Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1983-11-29 R� MINUTES PLANTING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING November 29, 1983 PRESENT: Chairman P. Rogers, M. Sampson, B. Romanowski, H. Gerkin. ALSO: Appellants, Appellants' representatives, H.M. Van Cort, other interested persons,. press. . . . . . . . . . 1. Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. 2. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: It was moved by Romanowski, seconded by Sampson to open'the meeting for a Public Hearing re: Final Approval of the Ceracche Subdivision, 515 W. Seneca Street. PASSED 4-0. Van Cort reported that all the conditions for variance approval____ have been complied with re�yardinv_ the -applicationof _A_.- -- Ceracche for subdivision approval. Preliminary approval hacl been granted last month. Romanowski MOVED, SECONDED by Gerkin, to grant final approval of the subdivision. PASSED 4-0. 3. Approval of Minutes: Gerkin MOVED, SECONDED by Romanowski, to approved the October 25, 1983 Minutes. PASSED 4-0. 4. Privilege of the Floor: None. S. Cony=ications: Glenn Goldwyn, Administrator of the Community Development Program, and Kathe Evans, Community Development Planner, reported on their progress to prepare a Jobs Bill Application for Common Council approval. The purpose of the Jobs Bill program is to assist pockets of unemployment. Goldwyn ex- plained that two economic development projects emerged as primary candidates for the application from the approximately fifteen under consideration throughout the past several months: XCP, Inc. , of Dryden and Ithaca .Calendar Clock/ Cabinet Company, located on Taughannock Blvd. The direction of the Jobs Bill program had changed significantly from one of emphasizing public works kinds of projects to economic development once HUD established their final guidelines. f MINUTES Planning and Development Board November 29, 1983 page 2: XCP has indicated that. they.were not prepared to make a re- location.decision in time for the December 15th deadline, Ithaca. Calendar Clock/Cabinet Company was. judged to be a strong.application, although Ithaca may .fare .less well than other HUD competitors due to HUD's use of our umemployment rate as a major ranking index for the program. It is .estimated_that the firm needs. .approximately $108,000 for rehabilitation.and design .services. The IURA decided that it would offer .$27,500 ,in`a`matching grant, offer .free design services, and provide a 57o, 20-year loan of. $75,500. The owner will make major improvements immediately,.. and this project will provide 12 short-term construction jobs, and, more importantly, five new permanent J6 Romanowski questioned how much effort had been made to make this general public knowledge,. and if other small businesses who could possibly;.have .been included. in the consideration process would feel slighted. Evans explained that the government had not provided .adequate lead time to .the Department as staff ` would.have .liked. Romanowski stressed that he would like to see amore thorough..effort to make such programs general public knowledge, and that it should be made clear that most of the.money involved is the"form of a loan which had to be secured. Sampson, SECONDED by Romanowski, MOVED to recommend the Jobs Bill .Application be : submitted by the Board to Common Council o December. 7,,_1983. ----` 8. Director's Report: Van Cort submitted a memo from Tom Hoard, Building Commissioner, dated October 31 (attached) regarding an alleged junkyard in the 400 }flock of Spencer Road. The issue was. brought to. the Board'sattention at the October meeting. Mr... Hoard indicated in the .memD.that the Building Department most likely cannot do any- thing about. the: situation at present except monitor it. A letter directed .to the Planning Board from Mark S.. Zaharis and Peter E. Zaharis waspresented by Van Cort. It expressed their concerns regarding Route 96 construction, including that _ it would cause major disruption in the West End; and questioned __— why there had been no public discussion of the issue during the planning.phase. (attached).. Van Cort stated that Route 96 has been discussed publically at many meetings, and will again be in .the future. The drawings of the project are available in the Planning Department Office for viewing, but are too costly to , reproduce for general distribution. MINUTES Planning and Development Board November 29,, 1983 page .3. . Collegetown.Re-zoning was discussed. At present, Collegetown has three zones: Pl (City. Parking), B2a, : and B2b. B2b has no parking requirements, and.business development has occurred. without adequate parkiig aaccaTm- dations While the City in working with. Cornell and. Stirling &..Wilford on an Urban.Design. Study'..for.Collegetown,: ., and desired to.have this study completed be-fore.