Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZBA Minutes 1989-06-26
FUM TOWN OF ITHACA Date Town of Ithaca 1 Clerk • Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 26 , 1989 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca met on June 26 , 1989 at 7 : 00 p . m . in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Edward King , Eva Hoffmann , Joan Reuning , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Planner Susan Beeners , Town Engineer Sally Olsen , OTHERS PRESENT : ( SEE ATTACHED SIGN IN SHEET ) Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . Chairman Aron stated that the Fire Code for the meeting room is 51 persons and due to the large number of public present for the public hearings , he would have to ask some people to step outside until the Appeal they are interested in addressing is presented . The first Appeals before the Board were the following , MODIFIED ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MAY 24 , 1989 AND JUNE 7 , 1989 ) OF MARIE L . BROWN , APPELLANT , RANDOLPH F . BROWN , APPLICANT/AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE EXTENSION OF A NON- CONFORMING USE KNOWN AS INDIAN CREEK FRUIT FARM AND STAND , LOCATED AT 1408 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 6 - 24 - 1 - 25 . 21 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , SAID EXTENSION PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BARN AND ATTACHED GREENHOUSE TO BE LOCATED IN AN AREA BEHIND THE EXISTING " STAND" . The foregoing appeal was , on June 7 , 1989 , adjourned to June 28 , 1989 , but such adjournment was changed on June 14 , 1989 , by vote of the Board , to June 26 , 1989 . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM JUNE 15 , 1988 , MAY 24 , 1989 AND JUNE 70, 1989 ) OF MARIE L . BROWN , APPELLANT , RANDOLPH F . BROWN , • APPLICANT/AGENT , REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 56 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , AND PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATED MAY 13 , 1987 , APPLICATION FOR SUCH OPERATING PERMIT HAVING Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 BEEN MADE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT ESTABLISHED BY SAID BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER SAID RESOLUTION , FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A BARN DESTROYED BY FIRE , AT 1408 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 6 -24 - 1 - 25 . 21 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . The foregoing Appeal was , on June 7 , 1989 , adjourned to June 28 , 1989 , but such adjournment was changed on June 14 , 1989 , by vote of the Board , to June 26 , 1989 . Chairman Aron stated that due to the large turnout for the public hearing tonight he is going to ask each person that wishes to speak to the Board on the matters before them to limit their talk to 5 minutes each . Chairman Aron stated that- there is an environmental assessment and he would call upon Town Planner Ms . Beeners to give her findings to the Board and to the public as to the greenhouse and the Board will vote first on the environmental assessment form before any approval or non - approval will be given . • Chairman Aron said that the meeting will be adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Chairman Aron read letters into the record from Myrtle J . Whitcomb and John G . Whitcomb , dated June 20 , 1989 and attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 ; the Executive Committee of the West Hill Neighborhood Association , signed by Eugene Ball , President , dated June 22 , 1989 , ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 ) ; Athena P . Grover , dated June 26 , 1989 , attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 ; and from Patricia Kennedy , Esq . , dated June 15 , 1989 , attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 . Attorney Dirk Galbraith , representing Mr . and Mrs . John Bowers , stated that with the permission of the Chair , he would like to submit 3 affidavits which they have obtained and asked that they be part of the record . He said that he has provided original copies of the same to Atty . Guttman , who is representing the Browns . Chairman Aron read into the record the three affidavits , as follows : Exhibit # 5 : affidavit signed by Athena Grover , dated and sworn to on June 26 , 1989 , notarized by Dirk Galbraith , Exhibit # 6 : affidavit signed by John Bowers , dated and sworn to June 26 , 1989 , notarized by Dirk Galbraith and Exhibit # 7 : affidavit signed by William Grover , dated and sworn to on June • 26 , 1989 , notarized by Dirk Galbraith . Attorney Charles Guttman , representing Randolph Brown , with the permission of the Chair , submitted an affidavit signed by a • Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Randolph Brown , dated and sworn to on May 24 , 1989 , notarized by Charles J . Guttman . Chairman Aron read the affidavit into the record and it is attached hereto as Exhibit # 8 . Both Attorneys asked to defer further statements until after the public hearings . Attorney Galbraith presented another affidavit signed by Gerald D . Hall , dated and sworn to on June 26 , 1989 , notarized by Dirk Galbraith . Chairman Aron read the affidavit into the record and it is attached hereto as Exhibit # 9 . Chairman Aron opened the public hearings and again gave instructions regarding the 5 minute limitation on each person that wished to speak to the Board . John Weiss , 105 Dubois Road , addressed the Board . He spoke on the new DuBois Road entrance that is being built and commercial development on West Hill . He said that one thing that does seem to be clear and is certain , is that Randy Brown has the option , which no one could prevent , in fact , of selling his products at a location that is in the R- 30 zone . He is not ready • right now to state an objection as to whether Randy Brown is selling only from his own farm or not , it is a matter of degree . The problem is that there is no particular way to regulate it or make statements about it . He is concerned , however , about future commercial development without any sort of general plan that would regulate that or stop it . It is the uncertainty of the future that forces him , in a sense , to make the objections that he has and make them strongly about the situation that one is faced with living exactly opposite that fruit stand and on the northwest side of the new DuBois Road . Mr . Weiss further stated that given the wording of the ordinance that apparently regulates this zoning and so forth , it is very hard for him to ignore statements that were made in the Bowers ' written statement at the last meeting concerning shooting incidents and other unacceptable behavior associated with the stand at that time . All those uncertainties about what would happen , and the fact that the option of asking people to drive 80 more feet to buy their produce does exist , thus it makes it necessary for him to state a strong objection to this particular option given those uncertainties . Jane Schafrek , 1491 Trumansburg Road , stated that one of the things that bothers her most and makes her very sad is that we have communities from one neighborhood on two sides of the table . • She thinks that is a very unhappy thing and she does not think it is good for the West Hill neighborhood or for the Town of Ithaca or for the general Ithaca area to have this . She stated that she wonders why this is happening and she wonders if perhaps we • Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 aren ' t all here now , with the Browns with more time and effort invested in their property , and the rest of the people with their serious concerns about rezoning into what appears to be commercial , if this could not have been stopped at the time of the Appellate hearing or at any other time if this particular Board had made a decision as to the permanency of the greenhouse that now exists . From her point of view , she thinks it is sad that neighbors are speaking against neighbors here but for the better overall good of West Hill and our serious concerns about rezoning , ( and that is what this looks like to them ) , it looks like rezoning and not an Appeal to just put an illegal building on a property and that is where her concerns stand . Mrs . Schafrek asked the following questions : Who truly does have the jurisdiction here ? If it is a request for new construction on a property that appears to already have an illegal use , does that not then belong with the Town Planning Board ? What is the precedence on West Hill , especially for changing R- 15 to commercial ? Who is going to accept liability if a car exiting or entering the parking area compounds an accident such as the one last Friday ( she had a picture in case none of • the Board read the paper ) which happened almost exactly opposite the stand . She further stated that cars now are parked in the stand parking lot helter- skelter and she knows how little they can see when they come out , especially where there are cars at the stand parked where they are further blocking a driver ' s view . Also with the DuBois Road change coming , if there are cars parked on the right hand side of the road on the east side , and they cross the road to go to the stand , if that happens now , they will be parked blocking the vision of the new Dubois Road exit so that is another concern . There is no clear line of sight north and there will be absolutely no clear line of sight if there are cars parked . Mrs . Schafrek said that to her personal knowledge , the stand was closed for all of 1988 and the fruit trees have been unattended for several years . Her husband ( who has a specialty in small fruits ) assures her that those trees probably can never be brought back and certainly would not be worth the investment and time and money that it would take . She also stated that plowing and planting on a narrow strip started this year , two days before the June 7th ZBA meeting . Water source for the site appears to come from Indian Creek via a pump in the creek and a long plastic hose or pipe . It is left running all day and floods the west side of the berm and the road . Cars traveling south come around a blind drive to find themselves on wet pavement . • Doria Higgins , 2 Hillcrest Drive , spoke to the Board and stated that her sense of justice and proper democratic procedure 9s becoming more and more offended . She said she is hearing half Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 truths from people who have not studied the situation . She referred to the facts that she had stated to the Board at the last meeting about the traffic situation from Mr . Mobbs and from Albany . She said they seem to refute some of the things that have been said tonight . Ms . Higgins stated that she is appalled and she would suggest to Mr . Brown ' s lawyer that he look into the legality of a member of our Town Board suggesting that a " convicted felon " not be granted his request tonight because he is a convicted felon . She said that outrages her . She then read the following statement . " As you know , from my statement on June 7th , I and my immediate neighbors all support Randy Brown ' s vegetable stand . We find it a pleasant convenience and we would all much rather have those apple trees there , unpruned though they be , and that vegetable stand there , than have more of creeping suburbia in its place . We are concerned at the attrition in this Town of many of the things that have made life pleasant , while on the other hand there has been an accumulation of incidents of accommodation to • out - of -town developers , as well as in - town developers . The Marion vegetable stand , otherwise known as Poyer Orchards vegetable stand was forced to close down last year . The rumor is out that you are planning to force down the Eddydale stand this year and now it looks as though the Brown vegetable stand too must go . This will be a sorry record for the Town of Ithaca if these things do happen . There is another aspect of this situation which I find of grave concern . Let me prefix my comment by saying that I was formerly a member of the West Hill Neighborhood Association but I resigned and I have never resigned from any association before . because I do not like the I resigned b waythey Y do business . At the June 7 meeting , a member of the West Hill Neighborhood Association listed a number of incidents in such a way that they seemed to pass discredit on Mr . Brown . I would like to call your attention to the fact that many of these incidents , if examined clear headedly , do not cast discredit on Mr . Brown . For instance , the West Hill Neighborhood Association member said that ex - employees had menaced her with guns . She failed to tell you that they were juveniles and that they were neighbors of hers before Mr . Brown had briefly hired them for 10 days and that they were neighbors of hers on Hayts Road after Mr . Brown had fired them . How unfair . How illogical . How undemocratic and how • unjust with accuse Mr . Brown because neighbors of hers had menaced her h guns . I hope you were not and will not be unduly influenced by such unfair , undemocratic rhetoric . " 3 1 1 • Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Ms . Higgins further stated that at the June 7 meeting , she mentioned an anonymous letter which had been sent to the Board which refuted remarks she had made attributed to Mr . Mobbs , County Commissioner of Public Works . After the June, 7 meeting , Mr . Ball , President of the West Hill Neighborhood ssociation , was quite upset with her . He said that she had lied , that her remarks were not correct and the anonymous letter writer was correct . She said she would like the Board to know that she had sent Mr . Mobbs a copy of her June 7 statement on June 7 since she quoted him and she telephoned him this morning and asked him today if he had read it . He said he had . She asked Mr . Mobbs if he agreed with the remarks that she had attributed to him and he said he did agree . So those remarks in her June 7 statement are now , at least by her word , also confirmed by Mr . Mobbs and they relate to traffic , if the Board remembers . Ms . Celia Bowers , 1406 Trumansburg Road , addressed the Board next . She stated that she thinks there is something that ought to be clarified here . She said that she is the mother of 3 children who were menaced by 2 ex - employees of Mr . Brown . The same 2 employees the summer before had menaced her with a gun • between her barn and her garage . When she complained to Mr . Brown , he did nothing about it . She thinks the Board is going to have to decide whether Mr . Brown or she is telling the truth . However , her husband can testify that those 2 children , who were 17 and 13 , and who were convicted by Judge Friedlander in the Town of Ithaca Family Court of putting a bullet from a deer rifle within 2 inches of her son ' s head were seen on the fruit farm after they menaced her with a gun , - riding in Mr . Brown ' s trucks , and picking apples . They came to her well to pick up water which she was then giving to Mr . Brown because he did not have a sulphur free water source and they all observed them on many occasions talking with Mr . Brown . She said she does not know whether Mr . Brown continued to hire those young people . However , she does know that he made absolutely no attempt to remove them from the environment . Mrs . Marie L . Brown , Appellant , stated to the Board that she has come to the meeting tonight to remove personalities from their request for this Appeal and to give the Board a little bit of background . She stated that their neighbors , the Bowers , bought their house at the same time as they purchased the barns and the land of the Frear orchards , known as Indian Creek . The Bowers knew from the day that the Browns bought the property that it was their intention to continue to sell fruit and produce from the barn and the stand as had been done for almost 100 years • before that and is what they have done for the past 8 years , including the 6 weeks they were open in 1988 , incidentally , before the road was closed . The unfortunate , tragic loss of their beautiful antique barn was a serious setback to Randy ' s • Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 business and to his ability to proceed to market his produce as he had before . Therefore , they applied for and ' got permission from this body to build the greenhouse and until challenged , were proceeding with plans to rebuild a new barn at the new site , farther away from the neighbors and closer to the existing stand , an improvement they thought for all parties . Mrs . Brown further stated that they have conformed to all the Board ' s requests relative to grading , improving site lines and adding exit drives . It is their current desire to keep this farm operating and thereby preserve these 43 plus acres as open space . Few enough spaces like this will remain as the small farmer is forced out of business by external pressures or lured into the current boom of real estate development . Needless to say , they have been approached by developers interested in building on the land , a viable alternative to farming but not something that they wish to do . She said she would respectfully request that the Board consider their application as it is submitted , based on its merits , from a zoning standpoint and not based on personal animosities . • Mr . Richard J . Evans , Perry City Road , addressed the Board and stated that he has lived in that neighborhood since 1938 . He said that he has gone to Indian Creek Fruit Farm for as long as he can remember . It has always been agricultural in that area . Mr . Evans stated that he would very much like to see Indian Creek Fruit Farm remain as a rural agricultural produce area . He said that as far as he remembers , it is the same as it has always been . A greenhouse to him is part of produce , it is part of growing things , planting , nurturing , and transplanting . The old barn was very , very large . It was old and it was beautiful but it is gone . To replace something adjacent to the present greenhouse does not appear to be offensive to him in any way . It does not look unsightly ; it looks neat . The road stand has been improved and painted and has a new electrical system , refrigeration units installed and things that the barn had in it as a sales room up there in the basement of the barn and the first floor . Mr . Evans said that the new building that is being proposed still only has a basement and a first floor with the greenhouse which is already up . Mr . Evans said that as far as traffic goes , he does not think that Mr . Brown ' s enterprises are going to make an Octopus situation up there . People have to drive with some sort of sanity , keeping their speed under the present conditions that they see in front of them . He does not think that it is a • commercial operation ; it looks to him and he feels that it is strictly agricultural as he has seen it for 51 years or as far back as he can remember and he wants to see it left that way . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Ms . Toni Russo , 1640 Trumansburg Road , stated to the Board that she recently bought a home on Trumansburg Road right near Indian Creek and being a new homeowner she is concerned about the surrounding area . She stated that she is before the Board tonight to support the Browns ' efforts to keep their greenhouse and to build their barn . She said that she supports this position for the following reasons : 1 ) The business is an asset to the community and it blends well with the rural environment that they are trying so hard to preserve . It is tastefully done ; it shows careful planning , and evidence of very hard labor . 2 ) That with the state of agricultural depression that our country is in right now , people should be committed to the small farmer and those agriculture enterprises which show the integrity that the Browns are showing in building their small agricultural enterprise . 3 ) The greenhouse was built because of the variance that was properly submitted and accepted . Proper procedure was followed . After the greenhouse was built , the variance was questioned . Why has this happened ? Had it been questioned beforehand , we wouldn ' t be here tonight , fighting to keep the greenhouse where it is . The Browns could have built the greenhouse a mere 100 yards back and they would have been within • their rights . At this point , we are asking them to destroy their business and all the work they have done to create an enterprise that people enjoy and people value . Ms . Russo said that the last comment she has to make is that if the greenhouse is not allowed to stand and the barn is not allowed to be built , what are the Browns ' options ? One of the options they have , which has been mentioned tonight , is that they sell their land and they sell it to developers . If they sell it to developers , we know what the future of West Hill will be , we are going to have even more problems . A lot of the people here are concerned about traffic . Traffic is a problem , but it has nothing to do with the small enterprise of Indian Creek . People are the problem . We have a problem in Ithaca ; we have a problem with traffic , but Indian Creek has nothing to do with it . She wished to add that if people who spoke tonight checked the records , the accident that happened this past week had nothing to do with Indian Creek . Ms . Russo further stated that another option that the Browns have if they don ' t sell their land to developers , they could create something agricultural such as a pig farm or a sheep farm . We know that this has been done elsewhere and she thinks that maybe the community should be concerned with the other options that the Browns could take if they don ' t keep their enterprise . • She said that she is also concerned that many of the issues that have been brought up here have nothing to do with the zoning variance . She said that she knows the Browns , she respects them as parents , and she respects them as business people . Some of I • Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 the incidents that have been mentioned have to be half truths and it sounds like the Browns are being framed for everything that the Bowers have suffered and she would question this without having the proper facts . In conclusion , she would like to ask the Board to remember that they did grant this variance at one time and she would ask them to please consider all the issues and please grant the variance again . Chairman Aron stated that for the benefit of those who don ' t understand whether or not it is a variance or a Special Approval ; it is not a variance . It is a Special Approval which was granted at the time . Ms . Heather Weiss , 105 DuBois Road , spoke to the Board . She referred to a market gardener that she grew up near to in Massachusetts and he grew and sold on his property . She said that we have an instance here where increasingly what is being sold at the Browns ' stand is not grown on their property . She said that does not meet the terms , to her , of a market garden . She would bet that within two years there will be even more diversity and less grown on their property than is currently the • case . Ms . Weiss also referred to the new DuBois Road exit and said that if the Board would look at where that comes out , and think of it in terms of where the fruit stand is , she thinks they will see the possibility , within three years , of a death directly attributable to that fruit stand . She would ask the Board to think seriously about the traffic hazard that is going to be created by moving DuBois Road . Mr . John Wolf , 1431 Trumansburg Road , stated that he is also concerned about the future of the area and the precedent that may be set and about commercialism . While he would much prefer to have the farm and fruit stand there as opposed to either suburbia or condos , he guesses he would prefer to have those almost , as opposed to commercialism and retail sales opening up on West Hill . He said that he is not entirely sure that he has any real objection to having Mr . Brown sell what is actually grown on his own property or stuff that is grown by other local farmers but he is concerned even in that with diversification and when does it stop being primarily a farm stand set up and become really plain old retail commercial sales , be it nursery or whatever else . Mr . Wolf said if the barns or a complete nursery set up • could be located 100 yards back from the road , there would be no variance or legal problem with doing that . Because of expansion beyond this one barn or greenhouse , he is opposed to granting this Special Approval , but he would like to see the stand remain . ® Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Krys Cail , 337 DuBois Road , referred to the Poyer Orchards that have recently closed . She said that she feels strongly that it is important to allow people to farm and to give them every advantage that we can give them to allow them to continue to pursue their livelihood . However , in this case she thinks we have to look real closely at the kind of precedent that is being set . If all those with agricultural land in positions located near by the major population areas were to turn to farmish retail sales as a way to extend or keep in business , she thinks we have to realize that won ' t work . She thinks that we need to say that a farm stand is required to sell produce of that particular farm and insofar as that is done , she is a supporter of a farm stand in that location . She stated that she would at this time say , from her knowledge of the situation , that she feels that this Special Approval would be stretching things and she wonders what hardship has been proven to make it seem appropriate that there should be this stretch in what would appear to be a pretty clear and straight forward law . Mr . John Bowers , 1406 Trumansburg Road , addressed the Board , and stated that he would like to prefix his remarks by saying • that contrary to what some people have suggested , their concern with what is happening at Indian Creek Fruit Farm is not primarily personal ; it does not primarily have to do with any personality conflicts between them and the Browns , although he is not going to deny that they have had their problems at the same time . Rather , what most concerns them , are some fairly intricate issues about zoning and the future of development on West Hill which are raised by the way that this whole issue of Indian Creek has been approached , both by the ZBA and the courts . Mr . Bowers said that he had a presentation , which is quite long . His wife and he have attempted to be as concise as possible but unfortunately , the issues that this whole business raises are extremely complex and he said he simply does not know of any way of making his remarks shorter ; it would take about 10 minutes . Chairman Aron asked him to hand the statement to the Board and the Board will then consider it . Atty . Galbraith interjected that Mr . Bowers has indicated that he has enough copies of the statement for the Board members and perhaps Mr . Bowers could condense his remarks and submit this to the Board without it having to be read into the record . