Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1980-03-03 i" TABLE OF CONTENTS ( MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ITHACA, ; NEW YORK - MARCH 3 , 1980 I Page APPEAL NO. 2-1-80 King. W. Tang (NO ONE APPEARED) 1 114-118 W. State Street ( APPEAL NO. 2-2-80 JVRC Enterprises (POSTPONED) 2 602 West Buffalo Street I !APPEAL NO. 2-3-80 Cayuga Electric Supply Co . 2 307 West Lincoln Street (APPEAL NO. 2-3-80 Executive Session 6 i i (APPEAL NO. 2-6-80 Chanticleer Restaurant 7 (NO ONE APPEARED) ! ;APPEAL NO. 3-1-80 John Petrillose (POSTPONED) 7 202-204 & 206-208 Dryden Rd. i APPEAL NO. 3-2-80 Nates Floral Estates (POSTPONED) 7 402 South Meadow Street i I APPEAL NO. 3-3-80 South Meadow Street Properties 7 I 529 S. Meadow Street i�APPEAL NO. 3-3-80 Executive Session 16 !APPEAL NO. 2-4-80 D. L. $ G. Audio , Inc. i Tech HiFi 205 Dryden Road Executive Session 17 i I�CERTIFICATION BY RECORDING SECRETARY 18 I i 1� !I I I l ! ! l i I I I i ! j! �i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS �! COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK MARCH 3 , 1980 CHAIRMAN AMAN: I ' d like to call the March meeting of the Board I ,, of Zoning Appeals to order. Present this evening are five of the i six Board members : Dr. Martin Greenberg Ms . Natalie DeCombray Mr. Joseph Gainey Mr. Morris Angell Mr. Alfred Aman Mr. Thomas Hoard, Bldg. Comm & Secy to the Board i Mrs. Barbara Ruane , Recording S cy i I ABSENT: Mr. William Wilcox , For those of you who are unfamiliar with how the Board operates , I iiwill remind you of those procedures. It is necessary to get four I jvotes four of the five votes this evening to prevail upon your request for a variance. We take the cases up in order and those ( requesting the variance will come forward and state your case . Th IlBoard operates informally, however, it is quasi-judicial in the sense that we take evidence, what you are saying is recorded and 3 there is a record established. We make our findings and make our decision based on that record. After you have presented your case the Board members may have some questions for you and we ask that you respond to those questions by standing right up here at this microphone. After that anyone wishing to speak on behalf of the i variance w1,11 be invited forward and then those wishing to speak against it will also have an opportunity to speak against it. We jasl that you limit your remarks and address the issues that are ! before the Board tonight. May we' h_ave the first case Mr. Secretar ? ISECRETARy HOARD; The first case is appeal number 2-1,80 : Appeal of King W. Tang for a variance unde I Sections 34 .4E (regulations for projecting signs) and 34. 3 (h ,storic sign regulations to permit retention of the existing sign a 114'-.118 West State Street in a B-3 (busine s) i use district, The existing sign projects more than eighteen (18) inches from the fa:e of the building. The appellant is also re- questing designation of the sign as an historic sign, I donet see anybody here to represent this case. The next case on �j the agenda, is appeal 2,2-80_: I� I! is I: it - 2 - I� I Appeal of JVRC Enterprises for a variance under Sections 34. 4B (regulations for pro- jecting signs) , 34. 5 (regulations for sign area in a residential zone) , 34 . 8 (regula- tions for sign setback) and 34 . 3 (historic !' sign regulations) to permit retention of te existing sign at 602 West Buffalo Street i a B-4 (business) use district. The existi g sign projects more than eighteen (18) inch s from the face of the building, exceeds the total area permitted, and projects within eighteen (18) inches of a sidewalk. The appellant is also requesting designation o the sign as an historic sign. This appeal has been held over at the request of the �I appellant . ;This appeal was postponed by the appellant at the appellant' s re- quest. The next case then is appeal number 2-3-80 : { Appeal of Cayuga Electric Supply Co. , Inc. for a variance under Section 34 . 