The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 1985-09-18 . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 18 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday , September 18 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward N . Austen , Edward W . King , Joan G . Reuning , John C . Barney , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Nelson E . Roth , ' Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger , Joseph Freedman , Virginia Freedman , Barbara Schultz , James Iacovelli , Bill Steele , Edward A . Mazza , Esq . , Paul Tavelli , Esq . , Robert J . Daniel , Robert . I . Williamson , Esq . , Tammo Steenhuis , Joy G . Mecenas , M . D . , Hermogenes Mecenas , M . D . , Jeanne Cerquone ( The Ithaca Journal ) , Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 12 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 10 , 1985 and September 13 , 1985 , • respectively , t",ogether with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties in question , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the Appellants and / or Agent , if any , on September 12 , 1985 . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM AUGUST 21 , 1985 ) , WITH CLARIFIED NOTICE , OF JAMES IACOVELLI , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 ON A PORTION OF THE FOUNDATION OF AN EXISTING BARN WITH SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD DEFICIENCIES , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 41 , SAID PARCEL LOCATION BEING DESIGNATED AS " SLATERVILLE ROAD " ON 1985 TOWN OF ITHACA ASSESSMENT ROLL , HOWEVER , HAVING FRONTAGE ON BOTH SLATERVILLE ROAD AND PINE TREE ROAD , SAID PARCEL BEING LOCATED BETWEEN 1476 SLATERVILLE ROAD AND 110 PINE TREE ROAD AND BETWEEN 1476 SLATERVILLE ROAD AND 1462 SLATERVILLE ROAD , PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , AND11ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 13 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as rioted above . Mr . Iacovelli and his Attorney , Edward A . Mazza , were present . Chairman Aron , noting that this Hearing had been adjourned from the . last meeting of the Board , August 21 , 1985 , stated that he had Zoning Board of Appeals 2 September 18 , 1985 • asked the members of the Board to look over the property , which they have done , and they have a better picture of the situation . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the Iacovelli Appeal , with respect to his property located on Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road , and as to whether the Appeal should or should not be granted . Attorney Mazza stated that he was present respresenting Mr . Iacovelli . Chairman Aron stated that he was asking for comments from the public at this point . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if the public may wait until after the presentation by the Appellant . Chairman Aron agreed . Attorney Mazza appended the proposed site plan to the bulletin board and stated that he would like to orient the Board and the public as to the location of the existing barn under discussion . Attorney Mazza stated that it is the barn that is located very close to Pine Tree Road and that is not in the best of shape . Referring to the site plan , Attorney Mazza noted how the land runs between two roads - - Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road . Attorney Mazza stated that Mr . Iacovelli is requesting a variance in order to construct a house on only a portion of the existing barn foundation after the barn is torn down . Attorney Mazza stated that Mr . Iacovelli wishes to build a single family home with a very small efficiency apartment in the basement - - not a three - bedroom apartment , just a very small efficiency . Attorney Mazza stated that one of the complicating features on this particular piece of land is the sewer line that runs through " here " and through " here " [ indicating on the plan ] and the permanent easement which runs either side of that sewer line . Attorney Mazza stated that he believed the easement was 10 feet and added that you cannot build on or near that easement . Attorney Mazza stated that that sewer line definitely limits the location for a dwelling . Attorney Mazza stated that another factor is that if you were to locate a dwelling down " here " [ indicating ] , which is a possibility , however , it becomes very expensive to do that because a lot of fill would have to come in . Attorney Mazza pointed out on the plan how the driveway onto Pine Tree Road would be much more expensive and also that the extension of services would be much more expensive , adding that , therefore , Mr . Iacovelli is proposing to locate the house closer to the road . Attorney Mazza stated that if you wanted to locate " here " [ indicating ] , commenting that that spot has the best views , you would be either on the sewer line or violate the front yard setback . Again indicating on the plan , Attorney Mazza pointed out that there is a foundation " here " , where the barn is , which Mr . Iacovelli feels would be usable and , if he were to build as proposed on a portion of the barn ' s foundation , there would be a 9 - foot setback from the property line , pointing out that that 9 feet is not from the paved portion of Pine Tree Road , but 9 feet from the property line . Attorney Mazza stated that the barn is presently one foot from the . front property line , so , the proposal would involve less of a deficiency . Attorney Mazza stated that , also , moving the foundation where Mr . Iacovelli wants to would mean that the side yard • requirement of 15 feet would not be met , but it would be 12 feet . Attorney Mazza pointed out that the barn is currently 8 feet from the side yard , so , he would be decreasing that deficiency . Attorney • Zoning Board of Appeals 3 September 18 , 1985 • Mazza stated that the house on the property to the north is a substantial distance from the Iacovelli property , in fact , the driveway for that property comes in " here " [ indicating ] and goes " this way " [ indicating ] such that it is closer to that property ' s northerly line . Mr . King asked Attorney Mazza if he knew what the front yard setback is for that neighbor to the north . Attorney Mazza responded that the terrain slopes off the road pretty good there , adding that they built their house pretty close to the front , not deficient , but not much over the setback required , the reason being that it is pretty wet back in there and also the driveway would have to go down the slope there so it is a much easier drive to get out of since the per cent grade is a lot less . Chairman Aron asked if there were any other questions from the Board . Mrs . Reuning asked if there were to be a garage in connection with the proposed structure . Mr . Iacovelli stated that there is to be a two - car garage in the basement of the new structure . Mrs . Reuning noted that , therefore , the parking would not be around the new house . Chairman Aron , noting that Attorney Mazza had said that Mr . Iacovelli was going to take the foundation which is closest to Pine Tree Road and which , at this time , is approximately one foot from the property line , stated that , as he understood it , Mr . Iacovelli was going to take eight feet of the foundation off to make it nine feet from the property line , adding that , therefore , he would narrow the house . Attorney Mazza stated that Mr . Iacovelli is also • going to extend the house " this way " [ indicating ] . Chairman Aron noted that , therefore , on two sides Mr . Iacovelli will not be using the existing foundation . Mr . Iacovelli indicated that that was correct . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Iacovelli what the width of the proposed house would be , to which Mr . Iacovelli responded , 28 feet . Chairman Aron asked what its length would be , with Mr . Iacovelli responding , 30 feet . Referring to the plan on the bulletin board , Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Iacovelli was going to have a garage where the proposed driveway leads into the proposed building which means the low end of the property with the high end on the north side . Mrs . Reuning commented that the house would essentially be three stories from the back . Mr . Iacovelli agreed that it would essentially be three stories from the back , pointing out that it will be the same height as the barn . Chairman Aron noted that Attorney Mazza had mentioned that to bring this proposed house " down " is financially infeasible . Attorney Mazza stated that that was correct and noted again the necessity for a great amount of fill , a much longer driveway , and substantially increased services extensions and added that , also he happened to know the neighbor to the north quite well and he will not even mow the back portion of his land because it is very wet . Chairman Aron wondered if Attorney Mazza meant that the wetness flows into the hole . Attorney Mazza replied , yes , adding that the area of the hole is wet too . Chairman Aron noted that , therefore , to build a foundation in that hole would be bad because of the wetness in the hole . Mr . Iacovelli stated that it is wet there , adding that all the drainage comes down there . Chairman Aron • wondered if a drainage pipe could be installed so that the water could be taken off there . Mr . Iacovelli responded that he supposed so , but the cost would be very great . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . l Zoning Board of Appeals 4 September 18 , 1985 4 • Iacovelli had any idea what the added cost would be . Mr . Iacovelli offered that , off the top of his head , with the fill ,, the extra driveway length , the utilities , the holding tank , it would add at least $ 15 , 000 to the cost . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he wanted to point out also that if the house is put in " there " it would totally spoil the view . ' Town Councilwoman Raffensperger asked what the right of way is for the County highway [ Pine Tree Road ] which runs in front of this barn . Mr . Cartee responded that the . right of way is 15 feet from the edge of the pavement . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she was present because she had received telephone calls from a number of people who appeared at the previous meeting [ August 21 , 1985 ] . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that those persons thought they should not appear again , however , she had assured them that that was not the case . Chairman Aron stated that that , indeed , was not the case , adding that neighbors are welcome at any time . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that it would seem that , at this time , where the barn is located , it is not only deficient in setback from the property line , but it intrudes onto the highway right of way by about one foot . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger commented that this matter would thus involve a very large variance . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger , commenting that they were aware of the utility easement , stated that it would be possible to locate the proposed house and not impact on that . Town Councilwoman • Raffensperger stated that she had had two calls from people who said that the barn has been hit by cars which partially accounts for its condition . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that the neighbors feel that a house could be built there , not on the foundation , and sited in accordance with the wishes of the builder . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that , also , in regard to the side yard deficiency , there is no practical difficulty involved there . Mr . King asked Mr . Iacovelli if he intended to use the foundation in any way for the proposed structure . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he did , adding that he would use two - thirds of it . Mr . King stated that he had asked Mr . Cartee to look into the easement question . Mr . Cartee stated that he had talked to the Town Engineer and he had said, the easement ran ten feet either side of the main . Mr . King wondered how the Town Engineer would feel about five feet . Mr . Cartee responded that , in no way , would that be acceptable to the Town Engineer , Mr . King wondered if there were any intent on the part of the Town Engineer to extend " this " line . Mr . Cartee indicated that the Town ' s plans did not include any changes in this main which serves a large part of the Town . Continuing , Mr . Cartee commented that he was not sure that the foundation could be used , adding that he has no information on it , further adding that it is covered up so its depth is not known . Mr . Cartee stated that it may or it may not meet the criteria of the New York State Building Code , adding that it is a barn foundation . Mr . Iacovelli stated that the barn has been standing for a lifetime-, adding that he had checked the • foundation and there is a lot of life in the foundation . Chairman Aron asked how " long the barn had been there , with Mr . Iacovelli responding , 75 years . Chairman Aron wondered what kind of walls the Zoning Board of Appeals 5 September 18 , 1985 foundation had . Mr . Iacovelli stated that the walls were thick concrete and wood and added that he did not think there was any weight problem . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger , stating that she was seeking a clarification , asked what the precise variance was that was being requested from the right of way , adding that the ordinance requires a 25 - foot minimum front yard setback . Mr . King responded that the request for variance was 16 feet . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger , commenting that , in that case , she had a question , stated that , according to her measurements , which she had taken very carefully , the barn presently sits 13 feet from the highway pavement . Mr . King asked if the Board had a survey map . Attorney Mazza stated that the Board did have a survey in hand from the Biesdorfs . Mr . Cartee pointed out that the right of way is 151 . Everyone reviewed the survey and the drawing . