Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1987-06-10 FAWED TOWN OF ITHACA Date G� ? �'2� TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk ' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 10 , 1987 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on June 10 , 1987 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Jack Hewett , Edward King , Joan Reuning , Town Planner Susan Beeners , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , ' and Town Attorney John C . Barney . ALSO PRESENT : Elmer Phillips , Peter Hillman , Lydia. Hillman , Daniel Booth: , Elliott Lauderdale , Tsai L . Lauderdale , Karl Nicklas , Edward D . Cobb , Paul Kelsey , Doug Fain , Robin Goodloe , Lindsay Goodloe , Pamela Sackett , Karen Herzog , Frances Connelly , Shirley Raffensperger , Robert Dyer , Elizabeth Dyer , John Perialas , Valerie Littlefield , John Littlefield , Donna Green , Barbara Bredbenner , E . E . Bredbenner , Jr . , Douglas Armstrong , Howard Kramer , Geraldine Kramer , Jacqueline Wakula , Mary Yaple , Judy Mauk , Charles Dalbert , Herbert Deinert , Laura Armstrong , 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 . The first item on the agenda for consideration was as follows : ADJOURNED _APPEAL ( from May 27 , 1987 ) of Dell L . Grover , Appellant , Edward A . Mazza , Esq . , Agent , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to relocate an existing three - unit non - conforming dwelling from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 39 - 1 - 5 ( 1018 Danby Road ) , Residence District R9 , to a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 39 - 1 - 25 ( 371 Stone Quarry Road ) , Residence District R9 , and further , to add a fourth dwelling unit to said three - unit non - conforming dwelling . Permission is denied under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby no non - conforming building or use may be extended except as authorized by the Board of Appeals . Neither Mr . Mazza nor Mr . Grover was present and Mr . Frost was asked if he had information on this case . Mr . Frost reported that the case had been withdrawn and that the house would be demolished . Chairman Aron then advised the public appearing from Stone Quarry Road that Mr . Mazza had withdrawn his appeal from the Board and 'would apply for a demolition permit from the zoning inspector and the case was no longer an agenda item , • 2 The next item on the agenda was the following . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( from April 15 , 1987 ) of Charles Platkin , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission for the occupancy of a two - family dwelling containing one , five - bedroom dwelling unit and one , one - bedroom dwelling unit , located in Residence District R - 15 at 1476 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 23 , by a total of six unrelated persons . Permission is denied under Article IV , Section 11 , paragraph 2 , subparagraph 2a . ( 3 ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby a total of no more than three unrelated persons may occupy a two - family dwelling , Chairman Aron read a letter from Nancy Fuller , Secretary of the Zoning Board of Appeals , stating that she had been informed by Mr . Platkin that he wished to withdraw his appeal with respect to property known as 1476 Slaterville Road because the property had been sold to a lady who wished to have the house occupied by a single family . The letter further advised that the house was now vacant and a closing was presently scheduled for June 16 , 1987 . Chairman Aron declared the matter no longer an agenda • item . The next item on the agenda was the following : APPEAL of Robert Dyer , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the construction of a deck 21 feet from the rear lot line of an existing single - family dwelling located at 1448 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 7 , Residence District R15 . Permit is denied under Article IV , Section 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance whereby a rear yard not less than 30 feet in depth is required . Mr . Robert Dyer was invited to address the Board . Mr . Dyer was asked by Chairman Aron if he had built the deck yet and Mr . Dyer responded he had not . Mr . Dyer explained that he wanted to build a deck 22 feet wide and 14 feet deep across the back of his house . Mr . Dyer further explained that the deck would be above - ground and approximately four feet high and contain six steps leading up to same . Mr . Dyer stated he would like to build the deck to increase the usability and the value of his property . The public hearing was opened and no one from the public appeared . The public hearing was then closed . • Mr . Dyer was asked who lived behind him and he responded that there was a large portion of vacant land behind him but he was not sure who owned it . Joan Reuning asked if the person who 3 owned that vacant lot had been notified of the hearing and the affidavit of notification to the neighbors was reviewed although it could not be determined since the address was not known . Mr . Frost thought that the land might be landlocked . Chairman Aron inquired why Mr . Dyer wanted his deck to be 14 feet deep instead of a lesser depth and Mr . Dyer responded that the deck would be 22 feet wide and it would be more in proportion to have it 14 feet deep rather than 10 or 12 feet deep . Mr . King said that the closer Mr . Dyer got to his lot line the less yard the next lot would have in the event the vacant land was developed in the future . Chairman Aron noticed that Mr . Dyer ' s sketch had steps on the northerly end of the deck which reduced the lot line even more and suggested that perhaps the steps should be installed on the easterly side instead . Joan Reuning made a motion as follows : RESOLVED , that the Board grant a variance to Mr . Dyer to construct a deck on the back of his house , as indicated in • the diagram presented by him , with a deficiency of 9 feet , provided that the steps be built on the easterly side of the deck rather than the northerly side . Edward King seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Hewett Nay - None The motion was carried . The next item on the agenda was the following : APPEAL of Pamela Sackett , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the construction of a single family dwelling , with a west side yard less than 10 feet in width , at 181 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 21 ( Old Ithaca Land Company Parcel No . 21 3 ) , Residence District R9 . Permit is denied under Article III , Section 7 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance whereby a side yard not less than 10 feet is required . Mrs . Pamela Sackett addressed the Board . She stated that • her lot was only 50 feet wide and she would be putting up a house lengthwise on the lot . Mrs . Sackett said that if she moved the house over to one side instead of centering it it would allow for 4 a larger , more adequate driveway on the other side of the house . Mrs . Sackett said that she owned three lots on Kendall Avenue , Lot 19 where her own house was located , Lot 20 which was a vacant lot , and Lot 21 where the new house would be built . Mrs . Sackett explained that she was asking for up to 5 to 8 feet deficiency and Chairman Aron responded that when the Board grants a variance for a deficiency it has to be for a determinate amount , not an approximate amount . Mrs . Sackett said that: when she built her own house she asked for five feet and the Board granted it but Mr . Cartee had gone to the premises and moved the stakes over . Chairman Aron asked if Mrs . Sackett was requesting five feet or eight feet and Mrs . Sackett responded that she would prefer to ask for a five foot variance . Chairman Aron inquired if the building would be one - family or two - family and Mrs . Sackett responded it would be built as a one - family dwelling but she intended to sell it and she was not sure what the new owner would do with it . Chairman Aron inquired if Mrs . Sackett was in the construction business and she responded that she sold modular homes and she planned on putting up a modular home on the lot in question . Chairman Aron asked why Mrs . Sackett did not center the • house on the lot and she responded that if centered it would not allow for an adequate driveway which would not large enough to allow comfortably for ingress and egress into the garage . Mrs . Sackett spoke from experience , she said , as her own driveway is tight since Mr . Cartee had moved the stakes over on her property . She stated that the extra space is needed for a turnaround . Mr . King inquired what Mrs . Cardonia who owned the double lot to the west of Mrs . Sackett felt about the proposal and. Mrs . Sackett responded that she was 25 feet from Mrs . Cardonia ' s east line and further that Mrs . Cardonia was fully aware of what she was doing as she had been in contact with her , and in fact was buying one of the lots from Mrs . Cardonia , Mr . King said that if Mrs . Sackett ' s westerly side yard was reduced by 5 feet there would still be 30 , feet between Mrs . Cardonia ' s property and the new house being built . Mr . King asked if Mrs . Cardonia had been notified of the public hearing and a check of the records indicated that she had indeed been sent a notification . The public hearing was then opened and no one appeared . The public hearing was then closed . Mr . King said he did not see any problem with Mrs . Sackett having a little more footage on the easterly side to allow more room for the driveway and further that Mrs . Sackett owned the lot adjacent to the east , and further that there would be 30 feet • between Mrs . Cardonia ' s property and this lot on the west even with a five foot side yard . 5 Joan Reuning asked why Mrs . Sackett did not go five feet on the other side since she owned the next property and Mrs . Sackett responded that there were several reasons - she might build another house on the middle lot or it might become part of her own lot and she would like to have as much yard as possible , or she might split the middle lot and give half to each house . She said , however , that if she built a house on the third lot she would try to place it so that a variance would not be necessary . Chairman Aron asked if there were any other difficulties to her in building the house with the required sideyards . Mrs . Sackett said that if she did that then there would be no driveways . She stated that her own house had a variance that should have been for a five foot deficiency but she repeated the stakes had been moved by Mr . Cartee and that line was eight feet instead . Mrs . Sackett said that if she was to center the house she was building right now then the houses would look stacked , but even the five feet would make it look more attractive . Chairman Aron said that he understood her point but the ordinance had to be followed and a definite need for a variance had to be established . Chairman Aron asked where her difficulty was in not being able to conform to the ordinance . Mrs . Sackett said that the biggest difficulty she saw was the fact that if she centered the house there would be no driveway because 10 feet is not enough with an average car to back up and then turn around . Mrs . Sackett maintained that any contractor who does driveways would bear out that at least 20 feet is needed . Attorney Barney asked if the garage could be placed at the furthest end of the building and Mrs . Sackett responded that was impossible because the lot slopes down . Mr . King said that was true of all the houses in that area because the land does slope away from the road toward the north and it is very rocky there . Mrs . Sackett said that her foundation had to sit on the ground because the excavators hit rock within 4 feet . A motion was made by Edward King as follows % WHEREAS , it appearing that the nearest house is that to the west of the property in question and would be 30 feet away from the proposed building , it is therefore RESOLVED , that this Board grant the requested variance so that the applicant may site a new building on the lot within 5 feet of the westerly lot line , preserving at least a 5 foot minimum west side yard thus permitting the applicant to I nstall an adequate driveway along the easterly side of the proposed building , • Joan Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : 6 Aye - Reuning , Aron , King , Hewett Nay - None The motion was carried . The last item on the agenda was the following : APPEAL of Valerie Littlefield , Owner / Director , Little Feet Montessori Center , Appellant , John and Doris Perialas , Property Owners , with respect to a request for Special Approval under Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 4 ,, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the construction of a Nursery School / Day Care Center on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 16 ( 1 . 5 + acres ) , located at 142 Honness Lane , Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals to be the lead agency as to the environmental assessment in this matter . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frost to read from the zoning ordinance as to what could be done as to the request for special approval for this school . • Mr . Frost read the following from the zoning ordinance under Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 4 . " Public library , public museum , public , parochial and private school , nursery school , any institution of higher learning including dormitory accommodations upon special approval of the Board of Appeals . " Mrs . Valerie Littlefield addressed the Board . She stated that what she and her husband desired to do was to relocate their existing daycare center . She pointed to a map which showed the location of the building she wished to construct to this end . She continued that their present daycare center nursery school is directly across the street from the new site on 139 Honness Lane and is situated in a two - level building . She stated they have been there approximately six and a half years . Pointing to the map showing the location of the new site desired she stated that there was an existing building on the lot situated in the front on the south portion of the lot . She said that what they were proposing to do was to put an access road driveway for both ingress and egress with a circle for a dropoff area on the inner portion of the circle and with a passing lane . She continued that the drive to the circle is approximately 240 feet . She stated that the circle would give parents easy access to the entrance as well as to two parking lots that could be used for longer - term parking such as for a visit or for an interview . • Mrs . Littlefield said that the drawing she was referring to had been distributed to everyone on Honness Lane . • 7 Chairman Aron said that an environmental review had been done by Town Planner Susan Beeners and Ms . Beeners was asked to review her recommendation . As a matter of clarification Ms . Beeners stated that the plan had been under revision and certain changes had to be made in items 9 through 12 of the Environmental Assessment Form as follows : ( a ) Item 10 - proposed total footage of the building would be 7840 instead of 6950 . ( b ) Item 9 and 11 - would also have to be revised to be concurrent with above footage figure . ( c ) Item 12 - as far as parking spaces , it should show not only the 16 spaces as indicated but 10 more for future parking for a total of 26 . Ms . Beeners said the parking space situation was reviewed by her and Bob Flumerfelt and they saw sixteen initial spaces and probably 8 rather than 10 in the future parking area and room for approximately 4 cars as a dropoff along the west part of the loop . • Chairman Aron pointed out for the benefit of the public that Bob Flumerfelt was the Town engineer . Ms . Beeners then continued to review her environmental assessment . A copy of her recommendation entitled " Part II - Environmental Assessment - Little Feet Montessori Center " is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . Chairman Aron stated that the members of the Board had been out to the property to view same . He also mentioned that he had before him an adopted resolution from the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca but he wanted