HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1968-04-17 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK
APRIL 17th, 1968
PUBLIC HEARING, APPEALS NOS. 784, 785, 789
PRESENT: RICHARD COMSTOCK, Chairman
GEOFFREY WEAVER
GEORGE R. PFANN, JR.
BEVERLY MARTIN
JOHN BENTKOWSKI
RALPH P. BALDINI
C. MURRAY VAN MARTER, Building Commissioner and Secretary
THE CHAIR: Opens public hearing
THE CHAIR: If Mr. Clynes, as representative of the appellants in Cases
No. 784 and 785, has no objection, we will take the cases out
of order, hearing Appeal No. 789, which appears to be quite short.
MR. CLYNES: I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIR: Who is appearing for Case No. 789, the Appeal of Erie J. Miller,
Incorporated, for sign size at 320 Elmira Road, under the pro-
visions of Section 7, Column 4, in a B-4 district.
STANLEY BLUMM: I am appearing for Erie J. Miller. The exception
asked for is to install a wall illuminated sign at these premises.
The sign is a standard sign, manufactured for the Chrysler Moto
Corporation and is the only sign which will appear, provided
the exception is granted. I have photographs here, showing the
building as it now is situated.
Appellant's Exhibits 1 and 2 marked for identification
The photographs show the Erie J. Miller building as it now
appears, with painted signs on the wall, four feet high by
forty feet long, with the words, "ERIE J. MILLER" painted
directly on the wall surface. There is presently a total of
320 square feet of sign appearing on the building. If the
exception is granted, these signs will be painted out and we
are asking the exception for the granting of a non-illuminated
plastic panel which will be mounted on the wall surface and
project above the show room canopy on three sides as shown on
this drawing.
Appellant's Exhibit 3 marked for identification.
Exhibits 1 and 2 will show the show room as it now is, and
using the drawing we have here, you will see how the sign will
be installed, a typical plastic panel identified as being 3
feet high, approximately 18 inches wide, but the panels vary
-t-
in width, depending upon the printing on the panel. I have
another photograph here which will show another installatio ,
but which will be exactly as this will be.
Appellant's Exhibits 4 and 5 marked for identification
This shows a similar installation here in Ithaca, which the
might want to see as well. In order to complete the con-
struction around the canopy the panels will be continuously
around the canopy, facing Elmira Road and towards the north
west and southeast. However, only a portion of the panels irill
be lettered, facing the Elmira Road, "Erie J. Miller, Inc."
and on the southwest wall blank, the others, just "Erie J.
Miller". This here shows a similar installation down in
Vestal, New York, Exhibit 4. We will thus delete a total
of 320 square feet and replace it with a total sign area of
126 square feet. For the sake of compliance, the plain blue
panels will be continuing on all three sides of the canopy.
The construction and installation of this sign will be ap-
proved by the Building Department and the materials used will
be in accordance with your Ordinance. On the two sides of
the canopy, 3 feet high by 32 feet long and on the front of
the canopy facing Elmira Road, 3 feet high and 48 feet long
The total measurement of the letters will be 126 square fee
of that total. There is no identification on the building
at all of Chrysler Plymouth.
MR. WEAVER: How do we come out on the 10%7
MR. BLUMM: The total wall area can be estimated from Exhibit 2, which
building is 40 feet wide by an estimated 20 feet high to
the roof.
MR. WEAVER: So that's 800, so there is no problem.
THE CHAIR: Any questions?
MR. PFANN: In your application you say you are removing the existing s gn.
MR. BLUMM: Mr. Miller called me yesterday and said he would not be able
to be here and asked me to be here for him. If he said 416
square feet he must have measured that. I estimated by eye
320 square feet.
MR. PFANN: Talking about square footage, of the signs, you are talking
about the top of letter to the bottom of letter?
MR. BLUMM: And across.
THE CHAIR: Any one here appearing in favor of this application?
None.
Any one appearing in opposition to the application?
None.
