The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 1989-06-14 e i FILED TOWN OF ITHACA " Date Town of Ithaca Cler 1 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONINGte, ' RD OF APPEALS e : ip!m s14 , .1989 The Zoning Board of ;. Appeals .. of1;TOth'e Town of Ithaca met on � Ju'ne 14 , 1989 at 7 : 00 p . m . in'', ' 4raa11 , 126, East Seneca Street+ Ihac�at'; New York . PRESENT : Chairman Henry -- Aron , Edward Austen , Edward. . Kiiq;, ';> . Eva Hoffmann , v Jca1 : Reuning , . Town Attorney John Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building ... , Inspi�ctb• :; `: Ahd, N; Frost :- Of, OTHERS PRESENT : Pr,s . Isadore Blumen , ' Martha. Hertel , Bert r OT6rtner , : ,, , Pegg.y, Reizes ,' Les Martin ,_Levenson„ George f , Rhoades XVI Cary , Carolyn Slaght, S . Gr:ippi , W . �-; ` :' n Frederick J . Beck Jr . , Esq . aM . Chairman Aron made reference to the Brown appeals that were slated for adjourned h�aring�. on June ,28 , 1989 , ..- : He.'. ` stated that due to the fact that there could not be a full ' m 4n ersY�Y�p� of the Zoning Board of Appeals. , .. on . ' that date , , he : ,j pd" � gas' what the' meeting be moved to Monday ; „June 26 119=89:•, at Motion by Chairman Aron : RESOLVED , that the scheduled-. JUner-: _ 28 ;, 1989 mg eting of, . the ' Zoning Board of Appeals be res hed' 'led� for jl x 4 s 1989 at' t • • LV 7 : 00 p . m . at Town Hall', & 126 s _, � enec; - .' St`rdW Ithaca , ` New York so that the entire Board can be ptes.ent� . ` dk �� , Mrs . Reuning seconded the motion• :.. A vote on the motion resulted as followsl: N.. . Ayes - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King , Hoffmann Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Aron opened the pub lip , % meeting- gat 7r10!� poto 1 _ Chairman Aron stated that all posting apd ` pnlaY� ication of the public hearings had been completed and _ that . prbperfficavts . of same were in order . Thee public has: :. bee' n;. ot� fier( - b�t :� linter voluntarilyb the Zonin Board of A e-a3s of thee ;` eetin Y Zoning . Board pp fi , Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 The first appeal on the agenda was the following . APPEAL OF ISADORE BLUMEN REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE EXTENSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE ON A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING LOT , LOCATED AT 122 WARREN ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA PARCEL NO . 6 - 66 - 2 - 3 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE EXTENSION INVOLVES THE ENLARGEMENT OF AN EXISTING CARPORT CURRENTLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 5 + OR - FEET TO THE . ;:: NORTH SIDEYARD LOT LINE AND IS PROPOSED TQ, . -, BR DECREASED TO 1 -FOOT + OR - THROUGH SAID ENLARGEMENT . T CURRENT ZONING WOULD REQUIRE A 10 ' SIDEYARD SET"BACK FOR A GARAGE STRUCTURE . AUTHORIZATION IS REQUESTED UNDER ARTICLE XXI , SECTION 54 , OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE . Mr . Blumen addressed the Board and explained his proposal for the enlargement of an existing carport . ( Attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . ) Mr . Blumen spoke to the Board about the terrain problem in the area and said that it is impossible to put a legal parking lot at any of the houses in the area . He said what he is proposing is one more parking space for visitors to his home so that they do not block Crest Lane , Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Martha Hertel , Crest Lane , addressed the Board and stated that as a neighbor of the Blumens , she ' .recognizes and appreciates the need they have for another car space . However , she. has two community concerns . The ditch and culvert which drains a wide area needs to be protected . The other. concern is a ten foot wide . Town of Ithaca walkway which her family deeded and gave to the Town . It was purchased in 1911 and has been used as a walkway by the public ever since that time . It is a safe walkway between Warren Road and Forest Home Drive . Both of these adjoin the Blumen ' s property . Their continued care and use need to be assured . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Hertel how she felt about the proposal by Mr . Blumen that is before the Board . She responded that when they are coming to within one foot of the walkway , she would like them to be sure that the two things that she spoke of are protected . Mr . King stated that he believes what Mr . Blumen is proposing , to come within one foot of their lot line , would not impinge on the walkway at all . Mrs . Hertel said that in regard to whatever structure they are proposing all she would ask is that it not get over into the walkway or cut if off in any way . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Mrs . Hoffmann asked Town Attorney Barney for clarification of the wording on the agenda re " requesting authorization " She asked what the criteria are that the Board is supposed to use . Town Attorney Barney responded that it is Section 77 , paragraph 7 , subdivisions A- F , which is a Special Approval . Chairman Aron read to the Board Section 77 . 7 . Town Attorney Barney said if somebody came in with a completely conforming lot , and asked for this , it would truly be a variance but here we have a situation which is already non - conforming and , under the Town ' s Ordinance , the enlargement or extension of a nonconforming use whether by variance or existence of the use when the ordinance was in place . It is guided by a different standard . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Blumen about the existing carport and referred to the drawing , dated May 17 , 1989 , that was submitted to the Board . ( See Exhibit # 1 . ) Discussion followed on the drawing and on the size of the existing carport and the proposed carport . Mr . Austen asked if the parking area is already built at the proposed location . Mr . Blumen replied that it is and what they are talking about is extending the canopy approximately 5 or 6 feet . Further discussion followed on the walkway and the work regarding the grading and roadway that the Town has done in that area . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Blumen if a carpenter or someone like that would be building this carport . Mr . Blumen responded that they would like to build it to a high level of quality and it will also be a very simple carport , completely open . He also said that what they would like to do with the Town afterward is to put plantings in on the north side of their property by the walkway . He said that the tentative plan now is for the Town to put hemlocks along the walkway and some easily maintained plantings between that hedge and on the slope and he will maintain the hemlocks . Town Attorney Barney referred to the permanent easement map , dated 12 / 22 / 88 ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 ) . He stated that he is concerned about the boundary line on the sketch . He said that if this Board chooses to grant the extension of a non - conforming use , it seems to him that it should be done based upon documentation that is professionally prepared so that there will not be a problem in the future . • Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 Chairman Aron stated that the point Town Attorney Barney has made is very well taken and it would be much easier to determine the case if the Board had a survey by a licensed surveyor of Mr . Blumen ' s lot showing where the house stands and where the carport is going to be placed so that the Board can make a better Judgment rather than having just a sketch to work from . Mr . Blumen stated that he appreciates the Board ' s position but he would like to have as prompt a decision as possible and obviously as low cost a decision as possible . Town Attorney Barney stated that it seems to him that the proper way to go is for Mr . Blumen to hire his own professional surveyor to draw it up , to map exactly where his carport is now and to show dimensions to the lot line . Discussion followed as to whether the Board could grant permission for the carport with the condition that a surveyor ' s map would be submitted . Town Attorney Barney stated that he thinks that would be doing it kind of backwards . There was then more discussion about the right - of -way on the roadway . Mr . Blumen stated that the new carport would be back a good 12 feet from the curb of the road . Chairman Aron polled the Board members on their feelings of adjourning this appeal until the time that they have a surveyor ' s map . The Board agreed that they would like to have a licensed surveyor ' s map submitted to them for review before making a decision . Chairman Aron suggested to Mr . Blumen that he contact Mr . Frost and tell him how soon he will be able to get the proper survey ready and then he will schedule another hearing for the matter . Chairman Aron made the following motion . RESOLVED , that the Appeal of Mr . Isadore Blumen for the extension of a non - conforming structure on a legal non - conforming lot , located at 122 Warren Road , be adjourned until such time as Mr . Blumen can present to the Zoning Board of Appeals a licensed surveyor ' s map showing the exact location of the proposed carport in relation to the lot lines . Seconded by Mr . King . • • Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 The voting on the adjournment was as follows . Ayes - Aron , Hoffmann , King , Austen , Reuning . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next item on the agenda was the following . APPEAL OF MARGARET AND LESLIE REIZES REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE EXTENSION OF A LEGAL NON - CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A LEGAL NON- CONFORMING LOT LOCATED AT 1061 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD . , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -21 - 2 - 13 , TOWN OF ITHACA RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID LOT HAS A 50 ' FRONT YARD WIDTH , WHEREAS 100 ' IS REQUIRED AND THE EXTENSION OF THE BUILDING PROPOSES ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE WITH A PROPOSED SOUTHWEST SIDEYARD SET- BACK OF 9 + OR - FEET . THE EXISTING BUILDING HAS A SIX- FOOT SOUTHEAST SIDEYARD SET-BACK . CURRENT ZONING REQUIRES RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO HAVE 15 ' SIDEYARD • SET-BACKS . AUTHORIZATION IS REQUESTED UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE . Mr . Leslie Reizes appeared before the Board and stated that he would like to introduce Mr . Bert Fortner who has re - designed the proposed addition and Mr . Martin Levenson , a Certified Public Account , who is prepared to give information concerning economic hardship . Mr . Fortner addressed the Board . He presented color photos to the Board showing the site and explained the proposed addition on the maps presented to the Board . He stated that given the fact that the building is on a non - conforming lot , and because of the narrowness of the lot , it has a problem with the zoning in that it does not have the required 15 foot set - back on the south side . He said that the spot that seemed to be the least conspicuous for the addition was the area between the house and the garage , an area that was already bounded by the Reizes ' buildings . Therefore , the proposal is to just continue the line of the existing house into that area , roughly 17 . 6 ' by 241 . Chairman Aron asked how many square feet are being added by the addition . Mr . Fortner responded that it would 430 sq . feet on the basement , 430 'sq . feet on the first floor and 326 sq . feet on the second level , equalling roughly 1200 sq . feet . • Mr . Fortner stated that a main criteria of this design was to do it as much as possible within the constraints of the Zoning Code , to make it as inconspicuous as possible . He said that Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 getting more living space in this case was truly a prime concern and that is what they have attempted to do . He further stated that their estimate for the addition work is about $ 80 , 000 . He handed out copies of a letter from Patricia Williams , Real Estate Broker , dated June 14 , 1989 , with her evaluation of the house at $ 300 , 000 at the present time and $ 350 , 000 if the Reizes are granted permission to build the addition , and the market value after the addition was built would be $ 430 , 000 . He stated that he concurs with those figures . He remarked to the Board that he hopes they will be granted the special approval because he thinks it will add significantly to the value and the pleasure that they will take in their house . Chairman Aron said that at the time that Mr . Reizes was last before the Board , he was asked what the reason was for the enlargement of 1200 square feet and he is asking Mr . Reizes that same question today . Mr . Reizes responded that the house is simply not large enough to accommodate the life style of a full time resident . He said that he believes the objection of the Board at the last meeting , as he recalls , was the extension to the north and that it would possibly interfere with Mrs . Leonard ' s use of her lot as far as building at some future date near the area where the northward extension was proposed and the Board , in fact , made a suggestion that perhaps the proposed extension should be in another direction and that is why they have redesigned it to the west , which would obviously have no adverse impact on the lot line set - back as far as Mrs . Leonard is concerned because it is nearly the same as the current set -back of the garage and the house from her lot . Chairman Aron read the letter into the record from Patricia Williams , Real Estate Broker ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 . ) Chairman Aron stated that what the Board and Mr . Reizes is doing right now is re - capping what happened at the last meeting of 1988 , we are going through the same thing , really . He stated that there are certain criteria to giving a Special Approval , and he is sure that as an Attorney Mr . Reizes . knows that . He asked Mr . Reizes if he is now a permanent resident of Ithaca . Mr . Reizes said that he is , he has a law office in Ithaca in addition to his law office in Waverly . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Martin J . Levenson , a Certified Public Accountant from New York City , addressed the Board on behalf of Mr . Reizes , who has • been his client for 10 years . He stated that now that the Reizes have converted their summer home into their all - year home , this house has become their major asset . He said that in reviewing Patricia Williams ' letter , he would have to say that • Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 the Board not granting a Special Approval of the extension of the non - conforming use would create a significant economic hardship or injury to the Reizes . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Levenson if he could explain a little more on that economic hardship . Mr . Levenson responded that the point is simply that this is their major asset and they converted all their funds from Athens , Pennsylvania , when they made the improvements . The bulk of their family assets went into this property and they choose to expand it . They wish to improve the quality in this Town and if they are not granted that , at least in regard to this particular property , it will cause great economic injury . Chairman Aron said that the letter from Mrs . Williams does not state the assessment of that property and he asked Mr . Levenson how he can substantiate the economic hardship . Mr . Levenson replied that he thinks the sum of $ 300 , 000 for that property is not unreasonable . Right now the house is actually designed for a mother , father and one child and that certainly would place a limit on the value of the house . What the Reizes • are trying to do is prepare the house probably for more than one child . There is only one main bedroom and one small bedroom in the house so the preparation of an eventual playroom area , bedroom , etc . , is needed for their household and would add economic value . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Levenson if it is his position that if the Reizes were to sell the house today , they would suffer a loss from what they have in it in the way of money . Mr . Levenson responded no , he thinks they would probably make a small profit but he thinks that if the Board granted the extension , the house would be worth significantly more . Town Attorney Barney said to Mr . Levenson that the fact that somebody can make more money if a variance were granted , that by itself does not create an economic hardship . Mr . Levenson said that he would disagree with Town Attorney Barney . He thinks that it would create a hardship . By not granting the extension the only persons that would be harmed would be the Reizes . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Levenson in what way would the Reizes be harmed . Mr . Levenson replied that the Board would be prohibiting them from making another capital improvement which he thinks would help the general economy and the value of the capital added would multiply . He said that in other words , the value of their asset if the Board allowed the extension would • increase even more than the amount of funds they would have to invest . Therefore , he would say that if the Reizes were not allowed to go ahead with this , they would lose money based on Mrs . Williams ' letter and he thinks the Board would be holding Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 down the value of this piece of property , without necessarily helping the adjoining neighbors . Town Attorney Barney stated that the mere desire to have additional space does not create an economic hardship . Chairman Aron reiterated Mr . Levenson ' s remark that if the Reizes were to sell the property today as it is , including the changes they have made , it will derive a small profit and that does not sound like an economic hardship to him . Mr . Levenson replied that if the extension were granted , as their major family asset , they would probably get $ 50 , 000 more for it and as their major asset , it would be a loss . Chairman Aron cited the criteria for Special Approvals for non - conforming use of properties that the Board has to abide by . In this case , there is almost 2 , 000 square feet and the enlargement goes to 3 , 182 square feet and the number of people living there has not changed at all and as Mr . Levenson said , there is no hardship as far as finance is concerned because there will still be a profit made upon the sale of the house . He said • that it is true that if an addition is made , money has to be invested . The Board understands that , and of course , by doing that , the price of the house is much higher but it still does not mean that it is an economic hardship . Mr . Levenson responded that if the Board would accept the fact that by granting the extension of the non - conforming use , that you would create $ 50 , 000 in value , it could be argued that there could be the loss of an opportunity here . He also said that besides the money factor , which is really why he is here , it is only a 2 -bedroom house and that in terms of life style , that is as much a motivator for the addition as the terms of the money . Mr . Levenson further stated that he knows one neighbor fairly well and he has met the other neighbor and he does not think that any of the adjoining property owners are complaining about this . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Mr . Austen stated that he noticed that the height of the structure is 32 feet and he asked if that is legal . Mr . Frost stated that there are two measurements . It is 34 feet from the lowest point interior to the ridge of the roof and it is 30 feet • from the lowest point to the finished grade of the ridge of the roof , which in this case the lower point may be at the existing building , finished grade , the higher point being the ridge of the new addition . Discussion followed on the heights involved . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 Mrs . Hoffmann questioned that Mr . Levenson said that there were two bedrooms but there are also two guest rooms . She said that guest rooms generally imply that there are sleeping facilities in the rooms . Mr . Reizes replied that his mother and his in - laws come to visit from time to time . Mrs . Hoffmann then asked Mr . Reizes about parking facilities . Mr . Reizes responded that parking is on the south side of the house where the easement is over the adjoining property . He said that there is actually parking for 5 cars , counting the driveway . Mrs . Hoffmann asked Mr . Reizes about facilities for water and sewer . Mr . Reizes said that right now they are on a septic system and they have a well and Lake water . They will be hooking up to the Town ' s water and sewer line shortly . Town Attorney Barney , for the record , asked Mr . Reizes if Mr . Levenson is related to him or any one in his family at all . Mr . Reizes replied no . Mr . King stated that Mr . Reizes ' former request to the Board in January 1988 was for 336 square feet on each level . The ® present request is to increase it by nearly 1200 square feet so he is going from a 30 % increase to a 60 % increase . He stated that part of the problem with the lots in the area in question is that they are all small , non - conforming lots , and the nature of the land is such that it is rather fragile . Mr . King asked Mr . Reizes if they had considered adding only a two story addition rather than three , in the same footprint . Mr . Fortner said that they looked at putting an addition on that would fit as best it could with the existing house and that would work well with the dropping contours of the land . Mr . King stated that it unfortunately increases the potential for increased use of the land . Mrs . Hoffmann said that she shares Mr . King ' s concerns about the stresses to the land . She stated that it is a fact that the house will cover a larger area of the land and when there is rainfall , there will be a runoff from the roof of the buildings and she questioned where that water will go . Mr . Reizes answered her questions and stated that there is not a problem now and there would not be a problem after the addition were built . Chairman Aron stated that if there were no further questions , he would like to have a motion as to whether or . not the Board should grant a Special Approval to Mr . and Mrs . Reizes • for an extension of a non - conforming use by building the addition as proposed . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 Mr . King made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals recognizes the fact that , as the petitioner states , year - round homes are becoming the norm on the West Shore of the Lake in this area and that the existing building is a well constructed permanent year - round home type building , AND , FURTHER RESOLVED , that to permit this extension would generally be in conformity with the uses in that particular area in the community , with the following findings . 1s the property is reasonably well adapted to the extension . 2e the proposed extension is well located , being to the west of the house and east of the garage in a vacant area . 39 being as it is now proposed , it does not extend closer to either the north or south line so it presents no immediate impact on the neighbors . 4 * that the neighboring houses are situated considerably east of the present structure and the proposed addition . 5 * that the proposed use would not seem to be detrimental to the general amenity and character of the neighborhood in amounts sufficient to devaluate any neighboring property or to seriously inconvenience neighbors , there being adequate parking spaces provided . 69 that the structure seems to be safely designed and the general effect of the proposal would not seem to add any unreasonable additional burden to traffic load on public streets or the water and sewer system . 7e that the proposal seems to violate the height restriction by approximately 3 feet . However , the lot is steeply sloping from the highway to the Lake and that additional 3 feet would not impose any burden on the neighbors or the view of anyone else . 80 that public sewer will be added to the property . 90 that no one appeared in opposition to the proposal . AND , FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the Special Approval and permits the structure to extend upward to the degree proposed , provided that the 34 foot interior • height limitation be observed . Mr . Austen seconded the motion . • Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Aron , Reuning , Hoffmann , King , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next item on the agenda was the following . APPEAL OF GEORGE RHOADS REQUESTING A USE VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF PROFESSIONAL SCULPTURING STUDIOS ON LAND PROPOSED TO BE SUBDIVIDED FROM PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1478 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 APPLIES ) . SAID PROFESSIONAL STUDIOS ARE CONTAINED IN EXISTING BUILDINGS NOT USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES . ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , PARAGRAPH 1 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , PERMITS THE USE OF AN OFFICE OF A PROFESSIONAL ARTIST WHERE SUCH OFFICE IS A PART OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING . • Mr . George Rhoads addressed the Board and explained that he would like to move , to change , his residence and to do that and still preserve his studio and office he wants to separate the property containing the house from the property containing the other buildings ( the office and shop building ) . He stated to do that , he needs the variances as are set forth before the Board . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Rhoads if it is correct that he is asking for a use variance . Mr . Rhoads stated that is correct . He said that when he bought the property , the studio building and the residence were on one parcel . Now that he is proposing to separate the two buildings on different parcels , it seems he needs the variance to use the building as an office and sculpture studio . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Rhoads if he has appeared before the Planning Board . Mr . Rhoads responded that yes he did . Mr . Frost stated for clarification that Mr . Rhoads appeared before the Planning Board for the subdivision of the property , which has resulted in the need for an area variance which is written as a second hearing to this particular matter . He stated that the first hearing is over the fact that Mr . Rhoads is permitted in the zone to have professional offices as long as it is part of the residence . Since his professional office as an artist is not part of his residence , that is resulting in a use variance . The • Planning Board matter was the request for subdivision which is resulting in the further need for an - area variance . • Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frost if we have the subdivision already on the survey map . Mr . Frost replied that it is a proposed subdivision which has not been finalized by the Planning Board as yet . Mr . King asked Mr . Rhoads what the building was used for previously . Mr . Rhoads replied that he thinks it was a chicken barn or chicken experimental building ; he is not sure . Mr . King remarked that the building looks to be a pretty substantially constructed building . Mr . Rhoads said that it is made of cinder block and the floors are cement , it is a 3 story building . Mr . King asked Mr . Rhoads how long he expected to use the building for his profession . Mr . Rhoads replied that if it works out as he is hoping , he will use it for a year or two . He said .that it possibly could be converted to a residence , he is also thinking of that . Chairman Aron read the meaning of a use variance from the Zoning Ordinance . He asked Mr . Rhoads if he displays his sculptures in the building in question and if he has people • coming there to view the sculptures . Mr . Rhoads replied , no ; this is strictly a place to build the sculptures and to have an office . He stated that when the sculptures are finished he sends them to the customer . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Rhoads what would happen if he does not get a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Rhoads responded that he would have to abandon the building and he would have to rent or buy another facility . Chairman Aron read Parts II and III from the Environmental Assessment Form , signed by Asst . Town Planner George Frantz , dated June 8 , 1989 , ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 ) . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Mr . Salvatore Grippi addressed the Board . He stated that he is an artist and the problem for artists in the Ithaca community is that there are no spaces available for their kind of work . He explained to the Board what kind of space is needed for artists to be able to accomplish their work . He asked the Board to take the problems that artists face into consideration when they appear before the Board . He said that he is in favor of the use variance being granted for the purposes as he has mentioned . 0 Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . • Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 Environmental Assessment Mr . Austen made the following motion : RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of George Rhoads requesting a use variance for the use of professional sculpturing studios on land proposed to be subdivided from property located at 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , in an Agricultural District ( Residence District R- 30 applies ) , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . Mrs . Hoffmann seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Ayes - Aron , King , Austen , Hoffmann , Reuning . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . • Further discussion followed on the floor on the matter of the use variance as requested by Mr . Rhoads . Chairman Aron stated that if there were no further questions he would entertain a motion as to whether or not the Board should grant a use variance for the purpose of professional sculpturing at the building located at 1478 Mecklenburg Road . Mr . King made the following motion . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant approval to the application of George Rhoads to continue the utilization of the existing building on the westerly 138 feet of the applicant ' s property as is proposed to be subdivided , including the artist ' s studio as it has been used in the past , as a permitted use variance for a period of 5 years or until there is a re - application by the owner , upon the following findings . 