HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1989-03-08 .t
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Ogre 30,Lc9
Clerk
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
March 8 , 1989
Li PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Eva Hoffmann , Joan
Reuning , Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer
i Andrew Frost , Town Attorney John Barney .
ALSO PRESENT : Tom Salm , Graham Gillespie , Robert O ' Brien , Jerry
Stevenson , Carolyn McMaster , Lloyd Wynroth ,
Barbara Freedman , Carolyn Grigorov , Ed Hallberg .
Chairman Aron opened the meeting at 7 : 00 p . m . and 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 item on the agenda was the following
APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE , APPELLANT , ROBERT JOHN O ' BRIEN ,
HOLT ARCHITECTS , AGENT , REQUESTING SPECIAL APPROVAL UNDER
ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ITHACA COLLEGE OFFICE . OF COLLEGE RELATIONS AND RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT ON THE ITHACA COLLEGE CAMPUS , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
OF THE BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION
11 , PARAGRAPH 10 OF SAID ORDINANCE , WITH THE BUILDING
HEIGHT PROPOSED TO BE APPROXIMATELY 45 FEET .
( ppeal Form attached as Exhibit # 1 ) .
Chairman Aron stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the
lead agency for the variance and the special approval and the
Board has an Environmental Assessment Form before them which has
been signed by the O ' Brien people and has been studied by the
members of the Board .
A
Mr . Robert O ' Brien addressed the Board and presented
drawings and a model of the proposed project and explained the
exterior elevations . He stated that the building that is being
contemplated would be an addition to an existing wood frame
structure just adjacent to the entrance of Ithaca College campus .
Discussion followed between Chairman Aron and Mr . O ' Brien in
regard to the model that was presented of the project and what
• the actual height variance is that is being requested .
Town Attorney Barney clarified that 43 feet is the correct
measurement that the variance would be for .
1.
�M
• 2
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Chairman Aron asked for what reason Ithaca College needs the
extra building .
Mr . Robert O ' Brien replied that the new building would
be used for offices for the College Relations and Development
offices .
Mr . Tom Salm , Vice - President for Business at Ithaca College ,
responded that the College is seeing a lot of growth in that
particular area , it is basically for their fund raising and
public relations but particularly a funding raising arm of the
College and in the future that is going to be very important to
the College as they make a big effort in that area . He stated
that currently the operation 'in its entirety is housed on the
fourteenth floor of the West Tower and it is not a very good
location for that kind of function and they have simply run out
of room in that space . The other factor is that the College ' s
alumni , for a number of years , have wanted a place that they
could call home on the campus and in essence the existing
• structure on the first floor is going to become kind of an alumni
house where people can have gatherings and things of that nature .
He said that the alumni are kicking in part of the funds for this
project and they have always wanted it to be tied together with
the College ' s alumni and development people . The College has
wanted to save the original structure and there has been
discussion for many years of what would be the best use for that
structure . It has been a single family residence ever since the
College has been on the hill and it was finally decided that this
would be a good way to ensure the future of the building , by
tying these things together and keeping part of it as 'an alumni
house .
Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to
address the public hearing . Chairman Aron closed the public
hearing .
r•
Chairman Aron read a letter from Mr . Frank Liguori of the
Tompkins County Department of Planning , to George Frantz ,
Assistant Town Engineer , dated March 2 , 1989 , which is attached
as Exhibit # 2 , stating the proposal , as submitted , will have no
significant deleterious impact on intercommunity , county , or
state interests .
Mr . Edward Austen asked what kind of siding will be used on
• the outside of the house . Mr . O ' Brien replied that it will have
stained cedar shakes with painted trim . The addition will be
brick .
3
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Town Attorney Barney asked if there are buildings
surrounding this area . Mr . Salm responded that there are only
playing fields for 1500 feet , and there are no neighbors close
enough to complain .
Mr . Edward Austen asked about parking for the project . Mr .
Salm stated that all the parking remains on the south side of the
building , and that there are only ten parking spaces for guests
planned in the project . The people who will work there will use
existing parking that is already on the campus . He referred to
the map that is attached to the appeal to show the parking area .
Chairman Aron asked about the number of employees that will
be at the new facility . Mr . Salm responded that they are looking
at a net increase of about 6 expected over the next two to three
years in the staffing plan .
Chairman Aron read an adopted resolution from the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board on February 21 , 1989 , which is attached as
Exhibit # 3 . He stated that the resolution recommends to the
Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made for this action and that the
Planning Board recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals the
granting of the requested height variance . Chairman Aron stated
that he would like to point out that any recommendation made by
the Planning Board does not necessarily mean that the Zoning
Board of Appeals has to follow their recommendations . However ,
the Planning Board has done some work on this and it is helpful
to the Zoning Board of Appeals to look into it and make their
decision accordingly .
Mrs . Eva Hoffmann asked about the use that the new facility
will be put to and if there will be overnight guests staying
there . Mr . Salm replied that the house will be used as a meeting
place for alumni and there will be offices in one portion of it .
There will be no overnight guests staying at the house .
Mr . Edward Austen asked about security for the building
since there will be no one living there . Mr . Salm responded that
it will become another one of the campus buildings and it will be
patrolled by the Ithaca College security force and it will also
have alarm systems as do the rest of the buildings on the
campus .
Mr . Austen asked about the landscaping for the project and
if there will be trees coming down . Mr . O ' Brien replied that
two , possibly three , trees are coming down .
4
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Chairman Aron said that he would entertain a motion on the
environmental assessment form as recommended by the Planning
Board .
Mrs . Joan Reuning made the following motion :
RESOLVED , That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
makes and hereby does make a negative determination of
environmental significance for this action .
Mr . Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows .
Ayes - Aron , Austen , Reuning , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
Carried Unanimously ,
Chairman Aron stated that there are two matters left to
decide on ; the variance and the special approval for the project .
He stated that the special approval is asking for the use of that
building for the purpose of College Relations and Resource
Development offices on two floors . Chairman Aron said that if
there were not further questions he would entertain a motion on
the special approval .
Mr . Edward Austen made the following motion :
RESOLVED , That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
find and hereby does find , as follows :
1 . That the subject premises are reasonably adapted to the
proposed use .
2 . That the proposed use and the location and design of
the conversion and addition are consistent with the
character of the district in which they are located .
3 . That the proposed use is not detrimental to the general
amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient
to devaluate neighboring property or seriously
inconvenience neighboring inhabitants .
4 . That the proposed access and egress for the proposed
structure and use is safely designed .
• 5
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
5 . That 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 , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals grant and hereby does grant Special Approval for the
proposed conversion of the existing wood - frame residence
adjacent to the west campus entrance ( Danby Road ) to Ithaca
College and the addition thereto of approximately 13 , 000
square feet , on two floors , for the Ithaca College Office of
College Relations and Resource Development , subject to the
approval of final site landscaping plans by the Town
Planning Department .
Mrs . Eva Hoffmann seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows .
® Ayes - Aron , Austen , Reuning , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron stated that he would entertain a motion on the
request for height variance .
Mr . Austen made the following motion .
RESOLVED , That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant a variance for the 13 feet + or
- , with respect to the existing building already there and
which will not be changed , the need for that being because
the grade will be changed on the new building making this
height discrepancy , and because there is no practical way of
making this meet the Town ' s Ordinance , and be it further
RESOLVED , That the Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby
does grant a height variance for the northerly end of the
new building which exceeds the Town Ordinance by
approximately 6 feet , making it 36 feet + or - on that end ,
and be it further
® RESOLVED , That the Board grant and hereby does grant a
height variance of 3 feet + or - for the gable at the
westerly end of the new construction , and be it further
6
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
RESOLVED , that the variances be granted upon the following
findings of fact :
1 . That it is necessary to tie the new construction in
with the existing design of the other building in
gothic construction , and that it would be an
unnecessary hardship to not tie the whole building
together as one continuous structure , and
2 . That no one from the neighborhood appeared in
opposition to this matter and also this height variance
will not offend anyone in the neighborhood except
Ithaca College .
Discussion followed on the floor between Chairman Aron , Town
Attorney Barney , Mr . Austen , and Mr . O ' Brien regarding the height
of the building .
Chairman Aron stated for clarification that we now have
® variances for 3 different heights ; 43 ' , 361 , 331 . Chairman Aron
read the criteria for area variances and stated that area
variances are not as stringent as a use variance .
Mrs . Eva Hoffmann stated that it is not clear to her that it
has been shown that there is practical difficulty or hardship as
to why the Board should decide this way .
Chairman Aron responded that her remarks are well taken and
asked Mr . O ' Brien to respond to Mrs . Hoffmann ' s concerns .
Mr . O ' Brien stated that the approach to the designing of the
addition to the existing building was one of trying to keep the
new building as low-profiled as possible . He stated that , in
fact , nothing in the new development is greater in height from
the curbline than what already exists and in order to do that , it
was necessary to take the addition and push it down into the
ground a little bit so that essentially they have a one - story
building on one side and a two - story on the other side .
Chairman Aron asked what would happen if they pushed the
building down 4 more feet .
Mr . Salm replied that there is a big problem with bedrock at
4 to 7 feet .
• Mrs . Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
7
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Ayes - Aron , Austen , Hoffmann , Reuning .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The next item on the agenda was the following .
APPEAL OF DR . CAROLYN MCMASTER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A
VARIANCE UNDER SECTION 9 OF TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO . 7 -
1988 , AS AMENDED , " REQUIRING SPRINKLER SYSTEMS TO BE
INSTALLED IN BUILDINGS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA " , FOR THE
TEMPORARY EXEMPTION OF AN OPERATIONAL SPRINKLER INSTALLATION
IN THE PROPOSED BRIAR PATCH VETERINARY HOSPITAL TO BE
LOCATED AT 706 ELMIRA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -
33 - 2 - 7 , BUSINESS DISTRICT " C " .
( Appeal Form attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 ) .
Dr . McMaster appeared before the Board and stated that in
the written appeal she outlined the serious problems she saw at
the time of installing the sprinkler system right away and one
was the water supply coming from the well being shared with
several neighbors . She said that the tank that is necessary for
a . sprinkler system for a building of the size that she is
proposing is some 5 , 000 gallons and that is an enormous amount of
water to supply from a well , especially a shared well and she
thinks the neighbors may have some hardship with that . Dr .
McMaster stated that the other major factor was the cost of the
tank and that for her , at this time , the cost is prohibitive .
The cost for a tank that size is about $ 15 , 000 , which is as much
as the rest of the entire sprinkler system would cost so it would
double the cost of the system for her . She said in light of the
fact that public water will be available in the near future and
she has to bear the added expense at that time to hook up to
public water which she has had an estimate of $ 7 , 000 - $ 8 , 000 to
hook up and it seems to her unreasonable to have to put a tank in
now that would be obsolete in a few years .
Dr . McMaster commented that the other main point was the
huge size of the tank , approximately 6 feet by 25 feet , which
would take up a lot of room in the basement of the new addition
and she has planned that space for storage as well as possible
uses in the future expansion of the building . The other serious
problem that she realized after doing the written appeal was the
fact that it will take 6 weeks for this tank to be delivered .
The problem is that the tank has to be put in the basement before
the walls and foundation are put up and that would delay the
onset of her project by six weeks . She stated that she has to be
out of her present building on May 1st and if she were unable to
8
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
get into a new site shortly after May 1st , especially if it took
2 to 3 months , she could very well be put out of business . She
said in addition , if a tank is installed in the basement , when it
does become obsolete , when public water is out there , she won ' t
be able to get the tank out of the basement .
Chairman Aron read a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals
from Supervisor Noel Desch , dated March 3 , 1989 , and attached
hereto as Exhibit # 5 . Chairman Aron referred to Schedule C of
the attachment , line # 11 , which states that complete
construction for the area in question is June 1 , 1990 .
Chairman Aron asked Dr . McMaster if she is aware of the
sprinkler law and he asked if she is going to put sprinklers in
now as part of the remodeling that she is proposing to do so that
when the public water comes through the only thing left would be
to hook into the system and the sprinklers would then be
inspected and operable .
® Dr . McMaster replied that her intent is to put the sprinkler
system in now while she is renovating and leave it unhooked to
any water supply until the public water is available and then to
hook into it at that time .
