Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1998-06-10 FINAL • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1998 7 : 00 P. M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, June 10, 1998, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N. Y., COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M. on the following matters: APPEAL of Jon Macey, Appellant/Owner, Vincent Mulcahy, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to extend a non conforming building/lot at 28 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-27, Residence District R- 15 . Said extension involves a two-story building addition and garage on the south side of an existing single-family residence, which has a front yard building setback of 14 + feet from the road right-of--way line (25 foot setback required). Authorization under Article IV, Section 13 is also requested to permit the garage to be 7 + feet from the road right-of--way line, in a location where the natural slope of the ground is greater than 8%. • APPEAL of Mickey Herzing, Appellant, requesting variances from Sections 4.02-2, 5 .03- 1 , and 5 .04-6 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place three wall signs, a free standing sign up to 120 ± square feet in area and 23 feet high, and two canopy signs with 31 inch high lettering, located greater than 6 feet from a proposed new commercial building to be located at 1103 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-2- 1 , -2, Business District C . Said sign law would limit the signage to a maximum of only 4 signs, with two wall signs, a freestanding sign with a 50 foot maximum area, and a 20 foot maximum height, and any canopy signs being within 6 feet of a building, with canopy sign lettering not exceeding 6 inches in height. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 :00 p.m . , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S. Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273- 1783 Dated: June 3, 1998 Publish : June 5, 1998 FILM 31 .. .11 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Cte . NQ � �nt' WEDNESDAY, JUNE 101 1998 7 : 00 P . M . APPEAL of on Macey, Appellant/Owner, Vincent Mulcahy, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non conforming buildingAot at 28 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17-3 -27 , Residence District R- 15 . Said extension involves a two-story building addition and garage on the south side of an existing single-family residence , which has a front yard building setback of 14 + /- feet from the road right-of-way line (25 foot setback required) . Authorization under Article IV, Section 13 is also requested to permit the garage to be 7 + /- feet from the: road right-of-way line , in a location where the natural .slope of the ground is greater than 8% . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Mickey Herzing, Appellant, requesting variances from Sections 4. 02 -2 , 5 . 03 - 1 , and 5 . 04-6 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place three wall signs , a free standing sign up to 120 + /- square feet in area and 23 feet high , and two canopy signs with 31 inch high lettering, located greater than 6 feet from a proposed new commercial building to be located at 1 103 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 -2- 1 , -2 , Business District C . Said sign law would limit the signage to a maximum of only 4 signs , with two wall signs , a freestanding sign with a 50 foot • maximum area, and a 20 foot maximum height, and any canopy signs being within 6 feet of a building, with canopy sign lettering not exceeding 6 inches in height. APPEAL GRANTED e i FLoww of ffHeA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS113122 • WEDNESDAY , JUNE 10 , 1998 Hintford 7 : 00 P . M . PRESENT : David Stotz, Harry Ellsworth , Ronald Krantz , Kirk Sigel , Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning, John Barney , Town Attorney (7 :07 p . m .) , Christine Balestra , Planner , OTHERS : Vincent Mulcahy, Michael Herzing. EXCUSED : James Niefer. Chairman Stotz called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p . m . , stating that all posting, publication , and notification of the public hearing had been completed and were in the same order. The first appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : APPEAL of on Macey , Appellant/Owner, Vincent Mulcahy, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non conforming building/lot at 28 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17- 3 -27 , Residence District R- 15 . Said extension involves a two- story building addition and garage on the south side of an existing single -family residence , which has a front yard building setback of 14 + /- feet from the road right-of-way line (25 foot • setback required) . Authorization under Article IV, Section 13 if also requested to permit the garage to be 7 + /- feet from the road right-of-way line , in a location where the natural slope of the ground is greater than 8% . Vincent Mulcahy , Architect , stated his clients were requesting that they be allowed to make the addition . The addition included a master bedroom , bathroom , family room and an attached garage . The house is currently non conforming with regard to the front yard set back . He stated he thought there was a right-of-way that ran along the cul -de-sac street (pointed out the street to the Planning Board) . Initially, when we were looked at making an addition for them , the current garage was tucked in the basement. We looked at trying to do that as well . In essence , the garage is unusable . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the lawn was a hill because it looked steep . Mr. Mulcahy answered the entire lot was steep and the highest the grade percentage was about 3090 . He stated the current garage was unusable in the winter, and they were initially going to try to use the garage on a seasonal basis . It became unlikely the Maceys would ever use the garage . Mr. Mulcahy stated they looked into the garage extension . He saw in the Zoning Ordinance that there was a 5 or 8% slope rule . The rule stated that with the permission of the Zoning Board of Appeals it was possible to build a garage within about five feet of the lot line . One of the mitigating factors was that the lot line was not at the street. There was a right-of-way. At least to the eye , the • garage did not look to be that close . He thought it was about a ten foot right-of-way that ran along the entire street. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals JUNE 10, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED • PAGE 2 Mr. Mulcahy stated it appeared to him to be adjacent along the street because the right-of- way was non-conforming . He felt that in the end with the garage where it was presently drawn , would certainly be usable all season for the Maceys . Mr . Mulcahy stated the grade was an extensive 8% and with the changes would be closer to 15 or 16% , which was a great improvement from what the Maceys had been living. Chairman Stotz stated he noticed the plans stated that the exterior trim was to match the existing exterior. Mr. Mulcahy replied the contractor had found the son of the original contractor who originally did the plaster on the exterior . He stated they were going to do a conventional plaster job that was metal lath with plaster. Chairman Stotz asked if there had been any discussions with the neighbors , the Demmings . Mr . Mulcahy responded he did not know . He stated he did talk with the lady who lived across the street and that he had not talked to the Demmings . They had been working on the project for quite sometime and he would be surprised if the Maceys had not talked to them . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the project did not put the addition any closer to the existing buildings than was permitted . • Planner Balestra asked how the entrance way to the proposed garage would be . Mr. Mulcahy responded that it was uncertain . What they were trying to do was to keep the current curb cut, and their hope is to move the driveway to the right, then have a turn out . The addition created level space between the curb house and the street where they have never had any. He stated that unless they had a surveyor, it was difficult to tell . At some point, they might have to reevaluate if it did not work. Attorney Barney asked how certain Mr . Mulcahy was about the seven foot highway right-of- way line . Mr. Mulcahy stated he based it on the survey and did it with a scale . That was the only way he could see to do it . He stated he was certain that it was not five feet , but he had done it dimensionally based on the survey . The drawing that he submitted as a Site Plan was actually a copy of a site survey. Chairman Stotz asked if there were any person present to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : • Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ofAppeals -.JUNE 10, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED • PAGE 3 Planner Balestra stated there were some concerns given the significant slope of the area . The major concern was basically concerning the stream because that seemed to be where the deepest slope was in relation to the garage and addition . The staff recommended that there be sediment and erosion control . Silt fencing and straw bales would help to mitigate the possible effects of erosion . Planner Balestra stated that there was a vegetative buffer in the front of the house . She asked that when the driveway was reconfigured , that the loss of vegetation be kept to a minimum . Planner Balestra stated that the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the staff proposed a negative determination of environmental significance . Mr. Mulcahy stated that there was shrubbery between the road and the house , He felt the Maceys would welcome trying to maintain the shrubbery and the vegetative barrier. If some of the vegetation was compromised , he thought the Maceys would want to replace it . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Jon Macey, requesting a special approval at 28 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17-3 -27 , Residence District R- 15 , to be permitted to extend a non conforming building/lot. The extension involves a two story addition and garage on the south side of the existing home . • A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz, Sigel . NAYS : None . ABSTENTION : None . The motion carried unanimously , Chairman Stotz stated he had a question on the interior, that there was a bedroom , sitting room , and a bedroom , and asked if anything else was anticipated . Mr. Mulcahy responded the Maceys had a young family and most of his projects involved this sort of set up , a family room , a master bedroom , and a master bathroom on top . The only thing that was different was the sitting room and that was their personal preference . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the Maceys were building a room in the existing garage . Mr. Mulcahy answered there was some work in the existing garage . In order to go from the existing basement to the new basement, they were going to have to cut the slab and drop that floor • so they would have more ceiling height . The other side of the corridor was made into storage . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ofAppeals - ,JUNE 10, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED • PAGE 4 Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated it was a two part special approval , one for the house and the other for the garage . The special would be for a non conforming use and a special approval waiving the ordinance that would allow them to put a garage five feet from the roadway where the slope exceeds 8% . Attorney Barney stated he felt the garage and the additions could be in one resolution . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Kirk Sigel , RESOLVED , that this board grant the appeal of Jon Macey, requesting a special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town cf Ithaca Zoning Ordinance at 28 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17- 3 -27 , be permitted to add a two story addition on the south side of the existing family residence with a front yard building set back of no closer than 13 feet from the road right-of-way whereas 25 feet set back is required . Also requesting a special approval under Article IV, Section 13 to build a garage set back of no closer than 6 feet from the road right-of-way where the natural slope in the ground is greater than 80/6 with the following special conditions : a , That sediment control provisions be made satisfactory to the Enforcement Officer of the Town Engineer during the course of construction , and • b . The amount of vegetation removed be kept minimal , The vote resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz , Sigel , NAYS : None , ABSTENTION : None . The motion carried unanimously , The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Mickey Herzing, Appellant , requesting variances from Sections 4 . 02 - 2 , 5 . 03 - 1 , and 5 . 04- 6 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place three wall signs , a free standing sign up to 120 + /- square feet in area and 23 feet high , and two canopy sighs with 31 inch high lettering, located greater than 6 feet from a proposed new commercial building to be located at 1 103 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 -2 - 1 , - 2 , Business District C . Said sign law would limit the signage to a maximum of only 4 signs , with two wall signs , a freestanding sign with a 50 foot maximum area , and a 20 foot maximum height , and any canopy signs being within 6 feet of a building, with canopy sign lettering not exceeding 6 inches in height . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals -,JUNE 10, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED • PAGE 5 Michael Herzing, Big AI 's 1 103 Danby Road , stated he was unsure if the board was familiar with the letter Director of Building and Zoning Frost sent him on May 11 , 1998 , regarding each of the signs . He stated he could state each issue directly . Some of the things had changed since the approval of the Planning Board . Item number one on the signs , two on the north and one on the west, was something he was trying to get approved . Item number two , the free standing sign of 119 feet had been reduced . There are two interpretations , with the poles it would be total square footage of 85 square feet and without the poles almost 65 square feet. The sign was similar to what was presently on East Hill Plaza , Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Herzing if he was trying to meet BP 's standards . Mr, Herzing stated they did not meet their standards and he had to ask them to reduce their standards for him , which they did do . The Planning Board readily accepted that as opposed to the first proposal . Item number three , the canopy over the gasoline pumps had two BP signs that were 31 inches high . He stated he paid close attention to canopies , and gas pumps , but he requirement was a 6 inch sign which to put on a canopy between 14- 17 feet high would not be seen . So two 31 inch BP signs for the canopy . In the last paragraph , Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated in that the Town of Ithaca Sign Law defined a canopy as a free standing structure over gas pumps . It did not make adequate provision to allow for a gas station and canopy signs . Mr. Herzing stated he agreed with Director of Building and Zoning Frost in interpreting the law. He felt he was not asking • for anything out of the ordinary as far as his type of business. The Town of Ithaca 's Zoning Ordinance would clearly exempt support posts from the sign area . If the support post ran the full height of the sign , he would exclude that from the area . He stated from his original picture it looked as if the rectangle was sitting on support posts with the support posts ending at the bottom . The posts were the full height . If the board felt the posts were separate , then he would exclude them . Mr. Krantz asked if they should regard it as a 65 square foot sign . Attorney Barney stated he misunderstood . He wondered if the 65 and 85 square feet included the full length of the posts . Mr. Herzing responded that was strictly from the top of the sign to the ground . One of the differences was that BP made their signs differently. BP had what they called a sign wrap which was where the posts did go up the side of the sign , but the posts were wrapped in plastic. The posts go the full length , but they were wrapped . That is where the difference in square footage was . Director of Building and Zoning Frost state the visual impact would be the same . Chairman Stotz stated he was not clear on the signing of the canopy, and asked how it would be situated on the canopy . • Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals -,JUNE 10, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED • PAGE 6 Mr. Herzing presented a picture of the canopy to the board and showed them where the BP would be placed on the canopy. He stated BP dictated where the lettering would be , where the best visibility was . Chairman Stotz stated his concern was if the lit sign were facing East King Road , people would object to it. Mr . Herzing stated he would give whatever input he could to BP to get it more towards Danby Road . Chairman Stotz asked if the signs on the building would be lit . Mr. Herzing replied the signs on the building were vinyl on a metal facia . Chairman Stotz opened and closed the public hearing as there were no persons present to be heard . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Planner Balestra stated the Planning Staff recommended a negative determination . She also stated she had passed around pictures of the East Hill Citgo and the modified BP sign that the Planning • Board recommended . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated there was three gas stations in the Town of Ithaca and all three properties have had variances for their signing. Chairman Stotz stated that the price and BP signs were going to be lit . He asked Mr. Herzing what his operating hours were . Mr. Herzing stated his current hours were 6 : 00 a . m . to 12 : 00 a . m . during the week , and 6 : 00 a . m , to 1 : 00 a . m , on the weekend . Chairman Stotz asked if the lights would be off after hours . Mr. Herzing responded the lights would be off after business hours . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Ronald Krantz . RESOLVED that the board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Michael Herzing, requesting special approval at 1 103 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 -2- 11 -2 Business District C . Be permitted to place three wall signs , a free standing sign up to 85 + /- feet, and two canopy signs with 31 inch lettering , from Sections 4. 02 -2 , 5 . 03 - 1 , and 5 . 04- 6 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals -JUNE 10, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED • PAGE 7 The vote resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz , Sigel . NAYS : None . ABSTENTION : None , Chairman Stotz asked if there were smaller signs on the canopy that said BP . Mr, Herzing stated it was similar to the Sunoco that he had presently , There were two Sunoco diamonds on the canopy, and East Hill Citgo had three 36 inch signs on the canopy. It does seem big, but when it is 14- 17 feet in the air, it does not seem that high . The point he wanted to make was Citgo had three signs on their canopy and were bigger. Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated a canopy was defined in the sign law as a free standing structure over gasoline pumps . Then to have a sign with 6 inch lettering does not make sense . When the sign law was written , we did not give a lot of thought to that . Mr. Ellsworth asked what kind of signage Sam Peters had . • Mr . Herzing stated he had an awning along the front of the building, and also a free standing sign out front . Mr. Krantz stated that there were two other gas stations in the Town of Ithaca that had similar signs that had been granted approval , Chairman Stotz stated it fit into the commercial area . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the board grant the appeal of Michael Herzing, requesting variances from Sections 4 . 02- 11 5 . 03 - 1 , and 5 . 04- 6 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, be permitted to place three wall signs , one free standing sign of up to 85 square feet , including support structures , and not to exceed 20 feet in height, two canopy signs with 31 inch or less high lettering, located greater than 6 feet from a proposed new commercial building to be located at 1 103 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 -2- 1 , -2 , Business District C , and with the following: I . The signs remain unlit after business hours , and 2 . The BP signs on the canopy be placed in a way to have minimal visual impact from East King Road . • The motion resulted as follows : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals -JUNE 10, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED • PAGE 8 AYES : Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz, Sigel . NAYS : None . ABSTENTION : None . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the board needed to discuss the Montessori School 's desire to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Attorney Barney stated he had received a call from the father of the student they were honoring. Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated their initial request to him was they wanted to come back to the board . After much discussion with the school , he informed them that unless they presented him with some information that indicated there was new information to be considered , there was a slim chance to have the decision reversed , Chairman Stotz stated the architect called him twice and he asked them if there were substantial changes from the appeal they had presented before . Apparently the only changes at this point were that the sign was not lit, lower to the ground and that the sign was closer to the building. He stated he had some concerns about the board making a decision only to have it come back to the • board , but it would slow the board down if they had to rehear appeals . Attorney Barney stated the law stated they could make an application for a rehearing . The board does not have to rehear the appeal , and if there is a basis for a rehearing, there has to be an unanimous vote . It depends upon what the board wants to do . He felt they were suffering when they came before the Zoning Board of Appeals because the two people who really knew something about it could not be present , Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated he had received a call from them stating that they were having a dedication , and were putting the sign out, and that they had already made the signs . He informed them that he did not have a problem for them putting the sign up for the time of the dedication , but he expected them to take down the sign , Director of Building and Zoning Frost explained the school wanted him to come up the Sunday of the dedication and look at the sign . They wanted him to see how nice it was and report back to the Zoning Board of Appeals of how the sign looked . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated that after talking wit the Planning Department, he could not give the school the building permit as long as they had the sign up in violation of the sign law . Mr. Ellsworth asked Attorney Barney what his thoughts were . Attorney Barney stated he had to remember that night the board had sat through three prior hearings and every single one of them did not present their case very well . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals -,JUNE 10, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED • PAGE 9 Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the board had to look at the finding they made as to why they denied it. Mr. Krantz stated that in his mind the sign was unintrusive , and attractive , secondly there was Big AI 's around the corner who had many signs . It makes him nervous when the school throws in the safety factor . He stated he did not see where having those signs would make much of a difference . Chairman Stotz stated given the design of the sign and the fact that it was Montessori , he would love to give them a break . What he was concerned about was setting precedents . Attorney Barney stated each case was unique . Depending on how the board wanted to construe it, he could make a good argument in this case in saying they were near a commercial zone , and that fact it was a school use . Those were all unique factors that probably would not be in respect to another application . Attorney Barney stated he felt that it was not a precedence . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated he felt it would be more positive if the board heard it again . On the other hand , he felt the board needed to look at why they had denied it in the first place . If the school was proposing something different, that would make the board reverse their decision . • Chairman Stotz stated the school did bring up the rationale that it was in close proximity to a commercial zone and other signs . He felt the board did consider that in making their decision . Mr. Sigel stated that the only reason that the board could change their reasoning would be safety. In moving the sign Farther away , or lower to the ground was essentially the same application the board denied . If the school could present new evidence on safety, Mr. Sigel felt that would be a ligament reason . Mr. Ellsworth stated the signs did not stand out , and that you really had to look for them . The signs were back away from the road , and unless you were really looking for them , they were not noticeable . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the safety issue , there already was the big yellow signs that let drivers know it was a school zone . Mr. Sigel stated the Montessori School sign was a hazard . He felt that if a driver was to turn to look at the school 's sign , the driver was not looking at the road . The signs were a detriment to safety. Director of Building and Zoning Frost asked if Chairman Stotz could read what the findings were so that the board could understand what they were considering. . Chairman Stotz read from the May 13 , 1998 minutes the motions made by the board on the Montessori School signs . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals - .JUNE 10, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED • PAGE 10 Mr. Sigel stated the board sort of got themselves in trouble with the first resolution , if one sign was safe , two signs were safer. Mr. Ellsworth stated their rationale was the school made their point with one over sized sign . They did not see any reason for two oversized signs , Chairman Stotz stated the board must have an unanimous vote to rehear the appeal . Attorney Barney stated he thought that it was `our votes . If the board did or did not rehear the appeal then they probably would not appeal . Mr. Sigel stated a better reason for them to ask for a rehearing was that they did not have good representation . Attorney Barney stated that was what their concern was , they did not have a chance to give it their best shot . MOTION made by David Stotz , seconded by Rorald Krantz . RESOLVED that the board permit a rehearing of the Appeal of the Montessori School for the • placement of the sign at the Annex Building. The vote resulted as follows : AYES : Stott, Ellsworth , Krantz , Sigel , NAYS : None , ABSTENTION : None . Chairman Stotz adjourned the meeting at 8 : 05 p . m . Carrie L . Coates , Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder, David Stctz , Chairman , • FINAL • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1998 7 :00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, June 10, 1998, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M. on the following matters: APPEAL of Jon Macey, Appellant/Owner, Vincent Mulcahy, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to extend a non conforming building/lot at 28 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-27, Residence District R45 . Said extension involves a two-story building addition and garage on the south side of an existing single-family residence, which has a front yard building setback of 14 ± feet from the road right-of-way line (25 foot setback required). Authorization under Article IV, Section 13 is also requested to permit the garage to be 7 + feet from the road right-of--way line, in a location where the natural slope of the ground is greater than 8%. APPEAL of Mickey Herzing, Appellant, requesting variances from Sections 4.02-2, 5.03- 1 , and 5 .04-6 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to be permitted to place three wall signs, a free standing sign up to 120 ± square feet in area and 23 feet high, and two canopy signs with 31 inch high lettering, located greater than 6 feet from a proposed new commercial building to be located at 1103 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-2- 1 , -2, Business District C. Said sign law would limit the signage to a maximum of only 4 signs, with two wall signs, a freestanding sign with a 50 foot maximum area, and a 20 foot maximum height, and any canopy signs being within 6 feet of a building, with canopy sign lettering not exceeding 6 inches in height. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S. Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273- 1783 Dated: June 3, 1998 Publish : June 5, 1998 • TOWN OF ITHACA • AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of public hearinis to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of tmeals in Town Hall 126 East Seneca Street. Ithaca, New York on Wednesday. June 10, 1998 , commencing at 7: 00 RM. . as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Bulletin board , front entrance of Town Hall Date of posting: June 3, 1998 Date of publication: June S. 1998 Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning D artment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOWKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 5th day of June, 1998, Notary Pu ic I Mary J. Saxton Notary Public; State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified in Tioga Co my s My Commission Expire •