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger commented that the survey and the drawing and the barn ' s location were very confusing and asked again what the request was . Attorney Mazza stated that the request is for a variance of 16 feet , adding that the present deficiency is 24 feet . Attorney Mazza pointed out that the barn can stay where it is and Mr . Iacovelli could fix it up and use it as a barn for storage , adding that he could do that and he could , in addition , build a house on the property . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that also the neighbors had brought up the question of snow plowing and had informed her that at times in the • winter snow encompasses the barn . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she had not seen this occurrence herself but the neighbors across the street had . Dr . Joy Mecenas , 105 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the floor and stated that the snow plowing is so bad against that barn that a year ago the school bus was not allowed to come down the road that way and the children were not allowed to wait there . Dr . Mecenas stated that the cars skid when it is icy and they skid into the barn , adding that every year there is a car turned over . Dr . Mecenas stated that she had asked one time about this structure and was told that it could not be built on . Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions from the public . There were none . Chairman Aron closed the Adjourned Public Hearing at 7 : 42 p . m . Mrs . Reuning asked Town Councilwoman Raffensperger if , as she has walked around in the area , she thought there might be a spot where she would suggest the house could be located . Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that the house could be back up 10 feet , as she understood it , and . also angled differently so as to improve the side yard setback and the front yard dimensions . Mr . King stated that he , personally , saw a problem of this setback , whether it would be desirable to have that building farther • back from the road or not , that much variance is just too darn much . Mr . Austen noted that the Board is looking at two variances . Mr . King stated that , as to the 12 feet on the side , 3 feet short of the Zoning Board of Appeals 6 September 18 , 1985 required 15 feet , he did not see a problem with that . Mrs . Reuning pointed out that the neighbor to the north is so far away . Mr . King stated that he felt that that foundation is just too close and the Board really did not know about the right of way situation . Mr . King noted that the 25 - foot setback is the minimum required but it could be more if other properties are more than 25 feet back . Mr . King suggested that Mr . Iacovelli reconsider his plan and shift to the west with more setback . Mr . King stated that he did not care if Mr . Iacovelli relies on the foundation or not , adding that he may very well not have any problems with it . Mr . King stated that. the setback could be much improved . Mr . King noted that it is true that Mr . Iacovelli can keep the barn , adding that the law allows that , and further adding that he can keep the hazard which , unless it become hazardous under the Town ordinance , is not the Zoning Board ' s problem to address . Attorney Mazza wondered if Mr . King were suggesting moving back to the west and east of the sewer line . Chairman Aron indicated on the plan an option for moving back . Attorney Mazza pointed out that the farther north they go , the more they encroach on the neighbor . Chairman Aron indicated again on the drawing how to accomplish this suggestion . Mr . King suggested that the house could be turned clockwise too . Attorney Mazza stated that he was not sure they gained more than two feet . Mr . King indicated that he meant turning the house clockwise , more parallel to the north property line , and added that the house being rotated in such a way would automatically take care of the set back . Mr . King stated further that the side yard is not the problem as the house to the north is a • considerable distance away , assuming that the owner has no objection . Mr . King stated that a house " there " would not be a fire hazard . Attorney Mazza noted again that he did not know how much would be gained and commented about tearing the barn down and removing the foundation . Mr . King spoke of the Slaterville Road drainage which is being altered considerably down there by the State . Utilizing the drawing , Attorney Mazza spoke of the " pond " and how the drainage flows . Mr . King asked Attorney Mazza if the possibility of moving that sewer line had been discussed with the Town Engineer . Attorney Mazza stated that that would be cost prohibitive , adding that Mr . Iacovelli wants to build a quality house there but in a way that would be saleable . Mrs . Reuning , commenting that she thought a home right on the highway is not too desirable , stated that she would agree with Mr . King , Mr . Iacovelli stated that he would try to work his figures in and come back . Mr . King stated that he would like Mr . Iacovelli to bring a survey . Attorney Mazza stated that the map which the Board has is a survey and it shows that the barn is located 25 „ 8 feet from the center line of Pine Tree Road . Mr . King asked that so many feet from the west edge of the pavement be identified . Chairman Aron stated that he would entertain a motion to adjourn • this matter to the next meeting of the Board in October at which time Mr . Iacovelli would return with a survey map and an amended proposal . Zoning Board of Appeals 7 September 18 , 1985 • MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen . RESOLVED , that the matter of the Appeal of James Iacovelli with respect to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 41 be and hereby is adjourned to October 16 , 1985 , at 7 : 00 p . m . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Iacovelli Appeal duly adjourned at 8 : 00 P . M . APPEAL OF JOSEPH FREEDMAN , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS , AT 230 - 232 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 54 - 7 - 13 AND 6 - 54 - 7 - 14 ( OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY TRACT PARCELS NO . 87 AND 88 ) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III , SECTION 41 PARAGRAPH 21 SUB - PARAGRAPH 2b , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB - PARAGRAPH 2b , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . • Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 01 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mr . and Mrs . Freedman were present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Joseph N . Freedman under date of September 5 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to occupy a five bedroom single family residence with five ( 5 ) unrelated persons at 232 Pennsylvania Avenue . . . The area has become increasingly busy with traffic and we would like to move to a more family oriented area . In order to do so would require additional income from my present residence which strict observance of the ordinance would not provide nor would a sale given the present market conditions in my present area for sale of single family residences . " Chairman Aron noted that each of the Board members had before him / her a copy of the Short Environmental Assessment Form , as signed and submitted by Joseph Freedman under date of September 15 , 1985 , and as reviewed by and recommended upon [ Parts II and III ] by the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , under date of September 17 , 1985 . Chairman Aron read aloud the reviewer ' s recommendation , as follows : [ Box Checked : - " Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the FULL / LONG FORM EAF and / or prepare a positive declaration . " ] " This appeal is an Unlisted Action pursuant • to SEAR . On the basis of the information I have at ' this time , I recommend a positive declaration of environmental significance . I believe the appellant should provide additional information on 1 ) the Zoning Board of Appeals 8 September 18 , 1985 • expected number ' of cars to be parked on the site ; 2 ) the number of similar one family homes with increased occupancy in the neighborhood which could be considered as precedent ; 3 ) the effect which closing off the garage and remodelling the space as bedrooms will have on parking and traffic congestion on the site . This information could be provided on a Long Environmental Assessment form . The ZBA may require the applicant to provide this information prior to considering this appeal . " Chairman Aron noted that the Board members had also received a copy of a photograph of the house in question . Mr . King noted that the proposal is to close in the garage and make two more bedrooms in there , winding up with a five -bedroom house . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Freedman if he had purchased this property . Mr . Freedman replied that he lived in it . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Freedman how long he had lived in his house , with Mr . Freedman responding , about five years . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Freedman if he had purchased this house with the intention to have more people there . Mr . Freedman stated that he had not , adding that he purchased it with the intention of living there . Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Freedman had said that he cannot afford it . Mr . Freedman responded , no , he wanted to move to a more residential neighborhood . Chairman Aron noted that the house would then be a total rental house . Mrs . Reuning commented that , in addition to the clarifications referred to in the Short EAF , she would also like to have some more information on the area so that the Board would have an idea of the lots in the area . Mr . King asked Mr . Freedman if he • had a survey of the property , with Mr . Freedman replying that he thought so . Mr . King wondered if the house were shown on the survey , adding that if it were not , it should be . Mr . Austen stated that he would also like to see where Mr . Freedman proposes to have the parking . Mr . Freedman noted that he had submitted a pictures and he had some more with him . Mr . Freedman indicated the parking areas on the photographs and stated that it is 60 feet from the street to the garage which is even larger than a double garage . Mr . Freedman noted that , with the turn - around , there is room for seven cars . Mr . King commented that he would like to know how many single family homes there are in the area . Mr . Tammo Steenhuis , 266 Pennsylvania Avenue , spoke from the floor and stated that his home is a family residence farther up Pennsylvania Avenue at number 266 . Mr . Steenhuis stated that there are residential homes with kids and the problem with Pennsylvania Avenue is that it is a dead - end street and there is no bus and the children have to walk down the street . Mr . Steenhuis stated that the students go so .close and the students drive very fast . Mr . Steenhuis stated that there is a problem and it will be a greater problem with more students and with the children and cars . Mr . Steenhuis stated that there are so many cars and so many students and the area is over- populated with cars and Ithaca College students . Chairman Aron stated that he would recommend to Mr . Freedman • that he see the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , adding that he will help him with the Long EAF and the preparation of further pertinent information . Zoning Board of Appeals 9 September 18 , 1985 • Mr . King stated that he had a question for Mr . Freedman which was , did he not think he would be aggravating the situation to change his home into a multiple family . Mr . Freedman stated that he really did not think so , adding that his family of five people is living in there now . Mr . Freedman stated that to go from five people to five unrelated people would not have a significant impact . Mr . King stated that it could , however , mean five cars or more . Mr . Freedman stated that he had two cars himself parked there - - a station wagon and a large truck which is a full - sized Bronco , plus his camper and , so , there is parking for seven cars . Mr . Freedman stated that also the five unrelated persons does not necessarily mean five or more cars because he lives so close to the College that it is a lot easier for the kids to walk up the backyards , which is what they do now , to the College . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the Freedman Appeal with respect to 232 Pennsylvania Avenue be and hereby is adjourned until October 16 , 1985 , at 7 : 00 p . m . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Freedman Appeal duly adjourned at 8 : 14 p . m . APPEAL OF PARK OUTDOOR ADVERTISING OF NEW YORK , INC . , APPELLANT , ROBERT I . WILLIAMSON , ESQ . , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO MAINTAIN TWO ( 2 ) EXISTING BILLBOARDS , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 , ON PREMISES OWNED BY SAM AND ELEANOR MATYCHAK , AT 1180 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER SECTION 8 . 01 - 1 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW , LOCAL LAW NO . 6 - 1980 . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in . the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 15 p . m , and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Attorney Robert I . Williamson was present , as well as Mr . Robert Daniels of Park Outdoor Advertising . Each of the Board members had before him / her the following documents . 