Chairman Aron stated that the Board has to have a date to go
by . Dr . McMaster responded that she could say that she would be
hooked into the public water supply for sprinkler system within
one month of the time that the water would be available to her .
Chairman Aron commented that there has to be some kind of
fire protection in the building , smoke detectors , sensors or
whatever . He asked Mr . Frost for his recommendation for fire
protection until such time as the sprinkler system would be
installed .
Mr . Frost stated that there should be smoke detectors in all
the spaces , with the exception of any areas where there might be
heat producing equipment , in which case heat detectors should be
provided .
Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to
address the public hearing . The public hearing was closed .
Mr . Austen asked Dr . McMaster if there would be any purpose
in hooking this system up to the present water supply . Mr .
Austen stated that if in a fire only one head went off , there
would be water for a period of time and that certainly would be
better than nothing .
e
9
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Mr . Frost replied that he agrees with that on one hand but
on the other hand it would not meet any specific recognized
standard .
Town Attorney Barney stated that if this Board gave a
variance from the requirement but conditioned it on hooking it up
to whatever water system is available , he doesn ' t think the Board
has any liability exposure against it . He asked Mr . Frost what
happens if you have less poundage than is needed to set the
sprinklers off .
Mr . Frost replied that the sprinklers would still go off ,
that it is the heat that breaks the link and discharges the water
from the head .
Discussion followed on the floor on the standards for
sprinkler systems .
Chairman Aron asked Dr . McMaster what the water pressure for
the house is now . Dr . McMaster replied that she does not know ,
that the seller would not give her a flow rate .
Chairman Aron stated that a normal pump runs between 20 - 40 ,
or 30 - 50 pounds , and he asked Dr . McMaster if the well is in
working order . Dr . McMaster responded that that is correct and
that the sprinkler people she has spoken to did not even consider
hooking it up to the present water supply . The consensus she got
from them is that there would not be enough water flow to even
make it work .
Town Attorney Barney suggested that there are services where
you can wire your smoke detectors into two or three locations and
have them transmitted to a central processing unit , which in
turn notifies a service that you have a smoke detector tripped
and the fire department is notified .
Discussion followed on the floor on the cost of this type of
system .
Mrs . Reuning asked what kind of possibility would there be
of fire , what else would be there besides the heating system .
Dr . McMaster responded that it would be very low- risk .
Chairman Aron asked Dr . McMaster if she is planning to have
some equipment hooked into the fire department during the time
she does not have the full sprinkler system charged .
• 10
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Dr . McMaster responded that without knowing the cost of such
a system , it would be hard for her to agree to having such a
system installed .
Chairman Aron read from the Sprinkler Law and stated to Dr .
McMaster that the Board has to recommend to her and condition
upon her the alternates until the time comes when she is hooked
into the full pressure of the public water system .
Mr . Austen asked about having fire extinguishers around the
building in the interim and Dr . McMaster assured the Board that
there will be extinguishers in the building .
Chairman Aron stated that he would at this time entertain a
motion from the Board .
Mrs . Reuning made the following motion .
WHEREAS , the use of this building is not going to be high
® risk as far as fire is concerned , and no one will be
sleeping in this building at night ,
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED that the Board of Zoning Appeals
grant and hereby does grant a temporary variance from the
required standards of the Town Sprinkler Law under the
following conditions :
1 . That the applicant must hook up to the existing
water supply in the interim until one month after
public water available for her property .
2 . That the variance will terminate one month after
public water is available for the sprinkler
system a
3 . That the hardship is caused by the fact of having
to spend $ 15 , 000 for a tank that once installed
cannot be removed from the building and probably
would only be necessary for approximately one
year .
Mr . Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
® Ayes - Aron , Reuning , Hoffmann , Austen .
Nays - None .
• 11
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
The motion was carried unanimously .
The next item on the agenda was the following .
APPEAL OF HOYT BENJAMIN AND JERRY STEVENSON ,
APPELLANTS , REQUESTING A VARIANCE UNDER SECTION 9 OF
TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO . 7 - 1988 , AS AMENDED ,
" REQUIRING SPRINKLER SYSTEMS TO BE INSTALLED IN
BUILDINGS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA " , FOR THE TEMPORARY
EXEMPTION OF AN OPERATIONAL SPRINKLER INSTALLATION IN
THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE/ OFFICE FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ON
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 31 - 3 - 3 . 11 , NEAR THE
INTERSECTION OF N . Y . S . ROUTES 13 AND 13A , LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT . WITH RESPECT TO SUCH FACILITY ,
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED A
BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE , PERMITTING A BUILDING HEIGHT
OF 36 FEET , ON NOVEMBER 18 , 1987 , AND FRONT AND SIDE
YARD VARIANCES , PERMITTING FRONT AND SIDE YARDS OF 40
FEET , ON JUNE 31 1980 .
® ( Appeal Form attached hereto as Exhibit # 6 ) .
Mr . Jerry Stevenson appeared before the Board and stated
that he asked initially that the Zoning Board of Appeals consider
granting a variance without the installation of the hardware for
the sprinkler system itself until such time that public water was
available , only because it did not seem to make sense to spend
the money at this time and not have a usable system . He stated
that they would be willing to install the system in an inoperable
condition with the lack of water if the Board sees fit .
Chairman Aron referred to a photograph of the building and
stated that there are no sides , no roof on it yet , and he said in
that regard there would seem to be no hardship as far as
installing the sprinkler system now while they are constructing
that building and he asked Mr . Stevenson if it wouldn ' t be more
expensive to do it thereafter .
Mr . Stevenson replied that all but approximately 1200 square
feet is going to be warehouse , it would be under the roof but
that is all and the installation would be the same .
Chairman Aron remarked that the Law says there has to be a
sprinkler system and since they are in the process of building a
warehouse , wouldn ' t it behoove them financially to install the
® sprinkler system even if it is not operable yet .
Mr . Stevenson replied that yes he guessed so and that it is
not really that important to him when they put it in but that in
. 12
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
a warehouse condition , it can go in just as easily at a later
date as it can at this date .
Chairman Aron stated that the Board would like to know what
Mr . Stevenson ' s intention is . Mr . Stevenson responded that his
intent would be to install the sprinkler system and have it up
and operating as quickly as possible after public water is
available .
Chairman Aron stated that the letter he has states that
public water will be available on or about June 1 , 1990 .
Chairman Aron again referred to the photo of the building in
question and stated that the building has been in this condition
since 1987 and he asked Mr . Stevenson if it is correct that he in
now in the process of building a warehouse .
Mr . Stevenson replied that that is correct . He asked the
Board to understand that the two people on the application within
• the last month just bought this property and that they were not
involved with it until this time .
Chairman Aron again stated that since this is a skeleton of
a warehouse , there is no hardship in installing a sprinkler
system . Mr . Stevenson replied only financially , that the cost of
the sprinkler system is $ 33 , 000 . He has written quotations from
Syracuse Pipe but he did not have them with him .
Chairman Aron said that he is talking about the apparatus ,
the heads and the piping , he is not talking about the hook into
the main public water supply . Mr . Stevenson said that is right ,
the system itself , assuming there were public water there would
cost approximately $ 33 , 000 . Chairman Aron asked if they wouldn ' t
have to put that in anyway and Mr . Stevenson replied that indeed
they would . Chairman Aron stated that the money then is not
relevant , that it is part of the building . Mr . Stevenson replied
except that once it is operable their insurance rates will drop
to about 25 % of what they will be now , then it makes a great deal
of sense to spend that kind of money to get the return but at
this point it provides no benefit for the dollar spent .
Mrs . Reuning asked Mr . Stevenson if he knew about this Law
before they bought the building . Mr . Stevenson replied that yes
they did . He stated to the Board that he is willing to accept
the Board ' s determination that they install the sprinkler system
• hardware as the building progresses .
• 13
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to
address the public hearing . Chairman Aron closed the public
hearing .
Mr . Austen stated that he would like to see the system put
in at this time , then he could feel comfortable with giving a
variance until the public water came by the property . He would
feel more confident that it would be hooked up within a thirty
day period of that time .
Mr . Stevenson asked what happens if the public water supply
never comes by the property , then he would have $ 33 , 000 tied up
in an inoperable system . Mr . Austen replied that then we would
have to go back to the original intent of the Law and he would
have to have a storage tank to meet the Town ordinance . He
thinks that the Board would probably be willing to accept it with
the idea that the Town Supervisor has a schedule on paper and he
feels confident that the water will be there sometime next
• summer , that there is a demand for it in that area .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Stevenson when they are starting
construction . Mr . Stevenson replied that if they cannot get a
variance , they can not get a building permit without constructing
a storage tank and a pump and that makes the whole project
economically unfeasible for them to do and so what you see is
what is going to stay there until public water comes through .
Town Attorney Barney stated that that does not necessarily
follow because what you see may have to come down if there is no
further construction .
Discussion followed on the floor as to whether or not the
present variance has a time limit on it for expiration .
Mr . Austen asked Mr . Stevenson if he got a variance from
having to put in a water tank , when would construction begin .
Mr . Stevenson responded that they would start almost
immediately . He said that it would be basically a metal building
utilizing the frame that is there and adding onto what would be
the south end with a new metal building structure according to
the plan .
Chairman Aron referred to the map and stated that according
to the plan submitted there are 2 offices , a conference room ,
reception room , bookkeeping room , laboratories , and so forth on
the site of the building . He said that he does not remember that
the Board varied this addition .
14
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Mr . Austen stated that there was never any variances
granted for that addition , that the frame is only thing that was
given a variance for .
Mr . Stevenson said that he does not believe that is right ,
that if you look at the variance , it was granted for more of
these frames to be built and that the proposed addition is within
the confine of the variance that was granted before .
Chairman Aron stated that there is a site plan approval for
that by the Planning Board on January 3 , 1989 . He read from the
Planning Board Resolution of that meeting , ( attached hereto as
Exhibit # 7 ) . He asked Mr . Frost if there are any deficiencies in
the side yard by having added this office complex .
Mr . Frost replied that he thinks the addition is within the
requirements .
Mr . Austen said that he thinks that part of what came out of
the Planning Board is whether or not the Town Board ' s passing of
the Local Law that basically said that variance is granted by the
Zoning Board to expire in one year and was retroactive .
Chairman Aron remarked that while the Town Attorney is
checking the minutes , he wished to go on with the subject matter .
He asked Mr . Stevenson if what he is saying is that if he puts in
a sprinkler system this year , he wouldn ' t be able to afford to
build the building .
Mr . Stevenson replied that they can put the hardware and
piping for an operable sprinkler system if there is public water
there ; they can afford to do that , but if they have to provide
the water supply and the pump to charge the first part of this
system , then the building is not feasible .
Chairman Aron stated that when they build the building , or
frame it in or whatever they are doing to it to make it a
warehouse and office , at the same time they could put all the
heads in there , all the piping in there , and just block off at
the end of it where it is supposed to go later on by 1990 or
thereabouts when they hook into public water .
Mr . Stevenson said that yes they can do that .
Chairman Aron stated that if there were no further
questions , he would entertain a motion from the Board .
• 15
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Mr . Austen made the following motion .
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Hoyt Benjamin and Jerry
Stevenson Appeal for the temporary exemption of an
operational sprinkler installation in their proposed
warehouse / office facility to be located near the
intersection of Routes 13 and 13A , the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals find and hereby does find as follows .
1 . That there is financial hardship in that it would cost
$ 110 , 000 . 00 for a tank and pump to supply this building
for a period of probably one year .
2 . That a public water line is proposed for installation
in the area of Routes 13 and 13A .
3 . That the building being proposed is low - risk as far as
fire and that it stands by itself .
• 4 . That no one appeared at the public hearing in
opposition to this project .
AND FURTHER RESOLVED , That the Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant a limited variance to expire 90
days after a public water main is run by the property on
Routes 13 and 13A , with the following conditions .
1 . That the sprinkler system be installed as the building
is enclosed .
2 . That the Building Inspector will determine how many
fire extinguishers will be needed in the building .
Ms .. Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows .
Ayes - Aron , Reuning , Austen , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The next item on the agenda was the following .
