Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1981-06-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS !iMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ITHACA ii NEW YORK - JUNE 1 , 1981 Page ii APPEAL NO. 1359 Broome Developmental Services 2 618 North Aurora Street i' HAPPEAL NO. 1359 Executive Session 4 I II APPEAL NO. 1360 Leonard E. Mankowski (NO ONE SHOWED) 5 58 Woodcrest Avenue APPEAL NO. 6-1-81 Richard Flaville (" ") 5 �f Tallmadge Tire 358 Elmira Road �I i IJAPPEAL NO. 6-2-81 RHP Incorporated 5 i' 309 Elmira Road I iAPPEAL NO. 6-2-81 Executive Session 24 l�APPEAL NO. 1366 Ronald D. Schmitt 25 118 Sears Street iAPPEAL NO. 1366 Executive Session 28 i ij jAPPEAL NO, 1367 William Freund (Held over) 29 i 1025 N. Tioga Street i:APPEAL NO. 1368 Ferdinand Stanchi 29 442 North Geneva Street I. 'APPEAL NO. 1368 Executive Session 32 �1APPEAL NO. 1369 Harry Taggart, Jr. (no one showed) 33 202 South Geneva Street i ( APPEAL NO. 1370 Margaret Liguori (Held Over) 33 113 Stewart Avenue APPEAL NO, 1371 Anthony Albanese 33 102 Adams Street ;!APPEAL NO. 1371 Executive Session 39 �! CERTIPICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 40 Ii I; l� i i I Ii I I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK i I JUNE 11 1981 I CHAIRMAN AMAN: I ' d like to call the June meeting of the Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals to order. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca City Ordinance , j The Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and the Ithaca Sign Ordinance . There are six members on the Board, present this evening are five of the ( six, with the sixth expected at some point . j PRESENT: Peter Walsh Morris Angell Margaret Haine Charles Weaver 1 Alfred Aman, Jr. William Wilcox Thomas D. Hoard, Bldg Comm. $ f Secy to the Board Barbara Ruane , Recording Secretary �IFor those of you who are not familiar with thep rocedures of the E , Board let me briefly tell you how we operate here. We call the cases up in order - that is, according to the agenda that you have1 We ask first that those who are requesting the variance come for- award, state your case, list the reasons why you think you are t ,lentitled to the variance and to be complete but also to be as succinct as possible too . After you have made your case , the i Board may or may not -- in most cases will have some questions for you after you speak. After you have answered those questions , I will then ask whether there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on behalf of the requested variance. We will then ask whether there are any - if there is anyone who wishes to speak against the proposed variance . Mr. Wilcox has just joined us - that means that all six members of the Board are here tonight . On thing, it is very helpful if you make your statements here at this podium. We do not operate under strict rules of evidence but we Ido decide our cases based on a record and that record is made i through your testimony and those speaking for or against the vari- � i ance and it is recorded here so consequently, although on occasion ! I someone may just have one or two sentences that they want to say Iand they feel that it a lot easier just to stand up in the back ' Ill of the room and make their point, unfortunately it may be lost as f li 2 - ! f 1far as the record is concerned so, although it may seem a bit ( cumbersome, we do ask that whatever you have to say be said up here so that we can be sure that it is recorded. It takes four !)affirmative votes for a variance to be granted - that means four i ; of the six members here would have to affirm the proposed variance I ) for that to be granted. After we have heard all of the cases the Board then goes into executive session and deliberates and recon- j livenes and at that point will announce our decisions. I think that ; i? ! covers it, Mr. Commissioner, if you would call the first case. i! .SECRETARY HOARD: The first case, Mr. Chairman, is appeal no 1359 : 1 I (r Appeal of Broome Developmental Services for! !! an area variance under Section 30 . 26B, Sec-1 tion 30. 25 , Column 10, to permit the addi- j tion of an exterior stairway for fire egres',s at the south end of the community residence building at 618 N. Aurora Street. The proper- ty, located in an R-2b (residential) use district, is deficient in side yard set backs and minimum lot size for a group care resi ji dence , and the maximum permitted lot cover-1 age is exceeded. An area variance is re- quired for an addition to a non-conforming ; l structure. This appeal was held over by I+ the Planning & Development Board on April 218 , 1981 pending additional information or an alteration in the plans . �MR. O'NEIL: I 'm Larry O'Neil and I represent Broome Developmental Services. We are requesting to add an exterior fire exit to the i� house at 618 N. Aurora Street, primarily to add additional safety ! ! for the ten mentally retarded persons who live in that home. When the house was originally designed and presented to the Board of ! Zoning Appeals we were operating under Par 86 of the Rules & Regu- I lations of the office of Mental Retardation. Since then, additional) ?jor stringent requirements have been placed on us - not that we objoct ito, but they do require us to add a fire exit on the second floor. ) We presented a design to the Planning $ Development Board which 1! was initially rejected by the Planning & Development Board we ! then asked the architect to redesign the stairway in cooperation ! with Mr. Meigs from the Planning Department and I believe the i' design do the members of the Board have the latest design? The I lone that Mr. Hoard has is the latest and this is a rendering of it ; i has well. Essentially the initial staircase which was designed. . . i (4 I �i f - 3 - [ SECRETARY HOARD: Is that the blue on over here? {1NiR. O'NEIL: Yes , the blue. The initial proposal was designed to E; j[have the staircase come down toward the Aurora Street side of the 1ibuilding or toward the front of the building and it was pointed out ij Ithat this would put people in the position of exiting into a small i alleyway or walkway between two buildings . The walkway has since I been redesigned and now projects to the back of the building and to! [the rear so that there is less danger for the people exiting from I the building as well as less impact on the neighboring house . I think the drawing that is being passed around is the latest - I 'm i sorry, I thought the Planning Department would pass on the latest 'one. The only thing different between the one that Mr. Meigs drew �,u and the one O'Brien & Taube drew u is that there is no - the i P p I [stairway essential does exactly the saem thing - it comes to the ,back of the building but instead of having a right angle, the one ! that is being projected just exits right into the back area of I the property. In this way we are minimizing the impact on the hous inext door and yet still accomplishing the same purpose of creating j +i I the necessary exit for the people involved. MR. WEAVER; Where does that terminate (unintelligible) i [MR. O'NEIL It comes out behind the ramp it comes down along the side of the ramp and then the people would come to the bottom !of the staircase just beyond the ramp construction onto a sidewalk that comes along the back of the ramp. �MR. WEAVER: No, you are not moving to the third leve of that i 'building? MR. O!NETL: No, we have - we do not use the third level of that 'building at all . There is no use of the third level , The other thing that was requested by the Planning & Development Board and I 1have passed the information on to the architect, is a request that i �[a design be chosen for the staircase that is a little more aesth.e I tically in keeping with the style of the building and my understandr' (`ling in the initial conversation with. the architect is that is I possible and will be incorporated in the final plan. CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions from the Board? (none) i 'Thank you sir. i ! ! - 4 I + Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the requested! variance? (no one) Is there anyone here who opposes it? (no one) Okay, we 'll take the next case . I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK i JUNE 1 , 1981 EXECUTIVE SESSION I APPEAL NO. 1359 : I The Board considered the appeal of Broome Development Services for an area variance under Section 30 . 26B and Section 30. 49 and 30. 25 to permit the addition of an exterior stairway for fire egress at ( the south end of the community residence building at 618 North ! Aurora Street. The property, located in an R-2b (residential) use (district, is deficient in side yard set backs and minimum lot size for a group care residence, and the maximum permitted lot coverage is exceeded. An area variance is required for an addition to a non-conforming structure. The Board' s decision was as follows : MR. WALSH: I move that the Board grant the area vari- ance requested in appeal number 1359. MS . HAINE: I second the motion. i VOTE : 6 Yes; 0 NO Granted ( FINDINGS OF FACT: 11) The impact on the neighborhood will be minimal at worst . 2) There was no opposition from the neighborhood. It has already been redesigned once at the suggestion of the Planning Board II I to make it less intrusive. 3) There will be no increase in density population and the pro- posed change is required by health & safety considerations . I G i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK f i" JUNE 13, 1981 SECRETARY HOARD: Next case is appeal 1360 Appeal of Leonard E . Mankowski for an area jj variance under Section 30. 25, Columns 10 and ii 11 to permit the addition of a solar collector! j along the front of the existing one-family I dwelling at 58 Woodcrest Avenue. The property! is located in an R-la (residential) use district and the addition would extend into the required front yard set back and the maximum lot coverage would be exceeded. This appeal was held over by the Planning & Development Board on April 28 , 1981 . �j FIs there anyone here to present this case? (no one showed) . Okay,'; +appeal no. 6-1-81 : Appeal of Richard Flaville for a sign variance I� under Section 34 .6B of the Sign Ordinance to permit the construction of a sign that would cover the entire face of the building at 358 Elmira Road (Tallmadge Tire Service) . If per-� mitted, the sign would be eleven and one-half times the maximum permitted for the property under the Sign Ordinance regulations for the B-5 (business) use district in which the property is located. Is there anyone here to present this case? (no one showed) . Okay,! i 1 +appeal No. 6- 2-81 : Appeal of RHP Incorporated for a variance under Sections 34.4A, 34. 