Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-05-08 607 - 273-6841 JOHN C . BARNEY . ESQ. SAVINGS BANK BUILDING ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 410 May 8 , 1975 Mr . William Bement 49 Myers Road Lansing , New York Dear Mr . Bement : Thank you for your letter of May 5 , 1975 . The Board of Zoning Appeals on May 6th held a meeting . Unfortunately , , I had not opened my mail prior to that meeting and did not have your letter in front of me . We did , however , d iscuss some of the issues raised in your letter . If we meet again within the next couple of weeks , I will raise the points d irectly with the Board again . • At the outset , you should note that the questions raised in your letter are more of a legal nature than an interpretive nature , and the Board of Appeals was understandably reluctant to commit itself to a specific interpretation in the abstract . Such an interpretation could be used in some manner other than intended when a specific fact situation arose . For example , the Board has considered in essence three types of applications which relate to your questions . These applications involved Garage DeFrance , A & P Stores , and Fay ' s Drug Company , Inc . In the Garage DeFrance matter an application was initially made for erection of a sign larger than that permitted by the zoning ordinance to be added to what was already a non- conforming situation . The Board denied the variance , but stated to the applicant that in their opinion if he wanted to remove one sign and install another sign ( in this instance , take down a Puegot sign and install a Mercedes Benz sign ) he could do so provided he d id not increase the square footage of his already non -conforming signs . In essence there was removal and replacement of one sign without an ownership change . In the A & P situation , the A & P wished to remove several signs and replace them with one sign . There was never any ques - t ion raised as to whether a variance was required . The net ef - fect of the change was to reduce the total square footage of the 4 V ` *v Mr . William Bement - 2 - May 8 , 1975 411 signs on . the Ar & P Store and the Board granted the variance . g In the Fay ' s Drug situation , Fay ' s wished to remove the Mammoth Mart sign and install its own identification sign . The Board faced squarely the question of whether a variance was required and decided that under those circumstances it was . The Board thenj' granted the variance for the erection of the sign somewhat smaller than originally applied for . Applying the rationale of the above decisions to the questions you raise , I think the answers are as follows : A . If the property changes hands and a new sign is therefore required , a sign permit request would be required and a variancif the sign were to be in excess of the size permitted by the ordinance . B . If a sign is changed by the existing occupant , there is some question in my mind as to whether he may do so without the need of a variance . Inrone case it appears that we have • held that he may not need a variance and in one other case , more recently , we have held that he does . C . If a change of tenants occurs and a new sign is re - quired , it appears that a sign permit is required and a variance if the sign is ' going to be larger than permitted by the ordinance . I want toHhemphasize that the foregoing represents my con - clusions derived from the cases we have handled and does not necessarily represent the views of the Board as a whole . I hope the foregoing is helpful to you . With best regards , Sine - r - y yours . JCB : lav (//P O'f •