-3-
MR. BLUMM: I would just like to say one thing as far as improving the
building's appearance. It is going to give it a little more
height above the show room and signs enclosing on the three
sides will improve the appearance of the building. These
signs are weather proof and will stay intact. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: We will go to Cases 784 and 785, No. 784 being that of
Meadow Realty of 602 Hancock Street, Ithaca, New York, for
a variance for use as a restaurant and exception for sign
size at 209 South Meadow and 228-232 Cleveland Avenue under
provisions of Section 7, Column 2 and Column 4 in a B-1 Dis rict,
and Case #7859 Appeal of V. Giordano of 602 Hancock Street,
Ithaca, New York, for a variance for use as a restaurant an
exception for sign size at 205 South Meadow and 623-625-627
6319 6311 and 633 West Green Street under provisions of Sec
tion 7, Column 2 and Column 4, in a B-1 and R-3 district.
MR. CLYNES: I suggest since this is a re-hearing, it can be a joint
record since it is intertwined, as I understand that the
proceedings in the first record will be part of this. We
would like marked and we offer the affidavit of mailing as
required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Appellant's Exhibit 1, being affidavit of mailing for
meeting of April 17, marked for identification
Appellant'.s Exhibits 2 and 3 marked for identification
These are letters from the tenants, Kentucky Beef and Mr.
Donut. We are at this time withdrawing our request for the
exceptions, so the only matter before this body tonigh
is the use. The signs no longer are a part of this appeal.
No. 784 is Mri Donut and 785 is Kentucky Beef. We offer
these in evidence and respectfully request they be a part o
the record.
THE CHAIR: Received. The Chair reads aloud Exhibit 2 and 3.
MR. CLYNES: Also may I say that the only party to object at our first
hearing was Mrs. Lloyd, snd her request was that a sign be
erected for traffic to proceed and on behalf of my client
I agree to erect that sign.
Appellant's Exhibits 4 and 5 marked for identification
Appellant's Exhibit 6 markbd for identification
VINCENT GIORDANO, of 602 Hancock Street, Ithaca, New York,
having first been duly sworn by the Chair, answereed as
follows:
MR. CLYNES: Here we are referring to Exhibit 4 - could you describe it
for the record?
-4-
A. This is a plot plan showing the properties on the corners of Green Street
going south along Meadow Street, thence east on Cleveland Avenue.
Q. Are there any notes of approval in the lower right hand corner on Exhibit 4?
A. Yes, this plan has been submitted to Mr. William
resident engineer, New York State Department of Traffic, and he has a sig
nature on here, "Plan okay". There is also an okay from Mr. Howard R.
Sleeter which was presented in a conference and we went over with them
the request of widening a curb way out to 30 feet each on Meadow Street.
This made the State Traffic Engineer happier and Mr. Sleeter and Mr.
Dingman agreed in satisfaction. We now have the driveway locations both
as they enter on Green, Meadow and Cleveland Avenue approved by the two,
the City and the State.
Q. Referring to Exhibit 5, could you point that out and identify that?
A. Exhibit 5 is the same plot plan with an overlay drawn to scale, showing
the existing houses and lot layouts that are on these lots now. They
also show the driveway cuts and entrances going into the homes in this
area. The brown part are the houses; the blue is the driveway layout,
and the red lines are the lot lines.
Q. Referring now to the large map that is unmarked but is part of the record
for identification, "General Plan Inlet Valley Zoning Plan". Could you
identify that?
A. This is a City Planning Board drawing, approximately 3 feet by 5 feet,
that shows the Inlet Valley section of our City and it shows the western
end of our City going down Route 13; it shows the section going up Green
Street around through to Cascadilla Street and the Day Street light exit.
Q. Are the premises, the subject matter of this hearing, depicted on this
map?
A. Yes, inside the red lines here (indicating an area enclosed by a red line
on this map.)
Q. Referring to the legend in the upper left hand corner and referring to th
color, what is the proposal on this map as far as the Zoning of the sub-
ject premises?
A. It is drawn "Proposed Commercial B-2."
Q. Have you had conversations with the Planning Director of the City, Mr.
Kasprzak?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he inform you that this particular plan was recommended by the Planni g
Board and submitted to the Common Council in 1967?
A. Yes, the Planning Board's recommendation on June 7th, 1967 to to Common
Council at that time. This was his recommendation.
Q. After the first hearing in this matter did you make a traffic survey of Ule
area in question?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you reduce part of that survey, as far as traffic count, to writs g,
and part of it in interviewing the affected merchants in the area to
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is this typewriting on your machine?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. May I say to the Board that this typewriting took in excess of an hour.
