HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1975-08-04 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA
CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK
AUGUST 4, 1975
A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca,
was held in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca, New York,
on August 4, 1975•
PRESENT: Peter Martin, Chairman
C. Murray Van Marter
Gregory Kasprzak
Elva Holman
John Bodine
Edgar Gasteiger
Edison Jones, Dep. Bldg. Comm. and Secretary
Chris Smith, Recording Secretary
Chairman Martin opened the meeting listing members of the Board
present. The Board operates under the provisions of the City Charter
of the City of Ithaca and under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinances.
The Board shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct
of the hearing, but the determination shall be founded upon sufficient
legal evidence to sustain the same. The Board requested that all
participants identify themselves as to name and address and confine
their discussions to the pertinent facts of the case under consideration.
Edison Jones announced the first case to be heard.
APPEAL NO. 1091: Appeal of Caesar George for area variance under
Section 30.25 Col. 11 at 415 Campbell Ave. in a
R-1 district.
CAESAR GEORGE: Caesar George 415 Campbell Ave. I asked my builder
to build a carport that would be very convenient for me on my property
on 415 Campbell Ave. When I first came to City Hall to apply for a
permit, it was refused.
MR. MARTIN: Could you give us a sense of date, Mr. George please?
MR. GEORGE: May, the first part of May.
MR. MARTIN: Of this year?
MR. GEORGE: Of this year, yes. Probably the second week in May. I'm
not sure of the exact date. When he returned, he told me I couldn't
build it because there Was a city right-of-way which I wasn't aware
of. I had that house built about a year ago, and I bought a lot 100
feet x 160 feet deep. Then we decided we could buy another 50 feet
2
on our lot, and we would like to have had it. So we asked the builder
and he agreed and we bought it. So, our front line is 100 x 150 feet.
After a year and a half approximately on that property, I felt that
I needed a carport to have some cover for off street parking and
we have two fireplaces in our home and we wanted that covered also
(firewood. ) He came to City Hall to get a permit and they said no
you can't build it where you want to build it. So, I came to see
Mr. Jones and at that time I understood that I could build it, if
it was 25 feet off the road. That was the understanding that I had,
I felt. I came back and told my builder we could plan it 25 feet off
the road. We then came back to City Hall and went to Mr. Jones and
gave him a sketch or drawing on a piece of paper or cardboard, I'm
not sure what it was. I understand it was a piece of cardboard. It
was accepted and a permit was granted to build the carport, on May
21, 1975. The carport was about 80% completed. I wasn't there at the
time, the building inspector arrived on the scene and immediately told
the builders that were working to stop! We were in violation of a
code. There was some misunderstanding there I guess, that we had
received a permit to build, and I guess the inspector showed up on
July 1, or we received a letter from the building inspector on July
1 a little over a month later, we have commenced to build the carport.
Now, I understand and I do realize that the carport is in violation
of the Code. It was through my misunderstanding with Mr. Jones and
with the Code. It' s up and I 've invested quite a bit of money into
it and at this time I 'm asking that we have a variance in the code
to keep the carport there. Inorder to move it and to change it, it
would cause a terrific inconvenience to me and a terrific cost of
money that I care not to come up with at this time. As I look at
that carport, I think most of you have all the information on it.
It is not, I don't think too much of an inconvenience to anyone in my
immediate neighborhood. Right now, I think that there are two neighbors
that I have that look at it and see it. I have four neighbors below
me on Hector Street that can't even see my house let alone the carport.
I have one neighbor directly across the street from me, across my
3
front door that lives above me that looks down upon it and a neighbor
to my left across the street from me that looks across to it. When
completed it will not be an ugly structure. It will be well finished
to look like part of the complete property. It will be shrubbed
and it is such a convenience to have it and a terrific inconvenience
to move it. I can't think of anything else. If there are any
questions that you might have, I'll be happy to answer.
MR. MARTIN: I am at least still not clear on the nature of the mis-
understanding as it hit you. You got a building permit. . . . . . . . . . .
MR. GEORGE: Right.
MR. MARTIN: After having initially been denied a building permit and
learning through that denial that there was a right-of-way there.
MR. GEORGE: The right-of-way that I understood was 25 feet off the
road and I remember coming up to Mr. Jones' s office and saying, gee
you know at first when I heard about this I was quite disturbed that
I was going to have the city control 25 feet of my property to begin
with. When he explained that we need a certain amount of right-of-
way for future planning, for sidewalks, for curbing, I understood.
I was under the impression that it was 25 feet off the road so I said,
you know, Campbell Avenue kind of drifts away from my property and
where the carport will begin, will be a little less than 25 feet but,
where it will end will be a little more than 25 feet and he said to
me, a mean point would suffice. If the middle part of the carport
is at least 25 feet off the road I think that would be fine. That
is how I understood it. So, I went back to my builder and said, ok.