15 , 34 . 13A, and 34. 9 to permit the replacement or reconstruction of a billboard at 309 Elmira Road which was knocked' II over by persons unknown. The Building Commis-' sioner has denied a permit for repair or re- placement of the billboard because billboards are specifically prohibited by the Sign Ordi- nance and because the ordinance contains no provisions for repair or replacement of non- conforming signs. The property is located in a B-5 (business) use district. i MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes , Mr. Hoard, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, my name is Bob Williamson and I represent Park Outdoor. We i hare, as per the statement made by Mr. Hoard, here requesting a !i variance which in effect is a waiver of those sections of the Sign +Ordinance which will allow Park Outdoor to put our board back up that was knocked down by vandals. Let me commence by saying that fall we want to do isg o back to the status quo . We want no special � Nprivilege for that one board other than to put it back the way it 1was . The sign was legally standing at the time vandals knocked lit to the ground, persons unknown - they are still unknown. It was:: (jstanding at the time pending the determination between conferences I� lbetween myself and other members of Park Outdoor and the City of �� t ,i _ 6 1 Ithaca - principally Ralph Nash who is the Deputy City Attorney - i ,relative to whether or not it was the Highway Beautification Act I!,• i ias applicable in this case which - Highway Beautification Act as I� mended in 1978 authorizes and requires that for the removal of i�illboards a compensation be paid. And this applies to baords that ; 4re located on Federal Aid Primary Systems. Route 13 , as determined �y Ralph Nash, in an opinion that he wrote for the City Chairman of ! jthe - Mr. Slattery - who is Chairman of the Charter & Ordinance �ommittee - determined that in fact Route 13 where the signs are I and I am reading from his opinion "is located on the Federal Primrayt ISystem, thus under Federal law these signs cannot be removed without �Ithe payment of compensation. " He goes on to say that "at least in j i ithe city of Ithaca and the position of having to pay for the com- i ilat ensation o£ the signs if the city wants to take them down because the present time there apparently is no federal monies available i o pay or to contribute towards the payment for the taking down of hese signs ." Let me hasten to add that Park Outdoor wants to stay i iLn business in ITHACA, WANTS TO KEEP THE SIGN AND KEEP THE SIGNS jvhere they are which, as most of you know, on the Elmira Road, is a �usiness district and the signs have been there for years and years 4nd advertise mainly local businesses. So our position is we want io go back to the status quo , pending the finalization and resolu- ition of the matter between the City and Park Outdoor, and, as I ��ay, discussions have been going on and I also wish to add that, in 'l �he opinion that he wrote Mr. Slattery, Mr. Nash did go on to say ii �11they are waiting further written confirmation of the matter dis- � i ussed and exploring other possibilities ." So he didn't want to ��onsider the matter closed. But he did reach the opinion that theyi �re signs on a Federal Aid Primary Highway and that under the High- ay Beautification Act, they are entitled to compensation before being taken down so our position is the sign was , in fact, vandalized it was a sign that was legally standing and we want to go back to� he status quo and put the sign up. I have also a letter from the I � epartment of Transportation from the State of New York, stating, it tact, confirming what Ralph Nash found out that this is a Federal I i i' — 1t - 7 - 1 j Air Primary Highway. The sign going back to its original upright I i cc! position is restoring the board to status quo - there are already i I I� other boards on the Elmira Road in this business and commercial i { district . There would be nothing new or, in my way of thinking, d s- tracting, about putting this board back up, pending the completion of any resolution of the matter between the City and Park Outdoor. I refer, in concluding, to the editorial in the Ithaca Journal which came out April 29 , 1981 which was the day or so following the date that the board was vandalized. I quote : "If the City and Park can't reach a quick agreement on the billboard, we think the firm ought to be allowed to re-erect it . The firm can't replace the billboard, the damage to the mechanism set up to deal with such a problem would far outweigh the assault on our senses by the jbillboard. If the sign stays down the vandals will have succeeded 1 in what they apparently set out to do - they will also have circum- vented the protection of the law to which Park is entitled. While we are sure some would go around knocking billboards down and want to - some would applaud them but we don't. While billboard vigi lantes may see themselves as protecting the aesthetic sense of Ithacans we see them as no more than punks who are destroying the property. They have no right to do that under any circumstances . 111 I 'm ready to answer any questions. Mr. Chairman, that you may have . CHAIRMAN AMAN: This notion of the status quo, I want to make sure I understand your argument. Are you suggesting that federal law pre-empts the local zoning ordinance? MR. WI'LLIAMSON: Yes, CHAIRMAN AMAN: The local Sign Ordinance? MR. WI'LLIAMSON: The local -- the Highway Beautification Act - along` a Federal Primary Highway, requires that boards , when they are requested to come down - along a Federal Aid Highway, are entitled the owner is entitled to reimbursement for those boards, that isl correct. That supersedes a local ordinance. E CHAIRMAN AMAN: Well , I guess that 's my question - does that go to just the compensation issue or are you suggesting that that goes t'o the issue of whether or not the sign can legally be there in the first place? fi �i 8 - ; V MR. WILLIAMSON: My contention is that because of the Highway Beau jti- '� fication Act which states that signs cannot be taken down or � j� ordered taken down, without compensation that , in fact, this sign was legally there because there has been no final determination 1 between the City and Park Outdoor relative to those boards - the l other boards - including this board and so this board was, in fact„ i� legally standing at the time unless Park had received compensation; from the City to take it down. }' MR. WALSH: Bob, doesn't this really put it or let me put it this Eway - what is the affect of the removal of the sign by whomever on �E RHP's right to claim compensation under law? If you don' t have a �! sign that 's in place for whatever reason, can you still claim compensation? MR. WILLIAMSON; Well, its our contention that we be entitled to the compensation but my point is all I want to do is go back to j I� status quo so that when I am dealing with the City I can deal with I I all the boards at the same time and, depending on what the City i ,j and Park eventually arrive at as a conclusion . . . �! MR. WALSH: Apart from the concerns of the Beautification Act - �! to what would you point in the statutes that govern this Board which 1� i might permit it to waive the requirement of the various statutes I� in order to make a return to the status quo and to - isn' t this i much like a building destroyed by fire which is non-conforming? ij Even if - assuming the fire (:unintelligible) . MR. WILLIAMSON: I think this is a unique situation and because of its uniqueness, I feel that you have the power to waive these various sections of yeur Sign Ordinance and permit us to put the �I board back the way it was. I don't think it' s a non-conforming usje , ii again, based on-the Highway Beautification Act. It is there and i.t is legally there and unless we are compensated and paid to take it ;i i j down. And, again, all I want to do is go back to the status quo i and I think that you can waive the requirements in this unique (i situation and we are here, I might add, also , because I think that - maybe Iam misspeaking , but think even Mr. Hoard' s office! i is a little puzzled as to what to do but I think he took the right, it I) i I� 9 - �i �{ procedure, he just felt, look, as far as I am concerned you've got to get a permit and you' ll have to follow the regular procedures that we have established and within those guidelines , come to the Plan I �i ning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals to get a permit. So it that ' s what - in other words I 'm following procedural guidelines ii that he thought were appropo and they seem logical to me , at least',' they were on the books as steps that we could take to come before j i 'i you requesting this waiver. Otherwise I don' t know what we could �i do except to go on out and lift up the board and put it back to- ii gether but we don' t feel that us doing anything like that in the d4rk )! of night would be anything that we would want to do . We felt than we ought to come through the proper city agencies and boards and request that they waive the sections in this particular instance I, I that would allow us to put the board back up . MR. WALSH: So you are basically asking for an exception for a j Sign that is non-conforming? I guess I 'm still puzzled as to what; �I particular sections you are pointing to in our authority which would permit us to waiver requirements as you put it. MR. WILLIAMSON: Well I would think you can waive your - I think 11 I� you can waive the requirements under a request for a variance. Wei go through a variance is requested for these reasons and I 've set them forth. Our sign was legally standing as far as I 'm concerned) I� i - it was vandalized - knocked down and number 2 - it 's a unique I; !