Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1985-10-10 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 10 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in special session on Thursday , October 10 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , , at 12 : 00 o ' clock , Noon . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Jack D . Hewett , Edward W . King , Edward N . Austen , Joan G . Reuning , John C . Barney , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Gary Wilhelm , Sabra Peterson , Jack Eckert , Gordon Maycumber . Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 12 : 05 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 3 , 1985 and October 5 , 1985 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the neighbor of the property in question , upon the Clerk of the Town of Dryden , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the Director of Projects and Operations of Cornell University , as party to the action , on October 4 , 1985 . • APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ( 24 ' ' x 451 ) TO THE EXISTING GENERAL STORES WAREHOUSE FOR THE SALE AND STORAGE OF CHEMICALS ON CAMPUS , SAID WAREHOUSE LOCATED IN THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY ORCHARD AREA , SOUTH AND EAST OF FARM SERVICES OFF ROUTE 366 , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 64 - 1 - 1 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 41 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 12 : 06 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearing as posted and published and as noted above . Ms . Peterson and Messrs . Wilhelm , Eckert , and Maycumber were present on behalf of Cornell University . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Henry E . Doney , Director , Engineering and Facilities , Cornell University , under date of October 3 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to construction [ sic . ] addition ( 24x45 ' ) to General Stores Warehouse for the sale and storage of chemicals on campus . . . No practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships are incurred . The owner / operator requests permission as required by the ordinance to relocate an existing chemical storage and sales area to an existing warehouse facility to . centralize support services . " • Chairman Aron noted that the Board had before it a copy of a letter from Merritt E . Hartz , Director , Projects and Operations , Cornell University , to the Building Inspector , Mr . Cartee , dated / Zoning Board of Appeals 2 October 10 , 1985 • October 3 , 1985 . The letter referred to reads : " . . . I am filing , an appeal for a decision and to obtain a permit to construct a facility to be relocated from General Stores to the Orchard area adjacent to Route 366 . The structure will house chemical storage for sale and use on the Cornell Campus . TA review of the Town Planning Board on October 1 , 1985 declared a negative environmental significance and approved the project . The 24 x 45 feet structure is an addition to an existing warehouse and is the relocation of an existing service . Town of Ithaca zoning ordinance , Article 5 , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 + requires the approval of the Board of Appeals for an Institutional structure in the R- 30 zone . JIn order to construct this project prior to freezing weather , I would like to ask if possible for a special board', meeting to be held) during the week of October 14 , 1985 . JI am enclosing eight copies of the necessary drawings , appeal form and fee for your review . If you require additional information , please contact me . " Chairman Aron also noted that the Board members each had before him / her a copy of the Long Environmental Assessment Form as completed , signed , and submitted by Henry E . Doney under date of September 24 , 1985 [ Part I ] , and as reviewed and recommended upon by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of September 26 , 1985 [ Parts II and III ] . Chairman . Aron declared the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Lead Agency in the matter of the environmental review of the proposal by Cornell University before the Board . Chairman Aron stated • that the review , was two pages in length , so , he would not read it aloud , however , 'he would read the Reviewer ' s Recommendation . Chairman Aron read : " This project is an Unlisted action according to Local Law # 3 , 1980 . A Long Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed for this project because there are particular questions relating to the materials to be stored which could be better answered using this document . Most of thelissues reviewed above have been determined to have no adverse environmental impact . The evidence supporting these determinations has been gathered from Comprehensive Planning Studies and technical appendices prepared by the reviewer and by the Tompkins County Planning Department . The principal issue of environmental concern is the effect of this project on the fire protection system . The information presented indicates that this project will improve the fire safety of chemical storage at Cornell and will reduce the general risk of this storage to the population in this area . I do not foresee any adverse impact on the environment as a result of this action and '' I recommend a declaration of negative environmental significance . " • For the record , the Town Planner ' s review of the EAF is set forth below . /i Zoning Board of Appeals 3 October 10 , 1985 • " TOWN OF ITHACA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART II : Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes RE : Cornell University Chemical Storage Relocation Impacts on Land 1 . There will be no adverse environmental impact as a result of physical changes to the project site . Regrading and fill with minor grade changes are the only significant physical changes which will be made to the project site . 