HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1975-03-05 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW
YORK, MARCH 3, 1975
------------------------------------------------------------------
At a regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of
Ithaca, held in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca, New
York, on March 3, 1975:
PRESENT: PETER MARTIN, CHAIRMAN
GREGORY KASPRZAK
C. MURRAY VAN MARTER
ELVA HOLMAN
EDGAR GASTEIGER
EDISON JONES, Building Commissioner and
Secretary
CHRISTINE SMITH, Recording Secretary
Chairman Martin opens meeting, listing members of Board present.
The Board is operating under the provisions of the Charter of the
City of Ithaca and the new Zoning Ordinance. Our hearings are not
bound by strict rules of evidence but we ask that all those who
speak or present evidence limit their remarks to the issues before
the Board. Would all those speaking please identify themselves
by name and address and would all those speaking please come forwa d
to the microphone up here to make their remarks. Mr. Secretary
would you introduce the cases.
Commissioner Jones lists what case No. 1069 is to be.
APPEAL N0. 1069: The Appeal of Dell L. Grover at 416 Hudson Street
under Sec. 30.49C and Sec. 30.25, Col. 11, 12, 13
and 15 for use in area variance R-2 district.
RICHARD THALER: Mr. Chairman, with your permission I'd like to
hand out some copies of the proposed renovation plan. If everyone
has a copy, I' ll indicate to the Board that Mr. Grover who is here
tonight has asked me to speak for him. Mr. Grover has purchased
the store known as The South Hill Store which for fifty years
has been run by Mr. Michael Dooley as a grocery store at 416
Hudson Street. Before Mr. Dooley owned it another gentleman owned
it for a brief period of about thirty years and before that anothe
gentleman owned it. It has been a grocery stcr e in that area for
approximately one hundred (100) years. Ezra Cornell bought his
groceries their. I think everybody who has grown up in Ithaca,
remembers the South Hill Store. The building is in disrepair.
It needs to be worked on both interior and the exterior. Mr.
Grover has requested a variance which for a non-conforming use
would be more in compliance with the zoning ordinance as it is
-2-
written today, than the prior existing use. If you will notice
the diagram which is labeled, the existing plot plan, you will
notice the garage is only two feet from the lot line. Under Mr.
Grovers plan or proposal, this garage would be removed and then
there will be five feet on this side of the building. The Planning
Board has recommended to this Board that they approve the extension
or expansion and the upgrading of the building housing the grocery
• business but that they denied the part which calls for the
expansion of the apartment which is housed on the second floor.
I would only indicate to the Board that Mr. Grover has tried to
keep the structure in conformity with a residential area. If the
building is not allowed to go above the first floor, the roof
would be a flat roof and would therefore not look like a residential
structure but it would look like a shed or would be a flat roof
type thing on the first floor. If you will notice the proposed
structure, you will see that what is proposed keeps it in keeping
with the residential area, as opposed to what we have now of the
old structure with the garage protruding on the right side or
left side as you face the structure. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr.
Grover would be willing to answer or through me answer any questions
that you might have. I think we are basically asking for this
variance in that we are keeping within the purpose of zoning, we
are upgrading the neighborhood by fixing the structure that has
serviced the neighborhood and the people who have lived in it for
many years. It existed long before I think people ever thought
of zoning. We are going to try and bring the building back into
some semblance of where it is not an eyesore but an addition and
an asset to the community, not only that it sells the food stuffs
that a Mom and Pop store should but it also looks like the
residential community that it resides in.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I have two questions. First a somewhat technical
one. The application speaks of the property to be purchase from
Michael Dooley by . . . . . . .
RICHARD THALER: It has been purchased. At the time of the appli-
cation it had not been closed. One of the problems that we ran
-3-
into was that the offer to purchase was contingent upon this
Boards approval of the variance. How ever, one of the items that
is sold at the store is beer. We were granted a license application
if it were closed before March 1. We had to close on it otherwise
we would have lost our beer license.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Second question somewhat more substantial is
could you elaborate on the hardship, indicating as the building
currently exists could not be used reasonably.
RICHARD THALER: We have gone through the building with both an
electrician and plumber. Mr. Grover can continue to operate as
Mr. Dooley did. I do not feel that this is what the people in
the neighborhood want. In order to operate a well run, well
stocked Mama an Papa store, requires more square footage than he
has there at the present time. The hardship in essence, is a
hardship to serve the public that the store serves. We can not
do it on the square footage that we have now. We can not supply
the demands of the people that are there now. We can operate a
store, dontt get me wrong, this is not the hardship. The store
can be operated in its present status. That is not what I classify
as the hardship. The hardship is that we are unable to meet the
demands of the people in the neighborhood, or the goods, wares arra
things that they want on a neighborhood store out of the facility
that is there now. Plus the fact that Mr. Grover feels that the
structure as it is now constituted is not going to be their much
longer unless some work is done on it. 1Electrical wiring needs to
be redone, the plumbing needs to be updated, plus the floor needs
to be repaired, the front stoop needs to be repaired and the
exterior, certainly needs to be repaired. My feeling is that we
can operate but we can not operate to the demand of the neighbor-
hood.
MRS. HOLMAN: How many additional square feet will be gained?
RICHARD THALER: I have not actually mathematically computed it,
but what will be gained would be a structure . . . . . . . the width of
-4-
the
4-the proposed structure would be ten ( 10) feet, which is narrower
than the present garage by the length of the building. If we had
a ruler, the diagram is to scale where 1/8 of an inch equals one ( )
foot.
MRS. HOLMAN: Can you tell us something about the front of the
building? The door on the left will be the entrance to the
apartment, is that right?
MR. THALER: No, as you look at it the door to the left is the
door to the store. The door to the right, as you look at it is
the door to the apartment upstairs.
MRS. HOLMAN: There are three doors shown.
MR. THALER: It' s the furthest door. . . . . . .
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: On the proposed.
MR. THALER: Are you talking about the proposed? The one on the.
furthest right would be the entrance way to the apartment. The
one in the center would be the store and the one to the left would
be to the store. So there would be two entrances to the store.
MRS. HOLMAN: What kind of sign is proposed?
MR. THALER: None
MRS. HOLMAN: There will be no sign?
MR. THALER: I would think there will be a sign flat against the
front of the building to the extent that the zoning ordinance would
be in compliance. There will be no overhanging sign.
MR. JONES: It would be limited to five (5) square foot fastened
back flush to the building.
MR. THALER: Most everybody that lives in the area knows where
the store is, so that there is no really big requirement for
identif ing it.
MRS. HOLMAN: What will be the hours of operation?
-5-
Approximately 7:30 or 8:00 until 6:00 six days a week.
MR. THALER: Whatever Mr. Dooley had I would think that . . . . . . . . .
as I understand it from Mr. Grover, his hours of operation depends
on the demands of the people who are his customers. My feelings
are that Mr. Dooley did the same thing. If his customers wanted
him open in the evening, he would have been there in the evening.
Apparently they did not require him to be open in the evening
hours and he wasn't open.
MRS. HOLMAN: Where will the off street loading be provided when
the lot is covered by the addition?
MR. THALER: There will be no off street loading. This is one
of the things that the zoning ordinance requires and we are asking
a variance too.
MRS. HOLMAN: Where will the parking for the apartment be?
MR. THALER: There is a parking lot on the corner. Mr. Dooley
owns that property and he has consented to let Mr. Grover have the
person who lives in the apartment park in his parking lot.
MRS. HOLMAN: Do you have that consent in writing?
MR. THALER: Mr. Dooley is a gentleman I think of long standing,
and he resented the fact that we even had a contract to purchase
the sale in writing.
MRS. HOLMAN: Will there be any additional business conducted
from the store?
MR. THALER: No.
MRS. HOLMAN: Mr. Grover intends to conduct his present business
from his home, as he is now doing?
MR. THALER: I believe there will be no additional business
at this premises. The grocery store and the apartment is all that
is intended for this building.
-6-
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions from the Board?
MR. KASPRZAK: Was Mr. Grover aware of the difficulties before he
purchased the property?
MR. THALER: He was. When you say difficulties before we purchase
it, we knew the condition of the building. My feelings are that
the hardship, he lives in the neighborhood, he knows what type of
operation Mr. Dooley ran and he also knew what the people in the
neighborhood wanted and this is one of the reasons he purchased it
It was to enable him to provide the service the people in the
neighborhood really wanted. This is where the hardship is. It' s
not a hardship to Mr. Grover perse as a hardship to the community
perse because there is just nothing else their to provide this
service. Without this store, there is no other place where they
can buy food stuffs in the neighborhood.
MR. GASTEIGER: Is there an objective measure of the community
interest in wanting this store.
MR. THALER: All I can tell you is that we sent out the required
notices, there was only three people who contacted me and all
three were in favor. I have heard nothing else from anybody. But
I can tell you that Mr. Grover is a business man, he entered into
this vdnture -because of people talking to him that this is some-
thing he felt was a need for the community up there and something
that was desired. Certainly what he has proposed to do with the
building, would be legitimate end or aim of zoning, and that' s
to upgrade the community and keep the tax base. This building
up there as it presently stands, certainly the former owner could
have asked for a tax reduction because the building was just in
disrepair.
MR. VAN MARTER: Can you relate any other things that relate to
hardships as concerns the lot or the approach?
