Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1987-01-04 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 14 , 1987 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on January 14 , 1987 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Edward King , Joan Reuning , Jack Hewett , Town Planner Susan Beeners , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , and Town Attorney John C . Barney . ALSO PRESENT : Mary Bryant , Steven Blais , Inta Ezergailis , Pat Long , Larry Magnosi , Ed Stout , Pat Heslop , Bruce H „ Rich , Jan Cornish and Gary J . Provost . The public meeting opened at 7 : 00 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 . Chairman Aron explained that the neighbors had been notified by voluntary action of the Board and that it was not mandatory that the neighbors be notified but the Town of Ithaca does it as a courtesy . The first item on the agenda for consideration was as follows : APPEAL of Dr . 0 . H . Kyong , Appellant , Robert Leathers , Architect , Agent , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to place a 2 feet 4 and 3 / 4 inches by 3 feet 6 inches sign ( 8 . 39 square feet ) at 1290 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 4 - 14 . 2 , Residence District R - 15 . Permission is denied under Section 4 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law whereby a sign no larger than 4 square feet is permitted . Steven Blais , employee of Robert Leathers , architect addressed the Board . Mr . Blais referred to a sketch showing the sign in question which sketch had been previously given to the Board . He explained that Dr . Kyong wished to have a larger sign than was allowed because the property is on a state highway with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour . He went on to say that the legally allowed sign is only 4 square feet and that the concern is that with a sign that small the lettering on the sign would not be sufficiently large enough or clear enough to be seen without motorists slowing down to read the sign , and from Dr . Kyong ' s point of view this creates difficulty for his patients and from a safety point of view is a traffic hazard . Mr . Blais stated that the sign desired is 4 . 39 square feet larger than what is allowed which allows for larger lettering and is more easily , I • 2 read by motorists . Mr . Blais further stated that the lettering on the sign would be about four inches high . Mr . King inquired if the sign would be illuminated and Mr . Blais responded that it would not be . Chairman Aron inquired if it was a free standing sign that would have lettering on both sides , north and south , and Mr . Blais responded that that was correct . The public hearing was opened to the public and no one appeared . The public hearing was then closed . Mr . Frost said that Dr . Kyong would be allowed in an R15 zone to have a sign maximum of four square foot . Mr . King asked if the sign would replace the existing sign and Mr . Blais responded that it would . Chairman Aron then read the " ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Sign Review Board : Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals concerning proposed doctor ' s office sign , 1290 Trumansburg Road , Planning Board , December 2 , 1986 , As Recorded : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . Mr . Austen asked if there were any other signs on the premises and Mr . Blais responded that there were in and out signs . Mr . King asked if there were any other offices , medical or otherwise in the building and Mr . Blais responded that there were not . He explained that there might be another physician working on the site in the future . Chairman Aron stated that the Board had dealt with this matter some time ago as to the special approval given for this premises to be operated as a medical office and that the matter before the Board dealt only with the sign ordinance . Mr . King said that his concern was the possibility of future signs having to indicate other uses in the building . A motion was made by Edward King as follows : It is moved that this Board approve the construction of the proposed sign as indicated on the drawings and the site plan upon the understanding that the applicant has obtained the approval and concurrence of the Tompkins County Planning Department and that that will be on record in this file . �' Joan Reuning seconded the motion . 1 • 3 The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Reuning , Hewett , Austen , King Nay - None The motion was carried . The next matter on the agenda was the following : APPEAL of Richard Lauterwasser , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the construction of a dwelling unit in a garage structure at 247 DuBois Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 22 - 2 - 1 . 31 , Residence District R - 30 . Permit is denied under Article V , Section 18 , and Article XIV , Sections 74 and 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Chairman Aron stated that Mrs . Dietrich , representing Mr . and Mrs . Lauterwasser had phoned Mrs . Fuller , Executive Secretary of the Town of Ithaca , explaining that Mr . and Mrs . Lauterwasser were ill and could not attend the hearing . They wished to have the hearing adjourned until February 11th , Edward Austen made a motion as follows : • It is moved that the appeal of Mr . and Mrs . Lauterwasser be adjourned to the February 11 , 1987 meeting . The motion was seconded by Jack Hewett . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Reuning , Hewett , King , Austen Nay - None The motion was carried . Mr . King felt it would be appropriate to indicate the number of people from the public appearing on this matter . Chairman Aron then inquired if there were anyone from the public who wished to speak on the matter . Mr . Bruce Rich of 253 Dubois Road , Ithaca , New York spoke to the Board . He explained that he lived two houses north on the same side of the road as Mr . and Mrs . Lauterwasser , Mr . Rich stated that he and his family had moved there in 1973 because they wanted to live in a rural area and his concern was the precedent that might be set for other people to be able to do the • same thing , i . e . , build on their property for rental income . 4 The next item on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL of Janice A . Cornish , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying Building Permits for the construction of a second dwelling unit in each of two existing non - conforming dwelling structures at 509 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tar. Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 32 , Residence District R - 15 . Permit is denied under Article XII , Section 54 , and Article XIV , Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Ms . Janice A . Cornish came before the Board . Chairman Aron read items 1 through 3 of Ms . Cornish ° s application , a copy of which application is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . Chairman Aron stated that there was before the Board a short environmental assessment form and declared the Zoning Board of Appeals the lead agency in this matter . Mr . Aron then read from " Part III - Environmental Assessment - Cornish Appeal , Lead Agency , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , Reviewer . Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner , Review Date : January 14 , 1987 " , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . Ms . Beeners reported that the land use in the area is • residential with some commercial use . She stated that No . 7 of the short environmental assessment form should read 1 . 8 acres . Chairman Aron inquired if Ms . Beeners had viewed the property and she responded that she had . Chairman Aron inquired if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak on the matter and there was no one . The public hearing was then closed . Ms . Beeners said that based on the information that she had received on the project and based on what research she had done the parcel is designated on the tax map as a 1 . 8 acre parcel . She went on to say that the frontage of this parcel was recently rezoned from R9 to R15 and the back portion of the property was recently rezoned from industrial to R15 . She further went on to say that the 250 feet from the center line of Five Mile Drive was zoned R9 . Chairman Aron questioned this and Mr . Barney clarified by saying that the two buildings in question were in what was formerly an R9 zone and are now in an R15 zone . Ms . Beeners said that her reasons for giving a positive declaration were explained in Part II of her report ( Exhibit 3 ) wherein she felt that the lot dimensions would be inadequate for subdivision under the present R15 and also under the previous R9 zoning , and a doubling of residential density well over that which is permitted on one • lot is a possible adverse impact to the character of the community . Ms . Beeners went on to say that she had interpreted in C4 of her report what she felt might be the extent of non - • 5 conformance on the lot , and she also had no knowledge as to just how far back those non - conformities went . She also felt that there was no evidence of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship from the materials that had been submitted to the Board . Gary Provost , a friend of the applicant and also the builder , spoke to the Board . He felt that what the applicant planned on was in conformity with the zoning laws as far as the number of people that would be allowed on the premises . Mr . Frost clarified that what Mr . Provost meant was that instead of having boarders Ms . Cornish planned on segregating the houses and making two apartments in each building . For instance , in unit 1 Ms . Cornish lives downstairs with her daughter , and upstairs the apartment would be rented to two persons , thus making 4 people in unit 1 . In the other unit , unit 2 , she would have two one bedroom apartments , with two persons living in each unit for a total of 4 persons . Mr . Frost said that what Mr . Provost was trying to say was that in a one - family dwelling you could have an addition to that one family of two boarders , and rather than have two boarders living with the family , they would be segregated into their own apartment . • Chairman Aron inquired if both buildings were on one lot which was zoned R15 and Ms . Cornish responded that that was correct . Chairman Aron asked if there would be any changes to the existing structures and Ms . Cornish answered that they would be adding a kitchen to the upstairs of unit 1 , and a kitchen and a bathroom to the upstairs of unit 2 . Joan Reuning asked what the square footage of the buildings was and Mr . Provost responded that unit 2 is 30 x 24 feet , and unit 1 is approximately 800 square feet on each floor . Mr . Frost read from the zoning ordinance , Section 11 , No . 2 , R15 , wherein it states that a two- family dwelling is permitted provided that the second dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 % of the floor area excluding the basement , etc . He stated that this application was denied based on a non - conforming use . Mr . Austen asked when the houses were built and Ms . Cornish answered that she lived there for 10 years and Mr . Provost said that the houses were probably close to 100 years old . Mr . King felt that he would like to examine the property to become more knowledgeable about the matter and that perhaps other Board members might wish to do the same . The Board concurred . • A motion was then made by Edward Austen as follows : It is moved that this matter be adjourned until February 11 , • 6 1986 so as to allow the Board members to inspect the subject property . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , Hewett , King Nay - None The motion was carried . The last matter on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL of Edward J . Stout , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , denying permission to operate a taxi business at 1156 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 5 , Residence District R - 30 . Permission is denied under Article V , Sections 18 and 19 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Chairman Aron stated that the Board had before it a short environmental assessment form and declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as the lead agency in this matter . • Chairman Aron read " Part II - Environmental Assessment - Edward J . Stout Appeal , Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner , Review Date : January 7 , 1987 , " a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . Chairman Aron inquired if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak on the matter . Mrs . Inta Czergailis of 1157 Danby Road , Ithaca , New York , addressed the Board . Mrs . Czergailis felt that Mr . Stout ' s business increased the noise and activity level of the neighborhood . She said that Mr . Stout ' s house was very close to the road and there are vehicles parked on the shoulder of the road constantly . She went on to state that it is already very difficult to emerge onto the highway from her driveway in that the visibility on that road is not very good and traffic moves quite fast . Mrs . Pat Long of 1163 Danby Road , Ithaca , New York , spoke before the Board . She agreed with Mrs . Czergailis and further stated that there had been many accidents in the area because there is a rise in the road . She went on to say that as she is coming from Ithaca and slows down to make a left hand turn into her driveway , anyone that is behind her wants to pass her in which case they would run into one of the taxicabs parked on the shoulder of the road . Mrs . Long said that compounding the situation was the fact that L ' Bauberge and LaTourelle Restaurants are in the area thus increasing traffic . Chairman Aron stopped her at this point and informed her that the Board was only interested in what was before them . Mrs . Long said that on the previous Sunday when the weather was bad many cars were turning in her driveway along with taxicabs , and at one time there were as many as forty cars parked on the road , including taxicabs . She went on to state that cars park on both sides of the road as well as taxicabs , and on Christmas Eve there were a dozen taxicabs parked on the shoulder of the road . She felt that it was a dangerous situation . The public hearing was closed . Mr . Edward J . Stout then addressed the Board . He stated that as of today all of the cars had been removed with the exception of his own two personal cars and one taxicab . Mr . Frost clarified that upon investigation of the premises there were several dilapidated vehicles in the back yard and these have been removed . Mr . Stout said that they rent a space at Swearingen ' s in the City of Ithaca where the taxicabs are now parked , and the taxicabs had been moved to this location . Chairman Aron asked if as of today the business was being operated at the premises by telephone and Mr . Stout responded that that was correct . Chairman Aron further inquired if there was only one taxicab stationed at 1156 Danby Road and Mr . Stout responded that that was correct . Chairman Aron inquired if there was a repair shop there too and Mr . Stout responded that sometimes the taxicab drivers want him to take a look at a problem with the cabs and he did so . Mr . King asked if Mr . Stout lived on the premises and he responded that he did . Mr . King further inquired how long he had operated the taxicab business there and Mr . Stout responded that he had operated it for a short while , for about three or four months . Mr . King asked if he had radio dispatching from his house and if that was the only place the dispatching was done and Mr . Stout responded that this was correct . Mr . King asked Mr . Stout to address the problem of the taxicabs being parked along the road and Mr . Stout responded that that was before they had a place to store them . Mr . King asked if he had a contract with Swearingen ' s and • Mr . Stout responded that he did , and Mr . King asked if there would be any problem continuing to store the cars there and Mr . Stout responded there would not be a problem . Chairman Aron then mentioned a letter he had received signed " Respectful Neighbour " and announced that the Board would not entertain an anonymous letter whether for or against the appellant . Mr . Frost said that the lot itself was a non - conforming use with dimensions of approximately 100 foot frontage and 200 foot depth so the lot size itself is under the required square footage . Mr . Frost continued that a building permit was applied for in 1956 and apparently was denied because the proposed site was close to the roadside . The appeal then went to the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1957 . The garage out of which the dispatching is done is quite close to the road . Mr . Frost stated that it was his assumption from the building permit application and the appeal that the garage construction was allowed . Mr . Frost asked for clarification as to the role of Mr . Jim Hyer in the operation of the taxicab business as it was his understanding that Mr . Hyer owned the taxicab business . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Stout was the owner of the taxicab business and Mr . Stout responded he was not , that he managed it for Mr . Hyer . • Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Stout was operating the business out of his home and Mr . Stout responded that he was . Attorney Barney asked how many employees Mr . Hyer had and how many taxicabs were involved and Mr . Stout responded that there were four . Attorney Barney asked if the people were hired by Mr . Hyer or by Mr . Stout and Mr . Stout responded that he ( Mr . Stout ) had the right to hire and fire . Attorney Barney asked who owned the taxicabs , including the one that Mr . Stout drives , and Mr . Stout responded that Mr . Hyer owned them all . Chairman Aron inquired if Mr . Stout was a partner of Mr . Hyer and Mr . Stout responded he was not although he had put some money into the business . Attorney Barney asked if a license was required to operate a taxicab and Mr . Stout responded that a license had to be obtained from the City of Ithaca for each taxicab . Attorney Barney asked if the licenses were in the name of Mr . Hyer including the one for the cab that was operated by Mr . Stout and Mr . Stout responded that that was correct . At this point Mr . Austen stated that he felt the Board needed to inspect the property and get a plot plan before any decision could be made . The Board concurred . • A motion was then made by Joan Reuning as follows : It is moved that this matter be adjourned until February 11 , • 9 1987 so that the board members could inspect the property in question . Edward Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Reuning , Aron , King , Austen , Hewett Nay - None The motion was carried . There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting was adjourned at 8 : 30 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Beatrice Lincoln Recording Secretary Exhibits 1 through 4 attached • Approved : 4 Henry Aron Chairman • ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Sign Review Board : Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals concerning proposed doctor ' s office sign , 1290 Trumansburg Road Planning Board , December 2 , 1986 As Recorded : Susan Co Beepers , Town Planner WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of . a recommendation to the Zoni.ng . Board of Appeals concerning the request for variance of Section . 4 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , to permit the construction of a freestanding sign with a total area of` 8 . 38 square feet , such sign to be located at a doctor ' s office at 1290 Trumansburg Road , 'Town of Ithaca Tax. Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 4 - 14 . 2 . 2 . This is. a Type II action which requires no further environmental review . 3 . The Planning Board on December 2 , 1986 has reviewed the following material : A drawing entitled " Proposed Signage for Kyong Office , 1290 Trumansburg . Road " , dated November 11 , 1986 , by Robert S . Leathers , Architect , P . C . ; a site plan showing the proposed sign location ; and an accompanying appeals form dated November 19 , 1986 . • 4 . . ' The location of the , doctor ' s office , on a state road , 4 creates a practical difficulty in regard to - conformance of any signage with the 4 square foot limitation of the Sign Law , 5 . The Tompkins County Planning Department has been notified of this action pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law Section 239 -m . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Sign Review Board , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that variance of Section 4 . 01 ~ 1 of the Town . of Ithaca 'Sign Lai be granted , to permit the construction of a freestanding sign with a maximum total area of 8 . 38 square feet per side as shown . on the aforementioned drawl : gs , such sigil to be located at a doctor ' s office at 1290 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 4 - 14 . 2 , with such recommendation conditional upon the concurrence of the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law Section 239 -m . • � xh � b ► T � w TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $ 10 . 00 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : �U Ithaca , New York 14850 CASH ( 607 ) 273 - 1747 CHECK - ( /0 ) A P P E A L ZONING : — F 40 to the For Office Use Only Building Inspector and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York r Having been denied permission to Turn available space at 509 and 509A . Five Mile Drive into apartments ( no added structures ) and sufficent parking V at 509 Five Mile Drive , Ithaca , NY 14850 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . Parcel 32 ( map 431 - 2 - 32 ) as shown on the accompanying application 2nd / or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated. reason that the issuance of such . permit would be in violation of : Articles ) . , Sections ) �S y of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and , in support of the appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : 1 . The units being remodeled are . to be one bedroom units which will not house more then 2 people each unit . R15 zoning allows ' ( if I am reading it right ) up to two boarders , I would not be going over that allowance for number of people in either unit . 2 . As a single . woman and single parent I need to make plans for my retirement . I have an experienced person to do the remodeling and financing is cheaper now then it has been and I would like very much toget my retirement set and paid for now . 3 . I . am not asking to build new .housing , only to use the space my housing already has to fit my needs more adequately . Thank you . 