� situation - I mean a situation was created by vandals - some ii other factors and restoring it and putting the board back where it', was - it is still in a commercial or business zone - it' s not as I if we are trying to move it and put it in a residential zone or I� someplace else, The board is still there and a couple of bolts and �) it can sit upright, It' s really about six bolts . MR. ANGELL: Mr. Williamson, what you said is that they have in other areas owners of signs have been compensated by the Federal f Government when they were required to take them down, is that it? !( MR, WI'LLIAMSON; Yes -- Mr. Burns is here with me tonight and he can' - �j I don't know the total number of boards that we 've been compensated for in New- York State and Pennsylvania I don't have an iea but �I j he has handled all negotiations relative to the compensation paid �i ! - 10 - i to Park Outdoor for the signs that were ordered removed by the State of New York and the State of Pennsylvania, but we 've had j many, many signs for which we have been compensated along Federal Aid Primary Highways . i MR. ANGELL : And now Federal Government has no money to pay for those signs, is that it? � I ° MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, Ralph Nash has indicated that he , in his i conversation with the gentleman' s name is right here . - Daryl Harp i in Albany advised Mr. Nash "that there are no funds presently ! available under the Federal Highway Beautification Plan under this reimbursement program. " In other words whether there were some appropriated and they've all been spent for the current fiscal year, I don' t know - but he was advised by Mr. Harp, the Deputy Commissioner of Department of Transportation that there were no funds presently available. MR. ANGELL: So what you are saying is that unless the City of i Ithaca at this point , compensates Park Advertising, the signs will] I stand forever and a day? pj MR. WILLIAMSON: I ' ll quote again from Mr. Nash, that is my opinio# I I• but it appears to be his also . "This appears to have the City of Ithaca in the position of having to pay 100% of the compensation f�r i the signs if the City wants to take them down. " I have copy - if i you wanted to have this xeroxed I could hand them out - I only hav� the one copy I got from Mr. Nash. I think you have one Tom. Mr. j Hoard has a copy. i MR. WEAVER: Mr. Williamson, you say that you have a right to com i pensation for this sign. Would your argument be weakened by the sign being horizontal instead of vertical? i MR. WILLTAMSON: Well , I take the position that we are still entitled to it even - because it was vandalized but I can be - maybe I 'm I� !i wrong, but that 's my position. I) CHAIRMAN AMAN: It seems like what we are saying is you want to pu j the sign back up again so that you can have an argument for the proposition that you should be paid to take it down again. j MR. WILLI'AMSON: I am really arguing to put the sign back up and bo in status quo so that the resolution I make with the city though i Mr. Nash or any other committee that is appointed by the City, I 1! will follow whatever resolution is reached. As Mr. Angell said, II i fmaybe until such time - maybe the next fixcal year monies will be i it put back into this particular budget - I don't know any more than ! you gentlemen do but it is quite possible they would fund it - so t i my answer would be that I 'd put it back up and maybe next year or whenever it is that they are going to fund this particular program' it again, and we 'd resolve it and if the city so desired, wanted all the boards down, then I 'm assuming that Park and the City would reach an agreement on the prices and that would be the end of it. CHAIRMAN AMAN: But if a federal fund is created for the purpose ! of compensating signs, it doesn't automatically follow, does it, that the local authorities have to create a similar fund in the I ! event that the Feds no longer want to fund that? MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, I didn' t say that. I would never say the City had to do that. I 'm just saying, the conclusion I had reached is I the same as Mr. Nash that, in fact, if the City wants to take them i {i down, then they have to fund the payment completely. I 'm not sayi�g they must - if you want to leave the signs that are pending -- pendrr ing some money that comes to the City that 's fine. i CHAIRMAN AMAN: Well , no , I 'm just trying to understand - I under- ,' stand you saying Mr. Nash says so - but I want to understand what i the argument is - why is it in your opinion that the City must pays, for what some federal law might have paid for if funding were there { at the federal level? MR. WILLIAMSON: The City would have to pay only if the City wantst. to have the boards taken down. If the City is willing to let the I! I boards stand until some future time when there is monies in this particular fund - that ' s fine. Only if you want the board down node. i MR. WALSH; Bob, are you saying that the City is without authority, to order the boards down without , except under the provision of ! the Federal Highway Beautification Act? NIR. WILLIAMSON: Yes . I 'm saying that they can order the boards down - but before that they must have reached an agreement with Park ii Outdoor relative to the compensation to be paid for the removal of I I i �? - - ,i 12 1 the boards . jMR. WALSH: I understand that - as to an action taken pursuant to i, the Federal Highway Beautification Act, it 's your position that th i! City would be required to pay a compensation either from its own j source or federal resources but what I 'm asking is, without respect to the Federal Highway Beautification Act, may the City require the i board to be removed? 'i MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean without - you mean forgetting about? MR. WALSH: As if there was no such act in effect on this road. IMR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, if there were no Highway Beautification Act , ' ! which I claim we are governed by, we' d be governed by the law of �i the City of Ithaca of the State of New York and by the City of �! Ithaca and your Ordinance would - says removal on an amortized bass I and that might be what we would have to follow, I haven' t thought i about it further because I really have concentrated solely on the i current law that I haven' t thought about the situation when there I if there was no federal law. There is a case currently in the Supreme Court of the United States which involves billboards and j they've argued the case and the decision has not come down but, ini I �+ fact, one of the arguments is that a City, or any Municipality, I i cannot totally eliminate billboards under the United States Consti- tution. There has to be some area within the Municipal boundaries g where billboards are allowed and that is a case that we are watchi' I� ,fn but the decision hasn't come down. i I MR. WALSH: As being the first amendment? t MR. WILLIAMSON: Right . i MR. WALSH: On what you are allowed to find (unintelligible) as to this particular (unintelligible), — in view of the fact that ;i the Highway Beautification Act covers it? MR. WILLIAMSON: This is a federal aid primary highway and the I i ii Highway Beautification Act says that in cases where there is a Fel- !I eral Aid Primary Highway on which billboards are located then in i Ii that event those highways - those particular highways - the bill boards to come down must be compensated for. MR. WALSH: In view of the fact that the current jurisdiction !i 1 I f - 13 - 1 ' doesn' t demonstrate an intent to pre-empt? I MR. WILLIAMSON: I would say no and wht has - the precedent is - i4 i Ifact we have received compensation in these cases , in other words , ) within Municipal boundaries and in Pennsylvania and in New York � I State. i MR. WEAVER: Was the order by a Municipality or from the State or j Federal Government? I MR. WILLIAMSON: I think that the state is the one we have been I dealing with - mostly - both New York and Pennsylvania. MR. WALSH: One more question - what is the period remaining within i which to depreciate this board according to the schedule for Feder4l I Income tax purposes by RHP? MR. WILLIAMSON: That I can't answer you - I just don't know. Wha 1 the length of time is - on the books - I don' t know. 1 MR. ANGELL: What year did the Federal Act go into effect? I I MR. WILLIAMSON: The amendment that we are concerned with was in 1978 , The 1978 it was amended - the Highway Beautification Act was amended to provide for the compensations of the boards before i they were removed. CHAIRMAN AMAN: Would you have the wording of that amendment or a copy of it? MR. WILLIAMSON: I had - I gave Mr. Hoard and Tom should have it - didn' t I give it to you once - Tom, all those amendments. . . ? fMR. WALSH: Do you have Nash' s letter - may I see it? MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. i MR. WEAVER: Is the owner willing to share with this Board some j evidence of the degree of their hardship for not having that board I do active duty? In other words, you say you don't know how far this has been depreciated. MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know that Mr. Erwin and Mr. Burns are here they might tell me the loss of rental R they might have tha right at their finger tips . MR. WEAVER: Do you know whether you are at all secure from such mishaps if they were vandalism, fire , windstorm, etc. - are you at !I all protected other than by lawsuit? E � MR. WILLIAMSON: We are not protected for vandalism. He is giving) ii 14 - me the answer - Mr. Erwin is in the rear - Mr. Erwin is the manager, �i Chief Weaver and Mr. Burns is with Park Outdoor and the loss of r rental - what is the loss per month? I don't know - I don't have Ij !i that. It advertised Barclay cigarettes did it? Was it Barclay? I 'm advised chief that they rent - the board rents for $185 . 