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 .