HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1987-11-18 • U71THACA TOWN OFDate�s
TOWN OF ITHACA Cler
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 18 , 1987
A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held on November 18 , 1987 in the Ithaca Town Hall ,
126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan Reuning , Edward King ,
Edward Austen , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Planner
Susan Beeners , and Town Attorney John C . Barney ,
ALSO PRESENT : George P . Nickles , Matoula Nickles , Peter
Nickles , Ed Dellert , Les Reizes , Peggy Reizes , Bill Seldin , Marie
Carlo , Dick Anderson , Michael J . Hannan , Hoyt D . Benjamin ,
Shirley Raffensperger , Tom Neiderkorn , Douglas Armstrong , John
Littlefield , Valerie Littlefield , Gus Lambrou .
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 .
s
Photographs of the subject properties were passed around for
the Board to review .
The first item on the agenda for consideration was as
follows :
APPEAL of Leslie N . and Margaret B . Reizes , Appellants , with
respect to a request for authorization by the Zoning Board
of Appeals , pursuant to Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to extend an existing non -
conforming residence structure at 1061 Taughannock Blvd . ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 21 - 2 - 13 , Residence District
R- 15 . The existing residence is located approximately ten
feet from the south side yard lot line , a room addition
proposed for the north side of said residence would create a
north side yard of approximately two feet .
Mr . Leslie N . Reizes addressed the Board . Mr . Reizes
explained that his house was built on a non- conforming , steep and
densely wooded lot . He continued that they had been living at
another home but decided to make the lake home their permanent
home but the house is too small for their family and the only
practical way to enlarge the structure is to add to the north
side since adding on the west is prevented by a gully and the
• east side of the house has decks on the upper and lower levels .
Chairman Aron stated that the property in question had belonged
2
• to a party named Mintz at one time and Mr . Mintz had appeared
before the Zoning Board of Appeals eight times and referred to
minutes substantiating same and stated that the Board was aware
of the problems with this property . Chairman Aron inquired how
long ago Mr . Reizes had bought the property and he responded that
it was about three years ago . Chairman Aron asked if he knew
when he bought the property from the Mintzes that the property
was a small , legal non - conforming use and Mr . Reizes responded
that he did . Chairman Aron inquired whether in the three years
Mr . Reizes ' s family had expanded and he responded it had not but
when they originally ; purchased the property they resided in
Athens , Pennsylvania and used the Taughannock Boulevard property
as a summer home . He4continued that subsequently they moved to
Ithaca and made this property their year- round home .
Chairman Aron inquired what the reason was for adding on the
room and Mr . Reizes responded it was to make the home more
livable as a permanent residence by adding a dining room and a
family room .
Chairman Aron inquired what the lot lines dimensions were
and Mr . Reizes responded that the house was not built parallel to
the lot lines so it was approximately four feet at the northeast
corner and approximately two feet at the northwest corner .
• Chairman Aron requested a survey map and Mr . Reizes presented two
maps , one dated September 29 , 1980 , made by T . G . Miller , and one
dated in 1978 made by ;; Mr . Dougherty . Upon examination it was
determined that these, two maps indicated a discrepancy and
Chairman Aron asked if this had been resolved . Mr . Reizes stated
that that afternoon he had gone over the property with Mrs .
Leonard , his neighbor , to show her exactly where the addition was
to be and she had agreed that it was acceptable to her .
Edward King said that the Miller survey showed the property
at 1061 Taughannock Boulevard under construction and the earlier
Dougherty survey showed ' no houses under construction so the Board
did not have any survey site plan showing the location of the
structures . Mr . Reizes stated that the Miller survey showed
where the structure was built but Mr . King stated he believed the
structure was not built where that survey showed it as proposed
to be built . Moreover , he continued , the Miller survey did not
show structures on the properties to the north of Leonard
although it did show a house on the south . Mr . King inquired if
there was no structure on the Leonard property in the area either
side north of Mr . Reizes ' s property and Mr . Reizes responded that
there was not .
Chairman Aron maintained that when Mr . Reizes bought the
house he knew the lot was small and was a legal , non - conforming
use but now he was before the Board to extend a non- conforming
• use that would make the lot line two foot plus or minus . He
continued that he had difficulty believing the addition was an
• 3
absolute necessity . Mr . Reizes repeated that when the house was
bought it was to be used only for a summer residence and was
suitable for that purpose but now that it was to be a full - time
residence it was not . He continued that he maintained a law
practice in Waverly , New York as well as Ithaca and had decided
to move permanently to Ithaca because they liked it so well .
Further , he stated , an expansion of the non- conforming use would
not interfere with any properties in the area as the Leonard
property to the north " had its house completely out of sight over
the bank and their house could not be seen from the Leonard
house . He went on to say that the Friedlander house to the south
was also more towards the lake so that their using up the full
width of the lot in the area they wished to expand would not
interfere with the use • of either adjacent property . He continued
that the property next north of Leonard was also close to the
lake as was the property next south of Friedlander which was way
down on the lake a considerable out - of - sight distance away . He
repeated the expansion . , of the non - conforming use would not in any
way interfere with the neighborhood as it was completely in
character with the neighborhood and would not decrease the
property values in the neighborhood but would rather increase
them .
Chairman Aron stated that the only concern of the Board was
• whether there was a plausible reason to allow Mr . Reizes to
expand an already non - conforming use and whether it would impede
upon the rights of others who might in the future build or buy
property in the area . lMr . Reizes thought the Leonard parcel was
a completely impractical building site to build a house on .
The public hearing was opened . No one appeared .
The public hearing was closed .
Chairman Aron read a letter from Roger B . Sovocool on behalf
of Mrs . Libby Leonard whose property adjoined the Reizes property
on the north and who lived at 1065 Taughannock Boulevard . A copy
of said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 .
Mr . Reizes said that after he learned of the letter he had
spoken with Mr . Sovocool that day and Mr . Sovocool suggested that
Mr . Reizes go over the lot lines with Mr . Neiderkorn , Mrs .
Leonard ' s friend which ' he had done . Mr . Reizes stated he had
gone over the matter with Mrs . Leonard that afternoon and she
was in complete agreement with his plans and she had no
opposition to a structure being placed in the intended area .
Chairman Aron said that it was not because the Board did not
trust Mr . Reizes ' s claim that Mrs . Leonard was in agreement but
they had no evidence of this and needed something to substantiate
• this claim such as a letter . Chairman Aron further stated that
the survey matter had not been straightened out yet . Mr . Reizes
• 4
said that Mrs . Leonard had told him she would be at the meeting
that evening but had not appeared .
Edward King said that if there was to be an extension it
would seem more reasonable to him to make it on the east side
even though decks were present there . He continued that to make
a rational decision on this matter the Board needed to see a
floor plan of the house and a location survey of the structure on
the lot . He suggested ' a boundary line agreement be obtained from
Mrs . Leonard before a survey was done . Mr . King stated that with
these items in hand the Board would be in a better position to
make a decision and suggested that this matter be adjourned to
the next meeting .
A motion was made by Edward King as follows :
RESOLVED , that this matter be adjourned to the first meeting
of this Board in January of 1988 and that members of the
Board be advised to go and look at the subject property .
11
The motion was seconded by Edward Austen .
