HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1985-08-27 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES
August 27, 1985:
PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal , B. Nichols, T. Cookingham, R.' Romanowski*,
Director Van Cort; Staff Goldwyn, Lazarski , Mazzarella
ALSO: Appellants:, Appellants' representatives, the Press, other interested
parties
1. Call to Order: Ms. Blumenthal called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. Zoning Appeals: See minutes attached.
3. Preliminary Subdivision, 122-124 Coddington Rd. James Iacovelli
Appellant was not present. Director Van Cort suggested that the issue be
deferred, with preliminary statements heard now and in the future if neces-
sary. Diana J. Drucker, resident/owner 120 Coddington Road, was present.
Ms. Drucker was concerned over the possible violation of zoning ordinances,
resulting in further congestion in the area and severe parking problems
should Ithaca College students rent Mr. Iacovelli `s duplexes.
Rosemary Centini , owner of the Coddington Restaurant, 124-128. Coddington
Road, expressed concern over the already severe parking situation on
Coddington Road and complained of students' illegal use of her restaurant
parking lot. She noted that a neighbor, Carl Dennis, owner of a 110-unit
apartment building, was ;reouired to provide two parking spaces per unit.
Even so, parking from Kis building spilled over into the street which was
designated as a No Parking area.. Susan Cummings, Alderperson' for the Second
Ward, asked if the Board had the authority to make new subdivision contingent
on parking conditions. A discussion ensued over the actual parking requirements
for a building of the type proposed by Mr. Iacovelli. Director Van .Cort said
that if Mr. Iacovelli met subdivision ordinance requirements , the City must
issue the permit. Ms. Cummings asked whether environmental factors could be
considered, and Director Van Cort responded in the negative, with the above-
mentioned exceptions, Ms. Centini questioned whether Mr. iacovelli could
apply for Variances and carry out even more extensive subdivision at a later
date. Ms. Cummings noted that the appellant has a record of packing students
into apartment buildings.
Ms. Blumenthalnoted that the Board could discuss changing subdivision regula
tions... In response to a question from Ms. Blumenthal , Director Van Cort said
that the Board could require additional information on the subdivision from
Mr. Iacovelli . He pointed out that Mr, lacovelli 's project was covered by the
subdivision law, and that the City needed a site planning law, which would
provide some additional control over new.development. Mr. Cookingham agreed,
noting that the City needed some basis, of denial and Mr. Nichols commented that
the proposal as submitted by the Appellant contained insufficient information
for the Board to determine if the plan complied with. the ordinance.
The matter was deferred by consensus.
* Mr. Romanowski was in` a Planning and Development Committee meeting of Common
Council in an adjoining room and was present for some votes_,and absent for
others.
P&D BOARD MINUTES (.continued) : -2-
4. Lower South Hill Rezoning: Andrea Lazarski , Neighborhood Planner, gave a
preliminary report on the Lower South Hill Zoning Study. The Neighborhood
Committee of the Board had previously discussed rezoning the north side of
Pleasant Street (the 200 block) , Prospect Street and Aurora Street in Feb-
ruary in response to a request by the residents of Prospect Street. Lazarski
had begun an evaluation of the remaining R-3 and R-3b areas adjacent to the
tract under consideration and determined that the, R-3 category was not
appropriate. Lower South Hill is primarily R--2a, with an R--3 pocket bounded
mostly by Prospect, Pleasant, and Hudson Streets. This area underwent a
dramatic change after Ithaca College moved to the South Hill campus. Many
homes were converted to multiple residences in response .to the demand for
student housing. In the last few years, however,_ th,is pattern has been
changing. Owner-occupants have been buying multiple occupancy property and
returning it to two- or single-family units. This trend. is of note because
of the relatively small size of the residences, the lack of off-street
parking, and the steep hills that are often made impassible by illegally
parked cars.
Several neighborhood residents were present to speak in favor of the
rezoning request. Mrs. Barbara Sylvester, 128 Hudson Street; Ms. Jill
Ganon, 215 Pleasant Street; and Mrs. Michael Dentes, 2.07, Prospect Street.