1 . Copy of letter dated August 30 , 1985 , to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Office , signed by Robert I . Williamson , as follows : " Enclosed please find copies of appeal re signs owned by Park • Outdoor scheduled , as I understand it , for September 17 , 1985 . " 2 . Copy of letter dated December 10 , 1981 , to Robert I . Williamson Jr . , Esq . , signed by Darrell W . Harp , Assistant Commissioner , Legal Affairs , New York State Department of Transportation , 1220 Zoning Board of Appeals 10 September 18 , 1985 • Washington Avenue , State Campus , Albany , NY 12232 , as follows : " This will confirm your request as to our interpretation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 as it relates to compensation for outdoor advertising signs along interstate and federal - aid primary highways . J Clearly , this act mandates compensation for advertising signs lawfully in existence which are removed by any public agency providing they are compensable or lawful under the provisions of the Federal ' Beautification Act . " 3 . Copy of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . with respect to those ebillboards located at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of August 30 , 1985 , and reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . at premises owned by Matychak at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 . . . in violation of - - SECTION ( S ) 8 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , Local Law No . 6 - 1980 . . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : A variance is requested because removal of the signs will eliminate income to the company in the approximate amount of $ 8 , 000 per annum as well as an essential tool for local business advertising . The faces currently advertise local businesses including Fairview Heights and Giordano Realty . In addition , there is a public service ad of the United States Air Force for a local recruiting office . • It is submitted the boards will have no effect on future development of the area ; they do not generate extra traffic , nor will they contravene the intent of the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance . They will not change the character of the neighborhood . The boards have all been improved and rebuilt in the last couple of years . There is no other way to overcome the hardship imposed by these town regulations except by this variance . 4 . Copy of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . with respect to those billboards located at 1325 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 , as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of August 30 , 1985 , and reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . at 1325 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 . . . in violation of - - SECTION ( S ) 8 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , Local Law No . 6 - 1980 . . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : A variance is requested because removal of the structures will eliminate income to Park Outdoor at this location of approximately $ 13 , 000 per annum . The boards are an essential tool for local business advertising . The boards at this location advertise local businesses such as Watt Distributing , Fairview Heights and Gallagher Television . There are also public service ads for the United States Army and • United States Air Force , TIn addition , the removal will create a further hardship on the State of New York since these signs located along Route 79 are along a Federal -Aid Primary Highway . Zoning Board of Appeals 11 September 18 , 1985 • Under the Highway Beautification Act as amended , the company must be compensated if the boards are removed . See letter dated December 10 , 1981 , from the Department of Transportation , copy of which is attached hereto . 9[ These boards do not contravene the intent of the town regulations , nor do they generate a change in the character of the neighborhood . It is respectfully submitted they will have no effect on future development , and they do not generate any extra traffic in the neighborhood . There is no better location in the town available for these boards . " 5 . Copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of September 10 , 1985 , with respect to existing billboards on premises owned by Matychak at 1180 Danby Road and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of September 12 , 1985 , as follows : " The granting of this appeal would have large , continuous and adverse impacts upon the visual environment in the Town . By the very nature of the billboards , these impacts are impossible to mitigate . I recommend a positive declaration of environmental significance . If the ZBA intends to consider this appeal further , the applicant should be directed to complete a Draft Environmental Impact Statement which fully considers the impacts which this action would have upon the environment . " [ Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . ] • 6 . Copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of September 10 , 1985 , with respect to existing billboards on premises owned by Park at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi . [ See environmental review for sign appeal on parcel # 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 . 1 7 . Copy , as distributed by the Secretary , of the Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) Resolution , with respect to the Park Appeals , adopted at its meeting of September 17 , 1985 , as follows : " MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in its capacity as the Sign Review Board pursuant to Section 9 . 02 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that the Appeals of Park Outdoor Advertising * of New York , Inc . in re billboards , seven at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and two at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 and 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , respectively , be denied in concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Sign Law as in violation of Section 8 . 01 - 1 thereof . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . • CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . " Zoning ' Board - of Appeals 12 September 18 , 1985 Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . with respect to those billboards located at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of August 30 , 1985 , as follows : " A variance is requested because removal of the signs will eliminate income to the company in the approximate amount of $ 8 , 000 per annum as well as an essential tool for local business advertising . The faces currently advertise local businesses including Fairview Heights and Giordano Realty . In addition , there is a public service ad of the United States Air Force for a local recruiting office . It is submitted the boards will have no effect on future development of the area ; they do not generate extra traffic , nor will they contravene the intent of the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance . They will not change the character of the neighborhood . The boards have all been improved and rebuilt in the last couple of years . There is no other way to overcome the hardship imposed by these town regulations except by this variance . " Chairman Aron noted that the Board had before it a Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of September 10 , 1985 , with respect to existing - billboards on premises owned by Matychak at 1180 Danby Road and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of September 12 , 1985 , and read aloud , in their entirety , Parts II and III thereof , as prepared by Mr . Lovi , as follows : • [ Part II Environmental Assessment ] " A . Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 127 ' No ' checked . Be Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 77 ' No ' checked . C . Could action result in ANY adverse effects on , to , or arising from the following : Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? ' Action involves existing billboards which have not had an adverse environmental effect on these environmental criteria at this time . ' C2 . Historic , archeological , visual or aesthetic , or other natural or cultural resources ; agricultural districts ; or community or neighborhood character ? ' These billboards will have a significant adverse effect on the aesthetic character of the neighborhood and the community . For this reason , the Town Board has enacted sign regulations since 1972 which prohibit the construction • of off - premises signs . ' C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? Zoning Board of Appeals 13 September 18 , 1985 • ' The existing billboards do not appear to have a significant adverse impact on these environmental criteria . ' C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? ' These billboards are in direct contravention of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , which provided for a four year amortization period after which time the billboards were to be removed without compensation . ' C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? ' If the proposed action were permitted , the enforeability of our Sign Law could be questioned and a proliferation of unsightly roadside hucksterism could ensue . ' C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified in Cl -C6 ? ' The granting of this appeal would seriously undercut the ability of the Town Board to pass local regulations which regulate land uses on constitutionally permissible , aesthetic criteria . ' C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ? ' These billboards have no effect on this criteria . ' [ Part III Determination of Significance ] • " The granting of this appeal would have large , continuous and adverse impacts upon the visual environment in the Town . By the very nature of the billboards , these impacts are impossible to mitigate . I recommend a positive declaration of environmental significance . If the ZBA intends to consider this appeal further , the applicant should be directed to complete a Draft Environmental Impact Statement which fully considers the impacts which this action would have upon the environment . " [ Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . ] Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals Lead Agency and noted that a positive declaration of environmental significance had been recommended , further noting that if the Board would like to consider this further a Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be considered . Speaking to Attorney Williamson , Chairman Aron stated that he had been before the Planning Board last night . Attorney Williamson responded , yes , adding that he had appeared before the Sign Review Board . Chairman Aron stated that the Sign Review Board , which is the Planning Board , has made a recommendation to the ZBA . Chairman Aron read aloud the Planning Board ( Sign Review Board ) Resolution , adopted at its meeting of September 17 , 1985 , as follows : " MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in its capacity as the Sign Review Board pursuant to Section 9 . 02 - 1 of the Zoning Board of - Appeals 14 September 18 , 1985 • Town of Ithaca Sign Law , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that the Appeals of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . in re billboards , seven at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and two at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 and 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , respectively , be denied in concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Sign Law as in violation of Section 8 . 01 - 1 thereof . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . " Chairman Aron noted that this billboard situation has been going on for quite a while and , referring to a collection of. Town Board Minutes , stated that he thought Attorney Williamson had that file . Attorney Williamson stated that he did not have the file that Chairman Aron had . Chairman Aron pointed out that billboard discussions have been going on a long time - - since 1972 . Chairman Aron asked Attorney Williamson if he had anything else to add to his appeal . Attorney Williamson stated that they are asking for the boards to continue in place , pointing out that where they are located on the Danby Road is in the vicinity of other commercial buildings and mentioning Hovanec Builders , Sam Peter TV , Oltz Funeral Home , and a • bar and grille [ Woody ' s ] . Attorney Williamson stated that Park Advertising will lose approximately $ 8 , 000 . 00 a year if these two boards are removed . Attorney Williamson noted that the boards advertise local businesses , mentioning Fairview Heights and Giordano Realty , and commenting that billboard advertising is cheaper than newspapers and television . Attorney Williamson stated that these boards have no effect on the future development in the area , they do not generate extra traffic , and they do not contravene the intent of the Sign Ordinance . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards have been improved , rebuilt , and restructured , adding that boards throughout the system all have been rebuilt and improved . Attorney Williamson noted that Park Outdoor is a local industry and employs local people to maintain the boards . Attorney Williamson stated that he had with him Mr . Bob Daniels , who is the lease manager for Park Outdoor . Attorney Williamson stated that they feel the boards should be allowed to continue . Chairman Aron asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak . No one spoke . Mr . King asked Attorney Williamson if taxes are paid to the Town of Ithaca for these boards , to which Attorney Williamson replied , yes , adding that they are taxed as real estate . Attorney Williamson stated that the land is leased from Matychak and they [ Park ] pay them [ Matychak ] , however , he did not know what they pay in taxes to the • Town although he did know that they are taxed as real estate . Mr . King , noting that the papers indicate that they generate $ 8 , 000 . 