The voting was as follows :
• Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The second item on "the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Earland and Robert Mancini , Appellants/ Property
Owners , Richard R . Anderson , Applicant/Agent , from the
decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement
Officer denying permission for the construction of a
proposed moving and storage facility proposed to be located
on a 1 . 5 + acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 -
33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , 90 . 23 acres total , in a Light Industrial District
at 608 Elmira Road . , The proposed building would be greater
than 25 feet in , height with a front yard setback of
approximately 90 feet and a south side yard setback of
approximately 45 feet . Said building would also front on a
private road . Permission is denied under Article VIII ,
Section 44 , of the „Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby
a front yard setback no less than 150 feet is required ; a
side yard no less than 60 feet is required , and a building
height no greater than 25 feet is required . Permission is
further denied under Section 280 - a of Town Law which
requires frontage on a public roadway .
• William Seldin , attorney for the applicant , Richard R .
Anderson addressed the Board . Mr . Richard B . Anderson of 246
5
Iradell Roads , Ithaca , New York , the applicant , also appeared
before the Board .
Mr . Seldin stated that the property in question was in a
Light Industrial District and they came before the Zoning Board
of Appeals with the unanimous recommendation of the Planning
Board and a negative declaration with respect to the
environmental impact . Chairman Aron interrupted that as to the
Planning Board recommendation the Zoning Board of Appeals was not
bound by the recommendation of the Planning Board . Mr . Seldin
said that the point he was trying to emphasize was that the basis
for the recommendation)! of the Planning Board was the location of
the property being down below the street level of Elmira Road so
the top of the construction would be about five to six feet above
street level . Mr . Seldin continued that Millbook and Bell ' s and
several other buildings would totally obscure the proposed
construction of Mr . Anderson . Mr . Seldin stated that the impact
on traffic would be minimal because the facility was not one
where the public at large was going to be traveling two and from
it constantly . He explained that what was proposed was a moving
storage facility so only the moving vans , three or four per day ,
would be pulling in and out from the building itself . Mr . Seldin
offered additional photographs of the property which were viewed
by the Board . As to „ the private road , Mr . Seldin offered a
• suggestion to the Board that the provisions of 280 - a be waived
but if the Board wanted to impose a condition that the road be
dedicated then they would proceed with that condition . Mr .
Seldin said that the road was a private road , macadam , that leads
to the property from Route 13 and also out to 13 -A . He said the
road is being privately maintained by Mr . Mancini from whom Mr .
Anderson was attempting to purchase the lot for his storage
facility . He further stated that whatever conditions were
imposed by the Board would be abided by .
A letter was read by Chairman Aron from Earland Mancini
dated October 26 , 1987 ,;, a copy of which letter is attached hereto
as Exhibit 2 . A letter was also read by Frank Liguori ,
Commission of Planning of Tompkins County , dated November 3 ,
1987 , a copy of which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 .
Mr . Seldin stated ,that in the purchase offer a condition was
that the right of way be approved and made part and parcel of the
deed description in accordance with the dimensions of the survey
map and plat plan .
Chairman Aron stated that the Planning Board had met on
November 3 , 1987 and had declared itself the lead agency with
respect to the SEQR in this matter . Chairman Aron read the
resolution of the Planning Board , a copy of which resolution is
attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . The resolution of the Planning
• Board dated November 3 1987 as to the preliminary subdivision
and preliminary site plan approvals was also read , a copy of
8
which resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 .
The public meeting was then opened . No one appeared .
IF
The public meeting was closed .
Chairman Aron asked how high the construction would be and
Mr . Anderson responded it would be 26 feet and therefore he was
asking for a variance for one foot .
Mr . Seldin said that the one foot did make a difference as
to what the storage container units would hold and it had to be
exactly 26 feet from finished grade . Mr . Anderson said that he
put three seven and all half foot containers in the units and he
needed all of the 26 feet to accommodate these containers .
Discussion was held as to the width of the private road and
it was determined that ; it was approximately twenty to twenty- four
feet wide . Mr . Seldin stated that the proposed deed , with
respect to the right of way to the road , would set forth specific
dimensions of the right of way to be agreed upon .
Edward King asked what the elevation of the land was in
reference to Elmira "' Road . Mr . Seldin stated that , in the
• environmental impact '', ' statement as prepared by the Planning
Department , it stated that the roof ridge elevation would be five
to seven feet higher than the elevation of the pavement of the
Elmira Road .
Attorney Barney questioned the maintenance responsibilities
of the road and Mr . Seldin stated that it would have to be a
shared responsibilityliby the owner and those having access and
that there would be an ° agreement to this effect .
Chairman Aron inquired of Mr . Anderson how big of an
operation his business was and Mr . Anderson responded that he
sends out two to fouriitrucks a day and that it was very busy but
that in the wintertimelit slowed down .
Edward King inquired about the other buildings in the area
and what the elevation of those buildings was and it was
determined that at finished elevation to the peak they were about
24 feet in height .
Edward Austen inquired if there would be outside storage and
Mr . Anderson responded ;, there would not be except for the vans for
loading and unloading . ! Mr . Austen inquired as to the location of
the vans and Mr . Anderson indicated on the sketch where the
loading dock would be , ,:
• A motion was madel!; by Edward King as follows :
u
WHEREAS , this Board finds that the proposed structure will
be in a Light ilIndustrial Zone which is on 90 acres
substantially undeveloped , the site in question being about
one and one -half , acres , and being some twenty feet or more
below the elevation of the surrounding state highways , and
because of these facts , the proposal will have very minimal
or no impact on the amenities of the land adjoining the
state highways , and
WHEREAS , it will ' not have any deleterious impact on other
properties within the zone , Mr . Mancini being the owner of
the entire 90 acres , and owning the only other building
there , and
WHEREAS , it is an ideal site for this type of operation
because it is out of the public view and yet it serves a
very useful public purpose , and
WHEREAS as to the height variance , this type of operation
requires a higher height than the normal 25 feet statutory
limitation , and
WHEREAS , as to the private roadway , sufficient evidence was
presented to the Board that ingress and egress to Routes 13
• and 13 -A was available , it is therefore
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance permitting the
setback of the building to be 90 feet rather than the
11
required 150 feet ; that the south side yard be permitted to
be 45 feet rather than the required 60 feet ; and it is
further
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance permitting the
height of the building to be as high as 28 feet ; and it is
further
RESOLVED , this Board approve the siting of the structure on
a private roadway because there is ample access to fire
vehicles and other emergency vehicles , conditional upon the
applicant obtaining a legal right of way for ingress and
egress over such IVrivate road to Route 13 and Route 13 -A ;
and it is further "
RESOLVED , that this variance is conditional upon the
understanding that the conditions imposed by the Planning
Board will be met .i'.
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as °, follows :
• Aye - Aron , Reunin,g , King , Austen
• 1
8
• Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The third item on the agenda was the following .
APPEAL of Michael J . Hannan , Appellant , from the decision of
the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying
permission for the construction of proposed " South Yard "
Warehouse approximately 36 feet in height , proposed to be
located on Five Mile Drive ( N . Y . S . Route 13A ) near Elmira
Road ( N . Y . S . Route 13 ) , on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 -
31 - 3 - 3 . 11 , 1 . 46 acres total , in a Light Industrial District .
Permission is denied under Article VIII , Section 44 , of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance whereby a building height no
greater than 25 feet is required . A height variance for
said proposed warehouse was granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals on May 14 , 1980 , permitting a building height of 32
feet .
Mr . Michael J . Hannan appeared before the Board together
with his attorney , William Seldin .
Chairman Aron indicated Mr . Hannan had appeared before the
• Planning Board on October 20 , 1987 . A copy of the adopted
resolutions as to the SEQR and as to the " South Yard " Warehouse
Revised Site Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 .