MR. THALER: Well, let me say this, one of the things I think is
in the law, and this case law in the State of New York and when
-7-
you are asking for variance, if what you are asking for is less
than what you already have, in other words it' s more in compliance
than what was their before. The necessity of hardship is not the
criteria, the necessity of hardship, may be the hardship of the
community if you don' t get it. This is what I'm asking for, is
that Mr. Grover knew the condition of the building before he
bought it, so he can not say that it' s a hardship if you don' t
grant him the variance. "What I'm saying to you is that without
this variance, this store cannot provide the services to the
community that it provides now and has for a hundred years. We
are making it less of a violation if it hadn' t been a preexisting
use. The two foot is more of a violation of your ordinance than
the five foot that he proposes, so he is making it less than it
was before.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any others here tonight who wish to
speak on behalf of this requested variance?
RICHARD INMAN: 106 Grandview Place. I will say this much. We
do need a grocery store on South Hill. We lost one within the
last year or two, the one above us. I know several times at
night, you have to go get milk, bread or some little thing like
this, it' s very handy. I was disappointed to hear that they were
going out of business and very glad to hear that Mr. Grover had
purchased it with the p6ssibility of keeping it open and serving
the public.
BOB DOUGHERTY: I own the adjoining property next to the store.
I grew up their and I have been their for about thirty-;five years.
I feel that if you take and tear down the garage, move the
structure out in front of the store, it will create an alley
between my property and the store. At one time the kids used to
play in that area and my house was almost burned down once, thanks
to a neighbor who stopped. I think it will degrade my property.
It' s moving everything close to it, there' s not very much space
between the sides.
-8-
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How close is your structure to the . . . . . . . . . . . .
BOB DOUGHERTY: Right now, I'd say approximately thirteen ( 13)
feet. No, from the property line my structure is probably not
over five (5) or six (6) foot at the most.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So, if you- are five feet away and this proposed
building is five feet away, there will only be 10 feet or so that
separate the two buildings.
BOB DOUGHERTY: That is right.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else that would like to speak on behalf
of the variance? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition?
DAVE FULLER: I'm Dave Fuller, President of South Hill Civic
Association. I' d like to ask one question to the . . . . or did you
receive a copy of this letter from one of the neighbors, Mr.
Burgermaster.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I have a letter from Mr. Burgermaster.
DAVE FULLER: I think in that letter, he sets out some of his
objections which I wanted to bring to your attention which are
objections of at least one other neighbor in terms of the lots
use that it is a non-conforming use at the moment and that the
additions would even make it more non-conforming which has caused
some concern on his part. He did come to the South Hill Civic
Association meeting and present his case and the Association voted
to support his particular grievance on this. So on his behalf and
on the Associations half I'd like to speak to that point. We do
not object to a Mom and Pop Grocery Store, being located on that
property. What some of the neighbors ,seem to feel is that since
it has been apparently a on going business to this date, we don' t
understand why an addition or expansion is so important. I think
most of us find ourselves in a difficult position, for it is a
South Hill resident who wants to do this and South Hill residents
are concerned about the expansion. We find ourselves feeling that
it' s desirous to have a Mom and Pop Store in the community but
-9-
the size of it and respective possibility of signs, increased
litter, congestion on the corner there seems to be a considerable
traffic problem, which would be increased. Creating additional
problems to what we have now and in weighing these things off
against each other, the community wonders whether we are gaining
or loosing by having the expansion. If some of that property is
taken up, if the driveway is gone because there is an addition to
the building, still isn' t clear where the loading takes place,
where people park, and with the bus stop their, this seems to be
a very congested area. It seem as if business would also increase
congestion. Another factor that arose was partly due to the
apartments. Where these people would park and would that add to
the congestion in the community as well. I think that the store
as it stands, it could be modernized inside, in the amount of
floor space that it has now, would certainly be desirable to the
community. I think that some of the neighbors are concerned
about the closeness of the expansion of their property, congestion,
lighting that would shine into their homes. It would make quite
a different kind of environment to the immediate neighbors anyway
and whether or not the expansion would change the nature of the
operation enough to make a different kind of business than what
it has been in the past. The size of it now clearly makes it a
Mom and Pop Store. If it' s expanded, does it make it more? Also
if we change part of the nature of the store. There' s some concern
over that. It is a non-conforming business which is asking for
an expansion, which is a considerable change. That does seem to
warrant unusual conditions to grant such a variance.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else who would like to speak on the case?
MR. THALER: I would like to indicate, what used to be sufficient
space for a Mom and Pop Store when there was single brands foods
or when there was a single brand of one thing that would attract
your customer. This is not the way the grocery business is run
anymore and it is not for a supermarket that Mr. Grover bought
this place, nor is it his intention to run a supermarket their .
-10-
His intention is to keep it a Mom and Pop Store, where people
ninety (90) percent of which, walk to the store. It is not one
that they drive to it. People who go by it on their way home,
they park along the street or they park in the parking lot at the
corner. It is not a congestion. There is no plans which have
been submitted to this Board to show that there will be any
exterior lights on this building. It is not intended to be that.
What has tried to be done with the plan, is to keep it as close
to a residential looking building, structure as possible. This
is why we do not agree with the Planning Board, which said no
extension to the apartment upstairs, because we feel inorder to
keep this as a structure that looks like a residence rather than
a store, rather than having a shed roof, that you have to have the
second floor on it and so that it is in keeping with the environment
that it sits in.
MR. GASTEIGER: I feel that a very poor picture has been made on
either side in terms, for instance how many more employees or
occupants of the apartment, how many more customers are you
anticipating to serve you? People who seem to feel it meets the
needs now and I don' t find any figures or pictures of square feet
compared to the old store and the new.
MR. THALER: My feeling is that in answer to your question, the
drawing that you have in front of you, is to scale, it is ten feet
that is proposed that the addition would be ten feet wide by the
length of the building . . . . . . .
MR. GASTEIGER: There is no feeling for how much of the space now
is used for storage and how much will be used for customers?
MR. THALER: The back third of it is used for storage and the
same thing is true with the new structure, so that your selling
space is out in front of that, two thirds. As far as additional
customers are concerned, it is not anticipated that it will attract
additional customers.
MR. GASTEIGER: I don' t have a real feel for the need fcr more
space. You said that . . . . . . . . . . .
MR. THALER: The reason for more space is to be able to display
multiple brands of the same type of food and for more storage so
that a delivery can be made on the basis of once a week rather than
three times a week.
MR. GASTEIGER: No additional employees?
MR. THALER: No additional employees, well I' ll take that back,
Mr. Dooley was the only employee or Mrs. Dooley, it is anticipated
that this will be a family type of operation, run by Mr. Grover
and his family. It does not anticipate that there will be more
than one and possibily a part-time stocking person on the premises
at any one time.
MR. GASTEIGER: How about the apartment ? Are there new apartments
planned?
MR. THALER: No, Same apartment it' s going to be an expansion of
that. In other words instead of having one bedroom that is small
and cramped, it will be either two or three by dividing the new
space into two rooms.
MRS. HOLMAN: No new bathroom contemplated?
MR. THALER: No.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Unless there is someone else who wants to speak
on the hearing, that concludes the hearing on Appeal # 1069.
EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY CFITHACA,
MARCH 3, 1975
APPEAL NO. 1069:
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the variance be denied.
MR. KASPRZAK: I second that.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1) The record fails to show any evidence of a hardship related
to the property.
2) In response to a direct question relating to hardship on the
property, it was stated that the hardship related only to
the neighborhood and potential customers.
3) The appellants representative indicated that a business
could continue to be maintained in the present structure.
VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 0
Your application has been denied.
-12-
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW
YORK, MARCH 3, 1975
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Jones lists what case No. 1070 is to be.
APPEAL NO. 1070: The Appeal of the Building Department for
Interpretation of Rules of Home Occupation under
Section 30.3 subsection 42-D-3 at 133 Grandview
Court in an R-2 district.
Mr. Jones: I have discussed this with the Attorney for the City,
Mr. Shapiro, and he advised me to go to the Board of Zoning Appeal
and ask them for an interpretation and I have enclosed all the
pertinent information that I have, to bring this to a head and now
set it in your hands, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: This is a kind of case which under the ordinance
speaks of the Building Commissioner bringing the question of
interpretation to the Board. Our customary procedure is to have
the property owner or the person seeking an appeal present the
case first. In this case it strikes me reasonable to ask if there
is anyone here representing the property owner, who wishes to spea
on behalf of the current use of the property and therefore on
behalf of an arguement that current activities are within the
definition of a Home Occupation.
MR. GERSH: Mr. Chairman, Ind like to speak on behalf of the props ty
owner. I would suggest in view of the context, I think it would
be more useful to hear what Professor Cosgrove and whatever suppor ers
that this position has to what the problems are and perhaps we
could respond to those.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That sounds equally sensible to me and . . . . . . . .
PROFESSOR COSGROVE: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the usual
form being followed if you see it preferable . . . 0 . 400 . . . . .
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What I was really saying was that there was no
usual form for this unusual kind of case and so either side might
as well go first and I have no objection to those who have put
the question to the Building Commissioner and therefore the Board
going first. So if the neighborhood residence are willing to go
-13-
first I'd be quite happy to ask them to do so. So could those
who have put this question in whatever order they like, do so.
