Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2001-01-22 FILE �� ° Pal DATE .2j2SjQL. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JANUARY 22 , 2001 7 ; 00 PM APPEAL of Deirdre P . Anderson , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to extend a non - conforming building on a non -conforming building lot at 20 Renwick Heights Raod , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17-3-30 , Residence District R - 15 . Said extension involves enclosing approximately 50 square feet of an open deck and porch area on an existing single-family residence , which is located 4 ± feet from the south side property line , whereas a 15 foot setback is required . The building lot is loess than the required 15 , 000 square foot area . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of the Tompkins County Trust Company , Appellant , Phillip Albrecht , Egner Architectural Associates , LLC , Agent , requesting variances from Article VII , Section 38 and Article XIII , Section 69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit parking of vehicles within a required side yard and front yard and from Sections 5 . 03- 1 and 5 . 03-4 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the placement of a three-sided frestanding sign in an area other than the front yard (whereas only a two- sided sign is permitted ) , at the East Hill Plaza branch office located at 1012 Ellis Hollow Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62-2 - 1 . 21 , Business District "C' . APPEAL GRANTED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JANUARY 22 , 2001 7 : 00 PM PRESENT : Kirk Sigel , Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; David Stotz , Board Member; Ronald Krantz , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andy Frost , Director of Building/Zoning ; John Barney , Attorney for the Town ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Deirdre Anderson , 20 Renwick Heights Drive ; Larry Sharpsteen , 1057 Auburn Road ; Phillip Albrecht , 115 Troy Road ; Anton Egner, 205 Elmwood Ave ; Doug Clero , 95 Brown Road . Chairperson Sigel led the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p . m . , stating that all posting , publication , and notifications of the public hearings had been completed . The first appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Deirdre P . Anderson , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to extend a non - conforming building on a non-conforming building lot at 20 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 17-3 -30 , Residence District R- 15 . Said extension involves enclosing approximately 50 square feet of an open deck and porch area on an existing. single-family residence , which is located 4 ± feet from the south side property line , whereas a 15-foot setback is required . The building lot is less than the required 15 , 000 square foot area . Larry Sharpsteen , 1057 Auburn Road — I am the contractor for the project. Ms . Anderson 's proposal is to enclose the deck on the existing footprint of the house to enlarge her kitchen . It encloses approximately 50 square feet of an existing deck. The plans are to insulate the area and provide a new stair on the back of the deck to replace the access to the north end of the deck . The existing entrance is eliminated by enclosing the kitchen addition . This is before the board because it is a non - conforming lot . The south side of the house is within 4 feet of the property line . The proposed enclosure is located on the west side of the property . The existing deck will remain on the south side and the north side of the kitchen . Chairperson Sigel — The modification is not located on the portion of the house that is only 4 feet from the property line . Mr. Sharpsteen — The south wall of the kitchen extension would be about 22 feet from the property line . Mr. Stotz — The existing roofline will remain . What is going to support the kitchen ? Mr. Sharpsteen — The framing under the deck will support the kitchen . Mr. Stotz — Would the kitchen walls extend beyond the deck? Mr. Sharpsteen — No . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 JANUARY 22 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Stotz — Have the neighbors commented on the proposed addition ? Ms . Anderson — No . The plan has been discussed with the neighbors on either side of my house . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:09 p. m. With no persons to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7: 10 p. m. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Smith — Staff recommends a negative determination of environmental significance . Resolution No. 2001 = 1 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT — Deirdre P. Anderson, 20 Renwick Heights Road, Tax Parcel Number 17-3-30, January 22, 2001 . MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Deirdre P. Anderson, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to extend a non-conforming building on a non-conforming building lot at 20 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-30, Residence District R- 15, based upon the environmental assessment completed by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department dated January 111 2001 . The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Krantz — This is a straightforward appeal . The applicant is enclosing the porch . Resolution No. 2001 -2 — Appeal of Deirdre P. Anderson, 20 Renwick Heights Road, Tax Parcel Number 17-3-30, January 22, 2001. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Deirdre P. Anderson, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to extend a non-conforming building on a non-conforming building lot at 20 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-30, Residence District R- 15. Said extension involves enclosing approximately 50 square feet of an open deck and porch area on an existing single-family residence and that said modification be done in accordance with plans submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This residence is located approximately 4 feet from the south property line, but this addition is on the west side of the non -conforming building, facing the back of the lot. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 JANUARY 22 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of the Tompkins County Trust Company, Appellant , Phillip Albrecht, Egner Architectural Associates , LLC , Agent , requesting variances from Article VII , Section 38 and Article XIII , Section 69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit parking of vehicles within a required side yard and front yard and from Sections 5 . 03- 1 and 5 . 03-4 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the placement of a three-sided frestanding sign in an area other than the front yard (whereas only a two- sided sign is permitted ) , at the East Hill Plaza branch office located at 1012 Ellis Hollow Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62 -2- 1 . 21 , Business District "C" . Chairperson Sigel — The plan as submitted by the Tompkins County Trust Company (TCTC ) has been modified . Mr. Frost — Yes . The freestanding sign has been changed . The base and the top of the sign now have structures . The Planning Board recommendation for approval was based on the blueprint . It is not based on the drawing handout given to the Zoning Board this evening . Phillip Albrecht , 115 Troy Road — The sketch sign varies slightly from the sign presented to the Planning Board . The sign 's base and top has been changed . The sign has become smaller. Each face is 15 square feet . Mr. Stotz — What are the implications if this is a different sign than what was presented and approved by the Planning Board ? Chairperson Sigel — The board could make the argument that the sign is smaller. The previous sign was 33 square feet on each sign . Attorney Barney — The board could approve the new sign . The approval should be conditioned on the applicant obtaining approval from the Planning Board on the new sign . Mr. Stotz — The issue is that the sign is a three-sided sign . Mr. Frost — Would the Planning Board still need to review the sign as part of the site plan review? Attorney Barney — The entire site plan is subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board . Chairperson Sigel — Is it reasonable for the board to approve the application subject to Planning Board approval ? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 JANUARY 22 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - FEBRUARY26, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney — Yes . Mr. Albrecht — Could the board approve the original sign and the new sign be conditionally approved ? Attorney Barney — I do not think the board has a problem with the three-faced sign . The problem is this is a different sign than what was approved by the Planning Board . The new sign is much more attractive . The board could choose to grant the variance for the three-sided sign conditional on Planning Board site plan approval . Mr. Stotz — The three-sided sign is being used to notify traffic coming from both directions on Ellis Hollow Road as well as traffic within the East Hill Plaza . Mr. Albrecht — The sign would not be seen if it were facing Ellis Hollow Road until you were directly by the site . It would be difficult to read from a distance . Mr. Stotz — Has there been any discussion about the possibility of locating the sign in another location ? Is it possible to locate the sign where it presently exists and still have the sign be seen from Ellis Hollow Road ? Mr. Albrecht — The sign would become further and further away from Ellis Hollow Road . The property is 100 feet from the road . There are trees growing around the existing sign . Different locations have been explored . This is the best location for the sign . Mr. Stotz — The sign fits in with the character of the shopping center. Did Burger King make a request to have a sign in front , on Ellis Hollow Road ? Attorney Barney — The Planning Board was happier with the sign in its current location . Mr. Smith — Burger King originally proposed a 25 -foot high sign and it was reduced to 20 feet high . Attorney Barney — There was some discussion about the location of the sign . Mr. Krantz — The normal rules do not apply regarding what is a front yard and what is a side yard . It is a unique situation . Mr. Frost — The definition of a yard is based upon frontage on a public way . We determined the driveways of East Hill Plaza to be a public way . There appears to be multiple front yards to this property since it is served by at least three public ways . Chairperson Sigel — Would the existing freestanding sign remain ? Mr. Albrecht — Yes . Mr. Frost — I thought the existing freestanding sign was being removed . I do not know if two freestanding signs are allowed . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 JANUARY 22 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Albrecht — The Planning Board requested the electrical drawing be changed . It read that the existing sign would be removed . The architectural drawings indicated the sign would remain . There is an ordinance that does allow for a second freestanding sign . Mr. Frost — Two freestanding signs are permitted if there is vehicular traffic on more than one street . Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Albrecht , could you give the board an overview of the project? Mr. Albrecht — The bank is expanding their building . They wanted an entrance with a vestibule . The current bank has a very small lobby . The bank also wanted to change their image . The building is a prefab , engineered bank building . The idea is to make the building more residential in nature . A peak roof will be added to the structure . The bank desired to add more service at the branch . An office has been added within the addition . Customers were needing to park within the Plaza parking lot and walk to the bank . The bank needs a few more parking spaces in order to serve their customers . Mr. Stotz — There currently is not enough parking to serve the customers . Many people are parking on the grass . Mr. Ellsworth — Why is the second freestanding sign needed ? Mr. Albrecht — We are adding a new roof that is making the building higher. The trees are also growing up around the existing sign . The sign will eventually be hidden by the trees . We would like to keep the existing sign . The bank would be willing to remove the existing sign . Mr. Stotz — Would the sign be lit? Mr. Albrecht — Yes . It is a backlit sign . Mr. Stotz — Would the sign be lit during the night ? Mr. Albrecht — I do not know . The floodlights are being removed . Additional pole site lighting will be installed . The new lighting is down lighting . Landscaping is being added to give separation from the parking lot to the north . Mr. Stotz — I am concerned about other businesses in the Plaza . The reason for the second sign is to make the bank known to traffic on Ellis Hollow Road . This opens the door for other businesses to make an application for a second freestanding sign . Chairperson Sigel — With the Burger King application , the board had to consider that the site had road frontage on two public ways . The board could determine that the bank has frontage on two public ways , then they are allowed to have two signs . Burger King had frontage on Ellis Hollow Road , Mr. Stotz — The bank is a corner property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 JANUARY 22 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Albrecht — The bank has access on the access road and the internal loop road of the Plaza . Chairperson Sigel — Burger King used their second freestanding sign . They used their roof sign as their second freestanding sign . A canopy sign can be substituted for a freestanding sign . Mr . Stotz — Many people object to the proliferation of signs along roadways . This sign is well designed , but it is still lit . Mr. Albrecht — The amount of light coming from the site will be greatly reduced . Mr. Ellsworth — What is the highest point on the building ? Mr. Albrecht — I am not sure . The sign would be less than 10 feet higher than the building . The face of the sign is not 20 feet high . The peak of the shed over the sign is 20 feet . Chairperson Sigel — How effective is the panel facing the parking lot going to be ? The sign is on the other side of the building . Mr. Albrecht — The reason behind the three-faced sign was to angle the other two panels . Chairperson Sigel — There could be a three-faced structure , but only had signage on two faces . It would reduce the proliferation of signage . The blank panel could not be seen from any residences . I do not see a strong argument for it from an advertising point of view . Mr. Stotz — I thought the existing freestanding sign was going to be removed . The sign is partially blocked by the new plantings . Mr. Albrecht — The trees could possibly block the sign as they grow . The sign is currently above the trees . Chairperson Sigel — Will the new roof be a pitched roof? Mr. Albrecht — Yes . Chairperson Sigel — I assume the pitch of the roof is going to be about 15 feet . Mr. Smith — The height at the elevation is 21 feet . Chairperson Sigel — The third face of the sign would not been seen from the Plaza . I find it difficult to approve a three-sided sign if it does not serve a purpose . Would there need to be a variance if the third face was not a sign ? Attorney Barney — A two-sided sign is permitted . Chairperson Sigel — The applicant has proposed a small sign . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 JANUARY 22 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Krantz — The building and the trees are going to block portions of the sign . The sign is about one- third the original size . Mr. Albrecht — The bank wanted the size of the sign to be reduced . Mr. Stotz — Would the bank be willing to remove the existing sign in order to have the three-faced sign ? Mr. Albrecht — The bank indicated they would be willing to remove the existing sign to have the three- faced sign . Mr. Ellsworth — The trees are going to overgrow the existing sign . Chairperson Sigel — How does the board feel ? We have a potential trade-off. We could allow the three-sided sign in exchange for the existing freestanding sign to be removed . Mr. Krantz — It is reasonable . Mr. Albrecht — Could I work with the bank on deciding if they would like to remove the existing sign for the three-faced sign or we keep the existing sign and have a second two-faced sign ? Chairperson Sigel — We would need to make the decision tonight . We are not sure if angling the sign without a third face would be aesthetically attractive . Mr. Stotz — We need to address the parking . Mr. Albrecht — I have provided information showing that most of the parking is within the setback . Mr. Stotz — It is more in character with the neighborhood than having the parking on the other side of the building . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:50 p. m. With no persons to be heard, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7:51 p. m. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Mr. Smith — The parking and the sign are in character with the neighborhood . The area is zoned for business . The Comprehensive Plan designates the area for commercial and business . Mr. Krantz — The project is improving the environment and the aesthetics of the property . Resolution Number 2001 =3 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT — Tompkins County Trust Company, 1012 Ellis Hollow Road, Tax Parcel Number 62-24 .21 , January 22, 2001 . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by David Stotz. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 JANUARY 22 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of the Tompkins County Trust Company, requesting variances from Article VII, Section 38 and Article Xlll, Section 69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit parking of vehicles within a required side yard and front yard and from Sections 5. 03- 1 and 5. 03-4 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the placement of a three-sided freestanding sign in an area other than the front yard (whereas only a two-sided sign is permitted), at the East Hill Plaza branch office located at 1012 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 . 21 , Business District "C; based upon the environmental assessment completed by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department dated January 12, 2001 . The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NA YS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Albrecht — The drawing that shows the parking is from the surveyors . The surveyors are showing the existing sign facing the two neighbors . The sign allows people within the Plaza to see the bank and be able to read that it is there . Chairperson Sigel — Is there a wall sign on that face of the building ? Mr. Albrecht — There are individual letters on the facade . It is not lit . The letters are located over the drive-through section of the building , not the section facing the Plaza . Chairperson Sigel — The letters are also mounted on two other walls . Mr. Albrecht — The letters are located on two sides of the canopy over the drive-through . It is not on the canopy facing the Plaza . Chairperson Sigel — The wall sign is shown facing the parking lot . The existing sign appears to be facing the same direction as the third panel of the proposed freestanding sign . I do not think it faces Burger King and CFCU . Mr. Albrecht — The sign would not be seen from the Plaza . The building is much higher and it is going to block the sign . Attorney Barney — The Planning Board opted not to require the existing freestanding sign to be removed . They required that the electrical plan showing the existing sign to remain . The Zoning Board of Appeals would be overriding a Planning Board recommendation . The Zoning Board can choose to do so . Mr. Stotz — The sign is going to be blocked by the trees at some point . There is a sign on the bank . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 JANUARY 22 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — The sign could be seen from some locations in the Plaza . The new roof height is higher than the sign . I was satisfied with the removal of the existing sign . I am less satisfied with the prospect of leaving the sign . I would not necessarily vote against the approval . The existing freestanding sign is two-sided . The applicant is permitted to put in an additional two-sided sign because they have entrances on two public ways . The three-sided sign is one side too many . Is it fair to eliminate the two-sided sign ? Mr . Stotz — The applicant has indicated that they would rather have one three-sided sign than having two signs with two sides . Chairperson Sigel — People are going to be able to identify the building as a bank . Mr. Stotz — Is the signage on the building flood lit ? Mr. Albrecht — No . They are not lit . They can only be seen during the day . The letters blend in with the building . Chairperson Sigel — The resolution needs to indicate that the sign built is the smaller sign presented to the board and it needs to be subject to Planning Board approval . Mr. Krantz — We need to think of the project as a whole . The applicant is making an effort for the building to fit into the site . The improvements will enhance the building . The sign is small . One more side is not going to cause a reaction . Mr. Stotz — I was not aware that the building would be higher than the sign . Resolution No. 20014 — VARIANCE = Tompkins County Trust Company, 1012 Ellis Hollow Road, Tax Parcel Number 62-24.21, January 22, 2001 . MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of the Tompkins County Trust Company, requesting variances from Article Vll, Section 38 and Article Xlll, Section 69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit parking of vehicles within a required side yard and front yard and from Sections 5. 