Chairman Aron stated that Mr . Hannan was granted a variance
for his building to be, 32 feet in height in 1980 and wondered why
Mr . Hannan now wanted his building to be four foot higher . M r .
Seldin explained that the building was no higher today than it
was in 1980 but there was a difference in the way it was measured
at the time Lew Cartee looked at it as opposed to the way it was
measured at the present time , the difference being where it was
measured from . Mr . Hannan stated that at the present time the
measurement must be taken from the lowest point of the grade to
the highest point of ,, the structure which makes his structure
approximately 34 feet 10 inches and that is why he was asking for
36 feet .
Chairman Aron asked when Mr . Hannan put the trusses up and
Mr . Hannan responded that it was immediately after he was granted
the height variance in 1980 for 32 feet . Chairman Aron asked why
the structure had stood for seven years without a cover and had
not been completed . Mr . Seldin explained that Mr . Hannan had
encountered marital problems and was unable to complete the
structure but now desired to do so .
The public meeting was opened . No one appeared .
• The public meeting was closed .
9
•
Edward King pointed out that the property was listed as Town
of Ithaca tax parcel 31 - 3 - 3 . 1 and it appeared that 3 . 1 was the
original total triangular parcel of some 2 . 6 acres which was
discussed in 1980 . He continued that that parcel had been split
and apparently Mr . Hannan ' s building was on the southerly part ,
being 1 . 3 or 1 . 4 acres known as tax parcel No . 31 - 3 - 3 . 11 , the
northerly strip which is the other half of the parcel being 31 - 3 -
3 . 12 and that apparently seemed to form the roadway . He asked
Mr . Seldin if he was correct and Mr . Seldin responded that he was
as far as he understood it . Mr . Seldin said that he had brought
the abstract with him and read from said abstract an excerpt
pertaining to a road right of way for the purpose of ingress and
egress granted by Mr . Mancini .
Chairman Aron inquired what Mr . Hannan intended to store in
the building and Mr . Hannan stated it would be restaurant type
equipment . Chairman Aron asked if there would be any outside
storage and Mr . Hannan replied there would not be . Chairman Aron
asked if there would be security lighting and Mr . Hannan
responded there would be and that it would be direct lighting .
Joan Reuning asked what kind of activity this business would
generate and Mr . Hannan responded it would be minimal , that it
• would consist of trucks delivering equipment to the site and a
local delivery truck picking it up to take it to the client . He
estimated it would be two or three trucks a day .
Chairman Aron inquired when Mr . Hannan would complete the
structure if the Board were to grant a variance .
Mr . Seldin then spoke about the problems Mr . Hannan
encountered in 1980 when the building was not completed . Mr .
Seldin said that Mr . Frost , Attorney Barney , and himself worked
things out so that what the Town desired in the interim with
regard to this uncompleted structure could be accomplished until
Mr . Hannan ' s difficulties could be resolved . Mr . Seldin said
that he thought Mr . Hannan had shown good faith in adhering to
the wishes of the Town in this regard . He continued that now Mr .
Hannan was the sole owner in fee of this property and had taken
on a partner , Mr . Benjamin , who had a restaurant equipment
business and together they had formed a joint venture and
intended to seek financing and if successful would start
construction in January of 1988 . Mr . Hannan thought that
construction would be "completed by June of 1988 .
Edward King asked what the elevation of the building would
be and Mr . Seldin responded it would be about 22 feet below the
grade of the state highway . Mr . Frost indicated that the
shrubbery and vegetation on the road would obscure most of the
• view of the building . , Mr . Seldin said that one of the conditions
of the Planning Board was that the vegetation remain intact . Mr .
10
• Hannan said that at low . end there were large willow trees that he
intended to save . Ms . Beeners stated that additional vegetation
was proposed to be planted and there would be a minimum of twelve
evergreen trees planted - at a height of five to six feet near the
entrance onto Route 13 -A to assist in blocking views there and
also on the south side of the building to assist in buffering and
adding to existing spruce , etc . in that general area .
Chairman Aron inquired of Mr . Hannan whether the large boat
that had sat on the property for many years was being disposed of
and Mr . Hannan responded that it was .
Mr . Seldin stated that one of the concerns that Attorney
Barney and Mr . Frost had was Mr . Hannan cleaning up his operation
and thought that with the help of Mr . Barney and Mr . Frost this
had been accomplished . ; Mr . Frost said that he was satisfied that
things had been taken care of .
Ms . Beeners was asked for her recommendation and she stated
that because of the existing vegetation together with the
proposed plantings indicated on the revised site plan , the nature
of the neighborhood along Route 13 -A across from the site which
is largely undeveloped land , and the fact that when one was
driving on 13 and 13 -A much of the building was not visible and
• what was visible would eventually be screened by plantings , she
recommended a negative declaration of environmental significance .
A motion as to the environmental assessment regarding the
height variance was made by Edward King as follows :
RESOLVED , this Board accepts the responsibility as the lead
agency in the environmental review as far as the requested
height variation and that it adopts the recommendation of
the Town Planner to find a negative determination of
environmental significance of this height variance upon the
understanding and condition that the conditions imposed by
the Planning Board as to screening , vegetation , etc . be
followed .
Edward King seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , King , Reuning , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
A motion as to the height variance was made by Joan Reuning
as follows .
• WHEREAS , it appearing that the visual impact from Route 13
• 11
and Route 13 - A of the proposed storage area would be
minimal ; and
WHEREAS , from Route 13 - A the screening will be increased ;
and
WHEREAS , it would be an unnecessary hardship to require the
removal of the existing truss structure that is already
standing ; and
WHEREAS , no one from the public appeared in opposition to
this variance ; it is
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a height variance to permit
construction of " South Yard " Warehouse to be no more than 36
feet in height ; and it is further
RESOLVED , that the conditions as set forth by the Planning
Board with regard to this matter be adopted .
Edward King seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
• Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The last item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of John and Doris Perialas , Property
Owners / Appellants , John and Valerie Littlefield ,
Applicants / Agents , with respect to a request for Special
Approval of a Nursery School Use , pursuant to Article IV ,
Section 1 1 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , for the proposed expansion of Little Feet
Montessori Center to include 44 children , an enrollment of
32 children having been previously approved and presently
attending , and a room addition , at 139 Honness Lane , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 6 , Residence District R - 15 .
Chairman Aron referred to the conditions imposed upon the
Littlefields at the lY81 hearing . Chairman Aron stated that one
of the conditions as to parking , which conditions were imposed
when special approval , was granted in 1981 to the Littlefields ,
was that the parking lot should be striped . Chairman Aron
indicated that from the photographs he had viewed this had not
• been done . Chairman Aron then asked Mr . Frost if he had
witnessed any further violations when he had made his inspection
of the property in November of 1987 . Mr . Frost responded that
Part of the conditions of the special approval was that the
12
parking areas across the street from the school be clearly marked
and that there be signs showing entrance and exit . Mr . Frost
stated that as of his inspection in November of 1987 there were
no clearly marked parking spaces and that some vehicles were
parked on the grass . Mr . Frost went on to say that there was one
sign showing the entrance but this was in poor repair and there
was no exit sign .
Mr . Littlefield acknowledged that they had done nothing with
regard to the parking situation .