We measured it out very carefully where we thought the end of the road
was, the edge of the road. Now of course, when the building inspector
came I got a completely different picture with something from the
middle of the road and that' s where the misunderstanding was. However,
with that information the builder came back to City Hall assuring
Mr. Jones or this department that it would be 25 feet off the road
I assumed, and came back with a building permit which I have here, and
we proceeded.
MR. MARTIN: Are there other questions from members of the Board?
4
MR. BODINE: Who was your builder?
MR. GEORGE: John McLean.
MR. BODINE: Has he done any building in that area before?
MR. GEORGE: He built my house. He built all the homes in the area.
MR. BODINE: He would be familiar with the zoning requirements?
MR. GEORGE: I would assume so. However, I was kind of. . . . . . I'm
new at this myself and the question arose at the last meeting, I
guess the Planning Board meeting. . . . . . . .
MR. MARTIN: It is reflected in the minutes of the Planning Board
that there was a question about whethbr or not this was an illegal
subdivision?
MR. GEORGE: No, my question was that I'm new, I bought some property
and I have no idea whatsoever what an R-1 code is and I thought that
it should be automatic that people who buy property in the City of
Ithaca should be made aware of these things before they make any plans
and invest a great amount of money in it. I 've been waiting almost
two months now, to complete this thing and the more I wait, the more
it is going to cost me to finish it one way or another. Even though
I only own a little under an acre of property, I feel that I'm paying
quite a bit of tax money for this and what I thought was going to be
a productive summer for my family and property it turned out to be
one aggravation that has bothered myself and my family and my wife.
I'm still waiting since July 1. Here we are into August. I hope I
can get something accomplished before the first snow.
MR. KASPRZAK: Do I understand you correctly that you are building the
carport between the front of- your house and the road.
MR. GEORGE: It is off to the side, on the extra 50 feet. The front
of my house is untouched by anything except two trees, than off to the
side about 15 feet and ahead of my house.
MR. KASPRZAK: Could you tell me sir, whether the house is lets say
more than 50 feet from the center of the road.
MR. GEORGE: I think my home is approximately 55 feet from the road.
5
MR. KASPRZAK: From the center of the road or the so called curve?
MR. GEORGE: I think from the so called curve, I 'm not sure. I
think it is from the curve .
MR. KASPRZAK: You're not the corner lot by any chance?
MR. GEORGE: No, I'm not.
MR. KASPRZAK: Thank you.
MR. MARTIN: Any further questions?
MR. VANMARTER: Is the information the Planning Board report correct
about 24 feet 6, 25 feet. I see on the work sheet here 7.6 feet plus
or minus.
MR. GEORGE: You mean the front part of the carport is about 24 foot
6, the midpoint of the carport is about (these are my measurements
not anyone elses) about 25 feet. The back of the carport is somewhere
beyond 25 feet. Might be 25 feet 6, might be 25 feet 8.
MR. VANMARTER: Was this measured from the pavement line?
MR. GEORGE: From the pavement line but that is questionable too,
because it comes over where they finish there is a little rise in
the road. If we went to the pavement line which would probably be
beyond the curb, it would be more I think.
MR. GASETIGER: Is there not a lot to the West of you that can be
built on?
MR. GEORGE: There is a lot and a half I think west of me approximately
140 feet long.
MR. GASTEIGER: So this structure in a sense does interfere with I
guess the line that I suppose the ordinance does try to maintain.
MR. GEORGE: I think that it is all how you look at it. It would
interfere with their view, it is a corner lot, it would interfere
with their view of my property of my house actually my garage. The
carport is 18 feet wide and 24 feet deep.
MR. GASTEIGER: You expressed a slight uncertainty as to where the
measurement should be made in respect to the raod itself. Did you
make that measurement or choose the point, or did the builder choose
it?
MR. GEORGE: I did with the buildEr .. Then the builder came here the
6
second time. He came here to City Hall the second time with the
information. Now, maybe this is pertinent I'm not sure but a year
ago, I spent a very enjoyable evening at a neighbors house above my
property. I looked down at my property and saw a plastic covered
wood pile and a car parked in our turn around which we have been
using for two years and right then and there I called my wife over
and I thought that was unsightly for a neighbor and we decided to
cover it with a good looking carport and that was one of the main
reasons we decided to do it, in keeping with the neighborhood.
MR. MARTIN: Are there other questions from other members of the
Board? Thank you Mr. George; Are there any others here this evening
who would like to speak on behalf of the requested area variance?
RALPH LA PADULA: 406 Campbell Ave. It sadens me to think that up
on our hill that we are having a rift. Harry Murphy as you recall
has said on countless occasions that we have had a unique hill. One
where we have a comradery and a relationship, a neighborly relation-
ship, that is unique in the City of Ithaca. Now, I would not like
to see that widen and inimity grow. I live almost across from the
George' s. Now, I speak as one who has given up 10% of his land to
have a culdesac right at my property for the area. I did not need
it. It would be a pitty to see someone loose money over a mistake
perhaps an error and whose error it is, is immaterial. I loose
nothing if the carport comes down, I loose nothing if it remains up.