We want you to hear this. We started out in my office and my girl was only
able to complete part of it, and I would ask that that document be marked.
It is a transcript of probably three-quarters of what's on here.
Mr. Giordano, did you interview certhin people along Meadow Street?
A. Yes, business owners and operators.
Q. Did you interview Mr. McLoughlin of the Purity Ice Cream?
A. Yes.
Q. Campanonolo, two of them at the Meadow Cleaners?
u A. Yes,
Q. Mr. Fabbizio, the Italian Carry-out on Court and Meadow?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. and Mrs. Zazarra at the Italian Bakery on Meadow Street?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Maloney at the AAA?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr, Ray Miles, Shell Gas Station?
A. Yes.
Q. Anjelo Paolangeli, John Yengo, Joe's Restaurant, Abraham Nichols, owner
of 207 North Meadow, Ray Glauer, Donahue and Halverson, Robert Mix,
Warren Roykouff, Atlantic Gas Station, Mrs. Smith of Smith's Hardware?
A. Yes to all of those.
Q. Britton Anderson, the Royal Court?
A. Yes to all.
Q. Could you in your own words, referring to your notes, review the general
line of questioning snf the unanimous answers of these people?
A. Yes, my main questions were with their business operations that they now
have on Meadow Street and the time that they were there, some for four-
teen years. I was interviewing on their experience on cross lane traffic
accidents, going into their driveways or direct accidents, and in every
case found that there had been no driveway nor cross lane traffic acciden s
that they had remembered, to their knowledge. They had seen intersection
accidents by people failing to heed the stop light, going through a stop
sign or similar things. They had had a very, very good record on traffic
accidaats. The other thing I interviewed them on was their idea of what
their opinion was of the Zoning of this area as it now stands since the
re-location of Route 13.
Q. Have you ascertained when this complete re-location was?
A. Early 1965, and they all felt that the area should be zoned B-2 or B-3
-6-
or B-4, depending on whom you interviewed. Their feelings sort of went
in with the Zoning Plan before us tonight, the unmarked one, and their
feelings were that the heavy trucks and the heavy traffic that has been
travelling the street shook their houses, especially at night, and they
just can not sleep and are looking for other places to move, and something,
sooner or later, will have to be done with this area.
MR. CLYNES: Appellant's Exhibits 6 and 7. I offer as the documents tes-
tified to by Mr. Giordano and the transcripts are sworn to
as true and accurate copies of the tape which we have here.
Appellant's Exhibit 8, marked for identification, is a lette
which Management Consultants, Inc, on their stationery, datec
April 16th, 1968, sent, and may I read that into the record.
MR. CLYNES: (Reads Exhibit 8) And I offer that.
THE CHAIR: Receive all exhibits.
MR. CLYNES:
Q. Mr. Giordano, as a part of your traffic survey, did you employ certain
high school students to make surveys of the area in question at certain
times?
A. Yes. The results of that survey have been reduced to writing.
Appellant's Exhibit 9 marked for identification
Q. I show you Exhibit 9, for identification and ask, have you reviewed that
document?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this a correct typewritten copy of the report as made to you of the
traffic survey?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this a true and accurate copy?
A. Yes.
THE CHAIR: Received.
Q. With regard to the subject properties, when did you acquire 228 Cleveland
Avenue?
A. This was acquired August, 1967 on a Tompkins County Trust Company bid as
a burnt out house.
Q. 6251, 627 West Green, 631, 6312 West Green, 633 West Green, when were they
acquired?
A. I purchased August, 19649 from Daniel Crowley.
Q. How about 207 South Meadow Street?
A. November, 1966, at Welfare auction.
-7-
Q, 205 South Meadow?
A. I made the purchase offer in 1966, closed in 1967.
Q. 209 South Meadow?
A. This belonged to one of the partners of Meadow Realty, John Petrillose,
who has dropped out now, and my partner and I have taken this over now.
Q. This was occasioned by a withdrawal of a partner?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Ferrara, when did you acquire your Cleveland Avenue property?
A. Six years ago.
Q. Mr. Giordano, will you relate your experience in the 1964 acquired proper-
ties, as to their rental and effect the completion of Route 13 had on
these rentals?