5 (regula- tions for sign area in a residential zone) to permit retention of the existing sign at 307 West Lincoln Street in a R-2b (resi- dential) use district. The existing sign i exceeds the total area permitted. This ap- peal was held over until this meeting at the request of the appellant. MR. LEWIS: We are ready to proceed at this time, whenever you are . (SECRETARY HOARD; Alright, please come forward. CHAIRMAN AMAN: Yes , please come forward. MR. LEWIS: Yes , thank you. �i CHAIRMAN AMAN; If you would state your name and address? MR, LEWIS: My name is Murray Lewis and I 'm an attorney here in Ithaca and I have an office at the Savings Bank Building. Cayuga i !Electric maintains a, place of business in a residential area with i proper zoning approval at the time that the building was construc ed. fin 1966 they established the business there and at that time lace photo ) Ila. sign on the building which I would just like to start these /over li here and yQu can see what type of a sign we are talking about. I am sure many of you have seen it . This property faces route 13 - it does not face any residential housing so that the sign would not i II!be infringing on any of the neighbors in that area. It is really I vital for this business to have a visible sign because much of the s Iltraffi;c thatoes there comes g . from route 13 and so for the people I, to see just exactly, where the business is located we need a sign of jsome size, Now I'd like to point out , most respectfully, that were �I I� I! I �j i 3 - 1this business located in a commercial area, it' s my understanding i that a larger sign would be permitted than we are asking for in i (; requesting here this evening. It would really cause a hardship on (` these people to alter the sign and make it smaller because then is there would be a problem of locating this business and from the �Istand oint of a safety standpoint on route 13 when you would have ii P Y P � I ! people just slowing down in that area to try to find the place , you i could conceivably cause some problems there. The business is a clean ! business , the yard is always well maintained as is the parking lot i ; and the building is well maintained and they are a good employer aid ! they generate good revenues here in the City of Ithaca and I most jrespectfully request that you consider favorably our appeal . I J would just lake to point out , I 'm sure you all know this that th Il Planning Board has recommended a granting of this variance. Are there any questions? ' MR. GAINEY; The sign is twenty-three feet now? i MR. LEWIS; I don't I would have to look the exact footage up. IIf you've got I can look it up in the application, if you want i � me to - whatever you've got there.. IMR. GAINEY: It says on the bottom, twenty-three feet. � MR. LEWIS; Twenty-thxee square feet it would be. It wouldn' t be twenty-three feet. ! MR. GAINEY What are they allowed? SECRETARY HOARD; They are allowed five square feet because it is f in a residential zone. i MR. LEWIS; Would you fill them in on the size Mr. Hoard, that the would be allowed if they were in a commercial zone? I 'd appreciate that, be SECRETARY HOARD; Well , a B-,1 through. B-4 zone they would/permitted a sign in proportion to they would be allowed one & one<half ii Isquare feet of signage for each lineal foot of frontage of the building. I MR, SCHNOCK; And that building fronts two streets so they would I be allowed, if they were in a business zone, an exceptional large sign. I I li ii j - 4 - !IMR. GAINEY: The sign doesn' t light up, right? MR. LEWIS : No it doesn' t _ it is not illuminated - it ' s not an i 1Iilluminated sign. '! MR. ANGELL: What is the nature of the business? i MR. LEWIS: The business is basically an electrical supply house. SMR. ANGELL: In other words , contractors? I!MR. LEWIS: That ' s right , use it and people - they have quite a i+ few people that come by and buy various pieces of equipment for E! items which. they are installing in their own homes and businesses �' land commercial enterprises as well as contractors. They have a !,variety of customers. Quite a bit of their business really is i dealing with the public outside of just contractors , aside from I ' just contractors , MR. ANGELL: Primarily contractors? IMR. LEWIS Well maybe Ild have to ask Mrs . Williams that question 'DR. GREENB,:ERG; They sell to the private individual who might want ( something for a lamp, to fix or they have a very good complete sup ly It " of electrical goods that individuals might use and they have a whole , selection of chandeliers which is better than you would find in mo t Ii areas. They do cater to the public. People who want to fix up their homes in the way of lighting decorations will go down there . ;MR. LEWIS: As surprising as this may sound, it is not n even thou h Ijit is a large building, it ' s not that easy to know when you are on route 13 , where you are going when you are Ilooking for a particula !business and even if the size of the present sign, it might not I it might cause some problems in that regard but we are not asking I ! for