00 in income , wondered if that were net income . Attorney Williamson stated Zoning Board of Appeals 15 September 18 , 1985 • that it was not net income ; it was gross income . Mr . King , in a jocular manner , wondered why Park did not offer a gross receipts tax to the Town , adding that , perhaps then , the Town might not be so anxious to have Park take them down . Attorney Williamson , recognizing the manner in which the question was posed , indicated that he was not quite sure just how Park would go about such an offer to the Town , and pointed out that there are public service ads - - Army recruiting - - displayed on Park ' s boards and also donated space for various service groups and charities . Commenting that he would pose this as a serious question , Mr . King asked Attorney Williamson if he would like to respond to the Short Environmental Assessment Form review which indicates the completion of a Long Form EAF , Attorney Williamson stated that he has not seen the Long Form EAF but Park would be willing to do that . It was noted that the reviewer had also indicated the completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement , Chairman Aron stated that he had asked the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , to put together a collection of Town Board Minutes dating back to 1972 to which he would like to refer at this time . Chairman Aron stated that on February 14 , 1972 , Mr . Williamson spoke to the Town Board objecting to the proposed sign ordinance on behalf of Park with a public hearing set for March 13 , 1972 , and , again , in February , the 28th , Park was represented at another Town Board meeting . Chairman Aron noted a public hearing in April and May and Mr . Williamson ' s attendance . Chairman Aron noted a special meeting of the Board on • January 26 , 1976 at which Mr . Williamson spoke and convinced the Board to hold off enforcing its deadline for billboard removals because of a court case - - the Southampton case . Chairman Aron pointed out that the decision in that case was in favor of the Town of Southampton . At this point , Chairman Aron commented that Park also sued the City of Ithaca and lost . Chairman Aron stated , as for amortization , Park has had thirteen years for this , adding that even if we go from the 1980 law which gave four years for removal , we are now in 1985 . Chairman Aron stated that he could not understand where there is any serious hardship . Attorney Williamson stated that they feel their boards , because they have been revised , revamped , and rebuilt , have a life of about thirty years . Attorney Williamson stated that they are asking for a variance ; they do not want more boards . Attorney Williamson reiterated that Park is a local interest , they advertise local businesses . Attorney Williamson stated that they are in a locale where they are in no way doing anything that hinders the environment , adding that they have been there all those years . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards are not an eyesore nor can the Board tell him , or can anyone tell him , that they are an eyesore . Attorney Williamson noted that they are asking for a variance to permit these boards to remain at their present locations . Town Attorney John Barney asked what authority there was for a • variance . Attorney Williamson responded that Mr . Cartee sent him the forms and he filled them out , adding that he did not want the boards torn down . Town Attorney Barney stated that he was asking what • 'r Zoning Board of Appeals 16 September 18 , 1985 • authority there was for variance . Attorney Williamson replied that he had said that Mr . Cartee sent him the forms and he wanted to comply . Town Attorney Barney wondered if a variance does not refer to the size of signs and , continuing , stated that Park is appealing from a decision of the Building Inspector , Mr . Cartee , and he was not sure the Board has authority to go beyond that . Town Attorney Barney stated that the Board could determine whether his decision was correct . Speaking to Town Attorney Barney , Attorney Williamson stated that he was not going to argue legal matters with him . Town Attorney Nelson Roth asked Attorney Williamson if he could describe the nature of the rebuilding of the boards . Attorney Williamson stated that it is different with each sign and mentioned new faces . Mr . Daniels offered that trim kits are involved . Town Attorney Roth asked if the boards were made of wood . Mr . Daniels stated that he did not know . Mr . Cartee stated that all he knew about the two signs on Danby Road was from Mr . Matychak who had indicated to him that six or seven years ago they were vandalized and cut down by a chain saw . Mr . Cartee stated further that , apparently , Mr . Matychak did not like the location of the signs and he requested Park to move them and put them up in a different place farther south . Town Attorney Roth asked , as to the signs that were taken down by vandals and then taken down and rebuilt in another location and , as that were rebuilt , by what authority were they rebuilt and were any permits issued . Mr . Cartee responded that no permits were issued . Town Attorney Roth asked if there were any applications for permit , • to which Mr . Cartee responded , no . Chairman Aron stated that he would like to read something from the Minutes of the Town Board meeting of January 26 , 1976 . Chairman Aron read aloud , as follows : " Supervisor Schwan recommended a stay of the notice to remove until the Southampton case has been resolved . " " Mrs . Raffensperger asked Mr . Williamson if he was saying that if the result of the Southampton litigation is that the boards must be removed , the Park company would remove its boards . Mr . Williamson said in that event he would have to recommend that course to Mr . Park . " Chairman Aron read further : " WHEREAS , ( 1 ) the Town of Ithaca has given written notice to R . H . P . , Inc . to remove certain signs or billboards by February 2 , 1976 , and ( 2 ) following the discussion of the status of Court proceedings in Monroe County ( Town of Brighton ) and Suffolk County ( Town of Southampton ) on the issue of the constitutionality of Town laws requiring removal of signboards , it appears that it would be an exercise of fair discretion and also in the best interests of the Town of Ithaca to suspend temporarily the enforcement of the aforesaid order , it is RESOLVED , Section 1 . That the aforesaid order be held in abeyance and that the date of removal of said signs or billboards be extended " . Chairman Aron commented that this goes on and on . Attorney Williamson stated that they are still in the courts - - Federal courts - - on the City of Ithaca case . Attorney Williamson • stated that they are in the process of being in touch on the matter of boards on a Federal -Aid highway being entitled to compensation , adding that they are , still in litigation on that , and further adding Zoning Board of Appeals 17 September 18 , 1985 • that they are not dead yet . Attorney Williamson noted also that Southampton is not decided yet and Riverhead is also in litigation on compensation . ' Attorney Williamson stated that Route 79 is a Federal -Aid highway , Route 96B is not . Attorney Williamson stated that he did not want to address Town Attorney Barney on the legal authority for them to be here . Town Attorney Barney stated that he did not question Attorney Williamson ' s right to be here , commenting that he could appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector , and adding that it was the authority of the Board to which he was referring . Mr . King stated , with respect to the EAF on 1180 Danby Road , that he drove by the site and saw that the boards are in the field , not near an intersection , and not in a commercial zone as has been contended here . Mr . King stated that his impression was that they look kind of nice there , commenting that they give you something to read , and adding that those particular two signs do not bother him , however , the seven on Mecklenburg Road do , those are a jungled mess . Mr . King , noting again that the two billboards on Danby Road do not bother him personally , stated that , however , they are there in contravention to the Sign Law which is not this Board ' s invention , and added that the Town Board has stated that off - premises signs should not be allowed . Mr . King stated that , as to these signs at 1180 Danby Road , he would MOVE that the Board of Appeals make a negative declaration of . environmental significance as to those two particular signs . The MOTION was seconded by Mr . Edward Austen . Discussion followed with Mrs . Reuning wanting to make sure that the Motion dealt with the EAF only . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . Chairman Aron declared the MOTION carried unanimously with respect to a negative declaration of environmental significance for the two billboards on Danby Road , Chairman Aron asked the Board to turn to the matter of the boards themselves . Chairman Aron asked if the Air Force pays Park anything . Mr . Daniels responded that sometimes they do - - up to . 25 % . Mr . Austen stated that he did not see any hardship left in these signs ; they were rebuilt when they knew the Sign Law prohibited them ; they were rebuilt with no permits . Mr . Austen stated that there was no hardship that he could see except , maybe , self - imposed hardship . Mrs . Reuning stated that she would agree with Mr . Austen ' s statements . Mr . King stated that he agreed on that point too , adding that any hardship has been self - imposed , Park having had plenty of notice on removal under• the Sign Law within a time period . Mr . King stated that he felt a sign ordinance which would eliminate billboards has a constructive purpose and should be upheld unless there be an Zoning Board of Appeals 18 September 18 , 1985 extreme situation and he did not see any facts which would justify either that or a variance , MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the application by Park ' for variance in the case of two billboards at 1180 Danby Road be and hereby is denied , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the decision of the Building Inspector be and hereby is affirmed . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote , Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Park Appeal with respect to the two billboards on Danby Road duly closed at 8 : 50 p . m . APPEAL OF PARK OUTDOOR ADVERTISING OF NEW YORK , INC . , APPELLANT , ROBERT I . WILLIAMSON , ESQ . , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO MAINTAIN SEVEN ( 7 ) EXISTING • BILLBOARDS , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R301 ON PREMISES OWNED BY R H P PROPERTIES , INC . , AT 1325 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER SECTION 8 . 01 - 1 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW , LOCAL LAW N0 . 6 - 1980 . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 51 p . m , and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman Aron noted that this matter is pretty much the same thing as the Board just had before . Chairman Aron noted that the EAF review is the same , Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals Lead Agency . Discussion followed with respect to the seven billboards on Mecklenburg Road and the reviewer ' s recommendation of a positive declaration of environmental significance and , if to be further considered , the recommendation for a DEIS , during which the Board members indicated that they felt there was quite a difference between the two situations - - two on Danby Road and seven on Mecklenburg Road , Mr . King stated that these boards are in a narrower areas they are in a residential zone with residential units in the area , the seven boards here on the Mecklenburg Road present a much more • congested appearance than the two on the Danby Road , arid , they are probably a traffic hazard to the speeding motorist who tries to read seven billboards and , therefore , in this case , he would MOVE that the l Zoning Board of Appeals 19 September 18 , 1985 • Zoning Board of Appeals make a positive declaration of environmental impact . The MOTION was seconded by Mr . Edward Austen . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote , Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning , Nay - None , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Attorney Williamson stated that , on those boards on the Mecklenburg Road , he wanted the Board to know that . they are on a Federal -Aid Primary Highway , and pointed out that he had attached to the Appeal a 1981 letter from the New York State Department of Transportation , Attorney Williamson stated that removal of the boards at this location would eliminate an income to Park Outdoor of approximately $ 13 , 000 . 00 per annum . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards are important in that they advertise local businesses , mentioning Watt Distributing and Gallagher Television , as well as public service ads for the U . S . Army and U . S . Air Force . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards present no harm to the neighborhood ; they do not contravene the intent of the sign ordinance , and they are not a traffic hazard , Attorney Williamson stated that State permits are required for these boards which are on Route 79 and those permits have been obtained from the State Department of Transportation , are current , and are paid for and up - to - date . Attorney Williamson , commenting that he did not wish to • be repititious , stated that Park is a local business and the boards advertise local businesses and provide a public service also . Attorney Williamson noted that taxes are paid , and added that the Mecklenburg Road land is owned by Park with taxes paid on the land plus the boards . Chairman Aron asked if anyone present wished to speak . No one spoke , Mr . King wondered if there were any factor in this case which would change the Board ' s findings as in the other matter on Route 96B . Mr . Austen stated that he did not see any change , adding that these seven billboards were not conducive to the view of the countryside up there . Mr . King stated that he would say the traffic hazard is definite and described the narrow , winding road up there . Mr . Daniels stated that it has never been proved that billboards have caused an accident , Mr . Austen stated that these billboards have been in violation of the Town Sign Law for the past thirteen years and any rebuilding has been in violation of that . Mr . Austen stated that he did not see any difference here from what we had on 96B . Mr . King stated that he agreed with those findings . Mrs . Reuning stated that she also agreed , • MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : Zoning Board of Appeals 20 September 18 , 1985 • RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the application by Park for variance in the case of seven billboards at 1325 Mecklenburg Road be and hereby is denied , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the decision of the Building Inspector be and hereby is affirmed . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Park Appeal with respect to the seven billboards on Mecklenburg Road duly closed at 9 : 04 p . m . APPEAL OF ANTHONY A . AND BARBARA A . SCHULTZ , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A FOUR- UNIT DWELLING STRUCTURE ON LOTS NUMBERED 30 , 31 , AND A PORTION OF 32 , SAID LOTS BEING THOSE SHOWN ON MAP ENTITLED " LANDS OF THE ITHACA LAND COMPANY " , FILED IN THE TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK ' S OFFICE ON JULY 12 , 1895 , SAID LOTS AND PORTION BEING THOSE PROPOSED TO BE SUBDIVIDED FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 ( 270 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE ) COMPRISED OF FIVE LOTS NUMBERED 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , • AND 34 ON SAID MAP OF THE LANDS OF THE ITHACA LAND COMPANY , CERTIFICATE IS DENIED PURSUANT TO A GRANT OF VARIANCE SET DOWN BY THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 14 , 1983 , WHEREBY THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID FOUR-UNIT DWELLING STRUCTURE AT 270 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , WAS PERMITTED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SAID GRANT OF VARIANCE ENCOMPASSED ALL FIVE LOTS NUMBERED 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , AND 34 , ON SAID MAP OF THE LANDS OF THE ITHACA LAND COMPANY , AND , IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 76 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 9 : 05 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mrs . Barbara Schultz and Attorney Paul Tavelli were present . Chairman Aron noted that there was no one present from the public or the media . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Barbara A . Schultz under date of September 9 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to Subdivide for Sale at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , Ithaca NY 14850 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , . . . The necessary subdivision in order to sell the apartment building would result in no change whatsoever to the five lots included on the variance dated 9 / 14 / 83 in terms of further • development . As a matter of fact , this subdivision would further enhance that prohibition . The side yard measurements indicated on the attached map would be most beneficial to each new parcel . Zoning Board of Appeals 21 September 18 , 1985 • 9[Please see letter attached to this appeal . " Chairman Aron stated that he would not read aloud the referenced letter attached to the Appeal , however , he asked that it be entered into the record . Said letter follows : " 270 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca , New YOrk 14850 September 5 , 1985 Board of Zoning Appeals Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , New York 14850 Dear Members of the Zoning Board : On September 14 , 1983 , your Board granted a Variance from Article III , Section 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a four unit multiple residence at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , Tax Parcel number 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 . The requirements pertaining to life and safety in multiple dwellings ( New York State Code , etc . ) and for appropriate landscaping were met at the time of construction and subsequent issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy . The other stipulation in the variance was that ' said proposal encompasses all five of the old lots herein cited . . . ' These are Lots 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 and 34 . At the time of the hearing , we took this to • mean that there would be no further development of these five lots . In July of this year , we accepted a purchase offer on the apartment building . This offer is contingent upon , among other things , the subdivision of that property from our home . In applying for a subdivision hearing , the Town Planner scheduled only a Sketch Plan Review ( not a public hearing ) as he felt that such a division was impossible based on this wording in the variance . Please understand that , at the time of the hearing , we never understood this to be the case . We concurred with the opinion that the five lots should not be developed any further , but we were never given the impression that the sale of either the apartment building or the house would be forbidden . In any case , it has been suggested that we come before you for an amendment of the variance granted in 1983 which would allow the property to be subdivided for sale . We must state , at this time , that we are rather uncomfortable with having to proceed ' backwards ' in a sense regarding the subdivision hearing , etc . , but we were unaware until the Agenda of the Planning Board had been set that there was a problem here . After much consideration , we feel that the best way to divide the property would be to cut Lot 32 in half , giving 25 feet to each new parcel . This does several things . First , it uses the roadway as • the natural boundary that it has become . Second , it insures an ample side yard to the east for the apartment building and to the west for the house . Third , this division would , of course be subject to Zoning Board of Appeals 22 September 18 , 1985 • ' access to the public on a roadway ' as now exists in the deed to Lot 32 . This access cannot be changed . Fourth , this division would leave ample side yard to the east for the house . Please see the map attached to this letter . We feel that the halving of Lot 32 would be the best way of dividing this property for sale . It would accomplish the Zoning Board ' s objective of no further development of these lots , and also give us the opportunity to pursue the sale of our property . Parenthetically , our house pre - dates any zoning regulations and Mr . Cartee has brought the matter of the front yard depth to our attention . It is his opinion that even though the house pre - dates the requirements , that this matter should also be brought to the Board ' s attention . This was not a problem when we purchased the house thirteen years ago , but apparently it is now an issue which might also be addressed at this hearing . Please accept our apologies for appearing before the Planning Board first , but we were unaware that our intended sale of this property and the subdivision it requires would be a matter for your Board to consider . Sincerely , • ( sgd . ) Barbara A . Schultz ( sgd . ) Anthony A . Schultz " Chairman Aron read aloud the Zoning Board of Appeals ' Resolution duly adopted at its September 14 , 1983 meeting , as follows : " RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Article III , Section 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a four - unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , said parcel being comprised of five lots numbered 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and 34 on map of The Ithaca Land Company Tract recorded in 1895 , said four - unit dwelling to be constructed upon old lots numbered 30 and 31 thereof and which are a part of said Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , as shown 'on Plan S - 1 , titled ' Site Plan - Proposed Apartm ' t . for A . A . Schultz ' , Tallman & Tallman , Registered Architects , Ithaca , N . Y . , Scale 1 " = 3010, proposed and presented to said Board of Appeals on September 14 , 1983 by Anthony A . Schultz , Appellant , with the understanding that said proposal encompasses all five of the old lots hereinabove cited , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that said grant is conditioned upon there being , for the benefit of future neighbors , both suitable and appropriate landscaping of the area west of the proposed driveway shown on said Site Plan and there being both suitable and appropriate landscaping of the area north of the proposed structure such that , • visually , its mass and scale is broken up , and Zoning Board of Appeals 23 September 18 , 1985 • FURTHER RESOLVED , that a building permit shall be applied for by the Appellant , and all requirements of the New York State Building Construction , Energy Conservation , and Fire Prevention Codes applicable to Multiple Dwellings and any requirements of the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector and / or the Town Engineer , shall be met . " Chariman Aron noted that , at that meeting in 1983 , both Mr . and Mrs . Schultz were present and had no objections to the Resolution as it was adopted . Mrs . Schultz stated that that was correct , as they understood it . Chairman Aron stated that he would now read the Resolutions adopted by the Planning Board at its meeting last evening , September 17 , 1985 . Attorney Tavelli stated that since they were given a copy of those Resolutions by the Secretary , they would waive the reading of the Planning Board Resolutions . Chairman Aron agreed and stated that they should be entered as part of the record . The Planning Board Resolutions follow : " MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This project is an Unlisted Action for which a Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed andreviewed at • a Public Hearing on September 17 , 1985s 2 . A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the Town Planner , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead Agency for the environmental review of this project . 2 . That this project is determined to have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental significance shall be and hereby is made . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . Abstain - Schultz . CARRIED . " " MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment • Form for this proposed subdivision and has made a determination of negative environmental significance . Zoning Board of Appeals 24 September 18 , 1985 • 2 . The Planning Board has reviewed a sketch plat for this proposed subdivision at its meeting of September 3 , 1985 . 3 . The Planning Board has reviewed this proposed subdivision at a Public Hearing on September 17 , 1985 . 4 . The Zoning Board of Appeals has scheduled a Public Hearing for September 18 , 1985 , to hear an Appeal from the subdividers concerning the terms of a variance granted September 14 , 1983 . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval and waive , and hereby does waive , Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of the lands of Anthony and Barbara Schultz as proposed , being the subdivision of one parcel known as 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , and delineated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , said parcel being comprised of five ( 5 ) Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no . 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and 34 , into two parcels , one of which will be comprised of Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no . 30 , 31 , and one - half ( 251 ) of 32 , and the second of which will be comprised of Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no . 33 , 34 , and the other half ( 251 ) of 32 , IF and only IF the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the variance that is requested by said Anthony and Barbara Schultz , such request to be before said Board of Appeals on September 18 , 1985 , and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 . That the Approval , with condition , granted herein be and hereby is contingent upon there being no further subdivision or building of dwelling units on all the parcels concerned in this subdivision , and 2 . That there be something placed of record in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office to that effect , and 3 . That , upon the meeting of the condition and contingencies set herein , a Final Subdivision Map be filed in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk and no Certificate of Occupancy may be issued until proof of such filing has been submitted to the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . Abstain - Schultz . CARRIED . " Chairman Aron stated that the Board had before it an Appeal from • a previous Appeal and he would ask the Board whether it should re -hear the matter at this time . Zoning Board of Appeals 25 September 18 , 1985 • Attorney Tavelli , noting that he was not present at the time of the September 1983 hearing , stated that he did not think in their wildest dreams that the Schultzes ever thought they could not sell the apartment on the other side of the road . Attorney Tavelli stated that he did not think they saw it as a package . Attorney Tavelli stated that he saw this hearing as a clarification of the 1983 variance , not as a re - hearing . Attorney Tavelli stated that the Schultzes came to him with respect to this matter and , upon review , he did not see this matter as an additional variance , but a clarification that the wording - - with the understanding that this encompasses all five lots - - meant no further development . Chairman Aron noted that there are five parcels involved here . Attorney Tavelli stated that there were always the five old parcels but there is only one parcel now . Chairman Aron , noting again that there are five parcels in the one parcel , stated that in order to rescind the 1983 Resolution , the Board has to agree to re - hear the case . Attorney Tavelli stated that he understood what the Chairman