HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1981-06-16 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 16 , 1981
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , June 16 , 1981 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca ,
New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , James Baker ,
Edward Mazza , Liese Bronfenbrenner , David Klein , Carolyn
Grigorov , Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P . E . ( Town Engineer ) , Lewis
D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement
officer ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger , Diane Beckley ,
Kevin M . Amidore , Roger Lansdowne , Steve [ Surname
Illegible ] , Philip S . Winn , Esq . , Joel Podkaminer ,
Richard L . Miller , Dorothy Miller , Richard Holgate ,
Kathy Duffy , Stephen Eddy , Mildred Eddy , Arlene Eddy ,
Lucille Brink , Millard Brink , Mary Cowell , Bessie L .
King , Harry H . King , Robert C . Mulvey , Alfred C . Eddy ,
Richard I . Mulvey , Esq . , Michael Daghita , D . Co
Sprague , Opal W . Sprague , Thomas A . Bell , Martha E .
Bell , Charles Sheffield , Joan P . Sheffield , Suzanne
• Sheffield , Karen Arnold , Ronald J . Kerfoot , Jennifer S .
Tiffany , Carolyn M . Miller , Robert S . Miller , Mickey R .
VanDerpoel , Rhonda E . Wilson , Andrew Duffey , Marlene M .
Duffy , Alice B . Garey , Jean L . Ward , Stephen D . Patton ,
Elsie Sheldrake , George Sheldrake , Tom McGuire , Ken
McGuire , John Cowell , May Cowell , Paul Becker , Joel
Lansdowne , Edward Kellogg , Elsie McMillan Peterson ,
John D . MacLean ,
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and
accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on June 8 and 9 , 1981 and June 11 and 12 , 19810,
respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by
Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the properties under
discussion , as appropriate , upon the Finger Lakes State Parks and
Recreation Commission , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning , and upon the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , on
June 10 , 1981 .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED REZONING OF A PORTION OF
THE LANDS OF ALFRED Co EDDY ON THE ELMIRA ROAD , FROM R- 30 TO BUSINESS ,
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 35 - 1 - 10 . 1 , SAID PORTION BEING 300 FEET
IN LENGTH ALONG ROUTE 13 AND 500 FEET DEEP TO INCLUDE THE PRESENT
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND .
. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman
c
Planning Board - 2 - June 16 , 1981
• May noted that the matter before the Board does not involve a final
decision of any kind ; the Planning Board is making a recommendation to
the Town Board and that is as far as it can go . Chairman May stated
that he would give everyone an opportunity to speak , adding that he
requested that persons speaking keep it short and to the point .
Attorney Philip S . Winn appeared before the Board on behalf of
Mr . Eddy , appended a large copy of the subject tax map to the bulletin
board , and stated that Mr . Eddy ' s parcel was marked in blue on the
map . Attorney Winn stated that each of the Board members had before
him/ her a coPy of Mr . Eddy ' s written proposal and Long EAF as part of
the record also . [ Attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 , respectively . ]
Attorney Winn stated that Mr . Eddy is a life - long resident
farmer , farming 1 , 200 acres as a dairy and produce , and for twelve
years has had a stand on the Elmira Road on this particular piece of
land . Attorney Winn stated that until February 1980 , Mr . Eddy leased
from Mr . John Babcock at which time he purchased the portion in blue .
Attorney . Winn stated that in April of 1980 a building permit was
requested and issued , and in December of 1980 a Certificate of
Compliance was issued by the Town of Ithaca , a copy of which he
entered as Exhibit 3 . [ Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . 1 Attorney Winn
also displayed ten 31 " x 31 " colored photographs , noting that they
show the establishment as it presently exists . Attorney Winn stated
that this construction was done largely because of the demand of the
• public that had developed over the twelve years of business . Attorney
Winn stated that Mr . Eddy is now and continues to be in the business
of produce at this stand , intends to follow the rules of the Town and
has always felt he has been doing so until certain complaints were
made . AttornE! y Winn stated that Mr . Eddy is requesting that the land
be rezoned as to how the land is being treated , the appropriate
factors being that the area is primarily business with a commercial
area to the north , a business to the south , and light industrial also
to the south . Attorney Winn stated that Mr . Eddy ' s land is basically
an island of R30 in a sea of commercial businesses . Attorney Winn
pointed out on the colored tax map on the bulletin board those parcels
in the area [ 14 ] , labelled in red , which are commercial establishments
both to the north and to the south , plus the Town of Ithaca Barns ,
Attorney Winn stated that he was also providing the Board with
additional photographs showing those labelled businesses in the area .
Attorney Winn displayed twelve 8 " x 10 " black and white photographs
showing several business in the area - - Eddy ' s Farm Stand , Brink ' s
Farm Stands , the China Garden Restaurant , the Millbrook Bread store ,
Bell ' s Convenience Store , Cortright Electric , Wonderland Motel ,
Grayhaven Motel , Early Bird Farm Stand and Greenhouses , Iacovelli
Contractors , Salino Electric Motors , McGuire Gardens , Machinists '
Union # 607 Hall , and Ehrhart Oil , Attorney Winn noted that in the
R - 30 zone there are three businesses - - Turback ' s , Eddy ' s Farm Stand ,
and Sheldrake ' s [ Early Bird Farm ] , Attorney Winn stated that ,
clearly , this area is being used for commercial purposes and business
purposes and the zoning law should reflect this fact .
• With refE! rence to the Zoning Ordinance , under R- 30 Districts ,
Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 13 , Attorney Winn stated that Mr .
Planning Board - 3 - June 16 , 1981
• Eddy is basically in compliance , and quoted , as follows : " A roadside
stand or other structure for the display and sale of farm or nursery
products incidental to farming and as a seasonal convenience to the
owner or owners of the land . Any such stand shall be located a
minimum of 15 feet from the street line , in such a manner as to permit
safe access and egress for automobiles , and parking off the highway
right of way . " Attorney Winn stated that what items may be sold is
vague , adding that by changing the zoning it would reflect the Board ' s
intentions . Attorney Winn stated that this property is clearly suited
for business , pointing out that the stand is well off the road , there
is ample parking * there is easy access to and from the highway .
Referring again to the small , colored photographs , Attorney Winn
displayed two photographs which , he stated , showed the accessibility
of this property , and pointed out vehicles going either north or
south . Attorney Winn stated that , in constructing this building , Mr .
Eddy took great care to make it as attractive as possible and to
preserve the environment . At this time , Attorney Winn pointed out
three of those small colored photographs which , he noted , showed the
trees at the front of the building . Attorney Winn offered that the
requested rezoning would result in a larger tax base to the Town , and
would also be of benefit to the community because there is a demand
for services and Mr . Eddy is attempting to fulfill it and he has gone
to great trouble and expense to do so . Attorney Winn stated that
there is a large proportion of the public in support of Eddy ' s Farm
Stand . Attorney Winn stated that he felt this rezoning would promote
• the general welfare of the community and would permit orderly growth
and would recognize the development that has taken place .
Attorney Winn presented to the Board a Petition in support of Mr .
Eddy ' s proposal and read therefrom as follows :
" We , the undersigned , support Alfred Eddy and his family and
their proposal to partially re - zone tax parcel # 35 - 1 - 10 . 1 from an R- 30
zone to a business zone so as to include the existing fruit and
vegetable stand now on the premises . The following are some of the
reasons why we are united in supporting the Eddy family :
1 . The Stand has safe and easy access to the main road with ample
parking area .
2 . Given the character of Elmira Road and the surrounding area , this
parcel is clearly suited for business zoning as opposed to a R- 30
residential zone .
3 . There is a strong need for the type of operation offered by this
Stand and we support the efforts to give greater flexibility in
what can be offered to the public for sale .
4 . We support the friendly , efficient and economical service
provided and the attempts to expand these services under a
business zoning which would ultimately serve to benefit the
public at large . "
Attorney Winn stated that there were 350 names on the Petition ,
which he submitted for the record .
Chairman May thanked Attorney Winn for his presentation , and
declared the Public Hearing open .