Mr . Littlefield explained that there was great demand for
quality daycare in Tompkins County and they were trying to supply
that quality daycare to more children and that was why they were
before the Board . Mr . Littlefield stated that they had tried to
take care of the traffic problem and there had been absolutely no
problem with parking or traffic . Chairman Aron said there must
have been some problem because from the photographs it appeared
that there were cars parked on the lawn . Chairman Aron further
stated that he was aware that during the last snowfall , about ten
days ago , some cars could not park at the school and indeed had
to park on someone else ' s property . Mr . Littlefield said that
was correct but a normal condition on Honness Lane and that if a
neighbor could not get to their house up the street and came to
the school to ask if they could park in their parking lot he
would say yes but caution them to park out of the way so other
people can get through Mrs . Littlefield stated they had also
accommodated neighbors by letting them park in the school parking
lot on weekends , especially one Mrs . Bredbenner .
Chairman Aron asked if the Littlefields had ever considered
buying other land for their school and Mr . Littlefield responded
they had considered doing that across the street but had been
turned down . Chairman Aron said that was still in an R - 15
district and that people want their neighborhood to remain a
residential neighborhood . Chairman Aron continued that the Board
had allowed 32 children to be present on the property and it was
not to exceed that number . Chairman Aron stated that the Board
was taken aback by the fact that the Littlefields were now coming
in to request more children and would it not be more feasible for
them to look for land outside the R - 15 zone and build their
school there .
Mr . Littlefield stated that there were approximately
eighteen people in the neighborhood that had used the school and
referred to a list of same . Mr . Littlefield continued they
wanted their school to be a house in a neighborhood kind of
situation where children were treated with respect and given the
• use of an actual house . Mr . Littlefield felt this kind of
setting was best for the children and indeed they felt they had
the best daycare in the County of Tompkins .
• 13
Chairman Aron stated that what the Board had to consider was
whether to allow more children to be added in an R - 15 district
which is a residential neighborhood .
Mr . Littlefield continued that there was a vast number of
parents who wanted their children to be enrolled in their daycare
center because it is so good for the children . He felt that they
should at least be allowed to utilize the area they had in the
school now to its fullest extent . He said that it was a school ,
an educational institution , and was a benefit to the neighborhood
and to the community as well . Mr . Littlefield could not
understand why the neighborhood did not want them since some of
the children raised in that neighborhood had attended the school .
Mr . Littlefield said they were trying to work things out so the
neighbors would be satisfied and had indeed tried to move across
the street but had been turned down for 120 children and now they
were only asking for 12 more children in an existing building .
Mr . Littlefield said that the traffic question should not be
a problem because according to Town Engineer Flumerfelt ' s report
the practical capacity '' of Honness Lane is 900 vehicles per hour
and right now the use on Honness Lane is approximately 310
vehicles per hour . He continued that even with the additional
• twelve children which would bring the total to 44 children the
use would be brought up to 316 vehicles per hour . He stated that
as far as the traffic is concerned the report showed that the
traffic would not be a ' problem .
Mr . Littlefield continued that the house has been there for
a long time and is attractive , not a square schoolhouse looking
structure , and the additional room would not impede anybody ' s
view .
Chairman Aron asked at this point where Mr . and Mrs .
Littlefield resided and they said they resided on Mecklenburg
Road ,
Chairman Aron stated that even though the house had a
residential facade it was still a business .
Chairman Aron read a letter from George and Matoula Nickles
in opposition to the expansion , a copy of which letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit 7 . He also read two letters from
Edgar and Barbara Bredbenner , also in opposition , copies of which
letters are attached hereto as Exhibits 8 and 9 .
Mr . Littlefield said that after the Planning Board meeting
he had thought of a way to make a single very small driveway in
the front of the house so that no trees would have to be removed .
• The public meeting was opened .
• 14
Peter Nickles spoke for his parents , George and Matoula
Nickles who lived next door to the residence in question . Mr .
Nickles stated that cars now parked at the residence across the
street which is an apartment house and also a business venture .
He wondered what would happen to the parking situation for the
Littlefield School if that business across the street were sold .
George Nickles who lives next door to the Littlefield School
said that he bought his house to relax in his senior years in
peace and quiet . Mr . Nickles said that there were apartments in
back of his house and expansion all around him and now the
Littlefield School wanted to expand . He maintained that when the
children are outside for recess for two hours in the morning and
two hours in the afternoon he had to put down his windows to hear
his television . Mr . Nickles said that traffic was also bad in
the neighborhood and last week there had been about ten cars
stuck in the road .
Douglas Armstrong of 121 Honness Lane , Ithaca , New York ,
said he was against the expansion of the daycare center across
the street on Honness Lane and was still against the expansion in
its present location . Mr . Armstrong was not opposed to daycare
or to the methods the Littlefields used in teaching . Mr .
• Armstrong was concerned with the continued whittling away of the
R - 15 area which is comprised of Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road
by tremendous growth within a relatively small area . He
continued that this growth indicates a diminishing value of the
residential aspect of life in that area . The duplexes and four
apartment homes have already changed the character of the
neighborhood and even had the Town Planner referring to the area
concerned as the " fringe area for R - 15 . " He stated that Little
Feet was approved in 1978 for 15 students and in 1981 at its
present location , 139 Honness Lane , the number was increased to
32 . Mr . Armstrong felt that every incursion into a residential
area decreases the privileges of all other individual owners in
this R - 15 area of Ithaca . Mr . Armstrong asked that the Board
deny the request for an addition of children to the Little Feet
School at 139 Honness Lane , Ithaca , New York ,
Mr . Gus Lambrou of 156 Honness Lane stated that he had lived
there for 20 years and had bought , the house because it was in a
residential area . Mr . Lambrou asked the Board to deny the
application for an increase in the number of children at Little
Feet School .
Ms . Shirley Rappensperger of 139 Pine Tree Road said she had
lived in this " fringe' area " for 26 years . She stated that when
they moved there there were only single family houses but now
approximately 50 % of those houses have apartments in them . Ms .
• Rappensperger stated that the accumulation of variances , etc ,
puts the residents of that R - 15 neighborhood in a marginal or
fringe neighborhood . She asked that no further changes be
• 15
allowed to increase the problem because she felt the residents
had a contract with the Town of Ithaca in that they lived in an
R - 15 zone and wished it to remain so . She continued that when
the daycare center f irst was proposed many residents were in
favor of it but now feel it has outgrown the neighborhood daycare
kind of concept .
Mrs . Littlef field stated that when the children go outside
on rare special occasions like a Halloween parade or having an
ice cream cone because of a birthday party , they are outside in
groups of 15 and 17 children . For a fire drill , she said ,
everyone evacuates . Other than that , she continued , the children
go out in groups of nine children so that the play area in the
backyard is used by no more than nine children at one time and
sometimes there are only five at a time . Mrs . Littlefield stated
some children don ' t go out at all . She also said that the
children were not out there for recess for two hours but it was
more like a ten or fifteen minute span , especially now when the
weather is not so good , and it was a small group of children at a
time .
Mr . Nickles said that th e children come out twice a day
every day especially in the spring and summertime and he did not
know exactly how many there were at one time as he never counted .
• The public hearing was closed .
Chairman Aron stated that he had been out to the property
himself to view it a number of times and had found that drivers
were very irresponsible and traffic was a problem in that area .
Chairman Aron felt that twelve more children would add to the
traffic problem because it meant twelve more cars in the morning
and twelve more cars in the afternoon in addition to the traffic
already present on that road generated by the other development
in the area , the churches , the non - conforming uses in the area ,
etc . He felt that all this was , in his opinion , not advantageous
to the residents of the area . Chairman Aron stated that when the
Littlefields were granted the extension to 32 children he thought
it was a fine thing and had congratulated the Littlefields on
their concept of daycare but he did not think his conscience
could let him vote for further expansion now in fairness to the
residents of that area .
