HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1988-03-23 ,s
" FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date 4z/,? .o
• TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Clerk
MARCH 23 , 1988
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session
on Wednesday , March 23 , 1988 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Edward King , Joan
Reuning , Town Planner Susan Beeners , Town Building Inspector
Andrew Frost ,' Town Attorney John C . Barney .
ALSO PRESENT : Mary Yaple , Eva Hoffmann , Pamela Sackett , Louis W .
Bonanni , Henry Theisen , Esq . , Thomas R . Salm , Alfred
DiGiacomo ,
Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 00 p . m .
Chairman Aron stated that all posting and publication and service
by mail of the Public Hearings had been completed and that proper
affidavits of same were, in order .
The first matter on the agenda was as follows :
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM FEBRUARY 10 AND MARCH 9 , 1988 ) OF ARTHUR G . AND
• MARY A . YAPLE , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR / ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO - CAR GARAGE , WITH A MASTER BEDROOM AND BATH AS A
SECOND STORY , PROPOSED TO BE ATTACHED TO THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 151 PINE TREE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 ° 35 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE PROPOSED
ADDITION WOULD CREATE A NORTH SIDE YARD OF NINE FEET , FIFTEEN FEET
BEING REQUIRED . PERMIT ^ IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . ( THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS MATTER
HAS BEEN CLOSED . )
Chairman Aron read ' aloud , for the record , a letter addressed to
the Zoning Board of Appeals , dated March 16 , 1988 , and received from
Frank C . Baldwin and Blythe C . Baldwin . [ Said letter attached hereto
as Exhibit 1 . ]
At this time , Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Yaple if she were aware of
the letter , and its contents . Mrs . Yaple answered , yes . Continuing ,
Chairman Aron noted that when the Day Care Center was before the Board
for Special Approval , it was denied . Chairman Aron stated that the
Doctor ' s office was addressed as a home occupation , noting that Dr .
Baldwin was not aware of the Zoning Laws , Chairman Aron indicated
that this should be clarified to Dr . Baldwin , as the two issues are
completely different .
Chairman Aron wondered if the garage could be constructed on the
side toward the back , and the living quarters built on top of said
garage , commenting that ' it would lengthen the driveway . Mrs . Yaple
responded that that was not possible , adding that she went to a lot of
t
Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - March 23 , 1988
• expense and hired an architect to verify that the aesthetic lines of
the house were kept . Chairman Aron stated that he was concerned with
the zoning law . Mrs . n °Yaple stated that to locate the construction in
the back would incur 'a major expense . Mr . King mentioned the fact
that the roof of the house on the wing where construction is proposed
slopes very steeply in ', the front , and wondered if it sloped as steeply
in the back . Mrs . Yaple answered , no , but the whole roof has several
steep peaks . Mrs . Yaple stated that an addition to the back porch ,
which is a kitchen , was added on the north side of the house . The
applicant noted that the kitchen is on a cement foundation and would
not support a two - story addition . Mr . King stated that it was his
understanding that Mrs . Yaple modified the request to the Zoning Board
of Appeals , noting that the present proposal is to build an extension
which would come within 9 feet of the north line . Mrs . Yaple
answered , yes . Mr . King stated that he visited the site and noted the
following :
1 . The slope of the 'roof of the house is extremely steep .
2 . Aesthetically , the drawing presented does show a proposal in
keeping with the lines of the house .
3 . The R- 15 zoning °, requires a 15 - foot side yard , however , a
one - story garage could be built within 10 feet of the north line .
Mrs . Yaple is proposing a two - story addition , with living
• quarters above a garage , which would come within 11 or 12 feet of
the north line .
4 . The adjacent property to the south is owned by Dr . Baldwin , and
there is undeveloped land to the east , part of which is the lot
to the north upon which Mrs . Yaple proposes to encroach on the
side yard .
Mr . King noted that the lot to the north is 100 feet wide , and
is a building lot . Mr . King offered that there is a possibility in
the future for a road to be constructed to gain access to Dr .
Baldwin ' s 22 - acre undeveloped land . Also , Mr . King commented that the
cost of building has to be recognized , and noted that there is no
impact on any of the neighbors , except the Baldwins , and they
voice no objection . Mr . King stated that he felt there was sufficient
practical` difficulty regarding this issue .
Chairman Aron asked for any other questions or comments from the
Board .
Board Member Joan Reuning concurred with Mr . King ' s remarks ,
along with Board Member Edward Austen ,
Chairman Aron indicated to the Board that in order to have the
correct findings practical difficulties have to be determined , and
also the applicant has to prove that there - is unnessary hardship .
• Chairman Aron noted that Mrs . Yaple has 2 , 200 square feet of living
space for five people , adding that the garage was changed into living
quarters . Chairman Aron stated that he was not , at this point ,
Zoning Board of Appeals - 3 - March 23 , 1988
convinced that there is unnecessary hardship created by having 2 , 200
• square feet of living ,,' area for five people . ' Chairman Aron noted that
the Zoning Ordinance -requires 15 feet , Mrs . Yaple is lacking 3 or 4
feet .
There appearing to be no further questions or comments , Chairman
Aron stated that he would entertain a Motion .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
WHEREAS , the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the applicant has
demonstrated practical difficulties in constructing the proposed
addition to the house without a variance on the north side yard , and
WHEREAS , the Board also finds that those practical difficulties ,
including destroying the charm of the existing house , and the unusual
expense that would be entailed having to destroy existing parts of the
dwelling in order to construct an addition to the rear , and
WHEREAS , The Board also finds that the owners of the property to
the north , east , and south have expressed in writing to the Board an
agreement that a variance be granted , even though - it will impinge on
their lot to the north ';
THEREFORE , IT IS „ RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
• of Appeals grant and !!, hereby does grant the requested area variance
subject to the following conditions :
1 . That the new structure not approach closer than 10 feet to the
north side of the north lot line .
2 . That , as a condition of the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy , the applicant , upon having the foundation put in , have
a surveyor promptly survey the premises " as - built " and certify
the distance from the lot line , and that such survey map be
presented to the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer within a reasonable time after the foundation
is in .
At this point , Chairman Aron read aloud from a court decision ,
Governdale vs . Board of Appeals in Brookhaven , which states that where
a use variance is sought the applicant must show practical
difficulties and unnessary hardship , as follows : 1 . The land cannot
yield a reasonable return if used only for the purpose allowed in that
zone . 2 . The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and
not to the general conditions in the neighborhood , ' which may reflect
the unreasonables of the Zoning Ordinance itself . 3 . That the use to
be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character
of the locality . Chairman Aron also stated that the decision noted
that a use variance may not be granted merely to ease the personal
difficulties of the owner . Chairman Aron stated that if the Board
felt all the criteria were met in Mrs . Yaple ' s case , he would call for
a vote .
Mr . King noted that the Board was concerned with an area variance
Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - March 23 , 1988
• only and not a use variance , so the criteria should not be quite as
heavy as it would begin changing the character of the use of said
land .
Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Yaple if it were impossible to build the
structure behind , with „ Mrs . Yaple answering , yes , adding that it would
create a financial hardship as well as other hardships .
There being no further discussion , Chairman Aron polled the Board
members as to their vote .
Edward Austen - Aye .
Edward King - Aye .
Joan Reuning - Aye .
Chairman Aron - Aye .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Yaple Appeal duly
closed .
The second item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE , APPELLANT , ROBERT O ' BRIEN AND LAWRENCE
HOFFMAN , HOLT ARCHITECTS , AGENTS , REQUESTING SPECIAL APPROVAL UNDER
• ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE , WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED NEW RESIDENTIAL HALL TO BE
LOCATED ON THE ITHACA ''' COLLEGE CAMPUS , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 ,
6 - 41 - 1 - 24 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , AND FURTHER , REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
OF THE 30 - FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN ARTICLE IV ,
SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF SAID ORDINANCE , SAID NEW RESIDENTIAL HALL
BEING PROPOSED WITH A HEIGHT OF 38 FEET ,
Chairman Aron stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals was the
Lead Agency in the Environmental Assessment of this project .
Mr . Lawrence Hoffman , HOLT Architects , addressed the Board and
appended maps to the bulletin board .
Mr . Hoffman pointed out on the appended map the location of the
proposed new residence hall - - building No . 21 . Mr . Hoffman noted
that the new building ) is in an area with other residential halls ,
adding that the proposed site is an area between the current access
road into the site . Mr . Andrew S . Frost , Town Building Inspector /
Zoning Enforcement Officer , pointed out that there is grading quite a
bit to the north of the Garden Apartments , Mr . Hoffman stated that
the proposed project is a three - story structure of approximately
70 , 000 square feet containing up to 153 double -occupancy student
rooms , resident advisor living areas , lounges , office and support
spaces . Mr . Hoffman noted that the project also proposes modification
to an existing parking ,; lot and creation of a new service / parking area ,
• adding that the proposed project would create no burden on any public
service or facility . Mr . Hoffman stated that the building itself will
be of brick facade , , ,' and would be a little less than 30 feet
1 ,
Zoning Board of Appeals - 5 - March 23 , 1988
high , but it is of a ,, size that the stair towers need to go to the
roof , thus an overall maximum height of 38 feet is requested .
The Public Hearing was then opened . No one appeared on this
matter . The Public Hearing was then closed .
Chairman Aron asked Ms . Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner , to speak
to her review and recommendation as to the environmental assessment
and she did so . A copy of Ms . Beeners recommendation entitled " PART
II and PART II -A - Environmental Assessment - Proposed Ithaca College
New Residential Hall " is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 .
Ms . Beeners noted that the Town Engineer , Robert R . Flumerfelt ,
had requested some additional drainage information , which was provided
and does meet his approval , adding that it is in regard to the
infiltration or retention areas . Chairman Aron inquired if the Town
Engineer was satisified that this would be an efficient drainage plan .
Ms . Beeners responded that it was sufficient for environmental review
of this Special Approval use .
Chairman Aron read into the record the Adopted Resolution by the
Planning Board entitled " ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Ithaca College New
Residential Hall , Ithaca College Campus , Recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals " , dated March 1 , 1988 , a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit 3 .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Aron stated
that he was prepared to entertain a Motion with respect to the
environmental significance of the proposed dormitory facility on the
Campus of Ithaca College .
MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed Ithaca College
New Residential Hall , , which is a Type I action , and having reviewed
the material before it , make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
At this point , Chairman Aron noted that the recommendation by the
Planning Board on March 1 , 1988 , was the granting of the requested
Special Approval because , among other things , there is a need for the
purpose here , being the housing of students on campus . Mr . Thomas R .
Salm , Vice President for Business Administration , Ithaca College ,
• stated that that was correct .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Aron stated
Zoning Board of Appeals - 6 - March 23 , 1988
• that he would be pleased to entertain a Motion with respect to the
Ithaca College request for Special Approval of its proposed new
residence hall .
MOTIONaby Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
WHEREAS , this Board finds as follows :
( a ) That the proposed new residence hall at Ithaca College would
serve a community need , and
( b ) That the proposal fits within the spirit of Article IV ,
Section 11 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , regarding Special Approval by the Board of
Appeals for the construction of dormitories ;
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED ,
That the Town of ' Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby
does grant Special Approval for the proposed new residential hall to
be located on the Ithaca College Campus , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 41 - 1 - 24 , adopting as its findings Article XIV , Section 77 , Paragraph
7 , to the extent necessary .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Austen , Reuning , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Turning to the matter of the requested height variance to permit
the proposed facility : to be 38 feet high , Chairman Aron asked Mr .
Hoffman about an elevator . Mr . Hoffman replied that Building Code
requires that there be access for handicapped persons in various
places within the building . Mr . Hoffman noted that the stairs have to
go to the roof because of certain fire safety requirements . Mr .
Hoffman stated that there are additional stairwells in the building ,
but not all of them need to go to the roof . Mr . Hoffman commented
that the College has ' elected to take the two center stairs in the
middle of the two student wings and extend those through , adding that
the building is U - shaped .
Ms . Beeners wondered about the topmost lounge , and how it fitted
into the project . Mr . ?• Hoffman responded that it is a large lounge as
opposed to a small conversation area and noted that within the
building the ceiling heights are fairly low . Mr . Hoffman pointed out
that the roof of the large lounge has been raised about six additional
feet , with additional windows .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Aron stated
® that he was prepared to entertain a Motion as to the requested height
variance .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 7 March 23 , 1988
• MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen .
WHEREAS , the Town ,, of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals finds that no
negative visual impact will occur with the added height , and
WHEREAS , the Board also finds that Code requirements dictate that
this is a necessary height for the construction of the proposed
dormitory facility , and
WHEREAS , no one from the neighborhood appeared to oppose this
matter , and
WHEREAS , the restriction of the ceiling height in the upper
lounge to eight feet is aesthetically and functionally impractical ,
and the proposed extra six feet of height , with additional windows ,
would not incur any adverse visual or functional impacts ;
THEREFORE , IT IS ,' RESOLVED , that , with respect to the proposed
construction of a new residence hall on the Ithaca College Campus , the
Town of Ithaca Zoning ' Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a
variance from the maximum 30 - foot height requirement of Article IV ,
Section 11 , Paragraph 10 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to
permit a total height for the stair pilots and lounge roof of 38 feet .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , King , Austen , Reuning . _
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the New Residence Hall to be
located on the Ithaca College Campus duly closed .
The third item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL OF PAMELA E . SACKETT , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF ARTICLE
III , SECTION 71 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , AND VARIANCE
OF SECTION 280 - a OF THE TOWN LAW , FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING
TO BE LOCATED ON A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING LOT SOUTH OF 185 KENDALL
AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 54 - 4 - 18 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R- 9 . SAID PARCEL IS NOT LOCATED ON A TOWN , COUNTY , OR STATE ROAD , NOR
WILL THE PROPOSED DWELLING HAVE A FRONT YARD ON A TOWN ROAD ,
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal of Pamela Sackett , a
copy of which is attached to these minutes as Exhibit 4 .