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Bowers if he could do that . Mr . Bowers said yes , he could do that . He said he had four major sections that he would like to • refer to . Mr . Bowers handed out copies of his statement and it is attached hereto as Exhibit # 10 . • Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Mr . Bowers referred to the whole business of the greenhouse , which is now a permanent structure and has been referred to as a temporary replacement for the barn . He thinks that the primary issue in discussing the so - called rebuilding of a barn , is that the greenhouse itself is still standing . Furthermore , it is not a temporary inflatable structure described by the Appellate Justices in the Appeal ; it is rather a permanent structure . What they granted him was a temporary replacement for the barn . He is now asking for both . On what grounds is he asking for two structures whereas before he was only granted one temporary structure ? He thinks this is an extremely dangerous precedent to set in the Town of Ithaca . If under the guise of an extension of a non - conforming use , one tiny fruit stand can be turned first into a fruit stand and a greenhouse , and then into a fruit stand plus a greenhouse with an attached barn , it seems to him that the Board is , in effect , subverting the process of planning . The Board is keeping this out of the hands of the Planning Board and the Town Board where it properly belongs and is swelling the notion of an extension of a non - conforming use to absurd proportions . • Mr . Bowers then made his second point in regard to the restoration of the barn . He said that in the Brown ' s adjourned Appeal they were requesting permission to rebuild a barn on land zoned R- 15 . The legal basis for this is Section 56 , Article 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , which he cited to the Board . Chairman Aron stopped Mr . Bowers and stated that he would like to correct his statement . He said that the law that Mr . Bowers cited was amended by Local Law # 3 of 1988 and he read that section to Mr . Bowers and the public . Unfortunately , the amendment has not been incorporated into the blue Zoning Ordinance book but when people are given those books they are advised that they are with changes and it is up to the public to find where the changes are . Mr . Bowers stated that there are a number of issues related to the rebuilding of the barn . First of all , the function and use of the new barn has to be substantially similar to the old barn and one of their major worries in this whole business is because of the fact that the barn is going to be moved to another location , where it will , in fact , be incorporated into an already existing greenhouse , which has uses that he claimed are substantially different from the original barn . • - Mr . Bowers said that he does not think the ZBA has the right to allow a barn to be rebuilt in a new location from its original location . He quoted from a 1987 ZBA hearing in which Chairman Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Aron said " Mr . Brown opted to ask for an extension of time , i . e . to rebuild the barn . And Mr . Aron asked Mr . Brown if he understood in that case the barn would have to be rebuilt in the same site and Mr . Brown responded that he did understand this and that he would like a two year extension . " Chairman Aron interjected that the barn can be built on the original site . Mr . Bowers said but that is not what the proposal is that is at hand . Mr . Bowers then talked about the barn being considered as an extension of a non - conforming use . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Bowers if he could move it along as time is growing short . Mr . Bowers said that he does not believe that the Board can justify reconstructing the barn in a new location attached to the existing greenhouse as an extension of a non - conforming use . He said that the fruit farm is really a market garden now . It is devoted mainly to selling fruit and bedding plants and other items that are bought from wholesalers and brought into the area . Therefore , he thinks that the use of this land is being radically changed and that it will continue that way . He continued that they have submitted affidavits that the barn has been abandoned at various points in its history as a retail selling area so he • thinks on those grounds alone it should not be permitted to be put in a place where it is clearly going to be used , at least in part , for retail sales . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Bowers to please come to a conclusion . Mr . Bowers replied that he thinks he should be allowed to speak . Chairman Aron said that the Board has the statement before them ; they will read it , and he would ask Mr . Bowers to highlight his concerns and not to read the full statement . Mr . Bowers said that is what he is trying to do . He would submit that he has been selecting pieces of the statement . He asked Chairman Aron if he has a problem with that . Chairman Aron said he does not have a problem with that and asked Mr . Bowers to continue . Mr . Bowers stated that he would conclude by saying that if the Board decided that an extension of a non - conforming use is Justified then he would remind this Board that the courts have decided that in the previous decision concerning the greenhouse , the findings in Section 77 ( 7 ) were not met . He would ask that that section be read into the record as being relevant to the barn as well . He further stated that he does not think there is any justification for the barn being rebuilt on a new location . He also does not think there is any justification for permitting the barn as an extension of a non - conforming use , and he thinks • that even if there were the standards as specified in Section 77 ( 7 ) , they cannot be met . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Mr . Bowers further stated that at the base of all this . discussion , is what he thinks is a very serious issue . Namely , how far are extensions of non - conforming uses allowed to go . He does not think that if extensions of this magnitude are allowed that much is going to be left to the integrity of the Zoning Code . He does not think that it is the province of the ZBA to permit de facto zoning changes under the slippery guise of an extension of a non - conforming use and that is their primary concern . Mr . Bowers said that he does not see why , if the Browns seriously want to do farming , they can ' t put the barns and the greenhouse on the agricultural zoned part of their land where they could be put up without any hassle , no opposition , no permission or anything . He thinks it is quite obvious that because they want to concentrate this little cluster of buildings in this small strip of R- 15 land , that what their real intention is , is to set up something which will ultimately turn into a new Eddydale . Mr . Bowers handed out copies of an article from the Ithaca • Journal regarding the accident on Route 96 on June 24 , 1989 ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 11 ) . Randy Brown , Applicant/ Agent , stated that he wanted to respond to the allegations that have been made here tonight . He stated that he does not receive any regular produce deliveries . He does not deny that he sells produce that is grown on other farms ; however , he brings it in himself . In response to allegations that the barn and stand were abandoned in the 1970 ' s he has also spoken to neighbors , in particular to one Jean Swartwood , who lives in direct visual proximity to the fruit farm . Mrs . Swartwood has told him that at no time was the sales area ever totally abandoned , although sales were severely curtailed during that time . Either the sales or barn sales area were used some each year . Mr . Brown stated that the drainage problems that were brought up were created by New York Telephone excavation and input of a new buried cable last year . He has complained to them on numerous occasions to fix this drainage problem and they have told him that they are working on it . Mr . Brown said that Indian Creek Fruit Farm stand was open for six full weeks in 1988 and the allegations that it was not is • totally false and easily proven so by direct testimony of neighbors , if so desired . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Mr . Brown said that as to Mr . Bowers affidavit , he is stating before the Board now , that at no time did they ever suspend sales for an entire year ; although the sales may have been few , they did occur . In regard to traffic concerns , Mr . Brown stated that that is also on his mind as it is on everyone else ' s and he wants to make perfectly clear that they have a traffic study and numbers on the environmental impact statement which is before the Board , which shows somewhere in the neighborhood of peak trips per day of 150 on a weekend day at the Indian Creek Fruit Farm . He wants the Board to know that if the Indian Creek Fruit Farm were developed to its full legal potential ' as residential land , it would have 5 intersections along its road frontage and that the number of trips per day would be 500 to 750 . Mr . Brown further stated that he has been operating the Indian Creek Fruit Farm for close to 9 years now . He has been married , is raising 4 small children , and now works another full time job as an electrical contractor to try to afford to keep this farm . He said that he has raised many acres of produce , met many people , made many friends , and apparently made a few enemies . During those 9 years , he has been before this Board many times . He has made numerous changes and improvements , compromises , and in some instances , mistakes . He said he has , however , always acted in good faith , acted in a manner as to improve the Indian Creek Fruit Farm , to enhance its standing as a recognized asset to the community , and to provide a meaningful return for himself and his family . He said that he has spoken to many people in the neighborhood during the ordeal of this Appeal and he has been gratified to note that an overwhelming majority are in favor of what they are doing at Indian Creek . In fact , the focus of the objections to what they are doing , are coming from a small group of neighbors and he believes that the main impetus behind this group , in his feeling , is the Bowers . He believes that the opposition is being fueled mostly by personal issues and as such irrelevant issues related to the conflict between the Bowers and himself . Mr . Brown said that the issue most recently raised by the West Hill Neighborhood Association , comparing him to the Kyong development , is ' patently ridiculous . Indian Creek has always been a farm , it is now a farm , and if they can manage to make a go of it with the help of this Board , it will be a farm for some time to come . He said this Board has always been fair with him - in the past and he trusts them to see what they are asking for- • a modified version of what they have always had , not any variances , not any creeping commercialism or any precedent - setting decisions . All they want to do is to continue to farm , to continue to try and recover from their recent set backs and to • Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 continue to serve their immediate neighborhood with fine quality fruits , vegetables , plants , and other farm products as they have for the last 8 years . Mr . Brown said that he trusts this Board to be wise and sort through the personalities versus fact and come to the logical decision ; a decision , by the way , that they have already reached once . In response to Mrs . Grover ' s interrupting from the back of the room , Mr . Brown further remarked that tractor trailers often use their parking lot to turn around in when they have made a wrong turn . It is the only place on West Hill where they can turn around , so he is not denying that tractor trailers come in and out but they are not there for them , they just come in , turn around and leave . Mrs . Weiss again addressed the Board and stated that she would like to note a line of logic which she finds really bothersome . She said that , as an example , she owns 20 acres , a lot of frontage on Trumansburg Road , and if the Board does not give her what she wants , she will sell out for development . There is a line of logic here that she finds really unfortunate . and she would just point that out . Atty . Galbraith said that he is going to be brief . He thinks the Board has heard all this from the people who have spoken and from the affidavits that have been submitted here . He thinks that there are a couple of legal issues that the Board should consider because he thinks there is high probability that this matter is going to end up back in court again , one way or another . The first of which is , he is going to suggest that there is no evidence before this Board that there is a pre - existing non - conforming use as it is defined in the Zoning Ordinance that is even susceptible to extension . Atty . Galbraith stated that Mr . Heller , Mr . Guttman ' s partner , tried to explain it the last time we were all together and he first talked about the fruit stand,, he then talked about the barn , and then he talked about the farm as a whole . Atty . Galbraith asked exactly what is the use that is attempting to be extended in this case . He said that he is going to suggest that it is not the fruit stand . The stand may not have been a fruit stand at the time the Zoning Ordinance was enacted . During its lifetime and after the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance , it was certainly at times a residence . There has been testimony that a man lived there for a period of time . He thinks the appellant here , Mr . Brown , has even introduced testimony that the fruit • stand was a restaurant for a period of time and as such he is going to suggest to the Board that the use of that building as a fruit stand today is probably illegal because its use was abandoned during its life and can ' t revive itself then without a ® Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 0 variance . Atty . Galbraith asked , or was it the barn that is the non - conforming use here that we are seeking to extend . Folks , the barn burned down . You can ' t extend something that does not exist anymore and he believes there is evidence before the Board that even the barn was not used on a continuous basis for retail sales since the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance . So finally , he thinks the fall back position of the appellants here is that it is the farm that is the non - conforming use . He stated that is great , that he is all for , and he thinks the Bowers would even say this , they are all for Mr . Brown running a farm out there and if he wants to plant more apple trees , or more peach trees , or more crops of any kind to extend the non - conforming agricultural use in a residential zone , then God bless him . But building a retail sales facility or extending a retail sales facility is not the same as extending an agricultural use . It is creating a different use , and a use that is not permitted in an R- 15 zone . Atty . Galbraith stated that he thinks that a lot of the comment here tonight has been directed at the idea of helping someone who is a small farmer to succeed or perhaps preserve his existence and he is all in favor of that too . He thinks that his clients , the Bowers , would say that they are , but Mr . Brown is not in the last analysis a small farmer , Mr . Brown is a retail merchant . He would like to suggest to the Board that there is not 10 cents worth of produce grown on that farm out there , if it is a farm anymore , that is sold through that fruit stand . He stated that when Mr . Brown got up to speak , he was curious to know exactly what it is that he grows out there on that farm that is supposedly sold at the fruit stand , since it appears that almost everything that is sold there comes from someplace else . That is , to him , a retail use and that is not an extension of a agricultural use or anything appurtenant to an agricultural enterprise such as a farm . Atty . Galbraith stated that Mr . Brown first came to this Board back in 1987 and said that he wanted a temporary greenhouse to serve the place of a barn which had been destroyed in a fire . He thinks that was a logical request and it was granted by this Board , notwithstanding some defects in the findings which were then commented upon by the courts . Even the Appellate Division describes this greenhouse as temporary and recites in its decision that it was supposed to be located on the foundation of the barn , which it plainly wasn ' t . He said that here we are now 2 years later , and we find out that this temporary inflatable greenhouse is a permanent structure with a foundation and the other accoutrements of a building , although it has never had Planning Board approval . The barn which was supposedly going to be replaced at some later date and he presumes the necessity for the greenhouse would then be obviated by the replacement of the Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 barn . It is now going to be moved . While he believes that it is a matter of law , the only replacement of a fire destroyed structure can occur within the footprint of the existing structure or the structure that has been destroyed . He thinks that is just the law . But now Mr . Brown wants to move the barn down by the greenhouse and the fruit stand . So instead of a 400 square foot fruit stand , which may be illegal in the first place , we now have a 400 square foot fruit stand plus a 2 , 100 square foot greenhouse , which has assumed permanent characteristics , and we are to add to that a 4 , 000 square foot barn , all under the pretext that this is an extension of a pre - existing non - conforming use . You do not have Eddydale , you have Wegmans ! Atty . Galbraith said that he is going to suggest to the Board , respectfully , that there is no evidence before this Board warranting the grant of the Special Permit sought by Mr . Brown in this case . If anything , he would suggest the gentleman has difficulty legally justifying the use of the property to which it is presently devoted and he would urge the Board , respectfully , to deny the application . • Atty . Guttman addressed the Board next . He stated that in regard to some of the comments made by Mrs . Bowers at the last meeting , not only are some of those comments irrelevant , but many of them are actually false and misleading . Atty . Guttman stated that in the first place , at the last meeting time ( June 7th ) Mrs . Bowers submitted a petition to the Board . He does not know if it was made clear to the Board that this petition is actually 2 years old . There was no evidence submitted that the people who signed this petition are still alive , still reside in the area , or more importantly , still share the position they took 2 years ago . On the contrary , that petition was signed by Mr . and Mrs . Swartwood and he believes they have submitted letters now stating that they support Mr . Brown . Similarly , that petition was signed by a Mr . and Mrs . Joyce and they have also recently this year submitted letters to the Board saying that they support Mr . Brown , the same position is true with Mrs . Pitino , and with Jeff Gombas , so we have got a half - dozen people who Mrs . Bowers submitted names on a petition without making it clear to the Board that these signatures were 2 years old . On the contrary , Atty . Guttman thinks it has clearly been proven that at least some of those people do not follow the position that they took 2 years ago and now support Mr . Brown . More importantly , and he finds this very distressing , the petition that Mrs . Bowers submitted to the Board at the last • session was not a true copy of the real petition and he believes the secretary of the Board has the original petition and it is part of the case file in this situation . That petition that was submitted to this Board by Mrs . Bowers a couple of weeks ago Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 is not a true copy and as a matter of fact , it has been altered . He said he would like to call the Board ' s attention to one specific point on that . Next to the signatures of Mr . and Mrs . Swartwood ( they are # 5 and # 6 on the petition ) , on the original petition , there was a note written by Mrs . Swartwood saying that her signature on that petition did not mean that she supported everything in the petition but only supported point 4 of the petition which had to do with litter . When the petition was submitted to this Board two weeks ago , that handwritten note is not there . He does not know if it was whited out , cut out , or whatever , but it is not there . Atty . Guttman said that he will talk about this a little bit later because he thinks this a very important issue . But at this point he thinks the Board has to consider what that means as to Mrs . Bowers ' credability . Atty . Guttman then stated that he would like to remark on what Mrs . Bowers and Mr . Galbraith have just now argued , that the use of the fruit stand is an illegal , non - conforming use based on abandonment . In the first place , he thinks there is a legal question as to whether this issue is proper to raise at this point because the Court has already decided that issue , that it was not abandoned . This is not part of the issue . The Court has already decided that was a proper , pre - existing non - conforming use . Mrs . Bowers and Mr . Galbraith are both arguing that you look either at the fruit stand or you look at the barn , but don ' t look at both of them together and Mr . Galbraith is trying to argue , he thinks , that what you have here is illegal , that it should only be an agricultural area . What you have , was for a hundred years , before the Zoning Ordinance was passed , a farm which had on it a stand and had on it the barn , combined . The stand and the barn were used for the production , the storage , and the sale of farm produce . Sometimes it was sold out of the barn , sometimes it was sold out of the fruit stand . What you have is a parcel of land on which farm products are being sold and it is being sold from that parcel . Atty . Guttman stated that if you want to move the cash register from one part of the barn to the other , it does not mean that you are changing what you are doing there ; that is what has been going on for the last hundred years . They have been selling farm produce out of that area for a hundred years , before the Zoning Ordinance was passed , and it has never been completely abandoned . The affidavits which were submitted to the Board tonight , say that at times during the 1970s , the barn wasn ' t used , but that is when the stand was being used . He believes that the last time Mr . Hall testified or submitted a statement , he indicated that there was a period of time during which the stand was not being used , and later it was shown that was when the barn was being used . It does not mean that they have abandoned use of this parcel of land for the storage , production , and sale of farm products . That is what is going on in this case . 