to point out to everyone that the recommendation by the Planning Board was not binding upon the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairman Aron stated that it was his duty to read said resolution to everyone so that they would be apprised of what had gone on prior to the applicant appearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairman Aron then read such document entitled " ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Little Feet Montessori Center , Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals , Planning Board , June 2 , 1987 . A copy of such resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . Chairman Aron also read a letter addressed to Valerie Littlefield dated June 9 , 1987 from Margaret F . Dill , Executive Director of the Day Care and Child Development Council of Tompkins County , Inc . A copy of such letter is attached hereto • as Exhibit 3 . Mr . King asked Ms . Beeners what the maximum number of • 8 students were in the present school and Ms . Beeners responded there were about thirty , and in the first phase the enrollment would go up to 80 and ultimately in a year the enrollment would go to 120 if the Board approved . Mr . King asked if the building would be erected regardless of whether special approval was granted for 120 students and Mr . John Perialas , owner of the property , responded that that was correct . Mr . King said that Ms . Beeners had indicated that the proposed driveway along the easterly side would be a two - way in and out access but that would have to be changed to 20 feet from 18 feet . Ms . Beeners responded that that was what she was recommending at this time although it was not in the Planning Board ' s recommendation . She continued that 20 feet of stabilized surface would be necessary for fire department requirements . Edward King asked if she was speaking of 16 feet of normally traversable surface with shoulders on each side and Ms . Beeners responded that that was what the Town Engineer had indicated to her would be suitable to meet fire department standards , and would be adequate for the type of traffic volume involved . Ms . Beeners said she had spoken to Bob Flumerfelt that same day and he had indicated that it should be widened to 20 feet of stabilized surface . Mr . King said that Ms . Beeners had also indicated there should be some change in the rotary at the northerly end of the turnaround and • she responded that shaving off some of the south part of the rotary would make the passing lane wider so that two cars would be able to pass each other at any point around the circle . She said , however , that she thought this matter would be taken care of in the final construction plan review by the Town Engineer , Mr . King said that Ms . Beeners anticipated no adverse impact or significant impact on the traffic on Honness Lane and this puzzled him because 80 to 120 children would be brought in in the morning and out in the afternoon and the estimate was that the traffic generated by this would be 50 cars per day . Ms . Beeners clarified that this was the figure reached on the previous form filled out and the figure should be corrected . She said that the figure should be 264 trips per day if the ultimate goal of 120 students was reached . She continued that sometimes the children were siblings or carpooling would take place so that it was not automatic that there would be two trips per day per enrollee . Ms . Beeners stated that the Littlefields had submitted a schedule to show the dropoff and pickup schedule with the worst case being each child coming in in their own separate car . She continued that this schedule showed that there would be 15 children dropped off every 15 minutes in the morning , and 15 children picked up every fifteen minutes in the afternoon . She stated that this many children coming in in the morning and leaving in the afternoon was not considered to be a substantial impact on the traffic that is on Honness Lane . • Chairman Aron said that statistically what Ms . Beeners was saying was correct . However , he continued , if someone were 9 • to come five minutes late , everything else would be backed up and congestion would take place . Statistically , Chairman Aron said , it looked wonderful but in reality he did not think it would work . Jack Hewett said that in the wintertime people would also be late becausa of the roads not being plowed . Chairman Aron repeated that there were many variables that had to be considered in those statistics . Ms . Beeners said that this schedule had been reviewed by the Town Engineer and Chairman Aron responded that personally they were still statistics to him whether the Town Engineer had reviewed them or not . Ms . Beeners said there was also a long driveway and there was room for stacking if necessary so there was general conference by her and the Town Engineer that they would not see cars stacked up on Honness Lane . Chairman Aron said that even if the driveway were 20 feet wide and there were cars on both sides going and coming and something happened to a child in the building an ambulance would have a hard time getting through . Ms . Beeners said that they were talking about less than 300 feet . Mr . King said that it should be noted that the topography of the entire lot is relatively flat . He mentioned that in the photos presented to the Board , cars were parked on some of the yard area , presumably belonging to the people who lived in the dwellings there . He said that cars could get off that roadway out on to the grass so the cars would not be confined to the 16 • to 20 foot strip of roadway . He continued that another factor favoring this location was that it was practically midway between Slaterville Road and Honness Lane so it was not immediately near either of those highway intersections . Mr . King asked Ms . Beeners , however , what the impact of the construction in Eastwood Commons and the other development south of the property had in terms of the traffic generated on Honness Lane and how long that might persist . Ms . Beeners responded that this was a difficult question to answer and reported that it had been discussed at several meetings of the East Ithaca Area Land Use Transportation Committee . She said that some people thought that there would be alleviation of the type of nuisance that the truck traffic is causing now in areas such as Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road . She agreed with this as far as the nuisance aspect but as those projects are completed on Honness there will be an increase in traffic . She said there will also be long - term construction projects going on at Cornell but with regard to this project one would never see , in her estimation , more than a 10 % increase in traffic on Honness Lane as a result of the school project . She continued that the only increase in traffic would be at certain times in the morning and in the afternoon and would not be sustained throughout the entire day . Chairman Aron said that in regard to the traffic volume it • was difficult for him to comprehend that it would only be a 10 % increase . Chairman Aron reported he had been out to look at the Ivar Jonson development and he had the following concerns : ( a ) 10 there are quite a number of two - story duplexes there which would generate probably three cars to each house ; ( b ) there are many trucks coming in and out of Wildflower Drive , ( c ) there is much traffic generated by the tenants of the condominiums in the Wildflower Drive area , ( d ) people are coming in through Pine Tree Road and using Honness Lane as a shortcut going on to East State Street , ( e ) Honness Lane is only 50 feet wide with deep gulleys on either side and it is almost impossible to park there . For these reasons Chairman Aron thought the increase in traffic would be much more than 10 % . Ms . Beeners said she did not know how relevant the general traffic problems in the East Ithaca area were to this proposal . She stated that the location of the school on Honness Lane is between two major problem intersections and it is a fairly open stretch of roadway . Ms . Beeners said that she had some 1986 traffic volume figures