Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1988-08-29 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK AUGUST 29, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPEAL NO. 1867 Petru Petrina 3 201-1/2 Wyckoff Avenue APPEAL NO. 1867 DISCUSSION 15 APPEAL NO. 1867 DECISION 25 APPEAL NO. 1868 William E. Deats 26 528 Spencer Road APPEAL NO. 1868 DECISION 28 APPEAL NO. 1869 Pamela J. Kingsbury 29 113 Treva Avenue APPEAL NO. 1869 DISCUSSION 33 APPEAL NO. 1869 DECISION 36 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 37 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK AUGUST 29, 1988 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I 'd like to call to order the August 29, 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: Charles Weaver Jack Peck John Oakley Herman Sieverding Michael Tomlan, Chairman of the Board Thomas D. Hoard, Building Commissioner, Zoning Officer & Secretary to the Board 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 then ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible and then be available to answer questions from us, members of the Board. We will then hear from those parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the Board considers "interested parties" to be persons who own property within two hundred feet of the property in question or who live or work within two hundred feet of that property. Thus the Board will not hear 1 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of an "interested party". While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record. The record consists of the application materials filed with the Building Department, the correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations, when there are any, and the record of tonight's hearing. Since a record is being made of this hearing, we ask that you come forward and speak directly into the microphones, directly opposite me here, so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and be amplified so that everyone can hear them 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 is 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 deliberation. 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. As you will note, tonight there are only five of us here. City Council has not acted to appoint yet a sixth member - we have only five of us here - and that gives the appellants the right to request a postponement if they so desire. Is there anyone who 2 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 would like to request a postponement? (no one] Moving right along, are there any questions about our procedure? (none] Fine. Then may we proceed to our first case? SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal Mr. Chairman, is APPEAL NUMBER 1867 FOR 201-1/2 WYCKOFF AVENUE: Appeal of Petru Petrina for an area variance for deficient lot area and width, and deficient setbacks for the front yard, one side yard, and the rear yard, for excessive lot coverage, 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. A previous appeal (Appeal No. 1862) was denied by the Board at its August 1, 1988 meeting; the appellant is returning with a revised plan for the alteration. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The Petrina's are here? Please come forward. Again, for the record, you have to begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. PETRINA: My name is Petru Petrina, I live at 201-1/2 Wyckoff Avenue, Ithaca, New York. 3 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Tell us, if you can, elaborate, or state if you would, clearly, why this is any different than the last appeal that you put forward, if you would. Could you address that question? MR. PETRINA: Yes. As you can see from the drawings that we made, sketch number 5, raising the roof at the center portion will be about four and one-half feet above the existing level. The existing level at the center part of the house is five and one-half feet high, so in order to get - to have a living space over that, I have to raise it only by four and a half feet, at the center. And that center is going to move towards south about two feet - being center (unintelligible) so that will completely keep the shadow as it was before - from the point of view of shadow on Mr. DiPasquale's property. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you feel the casting of the shadow is. . . MR. PETRINA: Is not going to be any problem. It is not going to effect - the shadow is not going to change. The house is east/west and when the sun is at noon - when that portion is built, the shadow on DiPasquale's property will stay as it is, since the central part is moved towards south by about two feet. In addition, after this appeal was denied, and not only because of that but I tried to approach Mr. DiPasquale, to explain what our intentions are, and we got completely his agreement and his wife's agreement when I spoke to them and they agree with our alteration and they promised to support - even tonight I spoke to Mrs. Judy DiPasquale, she said her phone number is 257-6966 and that they promised to retract all the comments they originally made at the August 1st 1988 meeting and they understood what the intention with this alteration is and they feel that, by doing this change to the 4 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 house, their property will not be affected in any wrong way. I was advised by them to state in front of you that I have completely their accord on this alteration and they promise their support. I invited Mr. DiPasquale to come here tonight and speak on my behalf and he felt that it would not be so easy for him to come at this time but he said, in case there will be something required, he will be willing to provide me with a recent statement on his agreement - on his accord. I was assured that he does not have any lack of wish to us for denying this appeal. I must ask if you have any letter from somebody else? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Nothing. MR. PETRINA: Now, after living for one month in this house, we realize that there is a problem with the house. The proposed addition will be a major improvement for access between the pre-existing bedrooms in case of any emergency such as fire or other things. As it is right now, in order to get from one bedroom to - assuming our bedroom - the father and mother bedroom - to the children bedroom, we need to walk two steps and open two doors. We have to go down to the kitchen, open the door to the kitchen to the living room - open the door from the living room to the garage - to a kind of a study and from that study to the garage and walk up the stairs and get to the other bedroom. And that makes us uncomfortable a little bit. During the night we cannot hear our son - and somebody has to get him to bed and sleep with him for awhile before he gets comfortable with being alone. He feels that being so far apart and no access to the second floor, he doesn't feel close. The hall that was made the second addition above the garage - we understood that it was made for the purpose of having 5 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 somebody to provide help for Mrs. Boykin, she was an old lady and we found that they have walkie-talkie between one bedroom to the other bedroom - in case of emergency somebody can call the old lady or the old lady can call for assistance to the tenant who is living in the second floor on the east side. So we feel that (unintelligible) can use the house that this is a serious problem and will be very important for us if we can create that space so we can make the bedrooms more together and accessible from one bedroom to the other bedroom. In addition to this we feel that the proposed alteration will improve the appearance of the house. Again we have two drawings made by an architect and I showed them to Mr. DiPasquale and I talked to him, that in case this appeal should be approved, he would be willing to provide us with a design - being a person who is sensitive and a neighbor - he will do the best to make the operation as better as he can, to improve the house and not to damage or to do something wrong, as it is, so the house will be improved by this addition - the appearance of the house. I also feel that the existing attic which is almost a living space (unintelligible) the height is useless and being five and a half feet high, at the center - in order to live we need about eight - nine feet high, (unintelligible) height of the roof, so by raising by four feet - about foor feet or four and a half feet, this will be a minor modification to the existing roof - to the existing house. It will add to the beauty of the house, without changing anything which is valuable in the house. MR. SIEVERDING: That increase in height - the four feet, six - is that the center? MR. PETRINA: That is the center. 6 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 MR. SIEVERDING: Is that lower or any different than what you had proposed last time? MR. PETRINA: It is lower by two feet. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Two feet lower. MR. PETRINA: I proposed at that time to go with a different slope. So now the slope is flatter. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I see, flatten the pitch of the roof. . . MR. PETRINA: Because in the previous design, I intended to have windows at the east and west side but now there are no windows over there - the windows will be only on the south side and probably on the north side - but will not be on the ends, so that can be lower so it will increase the roof only by the minimum necessary to be able to walk - which is about eight feet - eight feet will provide enough room inside. MR. OAKLEY: I am perhaps confused, but I don't actually see - we are talking about shadows and sun light and so forth and I don't actually see what - you know, looking at the building and so forth - what effect the peak has on the shadow and the adjoining yard - except in rather early morning. It seems to me the shadow is - the thing that really affects the shadow is the north wall. MR. PETRINA: I think that comment of Mr. DiPasquale's - that the shadow was - he realized after I talked to him that it was inaccurate, because the house is exactly east-west and he has a garage next to our house, so his garage is as high as the house is and that garage provided the shadow on his property in the morning. Now as the sun rises - in the noon - the shadow gets very different from the house and by raising this, it will not affect. . . 7 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 MR. OAKLEY: I don't think any normal amount of peak on that roof would affect the shadow at noon time. MR. PETRINA: But even by moving that - it just doesn't change - because of moving the peak - so I proved that to him. We can do technical - actually I am a structural engineer - we have a program - you can (unintelligible) the sun (unintelligible) and I showed him that but they didn't want to - I didn't feel that that would be relevant to you. I took several pictures, which I forgot to bring to you, from all parts of the house to indicate that the house is surrounded by trees and the problem of the shadow are the trees and not the house because in many buildings which I can see - high buildings - if there are no trees there is grass near the building and very nice growth but if there is a tree - under the tree things are different - so I think that was kind of a misunderstanding and I explained personally to Mr. DiPasquale and he said that was not the case but they added something - they did it that way - at that time they were not happy with our appeal - they didn't know who we are - we didn't know how to behave - we moved late in the house - because there was a problem with the access to the end of the house so it took us two months to get approval and acceptance from Cornell University - there is a ten foot lane which they - lately, that might become an official street - in the back of the house - so for that we were holding for one month - the appeal which I submitted before that - before we moved into the house and I did not know to approach Mr. DiPasquale to explain. Probably if I would do that in advance - before the appeal - to talk with him, I could make him understand what my intentions are and probably the result of the appeal would be different. But at that time I didn't 8 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 know how the thing should be done, after that I didn't have anything against Mr. DiPasquale, like a good neighbor that I want to be - I called him right away - I told him who I am. I told him that I lost my appeal and I felt that I lost the appeal because of his asking you for denying and I felt that regardless of the result would be, at least I wanted to clarify a few things with him. Number 1, if I do anything, I 'm not going to damage his property - everything can be worked from one side - which is our side - the shadow is not going to be increased - the house is not going to be much fuller than it is - all the houses around are much fuller than his house - the population in that area will not increase too much because just ten feet from our house - fifteen feet from our house - is a sorority with one hundred (?) and ten girls living there and they play music - they behave like teenagers behave and we are quiet people and I told him that it is better if we are there than somebody else and he agreed with that. So, based on that he said "I agree and I 'm not going to write anything against you and I 'll give you my phone number and I promise you to give in writing since". . . even, he promised me to attend but after that he called me Friday and said he doesn't feel easy to attend this meeting and I did not question why. But I got a friend in him with regard to (unintelligible) - he promised to do the architectural job for me. I told him that I would hire him and he promised. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's fine, we don't need to know the details. MR. PETRINA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further comments with respect to the improvement of your appeal on other fronts? MR. PETRINA: No. 9 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 CHAIRMAN TONI,AN: All right then I 'm going to open it up to questions from members of the Board. officially. MR. SIEVERDING: Oh, I 'm sorry. As I recall at last months meeting, I 'm not sure whether the letter from DiPasquale was the main reason why your appeal was denied. As I remember, during the course of the conversation, there seemed to be a lot of objection over the potential increase of intensity of use by adding the additional bedroom, relative to the size of the lot, I wondered whether you have a comment on that? MR. PETRINA: That additional living space is going to add about twenty-four percent to the actual living space of the house. The entire floor of the house is fifty-two by twenty feet and at both ends there is a second floor and a portion of the center is about twenty by twenty, so that to add to - about seventeen hundred square feet - you have another four hundred square feet - about twenty-four percent. That would be the additional living space. But that additional living space doesn't carry right away - the people who use it - in the sense of - it is going to be our family - we are the family living there. I do not understand exactly - when you said a) (unintelligible) is going to increase or the people living in the house? MR. SIEVERDING: People living in the house. MR. PETRINA: We have a family of six and - I have four boys and me and my wife - three are in Romania and one is here. We are going to get another one soon - and we expect the other two to come - it might take a year before the other two come and when they come we are going to live in that house, small or big. We have no choice. So even if we don't raise the roof, we are still going to stay 10 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 crowded in that house. At this point in time, I don't see a solution just because we happen to have four boys and I couldn't buy a larger property - I 'm not going to change that - I can not do it. I thought last time that I would get you at the heart - maybe I did it in the wrong way, emphasizing that I need that space for my family - which actually I need. But I can live without that space in a way, probably now I more need to have a good access from one end to the other. I feel - I like to be able to walk to my son and walk twenty feet and get in my door - and figure that if the building is open I can hear him - or I can leave a light on and he can hear us - or I can hear if something happens. Now if that room can be used for living, that would be better for me - that is the truth. So we will be a family of six altogether in this country and the house will be mine - I am going to use it. I don't know if it is the law that we are too many for a small house, is something wrong, I do not know. MR. SIEVERDING: There is no limit on the size of families that can occupy a dwelling. MR. PETRINA: I don't know if I 've answered your question. MR. SIEVERDING: Yes you have, basically. MR. PETRINA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: If I could interject here, I 'm going to ask, if I might, the Building Commissioner to explain the revision of August 29, the worksheet we've been given here today is different from the worksheet we were given last month for the existing building. Perhaps it would be useful to compare and contrast. SECRETARY HOARD: Okay. The original worksheet gave information that was taken from a site plan that was submitted by the previous 11 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 owner's architect and when Mr. Petrina brought in the survey today, it showed that this tongue of land that goes from the property to Wyckoff Avenue is actually just a right-of-way and is not part of this parcel, so we had to change everything. The two of us actually, made the calculations. MR. PETRINA: Actually at the first appeal I provided the right documents but somehow they were not exactly taken. . . am I right? I didn't try to mislead you in any way. . . SECRETARY HOARD: No you didn't do anything to mislead us. The worksheet that I used was taken from the worksheet from this previous appeal and now that we have the accurate information, I've revised the worksheets. MR. SIEVERDING: You are referring to this six foot right-of-way that goes from the property out to Wyckoff, on the survey map here? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: And that wasn't included in the last appeal? MR. OAKLEY: I thought last month (unintelligible) the lot was 1.7 feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well what happens is - if you want to compare, gentlemen, the two sheets, okay? What happens is, last month we have on the right hand side "remarks" Okay/ - last month it was 23.7% deficient and this month it is 33.5% deficient. Last month 84.4% deficient - this month a 100. 0% deficient - as existing conditions. Then going down - Okay - Okay - it says on this months first sheet. . . MR. OAKLEY: Isn't that the other way around? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Pardon? This is revised as of the 29th of August - this is last months. 12 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The condition got worse without that tongue of land. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's the point. SECRETARY HOARD: Because there is no frontage on the (unintelligible) . . MR. PECK: And that three tenths of a foot setback has to be more than a 7% deficit at ten feet. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: So the extent of the deficiencies are minimized as a consequence of this (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) right. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's another way of stating it. Further comments? MR. PETRINA: I 'd like to - I don't know how you judge which is the access to the house - from which side of the house is the access to the front yard - from the east or the west side? SECRETARY HOARD: Well we've considered it from the Wyckoff side because that is the only public street, but if the back - at the alley there - becomes a public right-of-way then everything reverses. MR. PETRINA: I have documents in which our access to the house is from the east side and the east side is thirty-five feet (unintelligible) the lot. It is not from that side - from the Wyckoff - you cannot have access - only to walk - there are trees over there - you cannot go by car - you can't go by fire - if you needed to in an emergency - there are big trees - you can walk through the - its a sidewalk - it is access for walking. The other side of the house is the real access and that's the way we will use 13 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 the house and during this process of buying the house we got - and I have the letter of agreement made between Cornell University and Katerine Payne, Executor of Minnie Boykin in which Cornell University agreed or stated in writing that the ten feet wide lane running from Wyckoff Avenue to Thurston Avenue adjoining the parcel 9601 is going to stay there and is going to be used by me and I have access from both streets - from Wyckoff Avenue and Thurston Avenue on the ten feet lane. So I almost can call that front - I don't know - only the house (unintelligible) from Wyckoff but the actual access is from that ten feet lane. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] The case is ours. 14 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1867 FOR 201-1/2 WYCKOFF AVENUE CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Did you have a technical question? MR. OAKLEY: No. It is just that if the alley becomes a street then does he have grandfather rights to park in his front yard? SECRETARY HOARD: He can park on the street. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Discussion? MR. OAKLEY: Having gone out to this site, I was much more convinced of the validity of the neighbor's objections, they were much more brought home to me. Now to find that the neighbor no longer is objecting is a surprise to me. But I guess if the neighbor no longer objects that's something to take into account. It does strike me that this is a rather special area in terms of the buildings to the - the buildings all around it but (unintelligible) buildings to the south of the structure are certainly very high density buildings and in terms of people per square foot of ground space I can't imagine he can live with his entire family in that building but (unintelligible) anything like the level of buildings right adjacent to him. In addition there are, in terms of the density, the number of people who 'can get into the house - the number of people who subsequently - due to his family moving out - are still limited by the requirements of a family per living unit and they would have to come to us to divide the dwelling in some way to put in more than three unrelated people. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Can I come back and ask what you think of as an adjacent dwelling? MR. OAKLEY: Well there are dormitories or sororities. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh, so you are thinking of dormitories not, for example, the immediately adjacent neighbors? 15 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 MR. OAKLEY; No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There are dormitories around? MR. OAKLEY: Yes. (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: Even immediately on the one side. MR. PECK: That's a sorority on that side. MR. SIEVERDING: With that fence separating it from the subject property. I guess my view is that this isn't very much different from last time. I think he has reduced the mass of the addition by lowering the roof line on each side - eight foot wall - at the edge, but I think relative to the increase in density issue, I think what is being proposed is consistent with what zoning allows and I don't think it is inappropriate for the site relative to the surrounding properties - it is a high density neighborhood and I don't think what he is proposing here exacts on that neighborhood any greater burden than any of the other surrounding properties. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack? MR. PECK: I guess I 'm a little bit like John, in that when I actually saw the house I was impressed with how crammed in there it is. I guess I am much more up in the air this time then I was last time - much more undecided then I was - I can tell that I 'm going to be a big help - I don't have anymore to say. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Charles? MR. WEAVER: I don't want to try to make this a federal case but I do find it something that we've seen before - we keep getting applications for the conversion of carriage houses or other auxiliary buildings in residential areas already existing and would make nice little apartments. The present members have all been 16 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 exposed, at least, to the one on Cascadilla Place - or North Tioga Street. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Right alongside the creek? MR. WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The one that was going to be demolished but it is being painted I noticed. MR. WEAVER: Yes, and a new roof. But anyway, I see that and I see this, which, frankly was built as a studio to serve the occupant in the main house and put out what was the back yard which by action of others was converted to living space and now we are faced with that original structure plus an addition over the garage and now an addition of two more rooms over what was the original attic. The structure can stand all of this I'm sure and that near to Cornell I guess there is nobody worrying about density. But the Ordinance doesn't give me any comfort at all. Here is a building with no street frontage but we do have minimum frontage. Here is a building on a lot that meets practically none of the requirements for the description of the minimum size lot and although I am not at all unsympathetic with the predicament of where do you put six people, I do have great trouble with where do you put this in line with measuring against the Zoning Ordinance what's allowable and what is not. I don't think we need to go down together - down this worksheet - but the worksheet indicates severe deficiencies in size and position on the lot. I don't know that we've ever had a case where someone appealed to use a property that had no street frontage - we've had one where the argument in the Courts was over whether a public right-of-way or