Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1982-04-27 MINUTES - - Planning & Development Board'.Meeting April 27 1982 PRESENT: P. Rogers, R. Holdsworth, M. Sampson, S. Cummings , R. Moran, E. Stage, H. M. Van Cort, J. Meigs, appellants , interested parties, press 1. Call to order: Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order' at 8:41 p.m. A motion to open the meeting was made by Mr. Moran, seconded by Mr. Sampson. 2. Public hearing regarding subdivision of County property (Boardman House) Garrison Evans, County Planner, appeared for the County. Mr. Meigs explained that"the proposed subdivision would enable the property to be sold, and so put back on the tax rolls. Boardman House and Building C are very close to one another; distance between them ranges from about six feet down to zero. It is physically impossible to lay out a lot line between the two buildings so that the five foot sideyard depth prescribed in Bl-b district regulations is met by both properties. The west side yard is considerably more than the .prescribed minimum. A walkway between Boardman and Building C provides public access to Building C; the County proposes to retain ownership of the walkway, providing Boardman House property with access , including construction and maintenance access, through easements included in the deed. Conr ceras were expressed at the March P&D meeting regarding the proximity of the proposed property line to Boardman, and the County was asked to _ consider moving the line to give more setback and more access. Or, that within the deed for the Boardman House property some specific prove cions be made guaranteeing full and adequate access for maintenance, repair and simple use, Further, the Board recommended that the County make-provision: in the deed specifying that any building which might replace the existing officebuildingbe designed and setback so as to compensate for the deficiencies which will exist in any case with regard to Boardman House. No comments made for or against subdivision from audience. Discussion by the Board followed, regarding the transformer vault which is physically attached to both structures. Mr. Evans commented that then the transformer is no`'longer in use; owners of both properties would have a vital interest in dismantling it cautiously if at all . Since it is attached to a historic building, the Landmarks Commission would be interested in its removal as well . After further Board discussion, a motion to close the hearing was made by Mr. Moran and seconded by Mr. Holdsworth. Motion carried unanimously. A proposed resolution was then read by Mr. Meigs: WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development of the City of Ithaca has given preliminary approval to a: proposal by the County of Tompkins' -to subdivide County-owned property in the City, in order to facilitate sale of the Boardman House, 120 E. Buffalo St. , a locally and nationally designated landmark, and P&D Board, April 27, 1982 2. WHEREAS, the existing conditions of limited physical separation between Boardman House and the County office building to the east, which would share in common the. proposed eastern boundary of the Boardman plot,, preclude provision of the five foot separation presently required by the area's zoning between the buildings `and their common lot line, and WHEREAS, the City has conveyed to the County, by letter of record concerns that the':proposed lot line may restrict access to the east side of Boardman House for maintenance and other purposes, as well as that any future redevelopment of the office building site might not have a desirable amount of visual separation between a new building and Boardman House, and WHEREAS, the final subdivision proposal drafted by the County does not specifically or adequately respond to these concerns and similar concerns expressed by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, be it _RESOLVED. that this Board gives Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed subdivision on the following conditions: 1. That the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Ithaca approve zoning variances for the deficient side yard setbacks, which would be created by the subdivision in any 'case, as well as for the technical deficiency in off- street loading space and 2. That the lot line and other issues be settled to the satis- faction of representatives of the City's Planning and Develop- ment staff and of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, at which time this Final Approval shall become effective. Mr.' Rogers then read a memorandum from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission dated April 27, 1982 regarding the subdivision (copy attached) . A vote on the resolution was called for: Ms. Cummings moved the resolution as presented, seconded by Mr., Stage, carried unanimously. 3. Approval of March minutes: Ms. Cummings suggested that Board's comments regarding zoning appeals and other matters were not fully recorded. Minutes in general were adequate but more attention should be given to the Board's comments. Mr. Sampson moved to approve March minutes, seconded by Mr. Rogers. Carried unanimously. 