Mrs . Reuning referred to the list mentioned by Mr .
Littlefield of parents in the area who had used their daycare
facility and noted that only one family on Honness Lane had used
that daycare . A copy of said list is attached hereto as Exhibit
10 . Mrs . Reuning felt that the residents of Honness Lane were
going to feel the impact more than anyone else of further
• expansion in their immediate neighborhood .
Mrs . Littlefield asked then if petitions submitted in
16
opposition to their school should not bear names from Pine Tree
Road and surrounding areas and should only bear names of
residents on Honness Lane ,
Mrs . Reuning that the list was misleading since Honness Lane
was listed first , yet only one family from Honness Lane was
mentioned .
Edward Austen said that when the Board first approved the
school he was very much in favor of it as daycare was needed and
he felt that putting a school in this house was a good use of
that particular property . He continued that when the school was
expanded to thirty children it was questionable because of the
noise and traffic generated . Mr . Austen said that . now he had
serious doubts as to further expansion and felt it would be too
much of an imposition on the neighbors and also felt that the
traffic would be increased significantly .
Mr . Littlefield felt that Little Feet was an educational
institution and something that was important to the whole
community , not just to Honness Lane and it was sad that an
educational institution' was limited because of other things that
had developed in the area . Mr . Littlefield said that those other
• things had developed long before they got there and they
basically had nothing to do with them in terms of the time span
in which they tried to expand their school . Mr . Littlefield felt
that everything else had been allowed to grow around them long
before they came to the area . He mentioned the doctor ' s office
on Pine Tree Road , the church nursery school , the construction a
half a mile away of Cornell , and the Judd Falls Shopping Center .
Mr . Littlefield could not understand why something as important
as a nursery school should be limited or put down just because
all of this other development .
Attorney Barney told Mr . Littlefield a line had to be drawn
somewhere , that if the twelve extra children were approved , then
they would request fourteen , and so on . He continued that there
had been an expansion two or three times and now , according to
many people , for the size of the lot and the location , the number
of children were enough . Attorney Barney said that even though
Mr . Littlefield felt he was victimized by all of the other
development lines had to be drawn and policy had to be followed .
Mrs . Littlefield' clarified that in 1979 or 1980 they were
approved for 15 children on 140 Honness Lane . When they
requested additional " children they moved to a new location on
Honness Lane where they are presently so they have never asked
for more children at their present location . Mrs . Littlefield
said she understood what Mr . Barney was saying as she was also a
• homeowner but additional daycare was needed in the County and she
wondered where it would be placed , in old jailhouses for example
or were the children going to be placed in a situation that was
• 17
good for the children and for the community .
Mr . Littlefield added that there was more room in the
present house than for ° 42 children but he felt that room was
important for children so they would not feel crowded . Mrs .
Littlefield felt that the square footage requirement of 33 square
foot per child mandated by the State of New York was not enough
so that was why they had additional space . She continued that if
they were granted the twelve additional children they would not
come before the Board for this particular property again for any
additional children .
Mr . Littlefield felt that they had tried to work within the
community and with the zoning board to offer something to the
community that was needed , that the engineer ' s report had shown
that traffic would not be a problem , but that because the
community had grown up so much around them , now everyone wanted
to draw the line and they were the ones being turned down .
Chairman Aron referred to the environmental assessment
recommendation of Susan Beeners , a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit 11 . At this point , Ms . Beeners asked if she
could make a revision to this report . Ms . Beeners stated that
• based upon the comments that had been made at the public
hearings , both at the Planning Board and at the Zoning Board of
Appeals , and also based upon the suggestions of the Planning
Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals on this matter , she believed
that there might be significant adverse impact on the
neighborhood and possible erosion of what the intention of the
zoning ordinance was . Ms . Beeners stated it would depend upon
how the Town Boards define comprehensive planning .
Edward King asked Ms . Beeners if the amendments made to her
review changed her recommendation to a positive declaration of
environmental significance and Ms . Beeners responded that she was
recommending that there may be significant adverse impact ,
especially as related to community character and land use plans
and goals as officially adopted , and as based on the amount of
public input that there had been at the meetings and the
deliberations of the Planning Board .
Edward King made a motion as to the environmental impact as
follows :
WHEREAS , the Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency for
this unlisted action , and
WHEREAS , this Board finds that this nursery school is housed
in the most restrictive residential zone area of the Town of
• Ithaca , namely R - 15 , that it occupies what appears to be a
normal single family dwelling which was built with the
standard setback from the south side of Honness Lane on a
18
lot that is 100 feet wide by 175 feet deep , with an adjunct
parking area at. 143 Honness Lane ; and
WHEREAS , the intensity of residential development in this
area within the last several years has been extreme , there
being three times as many dwelling units within a half mile
of this particulararea as there were a few years ago when
the special permit was issued for 32 children in this home ;
and
WHEREAS , the problem of traffic on Honness Lane is increased
by the concentration of vehicles depositing and picking up
children about four times a day , adding to the sense of
noise and congestion in this residential neighborhood ; and
WHEREAS , this Board is not against daycare centers and
accepts the fact that there is a need for more quality
daycare but not ata cost to the residents of the area ; and
WHEREAS , this Board has taken into account the comments made
by the Town Planner in amending her recommendation as to the
environmental impacts and
• WHEREAS , while the Board acknowledges that there is a
daycare facility in the Lutheran Church several hundred feet
east of the property in question , it should be noted that
the Lutheran Church is built several hundred feet back south
away from the highway and has a large front lawn and is a
much bigger property and more suitable for this type of
operation ; it is therefore
RESOLVED , that this Board finds a positive declaration of
adverse environmental impact by this proposal to increase
the number of children from 32 to 44 in its present location
even with the proposed addition to the structure .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as; follows :
Aye - Reuning , Aron , Austen , King
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
There being no further business to come before the Board the
meeting was adjourned , at 9 : 30 p . m .
•
• 19
Respectfully submitted ,
jA"�
Beatrice Lincoln
Recording Secretary
APPROVED
b
Henr 'y'/Aron
Chairman
Exhibits 1 through 11 attached .
•
J
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
HELD NOVEMBER 18 , 1987
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca met in
executive session at a public meeting held on November 18 , 1987 ,
at 9 : 30 p . m . in the Ithaca Town Hall ,
Present : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan Reuning , Edward Austen ,
Edward King .
Chairman Aron brought to the Board ' s attention the fact that
Jack Hewett ' s term would be over at the end of 1987 , and had
agreed to serve for another five year term if appointed , and that
recommendations had to be made for the ensuing year for Chairman
and Vice - Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairman Aron
closed the Executive Session and opened the public meeting for
the purpose of appointment and vote .