16 the use would not impact adversely on the neighborhood . 2o it would be a distinct hardship on the owner/ applicant to require that he discontinue this use which has • existed for some 5 years at this location . Mrs . Reuning seconded the motion . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - King , Reuning , Aron , Austen , Hoffmann . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next Appeal before the Board was the following . APPEAL OF GEORGE RHOADS REQUESTING AREA VARIANCES FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 21 AND SECTION 23 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR A PROPOSED LOT AND EXISTING BUILDINGS ON SAID PROPOSED LOT , TO BE SUBDIVIDED FROM LAND LOCATED AT 1478 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA PARCEL NO . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 APPLIES ) . THE PROPOSED LOT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SET-BACK OF 150 ' , WHEREAS 138 + OR - FEET IS PROPOSED AND THE EXISTING PRIMARY BUILDING IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A 50 ' WEST SIDEYARD SET-BACK , WHEREAS 36 + OR - FEET IS PROPOSED . • AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PRIMARY BUILDING MAY BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 75 ' REAR YARD SET-BACK , WHEREAS 46 + OR - FEET IS PROPOSED . Chairman Aron referred to the survey map that was presented to the Board , attached hereto as Exhibit # 5 . He stated that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has given Mr . Rhoads preliminary subdivision approval and they have also gone through the environmental assessment review , for which they were the lead agency . He read from the Adopted Resolution of the Planning Board , dated February 21 , 1989 , with respect to SEQR , attached hereto as Exhibit # 6 . Chairman Aron stated the Zoning Board of Appeals is in conjunction together with the Planning Board on the voting on the environmental assessment . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared before the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Chairman Aron read from the Adopted Resolution of the Planning Board of February 21 , 1989 ( see Exhibit # 6 ) , with regard to Preliminary Subdivision Approval and asked for a motion on SEQR . Mrs . Hoffmann made the following motion . • RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of George Rhoads requesting area variances from Article V , Section 21 and Section 23 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for a proposed lot and existing buildings on said proposed lot , to tTown of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 be subdivided from land located at 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , in an Agricultural District ( Resident District R- 30 applies ) , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . Mr . Austen seconded the motion . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning , Hoffmann . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Frost explained for clarification that they have made revisions in the last year in terms of lot size requirements to deal with irregular shaped lots . Whereas in the past , you could have , in an R- 30 zone , a building lot with a width of 150 feet and a depth of 200 feet , ( giving a measurement of 30 , 000 square feet ) , the Planning Board often permitted subdivisions of irregular shaped lots , so , what the Zoning Ordinance has been changed to , would permit irregular shaped lots such that if you can ' t fit a rectangle in a parcel of land 150 feet wide by 200 feet deep , you may have a lot 16 , 000 square feet shaped like a pie . If you can get a rectangle in there 150 feet wide by 200 feet deep , then they consider that to be an adequately sized and shaped lot . If you cannot fit a rectangle 150 feet by 200 feet they have added that you have to increase the rear yard to a 75 foot depth , where otherwise they would permit a 50 foot rear yard , the side yard , which is required to be 40 feet , has to be increased by 10 feet , making it 50 feet , they also define the width of a lot as being what is required at the maximum front yard set back . Mr . Frost stated that , without complicating matters , we have a front yard width at the maximum required set back , which would be 60 feet , of 138 feet , where Mr . Rhoads would need 150 feet . From the side of this building to the property line , he has 36 feet . Because of the inability to fit the rectangle in there , he would need a 50 - foot side yard set back . He said that he is somewhat confused as to how to treat , if anything , this back building as accessory or otherwise . Chairman Aron asked if it is an accessory building or what type of building it is . Mr . Frost replied that he had trouble distinguishing how he was going to call the front building as • well , because it is not a residence , so he labeled it a primary building for purposes of the Notice . The back building is accessory to the front building . Chairman Aron stated that if it is accessory to the front building then the rear yard • Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 requirement is different than it would be if it is a primary building . Mr . Frost said that is correct - if we call the rear building an accessory building . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Rhoads what that rear building is used for . Mr . Rhoads responded that it is about two -thirds storage shed for sculpturing material , carts , tools , etc . The other part is a fabrication shop as well , a smaller shop . He stated there is also a well under the floor of that building that serves both buildings . Mr . Frost stated that he did put in the Notice that an additional building that is located at the rear of the primary building may be required to have a 75 - foot rear yard set back , whereas 46 feet is proposed . The primary building is 75 feet from the back lot line . Assuming that we treat this second back building as also part of the primary use and not as an accessory , that will need a rear yard set back variance , which is required under the revisions of the Town ' s ordinance to be 75 feet rather than 50 feet . • Chairman Aron stated for clarification that what the difference is is 29 feet and 14 feet at the width . Town Attorney Barney said that is correct if that interpretation is accepted . Mr . King said that he would note that the distance between these two primary buildings appears to be 75 - 1/ 2 feet and the proposal was to subdivide the property by a line between those two so that each one would have a 36 - foot + or - side yard . The house to the east would not require a variance because the lot is bigger than the other one . Chairman Aron said that if there were no further questions , he would entertain a motion on whether the Board should or should not grant Mr . Rhoads a variance in order that this land can be approved by the Planning Board for subdivision . Mr . King made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant the two variances as necessary to permit the east side yard of the westernmost lot to be 36 feet wide rather than the 50 feet now required by the Ordinance due to the fact that the lot is less than 150 feet wide , upon the following findings , and Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Board also grants a variance to permit the building to the north to exist as it is sited , 46 feet from the rear lot line rather . than the 75 feet which the new ordinance would now require , upon the following findings . 10 that the neighborhood will not be adversely impacted by the Board ' s recognition of this existing situation and the proposed subdivision . 2w that no one appeared in opposition to the proposed subdivision . 3e that . there would be practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship if the proposal were not accepted . Mr . Austen seconded the motion . The voting on the resolution was as follows . Ayes - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning , Hoffmann . Nays - None . • The motion was carried unanimously . The last appeal before the Board was the following . APPEAL OF CAROLYN B . SLAGHT AND L . E . BUNDY JR . , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 230OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , AND SECTION 280-a OF THE N . Y . S . TOWN LAW FOR A 4 . 9 ACRE BUILDING LOT PROPOSED TO BE SUBDIVIDED FROM TOWN OF ITHACA PARCEL NO . 6 -24 - 5- 10 . 3 ( 6 . 49 + OR - ACRES TOTAL ) , LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BUNDY ROAD , APPROXIMATELY 750 FEET WEST OF HOPKINS ROAD . SAID PROPOSED LOT DOES NOT CONTAIN A MINIMUM WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SET-BACK ( 60 ' FROM THE STREET LINE ) OF 1501 , NOR A MINIMUM WIDTH AT THE STREET LINE OF 100 FEET . THE PROPOSED LOT HAS A 25 ' WIDTH WITH ACCESS DRIVEWAY FOR A DEPTH OF 300 FEET FROM THE STREET LINE . Attorney Frederick Beck Jr . , representing Carolyn B . Slaght and L . E . Bundy Jr . , addressed the Board . He referred to the survey map , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 7 . He said that Mrs . Slaght and her brother are anxious to gain approval for a two lot subdivision out of tax parcel no . 6 - 24 - 5 - 10 . 3 to accommodate the conveyance of the rear parcel to include a strip • of land fronting on Bundy Road 25 feet , consisting of a total of 4 . 9 acres , to a family member , Mikel Cary and his wife . This would accommodate the construction of a one and one -half story residential dwelling , approximately centered in the center of the • Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 large parcel to the rear and to allow Mrs . Slaght and her brother to retain a piece of property fronting approximately 170 feet on Bundy Road for subsequent conveyance to another family member . He said that given the fact that what is intended to be conveyed in the rear will only have a frontage of 25 feet on the road , they are before the Board tonight seeking approval for a subdivision for the large 6 . 49 acre parcel in two parcels ; one of about 4 . 9 acres and the other of about 1 . 