All three expressed serious concern over the changing character of their
neighborhood due to the great influx of students. On numerous occasions
they have had to call the police to enforce parking laws., quell loud parties,
and stop people from tresspassi.ng on property. Ms. Ganon noted that her
street had had some success with the Jason Fane property at the corner
of Pleasant and Aurora Streets.. Fane's building was in violation of both
the housing and zoning codes. The City launched a case against the property
and was awarded a $5,0.00 fine against Mr. Fane. Although Mr. Fane is a
known violator, there seemed to be other properties in the area that
neighbors identified as a problem due to their:considerable state of dis-
repair. The general opinion .of the speakers was that the R-3 category was
causing serious deterioration of the area.. Ms. Ganon mentioned that the
petition signed by 24 owners and renters in January 1985 addressed both the
violations on Mr. Fane's property. and a request for. rezoning to an R-2
category.
Susan Cummings, Alderperson for the Second Ward, stated that the subject
of whether this area was appropriately zoned R-3 had come up in regard to a
request for a variance on 322 Pleasant Street. Although the appellant had
withdrawn the request, the neighborhood met and decided to go forward to
seek a zoning change. The Board found that the area is really R-2 in
character and should be zoned accordingly.
Mr. Cookingh.am pointed out that even with.'.an R-2 category, the buildings in
the neighborhood could be converted to two-family residences containing a
maximum of six unrelated persons. Lazarski stated that the residents were
asking that the area be stabilized,'and that although single-family dwellings
could still be converted to duplexes, the additional occupancy of multiple_
person dwellings would cause extreme pressure on both the neighborhood and
the parking situation. The hills are steep, there are few driveways, and
P&D BOARD MINUTES continued):
the area is congested .when street .spaces are filled. Director Van .Cort
supported Cookingham`s point: Current zoning categories_need to be refined.
The Planning Department will be studying these categories to determine whether
zoning districts besides R.!1,- R-2, and R-3 should. be in place. The. City is
currently proposing .to eliminate the second unit in an R--1 -zone, and sub .
stituting the Accessort'.Apartment Ordinance option. In response to a question
from Ms.. Sylvester, Director Van. Cort 'noted :that the Ci°ty's policy is to
encourage Cornell University and Ithaca College to build on-campus housing
units but that the. Ci.ty has no power to enforce. th.is. Their only option is.
.to tighten up'.zoning and.. hope that the market woul.d act,to .increase .housing.
Nichols,. seconded by Cookingham, MOVED to recommend that'.the zoning .i:n this
area be changed from:R-3 to R-2 and that this recommendation be referred. to
the Planning and Development Committee of CommonCouncil... VOTE: 4-0-0
(Romanowski present),
5. INHS'Housing:Suryey: . Andrea Lazarski. introduced Ms. Leslie Chatterton to
summarize the .resul.ts of the INHS.s.urvey on building conditions The
neighborhoods discussed were 'Nor.ths:ide, Southside, Lower. South. Hill and
Spencer Road. Ms. Chatterton explained-the methodology of her study. .
. Mr.. Cookingham and Director Van Cort asked. how this. methodology compared to
those used in previous building condition studiies. Director Van Cort
commented on the dramatic increase in thenumber of structures rated as
'good between 1975 and 198.0..and. asked -how Ms._Ch.atteron .accounted for this.
increase.
Ms. Blumenthal 'asked.wh.eth.er the area had changed from commercial to resi-
dential . Director Van Cort .asked J f a written summary of her findings was
available
Lower South. Hili was discussed as a possible target area of INHS because of .
th-e degree of hous%ng deterioration. Many of the houses on the lower. part.
of the Hill were built before 1935. Ms. Chatterton noted that the greater,
deterioration of houses near the bottom of the hill was due in part to ground
moisture. Ms:. Lazarski commented on the attitudes..of the residents. of. Lower
South Hill . In contrast to the downtown people, who seemed ..to. feel confident .
of their control .over their neighborhood, the Lower South. Hll : residents felt
less- in control of:their situation. Ms. Chatterton. noted that:,-.in contrast,
these was little sense of neighborhood in: the Spencer :Road area. There were
no sidewalks,. which made conditions dangerous. for .ch.ildren'. There was a
higher percentage of both good and %deteri.orated :structures there than in any
oth-er neighborhood surveyed.. Ms. Blumenthal asked J f Mse_ Chatterton had
specific recommendations as to which. area would be appropriate for INHS
devel.opment,.. to which. she repl`ied` in the negative. The LowerSouth. Hill area
might-be appropriate because of the amount of deteri.oration,, the concern of
the residents, and the instability in the area.