• APPEAL OF BARBARA FREEDMAN AND LLOYD WYNROTH ,
APPELLANTS , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE 15 - FOOT SIDE
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR PROPERTY
• 16
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
LOCATED AT 104 BIRCHWOOD DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 70 - 10 - 1 . 15 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID
PROPERTY CONTAINS A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN
ATTACHED , ROOFED PORCH LOCATED 13 + FEET FROM THE EAST
SIDE LOT LINE .
( Appeal Form attached hereto as Exhibit # 8 . )
Ms . Eva Hoffmann asked to be excused from this appeal .
Chairman Aron referred to a history of the proposed project
which is attached to the appeal . He also read a letter from
Mr . Rocco Lucente , dated December 15 , 1988 , stating that he has
no objection to construction of a porch at 104 Birchwood Drive .
( Attached as Exhibit # 9 ) .
Mr . Wynroth addressed the Board and stated that he bought
the property in May 1988 and construction of that porch was
started in November 1988 . He explained that there was a porch
there already and apparently the previous owner had not gotten a
variance for the porch . He said that one of the problems was
that he was relying on the builder and initially apparently there
was nothing required just to replace some of the rotting siding
and so on but as the project got bigger and bigger , they decided
that as long as the wall and the roof was off , and since they
were practically building a new porch , they decided that they
might as well enlarge it . '
Mr . Wynroth further stated that the builder thought there
was a three foot requirement to the side , apparently because the
last project that he had worked on in the neighborhood had an
accessory building where there is a three foot requirement .
Mr . Frost explained that Mr . Williams ( the builder ) was
involved with construction several houses down on another
street in the vicinity , and at that time they had gone over all
the requirements for a permit , setback requirements for an
accessory building , etc . and somewhere along the line he applied
that to this porch .
Chairman Aron stated for the record that Mr . Wynroth should
tell his neighbors and friends or whoever . is going to build , now
or whenever , that the responsibility for a building permit is not
the contractors but the owners because the owners sign the
• application . He further stated that this Board can make him
tear down this project and that there are entirely too many of
these mistakes being made .
• 17
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Mr . Wynroth replied that he is now well aware of the
regulations and that it will not happen again .
Ms . Reuning asked Mr . Wynroth what the size of the original
porch was as far as the setback .
Mr . Wynroth responded that the original size of the porch
was 16 ' X 8 ' and the present addition is 16 ' X 16 ' and it comes
to within exactly 13 feet from the line .
Town Attorney Barney remarked that the additional 8 feet
extended toward 106 Birchwood Drive .
Mr . Wynroth replied that . that is right . In other words ,
there was a 21 ' space there , now there is a 131 .space .
Chairman Aron referred to the photos that were presented to
the Board and stated that it looks like it is walled in , there
are windows in there and a roof over it and he asked if that is
• going to be a porch or is it also going to be , in the future , a
living room or bedroom or a kitchen addition or whatever .
Mr . Wynroth responded that their intention at this point is
to make it a porch . He said that actually it won ' t look that
much different , the only difference would be that instead of
having screen in those spaces , there would be windows in those
spaces .
Chairman Aron asked if the Board calls it a porch at this
time , do they call it a porch two years from now .
Mr . Wynroth replied that if Mr . Aron is asking if he is
going to make a room out of it without coming back to this Board ,
he would not do that . Mr . Wynroth wished to point out that
although the addition does come to 13 feet from the line , one of
the reasons that happened is because the house is off - center
because of a kind of gully on the other side and the addition ,
the way it is , is over 40 feet from the house next door so rather
than having the normally required 30 foot space between the two
buildings , there is approximately 43 feet .
Mr . Wynroth presented more photos to the Board showing the
seclusion of this property .
Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared
before the Board . The public hearing was closed .
• 18
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Mr . Austen asked Mr . Frost if the application was received
by December 30th , which is the date that he has noted .
_ Mr . Frost replied yes .
Mr . Austen asked if there were any plans to enclose the
space under the porch .
Mr . Wynroth replied that he will put lattice work there so
that it can be used for storage .
Chairman Aron stated to the Board that what they are
considering is an area variance of 2 feet on the east side of the
building and that if there were no further questions he would
entertain a motion at this time .
Ms . Reuning made the following motion :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby
does grant an area variance of 2 feet from the east side lot
line of this residence with ' the following findings :
1 . That this brings the property within 43 feet of the
next home .
2 . That there is a letter from the neighboring homeowner
that he has no objection and no one else in the
neighborhood appeared before the Board to object to
this variance .
3 . That there would be a practical difficulty to remove 2
feet and it would be very difficult to add a porch onto
any other portion of the home because of the topography
of the land around it .
4 . That the construction occurred unknowingly .
5 . That the porch is well screened from the street and
neighborhood with bushes and trees and it should not be
a detriment to anyone in the neighborhood .
Mr . Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows .
Ayes - Aron , Austen , Reuning .
Nays - None .
19
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
The motion was carried unanimously .
The last item discussed was the following .
• ADOPTED RESOLUTION OF FEBRUARY 28 , 1989 FOR DEER RUN
INVESTORS , L . P . , REQUESTING A VARIANCE UNDER SECTION 9
OF TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL . LAW NO . 7 - 1988 , AS AMENDED ,
" REQUIRING SPRINKLER SYSTEMS TO BE INSTALLED IN
BUILDINGS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA " , SUCH THAT BUILDINGS
NO . 31 THROUGH 36 AND BUILDINGS NO . 38 AND 39 , A TOTAL
OF 34 DWELLING UNITS LOCATED IN PHASE II OF THE DEER
RUN SUBDIVISION , MAY BE EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLERS THEREIN . ( Attached
hereto as Exhibit # 10 ) .
Chairman Aron stated that the resolution does state that the
variance will be effective as soon as the Zoning Board of Appeals
is satisfied with the documentation which Mr . Edwin Hallberg has
brought before the Board . ( Documentation is " attached hereto as
• Exhibit # 11 ) .
Chairman Aron asked the Board if they had any further
questions of Mr . Hallberg regarding the documentation that he has
presented and if they are satisfied with the documentation , the
variance will be effective the moment that it is voted upon .
Chairman Aron stated that at this time he would poll the
members as to whether or not they are satisfied with the
documentation as presented . The members of Zoning Board of
Appeals each indicated that they are satisfied with the
documentation as presented .
Chairman Aron said that he would entertain a motion that the
Board is satisfied with documentation as presented by Mr .
Hallberg as to the hardship presented to the Board and that the
variance in that case will be in effect as of March 8 , 1989 .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he thought it might be
better form to re - adopt the preceding motion deleting the
requirements of the information that was requested in the
resolution of February 28 , 1989 .
Ms . Hoffmann made the following motion :
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Deer Run
Investors , L . P . , Appellants , Edwin A . Hallberg , Agent
requesting a variance , under Section 9 of Town of Ithaca
Local Law No . 7 - 1988 , as amended , " Requiring Sprinkler
• 20
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
Systems to be Installed in Buildings in the Town of
Ithaca " , such that Buildings No . 31 through 36 and
Buildings No . 38 and 39 , a total of 34 dwelling units located in
Phase II of the Deer Run Subdivision , may be exempted from the
requirement for the installation of sprinklers therein , the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals find and hereby does fin d as
follows :
( a ) that the process for the construction of these units
was commenced a number of months before the Town
Sprinkler Law became effective , and
( b ) that the water lines that would be required for the
sprinkler system , while originally thought to be
adequate from engineering studies , are apparently
inadequate in terms of pressure and would require
removal and replacement , and
( c ) that the overall cost of the installation of the
• sprinkler system in this particular instance would not
be recoverable by the developer by altering the price
structure of the units , and be it further
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals ,
having received the information that was a condition of the
granting of the variance on February 28 , 1989 , and upon the
finding that this Board is satisfied with the information as
submitted by Deer Run Investors , L . P . , grant and hereby does
grant a variance for the subject 34 units in Phase II of
the Deer Run Subdivision from the Sprinkler Law
requirements , subject to the following conditions .
1 . Installation of hard -wired smoke detectors for every
room including the basement in each of the units .
2 . Smoke detectors in the basement to be wired to the
smoke detectors on the first floor and on the second
floor , such that alarms will sound simultaneously .
3 . The provision of hand -held fire extinguishers of the
appropriate size and type , as approved by the Town ' s
Code Enforcement Officer , in kitchens , garages ,
basements , and every bedroom .
• 4 . The effective date of the variance is March 8 , 1989 .
Mr . Austen seconded the motion .
• 21
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8 , 1989
The voting was as follows .
Ayes - Aron , Austen , Reuning , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 20 P . M .
Respectively Submitted ,
blvx�� g. i4e,
Connie J . Holcomb
Recording Secretary
Exhibits 1 through 11 attached .
• APPROVED .
Henry Aron , Chairman
TOWN OF 1THACA FEE : $ 40 . 00
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : .
Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH
( 607 ) 273 - 1747 CHECK
• ZONING :
A P P E A L 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 Main a building permit for addition and alterations
to existing wood frame house adjacent to Danby Road entrance to campus .
at Ithaca College , Tovn of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 -41 -1- 30 . 2 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 :
Article(s ) IV Section ( s ) 11 , para . 4 and 10
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such dental and, in support of the
Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES and/ or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows :
(Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . )
Special approval required . The project proposes conversion of the existing wood- frame
residence adjacent to the west campus entrance , and addition of approximately 13 , 000 SF
on two floors , for the office of College Relations and Resource Development . Request
variance to allow building height in excess of 30 ' .
•
Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date :
Signature of Appellant /Agent : , Date : (2f' f5M/ 128
E bct c
14- 10-2 ( 2 , 87 ) - 7c
617, 21 SEOR
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Review
• FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose : The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine , in an orderly manner , whether a project
or action may be significant . The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer . Frequent-
ly , there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable . It is also understood that those who determine
significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental
analysis . In addition , many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting
the question of significance .
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly , comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action .
• Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts :
Part 1 : Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site . By identifying basic project
data , it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3 .
Part 2: Focuses, on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from . a project or action . It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-
large impact . The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced .
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentiallvdarge , then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the
impact is actually important .
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE — Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project : ❑ Part 1 ❑ Part 2 ❑ Part 3
• Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF ( Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
information , and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact , it is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that:
❑ A . The project will not result in any large and important impact( s ) and , therefore, is one which will not
have a significant impact on the environment , therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
❑ . B . Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required ,
therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared . •
❑ C . The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared .
• AConditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Name of Action
• Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer
• Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer ( If different from responsible officer)
Date
1
PART 1 — PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE : This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect
* the environment . Please complete the entire form , Parts A through E . Answers to these questions will be considered
part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review . Provide any additional
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3 .
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve
new studies , research or investigation . If information requiring such additional work is unavailable , so indicate and specify
each instance .
NAME OF ACTION
Developmentrc)ITPge Relations and ff '
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County)
CountCountys NY
NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE
-( 607 ) 274 - 3285
ADDRESS
CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE
NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE
ADDRESS
CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Addition and Alteration to existing building
Please Complete Each Question — Indicate N . A . if not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas .
1 . Present land use : ❑ Urban ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential ( suburban ) ❑ Rural ( non-farm )
❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture 430ther College Campus
2 . Total acreage of project area : 1 . 0 acres .
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
Meadow or Brushland ( Non-agricultural ) acres acres
Forested acres acres
Agricultural ( Includes orchards , cropland , pasture , etc . ) acres acres
Wetland ( Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24 , 25 of ECL ) acres acres
Water Surface Area acres - acres
Unvegetated ( Rock , earth or fill ) acres acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0 . 14 acres 0 . 34 acres
Other ( Indicate type) T ;;m 0 ' 86 acres 0 . 66 acres
3 . What is predominant soil type( s ) on project site ? Me (Made Land )
a . Soil drainage : A2Well drained 100 % of site ❑ Moderately well drained % of site
❑ Poorly drained % of site
b . If any agricultural land is involved , how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS
Land Classification System ? NA acres . ( See 1 NYCRR 370 ).