00 a fmonth and we are not insured for vandalism. MR. WEAVER: I assume that also that the client is reimbursed for i MR. WILLIAMSON: Well I 'm sure he isn't paying anymore rent - let' s put it that way. MR. WEAVER: It depends on what kind of a contract he has. IMR. WILLIAMSON: No he isn't - that would abate. When the board I is down - that stops , I don' t have those sections with me Pete, I! IF j have them at the office . I gave Mr. Hoard - in his file he has the I whole thing. He went to get it I think. II V CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions? (none) Thank you sir. i% MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN AMAN: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf Ii of the requested variance? Yes sir. j� MR. CUTTING : Thank you, I am Dave Cutting of Cutting Motors and If I would like to speak in favor of what Mr . Williamson would like i' to do. It seems to me that vandalism of a board is not the way to! get the billboards down so that I would think that the proper way �I to do it is to get the billboards in place and then let ' s talk about i nine billboards on the Elmira Road. I have here and Rob if you i! would pass them out - these are petitions that were presented to Ij Common Council on February the second, signed by all the property �I owners and businesses along the Elmira Road - which state "We the undersigned urgently request that you, as our elected representa- tives take immediate action to remove the billboards that are a blight on the new and improved Elmira Road. All non-conforming signs were to be in compliance by August 31 , 1979. We feel strongly I1 that the existing billboards should be immediately removed to fi enhance the beauty and increase the value of our properties and E I businesses on the Elmira Road. You can see the list here I covered i, everyone - I think there were three that I did not cover on the i I i i I i ! 15 - I i ! Elmira Road. So there is great concern about these billboards , by the landowners and visitors on the Elmira Road. You, perhaps , are ! wondering about the Ordinance - I have a copy and Rob if you will ,, pass these out - these are copies of our ordinance - our local ordi;- 'finance concerning these billboards that say that in the event that aj � I !jsign is erected prior to July 5th of 1972 which does not conform 1 with the previous - with the provisions and standards of this ichapter - the requisite permit as provided herein shall be granted ! i '! for every such sign or other advertising structure - a period of ( time not to exceed July 31 , 1979. So that the billboard owner was i advised about the removal of the billboards and was given, believe !it I or not , a seven year grace period to leave his billboards up. If i, at that time that they should have been removed, August 31 , 1979 i the Building Commissioner, upon determining that any such non-con- i fiforming signs exist at the end of said period, shall notify the owner of the premises in writing to remove said sign within thirty 11 (30) days from the date of such notice. Upon failure to comply i with such notice within the prescribed - the Building Commissioner' itis hereby authorized to remove or cause removal of such signs and 1 ,! shall assess all costs and expenses incurred in said removal against I the land or building on which the sign is located. I think that gives you a little history on the signs. I 've been in my Dealer;; 11ship since 1967 so I 've had those billboards for fourteen years I facing me . I 've written to Bob Dingman, a letter as of September 128th, concerning the billboards . Tom Hoard, who has become a I friend, V ve talked to him frequently about the billboards , I 've I ; written to Matt McHugh and talked to Matt McHugh about the boards , ! And as Mr. Williamson did say, at the present time there are no funds f in the Federal Beautification Highway Act in the Transportation Department for payment. The compensation written in the Act, I ` believe, is 7S% Federal , 25% Local and the question really then ` involves what is the value of the billboards . My guess would be that they are probably worth, a couple hundred dollars - there isn' I' I� a lot of wood in them. Talk about depreciation, I imagine they !l have been up there twenty-five years, Certainly, there can be no -two financial hardship, they've been there seven years plus twenty ' I( I 16 - If months of illegal use of the boards . The talk of status quo - iI we've been in a status quo situation for twenty-two months - no once seems to want to move - the Council moved it to the City Attorney I{i i II - nothing is happening on these billboards . I think somewhere it li �I has to. I 'd like to make a comparison of two pieces of property and this , in essence, is the two pieces of property (pointing to a chart) . My property, of course, is next to the Park property. j Park property being here (pointing) and this being Cutting Motors (pointing) . Frontage is kind of the name of the game on the Elmir� Road - the frontage on the Park property is 367 feet and the Cutti�g Motors frontage is 322 feet. The City taxes paid on these properties for in fact the bills just came out - the tax for Park is $1 ,800. I so the City does realize an income. Cutting Motors pays a tax of i $6, 656. 00. To that we also pay a modest sales tax into the City -I our sales tax is $286 ,554 . 00. We have a total payroll of $446,926 . i So that the City yield from the Park property is $1 , 800 . 00. And the City, of course, gets a share of the sales tax, the payroll brings people shopping into our community. The 740,137 . 05 . It is easy to see the property that is under-utilized really doesn't produce a lot of money for the City. The thing that has been waived here, again tonight, is always you will pay compensation. II You must pay us before you take the billboards down. Our feeling is that you should take the billboards down and then talk abou the! e compensation. It seems to me that any compensation requested could be rather easily offset by a fine for twenty-two months of illegal use so that if the compensation, no matter what it is per billboaiii d, there certainly has to be a fine for an illegal act of leaving the billboards up. We did talk to the Planning Board at their i meeting last week - their recommendation was not to put the singl � ibillboard up - they also requested that all billboards be r m oved LIand i; I would hope that this Board does the same. The billboards on the I I Elmira Road have not been in compliance now for almost two years. This is after the seven year grace period almost another two I years of utopia F status quo - and status quo - nothing happens . And, of course that is what the would like y to get back to. The I - 17 - i II City has invested about 1. 8 million dollars to improve the Elmira Road, it really is a good looking road. The businesses along the road have improved, landscaping has improved, we have a good look- j ing road but the billboards on the front section of the Elmira Road still give us a carnival sideshow look, when you turn down the Elmira Road and have nine billboards facing you, you have a pretty) chintzy looking road on the Elmira Road. With the billboards re- moved the potential for city tax and for income to the city cer- tainly would be enhanced immeasureably when land is not being utilized when there is not income , Elmira Road land is very valu- able and a development certainly would follow so that in represen�- I� ing the businesses and the landowners on the Elmira Road, I would i �I urge this Board, the Common Council , and our Mayor to take the s i I I action immediately to give the thirty day notice for the removal i of all the billboards on the Elmira Road. Thank you. `i MR. WALSH: Mr. Cutting , if the law does require compensation to IThe paid for the billboard owners , doesn't that really play into th� I� hands of vandals generally to simply deny them the opportunity to treceive compensation. . . I I; MR. CUTTING: Well that just isn't it would be a terrible thing I Ito do it that way. I think compensation could be discussed - one i Ilof the points I didn' t bring up is that the Kiplinger Letter in ; January stated that "no big push for removing highway billboards ii in the works . Congress will not spend more to compensate those who ,town the billboards - in fact billboard removal may be axed in the j 1 new wave of spending cuts. " I just don't see any federal money coming and you brought out some very good points concerning then w40 V which law is first on the books. Certainly our law, locally, was I on the books nine years ago - about compliance. I don' t see how the Federal Government can come in and say okay, if we don't pay then all the Municipalities will pay the 104% for removal - I think that IIa - and I think Bob would agree - I think that 's going to have to be decided in the courts . � IMR. WALSH; Suppose for a moment that the Federal law does pre-emill ii lithe local and that there is a requirement that compensation be paid � by either local or federal sources - doesn't that take away from the I 18 - I value that the property owner would have had but for an act of r vandalism? MR. CUTTING : I guess my mind goes back to the fact that the bill ! jj boards being illegal since 79 - you are still only talking about I; seven years of grace period. MR. WALSH: Illegal is a question of a law, ultimately, and if thel j federal law pre -empts and says "you don' t take them down without I compensation" they are not . (unintelligible) I MR. CUTTING: This is something that I couldn' t really speak to nor I j do I think Williamson could. That' s a tough one, I think that 's l going to be decided in the courts. My feeling is they should come I down and I don't think - I think Mr. Park would be treated fairly I as other people throughout the country. If there is a precedent , j I I haven't seen this - I 've seen nothing on compensation for bill j j! boards being taken down - perhaps Mr. Burns could speak to that !j and maybe if this is being done it might be good for the City to know what sort of figures they are talking about before they levy a fine for being - having the billboards up for twenty-two months j ,f illegally. I think the City has a very strong position to deal with itthis problem. Anything else that I can answer for you? Thank youll f very much. ` MR. WILLIAMSON: May I respond, quickly, Mr. Chairman? is �I CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes , but let me see if there is anyone who wishes ! to speak either for or against the requested variance. I thought I 11 Mr. Cutting was going to speak for. Is there anyone out there wishing to speak for? i MR. CUTTING: I was "for" to start . A small "for". 