A. When I purchased these homes from Mr. Crowley he had them all rented and
�-' it was his request not to evict any tenants, and they were all rented the
in 1964. As the character changed down there due to Route 13, the heavy
traffic, big trucks, we started losing tenants rapidly and ended up with
none of the original tenants in the last two years. The new tenants,
most of them were placed there by Welfare, and others rented on their own
and we were doing fine until the last two years when we issued leases on
these properties because people would move out and not pay their rent;
they didn't care for the character of the neighborhood. It became very
hard to re-rent. When we did re-rent we were able to rent them only to
people who could not keep up with their rent payments; they just didn't
have jobs. Some rented for, like Sixty Dollars for a four-room apartment,
and up as high as One Hundred Dollars for a full four bedroom house.
MR. CLYNES: Gentlemen, I think this concludes our presentation, except
that I would like to reserve our rights for an opportunity
for a final statement by myself, which I would like to read
�.. into the record.
THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Clynes. Are there any questions by the Board?
MR. WEAVER: Will you show me Green, Meadow and up Cleveland Avenue?
(Answered by Mr. Giordano)
MR. PFANN: Did you purchase all the properties after 1961 when the
present Zoning Ordinance was last amended on a large scale?
A. Yes.
Q. Referring to the Zoning Plan, Inlet Valley, your statement
was that it was submitted to the Common Council a year* ago.
They took no action?
A. The Common Council has tabled this.
Q. Does that indicate that they are not ready to take any action?
MR. CLYNES: I will object to that.
-8-
MR. PFANN: I am asking you, Mr. Giordano, what you might infer, if any-
thing, that the Common Council would do?
A. These were Mr. Kasprzak's recommendations to the Common
Council at the June 7th, 1967 meeting and that is the way
it got to the Common Conncil.
Q. That is not the plan we are working under now?
A. No, it is presently B-1.
THE CHAIR: No action has been taken on it.
MR. CLYNES: When this entire problem arises, at any time like that, you
are afforded an opportunity to take two courses, first, for
a variance, and second, seek a Zoning change. We talked to
the more knowledgeable heads and felt we would lose our
tenants that we have spent so much time to attain, and we
felt it best to seek a Zoning variance. In a B-1 zone there
are certain permitted uses that are not permitted in an R-3
zone, set forth in your Ordinance. One of those is a funeral
home. Mr. Giordano, do you have any comments about the prac-
ticality of a funeral home on the subject premises?
A. We have a funeral home now at the corner of Meadow and State Streets,
which is empty and his feeling was that this area is too noisy for funeral
homes. They have funeral homes throughout the City fairly evenly in that
area, or in those areas, and we feel this is not the place for a funeral
home to operate.
Q. The second permitted use is a business or professional office. Do you
have any comment on that?
A. Nay comment is exactly the same; it is too noisy, and it is economically
impossible to build enough offices to pay for your investment, since the
ruling is one parking space for an employee, and being close to Route 13
there is too much noise. This is impractical and uneconomical.
Q. Another permitted use is banks.
A. There again we have a west end bank and a Plaza bank, so it is fairly
well covered.
Q. Is there also a proposed location for the First National Bank and Trust
Company in the fair grounds at the Plaza?
A. Yes.
Q. Also a proposed main office location of the Odessa Bank in the Co-op
Center?
A. Yes.
Q. Which places four banks in the area concerned?
A. Yes.
-9—
Q. How about the office of government?
A. This would be the same as for a regular retail business office and because
of the noise and lack of parking space, it would be impossible to make it
work, and also far from the main facilities of the City, Town and County.
Q. The fifth use was a motel - is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you, in the course of developing this area engage in conversations
with the people representing the travel lodge?
A. Yes, they needed at least three acres of land for seventy units and they
also need an independent restaurant operator on the same property. Their
travel lodge people do not run a restaurant and they would need a restaurant.
Q. They found the area you were able to furnish to be too small?
A. That is correct.
MR. PFANN: Isn't the general area down there in the same condition as
some of the houses you purchased and assuming others are
available, could you have purchased another section and come
in with the aame background for your appeal, as far as use
of premises is concerned?
MR. CLYNES:
Q On the Sunday prior to the first hearing, did the two of us tour the
general area of the subject premises?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you discussed it with Reverend Johnson?