Mr. Nichols and Mr. Cookingham asked for details of .the INHS program and Ms.
Cummings asked how determinations: should:be made as to. which neighborhoods
would. receive , INHS attention. She suggested a. survey of all zones in. Ithaca,
which., as Director Van Cort pointed out, involved problems of cost: Long-
range planning was definitely needed, and 6 city-wide housing :survey would
P&D BOARD MINUTES (continued): -4-
be an important part of it. Ms. Blumenthalasked if. the Board should
contact INNS regarding South. Hill
6. NYSEG Site -1 ARC Grant. Application Community.Development'Administrator
Glenn Goldwyn discussed why Ithaca''s HUD application for funds to purchase
the NYSEG property was rejected, Goldwyn noted that HUD's principle
concern was the lack of a firm financial commitment to the developer of
the IRONICS expansion project from"a bank. With the HUD turn down, the
City has had to look for other ways to finance the project. The current
proposal calls for an increase in the Community Development and UDAG
interest earnings to help make up for the loss of $116,000. anticipated
in the recent application.
Nichols asked about th-es-e two funding sources. Goldwyn stated that the
CD funds were awarded to the City in prior years for commercial and
industrial assistance. The City has met some of .its, goals for those
programs: without expenditures, freeing up a total of $85,000 for the
project. The UDAG for Center Ithaca involved the City's receiving pay-
ment due a contractor in the midst of litigation. At HUD's direction,
the City deposited the funds in a Certificate of Deposit until the issue
was cleared up. The $24,000 ininterest earned is proposed for project
use.
Goldwyn explained that the City had always intended to apply to the ARC
for project assistance, and that the $150,000 proposal they were reviewing
was to help cover purchase and infrastructure costs. These latter had
increased due to the change in plans concerning the Collegetown project.
This Spring the fill from that project was anticipated to lower the
development costs for the NYSEG project. With the rebidding of the
Collegetown project no fill will be availab.le, raising`.the NYSEG costs
by $90,000. Goldwyn noted that all of these changes added up to a net
increase in the City's share of the project. He suggested that all of
these expenses will become, the basis for the industrial tenants ' leases,
so the City will recover its investment,
Cookingham asked if the proposal was for 'the maximum amount available and
questioned whether. that' might hurt the City's chances. He reasoned that
the City might stand a better chance with a more modest` proposal . Goldwyn
responded that it was felt that the proposal was strong enough to merit
full funding, given the level of City financial commitment and private
investing now supported by a bank loan approval .
Cookingham, seconded by Nichols, MOVED to recommend approval of the
Resolution for the Common Council to endorse. VOTE: 3-0-0. Carried.
7. Collegetown Presentation: Deputy Director Mazzarella presented the revised
design for the Collegetown project. There was discussion over pedestrian
and vehicular access to the garage, landscaping around the project, parking
for the residents of the apartments, and the height and bulk of the building.
No action was taken by the Board since the report was for information only.
k�
P&D BOARD MINUTES (continued) : -5-
8. The Board voted to postpone approval of the previous meeting's minutes
along with the liaison .Committee reports. Ms. Blumenthal questioned
whether the Board should reconsider its criteria for considering zoning
matters due to the large amount of time involved or dispense with the
review of zoning matters altogether. Suggestions were to change the criteria
for review, thereby limiting the number of cases under review, or change
the ordinance so another body could consider zoning matters. Director
Van Cort suggested the possibility of having two meetings, one to consider
zoning matters only. Ho further suggested that these matters be sent to
the Codes and Ordinance Committee for consideration.
Mr. Nichols questioned the amount of influence the Development Board had
on the Zoning Appeals- Board's decisions Director Van Cort suggested a
change in the zoning ordinance which. would require a 3/4 vote of the Board
of Zoning Appeals to overturn a recommendation of the Planning and
Development Board.