0 Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Atty . Guttman further stated in regard to Mr . Galbraith ' s remark that he does not think 10 cents of produce is grown on this property and sold at the stand , from his own knowledge that is incorrect . Produce has been grown on this farm for years and years and it is grown there currently . You have a situation also with Mr . Brown that there is actually two separate farms . He has a farm in Newfield and he has the Indian Creek Fruit Farm . A lot of the produce at Indian Creek Fruit Farm comes from his farm in Newfield . He said he does not dispute that the Newfield farm is in the Town of Newfield and the Indian Creek farm is in the Town of Ithaca , they are not contiguous but he would like to ask the Board to let him expand on this . Let ' s assume that the Indian Creek farm was closer to a town line and extended over to the Town of Ulysses . Does that mean he couldn ' t sell stuff that was grown in Ulysses at the Indian Creek stand ? That does not make any sense . Or let ' s assume that he sold a strip of land in the middle of it to somebody else and then the farm is no longer one contiguous parcel , but it is two separated parcels . Does that mean that you can ' t sell products from the back parcel at the stand ? It does not make sense at all . What the reality is , is that he is selling farm products , You look at the Zoning Ordinance and the definition of farm products , it does not say that they have to be grown on that farm , it says incident to farming . It doesn ' t say farming by that individual , it doesn ' t say within the same township ; it doesn ' t say within the same contiguous parcel ; it says farming * and actually we are not talking about the zoning definition of a roadside stand . We are talking about the extension of a non - conforming use which was the sale actually of food products and Mr . Brown is not asking for that permission . The issue is the sale of farm products . Atty . Guttman said that Mrs . Bowers in her letter to the Board last time , ( on page 2 ) said that Mr . Brown is intending to build 6 greenhouses and a new barn . He is not sure where that comes from , but it is completely untrue . Mr . Brown has no intention and there is no application here to build 6 greenhouses . Atty . Guttman said that Mr . Bowers , tonight , and Mr . Galbraith , keep talking about this concept of we are going from Just a small fruit stand to a fruit stand plus a greenhouse , plus a barn ; that is not factual either , For one hundred years there was a large barn and a stand . What Mr . Brown is asking the Board to grant him is to continue the fruit stand , no changes . People talk continually about this greenhouse becoming a permanent structure . Again , we have got some clearly erroneous statements . Mr . Galbraith , and Mrs . Bowers in her statement , have talked about this greenhouse having a concrete foundation . Absolutely incorrect and untrue . There is no foundation ; there is no concrete floor ; it is just not true . What we have is a request ® Town of Ithaca 20 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 that the greenhouse stop existing and instead that it become a part of the barn so what you will have is a stand in the front and a barn in the back , the front wall of that barn will be the greenhouse . What you are going from is a stand and a barn to a stand and a barn . That is the definition and the meaning of an extension of a non - conforming use ; it continues as it was . Atty . Guttman said that Mr . Galbraith has told the Board that a building cannot be moved . He would ask him to look at Article I , Section 1 , Subdivision 29 of the Zoning Ordinance which refers to an alteration being the moving to a new location and under Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance , that is an extension of a non - conforming use . He stated he does not think there is any question under Section 56 , that Mr . Brown has the right to rebuild the barn and under Section 1 , Subdivision 29 , and Article 54 combined , he has the right to move it as an extension of a non - conforming use if the Board grants him this permission and it is clearly within the Board ' s permission as an extension of a non - conforming use to do that . If you look at . Sections 56 and 54 , and Article 1 , subdivision 29 , it clearly states that an alteration including the moving of a building is an extension of a non - conforming use . He said that he was present at a meeting of this Board last June when the issue of moving the barn was discussed in front of the same Board with Mrs . Bowers present . Mr . Brown and himself requested of Mrs . Bowers ( Paul Bennett was representing her at that time ) what they preferred . Did they prefer to have the barn back where it was , ( the new barn ) , or would they prefer it to be moved and Mrs . Bowers spoke to this Board and made it very clear , to himself , to Mr . Brown , and to the Board , that Mr . and Mrs . Bowers would prefer it to be moved . So those are the plans . That is what he has done . Atty . Guttman stated that moving the barn to where the greenhouse is behind the stand and incorporating the greenhouse and the barn into one structure makes a whole lot of sense . You don ' t have different structures , it puts it all together and makes the intrusion � on the neighborhood as minimal as possible . It is also important for the Board to note that the total amount of square footage that Mr . Brown is requesting with this one structure , which will be the greenhouse in the front with the barn connected to it , has less total square footage than the old barn which burned down did . So they are not asking to have things bigger , it is actually less square footage . Atty . Guttman stated that there are specific things in the • letter from the Mrs . Bowers that he thinks the Board needs to know are incorrect . He listed them as follows : ® Town of Ithaca 21 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 1 . Mrs . Bowers referred to the greenhouse as having a solid concrete floor - that is absolutely untrue . 2 . She stated that a building permit had not been issued - again , absolutely untrue . A building permit for that greenhouse was issued . 3a Mrs . Bowers stated that Mr . Frost should inspect it to see what is there and see if it is in compliance with the ZBA grants - Mr . Frost has recently done that and as far he knows , Mr . Frost has determined that it is in compliance with the original ZBA grants . 4 . Mrs . Bowers said that it was improper and illegal for Mr . Brown to have removed the dirt there because there was not a building permit . That is absolutely untrue because the building permit had been granted . 5 . She talks about excavation being dangerous - Atty . Guttman said he does not know what Mrs . Bower ' s expertise is on this matter - he does know that Mr . Frost has inspected it and he has determined that it is not dangerous . He would request that the Board consider that Mr . Frost is more of an expert in excavation issues than is Mrs . Bowers . 6 . Mrs . Bowers has also talked about it being an attractive nuisance and he is not sure what her expertise is there either . He would ask the Board to speak to Town Attorney Barney on this but he does not think the attractive nuisance argument is in the right ball park . Besides the fact that it is inflammatory , it is completely irrelevant to this issue . What is relevant here are the standards and Mrs . Bowers tried to discuss these . 7 . She talked about health and made a big point in her presentation to the Board last time that there was no toilet . again , untrue . There is a porta - john there . There is no requirement but it is there . 8 . Mrs . Bowers talked about the fact that there are rodents . Atty . Guttman said that the Board has to realize that right behind where the greenhouse is located , is an agricultural area and he would ask the Board to take notice that in an agricultural area you often have rodents . He said that she was referring to rodents where the old barn was . If anything the new barn is going to be tighter , more modern , and cleaner . He assumes the rodent issue becomes less serious in this light . 9 . Mrs . Bowers talked about the shooting incidents and again , he does not know the details - he is not sure if anyone does - but what he does know and what Mr . Brown has testified to , is that these individuals are neighbors of Mrs . Bowers , and they worked for him for less than one month . She is talking about two incidents that occurred a year apart . How can Mr . Brown be responsible for employees of him , about incidents that occurred ® over a year apart ? In any event , as Mr . or Mrs . Bowers testified , Judge Friedlander , through the Family Court , has dealt with these people . But he guarantees the Board that it was not part of their employment to go threaten people . Mr . Brown is not Town of Ithaca 22 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 responsible for the acts of people who were his employees for one month or less . 10 . Mrs . Bowers talked about toxic chemicals . This has nothing to do with the barn . If anything , it has to do with the orchard , which is not part of this Appeal . But more importantly , Mr . Brown has never been cited or ticketed by the Department of Environmental Conservation , which as far as he knows , is the only agency with any jurisdiction in such an issue . 11 . She talked about evacuation . Atty . Guttman is not sure what she is referring to , but he guesses at best that he would say that it is an exaggeration . 12 . Mrs . Bowers talked about morals . At this point , he joins Ms . Higgins - he is personally outraged also . He thinks this is the point where Mrs . Bowers ' true colors come out - when Mr . Bowers testified tonight and that this is not a personal vendetta but " we do not want to have a convicted felon doing business next to us " . This is completely irrelevant to the issues before the Board - it is a personal slur against Mr . Brown . Mr . Bowers is trying to bring emotionalism into the issue . It is correct that Mr . Brown was convicted of a criminal charge . He was placed on probation . Part of that probation is • that he is supposed to be gainfully employed . He is trying to do that . Part of that probation is that he is supposed to take care of and support his wife and four young children . This is what he is trying to do . A fruit farm operation does not undermine the fabric of our society . Mrs . Bowers , in her presentation , asked the Board to " Just Say No ! " What is she asking the Board to do - say no to fruits and vegetables ? 13 . Mrs . Bowers talked about nudity . Atty . Guttman stated that again , he is not sure what she is referring to . As far as he knows there has been no issue of nudity near the barn or stand . If she is looking in the back and watching pickers and someone took off their shirt , he doesn ' t know . He said he also does not know if she is using a telescope of binoculars or whatever . Again , this has nothing to do with the issues here . 14 . She is also talking about general welfare and she complained about there being lights on in the fruit stand . The reality is that Mr . Brown ' s stand was vandalized several times . They do not know for sure who vandalized it but the lights were left on to try and discourage vandalism . If this is a big issue he is sure that Mr . Brown will cooperate in terms of lights . She also talked about a radio being on . There has never been a complaint to Mr . Brown about a radio being on . Atty . Guttman further stated that the other standards which the Board is supposed to consider is .0 are the premises adapted • and suitable to the community ' s need and suited to the character of the neighborhood . We have an Environmental Assessment Statement that says " no significant effect " . ( Exhibit # 13 attached hereto . ) What we have got is farm buildings in an area tTown of Ithaca 23 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 that has been used for 100 years as a farm , that is located 50 yards from an agricultural district . Now if that is not suited to the character of the neighborhood which is a rural , residential , agricultural neighborhood , he does not know what is . Atty . Guttman said that in regard to traffic , the Department of Transportation has studied this and apparently they are satisfied with it . Again , we have a situation where an accident happened this past weekend . As far as he knows , this is the first major accident that has ever occurred in that area and people are now coming to the Board tonight and saying because an accident happened there , that it is the fruit stand ' s fault . That is not true - no one came from the fruit stand . It had nothing to do with the stand but people are trying to inflame this Board to be against this . In terms of transportation , as Mr . Brown said , if this wasn ' t kept as an agricultural use , if this orchard was converted to a housing development , he thinks " the statistics are that you could have 1 . 15 single family units per acre so you could have about 50 houses there . The normal standards are that you consider about 10 trips per house per day and you are talking about 500 and if there are duplexes it is • even more trips per day compared to what there is with the fruit stand , so the transportation issue is a completely bogus issue . Atty . Guttman went on to say that Indian Creek Fruit Farm is a legal non - conforming use . It is an asset to the community . We have had quite a few people speaking here and submitting letters that they want this fruit stand to continue . It happens to be the last fruit stand on West Hill . It is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood . It is a rural , residential , and agricultural neighborhood . What we are talking about is the sale of fruits and vegetables . Essentially what we have got and the Board has to make its own determination on , in his opinion , is a personality dispute between the Bowers and Mr . Brown . Atty . Guttman thinks the Board should look at the history of Mr . and Mrs . Bowers coming before the Board . In 1980 , Mrs . Bowers sought a variance herself . She said she would not change the historic character of her house , and at that time she noted to the Board , that Mr . Brown was there , next door , running his fruit stand , and she had no objection to that . She said she wasn ' t going to change the historic character and she was going to apply for historic designation . On the contrary , what she did was to put an addition on which completely changes the character of that house and in addition , nine years ago , she was going to apply for historic designation and to his knowledge , that • application is still getting ready to be applied for . She has a non - conforming sign , which she recently came to the Board about . She has a mail box which actually is being used illegally as a sign . She was supposed to put in landscaping as part of the Town of Ithaca 24 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 extension that she obtained ; that has never been done . He stated that all he wants to say is that Mrs . Bowers has not been completely forthright with this Board and that brings him back to the issue of the petition . What she has done is alter a petition and tried to foist it on the Board , first of all by not telling the Board that it was two years old and the signatures were two years old , but more importantly , by taking out language on it so that it reads differently than it should read . Atty . Guttman stated that he thinks this demonstrates her lack of concern for honesty and the proper functioning of this Board . Her opposition on this is a personal opposition , not based on the issues . Many of the allegations by the Bowers against Mr . Brown have nothing to do with the issues ; they are personal attacks . They are designed to ask the Board not to look at the issues but to make an emotional judgment . He would ask the Board to look at the issues of this case . Atty . Guttman said that he thinks he could argue that based on the alteration of this petition , the Board should simply ignore it because they have an altered document . On the • contrary , he would ask the Board to look at it a little bit more carefully and use that to consider her credability . The Board should look at that credability issue and what it should do is look at the issues here . The issues are that the fruit stand is a legal non - conforming use and they don ' t want to change that . Mr . Brown has the right to rebuild that barn and they are asking to have that right . They are asking under Article 1 , Section 29 , and Sections 54 and 56 to alter that as an extension , which the Board has the authority to do , under the Section 77 standards , and move it to another site . The greenhouse will continue as a separate structure only until the barn is rebuilt . At that point it will be consolidated into the barn so there will be just one structure there which will be the barn which will have basically a transparent wall on the front ; that is what it is . That is all that they are asking this Board . It is purely an extension , nothing to do with a variance and it is a proper legal non - conforming use . Atty . Galbraith said that he has no rebuttal at this time . He said that he thinks the Board has the facts of the matter before them and he only hopes that when the Board makes a decision that they will not look at this as Mrs . Bowers against Mr . Brown but rather that it will be judged on the standards required by law and the ordinance and what is right for West Hill . • Town of Ithaca 25 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Chairman Aron asked if there was anyone else who wanted to address the Board before he closed the public hearing . Mrs . Bowers started to approach the Board and speak , however , Atty . Galbraith said to her , " Don ' t , sit down . " Mr . Randy Brown said that he would like to make one thing clear in regard to the greenhouse on the front of the barn . He has heard tonight that the greenhouse is intended to be a permanent structure . He thinks that there is something that is being misunderstood here . The greenhouse building as it stands now , will not exist when the barn is rebuilt . He said that he will be using the same space that it sits on but it will not be that building . It will be a transparent front to the barn . That particular structure is temporary , as they have always stated - that is why they designed that barn , total packet of sqaure feet area under the square feet that was in the old barn , using that part of the footprint that that greenhouse sits on now . The barn will be one contiguous structure , it will not be a greenhouse attached to a barn . It will have a lot of windows in the front to let light in so that when he displays plants , they have sun but it will not be a plastic greenhouse attached to a barn ; that greenhouse will not be there . Mr . King addressed Chairman Aron and stated that he would like to enter into the record a survey map which he obtained from the County Clerk ' s office . It is a survey of DeWitt Historical Society Lands made December 11 , 1979 by T . G . Miller , P . C . , and it shows the two properties and the buildings concerned . Mr . King said he wanted to introduce it at this point so if the attorneys have any corrections or comments they could do so now . Chairman Aron asked- the attorneys if they wished to do so . Both attorneys agreed that the map is correct . The map is attached hereto as Exhibit # 12 . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing and called for a 5 minutes recess . Chairman Aron called the meeting back to order at 9 : 25 p . m . Chairman Aron recommended to the Board that the Brown Appeals be adjourned to July 12 , 1989 at 7 : 00 p . m . and asked for a motion to that effect . Mr . King made the following motion . RESOLVED , that the Marie L . Brown Appeals , Randolph F . Brown , Applicant , with respect to Ithaca Creek Fruit Farm and Stand , be adjourned until July 12 , 1989 , at 7 : 00 p . m . Mrs . Reuning asked , in regard to the West Hill Neighborhood Association , how many people are being represented in the letter Town of Ithaca 26 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 that was presented to the Board . Mrs . Bowers responded that the Executive Committee of the West Hill Neighborhood Association wrote the letter . There are eight members of the Executive Committee . They represent the full membership . It was sent by the Executive Committee because there was not a vote of the full membership on this issue . Mrs . Rosalind Grippi interjected from the floor that there were two abstentions . Mrs . Bowers stated that there were two abstentions on this letter , one because a gentleman was actually writing the last paragraph when it was voted on and there was another abstention on the issue itself . At this point Chairman Aron asked for a second on the motion to adjourn . Mrs . Reuning seconded the motion . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - Aron , King , Reuning , Austen , Hoffmann . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Brown Appeal matters duly adjourned to July 12 , 1989 , at 7 : 00 p . m . for decision of the Board . Mrs . Reuning noted that the public hearings had been closed . Chairman Aron concurred . The next item on the agenda was the following . APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , SHIRLEY K . EGAN , ASSOCIATE UNIVERSITY COUNSEL , AGENT , REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF A SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON APRIL 19 , 1989 TO INCLUDE PERMISSION TO ALLOW UP TO THIRTY-ONE ( 31 ) DWELLING UNITS TO BE OCCUPIED BY UPPERCLASS UNDERGRADUATES FOR THE 1989 - 1990 ACADEMIC YEAR ONLY , AT THE GRADUATE STUDENT HOUSING PROJECT , LOCATED AT THE FORMER CORNELL QUARTERS SITE BETWEEN MAPLE AVENUE AND MITCHELL STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS # 6 - 23 - 2 - 1 , - 2 , - 3 , - 10 . 2 AND - 14 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 . Chairman Aron read the Appeal into the record . It is attached hereto as Exhibit # 14 . Chairman Aron read letters from Gertrude Ervay ( Mrs . A . H . ) , • 115 Pearl Street , dated June 21 , 1989 , and from Betsy Darlington , Chair of the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council , dated June 26 , 1989 . ( They are attached hereto as Exhibits # 15 and # 16 . ) Town of Ithaca 27 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Shirley Egan , Cornell Counsel , addressed the Board regarding the request to house undergraduates . She stated that as the Appeal states , this is a very limited request before the Board . It is for only one year , and for only 31 units or 124 beds out of the total project . They do not believe there will be any significant changes in the impact that the project will have for this one year only and for this limited change from graduate students to upperclass undergraduate students . She presented to the Board a handwritten sheet titled " Estimated Graduate Housing Park - Parking Needs " , " Graduate and Upperclass Parking Demand , 1988 - 89 Records " , and " Graduate Parking Demand , 1987 - 88 Records " attached hereto as Exhibit # 17 . She said that they found a one percentage point difference in the ratios of cars that upperclass undergraduates bring versus what single graduate students would bring and their own experience with the behavior of upperclass students in apartment living situations , specifically at the townhouse units , has been really excellent . Atty . Egan stated that Cornell did try to track down any basis for the report that Mr . Frost passed along at the Board ' s last session about a statement that Cornell had already rented to • undergraduates and they checked and double checked everyone who has been rented to and there is just no indication that that has been done , so there is just no basis for that report at all . Someone must have been very mistaken . She said that Cornell has also met with the Bryant Park Civic Association and discussed quite a number of issues and she thinks progress has been made on a number of things from trucks , to the address , to the fence at the cemetery before the residents move in and they will be meeting with them again . Atty . Egan referred to the letters that Chairman Aron had read into the record . She stated that she wanted to point out that this application asks for no change in density , no increase in density , and no change in the number of families . That aspect of the project remains utterly the same . This is just substituting for up to 124 graduate students , upperclass undergraduates . In regard to the second letter , she wants to make very clear that this is not a dormitory . She says they are talking about upperclass students with whom they have had really very excellent experience and feel that in particular this group being transfer students , tend to be among the most serious of students who are here at Cornell for their first time because they wanted very badly to get here and made very good grades at the institutions they transferred from . They are closer in age to the graduate students and they are also brand new students • coming to Cornell , for the most part who would derive the greater benefit from the staff presence of the program and the things that the University can do for them . • Town of Ithaca 28 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Jane Pederson , 206 Elmwood Avenue , spoke to the Board as President of the Bryant Park Civic Association . She said that she thinks that Atty . Egan ' s familiarity with the history of the dialogue between Cornell and the Civic Association is probably limited to last week ' s meeting , but in fact it goes back over a year and a half . She gave some history of past meetings with Cornell over the housing project at Maplewood . The Association ' s concerns include issues around the significant increase in the density from what was there , ( well over 150 % increase ) , the quality of the structures , the quality of the site plan , including drainage issues and landscaping , concerns about traffic and about the exit and entrance patterns , and traffic through the neighborhood was a very big factor for their neighborhood . Another concern was change in occupancy from solely family occupancy to more than half non - family occupancy . Ms . Pederson said that they see this as a significant and drastic change in the neighborhood . In a sense , the arrangement that exists now to limit the single student housing to