Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1986-09-10 . . I TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 10 , 1986 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on September 10 , 1986 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Edward King , Jack Hewett , Town Planner Susan Beeners , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , and Town Attorney John C . Barney . ALSO PRESENT : Walt Eckert , Esther Eckert , Aleth.ea Hall , William L . Hall , Sam Matychak , Mark Stevens , Attorney Edward A . Mazza , Tom Amici , Joseph P . Burkhart and Attorney Donald B . Frederick . The public meeting opened at 7 : 05 p . m . Chairman Aron stated that all posting and publication of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . • The first item on the agenda for consideration was as follows : APPEAL of Mark Stevens , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Certificate of Compliance for a single family dwelling located at 118 Compton Road , Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 , Residence District R30 , said dwelling having been constructed with an east side yard of less than 40 feet . Certificate is denied under Article V , Section 21 , and Article XIV , Section 76 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Mr . Mark Stevens was invited to address the Board . He explained that he had purchased two lots on Compton Road , which lots were side by side . * He went on to say that he had relied on the information from the person he had purchased them from that the boundary pins were in the proper places . Mr . Stevens sold Lot 2 to Josephine Allen and then proceeded to build a house on Lot 1 . When he arranged for a survey of Lot 2 it was discovered that the boundary pin on the east side of Lot 1 was not where it was supposed to be , thereby reducing his east sideyard on Lot 1 to 9 feet 6 inches . Mr . Stevens explained that because there are water problems in the area the house ended up where it was because of septic system considerations . He further . went on to • state that he didn ' t realize there was any problem until T . G . Miller plotted the house on Lot 2 and informed Mr . Stevens of the deficiency in the east sideyard of Lot 1 . 2 • Chairman Aron then asked Building Inspector Andrew Frost if he had anything to add . Mr . Frost said that he came into this matter after the house in question was built . He had received the appeal from Mr . Stevens on August 15 , 1986 after Mr . Stevens was directed to submit an appeal . Mr . Frost made several visits to the property and took some measurements and found the measurements basically as indicated on the subdivision map and determined that the front corner on the east side of the house was within 9 feet 6 inches of the side line . Mr . Frost had not measured the distance from the back corner of the house to the east boundary line but it would be greater than 9 feet 6 inches . Chairman Aron inquired how long Mr . Stevens had been a builder . Mr . Stevens responded that he was not a builder but did excavating . Chairman Aron asked how long he had been doing excavation work and Mr . Stevens responded that he had been an excavator for four or five years . Chairman Aron inquired if Mr . Stevens had laid this job out himself and Mr . Stevens responded that he had . Edward King then asked for clarification of the lots being • referred to with respect to the survey map . Mr . Stevens stated that Lot No . 1 on the survey map is where the house is located that was the subject of this appeal . Mr . King asked if Mr . Stevens was the owner of Lot 1 and Mr . Stevens responded that he was . Mr . Stevens went on to explain that Lot No . 2 on the east had been purchased by Josephine Allen . He had owned both lots at the same time and was going by the fact that he had been told that the boundary line was in a certain place but when the survey was done it was discovered that the line was down further . Mr . King inquired if Mr . Stevens was referring to the line between the two lots and Mr . Stevens stated that he was . Mr . King clarified that that would be the east line of Lot 1 and Mr . Stevens concurred that it was . Mr . King inquired as to whether the surveyor had made a site map showing the house . Mr . Stevens responded that he had not but that Mr . Miller had informed him when he had plotted the first house that it was too close and he would have to obtain a variance , and that was the first time he knew there was a problem . • Mr . King asked if Mr . Stevens was referring to the house on Lot No . 2 when he spoke of the first house and Mr . Stevens 3 responded that he was . Mr . King asked if he had a copy of the survey of that lot as it was laid out for him and Mr . Stevens responded that he did but did not have it with him . Chairman Aron at this point pointed out that the map supplied by Mr . Stevens did not show where the house was located on either lot . Chairman Aron inquired if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak on this matter . Mr . Sam Matychak of Danby Road , Ithaca , New York addressed the Board . He explained that he lives right below the property in question . He asked if the property had been surveyed before all of the construction had been commenced . Chairman Aron said that the property was surveyed on September 16 , 1982 . Mr . Matychak felt that this should have been sufficient to inform Mr . Stevens of any potential problems . Mr . Frost added that the house does sit approximately 120 feet off the road front and he did have a site sketch that was drawn as part of the building permit application . • Mr . King inquired if Mr . Stevens had followed the sketch and Mr . Frost said that apparently he had not . Mr . Stevens said the house was placed on the property the way it was because of the information that was told to him but that there was no pin where it was supposed to be and he wondered if the person who had sold him the lots had switched the pin . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frost if he had found a pin when he went out to the property and Mr . Frost responded that there were wooden stakes as well as a metal pipe in the ground . Chairman Aron asked if it was there now and Mr . Stevens responded that it was . Chairman Aron asked who put it there . Mr . Stevens responded that he had changed the wooden stakes next to the pin . Mr . William L . Hall of 131 Compton Road , Ithaca , New York then spoke to the Board . He felt that one reason that the house in question ended as far east as it did on the lot is due to the poor drainage in that area and because of this fact every inch of land has to be made use of . He felt that the matter in question was a " good fault . " Mr . King asked what he meant by this and Mr . Hall responded that there is nothing but swamp area down below the property and it is important to use as much land as you can for drainage . Mr . • Hall went on to explain that Mr . Stevens had started digging and hit a spring and that if he had been farther west on the lot he would have had more problems than he did have . Mr . . Hall went on 4 • further recalling the history of drainage problems in that area . Town Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Hall felt that where the house was located was good even though it did not comply with the zoning ordinance and Mr . Hall responded that that was correct and that was what he meant by a " good fault " because Mr . Stevens was making use of all the land he can for drainage . Mr . King asked if he would object in any way should the Board decide to grant a variance to Mr . Stevens and Mr . Hall responded that he would not and was merely pointing out the problem that the lot in question has . Mr . King asked if house on Lot 1 for which a variance was being requested and the house on Lot 2 were fully constructed and Mr . Stevens responded that that was correct . Discussion followed concerning a drainage ditch that had been installed on the north line of Lots 1 and 2 , the problems with drainage , and the location of the house in question in relation to the drainage ditch . Mr . Stevens summed up by saying that it was entirely his mistake in that he took for granted the seller ' s word as to where the boundary line was and since he owned both lots he did not • think there was a problem and indeed did not know there was a problem until the surveyors came out to the property and discovered that the stake he was going by was not where it was supposed to be . Mr . Edward Austen said that he thought the Board needed to have a plot plan on this property and also a plot plan on Lot 2 so that they could see exactly where the houses sit . Chairman Aron suggested that perhaps Mr . Stevens might talk with Josephine Allen about the possibility of selling some footage from her lot . It was moved by Edward King as follows : This hearing be adjourned until October 15 , 1986 , to enable the petitioner to supply the Board with a proper survey done by a surveyor showing both parcels and showing where the houses are located in relation to lot lines . The motion was seconded by Jack Hewett . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , King , Hewett , Austen Nay - None • The motion was unanimously carried . 5 • The next matter on the agenda was as follows . APPEAL of Robert R . Flumerfelt , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Ordinance Officer denying a Certificate of Compliance for a non - conforming single family dwelling ( dwelling constructed prior to 1954 ) , located at 1020 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 19 - 2 - 18 , Residence District R15 , said dwelling having been altered and expanded without authorization of the Board of Appeals , and further , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the construction of a 10 foot by 20 foot porch addition to the westerly side of said dwelling . Certificate and Permit are denied under Article XII , Section 54 , and Article XIV , Sections 75 and 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Chairman Aron decided that the Board should review the two issues in question separately . The first issue was that Mr . Flumerfelt had altered his premises without authorization . Mr . Robert R . Flumerfelt addressed the Board . He explained that he was issued a building permit for all work shown on the set of plans submitted to the Board except for the porch . He went on to say that he proceeded with the work not knowing that • there were any further requirements . Chairman Aron requested Mr . Frost to read to the Board the section of the Zoning Ordinance relating to non - conforming use alteration . Mr . Frost did as follows : Article XII , Section 54 . Alterations . No non - conforming building or use shall be extended except as authorized by the Board of Appeals . Chairman Aron inquired what Mr . Flumerfelt had altered . Mr . Flumerfelt responded that basically he had to reconstruct a good portion of the structure because it was in such poor shape . The plaster walls were falling off . There had been a fire in the old kitchen and the wood was all charred . He found that the insulation was falling down through the ceiling . The roof was leaking . The second egress door in the first floor was only five feet eight inches high which was too low . He went on to explain that he only intended to paint and do a little interior redecorating but as the project proceeded the worse the structure looked , For instance , the roof was crooked , the roof rafters were sub - standard size , and the front cinderblock walls supporting the front of the cottage were only four inch block . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that he worked with the existing foundation and replaced only what he had to . • Chairman Aron asked if he had altered the exterior dimensions of 20 x 28 feet and Mr . Flumerfelt responded that the exterior dimensions were still the same . 6 • Chairman Aron asked if he had remodeled the existing front room and Mr . Flumerfelt stated that he had removed a side porch which was on the northerly side yard . Mr . Flumerfelt further stated that he applied for a building permit when Gary Wood and Burr Phelps were handling such and was not advised that approval had to be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the work he planned on doing . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that Mr . Phelps had indicated that the renovations to the structure would be an overall improvement to the premises . Chairman Aron inquired if Mr . Flumerfelt intended to live in the premises and he responded that he would like to use it as a summer home and hopefully rent it out for the rest of the year . Chairman Aron asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to comment . There was no one . Edward Austen asked if essentially the house was the same , only rebuilt and Mr . Flumerfelt responded that the upstairs was enlarged because the upstairs room arrangement was unsatisfactory . Town Attorney Barney asked to what extent the upstairs was • enlarged and Mr . Flumerfelt responded that it was enlarged by bringing the north wall out over the north foundation wall . He also stated that the right side of the premises upstairs is entirely new . A motion was made by Mr . King as follows : It is moved that this Board grant a special approval for the enlargementof the second floor of the subject property as indicated on the second floor floor plan submitted by Mr . Flumerfelt whereby the second floor has been extended northerly but the extension does not go beyond the existing foundation walls of the building . The motion was seconded by Edward Austen . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Austen , Hewett , King Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . The second part of Mr . Flumerfelt ' s request was then considered , that is , the adding of a porch , 10 foot by 20 foot , • facing the lake side . Mr . Austen asked if this porch was intended to be both stories high and Mr . Flumerfelt said it was intended to be a • screened in porch on the first floor with a shed type roof . Chairman Aron asked what the footage would be from the lake shore to the house now and Mr . Frost responded that it would be 45 feet so it would be 35 feet to the enclosed porch . Mr . Frost further stated that his measurement was based on anticipated high water level of the lake . Mr . Flumerfelt said that the neighboring structures protrude quite a fit further toward the lake shore and have much less front yard than he did now or would have if the porch is built . Chairman Aron inquired how high off the ground the porch would be and Mr . Flumerfelt responded it would be about 32 feet . Mr . Austen wondered if there would be steps down from the porch and Mr . Flumerfelt said that there would be . Mr . King inquired of Mr . Frost whether his observation would bear out that this proposed addition to the porch would not extend his front wall further toward the lake than the west walls of the adjacent properties and Mr . Frost said that this was correct . There being no further discussion , it was moved by Edward • Austen as follows : It is moved that the Board grant a special approval to Robert Flumerfelt to build a porch extending approximately 10 feet westerly from the existing building at 1020 East Shore Drive , such porch to have a width of 20 feet , as an addition to the existing cottage as shown on the plot plan submitted . The motion was seconded by Mr . King . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , King , Austen , Hewett Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . The last item on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL of Joseph P . Burkhart , Appellant , Thomas James Amici , Owner , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to operate a recreational vehicles and boats sales and . service business in a Light Industrial District , at 602 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 3 - 4 . Permission is denied under • Article VIII , Section 41 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . 8 • Attorney Edward Mazza appeared on behalf of Mr . Thomas Amici . He stated that Mr . Burkhart had Mr . Amici ' s permission to bring this appeal . He requested that the Board consider first the question as to whether this was a use that is permitted under some circumstances in this zone and secondly , what did the Board feel about the plan that is specifically being offered tonight . Chairman Aron then declared to the Board that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca was the lead agency in this matter relating to the granting of a variance or interpretation and was in possession of a short environmental assessment form . Chairman Aron stated that he had in front of him the recommendation of Town Planner Susan Beeners and inquired if he should read it or if everyone was aware of the contents and Attorney Frederick and Attorney Mazza responded that they had copies and could dispense with the reading of it . A copy of such recommendation is attached as Exhibit 1 to these minutes . Attorney Mazza was requested to formulate a definite question . He did so by asking if a business for the sales and service of recreational vehicles and marine vehicles was permitted in this zone . Attorney Mazza called the Board ' s attention to the prior interpretations given by the Board which say that any use ( other than residential ) that is permitted in any of the business districts would be allowed in a light • industrial zone as long as it was permitted in a less restrictive zone . Chairman Aron said that Attorney Mazza was correct in that this had been interpreted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 9 , 1974 . Attorney Mazza interjected that this was reaffirmed on several occasions later . Chairman Aron referred to an excerpt from the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of March 9 , 1974 , a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2 to these minutes . Chairman Aron then referred to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca of 1986 regarding business districts and then proceeded to read from Section 32 . Business Districts " A " , Section 33 . Business Districts " B " , Section 34 . Business Districts " C " , Section 35 , Business Districts " D " , and Section 35A . Business District " E " . Chairman Aron pointed out that recreational vehicles were not mentioned in any of the sections . Attorney Mazza reminded the Board that the ordinance was written a number of years ago before the term " recreational vehicle " was ever thought of and Chairman Aron responded that the Board must act with the ordinance as it is now . Attorney Mazza felt that if the ordinance had intended to exclude things such as recreational vehicles sales it would have specifically done so such as it did in the industrial zone where it specifically • excluded certain types of uses . Attorney Mazza felt that it would be impossible for the ordinance to enumerate every type of business and that the intent of the ordinance would include the 9 • type of use that was being contemplated by Mr . Burkhart . Mr . King felt that regarding the question of whether the Board would reaffirm the previous interpretations of the ordinance with regard to uses within light industrial districts it should be noted that the March 9 , 1974 opinion of the Board referred to by Chairman Aron stated that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals interpreted the present zoning ordinance to allow within light industrial districts any lawful use allowed in the more restrictive zones with the exception of dwellings . He went on to say that apparently that opinion was reaffirmed by the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 17 , 1976 in connection with Bell ' s Grocery Store ' s request for a gasoline island . Mr . King personally felt that that interpretation would be better worded had it said " with special approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals " . He felt that when the Town Board adopted this ordinance it believed it was establishing a special use district in def ining light industrial and excluding residences from it . He also felt it might be a moot point since site plan approval would be required in a case such as was before the Board . Mr . Austen stated that at the time of the above mentioned interpretation he was a member of the Board and to the best of his knowledge the interpretation was made with the thought that everything was subject to approval by the Board . • Mr . Hewett concurred with Mr . Austen . Mr . King made a motion as follows : The Board affirms the interpretation of March 9 , 1974 with the caveat that the interpretation does include requiring special approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals for any other use than light industrial . Edward Austen seconded the motion . Town Attorney Barney interjected at this point that he had a problem with the motion . He stated that what was done in 1974 was an interpretation of what uses could be permitted in a light industrial zone . He went on to say that there are provisions which require site plan approval by the Planning Board in a light industrial zone but no provisions for Board of Zoning Appeals approval . He explained that he was troubled by the caveat being added because the Board was legislating more than it was interpreting the law and taking on the responsibility that was properly that of the Town Legislature . Town Attorney Barney felt that if special approval were to be provided on something other than what is specifically provided for in light industrial districts this was a legislative decision to be made by the Town Board , and that it should not be made in the guise of • interpreting the zoning ordinance . He stated he did not think the Board in interpreting the ordinance could impose new requirements superimposed over what can occur in a particular 10 district and as a result another step would have to be followed if someone were bringing in something that was clearly acceptable in a business district . Town Attorney Barney further added that he saw nothing in either the business district provisions or the light industrial district provisions which gives the Board of Zoning Appeals special approval authority . Chairman Aron stated that the Board could interpret and Town Attorney Barney concurred . Town Attorney Barney ' s concern was that with the motion as presented that anything the Board interpreted had to have special approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals . He saw nothing in the law which permits that . Town Attorney Barney advised that the Board had several options : 1 . It could render an interpretation as requested by Attorney Mazza that this type of use is encompassed in the language of the business district and once that is done that is the end of the Board ' s review . The matter would then go to the Planning Board for site plan approval . 