Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1990-01-08 The January 8, 1990 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was opened by Secretary Datz. He asked for nominations for the election of a Chairperson. Motion was made by Beatrice MacLeod to nominate Michael Tomlan and seconded by Herman Sieverding; 4 ayes. The meeting was then turned over to Chairperson Tomlan, who asked for a motion to adopt the Rules and Regulations of the Board. Motion was made by Herman Sieverding and seconded by Jack Peck to re-adopt the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Motion carried unanimously. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight are: MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIR BEATRICE MACLEOD HERMAN SIEVERDING JACK PECK JANIS COCHRAN ERIC DATZ, SECRETARY, BUILDING COMMISSIONER AND ZONING OFFICER CAROL SNIPE, RECORDING SECRETARY Chair Tomlan read the Rules and Regulations of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. APPEAL NO. 1946 Appeal of William Kaupe for a special permit for a home occupation under Section 30.26-J of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant is proposing to use one room in his home as an office to prepare real estate inspection reports. The single family three-bedroom home at 611 North Cayuga Street is located in an R-2B (Residential) Use District in which a home occupation is permitted by special permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals. PAGE 1 B Z A MINUTES - 1/8/1990 Appellant, William Kaupe of 611 North Cayuga Street began his presentation by distributing a site plan and layout of the proposed off-street parking, and a copy of a lease for parking to the Board members. He stated that he plans to do real estate inspections of properties outside the City of Ithaca, and that most of his transactions would be handled by mail, but he will be able to provide off-street parking should anyone come to his home. He answered the Board's questions by stating that this would be strictly a part-time activity, and that the parking was necessary to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The proposed room for the home occupation is strictly an office with desks, filing cabinets, computers, etc. Chairman Tomlan asked for anyone wishing to speak either in favor of or against this appeal; there was no one. Motion was made by Beatrice MacLeod that Appeal No. 1946 be granted. Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. There will not be any changes in the footprint of the house, yard or the property. 2. The type of work in the home occupation would entail no disruption, nuisance, hazard or negative effect to the neighborhood. 3 . The proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 4. The appellant has met all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a special permit. Motion was seconded by Herman Sieverding. There was no further discussion and a vote was taken: 5 Yes; 0 No Granted. APPEAL NO. 1947 Appeal of Charles F. Hoover for an area variance for deficient front yard and a special permit for a home occupation under Section 30.25, Column 11 and Section 30.26-J of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant is proposing to construct a new single family five-bedroom home on a vacant lot at 209 Utica PAGE 2 B z AIx ,S - 1� X1990 Street in an R-2B (Residential) Use District and use part of his home for his architectural business. An area variance is needed before a building permit can be issued because the appellant is proposing to have his front yard in conformance with the adjoining properties, which are deficient by six feet; and a special permit is required for a home occupation. Appellant Charles Hoover, 411 Second Street, stated he would like to build a five-bedroom home at 209 Utica Street and use part of his house as his office. Chairman Tomlan asked that the appellant deal with the area variance first and then the home occupation. It was decided that the Board would consider the appeal in this order. Mr. Hoover stated that he thought the house would look better if it were in conformance with the other houses on the street, which have approximately four feet front yards. This would give him a bigger rear yard. The Zoning Ordinance requires a ten foot front yard. He stated that he had not checked the utilities to know if they would create a problem with building location. The practical concern is that, as a family, he needs more space in the back yard. Mr. Peck explained that the Board considers practical difficulties when area variances are requested, and that they cannot grant variances when deficiencies are created where none presently exist. Mr. Hoover felt that' this would be part of neighborhood preservation and in conformance with the streetscape. Chairman Tomlan asked what his re-design would entail, and the appellant stated that he had provided a site plan with proper front yard setbacks. Chairman Tomlan asked if there were questions from the Board concerning the special permit. Mr. Hoover stated that his business entails one full-time person, and his wife does the bookkeeping. There is anothererson working g part-time. The nature of the business is drafting. He has only occasional meetings, averaging not more than one a day. In his present location on Second Street, he stated that the neighborhood g ood PAGE 3 B Z A MINUTES - 1/8/1990 Street in an R-2B (Residential) Use District and use part of his home for his architectural business. An area variance is needed before a building permit can be issued because the appellant is proposing to have his front yard in conformance with the adjoining properties, which are deficient by six feet; and a special permit is required for a home occupation. Appellant Charles Hoover, 411 Second Street, stated he would like to build a five-bedroom home at 209 Utica Street and use part of his house as his office. Chairman Tomlan asked that the appellant deal with the area variance first and then the home occupation. It was decided that the Board would consider the appeal in this order. Mr. Hoover stated that he thought the house would look better if it were in conformance with the other houses on the street, which have approximately four feet front yards. This would give him a bigger rear yard. The Zoning Ordinance requires a ten foot front yard. He stated that he had not checked the utilities to know if they would create a problem with building location. The practical concern is that, as a family, he needs more space in the back yard. Mr. Peck explained that the Board considers practical difficulties when area variances are requested, and that they cannot grant variances when deficiencies are created where none presently exist. Mr. Hoover felt that' this would be part of neighborhood preservation and in conformance with the streetscape. Chairman Tomlan asked what his re-design would entail, and the appellant stated that he had provided a site plan with proper front yard setbacks. Chairman Tomlan asked if there were questions from the Board concerning the special permit. Mr. Hoover stated that his business entails one full-time person, and his wife does the bookkeeping. There is another person working part-time. The nature of the business is drafting. He has only occasional meetings, averaging not more than one a day. In his present location on Second Street, he stated that the neighborhood PAGE 3 B Z A MINUTES - 1/8/1990 perceives very little change in the street traffic in that neighborhood. He stated that his hours were roughly 8:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Monday - Friday. He stated that during the daytime there was quite a few parking spaces available. He will basically be using the front two rooms for his office, and stated that he has designed it so that if his business outgrows his home, he will use those two rooms as a living room and dining room or study. As far as parking, one employee would park in the driveway, and he was planning to have the other person park on the street. chairman Tomlan asked if there was anyone who wished to speak either in favor of, or in opposition to the appeal. For the record, there was no one else in the audience. The Board then deliberated on the appeal. Motion was made by Herman Sieverding that the variance requested in Appeal Number 1947-A be denied. Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. This is new construction on a vacant lot. 2. The appellant has not been able to indicate any practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and has, in fact, presented a site plan that shows a conforming house. 3. While the resulting structure may not physically conform with the rest of the Zoning Ordinance, that same Ordinance requires that practical difficulty be established before any variance is granted. Motion was seconded by Jack Peck and further discussion followed. Ms. MacLeod considered the full-grown tree in the rear yard a valuable asset, and further stated that putting one house in a different conformation in relation to the street and the other houses on the block would damage the aesthetics of - the block. Vote was taken: 4 Yes; 1 No Denied. Motion was made by Herman Sieverding that the variance for the special permit for home occupation be granted. Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. The activity will occur wholly within the residence. PAGE 4 B Z A MINUTES - 1/8/1990 2. There will be no evidence from the exterior of the property that the home occupation is occurring within. 3. Whatever additional parking is generated ' by this activity can be accommodated on-site. 4. Granting of the permit will not have any negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood and will be consistent with the Ordinance and the character of the neighborhood. Motion was seconded by Janis Cochran. There was no further discussion, and a vote was taken: 5 Yes; 0 No Granted. The meeting was adjourned, and the Board went into Executive Session. Respectfully submitted, Carol Shipe Recording Secretary PAGE 5