-re-zoning, it is. necessary to proceed.without..it since the UDAG funding .cycle requires such re-zoning,b J� ebruar_y._ Gerkin questioned:what:. would: happen to_o_the_r B2b zoning in___ the City, Van Cort re--emphasized..that. this would be for. the Collegetown. area only. Romanowski asked .how..the new zoning would change ,parking.requirements. . 'Van Cort. stated.that Collegetown parking had been. thoroughly .studied .in relation, to the PAC project, and specific requirements would :be in- corporated.into the re-zoning.. Ed Clement and Tom Hanna,... members of the East Hill Civic Association spoke to the Board. The Association has been interested for. some time in putting a moratorium on the B2b. zoning in Collegetown, and is pleased:to recormlend-that. the re--zoning.occur.. Van Cort recommended that the issue be referred to the.Codes and Administration Committee of the Planning and Development Board. . Re-zoning will likely. come before the Commn Council for a vote in January or February. 9. . ZONING APPEALS: See attached. 10. New Business: -- Property Acquisition for Public.Works A memo from Jack Doughtery concerning Public Work acquisition of a property just .coming on the market was referred ,to the Codes and Administration.Conmittee for a ,future recommendation to the Board. 11. Old Business: None. 12 Adjournment: Gerkin, SECONDED by Romanowski, MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 10 PM. Motion PASSED UNANIMOUSLY aph:12/8/83 r Planning and Development Board ZONING APPEALS November 29, 1983 The order in which the zoning appeals were heard was Sign Appeal 12-1-83, Sign Appeal 12-2-83, Appeal 1529, Appeal 1532, Appeal 1533 and Appeal 1534. SIGN APPEAL 12-1-83: Appeal of Herkimer Petroleum Products for a sign variance to permit erection of a free-standing sign within the minimum setback require- ments, at 214 N. Meadow St. (former EXXON Service Station, now SUNOCO). The property is in a B-4 district in which the use is permitted; however, the applicant must obtain a variance to. place. the sign closer to the front prop- erty lines than permitted by the Ordinance. APPELLANT COMMENT: Michael B. Albin presented the case for Herkimer Petroleum Products We wish to replace the former (EXXON) sign with a standard SUNOCO sign. This will be mounted in the same position that the previous sign has occupied for over ten (10) years. Compliance with Paragraph 34.8 of "Sign Ordinance" of the City of Ithaca (August 3, 1977 revision calls for a ten (10) ft. setback from street right-of- way), would have a serious negative .impact upon our business, as prospective customers must recognize the nature of our business in advance of traffic signal, due to: (1) Congestion and confusion of traffic flow upon signal change. For safety's sake, drivers would signal in advance of station their inten- tions to (i) seek directions, (ii) gas up, or (iii) correct vehicle problems; rather than turn abruptly as they pass driveway entrance and recognize station's presence; (2) Main building sets back approx. seventy-five (75) feet from roadway, lessening its visibility; and (3) Massive presence of Joe's Restaurant and building frontage on same side, creates an obstruction to visibility of our facility. It was further stated that the sign would be stationary, and that the 10-ft. setback ordinance would also create traffic circulation problems on the gas station site itself. STAFF RECOM'vIIIVDA- TIONS: Denial. There is adequate open area to permit the sign to be erected in a conforming location, and ample unobstructed frontage for a conforming sign to be seen far down any of the intersecting streets. Moving the sign back could also improve visibility at the corner. The staff recommends that the sign be brought into conformity with the {Ordinance. B. Romanowski, seconded by M. Sampson moved to RECOMMEND TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. Passed 4-0. Planning and Development Board ZONING APPEALS November 29, 1983n 2 --- SIGN APPEAL 12-2-83: Appeal of Wyoming Realty Company for a sign variance to permit erection of a free-standing sign larger than the maximum permitted in a residential zone at 302 W. Seneca St. (former Gulf Self-Service Station; proposed for convenience store), The property is in an R-3b dis- trict, and appellant is applying for special permit for the proposed use. Appellant must also obtain a sign variance for the proposed sign