Chairman Aron ask°ed Mrs . Sackett to indicate on the survey map
[ attached hereto as Exhibit 5 ] where the proposed building site is
located . Mrs . Sackett ' noted that her existing home is located on Lot
No . 215 , and that she ishes to construct a new house on Lot No . 216 .
• Indicating on map , Mrs . Sackett stated that she would like to take Lot
No . 214 and divide it in half , adding that 25 feet would go to Lot No .
215 and 25 feet to Lot No . 213 , Mrs . Sackett noted that she came
u
1
Zoning Board of Appeals - 8 - March 23 , 1988
• before the Board about six months ago , at which time there was a
proposal to construct a house on each individual lot , but Mrs . Sackett
felt that the lots were too small for a house , adding that a home
placed on each lot would ruin the neighborhood . Chairman Aron
wondered what " ruining the neighborhood " meant . Mrs . Sackett . stated
that a 50 - foot lot is 'really small , and commented that a house on such
a small lot would give the appearance of being crowded . Mrs . Sackett
stated that she is concerned with the decision of tonight ' s meeting
before dividing the property , noting that if she is not allowed to do
so then , obviously , she has the legal right to build a house on the
total lot , adding that she is interested in the financial aspects of
the proposal . Mrs . Sackett stated that she does not own Lot No . 216
at the present time , but has the right to purchase it . Mrs . Sackett
noted that Lot No . 216 '" has a 50 - foot frontage , but is not on the road .
Chairman Aron inquired of Mrs . Sackett , if the house is constructed on
Lot No . 216 would she intend to take the driveway on the edge of Lot
No . 215 and bring it across the right - of -way to the blacktop , as
indicated on the survey map , with Mrs . Sackett answering , yes .
Chairman Aron wondered about the construction of the road . Mrs .
Sackett stated that the Town requires that she build the entire road ,
adding that that would be a financial drain . Mrs . Sackett noted that
it would cost $ 60 . 00 a foot , which would be approximately $ 6 , 000 . 00 .
Mrs . Sackett noted that there is water and sewer on the lot . Chairman
Aron remarked that Lots No . 215 , 214 , and 216 will be benefitting from
• the construction of the road . Again , Mrs . Sackett noted that she was
interested in the financial aspects of the proposal . Mrs . Sackett
stated that it was her understanding that South Hill was growing , and
felt that the Town of Ithaca would benefit from constructing a road .
Chairman Aron opened the Public Hearing ,
Mr . Louis W . Bonanni of 148 Coddington Road spoke from the floor
and stated that he owns Lots 220 and 221 . . Mr . Bonanni stated that he
had been before the Board previously regarding the continuation of
Kendall Avenue . Mr . Bonanni noted that the original intent of said
property was for the ; purpose of development , and wondered where the
responsibility lies , as there definitely would be a benefit to the
Town in tax dollars . Mr . Bonanni noted that , actually , Kendall Avenue
was to continue on to Pennsylvania Avenue and up to Coddington Road .
Mr . Bonanni stated that the road situation has been in limbo for quite
some time . Continuing , Mr . Bonanni stated that his property is
landlocked . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Bonanni if he had appeared before
the Town Board regarding the road , with Mr . Bonanni responding , yes ,
several years ago . Mr . Bonanni also noted that when the Town crossed
his property with their heavy equipment to put in the sewer and water
line they knocked out the engineering stakes on three points of the
property , and also on his brother ' s property , noting that , at that
point , Mr . Walter Schwan , past Town Supervisor , indicated that when
Mr . Bonanni was ready to develop the land he should come before the
Town Board to have the land resurveyed and the stakes replaced . Mr .
• Bonanni stated that it was left at that stage .
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak
Zoning Board of Appeals - 9 - March 23 , 1988
• to this issue . No one spoke . Chairman Aron closed the Public
Hearing .
Mr . King inquired about Section 265 - a of the Town Law , and how
that should be interpreted . Mr . King noted that the Town of Ithaca ,
in the past , had proceeded on the assumption that these small 50 - foot
building lots in the subject area were all legal building lots , and
that one had the right, , even at the present time , to construct a new
house on a 50 - foot lot . Mr . King stated that the applicant had been
granted permission to ' build on Lot No . 215 , which is a 50 - foot lot .
At this point , Chairman Aron read aloud from Article XIII , General
Provisions , Section ' S7 , which states : " Existing Lots . Other
provisions of this Ordinance notwithstanding , nothing shall prohibit
the use for a single family dwelling of a lot of deed record at the
time of the passage of this Ordinance , as amended , of less than the
required size of lot in any district except an Industrial District ,
provided that all other provisions of this Ordinance are complied
with . " Town Attorney Barney noted that the right to build exists , but
the question remains whether the property is on a public highway .
Chairman Aron noted that , according to the Ordinance , Mrs . Sackett has
the right to build a single family dwelling on the lot , but all other
requirements have to be complied with .
Mr . King wondered about the size of the proposed driveway . Mrs .
Sackett responded that it would be a gravel drive approximately 10
• feet in width , noting '' that there is a fire hydrant between Lots 213
and 214 . Mr . King noted that in Section 280 - a of the Town Law it
states that there has to be adequate access for emergency vehicles ,
adding that a 15 - foot ,wide roadway or driveway is adequate .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Aron asked
if anyone were prepared to make a Motion .
MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that this Board adjourn the matter of the Sackett
Appeal indefinitely to allow the applicant time to appear before the
Town Board concerning the road situation .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
The last item on the agenda was as follows :
AGENDA ITEM : DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO INTERPRETATION OF THE FRONT
YARD , REAR YARD , LOT WIDTH , AND LOT DEPTH REGULATIONS AS SET FORTH IN
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
• Chairman Aron noted that the above - noted item was not a Public
Hearing , but an administrative item .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 10 - March 23 , 1988
• Chairman Aron stated that the Zoning Enforcement Officer
requested a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals as to the
need for certain variances regarding the " KLONDIKE MANOR " proposal .
Chairman Aron stated that in an R- 15 zone the Zoning Ordinance
requires 100 feet of frontage at the setback which could be between
25 and 50 feet , and a depth of 150 feet . Chairman Aron noted that the
applicant , at that time , questioned the matter of the 150 - foot depth ,
as there is 15 , 000 square feet shown within the lot size . Chairman
Aron commented that the Zoning Board of Appeals has to make an
interpretation by April 13 , 1988 .
