Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1988-09-14 Zoning Board of Appeals Fam September 14 , 1988 TOM Of 1THACA► Page 1 Date 3� / 9 �dl Cler ` TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 14 , 1988 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on September 14 , 1988 at the Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Edward King , Joan Reuning , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Planner Susan Beeners , and Town Attorney John C . Barney . ALSO PRESENT : William Gerber , John Kiefer , Steve Little , Scot Raynor , Joe Burkhart , Joe P . Burkhart , Neil Alling , Kris Alling , Wesley McDermott , Sheila Snyder , Al Snyder , 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 . • Photographs of the subject properties were passed around for the Board to review . The first item on the agenda was the following : APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , Henry E . Doney , Director of Engineering and Facilities , Agent , requesting Special Approval , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , of the proposed construction of a new electric substation , related equipment , and two new service lines near the existing NYSEG East Ithaca Substation , proposed to be located north of Maple Avenue , on Town of Ithaca ' Tax Parcel No . 6 - 63 - 1 - 11 , Residence District R- 30 , 11 Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals the lead agency in this matter '. Mr . John Kiefer , addressed the Board representing Cornell . Mr . Kiefer presented drawings outlining the project and explained that the existing substation that serviced Cornell was no longer big enough to meet the electric load capacity requirements of the University . Additionally , he said , ` they were having serious problems with the quality of the voltage from the existing substation , particularly in the summertime when they had low • voltage to the extent that research was interrupted . Mr . Kiefer said their intent was to build a new facility that would solve Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 2 • the voltage problem and at the same time provide capacity for future growth in the University . Mr . iKiefer showed the location of the substation on ' the map , marked in red and designated as " Hi, . Chairman Aron asked if Cornell had at this time another station . Mr . Kiefer responded that the existing substation that performed the functions of the proposed one was currently owned by New York State Electric & Gas Corporation and pointed out its location on the map ( designated as " E " ) . Chairman Aron said it looked as though Cornell intended to build a substation and hook into the lines of " E " . Mr . Kiefer said that was correct , that the proposed Cornell' substation would be served from the same transmission lines that serviced the NYSEG substation . Joan Reuning asked if they would have both stations , E and H , and Mr . Kiefer responded that was correct , that NYSEG would maintain their substation to service other loads in the area . Edward King asked if the NYSEG , substation serviced other than Cornell and Mr . Kiefer responded that was correct . Mr . Kiefer presented a photograph which he said was very similar to the proposed Cornell facility . After reviewing the map and studying the location of the • proposed site , Mr . King suggested that the tax parcel number was incorrect . Discussion ensued on this " matter . Ms . Beeners stated that when this matter went before the Planning Board she had determined that the ; tax parcel number was 6 - 63 - 1 - 11 . However , she said , after reviewing the map further she now thought the parcel number should be corrected to 6 - 63 - 1 - 5 . Chairman Aron asked Attorney Barney if he concurred and Attorney Barney stated he wanted to look at the rest of the tax map to determine the exact parcel number . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Beeners ' to review the environmental assessment of this matter which she did . A copy of such review entitled " PART II -A - Environmental Assessment - Site Plan Proposed Cornell University Electrical Substation " , Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , Review Date : August 12 , 1988 , is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Beeners if there had been any recommendation by the Planning Board as to buffering and Ms . Beeners responded that it was determined that it would not be necessary except if the land to the east were developed for some use where buffering , might be appropriate . At the present time , she said , she knew of no plans by Cornell for that land which was currently horse pasture and experimental fields . Ms . Beeners said it would be Cornell ' s incentive if there was any future • 2 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 3 • development to do landscaping . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Kiefer what the size of the site would be and Mr . Kiefer responded that the site would be roughly 100 feet by 100 feet but could possibly be as large as 125 feet by 125 . feet . Chairman Aron asked if the transformers would be outside the building and Mr ., Kiefer responded the proposed substation would be almost identical to the building shown in the photograph he had presented . Mt . Kiefer said the intent of the design of this building would be to have a low-profile sub to be kept out of sight of people ' s vision . Chairman Aron asked how many KWs the station would produce and Mr . Kiefer responded that the rating of the substation would be about 100 , 000 KWs . Chairman Aron asked if this would be sufficient for Cornell to take care of all its needs now and in the future . Mr . Kiefer responded that the proposed substation would take care of Cornell for about another ten years but the size of the fenced in area mentioned would be big enough to install a third transformer which would then take care of Cornell for probably another twenty- five years . Mr . King inquired how high the chain link fence would be and Mr . Kiefer responded that it would be on the order of ten feet . • Mr . King asked if the fence would be;; clear around the perimeter and Mr . Kiefer responded that was correct . Mr . King asked what the closest distance from the fence to any of the electrical equipment would be . Mr . Kiefer said the closest they would let them come would be on the order of twenty to twenty - five feet . Chairman Aron asked if someone would occupy the building and Mr . Kiefer replied that it would not be a manned facility but that they would inspect it weekly . Mr . King inquired if there were °any residential buildings on the north side of Maple Avenue and ' Mr . Kiefer responded there were not . Mr . Austen inquired if the distribution lines from NYSEG would be switched over to this substation and Mr . Kiefer replied that their intent was to purchase the NYSEG 13 . 2 KV feeders and continue to use them for that purpose . Mr . Austen asked if Cornell would be adding more lines and Mr . Kiefer said not immediately but would expect in five , or ten years to reconductor them from 1200 amps to 2000 amps . The public hearing was opened . No one appeared . The public hearing was closed . • 3 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 4 • Mr . King then read from a document entitled " Cornell University Substation , North of Maple' Avenue , REcommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals , Planning Board , August 16 , 19880 , a copy of which document is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . A motion as to the environmental assessment was made by Edward King as follows : RESOLVED , that this Board finds a negative determination of environmental impact in this matter adopting the same findings and based upon the same reasoning as that stated in the Planning Board resolution . