Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1983-05-31 MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD May 31 , 1983 PRESENT: Chair P. Rogers , M. Sampson, R. Moran, B . Romanowski , R. Holdsworth ALSO: H.M.Van Cort , Appellants , Appellants ' representatives , Press , Other interested parties 1 . Call to order : Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7 :45 p.m. 2 . Approval of Minutes : Correction should be made to item #5- Chairman 's Report. "Mr . Rogers said that the proposal as a resolution was passed unanimously, " should be deleted . In fact , Mr. Rogers said that the vote was very close. Motion was made by Mr. Holdsworth to accept the April minutes as corrected. Seconded by Mr. Sampson. The motion was passed unanimously, 5-0 . 3. Privilege of the Floor: None 4. Communications : Mr. Rogers noted that the only correspondence received by the Planning Board concerned zoning cases and would be discussed at that time on the agenda. 5. Chairman's report : Mr. Rogers reported on the meeting of the committee on the Six-Mile Creek watershed area, which he has been appointed to by the Mayor. Mr. Van Cort agreed with Mr. Rogers that the fall of this year would be too short a time in which an in-depth analysis could be completed. 6. Director's report : Mr. Van Cort reported on a walk that he .and other City Staff personnel had taken along the Gorge. Mr . Van Cort mentioned that he had spotted a great deal of wildlife in the area, including a Great Blue Herron. Mr. Holdsworth asked Mr. Van Cort about the Environmental Impact Statement for Valentine Place, whether traffic through the neighborhood would be considered as a concern, or just the gorge. Mr. Van Cort noted that the Council had set aside money to do an EIS from Valentine Place to the end of the Ithacare property. Mr. Van Cort also mentioned that traffic was to be considered an issue, and a contract was to be awarded very soon . Mr. Holdsworth noted that Valentine Place was opening .this Saturday. 7. Chairman' s Comments : Mr. Rogers asked Mr . Van ' Cort about the proposed UDAG(Urban Development Action Grant) for the Henry St . John ' s School . Mr. Van Cort noted that a UDAG was awarded by HUD to cities that are eligible for specific real estate projects, and jobs and economically based projects . Mr. Van Cort explained that cities will get the grants and then lend the funds to private developers . MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD May 31, 1983 p age 2 .- Mr., .Mr.." Rogers- asked .whether INHS. was a government organization. . Mr_ . Van Cort noted that'f� was a non-profit organization, and not part of the government There was further dis.cussion .by Board members , as to whether INHS was in competition, with private developers Mr . Sampson noted that INHS has an excellent re-payment rate; and..questioned whether private developers in the ,area would be willing. to invest in the . types of projects that INHS. does . Mr. Sampson also •mentioned that. INHS does use private contractors . Mr. Van :.Cort. commented. to. the .Boa.rd that-he would have a. represen=. tative from INHS. come to .a Planning Board meeting . to_ further explain INHS 's project-s- to them He also mentioned that no one else submitted' a bid on the. St . John's Project. , although a large number (30-40) of groups/individual_s picked up specs. on the project . INHS 's mission is . neighborhood..preservation Mr. Van .Cort noted,. and private sector would. not . go into the areas . of the city that INHS did, five .years. ago.. INHS 's interest stimulated other people to re=invest in certain parts of the. ,South and Worth sides of Ithaca. Also, INHS will only grant loans to. those low and moderate individuals who. can not get bank loans . Mr. Sampson noted that. INHS . does not .deal: with ab.sent.eee landlords , and. he .felt that this makes it ,possible..for tenants to have a better 'home. The. mini-repair program .o.f INHS was.;.also mentioned, because: it services over 64 units presently, and its participants have an .annual income under $5,000. Mr . Rogers wanted ..tol know what .the_ procedure was in the city for approving such 'a UDAG application; . and he ,,also wanted to know why the Planning Board had .been omitted in., the procedure . Mr.. Van Cort , noted. that the. grant: application .regyest went to ane-Common I;oun_cil for their approval ,.. ander'then the grant was submitted to the IU. , . and the Planning and Development Committee of Common Council_ Mr-.. Van.Cort noted that 907o of the work had been done by INHS , and that the whole procedure had been very hasty, : . Mr ,. Holdsworth also. noted that the City had been trying to beat an application deadline 8. Staff Reports : None 9 . ZONING APPEALS REVIEW, 'See. Attached 10. Old Business :., Mr. Holdsworth: -asked .what the IURA is doing on the West Eh-d.. Mr. Van Cort mentioned that the entire alientation process must be done, .and that we should go: through the Finger . Lakes Parks Commission MINUTES, Planning & Development Baord May 31; 1983 _page . 