At this point , Chairman Aron noted that since the Zoning
Ordinance was written in the 1950s , subdivisions have been accepted ,
stamped , and filed , adding that there has been precedent set on how to
measure said lots . 11
Town Attorney Barney stated that , in his opinion , the ordinance
sets forth a pattern ., Mr . Barney noted that in an R - 30 zone the
minimum size of a lot is 30 , 000 square feet , and it also has a
provision which states that a lot width shall be 150 feet and the
minimum depth 200 feet . Mr . Barney stated that , in using the same
language as noted above , R- 30 zoning shall meet the depths and width
at the front yard setback . Continuing , Mr . Barney noted that R- 9 has
a provision which states that if water and sewer are available , the
• minimum lot size is 9 , ,000 square feet with a minimum width of 60 feet
of road frontage , and a minimum depth of 150 feet . Mr . Barney stated
that when zone R- 15 was drafted it appears that a cog got slipped ,
because there is no minimum lot size set forth , adding that it only
states that the minimum width of the lot shall be 100 feet and the
minimum depth 150 feet . Mr . Barney noted that R- 15 has the same
language as R- 30 which states that R- 15 zoning shall meet the depths
and width at the front yard setback . Mr . Barney stated that his
interpretation of all of those provisions would be that a rectangle
has to be taken running from the road frontage back to the minimum
depth , and having the minimum width as specified in the Zoning
Ordinance of an R- 15 zone . Mr . Barney noted that , for example , in a
R- 15 zone there would be a rectangle that has 100 feet of road
frontage with 150 feetof depth , and indeed , the Board on a couple of
occasions , has explicitly adopted that interpretation because , Mr .
Berggren came in with a T - shaped lot with 60 feet of frontage , which
went back about 200 300 feet , and expanded approximately into a
300 - 400 - foot wide lot , I adding that it was felt Mr . Berggren needed a
variance under 280 - a in order to proceed . Mr . Barney stated that he
had spent some time reviewing " Anderson on Zoning " , along with a
couple of other reference books , and felt that that was not a viable
and correct interpretation , adding that , in his opinion , the only
plausible way that this can be read that is consistent with the
language , as presently drafted , is to say that lot sizes shall meet
the depth of 150 feet . ii Mr . Barney remarked that , in his opinion , the
depth was measured from the highway right - of - way line , not from the
• front yard setback , noting that if this were the case , larger lot
sizes would be required - - larger than the square footage called for .
Mr . Barney stated that, , in his opinion , if it meets the minimum width
Zoning Board of Appeals - 11 - March 23 , 1988
• anywhere between the 257foot and 50 - foot area , and provided that any
building on the property is built at a point where it meets that width
or behind it - - farther back from the road - - that lot would qualify .
Susan Beeners concurred with Mr . Barney ' s comments on the lot
dimensions .
Mr . King stated that he did not believe that there was any clear -
cut criteria where it could be mechanically determined whether a
particular lot meets the requirements , as there are several factors
involved . Mr . King noted that the access from the highway to the lot
is critical and most important , noting that at least 15 feet of said
lot has to be on a highway . Mr . King commented that he agreed with
Mr . Barney ' s comments that the highway frontage should not be
construed as the place where the width must imperatively be measured ,
and adding that it does not necessarily add much in the way of
amenities or protection of the property or neighboring properties to
insist on 100 feet of frontage on the highway . Mr . King felt that it
was important to know ' where a particular building was going to be
placed on the lot , and,; the 100 - foot width at the front line of the
principal building was critical .
Susan Beeners noted that the width of Lot No . 3 at the building
setback line in the " KLONDIKE MANOR " is 105 feet , and the setback line
is 38 feet back . Ms . Beeners stated that the lot has a depth from the
• street right - of -way of approximately 150 feet . Continuing , Ms .
Beeners noted that Lot 'No . 4 has 100 feet in width , 43 feet back from
the right - of-way line . Ms . Beeners stated that Lot No . 9 , on the
other side of the NYSEG right - of -way has 130 feet of width at the
50 - foot setback .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Aron asked
if anyone were prepared to offer a Motion .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals , having examined the
layout of Lots No . 3 , 4 , and 9 , state and hereby does state that said
lots meet the requirements according to the Ordinance and that these
particular lots do meet the lot width , area , and depth requirements ,
and further
RESOLVED , that , a 's long as any proposed buildings thereon meet
all the other requirements of the Ordinance as to side yards , rear
yards , and percentage of coverage , they would not require any
variance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
11
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 12 - March 23 , 1988
Mr . King noted that Lot No . 2 has 135 feet of width at the front
yard setback and is 150 feet deep on the east line and 110 feet deep
on the west line with 16 , 000 square feet of area , and stated that the
lot does comply with the Ordinance as it is written at the present
time .
Chairman Aron stated that he was prepared to entertain a Motion .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen .
RESOLVED , that the ' Zoning Board of Appeals find and hereby does
find that the lot dimensions on Lot No . 2 in the " KLONDIKE MANOR " do
meet the statutory requirements , and Lot No . 2 does not require a
variance , absent any other problem in siting the house with the
appropriate yard setbacks .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron noted that Lot No . 6 has 17 , 200 square feet . Susan
Beeners stated that in , her interpretation of the yard dimensions on
Lot No . 6 , if the building were moved over from where it is proposed
all of the yard setback requirements would be met as far as the
placement of the house in relation to lot lines , however , Lot No . 6
would not have a depth of 150 feet measured perpendicularly from the
street right - of -way line . Ms . Beeners stated that on Lot No . 7 the
building could be put in and meet the specific yard setbacks , but it
is difficult to measure Lot 7 ' s depth and width . Chairman Aron noted
that Lot No . 8 would require a variance for side yard and depth .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Aron stated
that he was prepared to entertain a Motion ,
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals find and hereby does
find that Lots 6 , 7 , and 8 all require variance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the discussion of certain interpretations
duly closed .
• EXECUTIVE SESSION
Zoning Board of Appeals - 13 - March 23 , 1988
• MOTION by Mr . Henry ` Aron , seconded by Mr ' . Edward King :
RESOLVED , that the ' Town of Ithaca Zoning Board retire and hereby
does retire into Executive Sessesion to interview three candidates for
the presently existing vacancy on the Board .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
RE - OPENING OF OPEN MEETING
Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly reopened and
stated that he would now entertain a Motion with respect to the Board
vacancy .
MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the appointment
of Mrs . Eva Hoffmann to a five - year term on the Board of Appeals ,
expiring December 31 , 1992 .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the March 23 , 1988 , meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 30
p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
Henry Aron , Chairman .
•
l :C ' -
149 Pine Tree Road
Ithacan NY 14850
March 16 , 1.988
Zoning Board of Appeals
126 E . Seneca Street
Ithaca , NY 14850
Dear Sirs :
We understand that our neighborsu
Arthur and Mary Yaple of 151 Pine Tree
Road want to build an addition on the north side of their house , and that
this would result in - a side yard deficiency because the structure would
come too close to the, .Iot ` we own between 151 and 203 Pine Tree Road .