Planning Board - 4 - June 16 , 1981
• Mrs . Elsie McMillan Peterson , 812 Elmira Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that they [ her mother and brother also ] have a farm
very close to this property since 1934 . Mrs . Peterson stated that she
was concerned with a change in zoning that does not change the whole
entire area , adding that she remembered when the area was rezoned , and
further adding that the residential area was supposed to be a buffer
between the Industrial and the Business . Mrs . Peterson spoke of the
farms stands on what is now Mr . Brink ' s land , and stated that there
have been a lot of farm stands . Mrs . Peterson stated that none of the
neighbors object to a farm stand , however , she did object to a change
in zoning which could allow for restaurants , etc . Mrs . Peterson
stated that she had no objection to the farm stand , adding that she
thought the building was beautiful . Mrs . Peterson stated that she did
not know Mr . Eddy , adding that she would not know him if she saw him .
Mrs . Peterson stated that she thought property values would be
affected by a .rezoning to business .
Mr . Robert S . Miller , 823 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he is the next door neighbor to the stand . Mr . Miller
stated that he had no personal feelings about this . Mr . Miller stated
that he was interested in protecting his property . Mr . Miller stated
that they bought their house years ago and it was zoned residential
and they thought they would be safe and they invested a lot of money .
Mr . Miller stated that he did not object to the vegetable stand ,
adding that , in fact , his daughter has worked for them . Mr . Miller
• stated that he had with him a memo from an attorney which states that
the proposal amounts to spot zoning and it is illegal . Mr . Miller
proceeded to read from the referenced " memo " , a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 4 .
Mrs . Carolyn M . Miller , 823 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor
and , commenting that she was a life - long resident , stated that it was
their dream to move to the country and they did - - on the Elmira Road ,
Mrs . Miller stated that they do enjoy the wide open spaces . Mrs .
Miller stated that they were pleased when the Eddys bought the land ,
adding that lodging was done and the land cleared , and further adding
that it was good for a farm . Mrs . Miller stated that , however , their
choice natural area was destroyed . Mrs . Miller stated that then there
was the permanent building , adding that at first her daughter took her
own water and wash cloth , and she thought the building would be great ,
and then a chicken barbeque was added . Mrs . Miller spoke of tax
assessment , noting that the neighborhood is not a super neighborhod
compared with Burleigh Drive , so , if they pay taxes like Burleigh
Drive , they should have the protection of Burleigh Drive and further
commercial development would diminish the value for them and for
anyone they would like to sell to given this zoning change .
Mr . David C . Sprague , 817 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he is the neighbor across the road to the Millers . Mr .
Sprague stated that he has a twelve - acre tract and he has built one
more house on it and his daughter lives there . Mr . Sprague stated
• that he also has several building lots . Mr . Sprague stated that he
hoped to see nothing done that would decrease the value of the
property , adding that he thought everyone should be treated the same .
Planning Board - 5 - June 16 , 1981
• Mr . Sprague stated that in 1969 he considered building a four - house
apartment and he talked to some people and the zoning is sacred and
only two - family houses are allowed there . Mr . Sprague stated that he
did not want to see a change . Mr . Sprague stated that he had no
objection to the fruit stand and the business , adding that he did not
want this to be personal , and further adding that the overall picture
is what he was looking at . Mr . Sprague referred to Mrs . McMillan ' s
land on the other side of the road and wondered what the effect would
be of breaking down the zoning and not making it all the same . Mr .
Sprague commented that , maybe a complete change in zoning would be the
same , but he would not like to see spot zoning .
Mrs . Elsie Sheldrake , 806 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that she was against spot zoning , adding , enough said .
Mr . Millard Brink , 706 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and
introduced his wife , Lucille , and stated that they were the owners of
Cayuga Inlet Farm . Mr . Brink stated that they were celebrating thirty
years of living in the Valley . Mr . Brink stated that they watched for
ten or fifteen years the effect that Koff ' s junk yard on the way to
Inlet Valley had . Mr . Brink stated that they tried and it took ten or
fifteen years to eliminate Koff ' s junk yard and now they have Coney
Island on the Elmira Road with honky - tonk development . Mr . Brink
stated that he opposed this " shack " that Mr . Eddy was allowed to
build . Mr . Brink stated that his property is zoned Business and he
• could have had a nice farm machinery business there and made a lot of
money . Mr . Brink stated that the only thing he had done was sell two
acres of land for the development of the Wonderland Motel . Mr . Brink
stated that he asked to see what was going to be put there , adding
that he was concerned with proper development of Inlet Valley . Mr .
Brink stated that he was very much opposed . Mr . Brink stated that he
was a competitor , adding that he has a shed roof and a table . Mr .
Brink stated that he thought his gross income was higher than Mr .
Eddy ' s for the investment he [ Brink ] has put in . Mr . Brink stated
that he sells strawberries . Mr . Brink stated that he knew Mr . Eddy
was legal to handle bananas and peanuts because they are from the
ground , but it. hurts a little bit to see locally grown strawberries
and they are trucked in from 200 miles . Mr . Brink stated tht he would
propose a roadside market association which could set up rules and
regulations - - a little bit like the Farmers ' Market . Mr . Brink
stated that he would like to promote this if he were a younger man .
Mr . Richard Holgate , Holden Road , spoke from the floor and stated
that he has known the Eddys for three years and never has he said
anything untrue . Mr . Holgate stated that he has sold vegetables at a
fair price . Mr . Holgate stated that he did not think Mr . Eddy could
ever be accused of selling something that is not locally grown . Mr .
Holgate stated that Mr . Eddy is a fair man , adding that he is doing
this community a service , and further adding that he offers vegetables
at a fair price . Mr . Holgate stated that capitalism is all about
that .
• Mr . Harry H . King , 920 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that Mr . Eddy did put in sweet corn and he has berries down
Planning Board. - 6 - June 16 , 1981
below him [ King ] in the Ashland [ Oil ] area . Mr . King stated that the
Eddys are doing a big thing for a lot of people down there , adding
that he did riot see where they are doing anything like putting in
shacks , and further adding that if they are then he lives in a shack .
Mr . Richard L . Miller , Newfield , spoke from the floor and stated
that he has done busines. s with Mr . Eddy for fifteen years . Mr . Miller
stated that Mr . Eddy gives him four to six months work a year on farms
and repairs . Mr . Miller stated that he built that $ 100 , 000 . 00 shack .
Mr . Brink stated that he was not referring to the building .
Ms . Arlene Eddy , 150 Sheffield Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that everyone likes to eat and they get thirsty . Ms . Eddy
stated that it is not 1934 anymore ; it is 1981 . Ms . Eddy stated that
they might even thank the Eddys some day .
Mr . Joel Lansdowne , Homer , spoke from the floor and stated that
he could not see why anyone should be shut down if they abide by the
laws and go through the laws and abide by the Health Department , Mr .
Lansdowne stated that Mr . Eddy has been in business thirty years . Mr .
Lansdowne stated that it is pretty bad when a thirty- year business can
be run out .
Mr . Joel Podkaminer , spoke from the floor and stated that he grew
Christmas trees in Trumansburg and that he was a farmer , adding that
he was young and just growing . Mr . Podkaminer stated that he keeps a
low profile and sells for a reasonable price . Mr . Podkaminer stated
that Mr . Eddy will buy his product and market it which is what he
[ Podkaminer ] wants to do . Mr . Podkaminer stated that Route 13 came
through Ithaca and became a major thoroughfare and has changed things
since the pastoral setting . Mr . Podkaminer spoke of the area wineries
and stated that: Ithaca is growing and there is a need for new housing ,
adding that the expense of the City is going to get wider . Mr .
Podkaminer stated that he would like to see this building rezoned and
Mr . Eddy allowed to do his business . Mr . Podkaminer stated that he
sells a very good product - - Christmas trees and evergreens , adding
that he has a hard time selling to local vendors because they go to
Pennsylvania . Mr . Podkaminer stated that he would like to see Alfred
Eddy be able to continue helping him sell his product and to see the
Board not be short - sighted . Mr . Podkaminer referred to Route 13 , and
stated that , were this proposal rejected , he figured a gigantic mall
would probably not be turned down . Mr . Podkaminer stated that he did
not think all these residences will be preserved just as they are now .