before a sign permit can be issued. (See related Appeal 1529.below:) APPEAL 1529: Appeal of Gulf Oil Corporation for a Special Permit and an Area Variance to permit construction of an addition to the existing building at 302 W. Seneca St. and to permit use of the former Gulf gaso- line station at that location for a convenience store in addition to a self-service gasoline station. . The property is in an R-3b district where a convenience store is permitted only under special permit issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The existing gasoline station was permitted under a use variance (#562) issued in 1962; a gasoline station is not otherwise permitted in a residential use district. The appellant must obtain a vari- ance for the front yard setback before a building permit can be issued for the addition, and must show that all the conditions for a special permit will be met before the Board can issue a special permit for the proposed use. This appeal was held over from the November meeting at the request of the appellant. PLANNING ISSUES: Land Use: Gas station permitted vy valid variance; convenience store requires permit if found compatible. Economic: Would increase tax return to City; increase job opportunities; could negatively affect other convenience and grocery store businesses. Traffic/ Circulation: Likely to attract increased traffic, including pedestrians from the nearby schools. Neighborhood Effects: Increased commercial activity may detract from residential properties in vicinity. Visual Quality: Design of proposed addition is unknown, but bulk is likely to impinge on neighbor- ing properties significantly. Social: Depending on type of foods and beverages offered for sale, and on whether store will provide tables and chairs, or other attractions such as games, store may become a gathering place. 0 Planning and Development Board ZONING APPEALS November 29, 1983 p.3 SIGN APPEAL 12-2-83 and APPEAL 1529 .were discussed together since they related directly to the same property. John Ward, attorney, represented Wyoming Realty Company and Gulf Oil Corp. , the appellant. Mr.. Fox and Mr. Serba, representatives of .Wyoming Realty, were present for questions. A variance to the Sign Ordinance was requested for the following reasons: (1) Strict Application of the Ordinance would produce undue hardship because: a) Sale by Gulf Oil to Wyoming Realty is contingent on Zoning Application approval. b) Neighboring competition have substantially larger signs. c) Would not be able to identify business location. (2) The hardship created -is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because: East. side of Albany Street is in different zone, and existing businesses have signs substantially larger than the permitted 5 square feet. Existing businesses are immediately across Albany Street and diagonally across Seneca Street. 13) The variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance and would not change*the character of the district because: a) Property previously was Gulf Gas Station with signs -of approximately sarre size as requested. , ti) Commercial signs are already located at:'this intersection, including existing sign at this location. c) Proposed signs will be softer in appearance than . the previous Calf orange. The reasons for Appeal 1529 are as follows: WYOMING REALTY, INC . has entered into a Purchase Offer Agree- ment with GULF OIL CORPORATION for the purchase of 302-304 West Seneca Street , Ithaca, New York. This offer is contingent upon the Buyer ' s ability to obtain a special permit to operate a convenience food store in conjunction with a self-service gas operation. The corporation will be doing business under the name SUGAR CREEK STORES which currently has some 32 locations in operation in southern and western New York State . Planning and Development .Board ZONING APPEALS November 29, 1983 p.4 Because SUGAR CREEK STORES wish to expand the operation at this location beyond. that of a service station, a special permit is required. SUGAR CREEK STORES sell an extensive line of grocery products, health and beauty aids , dairy products , frozen foods , beverages, snacks , sandwiches and baked goods . This business will be conducted from the existing building at 302-304 West Seneca Street in conjunction with a self-service gasoline station. The business will be open 24 hours a day and will bring an attractive revival to the corner location which has started to deteriorate through nonuse since GULF OIL closed their service station operation. The SUGAR CREEK STORE will provide a larger product line than any other store in the vicinity. The 