A. Yes.
Q. Did we go easterly on Cleveland Avenue from the subject premises?
A. Yes,
Q. How would you describe those homes?
A. There are some nice homes there and there are some houses that need repai
Q. Wasn't your general conclusion that the homes on Cleveland Avenue were
far superior to the homes the subject matter of this hearing?
A. Yes, much better kept.
BEVERLY MARTIN:
Q. If there were homes available on Cleveland Avenue for purchase, would you
consider them?
A. Yes, I would. There are many houses in more residential areas that I hav
purchased for investment purposes. I have a purchase offer in for the
house at 224 Cleveland Avenue, which is one above the house of the subjea
premises. The object was rental and investment.
MR. PFANN: It is then feasible to rent in the nearby area?
A. If you can get away from the truck area on Route 13 you can rent these
premises,
ii
it
_10-
BEVERLY MARTIN: Is the Donut Shop large enough to have the tracks stop there
A. This is a large block. There is 25,000 square feet of land
ii without referring to the area of Kentucky Beef. ^ With the
building you would have 23,000 square feet of land.
Q. Right now you have through traffic of these tracks. I am wondering now
if you will have these trucks stopping and starting?
j A. I couldn't answer that. I think they mostly stop at truck stops.
s
(i DR. BALDINI: You mentioned you had these curb cuts along Meadow Street
increased to 30 feet. Are you going to continue the curb
cuts on Cleveland Avenue at 25 feet or make them 30 also?
A. 25. They felt this is plenty.
MR. SLEETER: We recommend 30 feet on Meadow Street for a wider area for
turning, and 25 would be all right on Cleveland Avenue. 30
ii on Meadow Street would be advisable for a wide turn.
;f
THE CHAIR: Is there any one in favor of the appeal?
i
JAMES KEARNEY: 626 West Green Street. At one time I was given the informa-
tion that this was what the Zoning was going to be down theN .
the Inlet Valley zoning, and a long while before I had gone
out and got petitions for Mrs. Scanlon, who sold the Co-op.
This went through in wonderful shape. I began looking into
this and I became involved with the Vets of World War II and
made up my mind I was going to move. I came up with the ide
of selling and discovered I wasn't in the right Zoning. I
j think you gentlemen know of a survey made down there. I
think it's pretty near time we got out of this depressed are
and think this is one of the things that would take us out o
this area.
MRS. ARAMINI: 112 South Corn Street. I have lived in that block for over
thirty years and these houses he has torn down should have
been torn down, plus a few more. There is no work being don
on any of those houses, only mine on the corner - well, Mrs.
ii Cook's is pretty good, but outside of that I don't see another
good house in the whole block. If you don't let him build,
what are you going to do? Let it stay like that? You can't
do it.
�i R. J. BRUCE: Owner, 902 West State Street. I have a letter here foam the!
West End Business Association, as follows: "The Directors
of the West End Businessmen's Association unanimously urge you
i to properly rezone the area of Meadow Street now under con-
sideration. It seems obvious to us that this street is ripe,
for commercial development. This particular block would im-
prove the neighborhood and add to the City Tax rolls. Int ,
it should attract other developers to this area of the City
rahher than driving them outside." This ftgned by Read Wilcox.
I am also a Director of the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce
!� and the feeling there is the same thing. Thank you.
-11-
MARIE LARKIN: South Meadow Street. I have been in this house since the
age of four months. Mr. Giordano has worked earnestly
to develop and bring about the development and bring the
property right on the tax rolls. Some houses were torn
down and the empty lot given over to the City. The City
has no plans. Mr. Giordano can put up the property and be
on the tax rolls before the end of the tourist season. W
live down there and enjoy our neighborhood and have good
neighbors. Why not go along with progress?
WILLIAM J. SAMMONS: South Meadow Street. I have been there over seventy years.
Are you going to let these houses go until they fall down?
I am one hundred percent for it.
DeLAURENTIIS: South Meadow, and I favor Giordano.
F. J. SULLIVAN: 206 South Meadow, right across the street from us at 207.
My father died at 87 years of age and his father and mother
lived there before that, so you can realize how old that
house is. I don't think Ten Dollars has been spent on that
house since I have been down there. I won't even talk
about the other houses.