It would be sad to think of perhaps if the Logans and the Murphy' s
at Christmas time because of this rift when they sing carols at all
the homes would bypass a home or two. That would sadden me deeply.
I don't believe the George' s have connived to ruin the esthetic nature
of the hill that we are on. I don't believe they schemed to destroy
or detrimentally depreciate the properties in the area. I am convinced
my firm conviction is that they carefully considered the wind factor
the topography of the land and the economic cost of putting up some-
thing that they wanted. I think that this was their big concern.
I don't believe that if they backed up three or four months from
tonight they may have considered this particular course. But one of
our neighbors and one of our friends is in a predicament. One that
7
could be costly to them. I strongly believe in a strict inherence
to whatever law or codes that are on the books. They are asking for
a variance. I, who is almost directly across from them, believe it
should be granted. I believe of course, that all future building and
codes that are on the books should get hereto. And I hope that beyond
tonight, two hours from now, two weeks from now, two years from now
that we would go back to the same friendly, neighborly hill that
we have grown accustom to, that we enjoy so much. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN: Any questions from the Board? Is there anyone else
tonight who wishes to speak or present evidence on behalf of the
requested variance? Is there anyone who would like to speak in
opposition to the requested variance, please come forward?
WALTER EWALD: I live at 555 North Taylor Place. My place is directly
uphill from Caesar George. I want to start off and tell you that we
have no animosity against the George' s, none what so ever. All we are
concerned with is the violations of the zoning requirements to which
• all of us who live up there have abided to up to this point. Some
of our people have bought extra land to comply with the requirements.
We all on the hillside, we have had fill to build our houses. I
have a lot below my house, which is directly across the street from
Mr. George. It is a regular size building lot and it will be diminished
in value by the structure because it obstructs the view. It doesn't
obstruct my view, but it will obstruct the future building lots,
no question about it. The builder that is putting up the garage now
for Mr. George has built at least eight houses up there. He is fully
familiar with the code. If he had built this garage knowing full well,
knowing what the requirements were, I think he is as much as fault
and even more so, than Mr. George. Mr. George said that he was not
familiar with an R-1 zoning requirement but the builder was. With
all the houses that he has built and we have had numerous occassions
where the builder has required a requested variance and they have all
been denied. Mr. McLean has other lots that I envy up there, still
to be built on. I think that if you open the door to variances to
this sort, the door will be wide open. What' s good for the goose is
going to be good for the gander. I strongly recommend that the variance
8
be denied.
MR. MARTIN: Any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else here
tonight who wishes to speak in opposition to the requested variance.
VINCENT HANNAN: 508 Campbell Avenue. For two reasons I feel that
something like this just can not be ignored. You can't take a
residential street and make an alley of it, which is what you do in
effect when you put the garage right on the edge of the right-of-way.
This is ridiculous. Second place I'm scared to death because right
next to our property is a vacant lot which belongs to this builder.
I 'm appalled to think that anybody with a reputation as a builder
would be so willing to disregard the rules of the city. I'm
appaulled to think that a person can tell a builder that he wants
something put here and it gets put there just because the guy that
wants it regardless of whether it conforms to anything or not. By
this sort of feeling this guy who owns this vacant lot to me can put
up a ten story apartment building right next door to me and then
come in and ask for a variance because it doesn't conform with the
code. This is ridiculous. This by the way, I think is the fifth
or sixth time that this group of people have come in here to protect
our rights. There have been various attempts made to change things
up there. We are talking about cluster housing, we are talking about
converting a single family house into an apartment house. I think
that this is about the fifth time -that we have been in here to
protect our rights and this is ridiculous. We pay people in the city,
salaries to do these things, we think that we have reputable men
performing here in the city both as voters and protectors of our
rights and I strongly recommend that with no animosity at all, that
this builder be required to move this thing out of here. He knew
he was wrong, the person whose property it is on knew. that it was
wrong, everybody admits that it is. There was nothing legal about
what was presented here, the sketch that Ed Jones has which shows
what should have been built, that carport should have been 25 feet
back from the right-of-way, just like Caesars' s house is. It
would have been right even with the front of his house. Thank you.
Any questions?
9
MR. GASTEIGER: I was curious to know if any of the neighbors were
aware that this was going up in the wrong place. Why didn't they
have it investigated earlier or stopped earlier?
MR. HANNAN: I was aware of it. The particular place that we are
talking about has been used by the contractor as a storage area,
staging area for keeping machinery there loads of stone and that
sort of thing, so there has been for a couple of years activity going
on in this lot. The concrete got poured, the slab was all in place
and the carport became erected before I was aware, and my business
is such that I notice these things. Before I was aware that there
was a building going up there and very shortly after that he had a
cease anal desist order.