Mr . Thomas A . Bell , 614 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he did not think anyone was here to say that Mr . Eddy
cannot have produce and vegetables . Mr . Bell stated that he thought
the argument was spot zoning - - Christmas trees are okay , produce is
okay . Mr . Bell stated that their gripe is that physically they
[ Bells ] have a variance to sell what they sell and they have to abide
by those rules . Referring to chicken and coca - cola , Mr . Bell stated
• that if a person is thirsty , how far is it to drive to Bell ' s and
other areas that serve such things . Mr . Bell stated that the
neighbors and business people feel that they have to abide by zoning
Planning Board - 7 - June 16 , 1981
• rules and he : Bell ] had approval by variance . Mr . Bell stated that he
had to obey all the rules and no one has shown him that he [ Eddy ] had
to . Mr . Bell stated that everyone should be able to make a living ,
adding that coke and chicken is a commercial business . Chairman May
commented that that is why we are here . Mr . Bell stated that spot
zoning is definitely illegal .
Ms . Jennifer S . Tiffany , 323 Cascadilla Street , spoke from the
floor and started that she was an employee of Eddy ' s Fruit Stand and
would like to comment on the real service that this stand provides .
Ms . Tiffany stated that coca -cola is an extremely small part of the
business . Ms . Tiffany stated that what his main business is is
produce , grown there with some from Syracuse . Ms . Tiffany stated that
the customers are from Ithaca and Newfield and also there are elderly
people . Ms . 'Tiffany stated that the prices are very low and this
should be taken into consideration . Ms . Tiffany stated that you
should keep some things that appeal to people . Ms . Tiffany stated
that the fear that this will become a very large business does not
make sense to her having seen the direction that the business goes in
and more and more products are being grown on the site - - good quality
produce .
Mr . Bell stated from the floor that he did not think anyone is
physically against what Mr . Eddy sells now , adding that he did not
even see the reason for this hearing . Mr . Bell stated that he did not
• understand why they are here , adding that no one is against that .
Mr . Roger Lansdowne , Locke , spoke from the floor and stated that
he was " Paul ' s Barbequed Chicken " , and that he would like to speak to
the " how " and " why " . Mr . Lansdowne stated that he approached Mr . Eddy
and asked him if he could lease a spot and set up for people in the
area and people that travel through that road . Mr . Lansdowne stated
that it was he who set it up . Mr . Lansdowne stated that that took all
his savings that he had which he put into the business . Mr . Lansdowne
stated that he ran for a few weeks and then he closed down because
they said it was not sanitary , so , everything he had coming in he put
back into it . Mr . Lansdowne stated that he put all the money from the
business into this , adding that this chicken shack that Mr . Brink
calls it , is about $ 7 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Lansdowne stated that the point
that he wanted to get across was that he did not want to make a lot of
money , adding that he works 40 hours a week on another business . Mr .
Lansdowne stated that this is for the public and they decide that it
would not be commercial . Mr . Lansdowne stated that he thought it
would help not hurt people in the area because he thought he sold good
chicken . Mr . Lansdowne asked if Mr . Brink had a building permit to
build what he would call a chicken shack . Attorney Richard Mulvey
spoke from the floor and stated to the Chair that he thought that was
irrelevant . A voice from the floor stated that the building has no
walls .
Chairman May asked Mr . Cartee if he wished to speak to this . Mr .
• Cartee stated that he did not wish to discuss this at this time ,
adding that he would talk to anyone at any time other than this
meeting .
Planning Board - 8 - June 16 , 1981
• Mrs . Martha E . Bell , 614 Elmira Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that she was the co -owner of Bell ' s Convenience Foods . Mrs .
Bell stated that she talked to other residents in the area - -
Sheldrake and Brink - - and there is confusion over the zoning law in
the area as itpertains to farm stands . Mrs . Bell stated that you can
have a farm stand and can sell products incidental to farming on - site
grown or purchased off - site and sold . Mr . Cartee quoted again from
Article V [ R - 30 ] , Section 18 , Paragraph 13 , of the Zoning Ordinance .
Mrs . Sheldrake spoke from the floor and stated that the ordinance does
say " seasonal " .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought the Town has been rather
consistent over the last number of years in interpreting the Zoning
Ordinance that it had to be an activity that had to do with a farming
wholesaled activity , or the leasing of a space by your choice to a
person on your land . Mr . Fabbroni commented that this has been and is
done by each of those in this room , for example , Christmas trees grown
in Trumansburg ; a Caroline person leasing a spot on your land . Mr .
Fabbroni commented that the Town is always after the turnaround area
down by the City line near Buttermilk Falls . Mr . Fabbroni stated that
the Town has been fairly consistent and loyal to produce people and
growers on the! Elmira Road , adding that the Ordinance ' s main intent
has to do with who owns the land and the activity . Mr . Fabbroni spoke
of Holgate ' s stand having tomatoes in February which is a nice thing
to be able to get . Mr . Fabbroni spoke of wineries , commenting that
• there has been a question as to what is incidental to farming . Mr .
Fabbroni spoke of Early Bird Farm which is in the same area and sells
poinsettias at Christmas and on two occasions in the Ithaca Times and
the Journal advertised black plastic bags , mulch , and black plastic
strips . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the request before the Board is for
the rezoning of 300 feet by 500 feet to business . Mr . Fabbroni
suggested that the Board could consider rezoning the entire frontage
on Elmira Road as business .
Mr . Brink spoke from the floor and asked if Attorney Winn
considered this request spot zoning . Attorney Winn responded that he
was not the one to ask , adding that he was not the judge , however , he
would point out the one parcel on Trumansburg Road zoned business
[ Professional Building ] . Mr . Lansdowne spoke from the floor and spoke
of the taxes on one acre of land zoned business and one zoned
residential . Mr . Podkaminer spoke from the floor and offered that
commercial land is valued higher and has an effect on adjacent
properties .
Mr . Miller spoke from the floor and asked when the Town Board
meets . Mr . Fabbroni stated that they may call a public hearing on
June 23rd for the July 13th meeting . Mr . Miller asked if they will be
notified . Mr . Fabbroni stated that all those here will be notified .
Mr . Holgate spoke from the floor and stated that he thought Mr .
Eddy should have every right to be on Elmira Road . Applause followed .
• Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 31 p . m . and turned
the matter over to the Board for discussion .
Planning Board - 9 - June 16 , 1981
• Mr . Mazza stated to Attorney Winn that he [ Winn ] had said that
Mr . Eddy was basically in compliance , and asked where he was not .
Attorney Winn responded , in terms of coca - cola and chickens . Mr .
Fabbroni statE! d that no one has ever questioned eggs or stuff from
Spencer , however , the barbeque and the eggs may be questionable . Mr .
Baker stated that eggs should be okay . Mr . Fabbroni offered that the
Town has had to draw the line at some point and it drew it at produce
- - beyond that , Business A , B , or Co
Attorney Winn stated to Mr . Fabbroni that Mr . Eddy is a dairy
farmer and asked if it would be Mr . Fabbroni ' s position that dairy
products are in compliance . Mr . Fabbroni responded , no dairy
products , no eggs , adding that he does not milk the cows and collect
the eggs on the site . Mr . Fabbroni commented that in a way it is like
comparing apples and oranges , and stated that Attorney Winn was asking
him what the Town ' s limit is as a home occupation .
Chairman May asked if a coke machine is involved . Mr . Eddy
stated that he has a cooler and it is in a small part of it , adding
that it helps the help a lot . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he was not
discussing the merits of the proposal , he was referring to produce and
a home occupat _ on .
Chairman May asked if the violations are the coke and the
chicken , or others . Mr . Fabbroni spoke of eggs and nursery stock .
• Mr . Klein stated that nursery stock should be no problem and the eggs
are locally " grown " . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the basic reason we are
here is the :) cale . Mr . Fabbroni referred to Houghton Farms and
Babcocks and commented that we are left to find the scale . Mr . Klein
offered that Mr . Fabbroni had inherited a very vague clause and asked
if the new zoning ordinance does it any better . Mr . Fabbroni
commented that it is more sorted out as to scale , adding that you get
into a problem when it gets to a scale that you normally associate
with the scale of a " roadside stand " . Mr . Fabbroni stated that we are
here to establish a scale that the Town sees as appropriate . Mr .
Fabbroni , commenting that he saw some merit with respect to where the
eggs come from and where the trees come from , and yet , at the same
time , Mr . Eddy has some flexibility in the competitive market to
operate , stated that he would be in compliance if he were to eliminate
the eggs and the chicken . Mr . Fabbroni offered that he would say
" large scale " . Mr . Klein opined that , perhaps , that was the original
intent . Chairman May offered that things have changed and the Board
would be hard - pressed to interpret it as that anymore . Mr . Fabbroni
suggested that the fact that we have _ seen all this at once would
indicate that the question of scale is germaine and should be noted
before they get into something that would be a hardship to the Eddys
and others . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that they have been cited and
this meeting is the logical outgrowth of that .