01 Dated : s/� � 0/ r Olr Signed : 1f2721� � PART II - Environmental Assessment - Cornish Appeal • . A . Action . is Unlisted , Be Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins .County. Planning Department ) C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : C1 . 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 ? No significant adverse impact is expected to air quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , or in regard to any potential for -erosion , drainage , or flooding problems . However , as the lot may not have the capacity for adequate private sewage disposal for the proposed use , the potential exists for groundwater quality problems . Such would be subject to final determination by the Tompkins County Health Department . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character ? Lot dimensions would be inadequate for subdivision under the present R15 or the previous R9 " zoning . A doubling of residential density well over that which is permitted is not considered to be • in character with the community . 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 ? It is the reviewer ' s interpretation that the property may be nonconforming ( legal or nonlegal ) in the following : . a . two dwellings on one lot ; b . inadequate front yard on Unit # 1 ; c . the distance between. the rear of Unit # 1 and the front of Unit 02 may not meet the requirements of Section 68 of the Zoning Ordinance . It is also the reviewer ' s opinion ,, based on the Appeal Form , that practical difficulty / unnecessary hardship has not been established . For these reasons , and considering the doubling of density requested , . the proposal is considered of potential adverse impact to Town goals and objectives . C5 . . Growth , subsequent developmentor related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Granting of the . proposed use might set a precedent for' development on other parcels that is higher . than is permitted . ,� b aT 3 • C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C6 ? As described above . C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ? Not expected . ' PART III Because of the . types and extent of nonconformance identifiipd above and the potential for a higher residential density than is permitted , a positive declaration of environmental significance is recommended. Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Susan CO Beeners , Town Planner Review Date : January - 14 , 1987 CCjt T h� w 35V q1i.L IL po ac-ii 40 ri � Jd �-s 7 �T �'� C o i fu r 5 H 4 • PART II - Environmental Assessment - Edward J . Stout Appeal A . Action is Unlisted . Be Action will receive coordinated review ( N . Y . S . Department of Transportation ) . If the business were to consist of the operation of taxis from the property , and the storage of these vehicles on the property , significant adverse impacts could be expected to existing traffic patterns , aesthetics and neighborhood character . The use would not be consistent with existing zoning and land use patterns , except in regard to the fact that the property is located adjacent to a Special Land Use District which was established for a restaurant and a ' bed and breakfast inn ' . Potential mitigating measures for such adverse impacts would include rezoning of the property for commercial use , and fencing to screen any taxi storage area . This review is based on the following assumptions , which are drawn from discussions with the appellant : 1 . The business is to be limited to phone dispatching of taxis . The taxis are to be operated out of a garage in the City of Ithaca . No taxis , aside from the one which might be driven home by the owner of the business , are to be stored at or operated from 1156 Danby Road , 2 . All vehicles are to be removed from the rear yard as • soon as weather permits such removal . 3 . No vehicles are to be parked on Danby Road . C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : 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 ? Phone dispatching of taxis from a . residence would have no exterior effects and would have no significant adverse impact . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or 'community or neighborhood character ? Same as C1 . 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 ? ,h , b : T Subject to the assumptions listed above , a phone dispatching business , with perhaps . only one taxi on the premises driven by the owner / resident , would be similar to the manual / mechanical trades which are permitted as home occupations in Residence District R- 30 , and would cause no significant adverse impact . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? No significant adverse impact expected . Similar operations would be subject to further review . C6 . Secondary , Cumulative , or other effects not identified in Cl - C6 ? Not expected . C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ? Not expected . PART III Subject to the assumptions described above , the phone dispatching business would have no significant adverse impact . . There would be no exterior effects out of character with the neighborhood , and the business would be equivalent to certain home occupations which . are permitted in the Zoning Ordinance . A negative declaration of environmental significance is • recommended , subject to the following conditions : 1 . . The business is to be limited to phone dispatching of taxis . No taxis , aside from the one which might be driven home by the owner of the business , are to be stored at or operated from 1156 Danby Road . The taxis are to be operated out of a different location , where such operation is permitted . 2 . All vehicles are to be removed from the rear yard as soon as weather permits such removal . 3 . No vehicles are to . be parked on Danby Road , Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner Review Date : January 7 , 19874074 •