24-hour gas station will provide service to west-bound traffic on Routes 79 and 96 which is not currently available in this area. A variance was granted on February 12, 1962 permitting a gas station to be operated on this premises . This application is for a special permit for the convenience food store operation. PUBLIC ODAMIW: Albert Smith of 204 W. Seneca St. , Owner of the Short Stop store, spoke to the Board stating the neighborhood does not need another convenience store. Air. Ward, representing Wyoming Realty Co. and Gulf Oil Corp. , said that he is conducting a polling of 32 property owners in the neighborhood,- and has had at least 10 replies, all of which were favorable to having a convenience store in this location. He also empha- sized in regard to the Sign Variance Request that .302-304 W. Seneca St. is on a boundary line and large signs are permitted for neighboring compe- tition. BOARD COMMM: Sampson questioned the validity of the neighborhood feedback, since the questionnaire was prepared for the appellants by their attorney and the questionnaires were to be mailed directly back to him. STAFF RECOMMMATION: Mr. Van Cort-explained the Planning Department 's view of allowing 'Mom and Pop' type stores in residential neighborhoods for the convenience of people living near then. However, the staff does not feel that there is a special need for another convenience store in this particu- lar neighborhood, since one exists on the opposite corner. Permitting the establishment of another convenience store in this location would increase traffic in a residential area,with attendant potential hazards within one Planning and Development Board ZONING APPEALS November 29 1983 P. 5 block of a school and a neighborhood social center complex. Staff recommends DENIAL of BOTH SIGN APPEAL 12-2-83 and APPEAL 1529. Gerkin, seconded by Sampson, moved to DENY recommendation of Sign Appeal 12-2-83. Passed 4-0. Sampson, seconded by Roma.nowski, moved to DENY recommendation of Appeal 1529. Passed 4-0. APPEAL 1532: Appeal of D. Dubin and J. Haenlin for Area Variances for off-street .parking, lot size and lot width, lot coverage, and front, side, and rear yard setbacks to permit continued use of the second floor of the building at 322 N. Aurora St. for office space. The second floor was formerly an apartment, and had been converted to offices without prior approval. The property is in a B-la district where office use is permitted; however, the applicant must obtain an area variance for the listed deficien— cies before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. PLANNING ISSUES: Economic: Denial would diminish property value Traffic Circulation: Lot can accommodate only 2.of 9 parking spaces needed; though Seneca St. parking structure is not distant, much of site-oriented traffic is likely to seek nearby on-street parking. Neighborhood Effects; Main effect will be competition with neighborhood residents for on-street parking during business hours. APPELLANT COMMENT: D. Dubin and J. Haenlin were present to state their reasons for requesting an area variance. They were as follows: When we purchased this building, it was being used for offices on the first floor and a one bedroom .apartment on .the second floor'. The building was in poor condition and, because it is located on the highly visible corner of Court and Aurora Streets, it detracted from the appearance of the neighborhood. We learned it would cost in excess of. $17,000 to repair, restore and- paint .-the exterior and interior of the building and, in order to °justify -this--substantial expense, -we- decided to expand our advertising business to utilize the entire building for our offices. Planning and Development Board ZONING APPEALS November 29, 1983 p. 6 Our contractor was specifically instructedin writing and--agreed "to -secure-..a11 'certificates .required for the project and arrange tor :all.'.inspection.- necessary-to -.satisfy :code re- quirements .-"- We relied upon•_this :contractual provision --to -assure that full-dompliance. would-'.b.e -.had with the. -Zoning-Ordinance.. We -now-have, -our contractor apparently misrepresented -the -cost and-.scope of work to the Building Commi-ssioner -dnd'-.therefore -was- not required'to produce detailed drawings-for .the.:Commissioner.Is approval. He `also failed -to explain..--that--we:-were converting -the second floor apartment to offices. and so -a building permit was ..issued. . Because <building. permits •were ;obtained -and-:the.=iaork .;_was:_ inspected ..and_approved by--building i-nspectors,- we..