4 . Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site ? C1 Yes )gNo
a . What is depth to bedrock ? 7 ( in feet )
2
5 . Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes : ❑ 0-100NO 90 % x: 10-15 % 10 %
`' 15 % or greater 0 %
6 . Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building , site , or district , listed on the State or the National
• Registers of Historic Places ? Dyes Mo
7 . Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks ? ❑ Yes XXNo
8 . What is the depth of the water table ? 7 ( in feet)
9 . Is site located over a primary , principal , or sole source aquifer ? ❑ Yes ZNo
10 . Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area ? L; Yes NNNo
11 . Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered ?
❑ Yes Flo According to
Identify each species
12 . Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site ? ( i . e . , cliffs , dunes , other geological formations)
❑ Yes :'No Describe
13 . Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area ?
❑ Yes Flo If yes, explain
14 . Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community ?
❑ Yes Flo
15 . Streams within or contiguous to project area : None
a . Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16 . Lakes , ponds , wetland areas within or contiguous to project area :
a . Name None b . Size ( In acres )
• 17 . Is the site served by existing public utilities ? RgVes ❑ No
a ) If Yes , does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection ? Mes ❑ No
b) If Yes , will improvements be necessary to allow connection ? Dyes KX N0
18 . Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law , Article 25-AA ,
Section 303 and 304 ? ❑ Yes Flo
19 . Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
of the ECL , and 6 NYCRR 617 ? ❑ Yes x3jNo
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes ? Dyes %RNo
B . Project Description
1 . Physical dimensions and scale of project ( fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a . Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 400+ acres .
b. Project acreage to be developed : 1 . 0 acres initially; 1 . 0 acres ultimately .
c . Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acres .
d . Length of project, in miles : NA ( If appropriate)
e . If the project is an expansion , indicate percent of expansion proposed 400 % ;
f . Number of off-street parking spaces existing 2 proposed a
g . Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 10 ( upon completion of project ) ?
h . If residential : Number and type of housing units :
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
• Initially NA NA NA NA
Ultimately NA NA WTI NA
i . Dimensions ( in feet) of largest proposed structure 45_ height; �7 width ; 147. _ length .
j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is ? 0 ft
3
L J'W %W MUln IIdIUidl tudlUfldl � 1 e . , rut K , edrm , ell. . ) will oe removed from the svter . 600 te-m/cubic yards
3 . Will disturbed areas be reclaimed ? kXYes ONo ❑ N /A
a . If yes , for what intend . purpose is the site being reclaimed ? LaWb and landscaping
b Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation ? . IRYes ONo
• c . Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation ? LxYes ❑ No
4 . How many acres of vegetation ( trees , shrubs , ground covers ) will be removed from site ? 0 . 20 acres .
5 . Will any mature forest ( over 100 years old ) or other locally- important vegetation be removed by this project ?
OYes allo
6 . If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 6 months , ( including demolition ) .
7 . If multi-phased : NA
a . Total number of phases anticipated ( number ) .
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, ( including demolition ).
• c . Approximate completion date of final phase month year .
d . Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases ? Oyes ONo
8 . Will blasting occur during construction ? Dyes ® No
9 . Number of jobs generated : during construction 20 after project is complete 15
10 . Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0
11 . Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities ? OYes )iNo If yes , explain
12 . Is surface liquid waste disposal involved ? OYes =No
a . If yes, indicate type of waste ( sewage , industrial , etc . ) and amount
b . Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13 . Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved ? 5dYes ONo Type M„ niripal CP47PY
•4 . Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal ? OYes ® No
Explain
15 . Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain ? OYes X3No
16 . Will the project generate solid waste ? ® Yes ONo
a . If yes, what is the amount per month 1 tons
b . If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used ? K] Yes ONo
c . If yes , give name Tompkins County Landfill location as determined
d . Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill ? OYes Flo
e . If Yes, explain
17 . Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste ? OYes Flo
a . If yes , what is the anticipated rate of disposal ? tons/month .
b . If yes , what is the anticipated site life? years .
18 . Will project use herbicides or pesticides ? OYes ® No
19 . Will project routinely produce odors ( more than one hour per day)? OYes ® No
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels ? Oyes XZNo
21 . Will project result in an increase in energy use? Mes ONo
If yes , indicate type(s) Electricity and natural gas .
22 . If water supply is from wells , indicate pumping capacity NA gallons/minute .
03 . Total anticipated water usage per day 500 gallons/day .
4 . Does project involve Local , State or Federal funding ? OYes Qlo
If Yes, explain
4
Submittal
25, Approvals Required: Type Date
Wity, Town , Village Board FX
❑ N ° 12 / 20 / 88
Special Aon r��,ai
City, Town , Village Planning Board DYes ONo 12 / 20 / 88
City, Town Zoning Board
® Yes ❑ No Specia_l_. A=nsaxr = ��. /Variance
City, County Health Department DYes ® No
Other Local Agencies DYes ® No
Other Regional Agencies [] Yes KINo
_ State Agencies DYes nNo
Federal Agencies [] Yes $7No
C . Zoning and Planning Information
1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision ? DYes ONo
If Yes, indicate decision required :
Ozoning amendment Ozoning variance Uspecial use permit ❑ subdivision Dsite plan
Onew/revision of master plan ❑ resource management plan ❑ other
2 . What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? R 15
3 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
NA
NA
4 . What is the proposed zoning of the site?
5 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
• NA
6 . Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ® Yes ONo
7 . What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action ?
Higher Education , Residential
8 . Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within aNA es ONo
mile? DY
9 . If • the proposed action is the subdivision of land , how many lots are proposed ?
a . What is the minimum lot size proposed ?
NA
10 . Will proposed. action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? DYes K)No
11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation , education, police,
fire protection)? DYes UNo
_ a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand ? DYes ONo
12 . Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? DYes 8No
a . If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? DYes ONo
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse
impacts associated with your proposal , please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them .
E. Verification
® I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge . 20 December 1988
Date
Applicant/Spo or Na Ro �, - . • ,
Signature � V Title Ar
chitect
are a state agency , complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
If the action in the oastal Area, and you
with this assess
5
X /
Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) �j �1• X
i t•• I;o, x
mo..
1 ..u...� d .,f...ui..,ri,><, , , , _ msµ. ,.\ Wti•-"+4�.........+'
s � — _ _ — _ _ _ a• ______1 142
�_ — __ I ! r ! ' � `` mr'
va
m "moi•. / ' �Y'`/ -�_ �� - -___ _�d'__� �2 is
• \\ '� i i � 1 `� \ \ `
14
' JwON
n In `�� a -� ' `�"
Ir
tk IN
gas
Fly
v;
\
0 IN
One pay I A
it
IN.NN
IN
AN 0 IN INN
IN
N.
IN, NN
NN.INI
`' a
_ IN, \
t • College Loop Road \
NI
Thr _ oma •V`\ „� IN
• .\ ` \
l Eo
f
000 pk
p.
ul It
:... ... �{ HI � I ER 1R
m. , •:1, ! . _ Q n I f tire'+ !
9 t.a rc • or E:I fE� r r 1
m Cad #x p�Y f i • I g }
rr •i . • t .. °J Y 1 F
. � : z I Iwdnes 97
MvJ rl° j # '•'�:� ' I I ✓�� • row "'" ra °
C It . IV wry o e o n.c .or,.
f • I I A a' e.w....r......a ...•u. nra,.w wall,
r-i f AAlban r+0 ARsrtat#r 1a;?,•.�h �'�f f�
F 4 COLLEGE RELATIONS &
PeifE 'DEVELOPNIEt�lT ;OMC;E
3 . Ithaca Coflege Ithaca,.Now York' I ! I n
a
> � I
p M I
M
I
Eq
I
I I i
I
e i
I
I I
I
� H
FRI
M1 lr '
1 �
I � 1
0
8y
y
IEiji I I
I I
lI�❑JIB , � I
I III r -
I � , I
` m
CotX I ;. I ;
I � IeI m H — J:
�
PI
I n
r 1 I I
ILM
I N I I Qf
l LI
I � I
I
le
IIJ_ll li , ; Ii1 • 0 I
X
I = T II $
I
I
It
Mill
• I N I I I 1
I m rt. - - - - - - - F i • I 8 5
�5
e
1 "
Mali �
I I e
I I
I II
i
it - - - -
I I
mrn Q m � :Ad ditlon and Alterationr.fO -
< m " + a COLLEGE RELATIONS &
o ° 9 e DEVELOPMENT OFFICE [( E
r Ithaca College - Ithaca, New York
TrTlr�n
Q �? 4
A
3
I
•—=aiy
r E.•I�p� �em 'b, n
I i
I
1
s
F
i
t —. -C
4
I UDI
M1
V
-c
4
D
mains, wd ARmeuons f
• O i
` COLLEGE RELATIONS & if
Q P DEVELOPMENT OFFICE �3 F
y 3 Ithaca College Ithaca, New York !
2 r
$ m
m
{ . \
F iY • \ 1 �
\ 1
\ lit `
> \
Hl
W IJI � 1
1 I
1 ; I
1 1 \
Q \
1 1 1
� I
• 1 i 1 i _ �
r ? 4 O n m D
M
i
\\ c '
\ � �- II
\ V�i-1
\ Y_
\ II
l I
III
4 �r pit Ttr,
W
III • i £�£ o ��
U
t E F
i
4
-- -- C
F
� i 4
9 0
C, / V
I "
o
C i
n COLLEGE RELATIONS, &
DEVELOPMENT OFFICE 9S Ed
€
)thaca College Ithaca, New York ��
### ######## TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
#### #######
#### ####### Frank R . Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning
#############
### ##
Town of Ithaca 89- 2
March 2 , 1989
To : George R . Frantz
From : Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of Planning
Re . Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239- 1 and -m of the New York State
General Municipal Law .
Case . Special Approval request of Ithaca College at west campus entrance on
Danby Road ( state highway )
Tax Map No . 41 - 1 - 30 : 2
This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239 -m .
The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious impact . on
intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no . recommendation is
indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without
prejudice .
Biggs Center , Building A , 301 Dates Drive Ithaca , New York 14850 ( 607 ) 274-5360
Cd 6th:LK1r -ft z
,
Ithaca College - 1 -
Ithaca College Campus , Danby Road
Office of College Relations and Resource Development
Report and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals '
• Planning Board , February 21 , 1989
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Ithaca College
Ithaca College Campus , Danby Road
Office of College Relations and Resource
Development
Report and Recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board , February 21 , 1989
MOTION4by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by - Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
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 IV , ' Section 11 •, Paragraph 4 , of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for a 13 , 000 ± square . foot addition to an
existing building , formerly used for residential purposes ,
proposed for the Ithaca College Office of College Relations and
Resource Development , on the Ithaca College Campus , Town of
• Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 a 21 aResigence District R- 15 , and
further , the Consideration of a Recommendation to said Board of
Appeals with respect to a request for variance from the height
requirement of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 , of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance .
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 February 21 , 1989 , has
reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form
and review , and other submissions related to this proposal .
X 4 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
action , subject to certain mitigation measures .
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 .
• 2 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Board of
Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the following :
30 E4kLkt j� JL3
Ithaca College - 2 -
Ithaca College Campus , Danby Road
Office of College Relations and Resource Development
Report and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board , February 21 , 1989
a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location .
b . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected .
c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town .
3 . 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 Ithaca College Office of
College Relations and Resource Development be approved , subject
to the approval of final site landscaping plans by the Town
Planning Department , and
FURTHER , IT IS RESOLVED .
That the Planning Board recommend sand hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals the granting of the requested height
variance .
Aye . - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Lesser ; Smith . ,
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board ,
February 22 , 1989 .
uwry OF 1 THACA FEE : $ 40 . 00
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED :
Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH -
( 607 ) 273 - 1147 CHECK
• ZONING :
A P P E A L 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 obtain a certificate of occupancy prior
to completion of a sprinkler system .
at 706 Elmira Rd . Tovn of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 2 - 7 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 :
• Article ( s ) Sections ) ,
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 :
(Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . )
See attached
Signature of Owner/Appellant : (s. L �� � ` \ �+ `A. � � s Date : - 3 `l
Signature of Appellant /Agent : Date :
PLOT PLAN
INFORMATION TO BE SFKMN :
1 . Dimenslons of lot . 4 . Dimensions and location of proposed structures) or
•2 . Distance of structures from : or addition( s ) .
a . Road, 5 . Nanes of neighbors who bound lot .
b . Both side lot lines, 6 . Setback of neighbors .
c . Rear of lot . 7 . Street name and number .