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . ° The voting was as follows : Aye - Reuning , Aron , King , Austen Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . Attorney Barney inquired if Mr . Kiefer could tell from his sketch where the building was with relation to the old railroad . Mr . Kiefer said it was a little south of the railroad right of • way and was not on it , but the north side of the fence would be roughly 50 feet south of the railroad right of way . Mr . King said the application stated that the new substation would change the University ' s service classification from distribution voltage to transmission voltage and would decrease the cost of electricity to the University . Mr . King was puzzled by this as the voltage was the same in both situations . Mr . Kiefer said the reason for this was that right now the University purchased electricity at 13 , 200 volts and when this facility was built the voltage at „ the purchase point would be 115 , 000 . Chairman Aron asked when construction would start on this project and Mr . Kiefer responded it would be in the Spring of 1989 . Chairman Aron inquired if Attorney Barney had determined the correct parcel number and he responded that the correct tax parcel number was 6 - 63 - 1 - 5 . As to the Special Approval , a motion was made by Edward Austen as follows : WHEREAS , this Board finds the following : • 4 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 5 • ( a ) The health ,, ,," ealth safety ,, morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of this ordinance shall be promoted , except that as to all public buildings and educational buildings wherein the principle use is research , 11 administration , or instruction , the same shall be presumed to exist . ( b ) The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use , and that such use , except as to public and educational buildings , will fill a neighborhood or community need . ( c ) The proposed use and the location and design of any structure shall be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located . ( d ) The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants . ( e ) The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses shall be safely designed . ( f ) the existing and probable future character of the • neighborhood would not be adversely affected . ( g ) , the proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive development of the Town . ( h ) no one appeared in opposition to this appeal . ( i ) there is a need for the proposed facility in the proposed location , the correct tax parcel number of said premises being 6 - 63 - 1 - 5 . ( j ) the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole , including ,, such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewerage systems is not detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare of the community . THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that Special Approval be granted for the new substation to be built as requested subject to Section 18 , Subdivision 4 of the Zoning Ordinance . Attorney Barney + at this point asked what would happen to the time frame is this appeal were adjourned for a month so that it could be republished with the correct,, tax parcel number . • 5 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 6 Mr . Kiefer said he could not answer that question as he was not responsible for ordering equipment although he was ready to place orders now for;, some three - quarters of a million dollars worth of gear . Mr . Kiefer said there were some people at Cornell anxiously awaiting approval of the Board so they could give him the go - ahead . Mr . King felt that Cornell had presented sketches and maps showing exactly where the building was to be located so there should be no problem . Attorney Barney : said his concern was that the public received a notice saying this appeal concerned another tax parcel . Mr . King said the tax parcel advertised covered much more of an area and '' would affect a lot more people than the correct tax parcel but he understood Attorney Barney ' s concern . Ms . Beeners stated that since the publication of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals meetings there had been no inquiries or input from the public as to the application . Mr . King wondered whether there could be a special advertisement and a special meeting of this Board . Chairman Aron thought that the ' parcel had been pinpointed • correctly now and the public had not made any inquiries about this matter , and did not know if it was feasible to readvertise and rehear the matter . l Attorney Barney ' s concern was that after Cornell ordered three - quarters of a million dollars worth of equipment then suddenly a taxpayer ° or landowner decided that this matter had been improperly noticed and would make a claim within the 120 days allowable . Attorney Barney said that even though a lawsuit was unlikely , if it came to that , then the Town would have a real problem . He thought the better route would be to defer this matter for a month and readvertise the matter . Chairman Aron questioned Attorney Barney as to the need for a rehearing on the matter and Attorney Barney stated he did not think a rehearing was necessary , that the notice should be published with the correct . tax parcel giving the public an opportunity to address the matter if they wished . From a legal standpoint , he said , he thought this was the proper way to proceed . He recommended that the matter be adjourned to the next meeting , re - notice the publication with the correct parcel number , and have " a speedy hearing giving the public an opportunity to attend if they wished . Mr . King asked Chairman Aron to 'check to see exactly how the • 6 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 7 • matter was published in the Ithaca Journal and Chairman Aron read from the copy of the actual notice published in the Ithaca Journal which indicated that the parcel number was listed as 6 - 63 - 1 - 11 . Chairman Aron agreed with Attorney Barney ' s recommendation and made a motion as follows : 11 RESOLVED that the matter be adjourned and re -noticed , and after re - notice a special meeting will be held on September 26 , 1988 at 11 : 00 a . m . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . The second item on the agenda was the following . APPEAL of the West Hill Cemetery Association , Appellant , • Neil R . Alling , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 13 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby an accessory building may not exceed 15 feet in height , to permit the construction of an accessory building 20 feet in height proposed for the West Hill Cemetery located at the corner of Trumansburg and Hayts Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 24 - 1 - 25 . 1 and - 25 . 23 , Residence District R- 15 , Mr . Neil Alling addressed the Board . He stated that an accessory building was needed on the property to store equipment that was now being stored in a vault gifted to them by the Freer family . That vault , he said , was not for the storage of equipment and did not follow the intent of the gift . Mr . Alling described the new building they proposed to build which would have a height of about 20 feet . He continued that the building could be smaller in height with a flat roof but they were afraid of collapse after the first heavy snowfall . Mr . Alling said that the backhoe that would need to be stored in this building was about 11 feet high and , therefore they would need a little tolerance as far as the roof height to allow this machinery to be stored there . The colors of the building , he said , would be sympathetic to the stone llenroc vault . Chairman Aron inquired if construction had commenced on this building and Mr . Alling responded it had not but he would like it • 7 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 8 • to commence as soon as possible . Mr . King asked where the building would be located and Mr . Alling responded that the Board should tell him where to put the building . Mr . Alling said there was a stake in the ground now which represented the west back end of the building which measured 60 feet from a County sign . Mr . Alling wanted this to be the northwest rear corner but if the Board thought 70 feet would be better then he would put the building where the Board wanted since he had 32 acres . Mr . Austen asked what type of construction this would be and Mr . Alling responded ° it would be a steel building , monolithic slab , with wood studs similar to a Morton building . Mr . Alling said the building should blend in well with the existing building and with the neighborhood . The public hearing was opened . No one appeared . The public hearing was closed . Joan Reuning asked what the plans were for around the building . Mr . Alling responded he had none . He said the building was sited toldrop to the east 5 feet and would barely be visible . He stated that they planned on using crushed stone with lime on top to keep out the dust , and , when their budget increased • it would be blacktopped . Mr . Alling said they were trying to keep their maintenance costs down so he wanted no more shrubs or grass because this would be just a utility building . Mr . Austen asked if there would be any trees for buffering and Mr . Alling responded there were not be as they wanted visibility there to prevent vandalism and to allow the troopers patrolling the area to be able to see from their cars if there was any problem . Mr . King was concerned about the setback from the highway to assure visibility because it was just about at a curve in the road . Mr . King wondered if 30 feet from Hayts Road was enough setback . Mr . Alling said that Hayts Road was straight at that point . Mr . Frost showed the Board on the map the area in question . Mr . King asked how far the building would be west of the curve and Mr . Alling said he could not visualize a curve . Mr . Frost concurred with Mr . Alling that the road was straight . Mr . Austen said that there was a curve there but the road was so high in relation to the cemetery that one did not notice it . Mr . King asked if anyone saw a visibility problem with this area and the Board did not . Chairman Aron stated that he and Mr . Austen traveled this road numerous times during the day and they did not foresee any visibility problems or traffic problems . • 8 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 9 • A motion was made by Joan Reuning as follows : RESOLVED , that an area variance be granted to the West Hill Cemetery Association for the proposed construction of an accessory building on tax parcel numbers 6 - 24 - 1 - 25 . 1 and 25 - 23 , allowing an additional five feet in height , the height of said building not to exceed 20 feet , and said building to be sited at least 30 feet back from the north side of the pavement on Hayts Road . The motion was seconded by Edward Austen . The voting was as follows : Aye - Reuning , Aron , King , Austen Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . The third item on the agenda was the following : APPEAL of Joseph P . Burkhart , Appellant , requesting • modification of a variance previously granted by the Board of Appeals on September 10 , 1986 , which required that the building proposed to be used for the sales and service of recreational vehicles and boats be located at least 60 feet from the highwayllright of way line , at 602 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 3 - 4 , in a Light Industrial District . The modification requested is for the placement of said building 40 feet from the highway right of way . The Appellant is further requesting variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 38 , Paragraph 1 , of said Ordinance , , under which 32 parking spaces are required , 18 parking spaces being proposed . Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals the lead agency in this matter . Mr . Joseph P . Burkhart addressed the Board . Mr . Burkhart said that he was requesting the 40 foot variance for several reasons : ( a ) On a business review by the Gorman Industries they recommended that they use a side entrance rather than a front entrance . Mr . Burkhart sketched the plan which he presented to the Board a few years ago and at that time their depth was 120 feet and they followed the lines of their previous building that they had in Sayre . The factor of a side entrance would enable • 9 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 10 • them to control the people and also to gain better security for items on the lot . ( b ) If there was a road with a single entranceway in the front that would create a bottleneck . Also , with . the 40 feet they would eliminate display in the front of the building in addition to the parking . The appearance would be neater not having the road in the front . He had spoken with Ms . Beeners who saw no problem with it being 40 feet instead of 60 feet as they were not changing the setback in the front yard , principally the 30 feet . ( c ) In the front of the building directly in front of the showroom windows it would be all grass and would present a much neater appearance . Chairman. Aron inquired about the parking . Mr . Burkhart said that in respect to parking they had ten places at their present site which they had occupied for 22 years and those places were sufficient . At the ' proposed location they anticipated three employees , a secretary and two salesman . Mr . Burkhart said that it was his understanding that in a light industrial zone one parking space was required for every three people . Mr . Burkhart said he had pictures ,that showed districts to the east , west and • south , and there was no property that was now existing where the parking was not in the front yard . Other than for an open house , Mr . ' Burkhart saw no need for 32 parking spaces . Ms . Beeners wanted to clarify what was being sought in this matter . She said the notice called for not only a variance from the 60 foot setback required in the front but also a variance from the requirements of a business district requirement concerning parking . She asked the Board if they were looking at this as an appeal for business requirements in a light industrial zone and wondered if business requirements for yards pertain in a light industrial zone . Additionally , she said , the Board , in their previous resolution , called for a southern setback of 40 feet in which no buildings or structures could be placed - meaning the building or the canopy . A question she would have in looking at the site plan was if a constructed parking space was meant to be excluded from that 40 foot rear yard because at the present time it � was 30 feet from the property line to the proposed parking spaces . 11 Mr . Burkhart said that if this were the case it was out of scale because they had clearance on this as far as the property line . Ms . Beeners said that from the building he had 40 to 45 feet to the canopy edge , and from the parking spaces that were shown there was a distance of 30 feet,. • 10 If Zoning Appeals Board of A eals September 14 , 1988 Page 11 Ifp • Mr . Burkhart said" that he hat t reason he was there was to appeal for "a variance to a ;'reduced front yard setback requirement and 11 also a variance for a "lesser number of parking spaces because it would be more conducive to the building , the appearance would be more : attractive , and accessability would be better . on his original site print the parking was closer to the road in the front . In his new de "sign , the parking would be on the side and not in the front . Mr, . Burkhart desired the front yard to be all grass which would look much better than anything in the immediate neighborhood . Mr . Burkhart wanted more flexibility as to the placement of the parking spaces . If , Mr . Frost said that the resolution from the Zoning Board of Appeals originally had a condition that " no structures including buildings or canopies shall be erected within 40 feet of the south line of the property . " Mr . Frost thought Ms . Beeners was suggesting that the parking space was a structure . Ms . Beeners said what she was suggesting was that as to the quantity of parking spaces it should be determined '' whether they were applying a business requirement . Ms . Beeners said that it would meet the light industrial requirements of one space for three employees which was adequate . , She saw no problem with this aspect . The question she had was whether Mr . Burkhart would meet the yard requirements that were specifically set if it was determined that a parking place was a ; structure and therefore would it adhere to • the language of the resolution . ' Chairman Aron said they had not clarified whether a parking space was a structure .'' He wondered how a parking place could be a structure and thought this should be a site plan situation rather than a structural situation . Ms . Beeners said she thought it was a zoning situation but it should be determined what the Board should be dealing with . She + continued that the plan submitted by Mr . Burkhart in 1986 was rather sketchy and it showed about a 50 to 160 foot front yard , there was no canopy on the rear of the building , and the dimensions were pretty loose on the entire plan . Part of the question' she said , was whether Mr . Burkhart reasonably needed business yard requirements as set by the Board . Mr . Burkhart said he was not changing the structure or the canopy g g y from the 40 , feet . He continued that the original structure that was there