MR. MARTIN: Any further questions? Thank you. Is there anyone
else who would like to speak on this matter. Just to complete the
record since Mr. George has spoken of the misunderstanding of the
issuance of the building permit, I'd like to ask Mr. Edison Jones
if he has anything to add on the matter. Ed, were you involved in
any of these transactions request for building permit original denial?
MR. JONES: When the contractor came to the building department for
a building permit to erect a carport, he was advised that he had to
maintain a 25 foot front yard as required in a R-1 zone. He wasn't
sure how much he was going to have so he went back to check and
subsequently, I have in my office a sketch proportionally showing
where the structure is going to be in relationship to the front yard.
MR. MARTIN: And in relation to the right-of-way?
MR. JONES: To the front yard, this is where the hitch developed
and I keep saying the front yard and they keep saying the edge of
the pavement. The edge of the pavement is not where the property
line starts. That particular area doesn't have any sidewalks or
curbs and the public right-of-way is not right at the edge of the
pavement. So therefore, your property line doesn't start there.
MR. MARTIN: Now, the sketch that you saw on which the permit was
issued. . . . . . . . . .
MR. JONES: Shows that to be back 25 foot.
10
MR. MARTIN: From something.
MR. JONES: From something which I assumed was the property line .
MR. MARTIN: Does it identify that something on the sketch as you
recalled it?
MR. JONES: I can show you the sketch.
MR. MARTIN: Then can we have the sketch become part of the record
in this case? Alright, I will receive this as exhibit 1 in this
case. It shows a line which is not identified and then back from
it at least 25 feet I guess is to be the carport.
MR. JONES: On the basis of that, a building permit was issued and
then in due time when the inspector got up there he came back and
says gee Ed, the way that thing looks it is going to be out in the
front yard. Then we had the Engineering department go up there and
locate the public right-of-way and because of that, this garage or
carport is going to be some 7 or 71 feet from the edge of the front
of the yard and they are going to end up with not 25 foot of front
yard but 7.6 feet of front yard.
MR. MARTIN: Oh, the 7 and some feet is not the deficiency, it is
the amount that there will be between the carport and the right-of-way.
MR. JONES: That is right.
MR. MARTIN: Are there any questions that members of the Board would
like to ask Mr. Jones and then I'm going to ask if Mr. George has a
question that he would like to ask? First members of the Board?
MR. GASTEIGER: Is the position of the house identified on that
sketch?
MR. JONES: Yes it is.
MR. MARTIN: Mr. George would you like to come back up here, you're
familiar with the sketch?
MR. GEORGE: No, I 'm not.
MR. MARTIN: Ok, would you come back please.
MR. GEORGE: May I look at the sketch?
MR. MARTIN: Sure. First I'd like to ask where the sketch came
from, something you prepared or your builder?
MR. GEORGE: The builder prepared to show Mr. Jones when he came up
for the final. I 've got to take some of this blame, I guess. I
11
went to my builder and said that it is 25 feet off the road and that
is what I understood when I left Mr. Jones' s office. I was not
aware of 25 feet off the line and I've got to make this point, when
I did this I was not aware. After the inspector came and explained
specifically from the middle of the road to the right-of-way and then
25 feet from that point is where we have to begin. That's when I
understood, that was after 80% of the structure was completed. That's
why I said at the other meeting why aren't all people who buy property
in this community aware of this immediately upon purchase of property
in this community. Like why can't you give us an R-1 code or all the
codes so that we can plan on it. Unless you have any other questions,
MR. MARTIN: Since you raised the question of the misunderstanding
and since this paper seemed to be part of it. . . . . . . . . . .
MR. GEORGE: I wanted to ask if anybody wanted to see where it was
in relation to our house. My front yard, I guess is 150 feet wide,
as I look out my front window, I call that my front yard too.
MR. KASPRZAK: We are referring to at one time a structure and another
a carport. Will you explain to us actually what are you building!
MR. GEORGE: A carport.
MR. KASPRZAK: Meaning four post and a roof?
MR. GEORGE: Four post and a roof but 52 inch wide storage area in
the back of it.
MR. MARTIN: Which is all enclosed?
MR. GEORGE: Which will be enclosed for storage, tools and lawn
mower and firewood. A roof for off street parking, a cover for off
street parking. I have a two car garage but we have two cars in my
family and my mother lives with us and she has a car and we would
like to have it covered, that is the reason for it. It is not quite
big enough for two cars, it will hold one car and a small vehicle
if we have to.
MRS. HOLMAN: The cars will be parked parallel to the road?
MR. GEORGE: It' s parallel, that' s right.
MR. MARTIN: Any further questions from the Board?