anything more than what we have, IDR, GREENBERG : Is there any neighbor input:? I ' SECRETARY HOARD; I have received none. f IMR. LEWIS: At the Planning Board meeting 3 Mr, Hoard was there , II think he will remember this - there was a gentleman who stood th re i land I can't think, of his name but he said that he identified Ihimself, he was the neighbor and he said what a, good neighbor I ; Cayuga Electric was and how well they maintained their property an i i ! kept it in such. good condition and he hoped that the request would I l� - 5 - be granted and that was unsolicited - completely unsolicited, I i '' just don' t remember the gentleman' s name . But Mrs. Williams is here land maybe she might - what was his name? MRS. WILLIAMS: It' s Stooks , I believe, S-T-0--0-K-S - and his li !;property borders our parking lot. IMR. LEWIS: Thank you. , SECRETARY HOARD: According to your notification letter, it is Car !Stooks, 605 Willow Avenue. IMR. LEWIS: Thank you. !CHAIRMAN AMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to speak on !behalf of the request? (no one) Anyone here to speak against it? f ` (no one) i ! i I i! i r i i r l I I I r i 1 i i �I i i a I - 6 - i I' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK MARCH 3 , 1980 EXECUTIVE SESSION MR. GAINEY: I move that the Board grant the sign variance requested in appeal no. 2-3-80. l DR. GREENBERG: I second the motion I j VOTE: 4 Yes ; 1 No; 1 Absent . 1 Sign variance granted. f t FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) This sign has no negative impact on the ! surrounding neighbors . I 2) The sign is not illuminated and therefore is not conspicuous at night . 3) The sign faces a major four-lane highway and not a residential neighbor. i I f i I i !I I i I i I i i i i i 1 I i i i i I' 7 - i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK MARCH 3 , 1980 i! SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal is appeal number 2-6-80 : it Appeal of Chanticleer Restaurant for a variance under Sections 34. 4B and 34 . 3 to permit retention of the existing sign at 101 West State Street in a B-3 (business) j use district . The existing sign projects more than eighteen (18) inches from the i face of the building. The appellant is also requesting designation of the sign as an historic sign. Ii � I don' t see anybody representing that one. The next case is It appeal number 3--1-80 : Appeal of John Petrillose for sign varianc s under Section 34 . 4B (.Projecting sign regu- lations) and Section 34 . 8 (sign setback regulations) to permit the retention of th existing signs at 202-204 Dryden Road and 206-208 Dryden Road in a B-2b (business) use district. One sign, on 202-204 Dryden Road projects more than eighteen inches li (18") from the face of the building, the maximum projection permitted. The second sign, at 206-208 Dryden Road , is a pole sign which is set too close to the public right-of-way, in violation of the setback j requirements of the Ordinance. i IThis one has been postponed at the request of the appellant. ! Appeal number 3- 2-80 ; Appeal of Nates Floral Estates for a sign variance under Section 34 . 4F (prohibition cf billboards) and 34 . 5A-4 (regulations for directional signs) to permit retention of the sign at 402 South Meadow Street in a B-4 (business) use district. The sign is located on property other than the premise 1 on which the advertised business is locatec' ,, and thus falls under the definition of a billboard, a prohibited use . The sign als exceeds the maximum size permitted for a directional sign. i i This one has also been postponed at the request of the appellant. The next appeal is appeal number 3-3-80 : Appeal of South Meadow Street Properties , Inc. for a sign variance under Sections 34. 5 and 34 .6 (maximum permitted number of signs) , Section 34. 8 (requirements for sig setbacks) , Section 34 . 