was 30 feet from the front of the road and he was requesting, 40 feet . Mr . Burkhart said that in the sketch Susan had mentioned they were going up 10 feet from the road in front of the building for parking and also parking on the side ; with the building being right up '' to the bank . Mr . Burkhart sal 11 his previous plans he did not have a place to unload the boats and last year they decided to put the hoist in the back under a canopy . • 11 if If c ' Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 12 • The public hearing was opened . No one appeared . The public hearing was closed . Mr . King asked if this matter had ever had site plan review by the Planning Board and Ms . Beeners said it had not . She stated that a sketch ; plan was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1986 and the variances requested granted to Mr . Burkhart . ' It was assumed , she said , at that time that a more specific site plan with those requirements would go to the Planning Board . Ms . Beeners said that when she received the present plan from Mr . Burkhart , she talked it over with Mr . Frost , and then recommended that there were items that the Zoning Board had to determine before this could be seen by the Planning Board . Mr . Frost interjected that he determined that it was not meeting the Zoning Board conditions and that Mr . Burkhart should address the modification of the original conditions before it went on to the Planning Board . Mr . King thought the Planning Board should look at this matter first because this was a very special site being located at a corner which was " a very dangerous intersection . He was not sure what Mr . Burkhart was proposing in the way of a site plan as to entrance and exit roads . Mr . Burkhart said the entrance would be south of the old sign . Mr . King asked if there would be • another entrance and Mr . Burkhart said there would not be , that they were doing away with the road in the front and had no plans for a second entrance so the parking would be on the side . Mr . Burkhart stated there was a second entrance on the lower lot through the Mancini property but that was not addressed to the upper lot . He continued that the Department of Transportation had his application " and he thought he was probably 10 feet farther to the south than the original ° plan . From Route 13A down , he said , it was over 350 feet to the entrance planned . Mr . King asked if the southern canopy was proposed to be within 40 feet of the south line and Mr . Burkhart said it was . Mr . King asked if the canopies were contemplated in his original proposal and Mr . Burkhart said that they did not have a canopy in the rear which was a continuation of the building . Mr . King asked what the purpose of this rear canopy was and Mr . Burkhart replied that they were going to have a hoist constructed underneath it in order to lift the boats off the delivery trailers . Mr . King asked if there was such a facility under the other canopy and Mr . " Burkhart said that under the north canopy there would be a display of boats and under the south one there would be a display of motor homes . Entrance to the building , he said , would be from the south side , about one - third down from the front . Mr . King said then that everything from the front of the building would be a grass area and Mr . Burkhart responded that it • 12 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 13 • would be grass for about 30 feet , but they might have 10 feet of display in the front area if there was a special on a boat for i 11 nstance . Mr . King asked if the easterly side of the building was the front and Mr . Burkhart responded it was . Mr . King asked how that lined up with the building next south and Mr . Burkhart said there was an elevation difference , that he was proposing 40 feet and the building next .south was back 58 feet . Basically , he said , he thought they were parallel but the difference was that there was a grade increase in height between the adjoining properties . Mr . King said then that Mr . Burkhart ' s building would be 20 feet closer to the highway than the one next south . Mr . Burkhart said that they were 10 feet farther back from the previous existing building ( the Chinese ;' restaurant ) which was at 30 feet . d Mr . King thought there was a site plan and a traffic problem in this matter . He had visited the premises the previous Sunday and his feeling was that any building in that location ought to be as far back as the one next door and even that might not be a great enough setback ibecause of the requirement of visibility at this highway intersection . Mr . Burkhart said that coming out of Route 13A even if there were no building there you could not see south or north until; you pulled up to the main highway . Mr . • Burkhart said that DOT had not found any traffic problem when they inspected the premises for placement of the entrance . Mr . King said the Board ' s resolution in 1986 had called for a site plan review by the Planning Board , Ms . Beeners said she had talked with DOT : in 1986 and they had advised her that the entrance location proposed then was no problem and she talked with them again in the Spring of 1988 . Mr . King wondered if they had considered building height and location or were they merely concerned with the entrance to the highway . Ms . Beeners said they were not terribly concerned about site distance . However , she said , there was at least 300 feet . She said this would have to go through Planning Board review anyway and why it was before the Zoning Board of Appeals was for the yards primarily and she thought approval could be conditioned , upon adequate visibility . Mr . Burkhart thought with the present plan there was better entrance coming in from the south than there would be coming in from the north because of the short shoulder . Mr . Burkhart also thought that they could move traffic down Mancini ' s road . Mr . Frost said he had used this method and it had been easier , although the Mancini road was a private road and the other property owners might object to that . ' Mr . Burkhart said they had the use of the Mancini road and did not foresee a problem . Mr . King said that although RV sales were not likely to • 13 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 14 • bring a lot of people at one time , the Board had no assurance that this property would stay as an RV sales building but might some day be a grocery store which would attract much more traffic . Mr . King felt it was premature to allow reduction of the parking area and reduce side yard requirements before the Planning Board had really looked at the entire site plan . Mr . Burkhart said he would really like to get started on this project and it was impossible to do anything unless they knew whether the setback should be 140 feet or 60 feet . He continued that Mr . biPasquale was drawing a grid plan and Streeter had the building plans . Mr . Burkhart felt there were not any changes from what was previously granted to him as they would still have the , 30 foot front yard , but instead the road would not be in the front . As far as a grocery store going in that spot , he said , he was sure that that person would have to come before the Board' to get permission , and at this point they should only be concernedwith what he wanted to put in there now . Mr . Burkhart continued that as far as the other driveways or any change on the right , that had to come from DOT who had the right to refuse them on drives or anything of that type . Mr . Burkhart said , however , that he would do anything the Board wished . Mr . King said he had found no evidence of the building being • staked on the lot and Mr . Burkhart said that was correct , that only the night before they had found their well which had been covered over . He continued that they had tried several stakeouts and had decided on their present plan to provide them with the best placement and view of the property . Joan Reuning said one problem in that area was the 50 mile speed zone and thought it should be reduced to 40 although she knew this was not within the jurisdiction of the Board . Chairman Aron stated that what bothered him was that when Mr . Burkhart was before the Board in 1986 and a resolution was voted upon then , he seemed to be satisfied with everything that was done at that time . Chairman Aron wondered what had changed Mr . Burkhart ' s mind , and prompted him to come back before the