graduate • students is , in fact , a compromise between Cornell ' s original plan to have a certain amount of graduate student housing and then a certain amount of single student housing . The Association ' s express concerns from the very beginning ; wanting fully family housing . This was a compromise that was never fully satisfactory to Cornell nor to the Association but one of those things that she thinks was a fairly reasonable accommodation on both parties . However , we are now in the situation where Cornell is coming back in , right at the beginning , and are asking to abrogate that agreement . Ms . Pederson said that even though the request that is before the Board is only for one year , the Bryant Park Civic Association strongly opposes it . It eliminates the incentive for Cornell to make the situation that they have agreed to , work , to really recruit the kinds of students and to make the situations in that housing acceptable to those kinds of students . Another concern is that despite the stated intention from the beginning to house families and graduate students there , the units have not necessarily been designed or put up in a way to encourage this . Ms . Pederson stated that most importantly , this is going to be a very major change for the neighborhood to absorb . There will be a major increase in density and a major change in the character of the population there and a major change in the • traffic patterns . She does not think this should be exacerbated by introducing less compatible or more different lifestyles into the situation . • Town of Ithaca 29 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Ms . Pederson further stated that this represents the most recent meeting of the Executive Committee , of those available and in town , of the Association as well as a number of other members of the Association , and over the last year and a half full meetings of the Association , as well as various committees and various smaller groups have worked on this , and all responded consistently all along , so she thinks they are very representative in their stand here tonight . Chairman Aron wished to point out that the Board will adjourn at 10 : 30 p . m . If the Board does adjourn it will be adjourned until the second meeting in July . He asked the people who still wished to speak to please keep their remarks brief and to the point . Diane Welch , 407 Mitchell Street , stated that she had three letters that she wished to submit to the Board . She said that the f irst is a copy of comments made by an ad hoc committee on Cornell Quarters to Peggy Robinson , President , Bryant Park Civic Association , dated May 25 , 1988 ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 18 ) , second , a copy of a letter to Mr . John Burness , Cornell Vice • President for University Relations , signed by Richard Booth and Stuart Stein , Third Ward , dated May 27 , 1988 ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 19 ) , and a copy of a letter from an ex PTA President ( Peggy Robinson ) to Mr . John Burness , dated May 26 , 1988 ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 20 ) . Ms . Welch referred to the Zoning Ordinance , Section 77 , Subsection 7 , paragraph F . She said that she knows this was read into the record at the last meeting by Mr . King but she would like to quote a portion of that at this point . Mr . King had read this into the record : " One of the criteria for making this assessment is this - have we assessed the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole ? " And that is part of what brings the residents here tonight . She would like to point out that she thinks very much on point to the question of this variance is whether or not the hardship that Cornell has now proposed to the Board is self - inflicted or not . She said that they believe that it is and therefore , the variance should not be granted . She said , by that she means to say that in the earliest proposal that was presented to the neighborhood community and the school community , it was expressed very expressly and repeatedly that the greatest need for housing of students was for single graduate students and although they tried very hard to influence that decision in such a way to encourage families to remain at Cornell Quarters they were told again and again that single • graduate students were the greatest housing need . Ms . Welch said that her second point is that she thinks there is a very fundamental change going on in the character of Town of Ithaca 30 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 the proposal as they were initially informed about it . She handed Chairman Aron a brochure on Maplewood Park ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 21 ) . Joseph Ciaschi , 1121 Taughannock Boulevard , addressed the Board and stated that he thinks what they have done with the piece of property on Mitchell Street is obscene . He said that it is the worse land use he has ever seen in his life . He also stated that the density is unbelievable . He has a project of his own near Cornell ' s and after seeing what Cornell has done he would never have done his project and taken the chance . Mr . Ciaschi stated that he has more to risk than Cornell does . He also said that there is a very big difference between graduate and undergraduate housing and there should be no question that the modification request should be denied . Mary Kim Trochim , 419 Mitchell Street , addressed the Board and commented that they understand that graduate family housing on this subdivision is at near capacity already even though space is far from habitable and it is not exactly what families would expect to live in unless you are used to living in very , very • small spaces . It is also likely if Cornell had designed this space with more family housing in mind at that location , the sense of belonging for more of our children would definitely have enhanced the experience of the graduate students themselves , as well as their families during their stay at Cornell and in Ithaca . Ms . Trochim went on to say that the Belle Sherman School is a community center and the neighborhood thrives on the well -being of its school and the children in it . Adding undergrads to this neighborhood violates not only the letter of their agreement with Cornell but also the spirit and the spirit of this neighborhood relationship to Cornell is critical . She strongly urged the Board to take the children ' s best interest under consider here as well as that residential community which frankly feels a little battered right now from a couple of different venues . Stuart Stein , 11 Cornell Walk , County Board Representative , stated to the Board that he supports the comments of the previous speakers . He said that the neighborhood has not been against housing for students , however , they do not like and have not liked the character of the housing that has been proposed here . They have tried to make changes and very few of those changes have been accepted . He said that he thinks the University should be ashamed to be back here in front of this Board . Mr . Stein stated that what is simply happening here is that the University simply misjudged the market . If this were a private developer , the Board would not consider this request . He reiterated what was said by previous speakers ; that this is a self - imposed 1 1 Town of Ithaca 31 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 financial hardship which is not a legitimate reason to give a variance and he would suggest that the Board not grant the variance . Mr . Stein said that Cornell has other options before them . They could lower the rent , they could do some other things . They have come back to the Board to ask for a change in the rules . He would strongly recommend that the Board turn this request down . Chairman Aron wished to .point out to those persons who have criticized the type of housing which has been put in place , that this Board has no jurisdiction as to aesthetic values or aesthetic looks of housing . Richard Kinch , 611 Mitchell Street , addressed the Board . He said that the word is out at Cornell amongst the students that there is in fact a word of mouth recommendation on these places to live , and that word is that the units are undesirable compared to the alternatives , Hasbrouck , Pleasant Grove or Collegetown . They are smaller and construction is shabby . We heard the remark that if the vacancies , if they were allowed to persist , were • going to detract from the ambience . He said that he does not find ambience the proper word to describe these buildings . They are held in derision by the graduate students and that is the reason the University is unable to fill them . Mr . Kinch referred to remarks that Atty . Egan made in regard to no significant changes to the impact of this project . He said that he would disagree and he gave his reasons . Mr . Kinch urged the Board to deny Cornell ' s request for an extension of the variance . Garry Ford , Hasbrouck Apartments , a representative of the Student Family Tenants Council , stated to the Board that the Tenants Council is opposed to Cornell ' s converting a one -bedroom unit into a two -bedroom apartment . He said to accomplish this Cornell moved a wall of the bathroom approximately two feet to create a second bedroom . This created a bedroom of approximately 71x 12 ' without closets . These cramped two -bedroom units are designed as family apartments , planned to house a family of approximately 4 people , 2 adults and 2 children . This would mean placing the 2 children into the 7 ' x 12 ' room , and their organization feels that it is inhumane to put youth into that type of environment . Mr . Ford stated that the Maplewood Park advertising that • Cornell is doing is misleading . Richard Booth , 510 Mitchell Street , Alderperson for the Third Ward , addressed the Board on behalf of himself and John Town of Ithaca 32 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Johnson , the other Third Ward Alderperson . He urged the Board to deny the appeal of Cornell . He said he does not think there are grounds for the Board to modify their decision which was made earlier in this matter . Mr . Booth stated that many months ago an official at Cornell said to him that some of the reactions that he heard about the Cornell Quarters project suggested to him the NIMBY syndrome ( Not In My Back Yard ) in terms of attitudes of residents on East Hill . He said that he thinks that was absolutely incorrect . This is a question about maintaining balances so the neighborhood retains its overall vitality . Mr . Booth stated that the neighborhood welcomed discussions with Cornell about this project , they were not happy with many of its details , as has been outlined . They urged changes , some changes were made , not as many as they wished , but at all times the project was a project for graduate student housing . The neighborhood finally resolved that they were not entirely happy with the project but they could live with what Cornell had come up with through its modified plans . It was for that reason that the neighborhood did not appear before the Board when they had their original hearing to oppose this • project . Cornell now wants to go back on that process . Mr . Booth wished to make the following points . 1 . The Board made a previous decision restricting this to graduate students . He thinks that was the right decision . He urged the Board to stick by that decision . 2 . That a mixture of graduate students with a substantial number of undergraduate students will change the nature of this project . He is a director of an undergraduate program at Cornell and he concurs wholeheartedly with the statements that there is a significant difference between graduate students and undergraduate students . 3 . That if you go this step , it is going to make this project less attractive in the future for graduate students to live in . 4 . This proposal will add increased impacts to an already big project which will have significant impacts on the neighborhood ; impacts which he thinks are bearable but he thinks this is the straw that will break the camel ' s back . 5 . Cornell is asking for too much money , they ought to reduce what they are asking for and they would probably be able to rent these apartments . The neighborhood should not be asked to bear the impact of Cornell ' s making the wrong fiscal choices about what it wanted these units for . • 6 . Cornell has said that this is simply asking for a modification for one year . He said that in other terms and other projects and other issues we ' ve heard that before . The neighborhood expects that if the Board goes this direction , ® Town of Ithaca 33 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 Cornell will be back in the future with more and more undergraduate students living in this project in the future . Mr . Booth further stated that he would urge the Board that if Cornell wants to go in this direction , and the Board is at all inclined , which he hopes it is not , then start the review over again . Say that it is a new project . If it is a new project , then it is a whole new ball game in terms of the City because part of this project is in the City and there is a whole new set of laws that are now in place and the City would love to have the chance to apply them to this project . Xenia Young , 301 Maple Avenue , former vice -president of the Graduate Student Council , addressed the Board . She stated that she is speaking as a graduate student who lives where the property backs onto this project and she has already begun to see some of the impact it has . The Grad Student Council has spent many hours talking about this project , coming up with constructive criticisms and one of those was to lower the rent and they were told outright that that was not an option . • Ms . Young stated that a recent study by the Dean of the Graduate Students says that graduate students spend on average $ 300 . 00 a month on their rent . The Cornell project , Maplewood Park , is asking single students to pay $ 360 . 00 a month . Clearly there is an economic reason why graduate students are not going to Maplewood Park . She said that she has heard through the grapevine that very few graduate students are impressed with the construction . In fact , a former President of the Grad Student Council has taken slides to show the poor quality of the workman - ship and it is sad that Cornell has not made a dedicated effort to put up bricks and mortar that will last for many years . She urged the Board to deny this . They would like to see Cornell work to make Maplewood Park a liveable place for graduate students for now and in the future . Deborah Hoard , 108 Cornell Street , presented a copy of a letter that she had sent to David I . Stewart at Cornell , dated May 27 , 1988 ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 22 ) . She said that she thinks the analysis that this is a self - inflicted hardship is very apt and she urged the Board to deny this variance . Nancy Krook , stated to the Board that she thinks the success of this project was jeopardized from the very beginning because of the shabby , poor design , the high density , the wasted land use , and the very high rentals for the amount of square • footage available . She said that Cornell has made an administrative mistake in accepting this poor design and also by accepting the land use density . This mistake will visually affect the neighborhood for years to come . To put undergraduates r ar • Town of Ithaca 34 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 in this project will make a bad mistake worse and she urged the Board to deny this request . Stuart Stein addressed Town Attorney Barney and stated that it ishis understanding that because this project is adjacent to and actually on a municipal boundary , it needs to be reviewed by the County Planning Office , under the terms of Sections 239 1 -m of the General Municipal Law . It is his understanding that that has not been done . The first request was reviewed but this represents another variance and he believes it requires a review by the County Planning Office . He asked Atty . Barney to investigate this . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Atty . Egan stated that she wished to make the point that this is not a variance , therefore , no need to show hardship is required . She stated for the record that Cornell is certainly not ashamed of making this application . She would be ashamed if they were violating agreements or something like that but instead they are forthright coming to the Board , explaining what the problem is . She said that she doesn ' t think they are asking for relief that any other person in the same situation wouldn ' t just up front come and ask the Board for . Atty . Egan also pointed out that no other developer of housing that she knows of in this community has ever had put on it the restriction as to the age or qualifications of the population that can live in it . Anyone else that is building housing can be flexible and adjust and rent to someone of a different age , or whether it be a student or not be a student . Atty . Egan further stated that there were many comments tonight about family housing , which she would point out is not an issue here , but , at Cornell , it has indeed been trying to judge its market . They find that they do not have demand for housing that provides for graduate families and children . In fact , those units are designed for primarily couples with a separate study . Maybe a single parent would find it convenient to put one child in the small bedroom but she doubts that they would see anyone with any interest in it other than that . They are certainly not designed for families of four . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Beeners to address the environmental review which she made . Ms . Beeners addressed Atty . Egan in regard to the attachment to the Appeal . She referred to page 3 • of the attachment where it states that Cornell would be maintaining a residence ratio similar to what they do in other undergraduate housing situations . She asked Atty . Egan how that works with the numbers that she shows . Is Cornell planning on • Town of Ithaca 35 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 increasing the number of resident advisors that will be on the site ? And if they are doing that , how do those number jibe with what they were asking for in regard to the 31 units occupied by 124 students . William Paleen from Cornell responded that there are four staff that are planned for the project , three will relate to the single students area and one for the family area . He said that if their request is granted , they would increase the ratio of staff related specifically to the upperclass students to double the present staff related to that project . Ms . Beeners asked Mr . Paleen if they would be included in the 124 persons . Mr . Paleen replied that the 124 is full capacity of the 31 units which they ' ve said is the maximum that they are asking for approval of usage . He said they are still giving priority , and will continue to do that as long as they can , to graduate students . Whatever the number ends up to be they will reduce it having a staff person in one of the rooms . The three staff people related to the single students are in efficiency units that are not in the conventional four person units so they would add a staff person and have that individual as part of one of the regular four persons and that is reducing the density there by 2 people . Ms . Beeners said that what Mr . Paleen is saying is that it would be 122 students and 2 resident advisors . Mr . Paleen replied , if the 31 units are fully committed to transfer students . Ms . Beeners asked Town Attorney Barney , in light of Mr . Stein ' s remarks , if this modification requires a re - invitation to the City as to whether they see the Town Zoning Board of Appeals as being the proper lead agency for the project and also , rather this , in light of what she considers a modified and very temporary request for one year , with no real substantial environmental impact needed , also to have a completed Part II , which it does not . Town Attorney Barney stated that he does not think in terms of the environmental assessment that it would need to go back to the City . He said that he is more concerned about Mr . Stein ' s point on the issue of the notification . Ms . Beeners said that she is just telling the Board that they are looking at a SEQR update done prior to this public hearing and they are only looking at a Part I of the EAF and nothing further . Chairman Aron asked her if that is sufficient . Ms . Beeners Town of Ithaca 36 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 replied that is what her question is . Chairman Aron said that she has said in her statement as to the environmental assessment that she has assessed the matter . Ms . Beeners replied that she has assessed the matter without benefit of having attended a public hearing as we have had tonight . Mr . King asked Ms . Beeners what the Board would gain from a Part II . Ms . Beeners responded that they might be gaining a more technically complete application . According to SEQR , one does have to fill out at least the Part II when anyone receives a Part I and she has done that for the two times that we have had the original and then the modified appeal back in April . The form that the Board has tonight is essentially incomplete , in her opinion . She said that any review that she did was also absent of any public hearing even though she thinks that the comments that have been made tonight by the public , some of them are ones that are pertinent to the matter at hand , but a lot of them are a year old . She would suggest that if the Board is not planning on making any determination tonight that staff be permitted to go back and more fully review the situation . • Chairman Aron said that the Board cannot make any further determination as to what Ms . Beeners has said . He said that means that she has to fill out a more technical review as to the modification requested by Cornell . He asked her if that is correct . Ms . Beeners replied that that is right . Town Attorney Barney interjected that he wants to take a look at the issue that Mr . Stein raised over the notification regarding the change in zoning . In view of that question , he is not sure that it is appropriate for the Board to take action tonight . Chairman Aron stated that he would recommend that the matter be adjourned since the matter is technically incomplete . Mr . Aron made the following motion . RESOLVED , that the matter of Cornell University requesting a modification of a Special Approval granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 19 , 1989 to include permission to allow up to thirty - one ( 31 ) dwelling units to be occupied by upperclass undergraduates for the 1989 - 90 academic year only , at the Graduate Student Housing Project , located at the former Cornell Quarters site between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 6 - 63 - 2 - 1 , - 21 - • 31 - 10 . 2 and - 14 , Residence District R- 9 , be adjourned to July 26 , 1989 , at 7 : 00 p . m . Mr . Austen seconded the motion . Town of Ithaca 37 Zoning Board of Appeals June 26 , 1989 The voting on the motion was as follows : Ayes - Reuning , Aron , Hoffmann , King , Austen . Nays - None . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 45 p . m . Respectfully /submitted , Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary ExhiW� 2achedAPPR Henry Aron , Chair • saw , XAme ;2ki lit eel It o73l y[ S . c) y012e 000 / l l G.- ,���� , : cf ( VAIL ( 11 olliill lob til till Fes - aill l41 If 2 � YOU rL 3o j /naplc A- tt i , el ft 9 Orl lit 010, • _ j � � �-� 09 4L 1 , l v � /o e 76,t br12 �� 00 JI 570 tt, 000 Ila ley t, ZD7 CCL rxG; f � `n7 1< . 'E6 AAJ SOU VA :,.-H A L Ll St:" • Np,CO' 233 Troy Road . _ - ----- : .Ithaca , . NY. . 14850 June 20 , 1989 Mr::`•. Henry Aron � _ Chairman , Zoning Board Of Appeals Town of Ithaca 126 E . Seneca St . Ithaca , NY 14850 Dear Chairman Aron : We- are deeply concerned about the . request of - Mr . Randy Brown of Indian . Creek Fruit Farm for . an extension of a non conforming use on % his property for 'the " fol lowing• f ,,reasons : - - 1 . By approving an - extension of a non - conforming use in a - residential zone , the ZBA appears to be , in effect , rezoning the parcel . Of course rezoning is properly the domain of the Town Board . 2 . Mr . Brown does not appear to be adhering to the intent of the code allow"i ng produce - stands , i n r.esi :denti al zones . . Very - • few of. the -items- for sale are actually. , grown ' on the premises . Most is shipped in from outside . -the Town . By approving this , the ZBA is condoning a commercial enterprise in a residential zone . 3 . The ZBA is charged with protecting the safety of the community . The produce stand , located near a dangerous intersection , appears to aggravate a . traffic hazard . 4 . ` The ZBA is also charged with protecting the morals of the community . The approval of a new greenhouse . for a person convicted of a crime involving another greenhouse seems to conflict with this obligation . For these reasons , We urge you to deny . Mr . Brown ' s request . rely , Cot 3 Jo G . Whitcomb rtle J . Whitcomb � �h ► .b ; 4 -- THE WEST HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Town of Ithaca Ithaca , N .Y. June 22 , 1989 The Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr. Frost, Building Inspector Mr. Barney Dear Members of the Town Government: The Executive 'Committee of the West Hill Neighborhood. Association is concerned about current and future development at the Indian Creek Fruit Farm site on the Trumansburg Road , 1 , The greenhouse that was built last year appears to be a permanent structure located in an R- 15 zone . We can find no evidence that this building was ever reviewed by the Planning` Board , the body "which we believe must approve all new buildings in- Aistricts zoned R- 15 . We would like answers to the following questions : _ 'a. "Is' this a permanent•structure as defined in the Town Zoning Ordinance . cr.. - . Local Law 6 , Section 11A2B, p . 