5 acres . Chairman Aron stated that the Board has before them a Short Environmental Assessment Form which they will have to vote on . It is in conjunction with the Planning Board . He read Part III , which is signed by Asst . Town Planner George Frantz , dated May 10 , 1989 and is attached hereto as Exhibit # 8 . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment Mr . Austen made the following motion : • RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Carolyn B . Slaght and L . E . Bundy Jr . requesting a variance from Article V , Section 23 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and Section 280 - a of N . Y . S . Town Law , for a 4 . 9 acre building lot proposed to be subdivided from Town of Ithaca Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 5 - 10 . 3 ( 6 . 49 + or - acres total ) , located on the north side of Bundy Road , approximately 750 feet west of Hopkins Road , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . Mrs . Reuning seconded the motion . The voting on the environmental assessment was as follows . Ayes - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning , Hoffmann . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Discussion followed on the floor in regard to the conditions that the Planning Board made when they granted approval for the subdivision . ( Exhibit # 9 attached hereto . ) • Mr . King asked if his tax map is correct in indicating that there is a 257 acre parcel to the north of this interior 5 acres . Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 Mrs . Slaght responded that it is a large farm owned by George and Miriam Hopkins . Discussion followed about the sizes of the properties around this lot . Mr . King referred to the 25 ' strip on the highway frontage . He asked if that strip is presently a roadway or would it have to be improved as a roadway . Mr . Bundy Jr . responded that they would be putting a driveway there consisting of oil and # 2 stone . Chairman Aron stated that if there were no further questions he would entertain a motion whether the Board should or should not grant the requested variances . Mr . Austen made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance to permit the proposed lot to be 25 feet in width on the highway , as a roadway back to said 4 . 9 acre building lot , as proposed , and , a variance from the 100 feet requirement at the street • line to 25 feet , and , a variance from 150 feet width required at the front yard setback to 25 feet , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Zoning Enforcement officer is authorized to issue a building permit for construction of a house on said proposed lot which does not have 150 feet of frontage on a public highway , with the following condition : 1 . Any house that is to be constructed on said lot shall meet the front yard , side yard , and rear yard set backs as if the road frontage were at the rear of the existing front lots . Mrs . Reuning seconded the motion . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - Reuning , Hoffmann , Austen , King , Aron . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 55 p . m . • • Town of Ithaca 20 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1989 Exhibits 1 - tached Respectfu ly submitted , Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary APP VE Henry Aron , Chairman • Isadore BlumerdTown of Ithaca Zoning AppealtMay 17 , 1989 There is a very difficult parking problem on the south side of Marren Road from our house (below the University Golf Course) down the hill to Forest Home Drive . The terrairt slopes off sharply to the gest and the houses vere built long before zoning rules were established . No conforming garage or carport exists or can be built for any of the dwellings . Over twenty five years ago we created some off street parking by building a retaining wall, including a " nose " on which we placed a small, oddly shaped carport. This was best we could do given the grain problems . In the last two years the County has rebuilt Warren Road , improving dmiriage under the road and under a path recently constructed by the Town of Ithaca. Spoil from the construction project Tw-as placed on our property and that of the Torn in a joint effort to improve our parking area and provide for a gentler grade for the path. This made it possible for us to engage Leroy Winters to work iwith to do some superb landscape mtiork vith ties . .Arnong other things , he improved the parking area in from of our house and buttressed the fill at the northeast corner of our house . (There is a set=enteen foot drop fmm Warren Road to the rear corner of our house ! !) The result is that we have esthetically greatly improved our property and the neighborhood . We have also created the possibility of improving on the existing carport and creating an additional sheltered parking space by a modest enlargement of the existing carport. • There is almost no parkin; space on Warren Road for visits . This creates a problem on Crest Lane n%hich must handle the overflow particularly in %tmer when access problems become particulsu ? difficult and even residents must park in ways which hinder snow plowing . The additional space we are creating gull be covered and usable the year round , vnlilve the uncovered space m front of our house . It will be esthetically more pleasirig than any alternative we can think of, including a garage. It will raise the value of all properties in the neighborhood and improve traffic problems somewhat. We are cooperating with the Torn of Ithaca in, solving their problems with the path. The present tentative landscaping plan is for them to create a hemlock hedge , rirhich Ave gill mshttain, on the south side of the path roughly from the road w the bank of our house. We gill then avrork together to insrdll plantings which are attractive and require little maintenance . Addis nd Inkmnaton for Dmving 1 . Lot lines as shown on dM1Tnrtg 7 . Address : 122 Warren, Road 2 . a. Proposed carport ten feet from road B. There is a heml+occk, hedge which extends w b . Side lot lines a, sha'Tra a screen and safety measure south from tree 4 . Carport dimensions 2116 " x 1912 " proposed carport, which is shovin dotted . 6 . Nopak setback is same as our house • No•,rak hedge is at curb line No other structures nearby Isadore BlurterdTown of Ithaca Zoning AppeapMay 17 , 1989 Description of Property as recorded in 311 Deeds Pg 70 in the sale by Chisholms to Beckermans of house and property at 122 Warren Road . Property sold to Blurnens by Beckermans on 'September 26 , 1951 and recorded in 344 Deeds pg . 463 . Dradwnrw attached based on boundary rrmkers of surrey , the marker rear tte norrheast corner Laving been replaced by supreyo r for Couxtry in Fall 1988 and is referred v below as the pipe 25 feet from the center of ',t wren Roars . "Beginning at lie center line of Marten Road at the northeast cornier of ttw prerrtises . . . . . ;thence running, along center lire of said marl south 5 degrees 43 mimrtes West. 94 . 5 feet; rijm&ug thence nort 88 degrees 20 rf&t tes West 38 feet to art irorl pipe ; tense. rrrrunirqg south 69 degrees 12 rniimues west 71 feet to an iron pipe; tter►ce ruraing riorth 21 degrees 45 77,v 49 . 5 feet to ars iron pipe set 5 feet sowherly from tete reraer of a. pa J't used by 'Fuser , thence nir+xdrgr 61 degrees 20 minutes East ort a. lire parallel to slid 5 feet sout]-ierly from the ssfr remenriorted patri 121 . 5 feet ra at iron pipe set in the vest side of the said road , vWh pipe is 25 feet at right arag]es from t1',e center lira; of said road; thence North 61 degrees 20 )minutes east 30 feet to the center of Warren Road and eie place of the begirinirtg . " The other existing st»Yxs Frere apparently put in duAng the survey by Call Crandall, CE , April 140 1944 and filed at the Country clerk' s offire in May 1944 . ( See 271 Deeds pg . 104 , Dated May 24 , 1944 . ) There is reserved in 177 Deeds , Pg . 288 a right ofray from ghat is noir our property over ghat is now the Town of Ithaca paths, ffide and FWW Elevaoh of Pmposd Cupw t E It Z / Xf PLOT _PWV INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN . 1 . Dimensions of lot . 4 . Dimensions and location of proposed structures ) or 2 . Distance of structures from : or additlon ( s ) . • a . Road, S . Nanes of neighbors who bound lot . b . Both side lot lines, 6 . Setback of neighbors . c . Rear of lot . 1 . Street name and number . 3 . North arrow . 8 . Show existing structures 1n contrasting lines . CO �N � � � Go Covr� sE - - � i too '% w 04 ti lb • .rp b (v � b � � o Q y m J r`ll $ J v 1 U wr/ M � ,_ sem , - - - - - •� ,—o Cc-- ,vs62 v� � l D n ,1 i?o 'E a ry or n � 2 c '1 � N • 4rFA C It Fs D S� �b T / :5 Q/� �a— v �P� i Gam- 771 a Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date : Signature of Appellant /Agent : Date : —�� =omCD ` a a � w ' _ _ LLL'�� Oe'0 t I z y W v " Z i � U '' w AR o U o a w F y Or yi er Poo ' Wn W W W W rel ,. �Y • . i � S PC u� W � � O " Wai �8 (� c a r • F r syr,, Z 9 u a W j w O04b 00 QV of 4. iv > > W r G . tp A/ a _M SRN a , \ t � ; . • v / . I �1h� Nt / W / \ . O _ � r LV cv \ Cool 00000� CY p. to qz lw..� Pod /KI sr l \ ; Poo too 0 : .f•,�r 1 - / f\ a V�l ' ' N 1 � f�2 Co O r . . . J �. LLA V IJ' i ILD 2O r (D n 9 2oD (O ;; o rrnnn r ..(J l W \H d r'/r r 2ly ' PPPI I i C 7 ° / .rl I I 1 0 07 1 f fN. PoI /' ,F 1r } .. (` ` ' PAPC Al♦ YY .4i . 1 I. ♦ )!1 ')_ < ` N1wl 1. / ' ♦ • i ' - ro' Finger lakes Preferred Properties Inc . 