1 CHAIRMAN AMAN: Well you fooled me. So we will hear all of the i opposition and then you can respond, i MR. WHITEHEAD: I have a couple of brief comments . My name is Allen i Whitehead, owner of a business called Tidi-Car on the Elmira Road i !! I i and I 'm confused somewhat by the legal aspects of the case, however �j as I understand it, the board that is in question was in violation; of an existing ordinance. Whether it was an act of God or vandalism, we don' t condone vandalism by any means , but he cannot go back to I �! 19 - i status quo. I would think that by allowing the reconstruction of this board it would be going back and allowing RHP to be in a i situation again where they are in violation of the Ordinance that is already on the books . There has been some talk about beautifi-I l cation and that sort of thing. I want to address the fact that I I have a new business - whether this is appropriate or not, my par- ticular location happens to be several hundred feet off the Elmira Road and some of the billboards that are in question - that are in violation of the existing Ordinance- happen to obscure my view and therefore decrease the chances for the success of my business and I think other businesses along the Elmira Road. Therefore I do believe that , with additional revenues coming in based on, i obviously, increase in business and that sort of thing, that the I city would look along the lines as far as to enforce the existing Ordinance if possible, and have these billboards removed. It' s a i situation again, whereby I think, that if we allow the reconstruc-1 tion of this board that we would just be putting RHP back in a situation where they would -x we would have to go through this whol legal question again. So, I am against the reconstruction of this) and I would hope that the Council would vote and act to enforce the existing law and not let RHP put this existing board up and, i fact, or -- excuse me the one that has been vandalized - and, in i fact, have the other ones removed as soon as possible. That ' s ally i I have to say, thank you. CHAIRMAN ARAN; Anyone else wishing to speak against the requested' variance? (no one) A brief rebuttal . MR. WI'LLIAMSON; Just a few items, Mr. Chairman, and members , in rebuttal . We contend have contended that these boards are legally up and are legally up and cannot be removed until we are properly compensated. I think one of the distinctions you make when this is a Federal Aid Primary Highway is that , in fact, to build the highway, Federal monies were used. I mean when you do that you then subject yourself I mean the City of Ithaca, I don' mean you individually, you subject the City of Ithaca to the �I federal laws and the federal law-, under the Highway Beautification I� I I � � - 20 - I ;]Act requires that, in fact, before the boards are taken down compen� lsation be given. Mr. Cutting mentioned prices for the boards - I 'd! ;have to disagree strongly with him - there is a state formula that !!Mr. Burns is familiar with that the state uses in compensating owners I 'of boards along teh State Federal Aid Primary Highways and as I 4i f�indicated, when this issue first came up two years ago , I wrote a letter to Mr. Hoard and to the party in his office who was then in ,charge of the billboards and signs and said that at all times Mr. Bori Iwould be ready, willing and able to sit down with the City and dis- ! ( cuss compensation with the City if in fact, they wanted these boards removed. I CHAIRMAN AMAN: On the compensation issue - to clarify my own think* ling - is it compensation for the board itself or is it compensation] i for taking down the board? SIR. WILLIAMSON: It is compensation - what does it include Bob? I ! IlBoth taking and the board itself? CHAIRMAN AMAN: So if the focus is on compensation - is that issue ;necessarily taken away from you if the board is down - however it w�s taken down? In other words, can't you still see compensation for j that board? I I R. WILLIAMSON: Well , as I say, we prefer to have the board put j Ilback in status quo just so we can stay the same as we are with the other eight boards and then continue our discussions with the city and go in that manner. We are not getting any monies at the present 'time - $185 . 00 a month rent which we had been getting prior to the 11boards being knocked down. Let me also add that of the nine boards : ! seven advertise local businesses . Billboards are a very reasonable ay for local businesses to get business and to advertise their ! business . There are only two national advertisers out of the whole ] nine boards and as I indicated at the Planning Board, if this were jlthe only business that Park Outdoor had - when you knock all our I 1boards down or take all the boards away - we are out of business - ,we are broke. Incidentally as far as taxes go I think that RHP, �1which owns Park Outdoor, pays well over at least just on the Ter- ' �j !race Hill Complex $30,000. 00 a year in city taxes, so I think that , his argument about taxes has no relevancy here. So, to conclude, Ii I I i , I reiterate - we just want to go back to the status quo and we feel ; I ;,the boards that are there are legal - the one that was taken down - � (pr not taken down, but vandalized, was legally there and until com- i i �Oensation is paid to RHP those boards are all proper. �I , IR. WEAVER: Mr. Chairman, we've had so much discussion over the value of these boards and referring to some expert in the back of t�E i room, I 'm very curious to know whether we are arguing about a dollaf r $100. 00. Do these things appreciate or depreciate? f HAIRMAN AMAN: Mr. Williamson, is there anyone here that could i testify to that? R. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Burns is the person who deals with the State relative to the boards values and he negotiates with them. R. WEAVER: My concern . . . R. WILLIAMSON: He might be able to give you the guidelines the i State uses . . . R. WEAVER: My concern about hardship - I don' t know whether this uch hardship . . . i lMR. BURNS: My name is Robert Burns , I am Vice President of RHP, In . I'It is a difficult question to ask. we have our own appraisal of all our properties that have been taken by the State. We have (negotiated over 300 billboards that have been taken by the State of New York. There is probably another 150 to 200 through the State o Pennsylvania. In the beginning, when the Highway Beautification originated we would do our own appraisals and negotiate with the St�te and we were so far apart that we finally sat down with the State i and tried to set up some guidelines of value so - because there wer� i so many boards that were going to be taken down that we would have i some kind of a common ground where we could determine the value of the boards. In the last six months we have used the State guidelin s and the guidelines you are asking how much the board is worth i they have different guidelines on the type of structure - whether it is steel, whether it is on eye beams whether it is a single pole unit whether it is wood - this type of thing. Off the top i �of my head I would say that the boards that we have down there on theElmira Road would probably be in the area of somewhere around (; i $3, 000. 00 a board. $3, 000 . 00 to $3, 500. 00 a board. Now when you � I �I - 22 - !take that figure you have to depreciate them, etc. - so I can't f; ;give you a price right now. I 'd say it would be between three an& i ;four thousand dollars to start with and then you would move in i� 1accordance with depreciation and so forth. i MR. WALSH: Mr. Burns, not having regard to the precise value of the components of the board itself, what is the guideline that you Hand the State have arrived at in terms of valuing the board in ijterms of taking. . . . . I!MR. BURNS: Well we try to set up a guideline of replacement of the aboard, if we take like kind and put it up today. Then you have to Intake into consideration the depreciation of it. �1 IMR. WALSH: So your guideline doesn' t take account of the economic return over a period of time? �IMR. BURNS: I wish it did. We tried this in the beginning and the fiState doesn't allow this . So the only way that we can deal with 1, ,the State is on the basis of replacement less depreciation. i fMR. WALSH: Can you tell us the period remaining in ,which this i 'board was to be depreciated under Federal Tax guidelines? ''MR. BURNS: I can' t. The economic value? �1MR. WALSH: No. ! ! MR. BURNS: Physical value? MR. WALSH: I assume you take a straight line depreciation or some ;thing approximate - is that usually ten years? JIMR. BURNS : Well , what we talk about is the actual physical struc- 1ture and I don't know how many more years we have left on these as i ;far as the physical depreciation is , on the board. But one thing I{ Ido want to make clear is that we can't use an economic guideline (which we have tried and the State will not allow this so we are !!going on the State guidelines. II!MR. WALSH: Can you tell us the age of this board? i � MR. BURNS: I have no idea. twenty years? IMR. WALSH: Are we talking about five, ten, I i f,MR. BURNS: Oh no, I think it is more than ten I 've been with Mr .'i lPark for eleven years - it was there when I came with Mr. Park - I lso T have no idea. Any other questions? ,i i �� I I - 23 - 'CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you Mr. Burns . We have a letter which was j Deceived relative to this case if Mr. Hoard will read it to the ii ITecord. § ECRETARY HOARD: This. is from Lynne Budzinski of 506 S ' tS Spencer Road: Y P !'Ithaca Planning Board, City Hall , Ithaca, NY. As a property owner E-n the Elmira Road vicinity, I have applauded the city' s recent moves I� ,',toward beautification of the area. It is a small but very necessary ptep in creating an atmosphere in which commercial enterprise does I �ot force the mass evacuation of tax paying families or the creatio Of a slum residence zone . Particularly in the Elmira Road area, the sign ordinance is of great importance as this is an area of diversei tructures and heavy commercial traffic. The sign in question is I f 114ue to be removed reasonably soon in any event due to the demise o I billboards in the city. To allow reconstruction of this sign, at i �fthis time, may cloud the issue of removing other billboards in othe !instances , since one variance