�bel eyed that-- the requirements -o-f-.the:-Zoning:--- :Ordinance were .:being -met--and:T.that_. our use- -of:the;second---f ldox --f or-'.-off ices- was.:--permi:tted. ; .We-.-have---- used -used :our.-off ice _bui lding--l-n-this manner for the last :three-years under this belief. Abo,ut-_a yea-r. ago -we-.f ound .-it necessary -to put-_the building up for. sale cdue-_to-:.changi.ng:;business..conditions.. We ..listed 'it with -Underwood Rea=l. Estate-:-and:.,advertised and--promoted it •widely_ Despite these --efforts we..-received only one .offer =and that-is--from a banking firm that intends to continue to use the entire building for.*of fices When we applied for Certificate of Compliance at the request of the proposed :buyer,` 'we learned for the first time the circumstances described above. The Zoning' Ordinance permits us to use this building as offices but the conversion from the second floor apartment to office space required- area variances for parking, lot area and width, lot coverage and yard sizes. All of these require ments had been�,grandfathered when the building was used for offices and then apartments. Although we made the improvements to our building openly and honestly and believed in good faith that we were complying with the Zoning' Ordinance, -we have just learned that this was . not the case. As a consequence our proposed sale is being; jeopardized and we will certainly suffer serious financial con- sequences. on-sequences - We are thus facing practical difficulties and special conditions which, we respectfully believe, justify the area variances we are requesting. We have made our building an asset to the office .district in which it is located and believe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance would be observed if our unintentional failure to comply with that Ordinance was forgiven by the grant of an area variance. Planning and Development Board ZONING APPEALS November 29, 1983 P. 7) Mr. Haenlin noted that most of their business is with out-of-town clients, and they have not. been heavy users of parking. They do not anticipate that the buyers of the property will be, either. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Michael Pichel appeared.before the Board and stated that hislawoffices are next door to 322 No. Aurora St. , and the remodeling done by Haenlin and Dubin has greatly improved the neighborhood, and that it is an area where many firms and professionals have offices. He would prefer that instead of a variance, an appeal be made to change the zoning of that block. BOARD 00Do m: Roma.nowski stated that rezoning would take a much longer time to accomplish, and would probably hamper the appellant's opportunity of immediate sale of the property. Romanowski also expressed his concern about the parking issue: Sampson wondered if, since the property was formerly a physician's office, wouldn't its present use as office space be legal anyway. STAFF CODW2 S: Van Cort presented one negative letter concerning the parking issue. STAFF RECOM[1ENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL. Additional parking should be sought, however. Sampson moved to recommend approval 'of the variance. Pomanowski modified the motion. to add the stipulation that some additional parking spaces be provided when the property is sold. This modified mbtion was seconded by Gerkin. Passed 4-0. APPEAL 1533: Appeal of-Broome Developmental Services for Area Vari- ances (enlargement of a non-conforming structure) to permit addition of an exterior stairway for fire egress at the. south end of the community residence building at 618 N. Aurora St. The property, in an R=24_district, is deficient in side yard set backs:=and lot size for a_ group 'care residence, and the permit- ted. lot coverage is exceeded. Area Variance is required for an addition to a non-conforming structure. A previous Appeal (#1359) for this stairway was granted in 1981; however, construction did not commence within one year of the granting of that variance, and the variance became void. PLANNING ISSUES: Land Use Permitted and appropriate. Housing; Improves safety of residence for handicapped, Visual Quality: Not readily apparent except from adjacent property. a Planning and Development Board ZONING APPEALS November 29, 1983 p. 8 APPEAL 1533 continuation: This appeal was presented by Lawrence O'Neill, appellant's representative, of 502 Utica Street. COMMENTS: No discussion/comments followed presentation. APPEAL 1534: Appeal of Hi-Speed Checkweigher, Inc. , for a use variance under Section 30.25, Col. 2 (permitted uses)- and Section 30.25, Col. 13 . (required side yard set back), and Section 30.49 (extension