3 . North arrow . 8 . Show existing structures in contrasting lines .
See attached
•
•
Signature of Owner/Appe 1 l ant : C� �` L � Date : a ' 3 - 99
Signature of Appellant / Agent : Date :
Practical difficulties and / or unnecessary hardship as follows :
Water for 706 Elmira Rd . is from a well shared with several
neighbors ( Claude Putman at 35 - 1 - 28 and tenants at 33 - 2 - 7 ) . To
operate the required sprinkler system with a well requires a
very large holding tank with an elaborate pressurization system .
The cost of the tank and pressurization system alone would exceed
$ 10 , 000 . This does not include the sprinkler heads and plumbing .
( Estimate obtained from Steve Wilson at Charles Wilson Engineering . )
The other users of the shared well would have a substantial
and inappropriate drain on their water supply .
If I was forced to incur an additional $ 10 , 000 expense for
a sprinkler system , the cash reserves of my small business would
be drained to a precarious level .
There are also practical difficulties in maintaining such
a large holding tank on the premises ( space , sanitation ) .
This expense appears particularly onerous and unnecessary since
town water is scheduled for this area within approximately a
two year period .
I propose to have the sprinklers and plumbing designed .to
hook up to public water lines . Also I would install the sprinkler
and plumbing now ( while I ' m renovating ) though the sprinklers
will not be hooked up to a water supply at this time . I am asking
for a time variance which would require me to hook up to the
water supply when public water is available .
Se Q 0.d ' P�vl �( ✓ /l'l
•
• ADDENDUM
Since the original date of this request I have received a more
exact estimate of the costs of a sprinkler system for my
veterinary office ( see enclosed estimate ) .
Not only is the expense of the tank alone staggering ( $ 14720 ) ,
but , due to it ' s large size , it will take up half of the new
basement . I need this space for other uses .
•
•
BUFFALO OFFICE:
125 ARTHUR ST.
DAVIS - ULMER SPRINKLER CO . , INC . BUFFALO, N.Y. 14207
Serving New York State Since 1946 PHONE: 716/874-3200
Automatic Fire Protection Equipment
7633 EDGECOMB DRIVE
LIVERPOOL, NEW YORK 13088
RUSS NOTMAN TELEPHONE 315/451 -0971 JOHN DE PASQUALE
VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT SALES
February 9 , 1989
Carolyn McMaster
322 North Meadow Street
Ithaca , New York 14850
Re : Sprinkler System for Alterations and Additions of
Veterinarian Office
706 Elmira Road
Town of Ithaca , New York
Dear Carolyn :
After reviewing the plans for the above project , we are pleased to offer our
quotation as follows :
• To provide all of the necessary labor and material to install a complete Auto-
matic Dry Pipe Sprinkler System for the above location . The Dry Pipe Sprinkler
System will cover the existing building and the new addition , including the
attics .
We will be supplying :
1 . ) One ( 1 ) Main Control Valve
2 . ) One ( 1 ) Dry Pipe Valve complete with all necessary trim and gauges
3 . ) One ( 1 ) Automatic Air Maintenance Device
4 . ) One ( 1 ) Water Motor Gong
5 . ) One ( 1 ) Fire Department Connection
6 . ) The required number of sprinklers on the exposed piping to properly protect
the above building .
Our price for this installation will be : FIFTEEN THOUSAND , EIGHT HUNDRED , EIGHTY
ONE DOLLARS -------------------------------------------------------- $ 15 , 881 . 00 .
This price is based on no existing water supply . The following price includes
providing the necessary labor and material to install one ( 1 ) 5 , 000 gallon
Storage Tank to be located in the basement of the new addition . The tank will
be set in place prior to the walls . being erected .
Automatic Sprinkler Systems • Halon • C . 0 . 2 • Foam • Dry Chemical • Installation
System Design • Hydraulic Calculations • Fabrication • Part Sales • Inspections • Range Guard
Sprinkler System for Alterations & Additions of
Veterinarian Office - 706 Elmira Road , Ithaca 2 / 9 / 89
Carolyn McMaster Page 2
There is a six week delivery on this tank after receipt of this order . The tank
dimensions are as follows - 25 ' 4 " long , 72 " diameter with two ( 2 ) tank saddles .
The tank will have a red oxide coating on the exterior .
Our price for furnishing , rigging , installing and connecting to the Sprinkler
System will be FOURTEEN THOUSAND , SEVEN HUNDRED , TWEN'T'Y DOLLARS ( $ 14 , 720 . 00 ) .
Our price for Design and Plans for the City of Ithaca ' s approval is ONE THOUSAND
NINE HUNDRED , TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ( $ 1 , 925 . 00 ) .
We have not included the following in our proposal :
1 . ) Electric Work for Alarm and Air Compressor
2 . ) Painting of Sprinkler Piping and Equipment
3 . ) Concrete for Tank Saddle and Foundation
Owner is to provide a domestic water connection for filling - the Water Storage
Tank .
We have not included any taxes in our proposal . Please add tax if applicable .
Thank you so much for this opportunity to quote . It is always a pleasure to be
of service .
Our proposal is valid for thirty ( 30 ) days .
• OUR TERMS ARE NET 30 DAYS .
If you should have any questions regarding this proposal , please do not hesitate
to contact me .
Very Truly Yours ,
DAVIS-ULMER' SPRINKLER CO . , INC .
Jo m DePasqual
�ice President
JD/ pjr
D
ci c n
cjir �
cl
I
i
I \
M � N� asTEt2_ -
\` I y1 � r SOL ELN 12b TZ JLV _
•� •� Iii .. SO
W ,
' L S o E E I • • . zo ' s i TE PLA ri
- QN
I
- - "� � A � E /tAAp I � S � ►z•1E. y Map ��
• � A0 � 1Tio �/ �
E L 1V� r 2 A rz D
r wr . LIT•LC LEF : 50ZVEY MAP BY CA2L CEANDALL -
� bl' Z7`M 13 EUGENE TEETEe ESTATE " MAY 10 , 1943
829 .6 ' To
I :PINfvD. FILED 553 . 741
- rte " SUeVEY FOZ JUANITA S . EVA95 Zy
G . SCHLEC.HT Z/G/BS FILED 633 .72
• I.OND � z , � r
re
I F9y 1 2X .�)
S.
ll� e/W)
INE
( Z 53- 3zol
¢29.-1 ' ` .
50 ' /W
Q �� Ito Tell
id MILToN LOVISE VON HAF(MANR
= I o G34 - 907 305 - 2 -7 7- 612 ACZES 4eoss
1 j :5U $ 70 : PUBLIC HWY eICIHTS
NY5F, 44 Z53 -3Za ( TeANS . LINE� \
452 bb� ( U .f. . CAS LIME - NO
O N PHY5ICAL EYIDENCE �
o r Ind lJY, TEL . X388 357 (U . G .TEL • LINF - Nu
= 0 PuYSICAL EVIDENCE OEI �'��
< 0 QI 4 THIS RAICCEL )
J ' un 0
W 0 / (o F, N
Qj <
1 IIVir SEPTIC
4 .S
1
e �
g
O
/' - � ` - � - � z LEGEND
IPAVEo o . IiZUN PIu 5ET oe Ep• h
pelvE ' AS NUTED by
O I EON PIPE FD.
o.u .ELEt• 7 � ; 57. 2 .
I �� • UTILITI' POLE
Z 6.4:� •11 ° - 15'7
( 55. Nal - 18 E. -'
FLTEL +I
ELMI !?A QOAD WeESE14 C PA
p , 34 319 `
Survey Map of 706 Elmira Road - Town' of Ithaca
Tompkins County - New York
Nam: ANY RRVISIONS TO 7111SMAP MWT COMPLY WITH SECTION 7209, KENNETH A. BAKER
SUBDIVISION i OF THR NBW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
,,,111111111II/��, .
DATE OMWN " = Sp ' 1303 .•• ( 4 f' fN
SURVEYED: I / 17 / b9 BY: k13 SCALE : I JOBNO. : ;` ,4, •••^„ ,•.;• yG.,;
1 hereby certify to �, :;,�' ;'` '• '; =
that I am a licensed land surveyor, New York State License No. 049415, and that this
map correctly delineates an actual survey on the $round made by me or under my direct ; ;:O)
; �� :: ..; ;:_•
• supervision, that it was prepared in accordance with the current code of practice or land % J.'••• r 3 c •
title surveys adopted by the New York State Association of Professional Iand Surveyors; , c�F • • •- '�\
and that I found no visible encroachments either way across property lines except as ''��;, D Cr, PI�
shown hereon..
�f mut �, 3t - DATED : 17 /8
SIGNED : . _-_ .
TOWN OF ffHACAi
126 EAST SENECA STRW
• MACA, NEW YORK
14WO
March 7 , 1989
Mr . Henry Aron
Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
106 Woolf Lane
Ithaca , New York 14850
Dear Henry .
For the Zoning Board of Appeals information ; the Ithaca Town Board
has authorized the request for proposals to provide public water
• and sewer on Elmira Road , Five Mile Drive . 9 . See tentative schedule
and area identified on the enclosed map . Let me.. know if you have
any questions .
Very truly �yJours ,
// . , C, �/
Noel Desch
Supervisor
ND/ js
encs .
� / A Al
TOWN OF ITHACA
ffMCA* MW YOU
14M
February 16 , 1989
Mr . Daniel R . Walker , P . E .
The Sear- Brown Group
401 Level Acres Drive
Horseheads , NY 14845
Re : Request For Proposal
1989 Water / Sewer Improvement
Town of Ithaca
Dear Mr . Walker :
The Town of Ithaca is .. considering the establishment of a 1989
water and sewer improvement . project to extend these services to
various properties in the Town and to upgrade certain existing
facilities . The .Town seeks a fixed price for each phase of the
following division of work . Separate consultants may be selected for
each section of the work .
Section I ( See Schedule A )
1 . Preparation of an Engineering Report required , to enable the Town
to apply to the State Comptroller for approval of the project
described in Schedule A and to explain to the public estimated
costs and projections of consumption , , at a public hearing on the
matter . A listing of the properties to be directly served ,
including tax parcel number , will be required .
2 . Upon approval of the Town Board of an Engineering Report ,
preparation of detailed design documents to enable the Town to
bid the project . Services include a pre - bid conference with
prospective bidders , review of bids , and the recommendation of
award .
Section II ( See Schedule B )
Prepare a schematic design , cost estimate , and capital
improvement program to enable the Town to plan for a new water service
area as described in Schedule B . The purpose of this element of the
work is to assist the Town in meeting future needs for water system
infrastructure within a service area that is experiencing considerable
development activity . Much of the infrastructure will be provided by
the developers both within the confines of their development and
Mr . Daniel R . Walker , P . E . - 2 - February 16 , 1989
•
beyond . Therefore , the CIP must include a method of assessment and
allocation of the costs of the water service improvement .
Project Schedule ( See Schedule C )
An outline schedule for the project is included .
Submittal Date
Proposals must be submitted by March 6 , 198 . 9 . For interviews or
further information , call Nancy Fuller ( 607 ) 273 - 1747 .
Very truly yours ,
_. Noel Desch , Supervisor
Town of Ithaca
ND / nf
• attachments `•
0
Mr . Daniel R . Walker , P . E . - 3 - February 16 , 1989
• SCHEDULE A
Public Water
I . Inlet Valley Area
Extend public water to the area shown on Exhibit I including
Elmira Road , Seven Mile Drive , and portions of Five Mile Drive ,
Bostwick Road , loop main on Coy Glen Road and connect to City of
Ithaca Elm Street reservoir .
II . West Hill
Extend service main , approximately 1 , 000 feet , from the
Professional Building to DuBois Road and make provisions for further
extension by others , e . g . , Indian Creek Retirement Community project .
III . South Hill
Expand storage capacity for the Troy Road / East King Road /
Ridgecrest Road service area .
• Public Sewer
r
I . Inlet Valley Area
Provide public sewer to same areas as described above for public
water .