15 . b . If it is, why was Planning Board approval -not sought ? c . If it is a permanent structure which never obtained Planning Board approval, why is it being allowed to remain ? 2 . We are also concerned about the new barn which the owners of the property , - are currently requesting from the ZBA . This. two=story .building is. to be attached _to the greenhouse; if permission is granted . The greenhouse is currently being used, at least in part, as a salesroom . Is the barn going to have the same commercial function ? We would like to note that the minutes of the ZBA meetings in May and June of 1987 clearly state that the greenhouse is to be a temporary . replacement for the barn , but in the June, 1989 hearings it is stated that the barn is to be attached to the greenhouse ( indicating that the latter is indeed a permanent structure ) . We would like a reply to these queries. 3 . In Mr . Randolph Brown 's Environmental Impact Statement of April, 1987, it is f stated that he wants to put between 4 and 7 (the precise number is unclear to us) buildings with an area of 15 ,000 square feet on the R- 15 portion of .his property . (Environmental Inpact Statements are not required for agricultural buildings on agriculturally zoned land . ) Mr. Brown also states in a letter to Mr . Frost dated April, 1987 that he needs "to increase the amount of sales area" that he has. The Kyong project was intended to include approximately 21 ,000 square feet of commercial space . We are concerned that what we are seeing at Indian Creek is an attempt to begin a sizeable commercially oriented business on R- 15 land , The fact that most of the items currently on sale at this location are not grown on the land itself is, we think, an P ndication that retail commercial activity is already taking place . For example, Mr . Brown has advertised strawberries for sale for the past two weeks, though no strawberries are grown at Indian Creek Fruit Farm . We would appreciate a response on this issue . 4 . We enclose a copy of an advertisement in the Ithaca Journal dated Tuesday, May 23o 1989 in which the Indian Creek business is described as a " greenhouse and #�Z nursery" and which advertises " a wide selection of bedding plants, fruit trees, perennials, annuals, geraniums:' This clearly appears to us to be a market garden operation and market gardens are nQJ listed in the zoning code as allowed uses in R- 15 zones. Is Mr . Frost intending to take any steps in this matter which affects all (ths; bt 'rte . property owners who bought their homes in an R45 neighborhood in order to be assured of protection under the law from the types of development excluded from R45 zones? 5 . We have additional concerns about the impact on traffic of an enlarged • operation , since the location has poor visibility; the speed limit is 55 mph ; and the new DuBois Road entrance is only about 200 feet from the fruit stand driveway . While the DOT gave approval for the new DuBois Road entrance , we are concerned whether they considered the effect on traffic of a new entrance together with an expanded Indian Creek business. We feel very strongly that thissituation should be studied before any enlargement of the Indian Creek facility is permitted . In addition to the zoning issues already discussed, traffic safety and human life are primary concerns of this organization . We were disappointed to receive no response to our prior request for information dated May 18 , 1989 . We hope thatwe have made our questions clearer in this letter so that the Town -can respond to our concerns . Yours faithfully, Eu geni Ball, President , • ag9 u rn ® 1PeO . O PE ; . 1408 Trumansburg Rd . 4= -�. °�•Rt. `96 Ithaca , N :Y . Y � �-- : ' • :� : � _ . . . • . . r INDIANCRE`z - .y. - •272-1222. or 5644217 . ..I GREENHOUSE & NURSERY = ` OPEN : DAILY. 10 :00 A. IVI .-6 : 00 P. IVI . ; Closed Monday' s -.:-:n. _ : .. . ... . . . .. .. T: . REES R �CTI : • . Y's; : �;. ��.: Potted ^$ 1 ®: 0® - WIDE SELECTION . OF BEDDING PLANTS , .FRUIT . .,. TREES; PERENNIALS; ANNUALS, GERANIUMS � � #-z 26, 1989 1486 T m=vubuag Road • gthar New Yoah l ke flenAy Awn, Charman Town of YtAaca : Zoniri .:- Boaad o, AppealeA Town. of Sthaca /iia llervcc,: Awn / embed op the Qoaad' . ,9 have lived .in, and aaound ,9,thaca 42 /w&-e tkan 66 ccea 6 . "Fireem Fmzu f anm" wad a dandma4h, with the. beat �a�%it iut the aa.ea. lit, l%io#Jce2 ` ha.�` open tvdd me about hea expeai.enceapLclavLg high, up &vuEt. Caand a;th.ez..: waa 6 ' 4 " and .she " ,.vou.ld .j i_t on hi4 jhou.lde" .,acrd pLch when the Li mb-4 wea e not .ung envu gh to hold a .l ea. l%ia v .time4 due to 4twuw .oa o th ea. weaaea cond ULorw the baAa and 4 ales o 4f�i-ce weae clv-dedand .i t uAm "pLch twua own' and pact' .en -the vaahaad oa vcnwlaad. AAea lk. Faee.* died it wco moae f tequentfoa the barn and Aalee o ,,4Lce .to be clvjed and .to pqV fin the Puri t whea.e it tv A pLched. The ca" weae aLva lvd pa�rhed behindthe limaU .galea o;� -i..ce G the 2,vad, j'la� rucr�ona uveae panned ei ihea. bq .the chem vA appte oacha2d d and they ruvu. d haul ryoua ;wait to a un C. ca& ;Poic you. :hen .the "Faeea. Faui t f coon" was 4v.ld .to /%u . Biwwn .i..t way undenitood that vnLq, what wco drown on the faw wco .to be .void on the Am& [AY4 haan 'i. .the agent, Ra* Bkoowr4 comptLed w.lth thtA pni:ng aequta;t i on.2 gn .the pa4t yeas he IwA Ao. d rxnphcn.4, nut.4, eon, banana. , octan eA, p cntj and oth.ea )xoduce that uvA .touched in and aetai led at the Amm ztand. N)e cAe on the mj to having an Cdduda le on the T i twm buaq Load. > cuou appaoach. the Town or ,Ithaca by ca& j.,Lgn-j c2e posted" Town o � .9th.aca. ?vrunct Stiu:ct;leu 6h aced", lYhu not at 5ndi-an Caeeh Fiuca Faven? � i. A the chanzging of the entaance to Sabo * e Road, the new .7ndi:aa Caeeh ReUAe- ment ea,&ance pLm hundAed-i of new homey Ge.ing, built .c_t u&LU become almost cma7-a.� iG.le �...va peop.le to get outoaf theot*A dai.vewmjs . Theae .should be rzo vauuence allowed 4aom .the R- 15 pne, ty allow comnelzoLal . 4alea a4 .the .impact of. the terra,4 c uva d be heaendoue . Thele .vs all�so .the detLveau of pvcoduce .to the .9nd an Caeeh • Fmzi t Farm by. bumtoa taaUea that .stopo t'caf;QLc noath. and .south on croute g6 becauise the entny duveuv# -wo na&&ow and it tahea .sevea.al mirudeA foa ,the d d vea .tv 4ocheg hips ai.g and back .en whi le cewmi.ng the hi_gluoaut .seveaat timea , lr'e weae held up in t4a44Lc foe about 5 mi.ruttea on une 20, 9989 at appwximatettt 9 P. !tile is About a week ean,Li.ea a ;tAactoa taci len .tizied to back .tn and gave up. ile had been head Lna .youth which pat him on .the uvA t .Cane of �tAa f-fLc, fhe .fiance /j.i.de 0.4 the fmzitist 4tand .t*A on. The diti.ven appeaaenttu- bcvzed aavund some wheAe and ccune back on tAe emt .6 i.de of itoute 96. T hij made ist eadiea io bach in but ttnaf 4Lc uAm held up at .that time. . No one Azt4t 2ea).i_ ze4 .the ;t af.Ac Wwth and pwbtem on Itoute 96 un lem you aze a Itej dent of. o P the aaea. am at 4VA ; me ;to 2e.i teaate oppo4si tati.on ito any vatvance Pa .the .gndLcn CAeeh FmzU Faun. Al Aert a P. no vea n ` � Vic•. � . _� ' 15 June 1989 320 DuBois Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Town , of Ithaca "Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall , Seneca - Street , Ithaca , NY 14850 Re : Indian Creek Fruit Farms Greenhouse Dear • Board Members : I have heard that the matter of the greenhouse at Indian Creek Fruit Farm is once again before the Board for decision . I am writing as a resident of West Hill - ' to emphatically support the fruit farm and the greenhouse... , It is a great asset to 'the neighborhood and , in my opinion ,-it • �is more consistent with the agricultural quality of , life :, that many of us moved to West Hill to obtain , than , for . example , the new development along Woolfe Lane . I enjoy doing business with small local businesses , where the owners are as friendly and happy to help you as the Brown ' s are . I was very unhappy when they had to close the stand last year because of the problems with the greenhouse and with Route 96 . It is delightful to be able to stop on the way home for flowers or perennials or vegetables , and to avoid- returning through the octopus just to obtain the smallest items . Although I have talked to many in the neighborhood about the greenhouse , I have not been able to understand the basis for the opposition that I read about in the paper . Everyone that I have talked to thinks there is no problem . It sounds like the . major opponents are the Browns ' s nearest neighbors who run a non - agricultural commercial business themselves . If the prmblem here is simply a personality difference between close neighbors , I do not believe that the rest of . the neighborhood should lose local access to flowers and produce on such a basis . I believe that the original decision to allow the greenhouse • was proper and good for the neighborhood , and I hope you reach asimilar conclusion on the second round . atric ' Kenn y , Esq r L / AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS 0 . SS . CITY OF ITHACA ATHENA GROVER , being duly sworn , deposes and says : That she lives at 1486 Trumansburg Road in the Town of Ithaca and has been a resident of the Ithaca area for over 60 years . That deponent is personally familiar . with the premises at 14.08 - Trumansburg Road in the • Town of Ithaca and purchased fruit there until approximately 1980 . That the prior owner of the ,. property , Raymond ' Frear 'l �- " 'died in 1971 , and after-" .his death - Mr . Yenii operated the orchard for Mrs . Frear ; that for several years during the 19701' s ' the barn on the - property was closed for retail sales and instead customers picked fruit themselves which would bep weighed in 'the orchards and paid- for there by customers . I remember this clearly because during several years in this period I wanted to buy fruit which had already been picked • for my mother who was not able to pick fruit herself , but the pre -picked fruit was not available and I had to pick fruit for her . � ATHENA GROVER Sworn to before me this 16 day of June , 1989 . , D_ � — .000LA I NOTARY PUBLIC ck GAN ID i4ow pub tn4 . . No�aN 10 . 61510 F`aK ��a�,twed, oxo`` i AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS SS . CITY OF ITHACA JOHN BOWERS , being duly sworn , deposes and says : That deponent resides at 1406 Trumansburg Road in the Town of Ithaca and has resided there since 1980 . Randolph Brown has occupied the property next door at 1408 Trumansburg Road since A198.0 and initially sold • fruit from his barn , which . subsequently burned down : However ; before the barn - burned down , Mr . Brown . .stopped using the barn"" for the, retail sales - ' - of : fruit and -. after - 1982 or 1983 - the barn was used solely for the storage .of farm machinery and apples . The barn was located very close to - the property line and deponent could observe all of the activity which went on in or around the barn . ,i JOHN BOWERS Sworn to before me this day of June , 1989 . N ARY UBLIC DIRK A. GALBRAITH Notary Public, State O w York No . 55' 644kins county Qualified ir, To es May 31 ,19— Commission Exp • AFFIDAVIT • STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS : SS . CITY OF ITHACA WILLIAM GROVER , being duly . sworn , deposes and says . That he lives at 1486 Trumansburg Road in the Town of Ithaca . That deponent purchased fruit from Indian Creek Fruit Farms from 1947 until 1980 and was familiar with the prior owners of the property , Mr . and Mrs . ' Raymond Frear . After Mr . Frear ' s death in 1971 , Mr . Yenii operated .the orchard for Mrs . Frear and during most of •the ~ 1970 ' s a11 • of the fru=it grown on the farm was - sold as -sold to customers who would pick the fruit themselves . Customers I would park their cars in the area behind the present fruit stand , and Mr . Yenii would weigh the fruit in the orchard andcarryit : • from the orchard to the customers '.: - cars using his tractor . During this period of time the ,barn on the property was not used regularly for the retail sale of fruit . zz"Oot WILLIAM GROVER Sworn to before me this day of June , 1989 , NOTARY PUBLICFSP �(o A GALe " " 100( Iia 5632 GpO�,ty V'Wos Que1� uN AAS STATE OF NEW YORK ss . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS Randolph . Brown , being duly sworn , deposes and says . 1 . I am co - owner of . the Indian Creek Fruit Farm located on Route 96 in the Town of Ithaca and make this affidavit upon direct personal . knowledge, , except wherein stated ' to be upon information -and bel i ef , the - source .-of, such bei ng conversati o.ns . wi th .n.ei ghbors , ' research and review of the history of the : Indian Creek Fruit Farms . 2 . This affidavit is submitted pursuant to the request of the Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeal -as an effort to describe the past uses of the Indian Creek Fruit Farm to the best of your • - deponent '- s knowl edge , 3 . The past uses of the Indian Creek Fruit Farm , in particular the barn located thereon , to the best of deponent ' s knowledge and belief are as follows . a ) Produce sales room for the display and sale of various farm produce , including but not limited to apples , grapes , vegetables . b ) Sales room for nursery stock and trees , including but not limited to bedding plants , vegetable plants , fruit trees . c ) Sales room for apple cider . d ) Sales room for grain and field crops . e ) Storage facility for grain , hay , nursery stock . 3UTTMAN & HELLER 4TT VS AT LAW f ) Housing of coolers for the cold storage of fruits , THEON HOUSE +ACA, NEW YORK 14850 vegetables and cider , among other items . (607) 272-2102 � p 6 • - 2 - g ) Processing and grading of apples . h ) Production of apple cider . i ) Grading , washing and' packing of fruit and vegetable produce . j ) Storage of machinery and farm equipment . k ) Machine " 'shop . for the repair , of machinery and farm equ .i pment . 4 . The foregoing list is not intended to be a complete and exclusive listing of. all the operations which have occurred on t'h Indian Creek Fruit Farm , in particular in the barn , since the bar served as the - main storage , sales " and , production area for the entire farm situated in the Town o'f Ithaca . Accordingly , alny ' typ of indoor activity incidental to the operation of the farm occurred therein , including the housing and feeding of livestock . 5 . To the best of your deponent ' s knowledge and belief , the foregoing uses of the barn and farm occurred prior to and during your deponent '. s ownership . The exact produce housed , stored and sold from the barn varied depending upon the demands of the neighboring community , the investment capabilities of the owners and the weather . 6 . Your deponent . has � also been informed by long time residents of the area that the Indian Creek Fruit Farm had many GUTTMAN & HELLER incarnations , including a restaurant , at the present site . AsEYS AT LAW TsTON HOUSE dN rHACA. NEW YORK 14850 (607) 272-2102 4 ' U , - 3 - 7 . The present location has been - the site of a farm and farm stand since the turn of the century and the current usage by your deponent does not deviate from its historic usage . /JJ AAvo6UJ k —/P Sworn to before me this Zv day of /U1/ l. � . . . 1 99 r<4 , . i t CHARLES- I GU Il iYN ' ic, State of New Yor:<. • No. 4536155 .. • ali 'i . � ire Tc:nnpkins Cc1. a:`1 �sil)ri -Expires June 00 GUTTMAN & HELLER la ATT YS AT LAW TH ON HOUSE HACA. NEW YORK 14850 (607) 272-2102 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS SS . CITY OF ITHACA : GERALD HALL , being duly sworn , deposes and says : That he resides at 296 Hayts Road in the Town of Ithaca and is personally familiar with the premises at 1408 Trumansbu>~g Road in the Town of . Ithaca . That this property was owned by Mr . . and Mrs . Frear -and after Mr . Frear ' s death in 1,971 the orchard on ,the property was •managed by Mr : Yenii . Mr . Yenii ' let customers . pick the fruit thems�eT'ves and% he ` putweighing - machines - in •m the - orchards where the customers would pay for the fruit . Sometimes fruit was paid for at the house on the property where Mrs . . Frear took the money . In some years during the 1970 ' s -all of the fruit which. was sold was sold in . this way because there was not enough help on the farm to pick the fruit and market - it . GERALD HALL Sworn to before me this —, day of June , 1989 . NOT PUBLIC DIRK A. GALBROTH NMry Publico State of New York No, 55-6444320 Qualified in Tompkins County e mmission Expires May 31 , 19-5D ' h � bit Presentation to ZBA : Barn I . The barn and its ' temporary replacement ' In 1988 the N.Y . State Supreme Court , Appelate Division , Third Judicial Department , heard an appeal brought by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals and the Browns against a Judgement by Frederick Bryant , Justice of the State Supreme Court , which ordered the greenhouse erected on the R- 15 portion of the Brown' s land to be removed. The Appelate Justices noted that "the Browns proposed to locate the greenhouse on the site formerly occupied by the barn" ( p. 3 , S1 ). They also noted that "the Browns indicated that they were financially unable to construct a replacement barn , but indicated their intention to seek permission to do so in the future. /n Memextime( our italics: CHB , JSBI , the proposed greenhouse was to serve in part as a storage area for material and equipment that had formerly been stored in the barn' ( footnote , p. 3 ). , The primary issue in discussing the so- called ' rebuilding' of the barn is that the greenhouse itself is still standing. It isnot the temporary inflatable structure described by.theAppelate Justices ; it is rathe_ r apermanent structure with a wooden back , wooden side walls , steel doors and concrete foundation. It is in fact a building , as defined in -the Town Sign Law , Local Law 6 , Section i 1.. 02B , p. l 5 , viz. "Buildina: a structur.e.affixed to a permanent .foundation. ". It isalso not occupying the site of the barn ,which burned but is located , much closer ":to Rt. 96. in addition , the public was startled to learn at the ZBA meeting on June 7 , 1989 ( or would have been startled to learn if they had not already noted the permanent nature of the:greenhouse) that the "replacement" for the barn , namely , the greenhouse ; was not going to be removed haying served Its purpose as a "temporary replacement but that the barn was now- being proposed as a two- story addition to the greenhouse. Mr. Brown wants both his barn its "tem orary replacement " I Obviously ; the ZBA'oughtnot -to' even 'consider 'allowing ` Mr.'dBrown to ub Id the • barnwhi a is "temporary replacement " is still standing. i . Restoration of the barn In their adjourned appeal , the Browns are requesting permission to "rebuild" a barn on- land Zoned R - 15. This is the most restrictive residential zoning in the Town of Ithaca and barns are not permitted in R- 15 zones. ( See Article IV , Residence Districts R - 15 , Section 11 , 1 - 10 and Section 12 , 1 - 8. ) The barn which the Browns are seeking to "rebuild" was a gabled, early 19th century wood4ramed structure which was a local landmark and an aesthetic asset . to our community. it was 100 % destroyed by fire in the fall of 1986. Mr. Brown is claiming the right to "rebuild" this barn under the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Article XI I , Non-cqnnforming. . uses , Section 56: "Restoration: Nothing herein shall prevent the conbm and substantial restore t�on ofa but�Tdi g a�maged by fire , flood , earthquake etc thin 6 'rfhhths An ddesmoh . cem cnnstftutes en emount legs than 75,E of the neplaasmenl cztst olsu 60 ( italics ours: CH_, ! . e e oard o Appeals in comes of practica difficulty or unnecessary hardship. " There are three key issues here. First , though the ZBA is specifically. charged with permitting restoration of damaged building , it isnot permitted under .Article XII , Section 56 to allow a totally new building on a totally different site from that occupied by the destroyed building. Mr. Aron pointed out this fact in the May 13 , 1987 ZBA hearing: "Mr. Brown opted to as a barn: CHB , JSBI and Mr. Aron asked Mr. Brown if he understood that in that case the barn would haveo e rebuilt in the same site &W Mr. Brown responded that he did understand this and iha a would like a 2 year extensions" The fact /o that the barn cannot be legally rebuilt on the old site because of its proximity to the property line and because Town setback regulations and buffering requirements could not be met is irrelevant , Legally , the ZBA can my authorize the rebuilding of a partially destroyed building on the original site. However , on June 7 , 1989 , in an adjourned appeal , Mr. Brown revealed for the first time that he planned to ' rebuild' the barn as an attachment to the greenhouse, which is SCh ► h ! f- � 0 • 1 located on a totally different part of his property from the site of the burned bare ZB_ not authorized to permit him to do this under Article XI I , Section S6 . Second , the ZBA cannot authorize a totally different building from one partially destroyed by fire. Local Law 04 , 1984 may have some bearing on this issue. Under Section 6 , Destruction of • Building . it states: If any converted building is partially or substantially damaged by fire. . . the owner may rebuild a structure of similar design and dimensions. " Again , the law allows reconstruction and repair of non-conforming buildings even in a residential zone as long as the building looks the same as the original structure. Mr. Brown has not submitted any detailed plans at all for his new barn. He states only that it is to be a two- story structure attached to the back of the greenhouse. As the greenhouse has a semi -circular roof line and front , covered plastic sheeting , it is obviously impossible for the new barn to look anything like the old 19th century structure that was destroyed. Furthermore , since the site of the barn has been changed to a new location very close to Rt. 96 , it will be` a prominent feature of the landscape , visible to every passer - by and quite out of character with neighboring homes , which are all Greek Revival or Victorian buildings of distinction. No local building that we are aware of has a semi - circular roof and front wall and not a single one is covered with plastic sheeting. Even the nearby fruitstand on Mr. Brown's property hasA peaked roof and traditional white- painted wooden siding. The third , and most salient , argument against the use of Article XI I , Section 56 in authorizing the ' new barn is the plain fact that the old barn was 100 % destroyed by fire , not 75 % or less. The ZBA is not authorized to permit a new bi to replace one 'lost tiY fire: It can only authorize restoration of a barn damaged by fire. If Mr. Brown wants to build a new ( non-conforming) barn on new site , he must either seek a variance or request a zoning change. We discuss these possibilities in turn. The section of the zoning ordinance governing the granting of variances is Article XIV , Administration . Section 77 , S60 "Where there are 4prectical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in the wayof carrying out the strict letter of this ordinance ; .the Board of Appeals shall have the power , in passing upon appeals , to vary or modify the application of any of the • regulations or provisions of this ordinance. so that the spirit of-the ordinance shall be observed and public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done. " If the Browns could prove "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship" to theI. ZBA , then the Board could allow him to build a barn on the R- 15 portion of his land. However , we do not believe, that the Browns can do this. Mr. Brown owns roughly 40 acres of land at Indian Creek. The area of frontageon Rt. 96 is relatively narrow and the R- 15 portion of his land starts approximately 350 feet back from the road on the south side of the frontage and slopes down at an angle to meet the road at the other end of the frontage. Perhaps a diagram will clarify the situation. A mere 3 or 4 acres out of a total of 40 acres are zoned R - 15. Now it should be pointedout that in the Town of Ithaca , agricultural buildings on agricultural land are exempt from all requirements except those having to do with safety. Why , then , are the Browns so eager to build their barn and greenhouse on the 3 or 4 acres zoned R- 15 , when they can put as many barns and greenhouses as they please on the 36 or 37 acres they own zoned for agricultural use without the possibility of any interference whatsoever from the Town? The=answer is plain. The greenhouse is currently being used for retail sales and the barn is to be atteched to it. Because of the proximity of Indian Creek and because of the sharp curve in Rt. 96 along his frontage , the existing driveway is the only possible point at which Mr. Browncan .have the access necessary for an increased retail sales area. We are afraid that the proposed barn is going to be a ' barn' in name only and that its real function will be to extend even further Brown's retail sales facility. Indeed , he has been quite candid about his need for increased sales space , both in his Environmental Impact Statement of 1987 and in a letter to Andrew Frost in April , 1987 in which he mentions that he needs to " increase the amount of sales area" and "it will be necessary to improve its [ Indian Creek's: CHB , JSB ] ability to generate a meaningful income for myself and my family. " Also , in the June , 1987 ZBA hearing Mr. Brown stated: " Indian Creek is my only source of income and as such I must do what is necessary to extend the season and increase sales to become a viable business. " The first part of this statement turned out not to be true , as Mr. Brown admitted later in the hearing that he owned another farm in Newfield and sold produce from it at the Farmer' s Market 3 ` in Ithaca. However , he was certainly telling the truth when he stated his intention of increasing the sales area at Indian Creek : the greenhouse now has precisely that function and there is no reason to suppose that another two- story addition to the greenhouse will not perform the some function as a retail sales area. If Mr . Brown really wanted a barn solely for storage of farm equipment , he could put it up tomorrow on his agriculturally zoned land without any fuss or lawyer's fees. The ZBA should not authorize a new barn in an R - 15 district when commercial use of the structure is a distinct probability. III . The barn considered as an extension of a non - conforming use For the past two years the ZBA has extended the time limit within which Mr. Brown may apply to rebuild his barn under the "restoration " clause , Article XII , Section 56. However , in the notice of the June 26 , 1989 ZBA hearing , two appeals on the barn issue appear: one , the by now familiar appeal under Article XI I , Section 56 , and the other , a modified adjourned appeal which requests the toconstruction of a barn and attached greenhouse to be located in an area behind the existing 'stand' ." Although the notice states that the "modified appeal " was adjourned from May. 24; 1989 .and. June, 7., 1. 