Mr . Klein stated that in the somewhat vague Paragraph 13 , he
agreed with Chairman May that the questionable items are the coke , as
• minor as it iE , and the barbeque which is , in a sense , the most
commercial , but the real issue is spot zoning . Mr . Klein stated that
he would be opposed to rezoning this to business , adding that he
Planning Board - 10 - June 16 , 1981
• thought R- 30 serves as a buffer zone , and further adding that Mrs .
Peterson spoke to this buffer zoning and that she also noted that farm
stands are traditional in this area . Mr . Klein stated that to
recommend a change for one parcel he saw this as a very specific case
and he had problems with this . Mr . Klein stated that he would
recommend that they go to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Klein
reiterated that he would have a problem recommending to the Town Board
that the Planning Board recommends this for rezoning . Chairman May
stated that he agreed , adding that there is not any disagreement with
the farm stand: and if we were to rezone it to a commercial district ,
therefore , it would seem inappropriate . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this
was one course of action that he could take - - even Business " A " ,
adding that the " coke " portion if incidental to employment , then they
could put a limit on the scope of that activity . Mr . Klein stated
that one of the employees clarified that , saying that the primary
business is produce . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner asked how long the stand is
open now , with. Mr . Fabbroni responding , at least nine months a year
now with the new building . Mr . Baker stated that he thought a
variance sounds to him the best way . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , to
clear the record , he would like to ask if the trees that are left are
on the State :right of way . Attorney Mulvey responded , eighty feet
east of the center line from the NYS Route 13 , adding that he had a
call from the State Engineer that they are ready to deed it .
Mr . Fabbroni , referring to the Environmental Assessment Form ,
• stated that a little better attempt has to be made as to traffic and
how it circulates , noting that the application treats it as to what
goes on now , but the question is total . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out
that , also , the signs are treated as separate matters requiring
permit . Mr . Fabbroni noted also that the EAF just indicates
" business " with no preference as to " A " , " B " , " C "
Mrs . Grigorov wondered what the barbeque comes under , with Mr .
Fabbroni responding that probably the Zoning Board of Appeals could
handle it better , and commenting that it should be within the building
that houses thE� rest of the activity . Mr . Fabbroni musing as to how
it does fit in , offered - - look at Community Corners - - the Bells have
a delicatessen - - Stewart Park - - pumpkins grown in Caroline and sold
on a lease arrangement - - we have accepted that - - but when you get
into " food " that is a question . Mr . Fabbroni offered that if they
raised chickens , the Town might stretch it as a home occupation . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that the only thing we have going is consistency .
Chairman May stated that a Memorandum should be sent to the Town
Board indicating that the Planning Board has not taken any action on
the Environmental Assessment Form ( Long Form ) completed by the
applicant and reviewed by the Town Engineer , it being the consensus of
the Planning Board that it is not appropriate for the Planning Board
to make a determination pertaining to the impact upon the environment ,
either of significance or non - significance , such determination being a
matter to be addressed by the Town of Ithaca Town Board . The Planning
• Board members indicated their agreement that such a Memorandum should
be transmitted to the Town Board .
Planning Board - 11 - June 16 , 1981
• MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz :
RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca recommend
and hereby does recommend to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that
the request of Alfred C . Eddy for the rezoning of a portion of his
lands on the Elmira Road from R- 30 to Business , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 35 - 1 - 10 . 1 , said portion requested for rezoning being 300
feet in length along said Elmira Road ( NYS Route 13 ) and 500 feet
deep , to include the present fruit and vegetable stand owned by Mr .
Eddy , be denied , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca
recommend and hereby does recommend to the applicant , Alfred C . Eddy ,
that this matter be taken to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
recommend and hereby does recommend to said Zoning Board of Appeals
that a use variance be considered , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that in making its recommendation to the Town
Board that said rezoning request be denied , the Planning Board has
determined that there is no need for the proposed business zoning in
the proposed location ; that the existing and probable future character
of the neighborhood in which the rezoning has been requested may be
• adversely affected , and that the proposed rezoning of said 300 ' by
500 ' portion of the Eddy lands is not in accordance with the
comprehensive plan of development of the Town of Ithaca .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Klein , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION' was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Alfred C . Eddy request
for rezoning duly closed at 9 : 05 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR FOUR
LOTS , TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 24 - 1 - 41 . 2 , 294 HAYTS ROAD , ITHACA , N . Y . JOHN
D . MacLEAN .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 06 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Fabbroni talked about the new map before the Board dated June
11 , 1981 , Mr . Fabbroni reminded the Board that preliminary approval
for four lots had been granted on April 17 , 1979 . Mr . Fabbroni stated
that what Mr . MacLean is asking for is final approval , but to
• substitute what is now listed as Lot 2 for one of the lots shown on
the map as " tem:porary cul de sac " . Mr . Fabbroni noted again that the
request is for final approval of Lot 1 , Lot 2 , and only two of the
Planning Board - 12 - June 16 , 1981
lots immediately around Lot 1 - - now shown as 3 and 4 .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the considerations left at the time of
preliminary approval were one of open space , that is , some kind of
commitment as part of the resolution to setting aside open space . Mr .
Fabbroni statE! d that discussion at the time was that it was probably
more realistic , at the point that something more than four lots was
developed , to separate the taking of the 10 % , or whatever lower
figure , because of the larger lots . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the
outcome back then was some commitment from Mr . MacLean as part of
approving these four lots was sufficient and then to be prepared for
later , but for now , a commitment would be fine for the first four .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the other consideration was to resolve to his
[ Fabbroni ' s ] satisfaction the size of the culvert that goes under the
road and that he Mr . MacLean be given Health Department approval of
the septic system as he builds on each lot .
Mr . Mazza expressed some concerns about the 50 feet on Sheffield
Road to Lot 2 and what is back from that . Mr . Fabbroni stated that
the problem is that that person who is building is demanding to have a
driveway on that lot . Mr . Mazza stated that for planning purposes , we
should have a road to it if there were a fire , however , we have no
control over a driveway , so , from a planning point of view this
concerned him . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it would concern him more if
he were not going to commit himself to a future road on a map to be
filed with the County Clerk . Mr . Baker stated that he is committed to
build it if he builds on that area . Chairman May stated that he did
not see how the Board can legitimately argue about a driveway there .
Mr . Mazza wondered if the Board had not just had this out on the
Slaterville Road . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner wondered if the Fire Department
will serve it , with Mr . Baker responding , yes , and adding that they
had a fire in the woods and they served it . Chairman May asked Mr .
Fabbroni if hE! were satisfied with the culvert , with Mr . Fabbroni
responding that he thought it should be a part of any motion . Mr .
Fabbroni stated. that we should do a field survey and judge on it then ,
adding that he wanted to look at this survey and look at the next
culvert down and make a judgment as to what he can do , and further
adding that it is a little deceiving . Mr . Baker stated that most of
the water goes north on Sheffield Road . Mr . Fabbroni commented that
they were discussing an 18 " and a 24 " . Mr . Klein wondered about the
Health Department requirements . Mr . Fabbroni noted that once a
subdivision is at five lots , SPEDES permits are needed , but with four
lots the Health Department treats them on an individual basis .
Chairman May noted that there was no public present at all at
this point .
Mr . Fabbroni asked Mr . MacLean where his house was located , with
Mr . MacLean pointing its location out on the map . Mr . Mazza asked if
the road to Lot 1 were in , with Mr . Fabbroni responding that the base
is in and the culvert is behind the existing lots . It was noted that
• Sheffield Road :is a County road so the County will require the culvert
on that road that they want .
Planning Board - 13 - June 16 , 1981
At this point , the Board members reviewed the Short Environmental
Assessment Form , dated June 11 , 1981 , noting that all questions had
been answered " No " , and that the Town Engineer had reviewed it under
date of June 12 , 1981 , making a recommendation of a negative
declaration .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
RESOLVED , that , with respect to the proposed four- lot subdivision
of the lands of John D . MacLean located at 294 Hayts Road , the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative declaration
of environmental significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Klein , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner , seconded by Mr . James Baker .