This side yard deficiency is perfectably acceptable to us . . We have seen
the plans which the architect drew up for the addition and are . convinced
that it is esthetically pleasing and that the Yaples are committed to
maintaining the residential quality of the neighborhood , and in fact , to
improving the neighborhood , quite unlike the situation at 203 and 205 Pine
• Tree Road , where structures devoid of architectural charm were hastily
erected and attempts were made to erode the reidential nature of the neigh-
borhood by introducing a doctor ' s office and attempting to introduce a
large day care center .
The reason we do not want to sell some of our land to the Yaples is that
the lot would then be too narrow to use as a building lot , and we want to
keep our options open for this lot .
Sincerely ,
Frank C . Baldwin
Blythe Co. Baldwin
EXHIBIT 1 :
Responsibility of ?sad Agency ;P74 . cot.(. • *� Q,
General Information ( Read Carefully) L . 3 f �i V . .
• In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been
reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
• Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply
asks that it be looked at further, ,
• The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
• The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
• The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question,
• In identifying impacts, consider long term,, short term and cumlative effects.
Instructions (Read carefully)
'a: ' Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers,
;°c. - If- answering ' Yes to a- $question then- check the appropriate bex (columhb1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the
impact. If. impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, .cbeck column 2. If impact will 'occur but threshold
is lower than example, check column 1 . `
-Itd. - If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as..potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This
must be explained in Part 3.
• � — ' 1 E42 3
Small toCan Impact Be
IMPACT ON LAND ModerateMitigated By
impactProject-Change
1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
ONO ■YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Any construction on slopes of 15 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
1096 .
• Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
3 feet.
Construction of paved , parking area- for 1 ,000 or more vehicles. n ❑ ❑ Yes [:] No
• Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within b ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
3 feet of existing ground surface.
• Construction that will continue for more " than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
.than one phase or stage.
• Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 ,000 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
• Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Construction in a designated floodway, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ' ❑ No
• Other impacts ❑ ❑ 1:1 Yes ❑ No
2 . Will there be an effect tr. •.dy unique or,: unusual land forms found on
• the site ? (i. e. , cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)ONO DYES
• the
land -forms: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
6
EXHIBIT 2
1 2 3
6 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potentlal Can Impact Be
/3 . Will proposed action _affect any water body designated as protected ? Moderate Large Mitigated By
( Under.Artictes 15, 24,, 25 ofImpact Impact Project Change
the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
• ViNO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
Developable area of site contains a • protected water: bod
Y ❑ ❑ CYes U1 No
• Dredging - mbre than 100 cubic yards of material from 'channel of a ❑ . ❑
protected' stream. Yes ❑ No `
! Extension of utility distribution facilities through. a protected water body. • _ 0, ❑ [] Yes ❑ No
• Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
, y . ❑ ❑ [Dyes ❑ No
• Other impacts: 0 ❑
00 41111110,1111A AA
❑ Yes No
4 : Will proposed action affecf any non-protected existing or new-body 14 ?
of water? ONO OYES
Examples that would apply . to column 2
• A 10% -increase or decrease in the surface area of any bodyofwater � ' 4. Q . ,
or more than a •10 acre increase or'-decrease. t DYes 13 No
• ifC.6instruction of - a- body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surfice area. • • [] Q , . o -
• " Other, impacts: :0Yes C3 No
0 0 ❑ Yes ? - i C1No
t _
v , h
5 . Will Proposed: Action ' aff ect surface or groundwater ' - 'A .4 � " ' , .
quality quantity? ,
or quart ity • NO ❑ YES ' 1 ! 6110,
Examples that would.. apply to column 2 .
• Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.
❑. 11 ., ❑ Yes ❑ No
•• Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does 'not ❑ :.,.It , - ❑ No
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
• Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ J
❑ ❑ Yes, , , ❑ No
gallons per minute pumping capacity. A .
•
. Construction or operation causing any contamination_ of a . water ❑
supply system. , _ _ . ❑ Yesr . ., DNo
Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently :_ = j: . ❑ Yes 0 N
do not exist or have inadequate , capacity. ❑ Yes ❑ No
: � £•
• . Proposed , Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑
day. . ❑ ' 0Y es ' C] No
1 .• Proposed Acti,.on will likely tcause siltation or other 'discharge into -an ❑ . y
existing body of water to the: extent that there will be an obvious visual. El ❑ Yes - - No
I let
contrast to natural conditions.
• Proposed Action will require the storage of `petroleum or chemical. , >. 0 ; ; ,; •
products greater thamil ,100 gallons. �; . ::. , Yes .A. : [] No
" .: ,
• Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ ' ❑ Yes ❑ No
and/or sewer services. '. ;
• Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may' J ❑ ❑ . [] Yes ❑ No
require new or' expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities, •
• Other impacts: . • hO '
15 101 . 0 l� Yes UNo
Will proposed action alter drainage ;flow or patterns, • or surface
water runoff ?
i ANO " OYE'S
Examples that would apply to column '2
• Proposed LACtion would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑
❑ Yes C3 No
7
EXHIBIT 2
Small to Potentlai Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated , By
I Impact Impact Project Change
Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion1Yes CDNo
• • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ,, ; . i 13 ❑ , , DYes 0 N
• Proposed Action will allow development in a designated ofloodway. :` - :, : ,, ; v _ • .
❑. ❑ Yes . . ❑ No
Other impacts ,:c"� ' �1i,"> , �:•h ^v� d�1y ❑ DYes ONo
IMPACT ON AIR, '
7 . Will proposed action affect air quality? J IMNO DYES ' M .
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will 'induce .1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in- any given ❑5 ,. r ;a; r :❑ E] Yes, ONo
hour. � .. ., . , , ., ! . . . . k : •. .
• Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of = . ❑ ` ❑ ❑Yes ` : ONo
refuse per hour.
,,r
• Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed S lbs. per hour ora ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONo
- heat source producing more than 10 million Bivs pivhout ` ;..�. -
• • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of• land.committed - .. ❑ ❑ Oyes :❑ No
to -industrial use. `T3 -
i • Proposed action will allow an increase in; the density of• indutrial .. : ❑ . ❑ . .. , QYes ❑ Not
• development within existing industrial areas. _
Q , ❑ ❑Yes, . ONo
• Other impacts: - -
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS . Ito
8 . Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species?
ANO DYES
Examples that would apply to column .!
• Reduction of one or •more species listed on the .New 'York ot`Federal � ' D ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
Removal of any portion ofa critical or significant wildlife hab' itat' Q : Ilk. ❑ Oyes ` ❑ No
• Application of ', pesticide or 'herbicide more than twiceI ' I a year, other . ; ' ❑ . . ❑ OYes . No
than for agricultural purposes: [
• Other impacts•
. � ❑Yes ' ❑ No
9 . Will Proposed. Action substantially affect nowthreatened or , i
non-endangered species? $ NO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2 _
• Proposed , Action would substantially Interfere with any resident or ❑;T '.`p ❑ ?11 % . QYes -. 0 N
migratory, fish ' shellfish or wildlife species. :.
• Proposed Action requires .the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ " ❑ ❑Yes ONO
of mature , forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation. ,
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10 . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?