989 neither of these previous notices mentioned the fact that the barn was to be attached to the greenhouse and neither of them mentioned that the request for the barn was to be regarded as an extension of a' non- conforming use. This appeal seems to us to be yery modified: indeed ; it is better characterized as a new appeal than as a mddified .one. .We _ . . find it puzzling that the ZBA would treat the barn as an instance of ' restoration' for over two years and then suddenly , in the middle of a hearing , change , or rather add to ; that appeal , a request•for a barn attached to the greenhouse under the rubric of an 'extension of a non -conforming use' : We -assume , however:, that the barn first requested as a "restoration " of one destroyed by fire and the greenhouse which the. ZBA granted in 1987 as a "temporary replacement" for the barn are in fact the same two structures now being requested under an extension of a non:conforming use. If we are mistaken in this assumption , perhaps the Board could-inform us why the "number of buildings under discussion has suddenly multiplied? From our reading of Mr. Brown' s Environmental Impact Statement of 1987 , it was clear that more buildings were going to be requested , but we did not expect them to appear quite so suddenly ! In any case, as it appears that we are currently discussing one barn and one greenhouse , we will attempt to show the board why the barn and attached greenhouse cannot possibly be granted as an extension of a non- conforming use. First , Indian Creek Fruit Farm has , for hundred years , produced fruit such as apples , cherries , plums , pears , grapes and peaches and the: 4 "the normal tomato crop in the Ithaca area , outdoors , would not be ready until late July" ) . Mr. Brown currently has bedding plants in his greenhouse and he must therefore be buying these nectarines , strawberries and tomatoes from wholesalers. This activity clearly contravenes the Town of Ithaca zoning law , which defines a farm stand as "a roadside stand or other structure for ® the display and sale of farm and nursery products 117cic8ntal to fermin9 and as a seal cnnveniencetotheownenorownersottheland'. ( Article Y , Section 18 , # 3 ) The fact that Mr. Brown is currently using his farm only as a market garden and retail store for goods produced elsewhere and the fact that for the past two years he has not maintained his orchards is extremely relevant. The original barn and the fruitstand were used to store equipment used in the farming of fruit crops and , on occasion , for the sale of these crops. But the use of the land , the barn and the fruitstand has changed. The proposed barn , the greenhouse and the fruitstand are now being used ( or will be , if the barn is granted ) for the storage of farm equipment incidental to market gardening ( not fruit farming) and' for the sale of other farmers' produce and of market garden items. This is an entirely new use for Indian Creek. Furthermore , it is one which is clearly not allowed in an R - 15 zone. Since the proposed barn in its new location is intended for a new ( and illegal ) use , -. it cannot possibly be justified as an extension of an existing non- conforming use( which no longer exists) and the ZBA should therefore refuse permission for its construction. -There is , however ; another , even more crogent , argument against the building of a new barn. The Town Zoning Ordinance states ,. under Article XII , Section 53 , Abandonment of use , that "when a non - conforming use has been abandoned for a period of' at least one-year , it shall not thereafter ' be reestablished and the future use shall be in conformity with theprovisions of this ordinance. " We would like to, submit to this Board affidavits from John Bowers , Athena Grover , Bill Grover and Gerald Hall ( the last- mentioned of whom worked on the fruit farm for both Mr. and Mrs. Frear for many years ) , which make it clear that the original use of the barn as a sales area was abandoned for a period of years both under Mrs. Freer's ownership , when the orchards were tended by Mr. Yenii , and also more recently , after Mrs. Brown bought. the farm in 1980. Mr. Brown used the barn as a sales "area before he opened the fruitstand in 1984. After that time , • however , the use of thelbern as a sales area ceased. Thus the legal non-conforming use of the - barn as a sales area ended 'as a result of at least two periods of abandonment of use in the early 1970's and in the early 1980's. It follows that any use of ,a barn on the R- 15 portion of Mr. Brown's property as a sales area would constitute an illegal non- conforming use and the ZBA cannot therefore authorize a barn for any such use. We have already seen , however , that the attached greenhouse ( the "temporary replacement " of the barn , recall ) lcurrently being used , at least in part , for retail sales. This greenhouse is 75x30 feet , providing a total area of 2 , 1.50 square feet. In his Enviornmental Impact Statement of 1987 Mr. Brown clearly states that he wants a barn with a total of 4 ,000 square feet. It is self-evident that the "barn if permitted , will be used in the some capacity. Indeed , if the two buildings are to be joined together , as proposed , into a single structure , it is difficult to see how this could be prevented. The potential commercial space available to Mr. Brown would thus come to a total of 6 ,250 square feet. Now at the ZBA hearing in June , 1987 Mr. Brown stated that the old barn had a total area of 2 ,000 square feet, However , the sales area in the barn was actually quite small , probably an area about the same size as the fruit stand , which is approximately 400 square feet in area. We hope that the ZBA is aware that the Browns are asking for a potential sales area of 6 ,250 square feet to ' replace' 'a retail sales area which at no time in the past has ever exceeded 400 square feet. ( We have already shown , recall , that at no time in the last ,40 years were the farm stand and the barn used simultaneously for retail sales. ). We would like to point out , parenthetically , that it 1s extremely unfortunate , in our opinion , that the relevant page 1n Mr. Brown's Environmental Impact Statement of 1987 , which is the only source of information concerning the size of the proposed barn , was omitted from Mr. Heiler's brief to the Appelate court. #�a So , to return to the main point at issue , how are the barn and the attached greenhouse going to be justified as an extension of a non - conforming use? Is the greenhouse ( the "temporary replacement" for the barn , recall once again ) now going to be the legal non - conforming use whose "extension " is the barn? But the greenhouse is presently an unauthorized structure and to claim that the "temporary replacement" of the barn is the legal basis for granting the barn itself 5 is patently absurd. Is the fruitstand the legal non-conforming use that is to be "extended" to include = the greenhouse and the barn? This is equally absurd , since Mr . Brown would then apparently be allowed both the barn and its "temporary replacement" ' In any case the fruitstand was abandoned for a period of years ( cf. Mr . Gerald Hall ' s affidavit given to the ZBA at the June • 7th hearing) and 1s therefore itself an illegal non-conforming use. Is the use of the R- 15 law the legal non - conforming use that Mr . Brown seeks to extend? We fail to see how the use of R - 15 land , which was in fact not used for anything at all , both under the Frear' s ownership and in the early 1980's , could possibly be the non- conforming use which the Board is being asked to "extend" into both a barn end a greenhouse. In any rase , the R- 15 land in question is currently being used , as we have already noted , for the purpose of market gardening , a completely new use and , we claim , an illegal one. Perhaps the illegal non- conconforming use of the barn ( illegal because it was abandoned ) which burned 2 1 / 2 years ago is to be "extended" to allow the building of the new barn- - an extension the "soul " nof the barn , as 1t were? I have to say , parenthetically , that someone even mildly cynical , looking at this so-called " modified" adjourned appeal , would probably conclude that the ZBA was clutching at straws in..a desperate attempt to find some way of approving Mr: Brown's barn and greenhouse rather than deciding the matter impartiai,ly on the basis of its legal merits. IV . Standards - for justifying an extension of a non - conforming . ,.._ use- r se _ _ . . _ . Even if the ZBA succeeds in sorting out the muddle of illegal and legal non- conforming uses of the R- 15 portion of the Indian Creek ' land , it is still the c aseAhat the conditions for an ° extension of a non-,conforming-use unden Section 77( 7 ) of the zoning code must be met. The Board has to explain in detail with facts , not opinions , its findings with regard to the criteria in Section 77( 7 ) before it can authorize eithera greenhouse, or a barn on Mr. , Brown's property. We would like to respectfully remind the Board that this total lack of findings was the reason . that the Supreme Court and the Appelate Court agreed that the ZBA' s decision concerning the greenhouse had to be annulled 'and a new determination made. On June 7 , Celia Bowers presented a detailed analysis of these criteria on pages 45 and 6 of her statement before this Board and I would like- to enter all of these arguments as an addendum to my statement. I think this is valid , as it is now being proposed that the barn should be attached to the back of the greenhouse , making them for ail practical purposes a single building. In doing this , I shall be able to spare you the ordeal of reiterating in detail the specific problems she has already outlined. I would , however , with your permission , like to add four more items to the list. First , on the afternoon of the ZBA hearing on June 7 , 1989 a "portajohn " was Installed on the Brown's property on the highest point of their frontage , a few feet from our property line° While this does take care of the lack of bathroom facilities , it demonstrates quite clearly Mr. Brown's continuing disregard for his neighbor' s property values. This portajohn is in full view of all the windows of our home on the north side and is located approximately 40 feet from our residence. I will present the Board with photos , for the record. Second , ,Mr. Aron has in the past , as early in fact as the May 131 1987 ZBA hearing , noted the "debris and unwanted and unsightly material on site". Although the stand itself was cleaned up this spring j ust before the ZBA hearings , I would like to introduce photos of what I can only characterize as the dump right next to our property line. Mr. Brown has not cleared his site , as he was ordered to do. Once again , this demonstrates Mr. Brown's lack of concern for the property values of his neighbors and for the R - 15 character of his own property. Third , Mr . Brown is not insisting that his customers park off the driveway in the parking areabehind the stand , as he was directed to do at the ZBA meeting of June , 1987. In fact , when we use the driveway by the fruitstand , over which we possess a right of way , more often than not �o it is the case that a customer's car is actually parked in the driveway itself , blocking the sight of Rt. 96 and making turns out of the driveway extremely perilous. This situation is a serious hazard for us , for Mr. Brown's own customers and for the public travelling on Rt. 96. Fourth , I would like to give the Board an Ithaca Journal story and photograph about an accident that occurred in front of the fruitstand on Friday , June 23 , 1989. This is an accident of b a sort quite frequent on this part of Rt. 96 . The Indian Creek driveway is located in the middle of a long curve in the road where passing is prohibited. However , drivers behind slow- moving vehicles regularly lose patience and pass without realizing just how limited their vision is. To increase retail sales at Indian Creek , thus creating more traffic into and out of Rt. 96 and ® causing more vehicles to slowdown , would be extremely hazardous for all who use the road. In addition , that the new entrance to DuBois Road is located only 200 feet from the Indian Creek driveway , thus further complicating the traffic patterns at this location. In our opinion , no decision that would have the effect of increasing sales at Indian Creek should even be considered until the DOT has had a chance to study the effect of the new entrance in conjunction with a greatly increased retail sales area, I would like to thank the Board for its patience in listening to this long presentation and I hope that we have presented enough facts to demonstrate to you that there is no justification - whatsoever for permitting the barn that was 100% destroyed by fire to be " rebuilt " ; that there is no justification for permitting a new barn to be adjoined to the greenhouse that was supposed to be its "temporary replacement " ; that there is no justification for permitting the barn as an extension of a non-conforming use , and .that even if there were , the standards specified in " Section 77( 7 ) could' not be met. Finally,wwe would-like to point out that if "extensions" of non =conforming uses as extensive as those proposed here are allowed to go through , the result will be to _seriously.undermine the integrity of the zoning code. We do not think that it is within the province of the ZBA to permit de facto zoning changes under the slippery rubric an extension of a non-conforming use. • Celia H. Bowers John S. Bowers - \ 014 dull \OOF L7 1 n V#.. coo 5 � S Xay q . 1 9. _ a } � pc ° t rI _. t F� aFti ` } 1 . h IIlt w 1 P r 'h rf 1 -' t p Ir 411u ' , p ' 1 dej - • • • t +7 J { t t>y q 1 • Q4rIt �lt " y f ;)ai I .Y4i � t[11, t ,Oe {1< r ct .� 11 � ._ f. , 5t h. ,:jay • • !} Jf • f tr.. I .f 4.4 s r ,I'' ♦ 1 l J `IJ, vt3 _ ti rot o 1! - 1. t +f G � ,� O eH P y ,{nl I � yff • e! S { °I . 18 J .vrLKi • �' S1 t `\ IL tyl}/• 5 ttt 1 , .1.' i lYl{!r 1 s Zia 1 1 - +le R"t •' y6 ,` r i4 yltt- 1 � (;Ir 0 _rr� r y�xL .t`y tj •• l4' W r IJ , 9( I a, I ' )f • �•wPrt v' IP t . { , � fP lig 4 t {• . f1 1 s II .r. .) r.><t r r l a <rt 1l rit 1 r rf-i. r • y.I r • ,y r { I) x v j � x�.. ty'+ P 'y +✓ y S tr fi ! r 4a �' P x Cr i 8 F I rl� 1IOj It �� at � 1 i .l r�" v f il4� w IN p 4 .. rrS r r A. % I it y . ,t.r � , { I } 4 • {G r It IT' {� Mr r il.. i' r i• /t r , „sKt +! ,{ .M1. .. Net I It' ; myl . � ra R 1r y1 ♦ / �isJ�r 5IP t tf r 4 t +• B § a I �y' f {}" S r I'y"{��l{ tr r I IN- 1, r' k} r !_ tlry t J•lf t P • k } 14 jl A .r Y Y, .',k r '( ` . r S M I3I • Ukf)h ♦ Ii000,007. ' .� ' `uf� 1 ) ry Lwf hi >t ih19. rl r a 'fk ? • i .1 y , .: t .. { � II , _{ ryl>+ 1 1rrl�re IT r W4, ir It ttil j?TPIyf r IY 4p 7 Yy % •'�viy#1. r I }S.x ' 17* fKf . PitL1f • r ` r,: `x If <� ai tie,' Z)�+ f}1•. fir :ren c, e. Otte 1; rIT 2_ I OPT rrrJJ r/ y • )Y } {Q' 1 1 1 aN11 `1ziwt ;p rYx F - 14{ r• �` 1. i ��• l I i SS4 ,TU "K YL �' a �r4.vF r )?' 1� Aee . 1 Jra".1 1p •r4 a,., xx Ily r rt, rIt'x 3Yol i� Or`+:. 'a� � t •"'' u. } S,"r� '�r7 F''�y"NS1 -eft '•�i ,_ ..j v`ts r '�. , .t y>,J�t��fl , fI1lQ"'ry V�Y !;, Z Y� tit tF r" ,t ra`I's 1 =tel a Tf�, s } 1 .1, IU. Jr •L cln qy}Pirix2' n.il-1 1`{ a , v�tk 4. I. y,rw : �t t�l�,.� +""{S [ a�'y 0 . IT a1} [ r;i _ . • A y "F 'i"'uo iy5 'V'' �JI %4„ssflyH ' it ;i` `r f•�. r t"�I''r Iu;°idI NOL�� • ".0,4 , r ilj^`rfN° t `fld�.*a]iA� ri'> �ln Y�Sf rPIT t t YliriL � c IF IT 1 1 • J ffl".• 1 • • L.1 . p .:o • • • r ''� • ItJ ,I I- I♦ 'i. f' ' p" 411, 1 r . It ' %. d:. ' • • � ax Me • • • i • • • • • • . • 1 • u I r uauo to N M. I - 1 oto to If I If I I tto t3Clti4Cti: to to J t j . 'qq a SH Dom'. tt. I �,• } ) tooif 4 7'I I of poll r er !1 Cf ''�''ds. 1 viL .. r I 1. rl. IJT�. 111 41 Y�to 4 . 01 , • 4 �' htoo. . � r ' to 11 do, it IN of to r = t f 1. �'t r i S � 1 lo' to 4 - 7l 1 � �y a4PY4 '� � It "l1 to �[ to 61,SIN to o. pi }� p PC im too /� �{ ►� ��' to° - ' �`;. ! FD 1 - of ' 00 .' Df�13Mare ,�� s F. : . 0 8; ?\QEl. � Y / 944` �too oof • \ •s J V AVE* ?� PAVCE %,T0 BE - I . I I .r Otto ` 1.:PIP 1 ' .� rA I Iq�ae INCLUDE ALA. 14ik LLto do ' n"•- 'T�' r %cyt- T\TlE AMD :<• ) r .to 1uTEZEfpT TO (Li r):, f id coto s .IfdrtojCtto 4n . it to . ; DEMI STT :. H ��7.OKC4L: SQCI yo Qf! ° z : `' ' : l z 0 . . TON XQN5' couNOT .( • I N ?1/vo PCE. ��pp.IC� .S3T. PACE JO O 1 • F/ O . go . 5. 3Z PAGE 21y w Si= 17 p£ i G 67. ACIE S WtT TO HIGHWAY uNIL I6iPIL�"�', i ^yD4 " ;', ' �_U_ •: E I � i JI ,✓ P/jP, .T4%' M A%P PACCE4• y� Z4 — 1 - 18 . 'j - r r R►�R TA�Ik.IEAP P'ACCtL ►1p. 2A - 1 - 260ISI to3J t j . CC ' to L Dnp two 5g0.o .off I . or lj It ! `S• S 2� Edd o gsoc D r PC SAL :. It to , of to. . . is IS, Mr►Dt. •tb A . . . . .. smac: is } SUXVE`( MAP. . OATEC_ MAC04 2.o,,14tv _ _ . - oiasma- am'- p �� .uro •wf . of too AMEMDEO. 5/ 1/ j'4; 2' H / 19iT ' MADE: �eTAW aw No c bt } I SY, T4• M1t.o P. C. FLED 1NTNE' am On= f TOMPKI►L7� COVNT'( ClE�9 CtiilCE. . .. m Laso • baa• + ,4 •ar•a. t : i. of anasaa ' o of I pp I S t ! I �: V C f SMOW ICS. Pe,CT1O%► Of kAAIDS Or .,. DEIN 17 N I STOP IGAL • •-% SOC�ET1( � ' M It 14 ON TUE UMAIJSB b, �?}tl4`( S iLTE 9�n aosKe ;,� • LOCATED TQ {�. ,44 of To W ►J OF IT41A CA , Tt�MPK1ttS ' � t �w/ \(aC� dA S� DECEMBEK I1 � 19,79 ts�a`LM'.+'SCAA1( 1�'+ 1'oo I� i f►Jg1NfEiCS A►Ip SUINEYo�[5� to, ;..: IT94CA , KEW, %(PCIS 5 . Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes : . 00-10 % f % 010-15 % % O15 % or greater % 6- Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site , or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places ? ❑ Yes TNo Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks ? ❑ Yes VNO . What is the depth of the water table ? �o ( in feet) 9�8. Is site located over a primary, principal , or sole source aquifer? ❑ Yes ONO , -10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area ? OYes ONO 11 . Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or . endangered ? • Oyes pNo 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 VNo Describe 13 . Is the project -site - . presently used by the community or, neighborhood as an open space or .recreation area ? O.Yes IPNo If yes, explain 14 . Does the present site include scenic viewsknown to be important to- the community ? DYes :_ .. AN9 .. 15 . Streams within or contiguous . to project area : _. �_ ^ "� ° `" ' (",W ky n . �Lrv ,- / ' ,,,z " a . Name of Stream an4 name of River to which it is tributary j16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areaswit�hi�n ,or contiguo s to project area : a . Name 6 Y �e PCAn � 10� �� . b. Size ( In acres) 17. Is. the site served by existing public utilities ? (II,Yes ONO l � � ? �`� 5" c� a /'kc-me 7n (, " . J a) Af . Yes, does sufficient capacity exist td allow connection? i Yes : ❑ No b) 'If Yes; will improvements be necessary" to allow connection ? ❑ Yes" D .No 6. . .. r Zlt -W-t s Z7 ;.r,2W ' /IC oL cJ &4 /Act An ooLe 18. Is the site locatedin an agricultural district- certified pursuant to Agriculture and : Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304 ? 'OYes4 'pNo 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? OYes JLNo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes ? ❑ Yes ;kNo 40 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 l(�� acres. - b. Project acreage to be developed: ��� acres initially; r / c acres ultimately. c . Project acreage to remain undeveloped `� /� acres. ` d . Length of project, in miles: ( If appropriate) 00.1 e. if the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed 96 ; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing - r... 5— ; proposed % S g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour /, G� (upon completion of project)? h . If re! den ' W : Number and type of hcjsing units : One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i . Dimensions est proposed , g p p(in feet) of lar osed structure � 4- height; width; length. ,w�'j . Linear feet , of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is ? ft. 3 AE X Ao i T 1 /mZ. .EXE/,� l T ,1''/3 � . rru�v 111001 naturdl materia ) ir . e . , rvck , e� 111 etc . ) will de removed Irum the situ tonstcuwc yaras 3 . Will disturbed areas be reclaimed ? r ONo 'QN/A a . If yes , • for what intend purpose is the site being reclaimed ? b . Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation ? ❑ Yes ONo c . Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation ? OYes ONo 4 . How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site ? rJ acres . 5 . Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally- important vegetation be removed by this project ? Dyes VNO 6. If single phase project: " Anticipate- d periodof construction monthsr-( including demolition). 7 . If multi-phased: a . Total number of phases anticipated c (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 p - month 20 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 ? Oyes )® No 9. Number of .jobs generated : during construction . S . ; • afterproject is complete . 10 . . Number -of jobs eliminated by this project 11 . Will project • require relocation - of any projects . or.,faciIities7 _ . © Yes• ., . No If yes, explain 12 . Is surface liquid waste disposal involved ? ' © Yes J No -a . If .yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial , etc .) Uand amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste. disposal involved ? Yes ONo Type Sti1� ` 14. Will surface area of ,an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal ? ❑ Yes PNo Explain . . ' 15 . Is projector any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain ? . OYes 1ANo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? 9Y.es ❑ No a. If yes, what is the amount per month y tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used ? IRYes ONo c. If yes, give name 2� � vls -rz +' � QM 6 J � zr� - : location ' ) ``� ' y' r i} Ace d . Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill ? ® Yes y t e. If Yes, explain � fzt . nw'G LlJ�c S ; e . Vego4� e %L Pro If wc; sfC� � G ��12� ,.^[SSS nor` �. !` � � yG_�L'.i� � N ' �✓►1 17 . Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? Dyes MNo a . If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal ? tons/month . b . If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years . 15. . Will projeci use herbicides or pesticides? OYes I4No ` 19 . Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? OYes IONo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Dyes ' 091No 21 . Will project result in an increase in energy use? Eyes ONo If yes , indicate type(s) 22 . If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. 23 . Total anticipated water usage per day •S0 (L gallons/day. 24 . Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? Dyes PNo If Yes, explain ilianeM1131 T *M'/ ; -- )e ,r,r / a/ ?" A& /J �--� 4 r ' 75. Approvals Required: Submittal Type Date � ity, Town , Village Board OYes ONo City, Town, Village Planning Board OYes ONo U S� City, Town Zoning Board f$Yes ONo City, County Health Department OYes ONo Other Local Agencies OYes . ONo Other Regional Agencies OYes ❑ No State Agencies Oyes ON Federal Agencies OYes ONo C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision ? VIYes ON-0 If Yes; iindicate" decision required: ' Ozoning . amendment Ozoning variance especial use permit ❑ subdivision Osite plan 14 Onew/revision of, master plan ❑ resou£ce management pjan bother _ 2 .. What - is the zoning classification(s)of the site? .c filci Ai m,n 4V6 3 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by ' the present zoning? 4 . What is the proposed zoning of the site? I�( — 5 '. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6 . Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted"local I'and use plans? Yes ONo 7 . What -are the predominant. land use(s) and zoning classificatino,-ns within a '/. mile radius of proposed action? 8 . Is the proposed action compatible with adjoin inglsurrounding land uses within a '/. mile? *es ONo 9 . If• the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how .many lots are .proposed ? M a . What is the minimum lot size proposed? : 10 . Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? OYes MNo 11 : Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? OYes J&No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? OYes ; ONo 12 . Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above ' present levels? OYes PNo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate4o handle the additional traffic? OYes` 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 . void them. E. Verification I certify that the informjition provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. I •A lican S n IN, e1�� In _ r PP U po Date Signature 2L J Title Inelgr -rc pp If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal kssessment FoElp before proceeding with this assessment. ' 5 Part 2— PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information ( Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been • reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART '3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at -further. , ., • The Examples provided are 'to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may tie appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will . vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been' offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each- question. • The number of examples per, question does not indicate the importance of each question. , • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short- term and cumlative effects. -instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if 'there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the. appropriate*bok (column 1 or 2) to indicate the ' potential size. -of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2 . If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check - column 1 . d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 . e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box- in column 3: A ' No response indicates - that such a reduction is not possible. . This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be , Moderate Large Mitigated By IMPACT ON LAND . Impact Impact , Project Change 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ONO INYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes El No foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10% , • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1 ,000 . or more vehicles. 0 ❑ /-] Yes ❑ No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more 0 ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 ,000 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes . ❑ No tons of natural material • (i.e., rock or soil) per year. . • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 11 No. 2 . Will there bean effect tc. .. , ey unique or unusual land forms found on " the site? ( i . e. , cliffs, dunes, geological formations; etc .)IRNO ' OYES • Specific land forms: 0 ❑ ❑ Yes - ❑ No 1 2 3 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By • Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected ? Impact . Impact Project Change (Under Articles 15, 240 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) GNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ; • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ • , , . 1 . 0 ❑.Yes ❑ No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of .material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Construction in a designated freshwater- or tidal wetland. ❑. ❑ ❑ Yes 13 No • Other impacts: C1 ❑ Yes ❑ No 4 . Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? • NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or,decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 11 No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water-that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. : . ❑ Cl ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 5 . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? $ NO OYES . Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Proposed Action requires use of a source of .water that . .does not 1 .. 0 .❑ Yes 0 N have approval to serve proposed (project) action. . 4 Proposed_ Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 Cl ❑ [] Yes ❑ No gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently - ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per- C3 ❑ ❑ Yes [3 No day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ . ❑ Yes [1 No existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action 'will require the storage of petroleum . or chemical e.t.,,w ❑ = il ,; r . =, -:. ❑ . ; ; . ❑ Yes ❑ No products greater than 1 ,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in" areas without waterer ;% : : ❑ , ❑ , . ❑ Yes ❑ No and/or sewer services. : . • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or, .storage , ; ;;: ; facilities. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N 6 . Will proposed action , alter drainage flow or patterns; or surface water runoff ? BNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Pro ose Action would change .flood water flows: �x/�/Q/ T / ❑ ❑., 1 ❑ Yes C3 No 7 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitig4ited By Impact Impact Project Change • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ . ❑ Yes ONO IMPACT ON AIR 7 . Will proposed action affect air- quality? INNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in any. given ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑ Ye ❑ No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs . , per :hour or a 0 ❑ 13 Yes , 0N heat . source . producing more than 1.0 million. BTU's per . hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial E,.. .,. ❑ ❑Yes ONO development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N r , IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS "+ : • 8 . ' Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or' endangered' species? WNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed oh the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes . 0 No than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO 9 . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? 4*NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or > ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. - - • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than , 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally 'important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES - 10 . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ONO SYES Examples that would apply to column 2 - • • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ 'Yes ❑ No land ( includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, • etc.) ' ,ExHlei r #` /,a 4X#1,61r ,® } Op 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be • Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No agricultural land. . • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ' ❑ • • ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2 . 5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, : strip ' cropping); or create a need for such measures (e. g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: 13P C3 Yes C3 No G AGO c�� �- _�c - �-:r ; �•� --� 1J " IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 -- Will proposed action affect aesthetic • resources? ONO- AYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21 , Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from 0 ❑ C3 Yes [] No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural . • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their ' .enjoyment of. the aesthetic qualities of that resource. _ . _ • . • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. . * ' Other impacts : ' �` � "� V� 'JJQ"�►ti� ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ® NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No contiguous to any facility or site listed,on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located withinthe ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N project site. . , .. . . • • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated - as .sensitive for ❑ . ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No HMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ` 13 . Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or • future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 ANO OYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ . ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No s • i 1 a 361 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be 14 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? Moderate Large Mitigated By ONO AYES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: s Y1 �i1rC' �c;daf� ate ' ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No C�SfU� Q t. IMPACT ON ENERGY 15 . Will proposed • action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? SNO OYES . Examples that wouldapply to column 2 -- = --_ • - Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5 % increase ,in the use of . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of . an energy ❑ ❑ . El Yes [] No --- ... - transmission or supply system tp serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ " ❑ Yes 13 No- NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? , 1FN0 OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of , a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ .. ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No " facility: • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). : ❑ ❑ C1 Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local . ❑ ❑ C7Yes . . E] No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. h • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No noise screen. • Other impacts: 0 ❑ ❑ Yes C1 No IMPACT -ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? . INNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ C7 ❑ Yes ❑ No substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions; or there may be a . chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No gas or other flammable liquids. k • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N within 2,000 feet of a site used for the . disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 10 14-16-2 (2187 ) - 7c 817.21 SEOR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Ourpose: 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 ffoni 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 potentially- Large, 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: . 19 Part 1 Jif 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 impactwit, is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: 0 A. The project will not result in any large and ,important impact(s) '.and, therefore, is one which will riot have a significant impact on the environment;. therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. O 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. ' O 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. ' A` Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid - for Unlisted Actions Name of Action - Je ame of Lead gency 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 ' ¢-- 3 PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE : This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form , Parts A through E . Answers to these questions will be considered as 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 JG F . Qctrei Aree LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality an County) N 0 ._ J OVA�l 510L, - NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR I FBIJSINESSrow TELEPHONE c � � ) ;a1 ADDRESS � . . hitt k / &OV4 71 - CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Lie ADDRESS71 _ . CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTIONri fro j �� . Ci I 1 t7` i u ! r 4A17` h e few :1 v n D T- G - 11-o -A- Ca :1o rwL-c ti It 3 e- t'2' � n GLS CA 9 V e e n v ck-. S /� cv/ + 0 � 1! �� . J 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 ❑ Other 2 . Total acreage of project area : acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMRLETION 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 Unve etated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres is acres Other ( Indicate type) L acres //' II acres 3 . What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? 4wouJs Gave Ipcc*n � l� ny �f (A � a411 a . Soil drainage` ''Well drained �� % of site ❑ Moderately well drained % of site ❑ Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is invol ,ed, , how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS • Land Classification System ? Y -, acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site ? ❑Yes qNo a . What is depth to bedrock ? } to . ( in feet) 2 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By � . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community ? Impact Impact Project Change ONO INYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N project is located is likely to grow by more than 5 % . • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No will increase by more than 5 % per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ 11 Yes 0 N • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. .� ❑ Dyes [] No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ 1:1 Yes 0 N or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for_ additional community services ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No (e. g. schools, police. and fire, etc.) Proposed Action will set an important precedent for ' future . projects. ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment,. , ❑ ❑ 11 Yes ❑ No •. . .Other impacts: ❑. . . ❑ Yes. . . ❑ No 19 . Is there, or is there likely to , be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ONO IKYES - If Any Action In Part 2 , Is Identif led as a Potential Large Impact or _. . If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of. Impact, Proceed to Part 3 . Part 3 — EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of lead Agency Part 3 must. be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially . large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the impact. 2 . Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3 : Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. . . _ To answer the question of importance, consider. , • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled , • The regional consequence of the impact • Itspotential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. Continue on attachments) FXN /oe/ T I"/ /01 orx" Alt 13 11 G�R410 e . I • ��BT_LL_-�.nY.�rQnmen�al._6eee��men�=_��Qs.esl_Lnsii.an��e� Erui�_�.arm_and_stand_nQncontormi.ng_�a�.��tena�n A . The proposed extension of use of the greenhouse is . being reviewed as an Unlisted Action . The proposed barn reconstruction is a Type II action , requiring no further environmental review at this time ( SEQR .617 .. 13 ( d ) 2 ) . B . Action will not receive coordinated review . effa.Qf on to or �L�__��iating_air_suaLL.fyi_a�rfa�_or_gro�andw_atar guar _or_s an itY �nQLs_e__LeveJaL _eKiptLng_1raffLc_ patterLis1_ solid_waaVe_ptod coon or d sr aal_._Poten_tLaj_for eroaion1_drainage _or_fL.00d3.ng_Lro�� ema? No significant adverse impacts to land , drainage , or air or water quality are expected as a result of the installation and use of the 1440 square foot greenhouse and accessory improved parking because of the small scale of such facilities . No adverse operating noises are expected . If permission is granted for the greenhouse to remain , it is • recommended that a drainage swale be constructed along the north edge of the parking ' lot , ' and that a ditch be installed along the west side of Route 96 for about 300 feet to Indian Creek . The additional traffic generated by the greenhouse would be a small increase from that existing in the recent past . Total estimated traffic generated . is 507100 average trips per day , up to 150 - 300 trips per day estimated for peak days in peak season . If the Fruit Farm were totally discontinued at its present location , there would be the potential for 4 to 6 building lots along the frontage on Trumansburg Road , each with a separate driveway , and with a combined potential traffic generation of 40 to 120 trips per day , year - round . If the 43 acres owned by the appellant were developed for residential purposes , it is estimated that between 49 and 98 dwellings could be built on the property , with a potential traffic generation of 490 to 980 trips per day . The New York State Department of Transportation , Tompkins County Department of Public Works , and the Town of Ithaca have been involved in the review of circulation adequacy at and near the Fruit' Farm site . Engineering staff at the involved agencies are generally satisfied with the site ingres - egress design onto Trumansburg Road , except that min /r min /rimprovements such as the permanent definition of • the area in front of the fruit stand may be required . Available reports of accidents in the neighborhood of the site indicate that most have been minor , with low personal injury rates , and that accidents occur mainly #�3 further south on Trumansburg Road near Hayts Road . The local N . Y . S . D . O . T . office has requested additional information from central D . O . T . headquarters as part of a study of Trumansburg Road conditons . That local office would make the final determination on design of access into the Fruit Farm site as part of its normal road cut permit process . Access to the Fruit Farm is shared on the south with the adjoining antiques business and residence . The latter property also has a more southern entrance onto Trumansburg Road , which is close to the . Hayts Road intersection and which has limited sight distances to the north , for which reason its use should be secondary to the access shared with the Fruit Farm . No significant adverse impact with respect to solid waste production or ' disposal is expected , with most wastes going to the designated Tompkins County landfill , and with organic wastes such as vegetable and fruit waste recycled on the farm remote from existing residences . A portable toilet has been installed. on the property. . There is enough land area on the site for a septic system if such were required . or_o her_ a. _ur _o r_o1� 1 tur �� e�ourse� COmmunify ox • n.e_jghhorhoocl_ ch� ra.ex * - Because of the size and location of the greenhouse , and with the remaining lands owned by the applicant to the west used for agricultural purposes , no significant impact is expected with respect to . these factors . The greenhouse would be a permitted structure for farm purposes if it were located approximately 150 - 200 feet west of its present location in lands used by the applicant for farming within the Town Agricultural District . If it were located within that District , however , there would be a reduction in the amount of land available to the applicant for crops . The greenhouse is located between 130 and 170 feet back from Trumansburg Road , shielded from most view . by the roadside stand , and is located over 200 feet from the nearest adjacent residences . It has been constructed against a small bank which - assists in minimizing its profile and visual presentation , or wildlift oppcieet._ gnifie� t nhahitafa� t _Qrhreafened_gr_er aere� �peo�es ? No significant species or habitats are known to exist on the site that would be adversely impacted . The greenhouse site has been used in the past for agricultural purposes . /lei Qf����� reaggrc_e3 ? No significant change in land use or land use intensity is expected as a result of extension of greenhouse use . The property has had prior use for produce sales , a gift shop , and a restaurant . • The extent of open space proposed to be retained in agricultural use on the property , as well as the open space in the general vicinity of the site , is considered to mitigate minor impacts with respect to the small amount of increased sales activity resulting from use of the greenhouse . - The property contains orchard , field and other crop areas , and woodland adjoining Indian Creek . Adjacent to the property on the north is the proposed public and private open space of - the Indian Creek -Retirement Community project . To the south in the general neighborhood are areas of essentially committed ' open space at the cemeteries adjoining Hayts Road , as well as at the campuses of Biggs Center , Tompkins Community Hospital , and the former Oddfellows Home complex . 11 The use of the greenhouse as proposed would have beneficial impacts with respect to assisting in the maintenance of the local agricultural economy . It would also provide a food and garden plant supply convenient to local residents that would assist in reducing the extent of local shopping traffic to areas further away . Comparable produce and - garden plant stands or shops are 3 or more miles away . The Poyer Orchard on Dubois Road , in the Town of Ulysses , closed its retail sales over 1 year ago , and is in the process of 'being sold , with its eventual disposition uncertain . The Indian Creek Fruit Farm is the only working orchard in the Town of Ithaca besides the Cornell Orchards on East Hill . There are no other produce /garden plant stands in the Town of Ithaca besides Indian Creek Fruit Farm , Early Bird Farm , and - Eddydale Market . si�Y��QPmant...._or_ralate-d !agtJyj ielik!al_t ion " If use of the greenhouse assisted the owners of the Fruit Farm in maintaining the produce and garden plant sales operation , there might eventually be the incentive to construct a barn to regain space lost when the former barn was destroyed by fire . Tentative plans under consideration for barn construction indicate at this time little potential for significant adverse impact , given the prior activities on the site . Q6 ___hgng_term_ahort _term , _cumnlativ_e.,_Qr_other offacta_na Not expected . X18 f ��y__Other_imp ta_tir��l��ia�g_�h�azg� of_ailhar guantity or type of energy-I ? 1 Not expected . Minor beneficial impacts with respect to IJ energy use would occur as a result of the provision of food and garden plant supply to neighborhood residents in a convenient location because trips to areas considerably more remote would be reduced . There has been opposition to the general operation of the property by the landowners immediately adjacent to the south , who have a residence and an antiques shop . There has been support of the operation of the property and the proposed extension of use of the greenhouse by several other residents in the vicinity . A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed , Minor localized impacts related to the increase in retail and agricultural activity from that in the most recent past are expected to be substantially mitigated by the 'siting ' of the greenhouse , - and by consideration of the benefits to the local agricultural economy and . of the provision of convenience services to the neighborhood . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner Review Date : June 6 , 1989 e��d ��f/� 131 T 70 /..� TOWN OF ITHACA 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 XtX _ granted special approval on April 19 , 1989 by the Zoning Board of Appealsz Applicant requests an Amendment to Condition 414 : to permit up to 31 units to be occupied by upperclass undergraduates for academic year 1989 - 90 only at between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street Town of I t haca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 63 - 2 - 1 , - 2 , - 14 , and - 10 . 2 previously submitted as shown on 1M9XxjdWVhWWj application and/ or plans , or other supporting document Article (s ) NA 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 special approval would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/ or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) SEE ATTACHED SHEET . Signature of Owner/Appellant : CORNELL UNIVERSITY Date : 06 / 74 / R9 Signature of Appellant / Agent , y ; Date .. 