4. Chairman's report: Mr. Rogers introduced Dr. Everett Stage, the latest appointee" to the Board, and welcomed him. Mr. Rogers then read a March 26 letter from Dr. R. Weiner to the Board regarding the YMCA, suggesting that the City explore the possibility of keeping it in the city by giving it a site in Southwest Park. P&D Board, April 27, 1982 3. The letter was- received by Mr. Rogers but was not received by the Planning staff and they were unaware, therefore, of the contents. Mayor Shaw responded to Dr. Weiner that he felt it would be in- appropriate to make any serious efforts to change the Y 's current direction, unless their fund drive falters and presents an oppor- tunity to re-open the issue. There were no comments from Board on these communications. Ms. Cummings suggested that on future Agendas,.-an item be designated as "Communications". Mr. Rogers mentioned a letter he sent to Charles Weaver, BZA chairman, dated April 7, 1982 in which he discussed the study,- presented to - . this Board in February, of zoning appeals. cases over the past several years. He wrote in hopes of improving communication and understanding between the Planning and Development Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals and is now awaiting a response from Mr. Weaver. He will keep the Board informed. 5. No report from Planning Director or Staff. 6. Committee reports Mr. Moran reported that the Economic Development Committee met on April 19 regarding the Collegetown project. A copy of the Committee report and a draft resolution were distributed to the Board. Ms. Cummings spoke of the visual impact of this large-scale development and suggested design concerns should be added to the resolution. The matter of traffic_c rculation and parking -was also mentioned, and certain amendments to the resolution were suggested. Mr. Rogers made an informal survey over a two-week period on certain streets in Collegetown and he observed no serious shortage of parking:°spaces; the area which appeared to have most problems was on campus. He brought .this to the Board's attention because the parking ramp will certainly be a major component of the project. He felt there definitely was no shortage of overnightparking. Mr. Sampson commented that the University plans to build a new geological science building which"is going to take a good deal of the parking lot behind Hollister Hall , He thought the entire lot would be taken up when the building was under construction, and when the building was complete, there would be more people using the remaining parking spaces. Mr, Holdsworth said the ACC report indicated that the parking lots would be for the employees of the new development project. He would like clarification as'.to who would actually be using the parking ramp. Mr. Sampson stated that it is his perception that the Collegetown business community was to be a.major beneficiary of any parking facility, since it would provide customer parking; he felt that this would likely be.:the case. Mr. Van Cort said the proposed garage was intended to serve staff and users of the Performing Arts Center and the remaining spaces were to be used by others. After further disc__us_sion, _Mr._V_an Cort _-_- -read _a_proposed _revision to the resol_uti on. P&D Board, April 27, 1982 - 4 "Now therefore be it resolved that the Planning and Development Board does recommend to Common Council that it proceed with the next phase of the Collegetown Development Project and, be it further resolved that in the upcoming phase additional investigation of the need for zoning changes, design guidelines, and improvements in parking and circulation be undertaken." No further comments. Motion to send the amended resolution to Council was moved by Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr. Sampson. Carried unanimously. 7. '<-26hing appeals - see attached. 8. `Old. businiess `R-1Zoning: Draft proposal for ordinance amendment to provide more thorough evaluation of school re-use proposals, through a special permit system, is to be referred to the Codes and Administration Committee. It i"s to be discussed further by Council and will probably not come to a vote for a couple of months. Planning Board should have ample opportunity to discuss and suggest other possibilities if ,any exist, Codes and Administration Committee consists of P. Rogers, Chair, R. Holdsworth, and S. Cummings. --HH dropower: Mr. Sampson, who represented the Board on the Hydropower Commission, spoke regarding the status of the Hydropower proposal . The Commission recommended that the City submit a protest to the FERC protesting some of the impacts and features of the projects that have been proposed by Cornell and Synergics. Some of the i.tems `in question were scenic impacts, public access to the falls, safety and noise, and design. - Protest to the FERC will make clear the City's concerns about the proposals that have already been made. City can ' then submit its own proposal that will answer these concerns. _ The Commission recommended that Council authorize a notice of intent to file an application to develop, which must be done almost immediately. This will give the City 120 days to file a formal application. The City has priority over anyone else provided the citizens approve a bond for construction funding by a referendum. The Commission also recommends that the City immediately start looking for an engineering consultant to start preparing preliminary design, cost estimates, etc. Discussion followed regarding tax benefits to`the. City, financing and interest rates, attractiveness of the site, as well as operation of the plant i'n regard to the time of day or month when plant will be operational . The City is not making any big commitment right now and should file a notice