3. 10. Old Business : Continued Mr . Romanowski reported..-on the. Marina Expansion.. He mentioned that Andy Mazze.11a wanted the expansion to' be done next year, perhaps . by next winter, 11 . New Business ; None 12. Miscellaneous : None 13. Adjournment-; A nt©tion was trade by Mr,. RomanQwski and seconded by Mr. Holdsworth. .to adjourn the meeting at 11 ,15 p.m. The motion was Carried Unanimously; 5--0, F Planning and Development Board ZONING APPEALS May 31, 1983 APPEAL NO. 6- 1 - 83 : Appeal of Maguire Ford for a sign variance under Section 34 . 6 , Paragraph B and Section 34 . 5 , Paragraph B- 3 of the Sign Ordinance , to permit the erection of a free- standing sign which exceeds the size and height requirements of the Ordinance at West Clinton and South Meadow Streets . The property is the site of a new automobile dealership Maguire Ford/Lincoln-Mercury) , and is located in a B- S (business) use district where the proposed use is permitted. Planning Issues : Would be appreciably taller than permitted-, sign. itself is acceptable . Mr. Timothy J . Maguire , Route 96 , Trumansburg , New York appeared on behalf of this appeal . Appellant Comment : Mr . Maguire wishes to construct a freestanding sign which is taller and slightly larger than permitted . According to his franchise of Ford and Lincoln-Mercury , the minimum sign require- ments of height and area are 28 ' 1" and 106 sq . ft . , which exceed the sign ordinance requirements of 20 ' in height and 100 sq .ft . in total sign area. Mr . Maguire ' s franchise have told him that these signs are the minimum requirements . Mr. Maguire wishes to construct one larger sign identifying both franchises , instead of two separate signs , which he felt he could construct because he has two dealerships . Mr .McGuire felt that he would be reducing the total sign square footage allowed to him because of his dual dealerships . Mr. Van Cort pointed out to Mr . Maquire and the Board that two signs were permitted because they are allowed in the zone Mr. Maquire is located in, not because of his dual dealership. Board Comment : Mr. Holdworth indicated that he would be more inclined to vote in favor of this appeal if Mr . Maguire could document to the Board, that the 28 ' 1" height was the only height possible . (permitted by the franchises . Mr . VAn Cort said that in the past , franchises told their dealerships that certain signs were the only ones permissible , and when the Planning Board turned down their dealerships , the re- commendations from the Planning Board were accepted . Public Comment : No other members from the public appeared . Staff Comment : Standard sign for Ford dealerships is proposed . There is no substantive reason why the pole could not be shortened so that overall height conforms . Sign area variance is relatively minor, and seem acceptable as a standard design . Recommendation : APPROVAL, of area only ; DENY height . MOTION: By Mr. Sampson for APPROVAL of the size of the sign; limiting the height to 20 feet; Seconded by Mr. H oldsworth; Motion was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. l.ng Appeals - May 31 , 1983 2 APPEAL No. 1495 : Appeal of Orson I.edger for a `;leer ral I'ermi t under Section 30. 25 , (:olumn 2 and Section 30 . 26 , and for in arcs variance under Section .10. 49 and Section 30. 25 , Columns 4 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 17. , and 13 for deficiencies in - off street parking , minimum lot size , mini - mum lot width , minimum lot coverage , minimum front yard setback , and minimum setbacks for both sideyards , to permit the operation of a coin-operated laundry (self- service) open to the public in the basement of the existing cooperative dwelling at 207 WILLIAMS STREET under a Special Permit . The property is located in an Z- 3a use district , in which the proposed use is permitted under a special permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals under Section 30 . 