Board and asking for further variances . Chairman Aron said this was beyond his comprehension . Mr . Burkhart responded that there were several reasons for this , one of which was the design of the building . He spoke about his business in Sayre where there were two roads for ingress and egress . He would like to ' have a side entrance on the south of his Ithaca business as recommended by Gorman Industries . Mr . King asked for clarification of this and Mr . Burkhart showed on the sketch the placement of said side entrance • 14 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 15 • indicating it would be from the south and explaining the benefit of such placement . Chairman Aron asked if this was the same design that he had presented in 1986 , and Mr . Burkhart responded the exterior was the same except that previously the building was proposed to be a 60 ' x 50 ' building and they were now proposing an 80 ' by 80 ' building . Mr . Burkhart referred to the minutes of 1986 indicating that he had said that the size of the building would depend on the fill . He further commented that for appearance sake they did not want the hoist for boats in the side yard but would prefer it in back . Susan Beeners said she had several questions that needed to be answered before taking this matter before the Planning Board . 1 . Did the Board find that there might be practical difficulty in arranging on this site a front yard setback of 60 feet considering the information that one gained during a detailed survey of the property ? The ' bank could not be made any deeper and you alsoll need the pavement area in the back as negotiating space to get around the building . 2 . The wording of the 1986 resolution requires a 40 foot • setback on the south " side . When the Board made that resolution requiring 40 feet on the south side did they mean it to be devoid of canopies or buildings and did that mean one could locate 11 parking within that 4 ;0 foot yard ? Chairman Aron read from the resolution " That this Board hereby grants a variance from the side yard requirements of an industrial zone to the extent that the required side yard on that portion of the south side of the property located within 250 feet of the highway right - of -way is reduced from 60 feet to 40 feet . No „structures , including buildings or canopies shall be erected within 40 feet of the south line of the property . " Chairman Aron said the problem he had with Mr . Burkhart was that when this variance was granted Mr . Burkhart bought the property because his ;, buying the property was subject to approval by the Board in granting a variance . He continued that Mr . Burkhart knew exactly how large the : property was and when one talked about practical difficulties his question was did not Mr . Burkhart create his own practical difficulties ? Mr . Burkhart responded that he was not proposing anything that was out of line and in fact was making it more attractive . Chairman Aron said he was not talking about the attractiveness of the building but that Mr . Burkhart now wanted something more than what was granted to him in 1986 . Mr . Burkhart said he paid • 15 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 16 • people to give him the best placement of the building and that was the issue now , the placement of the building . Attorney Barney said the building as proposed now was considerably larger than originally proposed . Attorney Barney continued that in 1986 the building was proposed to be 60 ' x 50 ' with two 40 ' canopies off each end . Now , he said , they were looking at an 80 ' x 80 ' building with another 30 ' canopy on the back . Mr . Burkhart maintained he was staying in compliance with the amount of area that he had and referred again to the minutes of the 1986 meeting which stated that he was going to continue to fill and in so doing he would be able to place a larger building there . Attorney Barney said that the reduction in the front yard would be due to having a building that would be twice the depth originally anticipated . 11 Ms . Beeners stated that the building changed from 3 , 000 to 6 , 400 square feet . Mr . Burkhart said he had 20 feet that he could go back and still be under what he had before and in so doing he would display in front of the windows and the type of building he would have would be with the road and parking up front . Mr . King asked if Mr . Burkhart "would continue to fill and Mr . Burkhart said he would like to square off the northwest • corner if available . Mr . Burkhart said he would be well within the codes of the health department . Mr . Austen thought there should be at least 30 feet free and clear for visibility with no display and this would give 40 feet . Ms . Beeners said within the 30 feet there would be maintained a clear distance ; however , in the 10 feet of that 40 Mr . Burkhart was proposing to put some outdoor display . She asked Mr . Burkhart if she was correct in this assumption . Mr . Burkhart said at different times if they had a boat show they would have outdoor display not exceeding into the 30 foot line . Chairman Aron said it appeared that Mr . Burkhart had the building enlarged , he had not been at the Planning Board for site plan approval , it took him two years to fill that lot , and he would like , before making any decisions , for Mr . Burkhart go to the Planning Board for site plan approval . Mr . King concurred suggesting that the present proposal seemed to be an improvement over the original one in that Mr . Burkhart had eliminated parking and most of the display on the east side toward the highway . Reduction in the number of parking spaces , he said , sounded like a negative but the Planning Board might find that reasonable for this type of operation . • 16 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 17 • Chairman Aron said it should be adjourned until the Planning Board reviewed the matter . Mr . King said it should be noted that the Planning Board could give approval subject to this Board granting specific exemptions or variances as required . Mr . Frost said that Ms . Beener ' s questions had not been answered and she concurred saying that she wondered if they were looking at variances for light industrial requirements . Chairman Aron said they should, wait to see what the Planning Board would do and then the Board would act accordingly . Mr . King said it would be helpful if the proposed building location were clearly marked . Mr . Frost asked :if in the 1986 resolution which stated that " No structures including buildings or canopies be erected within 40 feet of the south ° line of the property " did the Board intend that to include a parking space to be outside of that 40 foot line . As it was now, he said , there was a 30 foot line to the beginning of the parking space furthest from the building and then when you get to the parking space closest to the building you have a 40 foot " setback . Mr . Frost said Ms . Beeners was trying to determine if one was counting the parking space within that as a structure . Chairman Aron said his personal opinion was that a parking space should come under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not the Zoning Board of Appeals . • Attorney Barney said that the zoningordinance for light g industrial zones specified that you should not have any parking in the front yards . The zoning ordinance for business areas said that you should not have any parking in the front or side yards . He continued that this was a light industrial zone and he would assume that the variance was given in the context of a light industrial zone . Attorney Barney agreed that . this was a planning function . Mr . Burkhart asked if the number of parking spaces then would come under light industrial zone requirements and Attorney Barney said conceivably this was correct . From a site plan standpoint given what Mr . Burkhart proposed to do there , he continued , he did not presume to assume what the Planning Board would decide and they might say that notwithstanding what the Zoning Ordinance said for a light industrial zone , for Mr . Burkhart ' s particular use , they might feel a site plan ought to include more than the minimum required in a light industrial zone . Mr . Burkhart asked about the ;, 40 feet and Attorney Barney said that the Planning Board could in the process of the site plan review approve this conditional upon the Zoning Board of Appeals amending the previous variance , and at that point , Mr . • 17 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 18 Burkhart would have to come back before the Zoning Board of Appeals , and the Zoning Board of Appeals would then have the benefit of the study by the Planning Board in making their decision . Attorney Barney said that basically the Zoning Board of Appeals wanted some input from the Planning Board before making a decision . Joan Reuning made a motion as follows : RESOLVED , that this matter be adjourned to refer it to the Planning Board for site plan approval before considering it further . Edward King seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : I Aye - Reuning , King , Austen , Aron Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . The last item on the agenda was the following : APPEAL of John E .