after Grandview and Eastwood are completed . Ms . Beeners said that the Town and other agencies are trying to alleviate some of the problems but she did not see it as relevant to the Littlefield project . Chairman Aron said that the relevancy would come into focus when considering what the Littlefields have now and what they proposed to have at this location in the future , if they are granted special approval , in terms of increased traffic flow . • Attorney Barney asked about the 1986 traffic volume figures Ms . Beeners referred to . Ms . Beeners stated that the figures showed 24 hour traffic volume last taken in 1986 by the Town . She continued that Honness Lane , west of Pine Tree , generated 1300 or 1400 cars per day ; Honness Lane , east of Slaterville Road , 1400 per day . Ms . Beeners said that if you add six trips per day coming out of Grandview subdivision and coming out of each unit at Eastwood Commons , you would have an increase f rom 1440 to 2346 . With the present level of traffic in 1986 being 1440 , 160 trips per day generated by 80 enrollees would make a 10 % increase . She said that if you look at the ultimate development of Ivar and Schickel you would still have the same thing , i . e . , 2300 trips per day from those local developments , 240 trips per day coming from the Littlefield project . Attorney Barney asked if the measurements were taken by a meter on the side of the road with a wire going across the road registering every time it was hit and Ms . Beeners said that was correct . Attorney Barney said that every car associated with the nursery school would be registered four times ; for example , a car would cross to drop the child off at the nursery school , the car would leave crossing the counter again , it would come back in the evening or late afternoon to pick the child up and go back out again , so it would be a total of four crossings . Attorney Barney said he was just trying to get straight in his mind a comparable figure and it would be , worst case , for 120 children , 1480 plus • the teachers and staff . Jack Hewett said that what compounded the problem was that ' 11 the peak time for drop off and pick of children was the same time that the traffic was heaviest from employees of Cornell University and Ithaca College . He felt that this enhanced the problem . The public hearing was opened and Chairman Aron , invited anyone who wished to speak on the matter to come forward . John Perialas , owner of the property in question , said that what their proposal encompassed would add a maximum of 45 more cars than they have now . Chairman Aron reminded Mr . Perialas that the, application was for 120 students in a year and Mr . Perialas said that that was so if approved but at the present time they wished to increase to 80 students only . Mr . Perialas said that if their application was approved for 80 students at the present time and then the Board felt that was enough a year from now they would have to accept that . Chairman Aron stated that Mr . Perialas was not building a 7 , 000 plus square feet building for just 40 or 50 children . Mr . Perialas said that it was true they were building it for a maximum of 120 students but the initial application was only for 80 children . Mr . Howard Kramer of 202 Pine Tree Road addressed the Board . He said that he lived at the intersection of Pine Tree and Honness Lane . He stated that the expansion of the school would have a tremendous impact on traffic at that intersection . Mr . Kramer said that in the last ten days he had seen three near broadsides in front of his house and in the last ten months there had been two cars in the ditch in front of his house . He felt it was only a matter of time that there would be some serious accidents at that intersection with increased traffic brought on by the expansion of the Littlefield school . Mr . Kramer thought it would be unconscionable on the part of the Board to allow expansion of the school given the seriousness of the traffic problem already . Mr . Douglas Armstrong of 121 Honness Lane spoke next . It was Mr . Armstrong ' s feeling that everyone was losing sight. of the main idea - the establishment of a new school on 142 Honness Lane , Mr . Armstrong said that in 1981 when the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the right to the Littlefields to operate a daycare center there was not much public opposition because it was going to be in a residence and there was going to be a limited number of students involved . Mr . Armstrong continued that in attending the several planning board meetings concerning the appeal they heard all of the facts about traffic but nothing about the size of the school and the fact that it would occupy a tremendous amount of the lot , so much so that a variance would have to be requested as to the rear yard setback requirement . Mr . Armstrong presented a petition to the Board signed by 83 members of the neighborhood in opposition to this appeal . Mr . • Armstrong said that another petition was presented to the Planning Board but was largely ignored so he and Barbara Bredbenner circulated another petition for presentation to the 12 Zoning Board of Appeals , which petition the Chairman then read . A copy of said petition is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . Chairman Aron inquired how many signatories of the petition were present and it was determined there were eleven present . Mr . Armstrong continued that the main problem was that the school would be enlarged to occupy a building of over 7 , 000 square feet when the present building occupied by the school is only some 2 , 000 square feet . He said that at the May 19th meeting of the Planning Board the building was proposed to be 6950 square feet and at the next meeting it was proposed to be 7800 square feet and also the proposed play area was enlarged . Mr . Armstrong said that Ms . Beeners had been very helpful as to the environmental impact in trying to decide what was the best way to approach the problem but one of the things she had mentioned was that there was a considerable buffer required by Cornell . He wondered if Cornell had been contacted and wondered how would they feel about giving up a buffer so that a 15 foot rear yard variance could be granted . It was noted at this point that Cornell had been notified of the public hearing . Ms . Beeners interjected that there was no buffer required but it was an assumption on her part that because of the drainage conditions and the type of development that might be anticipated that if Cornell were to retain and also develop that land there would be a buffer provided that would help to mitigate the drainage and • open space concerns along the north line of Honness Lane . Mr . Armstrong said that another concern he had was that the building seems to fit the property but if that is so then why is a rear yard variance needed . He further stated that as to the other daycare centers mentioned in the area they are in church facilities and are non - profit ventures in areas that have much room , adequate ingress and egress to the facilities , and have been there for many years . He said that the general consensus of the people he had talked to was that they are adamantly opposed to the idea of building a school of that size because the houses in the neighborhood are all approximately 1200 to 2000 square feet each and if the Littlefield building was going to be 7800 square feet there would be a tremendous visual impact on the area . He was concerned that if the Littlefields decided they no longer wanted to operate the school would they then come back to the Board pleading hardship and asking to turn the building into multiple housing .' Mrs . Barbara Bredbenner of 141 Honness Lane then addressed the Board by reading a letter addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals . A copy of such letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 . Mr . Charles Dalbert of 105 Honness Lane said that where he lived it was the point at which most cars stop when they start up the hill on a snowy day and he wondered what would happen to the • children when their parents are stopped at his house . He wondered about the