for one reason inevitably leads to i IOther variances for other reasons . The city has been amazingly i Ijlenient in enforcement of the ordinance timetable, and extension Rafter extension have been granted. Speaking also as a business person, I would not be allowed construction of any sign outlawed by! i (;the sign ordinance, even from now until the date when these signs !must be removed permanently. To allow reconstruction of this sign its in no way fair to other business people who cannot use this form; of .I advertisement . It has been banned by the city and its residents ., IlAlthough we all deplore the vandalism involved, the issue has sur- 1 j i1passed destruction of property. This same destruction, unfortunately l � 1Ihappens every day to many other businesses without their being al- !lowed to bend the law to alleviate the problem. Therefore, I , with! �f Ithe undersigned neighbors , urge the Ithaca Planning Board to deny i. , reconstruction of the billboard in question. /s/ Lynne Budzinski'l ( Also signed by: Christine Morrisey, Darlene Pepin, Carol Fleming, �ILinda T. Bowers and Anita Clark. I ij CHAIRMAN AMAN: Hearing nothing further in this case then we will 'Icall the next case . t �I - 24 - I� �I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ! COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK j JUNE 1, 1981 ii i ! EXECUTIVE SESSION !APPEAL NO. 6-2-81 : I !The Board considered the request for a variance to permit the re- !placement or reconstruction of a billboard at 309 Elmira Road !which was knocked over by persons unknown. The decision of the ;Board was as follows : �MR. WALSH: I move that the Board deny the sign variance requested in appeal 6-2-81. I ( I!CHAIRMAN AMAN: I second the motion. i iiVOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No (FINDINGS OF FACT: 11) The Ordinance does not make any provisions for restitution of I I �I non-conforming signs or structures. � 2) There has been no showing of special hardship, economic or otherwise. �13) Although the appellant raised the question of encouraging i j vandalism, the Board was equally constrained by the petitioners] i j violation of the Sign Ordinance. s i i i I f i ,f i ij I� ! 11 f I i I !i I - 25 - ! j BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK {i JUNE 1 , 1981 I !1SECRETARY HOARD): The next case is appeal number 1366 : Appeal of Ronald D. Schmitt for an area variance �y under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 13 and 14 to permi I the conversion of a barn at the rear of 118 Sears Street to a dwelling unit for three per- sons. The property is located in an R-3 (resi- I dential) use district, and would be deficient in rear yard and side yard setbacks if the barni is converted to a dwelling unit. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. Pretty much . . . CHAIRMAN AMAN: If you would just state your name and address for I the record. R. SCHMITT: Ronald Schmitt, 302 E. Upland Road. Mostly it' s juste' - not that the area is wrong or that the lot is too small or over- crowded but it's just in a wrong spot and it' s a little too close to the lot line. And what I 'd like to do - I 'd like to do is , I 'd like to leave it where it is and remodel it and use it as a three 4person dwelling instead of having to move it a few feet to do the ff ! same thing. I need to do a little remodeling on it anyway. The I. ��ouse is in good shape but the barn is in need of some repairs. Anil 'd like to do everything at once . R. WILCOX: How many parking spaces do you have? �R. SCHMITT: Six to eight. I have larger plans, if you would like to see them. i CHAIRMAN AMAN: Do you recall the extent of the deficiencies the ''rear yard and side yard set backs and how much we we talking about? ! ! SCHMITT: Oh, it ' s probably three feet from the line either i�vay, at the most . i R. WEAVER: Is that tow instead of ten and two instead of five? ,`SECRETARY HOARD: Yes , that is correct , Two instead of ten and 20 I ,'instead of 200 . One side yard is deficient, which is supposed to b� i'if he converts the barn he'll have a two foot side yard and a five foot side yard. He i,s supposed to have ten and five so - and then e has about a two foot rear yard and it is supposed to be 20% jbf the depth of the lot which would be twenty feet. OR. WEAVER: So in fact it is not very close on the space - the bes jj I I' If - 26 - �ou could say - one side yard is five and it should be ten and the I I !tither is two and it should be five and the rear yard is two and it '�should be twenty. �ECRETARY HOARD: Right . I �R. SCHMITT: I 'd like to say that I could meet all of those specifi - ations but it just wouldn't fit into the neighborhood as well and it just wouldn't look as nice, besides being a little bit difficult tol i ove it. R. WEAVER: Is there another structure on the lot line in any of i hose three cases either to the south, north or west lot line? It oesn't show on the . . . R. SCHMITT: There is only two items too close to - and there is a ,structure behind it on the Cayuga Street side. There is none on he south side and nothing on the north side. HAIRMAN AMAN: How much space is there between the structures? IR. SCHMITT: I would imagine something like fifteen feet. �R. WILCOX: How long have you owned the property? i ] R. SCHMITT: Three months . I would also like to mention that 18 Sears Street is the nicest place on either side of the block - Lt is well kept placee and well taken care of - nice and quiet. HAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions? R. WILCOX: I 'm not sure of the exact location. I �R. SCHMITT: I have a map if you want it . (discussion not picked p by the recorder - between Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Wilcox) R. WILCOX: Oh, I see - Cascadilla and Court. Any letters? HAIRMAN AMAN: Yes we do have one letter. One letter from Esther pielman, 123 Cascadilla Avenue in which she states : "Dear Mr. Hoar.: live at 123 Cascadilla Avenue, around the corner from Sears Street , nd am considered to be an adjacent neighbor of 118 Sears Street. �t s my understanding that Mr. Schmitt wishes to convert an old build 'ng on this property to additional dwelling units . Although I annot argue with Mr. Schmitt' s desire to realize additional income rom his property, I never-the-less feel that Sears Street has alredy ecome a shambles because of student over-crowding. The parking is lready bumper to bumper the entire length of Sears Street, and in u ii - 27 - fact, very often I see student cars parked directly on the sidewalks nand even on front lawns on occasion. Because thestreet on which my, Ii ;; house is located, Cascadilla Avenue , is a one-way street, I must n i !; turn south into Sears Street every day to go to work; so I cannot I' help but notice the deplorable parking conditions on this street . iIThe absentee--landlord houses on Sears Street have more and more become veritable "slum" dwellings because of neglect and over crowding. I trust that any additional dwellings would not add to i I , this situation. Sears Street has depreciated the entire neighbor i ( hood. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express myself + in this matter. /s/ Esther E. Spielman, 123 Cascadilla Avenue , ! Ithaca, New York 14850" I, MR. SCHMITT: You see, I don't apply to that because I do have parl,- fling and I meet all the area regulations . ( CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any further questions? Thank you Mr. Schmitt. i MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. 11CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of the requested variance? (no one) Anyone here who wishes to oppose i0 �'I I (no one) Okay, we' ll take the next case. I� c i r i i it ff I 1 i f j l ,I ,j i I� j I, I� 28 - !i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS �I COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS j CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 1 , 1981 EXECUTIVE SESSION (APPEAL NO. 1366: The Board considered the request for an area variance to permit the' ; conversion of a barn at the rear of 118 Sears Street to a dwelling j I, unit for three persons. The property is located in an R-3 use district, and would be deficient in rear yard and side yard set {backs if the barn is converted to a dwelling unit. The decision of i IIthe Board was as follows: i 4'CHAIRMAN AMAN: I move that the Board deny the area variance I !I requested in appeal number 1366. i� �AR. WALSH: I second the motion. � !VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No Denied FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 I1) The petitioner proposes to convert an auxiliary building into j !y a residential building. This proposed residential building I I i would be deficient in rear yard by 18 feet. Given the already I �I high density of this neighborhood, allowing this conversion I would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. ( 2) Under these circumstances where an auxiliary building is to be i !' converted into a residential dwelling, the Board places parti- cular emphasis on the area and rear yard set back requirements i set forth in the Ordinance. In this case those requirements are not met. The purpose of these requirements is to insure adequate space between dwelling structures for light, air , and ! fire safety purposes. i i Ii I Ij �( I i1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW' YORK JUNE 1, 1981 SECRETARY HOARD: The next case a e is appeal number 1368 . Appeal number 1367 was held over until the July 1981 meeting. Appeal No . i 1368 : Appeal of Ferdinand Stanchi for an area variance under Section 30.25 , Columns 4 , 6, 10 11 & 12 and Section 30. 