49 . The appellant must also obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a permit can be issued for the laundry. Planning Tssues : i.;i nd nul, permitted except by Special Permit. ; Not appropriate to this location Little economic impact May have negative effects on desirablity of near- by housing. Could have negative effect.G on this constricted street, by inctueing actaitional vehicular and foot traffic; no on-site parking Introduction of commercial facility into densely- developed residential area likely to degrade residen- tial character Little change in visual quality except for likelihood of some sign. May generate some litter May engender friction between adjacent residents and customers . Mr . Orson Lvdgt-r , 809 S . Aurora Street , appeared on behalf of this appeal . Appellant Comment : Mr. Ledger wishes to operate a lanudry already existing*in the basement of his apartment house as a neighborhood laundry facility . Mr. Ledger told the board that he had previously planned to have a basement apartment in this location , but was told that it would not be permitted , when the present Building Commissioner was appointed. Mr . Ledger said that he had been asked by students in the neighborhood to operate this as a neighborhood laundry facility . because of the steepness of Williams St . * to tenants in his building. Mr. Ledgor is seeking a neighborhood facility variance . Public Comment : No other members of the public appeared , Ledger brought in four letters from neighbors next doorandowever Mr. street requesting that the laundry be allowed to operate . Zoning Appeals - May 31 , 1983 3 . Board Comment : Mr . Holdsworth asked how could Mr . Ledger be certain that only people who lived on the block , would be the ones using the laundry . Mr. Ledger said that anyone else would be closer to another laundry facility , and they 'd be walking two or three blocks to get to it , so he assumes that other people would use laundromats closer to them. Mr. Sampson said that there were other laundromats ; one on Stewart Avenue, and two others on Eddy Street . , and he has great diffi- culty in justifying another laundromat for that area , that is open to anyone other than people in the house . He does not see any need for it . Mr. Romanowski asked if he planned to erect a sign , to which 'Mr . Ledger replied no . Also it was mentioned by Board members that parking would be required in the area . There is no parking now, but Mr. VAn Cort noted that 3 parkinK spaces were needed• Staff Comment : This steep, narrow one-way street , with little parking, in a densely-developed residential area , seems a completely inappro- priate location for such a vacility . Two laundromats presently exist within two blocks . This laundromat would be an intrusion into a residential area with an activity which could negatively impact the area 's residentail character . Also, there would be inter- ference with the regular flow of vehicular traffic on a steep, narrow one-way street . Reco.T.n ndation : DENIAL. MOTION: By Mr. Sampson to Recommend DENIAL; seconded by Mr. Romanowski . Motion was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY , 5-0 . APPEAL NO. 1496 : Appeal of Peter Penniman for .an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25, Columns 7 , 11 and 12 for deficiencies in minimum lot width, minimum front yard setback and minimum setback for one sideyard to permit the conversion of the existing single family house at 135 FAYETTE STREET to a two-family dwelling . The property is located in an R- 2b use district in which the proposed use is permitted ; however, under Section 30 . 49 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before ,a building permit can be issued for the conversion. Planning Issues ; Land Use permitted and appropriate Provides an additional dwelling unit Little change likely in visual quality Neighborhood effects ; little effect likely Mr . Peter Penniman , Van Etten , New York , appeared on behalf f this appeal . Zoning Appeals - May 31 , 1983 . 4 . Appellant Comment : Mr . Penniman wishes to convert his single- family house into a two--family dwelling . The house presently has four bedrooms and two full bathrooms . The following deficiencies exist : in lot size, size of front yard, and the size of the side yard-south side. He is not proposing to enlarge the house in any way , or to add a new entrance. The only change he plans to make is to remove the existing gray asphalt siding, and restore the original wood siding . Mr. Penniman mentioned that there are two parking spaces in the rear of the house one in the garage and one directly in front of the garage . Mr . Penniman did not feel that this proposal violated the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance , since two family dwellings are permitted in this zone . I�ubiic Comment : No other members of the public appeared . Board Comment : ..