ROBERT COSGROVE: My name is Robert Cosgrove and I live at 117
Grandview Court. I have here a petition thats brief, addressed
to the Board of Zoning Appeals that I'd like to read to you ladies
and gentlemen, signed by nineteen (19) persons, one of them a
• double husband and wife. If I may, I would like to read this
petition. The undersigned persons find that the operation of
RYAN' S WRECKER SERVICE in Grandview Court is a distress to them,
and present this petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals for re-
dress against this public nuisance. RYAN'S WRECKER SERVICE
is located at 133 Grandview Court, which houses a message center.
The business premises include 121 Grandview Court, where other
employees of RYAN' S are housed. Outside these two apartments are
parked, variously, three tow trucks, one pick-up truck, and two
passenger cars, all of which use Grandview Court as a parking yard
from which they go out on call.
Sources of distress are these: trucks rumble in and out during
very early morning hours; trucks are warmed up, on fast idle, for
long periods, under bedroom windows, at one and two a.m. ; two-way
communication systems are left open, at any time, day or night;
drivers on duty are noisy in the street at night hours; trucks
are a danger to the many small children who play in this dead-end
street in fair weather; trucks are unsightly, and take up
disproportionate parking space.
The above facts show that there is far too much exterior indication
of a home occupation, and that noise is offensive and in excess,
as set forth in the relevant city ordinance.
I would like to make one point of correction. Mr. Ryan has assure
me that the two passenger cars referred to here, on the private
property only of two of his drivers living at 121 Grandview Court
and that they are not used, never have been used in the conduct
of his business and I'm perfectly satisfied to accept his word on
that. There is one truck certainly parked outside 121 Grandview
Court, which is directly under my bedroom window which has caused
-14-
part of an arguement about the volume of noise generated through
the presence of RYAN' S WRECKER SERVICE. A number of people in
Grandview Court, are here tonight who have signed this petition
would like to speak on their own behalf. I would like to make
this emphasis right now, that these people who have signed this
petition right here, are residence of Grandview Court and not
residence of Grandview Avenue or Hudson Street or Grandview Place
or any place else, where I suppose quite properly Mr. Ryan or any-
body else could operate vehicles going to and forth about his
business. I make the point because I understand that Mr. Ryan
has circulated some person outside Grandview Court. Grandview
Avenue for example, I very much doubt you could hear very much
noise generated in Grandview Court. There is a line of apartments
that make a sound baffle, a line of garages that makes a sound
baffle, a church and a manse that make another baffle , I don' t
know how you could hear it anyhow I just wanted to emphasize that
these are people in Grandview Court, which itself is a coldesac.
I just wish to reaffirm what is said here in this petition, that
the noise is especially from my own point, the night noises made
by the trucks coming and going very much in excess of what one
might expect and ought to expect in a residential area. I believe
your in receipt of some information from Alderman Anne Jones a
copy of our letter originally sent to Mr. Edison Jones. Now we
have not kept a movie camera watching Grandview Court, and we
have- not gone into that kind of business but, here from Alderman
Jones during the month of January she made twelve visits to
Grandview Court. On six of those visits their was three tow truck
and one pick up truck parked their. It is true that the squaking
of open communication systems is very much lessened since this
operation began and one of the tow trucks is very much less
inevident than it had been earlier on. The windows soon enough
will be open come spring and the volume of noise will become to
me as intolerable as it was in the summer and the fall. There
has been two drivers employed by Mr. Ryan, who live at 121
Grandview Court directly next to me, perfect right to take up
-15-
residence their of course, but what I am partly alarmed at is this
that other employees of Mr. Ryan' s can move into Grandview Court
and bring their trucks with them, he advertises that he has five
trucks, tow trucks I assume equipped with two-way radios, possibil ty
in addition to the one pick up truck that he owns. Five vehicles
at least, six perhaps. They could all move into Grandview Court
as things seem to stand at the moment and we would have a much
faster trucking operation their. Mr. Ryan started I understand
with one truck when he came to Grandview Court four years ago, he'
in a good way of business he has built it up successfully but the
persons that have signed this petition do not want it further
built up at their expense or to continue at their expense. Myself
I have lived at Grandview Court for eight years and I feel that
the conditions of life in the neighborhood have changed for the
worse as a result of the operation of this commercial enterprise.
The point was made before the Planning Board and has been made
to me in a brief conversation with Mr. Ryan, that he will suffer
considerable hardship if he is required to move out of Grandview
Court. As I understand the hardship their is upon the property,
Mr. Ryan as far as I knew rents his apartment in Grandview Court
as I believe all the apartments are rented, he owns no property
their, I don' t know just what kind of hardship he will claim.
If he moves he will be put to greater expense and greater incon-
vience, of course he will. He' s doing right now what seems to me
what he should never have done in the first place and he wants
to continue to doing it. He argues so I understand that because
he has been their so far, he should continue to be their. If
I may say so is like the arguement and the story of the boy who
shot his parents and then claimed consideration because he was
an orphan. Of course he' ll be put to expense if he is required
to move. Right now he' s getting free parking for his business
and that gives him an advantage over his competitors, I would
assume. Anybody would want to continue an advantage, if he could
possibily have it. It seems to us that it is an improper
advantage. There is a great deal of exterior indication of the
-16-
nature of his business. In fact it seems to me that such a
business can not help to spill over on the street, whatever Mr.
Ryan might want to do, or whatever good neighbor he might want
to be is prohibited from being so by the nature of the business
that he operates. Now I don' t know Mr. Ryan is actually claiming
a variance and I suppose someone with more legal knowledge will
speak to this but I c-an' t understand if he should do so, why that
would be so in regard to the actual holding of the property. Part
of the hardship apparently would come from this that Mr. Ryan
will have the greatest difficulty in relocating his operation.
Well, there arm other towing concerns around, two up on the Danby
Road and various places. I don' t know why Mr. Ryan can not
relocate and in fact how appropriate it would be but, Montgomery
Wards old garaging area, I think it is Cayuga and Spencer is
vacant. I suggest that he might look into it, an offer from an
old English Professor who knows nothing about the business so it
might be inappropriate for him to do so. The point has been made
before by Mr. Ryan that other people are noisier than he is and
less legal than he is and the point seems to me to be irrelevant
the question is whether he ought to be in Grandview Court or not
with his business and as I have said the business is only too
evident in the court, it is a nuisance in Grandview Court, it is
noisy in Grandview Court and at least nineteen persons have signed
the petition saying that they wish to be relieved of it. Now
that is in essence of what I have to say. Some other persons,
I believe Mr. Fuller of the South Hill Civic Association has point
to make too.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any questions?
MR. KASPRZAK: Have the police been notified at any time of the
nuisance created by Mr. Ryan?
PROFESSOR COSGROVE: I have not called the police, no. You can
understand some of the problem, vehicle is warmed up for say 15
minutes. There are noises in the street as people move from
their apartment to the vehicle. One waits in bed at one o' clock
-17-
for five minutes hopeing it will go away, one stews for another
three, one calls the police, the police are busy people it is not
very likely they would be that easily able to get up Grandview
Court where ever they are in the three or four minutes and that
sort of thing goes on. We have had fifteen minutes of it and a
good racket it is at say one o' clock in the morning.
MR. VAN MARTER: Could you describe to me what goes on in the
building and on the property related to Mr. Ryan?
MR. COSGROVE: No sir, I have never been in Mr. Ryan' s apartment
MR. VAN MARTER: I have only one bit of information and that is,
that it is used as a message center.
MR. COSGROVE: I understand that this is so, my informer is Mr.
Bennett, I suppose who is manager of Aurora Heights Apartments
Grandview Court. Perfectly obvious to see persons leaving Mr.
Ryan' s apartment before the other apartment was rented by two
other drivers, leaving, getting into trucks driving off. Must
be some way of communicating with them, an aerial above his house
indicates that there is a message center their. I don' t imagine
that Mr. Ryan wishes to deny it. Nor am I complaining about the
fact of a message center within the walls.
MR. KASPRZAK: Are there any parking regulations related to the
apartment? In regards to whether you are assigned to 1, 2, or 10
parking spaces?
MR. COSGROVE: There are garages not sufficient for all the
residence of Grandview Court. No, no parking slots, no numbered
places, you park where you can. Grandview Court by the way, you
enter it from Grandview Avenue turns left off Grandview Ave. and
goes into the Court, it goes down hill and then you make a turn
right. This doesn't effect me, I have a garage. Some places I
would assume it' s rather difficult to see around the obstruction
of the two trucks parked directly outside number 133 where Mr.
Ryan has his home.
-18-
MR. GASTEIGER: Do you know how many employees, Mr. Ryan has?
MR. COSGROVE: No, I'd like an authoritative statement on that.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well, . since we' ll be hearing from the property
owner, many of these details will be cleared up, I assume. Are
there any further questions? Now, before we have further people
speaking in this case, let me clarify just a bit what the issue
before the Board is. We are being asked for an interpretation
of the definition of Home Occupation in the Zoning Ordinance.
We've been asked for this interpretation by the Building Commissioner,
While it might seem like a fine time, we are not in the business
of enforcing the Zoning Ordinance. So the fact that there may
have been on some instances violations of the Zoning Ordinance
or matters that will really not concern us. Our question is what
goes on in the property and how do we relate that to the definitio
of Home Occupation in the Zoning Ordinance? So the most important
information for the Board at the scope of activities at the
property. Who else would like to speak on behalf of the residence
who are upset about what is going on and would like to relate
what is going on in the property to the definition of Home Occupat on?