bike path immediately prior to this property . Mr . Dalbert said that he was a jogger and a biker and wondered 13 • about the impact on this . He said that it is difficult for him to get from his house to the bike path now . He further stated that although there was a yellow double line on Honness Lane , as far as he was concerned the Honness exit ramp to the Pine Tree throughway is already in existence . Mr . Elmer Phillips of 131 Pine Tree Road then addressed the Board . He stated that he was one of the original framers of the Town of Ithaca zoning ordinance and gave a brief history of how the ordinance came about . He said that he was appearing before the Board as a long - time resident of Pine Tree Road but also to caution the Board to interpret the ordinance in the spirit for which it was written . For instance , he continued , R15 districts were essentially limited to one and two family dwellings , and the basis of the ordinance was the use of family homes with allowances being made for other inclusions with the Zoning Board of Appeals being responsible for those inclusions . Mr . Phillips continued that in the area there have been added many housing developments and in addition there are two churches , one of which was operating a daycare center , all of which were generating voluminous traffic on a half -mile road . Mr . Phillips felt that the increase in traffic from each of these activities made for a highly congested area . He stated that the Snyder Hill residents coming to Ithaca took a short - cut through Honness Lane also . Mr . Phillips said that the yellow double line does not prevent . passing by cars . He continued that the character of the neighborhood was the main concern and wished to see it remain as a residential community . Mr . Phillips asked Chairman Aron if the original special approval granted in 1981 by the Littlefields had been reviewed and extended and Chairman Aron responded that it had been and referred to minutes bearing out same . Mr . Phillips found objectionable the fact that there would be two buildings on a lot with mixed uses because under the ordinance a proposed use should not be detrimental to the general amenity of the neighborhood character in an amount sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants . Mrs . Shirley Raffensperger of 139 Pine Tree Road addressed the Board . She had the following comments : ( a ) She was not opposed to daycare and felt indeed it was necessary to have daycare available in the community but was opposed to a daycare facility of this size in a residential neighborhood . ( b ) The first time this matter came up was in 1979 and was approved as a substitute for a non - conforming multiple use with 15 children from 8 : 30 a . m . to 3 : 30 p . m . and in the findings it was said that a Montessori school would have no greater impact on • the neighborhood than an apartment house for students . Nobody complained and it was approved but not implemented . In July of 1981 the Littlefields appeared before the Planning Board and the • 14 • Zoning Board of Appeals and asked to have a Montessori school in a single family residence which had been converted to two family and would be used purely for a nursery school . The neighborhood supported this for 30 children . Mr . Fabbroni , Town Planner at that time , said he thought there would be a problem of compatability with the immediate properties together with the fact that this was a residential area as far as the Town zoning was concerned . Mr . Fabbroni stated at that time that if the same house was situated on five acres of land it would be possible to look at it in the spirit of what the ordinance intended for R15 districts . If Mr . Fabbroni thought there should be five acres for 30 children how many acres should there be for 120 children . ( c ) Because there is a vacant back lot it does not justify cramming a big building on this lot . ( d ) The school lot itself has about 28 , 000 square feet which includes the 20 foot lane , but excludes another 40 feet which is marked on the map as access to that back lot . If there is a building on that lot of 7840 square feet you have a lot coverage of 28 % . With the parking and circulation space which is about 121000 square feet 710 of the lot would be covered . If you add the playground space 990 of the lot would be used . The Cornell land and the Bredbenner land should not be considerations as buffers . Therefore , this is not an appropriate space for this size daycare center . • ( e ) She was outraged by the Planning Board ' s comment the character of the residential neighborhood in that there about already schools , churches , and the polo barn there . She was concerned that this would be an ongoing justification of changing the essential character of the neighborhood more than it is now . ( f ) This is an R15 district , essentially a family residential neighborhood but yet it is being saturated . She believes in change but the changes should be equitable and not all in one or two areas . ( g ) She had been before the Board for 26 years with petitions and she needed to know how the neighborhood was viewed . ( h ) She asked the Board to turn down this request and any similar request in an R15 neighborhood because it does not meet the intent of the zoning ordinance . Donna Green , of the Eastwood area , addressed the Board in favor of the school . She explained that she was a working parent and depended on daycare for her children . She stated that Mrs . Littlefield ' s first priority was the safety and care of the children in the facility . She further stated that East Hill residents and other residents needed a larger daycare center of • the quality that the Littlefields offered . She urged the Board to allow the Littlefields to establish a larger facility . 15 • Several letters were presented to Chairman Aron from parents in favor of the appeal of the Littlefields . They are as follows : From David and Martha Stipanuk - Exhibit 6 From Elise West - Exhibit 7 From Marcia James Sawyer - Exhibit 8 From Deborah H . Streeter - Exhibit 9 From Dale Arrison Grossman - Exhibit 10 A petition was also presented in favor of the school being allowed to expand containing 32 signatures . Said petition was read by Chairman Aron . A copy of said petition is attached hereto as Exhibit 11 . Of the 32 signatatories , one was present at the meeting . Chairman Aron was asked to read the addresses of the signatories which he did . As to the environmental assessment a motion was made by Edward King as follows : WHEREAS , this Board finds the following : • ( a ) The building is too large for a 1 . 5 acre lot and would have an adverse visual impact on the neighborhood . ( b ) The increase to 80 to 120 students is not consistent with the purpose of an R15 district . ( c ) The use would be incompatible with the residential neighborhood , ( d ) The increase in traffic would be too high , ( e ) There was no elevation plan of the proposed building ; ( f ) There was much opposition from the neighborhood residents to the proposed appeal , NOW , THEREFORE , it is RESOLVED that this Board finds , with the proposal as presented , a positive declaration of environmental significance , and recommends that a full environmental impact statement be provided . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . • The voting was as follows : 16 Aye - Aron , Reuning , Hewett , King Nay - None Chairman Aron then declared the appeal moot as of that evening to give the applicant a chance to file a full environmental impact statement and then the other aspects of the variance could be considered . There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Beatrice Lincoln Recording Secretary APPROVED :/ HenrywAron , Chairman Exhibits 1 through 11 attached • • C PART II - Environmental Assessment Little Feet MIonte,sori Center • A. Action is Unlisted , Be Action will receive coordinated review (Planning Board) , C. Could action result in an- adverse effects on to or arising fret the f0122!! Mr. Me E�rcistinq air duality, surface or groundwater quality ortat noise levels , existJr, traffic Patterns , d waste roduction or dim sal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooda , ,g problems7 . No sIgn ticant adverse Br act is expected 'in regard to air or water quality or quantity , mise levels , solid waste production or disposal , or in. regard to erosion, drainage , or flooding problem. potential .. sub] ect to the approval of the final drainage uprovement plan. by the Town Engineer, Vn.e site alterations proposed would have only a localized , on-site impact that is expected to be mitigated through proper construction and site restoration, practices , and through inspection of development by the Town , No significant adverseuipac-t is expected. in -regard to traffic as long as the scheduling of staggered arrivals and departures is strictly maintained and enforced by the applicant . Me 16 parkinc, spaces and 5 pick-up/drop�of spaces proposed for the initial phase of the proposal_ would be adequate for the proposed operation . Further parking expansion for- 8 or 9 cars would be feasible in the area noted on the plan . The Town should require such expansion whenever a need for such arises . The proposed driveway width would be adequate for emergency vehicle access and for general site circulation needs , provided that the final driveway plan is subject to the approval . of the • Tbwm Engineer , The proposed landscaping should be further revised to assist in. gating tential visual. czn . noise zregard.. . _ Fo , . , . . Gts^ an to the. use. . of-. the. . . . . , site . Additional l ;capi:. su�u xx rbViaerJ J_rb �' ' • the v�cinity of the parking lot . Final plant materia?s' shau d be - subject to.: Plannerapproval ` by the Tc ,ars. . . An existir_g spruce tree near the u' -tersection _ of the driveway w Lth honness Lane should be . 1:Ubb� u or � Proposed. safe sight distance , pr_e �erably removed . to ensure The plaY`9' rOW4 area as currently revised v=.ld be adequate for 15 children, as proposed by the applicant . it is the scJzool ' s current practice to stagger the use of aitdoor play area �y groups of proximately this sizer so that no signifi �t 11upact in regardto s expected . 'finoise or to the welfare of e children i C2 , Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or other natural_ or cultural resources , or cCRTLIEetv or neighborhood character? - --- The school has been in successful operation . across the street Lane for several years , andon Tionn.ess has proven ccFrpatible rVith neighborhood character , Because of the proposed location of the school , the building and site designas revised , and as subject to certain conditions , would not adversely impact neighborhood character . It is recommended that the existing 4-unit building be repainted to enhance the school building and general environs . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife significant habitats , or threatener , or enaancered s cipso? species , • No significant species or habitats exist on the site- , Exhibit 1 C4 ® A ccmrr mty ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted , . or a . • cikinge in use orurtens�ty of use of land or other natural resources? No significant adverse urpact is expected in regard to t1-tese factors , subject to the conditions described in Part IIT_ be5aw. Permission was granted in 1979 by the Zoning Board of Appeals for a srtaller-scale school in the existinig 4F unit building , but this plan was neve;: I le. anted , In 1881 the .Zoning Boaxd of Appeals granted Special 13pproval for the existing school. . operation . Yard configurations and areas are recra-xariended for this Special Approval , The 15 % building coverage on the site is within t1je 20 % permitted JIM R1-5 Districts . In regard to the existing (--unit buLiklinc which ' is proposed at this time to remain under the same family owner. ship as . the proposed school appr(rxir�ite.7y 30 , 000 square feet would be reserved foj� thi building, so tbat a residential density compatible with that in the neighborhood would be expected to be mains• d ned if the property were ever subdivided . The school, site would encompass approximately- o91 acres , and is currently enhanced by vacant land cwned . kry Cornell University to the north , and by an adjoining resident on the east . The proposed use would be snT filar to other church and nursery school uses in the Honness/Pine Tree/Slateiville area , Because of the proposed school location ,. and the hours and specific space requirements of day care operation , no significant adverse impact i.s expected to the general residential density of the area . C5 . Growth , subsSuent development ,. or related activities likely to be s induced by the proposed actionAs subject to the conditions recommended in Part III below, the com=ity • need for day care , and the benefits of - providing day- care in this location , are considered to outweigh any potential adverse jmaacts in regard to growth. . Any lar.lar. . propoosal..s _ yr ..1d r . e.. ft '-` r�er. . 3 ria i Or _ Not � Cha Seoondarye cru-�zlative , or ,* of e effects not- identified an Not expected . C7 . A change in use of either quantity or twe of enercryo> Not expected , D . Is there or - is there Likely to be , contro rersy related to potential adverse environnental ITrrlacts ? At a Public Hearing on the proposal on May 19 , 1987 , oertain wncerja.s about the proposed sc:000l expansion were raised by rcembers of the Honness Vane cumlunity in regard to traffic safety and density ,. . While the environmental capacity of the site is adequate for the school use as proposed , including aspects of site circulation design and Honness Lane traffic capacity , and while it appears feasible that the applicant can adequately regulate tae activities and use of the site , it is recommended that a . phasing of school expansion be required , to perrrnit the evaluation of those concerns , raised at the Public Hearing . PART III • A negative determination of envirora-rental signuicance is recamend. ed , subject to the following conditions , a . Special Approval shall be granted for relocation and expansion of • the school for up to 75 enrollees , with further expansion of the school to up to 120 enrollees subject to Special Approval review in December , 1. 987 . b . The final drainage and driveway improvement plan and installation shall be subject to approval by the Town xmineer . e. The final planting plan, schedule , and installation shall be subject to approval by the TMm Planner. d . All ' Parking and standing shall be on the site , with access . for emergency vehicles maintained at all tiTtes . e . Parking , delivery , and ioad.31-x, rules and scheduling shall be implemented and enforced by the applicant . f . All playground areas shall be aDW!etely fenced . grt 'fie Special Approval shall be subject to all ; conditions a3ad regulations reclai.red by the New xork State Educata_on Department and the Tompkins County Health Department . h . The 4- unit building should be repainted to enhance the proposed school , i . the Town shall reserve the right to impose additional conditions at any time . Ind Agency: T0';7n of Ithaca Zoi`li ng Berard of Appeals Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner Review Date . May - 14 , 1987 , revised May 28 , 1987 • • ~' Little Feet Montessori Center • - 1 - 142 Honness Lane Planning Board , June 2 , 1987 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Little Feet Montessori Center Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , June 2 , 1987 MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request: for Special Approval of a School Use , pursuant to Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a nursery school building on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 16 , located in a Residence District R- 15 at 142 Honness Lane , for the proposed relocation of the existing Little Feet Montessori Center , currently in operation at 139 Honness Lane , Parcel No . . 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 6 . 2 . The proposed building construction is an Unlisted Action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively • designated to act as Lead Agency , and for which a recommendation of a negative determination of environmental significance has been made by the Town Planner , subject to certain conditions . 