12
MR. GEORGE: I must stress that it is a tremendous convenience for me
there now. If I move it back to where the house, where the line is,
it would mean as in my letter- it will be a tremendous amount of
filling of dirt. Believe me if I knew this was going to happen, I
would not have built it, but it is there.
MR. MARTIN: Is that it for this case? Yes, you would like to add
something?
MR. HANNAN: I believe from the question that was asked about the
parking parallel to the road and perpendicular and so on, there is a
misunderstanding here. There is a solid wall which begins 7 feet
from the property line and extends all the way back so that any view
from Caesar' s house down the road or from whatever house is built
on the vacant lot next to him, will have completely now view at all.
The back end of this carport which is going to be enclosed is not
back from the road but rather perpendicular to the road so that it
cuts off the view in all directions. I think that this is really
what makes it an eyesore, to us that don't think that it is right.
I can see where the guy that is building it might think that it is
beautiful, but it doesn't really even start to conform with the city
codes on this thing.
MR. MARTIN: Someone else wishes to speak:
JOHN WOOSTER: 255 Westwood Knoll. We are in the same subdivision.
I don't live up there and it does not obstruct my view. I like Caesar
George. We are in the neighborhood and the first time that I was
aware of this, my wife and I quite often take an evening walk, and
we saw this thing sticking out in the street. You can not miss it
because as Mr. Hannan pointed out, it has a concrete block back wall
to it. I call it a back wall, I don't know if it is back or side but
looking up the street that is what you see. We were quite upset.
Further, there has been alot of question about the builder of this
tonight and some people say well it is his fault and if it is then a
person who spoke in favor of this I should point out, Mr. LaPadula
is Mr. McLean's son-in-law and this could not be. I do not say that
it is the builders fault, I do not say that it is Mr. George's fault
and I do not think the building permit should be issued and I'm
13
opposed to a variance. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN: Any questions from the Board? Thank you. I hope that
this does not turn into a set of repeats of everyone who spoke,
speaks again. I hope that you will limit your remarks to things that
are relevant to our hearing.
MR. LA PADULA: I am the builders son-in-law. However, no matter
what happens the builder won't loose anything. I happen to live more
than anyone else in the room, almost directly across from the George' s,;
As Mr. George has indicated a few moments ago, he did have a pile of
stuff in his yard, which was unslightly. I'd like to think that I'm
objective. We sit right across from him and the carport is much more
attractive than all the stuff that he had in his front yard. He
has grated the land and from his indications he is going to put
latticework and flowers around it. It' s not unslightly to me, and
more than anyone here I am just about across from him and it does not
displease me or my family.
MR GEORGE: I have one question? Has anyone sitting here seen it?
MR. MARTIN: Two. members of the board have driven by.
MR. EWALD: I would simply remind the Board that as I mentioned before,
I have a building lot across the street. The carport is at least
15 feet high. The wood pile would only be maybe 6 feet high. It
does deteriorate the value of that particular building lot and I see
no reason why I should suffer to benefit someone else. It' s a clear
violation of the zoning ordinance, the builder has built many houses
up there, he knew the zoning requirements. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN: I trust that concludes the hearing in this case unless
there is something that hasn't been said that needs to be said and
therefore we will move on to our next case.
14
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ITHACA
AUGUST 4, 1975
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 1091
MR. MARTIN: I move that the requested variance be denied.
MR. GASTEIGER: I second that.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
(1) Testimony presented at the hearing indicated that the carport,
which encroaches substantially upon front yard has a significant
visual impact on the neighborhood.
(2) The evidence of hardship or difficulty presented was all of
hardships resulted from a failure to understand the require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance. For the Board to grant a
variance in such cases would quickly undercut the intent of
the ordinance.
VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0
Application denied.
15
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA
CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK
AUGUST 4, 1975
Secretary Jones announced the next case to be heard.
APPEAL NO. 1092: Appeal of Ithaca Bike & Hobby Inc. for use variance
under section 30.25 Col. 2 at 525 W. Seneca St. in
a B-2 district.
MR. MARTIN: Mr. Button, before you begin let me note that this is a
case that has already been to the Board with a request for a variance.
A variance was denied in June as I recall, and as in consequence I
would consider that this is a request for a rehearing or reconsider-
ation for that matter and I would think then that we could limit our
discussion to new matters, new evidence that you would like to present
to the Board and that you could rely on the Boards recollection
indeed the Boards access to the findings to the prior request rather
than repeat that ground.