____j)_jschssionfollowed by Board members on the question of parking. Mr. Rogers commented that garage space was shared by neighbor with Mr. Penniman , and that adequate parking was available. I Mr. Sampson noted that the house would look better with the removal of the gray asphalt . Mr. Rogers asked about the total number of I bedrooms that would be in the house. Mr . Penniman said that the total number of bedrooms would be reduced by one , because one bedroom would be converted into a kitchen, and the actual number of people living there may even be reduced . Staff Comment: Approval of this request would increase the supply of housing. Recommendation :Approval Further Board Comment : Mr. Holdsworth expressed his concern to the Board, that the number of tenants who could live in an apartment could not be limited, since the family size could not be limited. Motion : By Mr. Romawoksi for Approval ; seconded by Mr . Moran . Motion was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. APPEAL NO. 1497 : Appeal of Mabel Stewart for an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25 , Columns 4 and 12 for deficiencies in off street parking and minimum setback for one sideyard to permit the conversion of the existing single family- house at 331 CASCADILLA STREET to a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an - use district, in which the proposed use is permitted; however , under Section 30. 49 the appellants must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the conversion. Planning Issues : Land use permitted and appropriate Provides additional dwelling unit Neighborhood effects; none likely Visual quality; no significant effect Mr . Ben Curtis , from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services , 520 W. Green Street appeared on behalf of this appeal . Zoning Appeals May 31 , 1983 5 Appellant Comment : Mrs . Stewart plans to convert a single-family house to a two-family dwelling , by converting an existing bedroom II and den into a studio apartment . Other additions would be a bath- room, kitchen facilities and a private entrance . The exterior of the house would not be changed, according to Mr . Curtis ,except by the addition of two Vellux skylights in the main roof , li Board Comment : Mr . Holdsworth felt that Mrs . Stewart did not need to appear before this Board , since the title of the house was remaining with her . However , Mr. Van Cort said that because she would be altering a non-conforming structure , a building permit would be needed . Mr . Rogers noted that the t e. p ar o e li ver small for the proposed conversion.X MV ale§ Curt '�fep esen e feasible. Ii y p p e Curtis esen a floor plan to the Board members, and explained the project in more detail . Mrs . Stewart commented that there would be 3 bedrooms in her unit , and one bedroom in the studio apartment , after the conversion. Mr. Holdsworth said that perhaps the Board could grant the building permit , but not the permission for a two-family dwelling status . Mr. VAn Cort felt that this would be too restrictive. and that any new owner could only rent to other members of their family . Mr. Sampson was concerned about the availability of parking on the property, and he felt that there should be at least two parking spaces . Staff Comment : This variance would increase the supply of housing in the area. Recommendation : Approval .. Motion ; By Mr. Sampson for APPROVAL, contingent on the owner of the property providing 2 parking spaces , seconded by Mr . Holdsworth . Motion was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY , 5-0 . . APPEAL NO. 1498 : Appeal of Roger Eslinger for an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25; Columns 4 , 11, and 12 for deficiencies in off street parking, minimum front yard setback and minimum setback for one sideyard to permit enlargement of the existing one-family house at 22 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE to increase interior living space . The property is located in an R-15—use district , in which the existing use is per- mitted; however, under Section 30. 49 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the additions . Planning Issues : Land Use permitted and appropriate Housing; increased amenity Neighborhood effects ; minimal change likely Appearance of house will be changed Mr . Roger Eslinger, 22 Hawthorne Circle , appeared on behalf of this appeal . Appellant Comment : Mr. Eslinger spoke to the Planning Board re- garding the proposed changes to this property . Mr . Eslinger plans to enlarge this owner-occupied single-family house by increasing the size of his living room and another room that is towards the street side of the building. Mr. Eslinger noted that he did not plan to change the use of the building in any manner . Zoning Appeals - May 31 , 1983 6 . Public Comment : No other members of the public appeared. Board Comment : The Board further reviewed the plans_ Mr .Eslinger presented for the proposed enlargements of the house , and extensions . Staff Recommendation : APPROVAL Motion : By Mr. Moran for APPROVAL, seconded by Mr. Romanowksi . Motion was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY , 5-0 . - APPEAL NO. 1499 : Appeal of Margaret Cecce for ao area ;v&-r ance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30 . 