06 / 14 / 89 SHIRLEY EGA; Associate ITniversi tv ATTACHMENT TO ® CORNELL UNIVERSITY APPEAL TOWN OF ITHACA The Graduate Student Housing Project has not been fully subscribed by graduate students for academic year 1989 - 90 . We fully expect this to be a first - year only phenomenon . There is reluctance to rent something which cannot be seen yet , or which does not have a word - of- mouth recommendation from someone who is currently living there . At the rate that housing applications are being received , we expect that up to a maximum of 31 of the 167 units will not be occupied at all , unless the graduate students only condition is waived for this one year for these units . • We therefore request an amendment to the special approval granted April 19 , 1989 , at condition #49 permitting the University to house single , upperclass , undergraduate students in up to 31 of the single student units for academic year 1989 - 90 only . This would be a maximum of 124 students or approximately 1 /4th of the Park ' s residents . It would account for 18 % of all units . The students would be mostly transfer students from two - year colleges elsewhere who have met high academic standards for admission . There may also be some upperclass students returning from leaves of absence or study abroad and the like . For such upperclass residents , the University would maintain a staff- in - residence ratio comparable to that provided for upperclass undergraduates elsewhere in the residence system . The University has had an • • excellent experience with the behavior and attitude of residents in the Town House Community on George Jessup Road which is exclusively upperclass undergraduate men and women living in apartments . We feel that the transferring and returning upperclass students would be the most compatible with graduate students . It is also this group of students which typically does not have housing arrangements made far in advance of the beginning of the academic year and thus is most in need of University housing . If up to 31 units must go vacant , there would be a considerable loss of rental revenue plus increased costs for maintaining and securing vacant units . Such vacancies would detract from the ambience of the new graduate student housing at the very time when its reputation for being a pleasant , desirable place to live is most important to build . A vacancy rate would start the project on the wrong foot , thereby possibly jeopardizing its future success as a graduate students only living area . At the same time it would place an unnecessary hardship on the University and the transferring or returning upperclass students who desire University housing , to be turned away when brand new , attractive housing is going empty . • 115 Pearl St . Ithaca , NY 14850 21 June 1989 Town ' of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 126 E . Seneca St . Ithaca , NY 14850 Res Appeal of Cornell University for change in occupancy in 14aplewood Project . The change in this occupancy requirement will further erode the impact that this development will have on the surrounding neighborhood . The original' designation was bad enough but we were advised that asa concession to neighborhood concerns , family housing would also, be included . Where will you find families to live decently in such cramped quarters? The density of the whole ,.project is completely unacceptable as far as I • am -concerned and I cannot see how the zoning - board approved the original request as it was submitted . I trust ,you..will deny this appeal . Very truly , Gertrude Ervay (Mrs . i Statement to the Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals regarding ® Cornell s request for a variance to permit undergarduate students to live in the new Cornell Quarters housing complex . Date : June 26, 1989 From . Betsy Darlington , Conservation Advisory Council Chair I live near Collegetown in an area that has, in recent years, become overrun with undergraduate housing--many of them conversions of private, single-family homes . Although I would not be directly affected by the proposed use of Cornell Quarters, I am opposed to turning another attractive, quiet city neighborhood into a dormitory for undergrads . I know from many years of experience that there is a vast difference between undergrads and grads . The former are far more likely to be very noisy and very messy . I also wonder what happened to Cornelis agreement with the adjoining neighborhood not to house undergrads in this location? It is becoming increasing difficult to believe anything Cornellos administrators tell us . Has integrity become old fashioned? f f t SV _ f • 3 Vs "1d 74� �p > dz:Mp 70 �r A Z L) 73 O � -- f 05 c p0 o o � c Lh rnU3 LA � p c � W 30 Q �o rn b D 2M Ln Lh b � 9� (A dLA -a 17 mew Z 71 0 ® n --1 7 4 r' 4- w v9 - - c .. c � r o� s+ �' W C O o v —a r W LJO -tee (N. c- cA w LA — N Lon LA LIS N o � l ! 4 00 cir O a CA O V Ln Orb c n m a ,• co c 76 70 n LA 4> '� 4 W b co L)3 }� jo 1 d LA nl L oho J W J W O � ,.1 i 00 x f� O a 8 7 r ' • -F cl : 1-' ' q G %eli R o b i ri = a n I-' r (:? i d l_ I-) i.:. F' ark: Civic F>I � soci. at. ic) n 1t2t- 'f. : F': eponsh to DavidS 'r2VJart_ = t•1a 'y 1 ; 1-' resc: r , t_ ai._ tarl {3L F' r0pclsed New Gir- adLtate SLtdent t- OLASi ng I eveI oprllent at. Cornk= 11. (Flu ar- '14o- rs C) 1. 1. L-1wi ng ttlE7 Ha `y' J. 7th rneeti. ng a gr' C. 1...tp o }' nee. ghborh _tod * e-?ideI-� 'L � n • 1'n e. s 1. ist - d beIovj1 met tO di SC= Lt � � and = t_trninarice 't. l'll_ CC) ncr= r- I-1S t. tlai . were rai c� I-' d i. n thEt CCi !_I. rse cit' the pree. c' r_I 'F. a. t ion o f. the (_ Or' rle Ll CJL( ar-ter' S prc) pOSa. 1 . ( � 1. 1 a: CJS' tI"1E' '� 'c? CCJnCer- nS t01 - 1 ciW _ . It shc) uI d br_- poi nted o1_tt , I'"IoL.� evPr" , t. t � at t'. t � ey were. consi - dered i1i t h 0 conte :; t of a general .1 % positive r, e porlse to the sen = e that C (-1rvie ]. 1. 'i ii Liegi rini I-'I =i tc, t. ci r? rl - rEt Oi' +' hp re '_'- pmr., _ bl .t 1 't ;r' 'i Or �) I' C7 'v1d :LriC� the hCJLtCLI1Ca nC' i� def� (7 t- 7. 'f Studen 'l - k nl_I. estion ]. n evaluEAtinq thiespec. itic projerct which i i-) rCJCJQ = i:? d SeG? fIls tO be one o -f vjhe 't_ 1'1 ` r it i 1 i k e 1 ;r' to be di s 11 rO1 1 a i rl a negat i `v' C' wa. '' ' tO thE' sur- r- OLlndi. ng nC: i. Clhborhood . tla. ny of the concerns ajhi (. h ha `Ye been r a i sed , kart i cul art cC, nC: i_ rrli. nq di-? ri i. t 'v , t. rmaffic ctrid pctrk: i. ng , derive_ trCnTl i.= hi =. Iarger C LI. i s i CJ n . - .I. . Fc, 1. a t i c) n u _ nsi t `., a. nd Mi. ; , - - • t1-i ]. pr o left , a - P r Gip •_! = ed w 1. 1. i. n r ' ease 1: [1e U r r C= 1 'It. p1; r11_! ia. _' t iC- 1"1 1. r. ' '`. e_ 1 L-) `.' ( ; ._; " .. 7. nCl1. E " gr a d u - t SLUdents , a 15 !_ incr- c't 'ae , Fr (.7irl i:: i .1e UC! i. i-1t C) -f i. C= 1;] Ot thl_ Sur- rC7t_tn (:ii nq nei QI"1bOrhCJC+ CI , 1 , I-11 `= 1 5 a UJF . .I. �. a r Cha r'1 i ...i tI' I _ cl-iarc --ter O -C I i I c. 1 i_. i'- ]. rl c r E' c . :_ E' 3. rl _ E�' rl -:. ]. t. y �! __ .- _ ._ _ t . . a 'i: a i_ n i_ t_! r... l• ,:.int 1 a. .l :I. t - i:? c:) c- - :_I e ' • h e r e� rl f_ ea d • l..! 1 i 1 r= -f' l-! 1'' i... l l :_-, r- d ]. pi_� p u1. c! ]. t_11 '1 ]. r'1 c r t} E. S' t �_ � f-� I-, t... 1 _ t' 7. r-1 t_ rrll �,. � _ tt+ F= 1at �= iJr- aac; !.t. 1 d b i rlCl'' `= c! 7, rl • 1 . '" _ I "I i I-1 C r E .i '" , t. ]. n +. e ? r 7. 't'. y' C C:) i('I t' tl c.' 1 nevi t a b J. E' Ft . Cirlg t':1 ]. ! I'"� =. u. Ctl I i ncr- ea. se i n traf 'r i c prol- l ems , tia prcJpo _. ed ,, at 1 c:: . ! t. I`� aI f of the car s i n tc:' pro i ect WCJ1_.tJ. u u. =_:. s✓ HI 41 tc. I -l ; J. l _ _ - . ' - ded _ �- � 'c . t -, 1. r- ,.1ad ..F, �, ..: c' r- 1oc, 1- t. raX t 7. c to ent (_ r- ani. e ;; i t. L; C_ rneI 1 L.. Uar" tei r C !_I. t [i' 't_ I-1 e 1-T'1 r ]. i-1 h t 1-. 1-1 FC-Iu. q FI S O (71 �_l ' FIE•o f - rl t r r_t 1. a. r e a S i n t h e ... .- C .: _ nei ghl.-! orhood on A-V-jei r wa `,, e1 t1-1tE r di) t•+ n 't (DlAJrl 01 i'. + , camp Lk Khat. rlLI. CFI C, t th'1e t. r f i c to ca. l- pts �ao1_t1 c1 ccc1_I. r dt_+. ri. ncq e er-, i nC_1 hoLtr =. a i'-1 d V-J e e I;: e n d d Ci i= :� I-i Cl t Chi-+ I� C_] -the '� i1 (. '1=. '1: I"I <:i '1:. t I'1 1 _. i = _>J. C� I"1 .l 'f 1 l.= iy. I'"I t tr- a. ff iC pattF.- rns i n t'. I..1e =. e ar- (� atlapl E_ ri C C.1 rl '!.. i. '•:` F2 c h a r'l it e t L! t' I' I -+ A `V Ielt_ a 1_ he_ nort_ I"I is a mLtL-. I-I less tregl_!. ent1. : t. ravel1ed s t r ept. whi ch provi des rrlore di r- e' Ct aces- H H. t. o CornE? 1 J. . I ouI d i t not be better to u .. e [ 1an1 e as the pri rnar `.i anti' a n c e and e ;: i t for" a1 1 the car = , prc; `v i di ng aC- ces: s c; i Mitchel. I f or emergenC 'y' v e h i CI Eja. . 1_ re=' c- t par k ]. r'l �._I i n ttlt. is1 File rlt'lL, oncc; ads i s a1 rla!-- adv f CA cri 'tic :�. 1 1l_� `. (= 1 . It. is i. n'lpor 't_ ant. not: only t. -I t l:. i-� e ainl� t_ult of t i a r t:: i. L I is a a i 1 a! t, 1 e i. I"I t I'l t:_ p r o i e C 'L" be s t f f i. C i. =' r I t_ , b L I. i_' a 1. _. o t h a i ` be ava. :i. labl. e at no c_ nst. . Where tees are charged •Ic.1r_ par' k: inq ( tclr- / � t ; �! rni::) 1. ,, i. r1 4on'I I.) roii c1: �:u clLtrld i aa. lege_(-.-I1 � r'l ? t'. t'1r� t. enaI- i . s. .. q _ tl (a (743e to 1-I Ltrl 't'. ` Or SLi ;. CC'? r; C� I'i th !_' Il (_ i g1' 1bor hl0C) d � t. reet. `_� _. .. .i.. 4. _. .. ... r_. .. .i '1.'. I I C . `v 't. I' I .. - - - _ -. 4 . L•ir` Pen '� I.; acc i G! I_tal i. F '••, Cit Lir e 1t f, . _. ]. cl o t -� P r -, , i: .0 r:� i'i ' - ;.; , ;J 'i- - r_. C7 7. ❑ f' = 1. C] i 'i i 1. C. ,- Il I- r G �� r i� . i d i= a n �� (� E. y U �� .F t_. L ._t ' � _ 1- L.! r. !_. c_' c�. I , l_I 1::1 �. r..i _ i! :_l �_. i' C./ t_. C L..I ]. 1 l_i i'_ ri . cunGt_tnt. =. of C_) rE' Ei r) r _ 77 _ i_) i .1 � .� 1 - '_ 1.�. =: =` :l cill Lt 'i tIIL .L : =' e i. cl � 1�.1ri :� �C i -i i. i-I !_ :� E , i-i f_ i ? I� r_, aL1di -11: JL i_III !_. �. J1. Ci_ dr c-` = �: ~:: ,_I w t_, �_i. .I. d t, t': l_I. rF:' :Ic4'. - u. rre! r•., C G:! I_�. ~ rt . c? r fia •a � e: ;< ; ri. _' rleed _ _ 1r11_ r- f= t . 11 1`. 'c� 1. , , rc1 i r_ V•. l:_' tc , 1 . , ! ctlJut. I" O D1 c' rTi s 4'J 1 W O r-' ri . i •: 1. ( . C:, l.! .. It a '_. A' l_:' .(. i .. '�'_ hra-Vc , . 0 . c_' ci !" 1. 110.] ..1. D .(.. i"ie t? i: 1c3 'r1n (� �'Jct 'f_ (✓ I' drainage Sy = 't. t=? 1ii 1 _ tt 44 t r' i =t t{ is C 1..4 .=t �:. i:: �. ;- .1 l.t t. '1 C, n I t W G I_!. I d e e i Tl =., e n ]. t, 1 E' t_ C, a. s> E: illct. r1 l::i -i:. Ll ,:.:: a r r ; u _ i P 'Ji evd +.':li t. h I OY' nIn. 1 1 i is = ti _Id i e5 o 'F _ _. 'i:. t... t' v':I I I C. I ) _a .,. r' C_ E r' O U Y -- ,.. .1 " - -trlra the dt s1. qn or' i t. r' c , �, c, -. G:. d -. G .t Lit 1 on c J. c_ n C" t-: I' rle }. 1 nF:_ �_ cas . t:. ci oc) f ' k: C: :L ri =_> F' 1 y With repr- e ent at i vP _; vt' th _ _ .._ ,.. a I :::: .... .1_ :irl_.t . ty ot_ e = toY' cOF, Stri_.tction and del i ,: er- y: I i i. IJ 1 IJ, .! , I i iJ l.J C. ..: i... .. t 1-1e 1. east. d1. sr- u. ti on tC, t1 'Ie reel cltlt! c, r- - (11 d = _� r. C.i t 1.1 s� i r a c i. v i. t. i. c_ _ , a c-J e .l. a. � = F o >= a t {:. l l i. l. :I. t r� -� t t i i n _. : r - - ' - c• ; ' r , 0 tChEt1. 1 � 'I_ . iust r' J. _a h I , l Y ('1 l`1 r „_1 t- 1. E:' iT'I C' I'l t ct r }' _ -- I'1 _ , C, n i t. WG ID *1 C1 C i':: '_� JY - G1i'1 i. 1 It-`_' I_! i fl I_, C7 t' d f.. 1 ) t. r- a Ii l._ e 't, i_) the 41r O1l� l_ t 1s Gn (_7 t' r a, 1. CE? I-i C. er- n E. W1-) i c [--I C_ '__' II) i• TO flil n ) r) i_. l_ I-1 <31+ ce C"I r ' , , i. ii `_> - - (=:; C t::i r- n e. 1 7. C, t'J r-I a. n d ff, i n t a. i n s t I ', E' __; i_. 1-' , u v ] ci a c � ' _; (:'. ci 1. 'c = r = . � e l I C. ✓ t_t r1 ]. k. (1 - * _ , ]. t";; c, r TC, wn rc, �tclrs . c, u. d ti-. era: t_, F_' soriE' t� ]. scI_L =. - ]. On _. t t._ L I'1 VJ 1 .F. P"1 1., ,_., r rf �:_ .I. 1. . I , i_ ,._L 'r. L':11-� < i 't. con ]. I_ I_t t 1. c� ri 1. t. 1111 y' I-I i.. fn ,:k ! :- r_' - ['-I f -. t..l r 1'.. �_ i_ I. rr--, C.�i' r ,_.! ci C:I `._ i- l.J l_., , T F_. t' '(:. h 1 :• LTJ_ e a r� arid t !:= ^. Y.. vj r..l 1 L ( I t'J :i 1 1. bi:. E: _ ._ . J ' I:. : 1. c .F i c . r airs tlli s I: rc:, Jer- t: y' t_ Ii - �. di..11 r 3n a. 1 tY � ' ..L. L.i {_ L.t cl i. t' I'"1 F'. c;. F:') Ll n i. t.. cl r- t'.' (7) -! w e a Ci 1, t.' h d c{ I_Ie .'s ,"_ i. on o 'F' tJ . 1r:. 'k. hi r- t. I1er' ia i. s soiree- ti ..lal_tt`1 !') '+ th tt iI-'I tc, W 'YC r- 3 t' f'I i.:'. .' 17i :1. -; 1 ) i::. :! C� I li L 'v' E' CI 1 r 4'J I-) �_:, I . C' 'r G IT-1 �. I':: t_' W a v i or d ]. i. .0 E r C rl t ,_! h- d (? nser deveIGpr,) erlt oil the CornP11 �! t_ta- r- ter =_. site . IA this option fi ::ibeer--i cC_, nsi de: r- t- cf , WI 'Iatt i s the Uni 'ver- si t •,: ` __. FUrr' ent t h i nk: i ng a c_ u-1: w1-1at:. sIIcIl tt.tt. l_.tre dEe '•. Plopm n Might be '.' U EW-1 B! Uim ntha1. Elise Rosi Ca 1 ) d i C., a. I.-1. l'? 1' f Stl-tart Stein IIau' ;_; ld i �_' rE ir, Mary F : ar1e Trochini Jarli� Pp. derS2Il Diane Wel. cl-I v 510 Mitchell St , Ithaca , New York May 270 1988 John Burness Vice President for University Relations 309 Day Hall Re : Cornell Quarters Cornell University Ithaca , New York 14853 Dear John : As you know , we represent Ithaca ' s Third Ward on Common Council and the Tompkins County Board of Representives . We have discussed Cornell ' s plans to redevelop the Cornell Quarters site for new housing with a number of our constituents and with University representatives , including David Stewart . We welcome Cornell ' s interest in building more housing for its students . The University ' s construction of more student housing is critically important to Ithaca ' s efforts to better meet the serious housing needs that it now faces . We also welcome the University ' s willingness to discuss its Cornell Quarter plans with residents of the affected neighborhoods . That openness marks a distinct improvement over past relations . Notwithstanding our generally positive reaction to the University ' s Plans for Cornell Quarters , you must understand that those plans do raise a number of significant concerns for Third Ward neighborhoods . We urge the University to alter its plans at this stage in order to create a residential neighborhood at Cornell Quarters that better serves the needs of the people who will live there and of the residents of nearby neighborhoods . We endorse strongly the points made in the May 26th letter and attached memorandum to you from Peggy Robinson , President of the Bryant Park Civic Association . We urge you to advise the Board of Trustees of those concerns before the Board makes any decision on this project , and we urge the Board to modify the Cornell Quarters project in order to better address those concerns . • In particular, we strongly recommend that the University plan the Cornell Quarters project so that its resident population includes as man n Omarried - famil .y units as possible . Several key factors shape this recommendation : 1 ) given the size of this proposed project , the compatibility of largely family residential use of the Cornell Quarters site with the adjacent Third Ward residential neighborhoods ; 2 ) the nature of the transportation impacts which families on that site will generate in those neighborhoods as compared to the transportation impacts that large numbers of unmarried students will generate ; 3 ) the ability of children living at Cornell Quarters to walk to the Belle Sherman School ; 4 ) the difficulty of busing children from the Hasbrouck and Pleasant Grove apartment complexes to the Belle Sherman School and the less than optimal circumstances of having families with young children living in those two complexes so for from the school that their children attend ; 5 ) the importance of better integrating Cornell student families into residential neighborhoods ; 6 ) the benefits that a largely family residential area at Cornell Quarters would generate for Cornell married students , particularly international students , who would live there ; and 7 ) the greater compatibility of non - married student housing in the Hasbrouck and Pleasant Grove areas with the predominant uses surrounding those 0 areas . We hope that the University will give careful consideration to all of these points . We recognize that the population that will live at Cornell Quarters will change over several years as Cornell renovates / reconstructs the Hasbrouck and Pleasant Grove complexes . We urge the University to plan toward the long - term use of the Cornell Quarters site as a predominantly married - family student housing complex and that the design of the project accommodate these desirable changes over time . Thank you for your attention . Sincerely , ?ichard Booth Stuart Stein Third Ward Note : While John Johnson , Third Ward Alderman , has been unavailable to endorse this letter, we believe that he supports these comments . • 61 1 Bryant Park Civic Association 324 Mitchell St . Ithaca , NY 14850 May 26 , 1988 John F . Burness Vice President for University Relations 309 Day Hall Cornell University Ithaca , NY 14853 Dear Mr . Burness : I am forwarding to you the list of issues and concerns which was developed by representatives of the neighborhood after David Stewart ' s presentation of the proposed Cornell Quarters project . I would like to emphasize a point that is mentioned in this document - - that is , the positive sense in which we receive the University ' s efforts to increase the amount of housing it provides for its own students . Nonetheless , as you can see , there are still some specifics of the project which could bear further discussion with the neighborhood . We hope that there will be an opportunity to follow up on these issues and , in some cases , explore alternatives before the project is in final form . I will be happy to arrange for two or three people from the neighborhood to work with you on a regular basis to accom - plish this follow - up and to serve as contact people for the neighborhood for this project . We look forward to hearing from you . Sincerely , PeggJ Robinson President Copies distributed to : CORNELL : CITY OF ITHACA : M . Nesheim J . Gutenberger J . Morley R . Booth W . Gurowitz J . Johnson P . Griffin W . Gray W . Paleen D . Stewart TOWN OF ITHACA : • Buildings and Properties Comm . and R . Flumerfelt Executive Comm . of the Board of N . Desch Trustees � LL �`9 y 0 Fitt u' w ; I " cn a .., w . ,I ;•, ' IFo ' . a - o w OFFFFN 000 u - S V L ff F J . {�III�I - jilt 11IF )7p. n . PFFFF - X N M rr r, d f� t•1 G '�' r \p In C .0 .rte N t() O N 1 C d L rz F O O O J t U �.y �. n m M 1 V L L C (n Cr c M � J .:� r r O U '7 J r r > (A L i L .r -o a. o _ — _ -U T (v ` L X bc L C r a-. CI, FFF Er I 3 Cl L FIFFF, C C 1F rF. U ftC Ln o > > s - �- Z _ S FFFFF r — C J < e; G "E C3i V Gi @ X r •� — _ — t' V •r, r n , = u c FFF FFFF, X. IFFFF Z; 67. fz tFo 5 t 7 r • 3 J J i _ F y T r 7 L U ... c� v j .r+ FFFFFFF f1 2 G� C .7J. C _ 1 ,� >, > rz O ti Vv FFFF LFFFFFF,V �' :J :II ^+I+ _ J _� L L i T� _ M ;!. - _ P !1 T 'J: V :J L 2 L r. OFFFP ry <n ' cd rz V = .0 ',... r• C zF C IFFFFO C X r = L _ i i y F O C r ` '.0 — Q � tZ. • r fl. u .t . . u ti p p0 j �.. aj > O O v _� f � � � V Li VJ '� � r• �_ O f,', � 0 L r > u + C CL cd C ^..G <C r r L 'B U �' v: r Ci cpc L r C.! p 7 Cd 'O L u Cj r C L d% m0 y J y = J C p C GA L1 O J c s v cprc ^ y a u L , F o n p _i u n > u u c E v c _� O F3 O U D in -a M Q j Z cn Q • sau1snPUl IeUIPRO N6L W6uAdoo.. I 00 . . _ .. do � _ _ J � - O -o C > = I I I � � Y > _ Jc I iIMMI I v C r � � L � O r° } O = v D — K cc KQm N O r WwM I FT W Q1 O • • 108 Cornell Street Ithaca, NY 14850 May 27, 1988 Mr. David I. Stewart Director of Community Relations & Special Assistant to the Vice President 110 Day Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Dear Mr . Stewart : As you suggested at the Bryant Park and East Hill community meeting last night, I am writing to request that you bring the following points to the attention of the Board of Trustees at their upcoming meeting when they will be considering the construction of new student housing at the Cornell Quarters site . • Approximately 70 school-aged children of married students who live in Cornell ' s Hasbrouck and Pleasant Grove housing complexes now attend Belle Sherman Elementary School , and will continue to do so after the redistricting recently approved by the Ithaca City School District Board of Education Over the past seven years , the parents and staff of Belle Sherman have worked together to provide the numerous special services and outreach programs this largely international Cornell student family community needs . These special efforts include: • The development of an excellent English as a Second Language Program; • A strong committment to multi-cultural education within every classroom and at every school event; • The availability of the PTA, Principal and staff for special meetings to address particular concerns of the Hasbrouck / Pleasant Grove community ; • Special school bus rides and school orientations in September for new Hasbrouck / Pleasant Grove children; • PTA scholarships for children who cannot afford fees for PTA - sponsored after school enrichment classes; • Holding PTA meetings at the Hasbrouck Bess Brown Center; and • Offering free busing to and from PTA meetings held at the school or • at the Southside Community Center in downtown Ithaca . 6 z 0 - 2 - Many of these efforts are required because of the distance of the • student housing complexes from the elementary school, as well as the international composition of this student population . The student families, many of whom include a spouse and children who speak little or no English, need that extra outstretched hand from the community in order to be comfortable with a foreign school environment or simply to be able to attend school functions . Their childrens' elementary school is an important part of these families ' Cornell experience . The prospect of the construction of married -- rather than single -- student housing within walking distance from Belle Sherman School is welcome . The children and their families could greatly benefit from being able to attend a truly neighborhood school . The involvment of these families in our school also brings a wealth of diversity and cultural enrichment to the entire school community. When you consider the design and proposed composition of this housing complex please take into account the needs of the entire student families involved, as well as the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood . Thank you very much for this opportunity to present this information for consideration by the Board of Trustees . If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to call me at 277-4493 . • Sincerely, Deborah C . Hoard cc Dick Booth Peggy Robinson Stu Stein vveWeve _ : ..ireve r. • �,YV .••T,y W00e v0 Cee le Me Ar AVtf. w .y :y- !•r 9Y _ ' _ y ' _ y _ .r _ `we : .... . 4 • `./C.7:r:♦ �"j . r - ,, . -♦.-.n Wee ra.�..� . r -.'� _ --�>r '� _moi- r . ter.. vv``•T= :- ::'_'_ . :. '_ - - : e . c',. Li ' - : � . c (OWN OF ITHACA ZONING �•i• We a4 ' ' Lim.« : . I - - : . . - ` =_ '_ .. _ . . BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE I ; ' M_ a �r r..-- ' OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AE. '� OURNA _. MON. , JUNE 26, 1989, 7P. M. - r oi . _ Lr _ ,-lr: By direction of the Chairman of the Zonin Board of A peals under said Resolutior . -• '' .• - g F- for ' the reconstruction NOTICE ' IS HEREBY uc ion of '- _ . : _ . _ a _ Hearings barn destroyed by fire, at 14C ; .. _•.._ . . will Ebetheld Pbblithe ZonnTrumansburg Road, Town c . ..�.. Ithaca Tax Parcel H6-24- 1 ..�� Fit L; L'.' k ^- kQ '�j �, , , ,, ��� Board of Appeals of the Town . ev of Ithaca on Monday, June 26, 25. 21 , Residence District R- 1 1989, in Town Hail, ' 126 East The foregoing appeal was, o Seneca Street (FIRST Floor, June 7, 1989, adjourned i June . 28, 1989, but such ac • � ----�-- - • — � 'Ot',, � St:S ' REAR Entrance, WEST Side , ournment was changed, o ['r]O Ithaca, N. Y. , COMMENCING I 9 / � � � AT 7:00 P. M. , on the followingJune 14, 1989, by vote of th - Tc .�'1t = Cf L 1 •. f CS, Wui7 ^' Ln ' matt Lf : r=.;ja La :t- molter. Board, - to June 26, 1989. _ APPEAL of .Cornell University eve ' Y _" * MODIFIED ADJOURNED AP- .Appellant, Shirley K. Egan = ; alai - PEAL (from 2 89 an Associate University Counsel P ( o May 4, 19 d -' -� -- -- •- --- -- --- June 7, 19891 of Marie L. Agent.' requesting a modifica -• i• Slb.�i?dref r :;-_ . _. _ _..- �. tion of a Brown, Appellant, Randolph Special Approvc IT* -' - F. Brown, Applicant/Agent,licant/Agent, granted by the Zoning Boar( { p �1 '. 3TS�CGt � 0=7b` AX 11E i�bSi� Dir► i "SDt L .. �Jt 2 requesting authorization by of Appeals on April 19, 1989 t� -�r . . �� � Tl� F . . . . _ g . .Ff include _ . -_• -_ _ _ _ _ the Board of Appeals, put- . permission to alloy u to thin suant to Article XII, Section SA; ' units thirty-one occupied dyupper at � � V-�+�•jCB 6C Arnme ig _ ftg- of the Town of Ithaca Zoning units to be occupied by upper Ordinance, for the extension Mass undergraduates for the of a non-conforming use 1989- 1990 academic yea 1L"t �>C _ known as Indian Creek Fruit onlHousing the Project, located� . ' . . .�_ � .- - _ I Farm and Stand, located at gCorPronectloccatedatthE 1408 Trumansbur Road , formerell Quarters sitE b6tweeResidencerDistrict Mitchell nStreet aTown of Ithacc Town of Ithaca -- - -- -- . - . _ . _. _ _ r. ._ .. _ ..-. . . 24 1 -25. 21 , R- 15. Said extension proposes Tax Parcels 6-63-2- 10 •21 -3, the construction of a barn and 10. 2 and - 14, Residence Dis attached greenhouse to be lo- trict R-9. _� __ . — . . _ .. _ __ ._ . • _ . __ _ • _ _ _ -_ _. _ — _ _._ _. ._..._ ._. - - ca ted in an area behind the Said Zoning Board of Appea t cl ♦ - existing "stand". `viIt a said 7:00 o. m . f � C . S . ,., , . L, ! • _ _ t The foregoing appeal was, or, �- - - - -� . - Z C. Z £ : _ � : _ ':! �';.= p ; tet _, .. . . June 7, 1989, adjourned to and said place, hear ail per . . . . . . �. ._ . __. . .. . . _ .- • • - - -- .. .. . . ._. _ __ . . _. lune 28, 1wa but such on s s toefrsagentri on in Support matter QQ ournment was changed, d- S' objections th a son t9 _. D i June 14, 1989, by vote of the may appear by agent or i Board to June 26 1989. person. 9 (� ADJOURNED APPEAL (from ' Andrew Fro June 15, May 24, Building InsoiZnnnggfEr .. ... . . .. and June 7, 1989) of Marie L. forteet OicE Town of IthacBrown, Appellant, Randolph � • • r F. Brown, Applicant/Agent,. 273- 17� = � =' :w L= : S + • c E _ June 21 , 1989 �' _ ^- . � = - �=+ � , �� --- -• • --• -. . _ _ . __ . . . _ . . • C.frequesting a Special Permit, - ' under Article XII , Section 56, . of the Town of Ithaca Zoning . . _ . . . . . Ae = Ordinance, and pursuant to Resolution of the 'Zoning Board of Appeals dated May 13, 1987, application for. such 1. - eve operating ermit having been cv 7G, � . made within the time limit es- JEAN FORD tablished by said Board of Ap- - : _ Notary PublIQ, State of New York No. 4654410 . ` Qualified in Tompkins Count; Commission expires May 31, 19.lee f� ve 167 , . • , - r ti > ' : T :'.$' f :. rte.' . . -_•. . . __ � . - _ -. � . - . - _ f . ' e ve _ ve ' `�—;� -- • r - • • r — . _• a �• .• •' • — T '