long used lane - that wasn't a City Street - and that I think has been settled to local 17 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 satisfaction - to say that the public lane constituted an adequate street frontage, assuming that it had some kind of frontage on that lane. Here we don't have frontage on anything, even though this becomes a public right-of-way, you are ten foot from Thurston back to Wait - maybe someday, and maybe soon become a public way and anyone that wishes can drive through there. Maybe we might later have a ten foot width lot - that would certainly be straining the definitions that are currently in the Ordinance. We have no frontage on Wyckoff - we have a lot that's clearly too small and we have setbacks that are severely deficient - just from a technical standpoint, I don't know where we would then go for describing a sub-standard and unacceptable lot. What would one of those look like? We would say, you don't need street frontage. We would say that it is okay to be too small. We would say that setbacks don't amount to much - thirty percent is good enough and forty-one percent is good enough and zero is good enough for setbacks and then to say no street frontage either. I find the lot - not the people or the proposition or anything of the sort - I find it very, very difficult to see where would we be next month with what amounts to - technically - a very similar - or much easier proposition, such as our barn down there - heck, there is density there - just go to the nearest house. MR. SIEVERDING: Well your point is certainly well taken Charlie, I guess my question would be is that all of those deficiencies are existing regardless of any addition to the property. MR. WEAVER: The deficiencies are - and because they are, the appellant has to be before this Board for an exception - because it is already non-conforming, as you say. It is already 18 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 non-conforming, it will be, it is. The question is what this Board grants the variance on - not a question of what ought to be, what the Code ought to say, or anything of the sort, but rather upon what basis does this Board grant variances? Certainly a most attractive proposition to help this family, I don't know what could be more attractive - it is not someone trying to develop some space to get another apartment to rent, quite the contrary, so as far as doing nice things is concerned, this is easy. As to deciding where we will ever make a stand on minimum standards for granting a variance I do not know. MR. SIEVERDING: Regardless of whether or not the granting of that variance has absolutely no bearing on any of the deficiencies? I mean that's really the point of my question, I mean, the addition itself doesn't effect in any way any of these existing deficiencies. It is the same. . . with or without. . . MR. WEAVER: That's exactly why they are here - because they want to expand a non-conforming use and that's exactly what you've described. We have that - that's regular. . . you see almost all the additions - we don't make a frequent use of the fact that the footprint hasn't been changed and therefore. . . it just seems to me we recognize that someone was trying to describe density and not density in the neighborhood - but density on a piece of land. We were trying to say if you put a structure there it needs certain minimum things to be amenable to human habitation - which means front yard, access to the street, and not too much building per square foot - not too high a percent. MR. SIEVERDING: I guess what I was trying to (unintelligible) though is that we routinely grant variances in cases where these 19 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 types of conditions exist on the basis that, if the proposed renovation to the property doesn't "exacerbate" any of those deficiencies and I guess why, in your mind, does that rationale not work in this case? MR. WEAVER: It's a matter of degree. It's absolutely a matter of degree, in other words, if that would - I don't see any reason for it coming to the Board if that's it, why not adopt it as part of the Ordinance and say that you can do anything you want to with a structure as long as that change does not exacerbate existing deficiencies. So a non-conforming building is a free shot. CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Tom, do you want to say something? SECRETARY HOARD: I agree with Mr. Weaver one hundred percent, if this were a carriage house being converted or something like that, probably for a lot of the same reasons even, putting zoning aside, there are a lot of safety reasons for not granting the use of accessory buildings for residential use. But in this case the thing that troubles me is that the previous owner - when she applied for a variance to make a lot of modifications to the building, she intentionally tried to isolate one end of the building from the other in terms of individuals who would be living in each end of the building without any interference from the person at the other end of the building. Now we have a family there and having children at one end of the building and the parents in the other - from a life/safety standpoint that really bothers me. I would like to see that - as a father of young children myself - even though the kids are in the next room, sometimes that isn't close enough - and I think that is a reason for exception that transcends the zoning and this house is on the 20 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 edge of the R-2 zone, which means that it is pretty much locked in to being a family unit and I think if it is locked in to being a family unit, let's let them make it a family unit (unintelligible) Mr. Weaver. . . MR. WEAVER: No, you raise a point that I hadn't addressed yet and that is, as I understand the zoning here, that this could legally become a multiple. SECRETARY HOARD: Well it has so many different problems that you have been talking about that I don't see how it could get a variance to become a two-family. It certainly wouldn't qualify (unintelligible) two-family. It would need a variance because it doesn't meet the requirements for either a single family or a two-family home - it is a grandfathered situation. So anything they do requires a variance of some kind. MR. OAKLEY: I do have a slight disagreement with Charlie. I understood, from what Charlie was saying, that our function is in a way, to look at the deficiency column and calculate in our minds what is acceptable degree of deficiency and what is an unacceptable degree of deficiency and to go well beyond what the Ordinance accepts is to nullify the Ordinance altogether but it seems