was saying , however , he did not agree . Mr . King stated that he did not think the Board needed to have a formal re - hearing . Mr . King stated that he would think the Board could just interpret that variance if that is what the problem is . Attorney Tavelli stated that he saw it that way , adding that it is one parcel with five old lots in it . Attorney Tavelli stated that a • Certificate of Occupancy had been issued by the Building Inspector for the whole lot , but not for this apartment . Mr . King wished to have it clear what the Schultzes wanted to do now , wondering if they wanted to go before the Planning Board . Attorney Tavelli , commenting that that was not the case , stated that the Planning Board had already approved the subdivision at its meeting last evening . Mrs . Schultz stated that she went to the Planning Board for a hearing on the subdivision of the one lot into two lots on September 3rd , but the Planner had set a sketch plan review rather than a public hearing and so time went by . Mrs . Schultz stated that the closing was supposed to have occurred last Monday . Mrs . Schultz stated that she then had to go to the next Planning Board meeting which was last night to get that Board to conditionally subdivide the parcel based on what the Zoning Board of Appeals would do . Chairman Aron reviewed the Site Plan with Mrs . Schultz noting that there would be a 20 - foot side yard for the apartment after the subdivision . Mrs . Schultz stated that that was not correct and pointed out on the survey that there would be a 45 - foot easterly side yard , that is , to the middle of Lot # 32 , 25 feet of which would be added to Lot # 31 , and the other 25 feet of Lot # 32 would be added to Lot # 33 . Chairman Aron noted that the site plan shows that nothing is to be built in Lot # 32 . Mrs . Schultz stated that that was correct , adding that nothing can be built on Lot # 32 . Attorney Tavelli stated that any building on old lot 32 is restricted in the Deed . Chairman Aron commented that if there is nothing to be built • on this property , the density would remain the same as it is today . Attorney Tavelli stated that that was correct , adding that there will ciy V% Zoning Board of Appeals 26 September 18 , 1985 • be no more traffic . Chairman Aron noted that , actually , nothing changes . Mr . King asked if there were restrictive covenants that went with the variance . It was noted that no restrictive covenants had been required by the Board at the time of the grant of variance . Chairman Aron stated that he had a memo from the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , adding that he [ Aron ] had asked him [ Lovi ] to do some research for him . Chairman Aron read the memo , as follows : " MEMORANDUM : TO : Henry Aron FROM : Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner DATE : September 5 , 1985 RE : Barbara and Anthony Schultz 2 - lot subdivision 270 Pennsylvania Avenue If the Zoning Board of Appeals decides to rehear this case and amend its variance of September 14 , 1983 it may want to consider the following approach : 1 . Grant a variance for the construction of a four - unit apartment house on lots # 30 and # 31 subject to a restrictive covenant to be placed in the deed or deeds for the five lots presently known [ as ] 270 Pennsylvania Avenue . • 2 . This restrictive covenant should state that each dwelling unit in the four - unit apartment may be occupied by no more than : a ) a single family and one unrelated person , or b ) two unrelated persons . 3 . This restrictive covenant should also state that the one - family house presently owned by Anthony and Barbara Schultz may not be remodelled or rebuilt as a two - family house nor may it be occupied by more than a single family and two unrelated persons . 4 . This restrictive covenant should also allow that in the event of any land subdivision , title to lots # 32 and # 34 shall remain with the one - family dwelling presently owned by Mr . and Mrs . Schultz and that these lots must be maintained as permanent open space subject to any existing easements or rights - of -way . 5 . This covenant restricting occupancy in the four -unit apartment house should be made a part of each and every lease whether such leases are granted by the present owners or by any subsequent owners . 6 . This restrictive covenant should be enforceable by any owner or lessee of land or real property on lots # 30 - # 34 . • 7 . The amendment of the present variance should state that it is the intent of the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit the property l 4b � ` . Zoning Board of Appeals 27 September 18 , 1985 • to be subdivided such that lots # 30 and # 31 are one distinct parcel and lots # 32 , # 33 , and # 34 are a separate parcel . However , the Zoning Board of Appeals is restricting the development of these lots to no more dwelling units than presently exist on these five parcels . " Attorney Tavelli asked Chairman Aron to read point # 3 again , which he did - - " 3 . This restrictive covenant should also state that the one - family house presently owned by Anthony and Barbara Schultz may not be remodelled or rebuilt as a two - family house nor may it be occupied by more than a single family and two unrelated persons . " Attorney Tavelli asked why this point was included , asking further , if the Town Zoning permits it , why put that in ? Mr . King stated that he did not see any need for imposing section # 3 . Chairman Aron asked if the Board agreed that # 3 should be striken . The Board members agreed to strike U . With respect to point # 4 - - 1 " 4 . This restrictive covenant should also allow that in the event of any land subdivision , title to lots # 32 and # 34 shall remain with the one - family dwelling presently owned by Mr . and Mrs . Schultz and that these lots must be maintained as permanent open space subject to any existing easements or rights - of -way . " ] , Attorney Tavelli stated that it would be acceptable as long as that does not mean you cannot put up a garage , a swimming pool , or an accessory building . Attorney Tavelli stated that the • term " permanent open space " scared him a little bit . Mr . King and Chairman Aron suggested that the last part of point # 4 read - " . . . must be maintained as one parcel . " The Secretary noted that it should also read " . . . title to one - half of lot # 32 and lot # 34 . . . " The Board concurred with the suggested changes . With respect to point # 5 , Mr . King suggested that it be striken ; Chairman Aron agreed , as did the Board members . After discussion , it was agreed by all that point . # 6 should be striken . It appearing that point # 7 was acceptable to the Board , Town Attorney Barney stated that he would point out that # 7 is not consistent with the earlier portion where the Board said that there could be . a two - family house if otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance . The Board members agreed that the last sentence in # 7 should be deleted , and also that reference be made to " one -half of lot # 32 " and the words " easterly " and " westerly " be added . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the variance granted by said Board of Appeals at Public Hearing duly held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on September 14 , 1983 , with respect to property owned by Anthony A . Schultz and Barbara A . Schultz , delineated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , known as 270 Pennsylvania Avenue , and comprised of five lots numbered 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and 34 on map of The Ithaca Land Company Tract recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in 1895 , • permitting the construction of a four -unit dwelling structure on old lots numbered 30 and 31 thereof , be and hereby is amended , such that : r , ZoningBoard of Appeals 28 September 18 , 1985 1 . The variance for the four - unit apartment house on old lots numbered 30 , 31 , is subject to a Restrictive Covenant to be placed in the deed or deeds for the five old lots presently known as 270 Pennsylvania Avenue ; 2 . Said Restrictive Covenant shall state that each dwelling unit in the four - unit apartment may be occupied by no more than : a ) a single family and one unrelated person , or b ) two unrelated persons ; 3 . Said Restrictive Covenant shall also state that in -the event of any land subdivision , title to old lots numbered 34 and the easterly half of 32 shall remain with the one - family dwelling presently owned by Anthony A . and Barbara A . Schultz and situated on old lot numbered 33 , and , that these lots must be maintained as one parcel , 4 . It is the intent of the Zoning Board of Appeals , by this amendment of said variance granted on September 14 , 1983 , that the subdivision of the subject property , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 35 , be permitted such that old lots numbered 30 , 31 , and the westerly half ( 251 ) of 32 are one distinct parcel , and old lots numbered 33 , 34 , and the easterly half of 32 are a separate parcel ; AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that there be delivered to the applicant a copy of the requested Restrictive Covenant terms and , upon receipt of a duly executed and recordable Covenant complying with those terms and there being a proper subdivision map filed , the Building Inspector can issue a Certificate of Occupancy . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Schultz Appeal duly closed at 9 : 30 p . m . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the September 18 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 32 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Henry Aron , Chairman EXCERPT from the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of September 18 , 1985 . APPEAL OF PARK OUTDOOR ADVERTISING OF NEW YORK , INC . , APPELLANT , ROBERT I . WILLIAMSON , ESQ . , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO MAINTAIN TWO ( 2 ) EXISTING BILLBOARDS , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R301 ON PREMISES OWNED BY SAM AND ELEANOR MATYCHAK , AT 1180 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER SECTION 8 . 01 - 1 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW , LOCAL LAW NO . 6 - 1980 . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 15 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Attorney Robert I . Williamson was present , as well as Mr . Robert Daniels of Park Outdoor Advertising . Each of the Board members had before him / her the following documents . 1 . Copy of letter dated August 30 , 1985 , to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Office , signed by Robert I . Williamson , as follows : " Enclosed please find copies of appeal re signs owned by Park Outdoor scheduled , as I understand it , for September 17 , 1985 . " • 2 . Copy of letter dated December 10 , 1981 , to Robert I . Williamson Jr . , Esq . , signed by Darrell W . Harp , Assistant Commissioner , Legal Affairs , New York State Department of Transportation , 1220 Washington Avenue , State Campus , Albany , NY 12232 , as follows : " This will confirm your request as to our interpretation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 as it relates to compensation for outdoor advertising signs along interstate and federal -aid primary highways . SClearly , this act mandates compensation for advertising signs lawfully in existence which are removed by any public agency providing they are compensable or lawful under the provisions of the Federal Beautification Act . " 3 . Copy of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . with respect to those billboards located at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , as signed and submitted by Roy He Park Jr . , under date of August 30 , 1985 , and reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . at premises owned by Matychak at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 -- 36 - 1 - 8 . . . in violation of - - SECTION ( S ) 8 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , Local Law No . 6 - 1980 . . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : A variance is requested because removal of the signs will eliminate income to the • company in the approximate amount of $ 8 , 000 per annum as well as an essential tool for local business advertising . The faces currently advertise local businesses including Fairview Heights Zoning Board of Appeals 2 September 18 , 1985 and Giordano Realty . In addition , there is a public. service ad of the United States Air Force for a local recruiting office . It is submitted the boards will have no effect on future development of the area , they do not generate extra traffic , nor will they contravene the intent of the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance , They will not change the character of the neighborhood . The boards have all been improved and rebuilt in the last couple of years . There is no other way to overcome the hardship imposed by these town regulations except by this variance . 4 . Copy of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . with respect to those billboards located at 1325 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 , as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of August 30 , 1985 , and reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied , permission to Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . at 1325 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 . . . in violation of - - SECTION ( S ) 8 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , Local Law No . 6 - 1980 . . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : A variance is requested because removal of the structures will eliminate income to Park Outdoor at this location of approximately $ 13 , 000 per annum . The boards are an essential tool for local business advertising . The boards at this location advertise local businesses such as Watt Distributing , Fairview Heights and Gallagher Television . There • are also public service ads for the United States Army and United States Air Force . lIn addition , the removal will create a further hardship on the State of New York since these signs located along Route 79 are along a Federal -Aid Primary Highway . Under the Highway Beautification Act as amended , the company must be compensated if the boards are removed . See letter dated December 10 , 1981 , from the Department of Transportation , copy of which is attached hereto . 