2 . The Board could say that under the terms of the ordinance such a use is not permitted in any business district and then go the next step and grant a variance to allow that use • in this particular location - in other words , a use variance . After further discussion , Mr . King rescinded his motion . Mr . Austen rescinded his second to said motion . Mr . Donald Frederick , the attorney representing Mr . Burkhart then addressed the Board . He stated that under Section 41 of Article XIII of the zoning ordinance , one might say that having boats and recreational vehicles being assembled and worked on might indicate a light industrial use because Mr . Burkhart uses electrical power and the ordinance does not stipulate that the item must be manufactured . He went on to state that he felt that Mr . Burkhart thought that it would be relatively simple to interpret his business as coming within the purview of the ordinance . Attorney Frederick further said that if the ordinance permitted automobile dealers the right to do business in a light industrial zone then why not a recreational vehicle or boat dealer . Mr . Joseph Burkhart then presented pictures of his business which he has operated in Sayre , Pennsylvania for approximately 25 years . He further went on to say that he had been in the marine business since 1950 . He felt that the Ithaca area could use the type of business he proposed to operate and it would be a first - class operation . He called the Board ' s attention to a sketch he had prepared showing what he intended to construct on the • property in question . The sketch showed the location of the building , the parking and display area , and the area where grass would be placed , altogether making it , he felt , an attractive 11 • addition to the area . The entrance would be an existing entrance which is over 30 feet wide and is over 350 feet from the corner of Route 13 , Mr . Burkhart went on to say that the entrance would not create any traffic problem at all and the lighting would be basically to curtail vandalism . The existing building would be removed within 30 days and the lot would be greatly enhanced from its present state . The ravine in the back of the lot would be filled . He anticipated later on adding a service and warehouse building on the back part of the lot . Mr . Burkhart advised the Board that he would need to have outdoor display of his items but that these items would not be unsightly . Town Attorney Barney reminded Mr . Burkhart that regardless of what the interpretation of the Board would be with respect to the sale of recreational vehicles being permitted in a light industrial district , the outdoor display is not permitted in any business district and a use variance is required . He went on to say that Mr . Burkhart would still need to go to the Planning Board for site plan approval after the Board decided on these items . Attorney Mazza interjected that Mr . Burkhart had failed to mention that what was meant by recreational vehicles was a motor home or travel trailer and would not include three - wheelers or four - wheelers or any vehicle of that type . He further added that • a recreational vehicle is not a trailer or a permanent living fixture but is on wheels and stays on wheels . It would not include dune buggies or all terrain vehicles . " Mr . Burkhart stated that the make of his product was Winnebago . Mr . Austen asked if all the parking of any recreational vehicle or boat would be in back of the building front line . Mr . Burkhart responded that he would place the building back even farther than on the sketch depending on the fill , and if that were the case he would say some vehicles would be in front of it . There would be a grass area in the front with parking and display flanking the building on either side . Mr . Burkhart stated that if he got fill and was back farther the units would be in front of the building line and would not be in front of the 30 foot line . Mr . King asked if Mr . Burkhart planned on a dual entrance driveway and Mr . Burkhart responded that he did not at this time . Chairman Aron then asked Ms . Beeners for a brief outline of her recommendation as far as the environmental assessment she had studied . Ms . Beeners stated that should the Zoning Board of Appeals interpret that this business was permitted in a light industrial district and a use variance was granted for an outdoor display and then it went on for site plan approval that the Planning Board should be the lead agency for the site plan review • and that a long environmental form be submitted . She called attention to Part III of her written recommendation ( Exhibit " 1 " ) where she recommended that a conditional negative declaration be 12 • given for the operation of this business use in a light industrial district if that was the Board ' s interpretation subject to site plan approval with regard to outdoor display , etc . Edward King then made a motion as follows : It is moved that this Board find that granting variances as needed by the project will not have a significant environmental impact with the understanding that there will be a further anvitonmental impact review by the Planning Board as