03- 1 and 5. 03-4 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the placement of a three-sided freestanding sign in an area other than the front yard, at the East Hill Plaza branch office located at 1012 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 . 21 , Business District "C; based upon the following findings: 1 . This is a change that is in-keeping with the character of the neighborhood; and 2. The placement of the sign is such that it cannot be done in any other feasible way; and 3. The sign will not have an adverse impact upon the neighborhood considering this is a commercial area; and With the following conditions: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 JANUARY 22 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 1 . The applicant comply with the conditions of the Planning Board Resolution Number 2000- 106 dated December 19, 2000, 2. The sign be constructed as shown on plans presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and 3. The applicant obtain Planning Board approval on the sign presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: Ellsworth. The motion was declared to be carried. OTHER BUSINESS : Mr. Niefer — Mr. Stotz has been the chair of the Zoning Board for the last few years . I would like a resolution thanking and commending Mr. Stotz for his service as chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals . Resolution No. 2001 -5 — Resolution of Appreciation to David Stotz. MOTION made by James Niefer, seconded by Kirk Sigel. RESOLVED, that this board thanks and commends David Stotz for his service as chairperson of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the past several years. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Stotz. The motion was declared to be carried. Mr. Frost — We need to elect a vice-chairperson for the year 2001 . Resolution No. 2001 -6 - Nomination and Election of Zoning Board of Appeals Vice Chairperson 2001 . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by David Stotz. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals does hereby nominate and elect Harry Ellsworth as Vice Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2001 . FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 JANUARY 22 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Stotz, Frantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Ellsworth. The motion was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8 : 11 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chairperson OR A k-'bm tAn "U Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001 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 Monday, January 22, 2001 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, N.Y., COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M., on the following matters: APPEAL of Deirdre P. Anderson, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to extend a non-conforming building on a non- conforming building Iot at 20 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-30, Residence District R- 15. Said extension involves enclosing approximately 50 square feet of an open deck and porch area on an existing single-family residence, which is located 4 ± feet from the south side property line, whereas a 15 foot setback is required. The building lot is less than the required 15,000 square foot area. APPEAL of the Tompkins County Trust Company, Appellant, Phillip Albrecht, Egner Architectural Associates, LLC, Agent, requesting variances from Article VII, Section 38 and Article XIII, Section 69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit parking of vehicles within a required side yard and front yard and from Sections 5.03- 1 and 5 .03- 4 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the placement of a three-sided freestanding sign in an area other than the front yard (whereas only a two-sided sign is permitted), at the East Hill Plaza branch office located at 1012 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 .21 , Business District "C." 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: January 10, 2001 Published: January 17, 2001 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 hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on Monday, January 22, 2001 , commencing at 7 : 00 P. M ., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of posting: January 10, 2001 Date of publication: January 17, 2001 y C - ) cl�xu a �a ')rr/c Co. Dani L. Holford, Builling and Zoning Departm I R�Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 10th day of January 10, 2001 . Notary Public .DEBORAH KELLEY Notary -Public, State of New York No. 01KE6025073 oualif ed In Schuyler Ma 97u20 g.�. Commission Exp Y