25 , Columns 4 and 12 for deficiencies in off street parking and minimum front yard setback to permit the con- struction of an 8 ' x 10 ' porch at the second floor level of the existing two-family house at 111 WEST JAY STREET. The property is located in an R- 2b use district , in which the existing use is permitted ; however , under Section 30 . 49 the appellants must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the new construc- tion. Planning Issues : Land Use permitted and appropriate Slight visual encroachment for neighbor Minimal change in visual quality Margaret A. Cecce, 111 Jay Street appeared on behalf of this appeal , Appellant Comment : Ms. Cecce told the Board about her proposed plans to build a small deck for the second-floor apartment . After speaking with her neighbors who objected to an 8 ' x 10 ' deck, she now plans to build a 6 ' x 10 ' deck, to which the neighbors will not object . Ms. Cecce pointed out that the deficiency did not exist on the side of the building where she proposes to build the deck, but to add anything to this structure she would need a variance. Board Comment :The Board discussed the location of the deck from the property line and also from the adjacent house . Mr. Rogers also inquired whether her property was a two-.unit house , Ms . Cecce noted that it was a two-unit house and that the occupany of the house would stay the same. Staff Comment: Mr, Van Cort had previously had reservations because it seemed that the structure came much closer than it evidently does to the other property. Recommendation: Approval. Further Board Comment : Mr . Rogers asked if there would be any other extensions , other that the deck, including undersupports . Ms. Cecce replied that there would not be any . MOTION: By Mr. Holdsworth for APPROVAL, Seconded by Mr . Sampson . Motion was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5--0 . Zoning Appeals - May 31 , 1983 - 7• APPEAL NO. 1500: Appeal of Jeff Coleman for an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25, Columns 11 and 12 for deficiencies in minimum front yard setback and minimum setback for one sideyard to permit the conversion of the existing single-family dwelling at 208 FIRST STREET to a two- family dwelling. The property is located in an R-3 use istrict, in which the proposed use is permitted ; however , under Section 30. 49 the appellants must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the conversion. Planning Issues : Land Use permitted arid compatible No Significant economic effect Adds one dwelling unit Slight increase in density Visual quality ; little change likely Mr. Jeff Coleman, 136 The Commons , appeared on - behalf of this appeal. Appellant Comment : Mr. Coleman wishes to convert a single-family house into a two-family dwelling.This property seems appropriate for this conversion according to Mr. Coleman. The house sits on a large lot, and the lot has a driveway sufficient to hold two or three cars, therefore a parking problem will not be created. The house has previously been unoccupied for over eight years, and Mr. Coleman plans to buy it . Public Comment : No other members of the public appeared. Board Comment : Mr. Holdsworth asked if Mr. Coleman intends to live in one unit and rent out the other two bedroom unit in the house. Mr. Coleman replied that he would live in one unit and he would rent the other unit to a family member.Mr. Van Cort noted that INNS felt that this block, First Street , was noted by INHS to be in need of as much work as possible, from their Small Cities Grant. Board members felt that this would be an improvement and an assest to the neighborhood. Staff Comment : Mr. Coleman has the staff 's wholehearted support . Recommendation : Approval . Motion : By Mr. Holdsworth for APPROVAL, Seconded by Mr. Sampson. Motion was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. - - -- -- - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- Zoning Appeals - May 31 . 1983 g , Public Conment: Ellie Hartmanis, 324 Brookfield Road spoke in opposition to this variance. She owns the house directly across the street from that one owned by Mr. Freeman on Elston Place. Her property is a three-family dwelling which she has owned for 7 years. She does not feel that there is any danger to children because of the cliff in back of the house, because previous owners had children whom they raised in this area. She is also concerner about the neighborhood impact; another homeowner in this area is asking for a variance to convert a doctor's office into additional apartments. She was also concern- ed about parking in the area. She also felt that the house was not as large as Mr. Freeman has told the Board. Mr. George Schuler,110 Ferris Place, spoke in opposition to this appeal also. Mr. Schuler felt that this property could be suitable