lead agency during the course of reviewing the specific site plan to determine the environmental impact , if any , of the specific detailed site plan . The motion was seconded by Jack Hewett . The vote was as follows : Aye - Aron , King , Austen , Hewett Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . Chairman Aron then turned the Board ' s attention to the • matter of usage as to outdoor display and the definition of recreational vehicles . Ms . Beeners expressed concern about keeping within the spirit of the zoning ordinance with regard to the outdoor display and other concerns . She mentioned that there were four places in the zoning ordinance where there was an allusion to no outdoor displays . She wondered if there was the necessary hardship in order for the Board to grant a use variance for such . She worried about the potential distraction on Route 13 with another set of large vehicles on display on a road heavily traveled . Mr . King said that this was a matter for the Planning Board to decide as to the extent of the display and how it would be displayed . Attorney Frederick mentioned that he felt that the purpose of the restrictions on outdoor displays in the zoning ordinance was to stop the outdoor displays from turning into junkyards . Further discussion ensued by members of the Board expressing concern about how far back the outdoor display would be . Mr . Burkhart assured the Board that it would be no less than 30 feet back from the road and would be tasteful . Concern was also expressed about sideyard requirements and just how far out the canopies displayed on Mr . Burkhart ' s sketch would extend . • No one from the public appeared in favor of or in opposition to this application . 13 • A motion was then made by Edward King as follows : WHEREAS , it does not appear that the sale of recreational vehicles is permitted under any classification of the zoning ordinance , and WHEREAS , the Board finds that the sale of large vehicles and boats is not feasible when limited to solely indoor displays , and WHEREAS , because of the location and condition of the premises that are the subject of this application it is not susceptible to a number of uses that would otherwise be permitted in a light industrial zone , it is RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants a variance for a sales facility for the sale of boats and related equipment including boat trailers and for the sale of recreational vehicles intended for road traveling purposes , including motor homes and travel trailers but excluding mobile homes intended for permanent installation and excluding " all terrain vehicles " , and it is further RESOLVED , that this Board hereby grants a variance for the • operation of this facility with outside sales display areas subject to such requirements the Planning Board may impose during the site plan review process , and it is further RESOLVED , that this Board hereby grants a variance from the front yard requirements of an industrial zone so that the required front yard will be 30 feet instead of 150 feet , except that no buildings or structures shall be erected within 60 feet of the highway right - of - way line , and it is further RESOLVED , that this Board hereby grants a variance from the side yard requirements of an industrial zone to the extent that the required side yard on that portion of the south side of the property located within 250 feet of the highway right - of - way is reduced from 60 feet to 40 feet . No structures , including buildings or canopies shall be erected within 40 feet of the south line of the property . The motion was seconded by Edward Austen . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , King , Hewett , Austen Nay - None • The motion was unanimously carried . The public hearing was closed at 10 : 00 p . m . 14 • Respectfully submitted , Beatrice Lincoln , Recording Secretary . Attached Exhibit 1 - Recommendation of Town Planner Susan Beeners Exhibit 2 - 1974 Interpretation e SEQR SEAF PART II Environmental Assessment Joseph P . Burkhart Proposal Zoning Board of Appeals 9 / 10 % 86 A . ) Action does not exceed any. Type I threshold . B . ) Action will receive coordinated review . Co. ) Could action result in any adverse effects on , to , or arising from the . followings Cl . ) Existing " air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , , drainage or flooding problems ? Proposed extent of new fill is not expected to substantially ' affect drainage , surface , or , groundwater quality . An existing septic system west of ( behind ) the existing building may limit the extent of additional fill in that area . Approval by the Tompkins County Health Department would be required for any sewage disposal or water supply . Traffic volumes 1h the area are not expected to be adversely affected by the proposed use . Further information as to on - site parking , service , and display is needed to determine the adequacy • of one entrance to the site on the existing driveway . Lighting proposed for the site needs further detail and consideration of visual impact , road safety , and merchandise security . C2 . ) Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ; or community or neighborhood character ? Existing , land uses in this area include business and light industrial uses , residences , open space , and recreational lands . The closest facilities with outdoor display of vehicles are 3 / 4 ± mile north on Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca . More information is needed on architecture , site design , and landscaping to evaluate the consistency of the proposed project with the mixed - use