MR. BUTTON: I'll try to do that. The last time I came here was the
first time that I had ever been here and not knowing how you operated,
what really happens, things of this nature, I feel that there were
several things that were left out that could be quite pertinent. The
objection particularly the objection that was placed by one party
who is yes directly across the street from our location. The objection
that he had which we have tried to talk with the gentleman. I called
him on the telephone, the telephone was very quickly slammed down in
my ear. We tried to go across the -street and talk with him again we
were told, I'm sorry I do not want to talk with you. We wrote them a
letter, we sent a letter to his attorney, Mr. Lee who is here this
evening. Mr. Lees' recommendation was go and talk with Mr. Clynes and
state your case. We just couldn't do this. I feel that if we had a
chance to talk with him there would be no problem. So, I'm here
again and the reason I 'm here is yes, we have a problem. We would
like to put in Mopeds. The building is not zoned for motor vehicles,
which a Moped is considered. Next door to us, one lot east, which is
16
the U.S. Geological Survey, I don't know if they have a variance
or not, I don't know if they have a variance or not, I didn't check.
They do automotive repair, they repair their own vehicles as well as
vehicles that belong to the employees. The lot that we have or the
building that we are occupying is located just in fact, I believe
it's 50 feet from a Texaco Service Station which is zoned for motor
vehicles. We feel that if we had known ahead of time, there wasn't
much change that I could have done about it even if I had known. We
looked the city over between 4 and 5 months. Myself and two realtors.
At no time and place could we find a piece of property that was suit-
able that could be used for what we want to do with it. There just
wasn't any available. At the time that we sold the building over on
State Street, we were not given a lot of time to move out. This was
unfortunate, I don't think that it would have made any difference
because there just wasn't anything in the area to move into anyway.
This is why we took the property that we have. Adding mopeds to the
bicycle line, it is a retail store, the mopeds are nothing more than
bicycle with a motor onto it. So we are not changing an operation
of the building. It's still being used as a retail store which it is
zoned for. There has been spent, by Iry Lewis and myself between
3 and 4 thousand dollars upgrading the property, which is considerably
better than having an empty store sitting there. I believe it was
on the market for rental by Iry Lewis for almost a year, before we
took it. I think an occupied store is by far a better view than an
empty store. So, it certainly doesn't downgrade the area. There was
one other objection, the statement made, the zoning itself should not
be down the middle of the street. It's got to be somewhere, maybe it
should be through the backyard, I'm not sure. But right now the
zoning is right through the middle of the street. Define a fair
defining line. Providing or if you don't grant the variance it is
going to create a little hardship on us. We planned on putting
mopeds in there. We based our figures upon this. It will be a
financial hardship on us. We have a six year lease on the building
so, we are there for six years whether we have mopeds or not. We
17
still would like to have them and we request that you very seriously
consider both sides of it and we hope that you will consider it and
grant us the request.
MR. MARTIN: Members of the Board have any questions?
MR. VANMARTER: Did in fact a real estate man find the location for
you?
MR. BUTTON: This one here.
MR. VANMARTER: Yes
MR. BUTTON: No. The only thing that we could find that was anywhere
near, we had two different people other than realtors call us and say
we will be glad to build you a building. Out on the Elmira Road,
occupancy cost excess of 1,000 dollars a month. I couldn't afford
it, just as simple as that.
MR. MARTIN: Any further questions. Thank you Mr. Button. Is there
anyone else here who would like to speak on behalf of the requested
variance. Anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition?
MR. LEE: Mr. Chairman, I'm Boardman Lee and I'm representing Mr.
Edmund Clynes who is the owner of the three buildings across the street
on W. Seneca Street. I mearly would like to remind the Board that for
variances of this sort, it is necessary to show hardship and I would
just submit that Mr. Button hasn't shown sufficient degree of hardship
to warrant the granting of this variance. He was located on W. State
Street and when he moved over to this location he must have known
perfectly well that this wasn't part of the permitted use. It' s
hard for me to believe that no where in this city could he find a
place to conduct this kind of business. When he says that real estate
people searched for him and couldn't come up with anything, I found
it happening time and time again. Real estate people will rent a
place or sell a place to a customer with the statement, Oh all you
have to do is go before the Board of Zoning Appeals and get a variance.
As if it were a very simple thing to do. The thing that Real Estate
brokers are all too often liable to say in renting a place. I don't
blame Mr. Button for that, he may not intended when he took this
place, to go in for the sale and service of motorized vehicles. But
18
at present time it is a violation of the ordinance. It will deteriorate
the premises across the street belonging to my client and I ask the
Board to affirm their previous route.
MR. MARTIN: Any questions? Thank you Mr. Lee. Mr. Button:
MR. BUTTON: May I add one more thing. Now realtors did not locate
this place for me. This I found on my own. A realtor had nothing to
do with that .
MR. MARTIN: You have that in the record already, understood as much.
That concludes the hearing on that case.
19
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ITHACA
AUGUST 4, 1975
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 1092:
MR. MARTIN: I move that the requested variance be denied.
MR. KASPRZAK: I second that.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1) There was no new evidence presented in the hearing to significantly
change the findings dated June 2, 1975.
VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0
Application denied.
20
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA
CITY HALL, ITHAI:-1A, NEW YORK
AUGUST 4, 1975
Secretary Jones announced the nex case to be heard.