II . West Hill
Provide public sewer on Trumansburg Road from Ulysses Town line
to Woolf Lane connection , approximately 1 , 000 feet .
NOTE : The Town of Ithaca may also include in its application for
. establishment of the sewer improvement the Town portion of the
work being performed by Stearns & Wheler on the design of a new
• Fall Creek joint interceptor servicing East Hill areas of the
Towns of Ithaca and Dryden and parts of the City of Ithaca .
The Town , with its own engineering staff may design a separate
series of sewer improvements involving the rehabilitation of
the Hospital sewer and the elimination of certain inflow /
infiltration from sanitary sewers serving the Northeast area of
the Town of Ithaca . This rehabilitation work would be a
separate improvement since the " period of probable usefulness " ,
• as defined in Local Finance Law , would be less than the 40
years allowed for the new systems .
Mr . Daniel R . Walker , P . E . - 4 - February 16 , 1989
• SCHEDULE B
Capital Improvement Program
New West Hill Service Area
A new public water service area is likely to be needed on West
Hill within the next five years to meet the growing need for domestic
water and fire protection . For planning purposes , the service area is -
shown on the enclosed map . Actual service within the area may be
provided in phases . It is likely that some of . the capital cost would
be assessed to new development in - 'accordance with the Capital
Improvement Plan .
The scope of work includes discussion with Town staff and the
Town Comprehensive Planning Consultant , Stuart Brown . Major County
Agricultural District areas- will . probably be excluded from the
designation of the benefited area .
Mr . Daniel R . Walker , P . E . - 50NO February 16 , 1989
• SCHEDULE C
Project Schedule
1989 Improvement
1 . Submit RFPs to Engineers 2 / 16 / 89
2 . Select Engineer 3 / 13 / 89
3 . Complete Engineering Report '-.- for Staff review 4 / 20 / 89
4 . Consider Town Board approval 5 / 8 / 89
5 . Set Public Hearing- date to Establish Improvement 5 / 8 / 89
6_.. Conduct Public Hearing 6 / 12 / 89
7 . Apply for State approval 6 / 15 / 89
8 . Authorize detailed design 7 / 10 / 89
• 9 . Approve Bid Documents 9 / 11 / 89
10 . Award Bids 10 / 16 / 89
4� 11 . Complete construction 6 / 1 / 90
Capital Improvement Program
P
New West Hill Service Area
1 . Submit RFPs to Engineers 2 / 16 / 89
2 . Select Engineer 3 / 13 / 89
3 . Complete - outline of CIP 4 / 20 / 89
4 . Complete draft of CIP 5 / 15 / 89
5 . Town Board consideration of draft CIP 6 / 12 / 89
6 . Approval of CIP 7 / 10 / 89
I 1. yl07
19 ` toe
10
°^ • ' Mc K dlnlyp
;,' '• I R15 \0
ti \
i :•:v:•: :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . • 4ou l .In \l o . \ • !, , III NI" _
a R1
Will Aug Li
pq
E: ? , to
i1lY 1/L' Ie
I for +
I : ... . . : ° o. rS3
c „1. . : !j 7 E\
'% r 't `: ;.r . wyt Corner �%�\ ,.
'I r,
f;':: ;;> :::::::;: :::•::•: : isi :: : :::: : : ii : •: ii• :::• �Wt.I MIP � - - - —1
I. Cornu :'r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..>}Rhi7?�i . cam \ , I'`S4 fl —ruwi• �! nnr ' Rr'nw ick �.
I
�
•I::>:>:i:�i: is i5: :� : i>;:�;:2<: : •>:; :;•: . . . . :• :•:•�:;•::;� i':;: :�;::�i3: ::::::<:•:»:�. •�
•.
'1'1.1.,. 11 N/ �.! u •
MR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
pork
rAN
>::4:• ii:•:•i:•i}:�:�i:•i:• :yj::.•: :? ?v::i:•i::. ::}:L•ii: i: i: : i: i:: , 1
• Y/ 6gT NJLL ' .f :;?<Y: :': : » : :;> : t : i:; >:22i: >: >: » : >: i:E; :»>:,'.a •;>i: i::i<; :":: R15opoo
f . .
l. . l. .
\
Or
JI
J .
V _
I
u
1
y
t _
XX1
.,
fi:.>}>:•::.::•:i::i:;: `::: iii:i:'ii:.iiY}:•}: i:.::.>:'>:.>:.i:.i:':':.:::::.>:: :i>:.>:.:i:t }'(:::i . . . . . . . . . . I n I �- '
'ii:;F^i::>: >::�•is�:< >:!; >: : >: >: ia!o>: >:? > l. rnrfrrmn _ y _—a :` . .°.. ^ f' -
f> p t
I
w
ii:{�:�. ii:�.`IJi}:�:�i ' •'>1
I;ii:�i:�i is ::i:: i: : ;:};: ;:«: i: iiri: ::C` :iL•i;:::: : :: i: : i:L i : : {::L : i::ti•ii: i: i: i: i: : i: i: i: 1 of*:...rrVO
. lri:iii}i} ii :ii j?.yi{�1.a•Fit?>:%�:;:�[Ytitieo!':�i>:%��J;;::ai.!,:;: :::.,..........:::+..:::: . . . ?
I '
I •'
ofl
• v
y
•
4
i
,1 • �
h
1
I t
' 1
• I''.'�. '�i.•.�'� •,•�L�:�: :jt:;i::i: ; :�;:�{•C: .` •i:CC:}S?{:i:�i::j}::C:.�::'i�i�{::�:�ii:�:C•iF.i�:� :�:':•:�::�:C�:�i:�:`��:'::�: .i{
u . rt
c 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . I:
nI
• . M1
1
1 1 1 L I
ti
f
:• I
o•.
' •. iah:L{:Y.^}i:??ii iiii:L'•i}??ii:L}ii iiviiii}i%C:�':•i:: !� I
f � t
6
r
- Per toi
Mr
I .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• I i t YI'.fiAll�i 1
I
� .r• -
l1 ; I� x
i
{ � \':'Y:;l:•::'.:1•::::•::::V:.:'%:::'::J:::'l:::'J:::::::V:::'. . . f: i:": . . . . . . . . M1 •ever' 9
.q •r IIr�"}: ':'J:' : : !%. .: . .
.{tom�•�
. .[ :i? . .. . iiia c . - or,
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
t� I''i`:ii:•i:•S .4 [WQi i'•i}}: 'Ji iiiii?}:7i`iii. . . . .� r. .. •. • I f ^.
'ins . . S,�. }:.`::{{: �::•: : . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . r ,{ • \ LIAll
»n. . lr. :rL, . :::w.!;:jC^:ti!1 : ?i}}; :yi;: i:4i}}ii :- nir .}�.':r:•:'+':i.1+ -
-------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iix.oi ::;; > . . . . . . �:I ,wor
r
•II/LE
Pro -
No- R30 '
_
I
°
::��!%�'}::•t�: $:�:�:�:�:�?:••:':•?i••••:tit :�••It:�i:�:�:�:�:�:':�:�:�i:� `:� :' i
�::':vi:�i: iiii:•iii:'::�iiiii:�i:�i:�i>:;::.�.,:�.yy:>}i:� :�: :;:�.�� � Ix � II ... . ,•,\ ''
t
cr...,
000C p \i ` to
I
t I _ 1 .' .,\\e ' d + \� . . i. �, . 1 '
e n - 7�
/ . bum«ne •il/ 1 I \ 9 •, �•'RsortY%R15 111
90 or,
00
grler p ; ...
x.., to
•loorter
\ _
w000
top AG
.; ( ' SOS r .:G:Ir.::.�iii ii`:i:• .........
wrcq ...:::::r.... F:i::rrii 1 . w.
_. �.:1....... . .
:\ CT•• \ 1 ' ' f \ : iii::ii = iia-'mow ` `•'. . /�•' . .
' • v:w I I'! , °.' it. 9 I . iiiiiii !. iiki!i ii; �.\�
PROPOSED LLNL � T ,
'� ' i R9
�• � r veil
� J
VAWEY YVAT 9/s� WER .:: 1
�..::: -•
zE Pootl
.................:.:...:..:.:.:.:..:....:..:..:.:..:..:..:..:....:.: .:.: : :.:..:.:.:.:.:.: OIL
........ . ..:
:..:.:.:
.:.::..::.:.:..:....................
....:.
Lot. . � - -
R5 ,
oie.
Iworl
' f�
.... ...... ob
.. .. ......
........... .
f ,
r � � I • ' ^a�::f' c Y
.r. \ ! `ate . :J;. 1:'1°I;. .. \ _. • °
/ E T` Znr�J (.
\
tL
R15
I rto
ft S1
� 1d i R30 ' l ,� 7 � _ �
TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $ 40 . 00
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : 1 , tl - 50%
Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH
i
( 607 ) 273 - 1747 CHECK - ( 1$gl)(564,„wr�
ZONING :
A P P E A L 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 ( � Yl � .� �JL «- ( l 1C
at
Town of Ithaca
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 viol Lion of : I_
A L) � CP � � - I !J �C- � (�r�
A at-i�-1-e(s ) SectrorlFs ) ,
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 :
(Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . )
(,kS ''i /\jCLix ik
G( � (Z
s
� l i
C� p
Gly
Signature of Owner/Appellant :
r Date . I
Signature of Appellant / Age/no •
n A
Date .
•
January 1 .2 , ISM ')
Town of.. IthacAa
126 Elast State Street
Ithaca , New Vork J. 4850
Appea '.1. to tiie
Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer
and the
Zoning Board of Appeals
of the
Town of Ithaca , New York
Additional :i_ cif_ oxmation to our appeal for: tax pa .rce'L
6 - 31 - 3 -- 3 . 11 .
• we reqi.test ,your review and issuance of variants as
required to obtain a building permit for this project .
Issuance of a permit would be in violation of: the local
law which requires an automatic sprinkler system be
install- p (J in a building such as this .
We request that this requirement be waived until such time
as public water is available at the parcel . A lack of
public wat E! r si.rpply at this si. t: e would require an
expenditure of approximately $ 110 , 000 . 00 . which we believe
is an unnecessary hardship to the applicants . This cost
would be incurxerl to provide 1 ) A tank in which to store
120 , 000 gallons of water to provide one hour of sprinkler
protection as required by ISO to certify the system . 2 )
A pump capable of charging the sprinkler system with the
stored water. . '.Phe cost: of the pump is approximately
$ 40 , 000 . 00 anti the cost of the tank is about $ 70 , 000 . 00 .
Please note th .i c: cost is in addition to the sprinkler
system proper such as would be required with public Crater.
available ,
- We concur with the intent of the ordianc: e when pratical
and reasonable . Therefore , we are willing to be bound by
J: e :( '_tJ. 1' Fmrnt , as a part. of a. variance , to provide a
spr. i. nklor system within one year following availability of
public -vrat. er .
Should the Zoning Board of: Appeals fine] some value in
installi. nq the sprinkler system without a pump and stored
water at this, time , please_ so indicate . We see no value
in instr:l .11ing a. sprinkler system until :it will operate
whish a public water. supply .
1 -
U w n e .r / A p p ll i ` `` � l t' -----
�`�-- - - -
k17 lit
r
ra
•/I \ J` • 'ol I 20 '? Ute. � )_ -'o'� _
\ 9 - J
1 O u 0
0, 0
lit
Lb
_ . .1 . • � ' . \ \ . fit ` xt � V2 ' F-
,1 ••�
In
`• o
d All, In in
tit-
� J f
AN
3
, a[ ` t ` ae - 201- - ' o \ ,., o . /. , . / �• � 1% a'S
a d J . , it a / '
it
W. It tit
• . q,pii� ' - -- . ,i . . c ..�: �. -' • ' fit
z
ft dA.
i
/
�•i r SIll v\ v
�•°� \
. F Usit 0
D
r LL
�
y � m
K \ N
IS 0' \ c
Z 4z O � p . v m • 7i dol - - ' ' \ � _ it i
Id tib 2 V is t°- 3 It
ov i : : ; p
p S -
y < a a 8 • V u• s u-;
m'= Ui: N vn � .
vo is � e
ulit. p ,
. mV !