Ms. Blumenthal_ suggested referring the matter to the Codes and Administration
Committee. Another suggestion was to have a second meeting and to split
the staff to avoid overcrowding of schedules .
Cookingham, seconded by Nichols, MOVED to adjourn. The meeting was
adjourned at 12 p.m. 3-0.-0. Carried.
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 27, 1985
Chair Blumenthal stated that the Codes: and Administration Committee met ,
prior to this meeting to review this month's zoning cases. They determined
that the following cases contain ` ` ,, planning considerations which required
discussion by the Planning and Development Board at tonight's meeting:
Appeal 1646 - 204 Cornell Street
Appeal 1647 505 S. Aurora Street
Appeal .1650 - 535-37 W. State Street
Appeal 1652- 129 Park Place
The remainder will be heard at the September 3, 1985 meeting of the Board
of Zoning Appeals.
APPEAL 1646 - 204 Cornell Street. Appeal of A. Rotunno for a Use Variance
and Area Variances for deficient off-street parking, lot area and width,
number of stories and lot coverage exceeding zoning limits, and deficient
setbacks for front and side yards to permit conversion of the multiple
dwelling from a 'grandfathered' use of three apartments plus. four rooms
to rent, to four apartments. The property is in an R-1b District in which
the existing and proposed uses are not permitted.
APPELLANT COMMENT: The appellant was represented by her daughter, Rose
Rosica, who has power of attorney for her ailing mother, and by Frederick
Beck, attorney. Mrs. Ros%ca stated that the request for a Petition to
construct a private entrance to one apartment was with the intent of con-
verting the previously rented three single rooms into a single apartment,
to accommodate two instead of four occupants. Her aim istoreduce occu-
pancy, reduce parking, and simplify the rental situation for her mother
while still maintaining her income from the rental of the property.
Mr. Beck referred the Board to a drawing indicating the details of the
proposed entrance and partition.
Mr. Nichols asked for clarification as to the necessity of constructing a
separate entrance, Mr. Cookingham requested clarification regarding con-
struction plans.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Ann Clavel , 109 Cornell St. , a neighbor of Mrs . Rotunno's
and Mrs. Rosica's, appeared to speak, expressing concern over the erosion of
the single family character of the neighborhood and the parking problem. Sh-e
requested clarification of the 'grandfather' clause as it applies to the
property. Can the Variance be limited to this owner? Ms. Clavel expressed
concern over the use of .the building should Mrs. Rotunno no longer reside
there and a new owner rent the property--in which case an absentee landlord
could rent the property and the neighborhood would have no control over its
use. She requested that a clause regarding use after Mrs. Rotunno` is no
longer in residence be inserted.
Mrs. Rosica said the property will be managed the same as in the past
should this occur and that it probably would not pass out of the family.
Zoning Appeals Minutes (continued) : -2-
As for the parking problem, they were seeking to reduce occupancy Iand
therefore reduce parking problems by the conversion. Mrs. Rosica said
they were looking for a couple to occupy the apartment.
Mr. Cookingham inquired as to the present use of the one car garage. Mrs.
Rosica replied that it was used for storage and for parking bicycles. Mr.
Cookingham suggested that the garage be torn down and parking put in the
rear of the lot. Mrs. Rosica said that she would not want to demolish the
garage unless this was absolutely required.
Mrs. Rosica said there were many illegalities in their neighborhood which
were creating a worse problem than was her house. Director Van Cort
explained .the occupancy limits in the R1 zone and noted that the Department
was aware of and trying to correct the situation of ,illegal conversions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planner Jon Meigs had recommended approval . Director
Van Cort suggested that approval be tied to occupancy by owner or at a
minimum that occupancy be limited to the number now proposed for the
structure, i .e. , five individuals. Director Van Cort noted that occupancy
could be limited in the Variance. The problem here as elsewhere in the
City was often one of fact--of determining how many persons were actually
in residence.
Mrs. Rosica said the number of tenants would depend on whether a couple
could be found to occupy the apartment. She presently rents only to singles
in order to have as few tenants as possible.
MOTION: Cookingham, seconded by Nichols, moved to accept the staff recom-
mendation with the condition that occupancy be limited to five people.