of intent as soon as possible. The Board does not need to make any recommendations at this time. 9. -New-business Reconstruction Home: The Journal reports that replacement of the Reconstruction Home, by a Targer facility on the same site, is being discussed. It may be useful for the Board to consider the P&D Board, April 27, 1982 5. impacts of this proposal : the Board's Neighborhood Committee would be the appropriate one to oversee this suggested replacement. Mr. Sampson commented that the old hospital should be considered for this kind of use; Mr. Meigs noted that the County is studying appropriate uses for the Biggs -complex. Ms. Cummings would like to know if the Reconstruction Home does have the right to expand as suggested. Some coordination is needed ,regarding parking, traffic, etc: there is a parking problem now. Mr. Rogers further suggested that the Board review certain other planning-related projects, and he would like an update from staff regarding: Cherry Street Industrial Park (how much money has been expended, what City has gained, etc. ) and an update on Center Ithaca regarding payments due, and if obligations and agreements are being met. Ms. Cummings asked if there is any progress to be reported as`; yet on the Northside Zoning Study. Mr. Meigs said that staff has a draft report which is being reviewed and will be brought before the - Board at the May meeting. 10- Motion for adjournment by Mr. Holdsworth, seconded by Ms, Cummings. MEMORANDUM — ------ - To: Board of Planning &Development Board of Zoning Appeals ,� From: Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 11 k A" Subject: Boardman House Subdivision Date: April 27, 1982 At its April 21 meeting, this Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision and took the position expressed by the following resolution: By Mr. Lifton, seconded by Mr. Jones: WHEREAS Boardman House, 120 E. Buffalo St. , is located in a Historic District of the City, and is also listed individually and as part of' a Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places, and WHEREAS Boardman House is now the subject of a proposed subdivision by Tompkins County, its owner, and WHEREAS the eastern boundary line of the proposed lot containing Boardman House is proposed to be literally inches away from the wall of a portion of Boardman House, and would be overhung by the eaves of the building's roof, and WHEREAS the long-term future of the adjacent County Office Building C, which would share the eastern boundary line above referred to as common property boundary, cannot be guaranteed, and WHEREAS it is the responsibility of this Commission to monitor development in this district, including Boardman House, for the broad purpose of conserving the city's historic resources, it is hereby RESOLVED that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission strongly recommends that the proposed eastern property line of the proposed Boardman House plot be moved three to four feet further east in order to better insure adequate access to the. east side of Boardman House and to provide greater assurance of physical and visual separation between Boardman and any structure which may eventually replace Building C; and that this resolution be conveyed to the Board of Planning and Development and the Board of Zoning Appeals for their consideration in acting on the subdevision and related zoning variance appeal . Motion PASSED unanimously, 4-0. ZONING APPEALS: April 27, 1982 #1430: Appeal of Jonson for area variances to increase number of dwelling units from 2 to 6. Property located .at 329-331 W. Seneca St. in a B-2a district. Land use is permitted. Would provide increased rental income to owner thereby permitting more than basic improvements to property. It is likely to result in heavier on-street parking and increased residential activity. Some effects of increased density likely to be visible in environment. It may result in increased pressures on neighbors and on recreational facilities. Appellant Comment; Mr. Ivar Jonson appeared. He stated that the building needs improvements which he cannot do with present rental income; he gave figures regarding heating. costs. Discussion followed regarding available parking spaces. Mr. Jonson said there was also City parking in the vicinity and did not consider this a major problem. Ms. Cummings questioned egress from third floor and it was stated this could be done from the rear of the building. Mr. Sampson said he would like more information; would lik to see plans, etc, , to get better idea'of proposed changes'. No one appeared in opposition to the appeal , Staff Comment: Site is essentially totally lacking in open space/family residential amenity, with nearest park two blocks away across two busy streets. Staff Recommendation: Effects on long-range planning would be an increase in number of residential units, and increase in on-street parking; and pro- vision of living units with limited amenity. Staff recommends denial of area variance. Motion: Mr. Sampson moved to recommend denial of appeal . Seconded by Ms. Cummings. Carried unanimously. #1431 : Appeal of SGF Pizza, Inc. for area variance to permit addition to rear of restaurant at 374 Elmira Road. New owner wishes to add walk-in cooler to rear of building. Land use is permitted; would improve viability of business and return vacant business to economic productivity. Appellant Comment: Larry Lumming, a representative of new owner, appeared. He said the