to me that, quite the contrary is true, that if there was some sort of - you know, five or ten percent fudge factor, there there would not be much need for this Board and that our role is, in fact, to judge not just how much - sort of, error the designers of the Ordinance intended to put into that - but to look at specific cases and make specific judgements about whether what is being proposed is an appropriate use for the very peculiar circumstances that do arise. I mean, we are not here to look at the fact - we are not here to 21 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 sort of allow people the little extra five percent - we are here to help people deal with the fact that the Zoning Ordinance has changed - that the rules for drawing up lot lines has changed, and that we are, in a sense, here to take into account those changes and to try to make as much sense out of them as possible. If that requires a significant departure from the numbers of the Ordinance, I 'm not particularly bothered by that. If we all think that it's basically a good use of the property, and a use of the property that is going to someway help preserve the character of the neighborhood and is not going to injure the neighborhood, it seems to me that that is precisely what we are here to make a judgement on and when somebody comes before us and asks to have it divided into a duplex, it is precisely our role to make the judgement that that is not an appropriate use of the property. And I have no doubt that - you know - coming before almost any Board, any conceivable Board, anyway - that if somebody wanted to make that into a duplex, they would be rejected out of hand. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I 'm glad you don't have any doubt about it, I 'm not exactly sure I would go so far. MR. OAKLEY: Well I don't want to caste any aspersions on any political [unintelligible] CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's wise, I think. I 'm kind of curious - John, how far do you think - you said, five percent wasn't an issue - what would be an issue for you? MR. OAKLEY: Well I thought for Charlie that five percent is not an issue. There have been cases where I have thought five percent was an issue or to put it another way, where I thought I was very glad there was the five percent, because I thought there was a serious 22 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 issue which related, in some broader sense, to the intention of the Ordinance in terms of the density - well if you take a case that we have all - you have run across more than I have - the Ithaca Fitness Center. There are area deficiencies there which are, I think are a convenience that allows us to prevent Mr. Martin from doing some things that we think are totally inappropriate. I think to a great extent we would not normally have much problem with that particular area deficiency - I think that the spirit of the Ordinance is not that everybody should be separated from their neighbor but that everybody should be - I mean, I presume we have some sort of fire code intention that buildings should not be built side by side so that fires transfer from one to the other - I don't see that as being a significant problem here. There are requirements about - there is applied in the Ordinance some feeling that you ought to have a certain amount of space to live in, a certain amount of space outside of the house - I think in this case, at least in an R-2 zone, in this case with a family of six, that is a concern. The lot size is a concern - it is hard to conceive of constraining that family to that particular lot. But I don't think that anyone should draw a particular line at which an area deficiency becomes unacceptable. There is no sort of scale or equation in the Zoning Ordinance and I honestly don't think there should be one, I think we are capable of looking at specific cases and making specific judgements and I think that last week when we were looking at - last month when we were looking at the two different cases - actually earlier this month - that it was clear to the people who had the opportunity to see both places that there was a significant difference between the two places because of the 23 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 area around it and varying circumstances and the Board, in fact, had very little difficulty - at least those people who had seen the two places had very little difficulty in making that judgement and it seems to me that that is why we have a Board rather than a set of (unintelligible) . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thanks. Further comments, perhaps we are moving closer to a motion? Perhaps the same motions? 24 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1867 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: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1867. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There is a practical difficulty relative to size of lot which cannot be changed because of the existing development and unavailability of additional land to increase the size of this lot. 2 . The use of the property is consistent with zoning of the area. 3. Although the deficiencies may appear excessive, none of those deficiencies is in any way affected by the proposed renovation to the property. 4. The proposed renovation makes the unit more functional and useable as a dwelling unit for families particularly. 5. This variance will not result in any change that is inconsistent with the character• of the neighborhood or the spirit of the Ordinance. VOTE: 4 YES; 1 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED 25 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal Mr. Chairman is APPEAL NUMBER 1868 FOR 528 SPENCER ROAD: Appeal of William E. Deats for an area variance for a deficient side yard setback under Section 30.25, Column 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the expansion of an existing enclosed porch on the single-family house at 528 Spencer Road for a family room. 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 side yard before a building permit can be issued for the proposed alteration. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Come forward if you would. Have a seat and let us know who you are and where you live. MR. DEATS: My name is Bill Deats, I live at 528 Spencer Road. I just moved into the house last August and the back porch is kind of indented into the rectangular structure. My proposal is just to take that indentation and the rectangle and bring it into the house extending out to the north at the back of the house by four feet. I would bring the roof line in line - right now it is a lower roof line - it has like a porch roof and I would want to raise that up to the existing roof line on the back of the house, which is a shed roof - which is presently on the back of the house. The use of this room will be just to extend the family living area - the house is quite small and it will give my wife a sewing area, myself a painting area and a desk area. PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 CHAIRMAN TOMIAN: Questions from members of the Board? [none] This seems straight forward - you have dumb-founded them all. Thanks much. We'll go on. 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] The case is ours. PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1868 FOR 528 SPENCER ROAD The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for an area variance to permit the expansion of an existing enclosed porch on the single-family house located at 528 Spencer Road for a family room. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1868. MR. PECK: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The change in the structure will not exacerbate any of the existing minor deficiency in the second side yard set back. 2. The proposed addition will improve the amenity of the home. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO AREA VARIANCE GRANTED PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal Number 1869 for 113 Treva Avenue: Appeal of Pamela J. Kingsbury for an area variance for deficient lot size and a deficient side yard setback under Section 30.25, Columns 6 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of additions to the front, side, and rear of the single-family house at 113 Treva Avenue for additional living space. The property is located in an R-1b (Residential, one-family dwellings) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the proposed additions. The appellant is also requesting a variance from Section 30.42 of the Zoning Ordinance (Location of Accessory Structures) to permit the construction of a carport in the required front yard. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MS. KINGSBURY: My name is Pamela Kingsbury, I live at 113 Treva Avenue. I would like to do some alterations to the house which I believe will improve its function and improve its aesthetic qualities and also take care of some of the existing deficiencies. The house is presently twenty feet wide by twenty-eight feet long, it is very small, it is functionally inappropriate for a single family residence. We have bedrooms which are only about seven feet by nine feet in size and the living room is long and narrow and difficult to furnish. It has a small bathroom and a very small PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 kitchen. The residence also has a screened in back porch which I would like to replace. It is in deteriorated condition - the roof leaks considerably, the floor boards are substantially warped and it is also very unappealing to look at. I would like to replace the back porch with an addition to improve the size of the house and I would also like to provide a side addition to improve the size of the house and a very small front addition which will enlarge the bathroom and also cover an existing sewer line which is presently above grade and which freezes in the winter time. In line with that work, I would like to build a small garden wall that I can build and also cover the remainder of that sewer line with. Later on I would like to provide parking area which will be set back further from the Treva Avenue street and which will then conform with the existing zoning. I think generally what I am doing here complies with all zoning requirements. I am adding in the direction where I have sufficient room to do so which is to the front, to the one side and to the rear where the existing porch is and I think that - with the work that's going on it will improve its value and also improve the value of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Yes, I have a question. Asking for the expansion of the parking space and the erection of a carport both pose problems in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. It is not a generally allowable place for an auxiliary structure, even though in our curious world it is okay to park a car there. I 'm not the author. MS. KINGSBURY: The problem with parking right now is that it is half on and half off my property. All I want to do is pull it back. PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 MR. WEAVER: I understand. Well if it's your intent to conform to the law and not park on the City right-of-way I 'm not nervous about that, I doubt that they are going to make a fifth lane on Treva this year, and considering the grade change and everything and the amount of work that would be necessary to get a half a car further away from the center of Treva Avenue - just - in my simple mind - isn't worth anything until somebody makes you do it rather than you coming to us appealing to do it and I just wondered what you felt about that - are you doing it because you think it would bring your property more in conformance with the Ordinance or because you really want to get it off the street? MS. KINGSBURY: I think it does three things - I think that number 1 it will get the car off the property, number 2 putting up a carport will protect my car and number 3 I think it will improve the value of the property. MR. WEAVER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Where is the carport going to be built? MS. KINGSBURY: It will go in the existing parking area only above and back from the frontage. I 'm bringing it back about ten feet. MR. SIEVERDING: And the deficiency is created how - no accessory structure in the front yard? SECRETARY HOARD: In the front yard, so it would have to be twenty-five feet back. MR. SIEVERDING: Is the carport part of the overall appeal or is that something. . . MS. KINGSBURY: It is part of the overall appeal at this time. I don't intend to do the work for probably a year. PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. PECK: No - that was the only problem I had with the lot when I saw it - the carport in front and the amount of fill it would take to back that up ten feet. I don't know how we feel about having a structure that close to the street, it is not a busy street obviously - it is a deadend. Out your front window, instead of having a car, you'll have a building to look at. MS. KINGSBURY: Out my front window? MR. PECK: That's something to think about. MS. KINGSBURY: I have thought about what it will look like and it will simply be a very open structure that is build of natural wood with a hipped roof on it and also some type of arbor work. MR. SIGNOR: It won't require fill. I think you are planning on. . . MS. KINGSBURY: I am planning on. . . MR. SIGNOR: Post and beam. . . MR. WEAVER: Excuse me. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Excuse me, you'll have to identify yourself for the record, that's one of the things we didn't do. MR. SIGNOR: I 'm sorry. I work with Pamela, my name is Dan Signor and. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You live where? MR. SIGNOR: I work with Pamela at Tony Egnor's office. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] It doesn't look as though anyone is willing to speak one way or the other except those of us on the Board. It's all ours. PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1869 FOR 113 TREVA AVENUE MR. WEAVER: Is the position of Chairman a permanent. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, I point that out at every opportunity - it is not a permanent position. In fact, in another three months, Charlie. . . SECRETARY HOARD: We've got a lot of ballots here. MR. SIEVERDING: I think the only aspect of this particular appeal that I 'm a little thrown with is the carport and its relation to the street and other properties. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well to make a further comment on that, if you were to allow it here where else would you allow it, I mean, in a broader sense and for what reason? I can think of a lot of people who would like carports in their front yard for any number of reasons - there are a lot of other situations very similar. And I think there has been a general drift, has there not been - floating around in the Planning Department someplace - to restrict the amount of activity that goes on in front yards by virtue of parking and other things? SECRETARY HOARD: They don't want you to do anything in the front yard anymore. MR. OAKLEY: Yes, it is certainly my impression, certainly, that the tendency is to keep things out of the front yards for the, I assume, greater aesthetic enjoyment of the citizens of Ithaca. MR. WEAVER: Well regardless of what the Common Council thinks this week, what we work with here is very clear - it provides for parking in the front yard and it does not allow a structure out there. The other thing is whether the failure of that portion of the appeal will do serious injury to the needs of the householder - PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 I think it is going to affect my opinion of whether that's going to be approved or not. MR. SIEVERDING: I caught that Charlie. MR. OAKLEY: In other words what you are saying is that if the whole thing is a single appeal then you might vote against it on the basis of. . . MR. WEAVER: The building has a parking space that is useful and effective currently. There isn't any shelter for the car and the only reason I can see for including an approval for the carport there is that there be a strong need for it. It is demonstrated all over town that you don't have to give them shelter even though they do suffer injury as a result. MR. SIEVERDING: But we have to consider this as one - we can't separate. . . SECRETARY HOARD: No, you can separate it. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Okay. MR. OAKLEY: We could put a condition on saying. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that's what I was thinking because technically this is the appeal. One could condition it in reverse, I suppose, in such a way. . . SECRETARY HOARD: The Board has cut up appeals before and said (unintelligible) unless the appellant objects to. . . MR. WEAVER: If it is cut up, however, we are altering a non-conforming structure and we'd have to - if we deny the carport - we continue a lack of off-street parking. I don't know how we handle that in the conditional granting but. . . MR. OAKLEY: There is nothing. . . PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 MR. WEAVER: Unless we ignore the whole affair and do whatever you want to. . . MR. OAKLEY: I think we can ignore the fact that there is an existing parking deficiency. . . that might be an excuse for granting the variance but I don't think it is any. . . MR. WEAVER: Okay. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Herman, question? MR. SIEVERDING: There is a parking space there? MR. WEAVER: Under the definition of the City Civil Ordinance - it says that if you have a parking space it has to be on your land. MR. SIEVERDING: Your land. . . MR. WEAVER: They do not have a parking space - about fifty/fifty. MR. SIEVERDING: Half on City land and half on their. . . MR. WEAVER: And there isn't any sidewalk along there and it is inside the curb. MR. SIEVERDING: I noticed that - okay, fine. The probability of that being changed is fairly remote - to ignore it is probably a way to go. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I didn't hear a thing but I was hoping to hear a motion. MR. OAKLEY: Is it my turn? I 'd like to divide it actually. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Come on - to the motion. I move that. . . MR. OAKLEY: Well my problem is that are we in favor of dividing this into two motions? Are we in favor of doing a. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Why don't you make a motion, okay? With some findings of fact - we'll find a second and then we'll go to work on it. We'll beat it into shape, okay? PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES - 8/29/88 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1869 FOR 113 TREVA AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Pamela J. Kingsbury for an area variance to permit the construction of additions to the front, side, and rear of the single-family house at 113 Treva Avenue for additional living space as well as a variance from Section 30.42 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a carport in the required front yard. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1869 with the condition that the carport proposed for the front yard not be built. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed additions do not exacerbate the existing deficiencies. 2 . It would be difficult to solve the existing deficiencies as it is not possible to buy additional land and it is impractical to move the building. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO GRANTED W/CONDITION PAGE 36 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 1867, 1868 and 1869 on August 29, 1988, in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. Barbara C . Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this 'e day of QJ -� , 1988 "Notary Public JET",! _3. HANKINSON NOTARY Y!J�I_�`..:.=rr::.Tc OF NEW YORZ n. QUALIFIED 01 T cOUI`�.Ti l MY COMMISSION 30.I8