13
. Rinon i O. .O . . . .
i
Si
I _
5 fP
Ii
F1
I-
• � 11_ � I I r � ��
IL
r
"si
t t 1
to
VU
73
IN
So
•
I ;
- T
DQ
EllIIL !11
• `'I I
1
h �
�II i r ,
9WV71 :LS1T9 '15VVMaz) Id /c) N9 ' M3N . f'
t
,i
I
t
It
L4 -
vyt
T z I 'k
a f.
'#
OL
LA
ul
jai
IL
4 S
i
• I �
9'10 "i1Vy 4-191 N %I X 941 PA .1 a ._-
-
" South Yard " Warehouse
FiveMile Drive , near Elmira Road
Revised Site Plan Approval
Planning Board , January 3 , 1989
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR
" South Yard " Warehouse
Five Mile Drive , near Elmira Road
Revised Site Plan Approval
Planning Board , January 3 , 1989
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
.1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for a
proposed 13 , 300 ± sq . ft . warehouse / office facility proposed to be
located on 1 . 46 acres on .Five Mile Drive ( NYS Route 13A ) ,
approximately 500 feet north of its intersection with Elmira Road
( NYS Route 13 ) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 3 - 3 . 11 .
2 . This is an Unlisted action forwhich the Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review of the proposed project .
3 . The Assistant Town Planner has recommended that a negative
• determination of environmental . significance be made for the
proposed project .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in environmental
review of the revised site plan , make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for the proposed action .
Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : " South Yard " Warehouse
Five Mile Drive , near Elmira Road
Revised Site Plan Approval
Planning Board , January 3 , 1989.
MOTION by Mr . Robert Miller. , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
• WHEREAS :
" South Yard " Warehouse - 2 -
Five Mile Drive , near Elmira Road
Revised Site Plan Approval
Planning Board , January 3 , 1989
•
1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for a
proposed 13 , 300 ± sq . ft . warehouse / office facility proposed to be
located on 1 . 46 acres on Five Mile Drive ( NYS Route 13A ) ,
approximately 500 feet north of its intersection with Elmira Road
( NYS Route 13 ) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 3 - 3 . 11 .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on
January 3 , 1989 , made a negative determination of environmental
significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on January 3 , 1989 , has
reviewed the Short Environmental - Assessment Form dated December
27 , 1988 , and the site plan , building plan and elevations for the
proposed project , and other application submissions .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Site Plan
Approval for the revised site plan forthe proposed South Yard
warehouse as presented , conditional upon the following .
a . Receipt of any required variances regarding side yard , rear yard ,
• and height from the Zoning Board of Appeals .
b . All debris including scrap iron to be removed prior to issuance
of any building permits .
c . No outside storage of any materials except storage of operational
motor vehicles actively used in the construction business , or
supply business , which are to be located only on paved parking
areas .
d . All exterior site lighting shall be downcast to minimize impact
on the adjoining property owner .
e . Approval of the building color by the Town Planning Department .
Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
• Na cy MCK Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
January 6 , 1989 .
TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : S40 . 00
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : ) - Z3 -8
Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH
( 607 ) 273 - 1747 CHECK - ( l013)( wtL
ZONING : `Z- y
•
A P P E A L 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 yf � G� c� '1 � C� y� � CNv2;
cry� c1\ - 1l 'Iche � •-� ' ' cam noL35e
at won \q( �\ V e Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . C_ I 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 .
Article ( s ) Sections ) A
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 .
(Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . )
Signature of Owner Appal-> a Date .
!! Date . -� � I
PLOT PLAN
INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN :
1 . Dimensions of lot . 4 . Dimensions and location of proposed structure ( s ) or
� 29 Distance of structures from : or addition ( s ) .
a . Road , S . Names of neighbors who bound lot .
b . Both side lot lines , 6 . Setback of neighbors .
c . Rear of lot , 7 . Street name and number .
3 . North arrow . 8 . Show existing structures in contrasting lines .
S � �� � I Q.,.� Da,�-� s A I d a ►� e se
Ueve,� c.�ew 7Ve 5S
eCl�iWS
C ' N 5�
-36
I dv� Ve- Via`
• L 1 _ �. C- � .�.' ( CII L% � V
iv
ect5u .
Gv '
00
i -
hs
O
4ry c
Signature of Owne eAppe 1 1 anti Date : L 3
. eli1 � ' �6��./\ Date :
ATTACHMENT A . HISTORY
In May 1988 I ( Lloyd Wynroth ) purchased a half interest in
104 Birchwood Drive from William Freedman . The other half
interest was and is held by Barbara Freedman . We decided to
recondition the building , and in November 1988 contracted to have
• work done . The contractor painted the building , reshingled the
roof , and did some other minor repairs .
At that time , the house had a porch off the kitchen . This
porch ran from the NE back corner of the house , south
approximately 16 feet along the east side of the house , to just
past the kitchen door which afforded entry to it . The porch was
about 8 feet wide . The Freedmans purchased the property in 1966 .
At that time , there existed a deck in the same dimensions and
location , although apparently the builder did not include it on
the plans which were filed . Sometime during the following year ,
Mr . Freedman had the deck roofed , half - walled and screened .
Also in November 1988 , we asked the contractor to replace
the porch ' s half siding , which had deteriorated badly . When he
removed the old siding , he exposed rotting studs which needed
• replacing . We asked him to inspect the roof and he informed us
that needed to be replaced also . So he removed the roof and half
walls , preparatory to replacing them . At this point , we decided
that we might as well rebuild the porch somewhat larger , since it
had been a bit cramped . I was concerned that we not come too
close to the property line , but the contractor informed me that
he was sure that the zoning required coming no closer than three
feet to the line , since that had been his experience on an
earlier job . He then rebuilt the porch a little less than 16
feet by a little under 16 feet , reaching to 13 feet from the east
property line . The porch is essentially complete , except for
screening , a door and stairway to the backyard , and some trim .
What began as a simple repair job grew step by step , until
at some point a building permit should have been obtained . I ' m
not sure what point that was . However , as soon as we were was
notified of that necessity , we applied for a permit .
Unfortunately , it turned out that the earlier building that the
contractor had worked on was an outbuilding , with a different set
of rules applying . Since the porch is attached to the house ,
apparently there is a 15 feet distance requirement from the
property line , and the porch extends to just 13 feet from the
east side property line . This last measurement was found by
measuring the distance between the east wall of the porch , and a
line run between the northeast and southeast lot markers .
We have also been informed that there is no record that
William Freedman had ever obtained a permit to convert the deck
to a porch . Neither I nor Barbara Freedman had been aware of
that .
� 1
•
The porch is intended to be a place to eat and to sit during
hot weather . Therefore it should open off the kitchen , which is
placed in the middle of the east side of the house . We had found
that a smaller dimension for the porch was very cramped . The
house is placed off center toward the east side of the lot ,
probably because of a relatively steep slope on the west side of
the property . This causes the limited amount of land space on
• the east side of the house .
It would impose practical difficulties and cause unnecessary
hardship to place the porch elsewhere , considering its purpose .
Also , at this point , it would impose practical difficulties ,
involve considerable expense , and cause unnecessary , hardship to
remove the porch or to slice off the offending end of the porch .
We believe that the 2 foot encroachment does not really cause
detriment to our neighbors , the neighborhood , or contravene the
basic intent of the zoning regulations , for the following
reasons :
The porch is not intrusive toward neighboring properties or
the street . The siding on it is the same as that of the house
and blends well with it . Our property is very heavily wooded and
shrubbed , screening the porch from view . Specifically :
• The neighboring property most directly affected is 106
Birchwood Drive , which borders the east side of our property .
However , the porch is not noticeable from that property , since
there is heavy cover from evergreen trees which continuously line
our side of the boundary line . The west side of the house at
# 106 is 43 feet from the east side of the subject porch , and the
east end of the porch is only two feet too close to the property
line . The owner of # 106 has indicated that he has no objection
to the construction . ( see attachment B )
During the winter the addition can hardly be perceived from
the street due to very heavy evergreen and high decidious bushes
which line the street side of the front yard , the many decidious
trees in the front yard , and high , heavy and wide evergreens next
to the east side of the house . During warm weather it cannot be
seen at all through the decidious foliage behind the evergreens .
The north , back end of our lot is also lined with evergreens
which screen the view from the lot abutting it there . Lines of
decidious trees planted across the back yard afford additional
screening . The porch is not visible from the property on the
west boundary which is also heavily planted with trees .
At least part of the subject difficulties resulted from
exessive reliance on the expertise of the contractor . However ,
that of course does not remove our ultimate responsibility . We
apologize for whatever non - adherence to town building and zoning
regulations which occurred .
Lucente -
HF® ,mes
Mailing Address Sales Office
506 Warren Road 103 Salem Drive
Ithaca, New York 14850 Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 257-0717
12 / 15 / 88
To Whom It May Concern ,
I have no objection to the construction of a porch
at 104 Birchwood Drive . I understand that this porch will come
closer to the lot line between 104 and 106 Birchwood than is
normally allowed .
Lloyd Winroth and Barbara Freedman , owners of 104 Birchwood ,
have consulted with me , and as the owner of 106 Birchwood I
have no objection to their plan to build within approximately
thirteen feet of the lot line .
Sincerely ,
Rocco P . Lucente
RPL / mg
• ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Deer Run Investors L . P .
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1989
MOTION by Mrs . Eva Hoffmann , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Deer Run Investors
L . P . , Appellants , Edwin A . Hallberg , Agent , requesting a variance ,
under Section 9 of Town of Ithaca Local Law • No . 7 - 1988 , as amended ,
" Requiring Sprinkler Systems To Be Installed In Buildings In The Town
of Ithaca " , such that Buildings No . 31 through 36 and Buildings No 38
and 39 , a total of 34 dwelling units located in Phase II . of the Deer
Run Subdivision , may be exempted from . the requirement . for the
installation of sprinklers therein , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals find and hereby does firid' . . as . 1011614si;
( a ) that the process for the construction of these units was
commenced a number of months before' - the Town ' Sprinkler Law became
effective , and
( b ) that the water lines that would be required for the sprinkler
system , while originally thought to be adequate from engineering
studies , are apparently inadequate in terms of pressure and would
require removal and replacement , and -
( c ) that the overall cost of . the installation, of the sprinkler system
in this particular instance would - - not - be recoverable by the
developer by altering the price structure of the units , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant a variance for the subject 34 units in
Phase II of the Deer Run Subdivision from the Sprinkler Law
requirements , subject to the following conditions :
q�. Receipt of a statement signed by the developer ' s lending
institution indicating that the loss of profit that would be
entailed by absorbing the costs of the sprinkler systems would
preclude the lender from continuing to finance the project .
'2%. Receipt of a list of persons who have contracted to purchase any
units indicating the date the contracts for each such unit was
executed .
3 . Installation of hard -wired smoke _ detectors for every room
including the basement in each of the units .
4 . Smoke detector in the basement to be wired to the smoke detectors
on the first floor and on . the second floor , such that alarms will
sound simultaenously .
® 5 . The provision of hand - held fire extinguishers of the appropriate
size and type , as approved by the Town ' s Code Enforcement
Officer , in kitchens , garages , basements , and every bedroom .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - February 28 , 1989
6 . The information requested is to be supplied to the Board no later
than March 7 , 1989 .
The variance herein granted does not become effective until the
Board has reviewed such information , and is satisfied with it .
Aye - Aron , Austen , Hoffmann , Reuning .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Zoning Board of Appeals .
March 1 , 1989 .
APPROVED :
® Henry Aron , Chairman
i
i
I
• DEER RUN INVESTORS , L . P .
3 / 6 / 89
r
Mr . Henry Aron
Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Ithaca
126 E . Seneca St .
Ithaca , N . Y . 14850
i
Dear Mr . Aron ,
As you may recall , your Board granted a variance to the Deer Run project from sprinkler
system installation on the 28th of last month . There was some further documentation which you
needed and please find it attached.
It includes:
( a ) a letter from Marine Midland Bank , which does our construction financing , f
concerning their opinion of financing the project given the effect on profit sprinklers
• would have.