cooler would be built in keeping with the lines of the restaurant; it would not be apparent from the road; it would not affect parking by a very great degree. The entrance to the cooler would be for delivery purposes only, No one spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Sampson asked if front yard deficiency was caused by widening of Elmira Road. Mr. Meigs stated it was not but was the result of boundary lines drawn when the land was originally divided; the building was probably located in relation to the street before it was widened. Staff Comment: Staff determined granting of area variance to permit con- struction of a cooler would present no problem. Staff Recommendation: Appeal should be granted, Motion: Motion made by Ms. Cummings to recommend approval . Seconded by E. Stage. Carried Unanimously, 5-1-92 Sign Appeal : Appeal of SGF Pizza, Inc. for permit to retain existing non-conforming sign Istructure to avoid the expense and trouble of relocating it. Sign is in City right-of-way but businesses are permitted such free-standing signs. Permission might irritate adjacent owners and business people if chance to correct situation is neglected, Appellant Comment: Mr. Lumming appeared. He stated SGF Pizza, new owner, wished to use the existing sign pole; the sign would closely conform to existing sign structure there would also be a sign on the building. Mr. Meigs noted that the Lum's signs appeared to exceed the total area permitted' in the B-5 zone. Mr. Rogers stated this was an opportunity to change non- conforming sign and bring it into conformity with ordinance. A brief dis- cussion followed indicating that Board was in agreement with Mr. Rogers' statement. Mr. Sampson stated non-conforming signs will have to be grad- ually changed although Board could understand SGF Pizza's desire to avoid relocation or replacement of the sign structure, Staff Comment: Increased visual angle to a properly-located sign would be an improvement. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial because there would be con- tinued non-conformity of signage to established standards, to which other signage has voluntarily conformed, and because precedent would detract from City's effectiveness in carrying out urban design objectives embodied in sign ordinance. Motion: Mr, Sampson moved to recommend denial , Seconded by Ms. Cummings, Carried unanimously, #14.32; Appeal of Tucker for a Special Permit and area variances to use garage at 307 S, Plain St. for home occupation (catering service) . Owner-occupant wishes to conduct business as a home occupation, using existing garage; property� is non-conforming. Property is in an R-2b district where use is permitted, and is immediately adjacent to the Southside Center. No one appeared in support of the request, Board was referred to a survey which was attached to request. Property appears to be in good shape; garage structure is sound, It would provide' increased income for owner-occupant; there would be some increase in traffic due to business but likely only to owner. There would be increased residential-related activity. If owner improves property in conjunction with business it would add to visual quality. Garage is not highly visible. Ms.. Cummings questioned what changes would be made regarding partitions, addition of kitchen, etc. It was determined that it seemed there would be no exterior changes to property or garage. It was unfortunate that applicant was not present to answer questions from Board. (As an aside, Ms.. Cummings asked, "Shouldn't applicant be required to appear?" Board can waste time by not being able to question applicant. This requirement should be investigated, ) Staff Comment: No problems foreseen as long as activity remains within con fines of existing structures, Staff Recommendation: Grant relief sought subject to the condition that no expansion of garage be allowed and no sign other than as permitted by sign ordinance. Motion: Mr. Sampson moved to take no action because of lack of information and appellant's non-appearance. Seconded by Ms. Cummings. Carried unanimously. #1433: Appeal of McGuire for a use variance to permit use of 601 -19 W. Clinton St. - (former Co-op supermarket) for an automobile dealership. Land use is not permitted but may be compatible with other uses on premises of shopping center, if not of neighborhood. Dealer feels total sales may double in this location; recapturing a major business for City; it would likely strengthen viability of property and other businesses on property. Traffic would be less than Co-op's was but different in nature. Vehicles probably would not be as perceptible entering service area from east side, No heavy repair activity is proposed; this would continue to be done in McGuire's location in Trumansburg. Appellant Comment: Tim McGuire, owner of Ford dealership, appeared. He is attempting to lease Co-op building to bring Ford dealership to Ithaca. Trumansburg operation will be maintained where large trucks would be repaired and body..repair work done. Co-op location would handle only sales and service of smaller Ford vehicles, Existing Co-op store would be refurbished inside and out to compliment the selling of automobiles and services, Artist's rendering was presented to Board to help visualize the proposed changes. Public Comments; George Hughes, 524 W Clinton .St. , appeared in opposition to appeal . He stated that the neighborhood would not be upgraded by a car dealership located in