• Rancich , Appellant , Michael J . Morusty ,Applicant , requesting variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 2 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby only one residential structure on a parcel of land with up to two dwelling units with occupancy by either two families or a total of three unrelated persons in the entire structure is permitted . The Applicant currently maintains two residential structures , each containing three dwelling units , on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 25 - 2 - 32 , known as 845 - 847 Taughannock Blvd . , Residence District R- 15 , Chairman Aron asked Ms . Beeners if there was an environmental review " on this and Ms . ° Beeners said there was not . She said she had made inspections of the site but because of anonymous complaints made about thisproperty she felt a public hearing was necessary before being able to write a review . Wesley McDermott , attorney for Mr . Morusty , addressed the Board . He said that Mr . Morusty was purchasing this property pursuant to a land contract from Mr . Rancich , Mr . McDermott said that at the time he entered into the contract the property consisted of three and three units . Historically , he said , this Board gave Amy Soyring permission to put the second structure in in 1966 at 845 Taughannock Boulevard . In 1978 Ms . Soyring was 11 seeking a subdivision and at that point it was acknowledged that • 18 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page ' 19 • 845 had three units in it . He was uncertain when 847 became three units but at the time Mr . Morusty purchased it it was three units . Mr . McDermott said that Mr . Morusty ' s problem was economic , both in reconverting the units back to two unit structures and ultimately in trying to amortize the debts associated with them at that level . Chairman Aron read a letter from Amy Suzanne Soyring dated July 29 , 1988 . A copy of such letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . Mr . King asked what the date of Mr . Morusty ' s contract was and Mr . Morusty said it was about four and one half years ago . Chairman Aron asked when Ms . Soyring had purchased the property and Mr . Morusty thought it was in 1981 or 1982 . Chairman Aron asked if it was three units when Mr . Morusty bought it and Mr . Morusty stated it was leased for two years to a large number of people and he was receiving three rents . Mr . Morusty said he owned the property for two years before being able to inspect it . He said he assumed it was always a three unit property . Chairman Aron clarified that they were talking about 847 . Mr . Morusty said that he did quite a lot of work on the kitchen . Chairman Aron said that even though Mr . Morusty claimed he • did not know the three units were illegal it did not alter the fact that they were in violation . Chairman Aron said that in addition to the units being illegal , there was much noise and commotion . Mr . Morusty said he hired James Gardner , Jr . to manage the property and he had rented the property out against his wishes to a group '' of students who had their annual graduation party there . Mr . Morusty said that he had called the police to shut down the party . Mr . Morusty continued that they had sunk his dock causing him $ 2700 . 00 worth of damages . Since this incident Mr . Morusty had rented the property to a couple of Ithaca police officers who appeared to be better tenants . Mr . Morusty said that perhaps cutting down on the number of units was not the answer but better screening of the tenants would be . Chairman Aron repeated that Mr . Morusty ' s property was in violation of the zoning law , and that as to the noise and commotion , Mr . Morusty was the landlord and responsible for this . Mr . Morusty said he had tried to take care of this and thought the situation had improved . The public hearing was opened . Mr . William Gerber of 841 Taughannock Boulevard said he • 19 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 20 • lived next door to the remises in question . In Mr . Morust ' s p � Y behalf , he said , it had been less " of a chore to enjoy his property in the past "year than in the previous year . In regard to the tenants at 847 they were still partying at all hours of the night , and were constantly shouting back and forth waking he and his wife and his tenants out of a sound sleep . Mr . Gerber said they were also out on the beach skinny dipping and mooning other neighbors ( a woman and her two children ) who complained . Mr . Gerber said he was not happy with the way things were . People were still cutting through his property causing him to make numerous calls to the Sheriff ' s Department regarding this . They were running a boat , he continued , causing loud noise at 3 : 00 and 4 : 00 a . m . Mr . Gerber said he could not go along with extending the variance . 11 Sheila Snyder of 855 Taughannock Boulevard addressed . the Board . She said that in the last five years the quiet enjoyment of her property has suffered . She continued that there were so many people living two doors up from them who have parties all the time . She presented pictures of such parties she had taken from her dock . Ms . '' Snyder said at one party there were 700 students who attended . Mr . Morusty interjected that was the party he had shut down by calling the Sheriff . Ms . Snyder said the students had gone over to her dock uninvited ( this had • happened two years in a row ) . She said she planned to raise her family there . She guessed there were about twenty people living on this property . Chairman Aron asked if Ms . Snyder had made any attempt to ask these people to leave when they trespassed on her property and Ms . Snyder said she was afraid to . She said she saw about 50 people urinate off the docks , males and females , because there were no facilities for this . She said there was usually live music ( guitars with amplifiers ) at these all night parties ( 2 : 00 a . m . to 6 : 00 a . m . ) . Mr . Bob Bartholt of 1007 Taughannock Boulevard addressed the Board . He said that he was concerned about the traffic as that end of the highway was getting more and more congested . He knew of at least two accidents in front of the house in the last two years and was surprised that there had not been more accidents . Mr . King asked if some of the traffic problem was generated by people living in the subject premises and Mr . Bartholf said he was not sure but parking was very limited and the more people that had to park there the worse it was . The public hearing was closed . Mr . Frost said in an inspection of the property recently he had witnessed some unlicensed vehicles in the dirt area off the • 20 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page; 21 • roadway but had not cited Mr . Morusty for this violation as yet . Chairman Aron said if the vehicles were still present he should cite Mr . Morusty , Chairman Aron said that Mr . Morusty now knew he was in violation and had heard the neighbors complain . Chairman Aron said he was appalled that there was no control of this property by the homeowner . Mr . Morusty said he was also appalled and had no idea these things were going on but when he did know he had stopped it as he did the party . He thought that things had improved but was surprised that these things were still going on . He thought that by hiring a manager things would be taken care of but obviously it was not working and he would have to take a more active role . Mr . Morusty said that he did not like the congestion and did not like this type of tenants but wondered how he would pay his bills when he started evicting tenants . Chairman Aron said that was not