3 . The proposal has been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public Hearing on May 19 , 1987 , . and as adjourned to June 2 , 1987 . 4 . On June 2 , 1987 , the Planning Board reviewed a revised plan for the school entitled " Little Feet Day Care , Honness Lane , Town of Ithaca " , by R . A . Boehlecke , Jr . , Architect , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made , subject to certain conditions described in this report . 2 . That the Planning Board determine and hereby does determine that : a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . • c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive Exhibit 2 • Little Feet Montessori Center 142 Honness Lane Planning Board , June 2 , 1987 • plan of development of the Town . 3 . That the . Planning Board further recommend and hereby does further recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Special Approval be granted for the proposal as presented , ;subject to the following conditions : a . That the Special Approval be granted for the relocation and expansion of the school for up to 80 enrollees , with further expansion of the school to up to 120 enrollees subject to Special Approval review in June , 1988 . b . That the final drainage and driveway improvement plan and installation be subject to approval by the Town Engineer . c . That the final planting plan , schedule , and installation be subject to approval by the Town Planner , with additional plantings to be located between the parking and drop - off areas and the existing building on the lot and also between the parking area and adjacent property to the east . d . That all parking and standing be on the site ,, with access for emergency vehicles maintained at all times . e . That the parking , delivery , and loading rules and scheduling be implemented and enforced by the applicant . f . That all playground areas be completely fenced . g . That the Special Approval be subject to all conditions and regulations required by the New York State Education Department and the Tompkins County Health Department . h . That the spruce tree at the southeast corner of the property be limbed up to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and the Town Planner to permit adequate sight distance at the driveway entrance . 4 . That the Planning Board further recommend and hereby does further recommend : a . The granting of a rear yard variance for reduction of the required rear yard . b . The repainting of the four - unit building to enhance the proposed school . c . That the Town reserve the right to impose additional conditions at any time . • Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein ; Kenerson . Nay - None . Little Feet Montessori Center • - - - 142 Honness Lane 3 - Planning Board , June 21 1987 • CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Nancy M . u] ler , Secretary , Town of thaca Planning Board , June 3 , 1987 . • • DAY CARE AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT COUNCIT. OF TOMPK INS COUNTY . INC . 306 N . AURORA STREET , ITHACA . NEW YORK 14850 ( 607 ) 273- 0259 June 9 , 1987 Valerie Littlefield Littlefeet Montessori Day Care Center 139 Honness Lane Ithaca , N . Y . 14850 Dear Valerie : You informed us that Littlefeet Montessori School is exploring exploring expansion of their program to allow it to serve more children . Based on our experiences and knowledge as a coordinating agency for child care in Tompkins County , we strongly support this endeavor . The following statistics may be of assistance to you : At least 2 , 500 children under 5 need day care in our community . • - There are 575 licensed or certified spaces for children . There are another approximately 700 children cared for in the homes of family day care providers registered with the Day Care Council . Of the 485 spaces in Day Care Centers , there are only 52 spaces for toddlers . ( ages 18 months - 3 years ) Our most recent update ( May 1987 ) of day care needs ( 12 of 13 licensed centers responded ) shows that all toddler spaces are full and there are 84 names on waiting lists . In all there are 914 names on center waiting lists . In 1986 the Day Care Council received calls from parents needing care for 2 year olds alone . Many of these parent callers live in the east Ithaca/ Belle Sherman neighborhoods . Clearly , there is an overwhelming need for more day care spaces for toddlers . Your program ' s location in east Ithaca also is fortunate since there are no other day care centers convenient to families looking for care in that area . We hope that this information will assist you in making the decision to expand your services . If we can be of more help , please. contact us again . Sincerely , J. • Margaret F . Dill Executive Director A UNITE AX AGENCY xibit 3 • We, the undersigned, residents of Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road, hereby request that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals DENY the proposal for Special Approval of a School Use and the proposed construction of a nursery school building in a Residence District R 15 at 142 Honness Lane. ' We oppose this proposal on the following grounds: 1 . ' The requested size of 7890 square feet 1s too large for an R 15 district, and inappropriate to the size of the lot. 28 The scale of operation Re, , 120 children ) 1s Inappropriate for an R15 district, and is not consistent with the character of the district in which it Is located. 5. The size of the outdoor space Is inappropriate for the proposed number of children. 448 The access of a 18' driveway Is riot sufNclent for the number of carts • which will be coming to the proposed facility, nor is it sufficient for entrance and egress of emergency vehicles, such as fire engines. 5. The loading area for discharging and picking up children Is not sufficient for the number of vehicles needed to transport 120 children, 6. In spite of the applicants ' claim that there will be varied hours of parents arrival , the majority of working parents will be arriving and departing at peak hours, and driving on Honness Lane will be heaviest when residents are leaving for or returning from work . 7. A multiple dwelling presently exists on the proposed building lot, This multiple dwelling in a residential area is, already a non -conforming use in an R 15 zone, There should ,not be an additional non -conforming use on the same property. 8, Article IV , Section 11 part. 4 speaks to the " public" aspect of contemplated buildings and/ or land use ( i . e, public library, public museum , public schools, etc. ) The Littlefield School proposal bears no relationship • to the " public" use repeated 1n the Article mentioned, It 1s a strictly commercial endeavor proposed for a residential zone . 11 4Revised from the original petition of June 2, 1987. Exhibit 4 Lam_ wit A40o; . � Ilei G�A r 2 fo zod rl r 2 / PiC / rC. ,\ J/U�� LA\ . Trep � � IF7 C . / LL11, ILLQ f e 00 CC of Ise "��► �'� � / Ste' 7/ /1C- / < ee,-) �, • '� Rte(-'✓�. n'. 7�-� C rot) h � 07 J r lt!- Y 1� i 7�► ) • + ^ L, i • eTown of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals From- Barbara J. Bredbenner 141 Honness Lane Ithaca , . New York Date- June 7 , 1987 RE : Perialas - Littlefield - Nursery School Proposed Construction at 142 Honness Lane Ithaca , New Yor) After attending the Town of Ithaca meeting on June 2 , 1987 , I was concerned that the Board would approve a second non- conforming building on the same lot known as 142 Honness Lane. The current building is a former Vetsburg house which was moved to its present location sveral years ago. It is a legally non -conforming structure , I own the adjoining lot ( 146 Honness Lane ) which was purchased in 1958 . I have been approached by Mr. Perialas to purchase said. lot. Since I have always lived in Ithaca and having lived in this residential area for about 56 years , I decided to talk with the home owners on Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road . Time did not allow us prior to the Town Board approval to call .a special meeting of . the East Hill Association . On Saturday , June 6 , 1987 I started my walking tour at 10 AM and finished at 6 PM - a total of eight hours of continuous work . I contacted 58 home owners and found 28 home. There were many comments made by the home owners of which I will list a few : 1- Why wasn ' t everyone contacted by letter since it concerns all. of Honness Lane as well as Pine Tree Road? 2- The volume of traffic in our area is already too c oncentzated and congested . 