APPEAL NO. 8-1-75: Appeal of Amherst Foods Inc. for exception to
Section 7-A-1 of Sign Ordinance at 328 Elmira
Road in a B-5 district.
MR. JAMES THEOFANIS: I'm Vice President of Amherst Foods, and
Amherst foods is the licensee for Arthur Treacher' s Fish and Chips,
starting at interstate 81 and going west. We have already applied
for a building permit, we are under construction and the only thing
that we are held up on is our sign. The reason for that is quite
obvious and that is why we are here tonight. In talking with Mr.
Jones we are in compliance with our free standing sign and as much as
we are not rotating we are using a twofaced sign and the only thing
that we are applying for is a mansard roof. The mansard roof wraps
around the front of our building on the right hand side and extends
for 20 feet with a height of 6 and it has the lettering Arthur Treaeher' s
Fish and Chips. Also the front has 37 feet by 6 approximating and
the side is 8 feet by 6 foot. All that we are saying and asking the
Board is that we will comply as much as we possibly can with the
ordinance. We are not asking for the lettering on the right hand
side, we can get that and I'm sure that the plans indicate it. But
we can get them blank, they add so much to our building. It' s the
very soft green plastic with the illumination by flourescent tubes
in the back. The right side and the left present no problems and we
can comply. The only side that we can not comply with is the front
which is built with the lettering, and we are hopeful that you can
look favorably upon us and grant us this variance. Number 1 you can
get it all blank here and it does not give us the proper identification
conducive to doing business on the Elmira Road, at least that is our
feeling. We do need the maximum sign exposure as an intrigue to our
customers. Number 2, it would delay us considerably if we were to
bring that sign here and be granted a variance at a later date to
21
bring the other sign to say nothing of the cost of transportation.
As you can see these signs are built in Columbus, Ohio and are
shipped here. The cost of the freight for one way is approximately
$800.00. The other thing is that we have to comply with the front
sign to meet the lettering specifications. It would require that a
special dye be made. These dyes would cost us an additional sixteen
hundred dollars. We are not quibbling so much about the cost, as to
the proper identification. It is so necessary and such a very delicate
part of our building. Thank you very much. If there are any questions,
I'll be very happy to answer them.
MR. MARTIN: Can you detail a bit more the degree of non conformance
of the sign that you propose. How much more than what you are
permitted, is it?
MR. THEOFANIS: Mr. Jones, can you help me out on that, you and I
went over that one day, I believe.
MR. JONES: The building fronting on Elmira Road as I resolve, is
32 feet. The sign ordinance permits 1* square foot per lineal foot
of structure facing the right-of-way and thatcomes out to 48 feet.
MR. THEOFANIS.: Right.
MR. JONES: If you figure this mansard roof in its entirety, you have
210 foot across the front of the building. But if you took and
figured each individual letter it would be considerable less but
because of it being back lighted the whole mansard roof, the ordinance
says that you figure all the mouldings included. Therefore we are
figuring on a square footage basis of 210 square feet. 48 is what
the ordinance permits.
MR. MARTIN: The essence of the hardship that you make is that or the
difficulty of complying is that the signs are standardize and that
they would be very costly to have a sign that complies. Secondly,
you don't think that a sign that complies, would give you proper
exposure to your business.
MR. THEOFANIS: But as I said and its noted on the plans, that the
sides can be had, with or without lettering which we will be more than
happy to comply with showing our good faith. But we would certainly
22
like to be granted the front sign. We have at this point and we
talked with Mr. Jones about it, we have done away with our rotating
sign, our four sided sign and are complying with the twofaced sign,
with the lettering below the shingles as shown I think on page 2.
MR. KASPRZAK: I'm sure that Mr. Jones explained it to you but in
1979, I believe the ordinance will require you to meet the sign
requirement size, how is that going to strike you in 1979?
MR. THEOFANIS: I believe at that point most of the sign will be
depreciated hopefully, and I sincerely hope that we are still in
business and going well and we will comply.
MR. KASPRZAK: So you are saying that you are willing to spend the
money then even though it may be much more costly than it will be to
do it now?
MR. THEOFANIS: That is correct.
MR. GASTEIGER: Well, other businesses are complying on the Elmira
Route and I think that it is a worry to some of us that it might not
be uniformity here, if we went in this direction. Furthermore, I
would think that you would loose some goodwill, if you didn't comply
now. I just wondered if you cared to coment on this.
MR. THEOFANIS: I've seen the McDonalds sign and that present sign
and I don't know how long it has and certainly I'm not here to knock
my competitors, I want you to know that. I feel that their sign which
McDonalds has and the others, I don't know how long they have been in
business but they are the old type sign that are still being used.
Where the present McDonald sign certainly does not measure the
dimensions that are there on the Elmira Road today.
MR. GASTEIGER: But that is not a new sign. I'm speaking about people
who have recently gone into business or rebuilt who have complied.