Edward King made a motion as follows :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend to the
Town Board of the Town of Ithaca the reappointment of Jack
• Hewett to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a five year term .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King
Edward King made a motion as follows :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend to the
Town Board of the Town of Ithaca the appointment of Henry
Aron as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
ensuing year .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - King , Reuning , Aron , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
Joan Reuning made a motion as follows :
• RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend to the
Town Board of the Town of Ithaca the appointment of Edward
Austen as Vice - Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for
J
• the ensuing year ,
Edward Austen seconded the motiono
The voting was as follows °
Aye - Reuning , King , Austen , Aron
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The public meeting was closedo
There being no further busines the hearing was closed at
9045 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Beatrice Lincoln
Recording Secretary
•
•
O ' CONNOR, SOVOCOOL, PFANN & TYLER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
• SUITE 308 SAVINGS BANK BUILDING
P. O. BOX 789
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850-0789
807.2735959
ROGERB. SOVOCOOL JAMES F. O'CONNOR (190&1984)
GEORGE R. PFANN, JR. EENJAMIN F. SOVOCOOLIRET)RED)
DAVID A. TYLER
M. JOHN SHERMAN
PATRICIA M. OESTERLE
November 16 , 1987
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town of Ithaca
Gentlemen .
It is my understanding that Leslie N . and Margaret B . Reizes
are seeking a variance on premises at 1061 Taughannock Blvd .
Mrs . Libby Leonard adjoins the Reizes property on the . north
and resides at 1065 Taughannock Blvd . There is a serious dispute
over the location of the property line between the two parties .
• Armand Adams , Esq . did considerable research on the said line a
number of years ago . There evidently is on file two surveys of
the property which disagree over the line . In addition , Mrs .
Leonard has occupied the premises claimed by Reizes for over
forty - six ( 46 ) years and her occupancy has been adverse and
continuous .
The property line must be settled between the parties before
any further variance can be given . We respectfully request that
the hearing be postponed on the variance denied until this
property line is settled and established .
ery truly your ,
R R B . SOVOCOOL
RBS : jma
cc . Mrs . Libby Leonard
Mr . Tom Niederkorn
•
Exhibit 1
PAUL MANCINI & SONS, INC. . . . . . . . . . . General Contracting
•PHONE 272-3600-ARBA CODE 607 608 ELMIRA ROAD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
October 26 , 1987
Richard R . Anderson'
246 Iradell Rd .
Ithaca , N . Y . 14850
Dear Dick :
Regarding proposed purchase of bldg . lot at the rear of
606 Elmira Rd .
This is to confirtl egress and exit from our existing private
roads to route 13 and 13A .
v
• Mancini Realty
Earland Mancini
EM/ lou
Exhibit 2
#########
• ## ##### ## TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
#### #######
#### ####### Frank R . Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning
######### ####
############
#############
### ## Town of Ithaca 87 - 25
November 3 , 1987
To : Susan C . Beeners
From : Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of Planning
Re : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239- 1 and -m of the New York State
General Municipal Law ,
Case , Area variance appeal of Richard R . Anderson at 608 Elmira Road
( state highway ) .
This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m .
The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on
intercommunity , county , , or state interests . Therefore , no recommendation is
• indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without
prejudice .
i
Biggs Center , Building A , 301 Dates Drive , Ithaca , New York 14850607 2
( ) 74-
5360
Exhibit 3
i
Richard Anderson Moving and Storage Facility - 1 -
608 Elmira Road
Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Site Plan Approvals
Planning Board , November 3 , 1987
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR
Richard Anderson Moving and Storage Facility
608 Elmira Road
Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary
Site Plan Approvals
Planning Board , November 3 , 1987
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of Site Plan Approval and
Subdivision Approval for a proposed moving and storage facility ,
proposed to be located on a 1 . 5 ± acre portion of Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , 90 . 23 acres total , in a Light
Industrial District at 608 Elmira Road ,
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been
• legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review of the proposed Site Plan and Subdivision , and for which
the Town Planner has recommended that the Planning Board also act
as Lead Agency in the consideration of a variance of the 25 - foot
maximum height requirement to permit a 26 - foot high building .
3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance , subject to certain mitigation
measures which are being included in the further implementation
of the project .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the
environmental review pertinent to this Unlisted Action , make and
hereby does make a negative determination of environmental
significance .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Klein , Ken erson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
•
Exhibit 4
Richard Anderson Moving and Storage Facility - 2 -
608 Elmira Road
Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Site Plan Approvals
Planning Board , November 3 , 1987
•
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Richard Anderson Moving and Storage Facility
608 Elmira Road
Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary
Site Plan Approvals
Planning Board , November 3 , 1987
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1, 6 This action is the consideration of Site Plan Approval and
Subdivision Approval for a proposed moving and storage facility ,
proposed to be located on a 1 . 5 ± acre portion of Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , 90 . 23 acres total , in a Light
Industrial District at 608 Elmira Road ,
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a negative
determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on November 3 , 1987 , has
• reviewed the following material :
" Map of a Portion of Lands of Mancini Realty Company ,
Showing 1 . 5 ± acre Parcel with Proposed Anderson
Building , Location off Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca ,
Tompkins County , New York " , dated October 13 , 1987 ,
signed and sealed by Clarence W . Brashear , L . L . S .
SEQR Short EAF , dated October 26 , 1987 ., signed by Richard R .
Anderson ,
Appeal Form , dated October 23 , 1987 , signed by Richard R .
Anderson .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for . Preliminary Subdivision Approval , having
determined from the materials presented that such waiver will
result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board ,
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval of the subdivision as herein proposed , and
grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the
proposed facility , subject to the following conditions .
• a . The granting of any necessary variances for the proposed
facility by the Zoning Board of Appeals .
Exhibit 5
Richard Anderson Moving and Storage Facility - 3 -
608 Elmira Road
Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Site Plan Approvals
Planning Board , November 3 , 1987
•
b . That the applicant obtain a waiver of the requirements of
Town Law , Section 280 - a , from the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals .
c . The submission of a final subdivision plat and final site
plan , to be subject to approval by the Town Engineer ,
showing the dimensions of the overhead transmission line
right of way , proposed drainage and other site improvements ,
and information on the right of the applicant to use the
private roads shown on the plan for access to Elmira Road
and to Five Mile Drive .
d . That such final subdivision plat show the location , approved
by the Town Engineer , of any roads which may be proposed as
public roads .
e .
The approval of the water supply and septic system by the
Tompkins County Health Department , such approval to be shown
on the final plat .
f . The approval of the building color and landscaping plan by
the Town Planner .
• g . The approval of restoration of the spoil storage area by the
Town Engineer .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
November 6 , 1987 .
•
or
" South Yard " Warehouse Revised Site Plan - 1GOOD
Five Mile Drive
Michael J . Hannan , Owner -
Planning Board , October 20 , 1987
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR
" South Yard " Warehouse. Revised Site Plan
Five Mile Drive
Michael J . Hannan , Owner
Planning Board , October 20 , 1987
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of approval of a revised site
plan for the proposed " South Yard " Warehouse , proposed to be
located on Five Mile Drive ( NYS Route 13A ) near Elmira Road ( NYS
Route 13 ) on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 3 - 3 . 111 1 . 46
acres total .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency , made a negative determination of environmental
significance on June 3 , 1980 .
.3 The Town Planner has recommended that such negative determination
of environmental significance be reaffirmed because the revised
site plan does not represent a significant increase in either
size or scope of the project .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in environmental
review of the revised site plan , reaffirm ' and hereby does
reaffirm a negative determination of environmental -, significance
for the action .