Ms. Blumenthal- asked whether this would incl,ude. a stipulation that the
premises be owner occupied. Cookingham moved to amend the motion to adopt
Staff's recommendation with the recommendation that there be a limit of five
occupants and in addition that the unit be owner occupied. Mr. Nichols
seconded the motion.
VOTE: 3-0-0. Carried.
APPEAL 1647 7 505 S. -Aurora Street: Appeal of S. and L. Hovanec for Area
Variances for deficient ront and side setbacks to permit conversion of the
single family dwelling into a two-fa roily dwelling. The property is in an
R-2a District in which. the proposed use i$. permitted.
APPELLANT COMMENT: The present owner, Douglas McEver, 'and the prospective
buyer, Stephen Hovenac, stepped forward to speak on the issue. Mr. McEver
said that the property as now situated did not meet the requirements for
conversion and requested that a hardship consi'derat.ion be gi'ven to avoid
moving the building to conform to the zoning requirements, He noted that
when he purchased the house-it was divided into--two-units which-he converted
- to one. McEver said that the previous owners had converted—the-buil-ding
to W-0-
Zoning. Appeals ffl_nutes (c�ontinu-ed) -3-
PUBLIC COMMENT:
3nPUBLIC'COMMENT: Lorraine Saggese, the next door neighbor, said that the
buildings were only four feet apart as they .now stood and expressed concern
over the quality of the neighborhood should the building be converted, She
referred to past problems with student tenants and concern 'over the continuing
loss "of single family houses 'in South Hill!.
Susan Cummings, Common Council Member for the Second Ward, expressed concern
aboutmaintaining the integrity of the neighborhood and the desire to see
tighter zoning requirements in the area. Occupancy is already too high in
the neighborhood', _and_parking is a serious problem. If the building were
to be converted, _several new parking spaces would be needed, She
expressed the desire to maintain a balance of housing types in the area and
requested that the Board recommend denial ,
Ms. Blumenthal requested clarification regarding the conversion plans, Mr,
Hovenac said that he and his family planned to occupy the second and third
floors, and to convert the first floor to an apartment, -Occupancy would be
limited to two people downstairs and one family upstairs,
Director Van Cort suggested that occupancy be 1imited to owner and a family
in one unit plus- no more than two related people in the other units Hovenac
rejected this suggestion, Director Van Cort noted that they could still sell
to another owner-occupant, Mr, Hovenac said no, that he might want to be
able to rent the upstairs
Mr. Nichols requested clarification of R-2 zone rules, Director Van Cort
stated that R-�2 zone permitted two -unit structures. with a family or not
more than three unrelated individuals in each unite
In response to a statement by Mr. Hovenac, Director Van Cort explained that
when the Zoning Ordinance was extensively revised in 1977 the R1 and R2
regulations were intended to-allow occupancy by families in single family
houses and duplexes: The R3 and RU zones were meant to accommodate larger
groups of unrelated people in cooperatives and multiple dwellings. Changes
in the housing market have opened R-2 and in some cases R1 areas to occu
pancy by unrelated individuals. In addition illegal conversions have put
additional pressure on family neighborhoods, The City is in the process
of examining the residential zoning regulations to see whether they are in
need of revision, Director Van Cort suggested that the Board turn down the
request for Variances and that the owner apply for an Accessory Apartment
Special Permit.
MOTION; T�'chols, seconded by Cookingham, moved that the Board deny the
roq e for variances- with the suggestion that the owner apply for an
Accessory Apartment Special Permit,
VOTE-: 3-0-0. Carried.
Zoning Appeals Mi-nutes; (Continued) : -4-
APPEAL 165,0 - X35-•37 W. State Street: Appeal of Lower for an Area Variance
for deficient off-street parking- to permit conversion of the existing
retail/storage building to retail and office use, and to permit construction
of a ones--story addition .for retail use on the east side of the building (an
existing one--story building on that side will be removed or demolished) .
APPELLANT COMMENT: Jagat Sharma, architect, and owner William Lower spoke
on this requests Mr. Sharma explained the problem of 64 and B2 zoning.