MICHAEL CASEY: 620 West Green Street, and I am talking for my brother too,
the old Clynes house. I think it's a great thing, no
kidding.
MRS. VOLPOLICELLI: Have had it for 32 years and in favor.
THEODORE MANCINI: In favor.
JOHN GORSKY: 624 West Green Street. I am in favor of this.
MAUDE COOK: West Green Street. In favor; some yet need to be torn
down. I am in favor.
ANNA MAGULA: 705 West Green. In favor. I had to tear down my porch
because it was out of plumb, and those houses are out of
plumb now.
BLANCHE THOMPSON: I guess it's just because it would be a morning noise and
one thing and another. I lived there since 1942 and it
was a quiet neighborhood. This would be an awful thing
to have coming past my house on Cleveland Avenue all time
of the night, and would be still worse with students all
times of the night with no rest. I am against it and as
I told Mayor Kiely and Mr. Van Marter I was against it.
MRS. LLOYD: 201 Cleveland Avenue. I have talked with some of the
neighbors and they are also against it. Who pays the
taxes? Some of us do on Cleveland Avenue and we are afraid
and we know very well that if another thing goes in, others
will and we will have no home.
i
-12-
NANCY BROWN: 21 Remington Heights Road. I am against it because I thin
Ithaca has a terrible housing shortage right now and some
of these houses in question may well be less desirable,
but they did provide houses for some people who had a ter-
rible time finding other houses. I think we have to think
of this, whether the esthetic qualities of the property
put up would be better. I think we need to think of the
people who need housing in Ithaca now. I think that surel
there is such a shortage of houses in Ithaca now that bo
permit the loss of available houses still further would be
a shame. I think the people are angry about the houses
torn down on Court Street. Ithaca ,just can not afford thi
type of planninng any longer. There are now some very nic
houses there. They are afraid these houses will become le ;s
nice. I think they have a very valid point. Ithaca needs
more housing instead of less.
MRS. LLOYD: I understand that so many spoke concerning the residents
of Cleveland Avenue. I haven't lived there for over 70
years but have for 14 years and I do see what is happening
in Ithaca, that the west end is becoming a business estab-
lishment and think they are going to take up all the homes
on Cleveland Avenue and other people are going to lose the r
hones.
MR. CLYNES: I have a final statement, and I am asking that it be made
a part of this record. Please let me say that I have neve
seen a party before this body that has made more of an
effort to conform to the wishes of the neighborhood. We
will withdraw the purchase offer at 224 Cleveland Avenue.
It will not be purchased by my client. Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. CLYNES reads his final statement and it hereby becomes a part of this record.
i
EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, April 17, 1968
THE CHAIR: Let us consider No. 789 first, gentlemen.
BEVERLY MARTIN: Move that the application be granted on the grounds that
the new sign requested here is more in keeping with the
neighborhood which is now developing and more in keeping
with the spirit of the Ordinance.
MR. WEAVER: Second.
VOTE: Yes - 6 No - �J
CASES No. 784 and 785:
Moved by Mr. Weaver and seconded by Mr. Bentkowski: (Both cases)
Move that the application for a variance be granted. The findings of
fact are as follows:
We find that the present use of the subject premises results in a finan-
cial hardship to the applicabts.
We find that the other uses permitted in a B-1 zone, other than the
present use, are not feasible from any point of view including economic.
We find that the granting of the variance requested for use only, said
use being permitted in a B-2 zone, and thus this is the variance that will
accomplish the desired use.
We find that the variance will be in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance and will not be injurious or otherwise detriments
to the public welfare and in fact, the use is supported by the residents of
the area, the people most directly affected by the proposals.
We find that there are other businesses in the general area and as such
the granting of this variance will not change the general character of the
neighborhood.
We find that the unique conditions of the buildings on the subject
premises occasioned in part by the relocation of Route 13 make most of them
untenantable.
Therefore, we find that the petitioners, Meadow Realty, in Case No, 784,
and Vincent Giordano, in Case No. 785, have sustained the burden of proof
imposed upon them by all applicable State and local statutes, and therefore,
the requested variances are hereby granted.
#784 VOTE: Yes - 5 No - 1
#785 VOTE: Yes - 5 No - 1