6A1 (maximum permitt d area sign and maximum permitted height of sign) to permit retention of existing sign at 529 S. Meadow Street in a B-2 (business) use district. The property has more signs than are permitted; one sign is set too cl se to the public right-of-way, exceeds the maximum permitted height , and exceeds the I maximum permitted size . i The Planning Board recommended denial of this one. I! .i - 8 - is MRS. PETRULIS: I 'm Dorothy Petrulis , president of South Meadow i! Street Properties and Meadow Court Motel , Inc. We are appealing on all basis that we can appeal on according to the appeal form. We feel that the strict application of the Ordinance would produce i undue hardship because the cost to remove the sign would create I I extreme financial hardship for us . It would cost $4 ,200 and we have i the estimate which is Mr. Besemer - Mr. Stout of H. D. Besemer gave us this estimate. I think we have filed it with the form that it would cost $4 , 200 to remove this sign and the cost of creating other signs in strict compliance would exceed $18 ,000. This , to us , would be an extreme hardship because we are facing a decrease I in income and increase in all costs as all businesses are today i with the minimum wage going up and the energy costs which have really hit our motel very hard as you can imagine the gas and electric and water has all been a lot more expensive this year and it will i continue to rise. The removal of our sign will create an onomid. hardship as our motel is an independent and does not have the chain advertising and promotion typical of a chain motel such as the Ramada Inn. The removal of the sign would also create con- fusion to the traveler and loss of business , We are located in a high traffic count area and also in a 40 mile speed zone . In order for the traveler to determine that there is a motel in the area he must be able to see the sign from a distance and our business is strictly dependent on the traveler and the person coming into the area that might not be familiar with the area unlike so many businesses which are dependent on local customers . In approaching from the north the traveler is unable to see our motel if our sign was removed because of a rise in the road I am talking about approaching from route 13 - it would be on route 13 north, approaching the south r there is a rise in the road. W are also appealing the fact that the strict application of the Ordinance would produce undue hardship - no that was the first on( , j sorry - 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 the sign in the property is adjacent i is - 9 i l to a B-5 district. The B-5 district is just across the street i ii from us and the sign - we would be allowed a much larger sign in (i I; that area then we are in the zone that we are in. The zone that i` we are in only allows a fifty square foot sign and for a motel this is unreal . The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance - it would not change the character of the district because the character of the district is commercial the B-5 zone is across the street - it is within a forty mile speed zone i which creates a fast traffic pattern, The existing sign is of ex- cellent aesthetic and structural quality. It is attractive and is an asset to the area. One of our neighbors , Mrs . Frye , states I thatshe would be unhappy if the sign were taken down because the lights from it light up her back yard and give her a feeling of i` security. Another neighbor wrote us a letter this woman called us , it was not solicited, she called us on the phone and told us she was very upset about it and would do anything that needed i f' to be done to say that she was in favor of this sign. Thoburn Lobdell who lives on South Street and I have the address here he lives at 114 South- Street and Mrs. Frye who I was talking about I lives at 116 South- Street which. is just around the corner from us . j Mr. Lobdell wrote this letter ; "Dear Board of Zoning Appeals . A I a property owner near the Meadow Court Motel , I feel that the sig of the motel should be allowed to remain, The light adds a direc- tional to my street, South. Street, and helps to keep vandals away I from the neighborhood. I hope the sign will be allowed to stay where it is . " /s/ Thoburn Lobdell , Our marque has also been use I i for announcing community events for non-profit organizations . We jfeelthat a group of signs would be confusing to a traveler which { would notify the traveler the entrance of the motel and the removal i� could result in traffic accidents in this high traffic area. We are appealing on the basis that we feel that the sign is needed for the traveler in the area and we feel that the removal of it I would cause us undue hardship n undue financial hardship, not I only because of the cost for removal and the cost of new signs , I but the loss of business which we feel definitely will happen l i; 10 - is ji if we do have to take the sign down. This business has been in i' operation for over twenty-five years . This sign has been up twenty years - over twenty years and we have paid considerable i` taxes to the city and we do feel that we don't know how long we i i would be able to stay