I wasn't speaking about McDonalds. There are others who have complied.
MR. THEOFANIS: I'm not totally aware of the Ithaca situation, I'm
not a native of this city and certainly we want to do everything we
possibly can to comply. We also want to get in for a variance to
ensure ourselves that our business will be successful so that we can
be there with a beautiful building, well landscaped and in a planned
23
development which I went to your Planning Board and tried to work it
out. But we certainly do need sign identification for doing business
on a day by day basis. I don't see how any business can function
without proper identification. Our small sign certainly will not do
that. We have complied in as far as sending letters to our neighbors
and Mr. Ripley at Ripley Motors was the only one that replied to our
inquiry and welcomed us to Ithaca, and certainly does not oppose the
move. That is about all that I can say.
MRS. HOLMAN: Can you tell us where the standing two sided sign is
in relation to the road and to the building?
MR. THEOFANIS: The two sided sign will be placed in the front of
the building. In that 40 foot zone for which we have already allocated
to landscape as opposed to parking. Then at the same time I presented
a plan to Mr. Jones in which we have stated that if the time came that
the state was going to use that property or county (whoever) that
we have taken steps to move the conduit, place the conduit in the
ground now so that it can be moved to the northerly side, am I
correct Mr. Jones?
MR. JONES: Right.
MRS. HOLMAN: Is that sign higher than the building and if so how
much higher?
MR. THEOFANIS: I think it spells it out in the plan. You have me at
a disadvantage, I don't know just how high. . . . . . . . .
MR. JONES: The sign is 20 foot 4J inches from the grade to the top
of the sign. The building I believe, if I recall correctly is 16
feet.
MR. THEOFANIS: The mansard roof so to speak kind of hides from the
front. The ducts and everything else that is on the roof, the air
conditioning system and etc.
MR. KASPRZAK: Mr. Jones, you said li square foot per foot of frontage?
How big of front of the property do you have?
MR. JONES: It' s not the property, it' s the structure.
MR. THEOFANIS: Our building is 32 x 52.
MR. KASPRZAK: So 32 'fronts the street.
24
MR. THEOFANIS: Yes, 32 fronts the street. 52 is the depth.
MR. MARTIN: Further questions fm the members of the Board?
MR. VANMARTER: Total sign size for that one side then is 210 square
feet?
MR. JONES: Yes, if you figure the 6 foot mansard roof by 35 foot that
the overhang goes over the building. . . . . . . . . .
MR. VANMARTER: That sign plus the free standing sign?
MR. JONES: That is right.
MR. THEOFANIS: If I might add to that, I believe that your plans
are showing the small buildings which are the 24 x 52 and if you will
note on that plan that I just sent over that it also shows the
extension of the building to 32 feet. Now the two side panels are
approximating 16 feet are blank and what we are talking about is
centering the Arthur Treacher's on top of the Fish and Chips lettering
right in the middle of that building. I think the postcard might
well show it. But bear in mind that this building is 8 foot wider.
MR. MARTIN: Further questions from members of the Board? Is there
anyone here who would like to be heard in favor of the requested
variance? Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? I would note
that before we conclude the hearing on this case that the Ithaca
Planning Board has sent this matter to its Code and Ordinance
committee for further study rather than giving us a recommendation on
the requested variance and on a similar matter at our last monthly
meeting the Board for that reason on another case adjourned the
matter for decision until the Codes and Ordinances Committee of the
Planning Board was able to inform the Planning Board and that we
would get a full report on the matter. So, I note that that might
well happen in this case, that we might in this case not decide the
matter tonight. And in that case we will defer the matter until the
following month. This concludes our public hearing.
25
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ITHACA
AUGUST 4, 1975
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 8-1-75
MR. MARTIN: I move that the hearing of case 8-1-75 be adjourned
pending receipt of a report from the Planning Board in pursuant to
Section 18 of the Sign Ordinance.
MR. KASPRZAK: I second that.
MOTION TO DEFER
VOTE: YES - 5 NO - 1
26
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ITHACA
AUGUST 4, 1975
EXECUTIVE SESSION
APPEAL NO. 1088
MR. MARTIN: I move that the requested variance be denied.
MR. KASPRZAK: I second that.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1) The degree of non compliance with the yard requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and lot coverage requirement are so significant in
this case that despite the evident difficulties presented by the
dimensions of the lot, it does not appear from evidence presented
that the requested variance would comply with the spirit of the
Ordinance.
VOTE: YES - 6 NO - 0
Application denied.
27
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
Nos. 1091, 1092 and 8-1-75 on August 4, 1975, at City Hall, City of
Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed 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.
Christine mith
Recording Secretary
Sworn to before me this
3 day of STT• 1975.
Nff a Public
JOSEPH A. RUNTDLE
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 55-4507134
Qualified in Tompkins Coun
Term Expires March 30, 1977