IMRE TAMAS: My name is Imre Tamas and I live at 166 Grandview
Court. I'd like to emphasize the following points that several
aspects are particularly troublesome and bothersome. One is the
two way communications system. The way Mr. Ryan seems to use this
is to have it on at a loud volume during the summer months so that
he can easily hear that' s my impression, the reason he does it
that way. He leaves it on large volumes so that he can easily
hear the communication system, the messages from the truck into
his apartment. Quite a distance away you can hear the communications
system going on and you know their are clicking noises continually.
But this is something that you have to live with if you live on
Grandview Court and spend your whole evening listening to this
kind of distracting noise. Also the comings and goings in the
evenings are quite distracting and some people do sleep lightly,
my wife happens to be a light sleeper and if she is wokened up
-19-
then it is very difficult for her to go back to sleep. This is a
continuous problem especially during the summer months. I would
be very hesitant to place very much weight on claims that the
noise is not a particularly great problem during the winter months
but perhaps it isn' t but during the summer months it is.
• CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Who else wishes to speak?
DAVE FULLER: My name is Dave Fuller, South Hill Civic Association
Our neighbors have come to the Association with their concerns and
upon occassion the Association agrees to support them in their
concerns and therefore, I am here again. It seems that the Zoning
of a community is organized to preserve as much as possible the
nature of the community and to act as a description of what can
be allowed to happen within the community This is beyond any
sort of personal preferences for when people living in the same
community, one trying to develop a business and another one trying
to live in the community they are both neighbors. ' We try to have
some impartial way of arriving at what are the rights of each.
It appears that R-2 does describe or indicate that in a residential
community the rights of those who are essentially residence, not
business people are the ones that essentially seem to be the ones
to preserve. It does allow for a certain amount of home industry
or home business to develop. As I recall the Zoning Ordinances
indicate that Home Businesses should not have lights, sound
annoyances to the community but, as they are conducted should not
give an indication that they are even their. So that the rest of
the community is not very much aware of the presence of the home
industry. I guess what part of the problem comes down to is are
large trucks parked in the street part of a home industry? It
may be true that within the apartment itself, there is not a
great deal of noise from time to time which creates problems.
However, attached to that business out on the street are several
vehicles. Are these vehicles not a part of the business and there-
fore creating something of a noise disturbance, safety hazard or
threat to the community. I think that we find that those who are
finding a problem here, are indicating that the trucks on the street
-20-
as much as anything else are part of the problem. So, I wonder
can we separate the trucks that are in the community, in the R-2
zone, to someplace itself. Can you put a truck in the apartment?
MR. KASPRZAK: I don' t mean to be nasty, a home occupation is not
permitted in an R-2, why are we listening to all of this?
MR. JONES: That was an R-3 zone up until the last zoning. . . . . .
MR. KASPRZAK: Why are we listening now?
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Jones, you brought the question to the
Board, can you answer it?
MR. JONES: I didn' t realize it, and maybe I'm very negligent
because I gather from Mr. Kasprzak that when the zone changes we
are suppose to put all these businesses out of business, is that
what you're saying?
MR. KASPRZAK: No, I'm talking about Home Occupation, no businesse
and I don' t mean to criticize anyone, but if the things are
changed we should be notified about them.
MR. JONES: That was a R-3 zone, when Mr. Ryan was in there and
has been changed to an R-2 in February 1974.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The zoning initially when this use was establish d
permitted home occupations as far as it is continuing as a non-
conforming use.
MR. KASPRZAK: There seems to be an understanding that it always
was an R-2 zone, maybe it wasn' t, I don' t know.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It maybe, if you're right this turns out to be
completely irrelevant. The whole discussion about what is a
home occupation. If we conclude that this is R-2 and has always
been R-2, then we will have to make the point .
DAVE FULLER: Now, I have to find what point I'm talking to.
I'd assume that it would have to be towards the older zoning
ordinance or arrangement that allowed for a home occupation.
-21-
If Mr. Kasprzak is right, then there isn' t any point . . . . . . .
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If by assuming the prior zoning to permit
Home Occupation.
DAVE FULLER: Assuming that then we are trying to define what a
Home Occupation is. If I am correct I think that there has been
a definition of Home Occupation but the question is what is the
relationship in part of this particular business to the definition
of a Home Occupation.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The ordinance clearly does define Home Occupatio
and the question of interpretation as I hear it emerging , is
whether or not the trucks parked in the street in the activity
associated vL th them is closely associated with the occupancy
of the apartment, that that is part of the occupation or business.
If it is then presumably it would violate the definition of Home
Occupation .
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else who would like to speak on behalf
of the neighborhood?
JON WIANT: My name is Jon Wiant of 120 Grandview Court. I'd
like to say that I have nothing against the towing business and
I certainly have nothing personally against Mr. Ryan. In the
four years that I have lived in Grandview Court I've never had
any personal difficulties with him with the exception of the
manifest characteristics of the wrecking business, I have no
quable with Mr. Ryan. It seems to me that in a neighborhood
and I think quite clearly Grandview Court constitutes a neighbor-
hood that we can' t get it mixed up with the concept of a business
which is so manifestly apparent. We are not a prosperous neighbor -
hood but I think we are friendly and a rather open neighborhood.
But we have a business their and it is quite clearly a business
and it seems to be quite contrary to the spirit of the neighbor-
hood. There is no way by the very nature of the business that
you can disguise its visible presence and it has grown over the
four years. There was just one wrecker, I believe when I moved
-22- `
to Grandview Court, and now we see upwards to four and occasion
five of the bright red vehicles dominating one end of the court.
Now, that doesn' t seem to me to be consistant with the idea of the
neighborhood that I' d like to live in. That is the visible sign
of it. We have the movement of the vehicles out of the end of
the Court, up the street sometime at fairly quick speed. I think
that constitutes a danger in additions to the problems of the
noise. Finally, a point that hasn' t been brought up although Mr.
Cosgrove eluded to it, those of us that live closer to Grandview
Avenue don' t hear directly the two way communications but through
some peculiar aspect which I don' t pretend to understand in the
electronics of this, I occasionally pick up at full force the
truck message center communications on my stero system. It doesn' t
even have to be on the receiver, it will come over just through
the amplifier. I'm not sure that anything can be done about it
or if it is just a function of a two way communications but it
does seem that close presence to the message center has increased
the number of pick ups that I get.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Now, lets hear from the property owner. First,
let me touch on the pertinent parts of the definition in the
light of what we have heard. The use has to be inorder to be
a Home Occupation, clearly incidential an accessory to the use of
the dwelling unit for residential purposes. It has to be carried
on wholly within the principle building, no more than two persons
outside the family shall be employed, no exterior display or
exterior sign is accepted is permitted under the sign ordinance,
no offensive order, noise vibrations, smoke, dust etc. shall be
produced.
MR. GERSH: Chairman Martin, members of the Board, my name is
David Gersh and I'm appearing this evening with Mr. and Mrs.
Ryan to attempt to present the other side of what might appear to
be what has been called a public nuisance and a situation which
Professor Cosgrove tells us is distressing some nineteen residence
of our City. Some time ago, an employee of Ryan' s was quite rude
to Professor Cosgrove, he was impolite, he was irresponsible
-23-
as I understand it he had left the radio, a citizens band radio,
which is not the customary radio in his truck and left it on with
the windows open at night creating quite a disturbance and when
Professor Cosgrove brought this to his attention the person
instead of apologizing and rectifing the situation, was as I say
impolite, rude, discourteous and as a result incurred the wrath
of Professor Cosgrove and I think justifiably so. That employee
is no longer with Ryan' s. That was the geneses of what is before
you this evening. That was the start of a petition gathering
campaign by Professor Cosgrove in an attempt to move Mr. Ryan
from Grandview Court. Mr. Ryan has been in Grandview Court for
some four years. He has been operating since 1964 without any
complaint whatsoever being filed with the police or the Building
Commissioner and now we have this challenge to the legality of a
towing service as a Home Occupation specifically on Grandview
Court. I bring to the Boards attention generally, the provisions
of section 30.40 of the Ordinance which relate to general standard
applying to all the land use, not just this but all the land use.
Their the general standards permit a certain amount of noise,
noise as long as that it is not in excess of the intensity set by
the American Standards Association. No smoke, no odor, no ash,
dust or dirt, no glare or heat, no pollution by hot suffocating
corrosive or flammable poisonous or explosive liquid gas or
vapor and no vibrations and I submit to you that the nature of
the operation conducted by Ryan' s Towing Service comes squarely
within those standards. The elements of the operation, I think
should be looked at individually because I think they all go to
make up the Home Occupation. First, the building as the Board is
aware to be a Home Occupation the dominate use of the property
has to be as a residence. I think that no one will question that
the dominate use is in fact a residence. The "message center"
is in fact a desk with a radio and a telephone. There are no
other accouterments or eminenties of a business within the Ryan
I
-24-
household. The premises are open for your inspection at any time,
announced or unannounced. The building is occuppied by Jack, his
wife and his three children. It is their only residence. One
person is involved in the operation of Ryan' s Towing Service, he
doesn' t have a staff of three, four or five. He has no mechanical
equipment, no machinery nothing else in the house except a desk
onwhich he does his books, a radio which he gets calls from the
police, AAA, or individuals in emergency situations and a telephone,
same kind of telephone we have. In fact, business mail doesn' t
even come to the house, he has a box number in which he receives
his business mail. So, I'm suggesting that the appearance of the
building in no way detracts from the residential character of this
neighborhood. There are no signs on the building, there are no
signs in the yard, there is nothing about this building which
would in any way identify it as a business. Now, Mr. Ryan is the
only twenty-four hour towing service residing in the City of Ithaca.