or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure), to permit the construction of an addition to the existing building at 605 WEST STATE STREET (Hi Speed Check- weigher, Inc:) . The property is located in a B-4 (business) use district in which the existing industrial use is not ..permitted but exists as a non- conforming use; therefore, under Section 30.49, a use variance must be obtained to permit the extension on the nonconforming use, and an area vari- ance must be obtained for an. existing side yard deficiency before a building permit can be issued for the addition. PLANNING ISSUES: Land Use: Not permitted, but of longstanding and legally non- conforming use. Economic: Would enhance viability of business and increase tax value of property. Housing: No effect. Traffic/Circulation: More than required parking will be provided; good access and interior circulation exists for loading. Visual Quality; Building will be behind reorganized and expanded parking areas; would be enhanced if area between State St. sidewalk and parking spaces were planted with trees and/or shrubs. AVANT OORMUNM: Attorney James Buyoucos represented Hi--Speed Checkweigher, Inc. Mr. Victor Del Rosso, President of Hi-Speed, C.W. , appellant, Mr. Wayne Barr of Hi-Speed C.W. , and Mr. Tallman,. architect, were also present. Mr. Buyoucos stated hat there would be no impact on the neighborhood, :since the firm has been operating in its present location for many years. Addition- ally, there would be no parking problem. 9 Planning and Development Board ZONING APPEALS November 29, 1983 P. 9 STAFF . RECOMMENDATION: . Staff recomwnds APPROVAL, since it will increase the property value, and; hence, the City's tax base, and will also enhance the viability of local industry. Staff does,, however, strongly urge Hi-Speed Checkweigher, Inc. to install plantings between the parking . area and West- State Street, and, possibly, on West Green Street also. Romanowski moved,'*Gerkin seconded, . that the Board REOOMMM APPROVAL of the Appeal. Passed 4-0. r AH:jv November 27, 1983 Planning Board Members City of Ithaca Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Dear Planning Board Member: You are aware of our concern over the development of Route 96. I believe ; many of you are aware that we are not in favor of most aspects of the project and we would like to call your attention to two, and only two, very specific problems. I. CONSTRUCTION - TRAFFIC DISASTER At the present time, 10 lanes of traffic west of the octopus feed into the four-lane octopus, and then six lanes across the bridges at the old inlet at State Street, Seneca Street and Buffalo Street. Apparently during con - struction the Buffalo Street bridge will be closed and the City will be left with limited traffic on the two westbound lanes of the Seneca Street bridge . (which is not wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic) and two lanes across the State Street bridge. The Seneca Street bridge should be examined by you personally. For years it has had a 4- ton weight limit which .means that neither trucks nor buses may use it. Yesterday we counted seven vehicles on it waiting for the light to change. Just this winter two of the concrete retaining walls, apparently holding up the bridge abutment, broke away and slid into the inlet. Temporary repairs were undertaken. The collapse, or a further reduction in it's weight limits would result in all traffic during the reconstruction be channelled across the two lanes at the State Street bridge. During construction, there is no way the Seneca Street bridge can carry all of the ,traffic which presently crosses both the Buffalo Street and Seneca Street bridges. If that bridge is as precarious as it seems to be to non-professional, I, then we invite each of you to look at it. It seems that you should be considering the possibility of all traffic to the west of the City crossing the two lane State Street bridge for what would be an 18-month construction. If that happens, and conceivably even if the Seneca Street bridge remains open, the entire length of Meadow Street from the high school to its intersection with the Elmira Road would come to a complete standstill and delays for an ambulance while trying to get to a hospital while a train is crossing the area will become minor. We are not aware of any construction traffic planning that has been discussed, which brings us to the second point. II. WHY IS THERE NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS For years, going back to the original construction process, the State has presented us with plans for new bridges and told us that we have to accept