Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1987-10-05 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1987 COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPEAL NO. 10-1-87 600 South Meadow Street (Wegmans) 1 " it Discussion 22 " " Decision 38 " it More Discussion 39 APPEAL NO. 1786 R. James Miller & C. L. Schelhas- 42 Miller 213 Bryant Avenue " Decision 45 APPEAL NO. 1787 Cornell Radio Guild, Inc . 46 227 Linden AVenue it " Discussion 55 it Decision 56 APPEAL NO. 1788 Williamson & Clune 57 317 North Tioga Street " Discussion 63 " Decision 64 APPEAL NO. 1789 Robert A. Ryan 65 113 Crescent Place " Decision 68 APPEAL NO. 1790 Robert R. Brown 69 225 South Fulton Street Discussion 81 " Decision 83 APPEAL NO. 1791 J. Walker & W. Hnat 84 345 Giles Street if it Decision 88 APPEAL NO. 10-2-87 Collegetown Motor Lodge 89 11 it Decision 97 CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 98 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1987 COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. I would lake to call to order the October 5, 1987 meeting of the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight are: JOHN OAKLEY HERMAN SIEVERDING STEWART SCHWAB CHARLES WEAVER MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THOMAS D. HOARD, BUILDING COMMISSIONER, ZONING OFFICER & SEC'Y TO THE BOARD BARBARA RUANE, RECORDING SECRETARY ABSENT; HELEN JOHNSON The Board will hear each case in the order listed in the Agendum. First we will hear from the appellant and ask that he or she present the arguments for the case as succinctly as possible and then be available to answer questions from the Board. We will then hear from those interested parties who are in support of the application, followed by those who are opposed to the application. I should note here that the Board considers "interested parties" to be persons who own property within two hundred feet of the property in question or who lives or works within that two hundred feet radius. Thus the Board will not hear testimony from persons who do not meet the definition of an "interested party". While we do not adhere to the strict rules of evidence, we do consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding and we base our decisions on the record. The record consists of the application materials filed with the Building Department, the correspondence relating to the cases as received by the Building Department, the Planning and Development Board's findings and recommendations, if any, and the record of tonight's hearing. since a record is being made of this hearing it is essential that anyone who wants to be heard, come forward and speak directly into the microphones which are opposite me here, so that the comments can be picked up by the tape recorder and be heard by everyone in the room. Extraneous comments from the audience will not be recorded and will therefore not be considered by the Board in its deliberations on the case. We ask that everyone limit their comments to the zoning issues of the case and not comment on aspects that are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. After everyone has been heard on a given case, the hearing on that case will be closed and the Board will deliberate and reach a decision. Once the hearing is closed, no further testimony will be taken and the audience is requested to refrain from commenting during our deliberations. It takes four votes to approve a motion to grant or deny a variance or a special permit - in the cases where there is a tie vote, the variance or special permit therefore is automatically denied. As you will note tonight, there is only five of the six members present. We are hopeful that the sixth member will show up during the course of the meeting but, in that it takes four of six votes to approve a variance, we ask that if anyone who - at this point - would like to request a postponement - say so, or indicate at this point. MR. STUMBAR: On behalf of Mr. Martin, I will request an adjournment. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Anyone else out there? [no one] Are there any questions about our procedure? Then may we proceed to our first case. SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NO. 10-1-87 FOR 600 SOUTH MEADOW STREET: Appeal of Wegman's Enterprises for sign variances under Sections 34.5A4 and 34.6B (Table 34.6B1) of the Sign Ordinance to permit the installation of signs at 600 South Meadow Street (Wegman's Food Pharmacy) that exceed the maximum sizes permitted by the Sign Ordinance. Proposed are signs on the face of the store that total 398.8 square feet where 150 square feet is the maximum area permitted, and two directional signs of 6 square feet each where 4 square feet is the maximum area permitted. The property is located in a B-5 (Business) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourselves. MR. O'NEIL: Good evening. My name is Ken O'Neil, I 'm a profes- sional engineer with Wegman Enterprises, with offices 1500 Brooks Avenue, Rochester, New York. With me tonight is Melissa Kelbe, who is the project engineer for this particular store in the City. I would like to just briefly go through a presentation starting by what our proposal is and try to give the Board as good an idea of what we are looking to doing and then we will discuss in a little bit of detail our thoughts for the variances and our reasons for requesting them. The first is the building mounted sign which is located on the (unintelligible) area of the building itself which will face South Meadow Street - it will have just a front building PAGE 1 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 elevation which we have colored up - tried to reflect as accurately as possible the proposal for the sign itself. The sign consists of individual block letters indicating WEGMAN'S across the left hand portion and then "Food Pharmacy" in smaller block letters on the far side. The "Food Pharmacy" again, are all individual block letters - they have a white plastic front with a red neon that lights up at night. We have also brought with us - I 'll pass it around so you can all take a look at - this is a similar facility with a similar size sign on it - when it is lit up at night, so that the Board can get an idea of what the building itself, and the signs will look like. (unintelligible) actually the building itself is a little bit different, in that we changed the concept slightly to show the pillars - I don't think it is totally rele- vant. We also have three smaller pictures that I would like to just send around - these are of our Corning Store - this was the store that was most recently opened. They also reflect the exact same signage that we are proposing here - and in addition to the building mounted sign that we are proposing, you will also see on the bottom picture one of the enter/exit signs, as we are proposing too. Of course the building mounted sign is located on the front overhead canopy as I 've indicated. The building itself is located approximately five hundred feet back from the roadway of South Meadow Street. The enter and exit signs are proposed on the entrance - the single lane at the entrance of the property - they have been located such that they will not conflict with (unintelli- gible) either at this time or at the time of the future road widening which we are now working on with the State. We are very PAGE 2 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 sensitive to the aspects of the sign itself and we do not want to create a traffic problem as a result of their - either height or size. In addition to the enter and exit sign we are proposing an informational sign to be located in the center lead-in. If any of the Board members have been by - it is a raised curb island which will have annual plantings placed in it and in the front portion of that, again, an "open twenty-four hour" sign indicating that the facility is open twenty-four hours and that people are allowed to come in and be within the facility - we are not trying to restrict it during the late night hours. I believe that you have, again, with your package, you have a small detailed page submitted with your application, I believe, that members have copies of those with their package - where we have just indicated on the enter and exit signs what we are proposing to do and the sizes of the actual signs. The enter and exit signs themselves are a sign box - back lit (unintelligible) sign and will have a dark background and white letters. I bring that out - you can read the detail on the appli- cation which indicates that it should have a white background with a dark letter - that is directly opposite from the way we are proposing to do it. (unintelligible) it will be real nice and we question whether a variance is necessary at all. With regards to the - going back to the building mounted sign itself - there are several reasons which we believe that the town Zoning Ordinance has created a hardship for us and I would like to just briefly go through those and explain our situation to the Board. First of all, the Wegman's Food Pharmacy - as you can see on the photo that I passed around - the size of the sign and the logo itself are PAGE 3 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 standard logo. We are coming into an area that is not familiar with our operation and we think, in addition to the Wegman's name, that we need Food and Pharmacy to identify the use of the building, which would be similar to - I use the example of the Tops building next door to us - which would have a Carl 's Drug Store - they have additional signs for the Carl 's Drugs. We want the public to be aware of the fact that we do have a full service pharmacy within the store in addition to the food items. The size of the store is basically - let me back up slightly - many of the Zoning Ordinances that we go before - Municipalities where we go before for our zoning ordinances and for relief on size of signs - we find to be very similar to the City of Ithaca. It is our belief and it has been indicated to us from other municipalities that during their conception - that the concept of a one-stop food market and shop- ping type of situation was not really encountered or thought of during the initiation or writing of the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, again the City's Ordinance is very similar in nature to many other municipalities which indicates that we are allowed a certain number of square feet or 1.5 square feet per running front foot of the building. Now by treating this one-stop shopping type of atmosphere, it results in the construction of a building of approximately eighty thousand square feet in order to include all the departments that we are looking at. As a result of that, we create a building that has a very large amount of frontage. In this particular case we are almost three hundred and forty feet. The Ordinance itself is restrictive in that the one point five square feet is allowed for running square footage, however it has a PAGE 4 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 maximum of a hundred and fifty square feet listed on it. If this particular building, with the frontage it has - has five or six different department stores or stores that have similar - say a fish market - with a separate doorway - a pharmacy with a separate doorway across the frontage - a produce shop with a separate doorway - each one of those individual units would be allowed up to the hundred and fifty square feet, based on whatever frontage - so if you were to look at the Ordinance strictly by the way it is written, it indicates that - based on the frontage that we have of three hundred and forty feet times the one point five square feet per running foot of frontage, we would be allowed to have up to five hundred and ten square feet on the building - so if we could just figure the inside differently and place all the doorways for the different departments that we have within the store - we would be allowed to have up to that size of signage itself on the build- ing. Now that would really be contrary to the type of atmosphere that we are trying to create with the one-stop shopping mall with an internal building - the concept is very similar to that of a mall - it is just geared to the food market industry. So if we were to go back and look at the actual square footage that we are occupying per front foot of building, we are at approximately one point two square feet, which is less than what the Ordinance requires or allows. We feel that - particularly in this case - that we are not asking for anything exceptional, the size of the lettering - the block lettering itself where the WEGMAN's - which of course is the largest you see - then the smaller block letters for the name itself - are similar in size to the signage that is PAGE 5 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 located on the TOPS building immediately next door. The height, of course, is approximately the same - however we do require more area only because of the additional letters within the name itself. If the owner were to have a smaller name, we wouldn't require as large a variance. We don't feel that we are creating any undue hardship to anyone in the area - it is a very commercial area and we feel that we are just getting - with the granting of the variance - we would be just allowed to compete within the area as it really already exists. Another consideration, of course, is again, the setback of the building from the road. We are approximately five hundred feet back - however, in addition to that we feel that a portion of the building and the visibility of the building itself will be blocked by the Macguire Ford building which fronts right out on South Meadow Street - so that if you were headed from the north, heading south, until you get down beyond the Maguire building, portions of that sign will always be blocked. First of all, we don't feel that the variance itself is going against the nature of the Ordinance. We have restricted the size to that which is allowed within the Ordinance, with the exception of the maximum that is allowed for the building frontage or the complex itself and again, we feel that if we were to take - the only difference there is that we are creating a one-stop shop atmosphere as opposed to taking it and lining up the doors for each department all the way across the front of the building - so we believe - that by looking at the Ordinance - its not being treated fairly and never allowing to compete in similar fashion. With regards to the enter and exit signs, I think that we are possibly asking for - or possibly not PAGE 6 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 asking this Board for a variance. The Ordinance allows the enter and exit signs to be four square feet in size. As I indicated, the back of the sign will be the dark portion of the sign with the letters being the lit portion. I believe, in accordance with the Ordinance - the way the sign is to be measured - if we were to measure the sign around the letters of the lit portion of the sign itself, that we would be under the four square feet allowed by the Ordinance. However, the actual sign box, and the reason that the application was filed the way it was - was to make sure if there was a need for a variance for the size of the sign box itself, which is approximately six square feet or - excuse me - approxi- mately eight square feet, that we wouldn't have a problem at that point. Oh, it is six square feet. Does everyone understand what I am saying? If you actually measure it right around the lit portion of the sign, you will see - if you are physically driving down the road - the white portion of the lettering is what you will see. The black area encompassed by that lettering is less than the four square feet that is allowed by the Ordinance. MR. SCHWAB: Why do you want it that big? MR. O'NEIL: Well again, we believe this is the size sign that we have used on all of our recent stores - when I say all of our recent stores built in the last six to eight years - it seems to be a size that is good as far as legibility relative to traffic moving up and down the street - can be spotted easily. It can be picked up relatively quickly without having people having to pass by and go down and turn around and make a turn and then come back to another entrance. We only have the one major entrance into the PAGE 7 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 property so it could create somewhat of a potential for traffic safety problem. As I 've indicated, the actual physical dimensions around the letters - exclusive of the sign box itself - or the inner sign - would be approximately three square feet - slightly over three square feet. The exit sign, the area around that portion which, again, because it has fewer letters, is smaller - would be approximately two point four square feet. The third sign that we would propose is the "open twenty-four hour" sign which is located within the center median area. Again, as I have indicated, we have located it such that it will not create a sight distance problem for traffic on South Meadow Street and because of the nature of the sign, the information being provided on the sign, in the wording and the length that is involved - the number of letters it involves - that, if measured, again, around the letter portion of it, would only be eight point two square feet. As a secondary aspect of the "open twenty-four hour" sign, one feature that we have found that is favorable for relative to the traffic standpoint is that because we have a curb and raised median on the center of the entrance coming in, it helps to provide light right on that pole nose area of the entrance itself and provide definition during the nighttime so that we don't have problems with people running into it and having accidents - things of that nature. MR. SIEVERDING: Why do you feel that sign is necessary . . . . MR. O'NEIL: The "open twenty-four hour"? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, rather than on the facade of the building. MR. O'NEIL: Again, it's because - I guess it would serve a purpose in both locations. If it were located on the building proper, PAGE 8 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 itself, it would have to be larger in size in order for it to be legible from the roadway area. We don't feel that that is really necessary to indicate that on the building proper, per se, we would rather keep the sign much smaller in nature, in that center median area, so that people that are going by in the nighttime - that don't normally associate twenty-four hour food operation - will recognize that that use is available - twenty-four hours a day. MR. SIEVERDING: Now is that also going to be a dark background with white letters? MR. O'NEIL: Yes. All the signs on the entrance would be dark background - the lit portion being the letter itself. MR. SIEVERDING: Where does this sign fit in relative to what is listed here in terms of what is required for the variance? The Wegman's on the building and the enter and exit. . . MR. OAKLEY: This "twenty-four hour" sign - does not, strictly speaking, require a variance at all? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh, sure it does. MR. O'NEIL: Basically because, I believe, if I read the Ordinance right, because it exceeds four square feet in size in a B5 zone. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Open twenty-four hours? MR. O'NEIL: Yes. I believe this. . . MR. OAKLEY: I thought it doesn't qualify as a free-standing. . . MR. O'NEIL: I believe the Ordinance. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Why isn't it free-standing? MR. OAKLEY: It didn't look free-standing to me. I assume that they have a right to put up some sort of free-standing sign. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. . . PAGE 9 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. OAKLEY: And as a result that twenty-four hour sign sticks into the. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are saying that that is the free-standing sign? SECRETARY HOARD: There is no other free-standing sign. . . MR. OAKLEY: It would appear to be not directional. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I see. So you are not. . . . MR. O'NEIL: I can say that the reason that we added it to the Ordinance - or to the request was because it indicated in the Ordinance that an information type of sign being limited to four square feet in (unintelligible) as being property restriction use or something of that nature which would seem to fall under that category. MR. WEAVER: I think he could have four enter signs and four exit signs if he wanted to, as long as they are not more than four square feet. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. WEAVER: He can have as many informational signs as he wants. So there is not a restriction on that and it doesn't add up to his total signage, I believe. SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: Enter and exit signs? MR. WEAVER: Right. They don't exist except he may have them as he wishes but they can't be more than four square feet. MR. SIEVERDING: Right, I understand. MR. WEAVER: That's the only thing he is up against. PAGE 10 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. SIEVERDING: I understand. But on the "open twenty-four hour" - is he up against anything or is that elected? SECRETARY HOARD: We just consider that as the free-standing sign, even though normally the free-standing sign has the logo of the business. He elected to use it as informational sign. MR. SIEVERDING: So that doesn't require a variance. . . MR. O'NEIL: It doesn't require a variance, okay. I just want to be clear about that. SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. O'NEIL: One of the other items that I neglected to mention was we indicated with the application a request to be able to set the top of the sign or the top of the sign box itself at four feet. Again, we've done that basically because that is our standard practice that we've found to be good at all of our other locations. That would set the top of the letter about three foot nine inches or so off the ground area. Our feeling was - we made the request - our feeling was that we've located them in such a way that we know that we will not create a sight/distance problem on the driveway and will not conflict with any other particular reason why the Board within the Ordinance, had it set at three feet. If that is a major problem at that height, and the Board tells us that it is necessary for them to be at that height, we would conform with that. MR. WEAVER: Run it past me again on your potential or your proposed measurement around the letters. Are you saying the brown back- ground in the letters and not the frame or just try to create some prospective free-standing letters, if you will. PAGE 11 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. O'NEIL: As an example, this is a copy of the exit sign draw- ing. We will take and draw a square rectangle around the letters themselves - that was the area that I referred to as less than the four feet required by your - maximum allowed by the Ordinance. The sign box proper, per se, the actual physical structure that the sign is mounted in is larger than the four feet, however the dark area, which is the background area, through this area [pointing to the drawing] would not be seen. MR. WEAVER: Just the frame itself - of that box - is. . . more than a foot, I would guess. MR. O'NEIL: The frame itself is probably almost a square foot. . . yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How far back from the roadway or right-of-way, is your sign. . . I noticed there is a twenty plus or minus to the edge of something . . . but your exit signs are actually inside of that. MR. O'NEIL: Well. . . the site plan that you have in front of you has been modified slightly. The sidewalk is proposed to be located within the right-of-way of the City. It has now been shifted back so that it is located outside of (unintelligible) private property, immediately adjacent to the right-of-way of (unintelligible) itself and then extended five feet back into the property. Within that area from the back side of that sidewalk and the edge of the pavement, which is approximately fifteen feet, would be the loca- tion where the sign would be mounted and I believe the front section of it - the closest that the sign sets to the right-of-way, is about twelve feet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? PAGE 12 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. WEAVER: Yes. You said something about prospectively there would be a widening of the State highway there? MR. O'NEIL: Yes. MR. WEAVER: And that your signs would accommodate that possibili- ty? MR. O'NEIL: Yes. Basically our entire entrance design has been set up to accommodate that future widening. We have been in several discussions with the State Department of Transportation and in order to accommodate the project with the people that are involved and working with the State, it is going to be necessary that the widening takes place next summer, hopefully during the project expansion or proposed improvement that they have proposed for the roadway. However what we will be doing and we have made a commitment to the State to install a left turn slot out in the center of the roadway area, so we would actually widen by one lane across the frontage of our property and install a traffic signal which you will be seeing going up within the next few weeks. So we will be working with the State to accommodate that widening as part of - it is really a joint effort on our part, along with the State Department of Transportation. MR. WEAVER: But then - on the site plan there is indicated a street line. . . MR. O'NEIL: Yes, the widening will take place within the street line - I mentioned the revision of the drawing - where you see the sidewalk inside the street line. . . the City's side of the street line. . . one of the reasons for moving the sidewalk into the private property area was to move the sidewalk as far back away PAGE 13 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 from the post curbline, which, in essence, would be twelve feet further into the west of where it currently is, to add the addi- tional lane in there. It was the City's feeling - and we agreed, that they would like to keep - because of the relatively poor drainage of the roadway in the area, they would like to keep the sidewalk as far away from the road, so that they don't have to worry about people getting splashed as cars drive down the roadway. So everything that we are proposing to set in the front has been done to accommodate that widening, including installation of the traffic signal. There is an extensive amount of work that will be taking place in the next month and the installation of that traffic signal, all of which, we have designed to minimize what will have to be removed at the time of the road widening. MR. SIEVERDING: From the extended roadway, those signs are twelve feet? MR. O'NEIL: Yes. MS. KELBE: There is still twelve feet from the street line, from the right-of-way line. MR. SIEVERDING: Right but once the - if this street extension widening goes through, those signs then would be twelve feet approximately, from the new. . . MR. O'NEIL: From the new curb line? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes. MR. O'NEIL: Yes, they would probably be closer - they are approxi- mately twelve feet from the right-of-way - they would probably end up being closer to seventeen or eighteen - something in that area - from the curb line of the new roadway. PAGE 14 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. SIEVERDING: To the sign? MR. O'NEIL: Yes. MR. WEAVER: I 'm still with you but you say the State proposes to put a left turn lane - obviously that would be for north bound traffic? MR. O'NEIL: Yes. MR. WEAVER: And on the other side of your entrance, would there be an expansion of the highway also? MR. O'NEIL: Yes. MR. WEAVER: And that would give a right turn lane on the. . . MR. O'NEIL: No, the proposal - what the State is - let me give you a little bit of background - it was our feeling, as a result of our traffic studies for the property, it would be appropriate to install a left turn lane, although not normally required by the DOT as a result of what we generated from our level of service analy- sis, however we felt that it would accommodate our customers by installing a left turn lane. In order to do that, we had some initial discussions with the State, the State indicated to us that they had a proposal for resurfacing the roadway within that area and some improvements to the drainage system. We then went back and said well it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to be trying to put in a left turn lane and you looking at doing something six months later, or you doing something now and then us coming in and trying to do something six months later, so we sat down with them and we tried to come up with a joint program to say, okay, we will widen the road out, one lane, and in order to do that you have to provide - there are certain regulations within DOT regulations that PAGE 15 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 require you to have certain minimum taper widths and lengths of stacking for left turn cars, things of that nature, but ultimately what we are trying to create is a five lane section of roadway all the way down through the area so that you would remain with two lanes northbound, two lanes southbound and a center left turn lane. . . MR. WEAVER: Across your total frontage? MR. O'NEIL: Well it will extend to the north even beyond our frontage, yes. It will extend beyond the Maguire Ford property. Now one of the things we are still discussing and we are trying to - basically what we are trying to do is a financial arrangement with them where we would have to do a certain amount of work in order to be able to accommodate the widening that we are looking for and they are looking at doing other things - we think it might make some sense for them to extend the fifth lane all the way up across in front of Maguire, so we are trying to work things of that nature out in order to, basically, set up a fifth lane for the entire roadway system. However, basically, back to the signs themselves - the enter and exit signs are - we have taken that into account and shown their location so that they will not require or will not create a sight distance problem from either direction as a result of their location - with the roadway being in either loca- tion. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. WEAVER: Well we started a discussion - no, not from the appellant. PAGE 16 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions on this side? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting these sign variances? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? MR. DRAKE: My name is Ken Drake, I 'm with Carl 's Drugs. I would like to say a few things about it. First of all, I just want to go down through - I jotted down the reasoning for - I mean the sign variances and I would like to go through them if I could. The first one was standardized lettering. They said it would create a hardship for them to - you know - if they didn't have their stan- dardized lettering that they have on all their stores - I think that being engineers that they should be aware that - you know - you can buy lettering different sizes and that they do come in standard sizes - I fail to see how that is a hardship to comply with the size of the lettering. The second reasoning they gave for having a large sign was that they are going to be new in town and for the customers to see their store and see their name and things, basically what that amounts to is advertising so that the reasoning there is basically advertising and I fail to see that as a hard- ship. Another point that they brought up was that if there were several shops, then you would allow the sign or the sign would be allowed. My point, I guess, is that they aren't several shops, it is basically one store - it is one store, it is not several shops. Carl 's Drugs, for instance, has several departments within it. We carry food, we carry the pharmacy department, we carry other things too and we don't have pharmacy and food and furniture which we carry also - we don't have those signs across the front of our PAGE 17 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 store. They also said that another reason was because TOPS - theirs would be similar to TOPS. Basically if I understand it, TOPS is a much smaller sign - it is only four letters and what they are proposing is WEGMAN'S FOOD and PHARMACY, which to me is a lot bigger than TOPS - I fail to see a comparison to TOPS there. Let's see, the Maguire building blocks their store and that was another reason that they needed a larger sign. If they can't see it, they can't see it through Maguire Ford, I don't see what difference how big it is, if you are driving by and you are in front of Maguire Ford, you can't see WEGMAN'S if they have a two foot sign or a six foot sign - you still aren't going to be able to see it, so I fail to see how that has any bearing. Okay, about the entrance and exit signs, they are saying that the lighted letters are less than four square feet but the background which they kind of want to forget, it is still there - the sign is still over four square feet - it is not - just because, maybe at nighttime you aren't going to be able to see the background, it is still there during the daytime and you will be able to see it, contrary to what they would have you believe. The only other thing that they brought up was - he seemed to show some concern for traffic safety. I fail to see how making the signs bigger than the requirement allows - I fail to see how that increases traffic safety. Basically I feel that they fail to really show undue hardship that being in compliance with the 36. 6B requirement - I fail to see how they have shown that it would cause them undue hardship to comply with that. The other point is, where do you draw the line? What they are asking for is a sign two point seven times what is allowed - where do you draw the line? In the PAGE 18 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 case of the road sign itself, they are asking for signs that are fifty percent larger than allowed. They are probably obstructing the view and again I fail to see how they are caused any undue hardship to comply with the code. That's pretty much it. Does anybody have any questions? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: It is my understanding of the Sign Ordinance when you get into a particular - it is useful but the overall purpose of it is to - on these informational/directional things to ensure that they are safely done and as far as the general signs, to make sure that there is not clutter. Do you have a reaction one way or the other - let's take the back sign first. I am struck by how far back it is off the road. . . MR. DRAKE: Basically I feel that they chose to put their store where they chose to put it. . . MR. SCHWAB: But the point is that as far as clutter on Route 13 goes, the further back it is the less cluttered the sign is. Do you agree or disagree with that? Any thoughts that you might have along that line? Do you think the sign will increase the clutter on Route 13? MR. DRAKE: Yes, I think that the - I feel strongly that the sign would - it is basically an advertisement - it is not just telling - it is a great big florescent sign - WEGMAN'S - and what they are saying is that it is a hardship for them to comply with the Ordi- nance whereas I fail to see how a sign two point seven times the size that it should be is creating a hardship on them. PAGE 19 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. SCHWAB: Do you disagree with the statement that the height of the letters are about the same size as TOPS? MR. DRAKE: I can't disagree with that statement - I don't really have direct knowledge. But I can say that the numbers. . . . MR. SCHWAB: Well - it's you pointing the way. TOPS is shorter than WEGMAN'S. . . that's Wegman's fault. MR. SIEVERDING: That is in effect what would happen. If you look at a hundred and fifty square feet - based on this type of letter- ing, it looks to me like you would get WE. . . MR. DRAKE: By the same token, TOPS could - if the name of their store was TOPS FOOD AND PHARMACY or whatever - FOOD AND DRUG or whatever they wanted to put - if they continued on with their sign you would have the same thing. . . MR. SCHWAB: Your point is not WEGMAN'S you are complaining about so much as to FOOD AND PHARMACY - that's what is extending this sign, much more than TOPS. MR. DRAKE: Right, exactly. MR. SCHWAB: And that's not part of it's name. MR. DRAKE: Right. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart, did you want to continue? I thought you were thinking about continuing with comments about the directional signs. MR. SCHWAB: Do you have any idea that these greater than four feet creates a safety problem? How do they differ from the directional signs on your place? MR. DRAKE: Ours are in compliance with the four square foot requirement. PAGE 20 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. SCHWAB: So your exit and entrance signs are smaller. Do you have exit and entrance - I can't remember exactly. MR. DRAKE: Yes we do. MR. SCHWAB: It is a smaller sign for exit and entrance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions for this gentleman? [none] Thank you. MR. O'NEIL: May I make one comment? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sorry. We' ll ask you if we need you, thanks. If we went back to rebuttals then we'd have rebuttals on rebuttals - for the moment let's just stand where we are and see if there is anyone else out there who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] Very good, then we will close this portion unless there are any questions that you, as Board members, want to ask further? MR. WEAVER: Before there is a motion and a finding of fact? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Before there is any discussion, if there is any more information that you would like to ask. . . . PAGE 21 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 10-1-87 FOR 600 SOUTH MEADOW STREET MR. WEAVER: It would seem to me that fundamental to a finding that we might well discuss exactly how we measure signs - that seems rather specious that they talk about the background not counting. Whether we count the middle of the O or not - not that there is any. So, as a question I do wonder about the framing - where we have an illuminated box, whether that frame - as long as it is on the face of the whole arrangement - whether it counts or doesn't count. It seems to me that these - first of all these six foot signs - keep it simple. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MR. WEAVER: There is about a foot in that inch and a quarter frame or whatever it is that holds the apparatus together - holds the sign panel, if you will. I think we might better ask Tom, who has much more mileage on this than any of the rest of us. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the Section is pretty clear, Charlie, under Section 34.2 . . . SECRETARY HOARD: Section 34.2 - it's the definition - number 8. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: 34 .2, number 8.a. MR. WEAVER: Okay, be patient. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Inside the back - well it's the second page actually. SECRETARY HOARD: 34. 3, number 8. Under D, free-standing, double-faced signs, which is what these directional - the area of one entire side of the sign calculated as above. . . MR. OAKLEY: It seems to me that most signs have the problem that they do have an edging around them, of some sort. PAGE 22 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. SCHWAB: It is almost rectangular - (unintelligible) the letters. . . MR. WEAVER: Well it would seem to me we are into that problem of a wall sign on Wegman's - how do you measure that? MR. SCHWAB: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) calculated as above. . . It seems to me they are putting rectangles over it. The statement from Wegman's states that they are going to put a rectangle around the actual letters. Is that what this Ordinance is saying they should be doing or not? SECRETARY HOARD: That's the way we do a wall sign. For instance, there is TOPS - you can't see it from there but. . . . there are the letters. . . MR. WEAVER: That's what their discussion was all about. SECRETARY HOARD: You don't measure the whole background because that could be the whole building - you just measure the individual letters. If they are spread out, you take the (unintelligible) MR. SCHWAB: As I understand it, at D it says "free-standing, double-faced signs, the area of one entire side of the sign, calculated as above. . . " and the "above" you calculated is just the way you described. MR. SIEVERDING: So for the free-standing sign. . . . MR. WEAVER: Not so. . . MR. SCHWAB: Oh, is that not so? MR. WEAVER: In the case of a flat or two-sided free-standing sign. . . . [changed tape here, missed some of the dialogue] MR. OAKLEY: How many signs are allowed on the face of the build- ing? PAGE 23 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: Well it depends - you can have two on the face of the building, if you don't have a free-standing sign. MR. OAKLEY: So there are, in terms of the measurement then, and I 'm not sure that this (unintelligible) not entirely clear - I want to get into - but the count to measure the food and pharmacy, each have separate signs, which is what you have appeared to have done, is to put three signs on the face of the building plus one free-standing sign. At least I assume that the sign should be measured as a unitary thing, is that correct? MR. WEAVER: Well we could change the name of this operation to WEGMAN'S GROCERY and not have a question about whether there is a separate business - in other words, putting food on there - you know what Wegman's is - even though the competition might say there is some question about which business they are in - they are in all of them, as a one-stop place. We are still talking about how many signs and for what purposes. It isn't as neat as it is with a car dealer, where we - even though they are all Japanese, they at least have different names. The engineer was quoting separate doorways, there isn't anything here that talks about separate doorways, this would have to be some ministerial judgement that there is - that that is not separate because it uses the same door. I don't recall that we've ever encountered that argument in the automobile row, have we? SECRETARY HOARD: No, not that I recall. MR. WEAVER: Go inside the front door and turn right or turn left. . . PAGE 24 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. O'NEIL: I guess the reference was that TOPS was a good exam- ple. The TOPS, the Building Supply. . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie, excuse me, we aren't going to be able to pick any of that up on the microphone - on the tape at all. If you want to come back up and address the question, I think it would be okay, but I think I want to be clear about getting it on the record. MR. WEAVER: I didn't ask him to respond. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. Then if you would hold your comments because it is just not going to be picked up. MR. WEAVER: So we would have the decision of whether this is simply one enterprise because it is under a single owner, as we have encountered out that piece of highway. I 'm not. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So have we determined how many signs there really are or what size they are? MR. WEAVER: Well we might be interested in how many there are, that question, before we have a bunch of findings. MR. SIEVERDING: But do I hear you arguing, Charlie, that Wegman's/Food/Pharmacy is one sign, since that is the nature of the business? Is it to be considered that way? MR. WEAVER: I 'm not sure that it is one sign. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well that's essentially what the appellant is saying. I just want to point out. . . MR. WEAVER: I understand the application as such. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Well that's what. . . MR. OAKLEY: They claimed it as one sign, and measured it for three so it (unintelligible) PAGE 25 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's one way we could construe it, that's true. Another way would be not to draw lines around each little individual, but over the entire thing, including all three. MR. OAKLEY: Okay, I ' ll get back to a previous sign appeal and which I suspect that we rejected that sort of approach, but I'm not sure it is worth discussing right now. MR. WEAVER: No, that's the way we measure Wegman's. These singly attached letters that are independent - maybe not electrically, but we do have to visualize a rectangle that will fit over. . . we don't have to measure the whole front of the building. . . MR. OAKLEY: We are, in fact, measuring three rectangles, one of which fits over Wegman's, one of which fits over Food, one of which fits over Pharmacy. . . MR. WEAVER: Well, but the question of whether WEGMAN'S FOOD and whatever is too large, is being treated as a single sign - FOOD and PHARMACY, pardon me. MR. OAKLEY: But it is not being measured that way. I 'm not sure that this is terribly material to our final finding, and so on. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the question with the signs is, it is material. MR. OAKLEY: But if we do approach it as one sign then make sure that it is measured as one sign, it seems to me that it would be one rectangle, enclosing WEGMAN'S FOOD AND PHARMACY and not three rectangles enclosing - it seems to me difficult to say that you have three rectangles enclosing one sign. MR. SIEVERDING: But it gets back to your point. . . how do you measure a wall mounted sign . . . particularly wall mounted signs, PAGE 26 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 you measure the surface area covered by the letters, is that correct? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: And come up with your total square footage that way. SECRETARY HOARD: As long as it isn't repeating itself. If this has a WEGMAN'S again at this end, then we would say there were two signs. If you go up and down Auto Row, you will see the name and then you will see something going along - Sales and Service or something like that. We don't say: CUTTING MOTORS - two signs, CUTTING MOTORS SALES AND SERVICE is two signs . . . MR. OAKLEY: I agree with you that it is one sign. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, good. MR. OAKLEY: My question is, why are we measuring, apparently, with three rectangles? At least the calculations that I have here. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Well the Ordinance allows you to chop it up into individual letters with a solid background. For instance, as I was saying, with the TOPS sign, you can measure the letters independently . . . MR. OAKLEY: That gets us back to the question, can we leave the 0 on - or do we have to have a rectangle. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No, we aren't going to leave the middle of the 0. Are we agreed that we have four signs under consideration here, as the appellant has stated? MR. SIEVERDING: I count three. MR. SCHWAB: Actually they have changed 1124 hours" WEGMAN'S FOOD/PRODUCE. . . PAGE 27 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. SIEVERDING: Actually, earlier when you said that the "Open 24 Hours" didn't require. . . SECRETARY HOARD: We aren't. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well to the degree that the directional - the free-standing "Open 24 Hour" sign is affected by understanding that the fact we have one sign, not three signs on the facade. Yes, you are right, we don't really worry about it, but I just wanted to make sure that we are essentially using this as our guideline and not trying to do something else. MR. SIEVERDING: What's the essentially. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well essentially, the sign appeal worksheet - that gives you the specifics, exactly of what the Ordinance requires and, of course, what the proposed signs are they are suggesting. So the Wegman's Food and Pharmacy is one, so that the second one. . . MR. WEAVER: Well that's the appeal that we have in front of us. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. And the one that we are not necessarily assuming the other is going to be - that the free-standing "Open 24 Hour" sign isn't really of concern, the two directional signals is still something that we will want to consider. Are we agreed on that? MR. OAKLEY: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: From this side. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: That sounds fine. MR. WEAVER: Yes. PAGE 28 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good, we've all agreed, first step. Okay. Then, Charlie do we want - or does anyone else want to, essentially, take it apart, or take the pieces, and essentially address, perhaps, first the directional signs, or first the wall sign, as it is so-called. MR. OAKLEY: I 'd like to just ask a question, perhaps just raise the point about the directional signs, I 'm not sure which. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. MR. OAKLEY: I take it that the directional sign is 1) to reduce clutter and 2) that the - is the three foot high business also a clutter rule or is it so that people can easily see over the sign when they are pulling in or out of the thing. . . he mentioned that there is, in fact, a height requirement on this sign. SECRETARY HOARD: Yes there is. MR. OAKLEY: It seems to me that there is no particular reason presented for altering the size of the exit and entrance signs except for the fact that they are used to having them a little bit bigger. And that if, indeed, safety considerations are part of the original Ordinance, that it would be best for the Board not to second guess the people who did the original research. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you are accepting then what the Ordinance says in describing the area as the area of the sign, including the entire area of the sign? MR. OAKLEY: Unquestionably during the day you see the entire sign. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Unquestionably. MR. OAKLEY: And I have seen very few exit and entrance signs which don't have some border around them. So it seems to me that the PAGE 29 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 Ordinance is clear enough on that. Then in terms of visual obstruction, a box is just construction of a letter. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further comment on that? MR. SIEVERDING: I think there is some point to what he is saying. They can achieve the same result by cutting down border areas that surround the letters and still, I think, be within the Ordinance requirements of four square foot. Question would be - three feet - where does that come from - what was the rationale on that? SECRETARY HOARD: The height? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I would suppose they didn't want them up in the air. MR. WEAVER: Page 34.7. Directional entrance and exit signs - isn't that the point of discussion? 34. 5, paragraph 4 . SECRETARY HOARD: If you are trying to figure out a logic. . . MR. WEAVER: That's the only logic I have. Maybe. . . a copy from Scarsdale or. . . SECRETARY HOARD: In a B5 zone - a gas station, if you substitute informational sign for a directional sign, then the informational sign is thus substituted for directional sign shall not exceed four square feet in each an area and free-standing shall extend not more than ten feet nor less than eight feet above grade. MR. SIEVERDING: Which one. . . SECRETARY HOARD: That's the informational sign only substituted for the directional sign. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the informational sign would be taller, I think that is what they are saying and the directional signs are assumably supposed to be down at grade. Don't try to confuse us. . . PAGE 30 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: But the safety question, if you are saying three feet so you can see over it . . . MR. SIEVERDING: But Charlie's point being that the Zoning Ordinance says three feet and you rely on their . . . MR. WEAVER: Well lacking anything else, the directional and informational however, can say, Tony's In - Tony's Out or Kentucky Fried In and Out - which is not uncommon, Mobil In. . . this doesn't speak to any of that, as I can read it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So where are we with the height issue? Do we care? MR. WEAVER: We can approve or disapprove. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's true. MR. WEAVER: But we have to specifically allow them to - if we are going to allow non-compliance, we have to. . . (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We have to - we would assume - right. . MR. WEAVER: This being the one that we are all expert on, now maybe we can live through this if we do it a second at a time. MR. OAKLEY: I 'm basically set on directional signs, I would like to have some fact to find if we are going to grant the variance on them, that's my only point and as far as I know, no fact has been found, and if anybody wants to raise one at this point, we are here. But I 'm willing to move on to the larger sign. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please let's not make too many motions, are we generally agreed with John on this particular instance, that we would need more finding of fact if, in fact, we were going to grant a variance for the smaller - that is, the directional signs? PAGE 31 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. WEAVER: Without getting into a finding, we could say to the appellant that - try four feet and if anyone gets killed, come back. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I 'm more concerned about the size than I am the height at the moment. MR. SIEVERDING: If anyone gets killed, come back. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any tremendous objection to that particular point of view? [none] Okay, then perhaps we can deal with the "larger sign", the "wall sign", as it is stated. MR. WEAVER: However we would need to consider the height as part of that application. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, we will come back to it if and when it becomes. . MR. WEAVER: If it ever gets back here. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: If it becomes an issue. We are getting there, it takes a while, but we are getting there. MR. OAKLEY: Then on the larger sign - I 'm on a roll now - I would like to point out, in terms of our duty, on page 34. 18, paragraph 34 . 17a, which is the paragraph dealing with the grounds for variance review and appeal. That does specify, in paragraphs A and B, certain standards would seem to be developing (unintelligible) . MR. WEAVER: Your partners across the way, here, are having a little trouble. . . MR. SCHWAB: We are a lot slower than you are. MR. WEAVER: Look down at the bottom and find out what page you are on. MR. OAKLEY: 34 . 18. PAGE 32 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. WEAVER: Oh, 18. I was having trouble between 8 and A. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Then 34 . 17 is the Section and we are dealing with A and that's where you wanted to begin reading. MR. OAKLEY: Well if you. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The relevant passages. . . MR. OAKLEY: Okay. I think that A indicates that the distance at which a sign is meant to be read, which I assume means that sort of existence back from the street rather than that somebody can erect a sign on the top of a hill and hope that everybody in Ithaca can read it. It says in all cases the smaller sign that will suit the purpose shall be the guide taking into account the legitimate commercial or other interests which are intended to be promoted by the sign. That suggests to me that the distance back from the street is a relevant consideration in legal terms. Paragraph B also suggests that the number of letters on the sign - specifically it says a sign with only a few letters need not be as large as one with many letters to be seen from the same distance. These are fairly obvious things but since the issue has been raised by one of the witnesses it seems right to point out that the Ordinance itself considers them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are you suggesting that the converse is also true? If a sign with only a few letters need not be as large as one with many letters, then one with a large number of letters may indeed. . . . MR. OAKLEY: May indeed need to be larger in order to be legible. At a distance, there are. . . PAGE 33 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: Sounds like you are promoting the larger sign. They want as many letters up as they can get. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's an interesting interpretation. . . MR. OAKLEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I assume that (unintelligible) in general do not find it a fact to call us a lot of names (unintelligible) perhaps but. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Tell Bill Zikakis that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. How does everybody else feel about that? Or does anybody feel about that in any fashion? SECRETARY HOARD: I think you do have to bear in mind that the other businesses along Meadow Street are watching this closely. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I hear what you are saying. You can see the eyes upon us. MR. WEAVER: It does seem to me that anybody in that business (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: Yes but things are there - in fact a lot of this is along Meadow Street is five hundred feet back from their other immediate neighbors. SECRETARY HOARD: Carl 's Drugs. . . Ithaca Building Center. . . K-Mart. . . MR. WEAVER: K-Mart, yes. SECRETARY HOARD: Great American. . . Then there is Zikakis Imports. MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) SECRETARY HOARD: They came (unintelligible) MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, with Zikakis, remember we talked a little bit and made them push it way back, to a point where we knew it PAGE 34 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 wouldn't be seen because they were on the back side of the building. I mean we've been pretty good about it. If I do say so myself. Further thoughts about the size? MR. WEAVER: Well I guess we need to limit ourselves to what the appellant is asking for not what could be or get into the sign designing business or that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well why didn't you say that twenty minutes ago. MR. WEAVER: Because I found out a lot since then. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, moving along then, do we have anything like a motion? MR. SCHWAB: One comment I have, basic - two things, whether this clutters up Route 13 and it is my impression that this doesn't and the second thing is there is some unfairness between here and TOPS which obviously is going to mean some intense competition for the next couple of years. The basic difference - I don't know how much you want to get into it but my one thought is that you've got TOPS and Carls's - two separate businesses - and WEGMAN'S is one (unintelligible) and overall signage for each place is roughly the same - TOPS plus CARL'S - WEGMAN'S plus FOOD-PHARMACY. I 'm inclined to think that is sort of a wash with the City being fair to these two that are about to fight each other. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I 'd like to take that up just a bit because I think they are two different establishments with two different separate businesses, it does become an issue. I think you do become unfair if you essentially say it is a wash on visual appearance and essentially not recognize that you have two separate businesses there. If Food and Pharmacy weren't part and parcel and PAGE 35 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 you made an even trade, it would seem to be both within the spirt and the specifics, to a degree. I 'm not saying I would agree or disagree with the overall signage area but I can see more of a parallel than I can with two separate businesses, in the letter of the law. That's my opinion. MR. SCHWAB: What is the sign at Carl 's? Is it Carl 's Drugs? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. And again from the point of view from of the policy of the Board and what we've been trying to do, I think it is far more consistent to take that position than it is to go quite the way in which you have specified. MR. OAKLEY: I 'm not sure what position. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well the position of the Board has been to use the least, not the greatest, necessary to do the job - right along, right? So that the converse, while it may be logical, may not necessarily be in the spirit of the Ordinance. It may be logical, but it may not be in the spirit and I would suggest, along with what Stewart is proposing - we are in essence - the Wegman's Food and Pharmacy equivalent to Carl 's Drugs and the TOPS is not in the spirit of the Ordinance - is not either in the letter of the Ordinance - and therefore I would argue in keeping with our position as we have held it historically - as we have tried to do the best we can. MR. OAKLEY: In addition that argument allows you to proliferate small signs - suggests that one should proliferate signs in order to reduce the average sign. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. PAGE 36 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. OAKLEY: I could try a motion and see how it flies, I 'm not sure . . . and it's basically. . . that the appeal be denied. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. PAGE 37 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 10-1-87 FOR 600 SOUTH MEADOW STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to permit the installation of signs at 600 South Meadow Street that exceed the maximum sizes permitted by the Sign Ordinance. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board deny the request for a sign variance in Appeal Number 10-1-87. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. No circumstances have been shown for any exception to the size and height requirements on exit and entrance signs. 2 . A considerably smaller sign might well - a sign within the limits of the Ordinance - might well serve the necessary purpose. No evidence has been given to show that a smaller sign would not serve the necessary purpose. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT DENIED PAGE 38 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 DISCUSSION WHICH TOOK PLACE AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN: MR. SIEVERDING: You are actually dealing with all signs with this one variance Wegman's plus the entrance/exit signs? MR. OAKLEY: It seems - it all fits into one motion - I have put it all into one motion - I see no need to make two motions. It would be possible to separate into an exit/entrance variance and a wall sign variance - I see no problem with that and deal with them independently and separately but I don't see that there is any need to do that. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further discussion? If there is no discussion, then I 'm going to call for a vote on the motion as it stands. MR. WEAVER: I 'm not sure my check list was ready for the motion. How difficult would it be, Barbara, to hear part of that motion? [listened to the motion on 10-1-87 as it was recorded on tape at this point] CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have any further questions Charlie? Stewart? MR. SCHWAB: No, I mean there doesn't seem to be too much - the finding of fact on wall signs - there is no evidence that a smaller sign might not work. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All set on this side? A vote? So a yes is to deny? MR. OAKLEY: Right. SECRETARY HOARD: The vote on Appeal Number 10-1-87 is 5 Yes Votes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So the appeal is denied. PAGE 39 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 MR. O'NEIL: Is it possible to receive some direction from the Board as to exactly what they are looking for. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Why don't you come in and see the Building Commissioner and get your direction, okay? MR. WEAVER: Well Mr. Chairman. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Could the Board give the Building Commissioner some direction? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I think that we can discuss, if you want, that specifically. MR. WEAVER: We've just had an application under the Zoning Ordinance and it has been denied. It just seems to me that if you have trouble with that - Tom could tell him - but we can also tell him that if he comes in with the same one - that we have nothing to go on except to do the same thing and there are other bodies in City Government that could provide relief - that make laws that. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are you suggesting that he go to Common Council? MR. WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well if they want to, they could certainly go to Common Council, I don't think that is reasonable Charlie, I think much more reasonable would be that they reframe their particular appeal with Tom and look for further guidance. MR. WEAVER: Okay. MR. O'NEIL: Will Mr. Hoard be able to give us the guidance of the Board? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I think more specifically, there are certain things you have heard with respect to our concerns that you are more or less bound by the Ordinance to come in with - first off - a PAGE 40 BZA MINUTES 10/5/87 ' different appeal, other than the one you have just presented, okay? There has to be a substantial difference in the way in which you are going to present your signage the next time around, if you are coming back to us. Okay? And that is, I would assume, what you are doing - either that or you comply. MR. O'NEIL: Is it possible to receive a copy of the tape transcript? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. You can ask. . . MR. O'NEIL: I would like to receive a copy of that too. MR. DRAKE: Could I have it also? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Oh sure - in fact you come in and pay - what is ' it, twenty-five cents a page and you can have it - sorry for such a long transcript but we try to do our best. MR. DRAKE: Do I have to come in to get it or can I have it sent? SECRETARY HOARD: Give us a call and leave a name and number and we will get it for you. PAGE 41 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The first appeal on the agenda has been adjourned at the request of the appellant. The second appeal is Appeal No. 1786 for 213 Bryant Avenue: Appeal of R. James Miller and Christine L. Schelhas-Miller for an area variance for excessive lot coverage by buildings, and deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 10, 11, and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a one-story addition to the rear of the single-family dwelling at 213 Bryant Avenue for additional living space, and the construction of a deck adjoining the new addition. The property is located in an R-1b (Residential, single-family dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourself and where you live. MR. MILLER: My name is Jim Miller, I live at 213 Bryant Avenue and my wife and I are bringing this appeal. I think the statement that was submitted is fairly self-explanatory. Practical difficulty was that it is a residential area - there is not other land that can be purchased to increase the size of the lot. We are not asking to change the use of the property at all - we want merely to add, PAGE 42 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 basically what is a downstairs bath and a family room along with a screened in porch. If you have any questions I would be happy to address those. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: We have gotten a letter from neighbors of 215 Bryant. Have you gotten any other letters from neighbors? MR. MILLER: Which one. . . MR. SCHWAB: That's Linda Waugh. MR. MILLER: Linda Waugh. In addition we had - there were three or four different neighbors who offered to come and we suggested that if they wanted to do something they could write a letter. Linda Waugh is our neighbor right to the side, the Rogers live at a corner of our property - their garden and our garden is side by side. They offered. The Staleys, who are across the street and Bob Frank and Ellen McCollister also offered, although obviously they are not - we told them they didn't have to come and if they wanted to do something they could write a letter. If you only got one letter. . . (unintelligible) MR. WEAVER: This is no threat to Ross's garden? MR. MILLER: No, Ross's garden - I couldn't do anything to that - they have a beautiful garden. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What is the nature of the foundation for the deck - just curious. MR. MILLER: We are going to be using Dana Cavanaugh as the builder and Bob Leathers as the architect. We've met with Bob, who drew up the plans which I think you have. It is anticipated - I don't know how to explain it - underneath the deck area - that would not be - PAGE 43 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 the one part that is not part of the foundation - the rest of it will be a proper foundation, probably cinder block or poured concrete - that's what we have right now, poured concrete. But the actual materials underneath the deck would probably be - the grade of the lot would probably be maybe two feet at the far end and maybe four feet near the house. I 'm not sure I 've answered that question, in terms of what materials will be used - so the main part will be poured concrete or cinder block underneath the screened in porch - I 'm not sure - I guess we are going to take our lead from the builder and the architect - we haven't thoroughly discussed that, to be perfectly honest. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions? MR. SIEVERDING: So the addition itself - it doesn't increase the deficiency on the side yard at all? MR. MILLER: That is correct - it wouldn't go any . . . MR. SIEVERDING: So it's the lot coverage then that is. . . MR. MILLER: It's the lot coverage - it is my understanding of it - the house right now, since it was built we believe in 1816 - is - before there are any requirements - now violates the side requirement in the front requirements so I believe - it is my feeling that that has to be brought before you since we are asking for a variance on the coverage - lot coverage. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further thoughts? No? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] I 'll entertain a motion. PAGE 44 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1786 FOR 213 BRYANT AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of R. James Miller and Christine L. Schelhas-Miller for an area variance to permit the construction of a one-story addition to the rear of the single-family dwelling at 213 Bryant Avenue. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1786. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The area deficiencies applying to this proposal, number one, the front yard - cannot be corrected without demolition of part of the building and it is typical of the front yard setbacks in the neighborhood. 2. The side yard deficiency of 4 ' is not significant and will not be exacerbated by the project. 3 . The area coverage is about a maximum of 25% and this project will bring it up to 30%. The fact that part of this is deck would argue in favor of not being concerned with this particular deficiency. 4. It will improve the amenity of the house. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 45 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 1787 FOR 227 LINDEN AVENUE: Appeal of Cornell Radio Guild, Inc. , for the modification of an existing use variance to permit the additional use of the premises at 227 Linden Avenue (WVBR Radio) for a martial arts school. The property is located in an R3b (Residential, multiple dwellings) Use District in which the existing and proposed uses are not permitted; however the property has been granted a generic use variance which permits nonconforming uses after review and approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals on the basis of area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin with your identification and where you live. MR. WOLK: My name is Scott Wolk, I 'm the Vice President of the Cornell Radio Guild, Inc. living at 125 Highland Place. Basically the reason we are here is because of the generic use variance granted for changing the usage of the building in such a way that it may affect parking. We went to Tom Hoard and he said that we had to come here because there is a possibility that parking will be affected by this. That's the reason we are here - we feel the affect on parking is probably going to be minimal, if any, because we've been granted use variances similar to this before, for Tech Hi-Fi, and other stores that were in our building and those aren't there anymore so we have what parking spaces they used to use available for the Cornell Karate Studio. PAGE 46 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Perhaps you ought to say something incapsulating the number of spaces you have and the number of spaces which are already devoted to the uses that you have going on in the structure. MR. WOLK: At the moment we count seventeen spaces in the structure, which includes seven outside spaces and remaining ten underneath in the parking garage (unintelligible) . Our parking requirements for our staff for our radio station, which is the only activity going on right now, which requires parking - is approximately ten spaces - which gives us a lot of play in that regard. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What is the nature of the Karate Studio? When would its hours likely be? MR. WOLK: Perspective hours will be non-business hours - they will be operated as a secondary business by David Warden, who is a plumber by trade and would primarily operate this at night and on weekends. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Will we hear from the developer - I would be interested. . . MR. WOLK: Yes, David Warden is here and he is also the developer. MR. SCHWAB: What is your understanding of what a generic use variance entails? Could you put. . . MR. WOLK: What I believe happened was, when we got the building back in 1972 and, obviously I wasn't there at the time, what I believe happened was they said, since it is white elephant basically, it is a business sort of building - a gas station and a PAGE 47 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 car agency slapped down in the middle of a residential area. Just as long as it is basically simple and doesn't impact the community where we will have ten thousand cars coming down every five minutes like a Dominoes Pizza - that we can do what we want with that space so long as the Board, here, knows about and agrees that it is not going to negatively impact the community. MR. SIEVERDING: Was the original parking requirement the thirty-eight that we are using here or is this. . . MR. OAKLEY: How was the thirty-eight (unintelligible) . . . SECRETARY HOARD: The thirty-eight was based on the two hundred and fifty square feet of office space and I 'm not sure - one space per two hundred fifty square feet of office space - I am not sure how much office space you are using now, this was taken from the last appeal. MR. WOLK: Okay. Just going by this - this is nineteen thousand - nineteen hundred square feet. . . SECRETARY HOARD: Well I 'm not talking about his part. . . MR. WOLK: Right - if they are nineteen hundred feet, though, that means that we are about three times that - so it is something around six thousand square feet that we use at the moment. A little less than that because the building is pushed back a bit, but that's an approximate number. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Twenty-four spaces for the radio station. . . MR. WOLK: But the thing about that is, based on a business where you have secretaries and desks every five people - we have in most of that space - is large radio consoles and record storage and you PAGE 48 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 don't have a lot of people in amongst the records - the records take up a very large chunk of that (unintelligible) studios. MR. OAKLEY: Is this figure determined or (unintelligible) two-hundred and fifty feet. . . SECRETARY HOARD: That's for the offices. So we end up then with a requirement of twenty-four spaces for the six thousand square feet in the radio station office space and no requirement in the Ordinance for Martial Arts Studio. MR. SIEVERDING: There is no requirement? SECRETARY HOARD: There is no requirement. MR. SIEVERDING: The only thing - you talked about there being seventeen spaces? MR. WOLK: There is approximately - yes, we went down and traced outlines for seventeen spaces - we pinned them down - we said, okay we can fit cars in seventeen spaces and then maneuver cars out of them and make sure that they all work. MR. OAKLEY: How many of your staff work after 5: 00 P.M.? MR. WOLK: After 5:00? All the full time - eight staff goes home; until 6: 00 there is one newscaster, one sportscaster and one DJ and basically that's it - there is occasionally miscellaneous executive personnel running around but after 6:00 there is generally just the DJ until around 8:30 or so when the night shift comes in, which is again, another sportscaster and another newscaster - basically three at night with most of those being Cornell students who walk to work. MR. OAKLEY: Different from the students in my neighborhood. MR. WOLK: Well a lot of us live right next to the station. PAGE 49 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. SIEVERDING: So the Martial Arts Studio would be the only other use of the property other than the Radio Station, is that right? MR. WOLK: At the moment, that's it, yes. MR. SIEVERDING: But there is more space for lease then? MR. WOLK: We are trying to lease more space. MR. SIEVERDING: And the way this generic use variances - when something comes up for additional spaces, they have to come back to the Board? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. Anything they do, they have to come back. MR. WOLK: So you get to know us whenever anyone wants to (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart, any thoughts? MR. SCHWAB: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Perhaps we can go ahead with the other half, if you would come on up and, again, begin by introducing yourself. MR. WARDEN: I 'm David Warden, this is my wife, Robin, who is my partner basically in this. I have been running the Cornell Triquando Club, I guess, for the last twelve, thirteen years, on the Cornell Campus. Our clientele is basically Cornell students and I 've been interested for a long time in establishing an actual school, and still (unintelligible) to Cornell. The problem with being at Cornell is they don't have space available to run this activity - where there are spaces available, it is difficult because every semester I have to go and deal and finagle space and this is basically a part time thing - I 'm not in it to make a lot of money or anything, I just (unintelligible) Martial Arts and my best opportunity to do that is to find a permanent place right near PAGE 50 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 campus and, again, most of my clientele are students - they mostly walk, ride their bikes and I want to maintain that clientele - that is why I 'm looking at this space. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: A typical night, say, how many students would you typically have? MR. WORDEN: During a semester - thirty students and it could go up to forty. . . MRS. WARDEN: Forty is high, we have had thirty-nine - that's the highest we've had this fall. MR. WEAVER: Maybe it would be helpful if you told us a couple of major buildings at Cornell that you've occupied space in. MR. WARDEN: Noyes Center - third floor lounge on the west campus. That used to be a study lounge, now they've emptied out all the furniture there. We've been there mostly, that's where we started, there was a period when we couldn't occupy that because we basically were given - they constantly change their personnel, so we would approach one person in the spring to set up the fall schedule and they would say, "no, no, we aren't doing that anymore" so we ended up in Martha VanRenssalaer where we had to stack chairs every night and put them back after we were done, and then after a year - actually a year and a half of that - they said, "no, we don't want you anymore" and we went back to Noyes, and they said "okay, we'll take you back" . Those are pretty much the spaces - Barton Hall we used also - and that's very distracting. We had to dodge basketballs and things. PAGE 51 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: What good is it to be a black belt if you can't get your way? MR. WEAVER: Let me understand - generic or otherwise - brand name if you would like - are we considering - because of your basic granting - what is our need for finding of fact - practical difficulties? SECRETARY HOARD: No, the practical difficulty - the hardship has been established in the original use variance. MR. WEAVER: In other words that allows them to expand the use beyond their own? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. But what is charged to subsequent Boards of Zoning Appeals from the one that originally came up with this generic thing as to the Board would evaluate the effect of the use - the proposed use - on the neighborhood and if the Board felt that it wouldn't harm the neighborhood, they could go ahead and grant it. If they felt either that the use itself that was being proposed would damage the neighborhood or the cumulative effect of all the collective uses that were in there would damage the neighborhood, the Board could deny it. MR. WEAVER: So if we have a finding that if they don't scream when they attack each other - the neighbors can't hear it - I 'm speaking with some (unintelligible) . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it's a special permit, not a variance, so your finding of fact becomes. . . SECRETARY HOARD: I doubt that they make more noise than a radio station. PAGE 52 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. WARDEN: You are dealing with concrete floors, ceilings and walls. We haven't done a sound test yet, but. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: What are your hours typically? MR. WARDEN: Ever since I 've been in it, we've been five thirty to seven - standard class time. MR. SCHWAB: So you would be out all altogether after seven - you'd not be there after seven thirty, say? MS. WARDEN: There wouldn't be much use after that. An occasional evening here and there, if somebody wants instruction, or workout time. There would be no classes beyond seven. MR. WEAVER: Generally out by nine? MS. WARDEN: Yes. MR. SIEVERDING: And that's five days a week or. . . MR. WARDEN: We've been doing three days a week. With our own space we consider doing possibly five days a week. We aren't doing that yet, but we are considering it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you both. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this special permit? MR. FRIEDLAND: Call me slightly biased, if you will, I 'm the President of the Cornell Radio Guild and the General Manager of WVBR. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And your name? MR. FRIEDLAND: My name is David Friedland, 119 College Avenue. Just to point out, the building is a white elephant. The room that we are discussing is a large room that we now call the "black hole". It is basically a junk yard - about half the size of the PAGE 53 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 radio station studios. It is kind of nice to finally find someone who is going to put the renovations in and rent this space. We consider this to be low impact - it is somewhere along the lines of the radio station because it is an educational kind of use. The parking that was brought up, which obviously is the major bone of contention to any use in Collegetown these days - I think is - it is obviously a good question - you've mentioned twenty-four spaces and we have said that we have seventeen. Right now the Station always has a surplus of spaces at all times - we have only three paid staff - as you know the majority of people working at WVBR are Cornell students and they don't have cars. Many do but at no time are all seventeen spaces taken up. At no time are more than two-thirds of the spaces taken, and I think during non-business hours there will be plenty. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? [none] Thanks. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak against? [no one] Then I will entertain a motion or discussion. PAGE 54 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1787 FOR 227 LINDEN AVENUE MR. WEAVER: This is not a motion - clarification. We judge that this will or will not have a substantial impact on parking requirements in the neighborhood when we are done, is that correct? Is that your understanding? MR. SIEVERDING: That's the only issue that we are involved in. What's the. . . MR. WEAVER: If they had smoke or dust or noise - those things - in that particular case we could list them. SECRETARY HOARD: They did have some other uses in the past that - somewhere they came in requesting a storage use for a commercial operation that would have a semi coming there regularly - and the Board didn't like that one because Linden Avenue is difficult to negotiate as it is and then to have a semi out there several hours a week - that was a problem. There were other retail type uses that the Board felt were a problem - that were turned down. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I'm seeing a scheme there ever so often it seems - of one sort or another - every two years or so. SECRETARY HOARD: Well the problem oftentimes is, that by the time they go through this process the prospective tenant finds something else and they lose him. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well then we should move right along. PAGE 55 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1787 FOR 227 LINDEN AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Cornell Radio Guild, Inc. for the modification of an existing use variance to permit the additional use of the premises at 227 Linden Avenue for a martial arts school. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the Special Permit requested in Appeal Number 1787. MR. OAKLEY: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Based on the testimony, given the limited hours of operation, this will be a low impact use that will not negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 56 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal to be heard is APPEAL NUMBER 1788 FOR 317 NORTH TIOGA STREET: Appeal of Williamson and Clune for an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard under Section 30.25, Columns 11 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit either (a) the demolition of the one-story portion of the office building at 317 North Tioga Street (Williamson and Clune) and replacement with a two-story addition, or (b) construction of a second story above the existing one-story portion of that same structure, for additional office space. The property is located in a B-1b (Business, Offices) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellants must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed work. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. Again, if you would begin by identifying yourself for the record. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, I 'm Bob Williamson of Williamson and Clune. Do you need photographs of the building? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We have probably seen them but if you want to pass them around. . . MR. WILLIAMSON: These are two shots of the front and this is a shot of the back of the building. As Mr. Hoard indicated, we will probably tear down the shaft - the end of the shed that is built PAGE 57 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 over that. We lack the front yard setback and the setback on the north - side yard, I should say, and then the area variance because we want to add on a total of thirty feet, including the shed you are looking at. If you look at the little shed at the back - you will go back a total of thirty feet - that would bring us equal to, in the rear, the same as Buyoucos and Barney - I 'll just show you the rear of their building - they are to the south of us. We would only go back as far as they want to go - that's Buyoucos and Barney on the south. It would mean we would have office downstairs in the addition - of six hundred and six hundred up on the second floor. And as you go over the room that is now next to the shed, we have another - we probably have fifteen or sixteen hundred square feet additional for the offices - first and second floor. We have architects - Fred Thomas Associates and obviously if the variance request is granted, we will be working with Mr. Hoard and his office to make sure that everything is properly complied with insofar as the Fire Protection Code and everything else is concerned. MR. WEAVER: Bob, I couldn't understand from your application - I understand how much ground is covered by the shed and the addition, and so forth, what you propose is to widen the new addition or will it cover the same amount of ground it covers now? MR. WILLIAMSON: It will go twenty feet beyond where the shed is. We will have a total of thirty feet. . . MR. WEAVER: So you will extend the rear wall by twenty feet? MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. We are going back - let me just show it to YOU - this is a side view as it currently exists. There is the PAGE 58 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 little shed. We are going to have a second floor here, then here - we are going back a total - from here to here - thirty feet and then go up two floors - we are not going to widen the current building. . . MR. WEAVER: You won't get closer to Larkin? MR. WILLIAMSON: No, no. We wouldn't get closer to Larkin because we are on the boundary line now. MR. OAKLEY: But the extension would go right up against the boundary line rather than be set in the same way the shed is set in? MR. WILLIAMSON: That is correct. We would not be - we would go right along the line. . . MR. OAKLEY: Okay. MR. WILLIAMSON: . . . and not be indented as the shed shows, you are correct. Here is an old drawing we had - side of the building, if that is helpful. That's looking from the south to the north on the side of the building. This is where we want to build up and then here we go back - a total from here - of thirty feet. MR. OAKLEY: How long is the existing shed? MR. WILLIAMSON: The existing shed is ten feet. MR. OAKLEY: Ten feet -so you will be going back quite a bit. MR. WILLIAMSON: That's why we had to get the area variance. I think Mr. Hoard indicated with that request that we are about three or four percent over in the area variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you want to keep the paper away from the microphones - because what you are doing is creating interference on the tape. PAGE 59 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. WILLIAMSON: The facade in the front - as I indicated to all the Boards involved - will be the same. The side is going to be the same, we feel that we have the nicest looking building in our block and we want to keep it that way. We will just be going to the rear and in the two floors as currently we have in the front. As I say, we have architects - Fred Thomas and Associates - and we obviously will be working with Mr. Hoard's office to comply with everything insofar as the construction is concerned. MR. OAKLEY: Is this form correct? You have "no change" in the percent of lot coverage on my version of the work sheet. It strikes me as not at all (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Column 10. MR. WILLIAMSON: I can show you what it will look like (unintelligible) MR. OAKLEY: But I think you've got thirty-five percent coverage if you are consistent but it doesn't look. . . MR. SIEVERDING: They can have up to ninety. . . MR. OAKLEY: They can have up to ninety - but it doesn't change. . . MR. WILLIAMSON: This is what it would look like - just a quick drawing. . . MR. OAKLEY: But there is an increase in lot coverage - it probably doesn't go over ninety percent but I am just saying that the figures for it - existing. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It says it is "O.K. " MR. OAKLEY: It does say "O.K. " - okay, that is why I 'm hesitating. . . PAGE 60 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. WILIAMSON: We are going depthwise exactly the same as Buyoucos and Barney next door, we are not going any further than they are. I believe this Board granted that variance - we are only going back the same depth as they are. And I think our two stories is lower than they are - in other words we are going no higher than they are and the same depth. The reason for the demolition being in there is that we really don't know - structurally - until the architect gets in there - whether we will have to demolish the little building next to the shed - next less. In other words, the shed we would demolish but is that going to support a second floor - whether or not we have to demolish the other little addition immediately to the west, I don't know until the architect looked at it, structurally. We don't want to change the architecture of this building at all - we simply want to keep obviously the same as it is now. There will be no change to the front or either side, back to where the addition would appear. MR. SIEVERDING: Is this extension part of an enlargement of your office, in terms of personnel? MR. WILLIAMSON: At the current time we have - there is myself and Bob Clune, my partner and three associates and five secretaries - so we don't have enough space now. This would give us needed space for a library - we have two associates and a secretary in the library and this would give us an addition so that there would be room, not only for the secretaries, but perhaps one or two other attorneys - that would be it. We also are contemplating at this time, a basement in this new area. We were warned that there may be water problems so that may be something that would deter us from PAGE 61 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 doing that - we are trying to have a solid concrete floor and solid concrete walls so we can have our library in the basement with the new rolling shelves that they have at the Cornell Law Library. As I say, we don't know but what the water may deter us. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHWAB: How long have you been in this building? MR. WILLIAMSON: Fred Bryant, who is the Supreme Court Justice, and Bruno Mazza purchased that building in 1965. I joined the firm in 1967 and it was Bryant, Mazza and Williamson - and then it was Mazza, Williamson and Clune - now it is Williamson and Clune. So it has been occupied by Attorneys since 1965. Bob Head - I know Charlie Weaver knows him - but the second floor is where he and his wife lived when they first got married - a little apartment on the second floor. That's Bob Head of Head's Camera Shop. Just a little history. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thanks much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this area variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] PAGE 62 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1788 FOR 317 NORTH TIOGA STREET MR. SIEVERDING: They've gone to Design/Review and. . . MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. . MR. OAKLEY: Okay, the Planning Board had problems with the amount of parking spaces. . . MR. SIEVERDING: There is no parking requirement. . . MR. OAKLEY: But there is no parking requirement, so that's. . . SECRETARY HOARD: That's the Planning Board that recommends the Zoning Ordinance. . . MR. OAKLEY: The Planning Board is not a quasi-judicial body. MR. WEAVER: Well the Planning Board also recommends the Zoning Ordinance to poor people like you and me. Now they are saying "be careful of the parking" and they don't require any in the Ordinance - if you don't mind being circular on this. . . MR. OAKLEY: This is the Board of Planning and Review. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is this within the Historic District and the other one was next door? MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, we went to the. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And that has been approved? MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. SECRETARY HOARD: They have been attending City meetings daily, for months and months. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We just want to make sure you are putting in your time. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes we went (unintelligible) and we don't want to do anything to the front of the building at all - we want to keep the facade completely the same. PAGE 63 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1788 FOR 317 NORTH TIOGA STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Robert Williamson for an area variance to permit either (a) the demolition of the one-story portion of the office building at 317 North Tioga Street and replacement with a two-story addition, or (b) construction of a second story above the existing one-story portion of that same structure, for additional office space. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SCHWAB: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1788. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Practical difficulty was shown in eliminating the front yard setback deficiency that would require moving the building. 2 . The side yard deficiency is pre-existing and the proposal merely extends that deficiency along that side yard. 3. The depth will be no further than adjoining buildings that have similar uses. 4. The seven parking spaces are being retained. 5. The proposal will not change the character of the neighborhood. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 64 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1789 for 113 Crescent Place: Appeal of Robert A. Ryan for an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard and one side yard, under Section 30.25, Columns 11, and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a one-story addition to the side of the single-family dwelling at 113 Crescent Place for additional living space. The property is located in an R-1b (Residential, single-family dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30. 57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: By now you should know the procedure. MR. RYAN: I want to point out first that an error has crept in to this - in the third line it should read "a one-story addition to the side of the single-family dwelling" rather than rear. That can be checked by the maps. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you are Bob Ryan? MR. RYAN: Yes and I live at 113 Crescent Place. Basically what the addition amounts to is an addition to the dining room area. I have enjoyed entertaining over the years and I 've always resented the fact that I had a dining alcove rather than a little more of a dining room. What I propose is to extend it out as shown eight and PAGE 65 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 one-half feet toward the line and it will be approximately eleven feet the other way. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there any reason for the particular proportion of that room being added in that fashion? I mean, it is nine by eight - could it be, for example, seven by fourteen? Tell me a little bit about the plan on the inside - it is not really clear from the little sketch map we have, exactly why you would want to do it that way. MR. RYAN: The "X" there are the front steps and awning and you proceed straight in and there is a hallway there and then just beyond that is a dining area that extends out right to where the line is. The reason I 'm not trying to extend further is that that other area is the kitchen and I had the kitchen remodelled several years ago and it would be quite an expense to extend that and I have no particular desire - I have enough room in that. So that to get the picture of the new dining area all together, one would add a block similar to this dimension - shaped the same on the interior - I think that's the best way to explain it. MR. SIEVERDING: The kitchen then would be in that back corner? MR. RYAN: Yes, extending out to the place - the crossmark which are the back steps. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Have you ever received any comment from your next door neighbor - the neighbor you are getting closer to? MR. RYAN: No, I have not. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. RYAN: By the way, in the construction of this I have asked the contractor to make this as perfectly constant with the house as PAGE 66 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 possible - that is, to use the same milling on the outside and so on, even to a sloping roof so that, certainly in my interest, first, not to have an add-on look. MR. SCHWAB: How close is the next house to the south? MR. RYAN: Next to where the addition would be? MR. SCHWAB: Yes. MR. RYAN: I was measuring it just before - at the closest point of the proposed extension, it would be five feet, eight - something like that. . MR. WEAVER: To the lot line? MR. RYAN: To the lot line, yes. MR. WEAVER: Yes, but how about his house? MR. RYAN: Oh, that would be quite a bit - that would at least be fifteen feet. And really, there is an embankment there, so that it would not be feasible to build anything closer, anyway. MR. OAKLEY: I 'm not sure whether it is appropriate, but I 'm sure curious about what is left on the first floor of the ground plan there - this is a two-story house? MR. RYAN: One-story. MR. OAKLEY: It's a one-story, okay. MR. RYAN: The bedrooms are at the - two are at the far end and one is in the front next to that projection, which I use as a study. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further questions on the other side here? [none] Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case we bring this one to a close. PAGE 67 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1789 FOR 113 CRESCENT PLACE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered your request for an area variance to permit the construction of a one-story addition to the side of the single-family dwelling at 113 Crescent Place for additional living space. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1789. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed addition does not pose any substantial movement toward the next door neighbor. 2. It will not result in a substantial change to the detriment of the adjoining property. 3. Doesn't appear that there is a reasonable alternative available. 4. The front yard deficiency was an existing condition which will not be exacerbated. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 68 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal Number 1790 for 225 South Fulton Street: Appeal of Robert R. Brown for a Special Permit for an electronics communications dish under Section 30.26 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the installation of two satellite dishes, each measuring ten feet in diameter, on the roof of the existing building at 225 South Fulton Street (Technical Broadcast Systems) . The property is located in a B-4 (Business) Use District, in which a Special Permit is required from the Board of Zoning Appeals before a building permit can be issued for the installation of the equipment. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you would begin by identifying yourselves and where you live. MR. BROWN: I 'm Robert Brown of Technical Broadcast Systems. MR. BLUMENTHAL: I'm Steve Blumenthal, owner of the building and although my name does not appear on the appeal, I have a vested interest in one of the two dishes, so it would seem like it would benefit the procedure if I could contribute at this point, if it is agreeable. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That is fine. Let's move ahead. MR. BLUMENTHAL: Okay. Basically what we are requesting is two dishes to serve two separate business purposes. Bob's business is to sell and installation satellite systems for consumer, residential and personal use. My business is the sales and service of all types of electronic equipment. The dish that I am requesting serves me by supplying a signal required for over two PAGE 69 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 hundred and fifty signal hookups. My alternative is to pay four dollars per month to the cable company for a total of a thousand dollars per month - twelve thousand dollars per year - which, I feel is a severe hardship as opposed to having our own system. Other alternatives included in that require that I depend on the cable system which, as you all know, has some inadequacies to it - the quality of signal is not consistent as well as it tends to drop out and disappear entirely from time to time. This poses a severe problem in demonstrating to customers electronic equipment that has been repaired as well as it makes it very difficult to sell equipment if the new owner has the picture off. Other aspects of the situation are that our test requirements - we run over a hundred televisions a day - they have a good quality signal - tends to be fairly standard (unintelligible) and the useability of the cable system itself for that purpose is not generally adequate at the signal level - it fluxuates dramatically. Other aspects of the problem - the previous Board made a recommendation that we find some way of screening the dish - we would certainly be more than willing to comply with that on any recommendation that you all have. Aside from that the dish that we are talking about that is visible from the road, is only visible when you are proceeding south on Route 13 and then only when you break past the Agway parking lot. Up to that time, that particular location is shielded by trees, buildings and other tall structures that make it impossible to see. So you actually have to be driving past the Agway parking lot with the building immediately on your right permits visibility of that object. From Bob's point of view, as PAGE 70 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 sales and service of dish equipment, he obviously cannot sell equipment he cannot demonstrate. His dish needs to be moveable so he can tune in to the various different satellites - my dish needs to be completely stationary so that each TV has the same signal on it, hour after hour, requiring no movement whatsoever. One dish could not serve both purposes because I need a system where the channels that we are demonstrating - all twelve channels that we are demonstrating on the dish are not prone to change - they are there - the quality is the same - I can show a customer that this TV looks the same as this TV and that we haven't switched dishes, or haven't switched satellites on it thereby using premium signal or showing a lesser quality signal. His requirements are that someone who wants to understand the quality of the signal they are getting and the variety of channels available, must be able to go from satellite to satellite to see the various options that exist. So we have two separate completely different needs, both controlled by two separate dishes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The moveability issue - is that on the mount or is that not? MR. BLUMENTHAL: That is on the mount - the dish itself rotates approximately eighty degrees. MR. BROWN: It moves approximately forty degrees - it will be almost due west to just past south. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay, but it is a fixed mount - it is just the fact that it is swiveling on the mount. . . MR. BROWN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) MR. WEAVER: Which one rotates - east or west? You've got two. . . PAGE 71 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. BROWN: One will be fixed and then mine will rotate. MR. WEAVER: Yes, but I don't know where yours is, on the east side of the building or on the west side? MR. BLUMENTHAL: On the east side of the building is the fixed one, the one that rotates will be on the west side. MR. WEAVER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Is there any reason for locating them where they are? MR. BROWN: Yes. What it is, I did site surveys all over the property and the only place where I can get the dish where I can get my signals was up on the roof there. If I put them down on the ground, what happens is, there are a lot of trees in the way and buildings - I can't move the buildings and I don't own the trees. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. The question would be then, from my point of view, why the particular locations - why not further back - is it essentially the pole mounting that you. . . MR. BLUMENTHAL: The requirements of the City Engineer requires that a pole go all the way to the ground and be cemented in place or be attached to the building according to certain code requirements. . . MR. SIEVERDING: So that the pole runs on the exterior. . . MR. BROWN: Right. MR. BLUMENTHAT: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: But say that dish that is on the east corner toward Meadow Street - does that necessarily have to be located there or could it be located further in from the edge of the building? PAGE 72 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. BROWN: Well it is actually some twenty feet. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Eight feet, according to this schedule. . . MR. BLUMENTHAL: I think that pole is not useable. That position, I think, had to be moved about ten feet further over. MR. OAKLEY: Over one more window? MR. BLUMENTHAL: Yes it is over one more window so it isn't over storm drains and other obstacles. That exact location - we had a recommendation - that's the fixed location, right? MR. BROWN: Right. MR. BLUMENTHAL: And that's not that big a deal, as long as it clears the tree in front, right? MR. BROWN: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: So that one could be set further back? MR. BLUMENTHAL: That one could be set further away from the road, if that seemed. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie, question? MR. WEAVER: Yes, on the same line as this - is this aesthetic or traffic or what, Herman? MR. SIEVERDING: More, I think, from the sense of aesthetics and the view from Meadow Street as you drive down Meadow - seeing that six point - or whatever it is - dish hanging over the edge of the building. MR. WEAVER: Ten. MR. BLUMENTHAL: Well it wouldn't be hanging over the edge of the building - it would be so far set back that you couldn't see it until you were. . . PAGE 73 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. SIEVERDING: Based on what you are saying now, but the schedule we have shows it eight feet - and now what you are saying. . . MR. BLUMENTHAL: I wasn't aware of that. . . MR. BROWN: I have a picture here that will give you kind of an idea what it would look like - it is not the exact same kind of antenna that I will be using but it is basically mounted the same way. It is about the best picture I could come up with. (unintelligible) mostly invisible. That picture really doesn't do it justice - it is the only one I could really find that was mounted like that. MR. OAKLEY: I take it one doesn't put Christmas lights on the antenna. MR. BLUMENTHAL: Not unless you request it. MR. WEAVER: That would be part of the variance. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do you have a copy of the roof mounted unit that we approved not too long ago? (unintelligible) There is nothing about it being pole mounted - I'm just curious about that - it seems to me there is an awful lot of area - I 'm not suggesting anything one way or the other - just a matter of information primarily - not with respect to changing this particular instance, but it seems as though you've got an awful lot of area - lot coverage - that you could move that dish anyplace on the roof and we have approved those sorts of situations before - that was my line of questioning - just to think through that a little further. MR. WEAVER: From an engineering standpoint, I don't know whether that has a roof or just looks like a roof, but the wind loading is substantial on one of these and there is a matter of - I think there is a considerable amount of engineering. . . . , PAGE 74 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. BROWN: You see my original plan was to put it on the other side of that second story but Peter Novelli didn't feel that the walls and the roof structure would be able to support it at the worst possible case. MR. SIEVERDING: Have you received any negative responses at all to this. . . MR. BLUMENTHAL: We have a number of positive responses - we haven't received any negative ones. MR. BROWN: Basically I mailed to all the owners - I did two mailings because the first one I did, I didn't get any response, so I mailed another one and each time - what I did is I sent them a self-addressed stamped envelop to mail back a response and all I 've gotten was three approvals. MR. OAKLEY: Who are they from? MR. BROWN: Kenneth Bangerter, 222 South Fulton Street, Lillian H. Ryan, 317 South Meadow Street, Barbara and William Pardee, they live on 104 Warwick Place but they own 226 Cleveland Avenue. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Bob, would you mind submitting those - or copies of them for the file? MR. BROWN: Those are the originals, there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thanks. MR. SIEVERDING: And how about Agway, nothing from Agway? MR. BROWN: Nothing from Agway. I did get a call from the Barge Inn which owns the Motel 8 or Motel 7, whichever it is, the next motel on 13 there - and he just asked me a bunch of questions and said "that's all I wanted to know" and I never heard any response PAGE 75 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 from him. And then a Claudie Mae Hagin called me and asked me a few questions - I haven't heard any response from her either. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Nothing from across the street? MR. BROWN: Nothing from any of the houses - nothing from Mr. Donut, nobody has responded. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. WEAVER: Just one from a technical standpoint. The business that you are in - or propose to be in - that requires this dish, you have some competition no doubt? How many people are in the same boat that you are in that will come in and need a dish pretty quick? MR. BLUMENTHAL: I 'm not sure I understand your question. MR. WEAVER: I 'm not sure I understand your business. You are telling me - from a technical standpoint. . . MR. BLUMENTHAL: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Gallagher Television. . . MR. WEAVER: I understand that - wait just a minute and then you will have a shorter answer. I am interested in how many other similar businesses would have this need for a variety and a great number of signals that would make a dish a sensible solution. MR. BLUMENTHAL: You have forced me to state a description of a situation that has been in existence for some time which is that all the users of heavy signal, basically steal it from the cable company and are in a situation of an on-going basis of doing that. The cable company is aware of it, they don't approve of it, but when they do have a chance to do something about it, they do and in our situation - moving from one location to another - they made it very clear that they would require us to pay for all tie-ups. The PAGE 76 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 other businesses in town that are in our situation, have done what we did in the past - which was to pay for a very few number of tie-ups and take as many as you possibly could get away with. The problem with that. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Splicing off the. . . MR. BLUMENTHAL: Of course. And the problem with that is that if you are in the signal for the businesses and the residents around you, you generate leakage in signal, which creates interference, RF noise - that interferes with other types of transmission around you and you generally are forced into a position of less than honorable interactions with other businesses. MR. WEAVER: In other words you are running out of splitter? MR. BLUMENTHAL: Request to steal the system? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Back to the question again. How many other folks are doing this - just rough notions? MR. BLUMENTHAL: You don't need names and addresses? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No names and addresses, I 'm just curious. I think Charles point is a good one. MR. SIEVERDING: We just want to see how many more dishes we are going to be looking at. MR. BLUMENTHAL: In town there is only two other businesses. Outside of town your Ordinance doesn't apply and they already have their dishes. MR. SIEVERDING: That's Lansing's problem. MR. WEAVER: Well the big baby that is on the ground down there - that has wheels. . . MR. BROWN: That's going to go. . . PAGE 77 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. BLUMENTHAL: That's a temporary, hopefully, solution. MR. WEAVER: It would just seem to me appropriate - we are not there yet - that we consider that when we come to a resolution. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: John, you had a question? MR. OAKLEY: I just wanted to know if there was any - it seems to me that one of the things about our (unintelligible) is moving that one antenna as far away from Meadow Street as we can - is there any distance which you would not want to move it? MR. BLUMENTHAL: At some point you get into a position of being directly behind the tree (unintelligible) in the front of the building - that would block signal reception. But it is conceivable that we could take the dish another - we could run roughly thirty feet from that edge of the building. MR. BROWN: Basically what I was planning on doing when I had my site checked was to allow that - say, for instance, we lose some of the channels - because, you know, they are scrambling channels on the satellite - if we lose enough - because what we are doing - we are providing twelve satellite channels off from one dish and if we lose that signal, I want to be able to get that station or one down far enough so that a second dish doesn't interfere when that one swings around. That is why I was trying to keep them far enough away from each other so both of them can get all the satellites. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay? MR. OAKLEY: Fine. MR. BLUMENTHAL: Can I ask a question? There are a set of considerations that you have some recommendations that we can PAGE 78 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 address - is there some - if aesthetics are the main problem - I remember I was involved with designing the Code requirements for satellite dishes a couple of years ago and one of the primary aspects of the problem then, seemed to be the visibility impact on the surrounding community and neighbors. In this situation, the main concern, as I understand it, is the aesthetics? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well it's one of the concerns. MR. SIEVERDING: One of the concerns, from my perspective just that one that is on the corner toward Meadow Street - I think moving that back as far as possible so that it is not just that visible from down the street would be desirable. MR. BLUMENTHAL: Screen it? Would that help, is that. . . MR. OAKLEY: How much of the land do you own to the north of you? MR. BLUMENTHAL: To the rear, toward Agway? We have a right-of-way of approximately three feet and then a right-of-way of another four or five. . . MR. OAKLEY: So screening would essentially constitute building a wall on the walk? MR. BLUMENTHAL: On top - well it wouldn't be a wall screen, it would be some type of mesh that would hide the structure - it would be a fairly (unintelligible) . MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm not too keen in getting involved in designing this - it seemed like the Planning Board (unintelligible) I think moving it back from the edge of the building on Meadow Street. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Charlie? MR. WEAVER: I was just idly thinking that maybe we could get Park to put up a billboard. PAGE 79 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sure. Stewart, any thoughts? No? Okay, thanks gents. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this special permit? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] That being the case. . . PAGE 80 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 DISCUSSION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1790 FOR 225 SOUTH FULTON STREET MR. WEAVER: Herman, on the question of moving. They are symmetrical now. . . MR. SIEVERDING: I 'm not (unintelligible) MR. WEAVER: Well you would get into some informal balance that I wouldn't understand but it seems to me that down there on that stretch of Meadow Street - really they have done a pretty good job of protecting it by having these on the back wall - they don't extend in the air more than the ten feet and you have to get a ladder to know that. I just think they will be quite invisible rather than prominent once installed. MR. SIEVERDING: Certainly with the change that he pointed out, which is that it is not, in fact, eight feet from the edge of the building but more like eighteen feet from the building edge (unintelligible) I think that is acceptable. Eight feet I think you could argue that (unintelligible) south on Meadow Street, particularly given the setback on the Agway building - that's going to be pretty prominent piece of work. MR. WEAVER: I don't dare look up when I 'm out through there, but go ahead. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well you don't have a sun top for your car Charlie. MR. WEAVER: Right. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do we have a motion or are we coming close to one. MR. OAKLEY: I was just trying to remember what the standards for dishes are and what we have to decide. PAGE 81 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: 30.26 We should almost know it by heart. By the way, I ask that you note the change in the plan in the findings of fact. PAGE 82 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1790 FOR 225 SOUTH FULTON STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Robert R. Brown and Stephen Blumenthal for a Special Permit for an electronics communications dish to permit the installation of two satellite dishes, each measuring ten feet in diameter, on the roof of the existing building at 225 South Fulton Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. SIEVERDING: I move that the Board grant the request for a Special Permit in Appeal Number 1790 with the condition that there be no other portable dishes located on the property. MR. WEAVER: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The appellants have met the conditions as stated in Section 30.26 of the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance relating to Towers. 2. They have met all four requirements as stipulated in that Section of the Ordinance. 3. The change in plan with respect to the drawing that was submitted as part of the package, and that is the dish on the corner toward Meadow, is actually located 18 ' approximately from the building corner, rather than the 8 ' shown. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED W/CONDITION PAGE 83 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is Appeal No. 1791 for 345 Giles Street: Appeal of James Walker and William Hnat for an area variance for deficient lot width (frontage on a public right-of-way) and deficient rear yard setback, under Section 30.25, Columns 7 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a deck at the rear of the two-family dwelling at 345 Giles Street. The property is located in an R-lb (Residential, single-family dwelling) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however under Sections 30.49 and 30.57 of the Zoning Ordinance the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the listed deficiencies before a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed deck. MR. GUTTMAN: Good evening. I 'm Charles Guttman, an attorney with offices at the Clinton House, Ithaca, New York, representing Mr. Walker and Mr. Hnat and this is James Walker who resides at 345 Giles Street. We are appealing - asking the Board for an area variance to construct a deck at the rear of the premises. There are potentially two deficiencies and it is unclear whether there actually is a deficiency of street frontage or not. The location of Giles Street has moved and I have spoken with the City Attorney, who says that the City doesn't really know exactly where the official street line is - where the street line used to be there is plenty of frontage where the pavement is - there is a deficiency and there is nothing we can do about that - that is there is no PAGE 84 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 problem about access to Giles Street. The other deficiency is the rear yard on this (unintelligible) a possibility of curing that deficiency short of moving the building itself. There is no question it is a rear yard deficiency. Right now it is a concrete slab on the ground at the back of the premises and the proposal is to construct a deck over that concrete slab. This would provide access to the upstairs apartment - it would also help if there were a structural problem in that the way the concrete slab was originally constructed - when water hits it, it tends to flow towards the building - the concrete slab touches right against the building and causes rot of the wood. He has found no way to cure this other than to keep water off the concrete slab so the deck will have that as a side purpose - keeping that concrete slab dry. I think the property is unusual in that - other than the City of Ithaca - there are no neighbors to the property. The property is near the gorge - between the property and the gorge is the VanEtta Dam Water Station - that is basically the only neighbor there is to the property. There is nothing else between the property and the gorge other than City property, at the rear of the property - and on the side of the property - which are the only areas from which you can see this proposed deck - is City property - so there are no neighbors we feel who would be adversely affected by this at all. There also would be somewhat of a safety advantage in that right now there is only one good access exit from the upstairs apartment - basically this would provide two ways to get on to that deck so it probably would actually improve egress if there were a fire in the upstairs apartment. PAGE 85 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let me ask you to just clarify or rerun - the portion of your statement which dealt with the notion of protecting the concrete, if you would. You say that the - let me see if I understand this - that the proposed deck will protect the slab, is that the idea? MR. GUTTMAN: Yes the slab is currently in place on the ground - the deck would be constructed over. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: In other words, to use this down here. . . MR. GUTTMAN: That is where the concrete slab is. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And that's your deck. MR. GUTTMAN: The deck is right above that. So, in terms of - it isn't - basically, no more - the back yard is being eliminated from the second story point of view the back yard is being eliminated. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The footing for those particular posts goes down into the concrete deck or is on top of the concrete deck? MR. GUTTMAN: That I 'm not sure - we are going to have to work with the Building Department because there are two alternative ways to do it - one is to put the footers behind - to the rear of that slab, alternatively, we could put the posts right on the slab. I spoke with Peter Dieterich, he says he is not sure at this point, structurally, which is going to be better and that's a decision which we don't know yet. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. Any further questions from members of the Board? MR. OAKLEY: I guess I would just make sure of one thing - so the decking is actually going to be water tight? Is that the idea? PAGE 86 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. WALKER: Semi water tight, the idea is for it to be tine-grooved - either cypress or pressure treated lumber - not one hundred percent water tight but enough so that the bulk of the rain water and snow melting in the winter would roll off the deck, preventing puddling up against the siding of the foundation of the house. There is an alternative solution to that problem but it would involve jack hammering the existing concrete slab which is four feet thick in some places and I really think that would be an impractical solution. MR. WEAVER: Did you misspeak or did you really mean four feet thick? MR. WALKER: Yes, it really is four feet thick in places. MR. WEAVER: What did they used to have there, a flag pole? MR. WALKER: I don't know, somebody must have had a cement truck full of concrete. MR. SIEVERDING: And didn't know what to do with it. MR. OAKLEY: After they got done with the dam. . . MR. GUTTMAN: The property used to be owned by the City of Ithaca, at one time. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? [none] Thank you gents. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of granting this variance? [no one] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? [no one] I ' ll entertain a motion. PAGE 87 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 1791 FOR 345 GILES STREET The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of James Walker and William Hnat for an area variance to permit the construction of a deck at the rear of the two-family dwelling at 345 Giles Street. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. OAKLEY: I move that the Board grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1791. MR. SCHWAB: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed deck does not exacerbate existing deficiencies. 2 . The existing deficiencies, one, the question of frontage, is, for one, doubtful and for two, would be very difficult to resolve. The rear yard deficiency would also be difficult to resolve, short of considerable enthusiasm with the jack hammer. 3. In addition, since there are no rear neighbors, it would seem entirely within the spirit of the Ordinance to ignore the fact that this deck might be too close to the rear property line. It does not seem to be infringing upon anybody's rights, privacy, property or other things. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 88 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 SECRETARY HOARD: The final appeal is APPEAL NUMBER 10-2-87 FOR 312 COLLEGE AVENUE: Appeal of Collegetown Motor Lodge for a sign variance under Section 34 .8 of the Sign Ordinance to permit the installation of a free-standing sign at 312 College Avenue (Collegetown Motor Lodge) closer to the front property line than is permitted by the Sign Ordinance. The property is located in a B-2b (Business) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. MR. MAZZA: Good evening. Last but not least. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: That's right. MR. MAZZA: My name is Ed Mazza, I 'm an attorney representing the appellant in this appeal. My office is at 307 North Tioga Street. I have submitted with the appeal arguments that I will just elaborate on tonight, some with the use of photographs. One photograph will show - the first one that I pass around - will show two things, one is how far the road is from this sign - you can see what I mean, the curb juts out a little more in that area than it does the rest of the street. The second will show a sign that currently exists. What happened was, the appellants were resurfacing their building - a sign that was mounted on the face of the building during this resurfacing of the building - they moved the sign to what they thought was going to be a temporary location on the utility pole. The utility pole was owned by the appellants and this pole has been there since 1972 and currently has a light on it which illuminates the area for security reasons. They have PAGE 89 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 found that by having a sign there, it is much more useful where people are having difficulty finding the place and seeing the sign - they were no longer having that difficulty. I 'll pass this around - this is the sign that is there now - the proposed sign would be the same size and the same location as the one that is shown there. The next photograph that I 'm going to pass around shows simply that this building is set back from the building next door on College Avenue and it is for that reason that having the sign on the surface of the building would not be visible to motorist coming - I think coming from the north, travelling south. The third photograph that I 'll pass around, just shows a sign that is on the building next, north, of the appellant's building, which is a wall mounted sign that protrudes over the sidewalk. The fourth and final picture that I 'm going to pass around shows a free-standing sign that I believe is grandfathered in, but it is a free-standing sign just down the street on the opposite side of the street - Egan's. As I understand the ordinance, we could mount the sign that we propose on the face of the building, even if the building were closer to the street line - in other words, if our building was right up to the property line, similar to the building next door, we could mount this sign on the face of that building and we would not need a variance to do that. This sign will actually be farther away from the street than would a sign mounted on the building that was to the front property line, which is allowed. So the only difference we have here, really, is that this is a free-standing sign rather than a wall mounted sign and actually would not protrude as much as a wall mounted would - say PAGE 90 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 on the building next door - the (unintelligible) sign does - it would not protrude over the sidewalk like that one does. So if you are looking at what the spirit of the Ordinance is, I assume that the reason that they do that is so they don't protrude too far out onto the sidewalk and block vision and I don't think the spirit of the Ordinance is going to be violated by having this sign on the utility pole that already exists and can remain and already serves another purpose by having the light there. If my client has to put this sign back over on the surface of the building, that would be an undue hardship because there would be less visibility and presumably less business because this business does, in fact, rely on people who are travelling to get there - it is a motel. And they would have to erect some way to mount the sign - where the utility pole is already there. I also don't think the spirit of the Ordinance is going to be violated because there already is a free-standing sign in that neighborhood, already, which is shown in the photograph that I passed around. I don't know if you have anything to add? MS. ROSTEN: The one thing is, it is true that people have found it difficult to find this, when the sign is not easily visible. But it is not just people who are looking for us, it is people that might be in the area, that are in need of a motel, do not have reservations and don't even know that just a half a block down the street there is one right there. Also, I think you probably had in your information that the Design Review Board unanimously approved it - were very nice in commending us on what we've done and felt that the sign would really be a very attractive and fitting with PAGE 91 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 what we've done with the rest of the building and with the businesses that are in the area - they didn't see any problem with putting it there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You are Mrs. Rosten? MS. ROSTEN: Yes, I am. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you live. . . MS. ROSTEN: At 205 Willard Way. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you - just for the record. Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Where was the sign located - was it on this portion of the building here? MS. ROSTEN: Yes that is correct. It was there with the eighteen inches and so. . . MR. SIEVERDING: Sticking out this way? MS. ROSTEN: Yes, perpendicular to the building and so it was not at all visible from the sidewalk - if you were just up the street a little bit or farther away. MR. SIEVERDING: Although there doesn't appear to be a great deal of difference in terms of distance. . . MS. ROSTEN: That's true but because the other buildings on the street block it - this way, we have our parking area - it is true that the sign, in essence, is not that much closer to the road and it probably isn't even as - well, I 'm not sure of the exact measurements but because our parking lot - it is at the other end of our parking lot - it is visible because there aren't buildings in the way. PAGE 92 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. MAZZA: It is farther away from the building that protrudes out so the angle. . . MR. SIEVERDING: So the building to the north blocks it as you are coming from the north? MS. ROSTEN: Yes, except that even from the south this is more apparent. The location is better, in either direction, but especially from the north. MR. SIEVERDING: Especially from the north. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The Ordinance requires a ten foot setback. The proposed is less than ten foot with the actual measurements in the setback - do you have any idea? MS. ROSTEN: I 'm sorry, what was that question? MR. OAKLEY: How far back . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: How far back are you really from - in the setback provision? It is kind of difficult to determine from the sketch that you've submitted, provided it hasn't been reduced by xerox. MS. ROSTEN: It probably is to scale. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So you really are saying that it's - you see, I can't quite read in the plan what I 'm seeing here - is the curb to the line which essentially is drawn through the eight inch utility pole - up and down on the sheet as it is in front of you, okay - is that distance eighteen feet nine inches and then the distance beyond that eight feet five inches? I can't quite read your diagram and I am concerned about where exactly this thing is going to sit back. What we are actually giving you is essentially that kind of setback question, as much as anything. MR. WEAVER: Well it is back of the front of the liquor store. PAGE 93 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MS. ROSTEN: Yes it is. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Back of the front of the liquor store. MR. MAZZA: Probably you could see from that one photo that I passed around. MS. ROSTEN: Yes, right. MR. WEAVER: The liquor store is to the south. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, right, but I 'm trying to think what's the setback there in front of the liquor store with the wiggle they have now put in that. . . MS. ROSTEN: The liquor store is setback somewhat from the property line also, isn't it? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes - well there is a sidewalk in front of the liquor store - having gone to the liquor store, I understand that. But there is also now, the wiggle in front with the additional curb. MR. OAKLEY: Now the law is to the property line not the curb, isn't that right? Or. . . MR. WEAVER: The near edge of the sidewalk ordinarily. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MR. OAKLEY: Near edge of the sidewalk, okay. MR. WEAVER: Property side of the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well I 'm just trying to get some sense of what ever else - what we are really talking about in distance. MR. MAZZA: Mr. Rosten drew this diagram and apparently what he was saying was that it was eighteen feet, nine inches, out to the curb from that. . . PAGE 94 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. OAKLEY: And the curb is eight foot, five inches plus the width of the sidewalk? MR. MAZZA: It is probably eight feet, five inches to the other side of the sidewalk. MR. OAKLEY: Then you've got - if you are four inches over the sidewalk, the sidewalk must be six feet wide - so it is about four feet back. . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Four feet back - that's what I am trying to get at. MR. OAKLEY: Strikes my memory as about right. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: About right, yes. MR. OAKLEY: Let's put between four and six - it is essentially, I think, one section of sidewalk (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Okay. I looked at it but I didn't have my calibrated eyeballs on . . . MR. OAKLEY: If this was a judicial body I might be more cautious. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I understand. This is quasi. Further questions? MR. WEAVER: I have no question. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. MR. OAKLEY: I just realized that I was going to ask the kind of question that puts a half hour onto the meeting and I don't think I will ask it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Stewart, any further questions? MR. SCHWAB: I 'll bite my tongue also. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Herman? MR. SIEVERDING: No. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you both. PAGE 95 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 MR. MAZZA: Do you want to keep those photographs? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: For the moment yes. There being no one out there to present arguments either for or against, I ' ll be happy to entertain any further discussion or a motion. PAGE 96 BZA MINUTES - 10/5/87 DECISION ON APPEAL NUMBER 10-2-87 FOR 312 COLLEGE AVENUE The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the request of Collegetown Motor Lodge, Inc. for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to permit the installation of a free-standing sign at 312 College Avenue closer to the front property line than is permitted. The decision of the Board was as follows: MR. WEAVER: I move that the Board grant the sign variance requested in Appeal Number 10-2-87. MR. SIEVERDING: I second the motion. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Granting this variance would not substantially change existing conditions in the neighborhood. 2 . Would not result in substantial change or detriment to the adjoining property. 3. This sign does not affect the sight line of any other signs existing. VOTE: 5 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSENT GRANTED PAGE 97 I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY THAT I took the Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York in the matters of Appeals numbered 1786 , 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790, 1791, 10-1-87 and 10-2-87 on October S , 1987 in the Common Council Chambers, City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the action taken of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, New York on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. ( C� Barbara C . Ruane Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this �7 day of December, 1987 Notary Public jET N J.HIs.i IKINSOMI AIOTARY PUBLIC,S AT:_OF NEW YORK NO.1 i -]-00 QUALIFI:_':I?i (O1'"Plat+S COUNTC MY COmraissroia L.LFIRES ArRIL 30,1.7-U 98