in business if we don't - if we have to tak j the sign down and have to rely on a much smaller sign. The sign 'I is also over the right-of-way because the distance between the 1 motel building and the sidewalk - there just isn't any room there I I� and it would be difficult to put another sign up, I I MR. GAINEY: $4 , 200 to take it down is that to take the entire i ii sign down? MRS. PETRULLIS; Yes, 0 start an additional sign? � MR. GAINEY: And then $18 , 00 to r �. g 1 MRS. PETRULLIS; Right. �j MR. GAINEY: Have you thought of altering this sign? MRS. PETRULLIS: Well our problem is that the sign is 250 square �I feet and we have looked it over, we don't know quite how we could I' I alter it but to bring it down to fifty square feet , which is all we are allowed is going to be almost impossible . If we were i allowed to have the same size sign as the zone across the street , i that would b.e 150 square feet and it is possible that we might ;i be able to cut it down. Now we do have two businesses that are 1 serviced by this sign, We have the motel and the Royal Court Restaurant and if each business could be could possibly have the 150 square feet then 250 would be within reason, If we were i allowed the same size sign as they are going to have across the ! street. As you know across the street is the U-Pair development 1 where the new grocery store is going in and also other developments . MR. GAINEY;, if that were an alternative, do you think you could limit the size of your sign to 15G square feet? IMRS. PETRULLIS; We certainly would try - if this were our only ( alternative, We would like to keep the sign the way it is . I!i We think it is a very attractive sign , we don' t think it is ldisturbing to the neighbors in any way and that when the new de- IIvelopment goes in across the street that will even be morecon- li �i i I I - 11 - I Ii fusing, I think, to the traveler unless they can see our sign where it is . i� MR. GAINEY: We are talking now, Tom - if I 've got this straight , I' we are talking the main sign that is a free-standing sign out by the roadway, right? Not the one on the building? 1 SECRETARY HOARD: Right. MR. GAINEY: The one on the building is legal? SECRETARY HOARD: Yes . MR. GAINEY: But they can have another fifty square feet over and above the sign that is on the building? SECRETARY HOARD: The fifty square feet is the maximum permitted for the free standing sign in that zone. And they are just a little pocket zone there. MRS. PETRULLIS: And I might add if I can that the Planning And Development Board R they were very much up in the air about what to do on this and we had two descenters to the vote and there was a lot of sympathy for our case and I just wish that they could be here to tell you how they felt because I think that it certainly wasn't a unanimous decision. MR, ANGELL: The sign extends over the sidewalk is that right? MRS. PETRULLIS : It does, yes. MR. ANGELL: is there any way that that sign could be moved? MRS. PETRULLIS: Well the problem is that the motel building itself is right up to where the sign is . Without taking down part of the building there is not very much leeway there. SECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Chairman, if I could comment on this at this point, I 'm afraid the appellants are going to think that the Government is ganging up on them but this afternoon I received a copy of a memorandum from the State Department of Transportation I and I 'm not sure - J. E. Collison, Real Estate Division - and it i I relates to Section 52 of the Highway Law provides that any ad- vertising sign, display or device or any part thereof directed or maintained in violation of that Section shall be removed from the i State highway right-of-way by the owner of the property responsible I for it' s erection and maintenance. However, Section 52 also pro- vides that a permit may be issued by the Commissioner of te i iI - 12 - i 'i Transportation or his duly designated agent and that the Commis- i ';'Isioner shall establish regulations governing the issuance of such j` ermits . To sum this u because it is quite a ton memo the j, permits . P q g ; State is taking action now to get signs out of th.e State right-of- ! way. They have a licensing set up that if a sign - relocation of i Ila sign would exceed $1 , 000 a permit may be issued to maintain the ( sign on a year to year basis as an encroachment. However , it goes on to say that to qualify for a permit an encroaching sign shall not exceed 20 feet in length, width or height or 