2 . There are no unusual landforms on the site which would be adversely affected by this project . Impact on Water 3 . There are no protected water bodies which would be affected by this project . 4 . There are no non- protected water bodies which would be affected as a result of this project . • 5 . This project will have no effect on groundwater quality . 6 . This project has a small potential impact on drainage flow and surface water runoff . The construction of the new facility will not appreciably increase surface runoff or soil erosion , given the moderate slope of the site and the small size of the building . Impact on Air 7 . This project will not have an adverse environmental impact on air quality . Impact on Plants ' and Animals 8 . There are no known threatened or endangered species of plant or animal which will be adversely affected by this project . 9 . There will be no adverse environmental impact on non - endangered or non - threatened species of plants and animals . Impact on Visuall'Resources 10 . The project will have no adverse impact on views , vistas , or other aspects of the neighborhood or community visual character . • The project is a warehouse which will match the existing land use . Zoning Board of Appeals 4 October 10 , 1985 • Impact on Historical Resources 11 . This project will not impact upon any site or structure of historic , pre -historic or paleontological importance . Impact on Open Space and Recreation 12 . This project will have no impact on the quality and quantity of existing and future open spaces or recreational opportunities in the community . Impact on Transportation 13 . This project will not significantly affect the existing transportation system . The relocation of one truck per week from the Humphreys Service Building storage facility to the proposed storage facility is a negligible change on the overall level of traffic in the area . Impact on Energy 14 . This project will have no effect on the community ' s sources of fuel and energy . Impact on Noise • 15 . There will be no significant odors , noises , glare , vibration or electrical disturbances as a result of this project . Impact on Health and Hazards 16 . This project may have a beneficial impact on public health and safety . At ', present , a wide variety of chemicals are kept in the existing chemical storage facility ( see list attached ) . Some of these chemicals are extremely dangerous , flammable , or chemically reactive . The existing facility , located in the Humphreys Service Building , is adjacent to a large residential area in the City and active portion of the Cornell Campus . In the event of a fire , a considerable number of people could be put at risk . By relocating this facility to the " Orchards " and building a new structure , the fire hazard has been lessened and the potential population affected by a fire and a toxic smoke plume is reduced . This new facility will be constructed to building and life safety codes and it has been stated by the project ' s sponsors that this warehouse will be safer than the existing chemical storage warehouse located in the Humphreys Service Building . Impact on Growth ,and Character of Community or Neighborhood 17 . This project will have no significant impact on the growth and • character of the existing community . The character of the area is presently service buildings , research orchards , and warehouses serving the ^Cornell community . The surrounding land in the area Zoning Board of Appeals 5 October 10 , 1985 is owned by the University and its rate of growth is determined by their needs and priorities . It is presumed that this facility does not conflict with the University ' s master plan . 18 . The project may be compatible with the zoning of this area . The " Orchards " is zoned Residence District R30 . In this zoning district the permitted uses include , " . . . any institution of higher learning including dormitory accommodations by approval of the Board of Appeals . The application for such approval shall be referred to the Planning Board and no final action shall be taken unless the Planning Board has submitted its report or failed to submit its 'report within 30 days . " When reviewing this project , the Zoning Board of Appeals will act as Lead Agency in the SEQR review and will need to consider the requirements of Section 77 , Number 7 . 19 . There is no public controversy concerning the project which has been received by this reviewer as of September 26 , 1985 . " Chairman Aron noted that there was also included with the letter from Mr . Hartz the following drawings : 1 . Site Plan , Chemical Storage Addition , Warehouse # 1 , Sheet No . 1 , Approval Date - - 9 / 23 / 85 . 2 . Site / Grading Plan , Chemical Storage Facility , Warehouse # 1 , Sheet No . 2 , Approval Date - - 9 / 23 / 85 . 3 . Floor Plan , Details , Bldg . Section , Chemical Storage Addition , Warehouse # 1 , Sheet No . Al , Approval Date - - 9 / 25 / 85 . 4 . Mechanical , ;, Chemical Storage Addition , Warehouse # 1 , Sheet No . M1 , Drawing Date - - 9 / 27 / 85 . Mr . Wilhelm, appended a colored site plan to the bulletin board showing the proposed project . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Hartz were present to speak for the Appellant . Ms . Sabra Peterson stated that Mr . Hartz was unable to be present , however , she and her colleagues would be speaking to the project . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak on the EAF ' from the public . No one spoke . Chairman Aron asked if there were any questions from the Board . Mr . King stated that he was rather struck by the lack of information here as to just how innovative this building will be as to other incidents that have occurred in connection with chemicals in Bhopal and in the Pennsylvania plant explosion . Mr . King stated that he would like to have a presentation from Cornell University as to what precautions are being taken as to this proposed building which , he believed , should be state of the art as Cornell is not only a superior institution but one who brings in engineers from all over the • world . Mr . King stated that he would think Cornell would make this a model - - a state of the art building - - as to guarding against these occurrences and he did not see these things addressed in the Zoning Board of Appeals 6 October 10 , 1985 • information . Ms . Sabra Peterson stated that she was an engineer with Cornell and that she had with her Mr . Gary Wilhelm , the Cornell Architect for the project , Mr . Gordon Maycumber , Director of Cornell Life Safety , and Mr . Jack Eckert , Director of Operations . Ms . Peterson stated that she thought that any questions the Board might have could be answered . Mr . Wilhelm stated that the chemicals being stored are those being used for general laboratory use , adding that there are no chemicals such as those at Bhopal which were cyanide related . Mr . Wilhelm stated that the chemicals stored are mostly alcohols and those that are flammable , such as alcohol and acetate , are in DOT approved containers . Mr . Wilhelm stated that the containers are of pint size , quart size , and five gallon size , although some alcohols are stored in 55 - gallon drums - - those are liquids . Chairman Aron asked what would be done in terms of extreme heat , adding that alcohols expand in heat . Mr . Wilhelm stated that this area will be air conditioned so the temperature will be below 70 ° F , somewhere between 65 ° and 70 ° . Mr . Wilhelm briefly described how the storage area is ventilated , mentioning two exhaust fans on the roof to remove air into the atmosphere . Mr . Wilhelm , noting that they have about 2 , 000 gallons of liquid at the peak , stated that the size of this addition to the general stores warehouse is not really that large , 24 ' x 451 , and added that they are not manufacturing chemicals - - they are storing bottles for lab use . Mr . Wilhelm stated that they meet NFPA guidelines to cool the area and , further , they have not had any incidents during the time the material has been in the storage building . Mr . Wilhelm proceeded to describe the doors and a method of damming which provides containment in case of a spill , and noted that the area will be sprinklered by the use of automatic sprinklers , as shown on the Mechanical drawing which the Board had received . Mr . King noted that Mr . Wilhelm had stated that any spill would be contained in the building and wondered how . Mr . Wilhelms described how this would be accomplished by the use of 8 " and 4 " dams by the doors . Mr . King , commenting that he was not an environmental engineer , asked how a catastrophic occurrence would be contained in that building , be it either fire or explosion . Mr . Wilhelm stated that the construction is concrete masonary with no windows . Mr . King commented that that means if there were an explosion it would go sky high . Mr . Wilhelm stated that if there were an explosion , they are counting on the exhaust fans , adding that an explosion would damage the roof rather than the walls . Mr . King commented that , as a bomber pilot in World War II , he could say for certain that if you explode the roof you do not save the building . Mr . Wilhelm explained , in technical terms , how the design of the cooling system and the fire prevention with the ventilation minimizes any explosion . Chairman Aron , commenting that this is summer weather we are • having right now , but , we are going into winter , stated that he noticed there is a space heater , and asked if it were an open flame . Mr . Wilhelm stated that it was not an open - flame heater . Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals 7 October 10 , 1985 • Aron asked if it were electric . Mr . Wilhelm stated that it was a unit heater , gas , and is located in the mechanical room which is separate from the storage area . Chairman Aron wondered , it being natural gas , how it is ventilated , adding that he brought it to Mr . Wilhelm ' s attention because he did not see it on the drawing . Mr . Wilhelm and Chairman Aron perused the Mechanical drawing and found the detail for the chimney vent from the unit heater . Mr . King stated that , in the Long EAF completed by the University , he read that the utility would be liquid propane [ Question # 71 , adding that he was wondering about that . Mr . Wilhelm stated that that was their initial plan but , with construction on this garage [ indicating " New Garage " on the Site Plan ] , natural gas is coming down . Mr . Wilhelm pointed out that light switches and motors are explosion - proof , adding that the entire project meets New York State Code and NFPA Guidelines . Mr . King stated that his problem is that all of the codes have not prevented these terrible accidents , and added that this is a focal point of all chemicals coming into Cornell University , Mr . Gordon Maycumber , Director , Life Safety Services , Cornell Unviversity , stated that he would like to have it clarified that this is a small retail operation - - all small quantities - - pints , quarts , gallons - - and the fire protection meets both Codes . Mr . Maycumber stated that , from a health hazard standpoint , there really is none . Mr . Maycumber stated that , if there were an explosion , they have • designed for light - roof construction . Mr . King asked Mr . Maycumber if he did not think there would be enough chemicals in there to blow out the walls . Mr . Maycumber responded that he did not think so , and added that what fire they might have would probably be caused by someone in there to remove a bottle and dropping it . Mr . Maycumber stated that he would like to point out also that the occupancy of this storage area is only from 8 : 00 to 4 : 00 during the day , adding that