There are two building on the lot. The major building has historical value
but is in very poor condition. The building needs new foundation, roof,
interior walls, plumbing and electricity. Mr. Sharma said .his options were
to demolish and construct a one-story building to conform to B4 and B2 zoning -
rules, or to reconstruct the existing three-story building. He proposed to
rehabilitate the building! build a new foundation, reinforce walls and clean
up the front, build °in an elevator and stairs, providing accessibility for
handicapped people. The present use is as a commercial store, The upper
two stories are not in use. Mr. Sharma proposed to retain the store on the
first floor and build offices on the upper stories.
Ms. Blumenthal asked if he planned to use brick or wood. Mr. Sharma replied
that he would prefer to use brick but this. building has subsided and will
need .to be raised to within 2" of level in order to do so. Mr. Cookingham
asked if there was presently clapboard on the building, and Mr. Sharma
replied in the affirmative. In response to a question about parking and
traffic congestion, Mr. Sharma noted that parking could be provided on the
lot and that three more parking spaces would be gained if the stairs and
the elevator were eliminated from the plans. In addition, there was metered
parking nearby.
Mr. Cookingham stated he believed there is a parking shortage in this area
and Mr. Sharma replied that he never had trouble finding a space. In response
to a question by Mr. Nichols, Director Van Cort stated this ordinance requires
one parking space for each 250 square feet of office floor. He also stated
that the Department strongly supports saving the building even if this
requires a parking variance,_ The building is of significant V§,tortd 'vaTue
and has been identified by the State Historic Preservation Office as one
of six buildings of particular merit in Ithaca°s West End. The existent
original wooden store fronts are of greatest importance but the wooden
siding and fenestration pattern are also worth preservation or replication,
Mr.- Nichols asked if the building were attractive enough_ to vtarrAnt this
concern, and Director Van Cort replied that it-has historical i.pportnce.
that all architectural features are intact and can be restored, Six bui.ld%ngs
in the area have been declared eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places by the State Historic Preservation`Offite, and this is one of them,
Mr. Nichols asked if the planned construction on Route 9.6 Mould affect the
intersection and Director Van Cort replied that it would not, Mr, Ni~chols.
again expressed concern over parking and traffic congestion,
RECOMMENDA N; Director Van Cort noted that Mr, Loeser is, under
Pressure to' restore the building now or he will receive no tax advantage
Zoning Appeals Minutes (Conti-nuad) -5-
and will have to demolish it, The Staff recommended approval because %t is
an important building and provides an attracti-ye.-entrance to t�dest_State:-Street.
With parking provided for in the plan, .parking would be deficient but not
critically so, Director Van Cort recommended that the storefront be restored
using original material and hardware, Mr, Lower said they intended
to use the wood exterior fenestration and original" . mater --als as much as
possible.
Mr. Nichols asked whether Mr. Lower had attempted to rent more off street .
parking inthe area: Mr.'
.-Lower'.replied that nearby lots could not be cont
verted to parking because they are owned by,.Cornell Laundry: Mr. Nichols
asked how many parking spaces dere required 4 and Mr; Sharma replTed. that
23 were required i'f the Bbilding Comm%ssioner accepted the architect's
reading .of the ordinance,
There .was- additional discussion about noise and traffic congestion in the
area and pos-sible problems renting office space in the building., Mr. Cook-
ingham suggested. that renters would know this beforehand and.rent accordi'ngl.y,
`MOTIDN; Nichols moved to 'recommend approval of the Appeal , °seconded by
BTu—m that
VOTE: 3,0 4. Carried,
APPEAL '16-52�'�'M---ek'P?-Ace (.Romanowski present) Appeal of HOMES, Inc,
for - tea Variances or dei fent, lot size and one side. yard to permit
conversion of the single family dwelling to a. group care res%dence for nine.
residents, The property is in .an R-2b District to which the proposed use
is permitted, but unless the property meets special conditions prescribed
under Section 30,26, the appellants-must-obtain variances before a building
permit or Certificate of Occupancy..can b.e'_i.ssued,
>APPEk -AP .`; pMf T Ms. Jan Beckman, Executive pi rector, HOMES r Inc, and
aJ m Spi;�o " rdent': appeared to speak. in defense of, thls reques-ta
Ms. Beckman acknowledged concern over two issues; the planning„issue of
saturati:on.,and that of neigh.borhoo.d reaction; As to the first, she noted
that most saturation is de facto and pointed out the. limitations faced
by HOMES, Inc, .iWfinding sies of price, location, and adequacy of facilities,
She also noted, however, that carp and concern are best expressed. in a con'
munity setting and that the neighbors; had. been Noticed and voiced-no objections
to HOMES, .Inc, regarding th.e proposed project. She emphasized that HOMES, Inc.