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby
does grant Final Subdivision Approval for four lots on lands of John
D . MacLean , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 1 - 41 . 2 , located at 294
Hayts Road , as shown on map entitled , " Subdivision Map of Lands of
John D . MacLean on Hayts Road " , dated June 11 , 1981 , prepared by
Howard R . Schlieder , P . E . , L . S . , and as reviewed and approved by said
Planning Board at Public Hearing , this date , June 16 , 1981 , with the
specifications for the culvert and road construction to be approved by
the Town Engineer .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Bronfenbrenner , Klein , Grigorov .
Nay - Mazza .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairman May declared the matter of the MacLean four - lot
subdivision duly closed at 9 : 29 p . m .
REPORT OF COUNTY PLANNING BOARD CHAIRPERSON , TOWN COUNCILWOMAN SHIRLEY
RAFFENSPERGER .
Councilwoman Raffensperger reported on both the May 13 , 1981 and
the June 10 , 1961 meetings of the County Planning Board . Councilwoman
Raffensperger reported that the Warren Road construction project is
proceeding and is projected to be finished in about four months .
Councilwoman Raffensperger commented that the cost over - runs are
enough to make anyone thinking about building a road have second
• thoughts . Councilwoman Raffensperger spoke of the concerns of the
Town Board with respect to the Newfield Hill - Shady Corners
intersection , noting that the Town Board has supported the concerns of
Planning Board - 14 - June 16 , 1981
• the County with this intersection , but the NYS Department of
Transportation has not yet come up with any design .
Councilwoman Raffensperger reported that the County Planning
Office has assembled considerable resource material on solar access .
Councilwoman Raffensperger reported that the Solid Waste Study
Committee is still working on its study , with no final report at this
time .
Councilwoman Raffensperger reported that the County Planning
Board has , by resolution , recommended to the Board of Representatives
that a seat for the present Housing / Energy Committee be created on the
County Planning Board .
Councilwoman Raffensperger reported on a truck traffic impact
study which will be discussed by the Transportation Commission on June
17th .
Councilwoman Raffensperger reported that there was a lot of
discussion of housing at the May 13th meeting . Councilwoman
Raffensperger reported that there is a very low vacancy level with
respect to rental housing - - only 2 % . Councilwoman Raffensperger
reported on discussions which took place with respect to the high cost
of money , both. construction money and mortgage money . Councilwoman
• Raffensperger , noting that certain unique characteristics influence
housing markets , reported that it is interesting to note that Harvard
and Princeton meet 95 % of their student housing needs ; M . I . T . 60 % ;
Cornell University - - 43 % , and stated that this distorts the housing
picture severely . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that the
single - family , large lot , development is a thing of the past , adding
that , whether we recognize in our zoning that these are not going to
be as easily come by in the future is the question . Councilwoman
Raffensperger described the various options or approaches to housing ,
such as row houses , zero lot line development , clustered development ,
PUDs [ Planned Unit Development ] , more innovative rental arrangements
including owner - occupancy , or whatever may be reasonable in order to
cut costs . Councilwoman Raffensperger asked - - why do developers
perceive that they have so much trouble with local boards ?
Councilwoman Raffensperger offered that planning boards do not lag so
much as the general public does . Councilwoman Raffensperger offered
that the public has not yet come to grips with what has been described
as the reality that we can only approve large lots . Councilwoman
Raffensperger offered that planning boards should consider
streamlining procedures so that a developer perceives that it has been
an easier process for him . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that
County Planning is trying to get out into the County to show various
Towns and Villages the planning approaches available . Councilwoman
Raffensperger offered that the Cooperative Extension could come into
play here too because , probably , the public lags behind even more than
boards . Councilwoman Raffensperger reported that there was discussion
• of minimizing the impact of new housing approaches on the area , adding
that boards share the same problems with the developer , and further
adding that neither has looked at cluster truly . Councilwoman
Planning Board - 15 - June 16 , 1981
• Raffensperger spoke again of the zero lot lines and resultant open
space both with respect to the zero lot line approach and the cluster
approach . Councilwoman Raffensperger described discussion by the
County Planning Board of the floating of tax exempt bonds , as has been
done by some cities and states , for the benefit of the mortgage market
if housing construction continues to fall in Tompkins County .
Chairman .May thanked Councilwoman Raffensperger for her excellent
report .
REVIEW OF PROPOSED OFFICIAL TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP ( DATED 6 / 10 / 81 )
AND UP -DATE ON PRESENT STATUS OF PROPOSED ZONING LAW .
The hour being late , Mr . Fabbroni briefly reviewed the proposed
new zoning map with the Board members . Mr . Fabbroni also reviewed the
status of the proposed new zoning ordinance [ law ) with the Board
members . Mr . Fabbroni referred in somewhat greater detail to the
" reversions " sections , noting the proposed five - year reversion for
approved but undeveloped lands . Mr . Fabbroni also reviewed the
proposed P - 1 and P - 2 designation with respect to Cornell lands , noting
that development in the P - 1 lands would require site plan approval and
development in the P - 2 lands would require site plan approval plus
special permit scrutiny , and pointing out the buffering requirements
for houses in the middle of a neighborhood .
• Chairman May stated that he would like to say for the record that
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has , this date , June 16 , 1981 , been
made aware of the status of the proposed Town of Ithaca Zoning Law and
the proposed Town of Ithaca Zoning Map dated June 10 , 1981 , and that
said Planning Board appreciates the consideration given by the Town
Board and the Engineering , Planning and Zoning Department staff of the
Town of Ithaca .
The Planning Board members concurred with Chairman May ' s
statement .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , the June 16 , 1981 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board was duly adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•
PROPOSAL TO RE - ZONE PART OF PREMISES
ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 35 - 1 - 10 . 1
• OWNED BY ALFRED C . EDDY
FROM A R- 30 ZONE TO A BUSINESS ZONE
'o LIJ /b v
• PROPOSAL
It is respectfully requested that part of the premises
in Town of Ithaca tax parcel # 35 - 1 - 10 . 1 be re - zoned for busi -
ness . Specifically , the area nearest Route 13 would be zoned
for business so as to include the existing fruit and vegetable
stand on the premises . This would involve an area 300 feet in
length along Route 13 and 500 feet deep .
HISTORY
The land in question was purchased by Alfred C . Eddy from
John B . Babcock in February of 1980 . Prior to that time , part
of the premises was rented by the Eddy family for purposes of
operating a small - scale fruit and vegetable stand . This oper -
ation has been in business for 12 years and has been run by
members of the Eddy family . During the past 12 years the Eddy
family has , and continues to be , in the business of selling
primarily fruit and vegetables on a seasonal basis . After
many years of hard work , they have built up a large number of
customers who have come to rely on the efficient service and
high quality of merchandise offered by the Eddy family .
After the purchase of the premises in 1980 , the existing
fruit and vegetable stand was constructed and opened for busi -
ness in the fall of 1980 . The newer , larger structure was
built in part to better serve the growing number of customers
and to deliver fresher , higher quality produce .
• In May of 1981 , the Stand was cited for violation of the
- 1 -
zoning law after various competitors had complained to offi -
• cials - of the Town of Ithaca . Specifically , the Stand was
offering the public a limited number of items which repre -
sented a small selection of the total number of items sold .
These complaints were made just as the labors of 12 years
were beginning to bear fruit .
I
- 2 -
• REASONS FOR PROPOSAL
The primary reason for the request to re - zone a portion
of the premises is to allow the Eddy family to continue their
current business . After 12 years of hard work , they have de -
veloped a thriving business and just recently considerable
sums of money have been invested to build a new building . At
no time has the family intentionally violated the zoning laws ,
nor do they wish to do so in the future . It is because of
their desire to operate within the confines of the law that
this proposal is being put forth . In light of the recent op -
position to the business ( and its success ) , it is mandatory
that this area be re - zoned if the Stand is to remain viable .
Otherwise , 12 years of hard work is in jeopardy of being lost .
. 3 -
• CONSIDERATIONS
The following are a few of the considerations this Bo ; ird
is asked to consider with respect to this proposal .
1 . The current R- 30 zoning restricts the manner in which
the land may be used . In particular , the Stand may currently
be used only for the " sale of farm and nursery products inci -
dental to farming . " Thus , products may not be sold that do
not qualify under this limited definition but which would norm-
ally be sold in an operation of this sort , e . g . soft drinks ,
baked goods , etc . In order for the Stand to be fully utilized
there is a very real need for greater flexibility in what can
legally bE� offered to the public .