As Professor Cosgrove correctly stated, all the others live out-
side the city. Finger Lakes Wrecker is on Hayts Road, Hap' s is in
the Town of Ithaca, Charlies Gulf is on Danby Road, Enfield Salvag
is in Enfield, J. B. Motors is in Danby, Maycumbers is in Danby,
Mix' s is on North Triphammer in Lansing and Paul' s Texaco is in
Varna. These are the only people who represent themselves as
twenty-four hour towing service and Ryan' s is the only one within
the City of Ithaca. Now, this is significant and I mention this
because I think it goes to the balance, your being asked to balanc
the convenience of a group of citizens, residence, against the
public service being rendered by this particular business. Their
was an accident just several weeks ago on East State Street in
which a vehicle over turned and the driver was pinned under that
vehicle. The police called Ryan' s and Ryan' s was able because of
his proximity living in the City to be their within minutes and
he was able to lift this vehicle and save the life of the driver.
He provides a vital service, this isn' t some strictly profit
motivated operation. He is definitely providing a public service
to the citizens of our community. It' s certainly true that speed
urgency is essential and he is the only one within the City.
-25-
In this regard, he is very similar to Bang' s Ambulance on Green
Street and County Ambulance on Cascadilla Street, in that he is
here providing empergency service and is of particular value of
citizens of the City because he is available to them. Sometimes
and this is the very essence of zoning, sometimes the convenience
of a few, have to yield to the general welfare of the many. And
the fact that some 19 people have said that they are being
distressed, I submit to you, is not sufficient cause to deprive
South Hill and the City generally of the value of Ryan' s. Now,
the radio is a point in communications, there is a point which was
raised by the people speaking against and I've handed to the
Board a few letters which we have received and as you can see this
is not something that we have been preparing over a long time.
The letter from the Chief Engineer of Ceracche Television is
dated March 3, and the letter from the field service technician
from Motorola is not dated, but I can tell you we just got it a
day or two ago. The substance of these letters is that there is
nothing about the radio equipment which Mr. Ryan has which would
have caused interference with Radio and Television. If there are
problems, the problems are not in the equipment that he has which
has been FCC approved and inspected but, rather their is a
deficiency in the home receiving sets and the gentleman from
Ceracche, the Chief Engineer of Ceracche was kind enough to say
in his letter that he would be more than happy to inspect and
correct any problems in any sets by the addition of a condensor or
capacitor or whatever heck it is to rectify the situation in
terms of problems with noise. Now, the other objection voiced
about the radio equipment is that on occasion, it has been left
on loud and has ,created a noise distraction. Now, I'm not going
to stand before you and say that never happens, certainly it
happens. Just like sometimes I leave my stereo on too loudly,
sometimes my dog barks loudly and disturbs the neighbor. When
these things happen, we as neighbors ask that we be told about it
and be given an opportunity to do something about it. The fact
is that the police have never been called. The fact is that Mr.
Ryan has never been told about a problem and not corrected it
-26-
immediately. So, if on occasion his radio receiver is left on
loudly, it' s not because of any reason except oversight, just as
you and I occasionally overlook things and if it is brought to his
attention, it will be rectified and rectified promptly. His
situation, in respect to this radio equipment is not unlike that
of a fireman who has radio equipment in his house so that he can
respond to an emergency at all hours of the night. Now, I think
as Chairman Martin stated, the problem really gets down to not
what' s going on within the building, not what' s going on within
the premises, but rather to these trucks. Now, in this regard
let me point out that Mr. Ryan drives a tow truck, which is his
family car. He does not own a sedan. He does not own any other
vehicle, passenger type vehicle, other than this tow truck. So
he uses this tow truck when he wants to go to Super Duper for a
quart of milk. He uses the tow truck when he goes to his church
cr School Board meeting or any other purpose. This truck is his
family vehicle. Mrs. Ryan also needs transportation. She uses a
pick up truck which is also a family car. So, these are the two
vehicles used by the Ryan family to get around, their sole means
of transportation. Now, in addition and this is coincidental,
there is an employee of Ryan' s who lives at 121, Jack lives at
133, there is an employee of Ryan' s at 121 and he drives a Ryan
truck also. It is available when he gets a call and he can go in
his truck and go to the scene of an emergency. So that at any
time, yes there may be three trucks on the street labeled Ryan.
One of them is driven by Herb Drake, who is a bonafide resident
of Grandview Court and has every right to park his vehicle in the
street. Another one is driven by Jack Ryan, who has the same
privilege and the third is driven by Barbara Ryan who has the same
privilege. Now, their is another truck which is driven by an
employee named George. And this truck I think after discussing
the matter fully with Jack, is the cause of much of the problem,
because this truck is noisy. This truck is not kept on Grandview
Court. This truck is kept by George where he lives over on Tioga
Street and occasionally George comes up to visit with Jack, to
go over business, socialize whatever. I'm prepared this evening
-27-
to assure the Board and to assure the 19 people who are distressed
that this truck will be kept off Grandview Court and in no way will
disturb these people again. Now, I have obtained for the Board' s
examination some technical data because I think that' s significant
in determining the character of these trucks. First of all, all
of these trucks have car motors, automobile motors, these are
not big diesel engines. These are automobile motors and I have
given to you for your examination a letter from Pritchards in
which he gives you the cubic inch size of these engines and I
think you will notice by simply examining that letter that those
engines are in fact smaller than many passenger automobiles.
Indeed the car I drive, which happens to be an Oldsmobile
Stationwagon, has a 400 some odd cubic inch engine which is
considerably larger than the engine in the Ryan vehicles. Two
of the trucks are nearly new and fully meet the Governmental
Exhaust Noise Regulations. The third truck, recently had a
completely new exhaust system installed. In terms of size, the
trucks are smaller actually than as Mr. Pritchard happens to use
as his example a Dodge Stationwagon. The trucks are shorter than
a Dodge Coronet which is an intermediate Stationwagon. The trucks
are no wider than a passenger car. The trucks are well maintained
and they are clean. Can Ryan properly park a truck in the street?
I submit to you that he can. He has as much right to park his
family vehicle in the street as you and I to park ours. Were we
to say you and I who happen to be in other businesses can park
our transportation in the street, but he can not park his because
he happens to be a towing service operator. I would suggest to
you that that would be discriminatory and arbitrary. Our zoning
ordinance unlike the zoning ordinances of many municipalities,
avoids that kind of discrimination. Some zoning ordinances say
that only professionals can have a home occupation. Only a lawyer,
doctor, architect can have a home occupation. Our zoning ordinanc
does not. Our ordinance recognizes that tradesmen like a dress-
maker, like a artist in additional to professional people, can
have a home occupation to conduct a business within their home
and that' s in the latter category, is exactly where Mr. Ryan falls
-28-
He is a non professional, conducting a home occupation and using
as his means of transportation, the vehicle which he has purchased
which happens to be a truck. If the problem is one of the sign,
I'm happy to address myself to that. On the side of each of
these vehicles appears the words Ryan' s and a telephone number.
There is no address. There is no towing service guaranted or
anything else. It simply says Ryan' s and a telephone number. If
that indication, Ryan' s and a telephone number is the exterior
indication of a home occupation about which one of the previous
speakers spoke, then I'm happy to promise you at your request
that Mr. Ryan will cover that sign whenever the vehicle is parked
on Grandview Court with some sort of canvas, a cover so that
that does not appear. If in fact, Mr. Ryan was forced to move his
home occupation from Grandview Court, I suggest to you that in
fact the result would be no different. Mr. Ryan would still drive
his truck to and from his business. He would park the truck at
home and he would get into the truck when he gets a call because
he would still have a radio in his home, he would still have a
telephone in his home for after hours calls. Their would be no
change in the nature of his operation as regards that truck. Is
the objection that Mr. Ryan is parking too many vehicles on the
street? You know that two and three car families are common
place. Mr. Ryan happens to have a two car family. Zoning in a
R-2 district permits a three car garage. So the zoning recognises
that some people on Grandview Court, could have three cars parked
on the street. He happens to have two. Please also in this
regard review the letter from Richard Parr. Mr. Parr lives at
160 Grandview Court and with respect to the trucks, Mr. Parr says
" I have never observed any of Ryan' s vehicles illegally parked,
he says I have never heard nor seen any of his vehicles enter or
exit the above named street, except in a cautious manner, Ryan' s
vehicles are clean and appear to be in excellent shape, they are
shorter than some station wagons and are more quiet than some cars,
-29-
it is true that his business is on a 24 hour basis and his
wreckers must come and go, but so do cars of other tenants and
guests; this area is largely and I'm leaving the letter at this
point, student populated and I would suggest that the coming and
goings of students at irregular hours contribute to some of the
distress about which Professor Cosgrove has spoken. "His wrecker
and/or radios are not offensive to myself or immediate neighbors,
they have never interfered with the T.V. cable reception, Grandview
Court is a street of the City of Ithaca, and should be observed
by parents and children, like any other street subject to vehicular
traffic , the men who drive the vehicles in question are real
professionals. They are friendly, cautious and courteous,
It is my personal opinion the Ryan' s Wrecker Service represents
a service to the Community and he should be commended, rather
than persecuted etc, etc. Now, with respect to traffic, I think
that traffic is another compliant or concern of the 19 distressed
people. Yes these vehicles do come and go but they don' t come
and go any differently than any other vehicles. It is not true
and I categorically deny that these vehicles represent a danger
to children. This accusation was rather blithely displayed at
the Planning Board and again brought out tonight and I submit to
you that there is no justification for making such an accusation.