5These boards do not contravene the intent of the town regulations , nor do they generate a change in the character of the neighborhood . It is respectfully submitted they will have no effect on future development , and they do not generate any extra traffic in the neighborhood . There is no better location in the town available for these boards . " 5 . Copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of September 10 , 1985 , with respect to existing billboards on premises owned by Matychak at 1180 Danby Road and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of September 12 , 1985 , as follows : " The granting of this appeal would have large , continuous and adverse impacts upon the visual environment in the Town . By the very nature of the billboards , these impacts are impossible to mitigate . I recommend a positive declaration of environmental significance . If the ZBA intends to consider this appeal • further , the applicant should be directed to complete a Draft Environmental Impact Statement which fully considers the impacts Zoning Board of Appeals 3 September 18 , 1985 • which this action would have upon the environment . " [ Lead Agency : Town. of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . ] 6 . Copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of September 10 , 1985 , with respect to existing billboards on premises owned by Park at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi . [ See environmental review for sign appeal on parcel # 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 . 1 7 . Copy , as distributed by the Secretary , of the Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) Resolution , with respect to the Park Appeals , adopted at its meeting of September 17 , 1985 , as follows : " MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in its capacity as the Sign Review Board pursuant to Section 9 . 02 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that the Appeals of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . in re billboards , seven at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and two at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 and 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , respectively , be denied in concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Sign Law as in violation of Section 8 . 01 - 1 thereof . • Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . " Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . with respect to those billboards located at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 8 , as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of August 30 , 1985 , as follows : " A variance is requested because removal of the signs will eliminate income to the company in the approximate amount of $ 8 , 000 per annum as well as an essential tool for local business advertising . The faces currently advertise local businesses including Fairview Heights and Giordano Realty . In addition , there is a public service ad of the United States Air Force for a local recruiting office . It is submitted the boards will have no effect on future development of the area ; they do not generate extra traffic , nor will they contravene the intent of the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance . They will not change the character of the neighborhood . The boards have all been improved and rebuilt in the last couple of years . There is no other way to overcome the hardship imposed by these town regulations except by this variance . " Chairman Aron noted that the Board had before it a Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Roy H . Park Jr . , under date of September 10 , 1985 , with respect to existing billboards on premises owned by Matychak at 1180 Danby Road and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of September Zoning Board of Appeals 4 September 18 , 1985 • 12 , 1985 , and „ read aloud , in , their entirety , Parts II and III thereof , as prepared by Mr . Lovi , as follows : [ Part II Environmental Assessment ] " A . Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 ? ' No ' checked . B . Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in ' 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 7 ? ' No ' checked . CO Could action result in ANY adverse effects on , to , or arising from the following : Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? ' Action involves existing billboards which have not had an adverse environmental effect on these environmental criteria at this time . ' C2 . Historic , archeological , visual or aesthetic , or other natural or cultural resources ; agricultural districts , or community or neighborhood character ? ' These billboards will have a significant adverse effect on the aesthetic character of the neighborhood and the • community . For this reason , the Town Board :has enacted sign regulations since 1972 which prohibit the construction of off - premises signs . ' C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? ' The existing billboards do not appear to have a significant adverse impact on these environmental criteria . ' C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? ' These billboards are in direct contravention of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , which provided for a four year amortization period after which time the billboards were to be removed without compensation . ' C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? ' If the proposed action were permitted , the enforeability of our Sign Law could be questioned and a proliferation of unsightly roadside hucksterism could ensue . ' C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified in Cl -M? ' The granting of this appeal would seriously undercut the ability of the Town Board to pass local regulations which regulate land uses on constitutionally permissible , • aesthetic criteria . ' C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ? ' These billboards have no effect on this criteria . ' Zoning Board of 'Appeals 5 September 18 , 1985 • [ Part III Determination of Significance ] " The granting of this appeal would have large , continuous and adverse impacts upon the visual environment in the Town . By the very nature of the billboards , these impacts are impossible to mitigate . I recommend a positive declaration of environmental significance . If the ZBA intends to consider this appeal further , the applicant should be directed to complete a Draft Environmental Impact Statement which fully considers the impacts which this action would have upon the environment . " [ Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . ] Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals Lead Agency and noted that a positive declaration of environmental significance had been recommended , further noting that if the Board would like to consider this further a Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be considered . Speaking to Attorney Williamson , Chairman Aron stated that he had been before the Planning Board last night . Attorney Williamson responded , yes , adding that he had appeared before the Sign Review Board . Chairman Aron stated that the Sign Review Board , which is the Planning Board , has made a recommendation to the ZBA . Chairman Aron read aloud the Planning Board ( Sign Review Board ) Resolution , adopted at . its meeting of September 17 , 1985 , as follows : • " MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in its capacity as the Sign Review Board pursuant to Section 9 . 02 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca " Zoning Board of Appeals that the Appeals of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc . in re billboards , seven at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and two at 1180 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 and 6 - 36 - 1 -8 , respectively , be denied in concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Sign Law as in violation of Section 8 . 01 - 1 thereof . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . " Chairman Aron noted that this billboard situation has been going on for quite a while and , referring to a collection of Town Board Minutes , stated that he thought Attorney Williamson had that file . Attorney Williamson stated that he did not have the file that Chairman Aron had . Chairman Aron pointed out that billboard discussions have been going on a long time - - since 1972 . Chairman Aron asked Attorney Williamson if he had anything else to add to his appeal . • Attorney Williamson stated that they are asking for the boards to continue in place , pointing out that where they are located on the 3 Zoning Board of ' Appeals 6 September 18 , 1985 • Danby Road is in the vicinity of other commercial buildings and mentioning Hovanec Builders , Sam Peter TV , Oltz Funeral Home , and a bar and grille [ Woody ' s ] . Attorney Williamson stated that Park Advertising will lose approximately $ 8 , 000 . 00 a year if these two boards are removed . Attorney Williamson noted that the boards advertise local businesses , mentioning Fairview Heights and Giordano Realty , and commenting that billboard advertising is cheaper than newspapers and television . Attorney Williamson stated that these boards have no effect on the future development in the area ; they do not generate extra traffic , and they do not contravene the intent of the Sign Ordinance . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards have been improved , rebuilt , and restructured , adding that boards throughout the system all have been rebuilt and improved . Attorney Williamson noted that Park Outdoor is a local industry and employs local people to maintain the boards . Attorney Williamson stated that he had with him Mr . Bob Daniels , who is the lease manager for Park Outdoor . Attorney Williamson stated that they feel the boards should be allowed to continue . Chairman Aron asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak . No one spoke . Mr : King asked Attorney Williamson if taxes are paid to the Town of Ithaca for these boards , to which Attorney Williamson replied , yes , adding that they are taxed as real estate . Attorney Williamson stated that the land is leased from Matychak and they [ Park ] pay them [ Matychak ] , however , he did not know what they pay in taxes to the Town although he did know that they are taxed as real estate . Mr . King , noting that the papers indicate that they generate $ 8 , 000 . 00 in income , wondered if that were net income . Attorney Williamson stated that it was not net income ; it was gross income . Mr . King , in a jocular manner , wondered why Park did not offer a gross receipts tax to the Town , adding that , perhaps then , the Town might not be so anxious to have Park take them down . Attorney Williamson , recognizing the manner in which the question was posed , indicated that he was not quite sure just how Park would go about such an offer to the Town , and pointed out that there are public service ads - - Army recruiting - - displayed on Park ' s boards and also donated space for various service groups and charities . Commenting that he would pose this as a serious question , Mr . King asked Attorney Williamson if he would like to respond to the Short Environmental Assessment Form review which indicates the completion of a Long Form EAF , Attorney Williamson stated that he has not seen the Long Form EAF but Park would be willing to do that . It was noted that the reviewer had also indicated the completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement , Chairman Aron stated that he had asked the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , to put together a collection of Town Board Minutes dating back to 1972 to which he would like to refer at this time . Chairman Aron stated that on . February 14 , 1972 , Mr . Williamson spoke to the Town • Board objecting to the proposed sign ordinance on behalf of Park with a public hearing set for March 13 , 1972 , and , again , in February , the Zoning Board of . Appeals 7 September 18 , 1985 • 28th , Park was represented at another Town Board meeting . Chairman Aron noted a public hearing in April and May and Mr . Williamson ' s attendance . Chairman Aron noted a special meeting of the Board on January 26 , 1976 at which Mr . Williamson spoke and convinced the Board to hold off enforcing its deadline for billboard removals because of a court case - - the Southampton case . Chairman Aron pointed out that the decision in that case was in favor of the Town of Southampton . At this point , Chairman Aron commented that Park also sued the City of Ithaca and lost . Chairman Aron stated , as for amortization , Park has had thirteen years for this , adding that even if we go from the 1980 law which gave four years for removal , we are now in 1985 . Chairman Aron stated that he could not understand where there is any serious hardship . Attorney Williamson stated that they feel their boards , because they have been revised , revamped , and rebuilt , have a life of about thirty years . Attorney Williamson stated that they are asking for a variance ; they , do not want more boards . Attorney Williamson reiterated that Park is a local interest , they advertise local businesses . Attorney Williamson stated that they are :in a locale where - they are in no way doing anything that hinders the environment , adding that they have been there all those years . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards are not an eyesore nor can the Board tell him , or can anyone tell him , that they are an eyesore . Attorney Williamson noted that they are asking for a variance to permit these boards to remain at their present locations . • Town Attorney John Barney asked what authority there was for a variance . Attorney Williamson responded that Mr . Cartee sent him the forms and he filled them out , adding that he did not want: the boards torn down . Town Attorney Barney stated that he was asking what authority there was for variance . Attorney Williamson replied that he had said that Mr . Cartee sent him the forms and he wanted to comply . Town Attorney Barney wondered if a variance does not refer to the size of signs and , continuing , stated that Park is appealing from a decision of the Building Inspector , Mr . Cartee , and he was not sure the Board has authority to go beyond that . Town Attorney Barney stated that the Board could determine whether his decision was correct . Speaking to Town Attorney Barney , Attorney Williamson stated that he was not going to argue legal matters with him . Town Attorney Nelson Roth asked Attorney Williamson if he could describe the nature of the rebuilding of the boards ,. Attorney Williamson stated that it is different with each sign and mentioned new faces . Mr . Daniels offered that trim kits are involved . Town Attorney Roth asked if the boards were made of wood . Mr . Daniels . stated that he , did not know . Mr . Cartee stated that all he knew about the two signs on Danby Road was from Mr . Matychak who had indicated to him that six or seven years ago they were vandalized and cut down by a chain saw . Mr . Cartee stated further that , apparently , Mr . Matychak did not like the location of the signs and he requested . Park to move them and put them up in a different place farther south . Town Attorney Roth asked , as to the signs that were taken down by vandals and then taken down and rebuilt in another location and , as J Zoning Board of Appeals 8 September 18 , 1985 • that were rebuilt , by what authority were they rebuilt and were any permits issued . Mr . Cartee responded that no permits were issued . Town Attorney Roth asked if there were any applications for permit , to which Mr . Cartee responded , no . Chairman Aron stated that he would like to read something from the Minutes of the Town Board meeting of January 26 , 1976 . Chairman Aron read aloud , as follows : " Supervisor Schwan recommended a stay of the notice to remove until the Southampton case has been resolved . " " Mrs . Raffensperger asked Mr . Williamson if he was saying that if the result of the Southampton litigation is that the boards must be removed , the Park company would remove its boards . Mr . Williamson said in that event he would have to recommend that course to Mr . Park . " Chairman Aron read further : " WHEREAS , ( 1 ) the Town of Ithaca has given written notice to R . H . P . , Inc . to remove certain signs or billboards by February 2 , 1976 , and ( 2 ) following the discussion of the status of Court proceedings in Monroe County ( Town of Brighton ) and Suffolk County ( Town of Southampton ) on the issue of the constitutionality of Town laws requiring removal of signboards , it appears that it would be an exercise of fair discretion and also in the best interests of the Town of Ithaca to suspend temporarily the enforcement of the aforesaid order , it is RESOLVED , Section 1 . That the aforesaid order be held in abeyance and that the date of removal of said signs or billboards be extended " . Chairman Aron commented that this goes on and on . • Attorney Williamson stated that they are still in the courts - - Federal courts - - on the City of Ithaca case . Attorney Williamson stated that they are in the process of being in touch on the matter of boards on a Federal -Aid highway being entitled to compensation , adding that they are still in litigation on that , and further adding that they are not dead yet . Attorney Williamson noted also that Southampton is not decided yet and Riverhead is also in litigation on compensation . Attorney Williamson stated that Route 79 is a Federal -Aid highway , Route 96B is not . Attorney Williamson stated that he did not want to address Town Attorney Barney on the legal authority for them to be here . Town Attorney Barney stated that he did not question Attorney Williamson ' s right to be here , commenting that he could appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector , and adding that it was the authority of the Board to which he was referring . Mr . King stated , with respect to the EAF on 1180 Danby Road , that he drove by the site and saw that the boards are in the field , not near an intersection , and not in a commercial zone as has been contended here . Mr . King stated that his impression was that they look kind of nice there , commenting that they give you something to read , and adding that those particular two signs do not bother him , however , the seven on Mecklenburg Road do ; those are a jungled mess . Mr . King , noting again that the two billboards on Danby Road do not bother him personally , stated that , however , they are there in • contravention to the Sign Law which is not this Board ' s invention , and added that the Town Board has stated that off-premises signs should not be allowed . Zoning Board of Appeals 9 September 18 , 1985 • Mr . King stated that , as to these signs at 1180 Danby Road , he would MOVE that the Board of Appeals make a negative declaration of environmental significance as to those two particular signs . The MOTION was seconded by Mr . Edward Austen . Discussion followed with Mrs . Reuning wanting to make sure that the Motion dealt with the EAF only . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning , Nay - None . Chairman Aron declared the MOTION carried unanimously with respect to a negative declaration of environmental significance for the two billboards on Danby Road . Chairman Aron asked the Board to turn to the matter of the boards themselves . Chairman Aron asked if the Air Force pays Park anything . Mr .. Daniels responded that sometimes they do - - up to 250 . Mr . Austen stated that he did not see any hardship left in these signs ; they were rebuilt when they knew the Sign Law prohibited them ; they were rebuilt with no permits . Mr . Austen stated that there was no hardship that he could see except , maybe , self - imposed hardship . Mrs . Reuning stated that she would agree with Mr . Austen ' s statements . Mr . King stated that he agreed on that point too , adding that any hardship has been self - imposed , Park having had plenty of • notice on removal under the Sign Law within a time period . Mr . King stated that he felt a sign ordinance which would eliminate billboards has a constructive purpose and should be upheld unless there be an extreme situation and he did not see any facts which would justify either that or a variance . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the application by Park for variance in the case of two billboards at 1180 Danby Road be and hereby is denied , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the decision of the Building Inspector be and hereby is affirmed . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Park Appeal with respect to the two billboards on Danby Road duly closed at 8 : 50 p . m . • APPEAL OF PARK OUTDOOR ADVERTISING OF NEW YORK , INC . , APPELLANT , ROBERT I . WILLIAMSON , ESQ . , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING } Zoning Board of Appeals 10 September 18 , 1985 • INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO MAINTAIN SEVEN ( 7 ) EXISTING BILLBOARDS , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 , ON PREMISES OWNED BY R H P PROPERTIES , INC . , AT 1325 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 28 - 1 - 25 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER SECTION 8 . 01 - 1 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW , LOCAL LAW NO . 6 - 1980 . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 51 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman Aron noted that this matter is pretty much the same thing as the Board just had before . Chairman Aron noted that the EAF review is the same . Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals Lead Agency . Discussion followed with respect to the seven billboards on Mecklenburg Road and the reviewer ' s recommendation of a positive declaration of environmental significance and , if to be further considered , the recommendation for a DEIS , during which the Board members indicated that they felt there was quite a difference between the two situations - - two on Danby Road and seven on Mecklenburg Road . Mr . King stated that these boards are in a narrower area ; they are in a residential zone with residential units in the areas the seven boards here on the Mecklenburg Road present a much more • congested appearance than the two on the Danby Road , and , they are probably a traffic hazard to the speeding motorist who tries to read seven billboards and , therefore , in this case , he would MOVE that the Zoning Board of Appeals make a positive declaration of environmental impact . The MOTION was seconded by Mr . Edward Austen . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Attorney Williamson stated that , on those boards on the Mecklenburg Road , he wanted the Board to know that they are on a Federal -Aid Primary Highway , and pointed out that he had attached to the Appeal a 1981 letter from the New York State Department of Transportation . Attorney Williamson stated that removal of the boards at this location would eliminate an income to Park Outdoor of approximately $ 13 , 000 . 00 per annum . Attorney Williamson stated that the boards are important in that they advertise local businesses , mentioning Watt Distributing and Gallagher Television , as well as public service ads for the U . S . Army and U . S . Air Force , Attorney Williamson stated that the boards present no harm to the neighborhood ; they do not contravene the intent of the sign ordinance , and they are not a traffic hazard . Attorney Williamson • stated that State permits are required for these boards which are on Route 79 and those permits have been obtained from the State Department of Transportation , are current , and are paid for and Zoning Board of Appeals 11 September 18 , 1985 up -to -date . Attorney Williamson , commenting that he did not wish to be repititious , stated that Park is a local business and the boards advertise local businesses and provide a public service also . Attorney Williamson noted that taxes are paid , and added that the Mecklenburg Road land is owned by Park with taxes paid on the land plus the boards . Chairman Aron asked if anyone present wished to speak . No one spoke . Mr . King wondered if there were any factor in this case which would change the Board ' s findings as in the other matter on Route 96B . Mr . Austen stated that he did not see any change , adding that these seven billboards were not conducive to the view of the countryside up there . Mr . King stated that he would say the traffic hazard is definite and described the narrow , winding road up there . Mr . Daniels stated that it has never been proved that billboards have caused an accident . Mr . Austen stated that these billboards have been in violation of the Town Sign Law for the past thirteen years and any rebuilding has been in violation of that . Mr . Austen stated that he did not see any difference here from what we had on 96B . Mr . King stated that he agreed with those findings . Mrs . Reuning stated that she also agreed . • MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning . RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the application by Park for variance in the case of seven billboards at 1325 Mecklenburg Road be and hereby is denied , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the decision of the Building Inspector be and hereby is affirmed . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Park Appeal with respect to the seven billboards on Mecklenburg Road duly closed at 9 : 04 p . m . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * September 27 , 1985 Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals • STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS . : I , the undersigned Deputy Town Clerk and Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , DO HEREBY CERTIFY : That I have compared the foregoing Excerpt from the Minutes of the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of said Town , including the resolutions contained therein , held on the 18th day of September , 1985 , with the original thereof on file in the office of the Town Clerk , and that the same is a true and correct copy . of said original and of the whole of said original so far as the same relates to the subject matters therein referred to . I FURTHER CERTIFY that all members of said Board had due notice of said meeting and that , pursuant to Section 98 of the Public Officers Law ( Open Meetings Law ) , said meeting was open to the general public and that I duly caused a public notice of the time and place of said meeting to be given to the following newspapers and / or other news media as follows : The Ithaca Journal September 10 , 1985 for publication on September 13 , 1985 The Ithaca Journal September 12 , 1985 WHCU September 12 , 1985 • WTKO September 12 , 1985 WVBR September 12 , 1985 . WICB -AM - FM-TV September 12 , 1985 WQNY FM 104 September 12 , 1985 OK / 100 September 12 , 1985 The Ithaca Times September 12 , 1985 Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning September 12 , 1985 and that further notice of the time and place of such meeting was given to the public by posting such notice in the following places on the following date and by giving such other notice as follows : Town Clerk ' s Bulletin Board September 10 , 1985 Outside Front Door of Town Hall September 10 , 1985 Outside Door of Town Hall Meeting Room September 10 , 1985 Service by Mail upon Neighbors and Parties with Interest September 12 , 1985 IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Town this 27th day of September , 1985 . • Nancy M . ller , Deputy Town Clerk and Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . S E A Lt