2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that
the Zoning Board of Appeals act as Lead Agency in the
environmental review of any request for modification of a height
variance granted by said Board of Appeals on May 14 , 1980 .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
Exhibit 6
f
4 " South Yard " Warehouse Revised Site Plan - 2 -
Five Mile Drive it
Michael J . Hannan , Owner
Planning Board , October 20 , 1987
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : " South Yard " Warehouse Revised Site Plan
Five Mile Drive
Michael J . Hannan , Owner
Planning Board , October 20 , 1987
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of approval of a revised site
plan for the proposed " South. Yard " Warehouse , proposed to be
located on Five Mile Drive ( NYS Route 13A ) near Elmira Road ( NYS
Route 13 ) on Town fo Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 3 - 3 . 11 , 1 . 46
acres total .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for site plan review , has on October 20 , 1987 ,
reaffirmed a negative determination of environmental significance
that was made on June 3 , 1980 .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on October 20 , 1987 , has
reviewed the following material :
Two Sheets entitled , " Building for Michael Hannan : Five Mile
Drive , Town of Ithaca " , by Robert A . Boehlecke Jr . ,
Architect - - Site Plan ; Building Elevations ,
SEQR Short EAF , dated September 23 , 1987 .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning ' Board grant and hereby does grant - Site Plan
Approval to the revised plan as presented , with the following
conditions :
16 That the Zoning Board of Appeals consider any potential
application for modification of the height variance previously
granted by said Board of Appeals , prior to issuance of a building
permit .
2 . That the premises be used solely for warehouse storage . ,
3 . That the Owner /Applicant demonstrate , to the satisfaction of the
Town Attorney , that he has either fee title or a right of way to
provide legal access over the existing paved road to the facility
to be constructed thereon ,
4 . That all storage be contained within the proposed structure .
" South Yard " Warehouse Revised Site Plan - 3 -
Five Mile Drive W
Michael J . Hannan , Owner
Planning Board , October 20 , 1987
5 . That the existing vegetation remain as shown on the site plan
dated June 3 , 1980 , and on the revised site plan reviewed by the
Planning Board on October 20 , 1987 .
6 . That the color of the structure be as approved by the Town
Planner .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
Nanby Mo,�4Vuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board ,
October 22 , 1987 .
�� s
TO : TOWN OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MEETING NOVEMBER 18 , 1987
IRROM GEORGE AND MATOULA NICKLES
137 HONNESS LANE
ITHACA , NY , 14850
FOR THE REQUEST OF PERIALIS - LITTLEFIELD , 139 HONNESS LANE , FOR A REQUEST
FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND TO INCREASE THE NUMBER
OF CHILDREN ATTENDING SCHOOL UP TO A TOTAL OF 44 .
WE LIVE DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO THE PERIALIS PROPERTY WHERE THE LITTLEFIELDS
RUN A BUSINESS CALLED , " LITTLEFEET . " AT FIRST THE BUSINESS WAS TO ACCOMODATE
15 CHILDREN WITH TRAFFIC TO MATCH . NOW THE 15 HAVE GROWN TO 32 AND TRAFFIC
TO MATCH . WE ARE NOW ASKED TO ACCEPT 44 CHILDREN WITH TRAFFIC TO MATCH .
WHERE DO ALL THE AUTOMOBILES STOP AND GO WHEN THE FACILITY WAS ORIGINALLY
DESIGNED TO ACCOMODATE A SINGLE FAMILY . THIS IS BECOMING A TREMENDOUS
COMMERCIAL VENTURE IN OUR R - 15 NEIGHBORHOOD .
THE NOISE FACTOR EVERY MORNING AND EVENING DURING THE RECESS SESSION AND
THE SOUNDS OF 32 CHILDREN OUTDOORS WITH LITTLE RESTRICTIONS IS ALARMING .
WITH THE ADDED CONDOMINIUMS DOWN THE STREET , THE HOUSING AND APARTMENTS
BEHIND US AND THE COMMONLAND COMMUNITY THE ADDED TRAFFIC FLOW UP AND DOWN
HONNESS LANE MAKES IT DANGEROUS TO PULL IN AND OUT OF A DRIVEWAY DESIGNED
FOR A SINGLE FAMILY , ESPECIALLY IN THE WINTER .
WHAT WE FEEL THIS BUSINESS NEEDS IS A MUCH LARGER PROPERTY , MORE PARKING ,
0 ASY ACCESS AND REGRESS IN A MORE ISOLATED AREA WHERE THE RESIDENTS DO
OT HAVE TO WORRY . CITING FOR EXAMPLE , THE NEW SCHOOL ON KING ROAD .
WE DO NOT OBJECT TO CHILDREN BUT WE DO OBJECT TO THE OVER - CROWDING OF ONE
LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT .
THANK YOU FOR LETTING US VOICE OUR CONCERN . WE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF
ITHACA FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS AND HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
PLIGHT .
SINCERELY :
GEORGE & MATOULA NICKLES
Exhibit 7
;S
= TO TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD .
RE PROPOSAL FOR ADDITION TO FAMILY HOME AT 139 HONNESS LANE FOR AN
• ADDITIONAL FOURTEEN ( 14 ) CHILDREN TO BE LOCATED AT THAT RESIDENCE .
ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE BEEN ASKED BY OUR NEIGHBORS TO REPRESENT THEM AND SEEK
SUPPORT AGAINST THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE FAMILY HOME AT 139 HONNESS
LANE AND FOR AN INCREASE OF FOURTEEN ( 14 ) CHILDREN AT THE SCHOOL HOUSED
THERE .
THE FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AGAIN ARE AGAINST ANY PROPOSALS TO EXPAND
THIS SCHOOL LOCATED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ALREADY HAS HAD MORE THAN ITS
SHARE OF ZONING EXCEPTIONS . WE ALL FEEL THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH DENSITY - AND
TRAffic PROBLEMS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY .
AT THE LAST HEARING ON THIS SCHOOL WE PRESENTED SIGNATURES AND COMMENTS
FROM MOST OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD . ALL OF THE MANY THAT
• WERE CONTACTED AND THE SIGNERS TO THIS PETITION EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERNS
ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE MANY CHANGES THAT HAVE ALREADY TAKEN
PLACE IN THE HONNESS LANE AND PINE TREE ROAD AREA . WE ALL FEEL THAT THE
LAST HEARING TOOK CARE OF ANY PROPOSALS TO EXPAND AND ANY MORE EXCEPTIONS
IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD .
WHEN THIS SCHOOL STARTED FIFTEEN ( 15 ) CHILDREN WERE HOUSED THERE . AT A
LATER DATE THIS WAS DOUBLED TO THIRTY . ( 30 ) THIS CHANGE WAS PRESENTED
AND TOOK PLACE WITHOUT ANY PERSON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RECEIVING ANY NOTICE
OF THIS PROPOSED CHANGE . WE ALL FEEL THIS ALREADY IS TOO MANY FOR THIS
FAMILY HOME TO ACCOMMODATE AND ESPECIALLY WITH =ALL THE PARKING AND TRAFFIC
PROBLEMS THAT ALREADY EXIST IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD' .
cc NOEL DESCH - SUPERVISON
SHIRLEY RAFFENSPERGER - COUNCILWOMAN
. SUSAN BEENERS - PLANNER
EDGAR & BARBARA BREDBENNER
141 HONNESS LANE
NOVEMBER 3 , 1987 Exhibit 8
w0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BARBARA J . BREDBENNER
1.41 HONNESS LANE
ITHACA , NY 14850
MEETING DATE - - - - - - - - - - - NOVEMBER .18 , 1987
RE : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PERIALAS AND LITTLEFIELD ( 139 HONNESS LANE )
REQUEST FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE
AND TO HOUSE ADDITIONAL CHILDREN , TOTALING 44 .
I REGRET THAT I WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING DUE TO A PRIOR
MEDICAL APPOINTMENT IN ATLANTA , GEORGIA . PLEASE , MAY WE HAVE THIS LETTER
ALONG WITH OUR ATTACHED LETTER OF NOVEMBER 31 1987 , READ. AND MADE PART
OF THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING .
TO RESTATE OUR OPPOSITION TO THE ABOVE PROPOSAL , I SHALL TRY IN A FEW
WORDS TO VOICE SOME OF OUR OBJECTIONS :
• y
WE , THE RESIDENTS OF HONNESS LANE AND PINE TREE ROAD AREA APPEARED
BEFORE YOU ON JUNE 2 , 1987 AND RECENTLY AT THE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING
BOARD ON NOVEMBER 3 , 1987 , ASKING THAT YOU ADHERE TO THE PRESENT ZONING
REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO A R- 15 AREA , WHICH IS TO BE USED IN A
RESIDENTIAL ' ; NEIGHBORHOOD , THE FUTURE LOOKS GRIM IF WE ARE TO CONTINUE
TO ENTERTAIN OR ENCOURAGE ANY BUSINESS VENTURES . THE ABOVE PROPOSAL
TO EXPAND THE CURRENT NON-OWNER OCCUPIED HOME SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
SINCE IT IS A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE . THE RESIDENTS IN OUR AREA FEEL
THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE GREAT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE DENSITY AND TRAFFIC
IN THIS AREA . IT IS TO BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS BUSINESS OR ANY
FUTURE BUSINESS ENTERPRIZES SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED OR TERMINATED TO
PROTECT THE HOMEOWNERS CONCERNED AND EFFECTED .
WE APPRECIATE , NOW , AS IN THE PAST , YOUR CONSIDERATION AND EVALUATION
IN FAVOR OF THE HOME OWNERS , SOME OF OVER 30 YEARS RESIDENCE .
THANK YOU
BARBARA J . BREDBENNER
( MRS . EDGAR E . JR . )
Exhibit 9
r— OF 1''=art at; NT S 0 = S Ar i i rur` rC R ,
o ,
1L6'. , = A U/000 9 j TENNI �ANq` 6A-S7-F. PLA . STs.
r- LL S %Ctitr4N P . EA A NNo M. I FAr- C .= E �:,
• r
6 _
�cf �� t— F � T; �;5� �,� rv'� � f-: r ` ,'� � 1=�� •= ' v ;�
`. a. I �'` �" •- +l 1 i . • 1 r` ��� V �. ; tr F%1U �2 l.. PIC 0 ?�� ,W �
roteOro
N ,
kchA VE
CrL VC, you-e �tv n If
t '✓� e- ��M coo4.
t
t'4
(PA Ido � ccl � +� f l� ► c (Ld
rT\A E cnv Q/
�v� 1'ti'� S� r ► iw r S k'o LG o 4v
• f. 4/ 31V
Exhibit 10
• PART II - Environmental Assessment - Little Feet Montessori
Center Proposed Expansion
A . Action is Unlisted .
Be Action will not receive coordinated review .
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 ?
No significant adverse impact is expected to air quality , or
solid waste production or disposal , because of the small scale of
the proposed increase in site use . Because children are normally
outside in the backyard play area only in small groups , no
significant adverse impact with respect to noise levels is
anticipated .
A small impact is expected to existing traffic patterns .
The increase in . traffic volumes on Honness Lane as a result of
the proposed school expansion is considered negligible , and
within the capacity of Honness Lane ( see Town Engineer ' s report ,
" Honness Lane Traffic " , dated Nov . 3 , 1987 ) .
The proposed improvements to parking and circulation
patterns at 139 and 142 Honness Lane are expected to mitigate any
• potentially significant adverse impacts with respect to traffic
safety as a result of the proposed increase of 12 children and
two teachers . No significant adverse impact is expected with
respect to drainage , erosion , flooding , or water quality problems
that cannot be mitigated through proper design and construction
of site parking improvements , as to be subject to final approval
by the Town Engineer .
Additional mitigation with respect to traffic and noise is
considered to be provided by the vacancy of the premises on
weekends .
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or
other natural or cultural resources , or community or nei hborhood
character ?
The proposed room addition would represent a slight increase
in building scale as compared with other buildings on Honness
Lane , but would not significantly impact views from existing
residences . The benefit of providing day care in this location
is considered to outweigh any potential impacts from the slight
increase in building scale .
The present operation of the school , with 32 children , was
approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1981 . The only main
complaints received from the Honness Lane neighborhood related to
this present operation have been about parking and
pickup / dropoff , which are proposed by the applicants for
improvement .
The existing character of the neighborhood , particularly the
mixture of land uses in the vicinity of Honness Lane ( several
multiple dwellings , single and two family dwellings , two churches
Exhibit 11
• in the vicinity , Eastwood Commons Multiple Residence District ,
Grandview clustered subdivision , Cornell University R- 30 lands )
is not expected to be adversely impacted by the proposed increase
of 12 children at Little Feet Montessori Center , because of the
small scale of the proposed increase , proposed site improvements ,
and the benefits of day care provision in a mixed use
neighborhood close to Cornell University , the . major employment
center in East Ithaca .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna ., fish , shellfish or wildlife
species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered
species ?
There are no significant species or habitats on or near the
site that would be adversely impacted by the proposed expansion .
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 ?
No significant adverse environmental impact is expected with
respect to these considerations .
Nursery schools are permitted by Special Approval in R15
Districts , as subject to determinations required of the Planning
Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals in Sections 77 and 78 of
the Zoning Ordinance . It is the reviewer ' s opinion that the
criteria of these sections would generally be met in the proposed
school expansion ( see C2 above ) .
• The proposed 1 / 3 increase in enrollment at the existing
school would not represent a significant adverse change in use or
in land use intensity provided that the proposed site
improvements are implemented , and considering the benefit of
providing day care in a location accessible to Cornell and other
East Ithaca employees and the East Ithaca neighborhood .
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
A positive determination of environmental significance, was
made by the Zoning Board of Appeals in June , 1987 for the
proposed construction of a new school building at 142 Honness
Lane for a total of 80 to 120 children , the Board having
identified potential adverse impacts related to the proposed
building size and type , building coverage and visual impact , the
proposed size of the school in a medium-density residential
neighborhood ; traffic volume and traffic safety , and related to
opposition from the neighborhood with respect to these potential
impacts . The project proposal was subsequently withdrawn .
The current proposal for 12 additional children at the
existing school site is of a much smaller magnitude . Any further
requests for school expansion would require further review .
C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not
identified in C17C57
• Not expected as a result of the current proposal , subject to
the implementation of proposed site improvements which should
mitigate potential adverse impacts with respect to traffic
safety , and subject to the continued operation of the school with
monitoring and scheduling of pickups and dropoffs , and the
restriction of children outside to small groups .
C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either
quantity or type of energy ) ?
Not expected due to the small sacle of the proposal .
D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts ?
There has been public controversy , as stated above , with
respect to an earlier proposal for school relocation and
expansion . A letter has been received from Honness Lane resident
about the current proposal , generally expressing concern about
area density and traffic .
It is the reviewer ' s recommendation that the small scale of
the proposed increase , accompanied by proposed site improvements ,
will - not have a significant adverse environmental impact to area
density or traffic , that the mixed residential / institutional
character of the Hon ness Lane area will will not be adversely
impacted by the small expansion of a needed day care service as
proposed .
PART III
A negative determination of environmental4 significance is
•� recommended , for the reasons stated in the review above .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board o?,4 Appeals
Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner
Review Date : Nov . 3 , 1987