the Co-op store. There are private residences very close to the property, Last fall a variance was denied to Gadabout for a 4-car parking lot on Center Street because it would increase traffic. He felt that traffic would be a problem if -McGuire located here. Mr, McGuire reiterated he intends to improve building and the visual appearance. He would have an indoor showroom to display used and new cars, He projects $2 to $3 million in sales for the Ithaca area and employing up to 20 people. Carole Furman, 310 S Corn St. , appeared in opposition to request. She feels strongly that she does not want increased traffic; it would not be in best interest of neighborhood and would not be compatible with the area. Mrs. Hughes also spoke. They have been residents in area for 26 years She stated the original variance was for a grocery store on that location which did enhance the neighborhood and provide a service. A car dealership would not be in this category. Joseph Mendelis, 413 W, .Clinton St. , also appeared to oppose variance. He is a family man (3 small children) and would not like to see the neighborhood change in this manner. He said a number of young families are moving into the area and it should be -maintained as a residential community. INHS has poured much. money into improvements there. Two other members of the community spoke expressing their opposition. A letter was read by Mr, Rogers from another resident, Eunice Paddio-Reed, 520 W. Clinton St' ', stating her opposition because of increased flow of. traffic; reduction of number of parking spaces within the lot and possible traffic jams, invitation to non-neighborhood people to gather or test drive too many vehicles within neighborhood, attraction of people to the area during the day, early evening, and on special sale periods and the increase of heavy transport delivery trucks. Ms. Cummings very strongly objected to the staff recommendation that the appeal be granted. Mr. Sampson questioned if Ford has rules and require- ments regarding the amount of space required for dealership and would the Co-op be adequate for this amount of business. Mr. McGuire stated that the Co-op is very adequate with 8500 s.f. Mr'. Sampson further stated that instead of comparing the Co-op with a car dealership, the Board should discuss what other businesses would be compatible with neighborhood. Stewart Knowlton, owner of the Co-op facility and the East Hill Shopping Plaza, also spoke, He stated there was only one offer for the property which was his; it is not an easy property to use and he is sympathetic with the neighbors' concerns. However, it is a commercial facility and there will be some business located there. The appearance of the property is very important to him. Mr. McGuire's use of facility would be very functional . Staff Comment: While significant economic benefits could accrue to the City from this activity, it would represent overall a substantial change in the nature of property. use and in its character and appearance. Such full and substantial re-use of the property is a ,plus Staff Recommendation; Appeal should be granted based on the following: improvement of local economy by increased tax revenues; improved viability of a substantial, developed property, and of co-located business; intro- duction of a use of doubtful compatibility with nearby residential area. Appeal should have following conditions; minimization of signage and integration of new signs with others in the complex, and retention and maintenance of trees in plaza; Motion; Ms.. Cummings moved to recommend denial . Holdsworth seconded. Vote was 3 favoring denial (Cummings, Holdsworth, Rogers) and 2 opposing denial (,Sampson, Stage) . Ms. Cummings thanked neighbors for participation in this discussion and for their input regarding the neighborhood. #1434:. Appeal of Tompkins County for area variances to permit subdivision of property at 120-128 E. Buffalo St. (Boardman House) into a separate parcel . Property would be deficient in required off--street loading and one sideyard setback if subdivided as planned; therefore, variances must be obtained before subdivision can be approved. Property could be returned to tax rolls; occupancy by private-sector tenant likely, and County would receive some return on investment. Zone requires no on-site parking. Re;-useof building as permitted will reintroduce activity to vicinity; which should be a positive thing. Mr. Meigs stated that the variances should be considered separate from the subdivision, which was given final approval earlier in the meeting, conditional on BZA granting the variances. A recommendation to :BZA that the variances be approved would indicate the importance of the variances to the subdivision proposed, and to the overarching issue of facilitating Boardman's eventual return to use and good condition. Appellant Comment: Garrison Evans, County Planner, appeared as County representative. Since the issue of Boardman House subdivision has been discussed previously, very few additional comments were made by the Board. Subdivision was approved subject to BZA approval of the variances. Staff Comments Re-use and rehabilitation of a significant landmark structure is the hoped-for result of this appeal and the related subdivision. Off-street loading is unlikely to be needed by any office or non-retail occupant. Side yard variance is needed because County wishes full ownership to west edge of sidewalk. Staff Recommendation: Taxable property