• 2 . The new zoning classification is needed to make the
best use of the land . As can be seen from Figure 1 ( attached
hereto ) very little of the land along Route 13 is zoned R- 30 .
Currently , either side of the road to the north of the Stand
is zoned for business . In addition , to the south of the Stand
is located Turback ' s restaurant , which is also on R- 30 land ,
but -is conforming due to a " grandfather clause " . Finally , the
lands sout;z of Turback ' s are zoned light industrial . See also
Figure 2 . attached hereto .
3 . The parcel in question is clearly suited for a busi -
ness zoning . As can be seen from Figure 3 , the Stand itself
is well off: the road and has easy access to the main road via
the gravel driveway . In addition to the spacious driveway in
• front of the building which can be used for parking , there is
- 4 -
• also ample space for parking in an area approximately 75 feet
by 80 feet to the south side of the building .
4 . In constructing the Stand the large trees by the side
of the road were kept to retain the aesthetic beauty of the
location . In addition , care was taken to use construction
materials that would not detract from the rural environment .
5 . By changing the zoning , the future viability of the
Stand would be strengthened , thereby also insuring an increased
tax base for the town .
6 . The expanded services that could be provided under a
business zoning would serve to benefit the public at large .
7 . The change of zoning would reflect not only a change
in the character of the area in general , but also the natural
• growth and development of the Eddy family ' s fruit and vegetable
stand in particular . The steady increase in the number of cus -
tomers over a 12 - year span demonstrates the customer need for
an operation such as the Eddy family has provided . In seeking
this zoning change the, family is merely attempting to keep
pace with the changing character of the Elmira Road and with
the needs of their customers .
•
- 5 -
A4
. . . 1 i
. . . ►
. . . ►_
• • • . O
� • 1 I 1 eee{ • • ,
• • • ...'.'.'.'.'.'.'.•.'. •,. . ..
{ . I
IF
• •t • •i '
• • • • • . • • 1'.'::.
• • • • • • • • Ll.
• • AC. • • • • . . .:. . . . . ..
• • • . . . . . " r . :
. . . . . :
• ' R30
:; :7r :: r
14. p
J PL .
CiL
AGAL
• • • 3 ' :�� / • C
• • • • • • • • • • .v / f
• • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • •
• • • • • • • •r • � • � • • • •
• Ac
• • • • t ol
•! .
N�ItL • 9TATt • � �
t �
•
� u• r - ITre • •
TOWN LINg • • 1 •
•
Figure 1
U �
N
` H
J
rivewa
Q
Q 05
Enfield C ) 'J D D 7 D Z t�
Falls Rd . O "� J' Heavy Woods b i
a o CPO O o
r
$ # 35 - 1 - 10 . 1
Jr
Open Field
0
Open I? ield
.a
y
OJ
� f
0
y
N TL
•
z
( Turback ' s )
a
H = House
S = Stand
R = Restaurant
I certify that this Scale 1 " = 30 '
sketch accurately represent
the existing situation at Zon d Li ht
tax parcel # 35- 1- . 10 . 1 In ust ' al
0 0 / 81
Q
Figure! 2 \
oute 131
• E1'mlr a
de
100
Road lR '
i 95 '
Gravel e1 Drive 165
i
15 , 60t
Stand
Parkin�3
Sol # 35 - 1 - 10 . 1
80 `
601
I certify that this sketch
acuurately represents the
existing situation at tax
parcel # 35 - 1 - 10 . 1 on 5 / 20 / 81
•
Figure 3
L
K T TOWN OF ITHACA
✓
IIIVIRONNMTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
To be completed and submitted by the applicant . Comments may be Written next to the
question or on additional paper .
June 12 , 1981
Date
GENERAL. IN FORMATION
1 . Applicant Alfred Eddy Phone 273 - 5014
Address • , _ 544 Bostwick Rd . , Ithaca , NY
Property owner Alfred Eddy Phone 273 - 5014
Address 544 Bostwick Rd . ', Ithaca , NY
2 . Location . of Proposed Action ('Write Address /Tax lot ; Attach USGS topographic map
with affected lands outlined .) Elmira Road , Tax Parcel # 6 - 35 - 1 - 10 . 1
3 . Proposed Action Commercial sale of farm produce , nursery stock ,
dairy products , etc - fruit and vegetable stana
4 . Activities and types. of operation resulting from. the completion of the proposed
• ction .
Sale of farm produce , nursery . stock , dairy products , ett . _
IDENTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ACTION Site plan . b USGS inap
. 5 , State the time schedules' for the proposed action :
Plannin comlIted Construction completed
g completed - - --
Design , Documents ... Finished site work S grading
completed completed
Preliminary site work '
60 _ Describe the proposed construction techniques to be used if building or site
development is involved . Shona locations and routes to be used on the site place .
Grading and excavation including equipment vehicles and explosives to be used .
completed - - -
Transportation of materials to site
completed
Disposal of waste: .materials
•
completed
Proposed chemical trieatments , such as berbicidest dust control etc .
N . A .
Special techniques to overcome. unusval conditions
N . A .
•7 . Describe the type of proposed building and site materials to be used .
Foundation see building permit and certificate of completion
• Structure
HVAC Energy sources
Siding
Insulation
Windows and Glass
Roofing
Pavement
Vegetative cover
8 , Total area directly modified by pfd action 1 acres .
9 . Total area covered by impervious surfaces :
roofs 6 . 000 sq . ft . parking 1 / 2 acres roads acres
10 . Gross building sizes : 1
present total _ 6 . 000 sq . ft . no . ' of bldgs 1 — no , of floors /bldg
proposed total sq . fte no , of bldgs noe of floors /bldg
future total sq . fto no , of bldgs no . of floors A ldg
11 . .Number of proposed dwelling units 0_ Number of pitbjp d commercial units
Sizes of . uni.ts Sizes of units
120 Parking :
• Existing 100 paces proposed spaces Traffic generated / day 0
(Note : Indirect Contamination Source Permit may be _ required if_ 1000 spaces provided .
13 . Show proposed signs on site plan
Size sq . fte height above ground : top ft . ; bottom ft .
Wording : two :non - illuminated changeable o<- OfN`C� 17"
N
14 . Show proposed lights and other poles on site plan . 1
Height above ground 20 ft . Total lumens - --
one light on building . .
1 $ . Name potentially hazardous materials , such as toxic substances , flammables or
explosives to be used or disposed during or after proposed action none
Purpose of materia:Ls N . A .
(Note : Permits are required from DEC and T . C . Health Dept . )
16 . If the resulting activities are either commercial or industrial use , Write the
materials to be transferred to/from the site , their frequency , and the mode of
transportation .
Imported materials produce frequency daily - -. mode — truck
Exported materials Produce frequency _ daily mode truck
17 * Describe project history including controversy perceived by the developer ,
litigation , ' court decisions , etce fruit fi vegetable stand in operation by _
applicant for 12 years ; present bgilding constructed in - 1980 .
2 _
COMMUNITY FACTORS AND IMPACTS
1g Designated zoning of the site of the proposed action
19 , zoning changes or variances being requested Business
20 . Check if the site of the proposed action is . within or next to the following
Districts or Areas; :
Agricultural District Historic Preservation District
Floodplain (E.UD designated) Unique Natural Area
Freshwater Wetland
21 . Check which land uses describe" the neighborhood character .
xIWilSingle -unit residential Recreation
Multi-unit residential Agriculture
Commercial Forestry Woodland
Industrial
dlife / Conservation
Institutional Inactive
Transportation Other
22 , Check which public services are being requested or provided .
Sanitary Sewage -x Gas
Water x Electricity
Storm drainage Telephone
(Note : Permits may be required from municipality for hook-up . )
• serve the site of the proposed action .
23 , Check which transportation facilities will • p _street parking
x State Highway Sidewalks n
County Highway One-way traffic x Off street parking
Town Highway Two-way traffic Bus systems
City /Village Street Traffic lights
0
•24 . Nuof existing buildings affected by . the proposed action
mber
Show on the site plan .
25 .. Name affected buildings or districts known to be historically or archeologically
important or which are listed on the Register of Historic Buildings . none
Show on the site plan .