ANO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2 ' , ,
• The proposed faction would, sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ Yes ON
land (includes' cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) •
Rif 8
2 3
;Small . to z , Po,tentlal Cane Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
JA
Impact Impact Project Change
• Construc.tion activity !would . excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑,' ❑ ❑Yes El No
agricultural land . , I It . ' , +
• The proposed action would irreversibly convert more ;than ; 10 acres ❑ . . DYes ❑ No
of - agricultural , land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more
than 2 . 5 acres of agricultural land.
• The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ A ❑ Yes C3 No
land management systems (e. g., subsurface drain lines, outlet 'ditches,
strip cropping); or create a need for such ,measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased 'ru'noff)
Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
1 .
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
• • 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? * NO ; DYES
• ( if * necessary, use, the Visual EAF Addendum `in - Section617.21 ; y -
Appendix B. ) . . � . . . . .. ,
Examples that would apply to column .2
• Proposed land us'es, ` or project components obviously different fcom ' . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, 'whether
man-made or natural.
• Proposed land uses, or project components visible to Isers of ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their. : • : ,; ; ,
tenjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.,,:. ' , — -
• e Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ .❑ Yes [] No
screening of , scenic views known ; to be important to the area.
• Other impacts:
. ' ❑ � : ❑ - [3 Yes ONO'
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site,, or structure of historic, pre- '
historic or paleontological importance?• ANO OYES {: • • ' :
Examples that would apply to column 2 . . , . . .
• Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ` ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or Natiorial, Register,: .
of historic places.
• Any impact to� an darchaeological site or ° fossil bed located within . the ❑ [] Yes ❑ No
, project site, ' < .
: . .
• • Proposed Action will occur In an _ area - designated as sensitive, for . ' ❑ ❑ Yes • • ❑ No
archaeological sites on the NYS" Site Invento -
• Other impacts: ' r ❑ ❑ . [] Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13 . Will Proposed Action `-affect the quantity or ' quality o: ' existing . or.
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
Examples that would apply to column 2 k * NO - OYES
• • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. D ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• A major reduction of an, open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ (Dyes 1:1 No
EXHIBIT 2
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
14 .. Will there be an effect t'o existing transportation systemst
iNO OYES Impactp
Impact Project Cha= a
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Alteration of present 'Patternsof movement of people and/or goods. ❑ CJYes , ❑ No
e Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. _ ❑ ❑ : ❑ Yes ❑ No
look
• Other impacts: - '
0 F ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON ENERGY . -
to
1S . Will proposed action affect the community's sources of ' fuel -or _
energy supply?
LINO ' OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
e Proposed Action will, cause a greater than 596 increase imthe use of ' ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
any form of energy in the municipality.
• Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ [3 ❑ Yes ❑ No
transmission or supply system to serve more -than. 50 single or two family ,
residences or to serve a• major commercial, or industrjal use. ,
❑ ., �
_ . • Other impacts: - ❑Yes ❑ No
❑
1 ,
• NOISE AND ODOR ' IMPACTS `. "
t . .
16 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result
of the Proposed Action/ ANO ❑YES
Examples that would apply to column 2 "
r.. t : :.
e Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a - hospital, school—or'other ' sensitive ❑ [3 • . ❑Yes ❑ No
, . 4 facility. , : :, F
• Odors will occur routinely. (more., than one hour per day). ` � ' " ❑ " ' C3 ❑ Yes o
• Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. _
e Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a [3 ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
noise screen.
• Other impacts•
❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17 . Will, Propoled Action affect public health and safety?
1PNO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2 ' '`
a Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release, of haiardous ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
4 .
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc,) in the event of .
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level .
discharge or emission. � ' ' '
• Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any �❑ ' 13 ❑Yes ❑ Nc
form (Le, toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.) : ,. . . .
• Storage ' acilities for one million or, more . of liquified natural ., , ❑ , ❑ , . • : ❑ Yes ❑ Nc
.
gas or other flammable liquids.
• Proposed action may result in the e'xcavatio.no or other disturbance ❑ ❑ , ❑ Yes ❑ N (
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of, solidor hazardous
waste.
• ` Other impacts:
❑ [3 Yes *ON
10
- 2 3
11 1
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potentia ' Can Impact Be
OF COMMUNiTY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By
8 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community ? Impact Impact Project Change
ONO OYES
Examples that would apply to column ,; 2
• The permanent population of the city, 'town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5 % .
• The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ [1 ❑ Yes ❑ No
will increase by more than 5 % per year',as a result of this project.
• Proposed artio_n will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
011w. ii
• Proposed action will c� a ciange in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes El No
• Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [3 No
or areas of historic importance to the community. 11
• Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
• Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ [] Yes 0 N
• Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
0 Other impacts:
�- ❑ -❑ ❑ Yes . ❑ No
• c
19 . Is there, or is there likely to bepublic controversy related
to
potential adverse environmental impacts? » NO OYES
If An Action - in Part
-- - -== - --= - - y 2 -Is - Identified as a -Potential Large lmpact _or
If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3
Part 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of Lead Agency '
Part 3 must be prepared: if one or more Qmpact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the Impact(s) may -be
mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
' . 1 . Briefly describe the impact.
2 . Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3 : Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance, consider.
• The probability of the impact occurring
• The duration of the impact
• Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value
• Whether the impact can or will be controlled
• The regional consequence of the impact
• Its potential divergence from local needs and .goals
• Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
11
EXHIBIT 2
' � a- � a- i � �yb; rvc O 1 I . L l JCVrti
. _ Appendix B .
State Environmenfal Quality Review
1' .
Visual ' EAF • Addendum 1
•�
This form may be used torovide additional information P on o matron relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of
the Full EAF-
(Tobe completed by Lead Agency)
Distance Between,
Visibility . Project and . Resource (in Miles) !
_ , F
1 . Would the project be visible from : 0- l/a 1/a • th �h •3 I. 3.5 4 5 +
4 . A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available ❑ ❑ ❑ - : ,. , . ❑ Q
to the publictfor the use, enjoyment and appreciation
Of natural or ,man-made scenic qualities?
* . An overlook! or parcel of land dedicated to public . ' ❑ ❑ ❑ Q , ,. ❑
observation, , enjoyment and a
. , appreciation of natural •
-- or man-made- scenic qualities? r
+ • A site or structure listed on the National or State Q ❑ ❑ ❑ `' ` a ❑
Registers ofHistoric Places?
' State Parks?. 13°
• The State Forest Preserve? = �< .Q 13, 13 �ti� . 0
' .
• National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges?. . , yr , ❑ C1 , 4. ,- , ❑ ❑ Q
• National Natural Landmarks' and other out's'tanding ❑ ':' . ❑ ❑. ❑ 13
natural features?
• National Park Service lands? 13 ° , ❑ ❑
• • Rlyers designated as National or •State Wild Scenic
or Recreational? ' Q 13 ❑ �'
• Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such ❑ ❑ ❑ ° . Q - - :13 ' .
as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak?