150 square feet Alin total area, including border and trim but excluding supports . ' Exceptions may be made by the Commissioner (and this is the Highwa �lCommissioner) in the case of high--rise signs the supports may be an integral part of the sign' s construction or signs that do not conform to standard signs or shapes by reason of intricate constru r. 1 tion embellishments or cut outs . I had a conversation with Fred !Grout, who is the local engineer for the Department of Transporta I tion and he said that this was one of the signs that they were (looking at as possibly having to be moved or taken down, IMRS. PETRULLIS; ph no. I can see what you mean. ,SECRETARY HOARD; So it ' s just coincidence, actually, that this E Ihappened at this time, On the other hand itis a good idea to know i now what their regulations are , So MR. ANGELL; Can we hold any decision on this in abeyance until Mrs, . Petrullis goes to these people and checks with them? iSECRETARY HOARD; Well , that' s a good question of whether it would i The better for this Board to take action or for you to go to the I.State people and find out what they would permit because the sign right now is in the State right-of-way so it is on State property, so i.t is reallyat more significant question to the State right now, than it is to the City. ,RS. PETRULLIS; Right, ,RS . RYAN; Can I ask a question? It is also in the City right-of- (wray, too, ,sn' t ;t? SECRETARY HOARD; Well that stretch is State right-.ofnway. RS. RYAN: Then why have we been paying $5, 00 a year to the City? is 13 - 11!l SECRETARY HOARD: Well , because at the same time it is also a City 11encroachment. 11MR. GAINEY: Who has the final say, the City or the State? 11SECRETARY HOARD: Well this Board would have the final say on the ; size of the sign. What could happen is that under the State regu- Jjlations they could - probably, I don't know -• but if the sign were moved back so it is not in the State right-of-way, then the State ' wouldn' t have any more to say about it. But it could still be a ( violation of the City Ordinance because it is too large so I guess it is really a chicken and an egg situation. I don't know if it matters which you go to first. This Board could take action that I would be tied inwhatever rt' ha c tion the State would take. If • , this Board wants to . . . �IMR. GAINEY: Can we overrule the State? SECRETARY HOARD: No. MR. GATNEY: No fun then. Like if we grant her avariance and the ! State carne along and the State could still make her move the signs SECRETARY HOARD; They would still be subject to the State 's re quirements, yes . MR. GAINEY: Have you been notified from the State? MRS. PETRULLIS: No. This is the first I 've heard of this . , SECRETARY HOARD: Apparently the local office here received this , on the 25th of February and he has probably been digesting it just I ike we have been digesting our Sign Ordinance. I MR. SCHNOCK; My name is Garrett Schnock. Most of you are familia with me or know- me from past experiences or whatever the case may be and T thinka point of information that might be well taken is that the sign is broken down, as you can see by means of the photo lgraph, into several segments , four to be exact and that going from lin descending order from the base , the first one being the informa i ( tion ' i.s a 4 x 8 sign, the second 2 x 20 , the third i la 5 x 25 which, is the main motel sign and the uppermost sign is I 15 x 10. In terms of granting a possible variance for 150. square { feet, it is conceiv4blr possible for any approximate numbers that i IIthe sign could be broken up into the most important segments if it I �I i i 14 - i were to be retained in the sort of piecemeal viewpoint. But !,obviously the critical sign, I would think at this point , would !!be the one that indicates motel , and that one being 5 x 25 or i ,:approximately 125 square feet. So I think some validity should be !,weighed as to which parcel of the sign are to be saved, if not all jthe sign. SMS. DE COMBRAY: I£ we granted a variance saying, for instance , th t ,the motel sign should be retained and then they went to the expense I!of redoing the sign, the State can still come along and have the sign taken down? ,SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. (CHAIRMAN AMAN: Was the State ' s maximum area 150? !SECRETARY HOARD: The State' s maximum area - yes , is 150 square feet . MS. DE COMBRAY: Are they also concerned with proximity to the street i and the sidewalk? i !SECRETARY HOARD: Yes. What they say is erected