Mr. Ryan has three young children of his own, people who are here
tonight to speak on his behalf have young children. His operation
of these trucks presents no greater danger to children on this
culdesac than any other vehicle operated on that street. I would
suggest that by the nature of his business, he is actually reducin
traffic on Grandview Court. Were he a doctor, or a dressmaker or
an architect or some of these expressly permitted home occupations
his clients would be coming to him adding to the traffic adding
to the parking. He goes to his clients. I commend to your
attention, the letter from Mrs. Boothroyd, which I think addresses
the matter squarely, Rae Boothroyd lives at 147 Grandview Court -
As far as "offensive noise" is concerned, I have lived five
doors away from Ryan' s for three years and have never once been
offended. The charge that the trucks are "dangerous to children"
-30-
is way out of line in this case. Never once have my three very
active children (or any other children) had their lives threatened
by Ryan' s trucks; nor have I ever heard the two-way radios "on at
all hours" . If they were on, this situation was checked promptly
by Mrs. Ryan. The two-way radios have never interfered with my
television, radio or sleep. Also, I have never seen a resident
of Grandview Court out of a parking space because of Ryan' s
trucks. We all have plenty of space. As Mrs. Ryan stated, all
of the trucks are not parked their at one time, they never have
been. Ryan' s Wrecker Service has helped many of us in the past
here at Grandview Court and throughout the City. Many times Ryan'
have helped South Hill residents get to work, get back home, and
tow their cars, at little or no charge, becauselthey were resident
of South Hill and Grandview Court etc. I think that it might be
useful at this point, ladies and gentlemen to ask you to note
that you have before you a petition signed by some sixty (60)
residents of this area, and if some of those people had to live
on Grandview Avenue rather than Grandview Court, I suggest
contrary to Professor Cosgroves remarks, that it' s more significant
that these people were agreeable to signing this petition.
Because these people are property owners. They are not renters
like the people on Grandview Court, people who are perhaps more
transient, less permanent. Property owners, people whose property
values are effected directly by Ryan had been willing to sign that
petition. And more over these people if anything are effected
by noise to a greater extent than people on Grandview Court becaus
the trucks are going at a greater significantly speed by the time
they reach Grandview Avenue. Now we have prepared for your
examination a chart which I hope will bring this into a much better
prospective. The chart was discussed with the Board and then
opened for discussion.
MR. VAN MARTER: The telephone is listed in the name of Ryan' s
Wrecker Service. That is the third point that I've gotten on all
the kind words that have been said and all the unkind words.
Those are the only three things that I can use. Is there anything
else that goes on within this property, other than what has been
described tonight?
-31-
MR. GERSH: Not that we know of.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What happens when a call comes in, a need for
a wrecker and the driver who lives down the street is going to be
used. I'm interested in the relationship cEthat driver down the
street.
MRS. RYAN: If he is at home, we call him on his personal phone.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is his being down the street any convenience
to the operation or might he just be living anywhere?
MRS. RYAN: He can be living anywhere. There isn' t any preference
where you live, he just happened to pick their. Why, we didn' t
ask him to.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You didn't ask him to live their?
MRS. RYAN: Oh no
MR. GASTEIGER: Does he own a car of his own?
MRS. RYAN: Yes he does.
MR. GASTEIGER: I wonder if it would be fair to ask what percentag
of the Ryan rent is deducted as business expense?
MR. GERSH: 1/6 of the rent is taken as a business deduction.
MR. GASTEIGER: Has it been established that the Ryan' s have
two employees?
MRS. RYAN: Yes, only one of whom lives on Grandview Court
MR. GASTEIGER: I take it that the servicing of the trucks, is
farmed out?
MR. GERSH: From Pritchard' s.
MRS. HOLMAN: And your employees are at all times called at their
house?
MR. RYAN: Whereever they happen to be.
-32-
MRS. RYAN: If they are on a call like say we sent them to State
Street, and another one comes in they go right from State Street
to the next call. They never come back to our home.
MRS. HOLMAN: Are there ever any purposes for which they must
come to your home?
MRS. RYAN: To pick up their pay checks.
MR. GERSH: Members of the Board, I'd just like to emphasize that
there is a station between storage of vehicles and parking of
vehicles. Mr. Ryan parks his truck in the street. He does not
store it nor does he store any wrecked or disabled cars.
NIRS. HOLMAN Well, where does he store the trucks.
MR. GERSH: He doesn't store them.
MR. KASPRZAK: In all fairness you must agree that he stores
his vehicles on the public street.
MR. GERSH: But his storage is no different in terms than of use
of passenger vehicles because they are his passenger vehicles.
MR. KASPRZAK: I'm simply saying that it is stored on the street.
How it is used, I'm not sure of that.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any other questions from the Board? Any others
on behalf of the Ryan' s.
JERRY BENSON: I'm Jerry Benson from 135 Grandview Court. About
the only thing that separates myself from the Ryan' s seems to be
a .wall. I've lived up their since October and I have never had
any problems about being awoken during the night with traffic
due to their trucks, I have never had any interference on my T.V.
set, my stereo set. I've never had any problems as far as the
radios being left on and when the windows are open, hearing any
noise.I think being as close to Ryan' s is possible from a physical
setting, this maybe significant in the fact that most of the
compliants that I have heard of , have been away from the location
-33-
So, I would like to make sure that the matter is looked at in
context and I feel that there is several other people here that
share my feelings.
EDWARD KOWALSKI: I'm Edward Kowalski and I live at 150 Grandview
Court. I haven' t lived their very long. The reason I know Jack
is from he tows all the cars away from Cornell University. I've
noticed a couple of people have come up here and talked as opposed
to the guy that lived next door to him, didn' t hear any noise.
There are a couple of people who live almost three houses away
from me and they seem to be hearing it more than anyone else.
Also the fact that as far as the hazards go vehicle in the parking
area, for one thing the children as far as I know and I read the
contract when I first purchased the apartmert, as a hazard to
children, children are not supposed to be playing in that area.
As far as I know they are suppose to go to the nearest playground
and I don' t see where it is a hazard to anyone as long,las they
stay on the sidewalk where they belong. As far as making noise
etc. with the trucks, I just wonder if any of you have wakened
about midnight or two o' clock in the morning listening to some of
the cars pull in their. I don' t think that I've actually heard
his trucks, they never woke up me. I have no problem with that.
I don' t think that this is a situation where most of the people
that live their are going to be bothered with it. All I can say
is that in my point of view from where I work, Jack' s always close
and if something happens where we need a wrecker at Cornell or
anyplace else for that matter, he is always there within minutes.
Maybe some of you have never had your car break down out of the
city, in the city and tried to wait for a wrecker to get you start d
most of them take on the average of a half hour. Jack is always
prompt, I'd say he at most places within the city or outside the
city limits he can be there within ten minutes.
PROFESSOR COSGROVE: It seems to me that the drift of Mr. Gersh' s
earlier remark that I had a rowl with one of Mr. Ryan' s drivers
and became particularly hassled and promptly took the action which
-34-
results in our being here now. As far as I can remember, the
driver was not rude to me but he didn' t do anything about correct-
ing what I was objecting to. My point is that this was not an
arguement started by an elderly old party. The incident was not
isolated, incidence of noise of the kind that we think should
not attend to home occupation but only too much in evidence during
the summer and during the fall. I have some other points but I' d
like to make only these two. Vehicles constantly go in and out
some claim to be noisy some claim not. Nineteen people claim they
are noisy. Sixty persons many of whom could not hear them in
Grandview Court have another view. My only point is that this
is not a popularity contest nor necessarily a matter of the
democratic vote. But nineteen persons indeed have been distressed
and feel that what is being done is in violation of the matter of
the home occupation.
KATHY BEAUREGARD: My names Kathy Beauregard and I live at 149
Grandview Court. Just in listening to tonights arguments, there
are a few points that come to my mind. I hope that the Ryan' s do
understand that we are not against the Ryan' s personally, I have
no quarrel with the Ryan' s, I don' t even know them. I know one
of their children, and it happens to be one of the nicest children
in the neighborhood. The residence who have complained of the
noise, the famous nineteen, we are not complaining to the idea of
a message center being housed in the Ryan' s apartment. Our objection
more or less is to the trucks, to the vehicles and it has caused
us some disturbance. The reference to the students, Mr. Gersh
directed that Grandview Court is primarily housing students, how-
ever, the people on the petition that I know of are all full time
residence of Ithaca and are not students and most of us have
families. I myself have a young child and she sleeps in the front
bedroom. She has been awaken at night by the noise of the trucks.
I have hesitated to call the police as I have hesitated to call
the police for various other noise. I have several noisy neighbor
and I have not called then as I feel in fact at times I might be
noisy. This is a fact of life, as David Gersh brought out sometim s
-35-
our dog barks, sometime we leave our stereo on too loud. I think
the human side of the issue is from what I understand Mr. Ryan
feels that if he is informed that he will have to move his wrecker
service, that it will cause financial hardship in the fact that
he will have to move. No one particularly wants to see the Ryan' s
move out of the neighborhood. We feel that they are quiet family
by themselves aside from the wrecker service. We do not wish to
see the children uprooted, we are not asking the Ryan Family to
move, we simply asking that Ryan' s Wrecker Service be relocated
elsewhere. Mr. Gersh seems to equate the Wrecker Service with
the rescue service and that it is a very vital need to the
community then I feel that we on Grandview Court have paid our
dues then to the community for the last four years and that the
wrecker service could relocate elsewhere in the city, provide the
same service, the same amount of speed to the accidents of which
he is called to.