for a single--family to occupy. Mr Schuler also felt that the house was priced too high and also that the rental price was also high. The notice W. Schuler saw at Cornell asked $1,600 per month in rent for the house. He commented that this appeal was not consistent with the zoning regulations and mentioned the front yard and rear yard deficiencies. He was also concerned about increased density, and the adverse impact it would have on parking in the area, and the increased potential of more traffic,noise, and late night parties. Mrs. Helen(Ginger)Cohen, 108 Ferris Place, spoke in opposition to this variance, because it would affect her family and their way of life. She is opposed to any appeal that would cause deterioration to the neighborhood and would add cars, people, and noise, and particularly because there is strong neighbor- hood opposition. Board Comment: Mr. Holdsworth said since this property was on the market for some time and was not bought as a single-family house, this Planning Board may be imposing an impossible standard upon the owner. It was also noted that prior to 1977, this property was zoned for multiple family use. Mrs. Nancy Schuler, Alderperson, pointed out that many prospective buyers,may not have realized that they could have offered a price lower than 74-77,000 for the property, and were disenhanted. Mr. Rogers called to the Board's attention a letter from a tenant in Mrs. Hartmanis's building, who was opposed to this appeal. The letter was distributed to Board members. After sane discussion, Board members decided that this appeal would be detrimental to the neighbor- hood. Staff Comnent: Mr. Van Cort recommends that the variance be denied because of its' negative impact to the neighborhood, although Mr. Meigs felt that the deficiencies were minimum and the appeal should be granted. Staff Recamiendation: DENIAL MOTION: By Mr. Holdsworth for DENIAL based on overwhelming neighborhood opposi- tion, and also on the fact that the owner bought the house, knowing the zoning restrictions, Seconded by Mr. Rananowski. The motion was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. Zoning Appeals- May 31 , 1983 10 . APPEAL N0. 1502 : Appeal of Helen Kingsley for an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30 . 25 , Columns 6 , 1.1 , and 12 for deficiencies in minimum lot size , minimum front yard setback , and minimum setback for one sideyard to permit the conversion of the existing doctor' s office at 527 EAST STATE STREET to additional bedrooms for an existing apartment. TTie property is located in an R- 3a use district, in which the existing use as an apartment building is permitted ; however, under Section 30. 49 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the conversion . An appeal (#1489) for this property was denied by the Board at its May 1983 meeting; the owner is filing a new appeal based on new information. Planning Issues : Land use permitted and generally compatible Increased income and taxes from property Increased capacity of housing Could result in increased parking and traffic demands ; Increased density of occupation could affect a limited area. Would require development of additional space for parking. Possibility of increased noise and distrubance, due to increased occupancy . Increased occupancy could result in some neighborhood frictions. Mr. Van Cort noted that Mr . Dirk Gailbraith, Mrs . Kingsley 's represen- tative had telephoned him earlier, and explained that neither he nor Mrs . Kingsley would be able to attend this meeting tonight . Public Comment : No members from the public were present . However, the Planning Board did receive correspondence from John Oakley and Margaret Hammon, 108 Elston Place, in opposition to this appeal . Board Comment : The Board felt that the facts in this appeal had not changed, therefore, this is the same case heard by the Board last month . Motion : : By Mr. Romanowski to refer this appeal to the BZA with the same decision made last month : To DENY, seconded by Mr . Holdsworth . Motion was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. A 7F3 ZONING APPEALS - May 31 , 1983 APPEAL NO. 6-1-83: Appeal of Maguire Ford for a sign variance under Section 34. 6, Paragraph B and Section 34. 5 , Paragraph .B-.3 of the Sign Ordinance , to permit the erection of- a free-standing sign which exceeds the size and height requirements of the .Ordinance at West Clinton and South Meadow Streets . The property is the site of a new- automobile dealership Maguire Ford/Lincoln-Mercury) , and is located in a B-5 (business-) use district where the proposed use is permitted. APPEAL NO. 1495 : Appeal of Orson Ledger for a Special Permit under Section 30. 25 , Column 2 .and Section 30. 