Loading...
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