character of this area . The action would involve the demolition of a building which was included in a Tompkins County Planning Department inventory of historic structures but which has since been altered and which is not protected under any historic preservation law . The site is on the edge ofa general area along Five Mile Drive identified as containing buildings and sites of historic merit by the same department . The economics of reusing the existing building in conformance with necessary codes need to be weighed in relation to the needs of the community for new business facilities , and the compatibility of such new businesses with existing neighborhood character . SEQR SEAF Burkhart Proposal 2 ZBA 9 / 10 / 86 C3 . ) Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? No significant adverse impact is expected . C4 . ) A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted ; or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? The proposed operation of a business consisting of the outdoor display and sales of recreational . vehicles and boats is not specified as a permitted use in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and a determination is needed as to whether the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose of this Ordinance . The Zoning Board on March 9 , 1974 interpreted the Zoning Ordinance to allow within Light Industrial Districts any lawful use allowed in the more restrictive zones , with the exception of dwellings . This interpretation was reaffirmed by that Board on November 17 , 1976 : The proposed use , if approved , would also represent a change in use from previous site uses . C5 . ) Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by. the proposed action ? If the use as proposed by the applicant were to be allowed , • any potentially significant impacts related to the visual effect of outdoor display in a mixed use area on a main highway might be mitigated through proper site and architectural desigia , and the review of such design to ensure compatibility with neighborhood character , but the visual impact of subsequent related development , should such be proposed , may be difficult to successfully mitigate in a manner that would be consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance . C6 . ) Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified in Cl -M> The , project , if approved , might induce applications for similar land use in the Elmira Road area of the Town and elsewhere , and the potential visual impact of such growth would : require detailed site plan review to assess compatibility with area character as well as with the objectives of the zoning ordinance . C7 . ) A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ? No significant adverse impact is expected . • SEQR SEAF Burkhart Proposal 3 ZBA 9 / 10 / 86 . PART III Reviewer ' s Recommendation _ The Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency in the g Y environmental review of any interpretations or variances connected with the permitting of a business . use with outdoor display in a light industrial district. The Planning Board would be the Lead Agency for . any subsequent site plan approval , if such use were approved . A conditional negative declaration for a business use in a light industrial district is recommended , subject to site plan approval . A conditional negative. declaration is also recommended for outdoor display of boats and recreational vehicles , subject to a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals that such outdoor display is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance , and that such must be subject to site plan approval . Any . application for site plan approval for this project , should be accompanied by a Long Environmental Assessment Form , which , along with a detailed . site plan , . should provide further information in regard to access , parking , service and display areas , lighting , utilities , architectural design , and landscaping . The demolition of a building which is of some architectural / historical significance but which requires renovation and rehabilitation in order to be reused would need to be evaluated with the best use of the site . Lead Agency for zoning interpretation and related variances : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Lead Agency for any subsequent site plan review ( Long EAF ) : Town of Ithaca Planning Board Prepared by : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner September 3 , 1986 s : iNUTCE • (Boo K Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 9 , 1974 10 : 00 A . M . PRESENT . Vice - dhairman Laurene Ripley , Roger Sovocool , 'Jack Hewett , Ed Austen , David Oowan . (Assistan.t to the Zoning Officer ) . The Zoning Board ` of Appeals met to act upon the request of the Planning Board at a meeting of the Planning Board held on the 2Gth day of February , 1974 , for an interpretation of the present Zoning Ordinance regarding the placing of a . retail store in a Light indusieial DisirAA;t . After discussion , it was MOVED by Mrs . Ripley and seconded by Air . Sovocool : The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals interprets . the present Zoning Ordinance to allow within Light Industrial Districts any lawful use allowed in the more restrictive zones , with the . exception of dwellings . A Aye - Ripley , - Sovocool , Hewett , Austen . Nay - None . The Motion was carried . unanimously . • BROUGHT TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 17 , 1976 , in connection with Bell ' s Grocery request for gasoline Island ) RE-AFFIRMED ON THAT DATE , N . M . F . ( Secretary ) 16p. ,�. 13d.