( b ) a letter from our engineer certifying that water pressure would be inadequate using
3 / 4 " water laterals.
( c ) a list of the buyers names and contract dates for Phase I I of the project.
We informed our electrical contractor immediately of the specification change in smoke
detectors and he is complying. Andy Frost and I will be meeting this week to discuss the fire
extinquisher specifications , I know - that he has already met with my construction supervisor
concerning locations for the extinquishers.
If you have any further questions , please call .
Sincerely ,
i
Edwin A. Hallberg
d
L X�(tx ��
I
i
i
i
i • BELOW IS A LIST OF CONTRACT NAMES AND DATES FOR DEER RUN BUYERS IN PHASE 11 .
UNIT CUSTOMER NAME CONTRACT DATE
9 . 1 HALLBERG 3/28/88
9 .2 FE 4/6/88
9 .3 VELLEMAN 11 / 14/88
10 . 1 SEGRE 3/30/88
10 .2 PONTUSSON 8/29/88
10 .3 PANAGIOTOPOLOUS 5/ 13/88
1 10 .4 OLSEN 5/ 10/88
11 . 1 BUDDLE 4/23/88
11 .2 WEMMER 10/29/88
12 . 1 BRAVERMAN 10/ 14/88
12 .2 BROWN 10/5/88
12 .3 TALBOT 9/ 14/88
36 .2 ROJEK 1 / 16/89
36 .3 POE 1 /21 /89
37 .2 SCHIAVONE 9/ 13/88
37 .3 CLARKE 12/27/88
38 . 1 ANGELOPOLOUS 1 / 18/89
• 39 . 1 MONROE 1 /21 /89
39 .2 CROSS 11 / 13/88
393 GRANT 12/ 19/88
' 39 .4 THOMPSON 111 / 1 /88
f
i
i
E
i -
William F. Albern P. E . Engineering g ng Consultant
• Sunnyslope Terrace, Ithaca , New York 14850
I Telephone : (607 ) 272-5077
;
t
€ January 20, 1989
Edward Hallberg
90 White Tail Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
Subject : Sprinkler Systems
Deer Run Townhouses
lI
Dear Ed .
( As indicated on the drawings which I delivered to youesterday, based upon the
l)ressures which we measured, the 3/4" Type K copper pipe service is not adequate
or the sprinkler systems proposed for the Townhouses.
On January 18th we found 85 psi as the available pressure at the hose bibb of the
model unit which you are presently using for an office. The pressure loss from the
j street to the house with a demand of 26 gpm is estimated to be almost 50 psi . That
i loss, together with the losses through the meter, piping within the building and due
to elevation , is too great to provide adequate pressure for the sprinkler heads.
Adequate pressure can be obtained by replacing the 3/4" line with a 1 " Type K
j copper line .
Another copy of my calculation sheets are attached .
erai
I
William F. Albern
E
I
E
f
I
Air Conditioning, Energy , Heating, Plumbing, Private Water Supply & Sewerage Systems , Process Piping, Ventilation
NFPA Residential Sprinkler Calculation Sheet
Date
• Proj ect Teel L L( t4 � 1N ( f( S �S — (liv r r
i -
GPM = 18 or / Individual Net
� S �St mf or ) ped' et h pse 6nI G, /(, to kOC
PSPSI
a. Water Pressure in Street
b. Arbitrarily Select Pipe Size
c. Deduct Meter Loss Size) �_ 8
d. Deduct ss for Elevation
�d /
0 ft ° .434
e. Deduct Loss, Main to Control Valve
SD Pipe SSD ft
Jy a K 2 Valves
_� Elbows
_L Tee
Total T Z ft ° , 38 Z 7 y y
1
L Deduct Loss, Valve to Farthest .Sprinkler
1� 3 Pipe & 3 ft
I Z Ck Vlvs (o
Valves
j 3 ) y � L 12..w
45 Ell Ail
Ell
Tee _(L
Total /0 (o ft
I
i
I Pipe ft
Ck Vlvs
1 Valves
i 1 " 1r 90 Ell
45 Ell
Tee
i . Total ft °
i -
I .
I
i plE e5 St4 fzc 1 �1
i
I � Water Pressures Requ[red, PSI '
t'
I K 3.3 Uss 5.56
i
13 GPM 153 11 .4
i 18 GPM 29.8 21.8 /lOS
i
,
i
William P. Albern; PE, EngineeJing Consultant
i
2oF3
400
NEPA Residential Sprinkler Calculation Sheet Date /LB
_ .2/*
• Pro 'ect �^ .
1 :12 i � M 1 QwN KovSES — �Y / t 3
GPM = or 26 Individual Net
Loss Total
PSI PSI
a. Water Pressure in Street
• b. Arbitrarily Select Pipe Size 3 y
c. Deduct Meter Loss (Size) /
d. Deduct Loss for Elevation
ft
) b
i e. Deduct Loss, Main to Control Valve
Pipe 50 ft
t Valves �—
��t L Elbows —�—
_�_ Tee
Total 6 Z it " * T
L Deduct Loss, Valve to Farthest Sprinkler
O L( L Pipe ft
_(` Ck Vlvs
1k 4—
_(L Valves45 Ell
--
90 Ell
0314 L
—1—
Tee L
Total / 0 ( ft5i�
�O 3 Pipe ft
2 Ck Vlvs
n p Valves —
i 90 Ell —�—
45 Ell
Tee
Total 4O ft • ��o _ /��
'?�ItEssU i 5
� r Water Pressures Required, PSI
I W XGV 60 Li hTC—
K 33 3.85 556
i 13 GPM 15.5 11 .4 SS
i
18 GPM 29.8 21.8
! o
I :
William P. Atbern, PE, Engineering Consultant
+
1
NEPA Residential Sprinkler Calculation Sheet
Date / jig
Project �U ( Y / 0 'NN NOYSES �IIy � T 3
GPM = or26 Individual Net
Loss Total
PSI PSI
a. Water Pressure in Street �d
b. Arbitrarily Select. Pipe Size
c. Deduct Meter Loss I��Size) 9 I
d. Deduct Loss for Elevation
( Li a ft • .434) �0 3
e. Deduct Loss, Main to Control Valve
5 Pipe 50 ft
III L Valves
Elbows
—1_ Tee
Total G Z ft • Z
} F
f. Deduct Loss, Valve to Farthest Sprinkler
Pipe ft
• Ck Vlvs
Valves
90 Ell
45 Ell "
Tee t ` '
Total ft •
63 Pipe 3 it
L Ck VI vs
p Valves _
L 90 Ell ?-�--_
45 Ell
Tee
Total Z 101, ft • �(e �_
t
1 Water Pressures Required, PSI '
K 33 3.85
13 GPM 15.5 11.4 SSvEo kTt-
18 GPM 29.8 21.8
i
William F. Albern, PE, Engineering Consultant
1
I
1
• MARINE MIDLAND BANK , N .A.
One Marine Midland Plaza
Rochester, New York 14639
( 716 ) 238 - 7275
imp
I �
i March 2 , 1989
I1
t
Mr . Edwin A . Hallberg
President
Deer Run Development
Whitetail Drive
Ithaca , NY 14850
Dear Mr . Hallberg :
After reviewing your pro forma dated 2 / 21 / 89 , please be advised that due to
the non - recoverable costs incurred by the addition of the sprinkler systems ,
• the resulting projected net profit margin would not be at an acceptable
flevel for the Bank to consider further financing of your project .
i Please feel free to call me if you have any questions concerning this
matter .
Sincerely ,
Ellen M . Wayne
Vice President
Commercial Mortgage / Real Estate
EMW : jss
LTH 3 RO
6185
- . 'y"{^'.ltrit';,:�.�.cvr..t .M - > . ..•: ^G� i °'"�+°jrl . _ .� t , �f�i_ _ _ _-.-.._ -.. . M .l .fir .t-5, 't'� - . n. .., -
-_.... .�� . _T, � n ti"tyLr- iY.'i„-�^�?'rr='..•-':. ri _ 1.
a
w ,
Afast-
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ;
^ sITH ' J
^ � BOARD APPEALS, NOTICE !
[V= OF PUBLICIC HEARINGS, WED. ; !
_ MARCH 8, 1989, 7P. M.
By direction of the Chairman ,
of the Zonin Board of Ap- !
Peals NOTICE IS HEREBY :
GIVEN that Public Hearings '
At=k, kas will be held by the Zoning !.
'+ Board of Appeals of the Town '
of Ithaca on Wednesday
March 8, 1989, in Town Hall,
126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST
a— ' v� - --•-- • • :.. . _ . . _ . ...._ .. . ._._ .. _. . b!' 3L` s CS ;LZ � �M p� �{ S .s , Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST .
i Side ), Ithaca, N. Y. , COM-.
am ,m SANT:r `. 4 t j�i � �n I 1 j • MENCING AT 7 ;00 P. M. , on
�4' CALiilt2' iJ .: i`.att i+ .. "X213 &Z the following matters. %' ±`
APPEAL of Ithaca College, Ap
�t :me g C _ r pellant Robert John O'Brieri, '
--- - HOLT Architects,
off'. Tai g .
Agent
gl ,
'Article jot�N wL GG Section
P
n . < a �. p= . tDa ub agroph4. of ' Townof ;
- . . . _ Ithaca Ion n Ordinance, or
e
propos
dgg ons ion' fof' �
Cr
the 1 a ollege
$S LAS - -• ... . ' . . c C trOffice of
r
�L the t a
� L.7 the eLnQed it �' �7@ : College Relations and Re-
sourceDevelopment
on the
%A.Lt �.:4Jt S�� w 1 S M Ithaca College Campus, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-41 -
Re sidence District R-
1 -30. 2.
olk 15. The request for Special Ap-
proval includes a request for
— --
. .... . .. . variance— — variance of the building
height requirement of Article
__
__ _ _ IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 10,
— — of said Ordinance, with the
building height proposed to
1 tL � p L • be approximately 45 feet.
� ' —'i ' �' _ t t � _ ' � '=� r ^�' Ot SL". D ,^ � . ! 4.'� pi tt [ APPEAL of Dr. Carolyn McMos-
ter, Appellant, requesting a
variance under Section 9 of
CILY_ Q• — • -- • - • • • .)r iq Town of Ithaca Local Law No.
7- 1988, as amended, "Requir-
ing Sprinkler Systems To Be In-
stalled In Buildings In The
�— Town of Ithaca", for the tem-:
porary exemption of an oper-I
ationol sprinkler installation in
— -�`—� • - • •-- � : C�� the proposed Briar. Patch Vet.
' •- - - .. .. . . - - --- - • -- • - - •--
erinary Hospital to be located
at 706 Elmira Road, Town of '
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-33-2-7,
- - " Business District "C_.___
APPEAL of Hoyt Benjamin and'
Jerry Stevenson, Appellants,
— ' —" ' — " requesting a variance under '
V � . . I Section 9 of Town of Ithaca Lo.
col Law No . 7- 1988, as
JEAN FORD amended, "Requiring Sprin-
kler Systems To Be Installed In
Notary Public, S1� 1O Of New York Buildings In The Town of Itho
ca " , for the temporary
No. 465 i0 exemption of on operational
J sprinkler installation in the
QU311i ' Ed In County . pproposed warehouse/office
sSi • o OfcItlhaca ax to be lParrctell No. 6-31ed on •
_ Comml _ • Icn expire . t - y , 31 , 19 . .
3-3. 11 , near the intersection
of N. Y. S. Routes 13 and 13A, ` ,
Light Industrial District. With
respect to such facility, the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals granted a building
height variance, Permitting o
building height of 36 feet, on
November 18, 1987, and front . i
and side yard variances, per-
mitting front and side yards f
40 feet, on June 3, 1980.
APPEAL of Barbara Freedman
and Lloyd Wynroth, Appel- i
lants, requesting variance of
the 15-foot side yard setback
requirement of Article IV, Sec.
tion 14, of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance, for prop-
erty located at 104 Birchwood
Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Par-
- cel No. 6-70- 10- 1 . 15, Re
si_
Bence District R- 15. Said prop-
erty contains a single-famil :!
residence with an attached
roofed porch located 13 plus
or minus feet from the east
side lot line.
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 .
Andrew S. Frost