49, to permit a small addition tp the house at 442 North Geneva Street. The prop- erty is located in an R-3a (,residential) use district, and is non-conforming in that it is deficient in off-street parking, minimum lot area, and two minimum front yards , and the maxi mum permitted lot coverage is exceeded. The addition will not increase the residential density of the building, and the only deficiency which will be affected is that the lot coverage] will be increased slightly. i SMR. STANCHI : Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I 1would like to ask you to permit this permit in order to preserve. . . � CHAIRMAN AMAN: Would you just state your name and address just ford record purposes? R. STANCHI : Oh, I beg your pardon. i CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you. i R. STANCHI : My name is Ferdinand Stanchi, fi live at 107 First i Street. What I 'd like to do I 'd like to get the permit in order j to preserve and improve this section of this building. The purpose of the (:uni.ntelligible) is to prevent in the future, the water and ice - due to the breakage of the water pipes supplying to this I lefficiency apartment - they go under the foundation(unintelligible) so I have to enlarge - I could do it in a way that is smaller but if I do so the water still goes under the foundation. By enlarging and close in under the porch, in which. the water pipes are located ill, to my belief, will prevent in the future any damage to the Iproperty, And perhaps prevent a fire to the electric wire nearby the - where the water pipes are located. R. WILCOX: What do you plan to put in what is the addition? 117R. STANCHI: I want to close in one section of the porch which is not being used and then if I do it smaller the water will still go out and not come up back into the building. If I enlarge it may go Tout into the yard there is plenty of room there to go into the i I 30 `street. It happens - four years to my belief - two times the water, 1Ipipes busted and I reinforce insulation - and I want to put new wiring - you know to heat up the pipe or keep the pipe warm in the wintertime because I am afraid to cause any fire to the building. IIMR. WILCOX: Okay, so you agree with the Planning Department there ii ; would be no increase in traffic, or anybody else living there , so lithere wouldn't be any adverse impact as far as you can see? IMR. STANCHI : No sir, not to my belief at present because there is no parking there on the area (unintelligible) on either side , you iknow. i MR. WILCOX: So you are not putting in living space or a kitchen or lI lanything like that? MMR. STANCHI : No, no - no kitchen, no sir. I just want to make surje because every other year you have to spend money - break everything!, f' put more insulation and in the end I pay twice and it just doesn't.;. . IMR. WILCOX: How close is your neighbor on that side? .IMR. STANCHI : Oh, approximately about 27- feet - approximately. ,lThirty-one feet it should be depends on the structure or where yon I �,i + measure - you know - because it has a little curve in there which is M four feet in toward my back yard but if you take it from that section Ito the next building it is twenty-seven feet. Plenty of space naturally there is in between my building and the neighbor' s build-' � ing is nine feet wide plus twenty-one feet and six feet , the length Ilof the garage which I keep for storage or for lawn mower and insula tion and cinder blocks and so forth. i !MR. WILCOX: So the distance from your addition to the neighbor's property line that' s twenty-seven and one-half feet? rMR. STANCHI : Yes . One section is and the other section is about t wenty-one. Both ends of the property. Coming from west to east,' 1you know, one section is twenty-seven feet in the middle of the I' .{building of the structure is twenty-seven feet and each end is ; twenty-one feet, to the next building . MR. WALSH: Mr. Stanchi, have you considered measures to prevent water pipes freezing, such as relocating pipes further under the ! foundation? i Ii MR. STANCHI : Not under the foundation - they are above, underneath!, j i 31 - I I1 he porch. i IMR. WALSH: The pipes are on the porch? MR. STANCHI : No , no, no. - Just slightly (unintelligible) u '! to the building , see? And what I am trying to do is by closing in,l I ( I believe by putting in a little heat in there I 'm going to prevent' 11any future damage to the property and breakage of the water pipes. I I MR. WALSH: I guess it seems a fairly expensive way to go, rather ,,' than moving pipes further inside. MIMR. STANCHI : No, if you tried to do you never know what may happen. Mr. Hoard suggested it, I believe, That' s what I under- , ' I ,'stood you tried to tell me once. That it was possible to do it , {!the way you tried to say but in case that is damaged within the property then it may be more damaged to the apartment - there is i �;a bedroom there and a living room. I would have to break it through the floor and the walls and it ' s going to cost a lot more and on �jthis one I have enough material because I 've got cinder block, the i ,only thing I will have to buy is cement in order to have the founda ftion I have enough cinder blocks , I have enough sheet rock, and th 'siding, the only thing I have to get, put the new siding - to much siding I have at present in the building. I have insulation also s� 'II should use it before it gets spoiled, i IIMR. WILCOX: No complaint letters or anything? CHAIRMAN AVIAN: I don't see any. 11MR. STANCHI: Okay, thank you gentlemen, j !CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of the 'variance? (no one) Is there anyone here who wishes to oppose it? I1(no one) Okay, we ' ll take the next case . Thank you. i' i i i r I I I' ii !i i! � i - 32 - '' I i' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 'i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 1 , 1981 EXECUTIVE SESSION i APPEAL NO. 1368 ! The Board considered the request for an area variance to permit a ismall addition to the house at 442 North Geneva Street. The property i I, is located in an R-3a use district, and is non-conforming in that it I is deficient in off=street parking, minimum lot area, and two minimum ! front yards , and the maximum permitted lot coverage is exceeded. j iThe addition will not increase the residential density of the build- . i ing, and the only deficiency which will be affected is that the lot! ( coverage will be increased slightly. The decision of the Board was 'ias follows : 1 ! MR. WALSH: I move that the Board deny the area variance requested in appeal number 1368 . Ii !1MR. ANGELL: I second the motion. i 1VOTE : 6 Yes ; 0 NO Denied ( FINDING OF FACT: I1) The stated purpose has not been shown to be impossible without ' I I! the proposed addition. I ! I' �I I r. i f� i! I l I li f!� i !� I i� 1! �! I jl. 'i li i! ! BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS j CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK i JUNE 1 , 1981 j! jSECRETARY HOARD: The next case is appeal number 1369 : Appeal of Harry Taggart, Jr. for an area vari- ance under Section 30. 25, Columns 4 , 6, 7 , 10, Ij 11, 12 13 and 14 to permit the conversion of the garage in the apartment house at 202 South Geneva it Street to a bedroom. The property is located in an R-3a (residential) use district and is !j deficient in required off-street parking, minim�' m lot area, minimum lot width, minimum front yard((,, minimum side and rear yards and the maximum per4- mitted lot coverage is exceeded. =Is there anyone here on this case? (no one) Okay, and appeal number 1370 , the appeal of Margaret Liguori for an area variance at 113 �iStewart Avenue has been held over by the Planning Board and will be ;before this Board at its July meeting . So the last case is appeal i number 1371: Appeal of Anthony Albanese for a Special Permit! under Section 30. 26, Paragraph C to permit use of the front yard at 102 Adams Street for an j open air cafe for customers of Clever Hans Bakery. jj The property is located in an R-2b (residential) use district in which an open air cafe is not ai �j permitted use. An appeal for a use variance fot i' a cafe was denied by the Board at its May 1981 meeting . The appellant is now requesting con- sideration of the use as a special permit. E i I R. PARKHURST: Would it be possible for the Board to consider some, ii !other items at this time, I 'm waiting for my partner Jon to come I 11and also the alderman for our Ward, ,i 11MR. BANFIELD: I 'm here. i� ,MR. PARKHURST: Oh, I 'm sorry - I didn't see you. ,!CHAIRMAN AMAN: It is our last case so we don't have any other case �? ,;to take. ' i I�R. PARKHURST: This is, it , okay. Glad I 'm here. My name is Michail Parkhurst - Baker and Co-Owner of Clever Hans Bakery. We have some ; new information to give the Board since I was here last. One is that some definite steps have been made to provide off-street parking. i! 'II wish Mr. Albanese was here and I wish also that my partner Jon j eras here with the appropriate drawings to show you exactly what is I I !intended but if I can describe it to you very briefly, As you face ', Ithe building , there is an area immediatelyto the right of the front �11of the building that, if you remember way back in the past when the I _ i it 34 - ff clock works building was first purchased by Mr. Albanese, that was I pian area that was going to be made off-street parking and when we ; opened the bakery, that was to be designated off-street parking for I ' bakery customers . We have signs ordered to officially designate .I that - signs that will be in the public view say: This is Clever i I{Hans Bakery off-street parking to accommodate any long-term parking' i Ethat may be necessary because of this covered seating area. The Mother thing that I would like to point out is that my partner went { I laround the neighborhood and he got a petition signed by thirty-one people - thirty-one home owners who live within the 200 ' radius of the building and if he were here he could product that. CHAIRMAN AMAN: We have that. IMR. PARKHURST: Oh, you've got that? Okay, fine. I CHAIRMAN AMAN: Is this pursuant to the special permit procedure , outlined by the Code or . . . ? � MR. PARKHURST: This is to reflect the neighborhood' s feeling abou� i , the seating area. I think, basically they would like to have it. I It would be a place where people in the neighborhood could meet they don't necessarily have to buy Clever Hans products to sit f there, we are not going to be policing the area. It won't be a place that will be served by waiters or waitresses - it will not be- serving alcoholic beverages -z there is a lot of things we won' t be ! doing there -- it ' ll be a very passive area in that regard. They I1pretty much seem, to be in favor of it . The other thing we were - I we will institute if this goes through, is to encourage people to walk or bike to the bakery by offering a discount to those on foot I � or on bike. Now this may seem a rather unusual practice but we discussed this very thoroughly and it sounds like something that could possibly be abused but my hope is that our customers will be as honest with- us as we are with them. CHAIRMAN AMAN: Park the car a block away or something. IMR. PARKHURST: Basically, if they want to do that, I don't care , if it is going to reduce traffic in the neighborhood. This is one 4 away to achieve that I think. 