26 , and for an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30.25, Columns 4 , 6, 7 , 10 , 11, 12 , and 13 for deficiencies- in--.off street parking, minimum lot size, mini- mum lot width, minimum lot coverage, minimum front yard setback, and minimum setbacks for both sideyards , to permit the operation of a coin-operated laundry (self-service) open to the public in the basement of the existing cooperative dwelling at 207 WILLIAMS STREET under a Special Permit. The property is located in an -3a useistrict, in which the proposed use is permitted under a special permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals under Section 30. 49 . The appellant must also obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a permit can be issued for the laundry. APPEAL NO. 1496 : Appeal of Peter Penniman for .-an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25, Columns 7 , 11 and .12 for deficiencies in minimum lot width, minimum front yard setback and minimum setback for one sideyard to permit the conversion of the :existing single family house at 135 FAYETTE STREET to a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an R-2b use district in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Section 30.49 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before ,a building permit can be issued for the conversion. ZONING APPEALS - May 31 , 1983 page 2 APPEAL NO. 1497 : Appeal of Mabel Stewart for an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25 , Columns 4 and 12 for deficiencies in off street parking and minimum setback for one sideyard to permit the conversion of the existing single family- house at 331 CASCADILLA STREET to a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an R-3b use district, in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Section 30. 49 the appellants must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the conversion. APPEAL NO. 1498 : Appeal of Roger Eslinger for an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30. 25; Columns 4 , 11 , and 12 for deficiencies in off street parking, minimum front yard setback and minimum setback for one sideyard to permit erilargement of the existing one-family house at 22 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE to increase interior living space . The property is locateJ in an R-11—use district, in which the existing use is per- mitted; however, under Section 30.49 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the additions. APPEAL NO. 1499: Appeal of Margaret Cecce for an area variance under Section 30.49 and Section 30. 25 , Columns 4 and 12 for deficiencies in off street parking and minimum front yard setback to permit the con- struction of an 8 ' x 10' porch at the second floor level of the existing two-family house at 111 WEST JAY STREET. - The property is located in an R-2b use district, in which the existing -use is permitted; however, under Section 30. 49 the appellants must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the new construc- tion. i ZONING APPEALS - May 31 , 1983 page 3 APPEAL NO. 1500 : Appeal of JeffColeman. for an area variance under Section 30.49 and Section 30. 25, Columns 11 and 12 for deficiencies in minimum front yard .setback and minimum setback for one sideyard to permit the conversion .of the existing single-family dwelling at 208 FIRST STREET too -a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an R-3b use district, in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Section 30. 49 the appellants must obtain an -area .variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the conversion. APPEAL NO. 1501 : Appeal of Norman D. Freeman for an area variance under Section 30 .49 and Section. 30. 25, Columns 11 and 12 for deficiencies in minimum front yard setback and minimum rear yard setback to permit the conversion of the existing single-family home at 109 ELSTON PLACE to a two-family dwelling. The property is located in an R-2a use istrict , in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under -Secti:on 30 ..49 the appellant must obtain An area Variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the conversion. APPEAL NO. 1502 : Appeal of Helen Kingsley for an area variance under Section 30. 49 and Section 30 .25, Columns 6, 11 , and 12 for deficiencies in minimum lot size, minimum front yard setback, and minimum setback for one sideyard to permit the conversion of the existing doctor's office at. 527 EAST STATE STREET to additional bedrooms for an existing apartment. The property is located in an R-3a use district, in which the existing use as an apartment building is permitted.; however, under Section 30. 49 the appellant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for the conversion. An appeal (#1489) for this property was denied by the Board at its May .1983 meeting; the owner is filing, a new appeal based on new information.