makes. a special effort to locate their facilities in areas where they fit
in, She, repeate-d their constraints,, :money, which 1 imi is the size of the
facility; the:.condttion of the property, which must meet applicable standards,
and HOME, .Inc.'s concern that care be administered in a homed ike setting,
Mt.-`Beekman noted that HOMES g Inc: 1had selected. th_is hous-e for the following
reasons:
:They would not sut-divi.'de into a tw 4amily dwelling, which.
was a neighborhood concern;
2, The:;.hears°.wanted for r�aiintain'_the.:unit',as a 's:ingle,,.whfiy dwelling,
3, The area has -m'i'xed composit.Tom families,, old and. young people,
Zoning Appeals Minutes (eonti-nu-ed) e --6--
some subdivided units and some transients;
4. It was near a park,
5. The house was in good shape;
6, It was within walking distance of services.
In sum, their main interest was in providing a home;-like setting to their
clients and the neighborhood's was in getting tenants who would not subdivide
and who would maintain the property.
Ms. Beckman noted that HOMES, Inc. had sent out two sets of'Noti'ces
regarding the intended project, Two neighbors (one next door, Mrs. Lois
Lounsbery), called Mr. Spiro to indicate their support of the project.
In response to questions by Board Members, Ms., Beckman gave the following
additional information; HOMES, Inc, currently has four locations in Ithaca,
Some were apartments, however, A Board of Zoning Appeals hearing in 1977
on the East State Street location had noted that the unit looked like a
well-kept single-family residence, The occupants would all be adults (,over
18 years of age). The average age was in the early 20s , but ranged
into the 60s and 70s, Usually the occupants-were between 20 and 40 years
old. The occupants had problems`-which , in some cases prevented them from
working. According to their policy, however, all residents must have
employment out of the house during the day, be it employment, sheltered
employment, or treatment, Mr, Spiro added that some resi-dents worked in
regular jobs,
Mr. Romanowski asked several questions referred to him by neighborhood
residents. In response, Ms. Beckman supplied the following information,
Residents receive training in daily living -skills, cooking, money management,
housekeeping, etc, Except for extentuating circumstances, they are out
during the day, and are required in at specific times, HOMES, Inc, provides
formal recreation on a regular basis, Generally, house members prepare meals
and do choresJn the evening, There is all-night supervision, and HOMES, Inc,
has policies regarding visitorsso people do not drop in unannounced,
Patients are referred by families, agencies; and hospitals or they are self
referred,
Mr. Romanowski noted that there was already an emergency shelter on West
Court Streetand suggested that two group homes may, oe too much for one
neighborhood. He also questioned whether the relatively small yard was
adequate for nine people,
Ms. Beckman replied that their architects had reviewed the house and said
that the park across the street would help offset the lack of yard area,
Mr. Spiro added that the residents are past the ball -playing age and that
recreation is provided away from home as, for example, softball .games at :
Cass Park, Ms. Beckman emphasized that HOMES, Inc. were good neighbors
and so far had received a good response from neighborhoods where their
facilities were located.
Mr, Romanowski requested a list of other programs and groups: .He had
received no response from thie.nei,ghborhood and apparently no objections: to
the, project.
Zoning Appeals Minutes (continued) : _7_.,
MOTION: Nichols, seconded by Cookingham, moved to recommend approval ,
Romanowski abstained (without intent to indicate disapproval ) .
STAFF RfCOMMENDATTGNS Director Van Cort noted that Planner Jon Meigs
had some questions a`out the area deficiency. Van Cort recommended
approval but requested attention to the external stairs, which are
intrusive. Ms. Beckman said they would request alternative suggestions
from the architect.
Nichols, seconded by.Cookingham, moved to amend the motion to include
the request regarding the stairs.
VOTE: 3-0-1 (_abstention, Romanowski)