or maintained in ,the State right-of-way. I I+MR, ANGELL: How far does the State right-of-way extend? I IMR. GAINEY; To the sidewalk. ,MR. ANGELL: To the sidewalk. I SECRETARY HOARD; Well , I think the right-of-way is sixty-six feet wide at that point. ! MR. GAINEY; I personally would like to wait until after so we can find out what the State is going to do. Because I would hate to I !have her go to all the expense - if we change something and the ,State still says . . . i �MR, ANGELL; On the Motel property, does it go across the sidewalk, Ito the sidewalk or I �R. SCHNOCK; in that situation it would go across the sidewalk right at the base of the outermost pier it' s a dual piered sign. IDR. GREENBERG; Tom, is the State interested in the aesthetics or in the safety or what is the primary concern of the Department of I Transportation? i R. GAINEY: The overhang IS'ECRETARY HOARD: It' s the same principle as the City has used to I r is I - is - i ' justify their Sign Ordinance and that is to reduce the amount of ; sign clutter to keep signs from projecting over streets and side jwalks. That being the safety aspect of it. IMR. ANGELL: In other words if you used the same base instead of i (, this way . . . MR. SCHNOCK: That would be a viable alternative or possibly the ;moving of one pier and extending the motel sign perhaps in a vertical motif rather than the horizontal one . SMR. ANGELL: Yes . CHAIRMAN AMAN; Any questions? Thank you very much. Any further ;' comments on this case? Hearing nothing further . . . . ( SECRETARY HOARD; Mr. Chairman, let me recall these . . . do we ! have anyone here for appeal no. 2-1-80? (no one showed) Appeal Ino. 2-6-80? (no one showed) CHAIRMAN AMAN: We will go into executive session and will announc i lour decisions afterward. i i I i I I i i i l I I i �i I, I - 16 - it BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i' MARCH 3, 1980 j EXECUTIVE SESSION i; APPEAL NO. 3-3-80 : it �!MR. ANGELL: I move that the Board approve the sign I, variance PP requested in appeal no . 3-3-80. q , CHAIRMAN AMAN; I second the motion. i IIVOTE ; 0 Yes ; 5 No ; 1 Absent. Sign variance request denied. I ` FINDINGS OF FACT; 1) The present sign far exceeds the limit for a B-2a zone. ii 2) It is positioned in a public right-of-way. I 3) The Board also considered the fact that i; the zone opposite the motel is a B-5 zone and the present sign far exceeds the limit permitted by that zoning. I 4) Undue hardship has not been proved. The i - sign in question has been there for sixtee years and there has been ample notice of the present Sign Ordinance and ample time to comply with the requirements of the I Ordinance I' ii I� i i i I i 1 i E II I I I �I I' i! - 17 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i MARCH 3 , 1980 EXECUTIVE SESSION ; APPEAL NO. 2-4-80: it (i CHAIRMAN AMAN: I move that the Board grant a variance I I for the sign, subject to the condition that a total maximum area be forty-five j (45) square feet of signage. IDR. GREENBERG-. I second the motion. �r I'VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Abstention; 1 Absent jSign variance partially granted. �i ;, FINDINGS OF FACT; 1) The fact that unlawful permits were ii issued does not bind this Board in grantin i or denying a variance . I 2) It would be impractical and an undue hard- ship to remove the sign on the front of i ! the building. That sign exceeds the �I maximum area allowed by only 2, square feet. i 3) Including the sign on the side of the I building, however , would exceed the total area permitted by an excess of twenty-five square feet; undue hardship as to the removal of that sign has not been shown i and thus the variance as to that sign is i denied. I i i i i i I I I I� - 18 - i I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board If of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals i '! numbered 2-3-80 , and 3-3-80 on March 3 , 1980 at City Hall , City " of Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed same , and the fore- going is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the i meeting and the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , ! City of Ithaca and the whole thereof to the best of my ability. i ii i i Barbara C. Ruan j Recording Secretary i I f I ii c Sworn to before me this I /.3 day of �..RJ 1980 �i Notary Public JEAN J. HANKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF REW.YORK No. .,5-16-0300 QUALIFi'D IN TOMPKINS COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 90 19�I t I I f i t i i I