they are increasing their safety features by moving this from its present location to this location by 100 % . Mr . King stated that he agreed with that , noting that it is presently up by the heating plant and the high rise . Chairman Aron asked what the size of the largest container that could be handled might be , with Mr . Maycumber replying , one gallon . Mr . Austen wondered if this would be all tied into Cornell ' s fire protection system , with Mr . Maycumber responding , yes , and adding that they are running a new 8 " line . Mr . King wondered if water were the best way to handle a fire with chemicals . Mr . Maycumber stated that they have decided on the sprinkler system with water , noting that there are several options , and adding that there is also the alarm system to Barton Hall . Mr . Austen wondered if the corrosive storage was also sprinklered , to which Mr . Maycumber replied , yes , and added that there are no compressed gasses . • Mr . King wondered what the processes are for cutting off the gas to that building . Mr . Wilhelm described a standard service to the unit . Mr . King wondered if there were not anything special about it , e Zoning Board of Appeals 8 October 10 , 1985 • and Mr . Wilhelm stated that there was not . Mr . King wondered how the gas flow would be minimized if there were a fire . Mr . Wilhelm stated that the heating unit would shut down when it went into alarm . Mr . King commented that there is nothing unusual about that , and added that we have that in our own building . Mr . King wondered if there were not any unusual or extra precautions . Mr . Wilhelm stated that there were fire - rated walls and there was control of the air . Mr . King commented that , as he was thinking about this matter as a general proposition , he wondered how one would minimize the danger and contain all those chemicals . Mr . King stated that he came up with a couple of ideas , one of which was having a wooden floor in it , with a concrete basement vault beneath , of sufficient size to hold all the chemicals , so that , if there were a fire , the stuff may drop into the vault where one could deal with it - - assuming that there was no explosion . Continuing , Mr . King pointed out that the chance of an explosion is increased by the lack of windows and vents , and stated that he would consider another wall around it - - a concrete wall , several feet away , of a lattice type - - which would dissipate the explosion factor . Mr . Maycumber responded that the chemicals and flammable liquids should be separated , and added that the weak roof is acceptable engineering standards for this type of storage . Chairman Aron stated that he would like to speak to the EAF and then the building plans . Mr . King stated that , in his mind , it is all a part of it , that is , the environment and possible catastrophies . • Mr . King asked what was being done about sewage . Mr . Wilhelm stated that the only drain is to drain off the condensate from the cooling system . Mr . Wilhelm stated that there are no drains in the flammable storage room or the corrosive storage room . Mr . King asked about the sewage system itself and Mr . Wilhelm described a sanitary system by dispersion and leach field , and added that the plan is to contain the materials in the storage rooms . Mr . King asked if there was City sewer , to which Mr . Wilhelm responded , no . Chairman Aron pointed out that they would have to get approval from the Tompkins County Health Department , Mr . Wilhelm stated that that was correct , adding that the system in place has been inspected and approved . Chairman Aron wanted to make sure that there was no waste coming out of the addition building . Mr . Wilhelm stated that there was not . Mrs . Reuning noted that if there were a spill , it stays in the room by containment . With respect to the volume of liquid , Mr . Austen wondered if the containment were as much cubic space as they would ever have liquids in there . Mr . Maycumber stated that if there were an explosion , it would be all consumed . Mrs . Reuning wondered if there were any dyes being stored , to which Mr . Wilhelm responded , no . Mr . Maycumber pointed out that the Board had a list of what is being stored attached to the EAF . Mr . King asked if there have been any adverse incidences over the last ten years . Mr . Maycumber replied , no , adding that if there were any , they were in the lab classroom . • Mr . Jack Eckert stated that there are people assigned to this facility - - two people - - rather than a group - - even himself - - who Zoning Board of Appeals 9 October 10 , 1985 • have attended safety schools . Mr . Eckert stated that he could assure the Board that there is as much safety taught and provided as they could give them . Mr . Maycumber stated that two of their people are dedicated to hazardous waste and , also , they are a part of the Tompkins County Fire and Disaster Coordinator ' s Task Force . Mr . Austen asked Mr . Maycumber if he had been active in drawing up these plans , to which Mr . Maycumber replied , yes . Mr . Austen stated that he was more concerned with the corrosive materials . It was noted that only one room was ventilated and there was discussion about there being mostly acids . Mr . Austen stated that , safety -wise , he felt this to be 100 times better than it is now , adding that he was familiar with the existing building . MOTION by Mr . Jack Hewett , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , in the matter of the Appeal of Cornell University with respect to the proposed construction of a 24 ' x 4514 " addition to the existing General Stores Warehouse for the sale and storage of chemicals on Campus , that said Board accept and hereby does accept the Long Environmental Assessment Form as completed , and further RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance with respect to said matter . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Austen , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Referring to the drawing appended to the bulletin board , Chairman Aron asked if the red line indicated a double wall . Mr . Wilhelm stated that it did not , it was just an outline to show the building . Mr . Wilhelm described how , in effect , there was a double wall , commenting that there is , essentially , another building built inside . Mr . Wilhelm noted that General Stores Warehouse is a two million dollar operation , so they would not want to jeopardize that operation in any way . Chairman Aron , noting that the addition is to be 24 feet by 45 feet 4 inches , asked how high it is to be . Mr . Wilhelm stated that it will be about 9 feet on the low side and about 13 feet on the high side and the actual eave of the existing building is about 16 feet , so , there is a separation between the upper roof and addition roof . Chairman Aron , noting that Mr . Wilhelm had said there was to be air conditioning , stated that he did not see any insulation . Mr . Wilhelm described the use of 4 " styrofoam , with Chairman Aron stating that he was satisfied . • Chairman Aron asked if there were any other questions . There were none . Zoning Board of Appeals 10 October 10 , 1985 • MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant Special Approval for the construction of a 24 - foot by 45 - foot - 4 - inch addition to the existing Cornell University General Stores Warehouse # 1 for the receipt , storage , and distribution of flammable and corrosive chemicals for resale to Campus Departments , said Warehouse located in the Cornell University Orchard Area , south and east of Farm Services off Route 366 , on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 1 , as described and set forth in drawings , plans , and documents presented by Cornell University at Public Hearing this date , October 10 , 1985 . Chairman Aron noted at this juncture that the Board had before it the Planning Board Resolution with respect to this matter which had been adopted at its October 1 , 1985 meeting . The Resolution follows : " IN THE MATTER OF : PUBLIC HEARING : Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the Addition of a Chemical Storage Building to General Stores Warehouse # 1 . Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 1 . Cornell University , Owner / Developer, MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : • 1 . The Planning Board has reviewed an Environmental Assessment Form on October 1 , 1985 . 2 . The Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency in the review of this matter . 3 . A Public Hearing was held on October 1 , 1985 for the purpose of considering comments of support and opposition from interested parties concerning this matter and there was no public opposition heard . 3 . The Planning Board has reviewed a site plan which describes the action to be taken by Cornell University , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Conditional Site Plan Approval for the construction of the chemical storage facility as described in the following documents : a ) Site Plan - Chemical Storage Addition , Warehouse # 1 , dated 9 / 23 / 85 . b ) Architectural Plan - Chemical Storage Addition , Warehouse • # 1 , dated 9 / 5 / 85 . Zoning Board of Appeals 11 October 10 , 1985 • c ) Floor Plan , Details , Bldg . Section Plan , Chemical Storage Addition , Warehouse # 1 , dated 9 / 25 / 85 . d ) Mechanical Plan , Chemical Storage Addition , Warehouse # 1 , dated 10 / 1 / 85 [ Progress Print ] . 2 . That the above - referenced Site Plan Approval is conditioned upon the following actions : a ) Completion of the environmental review process with the Zoning Board of Appeals as the Lead Agency . b ) Granting of Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . In granting site plan approval , the Planning Board recognizes that the Zoning Board of Appeals may attach additional conditions to any approval it may consider . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Schultz , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . October 4 , 1985 . " Town Attorney Barney referred the Board to Section 77 , paragraph 7 , of the Ordinance . Mr . King offered the following Findings as a friendly amendment to Mr . Austen ' s Motion , 1 . The Board finds that the siting of the building is in a low density , low population area , being practically minimal or even nil , and is a great improvement over the siting of the present storage facilities . 2 . The Board finds that the project will not impact on traffic or public health if it is constructed according to the plans presented and according to the Codes , which , the Board has been assured , are adequate , with the Board also having been assured that containment measures are adequate for the amount and nature of the materials that will be stored . 3 . Overall , the Board finds that the health and welfare of the community will not be adversely affected by the proposed structure and its operation . 4 . The Board finds that no one appeared to speak to the Appeal other • than the Appellant . . r. Zoning Board of Appeals 12 October 10 , 1985 • Mr . Austen stated that he accepted Mr . King ' s friendly amendment with the Findings incorporated into his Motion , as Facts . Mr . Jack Hewett SECONDED the MOTION . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Hewett , King , Austen , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Cornell University Appeal duly closed at 1 ; 50 p . m . , and stated that Cornell was now free to pursue its application for building permit . The representatives of Cornell University thanked the Board for its time and consideration . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the October 10 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 1 : 55 p . m . • Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Henry Aron , Chairman •