isometric which shows in dotted lines the existing structure with the roof lines - and actually you can see there is a dormer on the south side which does provide some existing additional head room. On that same plan I have shown my existing second floor plan and the proposed altered floor plan which - the existing essentially has one sort of study, a bedroom, and a bathroom. The altered - with the roof raised - will provide three bedrooms of adequate square footage and I have the addition to that quarter inch scale plan of the floor plans. I think that pretty well tells what I 'd like to do. Questions? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Can you expand at all upon the character of that right-of-way or whatever - open space that is? MR. MCCABE: On the back side? MR. WEAVER: Well, when you say the back, are you saying south? PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. MCCABE; South side, yes. Well, I wish I knew more about it, I 'll have to admit. When I bought the house - I closed on it this summer and I was told that it was a greenway - that it can't be developed upon. It is privately owned - I found out when I had the communications with the neighbors within two hundred feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Privately owned by whom? MR. MCCABE: Who is the individual? I 'd have to look that up. I 've got it in my brief case. MR. SIEVERDING: Dennis according to the survey is the reputed owner. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, but is the survey current? MR. MCCABE: I don't think that's the right name. It will only take a minute to look it up, if that's important. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm curious enough, I 'd appreciate that if you have it here. MR. MCCABE: I believe that's Alan Boardman's property. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And what did it say, specifically about the development? MR. MCCABE: Well I was told when I bought the house - I haven't looked into it - that it is due to the development that is up on the hill - the housing development for Ithaca College - this is land that cannot be built on but that was what the owner who I bought the house from told me, so I don't know if that is really true. I just took her word for it - I haven't looked into it. And the fact that it is owned by Alan Boardman - he owns two properties up there, apparently - according to the tax records. There is nothing on it. So, in terms of a fire hazard or impact of another person's view or anything of that nature - I don't think there will PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 be any impact whatsoever, in my opinion. The improvements I will be making will enhance the property value of my place and certainly have an impact improving the value of everyone else's, so I think it is a definite advantage. I haven't heard any negative aspects about this. In fact shortly after I sent out my notices a neighbor came by and introduced himself - it was very thoughtful of him - Clayton Smith - and he seemed to be supportive. That was the only response that I got. SECRETARY HOARD: Are you sure it isn't Penniman? You are 108 and Donald and Norma G. Senno are at 104 so that would make that 106, wouldn't it? That is shown as Peter W. and John S. Penniman. MR. MCCABE: They have the little house that's to the west. SECRETARY HOARD: Okay, which one are you talking about - you are talking about this. . . [Board members were all talking at once for a short time at this point] MR. WEAVER: I merely speculate but Dennis put up all of that stuff that Ithaca College occupies or occupied - and there may well have been some requirement of total lot area to accommodate that. I 'm speculating completely - I have no knowledge of it. It was the old Town line. MR. SIEVERDING: So your thinking behind that, Charlie, being then, that if it is in fact, land that can be developed, then that's a mitigating factor relative to that one. . . MR. WEAVER: Well if that's true, it certainly means that that particular side yard deficiency isn't of great importance in this particular case. Tell me about the house out back - access to that is by driveway. . . PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. MCCABE: The house to the west? MR. WEAVER: Yes. MR. MCCABE: Their right-of-way and property is just on the north side of my property which they obtain through Grandview Place - off of Grandview Place - they drive right in front of my house. MR. PECK: That's a driveway? MR. MCCABE: That's a driveway, yes. MR. WEAVER: But that's a right-of-way over your land? MR. MCCABE: No, they own that property - that small strip. MR. SIEVERDING: So that's that fifteen foot strip between you and Senno? MR. MCCABE: Right - me and Penniman. MR. OAKLEY: No, fifteen strip between you and Senno. MR. MCCABE: Yes, yes, that's right. MR. OAKLEY: Penniman owns that strip. MR. MCCABE: That's right. MR. WEAVER: Well for the same reason I 'm asking about this, is that if this is a right-of-way owned by someone further to the west, that the chances of him exercising his right to construct a building - this will impinge upon his structure seems obviously not to exist. MR. OAKLEY: At any rate he has no right to build there because his lot would be so narrow. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's true - without coming to us for a variance first. MR. WEAVER: You assume that you know what happened first. MR. MCCABE: Another aspect that I'd like to emphasize is the raising and elimination of the knee walls - this is, even though it PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 is not considered habitable space - certainly be habited as bathroom and bedroom and a study up there. I will bring it up to Code - I think that's an important aspect. MR. SIEVERDING: So you are raising those knee walls up to an eight foot level to accommodate. . . MR. MCCABE: I 'll bring it up to seven and a half foot ceiling. MR. SIEVERDING: And then your roof takes off from there? MR. MCCABE: Right with a little bit of added space which will help with keeping the house a little cooler. Personally its right at the roof line. MR. SIEVERDING: In regards to the floor plan - you end up with three bedrooms? MR. MCCABE; That's right. MR. SIEVERDING: As opposed to the two that currently exists? MR. MCCABE: Right. MR. WEAVER: Well that is essentially that the new bedroom will be the space over the kitchen. . . MR. MCCABE: Right, eighty-four square feet. MR. PECK: (unintelligible) and stairs coming down. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Actually the way it is put together right now, you only have one bedroom upstairs, is that right? MR. MCCABE: One allowed bedroom, that is correct. MR. SIEVERDING: One allowed bedroom - because you have to walk through that bedroom to get to the other one, so it only counts as one bedroom. MR. MCCABE: That's right, so the other one is called a study. MR. SIEVERDING: Well I like your solution of putting the stairs on. MR. MCCABE: Thank you. PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. OAKLEY: I guess we should call some of the questions that we followed in the last case since we have some similarities. First of all, how long have you owned the house? MR. MCCABE: I closed on it the first week of June. MR. OAKLEY: You were aware of these deficiencies at that time? MR. MCCABE: I didn't know about it. Well, I knew there were some deficiencies but I had no idea that I'd have to get an appeal. Because I didn't expect - I mean, I wasn't going to change the footprint, so I figured I really could do most anything, as long as I wasn't changing the footprint, that was quite a surprise to me that this was required. SECRETARY HOARD: You are not alone. MR. MCCABE: I would have thought my realtor would have told me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Realtors are not to be believed. . . MR. PECK: Obviously (unintelligible) I don't think I 've ever seen two back to back cases. . . MR. OAKLEY: There is a subtle difference. . . MR. PECK: Of course there is, but I haven't seen two that are so close as these. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are there any questions at this point. MR. OAKLEY: I can't think of any more questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. If that's all you have - oh, one more comment? MR. MCCABE: One other little point perhaps is the side yard deficiencies - for the one next to the house that could be considered a problem, is thirteen point six feet so that's almost - PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 I guess the minimum is ten feet, so I 'm over that then, I actually don't even have a side yard deficiency there - it is just the. . . MR. PECK: The worksheet says both side yards. . . MR. MCCABE: I know, I was a little confused by that actually. . . MR. PECK: It says the minimum side yard setback and then the second side yard setback are both deficient. MR. OAKLEY: You mean, you are saying that most of the deficiency is (unintelligible) MR. MCCABE: Well, I 'm saying, if ten is the minimum, I think the only deficiency is the back yard which abuts up to that open space. MR. OAKLEY: You think you measured ten feet out on the side in both directions? MR. MCCABE: No the site survey shows that we've got thirteen point six feet to the west - to the property line where the other house is. MR. PECK: That should have been. . . that shows to the west, that thirteen point six - that's your rear yard. MR. MCCABE: That's a side yard. MR. PECK: That's a rear yard. MR. MCCABE: Oh, okay. MR. OAKLEY: Assuming that the other being the front yard. MR. MCCABE: Oh, okay. Well the way the house sits - the front door is on the north side so it feels like the back yard. MR. OAKLEY: No, it has to do with the street rather than how you choose to orient the house. MR. MCCABE: Okay. MR. OAKLEY: Otherwise we. . . PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's another thing the realtors don't tell you about. . we understand. . . MR. MCCABE: All right. Well then, to finish up my point then, it appears that there might be only a single deficiency and that is that side yard, which, once again - there is nothing there. MR. PECK: The rear yard involves (unintelligible) that's the problem. That's why it is deficient. MR. OAKLEY: Is the side yard on that (unintelligible) being measured from the stone retaining walls? The one twenty-six feet? MR. WEAVER: That appears . . . John I think your question is appropriate because it does show one point six from the wall to the lot line and back further to the west it indicates a five feet plus or minus, to the structure and the two point nine is out in front - well it is one point nine on the survey. MR. OAKLEY: Well they are both deficient, I think we can. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions or comments from the appellant? MR. MCCABE: I would like to emphasize that by raising my roof I will be bringing it up to the building codes. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. 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? [no one] Fine. The case is ours. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1863 FOR 108 GRANDVIEW PLACE MR. OAKLEY: It seems to me that the real key is the two side yard deficiencies plus the lot coverage deficiency as well - and they resolve upon the question of the use of the property (unintelligible) the one that impinges on what seems, of necessity, a driveway - certainly an unbuildable cliff - that is to say the PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 north side - seems to me to be resolved, but how can we - it seems to me a little difficult to resolve the south side deficiency on the basis of rumor and (unintelligible) which is what we are doing right now. I would be happier if I knew that that was in fact (unintelligible) permanently - taken out of commission for building and wasn't going to cause future problems. I don't know whether we could condition something like that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we could - if you so desire, we could certainly delay this until such time as we get clarification on that. MR. OAKLEY: Well that would be the other possibility - delay. (unintelligible) from the application. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other thoughts about the matter? SECRETARY HOARD: Or you could condition the variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, we could always condition the variance. MR. SIEVERDING: Which might be the way to go - the question would be - the nature of the condition, what you would want to see and it would be incumbent upon you then to review some document that persuades you that that land is, in fact, set aside as some open space or set back requirement for the adjoining. . . MR. WEAVER: There are really three setbacks here that I 'm concerned about - by the very nature of the house in somebody's rear yard - the house not shown on this survey. MR. SIEVERDING: The Penniman house. MR. WEAVER: If we had some indication where that was, those relative positions certainly are thoroughly established by the existing structures - the fact that a further addition - in any of these cases - there will not be an exacerbation but they are PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 substantial deficiencies and that seems to me that this is a most unusual site in which the deficiency may be of significance or not, depending upon whether Dennis property could or its successor, could develop and what it does in its position relative to the back yard house - lacking another description - house on the western side of this site - and it seems to me it would be most helpful to know whether that is two feet or twenty-two feet or forty feet - whatever the case may be. MR. SIEVERDING: Sounds like we are moving toward a position of suggesting that the appellant come back with both pieces of information rather than trying to get a conditional variance. MR. OAKLEY: I think it would be a very complicated condition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack, any thoughts? MR. PECK: Well I don't know if I really want him to come back. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, he was a pleasant appellant. . . MR. PECK: Yes, he certainly was pleasant. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I mean, given the fact we dismissed a case that could have taken half the night, earlier, MR. WEAVER: We don't want to lose. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, I 'm digressing - I 'm only asking whether you are generally in agreement with the. . . MR. PECK: I 'm still struck with the similarities between the two cases. I admit that they are not exactly the same, yes, I do. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that aside. . . MR. PECK: What I'm saying is that I hate for him to go out and come back and us still say no - at the same time if we are going to say no tonight anyway. PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that's always the case - but do you feel, more particularly, that you have enough information on the table at the moment to grant a variance - to present, in essense, a fair hearing on the variance? MR. WEAVER: Mr. Chairman, did all the members see these three houses? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I did. MR. OAKLEY: I haven't, no. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I think that's a considerable difference right there. Charles' question I think, with respect to the juxtaposition of the other building, is rather important. I actually went so far as to sketch it out on my plot plan because I was so struck by the closeness, in some sense. I, like you, thought yes this is somewhat like the other one - though the specifics, as they have developed I think are considerably different with respect to the other side yards. But I think you have that in your head, in a sense, if you were perhaps on the site and took a look at it. If that helps to persuade you to go along with what I seem to sense is the general drift of things. MR. OAKLEY: In terms of the location of the other house, is it possible to get testimony from the applicant on the location of the other house? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We can ask him to come forward, again, if that is the wish of the Board. MR. OAKLEY: (unintelligible) one of the - just looking at this plan, and perhaps I am engaging in speculation that a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals should not engage in, but it does strike me that the larger lot must have been prior to the smaller lots and PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 that in some sense, the larger - the Penniman lot, speaking not of people but of property, inflicted this damage on itself by dividing itself up. Now I could be completely wrong. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes you could. MR. OAKLEY: Okay, this is not a self evident proposition. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's what I 'm suggesting - nothing is self evident and that we would be better served - that justice would be better served - let's bring in a higher calling here - if, in effect, we ask the appellant to provide us with additional information. MR. SIEVERDING: Particularly in the context, I think, of the previous case. I think what you are trying to look for here are things that really draw some distinction - or at least we would need to have the situation that would draw some distinction between this and the previous case. . . MR. WEAVER: I 'm not uncomfortable with the similarities at all. Just walk to the front door of either this structure or the last case mentioned and there is no comparison - the site and the density of development - there is a monster house in any direction from the last case. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I understand that and there are at least three - well I'm referring to Jack's comment that he is struck by the similarities of these cases - there are, in fact, three areas where there are some important distinctions (unintelligible) provided they could be nailed down. . . MR. WEAVER: Well you can almost smell them if you walk around the two places. These are much smaller structures - much less impact PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 upon the land than anything you can see here on south hill versus just the opposite on east hill. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. Mr. McCabe, would you have a seat up here for a minute? Just to make sure that we are clear about our directions. You understand the sense of the discussion that we have been discussing here is essentially the idea that the case would be held over, that you would provide additional information with respect to the abutting property - we were discussing earlier the notion that certain parcels - the parcel to the south can't be built upon and give us, in addition, some notion about the relationship of your building to the Penniman structure immediately adjacent to yours. . . does that make sense? MR. MCCABE: Yes, that would take another month? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That would take, unfortunately, another month. MR. MCCABE: I was hoping to get to work, of course. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand but - I was going to mention one other small point - you don't want to use this drawing necessarily to begin construction anyway, okay? This interesting isometric. In looking at the isometric did you happen to realize that if you were using it in construction, that the second floor floor of the rear L would be a foot higher on one side than the other? It is incorrectly drawn is what I am saying. I 'm just pulling your leg, but the notion of essentially, yes, taking another month is going to be necessary because we don't meet until - at this point - the 29th of August, I believe. MR. MCCABE: Would it be possible to proceed with any work at all, for instance, putting in a dormer. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I wouldn't, if I were you. PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. MCCABE; Because of everything that we've been discussing here? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. MCCABE: Can I also maybe try to answer some questions about that immediate property - Penniman? It is a property that is right on the border - the house is bigger than my own but also really quite small. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well Board we have a persistent appellant here - not only a very nice one - but a persistent one. MR. MCCABE: Well the problem is, you see, I have to live in this house and. . . in my own mind the fact that I hope to bring it up to some code standards and there is nothing on the south side existing now and, in a sense, it is increasing the (changed the tape here so missed some of the dialogue] suppose, in fact we find that the south property doesn't meet this (unintelligible) criteria - it is someone's private property. That being the case, and there is no sanctions against being developed on it - the fact that there is nothing immediately there - what interpretation would you make then, the fact that I would be taking the roof up some - maybe you would take that into account perhaps and any future developments of that southerly area. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the point of the matter being, more particularly, that, if that were the case, our job here may be a good deal more difficult if you are going to get your variance, okay? If, in fact, that parcel is not going to be developed, it could be used as a mitigating factor on your behalf in our findings. But that's just one of - the other question being the distance and the relationship between your building and the building immediately behind it. So we are trying to do the best we PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 can on your behalf - but what we need is a little bit more time to do it. You need a little bit more time to present that information so we can act in a responsible fashion. MR. MCCABE: All right. I don't know what more information you need from the Penniman house. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I think what he is getting at would be a site plan which would show the location of the Penniman house relative to your property line and your house. You have a rear yard deficiency of fifty-six percent. . . I think it would be helpful to know whether the Penniman house sits away from its property line and creates more distance that could be considered, again, as a mitigating factor for that one deficiency. MR. MCCABE: The site survey shows the outline of part of the house which butts right against the property line. MR. OAKLEY: Oh, that's the house. . . MR. MCCABE: That's the house. MR. PECK: The dotted line? MR. MCCABE: It says "house". MR. OAKLEY: It says "house" in the middle of it there. (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Now you understand, John, how close they are, and why it is necessary. I mean, when you get up there. . . . MR. OAKLEY: Isn't that an extraordinary arrangement. MR. SIEVERDING: Well, given that situation, does it then create a level of density and a level of structure on this site that is totally inappropriate relative to the side yards which may or may not have something to do with the circumstances - is the question. PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Having seen the site, my opinion - given the other situation - my opinion would be no. But I would want you to see it before you would agree. I 'm with Charles on this, I very much can see where he is coming from - having seen the site - I understand what you are trying to do but I 'm not going to be in a position of essentially railroading it either one way or the other. That's to tip my hand. Charles? MR. WEAVER: Well - same thing. I certainly don't want three or even one member of the Board to have an opinion here based upon my speculation. I wouldn't recommend agreeing with me, to you. MR. SIEVERDING: Not at all. But I can live with the fifteen feet - I mean, it is a pretty clear to me that that fifteen foot access driveway is not likely to be developed and it creates a sufficient curb between this property and the adjoining property. On the other side, I am certainly willing to discuss or entertain a motion that would have a condition that shows some demonstration that that property is not going to be developed and that there is adequate buffer there to take care of those two deficiencies. MR. MCCABE: Where is the front door of the - the front door of the Penniman property? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN; It is a little to the right of the section of the house - the house is an "L" shaped plan. . . MR. OAKLEY: The front door faces north? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Front door faces east. And it is approximately at the end of the drive - as I remember, a little to the left. MR. OAKLEY: So the house is "L" shaped. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right, now I do not - I was, in fact, thinking of this coming to the meeting, I don't know exactly what the setback PAGE 50 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 of the wall plane - which really extends considerably - if you can see my sketch, and it was a very quick and hurried one, but it essentially extends out this way a considerable distance - it extends to the north a considerable distance from where we are at but it is also set back some, as I remember, not a whole lot but on the order of three feet perhaps. And that's not really being very fair to it, because I wasn't really paying attention - close attention to the Penniman house, as I was going around the other house. The construction - for what it's worth - the construction to the south is really at a much higher plane - I did climb the hill in back of the stone retaining wall on up to the rear yard of the housing done by Ithaca College and it sets back from - just judging roughly on this scale - somewhere at the signature at the bottom of the stamp is about where the construction - the back wall of the dormitories or whatever they are, the residences - are up on the hill, but it is a considerably higher incline. There must be twenty feet, at least, rise - at least two stories between - because I was concerned how high he should be able to go without obstructing the view of the back yard of the people in the house behind - there is no question whatsoever that he has lots of room, and he could go three stories in that sense, without too much objection. You didn't know we did all this, did you? MR. OAKLEY: These all seem to me to be relevant - fairly strongly relevant things and delaying a person a month, particularly at the beginning of August, is fairly serious. If we are ultimately going to grant him the variance and - if we can - through a motion - resolve - or actually to a great extent - both of my concerns about the Penniman house have been raised and lowered to some extent. . . PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to try a motion? MR. OAKLEY: Well I thought that perhaps some of the people who are sure of their position might try a motion. I think it is in some way only fair to the applicant (unintelligible) and. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charles I think you are being asked to create a motion. MR. WEAVER: Well, one more thing, though - we should have discussion here that if we have a motion and vote on it and it is unsuccessful, and I would propose a positive motion to grant, that there be an understanding that there is some awkwardness about coming back next month with the same proposition. So, what I am saying to you (Mr. McCabe) is that you can't come in with precisely the same thing, having failed this month. That's a risk involved with this coming to a motion right now. I don't think it is concerning the quality of your drawings because that isn't going to be insurmountable - that's two of us that have taken a slight to your sketches - but, be that as it may, I will move the granting of the variance. PAGE 52 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1863 FOR 108 GRANDVIEW PLACE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Robert McCabe for an area variance to permit the roof to be raised on the single family house at 108 Grandview Place for additional living space. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1863 with the condition that the applicant provide further information to the Building Commissioner relative to the "forever clear" condition of the property listed as "Dennis" on the plot plan supplied. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The side yard setback on the north, although substantial, is from a driveway necessary to the occupancy of the house in the rear of 108 Grandview Place. 2 . The setback deficiency on the other side yard, again, does not appear to have present or future significance in the development of the neighborhood in that it faces a substantial grade and subject to, and conditioned upon, the appellant providing further information relative to the "forever clear" condition of the property listed as "Dennis" in the plot plan supplied, would not therefore be of significance. 3. The rear yard - because of the peculiar arrangement of that and the house in the rear, would not protect future construction or use of the property beyond what encroachment is already there on the space. 4. The minimum lot area cannot be improved on this site with substantial clearance, that is, the driveway to the north - PAGE 53 BZA MINUTES - 8/l/88 and the apparent clear space to the south, does not seem to be inconsistent with the needs of the Ordinance. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO GRANTED W/CONDITION PAGE 54 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1864 FOR 832 NORTH AURORA STREET: Appeal of Jeremy and Robyn Charlton for a Special Permit under Section 30.26, Paragraph C, of the Zoning Ordinance, and for an area variance for deficient off-street parking, deficient lot width, lot coverage exceeding the maximum permitted, and deficient setbacks for the front yard, both side yards, and the rear yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, to permit the use of the existing garage at 832 North Aurora Street for a Child Day Care Center for up to ten children. The property is located in an R-2b (Residential, one- and two-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted only under a Special Permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The appellants must also obtain an area variance under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 for the listed area deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the proposed conversion of the garage to Day Care use. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MS. CHARLTON: My name is Robyn Charlton and I live at 832 North Aurora Street. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you want to convert the garage to a day care center? MS. CHARLTON: Yes, that's it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I must report having talked to the neighbor you have to the right - that he is very supportive. PAGE 55 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MS. CHARLTON: Mr. Andrews? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. Did you receive any other comments from people in the neighborhood? MS. CHARLTON: The Leonardo's who live just to the right of the Andrews, also expressed excitement. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Excitement? They have children? MS. CHARLTON: Not yet. She knows the trouble her friends are having finding day care situations. MS. SIEVERDING: Is this a day care center or a nursery school? MS. CHARLTON: It would be a pre-school situation - for kids three and a half to five, so it is pre-school. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The hours of operation - 8:45 to 11:45 - they were chosen for a particular reason? MS. CHARLTON: A morning program. We went down to the Day Care Council and found that if you have more than three hours there is a lot more involved. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In what sense? MS. CHARLTON: In terms of licensing. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. MR. SIEVERDING: Have you contacted, say, the State Licensing people at all, or don't. . . MS. CHARLTON: We spoke with the Day Care Council about it. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Because one of the concerns, I guess, in looking at this property, is that you've got the garage that sits right on the property line and you've got a party wall with an adjoining garage and you are a couple feet away from the garage that backs up on Tioga Street. PAGE 56 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MS. CHARLTON: The building inspector that came out said something about the specific kinds of laws we would need in the back and then the Building Commissioner, I think it is, the man I spoke with who was helping me fill out the forms, said that we would need something of the nature of a cement block wall between the Andrew's garage and ours, something to that effect. That would be completely fire proofed and fire safe. Listen, I wouldn't put my children in there unless it was safe. MR. SIEVERDING: How about the outdoor activity area, how is that going to be organized? MS. CHARLTON: We have a completely enclosed back yard. It is a reasonable size with enough room - again the building - is it the Building Commissioner? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: He is the Building Commissioner. MS. CHARLTON: The Deputy Building Commissioner said that I would need space for two cars - to park two cars, although considering I would be one of the teachers, I can't see any cars really being parked there, but he said that the back yard has enough space for the two cars - which can be roped off, or whatever, so that there is still plenty of room for the children. And we also live right across the street from the school, the elementary school, and right down the street from a park - over at the Dey Street - so we are very close to a lot of those facilities besides the parking that we have and a nice sized back yard. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Yes. Recommendation of the Code and Administration Committee. I 'm not sure that I 'm sophisticated enough to PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES - 8/l/88 understand the details of the recommendation - I 'd be glad to be enlightened. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Mr. Building Commissioner would you like to enlighten us? SECRETARY HOARD: What is a propsoed (sic) development? MR. SIEVERDING: Just a spelling problem. SECRETARY HOARD: Well they are requesting that it be held over. MR. OAKLEY: On the grounds that they did not receive a significantly detailed plan - had not been submitted. It certainly doesn't fit in with the details of the. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Why they don't send these things to the appellants is beyond me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You weren't informed of this at all? MS. CHARLTON: I 'm sorry. . . MR. PECK: Do you understand what we are talking about? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We get funny pieces of correspondence from everyone, that sometimes the appellants never see. MS. CHARLTON: What was not submitted? MR. PECK: What they are saying is, that this is not a plan. MR. OAKLEY: The specific requirements in the ordinance say the plans of a proposed development of the site shall be submitted with the application for a Special Permit. The plan shall generally conform with the requirements for presentation of plans set forth in the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Ithaca. It shall show parking areas, traffic areas, landscaping, building arrangement, height and number of stories of building, topography, and other pertinent information that may be required by the Board of Appeals. In addition to the plan requirements set forth in subsection (i) PAGE 58 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 above, an applicant for a special permit for a school or related use must provide the following information: the nature of the proposed use to be conducted or facilities to be located on the premises, including but not limited to courses of study and subjects to be offered, size and composition of the student body to be accommodated, size of faculty and staff required, daily hours of operation and annual periods of operation, the type of location of support facilities required, information concerning the type and number of living accommodations . . . the rest of that is fairly. . . MS. CHARLTON: They didn't give me one of those. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: They didn't give you one of those. MR. OAKLEY: Most of that you actually have - I would point out that - except for topographic map of the piece of property that is basically flat. . . a good deal of the information is actually available to us. MS. CHARLTON: My understanding was that the survey was good enough since the garage itself would be the day care center. If you know much about day care centers - they are large open spaces. . . MR. OAKLEY: Right - without sharp edges. . . MS. CHARLTON: And that the parking would be according to what I was told. . . and the back yard. . . even though the driveway is long enough for three cars we don't want to block anyone in - in case of a fire we need to be able to get a fire truck back there. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You know - the parking is a concern. . . MR. OAKLEY: Oh it is, no, no, I think it is a concern. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And so far as the site plan is concerned, it does make sense. The space between - well that side yard is a rather narrow one and the notion of children going back and forth PAGE 59 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 certainly would be a concern, assuming they are using the side yard - not going through the house every time. MS. CHARLTON: It would be the driveway - they would not be going through the house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. So you can see the reason for the regulation, despite the fact that the Planning and Development Board didn't tell you what they were asking. . . did you appear before them? MS. CHARLTON: According to - I was told it wouldn't be on the discussion. . . MR. OAKLEY: So they just accepted the recommendations of the. . .you see the Planning Board didn't discuss it - they just accepted the recommendations of the Code and Administration Committee. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh, that's lovely. MR. OAKLEY: It is interesting. MR. WEAVER: Well I had two reasons - first of all I didn't know in very specific form how most of those requirements applied to the present request and second, we've come down to another question of whether this Board of Zoning Appeals is going to listen to committee reports and I personally object to having a memorandum come to this Board - they've got their own Board to make recommendations to, as I understand it. I 'd like it either to be important enough to either go to the Planning Board or not go anywhere. MR. OAKLEY: Well, I think I 'm willing to read a paragraph, even if it comes. . . . MR. WEAVER: Well I read it. PAGE 60 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. OAKLEY: We've read it and I think we should basically apply that. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let's come back to the point of asking the appellant if there are any more questions of her because we can get into this discussion about how city hall does or does not operate almost. . . are there anymore questions? Do we all understand the nature of the appeal? MR. OAKLEY: I think so. MR. SIEVERDING: I understand the nature of the appeal, I am still a little confused on this whole licensing issue and I guess. . . MS. CHARLTON; In terms of day care licensing? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes. MS. CHARLTON: It is not necessary for under three hours. . . I happen to be a certified teacher, in fact I teach at SUNY Cortland - pre-service teachers - I taught at TC3 and at Cornell - that has nothing to do with the fact that we are going to do this because it is not necessary that I have that certification. MR. SIEVERDING: From the State? MS. CHARLTON: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: I was under the impression that if you had a child care center, regardless of the hours, that you did need a license. And that if you had a nursery school, as long as that nursery school operated for less than three hours, then you didn't need a license. . . (unintelligible) MS. CHARLTON: That's what we were told by the Day Care Center. . . again, as I say, I happen to be certified - it wasn't a question of using. . . . PAGE 61 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. SIEVERDING: And the issue is only raised, I think, relative to the party wall between the two garages and whether there are some stricter standards that might be applied from the safety point of view - fire separation between those two properties, plus the property to the rear. MS. CHARLTON: I was under the impression that we - whether or not this goes through - then we go ahead and begin and then there is a Building Inspector that checks to make sure that all of those things are done properly - again, I 'm not about to put my children in a place - or subject other children to a place that is not safe and this is why we are going ahead with this kind of situation - we are not about to convert a garage and put kids back there - I 'm not about to do something like that. MR. OAKLEY: Well Tom maybe can answer that question. I gather that the question is, are there different standards that you would apply to a day care center than you apply to a residential (unintelligible) does that apply to - does the obtaining of State certification as a day care school alter the Building Department's role? Is that what you are saying? MS. CHARLTON: I can answer that. There are differences. We need certain amount of space for each child, if you have two rooms, you have to have the fire things go directly to the fire department - I guess the alarm system goes directly to the - and there happens to be a fire department down the street from us. And you need a separate room or separate area for children who happen to be sick. There are different - I 'm assuming those are very different than what you would need for a residential property. PAGE 62 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. OAKLEY: Yes but obviously - though I hesitate - I can see allowing a day care center - I hesitate to allow a residence in that location. MR. WEAVER: We have a definition of a nursery school in the Ordinance on page 30. 10. The appellant might be interested - so I 'll read. . . "Nursery school" shall mean a facility designed to provide daytime care or instruction for two (2) or more children from two (2) to five (5) years of age inclusive, and operated on a regular basis. " Does that sound right? You don't like what it says? MS. CHARLTON: Again, I 'm not sure why we chose to cut off at three years old - for some reason - it might have been something that the Day Care Council said about. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any other questions of the appellant? [none] I think we've run out of questions. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] The case is ours. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1864 FOR 832 NORTH AURORA STREET CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The reason I asked the question gentlemen, about the number of hours, to begin that whole discussion, was that in my conversations with a couple of the other neighbors - which weren't particularly induced by anything other than the fact that I was wandering around at high noon and everybody was on their front porch eating their lunch - indicated to me that as long as there weren't teeming kids there all the time, that they didn't mind at all. I also asked the question, which went further to the point of accessibility of - it seems that the west side of Aurora is largely PAGE 63 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 single owner-occupied sorts of housing as opposed to the other side of the street which, in the main in that block, seems to be absentee owner situation, which was basically the reason I was thinking about parking, John. Because it seems as though some parking would be required for the apartment units on the other side of the street but on their side of the street, it was less in demand, if in fact we can say less in demand - alternate side and that sort of thing. . . but at least I was getting a sense as to how much demand there would be dropping off these kids on and off on a day to day basis, in the morning. And that's why I was interested about the parking. I was concerned though on the site with the narrowness of that side yard and getting access to the back. And the notion with how parking would interplay with the kids playing in the driveway. So much for my on the spot quiz. MR. SIEVERDING: And what about those side yards. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is as the site plan indicates - in every other respect. It is extreme - there is nothing appreciable on the north side - it says here, something like three and a half feet or something of that sort. I would be - if it is, it is barely that. The fence, which essentially separates the Andrews from their property, is a very thin one and largely bushes that make the difference. Further discussion? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes. My primary concern has to do with the side yard around the garage itself and the fact that you are creating deficiencies in three cases of one hundred percent. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let me consider, if I can for the moment, for us - can I bring on the table the notion that it be tabled or that, again, I am just bringing this up for the course of discussion - PAGE 64 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 this is essentially the committee report which is passed down through with a notion that additional information be required - is that something that we want to entertain or do we want to ignore it? MR. SIEVERDING: Is there a site plan showing that? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well showing - as John was so good to point out that the parking arrangement, the. . . MR. OAKLEY: Arrangements for parking, arrangements for fencing, perhaps - a little bit more detail how this. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Would be developed in the rear yard. The elevations - things of that sort. MR. SIEVERDING: What impact would seeing that type of site plan have on what, in my mind actually, would be greater problems - and that is the lack of any kind of separations with this structure and the garage to the north and the garage to the west. . . MR. OAKLEY: I agree with Herman, I mean, we should not send them away if we are going to bring them back and say. . . this is. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is not exactly what he is saying, though. . . MR. WEAVER: Well, question, further, is this a zoning question or a building code question that you are asking? MR. OAKLEY: We are asking a special permit question. MR. SIEVERDING: I'm asking a zoning question relative to the lack of. . . MR. WEAVER: Special permit. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Relative to the lack of side yard and rear yard. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No question about that. . . MR. SIEVERDING: We are taking an accessory structure and it is now becoming a primary structure. PAGE 65 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No question - I don't think there is any question about the fact that we are all agreed on that is what we have to focus upon. To my mind - I just want to get out of the way the notion - if in fact we are going to move it aside - that additional information be required. Again, I am merely asking whether we have enough information on the table to think about whether we need any additional information as has been suggested. MR. OAKLEY: I think we have enough information for the size of the (unintelligible) it is not absolutely clear to me that we have enough information to decide to approve. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Exactly. MR. OAKLEY: I think it really comes down to how we feel about - I mean if we feel about those rear yard deficiencies - the way I 'm sort of inclined to feel - as much as I like the idea of day care - being the parent of a three year old girl - then it is quite possible to reject it on the basis of the extraordinary conditions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What I 'm hearing from you and from Herman is that the answer to my question is, no we are not going to particularly care about what the Planning and Development Board and related memos - but we are going to go straight to the heart of the question. MR. SIEVERDING: I wouldn't put it in that context. I do care what the Planning Board says. MR. WEAVER: Well we haven't heard anything from them. MR. SIEVERDING: Oh, we haven't heard anything from them. In my mind right now, I guess - having the site plan in front of me wouldn't add a whole lot of new information relative to. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Fine. Jack are you with us in this? PAGE 66 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. PECK: Yes, I sure am. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. I would assume Charles is. MR. WEAVER: You are making an assumption in my case? MR. SIEVERDING: I wouldn't do that if I were you. MR. WEAVER: I don't know how many members of the committee were present even. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, fine. Moving ahead to the zoning issues. MR. PECK: In other words the zoning issue now shifts from the house, which is what this is about - the worksheet is about - the garage, which is obviously. . . MR. OAKLEY: And the existing approach to the parking. . . MR. PECK: It takes up a - the big back yard becomes a smaller back yard. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. PECK: When you put two parking spaces in it, I mean, this is obvious but. . I hadn't even thought about that to tell you the truth, until you brought it up - considering this as the garage - the garage as the building to be decided upon and not the house. MR. SIEVERDING: Well because it is no longer. . . MR. WEAVER: As the devil 's advocate, question of how many - the worksheet says we need three off-street parking spaces and they propose to provide two. And if they drove two cars in the driveway, as it now exists, would there be a deficiency? Is there a deficiency? Does that off-street parking apply to the newly created nursery school? Or is it as it applies to the house? MR. OAKLEY: Well some of it applies to the nursery school. MR. WEAVER: Where does the requirement for off-street parking come from? PAGE 67 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 SECRETARY HOARD: For a day care center with six to ten children. . . MR. WEAVER: Needs two of its own? SECRETARY HOARD: It needs one. Then the two employees of the day care center - that's one, then the residential use is one. MR. WEAVER: So there's one. . . SECRETARY HOARD: One for the day care center and one for the house. MR. WEAVER: So if you put two cars in the driveway, we are one deficient? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: True. MR. WEAVER: I 'm just trying to clarify what I see as the proposal. They proposed two - they had two, and they propose that they stay that way rather than create the third space. I don't see that any of this requires the parking of two cars in the rear yard. MR. OAKLEY: No, no because you can't park two cars. . . MR. WEAVER: That's right, with one - once we put one in the rear yard we lose the driveway. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, that's right. MR. WEAVER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Herman do you want to go back to your original points with respect to the zoning issues? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, I 'd like to hear some discussion, particularly from your point of view, given your past experience. And, you know, my primary concern has to do with the lack of yard around the garage, and I 've heard the argument before on this Board that that creates a real density - fire/safety issue, particularly in this case when you consider the proposed use of this facility. I think it is worse than in some other cases where maybe you are only PAGE 68 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 talking about two or three feet separation (unintelligible) fire wall between two garages and I think that is physically an adjoining wall between the two so there is no side yard there at all - it is one hundred percent deficient and on the south side there is a ninety-six percent deficiency - five foot required and there is only two point two and on the rear yard, it is similar. There is virtually no setback at all from the property line or separation from a garage on the property that would front Tioga Street. I think in the context of this proposed use, I think that raises some serious safety and access questions that I think we really need to understand before coming to some decision on this proposal. I would like to know how do you deal with those? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are asking Tom? MR. SIEVERDING: Well I guess there is a technical answer, in terms of the building code and I suppose there is also a zoning question that we need to address. MR. WEAVER: I was just trying to separate the discussion, whether it is made of concrete or two by fours, is insignificant until we have resolved the zoning questions which I think are severe. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I think then the question becomes, are there any mitigating factors essentially for the structure to remain in its present location and be converted? MR. OAKLEY: The only one that I 've heard is the general enthusiasm for day care and the fact that the building is difficult to move, obviously. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: can anyone think of anything else? MR. SIEVERDING: In terms of. . . MR. WEAVER: Well it's an accessory building. . . PAGE 69 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. OAKLEY: It's not going to be an accessory building. . . MR. WEAVER: Sure isn't. MR. OAKLEY: I mean, now it's an accessory building but. . . MR. PECK: In that sense of the word (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: The worksheet says it will be. . . MR. OAKLEY: No, the worksheet is absolutely right, it will stop being an accessory building. MR. PECK: That's not what I meant. What I meant - the deficiencies refer - not to the garage but to the house. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. PECK: On the worksheet - it' compares (unintelligible) to what other people have said already. SECRETARY HOARD: Under 7, area requirements for proposed. . . the lower half of the sheet - you see what happens to the. . . MR. OAKLEY: I thought it was the second thing. . . the last three lines - because basically the character of the building is changed. MR. PECK: . . . (unintelligible) garage, I 'm sorry, Tom. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it looks like we are leaning more toward the negative than the positive, if that's the case. We haven't been able to really put things together much for a positive case. Perhaps we want to try and work a little bit more on the negative in such a way as to put together a motion and bring this to some sort of conclusion. Again, going back to the worksheet, I would suggest that you have most of the keys there. PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1864 FOR 832 NORTH AURORA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Jeremy and Robyn Charlton for a Special Permit and an area variance to permit the use of the existing garage at 832 North Aurora Street for a Child Day Care Center for up to ten children. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board deny the request for a Special Permit and for an area variance to permit a Child Day Care Center in the existing garage at 832 North Aurora Street. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT: 1. The proposed conversion of the garage to a Day Care Center makes this structure another primary use of the property. The proposed conversion creates three serious deficiencies: 100% side yard deficiency; a 96% second side yard deficiency and a 99% rear yard deficiency, all of which suggest a level of development and use that is inconsistent with the zoning for this neighborhood - particularly so in the context of the proposed use as a Day Care Facility. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO VARIANCE DENIED PAGE 71 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The final appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1865 FOR 517 SOUTH AURORA STREET: Appeal of Carey Property Management, Neal Howard, Agent, for an area variance for deficient setbacks for two front yards under Section 30.25, Column 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion of the attic in the two-family dwelling at 517 South Aurora Street to a living room, and to add an exterior stairway to the building. The property is located in an R-2a (Residential, one- and two-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 deficient front yard setbacks before a building permit can be issued for the proposed alteration and addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Thank you for your patience. If you would begin by identifying yourself. MR. HOWARD: I 'm Neal Howard, owner of Carey Property Mangement. I live at 427 North Cayuga Street and Frank Blake, our contractor who lives on Sears Street. We are requesting a building permit to construct a fire escape from the third floor to the ground - the third floor will be used for a living room for the second floor tenants. The second floor apartment currently has no living room, only a kitchen, a bath and three bedrooms. The first floor apartment is a three bedroom apartment and will remain unchanged. This change in the third floor will not increase the occupancy of the building nor will it change the structural appearance of the house. The fire escape will be added to the rear of the house - PAGE 72 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 which is the east side, between the house and the garage. This requires a variance because zoning regulations require twenty-foot minimum front yard setback from South Aurora Street in a house that has approximately a thirteen foot yard. There would be practical difficulties with compliance with the regulations since the house cannot be moved. This exception does observe the spirit of the law and does not change the character of the district. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: I must ask what is the material to be used on the fire escape? MR. BLAKE: Steel. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It is an exposed or enclosed staircase that you are proposing? MR. HOWARD: It will be enclosed inside and exposed outside. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If we could be a little bit more specific - the fire escape itself would be exposed? MR. HOWARD: Currently right now the second floor apartment does not have a second means of egress which this would give the second floor a second way out. MR. PECK: So the fire escape is necessary because of this attic conversion? MR. HOWARD: Correct. MR. OAKLEY: Just a few questions about the occupancy since this is probably one the neighborhood is concerned about. Are currently all three bedrooms in this apartment occupied? MR. HOWARD: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: What do they use as a living room? MR. HOWARD: They do not have one. PAGE 73 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: When you sent out your notice did you get any comment from the neighbors? MR. HOWARD: Just one from Dell Grover, who lives at 415 Hillview Place, which is across the street. This house is on the corner of Aurora and Hillview and he said to go ahead and do it. That's the only thing that we heard. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. HOWARD: As you can see on the survey, the rear yard is quite large - which has - and that is where the fire escape will be located. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you both - unless there are more questions? [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? Please come forward and identify yourself because from back there we can't. . . MS. SAGGESE: My name is Lorraine Saggese, I live at 201 Columbia Street, on the corner of South Aurora and Columbia, just a block down from this house. I did not write anything but I did come to hear about it because I am very concerned about the density of the population in the area. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well you understand there is no proposal here to increase the density? MS. SAGGESE: No but you do worry when you think about possibility of this and I do know that in some places on south hill there are more people living in houses than there should be. There is no way really - no this is just what I have heard, I really don't know. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You have no knowledge about this particular property? PAGE 74 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MS. SAGGESE: No I don't, I have heard that there was a living room in the second floor but I don't know what this is - I haven't been in the house for three years and perhaps there was one at the time. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. Any questions from members of the Board? MS. SAGGESE: But I 'm just concerned about it and I just came to listen really. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well we are glad to have you here. Is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or now against? (no one] That being the case, it is all ours. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1865 FOR 517 SOUTH AURORA STREET MR. OAKLEY; I have one question of Tom. It is perhaps irrelevent but I seem (unintelligible) legitimate bedrooms - do you have them listed in your Certificate of Occupancy? MR. WEAVER: You realize the opposite of that is illegitimate bedrooms? MR. OAKLEY: Yes. I thought there was some requirement for common living space? SECRETARY HOARD: There is a requirement that at least one room of a dwelling unit (unintelligible) MR. OAKLEY: Okay, so the kitchen can satisfy that requirement? SECRETARY HOARD: It has to be habitable space. MR. OAKLEY: Okay but the kitchen is habitable space? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: Okay, I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There is no requirement for a living room? SECRETARY HOARD: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further discussion? PAGE 75 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 MR. WEAVER: Well in answer to the lady who has just expressed her concern, with three bedrooms in that duplex - in the second floor of that duplex, other than a family, it would be limited to three persons, so it seems to me under the present zoning ordinance that the addition of living space in the attic would not allow for an expansion - an increase in the number of persons occupying that second floor duplex. MR. OAKLEY: Obviously what she is concerned about is a not entirely legal expansion of the number of people. Which I am not sure that we can always pass on. . . MR. WEAVER: I don't think the BZA is going to help. . . MR. OAKLEY: . . .I don't think it is appropriate to pass on that (unintelligible) from somewhere else. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right, that's other authority. Are we getting closer to a motion? PAGE 76 BZA MINUTES - 8/1/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1865 FOR 517 SOUTH AURORA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Carey Property Management for an area variance to permit the conversion of the attic in the two-family dwelling at 517 South Aurora Street to a living room, and to add an exterior stairway to the building. The decision of the Board was as follows : MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1865 . MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed improvement will create a better exit system for the existing structure. 2. Practical difficulties exist in that this structure has two front yards, one on the west and one on the south which are deficient, will not be exacerbated by the proposal and could only be corrected by moving the structure which is not prac- tical or possible. VOTE: 5 YES: 0 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 77 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 1852, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864 and 1865 on August 1, 1988 in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara C. Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this /9 day of 1988 otary Public JEAN-J. HANKINSON W-ARY PUBLIC,STATE OF NEW YORK ��� NO.55-1 6��0300 WMALIFIED IN TOMPKINS COU jjj COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 30,19