• A governmentally established or designated interstate Q ❑ = Q ❑ = ❑ .
or inter•county foot trail, or one formally proposed for' `
establishment or ,designation?
r , •' A site;. area, lake, reservoir ,or, highway, designated as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
scenic? L;. _ : ,
,} a,
• Municipal park, or designated open space? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
. .: County road? . J4 ❑ ❑
❑ O . 13-1 State? ❑:: �y p, ❑ ❑ ❑
_,.
• Local road? ' . ;U.O ❑
I . ❑ .❑1:
t2. Is the visibility..of the project seasonal? (i-e. , screened by summer foliage, but visible4during other
seasons)
Dyes ONO
3 . Are any of -the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year
during which the project will be visible?
• ❑ Yes ❑ No
EXHIBIT 2
R
j r ^_
ENT
MINN
1 IYG` V•ISUAL EN1/IROIYM
DESCRIPTION OF,' EXIST � . _. . , , a
4 . From each . item checked in question I . 4check those which generally describe the surrounding
r . s� '� r 4 ^; qr . � p t/ 'r
environment. , . 1 Within
•
„/s mile ,., . ' 01 mile
• ri`4 , f �Dt i
Ritl . li e 7 I
Essentially undeveloped
Forested
Agricultural
• , • �y a d ,�,rfl • ❑ °
Suburban residential 13" !
Industrial r , ,;; it i . . � . . . . :>� + x13Ljx: ^ _ f �,.qf ; ,,❑
r I ' I
Commercial V. i , ; ; ❑ :Y. ❑
f
Urban fill 5 ., � .J „t �' I' '. � r' o ' rk ECJ ld � S} T : ❑ . ' ! '; ❑ i
ttII � ❑ f
. i. wi _ . 1t1 �' . , i F ..'~ " •1 PI• , } - ff , s
River, Lake. PondE3 0
❑
b • 1 i
4
Cliffs, Overlooks ' - 4
43r . it ae. 7 ` . .
Designated Open Space , , , , ,.� � s , �❑
Flat. N n ❑ y
. . xy4 RIS' - J ..i J . . •ii v . if . i✓ A' :J 1 . ❑ . _. R L . ,; � .t'. ❑
Hilly : 0 , P ❑
Mountainous r 1 -
❑` � �
Other
NOTE: add attachments as ;needed Vi ^,
5. Are there visually similar projects within:
ill mile ❑ i`eR� 0Nof • 1 r 5 . ` t ' . L�.J ti ; . 1�r b , Jr
F .
• 1 miles ❑ Yes ❑ No
•2 miles ❑ Yes
❑ No 1 _ . ix d ` �;r
•3 miles f- ❑ Yes ❑ No . _ , : .
• Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distadces`as-appropriate
EXPOSURE 1k
6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is
NOTE When user data is unavailable or unknown.
use best estimates ' r
• iit ,
CONTEXT t
7. The sitUatiort or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is
FREQUENCY
mollday'ss%' `
Activity Ik Dally Weekly Weekends: •, Seasonally
Travel to and fromjw1:1I ❑ ❑ R - - ; r I ❑
Involved in . recreational activities ❑ ❑ ❑ '
Routine travel by residents
13
At a residence ❑ ® ❑ .
At worksite . , p ❑
Other
r, r . S ,
2
7
k�3 T _ T _A__ I• '=^rJq .SZr_FRD� ' � - il_� ���=�SG4L�16tE{2E.s3`+� 9L MI&Ad
Susan C . Beeners , x . 25 . 83
Action : Type I
Lead Agency : Zoning Board of Appeals
1MPAQT_ QN LAN
Construction impacts on slopes 15410 or greater , on what
is ' made land ' are expected to be mitigated in the process
of site construction and revegetation as proposed .
The drainage study su .,,�itted indicates that the
increased runoff as a result. of the proposed construction is
within the capacity of existing drainageways . i
TMPACT ON GROWTH ACTER O COMMUNITY OR_ NEICHBO MOD
i
The 38 - foot height -of - t2ie-proposed Residence Hall would
exceed the 30 - foot maximum height permitted in Residence
Districts R- 15 . Because of the topography of the site ,_ and
with the proposed landscaping , which would be also subject
to final working drawing approval , the proposed building
height is not expected to adversely impact views from
adjacent residential neighborhoods .
RECOMMENDATION
A negative determination of environmental significance
is recommended for the proposed Residential Hall . Site
development as proposed includes- the mitigation of potential
Impacts to '• land "' and drainage . The student population , as
proposed ; would not be •sig' nIficantly increased . Ongoing
expansion and reallocation of parking facilities is expected
to be adequate for the proposed Hall . Proposed landscaping ,
combined with campus terrain , is expected to adequately
mitigate potential visual impact from the proposed 38 - foot
building height . The working landscape plans , as well as
other plans , would be subject to staff approval .
EXHIBIT -2
V__ � TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $ 20 . 00
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED :
Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH
• ( 607 ) 273 - 1747 CHECK - (,j ]n` g)
ZONING : 2
APPEAL For Office Use Only
to the
Building , Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer
and the
Zoning Board of Appeals
of the
Town of Ithaca, New York
Having been denied permission to _ U S E to T c�� 1 S q Q qr
•fit ICC.. , i 0
Cl
MEW -
at f Nit t Town , of Ithaca
o
Tax Parcel No .
as shown on the accompanying
application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the
issuance of such permit would be ', In violation of , /9 n 0 o be- C 7 a w f rfi 2 . G
Article (s ) �J sect Ion ( s ) Rd AAWN ( &L,,l
of the ' Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the
Appeal , . affirms that strict observance of the . Zoning Ordinance would Impose PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows :
(Additionalsheets may be attached as necessary . )
0 '4 -f
Y'
c� e
DCS 00 d
oil W Ir jaej%
iLA
4 YK .i K �-
� � lie t U� fir
e w
I Gt I'IYk hxdf 4 r� FA ` e
• S
Q Ar to ovs% .<. SSCO t � Zern►. e. 1 a Q�
�^ & a o Ptd Kee t f ci t o w 10 V44 If ss
Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date :
Signature of Appellant / Agent : Date :
EXHIBIT 4
P.
-LSP - P' ..p- rr!"i :�:^• y .. ; > M �
101
+ ` . . • i� .. �':Y1AaYY, . •. .• . ..• nor:.
13ER 610 PAGE 36 rrw
: ^ 1 rt.1� Ill IOVI:rL1'1.6� . L"i Aga .' .
z ..
SET' 17-04 PIN 44IT31 . _ . : , ... .:.
-STamp�v caP �s/1 /85)
(rYPlcsk) �t Qift 1705- SW G= 01= ��_ 2�'�� _ _ ._
....... ....
-- --C::= - -- - - . Lo. 53..78 sip
dar 21 L
` L01T 2LOT V(o
1 •
zzor))?wes d 6NoLai 0 oa
`' . ' .
�o I zr14Aua Lml COMMA y " P I
F I ev 18 Nov • 1897 ( m / t'
IL I= • Z Aj' F" Ia
� 0 % V
N -- ---� c
Vi3C "T OT
r V ,
Owl
Ol
W
CR
N -
1�
I ,.,. _.. .. .I .