NATURAL- FACTORS AND IM33ACTS _
260 Depth to bedrock at: site of proposed action . ( Check more than one if necessary)
up to four feet depth
Four feet to ten feet
x Greater than ten feet .
20 If bedrock depth if: less than ten feet - check type of bedrock existing at site of
proposed action
Shalt N ' Ae
Thinly bedded shale and siltstone
Siltstone or sandstone
Limestone
' 'l
2$ : Check types of topographic features which describe or are found on the site .
x level or gently rolling plains hilltop
hummocks with small . ponds hillside
• glens and gorges valley bottom
29 . Name the soils as identified in the Soil Survey of Tompkins County which are
found on the part of the site proposed to be modified . Initials may be used .
gravel/ loam
30 . Briefly describe the nature and extent of ' proposed modification of existing slopes .
or soils or drainage None
Yes No
31 . x-1 Will any wetlands or adjacent areas be modified by the proposed action ?
If so , ' desi,gnate on the site plan the wetlands which will be affected .
(Note : "Wet :lands " . permit from administering agency required for alteration . )
Will any _ st ;reams be modified by -the proposed action? If * so , designate on
the site plan which streams will be modified .
(Note : "Dam" or " Disturbance" permit from -DEC is required for modifications . )
waste
1--�x Will any /materials or effluent be discharged into a -stream or groundwaters ?
If so , designate on the site plan the streams which will be .atfected .
• (Note ; SPDES; permit from DEC is required for discharges . )
Do any of the following types of vegetation exist on the site of the proposed
action? N . A .
Stands of mature trees greater than 30 feet tall .
x Young tree. s =pecies less than 30. feet tall.
X Shrubs
x Terrestrial plants up to two feet high
X Ferns , grassies , sedges , rushes
X Aquatic plants.
X Crops
35 . j X�j Are any vegetative management techniques currently being practiced on the
site of the proposed action ?
36 . Will any trees or shrubs be removed by the proposed action ?
If so . designate on the site plan the area that: is to be affected .
37 . Are there any plans for revegetation ? If so , briefly explain .
38 . -i—=-a To your Saiowledge ; . are there any rare , endangered or unusual
vegetative species which are located on or near the site of the proposed
action? If so , how are * they distributed ?
•
39 , Will activity cause a change in or affect visual character ofmaikoatural or
cultural landscape features ? - - "
Yes No
leo EMTo your knowledge , are there any significant . wildlife habitats , migration
routes or breeding areas located on or near the site that might be affected
by - the proposed action?
To your knowledge , are there any rare , endangered , endemic or unusual wild -
life species which are located on the- site of the proposed action? If so ,
how are they distributed ?
2 . 1—l-x� To your knowledge are there any known unique natural features on or near
the site of the proposed action? If so , briefly- explain .
Ing ,
Will any oi` the following emissions be produced by the proposed action or -
its resulting activities ? If so , describe the cause .
X Ashes
X Dust
Fumes
Odors
x Smoke
X Other emissions.
(Note : Air Quality Permits from DEC or T . C . Heal th Dept . , may be required . )
444 = Will there 'be changes to existing noise or vibration levels due to the
• proposed action or its resulting activities ? If so , describe the cause .
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS J%ND IMPACTS
NA
45 , Number of ewployees during construction
- constrLc_ tion completed
Haximum number of employees present at the site - at one time
.
46 . activities after completion8
Number of employees during .
47 * If resulting activities are • for either industrial or commercial .use , state the
employment shifts and number of employees in each Em 1 -
Shift 9 AM to Fmpl 8 Shift . EmPl
. Shift 6PM Empl Shift p
h8 . If the resulting activities are for residential ale . state
A e the number of planned
residents . Permanent N . A . Season
h9 . Briefly describe the nature and amount of indirect growth anticipated as a result.
of the proposed action or resulting activities . None .
Existing community or business or facilities or residential structures requiring
50 , None
relocation .
intended for : N . A . families
low income segment high income segment l
medium income segment H students elderly
Will proposed activity substantially change the following socio-economic population
distribution? N • A • ethnic background
income
race age
Comments .
53 . In your judgement , will the proposed action result in a significant environmental
impact during construction and /or during use after completion? ,
No
Governmental Agencies .
54 : Check the levels of government and name the agencies having jurisdiction over the
proposed action . Indicate the required permits by stating "yes " or ' Sno" • if permit
has been approved . ( The following pages of the
advise on the types of actions which require particular permits . )
�eder4tl Permits '
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System . EPA , Region II , NYC
Activities in navigable waters . Corps of Engineers , Buffalo
Other
State Permits
.ECertificate of Compatibility * and Public Need : PSC , DEC Albany (Public Utilities
Dam /Impoundment Construction or Repair : DEC - Envir . Quality Unit , Cortland
Disturbance of Stream Bed /Fill of Navigable Waters : DEC-EQUnits Cortland
Incinerator Construction or Operation : DEC - EQ Unit , Syracuse
Indirect Air Contamination Source : DEC-EQ Unit , Syracuse
Mining : DEC-Mineral Resources Bureau , Albany '
Pesticide Purohase , • Use ( 7 permits ) : DEC , Pesticides Bureaus Albany
Process , Exhaust , Ventilation. System Const . or Operation : DEC-EQ , Syracuse
Public Water Slipply : DEC , Envir . Analysis , Albany (T . C . Health Dept . review)
SPDES : DEC , Envir . Quality Unit , Syracuse (T . C . Health Dept . review)
Stationary Combustion Installation : DEC-EQ Unit , Syracuse ,
Wetlands /Adjaceent Areas Alterations : DEC-EQ Units Cottland
Other
County of Tompkins
Driveways , culverts :. Highway Dept .
Hazardous WasteJs : Health Dept .
Institutional U :se : Health Dept .
Mass Gatherings ;: Health Dept .
Offensive Materials ( Scavenger Wastes ) : Health Dept .
Public Utility Line Extension : Health Dept . •
Restaurant Use : Health Dept .
Restricted Burning : Health Dept . (DEC-EQ Unit review)
Sanitary Facilities for Realty Subdivisions : Health Dept . ( DEC-EQ review)
6
Sewage Disposal System : Health Dept . '
Solid Waste Mgmt . Facility : Health Dept . (DEC-EQ Unit review)
SPDES (Pollution Discharge) : Health Dept . (DEC-EQ Unit review)
Swi= ing Use-. Health Dept .
• Temporary Residence (Boarding House , Camp , Day Care , Hotel , Motel , Mobile
Home Park : 19ealth Dept .
ElWater Supply (Public) : Health Dept .
Wetlands /Alterations : Wetlands Commission / County Clerk
Other -
ToVn of Ithaca
Blasting Public Utility Connection
X Building Permit Signs
Street Opening Subdivision
Extraction of Natural Materials Streets and Drainage
Land Use Variance Wetlands Alteration
Mobile Home Park Zoning - Variance
Multiple Residence Other
Planned Unit Development
55 . Sources of Public funds ( if any) for proposed action .
N . A .
56 . - If federal review under NEPA is required , name agency
N . A .
�,uh �?mCt� 1 CL
C -8i natu e of Appli ant. ` Signature of Reviewer
Own e r / cwly
Title Title
r
J
m�Jr Ja `err 29h rrnx, . m .
Agency U (�
Date Reviewed
Reviewer ' s Recommendations :
pC. ELCcc 1. l / ' t c t` , tz)
I/A lir;
Q "� hACl
0k0 rrl i : I9'�cl fQ �t
Determination by Town of Ithaca Board :
Negative Declaration - determination of non- significance . .
• Positive Declaration - action may be of significant
environmental impact - . D / EIS required .
Date Signature of Chairperson
7
\ , 1
� l
aL0
W �
4w) ;h
3 H •� U 0
U
Z �. .. . to
Oral OA
H G1l m Z 0000 0
` ti \���1kti�` /��J��dLHyV.`a,.\Y�' ®. .�� ► WHT0wCHwsO7y
CH.�OS{
0
O
V4 r4 T&4
.cd
U sral *r4 44
NN O' Ca A o
04 b.0
O O O
MMS*. 'A 41 wBOO O
to va
ral
Ito 41 Cd
ri 040 Oral V,
WO CJ aOvi
w -! Cd
N
PIO : 4.) 'O O
to 0
� - i
Nr,
ZJ 1 0 to 54 to M44 .