622 CASCADILLA , ITHACA, N .Y. 14850 607-272.4124 June 14 , 1989 Mr . and Mrs . Leslie 2eizes 1061 Taughannock Boulevard Ithaca , NY 14850 Dear Mr . and Mrs . Reizes : You have asked for my opinion as to the significant economic injury resulting from the application of the current Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to your property . You purchased your home as a secondary residence on February 28 , 1985 , for $ 154 , 000 . Since then you have expended $ 67 , 600 in improvements and the house has become your primary residence . You have advised that the house is too small for your needs and that you propose to expand it from the present 1 , 996 square feet to 3 , 182 square feet at a cost of some $ 80 , 000 . In my opinion , the current market value of your home is $ 300 , 000 . The substandard size of your lot under the area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance makes it necessary that you apply for an area variance . This is reflected in a lower market value than w d be The case if your proposed expansion did conform to the current area regulations . I say this in part because the character of the neighborhood has changed over the last few years from primarly seasonal cottages to one characterized by year- round homes . Buyers looking for year - round homes generally require larger houses than those used for seasonal purposes . I have concluded that the projected market value of your house , with the right to build your addition is $ 3503000 . Such a figure is further supported by my estimate that the market value of the property after the $ 80 , 000 expansion , would be $ 430 , 000 . I certify that I am a licensed real estate broker with 14 years experience in the Ithaca Market , and that my opinion is based on my expeLten e and knowledge of such market . Ea ri a Wi11 ' 1 Broker ///\'''�� - lir'`1 � 0 Member Its3 Employee RoloccNon Council ' 14. 16.4 (?167)— Text 12 PROJECT I .D. NUMBER 617.21 SEAR Appendix C State Environmental Ouality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only SpART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project ! sponsor) It APPLICANT ISPqNSOR l f r 2 . PROJECT NAME 3 . PROJECT LOCATION: (_ Municipality 1 ` `fits County t " S 4 . PRECISE LOCATION (Street J address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map)-ecf1 �� 1 �j14V- �I� cJG .G� � f �iGtCGt . i 5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New. ❑ Expansion Modificatlonlalteration 6 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: I S1Ab �r , vljfo l C' GC�� Ef. ; r ' -P lt'l 76 ,.r 2 � 1YCEiS 7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially r acres Ultimately �' acres 6 : WILL PROPOSED rTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? If No, describe briefly, ❑ Yes 2 No 1 1 . 1 ! ti; 1 c ; k U iiJq� �" t¢ SILT Dom C S � Q NC kl" cI pe4sdrrl 6N P/LOrJe >, Q �lv , �'ps 1J52 9 . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ❑ Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ErApriculture ❑ Park/Forest/open space ❑ Other Describe: R ipe fir s , P- 10 , DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL}? Yes o If yes, list agency(s).and permlUapprovala a J r 11 . DqES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? [ yes ❑ No If yes, list agency name and permltlapproval t � ; ,r F yJr) i IWAI q Vr �lI Ira gra Vel 12 , AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Yes ❑ No I CERTIFY TH THE INFORMATION P VIDED ABQVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name : Date' Signature: If !he action Is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment f=orm More proceeding with this assessment OVER PART Il — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD XCIN 6 NYCRR, PART 617. 12? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. ❑ Yes Id No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. ❑ Yes Ibl No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, If legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: See attached - C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: see attached 63. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or-wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: see attached 04. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly see attached C5. Growth, subsequent development; or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. see attached C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified In - C1 -05? Explain briefly. see attached C7. Other Impacts (including changes in usP of either quantity or.type of energy)? Explain briefly. see attached D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, explain briefly I I PART Ill— DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (fo be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether It, 19 substantial, large, Important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with Its (a) setting (I.e, urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary; add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse Impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed. C Check this box If you have Identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse Impacts which MAY . occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF andlor prepare a positive declaration, Check this box if you have determined, based on the Information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental Impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Name of Lead Agency Henry Aron Chairman Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency n/ Title oResponsible Officer Signature of Responsible Of ficef in lead Agency SignaJeffe of Preparer ( it 0& ent from responsible off icer fl# Date 2 �68T� �___�nix�aa�ez�tal_Asse� �ment__ Appeal of George Rhoads for use variance for land to be subdivided from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , 1478 Mecklenberg Road . A . Action is an Unlisted action . B . Action will not receive coordinated review . ��_�Q�ald_�ctiQn_ray.ult_in�nY_�slY�rs.a_ef.fects._Qn�._�.Q_Qr ari s ing_f rom_the _following_ C1 _ Existing_air_gualityy_ surface_or_groundwater quality_or_quantity_L_not_se _ le _ve1s ,_existing_traffic patterns , _solid_Waste_production_or _disposal1_potential_for eroson,_drainage or_flooding_problems? None are anticipated . % The requested variance will allow the continued use of existing structures . Proposed use of the structures for a professional sculpture studio is not expected to adversely impact on existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , traffic patterns , or solid waste production or disposal . No i increased potential for erosion , drainage , or flooding • problems is expected . No new construction or expansion of existing facilities is proposed . or_ other_ natural_ or_ cultural_ rgsources�_ or_ community_or neighborhood_ cha.racter? None are expected . Uses for which variance is being requested will be contained within existing structures . C3 ___Vegetatian_ or_ fauna,1_ f ish1_ shelifish_or_wildlife species , significant_habitats ,_or threatened or_endangered species ? None expected . C4 �__A_community' a_existing_plans _or_goals _as officially_adopted�_or_a_change_ i. n_use _or_ intensity_of_us_g of _ land_or other _naturai_resourCeB ? No - significant impacts are expected . The use proposed for the buildings , a professional sculpturing studio , is allowed under current zoning regulations ( Art . V , Sect . 19 , Paragraph 1 Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ) where such studio is part of a residential building . • �t_��rsw��._�hse_quex�t_�� eloP�e�.� Qr_r�latc� activities _ likely_tcbe_ ,nduced_by_ the_Proposed_ actiQn ? /�'ZL � None expected . • i�__Long-t� rm�_shQr - auMu1atiYeL4..Qr.QthP-r None expected . 4 h r_impaQ _ ( in.Qluding chang.Q s in..use Qf aithQr quantity or_ty.Re of s=rgy ) 9 None expected . D1-- -?S—thQrQ� or is the r4_likQlY_t4—hQ._contrQYQrQY_rQIQtQd to2otentiai_adv-erse _environmental impS1Qts ? None expected . Due to the nature and scale of the requested use variance , no significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the grant of such variance . A negative determination of environmental significance is thus recommended . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Asst . Town Planner Review Date : June 8 , 1989 lie� Is3; I ,SETI , PiPF_ 92 .4 ' * S9rltPI (*E f POLL � SETI . PIPc I 4A N ' 35 'E 293 0 / T TAf,, T4 C'_ ntA i w � o V) p . � s � + t I M �OIM . S Ns - r p ppD to DeiId h- �1� /� • . _ _ . . . _ _ _ N j5 P _o. N : EL O N d _T� —�i�+1--Pec - e.. m, mr mr dm N C i P ,3 N N M I . gg KI h El U Z i y _. r i 2 q A 0' 1985 V P '0I� I . N{ AGNETI � t - - - - - - - - - - �� • •• _ v fds 7 fk4 L cAeL e ,' # SOMA M ,. UPDIICE ( R•0.) 1 ! H 579 .816 27- I - 24 . ' . T I o43 . C5 ACCES P i SU4, TOO NYSg �G . 314 •x89 . . w I Ii y- . to . a/, 1 `360 .517 I W I IJYTir1 4Z8- 175 rIdt ' W r 0 r g G -ZI W 299,9ITOTAL Tod S � hPIN ~ j I �� C I Pte` EBBW FEI.ICC ��+ +�—� Z'•' �►� P . 13ELKNAP ( 2v.) Z7- 1 -22. 1 Portion of Lands of Car ( R. & Edna M. Updike - Meckl ' Road - Town . of Ithaca - •Tompkins Count = enburg . _ y New York NOTE; ANT tt"llo"TOTHO MAP MUSTCOMPLT WITH SECTION ?M, ' t� _'. . %. xitavuroNaOFTHtfItlTTORE STATE EDUCATION LAW. KENNETH A, BAKEF CATS P�asesaIONALLMOSUMInon EwvErtO: eT: IL .f3, 111= ' Iherebycertifyto C JOB No.: �o7e APR 'e. E ED M . UPDIKs 1E of Mir - y�! Ta ♦ fpm that I am a licensed lend surveyor, New York State License No. 049415, and that this �`�� ,� r = map correctly delineates an actual survey on the $round made by me or under m direct supervision, that it was re e of p y �j title surveys adopted by the New York State Association of Profethe current ssional LandlSurfvoeyors; t and that I found no visible encroachments either way across property lines except as shown hereon. i SIGNED : 'to . '�8 LAND SO DATED : /8/85 { did. Jr , 1• ' ' 0. �C€ •orf ��• � � . . ' George Rhoads Three - Lot Subdivision - 1 - 1478 Mecklenburg Road Preliminary Subdivision Approval Planning Board , February 21 , 1989 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR George Rhoads Three - Lot Subdivision 1478 Mecklenburg Road Preliminary Subdivision Approval Planning Board , February 21 , 1989 MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Dr . William Lesser : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 43 , 180 ± sq , ft . parcel � . and a 68 , 170 ± sq . ft . parcel from' . .Town of. . Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , 3 . 65 acres total _, located at 1478 Mecklenburg Road , . Zoning District , Agricultural , 2 . This is an Unlisted action . for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed subdivision . .. The Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review of the necessary yard variances . 3 . The Town Planning Department has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed subdivision and the necessary yard and lot width variances . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : , That the . Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed subdivision only , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed subdivision . Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Lesser , Smith . Nay - None , CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ADOPTED RESOLUTION : George Rhoads Three - Lot Subdivision 1 1478 Mecklenburg Road Preliminary Subdivision Approval Planning Board , February 21 , 1989 MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , " seconded by .MrStephen Smith : P George Rhoads Three - Lot Subdivision - 2 - 1478 Mecklenburg Road Preliminary Subdivision . Approval Planning Board , February 21 , 1989 • WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 43 , 180 ± sq . ft . parcel and a 68 , 170 ± sq . ft . parcel from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , 3 . 65 acres total , located at 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Zoning District , Agricultural .. 20 This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed subdivision , has , on February 211 " . 1989 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public .Hearing on February 21 , 1989 , has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form , and proposed subdivision plan . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board .grant . and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein proposed , with the following conditions : 1 . The granting of the necessary yard and . lQt width variances b the Zoning Board of Appeals . - Y 2 . Receipt of any necessary approvals , the Tompkins County Health Department with respect to on - site well and septic systems prior to filing of any final plat . f Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Lesser , Smith . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . 0 Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , February 22 , 1989 . 444 i •'111 • l • {", Bundy Road Kennedy C9ro.n R°9A Lot 49i�. : '• / To N.Y. S. Rt. • 96 ElectrlelortrewO) 916 .6 ' roEtlo9�im aa. —: •vtn 563 ° 00 ' G ! I• X00 N.Y. To1. (Ororswead) — D ?D r i �'7C , '• ` • 'It i qP � `�1w � � g 3 x i ' r ' • � It O wo E20 c v t f u pAm � too \ x x N o O4@qe 0. 08 ybc om m A O NOn n N e C1 o nn O p\ Q 0 3 o O A > > j "' It AII'D It 40 80 Lit Lit D D Mr N I NN p p Z � ADO � sI Ci L az CD 4 = mm : r Wally M E O mo 6 Mr n ° Nto , IS ' 1 •O 1 - - . N 83000' W ' 1 170. 3 ' ISO ' o Oi O 1 i • . i i 1 0 I T 1 � 19, _•'e 1 O :A r. _X� n " :: :s �• a � m `i m CD - aLY� } a ' 0' _ IIt = " -, O m � in n a k Q t IIIIIi b 3 m • O o � A O f'1 . O N : w N O 1 m 0 E e A rb I INC 0 e ,t 4 0 0 3 2 I^ N m to o 0 x x p < e e "Ill ... e e i m C = g �+ g n s OF CD ? m r C _ O . Ck 0 0 o � OHO p E • i g sa O 351. 9 ' CL x JoerCr rI. CD � S 70° 30 ' E °1049 Existing Mn - • • _ . m' x H m all � A � � S 16 40 now aCD : 3 c F '114 to %C O . - a Lit '60 F E O Z CDp01nn20 _ o mSr 4 b � O � N FirO .40 ! L> m > 1 s •• . ns.+ r 'bIt YvtIZ ' : Y t , r ll i r r � 44 srt r r • , , '1 It' l -1 )S •, 1 f y L df y Ia.,104 Il�b � l — IHI 12 _, PROJECT I.D. NUMBER is1 �.2t SEAR Appendix C State Environmental Ouallty Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) I . APPLICANT !SPONSOR 2 . PROJECT NAME Carolyn B . Slaght Subdivision 8. PROJECT LOCATION: Town of Ithaca County Tompkins 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street aftea and toad tntwosetlons, pranlnont Iandmsrk% etc., or propos map) Bundy Road - Tax Parcel 24 - 5- 10 . 3 S . IS PROPOSED ACTION: ® New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modifleationfalteration 6 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: One Lot Subdivision 7 , AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 6e5 +/ — acres Ultimately 6 . S +/ — acres 8 . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? 13 Yes ❑ No If No, describe briefly 9 . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commerclal E$Aprlcunure ❑ Park*orestlOpen spec other Describe: 10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? 19Yes ❑ No If yes, list agwx*s) and pwmWapprmis Tompkins County Health Department - On Lot Septic . 11 . am ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑ Yee ® No If yes, lis! agency nems end pernoapproval 12 . AS A RESULT OF PFA)POSED ACTION WILL Iat1STING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑ Yes ® No 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF UT KNOWLEDGE mole: Carolyn B . Slaght Data: 4 / 12 / 89 Applboes►Vaponsa alenate�ro: BY If the action Is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, eromplets the Coastal Assesmient Form More proceeding with this sumssmdnt OVER 1 PART II — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE 1 THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.129 It yes, coordinate the IS is r process and use the FULL EAF. ❑ Yes ® No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.69 11 No, a negative Jeclaratlon may be superseded by another Involved agency. S Yee ❑ No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, It legible) C1 . Existing sir quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, nota IMI&I existing irslfic patterns, solid waste pMducilon or disposal, potential for oroslon, drainage or flooding problem? Explain briery See Attached ' Me Arc, "f tritural. ert hasololiftis his or aflrsr ratwal or 6llltwW rs"wM or smuifla rMty or ratghbAtood alta WWW 2016M 111119ffy: See Attached W. Vegetatlon w faunas fish, shellfish or wildlife speeles, sipffieaM habitats, or threatored or andanoered opeelos? Explain briefly: See Attached C4. A community's exlsting'plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change In use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly See Attached CS. Growth, subsequent development, of iolated activities likely to be Induced.by the proposed action? Explain briefly. See Attached 06. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified M C1,C5? Explain briefy. See Attached C7. Other Impacts pncluding changes In use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain tnlefly. See Attached D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ❑ Yes No I1 Yes, explain briefly PART Hi— DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INST19t1!CTIIM& For each adt+erso effect identified abme, downriilne whether n !a rw�antlal. Iafge, k too ®rem Each . effect should be assessed In connection with Its (a) tttstting P.O.. urban or nuaq; (b) pmb®bllfty of rlftg; 10 M Irrevsrsiblllty; (e) goographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If nsaesdaryi . add attaohiliMtb or totere111 supporli MokolaftlevADOW explanations contain sufficlont detail to show that all relevant edvereo W08014 have Men .IdsntNled and adsall WY . 3 Check this box if you have Itlentifled one or more potentially_ Wp or significant advsrss MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF andlor prepare a positive declaration. - - Check this box If you have determined, bawd on On Information and anal leis , eboas and of q documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result In any algnifieaint advam art horw ental bnpaalla AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting thio datfai n inftuiM Town of Ithaca Planning Board - Subdivision Town of , Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals - Variance Carolyn Grigorov Chairwoman , Planning Board NQz1 - Chn i rm�n ��ni n ? Burd of Anneals nn or I "M Name o espons' icer rn Lea Agency TM of NosponsdWe Offacov- Ses"bim ;Respons' at„ In loaW A#&Xy sprats o i rrr w► 8 ate 2 dBRT_Ii___EnYironmental Assessment - Proposed Subdivision of Tax parcel # 6 - 24 - 5 - 10 . 3 by Carolyn B . Slaght , et al . i 3 A . Action is an Unlisted action . B . Action will receive coordinated review . ( Town of Ithaca Planning Board , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals ) Q . Q uldaction result in any advel•e effertci." , to or - - axising from the following_ Q1 , Exiaatina_air_QUAIitv . ur a=,QrrQuadwater sia!aiitym or suantitY � nQi.ee _level L_exi�tiug�tr,.affiQ Pat _ terns , sgJid - waste productign or disposal . potent for erosign . drainage_or flooding X:9hJ=§ No significant adverse impacts anticipated . Proposed action is the subdivision - of a +• / - 6 . 5 acre parcel into two lots of approximately 1 . 6 and 4 . 9 acres respectively . No public roads or water and sewer are proposed as part of this action . No public water or sewer zacilities will serve the proposed . lots . Any private onlot water or serer systems will be subject to Tompkins County Health Department review and approval , and are not expected to have any adverse impact on existing groundwater quality or quantity . U22 Aes bellmQ. agri��alt�ar�1� �r�heQlQ Q Qth �_net�ar�i—g � sa 1_ QeQia QQe_�_Qxc==ni tX Qr �• x�i�t4�44.�_s�hs�.�.te�? None expected . No - agricultural lands are involved . Existing land cover is brush and small trees . No known archaeclogical , historic , or other natural or cultural resources exist on the site . P C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish shellfish- or wildlife species , siancant heb,itats , or threatened_oedanaexed speCiesl. None expected . C4 . A_coMmunitY ' s _existing.Rans _ - or gods as officio iYadoi2led , o x a_o12.4nge i n use.Qrintegaity p f !ase o f land or other naturals resouroee? No adverse impact is expected . Stated intended use of resulting parcels is for residential purposes , which is a Permitted use under Town Agricultural zoning district regulations . Because the larger of the two lots created will not have the minimum required frontage on a public road , a variance from Art . V , ,Section 23 of the Zoning Ordinance would be necessary . No adverse impact to community plans or goals as officially adopted are expected as a result of such a variance provided that residential density on that lot is limited and that no resubdivision occur without additional • access conforming to Town zoning and subdivision 1 requirements . activi - ties likely to .Jaa induced by the proposed action ? No significant growth , subsequent development or related development is anticipated as a result of the proposed action . QfL. Long..±&rm , _short - terms cumulative . or other None anticipated . ?y_4tha�impants_� inal�asiing_ahnngas ; n_uss._Qf_aithar ggantityor_typaot_anargyi None anticipated . j p=---is_thara�or_is._thar likaly sontrQveray rQj a gad tQ..P.Qtantial..Advarsaenyjr .Qnmantal impac :ta? . No controversy related to potential adverse environmen - tal impacts is expected . '+ 1 PART IiI j Due to the small scale of the proposed action . and the 1 limited scale of potential development possible as - a result t of it , a negative determination . of environmental signi - ficance is recommended . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Planning Board for subdivision , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for required variance . Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Asst . Town Planner 1 Review Date : May 10 , 1989 j / ✓ T Carolyn B . Slaght & L . E . Bundy Jr . , Two - Lot Subdivision - 1 - North Side Bundy Road , 750 Feet West of Hopkins Road Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , May 16 , 1989 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Carolyn B . Slaght & L : E . Durruy Jr . Two - Lot Subdivision North Side Bundy Rd . , 750 Ft . West of Hopkins Rd . Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , May 16 , . 1989 MOTION by Mr . Robert Miller , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration . of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 4 . 9 ± acre lot from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 5 - 10 . 3 , 6 . 49 ± acres total , located on the north side of Bundy - Road approximately 750 feet west - of its intersection with Hopkins Road , 2 . . This is an Unlisted action for which the . Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review ofthe proposed subdivision . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . of any required zoning • variances . 3 . The Town Planning Department hasrecommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review . of the proposed subdivision , make and hereby , does make a . negative determination of environmental significance for this action . Aye - . Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Carolyn B . Slaght & L . E . Bundy Jr . Two - Lot Subdivision North Side Bundy Rd . , 750 Ft . West of Hopkins Rd . Fin,al Subdivision Approval Planning Board , May 16 , 1989 MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Dr . William Lesser : a Carolyn Be Slaght & L . E . Bundy Jr . , Two - Lot Subdivision - 2 - North Side Bundy Road , 750 Feet West of Hopkins Road Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , May 16 , 1989 WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 4 . 9 ± acre lot from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 5 - 10 . 3 , 6 . 49 ± acres total , located on the .north side of Bundy Road approximately . 750 feet west of its intersection with Hopkins Road, 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed subdivision , has , on May 16 , 1989 , made a negative determination of environmental - significance , 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 16 , 1989 , has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form , Subdivision Plan , and other application submissions . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the . Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board , 2 . That the Planning Board grant -and hereby does grant Final Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as shown on map entitled " Map to show Parcel to be Conveyed by. Charles D . Slaght and L . E . Bundy , Bundy Road , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York " , dated March 2 , 1989 , by Kenneth L . Jones , signed and sealed by Howard R . Schlieder , L . S . , with the following conditions .: a . The grant of any necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals ; b . Approval of on - lot water and sewer facilities by the Tompkins County Health Department ; c . That no further subdivision of the land take place without access , in accordance with Town of Ithaca Highway Specifications , being provided to the lot ; d . Revisions to the subdivision plat showing lot widths at street right of way line ; e . That the applicants provide evidence satisfactory to the Town Engineer that there is adequate access for fire and other emergency vehicles ; Carolyn Be Slaght & L . E . Bundy Jr . , Two - Lot Subdivision - 3 - North Side Bundy Road , 750 Feet West of Hopkins Road Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , May 16 , 1989 f . That the requirements of paragraph " ce i" , above , be implemented by a restrictive covenant to be recorded and referenced to any transfer of the 4 . 9 acre lot ; to be approved by the Town Attorney prior to issuance of any building permit for such lot . Aye � Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .. Nancy iii : Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , May 17 , 1989 . AYFIDAVIT CN K11L1CAT10N THE ITHACA JOURNAL west si eyar set- ac s • plus/minus feet. The existing building hos asix-foot south- r east sideyard set-bock. Cur- 1 rent zoning requires resi- dential buildings to have 15' vi �{ � t R �• sideyard set-backs. Authoriza- rbd` uf tED 't �Tk, �L+ImIxTkins �C+ � . IK tion is requested under Article XII , Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance. /L2 �� c �-c� r— • L APPEAL of George Rhoads re- ;t .. . .. . .::,,. L. .. . . . . . . . _ :.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . being C ul -ii' nt om , deposes guesting a use variance for the use of professional sculp- j dios on and pro- and U %0511 that he raider in Ithaca , Count' and state aforesaid and posed toube subdivided from ! n r property located . at 1478 ; thtt ft! 1S .w�. - . K_. . . . . IthacaTaxMecklenburg No. 6-27- 1Road, Town f `, . . .. . .. . • _ . ._. . .- ..-- --- 24. 1 , in o Agricultural District ; R-30 of ITIiAC� ] Oi'P� wi 8 public ae .% spaper prntad and published (Residence District onal ap- plies). Said professional slug 7 dios are contained in existing 'I buildings not used for resi- I dential purposes. Article V, in Ithaca •Lfoirmaid, and that a notice , Of %sili & the annexed is a true Section 19, Paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or- codinan an %Nw publlsbed in said paper J offcecofparmits the use professional afrtisi where such office is a part of a residential building. ..._..... ..... ... ... . ._. _. ....... . ... ._. .... .. .. .._.... . . . . _ . __. . _. ... . APPEAL OF George Rhoads re- I questing area variances from Article V. Section 21 and Sec-, _i tion 23, of the Town of Ithaca ... . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . ... . ... ... . . . . . . . _ . . .. Zoning Ordinance, for a pro- posed lot and existing build- C ings on said proposed lot, to and that the first publicatio nOr Said not1 ^e was on the . . . . . . . . . . :.. .. .. . . . . . be subdivided from land lo- cated at 1478 Mecklenburg ' 1 Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- i O{ cel No. 6-27- 1 -24. 1 , in an Ag- ' Par- & Y _ . . .. _. .-. ._ _. . . - . . . . . . Is . . S •• • I ricultural District (Residence ' District R-30 applies). The pro } „��. posed lot is required to have a / - - • - • • • •• - - - • - - • -- •• minimum width at the front yard set-back of 1501, whereas j Sabs 'bed and sx•o= to before me , tris . .. .. . I 138 plus/minus feet is pro- ... . .. .... . . . . . . .. . . .. . ._ ._ .. . . . Qfi �' posed and the existingrima- ' ry building is required to hove ] a 50' west sideyard set-back, .t cit • - _ - •_• , • • • • -_. _ • • 20 whereas 36 plus/minus feet is ' Proposed . An additional building located at the rear of �j the primary building may be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. required to have o 75' rear ' Fubjtw • yard set-back, whereas 46 plus/minus feet is proposed. .1 APPEAL of Carolyn B. Slaght JEAN FORS and L. E. Bundy Jr. requesting TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING a variance from Article V, Sec State of New York BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE tion 23 of the Town of Ithaca Notary 280-o OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, WED. , i Zoning Ordinance and Section No , 280-a of N . Y. S. Town Low for 4654410 JUNE 14, 1989, 7P. M. B direction of the Chairman o 4. 9 acre building lot pro- Tompkins County/1, i posed to be subdivided from Qualified lrl of the Zoning Board of Ap- Town of Ithaca Parcel No. 6- Ma 31 , 19 . • peals NOTICE IS HEREBY 24-5- 10. 3 (6. 49 plus/minus fission eXplre5 y GIVEN that Public Hearings acres total ), located on the ' C6rrlm will be held by the Zoning north side of Bundy Road , op- Board of Appeals of the Town proximately 750 feet west of of Ithaca on Wednesday, June Hopkins Road. Said proposed 140 1989, in Town Hall , 126 lot does not contain a mini- East Seneca Street, (FIRST mum width at the maximum Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST required front yard set-back Side ), Ithaca, N.Y. , COM- (60' from the street line ) of MENCING AT 7:00 P.M. , on 150', nor a minimum width at the following matter. the street line of 100 feet. The ; APPEAL of Isadore Blumen re- proposed lot has o 25' width i Guesting authorization from access driveway for a de th of It the Board of Appeals for the 300 feet from the street Pne. i tam extension of o non-conform- Said Zoning Board of Appeals 4� 1e� oT n o nJ ing structure conforming loto,n a legal non-located at 122 will at said time, 7:00 p. m . ,and said place, hear all per- al g c o n f o r m i n g residential building on a legal Warren Road, Town of Ithaca sons in support of such matters non-conforming lot located at Tax Parcel No. 6-66-2-3 Resi- or objections thereto. Persons i 1061 Taughannock Blvd. , dente District R- 15. The exten- may appear by agent or in ` Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. cion involves the enlargement 6-21 -2- 13, Town of Ithaca Res- person. idence District R- 15. Said lot 1 to a existing carport currently Andrew S. Frost • has a 50' front yard width, located approximately 5 plus- Building Inspector/ whereas 100' is required and /minus feet to the north side- i Zoning Enforcement Officer the extnesion of the building i yard lot line and is proposed Town of Ithaca ' Proposes additional • living to be decreased to 1 -foot plus- 273- 1747 space with a proposed south- /minus through said enlarge- June 9, 1989 l ment. Current zoning would require a 10' sideyard set- j back for a garage structure. Authorizaiton is requested un- der Article XII , Section 54, of the Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Margaret and Leslie Reize_s requesting outhoriza-