their plan at the last -minute or forget the whole project. Right now, apparently these plans are being drawn, apparently in Syracuse and apparently with some input from your Planning Department. We assume again that in a few months there will be a grand unveiling of the plan and you, as members of Common Council, and we, as members of the public, will be told that it is too late to change the plan and we must accept the project as designed or forget all State aid. Our question is why do not you, as members of Council, not ask the Planning Department and the State Department of Transportation to conduct an interim public meeting, at which these plans will be presented and at which time the D.O.T. thoughts can be discussed. Perhaps in this fashion Common Council and members of the public can participate in the planning process, rather than being the last minute victim of plans which must be accepted and approved immediately. l , Very tru yaiirs, Mar S,, Peter E. Zaharis y �8RE Ind �o •`0� RECEIVED gpORATE� PLANNIN" Q. nwrl npMENT CITY OF ITHACAOV 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 BUILDING COMMISSIONER M E M O R A N D U M CODE 607 TO: H. M. VanCort D• ector of Planning and Development FROM: Thomas D. Hoard Building Commissioner SUBJECT: Junk Vehicles - 400 block of Spencer Road DATE: October 31 , 1983 I could write two different responses to your October 28, 1983 memorandum about the alleged junkyard in the 400 block of Spencer Road; one telling you how the use is illegal and why it should be stopped, and one telling you how the use predates City Zoning and in fact all City jurisdiction and why it should be al- lowed to continue. The record on this case goes back through the tenure of at least six Building Commissioners , more City Attorneys , and at least three owner- ships of the property in question. The record is a mixture of fact and folklore, and it is difficult to sort out which is which. Some facts worth noting are: 1) The use predated the City' s annexation of Elmira Road and Spencer Road area. 2) A zoning variance was granted in 1965 for the repair, maintenance, and stor- age of automotive vehicles at 400 Spencer Road. 3) The City, through several Building Commissioners and City Attorneys , has attempted to abate the problem almost from the day the area was annexed. 4) It is said that a City Judge (and this may be folklore, but I have heard it so many times and from so many sources that I cannot dismiss its credence) dismissed this departmentas case against the owner because (the Judge believed) that the use of this property was no different than that of the other automo- tive sales and repair businesses in the area, and 5) When the property changed hands in 1980 or 1981 we had discussed the age-old problems with the new owner and he had promptly removed the junk cars. 6) There is some question as to whether the business now in operation on the property is any different than that for which the variance was issued. I think it is arguable, but whether a Court would agree or not is a big question. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Memo to H. M. VanCort October 31 , 1983 Director of Planning and Development Page 2 Re: Junk Vehicles - 400 block of Spencer Road 7) We are, and have been, photographing the premises from time to time to estab- a track record. If I find that we have something that we can pursue with a chance of success in court, I will move on it. I don' t think we have a good case at this time. 8) Incidentally, I don' t think we can prove that the existing use constitutes a junk yard under the definition in the Zoning Ordinance. Any ideas? TDH:br SUMMARY OF BZA ACTIONS i December 5,. 1983 APPEAL 12-1-83 .(sign appeal) Sign variance to permit erection of a freestanding sign at 214 North Meadow St . APPROVED 6-0 . FINDINGS : Sign in keeping with neighborhood . APPEAL 12-2-83 (sign appeal) NOT CONSIDERED BECAUSE IT IS PART OF APPEAL 1529 , WHICH WAS DENIED. APPEAL 1529 -denied. APPEAL 1532 Area variance to continue use of second floor as office space . APPROVED 6-0 . FINDINGS : Impossible to comply with ordinance Change will not adversely affect neighborhood. APPEAL 1533 Area Variance for addition of exterior stairway for fire egress . APPROVED 6-0 . FINDINGS : Deficiencies make compliance with code impossible ; no effect on neighborhood; substantially improves safety of occupants. APPEAL 1534 Use Variance to permit construction of an addition at 605 West State Street . APPROVED 5-0 . 1 abstention . FINDINGS : Additional building does not require a variance . Ample parking provided and no adverse effect on neighborhood .