SIP L : 50 - ,LIZ
.04' Ip
Q* 1585.54` AaoiGS wzs
NO
PAVE7nE'N or (
(Ide)JPA& c Ave)
• � - �,- - �- -i---.__ •K.E N P -ALL-_--_ : VE .
50.00 R . O.sie,/•
. 4000
D1 �T PILE
Cl3�RsEft1= � ,
przlvE
I ortLANOSOF .71G1-tA2D 3ERG7URCNEp
RMilan
u'T'+Ei� OLr, NE1�
e�,��t� ' �/► 4 Lar_ Taw, t.lOF �T� +�
0
Et dt F/' _- To /APK•INS COUNTY $ NEW YORK
PARCEL S � � -
r�;Vn1- AAAA R s
_ 1 HERESY CERTIFYTHAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY REPRESENTS AN ACTUAL SURVEY A���qq
MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOCUMENTS OF RECORDS John c V. MacNeffl Jr. P. C.
O NOTED HEREON, SUBJECT TO ANY STATE OF FACTS AN ACCURATE AND UP-TO•DATE CONSULTING ENGIN S AND U
ABSTRACT OF TITLE MAY SHOW, HOME OFFICE SRANCN
'/ ��'� �� •• 3 wy 1985 74 NORTH WEST ST. 671 MAIN STREET
HOMER9 N.Y. 13077 ONEONTAg N.T. 13520
•% we �E • ♦• RI 1 NA 7 748 - 2644 PA 607 32 - 7467
0 OF • VALID COPIER OF THIS MAP WILL SEtR AN INKED SEAL "d ORISINAL SNiMATURE, SCALE , II
Vl
REVISN)NS MUST COMPLY WITH SECT, ? 09 SVSO,E f f► N.Y.t. [DUCATIOH LAW. - ZO N.
THIS aA*vEr MEETS AMOAROS fa SURrEYINi 4" MAPl M COMTLANO 00; A$ SSYAti16Ng0ff of C01 SANS, 04• C*WelO' EARS' NIIfVEYORS' ASS/1:' AB • SAW ASM
EXHIBIT 5
THE ITHACA JO TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING'k1
URNAL BOARD OF APPEALS, AGENDA %
AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR;
1. INGS, WEDNESDAY, -_MARCWn _.: .._
23, 1988, 7:00 P. M.By diction of then '?
Qf �Ctft7 'talk, .�,Cttg of he Zoning Boadhof A n
peals NOTICE IS HEREBY, zx .
GIVEN that Public Hearings;as''"
appropriate, will be held bye,
du]\• Tum , deposes the Zoning Board of Appeals '.
of the Town .of :Ithaca on ' i
Wednesday, March 23, 1988, 17
and says , that be raider in Ithaca., County and state aforesaid and in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca'
Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR En- t-11
trance, WEST Side), Ithaca, ';
tbtt clerk N. Y. , COMMENCING AT -7:OQ "•
.. _. ._... »...._..._.—_.__.—..__.. .-.._.._.__........._......._ P. M. , on the following mat-
ters.
ADJOURNED APPEAL ((from;?
od Talc Irswu jovnw: ,&L a public aeK'rpaper printed and published February 10 and March :',9,`is
1988) of Arthur G. and Mary's
A. Yaple, 'Appellants, '= from'��
to Itbaca aforesaid, and that a notice, of which she aanesea is a �e .-...._-. the decision of the Buildingln_'R
Spector/Zoning Enforcement ;;, , - -
Officer denying a building i
CM , � publisbed In tt: d �� / � - permit for the construction of =;,
psp6 ......_ ..__ ......-.._,.•'—.,-,•,�,• a two-car garage, with a mos-U"
ter bedroom and bath as *a .a,
second story, proposed to be ",.
._.._._._ ._ _...-.. .._.— .... _..__..... »__,.,_ ,,_—.,_ —•,...,�—,,, attached to the north side of
an existing single family resi-s';
dente located at 151 Pine Tree
"__-•— ------ - ••••-••--......— .._»__....._.._.»_..-__._.._.._ __......— ,,.,—_, Road Town of Ithaca Tax Par- -'. a
cel No. 6-57- 1 -35, Residence ; .
q District R-15. The proposed ad- ,`11
and that the first publication of said notice was on the ....,....14!_-.. . clition would create a north ;.'
side yard of nine feet, fifteen;; '
feet being required. Permit is q
J 198 $ denied under Article IV, .Sec "
fl• ---•-•••-•••-•••. •_ •-.__.._ """"»' --_•-• - tion 14, of the Town of Ithaca ; ;l
Zoning Ordinance. Rhe public i
hearing in this matter -has
A
" ._ : `��.. .._. .._.._........... ......_._...._..»—....._ been closed i
APPEAL of Ithaca College, Ap-
pellant,
Subs=ibed and tK•p to bGOrE me, this ,—», _ ^, Lawrence
Robert O'Brien And
---�. •• day Lawrence Hoffman, HOLT ing
chitects, Agents, requesting
Special Approval under Arti-
fo7cle IV, Section_ 11 , Paragraph
4, of the Town of Ithaca Zon
ing Ordinance, with respect to
a proposed new residential
- _-•--••-•- -_ __. ..___ , hall to be located on the Itho-
�'�- "�`• ca College Campus, Town of,
Notary Pubue. Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-41 -1 -
JEAN FORD 24, Residence District R- 15;
and further, request for vari-
Notary Public, Stale of New York ante of the 30-foot maximum° ,
height requirement set forth in
No. 4t' � ' Article IV, Section 11 , Par-
agroph 10, of said Ordinance;
Qualified) I � IOTIplKil .i %0. UIIty _ said new residential hall beg
proposed with a height of
COf1 MiSS ; 011 expiras May 377 I9 X 38 feet.
APPEAL of Pamela E. Sackett,
Appellant, .requesting vari-"
once of Article III, Section 7,.. '
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning'
Ordinance, and variance of
_ Section 280-a of the Town '
Law, for the construction of a
dwelling to be located on d*
non-conforming building lot;: ;
south of 185 Kendall Avenue, .
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. " '
•
6-54-4- 18, Residence District ; :'
R-9. Said parcel is not located
on a Town," County, or State ' :
road, nor will the proposed ;
dwelling have a front yard on
a Town road. 1
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion with '
respect to interpretation of the '
front yard, rear yard, lot "
width, and lot depth regular
tions as set forth in the Town '
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.
Said Zoning Board of Appeals
will at said time, 7:00 p. m.;
and said place, hear alt per-
sons in support of such matters '
or objections thereto, as ap=
pte. Persons may ap-
pear
p- •
pearear by agent or in person. '; ' i
Andrew S. Frost ' ,
Building Inspector/ ..
Zoning Enforcement Officer
Town of Ithaca
- - 273-1747 I
March 18, 1988