3- Itwas the general opinion of everyone to remain residential and . not approve business variances . 4- Excessive speed on Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road needs controlled and monitored , Cars are currently passing on the double solid line . 5- Stop light to be erected at Honness Lane and Pine Tree roads for the purpose to slow the current traffic down to a safe speed , to protect the children waiting at this dangerous intersection and to allow the cars from Honness Lane to proceed on.. Pine Tree Road without taking their own lives in hand . We are currently unable to see until we have proceeded into the intersection . 6- Site plans provided for the new construction proposes a highly congested area of traffic on Honness Lane with one driveway. 7- Honness Lane people requested that the huge trucks be restricted from Honness Lane as they have done on other roads . SK car count at the foot of Honness Lane and a second placed at the upper end near Pine TreeRoad . This would give us a more accurate count than the present estimating or projection of figures of several bears ago , Exhibit 5 V Page II Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals From Barbara J. Bredbenner date June 7, 1987 9- When I asked why they did not attend the meet&jgs , many replied that the- Board pays lii:t1 ( attention tothe items presented . 10 . . At the Townf meeting on June 20 1987 , the town passed to trim an existing 30 .year old located on the south west corner of the adjoining lot known as 146 Honness Lane. Their reason was that this tree obstructs the view of the proposed road at 142 Honness Lane. It was suggested that the proposed road be moved. further west using the .current driveway. One neighbor, suggested two roads- an entrance .and exit roads to be constructed because of the congestion to be created . . . • After my contacts with my neighbors , it is my feeling to retain my lot for a residential endeavor as opposed to a commercial undertaking. The residents of Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road hope the Board of Appeals will consider this letter and adhere to the current residential building codes . We Thank you . CC-Noel Desch Douglas Armstrong • • June 8 , 1987 To : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board From : David and Martha Stipanuk *dt4a�) 116 Homestead Circle / �r( J Ithaca , NY 14850 Re : Construction of daycare facility on Honness Lane We wish to state our support for Val Littlefield ' s proposal to construct a new daycare facility on Honness Lane . First , as parents of three young children with daycare needs , we recognize the relative lack of facilities for daycare for any age group of children in the East Hill area of Ithaca . Little Feet Montessori Center has provided preschool care for a number of children of ages 18 months to 5 - 6 years , but the present capacity of the center is limited . The growth in the population / housing in this part of Ithaca suggests that the need for daycare will continue to escalate in the next few years . Therefore , we feel that there is a very real need for construction of a larger daycare • facility . Second , a facility constructed for daycare would represent several significant improvements over the house that is presently used . A major improvement that should affect both families served by the center and local residents is an improvement in the parking facilities . I understand that the proposal includes construction of 'a substantial parking lot with drive - through access . This should eliminate much of the congestion and need for backing out into traffic that presently occurs . We do not feel that the amount of traffic created by the operation of a larger facility on Honness Lane would be substantial if parking and traffic - flow patterns are carefully considered . The traffic would be restricted to weekday mornings and afternoons and spaced out over at least two hours during both periods because of differing schedules of individual families with children in daycare . • Exhibit 6 Tune q , l q87 Oro T11e. Z. on � n9 Board of the. Town of l +haca. : Ike. support efForts i' o expand -1 ifte day care �Aei ( i l i e S �' su l � �. d by +h �. L ► + rle Fe. -e-� N� on � essori Gen � e. r. P As parents of o, ch ; ld V4 k , a + tencls Little i i s t rn o r+ a n+ + o us +hai our ch ► l d Is like you + o knov%1 -fha+ � p away In A Safe and nur + urin �envirorimer t +ha+ f :5 only ►Y� inv + e5 9 from our work places . We. a ,re Corl' unafe- +haf We vlere able 1" 0 ,Enroll our child a + Li tf le Fe -e* bioee.ause +here i s agree J %emRAJ 0dor day care in fh � s area • ThrouShout i1ne years + ha+ our child has been ai Li + fle f= ee. ' , O`t'her Pare. nis have. Wa ►' ied unfil +Dere were %1Op %enirn9s '' f'or +l ie ► r ch ► ldrern • They vWa � tec{ because +kQy +oo heeded (' es onsible reliable day care, for +1 ieir children ' Parents Gnd ch ► ldr� n P q re 5-H l l v� ck i � n 9 fo r m o r-e day We " ave w a-Ich .e,d �' he d � v �lpl� ment around �} ohn � ss Lane Wi + h mi Xted linos . Our eh118 ea e rly Mimes all + kC d '' Ff'erent Fee � CO ►1Stru c--hon ve h ► c l �e s s �e. ,e n everyday A n d ►'�i e hat -I� e L, itf le Fre ld s have. -�' al4en re c i ai e -I- h e mtr a` ca r e i` e s s Lone, , n .e' S s a-F city O n A U 1'1 n -Fp �- ry -I- o guarten + ee ev %erY • WC ur e. yov +o a11oW L Peel L/ 1 1':Se !lest Exhibit 7 1 tat 1 04 A6/� �.� tom, -� Exhibit 8 • Ithaca Zoning Board Ithaca , New York To the Zoning Pr_, arda I support any action by the Zoning Board which would facilitate an expansion of Littlefeet School " I can personally attest to the need for additional daycare facilities in the East Hill area . The need is especially acute for the toddler age children . This is a subject of great interest to me and others who work at Cornell and are faced with limited daycare choices close to our employment . My son has been at Littlefeet School for two years during that time the director , Valerie Littlefield , has always enforced the parking rules very strictly at her daycare facility " I am confident she would do the same at a new facility . Thank you for the opportunity to express my position on this issue , • �� ,� AFft- J4,'7 ' Deborah H . Streeter Assistant Professor Cornell University • Exhibit 9 f DALE ARRISON GROSSMAN 111 JUDD FAILS ROAD • ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 June 10 , 1987 Board of Zoning Appeals City of Ithaca Re : Application of Valerie and John Littlefield Dear Zoning Board Members : I am a faculty member at Cornell ; my husband is an attorney in . Ithaca . Until we were able to place our child at the Littlefeet Montessori Center , locating reliable , quality day care was a serious problem for us . Sam has been at Littlefeet for three years and we have nothing but praise for the operation of the Center and the value of his experience there . The Ithaca area is extremely fortunate to have a number of high quality day care facilities available to • accommodate families with working parents . It is a fact , however , that day care facilities are not prevalent in the East Hill area , especially programs of the caliber of the Littlefeet Center . I strongly urge the Board to allow the Littlefields to expand and upgrade their physical plant to serve the growing demand in the area for quality day care services . Sincerely , Dale Arrison Grossman • Exhibit 10 • a ° LITTLE FEET MONTESSORI CENTER . 139 HONNESS LANE ITHACA N . Y . 14850 June 9 , 1987 We , the undersigned , support the need for day care in the East Hill area ; in specific , Little Feet Montessori Center on Honness Lane , NAME ADDRESS J 2 4 1 , ( f <so Ka PLL 8 10 1 1 . } rum y�` � i �'c'i1 � L L.; �J { �_Sf C� .:�� �af /� _ r- � , �` Ca13 . 12 � a� .. 15 16 r 17 Jos - 19 jP 21 f 23 z= X� r.� .� y�' S �� r 24 UA 25 26 ,�z _ e=z28 bet y C 30 � F