BILL MURPHY: I'm Bill Murphy and I live at 129 Grandview Court.
I just wanted to say that I agree with the people that speak in
his behalf, especially the letter from Mr. Parr and Mrs. Boothroyd
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I am going to rule that the hearing on this case
is now complete.
EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA,
MARCH 3, 1975
APPEAL NO. 1070•
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1) The testimony presented and confirmed by each side was that
the owner and operator did in fact, operate the business whi]e
the area was zoned R-3 and if the operation did meet all of
the parts of the requirements for Home Occupation was an
existing use, entitled to non-conforming use status under
the current R-2 zoning.
2) The relevant question then, in this request for interpretation
is whether the activities carried on at the subject property
constituted a legal "Home Occupation" when the area was zoned
R-3. If we were to consider just the activities carried on
within the Ryan' s home and not the activity of the trucks
parked in the street, it might be a very close question but
as we interpret the definition of Home Occupation in applying
the test we are forced to consider the use of the trucks as a
intergial part of the business. Such use does not meet those
kinds of endeavors described in the ordinance. In reaching
this interpretation, we are influenced by the apparent intent
of the "Home Occupation" provision which is to allow only
certain very low key, non evident, non residential uses confin d
within the building.
VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 0
-36-
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW
YORK, MARCH 3, 1975
------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Jones lists what case No. 1071 is to be.
APPEAL NO. 1071: APPEAL cf ILF Financial Corp. at 215 S. Tioga
St. for area variance under Sec. 30.43 in B-4
district.
MR. DILLON: I think basically our position is it' s the old Alcor
property. If we were to rebuild at the present time the exact
structure that was their previously, I wouldn' t be here tonight.
It is a strange situation over there where that tiny little block
of buildings somehow got overlooked in the downtown zoning plans
really is what it amounts to. It is downtown business property
and right across the street it is B-3, kiddy corner it is B-3
other ways it is B-3 but that little culdesac in their is B-4.
We would like to make it viable, it is a burned out piece of
property now. We would like to make it a useable economically
feasible piece of property. We do feel, actually I hear some talk
that there is the possibility of rezoning it. That means that we
could build 100 percent and build eight stories which I don' t
think that we want to do or anybody else wants to do but in order
to try to put a package together to make the property useful, we
propose that we be allowed to rebuild on the old foundation and
build three stories. There is ample parking all around it, probably
the bulk of the parking in the city is 25 yards away, so parking
will not be a problem. It is a very special piece of property we
think from the standpoint that it is on the creek facing the bank
a very unusual sight that could be developed very beautifully.
I think that you are all familiar with what we did on the canal
and we would try to do something there or if not we would make a
joint venture with somebody to do something but it has a very
nice possibility to create something delightful over their. We
would like to do it.
MRS. HOLMAN: You have no definite plans.
I
-37-
MR. DILLON: We have no definite plans. We had a buyer in line
for the property some time ago. The buyer looked at the property,
looked at the zoning laws, they were not aware incidentially at
that time that they could have rebuilt if they built exactly the
old structure. Somehow that was overlooked. But anyway they went
to work to propose a building under the B-3 setbacks all the way
around and they ended with such a dinky little building that when
they had to tear down and reconstruct that they just walked away
from it. It didn' t make sense financially. So then we started
looking .to see if there was a way to make it economically feasible
Not only does it have a very unusual setting, it has tremendous
possibilities we feel. For ourselves or for joint venture or
somebody else we just don' t know but the first thing that we would
like to be able to do is to say to somebody, this is what you can
do, this is what can be done here.
MR. GASTEIGER: Do you own the property ?
MR. DILLON: Yes, we inherited it, shall we say.
MR. CRAWFORD I think speaking to one of the points that you
mentioned in passing the possibility of rezoning of that whole
parcel makes sense in the context, which is not your responsibility
nor mine but as a owner of portion of that parcel I think that
would make excellent sense.
MR. DILLON: I think that was expressed the other night at the
Planning Board also.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Simply a question of your being here now when
there are no fixed plans. If we grant a variance, then a building
permit has to be obtained within a year or it becomes useless.
So then you would be contemplating something . . . . . . . .
MR. DILLON: Yes then we would go to work and try to put something
together. Right now we have found out it doesn' t work. We tried
to work with one group on it and it just fell apart. They just
said no way. So, if we were able to say either this or I may
-38-
be hurting myself here by talking this way, I'm not sure but it
is very possibily the rezoning of that little section of buildings
is the route to go, I'm not sure but it seems to me that it now
isn' t zoned properly and that' s why we are asking for the variance
so we could go ahead and do something that should have been able
to have been done if it hadn't been forgotten their. It is not
residential, it' s nothing, it' s strictly business, it' s downtown
business section.
MR. GASTEIGER: But you are not asking for 80 percent coverage
or 90 percent coverage . . . .
MR. DILLON: We want to be able to build on the old foundation
which I believe is 100 percent coverage.
MR. VANMARTER: 100 percent coverage is permitted under the
ordinance, true?
MR. DILLON: On the old foundation, if we build . . . . . . . .
MR. KASPRZAK: I think the problem here is the fact that the
creek is close by rather than if you can go 100 percent in a B-4.
MR. DILLON: THAT is one of the problems.
MR. VANMARTER: But the change in zoning, what might it do for you
MR. DILLON: My understanding is that B-3, somebody on the Planning
Board said that if it were rezoned like all of downtown Ithaca
to B-3 that you have 100 percent coverage you have eight story
building, we could do like anybody else in downtown Ithaca could
do.
MR. VANMARTER: I'm reading the section under which the appeal was
made still requires that setback from the stream . . .
MR. DILLON: Yes, correct we are asking for that variance, we are
asking to be able to rebuild on the old foundation which is on the
edge of the creek and covers the entire parcel.
MR. GASTEIGER: I guess what I don' t understand is that he is
allowed to rebuild. I want to know what these old foundations are
-39-
Are they the ones from the building that burned?
MR. DILLON: Yes
MR. GASTEIGER: Then under law, isn' t he allowed to rebuild on
those foundations?
MR. DILLON: Correct. But only the same building that was there
previously. I believe we could build two stories in the front,
back to where it was at some point and then I think it was one
story back covering the whole property but the foundation went
all the way around the perimeter and right out to the wall on that
side of the creek. And that is what we would like to do except
that we would like to be able to do three stories. Now, it is
almost sort of being a little bit pregnant, you know there isn' t
any such thing. If we could build two floors and one floor, the
land coverage and the foundations don' t make any difference.
MR. VANMARTER: Describe a little of what happens as what might
be a rear yard. There is an existing building that' s in back.
MR. DILLON: We would go just like any other building in downtown
Ithaca, we would go common wall, or two common walls and common
walls to the back and the creek would be open. The front would
be open to Tioga Street south. The back building, I think is
missed (the studio) .
MR. CRAWFORD: There are two buildings on the Stallman Estate
property. One of them is Hickey' s Music Building which is the
corner block on Green Street. But in through the alley way leading
into what is parking area and from that alley way to the creek
is a detached separate cinder block building owned by the Stallman
Estate which goes up within two or three feet of the maximum
distance of your existing wall. I've forgotten who is out further
into the creek, whether it' s you or us but it' s a matter of a very
inches or feet in the building lines as it exists in the burned
out building and the Stallman building. So if you've got space
-40-
with a set back from the creek of 20 feet, you're going to have
still a cinder block building that' s going right up to the creek
in line with no set back. Now, if it' s parking space owned by
the Stallman Estate which is open, of course, but we do have a
building going right up back to back with the building that Bud
• speaks of.
MR. GASTEIGER: If you have an additional floor, do you anticipate
any parking problems?
MR. DILLON: I wouldn' t think so, with all the parking that is
across the street and then the new parking garage, it' s empty
most of the time now, I don' t invision any parking problems, I
can' t conceive of one. The street is what, 50 feet wide, we are
50 feet away from the biggest parking lot in the city.
MR. GASTEIGER: Of the question has come up before, how often can
the public parking be used for private parking?
MR. DILLON: Don' t people pay to park their? Peop]epay to park
their and it' s empty most of the time.
MR. GASTEIGER: The point that people use public parking as an
argument for variance, where as no one is keeping score.
MR. DILLON: Well, this particular case I don' t think it' s been
used for that, but I'm not sure though.
MR. VANMARTER: Can you describe is there any access in the
property lines in the rear of the next door building. There is
some kind of a structure partly burned, partly demolished, is that
part of this parcel. Do you have access to the covered alley?
MR. DILLON: That is the Savings Bank piece. We don' t have an
access to the side through that alley.
MR. GASTEIGER: Does your foundation come to the top of the creek
wall?
-41-
MR. DILLON: It comes just inside it, immediately inside it.
MR. GASTEIGER: Is there someone to say that the old foundation
will take this additional weight.