.. R
cr
40W 44 3 cd
U O (1) u 4J O rd W
Z p O Cd eA O to cn N UO0
AaN
z r. { O U � 0 d
� 3
Ir-90 T u to
-44
41 ucHn N
H p
41 Oload
Wrabawl OA
U
0 cc C 44
H 41 ti-
Ej
. zH z w Wr-
IFUNI
d O . EM
O
HO
00 H o N r
Nccn
DO
c4) ��
�ij.
roof
41 to to
w `bb �
.
. .
9lf,I,
' 1
� ' • t) 0 c0 U . , � ,
//61V
ea4ll IVA&
MEMORANDUM
II RE ; PROPOSAL TO RE - ZONE PART OF PREMISES OWNED BY
I � ALFRED C . EDDY FROM A R - 30 ZONE TO A BUSINESS ZONE
I�
�I
I By his proposal , Mr . Eddy seeks to re - zone an area 300 feet i
in length b 500 feet in depth from R- 30 to a business district .
g Y
Both the " reasons " and " considerations " set forth by his proposal". :
,I indicate that Mr . Eddy is making his proposal for his own benefit
I and not pursuant to a comprehensive zoning plan for the general
welfare of the community .
As such , Mr . Eddy ' s proposal amounts to " spot zoning " and ,
thus , is illegal . Town Law Section 263 requires that zoning
regulations " shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive
plan . " In order to avoid " spot zoning . " The notion that zoning
• '� regulations should be imposed only in accordance with a compre -
l+ hensive plan is founded on the basic premise that zoning is a
means rather than an end . The legitimate function of a zoning
regulation is to implement a plan for the future development of 1
a community . This was the aim of zoning regulation as it was
conceived by its earliest proponents , and it remains as the
modern justification of such regulation . The relevant inquiry
is not. the size or ownership of the area subject to the amendment ,
but , " whether the zoning was accomplished for the benefit of an
individual owner , rather than to pursuant to a comprehensive
plan for the general welfare of the community . " North Shore Beach
PropertV Owners Association vs . Brookhaven , 234 NYS 2d 635 ;
Greenberg vs . New Rochelle 206 Misc . 28 , aff ' d 308 NY 736 .
XIVII31 700"
11
I�
II
I
i
- 2 - ;
t
Although the size of the area subject to a zoning amendment
is not the sole factor to be considered in determining whether
the measure constitutes spot zoning , it appears to be the most
important single factor . See Rodgers. vs . Tarr � t� own , 302 NY 115
( 1951 ) . where a 12 acre parcel was reclassified from residential {
to a business district solely to permit the owner - applicant to
establish a supermarket and other related commercial structures
1 on this site for their sole benefit , having no relation to the
i public health , safety and welfare , such a change in zoning was
found to be arbitrary and illegal . Dexter vs . Town Board of
Gates 68 Misc . 2d 293 ( 1971 ) . It should also be added that our
Courts have had difficulty in discovering any public benefit in
zone changes primarily designed to permit a single owner to
establish a business use at a location where such use was excluded
i
prior to the amendment . See Santmyers vs . Oyster Bay 10 Misc .
2d 619: ; Smith vs .
Board of Appeals , 313 Mass . 622 ; and Evans vs .
Gunn 1. 77 Misc . 85 , aff ' d 262 A . D . 865 ; Deligtisch vs . Greenburgh ,
135 NYS 2d 220 ( 1954 ) .
I j
In conclusion , Mr . Eddy ' s proposal is not a legal vehicle
for him to resolve his dilemma . The Zoning Ordinance of the j
Town of Ithaca makes adequate provision for a use variance
I
provided the requisite criteria can be met . j
I,
I
t
t
i
t
I
krif V,,,, :7 " n .{ l' T. . rte. ,. L.1 , a , yl r} , _ , ,:r L �. �'• 1 1 YY v' / S * `
rI `` R�• , e f:' n 'rtt 1 ` •^� `
ti ,,jj Ft IGT iNSr , (, i5 in r ' }r �. A +11.•::'.j� tt� . ! { � ' . . i7 t,Yi
l`1T ;.1• ' t.l r,.;tl 3 ' 1 r; I ,r�{. a _ riY 1 . 1;..v tsvt F'.• I , c . F . ' .:a J" � `r }{ a 1 , � , • ,( f. ,, ,I ..i del g r
r. r .r1- l it 4 i.t"1: a t' , tY r . i { qq . �a 1 �pf : .{'� p1tliaRiT rT� •{ r ' i a,! ,�.11, .� 4 2 1 . P / .�'r . �.
,,,. • • - T .r7 Y .1 , i ' rf 3Y , 1 l 1 1:•. I � . ' f't� 2,
A'Mr '�t=�r r '1�' '",'� 11 S{ !': I^f 11 � ' I Z I •
. F ;
tt � ' -a y }�i �a�`a �� 1 `t� •
t i�••lrp k `t' 1 { �r i ' i
t {j yrwif
Atlizz
r
rrl ;^t d
J
till ! f, 1^,� ,yR
If
IT
{
. i lid 2t ; �,l•'I rid hs
1 '
It
P
f c y 1 r iIf
�.1'� 7r•A1 � .
f• a . � � t #� s �i' l
If
.F( yy , yrtd �R,�'t 9.
t qR `a 't
q t h�
4-rI {II
't f Y t
Ir ,a' r I arwr r' >.
1 � r,
(# r i' E
. a jI,t
If +S -te' r<
gFL � .
X11 c - -
[ � � Witt, s
Nit*
�n If !' rfd
rr I�It � It
It
Q L�� �vr rFA¢{gyp /1 r�t kht 2
If
t 1441 f <
�1 L
� J � lvarli 1j nt
II I t 1 r jjr G!Ift
y S t. h r jiii t d 1� IIS S �4 a• t
L i 9 L fa
00
R 1 1
:t1 , , lt 1i41 i + a i •
J • OF
Hitd ,
, krrU. it• 4,.
r
ts 4
qj
;F ,•.
fI
ItIV
, Li .44
. -
pp ! { r,
If
a }I
n
I �'�� i l' r�l'.a• all 4 I �:
/
it
i
J �
It H i }� it ?
yyt ' J
, est
1 r:yl41 ,>• �' � ' X111 ?` or .
yy itYJ r ' f i 4 ,
to
. . i ` 17 1 ` � ' r #R 1 1r•
T
tjI y e
dt � i
t .pit Il 1 i slit pp
iii Ji ,r
lf r' t
r `� r ° . .` d
Sa a ' 1a Ih A' . 1 ' t,. F1 fff Il rtt 1 .
>•r;{ -f k tl '� F l y s . ..1� 1 t 4 Y yf'. i' , y u v i t �, •l Yi c ',
p • • . : '.n '1 rYA-rJ 3 yt v4. ] 1. Y'
7yj
x } 4 rY e 1 r 1 y r f t a t P �} a �,. R
f t .• i ' , �
R sae( Tf. l li r . t t Z 1 5i1 lIJ- 1 �,, .t ,.. { a rl •
n ,. ef' j - `t y, C 4 p t r ! iY , 1 , 1 . , , � �y rl + ' . It � ' < � , ' . a.w
J aJ. !td ' '^ ) 1. i 1 1.+ TI ly I fs . , :� t Yid 1 - �� S , Yr 1
I . rli M4 �a ^; yfr ax t t l t d s y �r1a . � a #
r, 1 , r i -� , i �' ! : � � t .i� Tf. li"' L , t a`i✓' 1r � tt 's J. {"a,11 � . • . x :may+.
t t . y i , , ,1. ,a i 4y ., cr; 1 r 1 :r i • t , i , r ..l , • ,� t I F P�
}js . > ' I <`. >•" 1t y : 1 'r t• t v r r . -. � ' , b. 4 "t 1 i f ' "
rWIk
1 ! : : Y3 ,. t : t $.a'- }� S . rt-
aTr ,7 � F a ' S" i� ! v . F: qt t ./
y t jF 1 g pIIff
ia `:s ff�t.;F �' • 1 1 f I ° { ,. 1 � .,3 • r ra �' 1 S q. `SNL lil• 11�yy,," I
{ FS rtY S � "
I 'll 7 ''.+( of ' Y I .., n r i• a' N ': . I ` .'
rl j Txr� mi� �' � t ,7I r{ 3 Rrai t 1 rl '+ .
r,.L i1t3..