the problem of the Board . Chairman Aron further stated that it would be his recommendation for Mr . Morusty to bring the entire property within the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , that is , to bring both 845 and 847 into compliance as two family units . • Mr . Morusty stated that since 1978 , 845 had been on record as a three unit dwelling and possibly ten years before that although he was not sure . He wondered why this issue was being addressed now that he owned it . Chairman Aron said that it appeared that Mr . Morusty wanted to do the right thing and after bringing these units into compliance Mr . Morusty should take control over the properties as far as who lived there and how they behaved . Mr . King observed that no variance was ever given to permit three units in these " buildings . Mr . Morusty wondered how these dwellings had been allowed to be three units for so long and Mr . King said the Board did not have an answer to that question but simply because the property was in violation previously it would not justify the continuation of the violation . Mr . Morusty stated that it would be a great financial burden to him because he would have to not only remodel but would also lose some of the rents he now collected . He wondered , since the property had been on record for so long as three units , if there was a way to keep the upper house as a three unit dwelling if he upgraded the tenancy . Chairman Aron responded that this would defeat the purpose of the zoning ordinance . • 21 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page 22 • Mr . Morusty inquired if the Board would like for him to subdivide the property . Mr . King said that the Board had approved the subdividing of this property into two parcels so they could be sold separately but there was no requirement that it be done . Chairman Aron said the recommendation of the Board was for Mr . Morusty to bring the property into compliance and it was the decision of the Board how soon that would have to be done . Mr . Morusty wondered if he could terminate the tenancies at the end of the leases which ranged from May 31 to August 14 , 1989 . He was not sure when the leases were signed as Mr . Gardner took care of these matters . Chairman Aron said he would not approve of this since the unruliness of the tenants was cause enough for their removal . Attorney Barney said that perhaps the present tenants were not the same as those who had caused the trouble . Mr . King thought that the way to control tenants was by having a strict lease with rules and regulations governing conduct and collecting a security deposit to be forfeited in case of violation of the conditions of the lease . He suggested that • this Board require that such rules be formulated and reviewed by the , Board . He asked Mr . Morusty which leases he would terminate now and Mr . Morusty said he was not sure . Mr . Morusty continued that he had spoken with Mr . Gardner and had requested that he upgrade the tenancy as not only was he suffering monetary damage but the neighbors were suffering from not being able to enjoy their properties . Chairman Aron inquired how many unrelated people lived in 845 and Mr . Morusty responded there was one lady in the bottom apartment , an unmarried couple who planned on being married in November , and another family upstairs who had subletted so he was not sure who was in the upstairs apartment now . Mr . Frost asked if Mr . Morusty had lived there this past summer and Mr . Morusty responded he did for awhile , that he always stayed there several weeks at a time when one of the units was unoccupied so he could enjoy some lake living . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Morusty knew when unrelated meant and Mr . Morusty responded that he did . Chairman Aron asked how many people were in 847 and Mr . Morusty responded that there were two police officers in one apartment , his friend was staying in another unit until the new occupants arrived , and there were two or three people in the • 22 Zoning Board of Appeals September 14 , 1988 Page, 23 • other unit . Chairman Aron said then that Mr . Morusty had to get rid of about three people in 847 and about three or four in 845 . Mr . King asked if there were copies of the leases available and Mr . Morusty stated they would send copies to the Board in the morning . Mr . King said he would suggest that the Zoning Board of Appeals be furnished with the name of each occupant in each unit in each building and that the Board be furnished with written rules and regulations for the tenants and that they be strong enough to eliminate the thoughtless living that had existed in the past . He also suggested that a written report of the . unlicensed vehicles on the property be given to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and discuss with such officer whether these vehicles were permitted on the property . Finally , he said , Mr . Morusty should get to the Zoning Board of Appeals within ten days a written plan to eliminate some of the tenancies to bring it down to two dwelling units in each building with occupancy only as permitted by the zoning ordinance . Mr . Morusty asked if he could do' one dwelling at a time and • Mr . King said he should work this out so the individuals had plenty of notice but the Board would like some movement on this matter . Chairman Aron adjourned this matter for the October 26th meeting and advised Mr . Morusty to have all papers and documents together at that time . He further advised Mr . Morusty to work closely with Mr . Frost . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . aeate pectfully ubmitted , rice Lincoln Recording Secretary Exhibits 1 through 3 attached APPROVED . Henry Aron , Chairman • 23 r • PART II - A___Environmental _AssE:. ssl ent— _= Site _Plan , Frgposeaj Cornell _Univ_ersitv_Electrical_Substatior A . Action is an Unlisted Action Be Action will receive coordinated review by Town of Ithaca- Planning Board and Zoning Board . of Appeals . C . Co Id acti "..result_in anY_adyeXae ecfs_szn��� ar�.sing from the following.. C1 , 'Xisting_airquali ',,,_surface_or_groundwater _gualitv_or uantity,_noise _ levels , existi. n traffic atterns ,_ solid_waste Production _or_c� isposad1_pc, tential_for_erosiori ,_drainagg_or z , . �; G autiCr ?. =L ;i1 lots arc. di:lG7. 1paL. Give tCU i1; ` n i ' UI' c , r C. at �. 'iGly J :IICA Sw, c3ic': . 1---). n6 location GI -tile �' 2" OpOsed project . C2 _ Aes4hetic ,_agricultural_archeological_hiistoric ,_or of er _n. atural_or_cul. tural_resources,_or' _community_or _nei hborhood g_�__�__ C ; a 1- a c t e r ? • No adverse impacts are anticipated . The proposed substation will be located in an industrial- type setting adjacent to the existing Cornell University heating and chilled water plants , and the NYSEG East Ithaca electrical substation . There is no residential development in close proximity to the proposed substation . Due to local topography the proposed substation will not be visible from the residential area south of Maple Avenue , or visually impact the East Ithaca Recreationway located approximately 1 , 000 feet to the east . C3 ___G' egetation_or _fauna,_ fish,_she.11fishi_or_wildlife a NF_cies ,._;janificant habi. tats ,_or_threatened or_endangered No adverse impacts are anticipated . The proposed substation site is currently inactive agricultural land . The amount of land initially , and ultimately affected is 0 . 25 acres . There are no known significant habitats or threatened or endangered species on or adjacent to the site . C41 . A adoptenut_y ' s exist _ng_plaoros_ as _ ficily� a . � al ,_ or_ a_ chngei0 tensityof use otiand_ or_ other natural_ resources? • No adverse impacts are anticipated . The proposed substation is a university - related use in general conformance with existing plans or goals of the Town of Ithaca . J ' (~ '- '^' • -L `h 17• U� , 1-• l4 . �1 a L 'v_ �• 3:�=.�_� St___-- :e= y_ 4 _ c —=n1 ✓ c�_ ;y_ i _prop � _ �• i �r^: ' The proposed substation will accommodate future growth and . development of Cornell University facilities . Such growth , however , is expected to be incremental and subject to continuous Town of Ithaca site plan , environmental , and zoning review . u `i LOnk3_tc` 2'IiiZ— :�r02' : —t, t' .1"; 1_ _L7it1 .Uli:. l.'�'c,' 1—��Y' _4 her' effects riot ------a n iU_'' entifie . d- 121 C, rrI:1 Norse anticipated , ' ri 1 Vli�+ l i. i4 N `N "v ♦., v \ il. L '-.: j U \..: 1. A . . J ' 'vl : {_I ll � �.. •J - ii. l 41 .