1 SECRETARY HOARD: How did you get here tonight? li Ii j 35 - I !MR. PARKHURST: How did I get here? I did drive in from Brookton- i (dale. SMR. WALSH: This discount is offered (unintelligible) who �I !are finished to be allowed to eat more is that it? jMR. PARKHURST: Yes , the hope would be that they would be burning I! !off more of our products only to buy more to pack away. IMR. WALSH: Mike, do you know how many neighbors there are to be notified, within the 200 foot area? IiMR. PARKHURST: I believe its forty. I j11MR. WALSH: And I count 39 signatures on the petition. (unintelligible) l� all the persons who signed the petition are within that range? MR. PARKHURST: Yes , those were people chosen specifically because ( they were on the list to be notified of the hearing. I SECRETARY HOARD: I count forty-one on this. i 11MR. PARKHURST: You count forty-one? jMR. WALSH: You must have found more Mr. & Mrs . signatures . (SECRETARY HOARD: No, on the list submitted. IMR. WEAVER: There are some repeats on here, if you don' t mind my isaying so. Stuart Cobb. . . MR. PARKHURST: Are there any concerns that I haven't brought up that the Board would-be interested in discussing? iMR. WALSH: I think our prime concern is the reaction of the neigh-! borhood or the desire of the neighborhood for this facility under the special provisions? CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes , that should be a principal factor according to the special permit proceedings. How many off-street parking spaces did you say you were providing? MR. PARKHURST: To be honest with you I don1t know. Mr. Albanese `I land Jon and I went back there and we estimated there would be - de- pending on how you slice up the pie between eight and ten that would The for customers only. Our staff - we felt - would best be parked Ijat the very rear of the building by Sawtooth Builders - you know - !that very northernmost property line . Our staff would park at the jivery rear of the building, customers would be able to park closest i Ito the door. - 36 - i ii I ;CHAIRMAN AMAN: You are estimating eight to ten cars could get in j�there? .!!MR. PARKHURST: Yes . (!CHAIRMAN AMAN: And it' s not used now, presently? 11MR. PARKHURST: Well it' s used for parking for some Clever Hans j1staff that could park in the rear. I have started getting into the: 11habit of parking in the rear myself now. There is one Clever Hans vehicle - station wagon that will be parked in the rear of the i 1building and some of Albanese's people have been parking there too I libecause it' s handiest for them but they could also park at the rear! side of the building. if CHAIRMAN AMAN: Any additional questions from the Board? (none) Thank you very much. !MR. PARKHURST: Thank you. CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of the ! requested variance? IMR. SCHMITT: I am John Schmitt and I live at 211 Auburn Street . I 'm about 150 feet from the front of the building ,- I can look out Imy front door and watch the traffic go in and out of the building. ' I 've lived in this neighborhood for thirty-five years . When I fir�t 1Imoved into the neighborhood the building was owned or operated at least by a man named VanLent and he had no regard for the neighbors in the area - he burned soft coal, there were numerous court cases i I! to prevent him from doing this because it ruined our paint and it is a pleasure to see someone take over the building and maintain it as Albanese has and the way his tenants have kept up their premises . II have seen the help at Clever Hans Bakery go out and pick up papers ! around the grounds and across the street. At the present time , ; when they sell goods , people do go out and sit in the park across the street to eat their lunch, or whatever and throw the papers on : the ground sometimes and the help from Clever Hans Bakery goes out ', and cleans this mess up. Everything that P ve seen about this pro? I 'iposal looks to be neat and orderly and I see nothing objectionable ; from the sketch I 've seen of the view of this thing. I watched this I building grow, Mr. Parkhurst and Bernstein, started here with no i! - 37 - 4revious business establishment and today they have a thriving liestablishment - you know - there is an old expression - you build { a better mousetrap - no connotation there - but it is certainly I beating a path to their door. As I see it , their operation is in Ithe highest ideals of free enterprise and I 'm all for this expan- I 11sion. Thank you. You won't be asking me any questions? CHAIRMAN AMAN: I have none. SMR. SCHMITT: I have one further statement to make, yes . We were inotified by the Board of Zoning Appeals of the variance request i here and since I live in the 200 block - within the 200 ' limitation ' - Mr. Bernstein did come to the door. I didn't see the petition b t my wife signed it and she said she saw no unfavorable signatures on i there. On behalf of Alderman Banfield I did help participate in tYe survey of residents out side the 200' area and that - the limita- tions - and correct me if I 'm wrong - I think covered from Lincoln Street to Yates Street, from Cayuga Street to Willow Avenue. On the seventy-six signatures which we collected only two were unfavo - able - I think Alderman Banfield has the papers with him here toni ht I think you' ll find that the neighborhood is firmly behind this move. Thank you. CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on behalf ) of the variance request? MR. BANFIELD: I 'm David Banfield, 312 E. Falls Street, I 'm the ali derman in the fifth ward. I have asked the neighborhood people as Mr. Schmitt pointed out, from Lincoln Street to Hancock from Willo Avenue to Cayuga wtreet, which is the area outside of the 200' limitation, because they would also be directly affected by the I traffic in the neighborhood and it reads : "We the undersigned liv� in the area beyond 200 ' from the Ithaca Calendar Clock Factory. We believe the addition of the covered patio in front of the Clevet Hans Bakery will be in harmony with. and not injurious to the neigh+ boyhood. We believe further that the addition of a covered patio i would add to the positive image of the neighborhood and provide a center for social gathering without alcoholic beverages, which wil be the envy of other neighborhoods. REco nizin that g g parking coul I 38 - ii I I,, be a problem, we feel the following measures proposed by Clever ; Hans Bakery will alleviate any potential congestion that might iloccur. Number 1 , they have provided off-street parking for custo I mers , number two they have provided for a discount for customers I fusing modes of transportation other than automobiles , and three, , they have mandated off-street parking for their staff." I have Ilbefore me a petition containing seventy-six signatures , of which I Itwo were opposed to the variance. And as the alderman of the ward; si land representative of the neighbors , I urge you to grant this j I I ! variance. Vi CHAIRMAN AMAN: Anyone else wishing to speak on behalf of the variance? (no one) Is there anyone here who wishes to oppose it? ! �1 (no one) Hearing nothing further, the Board will go into executive I' I; session. i I� 1, i I I II (' II II I I I I i I li I? !I i' f .i ! �I I i! I l {I �I i !I - 39 - !' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS II COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS it CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK JUNE 1 , 1981 EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 1371 : ' The Board considered the appeal for a Special Permit to permit use sof the front yard at 102 Adams Street for an open air cafe for customers of Clever Hans Bakery. The property is located in an IR-2b (residential) use district in which an open air cafe is not ai permitted use . An appeal for a use variance for a cafe was deniedil l by the Board at its May 1981 meeting . The decision of the Board i i was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the issuance of if f' the Special Permit requested in appeal number ! 1371 . i ! ! MS. HAINE: I second the motion. I, VOTE: 6 Yes ; 0 No Granted FINDINGS OF FACT: lNotice was taken of the evidence presented in the May 4 , 1981 I11hearing and is hereby incorporated into the record of this pro , ceeding. i 11) Location and size of the proposed patio in relationship to the ; entire structure is in harmony with the character of the neigh! ij borhood and will not discourage the appropriate development of adjacent land and buildings or impair the enjoyment or value thereof. li I 112) That the operation will not be objectionable to nearby property f, j I` by reason of noise, fumes or increased vehicular traffic. 13) The Board took note that b a very large majority, the neighbors Y Y !! signed a petition circulated by the appellant responded favor- 'i ably to the development of the project. i i� 4) The petitioners gave assurances that they would provide off- i l street parking for customers and staff and that they would, i I� ij by means of discounts , encourage patronage from persons travel ing other than by automobile and this special permit is (i expressly conditioned upon the petitioners observance of these ;' representations . 40 �j I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board 1. of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of ( Appeals numbered 1359 , 6-2-81 , 1366, 1368 and 1371 on June 1 , 19811 at City Hall , City of Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed i same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the executive session of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. I i Barbara C. Ruane Recording Secretary I Sworn to before me this �7 UAL day of 1981 � I Notary Public JEAN I HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 55-1660800 I QUALIFIED IN TOMPKiN3 COUNT) MY COMMISSION EXPIRE' 6".C4 30,19 M J i I iI I, t