MR. DILLON: That' s an engineering problem. That is another thing
that we would be faced with as somebody brought up the other day
something about the- flood plain also. That would have to be althou h
in your memorandum I think there is something that says it isn' t
a concern. I believe that they ascertained that the flood plain
was not involved with this. But as far as the structure, the old
foundation, incidentally, I was looking through the papers of the
people whom we tried to put a package together with, they were
going to put a basement in their, which I hadn't even dreamt of
doing along that wall. So, a basement is feasible in their.
But certainly that being a retaining wall, I think there would
be some engineering things that would have to be very carefully
looked at. We like anybody else, who might want to do something
their, you have to be stupid to build the building and not have
taken care of it so that it won' t fall in the creek.
MR. KASPRZAK: How high is that property in parallel line of the
stream?
MR. DILLON: At one point it' s 82 and onepoint it' s 29.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If there are no other questions then that
concludes this case.
EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA,
MARCH 3, 1975
APPEAL NO. 1071:
Mr. Martin: I move that the variance be granted.
Mr. Kasprzak: I second that.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1) The evidence presented indicated that this was a case of a
non-conforming building devoted to a conforming use which
had been damaged by fire and therefore, could be rebuilt
pursuant to section 30.51 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
building which burned did have three (3) stories but, the
top story did not cover the entire structure.
2) Since the proposed new building would be three (3) stories
high extending throughout the entire structure, a minor area
variance is required. The additional size would not seem
likely to have adverse affect on the neighborhood.
3) Evidence presented indicated that the additional area may
be necessary for the financial feasibility of rebuilding.
4) Given the peculiarities of the shape and location of the lot
to build a structure in complete conformity with current
B-4 requirements would be impractical.
VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 0
-42-
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW
YORK, MARCH 3, 1975
------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Jones lists what case No. 1-3-75 is to be.
APPEAL NO. 1-3-75: Appeal of Freemarket Book & Record Exchange
at 210 Dryden Rd. in B-2 zone for exception
to Sec. 7-B of Sign Ordinance.
DAVID MAISEL: I'm David Maisel, I own and manage Freemarket Book
& Record Exchange at 210 Dryden Road. I opened the store three
months ago and every since then business has been very slowly
getting better. Last week for the first time, I broke even. I
spend about 100 dollars a month advertising which might not seem
like too much but it' s about 15 percent of all my expenses including
the salaries of all my employees (which is me) and it' s this
issue of publicity that makes me come here. My store is set off
of the street so that pedestrians or cars going up or down Dryden
Road can' t see the front of my store ( sign) . I don' t know if you
people know where it is, 210 Dryden Road is the same building that
Baker Travel has the front of. Where I am is behind Baker Travel
facing the side of the Chinese Carry Out. I have pictures that
have been taken approaching the store from the corner of. College
and Dryden until you get right next to the store. What I'm asking
for and what the Planning Board unanimously approved last week is
a second sign that is closer to the street, on the side wall of
Baker Travel. I don' t want a very big sign, I' ll accept anything
you' ll give me. I just want something with an arrow showing
people who are walking up and down the road that my store exists.
I have new people coming in every day and they always ask me how
long I've been in business and I say for three months now and they
say really I live up the road and come by here evety day and I didn' t
find out about you until I read an ad, in the newspaper. Even
people who knew that the store was- their and look for it, have
trouble finding it. On Saturday, somebody came in from Dryden
and said they were driving around the block for an hour before
they decided to ask someone at Discount Records if they knew where
1
-43- '
I am. That is something that I hadn' t considered when I came
to the Planning Board but from the zoning point of view, it might
be better if I had my sign so that there isn' t any traffic
congestion, people sightseeing trying to find my store from Dryden
Road.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Can we get clearly stated, what kind of sign
you' re entitled under the ordinance, so that we know the precise. .
DAVID MAISEL: What I'm allowed is a sign that' s in front of my
store and I have one of them and the reason that I need a variance
is that the sign that I want will not be right in front of my stor .
It will be on the same building as my store and on the same wall
as the front of my store but closer to the street. If you don't
understand what it looks like, I have these pictures to show you.
MR. GASTEIGER: You couldn' t see such a sign coming down Dryden Ro d
unless you went around the corner?
DAVID MAISEL: Well no, most of the traffic and pedestrians around
there are from College Avenue.
MR. GASTEIGER: Do you have permission to put the sign up?
DAVID MAISEL: It was my landlord who suggested to me when I first
rented the place, that I put a sign closer to the street. Then I
was a little upset when I found out that I not only needed his
permission but the Board' s.
MR. VANMARTER: The sign that you're permitted at present time, is
what basically?
DAVID MAISEL: I'm not sure of all the rules, but the sign that I
have is 4feet by 7 feet right in front of my store.
MR. VANMARTER: Do you propose a sign, what size.
DAVID MAISEL: I didn' t ask for a sign of any particular size
because there isn' t any legal guidelines to go by. The sign that
I'm asking is not legal in any size. I said that I would accept
anything that I could get. The Planning Burd recommended that a
-44-
sign of the same size as Baker Travel second sign. Baker Travel
has a sign on the front and on the side, the same side that I
want one. It is about 2X2 foot square or maybe 2 foot by 21/2, I'm
not sure.
MR. VANMARTER: That would give you a total of two signs. One
would be on the back of the building that you occupy and the other
would be on the side of Baker Travel Agency.
DAVID MAISEL: Yes, also I want to mention that if the Board
doesn' t want to give me two signs, I'm open to any suggestions
that would move my sign closer to the street. I'd rather not have
to move the sign that I have now because it fits into the porch
that my store is on in a way that it wouldn' t fit so easily any-
where else. If I may, I would like to show the pictures that I
Have taken.
MR. KASPRZAK: I was simply suggesting that the sign that exists
could be moved to the wall of the Baker Building, if I may use
that term, and a small directional sign be placed where the current
sign is. That way you could draw attention to the public eye and
you will also find that the directions are better but the gentlemall
said that the sign is too big for the space of the wall that is
available. I was suggesting that he discuss the whole thing with
the Baker people and see if they couldn't come to some agreement
and satisfy both parties at the same time without too much to do.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Now, you're variance would be required. It
would simply go to how much space he needs and . . . .
MR. KASPRZAK: As I understand it he has 28 square feet of sign,
right? How much is he entitled.
MR. JONES: He' s entitled to 1% square foot per lineal foot of
structure facing the public rightaway.
MR. KASPRZAK: How much frontage on the square foot of the structu e
have you?
-45-
DAVID MAISEL: The porch has four columns on it and they are
eight feet apart. The porch is about 24 or 25 feet across.
MR. KASPRZAK: You are entitled to 6 feet according to Mr. Jones,
ruffly speaking.
DAVID MAISEL: I'm pretty sure that Mrs. Baker would not want the
• sign that I have now, on the building is that we didn' t talk about
that specific idea, but we did talk about the size that she wanted
She didn' t want anything that would make her sign look less.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The specific request that you have as recommended
by the Planning Board, is of a sign no larger than the Baker sign
somewhere on that wall close to the street.
MR. GASTEIGER: There are two Baker signs. One is the double thin
with a suitcase . . . . .
DAVID MAISEL: There are three. There are two on the front and
one on the side.
MR. GASTEIGER: Wouldn' t it be better going along that upper wall
to have your sign the size of the Baker sign, not the suitcase but
the other. Would this give some degree . . . .
DAVID MAISEL: I'm not sure that I understand.
MR. GASTEIGER: I'm just talking aesthetic , here you have a buildin
and you're going to put a sign on the size of the one in the
window and where is there is already a sign up from the base of
that building, that has a definite size to it, wouldn' t it be more
appropriate to approach that size.
DAVID MAISEL: The reason that I didn' t ask for more is that it
wouldn' t please Mrs. Baker and the Planning Board recommended only
the size of the one on the side, but I wouldn' t object to it.
MR. KASPRZAK: Can you give us some idea how big the sign is in
the window?
DAVID MAISEL.: It' s about 21/2 feet by 21/2 feet or 2% feet by 21/2 feet
-46-
I think it' s just off from being square.
MR. GASTEIGER: Do you know how big the others is?
DAVID MAISEL: One of them is about the same and the suitcase one
I can' t remember. Both of the ones in front are about the same
size as the one on the side or maybe a little bit bigger.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If there are no more questions, the hearing on
• this case is closed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA,
MARCH 3, 1975
APPEAL NO. 1-3-75
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the request for exception be granted
MR. GASTEIGER: I second that.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1) Since the store is set back from the street a sign that is
placed on the premises, does not provide much visibility to
pedestrians or motorist on Dryden Road. Under the circumstanc s
compliance with the sign ordinance works a hardship on the
appellant.
2) The proposed sign will be on a building already containing
several signs and should therefore not have significant advers
visual impact on the neighborhood.
3) The variance granted is for a sign not to exceed the Baker
Travel Inc. sign which faces on Dryden Court (west. )
4) A condition for this variance is that the combined area of
the signs not exceed that allowed by Sign Ordinance.
VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 0
I
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I CHRISTINE SMITH, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the
Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals
No. 1069, 1070, 1071, 1-3-75 on March 3, 1975 at City Hall, City
of Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed the same and the
foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the
meeting and the executive session of the Board of Zoning Appeals,
City of Ithaca, on the above date, and the whole thereof, to the
best of my ability.
JLr ani.., t
CHRISTINE SMITH -
STENOGRAPHER
Sworn to before me this
/day of L 19 '��
JOSEPH A OJMDLE
Notary Public, Stats of MW York
No. 554SWI34
Qualified in Tompkins Cafe
Terns Expires March 30, 19_n