+ 'L. C' .r �lAQri. UJy V ,/ V1 r. YL/ �� V .L ill. y % . 11a'% pil ) _Jt j :7 eAd j ib Jto vilJ . : V4 i . LtsC � l itli i. ul• .Lan lA Sign: 1t Gilt ual. 1- Ity f tis : Yg.1i Wi ` a �.�`. c; C? iilil'E ( L c`i � L , = 1 _ nor +_: a ;:: ; � , r �. : Py dt.;n ; r, d by f" ornt : ll si Li 1/ 1.1i 5 lricrGas e expecte. d to ue increme l Teri a Cif years though Gild w1. il riot create sudden • L!__- - rid Or there like' tV tie 4irl + ro 'v`e:' _ 1. _ Ll• _ ., r , e � C�l 4E: dV -ticipated . 1_ri=ition_ of __? l�ii1 � iCsiiC� A neg � �. = V ctc: rMination of environment- al ZsIgnificance is recom - 1 , en � t � .e proposed site plan fcr the Cornell University Bleuv. ri ._ , :, �LLJ , tZition , related equipment , and new service lines , I' he >z -. f cility is not expected to generate any significant au `V,e.r5e- c.::i ':" _ ronmctal impacts due -to its nature , relatively small scall• , _ _ _ aLion. , and ,existing surrounding land uses . Lead 115-rC, .: cy : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Revie . gorge R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner ?cvicw � tc : August 12 , 1988 r ,tr Cornell University Substation - 1 - North of Maple Avenue Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , August 16 , 1988 • ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Cornell University Substation North of Maple Avenue Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , August 16 , 1988 MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a new electric substation , related equipment , . and two new service lines near the existing New York State Electric and Gas Corporation East Ithaca Substation north of Maple Avenue on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 63 - 1 - 11 . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning • Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an involved agency in coordinated review . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on August 16 , 1988 , has reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form and review , and other submissions related to this proposal . 4 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative declaration of environmental significance be made for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . 20M That the Planning Board , in- making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the following . a . There is a need for the proposed facility in the proposed location . • b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . — ,chi h ; Cornell University Substation - 2 - North of Maple Avenue Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , August 16 , 1988 c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan for development of the Town . 310 That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for Special Approval for the proposed new electric substation , related equipment , and two new service lines be approved . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Kenerson , Miller . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY : Na cy M , Fuer , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . ' • August 24 , 1988 . • • • 4 July 29 , 1988 806 N . Cayuga St . Ithaca , NY 14850 To Whom It May Concern : At the time of selling my home at 847 Taughannock Blvd the house consisted of a five bedroom home which our family lived in . We occupied the entire first floor which consisted of one bedroom , kitchen , full bath , dining room and living room . On the seocnd floor we occupied 4 bedrooms and 1 bathroom . Half of the second floor I rented . It spacewise was approximately one half of the sew'6cond floor . It consisted of 1 very large livi.Ming room , 1 large bedroom , full bath and small kitchen . I wish to have it recorded along with this documentation that JOhn Rancich , buyer from me of this property has always paid, ,/ lie the sedcnd mortgage taken back by me on time and he has been ^ always a cooperative , honest , agreeable person with whom to do do business in the context I know him . eeAtel � 1 �sv Amy Suzanne Soyring o . APFtDAV17 OF W LlCA71OR TOWN OF ITHACA 'ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE THE ITHACA JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ." - 1 .1WEDNESDAY, •SPETEMBER 14,; 19881 7:00 P. M. Bdirection of the Chairman"i of the Zoning Board of- Ap-' peals NOTICE IS z::HEREB .� GIVEN that by . He nig Ct� !l� t�t Q! I".1Sat.:ffwill be held b the' Zoning ' Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, Sep Gail Sullins tember 14, 1988, in Town Hall , ., .__ ._. . _.__. . ._. . .. . . . . .... . .. . . . .. . .. . . _ . ... . . .. . . _.. .. _ . . buns dLl� �' Su -ori, deTtloSCS 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST ., Floor, . REAR Entrance,in IthB WEST and says , tiiom he resides Side ), . Ithaca, N. Y. , COM_; Com, 'CiOLli) and state af�TCSctd and MENCING at 7:00 P. M. , on the '; following matters. '- C1E APPEAL of Cornell University, ta8t1S ...__. .:_. ... ._.. .�.._..... . .._. ._._.._— — - - .. ... .._ _. .... .�. _..... Appellant, Henry "E. Done Director of Engineering and ; Facilities, Agent, "requesting ' d T= ITr*. +Ct Jocrxb: At a public nem-spap= printed and published Special Approval, pursuant to Article. V, Section 18, Par- agroph 4, of the Town of Itho ca in Ithaca a£oand thath.iq notice , cd m• ch the annexe? is a true propo edg cOondstruction ofnane, ofthaa r ca new electric substation, re COp , Was published III laid paps laced equipment, and two ; ----------- •--- . •--•--•-------------.. -....... .•.., new service lines near the existing NYSEG East Ithaca, Substation, proposed to be to-f cated north of Maple Avenue, : _ ... ..... .- s.!: :�� .. .. .. .............Y.�..__._. . . on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcell / No. 6-63- 1 - 11 , Residence Dis- ..._. ._.. . . .•• •--. . _.._. . ... trio AL o _ . .•. .... ...... .. " . APPEAL of the West Hill Ceme- tery Association, Appellant, and that the first ubliczt on o; Said notice was on the Neil R. Ailing, ncef Agent, request; p ---•• ••••-------•• ing variance from the require- ments of Article IV, Section 13,1 1 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ....__ ..._.. �.-_�..•—..�. ..�. .. . .. . . . Ordinance, whereby an ac=' cessory building may not ex-] teed 15 feet in height, to per- mit the construction of an ff "'" - '•" accessory building 20 feet in height proposed for the West J $u bed and SV�•orn tD before me this dE , Hill Cemetery located ot ' thel ..__...... ._._.._.„,—._._....... y corner of Trumonsburg and Hayts Roads, Town of Ithaca -•18. Tax Parcels No. 6-24- 1 -25. 1 '. . . _..._ and -25. 23, Residence District # R- 15. APPEAL of Joseph P. Burkhart, Appellant, requesting modifi- ... _._�... ...... .. . ..... ... ...... .. . ....�..... �.. .....„ .. ... . • ••-• • cation of a variance previous- p� F ly granted by the Board of Ap- JEAN FORD peals on September 10, 1986, which required that the build- Notary Public, State Of New York ing proposed to be used for the sales and service of recre- No. 4654410 ationol vehicles and boats be located at least 60 feet from Qualified in Tompkins Count the highway right of way line, �' May 31 19 r • • of ca Elmira Road, Town 4, Commission expires , Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6Distri t. in a Light Industrial District. ” The modification requested is for the placement of said building 40 feet from the high- way right of way. The Appel- lant is further requesting vari- ance from the requirements of Article VII, Section 38, Par- agraph 1 , of said Ordinance, under which 32 parking spaces are required, 18 park- ing spaces being proposed. , APPEAL of John E. Roncich, Appellant, Michael J. Morus ty, Applicant, requesting vori- once of the requirements of i Article IV, Section 11 , Par- •• agraph 2, of the Town of Itha- ca Zoning Ordinance, where- by only one residential structure on a parcel of land with up to two dwelling units with occupancy by either two families or a total of three un- related persons in the entire j • structure is permitted. The Ap- plicant plicant currently maintains two residential structures, each containing three dwell- ing units, on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2-32, known at 845-847 Toughon- ` C7 / n nock Blvd. , Residence District R- 15. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 :00 p. m. , and said place, hear all per- sons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person .