would be increased, an important structure would -be rehabilitated and activity returned to a vacant structure in a central location Staff recommends approval . Motion; Ms. Cummings moved to recommend approval . Seconded by Sampson. Carried unanimously. #1435: Appeal of McPherson for area variance to permit small addition to 4-unit apartment house-at 116 'W,, . Seneca St. to create an additional bedroom. Owner wishes to add 2 storey stair to serve three second floor dwellings, in order to convert first floor unit to his residence. Land use is permitted; it would improve safety and amenity. Owner proposes to occupy one unit, thus, improved owner -maintenance should result; Appellant Comment. Andy McPherson, owner of property, appeared. Proposed change to two bedroom unit is for his own use, New,. separate access from first to second floor is needed, a 5-1/2 ft, x 12 ft. addition to property is proposed to accommodate a stairwell, No one appeared in favor of or in opposition to request. Addition would be compatible with the nature of the building. Staff Comment: Though the importance of this building is unknown, it is flanked by two very striking ones and thus it is to be hoped that the pro- posed addition will be sympathetic to the overall character of 116 and its neighbors. Staff Recommendation; Grant relief sought with the following conditions: recommend coordination/consultation with ILPC/HI staff concerning compati-- bility of design of addition, Motion; Dr. Stage moved to recommend approval with the condition that Mr. McPherson consult with. ILPC and HI regarding design of addition. Seconded by Holdsworth, Carried unanimously, #1436: Appeal of Chamber of Commerce to convert existing first-floor apartment to office use. Land use is not permitted; there would be immediate ,loss of one dwelling unit, probable loss of other in the future, as owner seeks to obtain that option. Some increase in traffic is likely; residential activity in vicinity will be reduced. There would be no exterior change but increased parking on-site is likely. Conversion may hasten trend to. loss of residential uses in vicinity. Appellant Comment: Armand Adams, Esq. , Secretary for the Chamber of Commerce, and David Taube, architect, appeared. Chamber wishes to convert first floor apartment space to office space for their own use and are seeking favorable indication that they would not be restricted from also converting the remain- ing second floor apartment at some future time if needed. Ms. Cummings dis- cussed prior request, on which Planning Board vote was deadlocked. Mr. Adams said Chamber had proposed to convert attic (third floor) into a conference room with a steel stairway at the back. This plan has since been dropped and instead one office space on second floor is to be enlarged. In 1972, a variance was allowed which the Chamber thought meant it could use the entire building as it pleased, that is, for business pruposes. They continued to retain the two apartments in the building. Presently, more space is needed because of expanded programs which will be put into effect in the near future. William Bennett of the Chamber staff addressed the Board stating that the property was bought by the Chamber because they like the concept of being located in or near an historic district and for the purpose of expansion. Mrs. Ginny Simmons, Executive Director, reiterated the need for additional space; building is now at full capacity; projects underway now will call for more space, Discussion followed by the Board. Mr, Holdsworth asked what makes Chamber think it has unlimited use now. Mr. Adams answered that he felt the grant in 1972 had no restrictions whatsoever, Chamber would keep the second floor apartment for now for security reasons but they realize that in a year or so that space will also be needed for Chamber activities. Mr. Meigs asked whether the feasibility of retaining the first--floor apartment, as a more accessible dwelling unit, had been examined. David Taube, architect for the Chamber, replied that it had, and the decision was made on the basis of the other unit being larger and thus more desirable, and that the Chamber's functional use of the building required the first floor space. Staff Recommendation: Effects on planning are as follows: loss of one residential unit immediately, and second, as soon as owner feels necessary; strengthens trend to nonresidential use of properties in vicinity. Staff suggests relief sought should be granted subject to retention of one apart- ment subject to resubmission for permission to remove same for Chamber use only, if and when Chamber need exists; Motion; Ms. Cummings moved to recommend approval with retention of one existing residential unit. Second by Stage. Vote followed: 3 in favor of motion as stated (Cumming, Rogers, Stage) and 2 opposed to approval (Sampson, Holdsworth) . On question by Holdsworth, Chairman Rogers ruled that the motion failed because it lacked the 4-vote majority of the full Board. Mr. Sampson then stated that if the 2% use tax is approved, this will in- crease tourism in our area. Therefore, wouldn't the, Chamber need the second ,floor apartment space almost immediately? Mr. Adams stated that they would accept the alternative and come back to the Planning Board at a later date for permission to use the second floor apartment space, Motion; Mr. Sampson then proposed that a blanket approval be granted. Seconded by Holdsworth Vote carried 4 to 1 (Cummings)